Youtube comments of whyamimrpink78 (@whyamimrpink78).
-
238
-
171
-
137
-
73
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
55
-
54
-
47
-
47
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
40
-
39
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
Kyle once again displays his ignorance.
Most gun purchases without a background checks are private. The gun show loophole is a myth.
Magazine limits don't work, for example look at the VaTech shooting.
You can own a helicopter, tank and grenade launcher.
You can't ban certain types of guns because the 2nd amendment was created to prevent tyranny. Unless the government is willing to have the same guns the no, they can't ban certain types of guns.
A gun buy back program would not go well in the US in that very few people will participate.
In terms of stats, the number of guns have been increasing while the number of gun murders have been decreasing for the past 20 years.
You do have an individual right to own a gun. It states it clearly in the constitution. Regulated means well prepared.
We had more than muskets when the 2nd amendment was written. We had the puckle gun which was developed in the 1600s, we had the Belton Flintlock, we had the Girandoni air rifle that was used in the Lewis and Clark expedition. Also, the idea that just because technology improved that we can change a right is asinine. We have the internet and YouTube, should we change freedom of speech?
I love how Kyle says to read the debates on the 2nd amendment when he didn't even know what type of guns there were. Anyway, have a slave patrol is similar to having border patrol. Slaves were property and that is another issue in itself, not a gun issue.
The Harvard study that Kyle keeps pointing to was not peer reviewed and does not say that more guns leads to more crime. I will give a link later.
Kyle is clearly ignorant on this issue. With that said I will never push to take away his freedom of speech even though he uses it to take away my 2nd amendment right.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Dav,
1. Again, wealth does not equal income. The Walton family own half of Walmart, as in the shares of them. Shares are not food, homes, cars, etc. Shares are essentially portions of a company.
But let us keep it simple to give an understanding of wealth. Say I were to give Joe, a savvy business owner a business, and Bob, a person with little business skills the exact same business and wait it out for a few years what will happen? Joe would have a much higher net worth as he has business skills and would develop his business up to be worth more. Bob would not. In fact, chances are Bob will regress in wealth. Why? Because Bob has little business skills.
So what am I getting at with this? You place a business in the right hands it increases in wealth. In the wrong hands it decreases in wealth. You support wealth redistribution. So that means you support giving up portions of Walmart to many Bobs in the world. The Walton family is Joe and you want to take parts of that business from Joe and give it to Bob. What is going to happen? That part of the business Bob runs will decrease in wealth.
As for the food situation I suggest you read down the comments. The truth is that due to a tornado there were power outages and the food became spoiled.
2. The military is more than just "bombing countries". Besides that, the point on helping PTSD veterans, we lack doctors and mental care specialists to offer help to all of these veterans. That is one issue. Throwing money at a program does not magically make doctors appear. Also, if we cut social welfare programs for free loaders we would have more money for our veterans. Many on the right support that.
3. There are loopholes for the poor and middle class as well. However, I support two forms of a federal tax
A: A tax on the states like we had pre 1913
B: A federal flat income tax and a consumption tax
I agree the loopholes are bad, but that is what you get with a federal government with too much power. A major problem we have is that many want to tax the rich at a high rate just because they have more money. So we allowed that and eventually we created this massive tax code with loopholes. But when one pushes to simplify it and remove loopholes you end up removing loopholes for the middle and lower class. As a grad student there were uproars about how our tuition waiver was going to be taxed. I was the only one I knew that supported it as I knew it would simplify the code. My thought process was simple, if you are going to allow that loophole to exist then you open the doorway for loopholes for the rich. It goes both ways.
A maximum wage is an extremely dumb idea. People would just be paid with assets at that point.
" What do you say to the 45,000 people who die every year for lack of healthcare coverage"
Very misleading number. One, that is 0.01% of the population. We have around 30,000 deaths due to traffic accidents a year. We have around 40,000 new cases of HIV infections a year. Where is the government driving that number down to zero? Two, in other countries people die. Three, that number is not accurate. Poor health is associated with poverty to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of healthcare or due to poor health to begin with?
"If you are so sure the government is doing it's job and representing us and our interests, and that the status quo is fine: "
From there you list some problems. Resources are limited. Government does not have a magic wand to fix everything. I mean, why hasn't government funding in research find a cure for HIV? Why hasn't NASA research colonize Mars yet? Why hasn't the NIH funding create teleportation?
I feel that government can do much better in serving us, and I have my opinions on that. But you are pushing for impossibilities at this point.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Colony Three,
1. Shapiro has spoken in front of Congress, on many college campuses, is a major part of the Daily Wire, an actual website, has written many books and is well recognized. Kyle just has this little show.
2. Cenk was incorrect in an apology. There is no documented report of an apology. Shapiro pointed out studies for others to look into on the issue giving a counter viewpoint.
3. Shapiro is an intellectual. He graduated from Harvard law, has written many book, has spoken in front of Congress and is involved in many debates and discussions. If you feel Shapiro is not an intellectual then why do you feel that Kyle is?
Next, on the points you made, there are several examples of Hitler leaning left on issues that our current left wing does. Infrastructure spending for example and larger government to fix a recession. Many argued that the Great Depression created Hitler as he came along and used government to promise a better economy. It is highly debated amongst scholars on Hitler's views on Stalin. Shapiro has a point. Stalin was a fascist as well.
Yes, his wife being a doctor does influence his thoughts on healthcare as he does have a lot of resources to look into it, one of that is how insurance companies function.
4. I can provide a plethora of evidence. With healthcare Kyle has given the deceptive stat of how 45,000 die a year due to lack of access to healthcare. Many things wrong with that
A. As a Harvard professor pointed out, it is hard to get accurate numbers there as those individuals are poor to begin with and bad health is associated with poverty. There are higher rates of type II diabetes, smoking and obesity with the poor, all self inflicted. So the real question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? With 45,000 people that is 0.01% of the overall population, a very minute number where minor changes can created large variances in the data. Kyle is presenting a vague number that needs clarification.
B. He makes that claim with zero comparison being done to other nations. So that number is meaningless unless it has a comparison
C. Kyle makes the claim that in other nations that number is zero. However, minor searches can show that is not true. Here are the title of two papers to read with their journals
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic
stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
"Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among
29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
And that is from Canada alone. Immediately he is incorrect. But he claims that there is not argument for a Medicare for all system when there clearly is. His only support is a poll that I can criticize very easily. Also, going on popularity is not an argument. It is saying that if a poll showed that slavery was popular we should allow it. Or if establishing religious based laws were popular we should allow it. Kyle is basing Medicare for all on polls and not actual data or economic discussions.
He claims there is no argument for raising the min. wage when many economists argue against it, and many argue against having one to begin with.
That is just scratching the surface.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@EE-gv9wt wealth is not income. You have to be careful there. To start, many who are wealthy, like Bezos, have their wealth tied into the shares of their company. That is non-liquidated wealth, meaning they have limited access to it and can't just turn it into case. In fact, we covered this recently in one of my MBA courses, around 70% of stocks are non-liquidated and is owned by executives. So why they may have a lot of wealth, they have limited access to it.
Next, many people, like me, have negative wealth either in home loans or student loans. That is arguably not bad. It shows that we are willing to give out loans to people to make big purchases knowing the chances of them paying it off is high. I was given a lot of student loans in my 20s, a guy with no real job and low income. That says something about our nation when that can happen. I have negative wealth. However, I still have my own apartment, a car, 3 meals a day, etc. A homeless guy on the street has more wealth than me assuming they have no debt. So by your standard that homeless guy is better off than me.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Interdimensional Steve,
1. I don't agree with everything that Crowder does, but I feel you are misrepresenting him. To start, I see a contradiction in you saying he goes after "moronic children on college campuses". I hear all the time how the more educated one is the more liberal they are (a debatable issue but we will go with it). So if they are going to college are they liberal, educated and moronic? So you are admitting that being liberal is being moronic? Or maybe the idea of Bernie's "free college" would not make people smarter? What is it?
As for that "one time" a kid who many thought was well informed challenged him on his Change My Mind segment I disagree. To start, I felt Crowder's argument was poor, but that kid's argument was cliche. Saying "Sweden" and "Norway" is not an argument. And using the word "autistic" had him losing the debate. The kid seemed to repeat the same talking points he heard from Kyle on Secular Talk. Those countries are not socialist countries and socialism does not mean "government does thing". It was poor on both parts and the kid become perturbed and started to ridicule Crowder claiming that Crowder was losing the debate, he wasn't. Both sides were doing poorly.
2. Shapiro debated members of Congress in Congress and debate Cenk.
3. I don't follow Jordan Peterson so I cannot make a fair argument on him
4. You seem to know very little about Crowder and Shapiro. For one, going on college campuses does attract millenials which is what this video by Kyle is about. Next, as I said, Shapiro has debated members of Congress and both Crowder and Shapiro do more than just go after SJWs. You should watch their content. I have a feeling you haven't.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
19 year old student, enough said. She was 4 when 9/11 happen, she also didn't give Jeb a chance to answer, she just kept talking and then said "your brother created Isis". She wasn't looking for answer, she had a motive and someone like that you ignore because no matter what you say to them they won't listen. Jeb handled himself very well. She is just a 19 year old immature girl that hasn't experience much.
She has little facts on her side. Remember, we have been in Iraq before Bush, and it was Congress, including the democrats involved that allowed for the war to happen, not Bush.
As I said, this girl was 4 when 9/11 happened, she was 5 when Iraq Resolution was passed. She doesn't know much on top of her just having a motive. Isis would have been there no matter what. Iraq is a mess, it is a no win situation. Obama saw that and so did Bush and so did Clinton and the next president will see that as well.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The Mother Flickers, point by point
1. On the furniture comparison he was not comparing universal healthcare to that, he is comparing healthcare to that. He is saying something factual, that healthcare is a commodity where someone has to provide it. Also, what is true is that healthcare is not a free market. There are many government restrictions that caused a monopoly that made it so prices have gone up. His comparison to furniture is that you can decide what type of furniture to buy and shop around which improves the quality and lowers the price. For example, I bought a cheap chair and it has lasted me over 5 years. It is comfortable as well. You can't do that with healthcare. Now yes there are some cases where it is life dependent and you can't shop around, but that is what insurance is for. That is a different discussion but you should be able to shop around for insurance. But many forms of healthcare you should be able to shop around for such as an x-ray for example. He made the comparison to LASIK that is not tied to insurance and has become cheaper and better over the years.
His point was correct in that we lack a free market system in healthcare which drives up prices. I will post a video on that along with an article on how the government hurt the free market system.
2. I cannot comment on Israel so I will have to plea ignorance on that. I do not make comments on issues I have not looked into.
3. Money does equal speech. Unless there is quid pro quo there is nothing illegal. There are many ways to support a candidate. You can post signs up (which someone pays to print off), you can rally, you can go door to do, etc. That cost time and money. Some people donate money to a politician they support so they can pay to have signs made and do commercials. When people donated $27 to Bernie that was so he can pay for his campaign. There is no difference between that and someone posting a sign up. As he put it would Bernie rather have TYT give him $10,000 or dedicate an entire channel to kissing his ass? TYT supported Bernie by giving him free advertising. You can argue that when a company like Planned Parenthood gave money to Clinton it was so they can benefit, but there are a few points there. One, there was on guarantee she would have won so there is no guarantee they would have obtained something. Two, even if she did win there is no guarantee they would have obtained something. Three, when people gave Bernie $27 they were looking to benefit as well. So it goes both ways.
Also, on TYT giving Bernie free advertising, many on the left, including Kyle, complained about Trump getting free advertising from the media. What does that mean? That means to campaign you need money to create and air commercials. That money is speech. I will post a video.
4. Some facts on spending. Since 1960 defense spending went from 10% of GDP to 3%. SS went from 2% of GDP to around 5%. Medicare went from 0% to 3%. We spend more on SS than we do in defense. Over the years defense has been getting cut while medicare and SS have been increasing. They are a bigger problem in the deficit. He is correct in saying that SS, medicare and medicaid are around 60% of the budget. He also never said "cut", he said "restructure". Now can you say that means cut? Sure, I will give you that. In all honesty it is much more complicated than that. But sure, let us say he meant cut. What he said isn't wrong.
I will post you links on that.
Here is your problem, you are not thinking critically. I am not saying Shapiro is correct. I am not saying that I completely agree with Shapiro. What I am saying is that he is a critical thinker and has legit points. And if you want to counter his arguments you have to understand his position and give a rebuttal with critical thought. You fail at doing that. You just reach for talking points that are easily torn apart. You scream "he wants to cut social security" without understanding the full picture. You scream "he supports money in politics" when you never address his side fairly.
This is why Shapiro is growing and someone like Kyle has a dying channel.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@erjatikka3029 Cuomo is actually doing a terrible job. This statement shows a high level of ignorance or a power grab by him. A bad economy can very well equal death. It can increase suicide rates, alcoholism, depression, stress, etc. That can ruin personal well being, relationship and have long term negative side effects. As someone who suffered through a mental disorder in my life before I received medication and therapy, I fully understand the complexity of the issue and how much pain one feels. You become sluggish, drinking does not help, you ruin relationships and it comes down to death is much better than the life you live.
Add that with more information that the virus is not as deadly as first thought, and NY is shown to be cooking the books listing more virus deaths than what they most likely have, one can easily argue that the bad economy is worse than the virus. Cuomo is making it sound like that the only cure for the virus is death, and that a bad economy won't lead to long term, or even permanent negative consequences. He is wrong on both accounts.
On him talking about influence other people's lives, we place other people's lives in danger a lot. The second you hop in your car and drive you are placing other peoples lives in danger. So Cuomo is wrong on that issue as well.
He is on a power grab. And his statement of "essential jobs" is communist statement.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@retop56 , Ok, first off, when have they challenged him to a debate? Ben said he is willing to have anyone on his show. Why don't they go?
Also, as for your two sources, I will have to watch the video, but I read the second well thoroughly and there are many ways to counter it. First, the author says
" It's easy to laugh.....at the phrase "conservative intellectual.""
The author immediately dismisses anyone on the right even though there are experts on both sides. To completely dismiss a side like that is a sign of a fool. Beyond that, the author misrepresents Ben and the author misrepresents the sources he posts and the data he presents. For example, he mentions
"But I’d also like to hear him explain why black men receive 20% longer sentences for the same crime as white men with similar backgrounds.)"
The study he points to says on page 32
"However, the fact that certain sentencing
outcomes may be correlated with demographic factors does not mean
that the demographic factors caused the outcome"
And explains correlation vs causation on page 41. So this author did not even read the study. There are factors that cannot be quantified such as appearance and attitude in the court room, or the environment of the local community at the time. On the second one, if crime happens to be higher than normal judges may push out harsher sentences in order to alleviate that. Or election time can play a role as well. Also, the graduation rate of blacks vs whites has a 20% gap as well. There is a correlation there. So you can't just point to a number and expect it to mean anything without proper context. The author just threw out a study where that study itself admitted correlation does not equal causation.
Next the author says
" But if someone shows that a white man with a criminal record is far more likely to receive a job callback than a black man without a criminal record, you’ll never hear it mentioned."
Well, Shapiro has mentioned that before in another way. He mentioned the issue of the "black sounding name" not getting the call back on a job. The reason why is because when no information of the person's criminal history is given the employer has nothing to go off of except overall stats. Overall blacks are more likely to commit more crime, including violent crime, than whites. So all things equal employers will go after the white individual because statistically they are less likely to commit crimes. The same is true for that "study". A white person committing a non-violent drug crime is still less likely to commit a violent crime compared to a black person committing a non-violent drug crime. It becomes a game of statistics. When little information is given employers will find something that is known. In that case they have to go off of overall stats and the less risky person in that case will be white. Shapiro has pushed to have people release their criminal background to employers so if two individuals, one black and one white, applied to a job, and all things left equal, but the white person has a criminal history and the black doesn't, than the black person will be hired.
I can go on but people who criticize Shapiro don't do it well. I suggest you actually look deeper on those sources you gave me instead of blindly following them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
AS a moderate here is my take
1. I can agree with this, but the right does as well. When we send our military in to other countries it is for aid and rarely to start wars.
2. People support a path to citizenship, but everyone has to follow it. Also, people support tighter borders. But just making illegals legal is not a solution as it will lead to more problems later. You may make them legal now, but in 40 years from now and we run into the same problem, then what?
3. There is not gun show loophole, and there is no definition of "assault rifles". Background checks already exist. Also, there are restrictions on fully autos and everyone is fine with it.
4. The real case for abortion to be concerned about is Casey vs PP. Also, the issue is not so much access to birth control. Access to BC is relatively available. It is the fact that those who do get unwanted pregnancies generally do not know how to properly use them, even after being educated in them. Plus, other factors such as lack of parents being around, lack of having a job and thus more idle time without supervision leading to pregnancies.
5. This is not necessarily true. There is a reason why the older crowd vote republican, they directly see the tax increases of the democrats and the tax reductions of the republicans.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Oh so your military, police, fire brigade, roads, transmission lines,
harbors, bridges, public transport, water and schools are all privately
owned and not paid for by taxpayers?"
Police: Locally ran and funded
Roads: 3/4 are locally ran and funded and federal funding is constitutional
Fire departments: Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Some places have a private system, and public systems are locally ran and funded
Bridges: Same with roads
Schools: Locally ran and funded
I think you are getting the point. The military is constitutional. Even at that none of those programs are as complicated as the healthcare system. It is a very poor comparison to compare healthcare to those systems. For example, you don't need a doctorate to teach as a school. But to become a doctor you need almost a decade worth of schooling.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education. It explains how the US public education system very well in how it is indoctrination and destroys the mind. Public education is a form of slavery in a sense. Woodrow Wilson said this
"We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
And as Mr. Gatto said, if the only thing that you are guaranteed is that you will end up in jail if you don't surrender your school age child to the government, than what does the public in public schools really mean?
Kyle mentions how the ends justifies the means with radical conservatives, and that is true. It is also true with radical liberals which there exists more off. That is the reason why as a moderate I despise liberals and only get annoyed with conservatives. Liberals push for more money in education and stronger teacher unions staking claim that you need the government to educate you. They never explain how, they just say that you need to surrender your child to the government to be "educated" for 12-13 years. They are pushing now for pre-school to start earlier on the premise on what? And when things fail they say that we need more, that we didn't have enough government. It is the end goal for the radical left to simply gain control of society. It can't be done overnight, it has to be done in parts. Similar to healthcare and Obamacare. Obamacare is designed to fail, and when it does the solution would be more government to the point where they control it.
This is not a conspiracy theory, every single major empire in the history of the world has fell apart at one time. The US time is coming and we can simply blame the radical left for it. The constantly screwing over the public for their need is the reason why. And when the US falls apart they will be fine, it is us that will suffer.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ari Takalo, you are incorrect. Rights are things the government can't take away nor make you do without due process. The government cannot take away our life without due process. The government cannot take away our freedom of speech without due process. Those are rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a document that contradicts itself. In article 4 it says
" No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms"
And article 24 says
"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."
And article 25 says
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and
the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are
entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in
or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."
And article 26 says
"(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at
least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education
shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made
generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to
all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the
full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or
religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations
for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
Now looking at just those four, how do you guarantee that everyone has food if no one is willing to work? To do that you have to force people to work and give up what they produce. But that violates article 4. Same with education, what if no one wants to be a teacher? Now you have to force people to teach. What if it is Thanksgiving and someone does not have any food? Now you have to force someone to provide food for them on a holiday which violates Article 24. The document contradicts itself and is nothing more than an Xmas list of what people want. If you call healthcare a right you have to force someone to provide it. What if someone gets sick on Christmas? A doctor will have to give up their right to leisure on a holiday to serve that person. Or that person does not get their right to care. What gives?
In the US we have two services that are "rights". They are
1. your right to a jury
2. a defense by military
If you refuse to do jury duty you go to jail. If you avoid the draft you go to jail. If you sign up for the military and do not serve out your term you go to jail. Do you see a trend?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Beyond Fables, to start there is no clear definition of a "assault rifle". Having a hand grip, which actually makes the gun safer, can make a gun a "assault rifle". Next, many people own guns for sport, why take that away from them? What is the use of drinking alcohol? Many get drunk, drive, kill, beat people, etc. What good comes from alcohol? To me it is relaxing. To some shooting is relaxing. Finally, gun ownership is a fundamental right to control the government. While the chances are low we will have to fight tyranny, the option should always exist. It is why we still have nukes, other countries have it so we should always have it just in case.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
" It's not really that asinine when you think about it. The republicans
are actively pushing agendas that will decimate the planet for our
posterity(climate change denial, nuclear proliferation). "
They do not deny climate change. They feel this
1. They question how much is man playing a role, which is a great question
2.They question if it is even bad, which is also a great question. Remember, the ecosystem does evolve.
3. They feel the government is not the source to solve this issue, scientists are
" You say you're a scientist ( I somehow don't believe you) thats fine
and all just know that 99% of the scientific community disagrees with
your assesment on global warming."
That 99% stat has been both debunked and presented improperly numerous times. What I listed above is the actual science. There is a reason why you are not having scientists in congress making radical statements like Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders are. If you understand science you will understand how little we know. We do not even know the physics behind photosynthesis. What makes you think we can make strong conclusion about climate change and the evolution of the ecosystem?
"You seem to have a really black and white surface level analysis of things."
Actually it is the exact opposite. You are siding with the crowd of "climate change is bad and we must do something" where I am with the scientists of "there is a lot of doubt, and we need more research before we make radical decisions that will harm our economy".
"Also, what did you find mediocre about manufacturing consent, care to tell me any specific parts of the book you found mundane?"
It repeated itself over and over again. You can make the point in around 100 pages.
"Dont kid yourselves people, its idiotic to even try and compare Chomsky to Shapiro, its a disgrace tbh."
Why not? They both have doctorates. They both have written books. They are both intelligent and intellectuals. Just because you disagree with Shapiro does not mean he is not on the same level as Chomsky. I disagree with a lot of people but view them as intelligent. I disagree with Robert Reich but I view him as intelligent. I just feel that politics has poisoned his great mind. I disagree with Richard Dawkins but view him as a great mind. I feel his push of atheism and his unjustified hatred towards religion and god believers ruined him. I still view him as an intellectual though.
"Chomsky is a national treasure, Ben shapiro is some dweeb who debates culture wars with college kids."
You can believe that if you want. I feel projection here.
Intellectuals disagree all the time. How you disagree is key.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@zachthamm9595 I disagree with you on Trump voters as I am one myself. I can easily argue those that opposed him have been brainwashed by the media and have TDS. But I will not get into that. I will say my distrust is based on
1. How many government officials, mainly democrats, enforced these rules but did not follow them themselves. Such as Newsom, or Lightfoot getting a hair cut, or Pelosi getting a hair cut, or Steve Adler telling people not to travel but saying it from his time share home in Mexico, or recently how Mayor deBlasio told us peasants not to visit Time Square on NYE so him, his wife and some friends can enjoy it without us.
2. How much the narrative change from going to deaths, to only cases, to it was only supposed to last 2 weeks, now the vaccine is going slow so we have to wait longer to now a new strain is out
3. How many experts were censored but ones like Fauci weren't. He has been fear mongering the entire time, but when asked about Biden he was cheering on Biden's plan and saying under him things will get better which is a pure political stance he took
There are more but those are three main ones. We have been liked to by the elites in our society and while average people like me suffer, the elites enjoy their lives.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@xaenon is the disease a threat? There is evidence that it is not that deadly. Also, the idea of the lock down was to one, flatten the curve, two, find out more about it, and three, create relief for our healthcare industry. We have all three. Every state has seen either stagnant or dropping number of new cases a day even with more testing. We know more about this virus. And all across the nation there are empty hospital beds. We should start reopening. I am not saying open the flood gates, but slowly. That way we get the economy going but still limit the spread. And even with a spread we have open hospital beds and resources to take it on. You are making sound like I want the flood gates to be open, I don't. My state just opened with restrictions such as 50% capacity in restaurants for example. GA has been open for two weeks now and their number of new cases a day has been dropping despite more testing.
"If a rich person is telling you that it's mandatory that you do X, Y, and Z despite the risks.... that person isn't sharing the risk, but will be the one to reap ALL of the rewards."
It is not that easy. Take this hair salon owner. None of her workers actually work for her as they are independent contractors. They work at her place but they are self employed. Also, many small business owners actually care about their workers. And most want to work. You make it sound like it is an us vs them mentality when it really isn't in the case you are pointing out. It is on the left. Remember, Barrack Obama can go golfing but his wife tells everyone to stay home. Chris Cuomo can call other fools for wanting to go to the park and back to work where he is making millions just voicing his opinion. The mayor of Chicago can get her hair cut if she wants. The governor of IL enforces a stay at home order while his wife go to FL.
"Since we can't bank on a vaccine or cure in the near future (it could happen, but it's not prudent to expect it) , reopening for business will be necessary, but it MUST be done carefully... WE have to evaluate and manage the risks."
Which is what we are doing. It is what GA did for the past two weeks and they have seen a drop in cases even though testing has nearly doubled.
""Just Be A Soldier And Go Back To Work" is NOT a viable plan when it's YOUR ass in the line of fire."
It isn't like that. Your viewpoint is "be a good comrade and stay home while government tells you want to do and how to live". I am excited for the nation to be opening up, after seeing the success in GA. Come August things will be mostly back to normal except for in NY where Cuomo messed up that state.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@minskghoul , the evidence is in elections. Biden is winning despite him have dementia. That is the evidence. As prof. Andrew Gelman said
"Finally, the 3 percent margin of error is an understatement because opinions change. On January 3, 2004, the Gallup poll included 410 Democrats, 26 percent of whom supported Howard Dean for president. The margin of error was 5 percent, and so we can be pretty sure that on that date, between 21 percent and 31 percent of Democrats supported Dean. But a lot of them have changed their minds. A poll is a snapshot, not a forecast."
There are several other factors on polls, mainly they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. If you ask those same people if they support M4A after taking a year long course in healthcare economics the results will change drastically.
You say get a life, I suggest you actually read up on what experts have to say and not Kyle "the polls say".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
person human, to start, that Mercatus Study did not say it will save Americans trillions. They number they produced they admitted was on the lower bound and that chances are it would cost more. Also, that number they produced was just for public spending and does not include private spending where what we spend now is for both public and private. Also, they assumed that despite increase in demand prices will not go up and that healthcare providers will be willing to take a 40% paycut while still offering the same quality of care.
Next, right at the beginning of that video, who is Andrea Witte? How many publications does she have on healthcare? How many books? How is she credible? She talks about "love of math". I have a math minor and a physics degree. Prof. Robert L. Ohsfeldt and Prof. John E. Schneider both have PhD's and specialize in stats and healthcare economics and wrote the book entitled "The Business of Health" that suggest that a universal healthcare system is not any better than what we have now. But I guess ignore that, let us listen to this lady with no credentials except for her self proclaim love of math.
She says 2/3 of our healthcare spending is tax finance. To start, where did she get that stat? According to tax policy center the federal government spends $980 billion on healthcare. Now maybe she is including state and local taxes which is fair, but she needs to list sources.
She says that having one payer will lower healthcare costs but gives zero reasoning. In reality that is a monopoly where the government has control. You also create the situation where healthcare providers will just jack up the prices and if the government refuses to pay than people don't get healthcare. If the government tries to price set than healthcare providers will lower the quality. Having one payer removes competition where competition reduces prices and improves quality.
Right away, less than 5 minutes this woman is a hack. She points to the study you mention where the current system is for both public and private where Bernie's system is just for public and does not include private. But go ahead and ignore that part, this lady, with so many credentials surely knows what she is talking about.
In around 6 minutes I am done. Maybe I will watch it some more for entertainment, but if this is the best you can do you are in trouble. I suggest you read the book I suggested by two experts in this field.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Taylor, the min. wage has never created jobs. It has killed jobs for unskilled workers such as teens, especially black teens. So you show me a situation where the min. wage has actually created jobs. I will ruin the ending for you, no such situation exist.
On corporate taxes, first off I support 0 federal corporate taxes just like I support 0 federal income taxes. We should go back to the system of only taxing the states. But I digress, they paid no taxes because of the law and how it is written to have write offs for tax breaks.
"if a person makes 7.25 right now,"
Where over 96% of the country earn more than than per hour.
"and you double their wage"
They will get fired since they are not worth that much.
"do they have more money to spend?"
Nope. They will lose their job, or have hours cut, and other businesses will raise prices. But assuming they keep their job and have more money, I will go back to the beginning
"you must sell a product or service. For a business to grow, you must turn a profit."
Yes, but there is a limited amount of goods and services. If you have a lot you can lower your prices. But if people have more money and you still produce the same amount than you will have to raise prices due to increase demand.
" The single largest contributor to a healthy economy is individual purchasing power"
Nope, that is investment and wealth creation.
"It's not that hard to understand why the talking point you've spewed about the minimum wage is false, "
My "talking points" are not false. It is basic econ 101. You raise the min. wage you end up creating waste in the market. Those workers are not worth $15/hr, period.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Are you ever going to review videos from Potholer54 channels I referenced for you?"
I have seen many potholer54's videos. He is a journalist, not a scientist. He has never published any scientific work in his life. He is not better qualified at presenting the issue then anyone else on Youtube. And his presentation in his videos displays that he
1. has a remedial understanding of science at best (he drew a CO2 molecule with single bonds instead of double bonds, very careless of him)
2. He is very condescending which makes it hard to take him serious
3. He goes after easy targets. When pressed about a video by Ivar Giaever his comment was
"I'm interested to know why you are confused. This guy is an expert in
electron tunneling in semiconductors, he has never published or even
studied climatology in his life. If he said you can catch herpes from
eating margarine would you believe him, simply because he's a Nobel
laureate? People seem to have this belief that as soon as someone wins a
Nobel prize he must be an expert in every branch of science he's never
studied, and I don't know where they get that idea."
What he did there was completely avoid discussion on the topic by pulling a logical fallacy. He criticized Steven Crowder for not wanting to debate him but when he is pressed himself he dodges the topic.
While he does present many peer reviewed references in the end the issues with climate change are
1. How much is man playing a role?
2. Is it even bad?
The references potholer54 gives don't even give definitive answers to those questions as you will be hard pressed to find a scientist to give definitive answers to those questions. potholer54 has become an annoyance in Youtube because alarmists are praising him when he, himself is not really an alarmist. But he rarely calls them out and goes after people he perceives to be deniers who are a dying breed at this point. Almost everyone accepts climate change and accepts that many is playing a role. The alarmists are the problems.
"Why on earth would you reference Hollywood movies? (WTAF?) They aren't real. You do know movies aren't real-life, correct?"
I know, it just displays that the fear mongering of climate change and global warming has been happening for decades. The fear mongering hinders progress. No different then how the religious right has stood in the way of progress because of their religious beliefs, fear mongering from the left on climate change is standing in the way of progress.
"Who cares what Bernie personally knows about science? Bernie is a politician. "
That misrepresents science but yet people follow him and believe the words he says.
"Sheesh, always on about Bernie, Bernie, Bernie......can you talk about anything else?"
Bernie is showing how radical the left has become. The fact that he won states in the primaries is scary for the democratic party as they are becoming extremists at this point. When the democrats were moderates they were great. Bill Clinton was a great president and he was a moderate. Here we are around 20 years later and we have people pushing Bernie to run again.
In 1994 Herman Cain and Bill Clinton had a discussion on healthcare. During that discussion both Cain and Clinton ran through numbers. Clinton had his numbers, was respectful and at the very least pretended to seem to care about Cain's business. Even though I agreed with Cain in the end Clinton had an approach I can respect.
During the Cruz vs Sanders debate Sanders was approach with a similar question from a hair salon owner. Sanders' response was simply "screw you, pay up". He showed no concern for the business owner nor had any facts or data to back up his ides.
The fact that guy won states in the primaries is scary for the democrats. At this point he is not going away and the democrats need to just give it up in 2020 and run him so he can get beat, badly, to Trump showing people that no one wants socialism and then push for a more moderate candidate in 2024. Essentially, Bernie set the democrats 8 years.
"At least Bernie understands what the word "consensus" means - How well
do you think Trump understands science?? Or really anything for that
mater?"
Trump is a very intelligent individual. You don't have that much success in the private sector without being intelligent. People who view him as incompetent are projecting. He understands what he is doing. As far as the "consensus" is concerned that has been debunked long ago. It was based on selected publications with vague interpretations. But again, none of them are saying that climate change is a major threat to our planet. Bernie is making that claim, scientists aren't.
" Trump was GIVEN $300 Million and is now over 1 BILLION in debt to
Wall-street and couldn't find his way out of a paper-bag with out
assistance from his wanton hoard of non-scientific and
selfishly-motivated "Yes-Men" and WILL likely be going to jail."
Trump is not in debt.
"There is actual, real, tenable, verifiable evidence for you to learn, if
you could just come off you high-horse and have a look around - even if
just a little."
I have seen the evidence.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Having a law degree from from some Ivy League school doesn’t mean dick.
I’m sorry. George W. Bush went to Yale and he’s as dumb as a sack of
bricks"
George Bush, like very president, was very intelligent.
I don't know Adam Carolla very well so I cannot make an honest opinion on him.
"The reality is, Shapiro says very dumb things such as that the past 5 years haven’t been the hottest on record "
When did he say that?
"and that the polar ice caps aren’t melting"
When did he say that? And what scientists should I ask? I am a scientist myself. I study spectroscopy, does that make what I say on polar ice caps valid? Saying "ask a scientists" is very vague.
"And as I mentioned earlier, he doesn’t understand the political spectrum
if he thinks Stalin was fascist and Hitler was leftist. "
Stalin was a fascist and I pointed out how, in many ways, Hitler was a leftist.
But on the Hitler viewpoint, Shapiro is doing what everyone does, that is use Hitler to make comparisons. I criticize everyone on that as everyone does it. If you want to criticize Shapiro for the Hitler talk then fine, but you have to do it for all. You can't cherry pick. Hitler was in a league of his own. While he had many ideas that were left leaning (and I gave examples), he was in a league of his own.
"The only reason you think he’s an intellectual is because he talks fast, calls other people stupid and went to a fancy school."
I gave my reasoning. But let me ask of you, do you feel Kyle is an intellectual and why?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
" Right, cause guys like Steven Crowder, Milo Yiannopoulous, and Info Wars are super intellectuals and use the most reputable of sources. "
Milo is a troll. I don't follow Info Wars. Steven Crowder at least lists his sources and tells people to challenge them. That is far better than saying "look it up". Kyle sites some sources, but he sites the same ones, and they are rather vague. Most of what Steven cites counters what leftist cites and they are more detailed.
"Crowder uses Daily Mail articles to prove global warming isn't real "
Actually, Crowder says climate change is happening.
To add, the norm anymore is that leftist say something and the right, such as Crowder and Shapiro, give a counter argument. The left can say something back but don't. Also, when the right condemn Nazis but the left cannot condemn Antifa, that is a problem.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@reddymon , so ignore as opposed to giving a counter argument? Here, I will educate you. On Bernie saying 3 people have more wealth than then bottom half, that is very misleading. Most of their wealth are tied into shares of their business. It is not actual liquidated assets, it is simply shares of their company. One reason why they are worth so much is because they own the shares which shows they are willing to go down with their company. Most of Bezos' wealth is in his shares of his company. If he company fails he goes broke. Him holding on to those shares increase investors' confidence.
Next, a lot of people, like me, have negative wealth due to loans, either college or home loans. That is arguably a good thing as it shows that us as a nation allows people to pull out major loans with confidence they will get their money back.
Read the 2019 article from the Oxford Review of Economic Policy entitled
"Measuring inequality "
At one point they write
"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."
Who is in worse shape? Me with negative student loan debt or some homeless person on the street with no assets and no wealth? Shouting "wealth inequality" is incredibly misleading.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@marosbencik815 yes, older people are at higher risk because they have other issues as well. Overall, their risk of dying is high to begin with. A great book required by all the nursing majors at my university is "Being Mortal". The book basically talks about the issues faced in the healthcare industry near the end of life. One part of the book talks about how people look at modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So with this virus, say lock down saves 80 year old grandma from it, but she dies 3 months later from other healthcare complications, is that a success?
To add, in the 2017 to 2018 flu season around 5.5% of the deaths from the flu were under the age of 50. With this virus around 2 to 4 percent of the deaths are under the age of 50. This is from the CDC. So is virus any more deadly? Is it worth millions facing economic hardship to save someone who will die in a short amount of time?
As for Europe, what you said is simply not true. A reason why we spend more on healthcare in the US is because we cater to the elderly. The most expensive time of someone's live in healthcare in the US are their last 6 months. Other nations limit how much care one receives and they will deny the elderly care as the government won't pay for it. You saw that with Italy where they denied care to older people.
As for economic hardship, that can lead to death as well and long term negative side effects. Suicide rates can go up. Alcoholism can go up along with depression and stress. That can ruin relationships, people's work ethics, etc. I suffer through mental disorder in the past but now have it under control. But I understand what it felt like to be suicidal, that in your mind death is better. That drinking a fifth every night was the only way to get by. That you do not want to work and you ruin relationships with friends. So what is worse, death or suffering?
Cuomo took this complex issue and said that the only cure of the virus is death. And that economic hardship will not lead to any negative side effects. Both statements are not true.
As for me getting old, that is reality. I believe it was Cuomo that said if we spend a trillion dollars to save one life that is worth it. That is simply not true. If you spent a trillion dollars to save my life that will be a waste as I, along with basically everyone else in this world, is simply not worth that much, period. That includes you. So with me becoming old, death is a part of life. The sooner you learn that the better.
Our economy was strong until the virus. The administration is doing well.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
" Wow. How does that Shapiro dick taste? "
Couldn't say, but now I see you are going down the path of immaturity.
Each point
1. No it isn't. The issue of socialism is a different discussion. The fact is we have not had a free market system in over 50 years. You talk about prior to Obamacare, I am saying you need to look at the past 50+ years.
You very much can compare healthcare to furniture as in the end it is a commodity that someone has to provide and you have to motivate people to work in it. Without workers in healthcare you are limited in choice and thus prices go up. You clearly did not watch the video I linked to it. If so you would have countered it based on what he said, but you didn't. Why is LASIK cheaper and better where healthcare has become more expensive? Again, we do not have a free market system. All Obamacare did was add more government.
2. Again, I cannot comment on Israel
3. So is it corrupt when Bernie receives money and free air time from TYT? Also, I do not support corruption. I feel that ending corruption can be done by limiting the power of the government. I find it ironic how you complain about a corrupt federal government but then want to give that same government power to control you healthcare.
4. When has he ever said taxation is theft? Also, what "social contract"? Where is this contract? And saying "help the public" is very vague. One can argue having less government intrusion is a way to help the public. Lower taxes, more economic freedom and less government bureaucracy leads to that.
As for Kyle's station, he is losing views. You are talking about total subscriptions where people hardly unsubscribe, they just stop watching. I will link you the views later.
"If Kyle's channel was dying, we wouldnt see this progressive wave uprising in the US. "
What uprising? Democrats lost. Bernie lost. He got destroyed in the debates against Cruz. Trump's approval rating is going up and the economy is growing.
" The only reason why Shapiro is as big as he is, is because he attacks leftwing sjws so much."
He has multiple books and has spoken in front of congress.
"His breed of condescending conservative is dying because the average
American is tired of them fighting for the elites and not them. "
But yet republicans won. And his show at Daily Wire is growing.
3
-
3
-
"All I see is them Condemning both in a half-assed insincere way"
What do you want them to do? At this point I just see hate from you as nothing the right does will satisfy you.
" I could also Straw man NRA for not calling Philando Castile's death a tragedy,"
That has nothing to do with the NRA.
", or saying "Guns aren't weapons" "
When did they say that? Also, they are a tool in many ways.
"We both know that not everyone on either side is like that. For someone
who tried to be Nonpartisan and say both sides suck, you don't do very
well at hiding your conservative edge."
What conservative edge?
" BLM doesn't want Cops to stop defending themselves, they want justice for the deaths of people who don't deserve to be killed-"
We have a justice system for that. Michael Brown was killed in self defense. Private autopsy showed that. There was another black individual that the cop did not shoot. Alton Sterling had a gun, was resisting arrest, and was reaching for it. BLM marched for these people. I am all for keeping the cops in check. I would support BLM hiring private investigators and lawyers to look into these cases. However, when you still cry and march over cases like the Alton Sterling one that is cut and dry, I cannot take your ideas serious.
" they are trying to point out the injustices that occur when people like you believe the cops' word without question,"
I question the cops. I want every killing by a cop to be fully investigated. We have to do that on keeping the government in check. And if BLM wants to do it for any time a black person is kill than fine. But accept the results. Most of those killings are justified.
Also, BLM needs to realize that blacks commit a disproportional amount of violent crime. Blacks have lower high school graduate rates and higher rates of single mothers. Solve some of their own problems.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That is what this election is coming down to. Basically, if Trump loses it will be the people basically saying "ok, let the cry baby have their rattle".
Basically, ever since Trump won the left, as in democrats and the media, did nothing but attack Trump with little justification. They cried. Thus, give them their rattle, end the drama and get back to normal. Let people like Biden and Harris be career politicians and be rich off of that while others are allowed to go to bars, night clubs, attend football games, etc. and not see all the drama going on.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
" see the thing is you just repeated your answer in a longer way that didn't actually add anything to the conversation as far as counter points are concerned most of kyle's videos address them."
I did. I gave you the point in how we can have government but the ability to control it.
" It's not a matter of the scale of government it's about how well they represent the people"
The smaller government is the more it represents the people. Does Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell represent you? And can you vote for them?
Here is the design of this country. The federal government is there to serve the states and the states make up the federal government. States send representation to the federal government in Congress. The states are there to serve the people and the people make up the states. Every state has their own culture, economy, issues, history, etc. A one size fits all policy does not work and does not represent everyone.
Also, Kyle keeps pointing to small countries such as Denmark and Norway as models we should follow. Those countries are smaller than many of our states. If you compare us to countries of 100+ million people the US is number one in GDP per capita. A major reason why is because we have that set up of state rights and giving more power to the states. We should more farther there, though.
"so whether it's at the small local level or the federal level you need to police the ones in power so they don't abuse it make them accountable don't allow people to buy votes or policies."
The more local government is the easier it is to control. Again, can you vote for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell? What about Kevin McCarthy? Do they represent you? At the local level you can vote for all of your representatives. I met both candidates for mayor in my city of 400,000. It can be done. Get involved.
At this point to me people that want a larger federal government either
1. Are fascists
or
2. Are lazy
I say fascist because they want everyone to live under the government they want. If you want higher taxes or universal healthcare than establish it at your state. No other state will say no even if they disagree. I say lazy because if you are not fascist than you simply refuse to work to establish a government you want at the local level. You want the federal government, thus everyone else, to do all the work.
"And the same needs to be the case for our media so that we can know when the government is abusing their power that way we can replace them with people who don't."
Local media is more personal and can tell you how your local community is functioning. Also, you can't vote in the media.
" the thing about all these problems is that all of it could happen but the powers at the top don't want it that way because it hurts their bottom line hence why most of the people in this chat hate profits because in a capitalist system especially one this "free markety" profit is more important than people."
By establishing a government that serves you you are profiting. It is basic economics, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to get paid and someone has to work in order to produce.
"On that note PLEASE tell me a non republican talking point that actually solves the situation where the lowest people aren't terrified of not being able to pay their bills where going to the hospital could bankrupt you if you don't have insurance because again you need insurance because of say it with me "profits are more important than people" in this particular system"
In the end someone has to pay. If you, at a local community, want to have that done through government or charities than fine. There is not one answer. You tell me the golden answer and I can give you counter points to it. I can't give you that one set system besides what I gave you with local government. It is up to you to decide how government should function. There are plenty of benefits with profits.
But how about you tell me the answer. You want representatives at the federal level to represent the people. Ever thought that Paul Ryan does represent his people and not you? Why should he represent you? You can't vote for him (assuming you don't live in that district).
3
-
3
-
3
-
@inlightadorned407 they are not cooling as the democrats in office are going to start doing some overreach making our economy worse. Along with that, now the left is ridiculing those on the right even more. Look at how no one considers what caused these people to storm capitol hill? What angers them? Or why they supported Trump to begin with? No on on the left. Instead they call them dangerous, misguided, stupid, etc. and tell them to submit to the left.
You say if a war starts it will be in the hands of the right when you are not considering what is angering them to begin with. That is where I am saying things are going to get worse if the left does not stop what they are doing. You say the left has their guy in office. Yeah, after impeachment attempts, calling Trump supporters racist and white supremacists, having people like Don Lemon say get rid of your conservative friends, months of rioting by BLM and antifa, and destroying people's by shutting down businesses and offering them no help. Along with that you had constant lies by the media. So sure, the left won by dirty tactics.
How is American democracy not functional? Compared to previous years. To give an example, look up the town hall discussion of 1994 between Clinton and Herman Cain discussing healthcare. When they did they both gave facts and data and their opinion. Now, these days, it is just people calling each names with the media giving deceptive stories. So based on the past, in the 90s of great times, it is not functional.
Trump coming back or not is irrelevant, he started something. He bullied back and now politicians on the right are going to start doing that. And it isn't about insults, it is that the right being silenced where their concerns are not heard for years. Some felt scared of losing their careers.
I don't want a civil war, but how can the republican party be rebuilt when they are constantly being ridiculed and dismissed by many institutions in this nation with a lot of power? Rebuild to what? Submitting to a group of people that, after years of calling them racists, bigots, anti immigrants, etc., now saying they want to unite?
Until the left starts to trying to understand their opponents and gain some sanity it is going to get worse.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Jeffery, it isn't a false dilemma. Costco pays more because they have limited locations and hours. I live closer to two Walmarts than I do a Costco in my city. Walmarts are open 24 hours, Costco isn't. You can't really compare the two companies. I mean, Google pays more than Costco, why doesn't Costco pay as much as Google does? Also, due to limited hours and locations they have much less employees. Why no complaints about that?
1. Define "poverty wages".
2. Define "decent wages"
3. What?
Let me take your cookie example. The CEO hires the immigrant and worker to turn 20 cookies into 20,000 cookies. Yes, the CEO takes 15,000, but now that worker and immigrant have 5,000.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bluehero-96 how so? I can justify all of it. Take my modem for example. Because of government mandated lock downs we have to hold meeting virtually and I have to do online rules test. Thus internet is required. As I said, though, I am not going to make much money as my season was canceled so instead I will use it as an education expense. Why? Because since my classes are online I need internet to complete them, especially after Thanksgiving when they are going to shut down the university again.
It is being smart and knowing the tax code. In fact, this is why the rich benefit so much along with politicians. You have corrupt politicians like Biden and Harris saying they are going to raise tax on the rich but instead will say they did while adding numerous loopholes. This is why Trump and many of his supporters support a simplified tax code, one the rich would not benefit from.
Most people do not have the ability to hire accountants and lawyers to swim through the tax code nor are nerds like me. Everything I do is completely legal. Again, take the modem for example, prior to covid it would be hard to challenge it as an education expense, now I can. Same with buying shoes. I need to be in shape to run up and down the field thus having a good pair of jogging shoes is needed.
BTW, sports officials are made up of all types of careers including lawyers and accountants. One, who is an accountant, told me all of this.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MustyCustard , most of my friends are immigrants so no, I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigration. I have a friend from Iran, one from Nepal, one from India, one from Mexico, etc. Illegal immigration is a problem. They are coming here without records and are taking drugs into our nation.
The democrats are extreme and I can break it down very easily. Look at the two presidential candidates for the dems. You have Clinton who did not rally in swing states because she felt she had the election won. She is clueless in what the common man wants. Same with Warren, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. They have no clue what the common man wants because they are extremists.
Now look at Bernie. He has no desire to listen to the other side. Look at how the treated the hair salon owner during the Ted Cruz debate. When asked about expanding her business to over 50 employees and how she can pay for healthcare Bernie said he doesn't know. He did not care about her business model, her profit margins, how much is in payroll, taxes, etc. He just saw a business that needs to pay. Compare that to Bill Clinton in 1994 with posed with a similar question by Herman Cain. Clinton gave him numbers on how a business operates and had a discussion with Cain. It showed that Clinton took the time to understand how a business operates knowing that the law he was pushing for will make doing business harder and that he was willing to understand their position.
I can give many more examples, especially with Bernie, but the fact is the political left has no desire to listen and understand the other side. That is why Trump won. The democrats have no desire to listen to the other side. They rather berate the other side and punish them if you disagreed with the left, and the political right was too PC to say anything back. Trump did and won. And now he is winning more.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
" And somehow all the other developed nations have managed to make this healthcare model work"
Due to several reasons. They have different cultures, different economies, and they ration their care. Also, saying it "works" is very vague and a low bar to set. I can end a bug infestation in my apartment by burning it down, that works. When you run through the numbers those countries are not any better off then the US is.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
"Also, you do know how all insurance works, right? It's pooled risk.
Think about your car insurance. You have it so IF you get in an accident
you are covered. You don't plan to have an accident just like most
healthy people don't plan to get sick. It just happens."
Insurance is there for unplanned, expensive situations. With car insurance it is there if someone hits your car. It does not cover oil changes or new tires, both needed for a safe car. And they can drop you or raise your rates if you are a bad driver. Healthcare insurance should be the same way. It should cover emergencies and accidents. If you refuse to stay healthy you can have an increase rate. But healthcare insurance should not cover basic checkups, pregnancies, elective surgeries, contraceptives and so on. Things that are planned. So I agree, treat healthcare insurance like car insurance.
"Where the ACA fails is it goes to far to protect the profits and
business model of the healthcare industry, a model based on giving you
the least amount of care for as much money as it can get...often with
fatal results."
Ideally you should never use insurance. I never used my car insurance. I only use my healthcare insurance for routine checkups. That is because healthcare insurance has become healthcare in this country. That is mainly due to the payroll tax where businesses ended up paying employees with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage. There is nothing wrong with for profit if we have a free market. Profit drives innovation and progress. You work, I assume, to earn money. You take that money an invest it in yourself to improve your life. You earn a profit and invest in yourself to improve. Saying profit is bad is saying progress is bad.
"Further Obamacare is Romneycare which is just Bob Dole's old plan."
No it's not. The individual mandate is the only thing you can consider to be Bob Dole's plan, and that was to counter Clinton's plan. Obama did not consult Romney at all. Saying it is a Republican plan is simply a lie.
"The only reason Trump gives a shit is he hates Obama and wants to undo his "legacy""
Obama never had a legacy. Less then 3 percent GDP growth.
"The fact that he's willing to kill people"
What? No. Stop being a radical here. He is not killing anyone. Please try to remain intelligent here. That has become the left's version of death panels.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TheGerthax, I read that Harvard study. To start, is there a comparable study done in other countries? No, so that 45,000 number has nothing to be compared to making it an empty stat. You say that number is zero in other nations when I just posted a paper showing that people have died in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. They lacked healthcare in that case.
Next, 45,000 is 0.01% of the overall population. In comparison, around 30,000 die in traffic accidents a year, around 30,000 are diagnosed with HIV a year. I see no uproar for that. Also, those 45,000 a poor. As another Harvard professor said, bad health is associated with the poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access of healthcare or due to being in bad health to begin with? So another Harvard professor countered that report. There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with the poor.
As for bankruptcy, I rather be bankrupt than dead.
Yes, we pay more in the US, our quality is also higher.
Healthcare is a complex field. That is why professors in Harvard did studies in it and cannot agree on the conclusion.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@libidinistlyn , easy, healthcare for example. The left brings up the points of people going bankrupt or people dying which are all emotionally filled arguments. When you press the left on healthcare they point to that. Listen to people like AOC, Bernie, or even Kyle. Kyle brings up the 45,000 deaths a year number and then goes on an emotional rant. But a logical argument using that number is this. Those 45,000 are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. Those in poverty have higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking, all self inflicted. So as Prof. Katherine Baicker said do they die due to lack of healthcare or due to being in bad health to begin with? As outlined in one of her studies even when given access to care their physical health did not improve due to poor life style choices
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
Also, if you read the book "Being Mortal" the author there talks about how people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they may live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 45,000 receive care but live only 5 more months taking up resources, is that a success?
The emotional filled argument is that those 45,000 are people and we should find a way to get them care. You disregard resources, their lifestyle, survival rates, you just want them to get care and live. A factual and logical argument is that resources are limited. Something has to give. They are in bad shape because of poor lifestyle choices. Also, even with care is it worth it?
There is a need for both sides, and this is where we need to come together and meet in the middle. Facts and logic are needed, but we are human and thus have emotions. But going far left, like people like Bernie and Kyle screaming "living wage" and calling healthcare a right is not the solution. You can define healthcare as a right but it doesn't change how people behave. It doesn't change the fact that resources are limited. You have to accept reality and use logic.
That is one of many examples I can give.
3
-
3
-
@beaverones41 , does science explain morals or emotions? Maybe, maybe not. I am not saying that religion gives a grand answer in life, but neither does science. Science just develops models. There are many things that science will never explain nor answer. People point to religion for whatever reasons. Others don't need it. I can see why. But science is not the replacement for religion. And no, not every claim requires evidence. Religion is about faith and that is all people really need. Consider two people in love, what evidence is there? A lot of times it is just a feeling.
Also, as for my belief in climate change, I don't believe in anything. Two words, in my opinion, are not associated with science. They are proof and believe. Science does not prove anything and a belief is associated with faith. On climate change I said many times that man plays a role, just how much is the question. And I don't consider it a major threat where we have to completely transform our economy and way of life. You calling me an idiot shows you don't have a counter argument.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** "they are much better off with their health services, college fees, etc."
That is debatable. The US has arguably the best university system in the world. It also has the best healthcare system in the world. The US is number 1 in responsive care, number 1 in cancer survival rates, and number 1 in life expectancy when you remove murder and accidents, things not tied to healthcare. The main problem, and only problem really in healthcare is cost. That is due to lack of a free market. Same is with college education. LASIK is with little regulations and has seen a drop in price.
"They also can afford all their social programs because they don't make
unnecessarily high investments on their military by having strong
alliances with the rest of Europe, and not going to war for no reason."
The US spends a lot of money to promote peace. Also those other countries one, have small population thus investment is easier and waste is avoided, and two, they pay in other ways as in lesser quality.
"Democratic Socialist countries are amongst the countries with the
highest average quality of life, and their healthcare makes them have a
longer mean lifespan than America."
I just showed you how that is not true. As shown by Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider of Texas A&M and University of Iowa, respectively, the US is number one when remove deaths not related to healthcare.
" Can we not agree that those countries are doing something right and we
need to learn from them rather than being stubborn and stick with the
status quo."
You can never get me to agree to such a thing. The reason why is because I don't like to compare a country the size of the US to countries the size of smaller than most of our states. Finland has a population of 5.4 million people, smaller than 20 US states. Not a strong comparison.
FDR was one of the worse presidents we have had in this country. He led us through the slowest recovery ever and create federal programs that are now problems in our society and only get worse.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tiny Hands Donald, you actually shot yourself in the foot. Productivity has been rising because of technology, not because people are working harder. You have to realize a few things.
1. Those that invested and work with that technology has seen an increase in their wages, it is called Skilled Biased Technological Change
2. You point at the 70s. What happened around that time? The increase in the payroll tax. That meant that if businesses paid a higher wage they will pay a higher tax. Instead they paid with benefits such as healthcare insurance. Also you had the creation of other federal programs such as the EPA, OSHA, DOE, etc. The federal government also grew during that time.
3. Increase productivity means goods and services are better and cheaper. Look at cars, computers, cell phones, etc. They are all better and cheaper. How much did a CD player cost in the 1980s? Now you can store thousands of songs on an iPod that is much cheaper then a CD player. Your smart phone has more computing power then what put a man on the moon. A brick cell phone cost $4000 in the 1980s if you include inflation. Your smart phone is much cheaper then that and also includes a computer, walkman, pocket calculator and other technology from the 1980s.
4. Just because overall productivity has increased doesn't mean that the lowest skilled workers have become more productive. NFL players are faster and stronger but we still have people in the US who are very slow.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TheUtuber999, cars today are cheaper not only in sticker price but mainly in quality. Cars today get better gas mileage, have more amenities, are safer, and last longer.
"Runaway exec pay needs to be reversed, meaning workers get a higher percentage of profits... the way it used to be."
Executive pay is not that high. For example, if you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their salaries to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart those workers will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. A lot of profits of these big companies go to shareholders who want to see a return in their investment. Without shareholders those businesses will be much smaller. Now while that does have some advantage, it can also lead to higher prices and less jobs.
I am not saying things are all a great, but you have to be careful in what you think is bad and when put in a different, and most likely proper perspective it really isn't a problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Science education should focus on teaching things as the scientific method, communications in science, what theories and supporting evidence are and so on.
The biggest problem with science is that people don't know what it is. This lady said evolution was proved. Nothing in science is proven. To prove something means without a doubt. Science isn't a religion so there is always doubt.
"I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." —The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman
Science is about innovations and advancement. It is about searching for explanations and new findings. People seem to lack this. It always annoyed me when Richard Dawkins seemed to replace religion with science. To me he isn't a scientist which is why he has never done anything in the past 30 years except promote atheism.
Science is theories to give predictions of the physical world and the theory with the strongest supporting evidence we use. It isn't facts or proofs. I am no so much disturbed by the fact that this law is being proposed, I am more disturbed that people don't understand science. Those students should learn evolution but should learn it as a theory. They don't have to believe it. I don't believe it, but it is a theory I strongly support and reference a lot.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Lee B, 30,000 people is less then 0.01% of the population. No system is ideal as they all have shortcomings leading to people's deaths or making them worse off. The fact that only 30,000 people die a year, supposedly (I will cover that here later) can be seen as as success. Compare it to this, 35,000 die a year in traffic accidents. So should we ban driving? Doing so will save those 35,000 lives. However, it will also hinder progress. So do we ban driving? Or do we allow driving like we do now knowing how much it benefits society even though it costs 35,000 lives a year? Same with healthcare, do we keep the system we have and try to improve on it even though supposedly 30,000 die a year? Or do we try to change it even though it could make even more people worse off or make the overall situation worse.
Also, those 30,000 people are typically poor and statistically have bad health to begin with due to their own actions. You cannot definitively say that the only reason why they die is because of lack of healthcare.
You need to stop throwing numbers out there without fully understanding what they mean.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is no such thing as redistribution of wealth, it is only creation of wealth. Wealth does not exist, it has to be created.
This is where once again Bernie shows his ignorance in economics. Wealth does not equal income.
Bernie also did what he usually does and that is over dramatize a problem in this country, if that problem even exists. Kyle does it as well.
While the ratio of CEO to a single worker pay has increased, you have to consider that the number of full time workers in the work force has increased as well. Take Walmart for example. They have doubled in size since 1990 and since 2006 have seen an increase in almost 1 million workers. So while CEOs are earning more they are also responsible for more workers and wealth creation. So saying that a CEO earns X times more than one of their workers is pulling wool over people's eyes. Consider that the top 6 executives of Walmart earn $77 million combined. There are $525,000 workers at Walmart earning less than $25,000 a year. If you were to spread out that $77 million to those workers that will increase their pay by $148/yr. When looking it at that scale it paints a completely different picture.
Now on to stagnate wages. Wages seem low due to
1. Businesses pay in benefits more (hurray payroll tax)
2. Women have been entering the workforce more (the reason why they earn less is another topic)
Also disposable income has been steadily rising for decades.
Sorry Bernie fans but he is throwing up smoke screens. He is a career politician that is blinding you to get his votes to remain in office.
If you think people are not getting better than you are clearly ignorant. I earn $25,000 a year but I have high speed internet, a smart phone, a reliable car, a nice laptop etc. The same is with others in society. I live a better life than someone who was rich in the 60s. Same with others at my income level.
People have equal opportunity no matter how you distort "facts" that says otherwise.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Antonius Britannia
You don't want people to work just for the sake of working. I can have people dig holes in the desert and they will be working. You want wealth to be generated. When the tractor was created there were less workers in the field but more food was being produced.
You never said per retiree.
Wage stagnation is a myth.
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/29/-wage-stagnationcommentary.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566
You have to consider a couple things. One, technology is much better. Cars, for example, are safe, last longer, get better mileage, have more accessories, etc. Overall, cars are cheaper. Smart phones have more computing power than what put a man on the moon. People's lives are better overall. You are simply looking at wages and not what you can buy with them.
You also have to consider Skilled Bias Technological Change. If people want higher wages the have to develop more skills. We have a lot of work that can be done in scientific research, the medical field, engineering etc. People just don't want to pursue those careers because it is a lot of work. I get stressed out doing it myself. It is much easier for people to do what you are doing and simply say "wages have been stagnate" and "the government should provide me things". This is why we have problems and a growing income inequality (which I admit is a problem). You have people that actually work and people who don't. SS needs changed. That will be a great start.
2
-
"One of his tax reforms cuts mortgage insurance premiums for mortgages
worth $200,000, adding $500 to the annual cost. That is raising tax on
the middle class in effect"
That is not raising taxes on the middle class because it is not a tax. Not everyone has a home loan and those that do are not insured by the FHA. He just canceled a cut to see how the housing market will play out, he didn't raise anything though.
"Yes he is lowering taxes but most of the benefits appear not to be going
to the lower class and middle class and more to the well off"
That is subjective considering how the "well off" have been paying for the vast majority of the taxes to begin with.
"I get you don't like Bernie due to the identity politics aspect of his
platform, but what he says about income inequality between the well off
and poor isn't a myth. Look at this article on it:"
Those is so much one can say about that Stanford chart to show how it is deceptive. But I will say this. The years they look at all start around the 70s. What happened around those times? You had the expansion of the payroll tax in the mid 60s. You had the creation of the EPA and OSHA, both arguably frivolous agencies. You started to see an increase in immigration who, at times can be people who are not as skilled (depending on where they come from) and so on. So there are several reasons why that trend is occurring and a lot of it can be due to the expansion of the federal government, something Bernie wanted to do. We had the department of education being created in the late 70s and federal spending on education was stagnate until the early 70s until it went up. There is a strong correlation between the expansion of the the federal government in the 60s and 70s and that income gap starting to grow.
" Does that seem fair to you? That there are so many homeless people in
the richest country in the world, that CEOs made 185 times more than the
average worker?"
Depends on how you look at those numbers. If you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their yearly salary to the 155,000 lowest paid workers in Walmart, those workers will get an extra $147 a year. That's it. CEO pay went up because you have a larger workforce thus they are responsible for more.
Saying we are the richest country in the world is meaningless. Rome was rich and had problems. Same with France at one time and the UK. Yes, homeless people are a problem. But Bernie never mentions that at all in his campaign.
"They experience that, when they cant afford to pay their bills with two fulltime jobs"
Only around 5% of the nation works multiple jobs.
"Anti-rich isn't a thing in this context, its just being rational to say that isn't capitalist. Its unfair, corporatism"
Corporatism is the result of big government. We have not been a capitalist society since the 30s. We have been expanding the federal government since the 30s and now are seeing the results a few generations later.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is much more complicated than that. Many low skilled jobs you have a hard time measuring productivity. For example, you work as a janitor, how do you measure productivity? How do you measure productivity for a warehouse worker? I worked at Amazon warehouse and our only requirement was to move X amount of products in an hour. If you met that you were fine. Most just went with that number and moved on. That is why they are paid a low wage. Those that do well move up eventually.
You also have salary workers. If you are productive you will get your work down in a less amount of time. So there is that side of it as well. Businesses just pay you a salary and say "you have to produce X", now it is up to you to do it in a certain amount of time. That is why high level jobs are paid on salary. One of many reasons.
On ditch diggers and trashman it all comes down to how many people want your services. If 100 homes wants your services as a trashman then fine, you get paid more because you have 100 homes paying you. As I said, those businesses are usually small businesses that hire very few workers. In all the trash companies in my hometown they are partnerships where you have a handful of people running the business. So that is a poor comparison.
" It's not the government setting eages, it's the government enforcing
wages that were supposed to be paid in the first place, or demanding
businesses account for why it pays employees different on no other basis
than seemingly gender or race when employees of different genders or
races on the same jobs at the same level have unequal wages despite
having the same output."
Again, how do you enforce that? How does the government determine output. Also, what is the cost benefit on that in terms of who pays for those government agencies to enforce that? Tax dollars or the businesses? Both of which cost money. You are saying the government can make the determination on if someone is paid based on their productivity but it is much more difficult than that. Every businesses is different. Pay is different. Right now I am paid on salary. I get my work done in half the time I am contracted for, thus I am paid more per hour.
"When all non-discriminatory factors are taken into account and there is
still a pay gap between employees of equal productivity, businesses
need to account why this is happening."
It is only around 2-3%, that is called noise.
You can go elsewhere because if you are worth that much a rival company will see that and hire you for more pay as it is in their advantage to do that. I don't worry about how much my co-workers get paid, I worry about myself.
" The majority of businesses pay people different for the same job based on race, gender and age. "
Not true.
In the end government should not be determining pay as they don't have a set way in doing it and will never set one.
2
-
That pay gap exist because of numerous factors and not just because of race, sex or age. Asians earn more than whites, so does that mean businesses are racist towards whites now?
Think about what you are saying. The young earn less because they are less experienced and have a weaker background. Blacks earn less because they are typically less educated. You are playing the race and sex card without looking beyond that.
You 4-10% average is a wide range that you have yet to cite. And yes, 2-3% is noise in statistics. In my line of work I work within 5% error. Also, when you look into it deeper you find that men are more likely to hire women compared to women hiring men. Women are less likely to hire women and will typically hire only women. But there are no complaints there. In my university the AD was a woman. The top earning coach was the football coach, the next three were for women sports. When she retired she extended the contracts for all the coaches in women's sports, including the volleyball coach who won 7 games in 5 years. But no one complains about that because it is a woman doing it.
" Do you have any idea how much tax money we waste on stuff like tax cuts for the wealthy, wars, corporate welfare, etc.? "
Tax cuts are not a waste. I don't agree with corporate welfare or any type of welfare, and war is complicated. But just saying "tax cuts on the wealthy" shows, and not to be rude, your ignorance on economics. Tax codes are not that simple. A tax cut does not necessarily mean less revenue.
"It's not that hard to cut from that waste pile to pay to enforce existing laws. "
We have $20 trillion in debt. Anyway, there is also a constitutional standpoint as well in that he law is unconstitutional to begin with.
"As for the penalties, any business that can't explain why they pay their
female employees less for the same job even after all
non-discriminatory factors are factored in could face having tax credits
revoked or pay a fine or tax penalty. "
And I bet businesses can easily show that their pay is justified, or they will just fire women so now they are earning $0, or hire nothing but women and pay them all less for the same work so now many men are earning $0.
You are trying to simplify a complex issue here. When broken down you find out that a business is not discriminating with one exception, that is they will hire a friend or colleague over someone else. But that is simply working with connections.
2
-
A86, you did not list any sources. Even at that, your 4-10% is a large range and thus is not reliable. Also, where is the evidence that it is because of discrimination? On top of that if you were to enforce such law you will either
1. force companies to fire women
2. force companies to fire men to replace them with women who are paid less
Even at that there are numerous successful women out there. if a woman wants to be successful they can. Around 5% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women. Why aren't they hiring more women to stick it to men? Because they, like the vast majority of CEOs, hire the best workers.
I agree that humans are full of bias, but they are for other reasons besides sex, age and race. Also, if you are going to call out one bias than call out another. Why did a local high school football coach, who is black, hired only black assistants? Why did the AD in my college extend the contracts of all the women's coaches before she retired? You may cry bias and I will agree to a point, but you will never call out those issues. You call out the issues when women are supposedly paid less or blacks are paid less.
Mary Barra is the CEO of GM. She can easily hire more women but instead hires workers who are the best and pays them as such. Oh, and by the way, she has an engineering degree.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I'm pretty sure the federal government had something to do with that..."
In fact you are wrong. The states and local governments run and fund K-12 education. States do not have to have a public education system. As is not all 50 states have adopted CCSS. That is because nothing in the constitution there is nothing that deals with education. It is a state issue via the 10th amendment. The only rule is that if a state has a public education system they have to offer it to all via the 14th amendment. Besides that states and local governments don't have to do anything. So I am pretty sure at this point you have no clue what you are talking about. But I love educating people (since I do it for a living) so I will continue.
"The no child left behind policy of bush's was full on government
intervention, and Reagan never liked the idea of a department of
education"
I agree on NCLB, and I agree with Reagan that the Department of Education should not exist as it is unconstitutional. We lasted around 2 centuries without it.
"Which is still pretty stupid, especially given the fact the grizzly bear
for example is one of the most depleted bear populations in the US...
not too mention the idea of arming teachers and or bringing guns into
school for any reason comes off as the exact kind of retarded yank
horse-shit that makes you all a fucking joke for the rest of the
world..."
We have armed security at the schools in our district. In fact, one used his gun to save lives the other day.
"Oh i'm sorry fox news, info wars, and the like felt it was much more
important to talk about lizard people and trump slow dancing with his
trophy wife..."
Fox News and Info Wars are just as bias.
"Whose going to stop them? "
The courts. Just like John E. Jones, a Bush appointed judge, stopped the teaching of creationism in the science classroom. Look up Dover vs Penn case.
"Similar to how they ignored, and refused to hold any hearing for Obama's supreme court pick"
Not related
"Yeah since when have Republicans (or democrats in some instances) ever really cared about that?"
In the Dover case. Remember, that was a Bush appointed judge.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The point is, we need to do something to reduce gun violence. "
Gun murders have been dropping for the past 20 years. We also have gun laws already on the book. I really don't see the need to do something when it comes to guns. I see a need to do something when it comes to problems we have with areas in this country that are stricken with poverty and high crime. But if reducing gun violence is your goal then there is nothing that needs to be done considering how gun murders have been dropping for the past 20 years.
"You want people to take you seriously? Then yes, you have to compromise. "
I am willing to compromise as long as you are.
" You want to say, well I'm against an assault weapons ban because I feel
that infringes on our rights, but I'm willing to concede on a universal
background check for example, you'd at least come off as reasonable."
Not really because why is that reasonable? Based off of what? You have to set standards.
" Instead, you sat there arguing with me over a universal background check after I conceded every other position to you,"
No, I am asking burning questions that you keep refusing to answer.
"And simple police work is how you enforce a universal background check
or are police not allowed to interview people now when a crime happens?"
You make it sound so simple when it isn't.
I will ask the questions again and hopefully you will answer them
1. How would have a universal background check stopped any of these mass shootings and current gun murders?
2. After you get a universal background checks, which is adding to the already current laws we have, what will be your reaction to the next mass shooting?
3. Would universal background checks lead to a gun registry? Remember, a lot of guns don't have a paper trail in terms of ownership with them.
And this brings up another question
4. What is your definition of a "sale"? Laws need standards and definitions. What do you define as a "sale"? Is giving the gun away as a gift a "sale"? Or someone receiving it as an inheritance? Is that a "sale"? What is your definition of a "sale"?
Those are the burning questions you have to answer. Your problem is that you are jumping up and down yelling "COMPROMISE WITH BACKGROUND CHECKS" but failing to consider the consequences.
2
-
"Any time a gun transfers there needs to be a background check, period. Whether you're gifting it or not should not matter. "
Ok, so any gun transfer and not just gun sales.
"I am not saying that every single shooting can be stopped. What fucking part of this are you not getting?"
I get what you are saying. The issues that nobody talks about more gun laws until there is a mass shooting. While you may not be pushing for more laws others will. After the next mass shooting there will be talks of more laws to the point of gun confiscation unless there is a standard set. That is what you need to realize.
" I'm saying we can do things to reduce the absurd level of gun violence in this country."
Which has been falling for the past 20 years. This was even after we got rid of a law, the AWB. You want to reduce gun violence when it already is happening. So that begs the question why create laws that could potentially take away our second amendment right when the very goal of that law is already being met without it?
"What specific gun control policies are you willing to concede?"
Considering that
1. we have laws on the books already including background checks, and more were added in states after recent shootings
2. gun murder have been dropping for the past 20 years
3. most gun crime is isolated in pockets of crime in the US in places such as Detroit, Baltimore, East St. Louis and so on
4. Most gun crime is gang or drug related
The issue to me is not guns. The issue is that we need to attack poverty and poor education in inner city schools. Find ways to reduce gang activity. You are so stuck on the object, the gun in this case, instead of trying to help the person. If someone commits a murder with a knife you don't ban that person from possessing a knife, you put them in jail and try (or at least supposed to) rehabilitate them. Universal background checks just makes it more of a hassle for the legal gun owners. Considering all I listed above I see no need for any new gun laws. I see a need to reduce crime in areas of high crime. This is now that point where we need to help the people instead of attacking guns.
"Do you support any weapon bans at all? Right now, fully automatic weapons are banned"
Actually they aren't. They are just highly restricted. I know a guy who owns three fully autos.
"Should you be allowed to purchase a tank?"
You can actually legally own a tank as well.
" Does the 2nd Amendment have any limits at all in your mind? "
Nope, just depends on the definition of an arm. A nuclear missile is not an arm. What launches the missile is, but not the missile.
"We regulate freedom of speech in that we do not allow you to directly incite violence."
That's not true. What that is called is making a call to action.
"Can we limit ammunition at all, or should we allow someone to buy
thousands upon thousands of rounds and high capacity magazines? "
'
There are limitations on some ammo and on high capacity magazines because they are not arms. But that brings up a good point. A "compromise" was banning 100 round drums (despite them being inefficient). I mean, who needs 100 round drums? The problem is that now we have politicians that are pushing to ban magazines that hold more than 7 rounds. In NY it is now 10 rounds passed after the movie theater shooting. That goes back to the compromise to you may be universal background checks, but after the next major shooting people will push for more laws.
" Can we at least prevent people on the terror watch list from buying a gun? "
Until they have due process the answer is no.
"How about we encourage personal responsibility and mandate gun liability insurance? "
Because mandating purchasing of something to own it is making it harder to own.
" We require licensing for cars, why not guns?"
As long as you don't drive the car on public roads you don't have to license it. Also, owning a car is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.
"Show me you are reasonable."
What's reasonable? Banning 100 round drums was reasonable at one point. Now it is limiting it to 10 round magazines. Reasonable is not defined and has not standards.
"Show me you give a damn about the victims."
I care about the victims. I also care about our rights.
"What will be my reaction? The same reaction I always have. Get angrier
and angrier as we continue to do nothing to even address the issue of
gun violence."
But my question was referring to if we did pass background checks. Or are you saying that you will then push for more gun laws?
" We can't even expand background checks because people like you scream confiscation. "
I bring up a very legit concern and very legit points.
"Dylann Roof failed a background check but because the FBI failed to
finish the background check in three days, the store was legally allowed
to sell him the gun, a gun Roof shouldn't have been able to buy."
What I see there is that a background check didn't do it's job. Seems like you are pushing for something that doesn't even work based off of your example.
"No, it wouldn't create a registry."
What makes you so sure? I have a feeling you will push for one come the next shooting.
"Background check records are routinely destroyed after a 24 hour period upon completion."
They are now. What is going to make they stop doing that though?
2
-
2
-
"There most certainly were. You were provided with facts and later completely disregarded it with rambling, but I'll get to that."
It is a water down definition of a "mass shooting" that places the gang shooting at 2 AM in an area of high crime with a shooting by a deranged man at a college campus. The latter of the two is a tragic event that is a rarity. The former is a problem of gang activity. The person also said that it uses FBI's statistics when it doesn't. It is no different then when people say X amount die per year with guns but fail to mention that almost 2/3 of them are suicides.
"You must be paranoid. If you believe you need a semiautomatic rifle for
self defense, and that a gang could pull up at any moment and shoot up
your house, I genuinely can't take you seriously. Of course you should always lock your doors.
The fact that you found locking your doors at night to be a fair
comparison to needing a semiautomatic rifle for unlikely self defense
scenarios is mind-blowingly stupid."
I am not paranoid. You should always plan for the worse. There is not increase danger in having a loaded gun in my drawer by my bed. Thus I have one just in case. According to you, and the other people commenting here I have a high chance of getting shot since apparently there is a mass shooting everyday. The fact is that I live in an area of low crime and zero gang related activity. My chances are small, but it still exists thus I have protection if I need it.
" is mind-blowingly stupid"
Says the person who just claimed I have the intelligence of a 3rd grader.
"You're rambling. None of this is relevant to what +Raizhen010 had said.
If you had bothered to read the article he posted, you would have known
that he was basing it off of 4 or more injured or killed. There should
be no need for confusion here in all honesty."
I am not rambling because he lied and said it was based off of FBI's standards. It wasn't. I did call him out on it because I actually read the article and he chose to ignore it. Also, as I said, it lumps a shooting that occurs in an area of high crime with a shooting in a relatively safe area done by some deranged man. It is not comparable. There isn't any confusion on my part at all.
"Everything +Raizhen010 proposed regarding guns is 100% reasonable. There
is no reason any of that shouldn't be in place, and if there wasn't so
much corruption, it likely would have happened already. Money in
politics prevents much substantial change from happening. The only thing
he proposed which could remotely be considered "stripping away
people's rights" is an assault weapons ban (and a mandatory buy back
program, but that was one of two options proposed)."
You are having the same problem. What you feel is "reasonable" is not enough to some. When you say "reasonable" you are throwing out a word that has no standard. People felt it was "reasonable" to have a ban on 100 round drums because who needs a magazine that holds that many bullets? But now it is "reasonable" to limit it to 10 rounds according to the politicians in NY. That's the point, you have to set standards. That is what I was pushing for with the questions I have been asking. What are the standards? If he gets his universal background check and another mass shooting happens, he has to realize that there will be people pushing for even more gun laws, and I feel by his over emotional rant that he will be one of the ones pushing for it.
"Money in
politics prevents much substantial change from happening"
No, maintaining our rights is what keeping things from changing. We have a standard in the 2nd amendment. Also, the issue of gun laws does not come up until after a mass shooting. The reason why is because gun murders have been dropping for the past 20 years. Most gun violence is gang or drug related in areas where poverty is high. At that point guns are not the issue. The issue of guns is brought up after a mass shooting because emotions are high and thus logic and reasoning is down. Politicians are able to run with people's emotions to get legislation passed. Any other time people would be able to think and realize guns are not a problem.
"Question: Who are you to say what defines a mass shooting better than someone else? How can you claim a definition to be watered down, when there is no base definition to begin with? You can't say "You need to get basic facts straight before you can have an opinion." when the only "facts" are different basings of something that has no standard yet. We've already established that the statistics are based on "4 or more killed or injured", so there should be no confusion; you're being willfully ignorant at this point."
Who is the other person to define what a "mass shooting" is? They claimed that it is based off of the standard from the FBI. It isn't. That is a complete lie they said, but you didn't see that I called them out on it. It does say to us the FBI's definition but fails to provide a link or a source to the FBI's website. At that point the article lies as well. You, and the other person is watering down a standard to fit an agenda. It is no different then lumping suicides in gun related deaths to push for gun laws when you say you motive is to reduce gun violence. Suicides are self inflicted and thus should not be included. It is also no different then when people say there have been all these school shootings but get the inflated stats by including a gang shooting on school grounds at 3 in the morning. Yes, it was a shooting on school property. It wasn't during school hours though or related to the school beyond that.
It all comes down to standards. From you I see no standards either. You are willing to accept some statistic that flat out lies on how it sets it standards when the FBI does not have a definition on what a "mass shooting" is. If it did then the source should have cited it but didn't. You say I have the intelligence of a third grader but by how easily you were fooled by that mass shooting list I would say you have one of a kindergartner. You clearly don't know how to question sources or any new laws of what is going on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
lcearchon, in my opinion the problems with healthcare is the payroll tax. I highlight the problems with two questions
1. Why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage?
2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
Covering those two points accounts for inelastic demand you bring up.
On question one, businesses do it because it is a 100% tax free way in paying employees. With the payroll tax a higher wage means a higher tax, but benefits are not payroll. Thus they are not taxed. That creates problems. The consumer cannot pick the plan they want. They are restricted to the plan the company gives them. They cannot force insurance companies to compete which will lower prices and increase quality. Also, if they change jobs they have to change plans.
What it also does is that it makes insurance to be healthcare. That is point two. Insurance should be there to cover unplanned, expensive cases like car insurance covers car accidents. But car insurance does not cover a broken head light, tire rotations, oil changes, etc. All necessary to have the car running efficiently and safely.
Healthcare insurance should cover only emergencies and other issues such as routine checkups, pregnancies, elective surgery, it should be paid for out of pocket. With that you can have providers compete which will lower prices. LASIK is not covered by insurance. It has improved in quality and lowered in prices for years.
There will be instances of people who are young that refuse to get insurance. At that point that is on them. Nothing is ideal. People who look towards the government for the ideal case is delusional. However, I feel the best system is the free market system. We can have government involvement, but it should be at the state and local level to ensure government works for us. But that is another discussion.
But in the end, the problem to me is that right now the consumers of healthcare do not have the ability to negotiate prices or have companies compete.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Randy Rogers I go into a lab with a developed theory and than gather data to support that theory. The rocket scientist develops a theory that was developed through previous supporting data. What we are doing in this is making predictions and then supporting our predictions. It isn't the mindset of "I have no idea", it is the mindset of that based on previous experiments this should happen. It is like Richard Feynman said
" I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
We have certain degrees of certainty, but we are not completely sure on anything. Evolution isn't a fact, it is a theory that gives predictions with a lot of supporting evidence. There is still a lot of gray area in evolution and I suggest you take a course in it. Mind you it is hard course that requires a lot of reading, but there is so much more to it than what you think.
I am not forgetting anything here. My parents took me fishing when I was a kid, they took me shooting. My parents took me to do things they liked as in almost every parent does. One was go to church. I got older and I didn't need church in my life. There are others who think like that. In all, who cares? They are not hurting anyone. If someone when they get older wants to keep being religious then so what? That is their business. I also don't fish anymore.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Other species outclass us VASTLY in many different regards. To suggest
we are the only species with any unique or highly developed traits as
that is simply arrogance as it assume because of a singular trait,
primely being our self awareness although impressive, dwarves all
others."
Running a computer is a strong skill. We are the only species that can literally eliminate another species in a short time.
"How does religion not have anything to do with this? This was entirely
about religion. Siting religious sources of fiction in opposition of
facts is somehow something entirely different? What is this nonsense?
And that being religious is irrelevant. Being a scientist that is
religious is very different than assuming religion is a more credible
source for facts THAN science. Big difference, nice strawman though."
What is ironic is that Rush never mentioned religion at all in his rant, Kyle did.
"In regards to explaining how things work in our world... are you implying that religion is as credible of a source as science?"
No.
"Which one said the world was flat again?"
Actually science by observation.
"That is absolutely comical coming from a scientific stating that
religion is just as credible, or implying at least, as science. "
Religion has it's place in society. Religion is not science and science in not a religion. Just like cupcakes are not a transportation device and a Ford pickup is not food. People can use religion to make it through life like someone uses marijuana. I don't see the problem. Apparently others, like Kyle, do. Rush doesn't study science, so what's the big deal?
"So you are saying that evidence for one explanation is automatically
irrelevant because another could be entirely possible without any sort
of evidence to substantiate it?"
I am not saying that.
". And I don't get where you are getting this strawman from about religion and science."
Kyle is the one who created it. Rush did not mention religion at all.
" But to think the earth is 6,000 years old, flat, and the center of the universe... isn't factual."
Based on the evidence we can observe I would agree.
" And if you think mocking the fact that someone thinks the bible or
bible stories is a valid source of objective, scientific information"
I didn't see anyone that did that. Remember, Rush did not being up religion at all, Kyle did.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sterl500 Look at the recovery, they were less than 5 years. If you want to look at the recession and recovery the great depression around 15 years.
I know my history, 15 years is greater than 8 years. We saw that slow of a recovery under FDR. You know, if FDR practiced low taxes, low spending and low regulations and saw the results he did I bet you will be all over him.
Under those recoveries we saw little to not federal government involvement, that is what I said. When I say little it was nothing compared to what FDR, and now Obama did with massive spending, tax increase (mind you in those times there was no federal income tax) or increase in regulations.
You are making lame excuses by saying the great depression was really hard to recover from. The pure fact is that FDR was a very poor economic president. The federal government has been involved in very little recovery except under FDR and Obama, and we have seen slow recoveries.
Your supposed trends of railroads and foreign investment has always been constitutional and a part of the economy. They didn't stimulate the economy, it always existed (as in postal roads for example, same with railroads). Wha FDR did along with Obama now was increase spending and federal government involvement beyond what they are allowed to do according to the constitution. Under FDR 47% of people became dependent on federal government income. He spent frivolously on failed projects. He killed cattle to keep price of meat high. It was beyond what was going on in the panic of 1873 and 1837.
You need to read up on your history a little more. Federal government involvement has led to slow recovery.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Probus Excogitatoris It seems that politics are not your strong suit. Hence, I have to take this discussion down to a really basic level.
Yes all citizens can run for office, the voters decide which ones they support. To assure that those elected govern in accordance to what the voters support you have to keep government as local as possible.
You say that the voters want their politicians to act on their behalf, we have that. Look at congress. Congress has a low approval rating but a high retention rate. The reason why is that people don't like other people's representatives, but they like their own. They like the ones they can vote for.
How things use to be in the US was a very limited federal government and stronger local government. The more local government is the more control people have over it. You can vote for almost all of your state and local representatives. You know what goes on in your own hometown. You have no clue what goes on in the state next to you, so why should you have any influence on what goes on there?
What you want is a strong, centralized government. With that you lose control of the government. You can't vote for the vast majority of the representatives. You can only vote for 2 senators and, at best, a handful of representative. While they may do what you support what makes you think other politicians at other states will? You may complain when a Mitch McConnell does something, well guess what, you didn't vote for him (assuming you are not from KY).
The founding fathers set up the country on the basis of a limited federal government and more state rights. With our large diversity a one size fits all policy simply does not work, and at the local level people have more control of the government. I met both candidates for mayor, I met the governor, I met a lot of our elected officials. I have never met the president or any cabinet members and only 1 member of congress out of the 535.
Giving more power to the federal government gives them the ability to be bought out. You may say vote them out but guess what, you can only vote for a few. You may say create a law to make it illegal to have money in politics, now how is going to enforce it? The politicians you elected. Now you may say vote them out and vote in ones that will obey and enforce the law but guess what, you can only vote for a view.......you see the cycle being created here? You want to create a law that prevents politicians from doing something, but the only people that enforcing it will be politicians. You say vote them out but you can't when you only vote for a few of them. You have no control of the federal government but you want to give it ability to create more laws and give them the power to enforce them........that is like letting the prisoners control the prison.
The country was designed to have the federal government deal with foreign affairs and enforce the constitution on the states. States were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the fed. It was a checks and balance system. The people had government but at the state level. They had control of the government. What you want to do is take away the checks and balance part and give all the power to the fed. And when it becomes corrupt you want to create a law to stop it, basically all you are doing is wagging your finger at them saying "no no no" without any consequences. They are not going to stop? They will only stop if you limit their power and give powers back to the states.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tokenetta
He hasn't explained himself. We lack doctors, nurses, pharmacists, professors, tutors, TAs, and other skilled workers in healthcare and universities to actually provide it to more people. How do you plan to offer college and healthcare to more people when we lack workers to actually provide it? Also, he somehow thinks that will save money. It isn't about paying for it, it is about how we lack skilled workers in those areas of the market.
And no, economists don't support him.
Having three homes makes you a hypocrite when you want to raise taxes on the rich just because they are rich. He is saying other rich people should be punished, but not him. I don't mind if a rich person has luxurious items. I have a problem with Bernie wanting to take from other people just because they are wealthy, but he is allowed to be wealthy himself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Time to debunk Kyle
1. To start, you can't tie the min. wage to inflation because not everything inflates. Some goods and services increase in prices, some stay the same, other drop. For example, is the Blockbuster employee worth the min. wage? No, but according to Kyle's hand wavy argument they are worth over $10/hr. Even if you were to tie it to inflation Kyle's number is cherry picked to give the highest value. If you use when it was first created it would be around $4/hr.
2. Kyle is using average productivity and comparing it to the min. wage. The average height of the US citizen is taller but we still have midgets. But based off of Kyle's hand wavy argument midgets shouldn't exist. The same concept is with the min. wage, we still have low skill jobs that pay a low wage in the US. The average hourly earnings is over $24/hr, thus we are beating productivity based off of Kyle's numbers. Productivity is up because of technology. Those who invested in it and work in it has seen an increase in wages, it is called "skilled biased technological change".
3. The "savings" is assuming hours are not cut which is not the case. Hours will be cut thus people will not be earning more. Most earning the min. wage work part time to begin with and thus are easily dispensable as workers.
4. If we increase their wages then there becomes less of an incentive to move up and develop more skills which develops more wealth
5. Kyle's argument on price increase is hand wavy as well. If all it took was an 8 cent raise and there is no lost in demand for the business, than why doesn't the "greedy" businesses raise prices already and earn that much more in profits? Because it isn't that simple.
Again, when broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The best times in our country recently were when we had Reagan with a democrat congress, and Clinton with a republican congress. Now that republicans took control of congress either Obama has to work with others or nothing will get passed, in both cases that is good for the economy.
Kyle stuck to just jobs. What about GDP growth? After a recession we should see a spike in GDP growth, we haven't until recently after the election. Jobs don't matter if little wealth is being created.
Kyle talking about Obama cutting jobs, jobs were cut after temporary hire for the census, but government jobs are still at an all time high. The stock market improved because the Obama administration gave $85 billion a month to it, but still sluggish GDP growth, we were still behind. And Obamacare wasn't a republican plan. What Romney put in place in his state was created by a democrat congress, a state law, and different in a lot of ways from Obamacare. And Obamacare is beyond the individual mandate. The Individual mandate, which wasn't supported by all republicans, but clearly supported by most to all democrats, was put in place to counter the business mandate. Now we have both. The individual mandate is just on part of a complex law that we didn't even read before we passed it. It wasn't a republican laws.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"You can't blame the stagnation of the 1970's on regulations! That's just a GOP talking point that is not based on fact. "
There is a strong correlation there. Many of those regulations are not needed. Air quality and work related deaths were already dropping before that time. Also, the payroll tax has led to lower wages.
" In fact, studies show that regulations cause job growth. "
Eh, not really. You can say that in terms of government jobs, maybe. But like I said, the strongest economies get the most out of their resources. Creating meaningless jobs does not create economic growth. Jobs are easy to create, wealth isn't. For example, we can create tons of jobs by outlawing tractors, is that necessary? In New Jersey they created jobs by making it a law that drivers could not pump their own gas. Jobs are easy to create and job growth is not a sign of a strong economy.
"Nothing in life, or economics is ever that simple"
I agree, but you are making it seem like it is.
"I think you desperately need to take some history & economics courses and quit watching Fox news."
I don't watch Fox News, I really don't see Fox News relates to this conversation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
PandemoniumVice "But not only is nothing in religion factual,"
I agree, it is faith based.
" it's also detrimental"
Nope, mankind is.
"Science is beneficial with proven results."
Yes and know. Science also created the atom bomb. Science also leads to chemical warfare. But science isn't to blame, people are. Same with religion. Religion isn't to blame, people are.
"Dealing with what is real,"
No, dealing with what can be predicted with supporting evidence.
" Just because you live without doubt,"
You should always live with doubt. There is no shame in not knowing. Richard Feynman was big on this, which is why he is my favorite scientist.
" You can be completely without doubt that the earth is the center of the
universe and all the stars are fireflies stuck up there in that big
blueish black thing. "
You have degrees of certainty, but you are never 100% sure on anything.
" Science is about dealing with, and understanding the reality we experience."
Science is about predictions.
Also, never compare science to religion, they are completely different fields with different goals.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
R. m, the polls are deceptive. Look at them closer
Here are the top 10 by state
VT
VT
WY
WY
ME
ME
SD
HI
DE, OR (tie)
ND
Ok, now states by population
WY
VT
AL
ND
SD
DE
MT
RI
MI
NH
7 of those senators resides in states with small populations (VT, WY,
SD, DE, ND)
Now by demographics, percent white
VT 96%
ME 95%
NH 94%
WV 94%
IA 92%
ID 92%
WY 91%
MN 90%
ND 90%
Do some of those states look familiar?
Now to crime. States with the lowest crime rates
VT
ME
WY
NH
VA
KY
ID
UT
RI
MN
VT, ME and WY are the three states with the lowest amount of crime. VT
ME and WY are 1, 2 and 7 in terms of percentage of whites, and WY, VT
are the two smallest states by population. but yet the six most popular
senators reside VT, ME and WY.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dylan, Ana is not an intellectual speaker. She went on a rant about how she feels she is better than everyone, and on election night she called people dumb with no justification why except for them voting for Trump. It has nothing to do with me disagreeing with her. I disagree with many people but feel they are intellectual. Ana is an idiot in my opinion which is why she sticks to her safe space in TYT.
"The atheist billboard example may not relate to college campuses but it is still an example of conservatives censoring liberals."
Why do you have to be atheist to be liberal? There are atheists who support republicans and religious people who support democrats. I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal argument. Do I agree with it? Not really. But this is a religious issue, not a political one. Plus, this is about college campuses.
". The argument I cited with gay rights was referring to the right for gays to get married"
You don't have a right to get married. I said cite the Constitution which you, predictably, didn't. Everyone has a right to get married in their eyes or in what ever religion they follow. But in the eyes of the law that is not listed in the Constitution thus it becomes a state issue. It is up to the states to decide if they recognize marriage or not at all. But in the end marriage is not a right, period. So I will ask again, name me one right that gays lack and please cite the Constitution this time.
But, on that issue, it was a gay couple that got a cake shop shut down because they had their feelings hurt just because they would not bake them a cake. So you can complain about one group taking down a sign. Gays are shutting down people's businesses and ruining their way of life when all they had to do was go down the street to another cake shop. Which is worse?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
" By your logic the federal census is impossible. "
It is not 100% accurate, and they admit to it.
"There's a reason people believe that opting into a single payer
healthcare system will eliminate overhead: it makes individual policy
minimal by offering baseline coverage to everyone regardless of
diversity."
It also adds to bureaucracy and gives the healthcare industry to government workers. A lot of government workers are workers who are to inefficient to work in the private sector. Do you want you healthcare ran like the DMV, post office, or police?
" There aren't circumstances which make single payer here less apt to
cover everyone for their different habits and backgrounds, because those
exist in these other countries as well. "
We have 320+ million people. Name me one country that is successful, as in developed, has a successful single payer system, and has over 90 million people. Japan is close, but they are re-considering their healthcare system as it has had many problems.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/19/national/japans-buckling-health-care-system-crossroads/
"Oh, the abuses scream. 45,000 people should die in America every year
from lack of healthcare because someone somewhere in endless hypothesis,
will abuse the system. "
No, it comes down to there are shortcomings in every system. People die in other systems because of shortcomings. You can find the stories yourself, such as a girl who saw multiple doctors for months for headaches and ended up having a tumor and dying because they refused to give her an cat scan. Or a man who bled to death waiting for an ambulance. Both of those were in the UK. 45,000 people is 0.01% of the population. 35,000 die in traffic accidents a year. Does that mean the cars they were in were unsafe and we should recall them? Or maybe, simply there are shortcomings. You are crying over spill milk. Even at that a Harvard professor said you can't rely on that number as those people are poor to begin and generally have bad health.
With that 45,000 number you are digging the bottom of the barrel. Sure, we can "cover" everyone, but the quality will be low to where people die for other reasons.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You can't say slavery leads to 0 unemployment, slaves were forced to work. I agree that unemployment is not a strong indicator of how well the economy is doing, but to compare it to slavery is asinine.
Now for Kyle's facts
1. 1968 is a cherry picked year, if you increase the min. wage to inflation when it was first put in place (you can't, but let us just do it) it will be around $4/hr.
2. Overall productivity went up, but that does not mean the min. wage jobs have become more productive. What Kyle did was compare overall productivity to the least productive workers of society
3. Just because the top 1% is earning more does not mean the lowest paid workers should. Again, these are the least productive worker in society
4. For being a "starvation wage" these people seem to be surviving and living
5. They can graduate above that level. If they can't than they, to be completely blunt, are pretty pathetic. There are a lot of high skilled jobs available that we don't have anyone that can do it. So yes, you can work hard, people just don't want to. People who will be at that level of a low wage will be the young just entering the job market, retirees doing busy work, and someone working a part time job for supplemental income.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
" I read that the "poor" and "middle class" make up most of the population in this country(and the world)"
Depends on what you define as "poor" and "middle class". What do you compare that too?
"the same article also said we (poor and middle class) spend a larger percent of our income."
Again, that depends. Also, on what?
"Assuming that's is all true then yeah I think the more money that the mass population can get their hands on is better."
Spending isn't good what's good is producing. We need to produce and create wealth. What creates more wealth? Giving a "poor" person more money so they can buy an extra t-shirt or having the rich invest in say a scholarship so more can go to college? Or a business paying for an employee's MBA giving them more knowledge or skill? Or a company investing in a piece of technology to produce more at a lower cost which means goods and services cost more?
Compare it to this. What will build a canal faster? A bunch of workers with shovels or a few workers with backhoes? The same analogy is with the "rich" vs the "poor". The rich will invest money which grows the economy.
Also, a major flaw in your argument is that you are showing why they are poor to begin with. If the "poor" earn extra money and instead of saving and investing it they just spend it immediately, then they are poor for a reason. They have bad money management skills.
"Then I can take the money I make to your business"
Which now has higher prices or limited hours. Why? Because people have more money but production is still the same. So as a result I have to increase prices or limit how often my business is open so I can generate the same amount of profit per hour.
You have to understand what money is and what people value. Money solved two problems in economics
1. The double incident of wants problem
2. The retention of value problems
Point 1:
This problem is that say you built furniture, and you want to eat eggs. You have to find a person who wants furniture and sells eggs if there were no money. Instead you sell furniture for money, and you spend money on eggs.
Point 2:
That egg farmer will never be able to save up because eggs go bad. But your furniture will stay in about the same for the most part. But with money the value varies the same for everyone.
In the end, though, you do not value money. No one does. You value goods and services. You bought eggs because you value the eggs. If someone buys your furniture they value that, not money. They just used money to solve the double incident of wants problem. Giving people more money does not increase the amount of goods and services, the things that people actually value, in the market. That is why this whole idea of "giving more money to people because they spend it" is flawed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ultru, these federal programs that Trump is cutting hurts the middle class. It is an unnecessary tax burden on the middle class and small businesses who can't afford it and get nothing in return. The rich have resources to hire people to read through the 7000 page tax code, or work around regulations, or move their money in a way that it is tax less, and the get an economic advantage. The middle class can't.
Another way these programs hurt the middle class is that you tax them to pay for medicaid, then they also have to pay for their own healthcare. They are paying for healthcare twice but only get one service. Sure medicaid gives some sort of healthcare to the poor, but do they deserve it? Have they worked hard enough? But the rich can afford to pay double for healthcare. In fact, some times they are paid in a way they don't have to pay FICA taxes.
These complex tax codes and regulations and social programs hurt the middle class as it drags them down. 90% of students go to public schools. Sure public schools offer education to the poor who can't afford private, just like those social programs offer programs to the poor who can't afford it, but what you have to realize is that the middle class can't pay double. So they send their kids to public schools and get the same quality of education as the poor kids do. And the rich, who can pay double, sends their kids to better schools, pull farther ahead, and the rich get richer. Those social programs lead to the rich getting richer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
el80ne What epic fail? You are the one who is so radical that you would blame Bush for anything. Recessions happen, the fact is that we are seeing a slow recovery from this recent one. This country has seen several recessions but they all, but two, were recovered from in around 5 years. The 2 that took the longest were the great depression and the current one. They were also the only ones where the federal government tried to "fix" it with massive spending, taxes and regulations. All the others involved little to no federal government involvement.
The pure fact is that Obama was a poor leader. I am not a Bush fan but he tried to do changes to prevent the recession but the Democrat congress wouldn't listen. It started, Bush left, and under Obama we have see stagnate recovery. We should be doing great now but we are not. You are trying the best you can to make Obama look good but he is a poor leader.
You blame Bush for 9/11 since it was under his watch. Well, why not blame Clinton for giving us a weak defense? Under Obama Isis was created, or do you want to blame Bush for that as well.
The pure fact is that you are a simpleton. You blame one guy, Bush for all these problems when they are more complex than that. My complaints of Obama is his poor leadership. I am not a fan of Bush but after 9/11, which would have happen under any president, he led us through it. If he was still president during the recession it would have been over quickly and recovered from, even while working with a democrat congress. But under Obama and his poor leadership we are still behind 7 year later.
You have a lot to learn. Being a simpleton like yourself makes life easy I know, I use to be on. Trust me, Bush wasn't great but Obama is far worse. Trying to make Bush out as being more competent cements your epic fail.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1. I agree with you how the country was designed. The states were to have autonomy and run domestic programs on their own. They were taxed by the federal government to run DC. With that said if there were to be government involved in healthcare at all it should be done at the state level, not the federal level. I see the argument for government involvement in healthcare and support it in some ways. But to me it has to be done at the state level. Right now we have the federal government involved in healthcare dating back since the mid 1960s and it has created barriers leading to higher prices.
2. While I am glad you said Bernie was wrong, you numbers are too simplistic. If the company ends up earning an extra $2000 per employee the government will tax it. With the system we have no the government wants people to spend money and if you don't they will tax it. So in the end Bernie will get that money. Even if they employer pays in a higher wage they will have to pay a higher payroll tax. So it is in some ways a benefit for an employer to pay for the insurance.
On employers offering healthcare benefits because of the payroll tax. The payroll tax means that an employer pays a higher tax if they pay a higher wage. Businesses work around that buy offering benefits that are 100% tax free. It isn't just healthcare. Another one is I have a friend who works at Hertz and he is allowed to drive their cars for free and fill up at any of their gas stations for free. But healthcare is the norm. In a free market people will demand a higher wage instead making that the norm to where they buy their own healthcare insurance. Instead the norm became employers offer it. So in some ways it is to force employees to stay, but mainly it is because it has become a norm in terms of payment.
To counter your argument on forcing employees to stay, some companies pay for college. The gas station down the street does along with benefits. Why would they do that knowing that once they get a degree they will pursue a job that pays more than $10/hr? The bank my sister worked at paid for her MBA. The second she got it she quit and got a higher paying job. So it isn't just about forcing people to stay.
3. I actually agree with what you said here. Again, I support the states doing something, not the fed. I love how Bernie complained about the federal government being corrupt but wants them to run our healthcare.
On price differences we see that already on some ares. I live in Nevada and UNR offers in state tuition to bordering counties from California. It attracts them to UNR and as a grad student there I see a lot of people from CA saying the cost of UNR was cheaper than any CA school they could have gone to. It creates competition. In the mid west, where I am from, we had so many collleges that it drove tuition down and raised quality. Now tuition is still high, but that is another discussion. But states competing will help the system all together.
I am all for the government getting involved. We have to do it at the state level to ensure that it won't be corrupt and create competition. Even on the level of how every state is different shows the complexity of the situation. As Cruz said, TX is different than Vermont.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What issues? That there are rich people? That some people are worth millions? That some people are poor? On some level it is great he brings up some issues, but as a whole he
1. Ignores discussion on why these problems exist
2. His policies will just make them worse. \
3. contradict themselves
Breaking it down
Political corruption: This is simply a symptom of a disease. The disease is of a federal government with too much power. Limit the powers of the federal government and corruption will almost cease to exist. Bernie wants to give those same corrupt politicians power to run your healthcare and college
Wealth inequality: When you learn what wealth is this is not a problem. This falls under the "what issues" part.
Affordable college: College tuition is increasing because of the federal loan program. That increased demand when we have a limited supply of professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, equipment, etc. Bernie wants to make it worse by making it "tuition free" with taxes. That will drive up our debt even more due to increasing cost or lower the quality, issues Bernie never discusses.
Healthcare: Same with college, we lack doctors, researcher, nurses and so on. He does not account for that but somehow feels he can make healthcare cheaper? When conversing with Tom Price Price was going to explain why drug prices are so expensive. Bernie interrupted him claiming that time was limited. Bernie refused to listen to an opposing argument.
"so many Americans are ignorant of what's going on"
I agree, and the litmus test for stupidity is Bernie. If you support him you are clueless.
"Bernie's campaign was never about him"
Yes it was. It was about him stroking his ego and being on stage.
Justice Democrats will die within a few months
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Oscar Chabrand Climate change is a different issue than the min. wage. In theory any price setting does not work, even Paul Krugman says that in his textbook. People will naturally change their ways if something becomes too expensive. If the government were to set a price floor on cars at $10,000 several people won't buy cars, and certain cars will not get sold (such as used cars). The same is with labor.
With climate change there is a lot of doubt in what is happening as if it is really bad. Climate change is happening but how strong of a role man is playing is in question. With the min. wage there is a strongly supported theory in price setting such as price floors not working and it is seen in the data.
I feel there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage. And from what I read it is basically 50/50 on if it should be raised or not. What I do know, buy studying statistics is that the min. wage is a very small portion of the massive economy. Christina Romer even admits that. So thus the current min. wage, and any raises in the past have put a minute effect on the economy. That is why in some areas you can see a higher min. wage and low unemployment, there are other, stronger factors involved. To me, though, all effects are bad and gets lost in the statistical noise. But the effects are not devastating.
The issue with Bernie is that he wants a one size fits all $15/hr min. wage. My hometown simply can't afford that. Not businesses, my entire town. Small, midwestern towns in agriculture communities simply don't generate much revenue, but cost of living is lower as well. A $15/hr min. wage simply will destroy those towns. That is over a 100% increase. That is my issue with Bernie Sanders, and liberals in general. They are all rhetoric and no specifics. $15/hr is high. When the min. wage was raised to $7.25/hr the business I worked for in my hometown cut workers, raised prices and cut hours. It hurt that business and community.
The same goes for Bernie wanting to create jobs by "rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure". One, what is crumbling? Next, if you build something that people don't demand then that is a waste. Mainly, though, where is the money going to come from? If these businesses are paying workers more than how do they have more money to tax? Also, what is "their fair share"? We need a hard value. At least Bernie gave a value of $15/hr on the min. wage. I can't take what he says seriously unless he first gives me a hard value, and then says why.
The pure fact is that the money is not there. It also goes against what money is. To really understand how flawed Bernie's plans are you have to learn what money is. It isn't some finite resource. Money has to be invested to generate value. Spending it to build things people don't want is devalue money.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1. They should. They cherry picked what they said. Cruz brought up a lot of data, it would be interesting to see how they relate to a fact check. Also, Bernie hardly brought up any facts at all. All he brought up were ideas and opinions with no data to back it up . At the very least Cruz was prepared and Sanders wasn't which is the norm for Sanders. He never has data or facts to back up his arguments, just emotions.
2. Polls have been wrong lately and are flawed in many ways. For example, Bernie says that people want to improve the ACA is deceptive. As Cruz said people have been voting republicans for the past few elections on the promise of an ACA repeal. Also, the some of the sources are not credible on the basis that they only bring one source as opposed to many.
3. They did black him out.
4. They do have a left leaning bias like the vast majority of the media does simply because they are stationed in LA and NYC, very liberal cities. The media pretty much considered Trump a joke and was expecting a Clinton victory showing how out of touch they are with the rest of the country, mainly the Rust Belt. Also, facts are one thing, how you interpret them is key. Giving credit where credit is due on the 45,000 dying a year because of lack of insurance it is true that you can't make that claim on face value. Several of those individuals are poor and unhealthy to begin with. So you say facts and I say how do you interpret them. There is a major difference. Anyone of any bias can show facts and statistics and lie with them. Ever heard of the book How to Lie with Statistics?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
DjDedan, yes, we could have kept going down if republicans did not stop him from doing another destructive bail out. Also, there is the point of you can only go down so far. We have not recovered from this recession. Last time it took this long to recover from a recession was the recession of 1929.
"please show me any data|article|ANYTHING that says we could not have
kept on receding into an actual depression and i'll take you as more
than just one-dimensional blinded by hatred troll... "
What makes a depression is a slow recovery, like what happened in the 30s. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. Recovery has been slow. We had a major recession in the late 70s early 80s and recovered in a few years with a spike in GDP growth. Same as in 1921 and recovered in a year. Here we are over 8 years later and we are still behind.
"As for GDP growth, that's one indicator you can't ignore the context of the economy as well as an OBSTRUCTIONIST congress"
Yep, keep blaming congress for Obama's failures. He was a poor leader. Also, on Bush's growth, his growth was not following a recession . I am not saying it was great, but steady growth is the norm. After a recession we need a spike to catch us back up which we did not have. Thus we are still behind.
On Obama vs Reagan, we were having a massive job lost, so of course a lot of jobs will be created when unemployment spikes. Even at that low paying jobs is not great.
Fact is that Obama was a terrible president. Economic growth was poor and the country is more divided now. This is why Trump and republicans are winning, the democrats could not run on Obama's record at all, just like republicans could not run on Bush's record in 2006 and 2008 (Bush was a bad president as well). You can try all you want to make Obama look great, but facts don' t like. That is why you can only point to polls that have been wrong lately. Some examples are
1. Clinton was supposed to win Michigan but lost
2. According to Gallup 87% of people want background checks on guns but such laws failed in Maine and only passed in NV by 0.45% with several county sheriffs saying they won't even enforce it
3. Gallup also said people want universal healthcare but such a law failed in Colorado with around 80% voting against it.
These polls are not accurate right now. If Obama was so well liked than why did democrats lose?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kori, Bernie said he wanted to cut taxes on the middle class and that only the top 1/10 of 1%, like the Koch Brothers and the Walton family will pay for it. After that Denmark guy addressed the issue that taxes are high Bernie said that everyone will have to pay higher taxes.
Bernie has been saying for a long time that only the rich, who he describes in different was as either the 1%, millionaires and billionaires, corporations, the Walton family, etc., were going to pay. It has been a distraction to the harsh reality that everyone will have to pay more, and now Bernie admitted to it. And as Cruz put it, after seeing the failures of Obamacare and how corrupt federal politicians can be, why would the people trust the government in raising taxes and controlling their money? Bernie is not going to win with our culture on that stance. He lost a lot of supporters in that debate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@higglyjuff , you clearly did not read that "right wing" study. That study never said Medicare for all will save money. It showed a potential cost to the government and said it was on the low end and admitted that chance are it will cost much more. Also, the number he keeps citing is just for public spending, it does not include private spending. Kyle literally cherry picked a number and completely misrepresents it. Kyle has no desire to have an actual discussion on the issues. You can tell that when he completely dismisses the other sides' arguments.
As for Shapiro, he is very intelligent. A law degree from an Ivy League college, many best selling books, debated in front of Congress, gives many speeches to college campuses, started a business that is very successful and so on.
With Bernie and Venezuela, Bernie supported their model until it went to crap. And Bernie does support the Venezuela model, not the Nordic model. The Nordic model taxes their citizens high to pay for services they use. Bernie wants to follow Venezuela's model where you have central control of the economy. The Nordic model does not have central control of the economy. The have a strong free market with lower corporate taxes and less regulations on businesses. They simply tax citizens more to pay for certain services. Bernie wants to control the economy with higher taxes on corporations and the rich, and wants to manage how the market functions. You see this with his support of the Green New Deal.
You claim Shapiro is a moron but gave no evidence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Raizhen010 , that isn't what the study says, so clearly you have not read it. The issue is that estimating the cost is very difficult, you are going to get a range. They used the plan from Bernie and found a range of costs and in the abstract gave the low end essentially saying it will cost, at least, that much. So it is not arguing for a different plan, it is showing the cost for Bernie's plan where many numbers suggest it will cost more than what we pay. Also, it does not factor in quality. Look at federal programs that cost more than expected. Look at the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 and how it ended up costing more than projected and ended up making our mental health situation worse. I suggest you actually read the study.
Saying Bernie is a "social democrat" is not an argument. Labels are meaningless, actions are important. Bernie's actions align a lot more to what Venezuela has than what the Nordic nations have. Both the Nordic nations and Venezuela have universal coverage. There is more to it than that. Many Nordic nations have no min. wage, Bernie wants to double ours. Nordic nations have lower corporate taxes, Bernie wants to raise ours. You are ignoring those points. Nordic nations have high taxes on everyone. Bernie just wants to tax the rich (so he keeps saying).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
hmhmhmlol, that is, for the most part, a correct analysis of Shapiro. While I disagree and feel Shapiro is an intellectual (I will give my reason why here later), he does do a great part in revealing wholes on leftists ideas. Both sides can become radical and Shapiro does a great job in showing that leftist ideas, especially radical ones, have many shortcomings. People on the left should listen to him to question their ideas as everyone should question their ideas. It is not to say leftist ideas are completely wrong. It is that their ideas are not ideal, but neither are the rights. And people on both sides need to understand that in order to progress. Shapiro does a great job in revealing holes on leftist ideas.
Now I do feel Shapiro is an intellectual. I feel that way because I see him as a guy who is willing to have a rational discussion on the issues. Someone like Kyle doesn't, he just sits behind his desk and calls everyone stupid, or that there is no debate, or uses profanity every third word. Kyle is not in the business of discussing ideas and challenging them. Shapiro is and that leads to progress as it gets people to think. And if presented with information Shapiro seems like a guy who will change his mind. .
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thepatbackexperience4573 we are not the highest globally. Per capita we are 10th beating developed nations like Spain, the UK and Italy. So no, we do not have the highest death rates per capita.
You can't just throw money out there as it will lead to inflation and devaluing of the dollar. And the evidence is not strong that early lockdowns would work. CA was the first state to lock down and so no reduction in cases. In fact, they are at their peak now. Also, what good is money if you can't go out and spend it?
European nations have a different culture thus the stricter lockdowns. However, it did not work is still spread. They are open now because of herd immunity, something we a approaching now and have in many states already.
"So far there's no concrete evidence towards her immunity"
Yes there is. A Science article mentioned people are developing long term immunity via T-cells. Another Science article from researchers at Penn State suggested that the infection number, early on, was 80 times higher than what was reported. That means in March, in NY alone, there were 5 million infected. Also, just need herd immunity in our large cities.
"So far all of the stats show that biting the bullet and doing a stricter lockdown equals less death"
No it doesn't. NY and NJ did strict lockdowns and have the highest death rate in the US. FL, AZ, GA and TX don't and their death rates are low.
All the lock downs done at this point is ruin the economy and have fools hiding in fear.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
MomoTheBellyDancer, it is flawed. Here is my short analysis on it.
I took the time to read the study. At the start they display their bias
with this
"Trump’s lack of support among people
of color and his popularity among white subgroups with less tolerant
attitudes (such as whites
without college degrees)"
Just because you do not have a college degree does not mean you have a
"less tolerant attitude". They make that claim but do not link any
psychological or sociological study to it.
"Moreover, Trump’s call for law and order in the context of discussing
urban
unrest"
How is this race related? Urban is not a race.
"While previous work has shown that racial attitudes predict support for
Donald Trump"
Again, none listed. As someone who writes peer reviewed work in
academics this is a perfect time to list such work.
"Given the unusually racialized nature of Trump’s campaign"
How was his campaign racialized?
"Given his clear racial and ethno-nationalist appeals—for example, about
President Obama’s country of origin, his support for a Muslim ban, the
state of the African American community, and negative comments about
Mexicans"
I agree, Trump pushing the birther idea was asinine, but not racist.
There wasn't a Muslim ban. The "state of the African American community"
is nothing on him. And his "negative comments about Mexicans" were
towards illegal immigrants.
The fact they used only 764 people makes for a small sample size. They
failed to include the ages, income level, education attainment (even
though they mentioned it as a variable in the introduction),
geographical location, etc. of the people sampled.
This is coming from mainly the first half of the "study". I find this
to be bias and poorly done.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@j_west7219 , read my comment to Amat3rasuMLP1550 on those studies. The Koch Brother study gave a conservative estimate. The abstract said this
"The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, the Medicare for All Act
(M4A), would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by
approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031),
assuming enactment in 2018. This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would
equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022, rising to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031
and further thereafter. Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income
tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. It is likely that
the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume
significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare
providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than
those currently paid by private health insurance."
At this point, not to be rude, but did you actually read the studies? I doubt it. If you did you would know that $32 trillion was on the low end where it ranged from that to over $50 trillion. And that was just for public spending where page 4 gave both public and private spending which was more overall. Also, one of the authors brought up, correctly, that is assuming a 40% less pay out rate. So when you consider that you have to factor in accessibility and quality issues.
"Also history says the opposite, medicare was passed during the great depression"
It was passed in the 60s.
" yet to this day has a higher approval rating than ANY private insurance"
With much less efficiency. As Prof. Katherine Baicker said to congress in 2009
"On the other hand, a single payer system does not
automatically provide high quality care: the provision of low-value care is as pervasive in the
single payer Medicare system as it is elsewhere. Single-payer systems are also slow to innovate
– as suggested by the fact that it took Medicare 40 years to add a prescription drug benefit, long
after most private insurers had done so. Nor do calculations of the costs of a single-payer system
measure the utility loss from forcing people with different preferences into a monolithic health
insurance plan. The private facilities that have sprung up in Canada to meet the demands of
those who want more health care than the public system provides fundamentally undermine the
“single payer” nature of the system. "
Read the study entitled
"A Political History of Medicare and Prescription Drug Coverage"
Doesn't seem very efficient to me. Also, other times the federal government became involved in healthcare and failed. The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 became a disaster as only half of the facilities were opened and none were fully funded.
"Our outrageous cost comes from private companies price gouging us."
No, it comes from the lack of a free market created by the federal government. Most people cannot choose their healthcare plan. How is that a free market system?
"The same insulin made by the same company costs 1/10 in mexico what it does here. Why?"
Because we lack a free market. Also, we have way more R&D here.
"Now go ahead and rattle off your talking points."
Now considering how I gave actual studies and quotes from experts I don't see how I have talking points. You cited the Koch Brothers study and I did as well giving you a completely different conclusion. Why? Because I actually read it, you haven't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SkankHunt42 , ok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IARK379_-c&t=994s
Go to the 15 minute mark where they start talking about healthcare. He said the wait times are for elective care such as chin surgery. That is 100% wrong. Certain forms of heart surgery are considered elective where people have died waiting for them
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685314
And the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare considers certain forms of heart surgery and neurosurgery as elective
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/hospitals/national-definitions-for-elective-surgery-urgency/contents/table-of-contents
Sam hardly has an in depth conversation. He gets hacks on his shows that just spouts talking points.
As for that 45,000 stat, there are many factors there.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
"His paper, published in August 2009 in HSR: Health Services Research, found that uninsured participants had no different risk of dying than those were covered by employer-sponsored group insurance. The finding was surprising coming from Kronick, who told PolitiFact then it was "not the answer I wanted.""
"Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor, echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse health.
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said."
To add on Katherine Baicker's note, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted, and as pointed out in this study in the journal with the highest impact factor, even with access to healthcare physical health does not change due to poor life style choices
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
"This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years"
Also, in the book "Being Mortal" the author there discusses how people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they will live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those poor individuals, who are in bad health, healthcare and they live another 5 months and die, what have you achieved?
2
-
2
-
2
-
Matthew O'Rosco 1. I am not going to expose who I am. Too many creeps out there.
2. He doesn't quote a scientist directly, just a government report. So no, I didn't lie. Yes, scientist did have a hand in creating that, but in the end it is a government report by the government, not scientists. Kyle has not cited any peer reviewed reports or any scientist directly.
3. Yes, polls are not peer reviewed, but Kyle and his fans place a ton of stock in them.
4. Yes, the GND is a policy written by a non scientist, but Kyle and his fans place a lot of stock in it. Asking a politician who is not a scientist what to do about climate change is not wise in my opinion.
Being peer reviewed is not my standard, it was yours.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I took the time to read the study. At the start they display their bias with this
"Trump’s lack of support among people
of color and his popularity among white subgroups with less tolerant attitudes (such as whites
without college degrees)"
Just because you do not have a college degree does not mean you have a "less tolerant attitude". They make that claim but do not link any psychological or sociological study to it.
"Moreover, Trump’s call for law and order in the context of discussing urban
unrest"
How is this race related? Urban is not a race.
"While previous work has shown that racial attitudes predict support for Donald Trump"
Again, none listed. As someone who writes peer reviewed work in academics this is a perfect time to list such work.
"Given the unusually racialized nature of Trump’s campaign"
How was his campaign racialized?
"Given his clear racial and ethno-nationalist appeals—for example, about President Obama’s country of origin, his support for a Muslim ban, the state of the African American community, and negative comments about Mexicans"
I agree, Trump pushing the birther idea was asinine, but not racist. There wasn't a Muslim ban. The "state of the African American community" is nothing on him. And his "negative comments about Mexicans" were towards illegal immigrants.
The fact they used only 764 people makes for a small sample size. They failed to include the ages, income level, education attainment (even though they mentioned it as a variable in the introduction), geographical location, etc. of the people sampled.
This is coming from mainly the first half of the "study". I find this to be bias and poorly done.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sudoggs there is evidence of it. Look at states hit the hardest at the beginning. NY, NJ, MA, PA, they saw a huge decline in new cases. CA was one of the first states to shut down and never saw a large decline. NY has been open for some time with bars open, no masks nor social distancing (even though Cuomo wants that), still dropping cases. AZ, FL, CA and others never seen a drop in cases. They are now going towards herd immunity.
Also, a recent Penn State study suggests that the case count early one was actually over 80 times higher than what was reported. Thus, in March 30 NY reported around 68,000 cases when in reality they could have had over 5 million.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Brian,
1. Many professor who are not associated with PragerU at all. Also, saying "PragerU" is pulling a logical fallacy. There are many economists who oppose raising the min. wage where even those that support it can admit the flaws behind it saying that there is an argument against it, like Paul Krugman for example.
2. I have never seen the Sam Harris video. Razorfist is a video game reviewer that occasionally discusses politics, that is not a strong opponent. I did watch that debate and saw the same deceptive talking points made by Kyle. I would have called him out on it with evidence, many that are peer reviewed. For example, on healthcare, he says that other nations do cover everyone when Razorfist said, correctly, that they don't. Kyle claimed they did with zero support and his fan base agreed without question. That is a major problem. You question Crowder in what he says but not Kyle? Again, double standard.
Joe Rogan is a podcast where he agrees with everyone on his show. Fox News was very recent, so maybe he is starting to get out of his bubble. Still won't respect him until he debates Crowder or Shapiro and stops giving lame excuses in why he won't.
3. Kyle is honest? Really? Kyle operates for the best interest of the people? Really? Again, why do you criticize Crowder but not Kyle? If Kyle was honest and genuine he would be presenting all sides of the arguments. He would not be saying there is not argument against raising the min. wage when basic economics says there is. He would not be saying that in other nations people die due to lack of healthcare when, in fact, they do. He is lying about healthcare systems.
"You act as if Kyle is intentionally dishonest when we can all see he is not."
He is because very basic internet searches one can find who deceptive he is. Take, for example, the 45,000 deaths he keeps bringing up. A very basic search brings up how a Harvard professor said obtaining accurate numbers is hard to begin with. Or the polls where he fails to mention the methods. Or when he talked about how blacks receive a 20% longer sentence than whites for the same crime when the same study he points to says that correlation does not equal causation and that other factors are at play. He does not give the full story. You may argue Crowder doesn't, but if you are going to say that you have to have the same standards for Kyle.
"I disagree with Kyle on a number of topics however I can see he is not intentionally misleading people like you allude to."
Bu the is. If not than he is very dumb. He does not even read the studies he cites if that is the case.
"Show me who benefits from Kyles dishonesty"
Kyle as he is attracting idiots.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Car insurance mandate is a state law. Nothing in the Constitution prevents states from establishing it. The Constitution gives direct powers to the federal government, no where does it say forcing citizens to participate in healthcare. Healthcare insurance mandates would be Constitutional at the state level.
Also, it is a balance between allowing you to travel freely and creating order in this nation. You can travel freely by walking, but driving is much easier and more efficient. That comes with responsibilities when you do it in public which is why we have laws. A part of that is having liability insurance in case you cause damage to other property or people. You can drive to your heart's content with no license and no insurance if you stay in private land, but in public there is a desire to have order and that is what insurance does. This is also part of the reason why DUI checkpoints do not violate the 4th amendment. Read the Sitz v Michigan Department of State Police, they say similar things.
In comparison we have a right to bear arms. We can own guns, keep them concealed in our homes, shoot them in private land to our heart't content. In public, however, many states have CCW and open carry laws. That does not violate the 2nd amendment as we can still own a gun, but in public there are restrictions to maintain order. It is all about you interacting in public.
Now with healthcare insurance mandate the argument is this, in the ER you cannot be denied care. The problem that creates is that many without insurance go to the ER, receive care, and cannot pay. Thus by forcing people to have insurance means that they are no longer a liability to the public. Much like you are not a liability to the public if you have car insurance and you accidentally cause an accident.
There are arguments on both sides on these issues, but that is the idea behind them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ronniebaker4549 the deaths are overstated. As is 94% are comorbidities where the average number of underlying conditions is 2.6. 50% of the deaths are people over the age of 75. 40% of deaths are in nursing homes where, statistically, 50% of new nursing home patients die in 5 months to begin with. Sure, you may point to a handful of individuals who were apparently young (I find it had to believe) and suffered or died, but they are extremely rare and isolated.
It is like this, on average 7500 die a day in the US, many cases are preventable. We, as a society, never talk about that. We talk about when someone dies in a school shooting, or a factory exploding, or via a F5 tornado. Why? Because those are rare and isolated events, not the norm. You bring up the 27 year old because it is a rare and isolated event. Right now these lock downs has led to increases in substance abuse, antidepressant use, suicide attempts and other issues.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pidayrocks2235 I agree, you cannot test the entire population which makes this issue more complex than what you are making it out to be. You cannot take the confirmed cases and the deaths and simply use those two number to come up with a mortality rate. The reason are
1. There are many who were not tested
2. Almost all who died were old and/or sick to begin with, thus you cannot say to what degree the virus played a role in the death
3. The overall data set is low. 100,000 deaths is around 0.02% of the overall population, that is small.
On the last point, let us use a left wing talking point when they say X amount die every year due to lack of access to healthcare. When you look at those values they range from around 18,000, 30,000, 45,000, and even 60,000. That is a wide range. But as Prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are in bad health to begin with. Thus, you cannot say if they die due to lack of healthcare access or due to being in bad health to begin with. The same applies to this virus. You cannot say that those who die was because of the virus or simply because they were in bad health to begin with.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dan Ryan, the working class does get a cut. Kyle and his fan base are either lying or simply have no idea what they are talking about. On some other points
1. Deficit: The projected deficit is based on the current economic situation. The idea of the tax cuts is to motivate economic growth. Supporters of this law feel that money is invested better in the hands of private individuals and companies. That essentially, you, I, the mom and pop shop down the street, and the large corporation can invest money better than the government can. Now there is a lot to this, but for the most part I agree, and history has shown that in when talking about the federal government that is true.
So when people talk about the deficit they are looking at current times. However, if the economy grows the deficit will actually be reduced. Using simple numbers saying the current tax rate is 50% and the current economy size is $100 (again, simple, small numbers). The government receives $50 in revenue. Now say the tax rate was dropped to 10% and the economy grows to $1000. Now the government has $100 in revenue. This will not happen immediately but can over time. Lower tax rates does not always mean lower revenue. Same as higher tax rates does not always mean higher revenue. If that were true we can set the tax rate up to 80%, 90% or even 100%.
2. "Entitlements": There will be very little, if any cuts to entitlements. There may be reforms, but nothing too extreme and politically the people who see it are people who usually vote democrat to begin with. That's politics. If republicans do entitlement reform they may cut for the very poor who vote left, or in a way that the young may end up getting their SS later, such as extending the age to say 70 but it only starts for people who are in their 20s, but again, the young typically vote left, so republicans will not care. Same as when democrats push to raise the min. wage and businesses complain. In the end business owners vote right, so democrats don't care as they know they were not going to get their votes to begin with.
So there will most likely not be major entitlement reform. There will be some, but nothing major. And those that feel it vote democrat to begin with so it will not harm republicans politically.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
MIchael Bennet, you have a few things wrong with you comments
" For decades scientists have been telling policy makers to take action
but it seems many politicians don't consider climate change a priority "
That is not true. Scientists have been saying a lot of things. There is a disagreement on climate change. Not whether or not it is happening, but more of
1. how much is man playing a role
2. is it even bad
3. and if it is bad, what can we do
The only thing scientists agree on is that
1. it is happening, it has been for over 4 billion years
2. man is contributing in some ways, that is basic thermodynamics particularly the 2nd law.
3. We need to do research in it just like anything else
But the idea that scientists are saying that climate change is bad and must do something is simply not true.
"You're also talking like right-wing people don't care about climate
change, which is not true in many countries. After all, right-wingers
are often the first to accuse the left of pampering to ideology rather
than following the evidence. However, all experimental evidence leads
to the conclusion that pollution is the biggest factor responsible for
the measured increase in global average air temperature over the last
100 years, mostly due to the greenhouse effect."
Both sides are concern, problem is that the left has made it political. The idea that the right, even in the US, are not concern is simply not true. Funding for science research went up under Bush. Also, on pollution and climate change, you mention data of 100 years. 100 years in a 4 billion year old earth is minute. That, again, is why there is disagreement.
" the goal is to prevent the global average air temperature getting
larger and larger, which is causing all sorts of undesirable effects
like an increased frequency of extreme weather events, net increase in
ice melted at the poles, more frequent droughts, etc. "
Again, is that bad? Evolution happens because of things like that.
"Climate as it is today is different from what it would be had the atmosphere not been polluted. "
That is based on what?
"By the way, the point of my original comment was to point out that even
if clean energy had no effect at all on climate change mitigation, it's
simply a sound investment from a financial perspective."
Why? "Clean energy" is right now inefficient and expensive. We have made progress, but at the industrial level we still are not there. Also, with that inefficiencies you will hurt other research. For example, running Los Alamos National Laboratory requires a lot of energy that has to be reliable.
"Why invest in expensive fossil fuels when clean energy has the potential
to offer value for money and greater return on investment (ROI)? "
Economically, fossil fuels are still the best we have.
"Consequently, and fortunately, many US companies are already investing
or are planning to invest in clean energy regardless of the current US
government's lack of commitment on that front. After all, businesses
want to make money."
And I agree, we will get to a time where "clean energy" is better. But we are not there yet and thus we still have to use fossil fuels. If the government would stay out of it the private sector will change.
2
-
2
-
"Hmmmm... I'll investigate."
You should.
"In my opinion, we shouldn't ban smoking or cars, but we should legislate to prevent deaths. "
I agree.
" I think the same should be true for environmental legislation, but I
can't really comment specifically on US environmental legislation
because I don't know what laws you have in place."
It can't come at the expense of our economy. We have to find a balance.
" I don't know anything about third-world industries. I think fracking
should be banned in the UK because it does lead to problems that
outweigh the benefits."
Fracking is actually very safe.
"I'll give it a go, but I'm not an academic anymore and am restricted by
paywalls. :( By the way, do you know about this website?"
I have read that site. That book I mentioned talks about that site as well. It has been debunked. By the way, I am not saying that book has all the answers. However, it is worth a read and gives counter points that they cite. The overall issue is not clear. When you hear the political left talk about climate change they never mention any scientists names nor have any scientists on stage with them discussing it. The politicians are being deceptive. I am all for progressing on the issue, I just feel that politicians are not the answer. That book mentions that at the very beginning.
"Well, okay, but I think people understand enough about the limitations
of renewable technologies to make contingency plans to prevent those
kinds of issues (e.g. install backup storage). Sorry about your laser
problem! What project are you working on?"
I am developing methods to study structure and dynamics of biological materials using ultra fast spectroscopy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pointlesstwat8927
1. I am judging Bernie based on the fact he did nothing outside of politics and made his money by being a career politician. He was a nobody and after the 2016 campaign he wrote a book and made millions off of the name alone. When he is criticized for making millions he claimed that anyone can write a best selling book. It isn't that easy. But again, Bernie has never done anything outside of politics.
I disagree with child labor, but there is a lot to it. First, the trade deals lead to cheaper products which is good for low income people in the US. It also gives developing nations a chance to develop. Next, those nations go through many problems and kids work out of necessity. Things are being done to change that, but it isn't easy. These are complex issues we discuss in my international business course.
As for money to community health care centers, I want it to be funded locally. When the federal government does it it is less efficient. For example, the Community Mental Health Act was a mess.
2. "heard of tax? Yeah that's how tax works."
Not that simple I don't mind taxes, but there has to be structure so that people can see if they are getting their money's worth. Bernie's plan is to take taxes from Person A and give it to Person B simply because he feel Person A has too much money. The tax system I support is this
A: Federally a flat income tax with an consumption tax. The federal government will be constrained to dealing with foreign affairs and commerce between states. That's it. That is how this nation was designed.
B: States and local governments handle domestic issues like education, roads, law enforcement, healthcare, etc. how they seem fit. With that people can see if their tax dollars are being spent well. Also, they have more say in how taxes influence them. If a community want more taxes to fund something that is on them.
Your mindset is over simplify. Saying "that is how taxes work" is flawed. I can only vote for three members of congress. So I have little say in the federal tax code. What Bernie supports is taking taxes from me, where I have little say in how the code is written, and giving it to a program without my opinion if that program should exist or not. At the local level I have a much stronger voice.
3. Bernie was not destroying Amazon's reputation. They have been growing for years. Bernie and his fans were being annoying. That isn't pressure, that is playing politics is what Bezo did. He was going to raise wages regardless, he just made it political.
This is similar to when Robert Reich and Bill Clintin raised the min. wage in the 90s and Reich claimed that unemployment went down. However, prior to that unemployment was already dropping and so was the percent of workers earning at or below the min. wage. In short, people were being hired for more than the min. wage. The the equilibrium in the supply and demand curve was going up. Reich did a political stunt, not an economic one.
4. Wages have been going up. Home ownership has been going up. Long term unemployment is dropping.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
" you'll agree with any legislation if the legislation would be effective."
I agree. As I see we have enough. Nothing is ideal which is why I am asking for you to give me new laws to make that death rate to be 0.
"I pointed out that gun ranges should not be allowed to give children weapons such as uzis, as repeatedly this has allowed for children to either accidentally kill themselves or others. You still sided against that, even though such a legislation would eliminate gun deaths in that area."
That is one accident. I was shooting guns since I was 6. Many of my friends were younger. You are pointing at one accident. There was a car accident nearby recently that someone died in, I guess we should ban driving? You are looking at one accident after the fact.
"There will always be human errors."
I agree, and to me that is where we are at. At that gun range was human error. You see, with you if we had that gun range law and if that were to happen to an adult you will push to banning gun ranges. That is your stance.
" Someone like this should also be barred from materials which could be used to build a gun."
Which is a lot. So you are going to prevent them from buying metal? They can go to the local junk yard and get stuff easily.
"What prevents him from hypothetically being able to hide guns? Er, police. Take him into custody ASAP, get a warrant, then search his property"
Hide the gun at a friend's house or someplace remote. Or put it in a trunk of a car and park that in a garage. It isn't hard to hide guns.
"Should we make murder legal because we can't stop every single killer? "
No. But at this point you are now banning the instruments which is not effective in many cases. Murder is illegal. If someone is going to murder what is going to stop them from illegally owning a gun? They are already breaking one law. You are adding laws on top of laws which are unnecessary.
But that aside, I feel we are at the point that these incidents are just minor tragedies. I am not downplaying them, but simply saying that's life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Of course, we are and always will be stuck receiving medical care from
people who are willing to give it and able to be licensed in it. Doing
it any other way would be slavery or just irresponsible."
So can you pick your own doctor? Also, how do you make up for the shortages of doctors? You have to ration care at that point. So when you ration care, how do you do it?
"The fact that they either accept what the single-payer is willing to pay them or have no business. "
At that point it is slavery. If the federal government offers too little then no doctor will work unless you allow them to ration care. Rationing care means not everyone is covered. If you do not allow rationing and force them to take on more customers you are asking them to work more for less.
"Though even without me explaining this very simple concept to you it should be evident that something is controlling price hikes since all single-payer nations spend significantly less on healthcare than the US per capita."
Because they ration care. They have lower quality in many ways and have less innovation and progress. The US is the leader in research and innovation in healthcare. Those countries are taking advantage of us. Even at that, those countries are small, as in the size of states. Name me one country with 100+ million people with a successful economy and successful single payer healthcare system. You can't. Even at 90+ million. Japan comes close, but they are facing problems as well
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/19/national/japans-buckling-health-care-system-crossroads/#.WabnhNGQxPY
Japan has a lot of success because of their culture of working very hard. But they also have a high suicide rate.
"Right. We should control costs by adopting the European model of
publicly funding higher education institutions directly, perhaps even
making them tuition free."
And in those countries they ration that as well. The government tracks students and if the government feels you do not have the ability to earn a degree then you do not go. I know a guy from Germany where he was tracked for a trade school. He came to the US to go to college as he was not allowed to go in Germany. He is now a PhD candidate. Also, the US by far the best university system in the world. There is a reason why we have the highest amount of international students. Our university system is very strong and we allow opportunity for a lot of people with our smaller colleges. I went to a small school and did not receive the best K-12 education. I went to a small, cheap college and now I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. I was given that opportunity. I did so by working hard and applying to a lot of schools. In other countries they do not give that opportunity. For example, in Denmark I believe you are only allowed to apply to one medical school a year. If you do not get accepted then you have to wait a year.
Also, what is the value of something that is free? Nothing.
2
-
"In Lithuania (a Northern European country with a population of ~2.9M)
there are around 40 universities; some, like Šiaulių Universitetas,
actually have government-funded dance programs. Would you force
taxpayers to pay for that in America?"
To be honest, I feel they would. People who push for "tuition free" college do not understand the real value of it. Most subjects in college can be self taught. The STEM fields are the fields that require any sort of training in my opinion. But other subjects, like dance, business, art, psychology, etc. can be self taught. The real value is
1. Learning how to juggle a busy schedule with class, homework, activities, and work
2. Learning how to invest and manage money
3. Developing connections
Also, college is supposed to be an area of diversity and open discussion to challenge yourself, but I am questioning that with how left it has become. But besides that point, what you learn in college is what I listed above. People on the left do not realize that when you make it "free" you remove the first two components I listed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1. You have to understand what money is. Money solved two problems in economics.
a: The double incidence of wants problem
b: The retention of values problem
It is a universal means of trade. But in the end money is not going to perform surgery on you, a doctor is. Money is not going to teach you physics, a professor is. You can have all the money in the world but if no one is there to provide any goods and/or services it doesn't matter. Just creating more money, which is what you are suggesting, creates inflation. But in the end you can't consume what you don't produce. To give an example a public school by my hometown does not teach calculus or physics because there is no one there to teach it. To give another example we have a waiting list for organs because there are not enough.
The idea that we can just "train doctors" isn't that easy. Being a doctor is a rewarding field financially. People don't do it because
a: they can't
b: they don't want to
But as for money that is not an issue. You will be rewarding financially with that career. People just don't do it. And if you create an entitlement society less people will push for careers like that.
"An Economy cannot exist without Government spending, and Economy cannot exist without Government"
I will agree but you have to get your money's worth. You have to see if your money is being spent well and not wasted. You do that by keeping government as local as possible. Watch the Youtube video
"Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups"
"The United States already limits who goes to College, Colleges will only
accept people with the approporate Grades, though there is another more
insidious barrier to College in the United States whcih is; "How
wealthy are your Parents""
Many colleges such as CC and JuCo will accept students with low grades. They are also very cheap. As for income we have the loan program. While I felt that increased tuition by increasing demand without increasing supply, the loans are not that bad. If you pursue the right degrees you will earn a lot later to easily pay off that loan and be well off. It isn't about "how wealthy are your parents". My parents were poor. I pulled out a loan, went to college, got two degrees in the STEM fields and I am now a doctoral candidate. It can be done.
2. It is myth. Watch the video entitled
"Cenk Said to Google It, So I Did | Ben Shapiro vs Cenk Uygur Politicon Debate" by Matt Christiansen
Fast forward to 7:40 is where he starts to talk about identity politics. Both sides have used it in the past. I will allow you watch that. A lot of the Southern Strategy was economic, not race. As for Lee Atwater, that is one person. So one person represents the entire party? If you want to play that game what about Bernie Sanders saying that white people can't be poor?
3. The WHO, to me, is a questionable source. I say that as a doctoral candidate in that I see no authors listed in their material, including that ranking. I see no credentials or background. But that aside, that ranking compared the US to countries like Malta and San Marino. San Marino has a population small enough we can fit it in one of our football stadiums with room to spare. It is driven off of being a tax haven and tourism. A small country that attracts money is going to be successful. Is that a valid comparison. Also, read the book
"The Business of Health" by Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt and Prof. John Schneider.
They run through the stats and show that the differences are minute. Prof. Ohsfeldt called those rankings arbitrary as many variables are involved in the numbers. For example, if you remove murder and car accidents the US is number 1 in life expectancy. People can, in a legit way, manage the numbers to make the US to be number 1 in healthcare.
" they cover all their Citizens,"
No country covers all of their citizens. On paper they do, but not in reality. That is why people die on waiting lists. Read the paper
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" in Can J Cardiol. If they covered all of their patients then why did those people die? To give an example in the US on paper everyone has access to K-12 education. By why do people with high school diplomas struggle with 4th grade math? Point is that just because on paper something is true does not mean it is true in reality.
"Public Insurance will always be more efficient that private for-profit
Insurance as there is no overhead for shareholders, ceos, advertising
etc......"
Not really. Both have advantages and disadvantages that we can discuss later as this is a long topic. However, I find it frustrating how the left love to just take the word of a simple, arbitrary list on a complex issues that professors and researchers continue to still study. It isn't that easy as "look at this ranking".
4. "Every Nation that has implemented Universal Healthcare Since then as
kept it, not one has gone over to the American System, why is that?."
Because that is what they are used to. They were raised on it and it has been around for generations. It does many things well but has many shortcomings. Same with the US. The US system does many things well and has many shortcomings. 80% of voters in Colorado voted against universal healthcare. After Obamacare democrats lost. People in the US aren't rushing to change to a universal healthcare system. It goes both ways.
"Most States in the Union, would not have the revenue to operate, if it were not for the Federal Government..."
100% not true. Government has nothing until it takes in a form of a tax. The federal government has nothing until it taxes the citizens. Same with states and local governments. The idea that the federal government has the resources is wrong. Again, 84% of K-12 funding is state and local. Only 8% if federal (the rest is private). In fact, at the very beginning before 1913 the federal government taxed the states. It was taking money from the states. States took money from the citizens and the federal government took money from the states. The federal government has literally zero.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Happy2_B_Blue I agree that progress was made. The problem is that people do not understand that it takes time. I had a conversation about this with a few of my colleagues and they wonder why the cop was not immediately arrested. The problem is that, with him being a cop, if you were to arrest him right there they could not give a definitive reason as the cop was doing an arrest himself and it would be unclear at the time if his actions were justified and police protocol. While for many it appears it was not, legally speaking any lawyer can argue that that the arrest was not justified at the time leading to write of habeous corpus where, even if he were to go to trial, the punishment would not be that harsh. Thus it takes time to investigate. They did with him and found enough evidence for 3rd degree murder at least. More investigation has lead to 2nd degree murder and the other cops charged. Again, it takes time. But when they found any excuse to arrest him they were able to.
As for the policies, going though each one
1. Minority populations are "targeted" more because more crime is committed there. They give a 287 stat but no sources. It is also a huge leap to go from people being killed by cops and going to the conclusion of racism when other factors are at play. Read the study entitled
"Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings"
Case in point, there are other factors at play. Not saying that study is gospel, just saying it is much more complex than saying minority communities are targeted.
2. I agree with this one and have said that groups like BLM can hire private investigators and lawyers to looking into these issues. Now why aren't they? There are intelligent people with the group. Take Cornel West for example. I imagine that he, via working in Harvard and Yale, would know some. Instead he goes on CNN and says something needs to change. Ok, what, professor?
So I agree with this step, now do it.
3. The problem with this one is that nations like England, Germany and Japan simply have less violent cultures. Take the UK for example. If you were to remove just gun laws from the US the US will still have a murder rate that is the same as the UK. Why? Our culture is simply more violent. Thus removing excess force will lead to more dead cops.
4. This is the same as solution 2
5. On this one the research varies as pointed out by the study I listed above. The problem with this is that this is the definition of racism in that we should hire cops not on quality but based on the color of their skin. Ever thought we have more white cops in proportion of our population because simply more white people apply?
6. I 100% agree with body cams.
7. I agree with reforming training as well.
8. When does for profit policing happen?
9. The police is far from militarized. For example, they do not have fighter jets. However, some of the weaponry they have is excessive as in the vehicles that can be used by only the military. But in some cases they do need them. In LA there was a bank robbery where the robbers had automatic guns and the cops did not. It lead to cops being killed and the situation from not be deesculated. With that the laws were changed allowing cops access to such weaponry. So this isn't that easy of an issue to take one.
Overall, as you can see I did not dismiss all of them. I agreed with many. With conversation we can find a common ground. Problem is that people do not want that and many just cry racism. Where were the protests when Tony Timpa was killed? Look up the situation, I feel it was worse than what happened to Floyd and the cops mocked him when he passed out and he eventually died. But no protests there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
AkhmenHotep, I will say it again, In the 80s you were around 1 shooting per year. In the 90s up to the Port MacArthur massacre you were down to a shooting every other year. Gun homicides were dropping as well.
You said that the gun ban (which is incorrect, it was a buy back program) led to less gun violence. I showed you that is not true as the trend was that gun violence was dropping prior to that buyback program (that again, you incorrectly called a ban). The Port MacArthur shooting was an extreme outlier. And the buyback program is a great example of what happens when a society overreacts to such a rare event. That is why no one points to Australia for an example.
I made these points while even using a source you gave me. I used a source you gave me to show you how shootings were dropping to begin with prior to the gun buyback program (again, buyback, not a ban that you incorrectly called it).
Now you start talking about biker gangs. Ok, if you want to do that than you have to do the same for the US. John Lott removed situations like gang shootings and when he did that he showed that the US is not even in the top 10 in mass shootings or deaths in mass shootings. You have countries like France and Finland on the list. However, with you wanting to remove biker gangs is your moving the goals points.
Next, looking at your own source in the table entitled "Firearm Deaths by Type of Death", you have gun homicide, from the 3 year periods they use in the next table, averaging at around 98, 103, 81, and 78 with there being 67 in 1995. That is a downward trend. Gun homicides were dropping.
The part you are quoting references the table entitled "Type of Deaths as a Proportion of Firearm Deaths". Here is the problem here. You have accidents dropping from 62 deaths in 1980 to 15 in 1995. Gun accident deaths dropped to 1/4 of what it was when gun murders dropped to 3/4 of what it was. You see that it is obvious to see why gun homicides, in proportion of gun deaths, did not seem to drop. You had one situation dropping a lot where another did not.
What you are witnessing here is a great example of how to lie with statistics. You are looking at a table and saying "ah ha, gun homicides have not dropped", when in reality they have. They were as high as 103 from 1983-85 down to 67 in 1995. They dropped and the trend was downward for years. It just so happens that deaths by gun accidents have dropped anymore. So when you say "but the numbers reflect that nothing changed until the buy back" that is 100% false. You are trying to connect to unrelated things. Gun deaths by accidents are not comparable to gun deaths by homicides. One in intentional the other is not.
Again, you are moving the goal posts here.
"My problem with the national review is mainly in america when you are political most of the time you toe the party line and try and show things that things are one way instead of another,"
That does not counter what I posted. Also, you are doing the same thing. You are really digging to show things one way instead of the other. You are doing so by eliminating biker gang violence and than comparing gun accident deaths to homicides and doing so in a proportion. What you cannot deny is this, gun homicides were dropping prior to the buy back program. Another thing with your link is that it does not do a similar comparison of these deaths after the buy back program. Why? It was published in 1997. So you are giving me numbers you cannot compare to after the buy back.
"and the facts also are that it is easier to buy a gun in america then it is to buy alcohol or cigarettes"
What!? Really. I did not know that I was supposed to go through a background check to buy my beer yesterday. I guess I better inform the ATF about my local gas station not doing what they should have done.
Again, learn the facts before you get into opinions. You are not doing yourself any favors. You are showing a lot of reasons why no one looks at Australia. When you have to move the goal posts this much it reflects poorly on you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@squiddler7731 ah, that source, read the one by the CDC entitled
"Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020"
Where they say
"Although more excess deaths have occurred among older age groups, relative to past years, adults aged 25–44 years have experienced the largest average percentage increase in the number of deaths from all causes from late January through October 3, 2020. The age distribution of COVID-19 deaths shifted toward younger age groups from May through August (9); however, these disproportionate increases might also be related to underlying trends in other causes of death."
That age range makes up 3% of "covid deaths". So what are they dying from? And yes, we went under lock downs. Businesses were forced to close. Schools were closed, people lost their jobs. As for my other stat, I was wrong, it is 94% according to the CDC. Read the source entitled
"Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics"
They say
"Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups."
I am citing the CDC like you are. I recommend you do more research.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Koala,
1. I want you to give me evidence that universal healthcare systems are better. It goes both ways. With that I never said that universal healthcare systems are inferior, I simply said they have shortcomings. I also said that they are not better than the US as the data does not indicate that. It is on par with the US system.
With that I want to improve the system we have. Going to a universal system will lead to a major recession as healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Taxes will have to go up, businesses will have to change spending habits, so will consumers. People's and businesses's finances will change leading to a major recession. Even if we get out we do not improve the system as universal healthcare, based on the numbers, is no better than our system.
There are many advantages to a for profit system, mainly progress. We lead the world in research and innovation in healthcare and technology. To me making it a free market system will drive down prices. LASIK has improves over the years and have become cheaper. While we have a for profit system we do not have a free market system. I can get into more detail but that will make this comment too long. In all, where is your evidence that universal healthcare systems are better? Even at that, the federal government already spends over $1 trillion in healthcare. The idea of more government being involved in healthcare is happening and have been for decades. So next time you rip on the US system consider that.
2. This is a hard stat to measure as many factors cause deaths. People do die in other countries on waiting lists, but they die for many reasons. Kyle loves to point out the 45,000 a year stat from Harvard, but another Harvard professor gave a rebuttal. In the end correlation does not equal causation. Those 45,000 are poor to begin with and there is a correlation between the poor and bad health. There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes amongst the poor. So now the question becomes did they die because of lacking healthcare insurance or simply because of having bad health? Also, the idea that people lack access to healthcare in the US is not true on paper. By law ER cannot turn you away. This was the driving force in the individual mandate as many were going to the ER and can't pay. Now that is by law, so on paper. On paper and in reality are different situations. But the same in true in universal systems. On paper everyone is covered, but in reality there is rationing and people do die on waiting lists.
But for comparisons in countries, you are talking about a small set of people. 45,000 is 0.02% of the population. That is minute in the big picture. It is hard to compare numbers do small. That is similar to comparing two athletes on only 40 times when one runs a 4.60 second and the other a 4.58 second forty. The differences are so small it is not comparable.
3. Bankruptcy happens all across the world and it is a problem for poor people. However, yes, no one in other countries go bankrupt due to healthcare cost. They simply wait on a waiting list and die. So what would you rather be? Bankrupt or dead? Even at that, I see that as a success in some ways. We allow people to go in debt to get high quality healthcare. We are so rich as a nation we allow people to get in the hole to better themselves so they can progress forward.
"You have failed to provide any of these pieces of evidence."
As a whole these are blanket statements. You are going to the same statements of "bankruptcy" or "people dying". The issue is far more complex than that.
"And you can’t because they don’t exist."
Just like nothing exists that objectively show, without any doubt, that universal healthcare systems are better.
" Your rebuttals are articles talking about arbitrary wait times that have yet to show to be nearly as problematic as the negatives in the US. "
No, that one from Canada is to show the fact that people die on waiting lists, a fact Kyle and his fans ignore. The book shows that universal healthcare systems are not better than the US. The rationing one shows that rationing is a complex issue that happens in every system, and it isn't based purely on income.
"Other countries know of our private system, they do not, according to polling, want our system despite their shortcomings because they know that our shortcomings are far, far greater "
That is very deceptive. When put in a election in the US 80% of voters in Colorado voted no on universal healthcare. Colorado is a left leaning state that voted for Bernie in the primaries. The truth is that our system is not terrible, but neither is their's. There is room for improvement, but it is not terrible. Their society was raised on that system much like ours was raised on our system. They would not support radical change. Neither does the US which is why after Obamacare was passed democrats lost and why every attempt to establish universal healthcare systems in numerous states failed. It is simply that they were raised on that system. It isn't about it being better or "far, far greater", it is only about that is what they know and their perception is that it works. It is subjective.
"You also never had an answer when I asked why states that have expanded Medicaid have far fewer deaths and bankruptcies than states who haven’t. Though I only asked you this once. "
The study I read only looked at three states and neighboring states. It did not look at them all. I can go into detail on that but read the Forbes article
"Reality Check: The Obamacare Medicaid Expansion Is Not Saving Lives, Part 1"
He addresses those studies, gives counter studies where at least one is peer reviewed. I have addressed that concern of yours, but here I do it as well.
"Your aei book does not say that our system is better, "
I 100% agree. Their point was that universal healthcare systems are not better. I read the book, I know what it says. I also never said the US system was better. The point was that universal systems are not better as well. No one can say that as the issue is complex and there are many variables.
"Other studies like the commonwealth show how everything from quality and costs are worse here."
The "commonwealthfund" is a vague study compared to that book. You look at one, short study and I give you a 180 page book. But that aside as neither was peer reviewed, the Commonwealthfund is bias. But so is the AEI. If you are going to call AEI right win you have to admit that the Commonwealthfund is left wing. And their study leaves our valuable information. It ignores cancer survival rate which is high in the US, and it looks at overall life expectancy as opposed to accounting for other variables to influence life expectancy such as obesity.
But for you to trust the Commonwealthfund so much and disregard the AEI book shows your bias.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@KepShep , culture has a lot in how those programs are ran. To give a simple example look up "Hofstede dimensions" and how that is looked at with businesses. Every nation has different cultures and that dictate how the society runs including healthcare.
Next, that 45,000 number has been countered in many ways. One, what do you have to compare that to? People die in every nation due to lack of healthcare. For example, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia while waiting for "elective" surgery where "elective" surgery can include neurosurgery. What study from other countries do you have to compare that to? Nothing, so that makes it an empty stat. It is like this. I pay $760 a month in rent, based on that alone tell me if you think I am paying too much, or if I am getting a good deal.
Next, those 45,000 are poor and bad health is associated with being poor to begin with. As Prof. Katherine Baicker stated the issue becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As she shown in her Oregon study even with people having access to healthcare people still had bad physical health due to poor lifestyle choices. There are higher rates of obesity and smoking with the poor. Also, people in that condition have man healthcare complexes so even if you give them healthcare how much longer will they live? In the book "Being Mortal" the author there describes how people look to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but maybe live another 5 or 10 months. So even if they receive access and live 5 more months in agony while costing people a bunch of money, was that a success?
I encourage you to read up on healthcare more and not just throw numbers out there if you are going have a strong opinion on healthcare.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sardoniclysane , not everything inflates. Many goods and services go down in price. Take, for example, the cell phone. A brick cell phone in the 80s using CPI inflation cost around $4000 in today's money. Now smart phones are essentially free and has more computing power than what put a man on the moon. Now consider services. How much is the Blockbuster employee worth? $0. You can't just take the min. wage and tie it to inflation as it isn't that simple. One, not everything inflates, two, there are many methods to measure inflation, and three, inflation measures has flaws.
https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/inflation/problems-measuring/
As for the $30,000 stat, what is their household income? What is their cost of living? What are their benefits? I need more information before I come to a conclusion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
polka, we never had "pure capitalism" as we still had laws and government. And to say it "did not work" in the 18th century is simply not true. How did it not work?
Extremes on either sides are not good. Yes, not every customer if informed and we should have government. Milton Friedman even said there was a desire to have government. However, you have to keep that government as local as possible to ensure it remains the servants and not the masters. When you go from local to state and then state to federal you get a government that is too large and that is the other extreme.
"Capitalistic movements play with our emotions to gain what they want.
For example: Fear of losing your job, fear of a recession and so on. "
Same with socialism. Kyle pushes for universal healthcare on the idea that people are losing healthcare.
"We have a higher productivity today but wages went down since the 80's! How is that possible!"
That is deceptive. To start, productivity is up because of technology. Next, because of increased productivity goods and services are cheaper not just in price but in higher quality. Compare a car today to a car built in 1980. What car is better? The car today is safer, lasts longer and gets better mileage. We have smart phones, high speed internet, etc. that all make our lives easier and allows us to save money.
Also, in the mid 60s you had the expansion of the payroll tax which means if businesses pay a higher wage they pay a higher tax, that hinders wage growth. And areas of the market that have seen an increase in prices are college education, housing, and healthcare. They are all influenced by government with the college loan program, the FHA and medicare and medicaid and the payroll tax for healthcare. It wasn't the free market that raised those prices, it was government involvement.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
C W different points. Using a parachute is fine as I know there is an end, I will reach the ground safely. That as opposed to saying if you jump from a plane that no matter what, even with a parachute, you are still going to die. Well, I am not leaving the plane.
With this virus, the media has done nothing but fear monger. So at that point, in no matter what we do such as close bars, close schools, wear masks, etc. nothing improves, why do it? But when you bring up positive progress like Trump is doing here it encourages people to keep fighting as there is an end. But with the constant fear mongering and no mention of positive progress, tell me, why do what we do? Open back up.
2
-
2
-
@debaronAZK treatments are starting to come. A Dallas doctor is using an inhaler version of a medicine for asthma and it is working. Not as a cure but to reduce the symptoms. Also, if you want to use deaths per capita then fine. Look at the states hit the hardest early one, NY, NJ, MI, ME, MD, etc. All have higher deaths per capita compared to states just hit hard recently, FL, TX, CA, AZ, etc. So based on that it appears we have made positive progress on this virus.
Also, he cannot enforce lock downs, only governors can. Also, do the lock downs really work?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@heinzbaron9129 it is blown out of proportion. At the beginning it was about deaths. Pictures of mass graves and lines of temporary morgues in NY. When deaths dropped it went to we cannot reopen too soon. Have to stay lockdown. We reopen in some places and was fine until June. Then cases went up and the next point was cases, not deaths, cases. The fear mongering shifted to cases. Now deaths ticked up a bit and that has now shifted to that, even though deaths are still low compare to April.
When you do all of that, do nothing but fear monger in different ways, shifting the scenario, while also providing zero news of positive progress, such as the recovery rate going up since March 24, or how deaths are lower despite twice as many cases, it divides our nation into three camps. One, people who are in fear, two, people who are confused, and three, people who say "to hell with it" and don't care. If you give positive news at times it shows we are making progress and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We just have to hang in there and keep fighting. But when it is nothing but fear mongering you have people like me saying that "what is the point, if no positive progress is being made just open back up" because apparently what we are doing it not working.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"So, with the problem I'm talking about, America has a unique issue
because it happens in the USA way more, it happens in the USA way more
because it's easier for someone who is even mentally ill to get a gun"
The US is a different country with a different culture. A lot of things happen in the US that does not happen elsewhere.
"My point was that we've proven you can have a society where (depending
on the EU state you're talking about) civilian mass shootings are rare,
unheard of or have never happened, and still allow civilians to own guns
for sport and self defense,"
You haven't because by using your example of Ireland I showed that even without gun murders the US still has a higher murder rate. That is a culture issues, not a gun one. Even at that I also showed that based on data available the US has less rapes. Now do they? I cannot say as the data is unreliable in some ways. However, to make the conclusion you are making is shallow as there are many variables involved here.
"You have to give up your right to own something that belongs on an army firing range, but you can still have guns."
The VA Tech shooter did his shooting with two handguns. Removing the "scary assault weapons" will not solve anything. I can do a lot of damage with a M1 Garande if I wanted to and kill a lot of people as I know how to shoot well, especially if I am in a gun free zone.
All I see here is you really have no idea what you are talking about.
2
-
"Common sense, by most normal people in gun terms, would mean having gun ownership allowed but there being rules on:"
What is "common sense"? What is a "normal person"? You have opened the door to ambiguity. To you certain rules may seem like "common sense", but to me they are not simply due to our personal experience. Go farther based on our research, that I have clearly done more of than you, and we can completely interpretations of "common sense" and of a "normal person". Even though I am smart enough to never use such phrases.
"-Who can buy the guns (no convicts, terrorist watch listers, mentally
ill )
-What guns they can buy (no automatic or semi-automatic rifles)
-How many they can buy
-What training is required
-Who can give you a license (here it's the local police superintendent
who interviews you, vists you at random times, takes a look at the area
where you'll be storing the gun etc)
"
Each point
1. Felons cannot already. They lost that right through due process. Terror watch lists have not lost that right, same with the mentally ill. You cannot take rights away from people without due process. If someone who is mentally ill has showed they are a threat then yes, they can lose that right. But again, due process has to be involved. Who do you define as to be "mentally ill"?
2. Handguns are semi-automatic by definition. Full autos are already restricted.
3. Why place a limit? You only need one.
4. Training? So you want to make gun owners to be more efficient when they shoot thus killing more?
5. A license? So only those with money and IDs can own one?
"Man...don't talk to me like I'm stupid, metal detectors don't detect
violence, they detect fuckin guns, that's what they are in schools for. "
You are attacking the object as opposed to helping the person. Why are their metal detectors? Because the school is violent. How about we try to lower violence?
"We've never had a school shooting - ever - not one, so our parents don't need to worry about that."
The vast majority of parents do not worry either. School shootings are rare.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@J4535-b9p Uh, you again.
It is not an idiotic comparison. Unless someone is receiving direct favors from a donation, no law is broken. Take away the money aspect, someone like Kyle or Cenk of TYT have larger voices than I do. Should we limit how much air time they get? Many in the media will say certain things, politically, in favor of certain politicians. Do you not think they are doing so to profit off of it?
That is the fine line. Unless there is quid pro quo nothing illegal is happening. Yes, the rich will donate money to politicians whose policies they agree with the most. But unless they receive some personal kick back from it, no laws are broken. No different than when some volunteer their time to go door to door putting advertisements on door handles in support of a certain candidate. They have nothing directly given to them.
"A youtube channel is NOT the same as giving money to a candidate. Neither is putting a sign outside. If this is to hard for you to understand, let me explain."
They are the same. Candidates need money to pay for advertisements.
"Giving millions of dollars to try the best to lobby for deals for yourself which influences candidates do make a huge difference demonstrated by papers and voting records."
Except, it isn't lobbying. It is a donation so they can have money to place adds, create signs for people to place in their yards, to pay for people to campaign for them.
You seem confused. Knowing you through previous conversations, I am not surprised. You are confusing someone giving money to a politician so they can campaign to giving money to a politician to do special favors for them. The latter is quid pro quo. The former is legal and is no different than if I were to wear my Trump 2020 mask. They use that money to advertise, to pay to hold rallies, etc. You know, air time for ads cost money, traveling to hold rallies cost money, holding rallies in general cost money. Where does that money come from? Donors.
Money is speech. But say instead of me donating millions to a candidate, I use that millions to give free advertisement of that candidate. How is that any different? It isn't. Or say instead of giving them money, say someone uses their private plane to fly that candidate to their next rally for free. How is that different?
This is the problem with far leftists like yourself. You cannot see the little things and thus you make these grand standing arguments thinking you sound smart, but you aren't. So ban campaign donations. The rich will always find another loophole.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"So, because there are SOME caveats to that 45,000 study means that not a
significant amount of people die to lack of health insurance in the US?"
I am not saying no one dies due to lack of insurance. My point is that you cannot get accurate numbers. You are just throwing out a number while not putting it in perspective. There is a lot to it. This is why people get their PhDs in statistics. Also, define "significant". 45,000 is 0.01% of the population. 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents, do we ban driving? Also, what is that number in other nations? Where are those studies? You have nothing to compare it to with other nations. And if you say that number is zero in other nations then you are lying or have no clue what you are talking about.
"YOU REALIZE that if you are poor, you also have lower access to health-insurance, and thus have a higher chance of dying?
That quote that you keep re-posting actually vindicates MY ARGUMENT, not yours. "
Being poor is not an excuse to be obese, or to smoke. The point was even if they had access to healthcare or had insurance they would still die due to being in bad health.
"Also, that health professor was in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM saying that the
findings of her study were incorrect, wildly incorrect or not
significant, she was saying that there is a caveat, but not one that
debunks the study."
It isn't debunking the study, it is showing a limitations. I am not completely dismissing the study, and neither is that professor. It is that there are limitations and you have to recognize that and realize that number may vary and may not be a major issue. You can't just throw numbers out there, you have to put them in perspective.
"I consulted Canadians on Quora, and they are all saying that the you get
shipped off for care immediately if it is not an elective medical
procedure and it is urgent."
Then why do people die waiting for heart surgery?
"Therefore, many of the ''deaths'' in the Canadian system are in elective procedures. "
How is that elective if they died?
" but rather factors that are not accounted for such as old-age."
So it is fair for you to bring up other factors such as old age but I can't such as poor health habits? You have double standards.
"but ironically, you deride the Havard Study for being misleading while
the study you keep re-posting (from a conservative think-tank) is
actually MORE misleading."
It is a counter argument. Do you just read studies that support your ideas? Or do you read opposing viewpoints? I am not saying that book has all the answer or that it is 100% correct. It is an opposing viewpoint. Healthcare is much more complicated than just saying "45,000 people die a year". Ok, and......30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. We can ban driving and make that number to be zero. Or with that 45,000 number, how do you make that number to be zero? You are not providing any context.
"Not to mention, you proclaim that there are caveats to the US study, but
magically none to the Canadian wait-times system study that you cite? "
I agree there are caveats as there are in every study. I am trying to pull people to the middle on this issue. Too many here throw out that 45,0000 number with zero perspective or zero idea what they are actually referencing. They saw a number and ran with it. They do not question it. That is a problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Algie, it does change. The financial situation of someone earning $5 million a year is completely different than someone earning $30,000 a year. For example, when I was earning $8/hr I worked as a cook at a restaurant. Now compare that to a colleague of mine who earns $200,000 a year. They are responsible for the finances of their clients, they are responsible for their well being, they are responsible for a lot and have to know a lot. A wealthy business owner creates many jobs and wealth for our society.
Warren Buffet pays himself $100,000 a year. He does not have millions. He is worth millions because he pays himself through shares of his company. If you tax 90% of Buffet's income he will have only $10,000. That, again, is how their financial situation is different.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Beaver Ones, this is exactly what I am talking about.
" Single payer will for sure work better than a private system. Literally almost every other country in the world proves that so you are just wrong there. "
Which is not true at all. You are ignoring many variables. Different countries mean different cultures, different lifestyles, different challenges and economies. Two professors wrote a book on healthcare called "The Business of Health" where they ran through the numbers and showed that countries with universal healthcare are not better off than the US. That is not to say the US is better or that other countries are worse, it just shows that universal healthcare is not the superior solution. Even at that other countries don't so "single payer", they so some form of universal healthcare. But again, there is an entire book on the issue along with many peer reviewed studies showing what you are saying is not true. I present that where Kyle and his fans present arbitrary rankings with vague interpretation of the data. The issue is very complex. Your statement is very vague and shows you lack understanding of the issue.
"The minimum wage is just a matter of what you care about, do you think it's more important to make sure the owners make as much money as possible or do you think it is more important to make sure that every worker has a wage they can live on? "
The fundamental flaw of the min. wage is that it enforces how much is paid per hour, not per week. So if you raise it and hours are cut, what have you gained?
" I also understand issues are complex and I also have ideas. Complexity does not mean the government cannot solve it."
I agree that government can solve issues, however we need to control the government. And it is easier to solve issues if you micromanage them. You do both of those things by keeping government as local as possible.
Take healthcare for example. I actually support a public option if ran locally. But going to a federal universal healthcare system will literally destroy our economy. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. In order to establish a universal healthcare system you will have to raise taxes on everyone at an obscene amount. You will be destroying may private jobs in healthcare and you will be radically changing our stock system as many stocks are dependent on healthcare. That will lead to many people having to readjust their finances and the way they spend money, including businesses. That means they will freeze spending until the economy stabilizes which will lead to a major recession. And in the end, as the numbers show, universal healthcare is not any better than what we have now.
So to establish universal healthcare you will make many people's lives miserable and you will essentially gain nothing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@juniebugg7675 at the beginning, in February, there were around 15 cases. You want to shut down an entire nation over that? Hindsight is 20/20. He did all he can do in his power, that is stop international travel and when he did he was called a racist..
The left has been all over the place with their double standards this year. First, they are blaming Trump for not doing enough to stop this virus, as if they wanted his personal help. But when it came to the riots and Trump offered to help, they said now. So what is it? Do they want his help or not? Trump did all he can do, let the states handle it. Around 1/3 of the deaths are in NJ and NY, democrat ran states. Democrat rate states have some of the highest death rates. During this entire time Trump remained calm and gave good news when it came. All Fauci did was fear monger and so many predictions wrong. In fact, I have got more correct than Fauci.
But hey, if you are so smart, what should have Trump done?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SamWeltzin
"He refused to say he'd peacefully concede if he lost even in 2016."
And that is a problem why?
"He's sicced the military on American citizens (including ones who weren't breaking the law) against states' wishes. "
When?
"He exacerbated Covid by encouraging people to not worry about it."
We should not be worried. The lock downs are causing more problems. Covid is not that dangerous. Stop living in fear.
"He's praised dictators"
He did not praise them, he worked with them.
"He's promoted friends and family into positions of power. "
What politicians doesn't do that?
"He refused to divest himself of his businesses. He advertised a product from the Oval Office. "
Not true. He did not make any money off of his businesses. He signed them off.
"He ignored all summons to be held accountable for investigations. "
When?
"He failed to fill numerous vital positions for pandemic responses, foreign relations, and the general functioning of the government, even after four years. "
Which is a waste of money and time. One major problem with government is that we have too many agencies with too many people working there. One great thing Trump did was cut a lot of those agencies down so they were not longer wasteful.
And what is the general function of the government to you?
"He's undermined all political discourse in this country and labeled half of the country "the enemy." "
Because they were. They were, in no way, ever going to work with Trump. The left has lost their minds. They impeached Trump based off of nothing. They called Kavanaugh a rapist with no evidence. You have people like Warren who thinks she is an indian, or Abramms who thinks she won GA, or Harris who threw people in jail for Marijuana and laughed about it when she said she smoked it. The left is insane.
"but right now he's making extraordinary claims about our elections that, if true, mean that America is a failed state with a weak democracy, "
In many ways I agree with that. As I said, the media and social media were completely on Biden's side. They hid him and when he did speak they did not criticize him at all. Look at how they called Trump rallies "super spreader events" but when Biden supporters celebrated in large crowds in the streets and people like Schumer and Lightfoot were there not wearing masks, the media is silent. Or during the first debate the moderator refused to acknowledged that Trump did criticize white supremacy. Or even now in how the media is praising Biden for selecting Mayor Pete to be the first openly gay member of the cabinet where Trump put Richard Grenell in a cabinet position.
So yes, I agree we are failing as a state which is why we are so divided. You say I won't listen when I can point out how you are not listening. How are you not seeing the media literally protect Biden and attack Trump? Biden has made many gaffes. He has made many racist statements. With the virus he has violated many rules including wearing a mask.
Also, Trump supporters will not become violent. They will just come out and vote in 2022 and 2024.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bernie won in MN, MI, IN, WI, NE, KS, and OK. You can throw in CO as well. Clinton won MN and CO of those states. Bernie lost MO, IA, AK, IL, KY, TN and numerous other states. .
Out of those midwest states Bernie won do you really think he would have won OK, NE, IN and KS? That leaves MI and WI of those states he could possibly win.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
" In fact, our middle class and the country's overall well-being was at it's highest when taxes were outrageous... Almost 80-90%"
No one paid that high rate. For example, in 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 and paid zero dollars in federal income taxes. Also, we did well during that time because after WWII every other country was rebuilding and we weren't.
As for a simplified code, there is no one ideal tax code. It is complex with our complex economy. We are a nation of 320+ million people with varying economies and cultures. $200,000 in NYC is different than $200,000 in Iowa. At the federal level the best tax code is a flat tax with a consumption tax. Equal all across the nations. States can set different tax rates if they so desire as there are pros and cons to every system.
"have to increase deductions for middle class and decrease deductions for corporations to yield more favorable results. "
The economy is not that simple. You can have low tax rates along with high revenue. What is higher? 50% of 100 or 10% of 1000?
"Our highest tax bracket is 39.6% in the country, yet corporations only pay about 23-25% "
I disagree with the corporate tax rate at the federal level as the federal government should not discourage companies from coming here. States, can. But when they leave a state they stay in the US.
As for the tax bracket, I explained the flaws behind it with our different economies.
"Fact is, higher tax rates regulate wealth inequality. "
Wealth does not equal income. And wealth inequality is not necessarily bad. We have massive wealth inequality due to several people being in debt. That means we are so well off as a nation we allow people to take steps back before going forward. People, like me, have negative wealth due to loans where mine is a college loan. Others have home loans. As a whole the average home owner has 60% of their wealth tied into their home. The home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth, but they are still well off. The Walton family have so much wealth purely because they own half of Walmart.
" History has shown us a regulated economy produces far favorable results."
Not really.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Yes there is always some demand for better goods for people that can buy them."
You get people to buy them by creating more of them. Higher supply means lower prices. If people have more money but supply is low than prices go up. Again, you can't consume what you don't produce. That is why Henry Ford did so well, he developed a business model to build more cars faster to lower the price. More people bought them and he had more profits. When I worked for Amazon Distribution Center we had to move product at a certain rate. That way we can deliver more products to people.
"And again, these new creative products do not depend on giving the already wealthy more money."
Who said anything about giving the wealthy money? We want them to keep what they earned so they can invest it as they please. They are smart with their money, maybe they should be the one keeping it and investing it.
"And again, a new computer or something doesn't drive the economy as a whole the same way as having a strong middle class does."
It does because it makes my life easier and increases productivity. New technology does that. The cotton gin was designed to increase cotton productivity. The creator of it did not have the idea of the middle class buying it but instead farmers. That was their target consumer. The farmer wanted to buy it to produce more cotton so they can lower prices and sell more thus generating more profit. Lowering prices is going off of the idea that people don't have money but want cotton. If people had money but more cotton was not being produce than prices will go up.
"You're suffering from this fantasy that somehow we are short, or in danger of being short, of people with money to invest"
We are. Where is the incentive to work hard if you are going to have your money taken away? If you restrict businesses how will they grow? Also, if you give people money for doing nothing that money has no value. They have not produced anything, thus prices go up. Producing is good, not spending. We have to increase production which drives down prices.
"And again, it doesn't get invented by giving the rich tax breaks. You're not understanding that a strong economy ultimately depends on a healthy middle class, whether they're buying everyday goods or the latest iPhone. "
They goods won't exist if no one is producing them. If the government is going to give me money why should I work harder? Thus there will be less productivity.
"Btw, the basics of computer technology was built by government research."
Perhaps so, but what it is today is from the private sector. That is the norm. The government created the post office, Fed Ex created tracking numbers.
"I'm saying that the middle and especially lower class will quickly spend much of their money on basic needs."
Which they already have as they are alive. Also, that is not how you grow the economy. You grow the economy by having investors invest in ways to build more apartments to drive down rent, or invest in a way to drive down the price of food. We need to produce. If you give people more money without increasing the amount of apartments available then rent goes up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jesus Fingers, I have addressed the issue. They are removing deductions to simplify the tax code. Most deductions are towards the rich, but some are for the middle class. It is something like 30% of the middle class, or those earning $50,000 to $150,000, could see an increase due to the deductions being gone. But again, how many actually used those deductions? That is one issue. So as a whole they will be seeing a tax decrease. This talk of how taxes are going to increase on the middle and lower class is simply not true.
"Do you even possess the ability to speak about substantive issues without deflecting?"
I wasn't deflecting, I was expanding on the situation. Our tax code is over 70,000 pages long. Who can read that? Who can understand that? Honest question, do you know of all the deductions the middle class has right now? And how many people do you think do know?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@derrickgoodman8434 , I have, no one is denying climate change. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. The issues are how much does man play a role, is it a threat, and if it is what is the solution? People like Greta fear mongering on this complex issue does not advance us at all. Read the Nature Climate Change paper entitled
"Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous"
This is in one of the top scientific journals by actual scientists in the field. He writes
"On top of this, the alarming message conveyed by deadline-ism will only ever resonate with particular social groups, mostly those that are already predisposed to heightened concern about climate change. To others, the message can be alarmist and polarizing, alienating them and restricting the possibility for crafting enduring bipartisan solutions. Climate change is a ‘wicked social problem’, one that must be resolved and renegotiated, over and over again. Deadline-ism is at once both ineffectual and self-defeating."
Overall, creating these end of the world scenarios and pushing radical ideas turns off moderates on the issue and leads to nothing getting done. People like Greta are more of a danger to any progress on climate change.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@adnanomerhodzic3869 , take healthcare for example. Kyle is pushing the 45,000 deaths a year in the US and says that number is zero in other nations. That is not true. Amenable mortality is a thing in every nation, so every nation has people dying from "curable" cases due to lack of healthcare. Also, that 45,000 number is a hard number to obtain to begin with. Those individuals are poor and Prof. Katherine Baicker said, 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. To extend, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So their bad health is due to their life style. And as listed in the book "Being Mortal" the author there mentions how people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give access to those 45,000 and they live only 5 more months in pain and using up limited resources, is that a success?
Kyle is my favorite leftist to watch and I would love to debate him someday on the issues of economics, healthcare and climate change. I doubt that will be arranged. But reality is that Kyle only has talking points and a handful of them. He never goes beyond them and someone with more knowledge can easily tear him apart.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vibesanm I cited the study for you can read. I gave credit from what university it is at. I never said it was my work.
"Yeah, a study will take a bit of time, but they are not going to publish something about an ongoing pandemic with data from march"
Yes they will. Compare it to economics. Economic studies are published often. A study displaying economic data in January can be published in July even though the economy is still evolving. That is how research work. Life is evolving, you publish something based on previous events.
"I'm pretty sure that I struggle a lot less with science and math than you,"
I literally cited my source. It is in a Science journal. So you do not trust science? You say you struggle less with science than me, but you are the one who does not understand the peer reviewed process, and is denying a scientific paper from a university published in a peer reviewed journal.
"and if they also included data from march and said in march, the virus was prevalent probably 80 times of what the recorded numbers were, it is not relevant today."
It is as it showed how contagious it really is. He is part of their conclusion
"“Our results suggest that the overwhelming effects of COVID-19 may have less to do with the virus’ lethality and more to do with how quickly it was able to spread through communities initially,” Silverman explained. “A lower fatality rate coupled with a higher prevalence of disease and rapid growth of regional epidemics provides an alternative explanation to the large number of deaths and overcrowding of hospitals we have seen in certain areas of the world.”"
Again, you can read all of this in Penn State News article entitled
"Initial COVID-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ShiddyTimelineClubMember I am up for a debate. Issue is that far leftists refuse to see reality. To add on Bernie, many of his supporters claim that all he wants to do is follow the Scandinavian system. However, those nations have no min. wage, more of a flat tax than us, no wealth tax, lower corporate taxes, no wall street tax, a higher VAT tax, and more economic freedom. Also, their culture is vastly different.
Bernie wants a large progressive tax, a wealth tax, higher corporate taxes, a higher min. wage. And again, he thinks our culture will accept his policies.
These are things that Bernie fans continue to ignore. I am wondering why?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@1massboy
1. When asked the question about the Boston Bomber he went on a talking point rant about being a democracy and how, supposedly, republicans are doing voter suppression. That has nothing to do with the question. He was beating around the bush from the very beginning. He then simply said anyone should be allowed to vote and his reasoning was "democracy" and made the accusation that republicans are pushing for voter suppression but gave zero examples how. He also said that not allowing prisoners to vote leads to a slippery slope of not allowing others to vote. The issue is this, one, they committed a crime and went through due process. This wasn't arbitrary, it was due process. And two, you can apply that to a lot of things. Should felons be allowed to own a gun? I bet Bernie will say no. Now one can make the slippery slope argument there that not allowing felons to own guns can lead to total gun confiscation. See what I did there.
Bernie does not acknowledge there are reasons not to allow criminals to vote and if you are going to allow it than it might be a case by case basis. Bernie just ranted out talking points like usual.
2. He didn't answer the question. Go to the 5 minute mark. They asked him why he didn't take the tax breaks he opposed? He simply said "ask Trump for his tax rate". He dodged the question. In that entire point of taxes he was ranting about how the rich need to pay their fair share, that is his talking point. If he opposed the tax breaks than why did he take advantage of them? And the question was would he pay 52% he should simply answer it directly, not go on a rant about how rich need to pay more. We get it, you want the rich to pay more, that includes him. Stop beating around the bush.
3. It isn't so much about donating to government, he can donate to a charity of his choice. Why not do that for the time being? He is all about helping society, why not donate money for the time being? He is in a position to do that and he can also lead by example. Leading by example is a great motivator. Why not do it?
4. Medicare for all will not save money. People who are saying that are basing that off of many assumptions that simply won't hold. The issue with Bernie's response to that woman's question is that he had no desire to understand her situation, listen to it at the 35 minute mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bapp45Vx0UE&t=2138s
Now compare that to Bill Clinton's response in 1994 to a similar question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy542UgSelQ&t=18s
Notice how Bill understood issues businesses face? Bill took the time to look into these issues. He understood that his law will place added challenges on certain groups. There are negatives to his law but he understood that and showed in that discussion he read up on it. Bernie did not. Bernie has no desire to listen to the other side. He has no desire to sit down and consider the negatives of his ideas. That is a problem. Also, under Medicare for all that business owner will be paying more as payroll taxes will go up. It will harm her business.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"32.5% tax in Australia vs 25% tax in US. And again, not able to get care at all equals death, not being able to use the private option might mean you wait longer. Boo-fucking-hoo."
Again, no country covers everyone.
"Yeah, it's all due to the ebil guvernment! I'm sure the fact that half of all American workers earn $30,000 or less has nothing to do with this at all."
That is a very decetive stat. You have to factor in cost of living, household income, age, etc. For example, in WV it is third to last in median income, but is number 1 in home ownership rate. Also, consider that 66% of the population is between the ages of 16-64, working age. Thus 33% of the population earns $30,000 a or less. 13% of the population is between the ages of 16-24 who, on average, earn $27,000 or less. So strip out 13% of that 33% and you have 20% of the population who is older than 25 and earns $30,000 or less. Now factor in cost of living and spouses and you see your little fact is very deceptive.
"Not as arguable as you think it is."
It very much is.
"I'm not going to be able to find the numbers for every year and you know it. I, however do not buy your notion that a 9,000 drop had nothing to do with Obamacare. If it was 3,500 then maybe, but 9,000? No."
You can't find the numbers thus you cannot compare. It makees your numbers useless. You have to compare it to something. 9000 is a small portion of the overall population. Again, we are talking about 0.01% of the overall population. Numbers that small can vary greatly due to many variables.
"None due to income or death panels, which is already a giant step in the right direction."
Yes they do. Them being on a waitig list and dying can be considered a "death panal".
"Don't know and don't care."
Yeah, you know, why learn? Why question data? Just blindly follow the leader.
"Tell it to Germany and France."
I will have no problem, what's your point?
"Kidneys and other organs are rationed because there is a limited quantity of organs available, it is unpreventable. The 36,000 Americans that die every year due to poor or no health coverage? That is completely preventable. "
It is not. Read the following paper
"The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" Chest
"I've seen your idea at work and judge it a failure. "
Based on what?
"Or bribe powerful people to do their bidding. But in whyamimrpink78's universe it's apparently not immoral to bribe. "
Never said it wasn't immoral. I am just showing you the root of the problem.
"Mining companies practically enslaved their workers by paying them in company script that could only be used at company stores. Companies won't regulate themselves, contrary to libertarian dogma."
Actually, in the free market miners formed unions and work related deaths dropped. Unions are a part of the free market, but unions can do corrupting as well.
"Thus making them corrupt and a cause of further corruption. I can't believe you can't grasp this."
Again, that is because government has power to be bought.
"Again, I suggest reading up on how the corporations dealt with the first union strikes."
And look at how unions corrupt government leading to companies leaving Detroit.
"I had the power to offer an attractive enough amount of money to him"
No, you had the will to do it. The cop has the power to take it or leave it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Ok, you're just an unreasonable person. "
Your opinion.
"First, people with food insecurity aren't just "refusing to work", the
same as how a person with medical issues isn't just someone who "doesn't
care about their health." "
In many cases they are. Not saying we should not try to help them. However, no one has a right to someone's food and/or services. Also, food is a poor comparison. We have an obesity problem in this country and we produce too much food in this country. Healthcare is much more complex.
"There may be some people like that, but you want to toss out millions of
innocent people who just need some community support in order to
prevent a handful of free riders and that seems to be counter productive
in the long run"
Again, I am all for helping people, I feel the help should come from the local community. There is a desire to have government assistance, but there is also a desire to keep government under control to ensure it remains the servants and not the masters. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. I support welfare programs if they are localized like police, fire departments, libraries, and schools are. With that people can see if their money is being spent well and if government is actually working for them.
"Good luck in your glorious future where ever increasing numbers of
people die homeless in the streets, starve to death, and die from
curable or preventable disease."
For the most part that is not happening. it does, but it is rare. We are a developed nation mainly because we have been a capitalist society for decades. Our problems stem from the federal government. Also, your fear mongering ideas are not going to work on me. I do not bring up fear mongering points on your ideas. I feel with a medicare for all system we will be fine overall as a nation, just not the best we can be.
"How about thinking like a person as a part of society?"
I do, which is why I want stronger local communities and not a system where we just let the federal government run the show.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ah Jonathan, you came back
"You are stating this without any evidence what so ever."
Not true at all as there are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes amongst the poor. Look up the paper
"Poverty and Obesity in the US" in the journal Diabetes.
"The argument you are posing is that they are poor, thus most likely are
poor health, so you can't blame them dying on lack of healthcare. "
Nope. I am saying they have poor health due to personal choices meaning they are more likely to die at a younger age. Lack of healthcare has nothing to do with personal health choices.
" However you can of course attribute them dying earlier due to their
lack of healthcare if the disease they had could of been treated or
prevented with healthcare. "
And I will agree, but again, correlation does not equal causation. There are other factors at play you have to accept.
"
If you are to stupid to understand, That means if a patient could of
been treated for a known condition such as type 2 diabetes which is
insulin resistance issues when absorbing glucose, then they can be
chalked up as being a person that could be counted on that list."
Not true. General health is taught in all public schools. The idea of eating healthy and exercising is taught everywhere. Again, I agree if they had healthcare they could get insulin, but also if they just eat healthy they would have a much less chance of getting diabetes.
I also noticed how you never mentioned obesity. I guess if they could get liposuction that would help to huh.
". The argument is quite simple, any physician would say a patients life span will most likely be decreased if proper treatment or medication is not given to a patient that is suffering due to type 2 diabetes"
And any physician will agree that life expectancy will decrease if you don't eat healthy and exercise.
" Again if you know nothing of the field of medicine, please stay out of it,"
Then why are you talking? You did not mention obesity at all. So I guess eating junk food and being obese does not decrease your life expectancy?
"Thus % wise, 1.7% waited dying. However not only were the ages not shown
of which patients died which has a huge factor to play(a 95 year old vs
a 22 year old), you didn't demonstrate any statistics from the United
States to show if less patients died in our system. "
Two things, one, I agree ages are important, so you get that one. Next, 1.7% is higher than 0.02% (45,000 is 0.02% of the US). The main point, though, is that people do die on waiting list which Kyle denies.
" Not to mention, using your same logic, they literally could of died for another reason and not due to the surgery they needed. "
Which I would agree 100% with. I am consistent. You aren't.
"You see the argument you are posing is our system may be faster however
you aren't taking into account people who don't have the potential to be
on a waitlist for surgery. If you again are to stupid to understand,
that means if you have 2237 people who need the surgery, but 15% don't
have healthcare(Average % of Americans that didn't have healthcare
before ACA). Then 335 people will never be on the waitlist and if you
use the same reasoning as before, they will again die without the
surgery. "
Ah, but that is not so. According to that Harvard study only 0.02% of people die a year. And we have a lot of bankruptcy. Thus people get care, they just go broke. So would you rather be dead or broke?
"The only thing you demonstrated is that they might have longer wait times, but we will end up with higher death tolls. "
Nope, we end up with people who are bankrupt, not dead.
"Do you see why you look like a complete moron?"
Actually I don't. I just gave you a counter argument on your case. If 15% lack healthcare insurance than why is only 0.02% are dying every year, at best?
"You are arguing for wait times while kicking up the death toll in this
country. You are essentially arguing if you have 2 civilians, it is
better to have one civilian die and the other treated quickly than
having both civilians wait and treated and survive. "
To be 100% fair that is a fair argument. If that one civilian is productive and you only have resources to cover them then fine, cover them. What you are arguing is that both civilians get poor treatment. Or that one civilian dies while waiting. Something has to give.
"Another Canadian Study! Wonder why you are only linking a single country to downplay Single payer?"
Easy to find. I can find papers on others if you want. I was proving a point though in how Kyle is incorrect in what he is saying.
"Do you even read the studies you are posting or what you are arguing for? Please go get an education and stop looking like a moron. "
Again, I am a doctorate candidate. Based on your insults it is easy to see you are not educated at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I agree on cheap colleges putting you behind the curve, but the course work is the same. When there is a will there is a way. There are also internships and when you go to graduate school you just have to work harder. I did just that. I went to a cheap college and I struggled in grad school, but I am one of the top researchers in my field now.
As for employers looking where you went, only to a degree. If you have work experience and strong letters of rec you will be fine. I have been offered many jobs, but I have also worked many jobs and have several activities. For example, I became a sports official. Sports need officials in football, baseball, basketball, etc. If you did a sport in high school become an official. That looks great on a resume. Scheduling is flexible (especially in baseball and basketball), and you can get references from those individuals.
To many people just go to college. You have to do more. In the competitive field you have to simply so more. You can make it out of a cheap college, it just requires more work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Harry Lakity, SJWs are a major problem of the left. Bernie Sanders acts like a SJW a lot of times. You have identity politics that are a part of that crowd. I agree that people are not acting educated. However, the political left claims to be the more educated of the two groups and don't act like it.
Bernie was not the common man's choice. This was a guy who did not have a job until he was 40. He stole electricity from his neighbor. When approached by middle class Americans on the issues he became very perturbed. Look at how he acted towards that hair salon owner from Texas. Now compare that to how Bill Clinton approached Herman Cain on a very similar topic in 1994. Sanders has zero connection with the common man, that is why the RNC did not see him as a threat.
For each point
Weed: The political right does not care about this issue at all. That is why it is become legal and they are not making major noise.
Science: No party is "anti-science". As a scientist myself if I were to say any side is "anti-science" it is the left because they politicize it. However, politics politicize everything.
Porn: Like weed, they don't care. However, I believe I addressed the porn issue in how the left have double standards. The porn industry is really abusive towards women in that women have very little, if any protection as workers in the industry. The left preaches about "workers' rights" but are silent on that issue.
Education: As with science no party is anti-education. In fact, you bringing up "anti-education" and "anti-science" is a SJW stance. It is the same as crying "racist". When someone brings up points you disagree with you call them these names. That is not productive. Republicans are pro education, they just have a different, and legit approach at it.
Environment: Same with education and science.
Healthcare: Same with environment, education, science, etc. There are very strong arguments to the free market approach in making healthcare affordable.
And so on. As for the tiki torches, etc., that was on event. What have the white supremacists done since? Nothing. Ben Shapiro broke down where they came from. When SJWs calls the other side racists the only people who will sympathize with them are these racists. There were unheard from for years until recently. And after that one event they are no where to be seen. You say "common sense" but end up calling the right "anti-science" and "anti-affordable healthcare" as if they have no argument. They have very strong arguments. This is why I am saying the political left has problems. It is people like you that silence the other side and dismiss them which is you acting like a SJW. That is a problem.
2
-
Harry, SJW make up a large portion of the political left now. If you disagree with them they call you anti-science, anti-poor, racist, bigoted, etc. You had Bernie calling Trump a bigot with zero evidence. He gained over 40% of the votes in the primaries. You have SJW like Bernie and you shutting down the other side with name calling and labels.
"-More citizens gave their vote to Hillary than Trump.
-Hillary is less popular than Bernie.
-Bernie is the most popular politician in the USA."
More people voted for Hilary due to LA and NYC being heavily populated. That is why the electoral college exist (one of many reasons). It was so that we don't run on mob rule. If Hilary was less popular than Bernie then why did he lose? Also, nothing indicates that Bernie is popular. Any poll you point to I have read and they are approval ratings, not popularity polls. Also, Bernie was never subjected to any attack ads. If you notice those approval polls politician in high power, such as Clinton, Ryan, Trump, etc. have low ratings. Why? Because they are subjected to attack ads. But they still win. Bernie was never subjected to attack ads because the RNC wanted him to him because there is a lot of dirt on him. But fact is that Bernie, and politicians that run on his ideas, and his policies are all losing.
Weed: So, he does not write laws. He defends the government based on the laws written. Weed is still illegal federally. He will defend that stance as AG. Does not mean he supports making it illegal. Same with Ted Cruz and the dildo situation. Cruz never once said if he supported a ban on dildos. He only did his job as AG.
Science: Very few, if any republican denies evolution and climate change. Look up the court case Dover v Penn and consider that was a court appointed judge. As for funding watch the video entitled
"Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats?-Neil deGrasse Tyson".
He has a great break down on it. Answer me this, if republicans are the party for the rich why would they be opposed to funding science considering technology is how people get richer?
Porn: That was a law, not an amendment. Also, it received support from both sides.
Environment: When did Pruitt ever deny climate change? Point to me where? I will wait. Fact is he never denied it, period. He said, correctly, that we do not know to what degree man is contributing. Also, we do not know if it is a major threat.
This is why your side is losing. You claim others deny climate change when they never do.
The Paris Agreement was a very bad deal that everyone should oppose. Just because you sign something that looks good on the surface does not mean it was good. Do you support the Patriot Act? if not you are not a patriot according to the title (for the record I don't support it, I am just showing you how presenting something in one way does not make it good overall).
Healthcare: When put up to a vote in Colorado, a left leaning state that supported Bernie in the primaries, 80% said no to universal healthcare. People voted for republicans who ran on repealing Obamacare. Also, pointing to polls is not an argument. You said "affordable healthcare". Just because the people supposedly support something does not mean it is affordable.
"Do you really feel silenced and dismissed? "
Yes, because when you label people as "anti-science" or "anti-affordable healthcare" and so on you are dismissing their argument from the beginning. I am a scientist myself. I am working on my PhD in physical chemistry. I have four peer reviewed papers published. I support Pruitt as the head of the EPA. Does that make me anti-science because I support him? If you say yes you have to remember that I work as a scientist for a living. I work as a scientist to pay my rent, to eat food, pay my bills, etc. How can I be against something I do for a living?
You label people who disagree with you as such. I will not label you as anti-science even though I disagree with your viewpoints on climate change and I can break your viewpoint down to where I can make you look like you are anti-science. I will not call you anti-affordable healthcare even though I can break down your arguments to where it would make you seem like you are. I won't label you. Why? Because I can have a debate on these topics. I can dig deep in them and discuss the issues with label. I can do so giving you the benefit of the doubt that you do want to better people's lives that you are just misinformed or simply have a different opinion for what ever reasons. As long as they are legit I am fine with that. But you labeling people like you do makes you a SJW. I just proved to you that republicans are not anti-science and are not anti-affordable healthcare. I have torn about your entire stance on the issue because you immediately went to labels and said they had bad arguments.
That is why democrats are not doing well, they have bad arguments.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Christian, easy.
1. He says the guy was able to buy a gun legally which isn't true. When dishonorably discharged you can't buy a gun. He lied on his application and slipped through the cracks. The law exists, and I agree it needs to be enforced better, but in the end background checks exist.
2. The fact that are deadliest mass shootings have happened recently is because of our poor economy and the fact our population is larger. More people more deaths.
3. The law Trump changed was that people will only be denied guns after due process. Same as "no fly no buy" is not done with due process. You can't take away rights without due process. Also, that law had nothing to do with this shooting. Even at that many people can't manage their finances but are not violent.
4. The 93% wanting background checks is deceptive. If you ask me I will say "yes, but those laws already exist". Also, when put to a vote in NV and Maine background checks failed to pass in Maine and passed in NV by only 0.45%.
5. Him asking the AR-15 is legal is foolish as there are much deadlier guns.
6. High capacity magazine ban is pointless as they can still reload quickly (look up the VA Tech shooting)
7. The 10,000 murders is deceptive. Many are justified by cops or citizens defending themselves. And around 1/4 of them are isolated in four cities, Baltimore, DC, Detroit and Chicago.
That is most of it. I can find a few more but that is good enough.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Show me a study that links black's attitudes to GPA and gang activity. You have none."
It isn't a study, it it correlation. You will see that there is lower GPA for black people and higher gang activity. That is because of attitude. High school is not challenging, and it does not take much to not participate in gang activity.
On your first study, they do not link the study nor give the title. So how can I trust this study when it is not even listed? The article you linked is hiding things because if you actually read these studies you will find shortcomings. For example, what schools did they study? What part of the country did they study? What was the income of those schools? What was the experience level of those teachers? And so on. None of that is listed in your article which does not give the name of the study.
However, if that is so true, why do they continue to get lower GPAs?
"But you would rather go with the interpretation that shits on black people. (I wonder why)."
It isn't about "shit on black people". I find that comment to be immature. It is about being blunt. You have a poor attitude you will struggle in life, period. In comparison there are higher rates of obesity and smoking amongst poor people. It doesn't take much to eat healthy, exercise a little bit, and not smoke. That too is bad attitude.
"Proximity. You merely participate in activity that your peers
participate it. If you are in an impoverish area, you will be more
likely to participate in gang activity."
And that is related to attitude. Why aren't the parents involved in keeping kids out of gangs? Again, attitude. Why are there a lot of single mothers with the black community? Attitude. And just because you live in an area of high gang activity does not mean you have to participate.
"Plus, a lack of positive role models contributes especially in inner
cities where fathers are stripped away by an unfair criminal justice
system that disproportionately punishes them."
Why did they break the law to begin with? You are complaining about an unfair criminal justice system, why did they break the law? As for role models, there are plenty of success black people in our society, why aren't they role models?
"I am not sure what you mean by "hard" but lots of kids don't try "hard" in school"
That is simply not true. Simply showing up to school will get you graduated. When graduation rates are in the 70% for blacks that is not trying hard.
"Again, studies indicate that even their effort has something to do with
race. If they percieve racism around them, it makes it less likely for
them to try hard. A couple of studies indicate this. Figures in
authority showing less bias can lead to at least a 2.5% increase in
effort put forward."
I will have to read that study. To start, they reference other studies in their introduction but do no clearly state the conclusions of those studies. I find that careless coming from the academic background. But I can give that a pass. However, reading farther they list some problems for blacks were school segregation and voting segregation, both from the 50s. That is very old references to point at in a 2004 study as schools are, by law, no longer segregated. Also, voting isn't at all. As for school segregation, schools are very segregated, but that is by choice, not force now. At that point I see that as attitude as members of the black community simply do not want to move out and put their kids in other schools even though they have a choice.
Continuing
"
First, increasing proportion black in the local area may strengthen thetendency for black workers to be channeled into predominantly blackjobs."
What jobs? List them.
Reading the study more some factors I am not seeing them account for are education attainment (not level but degree, course work, etc.), GPA, proximity of jobs, references, prior work experience (they had "potential experience"), etc.
I am seeing some flaws in this study. Did you even read it?
" Sigh. Sorry, I often forget I'm starting at square one with everbody. I
am not saying the country is racist. I am saying everyone (white, black,
hispanic, asian, etc) has racial biases against blacks. "
What? How? The same country that elected a black president?
"The specific thing you are talking about is internalized racism within
the black community. Because of societal expectations, some Blacks see
each other as being "inferior" in some way and act accordingly. However,
you only want to thrust this negative attitude upon blacks. The entire
society, according to studies, seem to see blacks in a lower light"
It is stereotypes, and stereotypes exist for a reason. But let us look at this, if you are in the ghetto, or a bad neighborhood of some kind, would you be more cautious and aware of your surroundings? I would regardless of race. In my city the ghettos have a lot of white people. I went to the Subway the other day and saw a questionable white guy wearing bagging jeans and had a lady in the car with marks on her face. Found out later that person was a drug dealer and the lady was a meth addict and a hooker. By his body language and what he was wearing was enough for me to question him and I was more alert. Race had nothing to do with it.
Same thing, if you are on a college campus on a Tuesday morning you are going to feel safe around almost anyone black or white. However, most black people are poor and live in ghettos. Black people, statistically, commit more violent crimes. The stereotype exists. Extend that to schools, you have a Title I schools you will have lower expectations for those kids no matter what race. Most of them happen to be blacks. You can look at the zip code of a school and have lower expectations of those kids regardless of race.
Race has very little to almost nothing to do with it. You are trying to make it out like it is, however, it isn't.
"Exactly. So don't fucking make claims about it if you cannot measure attitude with numbers."
That is the point, you can't measure attitude with numbers. It can account for that 20%. What is the old saying? Body language is 90% communication? According to Dr. Jeff Thomson it isn't that simple, but for the most part is it. He says it is 55% body language, 38% tone of voice, and 7% actual words spoken.
To give a couple of examples, look at Obama. While I disagreed with his policies he was great at communicating. He body language was that of standing in an assertive way, he tone of his voice as assertive but calm, and the words he spoke made him sound like an intellectual.
Now back to that white guy at that Subway. Wearing bagging jeans, cursing while talking, walking around sketch like, etc. That is suspicious.
Now in the court room an attitude like that can make up for that 20%. Again, you can't measure it which is why these statistics are only correlation, not causation.
"But that's the problem, dude. You do not have a study that leads us to
believe that black people have different attitudes from whites in the
first place."
And neither do you. However, again, lower GPA, lower high school graduation rates, higher rates of single mothers, high rates of violent crime, higher rates gang activity.
"However, there are numerous studies in which attitude would not even play a ROLE"
If you want to play that game how about the guy who gave himself a black sounding name to get into medical school? Vijay Chokal-Ingam went with his middle name which sounded more black and he got accepted.
"I am making my case on actual STUDIES "
You gave three studies. One did not even link the study, the other I question if you even read, (I did and quoted it), your third study is from 2001 where the data is very old in a sociological study. If you are going to cite studies please know what is in them.
"This is the case with any study but unless you have data that directly
suggests that there is a difference in "attitude" among blacks when they
go to trial (and that data would be subjective anyway) the most
reasonble conclusion to draw is that racial bias is playing a role. "
100% not true, that is not how studies work. Any academic will be ridiculed for making such as strong claim. All they do is show correlation, period.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Therapistinthewhitehouse , wealth are assets. The reason why the top has so much wealth is because most are major shareholders of their company. The shares are valued so high because they own so many shares. It shows that they are willing to stand by their company. If they did not own so many shares people will see that as a red flag and not invest causing the value of the shares to drop. It is a little game they play and it works. Think about it, if you want to invest in Amazon and Bezos did not own a single share of it, would you be willing to take the risk? Bezos owns nearly 60 million shares of Amazon because he trusts his company. That trust brings in investors. But think about what shares are. Are they food, clothes, oil, or even M1 money? No.
Next, beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. The average homeowner has 30 times more wealth then a renter.
Going farther, someone with no debt and only $10 to their name has more wealth then 25% of the nation. Why? Because a lot of people, like me, have negative wealth due to major loans like a home or college loan. That is arguably a good thing as it shows investors are willing to take risks and give money to people on a loan knowing the chances are high they will pay it back. It allows people to pull out loans to make big purchases so they can be better off. How many people would be able to afford a home if they could not get a loan?
You consider all of that you realize that wealth inequality is not necessarily bad but arguably a good thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@d0wnl0ad , just because someone got wealthy does not mean others got poor. In fact, in a free market economy the only way someone can become wealthy is by providing goods and services people want. Bezos became rich by offering a more convenient way for people to shop bettering their lives.
Read the report
"Reducing poverty, not inequality"
By MARTIN FELDSTEIN
Also, while some evidence exist that inequality can cause problems, it is not clear how to measure inequality. Read the paper entitled
"Measuring inequality"
In the Oxford Review of Economic Inequality
They say essentially what I am saying when talking about wealth
"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."
As I said, a man with no debt and $10 to their name has more wealth than 25% of the nation. So by your standard that man with only $10 should have their wealth taken from them and given to me who has negative wealth. But who is better off? Me with my college loan or the man with nothing else but $10?
As for illiquid, it is what I am talking about with shares. They are not liquidated and if someone like Bezos were to dump all of their shares it will send a red flag to investors where they will not be willing to buy and thus the value will drop.
So when you say "wealth inequality" you are over simplifying a complex issue.
As for climate change read the paper entitled
"Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous"
in Nature Climate Change.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
" I was directly responding to a comment based on feelings, "
You were because you are making the assumption that if it were one of my kids I would feel differently about the situation. To start, no. Next, I am one person out of millions. My one experience does not dictate the norm.
" Emotions don't need to "get in the way of" reasoning and facts,"
Yes they do.
"but the fact is that that is more gun deaths than elsewhere. "
If you want to discuss that we can. I will agree with Randy that 200 a year is essentially not measurable in a country of 320+ million people. You also have to consider the various reasons why it happened. What is suicides? Was it accidents? Maybe gang related? A 2 year old being shot accidentally is being placed in the same category as a 16 year old being shot in a gang related crime.
Now beyond that again, 200 is very small. In the large scale that is essentially zero. Maybe in other countries that number is zero. Now why? Is it culture? Is it their gun laws? Is it and expanded police force? Is it the population density? With numbers so small you going to have a very hard time find the exact reason why.
"Past gun incidents and just everyday experience indicates to me that
people often respond more to events that personally impact them"
And I would agree which is why our government is designed the way it is, to prevent emotions from getting in the way of logic and reasoning.
"I don't know if you typically judge entire statements or texts based on the first line you see,"
Depends. By the way you start it I do. You are wanting to stir up my emotions to persuade me to think like you, or get me to think irrationally with my emotions.
" Your comment is based on emotion and ignores the fact that the first line of a text is not necessarily indicative of the rest"
Again, you are starting out in a way to create the environment to influence my thought process more. You are stirring up my emotions. In the court of law and in debates people have opening statements for that reason, to create an environment to manipulate their judgement if needed. You are trying to stir up my emotions from the get go by making me consider if I had a child. That does not work for me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Vic2point0 , that is Kyle for you. What he does is takes some stat and then runs with it appealing to emotion. You are correct on the 78% living paycheck to paycheck stat. How many of those are because of poor money management? Over 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt. There is a correlation there. Not saying it is a non issue, but you have to consider other factors.
To give an example, Kyle pointed to a stat Bernie pointed to about 500,000 medical bankruptcies a year. He then runs with it on an appeal to emotion argument. Meanwhile, in a paper published in the NEJM, the journal with the highest impact factor, they argued that those numbers are over state. The paper is entitled
"Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies"
They say
"But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems."
Overall, Kyle is a part of the problem. He completely ignores the other side of the argument, he completely ignores other factors, he completely ignores the issue as a whole. He was exposed in the debate against Kirk. The sad part is that his fans still feel he won.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The Great Depression began in 1929, when Hoover was President"
The recession started in 1929, under FDR it turned into a depression due to slow recovery. Many do criticize FDR for his actions. No other recession took that long to recover from except for the Great Recession of 2007. Both times were also the only times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending.
"The unemployment rate ballooned, and then it peaked in 1933. FDR's New Deal helped the unemployment rate decrease after 1933."
It went back up shortly afterwards.
"Reagan was the one who wanted to implement trickle-down economics, and he did just that."
We got out of a recession from the late 70s early 80s and had strong economic growth.
"Reagan tried cutting taxes again in 1986. By 1990, we were in another recession. "
Look at FRED data, we have had many recessions. We had one in the late 40s, twice in the 50s, twice in the 70s. etc. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. Under FDR and under Obama we had the slowest recover from a recession ever.
"Bush (the second one) wanted to implement trickle-down economics as well, and he also did just that. "
"Trickle down economics is not even an economic term. Under Bush you had the 9/11 attack but even at that there still was a strong economy. What hurt was low 20 year interest rates which inflated the housing bubble. The Fed did not raise interest rates.
"What caused the bubble? "
Low interest rates on housing.
Again, study economics. It is clear you never studied economics.
2
-
"The New Deal helped put millions of Americans back to work. By 1937, the
unemployment rate dropped to 14% (down from 25% in 1933).
Not only that, but from 1934 to 1936, the economy grew at a rate of 9 to
12%. In fact, by 1936, the GDP had surpassed its 1929 levels."
It didn't help as unemployment started to go back up and we had another recession. That is why it was called the "Great Depression", it lasted for nearly a decade. The New Deal created artificial growth as it was not long term and the economy crashed again. It was similar to the stimulus package and programs like "cash for clunkers" put for by Obama, it was not long term as those programs are never long term and thus you have limited growth.
"It was already a depression BEFORE Roosevelt took office."
No, it was a recession. It became a depression due to the longevity of it.
"As for the recovery, if you think a country can quickly recover from a
25% unemployment rate in a short amount of time, you're not only stupid;"
It has. It was close to that in 1921 where the government did nothing and within a year we recovered. Also, there is more to a recession than just unemployment. NBER uses that along with GDP growth, personal income, etc.
I will give you several links to read in another comment.
"The economic growth didn't start until AFTER Reagan undid most of his tax cuts in 1982."
What? Reagan did not undo his tax cuts.
"
The difference is that these recessions (with the exception of the one
in the 70s) were minor, and recovery was quick because of the New Deal
programs that were in place."
Explain the recession of 1921. Explain the Panic of 1873 and 1837. They were quick in recovery.
"Don't give me any of that "trickle-down economics isn't even a real
term" crap. It is just as dumb as communists saying "Stalinism isn't
real communism"."
"Trickle down economics" is used by either economic illiterates or politicians as it is not an economic term. Which one are you?
"There was also the tax cuts from the early 2000s and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (which removed a lot of the regulations on Wall Street). Those two factors were far more influential in causing the late 2000s recession."
Glass Steagall did not cause the recession and many experts agree. The tax cuts did not cause the housing bubble which was the major source of the recession.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Baker, that article was not a fair analysis of Shapiro, it had an agenda and it proved it at the very beginning by saying there are no intellectuals on the right. There are. There are many intellectuals on both sides.
I can break down the article even farther. It was about how black people are poor because of culture. Shapiro said that if you work full time, have a high school diploma and have kids after you are married chances are low you won't be poor. The article counters by saying that blacks have a hard time in getting a job to begin with. Well, one major reason is because they graduate at nearly a 20% lower rate from high schools compared to whites. They also commit more crimes. That comes back to what Shapiro was saying in that it is the culture, not racism that leads to them being in poverty.
They list another study about receiving a call back in a job between whites and blacks with criminal records. They ignore the type of crime, references, how long ago the crime was, job history, etc. There are several things missing.
As for the correlation vs causation, that article listed that because it is true that there are many factors you cannot measure that influence the difference in sentencing. Attitude in the court room and dress are a couple. As I mentioned earlier, there is nearly a 20% difference in high school graduation rates between blacks and whites. Are high schools refusing to give blacks diplomas?
The fact is that the article did not give a fair analysis of Shapiro. It really scraped the bottom of the barrel to come up with a joke of an article. But again, he starts out by saying there are no intellectuals on the right which is completely not true.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
". US is worse off than Europe (context) and people are struggling to make ends meat (perception)."
People in the US and Europe are on par with each other. Saying the US is worse off than Europe is not based on anything objectively.
"Still there is no denying that healthcare system in the US is inept, for the lower classes at least,"
It has shortcomings, but so does every system. In the US I will admit it is not good for the lower class, as in the extreme poor. But in other countries it is not good for people with extreme cases as they lack in quality. On both situations you have to ask yourself who do you want to help? The poor who produce nothing or the person with the extreme situation that will be limited in productivity as well?
It is a challenge every system faces.
"Before I understand your opposition to wealth distribution, what exactly
is your aim ? As in what do you hope to achieve, beyond principles."
Ultimately I want to push for a better society. But a lot of times I want to drag people to the middle before we can start a conversation. Take this issue for example, people are crying about wealth inequality and about how bad it is. But when you look at the numbers and start to break them down and put them in perspective, wealth inequality is not always bad. In my opinion it is more good than bad.
It comes down to people have to understand what wealth is and how it is created and defined. If you look at my situation I have negative wealth due to my massive student loans. But I am still fine overall. The Walton family owns a lot of wealth due to them owning half of Walmart meaning the stores, the trucks, the land, etc. That is why they have so much wealth, they own half of a multi-billion dollar company. If you were to give that company to anyone in these comment sections, including me, that company will decline in value a lot simply because we would not be able to handle the that situation. Very few can.
Wealth isn't something finite, it changes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Several flaws here. On, she, herself, cannot do that. You have different branches of government. Next, how far are you willing to go with the "saving my life"? Why not force people to wear helmets? You bring up seat belts, going with driving there are still 40,000 deaths a year due to traffic accidents. Capping speed limits to 15 MPH will make that number to be zero. But productivity will drop which will cause more damage.
Now take this virus, shutting down businesses may have slowed down the spread but one, there is no hard evidence for that. Many states had strict lockdowns with terrible results. Next, shutting down the businesses did a lot of harm to the economy and individuals as well.
Also, in seat belt laws, like all laws, it took an act of congress, many elected officials working on it and there is a reason why seat belt laws exist. It isn't so much to protect you. It is that in all 50 states car insurance is required and a part of keeping car insurance cost low is to require seat belts to be worn. It isn't arbitrary as say shutting down businesses due to a virus.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
PaleGhose69
"Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. "
I agree, but it says a lot. People there have a different culture. What is "poor" to you is not "poor" to them. You may look at my situation and see that I earn $23,000 a year. You may call that poor. In reality I am not. Someone, as in my friend earning $60,000 a year and lives with their parents may be considered poor, but they are fine. Those in that situation are fine. You are on the outside looking in.
" In your own state of West Virginia Lottery Spending Per Person is $359.78"
I would like to see a source for that.
" And if you look at the states that spend the most on lottery per
person, it lines up scarily with the Poverty percentage I shared before."
Again, I would like to see a source for that.
" YES, YOU SPASTIC FUCKING MORON. THAT IS THE PROBLEM! WHAT PART OF
LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. PEOPLE WHO BUY LOTTERY
ACCOUNT FOR ONLY 30% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION!"
And? What's your point.
"Businesses fail for more reasons than money management. "
I agree, but that is a part of it.
"Average Income: $55,775
Average graduate Income: $50,556
Average Expenditures: $57,311"
I would like to see a source for that as well. However, using an average is deceptive. Median is better to use as an average can be skewed by outliers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@NeonNights80 via the media, academics, the entertainment industry, etc. The state houses you talk about are the fly over states that many hardly know exist. Consider how many people do not know there is a Kansas City, MO despite it having two major sport franchises.
The power lies in the spread of information. You have the media basically going as far as ridiculing those on the right. You have academics and members of entertainment shoving left wing ideas, mainly social ones, in people's faces while mocking those that oppose them. The issue is that those on the right and moderates have no platform to express their concerns, and when someone tries they get ridiculed and call names. You saw that with Trump. He said a lot of what is on people's minds and he was called a racist, bigot, white supremacist, etc.
2
-
@phxcppdvlazi if you want to call them left or liberals that is fine, they are still a group of bullies.
Here is a quote on Trump condemning white supremacy
On August 14
"As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.
And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."
And on August 15
"Reporter, Aug. 15, 2017: You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides …
Trump: Well, I do think there’s blame – yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.
Reporter: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville. …
Trump: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo — and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. …
It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too."
At this point I feel it will take Trump literally killing white supremacists himself to prove he condemns them, but then you guys will call him a law breaker and murderer.
There is no winning with you guys.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To dissect your comment
"Kyle- 45,000 people die every year in the US because they don't have
access to basic healthcare. That number in Canada and Norway, Denmark,
Iceland, and Sweden is zero.
Razor- ya, and ,and that's invariably what you'll fall back on. but more
people have access...
Kyle- because it's true. That's why I fall back on it."
That 45,000 is very deceptive. To start, you have no research from other countries to make a comparison. Kyle says, falsely, that no one dies in other nations due to lack of access. As I showed they do. Next, 45,000 is 0.01% of the population. Around 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents, around 40,000 a diagnosed with HIV in comparison. Also, those 45,000 are poor to begin with where there are higher rates of poverty, smoking and type II diabetes with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Thus that 45,000 is a number that is not accurate and prone to many variables.
"Kykle- The people in Canada disagree. The people in Norway disagree.
Apparently they have the magic Harry Potter wand, because they're making
it work right now and our system is not working.
"
Again, I showed how in other nations people die. Look at these papers
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic
stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among
29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
Those are the titles and journals. This is where Kyle is factually incorrect. Next, saying "people disagree" is not an argument. One, the people being polled are not experts. Next, they have not experienced other systems, typically. So you cannot take what they say seriously.
I felt both Razorfist and Kyle were weak here. Many say Kyle won this because he cited one study despite the plethora of studies to counter it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Zack West, your usefulness of marijuana is in a control atmosphere with professionals. As I did in comparing it to brain surgery. That can be dangerous and deadly, but in a control setting with professionals it is. Same with guns, just allowing trained government officials to have guns is in a control setting. What I am asking for is consistency. People want to ban guns on the idea it has no use besides killing people. You can say that marijuana and alcohol have no use besides messing people up. And yes, you gave them uses, but only in control settings like the government being the only owners of guns.
Now again, I am not for the banning of marijuana, and I feel it has uses for the public in simply relaxing. But objectively it doesn't. Guns have uses as well. People enjoy going targeting practicing to relax. To each their own . But again, I am being consistent.
So now you pointed at five accidents in four different years. Wow. That sounds like a major problem in a country of 320+ million people. I mean, I guess we should ban guns. I guess you also feel we should ban driving as over 30,000 die in traffic accidents a year. That number is much higher than deaths by accidental gun shootings. Over 3000 die drowning every year. We have people with private pools that are not controlled with lifeguards. Maybe we should ban private pools. In comparison there are around 500 deaths by accidental gun shootings.
So again, I ask you to remain consistent. 500 is negligible in a country of 320+ million. But you are making a big deal about those accidents which are what they are, accidents. But I bet you would not support banning driving when far more die in accidents, or the banning of private pools.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Mrpink, the difference between guns, cars, and pools is that 1)
(Edited:) A pool, unlike the other two, cannot be used to endanger
someone else."
Actually it can. At a party liquid nitrogen was poor into a pool nearly killing people.
"If you buy a pool and don't know how to swim, chances are that you either just won't be using it"
What makes you think that?
" It's silly to conflate accidental deaths from drowning with gun accidents because they are not the same."
Why? They are both accidents. I see no difference.
"Just because you buy a pool doesn't mean you're going to use it"
Same with a gun. I own four and hardly shoot them.
"unlike with a gun--which still puts someone in danger even if they never use it."
How? I have never seen a gun shoot itself.
"Presuming that you are not incorrect, if your state does have that lax of driving tests, then that needs to be changed"
Why? We are around average in terms of driving related deaths. In fact, WY has stricter training laws and more deaths. My state, MO, had around 14.3 per 100,000. WY has around 24 per 100,000.
" I have never heard of a state where you don't need to take a fairly regimented test to be able to get a driver's license. "
We have to take a test. We have to pass a written exam, we get a permit, we have to do 50 hours of driving with a license driver, and then take a driving exam. That 50 hours can be fudged and can be done in any way. It doesn't have to be in snow, in traffic, in the country, etc. It just has to be 50 hours. For me I drove from MO to MN and back all free way. No traffic, no snow. That ate up a lot of hours. You don't have to monitor it either. Very vague.
"A 9 year old shouldn't be able to drive, a 9 year old shouldn't be given an Uzi"
I was driving when I was nine around the farm no problem.
"Generally speaking, cars are regulated. "
So are guns.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
tim, you can't bring up "economies of scale". To do that you have to assume that everyone is the same. It isn't that easy. The larger the population the more diverse it is. A larger diversity means different cultures. How many nations have 100+ million people, with universal healthcare and a strong economy? You will be hard pressed to find one. Maybe Japan, but they are in major debt. The fact is the smaller the population the easier it is to micromanage those programs. I find it ironic how the left praises diversity and how people are different but when it comes to these welfare programs they all of a sudden think we are all the same, act the same, have the same lifestyles, etc.
On that 7000 stat, it is in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
It isn't about me liking the people doing it. Ever heard of the book "How to Lie with Statistics" or the phrase "Lies, damn lies, and statistics"? I pointed out the flaws in that study. On life expectancy two professors showed that by remove car accidents and murders the US becomes number 1 in life expectancy. I pointed you to a paper that talked about amenable deaths and the many variables associated with it. Read the book "Debunking Utopia". There the author explains how in other nations they have lower obesity and smoking rates and the people there live healthier lifestyles. There are factors beyond healthcare that influences those stats that "study" uses. All that study did was take stats, arbitrarily weigh them and create a ranking to make the US look bad. Someone could just as easily create a ranking where the US is number one. Noticed how these rankings come from special interest groups and no academics? That is because in academics they understand that these rankings are arbitrary and easily challenged. As someone pursuing my PhD myself I understand it.
Again, it isn't about me liking the or not. I am pointing out numerous flaws. I will ask you again, do you even know how they created that ranking? How much do you know about the CWF? What are their credentials? To me you are just blindly supporting something. At the very least you should understand their methods and credentials. Is that so wrong?
A sporty population can arguably lead to more injuries, especially with football. But I love how you just called me an idiot and had no real rebuttal. All you did was do character assassinations on me. You never gave an actual rebuttal. This is why many people are calling ultra leftists like AOC a joke.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Brad P, so when Ann does not debate Kyle Ann is clearly scared. Is that right? I mean, that is what Kyle's fans are saying. Kyle, who has around 30,000 views a video, and has not accomplished anything, is clearly a well known person that Ann, a person with a law degree, who wrote many books, and has been on many big shows, should know about.
I love the double standards Kyle's fans have.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@colm9419 , healthcare is a complex issue. I will admit that M4A might be the best solution. I don't think so, but I am open to the idea as long as the supporters of it are willing to have the difficult conversation. The problem is that the far left is not willing to have difficult conversations and simply feel that M4A will cover every with the same level of care we have now at a lower price. That is 100% not true.
We can cover everyone and if we have the same level of care the cost will be huge. Bernie's plan wants to cover everyone but lower costs by 40% with a 40% less payout. So at that point you have to sacrifice something and at that point it will be quality and access.
Here is the reality, nations with single payer systems have a system that works well for very basic care and does offer something to the poor where in the US the poor do go bankrupt and there is some evidence that people end up dying. But in those nations the cost is the fact that people are denied advanced treatment and end up worse off or even dying. People are dying in Canada being denied heart surgery, up to 7000 people are dying a year in Australia waiting for "elective surgery". People are going blind in the UK being denied cataract surgery.
In the US the poor do suffer with bankruptcies and in some cases death, but the very sick do get care and we have higher survival rates for severe illnesses. That is because when we seek care we get all the testings offered to us. Other nations don't do that. For example, when I hurt my knee every analysis showed it was a high chance it would be simply a dislocation. But they gave me an MRI where I waited three days and got it to look for farther damage, there was none. Now compare that to this story
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486789/Natasha-16-complained-headaches-She-died-13-doctors-failed-diagnose-brain-tumour.html
If you look at the statistics chance are that he case was simply a migraine. In the US they would have offered an MRI much sooner and she would not have waited a long time increasing her chance of living. .
Reality is something has to give. With single payer yes the poor will benefit, but the very sick will suffer and some will suffer being denied advanced care. In the US the very sick get treated and cured and advanced testing does catch those rare cases something is more severe than expected, but the poor suffer.
This is where the difficult conversations begin. Statistically, what is best for society? Also, what does society really want? Just look at the US. Yes, our poor go bankrupt and in some cases end up dying, but consider how many are poor due to not being responsible. And also consider how the poor are in bad health because of poor lifestyle choices where, as outlined in this article, even with access to care their health is still poor
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
But on the flip side people who are very sick are typically old and are close to death to begin with. As mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" people seek modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live another 5 or 10 months. And how much do the very sick really produce compare to the very poor? And with advanced testing, catching that instant where a situation is worse than expected is rare.
These are the difficult points the far left refuses to take on. If M4A, under Bernie's plan, is the route to go you have to convince millions of Americans that their taxes will go up and the access to many advance form of care will drop no matter how sick you are. And as for rationing, here is a good article on that
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415127/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BB-nm6oz the media is bad.
"If you are talking about not covered stories. There are countless acts of white supremacy being covered up or ignored. Most obvious case is the young man who killed a blm protester and critically injured two others. Trump nor the media really covered that one. That young man age 17 not only killed and injured people, but also broke two laws. "
That kid was being attacked. The media listed him as a mass shooter, I do not know of times when people ran towards a mass shooter. If you watch the video when he pulled out the gun one person put his hands up and backed away. Guess what happened to him? Nothing. He was not shot at. The people who were shot attacked that kid. Those who backed off were not shot.
Again, do not watch the MSM, they are lying to you. He was defending himself, period.
"The second is that he had an assault weapon,"
Define an "assault weapon"? By definition a baseball bat is an "assault weapon".
The shift in the goal posts is by the left. The whole idea was to keep hospitalizations and deaths down, we have done that. Time to open back up.
You do know that Roe v Wade is not the actual abortion case of interest? Casey v Planned Parenthood is.
Again, stop listening to the MSM, do some research.
You bring up Trump's bankruptcy. With success comes failure. Michael Jordan's shooting percentage was under 50%. Mariano Rivera blew game 7 of the 2001 World Series. Walt Disney was denied a job for not being "creative enough". Failure is common for those with success.
In fact, I am also pursuing my MBA. In one book in one of my classes is entitled "Switch". There they talk about failure and how many will fail before they succeed. With failure comes a learning process and thus success.
Trump cares about people. He took a paycut to become president. Most who work for him did as well. Also, he never called the virus a hoax. Again, do research, stop watching the MSM.
As for branding, at this point I have to assume you are young. Trump was a big name for decades. He appeared on Home Alone 2, The Little Rascals, and an episode of Fresh Prince. He has been well known for years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
FC 34, there is plenty of evidence that raising the min. wage has killed employment.
To start, the idea that businesses hire workers they need is vague. Depending on the businesses you run that can create many situations. Businesses who typically pay the min. wage have high turnover and thus hire many workers knowing that. They also offer flexible scheduling. They may also hire more to take work loads off of other employees. If you make employment too high to hire they will cut. There are many ways they can do that. They can decide to do with less or close the business down during certain hours. A business that is 24 hours can change to be open from 5 AM to 11 PM. A franchise owners of 15 McDonalds can move down to 10 and close down the 5 that generate the least amount of profits.
Other countries with higher min. wage have many issues. In Australia cost of living is high. Also, there is more to an economy than the min. wage.
Someone being born rich does have an advantage, but there is more to it than that. That requires a nature vs nurture argument that is complex. In all they still have to work hard.
There is more to the employee pay argument than you are making. The business has to pay taxes, rent, shipping costs, etc. So that one employee makes 3 items at $50 an item. That is $150. Minus $7 now the company has $143. But now say add in rent, and paying to ship it, and paying for parts, paying for utilities, etc. Now that company is probably earning only 3%, or around $4.5/hr. So the company is earning less per hour than the employee.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You are wrong in many ways. To start, they were BLM riots. And before you go on the whole "mostly peaceful" route, BLM nor those supporting them condemned the riots. Maybe some did, but they were not loud enough. You have Maxine Waters telling people to get more confrontational and the Mayor of Portland standing by the riots.
Next, a big problem of BLM is that they jump to conclusions way too early. Look at Jakob Blake. They immediately rioted and claimed it was injustice when evidence showed it was not. With George Floyd people were immediately jumping to the conclusion that Chauvin was in the wrong and racist even before an investigation game. But after an investigation you will see the cops trying to help Floyd, he refused to get out of the car, he said he could not breath while standing up, he was high on drugs and in bad health overall and thus any high stress situation would cause him to have a heart attack. But BLM just jumped to the conclusion that it was injustice and it was only happening to blacks. Well, look at Tony Timpa.
With that, even after an investigation you have several things. One, if that is typical police practice then discussions should be considered in changing that. Or with Chauvin being found guilty it does not mean he was a racist. But even at that Floyd is all you have compared to the many times the police were in the right of doing the actions they did. Also, what does destroying private business help?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mehdihatami3391 part of the full story is the idea that herd immunity is being met. Look at states like RI, NY, NJ, etc., their 7 day average of new cases has dropped a lot. States like FL, AZ, NV, TX, etc. are reaching their peaks by my numbers. That means the spread is going to be less. There is evidence that many more than what is being recorded had the virus. That means it is not that deadly. However, to add, yes, over 100,000 have died from it and we have to be careful.
I feel herd immunity will be met by mid fall and we can get back to normal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelweir9666 , I appreciate that.
I support government involvement, I just want it to work for the people. To me that happens when you have government as local as possible. Milton Friedman brought this up during a Q&A session. When government is local people can see if they are getting their money's worth through government spending. There is a desire to have government, government spending and government regulations. For example, I just bought a car from a dealership. I enjoyed the security knowing that they can't rip me off. If they did in some way I can have the law on my side. But the laws were state laws, not federal.
To go deeper I grew up in a rural area. We essentially knew everyone. When I went to the dentist, or my mechanic, or doctor, or grocery store, I personally knew them and knew I won't get ripped off. In rural areas there is less of a desire to have laws and regulations and taxes. In very rural areas there are streets with zero stop signs. There is no desire to have one. They have volunteer fire fighters. Now I live in a city. I know fewer people. I don't even know my neighbors. When issues came up such as needing a mechanic, a doctor, shopping, buying a car, etc. I don't know many people that well. Thus there is a desire to have laws in place to ensure that people don't become victims. Overall, it varies by the place. That is why I support more local government. Also, in the city I live in you need stop signs at every street corner, or stop lights.
My problem with the far left is they want to centralize everything. I see value in their ideas, but centralizing it is, in my opinion, not the solution. We need to keep government local. The more local it is the less corrupt it is. Consider this, how many members of congress can you vote for? Now how many of your city representatives can you vote for? I can vote for 100% of my city legislation. I can only vote for 3 members of congress. I rather have my city have more control of my life through laws.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CheesyChez421 , I guess you missed this part
"The lengthy wait for surgery experienced by many participants represents a burden in terms of living with the unrelieved severe symptoms and poor health-related quality of life."
There are also problems such as these, as listed in the paper
"In our study some people were reluctant to take holidays, and some feared that if they turned down surgery because of person commitments or illness, or because they were away when contacted, they may drop to the bottom of the list. Again, people on waiting lists in England reported similar difficulties."
So for Kyle to say that waiting lists exhibit no problems is completely false. They do, and they add stress and hardship to patients.
As for "semi-elective", I have never heard of that. Why didn't Kyle bring it up? I have never seen "semi-elective" anywhere. You are making thins up. However, in Australia, they do have "elective surgeries"
https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/509f8a18-73c9-416c-92a5-f5073201df46/15778.pdf.aspx?inline=true
"The current national definition for elective care is ‘care that, in the opinion of the treating
clinician, is necessary and admission for which can be delayed for at least 24 hours’
(METeOR identifier 476370). It is used to distinguish between ‘elective care’ and ‘emergency
care’, for which admission is defined as being desirable within 24 hours. "
On page 25 is when the list of "elective surgery" starts. So no, it isn't just "chin surgery".
As for 7000 dying a year
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/hospitals/elective-surgery-waiting-times-2017-18/data
Click on data, download the excel sheet, go to table 2.1.
As for comparing with other nations, it is really difficult as many factors outside of healthcare influence the numbers. For example, two professors showed when you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-business-of-health/
The US is number 1 in obesity rates for OECD nations where obesity increases the chance of pre-mature births thus higher chance of infant mortality and a lower life expectancy. And having access to healthcare does not mean being in better health physically as shown in this paper
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
And Stanford Prof. Scott Atlas in his book "In Excellent Health" argued that the US does have high quality of care.
You see, Kyle has nothing but talking points. He rips on the US healthcare system as if it is inferior and says other nations are simply better and that there is no debate. Reality is there is. That is the problem with Kyle. And that is why I know I can easily handle him in a debate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A B, I know when you immediately cite the WHO ranking, or any ranking, and make the conclusion you do. I am not saying those rankings does not have value, they do. But healthcare is much more complicated than that.
You say "depending on how you weight each criterion", ok, how? And why? That is the issue with stats, you can do any legit analysis and come up with a lot of conclusions. I go back to the issue of life expectancy, remove car accidents and murders and the US is number 1. In the book "Debunking Utopia" it is mentioned that in other nations they live healthier lifestyles and that is seen through stats like lower obesity rates. The US spends around 40% of their food dollar eating out. The UK spends around 20%. We have higher rates of obesity where obesity can contribute to pre-term births that the US has a higher rate of. Pre-term births lead to higher infant mortality rates that the US has a higher rate of. Obesity is a self inflicted situation. No level of healthcare quality or access will prevent people from refusing to eat healthy and exercise.
The US has shorter wait times than Canada. And "elective" is subjective. Read the paper
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery"
People die waiting for "elective" heart surgery.
I say you are bias because you are blindly following shallow studies. You say you support data, and that's great. But data can be interpret in many different ways and several factors can influence that data. With the data we have and the analysis one can do there is little to suggest that universal healthcare is the best route. Again, not saying it is terrible, just saying it is no better than what the US has.
I am on an ultra leftist channel here. Anything towards the center will seem like a "right wing ideological talking point". I have a moderate approach here. A right wing talking point would be saying that universal healthcare is inferior and that the US system is the best. I don't have that approach. Universal healthcare systems do many things well, but the reality is healthcare is a complex issue and as a whole the US system is on par with other nations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Austin Schlepko, have you actually read the study? I doubt it. To give examples, though, leftists cannot fathom living in a world with less government and more personal freedom. For example, you debate with them on economic issues and many on the left, including Cenk, brings up the fire department. That we need more government because they provide things like fire departments. However, around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer, and most of them exist in rural, conservative areas. They don't live in the fear of less government. Leftists do.
Also, look at the recent reaction to the Parkland shooting. The left is making it look like we are a nation with many mass shootings thus we need more gun control. Who is living in fear now?
But again, read the study, I guarantee you it is coming up with a vastly more vague conclusion than what Cenk is presenting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
wv9mm, I will be fair here on net neutrality, I know little about it so I will follow the advice I give others, I will not comment on it beyond what I said.
"Yes it is, it's a very large and dangerous knock against her. Let me ask you this, would put a McDonald manager in charge of a warehouse? "
To answer you question I would. Being a manager and being a cook at McDonalds are two completely different tasks. One is managing people, setting up as schedule, setting up prices and hours, etc. The cook is simply cooking. You can take management skills used in McDonalds and transfer it to working at a warehouse.
" You seem that you don't understand what education is. Education isn't something that is subjective and should be left to the states to decide."
I work in public education and studied it. The reality is that the states do decide education. 84% of funding is state and local. State decide on the curriculum and standards. As is not every state uses CCSS and very few uses NGSS. Education is subjective as well. What is a proper education? Learning hard facts? If so, what facts? Or is it learning problem solving skills? Or learning communication skills? And what is the best approach to develop those skills?
On top of that public education can be the most important thing offered to society or the worse. It can be great in that it offers people and education who might not receive it. However, it can be terrible as it can be used for indoctrination. There is value in having public education, but you have to control it. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. The more local it is the more the people can see if it is actually working.
" If a science class in Alabama is teaching about Creationism, that needs to be stopped."
There is a court case on that, look up Dover v Penn and consider a Bush appointed judge ruled on that. That violates the 1st amendment. There are restrictions on government. There is an argument to be made that public education can teach religion or religious like topics as long as they don't make it mandatory and they teach it as opposed to preach it. Teaching religion from a historical, philosophical, and cultural perspective can behoove many students. Maybe it won't. That is subjective.
" If a math class in Oregon is teaching that 2+2=5"
They will have stupid, unproductive kids. There is the competition aspect as well. If one state refuses to educate their citizens they will fall behind economically. If Oregon decided to do just that their citizens will be stupid and unproductive hurting that state's economy.
"She is harming the education sector."
How so?
" Charter schools are some of the least researched ways to tech kids"
It depends. In my state the Charter schools are better than public. Also, DeVos is not forcing states to do anything. She is not forcing states to take on Charter schools.
"The school shouldn't spread false information because the parent holds the checkbook. "
Parents who send their students to charter and public schools demand more from the schools as they pay for it out of pocket.
"They can say it, but when you get down to the specifics, they fall flat on their face. "
Not true. Limited government to me is government that we can control. To me that is keeping it as local as possible. There is value in having government, but we have to control it to ensure it remains the servants and not the masters. You want centralized government. But you just went on a rant about Betsy DeVos. Do you want her running all of education and making decisions? When left to the states it doesn't matter if DeVos is in charge, the states still decide. Your state will be fine. In reality, your argument falls flat on its face. You want centralized government but then complain about Betsy DeVos.
""Let's take away the EPA" oh, so coal companies can dump waste into the river,"
State and local governments have their own EPAs that control pollution.
" So Social Studies class tech about how the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, and how slaves weren't treated that bad? "
Again, if a state does not want to educate their citizens that is on them. Their economy can suffer. As for the Civil War, it was fought for both slavery and state rights. Seems like public education did not do you well.
"Or, when Liberals decide to actually think "Maybe we need to shrink something, how about the military" Conservatives go on a tangent on how we need to keep spending almost a trillion dollars on it. "
Here is a fun fact. In 1940 federal government spending was 14% of GDP, now it is 20% of GDP. In 1960 defense spending was 10% of GDP, now it is 3% of GDP. Federal government spending has been increasing for years while defense spending has been dropping. 2nd grade math shows that.
"I think my point has been made"
I disagree. You want the federal government to have all this centralized power, so when a person you deem to be corrupt life DeVos gets in power they can abuse it to harm you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
" How about you subsidize education so people can actually become
doctors, nurses, and reserachers without having to pay $200,000 for an
education? "
People who enter those professions do so knowing it will cost a lot but they will earn a lot in the end. Money is not an issue. People do not go into those fields because the standards are high and so is the work. Almost every med school has a less then 50% acceptance rate.
"The US needs free healthcare, subsidized trade schools and post secondary education, and invest in infrastructure"
Nothing is free.
"Take the money from the bloated military, the rich, close tax loopholes,
and stop giving corporate welfare to the most profitable industries in
the US."
Defense spending is 4% of our GDP. Healthcare is 1/6 of our GDP. The rich simply do not have enough money. I agree, close loopholes and simplify our tax code. And I agree, stop corporate welfare.
"The middle class would swell,"
How?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mrjollyguy25 , Bernie has no desire to actually listen and understand the other side's position. He preaches about "discussing the issues" but that means that all he wants to do is rant about his talking points.
To give a couple of example, in a debate with Ted Cruz about Obamacare a hair salon owner from Texas asked how she can expand and afford to pay for her employees' healthcare without raising prices on customers. Bernie's response was saying that he does not know but that she will have to do it. She asked and he said he does not know how but went on this hypothetical rant about some other hair salon business who may have to charge more to pay employees' healthcare to which she responded that the profit margins of the hair business is small. Bernie had no desire to try to understand her profit margins, how many part time to full time employees she had, how many long term to short term employees she had, what her expenses are, etc. All he saw was a business and that she had to pay up. No different than his stance on the min. wage in that they must pay a higher wage no matter what. Compare that to the discussion between Bill Clinton and Herman Cain in 1994
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy542UgSelQ&t=2s
Clinton showed he understood the challenges businesses face, that he took the time to understand what businesses go through. I can respect that. I can't respect Bernie. Bernie has no desire to listen to the other side and try to understand their position. If he took the time to understand that business owners' position and how Obamacare is hindering her business practice and still supported Obamacare I can respect that, because the counter argument is that with Obamacare 30 million people have healthcare insurance who didn't have it in the past. But he has no desire to listen to the other side.
Another example is in Las Vegas during a town hall discussion someone asked him how he will prevent businesses from raising prices when he raises the min. wage. He went on a rant about how people working full time should not be poor. He did not answer the question so the guy asked it again. He said that prices may go up, but people will be making more money. He did not care to understand that guy's position in how prices could go up for him when he won't be receiving a higher wage.
Bernie has zero desire to try to understand the other side's position. I can give more examples if you want, but that is what makes him a radical. You may support one side or the other and I am fine with that as long as you took the time to understand the other side's position and where they are coming from. He does not do that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Aeroldoth3,
1. They did target that bakery. Maybe not initially, but they could have went elsewhere to get a cake when one company denied them.
2. They did demand them to bake a cake. And they did treat them like every other customer. That company did not want that cake represented in a gay wedding. They treat every customer like that, gay or straight.
3. People discriminate all the time. Customers discriminate. They discriminate against businesses all the time. You do, I do, everyone does. Do you avoid certain businesses? If you do you are discriminating.
" and never be obnoxious like trying to stand up for themselves or their rights?"
This is where you are wrong. While you can make a moral argument for this, you cannot make a legal right argument. You have no legal right to someone's services and goods, period. In fact the 13th amendment makes that illegal. The gay couple had no right to go in there and force the cake shop to bake them a cake, period.
"What a morally bankrupt argument you make, telling people to just accept mistreatment."
Everyone gets mistreated. Here is your problem, you do not like discrimination, neither do I. But at the same time I do not like forced integration. If the government forced discrimination I will be all against it as the government should treat everyone equal in the eyes of the law, and you would agree. However, why do you support the government forcing integration? Why do you support the government coming in and forcing people to interact with others they do not like? Would you support the government forcing a gay person to attend a church?
"Here's a legal answer for you. When you open a business to the public
you must agree to follow countless business laws. You don't get to pick
and choose which laws you feel like following, nor do you get to ignore
laws by claiming religious exemption."
Sure, or you can just decide not to open a business meaning less jobs. Or how about this, why do you automatically think all of the laws are moral? Slavery used to be legal? Just because it is the law does not make it right.
"Nobody is forced to open a business"
Nobody force them to have a wedding.
"We already went through this in the 60s with the civil rights era. "
Where the government forced discrimination. Now you are forcing integration. You are wanting to go to the other side of the extreme.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"When they tangibly deny service or otherwise treat gays as if they're lesser people, there is no justification to be found in freedom of religion. "
Yes there is as freedom of religion is in the constitution. Also, you discriminate for numerous reasons. Do you go to church? If not you are discriminating against religion. Why do you have that right? Why are you allowed to do that but religious people cannot discriminate against gays?
Forced discrimination by the government is wrong, but so is forced integration. You want to create forced integration. If someone in the private market wants to discriminate against gays then fine, let them. You can discriminate against them by not doing business with them.
"They can swing their fist around all they want, so long as they don't swing it at someone. "
You are misunderstanding the 1st amendment. It was to prevent government from establishing a religion. Not people, government.
"Their right to discriminate ends where it begins to actually impose on that person. "
So you want to take away people's constitutional right to practice religion? Them discriminating is just that. Also, me writing this
"All gays are evil and need to die"
Is within my 1st amendment right. I imposed that on one group. But by your standard I don't have that right
For the record, I do not feel that way about gays, I am just giving an example.
"Some Christians actually think that they have moral justification to treat gays like lesser people, "
I guarantee you treat some people like lesser people.
"Regardless of your personal views, which can be whatever you like, you have no right to abuse anyone."
They are not abusing anyone. They are not associating with them. If you decided not to attend a church, are you abusing religious people?
"There's nothing inconsistent in what I'm saying"
Yes there is.
" I do not discriminate against Christians."
Do you go to church? If not then you are in that way.
You really need to understand the law and the 1st amendment better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Eksil, to start, a "fact checking" website is not going to do it with me. Sure, facts are important, but how you interpret them, the reasoning behind them, and what they all mean is important.
To start, here is title of this paper
"“Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed
From that paper
"Part of the gap between US and Canadian health care costs may be explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital’ capital costs, larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of spending on research and development in the US."
Now the paper also said this
"Compared to the US system, the Canadian system has lower costs, more services, universal access to health care without financial barriers, and superior health status. Canadians and Germans have longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates than do US residents."
However, by this book
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
When you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. The reality is that there are many factors that contribute to life expectancy besides healthcare. On infant mortality
“International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related Factors: United States and Europe, 2010”
In that report it shows that the US does very well in infant mortality when there is early pre-term births. That is a sign of a strong healthcare system in that a baby can survive even if they leave the womb at 24 weeks. Another issue with infant mortality is that the US has a high pre-term birth rate which will skew the results. Pre-term births can be associated with those who fail to take proper measures during pregnancies to which no matter how much access of healthcare one has it would not be solved. It is the same as obesity where obesity is self inflicted and requires no healthcare access to cure. Also, issues like obesity and diabetes contribute to pre-term births, both of those are typically self inflicted. So citing infant mortality is flawed.
Also, read these reports
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
“Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Alden, the quality for advanced care is lower in other countries. Single payer is great for very very basic care such as routine check ups, pregnancies, and non critical situations. For critical situation and advanced care, such as surgery, it is inferior.
As for people being more "economically stable" than the US, what do you mean? People in the US are stable. You bring up bankruptcy, but bankruptcy laws exist to ensure stability for people who fall on hard times. Diversity plays a large role in that different cultures means different economics, different lifestyles, and different ideas. Take the state of Nevada, for example. They are ranked poorly. However, a reason why is not because of their poor schools, it is because there is little incentive to become educated when you can make close to 6 figures parking cars or dealing at the poker table. The culture of the casinos influences their behavior. Now take the neighboring state of Utah. The large Mormon population influences the drinking laws there where beer has half the alcohol content.
People die in Canada as well. Read the following papers
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
“Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ
The recession started under Hoover. FDR came in 1933 and we saw no recovery until close to 1940 because of WWII. The US economy was terrible under FDR. It shot up to number 1 after the war because every other nation was rebuilding. The New Deal policies were also watered down after FDR left.
People who feel that FDR was a good president also feel that Matt Millen was a good GM for the Lions. Under Millen the Lions were terrible. Under FDR the economy was in a depression where it took a war to get us out of it.
" In fact, every time in US history that a depression/recession has occurred, it was ALWAYS due to conservative/neo-conservative/neo-liberal policies, typically under Republican presidents."
It is much more complex than that bud. Right now we have Trump who is almost as conservative as it gets when it comes to economics, our economy is growing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
JustinUchiha, the argument of "guns serve not purpose but to kill" is poor because there are many things that arguably serve not purpose in life such as alcohol and smoking. But yet we allow it. Alcohol, one can argue, makes people beat their wives and drive drunk. Why not ban it? However, people drink it for fun just like they shoot for fun.
On gun laws, we have them, and gun murders have been dropping for years. If you look at gun deaths we have 30,000 in a country of 320+ million people. In reality that is small, especially when you consider how 2/3 are suicides. That leaves around 10,000 that aren't. Out of that many are gang related which are isolated. Now my question at that point is how do you make that 10,000 go to zero? At that point you are asking how do you make the murder rate go to zero? There is no answer. Thus to me there isn't a major problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"he compared healthcare to buying furniture."
Which is true in the sense that healthcare, like furniture, is a commodity. The more rare and harder it is to build something the more expensive it is, as it is with furniture. Healthcare is the same way. The comparison is spot on in that both healthcare and furniture are commodities in that someone has to provide it. If you cannot get that basic economic concept down than we cannot discuss healthcare.
" he said arabs live in sewage."
I cannot comment on that one as I never heard him say it or in what context.
"he defends money in politics, "
He does so as long as there is no quid pro quo. Someone donating money to a politician during their campaign is no different than someone like Kyle dedicating their entire show to a party and/or candidate. People have different means so supporting a candidate. Some go door to door, some post signs in their yards, some rally, some have a Youtube channel supporting the candidate, and some donate money.
" he's against gay marriage,"
So? Marriage is not a right. There are arguments to be made on why is government involved in marriage to begin with? Just because he have a different belief does not make him wrong. Why do you support gay marriage? Why do you support the government being involved with marriage? You saying he is against gay marriage must mean he is wrong, but you have not explained why. So that is not an argument.
"he whines nonstop about transgenders in bathrooms"
I have not heard him whine about it in while. But it does bring up the point on why should we cater to a minute set of people?
So minus the Arab one, which is simply because I have not heard him say it or in what context, you still haven't provided me with any examples. Again, saying "he's against gay marriage" is not an argument in how he is wrong. Why does that make him in the wrong? What has he said about gay marriage that makes him wrong? I am against Crossfit, does that make me wrong? Or is it simply a disagreement on work out preferences?
You have to do better than that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Theo Lamp, I want to comment on this
"The administration is also ignoring the well paying growth industries of renewable power"
Is it growing? Yes. But you cannot force an industry to grown whiling forcing another one to die. There are still many jobs in coal and oil and many workers there that cannot do other jobs. You have to allow the market to pay out so those jobs gradually go away.
"Green energy" is not efficient yet. It is getting there, but not yet. We cannot go to it drastically because doing so will, as I said, kill many jobs and also make it so our energy source has shortcomings. That will hurt our industry. From a science standpoint, since you claim to support science, that will hurt scientific research. Many labs, like mine, need a consistent source of energy that is reliable. If we do not have that we cannot do experiments. That means less progress in making new drugs, advancing technology, and even making "green energy" more efficient.
This isn't an issue were we can just turn on a switch and everything is better. It is very complex and really, from my experience, too complex for many ultra leftists (TYT fans) to understand.
2
-
2
-
@zachthamm9595 Trump was the symptom of a disease. He said what was on people's minds and he was picked to to stir the pot of the elites in government. He beat republicans by calling them out for basically being spineless to democrats and being corrupt, and then he really attacked the democrats as they are worse. Look at the main faces of the democrat party
Biden: Received a law degree, worked for the public defense department, ran for city council and went up from there, no success or job outside of government
Harris: Law degree, went straight to the district attorney's office to work, moved up from there, no success or job outside of government
Pelosi: After college worked as an intern for a politician and moved up from there, no success outside of government
Schumer: Law degree, went straight into politics, no job or success outside of government
The list goes one. Those politicians do not care about the people. All they care about is power. Trump was a threat to them as he was exposing how bad they are. At the beginning Trump said it correct, politicians in DC were becoming richer while everyone else struggled. Trump changed that. Trump became a threat to the established democrats and media thus they did everything they can to beat him. It worked, for now. But do you really think Biden and Harris are going to inspire people to come out and vote in 2022 and 2024?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gofoucaultspendulumyoursel3496 the percent of workers working more than one job has been dropping. And most min. wage workers are young.
Many can afford a home and a family off of one income. In many cases, in our society, people are bad with money. Kyle and his fan base rail on how Around 78% of people live paycheck to paycheck. Well, according to a report from CNBC 78% of former NFL players go bankrupt. Why? Poor money management.
As for automation, like any technology it allows people to focus on other jobs to progress us. We can create millions of jobs right now if we outlawed the tractor, but food production will drop.
I have told people this. With AOC's GND she wants to ban flying where it was asked how will people get to Hawaii? I said easily, we have big boat where people in the bottom rowing it. Many jobs created, zero emissions. Sure, travel will be longer, and those rowers can be doing something better, but hey, no emissions and guaranteed jobs with no effort.
Is that what you want?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Isaac Brock a business open to the public should not be able to discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics: sexual orientation, gender, or race because these are protected classes who cannot be discriminated against because of those characteristics. This is an unfair practice. A business can refuse service to people, as long as it isn't based on race, gender, or sexual orientation because then you are discriminating against them for characteristics they cannot change. This is a basic government rule. By the way, the 1950's called, they want their arguments back."
Kid, in the 50s it was Jim Crow laws, laws set by government, forcing discrimination. Forced integration is just as bad as forced segregation.
Next, the idea in this is the freedom to trade and you should have the freedom to trade goods and services with whomever you want. If you want to be a racist prick and deny goods to someone of a different color then fine. You say it is "unfair" which is purely an emotional argument. Is it fair to force people to serve those they do not want? Is it fair to shut down a business just because they refused to serve certain people? I can apply the same to Kyle. He misrepresents right wing viewpoints, is that fair? Should his channel be shut down? Or should we force others to shop at businesses they disagree with? How far are you going to go with this "fair" and "unfair" argument?
Kid, you have a lot to learn.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnsphpaulin1162 , I can tackle those
1. Other nations have a private system to help out. Even Canada had to allow for a private system to rise up as the public system was not meeting up with demands. And yes, other nations do see those problems.
2. The issue with wait times is that it is difficult to determine what is necessary and what isn't. For example, in Canada people are dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery. As for the comment of
"A more relevant question would be how many people die in Canada because they are made to wait to long for care, and is that number greater a greater percentage of the Canadian population than the percentage of Americans who die because they can't afford care."
It is really difficult to measure those numbers as they are generally small in both nations and with such small numbers they are influenced greatly by different variables. However, it does happen in Canada.
To add, what is necessary can by subjective as well. If I require need surgery that is necessary to me as I have a career that requires me to be on my feat often. So I don't want to wait.
3. "After all even if some people have to be treated in poor conditions or asked to wait longer than is comfortable, that's still better than literally just leaving them to die, which is what our system does. "
Again, in other systems people do die. And in many cases they end up worse off. In the paper entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
They write
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers"
So you make them suffer in the long run. Also, if someone is so sick they are close to death there are arguments to be made how much care they should receive. In the book "Being Mortal", required reading for the nursing students at my university, the author writes that people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really will live only an extra 5 or 10 months.
The problem with the push for M4A is that those pushing it are not willing to take on the difficult issues, many which are life or death. You feel that a single payer system will alleviate our problems and you do that saying
"Our short wait times are built on the corpses of those who died unable to afford care, "
Which, to me, is not a productive statement. Healthcare is very complex and the far left refuses to accept that. That is what makes the push for M4A very dangerous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
bohemianwriter1 "It is the task of government to impose taxes, and promote common welfare"
Common welfare means common, thus covering everyone equally . Thus you should be in favor of at least a federal flat income tax, but really a tax on the states and not individuals.
"If you think that your highways, police, justice dept, fire dept, schools, libraries, hospitals"
Most of those are funded by the local governments, something I am very supportive of. The federal government doesn't fund any fire dept. or any police or local library. And spends a very small amount on education when compared to the local level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
bohemianwriter1 " So give us one example where deregulation. tax cuts on the rich,
cutting welfare programs, and pensions while privatizing everything has
work. "
On deregulation? After WWII. On tax cuts? Why did you just pick the rich? Anyway there has always been tax cuts on the rich either by just doing it or through loop holes. Cutting welfare? Welfare at the federal level has been a disaster, like the "War on Poverty" for example. Who is supporting privatizing everything?
"Give us a one concrete example where FDR prolonged recession and how he killed jobs"
Longest recovery from a recession ever. Also happened during the largest increase in federal spending during a a time when we were not at war ever.
"So again, tell us when the last time a republican president has balanced
the bugdet and left office in a better shape than he came to it in?"
Congress controls the budget, last time we has a surplus was with a republican congress. For the second part the answer with Reagan.
"If FDR was so bad, howcome it was under him that the strong middle class was created?"
We didn't have a strong middle class under him.
"How would a trickle down economy where your industrial masters are
dictating the terms would create a strong and independent middle class?
Has the middle class grown, or shrunk during Bush and Reagan?"
Trickle down economics is a political term. How as the middle class grown? More disposable income, more access to goods and services that are better. The middle class has improved.
"And why is it so that every time a democratic president has left office, he has left it better than his republican predecessor?"
You mean like Carter?
"You can also tell us why it's the red states who are the big takers from
the federal budgets, while the liberal blue states are the biggest
contributors if it's true that only your republican economical ideology
creates jobs and prosperity? For exactly WHO does your republican
economical "theories" create wealth for?"
Define a "red state" or a "blue state". When you look at that that argument falls apart, even some of the most liberal blogs admit that. The "republican economical theories" create wealth for all.
Too easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
bohemianwriter1 "And your example? In what way did the recession last longer?"
Pure numbers, other recessions lasted around 5 years, the Great Depression lasted over 10 years. It took the war and FDR's death to finally get a recovery.
"He created the strong middle class. He taxed the rich, and created jobs
with them. Factory jobs. Well paid jobs. With security, pensions and
social security. It's programs like that you want to destroy, because
you would rather give that money to the "free market". "
He didn't create anything. The economy was falling behind, poverty was up, unemployment was up and he debt was up. And the policies he created are a problem now such as social security.
"Did Reagan leave with a surplus and Carter leave with a deficit? He dod"
Carter left with a recession and high inflation, and within 2 years we recovered. Now compare that to Obama now. 7 years later where are we? Still behind.
Yes Reagan help lead us to a better economy.
"I bet you would rather live in Minnesota, California, Oregon or Washington than Wisconsin, Kansas, or Mississippi. "
I literally live a stone's throw away from CA and I intend to keep it that way for a while. CA is a mess, so is Oregon. In a few years I do plan on moving to the midwest and KS looks great. But CA is a complete mess. Go there, it isn't fun.
Detroit has been ran by democrats for a long time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+therrydicule
You are oversimplifying it. At the local level there is less waste and less bureaucracy. Also, states will have more money with less federal taxes.
"That thinking is not practical"
It is very practical. How much waste exists in the federal government? A strong economy is getting the most out of your resources. You do that with smaller more local government. With that people have the ability to see if they are getting their money's worth with government spending. You don't get that at the federal level, thus more waste. It isn't as easy as X+Y=Z.
Here is a small example of how there is waste in federal spending. In Title I schools they give out breakfast. Every student who eats breakfast has to take one of each item (like milk, fruit, juice, and something like waffles). If they don't eat it they throw it away, you can't send it back. Literally food is thrown away. That is waste.
How about infrastructure spending. When it comes to building a dam or a bridge it is difficult to budget due to changes in pricing of resources. Add in bureaucracy then you have a mess and millions wasted.
Take those programs, add on more across 50 states with a country of 320+ million people and you have waste. You can't micromanage at the federal level and you can't expect to add multiple layers of government and not expect inefficiencies.
"and risk to turn a big chunk of the USA into Porto-Rico and Kansas. Localism and low taxes are not a panacea."
Why the bash on KS? A beauty of state rights is that you get to vote for the government you want. The citizens of KS voted for their government, and if you don't live there then it shouldn't be of your concern. It isn't mine. I don't live there. Or I guess we can have your way, high taxes, increase waste, and a feast or famine method.
Obamacare is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the federal government should have a say in healthcare. The SC has been wrong before. Look up Kelo vs City of New London for a great example. But I guess we should all bow down to the government without question.
1
-
+therrydicule
When did I ever say KS was beautiful? Point to me the quote. I simply said the citizens of KS vote for what they go. Assuming you don't live in KS then you didn't vote for it and neither did I. Why should you care? If you don't like KS is being ran then don't go there.
At this point I am going to assume you are ultra liberal by the way you are bashing KS. I find it funny how ultra liberals point towards KS and go "ah ha". Meanwhile the other side can point towards Detroit and Baltimore. I don't live in those cities as well, thus I can't vote there nor do I have any say in what goes on there. I shouldn't either since I don't pay local taxes there, I have no skin to lose in that case. The same goes with you and KS. Why should you care? You have nothing to lose with KS.
"There might be less bureaucracy at the local level, but there is also a
greater risk that they fuck up big time resulting in money not spend
properly in the first place, and trying to correct that mistake again
and again."
If a local government does "fuck up" it will be isolated. Look at Flint and their water crisis. It is isolated there. Now imagine if it were at the federal level? The whole country is screwed. You want to expand the federal government to try to fix what you feel is wrong, even if the people that live there (KS for example) don't feel that way. That drags everyone else down. Why do you want to do that? What do you want to punish success?
Obamacare is not constitutional. The SC made a wrong ruling, a 5-4 ruling at that. What if there were 99 justices? Would it still be constitutional then? Four justices felt it was unconstitutional, so it is still up to debate, at in reality isn't constitutional.
"End of story. If you don't like it, try to pass an amendment banning
government financing of health care&look how fast you don't get
popular supports."
If the federal government wanted to be in control of healthcare financing then push to have an amendment pass and see how fast you don't get popular support. Point to me where in the constitution the word "healthcare" is listed. Also, you mindset is really scary. Do you think the Patriot was constitutional? Do you not want to question the government and their actions? Or place restrictions on it?
1
-
+Cassandra'sCurse
1. Fire departments, like everything else that is ran and funded locally, is set up by the community if they feel there is a desire to have such program. Around 70% are volunteer because they want to help out their community. That is no different than running a charity. It saves tax dollars especially in areas where there aren't many resources. People like to help there community and have it functioning well, they don't need government force.
2. Overall poverty was dropping from 1965 to the early 70s, so it just wasn't those who were 65 and older.
3. State and local governments already have the right to run education. Not every state follows CCSS or NGSS. To think that a state and local government will just allow their citizens to become stupid is being ignorant yourself. Just like the volunteer fire fighters, people do want to see their community succeed.
Schools in poor neighborhoods are that way because of two reasons, teacher unions and the department of education. The department of ed. has a program that just throws money at those schools which doesn't have the states pushing to improve them. If we get rid of the department of ed. local governments will have to become creative to ensure that those schools in low income areas are well funded. With teacher unions they pay teachers based off of years taught, not on actual quality or demand. If there was a greater incentive for teachers to teach in low income schools then they will improve.
"Otherwise, we have pastors in Kansas teaching "science" from their Bibles."
Actually we don't have that.
The EPA and FDA are unconstitutional and should be left up to the states. I live in a business friendly state as well and we, as a community, push to pollution. It is up to your community to ensure that the environment is not polluted. Also think of it this way. With a federal EPA say a bunch of business friendly politicians get into office and remove environmental regulations. Imagine the federal government also controlling your drinking water. Now it doesn't matter where you live, it is all bad. Congrats, your way now just screwed over the entire country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Cameron _ _
If you raise the payroll tax then businesses would pay employees less because they simply can't afford the new tax. We was this when the payroll tax was increased in the 60s. Businesses countered by offering benefits. They wouldn't be able to do that now. And how would the cost of healthcare go down when you are putting more people on it?
"Americans would save thousands of dollars a year because they will pay
$0 for insurance, $0 in copays, $0 in hospital bills, $0 for
prescriptions, $0 for oral care (dentistry), $0 for ear care, $0 for
long term care, $0 for anything healthcare related"
And taxes will go up, wages will go down, quality will be low and wait times would be longer. Not to mention that their taxes will go up.
"Tell me exactly how, with evidence, that slashing the price businesses pay for healthcare saving around $9000 a year per worker, and raising the minimum wage to an acceptable level will make jobs disappear. "
The min. wage one will be easy, that is econ. 101. I just told you about healthcare that higher taxes will mean lower wages and higher prices. Do you think these things will just magically appear out of nowhere?
1
-
+Cameron _ _
I have seen the website.
Healthcare cost is up due to the federal government tampering with healthcare. Three areas of the economy has seen increasing prices for the past couple decades, housing, healthcare and college. They are all three areas that the federal government has touches with the FHA, the payroll tax and medicaid and medicare, and the student loan program. Adding more government is going to make it worse. As is we lack doctors, nurses, hospitals and drugs in general. R&D is not cheap. How are you going to solve those problems? Trust me, it it was as easy a going to single payer then so many people would push for it.
"He pays for it by the taxes, and ending tax loopholes that allow people to evade taxes legally. "
It isn't that easy.
"Where are you getting that from? In Canada, the UK, and other major
european countries the healthcare is the same quality if not better.
It's FAR more efficient and it doesn't put people into debt for getting
surgery or some other procedure."
The US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world and there are published articles in peer reviewed journals that support that.
"People in the UK have shorter wait times than we do"
100% not true.
You want evidence? Look up the book
"The Business of Health"
by
Robert Oshfeldt and John Schneider
I will send a link in another comment.
"if someone 'gives' you $9000, and you have to pay a worker $9000 more a year, you can't afford it and jobs will just disappear out of thin air??? Maybe it's time for you to get an education, I'd like to talk to someone who knows their facts."
Where is the $9000 going to come from when you raise taxes? And yes, jobs do disappear. In NY when the min. wage went up a Denny's cut hours by no longer being 24 hours a day. In Berkley the university just cut staff and it happens to correspond when the the min. wage went up. That is basic econ. 101
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Cameron _ _
Lots of unfilled seats? I see long wait lists for classes. In my university we are not allowing any upperclassman in the dorms. We lack TAs to where undergrads are doing it and the TA coordinator literally told me that they need "warm bodies". Not high quality TAs, just anyone. They hired an undergrad biology major to TA for physics.
"Secondly, colleges go through professors like hot cakes. A lot of them are part time and they just hire new ones. "
And we are still short. Plus those professors are near retirement or looking for full time jobs.
"and his sub 1% tax on wall street speculation would provide enough
funding to satisfy over 60 billion of that, and the rest of the funding
would come from state ran programs such as shifting financial aid to pay
for the socialized program instead, as well as other government grants"
If it were that simple then I would be all over it, but it isn't. What are you going to do to prevent colleges from raising tuition? What if state decide not to pick up the rest of the tab? Never mind the other legit problems I listed, what about those now? Again, you have this false idea that all we have to do is raise taxes and then everything can be paid for. It isn't that easy.
"Once again, the healthcare is not lower quality just because it's now free to access it."
According to that book it isn't.
"I'm sorry that you don't know how to comprehend common sense,"
Ah, the "common sense" response. That immediately shows you have no clue what you are talking about. You can't give a legit argument so you say "it is just common sense" which translate to "I don't know anything about the topic so I will just speak out of my ass".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Siberius Wolf
I know what you said, in Australia if you include PPP the min. wage is around $10/hr.
"I don't think that's how they price gas... I'm not sure what you're saying actually..."
Why should the government set a price on labor? That is what I am saying. When the government sets a price floor on something and that price floor is higher than what the market values those goods and services, then less people will buy it. With labor when you raise the min. wage the less people will get hired. If you raise the price of gas then less people will buy it. That is what I am getting at. It is all comparable. That is why when the min. wage was created black teenage unemployment went up drastically. That is because they have the lowest skills in the market. The price floor has priced them out of the market.
Let us make another comparison, say it was a min. price on cars at $15,000. So many used cars will not get sold and thus simply go to dumps which causes waste. Same here with labor. Instead of those with low skills getting jobs, working, become productive and gaining skills to become even more productive, they are unemployed and it becomes a waste.
"then they can easily save up a shitload of money and there's no
guarantee they will spend enough of it to get the right amount of
circulation because the balance is more likely to not be there."
Then why $15/hr? And what makes you think they won't save it as is at $15/hr? You do know that when you save money in a bank that bank circulates that money as well in the forms of loans. So that isn't bad either. If people were earning $100/hr they will put it in banks. Those banks will loan out money so people buy more houses and cars. People with money in banks will collect interest thus they will have more money for retirement and retire early meaning more jobs for people. Damn, I feel we should now raise it to $200/hr.
"people in Australia for example aren't settling for that if they have other options."
The US is a more productive country so it is safe to assume that people are settling for low wage jobs in Australia.
"Businesses can't afford to pay workers more?.. mega businesses have a fucking lot of money dude "
Yes they do because they have shareholders to keep happy. They are as big as they are because of shareholders. Without them they will not be as big. Take Walmart for example, they are bigger than a company like Hy Vee or Raley's because of shareholders. The latter two companies pay comparable wages to that of Walmart and sell more expensive items. Walmart got as big as they are because they sell shares. If Walmart were to cut profits to overpay employees then the shareholders will sell back their shares causing the company to go bankrupt. Even at that why about smaller companies? Should they suffer just because you don't like bigger companies?
"Cameron seems to know his shit,"
This is a guy who is using high school education, which is ran and funded locally, to justify the federal government running and funding colleges. I am sure he doesn't know too much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Actually I'll start with this. You forgot to include loopholes in your
argument. When you figure that in, most of them pay less taxes in
percentage than your average person."
I addressed that with the write offs. The tax code is simplified.
" You need to be sure to include all the information when you try to make points defending something rather unpopular. "
I did include all the points, you just can't read which is why you led with an insult.
" Oh, so that 8 people that makes more than 50% of the world's population, they earned that? "
That is a very deceptive stat. You are talking about wealth, not income. Also, there are many countries with high populations of low income earners that skew that stat.
But sticking to wealth. Pointing to wealth inequality is deceptive. The average US home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. A home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has very little wealth. Also, a person with no debt or assets besides $10 has more wealth than 25% of the nation. The reason why is debt. In the US people are able to go to debt and still be fine. I have negative wealth due to college loans but I am doing fine. Now compared me to a poor person in Ethiopia who most likely has not debt but some income. They, by definition, has more wealth than me. Now who is better off? Obviously me with negative wealth.
I find it ironic you call someone intellectually dishonest but than you give a stat without putting it in proper context.
"You can't work enough hours in a day to earn that. "
It isn't how much you work, it is what you put in the work. You can work 16 hours a day digging holes in the desert, that creates zero wealth.
You really need to think about what you are saying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Average wages stayed fairly stable between 1970-1980 so your excuse to
blame it on the immigrants fails, the same applies for women working. "
Why so? We saw an increase in immigration and women joining the work force at that time.
"So you take a business that is notorious for not paying their workers
fair compensation and forcing small businesses out of the market, as a
justification why CEOs should be paid more? "
Walmart pays competitive wages for retail. They pay wages comparable to Sears, Hy Vee, Raley's and other retail stores. While I do agree that they do drive out small businesses, government taxes and regulations have also done that as well. For example, the min. wage. Walmart has pushed for a higher min. wage knowing that smaller competitors can't pay it.
"Do you not see what a stretch that is? They forced other people out of
business and hired the exact same people. Sure it's a good business
model for Walmart, but that still does not justify their absurd payments
or that they get to keep even MORE money because of tax cuts. "
They pay competitive wages for retail.
"From 1970-2012 Productivity has gone up more than 2x, while hourly
compensation only grew by 9%. You are telling me that CEOs are somehow
responsible for this productivity growth and deserve the keep all the
profits? "
Productivity has gone up because of technology, not because workers are producing more as individuals. Those that invested in technology or learned how to use it have seen a significant increase in income. It is called "Skilled Biased Technological Change". Also, better technology means goods and services are better and cheaper. Such as cars and smart phones and movies streaming online now.
"How is that relevant to wages going down for the bottom 90% while the average INCREASED 24%? "
Because I earn less than my dad did when he was 29 but I have a lot more than him. That is the norm. I am 29 and everyone my age parents' did not have smart phones or high speed internet.
"Cool you have a phone to distract yourself with, how does that help you if you can't afford basic living? "
I can, and so do most people. You can get roommates. With the internet you can find stores with deals and get food for cheap if needed. You just have to know what you are doing.
"Technically the bottom 20% get a 100$ tax cut, so they are benefiting
too, never mind that the richest get the BIGGEST tax cuts and the bottom
20% when government programs have their spending cut because of this
end out losing. "
Loopholes are being removed, so the rich are not receiving that large of a cut. This code is simplified and helps out the middle class where most file taxes with a W2. With W2's you do not get many deductions as a business owner or someone on the top 10% will get when they file with different forms. The tax code is complicated and thus unless you are able to afford an accountant or know what you are doing you will not benefit. And even at that filing with a W2 is terrible. Trump's tax code is simple. The rich pay more and everyone gets a cut.
Government programs have to be cut, period. We are in debt. We have to do something.
The problem with you is the same with every ultra liberal. You do not want to cut government programs no matter how much in debt we are and you have such as strong hatred for the rich that you want to tax them at an obscene rate. Just because someone earns more than you doesn't mean you should tax them more. Our tax code is 7000 pages long, and we are seeing what you are bringing up. Maybe we should try a simplified code.
1
-
" Because between 1970-1980 average wages stayed steady, while for the top 1% they dipped down. "
We also faced a recession during that time as well. You have to consider that.
"It could be that Walmart thinks that a higher minimum wage would push
out competition, but that is unknown and I have heard arguments to the
contrary.
It could also be that since they are the largest employer in America,
they realized that increasing the minimum wage increases the purchasing
power, thus increasing the profits. Or that by pushing for it(in
statements they actually say that their official stance on the issue is
neutral), they could dictate some of the terms.
Either way you are engaged in mentalism and just speculating.
"
It is because increasing the min. wage kills competition. The idea that it gives people more money is a myth. The min. wage is a job killer and harms smaller competitors who do not have the resources a larger competitor like Walmart does.
"Them paying competitive wages is only relevant to the extent of what
constitutes competitive wages is way too low(see data I provided).
You however used the example of them hiring more employees as a
justification for insane CEO payments across all industries. Industries
that did not have the same job gains. "
They pay competitive wages. I never hear complaints about how little Hy Vee pays their employees. Also, it isn't so much jobs, it is wealth creation. Walmart hires a lot. Other businesses create a lot of wealth. That is why the CEO makes a lot. Also, across the board, if you cut CEO salaries you won't be able to pay the workers a significant amount more. So what's the point?
"During that time productivity has gone up steadily at ~ the same rate it
did since 1950s.
Also I am not sure you remember how "awesome" computers were 20 years
ago, they couldn't automate shit and assembly-belt production has been
around for nearly 200 years now. "
Productivity went up and so did wealth. What's your point?
"Again that simply isn't true. If you had read the aneconomicsense
article, you would have seen that they adjusted for several things.
Among them the consumer price index.
Meaning that purchasing power is taking into consideration and still 90%
end up making 6% less.
I am happy that you are so easily distracted by things like cars and
mobile phones, however that still doesn't mean that there isn't a
problem here.
In most respects a poor person in America probably is living a better
life than a nobleman several hundred years ago. That still doesn't mean
that they can purchase "more things".
Your example has other flaws such as the wealth your father and your
grandfather started with. The most determining factor generally speaking
for a person's success is
their parents wealth. "
Poor people today have it better than a rich person did in the 50s in several ways.
"Might that be the reason why the top 1% live almost 15 years longer than the bottom 1%? "
They live a healthier lifestyle. There are higher rates of obesity and type II diabetes with poor people.
"That is the natural consequence of being forced to survive on KFC. "
If you are poor you shouldn't be eating out at KFC as it is more expensive.
"Do you mind backing that up with any kind of evidence? "
Read his tax plan.
"Meanwhile the estate tax is being cut. "
So.
Please stop with the military spending. That makes up less than 20% of our federal budget. We spend more on social welfare programs. Defense spending is around 4% of GDP. We spend more on education.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
XellosTheDragon No, what Sharon was saying is that everything should go up in price, including labor because "inflation". Some goods have dropped in price and the same is with labor. Some goods have remained the same in price and some have gone up like in labor.
Before the tractor we had people working on the farms. The tractor came and those working on the farms ended up getting a value of $0. With Netflix and Red Box we have seen Blockbuster employees go to a value of $0. In my hometown there was a battery plant and in the 90s it employed over 800 people. So many appliances used batteries as in walkmens, RC cars, cordless phones and so on. Now with Ipads, cell phones, laptops and so one having batteries on boards that recharge, the demand for batteries dropped. That company started to close down factories and when it closed down the one in my town it only employed around 200 people. That means the value of those workers is no $0.
To think that the value of the person running the cash register or flipping burgers at a restaurant has gone up is ludicrous. It hasn't. If you look at technology and the trend in the economy inflation should not be happening and if it is it shouldn't be happening much at all. The reason why food is expensive at the grocery store is because of a policy such as the min. wage. The min. wage went up, a low wage employer such as the grocery store need to pay the employees more now by law, thus they increased prices.
We are producing more food than ever due to technology, we even throw away food. The price of food should be dropping. But the min. wage, which is outpacing productivity, is causing them to go up.
And to think that a min. wage was needed so you can't starve is not true. You are mandating how much is being paid per hour, but not per week.
Your grasp of economics has dropped to a new low.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mike Stavenes I am in my upper 20s. I have worked a min. wage job for years and it wasn't hard work. You have little responsibilities, it requires little skills, the hours are flexible, and overall the work is easy. So yes, those on min. wage don't work hard.
"Maybe if they did that same job with more efficiency, that the boss
would reward them by paying them more, out of the kindness of his heart?"
The boss does out of an investment to keep their more productive employees from going to another job.
"How hard people work has nothing to do with how much money they make"
Yes it does, along with skill set and demand.
"If they want to keep more of the money they make from the labors of
their employees...they pay them less, and demand more...which is exactly
what you see happening in the US economy."
Except less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage, around 50% of workers earning a min. wage get a raise within a year, and the average hourly earnings in the US is around $24/hr.
"And you really have to stop using the bullshit about a lack of goods"
Goods are limited. Where are the goods going to come from?
Your idea of money is flawed. If the money isn't there then the price of goods will drop. A company just holding onto goods gives them nothing. In smaller more local areas goods are cheaper for a reason.
The US moved factories overseas for 2 reasons, expensive regulations and overall the evolution of the economy. Saying the economy is consumer based if flawed, you can't consume what you don't produce. If people had the more money but the amount of goods are the same guess what happens? Prices go up.
Businesses simply can't afford higher wages. If Walmart and McDonalds CEOs were to take in $0 and pass it on to the workers their employees would earn an extra $0.001 per hour. The money simply isn't there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jabberwock5
It makes perfect sense. The founding fathers saw a desire to have government, but they also saw that people need to be able to control it. The system was set up to give states the freedom and flexibility to evolve and create domestic laws that suit the needs and wants of the people. Every layer of government had limitations as listed in the constitution, but states were allowed to evolve.
The more local government is the greater the ability the citizens have to see if they are getting their money's worth. Also the citizens can ensure that the government remains the servants and not the masters. The federal government was very limited in domestic policies. Individual federal income taxes were unconstitutional until 1913. Briefly, the federal government was supposed to deal with foreign affairs and enforce the constitution on the states. The states were to deal with foreign affairs and enforce the constitution on the fed. It was a checks and balance system. Programs like the EPA, Department of Ed., the FDA, individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, business regulations, Obamacare and so on were not supposed to exist at the federal level. But they do and they are programs pushed mainly by the political left (democrats). Those programs can exist at the state and local level where the citizens have more control of the government, but never the federal. That is why we have corruption. The federal government has power and thus it can be bought. There is a desire to have government, but too much government is just as bad as no government.
I do agree that republicans are corrupt as well, but they are not nearly as bad as democrats. Republicans also are not pushing for federal expansion as much as democrats are.
As a whole the design was to have government but strict limitations on it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"
Your right. he did promote non-politicians. but those Non-politicians he promoted ARE the problem."
How so? They were not the ones who did the bailouts. That was your lovely democrats.
"they are the disease plaguing america"
Again, how?
" funny how you guys shit on and called out Hillary Clinton for being best of buds from Goldman Sachs."
I never did.
"he is not draining the swamp."
He is. He is promoting guys who have had success in the private sector in a competitive atmosphere as opposed to career politicians.
"he just recently said he wants to promote his son's wedding planner to a government position. because she "did a good job". "
If she did a good job then fine. Around 30% of CEOs are engineers who have had limited experience in business nor took any business courses. They worked for the company and have intelligence and thus get promoted and become successful. You have to look at that. Your criticisms of Trump's picks are really pathetic at this point. You find the smallest of things to criticize them without realize why people get promoted a lot of times in the professional world.
"and you and ant man. and Global warming Sceptic Happily defend trump going against your own policies"
What policies? Trump is doing a lot of things I like. He is reducing the federal government and giving more power to the people. The federal government has been growing for decades and as a result the politicians have been getting richer. The politicians are creating rules to favor them while the average person struggled. Trump mentioned that in the republican debate, in the debate against Clinton and in his inauguration. The reality is that the country is divided between people like you who are highly dependent on the government and can't imagine a smaller government and people like me who want independence and freedom to push for success. You are in the crowd that feel with limited federal government we will have poor healthcare, education, infrastructure, economy, etc. In reality the federal government is causing most of our problems. Us as a nation could have voted for Clinton and continued down the same path. Sure, you may have kept Obamacare, but at what cost? It never really improved our healthcare system and it gave politicians more power.
"
Anything the democrats do is Bad. very very bad. "
Right now that is true as they have become radical. In 1994 there was a discussion between Clinton and Herman Cain over Clinton's healthcare law. Cain brought up his points on how it will cost his company too much. Clinton countered with numbers, data, facts, and he also expressed concern over Cain's job and the restaurant industry and their budget. In the end I agreed with Cain, but Clinton gave a response I could respect and used data and showed concern.
Recently Bernie Sanders in the debate against Cruz was approached with a similar question by a business owner from Texas. Bernie basically told her that the law is the law. He did not bring up any numbers, did not discuss income with her, or her budget. He did not seem to care about her business or the fact that she can't expand. All he cared about was using government force to make her pay for other people's healthcare. That is how extreme the party has become. No discussion, just obey and shut up.
"Anything the republicans do is good. very very good."
I am highly critical of the republican party. As of right now they are the most sane of the two. Many members of it that are taking charge are very intelligent. Ted Cruz is along with Rand Paul. Jeb Bush got shoved aside because we do not need another war mongering Bush.
"sorry but trump supporters have absolutely No leg to stand on in
politics without making yourselves look like embarrassing stumbling
fools."
What makes you say that? You are trying to criticize me and make me look like a fool when I countered everything you said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheUltimateBeing01, you can check my math. Take $25.6 million and divide that by 500,000. I pick 500,000 because some of those 1.4 million can be managers, but not all. Well over half of those 1.4 million are the typical walmart associate. But 500,000 proves my point.
$25,600,000/500,000=$51.20. If you take the McMillion's salary and spread it across to those 500,000 workers equally they will earn an extra $51.20 a year. That's it. There are 52 weeks in a year and a 40 hour work week you have 40*52=2080. And $51.20/2080=0.03 dollars/hr. I rounded it up. So cutting CEO pay to zero, and spreading it to the 500,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart, and assuming they all work 40 hours a week with no vacation, because Walmart is evil and does that, increases their wage to 3 cents an hour.
Wow. I agree now. The min. wage should be doubled I guess. I mean, that extra three cents an hour will lead to a booming economy. Why was I so blind?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here are the top 10 by state
VT
VT
WY
WY
ME
ME
SD
HI
DE, OR (tie)
ND
Ok, now states by population
WY
VT
AL
ND
SD
DE
MT
RI
MI
NH
7 of those senators resides in states with small populations (VT, WY,
SD, DE, ND)
Now by demographics, percent white
VT 96%
ME 95%
NH 94%
WV 94%
IA 92%
ID 92%
WY 91%
MN 90%
ND 90%
Do some of those states look familiar?
Now to crime. States with the lowest crime rates
VT
ME
WY
NH
VA
KY
ID
UT
RI
MN
VT, ME and WY are the three states with the lowest amount of crime. VT
ME and WY are 1, 2 and 7 in terms of percentage of whites, and WY, VT
are the two smallest states by population. but yet the six most popular
senators reside VT, ME and WY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So that means by your logic people should just go away and die? "
No, we should always improve the system. But you have to realize that no system is ideal. 40,000 people is 0.01% of the population. That is minute. You also have to consider that you cannot say with high certainty that the only reason why they died is because of lack of access to care.
35,000 people die a year on the roads in traffic accidents. Does that mean that those 35,000 people were on dangerous roads or in unsafe cars? Or does that mean that there will always be people that fall through the cracks?
"Do you have children, mother, father, sisters, brothers, would you like them to just die? "
People die, you need to realize that. Warren went on a rant about an 80 year old woman. Life expectancy is around 79 years. A woman who is above that but can no longer produce in this country isn't really worth catering to. That is the harsh reality. People die all the time and the world moves on. That is the harsh reality. When you look at the big picture 40,000 is tiny. Which again, you can't say with high certainty that the only reason why they die is because of lack of access to healthcare.
You show me a perfect system where everyone gets high quality care at a low price in a country of 320+ million people I will be the first person to push to promote you a president. The fact is that no such system exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Millenials are getting older and are wondering why they are making 3/4
of what their parents made, and having to spend 50k in school debt for
the privilege of doing it,"
Millennials also have better cars, high speed internet, overall better technology that makes live easier and cheaper. Just don't look at dollar figures, look at other areas of the market as well. Also, more students are going to college as the economy changes. The tractor killed farming jobs so future generations had to adjust. But in reality the problem of high tuition can be blamed a lot on the federal government's loan program.
"while also paying more for everything from food to utilities than their
parents did (inflation adjusted), all of this while the country gets
more run down every month because tax cut nation is too broke to
allocate tax dollars to road, bridge, utility, and other repairs and
building."
Roads and utilities are localized. Talk to your local government. Unless you live in the same state I do then you do not fund my roads.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Evan, defense spending accounts for less than 4% of our GDP. Healthcare accounts for 1/6 of our GDP. Also, ever thought that we are so rich because we don't have universal healthcare? But never mind that. Throwing more money at something does not mean that you can cover everyone. Here are two small examples.
Say you were to give me $10,000 to fix your transmission. I will work hard in trying to do so, but in the end the quality will be poor because I never done it. So no matter how much money you give me I won't be able to fix it.
Now say you pay a mechanic $10,000 to fix 100 transmissions in a day. He won't be able to do it because he lacks time and most likely resources.
In relation to healthcare we lack doctors, researcher, nurses, surgeons, etc. Adding more people to the healthcare market will mean those who are currently working in the field will have more people to care for which is impossible, that is related to case 2 I gave you.
Now you may say hire more. But that relates to case 1 I gave you in the transmission example. You will be hiring people who are not qualified.
1
-
1
-
"but you could also explain why you think that otherwise it's not really proof of anything."
I have seen the data. Our life expectancy, for example, is over one standard deviation over the world average. Our life expectancy is around 79 years where the world average is 71±7 years. France, who is ranked number one in the WHO, has a life expectancy of 82 years. That is only three years of difference which is minute. As that book showed when you remove car accidents and murders then the US becomes number one in life expectancy. That is not to say that US is number 1, it is to show how sensitive the data to settle changes in variables.
" Linking to a 188 page document as a source you know no one is going to
waste their time to read does not validate anything you're saying. "
Actually it does. If people are not willing to read varying sources on the issues then they are not informed enough to have an opinion. I can't take what you say seriously at that point because what you have shown is that you have a firmly held belief that you refuse to question at all. That is no different then someone who is ultra religious that refuses to accept that their belief in their religion might be wrong. It is essentially the highest level of ignorance. I am not saying that book is the book to end all debates. Nor am I saying it is 100% legit with no issues. It is, however, a credible sources in that
1. professionals in that field wrote it
2. they give all their methods for you to criticize
3. they give all their citations for you to read
Healthcare is a complicated issue and thus requires some work in order to be informed on it. Just citing arbitrary rankings and cherry picked numbers is not an argument.
"I'm not going to waste my time reading something from a partisan organisation. "
Because it will go against your firmly held belief. Just like a religious person will refuse to consider the idea that God might not exist.
"Much like any studies done by partisan authors it is likely to distort data in order to push their views."
They give all their methods for you to criticize and all their sources. They are not hiding anything. If they were I would not even consider it as a reliable source.
"I don't care if they have 300 sources, I don't have the time to read all of those to ensure they accurately used the data."
Which, again, means you are not informed enough to have a valid opinion.
"If it came from an actual non partisan group I'd be more inclined to
read it with a higher degree of trust that they aren't going to cherry
pick data or misrepresent it. "
What group will that be? Do you consider the WHO to be non-partisan? A criticism of their ranking was the fact they favored countries with universal healthcare systems. They were not partisan but you were willing to cite them.
"
You and I both know where AEI stands and what agenda they push and it is silly to think pasting a large document is meaningful."
I know where Kyle on Secular Talk stands as well, why take what he says about healthcare seriously? Because you agree with him? It goes both ways. As I said, the book gives all their citations and methods. Also, it is not the book to end all debates, but it is a credible source.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I agree with you on your first point but that's not what is happening
here. I read the shorter article you posted, about 30 pages I believe.
It's not a matter of the content but the length. It's just not
reasonable to assume someone has time to read nearly 200 pages and check
the sources. Since you clearly have read it through entirely It would
be much simpler for you to make a statement and then provide WHERE in
your source that statement is backed up by research. Simply linking a
lengthy paper to do the work for you won't even get you by in elementary
school. "
Why would I repeat what is already written? In the end I gave the conclusion. The conclusion is simply that other countries face problems and nothing indicates that universal healthcare is any better then what the US has. It is not to say that the US has a superior system, because we don't. It is saying that the system the US has is very strong, has many benefits, but also has problems. We should improve on that as opposed to completely replacing it. Also, anyone who says other countries do it better have essentially no evidence on their side.
"On the same level as using "do your own research" when having a discussion with someone. "
I am not saying "do your own research" as I gave you a source to read.
"I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had to frequently read 188 page papers to have an informed opinion on anything. "
For a complicated issue like healthcare you have to read a lot. The book, as a whole, is not a difficult read, well at least compared to other books I read.
"No I don't consider the WHO to be entirely partisan but I'm not the one
citing it. I directly copied from the paper you provided. (And I believe
the 37th ranking is based off of only a few out of many criteria).The
difference between the two points is one is specifically their ranking
of healthcare systems in the world. One specific point that is easy to
research and find the methodology in their testing. "
You cited the WHO ranking. I gave you the problems with that ranking which you have yet to defend or give a rebuttal to. One issue is that they oversimplified the issue. Prof. Ohsfeldt, one of the authors of that book, called healthcare rankings arbitrary, just like university rankings. The reason why is because the data people use in healthcare rankings are influenced by more then just healthcare. Their famous example is life expectancy and showing many variables contribute to life expectancy besides healthcare. That makes simplified rankings like the WHO unreliable and basically pointless.
"My issue with the system is accessibility to this type of care and
that's where the USA falls short. If you aren't in the upper middle
class or wealthy you will never experience the same care."
I was raised poor and had no problem getting healthcare. The system works for the vast majority which is why 80% of people in Colorado voted against universal healthcare. As a whole the vast majority are fine with the US system just like the vast majority are fine with the system in their own country. There are flaws and if we were to change to a universal system or a medicare for all system we will have different flaws to deal with where people still won't be receiving the high quality care they should get. There is no such thing as an ideal system when dealing with a complicated issue like healthcare.
What we need to be doing is pushing more people to become doctors, to become nurses and researchers and work in the STEM fields. We can't expect the government to come in and just make things better because in the end we lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, researchers and other highly skilled workers in healthcare. Every country does. Other countries just ration their care and they end up with problems as well and poor results in some ways. That's their flaws.
If in very end when you run through the numbers you see that the end results are similar for the US compared to advanced countries. There is no ideal system because in the end we lack the highly skilled workers to provide high quality care to all. Becoming a doctor is stressful. I am working on my PhD in physical chemistry and my line of work deals with biological materials. The work behind it is stressful. It is a major reason why we lack doctors and researchers in the field. Until you convince people to take on that stressful of a career we will continue to have flaws in the system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Grant Ray
I read it, you are just not correct. The Glass-Steagall repeal did not cause the recession, even Elizabeth Warren admitted to that.
What austerity have we practice? None, besides increase in taxes.
"Economies only face boom and bust cycles when you allow them too."
The only way an economy does not face a boom and bust cycle is if you have an economy that is not growing. The boom and bust cycles are part of a growing economy. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. We had a few recessions following the great depression. You just did not notice because recovery was quick like the crash of 1921. Every recession took around 5 years or less to recover from. Every recession except for two. The two were the great depression and the recession of 2007-2008. Those are also the only recessions the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending. Other times the federal government did nothing and we recovered quickly. But to say we don't have boom or bust cycles, or that they are bad is asinine. Zimbabwe has not boom or bust cycles.
"And tell me, what about the war yanked us out of the depression exactly? Massive government spending and influence in production industries."
There is a difference there. There was an actual demand for our services so we knew what wealth to create and where to send it. Government spending is not necessarily bad if we get our money's worth. That means wealth is created to people to demand it. What grows an economy the most is getting the most out of our resources. In that case we did. Before that we didn't. The federal government can spend money building things no one wants and guess what? The economy does not grow. That is the difference. Spending just to spend does not help anyone. You have to produce wealth that people value. The government, especially the federal government typically does not do that. Private investors do because they actually have something to lose. The federal government can just raise the debt ceiling the Obama did which is why we still have not recovered from the more recent recession.
"The New Deal regulations were solid, but though the stimulus helped, it was too small to be enough"
The New Deal is the reason why we have problems now. They were delayed because every other country had to rebuild after they war, but now they have caught up to us. This is why we saw a recession with no recovery. This is why people voted for Trump. We have been trying it the democrat way for decades now adding more federal government and more regulations, it it time to change.
If spending is what grows the economy, why is GDP growth right now low despite massive federal government spending under Obama?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, again you try to challenge me and again you make it too easy.
"We spend more per capita in regards to healthcare (Worse here)"
Because we do more testing such as MRIs for example. Also, the main reason why healthcare is so expensive is because of government involvement. However, simply stating that we spend more is not an argument in trying to discredit the system. People at MIT spend more on their education then someone at Chabolt College. Now who gets a better education?
" We cover far less of the population, before ACA, around 50 million off of healthcare(Worse here)"
Everyone has access to healthcare. You are talking about insurance. Why healthcare insurance is healthcare is another issue. But as a whole everyone has access. In other countries not everyone is covered either as care is rationed. Even Bernie Sanders admits that. In the US it is impossible to cover everyone due to lack of supply.
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=jbel
"- We have a far higher infant morality(Worse here, and even with your study cherry picking)
- We have a lower life expectancy( Worse here unless you use the study you cherry pick)
- We have worse outcomes with Cancer treatment(Worse here, and your study you may post is outdated) "
Again, all not true.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Even at that when you look at the raw numbers the differences are minute. Take life expectancy for example. The US is at 79.68 years.
https://www.infoplease.com/world/health-and-social-statistics/life-expectancy-countries-0
The average is at 72.13±8.57 years. That 8.57 is called the standard deviation. The US is above the average, almost one standard deviation above it. Several countries that supposedly rank higher then the US such as Malta, S. Korea, the UK, Germany, Ireland are all within the same range as the US. Any difference in life expectancy is simply noise. To say that the reason why the US has lower life expectancy simply because of healthcare is displaying a high level of ignorance. It is the same with all other data.
Compare it to this. John Elway has less passing yards then Drew Brees. Now who is the better QB and why?
" It's that our system didn't allow 50 million Americans to be on the healthcare coverage(Almost 20%)"
50 million people is around 15% of the population, not 20%. Minus your mathematical skills, we are again talking about insurance. I agree that is a problem, but that cannot be solved by simply going to single payer. In other countries they ration care as well because of lack of supply. We lack doctors, nurses, hospitals, researchers, equipment, etc. Again, Bernie Sanders admits to this. You agreed about the wait times, waiting for care on a waiting list is not receive care.
On your commonwealth source
"Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent
limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high
performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and
experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important
dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from
medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’
assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations,
which could differ by country and culture."
They admit their flaws.
One the next one it is informative and the first time you posted a credible link. So congrats, there is hope for you yet. But it only looked at cancer and not all of healthcare. It has important information that is worth discussing. So I will give you this one.
The WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not done one in almost 2 decades. It compared the US and other larger countries to Malta and San Andorra.
So 1 out of 3, there is hope for you yet. But again, that one only talks about cancer.
"Or even looking at your study
"The Buisness of Health""
I have, and I quoted from your sources because I actually read them where you haven't.
You have to try harder then that.
1
-
"Actually that's completely false, not only did not link why its so expensive, but thats again 100% incorrect. "
You have not linked my anything. But now you linked me Huffpo. I see a high level of ignorance how you are so quick to dismiss the book I give you which is written by two professors that cite all their sources, but then you just give me a Huffpo source and consider it legit.
" That creates a middle man which increases the prices, this is why only
80% of private healthcare money goes to healthcare and 94% of the
healthcare money goes to actual care for government."
You have to be careful there
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/
It isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.
"That is a massive argument, you pay far more and cover far less people, again thats a massive issue."
Nothing indicates that we cover less people. Other nations just ration their care differently. That is why you have to look at total outcomes. When you do you see that the US is on par with the rest of the world. It is similar to K-12 education. On the books every state has it, but when you break it down you see that in some areas they don't offer classes such as AP courses or calculus and so on. The reason why is because of limited resources. So standards are lowered to say that those students receive an education. Or in my home state in how we increased graduation rate because we lowered the standard. With healthcare we lack supply. So if the government paid for all of it then yes, on the books everyone is "covered". But when the quality is low, or wait times are high then what have you accomplished? People dying in waiting lines or having their problems get worse while waiting is not fixing the problem.
Just because you have low standards does not mean you win the argument.
"Which by almost every single metric, we are far worst in."
Again, that is not true. If we had a life expectancy of 60 years then yes, I will agree with you. But we aren't.
"Again this is a moronic talking points used by conservatives that try to
dodge the main point. In a country where insurance is needed(unless you
are rich) in affording medication, surgeries, etc, then healthcare
insurance can be used as health insurance. Because you can't get a tumor
removed as a middle class person since you most likely won't be able to
afford it. "
I agree that insurance companies have a lot of power. But you don't solve the problem by transferring that power from insurance companies to government, especially when government caused the problem to begin with. You will have government rationing out healthcare instead. That is not a solution. Also, I find this ironic
" this is a moronic talking points used by conservatives"
when you say this
"unless you
are rich"
again, attacking the rich which is a leftist talking point. Also, this is a leftist talking point as well
" you pay far more and cover far less people"
You have nothing but talking points. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion you have to support your points like I do and not just say broad statements such as "cover far less people" without realizing that other nations ration their care as well.
"All completely true, even in your biased study that you once again
posted since you can't seem to post anything else. We lose in infant
mortality and only win in life expectancy when they cherry pick
statistics and remove a massive amount of fatalities. "
Well you finally posted links, but only one was a study that dealt with only cancer. Anyway, if you actually read that book it covers the data and shows that the differences are minute. It does not "cherry pick" anything but instead showed that with minor changes to the data leads to varying results showing how minute the differences are in the numbers. That is what you do in statistics.
Look at this, if I were to throw an ice cube in the ocean does it change the temperature of it? No. But by what you are arguing it does. Technically it does, but in such a minute way you can't measure it. The same is with the numbers in healthcare. The data is so minute in difference that you can't say the reason why it is so is because of purely healthcare.
"Does not matter, the point is we don't produce better results, thus our system is still considered worse in this category."
Answer this question, is life expectancy purely dependent on healthcare?
"Where did I say we only had a lower life expectancy due to the healthcare?"
You are suggesting it is by saying we have an inferior system and that we have lower life expectancy.
" I said that contributes to it which as demonstrated by ridiculous amount of studies,"
I agree it contributes, but so do many other factors. As that book showed you that I gave you when you remove certain variables you get varying results. That shows that the differences are minute. You just agreed with me meaning you agree that the US healthcare system in on par with the rest of the world. Again, there is hope for you yet.
". Again I never said it was the sole factor, nor did I ever even write
that in past conversations. Again you are demonstrating your poor
reading comprehension skills when commenting. "
I am not demonstrating poor reading comprehension skills. I just demonstrated that you are contradicting yourself. You said that he US system in healthcare is poor and because of that we have lower life expectancy. Now you are saying that there are other factors in life expectancy. So how can you use life expectancy to determine healthcare system quality? Tell me that.
"Actually I was speaking of an old study that had 50 million Americans
off of insurance and was in 2004 so around 292 million which was 17% and
why I said almost 20%. Again read slowly, when I said almost, I mean closer to 20 percent of the population."
You never posted that study, I just read what you wrote and went off of that. You just can't do math. Sorry.
"50 million Americans did not have access to health insurance but again
you need healthcare insurance for treatment and surgeries unless you are
rich."
Again, it is impossible to cover everyone.
1
-
Part 2
"Again you keep using this phrase but apparently lack the critical
thinking skills or mindset to understand we are doing the same thing.
They ration based off of health needs, we ration based off of income and
how much income you make. "
What is a "health need"? Why should someone get care over me? I place myself as a priority over others most of the time. If I am in the ER and someone with a gun shot dying needs care then yes, they go before me. But beyond that what do you place as a "health need"? I need to get care and get back to work along with others who work and place themselves in a position to afford care. Why should they be placed on a waiting list while others who can't afford care go first due to some arbitrary system?
Also, "health need" is vague. So again, look at results. When you run through the numbers the US is on par with the rest of the world.
"However that means doctors need to take up more hours and more patients in the field. "
So you want to overwork them? Also, what if they refuse?
"Again another idiotic point, every study has its flaws. The study you
posted stated it had limitations when asking feedback in the studies.
However the raw data and points I listed, we come out worse every single
time. "
The study I listed gives their methods and citations for their data analysis. I don't see it on that commonewealth one.
"I have quoted your source multiple times"
No you haven't.
"Every single link I posted has credible data, hard statistics and
information that debunks your point. You have essentially posted a
single healthcare study that has already been debunked 10 ways from
Sunday and cherry picks like crazy.
"
They use the exact same data. If you read it you will see it. I am still waiting for you to debunk it as well.
"Actually has nothing to do with it, comparing us to small countries
doesn't mean us losing to essentially all other modern nations being
false. "
They are small countries with limited problems. It is a bad comparison. That is why the WHO did not do another ranking.
"You have not cited a single credible study. "
Yes I have.
"The buisness of health has already been debunked"
You haven't done it, you haven't even read it.
"and doesn't even discuss healthcare for most cases "
It looks at overall outcomes. You want to look at cherry picked situations.
"Again 2 right wing economists are not the best choice when debating healthcare, get an actual credible study.
"
You cited HuffPo, a left wing news source. You cited the commonwealth fund which does not give their methods nor their citations. Also, what makes them "right wing"? It is because you disagree with them? But really, you cited HuffPo, and you are telling me not to cite a book by two professors? Really?
"I mean look how pathetic your attempt was. So far you didn't cite any statistics, "
I cited many stats.
"The evidence still shows
- We have a higher infant mortality
- We pay more per capita than all other developed countries
- We cover less people compared to all developed countries. Again your
argument of rations doesn't change anything, over there they can have a
chance at a procedure, here 50 million Americans alone have no chance
due to financial restraints. "
Again, you are looking at raw data. In statistics you have to analyze it. A difference of a few years in life expectancy is minute. You are a person who will look at ACT scores and see one person has a 32 and another has a 30 and will cry "the one with 32 is way better" while ignoring the facts that
1. that is a minute difference
2. there are other variables to determine if someone is a good student
" You even admitted we had a lower life expectancy but argued it wasn't much of a difference."
It isn't.
" However all I stated was that we had worse life expectancy outcomes"
Because of many variables. You are literally saying that life expectancy is solely dependent on healthcare systems. But you later claimed it isn't. So why use life expectancy as an indicator of healthcare system quality?
" Every single claim I made, you failed to respond to. "
I responded to all of them.
" The only thing you did was cite the only study that was already
debunked by me multiple times and was useless on the topic of healthcare
for most points. "
You cited HuffPo. You really have no room to talk when it comes to citations at this point.
" Again every claim I made was accurate, "
I am not denying the numbers you give me, you are just confused on what they mean. As I said, Drew Brees has more passing yards then John Elway. That is true. Now who is the better QB?
"This is why I keep telling you, you argue with nothing but What if's"
When did I ever argue with "what ifs"? You, however, have.
" you argue with no facts nor understanding of statistics."
I beg to differ. Remember, you cited commonwealth that does not give their methods.
"Refute the claims or disprove them, otherwise you just wasted a whole
lot of writing for nothing. The entire argument you posed was "But but
but they ration!" Which we do the exact same thing."
My argument goes way beyond that. Your argument is that life expectancy is only dependent on healthcare. But then you later said it wasn't. So I ask again, why look at it when talking about healthcare without some statistical regression model?
"Go to school, get an education, understand reading comprehension and
critical analysis then come back to me. Until then, your useless
arguments that have no backing is rather claim-less."
I am a doctoral candidate in physical chemistry. I am preparing to attend the TRVS2017 this summer and will be giving a poster presentation. You can fly over and hear me speak if you want.
"
Try not to look to pathetic next time."
I will say the same to you. Cite something better then HuffPo if you want to criticize my sources. Also, you never did address my other source I gave. Why?
1
-
1
-
"Well first off, this is assuming applications would suddenly stop for
medical schools. Right now, the percentage of acceptances for many
schools is around 2-4% which is drastically low. To break it into simple
terms, there is a massive influx of people trying to become doctors.
Trust me, lowering the salary to 120k(Or around here) will not suddenly
cause students to stop applying"
Yes it will.
" It sure wouldn't stop me but yes I realize many people who are entering are not as liberal with the idea"
Almost all or they will be doing it already.
"Secondly, you can add other incentives to remove that issue. Example,
medical school is extremely expensive. The one I am attending is running
me around 75k a year to live. If our medical schools would become
similar to schools in Europe in the sense where tuition is paid for and
we aren't drowning in debt, then its possible many people will be fine
with a paycut when entering the field. "
You pull out a loan, become a doctor, get paid a lot and pay it back. I don't see a difference at that point.
"Theres other things you can do, but again the reality is many issues
exist in our system and the delusion people have that suddenly no one
will want to invent anymore is extremely false. This is because
inventions are still coming out of other countries all over the world
that don't have our system."
The US is number one in research and innovation in healthcare and technology.
"Very simiple, this is because right now Pharma has a huge control in the
market. However the reality is, many drugs made in the market does not
actually help patients. Many drugs I have learned about have drastic
side effects and realistically when one drug is taken off the market for
massive side effects, it just gets replaced with another similar drug.
Thus the reality is many times our research and development isn't useful
for patients, rather used to make higher profit margins. "
I agree with that. Now how does single payer solve that?
"Well again if you spoke to a physician or actually would listen to med
schools and what they look for, then you wouldn't be asking this
question. The point of going into the medical field is to help patients,
help people to achieve a healthier life. I understand making a great
income is extremely nice, but again doctors can still make a great
income, just not as high. "
I teach students working towards med school. It is expensive. They are not taking a pay cut for working that stressful of a job.
1
-
"I have linked you multiple studies(Common wealth, WHO, Cancer) and all
raw statistics. You have linked nothing and I dismissed the books when I
debunked them. I have already expressed the issues with their methods
yet you keep saying I haven't expressed them."
I have debunked them but here we go again
Commonwealth: Does not cite sources nor give their methods.
WHO: They were criticized so much that they have not made another ranking in almost 20 years. Also, it compared larger countries to countries like Malta and San Andorra. That is similar to comparing Emporia State University football to Purdue football. One is DII and one is DI, they are not comparable.
"Here is the idiotic link I mentioned before and I will say agan, read
your study!
"We won’t settle this question, but we will point out evidence that even
when you control for the differences, Medicare *IS STILL considerably
more COST-efficient* . In one study, CBO found that privately run
Medicare plans had 11 percent overhead, compared to 2 percent for
traditional Medicare."
Again...Read your study if you don't want to look like a high school
student. "
How about you stop acting like a middle school student and read the entire source
"Not necessarily. As the insurance industry often says -- and independent
experts generally agree -- the right kind of administrative expenses
may actually lead to cost savings and improved outcomes. These include
disease management, wellness programs and quality improvement programs.
CBO notes that a heavily managed insurance plan may spend more on
overhead but may end up with lower premiums and better outcomes, whereas
a lightly managed program may spend less on overhead but end up
charging its policyholders more, with less positive results. By this
logic, a higher-overhead plan might actually be preferable.
In addition, Henry Aaron, a health care specialist at the
centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, suggested that over the long
run, Medicare could benefit financially from having higher
administrative costs in at least one area -- anti-fraud enforcement.
In other words, measuring overhead is worthwhile, but it has its limitations."
"Yes it does, having far less people on insurance indicates we cover far
less people since you require insurance to usually get treatment. You
keep trying to stretch this point but you look moronic because they are
interconnected in this country. YOU have cited nothing to indicate
otherwise. "
Having to wait in line for low quality care while your condition is worse is the exact same as not being covered. I have a problem with my ear right now. I am seeing the doctor tomorrow to get it looked at while I do my physical. It should take around an hour. If I have to wait days or even weeks to see care because it is considered none emergency I could lose hearing in my ear when one of my jobs requires I have good hearing. Does that mean I was covered?
"No your argument is don't allow a massive portion of the population to
have an education. Again that would make the situation worse, in no way
would it be better. "
There are many people in rural areas that "receive" and education but can't do basic addition that you learn in 2nd grade. Even though on paper they have a high school diploma they can't do basic math. Have they received an education at that point? The same is with healthcare. If I have to wait for weeks to get care and my condition gets worse beyond repair, was I actually covered?
"Again you have cited no evidence to demonstrate that waiting
lines are causing deaths. However I can cite evidence to demonstrate
lack of insurance kills Americans"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
Let me guess, to you Harvard professor Katherine Baicker is a "right winger" as well.
"Pink do simple math, are we better in those categories or not? Either yes or no? You can argue not by much, but we are worse in the categories. "
Let me ask you this. Do those categories depend only on healthcare? Yes or no. By what you are saying it is yes according to you.
"Your solution is to remove government and give companies more power. How would that solve anything? "
My solution is to give more power to the people. Because of the payroll tax if a business pays a higher wage they will have to pay a higher tax. Instead they pay with benefits such as healthcare insurance. That means the people are restricted to what their employers provide. If employees received a higher wage instead they could get a plan that suits them and have companies compete which will lower prices and increase quality. Also they can switch jobs and not worry about losing healthcare. And insurance can cover expensive, emergency care and not basic care such as physicals like car insurance covers accidents but not oil changes. I want a free market system where we currently don't have one.
You want a centralized system where the government controls care and we are at the mercy of them. We don't have a choice.
"How is that a left wing talking point? You can't afford most procedures
or medications constantly without insurance unless you are rich or
extremely well off. Do you think a poor person or even middle class can
afford constant chemo treatments which can run into 100's of thousands
of dollars without insurance? At least understand what a talking point
is. "
I know a person who earned only $11,000 a year that had insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield and was able to pay for her chemo. It can be one. Again, nothing is ideal. I am not saying some people won't be covered. But your system wants to bring people down to cover the poor. You want to bring the middle class down, people like me, so some poor person can get covered. Why? I worked for my coverage and I want to use it tomorrow and will and will get quick service. Why should I have to wait for care just because someone who is poor is ahead of me on an arbitrary list? It would be great to cover everyone with high quality care. And if we can do that I will support it. Reality is we can't, period.
"Go to my first comment, I posted over 6 links demonstrating all the evidence. "
I saw 4.
.
1
-
"It completely cherry picks because the changes are pointless unless they have reasons that are valid to remove them. "
I
gave you the reason. It shows that when you do a statistical
regression on the data and make some changes the rankings vary. Car
accidents and murders are not strongly connected to life expectancy.
When you remove those you see a change in life expectancy in each
country. Now does that mean the US has the best system? No. It shows
that there are many variables that contribute to life expectancy and
that any minute difference between each country can be for a number
reasons and not just healthcare. As I said about the ACT comparison. A
student scoring a 32 is not necessarily better then one who scored a
30, or even a 28. There are other factors involved. I scored 3 points
lower then two of my friends on the ACT years ago. One failed out of
college and the other graduated and went to serve in the military. I am
a PhD candidate now because I had stronger work ethics then them in
academics and pursued degrees in the STEM fields. There were other
variables in play. You, however, is strictly looking at the raw data
and tying it only to healthcare.
"I have demonstrated nothing but statistically evidence and studies. I mean how the heck is that talking points? "
You
have not shown statistical regression models nor have to broken down
the stats. Take the 45,000 who die a year. That is only 0.01% of the
country. How many will die or have worse lives because of lower quality
care in single payer? How much will production be hurt because of wait
times? How much people suffer? You are ignoring that. Also, 35,000
people die a year in traffic accidents. Does that mean those 35,000
were on dangerous roads or in unsafe cars?
Again, you can't
just look at the raw data. You even said so yourself you provided the
raw data and I agree with the numbers. But they are what they are, raw.
Saying the US has lower life expectancy and saying that is because of
our healthcare system is saying that life expectancy is dependent only
on healthcare. In reality it depends on many variables. The data you
are giving is empty.
"I am suggesting that our healthcare plays a role in our system(a large
one) and we have a lower life expectancy as evident by multiple people
dying without coverage. You have yet to demonstrate ANY evidence, that
people are dying on waitlists. "
They do. You can find examples
all over the place. That is why they end up with similar results in the
end. If those countries had life expectancy that are 20 or so years
greater then us the yes, I will agree with you. But less then 10 years
is nothing in the big picture. Why do they get similar results then us?
Why does Ireland only have a life expectancy that is one year greater
then us if we have so many people dying prematurely? By what you are
saying they should be blowing us out of the water.
"The differences can only be shown if the reasons are valid which
they are not pink. You don't seem to understand this argument as posted,
you can't just remove points whenever you want in statistics and say
"If you hold points this way, it gets better". It only makes since if
you have statistical reasons to remove it(outliers for example) or valid
reasons from professionals to remove them which they don't.
"
They have valid reasons. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean what they did was wrong. So I will ask you again
Yes or no, is life expectancy only dependent on healthcare?
If
you say yes then you are ignoring other factors such as diet, crime,
smoking habits, etc. If you say no then you are admitting that other
variables contribute to life expectancy. Thus if we remove some of
those variables and we see a change in the rankings then it is clear
that life expectancy is a poor indicator in determining healthcare
quality.
So far your only argument is simply "they can't do
that". Why? Why can't they remove car accidents and murders? Are they
connected strongly to healthcare? If I am driving to work tonight and I
get hit by a drunk driver and die at the age of 30 does that mean I had
poor healthcare coverage? According to you it does.
"Oh yes you are because you have confused when me saying a large variable
is involved to a sole variable is involved.
*Now you are saying that there are other factors in life expectancy. So
how can you use life expectancy to determine healthcare system quality?
Tell me that.*
I said it has an impact on it which is large and you use other
statistical information to make conclusions on the point. As evident by
45,000 Americans dying each year, by 50 million Americans not having
health insurance, and by health insurance having a massively large
impact on healthcare, then you can deduce that healthcare outcomes can
be heavily influenced by healthcare. However most countries with higher
life expediencies tend to have drastically different healthcare systems
with far better results as demonstrated by the massive amounts of
statistical data.
"
I showed you how that 45,000 number is deceptive. But again,
if I die in a car accident tonight driving to work does that mean I have
poor healthcare coverage? According to you it does. According to you
all premature deaths are dependent only on healthcare.
"This is false, you can cover everyone. The reality is you will ration
based off of need so people with less drastic needs will wait longer
than someone with a more important need."
What is an "important
need'? I feel my ear is important to me. Is it life threatening? No.
But it could develop into something more serious. If I have to wait
for weeks to get care and it becomes more serious then my production
could drop. Now expand that to hundreds of millions of people. You are
fixated on that 45,000 people and not looking at the bigger picture.
Yes, 45,000 people die a year. But
1. you can't say it was only because of lack of coverage
2. does that require a complete overhaul on healthcare? And if so what will happen?
35,000
die a year on the roads. Does that mean we ban driving and only allow
for public transportation? Less cars on the roads and thus less deaths.
If you say no then you are satisfied with 35,000 people dying which is
hypocritical in some ways as you want to completely change our
healthcare system for only 45,000 people
1
-
"Health need is the idea that doctors decide who requires more assistance
ahead of others. You know people who are trained in the field to
understand the patient symptoms and diagnose quicker to save more lives?"
So my quality of life depends on some doctor I know little about? Also, when do they assess my situation? When I first talk to a nurse? When I first talk to the front desk? How long do I wait there?
"No we are not, we are worse in every single category.(Read this slowly, not saying horrifically worse in every category) "
Read slowly. There are many factors that contribute to those numbers. So I ask again, are those numbers dependent only on healthcare?
"You know what you sign up for as a physician, what do you think? You
think I thought med school was going to be a walk in the park? You think
I didn't know I would be studying all day and night with tiny breaks in
between killing my social life? Physicians know what the work will be
and that is their career. "
That is my point, they are overworked already. So you want to add more work for them and at the same time tell them to earn less?
"Any evidence to demonstrate this? Or are you just lying again? "
So you feel it is valid to compare the US to Malta?
"I listed multiple issues in the study already and you keep saying they
are attempting to show multiple angles. How the heck would I refute
claims in the study if I didn't read it? Again THINK critically
"
You have not listed multiple issues nor have you refuted anything.
"Actually they cherry picked statistics, looking at overall outcomes we are again worse in every category. "
Again, are those numbers dependent only on healthcare? If I die tonight by a stray bullet was it because my healthcare coverage was poor? I am asking this because everything you say suggests the answer is yes according to you.
"I cited a ton of different resources, when speaking of Huffinton post,
they were linking to my main topic. Did you not even read it? Here is
the link you were suppose to go to pink"
Why didn't you link that instead? Anyway, I still showed why that was deceptive. Also, I see no authors on that article. Who is taking credit?
"They are literally known as conservative economists that made a study
that was not only extremely biased(as demonstrated by multiple comments
based on this paper). But didn't really even argue the issues with
healthcare and then cherry picked statistics for no actual reasons to
remove them. "
How are they bias? And how does that make their argument less relevant?
"it has been analyzed to deaths, again you keep hanging on to life
expectancy. My point is we have worse results which can largely be
affected by healthcare by multiple other studies stated. Such as 45,000
Americans dying each year due to lack of insurance. "
I showed you how the 45,000 dying is deceptive. Also, you are saying that if I die tonight by someone robbing me and killing me in the process is because I have poor healthcare coverage. You are lumping me in with that 45,000. What that book does is remove some premature deaths to where that 45,000 carry higher weight.
"You only remove statistics if there is a warranted reason to. Again the
explanation he gave was useless since no professionals in the healthcare
field actually would argue that is fine. Not to mention, over a decade
old. "
The WHO is almost 20 years old, so I guess we can ignore that. Also, healthcare professionals will agree with removing car accidents and murders as that gives more weight to that 45,000. That is the point.
"No I didn't, I stated it plays a huge influence. I never stated "Life
expectancy is worse which is solely dependent on healthcare". However
healthcare(health insurance) plays a huge role in it. "
How can you say a "huge" role? When murders and car accidents are removed then people dying prematurely because of low quality healthcare system carries more weight.
"No you really didn't with any evidence. All you did say is "Theres a lot
of variables involved" just like other arguments where you had no real
evidence. Essentially you are dancing around the evidence. "
If you are actually studying to be a doctor then you will realize how complex of a system it is. This is how I know you are not studying to be a doctor.
"Actually I am not as I explained every single one and openly told you,
the claims I made were accurate. All our results in the health field are
worse, which is large due to healthcare field.
I mean infant mortality is largely affected by the healthcare field and
we are far above in this category compared to other modern countries.
The only thing you latch onto is life expectancy because it does have
many points. However
- Infant mortality
- Most expensive
- Less people covered by insurance thus health coverage
- And 45,000 dying a year due to lack of coverage
Are are largely affected by this system. Again you have responded to
NONE of these claims but with useless talking points.
"
Again, you remove murders and car accidents it gives more weight to people who die prematurely because of shortcomings in the healthcare system, such as people not being covered (the 45,000 to you). I suggest your read that carefully. If you include murders and car accidents then it weighs those 45,000 less. Let me use a simple model with 5 variables (there are more). Say you weight each way of dying prematurely as so
Murders: 0.2
Car accidents: 0.2
Lack of access to healthcare: 0.2
Diet: 0.2
Drowning: 0.2
Again, only five to keep it simple. I remove murders and car accidents, the weights can be
Lack of access to healthcare: 0.33
Diet: 0.34
Drowning: 0.33
What is greater? 0.33 or 0.2?
"Again these claims demonstrate how poor your reading comprehension is.
An example of your incompetence in statistical analysis would be you
allowing the removal of a ton of points in statistics and saying its
fine since it shows variation. Even though there are not statistical
reason to remove said data points as you would in a statistical study.
Again that is an example of that, seriously pick up a few books and
practice. "
There was a reason for that. I took advanced stats and in my research I do methods to remove other variables. For example, when I study coupling between two vibrational modes they can couple through bond or through space. When I do the finite difference method it considers both contributions where the transition dipole coupling only considers through space coupling.
http://mukamel.ps.uci.edu/publications/pdfs/490.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp035473h?journalCode=jpcbfk
I can find out which process carries more weight. In statistics you want to do that when you want to eliminate unnecessary variables. In this case we are talking about healthcare so you should remove variables that are not strongly influenced in healthcare. In economics when talking about the min. wage economists have done analysis to only look at low skilled workers and seen that increasing the min. wage has increased unemployment for those workers even if overall unemployment has dropped.
By not removing variables you are saying that deaths by car accidents are due greatly to poor healthcare coverage, and thus that variable should be included in the data set. That someone getting murdered is influenced greatly by their healthcare coverage. That is exactly what you are saying. Ask any statistics professor and they will agree with the authors of that book.
"This is extremely hard to believe since you fail in reading comprehension and critical analysis. "
You were the one that could not read an entire article I posted. You also keep changing your stance on life expectancy. First you say that life expectancy is dependent only on healthcare. Now you say it isn't, now you say that healthcare plays a huge role but do not give a quantitative value. You are all over the place here.
"Sure, what is your name and who should I attend? "
I it is Cambridge, UK.
http://www.trvs2017.com/
I don't reveal my name for personal reasons, but go to the poster session and try to talk about healthcare to some people. Many research topics there are related to healthcare. My work looks to develop methods to measure structure and dynamics of biological materials.
1
-
Again with the commonwealth source with no citations nor methods given.
Look at the date of WHO, it is about 20 years old.
"Read the conclusion pink, which is the exact same point I listed"
Read the entire article.
"This is again false by essentially every measurement. I mean what
statistical evidence do you demonstrate that shows this to be true? You
have listed no evidence what so ever on this topic. "
I get it, you suck at statistics. If I get murder tonight it is because I had poor healthcare coverage. That is what you are saying.
"You are stretching this argument to a ridiculous point. You are making
it seem like people are waiting for months for a regular check up. Do
you have any evidence what so ever to even demonstrate this at all?
Please cite it or as of now, you have no argument on this.
Again this is your "WHAT IF's" argument you keep posing without ANY
evidence.
"
People do wait months.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486789/Natasha-16-complained-headaches-She-died-13-doctors-failed-diagnose-brain-tumour.html
Remember, she just had a headache.
"Yes which is due in large part due to the low local funding and overall structure of the system. "
No, it is because of lack of resources. If no one is in the area to teach AP physics then it can't be taught. If you lack doctors people will not get care. Oh, wait, I forgot, you feel doctors will be willing to take on more patients for less pay even though they are not willing to do it now.
"Again this is apparent by other countries who completely crush us in
every category of education yet have a system that is completely public"
The US has the best university system in the world, is number one in research and innovation in healthcare and technology, and it in the top 5 in productivity. What would you rather have? Good test takers or productive workers coming out of the education system?
"Unlike myself who relies heavily on statistics."'
Yep, because according to you getting murder means that healthcare coverage sucks.
"Thats idiotic, the economists I claimed before openly state to be
conservative, but non-sense is more than expected from your comments.
Again the point was, if anytime someone could of received treatment but
wouldn't of and died in the process, then you can attribute it to lack
of healthcare.
"
You disregarded the points she made.
"See another idiotic question, no nothing is absolutely affected by
healthcare. But infant mortality for example is HEAVILY affected by
healthcare. Thus us having a massively high infant mortality more than
likely is due to our healthcare system. To argue something that has a
massive effect isn't affecting our mortality rates is beyond idiotic. "
What quantitative value do you place to say it is "heavily" affected by healthcare Mr. Statistician? You now have to give me a numerical value at this point and why.
"I know person X do Y is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Again this
is useless in debates, so stop doing the anecdotal evidence and "What
if" scenarios. "
You started with the what if stories. Need I remind you how?
"No I want to bring down coverage to be equal for all and be dependent on
your healthcare need. Again a system like this should NOT be for profit
as demonstrated by the massive cascade of problems in our country. "
Other countries face problems as well.
"Because if a person could live while you have to wait for a day or two,
then you should. Again you are really stretching the point of how long
you should wait and the country as a whole is disagreeing with you pink.
Sorry to say, you are falling behind on this argument."
My condition getting worse means I am still alive, but am I better off? No.
Sorry to say, you are falling behind in this argument. You have not given me any quantitative value in how healthcare "heavily" affects those numbers. You have not covered the fact that my condition, and others can worsen while waiting. All you care about is if they are alive. I really hope you are not my doctor. If I come to get my ear check by you then all you will say is "well you are alive, you are free to go". Just like that girl Natasha. She had a headache but was alive. Meanwhile her condition worsen, but she was alive. After months she died. But she waited because she was alive.
If being alive is your standard then that is low. I want people to be alive, healthy, happy and productive. I aim high while you aim low.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Critical Thinking Under FDR we saw a recession turn into a depression. We have seen other recessions in the past similar to the one of 1929, like the one in 1920 for example, but you never hear about that one. The reason why is because the federal government did little and recovery was quick.
FDR tried to "fix" the economy, which was the first time the federal government tried that. It was of no surprise that a depression came.
As far as blaming FDR for our problems now, you have to consider that in the long run socialism does not work. We are now $18 trillion in debt. Bernie's plan is expected to at $18 trillion more in 10 years. The old saying is that socialism works until you run out of other people's money, we are out.
Also what FDR did was give more power to the federal government. The same Bernie supporters that praise FDR and Bernie are the same people the complain about money in politics. Money in politics is simply a symptom of a disease. That disease is too much federal government. If the federal government had limited power then it can't be bought. This is why the founding fathers wanted a limited federal government, they wanted to avoid it becoming too powerful.
With the federal government having all that power it is open to corruption. Also we have become so dependent on the government that any talk of Social Security reform or Medicare/Medicaid reform is met with fear mongering on the left. And there is the mentality that we need the federal government to do X, Y and Z. But when it does A, B and C, there are complaints. Well, they wanted the federal government to have that power, so that is what they get.
I am open to discussion, the issue that people need to realize is that too much government is just as bad as no government. FDR created too much government, and Bernie wants to expand it. I am here to open up discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Is that why 50% of the UNited States Makes 30k a year or less?"
You have to be careful with that number. That does not mean half of the country is poor. There are many variables you are ignoring such as
1. how many of those people receive benefits
2. how many are a second and third owner of a household as in they are a teen living with parents or have a spouse
3. how many are young and in college and quickly earn higher wage later
4. how many are retired and work a part time job just to do something but have a retirement
All those people listed above earn less than $30,000 a year but are doing fine. I earn $23,000 a year as a TA and I am fine. I have my own apartment, my own car, I eat three square meals a day and so on. I know how to manage my budget well which is a part of that state of mind.
" Living wage is subjective, you're right, as in a living wage in New
York City is going to be higher than a Living Wage in Houston, Texas."
It is based on more then that. Do you have a spouse? Are you a teen living with parents? Do you have roommates? There are many components to it.
"BUt hey, guess what, no where can you make a decent living working a full time job , with no benefits, at only $7.25. "
Rent in my hometown was $500 a month for a two bedroom apartment that is pretty decent. No ghetto at all. So $250 a month with a roommate. Add in say $100 a month in groceries, $90 for a cell phone bill (I am going on the high end here), I will say $200 in utilities and laundry and you have monthly expenses of $440 a month. Now at $7.25/hr let us say at 20 hours a week, so 80 hours a month. That is $580 a month before taxes. So around $500 a month. And that is not cutting the utilities in half, and at only 20 hours a week. For full time you are earning around $1000.
Now do my city. My rent is $610/month. I can reduce my cell phone to $50 a month easily and still have many features. Internet is $50/month. Electricity is $30/month. Food is $100 a month, but I buy expensive food. I can reduce it down to $60 if needed. So we are at $900 a month. So $100 for laundry and other minor things. And that is because I live on my own. I can get a roommate and cut my rent and utilities in half.
I suggest you put forth more effort on your political point of view.
1
-
"My point, which you completely ignored, is that regardless of where you
live making $7.25 an hour for a full time job is not enough to live
decently. "
One, define decently. Next, it all depends on your situation. I ran through numbers with you. I earned $5.15/hr at one point and I was fine. I lived with my parents and it was during high school, but I was fine. You can't just throw numbers out there and make assumptions.
"I guess the yearly average of 45,000 people that die in the United
States because they lack proper health care is due to the fact that
these people are just lazy and didn't work hard enough to get a decent
job with benefits? "
45,000 people is around 0.01% of the population. 35,000 people die a year in traffic accidents. I guess we should ban driving, or only have public transportation to limit the amount of cars on the roads. Also, that 45,000 people are typically poor and thus are less healthy to begin with with higher rates of obesity and type II diabetes because of their own actions. You can't say that they only reason why they die is because of lack of care. There are many reasons contributing to that.
Again, stop throwing numbers out there without proper perspective.
" I Mean, I guess places like Canada, The United Kingdom, SPain,
Netherlands, Denmark, etc, don't have as many lazy people because their
yearly average of people dying due to lack of healthcare is a whopping
0."
They die because of low quality care instead. They have many problems themselves. I will link you a book about that later.
"
Your simple minded narrative that poor people are lazy, and rich people
are virtuous, is both disgusting and hilariously ignorant."
Who is being simple minded? You are throwing out numbers without putting them in the proper perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gil B Well your assumptions are not correct.
1. Around 5% of workers have multiple jobs and several are in rural areas due to being farmers and are seasonal. A correlation exist for those in areas of low unemployment thus those who work multiple are in areas where jobs are not a shortage of.
Those who work min. wage are typically part time and you are making the assumption that they wont' lose hours to begin with in any job.
2. I actually pay more for groceries and goods. I feel that the local grocery store up the street is better overall and I am willing to pay more. But I am the minority. People shop at Walmart due to low prices and convience, and they are not poor people either. If prices were to go up then they might as well shop elsewhere. And there are people who work on low income (and earn more that $15/hr), a small increase in prices will hurt them.
The stat you said about the 1 to 5% increase is completely made up. If Walmart (who pays above the min. wage to begin with) could raise their prices that much and not lose businesses or units per hour then why don't they raise prices and earn that much more in profit? I mean, as you said, they are greedy and want their employees to starve. It is also funny how you are so quick to point towards a major corporation like Walmart but not the small local business up my street. They will suffer more.
3. This is where you get emotional just like your first comment. A business, if being forced to pay workers more, can jut close their doors at 10 pm instead of 11 pm. A business can stay open as late as 11 pm for those who work late and want a late snack (like me for example), but in reality they receive the lowest amount of customers during time. It is no longer economically smart to remain open when they receive so little business. It then behooves them more to close down early. So they can remain open as a business, they will just adjust their hours.
You said this in the end
"If they want to just make money and let their employees starve they should go down under."
and this
"If those companies can't adapt, too bad."
I can easily say that if those workers can't adapt and become more profitable then too bad. Or if they can't earn more money then too bad.
You can come at me all you want, I heard of all the shallow arguments for the min. wage. As I said, there isn't one single good reason why we need one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr No, I actually have a life where I eat and work.
You are actually supporting my side of the argument in a way. I said that the min. wage will lead to a price increase. You said in the past that it doesn't, but now you are saying it does. We are starting to agree. There is hope for you yet.
Yes a small percent is hard on low income people. You sent me 2 sites that one, had the min. wage at $10/hr and another at $15/hr. Which do you support? Let us assume $15/hr. What about the people currently earning $15.05/hr? or $16/hr? Or those on salary. Myself and my colleagues earn $1850/month. A person on full time at $16/hr earns, before taxes, $2560/month (assuming 4 weeks a month). So myself and my colleagues will be harmed a lot with that 4% increase. And we don't get a raise.
Your other problem is that you are assuming, like the previous poster, that hours wont' be cut. Forbes had an article entitled
"We Are Seeing The Effects Of Seattle's $15 An Hour Minimum Wage"
It has several interesting points in that how restaurants are closing higher than normal, or that in Seattle there is an average of 14 employees per restaurant when the national average is 17. In the follow up article it is mentioned how when even look at overall job growth and consider factors such as a larger population and increase wealth, jobs are not created due to the min. wage increase.
People won't be earning double, one of your articles even said that businesses will cut hours.
This is a complex situation. I have shown you time and time again how the min. wage doesn't lead to any positive effects. You even shown me the negative effects but yet you insist on that I am somehow wrong.
As I said, you are improving though. At least you are admitting there is a negative effect in the min. wage. And you are looking at the areas effected by it. Now you just need to realize that nothing positive comes from the min. wage.
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr
Let us break down how you are constantly wrong.
1. You said in the past that there isn't any evidence of jobs being lost or
prices going up due to the min. wage. In reality you said that it led to job
creation. I have pointed out how jobs are lost and prices go up. You seem to be
accepting that now and are now saying that it is a small effect, something I
have been saying the entire time. In the end, though, there are negative
effects that get lost in the statistics due to several other variables holding
more weight in the economy.
2. You said there are positive effects. What are they? More money in people's
hands? As I said, that is under the assumption that people won't lose hours to
begin with (which they do). It also goes against the true value of money, more
on that later.
You also said that people will be paid double if the min. wage is raised to, I
assume, $15/hr (you give sources pointing to $15/hr and $10/hr, a lack of
consistency in your argument, what value do you support and why). That isn't
true though. What about the individuals earning $14.50/hr? They only get a 50
cent raise but see prices go up 4% (according to you). Or those earning $15.05,
or those on salary. Not every will see their income double, in fact no one
will, or a very small amount if any at all. Thus that 4% does play a major role
now. You failed to realize that.
3. On the value of money. Money's value is derived from the wealth it creates
based on what society demands. A worker at Burger King for example generates
little wealth and thus is paid little. Money doesn't have a set value. Just
arbitrarily giving it away doesn't help, it lowers the value of the dollar. In
order to increase it's value the market has to raise prices and cut hours
forcing other workers to work harder. If all it took was more money then why
not a) give it away or b) raise the min. wage to $50/hr? That is where your
argument really falls apart because you lack understanding of what money is.
Giving someone more money to flip burgers isn't going to grow the economy. That
doesn't create wealth. I can cook a hamburger along with the vast majority of
society.
4. You never debunked that Forbes article
5. You cited certain economist on the min. wage, now how many Steves do you
have? Ever heard of project Steve? I am sure I can get a lot of economist named
Steve that can outnumber the ones that support on the min. wage.
In the end nothing positive comes from the min. wage in both theory and
practice. Point to me where someone all of a sudden got rich due to the min.
wage being increased. If it were that simple then we would pass it at $50/hr, the fact is that in a complex economy
it isn’t that simple.
I know it sucks being wrong, I understand your anger. I use to be young and immature like you. But you are getting better. You went from saying that the min. wage led to positive effects at the macro level (such as increasing jobs) without any negative effects to realizing the negative effects and looking at portions of
the economy that are most effected by the min. wage. I know eventually you will see how there isn’t one good reason to even have a min. wage.
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr You said that he min. wage creates jobs. I called you out on it and you then call me a liar. I call you out on it again and then you are now going back to your old arguments.
So does the min. wage kills jobs or not? Also, when you increase the min. wage you don't "create new jobs" because those earning the min. wage don't have the skills to work higher paying jobs. That is why you see an increase in unskilled labor unemployment when the min. wage goes up. In the end you said that it created jobs.
I also never said the min. wage would lead to doomsday predictions, that Forbes article said that as well. The fact is that nothing positive comes from it.
My stance is nothing positive comes from it. Your stance, as of now, is that there are negative results but any positive result is now small. Thus raising the min. wage at best leads to an overall result of nothing. The negatives outweigh the positive according to you now. Here is your argument now
1. It kills jobs but very small (my argument as well) but doesn't necessarily create jobs (even though you said it did, you are still swaying here)
2. It increases prices (my argument as well)
3. People are paid double (not true, what about those earning $14/hr that go to $15/hr, or those on salary).
It seems to me that you have 2 negatives and one positive that you have to lie about to make look good (and removes the assumption of people losing hours). Seems like the negatives outweigh the positives.
I am proud of you, you are learning. Soon you will realize how dumb min. wage laws are and how, in reality, nothing positive comes from them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr Ok, as usual you present an article and try to say "gotcha" and I have to bring you back down to earth by being intelligent and breaking it down.
First the "thinkprogress" article. Ignore it's bias, 200,000 of those degrees were associate degrees. Not a skill developer. Now out of those other degrees, what were they in? What were their grades? What were their job experiences? A college degree does not automatically equal skills. One can get a degree in history and be completely useless because a degree that just requires hours of reading history is not productive, a lot of people can do that.
Now that article said that the number of those working a min. wage job double in 2005. This directly correlates to what I said. You raise the min. wage and what happens? Those with low skills, teenagers for example, lose jobs. You removed the lower rungs of the economic ladder. There is probably a reason why they are working a min. wage job, it is their first one. Due to the min. wage they couldn't get a job in high school or college, thus all they qualify for, due to lack of work experience, is the min. wage.
You also have the labor to labor substitution. With the increase in the min. wage a business is going to look for more qualified employers, thus they hire a college grad. over a high school grad. This correlates to what I have been saying. You are once again supporting my case.
The USNews article is the same way. Same with the Washington Post one.
The CNN one is interesting. Noticed that when the min. wage went up in 2007 and 2008 so did those with a college degree working them? There is that labor to labor substitution again.
Plus, as you said earlier, the min. wage should create better jobs. Why didn't it? Why are the not getting better jobs? They should be getting jobs left and right?
Overall, those articles don't show anything except supports a correlation I have said in the past. And college degree does not automatically equal skills. Remember that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Qingeaton Wealth does not equal income, that is another problem with Bernie. He tries to equate wealth with income, they are completely different.
Around 60% of the average homeowner's wealth is in their home, a homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth. Does that mean they are not well off? No. You can have a nice income but little wealth. You need to learn the difference between wealth and income and why there is wealth inequality.
"30 years of flat wages for the average and no ability for savings
accounts, which even if you could afford to pay into wouldn't pay any
interest anyway."
Disposable income has been going up for decades at a steady rate. Inflation is mainly due to the federal government. Anything the federal government has touched has gone up which goes against a healthy economy. In a healthy, growing economy goods and services get better and cheaper. We have seen that in areas that the federal government has not touch and the private sector has, for the most part, complete control. Cell phones, cars, TVs, computers, LASIK etc. All better and cheaper.
Now look at education, food and gas, all areas the federal government has touched and prices have gone up. We are pumping a lot of oil but gas prices have been rising. One main reason is that the EPA has prevented us from building a refinery in 40 years.
" I guess you are right. We should just keep doing the same stuff we have
been doing for 30 years. It's working for somebody, at least they can
live the dream."
Some components we should still do. Electing Bernie Sanders whose polices will compound our current problems is something we should not do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Also, what publications do you have? Do you have any actual evidence to
show you have published anything or are you just stating you have more?"
Yes, because I am going to expose who I am to creeps on the internet.
"No they do not, in fact scientists in the field are not "right" nor
"left", they follow the scientific method to come to conclusions. You
should know this by now...."
I agree, which is why the vast majority of scientists do not take a stance on the issue. But those on the left, as in politicians, the media, and those who support them and do not study science, do pick the science they want to support.
"Almost all scientific literature supports the idea of CO2 emissions
cause global warming and there is substantial evidence demonstrating
this phenomenon."
Not true. Selected scientific literature says that. Read that book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". They go through the literature that was selected and not selected. It would help you to understand that the vast majority of the scientists do not even take as stance on the issue which is why those consensus "studies" selectively pick the publications they talk about.
"That's exactly what scientists do, if you were in the field, you would know this. "
I am in the field and I do know this.
"The argument of global climate change has a large part to do with the
impact that rising CO2 emissions has on the topic. The paper you posted
had nothing to do with disproving most scientific literature posted with
CO2 emissions which is what you should be linking. "
The paper shows that we do not even understand the physics of photosynthesis. Plus, science does not prove anything. But I will get back to this issue.
"If you are attempting to argue "there are many things we don't
understand" that's obvious in every field of science. There are tons of
pathways(that aren't quantum btw) that aren't fully understood. Simple
example would be Alzhimers plaques and tangles, what causes them to
accumulate and what they are truly for. Earlier studies had scientist
believing that AB-42 was a toxin that accumulated over time that caused
neuronal death. However more recent studies demonstrated that AB-42's
that accumulate to form plaques may be AMP's that are used in our brain
However over time mechanisms that clear the AB-42 oligomers fail to do
so in efficient time which leads to neuronal death. Quite a difference
in views, and this took experimentation to find and this is barely
touching the surface of this disease. However the end result is still
the same, while the mechanism is still not fully understood and there
are tons of things more that are not understood, in the end, neurons do
end up dying when incubated with AB-42 oligomers in vivo/vitro. "
Funny you mention Alzheimer. One of my research projects is related to that. I study structure and dynamics of biological materials using ultrafast spectroscopy. Through that we monitor changes in biological materials using IR probes such as Amide I in the protein backbone. Diseases such as Alzheimer are being looked with with the techniques I use because proteins and RNA fold on themselves in the sub-picosecond time range making linear IR and NMR techniques limited. With ultrafast techniques you can take snapshots of the protein and RNA folding.
"There are still many things we don't understand BUT that doesn't mean we
can't understand anything either which is what you are attempting to
argue with this idiotic comparisons. "
It is not an idiotic comparison. Science has many fields that are specialized. When people talk about the "consensus" they say one of two things.
1. 97% of scientists........
Which is applying all scientists when none of those consensus "studies" does that, they look at climate scientists. So others say
2. 97% of climate scientists.....
But at that point you are just limiting yourself to climate scientists. You eliminate physicists, chemists, and biologists who also do related studies in the field. Just because someone is a physicist does not mean they do some work in the field. I am a physical chemist myself but I work with proteins and RNA nucleotides. But believe me, you will never mistaken me for a biologist as I know way more physics and chemistry than biology.
Science is a complex field, and eliminating other branches of it and just trusting climate scientists is foolish. Also, you said so yourself
"There are tons of pathways(that aren't quantum btw) that aren't fully understood"
There are many things in science we do not fully know. What makes you think that the ecosystem won't evolve? What makes you think that a large portion of this is not natural? You are just going off of climate scientists' (a minority of them mind you) word. Nothing else. You are ignoring other variables in the field. That was the point of the photosynthesis paper. How many climate scientists will understand that topic of quantum entanglement? Not many, but it is clearly related to their field.
This is not to say that we do not have some idea on the issue, nor that we should not look into it and study it. We should. But he fear mongering from the anti-science left really needs to stop. If this was such a big deal they would get someone from the field, one of the 97% to come talk about it.
"Scientific literature that is published does not do this at all, and so
far the papers published have not jumped to conclusions. What you are
speaking about are people who are not in the field(people such as
yourself)."
Scientists are not jumping to conclusion which is why most scientists, even climate scientists, do not take a stance on the issue.
"No Bill Nye is the scientist that appears on TV, if you speak about actual scientisits, you just need to cite literature. "
Bill Nye ran a kids show explaining remedial science to kids. He did not specialize in any field, he never published a peer reviewed paper, nor has he ever done any research on the topic. He deflected this entire video. I will never go to Bill Nye for any information beyond remedial science. Of course, considering how I have a degree in physics and a degree in chemistry I do not have to go to him at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"More deflection, I did provide links in multiple comments we've spoken about healthcare."
No you did not.
"You really need to learn to read and think about it for a second. I
agreed to have a lower wage, all I said was, it has to be a living wage.
That is, something I can survive off. That is, if you asked me, can I
work for 1 dollar a year, I would starve and be homeless so that's
impossible."
Now you showed your complete lack of understanding of economics. A "living wage" is deceptive. Can you live off of $1/hr? Yes. If you had roommates or someone else living in your home that earns more money. The "living wage" is subjective in that it depends on your situation. My girlfriend bought a $10,000 car on a $8.25/hr job. She was able to do so because I earned enough too pay for rent and the other bills for both of us. Here wage was a "luxury wage". So by my standard you can work as a doctor for $8.25/hr.
"You really need to read the own sources you just linked. They stated science does not provide absolute proof which is 100% correct. I never stated it did,"
Yes you did. When you say "prove" you mean without a doubt. As Richard Feynman said
"Science is a culture of doubt...."
"However science does work off of proving hypothesis(explanations) through experimentation. "
No, it accepts or rejects a hypothesis, never proves. You clearly have never done work in theoretical studies.
" Never once did I say absolute proof, never once did I say it was 100%
correct. Never once did I say any of that, and then you link a blog to
psychology?"
More than you have ever linked. You never give any sources at all. But now you are back pedaling because I linked Oregon St. and Berkeley.
"Not really, most techniques you learn in undergrad are used in grad
school. Almost every TA was a PhD candidate and all of them used the
exact same point. Just dependent on what topic they choose to work with."
Depends. FTIR and NMR are remedial. Same with UV-Vis. Ultrafast spectroscopy and 2D NMR are more advanced and usually not covered until grad school.
"Science is used to prove hypothesis through experimentation."
Nope, accept or reject hypothesis.
"No one is making an absolute claim, "
Yes they are. The media, politicians, and supporters of the left are. That is the problem. They are misrepresenting science in doing so. That is my issue. Scientists, for the most part, do not take a stance on the climate change issue that the media and politicians are.
"What I am saying is, the evidence at the moment demonstrates that and
you are stating it is useless since things are more complex. If we
worked with that mentality in science, nothing would be studied or used
in practical standards."
Not true. I am saying do not jump to conclusion. With how complex issues are in science that means we keep doing research to advance our knowledge and progress. At the same time we take what we know and proceed with that as well. With climate change there is a lot we do not know, thus we can't take drastic actions that will ruin our economy in the process. We should keep doing research, we should keep using new technology that is more efficient. But we can't just go around increases taxes and regulations and spending on frivolous things (like Solyndra) on an issue that has so much doubt.
You feel that my stance is to do nothing. That is 100% wrong. My stance is not to go to the extreme which is what the political left is trying to do.
"You keep citing this even though I am not using this argument. That 97% consensus is useless and I never argued it was useful
"
I am proud you do that. Others do though which is a problem.
"You keep stating this yet you come up with no examples of scientific
literature that contradicts the previous notions. All I am stating is,
if you are arguing that a certain community goes against 1 idea(chemist,
physicists, biologists), then link me those scientific literature
papers. There doesn't seem to be many that argue this notion through
experimentation. "
What am I trying to contradict? The only thing I am trying to contradict is the 97% stat that everyone brings up. The issue is that consensus does not exist. So how to you contradict it? It has been debunked with other literature (Read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming") really easily, so why spend much time on it.
"You are arguing in the case of absolute proof and I never stated science was for that method.
"
Yes you did, now you are back pedaling.
"Where did I state that it was doomsday if the government doesn't intervene? Where are you getting any of this from? "
That is what other people are saying which is a problem.
"You stated this same point 5 times, and every time you look like an
incompetent highschooler that has 11th grade reading comprehension
skills. Science is experimentation and providing evidence for hypothesis
that leads to a theory. Never once did I say it was absolute(as
obvious by my example above with Alzhimers), never once did I say it
was un-proveable, never once did I state anything like that.
"
Yes you did. I simply stated at the beginning that science does not prove anything. You said it does. Now you are back pedaling after I gave you a link from Oregon St. and Berkeley (BTW, this again shows how I provide you sources and you provide nothing to me). You looked like a fool now you are squirming trying not to. Now you are trying to discredit me by calling me a highschooler, a tactic used by those who are are not doing well in any argument. You have done this in the past which is why I continue to win these debates and you disappear in the ether.
"The scientific method demonstrates observations that go to a question
that arrives at an explanation and we provide experimentation and
evidence for it. This is how science works and it is meant to be
provable, something with evidence. "
It is met to be supported, not provable.
So let go through the Jonathan check list
1. Makes accusations toward me.....check
2. Does not give any any sources.......check
3. Backpedals when shown to be a fool......check
4. Tries to shame me by calling me a highschooler or being from a rich family......check
5. Showed how he is incompetent in another field, this time economics with citing "living wage"......check
Another great attempt by Jonathon
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"As long as people have Universal healthcare, then it is fine if the
amount has to be lower. Links for amounts cost in other countries? "
What is your point? Doctors get paid well? So what? Ever thought that if you made more money you can help people out more? I have a friend who was an EMT and helped people out that way. They have since changed jobs so they are making much more and have started charities to help out those in need. If you earn a lot you can do charities. At the same time if you want to work for a low income then fine, but actions speak louder than words. You say you are from MO. Great, I was raised there. My dad earned $47,000 a year. He owns a home and recently bought more land. If you really want to be helpful than work, for a low income, in a rural town as they lack medical professionals. But $47,000 was enough for him to buy a home and raise three kids, two of which have their MBA and one who is pursuing their PhD.
I see that you have finally given me links. It has been long enough.
"Say the same about you with your ridiculously long responses. But I just got home from classes, and am eating. Small break "
Earning a PhD has more flexibility in scheduling. I am finished with my classes and qualification exams. Now I just have research and writing. With two papers already I am in good shape so far. I have three other projects I am working on to be first author and four others that I will be a second author on (one we are hoping to publish in Nature). I am fine overall as I do manage my time well. Plus, I know what I am doing which makes it easier.
"My point is, why do you keep bringing it up? I am not asking for this
stat, I have asked you for the literature of CO2 emissions that
contradicts current scientific literature. You mentioned other fields
and we should recognize them, I 100% agreed and asked for their papers
in CO2 emissions affect on climate change. You never responded to that
point...."
My point? I do not deny that CO2 levels are increasing nor am I denying that the climate is changing. My issue is that
1. We do not know to what degree man is playing in climate change.
2. We do not know if it is even bad.
That is my point. But the ultra left is running around like the world is on fire and we are all going to die. They are saying that climate change is a major concern when in reality it isn't. The media and politicians are misrepresenting science. That is my issue.
I support doing more research on climate change. I support progressing in technology. What I do not support is the politicizing of issues in science, in this case climate change. Politics poison what they touch.
"I would recommend philosophical text, it was quite a useful way to help
critical thinking and analyzation. Again a big part of the MCAT was
analyzing text from multiple different authors and types of writing."
For the GRE and grad school I to have critical thinking skills and analyze materials. I read plenty of books. But what do you suggest I read? If you are going to say "read a book" you have to give me a list.
"Took me 5 mins to respond and I am a med student in Missouri!. However
once I finish, I will possibly move. So you may never escape me as a
doctor :)"
I am pretty good at seeing if someone is ignorant. My girlfriend has a rather sub par doctor and I could tell when I first met him. I suggested that she should change and eventually she did. After that the new doctor helped her out a lot more. My girlfriend suffered with psychological issues and the old one prescribed her with multiple medications. The new one weened her off of it and gave her therapy and improved her life. But as a whole I can tell the original one was not very good. So chances are if I were to meet you I would tell immediately not to go to you.
1
-
"If you want a simple standard I am referencing too. A wage that allows
you to sustain yourself by yourself in a studio apartment(so place to
live) and allows you to pay the bills and eat. That is all, that is a
living wage in my opinion since it is subjective."
That is the point, it is subjective. Saying the term "living wage" shows economic illiteracy. You may say that you want to earn enough to live off of by your lifestyle choices and that is fine. But you can't say "living wage".
"Again arguing semantics, it's irrelevant, I would take a lower salary to
get Universal healthcare. That is the question you asked and I
answered. "
But will other doctors? That is the issue. If you are than just charge your customers less to begin with. Work in a small community and provide low cost healthcare. You want others to live by your lifestyle which is a problem.
"I've done it in all the debates"
No you have not. If it is a problem with links not showing up you can name the studies or sources.
"Oh sure, some books I read for difficult language to practice for the
MCAT was Richard 3 and as you like it was difficult for me, by William
shake spear. Another book(that was one of my passages for practice MCAT)
was Villette by Charlotte Bronte. I read like 4-5 more for practice but
most of my reading for the MCAT was done online passages(Around 120 I
read) for the MCAT CARS section. Be my guest if you would like to read
them, all quite interest articles, and you must be able to analyze them.
You can get the practice MCAT test for free on many websites."
Thanks. I am planning on taking the MCAT after grad school if I do not land a job I want. Earning a PhD can hurt you in the job market as businesses do not hire doctorates because
1. They are hard to train
2. Can't work well with others
3. Lack social skills
4. If you put a bunch of them in a room all they do is argue and get nothing done.
There are other reasons why but those are some qualities of doctorates. I have seen them first hand. I push to not have those qualities as I do other activities (such as be an official for sports both at high school and college). But still, if I cannot get a job I feel that I can move up in and earn a high salary eventually I will go to med school because I know what I am worth. And before you call me someone who is greedy I want to earn more money so I can do what I want with it to help others as in donate. My friend has a charity and I will help them out with it.
"Not really, in fact, you usually just start arguing semantics and never
actually cite information that is useful to the debate. You kept citing
things to the 97% consensus argument even though that had nothing to do
with the argument for me."
I bring up the 97% because that is the major issue I have with climate change. If you do not support that 97% stat than I really do not have a problem at that point. But when you attack me and my other comments are concerning the 97% stat it does give the allusion that you are supporting that data as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That's NOT conservation, that's profit maximization. "
I know, but a part of that is limiting waste. Consider this, even is they had waste, why would they just dump it into the river as many on the left claim? That will hurt the local environment which will hurt business. Disposing of waste in a way that will not hurt the area around them is a way businesses practice.
"You think Exxon is trying to sell progress as a company? Did you
actually just say that? If they were interested in progress they would
be channeling all their R&D into renewable energy, "
They have. They help fund the San Gorgonio wind farm.
" Germany is well on it's way to making renewables viable, profitable, "
They have actually increased emission as a result as they went too radical.
"and when that happens people like you will be left with their mouths
gaping open while the US is left in the economic dust as they sell the
technology to the rest of the world. "
If we fall behind it is because of too many government regulations. For example, to create solar cells you need elements from mines such as the f-elements since they can do up and down conversion of light. But it takes years to open a mine in the US so we can't get them. In China, though, with limited regulations they have cornered the market of f-elements and thus do a lot of research in it. The exact same regulations that are designed to "save the earth" are hurting production in terms of research and innovation. To develop these alternative forms of energy we need to use fossil fuels.
"Once again you failed to comment on the FACT that Exxon knew since the
70s about anthropomorphic climate change and engaged in a massive
disinformation campaign - COMMENT ON THAT!!!"
That was from the 70s. I am concerned what is happening now. I cannot speak for Exxon from the 70s nor do I care. Why do you want to live in the past?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr All of it. Certain parts have a higher degree of certainty than others but like all theories there is always doubt.
In evolution there are questions of nature vs. nurture. There are questions of free will. There are questions in why do species go against their own benefit to care for their young. Evolution is a semester course offered at most universities. You should take it sometime, you will learn a lot.
I will leave you with a quote by my favorite physicists, Richard Feynman.
"I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr "I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
A quote from my favorite physicist, Richard Feynman. I have different levels of certainity. With gravity I am really certain about it but I don't completely know it, so what? That is what makes the universe great. Knowing everything would be boring. What would be the point of living? Where will the progress comes from. I am not trying to debunk gravity like I am not trying to debunk evolution. I am saying that we will never be completely certain about any theory and always leave room for doubt. You can call me an idiot all you want but I am going to call you myopic. You are so myopic that you refuse to even consider that something you hold onto so closely could be wrong. You are no different than a religious fanatic who refuses to think that the world is older than they think. Science is not a religion, stop treating it like one.
I will leave you with another Feynman quote.
"We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified–how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You can think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don't know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Having read this article, and the report, I call BS. There are some important facts that need to be made.
1: The repeal of the law was the repeal of the states LTC law only. It means you no longer need a license to Purchase, it doesn't override the Federal NICS check that still has to be carried out when a handgun is purchased. In other words there is still a background check when a firearm is purchased new or used from a FFL dealer, only private sellers had no way to verify the background of a prospective buyer.
2: This law had no impact on straw purchases at all, and never would have. A person selling a gun to a criminal knowingly wouldn't have been deterred by the LTC requirement in place, and would pass the NICS check for the original purchase.
3: The report claims a 16% increase in gun murders, the real number is 12% However; the total number of murders didn't change, though a larger percentage were committed with firearms over the past few years as compared to 2006 and 2007 (last points for which such data is easily obtainable).
Is the objective to reduce murder? Or to reduce guns? In over 120 studies more than 90 of them determined a negative correlation (less guns = more murder) between firearm reduction and murder rates. 17 Found no relation.
This is a comment from another channel from another profile on this story. I copied and pasted it because I couldn't have said it better myself. Growing up in MO there were no background checks in private sales, just through license dealers. Another problem with this story is that it is signaling out one state and one law. Illinois has very strict gun laws and look at that state. East St. Louis (right across the river of St. Louis , MO) is incredibly dangerous. A lot of times the crime drifts over into St. Louis and it is a problem, much like Jaurez, Mexico is to El Paso. In all this really doesn't support anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jeremy Hale "Living wage" has never been used in any peer reviewed, close journal as far as I know. Even at that, all a "living wage" means, at most, is the wage someone needs to live. I do question the MIT numbers because I ran through them an found that one could live off of less then what they report. I also found that their numbers are not correct. For example, gas is 80 cents cheaper in my hometown compared to the city I live in now, but they list transportation to be higher.
Also, with "living wage" you can't base any economic policy off of it. You will probably push for a higher min. wage but all that does is enforce how much is paid per hour, not per week. If someone is earning $50/hr but only working 5 hours a week are they earning a "living wage"? The "living wage" is subjective and in reality means nothing.
Now onto sentencing. You are leaving out so much information here. Were they repeat offenders? How did they dress in court? Have you even been in court? Some people dress up nice and thus get a lighter sentence. Others don't. How did they act in court? Did they have the same judge? Same lawyer? You are removing every other variable and saying "well one person is black, one person is white....clearly they are racist in the courts".
I mentioned nothing in the middle because of one simple thing, lack of paragraphs. Reading your comment was a pain and I don't have much time to work with someone that can't break up paragraphs. I am not a person who criticizes grammar or spelling on comments, but I do ask that you present you comment in a more organized manner.
1
-
+Jeremy Hale
What you wear in court means a lot. Someone comes in dressed nicely then they are putting forth effort to improve. Someone who does not clearly does not care. Everyone should have at least one set of nice clothes. And it does not have to be a suit and tie, slacks and a polo is enough. Looking the part is important.
The "living wage" is subjective. I don't drive to work, I am healthy, I don't need to eat much, I live in an upstairs apartment thus can keep my windows open in the summer. My expenses are low. I know of three guys that live together in a studio, their expenses are low. How you are measuring the "living wage"? I saw the MIT site, it does not get into detail on that which is why no on references it beyond a youtube comment. Also you are caught in the fallacy of just looking at money. There are other factors as well. Overall cost is one. Why are home prices and healthcare prices going up? What is funny is that they are areas the federal government has strong ties to.
I don't have a bias. We have such a powerful media these days that if racism really existed then it would be exposed. All I see are cherry picked numbers and hand wavy stats. .You are pointing to Freidman, Wolfe and Chomsky who are some of the most bias individuals out there. Freidman proposed a healthcare law that had zero effect on him. How am I to take him serious? Chomsky is a career writer with no other experience. I don't trust in what he says.
The "living wage" is subjective. There is no way you can support it not being. I was earning $5.15/hr once. I was not poor because I was living with my parents. My ex-girlfriend, when she lived with me, earned $8/hr and was paying for a $10,000 car. The "living wage" is purely, 100% subjective.
I am all for improving the strength of the dollar, but in order to do that we have to get the most of our resources. Someone like Freidman and Wolfe don't understand that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Yeah, smaller, local government that imposes racial segregation,"
violates the 14th amendment
"teaches Genesis Creationism in public school science courses,"
violates the 1st amendment
"puts people in jail for having sagging pants"
never heard of that, but if that is what the citizens want then so what
"bans abortion"
which doesn't violate anything
"makes cursing in earshot of children a crime,"
violates the 1st amendment
"makes adultery a crime, makes sodomy) which includes heterosexual oral sex) a crime,"
doesn't violate anything, just don't get caught and do it in the privacy of your own home
" Life was so much better for so many more people, before the federal government got in the way -"
I agree, like making college and healthcare more expensive. Making K-12 education worse off. Causing two major recessions. All those things I mentioned before have been in the constitution for decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+gj804
"Uh, yeah. But raising income also means fewer people qualify or need government assistance."
Not if their hours are cut, and prices go up. Anyway, min. wage workers are typically not poor.
"OK, your point? Is that not what you want? More people working making
more money so that they don't need to rely on the help of the
government?"
Sure, we can't achieve that if we artificially raise the price of labor though.
"You do know you're co-signing to an idea that has been proposed by
liberals, many of whom who have compromised and promoted raising the
minimum wage as a moderate, free market solution, correct? And given you
position on that, that is why your second paragraph make little to no
sense."
No, I am actually making fun of liberals. They feel they are doing something great by raising the min. wage without realizing that employers will adjust in other ways, such as raise prices and cut hours. It doesn't help anyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jmattbassplaya90 Your first mistake is talking about wealth and it being a problem where Walmart owns more wealth than the bottom 40%. So what. Look at what wealth is. I make $20,000/yr and live just fine with my own place and car and healthcare. I have negative wealth because I have a loan that I am paying off. A lot of people have negative wealth due to loans. For the average family 61% of their net worth, or wealth, is tied into their home. So beyond owning a home the average family has very little wealth.
You can't argue for an increase in pay based on wealth because than you will have to start giving away walmarts to people. When you do that, an considering 50% of small businesses fail in the first 5 years, than there will be some wealth disparity. So the wealth figure you mentioned means nothing.
You talk about CEO pay. You have to realize that money is worthless and something is only worth as much as the market determines. If you were to place a cap on CEO pay than a business will just give them something else. They will give them a house, or some land or something because now they will be restricted on the money they can pay someone.
You also have to look at McDonald's are franchised. They are ran by small business owners, not CEOs. Thus they have very little say in how much something cost. Plus, once again, if you remove profits you remove growth. Competition promotes growth and business need to invest to do well against competitors. When that happens businesses grow, jobs are created, and goods and services become better and more affordable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jeffrey Crenshaw A little government lesson for you. This country was set up to where the federal government had two main jobs, deal with foreign affairs and give US citizens the ability to control governments. Rights as in free speech, right to bear arms, fair trial, etc. were rights protected by the federal government and the federal government can't use to discriminate or gain in power over the people. Everything else was left up to the states. It was set up so people have government involvement but control over it. It was the check and balance of powers so no one entity can ever get too powerful.
With that said marriage isn't a federal issue because as we see it does lead to discrimination and power of the federal government over the people. Marriage should be left up to the states. I personally find it wrong that married people get tax breaks where people who chose to be single don't. That is a form of discrimination. But in short marriage is a state issue and it isn't a right protected by the federal government.
The economy has down well under republican presidents. It was strong during Reagan when he had a democrat congress because he worked well with the other side. It was strong under Clinton when he had a republican congress because he worked well with the other side. Bush Jr. worked well with the other side as well. Granted we did have a republican congress so we didn't progress as well as we should of but we still did well, even after 9/11 and mini recessions that always happen.
Under Obama the recession stopped but we haven't progressed. Unemployment is still high, stocks are high only because the federal government is pumping money in it and keeping stocks low, jobs are not being created and now we have a healthcare bill that is making our system worse. Here we are 5 years later and we have gotten nowhere. We are not better off because of Obama because he simply refuses to work with the other side.
FDR wasn't great either. Learn your history and you will see that he did what Hoover was doing. He prolonged the recession. What made him better than Obama was that he was at least willing to listen to others and get people to band together to meet a common goal. That is why when the war started we got out of the recession. We were not separated in groups like Obama has done to us. He didn't separate us into blacks or women or rich or poor. His policies weren't not good but he was great and keeping a positive attitude and not make everyone so angry.
Your assumption that democrat presidents lead to strong economies isn't true. Great leaders do and it is funny how under our sluggish economic times have all been under democrat presidents. Obama, Carter and FDR. The thing about Obama is that he is making everyone angry against everyone else. People are viewing businesses as evil. He is calling women and minorities inferior to make them angry to buy votes. We no longer live in the 50s. Racism is no longer an issue. Sexism is no longer an issue and people have no problems with gays. It becomes an issue when people play the victim card and democrats, especially Obama, allows it to happen. You want to me outline why none of those issue exist? I will next time. Right now I have to get to work. But remember, Obama is a poor leader.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Should a health insurance company be allowed to deny coverage because of preexisting conditions? "
Yes, but in the free market that won't happen. Especially is people got their insurance at a young age instead of getting them through their employer. I do feel it is a problem, but the problem exists from people getting their insurance through their employer. Let me ask you this. If someone refuses to get insurance until they are in the 50s, should they be allowed to?
"Should a health insurance company be allowed to rescind coverage to
someone who has paid premium after premium by looking for any excuse to
pull from someone's medical records to deny paying for expensive
treatment, such as falsely claiming unreported acne were cancerous skin
legions? "
Yes, but again, that won't happen in the free market. If an insurance company is doing that then no one will use them.
"The preexisting condition I was born with means I could not ever get
health insurance through no fault of my own. Is this acceptable? "
What is your pre-existing condition? What is your age? I know people born with diabetes that got insurance. In the free market a company will pick you up. It also comes down to why is insurance=care?
" If you want a private system, you have to be prepared to regulate it
heavily or have some government option to cover those the private market
refuses to cover"
The government and regulation is what causing our problems.
"At the end of the day, private insurance is about making a profit."
Which isn't necessarily bad.
"Insuring someone over the age of 65 is not profitable, "
It was if that person got their insurance at the age of 25.
" Insuring someone born with Cerebral Palsy is not profitable"
In some cases it will be. They may not cover the treatment for cerebral palsy, but they will cover something like care if they were in a car accident. It comes back to why does insurance=care?
"What do you propose we do in these instances? Let them die? Let them go into debt from medical bills? "
With a private system cost will go down. If someone is born with a disease they will live with that their entire life. They will have healthcare providers compete for their business. Instead insurance companies become a middle man where prices are not compared and there is no competition. Again, why does insurance=care?
Insurance companies do the things they do because of no competition. It comes back to why do so many employers offer insurance as payment instead of a higher wage?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chris M
To give you an example of how just because we have more money in something does mean it will exist look at college education. The college loan program made college more accessible to people. We lack professors, dorms, TAs, tutors, staff, classrooms, resources, etc. That is why college tuition has skyrocketed. In my university we have dorms that have too many people, and that is by only allowing freshmen to live there, upperclassmen can't live in the dorms. We are short TAs and students are having a hard time scheduling classes because the professors don't exist to teach them. We are opening weekend courses to make due.
The same goes for any sector of the market. If you raise the min. wage and the result means more money to low paid workers, the amount of goods and services won't increase. .As a result prices will go up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sha Dow
The sources I give you are factual. I have acknowledged that the US system has problems. I have acknowledge that we need to improve. The problem with you is that you feel other countries don't have problems and that their systems are so great when there is nothing to support that case. They have just as many problems as well.
You feel that all we have to do is raise taxes a little bit and allow the government to run healthcare and it will be all better. If it were that simple I would support it. It isn't. You feel that having a for profit system is terrible when that is not the case. While our system is for profit in a way, it isn't a capitalist system. For profit does not equal capitalist. I addressed that with the two questions I asked of
1. why do so many employers offer healthcare insurance as payments instead of a higher wage?
2. why does insurance equal healthcare?
You just jump up and down and say "you pay higher prices". That is all you have. You have nothing else. I gave you a book with several citations that you can read on your own but yet you refuse to read it at all. You want to take the simple route on a complex issue.
On the min. wage, we can discuss that as well. You won't do well either. The fact is that when broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage. Here is the immediate flaw of the min. wage. You are requiring how much is paid per hour, not per week. So if you raise the min. wage and hours get cut (and they do), you haven't accomplished anything.
Also, if you want to discuss CEO pay consider this. If the top 6 executives of Walmart were to take their earnings and spread it to the 525,000 employees earning $25,000 a year or less than they will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. Business don't pay more for one simple reason, they can't afford it.
Really, I wished liberal's ideas work because they are simple. If all it took was raising the min. wage to help the poor, and if all it took was going to socialized medicine to fix healthcare than I will be all for it. But the issue is far more complex than that. You clearly have the complete refusal to learn about the issue which is why you refuse to even consider reading my book despite the conclusion will be not what you expect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stan Taylor That is the issue, do they really have better outcomes? Also, you have to consider the economic impact. With universal healthcare they will cater to someone who has a "life threatening" issue over someone who doesn't. But say that person who has a "life threatening" issue is not that productive in society, but they get care over someone who is. That hinders economic growth.
For example, say I need knee surgery that is not life threatening. I will have to wait a long time while those who have life threatening issues will get treated. I am productive in society and having a bad knee hurts my productivity. That means my research and teaching will be hindered. I have insurance because I am productive along with anyone else who have it. But with universal healthcare that does not matter. That does hinder economic growth which is one factor (of many) of why the US is more productive than a lot of countries with universal healthcare.
Now it is not that simple as the issue is complicated. But that book outlines how other countries face just as many, if not more problems than the US.
On that ranking, here is what Professor Oshfeldt said
" Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates,” he told me. “We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.” These factors (which could also include rates obesity and smoking, also arguably the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily."
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/
Which I agree. I see all of these rankings and question them as their methods are not really clear. The Commonweatlhfund you pointed me to is just like that. And as professor Oshfeldt showed, when you change minor things you get different rankings in life expectancy showing how minute the differences are. You can't say that the US has a system that is inferior to other countries when they face many problems as well.
I am not in the top 5%. I know several people who aren't, including one who just got heart surgery. They have never had a problem with healthcare in the US. They are all productive in society. Now does that mean the US system is great? No. I feel it has flaws and stem from the federal government. Allowing the federal government to get involved more is not the answer. People need to realize that just because we have a for profit system does not mean we have a free market system. In reality we don't, we have a for profit system with government involvement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Yes, DETAILS are always up for debate, but when someone pretend there is
a debate about whether global warming is happening, or evolutionary
theory, then they aren't interested in debating details"
Except almost everyone is saying the earth is warming. That is the problem. When someone comes up as a skeptic people immediately label them as a climate change denier when they aren't.
" but whether evolution happened is not of debate."
I agree. But that is not my point. Same with climate change. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. What is happening right now we do not fully understand. And is it even bad?
"The right has made science as much a religion as the left. "
Uh, no. The right wants to keep science out of DC and leave it in the hands of the scientists.
". It's the reporting of science being turned into the science, "
You can report things incorrectly. Science is a complex field that few understand. It seems like you are one of those few. That is not to be rude by you are presenting yourself like that. I get angry when I hear politicians like Obama and Bernie make claims in the name of science. I can see why Bernie struggled in science
" The ones pretending there is some sort of broad "debate" are the same
type of people that think creation science and spirit science are
science"
Again, not true. Look up Dover vs Penn and remember, that was a Bush appointed judge.
"but if you are pretending there is a debate about whether AGW is happening,"
It is happening. But to what degree is man playing and is it even bad?
"There is nothing wrong with more government in science, "
Yes there is. It creates bureaucracy and special interest groups and hinders progress.
"This particular government is supposed to ve a democracy, and people based, but it's led by corporations "
Obama has received donor money from "green" energy companies.
"By the way, science happens to have a left leaning,"
Not true at all.
"because reality has a left leaning liberal bias."
Yeah, like there are more than two genders. Or there is not a consensus on climate change. Or how Oregon, a liberal state, has anti-vaxxers. That is just on science, do not let me get to economics as you will look foolish on that statement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Raphanne How can you say that the quality of life is not better in the US? What do you base that off of? One can easily argue that it is, especially considering how we have 300+ million people and a completely different society overall.
" You might have the best universities, but what percentage of the American population actually goes there?"
Around 43% of the US population has a college degree, that is in the top 5 in the world. The US has the highest percent of international students. Several people are able to go to college, they just choose not to.
" People don't go bankrupt because they need healthcare here either because it is made affordable to everybody."
No, they just die while waiting months for an MRI, or lose limbs while waiting months for surgery. Does that happen in the US? Yes, and the hospitals are held accountable in the private sector. That as opposed to the VA where funds are short, people die and the federal government shrugs their shoulders like other countries do.
"And also, if the quality of education is better in the US, why is it
that France scores better than the US in literacy, maths and science? "
Our K-12 is lacking, I agree. But
1. We are talking about college education, not K-12
2. That is not the only way to determine if a society is educated or not. We do lead the way in research and innovation of technology and healthcare.
3. The US is higher than France in GDP per capita when PPP is taken into account.
4. We are in the top 5 (beating France) in productivity when PPP is taken into account
If you like France then great, I don't. You have to remember that in the big picture France has a completely different society than the US, as a whole it is not a strong comparison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Inflation is nothing more than a signal of how the economy is
performing. If people are spending their money, they are positive about
the economic outlook and are buying goods and making investments. "
Not necessarily. They can be spending more money out of necessity as they need a particular good or with government force. If you increase the min. wage you are forcing employers to pay more meaning they will raise prices to compensate. Or with Obamacare, you force people to buy insurance the price will go up and it did. It can also be artificial as in with college tuition. With the federal loan program it increased demand for colleges with money that simply did not exist and thus prices went up.
" Yes, that means higher costs, but that's only because of the rising
aggregate demand and falling aggregate supply of services, good and
materials. That's all."
I agree to a point, but that also means that businesses will push for more goods and services which will lower prices increasing the number of customers they have and thus more profits in a competitive market.
"
What you're doing is only looking at products going up in price. But
there's more too it than that, if the products inflate in price too
fast, then yes it can cause a recession because buyers cannot keep up
with the rising price levels. But if it's stable and slow, then that
wouldn't have as great an impact as an asset bubble inflating and then
"popping" leading to a downturn."
You are right to a degree, but it has to be natural. With the min. wage you are forcing it. You are forcing employers to pay workers more then they are worth leading to inflation that is not slow but instead amplified.
"And how am I illiterate by using the actual theory of economists? "
Because you are not using it correctly. Inflation that occurs naturally is fine. But when forced it isn't. Those workers are paid that rate because that is all they are worth. To make them worth more a business has to raise prices. That is forced inflation which is not good. The inflation you are talking about that is OK is when people pursue a particular good or service and thus prices go up briefly. But eventually companies will invest in that particular good or service creating more of it that is better.
Look at cars for example. When it first was invented people demanded it, but there weren't many, so they were expensive. Henry Ford found a way to make more cars at a faster rate lowering the price so more can afford it. That demand led to a higher price, but eventually a lower one. With the min. wage it will lead to higher prices that will not go down.
"Inflation does signify growth."
We had massive inflation in the late 70s and we had a recession.
"Growth occurs when people spend and real GDP rises"
Growth occurs when wealth is being created. If a company hires someone at $8/hr they are producing no less then $8/hr. Say they are producing $9/hr. OK, now raise the min. wage to $10/hr. That company is now losing money because that workers is not more productive. Thus the company has to raise prices. You spread that across the entire economy and you have higher prices. Giving people a raise when they are not producing more causes inflation.
"Real GDP rises only when demand does."
Demand is always there as people demand better goods and services. The car was invented because people wanted something better. No one could afford it but it was still invented. Same with the cell phone. People demand better goods and services. Very few could afford the pocket calculator, but it was still made. Now they are essentially free.
In the very end you can't consume what you don't produce. If you give people more money but do not increase the amount of goods and services we have then prices will go up, period.
"Boy, you really don't understand economics. A growing economy means prices are falling? No, that means the economy is in a recession."
Not so. A growing economy means the dollar is worth more and there is more wealth.
You need to study more economics buddy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Edgar
"Yes, it did rise with Obamacare, but it was rising SLOWER than it was before the ACA was implemented. "
It was passed on the idea of lowering costs. Even at that the slower rate was because of the recession when everything else was stagnate. Healthcare cost should have been stagnate, but instead it went up during a recession. That is not good.
"You earlier insinuated that people here were cherry picking information.
Well, saying that just because insurance costs rose under Obamacare
proves that it had a negative effect on private insurance costs is doing
the exact same thing."
No, during a recession where everything was stagnate or dropping in prices healthcare costs should do the same. For example, rent dropped around 2007 because of the recession.
"
Obamacare SLOWED the rise in private insurance costs."
The recession did that.
"Also, your point about productivity vs. hourly wage. If the minimum wage
WERE tied to average productivity, it should be at about ~20/hr. As the
rise in average productivity of the American worker has risen MUCH
faster than the minimum wage has. "
Read what I wrote about productivity to bryan s.
"Even if you tied minimum wage to inflation, it should be ~15/hr."
And your cell phone will cost $4000. And the Blockbuster employee will still be employed. Or, in reality, not everything inflates. The Model T cost $18,000 in today's money. Just looking, a new Fiat Hatchback cost $12,000 in my city. Now not only looking at cost, that Fiat is way better in many ways then a Model T. Why don't cars cost more? According to you everything should inflate.
"I won't even get into the whole point that if you have families with
adult "children" living at home, perhaps the reason they are doing so is
because they can't afford to live on their own, thereby limiting their
possible contribution to the economy through either renting or home
ownership."
Or more children are enrolling in college delaying buying a home.
"So yes, stating that 50% of working adults make less than $30,000 a year is a significant and relevant statistic."
No its not as you are ignoring several important variables.
"Would raising the minimum wage increase costs of consumer good? Yes, but
not NEARLY to the same degree that incomes would be increased.
In Seattle, before they increased their minimum wage, naysayers were
shouting about how restaurants (which operate on a thin profit margin)
would all go out of business. Did it happen? Nope, because they found
that when people had some extra money to spend, they tended to go out
and eat more, which kept that profit margin alive."
Seattle is a poor example. Look at the top employers of Seattle
http://www.edc-seaking.org/service/economic-data/economic-basics
Private industries that pay a lot. They already pay a lot in Seattle. You can't just look Seattle and make a conclusion. The Nebraska Cornhusker won a national championship running the option. Should the Denver Broncos run the option?
"Capitalism is, at it's core, a pyramid structured economy. money flows
from the bottom to the top through private spending up to business
spending"
Not true. In capitalism you have to sell something to earn a profit. A business owner just doesn't get rich. They sell something people want. If they don't have anything to sell then they will not get rich. What you are describing is socialism.
"Look at the tax income pie chart for the United States in the 50's and
60's (when the US was in it's highest growth periods). Corporations
contributed the biggest slice, and the wealthy were taxes at rates above
50%. The minimum wage (as intended) supported a family of 3 with a
house, and college could be supported by a minimum wage part-time job
without financial aid."
We can get into detail about how you are wrong there. But, as a whole, the economy is vastly different today then it was in the 50s and 60s. For a few points. in that time we had no
1. EPA
2. OSHA
3. Department of Ed
4. The payroll tax that we have today
"Now, the lower 90% of Americans are the biggest source of tax revenue?"
The top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes.
"Student loan debt is the largest source of debt,"
A problem the federal government created.
"It has been proven, time and again, that if you give the lowest of the
economy the ability to support themselves (not get rich, but enough to
survive without handouts) the economy as a whole enriches."
It is much more complicated then that.
"Single payer healthcare is cheaper overall than private"
I will link you a book on that issue here after this.
" Because as soon as profit is tossed into the mix,"
Businesses are motivated to offer something better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheUltimateBeing01, economics is very simple. There are only two things you have to consider. They are
1. There is no such thing as a free lunch
2. To have the strongest growth economically you have to get the most out of your resources.
That's it. People who try to complicate the issue do irritate me. Same with those who are taking physics for the first time. With Newtonian physics all you have are
1. Conservation of energy and momentum
2. Newton's three laws
That's it. As a scientist I push to simplify things. Those who study physical science and engineering do that, they simplify problems and issues which is why we have so many CEOs with engineering degrees. You can say the same thing about a piano, it is simply a series of octaves that repeats itself. Nothing too complicated.
Now you said that you studied many theories of economics, which is fine. But you should be able to see that they all can be reduced to those two simple standards I gave. Now let us break that down,by the way, I am giving you an econ lesson here as you clearly need it.
On point one. This is known. If you can't accept that in order to gain something you have to give up something then you are a done. Everything cost something, period.
On point two, this is things get messy as it can be both subjective and objective. Let us look at something that is objective. If we were to take a bunch of chemistry grad students and give them jobs digging holes in the desert and filling them back in we know that is a waste of a valuable resource. Their talents should be in an lab. Objectively we know that asking chem grad students to frivolously dig holes is a waste.
Now an example of something that is subjective. If I were to spend $300 in a strip club I could personally see that as a wise investment. Others could see that as a waste. It all depends on the person. The is why Milton Friedman has said that government spending should be as local as possible as people have to see if they are getting their money's worth. This is why conservatives push for smaller, more local government as it gives people the chance to see if they are getting their money's worth.
Now how does that tie into what you are saying? We are discussing two things here, the min. wage and inflation. First, the min. wage. Those who support the min. wage increase do so in an subjective way because when broken down nothing good comes from it. At that point supporters of it do so in a manner of preaching about the poor single mom. They don't have any numbers to support them. You tried to by crying inflation, but what you fail to realize is that a business owner will objectively realize they can't afford the higher wage and thus will
1. cut hours
2. raise prices
In both cases that hurts the middle and lower class. The price increase causes inflation which is not good.
Now with inflation being good. That is subjective. Sure, if people are spending more prices will go up, but if wealth is going up as well then people value what they buy and will buy it. But that is on their own free will. It isn't done by force. The government is not forcing people to buy things. If the government were to raise taxes on a certain item that item will cost more, thus the price inflates. But if people don't value it at that price they won't buy it, so the economy does not grow. So to simply say that inflation means the economy is growing is completely false.
Now to break down some points in your comment.
"They could be "spending out of necessity"? Sure, but that doesn't take
away from the fact they are spending more and raising prices! "
They are spending more on some items meaning they have less to spend on other items. If they spend more on something then they will have less to spend on say, going to the movies. Or eating out. Or buying a new car, etc. Thus other areas of the market are now hurt. Let us look at something else besides money. Say someone is working 8 hours a day. Now say you force them to work 10 hours a day but they earn the same amount in the end (not per hour, per day). They now have less time to do other activities they subjectively feel behooves them. Thus you limit growth. It is the same with money. People are paying more for the same thing, thus they have less money for other things.
"Obamacare's cost went up because insurers had to raise prices (premiums and deductibles) to provide coverage to claimants."
So people are paying more for healthcare and thus have less money for other things. That is a problem. They have less money for rent, a new car, new clothes, etc. They might even have to pick up another job to make up the difference. So instead of doing activities they subjectively enjoy, which can relieve stress and have them develop new skills, they have to work now to do something they objectively have to do.
" "Artificial"? What does that even mean? Are you saying inflation is "artificial"? Okay, if so, in what context? "
Artificial as it was created by government.
"And Stafford Loans do not increase demand "for school," "
Yes it did. People were getting these loans and were subjectively going to college because they felt it was needed. Colleges objectively knew that they have to build more classrooms, dorms, and buy new equipment, and they need to hire more professors, TAs, tutors and other works. Thus they have to increase tuition.
"demand for education loans went up because people need degrees and career training for better jobs! "
Not necessarily. Many degrees are worthless as you can teach yourself. You can teach yourself history. If left alone people will go after degrees that are worth more if they were forced to invest their own money into it. They will both subjectively and objectively know that a degree in the STEM field is worth more then a history degree. Unless they like history a lot, they will go where the money is at. At that point choosing history is a subjective choice.
Now where is your chart? The problem with inflation calculation is that it covers only a small portion of the economy. Many things are far cheaper and better then in the past. Look at technological advancement. We can have this discussion where 20 years ago we can't. The internet is affordable and fast and thus has dropped in price. The same is cars, cell phones, iPods, computers, etc. Yes, GDP went up for years. But with inflation that covers a very small portion of the economy. People's lives are better in many ways because goods and services are better and available to far more people. Life expectancy is up, overall wealth is up for people who are in poverty compared to a few decades ago, productivity is up. That is the problem with inflation calculation, it does not cover the entire economy. We can objectively say that things are better for people now then they were decades ago because technology is not only better, it is readily available to more people. That means the cost went down, not up.
Look at areas in the market that inflated the most
1. college tuition
2. healthcare
3. housing
They are areas where the federal government messed around with the most
1. the student loan program
2. the payroll tax, medicare and medicaid, and now Obamacare
3. the FHA
When left alone goods and services, for the most part, get better and cheaper. Sure, you may say a pound of sugar cost more now then it did 10 years ago, but other areas of the market are much better meaning prices are still lower overall.
You have a lot to learn about economics. You need to dig deeper and not just go off of what you are told.
1
-
1
-
TheUltimateBeing01, you are saying that forced inflation is good. You will be hard pressed to find an economist to agree with you. Now time to break down your disaster of a comment.
"Right. That increases the supply of those commodities and brings down
their price. But as the scarcity is reduced, so is the economic value of
these items to people. Eventually, once everyone's needs are met,
demand falls and lowers the price of the good or service. It's the law
of diminishing marginal returns. Thing is the way it impacts returns is a
complex matter in and of itself. But usually, if there is ample supply
of a good and everyone's needs are met, sales will fall and so would
returns. That's a recession and that's price deflation."
That is not a recession as with goods either people will use up the goods needing more or a company will develop a better product. In both cases that is wealth creation.
"Labor costs rise, but that doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment you buffoon. "
When it is natural it doesn't. When it is forced it does. Labor cost rises because those workers become more productive or through competition are valued higher.
"You guys on the right forget that if you increase pay, you're increasing
it for low wage earners across the spectrum of labor industries."
If you set an artificial price on labor then businesses won't hire workers as they are not worth that much. If someone produces only $5/hr they will not be hired. Put it like this, say if you were to fly to a job on a plane and spend $400 and you earned $300 at that job, was it worth it? No, as you are now $100 in the hole. Ok, now a business hires someone at $10/hr and they only produce $8/hr, they are now in the hole $2/hr. It makes no sense to hire that person.
" If people have more income available to them, that's likely to lead to an increase in spending. "
If the good and services are not there then you can't buy anything. With your thought process we might as well give everyone $500,000 to buy homes. But the reality is the homes do not exist. All you have done is jack up the price in real estate.
"The same business paying higher wage costs would also be seeing increasing demand for their products! "
And they will have workers that still produce at the same rate meaning prices will go up.
" Explain that using the fallacious argument that higher minimum wages leads to business losses! "
Easy. A business, with their workers say produces $100 worth of goods an hour and demand is $95 worth of goods an hour (you want a safety stock at times). Now, because of a policy you pass, demand shoots up to $150 worth of goods per hour, but the company still only produces $100 worth of goods because the current workers they have are not producing more. In order to earn a profit they have to raise prices.
"ou're also ignoring the very publicly known fact that most employers
paying substandard wages are actually MULTIBILLION dollar corporations.
Wal-Mart anyone? McDonald's rings a bell?"
McDonalds are franchised and Walmart simply can't afford higher wages. They have to keep shareholders happy. Why don't you complain about Hy Vee and Raley's who have workers that are paid similar wages? And they also hire far fewer employees.
1
-
1
-
"Dude, what the hell are "natural" and "forced" inflation? "
Natural is when the government does not perturb they system in a way that society does not value. There is a desire to have government involved in the economy, but the people have to value the policies they implement. Force inflation is when the government perturbs the economy because they passed a policy that was not valuable to society. For example, if the government were to place pass a spending bill building bridges in the state of CA the people of CA will be happy as they are getting jobs and building. But the entire country won't be as they are not seeing if they are benefiting or not from that spending. If the state of CA were to do it then only CA and the people there will see the results.
" There's no such concepts in economic policy and theory,"
There is. But you are the one who does not understand what money is. You feel that more money means a stronger economy when in reality it is more wealth.
"unless it was something made up by some lousy economist! "
Considering how little you understand economics you don't have much room to talk. You feel that Mcdonalds, who is franchised, can afford higher wages. At the same time you don't complain about smaller companies that pay low wages. You only point to the big guys.
"And did you really try to compare the worth of a person to their bank account and income?"
No I did not.
"No, businesses don't raise prices to make their workers worth more, "
Yes they do. If someone cooks 100 hamburgers a day and, for simplicity, each hamburger brings in $1 a profit, that is a $100 a day for the company. Now say that worker earns $80 of that at $8/hr at 10 hours a day. Now you raise the min. wage to $11/hr. That worker earns $110 a day but only produces $100 a day. So the company raises the price of the hamburger to a price where they earn $1.30 in profits per burger. That company raised prices.
Seriously, tell me this. Where do you think the money comes from? Do you think the company just magically had it?
"hat may be because they are incurring higher operating or production costs,"
Such as higher cost of labor.
"As for your Ford example the only reason why the prices were lowered is
because they were able to eventually mass produce those cars, everyone
bought them and the demand for them lowered. They also had to keep them
lowered to keep sales going. But I don't see what this has to do with
inflation."
People demanded cars but could not afford them. Ford found a way to produce more and thus offered it at a lower price. Other companies came and offered different cars at an affordable price as well. More people bought it and the price went down despite demand going up. But according to you the price of the car should have went up. And no new cars should exist as everyone's needs were met.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+MMAmachinhead92 You didn't elaborate on why it is "common sense". You just said it was and I debunked that. Yes people are born in poor families, but they do succeed. I was born in a poor family and I am pursuing my PhD. Both of my sisters got their MBA. We got no government assistance.
Price ceilings, like price floors are inefficient. It removes the incentive to improve. Why, as a landlord would you want to improve the apartments you control if you can't raise rent to a market level? Or more importantly, why would you, as a renter want to move from a place where you are paying below market rate?
In New York Nora Ephron stayed in the same apartment for 24 years since she was paying 1/3 of the true market rate for her 5 bedroom apartment. Why move to another place? That means a rich person is better off where a poor person isn't.
We have a war on poverty, before it started poverty was going down. When it started poverty stagnated. What hurts the economy is the federal government getting involved.
CEOs are productive. They are taking actions to improve the productivity of the company. So if you want to look at a productivity point of view then yes, they are highly productive. There is a reason why, as of 2004, over 20% of CEOs have an engineering degree.
https://bus.wisc.edu/~/media/bus/mba/why%20wisconsin/statistical_snapshot_of_leading_ceos_relb3.ashx
Wealth does not equal income. The Walton family have so much wealth because they own half of walmart. The average person, beyond owning a home, has little wealth. A home owner has 30 times more wealth than renter, but I doubt you will complain about that. There is nothing wrong with growth, unless you don't like high speed internet and longer life expectancy.
It is not arbitrary. If people are not willing to pay then the price has to change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+MMAmachinhead92 Ok, a fair start. The government takes every kid and raises them. If you run to fast they make you eat unhealthy to slow you down. If you are too smart they pull you from the class to dumb you down. If you are too good looking they find a way to make you ugly. At 18 they let you go all looking and acting the same.....that is a "fair" start.
"I already told you. Free trade, union-busting, right-to-work-for-less
laws, not negotiating wages to increase based on cost of living etc.
Things that screw over the working poor. "
There is not such thing a "right to work for less laws". Unions have killed jobs. You can negotiate your own wage like I have in the past.
The New Deal turned a recession into a depression.
" Debt increases demand, actually. "
No it doesn't.
Glass Steagall did nothing, it was a pointless law.
"Demand and productivity created money"
No, it creates wealth. People can only work so fast though.
"If that were the case, then why do teachers have low salaries? You're
making the argument as if teachers have bloated salaries. I believe the
average salary is like $35,000. You're a moron if you believe that's
high. The "No Child Left Behind Act" is the culprit putting rigid
standards based on stupid standardized tests. End over-standardized
testing. "
For 180 contracts, every weekend and holiday off, healthcare and sick days they earn a high salary compared to private sector jobs. NCLB no longer exists, it is CCSS. I agree, we should get rid of standardized testing.
"There are some topics they do better on, but reading and math is not
compatible to the average black student. Which is why they need good
paying, low-skilled, jobs."
Low skill equals low pay. That is a fact of life.
Deregulation did not kill competition.
"That's the argument for affordable housing. Rent in SF out of the roof.
For a 1b/1b apartment it can go to $2,000 a month. Also, if you learned
about economics more, more wages equals more spending. So your little
town would get a boost. "
San Fran also has one of the higher min. wages in the nation and some of the highest taxes and regulations.
Also more money with more productivity means the price of the dollar drops thus prices go up. You can't consume what you don't produce. You have this false feeling that the goods and services are there, all people need is money. That is not true though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+MMAmachinhead92 Post secondary education in what? For the first 2 years of college you can learn the same material in high school. In college what you gain is connections. You also show employers that you are willing to invest both time and money in a program to better yourself. That is what you gain through college. Making it available for all ruins that.
Unions were good in the past, now they have overreached and do more harm than good.
Every single recession in this country we recovered from in around 5 years or less with little to no federal government involvement. Every single one except for 2, the one we are now and the great depression. Those recessions have taken over 5 years to recover from and they correlate with times where the federal government tried to "fix" them with massive spending and regulations. The New Deal turned a recession into a depression.
What created more demand and jobs was the war.
Glass-Steagall did nothing. We still saw recessions, you just don't hear about them because we recovered quickly without government aid.
Debt does not create demand. It compounds our problems and lower the value of the dollar. The reason why we get away with it so far is because every other country had debt, more so than us.
"So, healthcare, getting weekends and not having to work during school
break are over bloated benefits? That sounds pretty OK for me and
everyone. If you don't get that, that's your fault for living in RTWFL
states."
Employers should not be offering healthcare. That is a big reason why healthcare costs are rising and it deals with the payroll tax. A lot of people work weekends. Why so you arbitrarily want weekends off? The world does not end just because it is a weekend. And what does school break have to do with anything? And what is "RTWFL"? I think I know what it is, but I am just wanting to you spell out you loaded statement that means nothing.
"Productivity is what matters when it comes to pay, along with not being in poverty."
Productivity is key. If you are not productive then you are not paid. It is up to you to avoid poverty.
"The minimum wage is at $11 an hour nowhere near high. The resaon
property values are high in SF is due to lack of available housing and
be because high housing demand. "
$11/hr is too high because, when broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage. Housing demand is not that high in San. Fran.
"Goods and services go UP with demand"
You can only produce so much, that is even if you can stimulate demand. At some point production caps out.
1
-
+MMAmachinhead92 College is a personal investment that you do to improve yourself. If you remove that component of college then what is it worth? Businesses won't value it. You will be better off going to a 2 year college and getting a job to get training there. Businesses won't value a college degree because people who go there will not be investing something to finish a goal.
Free trade and deregulation did not ruin anything.
War created demand because every other country in the world was at war except for the US at the time. It also shifted the federal government's focus from domestic policies to foreign. And then FDR died which helped as well.
Recessions happen. In the 1920 was saw a crash as bad as the one in 1929, in around a year we recovered. We had the Panic of 1837 and 1873, they recovered in around 5 years. Enter Glass-Steagall during the crash of 1929 and we saw a depression. Afterwards we still saw crashes, you just don't noticed them because the federal government did little to nothing. That is the key.
Greece is a mess.
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Healthcare is highly debatable and complex. And when did I say I was in favor of indentured servitude? There are a lot of people who work over 40 hours a week. The vast majority of successful people do. And I earned my own benefits and I work in a right to work state. I get time off, I have flexible scheduling, I get paid well. Does not seem to be hurting me.
Wages, for the most part are tied to productivity. Exceptions are skilled and tech jobs who get paid very well anyway.
How did I lose the argument on the min. wage? When broken down there is not one single good reason to have it. For example, you are enforcing how much is paid per hour, not week. Only 2% of min. wage workers work over 35 hours. So if the min. wage goes up and hours are cut, and prices go up.....what did you solve?
No matter what productivity caps out. People and machines can only produce so much. You improve productivity by improving technology. You do that by investing in it, not investing in jeans and movie tickets.
Also, you don't need to stimulate demand, it already exists. Due to competition businesses are going to produce better goods and services at a lower price for people. But as I said, there is only so much that can be produced. And the truth is that you can't consume what you don't produce.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Really? Is that why I literally deconstruct every single point you post
and make you look like a moron who knows nothing of the topic? Lets
continue. "
Actually you don't. I give a rebuttal to all of your points and you end up going silent or name call me in the end.
"1) I never stated the AMA wanted single payer, I openly stared their
opinion on Trumpcare on the issues as I posted above in a comment again.
"
Yous said this
"If its only by the one study that literally cherry picked statistics,
than you really should leave it to physicians such a the American
medical association, not idiots that know nothing of the healthcare
system."
The AMA said they do not want single payer. So based on what you said single payer is not good. I am taking what you said literally and applying it.
"2) Even arguing this logic, they want to move towards more coverage for patients."
Everyone is for that. People want high quality healthcare for as many people as possible. The issue is that we simply lack supply. Single pay does not do it because you have rationing and longer wait times. The quality goes down. That is why other countries, even with their smaller populations, produce the same results.
"They are against stripping any parts of the ACA and against removing
more people off of insurance. In fact, they argue for more coverage
towards more of the population just more in the private sector. This is
due to funds of the physicians being affected if we go under single
payer."
They were against the ACA when it was first created. To me this seems like an issue of them being against major change to a complex system. Also, if they really wanted to cover more people, how about they work for less? Make healthcare cheaper. That is on them at that point.
"However going to physicians AROUND THE GLOBE, universally physicians
support the idea of single payer in all countries due to the oath we
take when starting school and through our careers."
Again, they can work for less. An oath is only as good as the person willing to follow it. I live off of $23,000 a year, they can as well. Why do they need to earn six figures? I see a lot of hypocrisy there. Plus, forcing others to pay for someone's healthcare is not following that oath. It is easy to tell others what to do. Until you take actions yourself you have no room to talk.
"So openly, you are contradicted in more coverage and looking at the
globally physician population, almost completely support universal
healthcare in the argument."
I do not see that through their actions. For example, you may have someone who says they support helping the poor but they do so by taxing the rich more for more food stamps. Now compare that to someone who donates their own time and money to help the poor. Who really wants to help the poor? Until those same doctors donate their own time and money to help people, then I will believe them. But supporting a system that has high taxes to pay for other people's things is not following that oath. No matter how hard you try to justify it you are not following that oath. You need to take actions yourself.
"However even just focusing on the AMA, they openly are against Trumpcare
as posted by multiple emails and release statements and want expansion
of coverage.
What a great "debate" you had, you misunderstood a point and then failed
to back it up with anything meaningful. "
I backed it up. You said listened to the AMA and I am when they say they are against single payer. You are just backpedaling like you always do. I even gave you links supporting my case and all you did was say
"blah blah blah.....oath....blah blah blah".
How about you give me a link to that oath? Seriously, this isn't that hard.
"No moron, this is what you are claiming. I have already explained this
to you over 50 times the arguments why healthcare can have role in car
accidents, murders, suicide, etc."
You never mentioned car accidents. Suicides was not a part of that statistical regression model. On murders, you said that murderers lacked access to healthcare. I then linked you a list of murderers that had access to healthcare. You did not reply.
"Didn't know statistics, World Health organization, Common wealth study ,
and health affair peer review journal were ultra leftist talking
points?"
I told you about the issues of the WHO. Criticized so much that they have not released another ranking in almost 20 years. The compared the US, and other larger countries like France, Germany, etc. to Malta and San Marino. That is similar to comparing Bishop Gorman High School Football to the New York Jets. You can't do it.
The Common Wealth Study is not peer reviewed
You have not linked any study by Health Affair, ever. If there are so many studies then you should have no problem listing them.
"I believe you are projecting since the only study you basically know is
from 2 conservative economists that literally cherry pick statistics to
argue healthcare(something they know nothing about). "
Prof. Robert Oshfeldt
https://sph.tamhsc.edu/hpm/faculty/hpm-adjuncts/cvs/ohsfeldt-r-cv.pdf
Seems to work a lot in research dealing with healthcare.
John Schneider
https://www.lexvisio.com/expert-witness/john-e-schneider-phd
Again, does a lot of research in healthcare.
So how is it they know nothing about the issue? And how did they cherry pick statistics? They give all of their methods in that book and list all of their sources. But again, how is it they know nothing about the issue? It is their field of study by the way.
Sigh, we have been through this, but here we go.
On your first link. I see no methods nor do I see any citations. I do see this
"Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent
limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high
performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and
experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important
dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from
medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’
assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations,
which could differ by country and culture."
They admit their flaws. You see, I actually read your sources, quote them, and reference them while criticizing them.
On you second one, congrats! You gave me a peer reviewed source! You are improving. However, you have to consider that the US has had the highest cancer survival rate in the world. Some of those numbers has to be other countries catching up. With that said I will look into that paper as soon as I get to my work computer later today. I am on my home computer and my universal library is doing maintenance so I cannot log into Web of Science at my home computer through the library's website.
Already covered the WHO site
On your last three I do not deny those numbers. No one does. But they are raw numbers. Again on life expectancy, no matter how hard you try you have to realize that when you die in a car accident it is not because of the quality of healthcare you have. There are many factors involved in that. The US is near the top in obesity, that is a culture issue. Not a healthcare issue. In cost we offer more MRIs and other specialized, expensive care to people that people are willing to pay.
"Took me 2 seconds to re-find the old posts."
If you are really studying to be a doctor you should have a list of studies done in your head that you can link immediately. In my field if you were to ask me questions on it I can give you names of authors and the paper they wrote on it. For example, when I was presenting my work the issue of Fermi resonance came up with the samples I use. It is a concern as with a Fermi resonance it can change the direction of the dipole. Someone asked me how I will address that issue. I said I will isotopically label the probes as it was shown to remove the Fermi. I mentioned the author's name and the title of the paper. I was able to do that immediately as it involves my field.
You supposedly work in healthcare. You should be able to know these studies off of the top of your head. The fact that you can't and simply site raw statistics of cost and life expectancy shows you have little understanding of the issue and only off of ultra leftists talking points. I cannot take you serious at this point. You do not even know the oath you mentioned. You cannot even link that.
". If you don't respond with some actual citations or information, you
quite frankly aren't worth anyones time. Someone who knows as little in
healthcare as you do really shouldn't be commenting on it. "
You should take your own advice. You do not understand healthcare. The two professors I linked you to you claim do not understand healthcare even though that is their research, healthcare. You clearly never studied their CVs because upon doing so you will see that they do research in the field of healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** It doesn't matter who agrees with him or not, they are radical policies that simply won't work.
The fact is that in the US bureaucrats in Washington can't do anything. That is why you see policy get passed faster at the local level is managed better. That is why we have to push for smaller more local government.
International law? Really. I can point out where Obama violated the constitution that he swore to uphold. That is treason, not going to war which was passed by congress and is constitutional.
The issue on climate change is very gray. It is happening, has been for over 4 billion years. How much man is playing a role and is it really bad is the question. The majority of scientist even admit that (as I read in a Physics Today article). What is radical is what democrats try to do is play science when they know nothing about it. As a scientist myself (I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry) I can say I have experience in this.
Only one person said "legitimate rape", again, not a presidential candidate. Mean while the democrats pass violence against women act, even though domestic violence is already illegal (and makes women look inferior to men in them needing a special law), equal pay for equal work, a myth that has been debunked a lot, and makes women look inferior in that they are unable to get more money unless the government helps. And don't include me in republicans, I am a moderate myself.
I am not criticizing your mistakes, I was asking for clarifications. I make several mistakes on youtube comments. If you read mine they are filled with grammar errors and such. I wasn't trying to make a non existent point, I was asking for clarifications.
1
-
***** The physics today article was in a magazine in my lab. If it was on the internet it will be a hard piece to find. If I get around to it I can find the magazine and give you the issue.
Bernie is radical, that is a pure fact. He has always pushed for far left policies where others bring them up but never endorses them at the level he does.
I am not portraying that domestic violence laws are bad, I am saying that law was redundant. Every state had laws against domestic violence already. Plus the name, violence against women? What about violence against people? Why just towards women? What about men.
What is wrong with having a law for equal pay for equal work? Well one, besides that point being debunked numerous times, what is work? In the market it is based off of several things. You can't clearly define it. That makes the law very flawed.
Why is there income inequality? Because we have a system where the rich still pay most of the taxes, and we have people to who get more money then compared to the wealth they create. That means we have people who simply don't work up to their ability but still get paid. That is creating income inequality because the value of the dollar goes down causing those who actually produce wealth demanding more money.
On trickle down, that is a political term. But if you want to discuss that due to more wealth creation people are doing better. Look at computers, cars, smart phones, high speed internet, dishwashers etc. They are better and more affordable. The middle class has gotten better as well. On top of that they have more disposable income. So to say that wages are stagnated is not that true if at all. I drive a better car than someone who is rich did in the 50s and 60s, most likely even the 70s and 80s. I have a smart phone, so do those on welfare, people who were rich didn't in the 70s, and only the super rich did in the 80s. We are better off, what is holding us back is an unfair tax policy attacking the rich and federal regulations on businesses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is a dumb question. It isn't religion that causes violence just like it isn't atheism that causes, it is individual greed and the thirst for power that does that. Religion may be used as a motivational tool, but so do economic crisis, for example Germany in WWII. It is pure human nature. To blame problems on one issue is being myopic.
The Sweden comparison is shallow. One, they are a country of 10 million people, that is less than 3% of the US population. Also, Sweden has problems as well, they have poverty that is comparable to the US.
It is debatable that Hitler was an atheist. Communist is not a religion. There are atheists that are a problem. Bill Maher is an example, Richard Dawkins is the worse. Going around thinking you are the smartest person on earth when in reality you are just living off of your ego and convinced a few idiots to follow you doesn't make you so. In fact, that is similar to a religion.
There is a place in society for religion. Blame individuals, not religion when there are problems. And if you have a problem with religion then don't worry about it. Don't continue to bash it like this fool on this video does.
For the record, I am not religious, I just hate stupidity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joshua Caine
"Plenty of conservative voters are KKK members, neo-nazis, or just plain racist without being part of an organisation founded on racism."
Not really. When Obama was elected you did not see riots burning down buildings. So say what you want, the democrat supporters are emotional. It works at times to get them to win. I am not saying it is a bad strategy, I am saying that is how their group is. That is why they can't consistently win.
"I dunno, man. I reveal my personal identity all the time, so I don't see why anyone else wouldn't. I respect when people choose not to,"
Because I like to keep my personal life private. I get into deep political discussions here and with one of my activities I am moving up in I am heavily scrutinized where they find out about everything about you. I could accidentally say something on here that can be used against me. So I keep a lot of things private.
"I have heard plenty of credible scientists say it. Maybe you just need to get out more?"
I doubt it. Considering how I communicate with scientists on a daily basis all across the country I would say I get out plenty.
"Nobody shot up a school when Obama won but a bunch of them happened while he was in office,"
And that is somehow Republican's fault?
"and a few of the perps were angry white people"
What does race have to do with anything?
". It doesn't matter if it's a rare minority that bomb abortion clinics. It still happens, so I can blame all conservatives for it if I want."
But it is rare. All across the country you are seeing riots, that is not rate but becoming the norm for liberals.
"The point I'm trying to make is that I know they're not all like that, and I'm trying to discern if you realize that not all liberals are as you describe."
I agree that not all liberals are like that. But two things. One, democrats do attract that crowd more than republicans do. And two, right now the left is being overran with those types of people such as feminists, BLM, and now Bernie supporters. There are plenty of democrats I have supported and voted for in the past. But right now they do have a problem and it needs to be addressed. When someone suggest that we need to remove illegal immigrants and the get called a racist, that is a problem.
"Trump supporters were doing voter intimidation too, dude"
Where?
Clinton's campaign team was mailing me flyers calling Trump a racist and a bigot. They never talked about his policies but instead name called him with basically little to no justification. That is a problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joshua Caine You are going to have to link me to that story because I never heard of it. I do go to liberal talking shows and I never heard of it.
"Well, the shooters were Republican is what I'm trying to say."
So being white means being republican?
"I haven't seen any riots, honestly. I hear people talk about them, but I don't see them in the news or anything. What's up with that?"
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/liberal-riots-trump-destroys-hillary-clinton/
http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-elected-president-riots-break-out-university-campuses-after-republicans-2443978
Also, you have other riots such as what the BLM group has done and what happened in Ferguson, MO.
"Oh, you're talking about the "regressive left". Yeah, fuck those guys. They're just as bad as the alt-right."
We can agree there, but they are over taking the party. TYT and Kyle are a huge part of that.
I did not see anything about white supremacists at voting booths. I saw they were planning it but I did not see anything about them pulling through.
"I didn't get flyers from either campain team, honestly. I guess I'm lucky."
I live in a swing state.
"When I said "proved" I was speaking in layman's terms. Like how we've proved evolution, and only idiots or liars deny it now."
Evolution is a theory. It is not proven. All it is, like all theories, is a model to explain natural occurrences and predict future results. Another theory could come along and replace it. As of now it is the one with the strongest. supporting evidence. But it has never been proven, only supported.
"Yes, the ecosystem has changed over the last 4 billion years, but never like this. This quickly, I mean."
And you base that off of what? Also, the ecosystem can stand a lot. What makes you think it can't stand this change? I find it ironic how you pick evolution as an example when a driving force of evolution is climate change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fiasco Linguini Corruption at the state level is small and is stopped easily. That is why no one hears about it, it is almost non-existent.
What is your point on the pipeline?
I actually don't watch Fox News and I also don't see how this relates to anything. I mean, I have to ask you, how much Fox News do you watch? Or do you just base your criticism of it by what others say.
" have you ever heard a Democrat or any Liberal say "we need bigger government?" "
Yes, especially out of Bernie Sanders' mouth.
"Liberals want Accountability and Transparency for everyone who wields power, government or corporate."
How do you hold a government accountable when you can only vote for, at best a handful of the representatives?
"Government, of the people by the people and for the people, is not an evil thing."
I agree, you get that with smaller more local government. You know how many times I voted for Bernie Sanders? 0. He doesn't represent me, he lives all the way across the country. So he isn't for me. He is for Vermont, but I don't want him controlling my life. I bet you feel the same about a Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnell.
"It is frustrating to see you fight on behalf of such evil, and you probably aren't even getting paid for it."
I am fighting against the problem. You are blindly following Bernie and you are more that willing to give him power but then complain when others at the federal level, those you can't even vote for misuse it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are poor for a reason. Working fulltime at a low demand/low valued job isn't working hard. The most successful people in the world sacrifice a lot. They are the ones always on call, they are the ones who can lose it all in a second and will have to move from their homes with family if they make a mistake. They have way more responsibilities then the poor can even imagine.
There will always be wealth disparity, not everyone desires to be a business owner. Beyond owning a home the average person isn't wealthy, but they are still well off. Also, according to a CNBC article, only 19% of the super wealthy inherited all their wealth, an another 16% inherited part of it.
Simple fact, the poor are poor for a reason, they refuse to take on responsibility, they are the ones that want a paycheck, they don't want to work. Anyone who take economic advice from Robert Reich isn't too bright.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Randy Rogers There are several reasons why the US has the best university system. First off, if you pay for college the equal amount for a house then you paid too much. College isn't that expensive. There are better research opportunities, there is more flexibility in how you attend college, the professors are better because they do get paid well. Making something "free" lowers it's quality. There is a reason why the US leads the way in research and innovation in technology and science. There are opportunities for college students to get jobs on campus that are flexible so they can pay rent and bills. The most important thing is how they treat graduate students. In the US colleges pay graduate students to attend college so they don't have to find a job elsewhere, other countries don't. So while their colleges may be "free" a student has to work a full time job while attending and for a grad. student who needs to do research that isn't good.
Money gets it's value from the amount of goods and services available. If you just give more money to the poor and middle class without developing more goods and services than you lowered the value of the dollar and raised prices. Goods and services don't appear out of nowhere, they have to be created. Taking money from businesses in a form of a higher tax or regulation and giving it away lowers the value of the dollar because production didn't happen. This idea that growth is limited is one someone shouldn't have. We should always promote stronger growth and if it is truly limited than the market will adjust for it. But just giving money away in any form lowers the value of the dollar.
Jobs come and go. A reason why those manufacturing jobs are leaving is because of higher taxes and regulations. They are leaving too fast but as a whole they would leave anyway because jobs come and go. Like when the tractor replaced the farmer, or how Netflix replaced Blockbuster, or how appliances have batteries on board that are rechargeable so no we need less battery factories. It is how the economy evolves. We don't improve as a society by holding onto archaic jobs, we push people to develop new skills. There was a plant, I believe in Ohio that opened up that couldn't hire anyone due to people lacking skills. In Nevada Tesla is opening up but people lack skills there as well so Tesla has to train their workers to get them up to speed. Tesla is different because they have so much capital to begin with that they can do that where other business don't.
There are jobs coming in the form of technology and healthcare. That is where people need to focus their attention to. Also, to say that wealth went to the top is false. Is you life not better due to smartphones, high speed internet, better cars that are safer and get better gas mileage, etc.? Wealth has been spread out to people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
smarhaus Boo hoo. It is a competitive world out there. I personally hate it knowing that I don't have the option of working more hours. Picking up a second job isn't that easy (even though I have two, and sometimes three myself). A reason why your company laid you off is because one, you simply weren't that good of a worker, or two due to regulations it was too expensive to keep you. The company my dad worked at closed, he picked up a job that pays $26/hr starting off, he is getting paid more now. He had a lot of experience and they went after him. This idea of "worker's rights" and "redistribution of the wealth" is what is killing jobs. It makes it too hard to hire people.
Plus, as I mentioned before, redistribution of the wealth is impossible. You have to create wealth. I showed that with my house example. 61% of an average family's net worth is in their home. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Is it because a homeowner is oppressive to renters? No, because beyond owning a home people don't have much wealth, but they can still have a nice income. In order to have wealth redistribution you will have to start giving people Walmarts. And considering how around 50% of small businesses fail within the first 5 years it is safe to say that in 5 years some Walmarts will do well and others will fail leading to more wealth redistribution. You have to create wealth somewhere, and in order for wealth redistribution to take place the government has to "trickle down" that wealth to people who didn't create that wealth, and they have to do it constantly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Javed Alam
Ok, now for my rebuttal
"It's funny that you have ignored all of the literature out there that contradicts your argument, "
Actually I haven't because that book cites literature from numerous sources including peer review journals that you would claim "contradicts my argument".
The simple fact is this. I have never claimed that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, neither did Prof. Oshfeldt and Prof. Schneider. At the same time no one can claim that the US system is the worse or "primitive". No such literature exists to show that. Anyone such literature that tries to make that claim is making a ranking that is arbitrary as Prof. Oshfeldt said.
Let me give you another example. If you go to Wikipedia (I know, not a reliable source, but it is still pretty good in this case) and look up life expectancy, you will see that the average in the world is around 71 years ± 7 years with the WHO numbers it cites. That is by me doing a quick analysis, but still pretty good. The US is at 79 years, so already one standard deviation away from the means. The US is 5 years (less than on SD away) from Japan who was number one. Does that mean that Japan has a better healthcare system? No. There are several variables involved in the outcome of a society's health beyond healthcare. That five year difference is noise at that point due to several other societal differences. The same goes for every other method in determining healthcare quality.
Overall that is what that book was doing, showing how frivolous those rankings are. You saying that the US healthcare is the worst in the industrialized world is not different than saying "'murica numba 1". You are not in the same category as those individual. You can say that the US healthcare system has problems and I would agree. You can say we need to improve and I would also agree. But the second you say that it is primitive, or worse than country X, or the worst in the world, then I immediately know you are bias and have no desire to actually improve the healthcare system. You denial of facts and refusal to have an actual intelligent discussion on the topic shows that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ae Norist
"And 250% the cost for 102% the result is a shitty return on investment."
I would agree, but is universal healthcare the option? And if so, which country do you want to copy? Each one does something different. I don't agree with scrapping the entire system we have and replacing, but instead building on the current one we have now. Scrapping the system we have now will have devastating effects on the economy. To me the main problem is cost that stems from the federal government.
" that the government drives that cost is unfounded."
Anything the federal government touches outside of its constitutional authority breaks. Look at the federal student loan program and college tuition.
Government got involved when it created the payroll tax. In the 60s it expanded the payroll tax. With an increase in the payroll tax that means that businesses paid a higher tax if they paid a higher wage. A loophole is that businesses instead offer benefits such as stock options and healthcare insurance. Those were way to pay employees that were 100% tax free. Ultra liberals love to point out that wages have been stagnated since the 70s which is true in a way, but it ignores benefits that have been offered due to the payroll tax, so it is deceptive.
As is over 60% (and I think 70%, but I am not 100% sure, one can look it up) of employees get their healthcare through their employer. They get a generic plan. This is where you get problems such as women getting coverage for Viagra when they don't want it, or people leaving a job and having to go to another one but end up being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. People refuse to leave their job because doing so means losing their healthcare coverage. What has happened is that healthcare insurance has become healthcare coverage.
Insurance should be for emergencies, like car insurance is. Car insurance does not pay for oil changes, but pays if a tree falls on your car. Healthcare insurance should pay if you fall off of roof cleaning the gutters, not for the routine checkup you are doing. But that isn't the case due to people getting coverage from what their employer offers.
If the payroll tax was removed then businesses will instead pay with a higher wage. That will allow people to buy the insurance they want that caters to them. Due to competition they will get coverage that is affordable and covers what they want. LASIK surgery is not tied to insurance and has dropped in price while getting better. The common myth is that we have a capitalist system in our healthcare when in reality we don't. That is how the federal government has hurt the price of healthcare, it removed competition which is not capitalist.
"You cherrypicked the issue of quality, because you can hide in the margin of error and disputable details there,"
That is not true. Others have said that the quality in the US is poor. I am exposing that we, at the very least, get similar results. One can argue better, but at the very least we get similar results.
"You chose to ignore the issues of price,"
I actually don't ignore the issue of price. I have said repeatedly that cost is an issue. I just outlined for you how the federal government hurt competition in the healthcare industry which increased the price.
"you convieniently forgot that government does not work for profit, and can even work at a loss in that department"
Which is not good for the economy. Building on our current debt does not grow the economy. Plus, lack of a profit motive hinders growth. Almost all of the progress we have in this country is due to profit motive. Profit is what drives progress.
"whereas private insurance is a industry with massive profits"
And it becomes a problem when there is no competition or it has to cater to the employer instead of the consumer. An insurance company is going to offer care that an employer wants, not individual consumers. Thus the consumer who is actually using the insurance is screwed due to lack of competition.
"This alone clearly shows how inaedequate private buisness is to provide healthcare for the benefit of the people.
Its not evil, its just flawed by design."
The design is flaw because there lacks competition. People feel that it is simply the fact that this is for profit that is causing the problem. The reality is that it is for profit without competition. I hate my insurance plan. I stick with it because my employer gives it to me as part of my payment. I could buy my own but then I will be essentially be paying for double. The middle class get screwed in that case. I, along with others, am at the mercy of my employer when it comes to healthcare. I can't go around from company to company bargaining prices and picking a coverage that fits me. I have to take what my employer offers along with others. Now how is that a capitalist system? And your solution is to limit my options even more? Just take what the federal government offers? The same federal government where only 1/50 of the senators represent my state and runs an $18 trillion debt? I don't see that as a legit solution.
"And now try to actually reply to that, without citing from your little
book (which again is obviously flawed and in contrast to the vast
majority of literature. "
Ok, what literature? I keep hearing you saying that it contrast a "vast majority of literature". Which ones? Please show me the peer reviewed literature it contrasts.
The pure fact is that the main issue of our system is cost. That derives from our lack of options as consumers and lack of competition in the market. Elective care is expensive, but LASIK surgery has become cheaper and better despite being elective as well. That is because insurance does not cover it. It comes out of the consumers' pockets forcing companies to compete. People way we have a free market system which is 100% false. Again, we need to get past these facts before we get into opinions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Krugman is a fool. We have been using his ideas for the economy for almost half a century now and we are still a mess. He only solution now is more government.
Overall, if you look at the WHO ranking, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ranked countries have a combined population that is less than every US state. Never mind the point where that list considers access to care to be way more important then quality making that list frivolous. Just that every country faces different issues.
The system in the US has flaws. I don't agree with replacing it with a system that has different flaws. Instead I want to work and become creative to develop the best system possible because that is what we do in the US. We, right away, deal with many different issues compared to other countries, especially smaller ones, so it is hard to compare us with them. Also, in all, why can't we be different? We need to work and develop a great system. To me the only thing holding us back from doing that is liberals since they seem to never want to work. Cost is an issue in the US, but our quality is amazing and anyone who says otherwise is a fraud. So now that we have great quality we need to find a way to keep cost down but at the same time keep improving our quality. Unlike some people out there I don't want a good system but I want the best and improve on that. Socialize care isn't it. The US system isn't that either but compared to every other system out there it is the best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ufutz, education can either the best thing you offer to someone or the worse. It can be great if it is done right as in teaching problem solving skills and creativity. But education can also be used for indoctrination.
"Universities lean left because those who go are intelligent. "
They go with who they can hire. A problem with professors is that many never worked outside of academics and thus they stay in their safe space of academics.
" They have their views challenged,"
Not always.
"That's why there are correlations between intelligence and progressive ideas, and between low intelligence and conservative ones"
Again, not true. I am sure I can dismantle that idea quickly. Why do liberals feel there are 37 different types of sex? Or are so ignorant when it comes to economics?
"Just look and listen to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbah etc. Not smart people, heavily conservative."
I can say the same thing about guys like Bill Maher, Piers Morgan, Cenk, Nancy Pelosi, etc. It goes both ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Luke M It is true that socialist states fail, but there is a reason why people continue to support it.
Someone explained the economy as this, it is based off of a set of simple rules in a complex way, and that we are no more than ants in the market. We are intelligent but unaware. We are intelligent in that we know to look for the best bargain, look for the job that pays the most, and do what is best for us. We are unaware, though, how much everything is connected and how complex and fragile it is. A policy that looks great to benefit us can destroy the whole market. For example, the min. wage. Who doesn't want higher wages? And it does look good to give higher wages to those who are "poor". But now doing price control sets off a ripple effect hurting the entire economy and we are unaware of it.
That to me is why I feel people keep pushing for socialism, we are unaware. Not to say we are dumb, just unaware for several reasons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prototype Atheist There is always demand because people demand better goods and services. But if they don't exist people can't buy them. A walkman using tape players was good enough, but Apple decided to create Ipods which people bought. People bought it because they demanded it, and it was created due to a company investing money to build it. In the end you can't consume what you don't produce.
Trickle down is a political term, not an economic term. If you want to see trickle down at work though people do have more wealth today than in the past. In the past the rich drove nice cars, had brick cell phones, enjoyed AC, etc. Now while the rich have it great today, people in the middle and lower class are better off today than the rich were in the past. Those in the middle class drive better cars, have cell phones, have AC, dishwashers, etc. The wealth trickled down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"so you think everyone's only motivation is money? "
No, there are other motivating factors as well. Autonomy is one.
" Like cleaning my apartment. Going out and enjoying the sun. "
You like cleaning your apartment to enjoy a clean and comfortable apartment. You like going out in the sun because you have the time and freedom to do so .
" Helping out my neighbors. "
Those are individuals you personally know. That is no different then helping out your friends. However, in none of those examples does it take 8+ years of schooling to do.
As for your link, it shows it will cost the US government too much.
"
So, oddly, our calculation produced exactly the same amount of
federal health spending -- $1.38 trillion a year -- as Sanders’ own
estimate for his single-payer plan.
However, if you use the higher cost estimates -- the ones in the $2.4
trillion to $2.8 trillion range -- then Trump has a point that a
single-payer plan would be more expensive than what the government is
already paying for health care."
The Sanders plan produces the same value as the government is spending now on healthcare. Thus Bernie's plan is full of crap as you are transferring all of the cost to the government. Also, nowhere in that link did they mention the increase in demand without increasing supply which will raise prices. That is what happened with the student loan programs, it increased demand to where universities increased tuition. Healthcare providers will do the same thing.
I love the facts you presented, it supports my case. Thanks for agreeing that single payer at the federal level will be too expensive. Remember, we also have a $20 trillion debt.
1
-
"man you really pulled a Stephen Crowder on this one! Good job! He's a
master of taking info and twisting it into something it isn't."
Or maybe it is more likely that I, along with him, present info in a different way that can still be seen as correct. Just because you disagree with how data is interpret does not make it wrong.
"You want to see single payer done right? All you have to do is look at
all the other countries in the world that implement it and do it well. "
Ok, I have
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
I do not see it being any better then what the US has right now.
" I love how you skipped over the facts that support a single payer system"
I didn't.
"You do know that we pay more in GDP for our healthcare than all the other countries that employ a single payer system, right? "
We also produce better results such as higher cancer survival rates. We also lead the world in research and innovation of healthcare.
" We also pay at least 4 times as much for our prescription medication.
You want to LOWER health care costs, it would appear that Single Payer
would be the way to go then, right?"
What will happen to the quality? I want to pay lower rent, but I do not want roommates nor do I want to live in the ghetto. You are preaching about lower costs but not about quality.
" Why would it cost more, when all the other countries that do it pay less? '"
There are many reasons for that. In the case of the US we have many government regulations that stand in the way. We do have a problem of the federal government being in bed with insurance and pharmaceutical companies. With that the last thing I want is a federal healthcare program.
"Also, the numbers in the article varied depended on who was studying it."
I agree. However, It is ironic how Bernie's plan ended up with the same value as we spend now federally. That makes zero sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" but you expect me to read nearly 100 pages just for this argument with someone on the Internet? "
Not just for that, but for general knowledge. You give me a link of an arbitrary ranking and expect me to take it seriously? But here I go
"Even though the U.S. is the only country without a publicly financed universal health system"
Around half of our healthcare spending is from the federal government. To say we do not have a publicly financed system is simply not true.
" In contrast, the U.S. devotes a relatively small share of its economy
to social services, such as housing assistance, employment programs,
disability benefits, and food security."
Again, not true. That makes up the majority of our federal spending. And when you include state and local spending, it increases. You have to consider that other countries do not have states.
"Finally, despite its heavy investment in health care, the U.S. sees
poorer results on several key health outcome measures such as life
expectancy and the prevalence of chronic conditions."
As mentioned in that book I linked you, when you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. There are many factors beyond healthcare that determine those results. Right away I can essentially dismiss that source as they are suggesting that the outcomes in life expectancy and other data are only dependent on healthcare. That is not true. As a whole the differences in numbers are minute. You cannot say the reason for those differences are only because of healthcare. They do statistical regression models on that book I linked.
"Mortality rates from cancer are low and have fallen more quickly in the
U.S. than in other countries, but the reverse is true for mortality from
ischemic heart disease.
"
The US also has a higher obesity rate compared to those countries. That is a culture issue and has little to do with healthcare. You can have the best healthcare system in the world, but if people continue to eat unhealthy and be fat then it does not matter.
"The U.S. stood out as a top consumer of sophisticated diagnostic imaging
technology. Americans had the highest per capita rates of MRI, computed
tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) exams among the
countries where data were available. The U.S. and Japan were among the
countries with the highest number of these imaging machines"
That is expected as we lead the world in research and innovation of healthcare.
"Data published by the International Federation of Health Plans suggest
that hospital and physician prices for procedures were highest in the
U.S. in 2013"
We produce better results and perform more procedures such as more MRIs. I do not see that as a problem.
"The U.S. was also the only country studied where health care spending
accounted for a greater share of GDP than social services spending."
Medicaire and medicaid make up social services spending.
"On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers"
Again, the differences are minute and you cannot place that only on healthcare. There are differences in cultures that play a major role.
"The U.S. had the lowest life expectancy at birth of the countries
studied, at 78.8 years in 2013, compared with the OECD median of 81.2
years."
The average life expectancy in the world is 71±7 years. That three year difference between those other countries is noise. Also, this sources fails to give simple statistical figures such as standard deviations.
"The prevalence of chronic diseases also appeared to be higher in the U.S. "
Again, how much is based off of culture? How much is that based off of our diet or life style?
"More than a third of adults in the U.S. were obese in 2012, a rate that
was about 15 percent higher than the next-highest country, New Zealand.
The U.S. had one of the lowest smoking rates in 2013, but one of the
highest rates of tobacco consumption in the 1960s and 1970s."
All of which are not related to the healthcare system.
"The Institute of Medicine found that poorer health in the U.S. was not
simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic
disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in
worse health than their counterparts abroad."
I do not see any figures or citation there.
"
The opposite trend appears for ischemic heart disease, where the U.S.
had among the highest mortality rates in 2013—128 per 100,000 population
compared with 95 in the median OECD country. Since 1995, mortality
rates have fallen significantly in all countries as a result of improved
treatment and changes in risk factors.18 However, this
decline was less pronounced in the U.S., where rates declined from 225
to 128 deaths per 100,000 population—considerably less than countries
like Denmark, where rates declined from 242 to 71 deaths per 100,000
population.
The U.S. also had high rates of adverse outcomes from diabetes, with
17.1 lower extremity amputations per 100,000 population in 2011. Rates
in Sweden, Australia and the U.K. were less than one-third as high."
Heart disease and diabetes are dependent on diet and life styles.
" Even public spending on health care, on a per capita basis, is higher
in the U.S. than in most other countries with universal public coverage."
The source contradicted itself as it said that the US does not have a public system. But at that, our public system goes to the poor, old and vets, all of who cost more.
"High health care spending has far-reaching consequences in the U.S.
economy, contributing to wage stagnation, personal bankruptcy, and
budget deficits, and creating a competitive disadvantage relative to
other nations."
Not really. Let us break down each point
Wage stagnation: There are several factors for that. The payroll tax is one. The increase in immigration is another. The increase in technology has led to prices going down meaning people are begin paid more and so on.
Bankruptcy: This is a problem with out healthcare system, but poor people are bound to go bankrupt for multiple reasons.
Budget deficits: I can only think they are talking about the federal government. Other countries have debt.
Competition: The US leads the world in research and innovation of healthcare.
"A growing body of evidence suggests that social services play an
important role in shaping health trajectories and mitigating health
disparities."
Again, that is an issue with culture and habits. When food stamps can be used on soda, that is a problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dan Underwood The problem we have in this country is that we have gone away from state rights and gone to far in allowing the federal government in having power. You just complained about capitalism, I never supported just pure capitalism. Having some social programs is good. But those programs need to be left up to the states and local government. The reason why is that at that level they are managed better and people can see if they are actually work it and easily change it. When you go to the federal level you lose that ability to control the government or see if the program works, thus you go to the next problem, too much government. Too much government is just as bad as no government, remember that.
What I am getting at is that if you or your wife or anyone loses their job then I support a state or local program that helps you out until you get a job. At the federal level I don't. As for 12 weeks paternity leaev, one, that is a long time. Another, you really can't compare us to other countries, the variables are too great. The have problems as well as in higher cost of living for example. But businesses don't offer paternity leave or vacation time because they simply cant' afford it. If at the state and local level it decides to have such a program the great. If it works then great. If not then it can be changed. But at the federal level it simply can't work, and forcing businesses to pay is not smart.
The problem with your idea of spending a lot of time with family is that you create a society that will only work on a volunteer basis. If I had a family they simply could not come to my job as they are not trained to be around the equipment I use. Same with the job my dad works. As for OT laws, on average the US citizen works 34.4 hours a week.
Feeling entitled is not the way to go.
1
-
Dan Underwood And that is why I support state rights, what may look like a state not helping out their citizens to you is exactly what those citizens want. The is the beauty of it. Who are you to say how the citizens of a state are to run their government?
At the state and local level one is able to see if the tax dollars are being invested back into the community. That is the other beauty of state rights. Milton Friedman explains that well in the video on youtube called
"Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups"
"governments that are right wing. The people who live in their state
will see their benefits cut or eliminated completely. What about those
people? "
If that is what the people in that area want then who are you to change their ways? There are limitations in the government as listed in the constitution, but that is it. I live in a state of zero income tax, but who am I to tell other states they should live like that?
"This is one reason amerika as compared to the rest of the world is lagging dead last. "
We are actually not dead last, with a proper statistical analysis one can see that one, you really can't compare the US to other countries, and two, when you do compare you see that the US is on par with other countries.
You can't compare because other countries have populations that are smaller than most of our states. We have a larger diversity than those other countries. We have so many different societies and a different history. We have a different economy. You simply can't compare. It is like compare Bishop Gorman High School Football to the Dallas Cowboys.
If you want to compare the US is number 2 in GDP per capita if cost of living is consider, so we do make more money. Healthcare? We are arguably better. College? We have the best university system in the world. So while it is "free" in other countries, what you get is inferior compared to the US. The min. wage? The min. wage is actually outpacing productivity. That is why prices are going up along with teenage unemployment going up. There isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. The min. wage is contributing to higher prices. And saying that 85% of men work over 40 hours is deceptive. How many are doing that in factory work? The economy changed. Work is not a physically demanding anymore. 40 hours a week now is easier than in the past. So basically saying that 85% of men work over 40 hours a week is shallow.
"Yes I am entitled to get something for my tax money besides a war
machine killing brown skinned kids for capitalism and greedy corporatist
politicians killing our kids here for capitalism."
You can change that at the local level.
If I had a kid I will work hard to see to it that they have a better life than me. My dad did that. He worked night shift and I hardly saw him as a kid. But he provided us with a home, money to do extracurricular activities, proper food and so on. We were poor but we got better because of his hard work. I was able to go to college along with my 2 siblings. They both got their MBAs and I am working on my PhD. My dad didn't get his college degree until he was 36. Because of him I am better than he was, and because of his dad he was better than his dad. I irritates me when we have entitled people. And that is not to say he didn't have any time to spend with us, he did, but it all requires work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Stillwell
I am bringing them up for comparison in how they are less transparent than Trump. You are complaining about a tax return which means nothing in if he is qualified to be a president or not. I agree that we should know a lot about our candidates, their tax returns are so far on the bottom of the list it isn't my concern. You say Bernie released his. Great. Now why does Bernie, a self proclaimed socialist who was against wealth inequality, owns three homes? He never addressed that. But it is alright because he released his tax returns I guess. That must be more important to see that he paid taxes. Even though Trump, as a business owner of multi billion dollar businesses has a high chance of being audited yearly.
So no, I am not deflecting but comparing how bad your priorities are. Tax returns mean nothing to me. All it shows is that he pays taxes and our tax code is messed up, period. Liberals want it so they can scream "he pays little taxes" or "he is not as rich as he says he is". It is just childish. His tax returns do not reflect
1. policies
2. how he will be as a leader
3. how he will act with foreign leaders
4. how he will act with congress
Comparing to Obama. Obama had no experience coming in. He was a blank slate that people knew very little about and as a result he was a disaster as a president. But thank god we saw his tax return. I mean, who knows what would have happened if we didn't see that. You could not know anything else about a candidate, but as long as we have his tax return we are fine according to you. I, on the other had, have my priorities straight and worry about other things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Stillwell
Now you are resorting to insults.
A religious test is not unconstitutional. What is is barring someone from holding political office based on their religion which is why one is not given. But people in the public do want to know what a candidate's religion is. They don't have to give one by law, just like they don't have to give out their tax return by law. People just want to know because they want to know more about the candidates, just like you do. So there is no difference. You are demanding more info about a candidate even though they are not required to give it, no different than people wanting to know a candidate's religion. So again, you are cherry picking.
"Ever hear of google?"
Ah, the old "google it" response. What should I google? Fox News? AEI? Rush Limbaugh?
"All you have to do is type in "no religious test" in your search browser and you'd suddenly realize how dumb your response was"
Well, I never said "religious test". I simply said asking them to say what religion they are. You are the one that is saying "religious test". Also, what is unconstitutional is establishment of religion. If we want to require a religious test that is not establishment of religion. We don't do it because it is a waste of time since any result can't prevent a candidate from holding political office. But people still like to know what religion a candidate is. I personally don't care, but some do based off of the very same reason why you want tax returns, it is to know more information about the candidate. But remember, you are the one the brought up the "religious test".
"Let me know when you graduate the 2nd grade"
And again with the insults. Actually I am a PhD candidate.
". You don't know shit"
I know what is constitutional and what isn't. I also know what I said and what you said. You are the one that brought up "religious test". Remember that. I am the one that knows that a candidate does not have to legally give out their religion just like they don't have to legally give out their tax returns. People demand it to know more about the candidate. You get all butt hurt when one refuses to give out their tax return but then scream "a religious test is unconstitutional" when I never said "religious test". I simply said they have to say what religion they practice. You are cherry picking what you want to know about the candidate even though
1. you said you want to know as much as you can
2. they are not required by law to release tax return or religious practice
So again, why don't you want to know what a candidate's religion is?
"The Mexican thing"
So wanting to stop illegal immigrants is being a bigot?
"The Muslim thing."
Right now there is a problem with the Muslim society of terrorism. It isn't a radical idea to ban them temporarily until it gets fixed.
"The disabled thing"
Making fun of one guy is not making fun of an entire group. Learn what the word "bigot" means.
"He was even investigated in the 70's for refusing to rent to blacks,"
A lot of multi million dollar companies are investigated by people looking to make a quick dollar. Trump is the same person who allowed a black woman to live in one of his hotels for free when her family got murder so she can be safe. But I guess he wasn't feeling like a "bigot' that day.
"nd speech I haven't heard since I was in high school listening to Hitler speeches for WW2 chapters of history."
Godwin's Law.
Man you got triggered easily.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+MrBigEnchilada
"You're deflecting the question, you think someone making $200,000/hr for a speech is ok?"
Not my say and not my money so I don't care. If I was given that kind of offer I won't turn it down. NFL refs get paid, on average, around $160,000 a game. Is that right? Who is to say?
"she worked harder in one speech than Bernie worked in one year? "
It isn't how much harder you work, it is the value you create. You can work very hard in the desert digging holes, how much will you earn doing so?
" A public elected official taking that amount of money is troubling"
I agree. That is why I support having strict limitations on government, especially the federal government. If government has no power the it can't be bought.
"well, the question i have is why does Clinton insist that she is against
wealthy people making millions and millions of dollars per year in her
campaign, when she does the same?"
Good question. Clinton is a politician and corrupt and I don't like her either. She is a great example of how we should have strict limitations on the federal government and really all governments. This is why Milton Friedman said we should keep government as local as possible to ensure that it remains the servants and not the masters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Blood Lust One, I am not republican. Two
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United
States, ...."
From the Constitution Article 2 Section 2. Notice the
"and by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate"
Please learn to read.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You need to balance it against inflation, otherwise you're right, you'd just devalue your currency"
What is a factor that causes inflation? Government involvement in the market, especially the federal government. When you artificially raise the price floor of labor prices of goods and services will go up. In a healthy market the prices of goods and services will go down and will improve in quality. We have seen that in areas where the fed does nothing, like LASIK surgery and technology. But in places where the fed has had a huge involvement in (healthcare, housing, college tuition) prices have gone up a lot. So we can't "balance it against inflation" because in reality you are contributing to inflation.
" In a consumer -based economy, cash is exchanged for services as well as
goods. Whole sections of the economy don't really operate based on
production or wealth creation...they operate by simply exchanging goods
already produced. "
You can't consume what you don't produce. If the goods are there then prices will drop. There is no need to circulate the money. If all it took was circulating the money then why not $100/hr? Or why not give people yearly checks of $50,000? You really need to understand what money is and how it is given value.
"Take a movie theater for example...once it's built, there's not much left to produce. "
Yes there is. The theater has to rent out the movies, clean the theater, offer food (that is where they get most of their money), advertise. There is a lot to produce.
" As the owner of the theater...all you're doing is circulating cash for services, and making a profit off the transactions."
You are paying employees an amount they agreed to take for giving you their services. Just like when you go to the movies, you pay a price you agree with to watch the movie. Working at a movie theater requires little skill and there is a lot of workers that can do it, thus their wage is low.
"but they need people to be walking around with spending money, or they go out of business fast. "
If they are not able to sell their product then they need to provide a better one or lower their price. Just like a worker who can't find a job needs to lower their wage they are asking for and/or work better.
"These are the areas of the economy that need flow more than they need creation."
Nope, you need creation. You can't show the same movies over and over again. You can't sell expired food or have a limited selection. You can't leave the seats sticky in the theater.
"If you want small businesses to flourish...they need local people in their immediate neighborhood with cash to spend."
That small business needs attract customers with a high quality product and low prices. They can do that with limited regulations (like a lower min. wage).
"They don't need investors, "
Yes they do, the owner themselves are investors. If the price of labor is too high then the price of doing business is too high thus they will go out of business.
"If they're customers are all struggling to make ends meet"
Like if the min. wage prices them out of a job or raised prices.
"You need to regulate that shit, and prevent that kind of monopolization. "
What causes monopolies are regulations by the federal government. Large businesses like Walmart have resources go work with regulations where smaller competitors don't. If you want to get rid of monopolies you have to have the free market. If you want monopolies then push for regulations.
"The free-market only works if there's a governing body over-seeing it's
operation...in order to keep the market open, and fair. "
What's fair? Walmart sells crap products and gives crap services. They stay around due to regulations that hurts a smaller competitor from rising up and challenging them. That is the exact opposite of the free market. The "governing body" allows Walmart to be as powerful as it is.
"It means bigger government sticking their noses in where it doesn't
belong...but it's the only way to keep clever, but greedy assholes from
putting their fingers on the scale, and doing real damage to the economy
in the process. "
Or "greedy assholes" using the government in their favor.
"If there's no over-sight...it's just a matter of time before your
free-market turns into a monopoly, and then as a consumer, you're at the
mercy of something you can't even challenge, let alone change. "
In a free market I can go to a competitor and get the best product out there.
"Companies like Walmart do what they do, simply because they can...and in
the US, the government rolls out the red-carpet for them to keep doing
it"
In the US the federal government creates regulations hurting smaller competitors to where Walmart can thrive.
"Regulations are there to protect the economy"
Regulations hurt the economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ryan neitzel You see, this is where you are incorrect. I have to ask you, how you ever lived in a small town? I ask that because I was raised in a small town and now live in a city. Usually rural people vote republican and urban people vote democrats and I can see why.
In a small town or community, when there is a problem they work together to fix it. As I said when that family's house burnt down people raised money to help them out. Or when someone went to the hospital and their insurance only paid for half of the bill, the hospital just said not to worry about the other half and that was it. That happens quite a bit in small towns. Around 70% of firefighters are volunteer and most of them live in small towns. When there is a snowfall several volunteers plow the roads and driveways for people. The local doctor volunteers to be on the sideline at high school football games. They don't have to raise funds because they help each other, and if they have too they easily could. They are simple minded people who just want to mind their own business. They solve their own problems. You mindset on funds is also off which is typical because most people don't understand what money is. Money doesn't have some set value, so it isn't like they need more money from the federal government to survive, they have enough. Cost of living is low, people don't work for much there and as I said they work for free a lot of times. Like after a huge ice storm several volunteers helped clear tree branches from the roads and yard. One individual graduated with a college degree at the local college when she was in her 60s with cancer. The job she worked at was very flexible with her and helped her out. When she needed days off they allowed her to have it and didn't fire her. The liberal horror stories don't exist in small towns.
Now living in a city I see why the people here support more government. I don't know most of my neighbors, and had 4 different ones below me. You could walk across my hometown in 30 minutes, it takes that long to drive across with no traffic. People hardly know others here and the social aspect is low. In cities people don't group together and help each other. That is why there is a locally funded fire department. I can see a reason for a safety net. I came from a town where I knew every doctor and both dentists, there are two dentist offices within walking distance alone from where I live at. I am going to see the dentist this year but I don't know who? I get paranoid getting my car into fix because I don't know who to trust. With that I can see why some sort of business regulation is needed where at home I personally knew 3 mechanics all who gave me great deals on my car when they worked on it and did it well. I can see why people would support some sort of sick days in the city. Here jobs are needed so much that if you take off they will fire you and hire the next person.
This is why I support state rights and more local government. Across the country people face different situations. We are a very diverse country. In some areas a more involved government is needed, where in others it isn't needed. This is why rural areas vote republicans, because they don't like it when urban areas vote in democrats that create laws that invade in on their lives. Obamacare really pissed off a lot of small town folks because they liked their healthcare. They didn't want, or need reform. When they vote in republicans they do vote for their best interest. You want more government then do it at the local level and stop invading in on other peoples lives, and in some cases ruining it, with a large federal government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ryan8878 You are not seeing the point here. The term "social democracy" is a political phrase designed to appeal to emotions. People end up making it whatever they want it to be. People on the left point to successful programs as "social democracy" and failures as "trickle down economics". They are phrases people throw around that mean nothing.
"I guess any and every political label falls under the same criteria then. They are just used to drum up emotion right?"
They pretty much are. They are what you just said they are, labels. They are labels people use to avoid discussing actual issues.
"Social Democracy as is defined more or less is a combination of both a general welfare state and capitalism."
And........
You have to be more specific than that. What you just said can mean anything. What you are also not realizing is that you are more or less mixing water and oil. Take the min. wage for example. A flaw in that is that you are enforcing how much is paid per hour, not per week. But you see the min. wage as part of that mixture. But the capitalist side will just raise prices and cut hours.
Your proposal is really expanding the size of the federal government which is the major source of our problems. What I find funny is that in "social democracy" people are ignoring the "democracy" part. At the federal level nothing has ever been a democracy, ever. But yet you want to have "social democracy" established. That is like putting gas in a diesel engine. It is not going to work because the people don't have a voice at the federal level.
This is my number one problem with Bernie. He wants to expand the size of the federal government and give it more power. You do as well. But when Bernie is gone what is going to prevent future politicians at the federal level from misusing that power? Democracy? As I said, the system is not set up that way. You only vote for a handful of congressmen at best.
Breaking down your ideas
"Some changes that would be beneficial is a Federal Land Titles Act or
Torrens system which would reduce the amount of Foreclosure Fraud"
As I said, this should not even be an issue at the federal level.
" Lower interest rates for students seeking post secondary education to
the point or cost recovery considering its the Feds that typically
secure loans for students"
Feds should not be involved in student loans. Plus, student loans are very generous as is.
"Watch dog organizations given heightened powers over wall street to mitigate abuse"
Again, the federal government should not have that power
"A marginal tax rate system where individual income over 5 million yearly results in a marginal tax of 50% to 60%"
So people can just move their money someplace else?
"Nomore corporate subsidies to oil and gas companies. "
i agree on that one
"Consumer choice when it comes to GMO's. "
Again, not a federal issue
"Reject the TPP."
Why?
"Public boards to oversee Police department conduct who have heightened powers."
Already exists, it is called the Constitution
" A slightly reduced military budget by 5-10%"
Why? Also military spending is one area the federal government can actually spend on. If you look at percent of GDP the US is comparable in spending to other countries.
I will give you credit, you got into more detail than Bernie did. Bernie still has not given a tax rate yet. That is why people say he is going to tax at 90%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
William Slaughter 1. Wanting people to live well is great, but you can't just give money, and ultimately resources away. Resources are limited. If you want a better life then work at it. If you can't afford certain things then either find a way to earn more or cut expenses. That is how life works. But getting paid an arbitrary amount which is ultimately more than you are worth doesn't help anybody.
2. If this passed and all of a sudden an employer cut your pay than that employer has issues to begin with and is going to not last long as a company. You have this false feeling that now employers are going to cut pay, they are not. Those who are already getting paid that amount for those hours will be fine. Really they are most likely are going to be better off.
You are making an excuse with money again. If WI was really angry with him they would have voted him out, they had 2 times to do it and failed. Here is the requirements for a recall election
" is 25% of the number of persons that voted in the last preceding election"
That 25% is not a large number. Just because a few radicals who can't handle something they like don't get what they want doesn't mean that the rest of the state has to suffer.
If those 49% really don't like Walker then next election they should put a guy up against him that can actually beat him. Or they can simply move. At this point you have 2 options (which is what you always have), change it or deal with it. But making excuses is not going to solve anything.
3. I didn't dodge the question. I explained to you how one, it won't happen, and two, if it did I will find another job.
So off of your new question. If Mr. Walker signed the law he just signed my employer still won't cut my wage as I mentioned in point 1. Employers don't work like that. And if they did they won't be around long due to not getting good workers. I would have read the signs of a poor employer longer ago and got a new job before the situation would have happen.
So my answer is the same. Now if Walker were to step in and make a law forcing employers to pay less then you have something to complain about., but this isn't the case. Mr. Walker is not forcing employers to pay less, thus he isn't stealing a dime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
22steve5150 Ok, Chad Lewis, Tra Thomas, Jon Runyan, Terrall Owens. The main reason for the success of the Eagles was their defense. Troy Vincent, Hugh Douglas, Brian Dawkins, Jeremiah Trotter, Lito Shepard, Corey Simon....the list goes on. The were constantly ranked near the top in defense. 4th in 2000, 2nd in 2001 and 2002, 7th in 2003, 2nd in 2004, that was during the best years of winning over 10 games a year. McNabb took too much credit for those victories. He was an athletic and exciting QB to watch but he really wasn't all that good.
On those quotes, there is a point to the 2nd quote. The media did drum up the fact when Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy both made the superbowl. It was a big deal to them that a black coach made the superbowl. To me it doesn't matter, they were just coaches but the media did play out though. There is no evidence of Rush saying the third or forth. They were made up in the book 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America, there is no date or any other source for those quotes. So from your quotes you are 1 out of 5, not even a good batting average.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some counter points.
1. A reason why we are seeing a growing income inequality, at least in the US, is because we are becoming and entitled society. When Romney talked about the 47% that is an issue in that 53% are doing all the work and producing all the wealth for 100% of the country. That is a big reason why socialism doesn't work because you get around half the country producing all the wealth for the entire country. In the end that half doing the work will get paid in some way. That is how you can defend a 354:1 pay ratio.
2. You have to learn what wealth is. Wealth is not money, wealth is net worth. There are people who bring in a lot of money yearly but have negative wealth due to debt. Not everyone inspires to be a business owner. Not everyone inspires to be a homeowner. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Around 60% of a homeowner's wealth is in their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth. A person with no other assets and no debt and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the country. That is how you defend the 400 americans having more wealth than half of the country.
3. Police and military and medicare and so on isn't redistribution of the wealth. It is society agreeing to pay for services through government.
4. To extend on number 3, the question of how much we should have is very gray. Police and fire departments are locally funded, some areas rely on volunteer fire fighters. Military and medicare is locally funded. It is a poor comparison. They big issue with those programs is that you have to rely on the government serving the people and not the government being the masters. That is why you have to keep government is local as possible so people can control their government better and not the government controlling them. Another reason why we have a growing income gap is we have a too powerful of a federal government that does offer unconstitutional social policies such as medicare and social security and so on. There is a reason why the founders wanted state rights. Nothing is wrong with government as long as you can control it. We have allowed the federal government go grow into some frakenstein monster and now we have lost control over it.
5. Those other countries who practice socialism also have a higher cost of living, so it isn't really working.
Pushing for a revolution is pointless because in the end some sort of leader will rise up and we will have the same problems we do now. Everything that was suggested in this video would make the situation worse, not better. We actually have a system in place that will be very successful if we used it, it is state rights. There is nothing wrong with government, what we have now is government being the masters due to an overpowering federal government created largely due to the new deal. We have lost control of government and this is the results. The founding fathers worked hard to establish state rights for a reasons. We need to go back to strict limitations on the federal government and more state rights and have government be the servants, not us serving them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Time to debunk Kyle again:
1. The FBI does gun related deaths studies already, having the CDC do it is a waste of money at that point
2. It doesn't matter if 90% of the American people want it. To start, we don't live in a democracy, we never did. Next, this is a weak issue to run off of and can easily be attacked. Thus, if you ran off of that you will lose.
3. With regulated it says "a well regulated..." not "the well regulated...." thus gave no grounds on who can create such regulation. Knowing that the militia were made up of the people saying "a well regulated...." means self-controlled or self-regulated. Thus, not from the government. So the first part supports gun rights advocates if you actually read it.
4. The argument of muskets is asinine. There were the Puckle Gun, Girandoni air rifle, belton flintlock etc.
5. Again, just because it is popular doesn't mean it is right, effective or a winning manner. How would those laws prevent any of these shootings? So they are not "reasonable". We have laws on the books already, when do we say it is time to tackle more serious issues (like poverty).
6. Suicides are self inflicted and are thus not violence. Also, they make up around 2/3 of gun deaths. In the UK the top method of suicides is hanging. So take away guns people will just use ropes or bridges. Suicides is not a gun related issue. Removing people's rights just because other people are suicidal is not a solution.
7. The facts are known. The meta-analysis study was countered by another Harvard study that made the broader, and more correct conclusion that there is not a correlation either way. Both "studies" were not peer reviewed and were pretty much two professors writing up something to push an agenda. So that meta-analysis that Kyle cites is not credible. Looking at the US the number of guns has been increasing for the past 20 years while gun murders have been dropping. So that data goes against what Kyle is saying.
So if Kyle were leading the democrats they will lose, bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" I got it now, are you one of those carzy people that think we can't even kill animals because it's murder?"
Funny you say that considering how I come from a family with a strong hunting background.
"I never said "the fetus is no LIVING BEEING, if you'd read the comments I made clear that by this term I mean a lalive HUMAN"
You never made that clear until now. Now we are possibly getting somewhere.
"And again, stop saying my arguments are weak without refuting them and
the pacemaker argument is NOT legit, since the man with the pacemaker
was alive before (AS A HUMAN), the fetus was not a human (BEFORE)"
But could develop into one. We have laws that arrest people if they are considered a potential threat to society.
"And if you aren't arguing against abortion, than why are you saying it's murder?"
Because that is a legit argument from the anti-abortion side.
" it is basically a clump of cells that feeds "
And you are literally a clump of cells as well. And a baby needs a caregiver.
" feeds off the mothers energy without giving something in return"
Just like a baby.
"Do you know what the FETUS, because of those certain traits, is classified as? A parasite"
So.
"Btw., you contradict yourself nearly as much as the bible"
Ah, now you are bringing religion in the argument now. You are becoming predictable. I bet you think I am religious.
A fetus is not a tumor. Tumors are abnormal cell growth. You and your friend need to study biology again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" because someone said that he has a Phd in science and thinks Dems are idiots"
The democratic party today are extreme and idiots. Just because scientists vote for them does not change that fact. The reality is that many do not follow politics. When I discuss politics with my colleagues (remember, I study science for a living) I can name off politicians and parts of the constitution they can't. They only know what the media feeds them which the media is left as well, for the most part. So they go off of the propaganda that Trump was an idiot and a racist, or that republicans are anti-science, all of which is not true.
To me, the democratic party feeds off of those who are myopic and emotional. With professors as in scientists, you have a career where you interact with only other scientists, you teach what you know young, impressionable minds, and you play politics to get tenure where then it is almost impossible for you to lose a job. It is no secret why they vote democrat at that point. As I said, you have to compare scientists in industry to scientists in academics. Even at that, when you look at academics those in the STEM fields are less liberal than those in the liberal arts.
So as a whole, the idea that "educated" people vote democrats and "uneducated" vote republican is simply not true. Those with a higher income typically vote republican and there is a correlation between intelligence and income.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SodaBoy628
" People who work at McDonald's help generate a lot of money for their restaurants"
Not a lot.
"So why aren't THEY being paid a living wage?"
Well, they are alive so I will say they already are.
"
And don't say "because they flip burgers", because NFL players throw a football, run, and catch a football. Something literally ANYONE can do."
But can you do it well enough to where you get millions to watch you and TV stations are willing to sign million dollar contracts for?
"What I meant by "decent living" is being able to afford living on your own, WITHOUT financial assistance from others."
What do you mean live on your own? As in have your own business? Own your own place? If you rent you are avoiding property taxes and maintenance expenses. So right away you have financial assistance.
" The unemployment rate dropped AFTER 1933. Like I said, it takes a long time for the economy to recover when 25% of people are unemployed."
Barely
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2644.pdf
"During the 1920s, Wall Street wasn't regulated. That, combined with increasing wealth inequality caused by Harding and Coolidge's tax cuts, is what directly led to the Wall Street Crash of 1929."
A little vague. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. FDR tried to spend his way to a recovery, it didn't work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ttocs Drow, at times I can't see comments for reasons I am too busy to care about. I saw part of your comment in the email and that's it. The part I saw had you acting in a somewhat arrogant way. But I see your new comment in its entirety.
"Why? Why must he be questioned? Please demonstrate where any data,
outside what can only be described as simple clerical error, is
incorrect empirically please."
I never denied the data. The point is that alarmists point to him as some sort of expert when in the end he is a journalist. Also, he does not call out alarmists who are the real problem right now with climate change. You will be hard pressed to find a scientist argue that climate change is a major catastrophe and a threat to this planet.
"That guy has close to 200 videos, amounting to something like 1000 hrs.
most on climate change and causation which are data based, including the
religious whom believe a "god" will fix everything, and the best you
can do is find him guilty of not drawing carbon correctly and "avoiding"
the literal comedian Ivar Giaever??"
Calling out people who claim that God will fix everything is pointless because climate change deniers are a dying breed. Many on the right, including Pruitt and potholer54's favorite boy Steven Crowder admits it is happening, and that man is contributing. Just basic thermodynamics says that. The issues remain are how much is man contributing and is it even bad? But, potholer54 is doing the equivalent of a all state high school basketball player playing basketball with a midget. That all state player is pretty good, probably not good enough to go to college. But he will dominate against a midget. potholer54 is going after easy targets. However, Crowder has had an actual scientist on his show and potholer54 is no where to be seen. Also, Ivar Giaever is not a "comedian", he has a PhD and works in physics. If I am going to take you seriously you have to at the very least respect his credentials. But with potholer54 he avoids challenging individuals that are actual scientists as he would not be able to match wits with them. Thus he acts in a condescending way in order to mask his inabilities.
"Why dont you rip on Giaever? You quote has potholer saying (Correctly)
that he is a physicist and is unlearned on climate change."
That quote was from potholer54. So based on his reasoning potholer54 is a journalist and thus is unlearned on climate change. Now to answer your question I am not concerned about Dr. Giaever as the discussion is about potholer54 and his inabilities. And when pressed on the issues when actual scientists give their opinions he dodges the issue.
"Do you believe Giaever should be given a chance to argue his case with
irrelevant experience and without the proper body of knowledge from a
completely unrelated field required in order to properly portray?"
Again, potholer54 does not have experience in the field either. He is a journalist. He has zero publications. You wanting to not take Dr. Giaever's opinion seriously because you feel he is "unlearned" in the issue but take potholer54's opinion seriously is a double standard on your part.
"Do you think he may be entitled to an error or two?"
Everyone can make errors.
"So why have you not bothered to have him make a correction? "
Because doing so will be a waste of time. Based on how he responded to that other person's comment it is clear that he is a person who will avoid a deep discussion on the topic and that he lacks knowledge of science beyond remedial courses. I can gather plenty of information and tear him apart, but at that point what is it worth? Even if I change his opinion that is just one guy and I gain nothing in the end. To me it is clear who he is and how his followers are ignorant beyond repair.
"Please ask him a question and get back to me. He has responded to me on clarifications."
Ask him what? I am a doctoral candidate in physical chemistry. I have a deeper understand of science then him. I am just pointing out double standards. I have responded to that comment he made about Dr. Giaever and he did not respond to me. I clearly saw his flaws and he ran away. He much rather take on people he feel are inferior to him as opposed to challenging himself.
"So far, you have cited two things, easy targets upon one individual and another being condescending.
These things are not contributors to him being unable to communicate with accuracy on his life-body of work."
Again, he is a journalist, not a scientist. His "life-body of work" is regurgitating information that he reads. He hasn't done any actual research on climate change beyond reading some papers.
" You also "believe" he dodged on an single issue but I can prove you have taken that out of context."
He did dodge the issue. He is so set on going after deniers but he will not make a video about other scientists giving their opinions.
"You cannot take him seriously because it would simply have you adjusting
your narrative, which just shows again, you have no room for growth or
betterment, in this area and are truly stuck in the mud, I kno those
like you, unable to adjust old thinking, in the face of new evidence,
really are the problem with the world."
What is my narrative? Tell me. I am interested in hearing what you feel I am thinking. This would be interesting.
"Again, he is accurately compiling facts from a vast body of knowledge difficult for the layman to compile as an individual."
Interpreting facts is challenging and something he is OK at. But again, attacking deniers is an easy target.
"He is an expert at climate change science journalism, which is what he
does professionally and reports to others like you and I, except at a
much higher government level audience."
He is a journalist with a limited background in science. Climate science expands many fields beyond geology (his field of study). It expands over physics, chemistry, astronomy and so on. Subjects I am sure he has essentially no understanding of compared to people in those fields. Can he describe photosynthesis using quantum coherence? I doubt it.
"But this is not good enough for you, because YOU somehow know the
"truth", don'cha? Your truth is that C.C is "its no big deal".
How very scientific minded indeed..........(HA!)
I"m sorry to say sir, but you are wrong.
"
How am I wrong? What makes you think that climate change is a major catastrophe? What makes you think that the current climate change is a threat? You do know that the ecosystem can evolve, right?
"On the other hand, you believe in a man whom cannot tell the truth in almost any way imaginable. "
Who?
"He didn't even realize it would be a hard job! "
If you are talking about Trump that is every president. Ever noticed how every president comes in young and energetic and leaves beaten down? That is because they go in expecting a somewhat easy (subjectively) job but find out how stressful it is. You really don't know how hard something is until you do it. The fact he admits it shows how honest he is and why he won. He is not afraid to speak his mind.
"He has already take more vacations at a far higher cost than other presidents"
I am a firm believer that no president takes a vacation.
"Even in the wake if last nights terror attack, only one tweet was
presidential, saying the US will stand-by ready with aid if needed,"
Because we had one a couple weeks ago. Responding to every terror attack will get old real quick. How about the UK fix their own problems?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Fire King, I do not agree with everything Trump does. But the reality is that Trump is not delusional like Bernie is. I can write a book on how bad Bernie is.
" You mean the same Trump, who just excluded the public from who is in our capital,"
I do not agree with this and feel he should remain transparent.
" the same man who personally benefited from the bomb in Syria"
How?
", the same man who said "I grab em by the pussy, I don't even wait", "
You have clearly never been in a locker room with other males.
" the same man who is only covering his own ass is better than Bernie,
the man who is actually doing what the people want (affordable
healthcare, free 4 year college)?"
People do not want Bernie's plan. Vermontcare and Coloradocare failed by large margins. Also, the idea that you need the government for college education and healthcare is a sad thought to have.
"I'm sorry, maybe it's because I'm not selfish"
Says the man who wants others to pay for your healthcare and college.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BramSLI1 People who become rich do so on hard work. Yes, there were others who did other things but in the end it was the individual that put in the hours and investment to become wealthy. Take, for example, Michael Phelps. Yes, someone had to build the pool he swam in but it was his hard work and himself putting in the hours to practice to get better. He did that on his own. Just like me getting my PhD. Yes, there are janitors who keep the building functioning, there were workers who built the building, but I am the one who is putting in the hours and work to become wealthy, and if that building didn't exist I would find another way to become wealthy.
Businesses and corporations thrive due to individuals hard work, they will find a way to become successful. It isn't their fault that others refuse to put in the effort to succeed. People like you are incredibly greedy wanting to take what others worked hard for. The funny thing is that people who are generally wealthy are some of the most giving and helpful in our society. Where as you, you just want to take what they worked hard for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fred nurk
Not really. A company that hires low wage workers have several part time, temporary workers because low wage workers are either
1. unreliable and move from job to job
2. are just entering the job market and after developing some skills and experience will move quickly.
So a company who hires min. wage workers will hire what is perceived as more than needed because of the constant movement of workers. Also, it is to their advantage as they can use them for flexible scheduling, have more to train to where one might stay longer and become full time, and there is a bit of a PR move to it.
If you increase the min. wage those workers will get fired and replaced by more full time workers with more experience and who are more productive. This is called Labor to Labor Substitution. Here is an example at the place I worked at
In the restaurant we had, on Monday and Tuesday always three workers up front and three in the kitchen. We always had at least one full time worker overall working there out of the six. When the min. wage went up the company I worked for stopped hiring high schoolers, only wanted workers who would work full time (with the exception of the few college students we hired), and moved people around. On Monday and Tuesday we had two workers up front and two in the kitchen, all were full time workers, none part time. That allowed the company to cut part time workers.
So yes, a company will cut workers. The problem with what you are looking at is that you are comparing all companies to ones that pay the min. wage. A company, say a screen printing company that pays over $12/hr (like the one in my city) will hire only the workers they need because they hire full time staff and thus pay more. . But a restaurant who hires part time, temporary workers won't. That is how it works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"First of all, I don't give a single damn about K-12 education, I've no clue why you brought it up."
It was to show you how being vague in your standards is not a strong argument. Again, saying everyone is covered does not mean the quality of care they receive is not high.
Also, you have to consider how many have died, or now live worse lives because of low quality of care? I applaud you for the wait time list (granted no citations), but again, what about low quality? How many people had their symptoms get worse while waiting and had to live with a problem that could have been fixed if cared for earlier?
And 45,000 people is a small number. As a Harvard professor said, you can't claim that they only reason why they die is because of lack of access to healthcare. They are generally poor and have low quality health to begin with.
" Its clear that even though Canada'a system could be better, ours is way worse."
Healthcare is a complex system. Citing a couple of statistics with zero analysis on them does not make it clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Ryan is in his 40's and a fitness freak. Sanders is a 74 year old man, I
think he can be excused for not sleeping in his office.. "
So you are saying Bernie is too old to be doing his job thus he needs to retire. OK
"First of all, who are you to say what he does or does not need"
As a whole, no one. No who is Bernie to say that rich people have to pay a higher percent of taxes? Or that rich people have to pay a high estates tax. Or that business owners, who actually give people jobs and provide for society have to run their business in a certain way? Who is Bernie to say that? Before you say that Bernie is a lawmaker remember that Bernie is supposed to serve the people, meaning me. I live in a one bedroom apartment. Why does he, a man who is supposed to serve the people, get to own three homes when many don't own one?
" Second, it's a lake cabin, not a "house by the beach". "
It is a $600,000 home. The median home in Vermont is priced at around $200,000.
"3rd it's both his and his wife Jane's, who was president of Burlington college,"
She was president there, no longer. So want's your point?
"But nah, let's shame them for wanting a nice lake cabin to spend holidays with their grandchildren in their old day."
He shames rich people for owning nice things and running their business the way they want. Remember, those business owners, no matter how evil Bernie sees them, gives people jobs that couldn't find a job no where else, and offers goods and services to society. Bernie buying a beach home only benefits himself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" I wouldn´t just implement background checks, I would retire high
capacity magazines, all calibers/bullets which can shoot through police
wests which are not par to hunting guns, purchase of wests stronger than
police wests and explosives."
Ok, now three questions
1. if those laws pass and another mass shooting happens, then what? Will you push for more laws?
2. You do know that the 2nd amendment was to prevent tyranny?
3. You do know that most shootings involve handguns?
"No I wouldn´t allow spying without a court order and just on a
whim..Privacy and control of dangerous means are different things,"
Not really. Under privacy you can build bombs and stock up on ammo like Holmes did before he shot up the movie theater. You have keep someone in your property for 18 years like what happened to Jaycee Dugard. The right to privacy can lead to lots of crime. As a lawyer told me, you can have sex with little boys as long as you don't get caught in this country because of our right to privacy.
"I don´t give a fuck what they count in as ´´FBI standard´´, "
So you don't care about standards? I guess we can just make up things along the way. Also, it isn't just standards. It is the fact that the source you present lied. How can you trust it?
" also it was a different source than was previously mentioned"
Nope, same one.
"You posted a motherjones article which is less believable than joke-site
and then complain about something which doesn´t even matter"
Motherjones at least gave links to what they cited (including the FBI) and names.
", when you get straight facts plastered in your face."
A site that literally lies is not one I will go to for facts.
"But fuck, you must be really lonely to write such an essay again, fuck,
get a girl or some friends, srsly. I know why you´d rather have the 4th
amendment breached. maybe, but just maybe someone would finally show
some interest in you, even if just tiny bit..."
I have plenty of friends. Just ate lunch with a couple today. Talked to another today about help on studying for my PhD qualification exam. As I said, I don't much thought in this because the people I debate here are not that intelligence. It is similar to me being LeBron James and you being an 8th grade fat kid and we are playing 1 on 1 basketball. I wouldn't have to try hard to beat you. As in this case here, I point out how the source you gave me lied. Your reaction is "I don't give a fuck as long as it supports my propaganda".
1
-
"Lol you are just a dumbass child who thinks because he is studying for a
PhD he somewhere gathered some intelligence which you can´t even use
the right wording for. Fucking illiterate. "
I am studying for
my PhD. I have two papers published and am working on a third. You
don't have to believe me which is fine. It has taught me to question
things and think critically. And also find mistakes like when a site
lies. I guess you lack those skills but that doesn't shock me with the
colorful language you use.
"I have a PhD for 23 years you dumbass child but I didn´t mention it
before, since I thought, by your train of thought, I´m talking to a 12
year old. "
Doubtful with the language you use or the fact that
you can't answer very simple questions I pose to you. Also, you trust a
cite that literally lied.
"The site I posted has nothing said about any FBI standards that´s just
fucking fabrication of your dumbass mind, get it ?. Check the fucking
source before you say it´s the same you fucking ignorant cocky shit. "
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology
That is the methodology, in fact it has zero standards. I guess we can just make up any standard we want.
http://www.shootingtracker.com/
That is the site that says the FBI standard in which gunviolencearchive does not do anything to call them out or disagree with them.
So either they are saying they use the made up FBI standard or don't even have a standard at all. The GVA is some random site that links to a lot of other gun control advocate sites and has a lot of missing statistics related to guns. It is pure propaganda. If you really had a PhD for 23 years you wouldn't fall for it. But considering you don't have much of a formal education I can see why you did.
"I won´t answer to someone who is clearly lying and cannot answer a
question himself. I was for those laws since forever and another mass
shooting after that won´t change it. That´s the first question, the
other 2 is just cocky shittalk on assumptions I wouldn´t know the most
simple things."
I have answered all your questions. So if those laws are passed you won't push for more gun laws? Ok. Will you finally admit that we need to push for policies to lower crime? Your refusal to answer the other two questions displays your ignorance. As I said I have no problem answering questions. I just you can just avoid them and remain myopic.
"´´Not really´´ Well that´s just your fucking ignorant opinion without
facts. I have facts they were, are, doing that. You denying it with a
´´not really´´ like a dumbass child doesn´t make facts disappear. "
I have yet to see facts from you.
"
Just because people HAVE to share the same table as you but are probably
disgusted by your stupidity, doesn´t mean they are friends. Glad you
didn´t reply to the girlfriend comment , which proves you have none,
virgin dumbass. "
Nope, I have plenty of friends. I don't want a GF. I like the freedom to do whatever and whoever I want. And what does being a virgin have to do with anything? If that is your standard in life then fine. I have had sex many times, it isn't that big of a deal to me. Having a great job that I enjoy and intelligence is.
"I won´t even get more into the privacy ´debate´ since you are just too
stupid for that and it would take too much time to write sentences you
wouldn´t even understand judging by the lack of intellect you displayed
so far. "
No, it is that you have no problem attacking the 2nd amendment but love to hold on dearly to the 4th. I guess you are hiding something. I have nothing to hide. I guess you do. How many little boys are you holding captive in your run down apartment?
"I debated people before you were born, cocky kiddolino. Cocky, dumbass
people like you are the reason universities get dragged down to a low. "
I bet those people you debated have a lot more intelligence than you.
"Where is the fact that the source lied? Show it, don´t make it up as you go to another insurmountable stupid question."
I showed you. At the very least it made up some arbitrary standard. I mean, why stop at 4, why not 1? Why not include the victim's family? I mean the number of mass shootings must be out the roof at that point.
1
-
1
-
" Yeah, so you lied before about checking the source since it wasn´t the
same, yet it was basically the only point you had for sooo long. Good
going again. To repeat your question, if you lied, why should I trust
you about anything? "
I didn't lie. I looked at both sources and saw the methods and standards. If you want to go off of our source alone then yes, they didn't cite the FBI. They used some arbitrary standard they more or less pulled out of thin air. Based off of that I can't trust that source still.
"As said, police force abused to spy on love interest and for discrimination, you ignore that, why?"
I agree. And gun control doesn't exist. What you have is centralized gun ownership in the government and the workers. The idea of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny.
"Refusal to answer the other two questions are showing my ignorance? Wtf,
they are questions whether I know obvious things, so I will answer
them. Yes, I know, it doesn´t matter. Fuckall you are indescribably
cocky, your mom should´ve slapped some sense into you but I guess it´s
too late.. "
Yes, it is showing your ignorance, or that you are just too scared to answer the question in fear of looking foolish and lacking knowledge on the issue. Based on how you answered it now shows that you can only resort to insults instead of an actual intelligent conversation, I love how you condone violence by saying " your mom should´ve slapped some sense into you" meanwhile are pushing for gun control off of the idea that it will lower violence.
"I´m done you are a cocky, dumbass liar who denies facts to push for his agenda."
What facts did I deny? I didn't deny anything. I questioned an arbitrary standard where one site lied and said ti was based off of the FBI's standard.
"Tip for the future: If you are as cocky you are don´t be surprised if people use fruity language or smash your head in."
There you go condoning more violence. I see the true nature of you now. I own four guns and never once did I condone violence on anyone on this thread. You want to take away guns and instead what people to slap each other or smash other people's head in.
"PS: Learn how to write and use words properly, you have grammatical errors all over"
Ironic......let's see
"I´m done you are a cocky"
Your words.....really? Do you really feel that is grammatically correct? Also
" If you are as cocky you are don´t be surprised...."
You are missing a verb
or
"Fuckall you are indescribably..."
There should be a space between "Fuck" and "all".
Oh, I also found this....BTW this is all in just your most recent comment
"you ignore that..."
It should be "ignored", past tense. I ignored it in the past.
Continuing
"Refusal to answer the other two questions are showing my ignorance? "
Should be is, not are. We are talking about you, you are the noun, singular.
I mean, come on. You are making this way too easy for me. Usually I don't attack people's grammar on a youtube comment because these are comments and not dissertations, but you made this one too easy to resist.
"One cannot believe that you published even one paper."
When writing publish work it has a lot of editing.
"You showed me that your are a paranoid dumbass, nothing more."
I don't see how I am paranoid. I do see that you are violent, dangerous, and is a very easy target to debate.
1
-
1
-
"Haha kiddo, english is my 5th language besides Czech, German and Portuguese, Japanese. So no, I´m not embarrassed. "
Lame excuse. Face it, you failed in that one. By studying that many languages you should have a deep understanding in grammar.
"Also you should be embarrassed about claiming that I posted a website
that would lie about ´´FBI Standards´´ for 2 hours and then checking the
site after accusing me of posting that. That is embarrassing."
I didn't lie. I explained to you how the made up a standard and another website said it was an FBI standard in which the website you posted didn't disagree. Either way it is an arbitrary standard.
"There are more, like cite instead of site."
What? I say "site" as in website, I say "cite" as in citation. But if your attacking my grammar is all you got then it is clear that on the issue of guns I am more knowledgeable.
" But there was one where you use ´intelligence´ instead of correctly ´intellect´ which made it especially funny. "
Yeah, I need the sentence in which I said that. I have a strong feeling, based on how you write, that you are not correct on that one either.
" I think it was the one before where I first called you illiterate"
Do I need to go back and point out your grammar mistakes again?
It is clear at this point you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to guns. You cite (as in citation) to a site (as in website) that used some arbitrary standard on what a "mass shooting" is. Beyond that you basically said "guns are bad" and called me names using profanity. This is just entertainment to me at this point since you ran away from the debate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Infrastructure, utilities, public transportation, healthcare, education,
housing, medicine, even scientific advancements, technology, and
engineering are much better created by a state or at least by
publicly-funded institutions (Like Public Universities, Research labs,
the military, and medicare.)"
Not really.
"
Of course, public institutions are much better at providing the things
you need if they are more accountable to the people, rather than
corporations. "
I will agree with that. That happens when you lose control of the government which is why we need more local government. Also, when you allow government to give you things you need then you give them power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know, scientists thought that everything revolved around the world, they thought that the rock fell to it's natural resting place. They didn't understand quantum mechanics when technology became available to study the atom. Putting complete trust in scientists, who are human, on the climate issue is no different than trusting a bunch of priest in the existence of god. It should come with question.
He talks about infrastructure. That is the liberal way of creating jobs, build things people don't demand. You know, you can create a ton of jobs if you give people spoons and tell them to build a swimming pool, or even the keystone pipeline. Jobs will be created by not wealth. We shouldn't be focus on jobs but wealth. What Sanders promotes is no different than what was promoted in China in the past, and currently.
You know, corruption wouldn't be an issue in the federal government if the federal government didn't have power to be bought to begin with. Sanders wants to increase the size of the federal government. While he may be for the people or not is debatable. Let us say he is, what is going to happen when he dies or his term ends and president Sanders is no longer around, what is going to stop the future president and congress members from using that new power to their advantage. Just like Herman Cain was asked during his 9 9 9 plan on what is going to stop future presidents from raising it when he is gone. He avoided the question much like Sanders would avoid it.
The government doesn't represent us because it is too big. We need to limit the federal government and go back to state rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mayelito7 I have published in some academic journals.
What irritates me is what you did, tried to use science to squash religion. That is a direct slap in the fact of science, and considering how science is my career I do find it insulting.
You are basically saying that, like a religion, our goal isn't to advance man and create wealth but to develop faith and stick with it. That isn't science. As Richard Feynman said, religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt. Feynman also said this
"I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's
much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which
might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and
different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not
absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything
about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what
the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't
figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an
answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a
mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it
really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
That is what science is based on, doubt, not knowing.
Religious people develop a faith to "know" something, something they believe. Whatever the reason is fine. You want science to "know" because of fear. Without knowing you are lost and you want to use science for that. You might as well believe in a god at that point because your goal of science is wrong.
1
-
1
-
Mayelito7 You said this
"Like I said, I'm not here to convert... it's just funny how butt-hurt
religious folk get when you challenge their beliefs with facts."
That is your being an ass.
I doubt you actually studied those materials you claim you did, and if you did it wasn't to the level that I have studied physics and chemistry. I most likely have more accredited literature on my book shelf alone on chemistry and physics then what you have read. Granted I study it for a living, but just because you read a couple of books doesn't make you the expert.
Religion and science have different goals. Religion is based off of faith. It doesn't require a test. Someone has a belief and they have faith in it with no need to give supporting evidence.
Science is about doubt and progressing man. It deals with tests and giving supporting evidence. But science isn't their to give sound answers in life like religion is. Science isn't there to prove anything. Science is there to give predictions.
Take something a simple as gravity. If I were to come to you and say there is a invisible force that attracts 2 spherical objects to each other and you knew nothing about gravity then you will say I am crazy. That is no different, at that point, in making claim to a god. But gravity has a mathematical prediction to it, and has supporting evidence thus it is a theory we use. We don't express faith in gravity and shouldn't because there is that possibility of being wrong, but we support the predictions the theory make.
That is the distinct difference between science and religion. Belief in a god is faith, it requires no support. Science gives predictions, it isn't there to squash the belief of a god or other faith. It isn't so much that we are disagree, it is that you are simply wrong on science. In the end if there is a god than everything we know about science is pointless because god perceived it to be that way.
I personally don't care if one believes in something or not, I just hate how people continue to try to squash religion, or try to paint religion and science as the same things, as in they are approaching the same goals when they are not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+tomatodamashi One, the military is constitutional. Two, it protects everyone equally and not just as select few. Three, it is the one, and only federal government program that has a history of being successful. Four, the way it is designed is that it is composed of government workers who are very discipline that actually take their work seriously. Our public school teachers, despite being only locally funded, bitch about having to grade papers on weekends. Unless you want to hold our doctors to be highly accountable if they mess up, and train them thoroughly, which isn't possible, federal government run healthcare won't work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+EnigmicIdentity
"It mentions them but the 39% statistic is not based on them."
Yes it is. Re-read the article.
"In many circumstances, time and a half is a bargain for them."
True, and it is a deal for the employee as well. So what is the big deal?
"I did. Just one more things for you to guess incorrectly about, I suppose."
Great, I can see it didn't help your reading skills much.
"I do not know one person in my school that was paid for 50+ hours as a TA or RA. In fact, that was strictly against policy."
You are contracted for 20 hours, but you still worked 50+. That is if you want a job coming out of grad school.
"LOL... it mentions them. So what?"
It lumps them in with all workers, and then shows that 50% of salary workers work 50+ hours a week. For wage workers it is only 26%.
"What does that have to do with the issue? It's better because it's been going on for a long time?"
When our economy was strong following the 90s we still had this issue. With that it is a non-issue but a reality that continues to exist. People work those hours because they want too. Yes you will have some that don't, but as a whole it isn't a problem. You are abusing stats to paint a false picture.
"I accept facts,"
No you don't.
" but you have no understanding of what facts are relevant."
Says the person that does not understand that they looked a salary workers.
"You, on the other hand, assert that "Few people are working 50 to 60
hours a week." I point out that 39% of full-time workers work over 50
hours a week. "
Which is still a minority. Also how many do it because they enjoy their job? That is where the salary workers come in and what was mentioned in the end of the article which you keep avoiding.
"You cite nothing to back your wild assertions"
I am citing the exact same poll you are citing.
"Your assertion is just false. "
Unless you think your source is false then it is which is saying you are false.
"Millions upon millions of Americans are working long hours"
So? And million upon millions of Americans will be using the bathroom within the next 20 minutes....what's your point?
"I'd say that it is you that are adverse to facts. "
The same facts that come from the poll you cited.
"What's worse is that your conclusion, that Sanders supporters want less working hours because they are simply lazy, is inane."
It is true. When others are successful and Bernie supporters aren't then don't complain. Remember who was pushing for less hours.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Justin-Michael Fowlkes Not many people are living off of min. wage to begin with.
That aside, it isn't up to a business to worry about someone's personal finances. Someone can be making the min. wage but still make a living. My girlfriend works part time on min. wage and she is actually paying off her loan. That is because she lives with me and I make a lot more than she does. I make $20,000/yr. I pay rent, own the car, pay internet, where she pays for energy, a lot of the food, and her loan, and soon mine. We manage our money well.
The average household income for and individual making $9.50/hr or less is over $47,000/yr. That is because low wage workers are supplemental income and not the main earner. That is the problem with the term "living wage" in that it is subjective. You are paid based on your work. You either have to find a way to earn more or manage money better if you are having a hard time making a living.
Another problem with the living wage is what is $12/hr, or $20/hr? Money is essentially worthless until society gives it value. The same is with cars, land, houses, etc. The Waltons have so much wealth because they own half of walmart. The property that walmart sits on and the buildings themselves are worth a lot. It isn't that the Waltons have a lot of income or money to spare. If the government starts setting prices, as in the price of labor, then money becomes worthless. So people will be making more but the dollar will be weaker.
This, and much more is why the term "living wage" can't be defined.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christopher Czimback Yes they will start going to the doctor. I will go to the doctor more often if I had government healthcare. Look at our society, we are an entitled society, we will take advantage of a system.
The slavery part was that we will be short doctors if we initiate universal healthcare. The only options are to ration healthcare (lowering the quality), pay doctors more to increase supply of them (increasing healthcare cost), or force them to take on more customers for the same price which is slavery. Will they be paid well? Not really because they will be working harder. Just like we are doing now with public education, we are increasing classroom size but not paying teachers more.
On taxes you need to learn what money really is. Money isn't some finite resource, it is essentially worthless until it is invested to create capital we can consume and value. Just giving money away lowers it's value. Giving money away to "care" for others doesn't give it value in the market.
We do spend more money on education than any other country, it is obvious that spending money isn't the problem. We need to find a more creative way to spend money to actually invest it instead of wasting it.
The problem with the military is that we have to police the world. We pull out of Iraq and look what happens, ISIS takes over it within days. No other country is going to do anything, we have too. I sometimes wish we would pull all our troops out and see the rest of the world fall apart, then people will realize how important we really are.
I agree we need to stop giving money to corporations. That is a fault of giving a federal government too much power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Speedy, Carlo did not give me stats. He pointed to the WHO which refuses to do another ranking due to how much it was criticized. You can read what I wrote to him about how asinine it is to compare the US to Andorra.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
There are the stats with everything cited. So
1. Universal healthcare has problems and just as many as the US system has. People are not dying on the streets nor is our country being extremely held back by our system. If it was than I would agree, go with what other countries are doing. But the fact is that the US is on par with other countries
2. So what do you do with those insurance workers? Let them go unemployed? Also, our economy is based on a lot, but changing just one sector of it has a large impact. Look what happened with the housing market crashing.
3. The US has been using basically the same system for decades. The vast majority are fine with it as the vast majority are fine with their system in other countries. The reason why is because, as a whole, it works. When you run through the stats you see that. For example, the life expectancy of the US is around 79 years and for Australia it is 82 years. Now former MIT professor Walter Lewin said any number without error is meaningless. A couple of years ago I found the average life expectancy of the world and standard deviation to be 71±7 years. So one, the US is one standard deviation above the average. Two, that 3 year difference between the US and Australia is purely noise.
So, to answer your question. The people are not stupid. What we have works just fine compared to other countries. This is why healthcare reform is so hard to begin with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
polemius01 Once again this is a youtube comment section. I spend around 3 minutes on these comments. I am going to spend over 3 years on my dissertation. Sorry for me not wanting to edit a comment.
So now we are getting somewhere. The old Walmart example. Walmart can always choose to close down some of their stores. In the city I live in in the past 10 years Walmart has open 2 Walmarts and are working on a 3rd. I live within equal driving distances of 2 of them, it all depends which way on I80 I want to drive on. Walmart pays above the min. wage, they can always pay everyone at the min. wage. They offer a variety of products for 24 hours at an affordable price. They can always choose to close down some of their stores or close their doors at night. Instead they open more stores and create more jobs and pay competitive wages for retail. We have 1 Target in our town. Local grocery stores as in Hy Vee and Raley's are great to shop at and I do but don't all the time because their prices are higher, their selection is lower and they are not open 24 hours. At times I am driving late at night or early in the morning and it is nice to have a Walmart open to get what I need.
Now you are confused on wealth and income. In the US a person with no assets or debt can have $10 in their pocket and have more wealth than 25% of Americans. That is because wealth is net worth. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Does that mean homeowners are greedy and renters aren't? Well, when you factor in that on average around 60% of an average person's wealth is tied into their home beyond owning a home the average person doesn't have much wealth. A lot of people, especially those who are young, have negative wealth of either home loans or in my generation, college loans. They could be well off. I have negative wealth due to college loans but I have my own apartment, I don't miss any meals, I have a reliable car, nice clothes and so on. I have negative wealth due to college loans but I still have a nice income. After my schooling I will earn enough to pay off my loans, get a home, and eventually retire at an early age and have positive wealth.
Now take the Walton family. They own 50% of Walmart stocks. That is Walmart, the buildings, the land it sits on and the fact that it is profitable means Walmart's value is very high. That is why the Walton's have so much wealth, they own the majority of a business that is valued very high. It is similar to my former boss who was a small business owner. He had more wealth than my dad simply because my boss owned a business that was profitable and had value. My dad instead worked. They both owned homes and were well off but due to a difference of lifestyles my former boss had more wealth. He wasn't more greedy but just made a living someway else. The Walton's developed their wealth. Wealth doesn't exist, it is what something is worth based on what the market makes it worth. The market has what the Walton's own valued pretty high compared to my car which isn't valued as high. That is what wealth is. There has, is, and always will be wealth inequality. It doesn't mean someone is greedy, it just means people pick different lifestyles. I will earn my PhD and still have little wealth because I won't own a business or a nice car. I will own a decent house but that is it. My former boss just has a high school education but will have more wealth simply because he took on the challenge of developing the value of a business and land where I will take on the challenge of education and then entering the workforce. I will probably earn a higher income than him but he will still have more wealth.
From my experience liberals are "liberal" with other people's money. You are an example. You claim that the Walton's are greedy and you are alluding to that we need to attack them to get their money. As I said, the Walton's can always close down Walmarts or raise prices or cut wages and hours if they want too. They don't.
I don't envy the Walton family. I don't envy a lot of rich people. I work with rich people quite a bit. My experience is that they got where they did with hard work. They worked hard and had help from the people, who at the time were well off, that they worked for. I am working with people who are rich and well off and they help me while I work hard in college and life and when I become well off I will help others who work hard around me and for me. People who are well off don't want to have their money taken from them to give to some moocher of society or some homeless person who simply refuses to pull their own weight. People who are rich or well off do help others because they got there from help of others where were well off. But they are going to help others who work hard for them and they know well.
My suggestion to you is to work hard. Volunteer your time in a program that have people who are well off. College is a great place to do it. With that you can do volunteer internships. Don't do the bare minimum but work harder than everyone else. You will see how much those who are rich and well off actually donate their time and money to help others. You feel sad for the homeless person, great, help them with your money, not with someone else's. But don't call other's greedy just because you feel they are.
Once again, what is greedy and what is self interest is subjective. You may feel I am greedy for not helping a homeless person. But if you actually know how much I volunteer my time you may feel otherwise. Or you may feel I should volunteer my time to instead help the homeless.
Honestly you have a lot to learn. You need to focus on yourself a little more and not envy people like the Walton family and really realize the full story.
1
-
richard Hines 1. Not an excuse, just a fact.
2. There is no government assistance to Walmart. It isn't Walmart's fault that those employees simply refuse to develop skills and make themselves more marketable and thus earn more. Walmart doesn't have to hire those people. They can always close down some of their stores or cut hours or pay the min. wage. Plus, Walmart is always blamed in these situations. Why not other retail stores as in Target or Sears? They hire less and pay around the same. People make the asinine comparisons of Costco even though they have a different business model than Walmart. But just for the sake of it people state how well Costco pays, but why are there no complaints about how little they hire? Walmart is always the target when one compares them to other companies they are not bad.
3. The mentioning of the person with only $10 of worth shows simply why we have wealth inequality in this country. It is because quite a bit of people have loans as in home loans or college loans. They have negative wealth but have a nice income. I never said homeowners are greedy. I asked that question because the previous comment ripped on the Walton's for having so much wealth. Talking about homeowners were to one, show that the average person has little wealth beyond their home, and two, show how shallow their argument is in criticizing the Walton's family of wealth ownership. They were alluding to how a family who owns so much wealth is greedy. Thus a home owner is greedy compared to a renter according to them. Actually, in reality, they don't know what wealth is.
4. So what.
5. We have always seen wealth inequality. A major problem we have is that people constantly confuse wealth with income or say they are the same thing. Wealth does not equal income. We have, do, and always will have wealth inequality. It is simply how the market works. Not everyone wants the challenge of owning and running a business. Not everyone even wants the challenge of owning a home and would rather rent. Individuals who don't own a home or run a business have little wealth. Wealth inequality isn't bad. What is bad is forcing actual redistribution of the wealth because it is impossible. Wealth is developed, it just doesn't exist.
6. Once again, Walmart doesn't have to give those people jobs. If the only job you are capable of getting is a part time job at Walmart than you need to improve yourself or take it as a opportunity to improve yourself. Instead of displaying those workers as victims we should be pushing them to develop more skills which improves our society as a whole.
7. I wasn't liberal policies that grew the middle class. It was liberal policies that allowed the US to have the highest corporate tax rate in the world which scares corporation. It is liberal policies that have pointless regulations and higher taxes which causes businesses to raise prices and cut job. When it comes to economics liberals feel that goods and services just appear out of no where. They push policies that hinder production making the situation worse.
8. The government actually doesn't have resources. It has to take in a form of a tax. Resources have to be developed and the market does that. Usually the government taxes the market and invests the money poorly which limits growth and contributes to the poverty problem. The government is the reason why we see rising prices in college education and healthcare. The government is the reason why we see limited economic growth and job growth. This thinking that the government can put a dent in poverty is flawed because where are the resources going to come from? Think of that. It comes back to you can't consume if you don't produce. The government isn't going to produce something out of thin air.
I am confident I am going to do quite well in my PhD. Here in the end you basically said that I am parroting someone else's thoughts when I am not. You are though. You are doing the whole blame Walmart game. One business out of a complex economy. The Walmart argument is myopic and flawed but people love to use it. As I told the other individual, you need to look into the situation a little more.
1
-
polemius01 1. Again, a youtube comment, not something I am going to spend time editing. I am pursuing a PhD in Chemical Physics, writing is not a strength for me, math and science is.
2. What is a "living wage"? Walmart pays competitive market rate for retail. They don't pay more because they simply can't afford too. The term "living wage" is a made up term that doesn't mean anything because that is also subjective. A living wage for one person could be very low, even below the min. wage where as a living wage for someone else could be has high as $30/hr. or more if you have children, are diabetic, have to commute far for a job and so on. It isn't Walmart's fault that the workers are unable to put themselves in a position to make enough to live.
3. You have confused wealth and income. Wealth is assests minus liabilities. Income is how much money you earn and have. As I said one can make a lot in terms of income but due to liabilities have negative wealth.
4. The Walton's and my boss made their money by generating capital. Yes I put in the work and so did others, but my job at the time, and that janitor at Walmart is market at a low rate due to the minor skill set involved, how easy they are to replace, and the low demand for their job. The Walton's are running an entire business, a multi-billion dollar business. My boss was running a business. They do a lot of work, they generate a lot of capital. They are individuals who are highly skilled and are hard to replaced and thus are worth a lot in the market. The harsh reality is that the people Walmart hires are easily replaceable.
5. Costco is a bad comparison. They sell items in bulk, they are only open during peak hours. Their business model allows them to move more product per hour meaning they produce more capital per hour. Walmart is a 24 hour one stop shop. Their business model moves less product per hour but they cater to being open at anytime and selling individual products at a low price. You can't compare Walmart to Costco. Plus, why are there no complaints of Costco not hiring more? I guess they are greedy. They want to hire very little, have people travel longer distances to buy their goods and only when they are open. Walmart is flexible to the consumer's needs. Walmart simply can't afford higher wages.
7. If someone is greedy than people will work against. That is a fact. If someone is holding all the resources than society will work against them. Walmart caters to the consumers. They can be greedy and open less business, hire less, and be open less. They run a business where they cater to customers who want cheap goods anytime. Costco caters to those who want to buy bulk items at a cheaper price. Target sells nicer things and cater to those with higher income who want better household items but the goods are more expensive. You simply don't like someone because in your eyes they have a lot and you have little. You call them greedy but you are starting to show your greed. You want to criticize one business for not paying a higher wage just because you don't like them and think they are evil. Really, who is being greedy here? You or the business who has the power to close their doors down and hire less? I don't like Walmart, I only shop there because it is all I can afford. When I get a higher income I will go elsewhere. But I will never say Walmart is greedy. It serves an important role in our society. Why do you want to destroy jobs and raise prices and hurt those who have low income? I think the answer is because you are jealous. You are jealous because someone is more successful than you are.
1
-
1
-
polemius01 1. Once again this is a youtube comment page. I told you I am going to spend 3 years on my dissertation.
2. You can look at an individual and determine their "living wage" based on the situation they are in but it is different for everyone. It can be very little for some, even $0, and it can be high for others. The fact is that a business pays someone on what they are worth in the market. That is determined by one's experience, skills, dedication to the workplace and most importantly they amount of capital they create. A worker at Walmart simply doesn't produce much. They are paid based on the variables I mentioned, it is up to them to make a living off of it. If you don't earn enough either cut expenses or find a way to make more. Paying someone over market rate ruins the economy and ruins a business.
3. You still seem to confuse wealth with income.
4. My boss got that capital by taking the financial risk by investing in the company and investing in me as a worker. If the business fails than I don't have a job but my boss loses his investment. Yes someone works to produce but someone has to have the ability to invest to give something society wants. My boss didn't have to invest to create jobs or even give me a job. Same is with Walmart, the Waltons didn't have to invest to create jobs or hire people. People need a purpose to work. We can't just idly work, someone taking the financial risk and investing to give something people want drives the economy and creates capital. Why shouldn't they reap from the benefits? You seem to be greedy in wanting others to invest and do all the dirty work and than earning little in the process.
5. Costco and Walmart are different companies. Walmart is a 24 hour one stop shop where Costco sells bulk items are is open only during peak hours. Costco's model allows them to push more product per hour where Walmart's model caters to those who want to buy one item at 3 in the morning if the desire. You can't compare the two. It is like saying Costco is greedy because they don't pay as much as Google does. Also, why is there no complaints about Costco not hiring more? You never answered that. And asking Walmart to take in less profits means less investments and less overall growth and jobs for the economy. It is once again overpaying a worker above their productivity which ruins the value of the dollar.
6. I didn't respond to comment six because it would have been pointless to do so.
7. Walmart doesn't pay more because they simply can't afford too. I know what Costco pays and it is a great example of how different businesses are. Costco's business model allows them to pay more where Google's business model allows them to pay more. Walmart's business model pay's less but caters to customers more by offering cheap products for 24 hours. It is the variety of the market. People do shop at 3 in the morning, people don't want to buy bulk everything. Costco's example doesn't go against my view but yet supports my view and supports capitalism. What you have just shown is that you know little about how the market works or how different business models are. You know a forklift driver at Costco is marketed higher than the shelve stocker at Walmart. Not everyone business is the same and not every job is the same.
Also what is adequate food, clothing, recreation and so on. That is subjective as well. Recreation for me actually earns me money, it might cost for some. You are kind of lost in the subject.
1
-
1
-
richard Hines No, land, resources and money have zero value until society gives it value. Does the government own land? Yes, but it has zero value until it is developed. Now it isn't going to get developed itself, someone has to develop it. So either the government forces people to work to develop it or pay them. Now how are they going to get the money? By printing it. Problem with printing it is that if you print too much than you oversaturate the market with money lowering it's value. Zimbabwe is facing this problem and this is how the Roman Empire fell apart. It is called debasing the currency. You also run into the other problem of money basically being worth nothing until it is invested to create capital. Say the government paid workers $10,000 to build a library on land? How much is $10,000? It could be worth a lot if that library in some way produces a lot of capital, or it could be worth nothing if that library produces little capital. Basically the government would have spent $10,000 per worker to build something completely worthless. That is a poor investment.
Another way government can get money is from taxes. Let the private sector invest money and improve the value of the dollar from smart investment and then tax it. Problem with taxes is that it is pulling money out of the hands of the investors who will give money value and improve the economy and putting it in the hands of the government who could waste it.
The overall problem with government is that the main language behind it is politics. Are they going to spend money to actually improve society or to help out their buddies that helped them get into office? The latter is usually the result. It was like what Milton Friedman said in China years back. He saw them building a canal, he saw a bunch of workers with shovels and asked were are the bulldozers. A Chinese official said bulldozer kills jobs so they created more jobs but using shovel. Friedman said if it is jobs you want than get rid of the shovels and give them spoons. Government can create jobs but it won't create wealth or progress us. It will poorly invest money and simply spend money to buy votes to keep a job in office.
Your slave argument is flawed. Slaves were forced to work, you have a choice to work or not. You have to remember that nothing appears out of thin air.
So in reality the government doesn't have resources. What the government has is politics, something extremely dangerous is given too much power. Government has a role in society but not what you think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
polemius01 1. The years put in is important. You need data to write about and present.
2. People don't need a certain amount of money. One can have very little money and live from farming and having a well to drink. The problem with the "living wage" is that it is different for everyone. You can look at individuals and determine their "living wage" based on their situation but you can't come up with one set amount for a living wage. If a law was created to pay everyone a "living wage" it will fail because prices will go up or people who are not worth that wage will not get a job. You are paid based on your market rate, it is up to you to make a living from that.
3. Ok, income "money received, especially on a regular basis, for work or through investments", Wealth "the value of all the property, possessions, and money that someone or something has" They are not the same.
4. My boss hired me at the time when I had very minimal work experience. He took a financial risk in hiring me. As years went on he gave me raises and gave me more responsibilities. After I finished my undergrad I had experience, skills and knowledge to pursue another job that paid more. Even though I was one of his best workers and reliable he couldn't pay enough to stay because he simply couldn't afford to pay me more thus I went elsewhere to earn more. That is right now graduate school. After grad school I will be able to get a higher paying job. My boss didn't have to hire me and I didn't have to take the job. He gave me raises but there came a point that it wouldn't have been profitable to pay me more even though I worked very well for him so I pursued another job. That is how capitalism works. He didn't use me. And you call me a sociopath?
5. You never explained Costco. You never explained why there is no criticism of how they don't hire as much as Walmart. You didn't explain why they don't pay as much as Google does. You didn't explain how they are different businesses and have different business models that allows them to cater to different customer's needs and also pay different.
6. Seems to me at this point you are just resorting to name calling. I have clearly laid out how you are mistaken on several issues and instead of an intelligent rebuttal you just name call.
7. Walmart simply can't afford to pay more. They are attacked constantly for low wages. Other retail stores pay around the same amount but Walmart is the one that is under attack. As I said they can always choose to close down stores, not be open 24 hours or even put in more self checkouts and hire less. They don't. Walmart pays competitive wages for retail, a job that doesn't even require a high school diploma.
Adequate is subjective. What are those resources? Where are they going to come from? Is it fruits and vegetables or Ramen Noodles and rice? Is it heat and AC or running fans and wearing more clothes? Your argument falls apart easily when you are question on what is your level of adequate just like what is your level when something becomes greed. You throw around words that mean nothing unless defined and shown with examples. While you have tried to do that I rebuttal in how you are mistaken. I have clearly shown how even a company you don't consider greedy, Costco, can be in that they don't hire more. Costco can always hire some of those struggling Walmart employees, why don't they (I know why by I want you to think why)? You are resorting to name calling now. I will tell you some things. I spent the past 3 winters without heat. I don't use my AC . I don't have cable. I skip meals at times. I live 2000 miles away from family and don't see them often because I simply can't afford too. At the same time I am working hard to put myself in a position to be well off to where I have a comfortable life and can travel more. I am going to get there through hard work. And here you are saying everyone should have it just for being alive as in that lifestyle already exists and the resources and time for it is going to appear out of nowhere. Well if that is the case then why work? Your thinking is flawed. Things don't just appear out of nowhere, they come from work. Nobody is entitled to anything in life. You need to rethink about some things in life.
1
-
polemius01 The fact is that you are a communist. I can go on but you simply won't listen. Businesses are not there to be charities. They are there to invest and grow. Less profits means less investment and less growth.
You have resorted to name calling which shows how weak you are in this discussion. You are simply paid based on what you are worth. Does it sound wrong? Slightly, but essentially we are all cogs in the wheel. Even the very rich and well off can be replaced. They get paid more because by a combinations of variables the market determines them to be worth that much. A CEO has to deal with potential lawsuits, competition from other companies, new technology and being creative, and they have the skills to do it. A cashier at Walmart has almost zero responsibilities. They are very easily replaceable. They are simply not worth much.
You have two flaws in you arguments. One is that you simply don't understand what money really is. It isn't some finite resource, $20 is worth as much as a paper plate until it is invested. If society, and essentially the market, felt paper plates were worth $20 than $20 isn't worth much. If you pay $20 for a paper plate than you will be foolish and will be ruining your own personal finances. Same is with labor, certain labor is only worth a certain amount. Money has zero value until it is invested and creates capital. Overpaying ruins the value of the dollar.
You other flaw is that you feel anyone rich is evil. So let us say we develop this "living wage". Now say that a person making it proceeds to spend their money on booze and strippers. Now what? Is that the time you finally say to them have some personal responsibilities? You have this mindset that people will do good but in reality people will pursue their self interest.
Also, padding the bottom doesn't create wealth or grow the economy. The government can do a very good job at creating jobs, they can build the Keystone pipeline but do so using only spoons. Jobs will always be present because the thing will never get built. We can also outlaw all farm machineries and people can start plowing the fields by hand. Jobs will be create but wealth won't be because food production will drop. People on the bottom will have more jobs and more money but productivity will be low. We get better by investing on top, not artificially holding up the bottom. Humans can all survive off of bread and water, but is that really humane? This goes back to your greedy vs. self interest argument. You don't have a point when self interest stops and greedy begins. Surviving beyond bread and water can be greedy, why should that person get more?
You didn't defend Costco well. You rip on Walmart all the time for wages but never criticize how Costco doesn't hire as much. What is stopping them from hiring more and paying them well? What is preventing Walmart from firing people? You also fail to realize that Costco and Walmart are two separate businesses with different models. It goes back to Google pays very well, why not Costco?
You understanding of economics, businesses and life in general is minute. Remember this, when you are poor (even though you have access to high speed internet) and someone else is rich or well off just remember it is all one you. Life isn't that nice, it requires work. You can call me a sociopath all you want but while you are making excuses others are working, out of greedy according to you, to be better than you. You can keep crying, hopefully someday you will find out that it all comes back to you.
I mentioned the human factor, people naturally will pursue their best interest. You seem to think they won't. People will use the system as I said about the man on "living wage" drinking and frivolously spending money. The only real solution to your argument is to have a government distribute out the resources evenly which is communisn which makes you a communist. You want that then live in Venezuela, you know the place with high crime and no toilet paper.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why will it fail? Well, where is the wealth going to come from? We lack doctors, nurses, professors, researchers, TAs and numerous other resources in colleges and healthcare. But Bernie wants to make it available to all. How is he going to increase the number of workers in those fields to offer those services to everyone? His only response is "taxes". Last time I checked my classes were taught by a professor, not money.
Now some may say "well with college we will get more doctors and professors". Pursuing those high skilled jobs is a lot of work and stress. I am pursuing my PhD and I work 60+ hours a week. It isn't easy which is why people don't do it. Now add in that Bernie is promising you free healthcare, vacation time, paternity leave, retirement, a "living wage", and bringing back low skill jobs by killing the trade deals, where is the incentive to work hard when you can work a low skill job and have all that you need? Why work hard to become a doctor when you can flip burgers and have healthcare, vacation, a "living wage" and so on.
Bernie's plan contradict themselves and will fail. Unless you can explain to me where the wealth is going to come from which no one has.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Mike Stavenes I did read the article. What you said is not true. The federal government, with the exception of treason, had no control over individuals. Individual income taxes at the federal level was unconstitutional. Plus, holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to give someone else money is not looking after everyone.
There is a role for government, and society can use government as a means of helping people, but that is at the state and local level. States were to control those programs.
You complaining about the rich getting richer. The rich have no power at all except offering you a job and/or a product. Government can use force and that is it. That is why the founding fathers developed the constitution, it was to place strict limitations on governments, especially the federal.
This goes back to if you want to remove rights to make America better in your eyes then why not start with the 4th amendment? Have the government randomly search people's homes. I have nothing to hide, do you? Or remove the 1st amendment. A lot of stupidity is played over the media, have the government prevent that.
The constitution was not about forcing people to help others, it was about limitations on the governments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"My friend, you don't change an entire economic system overnight. After
the Affordable Care Act was passed, it took about 5 years for it to go
into complete effect. Nationalization is not a hostile takeover. The
private sector and the government operates differently. The government
tends to ease into change when it takes over. This gives people time to
plan for their immediate to mid-term future."
It will still lead to job loss and a recession. Even though minor it will be unnecessary as we are not gaining anything. Yes, the ACA too years, but during that time our economy has been stagnate. Businesses did not invest as much. But even at that there were a lot of moving parts in the ACA , single payer is just single payer. It is one thing.
"The only way we fuck this up is if a politician decides to deliberately
fuck it up. Like cutting funding for it, refusing to pass parts of the
law, etc. But that might cost them reelection.
"
Or we run out of funds like we are with SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
" I agree. My point in my comment you quoted was to illustrate how it's
absurd to assume universal health care would lead to a recession,
despite the fact other places in the world are doing perfectly fine with
it."
And you, once again, misunderstood my comment. Implementing universal healthcare would lead to a recession because you are drastically changing the tax code and will be killing jobs. I repeating, implementing universal healthcare, as in during the the processing of replacing our current system we have now with universal healthcare will lead to a recession. Other places did not face a recession because they have had universal healthcare for decades. Do you see the difference?
"Please explain how the private sector is objectively good in and of itself."
The private sector has to actually provide us with a good service and product. If they don't than a competitor will come in and replace them. Thus they will push and invest to keep improving to provide a high quality product to the people at an affordable price. With government run programs you don't get that. Where is the incentive for the government to serve the people on the large scale? On the local level government does which is why local governments are better. But at the federal level the vast majority of congress members you can't vote for, so in reality they don't care about you. So they have no incentive to cater to you but only their voters. And if their voters have little to no issue with healthcare, why would they improve.
To give an example of how private improved and public didn't, FedEx created tracking numbers where the USPS did not. The only reason why the USPS has tracking numbers is because a private company came up with the idea. With healthcare our progress and innovation has come at the private level.
" 'Depending on how you measure it' is very important and interesting.
As it pertains to research, the US education system is the best in the
world. But it's ability to educate its population. It fails miserably
compared to other 1st world nations. And note that these great research
institutions, some who are indeed private, receive government funding
to achieve their goals. Especially when it comes to scientific
research..."
How do you measure success in education? Test results or productivity? With productivity the US is in the top 5 meaning we educate people to be productive as opposed just taking tests. Now which is more important? You should also understand it is challenging to measure quality of education across societies as they are all different. S. Korea, in terms of test scores, is at the top. The reason why, though, is because parents pay to have their kids study for around 5 hours a day after schools in private tutoring programs. In the US we allow our kids to join extra curricular activities or get jobs. Also, what happens in S. Korea does create problems. Their unemployment rate for those with a tertiary education is high and they have a high suicide rate. Working with a student from S. Korea he said the schools in the US are not worse than those in S. Korea, he said they society is just different. But in the end it depends on how you measure it. I go off of productivity because I rather have workers who are productive.
"The problem is access. In Scandinavia, thousands of people aren't dying every year due to a lack of basic health care. "
They die because of low quality. They have "access" based on the fact that their system "covers' everyone by definition. But if the quality if low or the wait times are high, than it does not matter. That is the point, single payer has a whole different set of problems.
1
-
It was criticized because it favored certain qualities over others when making their ranking which was completely arbitrary. I believe it was Bloomberg that made a healthcare ranking at weighed life expectancy at 0.6 and cost at 0.4, both of which are arbitrary making that list worthless. The WHO did a similar thing in weighing out certain qualities higher than others with no strong justification. Also, the numbers that are used (such as life expectancy) do not solely depend on healthcare and are subjected to many variables. For example, if you remove car accidents and murder the US is number one in life expectancy. Now does that mean the US has a great healthcare system? No. It shows who minute the differences are in the raw data that is generally looked in when comparing healthcare systems and how a small change in the data set and statistical regression model can yield varying results. The WHO does not do any of that but instead gives their arbitrary ranking and weighing factor.
Now for country sizes, the US has football stadiums that can hold everyone in Andorra with room to spare. Andorra is a tax haven and has around 80% of their GDP tied into tourism. They attract people with money. So, as a whole, they will have a strong country over all and not just in healthcare but in other sectors of the market and economy. It is a small population with a lot of money. Compared to the US with 323+ million people of varying incomes and economic structures, to me it is not a valid comparison.
In another way to look at it would you feel that comparing a private school, of limited enrollment, that had a student to teacher ratio of 10:1 to a public school in a low income area with a much larger enrollment, a much larger student to teacher ratio, and typically younger teachers? I wouldn't. But that is exactly what you are doing in comparing the US to Andorra.
1
-
1
-
" I'll also claim some murders and car deaths as mental illness and lack of proper nutrition. "
And you can say that, but to what degree? What Robert Ohsfeldt was doing with his simple model was show that there are many factor that influence life expectancy. And with some minor changes the ranking of the countries differ. There are those that look at just life expectancy and use that as an indicator for healthcare system quality but in reality when the differences between two countries is only a few years you can't say who has a better system.
To add, the average life expectancy in the world is 71±7 years. The US is at 79 years, one standard deviation higher. Japan is around 84 years. That 5 year difference is noise at that point and can be contributed to anything and not just healthcare. And as shown by prof. Ohsfeldt and prof. Schneider, a minor change change lower Japan and raise the US.
"And you've Drastically overstated the difference in a small, wealthy country. "
No I have not. In Andorra they have around 80,000 people but an economic system that brings in a lot of wealth. Lower population means less diversity. Also, I find it ironic you say this
" I like tearing down statistics too."
But then say this'
"A teacher ratio of 1:25 vs 10:1? there's 250X more doctors there than here!?"
You clearly missed the point, so let me explain it a different way. No, they don't have 250 times more doctors. On the school example, say you have an inner city public school that is low income with 2000 people in it. And in that school you have a teacher to student ratio of 1:25. They are low income and thus less resources. Now you have a private school with an enrollment of only 200 and a teacher to student ratio of 1:10. They hare more income thus more resources. Would it be fair to compare the two schools?
Also, Andorra has only 80,000 people. What makes you think I even suggested they had 250 times more doctors? Nothing in your comment suggest that you can tear down statistics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Yeah Cause Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, john Adams, FDR, john Kennedy, etc. etc.
are known for being successful businessmen and money holders right?
"
A couple things. One, read my comment on what I wrote about the government getting bigger. I just wrote it. Based on the recent trends the past few decades it seems like politicians are not doing well.
Next. Both Washington and Adams were founding fathers. Washington was a general. Adams helped write the Declaration of Independence.
FDR turned a recession into a depression. Probably one of the worse presidents ever.
JFK was assassinated before he can even do anything.
"Yep being a lawyer, senator and community organizer is nothing compared
to being a silver-spoon fed trust fund baby that got most of their
fortune and place in the world branded on their ass just for coming out
of the right vagina. "
A community organizer is nothing. A one term senator is nothing. As much as I agreed with Rand Paul I did not support him because of how little he served in congress, same with Ted Cruz. I feel that Ted Cruz could be a great president after Trump, but when that happens he will have had 8 years in congress. Now he is too young.
I know many lawyers. I really don't find that to be impressive. Obama never managed a budget in his life nor worked towards a major goal.
"Yep literally the most popular politician in the country, also one of
the poorest, and who gets support from all across the political
spectrum. "
So being poor is successful? Also, nothing indicates he is popular. He lost and many of the people he endorsed lost.
"In other words the only trust wohty one?"
Again, read my most recent comment. Bernie just bought a third home and man millions. This guy rips on the Walton family for being rich when the Walton family at least gave people jobs and provide goods to people. How did Bernie help out people by buying a third home? He didn't. He only benefited himself.
"lol i forgot you only become a senator to make money right? "
Like Bernie, because he wasn't making much outside of politics. He wrote a book and made millions off of it and donated.......I mean kept it for himself.
"and only people who have money are worth anything or matter....
republican/libertarian logic 101. "
In many cases money is a sign of success. In the competitive market it is. In politicians it isn't as it is a sign of abusing power. So why do you want to keep growing government that has been growing for decades that allowed the politicians, especially career politicians like Bernie, get richer?
"lol so appeal to authority fallacy is it..."
You appeal to authority when you support growing government.
"and the threat of global recession from a collapse of the entire banking
system in the US and the wall street system which also controls 30% of
the world's assets had nothing to do with it."
Let it collapse. It will recover. Oh, I forgot, you liberals feel that without government the world will stop spinning.
"again don't pay attention to libertarians or republicans on this issue, it's clear who and what they stand for/with:
Rich fucks fucking over anyone who doesn't have money."
Again, read my comment. To sum it up, government has been growing for decades while the politicians, including Bernie, were getting richer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Someone posted this
"No Kyle, yet again you're wrong about the F-35. It has always been able
to fly since it won over the x-32 and it has been proven to be quite a
capable plane lately.. and no, the name "lighting 2" has nothing to do
with a earlier version of the F-35 (cause there never was one). Lastly,
the 1,5 trillion number is not what you have spent.. That's the cost of
the whole program: R&D, fuel, maintenance, upgrades, from
2006-2070..
You might not want your country to spend that much on planes over a
period of 60 years, but you need to remember that you have a ageing
fleet. And if you still don't want them replaced, please stick to facts
as you usually do."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jerry benjamin I have read information on that. First off, why did they pick the year 1968? That sounds very arbitrary to me. Another is that you can't tie the min. wage to productivity or inflation or average wages. The reason why is because not every job is equal.
Let us look at inflation. Not everything inflates in this economy. Like some goods increase in prices, some drop. For example, the pocket calculator. It was $200 when it came out, not they are basically free. Cell phones, those brick cell phones were only owned by the rich, now people in poverty own smart phones what have a calculator and a camera amongst other things. Cars are better and more affordable now than in the 80s, or 60s. Same goes with services. Some forms of work have increased in value while others haven't. A person working at a burger joint hasn't increased in value while a person learning to code a computer has.
Ok, now productivity. Not every job increased in productivity the same amount
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.t02.htm
Look at the unit labor cost for a full service restaurant (typically a low wage payer), it is 3.8. That means the price of labor is outpacing productivity in that particular field (unit labor cost if hourly compensation over productivity). If you look at that chart you see that not every job has increased in productivity that much. Productivity as a whole has gone up due to technology (for example, electronic shopping when up 10.6% since 1987 due to places like eBay and Amazon and the internet). But as I said the burger cook or dishwasher isn't working any faster. They may have an easier job due to technology, as in someone getting a new cash register. But they didn't develop it, the person who did ended up seeing their value go up and as a result they have a higher wage themselves. That is explained here
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/03/26/elizabeth_warrens_acquired_economic_stupidity_100222.html
I am pursuing my PhD, I will be a high skilled worker and I will develop things that will make other lives easier. Should I take a pay cut as well? That is basically what is being told here by Warren. The people who developed the technology and increased productivity were compensated. Warren wants to take their money and their work and give it to someone who isn't very productive if at all. Now that isn't to say that those low skilled workers lives are not better off, they do have better goods to pick from now at a more affordable price (like I mentioned with cell phones).
In the end trying to measure the min. wage to productivity and inflation is a watered down way of doing it. I mentioned this in an earlier comment on why Warren is an economic moron, she takes something as complex and the economy and make broad assumption. This is a great example.
1
-
"Different cultures, lifestyles and larger populations have nothing to do with healthcare costs. "
Yes it does. A larger population makes micromanaging more challenging. And different cultures leads to different health. The US spends around 40% of their food dollar on take out food which is generally less healthy. And that trend of eating out more has been increasing. Japan, which has one of the highest life expectancy in the world, spends around 20% of their food dollar away from home.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/how-do-united-states-consumer-expenditures-compare-with-the-united-kingdom-and-japan.htm
"This is simply false, right now the system is set up to make as much
profit as possible and physicians making extremely high salaries. "
You are the same person who said that doctors can take on more employees and get paid less and will have no problem doing so.
"Not to mention, people will make more income from jobs since employees no longer will have to pay for insurance, "
That is not true. The reason why a company pays with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage in the first place is because of the payroll tax. Paying with benefits is a 100% tax free way to pay employees. If an employer pays a higher wage they will be paying a higher tax. So no, employers will not be paying with a higher wage, especially since many people want to pay for universal healthcare with a higher payroll tax.
"Again there is no reason not to go into a Universal Healthcare system. "
There a many reasons which is why we don't do it.
". Looking at most studies,"
Ones you never cite. You always talk about studies but never cite them. If there are so many you should have no problem giving us a bunch.
But Jonathan, you are the same person who
1. could not read the Coloradocare bill
2. Did not know that you can be covered off of you spouse's insurance
3. Feel that doctors will work for less pay while taking on more patients
4. Believe that if I were to get murder tonight it was because I had poor healthcare coverage
This is not to be rude but your arguments are not the best based on your history.
1
-
1
-
"This is again based on something you have no knowledge about. Physicians
are trained to treat patients toward a certain diet and micromanage to
their diets. Again even populations of the same cultures have highly
different diets dependent on one another. However this is not an
argument against Universal healthcare and there is no evident to even
demonstrate his.
"
When you have a handful of cultures you can do that. The US is essentially 50 countries in one with states that are the size of countries. Anyway, it goes beyond the physicians. As an educator I am trained to deal with different cultures as well. It goes with budgeting. Micromanaging a budget in a country of 320+ million people with varying economies across the nation, and different levels of crime, health, education, etc. is very challenging. That is why you can't compare us to other countries. But again, you are the one who feels that the US can be compared to Malta.
"I said doctors will need to be able to deal with more patients as
demonstrated by the increase in population. This will occur with or
without Universal healthcare due to the size increase in the population
and the lack of primary care doctors in the field. This already occurs
in countries around the world. "
No, you said you will force them to take on more patients while taking on less pay. Stop moving the goal posts. Without universal healthcare they can have that option of taking on more patients and can be paid more if they do. In other countries they ration their care with the very low standard of as long as they live that is considered a success.
"It doesn't matter if it is tax deductible, the point is you still won't
have to pay insurance for your employees. It still saves money in that
realm, regardless of the fact. "
It is not tax deductible, it is tax free. Major difference. For someone who wants to be a doctor you fail to understand that, so let me explain.
I am paid a typical grad student stipend of $1850 a month. I also get my insurance paid for $3000 a year to cover very basic things. Now say the university were to pay me an extra $250 a month and I can buy my own insurance. They will be taxed for that $250 a month. But they are not taxed for it when they pay me in the form of healthcare insurance.
You understand the difference? Paying with healthcare insurance is not considered payroll thus it is not taxed via the payroll tax. That is why businesses do it. It is a way to pay employees without being taxed. It is not a tax deductible. A tax deductible is where with one of my jobs I am an independent contractor. I get a 1099. I am able to write off meals I buy related to that job, mileage I drive, equipment I buy, etc. I will be taxed on the income I earned unless I spend money that is related to that job. Healthcare insurance is simply tax free as it is not payroll.
So in the end they will not be able to save money and will not be able to pay workers more. But since you love to pay workers less I am sure you support this.
"Actually there aren't any reasons that actually make logical sense. So
far we cover far less people as demonstrated by the insured rate. We
have worse results(at best equal results) and pay far more per capita.
As of now, there are literally no reasons to do so. "
There are millions of people who gave reasons. One did so on here. This is why there is a debate to begin with. You are trying to pull a logical fallacy by saying there isn't any when there is. This was no different then when Ted Cruz used the phrase "common sense" in his debate against Bernie Sanders. As much as I agreed with Cruz in the debate you can't use that phrase as if it is "common sense" there wouldn't be a debate to begin with.
Healthcare a complicated issue. You claim we cover less when in reality we cover, percent wise, just as many people as other countries. Other countries just ration care. On paper other countries can say that everyone is covered, but as I said to you before, when the quality is low what does it matter? Are you really covered? In the US everyone is given a K-12 education. But in some areas, simply because of lack of supply, you have students who are not offered AP courses or courses like calculus or physics. So do they really receive an education? Just because on paper everyone is covered does not mean what they receive is great. On paper everyone in N. Korea is literate and they have a 100% literacy rate because all you have to do is be able to spell the deal leader's name to considered literate. In my state we increased graduate rate by lowering the standard.
You are all excited about the results on paper and not the outcomes overall. As that book I keep pointing to shows that when you break down the numbers and look at cost and results the US is on par with rest of the world. Stop looking at what is on paper and start looking at the actual results.
1. You have not cleared this up. You said your girlfriend is too stupid to read the bill herself and you could not read it for her and explain it. You can clear it up by giving an example of propaganda and then explaining how they were wrong and citing the bill along with quoting it. But again, that requires you being able to read it.
3. "They will do this one way or the other since we have to keep up with
patient demand. However this is being compensated by giving certain
doctors only certain roles such as general visits but removing things
they used to do for other doctors. Such as not giving them EKG's anymore
since it takes up to much time. Again if you knew anything of the
field, you would understand this.
"
Again, you want doctors to be paid less and work more. They will not do that. An give them certain roles? You just contradicted what you said. If you give them certain roles you decrease the number of man hours needed to take on the greater demand.
As I said I work with many people who are med students and nursing students. They hate the idea of universal healthcare as it will mean less pay for them and more work. If you want to do it then fine, do it. But others don't. Also, overworking people will mean worse results and more mistakes. But I guess when you can't sue the government it isn't a problem anymore.
4. " If a person has mental instability and did not have the healthcare or
ability to get healthcare for his mental disability and killed you. Then
you dying was an outcome of the poor healthcare that man got. "
How many people who commit murder seek help to begin with? You are making the false assumption that everyone who murders seeks out help to begin with which isn't true.
Also, you never addressed the point on me getting hit by a drunk driver and killed means I have poor healthcare coverage.
"Again if you knew anything of the medical field or the psychological
field, then you would know this. If you don't know anything of the
field, I suggest you keep your mouth shut, sit in the corner like a good
little kid."
Jonathan, I am very sorry but if you are planning on becoming a doctor you are not qualified at all. You have no understanding of law and economics. And now you claim that every murderer seeks out medical and psychiatric help. You can look at the list of murderers in this country and see that either
1. They did receive help such as Adam Lanza and Ted Kaczynski for example, the latter was a professor and had no problem receiving help if he wanted it
2. They did not pursue help at all.
That encompasses the vast majority of murderers in the US. The idea that all of them did not have the ability receive healthcare is simply not true.
So again, you are not qualified to be a doctor. You little comment at the end about me sitting in the corner also proves that. I outlined to you my arguments. I give out sources where you don't despite you claiming there are "many studies" out there that support your claims. I am still waiting for those "many studies".
Jonathan, I understand being wrong can be difficult, but trust me this is how you learn. The only reason why I continue to debate you is because the simple fact you are willing to debate in the first place shows there is a chance you will eventually learn. I do not know what it will take for you to finally realize you are simply not right. But I feel eventually you will. But you telling me to sit in the corner and be quiet is you trying to silence me which also displays that you do not like to be challenged, and when you are you can't defend you case and simply tell people to shut up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+John Smith He doesn't go into details though. I have yet to hear him go into details on any one of his speeches or proposed policies. He lacks a specific plan to pay for his policies and when you break them down they simply do not work.
Looking at "free public universities", with the numbers taxing Wall Street will only pay for $47 billion, the states will pay the rest......how? And he is saying $70 billion when, with current enrollment and average tuition it would cost over $78 billion. And that is with current enrollment, never mind the increase enrollment after he makes it "free".
And how does he plan on fixing the problem of lack of resources. I work on a university. I know that we lack professors, classrooms, dorms, tutors and student workers, parking space, TAs and so on. How does he plan on fixing that?
Bernie has been in congress for around 3 decades, he should have plans set by now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FAVideos Really? Do tax dollars teach you? Do tax dollars perform surgery? When I say lack resources I am saying we lack doctors, pharmacists, surgeons, nurses, TAs, professors, tutors, hospitals, dorms, classrooms, lab equipment and so one. They don't exist. You can throw all the money you want at it, it simply won't exist.
". Every country that has tried universal healthcare or universal college hasn't gotten rid of it"
And they have problems as well and it isn't as great as it seems. There is a reason why the US has the highest percent of international students.
"Just about everyone alive wants to be in good health and have an education"
But yet we have a high obesity rate. Also, if you feel you need the government to educate you than you are a lost cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How so? Checks and balances. We do not want one person getting into too much power.
"But then you'd have a country full of different laws and regulations"
We have that already. As long as the state and local governments stick within the confines of the Constitution than we will be fine. But we have different laws all across the country.
"Chicago has extremely strict guns laws, yet people can just go up north
to Wisconsin and buy a gun, go back to Illinois and now you have
citizens with guns in one of the hardest places to buy a gun."
Iowa has no sales tax on food. You can go to Iowa, buy food, and go back to MO, or MN, or whatever neighboring state you want and avoid paying taxes. My city just raised their sales tax. If I were to buy a car I will go to a neighboring city. It happens in many way. My state just gave a company an over $1 billion tax break to build here.
"Actually, really sensitive topics such as gun laws, abortion, free
healthcare, etc come to play. Many states deny a woman from aborting a
child, resulting in people having to leave there own state to aquire a
service they need."
Freedom has a price. Nothing is ideal. It is like free speech. You may disagree with Alex Jones or Pat Robertson and find them to be stupid (I do at least), but we allow them to speak as we do not want the government having too much power. You need checks and balances.
"There are just some situations where government needs to step in."
I agree, but there has to be a standard. To me it is the Constitution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Yes, you absolutely can. "... ..., the right to bear arms shall not be
infringed" (because I know you don't care about the first half of the
sentence)."
Actually I very much do and support the entire 2nd amendment.
"Banning automatic rifles isn't infringing your right to bear arms. And,
yes, if you DO want to argue that any discernment of what arms you can
bear is an "infringement" (which is subjective, at best), then this
logic would extend to nuclear weapons, high-explosives, etc."
Explosives are not an arm, neither is a nuclear weapon. Even at that you can still own things like an RPG.
"1) It's an Amendment. It isn't a Right. It's an Amendment. Why do they
call them Amendments? Because the people in the 1700's who wrote this
knew the world would require different laws, and that laws were made to
changed. Amended."
It is a right.
"
2) The Amendment doesn't even mention Tyranny. It mentions security. General security. "
Yeah, like security from the government
"
This is what the Amendment actually says. It doesn't say
"Everyone should be permitted to own any weapon they please, to prevent
tyranny." Which is what you're saying."
I understand exactly what it says. It was designed so that the people can be armed and be free from a tyrannical government.
"It doesn't say that for many reasons. Mostly, because it doesn't make
sense. We have a representative government. Tyranny would be someone
with a gun taking over the people's government. We have the guns needed
to stop that -- armies and national security agencies. Militias aren't a
protection of the people's government. In fact, as we've seen from the
Clive Bundy ranchers -- militias are much more of a threat to the people's government, and we rely on police forces to keep militias in check."
We have a checks and balance system to try to keep things civil. But we should always have the option to fight back if needed much like what happened in the revolutionary war when the constitution was written. The government should always fear the people and not the other way around.
""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
This was written at a time when we didn't have an army, we didn't have police. You know, the later 1700's."
Congress has the ability to maintain a navy and raise an army. The states have the ability to create a police force.
"A well-regulated militia is necessary to what? Really, in this world, why is your militia so important that we need to keep a hundred million guns lying around?"
Because the government should always fear the people. The government should be the servants and not the masters.
"It is fucking nauseating to see people like you pretending to be
the authority on Constitutionality, while all you do is ignore and
paraphrase the shit out of it. The 2nd Amendment pertains to... what's
that... a "well regulated militia"? You'd never know it talking to the
people who think they love it so much."
I know and understand the entirety of the 2nd amendment, clearly you don't.
"It'd be nice if we could leave the 2nd Amendment as is and just ignore it and use our own discretion and make our own laws. But since people think it's not an Amendment, they need to be taught that is IS an Amendment. And we can do that by amending it. It'll never happen, I know. Not because it's fundamentally unchangeable (it's actually an Amendment, so it absolutely IS changeable). But rather, because weapon-merchants and right-wing politics has made too many people too god damn retarded on this issue."
Amendments are rights given to the people and restrictions on the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
masbeetleboy The people do have a right to protest, but just going around and ignorantly yelling at the top of your lungs to just try to be louder than the people you disagree with doesn't solve anything.
The protesters need to step back and look at the situation. The cops were doing their job, you can't blame the cops for that. What you a do is change the law. For selling cigarettes he can be ticketed. instead of arrested, he can be ticketed and told to leave or he will see a bigger fine and then possibility of arrest. That could have worked. And if he doesn't pay his fine than he can be arrested.
Garner was a big guy, cops don't want to get hurt here and they don't want others to get hurt, 5 guys is necessary. You can't let him up just because he is saying he can't breath. If they did than that opens up the situation where if someone else is getting arrested and says that than they let them up they can either run away, or pull out a weapon (say a knife), kill a cop and than run away. You contain him first.
In Garner's case he was held down and than cuffed. We are starting to get to a point where the cops can't do anything. They get in trouble if they beat a guy even after a dangerous high speed pursuit (which is understandable in a lot of ways why they would get in trouble), but now they can't use force to arrest someone who is refusing to listen. It is coming down to that cops have to politely ask the criminals to get in the car as if they will do it on their own free will.
There are others ways this could have been handled, in the end the law was the law and there are better ways of changing than blaming cops. Also, people need to realize that they simply need to listen to the cops and sort out the situation later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, the polls. The same polls that said Clinton will win. The same polls that said 87% of Americans want universal background checks but such laws did not pass in ME and passed in NV by only 0.45% (and many sheriff departments said they won't enforce it as Clark County is why that passed). The same polls that said people want universal healthcare at a close to 60% rate but Coloradocare failed at 80% vote. And Vermontcare, Bernie's own state, could not pass universal healthcare.
This is not to be cruel or rude but the ultra left, including you, need to stop with the polls as they have been wrong lately. The polls are not matching the results. In the end Bernie lost. And the guy he was so opposed to, Trump, won. And the republicans won as well. How do you explain that? If Bernie's plans are so popular, than why do people vote in the opposite of them?
On Sanders being popular, look at the results of the poll closer. One, they just polled people from that state. He has a high approval rating from the people of Vermont. It does not mean he is popular. Look at the top four. Two from Vermont, two from Wyoming. They are also the states with the two smallest population. The next two are from ME. The top six are from three states. When you break it down farther you see that those senators come from state that have, typically,
1. Small population
2. Low crime
3. Are mainly white in terms of demographic
A small population with little problems will make people happy leading to a high approval rating of their senators. So that poll means nothing.
On Trump's approval rating, Gallup did a poll an showed that the satisfaction of the direction of country is growing. And that democrats have a much lower approval rating then Trump.
"Theres a reason why most people are fighting Trump when he attempted to take away healthcare and why it failed miserably."
No one is fighting him besides those on the radical left that have nothing better to do. They are the same people that lost. They are the same people that forced Obamacare down others' throats. Now that it is happening to them they do not like it.
When Obamacare was being pushed Republicans said to leave it with the states. Let the states handle it. But instead democrats wanted to force it on people. Now those same democrats are seeing how it felt for those on the right. Complain all you want, you created this situation.
"I mean Trump even lost the popular vote "
Because LA and NY and the Bay Area are three of the most populated areas in the US and are very liberal. That is why the electoral college exists.
"I mean what are you even talking about? Are you really this right wing
or biased or delusional that you can't even admit how obvious that
election would of gone? "
I am a moderate. I just understand that the polls have been wrong and that people do not want socialism. There is a reason why Bernie lost and why many considered him to be a joke. The liberal media (located in NY and LA) has lost touch with the rest of the country. He would have lost by a wider margin than Clinton did because, as we saw in Colorado, people do not want his policies.
"Again this is because most of the increases in taxes would of been
increases on the rich that were not paying fair taxes through
deductions, tax loop holes and off shore accounts. "
1. Define "fair share"
2. As Cruz showed even if you raise their taxes you could not come close to paying for Bernie's plan. Cruz brought that up in the debate and Bernie did not deny it
3. Trump's tax plan leads to a simplify tax code which is what people want. They do not want a more complicated tax code. People would have ran away from Bernie's tax plan as Bernie himself said he would raise taxes on everyone.
"I mean how do you think he would of lost? "
He lost to Clinton and Trump and the Republicans, he exact people he was against, won.
1
-
Ah, Jonathan, I feel touched. You came back for more. And I see you are learning a bit as you now have given links. So there is hope for you yet. This should be fun.
I know about margin of error. Even at that predictions still had Clinton at an over 90% chance of winning. And as I showed other polls were way off. Even at that it is shown that polling by phone is not reliable for many reasons. You have limited time, you can't see the physical expression of the person you are polling, you have limited coverage and limited response rates. So as a whole those polls, which are done by phone surveys, are not reliable to begin with. I usually never trust polls for that reason.
"Did you just state that the majority of Americans wanted universal
background check and state because it didn't work in one state that its
false?"
It goes beyond that. MO passed a law allowing citizens to carry a conceal weapon without a permit. They relaxed their gun laws. At 87% I would expect it to pass in ME and NV by a larger margin. So why is it at 87%? Is it because every other state wants it at an over 90% rate? Or is the margin of error of error 30%? BTW, NV voted for Clinton,. has 4 of their six representatives as democrats, and their legislative branch swung to the left. I would expect a higher than 0.45% margin of victory if 87% is what the poll said. Sigh. And I was having so much hope for you.
"Again picking a single state to argue the overall majority of the people"
It isn't just that, it is Vermont (Bernie's own state) as well. And 80% is large. Again, do we have a 20 to 30% margin of error? Colorado leans left in many ways. They voted for Clinton. 80% is huge. I can see 80% coming from Oklahoma, a dominant red state and your argument being valid. But from a state that leans left coming at 80% I see you as not having an argument.
" and also avoiding large amounts of money from the companies that
present false material and falsify the bills attempting to be passed."
Which again shows why the polls are unreliable. When given more information people change their minds. Whether or not it is false does not matter. This comes back to what he other person said saying Bernie would have won and pointing to polls. Bernie was not subjected to the attack adds of Trump. After that what makes people think he would have won?
"No they haven't, you seem to have trouble understanding how to analyze
polls, understand margin of errors, or even comprehend what polls are
used for. Yet again more examples that you don't seem to understand
simple statistics. "
I can analyze polls quite well. When a poll says 87% and one state does not have that same law pass, another passes at only a 0.45% margin, and in another state they relaxed their laws, that shows the polls are off. You are holding on to your polls when reality is saying a completely different story.
Also, if you understood statistics you would know how unreliable phone surveys are, especially recently with caller ID.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142040?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed
"Trump argued
-He wasn't going to go for corporate interest
-Wasn't going to cute medicare
-Wasn't going to outsource jobs
-Wasn't going to cut social security
-Wasn't going to intervene in other nations
The list goes on and on and on, this is the reason he won, because he
claimed to be the populist and it was an obvious lie. This is why his
approval rating has been dropping."
1. He isn't
2. I agree he went back on his word here
3. He isn't
4. I agree that he is going back on his word here as well
5. I do not recall this, but even at that saying he is going to make Mexico pay for the wall immediately showed he was not for that
Oh please expand the list. So far I see only two. Even at that saying he won't cut medicare is flawed as a proposal, at one point, was given to allow the states to run medicare more. Mike Pence suggested it and Indiana has a state medicare program. Cutting federal programs and allowing the states to run them is not exactly cutting them. I know how you love to play word games.
"Yes out of 100 senators, he has the highest approval rating per state.
Also the argument you posed has no statistical backing, this was done
per proportion of the state.
"
You can't say he is the most popular senator in the country those. Here you go again misreading polls and statistics. He has the highest approval rating. Second is the other senator from Vermont, hmmmm. That is ironic. Third and forth are from WY, the state with the lowest population. But again, it does not suggest that he is the most popular senator in the US. If he was then they did Trump and the Republicans win. Many candidates Bernie endorsed lost. If he is so popular why did that happen?
"Also you are correct, the DNC has worse rating than Trump! Because they
did the exact thing that Trump is doing, taking corporate money. Also
Bernie has no such approval rating and is far higher. "
Trump does not take corporate money. Fact is that the democratic party is falling apart. As long as that is happening Trump is fine. Also, give a few years and see what happens.
"It never happened, because many states refused to cover more people, and
many red states refused to offer healthcare. It's obvious that the
previous system was not working and that is why people wanted more
coverage and why it's at it's highest now "
We had the healthcare debate already. While it needed improvement it was successful on many fronts. Leaving it to the states would have been fine. If those "red states" did not want do reform healthcare then why should you care? Let them do what they want. Instead you wanted federal reform. You got it. Now republicans are in power and they are doing to you what the democrats did to others. You created this situation now enjoy it.k
"actually taking into proportion, they gave the equal amount of votes to
the popular vote in comparison to the state size. Do some simple math
Also no, the electoral college is an outdated system that was used as a
bargaining chip to allow small states have more power than large states.
It is a system that should be abolished, but overall it doesn't the
main point doesn't change.
"
Sigh. Again, I had so much hope for you. But I will still try. Maybe, someday you will become a doctor. But for now you have a long way to go.
What do you mean proportion? It was one person one vote on the voting numbers. LA and NY have large populations and are far on the left.
And no, the electoral college is not outdated. It is designed based on the structure on the US. The states manage the federal government and the federal government serves the states. The citizens manage the states and the states serve the people. That is why we are the United STATES of America. That is why there never used to be a federal income tax. . That is why we have state rights and states run
K-12 education
3/4 of funding for roads is state and local
Have their own DUI and murder laws
Have their own law enforcement
Was given the decision to expand medicaid
And so on. Without the electoral college fly over states will be screwed. We are a very diverse nation, and because of that the balance of powers is spread out and not concentrated.
"The majority of the country did not want Donald Trump to win,
regardless of where they are located. Also the majority of the country
heavily disapproves of Trump right now, there's just no way around it."
But he, and the republicans won. End of story. We do not run the federal government on the majority as nothing, ever in the history of this country, has ever been determined by the majority vote at the federal level.
I suggest you learn some history as well.
"You are grasping trying to make Trump look like he was more likely to
win even though all the evidence doesn't suggest that. You are anything
but moderate "
Trump beat Clinton, Clinton beat Bernie. Very simple. Also, you said with Coloradocare that with advertising people voted against it. Bernie was not subjected to Trump's negative attack ads. Bernie was too easy of a candidate to go against. He was too easy to attack. That is why no one took him serious.
I am a moderate, Bernie is the most radical politician we have had in this country. About the only other guy I can think of that is close is Rick Santorum who I hated. If the democrats want to succeed they have to do what Bill Clinton did, our last good president we have had. Clinton was a great leader and worked well with others The democrats need to do what he did and tell Bernie to leave.
So people like their social programs but also voted for the party that wants to cut it? Again, you have polls I have reality.
"Already did before, they pay less in % compared to people who make far less in salary"
The top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes but only earn 40% of the income. Also, I agree, our tax code is unfair and complicated. Trump is going to simplify it which will be more "fair". Bernie just wanted to make the tax code an even bigger mess.
"Which tax increase? Cruz stated multiple things during the debate,
please cite the time and the tax increase he was speaking about "
Look up the video "Bernie Sanders vs Ted Cruz: The Future of Obamacare". Go to 1:25, it is near the end. You will hear Cruz's numbers and Bernie did not deny them.
"The people want increased taxes on the richest people in the country, which is exactly what Trump is not going to do. "
And they voted for Trump and the republicans.
You: polls
Me: reality
Enjoy your polls while I enjoy reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I didn't contradict myself at all and you didn't cite any single poll or argument at all."
Don't need to cite polls. I just look at election results. Bernie lost and the man he rallied against, along with the party he rallied against, won. That ends this discussion. You cite polls trying to believe that Bernie is popular and that in some alternate universal he won. Meanwhile Trump won.
"You didn't show them to be wrong, you didn't show any counter evidence. I
demonstrated the statistics, the polls, the margin of error, the
accuracy of the polls. The ones you are arguing against, you didn't cite
any single one. "
And I credit you for the margin of error. But other predictions were wrong and other polls, such as gun background checks and universal healthcare, were way off. Also, if Bernie's policies were so popular why did he lose and why did the people he endorsed lose?
"You haven't cited a single thing, you haven't shown the numbers you are arguing about. "
I did, voting results in ME and NV. If 87% of the people want universal background checks then why did it not pass in ME and only passed by 0.45% in NV? And why did MO pass lighter gun laws?
"Stated it above, he lost in regards to closed primaries in Democratic primaries. Again leaving out independents"
But the man he was so vocal about wanting to lose, Trump, won. Why did that happen? Why did republicans win when they did not support basically any of Bernie's policies?
"Explained it above multiple times and with tons of evidence supporting
it. He BARELY won the election but you keep avoiding all the evidence. "
But he won. If Bernie was so popular as the polls claim I would expect that will give Clinton the edge as Bernie endorsed her. Bernie is so popular that people do not even listen to him.
"Which states? Congress?Senate? A large issue right now in the DNC is
because of their corporate money. This is why many people love Bernie
Sanders, because he doesn't take corporate money. Again polls,
statistics and evidence always demonstrated this. "
And Bernie rallied against republicans (who also took corporate money). People refused to listen to Bernie. For a popular guy no one takes his advice.
"It didn't get repealed, are you this dense? It didn't get repealed,
people wanted healthcare and didn't want it to get repealed without
replacement that was better. Again it didn't get repealed, and you keep
avoiding this reality.
"
Republicans ran on appealing Obamacare. They did not have a replacement plan but still ran on that and for the last three elections they won. If people wanted universal healthcare you think they will not vote for the party that is totally against it. Are you this dense? Why do you keep avoiding reality?
"No you aren't, you haven't cited any evidence, polls, stats, facts, nothing at all. "
Election and voting results. Reality. You are like the guy who says the earth is flat and I say simply "look at this picture" showing a round earth. You then choose to ignore reality. I am not trying to be rude here but that is how you are acting. You are looking at polls when the people voted differently.
"I've given you links every single time just like I have embarrassed you
in every single debate. There's a reason why you looked like an idiot in
the climate debate, theres a reason why in every single debate I link
sources and demonstrate simple mathematics and you can't comprehend. "
I never see the links. But who looks like an idiot? You said I was a high schooler. You said that I was not a PhD candidate. Yes, I have questioned if you are actually studying to be a doctor, but that was after you questioned my PhD standing. You claimed I was from a rich family which is not true. You made personal attacks first to try to avoid discussing the topic at hand.
"You linked
- No sources
- No facts
- Avoided all stats that contradict you
- Presented arguments that make no logical sense and were debunked above
and there is a clear reason you are Not a PhD candidate.
"
1. Not true, I have linked many sources.
2. I have linked many facts.
3. They make complete sense. You just lack reading comprehension skills.
4. I am a PhD candidate. You do not have to believe that. Like you can believe Bernie is popular based on pool that only asked people from Vermont. Or you can believe he is popular despite him
1. Losing
2. His candidates losing
3. the policies he support are not passing with votes
4 the man he rallied against (Trump) winning
5. and republicans, who are against Bernie winning.
If you cannot accept basic facts than we cannot begin to get into discussion.
"
Edit: I posted studies in all the healthcare debates, look back at the
comments. Every single time, theres a reason why everyone can tell you
are a fake and I am not. "
They call me fake because I am in the lion's den. I am willing to do that. I am outnumbered here. If this were on a Rebel Media video it will be the opposite. They will call you a fake. But again, you do not realize that I am in a hostile area that no matter what people here will disagree with me. It is like a Michigan fan going to an Ohio St. bar, they will be greatly outnumber.
"Might want to think why people can tell you aren't in the field but can tell I am. Can you tell why?"
I can tell you why. If you want to have this discussion on a Rebel Media video we can. Or a Steven Crowder video. Steven Crowder has a video about Bill Nye and the gender spectrum with over 400,000 views. We can move this discussion over there. You will see more people will side with me and call you fake because then you will be in hostile grounds. That fact that you do not realize that is the case shows how dense you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Justin, yes, the economy crashed under Bush because recession happen. You cannot blame Bush for that. If you are than you have to blame the democratic congress. Recession happen, how we recover is key.
"Vermont "failed" because it was abandoned, not because people voted
against it. The person who dropped it almost got booted out of office
for it,"
But he didn't get booted. So it doesn't matter.
". Colorado failed because it affected Medicare, something that was an
issue with the proposal itself and not the idea. So you're comparing
apples and oranges"
Colorado failed because people do not want to pay the taxes. Universal healthcare will cost to much unless you make the quality worse.
". And you still are going after polls despite people bringing up
townhalls where they are making their voices heard, numerous rallies and
events around the country and the people who have joined Justice
Democrats, Brand New Congress and other such groups."
Just because you are the loudest does not mean you are popular. Many showed up to Bernie's rallies but he still lost. Seeing a bunch of people march, scream and cry does not mean anything to me. How come these people were not more active and kept Trump out, or voted Bernie in as a write in?
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Texas outlawed abortion because life "begins at birth" despite no data behind that. "
Life, by definition, begins at conception according to biology. The real abortion case is Casey vs PP. If you can take that fetus out and have it survive on an instrument then you can make abortion illegal at that point. Roe V. Wade was based on the fact that in that time women were shamed for getting pregnant outside of wedlock so you were having people do abortions in bath tubs which is a risk. So that ruling is based a lot on emotion. But again, by definition of what a living thing is life begins at conception.
". And since were telling people to look up videos "Response to
"DEBUNKED: Top 5 "Climate Change" Myths" by Louder with Crowder" is a
great video where a man Debunks "data" that Steven crowder uses. "
I have seen it and I agree with a lot of what that man says. But he also does not say that climate change is a major issue, and he also agrees we do not base science on a "consensus". Remember, the consensus was that the world was flat. The consensus was that Newtonian mechanics is the way to go before quantum theory was develop by a handful of scientists. Also, Steven Crowder in that video I mentioned brought up the changes in the polar ice caps which is him admitting he was wrong.
"Again straw man. Just because Bernie has a different economic policy,
and the right appeals to emotions when argueing against bernie to or do
you not remeber people shouting communist."
What Bernie in debates. When pressed he goes to his appeal to emotions talking points. In a debate with Douglas Holtz-Eakin about the min. wage Douglas said that he felt that we cannot raise the min. wage during high unemployment and that the money did not exist. Bernie went on this rant about Walmart. Douglas asked about other companies besides Walmart and Bernie brought up Burger King and McDonalds. Douglas asked about other businesses and Bernie deflected back to Walmart and how there are poor people. No numbers, no data, just him creating this boogeyman in Walmart and "big corporations" and how we should attack them because they are rich. That is Bernie's tactics, purely appeal to emotions. It isn't that he has a different economic plan, it is that he has no clue how the economy works, has no data, and just uses emotions.
"Create a boogeymen for rich people? lobbyist have already done that for
themselves. Are you so blind that you cant see any legitimate criticism
of the rich."
Money in politics is another issue that involves the federal government having too much power. I do not blame the rich there, I blame our politicians, including Bernie. That is a different topic if you want to discuss that.
" And i agree the women march was stupid of people, but guess what the
rights no different when it comes to stupidity. Remember how they
constantly said how Obama was coming to take their guns yet he never did
. "
And I criticized them for it. But in the end he pushed for more pointless gun laws when his re-election was no longer on the line.
"You yourself have also failed to address the legitimate concerns of the
public left with ryan care, pollution, the blatant attempt at disbanding
of ethics committee and to add one more the right for service
providers to sell your information. "
The majority wants Obamacare gone, that is why they voted for republicans.
Pollution is not a major problem. Believe it or not but "big corporations" do not pollute. And states have their own EPAs to prevent that (one just visit my work yesterday).
Internet websites could always sell certain information about yourself. If not you will have to pay to use Youtube.
"You constantly seem to forget that people have used data and evidence
againts you while also being on the left, which in itself unravels your
entire argument here."
No they haven't. They claimed to post links. I can't see them so I ask for titles and authors and they disappear.
1
-
"The roe v wade case was decided on the fact it violated privacy as in
the 14th amendment, a right granted by the constitution. Regardless of
what people think the case was based on law. And prehaps i used the
wrong word i should have used sentient life but oh well"
Privacy is not listed once in the Constitution. Nor does the 14th amendment cover abortion. Read the constitution sometime.
"Thats an over simplification of what he said. While i agree that he did
go on a little bit of a rant, the question asked Mr, Holtz said well is
their anyone left after Walmart. Only then did bernie sanders bring up
Mcdonalds etc, as he was asking who else could pay He did not deflect he
brought up other businesses when Doughlas holtz Aaksed him to bring u
other companies.. (i know its the same video because i see your comments
kek)
"
And what about small businesses who do not have the money? To Bernie it is all about "big corporations" and "millionaires and billionaires". When a small business owner asked him about regulations in a town hall discussion Bernie did that, went to those two talking points. He does not address that small businesses have to pay the min. wage as well.
" Ask them by provision and most agree with what the ACA, with most of the
people would are dissatisfied with the taxation of persons with out
insurance. "
I would agree, but the mess is that the federal government is running the show. This should be been left up to the states.
"Prehaps its because regulation prevents them from doing so and even
then, multiple oil spills that have happend across the country along
with how the companies. In my state the local government had to stop a
company from dumping in a river because it was killing the fish
population and was making children unhealthy (because it was a popular
swimming area). Since then the river has been recovering. (This happened
many years ago)
"
States can take control of pollution. No need for a federal EPA. Also, when BP had the oil spill the stock prices dropped and they still haven't recovered yet. The free market worked there.
"Internet service providers are far diffrent from internet websites do
to the fact they can sell much more personal information. internet
websites make most money of off advertisements. "
I see nothing wrong with selling personal info as long it isn't your SS or CC number, which that has always been illegal. That is why no one cares and no one talks about it.
"Yes people do i know you've done this shit tons f time on secular talks videos but people post sources. "
Post titles and authors. I enjoy reading sources.
"Anyway i am done responding as i am now bored of this argument, you can respond if you want but you will get none back. "
So I call you out and you run away I see.
Man, I win again.
1
-
"What do you mean by devaluing education? Is education a zero sum
game?"
College education is more than just sitting in a classroom, doing homework, and reading books. The issue with colleges is that we lack professors, TAs, tutors, etc. If more people go than the quality will go down because it will become similar to just herding people in classrooms, assigning them basic problems, and graduating them. No personal connections developed, no critical thinking assignments that require writing, and limited feedback.
"Do you think that medical care in the US is better than in
Scandinavian countries?"
Arguably yes. As a whole, it is no better nor is it any worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"First of all, you have no proof to show that the majority of Kyle's audience even supports Bernie"
Kyle is a strong Bernie supporter and by reading the comments on his videos the majority of them support Bernie.
"Secondly, oh, so because someone supports a candidate, they're automatically stupid? "
If the candidate they support is stupid than yes.
"3ca Clearly you know nothing about economics. Over 100 of the nation's economists vindicated Sanders. "
Not true.
"His common sense policy proposals"
Using the phrase "common sense" immediately shows you don't have an argument. If it is "common sense" then why is there a debate to begin with?
" have proven their worth in Scandinavia, various countries"
That is very vague and ignores several variables. For example Norway funds their programs with oil which Bernie does not want to tap into our oil. Other countries have mandatory military, do you support that?
"and during the golden age of economic growth and sustainability between the New Deal and Reagan."
We had large growth because the rest of the world was rebuilding and we weren't. We had an advantage. Now they have caught up and our socialist programs are failing us.
"You say one scientist whilst the scientific community in that field has vindicated climate science in over 99% of studies. "
That consensus has been debunked before. Anyway, climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. The issues with it are
1. How much is man playing a role?
2. Is it even bad?
In the studies you won't find definitive answers to those questions. That is why Bernie can't get any scientist to discuss the issue with him. None of them are making the claim Bernie did. But Bernie even admitted that he struggled in science.
"So "losing" one debate makes someone an idiot?"
He knew about it ahead of time but still was not prepared. Even at that he has lost other debates.
"He said Cruz just lied ferociously"
But did not give any examples how.
"A majority of Americans still favor of universal healthcare"
Yep, that is why it passed in Colorado.....oh, wait, 80% of people voted against it. Well, at least they have it in Bernie's state of Vermont.....oh, wait, it did not pass their either? It seems like people don't want it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You are stating that one can have a free market within an industry that
provides inelastic goods and services. I hear what you are trying to
say, but completely laissez-faire approach to healthcare inevitably
results in millions of people being uninsured because they are either A.
not responsible enough to buy into insurance while they are still
healthy, or B. have to choose between decent health insurance or putting
a roof over their head because real-wages*** for the majority of the
country have dropped by over 30% the past three decades."
Couple things. One, "real wages" have not been dropping that much. A main reason why is because of technology making things better and cheaper. A car today is cheaper then a car in the 70s and is much better. They are safer, last longer and get better mileage. We have the internet. We have high speed computers that fit in our pocket. The idea that wages have dropped is mainly a myth. Not saying it is a problem, but it isn't that major of an issue.
Also, another reason for the lower wages is that they payroll tax was expanded in the 60s. Businesses instead pay with benefits such as healthcare insurance as opposed to wages.
"What I'm saying is, I don't have a good answer here, but the system we currently have is even more
wasteful than if we have a strong government agency that had strong
negotiation power provisions to negotiate directly with healthcare
providers, medical device manufactures, and drug companies, which are
currently getting away with murder on their pricing structures, with
double digit percent price increases on care happening annually because
they can get away with it and insurance companies just absorb it
regardless. "
The problem is government as we do not have negotiating power because of the payroll tax. I will cover that in another comment. However, thinking that the government can keep prices down is not going to happen. Businesses will just lower the quality. We see that with another form of price setting, the min. wage. With the increase in the min. wage businesses just cut hours. You enforce how much is paid per hour, but not per week. Or with rent control. With rent control apartments are not kept up because why would you do it? Why keep an apartment complex looking nice if you can't raise rent? The quality drops.
"Healthcare is much more opaque and inelastic than a classical good or service like cars or shipping. "
Not really, and I will explain why in the next comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am not wrong. Who controls congress and most state and local offices? Fact is democrat supporters stayed home.
" It would be interesting to see some stats on that"
Look at the age groups each party attracts. Republicans always attract the older crowd. The older you get you start paying taxes, have to manage a budget, you probably own a home and have a job. You realize the financial side of things and become economically conservative, especially when you deal with the government.
1. Yes, they are being oppressive. People, as a whole don't care if you are gay. Just like people, as whole, don't care about your political party and religion. We just don't want to hear about it or have you use it to gain an advantage.
2. Not really. People do support the traditional value of marriage just like they support a lot of tradition. Why people think like that I can't say. I can't think for others. Why do some people like to wear hats? Again, I don't know. To me my main issue is how marriage, as a whole, should remain a state law and how it is not a right. I personally don't care if it is recognized by government or not (it has always been legal), I just care about the standards of how we create laws
3. Yes. Yes. It is their business that they run from their own money. No one is entitled to their services. What you are doing by forcing them to serve in a way they don't want is being an oppressor. No different than when people used laws to make black people drink at a different drinking fountain. You are being the oppressor now. That is their private business. They don't have to exist at all.
" It's not as fast as the changes in opinion on gay marriage, but at this
rate if the trend continues Christians would become be a minority in
america in about 15-16 years."
Maybe.
"you said they 'lack education'. with that phrasing it's fair to assume
you meant school, college, etc. now you're just making generalizations
about them being emotional, people on both sides are emotional, but
about different values."
Being educated, to me, is knowing how to handle emotions and use logic to dictate actions. Also being educated is having problem solving skills and being able to properly analyze facts and data.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** In all you can't compare one country to another. Just because something supposedly works in one country doesn't mean it will work in the US.
Look at the University system in the US. It is arguably the best. In the US you have the option of cheap liberal art college, JuCo college, Community colleges and so on. We have a large portion of students who are athletes who wouldn't receive a college education if it weren't for athletics. One of the biggest advantages the US has in their university is the campus setting. I creates a more personal connection between professors and students and students to students. You don't get that very much in colleges in other countries. Yes it may be "free" but it isn't great.
In the US a reason for the high tuition is college loans. You are increasing consumption without increasing the amount of services available. If you were to make college "free" in the US you will ruin it's quality to where it won't be worth it. Also, the term "living wage" doesn't mean anything. And if you want to make a comparison Germany has a higher cost of living than the US and is not as productive. They are not doing that great. Not to mention it has the third of the population than the US.
On healthcare. The US already has a lot of federal healthcare programs that are losing money. A reason why for high cost is because the government gives tax breaks to employers who offer insurance. The insurance company limits competition between buyers and sellers, much like with the loan situation in college. There is a 3rd party involved in the negotiation. So with that the seller can raise their prices and the buyer isn't paying much because the 3rd party picks up the tab. We see this in other countries with lesser quality of care and longer wait time. They don't pay in cash, they pay that way. But sticking to the US it will make the situation worse if we went socialized healthcare because we simply don't have enough resources. LASIK surgery is elective care not covered by insurance and has seen the price drop due to competition between buyers and sellers.
All those statistics you see that make it seem other countries have better healthcare is deceptive. As I said in the beginning and will continue to do so you can't compare the US to other countries, we are too different. Saying that countries do better than the US in X, Y and Z simply because of A is completely wrong. B, C, D, E...... are involved as well. Take life expectancy for example. The US is at 79.8, Canada for example is at 82.5, a difference of only 2.7 years. The average for the world is 71 years with a standard deviation of 9.4 years. That 2.7 years is called noise in statistics. The same holds true for every other stat. With a population of over 300 million people you are going to have more noise. You can't make a comparison between one country to another. And that 1 million on 20 years doesn't mean anything. You are throwing out a number without comparing it to something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+fl00fydragon
Here is a great quote by Richard Feynman
"I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's
much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which
might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and
different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not
absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything
about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what
the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't
figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an
answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a
mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it
really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
There is nothing wrong with doubt. Doubt is what drives us to look for more. Your problem is that you fear not knowing. You are treating science like a religion which hinders its progress. You fear being wrong in whatever you believe so you have to say that science proves something to feel correct and safe. Me, I realize what science really is. I realize that it is doubt that allows for change and progress. We have degrees of certainty, but we are not completely sure on anything. Saying that we are is creating an absolute which will get you in trouble in science when new evidence squashes old theories. You are being anti-science because of fear.
1
-
+fl00fydragon
To start, the fact that you feel I am religious is showing your high level of ignorance. I am not religious.
Next, I am not bias. I support standards. You are either born a man or a woman. If you go through the process of physically changing your sex then fine, but either than that you are a man or a woman. Based on what you are saying it would be perfectly acceptable for me to say "I think I am a black guy, so I quality for minority scholarships". Or "I feel like I am a woman, thus I should be allowed to compete in the Olympics as a woman and win medals". Neither case is not being insane at all according to you.
I can extend this and ask what about people of NAMBLA? Do they have a mental problem? If not, then why do we outlaw their practices? The problem with you is that you are bias, or emotional and refuse to set standards. You start making this gray area in laws then a mess happens.
On doubt and science, as Feynman said, we have degrees of certainty, but we are not completely sure on anything. But what I find to be ironic is that you are pushing this whole proof in science when it comes to the brain which we know very little about.
1
-
+fl00fydragon
You are pretty dense.
"the reason you are supporting this position is because you cannot see the brain directly with the bare eye"
I work with biological systems that requires me to use a half a million dollar LASER set up so see how they act in different situations. So you really don't need to preach to me what is being done to study the brain.
"and i dont believe to explain why there is a difference between
allowing equal rights to people in society and having speecific
standards when it comes to athletes"
You don't have a right to a bathroom. So the topics are comparable. So again, name me one right that transgender people lack.
" all secual acts that are between CONSENTING ADULTS is allowed and free
game
having sex involves 2 people both should exibit consent
a child lacks the knowledge of sexuality and cognitive function to
exibit consent
allowing transpeople to live theri life as they want and allowing them
acess to the bathroom of their choice involves only themselves
therefore slippery slope fallacy AND false equivelance = illogical
argument"
Slippery slope arguments are typically strong when used correctly like I typically do. Also, in that whole part, it is clear that I need to change the wording to gender. Your gender is either a man or a woman.
"however to you not knowing everything equates to not knowing anything"
Nope, sorry you lack understanding of science. I know a lot but still have doubt. On this issue it comes down to standards. You don't have a right to a bathroom. Forcing people to use the bathroom based on their sex or birth, or sex after surgical procedures does not violate any constitutional right. That is the fact.
"unless you have a logical argument backed by phisical proof or research
that is not fueled by emotion you cannot win this argument"
What is ironic is that you are using emotions to make an argument. You are the one making up rights that don't exist. You are the one treating science like a religion say it has proof. Proof does not exist in science. You can have physical evidence, but not proof.
In this it is clear that you don't respect science since you degrade it by saying it has proof instead of evidence. I can understand ignorance, but when I tried to correct you you continued to disrespect science.
What is also clear is that you lack understanding of how laws are created in this country with standards and what rights are in this country. When I counter with a well thought out, and strong argument, you attack back by saying i am emotional and religious, neither of which is true.
A little personal story on me. One of my colleagues is a transgender, born a male. They use the men's room and uses the stall to pee. I have no problem with it. This person, when I first met them, I though was a woman. I was wrong and have no problem with them using the men's room. I have no problem with them using the women's room. My issue is that people, like you, don't understand what rights are in this country or how to set standards in developing laws.
Unless you have an argument that is not fueled by emotions, you cannot win this argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+FLuiD AMaC https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
There is a great book to read. It talks about healthcare of the US and other countries. Here is what one of the authors said about it
"Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative
simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees
that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the
life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. “We’re
not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy
estimates,” he told me. “We’re just trying to show that there are other
factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote
all the time.” These factors (which could also include rates obesity
and smoking, also arguably
the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into
question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference
between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt
compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute
differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily."
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/
I personally will never say that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, I will only say it arguably does. The US system has problems, but so do systems in other countries. The US is number one in cancer survival rates and as the book points out, if you remove a couple of variables in our society that are not strongly tied to healthcare (murder and accidents), the US is number one in life expectancy.
People foolishly points towards other countries saying they have better healthcare but there isn't one bit of evidence that shows that. The only argument they have going for them is that no one goes bankrupt, that's it. And that everyone has access to healthcare which means nothing if the quality is low. Everyone in the US has access to representation if they are brought to trial, it doesn't mean the lawyer they get will be worth anything.
The healthcare situation is complex, people need to stop making such simplistic arguments about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" they have to for everyone once they recognize it for anyone,"
No they do not if there is not benefit to that local community according to the government.
"that's what the fourteenth amendment is about."
"
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the
several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when
the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in
Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members
of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of
such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United
States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion,
or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in
the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the
whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any
office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature,
or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or
rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor
any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations
and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"
The ruling on the 14th amendment is that marriage was between a man and a women, thus it can't discriminate base on race. But in terms of gender one can argue that there is no benefit in recognizing marriage between people of equal sex. If you are going to allow marriage between a man and a woman than race should not matter. But in terms of gender you can make an argument that a marriage should be between a man and a woman as the reason why the government was involved in marriage to begin with was only for that purpose. With your argument you start down the path of incest and polygamy. All or nothing according to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"if that action is only distinguished by race, sexual preference, gender,
religion etc. from an action that is recognized, the non-recognition is
unconstitutional, because it's an unconstitutional discrimination.
polygamy is not recognized from anyone, there is no discrimination."
Polygamy is a religious practice, so according to you it is discrimination.
" discrimination. look, there is a marriage licence waiting to be signed
saying, you are married to john doe. who is able to get that licence?
according to you only a female, not a male. that is discrimination,"
No that is not discrimination. What would be discrimination is only allowing men to get marriage licenses. But as is both men and women can get marriage licenses.
"no male can get that marriage licence, "
They can get another one and receive the same benefits.
"you are married to african american john doe, and only african american people can get this licence, just because of their race."
I told you how race is different. You do not act black. You are genetically born that way. You do act gay. While you may be born to be attractive to the same sex, you still have to commit an action. If the government does not recognize gay marriage they are not recognizing the action. They are not discriminating because everyone can get married that is recognized by the government, it just has to be between a man and a woman. No different than not recognizing the action and practice of polygamy.
" the amount of people who have to agree is irrelevant in this context, the amount of people is not a protected group."
It does matter as I can get a driver's license on my own terms. Plus, if the amount of people does not matter, why is polygamy not recognized? You are contradicting yourself.
"... have the wrong race (you need to have the same race)
... have the wrong color of skin (you are not white)"
You do not act white or black. You are genetically born that way. Your race is something that is always you no matter how you act or what you practice. That is why the government can't discriminate base on race.
"... believe in the wrong religion (you are not christian)"
The 1st amendment prevents that.
"... are not from america or europe (you are from africa)
... are older than 40 (you are 56)"
Same with race, you do not act a certain age, you are 56 no matter what you practice. You are from Africa no matter what you practice.
"... have the wrong sex (you need to have the opposite sex)"
One gay marriage you are practicing something. The government is not recognizing the practice of gay marriage. While you may be attractive to the same sex, being gay is something that involves an action. You can be a black man walking down the street and in the end you are a black man walking down the street. Now if you are black having gay sex, you are still black but now you are performing a gay act. If you decide to skateboard you are still black, but now you are skateboarding. If you get married to a guy you are still black, but now you have performed the act of a gay marriage. You see the trend? In every instance you are black, but the action you are performing defines who you are.
Someone can be a pedophile and be attract to kids. Do we arrest them based only on that? No. We arrest them if they perform the act of having sex with a child. An action has to occur. With gay marriage, no one is discriminating against gays, they are not recognizing the action.
"... you are not a perfect human (you have a genetic irregularity)"
People with mental retardation are not allowed to reproduce. So based on that they are discriminated as well.
But let me add another one to you list
--you are already married (polygamy)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"nope, gay marriage is not a subject to federal law. gay is a sexual
preference in attraction, it has nothing to do with marriage."
Yes it does.
"nope, you cannot do male or female, those are sexes, biological features"
I agree, but action is the key part. You are not recognizing the action.
"neither male nor female are actions, discrimination based on sex is unconstitutional. "
They are not discriminating based on sex, they are not recognizing a practice they are performing. A man and woman can always get married, it just had to be with the opposite sex. No discrimination there.
" nope, i told you when there is no distinction, there is no discrimination"
There is. I will show you again in the next comment.
"the constitution is federal law"
Kind of. But still, state rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"i said they are not reviewed by peer reviewed scientific journals, which is true."
No you did not.
" you were arguing from your textbook, while i was arguing from facts out of scientific papers, so i told you the difference"
They are both peer reviewed. And textbooks are written based on those papers. Arguing from a textbook is no different than arguing from a paper.
" i cited an author of standard economic theory "
No you did not. If so than please list it again.
" but because of your lack of knowledge you could not recognize him in my comment"
You did not list a name, period.
" which was enough to demonstrate your shortcomings"
Enough to demonstrate your shortcomings is showing that you feel that textbooks are unreliable even though they are written based on the papers that are published. And textbooks, especially the introductory ones, are peer reviewed. Introductory ones are done by many professionals in their field where papers in journals may be done by three (and they are, at times, picked by the authors of that paper). Plus, you were talking about basic economics thus you should have been able to find support from any introductory textbook. The fact you did not shows your shortcomings.
"what on earth is wrong with you? the fourteenth amendment guarantees equal rights, "
What on earth is wrong with you? You have no right in getting your marriage or marriages (polygamy) to be recognized, period.
"so if jane doe gets the right to get her marriage recognized with john
smith, then joe doe needs to get the same right, to get a marriage with
john smith recognized"
And based on that than Joe Smith has the right to have his marriage with Jane Doe, Joe Buck, Mary Sue be recognized even if he is married to them simultaneously (polygamy). If not than it is discrimination.
"is that so hard to understand?"
I fully understand, you are just wrong and you are contradicting yourself.
"neither joe doe, nor jane doe, nor john smith nor anyone else has the right to get a polygamy recognized by law"
Why not? Why do you discriminate?
"they only get the right to live in polygamy when it's their religious practice. "
And you have the right to live with someone of the same sex. You can also live with many partners and have that right (beyond zoning laws) and not be religious. You do not want to recognize polygamy which contradicts your discrimination stance. Gay people can always live with each other, same with those practicing polygamy. Thing was the government did not recognize their marriage.
"they won't get any licence, but are free to live as they please."
Same with gay marriage.
"no discrimination at all, no one gets different rights than others"
Uh, yes they do. They are still married.
"states have to follow the constitution"
I agree.
" if states don't offer equal rights, then they act against the constitution and such laws are struck down"
I know, but you have no right to have your marriage recognized by the government.
". distinction upon sex is discrimination"
It is distinction upon the action, not sex.
1
-
1
-
"the right to get my marriage recognized is fundamental"
Nope, not listed in the constitution at all. That is why it is a state issue.
"nope, no one has the right to get a marriage recognized with someone already married,"
I agree, but according to you they do.
"i don't, no polygamy for anyone"
Ok, then no same sex for anyone.
"but i don't have the right to get a marriage with a specific person recognized"
Same with polygamy.
"no one is able to get his polygamy recognized by law "
And same with same sex marriage.
"nope, you said a female can get a marriage to a male recognized, but a
male cannot get a marriage recognized to that same male. that means two
people have different rights because they differ in their sex,"
Nope, those males have to find a female to get married to. It is similar to if a man is married to a woman, and another woman wants to marry that same man, than they can't have that marriage be recognized. That woman has to find another man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gautier Blandin There is a lot you can learn at a job that you can't learn at schools. Teens will be working part time. Also, when applying for scholarships that is one thing people look at, if you had a job. It gives you experience in the workplace and how to work with others that are not your peers.
" Living wage is not subjective,"
Yes it is. It depends on the situation you live in.
"pay your food, pay your rent, pay your water and electricity bills, pay your healthcare, save for your retirement, pay transportation"
What kind of food? What kind of rent? Your own single bedroom or a studio with two other people. Water is free in a lot of places. How much electricity? I never run my AC because I live in a desert. Why transportation? I walk to work myself.
"the internet, a computer, a phone, a car"
Isn't a car transportation?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BackRowRacing98 It is hard to determine what is a blue state and what is a red state. There are states who dominate one part or another, but for the most part they are all pretty even.
CA and TX are really comparable. They both have large populations, both possess strong universities, both possess a large group of Hispanic immigrants, both have something that can drive their economy in Silicon Valley in CA and oil in TX. The fact that TX is growing economically and in several standards is better economically it does seem to correlate with years of conservative policies. Now CA does a lot of things right, and TX struggles in some areas, I believe teen pregnancy is higher in TX (but CA is like 2nd in abortions).
There is a lot more to it, as a whole saying that those with low IQs vote republican is false. Being in graduate school I know several colleagues of mine who vote republican, and these are PhD candidates. To also say that the most intelligent come from "blue" states is also deceptive in a lot of ways. States who are "blue" might not be really "blue", and same with states that are "red". Johnson County, KS is about as conservative as it gets. A few years back they voted to raise property taxes to increase funding for schools.
1
-
1
-
vuk911 Healthcare is important. I rather have access to high quality of care than low quality of care of healthcare. People always talk about access to care but if the care is poor than what does it matter?
CA has high abortion rates, that cuts down on teen pregnancy.
I am neither democrat or republican, I am a moderate. If I were forced to chose one side I would pick republicans. The reason why is because one, their policies have more success. Another, and the main reason, is because how the political left acts. They are some of the most ignorant people ever. Look at the recent Michael Brown and Garner situations. Police brutality is an issue we should discuss, they choose to pick two examples that are not police brutality mainly because race is involved.
Take the min. wage, people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren throws around phrases such as "living wage" or "starvation wages" which means nothing. A "living wage" is deceptive but they throw it around for emotional talk. Same is with gay marriage. We have a way to solve the problem, they don't recognize it and call marriage a right, or healthcare, they call that a right as well. They just pick and choose what rights are now.
I can go on but the ignorance from the left is amazing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr Ok, where to begin, the only part where the fed can deal with domestic issue is the commerce clause which is commerce between states. That means if two states can't agree on something then the federal government gets involved. An example would be if Iowa, for example, tried to keep all the residents of Missouri out, or force them to pay an entrance fee. That is where the federal government will end the dispute between states. That is it. Reading the rest of section 8 you have currency which is foreign trade, post offices and post roads which is communications, development of the armies, copyright laws and so on. I see nothing about the FCC, EPA, social security, Medicaid, department of ed., department of labor and so on. Seems like you need to work on your reading comprehension skills some more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That is a false equivalence, as healthcare =/= guns"
The discussion is not about guns but instead what rights are.
" A better comparison would be healthcare to the maintenance of roads and
ridges. Who is providing those services? Oh right, taxes and taxpayers.
"
No, actually someone builds them, and tax payers don't always maintain them. One, 3/4 of funding for roads comes at the state and local level. Next, all across the country, especially in rural areas you have gravel and dirt roads with no traffic signs. Many of them don't get plowed after it snows unless a volunteer from the local community does it. In the end no one is being forced to provide it though. If no one builds it or plows it it won't get done.
"And public education system. What about that? "
K-12 education is ran and funded at the state and local level as well. Also, if we don't have teachers than we just don't have them. We don't force people to teach, we don't force people to be nurses and janitors there. We don't force people to be substitutes. So as with roads if no one is there to provide it than no one will receive it. You don't have a right to it at that point. States don't have to offer public education nor do they have to offer roads.
" Interesting though that when it comes to the most important one,
healthcare and preventing deaths, people like you think that people who
can't afford it "
In comparison to education and roads healthcare consists of highly skilled workers who are expensive, specialized equipment which is expensive. Healthcare is far more complex than roads and education. And as we have seen in roads the government can't provide us with even high quality of roads or even guarantee them to be clear after a snow fall. So that is a poor comparison in itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bobby, you clearly have no idea how a business operates.
"Business still needs a certain amount of employees to functionally run
the business. They cant just fire people because wages are too high
because that would ironically cost them even more money."
Not really. Depending on the business they can cut hours and staff in numerous ways. A franchise owner who owns, say 12 locations can cut down to 10. A business open 24 hours can stop doing that and only be open from 6 AM to 10 PM. They can also replace their part time workers with full time workers which is called labor to labor substitution. Those full time workers will be the more productive workers and thus the least productive are eliminated.
The company I worked for did two things when the min. wage went up to $7.25. We closed down an hour earlier, and some of our slow nights we cut staff. We hired no more high school age workers, and our more productive workers, like me, were asked to work on the slower nights as on Monday and Tuesday so they can cut staff on those nights. We went from 4 workers in the kitchen to two. They moved workers around so they can cut and keep productivity up. That leads to this
"A smart employer hires the minimum amount they need to keep the business
running smoothly, not the minimum amount to keep the business barely
afloat."
Businesses who hire at such a low wage have several part time, temporary workers. Their turnover rate is high due to the fact that those workers are typically just entering the workforce and quickly move up. I was one of the rare ones who lasted seven years, but after my degree I left. Even at that near the end of my time my hours were reduced because I was working other jobs such as undergraduate research. Those companies will hire a part time worker at a low wage who may be in high school. They have school to worry about, probably extracurricular activities, homework, and after high school they may move off to college. They may be college students who quickly leave after their degree or get an internship. They are temporary and thus the employer does not pay them much. They hire them because extra workers like that can fill in the schedule creating flexibility, and they can do extra work relieving full time staff. But if the wage becomes too high they will cut those part time workers and keep full time ones who are more dedicated to the job, more productive as a whole, and less likely to leave.
"The average worker contributes nearly triple the minimum wage an hour of
profit towards the company. If you are a business owner paying minimum
wage and its COSTING you money, thats more a problem with your business
skills. "
That is not true. If you are that valuable as a worker than you should get a job elsewhere. Even at that some business models simply can't generate that much revenue. So that is not a problem of business skills. Also, one can easily say that if you are a worker and can't justify a higher wage, than that is more a problem with their work ability.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
1 and 2. Recessions happen, we saw one under Carter and a democrat congress. Recovery is key. All other recessions took around 5 years to recover from except for two. The Great Depression and now. Both involved democrat policies of higher taxes, higher spending and regulations to "fix" it. Recovery has been slow under democrat policy.
3a. Obamacare is leading to higher insurance rates. The US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. The US is number 1 in responsive care, number 1 in cancer survival rate, and when you remove murder and accidents, things not tied to healthcare, we are number 1 in life expectancy. The only problem is cost. The high cost is due to federal government policies typically supported by democrats dating back to around the 40s at least. I can get into more detail if you are interested but basically democrats create federal policies leading to higher healthcare cost, and now with Obamacare they are making it worse.
Remember, healthcare coverage does not equal healthcare.
3b. On gays the only issue was gay marriage. Gays were treated equal under the law except for gay marriage. Democrats could have handled the situation better to make gay marriage legal. Instead they played the victim card and went as far as call marriage a right, it isn't though. Equality under the law is, not marriage though.
4. What was wrong with Reaganomics? We recover from a recession in a few years, under Obamanomics we still haven't recovered.
5. Regulations hinder growth
6. Taxes hinder growth.
7. Both parties voted for the war and supported it
I guess you have a lot to learn about democrats.
1
-
1
-
***** Depression happen all the time. We have had them before the great depression and after. Recovery is key. When we have massive spending, higher taxes and regulations recovery is slow. Look at the Panic of 1837 and 1873 and after Jimmy Carter. We had terrible recessions with quick recoveries. Recovery has been slow under Obama and the democrat congress for his first 2 years.
In other countries people die because of lack of care. So would you rather be dead or bankrupt? In the US we are number 1 in life expectancy when murder and accidents are removed, things not tied to healthcare.
The problem is cost and that is due to the federal government. In the 1940s businesses wanted to give out higher wages to workers due to a growing economy. Doing so met a higher tax on them though. A loop hole was offering benefits such as healthcare insurance. 100% tax free.
Instead of giving workers more money to go out and buy their own healthcare insurance that was more personalized and could compete with other companies driving down cost, people were stuck with a generic plan their business offered. With that insurance companies raised rates, and when someone changed plans later in life they were denied due to pre-existing conditions. You know, insurance companies don't like the risk of getting a new customer who is in their 40s. Thus democrats of higher regulations and taxes cause an increase in healthcare cost.
"No gays can be fired for being gay,and gays don't have equal tax rights either."
Gays have equal tax rights. Plus you don't have special rights at a job. If a business wants to fire you for any reason that should be allowed. I would rather have that so I know who fires people for being gay and avoid their business.
"Why isn't marriage a right?"
Not listed in the constitution. You have a right to pursue happiness, but legally marriage is a state issue. Now under the 14th amendment states can't discriminate thus if they do recognize marriage they should recognize gay marriage. But marriage itself isn't a right, and no on is stopping two gay people from getting married.
"Reaganomics caused a massive increase between the rich and the poor and a stock market crash."
Reagan was dead when the stock market crashed.
"Regulation prevents slave labor, child labor, overproduction and makes sure employees have a minimum wage."
Advancement in the market does that. Child labor laws are pointless in today's established market and there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage.
"Higher tax rates on the rich make sure the poor don't have to fill in the gap."
All that does is create more income inequality
And democrats voted for the wars, you can simply look up the voting results of congress.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
robb, people have to move to different states for several reasons. I had to for graduate school, and so did many of my colleagues. In my lab we have one from in state, four from out of state, and one from another country. My adviser is from another state. It happens.
"I simply don't trust my state (a very liberal state, btw), or any state, to create a system as good as Medicare. "
Medicare is losing money. It is a failing system. I don't trust the federal government to run any domestic system based on their track history consisting of failures.
"There's authority at the federal level that's answerable to a national media"
Really?
"Being in 50 separate boats, of differing sizes, shapes, quality, commitment, etc. seems counter-intuitive"
Already we are 50 different boats. You clearly have not lived in different states or traveled to different states that much. I have and see the differences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Delos, Bernie is a communist because he has no idea how private businesses function and he has no desire to learn. When pressed on his policies he can never defend them with data and facts but just resorts to appeal to emotion talking points. He has shown that he does not care about other people's concerns, including the little guy, but only cares about his policies.
For example, when that hair salon owner asked him during the Cruz vs Sanders debate on how she could afford to pay her employees healthcare insurance all Bernie did was say "sorry, but you have to pay". The lady asked how. Sanders went on a rant about how other businesses can even though he admitted he does not understand the hair salon business. He went on a rant about what if her employees get sick. He went on a rant about competition. He never once tried to understand her financial situation. He never once tried to understand her profit margins, her revenue, how many part time and full time employees she has, etc. He doesn't care. To him all he cares about is forcing a business to do what he feels it right. And if that business can't then they have to shut down, fire all of their employees where they will have to work for the government.
Compare that to Bill Clinton where in 1994 Herman Cain asked a similar question. Clinton was able to answer with data and facts about running a business. He also showed concern. Cain gave his data and while I agreed with Cain in the end I could respect Clinton.
When I watch the two scenes it is clear to me that Bernie fans are idiots. They can't follow numbers or logic. They could not follow Clinton and Cain exchanging numbers and business models. They rather follow "single payer" or "medicare for all". Bernie's healthcare plan has been criticized showing it will cost too much were we can't afford it. Bernie's only response is that we will somehow save money. He never explains how, or what quality of care we receive, but somehow we will save money. Somehow raising my taxes will save money. For me, my healthcare is paid for by my employer. I pay $30 a year in healthcare costs, that's it. How is his plan going to save me money?
Bernie is a communist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lavona Lewis Yes, there will be less fry cooks, and gas clerks, and so on. If the min. wage goes up to high than prices will have to go up in order to keep them on board. That decreases demand for those types of services and thus no jobs. People will avoid shopping someplace if it becomes to expensive, they will seek alternatives.
Other effects will be a business shutting the doors and hour earlier. Several fast food restaurants use to be 24 hours, now they open at 6, and in some cases later, and close as early as 9. That is what happen in my hometown when the min. wage went up, 24 hour restaurants cease to exist. Businesses will require an AA if the min. wage is too high. They will avoid low skill workers.
You advocating for gradually increasing the min. wage is you saying that the value of those workers have gone up, they haven't. Their value has pretty much remain the same. It is an unskilled job and if you raise the min. wage there will be less jobs for those at a disadvantage, typically the poor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2010paultron Who is to say that god didn't play a role? He could have set up the game with rules and evolution is following that. Or who is to say that god has a role at all? People can have faith in a god, an afterlife, a greater meaning and still support the predictions science gives, in this case evolution. Because that is all science does, give predictions, not meanings to life.
You are looking at this in a black and white way. To you it is either you believe that god created man or not. It isn't that way. Religion is about faith, science is about doubt. In the big picture I am not religious at all, I just understand how different it is from science and how it isn't comparable to it. Religion is something you believe in, in science it is used to progress us, we make predictions to develop new technology and medications. It isn't use as a tool of faith. Also, I share an office with graduate students in the physical science who are religious. It isn't that rare to be religious and study science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fangtorn
Tamir Rice, while a tragedy, was waving a toy gun that looked like a real gun at people in an area that had a shooting recently. His age could not be determined. So that is a poor example.
Eric Garner was an obese man. While I felt the cops were too rough he died due to his poor health. The choke hold was not illegal so you need to get that correct. The cops were rough, but they didn't beat him to execute him as you are making it out to be.
I can't comment on Bettie Jones since I don't know the full story. That is how I approach things. I find out the full story before I make a decision. But that sounds like a horrible accident and not cops out trying to kill black people.
On Jerame Reid, do what the cop says.
On Eric Harris, the cop was found guilty of murder.
Walter Scott, the cop is being charged with murder.
Freddie Gray, the cops (half of who were black) did nothing wrong.
Alton Sterling, had a gun, fought with police after being tazed, reached for the gun.
Philando, a tragic accident.
Felix, another accident.
You need to spend more time reading up on these things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Kyrie Irving In 11th grade did you learn about the Panic of 1873 or the Panic of 1837, or the recession of 1920, or other recessions? Most likely not. The reason why is because they were small, recovery was quick.
Under FDR recovery was slow for a reason. It was also the first time, and only time until 2007 that the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending and regulations. FDR was killing off cattle and crops to keep supply slow trying to stimulate the economy. When people needed cheap food he was destroying it.
There were other recessions similar to 1929, the one in 1920 was just as bad, but recovery was quick. FDR's regulations did not prevent future recessions, they still happened. FDR's policies he passed just compounded our problems and the problems we are seeing now are linked to them. They were not a big until now because
1. After the war every other country was rebuilding where we weren't, thus we had a head start on the global economy, which is why the depression ended then
2. It takes a couple generations until too many people become dependent on the federal government to really become a problem
FDR was not a good president. His policies led to a slow recovery, and his policies are causing more problems. The Founding Fathers wanted a federal government with limited powers because they saw a time where future politicians will take advantage of it. FDR went against that and future politicians took advantage of it. FDR's policies have been destructive, not beneficial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pridetoons Reviews
"You say the quality will drop like this wouldn't happen under a privatized Healthcare system; Also you dodged the question of why can't we have both? Also your argument for Universal education is overly simplistic. The problems your stating aren't fully contingent with Universal education but with education itself. Also no not all degrees require more teachers like Programming, IT, or Economics. As for Doctors, Lawyers, Mechanics, and Physicist yes."
We can't have universal healthcare, period. I told you why. At the state level maybe, but not the federal level. Look at K-12 education. We have both public and private. In public schools we lack teachers and funding. Now you want to create that same problem with our healthcare nation wide?
My argument for universal healthcare is not overly simplistic. It is legit. You can't provide something to people if there isn't anyone to provide it.
"That's a problem with online courses not Universal Education. Also some careers don't require you to attend any classes in classrooms."
Several assignments are being done online even if the course is a lecture based course. In physics, for example, they have lectures and in class tests. Their assignments are done through WebAssigns. So no, that isn't limited to online courses.
"What's subjective about having a wage that allows you to not only afford all the necessities, but also have a little bit of money on the side to invest in something else. There's nothing subjective about it."
What are "basic necessities"? And invest in what? If you and I were to break down what a living wage would be I am sure my standard will be far lower than yours. As a whole it is subjective based on one situations. When my girlfriend had a min. wage job she was able to buy a $10,000 car with it. The reason why is because we had dual incomes. Here wage was now a luxury wage.
"First off what evidence suggests that a state-level healthcare system would work. Secondly corruption is from our government going down to state government."
Corruption at the state level is minimal.
"What makes you think there's a finite number of jobs in these fields."
There is a finite number of workers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Forsaken Heretic
"Denmark also has a very small population"
I agree, so right away you can't compare Denmark to the US. I am glad we agree on that. Also, how do you rate happiness? That is a very vague criteria and subjective. What has Denmark done to impact the world? Nothing. I guess if being mediocre is happiness then I don't want that lifestyle. I am happy trying to be the best I can be and make an impact. But of course Bernie Sanders supporters support mediocrity, they don't know how to work.
Yes, France having 10% unemployment is a problem. He wants to bring jobs back. France's high tax and regulations are not working. It is one of the larger countries in Europe. Now imagine it with 300+ million people.
"Are you really saying just because our unemployment rate is lower that
our economic system is better just because you bring up one statistic
from one country doesn't mean Sanders ideas won't work."
I am saying that your comparison of the US to other countries is simplistic and myopic. Every country has different problems. You can't say they are doing well when if you look at them they are dealing with problems. Replacing one set of problems with another is not a solution. But of course I wouldn't expect anything more from a Bernie Sanders supporters considering how they lack basic economic knowledge.
On healthcare.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Listen, I know regressive liberals hate facts. Really facts are like kryptonite to regressive liberals. That book breaks down how the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. Not best healthcare quality, but best system. The reason why healthcare cost so much in the US is because of the federal government getting involved. Polices such as medicare and medicaid and the payroll tax in general do not help.
Three ares in the market that has seen a drastic increase in prices has had a lot of federal government involvement in it. They are healthcare, housing and college. I told you why on healthcare. With housing you had the FHA, with college you have federal student loans. Adding more government is not going to help.
"so there wouldn't be 45,000 Americans dying because they can't afford healthcare anymore. "
There will be people dying because
1. people will die waiting
2. productivity will go down due to rationing
"guess what we already have rationing of care in the US"
Yes, for people who are actually are productive and can afford care. And getting care gets them back to work and being productive in society. You want to keep those people out of work so some bum can get care who doesn't produce.
"Germany is a service economy that relies on low skill jobs"
How do you expect to have healthcare for all and improve the system if you push for low skill jobs?
How is college different? Here are two ways, the NCAA and campuses.
"My point about state rights went right over your head."
No it didn't.
"I was explaining how historically it was just a cop out so that people could prevent progress from happening. "
Yeah, like people misused the first amendment by being instigators at Trump rallies now, or the OWS people. Or how people think the right to pursue happiness means taking from others. People on both sides misuse something as a cop out. Why are you placing me in that crowd? I told you how slavery was banned using the constitution. The same goes with the gay marriage issue and segregation. But of course you ignored that.
"I'm not even going try too explain why we should have corporate tax rates and a minimum wage and how its not unconstitutional."
Point to me where in the constitution it says those things are legal. The federal government has no role in enforcing min. wage laws. You can make a decent argument for corporate taxes but up until 1913 all individual federal taxes were unconstitutional. I bet you didn't know that.
You see, I have standards in what I support. You don't. That is the difference between you and me. You want the federal government to have single payer. I will be 100% honest, I see benefits in it. Here is what I want to prevent. I want to prevent a corrupt politician from getting into federal office and ruining it for the entire country. Do you want a Ted Cruz or Donald Trump controlling your healthcare? No. The idea of state rights is that you have control of the government. And if you don't like it then you can move to another state and remain a US citizen.
The constitution and my approach are a moderate approach. Your approach will be feast or famine, and everything points toward famine. If you can't get that basic concept then honestly I hope Sanders win. Getting slapped in the face may be the best thing for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chris Gryckiewicz In a lot of ways.....yes. Norway has a population of 5 million people, we have 30 states with a larger population than that. You also have to consider different societies. A country like France, as my PhD candidate colleague put it, is a bunch of pussies. He was real critical in how they treated our army in the past (he has a brother in the special forces so he know a lot in that regards). The US society is completely different than those countries.
I try to refrain from comparing the US to other countries. It is hard if not impossible. You are comparing countries with different histories, different ways of life, different economies and so on. It is like saying which business is better, Amazon or McDonalds. They are different all around. Or which college major is better, physics or pharmacy. They are different in a lot of ways.
They US should take pride in being different and push towards the best system that works for us. Part of the problem we have is when we compare ourselves to other countries. To people that envy other countries I suggest moving there, don't be a fascist or force your way down other's throats. Or do what I really suggest, stick to state rights and establish it at your state, not at the federal level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
WizPigTactics
Nope, TYT are comparing different police departments, in different situations, at different times of the day, with the suspect acting in a different manner. TYT takes those situations and boils it down to that cops are murderous racists.
Let us talk about the John Crawford incident. Here was a guy that took a BB gun off of the shelf, the shoppers thought it was a real gun, he was pointing at things with it (unsafe gun practice there), walking around the store with it while holding it, and allegedly failed to drop the gun when asked too. That is different compared to the white guy just standing there with the gun on his shoulder and dropping it when asked. Also, as I said before, different cops, different police departments, different situations. Do I feel the cops are not at fault here? Not 100%, the deserve some blame. But the incidents are different.
This shows how TYT are racist and hate cops. You have to lay out the entire situation and when you do side by side like I did you see that they are not comparable. But to TYT it simply boils down to John Crawford was black and the other guy was white. You can't have a serious discussion when you feel cops are murderous racists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
takeshii, the issue with Crowder and Potholer is that Potholer wanted what he claims to be a debate. However, Potholer wanted all of Crowder's sources and wanted to know what Crowder was planning to say before hand. Upon knowing that Potholer would be able to Google a rebuttal before having the "debate". That is now how debates work. In a debate you do not know what your opponent is going to say ahead of time. In a debate you should know your topic well enough and be prepared to defend your stance so if your opponent says something incorrect you can call them out on it. Potholer does not understand climate change that well. All he knows what to do is use Google.
To extend, Crowder had a scientist on his show and how did Potholer respond? He didn't because when a scientist makes an argument that differs his opinion on climate change, he has nothing to say. That has happened more then once.
I did not agree with what Crowder said in his climate change video, but Potholer is the person in the wrong here in the end. Crowder gives all of his sources for people like Potholer to criticize. However, Potholer presents himself as some sort of genius. In the end he is a journalist selling his audience fool's gold. He saw what Crowder said, Google a rebuttal, and then presented it in a condescending way. And then he came up with this "debate" issue, which again was not a debate at all, trying to make Crowder look like a fool. But to someone with intelligence Potholer is the foolish one.
Again, I did not agree with what Crowder said in climate change, but Potholer was at the very least not any better. Anyone who claims Potholer is have had wool pulled over their eyes by him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ochoaj300
I am not talking about the past months, I used that exact same source back in August to show the exact same thing. He does not show up to roll calls as much as his peers. There was that time near 2014 where he missed quite a bit.
He is an established politician, what else has he done besides be a politician? He sided with democrats on several occasions. He voted for Obamacare when he could have easily said no unless it was universal healthcare.
"I understand that you say that expanding the government would just
expand the corruption, but you're looking at it in the current state,
and not in the possible future state."
The founding fathers saw the future state as well. Their solution was to limit all governments, especially the federal government. If the federal government has no power then it can't be bought.
" Bernie wants to dismantle the Citizens United, which would end the
ability for corporations to funnel money into political campaigns
through SuperPACs."
You can't do that because people have a right to donate their money if they want to.
"Therefore, allowing public funding of campaigns."
Which is allowing government to control funding instead of the people. If you had that Bernie would not receive a dime because the DNC would not give him any.
"There's a reason why he wins in every general election poll against the Republicans. "
But yet can't make it past the primaries.
"He is a man of the people"
Unless you are rich, white and straight.
" and if you would actually take some unbiased time and read about the things he's done, then you would understand that as well."
I am a moderate, and I am very fair at how I analyze things. Bernie is a fool. His policies will make our situation worse, not better. The people who are voting for him are doing so purely based off of emotions and not on any actual logic or reason. Your entire comment was just that. You are saying "he is different' or "he works for the people" and "he will end corruption". You never say how? How will he end corruption, especially after he is gone? It just amazes me how he gets support.
1
-
+Ochoaj300
He sides with big money, he just sides with big money when a bunch of fools are willing to give it up to him.
With Obamacare is shows Bernie is not willing to go all the way. He will have no problem expanding the powers of the federal government but would not dismantle money in politics in the process. Now we have a bigger problem.
" Look at the other democratic socialist countries in the world such as
Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway,
etc, and tell me that they are manipulating their people"
Those are countries of much smaller size and completely different societies. You really can't compare. Norway subsidizes their programs with oil. Canada has been doing fracking for a couple decades now. Denmark has mandatory military. France has double digit unemployment. You can't just simply say that "well those countries do it then so can the US." Not to be a jerk, but when I hear that I compare it to "murica is numba 1". It is an incredibly ignorant approach. Those countries are completely different. Even at that they still have problems. For example the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. So why change?
"On the topic of Citizen's United, don't you think it's unfair that
millionaires and billionaires get to dump as much money as they want
into the candidates they want in order for them to win?"
I don't think so. To me it wouldn't matter who wins at the federal level if they had strict limitations on their powers. You are concerned with them getting money, I am concerned with what they can do when they get into office. Money in politics is nothing more than a symptom of a disease. That disease is a federal government with too much power. Limit the federal government and establish state rights and stronger local government (follow the constitution) and the problem goes away.
"Also what makes you think that he is not being 100% publicly funded? "
He received money from private citizens, no different than any other candidate.
"You can see this because of the states that have closed primaries and
caucuses, meaning that Independents cannot vote for the candidate of
their choice"
Just like publicly funded elections will prevent him from running. Also those are state laws. Maybe if his supporters were more involved in politics they would change their party stance sooner or vote in local elections as well to get state laws to change. What this also shows is a flaw in government. Government created those voting laws, so your solution in solving that is giving it more power?
"What he is saying, is that it is time for the rich people and rich corporations to stop avoiding paying taxes"
The top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes (which used to be unconstitutional) even though they earn 40% of the income.
The fact is that Bernie will make the problems we have worse. If you want to solve our problems then limit the fed., don't allow it to control our healthcare and education along with remaining corrupt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sleepingpetal
Cutting defense spending won't do much. Defense spending makes up less than 4% of our GDP. College education makes up close to 3% of our GDP.
"schools themselves can stop blowing money in the areas such as the athletics department, recreation facilities, unnecessary bureaucracy, marketing"
I agree that we should get rid of bureaucracy, but having the federal government run universities will just add to it, not remove.
Athletic departments have a lot of benefits for students. Several students get jobs to better themselves while studying. They can work as equipment managers, video, athletic training and so on. That gives them hands on experience and develops connections to get a job after college, which is the main point of college.
Recreational areas are important because so many people move away from home to attend college. It is a place for them to workout or have healthy activities.
"Universities have always been competing with the private sectors."
And how is government running education going to solve that?
"And no, the road to getting a Ph.D pays you a starving wage."
I am earning a PhD now and I am fine. Sure you are not paid much, but it is a sacrifice you make to earn more later. It comes back to people are lazy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sleepingpetal Cutting defense will not make a difference. A reason why is because funding college is different then funding K-12 education. There are less expenses and a different structure. Even at that you have to follow the constitution. All defense spending comes from the federal government. Most education spending comes from the state and local level. You can't just cut a federal program to fund a state one.
"Like you said earlier, we cannot consume more than we produce, If the students are having trouble getting into classes and graduate on time, why should we continue to allocate funds to the athletic department and the recreational centers? These are not things that every students use/need. Not every student is going to get their work experience in playing or managing sports, and not all students go to the gym. These are luxuries, and I would imagine most students would trade all of this for free or reduced tuition."
Athletic programs create several jobs and give hands on experience for students. I know several people who have a job because they worked in athletics. Cutting it will remove one important area of college. Also, not every student needs a study area, how about we remove those? I hardly used the quiet study areas in college, I can easily say eliminate them. Not every student uses the tutoring centers on campus, I guess we should remove those as well. Also, to say that students will trade those off for a reduce tuition is not true. In UC Santa Cruz the students voted, by a large margin, to raise tuition to save the athletic department.
"No, the private sector is always competing with the public sector, and the private sector tends to win salary fight. However, people choose to work in the public sector for stability reason (although that sense of stability goes away during the wait for the new state budget). "
And because of stability reasons you have lack of efficiencies. Tenure is a debatable issue. When a professor gets tenure they can just cruise on by the rest of their life.
"Why teach at a University for 70k when you can make 120k in the private sector and retire early? "
I agree. That comes back to the problem of how do you afford it now? Bernie has a plan, but his numbers will be too low. In order to attract workers you have to pay them more increasing the cost of education even more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Owen, Bernie endorsed Clinton, that is how he sold out. Also, in the end he bought a third home. So while "millions and millions" are "sick and tired" of the "rich getting richer" and "working longer hours for lower wages" he goes out there and buys a third home. But, on selling out, many Bernie supporters felt that he sold out.
"There is a thing called investment that the man had saved up his whole life"
Yep, just like the Walton family running Walmart, but Bernie has a problem with that. Same with the Koch bothers. Or really any business owner. Bernie has a problem with business owners and want to tell them how to run their business even though they are the ones who made he investment. It is the hypocrisy of Bernie. Bernie can be well off, he can do what he wants with his money, but others who want to be well off apparently can't.
"Steven Crowder is not a reliable source of information"
Never said he was, but neither is Kyle.
"Also, how does Kyle's idea's 'continue to lose'? "
Bernie lost, democrats lost to republicans, Elizabeth Warren just approved Ben Carson, universal healthcare was voted down with almost 80% of people voting against it, universal background checks on guns in Maine failed and barely passed by 0.45% in NV simply because of Clark County (all other NV counties are not going to enforce the law). People are not voting for the ideas that Kyle is pushing for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GravianS "The point of government has ALWAYS been to keep people with some kind of
power from running roughshod over everyone else, and to organize,
orchestrate and administrate. "
I agree, that was the states' responsibility, that federal government had strict limitations. There was never a federal income tax on citizens until around 1913 for a reason.
"We as a nation do this really stupid thing where we let people with
power and money do whatever they want, then they fuck up the economy and
we all go 'oh hey, maybe that was a bad idea and we need to regulate
this,' do so and then proceed to forget why we did that to begin with."
And you don't think the government can't do that either? With state rights you have more control of the government. Plus, government can use force to control your money, businesses can't.
"You can't just let people do whatever the fuck they want when
their actions effect an entire nation of people. People with more money
and power than sense will always proceed to take really risky and
foolish ventures and throw everyone under the bus."
Yeah, like an overpowering federal government.
1
-
1
-
GravianS I agree we have a dual system, but the responsibilities of the federal government is to deal with foreign affairs and enforce the constitution on the states. The states were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the fed.
Take gay marriage. Marriage is completely a state issue. States determine if they are going to recognize marriage or not. If they don't then great, if they do then they can't discriminate than via the 14th amendment it can't discriminate.
"Economic policy is a one size fits all situation."
That is completely false. Every state is ran differently and have different cost of living and different sources of income. So yes, we can have one half of the country doing want they want. A big reason why we are having problems is due to the federal government having a one size fits all policy. That federal government can't successfully micromanage the economy.
Capitalism
": a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to
make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.)
are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the
government"
The bail outs is not capitalism. That meant the government owned that money and used it to bail out the companies. The bail outs were not capitalism in practice. As I said, your definition seems to not follow what is written in every economic textbook.
"They basically whipped everyone up into this celebration of wealth and
convinced everyone that it's OK to let people do whatever they want with
their money, including corrupting government, and we haven't recovered
from it since. "
In a capitalistic society the government has no power and thus corrupting them is pointless in that they can't do anything. Buying out politicians to change the economy is not capitalism. As I said, you need to learn the definition of capitalism. The fact you blame Reagan shows how myopic you are.
"The so called 'conservative' right in this country doesn't know how to do anything but manipulate and lie to people it seems."
The same can easily be said about the left. The left "promises" free stuff to people to buy votes all the while they are giving themselves raises and at least 5 of the top 10 riches counties are around the DC area. The left say a lot of lies and manipulations, really a lot more than the right.
Bernie's ideas simply won't work. They will compound our problems and will give more power to the fed. so that future politicians can be bought out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Of course it can, if everything you say is a lie, you can definitely
swing the vote heavily. Hell before Obamacare came into existence,
Republicans used to claim it had death panels and so much propaganda,
people believed it even though it was a complete lie. Not until
after Obamacare actually came out, people realized it was a lie. Great
videos on it too. "
From 70% supporting it to 80% being against it is a big swing. Voters are not that unsure. Maybe those who strongly support single payer should advertise their side of it. Or maybe it is a fact that people do not want single payer.
"No I have a girlfriend from Ca* and Yes I came from California, I
finished my degree there and then went to Medical school in Missouri.
You realize for medical school, you go where ever you get accepted
correct? That's why I have a girlfriend in California(called long
distance). I was born and raised in California all my life until Med
school.
"
I moved 2000 miles for grad school. Grad school, though, is different in that I can move for a specific research program. Med school is med school. You can finish med school anywhere and still earn a lot as they are very similar. I find it suspicious that you moved that far for med school as opposed to finishing med school and than moving.
"Of course I am, you never asked where I was from originally, never asked
if I was dating anyone, nor asked anything else but what school I came
from."
You never brought up the story of your girlfriend in the past either. You seem to enjoy making things up along the way.
"It's called false-advertisement and that is illegal for pretty much all products, except bills I guess? "
They are not advertising anything, they are presenting their side of an issue on a bill. Learn the law.
"They should, that is my point, they should be able to prosecute false
statements, because that is false- advertisement. I realize the people
usually doing it are in the house and senate, but still that should not
be tolerated."
What do you define to be false? Freedom of speech is to prevent the government from persecuting people for saying things that the government does not agree with. So a group opposes the government's healthcare bill and makes claims against it? Is that grounds for being arrested? How do you make sure the government is not the one that is lying? That is why there is freedom of speech. These bills are all online for people to read. Maybe your girlfriend should read the bill before voting.
1
-
"Yes it can because if you are fed all lies, then why wouldn't that occur? "
Not that large of a swing. If so than the reality is that people are unsure about the issue.
"No you can't, you can only go to where you are accepted. Med school has
the lowest admission rate, they accept 150 people out of thousands of
applications. By far the most difficult thing in the Country is to get
into medical school, not even close to grad school."
So the only school you were accepted to is 2000 miles away? I guess is shows you are going to be a bad doctor. CA has many medical schools to choose from.
"My medical school is in Missouri, I got accepted there...I finished
undergrad in California and applied to med schools all over the country,
like most students, they are forced to leave their state due to the
competitive nature of med school. Again you have a knack for this, if
you don't know anything about the application process, how difficult it
is(just by analyzing statistics) to get into a med school, why comment
on it?
"
Funny, in my home state many people go to med school either in the state they are from or to a neighboring state. I know how the application process works. I know how hard it is to get into med school. The fact that you had to move so far away shows you lack a lot of ability and maybe only received a couple of offers out of many rejections.
http://umhc-medweb.umh.edu/admissions/statistics.html
81 of the 104 students admitted in Mizzou is from MIssouri. That is close to 80%.
"Why would I bring up my gf before? Why would I ever bring up my gf to you ever? I mean I never said I was single? "
To strengthen your argument. At this point you are making things up.
"Their side of the issue? What are you talking about, they argued that
Obamacare had death panels. That was a complete lie, that isn't their
side of the issue. Learn simple comprehension skills"
I was talking about Coloradocare, not Obamacare. Even at that saying there are death panels is not illegal as others pointed to the bill and showed how it was not true. You are really digging the bottom of the barrel here. That was easily debunked. But apparently the criticisms of Coloradocare was not easy to debunk.
"Anything that is not in the bill and is false, such as death panels."
That is vague. One, people have free speech. If it is a flat out lie than all you have to do is point to the bill and show the people how it is a lie. But on death panels that can be considered to be true if looked at in a broad way. There was a part in the law that for the elderly counseling would be given to them to prepare for deaths. How far will that go? Will it go to that is all the elderly get and not other form of care? On the surface that part of the law is not death panels, but can it develop in one? At that point it is no longer a lie.
Compare this to free speech. You want to make it so people who lie are silenced by the government. Well, how far are you willing to take that? What is a lie? How clear does it have to be? I know you are a big government quasi-fascist individual that wants to use government to enforce what you feel is right onto others and enjoy it until others do it to you. But freedom of speech is important. I rather have the majority saying ignorant things and flat out lies than have the government silence who they way for vague reasoning. If your side is so strong, and 70% really supported single payer, and things said about Coloradocare were a flat out lie, than it should not be hard to point those things out. As I said, maybe your girlfriend should read bills.
1
-
1
-
"Well then I must say, you are an idiot in my opinion. You rather
propaganda be false, politicians(people who are suppose to represent
you) mislead and lie to everyone than have regulations on them? (Time to
flip the last point) I know you are a massive Anti-government
anarchists but that should not be how it occurs. Also I never said vague
reasoning, you are again stretching my point, I said you cannot lie
about the bill. You must state what is on it and no propaganda can be
placed false against it. "
Jonathan, I can tell from this part of the comment alone you are not worth my time. Never mind the lies, backpedaling, and misinformation you give, the fact is freedom of speech is important. I do not want government regulating it. If a politician lies than a rival can show what. It is up to the people to find that out. Now you did show that your girlfriend is an idiot and can't read a bill so it is of no surprise that you support regulating free speech as you and your girlfriend can't find out information on your own (you have also shown that with you not giving me any references or reading what I give you). But I rather have people spreading lies than giving the government any power to regulate speech. At the same time you are also going to be such a poor doctor (if you are even going to become one) that you support government run healthcare since you will need to rely on the government to give you a job.
Nothing I say suggests that I am anti-government. I support government action. I work for the government. I work as a TA at the university which is a government job (I have to pass the FERPA test). I work for the school district as a substitute. I am also a high school sports official where my income is received from the government in the end. I support standards though as set by the Constitution. I have said in other comments I see the benefits of government reform on many programs, including healthcare, as long as it is done at the state and local level. But as a whole, seeing how you are reacting it makes sense why you support more government. You can't think for yourself and neither can your girlfriend. I can and do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jason King Wealth does not equal income. You need to learn that quickly.
" Wal-Mart can grow to a bigger size, which can increase wealth. "
Walmart is growing which creates more jobs and more convenience for shoppers.
"Also, cheap goods does not necessarily help a consumer. If you buy a
microwave for $200 and it lasts for 10 years, compared to a $40
microwave that lasts 1 year. Cheap goods can actually lead to lower
quality of items, thus making people spend more money over a longer
time."
You push for cheap goods that last longer. Walmart does that. Walmart will sell that microwave that lasts for 10 year for $150 where other businesses will sell it for $200. Walmart doesn't sell any different products that other businesses sell beside Great Value, which is food, which all food has short shelf lives.
"Nice twisting the meaning of a sentence. That is a sign of a troll. You
obviously knew that sentence meant that Wal-Mart can afford to pay their
workers well, rather than paying them, period."
I don't troll. I know there are some people that compare Walmart to slave drivers. Just making sure you are not one of them.
Walmart pays competitive wages compared to other retail employers. I hear constant rant on Walmart when I never hear rants on Raley's or Hy Vee or Safeway or other smaller companies. They pay comparable wages, while having higher prices, less selection, limited hours and locations. But no complaints on them, but some how Walmart can afford higher wages because they are Walmart, nothing else.
".Investors of Wal-Mart should be happy with the fact the company is already worth as much as it is."
Investors bought shares, thus they want Walmart to grow. If not they wouldn't have invested in it. So are you saying they should invest in stocks and be happy with how much they are worth?
" even though it is fully within Wal-Mart's power to be able to pay the workers decently. "
What is "decently"? That is a subjective word you just used. They are paid competitive wages for retail.
"Wal-Mart is rich because it gives low prices for cheap goods that last a short time"
They sell refund plans that last 2 years, and every appliance I bought at Walmart were sold at other stores and last a long time. Plus, as I said, they sell cheap food as well that people buy with the intent of eating quickly.
"and pays its employees as little as possible"
They pay competitive wages, that average above the min. wage.
"Then they pay off politicians"
That is a separate issue, but even with what they give it still is small compared to what all the employees earn.
"The pure fact is that Wal-Mart is a sleezy business."
According to you based off of nothing.
". If they have to rely on investors, rather than the products, to be
able to be everywhere and have low prices, they shouldn't be as large as
they are. Let them die so businesses can take their place and provide a
decent product and pay workers decently."
There are other retail businesses, they pay similar wages as well but have higher prices.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
divinuminfernum, this is where I disagree with you
"the is is where the right falls over, in that they lack facts and
reasoning and just rather have a locked down immutable view of the way
the world should be and no amount of facts will disabuse them of their
toxic destructive, selfish ideas "
The reality is that it is the other way around. This is why republicans have been winning lately has liberal policies, on the large scale, do not work. Take any domestic policy from the left, especially economically, and when you break it down the ideas on the left do not work. Even on many social issues they are wrong and have to make things up. For example, on gay marriage, they talk about "gay rights" when marriage is not a right. But they keep talking about gay rights as if gay people lack rights. Same with women rights.
"whether it be a religious fundamentalism, or some pathological hatred of
having to care for the sick and needy in society, and or racism and
xenophobia which run rampant through the right wing imagination"
How do you define caring for the sick and needy? And why should we be forced to do it? Many on the left want healthcare for all but are not going to study to be doctors, or nurses, or teach future doctors and nurses. They just want to spend other people's money. And then you bring up race, ever heard of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that exist on the left?
"also it is telling that the rights loudest voices are generally
psychopaths, lacking any empathy that makes them have an actual innate
sense of obligation to think selflessly about the world"
What makes you think they lack empathy? Because they don't want the government taking money from them to give it to someone who doesn't deserve it? If someone is a drug addict and messed up their own life, why do they deserve tax dollars? The left's only answer is "because they are a human being" which is pure emotion and not based off of facts.
"because such people cannot ever understand why others want to help their
fellow man without some immediate personal gain being derived from it"
What makes you think they don't want to help people out?
But again, pick any economic policy and I will show you how the left just goes off of emotions and not facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"His policies poll very well actually."
The polls have been wrong lately. Plus, 80% of voters voted against Coloradocare. People do not want the policies he is pushing for.
". For example naming of acts or policies. They don't say "anti-union" or
"wage slave states". They call it "right to work states". "
They are right to work states. They are not anti-unions are they are not making unions illegal. And slaves were forced to work. Stop using the term "wage slave". But Bernie is guilty of his appeal to emotion phrases as well. "Living wage", "fair share", "decent wage", etc. They are broad. When he says "fair share" why doesn't he say "a higher rate"? Also, he says they we have to "ask" the rich to pay their "fair share". We simply has to "ask", as if it is a request while we hold a gun to their head. But when he talks about student loans he says that are "forced" to pay them. Students, on their own free will took out those loans. You have to pay back loans. No one is forcing those students to do that, but according to Bernie someone is. He makes them look like they are a victim. But for the rich we simply have to "ask" them to pay, and if they refuse we still hold a gun to their head and force them, but he won't mention that last part.
"Again you are missing why people voted for Trump. They didn't vote for
Trump because he was opposite of Bernie. They voted for Trump because he
wasn't establishment. "
i can agree with that, and Bernie is the establishment. Also, what about all the other republicans?
"FDR didn't create a depression. Hoover was president when the Great
Depression started in 1929. FDR was elected in 1932, 3 years after the
start of the Great Depession. FDR was great. Oh, and FDR was great."
The recession started in 1929. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. In 1921 Hoover was asked to "fix" the economy during a recession. A year later he came up with a plan but the economy was recovering so the federal government did nothing. During the recession of 1929 Hoover tried to "fix" the economy with a stimulus deal and that prolonged recovery. He lost to FDR and FDR expanded Hoover's programs which led to a slow recovery until the War almost a decade later. FDR turned a recession into a depression.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, healthcare should be affordable for everyone. Now how do you do it? We lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, researcher, etc. Also, there is a strong argument in how insurance should only cover serious, expensive, unplanned situations. Car insurance does not cover oil changes, so why should healthcare insurance cover routine check ups?
Now I know why that happens, and it deals with the payroll tax and the reason why employers pay with healthcare insurance. But for Ana to just dismiss the argument shows a high level of ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Now though, if one of your paid checkups returns with a need for a
CTscan to 'check' for something that may or may not be a problem.. is
this covered? or at your own expense?
"
That can depend on the plan you buy. At that point you are getting into the area of what type of healthcare plans do you want to buy. Can you afford catastrophic care only or can you afford anything extra. Maybe your plan will lower your rate if you get routine checkups. Maybe your plan will pay for a CT scan every other year. You are getting into the area of what the consumer wants to buy themselves. But in the end people should have that option.
"I'm happy knowing, if anything happens to me anywhere in this country. I
will be picked up and transported by ambulance to a hospital and
treated for whatever i need for $0 out of pocket. I pay, as we all do,
2% income tax to fund public health, and I'm covered literally for
anything, anywhere. GP's are free, basic medicines are heavily
subsidised."
I am happy knowing that the US leads the world in research and innovation in healthcare and technology and we can treat rare cases like what was mentioned in this video. I am happy knowing I am not at the mercy of the government like Charlie Gard was. I am happy knowing that I don't have to wait on a waiting list to receive care.
Every system has flaws. To feel that the system you live in does not have flaws is ignorance. I don't say that to be rude, I say that because people need to understand that. There is no such thing as an ideal system. I feel they system I want is better as it leads to lower prices, better quality, and freedom for the consumers giving them the power as opposed to giving power to the government and/or insurance companies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Optimus Fine
1. Cater to big companies that have political connections, how about that for negotiation? Also, if providers ended up lowering prices because the one buyer they have, the government in this case, refuses to pay more, then they will just offer a lower quality good or service.
2. You just shift the cost to another area.
3. We will have limited physicians as doctors do not want to go to school for around 10 years to only be told how much they will have to earn by the government.
4. We already have a massive amount of jobs for doctors, nurses, etc. People just are not qualified to work them.
5. The money is not available. Even Bernie Sanders himself has not come up with a plan to pay for his care. He just says it will save us money without explaining how.
6. What is moral? Is holding a gun to my head forcing me to pay for someone's care moral? Is forcing doctors to provide their services to people at a lower salary moral? Also, 45,000 people is 0.01% of the population. 35,000 people die in traffic accidents every year, should we ban driving to save those 35,000? Over 10% of the adult population does not have a high school diploma. You can't just throw numbers out there and expect them to mean anything without a comparison. How many people die or end up worse off because of wait times or low quality of care in other systems? You are blindly following a number which means nothing unless you break it down. Just like the 35,000 that die every year in traffic accidents. What is more efficient? Banning driving or allowing it despite people dying?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So because they do not have a business model that's competing well
enough, they should be allowed to screw over their employees. "
People do not have to work for that company. If you are an employer you have to pay well enough to attract better workers and limit turnover. But there comes a point you simply can't afford higher wages. If you as a worker can't negotiate for a higher wage then that is on you.
Compare it to rent and buying a home. You can get a very cheap place but it will be of low quality in a bad neighborhood. Get roommates and it becomes cheaper. But again, bad quality and bad neighborhood. It might end up costing you even more money. If you pay more you get a better place in a better neighborhood. You may even live on your own. Pay more and you can own a place. Pay even more and you can live on the hills in a mansion. But at that point it might not be necessary and may cause more problems as you have a larger place to clean and take care of and occupy.
Now compared to labor. You pay a low wage you get low quality workers. They may be so bad that they steal from your company costing you more. You might have high turnover (similar to roommates how they can leave). Pay more you get better workers. But as with rent you might have some turnover. Pay more you get even better workers with low turnover, like buying a home. If you pay a lot you may get people with masters and PhDs. But at that point it might not be worth it, like buying a mansion.
As in getting a place to live your income will determine where you live. Same with labor. If a business can't afford higher wages or refuses to pay higher wages they won't get high quality of workers.
" Correct. They can fire you for not doing the extra they ask for on top
of what you agreed to do in your contract. In some states, they need no
reason what so ever to fire you. In others, your lack of "willingness"
to sacrifice for them can be used as reason to find reason to fire you.
So force you, no. Get rid of you, yes. "
This is where there are advantages to unions or a government coming in and making sure that contracts are followed by both parties. That is much better then a min. wage. A min. wage prices people out of the market. Without a min. wage both parties agree to terms in a contract that the government makes sure is followed. Or without government unions set up the contracts and makes sure it is followed. That is much better then a min. wage as with a higher min. wage a company can just decide not to hire you at all. With no min. wage you can get your foot in the door.
" As far as the healthcare industry being compensated well for all of the
challenge and hours... I thought it was because they are "worth more".
Which is it? "
Both. People at the top of their fields work hard and thus earn a lot. They are worth a lot because few are willing to put in that time and effort. Look, you have people complaining about a low min. wage and want a higher one to get a raise. Meanwhile you have doctors who actually work many hours a week. You see the difference? In the end there are many factors that determine your wage. Hard work is one, skill is another, and there are more.
" Beyond that, even if a job is not particularly hard at times or at all,
that does not change the fact that when someone is working for you the
amount of time to be considered full time work, that their compensation
should at minimum be enough for them to live off of without obligatory
debt. "
Why? What if I started my own business of digging holes in the desert? Should I be compensated for it? Or what if I worked at a restaurant and worked harder hours, such as during peak hours (as in weekends) or in hours very few want to work (as in early mornings). Should I be paid the same as someone who decides to work hours that are during times that are not as busy? Just because someone works does not mean they deserve a set amount of compensation.
"These arguments about small business suffering due to meeting that
minimum requirement tells me one single thing: Their business model is
not good enough to compete."
People who beg the government for a higher wage through the min. wage tells me one things, they are too lazy to compete in the competitive market. That aside, if a business is doing poorly then they will go under. So why force it? If a business hires employees and pays them a low wage and they are fine with it, why force that business to pay more?
" Yet some how... the argument always rolls over to the idea that it can
only compete if they are able to basically pay as little as they need to
to survive. That... /is/ the market place. Their survival is based
entirely on how they are able to perform"
People still work for them. In the market if they are a poor business then people will not work for them. You want to force them to shut down while forcing low skilled workers to be unemployed. That is not a solution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"why is driving a privilege but owning a gun is a right? "
Because owning a gun is a killing machine that can be used to fight against a tyrannical government. You are talking about this situation
" Look at every regime that resorted to killing it's own citizens as a
means of repression. Tsarist Russia, Britain, Revolutionary
France, various regimes in Africa and South America,
and even China. Rarely are the regimes able to continue repressing their
people after resorting to slayings. The regime always caves to pressure
and makes concessions sooner or later. In this situation it is better
for the health of society to have controls on civilian firearm ownership
so as to prevent the facilitatation of crime.
It's not like people in other countries don't own guns or that gun
control means they are totally banned anyway."
But the key thing is that you are saying they don't have the rights to begin with. We do. We have a standard that ends up leading to civil ways to discuss laws and how the are created. With gun ownership the standard is there to give citizens the ability to control government, and any discussion of gun control only happens because of the 2nd amendment. It has prevented the government from disarming the citizens.
"Driving allows for greater freedom than not, and driving would also be valuable in a revolution. "
Not really. Government controls the roads. Also you do have freedom to move all over the country no matter what means that may be. So you have freedom to travel which is covered in the constitution as well.
"If gun ownership is a right, why shouldn't we have the right to own anything we want?"
For the most part you. Gun ownership set a hard line because it is a tool to fight with. Owning a car isn't, same with a house. But you have the right to pursue happiness like owning a car and home.
"If the reason the state can regulate cars is in the name of safety, then why should they not do the same for guns?"
In the public sector they do such as having a CCW or not having a loaded gun in your car (like in CA). You can own the gun, but in public there are restrictions. Much like DUI checkpoints don't violate the 4th amendment. You can own a car without registering it and you can drive it without having a license, as long as you stay on private property. Just like my gun is concealed in my home.
"Do you understand now why making gun ownership a guaranteed right not make perfect sense?"
You don't fully understand the constitution. Gun ownership was the hard line set in the constitution. If contested it will lead to a civil debate as opposed to the government just marching into your harm and taking your guns away like the British did. On car ownership that falls under state rights and the right to pursue happiness. You are given the right to own a gun, but you are not given a gun. Just like have the right to pursue happiness, but you are not guaranteed it. If a state were to ban driving that is their right as a state, but their economy will suffer as people are free to move.
1
-
1
-
1
-
" It would be great if we could have things like more robust welfare,
universal healthcare (including mental health), free college (or at
least more subsidies and forgiveness of student
loans), more infrastructure spending, paid family leave, and policies to
promote higher wages, but Republican politicians are opposed to all of
those things as well. "
It is more of the fact that they are unconstitutional. Also, I assume you are a person who feels that money in politics is a problem and politicians are corrupt, do you want to give those same federal politicians that kind of power to run all of those services?
"For example, they always love to say "we have a mental health problem"
and then turn around and try to repeal the largest healthcare reform the
country has seen in decades."
Obamacare made healthcare worse. Just because the government provides something doesn't mean it is the best we can have.
"Weak government is exactly what the corporations that buy our government want! "
Nope. If the federal government has no power than it can't be bought. A limited federal government means that corporations can give as much money as they want to federal politicians but nothing will happen as the powers are limited.
"How can you be so blind!? Why do you think all that the Corporatist
politicians want to do is de-regulate business and defund
regulatory agencies?"
They have the power to regulate to begin with. Democrats make "regulations" that favor certain companies.
"When the government is weak, no one is there to stop corporate entities from doing whatever they want"
And the federal government has no power, so there is no need to buy it.
"Local and state governments are even easier to buy than the Federal Government "
Not true. If you are involved in your community you can see first hand how government is working for you and control it. Also you can move and remain a US citizen if it continues to fail.
"The only way to end corruption is to cut it out like the cancer it is. "
The cancer is the federal government have growing power. The symptom is money in politics. Money in politics is just a symptom, you need to kill the disease. If you allowed the federal government to run healthcare you have just given it the power to pick and choose which provider we have to get our care from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Patternicity
"His small payroll tax raise will fund the healthcare plan which will in turn save people money"
How would it save people money? Also you do know that with a payroll taxes businesses can't afford to give out higher wages.
"People will have more disposable income which will grow the economy. "
What grows the economy is producing, not spending.
"He has also said he wants to tax wall st speculation in order to pay for tuition-free college. ""
To pay for 2/3 of college. The states will pick up the rest of the tab, and that is if they want to. Also, how is he going to solve the problem of us lacking professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, facilities, staff and so on?
"improving the education of the workforce and reducing consumer debt thereby increasing spending and growing the economy?"
Again, producing grows the economy, not spending. Also you want a workforce with more skills, not necessarily more education.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I didn't see you comment, but here it goes.
"Rather, these voter ID laws make it practically impossible to vote in specifically targeted communities."
Not true.
". Often the places where IDs are administered have arbitrary dates and times in which they are open,"
Again, not true.
"Furthermore, these laws don't just prevent targeted communities from voting, they prevent nearly everyone
from voting. And, I seriously doubt that most people in states that
require voter IDs even know that their states require such an ID,"
Again, not true. I first voted in a state that required ID. I now live in a state where I don't. When I voted this last time I walked up with my ID out. All they did was ask my name. They didn't even look.
My ID is required for so much, there is no reason not to have it for voting. I need an ID to get on an plane, to pick up my test results at the clinic, to buy alcohol, and many want background checks on guns which goes even farther than an ID. It is not hard to get one and not hard to show it while voting. Heck, even the places where you show it they don't look at it that closely. The gas station attendant down the street looks at my ID closer to see if it is fake. People can just make fake IDs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr Actually I was saying the benefits of a flat tax which another person pointed out as well. I have also showed support of state rights and have mentioned how a progressive tax has benefits at the local level. I said that in other comments. You failed to read them and acknowledge them.
You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually get into detail on something when you just look at one thing and make a general determination on it. Let us use the example of the min. wage. You are "Y" and I am "W" in the typical conversation between you and me.
W: There isn't one good reason to even have a min. wage. It kills jobs and raise prices
Y: You moron, look at the states that raised the min. wage, they have seen job growth (cites some questionable source)
W: There are a lot of factors that are involved in overall employment. A small increase in the min. wage gets lost in the complex economy we have. It gets lost in what is called the statistical noise. You learn in advance stats, a grad. level course for MBA students, on how to remove variables to see what happens. When you do you see an increase in youth unemployment when the min. wage goes up. Prices go up as well. That older worker earning $15/hr is not going to lose their job, it is the worker with no prior experience or skill.
Y: I doubt you ever been to college. You are some child who knows nothing. Look at all the job growth. Citation needed.
W: (gives citations some from universities). As I said, you are looking at overall job growth. My state has a min. wage higher than the federal. Due to low taxes and regulations we just got a businesses that open up that pays $26/hr starting. If the min. wage was $30/hr in my state they wouldn't come, but at $8.50/hr that means nothing for that employer, what matters is lower taxes and regulation. Again, overall unemployment is effected by several variables in a complex economy. When you remove those variables you see what economics predicts, less employment for unskilled workers.
Y: Says something immature.
W: Ignores Y because W has to work and has better things to do than deal with a fool.
That is typically how our discussions go. I break something down and get into detail where you don't and resort to name calling and being the grammar nazi. Even with this flat tax discussion you disregard me right away and then cite some questionable source with numbers that don't mean anything unless put in some sort of perspective. So the highest tax rate dropped a lot? Big deal. As I said, look at government revenue as percent of GDP, you get a different number. Or what were the cuts then during those high rates? You have to dig deeper. This is why I am in the position I am in with grad. school and you aren't. I actually think, you just spew talking points that you heard on some left wing talking show. You are no different then Alex Jones fans spewing hatred towards the government.
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr I actually didn't destroy my own argument but instead strengthen my position I support.
Ben Carson is talking about a federal flat tax. I support state rights and at the federal level you have to be broad, thus you need a flat tax of some sort either as a flat income tax or a tax on the states. You just jumped to conclusion and say asinine things like you always do.
It isn't so much that your source is questionable but more of what do those numbers mean? You can't throw around numbers without putting them in context. Let us give a couple of examples, I told you about the min. wage and overall jobs. My state has a min. wage higher than the federal but we have job growth due to lower taxes and regulations. That new business coming into my home city pays $26/hr starting. That $8.50/hr min. wage means nothing to them, taxes and regulations do. Another example moving away from economics is that in MLB in 1996 there were more home runs hit then in 1995 and 1994. At the same time those two years were shorten seasons. It wasn't that players were hitting more homeruns, there were just less games.
You cite tax rates, so what? What about tax breaks? Right now the top 10% pay 70% of federal taxes. The top 1% pay 24%. You mention higher corporate taxes, in the 50s global trade was nothing compared to now. You complain about rich people moving their money off shores. The rich has the ability to do that due to resources. Higher tax rates get them do that. You never put any of that into context. You just say "look at these tax rates" and that is it. I, being the more intelligent person says "ok, and......" looking for you to bring up a point but you don't and just avoid the issue.
Also, on higher tax rates, if I were to ask if you want 30% of a pie or 15% of another pie you should ask what is the size of each pie. Because if that 2nd pie is 4 times bigger than the first then you would be wise to pick the 15%. You see, you have put things into context. If you don't then you are no better than those individuals who lobbied to say smoking was good, or that worms fell from the sky.
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr It does strengthen my position because at the federal level a flat tax is the only way to go. With a country as large and diverse us the US the federal government is not in the position to micromanage tax policies, that is up to the states. At the state level if a progressive tax is put in place and it works then fine, if it doesn't and people with money leave then fine, at least they will be in the country still. You mentioned earlier how people who are rich are moving money off shores. That is what happens when you have an unjust federal tax system. You either have people who are intelligent like me who have jobs that get a 1099 and thus pay little to no taxes, or they move their money off shores because they have the resources to do so. In both cases the rich, who you despise, take advantage of the system.
That is why a flat federal income tax is the best which was my original argument. Your original argument was that it won't work and you double down on that those with money move it off shores, well there is a reason why, the federal tax system is not equal and motivates those with money to move it to pay lower taxes.
Now on to my numbers vs yours. You mentioned now tax rates were lowered. That is true but it doesn't account for breaks the receive or percent they actually paid. My numbers are put into perspective that the rich do pay a majority of the taxes, even you new questionable source (more on that later) says that. So my numbers had context, your numbers had nothing. Yes percent drop but what else? The tax code is very complex, just looking at percentages doesn't matter unless you relate them to something. I related my numbers to something you didn't.
Now onto your source. It is from whitehouse.gov. Right now the Obama adminstration is in control. Imagine what it will say if Romney was in charged? I imagine you would stay far away from that source. Right now that source has a liberal bias. It also shows that the rich pay most of the taxes and it mentioned the Buffet Rule when Warren Buffet took advantage of the tax breaks making him a hypocrite. In all your source is not at all reliable. Unless you source it when a republican is in office you doing an extreme form of cherry picking.
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr You are starting to fall apart. When you have nothing intelligent to say you just mock me. I told you my stance and what I say supports it. And when I do that you try the best you can to break me down but in the process you look more foolish.
You mention a liberal bias source. I never doubted if what they said were true or not, what I am saying is that it doesn't tell the whole story. Smoking cigarettes causes weight loss, I don't think people would be saying smoking is healthy though.
Me being a moderate I despise liberals more than conservatives for 2 reasons. One, they are extremely broad in what they say and support. The refuse to go into details about about anything because the second they do their argument falls apart. My other issue is that they want to force their way of living down others throats (more so than conservatives). You want a progressive tax. I told you that might not work in some areas. So set it up in your state and set a flat tax at the federal level. Don't ruin other people's lives just because of your pure ignorance of ego. Have you ever thought for yourself for once or do you just go with what other liberals say? I use to be extremely liberal, I also use to be conservative. I have since then grown up and thought for myself. Looking at other sources isn't bad. Your source you provided brought some good insight, but at the same time it is bias and can't be taken off of face value.
This is why, as I keep saying, I actually know what I am talking about, I actually think. You just continue to act like a fool. You would be the type of person who wouldn't watch a Peter Schiff or Milton Friedman video because you wrote them off already. I will watch them with the mindset that they are bias (especially Schiff) but still watch them. That is the difference between you and me, I actually think, you just follow blindly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your Dada The Waltons are not being subsidized. The thing is that the Waltons invested in their company to grow it and as a result they made a profit. That is how life goes and it is great. Everyone striving for their individual goal leads to success.
Walmart is successful in that they offer a plethora of cheap products at a one stop 24 hour shop. The drawback is that they can't afford to pay workers more. Walmart would love to have an employee like me in that I have a lot of work experience and a strong skill set, but I would demand a wage they simply couldn't afford. Same goes for that they can't hire doctors, engineers, or other highly skilled workers to do remedial tasks, they can't afford to pay a higher wage. The people they hire are paid the wage they are because they either have low skills and work experience, work flexible hours, or simply just want a job for busy work (as in my uncle who has a PhD and a retired economic professor who works for little at H&R block). In all they can't sell their labor for more and don't get paid that much. It is the balance of businesses have to pay well or they lose good workers. But if they pay too much then they lose money and go out of business. A worker wants a lot of money but if they ask for too much then they won't get hired.
Let us assume you make $30/hr. If you go to your employer and demand $50/hr you wouldn't get it since you don't have any leverage to get that.
A business owner takes in profits to invest in their business and grow. If you look at one thing that businesses invested in it would be technology. The job of the low skilled worker has gotten easier. Look at cash registers alone. If you look at unit labor cost of the restaurant industry, which is the hourly compensation over productivity, you see it is rising meaning the price of labor is outpacing productivity. Also, look at how people in poverty own TVs now, cars, the price of the pocket calculator went from around $300 to almost free. That is how people are getting rewarded, competition means business invest to bring better products at an affordable price. If you lower profits that takes away investments and growth and progress. Say bye-bye to more energy efficient cars and dishwashers.
Another flaw in what you said is that you assume that money is finite. It isn't. The productivity of the highly skilled has increased due to their investment in technology and growth making them worth more and thus they are paid more. The unskilled worker's productivity has stagnated thus they are not paid more. That isn't all bad because like I said that investment creates jobs and better products at an affordable price.
Those walmart workers are expendable and low skilled, they are not entitled to anything. With what you are saying I feel you should take less pay since your employer didn't have to hire you, that is unless you possess a high skill and can sell yourself for a lot.
I am not a walmart apologist, I just want a strong economy.
1
-
Catherine Todd I worked in small business for years. I have many friends and family members who worked in small business. My two siblings have their MBAs, my uncle is a retired economics professor. There is a lot of business experience in my life from my friends and family. I choose to take the science and math route to work in getting into pharmacy school (to where I will have the skill set to sell my labor for $50/hr). Point being is that I do know how economics and business work.
Walmart cannot afford higher wages, it isn't about them being rich (where does it show that they are rich?) but that their business model doesn't allow them to pay more. If they do they will go bankrupt or not expand due to less money to invest. Also, who cares how much the Waltons make? They are the ones running the business, putting in all the financial risks, working 24/7 in dealing with new laws, potential lawsuits, new taxes, etc. The worker comes in, clocks in, works and then leaves. Yes they do work for the company but one they are expendable in that they are a low skill worker, and two Walmart didn't have to give them a job. If you ran a business you would be putting in all the work so you should see the reward. Competition would force you to pay higher wages.
Walmart a few years back supported a min. wage increase. When it was $5.15/hr they paid their workers nearly double that. A min. wage increase to $7.25/hr wasn't going to hurt them but instead hurt their competitors that can't afford a higher wage. That is why Costco supports a $11/hr min. wage, they start out paying $11.50/hr (due to their business model) so it will hurt their competitors.
If you really do run a business and pay your workers well then great. I see your support of higher wages as your way of eliminating competition. It means that this new law will benefit you at the expense of others. Here is something I have to ask? How come you don't hire more? Why are you complaining about Walmart's wages when companies that pay more (you by what you are claiming) when other businesses are not hiring more? Why don't you hire more. It will make your workers happier if they have to do less work. It is a very simple question that really no one has ever answered. So many attacks on these low paying companies but none on ones that don't hire more. Like Reich said in this video, GM use to have the most employees. Where have all the manufacturing jobs gone that pay well? In retail, due to the business model the business can't afford to pay more. So tell me, why do you hire more?
Walmart would like to pay more so they can attract better workers, all companies do, but they can't if their business model doesn't allow it. I don't support slavery and these people are not slaves. They have the choice of working there, Walmart had the choice of hiring them. It isn't up to a business to take care of your personal finances. When I complete pharmacy school down the road and I get paid $50/hr then I proceed to live outside my means then that is my fault, not my company's. Same as in Walmart. They pay their workers the market rate at what they can afford. It is up to the worker to manage their money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Erik Dumas" Just as long as those actions do not in any way infringe on constitutional rights"
I agree, I have been saying that the entire time. You have no right to drive, that is a privilege.
". For instance, they can't stop individuals based purely on their race, and they cannot search your vehicle without probable cause or a warrant."
I agree on race, that is the 14th amendment. On searching the car not so much. Again, you are on public roads so they can search your vehicle with limits. In my state it was within arm's reach of the driver. So front and back seat but not a third row of seats. Not the trunk or glove compartment.
"Are you just going to ignore the fact that the Supreme Court ruled the way they did precisely because they felt that outlawing abortion would go against the privacy rights outlined in the 14th Amendment?"
And they misinterpreted the 14th amendment. You have a right to privacy, but not a right to an abortion. I have no clue how you can read the 14th amendment and say abortion has to be legal based on how it is written.
"You're fine with the federal government setting legal precedent due to fuzzy wording of the Constitution when it comes to murder"
It is not fuzzy wording, Some of those forms of murder dealt treason. Killing an elected official is just that. Others deal with international situations. I don't agree with all of them, but killing on a ship in water where no state has jurisdictions is a federal issue at that point.
"You are free to disagree with that law, but don't go making absurd claims that the Roe v. Wade decision was in any way illegal. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it illegal"
Based on what was written in the constitution it was an incorrect ruling. How can one make a conclusion the SC did by the wording of the 14th amendment is beyond me.
"If that were the case, a hell of a lot of Supreme Court decisions would not have passed."
Which is not a bad thing.
" How much do you want to bet that there are quite a few in that list you agree with?"
Doubtful, I am really strict when it comes to the constitution. Also, with a unanimous decision it will be partisan. Right now SC justices vote on party lines.
" A privilege is a type of right "
Not really. Rights in this country are listed in the constitution. They are protected and can only be changed by amendment the constitution which takes a federal effort.
1
-
Erik Dumas Actually I am very knowledgeable on constitutional law since I have to pass a test on it for my job. Yes, your definition of a "right" is very broad. We have protected rights that are listed in the constitution. You are pointing at laws. Now yes, due process is a right, but you don't have a right to drive. Your privilege to drive is protected by due process. Big difference.
"The 14th Amendment requires that laws be reasonably justifiable."
Define "reasonable". That is a very broad word which is why that word is not in the 14th amendment. The constitution is the standard, it is not meant to be broad.
"Correct. Adults between the ages of 18 and 21 no longer have the right to smoke tobacco in California. I didn't say that no laws could ever be passed that restrict rights. What I said was that such laws need to justify themselves by demonstrating that they protect more important rights"
But where is the due process? Now you are running away from that. A state just took rights away from citizens according to you without due process. Or, maybe the reality is that they changed a law. Those individuals no longer have the privilege to smoke.
"That's weird, because I'm pretty sure lots of people (most people, in fact) already did."
And they are incorrect.
"Why not indeed! I think they should be (at least most recreational drugs). That would be consistent with the privacy rights established in the 14th Amendment."
The reason why is because the 14th amendment does not cover abortion like it does not cover drugs. The 14th amendment, by how section 1 is written, prevents states from treating US citizens differently in any way. That is how I interpret it. For example, in Brown vs Board a state could not deny a certain race education but offer it to others.
You want to talk about privacy I agree that is covered in the 14th amendment under
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
But that's it. There is nothing about making abortion illegal or legal. You want to extend on privacy, if I were to kill my wife in the privacy of my own home, what isn't that legal? I have a right to privacy. But yet murder is illegal. Honestly, as a lawyer told me you can have sex with little boys if you want as long as you don't get caught. That is privacy. You an have an abortion and as long as you don't get caught you are fine. But whether or not it is illegal is a state issue. Just like having sex with little boys is. I can do it, without proper cause the government can't search my home. But if I get caught it is illegal. The act of having an abortion would be determined to be illegal or legal as you don't have a right to that. You have a right to privacy.
1
-
Erik Dumas Actually I passed with a 93%.
You have a privilege to drive and as I showed you the government can find a way to prevent that even without due process much like they change smoking laws.
Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is incorrect. When the 14th amendment says privileges they mean what is protected for them in the constitution, like privacy. Again, abortion being illegal or legal can not be interpret from that, period.
"Because you would be, by definition, depriving your wife of her right to life"
And you are depriving those cells from living. By definition they are a living thing. Also, you have a right to life, you are not guaranteed it. Just like you have a right to free speech but not guaranteed it if a radio station does not allow you to play an ad. Or you have a right to bear arms but you are not given one.
"
What? That same logic could be applied to any crime. Just because you haven't been caught yet doesn't make the act you committed legal. It just means you haven't been caught yet. That lawyer is an idiot and should frankly be disbarred for giving out that kind of "legal advice.""
Well, just like you enjoy making up definitions for what a right is and is wrong you are also wrong here. He is a very successful lawyer and is correct here. Having sex with little boys is illegal, but as long as you don't get caught you can do it. That is the key point there. You have privacy in your own home and the government can't spy on your or invade your privacy without probably cause. So someone can do that as long as they want as long as they caught. When they do they were caught committing a crime and will be arrested.
The same is for abortion. You have a right to privacy, a state can't deny that via the 14th amendment since you are a US citizen. If you get caught doing an abortion and it is illegal according to that state then you will be arrested. But you have to be caught.
"
Yes, everyone automatically has a right to privacy (though, that does not mean they are incapable of forfeiting that right through their actions in instances where protecting that right to privacy would necessitate not protecting someone else's fundamental rights), which is why making abortions (prior to viability) illegal is unconstitutional"
Ok, and having sex with little boys is legal than along with killing dogs, doing drugs, beating your wife and other things as long as it is private. That is your entire argument. My argument is that you have a right to privacy in that the government can't get into doctor's records. So if you have an abortion the doctor does not have to say. That is privacy. Abortion can still be illegal, but if you don't get caught then so be it. Same with killing your wife.
"Since no one else's right are being threatened, the State has no authority to interfere"
What about the father? Why does he have to pay for child support? He has a right to his property and a right to privacy. Why does he not get a say considering how half of that child is his. Seems like again the law is not consistent.
" Like I said earlier, rights are worthless if the government isn't given the power to protect those rights"
They do, abortion is not one of those rights.
" The Constitutional interpretation you suggest would essentially gut the federal government's ability to protect rights listed in the Constitution"
Nope, because they are clearly listed. You do not have a right to an abortion. That will have to be written in the constitution to make it a right.
It is clear you don't study constitutional law.
1
-
Erik Dumas
I understand the constitution. I am question if you do.
"If knowledge of constitutional law and legal precedent is a requirement, then you have demonstrated that you are woefully inadequate."
I find a lot of irony in that statement.
"They can, but they can't just do it for whatever reason they want. The Supreme Court reserves the right to overturn any state or federal laws they deem to be unconstitutional."
A state can change a law if they want as long as it does not violate the constitution. You have to understand if state banned driving they will piss off a lot of voters. They do not need a reason.
"
Obviously it can. I'm doing that right now. The Supreme Court did that back in 1973, and they have continued to interpret it that way."
Then why have states, let the federal government set all the laws.
"And how much privacy can you truly say a person has if the government is able to arbitrarily stick it's nose in their personal medical business? Seriously, if the state has the authority to outlaw this medical procedure (which harms no one), what other medical procedures can they outlaw? How is that not an egregious infringement of personal liberties?"
A state can outlaw medical procedures like it can outlaw certain drugs. It does not mean you can't do them. All it means is you have privacy and the state cannot access your medical records without a warrant. Just like I can shoot up a bunch of heroin tonight. As long as I do not get caught I am fine. The government cannot invade my private life. If abortion is illegal in a state you can still perform it, just do not get caught like that lawyer told me. But according to you he should be disbarred.
This relates to if evidence is obtained without a warrant it cannot be used in court because that person's private life was violated.
"And living thing does not equal person. If it did, we would have to give plants and animals the same fundamental rights human beings get. Are you advocating for that?"
And that is one of the issues of abortion. Personally I do not care. I care about the standard in how laws are set. Whether or not abortion is illegal or not does not matter to me. But it is a legit argument that fetus is potentially a living human being so killing it is murder. I am not saying I agree, I am saying that is a legit argument.
"As far as the government is concerned, I am. That's why it's illegal for someone to come along and murder me."
Then why isn't all murder federal law? Why do we not give homeless people homes to lower the chance of them dying? Why do we not give out food to everyone? How far are you going to take this "right to life"?
"Let's not muddy the waters with yet another constitutional topic you don't fully understand."
Again, an ironic statement. Forget a private company, why not a government radio company? We do have PBS. Why do we not have those so I am guaranteed my right to speech? Why am I not given a gun?
"In short, the situation you describe is not an example of the government limiting free speech. At all."
I agree, but why don't we have public stations that allows everyone to have free speech?
"How does any of what you've said justify making the invasion of privacy by the state necessary inherently necessary in making abortions illegal?"
In this entire argument you are talking about privacy. Do you even know what privacy means? Privacy does not mean having an abortion. You an make abortion illegal and still have privacy. For some reason you are equating privacy to abortion which makes zero sense. A state can make abortion illegal and still respect your privacy. You do not have a right to an abortion, you have a right to privacy.
"You idiot, if abortions were made illegal, doctors wouldn't be legally able to perform an abortion."
I know. But you have the right to privacy. Just like I can do drugs in my apartment and the government can't just invade my apartment. That is the point. Privacy does not equal abortion. I find it ironic you call me an idiot when you do not know the definition of basic words.
"What about the father? What does the father have to do with the discussion of abortion? Unless this is a very special father, the fetus will not be residing in his body."
Biologically, half of that child is his. So the father should play a role. Seems like science is also not a strong point for you.
"It's very consistent in this matter. A fetus is not a person."
But potentially could be.
"Privacy is a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution."
I agree. Abortion isn't though.
"This horseshit again? Abortion is a private medical procedure, which does not effect any person but the person choosing to get an abortion."
The father loses a child. So I disagree. But I agree, it is a private medical procedures and the government does not have the right to access it. You brought up someone ratting on the doctor. They can arrest that doctor, but can't get into the medical history of his patients. That is the key there.
"If you're arguments so far are any indication, all you are is some idiot with a copy of the Constitution in his desk and a tendency to completely ignore the bits of it you don't like."
And this is ironic because according to you privacy=abortion. Think about that before you talk about definitions. But oh, I forgot. You seem to think a certain lawyer should be disbarred. I feel you are no more than some fool who thinks they know everything but don't. You only cited one court case, Roe vs Wade so you are no better off.
Open a dictionary and look up the definitions of
Privacy
and
Abortion
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheAstraeuss The problem with you is that you can't tie everything to inflation. Everything doesn't inflate. Take, for example, a car. While cars may seem more expensive on the surface, they last longer, get better gas mileage, and are safer. So the value of the care is lower and more affordable. Look at the pocket calculator, it was around $200 at the beginning, now they are practically free. Heck, for $200 you can get a cell phone with a calculator and camera.
Now compare that to labor. Look at blockbuster. Those employees are now worth $0/hr. When the tractor was invented, it made farm workers worth $0/hr at that job. In my hometown there was a battery plant that employed over 800 people that paid well with great benefits. In the 90s so many appliances needed batteries. Now with batteries on board that are rechargeable the demand for batteries dropped. When the plant closed down 2 years ago it employed 200 people. Those employees in that job are worth $0/hr.
Some jobs have increased in value while others have decreased and others have remained the same. This idea that businesses pay low is a lie as well. Less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage, the average hourly earnings is $24/hr. 2/3 of min. wage workers get a raise within a year. Businesses already pay more. You are being the greedy one wanting to force them to pay more then they can afford.
1
-
1
-
***** With lower turnover than there will be less jobs. How will our job outlook be if nobody retired? Or if nobody left entry level jobs so that those with low skills can't get a job. We will have limited growth thus less jobs and high unemployment.
Giving away money doesn't help the economy, it makes it worse. Money derives it's value from goods and services available. What drives our economy is trade, not money. Money is there to solve two problems, the double incident of wants problem and the retention of value problem. The double incident of wants problem is that both parties need to agree on what is being traded. So if you can make furniture and I am a scientist, chances are you won't need my services so I can't get something like a chair from you. But now that I have money we can agree to trade that and you can take that money and trade it elsewhere. The retention of value problem is that say I am a chicken farmer, I won't be able to save up enough chickens to by something big because chickens die. But I can save money.
In the end, though, you can't eat money, you can't run your car on it, or heat your home. You eat food, you heat your home with gas or electricity, you run you car on gas. If you give out more money to the middle and lower class artificially, than all you do is raise prices since now you have more money flowing but not more goods and services flowing. Money was given away without creating more goods and services, thus now that money is worth less. If all it took was money to drive our economy we might as well print more or just write checks for thousands of dollars to the middle and lower class. But that isn't the case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tyler Desrosiers "You included at least four different logical fallacies in a sixteen word sentence."
As in what?
"Ok, so somehow profit makes people work harder and makes people better off."
Do you work for free? If so than you are a rarity. Everyone I know works for something, that is a profit. The more profit they can get the harder the work.
"Again, how is unregulated capitalism somehow subjectively better than socialism? "
Socialism doesn't work on the large scale. It creates an entitlement society. Why should I work hard if the person next to me benefits with less effort? It falls apart because you run out of other people's money. When nobody wants to work then what do you do?
"And again, what respect do you have if say the entire state of North
Dakota were to suddenly elect communists and 'nationalize' their
resources?"
I don't live in ND, so I don't care.
" The period leading up to what is seen as the unionization of the work
force in the US is also marked by the spread of protections within US
laws during and after this time. There is also a long, slow coincident
breakdown of worker's rights as moneyed interests take over media and
government. Expecting a safer outcome with a complete lack of regulation
is laughable. "
Without regulations workplaces got safer and people earned more money. Due to regulation people ended up getting less money due to expensive regulations and taxes.
"Again, what is the difference between 'federal' and 'state' level politics? "
I told you, representation, so basically a lot. You can vote for a handful of federal politicians, you can vote for a larger portion of state politicians. You also can move to another state and remain a US citizen. Why should people in FL pass domestic laws that effect people in Washington? We are too diverse to create a one size fits all policy. And state laws are easier to change.
"What is your opinion of a state that allows for slavery?"
Banned by the constitution which restricts all governments.
"What about one that nationalizes resources?"
Doesn't exist.
"What do you do when the people that have been paying to indoctrinate you
are trying to impose their ideology onto a nation with far less people
or far less land mass than the US?"
The constitution forbids states from acting in foreign affairs. There is checks and balances, another strength of state rights.
"You haven't actually answered any of my questions with anything aside
from typical circular reasoning or arguing from ignorance. "
I am answering your questions, you just don't like the answers. But please keep them coming, I will continue to answer them with a intelligent response not taken from a "think tank".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Danelle, I watch a lot of Kyle's videos and I feel he is misinformed, especially when it comes to economics.
To give an example take the min. wage. He tries to tie the min. wage to inflation when you can't, because not everything inflates. While some goods and services do increase in price, others either stay the same or become cheaper, which is normal for a progressing economy. For example, with labor, how much is a Blockbuster employee worth? $0. Their value dropped. But according to Kyle they should be paid over $10/hr and his only support is simply because of inflation. He feels that everything inflates.
To give an example of a good the brick cell phone in the late 80s cost $4000 if you considered inflation. Basically, only the well off had one. Now how much do smart phones cost? Do they cost $4000? No. Several are given away and the poor own them. And smart phones have more computing power than what put a man on the moon. Thus the price of a cell phone dropped. As a whole you can't tie the min. wage to inflation because not everything inflates.
Now take productivity. Kyle feels that if kept up with productivity it would be over $20/hr. The problem with that is that he is looking at overall productivity. There are still workers who just are not that productive (min. wage workers). That is similar to saying that the average height of humans has increased for years thus midgets should not exist, but they do. Not every job in the job market has increased in productivity. Productivity as a whole has increased due to technology and those who invested in it and became skilled in it have seen an increase in their income. It is called Skilled Biased Technological Change. Even with increased productivity those on the bottom have benefited. Increased in productivity means goods and services become cheaper and better which is why poor people can buy cell phones.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.t02.htm
That link shows unit labor cost for different sectors. You see that in the food service industry (essentially fast food who pays the min. wage) that unit labor cost is positive. That means hourly compensation is outpacing productivity. Which this again shows why Kyle's idea of productivity being tied to the min. wage is flawed.
On guns to move away from economics. What are "common sense" laws? That is vague and can mean anything. There is a great video by Steven Crowder (who I don't always agree with but do here) of him asking people want gun to ban and what round to ban. They wanted to ban the AR-15 and fed the 30-06 was fine as a hunting rifle. But when it came to rounds they were against the 30-06 round but felt the .223 round (which is used in the AR-15) was OK. This shows people lack knowledge of guns to begin with. So basically these laws are not "common sense".
Kyle uses phrases such as "common sense" and "living wage" that in reality mean nothing but can fool people who really don't think or know much. He says something like "living wage" and gives the impression of "who can be against that, there is no argument against a living wage" or something along that lines. It makes the person even question the standard of a "living wage" look like the bad guy when in reality you have to define it which he never does. Same with "common sense" gun laws. What are they.
I reality if anyone doesn't know much they are people who take Kyle seriously and feel this whole movement he is pushing for will really go anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Parker, recessions happen all the time, how we recover is key. We did not fully recover from the 1929 recession until around 1939 and 1940. That first growth in 1935 did not last long and and quickly fell apart because it was artificial due to it being propped up with federal dollars. So recovery took around a decade.
Every recession except for two took around 5 years or less to recover from. All of them had minimal federal government involvement in "fixing" it. The two that took the longest to recover from were the recession of 1929 and 2007. They are also the only times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending.
"nd one other thing, to have a civilized debate with someone, do not call them a stupid shit"
Never did that, unless you are not talking to me. But how about you read up on history and economics as a whole.
"see just how well conservatism worked for the country the first four years of the depression"
Hoover practice a lot of what FDR did during his time as presidency. FDR expanded Hoover's policies. In 1921 Hoover was asked Harding to come up with a plan to fix the economy following the crash of 1921. Hoover came up with a plan a year later, but by then the economy was recovering. Instead Hoover used his plan in the crash of 1929.
So again, read up on history. We have been practicing liberal policies since the 1930. If it weren't for WWII the mess we are currently end would have been happening decades before. What happened instead is the war allowed for the economy to grow because every other country was rebuilding. We weren't. In the 60s and early 70s we double down on our socialist and big federal government policies. What is funny is that ultra liberals always point to me a chart on how productivity has went up but wages have been stagnate since the early 70s. What happened around that time is the expansion of the payroll tax and creation of the EPA and OSHA.
Now Reagan with a democratic congress and Clinton with a republican congress has hindered the disaster somewhat, but in the end what we are seeing now is the result of big federal government and socialism, basically liberal policies, not conservative policies. How about we try conservative policies now.
1
-
1
-
JoJo:
1. The constitution places limits on all governments, so no, states can't reject people from voting. Also, at the state level you have more control of government alleviating corruption.
2. Point to me the law
3. Cut federal spending and allow the states to run domestic policies. So we won't have less tax money. And there won't be a burden on the poor
4. A private company censoring someone is not a violation of free speech.
5. Dumb comparison. You are a specific group causing something at a disproportional rate.
6. Ok
7&8. You don't have a right to someone's services. Look at rights in our country. You have a right to free speech, but if no one is going to offer you it than you don't get it. You have a right to bear arms, but the government does not give you a gun. With roads, that is always a piss poor comparison. One, 3/4 of roads are funded and maintain by the states and local government. And if the resources are not there the quality of the roads are bad. That is why you have dirt and gravel roads and roads with no stop signs. There are several rural areas where volunteers clear the roads of snow and that does not always get done. That happened a few years ago in my home town and people were snowed in.
Also, with healthcare and education, we lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, equipment, classrooms etc. You are increasing the demand for their services and supply thus the price will go up or the quality will go down (like dirt and gravel roads or roads not being cleared of snow).
9. &10. ????
11. The recession happened before the New Deal. The New Deal hindered recovery creating the depression.
12. So increase energy prices?
13 and 14. ???
15. I have seen that, they contradict each other. For example, people have a right to healthcare but also holidays off? So if someone is sick on the 4th of July there will be no doctors.
16. Nope. Look up Steven Crowder's video on "Common Sense" gun laws
17. With a lot of restrictions. For example, they only let the best and brightest attend college. We allow everyone and a lot drop out.
18. It isn't "cruel and unusual". What is more cruel, a quick death or locking someone in confinement for decades? People basically become dead in the latter situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kuypers125 You can't get paid under the table, that is illegal as well.
"But here's another way of looking at it,
A living wage is: "the hourly wage needed for a family to afford BASIC! everyday expenses, such as housing, food, clothing, utility bills, and child care. ""
Ok, what is your standard? Is housing a studio with two other individuals (I had a friend that did that for a while), or a 3 bedroom house? Child care? What if you don't have a child? Utility bills? I can keep my utility bills really low. What are your standards?
""you're girlfriend who is living just fine on the current minimum wage " .. because he is paying all her bills. she isn't living off her wages, she's living off his"
That is the whole point we are trying to get at, the term "living wage" is subjective. Based on what you are saying is that she should get paid less.
You are basing this off of emotions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Mathew Carley
1. The productivity increase of min. wage worker has been basically stagnate for years. In some cases they have been replaced all together due to technology. We have seen an increase in productivity due to improvements in technology. Look up Skilled Biased Technological Change.
2. It is comparable. Businesses don't pay more for one simple reason.....they can't afford it. Same as in how some people down own homes or nicer cars. Businesses manage their money and if someone makes a low wage then they should manage their money as well. Businesses would love to pay more and offer more to both their workers and customers but simply can't.
3. What doesn't make sense?
Over 80% of McDonalds are franchised, so no, McDonalds corporate headquarters simply can't raise wages because they have zero control over it.
You seem to not understand how corporations work as well. Corporations have to keep shareholders happy. McDonalds has over 900 million shares oustanding. Shareholders want to see their investment grow for whatever reason (mostly retirement). If you cut profits you cut the value of shares thus you have now made investing in McDonalds a greater risk. Due to that people will pull out their money causing McDonalds to having to shrink in size and thus less jobs. It isn't as easy as they make X thus they can pay Y.
As far as price increases are concerned, as I said, if all it took was that much of an increase with no lost in customers then businesses will raise prices already to collect more profits. But in the competitive market it isn't that easy.
Herman Cain had a great discussion with Bill Clinton running through the numbers how forcing his business to pay for healthcare insurance will lead to employees being fired. Clinton said that they can just raise the price of pizza. Cain said that in reality you can't do that because larger companies can do with less resources (employees for example) until the market stabilizes. This is why Walmart supported a min. wage increase in the past, they knew it would hurt smaller competitors. So like with profits, simply saying it will raise the price of X a certain amount is over simplifying the situation.
As far as other price increases are concerned? They are due to other factors involved in business related expenses which is another topic in itself. But usually can be pointed towards other government regulations (for example gas prices and the fact that regulations have not allowed for a refinery to be open in 40 years).
If you look at PPP you will see that the US is high on the list of GDP per capita. The reason why is because of our low prices.
What you also have to realize is that in all these min. wage studies the min. wage has be risen at small amounts, at around 30%. That is small compared to the US economy. Christina Romer said that if the min. wage were to go up to $9.50/hr, and assuming that all the money is transferred from the top (which isn't the case ever), the economy will grow 0.02%. That is it.
So here you are jumping up and down about a min. wage increase and giving me numbers when you have to realize that overall we are currently talking about a small part of the economy. And comparing the overall economy to the min. wage and the price of the Big Mac is quite pathetic really. And I also love how you pick on a major corporation without realizing all the other companies that exist out there with much smaller numbers in profits and businesses.
If you want me to provide data I easily can. Right now I feel the best route is to correct your misunderstanding of the current numbers you are looking at. You have to understand economics, business and marketing before we can go farther. Compare it to you have to understand general physics before we can go on to Quantum Mechanics, or Optics and so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Spencer, your numbers are deceptive. Of course no one in Canada dies due to lack of healthcare insurance because they have a difference system. Everyone, by definition, have access in Canada to healthcare. But that does not mean the quality is high. In my state we lowered the standard for graduating high school and changed the definition of what a drop out is and the next year our graduate rate increased by a lot. Does that mean people in my state are more educated? No. So simply saying "no one dies in Canada due to lack of access of healthcare" is deceptive. How many die because the quality is low?
Next, 45,000 is only 0.01% of the population in the US. In statistics that is noise. If you have an error of 0.01% in any statistical data set that is great. I have published data with 10% error before in my work. You cannot say, with high certainty, that the reason why those 45,000 people died is because of lack of healthcare access. Most are poor to begin with where poor people are generally less healthy and less responsible. For example, everyone has access to K-12 education but around 10% of the US natural born population do not have a high school diploma. It is offered to them for free, they choose not to pursue it despite data showing that having a degree increases the probability of your life being better off. Just because those 45,000 have access to healthcare does not mean they will pursue it or properly use it. In all they will still die but at that point you can't say they died because of lack of access, they died because they were not responsible.
The exact same thing is with bankruptcies. In Canada you just wait a long time and possibly die. In the US you may go bankrupt (643,000 is still 0.02% of the country) but in other countries you die.
Also, the fact that other countries do it (in reality they all have their own systems) is not an excuse for the US to regress to the norm. Also, many of those countries are tiny. Iceland had 300,000 people. But as a whole, when you run through the numbers nothing suggests that single payer is better than what the US has.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hermes, where is that book incorrect? They list all their references and their methods. Now point to me where they are wrong. You just saying it is is not an argument. I am sorry.
" As others have previously explained, they cherry-pick data (as most
"conservative" publications) and exclude key pieces of the overall
healthcare picture to make it seem like single-payer is only equivalent
to the current American system"
Ok, how? What was wrong with their methods?
"The VAST majority of healthcare workers are on the side of single-payer"
Eh, not really. Nothing suggests that is the case.
" because it's the objectively better option, based on studies that evaluate outcomes and cost for overall cost-efficiency"
Ok, I will look at them.
"Providing universal coverage lowers costs dramatically"
But at what quality? I always hear two things from the left on this issue
1. low cost
2. everyone is covered
But they never mention quality. Even Bernie Sanders admits there will be rationing.
"I could go on and on about the benefits, but you clearly are either too
stupid or too arrogant and self-deluded to be convinced by objective
truths, just like the "conservatives" (true conservatives believe in
CONSERVATION) that believe climate change is a hoax..."
Insults displays your lack of intelligence meaning almost anything you say is purely opinion at that point. Also, climate change has nothing to do with this, but if you want to discuss that we can as I am a scientist myself.
Ok, now to your sources.
Your first one is giving opinions and her is why. Their references are for data for the ACA, but they they give this
"
A single-payer NHP, in contrast, would provide
comprehensive coverage without copayments or deductibles to everyone in
the country, replacing our current complex and wasteful patchwork of
coverage.All medically necessary
services would be covered, including inpatient, outpatient, and dental
care, as well as prescription drugs. The NHP would also cover long-term
care, a benefit that few Americans currently enjoy."
No references at all. So what do they base that off of? Simply opinion.
Same here
"Significant sums would also be saved by allowing the NHP to negotiate
with drug companies over prices, as do universal health programs in
other advanced nations. The greater efficiency and simplicity of the NHP
would curb inflation in health costs, so that cost savings would grow
with time."
No references.
And the whole section under payment had.....you guessed it, zero references to support their claim.
So that source is done. The next one
That book has cited that paper already, so I will leave it at that. Goes to show that book does not "cherry pick" data as they cite sources you are citing right now.
On source three
Your third source simply outlines what should be the goal in healthcare and how the US is trying it. It does not praise single payer. It does point to the NHS but also pointed towards the employer offering care with the help of the union. Or states offering it. But again, this source does not indicate single payer is superior.
Now the last one
The problem with pointing to administration cost is this, with a government program they can hide the cost in other agencies. For example, with insurance, they pay for disease awareness to lower costs for customers where with medicare they have the CDC pay for that. That is why medicare has lower overhead cost than insurance. That same is with healthcare. Also, single payer does have less efficiency and with the private option you can sue them, you really can't sue the government so much. But I will say this, this is the one source that looks the most promising and I will read it closer later.
So one out of four is your result. You need to try harder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
me I actually read that and I question that source a lot.
To start there are no citations for those numbers. They are basically numbers made up out of thin air unit they are cited.
Next, I looked at two different counties. One I currently live in and another I grew up in. We will call them A (where I live) and B (where I grew up). I don't really want to expose where I live due to internet creepers.
In county A they have housing at $693, I pay $510 for a one bedroom. Mix in a roommate it is cheaper. Now you may say to include utilities, ok, I pay $30/month in electric, that is it. Internet is optional.
Transportation, $285. I pay up to $160 right now. I am working on making that less when I get my new job where I only have to walk to work.
Food is at $242. That is lower about where I pay. I can cut that if I didn't eat out as much. I don't pay anything in medical right now, and what is "other"?
Now county B.
Housing $460, I was paying $250 when I was on my own.
Transportation is $306. I don't know where they get that considering how gas is around $0.80 cheaper in county B than in County A. Also in County B you can walk everywhere. It is small (unless you live in the country).
Food is about right, medical is once again $0, and what is "other"?
That source for the "living wage" is not a good one. As a whole, the "living wage" is subjective and shouldn't be used in making policies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
me One your first source, there are a lot of factors that play a role in jobs as a whole. It isn't just tied to the min. wage. There are a few things that happen when the min. wage goes up. One, unemployment for the unskilled goes up, we have always seen this. This is due to them not being worth the price floor a company will have to pay by law. Another is what is called labor to labor substitution. When you increase the price of labor you will increase the demand due to workers re-entering the workforce with a greater incentive in working. Basically a person who has some skills but isn't working will end up taking on a low wage job due to the min. wage being higher and thus make supplemental income. This follows the basic supply and demand trend.
Minimum Wage and Price Floors
Also, as I said before, the min. wage plays a small role in overall job growth. We saw this in the 90s. When the min. wage went up we saw the percent of workers making at or below the min. wage go up from around 5% to close to 7% when it was dropping to begin with. The 90s were strong economic times. People were getting raises and jobs were being create. Raising the min. wage did nothing just like in those states.
CEOs pay is going up because they are a skilled worker. They are developing a lot of capital. This is a trend known as Skill Biased Technological Change. People with skills and those who are innovated with technology develop more capital and thus earn more. You also have to realize that as a result we have seen an increase in wealth in society as a whole. We drive better cars, have better TVs, phones, cameras, life expectancy, have better computers and so on than the rich had in the 80s. They get better and so do we.
You also have to consider that we are see and income gap that is growing because we do have a set of people that simply want to earn money for producing nothing. When money is given away and produces no capital that it's value is ruined. In short, if you want to stop the CEOs from getting high raises we need to cut social programs and push people to obtain jobs that require skills.
You mindset on the min. wage and inflation is flawed. Not every good has seen it's value increase and not every job has as well. My dad worked in a batter factory and in the 90s they had 800 employees. A lot of products had batteries as in RC cars, cordless phones and walkmans. Newer products have batteries on board that are rechargeable. As a result that company downsize to where when they closed their factory they only had 200 employees. Their demand for batteries dropped so a lot of employees saw their value drop to zero. Same is with goods, black and white TVs have seen their values drop to zero. Blockbuster as a company as seen its value drop to zero. That is how the economy evolves. Thinking that every job is going to increase in value is wrong. Saying that the min. wage hasn't increased with inflation is wrong because as we have seen there are jobs that have actually dropped in value.
I find that data from MIT to be deceptive. You may criticize my anecdotal evidence which is fine. It still doesn't change the fact that the "living wage" is subject. I live within walking distances from my job and a grocery store. I could may my transportation to be $0. My housing cost is less than the figures printed and in one case was about half of what was report. The transportation cost doesn't make sense considering how in the county I grew up in car insurance was cheaper and so was gas, but they have transportation as being higher than the county I live in now.
As I said, if I were to talk to the person from MIT about the "living wage" number they posted and how it is subjective they would agree with me. If not than they don't deserve their PhD because as a PhD candidate myself I feel that anyone who earns it does so with the intelligence to be open minded on issues. The numbers they posted are not even the bare minimum in my opinion and experience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr I didn't dodge the question, he is what I responded to them
Because raising the min. wage doesn't help the economy. The min. wage is one small factor in the complex economy. When it gets raised we see increase in prices and higher unemployment for those with low skills. As an individual who worked with inner city kids I see it harder for them to get a low paying job due to the fact they cannot get hired for a lower wage. Those from richer neighborhoods with parents with connections have not problem, but those with low skills get hurt even more.
Your problem is that you think you shown me data to counter what I am saying but you haven't. You feel that you have shown me data that raising the min. wage has lead to job creation. The problem is, and I have explained this to you, that the min. wage is not the only factor for all jobs. The min. wage can be raised to $10/hr tomorrow, I will still have a job, many others will as well. Those that won't have a job are those with low skills and we have seen this. And it hurts them in the long term.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w10656.pdf
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/unintended-consequences-raising-minimum-wage.pdf
The problem with CEO pay is that one, we have a group of people who feel entitled and are getting money for nothing. That ruins the value of the dollar and to counter CEOs have to take on more. Also, who cares? As I said before, we are reaping the benefits as a society with better goods and services.
The average student loan debt for the pharmacy student is over $65,000
http://www.kuendowment.org/s/1312/endowment/farabove/index.aspx?sid=1312&gid=1&pgid=1530
The lowest paid pharmacist made nearly $90,000.
http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/pharmacist/salary
People need to earn a degree that is worth something.
The EPI is left leaning. That is well known. I have read a lot of their resources. I will counter with this video
What You Weren't Told About The Minimum Wage
It brings up good points. It does cite some info from the Heritage foundation, a right wing think tank but it does bring up good points.
In all there really isn't a reason to even have a min. wage. Here is what it is. Person A goes up to a company and ask for a job. Person A agrees to work for $5/hr because they can't get a job. The government comes in and says no, now person A doesn't have a job. The logic behind it is not clear. I have shown you where the average wage is over $24/hr, and how 2/3 of min. wage workers get a raise after a year, and the percent of workers making at or below the min. wage is dropping (all info in that video), so the thought that businesses will pay low is false.
Like I said, try this whole reading thing, you learn it in elementary school.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There are more people without cover in the red states, "
To start, what is a "red state"? Next, why is that the case? Look at some the states on the bottom in terms of uninsured. TX, NV, FL which all have a growing hispanic population who are poor to begin with. Mississippi is near the bottom who has a large black population who is also poor to begin with. Louisiana is near the bottom, but this comes back to what is a red state? 2/3 of their governors has been democrat. So saying that more people without cover are in red states is very vague.
"when you explain single payer healthcare, and compare it with the US's current system, "
When you do that you see what the US has is on par with what other countries have. Does it have problems? Yes. But so do other countries. Replacing the system we have now will mean jobs being lost and an economic decline. Even if temporary, experiencing that to simply replace a system we have now with another system with problems is not a solution to me. We should improve on what we have, not completely replace it.
1
-
"When I say red state, I mean states that primarily vote republican"
Again, that is deceptive. One, you will be surprise that many states you consider to be "red" are not generally voting for republicans. Next, local politicians are different than federal ones. For example, my governor is a republican but he expanded medicaid and we legalized weed.
"so states like TX, NV, and FL, who as you said have the most uninsured"
NV is pretty blue.
" Also, why does them being poor to begin with explain why they shouldn't have access to healthcare?"
They can't afford it.
"Why are we the only nation in the modern world that does not guarantee healthcare to all its citizens?
"
No nation guarantees it, that is impossible unless that nation is very small.
"And as for the single payer vs current system argument, the NUMBER ONE reason for bankruptcy in the US, is medical bankruptcy. ""
And most of those people are poor to begin with. The chances of them going bankrupt is high.
"Also, people without cover in this country DIE. NO other modern nation
allows its citizens to die because they couldn't afford healthcare"
They just die because the care is of low quality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
iMarooned
"No I want power for the programs that benefit the many not the few"
So you support oppression and slavery then.
"when it's someone who like Bernie wants too genuinely benefit the population,"
Bernie wants to give you a unicorn that flies and shits rainbows. Tell me how do you plan on giving away "free college" and "free healthcare" when we lack professors, tutors, TAs, researchers, doctors, nurses and other skilled workers in those fields?
"a government "for the people, by the people" not "without the people, for the elite"!!!!"
Yes, people, all people.
"Educate yourself about your country"
I am well educated on the country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Equals Four In a properly orchestrated capitalist economy those on the bottom rung of employees are those first entering the workforce and those working part time for supplemental income. And yes, we have seen prices go up because of the min. wage. Look at food. We are producing too much food but yet the price keeps going up. Restaurants and grocery stores possess a lot of low skill/low wage workers. In restaurants the price of labor is out pacing productivity.
In a strong economy prices should be going down and they have. From wealth creation computers, cell phones, TVs, cars and so on are going down. As I said, spending isn't good, what is good is producing.
"Therefor, they would have more buying power, more buying power increases
overall demand, which creates a rush to more supply, which in turn
creates more wealth OVERALL. When everyone prospers, the economy
prospers. "
They won't have more buying power though. You don't have to increase demand. The demand is already there. People demand better goods and services. In a competitive economy businesses will push for that at make them at an affordable price. In the end you can't consume what you don't produce. You give those on the bottom rung more money and their production remains the same then something has to give. Employees are not going to all of a sudden be more productive just because they are earning more money.
So in the end no one prospers and the economy gets worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"All the claims about long wait times and lower quality are talking points that have been proven wrong many times"
No it hasn't. Even Bernie Sanders admitted that there are longer wait times and healthcare is rationed.
" Canada, for example, has longer wait times for some elective procedures but not for necessary care"
What is "necessary care"? That is vague and deceptive. I had an ear ache the other day. Is that necessary? It isn't life threatening. But I could not sleep and if not seen quickly it could have become worse making me worse off. Claiming "necessary care" is lowering the standards. I worked to put myself to see a doctor quickly, I should be able to see them.
"And what about the millions of people in the US that can't afford insurance or are denied coverage? "
What about people who die or end up being worse off because of longer wait times or lower quality? No system is ideal. You have to realize that. If you read the book I linked you will see that universal healthcare has shortcomings. This is why people who strongly support it, like you, lower the standards to push for it.
"The US may have some top-of-the-line equipment/doctors for some things,
but that's a flawed concept because there's so many people who can't
afford it."
So many people, can, as in the vast majority of the country. And people going bankrupt is not necessarily a bad thing. It shows that us as a nation is wealthy enough to allow people to go into debt and be well off. In poor nations people don't have debt. People argue a lot how there is a lot of wealth inequality in the US. That is because many people are in debt. Poor countries like Ethiopia have low wealth inequality because no one has wealth nor debt. A poor Ethiopian man has more wealth then me because I have negative wealth. But I have a better life. My point is that you cry about bankruptcy but the alternatives are people either dying or having their condition worsen beyond repair due to low quality or long wait times.
"And it seems like you're saying that it would be better to have a system
with excellent care available, but millions who can't afford the
insurance, or are denied, are just out of luck. Is this the system you
want?"
No system is ideal. You have to realize that. There will always be people who will suffer or fall short in the end. You see that all across the world. To me universal healthcare is no better then what we currently have. Switching to it will lead to a major recession hurting a lot of people. To me a more free market system and letting the states handle it is the best route. Right now we don't have a free market system which is the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Paying for water is the dumbest thing the so called "free market" has
ever produced. What if we just own the rain? Just no, your capital does
not warrant you owning the planet. "
So what do you suggest? No one owns anything? Can I take a crap on your lawn?
"Nice to know you are battling strawmen. Who is talking about a magical cancer cure? "
You are because you are not realizing the fact that we lack supply in healthcare. Adding more people to the system will mean higher prices or lower quality.
" Is there cancer treatment available? "
Not enough to cover everyone.
"Now, Imagine people who need it actually have access to it "
When it doesn't exist then you don't have access to it. Again, government can't just create something out of nothing. You ultra liberals are trying to make government god-like.
"Can you just, for once, acknowledge that life doesn´t matter to you unless people have money? "
If you don't have resources then you die, period. Money is a part of that. Also consider that when people die the world keeps spinning and essentially no one cares.
" But isn´t the U.S cancer treatment among the best in the world? Yes,
but how will letting more people take part of it destroy it?"
Because we lack resources.
"More demand = less research, interest and capital? How? "
Being a doctor or a researcher in the medical field is a high paying career. Despite that we lack workers in that field. That is the problem. We do not have enough workers despite them being careers that pay 6 figures.
"Still, healthcare is twice as expensive in the U.S than in countries
with universal healthcare and with overall worse health outcomes for the
public"
Our outcomes are on par with other countries, and in some cases better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+KingLink95
1. Not really. Take healthcare for example. Many people wanted healthcare reform, but what type is in question. That is why it was so hard to pass Obamacare, and now that it has passed people don't like it. Believe it or not people don't want more federal government.
2. He has not crunched the numbers on his plans. Also he has not said how he will prevent healthcare companies and colleges from just jacking up prices. What is going to prevent colleges from just raising tuition? Why would college students care, they are not paying. What is Bernie going to do? Control the cost of college? Now we will lack professors, TAs, classrooms etc. He is not clear at all.
3. Wealth does not equal income. A large wealth gap is great, it means wealth exist. I don't care that the Walton family has a lot of wealth, I own a smart phone and a reliable car.
A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average homeowner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. That is why a wealth gap exists, no everyone has the desire to run a multi-billion dollar business.
4. He is growing it. If the federal government runs healthcare it will run 1/6 of the economy. Defense spending is around 4% of GDP, healthcare is 17%, that is a large jump. Anyone who thinks Bernie is not growing the size of the federal government is lying.
5. Easy, here is one example
http://www.youngcons.com/bernie-sanders-posts-a-tweet-about-the-economy-that-has-a-lot-of-people-scratching-their-heads/
If you want me to get into more detail than pick any one of his economic policies and I will break it down. I don't have time to do them all at once but I can do one at a time. But the fact he does not understand collateral when it comes to loans is being ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Badass Atheist, it isn't just my school. Around 2% of the population has a doctorate, and unemployment amongst them is less than 2%. These people have jobs. If you make college "free" you will increase enrollment. Now who is going to educate them? And how do you know if the person you hire is able to teach? You have to consider that a lot of professors are not great at teaching to begin with. At that point you will be just herding students in classrooms at 500+ a class like cattle, having them doing generic online assignments, getting little interaction with TAs, tutors and professors, and receiving a letter grade in the end. Is that really and education? Sure, universities can take on more students by doing all of that, but what do students gain?
" Almost 50% of americans make below $30k a year."
Which is highly deceptive. I am a part of that 50% that earn below that. I earn $23,000 a year, but I have my own car, my own apartment, and I am a doctorate candidate. You are leaving out several variables.
1. What is the cost of living where they live?
2. Do they receive benefits (I do as a grad student)?
3. Do they have a spouse that earns more?
4. How old are they and are they close to finishing college so they can earn a higher income?
5. How many live with parents as in they are teens?
You can go on but just throwing a number out there means nothing. You have to put it in the correct perspective. It is similar with education. Just herding students in a large classroom, having them do generic assignments, and giving them a grade and later a diploma is not an education.
1
-
Badass Atheist, many government jobs require you to do some sort of "training" that isn't really the greatest. For example, my laser safety training was a 2 hour course where I took a test that did not even get graded. But according to the state I am certified to work with class 4 lasers that can burn a hole in your skin. Or with FERPA training, I watched a 30 min. video, took an eight question test, had three times to pass, and that's it. Oh, on the test was the same questions in the same order each time. So you played the video in the background, took the test, remembered what you got wrong, and took it a second time and passed with a 100%. And now you are FERPA trained. You have the ability to look at other college students' grades. That is the level of government standards. Do you want that with college education?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr I never said raising the min. wage would lead to massive unemployment, I said that in low skilled jobs and low skilled workers, such as teenagers, it would lead to higher unemployment. You said that raising the min. wage has led to job growth in states that did it, but when I explained to you that there are several factors that led to that and that when you look at select groups, such as teenage unemployment, then you see a job loss there. You choose to ignore that but instead praise the min. wage for leading to massive job growth which isn't true.
I also never said that raising the min. wage would lead to massive price increase, but it does lead to price increase. When you raise the min. wage you won't see a doomsday like result, I never said one would happen. What does happen is a price increase and job lost for select groups. That all gets lost in the overall effect of the economy because it gets lost in the statistical noise. You know, when there is several variables in a complex economy you have noise. Like in my research. I am a spectroscopist. When I shine my laser on a sample I get a signal with a lot of noise. That noise comes from solvent to sample interaction, or a slow monochromator, or water in the atmosphere and so on. We try our best to eliminate noise through several techniques both with the laser set up and the code used to analyze the data but it exist. The same is here with the economy. Raising the min. wage doesn't have any positive effects, all the negative effects get lost in the statistical noise unless you remove it which economists have done and see the negative effects, none positive. The sources you point to haven't done that. You point towards sources that say a state raises the min. wage and overall job growth went up. The negative effects were lost in the noise. My state has a higher min. wage then the federal but has seen job growth because we have some of the lowest taxes in the nation. We also have one of the highest teenage unemployment rates in the nation as well.
Not only do you need to read a basic econ. book but you also need to study statistics. When I was taking an advance statistics course so were several econ. majors for a reason. That is one thing we learned is how to remove statistical noise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" are you arguing against preliminary injunctions in general or just
against the federal government? The state of Hawaii didn't make any
decision, it was a federal judge from the district of Hawaii. "
I am arguing against the fact that the SC should be making this decision because this is a federal law that deals with an international affair. If a federal judge in some other state makes a decision then why not get all of the opinions of all of the federal judges? What is the point of the SC? Why did that one federal judge have a say? It all seems vague and arbitrary to me.
"The State of Hawaii brought a civil action to the district court (the
first level in the appeals process) against the federal government over
the ban, "
Which should go directly to the SC. Again, why just stick to Hawaii? What if TX, or OK, or FL, or NV or some other state disagreed and the federal judges there disagreed with Judge Watson? Whose opinion do we go with? That is why the SC should deal with this action.
"Regarding the Kevin thing, you seem to be saying that only SCOTUS should
be able to issue an injunction halting the pursuit of a policy. Why?
This is impossible, since any case must be ruled on by a lower court before SCOTUS can even see it. "
The issue is that this isn't "any case". This is a federal law dealing with immigration which is a foreign affairs. States should not be deciding these laws, the federal government should. There is a reason why states cannot build a military to attack a foreign country and why states cannot develop import and export taxes. Allowing this type of action to happen opens the doorway to allowing states such as TX and AZ in controlling immigration. TX can just stop immigration from Mexico. This is giving control of immigration to states when immigration is a federal issue. You are muddying the waters in who has control in this instance.
This as not an emergency situation thus it could have waited until the SC made its decision. A federal judge in Hawaii, or any state should not be making this decision since it is a federal law dealing with foreign affairs. I understand that the law is written the way it is to allow for that process to happen. I am just saying that with the design of the country this should not be happening.
1
-
Seljuck, you bring an intelligent point and I learned a few things. To cover a few points.
"Well, there's no legal basis for this, nor is there a clear definition
of "international affair," let alone a coherent set of cases considered
"international" for which we should disregard injunctions from lower
courts (which means all preliminary injunctions). None of this
has a constitutional basis and I don't see any imperative to completely
reconstruct the federal judiciary."
International is just that, international. It involves other countries. As I said before, individuals states cannot develop their own military and start a war with other countries. States cannot develop immigration laws. Now I will have to go back and look but if I recall there isn't anything in the Constitution dealing with immigration as "immigration" is not in the text. But in Article I Section 8 you have
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
and
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Now this deals with congress, but reading the Constitution it is in my opinion that anything involving a foreign country in anyway is strictly a federal issue.
"Because there are thousands of cases to deal with each term. It would be
absurdly inefficient to have all ~700 judges hear and rule on hundreds
of cases every week. Further, matters local to Iowa are better left to a
judge in the corresponding part of the country. These are just a couple
of the myriad reasons for the structure of the judiciary."
I agree with this. That is why we have local courts so they can deal with local issues. Just like we have local governments. I am not asking for every judge to look at every case. I am simply saying that this particular case was a federal law involving foreign nations and thus should be handled by the SC.
"Who decides that? If I pull a case that's completely nonsensical out of
my ass, the Supreme Court should waste their time hearing my case?"
This wasn't some random case. This was a federal law involving immigration which is a situation dealing with foreign countries and foreign citizens. You are making it sound like this was some random case when it wasn't. It is a matter of foreign affairs. This was not a case like DUI laws which the SC left completely to the states as states were creating the law. This is a federal law dealing with immigration.
"SCOTUS is composed of nine people, they don't have time to hear every case."
I know, and I never suggested that they should. When did I ever said they should?
" what makes it distinct from me suing the US government under the eighth amendment for not deporting Miley Cyrus?"
Miley Cyrus involves one person, not a specific country. That is what makes it distinct.
"There's no reliable way to identify a legitimate lawsuit without first having a judge hear it;"
Again, this was a federal law. The SC should have looked at it and determined if it was OK or not before it was enforced. Their failure to do so opened this situation up.
"Again I ask how this is supposed to work. It would make no sense for the
Supreme Court itself to take a case, then issue an injunction that the
executive branch wait until the Supreme Court hears the case. Once it
reaches the Supreme Court, the injunction has already fulfilled its
purpose of delaying action until the Supreme Court rules."
And I reply by saying this was a federal law. And thus the SC has should have the call in that case as this is a law coming from the federal level. If this was a state or local law then yes, start with the state courts. But this was a federal law.
"Who defines the parameters of "foreign affairs" and why are they special?"
Foreign is anything outside of US territory. And it is a special case because the Constitution gives Congress the authority to naturalize citizens from foreign countries and deal with commerce between foreign nations. Nowhere does the Constitution give that power to the states. As you dig farther into the Constitution it is my opinion that anything that deals with foreign relations is left strictly to the federal government and not the states.
"There sure is. Now why does that matter?"
It matters because that deals with foreign relations, just like this travel ban.
"I agree, which is why it is deciding it. Beyond initiating the lawsuit, the state of Hawaii had no role in the judge's decision. Judge Watson is a part of the District Court of Hawaii, which is a part of the federal government. The issuing of an injunction is part of the process by which the federal government enacts policy."
The federal court is the SC. Watson represents the federal courts in Hawaii. So yes, it is a part of the federal government, but it does not have the final say. The SC does. So this judge should not be having a say in deciding if federal law should be enforced, that is the SC's job.
"How so? Give me a scenario in which Arizona could control immigration that is analogous to this."
They can build their own wall or do what they did with Arizona SB 1070. There was a lot of controversy with that and I remember people on the left crying foul with AZ passed that law. However these same people on the left were jumping for joy when a Hawaii judge stopped the travel ban. I see some inconsistencies there.
"No they can't. If a judge in a Federal District Court in Texas issued an injunction ordering a change
in policy, the injunction would be ignored and immediately shot down.
There's a difference between delaying the implementation of a new
policy, and demanding a specific policy be enacted."
Why? I see no difference because in both cases you are refusing to enforce a federal law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bernie Sanders is a communist. He wants to destroy private businesses and create a centralized government. I am sorry that people don't understand what communism in practice is, but that is what Bernie Sanders is pushing for. I know he calls himself a "democratic socialist", but consider what N. Korea actually calls themselves. Is there anything democratic about their country?
When small business owners approached Bernie regarding his policies he has vilified them. He has no concern about their income, their business model, how many people they employ, their expenses, etc. All he cares about is them following the rules he creates. And if they can't follow them they have to shut down and all of those workers will have to receive government assistance. A great example is in the debate against Ted Cruz when that hair salon owner asked Bernie about Obamacare and expanding her business Bernie simply said "I'm sorry, but you have to give them healthcare". He had no concern about her income, expenses, revenue, how many employees are full time vs part times, etc. When Herman Cain approached Bill Clinton about Clinton's healthcare bill Clinton at least showed concern about Cain's business and used numbers to support his case.
I am sorry, but if you can't see that Bernie is a communist and can't see that with the clear difference between how Sanders acts towards businesses and how Clinton acts, then you are delusional. He is a communist.
1
-
"We believe he lost because of corruptiom in the government. we elect
people to vote on things and often times the stuff coming into law is
not what people agree with. someone can be popular and lose in a system
like this."
Just because something is popular does not mean it is the best route for the country to take. And if it is popular then it should be passed at the state level. That was the design of this country.
"also, bermie sanders would not be considered a communist under any
official political placement. he wouldnt even really be a socialist.
communism is complete economic equality, what bernie sanders supports is
transfer of wealth to the poor through various policies."
Read my comment where I compared Bill Clinton to Bernie Sanders. Both supported transfer of wealth with certain policies. Difference is that Clinton understood that resources are limited, and that the private sector is important. Bernie vilifies private businesses and has no concern about their income, revenue, business model, lifestyles, etc. You can sit there and have a discussion on whether or not a business model is good, or discuss how much revenue they generate and come up with policies to progress our society based on that. Bernie, however does not do that. He supports the arbitrary number of 50 employees being when a business has to pay for healthcare insurance. And his justification is that the employees can get sick, and that it must be done. He pushes for a $15/hr min. wage with no justification for that. He pushes for all these business regulations and when approached about it by a small business owner he diverts the conversations to "millionaires and billionaires". He has no concern about his business model or revenue.
There is a clear difference between supporting the transfer of wealth and what Bernie supports. He has shown he has no concern about learning about business and different models and the revenue they generate and expenses they have. If he did he would bring that up in debates. He hasn't. When pressed on the issues he diverts the attention to "millionaires and billionaires" and "the 1%" and "big corporations". His only concern is expansion of the federal government which makes him a communist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't support the federal government getting involved in any state issue unless it is to enforce the constitution. There is an argument to be made with the 14th amendment in making gay marriage legal. Let us look at CA definition of marriage
"Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons...."
Nowhere does it say between a man and woman, or people of the same state. Now look at section 1 of the 14th amendment
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Ok, if two people of the same sex were to get married then CA has to allow them since their law does not specifically say man and woman, but two people. Same with two people of different race. CA, via the 14th amendment, cannot deprive citizens of that. Now if CA's law said between a man and a woman then the 14th amendment can't be applied in gay marriage here. You understand what is going on?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Bernie fights for healthcare for all, higher minimum wage, making sure
social security isn't fucked with, better funding for schools"
How? Any politician can say what he says. How is he fighting for them? Is he donating his money? Is he becoming a professor to teach future student to become doctors? How is he doing it? Oh, that's right. He is screaming "millionaires and billionaires" and "big corporations" and say they must "pay their fair share". How is that fighting? That is just running your mouth.
" Yet you can seriously say Bernie is the selfish one? "
All he is doing is running his mouth. He is not the one doing the actual work. He is not the one who is a doctor or a professor who has to provide these services to others.
"Bernie does donate to charity,"
In 2014 he donates a smaller percentage of his income than Hillary did.
"and I'm sure when you get money you're just dying to donate it. "
I only make $21,000 a year. But I donate my time. As a TA who teaches physics I am only required to have one office hour. I hold more and tutored several of my students, for free, for their lecture course. One I spent 3 hours a week doing it for free. So I donate my time.
"I know plenty of working class people who own more than one property, "
I don't have a problem with that, they are not the ones who are hypocrites.
"Just because you own a house doesn't make you rich."
In the US you are considered well off if you do considering how the average person has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home.
"So you're telling me it's wrong that a 70 year old man had a house that's paid off and one he's paying on? "
As long as he is not a hypocrite I don't care.
"Are you jealous because you can't afford a house? "
Nope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+cinigs56
Point by point
1. I outlined how the trade agreement is beneficial. The economy evolves, jobs come and go. The tractor replaced farmers. Do we ban tractors to create jobs? No. We push people to take on higher skilled jobs. The same applies for those manufacturing jobs.
2. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.abstract
"We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids"
This is not to say fracking is great, but the attacks on it are unjustified at this point. People want to talk about tap water on fire when that has been happening for decades before fracking was taking place.
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/19050
Other countries like Canada have been doing fracking for a while with no problems.
3. Bernie has admitted in his own tax plan and publicly that everyone's taxes will go up.
4. 90% of businesses don't fail. In around a 5 year span it is around 50%. But you just admitted that you support businesses failing? And you intern for a tech company. I interned for a research lab and made around that much. That is not comparable to other businesses. Your tech company you work for has a business model that is able to afford higher wages mainly due to the area of the market they are involved in.
5. A lot of small business owners are middle class family. Contrary to popular liberal belief small business owners are not millionaires.
6. You need to learn what wealth is. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average homeowner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth. Also consider that people are taking out loans to go to college those individuals have negative wealth. I have negative wealth but still own a nice car, computer and have my own apartment I rent in a nice neighborhood for a grad. student. I have negative wealth due to my loans.
Wealth has always grown at the top, it isn't bad but actually good for the economy.
7. We try to alleviate the situation by giving them jobs. I guess we should just be isolationists?
8. Terrorist effect the entire world. I guess you are ignoring what happened in France recently?
9. Working in a factory is not similar to working in fast food. In a factory you have to deal with stricter safety regulations and rules. If you did not have to deal with that then you did not work in a factory. There is a reason why you need a least a GED to work in a factory/warehouse.
10. "We will always need low skilled jobs. At least until they are replaced by robotics..."
Or they leave the country to developing countries.
11. Single payer will make the situation worse. We have arguably the best healthcare system in the world already
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
The main problem with our system is cost mainly due to the federal government. Getting the government more involved will make the situation worse. But it still doesn't take away from the fact that we lack doctors and staff. Pushing people to take on those careers will alleviate that situation.
12. I work in the STEM field as well. There is nothing wrong with adding more people. I can only assume at this point you are not very good at your job and thus would be scared of competition. I embrace it knowing it would make me better and bring progress. Doing research there is so much we have to learn thus having more people in the field will help that.
13. I know what that word means
14. Most chemist don't work in factories. I have no clue where you get that. And by working in a factory I mean working on the floor. What do I plan to do for a living? Be a college professor and train people in the STEM fields.
15. "LOL, I know chemist have it much worse than us software engineers but really you guys only get that."
Chemist have it pretty well in my opinion, but whatever. Different strokes for different folks. You can play around on your little computer (which I do myself) while I enjoy working on my class 4 laser set up.
But I can see you did not get what I was alluding to. I was saying that Bernie is going to promise all of those things, so why work hard to get a job that offers them already? Why work hard if you are going to get everything given to you?
16. We can stop bombing the Middle East right now and problems would still exist.
17. I agree, so what's your point? It is not a counter argument to what I said.
18. "As stated above there can only be a limited percentage of people in the population working in high skilled jobs"
Why?
19. "Why don't they have that problem in Denmark then?"
Denmark has around 5 million people, mandatory military, no major company, and is economically irrelevant compared to the US and has a completely different society. Saying "Denmark.....derp" really makes you look like a fool. Really, you are going to compare the US to Denmark?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+liedata011
Finland's teacher unions push teachers to actually educate the children. Also their system endorses creativity as opposed to just we have with CCSS. It also helps when they have around 5 million people. I do support Finland's system and feel states should follow suit. That would mean dismantling the department of education and changing how teacher unions act. You see it goes beyond just them having public schools. Nowhere in my previous comment did I suggest dismantling public schools, I suggested that the federal government should stay out of education (and was prior to the 1980s) and our teachers should actually care about student success.
The US does have the best university system in the world. We have a very diverse system that develops a strong connection between staff, students, and professors. You don't see that in other universities, at least not as strongly.
You are talking about choosing a university for research, you do that for internships and graduate school. For undergrad your selection is highly diverse. There is also a reason why the US is number 1 in percent of international students in college. Some universities place restrictions on the number of international students to accept into a program.
I agree poverty is an issue, but there are programs for people in poverty to get accepted into college and be able to afford it. Also college is cheap if you choose the right on. My undergrad was $10,000 a year including summer sessions. That is not expensive considering the payoff.
"Schools with less money will usually have less equipment due to having
less funds. Less text books, less teachers, and less teaching hours
equals less education and less likely to get employed. Hence you're
stuck in the same economical situation as your parents, who are likely
working two low paying jobs, so can't help their kids with their
education either."
I agree that is an issue. I feel that can be solved by changing the teacher unions. Actually pay teachers well who are successful in teaching in low income K-12 schools. That is not how teacher unions work though in the US.
"n paper this seems to be a good thing, but if you look at the fine
print, or even better go to one of these countries you'll find out that
these deals are holding back the economies of these countries."
Those countries are developing countries with basically zero jobs. Those trade deals help them develop. That is how us as the US developed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ylze Tyr
Nope, she is winning because the democratic party would rather vote for a corrupt politician over a radical. No laws or rules were broken, so everything was fair. But what am I saying, Bernie supporters feel that "fair" is Bernie getting a portion of Clinton's delegates. Face it, Bernie lost because of his radical policies.
I can easily give arguments against Sanders' policies. But why? He lost. It is clear the people don't want him.
"and if something is paid for by tax dollars, it's not "free". there is no possible way you can rationalize that."
Yes I can. The top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes while earning only 40% of the income. The bottom 47% get money back from the government. It is free for them because they are getting something without working for it or paying for it. By definition it is free.
"we're not talking about isolated tribes. we're talking about modern nations that have a very similar culture to ours. "
One, they don't have similar cultures. Take colleges for example. No other country has the NCAA attached to it. Next, you said people. So yes, we are including isolated tribes.
"point is, our society is not that different from the countries that have such policies"
They are different. Denmark, for example, has mandatory military. Do you support that? Norway subsidizes their programs with oil. Bernie wants to get off of fossil fuels. So it is clear we can't copy Norway. We can't copy Denmark either considering Bernie supporters want to cut the military. Germany, by law, prevents people from going to college. Do you support that? So yes, it would be a drastic adjustment. Like I said before, how do you account for the NCAA with colleges?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TomWithtime
I don't live in Pennsylvania, Iowa or OK, so why should I care? I live nowhere near those states. If their roads and bridges are so bad then they should fix them. Also, being raised near Iowa, I know they have a lot of windmills. That is one drawback with windmills, they destroyed a lot of roads in the transport of them. Now I am not opposed to them (I support them in many ways), it just goes to show how pushing for alternative energy does have a lot of negative side effects.
"185 of 239 bridges in Washington DC are also planned to be fixed."
Good for DC, again, not my problem.
"So... the more you look... the more specifics there are. "
Actually no. I want to know specific cost, longevity, how long it will take and so on. Just spending $1 trillion is not wise if you don't have a plan. Without a plan that will lead to hindering economic growth.
"Any of these facts sinking in?"
What facts? All I see are hopes and dreams.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TomWithtime
Really? I am currently working on my PhD in physical chemistry and when writing grant proposals you have to have data. You have to lay out what you will spend your money on and how much it will cost. But you really need data to show that your money won't be wasted.
Bernie claims he will raise $1 trillion, and how? And he wants to spend it on what bridges? You claim he has a list, but yet he does not show that. So to me, immediately, he is just raising $1 trillion to waste. He does not get into specifics on how much steel costs and concrete or labor. So that $1 trillion is sounding like a number he just pulled out of his ass. He is not writing a presentation here, he is asking for tax dollars to spend. No different then when my research group writes grants asking for money to spend. We need data and a plan to show how we will spend that money. So it is clear to me that you never written anything to request money.
It is the same for his job program for the youth. What jobs? He does not say that, or say how it will generate wealth. Paying people to dig holes in the desert and refill them is not an investment. The last grant we wrote we gave data on a molecule showing the spectrum. If we get that grant we have to collect more on that molecule and others similar to it. If we don't we won't get our grant renewed. We just don't write a grant proposal saying "we need $X amount of money to do research". We present data, we write up how it is relevant, and how we will spend it. It may be pages.
From this conversation I imagine you are one of those guys who never even studied science or worked in the field of science.
"The universe is flat. How does that sound to you? Would the number of
resources you would need to go through to understand the fundamentals of
that make you say it's bullshit and conclude only that?"
Not many resources really. To understand the math behind it in details you will need a solid background. It is a graduate level problem in Classical Mechanics where you start talking about a flat university, an open and closed one. On top of that you start talking about the big bang and the big crunch. But someone in that field can explain it with limited resources. Scientific American does so for they layman to understand. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/httpblogsscientificamericancomdegrees-of-freedom20110731what-do-you-mean-the-universe-is-flat-part-ii/
My research requires a deep understanding of physics and biology, but I can explain it to people who never took those classes to where they can understand what I do for my research.
The fact that Bernie can't lay out his plans on what bridges need to be built, the estimate cost of resources and labor, and if they are even necessary shows he is unfit for president. And as a voter I am similar to a committee that approves or denies grant. And I, along with other voters denied him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TomWithtime
"The first bit is listed under the "how will bernie pay for everything"
section on his website. The second bit is being left to engineers - if
they can't do it, who can?"
1. It isn't. It says it is projected to raise that much. You also have to realize that money does not have finite value. Taking it and wasting it lowers the value of the dollar. If he does that prices, such as the price of concrete and steel, goes up. So the $1 trillion now won't be that much 5 years from now, the purchasing power will be less.
"Yes, the engineers I mentioned. "
Which engineers? I need names and credentials. Bernie is the same guy who wants to hire Robert Reich feeling that he is an actual economists (he isn't).
"If you're suggesting we can't trust an ENGINEER, "
I can trust an engineer, it depends on which one. I am not suggesting engineers are often wrong, I am saying they can be wrong and have been wrong in the past. Remember, this is all projected cost. I still don't see details. And the federal government has a strong history of being wrong on several points, and not in a good way.
"The people best suited to do the estimates are doing them."
Not really. I also see you continue to ignore the youth employment issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TomWithtime
"I guess american fascism would be strictly enforced government
legislature with no variation per state? I don't think that'll be the
case with everything, just health care, wages, other debate topics.
Positive fascism.. haha. "
According to the constitution we are supposed to have state rights where states took care of domestic policies. Also, what may be positive for one state is a negative for another state. With Bernie's plan my tax dollars will be spent on a bridge I will never use. Thus that is not a positive for me.
1. It is punishing the rich. The top 10$ pay 70% of federal income taxes (which used to be unconstitutional) despite only earning 40% of the income.
"The 1% doesn't just own 99% of the wealth, they own the majority of new wealth created too. "
That is not true. Also, wealth does not equal income. The average home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average homeowner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Someone with no other assets and only having $10 has more wealth than 25% of the country. Having wealth disparity is actually good because it means wealth is being created. There is no such thing as redistribution of the wealth. It is only destruction of wealth.
"I know it's capitalism 101 that a rich person could buy the contents of a grocery store and let everyone else starve, "
That is a very naive way of looking at it. Capitalism is someone making an investment, possibly going into debt, to open a grocery store and selling food to consumers. In order for that person to become rich they have to sell a good or service to consumers. Nobody just doesn't become rich. But I guess in your mind they do. That is why you think like Bernie that the rich must be punished.
2. How do other countries do free college? By limiting who goes. They track students and if the government does not feel you are qualified for college then they don't allow you to go. Other ways are that they simply have inferior colleges compared to the US.
3. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. While we should continue studying it and look at the issue of climate change, we can't make radical decisions when so much is unknown. Bernie does which will kill many jobs, raise energy prices, and hurt the economy in other sectors including scientific research. So on the climate change issue I label Bernie anti-science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well the chokehold isn't illegal, it is not allowed, a slight difference. But this wasn't a chokehold, it was a seatbelt hold (at least determined to be) which is similar and cops are trained liked that. You don't like it, than change the law. Also, it is a little excessive to do what they did for a guy selling cigarettes (one again, if you hate the law than change it), but this is a man who have been arrested several times. He has a record, and wouldn't listen to police, he was resisting arrest. So that is a point where the cops are going to have it in for you.
Now not letting him up, if every cop were to let a criminal up saying they can't breath we would have a lot more dead cops. Criminals are not particularly honest, thus you can't trust them. If the cop lets him up, he gets up, stabs a cop and runs, then what? This man as out of shape and it has been determined that his health played a bigger role.
There wasn't any law broken by the cops at this point. So what Kyle said is factually incorrect. The big picture of this is that people need to listen to the cops. Listen to the cops and than deal it out later. Fighting and not obeying the cops is leading to these problems. Do what they say and then sort it out later.
Now someone may have a different opinion, but look at the whole story, not just what Kyle says. And, as I just mentioned, listen to the cops. If you start looking for trouble with cops you will get trouble. Comparing this to Ferguson, whether you like it or not, Brown did assault the cop, and if Brown would have been on the sidewalk, or just did what the cop asked than he would be alive. It isn't like these cops are going around killing people execution style.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is true, you don't have a right to anyone else's services if they are a private business receiving zero tax dollars.
If a business denies someone service for being gay, white, black, Asian, male, female, rich, poor, straight, Christian, jew, muslim, young, old, etc. then that is their freedom. I am willing to go all the way. Show me where in the constitution people have that right to someone else's service.
Now interracial marriage was mentioned. Interracial marriage is a 14th amendment issue. Churches can deny interracial marriage but if a state government is going to recognize marriage then they can't discriminate based on race via the 14th amendment.
If I walked into a restaurant and the liberal owner told me to leave because I am a white male then I will go to the business next door. I won't use the force of the federal government to go against his belief, I will just go to the business next door and gladly give my money to that business.
I guarantee you everyone discriminates in some way shape or form, and if you deny that then you are a liar and a fraud.
Ultra liberals like Kyle are not funny. You are that dumb that I find it scary that there are actual people that think like you. No different then the crazy person on the street corner yelling about god coming or Alex Jones or Jim Jones or Charles Manson. A dumb person that thinks that way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+MrBeauty
Well that is a new site. Funny how these sites just keep appearing out of nowhere.
" but it seems very clear to me that the rich have been getting richer"
Saying that is being deceptive. Athletes are also getting more athletic, is that necessarily bad? Why are the rich getting richer? Well for several reasons
1. A CEO manages more people due to population being longer and people living longer. Thus they are paid more. If you were to take the top 6 executives from Walmart and spread all of their money to the 525,000 lowest paid workers of Walmart they will earn an extra $147 a year. That is it. Really puts a different perspective on how much CEOs really earn
2. Skilled Bias Technological Change look it up. But also consider how increased technology has improved everyone's lives. You are currently having a discussion on something that did not exist in it's highly efficient form 10 years ago. People are better off than they were a couple of decades ago. In reality everyone got richer
Now those two reasons are not bad at all. Here are other reasons
1. Due to the regulations, inequality in the tax code, and welfare programs income inequality has grown. I do feel that is a problem (it is worth mentioning that wealth inequality is not bad, there is a difference between wealth and income). You have to realize the mentality of those who are well off. If you attack them they will attack back even harder. They work harder and are more creative in what they do. By taxing them higher, taking their money, and paying people money for simply doing nothing you create the environment where the rich just tells the rest of society to basically fuck off.
2. We have a very spoiled society. We have people who want money for nothing. People want a higher min. wage.....they want an unearned higher wage. People want "free college" and "free healthcare". They want things without earning them. People who think like that are typically not well off (or feel they are not well off) for a reason. Those that are rich did not make excuses or asked for handouts, they worked for what they got.
Compare it to this. Say it is a race. Those who are begging for handouts don't run hard and instead sit there crying refusing to run. Those who do work hard, the rich, kept running and are pulling farther and farther ahead. Sure there will be slow runners and fast runners. Sure there will be those who got a head start, but sitting there moping does not catch you up.
So saying the "rich are getting richer" is being very deceptive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"neither has 90% of the Republican party or the president but they seem to not be questioned abut their lol scientific, "facts.""
Democrats do not have any formal scientific work as well, so what's your point?
"sorry again i'll take bill nigh any day of the week. "
What about me? I am a moderate and I have actual formal studies in science. I have actual papers published in peer reviewed journals. But again, why are you not calling out democrats?
"source? please oh please tell me source, I'm loving such all out crap."
I called you out for a source. However, Scott Pruitt said climate change is happening. The right wing commentators that are big now, such as Ben Shapiro, said it is happening. They know it is happening as it has been happening for over 4 billion years.
"yeah aside from how many scientists claiming it's real and oh surprise the democrats agreeing with the actual scientists?
"
Again, Democrats have no scientific background as well. You are clearly missing the point. However, you will be hard pressed to find scientists saying it is an actual threat, which republicans agree with.
"yeah i also remember him saying the scientists are telling us this,
let's listen, which sounds like actual fucking advice and good sense to
me?"
I have yet to hear Bernie Sanders list any of theses scientists or being any on stage or on the air with him. Anyone can say "listen to scientists". Ok, who? List them?
On the chromosome issue, the Snopes article allowed the excuse of saying that Bill Nye simply "evolved" on his knowledge and ideas. That is a lame excuse. The reality is that he is a mechanical engineer, not a practicing scientist. He is not an biologist. He has little understanding of biology nor has never done any formal research in it. I see nothing that suggests he "evolved" there. Snopes did not debunk anything. What was being shown is that Bill Nye just repeats what is said to him.
On Bill Nye supporting arresting people, it is clear. He supports arresting people who disagree with him on climate change. I have saw the full clip. It is clear. There is no way you can dance around that.
The rest of your comment after that is incoherent. You went on about religion, pragerU and Dennis Miller. What are you trying to do?
Bill Nye is wrong here. He is appealing to an ultra liberal crowd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Paige Anderson
"Kyle was trying to make fun of Bill."
Yes, by acting like a child.
"Bernie has explained that yes, he will break up the big banks if
president, but that will give more power to smaller state/community
banks. "
No, it would give more power to the government. If you are running a company than you can only become so big because if you become too big, by some arbitrary standard set by Bernie, than you will be broken up.
Compare that to a top athlete winning too many championships or a top scientist publishing too many papers and someone forcing them to stop. Also there are advantages to having big banks.
"I'm pretty sure that a lot of American people whose jobs were lost under
the 2008 recession, had to give up their homes during the mortgage
crisis,"
Recessions happen. The bank bail outs slowed down recovery. Also the FHA has a role in the housing crisis.
"But, if something is using its power for corrupt reasons, it has every right to be stopped!"
I agree, like the federal government. If we follow the constitution and limit the powers of the federal government then these problems would not exist.
"Why would controlling certain areas of government be oh-so-horrible? "
Because you have to have control of the government. You do that with more local government. Too much government is just as bad as no government.
"For example, the state governments that AREN'T allowing programs like Obamacare"
Ever thought those citizens of those states want that? Why do you want to ram you lifestyle and form of government down their throats?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This is simply your opinion. Abortion is a right that's protected under the 14th amendment."
Nope because the word "abortion" does not exist in that amendment. It was an incorrect ruling much like Kelo vs City of New London
"You point to state, while I cite the poll,"
Than why the wide gap? Colorado is a decent size, and pretty liberal state.
"That's a pretty callous way to be, considering republicans will now be essentially killing people, by denying them care."
The democrats had the same reaction when the right complained about Obamacare. What goes around comes around.
"The only people that 'wanted this' are republicans and their money-daddys."
And only democrats wanted Obamacare.
"On gay marriage, abortion, and segregation, your way has lead to failure for those most vulnerable"
Abortion was an incorrect ruling. No government can segregate as covered in the 14th amendment. Marriage is a state issue and gay marriage was, in some ways, an incorrect ruling.
" your way has lead to failure for those most vulnerable"
And your way leads to the mess we have now with republicans now changing healthcare. This is what you wanted.
"Why blame me, when it is people like you and Paul Ryan that are leading to this? "
If Paul Ryan did not have that power you gave him this would not be an issue. I want states to handle these issues. I want people like Paul Ryan to not have any say in healthcare. You did.
1
-
1
-
"Again, this is simply your opinion. "
Nope, I go off of the constitution and it is black and white to me. Abortion is not a right thus it should be a state law. If abortion is a right why isn't assisted suicide?
"This talk about Colorado is pointless. The fact is that most of the country supports single-payer healthcare. "
But it failed in two states. So pointing at Colorado is not pointless. It is like how most of the polls said Clinton will win many swing states, some by wide margins but lost.
"This is a lie. Obama Care saved thousands"
You can't determine that as thousands is a minute amount of people. How many people did Obamacare make worse off financially?
"Most Americans want single-payer healthcare."
Then why did it fail to pass in Vermont and Colorado? Why did so many republicans win on the idea of repealing Obamacare?
"That's simply your opinion on Roe v Wade, Jim Crow was rampant until
Brown v Board of Education was won, and you don't agree with gays being
protected? Great. Figures."
Roe vs Wade as an incorrect ruling as nothing in the Constitution mentions abortion. On Brown vs Board you have the 14th amendment in that case in how no government can discriminate. That is the difference. On gays, name me one right that gays lack. And please cite the constitution.
"Blaming me, for the sins of you and your fellows, is a cheap, dishonest tactic."
I want to get to the root of the problem. If Paul Ryan did not have power he could not do this. With state rights these issues are isolated at the state level where the people have more control. On top of you giving Paul Ryan power, can you even vote for him? I can't. You created this problem now you have to deal with it.
"Incorrect. Paul Ryan is simply doing what you wish, and rolling it back
to the dark days, when the government was out, and the insurance
companies were in complete control."
Not true. The government has been involved in healthcare for decades. They have hurt the ability for the people to negotiate insurance coverage and drug prices.
Healthcare should be a state issue. You can create your healthcare laws in your state and go from there. You don't have to force it on others and others won't force their laws on you. Sound fair? People complained about Obamacare for years but you supported it. Now it is the other person's turn to force their law on you. Whether I agree with Paul Ryan or not is not the issue. What is is the fact that you gave him that power now you are crying about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Calvin, the tax breaks was pure deflection by Bernie as he had no response.
On pre-existing conditions, you don't get healthcare insurance when you need it. That is not how it works. On people losing healthcare insurance. Cruz responded to that. He wants to create competition which will lower premiums. And everyone rations, Cruz addressed that as well. Bernie got destroyed as he did not bring anything in terms of data or facts.
"His "facts" were fact checked the day after and most of them were incorrect."
Only a handful, the vast majority of them were not.
" Cruz used emotional arguments by using anecdotes "
So did Bernie.
"whereas Bernie actually talked about people as a whole"
Nope.
"presenting facts about how premiums were rising before ACA, and how women were considered pre existing conditions. "
Obamacare was passed on the idea that premiums will drop but they didn't. Also, on women, get insurance before you get pregnant. On top of that, with competition insurance companies will cater to the customers. Cruz brought that up.
"Or how millions would lose insurance under the repeal"
Just like millions lost it and saw their premiums go up when it was passed.
"Mentioned how we pay more for healthcare while getting worse outcomes."
We do not get worse outcomes. When you run through the numbers you see that single payer is not any better than what we have.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Bernie even admitted he struggled in science which it is safe to assume he struggled in math. When you look at the data the US does not get worse outcomes.
"These are facts."
Not really. He made talking points but never gave hard data, so in reality they are opinions.
"Sanders even cited the conservative leaning Wall Street journal and how the plan is just a giant tax break to the rich. "
Which is deflection. The topic was healthcare, not taxes.
"He mentioned sanders plan and how he wouldn't be able to pay for it a
the very end when sanders couldn't respond. Not to mention that Cruz did
not cite anything; it was just declarative statements.
"
Cruz gave his citation. What did Bernie do? He deflected by talking about taxes.
"And it shows, majority of the American people approve of the ACA currently. "
Nope, people voted for republicans to repeal it.
"Town halls are packed with people who don't want it repealed"
Being louder does not mean you are the majority. Look at how many people attended the women's march but Trump still won. When I look at those town halls I see a bunch of cry babies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Calvin, Bernie in all of his debates always deflects. He brings up a handful of talking points. He either talks about millionaires and billionaires, big corporations, the top 1%, or exaggerates stories of how people are suffering. Every politician deflects in some ways, but that is all Bernie does. I have never heard him in a debate where he doesn't.
Bernie was debating Douglas Holtz-Eakin on the minimum wage and Bernie immediately starting talking about Walmat. When Douglas brought up the fact that there are other businesses Bernie went back to Walmart. He is a fool.
" He didn't even review what bernie's plan actually was. "
And Bernie did not even know what his plan is as he did not defend it.
"That doesn't address anything. Bernie mentioned how people were denied coverage due to arbitrary pre-existing conditions."
Due to lack of competition and also people all of a sudden feeling they need insurance now that they are sick. But, pre-existing conditions can be solved with both the free market and local government intervention.
" Does not address people losing their insurance, does not address how costs would lower. "
Yes it does because competition means lower cost. If a company charged too much a rival will charge a lower price to attract customers.
"Meanwhile he was getting slaughtered as Bernie continued to hammer away on how people would lose insurance"
Cruz responded to that with offering more choices. Being covered is just one step. Bernie wants people to be covered but never mentions the quality. If we are covered but quality is low it does not matter.
"He didn't say "everyone rations" that's you saying it. Cruz specifically
tried to attack single payer by bringing up the outdated rationing
argument, meaning that he thinks the US doesn't."
No. Rationing by the government creating some arbitrary list is not good. If someone put themselves in an position to have access to healthcare, why should they wait?
" whereas Bernie actually spoke of millions of people losing insurance."
And millions lost it because of Obamacare.
"With no evidence to back it up. Again, declarative statement. if Cruz
said what you just said in your first two sentences of this paragraph,
he'd be getting death threats. "
Obama said Obamacare will lower premiums. That was the promise Obama made. Cruz did not make that up.
"The rate of rising premiums have actually slowed down because of ACA"
Because of the recession.
"Cool opinion. Almost every objective study which has examined different country's healthcare disagrees with you completely."
I guess you did not read that book I gave you which did many statistical regression. Looking at UN numbers does not make it a study. How about you give me those studies, i did.
"our outcomes are worse"
Based off of zero evidence.
"What citation? it was mostly just declarative statements.
Yes Bernie talked about taxes, because Cruz's plan and the republican
healthcare plan in general is nothing but that. A transfer of wealth
from the bottom to the top. Raising premiums and other costs
dramatically."
Cruz gave citations, watch the video again. And the topic was healthcare, not taxes.
"Because Trump..."
Trump did not run in 2010 or 2012 or 2014, when Republicans won.
"Women's march was after he won."
Yeah, he won. Maybe if people voted they could get what they wanted. Or maybe they are just the loud minority.
1
-
1
-
"(citation needed) (empirical evidence needed) "
Ironic you say that when you have not given one yourself. Look at the free market in other sectors. You see lower prices and better quality. Now look at programs ran by the federal government such as the post office or the VA or public education.
"This problem wasn't solved when those pre-existing conditions existed and when there was more competition"
We have not had more competition in years.
"Yes, let's act like getting a life saving medication when you're almost
dying is akin to buying furniture. Same fucking thing, right?"
When it comes to insurance it is.
"Your simplistic view of the world is amazing."
Ironic coming from a guy who feels that single payer will solve everything ignoring the complexity of the issue.
"if someone is completely dependent on a treatment to the point where they're guaranteed to buy it"
Like food? But the price of food has been dropping for years. Housing is important where the federal government, with the FHA, has been subsidizing that for years and housing has gone up. Hmmmm
"what reason would these companies have to lower their price?"
Gain more customers, just like other businesses offer lower prices and sales.
"if they know that you will buy it because death is threatening you, why
wouldn't they charge however they see fit and then bill them later? "
Because a rival company will charge less.
" People don't have time to shop around for the best deal when they're sick and desperate"
For insurance they do.
"Bernie had little time to respond to it, nor was the debate about Bernie's plan"
He had ample amount of time to respond, especially if he stayed on topic and didn't go to taxes immediately.
"People in Canada and Scandniavia are doing better than we are;"
Not really. When you analyze the stats you see that they are not better off and they face problems.
" in fact they laugh at us"
And people in the US laugh at them.....so what's your point?
"Except it's not arbitrary. it's done by need and emergency"
Define an emergency. Life threatening is one thing, which is already given priority. But what about knee surgery or hip surgery? Why do I have to wait for that? I put myself in a position to receive care, I should get it and get back to work. Not be held back because I have to wait for someone else to get care.
" Let's ignore the fact that more people gained insurance"
You forced them to buy it.
"Let's ignore how more people were dying"
Nothing suggests that was the case. People die on waiting lists.
"On my phone, but commonwealthfund, bloomberg, World health organization,"
Commonwealthfund admitted their "study" had flaws. The WHO was criticized so much that they did not release another ranking since. They compared the US to countries like Andorra and Malta. We football stadiums that can hold the population of Andorra with room to spare. Andorra is a tax haven with around 80% of their GDP tied into tourism. That is a small population that attracts money. That is not a valid comparison. I did not see Bloomberg, but considering it is not academic it is safe to say it is flawed.
"I mean you can simply look at our life expectancy"
There are several factors that play a role in life expectancy. For example, Professors John Schneider and Robert Ohsfeldt showed that if you remove car accidents and murder, things not strongly connected to healthcare, the US is number one in life expectancy. Also, the life expectancy of the world is 71±7 years. The US is close to 79 years, so one standard deviation above the average. Japan is at 85 years. That six year difference is noise in statistics. Again, just looking at UN numbers does not make you an expert on healthcare. You have to analyze the data, not just look at the raw numbers.
"What citations did he give? And for what statements?"
I cited a book called "The Business of Health" by Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider. I will give you the link in another comment.
"Its not a deflection, though. It relates to the topic at hand, which is why he brings it up"
It is not related. Cruz showed that buy taxing the rich we still can't pay for healthcare. Bernie did not give a rebuttal on the numbers. Cruz's tax plan means nothing at that point because the issue was that Bernie's plan is expensive and we can't afford it. Bernie did not disagree. Bernie tried to smear Cruz with his deflection but failed to stay on topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Funny how you say that when you have yet to cite a single country that uses your shitty and regressive free market plan"
So what? Regressing to the norm is not a solution. Other countries use different systems anyway and when you break it down you see that the US system is not terrible compared to other countries. So what are you arguing here? That other countries are different? That is not an argument.
"Pre-ACA there was plenty of competition"
Not true. Most people get their healthcare from their employer because of the payroll tax. They don't have a choice but instead are stuck with what their employer offers.
"What? They've been increasing
Even if they did decrease, i thought we didn't live in a free market."
Food prices have been decreasing. Also, I said our healthcare is not a free market system. Neither is food but food is more free than healthcare in that people can still grow in their yard for example and can choose where to get their food.
"No where did i say it would solve everything lmao. I'm just saying it's a better system based on empirical evidence and data. "
Except data shows it isn't a better system. You are being too simplistic here. Nothing indicates that single payer is better. Is it worse? No, it isn't that either. It just isn't better than what the US has now.
"How much less? And what guarantee is it that it'll be enough?"
You are not guaranteed anything. Just like with single payer you are not guaranteed care.
"Except Cruz completely strayed from the topic. He talked about BERNIE's
Healthcare plan and not the ACA/its replacement which was the point of
discussion."
Bernie wrote part of the ACA and is pushing for single payer. Cruz is showing that government care has many flaws, one of which we can't afford it. He was on topic the whole time.
" and instead Bernie did the smart thing and went back on topic, "
The topic was healthcare, not taxes. Bernie went way off topic like he always does.
"where he mentioned how the replacements would not only give the rich even more money"
One, that was his tax plan, not his healthcare plan. Next, not give but allow them to keep the money they earned.
" When the plan itself says that it would give tax break to the wealthy "
Which was his tax plan, not healthcare plan.
"Based on partisan and right-wing nonsense. Of course they face problems,
but they also don't die NEARLY enough, nor do they go bankrupt like we
do."
All the references and methods are there for you to criticize. How are they wrong? Also,where are your numbers that show "they also don't die NEARLY enough"?
"Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent
limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high
performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and
experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important
dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from
medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’
assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations,
which could differ by country and culture."
That was from the Commonwealthfund. They admitted flaws.
"And which WHO study are you looking at? They ranked every country on a
scale and used many different factors to determine which one has the
best or worst healthcare. US was 37th. "
I am looking at that one. It is from 2000 and was criticized so much they refuse to make another ranking.
The Bloomberg study is rather vague as they only looked at life expectancy (as I showed you can depend on many variables) and expenditures. Healthcare is more complicated than that.
"Murder isn't strongly connected to healthcare? So mental health has no role in murder cases"
I said strongly connect. One, how many murders seek care? Next, the point was that there are many variables involved in life expectancy such as lifestyle for example. It just isn't about healthcare.
"6 years is a lot"
As a whole it isn't when the standard deviation is 7 years.
"If you can live 6 years more, that makes a world of difference. "
Does it? Lying in a bed for a few more years is not living. But, as a whole, 6 years is not a lot. As as we have seen, when you remove two variables the numbers change drastically showing the sensitivity of the data. That means that 6 years is noise. Study some advanced stats someday.
" No, that's the citation that YOU gave. I'm talking about Cruz."
Re-watch the video.
" It wasn't a smear, that's their plan"
That was his tax plan.
"At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year
[2008] ... were on patients age 65 or older.” And more than 1,500 of
those, it turned out, were on patients over 85."
And? How long did they have to wait?
"The bottom line: Canada doesn’t deny hip replacements to older people."
What was the waiting time?
"Know who gets most of the hip replacements in the United States? Older people.
"
No shit, they are old and fragile.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Again, incorrect."
Why? What is your reasoning?
"Clearly. "
Like you clearly don't have a full grasp on any topic in science.
"Newsflash: Doctors practice applied biology. "
In some ways. They use certain components of biology. Just like a doctorate in physics does not use all physics. A atomic and molecular guy may not know that much in terms of plasma. An organic chemist may not know that much in terms of quantum chemistry. There are many fields.
"The question was fine. You just lack bio knowledge."
So if you were to ask a doctorate in biology that question they would be able to answer it in detail?
"Again, incorrect. "
Nope. If the theory is outdated then why teach it to the point questions are asked?
"Yes. Some relevant, and some not. "
Yep, like cell theory is relevant to ask questions on it.
"But you'll cite a 13-year-old editorial, which sits on the fence on the issue. Great."
Scientific American, while not peer reviewed, is a great commercial source for many people. Several credible scientists submit articles there. I will never cite it in any of my publications, but it is, at the very least, on the same level as your source. And "on the fence" is not a bad thing in science as many theories in science are debatable.
1
-
1
-
"Already explained it with the bicycle comparison."
No it wasn't. You have to give me details on why Newtonian mechanics are outdated.
"Again, incorrect."
You have yet to support that.
"Incorrect. Again. Almost everything in medicine centers around vast
stretches of biology, and in multiple ways. Cellular biology, molecular
biology, genetics, anatomy, neurology, biochemistry, physiology,
pathology, pharmacology, microbiology, and so on. To be a doctor is to
be a jack of all trades. "
Not really. To be a doctor you don't have to have a deep understanding of the theory of evolution for example. Researchers worry about that. You have to understand those topics to a degree, but anymore these days things are specialized and you worry about that.
"I could have asked my cousin, in undergrad, those questions, and she'd have answers in seconds. "
Doubt it. You are asking a question a medical doctor will know. Your question is specialized. I can ask an undergrad in physics to explain BCS theory to me in detail on super conductors. I doubt they could because it is an advanced topic. But you seem to have taken science classes. How about you explain BCS theory to me. I mean, according to you all you need are undergraduate studies. In the end I doubt your cousin could answer your question unless they were, at the very lease, pre-med. Your question is too specialized.
"
Legacy and convenience. They teach Cell Theory, and then they teach why it's outdated. Get with the program.
"
Never seen one professor teach that cell theory is outdated.
"Only relevant for 3 or 4 questions in an exam. After that? Forget about it. Not relevant.
"
Then why put it on an exam? We don't ask questions on MASERs in optics or ask students to use the rectangle method in calculus.
"Your 13-year-old editorial is somehow equal to my recent study, which
itself was cited by many other studies, and was also wrote about by
another common source: Popular Science? That's funny. You're funny."
I gave you another source from a journal with an actual impact factor. I bet you do not know what impact factor even means. But on that alone my source is better than yours. Please try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Incorrect. Explained it perfectly. "
No it wasn't. Please explain in detail how Newtonian mechanics is outdated.
"Have done so multiple times."
Nope. You can always reference previous comments.
"Again, incorrect. Doctors have to understand different mechs of
evolution, and how they're relevant clinically, in courses such as
genetics. "
Not in that great of detail, especially if they are a specialist.
"Again. incorrect. The questions are fairly basic, especially the second one."
Nope, they are specialized. Point to me a textbook or test that asks that question.
"She answered them months ago.
"
Out of what book or test? What course.
"Considering you haven't studied bio ever, I'm not surprised."
My research is in biophysics.
"We've been over this multiple times. "
Nope.
"Well, well. We have ourselves a comedian here.
"
What references do you cite? I cited two and can give more. Please reference some textbook or test.
"Yeah. I actually know about viruses, and you don't."
You apparently don't as you can't even find proper references. I did very easily.
"The comparison was meant to illustrate that a thing can work in certain
situations, and still be outdated, like Newtonian Mechanics. Again,
you're failing to see the point. "
It was a poor comparison as Newtonian mechanics was recently used to describe how a bicycle works
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2084/1955
But according to you they used an outdated technique.
Man are a comedian here. Please study some more science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+w9j15g
Walmart pays above the min. wage already. And they have pushed for a higher min. wage in the past knowing it would hurt smaller competitors. Walmart pays the market rate for retail workers. I find it funny that you rip on Walmart but not Target, Hy Vee, Safeway, Raley's and so on for their comparable wages (and they also hire less people). You are wanting to make a policy that effects everyone just because you hate one company. That is now how we should be approaching economic policies.
"The data show that raising the minimum wage has only a minor,
short-term, adverse effect on employment when it is done reasonably."
Not really. It has a long term effect on those at a disadvantage such as teenagers from communities that suffer through poverty. Instead of getting a job, developing skills and connections and getting out of poverty, they get stuck. Before the min. wage black and white teenage unemployment was comparable. Since then black teenage unemployment has gone up drastically. There is a reason why the black community continues to suffer and be in poverty. There are other factors as well but the inability to get a job at a young age plays a role.
"By putting more money in the hands of low-wage earners, it actually
boosts economic growth leading to increases in employment down the line."
Again, false. If it were that easy then why not a $100/hr? Or why not just mail people checks for $20,000? What boosts an economy is producing, not spending.
"The FHA did NOT cause the housing bubble. You are parroting misinformation from the Republican Party."
Actually I never heard of the republican party mentioning the FHA. My own intelligence has me realizing the FHA caused a housing bubble just like the student loan program is going to cause a student loan bubble.
"Why should a degree be as expensive as a house?"
Because for the four years of work you do you can get a lot of value back from that, such as buying a house.
"Why should a degree PREVENT you from buying a house? "
It doesn't.
"The average student graduated in 2015 with $35,000 in student loan debt."
I agree, that is a slight problem. The federal government artificially increased demand with their student loan program and supply did not keep up with demand causing an increase in prices. That is basic econ. 101. The federal government again caused a problem here. It increased spending without increasing production and prices went up......hmmmm......this sounds familiar.
"The economy is helped much more when people have disposable income"
I agree. With increased production goods and services get better and there are more of them which drives prices down.
"Do you know who benefits from student loan debt? The banks! And you have been fooled into supporting their policies!"
I really don't support the federal student loan program.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+porculizador
We have had boom and bust cycles under Glass Steagall. We had a bust under Carter, under Reagan we improved. "i have the most credible source for this," but have yet to provide it. Look at GDP growth throughout the year. You see recessions. You never hear of them because we recovered quickly due to little to no federal government action, just like what happened in 1921.
The happiness index is subjective. Also it still doesn't change the fact that you are comparing the US to Denmark, two countries with vastly different societies. Really, what is happiness? Settling for mediocrity is happiness? Being forced to join the military is happiness? If you did that in the US then people would be very pissed off. Saying "they are happier in Denmark" is not an argument. They have 5 million people, little diversity, and accomplish almost nothing compare to the US. How many times have they landed on the moon? How many major companies do they have?
"is a tenet for the first stages of libertarianism, which is a conservative movement btw. are you for a small military? "
It is not a tenet for libertarianism, but if you want to think that then fine. I see what you are trying to do with the military question. You do know that when compared in percent of GDP we are number 4 in the world in military spending. We are a military that is comparable in size to other countries, and people on their own free will sign up for it. The military we have now is fine.
" and small police force?"
Whatever that local government wants. Police are ran and funded locally.
"and small firemen force?"
Considering how around 70% of firefighters are volunteered it is safe to say it is pretty small. But again, it all depends on what that local government wants.
"and small infrastructure?"
What is infrastructure? Really, I hear this a lot. Maybe if we built something correctly the first time it wouldn't be falling apart. But again, it comes down to what the state and local governments want.
You are trying to say "you want small this and small that". I can't define what "small" is. How ever much of those programs you want is up to the state and local government (with the exception of the military since that is ran by the fed and is constitutional in doing so). If a state wants a large police force and their citizens vote on it then why not? That is their choice. If they don't want it then they can rally to vote against it or move to another state and remain a US citizen. You see the balance of that?
"let's also get rid of unemployment and disability and social security and medicare."
Considering they are programs that are inefficient an running out of money, plus are unconstitutional and has created more problems, why not?
Here is the problem, you want your idea of government to be instituted at the federal level. I am not saying your idea of government is 100% wrong, it is just that not everyone wants it. People wanted healthcare reform in 2008 but we could not get 60 senate democrats go agree on one bill. The reason why is because while people wanted healthcare reform they all wanted something different. This is the exact same problem the founding fathers ran into thus they created state rights.
You want your government to be established at the fed. But when a group of republicans come in push to establish theirs then you complain. You action causes that to happen. Mine is saying you can push to establish your idea of what government should do at the state and local level. If you like it then great, if not then rally to change it or move to another state that fits your ideas. I live in a state that is right to work, has no income tax, is right leaning. I moved here. I will not live in CA that is very liberal. I will also not push to change what CA is doing because that is what those citizens want, but you will. You can call me a libertarian all you want but at least I am not a fascist like you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ylze Tyr
"I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's
much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which
might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and
different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not
absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything
about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what
the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't
figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an
answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a
mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it
really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
Richard Feynman
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here is how the political left has gone insane.
They call everything they disagree with a racist, bigot, homophobe, science denier, or many other names. They refuse to have any actual intelligent conversation but instead just name call if you disagree with their firmly held belief. Take science for example. The left is calling the right "anti-science" when the left supports
1. The gender spectrum (but also calls gender a social construct)
2. GMO
3. anti-vaxxers
On on climate change, if you question them in anyway they call you anti-science. The left feels that the government is the sole answer to solving climate change when many on the right do not. But if you feel that the government is not the solution to the problem you get called a science denier which makes zero sense.
People called Trump a sexist and racist, the same person who allowed a black woman to live in one of his hotels for free to protect her after her family was murdered. And look at the radical protests and Berkeley.
I am a moderate, and as a moderate I have seen that when both sides get down into details on the issues the left mainly appeals to emotions and the right gives facts, data, statistical analysis, and gives all their sources and methods for you to read and criticize. The left does not due that nearly as often. And if you do criticize them they do what you do, tell them to "get lost".
Yes, the left has become radical. You need to pull a page from the Clinton years, a time when Democrats worked with others and stop the sinking ship now. Please, I support many policies on the left, but I cannot support the group when they are full of ignorant fools.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Shaun Dabare
His polices prolonged the recovery creating a depression. Why has there never been another depression? Because in every other recession the federal government stayed out and allowed it to recover until 2007. Here we are 9 years later and still haven't recovered from the recession.
"Why do you keep blaming FDR, because it was not his policies that caused the crash. It was Republican lack of regulation."
One, what regulation do you want? Next, I blame FDR because his policies hindered the recovery.
"If they had been no government interference, imagine the effects. "
It would be like in 1921, done within a year. At worse like the Panic of 1873, done within 5 years, so done by 1934 at the latest.
"The depression was softened as soon as FDR stepped in. When he cut back, it returned. "
No, he created an artificial recovery that came crashing down due to no real wealth being created.
"All that it proves is that he economy needs government spending."
Spending isn't good, what's good is producing. If spending is good then why not spend $100 trillion a year?
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Shaun Dabare
"The 1999 changes to Glass-Steagall led to much bigger banks, but that
was, at best, just one factor in the 2008 financial crisis."
From that it is clear that pointing to Glass-Steagall is a stretch considering the other factors involved. So no, you are not correct. You can claim you are but the reality is you are not.
If we didn't do bank bailouts the economy would have recovered quickly. "The Banks should be broken up, "
Why? So if something becomes too big you just hold them back? I bet you wanted the smart kids in class to not be so smart as well while you were in school.
The AAA literally destroyed food.
"The creation of jobs means people have more money to spend,"
Which means nothing if there isn't anything being produced. You can't consume what you don't produce. That is why when FDR stopped spending the economy crashed again, there was nothing being produced from his spending.
"20% of the budget is enormous. "
No it isn't considering it is constitutional and we spend a lot more on unconstitutional programs. Also, the military is efficient where other federal programs aren't.
"Yet we have no major enemies. "
And there is a reason why, we push to promote peace.
"We use it to promote peace? We try settling in non-violent ways? Are you kidding?"
No. Our only major enemy are terrorists. We work with other nations to settle disputes off of the battlefield. The Iraq War saw less deaths than WWII, despite lasting over twice as long.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Shaun Dabare
You highlighted the quotes that suit your myopic mindset. You are ignoring the rest of the article.
"With Glass-Steagall, we did not have any major recession, like the Great Depression or the 2007 Crash"
And we haven't had one before Glass-Steagall either.....so what's your point?
Here is what government involvement does. Throughout history we have seen multiple recessions like the one in the late 70s, one in 1921, the Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1837. Every single recession except for two we recovered from in around 5 years or less. The on in 1921 was just as bad as the one in 1929. In of those recessions we recovered quickly from the federal government did little or nothing.
The two recessions that took the longest to recover from was the one from 1929 and the current one (which we still haven't recovered from). They are the only two times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy through massive spending, taxation and regulations. If it was the other way around, if the federal government did nothing during 1929 recession and now then you will be all over that. Instead you are pleading and begging for more government.
"There should not be government involvement in the first place, but for that to happen, the banks need to be broken up"
Which is an oxymoron. That is pleading and begging for more government. They are the root of the problem, not the solution. No bank can pull a whole economy under. With competition smaller competitors will over take them. Yes there will be job lost and a recession, but it will be over quickly, that is the evolution of the economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Heads Tails There are several things you and I disagree with.
First off, I feel we need government, but we need to be able to control government. My problem with the political left in this country is that they want to create a centralized government, a one size fits all government at the federal level. With that you lose control of government because your representation gets small. I find it funny when the political left pushes for a larger federal government, which ultimately is pushing their beliefs on others, but then cries when someone else uses that government to oppress them. You had no control of that government.
To have a democratic government you need a strong representation by the people. You do that the more local government becomes. At the state and local level you have a stronger voice thus you have a more democratic government.
You say all government is a method of wealth redistribution, that is false. There is no such thing as wealth redistribution. There is wealth creation and destruction. If taxes are not controlled or managed then that is wealth destruction. To see that taxes are managed properly we need to keep government as local as possible to see that tax money is spent on what society wants, thus wealth is created. But at the federal level tax dollars are wasted more and thus wealth is destroyed, not redistributed.
So while taxes can be used to benefit all, it has to be done in a way to benefit all and not the few.
"Equality is the idea of people paying taxes based on there ability to pay.
Flat tax rates affect the less fell off to a much higher extent than the wealthy. The trickle down economy doesn't work."
That is up to the local society to decide. Someone who earns more is simply worth more and generates that much wealth. It isn't wise at times to take from your most productive members of your society or attack those that produce the most. There are benefits of a flat, regressive and progressive tax system.
Trickle down economics is a political term. At the same time we see it at work. People are better off because wealth creation leads to better wealth for all. Look at our cars or Ipads for example.
"I'm sure you are aware of the costs of healthcare in America vs the rest of the world."
Yes, and high cost are due to federal government policies dating back to at least the 40s. It is due to federal taxes, I can discuss that in detail if you want in another comment.
"Would you support the right for a company to deny service based on the
color of there skin, on a disability, a facial disfigurement, if a
person did not have the correct item of clothing. "
Yes I would. Freedom comes at a cost. Your problem is that you are saying the ends justify your means. Taking away other people's property rights is not the approach we should take, but you try justifying it saying is leads to "equality".
" I do not believe that a company offering services or products has the
right to deny service because they don't like the person asking for that
service. "
But I bet you would support someone refusing to shop at a business they don't like if it were ran by say Muslims or black people. You support the customers having a choice but not a business owner who invested their own money and time in running that business.
"Imagine your the only white guy in a town where everyone is black, the
only straight guy in a town where everyone is gay, the only able bodied
person where everyone is disabled or the only christian in a town full
of atheists."
Let us flip this extreme around. Say that people got sick of an oppressive government and decided not to start a business there? Then what? Now we have no services.
If you are the only gay person in a small town and people don't like you then you have other problems. Even at that as long as they are not using the government to discriminate then that is fine.
How far are you willing to go with removing rights for "equality" and "safety". I know of a great way to lower violence, have the cops do random searches of people's homes. Would you support that? Holmes would have been caught before shooting up that theater.
This is why I say the left is fascist, you want to use the force of the federal government to place what you think is right on society. And you claim it is for "equality" and "fairness" but in reality it is pure fascism. Think about what you support. You support your government on other people. That is fascism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+XamicutOAC
It isn't a "fair assumption" but instead a fact. Think of this, too much government is just as bad as no government. We need that balance and the constitution lays that balance out.
"However, the US economy is crumbling with student debt and ever-increasing healthcare costs"
Both problems caused by the federal government like the federal payroll tax and federal college loans. Adding more federal government is just going to make it worse.
"but it is taking away our fundamental rights to LIVE"
You don't have the right take from others to "live".
"we all want to be able to seek medical attention when our environment
and natural resources are polluted/contaminated (i.e. Flint, MI)"
Flint, MI is a great example of a problem government can create. Imagine if we had politicians like Flint has in DC, now the problem is national, we are all screwed.
"Such fundamental rights are covered under the 9th amendment."
No they are not.
"Unfortunately, the cost of education nullifies a person's ability to afford healthcare."
Again, thanks to the federal government. Also, you don't need to go to college or have the government to be educated. If you feel that way then you are in trouble.
"When State governments fail to supply educators enough income or
healthcare coverage, it only makes sense that federal action be taken to
ensure that these fundamental rights to life be protected on a greater
scale"
It doesn't make sense. Where are your bounds? How far do you want the federal government to go? Bernie may be working for the people, but what about future politicians? What is going to stop them from being corrupt? Berni is not going to be around forever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Like I said, crony capitalism exist because they are not being put in check"
Checked by who?
"Bernie wants them to play fair, not wine and dine on their money like the other cucks for corporatism. "
And how do you stop that? I told you how you stop it. You remove the power from the fed. But how do you propose stopping it?
"You can only be as influenced as you allow yourself to be. What we need
is some smart people in office making the decisions, and not the
corporate hand feeding them. "
Ok, who?
"And yes, corporations take advantage of our booming econony and make
money off the middle classes to get where they are, they in turn pay
taxes to improve the quality of life for the nation"
All a corporation can do is offer you a job or a product.
" Schools, roads, police, fire department, clinics, etc."
All ran and funded locally. Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer.
"That and the work force is how money gets circulated throughout the econony."
What grows the economy is the creation of wealth, not the flow of money.
"I find it duplicitous that you are defending the uber rich from dodging taxes just because they don't want to pay them. "
No, I am just not blaming the rich like you are. I am blaming the source of the problem, the complicated tax code.
"I'm not saying to expand government either, I'm saying that an efficient
government working for the betterment of the people is a good thing."
And how do you do that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rusty I never heard of the "Journal of Science". Now if you mean Science, than yes, that is a prestige source. But I guarantee you they do not give a quantitative value on how much man is playing a role in climate change as Science will never publish such conclusions.
Again, there are many science organizations. I get letters to join ACS all the time, I don't as I don't care. I do my research and move on. I have never heard of AAAS and I never heard of any of my professors or colleagues talk about it meaning it is irrelevant.
Next time you try to pretend to be something you aren't online, pretend to be something that you actually have at least some basic knowledge of. "Journal of Science", really? Who calls it that?
I looked up Journal of Science in google, it has an impact factor of 4.6. So it does exist, but it is not that prestige. 4.6 is OK, but Science has an impact factor of 34.6 to put it in perspective. So I will admit, Journal of Science does exist, but it is also a source I never heard of as I do not cite from it nor will publish in it. And it is not the "second most prestige scientific journal on the fucking planet" as you put it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, the fact is that I am not a fraud, I do study science for a living and I do understand it more than others on this comment page. One person called Science the Journal of Science. They do not even know the name of the journals. They are jumping up and down that I did not know the AAAS, which is one of many organizations out there. Bu they did not know any journals.
" Again if you are asking for 100% concrete answers in science, you aren't going to get them"
I agree, and that is my point. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. There is so much in doubt when it comes to climate change as in how is man playing a role and is it even bad? Wallace asked Pruitt what if he was wrong? I ask the same question to the left. What if we do their clean energy plan which will hinder economic growth and kill jobs. And afterwards there is not improvement in the environment? Now what? Now we have a bad economy on top of our problems.
I am all for doing research in green energy and using it more and more, and we are doing that. I have friends who do research in it. The issue is that we can't force it which is what the left is trying to do. Pruitt admits that man is playing a role, and in reality the political right supports science research in the area. They don't want to force the issue when so much doubt exists.
"The reality is, in the scientific field, we are extremely limited
because while we attempt to control for as many variables as possible,
we can never control all of them"
I agree,I fall into the same problem with my research.
"So most likely, we will never have a 100% concrete answer to the answer you are asking."
I am not looking for the 100% concrete answer. I wanting people to understand that scientists are not saying what the political left is. The political left is giving definite answers where scientists aren't.
"As a person in the medical field who actually knows something about
science, I have to ask when I see you in videos. Why do you pretend to
be something you aren't? It's evident that you know nothing of
scientific literature, yet you continue to act like you have expertise
in it. Is it to make yourself feel better? Does claiming to be a PhD
candidate make yourself feel like someone who should have the right to
an opinion? "
Because the fact is that I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. I read scientific literature on a daily basis and have three papers that are published and I am working on three more. You claim that I am a fraud but have no proof for that. I like to educate people, the problem is they are so bias they become resistant. I have a degree in physics, one in chemistry. I have taken advanced courses in inorganic chemistry, quantum mechanics, optics, stat mech, E&M, and so on. I have passed my qualification exams. Fact is that I do study science for a living and if you are a scientist yourself you will side with me and Pruitt's opinion. He is not saying we should not go after green energy, neither am I. He is not saying we should ignore climate change, neither am I. The political left, though, and simply because of politics, have become extreme on the issue where scientists are not extreme on the issue at all. That is the reality.
"I always try to warn people that you are a fake but looking up at the comments,"
Where you have no proof that I am.
"
I won't really post to you anymore, but it's rather sad that you keep
trying to keep this facade up. I don't know who you are, but I hope one
day, you get past this fake personality.""
Nope, in about a year I will defend and earn my PhD. I will find a nice paying job. In 8 years under Trump the economy will boom and in around 60 years the environment will be fine and the whole climate change scare, for those who remember it, will be a joke. But, politicians 60 years from now will continue to push the issue for political gain.
That is the reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Johnny Spider and others, this is the last comment by me as I have a business trip to go to tomorrow. Also, I have three papers to work on (one I hope to publish in JACS), I have the TRVS 2017 conference to prepare for (as in I have to have my data analyzed to present), and in all honesty Trump won and he is having success. And the whole climate change thing will be shown to be asinine decades from now.
"if you think climate change is a hoax"
Never said that as climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. What is unique, though, is that several of my colleagues recently got a new book in their mailbox called "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". Now I know some myopic people (like my colleagues) will get all perturbed with that title. But here is the issue I have with climate change relating to that book.
When that book showed up in people's mailboxes people automatically dismissed it as a book that denies climate change and refused to read it. That is not the case though. When you read it they do not deny climate change at all. They say it is happening. The issue is what I have been saying, we cannot say how much an is playing a role or how bad it is. They cite all of their sources where at least one being from Nature (who has a higher impact factor than Science). My colleagues dismissed the book without even reading it. I read it and felt it had good information as a book that is written by three individuals with PhDs and they cite their sources. It is perfect? No. But it has great points and worth a read.
From that book, and from that reaction by my colleagues, and from the reaction from the people on this comment thread it really highlights the three main problems with climate change.
1. People are so bias that they refuse to consider the other side. The left is the worse on this. The second my colleagues read that title they dismissed it as it being a climate change denier. Even you, Johnny Spider, felt that I think climate change is a hoax even though I never said it was. Others called me a fraud even though I am a doctorate candidate that has peer reviewed papers that are published and I am working on three more. That is how bias the left has become. They dismiss the other side so much they are becoming worse than the extreme religious right on these issues who feel that something is "God's way". They almost turned science into a religion.
2. The media, who is there to entertain, not inform (including the "news"), has pushed the propaganda to the extreme on this issue. And people with limited science background become ignorant on the issue. Look at Kyle for example. He has not formal study on science but he talks about it as if he knows as much as Richard Feynman.
3. The politicians, on both sides, have politicized it. You have Jim Inhofe bringing a snowball into Congress and Bernie Sanders (who admitted to struggling with science) preaching about climate change on the extreme ends of the spectrum. Politicians are there to buy votes from their supporting base so they will say ridiculous things, but it does not help to inform the people. The left is using climate change for their political advantage to find an excuse to create more taxes and regulations and donate to "green energy" companies. There has been reports of how 80% of DOE loans went to companies that supported Obama. So much for money in politics.
Politics create a barrier in progress, especially in science. And the people become ignorant as well. There is a great video by Neil deGrasse Tyson where he talks about politicians support in science. It is entitled
"Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats?-Neil deGrasse Tyson"
What he explains is that politicians will say what they say to go with what their supportive base wants. In Republicans case it is religious fundamentalists. But under Bush they increased funding in science. Also, Jack Kingston on Bill Maher said that we need to get science out of Washington DC and let it stay in the laboratory, which I agree with as that will increase progress. But the problem is that politics have become involved in science politicizing it for their own gain which is a disgrace to science. (BTW, I feel Kingston is a fool when he talks science which is more of a reason why I want it out of DC).
Because of those three reason progress in the climate change issue is hindered. I am all for researching it and progressing in alternative forms of energy and sustainability. And so is most of the country. But people, especially the left, have made the issue radical and are saying things that scientists are not saying.
"Do you think 97% of scientists "
And that right there is part of the problem. One of those "consensus" reports was a poll published in PNAS where only 29% of the climate scientists polled actually responded to it. So what about the other 71%? To me I see that as scientists are not making a huge deal about it compared to the media (there to entertain and get views and make money), and the politicians (there to buy votes). You are jumping up and down about the consensus (which has been debunked several times) but fail to question things.
Let me ask you this, why don't any of these politicians get any of these scientists to speak in front of congress or during elections? Why didn't Bernie get any scientist besides Bill Nye to speak with him on the issue of climate change?
To me the answer is simple, they do not want to be associated with those radicals.
So people can say what they want about me. But I am the one that wants progress. You on the left, with being radical, and calling others stupid and frauds for even questioning your hard set belief (which is what it has become making it essentially a religion, I refuse to say the work "believe" in any of my work as belief is associated with religion) is hindering progress. I suggest you become more moderate on the issue or prepare to see more of what Trump and Pruitt doing what they are going to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Denying the gilded age and great depression"
The depression was caused by massive federal government spending, not the free market. The free market has led to fast recoveries.
" there is no correlation in aggregate, and claiming it entering the
federal level in the 70s is somehow a catalyst for economic decline is
absurd. "
It is not absurd. The two times where we saw the federal government grow the most were in the 30s which created a depression and in the mid 60s to 70s that is creating the problems we have now. The latter was slowed down because we were so far ahead to begin with compared to the rest of the world, ,and the .com boom helped as well But the problems we are seeing now is the result of federal government expansion.
"the "economy" has grown upward non-stop, and the corporate bottom lines are higher than ever,"
And....?
"but the corporations are victims of government? "
I never said that. We have corporatism now which is the result of big federal government.
"and arguably the only policies we have in place for the public interest "
Such as.......?
"And they sure as hell barely effects the CEOs and companies bottom lines, they continue to grow year after year in aggregate"
So now growth is bad? Do you want a stagnate economy? I really don't see how this is a problem by the way you are presenting it.
" they receive more subsidies and kickbacks than any other segments of society, "
Which is the result of Keynesian economics, not the free market.
" They actively automate"
And that is bad how?
" Full employment is a mathematical impossibility "
Because we have people who refuse to work.
"And you're arguing giving the corporations more opportunity to make more money"
Never argued that. Plus, I still don't see how that is bad.
"Look at who owns 80% of stocks right now, 5% of the populace"
So.
" look at the undoing of banking regulations and protections"
Like the bailouts?
"corporations do not only have no inherent motive to benefit society,"
Not true. If they don't provide a good service no one will give them money. If they are not a good place to work for no one will work for them. All a corporation can do is offer you a job and/or a product.
"It's a utopic fantasy to believe giving corporations more power"
They don't have power, only government does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Siolfor80 I will tell you how I will set up the government we need. There is nothing wrong with government, the challenge is what kind of government and how much? Everyone has their different ideas and for good reason.
We need to make sure government remains our servant and not the masters. That is why you have to keep government as local as possible so you are able to see that it is actually working for you and you have more control over it. When you go from local to state and then state to federal you lose that control. There is a reason why the founding fathers wanted state rights and a limited federal government, they wanted a government that gave a strong representation to the people. Not everyone saw government the same way. Also consider how congress has a low approval rating but a high retention rating. You have little control at the federal level, thus it should have little power. You want to have a lot of control over the government.
This also falls in line with what is government's role in society? I hear people make the same argument of "without government we won't have x, y and z". You did it. One common example are roads. Ok, let us go by the standards of roads of Hopkins, MO. A small town that I have been to a couple of times. Basically dirt roads with no stop signs. Let us see how long that lasts in NYC. You talk about worker safety, in rural areas they just ignore those laws. There is a reason why in rural areas they tend to vote republican who support less government, because they don't need the government. In urban areas I see why they vote democrats, who support more government. When you don't even know your own neighbor then you lack that personal connection with people to get help when you need it, or prevent from getting screwed where in rural areas you know everyone and won't screwed.
The type of government depends, that is why we need to keep it as local as possible to see that it actually works.
1
-
1
-
Siolfor80 The fact is that you are thinking about yourself. Your idea of "needs" is completely different then that of someone else. Sticking with the roads example, my tax dollars shouldn't fund for roads in NYC, the majority do not live in NYC, so why should people outside of NYC pay for those roads? They don't "need" them and the many don't "need" them, only a few. The reality is that the local governments, thus the citizens do pay for the vast majority of them and should pay 100% of them. That is the idea of a local government.
You have the idea of libertarians wrong. They are about communities and societies being strong. There is a role for government, but that role is different in every area and that role should be in the benefit of society. While the role of government in NYC or LA or other major cities is to provide roads with stop signs and a fire department with fire fighters or a police force, the role for Hopkins, MO government is to provide remedial roads with no stop signs, only a fire engine since all the fire fighters are volunteer, to rely on the sheriff for police. Thinking it is about one self is not the mindset of libertarians and more of the mindset of authoritarians who usually exist on the left of the political spectrum and enjoy using government to get their way in that is the one guaranteed way of getting what you want, using government force.
All the federal government is doing is exercising the 14th amendment on the gay marriage issue. There are restrictions on governments and I said that, it is the constitution. States decide if they want to recognize marriage or not, if they do then they can't discriminate via the 14th amendment.
At the local level you do have more control over the government. You can personally see if it is working and you can vote for every representative. How many congress members can you vote for? Congress has an approval rating of less than 10% but a high retention rate. That is because people feel their representative, and ultimately their idea of government is not the problem. You also have the ability to move out of a state or local area that is corrupt. Corruption is not a problem at the local level. If it becomes one it is easily fix.
Your voice at the federal level is small. I disagree with Warren, Sanders and Pelosi along with several others in congress, I also have zero votes when it comes to how they are elected. They don't represent me so why should I follow their law? The more local government is the more it represents the people which is the type of government you want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Siolfor80 The state should fund for something like the arch, not the federal government. Why doesn't Illinois get it, or Nebraska, or South Carolina? Why did Missouri get it? It was an unfair and unconstitutional waste of funds. A governor's mansion is funded by the state.If a governor does damage then people can move or vote them out. You have more power at the state level and can see if your local government is actually working. I am not willing to support federal law if it violates the constitution. Marriage is a state law and should remain that way. The only thing the federal government can do is that if a state recognizes marriage then they can't violate the 14th amendment and discriminate or violate the 5th amendment which deals with property rights. So you haven't gotten me on anything. You are not understanding what I am saying. You can get married anytime you want, it just depends on if the state recognizes it or not. I am also not contradicting how I view human rights. You don't have a right to marriage. I called you a fascist because you want to enforce your idea of government on others. You are on the outside looking in on a situation and feel people are being oppressed but don't realize how the system is set up and in reality they are not oppressed. You see something like this private college wanting to discriminate against gay people and feel that it is wrong when the people in that state feel otherwise, and the people attending feel otherwise. Gay people have other options for college, most cheaper then private and are public which means they can't discriminate. But instead you want to use the force of the federal government to make that college act in a way you feel is appropriate. That is no different then a state banning gay marriage, or what people did in the past with Jim Crow laws. They hated a group of people and how they acted and thus wanted to use government force to get rid of them. You are wanting to impose on the free will of others. It gets worse when you look at another state and think how bad they must have it with certain elected individuals when in reality they were the ones who voted them in and they have the ability to move. You have no idea what they are dealing with, Chances are they are fine, but you feel otherwise due to your authoritarian mindset and want to use the federal government to stop that. Instead of leaving people alone you want to force them to live a certain way simply due to your ego.Democrats are the most evil of the group because of that. They want to use federal government to change your way of life. To them if you don't like gay people then you must be evil and need to be change with force. If you don't like black people then it is the same way. If you are rich then you must be forced to give to others. If you didn't go to college then you must be stupid. It is as authoritarian as it gets. If I am pissed at anything it is that people are so quick to arbitrarily remove freedoms and rights for "safety". That is the scary part. The vast majority of our problems, especially economically stem from the failures of an overpowering federal government. Also in the end I am not piss. While I feel we are going the wrong direction as a whole I also possess a lot of skills. I will never have a hard time finding a job or doing well in life. I can just move on and be fine. There is any incentive for me to support a better system that actually works. In the end I do.Also by the way you talk you have no idea how the system was designed and actually works for the most part. The system was designed with strict limitations on the federal government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Oh, and Bernie says how he's planning to fund everything that he proposes up on his website; "
I have read it. I have seen questionable citations and vague numbers. Also, he ignores simple supply and demand and ignores that people will lack motivation to work. For example, how do you offer college to all when we already lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, etc? And how do you get more of those things? Why would people work to do jobs like that when they can work a McDonalds and have, according to Bernie a
Living wage
Healthcare
Retirement
Vacation time that is paid
Maternity leave
And so on. Also, if his plan is laid out, why did he not defend it when Cruz criticized it?
" you should be able to google something like that for yourself "
Where should I look on Google? Fox New? Alex Jones? Breitbart? Where? The fact that you cannot offer me resources and instead rely on me to google information is opening up the situation where I will look at those sources. It also shows you have little understanding of the issue.
1
-
" As a degree holder I would never work at McDonald's even if those things were offered to me"
You are just one person. Even at that, what job will you work? Are you willing to go through the stress of earning a doctorate? I am a PhD candidate right now, the work is stressful. That is why only around 2% of the nation have doctorates. You earned a degree in hopes of getting a better job, I assume. But over generations that mentality of pride goes away and the mentality of entitlement comes.
" You are falling into a slippery slope here saying that "if liberals are
just given free shit they won't work" when in reality every liberal I
know does work,"
Really? Again, what career are you pursuing? Look at exit pools. Those with a higher income typically vote for republicans. Sure, they may "work", but at what? How productive are they? How skillful are they?
" As far as Cruz goes, everyone pretty much hates him"
He is a senator. Seems like people like him. Bernie Sanders is a senator, does that mean people hate him as well? They are in the exact same position.
" In fact I probably hate the smug fuck more than I hate Trump."
Good for you, why? I gave reasons why I dislike Bernie. Bernie pushes for a healthcare bill, and when business owners ask how they should pay for it he doesn't care. He doesn't care about anyone but himself and his agenda.
". Every other word out of Cruz during the Republican primary was "god
this or god that." Fuck god, even if he exists he isn't going to do shit
to help us"
I agree, I don't like that either. However, I have yet to see him push for a religious law. Him saying "god" is catering to his voting base who are fundamentalist christians. That is politics.
" If you honestly do not think Cruz and his kind would not cream their
pants at the opportunity to make this a theocracy you are sadly mistake."
Again, what evidence do you have?
"We've pretty well let the free market handle healthcare pre Obamacare. "
Not true. Around 40% of healthcare spending was federal. The payroll tax and medicare and medicaid has created barriers and thus we do not have a free market system. We haven't for decades. You need to understand what free market is. LASIK is a free market system, healthcare isn't.
"You may need to study business. Profit is the number one motive of health insurance companies. "
I agree, but in the competitive market you have to cater to customers to earn a profit. We do not have a free market in healthcare. Insurance companies cannot even compete across state lines. In the competitive market consumers can go elsewhere. If you do not cater to them then you do not get them meaning no profits.
Please study business.
" If it benefits them, they will let you die."
So they will let paying customers die?
1
-
1
-
1
-
" I've studied business plenty. "
By the way you talk I doubt it. Why do you think we have a free market healthcare system?
"This is a moral vs money making issue,"
So is it moral to tell others to work for not only themselves, but for others as well? Is it moral to tax rich people more or force doctors to take on more patients? What I find to be ironic is that ultra leftists talk about morals but never do anything themselves. Are you going to work in the healthcare field?
" You assume that health insurance is like buying a couch or television
set, that these magical state lines are going to make the prices go down
to acceptable levels."
It is. It is a product you buy.
"This is the problem with the privatization of services that are needed to survive, "
You need a lot of things to survive. With insurance it can be used for extreme and unplanned cases that are expensive. The problem is that is not the case with insurance. The reason why is that because of the payroll tax many people get insurance through their employers. Thus the employers can't force companies to compete, they can't pick a plan for them, and since it becomes a form of payment insurance has become healthcare. Insurance should not be healthcare, insurance should be insurance. Like car insurance covers accidents but not oil changes. Healthcare should be paid for out of pocket forcing providers to compete. And for unplanned, expensive treatments that occur should be paid for by insurance. With that you create a situation where many people might not even use their insurance. I have used my car insurance once, but I have done a lot of repairs on my car. With healthcare insurance, if that were to happen then it would be there for people who actually need it.
"I'm not going to play this game of "provide me evidence he wants a
theocracy." It's implied, through intuition one can understand his
stance. "
You need evidence.
"He wasn't for same sex marriage, and the reason a majority of Republican senators cited was their biblical beliefs. "
Not really. Why is government involved with marriage to begin with? You have to consider that. You are changing a culture when you allow gay marriage to happen. That is the concern. And what does society have to gain by allowing it? It goes beyond the bible. Not to be rude but you are too bias to see that though.
1
-
1
-
Kyle is ultra left, that is seen with his constant support of Bernie Sanders.
" If Steven Crowder is gaining viewers and you think that's a good thing, that essentially exposes you for what you are. "
I never said that was good. It is a trend that people are no longer buying into the ultra leftists BS. Right now the political left is extreme. Not saying the political left is always bad, they have had great politicians. Bill Clinton was one of them. But right now they are extreme and the political right are right now more moderate, and people see that.
"It's no secret that Crowder is a liar that manipulates numbers out of context to make them look a certain way,"
He gives all of his sources for you to read and he encourages that.
"I kind of don't believe you about your major "
That is fine, doesn't change reality.
" Though I remain curious as to why you concede that everyone sees
through you on this 'ultra leftist' channel and yet you persist in
making daily or nigh daily comments that are intended to turn into
massive debates that may last weeks, despite knowing that there's no
point."
Two reasons.
1. You learn a lot in discussions. I know a lot compared to the average person because of these discussions and reading them
2. I am trying to help some people who are radicals right now. Kyle is a radical and so are his followers. I support many policies on the left. However, I can't support them when people pushing for them, like Kyle, are essentially idiots. I am trying to pull people to the middle and find a common ground. If you got into a detailed discussion with me on issues you will see that I support a lot of what leftists support, just in a different way.
1
-
" So Sam Seder is also a radical? Jimmy Dore is also a radical? The
Humanist Report is also a radical channel? David Pakman is also a
radical channel? "
Yes.
"Your definition of Kyle being a radical is far too vague"
It isn't because because Bernie Sanders is a radical. However, move that aside. Take their stance on single payer healthcare. How do you implement it without creating a recession? Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Going to single payer will mean destroying many jobs in the healthcare industry leaving people unemployed. Raising taxes will mean that both businesses and individuals will change their spending habits which will lead to a recession. Even if temporary it will be enough to hurt a lot of people. How do you implement single payer without hurting others? None of those people present that.
Also, I showed you how Bernie was a radical by comparing him to Bill Clinton. I will say it again. In 1994 Herman Cain approached Bill Clinton about his healthcare bill and asked how he could afford it. Clinton ran through numbers showing he understood the complexity of business and the challenges they face. And he showed concern for Cain's situation. With that you can have a discussion and come up with a median in policy making. That is why Clinton was a great president. You have to understand the other person's position.
Now compare that to Bernie in how he treated that hair salon owner. When she asked that all Bernie said was that she had to pay. She asked how and Bernie said "I don't know, but you have to pay" basically. He went on to say that he does not know much about the hair business, but that her business should have to pay for healthcare. He did not care about her situation, he did not care to understand the challenges she faces or her revenue and expenses. All he cared about was forcing others to follow his policy.
That is why Bernie and his followers are radicals. They refuse to understand the situation or other person's position. They just want to push what the believe down people's throats. It is ironic considering how Bernie is a guy who continues to say that we need to have a discussion on the issues, but when people try to he deflects and shows he does not understand the issues at all. If you do not understand where your opponents are coming from you are a radical.
"Everybody is biased in some way so you're essentially nitpicking minor
discrepancies when you critique Kyle by calling him a radical, what kind
of Radical is he? "
I am not nitpicking. People may lean one way or another, but if you do not understand the other side's position and why the feel the way they do, then you are a radical. I try to understand other people's positions. People like Kyle don't. Why doesn't he have debates with people from the other side? Why doesn't he have guests on his shows? He literally lives in a bubble.
"Because people want the government to treat them differently based on marital status. "
Government give married people benefits which can be seen as wrong. I am single and choose to be that way because of my lifestyle where I am basically married to my work. Why don't I get tax benefits that married people do? Also, there were ways around the gay marriage issue without making it recognized by government. I say that last part because in reality gay marriage was always legal, it just was not recognized by the government.
" They want inheritance handled differently if they are married or unmarried. "
Legal wills can handle that.
"If the government isn't involved, the marriage loses its point. The
whole point of marriage is to officialize the new family before the
state and its laws."
You can have a family without being married.
1
-
" If you meant they were on your side for this one isolated issue, then
well done aligning yourself with what I would call a radical, a man that
doesn't believe in climate change for fuck's sake.'
Steven Crowder has said that climate change is happening. He, like myself, feel it is not a threat nor that the government is the source to solve this "problem" (again, if it is even a problem). I suggest you understand your opponent's position before you criticize.
Also, what I am saying is that if I were to post these comments on Crowder's videos then people will agree with me since I am writing comments to counter left wing points. Does not mean I am on their side, there are things I disagree with Crowder and his viewers about.
"Also, just to be clear, literally no country that has a NHS type of
system would ever give it up in favour of a free market system. "
That is a culture thing. It is hard to make radical changes like that to a culture. Look how long it took to pass healthcare reform in the US. As a whole the US system is not terrible, it has many advantages. We do not need radical change. Minor changes at the state and local level is all we need. So based on what you are saying the US system is great since changing it is hard.
"The reason for any and all problems with such a system, apart from the
problems that were expected from the beginning, is that American
corporations are trying to lobby for more free market influence. "
Any lobbying is crony capitalism, not free market.
"If you think Bernie Sanders is ultra left, I really don't know what to tell you. He's centre-left."
He is ultra left as he does not understand the other side's position. He is so far gone that he does not understand the challenges private businesses face.
" Pretty much all critically thinking right-wing people are not
religious, support net neutrality, and agree with climate science but
somehow conclude it's not as important as other stuff."
Not really. I know a lot of intelligent religious people. I am not religious myself, but I know many who are and are right wing and intelligent. On climate change the issue is that it is not a threat. It is happening, but how much is man playing a role? And is the current change even bad? Those are questions we do not know. I find it funny how Bernie keeps harping about all these scientists that supposedly say things about climate change, but he has yet to have a single scientist stand next to him, nor has he ever named any.
" Most of them even support universal healthcare"
Not true. Again, 80% of people in Colorado voted against it. Colorado is a left leaning state.
" You support none of that, so who's the radical here and what's left for you to agree with us on?"
I am not a radical as I understand the other side's position on these issues. I understand the benefits of universal healthcare. If you read my comments I will never say that it is terrible but instead I say it has problems. Much like the US system does. I will also never say the US system in overall superior. You, on the other hand, want to push universal healthcare down people's throats claiming it is better then what we have despite researcher showing that it is no better then the US system. You want to radically change the current system we have to gain nothing.
Tell me, how do you plan on implementing universal healthcare without creating a major recession?
1
-
Mrs. Butterworth, you did not understand what I wrote in about implementing universal healthcare. First off, defense spending makes up around 4% of GDP. Pulling out of "unnecessary wars" is not going to do anything at that point. Next, asking the rich to pay their "fair share" (whatever that means, they already pay more) is not a solution as it has been shown that is we take all of their money we still won't be able to pay for it.
But, here is the point you missed. Creating universal healthcare will mean jobs in the insurance business will be lost leaving many to be unemployed. It will mean higher taxes on someone changing their spending habits and all of this will lead to a recession. No matter how long that recession will last it will harm many middle class Americans. So how do you prevent that?
Also, you pointed me to a David Packman video when there are many sources that show that we cannot afford it. Even Cruz ran through the numbers in the debate and Bernie did not deny it.
"You do realize that hair salon lady already owned 5 stores right? How is
it that you own five salons ,want to expand ,but you don't have enough
money to buy healthcare for yourself?"
Like Bernie you do not understand business. Healthcare insurance is expensive. She simply can't afford it for her employees. She owns five because she is expanding as she can afford that. What do you want her to do? Downsize making more people unemployed? Many businesses expand like that because in doing so if one business has a bad month or even a bad year they can allocate resources from another one to keep all of them going. You are not putting all of your eggs in one basket essentially. However, in the end, healthcare insurance is expensive for these companies and they simply can't afford it.
"Maybe if Texas had expanded Medicaid, she could have got subsidies for
her employees, Texas had the option to get federal funding to fund the
expansion. Texas chose to deny it for political reasons. "
They choose to deny it because after a few years the states would have had to pick up 100% of the tab in which they cannot afford.
". Expanding a business costs a lot of money, money which she claims she doesn't have because her profit margins are so thin."
It doesn't cost as much as paying for healthcare insurance. Again, you do not understand how running a business works. Renting out, or even buying a space to work from it not that expensive compared to constantly paying for employees healthcare insurance, many who probably don't need it as they probably get it elsewhere, as from a spouse for example.
" That sounds like a failing business."
I can easily say this. People who can't pay for their own healthcare are failing people. See how easy it is to make childish accusations?
" Go try to get a business loan for $250,000 to expand your franchise
when your other salons have a profit margin so thin you can't even get
personal health insurance for yourself. Go walk into a bank and try to
get that loan. They'll deny you on the spot. I used to work at a bank as
a loan officer, and no responsible bank would loan that kind of money
to a business owner that's basically making no profit. "
She has 5 successful businesses going. Chances are that she got a loan to start them and she paid it off. After paying it off she wants to expand so chances are she will get another loan. I don't believe that you actually worked as a loan officer because her situation is the norm for businesses. She could easily get a loan.
"People are alive because of it when they normally wouldn't be. And guess what? Nobody has died as a result of the ACA."
There are people who are worse off financially. And nothing indicates that people are alive because of the ACA.
"Number one, the ACA makes sure you get a damn doctor. Under Cruz's idea, you'll never even have a doctor. "
Not true. Many doctors do not accept Medicaid and no matter what you can always go to the ER and receive care. The idea that you cannot see a doctor is simply not true.
" You're only given the option of having insurance IF AN INSURANCE
COMPANY IS WILLING TO INSURE YOU. They have the option of saying no"
In the competitive market they will less likely to say no because if they do then those consumers, with money, will go to a rival company. The problem is that we do not have a competitive market with insurance companies.
" So what what good are these "more choice" when if I have an existing
condition all of these numerous insurance.companies are ALL going to
turn me down? "
Because they all won't turn you down as there is an incentive to pick you up as a customer in the competitive market. With insurance, though, I will break down the real way to solve it.
As far as that politfact link is concerned, it did not cover all of what Bernie and Cruz said. Mainly it did not address what Cruz said about how much Bernie's plan will cost. It cherry picked instances in the debate and ignored important point. It only covered a fraction of the debate. Why? What do they have to hide?
"
Debates as they are now, blow and are not helpful. Kyle is right not to
debate on traditional terms. If it was a 5-hour conversation, with no
live audience, and full access to the Internet, Kyle would hold his own
pretty well against any person that happens to be on the other side of
the political spectrum."
I doubt it. Why doesn't Kyle debate anyone?
". Kyle is strictly a news reporter, that's it, not a person who talks about specific topics. "
That is not true.
" Crowder is passionate, and he truly believes in fairy takes, like
free-markets and the Bible, but his fact-wang is pretty flaccid"
I can't recall him bringing up the Bible. You need to present his arguments correctly if you want to criticize him. Also, you have not addressed the problems of the free market.
" It certainly does NOT mean that he lives in a bubble, most of
the news stories (If not all) that Kyle does are just that, news stories
that he reports on,"
Kyle expresses his opinion on the issues. If it were just news then he will just lay out the facts and move on. Instead he gives his opinion. The fact that you do not see that is disturbing.
"Kyle's show is not a debate show format. His goal is to gather up
political information, sift through it to determine the key issues, and
explain them in detail using his knowledge and experience in political
science."
His goal is to give a bias, left wing viewpoint on issues and has gone as far as lying. I called him out on it with evidence many times. The best one was about the abortion law where he said that rapists can make a decision on an abortions. I read the law and nowhere did it say that. It only talked about disposing of the fetus. Kyle lied in that video. And I wasn't the only one to call him out on it.
"If he spent his time arranging guests to debate with, that goal of
sifting through political information would be thrown out the window all
for the sake of Kyle scoring some ego points against an unprepared
guest."
It doesn't have to be his show. He can have a debate on his free time.
"Why is marriage a government issue you're still wondering? We as a
nation encourage people to marry, using tax and other incentives,
because doing so when they are raising children appears to reduce
poverty and crime and improve kids' educational outcomes and men's job
performance. The tax advantage goes primarily to those couples with one
member taking time off from working or cutting back on hours to raise
the kids. We offer Social Security incentives to those who stay married
ten years or more, because longtime married couples take a big load off
the medical and social costs of caring for our elderly. States offer
death tax benefits to the married because they help keep the surviving
spouse and kids together, which has all the benefits of the other two.
The same advantages to society seem to come with same-sex marriages,
too, and some states and other nations are coming around to encouraging
these couples to marry, too."
Good points, however same sex couples cannot have children unless they adopt.
1
-
Mrs. Butterworth, let me explain to you a big problem with insurance companies.
We do not have a free market system in healthcare. The main problem, in my opinion, is the payroll tax. Because of the payroll tax businesses pay employees with healthcare insurance as it is a tax free way in paying employees when they can afford it. I always ask two questions regarding healthcare
1. Why do so many employers pay with insurance as opposed to a higher wage?
2. Why does insurance equal healthcare?
I gave you the answer to number 1. For number two, the reason why is because insurance is a form of payment, thus people use it for all of healthcare.
Insurance should be for cases that are unplanned and expensive. Compare it to car insurance. You use it if someone totals your car. But you pay for your own oil changes. But with healthcare insurance it pays for everything. Healthcare insurance should only pay for accidents or unplanned illnesses. For routine checkups, pregnancies, elective surgeries and so on, it should be paid for out of pocket. Doing that will force providers to lower prices and improve quality to attract customers.
Right now people are reliant on their employer for insurance meaning the plan they offer is the plan they get. They end up with a generic plan where men have to pay for contraceptives and women have to pay for Viagra. Also, if you switch jobs you have to get a new plan where at an older age you have more pre-existing conditions. Do some of these issues sound familiar?
However, if businesses just paid with a higher wage people can buy insurance plans that suit them and keep it for life. They can get plans that cover only unplanned, expensive situations and other healthcare issues can be covered out of pocket. They can force insurance companies to compete which will lower cost and raise quality.
The problem with you and other ultra leftists is that you do not understand economics. You feel that we have a free market system in healthcare. We don't. We have a for profit system with many government barriers to where the consumer does not have a choice. Right now we have a lot of government involved in healthcare already that is creating problems. But since you do not understand that you feel that we need even more government which will just make our problems worse.
We should push for a more free market system as it is the best system we can have. Centralizing healthcare will only make it worse. I have noticed that the ultra left only talks about cost, never quality when it comes to healthcare. There is a reason why. Their ideas does not care about quality, only costs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Because about 90 cents of every dollar that goes into Medicare goes to
healthcare and not "overhead costs" whereas with private insurance only
about 80 cents of every dollar goes into healtchcare."
There is more to it then that. A lot of that overhead spending by private insurance companies are there to lower healthcare cost, such as fraud prevention. You can't just throw numbers out there without knowing what they mean. Another way that saves money is on disease awareness. Medicare has the CDC for that where private insurance companies have themselves. So you do spend money, it just comes from another sources. So again, how do you save money when you increase demand without increasing supply?
"Also, Greenspan himself admitted that repealing Glass Steagall caused the subprime mortgage crisis."
The Glass Steagall repeal did not cause the recession.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/
"If you really want a free market and small businesses to succeed, break up the big banks. "
No, you let the big banks fail. In a free market you might have big banks. Forcing them to break up is the complete opposite of the free market.
"That way 1. the whole economy doesn't go bust if one of them collapses,
like what happened with Lehman Brothers in 2008, and 2. Government
doesn't have to keep pumping in money to make sure they stay afloat. "
1. Recession happen, they have always happened. They were happening during Glass Steagall. As you can see by the articles I linked there are many reasons for recessions. How we recover is key.
2. Government should not pump money into them as that is not the free market. The free market is letting them fail to where a successful company takes over.
" I should have thought conservatives and libertarians should be happy
about the 2nd one, since right now the government gives the big banks
$80 billion of hard earned taxpayer money every month, but can somehow
never find money for healthcare or infrastructure. "
People like me, who support the free market, did not agree with the bailouts. By the way, it was Obama and the democrat controlled congress that did the bailouts.
"I find it amusing that you called Sanders a radical, since his economic
policies are basically a rebooted version of FDR and the post war
economic consensus."
FDR turned a recession into a depression. We never took more then 5 years to recover from a recession until FDR came along. Since then we still haven't until Obama came. Every recession except for two in this country took around 5 years or less to recover from, including major ones like the Panic of 1873, 1837, and the recession of 1921. In all of those recessions the federal government did essentially nothing to "fix" the economy and we recovered quick. The two recessions that took the longest to recover from were The Great Depression and the recession of 2007. In both cases the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending. It took almost a decade to recover from The Great Depression and we are now just starting to recover from the 2007 recession.
Bernie is a radical. Under his plans we would have had another recession and his solution would have been more government. Under him our economy would have been killed.
". Not to mention that half of the ideas he mentions are the primary
policies in most of Europe, and almost all of them are based on
Keynesian economics."
That is not true as none of his ideas are implemented in those countries. Denmark told him to stop comparing his ideas to their country.
"If there's one thing the last 30 years have taught us, it's that
unregulated free markets, and demand side economics don't work. "
Except regulations have been growing.
"Why not go back to what did work from 1936-1976,"
After WWII you had two things. One, every other country was rebuilding when we weren't giving us an competitive edge. Also, regulations were being removed. However, in the 1970s you had the creation of OSHA and the EPA. You had the increase of the payroll tax and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in the 60s. So what is this about less regulations? One top of that, federal government spending was around 7% of GDP before FDR. After WWII it was 14% of GDP, not it is 20% of GDP. The federal government is growing. And before you cry "military industrial complex", in 1950 defense spending was 10% of GDP, now it is less then 4%. So defense spending has been falling while federal government spending was increasing.
You cry about unregulated free market when we haven't had that in decades. We have seen federal government spending nearly double in the past few decades. We have seen the creation of the EPA and OSHA and the expansion of the payroll tax. I have no clue where you get this idea that there are less regulations. There are more regulations now then before the 70s.
If you want to have a discussion you have to understand some basic facts and not make things up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** No, it comes down to what is you definition of education? Take 2 groups of 50 people. Group 1 has 40 with college degrees that consents of gender studies and business, and 10 who are high school dropouts. Group 2 has 10 high school dropouts, 10 with only a high school education, and 30 with a college degree consisting of 10 engineers, 10 chemists, 5 business, and 5 music majors. Now which group is more "educated".
Group 1 has more college graduates, but of what value? As I showed you there are other ways to determine education. A strong economy is one as I showed you with poverty rates. Or simply finishing high school.
You are just cherry picking college degree attainment which is deceptive all around. Who is more educated, someone with a master's degree in art or a bachelor's physics?
You blame me for cherry picking when you did it yourself. That is one trait of a liberal. Another is giving deceptive data out. As I just showed you giving college degree attainment is deceptive. If a state like New York has such high education then why are they so high in unemployment and poverty rates?
An intelligent person looks beyond what a liberal does. Because you know that requires work, another trait of liberals is refusing to work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Twilight Sparkle " Oh really? So athletes are some of the smartest people on the planet then? "
Athletes are the rare case. Same as looking at individuals you may find the artist who is incredibly intelligent, but as a whole engineers are more intelligent than artists.
"So what you're saying is, and do correct me if I'm wrong, but...if
you're subject doesn't require college, it obviously means that the
person is less intelligent, regardless if they have a PhD of the subject
and engineer just barely got their bachelors. "
Yes, that is correct. Getting a PhD in art or gender studies doesn't require much skill compare to getting an engineering degree. Getting a PhD is not as hard as what it seems. It is mainly annoying with the politics involved and not worth it a times, but still getting a PhD, especially something like the social sciences isn't hard.
"to elect someone into power who would make sure our lives were better."
Elect them where? At the federal level or local level? My problem with liberals its that they want to force their beliefs down people's throats at the federal level and end up creating a fascist government. Abortion is a state issue. Gays have the same rights as straights (gay marriage could have easily been solved through the constitution and not through emotions), drugs are a state issue.
My problem with liberals is that they feel they are better than others and they know what is right for other people thus they want to use the federal government to force it on others. That is how fascism happens, plus that is how we get a corrupt government. It becomes too powerful for us to control, but liberals lack so much intelligence that they can't realize that.
I actually agree with a lot of liberal policies, I am just smart enough to know the proper way to put such policies in place. Liberals instead vote for someone like Obama who expands the power of the federal government. And when another politician gets in power they get bought out by corporations and wonder why. Well, if the federal government had no power to begin with then they can't be bought. There is a reason whey the founding fathers wanted state rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+flyingboat 1. My ideas are not opinions. But besides that point, I find it ironic that you call my ideas radical when you support Bernie who wants, a $15/hr min. wage, over twice the current, "free" college when the federal government does not even control K-12 education, "free" healthcare, infrastructure spending that off of Bernie's own numbers we can't afford on top of other policies of Bernie that expand the federal government.
Under FDR we saw a slow recovery. Every other recession took around 5 years to recover from except for two, the current one now and the great depression. Under FDR we saw a slow recovery and every text book knows that which is why it was called the Great Depression.
Half of the founding fathers did not want to expand the federal government in 1787. Only Alexander Hamilton wanted it. That is why after the War of 1812 when a federal income tax was suggested it was denied.
2. Bernie Sanders is not moderate. He supports massive expansion of the federal government. And when Bernie is gone what is going to prevent future politicians from taking advantage of the new power the federal government has? That is the exact same problem FDR created. That is the worse part about Bernie Sanders. Never mind that he does no have any specifics on his policies, he wants to create a system that future politicians can take advantage of.
You have yet to present facts, all you present is rhetoric. How is Bernie a "moderate"? He supports expansion of the federal government. That is the complete opposite of a "moderate" That is similar to someone who wants no government, it is just on the other side.
"My advice? Use actual evidence to support your claims in the future instead of citing crazy conspiracy videos"
Says the person who doesn't cite anything as well and feels Bernie is a "moderate".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The economic situation has become worse because Bill Clinton repealed Glass Steagall and Bush implemented his tax cuts."
The Glass Steagall repeal did not cause the recession.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis
The tax cuts did not cause the recession either. Recessions happen, how we recover is key.
"If the Democrats are radicals, then what are the Republicans? "
Republicans are more moderate these days. They can become radicals as well. As of now they aren't.
"Not in modern nations excluding the DSR. We and the rest do have quality health care. "
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Read that book on healthcare.
"Republicans lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced a legislation that would punish non violent protestors."
I have not seen anything like that.
" Like drivers can run over protestors. People's assets can be seized if
the protests turned violent. It doesn't matter if they were violent
themselves"
If you are in the middle of the road stopping traffic and preventing society from functioning then you are not peaceful. If you start a protest and it becomes violent then you are guilty by association. When the Tea Party rallied they got permits and did it in an organized fashion. On the left they block streets and tear up property. The left are acting worse then white supremacists. Recently white supremacists protested they removal of confederate monuments by gathering with torches. When they were told to leave guess what they did? They left. They did not burn down a building or vandalize property. They left leaving no damage. That is a peaceful protest. The left are acting worse then white supremacists. Consider that.
" The problem with Obama was he implemented a right wing healthcare reform. It was originally the Republicans idea. "
It was not a republican idea.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/
" Mine and other modern nations have already proven that single payer is a much better reform"
Read the book I linked. When you break it down universal healthcare is no better then the system the US has. Both systems have shortcomings. That is not to say that the US does not have problems, it does. But completely replacing it with another system with just as many problems is not a solution and is a radical idea. This is why the left are radicals. You exaggerate problems that exist and want to take extreme measures. You see a nail sticking out and want to pound it in with a sledgehammer.
" If you are thinking about the premiums, they increased because the
government has no control over it. Only the for profit health insurance
companies do. "
I agree that health insurance companies have a lot of control, but that is because of the federal government and they payroll tax. Consider this with healthcare
1. why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage?
2. why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
Think about the payroll tax and what that does for companies and paying employees. Consumers have no control over healthcare insurance because most cannot buy their own plan because they are dependent on their employer for care.
"At least understand the left's position before you criticize it. It's
not free. It's paid by the taxpayers and in return it would benefit
them."
If it is paid for by taxpayers then push for a flat tax. Instead the left pushes for higher taxes on the rich to pay for those program. Are you willing to pay higher taxes? Or do you want the rich to pay for it? Here is the thing, if you raise taxes on the rich, but don't for the middle class and poor, and then provide a service to everyone off of that revenue, it is free for the middle class and poor as they did not see a tax increase to pay for that service. So yes, it is free for some.
" It can start by allocating money from defense spending"
Defense spending is only 4% of GDP. We spend more on education and healthcare is around 1/6 of our GDP.
" You won't be in favor of small government when your drinking water is polluted by corporations like those in West Virginia"
Water is controlled locally. Local government is small government as you can control local governments easier.
" I'm in favor of limiting government's power in NSA spying. Not for
allowing corporations to steamroll the government and have the people
pay the price. By the way, that's been happening for a while. "
You need to control government. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. The more local government is the greater ability you can see if it is serving you and your community. If not you can change it easier or move and remain a US citizen. Also, if you feel the federal government is corrupt and is controlled by corporations, then why do you want to allow it to run your healthcare and education?
"Justice Democrats are still new. They're also not alone. "
Justice Democrats are getting no attention. The Tea Party had a much larger support group. Justice Democrats are not going anywhere as the DNC does not want radicals in their party and do not need them.
"Bernie lost because the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie. "
He lost by around 3 million votes. In a primary that is a lot.
"They closed the primaries to prevent independents from voting. "
Which is what you want sometimes. You don't want outsiders who have no responsibilities towards the party deciding who should represent your party. The republicans allowed that and Trump won.
"Plus Bernie was a nobody while the Clintons were celebrities."
Obama was a nobody and he won.
"You have the internet. You don't need to tell you this. Look it up. It's common knowledge by now."
I use the internet. I am just smart enough to not buy the crap that is out there.
1
-
"I didn't claim that the repeal of Glass Steagall was the only reason that led to the recession. My main concern is deregulation"
What "deregulation"? As Global Warming Skeptic pointed out, we have been increasing regulation for years. The EPA and OSHA did not exist until the 70s. You talk about deregulation but do not explain what. It is a talking point right now. Also, you need to read the sources I give you better. They said it was "at best" one of many factors that caused the recession.
"Obama was the moderate one. "
How? Republicans were voted in to oppose him. Obama was so out of touch with the people that the country voted in republicans to oppose him.
"The Republicans kept obstructing him and prevented him from nominating a justice. "
Obama already nominated 2 justices. The last president to nominate more then 2 was Reagan.
"If you really think Republicans aren't radical especially right now, then you're so brainwashed that I can't help you."
You have to give actual examples of how republicans are radicals. Right now you haven't. Let me give you some on how democrats are radicals
1. Climate change: Climate change deniers are a dying breed. Many on the right agree it is happening and that man is playing a role. They just feel that it is not a threat and that the federal government should not be given power to "fix" the problem (if there is even is one). But when that is brought up the left calls republicans climate change deniers. It makes no sense
2. Economics: Bernie Sanders won states in the primaries....enough said.
3. Gun control: We have gun laws on the books, including background checks. However democrats want to keep adding more laws after a shooting happens, even though those proposed laws would not have stopped any of those shootings. It is getting to the territory of taking away guns. Obama pushed for an executive order on gun laws but had no way to defend it. His only reasoning was that it could lead to a decrease in gun murders even though gun murders were already decreasing.
I can add more, Steven Crowder does a great video on it. But right now the left continues to call their opponents racists, sexist, bigots, homophobes, etc. as opposed to having an actual discussion. When you opposed Obama you were a racist. If you did not buy into the gender pay gap you were considered a sexist. If you did not support tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood then you were considered a woman hater.
Bill Clinton was a moderate and was willing to have a discussion. In 1994 Bill Clinton and Herman Cain had a discussion on healthcare where Clinton used numbers and data and at least shown concerned about his business. In 2017 in the Cruz vs Sanders debate Sanders was posed a similar question by a small business owner. Bernie did not show concern about her business, her income, finances, model, etc. He just said "you have to give them healthcare insurance". That is a radical right there.
"
You sent me that book before many months ago. We had a long debate which
I don't want to waste time on anymore. I don't know why you're still
holding on to it. Universal healthcare isn't perfect, but it is better. "
How is it better? That book runs through the data and shows that the outcomes are similar. So how is universal healthcare better?
" In your system, people die because lack of healthcare"
In other countries they die because of low quality of care. Even at that you linked me the Harvard study of the 40,000 who die a year. Well, another Harvard professor had their take.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
I will add that 45,000 is only around 0.01% of the population. No system is idea. 0.01% is minute at that point, and you cannot say with high certainty that the reason why they die is only because of lack of access to healthcare. 35,000 die in traffic accidents a year. Does that mean they all die because they were bad drivers, or they were in unsafe cars, or on unsafe roads?
"Guilty by association? That's an association fallacy. Also authoritarian. "
No its not. You plan a protest it is your job to make sure it remains peaceful.
"Again. The left wants the wealthy to pay their fair of taxes"
Define "fair share". We already have a progressive tax code. Also, ever thought that if taxes weren't so high the rich won't stash it overseas?
"The Republicans lowers taxes on the wealthy and raises them on the poor. "
Not true. On your two articles the CNN one does not mention political party. On the other one they are talking about the consumption tax which actually taxes rich people more as they buy more expensive things (cars, more TVs, computers, etc). Also, consumption tax taxes visitors from out of states. My state has no income tax but has a higher consumption tax for that reason. We like it. It is not a tax increase on the poor.
"The DSR still spends more on defense than the next 8 nations combined."
Defense spending is around 4% of GDP and that has been dropping for around 20 years. But, on that 8 nation thing, let us look at the GDP of each nation, numbers in trillions of dollars
1. China: 10.87
2. Russia: 1.33
3: Saudi Arabia: 0.65
4. France: 2.42
5. UK: 2.85
6. India: 2.07
7. Germany: 3.36
That gives a combine total of $23.55 trillion for their GDP. Our GDP is around $16.7 trillion. When you put it in that perspective you realize that our defense spending is not that high because our GDP is comparable to those 7 nations' GDP combine. Just saying "we spend more then the next 7 nations combine" does not mean anything. I weigh more then 5 children combine most likely, if the children are all 2 years old. Does that make me fat? At 210 pounds I hope not. It is all about perspective. Just making statements without proper context is not an argument.
"Progressives don't want corporations to run the government. That's why
we want to get money out of the political system. I'm fine with the
argument for a local government, but a strong federal government is
necessary to prevent the states acting as their own independent
countries"
We have a system in place already. It is called the Constitution. It placed restrictions on all governments, including states. The set up was this
The states ran the federal government and the federal government served the states, not the people. That is why there was no individual income tax but only a tax on the states. And why we have the electoral college.
The states served the people and the people ran the states. That was the design.
Money in politics is simply a symptom of a disease. That disease is of a federal government with too much power. If it has limited power then it can't be bought.
"Justice Democrats were mentioned by mainstream media and have applied pressure on the corporate Democrats"
I don't see any pressure.
" By the way, Bernie Sanders is registered as an Independent. "
I know, then why should he represent the democratic party?
"You're not that smart."
How so?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr Considering how you don't even know what hypocrisy means I am not going to take much what you say seriously. Also you refuse to challenge experts. I never said experts were wrong like you claim I did in another comment, I am just showing another side of the issue. You do that when you move up in life in more advanced positions whether it be in politics, academics or the private sector. I guess if all you do is smoke weed and live in your parents basement you never have to experience challenging so called "experts", it is true that ignorance is bliss and you are living it.
Seriously, take a step back and look at what you are typing and who you are trying to attack. I have debunked your sources, I have turned your own words on you, I have explained my positions on topic and you just merely say I am wrong with zero justification. You are losing this battle son. I am sorry, admit defeat. I use to be defeated a lot, I didn't sit there and cry about it though, I informed myself and was smarter the next time.
You are probably some young individual. I respect the fire and passion, you just need more experience. Go out and challenge "experts", you will learn a lot. And seriously, until you can manage it lay off the weed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Democrats are filled with hate. They push their agenda with emotions. If you oppose the min. wage you supposedly hate the poor, base on what though? The left doesn't look at the issue, they just say you hate the poor. If you opposed the violence against women act then you must hate women. No, we hate violence against everyone. If you opposed universal healthcare then you hate sick people or hate the poor, no, we support developing a better system.
We can go on but so many arguments from the left are filled with emotion and not actually breaking down the issue. We have a system to solve the problems in our country if we were to actually break it down. We just go straight to emotions though. Take gay marriage, the left calls marriage a right when it isn't. Take workers rights, there are no such things as workers rights. We can solve the issue of gay marriage and safer work places with they system we have, but using deceptive words and not breaking down the issue, which the left does, doesn't solve anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Point out anywhere in our constitution that says government can't take taxpayers money and provide a service to the taxpayers"
The 10th amendment is one. If the constitution does not directly state something then it falls to the responsibility of the states. Also Article I Section 9
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion
to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Now the 16th amendment changed that (and since then we have seen two depressions). So the taxes they created were constitutional, but the programs they fund aren't.
"it is our government responsibility to protect the general health and well being of it's citizens. "
Protect but not guarantee. Just like you have the right to pursue happiness, you are not guaranteed it. You have the right to free speech, but if a newspaper company refuses to publish your opinion then your ideas are not heard by others. Also the government has nothing to begin with. In order to have something it has to take, in this case the people. With healthcare they will have to force doctors to offer their services to others which violates the 13th amendment.
" You are aware we have less people living in poverty now, than before food stamps was first introduced, right? "
That is not true. Food stamps became a permanent thing in the 60s, around the time the war on poverty was enacted. Before the war on poverty was enacted poverty rates were dropping perceptibly. Since then poverty rates have been stagnate. So with food stamps poverty rates have not been improving. So apparently food stamps don't work.
Social Security is a pay as you go program. It is running out of money because when it was enacted the retirement age was higher than the average life expectancy. Now life expectancy is almost 20 years higher than the retirement age. People try to push for raising the age bu that has been met with a roadblock.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"sorry but reducing the federal income tax won't have much of an impact in sales tax funded state like florida."
Yes it would. More money in the hands of consumers to spend locally. They will have more money due to zero federal income taxes.
"Why cause food prices would rise if you reduced federal income tax."
How would food prices rise? Food prices have been dropping due to technology. That has nothing to do with taxes.
" Its the federal governments money, "
No, it's our money. You (assuming you work) and I earned it. The federal government took it. That is our money, period.
"they have the authority to use the budget how they wish."
No they don't, there are restrictions in the constitution. That is why they can't expand medicaid without state's consent.
"The federal government is backed by the Constitution "
Which has the 10th amendment.
"and the Supreme Court"
Which has made incorrect rulings in the past, see Kelo vs City of New London and how the states reacted after that.
" Congress their current powers over commerce, "
Which has been misinterpreted.
" the Supreme Court fought over the agencies for over 4 decades starting when FDR "
FDR threaten to stack the courts with his judges to get his polices of pass. Some of his polices were ruled unconstitutional in the past, such as the min. wage. But after FDR abused his power things changed. That is corruption. It isn't surprising that under FDR we also had a depression.
" Now we have an FDA that is funded by the Congress and by extensions the taxpayers. "
The FDA is listed as "other" in the budget. That is how insignificant it is.
"does not conflict with the Bill of Rights"
It does because it violates the 10th amendment.
"Its not a violation of the 10th Amendment because it is not taking a State's ability to form their own health agencies "
And nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government is supposed to run health agencies, thus only the states run it.
" The Supreme court debated the powers of administrative agencies in a variety of cases throughout fdr's presidency. "
And they ruled in favor of FDR due to FDR threatening the courts with his judges.
"You can't call the 16th Amendment Unconstitutional."
I never did.
"Also it isn't unconstitutional to make a person buy a product or service, so long as it is a police power"
It is unconstitutional. Say that the federal government forced you to buy guns? Would you agree? Or forced you to buy a car or a home?
"Hence why states can force everyone to have car insurance "
That falls within their 10th amendment right. If states force citizens to buy healthcare insurance then fine, but the federal government can't. The powers of the fed are clearly listed in the constitution. What isn't listed means it falls to the states.
"Which is also legal for the government to do so long as the compensate
the original owner. Why? Because if the government properly compensates
you for your property,"
The compensation wasn't just though. They ruled in favor of a business owner. The government ruled in favor of a business. The business could have offered more money but instead used government force to get what they want. This sounds familiar. Almost every state changed their law after that ruling.
"You didn't read Kelo at all."
I did, it is clear you didn't.
1
-
1
-
"You are ignorant about how law is interpreted and applied."
I can start with that because clearly you are ignorant in how the law is interpreted and applied. The constitution sets a standard in what laws governments can create and what actions governments can and cannot do. In Kelo vs New City of London the 5th amendment was clearly violated. You clearly don't understand that and feel that the ruling of 5 justices is all we need despite 4 feeling that the 5th amendment is being violated. You clearly have no problem removing standards set by the constitution. I suggest you read some more on the history of the constitution and its design beyond the lesson I am giving you now.
Now that we are done with correcting an error you said about me trying to be condescending, I will break down how you are incorrect.
"echnology has only done so much too food. At the moment, the amount of
resources needed to produce plant food is very high, particularly water
costs. In the case of meat its even higher and has higher food cost
because an animal has to eat to grow large enough for us too eat it. You
are greatly underestimating the cost of growing the amount of food
necessary to feed the U.S. We subsidize farms to cover portions of their
operational costs so they can sell the food cheaper."
States can run subsidizes if needed. There is no reason for the fed to run it. States can run it by collecting taxes and at the local level they can run it more efficiently. Even at that we are a nation that produces too much food. We throw a lot of it away (at work we just threw away 5 sandwiches). We produce so much food because we advanced so much in technology. I know the cost of producing food growing up in a farming community. Subsidizes are not necessary at the federal level. I find it ironic, though, that you are pushing subsidizes while supporting FDR. FDR literally killed off crops and livestock during the great depression.
"More money in hands of people locally. Again, my argument holds weight
because the basic need of food is greatly subsidized by the federal
government."
Food is produces in mass quantities. There are no reasons for subsidizes. There are other basic needs as well such as shelter that is harder to obtain.
"Yes it is your money, mine too, but we elect people to decide what to do
with our money in the federal government just like we do with the state
governments. Presuming you are okay with a republic, then this
shouldn't be an issue and is once again constitutional."
We the people only have 2 senators and a handful of representatives from our state. I can't vote for Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders, so why should they pass policies that effect the economy domestically? The answer is that they can't. The federal government represents us to other foreign nations, they are not supposed to be involved in domestic policies outside the bounds of the constitution. I don't like it if a politician like Nancy Pelosi passes a law, takes my tax dollars, and spends it on the other side of the country. That is literally stealing from me. At the state level the state takes my money and invests it in my state when I can benefit from it more. I can also see if I am getting my money's worth or if my money is being wasted and vote out the politicians that spent my money. I can't vote out the federal politicians that I felt wasted my money.
"Their current powers over commerce are not minterpreted"
Yes they are
"FDR threatened to expand the size of the Supreme Court,'"
Which is corruption in itself. He used it to convince judges to change their ruling on things they already deemed to be unconstitutional. That is a problem.
"The Congress is allowed to make any law that does not violate the constitution."
I agree
"Creating and running a health agency is within their power "
No it isn't. That is not listed anywhere in the constitution. There is an entire section listed in the constitution on what Congress can do for your information.
"Why? Because once again, the Health agency does not deprive states the rights to run their own health agencies. "
Yes it does because it takes more tax dollars meaning less at the state and local level.
"The FDA created basic protocols and standards that are set in stone. "
Which shouldn't be the case. Why do we need an FDA? The answer is that we don't. Take the department of education for example. While we have one all 50 states set their own standards. As is 4 states don't follow CCSS and NGSS and several states are starting to reconsider using CCSS. That makes the department of ed a waste of money just like the FDA.
"You are calling Federal Income Tax unconstitutional.."
I am not. I am saying it is not the best approach and used to be unconstitutional for a reason.
"The courts have interpreted car insurance as something that state
government can force all their citizens to have or face hefty fines and
even prison. Why? Because for the welfare of people in accident they
need those who caused the accident to have insurance so their property
isn't destroyed with no compensation. Again, Constitutional."
I agree, because it is a state law. It follows the 10th amendment. Obamacare is a federal law thus it violates the 10th amendment. I am not arguing that state and local governments can't force people to buy something. I am arguing that the federal government can't. It is clear that you did not read what I wrote.
You clearly need to study the constitution more. Your problem is that you don't question anything. You just assume that what the government does is constitutional an twist words around until you can justify government's actions. Kelo vs New City of London clearly violated the 5th amendment, but you twisted words around until you can justify it. The Patriot Act violates the 4th amendment but the SC ruled it didn't. The constitution is pretty clear, all you have to do is read it.
1
-
"Their view that it was a 5th amendment violation"
And they were wrong, end of story.
"The Constitution sys the majority of the court will make the rulings"
Actually no it doesn't but thanks for showing again you don't know what the constitution says.
I can easily end there, and should, but I will continue.
"The federal government subsidizes american farms because Congress decided too"
Which is not covered anywhere in Article I, thus it violates the constitution.
"Once again, its not a 10th amendment violation "
Yes it is because this is not a federal government issue.
"I understand the historical framework of the Constitution and agree with your argument that the Constiution sets the standard.."
No you don't.
"Hence why amendments have been passed and expanded the powers"
Which is one thing. If they want to pass amendments saying that the US government can subsidizes farms then fine. They never did though.
"You need 2/3rds of the House and Senate to agree and then 3/4's of the states to agree to it"
I agree, which was never done in farm subsidizes.
"BECAUSE BEFORE YOU WERE BORN AND WHEN THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED YOUR
STATE AGREED TO MAKE A COMPACT WITH THE OTHER STATES IN THE FORM OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! FIRST THROUGH THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND
FINALLY THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EVERY STATE IS BOUND TOO TODAY
BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE ONE HAD ITS CITIZENS CHOOSE TO JOIN THE COMPACT AND
BECOME SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTION IN THE PAST."
I agree, what are you getting at here?
"IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU LIKE AND DO NOT LIKE MATE. YOU HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND THAT PART. YOUR STATE MADE A COMPACT WITH EVERY OTHER STATE
TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONGRESS
TO ALLOCATE WHATEVER MONEY THEY HAVE TO WHATEVER THEY WANT. YOU AS A
CITIZEN OF YOUR STATE GET A PIECE OF THAT REPRESENTATION AND BY
DEFINITION HAVE A SAY IN WHERE THAT MONEY GOES. LETS SAY YOU ARE FROM
FLORIDA. YOU WOULD BE A FLORIDIAN, YOU HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM FLORIDA
THAT ARE IN CONGRESS THAT FIGHT FOR YOUR INTERESTS, BUT YOU ARE STILL
AN AMERICAN. A GEORGIAN IS AMERICAN. A NEW YORKER IS AMERICAN. WE ARE
PART OF A COMPACT THAT MAKES US AMERICAN. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD."
What I don't like is the constitution being violated. I was showing to you why the federal government was not supposed to get involved in domestic policies such as farm subsidizes. Money from one citizen, say Maryland, has money going to CA in farm subsidizes. That person in Maryland now doesn't see if their money is being spent well or in a a way they like. The representatives in CA will love it, but that person in Maryland can't vote for any of them. That is why the constitution was designed to have strict limitations on government and more powers to the states. The more local the government is the more one can see if their money is spent well and if their government is working for them. Also, they have more control of the government.
The founding fathers ran into the same problem on what the federal government should and shouldn't do. Policies were proposed that would benefit one state at the expense of the other. That is why they came up with the 10th amendment. Every state get representation his the 2 senators and whatever representatives. But the powers of the federal government and congress were limited. Basically limited down to foreign affairs and seeing that every state gets along. Not take money and spend it to benefit other states.
""You can't claim the commerce clause has been misinterpreted. "
Yes I can.
" You don't have that authority,"
So I should just bow down and not question? You do know how this country was developed?
" ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DEAL WITH IT."
Wow, that is a pretty sad way to think about. Yep, don't question. Just bow down and deal with it.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;
Clearly you didn't read this part if you think the fed only manages
affairs with foreign nations. You can't give me a lesson on this I study
this.
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;"
Yes, there are some domestic policies they deal with that are clearly listed in the constitution. And you can't give me a lesson on this, I study this and take a test on it to ensure I know what is in the constitution. You may study it, I actually get tested on it.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE
(If Congress deems it necessary to have a Department of Health, they can
make it mate. Its existence does not conflict with the state
governments ability to have its own Department of Health,
CONSTITUTIONAL)"
So if congress deemed it necessary to ban all cars, or create a nation wide curfew, would you agree? If congress felt like it was necessary to run all K-12 schools, would you agree? That is federal overreach at it's finest, and violates the constitution. They make create departments to ensure one state does not hurt another state in anyway, but that is it.
"It doesn't matter that Obamacare is federal law.. it doesn't force every citizen to get insurance."
If you don't buy insurance you get fined. That is forcing them to buy something.
"Have you even read the Affordabel Care Act?"
I have, clearly you haven't.
You are clearly a sad individual. You will excuse the government on anything. If the government spied on you or took your property away without just compensation, you would just say "well, they were allowed to". You really need to learn how to question the government and what the constitution says.
1
-
" You are a moron and have no clue how the constitution allows itself to
be interpreted. Everything is not enumerated in the Constitution because
the Constitution does not require every law to be attached to the
Constitution as an amendment. Do you not understand this?"
I understand you have no clue what you are talking about. The constitution is the standard. We have to stick to the standard. If we don't then it allows for the development of a government that is tyrannical.
"That any federal government power must be enumerated through amendments. "
Any power must be distinctly listed in the constitution. If not then it becomes a state issue, period.
"The necessary and proper clause for example. Or the Commerce Clause."
Both which have been misinterpreted.
"You argue that your money has the potential to be misused in the federal
government. You take the same risk by paying taxes to you state when
they spend part of your money in other districts. You make a fair and
reasonable point, but it is a systemic trait of how we run our
governments from the local, state, and then federal level."
At the state and local level I have a greater ability to see if I am getting my money's worth. I also have the greater ability to control the government at the state and local level. I can vote for all of the representatives in my city. I have met the governor of my state. I personally knew both candidates for sheriff. At the local level you have more control of the government to ensure that it remains the servants as opposed to the masters. You can also see if you are getting your money's worth in government spending.
"If you are being tested on this and giving these answers you are either a shit law student or an even shittier law school. "
If you can justify your opinion then you will do well.
"This entire time you have been misinterpreting how the Constitution and Congress have gotten their powers"
No I haven't.
"The first rule of being a lawyer, don't argue what the law should be, "
Not really.
" It does not matter if they should or should not, they have the Constitutional power to do so "
No they don't. Point to me where in the constitution it says they can. That is my point. You are saying they can just because some SC justices say so. I want you to point to me in the constitution they can.
"So if congress deemed it necessary to ban all cars, or create a nation
wide curfew, would you agree? If congress felt like it was necessary to
run all K-12 schools, would you agree? "
No, and no.
"
Yes the government can spy on you. Why can they? Because you don't have
explicit privacy rights to begin with and only have Prenumbra Privacy
rights through the 9th Amendment. If they took your property without
Just compensation its the fault of your state for not requiring just
compensation. Based on the Kelo decision it is possible for government
to do so. The state governments passed laws following Kelo requiring
themselve to pay you justly for your property... so no I am not worried
in the slightest. "
The government can't spy on your because it violates the 4th amendment. The government can't take your property without just compensation because that violates the 5th amendment.
I have a question for you, why don't you ever question any of these laws? And why don't you point to where in the constitution these laws are justified? Your only response is "the SC ruled it that way". And you move one without any questions. Why? Why don't you question it or read the constitution to see if those powers even exist?
"Once again. The Affordable Care Act does not require you to have insurance."
Yes it does, or you have to pay a fine. I will link the law to you. It is in sec. 1501.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, Jonathan here we go again.
Those polls are local polls which will be more accurate since you are sampling a specified sample size. However, look at healthcare. Polls said that 2/3 of the people want it. However, 80% voted against it in Colorado and the entire nation voted for republicans who ran on repealing Obamacare.
On background checks on guns. Polls said that close to 90% wanted it. But in Maine it failed and in NV it passed by only 0.45%. The national polls have been wrong lately. Stop cherry picking.
"Polls can be completely accurate if they poll 1000 people from different
areas using random distributions and avoiding systematic error and
biased on their part. "
Polling 1000 people in a nation of 320+ million people is not accurate. When you go to the state level it can be more accurate as you have only a few million. But across the nation 1000 is too little. Even at that phone surveys with technology these days have many flaw.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17094769
" This is learned in a basic statistics class in undergrad, "
Funny, considering one of my old bosses has a masters in statistics and disregards phone polls.
" again get an education"
I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. You, however, I question. Remember, you
1. Did not know that you can be covered off of your spouse's plan
2. Could not read and understand the Coloradocare plan
3. Could not read the book I cited
4. Felt that professors who do research related to healthcare know nothing about it
"Lets take this argument for a logical spin, you literally just said the
majority of the country polling wise supports Legislation X. However
because a single state did not pass it, thus all polling is incorrect."
Based on
1. A larger sample size
2. The major difference in the numbers (2/3 support it in the polls, 80% didn't)
3. The state is left leaning
" I mean think about how stupid this statement is. "
I don't see how. Also, Bernie Sanders won Colorado.
"So far, you have cited no statistics, given no evidence to even support these numbers(as always)."
Neither have you. I did, however, just gave you a link to a review on phone polling.
"Then when citing these made up numbers, you don't even understand simple logic to extrapolate polling from it"
I do. Funny how the polls are not matching voting results. Tell me again how a blue state, that voted for Bernie in the primaries, had 80% of the voters voting against single payer?
", it doesn't demonstrate anything since there would be 45 more(in this case, over 45) that haven't tried the healthcare bill. "
Maybe because they don't want it?
"Again the polls were accurate"
Not really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Are you desperate in trying to shame him? "
I can break down everything he said and explain, in detail how he is wrong. But him losing is enough.
"Bernie is not saying that people cannot become successful."
Yes he is. He shamed businesses who pay what he feels is too low of a wage. He shames families like the Walton Family and the Koch Brothers who actually created jobs and donated their money to charities. Now what does Bernie do with his wealth? He buys a third home while telling rich people, who create jobs, that they are what's wrong with this country.
"Uhhh.... does he have huge mansions? Or does he have one home in DC
where he works, one in a city in Vermont, and now a small vacation home
in Vermont?"
Paul Ryan sleeps in a cot in his DC office. So that is one home Bernie can get rid of. His "small" vacation home is worth $600,000. Look up the median price of a home in Vermont, it is around a 1/3 of that. So while "millions and millions" are working hard just to pay rent, he buys a "small" vacation home that is worth three times as much the median home in Vermont is worth. But don't look at people who pay rent, also look at the fact that Bernie is all fired up about the estates tax being removed because the Walton family, who created jobs with their wealth creation, gets a supposed tax break. Bernie with his inheritance buys a third home that benefits no one but himself.
"And you're comparing him to billionaires that are trying to pay less in taxes all while he is content with paying more!?!"
Bernie pays little tax. Look at his released tax return. Also, Bernie is paid with tax payers dollars and billionaires make up a very minute portion of society. The vast majority of the people don't care about them.
"Yes, there are poor people. How do you expect them to organize their
lives? Maybe make it so that they can have health care? Education?
Hmmm...."
How is Bernie going to provide healthcare and education to those people when we lack resources in those fields? Is he going to motivate people to become doctors and professors? Or his going to motivate people to be poor by promising them free stuff and raising the min. wage? Why work hard taking on the stress of earning a doctorate when you can work a low skilled job an still be promised a
1. "living wage"
2. healthcare
3. education
4. vacation time
5. paternity leave
6. retirement
Along with other things. Tell me, what do you do for a living? Do you plan on going to med school or getting a PhD and doing research in the STEM field? It is easy to tell others to give when you refuse to.
"Bernie is marching in the streets saying that everyone has the right to a big screen TV!"
Never heard him say that once. Plus, it is something I don't desire.
"He is saying everyone has the right to see a doctor!"
You have that right already. You just can't force doctors to serve you though as they have the right not to be enslaved.
"Is that difficult for you to understand?"
I understand what he is saying. I am just too smart to fall for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Courtney, TYT will find anything to rip on Trump, they are bias. In fact the media is not reliable right now as it is mainly stationed in LA and NYC, very liberal leaning areas of the country. The media has become myopic to the rest of the country and was shocked when Trump won simply because the media as a whole is in a bubble. These polls are a part of that.
"Cenk actually predicted Trump would win way back in an appearance on MSNBC (or CNN) -- I forget which one. There were conservatives who predicted Trump would not win."
I know, but Cenk also did the whole loser Donald segment. But, I have to give credit where credit is due, Cenk was right when everyone else on that segment said Clinton would win.
"No, you're lying once more. And you have not clarified what you mean by
"the polls are not doing well." You gave a few examples. That is not
enough to say all polls are not doing well. And I am not "holding on" to
polls. I am saying I trust them more than you and Trump and that is the
logical thing to do."
Trump won, he won by saying what he is saying right now about the polls. It seems like he know something and is doing something right. The polls keep ripping on him all throughout the election and he won.
"Wait. So is this an admission that you wish to throw out the scientific method?"
Nope, just saying the polls are wrong. Even at that most polls are done through landlines and cell phone which is highly unreliable which is something you learn in statistics. And the questions are typically very vague. As a whole the situation is vague. TYT and other sources keep saying "the polls" but never get into details. If you read the methodology of these polls they hardly ever mention the age, location, occupation, income level and so on of those being polled. They simply list them as "adults". With that they are not reliable. When I write a paper to be published I have to give out all details on my experiments.
"You're being purposely vague here. They were pointing to polls that indicated that Trump would lose"
And the polls are vague.
" You're spitting on experts right now saying that they don't understand their own polls."
What "experts"? I am calling them out on vague polls that deceive people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+GravianS
To start you can't tie the min. wage to inflation or productivity. Doing so is saying that everything has inflated which is not true, or that every job has increased in productivity which is also not true. So that $15/hr number is that just came out of nowhere, or at the very best comes from fudging the data.
You don't have a right to marriage by law. Marriage is a state issue. You can say that you are married under some sort of belief, but if a state does not recognize marriage then you are not legally married. If a state recognizes marriage then they can't discriminate. It was the same ruling for interracial marriage.
It is the same as in education. K-12 education is ran and funded locally. If a state runs public education then they have to offer it to everyone via the 14th amendment. But a state does not have to run a public education program.
You are confused with the 14th amendment. That part you bold is not what you means. You are making it sound like that if two gay people through some religion, or just on their own get married then they will be persecuted. That isn't the case. They can say they care married and nothing will happen to them. Just like someone can say they are married to their cat. Doing so won't get them arrested. The issue was that states were recognizing straight marriages but not gay marriage meaning they were discriminating based off of sex which violated the 14th amendment.
So now you have shown not only your lack of understanding of economics, but you have also shown you lack of understanding of the constitution.
"You know, freedom? That thing right wingers like to hark on about, but
never actually deliver on? How about this. You get your guns, they get
their gay marriage. Everyone's happy. Try not to shoot yourself in the
foot."
I actually outlined very clearly that you have always had the right to get married, it was that states were not recognizing it at the time which made it a violation of the constitution. But with that statement you have now also shown that you are myopic.
So to recap, you lack understanding of economics, you lack understanding of the constitution, and you lumped me in with "right wingers" just because I am a moderate making you a regressive liberal. Congrats. Hopefully you learned something today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"People on Medicare seem largely satisfied with their healthcare, "
Most people are satisfied with their healthcare, that is why reform is hard. In the big picture we are a developed nation and people are fine. That still does not mean it is the best route to go.
" Thus I would probably be more satisfied with my healthcare if I had Medicare rather than a private insurer."
Again, doesn't matter as it is losing money and many doctors don't take Medicare. Also, medicare is restricted to a particular group, not the entire population.
"Plus those malignant politicians won't be able to enrich themselves by denying me healthcare"
Why not? Also, they can give you healthcare, it will just be low quality care. Remember, the government gives you roads full of pot holes.
"I'm mercifully free of your "government is inherently evil" mentality so I have no problems with single-payer ideologically."
I never said it is "inherently evil", you said that. I said that it can be corrupted if we don't control it. To control it we have to keep it as local as possible. There are many benefits to government, but you have to realize it is fully capable of being corrupt and evil. Tell me why do you want this corrupt federal government to run your healthcare?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Phantomhive You have shown me one statistic and it is very deceptive. Your problem is that you are looking at the dollar number when looking at wages, but not the dollar value.
Cars, computer, phones, ipods, overall life expectancy and so on are better than they were in the 40s. To say wages haven't caught up with productivity is being deceptive at best, but most likely is false. You have to look at that. You can't just throw numbers around without breaking them down.
"those who do not risk spending the rest of their lives in debt by not
going to college deserve to be getting the starvation wage."
One, the term "starvation wage" is a completely emotional term. My girlfriend earns $8/hr and is using that wage to pay off a Mazda RX8. Not really a starvation wage. You are simply paid what you are worth in society. It is up to you to figure out how to earn a living.
As far as college and loans are concerned, go to a cheap college and get a degree that is valued high. Don't get an art degree or women's study degree. I have $50,000 of student loan, I have a plan to pay it off without it ruining my life. It isn't hard but does require work.
"Have fun realizing you were wrong when Sanders wins the presidency"
He isn't going to win. If for some offbeat chance he does have fun banging your head on the wall wondering why you and your friends are not getting better but those that work hard do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Suomy Nona My boss earns $80,000/yr. So I guess you can't do much math either. I am working on my PhD, I don't have it yet.
So when Walmart opened 2 new stores in my city that wasn't them using their profits to grow the company?
Walmart has the challenge of keeping shareholders happy. If they squander their profits the shareholders will vote in another CEO because they want to see their stocks grow. Now you may say that is bad but Walmart has a lot of stores at convenient locations and time and sells goods for cheap. You know, things that help out the poor.
Other options are Raleys, Hy Vee, Safeway and so on, stores with less goods for sell, higher prices, less locations and they are not open 24 hours. Things that make it harder on those with little money.
Also you attack Walmart, fine, what about other companies? Those that I listed pay their workers the same as Walmart. Why don't you attack them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
I have read that. As is we lack researchers, doctors, professors and other skilled workers. So to say that SBTC is not a thing is incorrect. People need to develop the skills to earn more. Certain jobs are going away thus people need to develop, at least a different set of skills. That is the way it goes. There are other factors that I mentioned led to income inequality as well.
"That's a pretty big claim. I mean, it depends on a lot of factors. Where do you live? In the city, in the suburbs or in a rural area? Generally speaking, certain things have gotten cheaper while others have not. Housing has definitely not, healthcare has definitely not, education has most definitely not."
I agree. Land can change price. But I find it ironic how you mentioned housing, education and healthcare where those are three areas the federal government has been heavily involved in.
"Yea, I know what the minimum wage is, and you still don't know what illiteracy means. Please go look it up in the dictionary."
You still don't know what the word minimum means. Please go look it up in the dictionary.
"Seriously, this is basic economics. You don't know what the difference between real and nominal wages are? The more you comment, the more clueless you look."
I do. In the end you do not understand what the word minimum means. Going back and reading another one of your previous comments you mentioned wealth inequality. Wealth does not equal income. You need to also learn what wealth is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ll G It is false and deceptive because Bernie is literally lying with statistics. Say you have four people living in a one bedroom, take his numbers and divide them by four and you are done. But what Bernie is presenting is making it seem that min. wage workers
1. all work full time
2. are trying to live on their own
Both of which, for the most part is not true. Pretty much in the end what he is presenting is pointless as he is giving the illusion that there are no other options beside one bedroom apartments.
" If you have to get a roommate while working 40 hours at minimum wage, then you cannot survive on your own"
In reality no on can live on their own. How did that person get a job to begin with? By someone hiring them. But, more importantly, if they are renting they don't own the place they live in meaning they are at the mercy of the landlord.
"
The poor have made all the sacrifices. They have been the productive ones, but have seen little to none of the increased wages"
Not true at all.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.t02.htm
Look at unit labor cost, especially in the food service industry which typically pays the low wages. It is positive meaning that the cost of labor is outpacing productivity. Again, more facts.
"1 in 6 children are living in poverty, and the majority of U.S. workers who are working full time are making a wage that is below the poverty line."
Not true. Most in poverty don't have a job.
"If a business can't pay its employees a living wage, then it should not exist"
If a worker can't justify earning a higher wage then they should not exist. See how easy it is to transform your asinine argument. If you raise the min. wage a business will do just that, fire their least productive workers.
". Two years ago a CEO was making on average 204 times what his or her median worker was."
If you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their salaries to the 525,000 lowest paid employees they will earn an extra $147 a year, that's it. Also, what you are saying it not exactly true
https://www.aei.org/publication/hillary-and-bernie-both-complain-about-excessive-ceo-pay-but-the-average-ceo-makes-less-than-hillarys-speaking-fee/
Bernie's salary as a Senator is comparable to that of the average CEO
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm
"If you fail to see how destructive that is, then you also have problems doing math."
I have a math minor so I understand math well. The fact is that Bernie is showing once again that either he does not understand math and statistics, can lie very well with it, or does have a mental disorder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Holm There are far worse situations you can live in. Chances are if you are living in a one bedroom with three other people you are very busy to begin with and you are hardly home, like most college students.
" Anecdotal evidence counts for very little. The fact that you were capable of living together in that situation has no bearing on whether someone else is also capable of it."
Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. It is doable.
"No, he is simply addressing that. He is having a conversation about a specific issue. You are claiming he is saying that is the only conversation it is possible to have. He isn't saying that."
Why isn't he bringing up other means of living such as roommates? Instead he is saying we should raise the min. wage when I can easily say "well, how about you just get roommates". Both make paying off rent easier (assuming, falsely, that raising the min. wage does not kill jobs). Bernie is not giving other options.
"By common consensus."
Again, who?
"Two people living in a one-bedroom apartment is again not the conversation we're having."
And why not? We should explore all options, not just ones you want to look at.
"Comparing a specific subset of something to the average of something else is not inherently deceptive."
Yes it is. He is changing the numbers to push his propaganda. He is ignoring several other factors as well such as how many people do those CEOs hire.
"If minimum wage is not high enough for someone to afford a one-bedroom apartment, then yes, you are forced"
Not necessarily. You have to also realize who works the min. wage. Most are a second or third earner a household. We don't set wages based on what it can afford, a wage is set based on the market as determined by the worker's value and skill. It is up to you to find a way to live. If that means having roommates than so be it. Bernie is arbitrarily wanting to set the min. wage to the price of rent. That is not how it works.
"This is not cherry-picking, because the data you want to include is not relevant, which is why it wasn't included"
It is relevant. If you want to set a wage based on rent than you have to look at all rent. If you want to explore how one can live off of the min. wage you have to explore all options instead of just raising it. You can't ignore what you don't agree with. Also, in the end, wages are not set by rent. When an employer hires you they don't ask for how much your rent is, they pay you what you are worth.
1
-
Daniel Holm" You just said that getting roommates would be the solution. That implies it would be the solution regardless of the state of the rest of your life. If it only works if you're not at home much, then it doesn't work in general. The solution has to apply to everyone."
If your income is that low I suggest you start working harder to move up.
"It was doable for you. That does not mean it is doable for everyone."
For the most part it is.
"Because raising the minimum wage is a solution that works across the board, whereas "find a roommate" does not. "
Not really. You are not taking into account job loss and increase in demand for one bedroom apartments. Assume that the min. wage increases and not jobs are lost, now you just increased the demand for one bedroom apartments which there is a limit of. Now you raised rent. We are having a similar problem in my city. The university is accepting more and more students and two new businesses came in one that pays $15/hr and another that pays $21/hr. As a result we are limited in apartments and rentals and rent has been going up. So with your solution you will be increasing the price of rent.
"By common consensus. Society, if you want a different term. The social contract."
Again, who. I see no names, only the asinine term "social contract" which means nothing.
"Because it is not always possible. Even if you want to find a roommate, you may not be able to. Since that is possible, we have to focus on the situation where you are living alone, otherwise those people end up thoroughly screwed."
But if there are not enough one bedroom apartments, then what?
"No, it isn't. If I want to know how much better top athletes are than the average person, then it makes no sense for me to compare the average athlete to the average person -- that doesn't give me any data that is relevant. It is not "deceptive", it is simply a question of the exact topic I am interested in. Bernie compares the top CEOs to the average worker because that is the discrepancy he wants to address."
Again, how many jobs do those CEOs create. If you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their salary to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart they will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. That is why they are paid so much. Again, different perspective.
"Minimum wage is arbitrary no matter how you slice it - it is a minimum. If it were purely based on the market, there would be no minimum wage."
It is based on the market as it is $0. If you are not worth $7.25/hr you will earn $0. The problem is that if you are not worth $7.25/hr but instead are worth $5/hr, you will still earn $0. That is what the min. wage does.
"The minimum wage exists for one purpose: to ensure a livable wage."
You are forcing how much is paid per hour, not per week. If hours are cut what does it matter?
"Your argument is an argument against having a minimum wage in the first place. That's a conversation we could have, but it's not this conversation."
If you want to have that conversation then fine, we can. My argument is that Bernie is hiding things. As I showed with the Walmart executives and spreading their salary to other workers, you see that if you do that those workers don't see a significant increase in their income. Now does that make how much they earn right? That is debatable. But it puts it in a different perspective. Bernie is giving his perspective and hiding the other side of the argument. That is where he is in the wrong. With one bedroom apartments, what happens when you increase the demand for them? Rent will go up. You are Bernie are not taking that into account, or how a wage is how much is paid per hour, not per week.
1
-
Daniel Holm
Yes, I was serious.
You can never account for everyone.
You can't just say build more. That is the problem we are running into now in my city. We are trying to but you have to buy the land and than start to build them. It takes time. Meanwhile rent is going up.
What I showed you with the Walmart executives is that they are responsible for that many employees which is why they get paid more. It shows why they are paid that much. Bernie chooses to ignore that.
"That's demonstrably false. Feel free to actually research it. Kyle just did a segment on it, I believe."
It is not false. When the min. wage goes up so does unemployment for the youth and unskilled workers. Black teen unemployment went up when the min. wage was put in place. Kyle thinks the min. wage should be $22/hr because overall productivity is at that point. Overall productivity produces $22/hr, but you still have workers that produce very little, they are the minimum. So pretty much Kyle is an economic illiterate.
"The minimum wage is made in the context of a full-time job, i.e. 37.5 hours per week. It's simply how the system is set up."
Except only around 2% work full time, (BLS standard of 35 hours a week). So they are not even getting fulltime hours.
"While I could easily have missed it, I haven't heard him say that the wages of CEOs should be divided amongst workers. I've only heard him say there's a discrepancy between what a CEO earns and what their workers do."
Ok, what do you suggest we do? I showed you that cutting their pay won't lead to others getting more money or higher wages? At that point all he is doing is making a statement, I don't see what is wrong at that point? He might as well say that people go ice fishing in Minnesota.
"Again, we're only talking in the context of a full-time job. That is a fixed amount of hours per week. So it is per week too, for what that's worth."
Nope, a business can just cut hours which you have no control over. The min. wage tells the business how much they have to pay them per hour, not per week. So if they cut hours, what have you solved?
"If demand increases, supply will also increase"
It doesn't work like that. Someone has to produce. If production is not there than it won't be there.
"If one-bedroom apartments become so desired that there are no more to be had, then the market is obviously ripe for new one-bedroom apartment housing."
Again, someone has to build it. That means buying the land, the supplies, hiring the workers, getting permits, paying property taxes, sales tax when the land is bought, running the apartment complex and so on. Raising prices is easier because of the pain to build a new apartment complex and run it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Zidneya Ok, now how are those things sexist?
1. He is a billionaire. He has to watch out for gold diggers. Also, that is directed towards his wife, not women.
2. How is this sexist?
3. The truth is not sexist
4. Look at every reality show ever, they show attractive men and women
5. It is true, and not sexist
6. Very true, you don't see ugly men and women being on TV very much in general
7. How is this sexist? Leave the room.
8. Again, he is a billionaire. Gold diggers exist.
9. This is called biology. I guess according to you science is sexist?
10. Political, but not sexist
11. So he doesn't find a particular woman attractive? Do you find every women you meet attractive? If you say yes then you are a liar. If you said no, then you are a sexist according to you
12. Calling someone ugly is not sexist.
13. Again, insulting individual women does not make someone sexist. That is the regressive liberal mentality. A man insults a woman then they are automatically sexist. This is why Trump is winning, because of regressive liberals.
14. It was a good line, and in no way sexist.
15. Sounds like that woman can dish it but can't take it.
16. How is this sexist?
17. It is true and also a part of women's biology. Read Bateman's principle.
18. Again, Bateman's principle
So I ask again, name me one incident where Trump showed he was a sexist.
1
-
+Zidneya
1. Maybe to you, but that is not always the case for all. I will admit that I am shallow and won't consider dating a girl if she is not attractive. I only get $20,000 a year so I don't have to worry about a gold digger. But if I were earning $20 million a year then I would. It is all about perception. It is being cautious. But that does not make then sexist.
2. Women are naturally beautiful creators. That is unique in the animal kingdom. Again, that is science. Telling the truth is not sexist.
3. Trump didn't say sexual assaults were good, he is just pointing out that they are happening and why. It is like saying if you give a bunch of alcoholics free cars then DUIs will go up. Does not mean I condone drinking and driving. It means I am pointing our cause and effect.
4. In the media attractive people have an edge. Does not mean that unattractive people can't be successful. Also in the real world attractiveness comes with success. Successful people will do things to take care of themselves. That is a part of their success. Some have mother nature to blame but you don't see many 500 pound toothless people being successful.
5. He has a trophy wife, so what? That is his prerogative. Honestly that is mine as well. I live an active life style like most successful people do (I am PhD student in basically two fields, so don't judge by my income), thus I don't have time for a relationship. If I was in one I want it to be worth my time. Trump probably has the same feeling. . But again, it does not make him sexist.
6. It doesn't make him sexist. I hate that Michael Moore is fat. Does that make me sexist towards men? This is one of many examples of how you are a regressive liberal. Calling a woman, not all, but one woman ugly makes you sexist. The reality is that sexism is discrimination based on sex. He is doing it based on looks.
7. Breast feeding is ugly. I guess I can walk around naked instead. Where is my right to do that? Seriously, have some courtesy.
8. "There is a statistical correlation between a person’s income as an adult and his or her parent’s income. "
Well less than 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. As far as person's income and parent's income is concern, that is called upbringing. And Trump is smart. You can never do what he did with his businesses. If you ever tried to be successful in anything you will see how much work it is. Try preparing a presentation while getting 4 hours a sleep a night for 2 weeks. You will fall apart crying.
9. "The Bateman's principle is that, a principle not a scientific law."
It is pretty well supported. I am sorry you don't like science.
"If the Bateman principle was a fact then infertile people will never get married at all"
There are exceptions to the rule, and there are been marriages that have ended due to that as well. And BTW, I am getting my PhD in physical chemistry. It is safe to say I know quite a bit about science.
10. He is being cautious, there is a difference. If you had the money you did then you will as well.
11. By the pure fact that when Trump calls a woman ugly you call him sexist.
Listen, I know you hate science, but can you at least respect definitions?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism
I really don't see any of that happening here with Trump. Calling one woman ugly does not make you sexist.
12. And why would Bettie care what Trump thinks about her? If Trump called me ugly I won't care. He does not sign my checks or effects my career.
13. Ok, what? I am starting to feel concern. You hate science, you hate definitions, now you are losing your mind. Are you sure you are ok?
14. I though it was funny the other day when a man told a woman to "shut her cock holster". Does that make me sexist? To you yes, to the definition and intelligent people, no.
15. I agree with what you said, still doesn't make him sexist.
16. You are calling him a sexist because you don't like him.
17. Are you losing your mind again?
18. "They like his money not him."
You mean golddigger?
So what I got from this is that
1. you hate science
2. you hate the dictionary
3. you are losing you mind
4. you contradicted yourself
You have the signs of a regressive liberal. The cure for that is get a job and a college degree that is worth something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I'm quite curious; how would you want your country to be governed? I mean what policies do you want? "
I would want to follow the constitution. With the constitution you have limited federal government and more state rights. There is a desire to have government, but you need to keep it as local as possible to ensure that it serves the people and remains the servants. You, at a local community, can see if government is working for you and if government is spending money in a way you seem fit.
When you look at the structure of the Constitution it is laid out like this. The states make up the country and thus the states run the country. The federal government, which is made up of the states, serves the states where each state sends representation. If you look at the federal government with the exception of the draft and treason, both of which relate to foreign affairs, the federal government has basically no control over the citizens and only over the states. The states were taxed, not the citizens or corporations.
At the state level the people make up the states. The states, which is made up of the people, serves the people. So the states can tax individuals and corporations. The states run education, healthcare if needed, creates business regulations, run the fire department and police and so on.
In the Constitution it places restrictions on all governments, so you can't have a state religion and everyone has the same rights. So within the bounds of the constitution you can have, at your state and local level, a high min. wage, single payer healthcare, high taxes on businesses and so on.
So whose side is extreme? My side that allows you to do what you want within the confines of the constitution and your state. Or your side that forces what you feel is right down everyone's throat? And if the majority of people really supported what you support, than they will do it at their state and local level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"A bit revisionist history. Jim Crow laws lasted as long as they did because of inaction, not because of action."
All the Supreme Court had to do was rule them unconstitutional. To me this is another example of why we need state rights. If we need education reform we will be sitting around for years waiting for the federal government to take action when the states can do it quickly.
"Johnson sending the national guard to Ole Miss and Brown v Board of Education was federal power at its rawest form. "
No, it is enforcing the Constitution. Both the federal government and the states can enforce the Constitution if they need to.
"Again you can justify anything by the constitution just as you can justify anything by the bible."
Again, not comparable. The Constitution is the standard when it comes to law. The Bible is ideology for religious people and is not used at all in creating laws in this country.
"The Brown v Board deciision relied on the Equal Protection Clause"
Which is the 14th amendment.
" but again the actual execution of the law has to come from the federal government if the states are unwilling to."
Ok, now say the president abuses their power. The states, through Congress, can impeach him and remove him from office if they feel it is necessary. That is the states using the Constitution to control the federal government. It goes both ways.
"By making comments like this, I think you're speaking based off of
libertarian theory and not based off of the reality in the pre-civil
rights South. "
No, I am basing it off of reality.
"The passage of the civil rights acts specifically and directly put into
motion the end of unequal application of voter registration requirements
and de jure racial segregation."
Voting laws are created mainly by the states. If they create a law they can't discriminate based off of race via the 14th amendment. Thus the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary in that regards because a standard was already on the books. All the SC had to do was enforce it to see that voting laws were equal across all races.
" I think you need to study this a bit more and the surrounding circumstances. "
I have studied it. The standard was already on the book in the Constitution, all we had to do was enforce that.
"When you don't allow all your citizens living in your state basic
political rights, then that is not acting properly. I hardly think this
is a radical standard.
"
If a state is denying Constitutional rights than that government is not working within the bounds of the Constitution. The only rights you have are listed in the Constitution. The standard you defined is not radical, I would agree. But in other comments you want the federal government to enforce educational standards and marriage laws both of which are
1. not rights
2. not listed in the constitution as the responsibility of the federal government
"And regarding the ACA, I guarantee you if the GOP repeal that thing and
leave people uncovered, they will pay politically next year."
Doubtful as most who will be uncover are poor to begin with and don't vote. Also, the Republicans are not defending many seats this upcoming mid term. If the economy is booming and if they do the repeal gradually they will be fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra Not always. If someone is not there to produce to goods or services than it simply won't exist, period. Look at healthcare, we lack doctors, nurses, hospitals, surgeons, pharmacists, etc. We simply lack the skilled workers to keep up with demand. That is why under Obamacare healthcare insurance prices went up, supply is not keeping up with demand. Training doctors is difficult as not many are willing to do it. So no, supply does not always follow demand, especially when people refuse to work.
So people who are not work should not be working? Why not? Were do you think goods and services come from?
While wealth, to a point is subjective, it is what society perceives it to be worth. That is how prices are set. I may feel something is worth millions, but if no one else does than I can't sell it for that. I may view something to be worthless, but if society views it as being worth a lot than I will sell it as that. Thus, wealth is always created, period. If you don't create wealth the economy does not grow, period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra" nope, that's only your idea. in the real world people work to get money, and they work more if they get more money, that's how capitalism works."
They work to get money because if they did not work they won't have money. If you just give them money they will not work as hard. That is why socialism never works.
"just imagine someone asking for a raise, do you expect an answer like "i can't pay you more, because then you'd work less", ridiculous"
That is different. There you are proving to an employer you are worth more so they give you more. You worked hard to earn that money. What you support is just giving money away. If an employer just gave someone a raise without them earning they won't be working harder. So your comparison is 100% completely incorrect.
" if you make it illegal for businesses to expand and multiply, yes. but you're not living in a command economy, do you?"
How can you expand as a business if people won't work? People won't be working as much because guess what? They have money now. People work to earn money. If you give them money they won't have a reason to work as much. If they are one of those that want to work to earn more than they are someone who is already working their way up to begin with. But in the end if you just give people money they will work less since they don't have a need to work. That is what you are failing to understand.
" are you implying that there was a market with exploding profit but without competition? do you think that is common for products that satisfy one's basic needs? and do you think that is a typical capitalistic market?
"
First off, a universal basic income is not capitalism. That is your major flaw. You are saying "under capitalism you will have this", and I agree, under capitalism people will work for one major reason, TO EARN MONEY. But if you are giving them money than guess what, THEY IS NO LONGER AN INCENTIVE TO WORK. So you will have less workers.
On colleges, there is plenty of competition. Issue is that the federal government artificially increased demand for colleges so they all had to raise prices.
But again, what you support is not capitalism. And yes, the same will happen with a universal basic income.
Let me ask you again, if the government is giving you money already, why work?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra
" you do realize that the economy would stay the same, companies would hire people to work and workers would get salaries on top of the basic income, right? you did get that, did you?"
Again, wrong. One of two things will happen.
1. People will work less, a portion of them at the very least meaning less productivity. They will work less because they don't have a reason to work because they are earning money. People work to earn money, but if they are already getting money they won't work as hard. Thus productivity will go down meaning prices will go up due to lack of supply.
OR
2. The least someone can earn in a year is $0. They simply just don't work. Now people will be earning $1000 a month (say that was the basic income). That means the price of everything will go up accordingly. If cost of living in an area was averaged out to be, say $1000 a month, it will now be $2000. Here is a reason why. Rent in my city is around $650 for a one bedroom. If people were given $1000 than the demand for one bedroom apartments will go up causing rent prices to go up. In the end we will be back to square one where rent will be approaching $1650 a month. The reason why is because everyone has an extra $1000 a month, not just those who earned it by creating wealth.
In both cases you have gained nothing which goes back to my original post of that this is dumb.
In the end the economy will not be staying the same.
Also, you were talking about price. Why are those people worth that much? For just being alive? That is now how the economy works. It goes back to what you have been saying the entire time, wealth is subjective. Something is only worth something if someone is willing to pay the price. A car is worth $10,000 if someone is willing to pay it. Someone gets paid money because they produce something that someone else values. But if we just give money away that will lower the value of the dollar, thus higher prices.
1
-
1
-
realCevra
" that's your unrealistic idea. in reality, again, people work when they are promised money, that's how capitalism works."
But yet we see it all across society, we have people who don't work because in doing so they earn money. If you are given money than why work? You have people who win the lottery and guess what? They quit their job. so no, my reality is not unrealistic as it happens all the time.
Plus, how capitalism works is the government NOT giving money away. Really, you need to learn what capitalism is. If you give money away people will have a less incentive to work. Let us go back to what you said
"people work when they are promised money"
But if they have money then why work? You may say "to earn more money". Ok, than why don't we have more girls selling their body for sex? You can become an escort and earn $200, at least a session. So why not do that? You can earn more money? So again, your simplistic view point is wrong again.
If you are given money you won't work as much. If you are someone who will than you are working your way up to begin with meaning you don't need a universal basic income. But, if people just want to work harder to earn more money than why are there not more women in the escort business? Or why are there not more people studying to be doctors? You earn a lot of money that way. So, you have an unrealistic idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra" they are earning a basic income."
Yeah, so they will work less.
"people earning more than a basic income today already don't work less hard,"
But if you were to give them an extra $1000 a month they will. If not then they are someone who is pushing to earn a high income, as in 6 figures.
"your idea does not fit with reality"
Uh, no, your idea does not fit reality. If people wanted more money they will push to get a job that pays a lot. They don't, so they are content with their income. If you give them extra money for just existing they will work less. If they earn $50,000 a year and you start paying them $10,000 a year, they will work less because they are content with $50,000 a year. Same as in how lottery winners quit their jobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra You said a circus clown what makes around $38,000 a year. So, say 10 years of schooling for a pharmacist they pay $140,000. They earn $120,000. Thus they pay off that loan in 1.17 years. Say they become a pharmacist at the age of 30. Thus, for simplicity, they pay off their schooling by the time they are 32. Thus for 33 years they earn $120,000 a year. That is $3,960,000.
Now a clown starts at 18 years old and works for 47 years. That is $1,824,000. That is less than half of a pharmacist. And with a pharmacist I am ignoring the fact they can work overtime, get a raise, maybe get done in six years (two years pre-pharm and four years pharmacy school) and so on. With a clown I am assuming they can physically do it for 47 years. So, again, list me "skilled" jobs that earn more than a doctor, or surgeon and so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra Yes, but other jobs have more opportunity. But let me ask you this, when a professor gets tenure why do many of them basically stop working, as in stop writing for grants to get even more money? The reason why is because they settled and are earning money by basically doing nothing.
Same with a basic income . You will have people who will settle and not work as hard.
I hope you got an impression of how immensely stupid your random chain of "thoughts" can become. Just to support one ridiculous idea after another, always moving the goal post trying to get a dead idea to work. Next time you should avoid that, you're wrong anyways. But, you said doctors were poor, and that giving people money for doing nothing won't hurt the incentive to work even though we have a lot of evidence for that. Again, why do many professors who get tenure end up working less? Because they are in a position to where they are guaranteed money and don't have to work. But again, you said doctors and lawyers don't earn a lot, and clowns are millionaires.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra Uh, you clearly don't understand economics. Let me simplify it for you.
Say you have $300, and you take $100 and just give it to someone to dig a hole in the desert. You have no purpose for that hole nor do you want it. You just did it. Now you have $200 and nothing was gained for you in spending that $100. You valued money less in that point. Now you have less to buy. There is still $300 out there as a whole, you just didn't gain anything from $100 of it.
Ok, now expand it to a business. Say they earn $100,000 in profits and they take $10,000 of that and just give it away and gained nothing in doing so. They valued money less and have not grown their business. They are not better off.
Now the government takes money from society and wastes it. You lowered the value of the dollar which means what it used to take $1 to produce now may take $1.50......that is how prices goes up. The same amount of money is there, it is just not worth as much That is why SS is losing money, the money being spent from it is not generating wealth. The money is not disappearing, it is losing value.
Again, you don't understand economics.
1
-
1
-
realCevra Nope, I never moved the goal posts. You did. I said the value of money will drop leading to higher prices. Your only argument now is that you are saying I moved the goal post. You have zero substance in your argument. You can't even defend the fact that SS is losing money.
You have no clue how money obtains value. If the government were to take your money and waste it you will have to demand more in order to pay your bills. You, as an individual now live a more expensive life. A business will have to raise prices in order to pay for that tax because now their business is more expensive to run..
Now if government were to spend that money to create things society wanted than fine, you will benefit. If government spent $100,000,000 to build a park the local community wanted, or a school to educate our kids, or clean up the streets than fine, society benefits and you are not worse off. But if the government were to spend that $100,000,000 to dig holes than you won't get that school for education. Either individuals will have to spend money themselves making their lives more expensive or raise taxes making government more expensive. But, as a whole you reduced the value of money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra" no, they have to pay the exact same thing for the roads, "
And they have less money. Roads may cost the same, but they could have paid less for it. Instead society had to fork out an extra $100,000,000 to pay for the roads. That means businesses have to raise prices, individuals have to demand a higher wage or cut expenses.
There is something wrong with you ability to count. Roads, in my example, cost $100,000,000. The people pay that much in taxes. The government gives that money away to people to do nothing. Thus society have to spend that much again in order to have roads. In order to afford that businesses have to raise prices to pay for the higher tax or toll. Individuals have to cut expenses to pay for the higher tax or toll. The value of money drops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" i must've hit my head and forgot my graduations."
You mean forgot all of your classes or schooling? What do you mean by "graduations"?
". and you were the one who was trying to become a circus clown, right? "
Nope, you brought up clowns. But I can see character attacks are your motive. You bringing up clowns does show you lack of intelligence in economics. Anyway, you never gave me a source showing how much clowns make and what the job outlook is for them.
" a society with 2 people, later 3. whenever trades have to be conducted
over long distances of time, people have to use money. barter doesn't
work, because with barter you'd have to exchange on the spot. how do you
exchange 100 meals with 1 hut on the spot?"
Yes, as the economy expands to multiple people and multiple places than money is necessary. But you are talking about just two people on an island, that's it. No one else.
"i very well do"
Apparently you don't, I had to give it to you.
"textbook? this isn't school, you do know there's something called scientific papers and articles,"
Textbooks are written referencing scientific papers. So a textbook is sufficient. Or cite me a paper instead.
"but it does, the value of fiat money is set when it enters the money
base. fiat money has almost no intrinsical value, but that only denoted
the value of the material it uses to represent its value, usually dyed
paper"
It has value when it is invested.
"nope, you don't increase the money base by giving tax money to students,
the money base is the same, it just has different holders, didn't i
tell you that already?"
Increase the demand for college without increasing the supply. That money given to the students is used, for the most part, only on college which also limits its value.
" you did notice that your sentence make absolutely no sense? you're
basically saying that instead of being productive you're being
productive. hilarious"
No, I am not being productive because I have to do unnecessary work to get the same amount. But of course it makes no sense to you, you have no idea how textbooks are written.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Kang5030 It is an arbitrary number. Wages are a price, and like any price, such as the price of a TV, food, a computer, milk, etc., it is determined by the market.
You can't tie the min. wage to inflation. Saying you can is saying that everything inflates. If that is so then why aren't smart phones over $4000? A brick cell phone in the 80s, when adjusted for inflation according to the CPI cost that much. My smart phone cost less than $100. Why didn't the price of cell phones go up?
Same with labor. Why are blockbuster employees now worth $0? You can't tie everything to inflation. Some price inflate, some go down, some stay the same.
My payment is on par with other graduate students at other graduate programs across the country. I manage quit well with bills and what not.
McDonalds does not have to hire those people. It is not McDonald's fault that their workers refuse to better themselves. And saying wage slavery is being shallow. Slaves were forced to work, they don't have to take the job.
"If you work 40 hours a week, you should not be unable to afford basic necessities"
Which is what? A room or a 3 bedroom house? A car? What type of car? What type of food? From my $1800/month stipend I am able to build up a savings. It requires work.
"We've been through this over and over each time the minimum wage has
come up and been expanded. Every single time, the net effect on jobs was
negligible but economic activity increased. We wouldn't still have it
if it didn't work."
When you look at select groups you find that when the min. wage increases so does unemployment. Those groups are teenagers and those with low skills. That is because they have been out priced out of the market. You don't see it on the grand scale because it has been small compared to the overall economy. It gets lost in the statistical noise. But if you were to raise it up to $15/hr then several jobs will be lost, especially in low income areas in the midwest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Then How do i measure healthcare ? i would rather use methods used by WHO "
Which was criticized so much that they refuse to publish another ranking. They compared the US to countries like Malta and Andorra. Andorra has a population that is so small that we can fit all of their citizens in many of our football stadiums with room to spare. Around 80% of their GDP is in tourism and they are a tax haven. So a small country that attracts money will be successful all around. You can't compare Andorra to the US or Norway or France or Germany or any country. Anyone who takes the WHO ranking seriously is, to me, foolish.
"like life expectancy child mortality , women death at child birth ,
which indicate that USA healthcare is shit compared to others "
Depending on what statistical regression model you use the US is better than all of those countries. But the reality is that the differences are minute that changing one minor variables in the statistical model makes the numbers completely different.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Read that for more info. In short, nothing indicates that "USA healthcare is shit compared to others".
"In fact it's certain you would be better off if we reduce complexity"
Healthcare is a complex issue to begin with, what you are describing does not exist.
" by giving you a simple sign here get health if needed especially when
it's factually better , you will have more time doing other things"
One, it is not factually better. Two, you will be waiting for your healthcare longer. Hard to read when you are in pain.
" You can be a democratic nation and poor , or a dictatorship with a
working economy i can walk you through the examples if you need . "
Give some, and also show how it lasted in the long term.
"some of us believe the issue is with big industry mostly and solution by shrinking their power , break up monopolies ect ,"
Businesses have zero power, government has all the power. All a business can do is offer you a job and/or a product. Government forces thing. Increasing the powers of the federal government will increase corruption.
" 5 min google cost per capita cost , any other system is better than the
one in USA , and they have far stronger government presence , or
straight public system all together "
And they have much smaller populations. On top of that their systems are not any better than what we have.
"Factually in case government bureaucracy is more efficient than corporate bureaucracy "
That is not true as a business has to actually earn a profit and can't just keep raising their debt ceiling. They have to serve the people or go out of business. Government will always exist. Look at the retention rate of congress and compare it to their approval rating.
"let me remind there are other countries in the world than the USA ."
Other countries keep cost down by rationing care. Also, we have to stick to the US on this issue. Name one liberal policy established at the federal level that cost less than projected.
"and btw one of the ways public healthcare tries to reduce his costs is
preventive medicine , they would encourage you to quit smoking for
instance"
Insurance companies do that by giving you lower premiums. For example, in my job if you give them records showing you are at a certain level health wise you get a lower premium.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Christopher Anderson
1. Raising corporate taxes means they will leave when they already are. Chasing them away more does not increase tax revenue
2. Taxes on speculation hurts the middle class
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/04/why-taxing-wall-street-wont-work-commentary.html
3. Raise it to what? He did not say. Also raising cap shows the flaws of socialist policies. It works until you run out of other people's money. We are out now, so what do we do? Raise taxes. And when we run out again, what do we do? Raise taxes. You can't tax everyone over 100%, and people don't like working for free.
He is not specific. He also ignores the problems that arises from his plan. For example, with "free college". He numbers do not include expanded enrollment, and his numbers only will pay for 2/3 of the cost, the states will pay the rest. He does not say how, he just said they would. But how is he going to counter the lack of professors, classrooms, dorms and so on? He never says that.
"Also, I have this issue anytime someone gets the idea that the Constitution restricts us from progress somehow."
It doesn't. We can make all these changes at the state and local level. The constitution was to place limitations on the governments which is what you want. You may feel that the federal government expanding welfare to people or paying for things is good, but now you have open the door way for it to become corrupt. So in the future they may pass a bill expanding social security, but in that same bill there may be law that gives huge tax breaks to corporations which is, I assume you don't want. But if you protest that part of the law then bye bye social security.
The idea of the constitution was to have balance. You can have government but you need the ability to control it. You can control it easier at the state and local level. If you want to give the federal government power to give you welfare then I want to stop hearing you wine when they get donations from millionaires. Remember, that same politician that is getting that donation from the rich is paying for your retirement......you better keep him happy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So what!? Then what's your point? "
That degrees that require high levels of critical thinking and skill makes you less liberal and more moderate.
"That doesn't lend any credibility to your pointless assertion that
"Bernie supporters don't go to med school". Now you're back peddling to
"they're less liberal than liberal arts majors" well, no shit. So what? "
I am not back peddling at all. I am stating the fact that Bernie supporters are wanting healthcare for all and their typical response in how they will provide it is "TAXES". Not, "well we need to push people to take on higher skill jobs".
Let me add to that last comment. Bernie wants to bring back factory jobs. He wants to raise the min. wage to what he calls a "living wage". Those two ideas allows people to stay at low skill jobs because at those low skill jobs you will be guaranteed a "living wage", healthcare, vacation time, paternity leave, retirement and so on. Where is the incentive to put in the time and go through the stress of actually develop a skill like becoming a doctor when you are guaranteed all those things in life?
"To summarize: You have an argument that Bernie supporters don't go to
med school, supported weakly by the fact that, while still largely
liberal, the STEM studies in US universities are "more conservative"
(less liberal would be a more accurate description) than less
scientific, art-based majors. This ALL hinges on the unsubstantiated
claim that providing affordable health insurance to everyone will
increase the demand of medical care. "
The fact is that Bernie Sanders supporters are not going to school to work in the medical field. And Bernie and his supporters are not pushing more people to take on higher skilled jobs. Bernie is actually supporting allowing people to stay at low skill jobs. It is all clear. You can say what you want but Bernie's supporters are not willing to do the work to become doctors.
"The additional people included under the new coverage would not all become patients."
Yes they will because now they will be paying zero.
" I have health insurance now; I rarely use it."
Same here because it does not cover everything. I should get knee surgery but don't due to the cost. I manage to live without but getting it will greatly help me.
" Health insurance coverage and the need for medical care are mutually exclusive."
No they aren't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
thewanderandhiscomp Just because someone has an "education" doesn't mean they know everything or should run the world. That is a myth I hear a lot, especially from the liberal left. It is one of the reasons (not the main one) why I am pushing to get a PhD, to counter that point. Working in education for over a year now, and just following politics and taking notice in how our society is running, I do see this elitist mentality amongst those who are "educated" and how people are so easy to trust them.
While studying education I had a great teacher tell our class that when we become teachers we should avoid "playing school". An example is that when he mentioned something we all starting taking notes and writing it down, that is what "education" has become, saying something and someone else regurgitating it. It isn't being creative, or problem solving or exploring. It is someone saying 2+2=4 and than the students repeat and viola, they are educated. We force these kids in the classroom, label them, removed things like apprenticeships and hands on experience in the real world which prevents children from actually learning.
During my graduate studies I have met PhD candidates and people holding a PhD who were incredibly myopic but people feel are the brightest in the world due to them having a PhD. I have met people who didn't have a college degree who I thought were more intelligent, but they have less weight in society just because they lack a piece of paper giving the some credential.
In all of this what I am saying is that Gatto has great points. The problem with education now is that we have tried to become "innovated" when we should have stuck what we had. Instead education is becoming indoctrination. No longer are we pushing for children exploring jobs or careers but instead we are pushing for children sitting in classrooms, than go from one to the next at set times to learn to regurgitate more "facts". We label those who are lower tier as "special" or just ignore them to where they struggle in society and live off of the government, those that are exceptionally bright we rush along to be the future "educated" in the world, basically elitists, and everyone are just cogs in a wheel. It is not a good system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
nenafan1 Academic performance being linked to funding is a correlation, not a causation. If all it took was funding than the vast majority will be pushing for more of it. The fact is that it isn't that simple. Higher income schools have more funding due to being in richer neighborhoods and have more veteran teachers. A problem with education is that due to strong teacher unions (the number one thing we can do to improve education is get rid of teacher unions) veteran teachers are in lined to get first picks at job openings and get paid more. Veteran teachers work to get to those high income schools as opposed to those lower income schools which end up getting younger, less experienced teachers and are also paid less. There is very little, if any incentive to work low income schools if you are a teacher. Thus schools that will perform better either way do so with higher paid teachers and more funding due to their location.
Also, the US spends the most in education in the world, it is arguable not doing well. There should be funding for schools, but we have to be smart about it. Just throwing money at a broken system isn't going to help it.
The one thing that scares me about education is this. You mentioned how the GOP want to remove the department of ed. I feel we should remove the department of ed. at the federal level because the federal government shouldn't be involved in education, it should be left up to the states. Let the states set their own standards. Those on the radical left want more involvement from the federal government. Creating this one size fits all program doesn't work. Also, there is a lot to be gain from the government, that he people have little say of, in controlling education.
Looking at it like this, the country was designed so that the federal government would control foreign policies, enforce the constitution on the states and local governments, and deal with commerce between states. The states were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the federal government. In this set up the states had more freedom and citizens were able to set up policies that worked in their community and helped each other out. It developed community strength. A problem we have right now is that we have gotten away from that and we see it in our education. Instead of creative programs as in arts and plays and group projects, we have these federal standardized tests that ingrain in students minds that they have to know these facts and must study them. It tears the individual down and makes them concern about themselves. It destroys the strength of the community.
When you look at how politic are conservatives are more rural area. They support smaller government because they help each other. In more urban areas they support a larger federal government because in the city people are conceded. They only think about themselves. They don't want to help people. That is a problem and that is how our education system is going.
A local middle school had a playground that was all dirt and rock. They wanted grass. The teachers told the students to do it themselves so it became a project where the students figured out the cost, raised money, and worked to get a grass playground. They got it through working together. We can develop a system that teaches that to where people are willing to help and work together which will strengthen the community and people can help each other. We can see lower poverty rates and more growth because people will be willing to help each other instead or begging the federal government, which really doesn't care about your vote much (because you only are able to vote for a handful of politics there), for help.
In all, what I am getting at is that the left has pushed education to be this program that removes thought, community strength, individualism, creativity, and overall growth of a society. Instead of developing programs to promote being a strong citizen it promotes passing a standardized test, and just learning "facts" and being a drone. It teaches to label others and not care about them. It is a radical system. And the left just wants to give more money to the program and have more government involvement. That isn't going to help it.
1
-
nenafan1 As I said before spends a lot in education. I was slightly off in saying it spent the most, per pupil it is second behind Switzerland. But even at that we still get poor results. I have also said before that schools that are funded the most are those from high income areas. They have students who from the beginning are already going to do well due to simply the household they come from. Connecting funding to school results is a correlation and a weak one at that. Higher income schools have better students simply because of their parents.
A problem with teacher unions is that it leads to situations like that and leads to situations where certain teachers are underpaid. For example, an AP history teacher teaching 20 years gets his pick of what school to teach at first. They will pick the higher income school due to having better students and will pick the overall better job. Due to seniority as opposed to ability and demand he gets paid more. A teacher willing to work at a low income school or a subject of lower tier students doesn't get paid anymore, and are usually done so by younger teachers looking for a job and thus are paid less. That is why teachers at schools in low income areas are generally paid less, it isn't because of demand or ability but seniority.
At a local school we had a school shooting where the shooter ended up killing himself and a teacher. I know one of the special ed. teacher who taught him and that teacher has since been to three different jobs and is still going through counseling which they have to pay for. I know of another special ed. teacher who works SIP and they had to have counseling. They were working with students who would stab others with scissors and compasses and were really aggressive. Due to teacher unions those teachers don't get paid anymore, or not very much if they do. They are in a high stress situation though, that compared to an AP history teacher at a high income school. Those special ed. teachers also work with the students who have a greater chance of being a burden to society. Instead of compensating them well teacher unions treat them like everyone else. Teacher unions only care about themselves and not the success of the students.
The idea of state rights is that it were to allow for more control of the government. It is easier to control and change policy at the state and local level and we see this all the time. You are so quick to allow the federal government to control education when you have little control on what the federal government does. Also with state rights you create competition where states will actually work in improving as opposed to working with a federal standard even if it is inferior to what we can do.
It is funny how you brought up TX. If you look at any education ranking by state TX is in the top half of most of them. They have a very local way of doing education. This is so despite the fact they had one of the largest growth in Hispanic populations. I live in a state that was in the top five in Hispanic population growth and it is a burden on education working with students who hardly speak English. But TX is able to succeed through it. Your fear of teaching creationism in science class is a weak one in that due to Dover vs. Pennsylvania it was ruled unconstitutional to teach creationism in science in that it establishes religion. Also, allowing states to control education means states will do what they can to improve it if they are struggling. With federal standards we won't do that. In one of my education courses we had to interview teachers on standards. One of my colleague supported federal standards in that it would put everyone on the same level. He cited a teacher who said that he received two new students from different states. One was ahead of the class and another was behind. That teacher was concerned about how one student was behind and that they should be caught up. I made the comment on what about the student who was ahead? So now they will get held back? Why can't that state try to set up a way to catch up to states that are doing better and find a way to help students who move to their states and are behind? Why do we have to set federal standards to hold everyone back? That was my concern but people don't care, we just have to all be the same I guess.
I am aware of NCLB. One, I never said that republicans were completely for state rights. They do their fair share of expanding the federal government. That is why I am not a republican. They just expand it less than democrats. Democrats support expanding the federal government where republicans don't do it as much. You should take not that Ted Kennedy was a huge author in that bill. To say it was Bush and the republicans is a lie in that the democrats had a strong hand in Ted Kennedy in writing that bill.
We got into a political discussion because there is a lot of politics involved in public education. When comparing democrats to republicans (at the federal level, at the local level they are different), you do see that those who typically vote republican are people who support smaller more local government. They want to get away from a strong centralized government. When they support that the left calls them greedy when nothing could be farther from the truth. They do help people out a lot, they just don't want to be forced to "help" out someone they know nothing about. Being around both conservatives and liberals I do see those on the right help out others a lot. They do it in that they help out friends and family. Being low income myself (you don't get paid much as a grad. student) I see those that I work with that do make more money help me, and others out. They pay for meals, or pick up the tab at a bar or give other rides, very small things, but they do it often. They do it to friends and family because those friends and family help them in the end. They do it to people that they know and work with. It is the basis of a strong community and society. It is personal connection that drives it as opposed to just giving someone money.
Democrats support a stronger federal government to take care of situations where if someone is struggling or is poor as oppose to having a strong community or personal connection in those people being helped. They see people who struggle and as opposed to befriending them or allowing them to live with them, they just want the federal government to take care of them. Now I am not talking about bringing in some homeless person, what I am talking about is that they see someone who is struggling and the mentality of the left is that the federal government should help them as opposed to that person asking for help and receiving it from friends and family. When my friends was struggling and lost her job I allowed her to move into my apartment for free. Now that wasn't to say that she got a free ride, she was looking for a job. But that is the point, I helped her out and she worked to get better as opposed to just asking for a check from the federal government.
The most annoying part of democrats is that when they do feel like they are helping (through the federal government) they are actually invading on people's lives who don't want their "help". I remember watching an episode of Bill Maher where they interviewed people from Mississippi and Maher said he just wants to give one of those people teeth. In reality that person wants to be left alone. He doesn't want you to give him teeth. He is just fine. Democrats feel the need to invade in people's lives that they feel need "help" when in reality they don't. They just want to mind their own business and not live your life. You are doing it yourself (this is how this is connected to education), you want the federal government to run education because you feel you will be helping the people of TX because you view them as not being "educated" and should live up to your standards. TX is doing fine. They have a strong economy, they have a strong university system, they are creating jobs. They don't want your "help" or want to live up to your standards. If it isn't working than let them fix it their way. As long as the government stays within the confines of the constitution than they are fine. I bet you won't like it if TX and their citizens tried to change your state or your way of living. That is the overall problem with democrats, they "help" people by forcing them to conform to their way of life.
You say you are in favor of reforming education. That is great, the problem is that your way of doing it is vague in that you want the fed. to take care of it. You solidified how vague you are by saying we need more money and some "common sense". Now money aside because I said before we can spend a lot of money on education, but investing more in a broken system doesn't help, you using the phrase "common sense" explains nothing. What is "common sense"? I say this and a usual rebuttal is that common sense isn't common. Maybe common sense, to you, isn't the best approach. When I hear common sense from someone they are saying either "my idea is best and yours suck" with no justification making it a genetic fallacy or "I don't know what I am talking about so I will pretend I do". Now that aside, who is going to determine what we should do at the federal level? The president who close to half the country and states didn't vote for? Some senator that less than 1% of the country voted for? Some bureaucrat who the public as a whole doesn't even know? That is the problem and we are doing just that right now. To reform education we need to stop back and start removing a lot of overhead and becoming more local. Removing the department of ed. would be the best start. Teacher unions would work as well. But asking for more money, and "common sense" and pushing the status quo of more government isn't going to help.
1
-
1
-
nenafan1 With students coming from rich parents we can cut funding for their schools by a lot and they will still do well. Funding isn't the issue for them, it is their background they are coming from. You still think it is all about funding when it isn't, it is more complicated than that. Those students come from a situation where they have parents that are more involved, hold more prestige jobs and thus their child is going to do better. This is one of my problems with the political left, to them it is just spend more money when it is far more complicated than that. I also like how you criticize me for not citing anything but you refused to do so as well. You just keep preaching how better funded schools do better when I shot that down by stating the fact that those students come from a stronger background, they already have an advantage.
In state right, the federal government is to deal with commerce between states and foreign policy (the military for example), that is it. It isn't suppose to deal with education. The federal government was not suppose to have the potential, and overall ability to have power over the citizens and states. Look at the bill of rights, none of them potentially gave the federal government power over the people. If you allow the federal government to control education than you create that scenario.
Federal standards do hold back schools. Schools don't receive funds from the federal government to fund for at risk schools if they don't adhere to standards similar to federal ones. Basically what you have is the federal government taxing the citizens, and than telling the states, with the citizens they taxed, they can't have the money unless they do what the fed. wants. TX does hire more Spanish speaking teachers and they are doing well. And me mentioning Dover vs. PA is that there isn't going to be creationism or ID taught in science classrooms. You don't have to worry about it.
Competition is always good. You mention profit as you assume that profit means more money. No, a profit means more wealth and from individuals who are educated they will bring in more success and wealth to that area and state. What is the best form of education? That is hard to say. That is why we can't have the federal government involved in education. The states will set their own benchmark and will do what it takes to succeed. I find it funny how you call my argument biased when you brought up TX as if they will do poorly being such a conservative state but yet they have one of the stronger education systems in the US.
I like how you brought up the ACA. That is another clear law, passed completely by democrats, that shows how they like to invade people's lives and enforce more federal law which enhances our problems. Healthcare, along with education, should be left up to the states. We can't just keep passing he buck to the federal government which the political left likes to do. We have to work on these problems as a state and local community. We have seen states pass their forms of healthcare and they are doing well. After the ACA we have seen insurance prices go up and the democrats lost because of it.
So what is this benchmark? You talk about teaching evolution. While it is important to teach, is that more important than working as a team? Or being innovated and creative? The vast majority of the people don't completely understand evolution, that includes public school teachers. I admit, I don't completely understand it and I am pursuing my PhD in Physical Chemistry. It is a very complex subject. As it is really vital to one's success in life? Same with the quadratic equation, or reading The Scarlet Letter and so on. What is more important, learning "facts" they can regurgitate or learning how to be hard working, helpful and responsible citizens? With how our society is set up we do have plenty of JuCos and Community Colleges to get individuals up to speed if they lack basic course work for 4 year colleges. Around 50% of new college freshman lack remedial course work. And people, and states will migrate to what will give them the most success. You have this fear that if the federal government doesn't set a benchmark than society will be stupid, the fact is they won't. They will proceed to what makes them successful. If someone believes in creationism, and can't understand evolution but is a very successful businessman that pays their employees well and brings in a lot of wealth to society, than so what? You want to teach remedial "facts" instead of teaching people how to be creative and hard working.
You complete trust of the dept. of ed., which you have no say in who gets hired is a flaw in your part. You assume they know how to educate. Really? Why do you so easily trust these individuals. You are following the lead of a group of people without question. These are individuals that possess kids for a living. They raise other people's kids with little to no recourse. Read the book I mentioned in the beginning. Read the first 10 pages at least, you can find a PDF version online. But I find it sad you are so quick to trust the federal government that you have little say in what goes on.
And on common sense, it is a phrase that creates a genetic fallacy. Those that say it are saying, along with I mentioned before, "well if you don't know it than you are dumb" without justification. I can easily say that it is common sense that federal government's involvement is a problem. I refuse to do that since I am more intelligent than that. I see that the public education has taught you well in trusting the federal government and using shallow arguments as in "common sense" to state your point. You know, if I were to say "common sense" during my PhD defense I wouldn't receive my PhD.
1
-
1
-
nenafan1 No, their background is that of better parenting. You can give anyone a lot of money but if they don't know how to invest it than it is a waste. As I said, you can cut funding for higher income schools and those students will still do well. They come from better parenting.
On the constitution the founders saw a time where technology would get better. That is why they wanted the states to change and control domestic policies. What they wanted was for the citizens to have control over the government. And they didn't want a centralized government. With state rights you can have government with control over it. That was the idea and it should remain intact.
Here is a recent discussion on funding and Common Core.
http://www.hslda.org/commoncore/topic3.aspx
OK recently decided to opt out of common core, there is fear that they can lose federal funding because of it. Now i can't find a source for this, but in my education class a speaker, who is pretty much a common core expert, said Wyoming adopted common core standards but said that they won't assess their teachers until 2022. The federal government said if they did that than they won't receive funding. WY basically said watch us. They like the standards but don't want to pressure their teachers yet. CA is considering the same thing. In all, if you don't put in place federal standards than you lose money.
The Dover vs. PA ruling was a constitutional ruling. You are not going to see religion in our science classrooms. TX is doing great. There were second in GDP growth recently, they are around average in poverty rate, so not last despite having an influx of hispanics who have little money. TX was number 1 in job creation since 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/10/22/texas-job-creation-dwarfs-every-other-state/
Texas is doing just fine.
On healthcare and education being rights, it comes down to that we can't give the federal government the potential to gain power over the people. That is what the founding fathers wanted. In healthcare and education that is a huge part of our lives, do you really want to give an entity, that you have little control over, that much power? Also, what is they about healthcare and education being rights? Seriously, why not a car? There are people who can't get a job simply because they lack transportation. What about a home? Or food? Healthcare doesn't matter if you don't have a roof over your head. You lack understanding what a right is and what the federal government can, and should be allowed to do.
In education it comes down to what do we want to teach our kids? We can teach them remedial facts, or we can teach them to be problem solvers, and help out each other, and being creative. You are so set on teaching facts, as if evolution or reading Romeo and Juliet is vital to life. I can solve a time dependent perturbation problem, it is important to me because it is a huge part of my research. My cousin, who is a smart mechanic, can live on life without knowing anything about quantum statistics or even gravity. You asked how I can trust a businessman so much, because I worked with them for 7 years. How can you trust the government so much? A politician whose main job is to get into power.
I can argue with the people from the dept. of ed. I can easily do it and have in a couple of times which is a big reason why I left education to begin with. I simply say sticking with the status quo isn't helping, we need to change. The refuse to do that and basically preach what you do, more money when we are second in the world in spending per pupil.
I love how you attack me in my grammar in the end. This is a Youtube comment, not my PhD dissertation. I spend a few minutes writing these with no editing. There will be poor grammar. The main message is what i want to get across. In my experience I have seen that when someone criticizes my grammar than they have nothing relevant to say.
1
-
nenafan1 Smaller communities invest in themselves, they do it through time, something that is actually worth something. Plus, you showed a flaw in your argument. You want to establish what you feel is "best". As if you know what is best for all.
Your fear isn't justified. You feel that people who are "uneducated" by your standards will vote in ignorant politicians. They won't, and if they did than they will remove them from office and put in place someone who will improve the situation. If they do ruin their economy than they will ruin their economy, not the country's economy. And local and state laws are easier to fix and change. I guess we can be like CA, mess up and than pass the buck to the federal government. Or we can force local states and societies to fix their own problems. Here is something for you, with state rights, just because Billy Joe from the backwoods doesn't believe in evolution doesn't mean you life is going to be ruined. You will be just fine. Just like you having now clue how to, I am assuming, rebuild an engine, or maybe solve a perturbation problem in quantum, or play the guitar. That doesn't hurt anyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Much of the corruption in politics stems from politicians being
dependent on outside money to maintain and increase their personal
power. This works in direct opposition to what they are supposed to do.
Politicians are supposed to represent the people who elect them, but
they are instead working for the people who fund them. Bernie's proposed
solution to this is to move to publicly funded campaigns, and
eliminating the ability for wealthy groups to leverage their wealth for
political influence. In this way, politicians will have to rely not only
on the peoples favor, but on the peoples money as well. If they want to
keep their job, they should better represent the people. "
Who runs the money in publicly funded campaigns? This seems like another way for both the republicans and democrats to create a system that favors then and keeps any outsider out, also known as establishment politics. In this situation Bernie would have never have gotten funding to run at all meaning he would have not been heard. So, who runs the publicly funded campaigns?
"By instituting a tax that goes into a public fund for campaigns, lesser
known individuals have a better chance to get their ideas heard. "
How? If you are not a democrat or a republican then you don't get funded. This seems like another way for the corrupt politicians to change the game in their favor.
"Now, on to federal control over healthcare and higher education. The
problem with healthcare is that there is currently no one representing
the people when it comes to negotiating prices. Prices are dictated by a
combination of pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and insurance
companies. If you believe that a completely free market will dictate the
proper price of healthcare, then you are ignoring a very important
factor in that supply and demand curve. "
If you think we have a free market in healthcare then you are wrong. Due to the payroll tax our healthcare system has become a mess, that is the fault of the federal government. I can get into details but to save space and time I will simply ask these two questions
1. Why do so many people depend on their employers for healthcare? or Why do so many employers pay with healthcare benefits instead of higher wages?
2. Why has healthcare insurance become healthcare?
To answer those questions you have to realize what the payroll tax is and what it led to.
". That factor is the perceived value of human life. Most people value
their own life highly, and are willing to spend any amount of money to
maintain it. This is a highly exploitable factor, one that
pharmaceutical companies take into account"
We are a nation that is over drugged in my opinion, and as Bil Maher put it, we eat shit. A lot of medications and medical procedures are unnecessary to begin with.
"Originally, I suspect health insurance companies were supposed to barter
with pharmaceutical companies on behalf of their customers, but a lack
of credible competition has stagnated the pool of options, and many
insurance companies work more like an oligopoly than anything else."
There is a lack of competition due to the two questions I asked. People are at the mercy of their employer in terms of healthcare. It goes back to anyone that thinks we have a free market healthcare system clearly does not understand what is going on in our system.
"The proposed solution to this problem, is a single payer program. In
this scenario, the government works as the negotiator between the
populace and the pharmaceutical companies. "
Going back to what you said about supply and demand, as is we lack resources in healthcare. For example we lack doctors. I always wonder how many Bernie supporters are going to study to be doctors or work in medicine? I find that question to be condescending but you can answer if you want. But what it does it relates back to that Bernie supporters feel that the resources out there and that we just need to pry them out. That isn't true. With single payer you will increase demand while not increasing supply leading to higher prices or lower quality. That is the system Bernie supporters are pushing without wanting to take action themselves to increase resources.
"Now I admit, this will not work if there is rampant corruption in the
government, but this only strengthens the argument to eliminate
corruption in the government, which was partially addressed already. If
the government represents the people, then it should negotiate the price
of healthcare closer the cost of producing healthcare, instead of
further into the realm of exploiting the value of life."
Your "proposed solution" to ending corruption will actually increase corruption by creating even more establishment in politics. Do you really thing the DNC or RNC will allow a Bernie Sanders to be funded to run?
"Much like healthcare, the value of education is easily exploitable. It
is in part because of this, that the cost of education has gotten out of
control."
The cost of education has gotten out of control because of the student loan program. That increased the demand for education without increase supply. What happened is that the price went up.
"For one, he's trying to reduce government corruption."
How? By expanding the powers it has?
"As for dependency on the government, he's actually trying to turn that
around. Instead of people being dependent on the government, he's trying
to make the government dependent on the people."
How? By allowing it to have more of our money and by having the mercy of our healthcare and education be in the hands of the government?
"I would also like to address, what I feel is, an unasked question? That
being, "Why do we need to expand government?" I don't want government
expansion for the sake of expansion, but I understand that in this world
of increased globalization, we need a competent and functioning
government to protect our interests within the world, and organize our
efforts. Without this, we will falter behind more organized governments.
To stay competitive, there will need to be some amount of expansion of
government, but we need to stay vigilant in making sure that it does not
get out of control, and accurately represents the people."
We don't need an expansion of government. What you have to understand is that too much government is just as bad as no government. As of now we have too much government. Almost everything the federal government touches breaks. Adding more federal government is going to make our current problems worse while creating new ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
James, the law is the equation. With gravity you have F=GmM/R^2. With genetics you have the Punnet square. When we talk about the law of gravity we are referring to the mathematical expression attached to it. For example if I had a spring with a mass on it on hanging than the forces are gravity and the spring. If they are not moving the are in equilibrium and this I have mg=kx where k is the spring constant, x is the displacement from the spring's equilibrium, and g is the gravitational constant of what ever planet I am on.
If you look at other laws you have Kirchhoff's law which is in a circuit the sum of all the currents is zero. You can explain it in words but there is typically a mathematical expression attached to it. With Kirchhoff's law why is charge conserved? What is charge? You are not explaining that, you are just seeing a trend, derived and equation for it and that's it. Same with gravity. You saw a trend, were able to attach an equation to it, and moved on. The theory of gravity relates to what is gravity? We don't know, but the theory of gravity has a lot of supporting evidence to it so it is the model we use.
If you look at a trend you will also see that many laws came about before quantum mechanics and are attached to things discovered when Newtonian mechanics were considered to be right. You don't hear about that laws in quantum mechanics. You may, but I have never seen it taught as such. For example, you can find "Born law" written somewhere, but in texts we have them listed as rules or lemmas, not laws. Science was not as flexible pre-quantum mechanics. Laws, in science, can seem to be set in stone by many people when in reality they aren't. In the end, though, you see mathematical expressions attached to laws.
I feel you need to study more science.
"If we have plenty of laws on the books to protect water; then please explain the fucking Flint water crises"
That is the fault of that local government. Noticed how I said government. That wasn't a company doing the work but the failures of government doing their job. This is also why I support smaller, more local government as the situation was isolated to just that area. But if you want to blame someone for that than blame government. Plus, that is just one incident.
"then why the fuck is it that much of the natural water reserves in
states like Colorado, have been made undrinkable by the fracking
industry"
It hasn't. Fracking has not polluted water at all.
" If our god damn water supply is so well protected, then why is it that
the lead levels in many metro areas across the nation, are even higher
than they are in flint Michigan"
Because of old piping which will cost a lot to replace. Considering how people are not dying left and right because of it than it is not a big deal.
"Finally, being that you are in disagreement with nearly every liberal
Youtube host, why the fuck do you keep showing up on nearly every
liberal Youtube site "
I listen to both sides. As a moderate I do agree with many of what the left says. My problem is that the left has become a bunch of radicals. They spew appeal to emotion rhetoric as opposed to properly analyzing the facts. That is dangerous as it divides our country and hinders progress.
To give an example. In 1994 Herman Cain approached Bill Clinton asking about Bill's healthcare bill and the cost of business. Cain, to me, ask a somewhat condescending question to Clinton on what he should tell his employees when he has to fire them, but it was a question concerning cost. Clinton, in a logical and intelligent way, ran through numbers and gave Cain and answer. Cain gave a rebuttal and in the very end I agreed with Cain. But I respected Clinton and the answer he gave which is why he was such a great president
Here we are a little over 20 years later and Sanders was approached with a similar question by a small business owner. Bernie's response was basically "screw you, pay up". He showed zero concern about the business owner and just wants to force her to pay up. Clinton at least showed concern. Democrats showed concerned in the past. Now they have become radicals. This is how Trump won. For 8 years under Obama the democrats have been preaching about how we are supposedly a country full of racists, sexists, bigots that are violent and greedy and that we need the federal government to enforce a moral compass on all of us. Trump ran on the idea that we aren't, and that we are a great country. That is how he won. And now many on the let are doubling down on that hate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The polls are deceptive. Here is the April poll listing Bernie on top and the trend
https://morningconsult.com/senate-rankings-april-2017/
Here are the top 10 by state
VT
VT
WY
WY
ME
ME
SD
HI
DE, OR (tie)
ND
Ok, now states by population
WY
VT
AL
ND
SD
DE
MT
RI
MI
NH
7 of those senators resides in states with small populations (VT, WY,
SD, DE, ND)
Now by demographics, percent white
VT 96%
ME 95%
NH 94%
WV 94%
IA 92%
ID 92%
WY 91%
MN 90%
ND 90%
Do some of those states look familiar?
Now to crime. States with the lowest crime rates
VT
ME
WY
NH
VA
KY
ID
UT
RI
MN
VT, ME and WY are the three states with the lowest amount of crime. VT
ME and WY are 1, 2 and 7 in terms of percentage of whites, and WY, VT
are the two smallest states by population. but yet the six most popular
senators reside VT, ME and WY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"public schools, the police department, public libraries, our fire fighters, our military, social security, Medicare, Medicaid"
Public schools: Ran and funded by the state and local government
Police: Ran and funded by our state and local government
Libraries: Ran and funded by our state and local government
Fire fighters: Ran and funded by our state and local government where around 70% of them are volunteer
Military: Constitutional and actually functions well
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security: Unconstitutional and all running out of money
So to recap, 4 locally ran and funded programs and 2 federal. Out of the 2 federal only one functions well and it just so happens to be the one that is constitutional.
You are trying to justify social programs ran at the state level to justify more federal programs. That is a very weak argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+pete sampson
Gore was a hypocrite. Like I said, look up the comparison of Al Gore's house to that of George Bush's. Gore politicized the issue and make bank on it. That is the major problem.
I agree we should end subsidizes for fossil fuels, but we can't just turn around and invest in "alternative energy". Doing so is
1. unconstitutional
2. a high risk investment that can lead to a poor economy
We don't have a revenue problem. In reality we need to cut federal taxes and cut federal spending, but that is another topic in itself. But, predictably, you attacked defense spending when that is only around 4% of our GDP, and less than 20% of our federal budget despite it being constitutional. The idea that defense spending is high in the US is mostly a myth.
Wind and solar is making strides, but they are only a small part of our energy source. They are still unreliable in industry and thus can't be used.
The harm in the economy will be in industry in places that need a reliable energy source at a low price, like scientific research for example (like Los Alamos National Lab). I will not be able to power my research on wind and solar, and I live in a state where a lot of sun. My LASER set up simply won't function.
Nuclear power plants are extremely safe and well regulated. Fusion is the holy grail but fission, right now, is really safe.
The pure fact is that fossil fuels are the most efficient and affordable source of energy we have. With so much doubt surrounding the climate issue we can't make radical decisions that will destroy the economy when we don't have guaranteed results. We are progressing just fine in alternative energy, we just need to get politics out of the issue. Problem is that democrats feel the need to control everything which is why everything they touch breaks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That's thinking with old school economics, if you look at countries that
have government provided health insurance, people save money and health
is generally better."
As is the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world as is. Other countries have problems as well such as rationing and lack of resources. They just make people wait. Also it is very hard, to almost impossible to compare countries to one another. The variables are too great. Those countries you are comparing us to typically have much smaller populations than the US. That plays a role. compare it like this, say you were to buy Subway sandwiches for 5 people. You can specialize all of them. Now say you were to do it for 200 people. You will just get a bunch of generic sandwiches and tell them to put their own mayo on. Same applies in a country like the US compare to Denmark. The US has 320+ million people, Denmark has a population smaller than most of our states. That is not a valid comparison. And population is just one of many variables.
"And yes I know that free public college wouldn't pay for med school, but it would set people on the right track to head there."
There are affordable 2 year and 4 year colleges that people can take their pre-med courses at. Money isn't the issue. It is the inability to do the job, or lack of desire to put in the work and take on the stress.
"Also, many people actually want to become doctors but can't do it because the education required is too expensive"
Or more likely can't handle it or refuse to put in the work needed. I, as a TA, see several pre-med students fail yearly. They are able to afford college and can't pass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You just gave me a link saying that there were many factors that caused the recession and it wasn't just Glass Steagal.
"GLB didn’t cause the financial crisis—and, when push comes to shove, the
regulatory evangelists must admit as much. Stiglitz, in the same Vanity Fair article, concedes that Glass-Steagall did nothing to “directly” cause the crisis. Warren, meanwhile, confessed to New York Times reporter
Andrew Ross Sorkin that Glass-Steagall would probably not have stopped
the financial crisis, but that she was pushing to reinstate it because,
in Sorkin’s words, “it is an easy issue for the public to understand and
‘you can build public attention behind.’”"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2012/11/12/why-the-glass-steagall-myth-persists/#7ee53aa941b4
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/
"Face the facts Bernie Sanders economic policies would've lead us to a new golden age of economic expansion"
No, it would have destroyed our country. You will see what a strong economy looks like under Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The main causes for recessions is the evolution of the economy. As the economy evolves the change can be gradual or drastic for whatever reason. But when left alone it will settle back to growth.
Looking at the Great Depression, yes there were weather factors, but it didn't help when FDR implemented the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Yes the stock market took a nosedive, but again, that happens. If left alone it would recover. Crashes happen, how we recover is key. What slowed down recovery was the federal government getting involved like limiting how much food is being developed, or wasting money through government spending. The crash in 1921 was similar to the one of 1929 and recovery happened within a year.
"If you are familiar with economics, it has been proven that classical
economics fail to work in the real world because of their assumptions,"
Like what? What part of "classical economics" fail?
" and while Keynesian also fail to work as effectively as they should for
the same reason, they prove more often than not to generate good
results"
Keynesian economics has never worked on the large scale and have failed.
" and I am therefore backed by economics in my points. "
Except you are not backed by economics.
In the end recessions happen, and when the fed does not get involved then recovery is quick. When the fed decides to get involved then recovery is slow. That is the fact that has happened all throughout history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Where is the study that shows it will raise prices only 10 cents? How is that determine? Also, even a 10 cent raise is critical for low income workers.
Kyle talking about working full time, making a law that sets wages doesn't set hours. Raising the min. wage means that there will be hours cut. It doesn't matter if your wage is higher if you are working less hours. One can survive off the min. wage, find a way cut expenses. Using this emotional, shallow term "living wage" isn't a way we should be approaching economic issues. We need to be rational.
Jobs will be lost with a min. wage increase. Low skill jobs will be lost. Prices will also go up because the value of the worker has to come from somewhere. You can't compare the min. wage to inflation because not everything inflates the same. How about those workers that worked at Blockbuster? Should they get paid the min. wage? No, they are valued at $0/hr and thus have to find work elsewhere. Like when the tractor replaced the farmer, or now with appliance having rechargeable batteries on board, batter factories and dwindling down to those workers are losing value. Some jobs increased in value, others have dropped, some have stayed the same. You can't make this broad comparison of min. wage and inflation.
Any city that has increased the min. wage and not see drop in unemployment is typically high in cost of living to begin with. Also, overall jobs are not effected, it is low skilled jobs, those at a disadvantage in life that will be hurt.
There is not one good reason to even have a min. wage. It hurts those who it is intended to help and goes against economic theory. Kyle needs to read up on economics a little more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan
I never made the argument of if I don't use it I shouldn't pay. I made the argument that it is not a right, and it isn't.
So tuition is free, how do you address the fact we lack dorms, TAs, tutors, professors, labs, classrooms, time, etc? On time, we have labs running from 8 AM to 9 PM. In one case 7 AM to 9 PM. We are starting to open weekend sessions because we don't have enough labs and equipment. How do you address that?
Also, how do you address the NCAA and scholarships? That has to play a role as well. How do you address the fact people will just attend major colleges leaving little ones behind? You are ignoring several factors here. You are assuming everything else will remain the same when it won't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Do you encounter significant wait times at the post office and in the headquarters of your local police? I"
Yes, and those are ran locally.
" single payer equates to single policy. "
So a complex system can be solved by a one size fits all policy?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
"Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor,
echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between
lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than
those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse
health."
"No one should die from lack of capital"
It isn't lack of capital, it is lack of supply. Compare it to this, every state offers K-12 education to all children. Every state follows similar standards. On paper everyone is offered K-12 education. In some areas, however, they lack teachers to teach certain topics thus many schools do not offer AP courses or foreign language courses. But on paper they are receiving a K-12 education just like another kid in a school that offers AP courses.
We lack doctors, nurses, researchers, etc. Healthcare is rationed in single payer systems and people die because of that.
"and a single payer system upon eliminating for profit care"
Which limits growth and innovation. For profit means resources to invest and grow. The US is number 1 in research and innovation in healthcare and technology for a reason.
1
-
1
-
" The advantage of Government funded research is that since the public
sector has no profit incentive it doesn't have to worry about losses
unlike the private sector which means the Government can keep funding
research until it succeeds and it's not as wasteful as you think"
It is wasteful in many ways. A reason why I do not want to work in academics anymore after my PhD studies is because you have a group of people with doctorates or earning doctorates that are wasteful. Also, no profit motive means a $20 billion debt.
"also don't get me wrong I'm not a Communist so I'm not saying fuck the
private sector because I'm a Social Democrat like Kyle Kulinski which
means I believe that the public sector can do some things better and the
private sector can do a better job "
Kyle supports Bernie who is a communist. Before you go on a rant saying I am wrong, the reason why I say that is because he is pushing for bigger federal government. But when he is pressed in debates and questioning he can't present facts to defend himself or his policies.
Here are some examples. Bill Clinton was a great president. In 1994 Herman Cain approached Bill about his healthcare plan explained how he cannot afford the new law. Clinton broke down his argument using numbers and logic. Cain countered back with his numbers and logic. While I agreed with Cain Clinton at least used data and showed concern about his business.
In the debate with Cruz Bernie Sanders was approached by a small business owner in Texas asking a similar question, how could she afford to pay her employees healthcare insurance. Bernie simply said that she has to give her employees healthcare. She asked how could she afford it. Bernie said he does not know much about the hair industry or other businesses but instead that she has to pay. Bernie never asked about her revenue, her income, how many employees she has, how many are part time, how many are long term, etc. To him he simply said they have to pay.
In that same debate Cruz talked about how much Bernie's healthcare plan will cost. Bernie did not counter at all.
When I watch Kyle or see what his viewers or Bernie supporters write I see almost no substance at all to their comments. All I see are appeal to emotions phrases. I see no talk of the complexity of businesses, the complexity of economics, the habits or people and the cultures of countries and so on. To them it is "single payer" or "government should do this" and so on. We are nation that is $20 trillion in debt. So if the government gives out millions in research grants and nothing is produce, you are fine with that? What is your plan in paying for single payer healthcare?
That fact that you ignore those things means you are a communist. You will push for what you want without any care of the consequences. Bill Clinton understood the complexity of businesses and was willing to listen. Bernie Sanders and Kyle don't. They will push for "single payer" no matter what the consequences.
" look at Single Payer countries NO one under such a system dies because they cannot afford healthcare"
They die because of low quality and wait times. That is why they get the same outcomes as the US. Their systems have shortcomings as well.
" your argument is off also you talk about waste and corruption well the
Justice Democrats will fix that since they don't take corporate money"
Sure, you don't take corporate money. I mean, Obama was supposed to bring change, wasn't he? But what about future politicians that take the place of Justice Democrats? What if Justice Democrats get into power and establishes these things and things are great, and then years later a group of republicans come in. Now they control your healthcare. What do you do? This is why I support state rights. You can control the government more. You, instead want to give all this power to the federal government and then complain when future politicians use it to their advantage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"no need to read that book, I have looked up this before."
Ok, where? I provided my source.
" I know enough about science."
Not really. I study science for a living.
" You don't if you think creationism is valid counter agrument to evolution"
Never said it was. One of science, one isn't. They are not comparable. In the healthcare debate it is about markets, so they are the same subject in respect with that.
"Private health care agrument is just as weak as flat earth or creationism"
How so? You have yet to give a reasoning. I can say the argument is as strong as the nature vs nurture debate.
"All climate deniers are skeptics of climate change"
Skeptic does not equal denier. Skepticism is the driving force of science.
"even though vast majority of scientists back climate change being valid theory"
Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. Hardly anyone denies that.
" If you question validity of scientific consensus, you are denier."
No one is questioning scientists. They are questioning liberal politicians and the liberal media who misrepresent science. People are on the scientists side.
"Funny how there are sources saying that single payer is superior in cost, cover, and health care provided. "
But yet you give me none, and I gave you a book on the topic.
"You jusf deny that information to say that there is no evidence to show one superior to another"
Because there isn't.
"Isn't everyone covered by single payer superior to not everyone covered, "
Covering everyone is impossible unless you lower the quality. No country covers everyone unless they are very small in size.
" what Kyle showed that medicare cost more goes to care vs overhead,
doesn't have to spend money on advertising which reduces the cost of
health care overall"
People are forced to us medicare. They don't have a choice. They are forced to pay into it as well. Your argument is not valid at that point.
"doesn't that make single payer superior to privatize health care in cost."
No, because with private I have a choice. With medicare I don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Funny how insurance companies have monopolies in some areas of the country and there is no competition."
I know, you can thank the government for that.
"Actually it doesn't work because vast numbers that are uninsured, "
Why does insurance equal healthcare? And why is there no competition between companies? Why do so many people get their insurance through their employer?
"People use things that works... yes slavery worked at one point in time. But funny how it doesn't. "'
Slavery has always worked, it was not moral.
" much like single payer health insurance is, lower cost, more people are covered."
With lower quality. So what do you achieve?
"The amount of people that single payer covers vs private health care shows that it is better"
Again, with lower quality. Covering everyone is not a success if the quality sucks.
"
US private health care system isn't on par with UK, Japan, S Korea, or Canada"
As a whole it is. You want to cover everyone but never mention quality. I want high quality and cover as many people as possible. To you a successful system is 100% covered but with poor quality. To me I will take 80% covered with high quality where you won't. That is the difference. You want to bring everyone down to the norm, I want to bring people up and give people a chance to get high quality care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Healthcare is service not product, so supply and demand isn't fitting to a service industry"
100% wrong. People provide the service. If we lack doctors than that means less services.
"Lol classroom size hasn't increased in colleges, also most students in college doesn't have time with professors in general."
Yes it has. Also interaction with professors is important. When I was an undergrad I talked to my professors all the time. They all wrote me letters of recommendation to get me in grad school. I push students to talk to professors.
"Yes, you can measure happiness."
No you can't, it is subjective.
"One example is anecdotal evidence. How about a study."
More than you ever provided.
"Yet, more uninsured equal more people dying from without treatment."
Not necessarily true.
"When they can't pay they lose their homes, and because homeless. Which means that they will die."
So are they bankrupt or homeless? Which is it. You are making things up here.
"no uk healthcare didn't go down in quality.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
I gave evidence of people dying on waiting lists.
"States don't have funding for while the federal does. "
100% false. The federal government is in massive debt. Also if you lower federal taxes than that means more revenue for the people to have to spend at states which typically have consumption taxes.
" The free market system leaves people uninsured."
Single payer system leaves people on waiting lists. So what do you gain?
"I'm not being vague at all, I have been quiet direct with you."
No, you are being vague. What quality do you want?
"44,789 people die a year without healthcare in the US, according to politifact."
Which is deceptive. One, that is only around 0.01% of the population. Next, those individuals are poor and typically the poor are unhealthy and irresponsible to begin with. That plays a role. Thus that 0.01% is noise.
Put it this way, K-12 education is free in all 50 states. As is 12% of the native population does not hold a high school diploma despite it being offered to them. That is because they are irresponsible.
". You claiming that I am young earth creationist is strawman. "
Playing you at your own game. You make asinine comments than so will I.
" You also saying that I support low quality healthcare is strawman."
You never mention quality, you mention access. You bring up the UK and how everyone has access when they have low cancer survival rate.
" The issue isn't complex as you make it out to be."
It is complex. You are dealing with something that it 1/6 of our economy. You are dealing with a market that has the majority of the workforce holding doctorate degrees or advanced, specialized degrees. The issue is complex. You have clearly never done any type of work in healthcare at all. I work in research that is used by the healthcare industry. I teach nursing students and the work is stressful and complex. You feel that all we have to do is create single payer and it will be all better. If it were that simple I will be the first to push for it. The fact is that it isn't. That is why there is a debate.
"Actually uk system has less problems than the US."
Not true. They have just as many, they are just different.
"Insurance companies are not apart of the health care system. They are
separated thing. Auto insurance doesn't get added into the automotive
stats. So you don't know what you are talking."
Now you just contradicted yourself. You earlier said this
" 44,789 people die a year without healthcare in the US, according to politifact."
Which they mean insurance.
"So what just because change happens doesn't mean that it's a bad thing."
When you don't gain anything it is.
" raise corporate taxes problem solved,"
And corporations leave. Now who do you tax?
"and maybe the super rich."
And that still won't cover the cost of healthcare. Cruz brought that up in the debate and Bernie did not give a rebuttal.
"Yet UK system is actually better in coverage, and in healthcare, and cost."
No they don't. But to quote you
"Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"supply in supply and demand is a product, not service. Yet, heathcare for all doesn't mean less doctors...."
No, you have limited services as well. For example, say a school does not have someone that can teach spanish. That school can't offer any spanish courses.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/supply.asp
Notice it says services. Also yes, we will be short doctors.
"Lol most people don't get the chance to talk to professors in college."
100% not true. Most do. Apparently you never been to college.
"Yes, you can servy people opinions can measure happiness."
Which is, again, subjective.
"Yet, anecdotal evidence isn't good evidence, for some who works studying science should know that."
But apparently a survey to gather opinions on someone's lifestyle is good evidence?
"Actually it does. If you are not insured you don't get regular check
ups, which means that cholesterol, blood pressure, etc levels can become
uncheck, and you can die from heart attack out of no where, or stroke."
And you can drive from a car accident tomorrow, so what's your point? Routine check ups are cheap and in my opinion should not be covered by insurance.
"When you go bankrupt you can still lose your home."
If you are that financially unstable chances are you don't own a home.
"Funny how UK has more patient beds per capita than the US, "
So now the number of beds means higher quality? There is more to it than that. I guess you should lay down while you wait for your doctor if they ever come before you die.
"you even said it was on par to the US healthcare system."
All things consider it is. That means we get similar results when you consider the cost.
"Kansas doesn't nor does Kentucky they are deeply in debt."
Not as much as the US is.
"For minor things, yet uk doesn't have waiting list, nor does Canada. "
100% false. Even strong supporters of single payer admit there will be waiting lists.
"I already said the quality I want, good health care, fucking dumbass."
Oh, now you say it. How good? The US is number one in cancer survival rate for example. The UK is last. Do you want the UK quality or the US quality?
"Just because someone is poor doesn't mean that they are irresponsible"
For the most part it does.
"yet they have no heathcare that's why they are unhealthy, "
You can eat healthy and exercise without insurance.
"but you don't care about them because they are poor"
I do care about them. I want them to have high quality healthcare if they work for it. You want to give them the illusion they have healthcare.
"45k people is still alot of people dying unnecessary due to having no health insurance. "
That is only 0.01% of the US population. That is noise at that point. You can't say the sole reason why they die is because of lack of healthcare.
"Yet, that's false comparison... since if healthcare was public they would have healthcare, so that number would go down."
Unless they get put on a waiting list, or don't seek healthcare at all.
"I haven't made asinine comments, "
I don't think you know what the word "asinine" means.
"No I have not contradicted myself. Health insurance numbers are not
part of health care industry... just like automotive insurance isnt
apart of automotive industry. Nothing there is contradictory."
And then
" Yes, they mean insurance because insurance means access to heathcare in
the US."
"They don't leave. You can heavly penalize them if they leave. You can force them to stay."
So they jack up prices. Congrats, now everything is more expensive.
" Cruz and Bernie Sanders didn't debate"
Really?
"It's fact UK has better coverage since all are covered"
With lower cancer survival rate. So you again support everyone being covered regardless of quality.
"But you deny climate change is man made"
Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. This is why I am calling you a young earth theorist. You feel climate change is caused by man, thus you feel that the earth is young. I feel that climate change has been happening since earth as been in existence. While man plays a role, how much is in question.
1
-
1
-
" irrelevant to health care..."
Not it's not. You just showed you don't know the definition of supply.
"Actually we won't be short doctors.
"
We already are, unless some are just hiding out and waiting for single payer to become a thing.
"I have been to college. Most professors who teach lectures have over
hundred of students in a classroom. Thus it's not possible for the
students have face time with the students."
I doubt you have. But students have plenty of opportunity to see professors. They choose not to which is another issue in itself. As a TA right now my students hardly come to office hours. . Those that do, though, get free help and they excel in the course. One went from getting a 30 on her physics test to getting a B in the end of the course after she started seeing me for help.
"Just because it's subjective doesn't mean that it cannot be measured"
Yes it does because it does not measure quality. All it measures is people being satisfied with what they have.
"Yes, because surveys with good sample size done right can give good idea on people opinions on the quality of health care. "
Yeah, but they are just one of many variables.
"
My point is that not having health insurance leads to people dying.
Which that point illustrates. Actually they are not that cheap, they
are over hundred bucks more when testing is done. If you think they are
cheap then you really don't know much about healthcare."
My checkups cost around $30. And people die for several reasons. There are people who die in Las Vegas due to no AC. So should we give out free AC to people?
"People who go bankrupt often have home."
And thus poor money management skills. If you can't afford a home don't get one.
"Actually it's part of the quality, because what good is healthcare if hospitals don't have enough beds for people."
But again, just one part. Many variables here, this is a complex issue.
"No you was talking about quality... cost is irrelevant to quality...
"
You get what you pay for.
"Yet, you still have waiting list in the US to see a doctor..."
Much shorter lists though
"Shows that people have taken the cancer survival rate out of context...
because there is an over diagnosis of prostate cancer... so your
cancer survival rate is bs right wing propaganda."
It is not a right wing propaganda. Now you did something intelligent for once. You showed that using a statistical regression model the numbers can change which is what the book did that I linked a while ago. That shows who minute the overall results are here. Thus you can't say what system is better. All systems have pros and cons and all systems have problems. To say single payer does not have problems is simply lying. People have died due to waiting lists. But according to you they are covered. Waiting is not getting covered. But this is the one intelligent thing you did. Now why don't you support any of the statistical regression models I gave you? I feel it is because you are myopic and bias and thus, as a whole, not very intelligent.
"No it doesn't mean that they are irresponsible. Many people who are not
smart enough to get into college are poor, the whole myth poor is
irresponsible is more right wing propaganda."
For the most part they are irresponsible. And going to college does not mean anything if you get a women's study degree.
"No, you don't care for them. They do work, but they don't have enough money to buy health insurance."
Work is subjective. They refuse to develop skills to earn more.
"Actually the sole reason is that they don't have healthcare. "
No it's not.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
"Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor,
echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between
lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than
those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse
health."
There are other links there as well to show that it is not solely because of healthcare. But, of course, you will deny them.
"Increase taxes doesn't mean that the price will go up. Because the government can regulate the price of things.
"
Ok, so they fire workers and produce less meaning less wealth. I feel you don't understand economics too well. Price control has never worked.
"Yup Cruz and Sanders didn't debate."
They did on CNN recently.
"Lol me thinking man has effected climate change through increasing the
amount of green house gases in ozone... Which is backed up by scientific
community."
But to what degree. You will never find that in any scientific literature.
"There is no question that man played large role,"
Yes there is because nothing has been published showing to what degree.
"Thus you are the one who is denying science"
I am a doctorate candidate in physical chemistry. I study science for a living.
"by your own logic you would be a young earth creationist since they are skeptical of theory of evolution"
There are many questions involving evolution. There is a reason why it is a graduate level course. Also, being skeptical is a part of science. If we weren't skeptical quantum mechanics would have never came about. If you studied science for a living like I do you will understand this. You saying what you do makes you anti-science.
"even though there is overwhelming evidence for evolution"
Which is why it is a theory I support.
"and also that public health care is better than private."
No evidence for that what so ever. You have yet to show me evidence for that. I have you a book to read on it and all you did was ignore it. But hey, easier to be ignorant than actually work. I feel you are one of those poor who went to college. Tell me, what is your degree in? And what do you do for a living?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T A Ship, I am a PhD candidate. For my research and papers I publish I do use peer reviewed sources. But this is a youtube comment discussion, not my thesis or even one of my papers.
I will say this, even if not peer reviewed those individuals have their name on that paper, with that university having their name on that paper, meaning their credibility is somewhat at stake. I am preparing a poster for a conference in a week and even though it is only on preliminary results, I am being careful in what I put on it and what I will say as there are other professors, one that does work similar to what I do, that will be there and judging me.
I will also say this, I have seen papers get published even after going through the peer reviewed processed but were still bad. Now in the big picture those are few and far between, but it can exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
edymasta
And workers earning around $30/hr. Consider this, 1000 workers earning $50,000 a year. With 1000 employees at 6% SS tax rate that is 3,000,000 dollars for SS. So already half of that $7 million out of SS alone.
Ok, now federal income tax rates. At 25% of $50,000 is $12,500,000 a year. We are also not including property tax, medicare and medicaid, local taxes and so on. Sure, the company gets a tax break which means they get to keep their money (they are not getting a dime in tax dollars). And more wealth is generated.
This is a prime example of how tax cuts increase revenue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
James Jamesbond
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/19/seattles-15-minimum-wage-jobs-down-unemployment-up-this-isnt-working-is-it/#1df370ff3712
You cited forbes and so did I.
Michael Reich is known to support the min. wage. He is bias. His study if mainly projection and does not reveal anything yet. He also compared over unemployment when there are several factors that contribute to overall unemployment. The min. wage, as a whole, is low compared to the entire economy thus any negative results get lost in the statistical noise. When you look at target groups, such as teens, you seen a loss in jobs. Washington, for example, has one of the highest teenage unemployment rate and there is a trend with high min. wage and high teenage unemployment.
Another thing is that cost of living on those cities is high, thus it is a poor comparison to say that just because it works in cities of higher cost of living than it will work elsewhere.
Emeryville, CA the highest min. wage in the US. They are doing fine. They are also the home of Pixar who is their top employer. When you have a lot of workers earning $80,000 year at least than you can get away with a high min. wage. Emeryville's second largest employer is a pharmaceutical company.
In all there are several factors that control these outcomes. Reich, as usual, does not account for any of these.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, this will be fun. First, on the DOL source. That was created when the Obama administration was in office and they supported a min. wage increase. If you read that website they don't cite their claims. Now on the 10 reasons one
1. The idea that it will put money in the pockets of the workers is flawed. One, that is making the assumption that the money exists to begin with. What makes you think the money is even there? Next, Christina Romer said this
"If they were all working full time at the current minimum — and a
majority are not — the income increase from the higher minimum wage
would be only about $50 billion. Even assuming that all of that higher
income was redistributed from the wealthiest families, the difference in spending behavior
between low-income and high-income consumers is likely to translate
into only about an additional $10 billion to $20 billion in consumer
purchases. That’s not much in a $15 trillion economy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html?
Also, if these people so quick to spend that money than that shows why they are poor. Instead of saving and investing it they spend it. They have poor money management skills. Plus, if it did grow the economy than why not $50/hr?
2. Comparing the CEO to the lowest paid worker is asinine. Tom Brady makes way more money than the semi-pro QB as the semi-pro QB pays to play. No one values his work. The value of the min. wage worker is low. Anyway, their pay is not that high. If you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their pay to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart those workers will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. It comes back to where is the money going to come from?
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/6/5970815/what-if-walmarts-ceo-took-a-pay-cut-for-his-workers
3. There were 500 economists that signed a letter not to raise the min. wage.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/13/over-500-economists-against-federal-minimum-wage-increase/
Plus, comparing overall employment to the min. wage is flaw. There are many variables that play a role in overall employment For example, when the min. wage was increased in 1996 and 1997 Robert Reich said that unemployment went down. But the reality is that prior to that unemployment was already going down
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
And the percent of workers earning at or below the min. wage was going down as well
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2015/home.htm
Also, since the min. wage is so low to begin with you have to look at target groups as any effects are lost in the statistical noise. Since the passage of the min. wage we have seen a spike in teenage unemployment, especially for blacks. And when the min. wage goes up unemployment for unskilled workers go up.
https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/
Also, another reason why you may not see a change in overall employment is due to labor to labor substitution. As you increase the min. wage older workers may re-enter the work force take over jobs that younger workers could take.
4. Walmart is not the only company that sells DVDs. But they are a "big corporation" and thus will be attacked. Also, DVDs are a bad example as the demand for them is dropping. And if all it took was a 1 cent raise and there will be no lost in demand, then why doesn't the company do that to begin with and make that much more in profits? The answer, it isn't that simple.
5. Again, this is assuming that the money is there to begin and people won't have their hours cut. Also, move people working $9.50/hr or less are not poor.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/Sabia_Burkhauser_SEJ_Jan10.pdf
6. Same as point 5
7. The median age for min. wage workers is 25. Saying that most are not teens is deceptive as many are also retirees doing busy work while being retires. Also consider this, you can't work until you are 14 (at most, and many don't at that young of an age). So you hare 14-19, a five year span for teenagers. Now you have 20 to 78 (capping at life expectancy) for the rest, 58 years. 21 years and older make up 70% of the population, under 18 makes up 25% (I am too lazy to find the exact percent for 14-19 compared to 20-28, buy you can).
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
You have a larger pool to chose from in the non-teenage crowd. Plus, I mentioned labor to labor substitution.
8. Look at point 5
9. Every business knows that if you pay employees more than you will lower turnover rate and attract better employees. That is why the average hourly earnings in the US is over $24/hr and only around 4% of workers earn at or below the min. wage. Businesses can pay less but choose not to. They pay more because the greedy workers want more.
10. This is deceptive because it does not say the income of the other parent.
http://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2011/university-economist-refutes-conventional-wisdom-about-minimum-wage-earners
So when you break it down you see those reasons are not legit. So again, there is not one reason to even have a min. wage.
1
-
1
-
The DOL does not site their claims. For example, it says
"Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs."
But gives none of those academic research. That is just one of many examples. And yes, Obama being president plays a role.
1. "Well the money clearly does exist if their are people like Hillary and Donald to spend millions on campaigning on an election"
Not relevant. Many businesses are not involved in campaigning. What about Safeway, Hy Vee, Raley's, HEB and other small stores? Fact is that businesses work on thin profit margins. But, as a whole, you are deflecting here. We are talking about the min. wage and businesses, not campaign funds.
"You further state that if they willing to spend money so easily instead
of saving up and investing up as they cant because they have to live
paycheck to paycheck spending their money on the bare necessities to
survive."
So they are earning enough to survive now. If they get more they should save. The fact they won't shows why they are poor to begin with, bad money management skills.
2. " the others could come from slight and incremental price raises on products sold by Walmart"
Again, if Walmart can raise prices and not lose demand, than why doesn't that greedy business do it already and make that much more in profits? I mean, the CEO can be earning more?
" but one job should provide you with enough money to afford a living "
Define that? What is your standard? As is the vast majority of min. wage workers are not poor. But, what is your standard for "afford a living"? Owning a car? Living in a two bedroom by yourself or a studio with two roommates? Having kids? What is your standard? When I earned a min. wage of $5.15/hr I was fine. When my girlfriend earned $8.50/hr she bought a $10,000 car. Also, saying "afford a living" is an appeal to emotion phrase which is not how economics works.
3. "At most you can say that the minimum wage has no effect on employment what so ever"
I acknowledge that because there are several other factors involved. You should read my whole comment. I told you how in the 90s we saw no increase in unemployment because unemployment was dropping already and the percent of min. wage workers was as well. Businesses were already hiring at a higher wage. There are several factors involved in employment such as taxes and wealth of the local community. Emeryville, Ca has had the highest min. wage in the US for years. They have an unemployment rate below the federal rate. Three of their top four employers, though, are Pixar and two pharmaceutical companies, businesses that pay close to six figures. A $20/hr min. wage won't hurt the employment of those workers. In the state of Washington, however, they have a high min. wage and high teenage unemployment. There is a trend there.
4. If you increase prices demand drops. Plus, the article you gave me said DVDs which are not in demand. What about McDonalds? They don't sell DVDs? Or Hy Vee? The don't sell them much if at all.
5. You clearly did not read the paper I gave you. The reason why those workers at $9.50/hr are not poor is because they live in a household with a primary earner. As with my girlfriend, I was the primary earner so she could buy a care with her wage. That is the norm for those earning that low of a wage. Most who are poor either
1. don't have a job at all
2. earn over $10/hr to begin with
6. Ok
7. Median is not the same as the average. For example, you have 4 people ages 16, 22, 24, and 68. The average is 32.75 years even though three of the people are below the age of 25. The median is 23.5 years. See the difference and how one number represents the population better? I feel you need to study statistics.
8. OK
9. The average hourly earnings in the US is over $24. Plus those greedy businesses can pay less by law but choose not to. They instead pay more. Why? Because of competition. If a business can pay more they will. The article brought up Costco. Google pays their employees over $80,0000, why doesn't Costco?
10. It linked the studies, it is all there. There is also this
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
So what you have shown is that you lack understanding of statistics where I showed you the median is a better analysis than the average. You did not give a rebuttal to all of my comments, such as the one I made about Robert Reich or Christina Romer. You did not read the sources I gave because you felt that $9.50/hr is where poverty ends when the paper was saying those earning below that are not poor to begin with, and you used emotion with " afford a living". Your argument falls apart when broken down making those reasons worthless. Again, when broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage.
1
-
The Center for Economic and Policy Research is a think tank, not an academic journal. No that does not mean it does not contain important information, it just means it is not academic. So be aware and realize the difference.
1. Not every business has a CEO. In fact, most don't. Plus I showed you how cutting CEO pay does not lead to significantly higher wages.
If you give workers a high wage then they should save. They should keep their expenses the same and with the extra income from the higher wage they should save and invest.
2. So now you are seeing the complexity of the issue. Businesses just can't raise prices as it kills demand. Also, Walmart is not making lots of money. Businesses work on thin profit margins.
"alright here how about one where you can have just a little bit of time
of without having to worry about if you'll be able to eat again."
That is not a standard. That is vague and can mean a lot.
I do agree that anecdotal evidence is not really the best, but my point was that the "living wage" subjective.
"Appeal to emotion its a slogan and its irrelevant if theirs reason
behind a slogan, everyone does it or have you forgotten Donald Trumps
Make america great again. "
Which I didn't buy in to. Anyway, this is a discussion on the min. wage, not Donald Trump. Please stay on topic and stop deflecting.
3. It is a common trend with other states. Making it harder for teens to get a job means they enter the workforce later and thus they have a harder time getting a higher paying job when they are in their 20s.
4. You can't raise prices that easily. Also, larger companies can do with less staff before raising prices. For example, a McDonalds who may have 12 franchises in a city may cut down to 10, and cut the hours of others so it is no longer 24 hours. A small local burger joint with only one location can't do that and has to raise prices. Larger companies can cut before raising prices giving them a competitive edge. Also, those cuts means less hours thus less income for workers.
5. Again, the vast majority of them are not poor. Also, if it created an economic boost, why not $50/hr? Christina Romer showed how a small min. wage increase won't grow the economy a significant amount, if at all.
7. Ok, what are you talking about here? You are ignoring how the average is flaw and the median age is a more accurate representation of the work force. Also, you are ignoring the larger pool for non-teenagers in the work force compared to teenagers. Anyway, to say the youth have it harder is simply not true. The youth, compared to 1984, have smart phones, better cars, high speed internet, not longer have to use the Dewey Decimal system, have information at their fingertips. Here you and I are debating the min. wage and exchanging info that is easily accessible online. Things are, at the very least, different, but not harder.
9. Define "adequate amount". You are again throwing out phrases without standards. And because of competition wages do go up.
10. They level out afterwards because the economy adjusts to the new price floor on wages.
You really didn't break down anything. You deflected by bring up Trump which has nothing to do with the issue. You deflected by talking about how the youth have it worse today than in 1984 (which is not true). You failed to set a standard on a "living wage".
When broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage
I will also add on helping poor people. Most people are poor because they are irresponsible. Raising the min. wage is not going to help them even if they did get a raise due to their irresponsibility. K-12 education is free for all in all 50 states. Even at that between 10 to 20 percent of US naturally born citizens who are of age don't have a high school diploma. That is due to irresponsibility. What makes you think they will all of a sudden be responsible now? Thus saying raising the min. wage will help the poor is not necessarily true and no one can accurately predict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The 14th amendments has it so everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The government cannot discriminate which is why Jim Crow Laws were abolish and it was the amendment for Brown vs Board. People can, government can't.
"Now, care to explain how reporting on planned demonstrations by scientists constitutes a discussion of any aspect of science?"
They are discussing science and have in the past.
" And by the way, you have yet to indicate where the Constitution
prohibits the government from funding education and scientific research"
The Constitution lists what the role of the federal government is. If it does not list funding for science and education than it is not allowed to do it.
"what makes spending on defense constitutional "
Article I, section 8
"
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;"
", who on the political left has "poisoned science,""
At this point about all of them. Politics poisons a lot. The democrats are the ones who are actively involved in science, thus they have poisoned it. Plus, those same politicians are not scientists, so by your logic they should not be discussing it.
"which go against mainstream, peer-reviewed science,"
Read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". You will not hear a scientist say the same thing politicians are saying about climate change.
1
-
1. Yes it does. A law cannot be bias towards anyone.
" And by the way, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in BOTH the
private and the public sector. "
And that is a wrong ruling as that should be a state issue involving private companies. But the SC has made incorrect rulings in the past. Look up Kelo vs City of New London.
2. They discussed science in the past and they are discussing funding in science. They are not economists either, so they should not be discussing that as well. Ana has a degree in journalism for example. Cenk has one in management.
3. In the constitution. It lists the role of congress and the presidency. So Article I and Article II.
4. "By that logic, the federal government is not allowed to fund the National Weather Service, the FDC or the CDC. "
National Weather Service can fall in line with the commerce clause as there is an interest in having weather across the country being known due to trade over state lines.. The FDC, to a degree can fall in line with the commerce clause to prevent certain food and drugs from going from one state to another that does not meet a standard. Same with the CDC to a degree.
5. " In other words, you can’t name any on the political left who have “poisoned science.”"
Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama. Remember. Sanders even admitted that he struggled in science classes.
" And by the way, how many on the left can be described as
anti-evolution, antivaxx, anti man-made global warming and anti stem
cell research? "
You keep pointing to the same things. One, evolution is what it is, a theory. Also, a Bush appointed judge in the Dover vs Penn trial ruled in favor of science over creationism. Very few are anti-vaxx and they are the radicals of the group (also, Bill Maher has been criticized for being anti-vaxx). They are not anti-man made global warming. They disagree to what degree man is playing a role in climate change. Scott Pruit even said that man is influencing climate. Also, Bush had a more environmental friendly home compared to Gore. And stem cell research was never banned. They did not want federal funds going to it.
Meanwhile the left is using science as an excuse to raise taxes and regulations and give money to special interest groups.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anthony Tillman
I doubt you have an economic degree. If you did you will realize this study is bogus as it leaves out a lot of information. One, they don't list the states. Here is the "study" linked by David Pakman
http://www.citylab.com/work/2016/12/as-an-anti-poverty-measure-raising-the-minimum-wage-works/510119/
Next, they looked at 2014. For the past few years jobs have been growing all across the nation already, thus a minute raise in the min. wage would not have had a negative effect. This is similar to when Robert Reich said that when the min. wage was raised in the mid nineties that we did not see an increase in unemployment, but instead saw more jobs. While that is true what he leaves out is that a few years prior overall unemployment was dropping to begin with along with the percent of those earning at or below the min. wage. That means jobs were being created and they were paying above the min. wage already. Thus the min. wage increase was pointless.
You said you don't buy into theories which shows how little you know about it. A price floor can be set that will not create waste in the market. With the min. wage that waste is loss of labor. That happens if the market sets a price floor that is higher than the mandated one set by the government. For example, if the price floor for labor set by the market is $8/hr, than a $7/hr min. wage set by the government will not create waste. But if it is set at above the market's price floor, such as $9/hr, than you will see waste as in loss of employment. Now at a low level you might not see it at overall employment because there are several workers, as in over 95% earning above the min. wage. You will see it in select groups such as young and unskilled workers. You don't see it in overall employment because there are many factors that play a role in that, thus that job loss gets lost in the statistical noise. As an econ major you should have took basic statistics as well.
We can determine some of these factors in this recent "study" if we knew what states were involved. They don't list them thus we can't make a determination. So in the end this does not show that the min. wage does not hurt job growth. The fact that you so easily dismiss basic theory shows you are not an econ. major, or you did not understand what you were taught. Also, if you want to say that the min. wage does not lead to loss of jobs, than explain 2007.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"A specially-designed psychiatric evaluation done by certified and listed
psychiatrists that gives you a PASS in order to buy a gun. If you fail
it, no gun for you, period. Failed records are not kept by the State,
only approved ones."
So a law abiding citizen with a minor red flag should have their rights removed? Why stop there? Why not monitor those individuals as well? Keep tabs on them, search their homes. Obviously they are too much of a threat to own a gun. They are surely too much of a threat to be left alone. Would you support that?
That aside, those test are not hard to fake. And you also deputize doctors to where any red flag, no matter how minor, will lead to them barring you from having a gun. No doctor wants to be responsible for allowing someone to own a gun and then they shoot up a place if that person had a red flag come up in their test.
"Also, official record of every gun transfer, anual or x-anual audits of
what you have, where you have it stored and a written test about
legality and proficiency training."
You don't want the government keeping track of the guns in the US. Also criminals won't follow that law and how would this law stop any of these shootings?
1
-
"Wow way to take what I proposed and run to the hills with it. The
details would have to be worked on, but a "minor red flag" like a
history of non-violent depression shouldn't bar you from owning a
defense weapon, imo, but a history of life-threats, violent and
impulsive behavior, alienation from reality, acute borderline
personalities, etc...... "
The problem with your proposal is how far are you willing to go? If your proposal were to be put into effect and another mass shooting happens, then what? Are you going to add more to it? That is why I said what I said. What you proposed may sound reasonable to you but in reality it is a doorway to more regulations.
Someone with even the slightest of autistic characteristics can be banned from owning a gun. But if that person were to still get a hold of one illegally, like Adam Lanza, then what is the next step? Keeping surveillance on them? Or even putting them behind bars? Where does it end?
" it's always "More Restrictions = Total Ban and Gun Grab from citizens"."
Because there is a great chance of it leading up to that. For example look up Washington state bill SB 5737, do you think that was a "sensible restriction"? You throw out that phrase "sensible restriction" which has no standard tied to it at all. What may be "sensible" to you may not be enough to others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
gbnz53, the idea behind state funded education as opposed to a centralized one is that it is managed better as with most state programs compared to federal ones. Also, if you have a centralized program you are telling certain states to regress towards a standard as opposed to doing what they want that may work better. There is really no one correct program to use. You point towards other countries that have a centralized system but you never mention what exactly do they do. What may work in one state might not work in another. Also, with states running the show that leads to competition.
Another reason for states running education is control. The more local government is the more control you have over it. Government education can be used as indoctrination. N. Korea has a centralized system and also has, by their standards, 100% literacy rate.
On S. Korea they do so well because they have a society that places their kids in privately ran after school programs. Working with someone from S. Korea he said that the US school are just as good as the ones in S. Korea. Students do better because of their after school program. That is a society thing, not an education issue. TX has a society that funds football and instead they have people who practice football after school or are involved in some other way. Is that necessarily bad? TX, compared to other states, do very well in education. NV struggles at public education because they are held back by Clark County. Where is the incentive to become educated when you can earn $80,000 a year parking cars or serving drinks at a casino? Again, different culture. CA has a problem of a large immigration population from Mexico (same with TX, NV, and NM). They lack teachers who can speak spanish which hurts education there as well. Again, different culture.
It is not as easy as you are making it sound. You say this
"all States who have aspirations to be say a Civil Engineer, Scientist,
Doctor, Teacher, or even a Mechanic, deserve to have the same equal
education opportunities"
when in several areas they simply don't have the people to teach certain subjects. A school by my hometown in a rural area had a biologist teaching physics. Where in cities they have AP and IB programs. As is people across the country have sufficient opportunities, especially with our college program. But what we don't need is a centralized program as it will make things worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BadBadManners Dr. Dube? Really? As I said, watch the video. It gives a lot of citations that are against the min. wage. That is opposed to the huffpost which cherry picks a lot of what they post. When you break down the argument point by point there isn't a reason to even having a min. wage. Here are some of those points
1. Economist agree to raising the min. wage-not true, most don't. You will find some but they are usually frauds. Most poles show that economist don't support the min. wage. There are way more than 600 economist in the US, but if you want to bring that up there is this http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/13/over-500-economists-against-federal-minimum-wage-increase/ . There are some things they agree on, as in a small raise will have little effect in employment, but when broken down most economist either don't want the min. wage increased, want it lowered, or want it removed. Only a minority want it raised. The issue goes deeper than that though. The min. wage, especially how small it is in the US, is one tiny fraction of the US economy. It is not a major issue in the eyes of economist as compared to taxes, NAFTA, the gold standard, etc.
2. Min. wage workers are poor-not true in the big picture. The average household income of a min. wage earner is over $47,000/yr. Over 90% of parents earning $10,000 or less have a spouse who earns $20,000 or more, with %50 of them having one that earns over $40,000. Min. wage workers are not these poor individuals trying to raise families.
3. Businesses will pay low if there were no min. wage-not true. 3/4 of min. wage workers earn a raise within a year. Less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage. Businesses are paying above the required min. due to competition.
4. Businesses can afford to pay more-Not true. Those businesses, especially in restaurant are on thin profit margin. They simply can't afford it. Look up Herman Cain talking to Clinton in 1994. He crunches the numbers in how being mandated to pay for health insurance would hurt his business. It is the same effect, a new expense.
I can go on, but point by point, when broken down there isn't a reason to even have a min. wage. But it comes down to, if the min. wage had no negative effects, than why not $100/hr? I am willing to support having no min. wage in that there isn't a reason for it, so why not $100/hr? People who don't support $100/hr do so knowing there are negative consequences for even having a min. wage, but feel that the positives outweigh the negatives. I feel there aren't any positive effects of having the min. wage and there is data to support it, such as in how they are not poor and businesses do pay more.
PS-Earning a PhD is a lot of work. While I like to display my ideas on YT, I do need to spend more time studying and doing research.
1
-
BadBadManners
1. http://people.uwec.edu/jamelsem/fte/fte/efl/teacher_stuff/articles/economists_agree.pdf
Look at Table 3, there is other info in there as well
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/charts/10_things_economists_believe-44.html
2. https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/studies/sabia_burkhauser_09-2008.pdf
https://www.epionline.org/studies/r132/
Re-reading those sources shows I as a little off on the numbers, but in the big picture min. wage earners are not poor.
3. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#1
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#10
4. Fast food restaurants are franchised. Those owners make little from the money they receive after paying bill, franchise fees, workers, taxes and so on. They may earn around 5 cents for every dollar they get. Plus, demanding less profits means less investment and overall less growth. Look at how many McDonalds there are. Same is with Walmart. Walmart could pay their workers more but that would mean they will have to close down some of their stores (I have around 6 Walmarts in my city, they can go down to 2 like Costco does), that means less jobs. They can only be open during peak hours which means less jobs and that makes it harder for those who can only shop at night to get what the want. It also means longer lines at checkouts. Walmart could do that if they take in less profits, or they can invest and grow.
It isn't Walmart's fault that those workers refuse to improve their situation. Walmart can always fire them. Walmart didn't have to give them a job.
And at one point Walmart did support a higher min. wage knowing it would hurt smaller businesses it competes with.
PS-Yes, I am pressed for time most of the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And I told you how you are incorrect. It isn't that they work harder. It is that they are in a position to generate that much wealth. As I said, give one guy a shovel and another a backhoe, tell them to dig as many ponds as they can in a week. The guy with the shovel will work very had and maybe get one done.
I, myself, have negative wealth but yet have my own apartment, my own car, have good health, and is working on my PhD. I work very hard but I don't produce much, if any wealth right now. So it isn't about them working harder, it is about them being in position to develop a lot of wealth.
To add to that, you have to consider that in the US a homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Does that mean the homeowner works 30 times harder? No. In the US, for the average person, beyond owning a home they have little wealth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ncc 0990, that is not how insurance works. Insurance is a two party agreement between the company and consumer. The consumer is willing to pay a fee to a company and if something unplanned that is extreme and expensive happens then the company will pay for it. And if not in the end the person buying the insurance ends up paying something for nothing, and the company earns revenue. If you, as a consumer, participates in risky behavior, however, then the company can drop you.
Take care insurance for example. If you have multiple accidents that are your fault then your rate will go up or you company will drop you. But in the end car insurance pays for unplanned accidents that are expensive, such as if someone totals your car. But won't pay for oil changes.
The problem we have is because of the payroll tax businesses use insurance as a form of payment it essentially healthcare insurance has become healthcare. That is the problem. But in the end insurance is not you paying or other people's care, or at least it should not be.
You, as well, do not understand insurance. You do not plan to use insurance as if you do then something extreme that is expensive happened to you. Please, to fully understand the issue at hand, learn what insurance is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" We see what the private health care industry does. It's too expensive for a lot of people and before the AHA"
The private healthcare system with many government barriers have made it expensive. Contrary to popular liberal belief we do not have a free market system. For example, the payroll tax has made it so people are highly dependent on their employer for healthcare. Instead of receiving a higher wage to buy a plan they want and making companies compete, they are depending on their employer to receive a generic plan. Also, all of healthcare is encompassed in insurance where insurance should be for expensive, emergency care.
" People were denied for prior conditions, and in many cases denied coverage for stupid reasons"
I agree that is a problem. But the system is set so you have to depend highly on your employer for healthcare. If you change jobs at an older age you will be changing plans meaning you have a higher chance of having a pre-existing conditions. If you were allowed to earn a higher wage instead you can get a plan at a younger age and stick with it for life no matter how many times you change jobs.
" plus they only spent maybe 50% of their income on the service they provided."
50% of a bit of a stretch.
" You know who doesn't care about a profit margin? The government."
Without profit means no desire to grow. Do you do everything for free in life? If you say yes you are lying. Profit means growth. Profit means that someone invested resources, typically money, in something and generate wealth. Take you for example. If you were to spend money on a new car you want to profit off of it. That means you can get to work, the store, school, etc. easier saving you time and energy to concentrate on other things.
The government with no profit motive has no desire to improve. Some of our greatest inventions came from private companies. The government really does nothing. They don't. Also with government they have the power. They can strip away your healthcare almost anytime they want. If a healthcare company did that they will lose money. If the government does that what do they lose? They are still in office and are still taxing us.
" I'd much rather have them run health care insurance rather than a
private business because the business will do whatever it is to make a
profit and make their CEOs happy, which includes screwing people over,"
In the competitive free market if a private company screwed people over they will go out of business. Government is running a $20 trillion debt but is still around. Name me a company that can do that.
"because they're not in it for the money,"
How many millionaires are in congress, that includes Bernie Sanders.
"They're supposed to be in it for the people."
Only 2 senators come from you state, the other 98 do not care about you I guarantee it. I was going to email Bernie Sanders one day but wasn't allowed to. You know why? Because I was not a resident of Vermont. He does not serve me or anyone else outside of Vermont just like Mitch McConnel does not serve anyone outside of Kentucky.
"So, if they are taking bribes, and are being corrupted then what are the people supposed to do? "
To me that is not give them power over our healthcare.
" You can't get good fair health insurance with private corps,"
Define fair.
"Canada or some other country that has an actual working government program."
It has many shortcomings and when you break down the numbers their systems are no better then ours.
1
-
"Everyone can be bought regardless if the government is big or small, "
True, but pay attention here. If the government does not have the power then it can't do anything no matter how much money is thrown to it.
Let me give you an example. The only federal tax used to be a tax on the states based on population. In 1913 an federal individual income tax was allowed. That means the federal government was given the power to tax individuals.
Now prior to 1913 only the states taxed individuals. So a rich person can give all the money they wanted to federal politicians asking them to lower their income taxes but it would never happen. Why? Because the federal government did not have the power to control income taxes. Now they do. So a rich person or business can throw money at federal politicians and they can change how much taxes they pay because they now have that power.
Does that make sense? If the government does not have power then it can't do anything, thus it can't be corrupted. To give you a comparison say you are out drinking and your friend wants to drive drunk. You tell them not to and wave your finger at them saying it is not good. They do it anyway. With me I will just take away their keys. They can't drive without the keys. You idea is trying to tell people to behave and expecting them to listen, my idea is realizing they can't behave and thus take away things from them to keep them out of trouble. Now with government, government can't be bought out if it does not have power to sell. You want to give government all this power an expect them to serve the people. But when some rich person comes along and pays them enough they will end up listening to the rich person.
"Now answer me this if the policy that benefits business rather then
people and the reasons these policies are coming into place are because
businesses are corrupting them, what makes you think letting businesses
roam free with little to no check going to fix policies that are in
favor of businesses and not people. "
If the government has limited power then it can't create such policies, period. There will not be policies that favor businesses because the government's power is limited and would not be allowed to create such policies in the first place. Does that make sense?
You rip on businesses because of your hatred towards them. But I never had a business force me to do anything. In the end all a business can do is offer you a job and/or a product. I never had a business force me to give up my money or forced me to use their goods and services. Government has. Government has the power of force. When you give it too much power and don't keep the ability to control it then people with money will corrupt it.
"Well that happens at local levels as well probably to a far greater degree since their is less coverage."
Not true as in the local level government is held way more accountable. I met both candidates for mayor in my city. I met the governor. I know what goes in in our public school systems and how our public parks and roads look like. At the local level and I can see if government is actually serving me and if I don't like it I can rally to change it easier. I can attend town hall meetings if I want and push people to vote in another way or give my argument in an intelligent way. And in the very end if my local government does not serve the people I can always move to another city or state and remain a US citizen.
" this has to be solved by activism and convincing enough people your side is right and that they should vote,"
Which is easier to do at the local level. We have 320+ million people in the US. Now not all are voting age, around 235,000,000 are. Now try to convince a good portion of them to side with you. The reality is you can't. The US is too large and diverse. It has too many cultures. At the local level you can though. You can get people to side with you and if they won't then either you have to adjust to them or move to a place with people that agree with you.
That is one thing I love about the US, it is diverse. I moved 2000 miles away from my home and realized the diversity and appreciate it. A one size fits all centralized government is not the solution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" I'm talking about education as a whole."
We are talking about college education. Don't try to change the topic.
"Yes, I said I want to SIPHONE educators from other countries which woild
require a higher wage, regardless of where they are taught. Also,
reform how they teach, copy the Nordic regions on how it's done.
Honestly not that hard."
It i that hard. One, do Nordic countries actually do it better? What is your measure of success in education? Test results or productivity? The US is in the top 5 in productivity. Other countries may test well, but we educate people that can actually produce. Also, those countries are much smaller and are less diverse than the US. You can't compare them to the US. I feel we need to leave education to the states. For the most part we do, but we need to dismantle the department of education. And how are we going to pay for higher wages?
"Yes and how do they limit it? THROUGH GRADES. Yes. I firmly believe thay
education should be made affordable to u IF U KEEP A CERTAIN GRADE
POINT AVERAGE. That's how it's done in most places and a public option
DOES ARTIFICIALLY LOWER COSTS, u buffoon "
Again, ever heard of grade inflation? Colleges will see an opportunity to get more money and thus will accept many students knowing they will get more money in the end. If the government places a cap on how many can attend then there is the argument they are discriminating. Remember, those tax dollars belong to everyone.
"ur education is falling behind the the rest of the modern world, and you critique them? Gtfo"
Our university system is by far superior. There is a reason why we have the highest rate of international students in the world.
"Yes, too bad "basic" education isn't as good for America In general like
HIGHER education and HIGHER skilled workers. Hur durrrrr. And I already
told u u I was speaking generally about teachers AND professors."
You are really starting to sound immature with your comments, but the topic was college education. Please don't deflect. Even at that you said a basic education, and that is K-12.
"No moron, the Fed gov has been REDUCING it's subsides to colleges and
allowing more privitization to take its place since the late 70s which
HELPED in leading it's bombastic rise in tuition costs"
Not true. We created the federal student loan program in the mid 60s. Also, federal government spending has been increasing since the 50s. Expand the graph. You learn about statistics in economics so you should know not to truncate the graphs but look at the whole thing. Government spending on tertiary education went from less than 2% of GDP to close to 6% from the 50s to now.
"They were better off in the 60s becasue it was LESS PRIVITIZED. Agian, u don't understand what an inelastic model is."
You have no understanding of data and statistics.
"Tuition is covered via taxes, teachers (generally speaking) will be
attracted to the profession by offering MORE not less to them,"
The professors don't exist. Around 2% of the population has a PhD and their unemployment rate is less than 2%. They have jobs. The fact is that the skilled workers do not exist. You should have learned about supply and demand in economics as well.
"dorms will not be covered as it's not a necesity to live on campus that's on u. Tutors can be covered.
"
The tutors do not exist and people have to live somewhere. Right now on my campus we are short apartments and dorms. Rent is going up and we can't build fast enough. Also, we have limited space because other people know the value of their property is going up so they are not going to sell until it becomes higher meaning rent is going to be more expensive.
"And it's funny that u think u understand economics seeing how u dont undestand what an inelastic model is? lol"
You don't understand basic supply and demand or how to read statistics. Government spending is almost three times hire today than it was in the 50s. But you truncated the data to the 80s to fit your agenda. On supply and demand more college students means more people needing a place to live. Thus rent goes up due to limited supply of rooms to rent. Demand went up but supply didn't. So guess what happened? Prices go up. Land prices are going up because people with vacant lots and buildings know that they can charge more since the demand for land is up. This is how I know you did not take economics or you did not learn anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terri, I have several friends who are doctorate in the science field who lean right. As a whole, in academics they do lean left, but it also more or less depends on the department and where the university is at. In the midwest you will find more conservative professors, especially in the STEM fields and business fields, fields that do require more critical thinking and problem solving.
To answer you questions
Climate change: I despise the political left's stance on it. They misrepresent science to create more excuses to expand the government and create more taxes and regulations. We should continue doing research in it and progressing in technology, but we should get politics out of the issue. This is why I side with republicans. Under Bush funding for science research went up. The republican's stance is clear, they support science, they just want to leave it to the scientist. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, no republican wants to die poor. In order to generate wealth we need technology to advance, thus they support science.
EPA: Before the EPA air quality was improving The EPA is nothing more than added layers of bureaucracy and federal government overreach. We should really dismantle it.
Abortion: This is not really an issue involving science. If you want to go that route than once can say that life starts at conception. By definition a sack of cells are living. As a whole I don't have a stance abortion besides it should be a state law
Stem cell research: I support it and it is legal. All Bush said was that federal funds won't fund it. I support that as well but that is more of me supporting state rights.
If you really understood republicans you will see that they support science. If there really is an anti-science party it is the democrats for them politicizing it. Republicans say what they do to appeal to the religious fundamentalists that vote for them, just like Obama, in facing a tough re-election in 2008 said he supported gay marriage (even though he has never done anything for the gay community). He said that to appeal to the gay vote. That's politics. Navigate that and you will see many different things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+LTrotsky 21st Century A few things here:
1. The study says "What they found was that it did not have a big negative impact on those cities"
There was a negative impact though. That is the point, they admitted to the negative effect but never mentioned any positive effect. You have to realized that in the economy as large as the US is that $10 is small. That is why you can raise the min. wage and not see many negative effects because it all gets lost in the statistical noise. But if you were to raise it to $50/hr then it will have a larger role which is why no politician wants that.
When you look at groups effected by the min. wage the most, such as low skilled workers (teenagers for example) and businesses who pay low wages, you see higher prices and less hours. That is why teenage unemployment is going along with the min. wage.
2. You are looking at cities that already have a higher cost of living. The city with the highest min. wage is Emeryville, CA. It is home to Pixar, their largest employer. They have a lot of workers who earn at least $80,000/yr. They have a median income of $45,000 per household. Now compare that to my hometown which is mainly a rural area with a median household income of $29,000.
Those cities possess tech jobs that generate more wealth where rural areas don't. Just because is supposedly works in certain cities (which is debatable, San Fran. has extreme high cost of living) doesn't mean it will work elsewhere.
I can go on with the high cost of living. San Fran. has a home ownership rate of 36%, far below CA average of 55%, or the US rate of 63%. The cost of living is high there. A $10/hr wage is low compared to other areas of the country. It is like an obese person eating 10 pounds of candy a day and then eating 12 pounds a day a year later and seeing no weight gain. The situation was bleak to begin with.
Study more economics there. I will start with you own source you cited, they even admit there were negative results.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr Point 1: setting up the exact system that can be exploited by future generations
That means a lot. There were supposed to be limitations on the federal government because we are supposed to have a checks and balance system to where the federal government were not to have too much power to become oppressive and change the rules in their favor. Warren wants to create these laws with ease to allow the federal government to regulate the market and economy the way they want. That may be great and may help out the citizens. Now what is going to happen when future politicians come in and change the laws, with ease, to benefit them?
It was similar to Herman Cain when he wanted to easily create the 9 9 9 tax plan, he wanted to create another tax. It might have worked. But, what is going to stop the future president from raising that new tax? It as put in place easily, so how it is going to be stopped. It is exactly comparable to what Warren wants. She wants the government to regulate itself with more regulators. Now who is going to regulate the regulators?
This brings up point 2: we have seen this happen a lot
Under Obama the stock market has grew because the federal government pumped $85 billion a month in it when the top 10% own 90% of stocks. Remember who helped the big banks get bigger during the recession? The federal government. The federal government has stepped out of bounds on their limitations. Warren wants to set up a system where the federal government has more power to regulate when that is what caused the problem to begin with, the federal government had power to regulate. They changed the regulations in their favor. This is why we were supposed to have state rights and a limited federal government. All of the problems Warren is mentioning wouldn't be happening if the federal government didn't have power to get involved in Wall Street or the market to begin with.
Put it in this analogy, let us say a person, the government started a fire, and Wall Street and the big banks are the fire fighters. She is blaming the fire fighters, Wall street and the banks, for not putting out the fire when she should blame the government for starting it to begin with.
And what is with the genetic fallacy of Atlas Shrugged? I guess I can play this as well. How long does your welfare check last you? 2 weeks? I can play childish games as well.
1
-
Ylze Tyr The fire analogy makes great sense. The politicians started the fire and then those same politicians complain when Wall Street and the banks just let it burn. The federal government created the problem. The banks didn't create the fire, the government did.
We can use this analogy. Wall Street and the banks bought power from the federal government they shouldn't have had to begin with. It is like going to a store and buying alcohol, if the store doesn't have alcohol than it can't be bought. If the federal government didn't have power then it can't be bought. Wall Street and the banks are powerless until they have the aid of the federal government if the federal government has unchecked power.
We have a system where we can have checks and power of governments and we can have government that works for us. We just have to use it.
The federal government should be limited to dealing with foreign affairs, enforcing the constitution on the states, and dealing with commerce between states. The federal government isn't there to deal with domestic policies, or regulating wall street, or other financial regulations. If we leave the government to that than these big banks and wall street won't be taking advantage of US tax dollars, and changing the regulations in their favor.
The states and local governments were supposed to take care of domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the federal government. The state and local governments are the one who should be responsible for regulations on the market, not the fed.
Your problem is that you feel that the federal government should provide X, Y, and Z which could help society. Programs like the EPA, or roads (both which take up a minute part of the budget) could be good for the people, but now the federal government has the power to do A, B, and C which benefit the politicians and the people they are connected too but not society. You are in support of that system. You, like Warren complain with the system gets taken advantage of, but it is the exact same system you set up. It is like walking through a dangerous neighborhood at night and getting mugged. Are the muggers to blame? Yes, but it would have never happen if you weren't walking there alone at night.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr
It isn’t broad response, it is the fact that states and local governments should be taking care of domestic policies. I can’t get down into details because each state and local government has different issues to deal with. The federal government shouldn’t be micromanaging domestic policies, especially economic ones. One can write a book going through state by state in what each one should do because each state is different. My home state has low taxes and we are seeing job growth and had a major company move in which is creating more jobs that pay well (starting at $25/hr), the federal government shouldn’t create a policy that chases that company away. Each state has different situations to deal with and should be left to deal with them.
Take the min. wage for example. Now I told you my position on how there isn’t a good argument to have one, push that aside for now. You showed me once the “living wage” calculator. If you look at that it is different in every area of the states and local areas. If there were to even be a min. wage it should be set by the states and local governments. Because $10/hr is a lot of money in some rural Midwestern area where rent is low, taxes are low, overall cost of living is low and so on. Where $10/hr is nothing if you tried living by yourself in San Francisco. Creating a federal min. wage disproportionally hurts smaller, more rural areas which is one reason why republicans, who gain a lot of votes from rural areas, are against it but democrats, who gain a lot of votes from cities, support it. I have seen small businesses in small towns die due to an expensive federal regulation that wasn’t necessary in that town or state. Why should the federal government create policies that hurt certain states, cities and towns? I bet you don’t like it when Mitch McConnell pushes his policies, but guess what, his state voted for him to help out his state, not yours.
I despise Warren. She is too radical to be a federal politician and isn’t too bright. That doesn’t matter because I can’t vote for her. She isn’t the voice of me, she is the voice of her people that voted for her. If they want what she supports than her states should implement it in their state and not force it down other people’s throats. I didn’t vote for her, so why should she determine domestic policies in my home state.
It is funny how you criticize me for being broad when you support the federal government enforcing broad economic policies in a complex economy.
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr What if a small town doesn't need a min. wage? What if their cost of living is so low and businesses pay well enough, or people manage their money well enough a min. wage isn't needed? Why be a fascist and force your agenda down their throats? Those individuals are happy as is. Here is your problem, you are on the outside looking in on certain situations that you feel that certain people are "oppressed" or "in a bad situation" when really all they want is to mind their own business. You, like Warren, want to force what you think is right on them. That is the type of federal government you want. But when other people do it, force what they think is right on your, you complain and bitch and moan. Well, what goes around comes around. I am supporting a system where you can create policies that you want and not force it on others, just like others won't be forcing their policy on you
The other problem with you is that you can't imagine a life without the federal government because you are so dependent on it. You love when the government offers you X, Y and Z, but complain when they do A, B and C. Well, that is the system you wanted. You wanted to be dependent on the government. You wanted less freedom and wanted to give the government more freedom and this is the result. You wanted it and you got it.
I like how you called me sexist, the mayor I recently voted for, and who won by the way, was a woman.
I gave specifics, you are too ignorant to see them because as I said, you want the federal government to have more freedom to make you dependent on them. Meanwhile you gave them more freedom to do what they want. Warren wants more freedom to put more "police" on wall street and then future politicians will have more freedom to have the police enforce what they want. Not really a novel solution.
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr I am being specific, domestic policies should be left up to the states. You ask me what policies and I said domestic policies, that is specific. You clearly lack the intelligence to understand that.
Your idea on the min. wage is again flawed. Not every area needs it, just like not every area needs high or low taxes, or strict business regulations, so they shouldn't be forced to take them on.
I don't like how Warren is wanting to force domestic policy down people's throat at the federal level. The federal government has no business creating wall street regulations or any business regulations. The federal government has no business creating a min. wage, or changing business taxes. The federal government has no business getting involved in environmental regulations, those are issues that should be left up to the states. Warren is pushing to expand the role of the federal government which shouldn't be done. I didn't vote for Warren, she isn't the voice of me. I don't want her policies shoved down my throat. That is why the federal government is limited to foreign policy, enforcing the constitution on the states, and dealing with commerce between states. States will deal with domestic policy and enforcing the constitution on the fed.
Regulations on wall street, which Warren is talking about here, is a domestic issue and thus a state issue. If you can't understand that it is clear why you have become so dependent on the federal government and lack intelligence to be free of dependency of the federal government.
1
-
Ylze Tyr I was specific, they are domestic policies, all domestic policies should be dealt with at the state level. Sorry you can't understand that. I broke it down for you, now you just playing games or really are stupid. I also told you want I disagree with on Warren, allowing the federal government to deal with more domestic issues.
Here you go again just saying that I lose feeling like you won. Well sorry you don't understand due to your lack of intelligence. Here, I will break down again, the federal government should only deal with foreign policy, enforcing the constitution on the states, and dealing with commerce between states. The states and local government should deal with all domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the federal government. Regulations no wall street is a domestic policy thus it should be left up to the states. The min. wage is a domestic policy and should be left up to the states. Taxes on businesses and individuals are domestic policies and should be left up to the states. Any welfare programs, education, money on research and so on are domestic policies and should be left up to the states.
The reason for this is because as country as large and complex as the US, and knowing how complex our society and economy it, the states and local government should take care in micromanaging domestic policies. Not only is it more effective but it gives people the strongest representation in government out there. As I said before, I don't want Warren's policies and if I did I will push for it with my local representatives. But I didn't vote for Warren so why should she force me to go with a certain domestic policy? Just like I am sure you don't like Rand Paul, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and other republicans on congress. Well, it doesn't matter because you can't vote for the vast majority of them.
That is specific. At this point either you lack reading comprehension, don't know what specific means, or, and I don't want to stoop down to your level but I will, you were just defeated and are now being a troll.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
zarplex2003 Here is what it takes to get a PhD, you stand in front of 5 professors and you have to make 3 happy. You could actually get by with zero publications. Now it is hard but it can be done. Also, she studied bankruptcy law, doesn't mean she understands economics, it means she understand law. And like I said about lawyers, they have a way to working with the law to their advantage.
Dig a little deeper in Warren. She married a Harvard law professor, that will aid you in getting a job as a professor. Several spouses of college professor teach remedial courses at college. She is no different. You can teach as a university with only a masters, or just a JD which is most likely what she has and which is different than PhD. With a JD you don't have to defend, you just complete a program much like a MD or a PharmD. That is why they don't use the title "doctor" (except for the MD). She is a now a politician. That suits her skills well of speaking and being charismatic to buy votes. You don't have to be knowledgeable to be a politician, you just have to convince people to vote for you. She has done that.
In all of that she has shown little experience in the market and the economy. She has shown a lot of experience in politicians and the law. She is great at getting the ignorant to vote for her and she is winning that way.
I also like how you criticize my writing skills. This is a youtube comment that I spend like a minute on, not my dissertation which is I am essentially spending 3 years on.
1
-
1
-
zarplex2003 Actually you don't need to know about economics to study bankruptcy law, all you need to know about is law. That is it. Also, Warrant doesn't have a PhD in bankruptcy law, she most like has a JD which is why she doesn't have the title of "Doctor".
I have tons of real world experience as well. We can get into a pissing contest if you want. I do have published work in a peer review journal and am on my way towards a PhD. On top of that I do have another hobby which I am quite successful in and I simply won't tell you because I don't wan to reveal too much about me, but it does involve athletics. I have worked several jobs in public education, the private sector for a small business, a major corporation at a warehouse, for the university, two in fact, and have done a lot of volunteer work. I have been out there and have interacted with actual people. I will tell you first hand Warren doesn't represent any of them. If she were to run for president I would promise you she will get destroyed. That is my number one problem with her, besides her complete ignorance on economics (she is the same woman who supports a $22/hr min.wage based on ????) she wants to force her government down other people's throat who never even voted for her. She needs to really stop doing that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Khalkara There are no truths in science. Only theories. That doubt is what has scientist wanting to do research and keep progress going. As Richard Feynman said"Religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt"and"I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, let us break this down.
1. Spend money we don't have to build things we don't need. Our roads are fine, we spend more per pupil in education than any other country besides 1. Our bridges are fine. Plus, the new deal prolong the recession. Poor investment doesn't grow the economy.
2. Reverse climate change? It has been happening for over 4 billion years. Plus, as with the first, where is the money going to come from? Alternative energy sources are expensive, less consumption means less jobs, not more.
3. You increase productivity by pushing people to develop skills and take on more challenging jobs, not giving them share of the company. If the Walmart employees owned part of the company doesn't lead them to be more productive because the productivity of those workers is low as is. This point doesn't work in every business.
4. Unions have been shown to kill jobs. Yes they pay more, but as with the min. wage if you are not worth the rate the union sets than you don't get a job.
5. The vast majority earning the min. wage are not poor. Plus, $7.25/hr is not a starvation wage if you, like most low wage workers, are not the major earner of a household. The amount of money someone makes is meaningless if the purchasing power is low. Increasing the min. wage leads to higher prices thus more poverty.
6. The earnings gap between men and women and been debunked in several ways, it is a waste of time to discuss at this point.
7. One reason why we are losing manufacturing jobs is because of higher taxes and regulations. Another reason is because that is the evolution of the economy. Instead of holding onto archaic jobs we should focus on new jobs. Just like how the tractor replaced the farmer or the computer replaces other jobs, people need to develop skills.
8. The US has the best education in the world, it is because it isn't free. Plus, almost anyone qualifies for a loan. At University of MN the average loan for a pharmacy graduate is around $150,000, but their median starting salary is $120,000/yr. If you pursue a degree that is worth something than cost doesn't matter.
9. He is talking about breaking up wall street and big banks, I feel we should break up the federal reserve.
10. A single payer system in healthcare simply won't work in this country. Plus, the US has the best quality in the world, why destroy it like other countries have. And where is the money going to come from after we spend it on free college education, infrastructure and green energy?
11.People in poverty are better off than individuals in other countries who are not in poverty. What he said about child poverty in this country is deceptive, also at this point we have no more resources left if we want to do 1-10.
12. We have a progressive tax. The top 10$ pay 70% of taxes.
Basically with Bernie Sanders he wants to spend money we don't have and destroy the country. Typical of a career politician who never worked outside of politics in his life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mcjagggerd I heard the talk about unions and pay. Pay isn't the only factor. One, what about purchasing power? Alaska, Hawaii and NY are on that list of strong unions and high pay. The cost of living in those states are high. That compared to Texas where cost of living is low. And as I mentioned before, unions kill jobs as with what Mr. Sowell said here
http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/nov/27/unions-often-better-at-killing-jobs-than-creating/
Now I don't consider this the best of articles but time constraints is preventing me from look at more. But unions do kill jobs. I work in a job where we are not allowed to change a light bulb because the unions involved prevent it, maintenance is supposed to change it.
On the min. wage, you are paid your market value, not to make a living. It is up to you to determine how to make a living. One way is to cut expenses. Most low wage earners are not the primary earners of a household. That has been shown statistically. For example, the average household income of a person earning $9.50/hr or less is over $47,000/yr, that is because they are not the primary earner. The simple fact is that if you are not worth more in the market and you don't have friends and family to help you out than what are you worth in society? Sounds cruel but it is a fact.
College is expensive, but there are cheap smaller colleges and almost everyone is able to get a loan. Just push for a degree that is worth something.
I support regulation in the market, I just want it at the state and local level. With that you have local communities helping each other out as opposed to people just asking the federal government to do it and not caring. That is the number one problem we have, we don't want to help each other, we just want the federal government to do it all for us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Usamljeny Nitko
" I never said they weren't, i was just trying to say that the problem isn't they're whining, the problem is that professors and administrators cave to them when they do, because the student is the customer and the customer is always right. So when they don't want a speaker to do a forum at the university or they complain about a bad grade, the University has to listen to them, instead of setting them straight."
I tend to disagree. Anyway, you gain a lot more from college than just an education. You should also gain connections. If you are a student who complains and can't formulate a solid argument then you will be viewed as a poor student and will have a hard time gaining connections. So there is more to it than what you are saying.
"What? That doesn't follow what i said. I said thay the demand for an education is inelastic, meaning no matter what the price of tuition is, people are either going to find a way to pay for it, or they practically wouldn't be able to afford it as the cost would lead them to personal insolvency. Or in other words if you don't have enough money, you can't get an education, and one of the only ways to increase you're economic prospects is by obtaining an education, thus creating a permanent impoverished class of people."
Not necessarily. There are a lot of cheap colleges available for those looking to get better. As I said, it also comes to connections. Even if you can't get into a four year university you can attend a two year university to start. To say that people will be priced out of it is simply not true. You also have night and online courses.
You view government funding for education as an investment. We lack workers in the STEM fields. Also, those who excel in the STEM fields can usually excel in other fields such as economics. The most common degree held by CEOs are engineers and there is a reason why. They are problem solvers and think critically. The one major drawback of most of those in the STEM fields is their lack of social skills which can usually be cured by working a job with other people.
Other field such as philosophy, sociology, economics, etc. are very straight forward to read up on and learn. The best way to teach those subjects is to teach students how to develop a proper argument, that's it. What I mean is say you are debating an economic subject, say the min. wage. I had one co-worker tell me that that the average age of the min. wage worker is 31. I told them that is not looking at the data correctly. Say you have 3 people all earning the min. wage. One is 16, one is 20, another is 57. The average age is 31. One person skews the data. But even that can be taught in a statistics course about the proper way to analyze stats.
In all, if you want the government to "invest" in society through education you have to look at what has always develop wealth. Through history, especially since the industrial revolution that has always been the STEM fields. That is also shown through the low unemployment rate and high earnings by those with a STEM degree. You want people to have a job and feel you need a degree for a job. STEM fields increases your chance.
So no, it is not smog arrogance. It is as simple fact that if we want government to invest in society to develop wealth then we have to invest in the STEM fields. Philosophy majors earn around $40,000 a year. Is that really an investment?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Usamljeny Nitko
For the most part yes, think tanks do have a political agenda. That book is straight forward in how it is written, and here is what one of the authors had to say about it
"Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates,” he told me. “We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.” These factors (which could also include rates obesity and smoking, also arguably the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily."
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/
What they are showing in that book is that you can't just say other countries have better healthcare systems or that the US is inferior. The stats do not show that. People go off of the raw data, but when you do a different analysis then the numbers reveal something different.
The differences between the results of the US system and other countries is minute, especially when you consider the size of the US and thus the complexity. At the conclusion of the book they agreed that the US has problems and offer ideas to improve it. I do not agree with them, but they do say that.
The fact that you refuse to even read part of the book displays the problem with several people in this country, including you. You refuse to read different sources and critically think. I am not saying you have to agree with it, but you should read it and think about it. I read several sources and listen to different people. As someone who is actually intelligent I can think critically. You seem to refuse to consider reading something, that is actually straight forward and easy to read, because you have an attitude of not wanting to learn or feeling you might be wrong.
"Yet you have repeatedly misrepresented my postitions, you claimed to know my motivations "you know, for someone wanting to educate society" i never claimed that was my intention,"
That was your intention though.
"Shows that you don't indentify as such, yet have continuely attempted to express; or in case feign, concern over the democratic party; the party that nominally represents liberals and liberal values,"
In over the past decade the democratic party has become extreme. I supported a lot of democrats in the past and still support some. But they are being overtaken by radicals who refuse to think. Here I offer a book to you and you find a lame excuse to not read it. They have become a group that rather appeal to emotions as opposed to thinking critically. That is a problem. They offer good ideas that can be tried in different areas of the country. But the second you oppose their ideas in anyway then they run away like you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You compare a household with firearms to a household that doesn't have them."
With the same people, same income, same lifestyle and up bringing? Is all other variables held constant? No. I own 4 guns and I have yet to see one jump up out of the stand, load itself and shoot. Now does having a gun increase my chances of getting shot by one? By default yes. Just like driving a car increases my chance of getting a traffic ticket.
"So, either only people from households that are much more suicidal buy
guns, or maybe, just maybe, not having a gun you can quite effectively
use to end your life within few seconds in a household makes people
consider their situation more, thus preventing them from killing
themselves..."
There are several ways to end you life beyond owning a gun, Japan proves that.
"So, a bunch of gun violence is an outlier in statistics that are meant to show facts about gun violence?"
There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of gun violence, they throw the stats off for the entire country.
"You're not the standard of which we use to determine things."
You can say the same for millions of people in the country who avoid places of high gang activity.
1
-
"If you would have bothered to read the study, it says several times that they adjusted for demographic characteristics."
I have read the study and the study said itself, in the discussion section that there are a number of limitations such as the neighborhood a person is living in and that more research is needed. The strongest correlation is with suicides. Gun control advocates want to prevent gun murder and gun related crime which is not suicides. Suicides are a completely different issue that is not gun related. And suicides is self inflicted harm. I suggest you read your studies you cite more carefully.
"Yes, so can we assume that you don't feel that it's necessary for
Americans to have their guns to be able to end their lives? That we
could possibly take away guns from people who are sucidal and maybe
return them if and when they have gotten the help they deserve? So that
while they're contemplating suicide they'd have to plan for it to take
minutes and maybe cause much more pain instead of what time it takes to
pull a trigger and what they might feel when a bullet goes through their
brain?"
Suicide is a non-gun related issue. If you are wanting to ban guns to prevent suicides then why not push to put nets around bridges, or ban alcohol (been tried) or drugs (which is illegal) considering how that is the 2nd method for suicides.
At this point it is clear to me that you are more scared of the gun and want to flat out ban it. I have four guns as is. Three are rifles that sit in a stand and are completely harmless. One is a pistol that sits in my drawer by my bed loaded for in home protection. Now to you seems to be the scariest thing in the world. To me that is perfectly safe considering how guns just don't accidentally fire, it is in a holster, and tucked away. Any accidents happening with guns is pure negligence and is not gun related at all.
"There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of pollution, they throw the stats off for the entire country.
There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of wealth, they throw the stats off for the entire country.
There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of car accidents, they throw the stats off for the entire country."
I fully agree with what you said.....so whats your point?
"When were talking about the gun violence statistics of United States, it
means ALL THE GUN VIOLENCE in United States is taken into account.
You can't just decide to drop areas out to get a more favourable result."
In statistics you can. Let me throw an example here. Say a classroom with student takes a tests and 5 score 70 and 5 score 80. Now say you have another class that take the same test and 5 score 50 and 5 score 100. Both classes average out to be a 75. Does that mean both classes are equal? No. On class is more uniform where another class has students holding back the average. Let us say instead of 5 scoring 50 and 5 scoring 100 you have 7 scoring 90 and 3 scoring 40. What is the average? 75. Are the two classes equal? Based off of that stat yes. But in reality one class is more uniformed where the other has 3 weak students holding back the entire class. You can drop outliers.
"But i can't say it to the millions of people in the country who happen
to live in places of high gang activity and lack the means to move.
And i can't say that either of you are the standard of measurement.
No, that would be those statistics you want to fudge to your benefit so
much..."
People who live in those area have a right to defend themselves. Your source you cited even mentioned about people using guns for protection from home break ins. There are law abiding citizens who live in poor neighborhoods that have a gun for protection. What is wrong with that?
1
-
Now let me revisit your earlier comment and what you said.
1. "Oh look, how nice. There's been 5 mass shooting since Orlando..."
When you water down the standard of a mass shooting then of course the number will be high. This comes down to when you remove the areas of high crime in the US then the number drops a lot. Out of those 5 three are in places notorious for crime, Brooklyn, Oakland and Chicago. One is in Fresno thus 4 of the 5 are in states with very strict gun laws to begin with. And before you cry about how I just can't drop areas to get favorable results, consider the example I gave about the two classrooms.
"the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 4.8)..."
I addressed how you can't even read your own sources.
".an almost threefold risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 2.7)..."
Again, your source stated several limitations such as the neighborhood where one lives. This goes with how you can remove areas of very high crime in the US and crime is very low. Remove the outliers and you get a more accurate representation of what is really going on.
"You do know that some people live and work in the "hood" and don't have the financial means to move?"
I agree, and they should have a gun to protect themselves. I don't live in the hood and even I have a gun for in home protection. Why do you want to take away their only form of protection? Do you want to take away the locks on their door as well?
"You do know that many, if not most of the guns in the hands of criminals
are from gun owners that kept them in their cars or unsecured in their
houses where they were then stolen from? That the large amount of guns
in civilian hands is the reason for large amount of guns in criminal
hands?"
That is negligence. You can't blame the gun for that.
"United States is 18th worse country in the world, when looking at
homicides done by firearms. There it is, in the middle of developing-
and third world countries."
Just don't single out gun homicides, look at overall homicide.
I know guns are scary to you, but just because you are scared of them doesn't mean you have to strip rights from others. I feel the ignorance you just spewed is scary but I will never push to have your freedom of speech taken away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ylze Tyr "he has said he is going to release his full tax plan before Iowa."
And as I said, he has been in congress for over 2 decades, there should have been an approximate number in there. He is planning all of these things but when asked how he will pay for them he simply said "raise taxes on the rich". He has to get into more detail than that.
I don't attack Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton or others in that way because they are not the ones out there promising all of these things like healthcare, college, jobs, infrastructure and so on. Bernie said he will offer those things and when asked how he plans to pay for it he simply says that he is working on it. How does he even know he can pay for it at that point? The simple answer is that he is a nut. He wants to offer all of these things but does not even have a clue of how, and he has been in congress for over 2 decades.
So no, I did not dodge anything. And from your anger I have a feeling that someone is upset for getting burned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Fredrik Herre I want numbers from Bernie because he is promising all of these things but has not given any specifics on how he will offer them. Sure, others have been broad in what they plan to do, but they are not offering a bunch of things to people. None of their ideas are radical or unrealistic. Bernie's are unless he can go through the numbers and convince me otherwise.
"Have you checked up on the rest of the world? There are already
countries that has all his ideas AND MORE implemented. Why wouldn't it
be doable in the US?"
Simply saying "look at the rest of the world" is a hand wavy argument. They are different countries, several with populations less than most of our states. They all do different things and in reality have their own set of problems. But simply saying "well other countries do it why not us" is a very weak argument. It is totally removing the complexity of the situation. For example, it is arguable that the US has the best healthcare system in the world
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Or with "free college". In other countries they track their students so only who the government deems worthy can go. In the US we have opportunity.
Even at all of that I personally don't like to compare the US to other countries. The variables are too great. Denmark is considered successful. They have mandatory military service. Do you want that? Or do you want to be like Norway and drill for more oil to pay for those things? That goes against Bernie's idea of going off of fossil fuels. But he wants to be more like those countries. So why not drill for more oil like Norway does? Statistically Norway does better than us in so many ways and that is why.
$250,000 is not a lot of money if you live in NYC, or LA, or Dallas or other major cities. That is why simply saying raise taxes on that much does not fly because it does not take into consideration the cost of living differences along with other things. Also, at what percent? He should have an estimate. He does not. That is why the 90% is being said. He has not even said what it will roughly be and he has been in congress for over 2 decades.
Wall street speculation tax is taxing scholarships for college, or people's retirement, or small businesses. Plus, that will only pay for 2/3 of college according to Bernie. What about the other 1/3? And that is ignoring the increased influx of students who will now go to college since it is being paid for. Bernie has not mentioned a plan for that unless he wants to limit who goes to college which goes against the American Dream.
Military spending is not that high. Plus most spending is to solve conflict without violence. You also have spending in research and college tuition from the military. What do you want to cut?
I don't want an exact number, I want an estimate. A ballpark range. He has been in congress for over 2 decades, he should have an idea. Bill O'Reilly asked him what the tax rate will be on him. Bernie said he will have to work on it. The man has been in congress for over 2 decades. Bill wanted an estimate. Bernie could not even give that. He wants to offer healthcare, college, jobs, infrastructure and so on to people but does not even have a general idea of how to offer it. That is what is crazy.
"Are you up in that 1% bracket? "
No, but creating policies like that compounds our problems. And it goes against the whole come together idea that Bernie wants. Coming together and attacking a group of people does not produce success.
"Doesn't matter where taxation was going or what was in 1913. Today matters, and you can't run the US on a 10% flat income tax."
Actually they can. We can cut those programs and pass them to the states like this country was set up to run. A lot of what the federal government runs is unconstitutional to begin with. Cut those programs and allow the states to run them will save a lot. The fact that you think we need the federal government to run those programs is a problem in itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Fredrik Herre Other campaign do not promise the moon though. Bernie does so I expect him to at least have some idea on how he will pay for it. He doesn't which makes him an easy target. Other politicians are broad in what they want so for now they get a pass. After the primaries I will be more aggressive in expecting more.
You really can't compare the US to Europe. If you do then you have to look at their problems as well such as higher cost of living and lower productivity. Just looking at the good and ignoring the bad does not bring progress. But in the end you are comparing two different societies.
When I say he is promising the moon I am referring to him promising a lot. We are $18 trillion in debt with welfare recipients growing. Social security is losing money and he says we have to raise taxes to pay for it. Well, in 50 years what should we do then? Raise taxes? That is why socialism does not work in the long run, eventually you run out of money. Taxes can only go so high. Bernie just wants to keep raising them. His simply can't afford his promises.
Those countries in Europe all have their own healthcare model. So which one do you pick to copy? Also, what I am getting at is that states should be taking care of the healthcare issue. A country like Denmark only has to worry about 5 million people, not 300 million. A huge difference. This is exactly why the founding fathers wanted state rights.
Nothing is in a vacuum. You just can't pick and choose what you like.
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
That book also explains how complex these issues are and how so many variables are connected, thus you just can't pick and choose.
$250,000 is not a lot of money. Plus, Bernie wants to attack the millionaires, but now the $250,000? How far down is he going to go?
Using a logical fallacy does not support an argument. What about the article do you not like? Unless you state what then you clearly don't know much about the economy.
Unions were not the result of what you think. A developing country that allowed companies to come about to offer less hours and higher pay do that. Look at child labor. We can remove child labor laws right now and we will be fine because more children are attending college. More children are entering the workforce later (as in past the age of 18) and living with their parents longer. We have developed into a society where children don't have to work as much if at all. This idea that unions did it is false, it was the economy growing.
Bernie's idea that he will save $5 trillion is pure speculation based off of no number.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Fredrik Herre In Europe they have problems as well such as lower quality universities, higher cost of living, debt, and lower productivity. You are ignoring all of that.
For federal politicians I focus more on leadership than policies. I don't want the federal government to do a lot because, as history shows, it messes up.
Research and organizations have compared and what you see is that each one cherry picks what they want to look at. As that book I linked you did, it showed that the differences between each country is minute. It is arguable that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. People that argue against that cherry pick stats where the differences between the US and other countries, statistically is minute. It is really hard to compared other countries due to the massive differences. Especially how the US has over 300 million people and those countries in Europe have around 5 million.
You run out of money when people with money leave. You raise taxes and people with money will move their money to an area of lower taxes.......sound familiar.
Germany does a lot of things well, but as I said, different society. They have guards with fully automatic machine guns at airports. Is that the life you want to live? Germany also tracks their students for college. So if the government does not feel you are smart enough than you don't go. That goes against the land of opportunity. France has over 10% unemployment and their high taxes have hurt small business and had investors and those with money moving.
Everyone having access to healthcare means nothing if the quality is low. Also, trying to develop a model of a country of 300 million people is not easy. Look at the Obamacare debate. 60 senate democrats could not agree on one law. The one they passed has unfavorable ratings. Is that what you want?
"Look up if the fathers wanted money in politics and big banks. They didn't even want a central bank."
I agree. You do that by limiting the powers of the federal government, not expanding it like Bernie wants.
"Some kind of national universal healthcare is needed."
But 60 people could not agree on one. And when they did it got unfavorable ratings and they lost their jobs in the Senate.
$250,000 is not a lot of money in some areas. Maybe to you but for someone running a small business it isn't. Plus, Bernie keeps saying the millionaires and billionaires. Now $250,000? Why so low? And why that much? Just because you feel it is a lot of money? That is an arbitrary number at this point.
Unions did some work, but the reality is that the growth of the economy did it. Yes, corporations want to make a profit, but they have to treat their employees well. If they don't then a rival company will come in and treat their employees better attracting better employees that grow productivity and makes them better. Businesses don't pay more because they can't afford to.
I find it funny that you mentioned Walmart. Walmart already pays above the min. wage (less than 5% of workers earn the min. wage). A a complaint about Walmart is how they don't give enough hours. What you also have to realize is that Walmart is as big as it is because of shareholders. If they cut profits to pay employees more then the value of stocks drop meaning shareholders sell back their shares meaning Walmart has to downsize and will be no more than a Target, or Raley's or Hy Vee. So it can't just cut into profits. It is more complex than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Fredrik Herre Wow, your wrote quite a bit. Here is my thing. I can take what you said, and Bernie's policies and break them down to how you are mistaken and how Bernie's policies won't work. I won't because I am personally writing a paper and a chapter in my dissertation. I simply don't have time
What I will focus on is my number one concern with Bernie Sanders. I will admit, I do support healthcare reform and see how it could possibly work at the state level. Same with "free" college or different tax codes. But that is all at the state level.
I told you my number 1 concern about Bernie Sanders. He wants to expand the power of the federal government.
"What awesome power is Bernie Sanders giving the federal government? The
awesome power of universal healthcare? Is that where your paranoia lies?"
Yes, because now you have given the federal government power over our healthcare. Consider this. Say we are facing financial problems and future republicans want to remove funds from healthcare to save money? How would you feel? You may not agree but what they are doing is not wrong, you gave them that power.
Same democrats pushed a bill to raise the min. wage and republicans countered by saying they will support it if they remove funds for college. How will you feel? You just gave that power to the federal politicians. Things like this happen. You do remember the "Cornhusker Kickback" with Obamacare, do you?
The pure fact is that the more local government is the more control you have over it. I have no problem with government, but too much government is just as bad as not government. At the federal level you, as a citizen have little power and control.
"You do realize the government already controls other aspects of society like schools and military much more. "
Schools are predominately locally funded. The federal government has very little involvement and states develop their own curriculum and standards. So right there you are showing confusion on what the government even runs.
The military is constitutional and the military cannot enforce state law on individuals without consent of the legislature of the state. The federal government was to not have control of individual citizens in any way with the exception of treason. You do know that a federal individual income tax was unconstitutional until 1913?
"Have the schooling system or military taken away your home, your car, your children, your job, or your will yet?"
As I said, schools are ran by the state. If a state were to take that away than people will move to another state and remain US citizens. Military is constitutional. My home and car are my property and protected by the 5th amendment. Same with my job.
"You want the government to serve the people? "
Yes, serve the people. That means we have control of the people, not them having control over us. Not them having the ability to take away our healthcare and college unless we do what they say and allow them to get away with taking bribes from millionaires.
"Universal healthcare funded by taxes is EXACTLY that. Government serving the people. "
Or using it to hold us hostage. Do what they say or they take it away. At the state level you have more control.
"What abusing is there to be done with a taxfunded healthcare system?"
Defunding it like republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood and social security.
"You don't trust the government with a universal healthcare system, but
somehow place trust in a totally private corporation for profit driven
secluded system? It's not a free market when there is no transparency."
You have to have balance. Going from one extreme to the next is not a solution. As I said, too much government is just as bad as no government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ylze Tyr You can compare a state to a European country. I have not problem with. But not the federal government to a European country. I assumed you would have known the difference.
"if all fifty states can have a different system, then they can all have the same one"
Ran at the state level.
"humans are humans no matter where they live. healthcare needs do not
differ drastically from region to region. a broken arm gets the same
treatment no matter where you live."
Just like education is important, but yet states run it. And states pay for most of the roads, and law enforcement, and create laws such as murder and rape and trespassing and so on. None of those are federal.
"fifty different systems would also be easier to corrupt; "
It told you how you have more control at the state level. Let me list them again
1. You can vote for a greater percentage of representative at the state level
2. You can attend meetings and have a louder voice at the state level
3. You can directly see what is going on at the state level
4. You can move if you don't like it. No state wants productive people leaving.
" less oversight."
Nope, there is more oversight actually.
" you keep thinking that state politicans can't be corrupted when it happens just as often as it does with federal ones"
They can be corrupted. At the state level they are held more accountable. Did you read that link about the 11% approval rating of congress but the 96% retention rate? Man, federal congress is being held accountable with all that oversight I guess.
"your problem is that you want to compare a federal system to individual
state systems one at a time instead of all at once. there are WAY more
politicians involved if you look at it as all fifty at once."
Yeah, it spreads out the power and creates checks and balances. Nothing wrong with that?
"more self contradiction. if the differences are minute and the companies
are already national, then why can't we have a federal system?"
Again, spread out the power. Plus, those companies are private.
"you don't need fifty different systems if the differences are "minute"."
Yes you do. Spread out the power. Give more power to the people and not just a few........you know, that sounds familiar. Bernie complains about power being in the hands of the few millionaires and billionaires..........and I support spreading out the power to create checks and balances and giving more power to the people with state rights.......hmm.....
"you just made an argument for our side"
Actually I didn't. I just showed you how I actually am pushing for Bernie's ideas more than Bernie is. I want to spread out the power to the 50 states and into the hands of the people. He wants to concentrate it in the federal government and into a congress with a 11% approval rating and a 96% retention rate, or the hands of the few.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Greyghostvol1 If the monument is a history lesson then put it in a museum where it belongs. Fair is fair, if the flag was taken down then take it all down and put in in a museum.
To me the confederate flag means nothing. But to several people and the south it stands for bravery. You need to learn history and how the south was oppressed by the federal government. The civil war was about state rights and how the fed. oppressed the southern states to force them to do something they didn't want too. And after they lost the war the history books were re-written to make them look like the bad guy, and they had to spend a lot of money rebuilding which put them behind economically. The flag isn't purely about racism.
"You don't want to question me on this. I will definitely school you."
I highly doubt it. But you can try. But even with that, if the flag is being taken down from the shallow and misinformed idea that it represents racism, then the monument should be taken down for any shallow and misinformed reasons as well.
"The US constitution has no mention of "negro slaves", so I hasten to
think you are either really delusional, or misinformed, about your
history."
I am not misinformed about my history. The issue is that there were better alternatives to solving the slavery issue. But the federal government wanted to go against the US constitution and use force to end it. The the civil war was about state rights.
"I'm a moderate liberal, and frankly I honestly think you're simply misinformed and not, infact, dangerous or delusion"
You say I am misinformed or delusional without justification. The reason why I feel liberals are dangerous is because they do exactly what you just did, take some symbol, in this case the confederate flag, twist it around to interpret it what you think it means, and then bash people who disagree with you making them look like the bad guy.
You are doing it with me saying I am delusional and misinformed all without justification. After this I wouldn't be surprise if you called me an idiot or a racist myself. The pure fact is that this is an all or nothing thing. You, as liberals, can't use the government to force what you think is right or wrong on other people. Those on the political left can't as well. If you want the flag taken off government properties then fine, but this also has to be done for other monuments that others clearly find offensive as well. You forcing the flag to be taken down but forcing the monument to remain up is the definition of fascism. If is you using government to force others to think and act just like you.
So you can called me misinformed. With you I don't see you as misinformed, I see you as a fascist. Someone who when they disagree with someone they call names and then want to use the government to shame them. In this case it is take down the flag but support leaving the monument up as a slap in the face. As in saying "you are racist for supporting that flag, and to make you look worse we are going to leave this monument up as a scarlet letter to rub it in your face."
The best solution, the moderate and equal solution is to take it down and put it in a museum. No one can complain then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Greyghostvol1 My bad on amending the constitution. I can admit when I am wrong, and at this point it is amazing that you can get anything correct.
Most of what you are saying is supporting what I am saying that the Civil War was based off of state rights.
On Article 1 Section 9 it talked about slave trade, that is true. But that is because the federal government is involved in any foreign affairs and always has been. Plus no where in the constitution does it say anything about any restrictions on the use of slavery. Thus from there it defaults to the states. Just like education or murder laws or traffic laws (I know there were no cars then) or property tax laws and so on.
What the federal government did was an overreach on it's power. All states have rights to run their state as they wish on issues not listed in the constitution. Slavery laws are involved in that. You are saying that this all started over slavery and thus it is purely about slavery. No, that isn't true. While slavery was the reason for the dispute it was about state rights. This is no different than if the federal government were to take control of the American education system and states were to revolt. It would be about the rights of states to develop their own education system.
That is how this country was developed, states are pretty much free to do what they want. That is why the military can't enforce state law without the governor's consent. What the federal government was doing at the time was trying to enforce their law on the states which is unconstitutional. And yes, when the states succeeded they did mention slavery in their constitutions, but you have to look at what caused the whole mess to begin with. If this was about education they would have placed education in their constitution to emphasize it. But this was about state rights.
So you quoted a historian, big deal. He didn't mention about state rights or how the fed. was stepping out of bounds on their power. By what he said it seems like that he is saying that two groups of people got mad, the fed. did their thing (which violated the constitution) and thus a war was going to happen no matter what. That is incorrect though. Slavery was the issue but in the end state rights were violated. That is why this is about state rights.
"As I said before, even if we removed the "I'm offended by it" crowd, the
flag had to be removed because of its history, and it being flown as a
symbol of "pride", while ignoring why it existed in the first place. Or,
of people who are doing what you're doing, twisting history to conform
to your chosen narrative."
I am not twisting history to fit my narrative. You are saying that the Civil war was over slavery and not state rights. Also no matter what the flag represents it is within that state's right to fly it if they want. It does represent their history as well, no different then that slave memorial. And it does symbolize state rights to many because is what the Civil War was about and how it got started. The federal government was violating state rights. Any historian that denies that doesn't understand history as much as they think, or is leaving out important details.
"Um, no, you didn't teach me anything. Remember my mentioning the whole
"checks and balance" thing? I mean, you go on to mention it anyway, what
did you think I was talking about, exactly?"
I support checks and balances, that is what state rights promotes. I seems that you need to learn a little more.
"That's what you said. And you're, again, factually incorrect. The
constitution, as a supreme law of the United States of America, is
still falliable, and thus, most be able to be changed. Which you
seemingly agree with. This, again, is counter to the more absolute
statement you said and I just quoted."
Yes the constitution can be changed, but there is a process. But it must be followed. Look at the design of this country and how much freedom we have and the potential dangers that can create. As a lawyer told me the other day, with the way this country is designed you can rape little boys at will as long as you don't get caught because we don't have the government spying on people (or shouldn't). We can allow that or allow the government to randomly search people's homes which can lower crime, but that would violate our freedoms and protected rights.
The same was in the Civil War. Slavery laws, besides trade, was purely a state issue. The federal government violating the constitution to try to end it is them going out of bounds. While some support that my question is where does it stop? Why not allow the fed. to control the education system, or create murder laws, or just have the military serve as the police? We don't do that because the constitution doesn't allow it. And any violation of the constitution should be met with a revolt as in the case of the Civil War.
But to say that we shouldn't follow the constitution at all costs creates the snowball effect what right we violate next? What right do we remove for our "protection" and "safety"? You have to consider. Sure the Civil War ended slavery, but at what cost? Now the federal government has more power and the states have less. So now where does their power end?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Funds for roads and the military come out of our taxes so what is wrong with paying for healthcare with taxes?"
Many flaws with that question. I can easily add to that list for food, housing, cars, clothes, cable, etc. I mean, government funds roads, schools, police, why not everything else? You are arbitrarily picking healthcare at that point.
Next, defense spending is around 4% of our GDP. Healthcare is around 16%. Roads are locally ran and funded and defense spending is constitutional.
"There is a reason the US ranks the lowest of all modern nations. "
That is a myth. When you run through the numbers nothing suggests that the US is doing poorly in healthcare. We have problems but so do other nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zidneya" And how can you se so sure that he didn't came out with that quote by himself"
Because philosophers from the past has said similar things. Nothing new is ever produced these days.
"Well considering that he is showing the very same level of intelligence that John Taylor Gatto (your words not mine pal) I'd say a lot. The real question is: are this pathetic piece of shit excuses meant to make me think he isn't intelligent."
With your use of profanity shows you are not intelligent.
"You have any idea how many people have realized that as well. According to you own stupidity I shouldn't be caring for that statement at all considering how other have said that as well."
Maybe, I am just highlighting Chomsky's ignorance.
"Who said Chomsky is better than Feynman dumbass."
No one.
"HAhahaha! That imbecile who thinks hitler was a left winger? Hahaha"
In some ways Hitler was left wing. Compare him to a lot of our left wing politicians, especially Bernie. Hitler got a crowd of people to hate one group, the Jews, and blamed them for our problems. He spent a lot of government funds on infrastructure and job creation. Bernie is pushing similar policies, in this case he is targeting the people on Wall Street and the rich. No difference. But again, I admitted that Ben Shapiro has flaws, all you did was laugh, made a statement with nothing to back it up.
"You'll never hear Chomsky saying that. But that matter to an hypocrite lie you? Of course not!"
Nope, Chomsky will just rip on the US, he does the opposite.
"Another reply before I say anything?.. I hit a nerve didn't I?"
Nope, just pointing out another flaw.
"That would I'mply that those two campaign are the same. Wich they aren'¡tIf you think that all the contributions, level of hate and popularity, bribery and politecal ties on the Clinton are the same as year ago when Obama run for president you are a fool. Times change. Oh wait I just realize something obvious, and you didn't? Yet you claim you are smart and people who realize the obvious aren't huh? Well what does that tell you when you can't even see the obvious huh?"
Now you are making excuses. Fact was Obama was an unknown and he came in and beat Clinton. The fact that Bernie was an unknown, despite being in politics for decades, means nothing. It is a lame excuse for him being a loser.
"Is that suppose to bait me? Obama lied, deal with it"
But Bernie didn't? Remember, he sold out after he lost and he bought a third home afterwards as well. Also, he claims if you are white you don't know what it is like to be poor. But whatever, Bernie could do no wrong like everyone thought about Obama.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
World Citizen
No one "disbelieve" climate change or over population due to religion. Maybe evolution, but evolution, like all of science, is something you don't believe in, you support.
Richard Feynman say religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt. What science does is develop models that explain natural occurrences, those models are theories. The model with the strongest supporting evidence is what is used. People use religion to develop a sense of purpose in life such as why are we here? Is there an after life? And so on. I personally don't need it, but someone people do. I need booze, some people need sex, some need video games, some need religion. Whatever people need to get through life so be it. But religion and science are two completely different things and serve different purposes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, people had to work harder. If you wanted to write a book in the past you had to write it by hand. Now we have computers where you can write more much faster. If you wanted to get someplace you either had to walk or use a horse (that required more maintenance). Now you can hop in a car and get someplace farther away in a shorter amount of time. Yes, people had to work harder in the past.
"the gas tank blew up and eventually killed 500 people while the Ford
motor corporation knew it was faulty, figured it was cheaper to pay out
the life insurance claims than to recall the cars"
As I said in my other comment, what if that extra part cost a million dollars? I bet you would agree with Ford now. You know you are getting a less safe vehicle when you buy a Ford Pinto, but the vehicle is also cheaper. I know that I can get a cheaper apartment in my city, but it will be in a place that is less safe and has more crime. I am willing to pay more for security. The same is with vehicles. You can easily criticize a company you have to part of thus you have nothing to lose in the actions they do. Much like the min. wage. You can easily push for an increase in the min. wage when you don't run a business yourself that is dependent on low skilled workers. When you have nothing to lose you can criticize. It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback.
"and please, with regard to climate change, until Exxon mobile, or any
oil company admits that sustainables are the way of the future, and that
they should be sued for causing the problem in the first place, not
allowed to sue other countries whom block their precious pipelines
through the TPP or another version of it, then we will have made some
progress."
Right now, especially in industry (such as scientific research), fossil fuels are the best source of energy we have.
As smoking causing cancer. I feel there is a genetic side to it. Much like heart disease. While someone's diet can increase the chances, as a whole genetic do determine a lot as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So now you are changing your tune again. You say no one has the right to any people's services."
They don't.
"Then you argue that as long it is state run it is fine?"
The more local government is the more control the people have over it. There are advantages to having government, but when not controlled it can become oppressive. People were willing to vote for Clinton, for example, in order to keep their government programs. They were willing to vote for a corporate puppet and deal with her as long as she was willing to keep the ACA and SS.
"So you DO support taxes or what you call "theft" of other people's labor after all. "
I never said taxes were theft, but with that said you are still not guaranteed any of those services. If no one wants to be a teacher than you won't have an education system. If no one wants to be a cop than you won't have a police system.
"So you want everything to be funded by the states? No national park services, no postal services, no freeways, no NASA etc?"
Not true. One, the postal service is in the constitution. With freeways I already told you that 3/4 of funding for roads is state and local. Even at that roads are constitutional. Parks and NASA can be funded easily at the local level. You feel that without the federal government those things will cease to exist which is not true.
"Just admit it, you just parrot whatever the donor class that fund the libertarian "think tanks" want you to think."
Is that supposed to be an argument?
" You guys are always using the same phrases,"
Ironic considering you are giving the same response as everyone else the second someone suggest there is a problem with government. I bring up a problem with government, or at the very least a concern and you yell "ROADS!" like most on the left do.
1
-
1
-
"The interstate system was developed by Dwight D. Eisenhower at a cost of
511 billion dollars by today's standards. I'm failing to see your
ridiculous point."
Do you have a point there? You might as well say
"The Cubs won the 2016 World Series".
All you did was state a fact, now what does it mean? How is it relevant to your argument?
" The United States spent additional billions in this time period industrializing Japan."
Again, what is your point?
" Not to mention that over a third of our workforce was unionized at the time"
Again, what is your point? All you are doing is stating facts but are giving zero interpretation on them.
"federal education, and healthcare funds were also increased, "
Because the Department of Education was created in the late 70s. When you create a federal program designed to fund education than of course federal spending will go up. Even at that most funding is still state and local. Also in the mid 60s Medicare and Medicaid were create which accounts for more federal funding. That is like me buying a new car and saying my spending in car insurance went up. Well of course consider how I bought a new car. Of course federal spending went up in those areas, a program was created.
" while The United States enjoyed the most economically prosperous time
across the board in its' history. I guess those people just didn't know
wtf they were doing."
Ah, now we get to the point. Two things. One, during that time the entire world was rebuilding because of WWII and we weren't. So we had a head start. Next, what a lot of people predicted will happen when you expand the federal government did happen. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid and SS are losing money. The Department of Education has not improved education but instead created waste. We now have politicians who are corrupt and take money from big donors because we have lost control of government. The more local government is the easier it is to control. At the federal level it is very difficult to control.
So you say "I guess those people just didn't know wtf they were doing". I say they did. They knew that they had all the power. In 1967 there were 155 individuals that earned over $200,000 that paid $0 in federal income taxes. The Tax Reform Act of 1969 was signed which created the 70% tax bracket for those earning over $200,000. Richard Nixon, who signed the law, fell into that bracket in 1970 and paid only $789 in taxes. Think about that.
1
-
John, the harsh reality is that if you can't produce in society and if no one cares enough about you to take care of you, as in friends and family, than no one will care when you die. I am sorry the truth hurts.
"You cant get support for an agenda that turn America into a third world
hellhole where millions of the most vulnerable people are left to beg in
the streets"
Who are these millions? We don't have universal healthcare right now and meanwhile we don't have millions begging. So who are these millions?
"because it requires inter-state border taxes,"
Can't do that, unconstitutional.
"restrictions on the movement of people between states"
Again, unconstitutional.
"Its impossible for a state to fund programs when everyone can just pick
and choose where to live according to their needs at any given time and
refusing to pay taxes through lifelong residency."
Not true. One, having choice is great. If a state is doing poorly than people will move. That's competition. Next, states can have restrictions on people moving and benefiting from their programs. Take in-state tuition for example. To receive it you have to abandon your old residency buy registering your car in that state, getting a job in that state, being living there for a year and so on. Much like if you were to move to Canada you will have to have a job and wait five years before you can take advantage of their benefits. Rules can be set in place.
" The "states rights" agenda is just a race to the bottom"
There is zero evidence for that. But a centralized program is all 50 states regressing to the norm.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"But how do you know one is related to the other?"
Kind of ironic that would happen. Again, not saying it is bad, just saying when you change anything in our country it will have an impact on life.
"-If people don't have a source of legitimate income they'll seek out less savory ones. "
Like if they have no job because they were priced out of the market due to the min. wage?
"-"No job" and "Job that doesn't help you support yourself" are pretty much the same scenario"
Completely false. Having a job means an opportunity to move up. No job means no experience at all. This is why people do volunteer internships, to gain experience.
"if "job creators" are only creating low-paying jobs, they're hardly solving the problem of unemployment"
Still better than no job at all for many.
Define "fair" and "unfair".
" How can you provide a service worth $14 dollars but not be worth the cost of that service? "
A business has to buy supplies, pay rent, if they are a franchise pay fees, pay taxes, pay for licenses etc.
"It's arguable; I don't know if we can say it's subjective. "
In many ways it is subjective. Why is it fair to price people out of the market with a min. wage?
"Nonsense. One can argue about how much is needed to live without
resorting to emotion. Plenty of counties have already calculated local
living wages."
Nope. There are several variables tied to what one can consider to be a "living wage". For example, my girlfriend a few years back earned $8.50/hr. Is that a living wage? Well in reality it was a luxury wage as she bought a $10,000 car with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Okay, there is no factual way raising the minimum wage hurts bargaining power."
It does by raising prices and reducing working hours.
" I've worked as a chef, security, and even as an editor. All of these jobs are jobs with high skill requirements. "
No, those are not high skilled jobs. They are also jobs that are low in demand and of high supply. Unless you are a professional chef for an expensive restaurant or security for a high profile celebrity you are low skilled.
"Companies making any sort of profit can, however, afford to pay higher
wages. Profit is money made in excess of what the company spent. Any
company that gives bonuses to top tier employees can afford to pay
higher wages too."
I assume you mean corporations. Corporations have to keep shareholders happy. Also, let us look at Walmart. If you were to take the top 6 executives in Walmart and spread their salaries to the 525,000 lowest paid employees in Walmart they will earn an extra $147 a year, that's it. They don't have the money.
"Typically it's because of debt they accrued going to school, buying a
car to get to work, or even for medical expenses for injuries that
happen (most of the time through no fault of their own). But even
ignoring all the debt they have to face, people don't make enough money
to even pay for living these days on a minimum wage, even at 40-60 hours
a week."
One, most min. wage workers are part time. Next, if you go to school and get debt you should pursue a degree that is in high demand. And don't buy a car if you can't afford it.
"A car, the piece of machinery most need to get to work, costs an average of 9k a year to own and maintain"
Don't buy it if you can't afford it.
" The average rent for an apartment in america is about 1,000 dollars"
Get roommates.
" plenty of positions that pay decent wages"
Define "decent wages".
"The fact is that America treats their lowest class like shit. "
Not really except for maybe democrats. Remember, Bernie said the poor was getting poorer and bought a third home.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+gerard bain A little history lesson for you. In 1920 we had a crash just as bad as the crash of 1929. Harding was doing nothing but under pressure told Hoover to devise a plan to "fix" the economy. He developed the plan but by the time it was brought forth to the economy, with no federal government action, a year later was recovering.
Come the crash of 1929 Hoover, under immediate pressure put forth his plan to "fix" the economy which involved massive spending. It did not work. FDR took over and expanding Hoover's plan which made the situation worse and would have continued longer if it weren't for the war. FDR prolonged the recession which turned it into a depression.
You see, this country has seen several recessions such as the one in 1920 (which I bet you never heard of until now), the Panic of 1837, the Panic of 1873, the recession of the late 70s and so on. All recessions except for two had little to no federal government involvement to "fix" the economy and recovery was in around 5 years or less. In later times when we were more developed that time frame was shorter.
The two recessions that took the longest to recover from were the recession of 1929 and the one we are currently in. They are also recessions the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending, like what FDR did.
Any intelligent person knows that FDR turned a recession into a depression. Saying FDR was a good president is like saying Matt Millen was a good GM for the Detroit Lions.
One reason why funding in research in development of photovotaic cells is so high is because China has cornered the market in lanthanides which are used for up and down conversion in solar energy. They have done that because of less environmental regulations. It takes around 10 years to build a mine in the US where in China it does not. So they can actually dig up their lanthanides and use them where in the US we can't because building mines are supposedly bad for the environment. So you want more research for solar energy then you have to reduce regulations.
I will admit I have not heard of the plan Japan is doing, but based off of what you said it sounds highly inefficient to where it is impractical considering the cost it would take to put satellites in the air. And that is just start up cost, never mind maintenance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+vuk911 That can be debated. It is easily arguable that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. For example if you were to remove murder and accidents, things not connected to healthcare, the US is number 1 in life expectancy.
Other countries deal with problem of lower quality of care and longer wait times. Plus, you really can't compare the US to other countries. We have a much larger population than most of them and more diversity and all around a completely different society. In the US everything the federal government touches breaks with the exception of the military and that is because the military is constitutional, and is composed of discipline workers.
It isn't a classic trick. The economy faces recessions, it is a part of the evolution of the economy. Every other time we recovered from it in around 5 years or less. Only two times we didn't. The last couple recessions before this current one were in the early 90s (we had a mini one in 2002 that didn't last long either) but was over in around a 1, and during Carter's final years, but was over in around 2-3 years. And when I say over I mean had a spike in growth to catch us up and then steady growth afterwards.
Sure GDP is rising, we just never saw that spike to catch us up. For example in the late 70s we saw the same negative GDP growth as we did around 2007, but we saw a spike in GDP growth of close to 10% to catch us up. We have not saw that. We are still behind.
It is like this, you are running a race and end up 2 laps behind (a recession). For full recovery you run faster to make up for those 2 labs and then keep up. We have not done that. We are still 2 laps behind.
"You want the wealth to be spread more even between the people? "
I want everyone to see their wealth grow. You do that with economic growth. I imagine with that comment you are the typical person who conflates wealth with income. Or you simply don't understand what wealth is. You don't "spread" wealth around. You create wealth. In fact, in a healthy economy there is going to be a wealth gap. And if you understand what wealth is you will see that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+vuk911 The WHO is not a reliable source. It ranks countries like San Marino high on the list when it is a country that is basically a resort for rich people from Italy and France. Or Malta and Andorra whose combine population is less than most of our major cities.
You see I can actually break down certain statistics and facts and show how they are relevant and what they really mean. You just take things on face value.
As far as life expectancy is concerned, you have to deal with John Schneider of University of Iowa and Robert Oshfeldt of Texas A&M.
Look up the definition of diversity, it has to do with more than just race. I guess according to you if there are no black people there isn't any diversity. But to me it is different cultures, and considering how different each state is that is why I say the US is so diverse. But of course instead of seeing people you see skin color and call me a racist for it.
5 times is much smaller. 300 million is much larger than 60 million, and is larger diversity.
Why can't you have universal healthcare with diversity? Look at each countries' healthcare, they are different in many ways. It isn't that Germany, France, Canada, UK and so on all all the same system. They all have a system that is different in some way. That is my point. What might work in one state will not necessarily work in another.
If you want to establish universal healthcare at the state level then I am all ears, but at the federal level I am not. Also you never want to put all that power in one area, especially in a country of over 300 million people. The founding fathers saw this in the past and we should support it now.
You want to give all that power to the federal government, fine. But I don't want you to complain when future politicians take advantage of it and screw you over. This is the main difference between you and me....you want government.....I want government but I also want to control government.
The New Deal did turn a recession into a depression. You say conservatives had 3 years to fix it. When FDR took over he prolong the recovery for almost a decade. It took the war and his death to lead to a recovery. And the size did not matter I cited other recessions that were just as large. The one in the late 70s was as large as the one in 2007-2008.
On military spending look at percent of GDP, the US is 4th in the world when that is considered.
How close to 10%? Try 8.5%. You really need to do some research, theses sources are easy to find.
Disposable income has been growing, the idea that "all new income is going to the rich" is deceptive and says nothing, especially in terms of wealth creation.
So despite a weak economy things still improved?
The rich are not stashing money. And the term "slave wages" is appealing to emotions, slaves were forced to work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+vuk911 That is a problem, the WHO doesn't care to factor in several variables in making their rankings. Population size plays a role. Malta is an island with a small population and low diversity. They don't face anywhere near the problems that the US faces. This is like comparing your local high school football team to the New York Giants, it can't be done. As I said, unlike you I can see issues like that, you can't.
As far as those other countries? As I said, different societies. Japan has a history of being isolated until the mid 1800s, that plays a role. You are looking at healthcare but removing variables that you don't like but do play a role. Even at that if you were to compare all the states on face value you will see that there are very settle differences. For example, in overall life expectancy the US is at 78 years, Japan I believe is at 81 years. The world average is 71 years with a standard deviation of 7 years. That three year difference between Japan and the US is called noise. As I showed you before, if you remove certain variables not associated with healthcare the US ends up having a higher life expectancy. You can have an argument if Japan had a life expectancy of 80 years and the US had 60 years, but that isn't the case.
Diversity has a lot to do with healthcare and policy in general. People have different experiences and ideas and thus support different policies. You see this all across the world and even in the US. You want to establish a one size fits all policy when you can't unless you force everyone to be the same as you. This is how communist countries were established and other countries who practice universal healthcare do similar things, such as mandatory military in Denmark or S. Korea. Even at that all those countries do something different which you keep ignoring. So which country's model should we follow?
"my only point is that healthcare should be paid via taxes, and that EVERY SINGLE person should be covered. That`s all."
Then who is going to stop prices from going up? Hospitals will raise prices if it is paid by tax dollars. The citizens don't care because they are not directly paying for it. It is no different then when the federal government raises the min. wage and businesses counter by cutting hours and raising prices. Or when taxes go up and businesses move money off shores. You tell someone that you are going to rob their car the next day the next day that person is going to move their car an lock it up. You seem to not realize that people will act differently when something happens.
"This would have been a valid point if there were no republicans, also
known as people who cheer when a politician say "I am not going to give
people healthcare"
Not every state wants universal healthcare. If that is the case then why should you care? Unless you want to live in some fascist society that you force others to live the life you feel is right. That comes down to diversity again, everyone is different? Why don't you accept and praise that? I do. If a state wants to have universal healthcare then great, they can have it. People who want it can move there, others can put it to a vote in their state and pass it. You have this false feeling that states that don't establish it don't care when in reality the citizens don't want it. That is the beauty of state rights, citizens establish governments they want as opposed to others forcing their ideas down their throats.
You are the same person who supports the federal government doing A, B and C, but when other politicians get in power and do X, Y, and Z that others in the country like, but you oppose, you complain. Think about that for awhile. I have and that is why I support state rights.
What power? The power to give and take. The military is really limited in what it can do in the US. For example the military can't enforce state laws without the consent of that particular state's congress or governor. The way the constitution was written the US government has very limited power over the citizens. For example an individual income tax was unconstitutional. Giving the federal government the ability to pay for healthcare means they can just cut it off. Or if it doesn't work managing and changing it is not easy if at all. At the state level you have more control of the government and you can change policy easier. You can also move if you don't like how a state is being ran. You have that in smaller countries as well with less diversity which also brings us back to how we really can't be compared to other countries.
During the passage of Obamacare almost every state wanted healthcare reform, but it was really hard to get 60 democrats in the senate to agree to one bill. The reason why is that they all wanted something different. Obamacare was passed with corruption and was forced down our throats. Is that what you support? How would you feel if the republicans did that? I bet you won't like it, but that is the government you want to establish.
"Provide a quote of me where I said that universal healthcare shouldn`t
be controlled and supervised. Can you do it? Just so you know, if you
ignore it, I will write it again until you answer."
I just did. I gave you several examples in what goes on already. Look at the situation we are in. When the federal government talks about some sort of welfare reform people are shaking in their boots on losing their money. It is scary we are that dependent on the government. And if the federal government cuts spending in healthcare what do we do? Vote? Ok, vote for your 2 senators out of 100 who can't even agree on something. Or vote for your handful of representatives in the house when there is 435 members. Yep, your voice is really strong at the federal level. Where at the state level you can vote for a larger portion of the politicians and even move.
So I guess I should ask you, how do you expect to control and supervise universal healthcare? Explain that to me. As far as I see you want the government to pay for it and somehow it will all just work.
"When he took over it was already a depression. P.S:
Unemployment in 1932? 23,6%
Unemployment in 1946? 3,9%
But yes, yes...I know... It`s the war...War did it, it has nothing to do with the New Deal. Classic, classic tricks.."
Wow, 14 years later. What a success. Plus FDR was dead then. You also have to consider that during the war we were one of the last countries to enter thus people were put to work to provide resources for other countries. And afterwards we were one of the few countries to not be destroyed, so globally we were ahead of the game.
But 14 years later is not a success when every other recession took around 5 years or less. Plus our national debt went up.
Plus, as Henry Morgenthau Jr. said
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever
spent before and it does not work....We have never begun to tax the
people in this country the way they should be.... I don"t pay what I
should. People of my class don"t. People who have it should pay....
After eight years of this administration we have just as much
unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!"
What a success I must tell you.
"US spends more than China, Russia, SA, Germany, France, India and GB combined. "
And once again look at percent of GDP.
I gave you a source on GDP growth.
How did technology and medicine get better? Because of a strong economy.
And people have to work, that is how wealth is created. I guess we can all sit around and it just appears out of nowhere, but the reality is that is not how it works. And if the rich were stashing money (which they aren't), ever thought it was the high taxes that scared them away?
1
-
+vuk911 What is wrong with pointing out the flaw that you can't compare the US to Malta?
I don't twist statistics, I analyze them. There is a difference. I realize there there are several variables involved in a stat. You learn that when you take a graduate level statistics course where as you just take what others say as truth as long as you agree with it.
"WHAT THE FUCK does it have to do with healthcare??? No, seriously...Can
you even try to explain it? You didn`t thus far, it would have been fun
to listen. Some people need to see a doctor when they get cancer and
some don`t? Is that the point?"
I explained it quite well. You have a different society. You have a society that just acts different. Certain programs will run better with them. We can go farther. After WWII Japan was destroyed by the bombs. For the next few generations they developed a society that worked very hard to rebuild and they continue to work hard.
You seem to think that everyone acts the same, that different societies means nothing when it comes to policy. That shows how myopic and ignorant you are no the topic in general, or how the world works.
When people look at quality of healthcare one area they point is life expectancy. See you don't even know how organizations like the WHO even come up with their healthcare rankings? But yet you are so quick to believe it. That is sad on your part. And yes, the difference in life expectancy is noise because it is still within one standard deviation.
"You can say this about everything. I mean literally every single thing ever.
-Free elementary schools? Nah...to much diversity.
-Should murder be illegal? Of course not, because diversity."
What type of elementary schools? What should they teach? You are going on the extreme here. I support a government educational system at the state level, but how it is managed can be different. Same with murder laws. What should the punishment be? Some states react differently with stricter laws such as the death sentence.
I never said that Denmark and S. Korea were communist countries. I said those healthcare "work" there because of something like mandatory military makes people basically all the same. In communist countries in order to get them to work you have to have a homogeneous society. You can't have diversity. And no, I am not 15, I am a PhD candidate and I can tell by what you are saying that you lack much intelligence yourself.
"100% not true. If you give government an ability to negotiate the deal for millions of people, the prices will go down."
Yep, like it does with the subsidize and college loans and tuition......oh, wait.....tuition is sky rocketing right now. Basically what you just said the price going down has no evidence and won't work in any economical theoretical model. But if it makes you feel good to believe it then fine.
The fact is that the government is picking up the tab, it isn't negotiating anything. That means hospitals and pharmaceutical companies will just raise prices. What is going stop them? Citizens don't have because they are not directly paying for it. The government can't just stop paying because they said they will pick up the tab. And simply studying basic economics you will see that when you increase demand without increasing supply the price goes up.
Raising the min. wage has effected unemployment. It has killed jobs for the low skilled. And nothing positive comes from raising it.
I can see that not only do you lack experience in statistical analysis, but you also lack knowledge of economics.
People die from inferior healthcare as well. Just because the government is going to pick up the tab doesn't mean that the healthcare will exist. We see that in other countries where they have long wait times and inferior care and people lose limbs or just die because of it.
You have this false feeling that the healthcare is there and all we need is for the government to just dig it up and give it to us. That isn't true, and them picking up the tab will
1. increase our current 18 trillion dollar debt like the college loan program did
2. lower quality of healthcare
3. Give the federal government more power making us more dependent on it which can lead to more oppression
You have a lot to learn buddy
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathon, what popular vote? People have been voting for republicans the last three election cycles. Face it, people don't like Obamacare.
Yes, the polls have been wrong. One poll had Clinton winning Michigan by almost 8%. Also, many polls such as on the issues of healthcare and gun control have been wrong when compared to election results. Gallup said that 87% of people want background checks on guns. Meanwhile such laws failed in Maine and passed in NV by only 0.45% with many sheriff departments in NV saying they won't enforce it. Also, what polls are you citing with your numbers? Here is Pennsylvania
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html#polls
Almost all of them had Clinton winning, some by large margins.
"I know exactly how the electoral college works"
You clearly don't and you clearly don't understand the history of this country and why the electoral college exists. It was to give power to the states because the federal government is made up of the states. The states and the federal government keep each other in check. That is why besides treason and the draft the federal government basically has no power over individual citizens according to the constitution. That is why there was no federal individual income taxes.
"Do you understand what this means? I'm going to bet, you don't even understand the mathematical difference. "
I have a math minor, I worked as a math tutor, I am a doctorate candidate in physical chemistry. But you are the ones that are making up polling data.
Look at the numbers for the states. Clinton got over 60% of CA's votes which is over 8.7 million. Trump got over 67% of Wyoming's vote which is only 174,000. You see the difference?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dan P The biggest problem you have here is that you need to understand what money is. Giving it away to someone who isn't worth that much ruins the value of the dollar which increases prices. If all it took was more money to make the economy better than why not print more and give it away? Because in the end you can't consume money, you consume what you buy with money. More money doesn't mean more supply, thus more money will lead to an increase in prices which is devastating to those who are low income.
This idea of subsidizing the poor as opposed to pushing them to take on more skilled jobs that will benefit society is hindering the growth of society and is contributing to the larger income inequality gap people complain about. It would be great if everyone were able to get a high paying job in their life, you don't do it by paying them an artificial amount, you do it by pushing them to increase their market value.
And look recently, the economy was after Carter (a democrat) which Reagan helped lead us in improving, and was fine until 2007 when we saw a recession. We always see recessions, we saw them under Clinton and Bush, but since 2007 until now the democrats have always had control of at least on part of congress (and both for 4 years) and control of the presidency since 2009, we still haven't recovered from the recession. Democrats don't help the economy. The last time we had this much democrat control was under Carter and the economy suffered, there is a correlation there. When the republicans have control of one part of the government, as in the presidency under Reagan in the 80s or congress in the 90s with Clinton, the economy does fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dan P Now what is the definition of price:
the amount of money that you pay for something or that something costs
: the thing that is lost, damaged, or given up in order to get or do something
: the amount of money needed to persuade someone to do something
The last definition is key, along with the first definition in the word "pay". A price is something you pay. A wage is a payment for labor. Your payment is the price. That is why a wage is a price of labor.
If you overpay a worker you don't add value to the company. If you pay a worker $10/hr and they only produce $8/hr, than the value of that company is dropping. There comes a point in time when a company simply can't afford to pay a higher wage in that they will lose money. They would love to pay little but competition prevents that, if a company pays to little than they won't get good workers.
You go to a restaurant, you buy a hamburger. Not only are you buying the hamburger, you are paying for someone's services to cook it. When you buy hamburger in the store it is cheaper since you don't pay for someone's services to cook it. The store you bought it from has a checker running the cash register, the store owner is paying for their services.
We do have a problem with those with resources having influence in DC. If the federal government didn't have so much power than they couldn't be bought to begin with. That is why I am for removing the federal corporate tax rate. You can have the states decide to keep a state corporate tax rate, but there shouldn't be a federal. Giving the federal government that much power means they can be bought and corrupted. And if you increase taxes on corporations they will just pass the cost onto the consumer and workers.
And I agree, we should have parents who spend more time with their children. We do have that with better technology at our disposal. We can achieve that even more by allowing progress to take place, not rewarding people for refusing to take on higher paying jobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To start, healthcare is not a right. You don't have a right to other people's services and property. Even if we had an abundance of doctors (we don't), you can't just force them to give up their services.
Next, we do lack doctors, nurses, professors, TAs, and researchers in the medical field and colleges. It is a problem. To work a high skilled job like that it is a lot of work and stress that very few are willing to do. I support pushing people to take on higher skilled jobs like those, but Bernie doesn't seem to. Bernie wants
1. $15/hr min. wage which will lower in incentive to get out of a low skilled job
2. guarantee healthcare to people
3. guarantee vacation time
4. guarantee maternity leave
5. guarantee retirement
6. guarantee jobs
Why work hard when you are promised so much in life? One reason I work hard getting a PhD doing scientific research because I want to have those things. But if I am promised them then I would go back and work at Burger King my entire life.
The problem with Bernie supporters is that they have no idea how they are going to provide those things to people. People ask "how is he going to pay for it". Bernie supporters yell "TAXES". It isn't that simple. If it were I would support it. The issue is that where is the wealth going to come from? Why work hard to develop new wealth when you are guaranteed those things from Bernie?
This is why the top are taking all the wealth and income. They are the ones creating it all while we have a group of people, Bernie supporters in this case, that just want to take but don't want to put forth the effort to create more wealth. We have 30 million people without healthcare because we have people asking for it instead of pushing people to work in the healthcare industry to increase the resources in it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
France has a lot of days, they also have high unemployment. Who ends up paying in the end is the consumer and workers through higher prices and less pay.
Republicans want lower taxes, so the talking points on taxes Kyle is trying to make is off. And if we are just going to make a Christmas list on what the government should give us than I am going to ask for a nice car to use on their roads, because roads are pointless if I don't have a car. I am going to ask for a nice, warm home to keep me from getting sick so I don't waste tax dollars on sick days and universal healthcare. I am going to ask for a bottle of Remy Martin because you know, why not? They are taking my money so I should demand the government to give me what I want.
This mentality that one, we need the federal government to give us things, and two, just wanting handouts needs to stop. I sometimes wish for some of these things to pass so when crap really gets bad people will learn, or just suffer, doesn't matter to me. Most likely the latter will happen. I am a highly skilled person and will always have a well paying job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Tensai55 McDonalds are franchised for one. Those owners don't earn much. And McDonalds as a whole is a world wide company, that is why they earn so much in profits.
I have worked at a restaurant, it is not hard work. I have been to McDonalds, the service and food is terrible, they simply are not worth that much.
" Oh and virtually all management positions are salary, not hourly, and
you are typically expected to work at least 50 hours a week "
And as a graduate student I work more than that while on salary. Business owners do as well.
"And someone actually did the math for McDonalds. If they raised every
employees' wages to $15 an hour, to keep generating the same profits,
they would only need to raise prices by 15 cents "
Then why don't businesses raise prices up 15 cents right now and earn that much more in profits? The answer is that it isn't that simple.
"And of course, consider this. No one ever questions a multi-million dollar raise for a CEO"
Compared to the entire workers that CEO covers they don't earn much. If the CEO of walmart were to earn $0 and his salary were to be spread out across all the workers they will earn an extra $0.64/hr, not very much. Remember, that is if the CEO of walmart were to earn $0.
But really, do you really think that fast food workers are worth that much? If you do than you clearly don't know much about the market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sidney, the democrats bailed out the banks. And who is pushing for privatization of schools?
"1% of Americans are holding 40% of it's total wealth..."
And a home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. When you understand what wealth is you realize that the wealth inequality is natural.
"Trillions of dollars sitting in foreign tax havens"
Because of our high taxes.
"The super rich are ruining the country's prosperity for the rest of us"
Nope, more like the federal government with all of its power.
"Just opportunity"
You have that, it requires work.
" and bribery is legal in Washington, "
Because it has the power to sell. So do you want that same government running your healthcare and college education? Why do you feel that will end corruption?
"Furthermore, I find it incredible you think sanders is a hypocrite while
supporting the guy claiming to be "for the working class" who's never
worked a day in his life..."
He has worked a lot more than Bernie. Also, I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for Gary Johnson. But, again, why do you want this corrupt federal government to control your healthcare, college education, and more of your money with higher taxes?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Damacles9, all a corporation can do is offer you a product and/or a job. The government can force you to do things you don't want. With that said, yes you can vote for them, but at the federal level how many members of Congress can you vote for? Now compared that to the state and local level. You say "we can vote for government" when in reality, at the federal level, you can only vote for a select few of the representatives. You have no say who comes from other states.
" why did the Founding Fathers even bother with a Federal Government"
Because it was to keep the states (not the people) united. It was to give citizens rights to control governments and handle foreign affairs. If you look at the design of the Constitution it placed strict limitations on the federal government and gave powers to the states. Look at taxes. The only federal taxes at the time were taxes on imports and exports, and a tax on the states, not individuals. The federal government had very limited powers over individual citizens beyond treason and selective service. What it was is that the citizens controlled the states and local government, and the states controlled the federal government. The federal government was made up of the states, the states and local government were made up of the people.
It is like this. You have cells that make up tissues, and tissues make up organs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bart, there are a lot of things people don't care about now. That is why we need government. At the same time we have to be able to control government which is why we have a Constitution. It placed limitations on all governments. Changes in domestic issues were to be done at the state and local level.
Now issue by issue
Protecting the environment.: Prior to the EPA air quality was improving. This can be handled at the state level. Also, I have been given many charts that showed as productivity went up wages remained stagnate. That trend started in the early 70s. While there are several factors there the EPA was created around that time (along with OSHA).
Voting rights for women.: Which was changed via the Constitution because women pay taxes as well and are affected by the government thus they too should have a say
Healthcare.: This is also an issue, but if the government were to have a say or be involved it would be at the state level.
Other social insurance: Same with healthcare
Universal education: Public education has been ran and funded at the state level for centuries. The Department of Ed was not created until the late 1970s. Did education cease to exist before that? No. Also, the federal government did not get deeply involved until 1965 when it started to give out loan. After that college tuition went up. On Bernie's own cite he said
"In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243 and many of the best colleges"
Kind of ironic he picked 1965.....or is it considering that was the year the federal government decided to get involved in financing college education as much as it does. Also, with government education that can lead to indoctrination when you don't control government. There is that fear as well which is why it was left up to the states.
Illegal immigration: Was already considered
Votings rights for Blacks.
Citizenship for Blacks.
Not being property
All were changed in the Constitution sticking to the idea of having people have the rights to control government, same as with women voting.
"None of these things were even considered by anyone back in the late 18th century."
Some were.
"The Founding Fathers knew that new issues would arise in the future
(which is now the present and the past). That is why they introduced
Amendments."
But are cumbersome to pass.
"
The fact they did not mention any of the things that I listed above is meaningless - they simply did not know about them. "
I am sure they did in a lot of ways. It came down to which level of government should be running it, if at all. As with education, if we were to have it than the states should manage it. It comes back to the states provided for the citizens and the citizens ran the states. Where the federal government provided for the states and the states ran the federal government. The federal government wasn't supposed to be involved with providing education to the citizens. As I said, if they did there will be fear of indoctrination or control. The more local government is the more control you have over it.
Before the Revolution the colonies were paying less taxes than the British. The fact was that they wanted control. Not a centralized government but a government they can control, thus more local government.
"BTW - "General Welfare" is in the Constitution. "
Yes, general welfare. They were to promote it, not promise or guarantee it. I can encourage my students to study physics and do well. I can't take the tests for them. The federal government can encourage states to offer education to their citizens, they can't offer it to them though. That is what is meant by "promote general welfare". You have to read the whole thing.
"The Constitution is a living, breathing thing. It is quite different from, say, the Ten Comandments."
What does the ten commandments have to do with anything?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Where?"
I gave you data to show that criminals, as in those with records, are not buying guns at gun shows.
"When I make quantifiable claims, you could and should ask for quantifiable evidence. I am not exempt."
I agree, how will background checks lower gun crime? That requires numbers. As of right now you are simply giving talking points. Background checks exist so it shouldn't be too hard. Or it could be that you are just making things up.
"I have to ask again: define background checks as used these 95% you claimed."
Let us start with you, what background checks do you want? Background checks from that number are FBI background checks. Ever been through an FBI check? It brings up something as small as a DUI. But what are you looking for?
"It can be reduced by making gun registration mandatory, and the private
sale of guns illegal. Again, only licensed sellers should be able to
sell weapons. So that they can do background checks. Because not all who
buy guns should be able to easily do so."
A gun register means the government can track guns easier, something you don't want. Before you think that is not going to happen SB 5737 was passed in Washington in 2013 which allowed just that. I was later retracted and changed. But the idea of the government randomly searching people's homes who own guns is not out of the norm. But I bet you will support that considering it could lower crime. You know what else will lower crime? Allowing the government to randomly search people's homes. Doing so would have stopped Holmes from shooting up that theater and almost blowing up his apartment. Jaycee Lee Dugard would have been found earlier and not 18 years later. Do you support that? Do you support the government randomly searching people's homes? Please answer that question.
Also, background checks still exist. If you are a felon you can't own a gun. Beyond that who else should not own guns in your opinion?
"Still irrelevant."
No it isn't. Lack of experience will make people scared of guns despite how safe they are.
"So, anything short of systematic mass murder carried out by the
government against its own populace, guns are useless against tyranny.
Agreed. When do you expect that to happen?"
Guns are not useless in tyranny. What happened after the Boston Massacre? A war. The colonies won. We try to take peaceful routes to settle disputes, but violence should be an option, a last resort but an option.
"Nope. It's pretty relevant considering the power and capacity of modern arms, and the modern political environment we live in."
I will link you to a video on that. There were 'assault weapons" during that time. Also, do you support changing freedom of speech because of the internet? Please answer that as well.
"It's something that is fun and that people would like to do, which has
no practical purpose, and is potentially incredibly dangerous to
yourself and others. Very comparable."
There are a lot of things that are impractical. Having sex with numerous people is impractical and can lead to STDs, do you want to regulate that as well? Make this country safe by banning anything that you deem to be unsafe? We can all just live in a rubber room. In the end gun ownership is a right, so it isn't comparable.
1. Banning full autos and rifles won't lower gun crimes, that is the point.
2. 100 round drums are notorious for jamming up, that is why the military does not use it. In the movie theater shooting it jammed up on him actually leading to potentially less deaths. Magazines are quick and easy to reload which is why magazine limits don't work. This is especially true if the shooter is the only one with a gun. Ex: VaTech shooter.
3. Ok, what?
The US does not have a mass shooting everyday. If you remove gangs and drug related shootings, which are isolated, then it comes down to 4. Even with those shootings it still isn't everyday. Other countries do have light gun laws and other countries do have crime. This is not a gun problem but a crime problem. Even at that the US crime problem exists in isolated areas such as the inner city.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AJ, that was a good criticism of the book. I have criticism of the book as well and I don't consider it to be all that great. I reference that book because, as Robert Ohsfeldt said, the differences between every country is minute thus any healthcare rankings, like university rankings, are arbitrary. I agree with that. Every country faces problems and there are many reasons beyond healthcare as why those problems exist. I am not saying the US does not have problems, it does. They addressed that in the book. What they are saying, along with what I am saying, is that we can't just go from one extreme to another. So many people say that other countries do it far better when in reality nothing suggests that at all. If that were the case than I will push for radical change, but the reality is that isn't. Thus we should be looking to improve as opposed to making radical changes that will change the economy drastically costing jobs and leading to an economic downfall.
The US system has problems, but so does every other country. We should improve on the system we have as opposed to just completely scrapping it. Even our politicians know that which is why it took so long to get 60 senate democrats to agree on one healthcare bill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He is not popular. Of the poll of approval ratings of senators here is the trend for the top 10 highest rated
Here are the top 10 by state
VT
VT
WY
WY
ME
ME
SD
HI
DE, OR (tie)
ND
Ok, now states by population
WY
VT
AL
ND
SD
DE
MT
RI
MI
NH
7 of those senators resides in states with small populations (VT, WY,
SD, DE, ND)
Now by demographics, percent white
VT 96%
ME 95%
NH 94%
WV 94%
IA 92%
ID 92%
WY 91%
MN 90%
ND 90%
Do some of those states look familiar?
Now to crime. States with the lowest crime rates
VT
ME
WY
NH
VA
KY
ID
UT
RI
MN
VT, ME and WY are the three states with the lowest amount of crime. VT
ME and WY are 1, 2 and 7 in terms of percentage of whites, and WY, VT
are the two smallest states by population. but yet the six most popular
senators reside VT, ME and WY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jack Albrecht A recession is a recession, it happens naturally in an evolving economy. How we recover is key. Under FDR recovery was slow. This whole "there is no demand" is completely false, there is always demand. The pure fact is that you can't consume what you don't produce.
People demand better goods and services and businesses push to produce it at an affordable price when there is competition. But in the end if there is no production, or if the supply of money becomes greater than the supply of goods and services than prices go up which hurts the economy.
"There is also a lack of demand because there are fewer good paying jobs
because the US has been massively outsourcing for 20+ years, as well as
automation issues."
Automation drives up productivity which drives down prices. That is why disposable income has been growing for decades now. This whole "fewer good paying jobs" is a foolish thought. Jobs are easy to create, wealth isn't. Plus, what is a "good paying job"?
Where does Bernie expect to get that 300 billion? And plus, how will the states raise the money to pay for the 1/3 of it? And how does he plan on fixing the issue of us lacking classroom sizes and professors along with other resources?
Other countries don't have a good as a university system as the US does. While I hate comparing countries it is really clear the US has the best university system in the world.
"Towns are already paying the $15 dollars and hour, they just aren't
paying it in wages. We're paying for it in food stamps, CHIP and
subsidies to help someone making a non-living wage survive. "
Not true. Small towns have lower prices due to lack of resources and people working jobs there such as agriculture, a job that does not produce that much money as opposed to Pixar (which is located in Emeryville, CA, city with the highest min. wage). Consider how rent is around $200, gas is around $2.20/gal, food is cheap, utilities are cheap, doctors are cheap, etc. in small towns the cost of living is low. And if there are people living off of those welfare programs it is because the federal min. wage has contributed to the rising cost and less jobs in those areas. The simple fact is that they can't afford higher wages. The min. wage kills small towns. I have witnessed it personally. There are other factors as well but the min. wage does not help.
You have not been in very many small towns have you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jack Albrecht
1. Where do I lack understanding of economics? A recession is a recession, period.
2. Ok, how do you increase demand? Explain? I told you that it always exist. But to you it doesn't. So how do you increase it?
3. I read what you said Sanders' proposed. Sanders' proposed the states pay for 1/3 of college. Where is the state going to get the money? I understand that Sanders wants to tax wallstreet, but who is the state going to tax?
4. While excellent universities exist in other countries, in the US we have the best system in the world. We push for more professor/student relation, smaller classes and more activities. Universities in other countries are actually better suited for those doing graduate studies where the US has far more universities that are better suited for undergrad studies.
5. I grew up in a small town as well. Neighboring towns of around 520 and at times smaller. Seems like you lack understanding of small towns.
6. There is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage. It raises prices and kills jobs. Even Paul Krugman in his own textbook states the flaws of price floors such as the min. wage.
"It is a fair but debatable statement that a full time job that doesn't pay a living (poverty or above) wage shouldn't exist."
One, the term "living wage" is subjective and thus means nothing. Two, it is fair to say that if a person can't develop skills to earn enough then they shouldn't be around.
The pure fact is that there are jobs that simply don't produce much. So if that job goes away then what? A person goes from having a job to nothing, thus they are now earning $0.
" Such jobs implicitly put the remaining costs onto society, through
increased health costs, increased public assistance, increased crime,
etc. "
Nope, those problems can be tied to the federal government.
"I've seen your other comments as well. I don't see this conversation
going anywhere but in circles until you come out of your bubble."
What bubble? You have a mindset that we can simply raise the min. wage and that somehow businesses are not going to counter? Businesses will cut hours and raise prices, that is a fact, it happens. When NY raised the min. wage McDonalds fired several employees. Seattle averages 14 employees per restaurant with their high min. wage, the national average is 17. People simply hire less. It seems like you need to get out of your bubble.
One last question. So when the $15/hr min. wage kills jobs, that in your mind are not worthy of being around because they can't pay a "living wage", what do you now do to those unemployed individuals? Those jobs don't exist? Do they go off of welfare? Or does another company, as in a corporation (considering they will be the only ones who can afford the higher wage, Walmart pushed for a min. wage increase).comes in and hires them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"First of all, the cutting hours thing is an imaginary problem. You can't
possibly believe people will start working way less than 40 hours
across the board."
Yes they will because their employers will cut those hours. Also only around 2 percent of workers work full time and are on min. wage.
"Secondly, you can still get another part time job and make a living"
How, if hours are cut? Plus I don't know if you worked more than one job but scheduling is a nightmare.
"If someone wants to work two part time jobs, and two business wants to hire them, why should we stand in the way of that? "
I agree, but it isn't that easy.
"You're a conservative"
Nope, I am a moderate.
"The problem is that currently people are working full time jobs and still not making a living"
Yeah, but they are not the ones earning the min. wage.
" The 15 dollars minimum wage solves that problem"
No it doesn't.
"What you are suggesting, making it so that someone working 4 hours per
week has to be payed just as much as someone working 40, all that does
is effectively ban part time jobs."
No it doesn't. It removes the ability of employers of hurting worker's weekly pay by cutting hours. If you raise the min. wage to $15/hr and someone is now only working 10 hours a week, what have you accomplished? Nothing. You said so yourself that there are workers working full time that are poor. Now there will be even less workers working full time. Sure they will be making more per hour, but they will be making the same per week. So what have you accomplished?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
DQABlack
My point with the brick cell phone is that not everything inflates. Same goes with labor. There are jobs that no longer exist because they are worth $0. That is how the market functions. Some jobs increase in value, some decrease, some stay the same. Same with goods and services. You can't just arbitrarily determine how much a job is worth. The min. wage is what it is, the minimum. It isn't some magical number for someone to live off of. Also, if the min. wage is too high, and someone doesn't have the skills to justify that high of a wage than they will not get hired, period.
Technology have made it so goods and services are better and cheaper. That has increased purchasing power as a whole. A business who invest in technology can lower prices and make products better to attract customers. They won't necessarily get more profits. If they do they can also invest in more to grow a business and hire more, not necessarily pay more.
"Also, I in fact do know (roughly) how much I make for my company,"
Doubt it. Also, if you really worked for a large company they will have shareholders they have to keep happy. If they cut profits to over pay you they will sell back their shares causing the business to downsize leading to you and your friends losing their job.
"They can afford to treat their employees better, but the profits are more important than their employees."
Shareholders are more important.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
el80ne I guess you didn't catch my sarcastic tone.
Under FDR we saw a recession that lasted for over a decade. His programs expanded the size of the federal government leading to the current problems we have now.
FDR was very corrupt himself. He threaten to stack the courts in order to get his way and policies that one, violated the constitution, and two, were voted against less than 10 years prior passed due to FDR acting like a dictator.
What caused the crash was the Federal Reserve. It was created in 1913 (also around the time when the federal income tax became constitutional) and we ended seeing the largest recession ever with the slowest recovery. FDR supported expanding the role of the federal government and the Federal Reserve. That prolong the recovery.
To understand the market you have to realize that the market is actually like a bunch of ants operating under simple rules all connected in a complex way. The problem is that like ants they have intelligence without awareness. Thus they are easily manipulated and controlled under state power. That is how markets get destroyed.
Under FDR production maxed out which isn't natural. Rationing happened which hindered production. The government was making the assumption that a person or company needed X or Y to progress when that isn't so. They messed with currency which made it hard to get loans to invest. FDR having a strong control on the market made things worse.
During WWII FDR had to give in to businesses' demands and relax regulations so that they can produce to improve. The regulations FDR put in place hindered growth and when they were removed we grew. That is why after the war we saw growth, we had less regulations.
FDR was like Mao Zedong where he thought he can control the entire market universally which ended up leading to famine and disaster.
The simple fact is that, as I said, the market is like ants, intelligence but not awareness. The government takes advantage of that by messing with the market and promise simple things like jobs and more money which leads to destruction as in under FDR (who did what Hoover was doing as well). The market can't be predicted and can't be controlled, especially on the grand scale. But it can be manipulated and when the government does it and it falls apart, or even it just dips naturally (which happens with typically fast recovery) there are those in the government take advantage of that in order to get a job.
Under the recent recession Obama promised several things, one thing that did happen was that Congress got a raise. You are on one of those ants with no self awareness that believes that the government can create jobs. Well, technically it can, but like under FDR and Mao we don't see wealth creation and our problems compound.
You need to study up on the market more. It is very complex. Considering how you like to keep thing simple as in blame Bush for everything and use phrases such as "common sense" showing you have no justification for what you support I doubt you will study the market. But at least try.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
el80ne Under FDR was the first time we saw massive federal government involvement in the economy (really under Hoover but FDR expanded it more). Even under the recession the spending of FDR created growth, but only because because this country never experience such a market with a federal government having a strong hand in it.
After FDR pulled out in spending and job creation we had another recession. That is because the growth was artificial. FDR's programs didn't help at all, it just kicked the can down the road. The problems still existed. That is why under this most recent recession all the spending done by the fed. stopped the recession but didn't grow anything. Those who are intelligent knows that history repeats itself thus they know when the fed. pulls the plug that the economy will tank again. Federal government involvement in domestic issues of the economy doesn't help, it just compounds our problems.
Relaxing regulations did get us out of the recession. During the war there was a demand for more military weaponry (along with other things), private companies were able to produce more due to relax regulations. With relax regulations companies were able to invest to produce.
In the 30s government jobs went up but then fell in the 40s. We saw economic boom afterwards. The fact is that after years of strict regulations, unproductive jobs, and wasteful spending the economy was stagnate. The government spending during the war was on something other countries demanded. But in the 30s the increase in government spending that people didn't demand is what prolong the recession. According to you we should have spent more money on this most recent recession on just building buildings who serve no purpose when in reality is was spending like that which prolong the recession. That is why government spending on war doesn't contradict my point.
"Bottom line is that the Austrian and Real Business Cycle perspectives
you've been pushing where you blame everything on gov intervention and
regulation is an extreme minority position among modern day economists
for a reason."
Actually that is completely untrue. From CSUN
"The early-20th- century economist John Maynard Keynes advocated
a set of economic policy prescriptions that are now know as "Keynesianism."
The basic idea of Keynesianism (shorn of all the bells and whistles) is
that government can spend the economy out of a recession. It supposedly
works like this: The government spends a bunch of money on who knows what.
People receive that money as income. Then they spend a large chunk of that
income on other goods and services, and that money is someone else’s income.
Then they spend it on yet more goods and services, etc., etc. This is known
as the multiplier effect.
Although there are still some economists who support Keynesian policies,
it’s important for debaters to realize that Keynes’s theory is mostly dead
in the economics profession. The main reason Keynesian policy still gets
taught to undergrads is that, well, it’s easy to teach and understand.
But that doesn’t mean it’s right. Better macroeconomic models are much
more sophisticated, and I can’t fully describe them here. But the basic
flaw of Keynesianism is this: you have to ask where the government’s money
comes from in the first place. It can either tax, borrow, or print money.
If the government taxes, then that’s less money in people’s pockets, so
every dollar that the government spends is balanced by a dollar not spent
somewhere else. (Some Keynesians will say that taxpayers might choose to
save the money instead of spending it, which creates a "leakage." But saved
money is almost never just stuck in a mattress. Saved money gets lent out
by banks and used for investment.) If the government borrows, then it drives
up interest rates and crowds out private investment. And if the government
prints money, the value of the dollars people have goes down because of
inflation, so it’s almost identical to a tax.
Even economists who still believe the Keynesian theory (or some modernized
form of it) generally regard it as a short-run theory. In the long
run, spending by the government cannot increase the wealth of the economy
unless government actually spends the money more efficiently than would
the private sector. The more important long-run issue is the crowding out
of private investment that follows from government deficits.
"
You said this"And to think, as you appear to, that we could have recovered from a recession of this magnitude sooner by doing nothing"
We have had recession in the past before the great depression that we recovered from in around 5 years time. Take the Panic of 1837 for example. How come all these recessions that happen in the US we recover from quickly with little to no federal government involvement. But the two that took the longest to recover from had massive federal government involvement? There is a strong trend there. You really need to study history.
1
-
el80ne Well it is clear to see that you are very passionate about this. I can
break down how wrong you are and I can even do it simply by saying that
you made a claim without citing any sources. That claim was this
"Bottom line is that the Austrian and Real Business Cycle perspectives
you've been pushing where you blame everything on gov intervention and
regulation is an extreme minority position among modern day economists
for a reason. "
I actually gave a source for my reasoning in saying you are wrong. And while the source was weak it was a source non the less, more than you provided.
I am a very busy man so I will try to keep this short and hit a few points
" No one's saying that the government is trying to create wealth during
recessions. Duh. The point is to wait out recessions while mitigating
the worst effects and so people don't starve to death."
Recessions recover on their own, the market will balance out on it's own so people don't starve death. Spending money just to spend it (not creating wealth) ruins the value of the dollar and causes stagnate growth. Giving money away doesn't create more goods and services (food for example) thus people do starve to death. You can't consume what you don't produce. You need to remember that.
"Tripling the scale and scope of public infrastructure in roads and
bridges while building the Grand Cooley dam and electric grid to power
the nation is universally recognized as not only assisting the war
effort, but greasing the skids of capitalism for the private sector in
the prosperity that followed increasing capacity and facilitating
productivity. Only the ignorant would call that 'wasteful'. You have no
idea what you're talking about"
States and the private sector can (and in the past)will invest in that. If there is a demand for that bridge or dam than states and the private sector will build it and do so at a more affordable rate.
"The was no 'relaxing' of anything. So again, you fail to explain how WW2
does not directly contradict your claim that government jobs 'compounds
the problem'."
The federal government has always spent on foreign affairs, that type of spending has always been in the economy. Domestic spending by the federal level hasn't, especially at the scale FDR was doing. That is the difference. There was also a demand for such workers, that is also the difference when there wasn't a demand for that bridge and dam.
"I was already a step ahead of you in my last post explaining that the
double dip happened because FDR mistakenly attempted to balance the
budget and cut spending before the economy fully recovered. "
The economy didn't recover, it was all artificial. That is why it crashed so hard after he pulled the plug.
"And as my empirical proof I'll just point out that Sweden applied a
Keynesian solution to the Great Depression of government spending and
jobs and was the first country of all them to recover because they did
not end their spending prematurely. "
Sweden is a small country, smaller than most of our states. You can't make the comparison to the US. I actually support state and local governments getting involved in solving the problem because at that small of a scale you can actually manage funds better. But at the federal level you can't micromanage the complex economy like FDR tried to do which is why our problems compounded.
We are seeing this is other aspects of our country. The department of ed. created in 1980 is causing more problems, the federal income tax causes more problems, any federal government involvement in healthcare is making the problems worse (look at Obamacare and the numerous doctors quitting now). The federal min. wage has hurt small businesses in small towns where cost of living is low. A one size fits all policy doesn't work in a country of 300 million people. Sweden has less than 10 million. Consider that.
" But if you had ever taken a stat class, you'd know that no conclusions can be drawn from a sample size of 2"
I have a math minor and a physics degree and I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry. I am pretty sound in math and statistics. I am not drawing a conclusion from a sample size of two, there have been around 47 depressions in the US. That is a sufficient sample size.
"The economy suffered from weakness in aggregate demand, not because
government regulation was placing limits on expansionary pressure on the
supply side."
Demand is always there. There is always demand for better goods and services. But as I said earlier you can't consume what you don't produce. Giving away money and creating jobs that don't produce anything just ruins the value of the dollar because now more money is flowing but less is being created. The supply of money is greater but the supply of goods and services aren't. Demand is there and will always be there. If people don't have money than prices will drop. We have to work on developing wealth to develop more goods and services.
As I said i am a busy man and can't get into full detail. It is clear to me you are very passionate about this. You are either mislead or confused but passionate. As a whole I don't care what happens, I am well off, highly skilled and educated. I am also low key. I will have no problem finding work and getting by. If policy is created that causes another crash (most like from Keynesian economics) I will be fine. During the last recession I ended up buying a car and getting a higher paying job while others were losing their jobs and cars. While I want what is best for the country knowing I will do well, I will also do well if others don't. Which is why I am not as passionate as you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
el80ne I am not saying it is too complicated to understand. What you don't seem to understand is that in a complex system you need to break it down to solve it. That is problem solving, taking a complex problem and breaking it down.
What is clear is that you lack knowledge in problem solving to make a coherent argument on the topic. You are feeling that you can simply compare a country of only 9 million people, with a different history, society, educational system, economic system, that has different neighbors and is on the other side of the hemisphere to the US. And you boiled down that comparison to one thing, that they are supposedly more successful (that is debatable) simply because they practice Keynesian economics.
" Mandatory service creates a different mindset, SO WHAT? "
That means a lot. The mindset of the US citizen is different compared to other countries. One factor is military service for example. With increased discipline and being forced to be on the same level as others plays a role. The idea that you can remove that variable is just pure ignorance.
One of our major players in our economic system is entertainment. How much of a difference would it make if Lebron James, or Peyton Manning or Jonah Hill or other celebrities had to put their career on hold to serve in the military? The entertainment industry alone will be different. That is just one of several example.
" Only SOME countries have such policies and you still haven't said a
thing in explaining how SOME EU countries having mandatory enlistment
was a primary cause in the Eurozone triple fail."
That is another point. As I said, while those countries all use the same currency, they all have different laws and economic policies. The US can be the same way and has been for years until the great depression. We had a set currency but each state had their own economic policies and laws. The set currency was for foreign trade and interstate commerce.
Ever heard of the saying that "if you place every economist end to end they still wouldn't come up with a solution"? A main issue that I have with economists is that they simply are not problem solvers. Economics is actually very simple to grasp. I can walk into any econ. class right now and pass. I am confident on that based on my past experience. Studying economic theory is not a challenge, especially if you have a strong math background. What they don't practice is how to solve problems. There is a reason why that in 2004, according to the University of Wisconsin, that the most common major of CEOs was engineering. They are actual problem solvers.
You are showing a lot of ignorance by ignoring the differences involved in each country. Whenever I hear of an economist try to compare the US to another country I come very close to discrediting them. The reason why is because they are cherry picking what they what to push their propaganda. It is shown on both sides. Here an example.
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.454/sweden-to-become-a-third-world-country-by-2030-according-to-un.html
1
-
1
-
1
-
el80ne You simply can't micromanage it. The economy across the country is too complex. To problem solve you break it down. Like I said in comparison in education. You don't see one teacher teaching an entire school of 2000 students. You have different departments with department heads and teachers teaching different classrooms in a way that works for them. That is micromanaging.
I don't recall about Obamacare, but the simple fact was that during the Great Depression FDR's policies prolonged it, it is also the first time that there was a strong role by the federal government in trying to "fix" the economy.
The min. wage means nothing. It is a very small part of the economy. If you want to make a direct comparison on that cost of living is higher in Sweden, but we should avoid that. We have to look at the US. When the min. wage was higher there is an increase in teenage unemployment and a rise in prices. Also the min. wage was increased in the US around 2007, a time when the economy crashed. Overall raising the min. wage doesn't help the economy in that there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. I say that when I try my best to take a moderate approach, but in all the min. wage doesn't " increased the ability of low-income people to spend money." The issue is that you can't consume what you don't produce. That is why the min .wage leads to jobs loss and increase prices in the US. As I said, we can't compare to other countries (even though they do have higher cost of living).
The US pumped money into the system and increased the deficit, it didn't help. We are seeing slow growth. We are behind. The recession stopped but around 2% growth following a recession is weak when we have seen around 5 to 7% in the past to catch us back up and then settled to around 3% or greater.
Under FDR we saw a double dip recession. You claim that he cut spending too soon. Well, when is a good time? The simple fact is that the recovery was artificial and him cutting spending in 5 years or 10 year or 15 years would have led to the same results. You are saying he cut too soon but you are not giving details on when he should have cut.
Spending on wasteful programs, as in programs people don't demand, hurts the economy. The federal government isn't in a position to determine what society demands. And if you look at our situation right now we have a large debt we haven't paid off. Name me one company that can be in this much debt for that long and still be in business? It is compounding our problems. The federal government increases the deficit, doesn't pay it off, and just kicks the can down the road. And when we get downgraded they sue. I really don't see how you don't see this as a problem.
1
-
el80ne Military spending is one, constitutional, and two, benefit the entire country equally. That is difference than if the federal government were to spend money on building a bridge where that individual state only benefits. Military spending is not as much as a waste, if at all compared to the federal government spending on domestic policies.
" that would require private ownership of public goods, a very bad idea, not to mention inefficient. "
How is that bad? There is a lot of private ownership of goods in the US. Most roads and bridges are funded locally, if that is what the state and the people of that state desire then so be it. But how is private ownership bad? You are making a statement without justification. You are doing a genetic fallacy.
"I also need to point out that this boom period occurred during a period
of high top tax rates and heavy financial regulations from the New Deal
reforms you eschew, "
Nobody paid those top tax rates. The tax reform bill in the 60s were designed to get the top to pay taxes. Nobody paid those top tax rates though, you need to realize that. Also regulations were relaxed to promote growth.
"Your mistake is that you think government should be run like a private business."
I never pushed for the idea of the government running like a business. One of the problems is that it doesn't have the pressure of being a business thus it can just raise the debt ceiling and kick our problems down the road thus compounding them.
"And again, saying the money spent during recessions is "not real" is bogus because it's a blind assertion"
It isn't real because it isn't spent on creating actual wealth, it isn't spent on what people demand to progress us.
You keep going to Sweden, you need to stop that. As I said you can't compare the US to Sweden. You need to look at the US. We spent a lot during the recession and we still haven't recovered.
You need to learn what money is. Money has no value until people give it value but spending on wealth creation. Just moving money means nothing, we can easily do that and get no where. Businesses will invest in wealth creation and if people have less money then prices will dropped. But the idea that we need to get money flowing is just wrong. That is why Keynesian doesn't work and a lot of economist don't take it serious. It goes against what money really is. If all it took was more money flowing then why not mail people paper plates with $1 trillion written on it. We will all be trillionaires and will be fine. We can put it in the federal reserve and pay off our dept. So why don't we do that?
1
-
el80ne Roads for postal communications is constitutional as well. You have to look at that. The constitution is put in place to keep the governments in check. The federal government was to have a lot of limits to it to where it were to have very limited involvement in domestic policies, if any at all.
I have driven on toll roads, they are the best roads you can drive on. And no, they don't cause congestion. What has caused congestion are public freeways in urban areas. Plus it is up to the local community if they want a toll road or not. There are benefits for both. But to say they cause massive congestion is a lie. You can get a fast pass or something similar.
Also, you don't think the government can become a monopoly? It basically has. Big businesses do use the federal government in their favor. Who bailed out the banks during the last recession? It was privatization, it was the federal government. Also consider how laws that are sold to benefit the people actually help out a business with political connections. Monopolies are driven by lack of competition due to a government in their favor.
I agree we can have balance, that is why I support state rights.
On tax rates, there is a Learn Liberty video entitled
"Will Higher Tax Rates Balance the Budget? "
It explains how higher tax rates didn't lead to higher revenue.
I never said Bush was a good president. Was he better than some? Yes, especially compared to Obama. But he wasn't that great.
You have to remember that congress approved the war and funding for it. That we are the country making the strongest push to promote peace. Having several friends and family members in the military the fact is that we spend more money in promoting peace in the world. I sometimes wish we will pull out of other countries and when the world struggles people will come crying for our help. The war isn't pointless and it is constitutional. Obamacare, for example, isn't. Neither is the New Deal. While I do agree that we spend too much on the military, to say the war was superfluous is being shallow. It was at least constitutional.
I don't like you bringing up Sweden because it is a smoke screen to show what you really don't know. Sweden just recently got rid of mandatory military. Do you want to be forced to serve in the military? You never mention that when you bring up other countries' success. We had the draft in WWII. How about we bring that back. Force others to join the military. That will make a huge difference as well.
My point is that you are cherry picking what you want to push your propaganda. I can point towards Cuba or N. Korea. They have strong centralized governments. Or Russia during the USSR days. But you turn a blind eye on what doesn't fit your narrative. So again, stop with the Sweden.
Also, I pointed you towards an article saying how Sweden will be a 3rd world country by 2050. Now I admit it was cherry picking as well, but it does prove a point that people can be just as shallow as you are and push their propaganda.
The private economy boomed after WWII because of relaxed regulations and limited federal government involvement in domestic issues as I have been saying. Military spending is constitutional and benefits all equally. Domestic spending by the federal government doesn't. That is the difference. That is why the New Deal prolonged the depression but military spending didn't.
"Having money circulate inspires more confidence to spend than economic
paralysis because people can't spend what they literally don't have and
businesses aren't going to risk default and go into debt to expand when
they're not bringing in revenue. "
Ok, then why not created trillion dollar bills? Because the economy is far more complex then money spending. Money has zero value until it is used on wealth creation. You can't eat money, you can't heat your home off of it. You can go to work on money or where it. We can have more money flowing but if goods and services are not being created then that money loses value. That is why Keynesian economics doesn't not work. It doesn't create wealth. It just compounds our problems.
Under FDR we saw a increase in debt we never paid off. We saw 45% of the population be dependent on federal money. Our problems got worse. It is funny how the war forced him to change course and him dying is what got us on the right track.
1
-
el80ne I am calling FDR's programs wasteful for 2 reasons. One is that like defense spending you can take it too far. Another is that his New Deal was wasteful and didn't help everyone equally. It was unconstitutional. His domestic policies were the problem. The military spending wasn't a major problem along with roads in that every president has done it. His problem was the New Deal and strict regulations on business hindering growth.
In 1932 we didn't have cars that were easily accessible that could go 60+ MPH. Not a valid comparison.
You are pointing towards roads as a reason to have government run public goods. Roads are basically the only concrete thing government can provide. If you look at the federal budget you see that roads is a very small portion of the budget, almost non existent. Mean while they have gained power and have then become bought out. You are saying that we are less of a democracy and the exact reason why is that we have a weaker local government and a stronger federal government. The more local government is the more it represents the people thus the more of a democracy it is. That is what the founding fathers wanted and that is what FDR destroyed.
Watch the video
"Milton Friedman Crushes Man's 3 Questions like Dixie Cups"
He explains how at the federal level you create a problem where with the government running the goods you feel they should do X but I feel they should do Y, because those goods are just as much as mine as they are yours.
Also, if you look at the US, the US has never created as much wealth as private companies have. A great example is the internet. While a typical argument from the left is that the government created it. While that is debatable what isn't is that the private sector is what made the internet what it is today. The private sector made it high speed, made google, youtube, wikipedia etc. That is because there is competition which means less chance of a monopoly. With the government you get monopolies.
You want to give the federal government more power but then complain when they get bought out. That is the exact problem we have. The federal government has too much power. You want it to represent the people when you need to realized that the federal government never has represented the the people. That is why the founding fathers wanted a limited federal government. The more local government is the more it represents the people.
Think of all the people that didn't vote for Obama. Think of how I don't like Sanders, Pelosi or other representatives in the US congress. I can't vote for them and neither can you. So they don't represent you.
The powers of the federal government were to be limited. You want them to do X, Y and Z, where someone else, in your position, what them to do A, B and C. So we allow them to have that power and then corporations buy them out and then the federal government does neither.
You have a fallacy that you feel what you want out of government is what the majority wants, and that we must have it for all. That is completely wrong though. What you want is what you want. Maybe some other want it and there is nothing wrong with that. But you do that at the local level. You don't force it down people's throats at the federal level and then complain when others do it back.
This country was designed to have limitations on government especially the larger it is, as in from local to state and then state to federal. The fed. was to have strict limitations where the local governments were to have more freedom so the people can use it to their benefit. That is different from place to place. But what you are doing is no different then some CEO using the federal government to their advantage. You just cry because you are being oppressed instead of the CEO.
"The Supreme Court begs to differ. Obamacare passes muster of
constitutionality because it's a tax and federal taxation is
Constitutional."
The SC has been wrong before. Look up Kelo vs. New City of London for example.
As I said, I don't care what happens in Sweden. A country with a different history, society and a population of 9 million is not comparable to the US. Also I see you continue to ignore the article I pointed you towards about Sweden becoming a 3rd world country (a rather ridiculous argument but one that exists that you choose to ignore). So yes, your Sweden example is a smoke screen to what actually happened in the US.
The New Deal took money from certain individuals and gave to those who didn't do as much work. It oppressed one group of people domestically to benefit others. It didn't help all equally. Several regulations were not equal as well. Take the min. wage for example. Cost of living is different throughout the US. Even if you look at the current situation $7.25/hr is different in different areas. I have seen small businesses suffer in rural areas due to the federal min. wage increase. A one size fits all policy simply is not equal. You feel it is because as I said, you want it. But the simple fact it isn't equal. The founding fathers ran into this with only 13 states, it holds true today.
With military spending that benefits people equally in that it defends the entire country. But with the federal government doing domestic policies it doesn't become equal. Giving more money to one state or taking from others just because they have more money is not equal. It is oppression. But you support that system and then proceed to complain when those with resources, corporations and the rich, buy out the federal government to use to their advantage. Are you starting to see the problem?
" A civilian does not lose his/her ability to purchase food with money
just because their check was funded by government stimulus. "
Yes they do, it is called debasing the currency. It is on different then printing a trillion dollar bill and giving it to people. It is giving money to people but not creating wealth with it. It is how the Romans fell.
We are seeing an increase in poverty. While I agree that inflation is flawed, we are seeing prices go up in areas where they shouldn't. Food for example is going up when it shouldn't. Gas is the same way. We are seeing a growing income gap. Just giving money away doesn't improve the economy. You did contradict yourself. You support a stimulus but then don't support the creation of trillion dollar bills. So which is it? Do you want a stimulus or not?
What you have to learn, though, is that the problems stem from the federal government having too much power. You want the federal government to do what it wants but then complain when others use it in a way they want (electing Bush for example, or the rich buying it out). But remember, that is the system you wanted. I want a system of a stronger more local government. So I can complain about the system. You complain when the government doesn't work in your favor oppressing others you want to oppress but instead you get oppressed.
You really need to learn what the real problem is.
1
-
el80ne There is a lot of evidence that shows that the unconstitutional New Deal has hindered economic growth. It has also compounded our problems. As I said, 45% of US citizens became dependent on federal money.
You have this as well
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever
spent before and it does not work....We have never begun to tax the
people in this country the way they should be.... I don't pay what I
should. People of my class don't. People who have it should pay....
After eight years of this administration we have just as much
unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!"
That was said by Henry Morgenthau Jr.
On the min. wage. Yes there was "no discernible effect on employment." I agree. That is because the min. wage has been low in respect to the entire economy and has been raised at a low rate. It has a small role in the complex economy. Nothing positive comes from it. All the negative that comes from it gets lost in the statistical noise due to other variables. If you were to do analysis to remove that noise then you see unskilled unemployment goes up, especially in the youth. That is because that is the area that is effected by the min. wage the most.
A comparison on how the min. wage plays a small role in overall, I repeat, overall employment I will use my home state. We have a min. wage above the federal at $8.25/hr. We are a very tax friendly state. We just got a business to open here that starts out at $26/hr. When they came to open the business and create jobs were they focusing on the min. wage or the low taxes and regulations? Think about it. We do have a youth unemployment problem in our state as well though.
So when they say "no discernible effect on employment" it is a play on words, basically a smoke screen to say "there is a negative effect, but it is small that it is ignored." But in the end nothing positive comes from it.
You have a problem with special interest in federal politics and I am telling you it is because they have power that can be bought. Money in politics won't be a problem if the federal government has none that can be bought to begin with. With a smaller more local government you have a stronger representation. I live in a city of 500,000 people. I have met both our the candidates for mayor. I know workers for the DMV personally. At my home town I knew the sheriff and the man who ran against him. Heck I drank beer with one.
I have never met Obama. I have never met the head of the FBI. I have never met my congressmen. Do they represent me? No. As Milton Friedman said, you have to keep government as local as possible to see if it actually works for you. Government isn't all bad. It can be really good. But you have to see that it remains the servants for society and not the masters.
I agree we need regulations on corporations, but it needs to come from the state and local level, not the fed. where it scares businesses overseas or ends up having the corporations buy out the politicians that don't represent us.
"Candidates that don't represent corporate interests don't have a chance
of getting elected because the cost of entry to being a viable candidate
is exorbitant and can only be funded by special interest money. It
doesn't matter which party is in charge. Like I said, we've crossed the
threshold into plutocracy. "
We crossed that threshold because we allowed the federal government to be bought. We gave it power that can be bought. This is why the founding fathers wanted a limited federal government. They saw a time where if it had too much power it can become corrupt.
"I disregarded the speia article because it was so dissimilar to what I'm
doing that it seemed ludicrous you were even trying to compare our
methods. "
Or maybe it goes against your propaganda. As I said, and you did this with the min. wage. You like to cherry pick what you like to push your propaganda. Who cares what Sweden does in the end? That is Sweden. Look at what is going on in the US. Keynesian simply does not work. The data shows it. You are dismissing evidence and using a word game to push what you support and make up something that simply isn't true. You are going on to say things as " unfair labor laws". What is "unfair" to you? As I said, you want to push your idea of what is fair and not and what is right and what is wrong on others through force of the federal government. You want to force others to do what you think is right. That is the definition the fascism.
The difference between you and me is how we approach a problem. If you really knew what I stand for you will realize that I do support a lot of government programs. Not as much as you but I do support a lot. The thing is that I support them at the local level. If you want completely public roads then so be it. In my state we have that and it works great. I grew up in the midwest before I moved out and in KS they have the turnpike, a toll road. It worked great as well. Why should I force KS to change? Why should KS force my state to change? If you want your Keynesian economics at your state and local government then so be it. Why should I stop you? At the same time why should you stop me from living in a state that I agree with economically? A state of low taxes and business regulations?
The pure fact is that you are being a fascist. You are so desperate in being right that you will go at great lengths to try to prove it. The real honest answer is that there is no one form of government that is "right". That is what the founding fathers saw in the past and that is what it is like now. That is why state rights is important. It allows for change and development that works for the people and not the few. You want a government that works for the few, you being one of them. I want a government that works for as many as possible if not all. That is the difference between you and me.
"I'm talking about targeted short term stimulus funded by deficit spending "
As I said, you are talking about kicking the can down the road. We are still in debt, we now after FDR have people still dependent on federal money. It isn't short term. And it isn't free money. A stimulus package is the same as printing money, especially now since the government has a credit card.
1
-
el80ne "How would he know at that point when he was yet to see what the
successful affects of the military Keynesianism of war spending was to
have on the economy?"
So now you are admitting that it wasn't FDR's New Deal and domestic spending that got us out of the recession but instead the war. Congratulations, there is hope for you yet.
As I said with military spending, it is constitutional and it effects everyone equally. With the world at war there was a demand for the federal government to spend on a constitutional program and it did and it drove us out of the depression. It also shifted FDR's focus from domestic issues to foreign issues. Thus with him no longer tampering with domestic issues the economy was allowed to grow.
That was the point of Morgenthau's quote, FDR's domestic spending didn't do anything but compound our problems. I am quite proud that you are starting to learn.
"FDR was too cost conscious of wanting to keep budgets balanced to try a
full throated measure that would have resembled a true Keynesian policy
prescription"
Yep, he balanced the budget so much that he increased the debt.
" But if you don't like Sweden look at Germany's successful application
of stimulus to combat the Great Depression then. If you want a more
recent example look at China's Keynesian application to the downturn"
Germany was a fascist country then that attacked a group of people. Do you support that? Should we go after one group of people, say Asians for example? Blame them for our problems and create a genocide?
China under Mao was a disaster. Right now China is not a great place to work at. Not a strong comparison. But in both China and Germany you are once again cherry picking what you want to push your propaganda. As I said with Germany, do you want to eliminate a race of people while you are at it?
" Austerity measures by and large actually do prolong recessions and do more harm than good. "
But yet in this entire country's history every recession except for 2 took around 5 years to recover from and it involved little to no federal government involvement. The two that took the longest to recover from were the great depression and now. They also were also times when the federal government did the most in trying to "fix" the economy as in more spending, more government jobs, more regulations. I am sorry but the facts are not on your side here.
" Like I said, Obama's stimulus was weak as it wasn't close to enough,
and vanishes when you look at it closely. Take state and local cutbacks
into account and basically, all it did was keep overall fiscal policy
from being outright contractionary."
Then how much should the federal government spend? You said it wasn't enough even though he double the debt. Also the debt is still growing. As I said it is compounding our problems. We have a very slow recovery and now we have just doubled our debt. That isn't a success story. I guess we should have spent enough to triple our debt. Is that what you want?
Federal spending over 20% when it was under 20% before 2008. State spending just recently dropped down to under 9% of GDP before going over in 2008. Local spending just went under 10% before just going over 10% in 2006. Where are these cuts you are complaining about?
Government jobs are growing. Where are the cuts? You are saying the government did not spend enough but yet the debt continues to grow along with government jobs at both the state and local level.
Friedman, as in the video I was pointing you towards, supported smaller more local government. I did as well. I never said that a government shouldn't do anything. I said the federal government shouldn't do anything. Friedman supported state and local government involvement. All that Friedman quote does is support my case
"Maybe you could answer me this riddle then. Why is it that the states
most dependent upon federal money are all low tax republican states? "
That point has been debunked several times. It is why you never hear about it from any credible person. For examples if you were to look at the list of states who receive more federal government money half of the top 10 have democrat governors. Not really red. Louisiana who has a republican governor right now has a history were around 2/3 of their governors were democrat.
I can go on and you can find articles on it, but what you did right there was cherry pick again. You are starting to lose a lot of credibility.
You can read this article
http://smallhold-pioneerpreppy.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-myth-of-red-state-welfare.html
It cherry picks as well, but shows how easy it is to debunk your foolishness now. You are starting to get to a new low.
"And I am telling you, you are underestimating the power of money to buy state government too."
At the state level you have more control of the government and you also have the ability to move and remain a US citizen. You are basically saying "corruption happens, deal with it and live under the government I want". I am saying, as Friedman said, that at the state and local level you have more control over the government. Corruption in almost non-existent at the state level and any that exist is quickly nipped in the butt.
"I also see shortcomings to your approach. It's great for the most
populous states like California, when they can pass laws regulating
carbon emission in vehicles for instance, and because of its population
numbers have the entire auto industry change their manufacturing of cars
sold to Californians so they can get into compliance and do business in
the state. But let's not kid around, what's a state like Rhode Island
to do except hurt their own interests by passing a law like that?"
And that is up to that state. Every state has different issues to deal with. MO has some of the lightest DUI laws in the nation due to them having that beer company in St. Louis donate money to the state. They are around average in DUI related deaths so it isn't a large problem. Utah has strict alcohol laws due to their population wanting it. Nevada has light gambling laws and legal prostitution in certain counties. CA has laws banning fireworks due to the droughts it goes through. Not one state is the same. If the citizens of a state want certain laws to be put in place then they can do it. If it works then great, if not then so be it. Every state is different. They just have to follow the constitution. A one size fits all policy will not work. There isn't a shortcoming in my approach. There is nothing but shortcoming in your approach.
"Pointing to a country that appears to have successfully applied an economic model is not 'propaganda'. "
It is when you pick the reasons why they are "successful". Every country is vastly different. As I said, you can't compare the US to any other country. You really need to stop that.
As with the min. wage, I didn't cherry pick anything. What I said holds true. Nothing positive comes from it. If it did and there wasn't any effect on employment, then why not $50/hr? You need to take a statistics course as well to learn how something minor as the min. wage gets lost in the complex economy. And you need to learn how to remove other variables to see the negative effects of it and how it has zero positive effects.
Noticed how your article on it tried to compare the min. wage to overall employment when the average worker earns over $24/hr? That is being very deceptive.
"WTF is all this even about? When did I say you should be forced to change?"
Easy, you demand that the federal government control domestic policies. You want them to have a large control on roads and infrastructure. You want to create a centralized government and weaken state rights. That is also you being a fascist. You even made the shallow claim in that "red states" (something that is hard to define) have failed policies and thus need to be fixed by the fed. To you they are failing, to the people living there they are not. You want to create your form of government which isn't wrong. It becomes wrong when you want to force the entire nation to live under it instead of doing it at the state and local level.
I agree that Bush didn't do much that well. But he did spend a lot on the military which according to you should create an economic boom.
1
-
el80ne You see, I never said do nothing. If you were to actually read what I wrote you would know that I support government action as long as it is at the state and local level. Friedman feels the same what. You come at me with a Friedman quote feeling that you are holding a handful of aces, but in reality it shows how little you understand Friedman.
If you watch the video I pointed you towards you will see that he supports government like I do. But it has to be as local as possible to see that it actually works for the people.
Seriously, watch the video. It is entitled
"Milton Friedman Crushes Man's 3 Questions Like Dixie Cups"
You have never addressed it so I am assuming you have not watched it. Not surprising considering how you like to cherry pick and twist words around to fit your propaganda.
You said FDR's New Deal helped out. When I showed it didn't you then claimed it didn't go far enough. You never then say how far they should go. Friedman addresses that issue as well in the video in how government spending and jobs don't always work, especially at the federal level.
Also I showed you how in this recent recession we haven't cut spending or government jobs in that spending and government jobs are growing at both the federal and local level. Same with debt. As I said, it just keeps compounding our problems.
"Just as there was demand for the federal government to get the country
out of the Great Depression too, and there was strong demand by the
masses for the government to do something."
There isn't a demand for the federal government to do something. What makes you think they have too? Do you think the states and people can't solve the problem on their own? That is what you are alluding to. We have had recessions in the past and without federal government action we have recovered quickly. There isn't a demand for the government to do something. If there were then why don't they do something all the time to avoid recessions? Your thought process is completely wrong.
"First of all, it's only your opinion the New Deal is unconstitutional."
Uh no. Such programs were ruled unconstitutional until FDR threaten to stack the courts with judges. FDR was being a dictator at the time to get his unconstitutional policies passed. The New Deal violates the 10th amendment and isn't supported by any amendments. Learn some history.
"The average person welcomed FDR's programs or wanted him to do more and
couldn't give two shits about the constitutionality when they're just
trying to put food on the table"
And the average person is not that smart. That is why the founding fathers developed the constitution. It was designed to place strict limitations on the federal government so it can't become too powerful and take advantage of an ignorant, emotional populous. After you have been shown FDR's policies failed you are trying to justify your stance on his policies because the average person wanted it. The average person wanted war during the Bush years as well. So I guess his wars are justified according to you.
"Government spending going from a measly 3% of GDP, ramping up to 14%,
and maxing out at 55% GDP with the country going to FULL EMPLOYMENT"
Friedman addresses that in the video as well. Paying people to dig holes and not creating wealth does not grow the economy which is why we had a slow recovery. Cuba has low unemployment as well.
You blame me for cherry picking when you love to remove all variables that don't suit you.
"Once again, the FED COMPLETELY FUCKED UP MONETARY POLICY"
I agree. That is why the fed. should not be involved in domestic policies. Under FDR we say the federal government grow and federal government spending grow. I keep hearing your complain about austerity. I guess in your definition austerity is not being fiscally reckless enough. We didn't practice austerity under Hoover or FDR. When the depression started in 1929 Mellon supported Hoover in more government spending on construction. That started a chain reaction of less austerity and the longest recovery from a recession ever.
As I said before, learn some history.
By what you said as well it appears that Friedman didn't support the Fed, and I agree. As I said, the federal government tampering with domestic policies is causing these problems. There seem to be a common denominator in what I am saying. It seems the Fed. is causing all these problems.
"You sound like a chicken little debt alarmist. Did you do your homework
assignment I gave you by studying the history of our national debt? What
happened to past debts? If you want to complain about debt, start by
learning about it first."
Well you never seem to do the homework assignments I give you. I know the history of debt. It is compounding our problems. I know you don't like to think so. If it isn't such a big deal then why didn't the federal government give out a $100 trillion stimulus package? I mean, according to you we will be doing great.
"You're high. The size of the federal work force has been shrinking since 2011"
That isn't true. Now I imagine you will cherry pick a stat showing cuts of jobs after 2010, that is because a lot of temporary employees were hired for the census. Federal government employees are higher in this decade then in the past decade and in the 90s.
" As if the party of the governor determines the political leanings of
the populace. Louisiana is a deep red state and everyone knows it. "
CA is number one in poverty if you factor in cost of living. That is consider a "deep blue" state if you want to play that game. Or you can try to be intelligent and consider that you really can't determine what is a "blue" or "red" state. If Louisiana was so "deep red" then it would have had republican governors in it's history.
Once again, learn some history.
I cry "cherry picking" because that is what you do. I give out other sides of the story and clearly admit I am cherry picking. I do so just to show how easy it is to be just as dumb as you and play your games but just give the opposite results. As you did with the whole "red state blue state" thing. It is simply to show how shallow you are. I admitted that the source I gave you was cherry picking. I admitted that you can't determine if a state is red or blue. Heck, CA had a republican governor recently. I can't say that is even blue. My state is considered blue even though we have a republican governor and a republican senator. Really, you need to stop being so shallow even though it does make arguing with you easy and entertaining (but also sad that someone is willing to be this stupid this long).
"If a company is able to improve efficiency to compensate for incurring a
higher cost, the benefit is to those unskilled workers earning higher
wages dumbass."
If those workers are earning a higher wage but not producing more then the company either has to raise prices or cut hours. Something has to give. That is econ. 101.
"There are long term benefits to a company improving efficiency and low
earners are going to be spending any extra money, which benefits the
economy. "
And you don't think companies don't know that? Also, if low earners have extra money but there are not more goods and services being produced then prices will go up. Once again, econ. 101. It harms the economy.
Christina Romer even admitted a min. wage increase to $9/hr won't add much at all to the economy. That is assuming if they don't lose their jobs. But as other stats. have shown people do.
You can be as myopic as you want, that is fine with me. As I said earlier in the big picture I really don't care. I don't care if poverty goes up if we have ignorant people like getting their way (it has gone up under Obama). I don't care that we have long recovery after recessions like we did under FDR thanks to ignorant people like you. I am highly skilled and high intelligent. I will always have a job and income. I will always be well off. And I will just sit back and think that this is what society wanted, socialism and a failed economy. History repeats itself. Honestly about the best I can most likely wish for is another FDR so then people can see their ignorant ways and go back to less federal government.
So my suggestion to you is to learn history and learn economics. Start with history 101 and econ. 101.
BTW I get paid well to educate college students for a living. I just gave you this less for free. You are welcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" First off, Bernie lost because the entire DNC was working against him, you know it but want to ignore it"
Two things. One, he was not even a democrat to begin with. He was an independent meaning he would never take responsibility for the failures from the democrats. Next, maybe this shows that democrats are not the party for the people and that republicans are. Republicans did not want Trump, but they allowed the people to speak.
"His 80% approval rating even if it is just in Vermont is still the
highest in the country, and his national approval is around 60%, so
still almost 30 points above our dear orange leader. "
Polls have been wrong lately. You have to consider that. Also, Vermont is around 90% white and is the second smallest state in the US. The senator with the second highest approval rating is Susan Collins from Maine, a small state that is 94% white. The third is John Hoeven from ND, the state with the largest economic growth and is a small state that is......wait for it.....90% white. Number four is Angus King from Maine. Do you see a trend?
"NO ONE on the left is saying that free healthcare is completely free,
and you know it. What's meant by free healthcare is simply the people
don't have to pay for the help they NEED out of pocket. "
They do, with taxes. It begs the question is that the most efficient way in doing it.
" We waste BILLIONS on our current system and there is NO COUNTRY ON
EARTH that has a successful free market driven system on healthcare. "
Before 1969 no one has ever landed on the moon. Why did we try? No one has found a cure for AIDS, I guess it will never exist. Also, Bernie's tax plan is vague and does not add up. Ted Cruz brought up cost in the debate and Bernie did not deny it.
"No where and you know why? because PEOPLE ARE NOT COMMODITIES! If your
mother was sick and neither of you had the money to pay for what she
needed wouldn't you still want her taken care of without going into
thousands of dollars into debt?
"
People are commodities. You are nothing more than a cog in a wheel. And bringing up my mother will not do anything. I am too intelligent to be stirred by emotions.
"Even with our current system we STILL spend more on healthcare than all
other first world countries, and were 37th on healthcare (from WHO)"
The WHO was criticized so much that they have not developed another ranking since 2000. It compared the US to countries like Malta and Andorra which is not valid at all.
"You want "wealth for everyone"? What does that mean and how does that even get accomplished? "
People have to work to create wealth. If 60% off the nation worked and 40% does not than the only wealth that exist is what the 60% develop. Watch the short video
"Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups"
He explains how people need to develop wealth and the more people work the more wealth is developed. Right now we have a system where people are receiving money but produce nothing. That hinders economic growth.
"If businesses weren't required to pay for insurance then that would
provide a lot of breathing room for companies across the board."
The reason why businesses pay with healthcare is because of the payroll tax, which Bernie wants to expand. Paying with healthcare insurance is a tax free way of paying people which is why we do not have a free market healthcare system and why we have problems. I suggest removing the payroll tax.
"One, you're being obtuse and maybe a bit intellectually dishonest. You
KNOW I'm talking specifically about HEALTH insurance and two, you're
probably lucky/healthy enough to not worry about medical bills and
insurance costs. Many people aren't that lucky."
Insurance is great as it will pay for unplanned things, like if I were to get hit by a car walking to work today. The problem is that because of the payroll tax I cannot choose my plan, I get what my employer offers me. Also, if I were to quit my job I will have to find a new plan and at an older age that means I have a greater chance of a pre-existing condition. Also I can't have insurance companies compete and give me a plan that suites me at a lower price. Insurance has many benefits, problem is that because of the payroll tax the consumer has limited, if any control.
"Bernice's entire campaign was run on the truth,"
Nope, it was ran on deception. Rich people are not the boogeyman. Most of our problems stem from the federal government which Bernie wants to expand. Those same corrupt politicians he complains about he wants to give more power to.
"The fact that you're a student makes a lot of sense, now I know why you believe what you do now, and I say good luck to you."
Most students supported Bernie and lean left. I am the rarity that is a moderate and lean right on some issues. In academics I am the minority as many lean left mainly due to lack of experience.
"Do you like paying for health insurance (and now knowing you're a
student, DO you even pay for insurance?) and WHY are you fighting
against policies to HELP you?
"
My employer pays for insurance. I told you I rather pay for it myself as I can have companies compete and offer me a plan that suites me. But the payroll tax hinders that.
Bernie's policies do not help me as they will hinder economic growth. I do want to get a job after a I earn my PhD. I do not want to work a government job.
" Why? Do you hate yourself? Do you hate the struggling class of people just trying to live a life happily and healthily?
"
We have problems mainly because of the federal government creating barriers. Bernie owns three homes, he is another one of those rich politicians on the left that claims to help you. He wants to run your healthcare while he owns three homes.
"What other ways do you see to help people? You want people to be paid
well and be healthy, yet you're against higher wages and socialized
healthcare? Do you realize how incongruous that sounds?"
The free market and limited government has been shown to be the best. Going to smaller, more local government will work the best as government will actually serve the people. Bernie pointed to countries like Denmark and Sweden as success stories when they are no larger than many of our states. There is a desire to have government, and government has done productive work. But we have to keep it as local as possible to ensure it actually serves the people and not themselves. Remember, Bernie Sanders owns three homes. He is well off. That is not to say that politicians can't be well off, I actually want them to be. But a guy who claims that people are struggling and wealth inequality so bad but goes off and buys three homes is a hypocrite and personally is not someone I want running my life, especially since I can't vote for him as I do not live in Vermont.
Smaller, more local government is key as it will actually serve the people. Socialized healthcare is not necessarily going to lead to healthier people. We have socialized K-12 education, do we have a highly educated population? Some can argue yes, some can argue no. The Post Office is socialized but it was private companies like Fed Ex that progress shipping methods (like tracking numbers). You feel that government is the best formula out there when in reality it is much more complicated than what you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, the reason why you did not go is because you are a fake. You told you about the video and there were plenty there that would have disagreed with you and called you a fake like you did me. Instead you stayed in an echo chamber.
"If you want a actual debate with people who understand science, may want
to pick a channel that actually deals with science, such as potholer. "
Then why do you go to TYT or Secular Talk? They do not deal with science? Also, potholer, while respectable in some ways is a fake himself. There is a reason why he only attacks people like Steven Crowder and young earth theorist. They are easy targets. He studied a little geology and feels he has an in depth understanding of science. But he was challenged on his channel. Someone asked him about the video entitled
"Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax"
Here as potholer's response
"I'm interested to know why you are confused. This guy is an expert in
electron tunneling in semiconductors, he has never published or even
studied climatology in his life. If he said you can catch herpes from
eating margarine would you believe him, simply because he's a Nobel
laureate? People seem to have this belief that as soon as someone wins a
Nobel prize he must be an expert in every branch of science he's never
studied, and I don't know where they get that idea."
He does not address the content of the video to the person asking about it. Instead he
1. Pulled a logical fallacy saying that Ivar Giaever does not study climatology (neither does potholer has he does not hold a graduate degree in it nor has any published research, irony) even though he does study science
2. He deflected by pulling out some radical, meaning example of "If he said you can catch herpes from
eating margarine would you believe him, simply because he's a Nobel
laureate?"
Well, why should we trust potholer? What makes him the expert? Ivar has a track record of studying science for a living. Climate science is a broad field that involves all fields of science. I have not seen potholer show that understands advanced quantum mechanics which is relevant in how the ecosystem works.
But I digress. What you have just shown is that
1. You refuse to leave your echo chamber
2. You contradicted yourself. You said one should have a debate about science with people who understand science that actually deals with science. Then why do you go to Secular Talk and discuss science?
"You can, especially if its due to conditions that are treatable with medication or through treatment but were not given"
You can't because the 40,000 are
1. generally poor
2. less healthy (poor people have higher rates of obesity and diabetes)
3. less responsible (poor people have higher rates of unwanted pregnancies and are less educated)
And nothing indicates that they will seek out healthcare even if they had access to it. K-12 education is free for everyone and it is shown that with a high school diploma you have a higher probability of earning more. But around 12% of the natural born country lack a high school diploma.
"That doesn't really make any difference, the HIV pandemic was a massive
issue with healthcare and it only hit a few million in the US. Again,
you aren't going to have issues that are usually affecting 50-70% of the
population, if you need a number like that."
0.01% was noise. The HIV epidemic was such because HIV is such a deadly virus and it was new at the time. There were myths going around such as it can be spread by kissing. Now that we know there is a very low chance of it being spread as in around 1% by a sexual encounter (depending on many factors, even if they are infected it is still around 1%), and more is known about it makes it no longer an epidemic. You have to put it in perspective. But again, 0.01% is noise and as I shown you with another source it is impossible to cover everyone. Other countries with single payer do not cover everyone. People still die due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems. No system is ideal.
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=jbel
"Don't use terms you don't understand"
I fully understand what noise is. If you think 0.01% is not noise than you need to take a statistic course.
"How so? It covered more people, we dropped to a record low in uninsured,
how is that a bad thing? Is it bad just because it was done federally? "
Saying it covered more people is deceptive. With what quality? That is something you have to consider. Like single payer. You may say that it gives everyone healthcare, but you never say the quality. You are leaving out very important details. We can put all homeless people in a home. But if means you have 10 people living in a studio, is that a success?
"we dropped to a record low in uninsured,"
You force people to buy it. That is how it was done. That is a very low bar for success.
Obamacare was passed on the idea of lowering healthcare cost. But under it healthcare premiums went up. Now before you say "well they went up slower" you have to remember that we were in a recession. Nothing went up in price. In reality healthcare premiums should have remained stagnate in a recession like almost everything else, but it still went up.
"It compounded our problems? What does that even mean? Are you saying healthcare got worse? Is that why more people received treatment and far less people were uninsured?"
Again with the insured. People were dropped from their insurance and others saw their premiums go up higher than ever. There is a reason why people voted against democrats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"These studies are on global warming as a general subject, so it's normal
that a large part of them would not draw a conclusion on the CAUSE."
As someone who reads and publishes papers myself I will say that the vast majority of scientists do not come up with a conclusion, and those that do do so in a vague manner. The reason why is because nothing is science is certain, and science is driven off of doubt an skepticism. Anyone who drifts from that is no longer doing science but instead is doing doctrine.
"As a scientist working in chemistry in europe, I "BELIEVE" that we can
asses that most of us will still agree on man-made climate change, as
when it comes to CAUSE, studies go overwhelmingly in it's favor (97%
compared to 3% from the statistics above) after peer-review"
As someone who studies physical chemistry I will say that man is having an influence on the climate. The issue is to what degree? We cannot say. And is it even bad? We cannot accurately measure the influence the climate change will have on the environment. Consider this, we do not even know the physics behind photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is taught in grade school, but the actual physics of it, at the quantum level, is still in debate.
The other issue with climate change is that it is a vague issue. It involves many fields in science. A biologist has their viewpoints and their research, but lacks understanding of physics. Using the photosynthesis example, a biologist understands that to a point, but they do not understand the quantum mechanical side of it. It is safe to say that almost every biologist in my university does not even know what a quantum coherence is. But a physicists is not out in the field studying patterns in plants and living organism for example.
Climate change is a very vague and complex issue. Anyone who starts to give high certainty on the issue is either ignorant on the topic or bias. We do not know how the environment is going to react. We can make predictions but we do not know. Evolution itself is a complex topic (and is why it is a grad level course).
So, as a scientist myself, I will say that the issue on climate change is not settled, and anyone who says it is is bias.
1
-
1
-
"Theories and the consensus behind them form from the collection of the
vague conclusions when the evidence from enough published studies point
into a direction (to take the photoshyntesis exemple, studies pointed to
a global understanding that it exist and globally how it works and is
thus taught in schools).
That's how we have a base for further studies, but of course the science
behind it is not settled. And it is when enough studies find that
previous ones where lacking that the theory and thus the consensus
behind it is debated or approved further with modifications according to
the studies following the baseline found."
I agree, when it comes to climate change we are lacking a lot as the environment is complex. Sticking to photosynthesis (I pick this because my friend gave a talk on this and this is his research project that is very interesting) we do not understand the quantum nature of it and as we look deeper in it is it unclear how energy can reach a reaction center at a high probability in a short time scale (femtosecond) with so much noise involved. If we expand that to all of nature than the evolution process is complex. What makes people think the environment cannot involve?
"The effect climate change will have on the environment: here I find you
overly skeptical, we do have temperature trend data, true alarmistic go
too far with the effects it could have in the future, but we can still
corelate that to what we have nowadays (warmer sea, level rising for
exemple) "
I do not deny the data, and very few do. The questions remain. How much is man playing a role, and is it even bad? But few are denying the data as the data is there. What it all means is the question.
"The effect climate change will have on the environment: here I find you
overly skeptical, we do have temperature trend data, true alarmistic go
too far with the effects it could have in the future, but we can still
corelate that to what we have nowadays (warmer sea, level rising for
exemple)
"
I agree 100% to that. I am not suggesting that it is a non-issue. It is, and we should keep looking into it. But we have to stop the fear mongering. In reality climate change has been discussed for decades. Simply looking at movies like Waterworld and Mad Max, the issue existed. In the early 90s there was a kid show called Dinosaurs that talked about the issue of pollution and climate change and how evil businesses were doing it, it was the episode called "Changing Nature". That was 23 years ago. That is a problem I have, the constant fear mongering which stirs up emotions and does away with logic and reasoning.
" And is it even bad? Economicaly, yes"
In some ways. Forcing people to lose their jobs is also bad economically. That is why this is such a touchy subject as taxes are going to up and jobs will be lost.
"That's trust between scientists of different fields"
Eh, I beg to differ at times. For the most part yes. But I will admit there has been some disagreement with biologist and o-chemists vs the physical scientists. Rutherford is science is either physics or stamp collecting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Those countries are not similar. For example, Denmark has mandatory military. If you want to do GDP per capita and PPP then the US still beats China and is in the top 10. As I said before, at that point the difference is noise. By country the US has around $7 billion more than China. The WHO ranking of healthcare is frivolous. It compares the US to countries like Malta and San Marino. Also, to quote Texas A&M professor Robert Oshfeldt on the rankings "These factors (which could also include rates obesity and smoking, also arguably
the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into
question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference
between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt
compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute
differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily." He is the professor that did showed if you remove murder and car accidents then the US is number one in life expectancy. In the end the WHO is a frivolous ranking. We have football stadiums that can literally hold the entire population of San Marino with empty seats. How do you confuse where Oxford is at? The differences are not massive. The crime rate is not "sky high" as you claim. Take murder for example. The rate for the world if 6 people per 100,000. The US sits at less than 4 people per 100,000. They are below average. If you remove pockets of high crime in the US such as Chicago, East St. Louis, Flint, South Central LA, areas of NY and so on then the crime rate drop a lot. In statistics those situations are called outliers. "Every year, measurements are made for all countries to conclude which are the best and the worst at the different categories" Where?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For the most part the police force is not corrupt. "Besides, the most important thing here is that the leaders of the
country are corrupt, and they are corrupt, because the country is in the
extreme right wing, " Really? Who supports expanding the powers of the federal government? The political left. Corruption is simply a symptom of a disease. That disease is that of a federal government with too much power. The political left wants to give the fed even more power. The corruption exists because of the political left. Again, this shows you lack of understanding of US politics. "but WILL wipe out the human race" Now you are fear mongering. "Simple solution: Educate more doctors" It isn't that simple. Becoming a doctor is a very stressful job and requires a lot of work. You also have to consider that we lack researchers and professors to educate more people. Mix in with the fact that the same people who want government run healthcare also want higher min. wage and low skill jobs to come back, there isn't much of an incentive to become a doctor. Why do all that work and deal with that stress when the government is going to provide you with everything? "But this will, of course, require that the educational system gets a major reform," The US has the best university system in the world. "Evidence for this: 42% of Americans are Young Earth Creationists" I need a citation for that and not some telephone poll which are completely unreliable. Also, as I said. The US is in the top 5 in productivity which is a sign of a strong educational system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I did skim through segments of it,"
So you didn't read it in detail.
"single payer outclasses the US system. "
What comparisons?
"and bend the outcome so that the slightly less regulated appears better."
No, they are showing how close the statistics are and thus any difference between results in terms of healthcare is simply noise.
" It is an illusion, it is like saying that Pittsburgh Penguins is the
best hockey team in the world, because they always wins against other US
teams - without international comparisons, you cannot possibly draw
that conclusion. So yes, it is fraudulent."
The differences are minute, that is the issue. You are making the claim that the US system sucks when in reality nothing says that. That book never says the US system is inferior, it simply says that the US system has problems and so do other countries. Again, if you read the book in details you will see that.
"Secondly, even debating this issue is already a loss. It is the same with creationists. "
An asinine comparison because you are comparing science to something that isn't science. That is like asking what is better, an orange or a Ford pickup. Where do you begin? With this healthcare discussion it comes down to this
Are other countries better off with their system compared to the US? The answer is no. Are they worse of? That answer is also no. So with that we can't do universal healthcare because
1. It will require dismantling the system we have now which will destroy the economy
2. Our society won't accept it as seen by the failures in Vermont and Colorado and how there is so much hate towards Obamacare
The best solution is to fix the system we have now, not replace it with another system that has just as many problems.
But, you talk about debating the issue is a loss. I can tell I am debating someone who clearly does not understand statistics. This is like debating someone on if we should invest fusion research in laser fusion or particle collision with someone who does not understand physics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I've never seen Bernie rail against successful people, "
He constantly complains about millionaires and billionaires and the 1%.
"all I've seen him rail against is in regards to the concentration of wealth, power and cronyism"
While cronyism is bad his policies will make it worse. On concentration of wealth he reveals his economic illiteracy when he brings that up. There is wealth inequality because not everyone had the desire to run a major corporation. Also since the US is as advanced as it is we have lots of people, me included, that have negative wealth because of debt but are still well off. When he complains about wealth inequality is reveals he has no clue what he is talking about.
But, on successful people again, when he was approached by the small business owner on regulations he immediately started talking about millionaires and billionaires and the 1%.
" I'm not a fan of the ACA, it has a few provisions I think are great but
overall I find it to be a poor compromise. Neither a truly conservative
nor progressive system."
Fair enough.
"From what I've seen from Bernie is that whether he is right or wrong, at
least as I perceive it, he always has the interests of the general
welfare in mind"
Anyone can run their mouth. I watch this debate and I feel Cruz cared about the general welfare. Bernie, to me, wants to give more power to the federal government and make us more dependent on it. He is saying that we need "affordable healthcare" as opposed to high quality healthcare. But, the big issue is how he basically does nothing. He does not have any major charities, he does not volunteer his time to help people. All he does is run his mouth about how unfair things are and when he has money he buys a third home.
"
Overall I think you probably just have missed what his message is and
have probably never given any serious consideration due to your own bias"
I followed Bernie a lot and feel he is a fraud. He has no problem telling businesses what to do with their money. Meanwhile he goes out and buys a third home. So it is OK for him to spend his money as he pleases but when a business wants to expand, or even start, they have to pay for his regulations he wants to impose and a $15/hr min. wage. He goes after businesses who want to expand and create jobs and actually help society with their money. And what does Bernie do with his money? He buys a third home which helps nobody buy himself.
You are just a lost child at this point. You bought into his appeal to emotion rhetoric that he is going to give you free stuff. You feel that he is going to give you a
1. living wage
2. healthcare
3. college
and so on. Anyone can stand on stage and promise free stuff. Harold Camping established a following telling people that the world was going to end. I see no difference in that and Bernie promising free stuff.
1
-
" I still dont get why I need to read a 188 pages propaganda piece."
Maybe because it is a combination of you not being able to read and you are close minded. Why is it a propaganda piece? Please give evidence? The sources you gave (and seem to have deleted now) I criticized in an intelligent way as opposed to just saying 'well it is a propaganda piece". I gave reasoning behind why your sources were poor.
"Ironically, I suppose you at least pretend to have read it, but then
that only shows your limited intelligence, because you refer to the book
in the manner "that is covered in the book" as if that ends the
discussion."
I am not going to re-write the book for you.
"However, from what I did read, there is nothing in the book that
disproves any point, especially not anything in the scientific articles I
linked to."
You clearly did not read the book than. The point they are making is that every country has problems with healthcare and that the system the US has is not inferior to other countries.
"The big bang theory is NOT disproven simply because the bible covers the
start of the universe - this is the level of ridiculous you argue at."
In science nothing is proven, but that is another discussion in itself. I am a scientist by the way so if you want to have that discussion we can, you will learn a few things. But, your comparison is poor. What the authors of that book did was lay out how the US system is on par with the rest of the world. Now it does have problems, but so does universal healthcare and nothing indicates that universal healthcare is better.
"One truth of the matter you ignore is that an impoverished individual will NOT be denied healthcare in Europe. "
They will just have to wait a long time.
" And your attack on Bernie is pathetic, "
How so?
So far you have made any accusations but have given zero evidence or reasoning behind your thoughts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" anybody can cite peer reviewed studies."
I agree, and you can read the book and the studies they cite and come up with your conclusion yourself. I do that all the time in my line of work. I look at studies, look at the citations, read them and their citations and the authors other work and so on. You can do the same with this book.
"If you want to make an argument you should try this. Find a point made
in one of these books, check the sources and the reliability of those
sources, if you come to the same conclusion as the authors of the book
then explain the argument to us and provide the original, quality peer
reviewed sources for us to look into."
My argument is this.
1. Nothing shows that the US has an inferior system compared to other countries, or that other countries, with universal care, are doing so much better.
2. Yes, the US has problems, but we must fix them with the current system we have, not scrap it to replace it with another system with problems and also destroy our economy
People are saying that universal healthcare is the best when nothing says that is the case. If the US system was extremely terrible than yes, I will be in support of something radically different. Fact is that isn't the case. As of now you have not given me anything to support your case at all.
"Giving a link to a non scientific agenda driven story book isn't an argument, it's just lazy"
More than what you have provided. Also, I don't 100% agree with that book, but it is full of information for one to consider. The whole "every other country does it and does it better" is a lazy argument.
" If I sent you a link to a book about climate change that referenced
scientific journals but was written by Leonardo DiCaprio, would you take
the time to read through it? "
If Leonado DiCaprio changed careers, got a PhD in this field and studied it for years than yes, will read it. As of now that is not the case.
" Or would you safely assume it would be a waste of time considering it lacks an objective scientific approach or presentation?"
How is that related to that book?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The purpose of denial is not to win an argument, but to sow confusion,
thereby delaying action, mayhaps indefinitely. As eloquently explained
in this comic:"
What am I denying?
""If Leonado DiCaprio changed careers, got a PhD in this field and
studied it for years than yes, will read it. As of now that is not the
case."
Appeal to authority"
Nope, appeal to authority means that what they are saying is right just because they have a PhD. What I am saying is that you can take what they say in consideration. If you are going to call out logical fallacies understand what they mean.
Here are some examples.
1. Mark has a PhD so he knows how to fix a computer.
That is appeal to authority. Mark having a PhD does not mean he is an expert in fixing a computer. If his PhD was in philosophy he might not know how to fix a computer
2. Mark has a PhD in chemistry so he knows what he is talking about with protein synthesis.
This is also appeal to authority. While many chemists can synthesis proteins and do it for their research and thus know a lot about it does not mean Mark does as chemistry is a broad field. Mark could be a theorist meaning he never steps foot in a lab.
3. Mark has a PhD in chemistry, let us ask him about protein synthesis.
This is not appeal to authority. No one is saying Mark knows everything, nor are they saying Mark will know anything at all. But Mark does have experience in the field and could give his two cents worth, or more importantly give people guidance on where to go and who to ask when it comes to the topic.
4. Mark has a PhD in chemistry and studied the f-elements, so he is a great source to talk to when it comes to lanthanides.
Not appealing to authority. Mark, based on his background knows a lot about the f-elements thus will know a lot about Lanthanides. That does not mean he will know everything, but he will know a lot.
Do you understand?
1
-
Drake, I have said the US system has problems. You say inefficient and I will agree, that does exist in some ways. For being unjust I will agree as well. But I have a feeling you feel that it is to a large degree when compared to other countries that is not the case. Other countries possess inefficiencies as well and are unjust in certain ways.
"find whatever segment you believe proves that US healthcare is as good as all other developed nations healthcare"
The reality is that is the case. Nothing says that other countries are better. I am not saying they are worse, but the reality is that they are not better.
" Either, our sources do not have the proper credentials "
You wrote two comments with sources where one is no longer present. The other is from Wikipedia.
"since they contradict the holy book, they are wrong by default.
"
One, never said that book was holy as I do not completely agree with it. Next, I said your sources were flawed and I laid out my reasoning why. For example, you showed me a poll of doctors but that poll never mentioned their methodology. They could have picked 20 doctors or 2000, I don't know because it didn't say.
"Critical thinking is the foundation of science."
Which you showed none of it. You said the US system is "unjust" and "inefficient" and are alluding to other countries' systems aren't. But you gave nothing showing that was the case. Like I said, the US system has problems, but when compared to other countries our system is just as strong. Our problems are different, that's it.
1
-
1
-
Drake, here is the issue. The US does have problems in healthcare, but so do every other country. The reasoning behind those problems are due to numerous reasons, many beyond healthcare. For example we have a growing immigration population where around 67% of them do not have a high school diploma. In Canada they have strict immigration laws where you have to have a job sponsor you if you want to use their healthcare system. Meanwhile we have people, where 1/3 of them don't have a high school diploma, coming in and using our healthcare system. There are many factors involved and when you run through the numbers you see that the differences between them are minute.
Now if the differences were great, for example if the US was at a life expectancy of 70 years and every other country was at 85 years or greater, than I will say we need to drastically change some things. But the reality that is not the case. Thus we can't make radical changes. Pushing for a nationalized single payer system will
1. Replace one model with problems with another model with just as many, and as severe problems
2. Lead to the destruction of the economy due to jobs being lost and changes in the tax code
3. Require that a nation of 320+ million people think differently
That is way too extreme which is why any federal healthcare reform has been so challenging to pass in the first place. It is why around 80% of voters in Colorado were against. Such changes are hard in other policies, such as social security. No one is suggesting complete removal of it knowing the economic impact will be destructive. The same is with healthcare.
I am all for reform, but I feel it should come at the state and local level. I can see a public option working in the state level and support it in many ways. I support more competition in healthcare and with the states handling it that create that. But to do a radical change going to universal healthcare where nothing suggest that will be better is not a solution. That will just create more problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** There are a few things there. One, in Germany they have higher standards in who they allow to go to college. In the US they allow almost anyone which is good because someone from a weak high school can get an education. Working in athletics I have seen athletes go to college who wouldn't have gotten in otherwise and were able to get better. We provide opportunity in the US, Germany is very selective.
I also brought up the whole free college thing to one of my colleagues who is from another country and why he and his friends chose the US over Germany. He said that one, cost of living is cheaper, and two, in the US they speak english, they don't in Germany (primarily). He doesn't understand German but does English so he picked the US.
There are other factors involved here. I will also say that in the US a graduate degree is worth a lot more, for the most part, than one from another country. While college is "free" in Germany it doesn't mean it is great. So while I got $40,000 in debt for college (all undergrad, I get grad school paid for) I will get is paid off in no time and it won't hurt me in buying a home later or getting a job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mermaidismyname A few things. One, you can't compare the US to other countries, too many variables. The US has a larger population then those Scandinavia countries. We have states that are larger than those countries. We have a different history, we have a different society. Denmark and Sweden for example have mandatory military service. Do you support that? You arbitrarily pick one factor in this, welfare, but leave out the fact that those two countries have mandatory military service, or a smaller population. So you can't compare due to several variables. I can easily say their inflation is lower due to mandatory military, so I guess everyone in the US should be forced to serve in the military, do you support that?
If you want to make shallow comparisons cost of living is already higher in those countries to begin with. So what you are saying is also not correct when one decides to make a comparison. Those countries have a higher cost of living.
People can demand all they want but if the product doesn't exist it doesn't matter how much money they have. There is that supply side as well, but you choose to ignore that variable also. If supply of a good or service is low and money supply is high then prices go up.
You are failing to realize what money is. Money is worthless until it is spent on creating capital. The government spending more money that doesn't create capital lowers the value of the dollar. If college was "free" the quality of education will be terrible due to there simply not being enough professors and supplies (we already lack that, my university lack TA's for example and lecture professors in general classes).
You don't need college to be educated, and producing more art and business majors isn't producing capital, it is a waste. Making college free will increase those degrees because people will choose the easier degrees just to get one with hopes of getting a better job when they won't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mermaidismyname 2010 is still very recent. Mandatory military is a large factor. One idea of it is that it forces everyone is society to be treated as equals and interact with everyone. So a poor person is on the same level as a rich person in the military. We don't do it in the US because we have freedoms here.
If you look at PPP (cost of living) and compare other countries the US is near the top in median income and beats several Scandinavian countries (if not all, depends on which source you look at). If they don't it is very close. On Wikipedia they have OCED stats. with the US as 4th behind Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland. Look at the number, they are $37,178 33,928 33,669 33,932
Those numbers are close to each other considering the average is 19,167 with a SD of 7038.74. The fact there are differences between those countries is because of noise which comes from several variables.
You will have an argument if Denmark, for example, was at $30,000 and the US is at $20,000. But considering how close they are you don't have an argument.
Seems like you need to take a class in economics. All the states pay for K-12 education and so does the fed. in some ways. We still lack teachers. Seems like the free K--12 program hasn't increased supply. So explain to me how government offering free college is going to increase supply? We already lack professors as is. So in order for the government to increase supply they have to either pay professors more causing education to cost more or force people to teach.
Capital is consumer goods. Money only derives it's value on what society feels it is worth. The government prints money but it's value is determined by the market which society runs. Just giving it away lowers it's value. That is basic economics. If all it took was more money then we can just print more or raise taxes and spend it, but it goes beyond that. Society doesn't demand business, history and art majors. Spending more money to produce them won't help.
Europe's K-12 education is, arguably better than the US (as I said before, you really can't compare one country to another, especially the US to other countries). But the US has arguably the best university system in the world. There is a reason why we are number one in the world for university students from another country. There is a reason why professors from other countries come to the US to work in universities. And it does matter if it is lower in quality. It becomes a waste there.
If someone wants a better job they will push for a job in the medical field or engineering. As of now we have students who try that but don't put forth the effort even when they pay. I work as a TA at a university. I teach pre-med students who pay to go to college. I just gave one a C, one a F, and a few more B-. They were students who didn't put forth much effort (one hardly did the work). So you really think making it "free" will motivate people it going after a better job? If they want it they will do it. I had another student who was poor that was able to pay for college and do well.
"You’re trying to explain to me economics? That’s cute. "
Based on that it seems you never took a class yourself on economics or have the maturity to pass one. It seems like you have a lot to learn. Talk to me when you took grad. level courses that MBA students take such as advanced statistics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mermaidismyname There are ways you can determine if the citizens have a high standard of living. People in the US are doing better then people in Zimbabwe considering how they have 80% poverty and a life expectancy of 58 years. 58 years compared to 78 years is a large gap. But when the US has 78 years and Denmark has 80 years, the difference is considered noise due to several variables.
That is what I am trying to get across to you. You, along with several other people say that Scandinavian countries are doing better. Well, I ask how? When you consider how many variables are involved you can't say. I also ask why? You cherry picked their welfare policies. You ignored how some have mandatory military, different history, or that cost of living is higher and so on. You just picked out stats that you want without giving them any context or connecting them to anything except for what you want.
It is similar to how I said compare two students, one with a 3.90 GPA and one with a 3.25. Now a student with a 2.10 GPA is weaker then the one with a 3.90, but compared to the 3.25 you can't say until you look at the variables. When you do then you might see why the one with the 3.25 GPA is better than the 3.90, or at least on the same level.
The declaration of human rights is self contradiction document and overall completely worthless. From the one I am reading Article 26 says everyone has a right to education. But that contradicts Article 24 where everyone has a right to rest and leisure, and Article 23 in that everyone has a right to choose employment, and Article 4 dealing with slavery. Someone has to provide education. So if we don't have enough professors then what? Increase class sizes? Then that is less connections between professors and students, now they are deprived from their right to education. Force people to be professors? That is slavery and prevents people from picking the job they want. What if the professor wants to take a month off? Now students are deprived from their education again. What right trumps another?
I can break that document apart easily in how contradicting it is. It is a christmas list of people's want. If people had a right to the employment they want then what is going to happen when there are no or limited janitors? I don't think that is a job people want. I guess we will have dirty buildings. But if my trash isn't empty then I lose my right listed as "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work "
What makes you think that I don't care about poverty? I care about it. I am just smart enough to understand that it is a complex issue. Just claiming something is a right (while contradicting other rights) and giving money away doesn't solve the problem. As I said, it is like putting a band aid on cancer. It looks good but does nothing.
College is an investment much like a business owner invests to run a business. You are investing to pursue a dream and a career. With your attitude you are going to have a hard time getting a career. While you are making excuses others are working harder. You attended to college to pursue a career and if you really want it you will find a way to get it done. As of now you are making excuses and want someone to flip the bill for you to study want you please even though it won't give much back, if anything at all to society.
Think about what you support right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Other countries face problems as well with universal healthcare.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
It isn't all that great and won't solve anything. In reality the problems with out system stem from the federal government which Bernie wants to expand. Bernie has never been able to defend his healthcare plan beyond saying "we are the only nation on earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare as a right". But that doesn't mean it will be great. We are guaranteed representation in the court of law, but will the lawyer we receive always be the best? Just saying we are guaranteed it doesn't mean that the quality will be high.
On education, other countries have restrictions to keep enrollment low so that only the best can attend. In the US we allow almost anyone to attend which I agree with. Because when the K-12 education fails them than they should have an opportunity to do better.
" Oh dear, you are such a sorry fool. Nobody thinks these policies are magically free. "
But Bernie keeps harping about the 1% and millionaires and billionaires. Never about the middle class (except for the increase in the payroll tax that business will have to pay as well, where to Bernie that means big corporations). Bernie and his supporters want the rich to pay more in taxes thus for them to pay for those programs, but never them. Are you willing to give up half of your paycheck for free college and healthcare?
" will be reallocated from areas where we overspend or misuse said funds."
We are running a deficit right now. How about we cut spending.
"First of all, you claim Sanders was a nobody. In actuality, he was and is one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress"
Not really. Ted Kennedy had more power and if it wasn't for killing someone he could have been president.
"And when Keith Ellison becomes a head of the DNC, Bernie will continue having much more influence in Washington"
Doubtful. He lost and people are getting sick of his handful of phrases.
" but he got so many Americans interested in politics who never were."
So much so that they came out and voted for Clinton whom he supported.....oh, wait.
"To say he'll be a nobody is laughable."
Considering how a lot of his voting base is young that will lean right as soon as they start careers, it is safe to say he will become a nobody and forgotten within time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"name one country that has free market for health insurance that works?
"
Name me one country that has put a man on Mars. Just because it isn't done does not mean it does not work.
"insurance costs were rising before and after the ACA was signed into
law, in short the ACA has nothing to do with rising prices since it
doesn't DO anything to lower prices"
Obamacare was pushed on the promise of lower prices. It did not keep the promise.
"really how do they ration it? "
With waiting lists. This is well known that even supporters of single payer admit to this.
"it is the case, every for-profit business HATES competition, they actively try to dominate the market
competition means only one thing, loss of potential market share"
Yes, for profit businesses hate competition which is why they use the government to hurt competitors.
"it was a free market that caused the great depression, "
No, it was the natural growth of the economy. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. The federal government trying to "fix" the economy prolonged recovery.
"or how about net neutrality, without it ISP's can collude or threaten
sites to lower their speed if they didn't pay a fee, Netflix could pay
the ISP's to slow down YouTube or vice versa etc"
What's your point? The Internet is one thing the government has little involvement with and look how it grew.
"also no country in history has ever had an economy with zero
regulations, thats why the notion of an unfettered/unregulated free
market is nothing but an abstract concept"
I know, but if you go to the other extreme you end up with a disaster like Venezuela.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"it seems beyond obvious that liberal states and people fare better in life across numerous statistical categories."
No data shows that as that is a very vague conclusion.
" States that vote Democratic are empirically more well-off than
Republican states in terms of their GDP, per-capita income, even disease
rates and domestic violence rates.."
Again, nothing says that is true.
"most of the nation's scientists live or work in blue states, damn near
every highly creative musician or artist or filmmaker or novelist does
as well(or do you think art is for queers?), and finally...the most
successful and cutting-edge businesses in this nation, the ones that
will be what allows America to thrive in the future, are overwhelmingly
located in blue states."
For several reasons beyond politics. Also, they are mainly the only ones that can afford to live there. Look at CA, they have the highest Gini coefficient in the US. The second highest is NY.
"And...when you look at demographic trends, young people are leaving red states by droves."
Again, nothing shows that is the case.
"If this nation was split in two today...one side conservative the other
liberal, it is simply an objective empirical fact that on day one...the
liberal side would be a potent world-power with an emphasis on culture,
creativity, human rights for all, secularism, technological progress,
the importance of education and critical thinking skills, laws based on
empathy and ethics...and would be on par with many Nordic countries. "
Not really. Nothing points to that being true.
"So....can we stop with the nonsense about how blue states are "running into the ground" or whatever meme people use?"
"Blue states" have major problems.
" Do you care at all what objective statistical evidence, both sociological and economic, show empirically to be the case? "
Many do. But in reality liberals tend not to. They tend to go off of emotions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Red Hunteur
There is more to it than that, I will get to that though. First, there is a desire to have government, but we must control it. You have more control of the government the more local it is. If you look at how the country was designed the federal government was there to
1. deal with foreign affairs
2. enforce the constitution
The Constitution placed strict limits on the federal government and programs like the FDA are not a part of that. Thus it becomes responsibilities of the states. States are there to
1. deal with domestic policies
2. enforce the constitution on the fed
All in a nutshell. We can split hairs but that is what it is.
Nothing, in the history of man, has been more destructive than government. Does that mean we completely remove it? No. But we control it. The founding fathers saw that and thus they placed strict limits on all government and they also established more local government. You want a program like the FDA so you establish it at the federal level . You then complain when there is money in politics. Is that because the FDA exists or is it because you don't have control the government? Well really both, but more of that you don't control the federal government. Sure you can vote and from your state comes your 2 senators and handful of representatives, whom you most likely never met. But that's it. At the local level, assuming you are active in the community (and you should be), you can personally meet your government officials and see if they are working well.
To give an example of all of this K-12 education is not mandated at all by the federal government. It is ran by the states and local government. They set the curriculum and fund it. All 50 states have K-12 education. Public education can be seen as indoctrination, but at the local level you can meet your teachers, administration, control the curriculum more, etc., limiting that issue. The same with with the FDA, EPA and so on.
Another issue with you is this
"Right... so we should let some fundamentalist state governor decide which foods are safe and if certain medicines should be available?"
You almost have this fascist mentality. You live in your state and will have a government you want within the bounds of the constitution. That is fine. But you will get angry when a completely different state where you
1. don't vote in
2. don't pay taxes it
3. maybe not even visit
runs a program differently. You feel the need to push what you support down their throats because you feel that you way is right. As long as they are within the bounds of the constitution then there is nothing wrong going on. There is no really one form of government that is right. As long as the people control it then they are fine.
I know what you "really think". I can tell immediately from your first sentence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I follow Bernie a lot as well and saying "who is going to pay for it" is, at least to me, the wrong thing to ask. But in politics you are not supposed to be the smartest in the room, you are supposed to be the one who stirs the emotions the best.
The real question one should ask is how do we provide it? We lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, equipment. We lack doctors, nurses, hospitals, surgeons, researchers, etc. How are we going to provide college and healthcare for all when we lack skilled workers to actually provide it? Someone has to provide those goods and services.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Business degrees are pretty much useless unless combined with another degree. Around 30% of CEOs are engineers. I never took a business course before until this semester and I am taking a 700 level business administration course and I recently got a 95% on my last test. Those classes are not hard.
"Most odd degrees are traceable back to private institutions. And
government institutions, paying for college, don't have to offer those
degrees."
But they will. Also, you are failing to realize that we have a problem of lack of professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, equipment, etc. My university is increasing enrollment and next fall they have classes starting at 7:30 AM and ending at 10:30 PM as opposed to being open 8 AM to 10 PM. We are short TAs and have undergrads teaching labs. You can't consume what you don't produce.
"Germans have to pass advanced tests to get into the state schools, its fucking hard. "
They also track their students which, arguably, limits opportunity. Someone who went to a poor K-12 school will do poorly on those tests and thus does not have the opportunity to go to college and better themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mckenzie .Latham
"Funny sicne part of those states rights was slavery for example... kind of interesting when you look at the people who said all men were created equal and freedom for all, while also supporting slavery and slaves...a very profitable business at that point..."
And a constitutional amendment ended that. The constitution is there to protect citizens rights. One ended up being the right against slavery. You bring up slavery which does not support your case at all. If you look at that amendment that did not give the federal government power at all over the people but instead just gave people more freedom. That is a key point there.
"that too me says all anyone needs to know about the nature of greed (and states rights) in the country."
Or you need to understand the reasoning behind it. Let us compare this to PP funding. There you have the federal government forcing you to give away your money to a program you may not support. That is taking away freedom. With slavery, you are giving people freedom. See the difference?
"Forcing things on others who don;t want it? again when you live in a society that's the sacrifice you make..."
Which I don't mind, but I want my voice to be as loud as possible. The more local government is the louder your voice is, especially if you are like me and are involved with your local society. If a state does not want PP than why do you want to force those citizens to pay for it? You are taking away their freedoms.
"No becasue their man-child god leader violates his end of it...the contract works both ways genius... he does not provide for his people, he in fact harms his own people which violates the social contract."
Nope, that is their social contract. Also, define "provide for his people". That is vague. You are creating the illusion that a program like PP will cease to exist if the government did not fund it. That is not true at all. In certain areas of the country the only fire fighters they have are volunteer fire fighters. The government does not fund it so guess what, the local society still has it. But again, that is their "social contract". Ours, if you want to play that game, is the US constitution. Nowhere does it mention funding for PP, thus it becomes a state issue. Just like K-12 education is ran and funded by the state and local governments.
"As i said, they have to meet their end of the contract as well, sicne they're defunding medicare and Obamacare with nothing to replace it with, losing tens of million their insurance adding to the hundreds of millions already without any insurance or coverage...they are fucking up big time."
Nope, because the only "contract" is the constitution. Show me where Obamcare and medicare is listed. It is not, so in the end, based on what you are saying, they can do that. The social contract (the constitution) says we can vote. We did, elected republicans thus they are going to do it their way. So nothing is being violated here.
"again if thy don't have anything to help and or provide those services at affordable cost and convenience they've broken the social contract..."
Wrong. Voting is in the constitution, PP funding isn't. Thus we voted to put republicans in charge, so we go their way. Show me this "social contract" you continue to speak of. I want a hard copy and I will give you one of the constitution.
"again it's clear you're going by Hobbes view of the social contract which is basically unquestionable servitude....I'm talking about John Locke's social contract:"
Again, show me a hard copy of this "social contract".
1
-
1
-
1
-
anewday
" also in 28 states, for instance, same-sex couples have no legal recourse if their landlords decide to evict them from their home. In 31 states, it is still legal to fire an employee because they’re gay or transgender. In 36 states, there are no laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT students in schools."
With landlords and private companies, that is their private property and they can run it as they seem fit. This is why so many people, including me, get annoyed with the whole gay rights thing. The majority of people don't care. What gays do is seek out the businesses that will do such actions and then use government force to oppress them. As in the cake shop situation, instead of going to another cake shop they used the government to shut the company down. That is just as bad as using the government to ban gay marriage. It goes both ways. You don't have a right to a job or to live in someone's property. With schools, via the 14th amendment no public education system can discriminate. So that is a non-issue.
Reading your whole point on Obamacare and Medicare highlights why we can't have the federal government run these programs and should have left it up to the states. Obamacare and medicare are a mess and failures, but now so many are dependent on it that it makes it hard to remove. To me, I just say fuck it and pull out Obamacare. Medicare we can ease out of, but Obamacare we have no choice. So some people will become uninsured, well, that is the fault of the democrats for forcing a bad law on us to begin with. I won't blame republicans for that but instead democrats. And if it is done immediately, and without a couple years things get better than republicans are safe. That is why they want to do it quickly, it gives the market and society time to adjust. So I see no reason to find a replacement for Obamacare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Carl Smith On question 1: The reason why is because of the payroll tax. Paying with benefits such as stock options, a company car, and healthcare insurance is tax free. With a payroll tax if a business wants to give a higher wage they will have to pay a higher tax.
So what you get is people getting a generic plan that they don't need, like women getting a plan that pays for viagra. Or a business refusing to pay for contraceptives.....sound familiar? Also, people have a harder time switching jobs because that will mean switching plans and they might not get it due to pre-existing conditions.....again, sound familiar?
A better option would be for people to get a higher wage and buy a plan they want. Making insurance companies compete which will lower the price and have it so they develop plans that cater to their consumers. That will make insurance better.
Question 2: Healthcare costs are high because of lack of competition. If insurance companies had to compete they will lower prices causing doctors to lower prices. Also, some forms of care don't need insurance. I get physicals and STD check up yearly because it is, in my mind, the right thing to do. My insurance pays for it. I could, instead have healthcare providers compete to where they will provide a better service at a lower price.
There is a place for insurance, as in expensive surgery or emergencies. Just like car insurance covers an accident. But it doesn't cover an oil change.
LASIK is not tied to insurance at all. It has become better and cheaper throughout the years.
We have to bring back competition in healthcare. The payroll tax killed it. Once again showing how the federal government breaks everything it touches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
pete sampson
SS is running out of money. Even Kyle admits that. The reason why is that it doesn't turn a profit and we have become too dependent on it. We need to change something. At the very least raise the age of retirement. But SS is losing money is a pure example of why social programs don't work well. When you take money from someone who can invest it and give it to those who can't, then you hinder economic growth.
"Well? Most investments actually return less to the economy as a whole than direct entitlement payments do"
Wrong. You have something to lose in an actual investment thus you will spend your money wisely.
"Invested money doesn't generally go to the purchase of goods or services"
I agree. It goes towards increase production of goods and services. With me, I can use that money to buy a new textbook, learn a new skill, and expand my research.
"Wealth for the sake of wealth does not serve society."
Not to be rude but that has is one of the most economic illiterate phrases I have ever read.
"I assume you think taxes are bad"
Not necessarily.
"our government spends money on; military, police and fire departments, schools, roads, parks, airports, and safety net programs"
Military: federal level and constitutional
Police: funded by the local governments and ran by them
Fire departments: funded by the local government and ran by them, also, around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer
Schools: ran and funded by the state and local governments
Roads: Around 3/4 of funded by roads comes from.....wait for it.....the state and local government
Parks: most funding by state and local government
Airport: You know the trend
You are making a poor comparison here You are pushing for a failed program by comparing it to other programs ran at the state and local level. I have no problem if a state were to run a program similar to SS. But at the federal level it is clearly a failure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" If you're asking about the general equation, then you just don't know
how math works. If it's more economical to use public transport in a
given area, then we plug in the average value for the cost of travel
using public services into the equation."
Actually I have a math minor. I can buy it being different in different areas (which really supports my case of it being subjective). But if you have two workers working at the same place and one walks and one drives, does the one that walk get a lower wage?
"What does that even mean?"
Do they eat Ramen noodles all day? Or fruit? Or pizza rolls? Do they get to eat store brand food only? Or what about steak dinners? That is what that means. There are several different types of food.
"The type of shelter is irrelevant, and determined by the environment.
All that matters is the median value of the cost of shelter in the
region."
Studio apartments with roommates or without roommates? If someone decides to have roommates do they get a low wage?
"No. Why would it be? It's like you're trying to be dumb."
Why would it be? Because someone with children would need a higher wage. But if you have no children than the employer can argue in paying a lower wage. Also, how many children? One, two, five?
"What fucking planet do you live on? Where can you go to school without
incurring a hindering amount of debt, and receive a decent education?"
Community colleges and JuCos are cheap. You have loads of information online. I watch MIT videos online almost daily to keep fresh on topics on math and physics. You also have public libraries.
"I already stated that it's an arbitrary value."
Just like the number of children one has or what type of living quarters they reside in. Thus, as a whole, the whole "living wage" is arbitrary.
"Statistics exists"
Which can be manipulated by many.
"We have science. You know this, right? "
I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry.
"Because economics "
Says that when you set price floors and price ceilings you create inefficiencies and waste in the market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Here I disagree, we as a nation agree what can be a right and what can't be. "
Rights in the US are things that the government can't take away without due process. And when you look at the first rights they gave power to the people over government. The right to free speech allows us to say "fuck the government" without being arrested. The right to bear arms is to prevent tyranny. The right against search and seizure is to prevent the government from just randomly searching our private property.
"Example, free speech is granted as a right HOWEVER we as a nation have
decided that you can't go into a theater and scream "FIRE!!!!" "
No rights are without limit. When you are in public you can influence other people. Thus laws are created that on the surface may seem to violate amendments in the Constitution, but they end up being on a level where they don't because you are participating in the public. That is why we have anti-discrimination laws on businesses. That is why DUI checkpoints are not unconstitutional. That is why we have CCW laws. In each one those laws do not violate the Constitution. On the business regulations, you still can pursue happiness as a business owner, but you have to follow the law of serving everyone. That is applied to all businesses equally and does not harm the profits of your business. On DUI checkpoints, it is enforced on everyone equally and it does not lead to the searching of your car. It is simply seeing if you are complying with the law while driving in public. They are not searching you nor the car. With CCW's you can still own a gun, you just can't carry it conceal in public without a license.
Also, on yelling "fire", that is arguably a call to action and not free speech. That is no different then threatening someone with violence or using a gun to murder someone. You have the right to bear arms, you don't have the right to murder. You have the right to free speech, you don't have a right to threaten someone or induce a riot.
"As a society, we are starting to change into a mindset that healthcare is a right and isn't something that should be profit for."
Based on recent elections I would say no.
"This is where almost all other nations have gone and where I predict we will be in roughly 20-30 years. "
Other nations have different cultures. And only one country with over 90 million people have universal healthcare and is considered to be a success as a country, and that is Japan. And Japan is facing problems.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/19/national/japans-buckling-health-care-system-crossroads/#.WVl0lEZ8pjY
"Again, the constitution was not written by gods, "
I agree, but the fundamental idea of it must be held. That idea was to limit government. That is what you have to understand. Rights that were created were not arbitrary. They exist to limit government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Michael P You didn't explain how Social Security works because the fact is that it doesn't. It is running out of money.
If college education is "free" is will be worse off for several reasons. As is we are short handed professors, we have large classroom sizes and lack resources for all students. If you make it "free" you will increase enrollment. So how you are going to make up for the fact that we lack professors, classrooms, resources etc. already? I work for a university and I see it first had that we have too many students and not enough resources. This is why when college loans came tuition went up, it made up the difference for lack of resources. Demand for college went up but supply stayed the same.
People right now are fine on social security, but in the future it will go bankrupt. This is predictable under major socialist programs, the resources run out. I don't care about now, I care about the future. On poverty-poverty as a whole was dropping, as I said social security had nothing to do with it.
I have researched Sanders' plans, they are not specific. Give me any one of his economic policies and I will actually break them down and how who they simply won't work. The best was when he was debating Douglas Holtz-Eakin on the min. wage and Bernie was harping on Walmart and nothing but Walmart. But when Douglas start getting into more specifics and tried to steer Bernie away from Walmart he refused to acknowledge the question and went back to Walmart. He had zero specifics. If you break down his arguments you see that he has no clue what he is talking about.
Give me any economic policy of Bernie Sanders and I will break it down showing how ignorant he is.
And I read your comment on Social Security, you simply said "it works" without specifics. It is running out of money, that is not a sign of it working.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Michael P Redistribution of the wealth did not come after the war. Nobody paid those high taxes. In 1967 there were 155 individuals earning over $200,000 that year that paid zero income tax. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 came about which introduced the alternative minimum tax that exists today.
What happen after the war is that the entire world was rebuilding except for us. Now decades later the socialist policies put in place along with the progressive federal income tax are all coming back to bite us in the butt.
After Glass Steagall we still had recessions. We had at least 7. Recessions happen, you just never notice because when the federal politicians sit back and do nothing we recover fast. When they panic and do what Obama did recently or FDR did in the past and spend like crazy, increase taxes and regulations the recovery is slow. Noticed how when Glass-Steagall was passed we had the slowest recovery ever?
"So the possibility of maybe getting laid off from your job is a good enough reason to deny all the other people a livable wage?"
It happens. Plus refrain from using the phrase "livable wage" as it is subjective and means nothing.
Jobs overseas will happen. Granted the federal government is speeding up the process which is not good, but it will happen. Technology and innovation and progress replaces jobs. The tractor replaced many farm workers. Computers replace many jobs. If you want jobs then remove technology. Wealth is key though, not jobs.
Workers always demand a higher wage, but we can't artificially raise them. And no, corporations simply can't afford them. Plus most people are employed by small businesses, so corporations is not the only issue. You need to stop focusing all your attention on them.
" But so far there is no evidence suggesting that higher wages creates a worse situation than we are in already."
Artificially high wages do, even Paul Krugman admits that.
"Nothing about giving people more money makes the country worse."
Tell that to the people in Zimbabwe.
" If you find excuses to not give people higher minimum wages, free
education and affordable or free healthcare, you are basically saying
"fuck you im doing fine. "
No, I want high quality at an affordable price, you just want an affordable price.
"You keep saying "due to the federal government" college is more
expensive, but you need to make a correlation other than just saying it."
Look at the college loans they give out. That drove up the cost.
"And the involvement, until you can prove otherwise, has not cost you more on your tax returns. "
Everything the federal government touches break, that is a fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Michael P You have to look at how the market evolves. As a healthy market evolves things get better and cheaper. Computers, cell phones, cars (before cash for clunkers), LASIK surgery and so on have all gotten better and gotten cheaper. They are also areas of the market where the federal government has not touched.
The federal government touched college tuition with college loans. Tuition is going up despite more colleges and universities being open and more online courses being available. With college loans you remove the buyer/seller negotiation. The student pulls out a loan and the university jacks up the prices. They have no resistance because the buyer is not spending their money directly, they are paying by a guaranteed loan.
On healthcare, in the 40s if an employer were to pay an employee higher wages they will have to pay higher taxes. To avoid that they paid by healthcare benefits, 100% tax free. A better option for the employee would be to get a higher wage and buy their own insurance. Buying their own insurance would mean a longer time on one thus removing the part of pre-existing conditions. Also they can negotiate insurance prices and get a plan that works for them, so no more women paying for viagra or men paying for contraceptives.....does some of this sound familiar?
Instead the employee has either the choice of paying out of pocket for healthcare and thus earning less or getting it from their job. They get it from their job and as a result they get a generic plan that insurance companies know they have a guaranteed customer, thus prices go up. And when that employee goes to another job they are denied insurance due to being older and a pre-existing condition being present. The federal government removed competition and negotiation which led to price increases.
Federal welfare is a disaster. What it does is that it says to one group of people, the rich that they are earning too much based off of nothing. So they tax them more. The poor, according to the government says they are earning too little, once again based off of nothing. So they take from those who actually work and develop wealth and give to those that don't. That devalues money. As a result those who actually work demand more money and get it. That is why we are seeing income inequality grow. The top 10% earned 40% of the income but paid 70% of taxes. They are doing not only work for themselves but work for 30% of people in the US. They will demand more and get it making them richer and the poor worse off.
1
-
+Michael P Those things are not regulated by the government, not at all. You may split hairs and talk about honest advertising, but that covers everything. But they are not regulated by the government at all and are not subsidized by the government at all. If you can't get the fact right than we can't even get to opinions yet.
"People need student loans to get through school"
Says who?
". Partly because our wages have stagnated because employers stopped giving raises"
I showed you why they don't give many raises, plus with decreasing prices we have more disposable income. You never factor that in.
" the wealth gap increased and the top ten percent took more of the wealth, "
There is always a wealth gap in a healthy economy. Wealth does not equal income.
"I hear your theories on healthcare. Show me an example of this happening and working right now."
I showed you. LASIK is not touched by the government at all, or insurance companies. It is strictly buyer/seller negotiation. LASIK has improved and gotten cheaper. Healthcare has gotten more expensive.
"My business thrives when middle and working class families make more money and are able to save more money."
But if your customers were to get more money you will not have enough supply thus you will have to raise prices.
"when they stopped getting wage increases"
Stop with the wage increase. I told you how you are wrong on that already. Are you even reading what I write?
"It is not "based off nothing""
It is though. The market determines what someone is worth, not some figure head called the government.
I agree, the middle class is struggling in some ways, you can blame the federal government for that. It has been getting it's hands in more and more things every year, things are not getting better, but you want more of it?
" the ten percent getting richer does not benefit me as much as the bottom 10 percent getting richer, let alone the bottom 90."
That is not true. Where do you think all you technology and innovation comes from? That middle to lower class guy in his home or that guy in the 10% (the 10% is over $350,000 a years BTW, not millionaires).
"A tax on Wall Street would do this country some good."
And what do you do when that runs out of money?
"Some more socialism without the excess of greed could do some good."
We have socialism, those pushing for more now are refusing to work and demand more which creates income inequality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SoulRippster That guy making $10 million a year will run a company, say a shoe company, that will spend money to develop a better shoe, or a shoe with bells and whistles. That creates more wealth. That man with $10 million dollars does so due to competition of a rival shoe company to attract customers which creates jobs as well.
To think that those who are rich don't spend money is false. They do out of competition. You have this flaw mindset that businesses will only develop something if people have money to buy it. That isn't true. They will develop it because people demand better goods and services at an affordable price. Look at what is being produced. An Iphone comes out and a year later a new one comes out, not much different than the old one and not necessary, but it comes out and people buy it. Same with shoes, people don't need shoes that light up or lighter shoes, but the get developed and people buy them. We can stick to shoes from the 40s and be fine.
It comes back to we can't consume what we don't produce. If I have more money I can buy more shoes, true. But that rich person who runs the shoe company now has less resources to develop new wealth, thus a new line of shoes that are better and cheaper will cease to exist. So now I am buying the same shoe now that was bought 30 years ago. That as opposed to a better shoe that is cheaper.
So while you concept is true in a way, it hurts wealth creation and doesn't improve the economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt Peters Aw, citing Card, Krueger, Reich, et. al. The typical people to go to.
https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/
There are three papers that say otherwise, ones that don't use phone interviews for gathering data or look at a handful of counties (as Card and Krueger did). The pure fact is that the min. wage leads to higher unemployment amongst teens. Most of the data shows that minus a few that cherry pick data and have been called out for it (the exact same people you just cited).
It does lead to price increases as well. The fact that food prices are going up doesn't follow the current economic trend. We are producing more food than ever but food prices are going up when it should be going down (much like TV, cell phones, computers prices are going down). But the price of food is going up. The reason why is that retail, restaurant and grocery outlets hire low skill, thus low wage workers. The min. wage increase means they have to increase prices because the money doesn't exist. The min. wage is outpacing productivity in that workers in those areas of the market are seeing their productivity remain stagnate.
"There are plenty of reasons, but since you are operating on a false
definition of Liberty, freedom and fairness , I doubt any of the
economic growth we can prove will matter to you."
Well there isn't economic growth. If it led to economic growth then when the federal min. wage went up in 2007 nearly over $2/hr we would have avoided the recession. We didn't and have seen a slow recovery from it. Also if it did lead to growth then why not $50/hr? And on fairness, it isn't fair that certain workers, teenagers, are priced out of the job market due to you setting an arbitrary price floor that you based off of nothing. I mean, why is the min. wage set at $7.25/hr? That leads back to why not $50/hr, or even just $20/hr? Those numbers are completely arbitrary.
"Wrong again as the hand of the market you talk about so much will not
allow all extra cost to be taken out on consumer prices. Such increases
would be marginal."
You admitted that increase will exist. If all it took was a small increase and not lose any customers, why don't businesses raise prices already and collect that much more profit? The answer is that it isn't that simple.
I repeat, there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. It doesn't work in theory or in practice. Teenage unemployment is at an all time high, so is the min. wage. Citing Card and Krueger, whose research has been shown to be flawed and cherry picked doesn't change any of those facts. As I said, if it did do good then why not $50/hr, or even $20/hr?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt Peters I have pointed to you other data that is better.
The massive deflation was due to a recession which occurs naturally, but according you should have been avoided, or at the least recovered from due to he over $2/hr min. wage.
I posted 3 studies contradicting your two studies, one that did phone interviews in only 14 counties, a small sample size.
The increase was over $2/hr in a span of 3 years. You first said it was 45 cents, now you are saying it is under a dollar in 2007, you need to get your facts straight.
"There is no economist that would connect the collapse to the minimum wage. "
But you are connecting economic growth to the min. wage. I am not connecting the collapse to the min. wage. I never said the min. wage led to it. We raised the min. wage in the 90s and were fine due to other variables holding more weight leading to growth. But the increase in 2006 to 2009 didn't lead to growth even though you said raising it would. That is the argument I am presenting to you that you are twisting.
"We still have not Re-regulated the markets and fixed the marginalized market caused by it. "
Actually the market is highly regulated which caused the slow recovery. Recessions happen, it is a part of the evolution of the economy. Every recession except for two took around 5 years to recover from, all with little to no federal government involvement. The two that took the longest were the great depression and now, both times we saw massive federal spending, more regulations and increase in taxes. The federal government and their regulations caused the slow recovery. What caused the crash is debatable, what isn't debatable is what is causing the slow recovery. The only people who feel that the slow recovery is not from the federal government are Keynesian economist that are becoming more and more silent every year.
"It is provable that Income has not kept pace with productivity for 35 years. "
That is no true, even the BLS has wages keeping up with productivity. The fact is that those with skills and those who invent technology are becoming more productive and are seeing the increase in wages. Those who cook burgers and Burger King are not. It is called Skilled Biased Technological Change. Those who are skilled or how invested in technology or created it are getting the increase in wages due to them being more productive.
Now that doesn't mean that those on the bottom are not well off. More technology means more productivity and thus better goods and services at a lower price. That is a brick cell phone cost nearly $4000 in the late 80s but almost anyone, even those on welfare, can afford smart phones today. Or someone like me, who only earns around $25,000/yr has 4 computers at home, a TV, a smart phone, my own car (2006 model), where someone earning that much in the past wouldn't have anywhere near that. Cars are better, TVs are better, we have Ipods as opposed to walkmans, Blu rays as opposed to VHS and so on. That is why when food prices go up it is the opposite of what should be happening. We are producing more food, we have an over supply of it. It should be cheap. But regulations like the min. wage leads to higher prices in food. Grocery store workers are low skilled low wage workers, those who work at Sprint are not. Thus the increase in min. wage leads to higher food prices, but not higher cell phone prices.
"How do explain the fact that adjusted minimum wage had the buying power of $13 an hour in 1969? "
So. The value of the worker is not $13/hr. I explained to you why some prices are going up. The min. wage is outpacing productivity. You feel that everything inflates and that inflation is a must. That isn't true. Not everything inflates, and really inflation should hardly be happening. If inflation was happening then not only will those Blockbuster employees still be employed, but they will be earning more. But the fact is that the price of both goods and services either rise, fall, or remain the same.
As I shown with the cell phones, the price of them dropped. They are better than in the past and cheaper. The same is with certain workers. My dad worked at a battery factory. In the 90s batteries were huge with all these portable devices. Now with everything having rechargeable batteries on board (my Ipod is 9 years old, keeps recharging), the demand of batteries dropped. They closed down the factory 3 years ago due to lack of demand. All those workers' values went to $0/hr. They dropped in price. So not everything inflates.
1
-
Matt Peters I told you about deflation and inflation and the min. wage. Deflation
has been happening already. Several factors caused the recession. My
point was that you said that the min. wage increase led to growth.
Well, where is that growth? I am not seeing it? I guess we needed a
$50/hr min. wage., or maybe $15/hr. I guess a $2/hr increase (pretty
high compared to previous raises) was not enough.
https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/
There are my sources.
"You are setting up strawmen and I am pissing on them, I suggest you cease"
You said this
"There are plenty of reasons, but since you are operating on a false
definition of Liberty, freedom and fairness , I doubt any of the
economic growth we can prove will matter to you"
In response to me saying there isn't one single good reason in even having a min. wage. Your response is that it led to growth. Now you are retracting that statement? So what is it?
" The fact technology becomes cheaper does not negate other factors of
economics. There is not a single state where minimum wage can afford an
apartment alone. (Hint there is no such thing as people on welfare who
don't work)"
Actually my technology point does play a role. It shows the purchasing power of the dollar is higher. We also see that in people have more disposable income these days. The idea that people are not earning more is completely false, they are. And if you are trying to pay rent with a min. wage job that is your problem. Get a roommate, find a cheaper apartment. Rent out a room. You are now asking that low wage jobs with develop little wealth pay for luxury items. That is now how an economy grows.
" No sir, I know why prices go up, I understand inflation better than you
do. I want to know why pay used to keep pace with both inflation and
productivity. "
You don't seem to know how inflation works. As I said with pay and productivity, it is keeping up. According to what you are saying not only will that factory in my home town that built batteries still be around, but they will be paying workers more despite the lack of demand.
People who are more productive are paid more, it is called skilled biased technological change. But to think that workers working at a fast food joint are working harder is completely false. Look up unit labor cost of restaurants, you will find that hourly compensation is outpacing productivity in that sector. That means pay is outpacing productivity there, and it is the same for other low skilled jobs.
" Yes I am saying if your company is more profitable you should not get
all of the extra profit. You are piece of shit if you do without
thinking about sending some extra down to workers regardless of what you
moronically think their work was "worth". But that is something else
entirely. Unions should have the right to disrupt your profit if you
don't. "
Less profits means less investment which means less growth and less wealth. Companies just don't sit on profits, they invest it. Where do you think all that new technology comes from? It just doesn't appear out of nowhere. A business uses profits to invest and create. We can force more money going to those that create little wealth and that is exactly what you will get, little wealth.
"The recession we had no mass recession in the 20th century after the
depression was because of Labor laws and wage laws as well as tax code
that prevented demand and supply from becoming unbalance d . Since 1981
these have been getting done away with. "
We had one under Carter.
" I have a masters in economics from USC"
With the way you talk I doubt it. I guess I can throw around a fake degree. I have PhD in economics form UC Berkley. But I won't lie, I don't.
I have done this for a while as well, I concluded there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. For you supposedly having a masters in economics you resorted to emotions pretty bad. As in
"When a CEO is earning 500 times what his employees earn eventually
demand will hit a roof as consumers have less money to consume."
and
"You are piece of shit if you do without
thinking about sending some extra down to workers regardless of what you
moronically think their work was "worth""
Not statements I would expect from someone who holds a masters. But considering how those with PhDs act (I am a grad. student so I have experience) I am not surprise.
On your first statement, demand for better goods and services are almost infinite. The reason why the demand for batteries dropped is because, as I explained, portable devices have rechargeable batteries on board. If people had more money (ignoring that flawed idea) they won't buy more Walkmans or cordless phones which require batteries, but instead Ipod and cell phones which come with batteries and can be recharged. Think about that. You seem to lack understanding of demand.
1
-
Matt Peters So you are now retracting your statement that the increase in the min. wage creates growth?
If you are an adult earning the min. wage then you are almost beyond help. Or it says something is very wrong with out economy. The min. wage is said to remove the lower rungs of the economic ladder. A teenager working a min. wage job allows them to gain experience to they can work higher wage jobs at an older age (when they are an adult). But if the min. wage goes up teenagers can't get jobs, thus they enter the workforce at a later age and thus we now have the problem of adults working low skilled task a high school student can do. So the min. wage created that problem.
Following Carter we had massive inflation and an increase in unemployment and a negative GDP growth, we hit a recession. We recovered from it quickly just like we recovered from the recession in 1988 quickly. And the recession in the 50s and early 60s. Data doesn't lie. We see recessions all the time. How we recover is key.
"As I said I have grown to have disdain for people who think being a
successful business person is simply having made money. If you had no
regard for the health of the company Such as Bob Nardelli , Carly
Fiorina and Mitt Romney did. They are failures as business people
because of what happened to the companies. The fact they made money off
it means they are manipulators. "
I agree that our financial system is out of wack, it is mainly due to the federal government messing it up. I don't thing those individuals were successful. I know fixing the problem is reducing the role of the federal government in the economy.
"Yes but ability for the consumer to pay for the goods aren't. "
True, but that is purely due to there not being an infinite amount of resources. What we have to push for is the development of those resources into wealth. We do that by allowing those in the private sector to invest in what people demand and having workers work at the best of their ability. We don't achieve that buy just giving money away.
"Indeed , but what happens when you have less companies? "
New companies come and go, and there will always be competition in a free market. What removes competition is the government. Keep in mind that it was Walmart that supported a higher min. wage at one point knowing it will eliminate competition from smaller companies. Costco is the same way.
" How is this type of investment benefiting anyone but people with large amounts of the particular stock?"
That is how a corporation works. If all the major CEOs of Walmart for example were to take in $0 all the employees earning less that $25,000 would make something like $7 extra dollars a month. Corporations run off of stocks and if the company is not profitable then people will demand new CEOs to get an investment off of their stocks.
"And you will argue it's "unfair" for the government to tell a company
how to run their business, how widely they can expand or what they
should pay and I liken this emotional attitude of your side to someone
saying it's wrong for the government to regulate and tell someone he
can't rape and abuse people and you will fail to see it as the same
thing, which makes me believe sociopath... but hey, "
Rape is a law that effects everyone and gives back something equal to everyone. While I am not allowed to rape I will be protected by it in that it is illegal for others to rape me. With regulations on a business you are saying that the second you invest your own money in private property to do business with private individuals, you have to follow these set of rules simply due to the lifestyle you choose. That is not equal and the only way you can justify doing that is if the government gives something back to the company in return
That is the difference between rape laws and business regulation laws.
1
-
1
-
Matt Peters You are making this too easy.
You said this
"I never claimed there wasn't, just that there is no data saying
increased minimum wage has never been connected as a cause of an
economic problem in a city, county, state or country it's been done in.
That the increased cost is negated by default increased spending as you
are not the only employer who raised wages."
So you are saying that the min. wage either leads to growth or nothing. But when the min. wage goes up and the economy hits a recession you say they are not related. That is you being bias.
"except I have already presented two studies showing this is not what happens"
And I presented 3, and the guy on this video presented more. 3>2, plus what Skylar Lehto presented.
"Data, as anyone who says they have "seen it" is by default the inferior in the debate."
But you said this
"I know engineers who work at Starbucks and lawyers pull 30 K "
So it seems that while are are both inferior, we are even since you have "seen it" as well.
"It's more than likely it was due to competition from large chains that should not be allowed (yes ALLOWED) to exist. "
That is quite a pathetic statement to make. Your idea of helping society is bringing people down. That is like saying preventing people from getting PhDs will improve our university system. We don't grow an economy by bringing people down. In the 80s and early 90s only the rich had cell phones. Did we take them away? No. We allowed them to have them. Now almost everyone has a smart phone. If we would have took the cell phones away, which is preventing success, we will still be using rotary phones.
I bet you support giving everyone a trophy as well. Or would tell the fast runner at a high school track meet to slow down. That is not how you improve an economy. There are several good reasons to have chain businesses.
"I was actually asking you to prove regulation that hurts business that
also doesn't serve another purpose of protecting someone else. "
I was proving a point how regulations designed to supposedly help the economy and the middle class end up hurting. I work my job where I get a 1099 due to my skills. One reason I have those skills is that at a young age I was able to work a low wage job. Now I work a high skill job where I pay $0 in taxes. Some of my co-workers earn close to 6 figures and pay $0 in taxes or close.
It goes the same with the healthcare example. Government is causing the rise in healthcare cost. Now you point towards profit because according to you profit=evil because profit=success and it isn't fair that someone is doing better than you. But our for profit system is arguably the best in the world. In the US a non-profit, government run system simply won't work. Look at the post office. I don't want to stand in line hoping to get care. The government creating lack of competition has create the the problems in healthcare. And somehow a non-profit system is supposed to create competition?
"No, I support curbing behavior that does harm to people or the community."
Ok, you raise the min. wage. The business decides to leave town or hire less people, or raise prices or close their doors earlier. How does that improve a community? The reason why businesses do that is because of one simple reason, they simply can't afford higher wages. Especially small business in small towns.
You are comparing this to rapist and burglars. You are violating a business's property rights. You are literally holding a gun to a business owner's head telling them how to run their business. That business owner out of their own free will is deciding to create a business and invest their money in it and you are deciding how they should run it. You are the crook. How about if you buy a house I use the government to tell you to allow homeless people in your home? You clearly are better than them? We should prevent homeowners from existing so that homeless people have homes. Do you support that?
Your comparison of rapist and burglars to business owners investing in their business is shallow. Also you decision on who is hurting the community while exercising their rights are arbitrary. You need to give your masters degree back, or I need to avoid UCS since they have a weak economics department.
1
-
Matt Peters In depth study, really? So 14 counties is in depth study? Never mind that when federally when the min. wage goes up so does teenage unemployment. Also watch the video
"What You Weren't Told About The Minimum Wage" by Skyler Lehto. He does an in depth study that makes your "in depth" study look like child's play.
"No, I am saying correlation is not causation"
And the same holds true to the min. wage and economic growth. Let us look at an example. Robert Reich made a claim that under the Clinton administration they raised the min. wage and things were fine. The reality is that when they raised it the percent of those who were earning at or below the min. wage was dropping (as mentioned in Skyler's video) and thus raising it didn't actually do anything in that most people were already getting paid above the min. wage. It was a pure political move.
Now you mentioned a CATO study as the only one who supposedly has show only negative effect but I have shown you more. Plus, the one you just linked, look at what is say. No "discernible" effect. But they are saying there is an effect. As I said the raises in the past have been small thus all negative results have been small. Or as in Robert Reich's case people were already getting paid above the min. wage thus the federal raise was completely frivolous. Also I showed you 3 studies which beat your 1 on that issue. Unless you think 1>3 which at this point I would not be surprise.
And teenage employment is completely relevant I am smart enough to know that overall the min. wage has a small effect on the overall economy. When the average hourly earnings is over $24/hr, when less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage, when around 2% of min. wage workers work fulltime, as a whole the min. wage worker plays a minute effect on the overall economy. I can admit that raising it in 2006 didn't lead to the crash but raising it in the past didn't lead to economic growth. You, on the other hand can't admit that.
Any negative effect to the min. wage is done at target groups, such as teenage employment and prices in areas that employ low skill workers. That is why when variables are removed we see an increase in teenage unemployment, or high teenage unemployment in areas where the min. wage is high. And we also see an increase in prices. But what you have to remember is that the min. wage, as is, does not effect the overall economy. But any effect is negative, it just gets lost in the statistical noise. As an econ. major you should have taken advanced stats. This was something my class learned when I took and and a project we did.
" If your business model hurts or takes advantage of people , you shouldn't engage in the activity. "
And who decides that? You? You do know that major corporations such as Walmart and Costco have supported higher min. wages in the past knowing it would hurt smaller companies and thus creating less competition. That is because those companies have more staying power to go through more expenses until the economy stabilizes. So now you have a situation where those businesses are using the government to harm other businesses.
I don't mind regulations, they need to be done at the state level though so we can have actual control of the government. You need to remember one thing, too much government is just as bad as no government. Right now we have too much.
I have no problems with monopolies as well. With today's technology they will not be as strong. The main reason why they were strong in the past was simply due to lack of technology. People didn't have cars to move around or computers for online shopping. These days monopolies exist due to government reducing competition as I just showed. You saying natural monopolies existed in the past without noticing the change of technology is careless of you.
"No you should not be able to lock others out or to manipulate supply and
market. If that's what you have to do to keep you company on top then
you need to go. It really is that simple."
No it isn't that simple. Those business owners have a constitutional right to their property and what they want to do with it. Funny how you mentioned an act from 1938, around that time there was a lot of unconstitutional and destructive things done to the economy. If a state wants to create such regulations that is within their state rights. But at the federal level that violates the constitution (the federal min. wage is unconstitutional) and needs to be stopped. Too much government is just as bad as no government.
What you support are arbitrary laws that you base off nothing more than your feelings. You feel that this business is bad thus they should be stopped. Walmart's model allows for cheaper goods and services for low income consumers. I despise shopping at Walmart. I avoid it if I can and for the most part do. But every other place in most areas have goods and services at a higher price. Plus, with chains what that also leads to is the fact that every Walmart in the country has to have the same standards. My poor experience at the Walmart in my city means I am less likely to shop at one in another city even though they may be great. So there are advantages to chain businesses. You are saying they are all bad but they are not. They are not all good. That is a clear difference between you and me, I see the middle ground. You are one side or the other. Like when you said the min. wage leads to all positive but no negative results (even though several studies exist that show otherwise).
"No, fuckwhit it is about a fair market place. "
What is a "fair market place"? Creating policy that raises prices is not "fair". Unless you support price control. Telling people how to run their business is not "fair". You are using a completely arbitrary and subjective word there. So when I stand in front of my committee for my PhD defense and I say "after 5 years it is only fair for me to get my PhD" would that fly? Knowing my committee it wont'. Once again you are basing your ideas off of emotions.
Let us look at Walmart again and the min. wage. While they have supported a higher min. wage (which creates an unfair market), they have a limit in how much to pay. If the CEOs of walmart were to earn $0, the workers of walmarts would earn an extra $0.0014 per hour. That is simply not that much. Walmart, along with other low wage worker jobs, have thin profit margins. They simply can't afford more. Most of their money comes from shareholders. If walmart were to practice higher wages then the shareholders will demand a new board and vote one in so they can get money off of their stocks.
Now you may think the whole idea of stocks is bad, but it goes back to it helping a business in they can keep prices low and attract more customers. The business I shop at is smaller and more local but doesn't have shares of stocks (as far as I know, if they do it is small). Thus their prices are higher. As someone with a masters in economics this should be basic to you.
"Now present me a study where this was a huge problem directly connecting
minimum wage increases to this actually happening and we might have an
actual argument."
I have shown you studies. Also I told you how in the large scale the min. wage is small. It plays a minute role in the overall economy (even though you think it leads to noticeable growth which is false). But if it didn't lead to negative results then why not $50/hr? Or even $20/hr? Costco is pushing for around that rate, $20/hr? So why not?
"In the long term since ALL businesses raised wages the increased spending negates the cost long term."
Not all businesses raise wages though. Some, as in Walmart or McDonalds for example, has the ability to avoid wage increases by investing in automation. There are now self checkouts and McDonalds with touch screens for ordering. Walmart can do away with the door greater or have less workers picking up carts in the parking lot. And they have. One reason why I avoid Walmart is that they lack cashiers. But they get away with it due to low prices. They can get away with cutting back more.
Not all businesses are created equal, that is also something you failed to learn in you masters route (you really need to get your money back). Saying all businesses will raise wages is completely false. They will cut hours, close down doors earlier, and raise prices. But not every business will raise wages since every business is different. And while you are enforcing how much is paid per hour, you are not enforcing how much is paid per week.
There will not be increased spending either. Higher wages with same productivity just means higher prices. You can't consume what you don't produce.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To start I earn a low income because I am a PhD student in physical chemistry.
The Ford Pinto example is a flawed example. Overall it was said that an extra part would have made is "safer". Milton Friedman was asked this question and he responded on what if that extra part cost a million dollars? Will people have criticized Ford at that point? We can make every car in society really safe and lower driving accidents by a lot if we lowered the speed limit across the board to 25 MPH, that includes highway. If we made every car out of solid steel and it weighed a few tons. That way if there were an accident it will be at a such a slow speed with heavy cars that essentially there will be no damage. But as a result people won't be able to move around as fast, and gas mileage will go up drastically both of which cause waste. That is the issue of the Ford Pinto. Ford felt the part was too expensive to put on the car. Others, who have no connection to the business, did not. But I bet they would if the part cost a million dollars.
" You realize that putting money in the bank gives you return on investment via interest right? "
Yes I do.
"THis is how to make money 100. 1 billion in the bank at even only 1% is
still 10 million a year to have fun with...see paris hilton etc."
But not the only way. Also, why is money made? Because banks take that money and loan it out to people to start up a business or buy a home. And Paris Hilton is a poor example, she is a celebrity, Bill Gates invested his money. But, on the kids spending money, if they had no money management skills they would go bankrupt. Much like lottery winners have in the past. So it seems to me Paris Hilton does know what she is doing, or someone working for her. But, I personally don't care because I am not greedy like Kyle is.
"Even as a philanthopist he is just one guy with not enough hours in the day to ensure his money is well spent and curing poverty"
If you want to cut poverty you have to produce more goods and services. That is what society values. Money is worthless until it is invested to create a good and/or service that someone values. All that billions that supposedly exist in Gates possession can be given to the poor and they will not be better off as nothing was produced with that money.
" Now you start seeing why our economy sucks....there arent enough people spending and injecting the economy"
Our economy is struggling because we are not getting the most our of our resources, mainly from labor. The min. wage, for example, has priced certain workers out of the market so those workers are producing zero. We have people on welfare who are given money for doing nothing. We have people spending tens of thousands of dollars on worthless degrees such as gender studies or business as opposed to STEM degrees such as physics and engineering, degrees that lead to people producing wealth.
You, like most socialists, simply see money. Money has no value, goods and services do. Money only obtains value when it is spent to produce, but at the very core people value goods and services. What we need to do is increase production, not spending because you can't consume what you don't produce.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I know a lot about the Pinto case. Again, what if the part cost $100,000? Would you criticize Ford than?
" BUt the case was so widely written about afterward, and the competing
companies wanted to separate themselves form this practice, "
Seems like capitalism wins in that case.
" TOyota took over the market and actually made cars that not only dont blow up, but they recall them when they make a mistake"
Hooray capitalism!
Cars are much safer today, get better mileage and last longer because of capitalism, not because of regulations. What Ford did with the Pinto was say that it was cheaper not to put the extra part on there making the car more affordable. My car I own is not safer compared to a Mack pickup, but I get better mileage. It is a tradeoff. That is what it is all about. We can make every car safe by limiting their speeds to 25 MPH and making them as sturdy as a tank, but they will be expensive and inefficient. You yourself take risks in life feeling that benefits are worth it. People knew they were buying a less safe car in the Pinto just like I know I was with my car. You can''t blame that on Ford for giving the customers a cheap car. You always get what you pay for.
I am highly educated and I can tell you aren't by you wanting to appeal to emotions. Yes, people died. People die on the road all the time, do we just ban driving than? People die from smoking, do we ban smoking? People die by drowning, do we ban swimming pools? Your argument is not strong here. Milton Friedman made great points on the Ford Pinto you can find on Youtube, I suggest you watch it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Yeah that means very little when you also realize technically more people believe in the devil then evolution in America, "
I see no evidence of that.
"flat eathism not only still exists but is widespread and popular,"
I would not call it popular and overall, is a non-issue as only radicals bring it up.
"lol anti-intellectualism attracts far more becasue it's less hard to
understand and goes off mostly pure emotion, particularity hate,
arrogance and spite..."
You are looking at extreme groups that are really the minority of the country.
"Crowder is again full of shit, easily debunked by anyone who pays a mind to"
Ok, debunk him. How is he wrong?
"lol good for you, any reason other than, "gender issues trigger me?"
cause that's basically all Steven has when you boil it down..."
Let us look at this rant that Nye made. The ultra left claims that republicans and the political right are "anti-science", but their only example is how they disagree on climate change. On climate change you will be hard pressed to find scientists who feel it is a major threat. On the right, though, they feel climate change is happening. Even Steven Crowder said it is and that man is playing a role. They just feel it is a not a threat and that the government is not the source in dealing with it.
However, in this rant by Bill Nye he pushes for more investment in science. Both sides agree in that. As Neil deGrasse Tyson, no republican wants to die poor. That is why they support investment in science as it is how we progress and become wealthier as a nation. Thing is that they do not want to invest heavily in climate change policies such as carbon taxes or forcing "green" energy that are not efficient. Bill Nye, however, takes the climate change issue and uses it to smear republicans by claiming they are anti-science. He does not give other examples in that. What he basically does is the equivalent in saying that I hate baseball because I hate the New York Yankees. I love baseball, I just hate the Yankees. Republicans support investment in science, just not heavily in climate change. Also, Bill Nye never discusses the actual issue of climate change.
I do not need to go to the gender issue, I can stick to the issue addressed in this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Baby Punter Nobody paid those high taxes. Joseph Barr in 1967 complained that 155 Americans earning over $200,000, one earning over $23 million, paid no income taxes. Taxes were cut and the code was made simpler to increase tax revenue. It worked to a point. The 1969 tax reform, signed by Richard Nixon placed Nixon in the higher tax bracket where he only paid $789 in taxes. In all, anyone who references those higher taxes during that time as support for higher taxes is being shallow in that it doesn't tell the whole story.
Taxes are also only one factor in the economy. Now while this country has never faced a major recession before the federal income tax, and since then has faced two, one also has to realized that spending has increased since around that time as well. We are trying to spend our way into an improved economy which doesn't work. You also have to notice that during times when we had higher taxes or lower taxes, our revenue to percent of GDP was basically the same.
The issue here is that we need to push policies that promotes wealth creation, not job creation or money flow. Jobs and money mean nothing if we have no wealth being created. We can easily flow money and create jobs, Cuba does that very well. Is that the economic model we want to follow?
1
-
1
-
Baby Punter It is debatable who has the best healthcare. The US has the best quality of care. Anyone who denies that is being partisan. The biggest problem in the US is cost. In other countries they do have longer wait times and lower quality, especially for elective specialized care. Socialized care is good for basic care as in a check up or if you are pregnant (except in the UK they lack hospital beds for pregnant women), but it is terrible for specialized care.
You also have to look at the state of France as a whole. France has high unemployment, low productivity and poor in innovation and research. France's overall economy is poor and isn't a model to follow.
Now you tried to compare us to Finland and Sweden. The US has states with a greater population than those countries. You really can't compare the US to those countries. Also, they are not as socialist as you may think.
The US is number 4 in productivity, it leads the way in research and innovation in technology and healthcare. We are an overall stronger country than those countries you are trying to brag about. We have actual progress which is what we need. We can see to it that everyone has healthcare, a home, food and so on, but it would come at the cost of progress. It will hinder progress. Which will you rather have, no progress and future generations having the same goods and services we have, or progress and future generations having it better than us? Look at those in poverty now compared to the 50s, someone who is lower class is better off than someone who was rich in the 50s. Our definition of comfort is higher than that in the 50s, or even the 80s and 90s.
1
-
Baby Punter Yes I have heard of that period, that is 5 years and 5 months, around 5 years like I said and strong growth. The Great Depression was a double dip recession, so we didn't recover as fast as you are saying. What would you rather have, a depression lasting 5 years or one lasting over a decade?
Under Bush we were fine until the democrats too control in 2007. Even with that we saw a recession but than under a democrat congress and a socialist president (at least pushing for it) we didn't recover. As I said, recessions happen, Bush left when it started, it was under Obama that we saw slow recovery. Also, under Clinton we saw limited spending. I said before that taxes are a small part of the issue.
As I said with our healthcare, we have the best quality in the world. The only country comparable would be Germany. Germany does a lot of things well, I will admit that. There are some things they are inferior too such as their university system but they do some things well. France doesn't. Their economy is weak and not a good model to follow.
You did try to compare the US to Sweden and Finland. I am state rights individual and support doing domestic policies at the state level knowing it will be more effective. When we can reduce domestic polices down to the state level than we can run government programs better like Finland and Sweden do. There is more to it than the policies they have.
The reason why we are stronger than those countries is because we don't follow them.
France isn't an economic powerhouse, their economy is poor. The UK isn't any better. As I said before, Germany does a lot of things well. At the same time their system wouldn't work in the US. For example their university system, it wouldn't work in the US. Leaving university enrollment to only the elite would not work in the US. Where in the US we allow almost anyone in a university and it works well.
So what you support is people have equal access to goods and service that we have now? Ok, that is fine. Now in 20 years when the goods and services haven't improved would you call that a success? I wouldn't. While someone who is rich may have access to a yacht or a Porsche, I have access to a Cobalt which gives me over 30 miles to a gallon and will probably last to 200,000 miles. Someone who is rich has access to surround where I have a nicer sound system than what people had in the 80s. I am not rich by the way, I earn very little. You want equal access to goods and services and I want people to have access to better goods and services as time passes.
The better goods and services don't appear out of nowhere, they have to come from somewhere, and that is form investment from the top.
1
-
1
-
Baby Punter Recession happen. One happen at the end of Bush's term, bad luck on his part. But they shouldn't take 7 years to recover from but that is what happen under Obama due to his poor leadership.
The US has the best quality of healthcare in the world, the only problem with the system is cost. But would you rather have high quality of care or cheap care that is inferior. I take the former.
Based on productivity France and the UK are not doing well compared to the US. They lack in progress compared to the US. Not a sound economic model to follow.
Germany has high admission standards, they are very selective in who goes to college where in the US we have a system where those who lack skills and knowledge can go to a JuCo or a CC to take remedial courses to get into a larger university. We offer opportunity. And working with foreigners at the university they picked the US over Germany because one, we speak English and their second language was English like most countries, and two, universities pay their graduate students enough to actually afford bills and rent to where they don't have to get a job, Germany doesn't do that. The US offers flexibility, jobs on campus and opportunity for all. And cost is an issue, but almost anyone qualifies for loans and if you work hard and earn the right degree you will easily pay them off. The US has the best university system in the world.
The reason why someone, or a company has money is because they offer a good or service society demands. They have something society is willing to buy. Due to competition they will invest in developing a better good or service, failure to do so will lead to that company going under. That is why we see progress. If a company is just going to lose that money they worked hard to earn than what is the point of working hard? The rich don't just sit on their money.
Giving the rich money isn't trickle down. Giving money away doesn't solve anything, it devalues the dollar. What Hoover did, increasing spending, doesn't help. FDR did the same thing. We saw a double dip recession because the first recovery was artificial, that is why it crashed again when he stop spending (kind of). FDR increased spending and we saw the longest recovery ever from a recession, it correlated with massive federal government spending. FDR was an overrated president and the New Deal did a lot of harm. There is a reason why we had slow recovery. We can't spend our way out of the recession. The Obama administration tried the same thing giving $85 billion a month to the stock market. It clearly didn't help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Baby Punter The problem with the US system is cost. Problem is that taking subjective opinions isn't the best. I would like healthcare as well if I had to pay little because I don't have anything seriously wrong like most people. The issue is that we need to focus on specialized and critical care which the US excels in. I like the idea knowing that if something critical happens I can get immediate and high quality of care as opposed to a place like the UK where you have to wait months to get a MRI, or in Canada where you can't get surgery if you want it.
By your stats you proved my point that the US is high on productivity. So what is your point? It is relevant to healthcare. One argument for universal healthcare is that it leads to higher productivity, is surely doesn't though when one looks at it.
We have cheap options for schools. My undergrad was $10,000 a year where others are $10,000 a semester. And my $10,000 was including summer. Currently I pay little in tuition due to my TA ship. Several businesses pay to send their employees to get their masters. We have as system where people can get their college paid for and even get money to earn a living, it requires work though. I know about the stats of med. school students and high loans. Now how much do they get paid after they are done?
http://pharmacy.umn.edu/pharmd/admissions/
There in pharmacy they have on average $107,000 of loans, but a median starting salary of $120,000. As I said before, get a degree that actually means something than your loan wouldn't matter. And $29,000 in loans isn't much and should easily be paid off if you earn a college degree.
So the Waltons sit on their money? Those Walmarts that they keep opening just appeared out of nowhere? Right. I referenced Nixon to show that during those times of high taxes nobody paid them. People just don't get rich, they get that way by investing and developing capital. It isn't like the money came out of nowhere. In this point you need to learn what money is. Just because the middle class has more money doesn't mean they are better off. Money only gets its value based on the goods and services available. If we give money away to people without developing goods and services than all you have done is lower the value of the dollar. The min. wage argument is asinine in that there isn't one good reason to even have it. All arguments supporting it are easily debunk. Your argument of more money in the hands of the lower classed is debunked because they will be earning more money without the production of more goods and services, thus prices go up or jobs are lost.
Under FDR it was the first time the government tried to spend it's way out of a recession. The recovery was artificial because it wasn't the market recovery, it was the federal government holding it up. As soon as the let go the economy fell apart. We have never seen that in the past and there is a reason why, federal government spending doesn't help. FDR enacted more spending and the recession lasted a long time. We have never faced anything like that before in the past and haven't since until 2007. This time we didn't face a recovery though despite the increase of spending. But in the end the New Deal and spending by FDR didn't help, it made things worse.
I am not advocating giving money to the rich. We shouldn't be giving money away. We should allow for a system that creates wealth and capital, not a system that just moves money around. You are screaming about jobs and money when that doesn't matter, wealth is what matter. People actually work less and produce more these days due to technology. Our jobs are easier. We can easily create jobs and flow money around. We can raise taxes and build that Keystone pipeline but instead use spoons to dig. It will never get built but we will always have jobs and money flow. The economy is more complex than what you think. To you it is all about money (which you clearly don't even know what money is) and jobs. We need to focus on creating wealth.
And we do have the best university system in the world. As I said, we pay our grad. students to come here, enough to where they can pay rent. Germany doesn't do that.
1
-
Baby Punter Commonwealth is not a credible source. Like most sources on the issue they are vague and leave out a lot of details. The overall issue with healthcare in the US is that universal healthcare won't work in the US. Our society is completely different than that of other countries. The system we have works great for us. Universal healthcare has it's problems, anyone who denies it is being partisan. That is the other issue, why should we push for a system that has problems as well? Why not push for something better? Why can't we be different? You have no problem confirming to other countries. If that is the case then move to one. As I said before, the US is number one in innovation and we should keep it that way. Anyone who is myopic like yourself shouldn't be involved and should stop holding us back. The US does a lot well in healthcare. We are number in in responsive care. We have the best quality especially in specialized care. We don't have people waiting months to get a MRI and eventually die from curable problems. We should stop comparing us to another system that has problems as well and push to have the best system possible.
I guess I wouldn't expect anything less form someone who is lazy and just wants a handout. Those who want universal healthcare just want a handout and don't want to work for something better. That is not how we get better as a society.
You cited the huffington post, that is all I need to know how partisan you are. The Huffington Post is as liberal as it gets and is as unreliable as it gets.
The simple fact is that the US leads the way in productivity. The lowest I have seen it was 4th. Why do you want to push for more socialism that will ruin our productivity? Oh, that is right, you are lazy and unproductive myself (I apologize for acting like this, but at this point I see you are citing bias sources. I am working on my PhD and I get frustrated seeing individuals just settling instead of pushing for something better, hard work doesn't take talent or ability).
No, the rich are not just sitting on their money. Your thought process on that is asinine. If they were Just sitting on that money it would lose value. At worse they have it in banks who use that money to give out loans or invest in other ways to grow the economy. The rich don't just have the money stashed away under their beds. They are finding ways to make more which grows the economy.
The time you referred me to was when you said the government was giving money to the rich. That is just giving money away which I don't agree with. Also during the Gilded Age we saw strong economic growth, and the two recession were brief compared to the one in 1929 and 2007 when massive spending, regulations, and taxes were put in place. Funny how that is never mentioned from the left, how the slowest recoveries occurred during times of higher spending and taxes and regulations.
Wealth, the amount of assets one has. I, as a lower class person has more wealth than some rich guy from the 50s. I have more wealth than most from the 80s. We have access to smart phones, high speed internet, flat screen TVs, better cars, etc. The poor have more assets now than ever. That is from wealth creation that trickles down.
What I am talking about with Keystone is jobs. You are claiming that we need to create jobs, jobs are easy to create, wealth is harder. Jobs are a small faction of the economy, wealth is what is important.
The fact that use "common sense" in your recent argument shows you have little knowledge in what you are talking about. When you can't define your stance you use a term like "common sense" which is a type of genetic fallacy that makes it seem like that everyone should know something and there is no debate. I have shown you the tax issue already how higher taxes don't mean anything because flow of money isn't important, it is the creation of wealth. Zimbabwe has a lot of money flowing through their system, they also have 80% poverty.
Germany students don't have more money, especially graduate students. $29,000 in loans isn't that high, that is like a car loan. The loan situation in this country is overdramatized. If people would pursue a degree that is worth something then it wouldn't matter. Also in the US we have athletes that attend college for free that wouldn't otherwise if it were for athletic scholarships. We have scholarships for those who are low income. The US has a lot of opportunity, more so than other countries. We have a situation where one can go to college and not have to work much during their college years. In Germany, even as a grad. student they have to work full time to pay bills. Not a strong system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know that book is written by two professors, one who is the chair of their department. You know that book cites peer reviewed journals and they give all their methods. It is a source I am very happy to share as it is full of information.
"They are quite productive workers, actually."
The US is in the top 5 in productivity. So on the rest of your comment the US workers are healthy and happy.
"Finally, if you think for-profit healthcare where (prior to Obamacare,
which is inferior to a single-payer system) 45,000 people died every
year because they do not have access to it"
Very deceptive. One, that is only 0.01% of the population. That is noise in statistics. Also, you can't just say it was because of lack of access to healthcare
"Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor,
echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between
lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than
those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse
health."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
I will add that 12% of the natural born population do not have a high school diploma even though it is free. That is because of lack of responsibility. Just because it is offered to people does not mean that 45,000 will be responsible. But again, that is 0.01% of the population which is noise.
1
-
"They are quite productive workers, actually. Because they are actually
compensated fairy for their work. The production here is based on wage
slavery and employer-centric policy that harms workers. Four day work
week, more pay, better benefits and higher standard of living, all helps
their productivity.
"
You said that. So based on what you said we have a higher standard of living because we have higher productivity.
"Because most are paid to little, offered no vacation, work grueling hours, and hate their jobs"
None of which is true.
"Not to mention we are one of only three countries to not mandate paid maternity leave."
But over half of the workers have it.
"And the only modern, western country to not offer national health insurance."
Where our healthcare is just as good as theirs'.
"Health should be a right,"
You don't have a right to someone's service or property.
"Wealthy Americans live on average 10 years longer than poor Americans despite both having many unhealthy habits in common."
Doubt they have the same unhealthy habits. Obesity is an issue with those on poverty.
"No one should have to choose between bankruptcy and cancer treatment."
Rather be bankrupt than dead.
"45,000 lives is just noise?"
0.01% of the population is noise.
1
-
"You have a right to it via the government providing payment for the service."
Someone has to provide that service. If no one is there to provide it, what do you do?
"Education is a right for all citizens"
Actually that is not true. States provide education which they don't have to. No state has to provide and education. They do, but even at that there are some areas that can't provide certain courses. For example some schools can't teach calculus or AP courses because here are no teachers who can teach it.
"Our healthcare system ranks in the 20s"
As Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt said those ranking are arbitrary much like university rankings are.
" Insurance companies make money by denying as much care as possible. "
Which I admit is a problem. Our system has problems, as every system does. But nothing indicates that what other countries have is better. We should fix the problems we have with the system we have, not completely replace it.
"Worker productivity, while important to the macro success of the United States, has not translated to better lives for workers. "
That is not true as wealth has increased overall for everyone.
"Most studies conclude that American workers are grossly underpaid on the basis of their productivity."
Again, that is not true. Using your productivity chart you linked what you should realize is that diverge started in the early 70s. What happened in the mid 60s was the expansion of the payroll tax. With a higher payroll tax businesses had to pay a higher tax if they paid a higher wage. Thus, what they did instead, was pay with benefits. Also we allow for more immigrants to enter the country and women starting entering the workforce more, both groups earn less for many reasons which drives the average wage down. So it isn't businesses paying less, there is more to it than what you think. On top of that higher productivity means goods and services are better and cheaper. Look at cars for example. Cars today are safer, last longer, get better mileage and are all around better compared to cars in the 70s.
Happiness is subjective, stop citing it. Would you say the colonists were happy in the 1760s and 1770s? No, they started a war. But they were paying less taxes than the British were. They just wanted liberty and freedom even though their lives were not terrible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ET_Studios So you just want to banish businesses who don't, in your eyes, make enough? You know how many businesses will go under? Do you know that is how monopolies are created? Do you know how high the unemployment rate will be? And the business's website has their prices and they are high priced items. It is $55 for a reservation.
People who earn tips typically earn more than if they were to just make a wage, especially if they work on busy nights such as weekends. Like a bartender who works on a Friday night is going to earn more than one who works during a Tuesday. In the end, like anything else in life, it requires work.
As a whole you are paid the market rate. It is up to you to find a way to make a living either by finding a way to earn more or cutting expenses. You talked about how the min. wage ensure that people are paid for work. The problem is that many people already are, or in some cases are over paid.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.t02.htm
Look at the unit labor cost for the full service restaurant. It has gone up 3.8%. That means the price of labor is outpacing productivity. All the min. wage does is raise prices and lower hours and job opportunities for those with low skilled. And you slavery example is shallow. With slavery you are forced to work, those people can always quite their job.
There isn't a single good reason to even have a min. wage. This idea that it is needed to pay for bills and rent is flawed in that those are subjective and different to people's needs. Also, businesses are not charities, they just can't give money away. In the end you are paid your market rate, you have to find a way to make a living yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Disentropic, I did not see that you replied to my comment. After reading your comment, while I do like the effort, you did not change my opinion because you clearly don't know my opinion.
On life expectancy, they give their sources and their methods. You can read their statistical regression model yourself. What the two authors were trying to show in that book with all of their statistical regression models was that depending on how you look at that data the numbers and rankings differ. There are many things that contribute to life expectancy such as murders, car accidents, life style choices, etc. It isn't based only on healthcare. But read their methods and go from there.
" The US citizen has a life expectancy of about 79.3 years, compared with almost 84 years for the Japanese."
The average life expectancy in the world is 71±7 years. The US is one standard deviation away from the average and less than 5 years away from Japan. That 5 years is minute as a whole and can be for many factors beyond healthcare. That is what the authors are trying to show. Many people and some rankings (like Bloomberg's ranking for example) put heavy emphasis on life expectancy when there are many contributing factors to it. The fact that people in Japan live 5 years longer than people in the US does not mean they have a better healthcare system.
"A brief article apparently contradicting/debunking your claim:"
Actually, that supported my claim.
I will have the read that meta analysis you gave me a bit closer. Glancing at it I doubt it will change my opinion as my opinion is that Canada's system is not better nor worse than the US system, but I will give a look.
"Rather than speculate through any partisan perspective, let's keep this conversation about observable facts, please"
I am looking at the facts, but that is just step one, and a minor step in the process. How you interpret the facts is key. As that book does with the data, depending on how you interpret the data you will see varying results. Many people just look at UN numbers and make a determination off of the raw data. But people who study science, math and statistics understand that you have to go beyond that in order to understand the full story.
" Unless you have data that shows that poor individuals are unhealthy and
"irresponsible", and particularly so in the United States, since this
ought to be just as true in any other nation, I'll have you refrain from
throwing out ideological arti-"facts" such as those during discussion."
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667
There is an article showing that as poverty rate increases so does obesity rate. You can find many others on how typically the poor are not as healthy. On being irresponsible, people are typically poor for a reason, and mainly due to lack of responsibility. You see higher rates of teen pregnancies amongst the poor for example. You have lower levels of education. It is not difficult to see that there is a responsibility factor involved. I am not saying it is all due to poor health and irresponsibility. But you can't ignore that. You are again saying that 45,000 people die a year ONLY because they lack access to healthcare. In reality there is more to it than that.
"This is another common trolling tactic, regurgitating ideological
slogans in place of real arguments. I don't care why you think people
don't have diplomas, I care about the actual facts."
Calling me a troll is deflection. Just because I disagree with something does not mean I am a troll. Also, I do care why someone does not have a high school diploma. They are essentially free and require little effort in my eyes. And those that don't get one typically have a lower income. If you can't do something as simple as get a high school diploma, how do I expect you to remain healthy? Again, I am not saying that is why they are dying. There is some part of it that they do lack access to healthcare. But that is not the only reason, and that is my point. And considering how 45,000 people is 0.01% of the population, and considering the other variables involved, at that point that value is simply noise in statistics. Again, not saying there is not a problem, but you are massaging the data to make something look worse than what it really is to push propaganda.
"What? Replacing a system means replacing it with another system. Your
assertion that there are an equal number of problems is completely
unsupported."
That book runs through all the data for you to read and analyze. As of now I have yet to have anyone convince me that single payer or universal healthcare is better. Not saying it is worse, it has advantages, but it is not better than what the US has now.
"Evidence? I'm lost at this point. If you don't start using cited facts
to make points I'm just going to have to write you off and move along.
"
You are complaining about me not citing facts when I have. Just because you don't like them does not mean you have to get angry.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?locations=US
Healthcare is around 1/6 of our GDP. A radical change will mean a recession of some sort because the economy will have to stabilize. People will change their spending habits due to higher taxes. Businesses will change investment due to higher taxes and different methods of payment, and that will hurt the economy. While it may be temporary, it is unnecessary since we gain nothing.
a: how are they lying?
b. how are they mistaken?
c:how can they be ranked with such minute difference? What statistical regression model will you use and why?
d:This is the truth
On points a and b, you have to give evidence that they are lying or mistaken. On c you have to explain why the statistical regression model you used is the best, which is, from my experience, impossible. Thus, unless you can prove point a or b you arrive at d. Rankings are hard. You can say the US has a better system than Syria easily, because the US as a whole is a better country. But you can't say the US has a better system than Norway or Canada, nor can you say Norway and Canada are better than the US. It is like university rankings. Which college is better? Stanford or MIT? You can't say, they are both great. Any ranking is arbitrary.
"Previously, you told me all their methodology was present in that text. "
They do. I have a feeling you have a hard time reading and understanding statistical regression models. I have a feeling you have not studied advanced stats or any advanced mathematics. It is fair, healthcare is a complicated issue which is why you rather stick to talking point. I don't expect many people to fully understand the issue.
On that last paper you gave me, they said "on possibility". You see the difference between how you react to data and how an expert reacts to it? The author of that paper did not come up with a definitive conclusion. Neither did the authors of that book, and neither am I. You are though. That is what I am trying to change with you. Even at that, that paper only covered on area of the book, not others. But in the end they did not make a definitive claim.
1
-
"Dodged the question. Why does their data produce higher scores for some
nations and lower scores for others when accounting for murders and
accidents? Answer this question, I'm not going to answer it for you."
Why will I re-write what is already written in that book?
"My mistake, there was an article which linked to that article that I intended to show you, but I'm not sure where."
Ok
"What you'd need to show for this to be relevant is that poverty doesn't actually cause this behaviour. "
People
are poor because they are irresponsible. That is one reason and a big
one. Not saying it is the only one, but it is one reason. Teenage
pregnancy rate is higher in areas of higher poverty for example, same
with STD transmission.
https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/social-determinants-disparities-teen-pregnancy.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752095/
Also,
they have a lower level of education. Again, that is not the only
factor, but it is one. Now to what degree does it play is hard to
determine. But it is a factor. To ignore it is being bias.
" 45,000 people is simply noise in statistics, whereas the 50,000 people
killed by murders and motor vehicle accidents is a reasonable
explanation for life expectancy differences between nations, and once
corrected for sends the US vaulting into 1st place?"
Let us look at it in two ways.
1.
50,000 is a lot of people: If you want to say that than fine, you see
why accounting for them is vital in our statistical regression model
2.
50,000 is not a lot of people: If you want to say this, which is what I
will do, you see how little a difference 5 years (79 years in US
compared to 84 in Japan) is in terms of life expectancy, and that minute
difference is essentially noise. We can call it that because when we
remove a variable that contributes to that noise we get a different
result.
But, based on your earlier comment you feel that 50,000 is small.
" If so, how can 50,000 deaths in the US, minus the deaths in
other countries from these same causes add up to a number sufficient to
offset life expectancy numbers on a population of 324.7 million people?"
That is what you said.
" Massaging the data means manipulating it,"
No, it means analyzing it in a different way. Bloomberg did his ranking for healthcare and he arbitrarily weighed life expectancy at 0.6 and cost at 0.4 and ultra liberals support his work. There are many ways to look at the data and as the authors of the book showed when you do that you get varying results.
But, I never said 50,000 explained everything. What it shows is that a minute change in the data set leads to drastically different result meaning the difference of a few years in life expectancy is noise and can't be contributed to only healthcare system quality.
"Based on what analysis? Show me. I'm not challenging that healthcare
is 1/6 of GDP, I'm asking you how you know how a shift to single-payer
will affect the economy, and I demand evidence to demonstrate your
conclusion."
Take housing for example, it is around 9% of our GDP. When the housing market crashed we had a major recession. When you change a segment of our economy that much it will cause a recession. Now I am not saying it will last a long time, maybe not even a year. But that is long enough to hurt people. When the housing market crashed many businesses stop hiring and even fired employees and people stop spending until the market stabilized. Same thing will happen with healthcare. Increasing taxes and changing spending habits will cause a recession while businesses, investors and individuals wait for the market to stabilize.
"You have the burden of proof here, not me"
No, actually you do. You are making the claim they are wrong or lying, no how? How are they wrong or lying?
" You claimed that d is correct, so I'm asking you to show me that a, b, and c are false. Can you do that?"
I told you that if you read the book when they run through the stats nothing indicates that single payer is better. Thus you can't rank the systems. You say you can and you base that off of the authors lying or being wrong. Now prove that is the case.
"I can clearly see you don't care for rational argument. When you go
around talking about your opponent's education it sounds an awful lot
like ad hominem, the same thing you do to poor people trying to create a
quality distinction between yourself and anyone who opposes you."
I am making an observation. I based that off of the fact that you are making a definitive claim on a complex issue. The only claim I made is that the US system is neither better nor worse than what other developed countries have. You feel that the US system is terrible but gave nothing to support your case. Even one of your sources have not made a definitive claim. With that observation I am assuming you lack some level of research and critical analysis skills. Not saying that is a wrong as many people do. Just saying it explains my thought process compared to yours.
Take the 45,000 for example. You are making the assumption that they die only because they lack access to healthcare. My thought process is that there are other factors, one being they are poor and thus are generally less responsible and less healthy to begin with. Not saying saying that their lack of access is a cause as I feel it is. But to what degree is the question. You can't say to what degree nor find any data set that will say that.
" Fortunately, that's not how debate works. The facts are the facts and personal attacks only serve to diminish your argument. "
I did not make a personal attack, I made an observation. Another is how you want me to explain what is already written in the book.
" I'm fully capable of engaging with any supporting evidence you can provide,"
But yet you refuse to read it and want me to explain it to you.
"Sure, that paper doesn't definitively conclude anything, it just
demonstrates the methodological failures of your source and discusses
the potential ramifications of re-evaluating the data. "
Which I agree is a good point to make, and you should question all sources you are given and find. It does show the complexity of the issue, but also shows to me how easily the data can be manipulated. The authors of the book looked at more than just life expectancy though. But I agree, it is something to look at. In the end, though, the authors of the book was showing how minute the differences in healthcare systems are and when you look at life expectancy the differences between countries is minute, so in many ways that paper supports what they are saying.
"So how about you acknowledge what it says and not make this about me? "
I just did. About you I am showing you how they did not make a definitive conclusion.
" You say you don't make definitive conclusions from data, and yet you
obviously make definitive conclusions with no data at all. "
Not true.
"When you say that poor people are irresponsible and that it causes their
poverty, you're shamelessly pulling that straight out of your ass."
But yet they have higher rates of STDs, teen pregnancies and low education attainment level. Responsibility plays a role in that. Again, not the sole cause of it, but it is one cause of it.
"The idea that you think I have something to learn from you on that front is jaw-dropping"
I beg to differ.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Darke Exelbirth Your chart starts at 1933 conveniently. Let us look at a chart that dates back earlier
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm#fig4
Ok, you see mining deaths, before the increase in unions in the 30s, drop. They were dropping before regulations and unions.
Your second chart means what? It doesn't prove anything except you don't know what wealth is.
A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. A homeowner has, on average, around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average worker does not have much wealth. The reason why is because not everyone desires to own and run a business. Someone can have little wealth (or even negative wealth) and live comfortable. I have negative wealth and have my own 1 bedroom apartment, healthcare, my own car, food, 4 computers at home, a smart phone and other luxury items. Pointing at wealth inequality is completely flawed. There is no such thing as redistribution of the wealth, that is only destruction of wealth. You need to learn what wealth is.
What happen when Ronald Reagan took over? He stopped massive inflation and a recession and brought growth.
Poverty started to go up at the end of Carter's term, a recession was starting. Under Ronald Reagan it went down. What is funny is when the "war on poverty" began poverty was dropping and then went stagnate after that war began. Nice way to cherry pick data again.
I look at data for a living. You can cherry pick all you want but you won't get by me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Darke Exelbirth What you did was present a graph and made the claim that deaths in the workplace were rising before unions and regulations came in the 30s. I showed you something different and how you were mistaken, a best.
I knew unions were around in the late 1800s, there were no where as big then as they were in the 30s. Same with regulations. But they did exist. But you said before the 30s deaths were rising? So according to you unions and regulations did nothing. So what is it? You are not even sure what is up and it shows with how you are changing your answers.
Poverty didn't drop faster after the war on poverty was announced, it became stagnate. And when I say became stagnate, it was consistently dropping, and then flat lined.
"People were producing more goods faster,"
Production is up due to technology. Workers are not working harder, technology has increased production. And wages have kept up with productivity. Wages have increased for those who develop that technology and invested in it. It is called skilled biased technological change. To claim that the min. wage hasn't kept up with productivity is completely false. That is because jobs tied to the min. wage haven't become more productive. Overall productivity has improved, but that doesn't mean that every job has increased in productivity. You need to learn that. A computer makes it easier for someone in a lab to do work, but the person stocking shelves or cooing burgers are not working faster. In reality the hourly compensation at restaurants are outpacing productivity. So in that low wage field workers are being paid more than their productivity.
"We'd be seeing a $22 minimum wage."
Overall productivity has gone up and the average hourly earnings in the US is around $24/hr. The min. wage is just that, the minimum. So if we have 100 athletes and on average can run a mile in 7 minutes, and now take 100 more and they run one in 6 minutes on average, there will still be some that are slow, that run slower than 7 minutes. The same idea works for wages. Overall production has improved, and overall people are paid more. But you still have a floor and that is the minimum.
Even at that with increase production you are seeing increase supply of goods and services and them being better. For example almost everyone has a smart phone where in the past only the rich had brick phones. Cars are better, almost every place has AC. TVs are better. Prices are dropping which increases the purchasing power of the dollar which means people are paid more. How much money you have means nothing if there is nothing to buy.
"if the minimum wage does not increase, poverty increases."
The min. wage from 2006 to 2009 went up over $2/hr. but the poverty rate went up. So what gives? What we saw in the 70s and early 80s was an increase in inflation and a recession. The min. wage is a small part of the economy, but in the end there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage.
Tying the min. wage to poverty is flawed. Compared to the overall economy the min. wage is a small part. That is why when it goes up you don't see any effects. But when you do remove other variables that hold more weight in the economy you see select groups are hurt due to the min. wage. That is increase in prices for areas that employ low wage workers, and an increase in unemployment in unskilled labor (such as teens).
The former shouldn't happen because of increase productivity we should be seeing a drop in food prices for example. But we are not. That is because, as I mentioned, the min. wage is outpacing productivity.
Plus, as I said before, why did poverty increase when the min. wage went up in 2006 to 2009? That contradicts what you said earlier (like when you said before unions deaths went up, but now you said unions existed while deaths were going up).
I looked at the facts. You are the one that keeps changing you stance on things. Now that I have called you out on unions and deaths at jobs, what about poverty rates going up while the min. wage went up in 2006 to 2009? This should be good.
1
-
Darke Exelbirth Let us recap, you said this
"Hm, look at that beginning bit. That part showing work place deaths increasing? That part is before regulations and unions. That part that starts dropping? That's after regulations and unions."
You said that after linking me to a graph showing deaths going up and down before the 30s, the time before unions and regulations you claim, and said deaths were going up.
I then show you a graph showing how deaths in the mining business were going down before the 30s and before those unions and regulations. You then say that unions and regulations existed during that time. So during that time where you said deaths were going up unions and regulations existed? Or they didn't? I am confused now? Which is it? You are making too many mistakes.
Now onto poverty and the min. wage. Now like with work place safety and regulations and unions I can bring up a lot of data show who inaccurate you are in your statements. But then this will start going into the level of a dissertation and not a youtube comment, so I will keep things at a minimum. To prove my point to you I won't need much.
According to the BLS a little over 20% of those who are poor don't work. That number has been fluctuating around that for years. So any type of min. wage increase won't help those individuals at all since they don't work at all.
Around 2% of min. wage workers work full time. Less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage.
According to Sabia and Burkhauser 89% of workers who earned at or below the min. wage are not poor. The average household income of those individuals was over $47,000/yr. That is because they are secondary earners of the household, not primary earners. Also over 48% of poor workers earn over $9.50/hr already.
In summary, raising the min. wage will not curve poverty because
1. Around 1/5 of those in poverty don't work at all
2. Those that do around half earn more than the min. wage, as in over $3 more at least
3. The vast majority, almost 90% on min. wage are not poor
4. And any relief on poverty is falsely assuming that prices won't go up and hours won't go down
On min. wage and jobs and Reagan. When the min. wage went up before Reagan jobs were still lost. They were lost primarily for African Americans, especially black teens. To say the min. wage didn't lead to job loss before Reagan is completely false.
Also from 1977 to 1980, before Reagan, the min. wage went up 80 cents an hour, and poverty still went up. Same with 1974 to 1976. Poverty was going down in the 80s until 1989 when....wait for it.....the min. wage went up again. Wow. This kind of puts a wrench in your poverty going down along with the min. wage going up statement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Adam Nasello A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average homeowner has over 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Now is that bad? No. Think about what wealth is. Someone owns a home, that is a vast majority of their wealth. Now what is next on the value list? Maybe their car. Then their flat screen TV, then their computer and so on.
The reason why the top has so much wealth is because they own and run businesses. Not every desires to do that. The Walton family have so much wealth due to them owning half of walmart, as in the buildings, the trucks, the goods until they are sold and so on.
With the wealth inequality that means there is wealth available. I don't mind that the top has so much wealth, I own a smart phone with my $25,000 a year salary. I own a reliable car. Everyone is better off.
Now Bernie wants wealth redistribution. To do that you will literally have to give a Walmart to someone. Considering how over 50% of small businesses fail within 5 years that means it you give someone a Walmart the value of that building will drop thus wealth goes down. That is why wealth redistribution is impossible, it is only wealth destruction.
So with that said you see the advantages of wealth inequality.
As far as income inequality, that comes from socialist policies. People are given handouts thus don't value money. The top 10%, who pay 70% of taxes, value money. Thus you have income inequality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Randy Rogers "If business owners aren't allowed legally to discriminate against people for their race, religion, nationality, or physical handicap, why is it okay to discriminate against people who are of a different sexual orientation."I would the support allowing businesses to discriminate for any reason. You don't lose rights when you decide to start a business. When you take rights away from others you have to do so equally and offer something in return. Thus you can't tell business who they have to serve unless you offer something back in return.
"And again, a gay person can't always just go somewhere else. Suppose a mechanic knows a guy is gay, only mechanic in a small town like mine. Guy's car breaks down, well he's got to get that broken thing towed 20-30 miles. Now a guy has to pay an entire paycheck towards the towing of his vehicle, guess he should have known better to be gay."
In todays age of internet and communications that person can contact someone else and then use internet to rip on that mechanic and town. Word spreads fast plus with the liberal side of the media that town will be criticized hard. Also, you are going to the extreme case. How many businesses will do that? Very little if any. Most of these businesses don't want to be a part of a gay wedding, they are not discriminating against gays but are against gay marriage. There is a huge difference.
The Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act are both unconstitutional via the 10th amendment. We shouldn't allow our rights to be taken away for "protection". That law in Indiana enhances the 1st amendment which is sad because we shouldn't have states do that but they are. It is no different then what happen after Kelo vs New City of London, a right was denied someone at the federal level thus states have to create laws to protect a constitutional right.
"Oh except in Indiana now, where it's considered perfectly legal for a guy who owns anything to refuse service to anybody"You don't have a right to anyone's property and services. Just because you start a business doesn't mean you lose your rights.
" If I was a billionaire I'd buy all the water and power departments willing to sell to me and I'd refuse service to anyone whose name I disliked. "You are projecting here. Chances of that happening is slim, chances of that happening with negative results is almost zero. Also another water company will come in and take advantage of the open market where they will have at least one customers, gays (or whoever you discriminate) and will make bank due to your refusal to serve someone you don't like. You discriminate costs you more to run a business and chances are you are not a billionaire to begin with.
"I hold a monopoly, my rights as a business owner trump the rights of the consumer to even live in an area where they can't just build a well and buy a generator. "
What rights will the business owner be trumping? That is something I ask all the time but never get an answer. The business owners are not violating anyone else's rights.
"If this is a ridiculous example to you, too bad, because to me refusing to sell someone a can of beans based on your moral prerogative is just as silly."And you forcing someone to give up their property based on your moral prerogative is fascist. That is similar to slavery or what happen in Kelo vs. New City of London.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seth Stark "So then it is okay to discriminate against Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Straight people, Gay people, Bi-Sexual people, etc"Individually yes. You and I discriminate all the time in several ways. "and we are all to keep out mouths shut, because it is people right? " You have freedom of speech as well. You can use freedom of speech to criticize those businesses and you can also go elsewhere. What you can't do is use government force to make business owners do what you feel is right."If people continue down that road, then we will have a nation divided." We have that already. You can't force integration. In some areas we have more segregation then in the 60s. We have some schools that are attended by over 99 percent black and Hispanic students, do we force white students to go there to end the divide? People will discriminate. What you are doing is putting fuel on the fire. You are using the government to enforce what you think is right and thus you create a government that discriminates which is worse.
Slavery was forcing people to serve others, it was taking away other people's right to pursue happiness. No different then forcing business owners to serve people they don't want to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
profd65
And Seattle has a high min. wage, not surprising you have limited restaurants. Also, the state of Washington has one of the highest teenage unemployment rate.
"Your Longway's Diner story is bullshit"
Whatever, you don't have to believe it. Just like a min. wage hike won't hurt me any as I get paid way above the min. wage and can make cuts if needed.
"Look, it may actually happen that raising the minimum wage will result in a few persons losing their jobs in the short run. But I would rather have a 5% unemployment rate with every employed person getting paid a living wage (and none of them on food stamps,) than have a 3.5% unemployment rate with loads of employed persons who are impoverished and struggling to survive."
So what do you do with those who lost their jobs? Also, there is something called labor to labor substitution. That is those jobs could be replaced by those re-entering the job market and turnover rate is lower. That means those at a disadvantage, such as teens, can't get a job and thus enter the workforce later. That makes it harder for them to move up. You are keeping people down. That is not how you grow an economy.
". The increase in payroll costs could easily be covered by a slight increase in menu prices and a slight decrease in business profits"
Business profits are thin, so they can't cut profits. Also, several people will refuse to pay the increase. As is I hardly eat out because it is expensive. Several will follow suit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Johnny Spider
"I believe 97% of scientists..."
That 97% number has been debunked several times where the scientists who were cited came out and said their findings were misrepresented. In short, that number is bogus.
"Again, please explain how these liberals are misrepresenting the science for political gain"
Climate change is a complicated issue that is not defined. But yet politicians want to raise taxes and create regulations based off of it. Politicians, not scientists. They have a lot to gain from this, mainly power. No different than when liberals exploit women, gays, minorities, the poor and other groups.
"I'd say 100%..."
So all of that climate change before man was even on earth did not happen? A driving force of evolution was climate change. It has been happening for over 4 billion years, unless you support the young earth idea and don't support the theory or evolution.
"Well, yeah. One thing we don't know is how bad..."
With today's technology I don't see why it is even a problem. Could it be a problem? Yes. But how do we know? You can't say. At this point all we can do is continue to research it and continue to advance in technology.
"So, if the leftist politicians are using global warming to regulate and tax us, why do 97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is occurring?"
Again, that 97% number is bogus.
"If the right-wing accepted climate-change as factual"
For the most part they accept climate change as it has been happening for over 4 billion years.
"and appropriately regulated and taxed you on it, would you oppose it"
I would oppose it. With that part of the comment you are labeling me as a "right winger" when I am a moderate. This is a pure case of where democrats, to me, are anti-science. Neither republicans or democrats are scientists. They are politicians. Republicans are smart enough to understand that and leave science with scientists. Democrats use it for political gain. They politicize science.
1
-
1
-
Johnny Spider
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
"You're just missing the point. If the scientists do not stand to gain anything from making up climate change data, why are you not accepting it as factual"
That data is there. The issue is how it is interpreted. As that WSJ article I linked you, that 97% stat is vague based off of vague questions and vague interpretations. In science you collect data. Those are facts. How you interpret them is the challenging part and no credible scientist is going to make a definitive conclusion that liberals are making.
I collected data and published it. I make vague conclusions like everyone else in my field does. You don't want to make a definitive conclusion because you could look bad and very little of the universe has been tapped into.
"Yes, the climate flucuates in a minute way over time. That doesn't explain the rapid, abnormal fluctuations we're seeing today, nor does it explain the ancillary effects of industrialization like pollution, ocean acidification, etc. which you still haven't addressed. And if you support the theory of evolution, why deny climate change? You have nothing to gain from denying it. You're going to pay taxes regardless of anything, and what's the problem with environmental regulations? Should corporations just be allowed to turn our planet into a giant sewer?"
Well, is this change rapid and abnormal? What can you compare it to? You have nothing to compare it to. Also, who is denying climate change? Basically nobody. It has been happening for over 4 billion years. I am criticizing you because you are being selective in what science you support. And what does this have to do with corporations turning something into a sewer? Who said anything about that?
"So far it seems technology has done nothing to combat the problem, or at least very little. The temperature continues to rise; when is this magic technology you speak of coming out?"
Why change the climate when you can adjust. You are looking at changing the climate. I am talking about adjusting our lifestyle to adopt to the changing climate.
"But they're not accepting it as it's been happening in the last two hundred years, which is highly abnormal, much more rapid than usual, and due entirely to carbon emissions from industrialization."
And 2 hundred years is the only time frame where we have actual data we collected. The time before that is modeling.
"So democrats are anti-science because they accept the scientific data"
It isn't about accepting the data, it is how you represent it. They are misrepresenting it for political gain. That makes them anti-science. Conservatives are not denying data either, they want scientists to interpret it and their conclusion is far different than democrats' conclusion.
"Also, I think being politically moderate is stupid, since conservatives seem to be wrong on most issues"
Such as.....?
Also, I am getting a PhD. You don't have to believe me because I am.
1
-
Johnny Spider
Ok, let me add than. That 97% comes from a survey that less than 1% of scientists even bothered to answer. 97% of 1% is less than 1%. Congrats, less than 1% of scientists agree with you.
"How are scientists misinterpreting the data? Explain."
Scientists aren't. Liberals are. Scientists are fine which is why less than 1% decided to answer questions on a bogus survey.
"You can compare it to the pre-industrialized era, where evidence amply shows there was no coral reef bleaching, no pollution, no ozone layer damage, the carbon levels were below 400 ppm. You can compare it to the dinosaur era, when much of the Earth was a tropical rainforest."
200 years in a 4 billion year old earth is minute. Again, you can't compare it to anything.
"Will you be able to adjust your lifestyle when agriculture collapses due to increased heat and dustbowl conditions? What about when the land becomes unsuitable to grow crops due to pesticide and petroleum-based fertilizers? Plants and crops do not migrate."
None of that is happening for a very long time, if ever. As is we produce too much food.
"You previously stated that the (liberal) politicians were misrepresenting the data to raise taxes and impose environmental regulations, not the scientists, who you stated were neutral on the matter and only went with the data. What do scientists have to gain politically by denying global warming?"
Scientists are not denying anything. They are the ones who are not making definitive conclusions. They are also not pushing for the same things politicians are. So why do you keep misrepresenting scientists?
"Well, global warming, for one"
Uh, is it global warming or climate change? Make up your mind.
"Many conservative political positions are incoherent and meaningless, such as abortion and gay marriage."
On abortion, arguments on both sides are good but also bad. One can easily argue that abortion is murder. It is killing a living thing (hurray science). I do see the counter argument for it. With me abortion should strictly be a state law, period. Nothing is in the constitution about it. So democrats are wrong on that as well. Also, abortion is not a misogynistic stance. You saying that shows your ignorance on the topic.
With marriage, there is no such thing as a right to get married. Marriage is a state law. Now states have to follow the 14th amendment, but as a whole marriage is as state law.
"Many conservative positions are simply racist, sexist, bigoted, classist (against the poor), homophobic, etc"
Not true at all. The fact that you say that also shows your ignorance. To democrats it is always about race or sex. They exploit groups to gain an advantage to where if any party is sexist, racist, etc. it is the democrats.
"I never said I don't believe you. I'm sure they give PhD's to lots of stupid people"
Says the person who does not understand science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" In places where $15/hr was implemented, prices went up, but it was
outpaced by wage growth, so consumers still had more spending money"
This is deceptive. In places where growth happened there was already growth happening due to higher earning jobs that create wealth. Emeryville, CA has had the highest min. wage in the country for years but has had unemployment below the national average. At the same time it has Pixar and two pharmaceutical companies for three of their top four employers. Those individuals earn a lot. The highest employer in my city is the school district. The top four largest employers in Chicago are all government jobs. Places like that will not do well with a higher min. wage as they do not have the jobs that pay well. So it is much more complicated than what you are saying.
"Also, CEO-to-worker pay went from 20:1 in the 50s to 250:1 today"
That is also deceptive. CEOs today manage more than in the 50s. If a CEO managed a company with 5000 employees in the 50s but now manages 50,000, who should get paid more? Who generates more profit? Also, the idea of cutting CEO pay is not true. If you take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their salary to the 525,000 lowest paid employees those workers will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it.
" so there's plenty of room for businesses to reduce their profit margin before they have to start raising prices. "
Again, not true. These businesses work on razor thin profits. Also, not every business is a corporation with a CEO.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Fascinating. So by that logic, if these workers are earning the same,
but produce more, then there wouldn't be enough consumer demand for
those goods and services, correct?"
Nope, prices will drop. Demand is there as people naturally demand better goods and services. This is why companies push for better goods and new technology. When Apple releases a new phone it is usually expensive and not many can afford it. But they release it because people want better phones, even if they can't afford it. Eventually the price drops. People demand better things no matter what their income, thus companies will push for it.
Now on your links. On the first one you see a divide between wages and productivity starting in the early 70s. In the mid 60s the payroll tax increased. That meant that businesses had to pay a higher tax if they paid a higher wage, so instead businesses paid with benefits. Also, productivity went up because of technology and that drove prices down. For example, cars today are way better and cheaper than cars in the 70s. So even if people were earning less, goods and services are way better.
Your second link supports my case as it says people demand better goods at a cheaper price.
1
-
1
-
"Wallmart has a significantly higher profit margin compared to near
competitors and also pays its workers less. But I get what you're
saying; businesses have no obligation to their workers, only their
shareholders who want to see maximized profits. This is why the minimum
wage can't be a voluntary thing and to be fair to all businesses, has to
be a law that applies to all. My point there is just that wages are
only a small fraction of their costs so they would only need to
marginally increase prices to cover greatly increased wages. "
Walmart is as big as they are because of the shareholders. Asking them to cut profits will mean less shareholders forcing them to downsize. For all the complaints about Walmart no one on the left ever praises them for hiring so many people. Many on the left do the ignorant Walmart vs Costco comparison but never complain about how few employees Costco hires. Walmart may pay a small wage, but they do hire a lot and give jobs to people who can't get a job elsewhere.
" Because this is where most of the wealth is. How does it help the
average American that the Wallmart family has more personal wealth than
the bottom 42 percent of America's net value? I have nothing against
them but really, how does it help the average human for that matter?"
The Walton family have that much wealth because they own half of Walmart. You have to fully understand what wealth is. Wealth and income are not the same thing. Income can be a part of wealth but wealth is more than just income. It is similar to how all squares are rectangles but rectangles are not squares. The Walton family own half of the shares of Walmart which is good for the company because it shows to shareholders that the owners are going along with the risk.
Also, you have to consider that in the US many people have negative wealth (including me) because of loans. A person with no debt or assets but only $10 in their possession has more wealth than 25% of the country. Now if someone is in debt is that bad? Not really. I have college loans. But I am a PhD student working in a field that will pay off in the end. It is me willing to regress in some ways to succeed later. In the US we can do that. A poor person in Ethiopia has more wealth than me by definition. That poor person has no debt nor many assets, but has more wealth. But who lives a better life? Me or that Ethiopian?
You also have to realize that placing resources in the hands that develop wealth progresses our nation better. If you give two homes of equal value to two different people within a few years, or maybe less, they will be valued different. For example
Person A: Keeps the house and lawn clean and organized. Pays their bills. Maybe even adds to it.
Person B: Does not keep the house clean. Smokes in it. Walks on the carpet with their shoes. Has four cats, etc. The property value of this home drops.
Placing resources in the hands of people who develop it into wealth is key to progressing our country. That is another problem with the min. wage. It arbitrarily gives money to people for no reason besides they simple fact that they exist. What makes you think they will invest it and grow the economy? They have no track record of doing that.
"Now compare to how a lower or middle income person may spend nearly 100% of their income which goes back into the economy."
This is a very flawed way of thinking and I see this as a reason why these people are poor. If you give them more money they should save it and invest it to grow. If they are just going to immediately spend it than they are poor for a reason as they have poor money management skills. People who bring up this argument are failing to realize that they are saying those poor individuals have poor money management skills.
" It is spending, buying goods and services, and the ability to buy goods and services, that drives the economy. "
If those goods and services do not exist than it does not matter how much money they have. But again, they should invest that money to take college courses at a JuCo for example to become more skilled and productive. If they just spend that money as opposed to investing it than you have not improved anything.
"So it's kind of a no brainier that minimum wage should be tied to the inflation rate or else it constantly falls behind."
Again, not everything inflates. The actual min. wage is $0, because if you are not worth the arbitrary price floor set by the government than you will not get a job. As I showed you with the Blockbuster employee, certain jobs drop in value. Some have increased, look up "Skilled Biased Technological Change". But to say that every job should increase in value is 100% wrong. Not everything inflates. The skill of the McDonalds cook is no greater than what it was 50 years ago. Arguably it is easier to work there as so much is becoming automated and spelled out for you.
The simple fact is that you are paid based on what you produce, period. It is up to you to find a way to make a living. Either cut expenses or earn more money through another job or a higher paying job. Raising the min. wage benefits nobody except for major corporations who have the resources to with stand such regulations where smaller competitors do not. Walmart at one time supported a min. wage increase.
1
-
1
-
" you're right, I had in mind a study that also factored productivity. If
considering increases in productivity, the minimum wage should be
$21.72 if staying in line with 1968 where it effectively peaked,
according to another study: "
That is not true. You are comparing overall productivity to the lowest paid workers. That is similar to saying
"Well the average height of the human has increased for years thus there should no longer be any midgets".
Productivity has gone up because of technology. And people who invested in it and work with it have seen an increase in wages. Look up "Skilled Biased Technological Change". And the average hourly earning is over $25/hr. So the average earnings has kept up with productivity. And higher productivity means better goods and services at a lower prices. But again, you can't compare overall productivity to the wage of the least productive worker.
"What part do you disagree with? Minimum wage tied to inflation, or wage
in general increasing with increased productivity? Inflation increases
as a steady rate, minimum wage does not. Per capita GDP increases but
wages at the bottom do not (concentrated increasingly at the very top).
"
I disagree with both. Again, on inflation not everything inflates. That is why the smart phone does not cost $4000 when the brick cell phone in the 80s did. That is why the Blockbuster employee, or the employees at Energizer in my hometown are now worth $0 in their respective jobs. People no longer rent movies and people do not use batteries as often since we have rechargeable batteries on board. Some goods and services go up in prices, others drop. That is why the min. wage does not increase as the min. wage, in reality, is arbitrary.
On wages the wages for everyone has gone up. Issue is that the payroll tax has hindered wage increases so businesses pay with benefits instead as they are tax free. .
"Also, what sectors are you referring to where labor is almost the entire
expense? It would have to be a business with no physical location.
Maybe something like Uber which is already highly problematic and not
clear if their drivers even make any money at all when factoring fuel
and vehicle maintenance costs. "
Places that sell very little in terms of goods. A hair salon for example, or a gym. A museum. While they may sell goods it is very limited.
"So it's likely profit margins don't change unless people start spending
less. But if instead people start spending more with more disposable
income, that helps businesses. "
What makes you think that people, if they earn more money, will spend at those businesses though? And again, this shows why those people are poor, bad money management skills.
"In your opinion. I guess we will see with California and probably New York raising their minimum wages to 15."
It is a poor comparison as their economies are different. Seattle raised their min. wage and people said it has had no negative effects. Here are the top employers in Seattle
http://www.edc-seaking.org/service/economic-data/economic-basics
Now compare to Chicago
https://www.metromba.com/2016/03/top-employers-chicago-metro/
And look at the unemployment rates for the two areas
https://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm
Seattle has a lot of private companies that pay high wages. They can raise the min. wage to a high rate and you won't see anything because the wages there are high to begin with. In the mid 90s Robert Reich and Bill Clinton pushed for a min. wage increase and after it happened unemployment went down. But if you expand the graph unemployment and the percent of those earning at or below the min. wage was dropping already. So it had nothing to do with the min. wage as businesses were already hiring at a higher wage.
There is a lot to this, you have to be careful. If it were as simple as raising the min. wage we would have done it by now.
1
-
"Strong Unions. Having strong national unions can lead to very good jobs and well paying jobs."
It can, but unions can also become corrupt as well, just like businesses can. While businesses give money to politicians so do unions. And those unions use politicians in their favor which can hurt others. In states that are not right to work they have higher unemployment as unions has been shown to kill jobs for lower skilled workers. Also, Norway as the advantage of actually using their oil for profit. They are a country that is much smaller than most of our states but yet is willing to use their resources for money.
"Guarantied Minimum Income. "
Not to be rude but this is the dumbest thing to do. People do not value money, they value goods and services. Now because people have been raised to live a simple life and not many like to think too much they feel they value money, but in reality they value goods and services. If you have $5 you do not value that money, you value what you can buy with it.
Money was created to solve two problems in the economy. The Retention of Value Problem and the Double Incident of Wants Problem. In the first case if you sold food for a living you could not save food for large purchases as it will go bad. In the second problem if you sold food furniture for a living you can only trade furniture to people who wanted it. With money, though, you can trade money with anyone so if you want a car you do not have to go around looking for a guy with a car that wants furniture.
Money has no value until it is invested to create wealth. If you just give money away to people for producing nothing than you ruin the value of the dollar. Say you have an economy with $1 million and every cent of that dollar was spent developing wealth as seen in the eyes of the people. That money will be spent well and people will benefit. Now say instead only $600,000 of it is spent on developing wealth. All the wealth you have is just what the $600,000 was spent on, the rest is wasted. It is the same thing if only 60% of society worked. That means the wealth for 100% of society only comes from 60% of it, there is less wealth.
"Guarantied Job. "
Just having a job is not a solution. In reality we should push people to put themselves in a situation to work less and earn more. Jobs are easy to create. If I can do anything I wanted to create more jobs I could get rid of the tractor. With that we will have a lot of farming jobs, but food production will go down. Is that a good solution?
"Negative Taxation. "
Same as guaranteed income.
Now this is not to say that the government cannot create jobs or give out money. It can as long as society is getting their money's worth. You do that with smaller, more local government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ronin Dave The constitution wasn't supposed to be flexible, change was supposed to be at the local level. Create your own healthcare law that your state or city wants, don't shove it down other throats and conservatives won't shove their down your throats, deal?
The founding fathers had foresight knowing there will be future politicians using the government to try to oppress people, that is why they made it hard to change the laws and constitution. The founding fathers would be disappointed at modern day liberals for them violating the 10th amendment. Might as well violate the 4th amendment as well, oh, wait, that happen with the patriot act. Ok, the 1st, it has happen as well with restrictions on cigarette companies on how they advertise. But it is ok, the government will keep you safe and you can live in your little hole with their protection while they are rich.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Glen, we don't have the money. Even at that we also lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, class rooms, equipment, time and so on. How do you expect to provide tuition free college when we lack resources? You, like Bernie and his other supporters, are stuck looking at dollars. You are not looking at the real goods and services that need to be available in order for these programs to work.
So no, we can't afford tuition free college unless we lower the quality of it. Just like K-12 public education where we have building falling apart, low quality of teachers and so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You pew research link did not lead me to anything.
"pay around 50% of income taxes but again you are attempting to extrapolate quantity
for percentage rather than individual taxes which is what everyone is
referring too. Is that to hard of a concept for you to understand?"
What are you referring to? To be honest I am not understanding what you are saying. The fact is that the rich do pay most of the federal income taxes in the US. Is that "fair"? Why not push for a flat tax? Or what I support, a tax on the states at the federal level? It seems like you want to just raise taxes on the rich because you feel they don't pay enough for some arbitrary reason.
"How is that another discussion? That is major issue in taxes and why so
many people are able to escape taxes. The reality is, there should be no
way for corporations to escape taxes, and that means the rich people
running them should not be able to escape either."
Pre-1913, minus a few years of a temporary tax, no individual or corporation paid any federal taxes. Why should corporations pay federal taxes to begin with? You seem like you just want to tax them but failed to give a reason why.
" If individually every person except for the person making a trillion dollars paid 100% taxes,"
Who is expecting a 100% tax anyone?
" and the person making 1 trillion dollars pays 1% taxes, the 1 person quantity wise has paid more taxes overall however
this is where your failure in critical thinking comes in which makes me
doubt your "degree" that you claim to have. Each individual in taxes
pays far more % wise compared to the person making a trillion dollars."
Well you are suggesting that everyone pays a 100% tax rate which no one is suggesting for anyone. Say we have a flat tax of 20%. What percent does everyone pay? 20%. That's it. I really don't know where you are getting at with this 100% tax rate. What I suggested at the federal level was either a tax on the states or a flat tax. But, what we have now is the that top 10% earn 40% of the income but pay 70% of the taxes. If it were really fair the top 10% will pay only 40% of the taxes since they earn only 40% of the income.
Also, for that one person to have that $1 trillion they most likely produced something that the vast majority of the 100 wanted and were willing to pay for. That is how they got their money.
"It doesn't matter what the person did, the point is taxes are suppose to be fair,"
I agree. So the top 10% should only be paying for 40% of the federal taxes.
" Does a doctor get lower taxes for saving lives?"
No, but they shouldn't be taxed more which they are now.
"The fact that you keep saying this is so shocking, Bernie isn't saying
everything can be free. What he is saying is rich do not pay their fair
share,"
But, in reality the rich pay more than their fair share.
" Someone making 50k should not pay more taxes(Percentage wise) than someone making 50 million"
Which I agree. In fact the opposite is happening.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+imnotmike "Common sense" is a phrase that is thrown around so much that it is watered down to nothing. When somebody says something is "common sense" is immediately discredit them because either they are basically trying to pull wool over your eyes.
I am currently pursuing my PhD and imagine what my committee will think if I said something was just "common sense". I will fail. I hold the same standard here. You are saying something is "common sense" when I can easily come up with counter arguments against you.
Now, you claim that I am against socialism. That is not exactly true. Your claim comes from that I supposedly support 100% capitalism thus I am against public schools, police, fire fighters etc. Here is my rebuttal against that (I am showing a rebuttal against what you feel is "common sense").
One, I said those were locally funded. I gave you a video with Milton Friedman that stated there is a need for government. I agree, but we need to keep it as local as possible. Those programs listed are locally funded and I support them. I work for the public school system in my county.
Next, you are pushing for federal programs while giving examples of locally funded programs (one has over 2/3 of their workers as volunteers). That is not a strong argument. I support those programs at the local level. Pointing at those programs, which are locally funded, to justify federal expansion is not a strong argument. If anything you argued for a small, more local government which I support.
Third, you just displayed that anyone who does not support what you do is a "regressive". That is as myopic as you can be. What makes them "regressive"? You have to justify that. If you can't then your argument falls apart. But I will guess you will just use the "common sense" argument.
Listen, I respect that you responded to me. Many don't anymore on these youtube pages. The reason why is because I give a rational argument and get a response of "you are stupid". Honestly, I am too smart to deal with the idiots that are on this page. But as a career educator at the college level I feel the need to educate people on this page to make the best decision.
You have a lot to learn. I use to be young and ignorant like yourself. My suggestion to you is to follow sources besides Kyle and you will grow to be more intelligent.
1
-
+imnotmike "You have no idea what you sound like right now. "
Actually I do.
"Why would you even think this information came from Kyle's channel? "
Because you sound a lot like him right now.
"One big downfall of getting your phd is that it tends to turn you into
an arrogant moron who discounts the 'regular' people in the world. I've
met a lot of dumb people with phds. In some ways, the degree seems to
make them dumber."
I agree, that is why I strive to not become that way.
"Obviously you wouldn't normally cite 'common sense' in a phd thesis.
This isn't a phd thesis. It's an internet comment thread. The rules
are not the same. I also don't require spelling and grammar checks, nor
will I require that you cite scientific studies. This is an exchange
of opinions, not a peer reviewed journal. If we never took the time to
exchange opinions in an informal setting, no one would ever come up with
any ideas to submit to their scientific journals."
I agree with a lot of that as well. But the phrase "common sense" is so weak that it can't be used anywhere, even on an internet comment. I immediately discredit anyone who uses it. You are displaying zero thought when you say that. I just showed you how your ideas are not "common sense". This is why these debates exist to begin with, they are not "common sense".
"However - if something that came up in phd thesis were truly common
sense - I would argue that yes it would be ok to cite common sense, so
long as you really understand what common sense is."
Nope, you never say "common sense". I just got done with answering comments from a reviewer on a paper and one comment was so asinine that with my boss we basically called him stupid. But in writing to the editor we wrote in a professional way what was being said. We did not use the words "common sense" at all and never will.
"I also cited the military in my examples - which is federally funded - which you conveniently forgot to mention."
Because that is constitutional. You see I have standards in what I support, you don't. You say we need to implement what is good of capitalism and what is good from socialism but cite zero standards in doing so. I have standards, it is the constitution. The military is federally funded and exist in dealing with foreign affairs, something that states cannot, and should not do. It equally benefits all states. And there are limitations on the military in domestic policies. For example, the military can't enforce state law without the consent of the governor. That is called the Posse Comitatus Act.
In the end it is listed in the constitution. Police and schools aren't thus they default, via the 10th amendment, to the states. States don't have to have public schools and cops, they do anyway because society wants them so they set them up locally without force from the federal government.
"Also, schools may be locally funded to some extent, but they receive
vast federal funding as well, and have to meet federal standards to
receive that funding, and it would be extremely rare to find a school
that doesn't attempt to meet those standards and get that funding."
Not true at all. The majority amount of funding is local. Federal funding goes towards Title I schools and that is if they follow CCSS (which only 41 states do). None of that is constitutional but the reality is that states don't have to follow federal standards and not all do. The science standards are NGSS and less than 20 states follow that. Facts buddy, you should learn them.
"Police and fire departments may be local, but funding will often come at
least in part from statewide sources. I don't know what you consider
local. Also, emergency services are federal, and federal grants would
be given to police and fire departments that were forced to deal with
unusual circumstances that went beyond what they could handle with local
funding, as well as federal personnel and personnel from other
districts to help deal with the crisis."
There are different tiers for cops. You have the local sheriff, you have local cops. They are funded locally. The highway patrol is funded by the state. It is different for each state but that is typically how it goes. And yes, under emergency situations the federal government can intervene, but only in extreme cases and with consent of the governor.
Also, as I said, 2/3 of fire fighters are volunteer. The local society deals with the issues without federal help.
" But that is all fairly irrelevant anyways, as claiming that locally
funded socialist programs don't count as socialism is a specious line of
reasoning at best. You're picking and choosing things that you like,
and making up excuses for why they don't count."
It is not irrelevant. I don't consider them socialist because the local community is willing to fund it. If they don't then they find a way. In rural towns people volunteer to clear off the country roads, is that socialism? Are those volunteer fire fighters socialism? What is socialism at that point? You are coming here saying that I support 100% capitalism which is being very myopic and judgmental. You say that we need to develop a system that works. The system that works best is where people see if they get their money's worth..........period. You do that with smaller, more local government. That comes with standards. You have not set any standards. You just say government should do X, Y, and Z. What you have to realize that too much government is just as bad as no government which I have a feeling that you think I support no government which is not true at all.
"Lastly, I would note that if you're trying to use your 'phd credentials'
as an appeal to expert status - that doesn't work here, as every tom
dick and asshole on the internet can claim they have a phd in an
internet comment thread.
I myself have 3 phds in political science, economics, and math."
I am using my phd credentials to appeal to expert status. I am doing that to prove a point that the phrase "common sense" is a very ignorant and shallow phrase that has no standards in an argument. Let me give another example. I am a sports official at the college level. If I said to a coach that I did not make a call on a certain play just because it was "common sense" that was not a foul then he will bark back, especially the good coaches that are making 6 figures a year.
You are saying something is "common sense" shows that you don't have many credentials, if any at all.
The bottom line is that too much government is just as bad as no government. You have this false feeling that I support no government which is not true. But you support government with no standards which leads to too much government. I have standards to prevent that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+imnotmike "Capitalism is based on growth, and with that growth comes waste."
What? That is 100% not true. Growth comes from getting the most of your resources. Name me one company that has been around for over 200 years and has a $18 trillion debt. If a business is wasting resources then they will fail as a business.
" Eventually, we'll have used up all our resources and we'll be in serious trouble"
Ever heard of recycling?
"In our society, sustainability is considered a negative"
Once again, false. So when my bank raises the interest rate on my checking account because I go paperless, that is not sustainability? Or when my energy company posts online how to save electricity, that is not sustainability?
"Even economically this causes huge problems. "
So are you suggesting no growth at all? Recessions happen, that is a part of an evolving economy. Throughout history we have recovered, fully, from every recession, except for 2, in around 5 years or less (with longer recoveries happening in the 1800s when we were still growing). The 2 we did not were the Great Depression and the one we are still in from 2008. They are also times that the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with spending and regulations. FDR tried to limit growth of the economy and a depression happened.
"If your system can incentivise a system that rewards progress,"
Growth is progress.
The computer saves so much time and allows for more growth. That is progress.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"emotional appeal is actually good, you implement laws solve problems and help people and therefor emotions matter. "
There is value in appealing to emotions. We are humans and we do irrational things because of that. But when you let your emotions overcome logic and thoughts then it becomes a problem. You need a balance. For example, when Bernie talks about a "living wage" I always question what his standards are. I agree, we should push for people to earn enough to live. But what are the standards? Having roommates or not? Walking to work or not? You need to bring that into the discussion. Also, you have to think if people earning a min. wage are poor to begin with?
"people dying becasue they cannot afford healthcare, nor even healthcare
insurance to help pay for healthcare, is not an emotional appeal.
children born with heart conditions that would automatically have their
coverage rescinded as a "pre-existing" conditions is wrong, and not
emotional appeal."
No system is idea. People lost their healthcare coverage because of Obamacare. Universal healthcare has led to deaths. .Every system has shortcomings, you have to realize that. You have to be honest. I hardly see that from the left.
"the growing breach between rich and poor, where the poor/tax payer is
co-opted to reimburse the rich (the current healthcare bill not only
gives 400 families between 500-800 billion in tax cuts and incentives
but is also going to pay them retroactively for the last 8 years of
Obama care, meaning they're going to get paid back fo all the taxes
they've paid fr the last 8 years as well.
"
Why do you want to tax the rich more? Because they are rich? That is appealing to emotions. You have to ask why they are rich. What value did they bring to society? Bernie's attack on the rich is appeal to emotion. Just because someone is rich is not justification to tax them at a higher rate.
"Kate's law is trump's emotional appeal he brought up a few people whose
family members were killed by an illegal immigrant and then pushed that
narrative that illegals are killing people left right and center,
despite the fact the FBI crime stats show illegal immigrants commit less
crime then most demographics in the country."
Illegal immigrants are committing a crime just by being here. With our poor economy we have to control immigration much more.
"well ted cruz is the last person to be asking that, becasue idiot is
right behind trump who has no issue "spending" money (especially on
himself)
"
OK, what?
"Bernie should have pointed to the Nordic counties and the socialist
European counties where they have next to know unemployment, free
healthcare, free education, one of the happiest populations in the
world, sure they need to pay a lot of tax but they cannot be said to not
have the benefits of such."
Those are small countries with different cultures and smaller populations. You can't compare them to the US. We have states with larger populations. Denmark had mandatory military for years, is that what you want? Norway drills for their oil and uses it to finance their country, do you want that? Germany tracks their students and limits who can and cannot attend college. Do you want that? And citing "happiness" is not an argument as you can't quantitatively measure that. Happiness is subjective. You are appealing to emotions there as you are assuming that US citizens are not happy. It all depends. If you look at me you might say I am not happy as I am stressed all the time. But I am productive and successful as a PhD candidate. I choose my life and I a fine.
"they also have lower populations then the states, and yet managed to make it work..."
Smaller populations allows one to micromanage those programs easier leading to less waste.
"but of course Bernie's only answer would be, tax the rich more (um no,
tax everyone more and then offer them services back, invest in the
people, their education, their health, increase the standards of living
and then allow them to contribute). "
So take my money that I earned because I am too stupid to spend it myself?
"Besides Cruz is just an embarrassment at this point,"
How?
1
-
" Happiness is an emotional state. '
It is also subjective.
"You can argue healthcare, but really, single payer is best for most things"
How so? It has advantages, but so does the free market (which we do not have by the way in the US). Every system has shortcomings and studies I have seen shown them. Also, you have to factor in different cultures.
" Tax the rich because they have it. I'm not nearly foolish enough to believe that they earn it."
Just because they have it does not mean they can take it. I am hungry, do you have food? Can I just take that food from you while holding a gun to your head? Sorry, but your argument is weak and 100% appealing to emotions. Just because the have it does not mean you can just take it.
"They inherit it for the most part. "
That is irrelevant but also not true. Over half of the rich did not inherit their wealth. Even at that, you complain about the rich inheriting things, what about career politicians?
" If you are studying all the time and living on beans and rice, I don't want to take your money and keep you down. "
That is my choice.
"If you think small countries work better than big ones, let's divide the country."
We do that already, it is called states. States run K-12 education. States fund 3/4 of roads. States and local governments run the police.
" I thought everyone who praised capitalism (not free enterprise) believed in economies of scale."
That is not true. People who support capitalism support simplifying the economy and micromanaging. Watch the video "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups". He is a capitalist and he explains government spending being local.
"You are the best judge of whether a sofa or a fancy smartphone would
make you the happiest, but if we build a new rail system, it will have
to be a collective choice. "
The more local that decision is the better. It is hard to get 2 people to agree on things. Now try that with 320 million. The more local government is the easier it is for people to agree on things and micromanage the economy leading to less waste and more wealth creation.
". If the individual cannot affect the election process because he can't
buy a $10,000 chicken dinner, or because they don't have an election,
he can't do anything to make his little piece of the world like he wants
it."
In capitalism no one effects the election as the government has limited power.
In order to have a government that doesn't bother us it has to be as local as possible so we can control it.
1
-
"I fully agree, that's an actual question of merits which should be
expanded upon and discussed. Which is why i said you can't just argue
from an emotional/moral stand-point you need an actual plan,actual
details.
bernie and co. believe that just the moral/empathetic feeling is
required, that's a part of it, but they're needs to be actual structure
behind it. "
And Bernie never does that which is why he lost. When you start to break down his policies you find out how vague they are and thus he can't support them.
"Actually a few things there.
first of all before Obamacare was no picnic either, Obamacare actually
got people healthcare, one reason why no one wants to lose healthcare
coverage now.
second what that was the coverage being lost, was called "catastrophic
coverage", which itself was a sham/rip off, and people were "losing"
coverage that was already charging them large deductibles but in reality
would not pay the whole thing/wasn't really coverage.
"
It doesn't matter is the coverage was "catastrophic care". It was their coverage and they were kicked off it. Also, people ended up paying more when Obama claimed people will pay less. Obamacare was a mess of a law which is why Democrats lost. People are paying more and are worse off. This excuse that "more are covered" does not fly with hard working people. You can only cater to the free loaders for so long. This is why there is not an ideal system as we lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, researchers, etc. We cannot cover more people without
1. raising prices
2. lowering quality
I am sorry but if I had to choice between paying more to help out the "least fortunate" who I do not know, or pay less, I will pick paying less. I help out the least fortunate around me. This is why I support smaller, more local government as people have very little problem helping out the least fortunate that are around them. I invited friends into my home who were homeless. But people do not want to help out others who are labeled as "less fortunate" in other states who they never interact with. That is why people want Obamacare gone.
"second. I'm sorry "not every plan is ideal" is poo excuse for, children
dying, people dying etc. etc. becasue they cannot basically "pay to
live" doesn't sound like it belongs in the "most wealthiest nation of
earth,""
People die, sorry if that fact surprises you. If you run through the numbers universal healthcare produces similar results.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
"Oh i do, but i would argue universal healthcare while not perfect has a
lot better results and benefits in it's corner to make it worth while. "
Read the book I just cited.
"again i hear rich people complaining that out of for example 60 million
dollars they only get to keep 20 million becasue of tax or etc.
Now tell me, have you ever had 20 million dollars? in your lifetime let
alone a year etc."
Why does it matter? A lot of rich people donate to charities. If I were rich I would want to keep it as well and spend it how I want. I do not want the federal government taking my money and wasting it on programs they support. I would want to spend it on programs I support. I don't want the government giving my money to a special interest group that benefits them. You are so fixated on the rich having all that money and jealousy has filled you so much that you are not even thinking about how much money the government wastes.
"Half of them were born/inherited it,"
Only 30 to 40 percent were. That still does not mean anything. How many politicians are career politicians and their kids became politicians? I never heard complaints about the Kennedys. And many people want Michelle Obama to run for president. Or they don't mind that Bernie Sanders was just a politicians his entire career.
" and others like Donald trump scammed, took advantage of loopholes,
didn't pay and or did underhanded deals, took money for certain elements
and or lobbied politicians and lobbyists to have their crimes legalized
through law..."
I don't blame Trump for that. I blame the politicians for creating those laws to begin with. Trump mentioned that many times in his campaign. Government has been growing for decades. Federal government spending was 14% of GDP after WWII, now it is 20%. And during that time defense spending was actually dropping, so do not mention the "military industrial complex". The government has been growing and politicians are getting richer. Bernie Sanders just bought a third home. And now you want that same government to control more taxes and your healthcare?
"Warren Buffet was not joking when he said in reality he pays less tax then his secretary."
Warren Buffet pays low taxes because he does not pay himself enough. Less then 1% of his income is earned as an individual. Almost all of his income is earned though the stocks of his company which is taxed less. If Buffet wants to pay more taxes he should simply pay himself more. There is a reason why there are individuals like Mark Zuckerberg pay themselves a $1. That is because being paid by stocks or through the company is taxed less.
1
-
"Actually the evidence shows that the jobs they take:
a. aren't the ones actual Americans want.
b. actual Americans can't do as efficiently or for the same wage, they
tried it in Alabama and couldn't pay them the same nor got the same
efficiency or work ethic.
"
That doesn't make it right. They are breaking the law. If you want someone who is legal to work then pay them more. Aren't you liberals always talking about higher wage? And if that person does not work hard then fire them and hire someone who will.
As for them paying taxes that is debatable as they are not hear legally. They are paid under the table. So the chances of them paying taxes is very low. But again, it does not make it right. Again, you appeal to emotions does not work with me.
"if the president can import his wives, hotel staff, and golf club staff
from foreign countries as well as his product lines, i don't see the
issue. "
They came here legally.
"Ted cruz stands beside trump...trump visits mara-lago every week, in the
last sixth months, he's already cost the tax payers a third to a 1/ of
what Obama cost them in 8 years...
becasue he goes to Florida so much, the coast guard have expended their
budget to patrol those waters, the coast guard that trump is defunding
to pay for his ICE (deportation) department.
among many other things,
i thought ted cruz was there to "halt" government spending/decadence? "
All that spending is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall budget. Also, I would like to see a source for this
" in the
last sixth months, he's already cost the tax payers a third to a 1/ of
what Obama cost them in 8 years..."
You are crying over peanuts at this point.
"So? you do know how tax works right, the larger the population the more
revenue, and becasue states and the federal government both have taxes
the states with the lesser populations who cannot generate as much of
the revenue are covered by the federal through government assistance."
You do know how managing a budget works, right? The smaller the population the easier it is to micromanage a policy. Compare it to this. Say you are going to Subway and you are going to buy sandwiches for you and 5 of your friends. You will get 6 individuals sandwiches. Now say you are buying it for 100 people who you hardly know. You are just going to get a plate of a bunch of generic sandwiches for everyone. You might get enough. If not then someone will go hungry. Or you might get too much which then some are wasted. But the point is that the larger the scale you will be increasing the possibility for
1. waste
2. inefficiency
3. not catering to people's needs
it isn't as simple as "more people more tax revenue". It goes beyond that. Also, you have to factor in different cultures as well. This is why Bernie Sanders supporters have nothing but appeal to emotions. Their ideas to too good to be true. I wish his ideas would work because they are simple. But the reality is that they are not that simple. It isn't as simple as "more people more tax revenue".
"you do know that many of the red states and southern states only survive
off of government subsidy and or the subsidy from other states going to
them right? cause their rural populations are so small they can't
generate sufficient tax revenue to cover their programs and needs.
i mean Kentucky spent 92 million dollars of tax payer money to build
that stupid noah's ark theme park in the middle of nowhere which is
surprise surprise having financially difficulty...something that ha
caused them massive revenue issues, and whose going to cover them if
they need it, the federal government...in theory. "
That is mainly a myth
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html
You also have to consider that members of the military come mostly from "red states" and reside there for tax reasons. So again, it isn't as clear as you try to make it out to seem.
"yeah it needed that becasue it's population is so small they needed
conscription in case...
the US has a standing army (already paid by taxes) i don;t think they
need them. besides Vietnam was a shit show and was one of the reason
they dropped the draft. "
But what about proportions? You just went on a rant about more people means more tax revenue. Well, does a large population mean we need to protect more people and thus need a bigger army? And that Denmark, being so small does not need that large of a military? You are contradicting yourself. Also, why don't other countries do it.
"they like everyone else outside America have actually begun to look into alternative energy sources"
They still rely on oil. And the US does use alternative forms of energy. Other countries, like France, does so out of necessity as they have no coal and have no oil. Again, it isn't as clear as you are trying to make it.
"We already do that, a. it's called apple, Microsoft, Facebook, lol you
can tract any electronic device such as computer or phone, anytime and
anywhere, and of course we already have who and cant go to
college...it;s called tuition costs. "
When I say track students I mean tracking their grades and making an opinion on if they are college material or not. In the US you can attend JuCos and CC's. You don't have that option in Germany. I was talking to an individual from Germany and his reaction to Bernie was that Bernie needs to stop lying. This guy was tracked for trade school so he moved to the US, got into college and is now a PhD candidate.
1
-
"Actually the happiness index is a method of testing how content and or
satisfied one is with life, they did it with America and fond that, no
Americans in general are not happy.
"
Again, it is subjective and based on culture. People in N.
Korea are happy. I am sure that the Sentinelese people are very happy
living by themselves on their island. That is why there is no
quantitative way to measure happiness. Those links you gave me I have
seen before. They are vague and foolishly try to group everyone
together as if they are the same. The culture in Norway is different
then in the US. All across the US the culture is different. If I lived
in San Jose and has to wait in traffic 2 hours a day going to and from
work then I would be disgruntle as well. If I lived in rural Nebraska
and fished all the time and worked a low key job, I can be happy. That
person in San Jose, though, could be earning six figures, drive a nice
car, have a beautiful wife, a nice home (the San Jose area is beautiful)
and be very well off. That Nebraska man can be obese, drive a beat up
Chevy, has smelly clothes, a fat wife and so on. It is all subjective.
Now
let us look at happiness and population. You say that Japan has similar
problems. Look at that top 20 list and how many countries has a
population of over 90 million? Ok, to help you out I will list the
populaions
1. 5.1 million
2. 5.67 million
3. 0.33 million
4. 8.2 million
5. 5.4 million
6. 16.9 million
7. 35.85 million
8. 4.6 million
9. 23.78 million
10. 9.8 million
11. 8.38 million
12. 4.81 million
13. 8.61 million
14. 320 million
15. 4.6 million
16. 81.41 million
17. 11.29 million
18. 0.57 million
19. 65.14 million
20. 17.95 million
Are
you seeing a trend? Do you see an outlier? We are also ignoring
population density, geographic locations, history, etc. So many
variables are ignored here. If I lived in Iceland, a country that is an
island of only 330,000 people I would be happy as well. That goes back
to my an in San Jose vs my man in Nebraska comparison. Living a simple
life can lead to happiness and also lack of success. And being stressed
does not equal unhappiness. People enjoy that. I enjoy being stressed
out as when I achieve something it is big. You have to look at that as
well.
"Do you not get it back?"
If I "get it back" then why take it from me to begin with? Does the government feel I am too stupid to spend my money?
"sorry i thought healthcare, education, emergency services,
infrastructure, military, social security workman's comp, and etc. etc.
were things one wanted and enjoyed..."
Most of those things I can
provide myself or the local community can. Again, what does the
government think they can spend my money better then I can in some
cases?
"and since the point of a tax society is everyone pays to cover everyone else, aren't you happy you;re supporting society...?"
It
is impossible to cover everyone. On paper you may say everyone is
covered, but with healthcare if the quality drops and wait times go up
is that a success? Saying "everyone is covered" is lowering the bar a
lot. Take K-12 education. While it is ran by the states on paper every
state offers K-12 education thus on paper everyone receives it, or can
if they want. There are many rural schools that do not have AP courses.
Do those students receive the same quality education as others in the
country? No. But on paper they do. In my state we increased graduate
rates by lowering the standards. On paper we have more people getting a
high school diploma, but again, that is on paper purely by lowering the
standards.
Also, I told you about helping others. I have no
problem helping out my local community of people I interact with often.
I do not want to help out someone in another state 2000 miles away who I
have no clue about their personality, desires, goals, etc.
"again anything else comes off as "support yourself and your own over others" which to me sounds very "anti" society."
And
to me being forced to pay for someone's healthcare who I have no clue
who they are or what their desires are sounds anti-society to me as that
person is living off of others people's hard work and no one is there
to control him.
When I helped out my friends who were homeless I
knew they were working towards a better life. They just fell on hard
times. One was a PhD candidate. If they were not putting forth effort
to do better then I would have kicked them out. I have that control.
With your idea we can just give money to people who have no desire to do
better, and no one is there to control them. On top of that you create
the entitlement attitude. Future generations feel they are entitled
which is not good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here are the top 10 by state
VT
VT
WY
WY
ME
ME
SD
HI
DE, OR (tie)
ND
Ok, now states by population
WY
VT
AL
ND
SD
DE
MT
RI
MI
NH
7 of those senators resides in states with small populations (VT, WY,
SD, DE, ND)
Now by demographics, percent white
VT 96%
ME 95%
NH 94%
WV 94%
IA 92%
ID 92%
WY 91%
MN 90%
ND 90%
Do some of those states look familiar?
Now to crime. States with the lowest crime rates
VT
ME
WY
NH
VA
KY
ID
UT
RI
MN
VT, ME and WY are the three states with the lowest amount of crime. VT
ME and WY are 1, 2 and 7 in terms of percentage of whites, and WY, VT
are the two smallest states by population. but yet the six most popular
senators reside VT, ME and WY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathon, you clearly don't get it.
"it has massive flaws in it since its presented from economists, not people in medicine or healthcare."
Healthcare plays a large role in economics. So what's wrong with looking at what economists say? Bernie's healthcare plan was designed by an economist that, ironically enough, created a tax plan to pay for him that just barely left him out of the tax increases. But, if you learn economics in a proper way you will be taught how to understand and analyze statistics. So the fact they are economists means they are qualified to give a proper analysis on healthcare where Kyle with only a political science degree isn't.
" he attempts to argue systems that have Universal healthcare have a
limited amount of physicians but we are also heavily understaffed in
physicians, especially PCP which is a massive issue here in the
privatized market. "
But the difference is that with universal healthcare you are increasing demand meaning that either
1. prices will go up meaning higher taxes or increasing the national debt
2. quality will have to do down such as longer wait times and overworked workers giving lowing quality care
But, how does Bernie expect to offer healthcare to everyone when we are limited in staff? He never addresses that.
"He then makes massive claims such as people who are not insured may not want to be "
Yes, there are some people who don't want to be insured like some people don't want to own a home or a car. Same thing, they don't want the payments.
"Not to mention many statistics were heavily cherry picked, example he removed all deaths that happened from fatal injuries such as shootings"
Robert Oshfeldt addressed that in a Wall Street Blog saying the aim was to show the the differences in numbers, such as life expectancy, are so minute that any minor change can rearrange the rankings. I this case car accidents and murder, which are not that strongly connected with healthcare, leads to the US being number one in life expectancy. The whole point is that when the difference is that minute any ranking in healthcare is arbitrary. There are several factors that play a role in life expectancy beyond healthcare. In an advanced statistics course (which I took as a math minor) you study situation like these.
"An example would be if you got shot and were bleeding out, and died later, they removed this."
And how often does someone who is shot and die later happen? That can be looked at as well. How about you include that in your statistical analysis.
"That means if you are in a poor area, you have less access to healthcare
and even if a hospital * was closer*, they would look for hospitals
that were farther out that were designed for poor individuals. Therefore
the death that was caused by healthcare issues with hospitals was just
ignored, I mean aren't you a college student(so you claim), don't you
understand the issues with this?"
With all of that you should be seeing the complexity of the situation here and that is what Robert Oshfeldt was pointing out. There are so many variables involved beyond healthcare that you can't just say look at raw numbers and make a determination.
"You essentially posted a conservative argument to why he believes
healthcare has benefits in the US and avoided all the issues without any
provable statements "
If you read the entire book he makes suggestions. Also, his main objective was to show the US does not have inferior care compared to other countries nor that universal healthcare is the goal.
"here was a reason we were ranked low in WHO"
As the author said those rankings are arbitrary. Also the WHO's ranking was criticized so much that they refused to do another ranking. For example, Andorra was ranked in the top 5. There are around 80,000 people in Andorra where that country is a tax haven and has around 80% of their GDP is in tourism. They are a small country that attracts money and people with money. Of course they do well in healthcare like they do well overall in the entire economy. That is not a valid comparison.
"there was a reason we had millions of people uninsured and dying every year."
People die for lots of reasons beyond healthcare.
"There was a reason most people in the country were heavily dissatisfied with the healthcare. "
Most people are dissatisfied with the ACA.
"Please stop posting, you have already proven yourself a moron on previous posts in other videos."
Ironic you say that because you still hold onto that WHO ranking that really no one looks at due to how flawed it was. You feel it is a valid comparison to compare the US to countries like Malta and Andorra, countries I am sure you never knew existed if it were for that list and me mentioning them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It doesn't have a role because the point of health insurance is to cover people and allow them to survive,"
Healthcare makes up almost 20% of our economy. It plays a large role.
"The question shouldn't be "well if I drop them I get make extra money
even if they die". If someone dies in the process, then economics has no
role in it. The fact that I have to keep explaining the simplest thing
to you shows how simplest your mind works. "
It isn't that simple though. I agree that insurance companies shouldn't be dropping people, but why are they doing that? To me the reason why is because the people have essentially no control over their insurance companies. The reason for that is because they mainly get it through their employer. And the reason for that is because of the payroll tax.
"Bernie sanders plan did not matter, because it was a tax estimate that other economists disputed, but the point is to cover everyone equally
and not allow people to get sick and die without coverage. That's the
problem you don't understand, you are looking at patients from a $$$
point of view which you can't. You should never do that because you are
trying to justify people dying but putting a $$$ on them and that you
cannot do in the medical field, again something you know nothing about
has no role here."
The economy is more than just dollars. It is about goods and services. Bernie wants to cover everyone equally, the reality is that we lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, researchers and so on in the industry. We lack skilled workers to provide healthcare to all without lowering the quality. Also, you have to consider the fact that you will be giving people care in an order as opposed to giving care to people who are more productive in society. For example, say I need a knee surgery. I have insurance and can get it and doing so will get me back to work where I am productive to society and produce wealth. But say I have to wait while someone who is not productive nor has a job gets care in front of me? Now I am our of commission which limits my productivity. There is a reason why the US beats several countries in productivity as well. So there is that side to it as well. Economics is not just about dollars, but in your simplistic mind it is.
"It will be addressed the same way it has been addressed in other
nations, it will open more schools, take larger classes and graduate
more physicians."
Larger classes means lower quality of education meaning lower quality of doctors. We lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, equipment and so on in universities to offer education to people. And go to med school is highly stressful as is. I teach at a university and as a PhD student I have live with the stress and it does not compare to that in the medical field. Not many people can do it or are willing to do it. Also, under Bernie he wants to guarantee
1. a living wage
2. paternity leave
3. sick days
4. vacation time
5. healthcare
6. retirement
And so on to anyone working. So where is the incentive to become a doctor? This isn't a situation of you building it and they will come. It is stressful to do that job.
"The same thing is happening here, something I would know being in the field.
We are having the same issues, the difference is doctors must adapt to
more patients and we have to open more schools. The wait times may
increase but it doesn't matter, the point is I'm sure someone rather wait 2 weeks than never getting serviced. You keep avoiding the obvious and make ludicrous points, essentially they can die if they can't afford it."
I doubt you have experience in the field because if you did you will see it is much more complicated than just opening more schools and then magically more doctors appear. And I rather not wait that long as I will be out of commission, same with other productive workers.
" Again he is assuming this point without any actual empirical
evidence, it's just a claim he makes randomly in the study attempting to
justify the massive amounts of uninsured. When already multiple studies
were done at the time that tons of people were getting rejected due to
pre-existing conditions which you keep avoiding."
I am not rejecting the pre-existing conditions. It is a problem, but why? To me it comes back to people getting insurance through their employer as opposed to getting it at a young age on their own. And you say you have knowledge in the field which I highly doubt. If you did you will realize that we can't just open more colleges and than doctors will appear. I failed a handful of students wanting to attend nursing school because they simply could not handle the work. And I work hard as an educator trying to get them to understand physics. I always get great reviews as an instructor, the students just couldn't get it.
"I'm not arguing the reasons it could have different influences, but by removing all those situations, then he is removing tons of facts that play roles in healthcare. I can name several others that he would name."
Again, you missed the point. He is showing how sensitive the data related to healthcare is and how minor changes can lead to the numbers being ranked in a different order. That shows the differences in healthcare quality with those countries is so minute that you can't make the claim that they are doing it better. You can do a statistical analysis showing the US is terrible and on can do a statistical analysis that is just as legit to show the US is the best.
"I included tons of examples above and that's the issue, he removed all
these problems that can happen very frequently. It's simple,
preventative care is the best type of care because many issues that are small"
And Prof. Oshfeldt even said that other issues such as diet and exercising and smoking play a role. None of those require healthcare but basic knowledge that proper dieting and exercising is good for your health and smoking isn't. And I do feel preventative care is good, but this brings up the point of why do we have to rely on insurance for that? Why can't we just pay out of pocket?
"I'm not just looking at the numbers, I'm looking at the very important
points which I listed multiple times that you just keep avoiding and
even the economists avoided heavily in the report. You don't seem to
understand these issues or you are just avoiding them whole sale.
"
You are making up scenarios but are not giving them any statistical context. Plus, when these ranking are made people look at numbers.
"It is inferior healthcare, "
You say that but you haven't given any reason why you feel that way besides plausible situations. You haven't shown anything that preventative care can actually lower healthcare costs or improve the quality. I feel many people go to the hospital for asinine reasons. I had a manager who weighed over 500 pounds and every doctor told her what I told her, that she needed to change her diet and lose weight. That doesn't take a doctor to say that, but she took time away from doctors. If you are going to make accusations you have to back them up. So far you haven't.
1
-
Part 2
"It is because many of the issues is why we ranked low
-Not everyone was insured
-Not everyone could afford healthcare
-People could be denied healthcare
-People could be dropped by healthcare
-People could be denied treatment because the insurance company thought the treatment was not useful."
And in other countries people are denied care as well because of rationing. So what's the difference? People die in other countries because of that.
"Again all these issues were massive problems in our healthcare, you just keep avoiding them and again"
I don't avoid them, I feel they are problems. But allowing the federal government which has a terrible track record and is corrupt to run our healthcare is not the solution.
"Again this is a stupid point, I am saying many people died because of
those insurance issues that shouldn't exist. That's like you pointing
out the issue with drunk driving and instead of being trying to fix the
issue I just point out "people die from lots of things every year". That
is true but has nothing to do with the issue."
People die for many reasons. With healthcare the main reason is because they are poor and unhealthy to begin with. You can find some rare instances but they are what they are, rare.
"Not even close to the old system, everyone essentially loves all the new
stiuplations, the only thing people hated was the mandate. They loved
-The ability not to get denied
-The ability to always get coverage regardless of income
-The ability to be on parents insurance until 26
-The ability to not be denied treatment because insurance did not want
to pay
The list goes on and on, the only thing people don't like of the
ACA is the fact that they are forced to pay a penalty if they don't opt
in. That was literally the only thing that was under 50% when they
polled for the ACA."
One, the polls have been wrong lately. Next, people keep voting for republicans who for years have been running on the idea of repealing Obamacare. I trust the election results.
"This is why I saw economists have no roll in this system, because you
are thinking of $$$$ rather than common sense for treatment."
The rest of your comment is crap because in the end the people are voting for the repeal. So when you say "the majority like...." means nothing as clearly the election results say otherwise. But, the highlight of your ignorance falls in that last sentence. One, there is a lot to economics besides dollars. As I mentioned with colleges, we lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms and so on. That is not money but actual services to provide a college education to people. How do you account for that? Economists look at that where a simpleton will just look at dollars. Next you say "common sense". This is clearly not common sense as a major news source and two high profile politicians just had a debate on the issue. "Common sense" is saying most people like dress warm during the winter. This issue is far more complex than that and you saying "common sense" means you have no argument.
Your solution is myopic and ignorant. I feel we have problems but I understand the situation is far more complex. I feel the issue stems from the federal government and feel that it starts with the payroll tax. To highlight that I will ask these two questions
1. Why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage?
2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
1
-
"This is the biggest issue with the argument and exactly why you are a
simpleton that doesn't understand any sort of complexity. People did not
vote Trump to replace ACA, the vast majority of the people who voted
for him claimed he would not cut social security, medicaid and medicare
and if replace the ACA, they would replace it with a system that had
the same perks but was cheaper. Again this is why so many Republicans
are having such controversy in replacing Obamacare with a system that
removes its perks, this is why many mayors are starting to go against
the republican house/senate that wants to remove it, this is why many
Republicans are openly coming out and saying this should not happen."
The reality is that Obamacare shouldn't exist at all, but it is hear and politicians know you can't just make radical changes. That is why democrats could not agree on one form of healthcare because the change was radical and was going to have dire results which it had, many of which were bad which is why republicans won on the campaign of replacing it. This is also why universal healthcare is not getting passed because that is an extreme change and will cause major damage to our economy.
" This post is so idiotic, it's just baffling because the reason Trump
won was because of how terrible of a candidate Hilary was, and because
the public hated her. "
And Hilary beat Bernie, so what does that make Bernie?
"You understand if Bernie Sanders went against Trump, he would of destroyed him correct?"
How so? He could not even beat Hilary who was a terrible candidate herself. Also, based on this debate Bernie would have been destroyed by Trump. Bernie demonizing that small business owner reveals his true colors and how radical the left has become. In 1994 Herman Cain approached Bill Clinton with a similar question. Clinton was respectful and answered Cain with number and data. He even went as far as to say that Cain's question was legit because 40% of the food dollar is spent eating out. Cain countered with facts and numbers of his own. I disagreed with Clinton but I respected is approach and saw why people liked him. Here we are over 20 years later and Bernie, on of the main candidates for the democrats, just demonizes small business owners saying "this is America and you have to give them insurance" and demonizes any of his opponents that challenges him with nothing more that appeal to emotions propaganda. That is why he lost and why democrats lost. People saw through his crap how he could not back up any of his policies with actual numbers and data. Just like you couldn't as well.
" Again by your logic, that would mean everyone wanted Universal healthcare"
Except one, Bernie lost, and two, such proposals lost by extreme margins in Vermont and Colorado.
"No, you moron I pointed out the issues multiple times. Common sense is
If a doctor says you need X, the insurance company should not make the
determination if it is needed"
When they are paying for it they can. This is a problem of us not having control of insurance companies. We don't have control mainly because we can't pick our own insurance companies because most people get it through their employers because of the payroll tax. Also, as Cruz pointed out, the number of insurance companies are limited.
"Common sense is If the doctor says you need it, it's makes common sense to believe him/her "
Doctors have been known to offer care that is frivolous simply to gain money.
"I mean it's shocking that you have this issue, the fact that you are
literally arguing for a system where a doctor gets overridden by the
insurance who has no experience in the field. "
But they are the ones picking up the tab, why shouldn't they have a say? Who is going to check up on the doctors now seeing they are not price gouging insurance companies?
1
-
"Still doesn't have relevance to how doctors treat patients"
Yes it does.
"It is very simple, if you give the private market people to do that then
you can do that because unfortunately they will raise cost if they are
forced to take people who get sick. "
If an insurance company raises cost for people for just getting sick when they have been on their plan for years, than that company will receive poor reviews and go out of business in the competitive market. Fact is we don't have a free market system in healthcare at all. We have the federal government being involved in a big way.
"You don't seem to understand the saying, when I mean it is dollars I
mean you are essentially sending people to death because in your mind,
they aren't productive."
That's life. If someone can't afford a home they will have a greater chance of becoming sick. Same with being able to afford healthy food. But we don't see the need to make housing and food a "right". If someone is poor and can only afford to live in the ghetto of high crime they have a greater chance of being murder. Or if they are poor and can't afford a safer car they have a greater chance of dying in a car accident.
"Saying that people should essentially die because you think you are more
productive really speaks value of the kind of piece of crap you really
are. I truly hope you get sick and I truly hope you lose coverage and
understand how terrible the US system really was."
Now you are becoming emotional and are falling apart to the point you wish ill will on me. You are now losing this argument. I am all for fixing healthcare in the US, but we have to realize reality here. You are living in a fantasy where you feel that we can just snap our fingers and everything will be all better. That we can just build more schools and more doctors will appear. I am being realistic here. You are being emotional.
"Do you know how many people are accepted per year? Around 120-200 out of
5000+ applications usually, I'll give an example. The class I was
accepted too was around 120 out of 6500 applications, so they only took
around 2% of the applications. Not only would tons of people jump at the
oppertunity to get in, but many people are extremely qualified but it's
become so competitive, even with an MCAT of a 511, you struggle to get
interviews in many allopathic schools and need a score of around 506 to
get interviews to osteopathic schools."
Because it is as stressful field so you have to know your shit. As one of my nursing students told me, she has to know what she is doing because if she makes one mistake someone will die and she could get sued. In fact that is happening to money of my colleague's sister. Also, we lack professors, TAs, tutors, classrooms, equipment and so on to actually teach these people. That is why acceptance rates are so low. At my university we are literally putting warm bodies in front of students to teach them in labs. Not TAs who actually know the subject, but warm bodies. Don't talk about topics you know little about.
"You are a moron, of course I know about it because I am in the field and
they are already doing this as they speak. They are opening allopathic
and osteopathic schools every year attempting to keep up with the influx
of doctors they have to pump out, the difference is they need to
educate more doctors. This issue is happening right now in the country,
the only difference is they need to keep up with them. No magically
doctors won't show up, but the reality is many people are highly
qualified but are turned down due to the massive amounts of people.
People with MCATS as high as (510ish)80th percentile at times are
finding issues trying to get into medical schools that are allopathic.
Even new medical schools open try to shoot around that mark, not
speaking of established schools."
Again, who is going to teach them? And the 80th percentile is low for that kind of job. It seems like you tried to become a doctor yourself but failed and now you are bitter and becoming emotional here.
"Again it isn't the best if a doctor cannot dictate what treatment you get"
Insurance companies are picking up the tab though. They have a say. I agree that is a problem, but right now you don't have a solution. If we had single payer the government will instead make that decision. Cruz wants the people to be in control. You haven't suggested that at all.
"What happens if you can't afford it out of pocket? What if something more serious is found? Then what do you do? Pray?"
There is a role for insurance for specialized care and emergencies. Car insurance does not cover oil changes, but it covers a car accident or if someone breaks into my car. Same should be for insurance. I should
1. Have control of what insurance i want to buy and not be at the mercy of my employer
2. Have control of what kind of insurance I get and use it for extreme cases and not small things like simple check ups.
"The fact that you are arguing that it can lower healthcost is ridiculous, "
So affordable healthcare is not possible and we should just have the entire country go bankrupt?
" It isn't "Wait does it cost more or less", and again if you have no idea whats wrong with her why comment? "
There is a lot of irony in that question coming from you.
"If I am the doctor and I say X, Y and Z, an idiot like you should have no input in what she gets since you have no experience in the field and that should never be disputed."
If you are the one picking up the tab than it is. This is why, as Cruz said, the people should be in control of healthcare insurance and healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To show you how the federal government created the mess we have with healthcare now let me first start by asking you these two questions:
1. Why do so many employers offer healthcare insurance as a form of payment as opposed to a higher wage? OR, to ask differently, Why do so many people rely on their employer for healthcare insurance?
2. Why does healthcare insurance=healthcare?
Give me your thoughts no those and I will reveal mine.
" Medicare is designed to provide benefits, not to profit for itself,"
Without a profit motive you have no ability to grow, and usually what happens is that you end up working on a lost. That is why Medicare is losing money. It is giving money away without producing anything thus that money has no value and no wealth creation is made. It would be similar to you just giving $500 away a month and gaining nothing, that $500 is worthless to you thus you are operating at a lost.
" Health care costs soared because of the uninsured population, the
losses suffered by Hospitals from people who cannot pay or cannot afford
insurance were transferred to the rest of us, driving cost and higher
insurance premiums so the Insurance Companies can remain profitable. "
Go back to my first two questions and you will see the real answer
"How is the free market going to find incentive to service the lower income populations without ripping them off some how? "
In a competitive market companies cannot rip people off. If they do they will go out of business. We don't have a free market in healthcare.
"It is not my claim that the repeal of Glass Steagall caused the
Financial Crisis. But it was one of many deregulations in the financial
industry which allowed banks to behave recklessly,"
I hear "many deregulations" but Glass Steagall is the only one that is listed. That is because we don't have deregulation, we have over regulation where the federal government has too much power where it can pick winners and losers.
"When you only have a few banks and a few insurance companies, how is
that any different than the dreaded "Central Planning" of the Federal
Government? "
Having a few banks and insurance companies is the result of a federal government with too much power creating rules that hurts smaller competitors. It wasn't the free market that bailed out the banks, it was the federal government. In both cases it isn't any different then "central planning" from the fed. Both are not the free market, both are inefficient, both screw over the middle class and both stem from the federal government.
" The only "freedom" you are fighting for here is the freedom to get
financially ruined when you get sick or injured. I am on your side."
You are not on my side. You want the mercy of my healthcare to be left up to some government bureaucrats. People like you allowed the fate of my healthcare to be up to my employer now you are compounding the problem by switching it to the federal government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ylze Tyr Wow, like talking to a wall here. I did provide a source, it is here
https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/
Also I explained this to you once already, you keep pointing to overall unemployment. We can raise the min. wage to $10/hr and there won't be major job loss for a couple of reasons. One, most people are already paid over $10/hr. Another is that there will be labor to labor substitution where those without skills will be replaced with those with skills entering the workforce either from finishing some sort of training or having an incentive to re-enter the workforce due to the higher min. wage. You also have to consider reduction hours. They will still be employed but with less hours. For example Card and Krueger did their research based no phone polling, not looking at actual payroll.
As the article I linked, and what I have said before, raising the min. wage will hurt those with low skills, low experiences and low connections, typically the poor and lower class. That is why I told you to go to an area of a high min. wage and see how many high school kids at Title I schools are unable to obtain a part time job. The min. wage hurts the poor in preventing them from getting a job and it raises prices.
I read the first link referenced in the video. I clearly says
"The president will also sign a memorandum that will ensure federal employees get at least six weeks of paid sick leave for the arrival of a new child and propose that Congress pass legislation to give them six weeks of paid administrative leave."
That is six weeks. On the issue of a person not doing their job well, they will lose their job. The issue is that even with their best workers most businesses simply can't afford to have them just take 6 weeks off and get paid. As I said, businesses will find a way to avoid that or pass the cost onto the consumers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jacob Oxendale You, after all your business expenses, make $100 in profit. You then invest $80 of that to expand the business somehow. The next time around you, due to your investment as in a new piece of technology or advertising or giving your business a facelift or whatever, make $200 in profit. So that $80 turned into $100. You now have more profit and can invest more to expand your business.
The idea that businesses just sit on their money is asinine. They invest it. There are cases where they save for a raining day but there isn't any thing wrong with that. When a business saves that money being saved, usually in a bank, is then used to give out loans such as home loans. The bank makes money and the business makes money from interest rates. In the end the money a business makes in profits just isn't idling, it is being invested in some way or another.
If you raise taxes then businesses will find frivolous ways to count something as a business expense, for example, a dinner with a client. You don't have to motivate businesses to invest, they will do it already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That doesnt work, because prices are set up by demand and supply also for the insurance companies. "
If insurance companies are competing they have to provide a high quality product at a low price. Supply and demand is only one part of the equation. A lot of people to pay into insurance end up spending more money then if they were to just put their money in a savings account. The reason why we buy insurance is because we do not plan out accidents.
My insurance is around $3000 a year. Now my employer pays for it but if I were to save that money every year in the bank for 45 years that is 135,000 (my plan is not the best, but it suits me). But say tomorrow I I get in a major accident that costs me $50,000 my insurance worked as so far I only paid $15,000 into it. I saved money. Insurance is for things you don't plan. Some people pay more some people don't. It all depends. As a whole insurance companies make a lot of money because people, over time, pay more than they receive. Same with car insurance. But it is there just in case something happens. I only use my insurance for my routine checkups, and I never used my car insurance. But when you have a bunch of people paying into it they have the money to pay for expensive care.
As far as demand is concerned and cancer, what is stopping healthcare providers from just raising the cost to begin with? Because insurance companies won't pay. The problem is that, as of now, people are not paying for their plans so they do not know the real cost.
"When you break your leg, you will also not "go shopping" for a
treatment, because you as an average customer also have no clue what
good or bad treatments actually are and it isnt in the interest of
private insurance or healthcare companies to let you know. "
Your insurance is for that.
"And these are again just one few problems with healthcare as a product.
Do you get that?"
I get it, and what I am getting is that you have little idea how the market in healthcare works. Nor did you offer a solution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" the US system is by far the worst system of modern nations"
Again, not true.
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
But again, you even admitted you can't understand it as it is complicated. So at that point I don't expect you to understand that book.
"You can compare costs, quality, efficiency, number of people covered, etc. etc. "
Which is done in that book, but again, it might be too complicated for you.
". For example ten thousands of people died every year in the US because they werent covered"
Which is around 0.01% of the nation. There are many reasons why they could have die. You can't say it was only because they weren't cover. Most of those people are poor and poor people are usually unhealthy and irresponsible to begin with. Also, 0.01% in statistics is noise. But again, that might be too complicated for you to figure out.
"PS: The NHS in the UK is intentionally underfunded "
Because they ran out of money. When you don't have the money you don't spend it. Instead of individuals going bankrupt your country goes bankrupt.
1
-
1
-
"As I've said. You as a human NEED healthcare,"
People need a lot of things such as food and water. Why aren't those being charged at a high rate? There are a lot of people who don't use healthcare, but everyone eats.
"so you PAY no matter WHAT and that's why they get their profit from you and competition will hardly change that."
If they overcharge you don't pay and they don't make money. You die they don't make money and they go out of business.
" If you faint out with an injury and they bring you into a hospital, you
wont "shop" for the best treatment either. How hard is it to understand
that? "
My insurance will cover that. How hard is that to understand? If healthcare providers charge too much than insurance does not pay and the providers get no money. How hard is that to understand?
"I have dozens of public options which effectively drive down prices "
Dozens of private options can do the same thing. Difference is that the private options have to cater to you or go out of business. The government can just raise the debt ceiling.
"And which "numbers" are you talking about? You just say "this and that
shows universal healthcare isnt better", but dont explain that in any
way. That is a failed argumentation."
I gave you a book on that. Here, I will link it again
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
"yeah exactly, you even say it "stay in office". How do they "stay in office"? By screwing everyone? I doubt that."
Our congress has a less than 10% approval rating but an over 90% retention rate.
"Our politicians (believe it or not) actually have to deliver something else they get voted down."
We have that as well at the local level. I support more local government as I can't vote for well over 500 of the federal politicians in office. You comparing the US to the UK is immediately flawed as our government and country as a whole are different. We have 320+ million people and states the size of countries. I don't want the federal government running my healthcare when I can only vote for 7 of the members of congress.
". Your whole argument is more or less an opinion"
So is yours. What's the point? I gave out data to support my case where you gave out talking points and a belief that the government will always do good no matter what. You are ignoring the government we have in place in the US, and we have it for a reason.
"Healthcare is massively complicated and this is true. I can learn a lot
about it, but I can only fully understand it when I am a doctor myself
for example"
Not really. It does not take much to study statistics and read up on healthcare. Well, I guess it does in some ways. But others have done it, all you have to do is look for it. If you can't than you government run education did not serve you well.
"but not everyone can be a doctor and so you need division of labour here
and have elected representitives who work in your favor and actually
have the knowledge"
How do you know they have knowledge? Did you interview them? Give them a test? You don't have the knowledge yourself, so how can you judge?
" Imagine there is a doctor who explains to you how he will do the brain
surgery on you. Do you think you would understand that in every detail
and then be able to make a rational decision about if that is the best
quality treatment you can get and everything he does is actually
neccessary etc.?"
In may case I would as I am pursuing a doctorate in physical chemistry myself, so I can follow to a degree.
"At some point you could also just accept certain points I give. "
So just accept and move on? Don't question anything? Actually, a Canadian told me that is a key difference between the US and Canada's system. The people in the US ask questions and become involved where people in Canada don't. When you have to pay out of pocket you want to be involved more, which is good. I guess we can just nod our head and move on.
"This is the biggest bullshit you could've written. I could say the same
about you. This is something one could say about anybody at any time. It
rather shows how desperate you are here. "
Not desperate. You admitted you don't know and just rather take the government's word for it. I am not saying you can't fully trust the government, but you should question them like anything Even that book I gave you, you should question it as I do. I don't agree with everything in it, but they gave all their citations and methods.
"There are dozens of studies who show that the US healthcare system is
fucked up and the best healthcare systems are the universal healthcare
systems "
Ok, give me those studies. I can read their methods and citations. I gave you a book on the topic that that you can read. Saying there are "dozens of studies" mean you can find one easily for me to read.
"Your reponsibility as a citizen in a democracy is to observe your government and if they fuck up"
But when it comes to healthcare you just say "they are the experts and know best". You are contradicting yourself.
"At which point would you agree that healthcare isnt just a product like any other?"
Never, it is a product. How one gets it may be different. But in the end it is a product and a service someone provides and someone has to pay for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Well I'm finishing a master's in mathematics and statistics while
completing an actuary program at the company I'm signing with. So get
the fuck off your high horse, you piece of shit."
Good. Now apply your skills in a way that other people value. it is great you went to a STEM field. We need more people like that. Now apply it.
"No, millennials endorsed Bernie not only because of healthcare and
college, but because HE WANTED TO STOP MONEY IN POLITICS, AND THE
UNNECESSARY WARS WE'RE IN. AND HOW CLIMATE CHANGE IS DESTROYING OUR
WORLD."
Climate change is not a major threat. I agree, we need to try to end the wars. But it isn't that easy as Bernie made it sound. On money in politics, do you really think allowing the federal government to control healthcare and college will solve that problem? No. You just gave them something else to sell. Think about it. You are giving a corrupt federal government the power to control you healthcare and college. That is like giving an alcoholic wife abuser more alcohol.
"Now, onto your mind numbingly ignorant break down. Who's dying in he streets? FORTY FUCKING THOUSAND PEOPLE A YEAR."
40,000 people a year is 0.012% of the population. Around 35,000 people die in traffic accidents a year. Plus, are they dying on the streets? That was the question. Where are you getting that number? But, as a whole, 0.012% is small. You are a math guy, you should see that. Nothing is ideal, you are going to have people dying for many reasons. 0.012% is small. Meanwhile life expectancy is increasing and people have more wealth. People used to die for minor reasons decades ago.
"Not to mention the MILLIONS uninsured because private health insurance
companies raise premiums to insane amounts because they're price gouging
assholes. PRINCETON reported on this."
Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare? Ever thought of that? Also, it is impossible to cover everyone as we lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, researchers, etc.
"Now to your bogus work statement. "Define work." Somebody hires you and you do what they employ you to do. "
And if your work is not valued high in the market you will not be paid much.
" Hey asshole, can everyone be manager? Can everyone be CEO? Can EVERYONE get the promotion?"
No, but we do need more doctors, professors, nurses, surgeons, etc.
"You NEED people at the bottom because THAT'S WHERE THE PRODUCTION IS. "
Not really as productivity in bottom has not grown for decades.
" If every min. wage worker quit right now, the country would stop"
Less then 4% of workers earn the min. wage. They work jobs that people do not value. If they quit I will just cook my food at home along with others. The country will be fine.
"I worked in a warehouse the year before I graduated."
So did I. What's your point?
"Who's gonna work the bottom jobs if everyone's a fucking manager? So how
about you let the people at the bottom, who break their backs to put
food on the table for the most part, get a wage where they can LIVE."
That is an entitled attitude as you lived. How much do you want? You work at a warehouse, a job that requires, at most, a GED.
" But how about enough for some food, water and a roof over their head with working electricity. Sound fair? "
With or without roommates?
"And now to your newest comment. Oh, how I love the close minded fuck you
are. How long is it gonna be before these people find jobs? In this
crumbling economy, "
The economy is not crumbling. There are plenty of jobs, people just don't have the skills to do them. How about people develop skills.
"How about letting people study what THEY wanna study. "
It doesn't work that way. I mean, with your attitude why not let them work what they want to work? And earn a $100/hr to do it?
At that point I am done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It's naïve to think that what humans are doing is just completely benign and everything is peachy and wonderful in the world."
I never said they were. Humans have done plenty of damage, but is it severe? I even said humans is contributing to climate change, but to what degree is the issue.
"Are you of the mentality that there aren't major consequences to how
much gas (carbon dioxide & monoxide, nitrates, sulfates, unburned
hydrocarbons, HFCs, HCFCs) is being released into the atmosphere?"
Are they major? Again, I am not saying they are good nor bad, just questioning how major they were. The world did not have any oxygen at one point.
" Evolution is not that fast."
Evolution has no time scale. It can happen as various rates.
"The scientific consensus is that manmade climate change is a threat and cannot be ignored without consequence. "
No such consensus exist, period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" That's your argument? "
Yes, considering how you called me a denier at the very beginning shows how radical you are on the issue.
"Okay, how about the fact that the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is exponentially increasing unlike any time in history?"
At one point in time there wasn't any oxygen in the atmosphere and much more CO2. 0.04% CO2 is not a threat.
"How about the melting ice caps, or the rising sea levels, the coral
reefs being bleached, birds migrating into colder regions because of the
temperature not rising in those areas?"
The ecosystem has been changing for over 4 billion years. I don't see a problem. The Sardinian pika became extinct in the 70s......the 1770s. But I guess that was because of major oil companies pumping oil in the water and burning tires. Or maybe it was because the ecosystem changes. What about the island Strand? It disappeared in the 30s.......the 1630s. Man, those fossil fuel companies really were doing damage in the 1600s. Or maybe, again, the ecosystem changes.
The ecosystem has gone through changes. I will ask you again, why do you not support the theory of evolution?
" And you didn't even read the article, did you? I didn't expect you to. "
I have in the past. It has been debunked. Why repeat what others said though when I can give you a source that says it.
"With science deniers like you, who needs scientists?"
I study science for a living. The fact that you suggest that I commit suicide shows how ignorant you are no the topic as you have little maturity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sdrawkcabgnipytmi
Politicians don't influence international journals, I never said they did. What I am saying is that scientists say one thing and politicians say something completely different.
Journals I read are PCCP, RSC, JPC A,B,C and Let, (mostly B since it is more directed towards my research), Biochemistry, Chem. Phys., JACS, those are the ones off of the top of my head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Premiums were increasing before the ACA, and they increased less under
the ACA than they were projected to rise without a change to the
healthcare system."
Two things. One, Obama promised premiums will drop. Next, they slowed down because of the recession, not because of Obamacare. The fact that they still went up after Obamacare during a recession is a bad sign for Obamacare in all reality.
"Additionally, "reducing choice," as you put, it by mandating that people
buy insurance is necessary in order to increase the liability pool and
reduce costs. "
No as it increases costs. You created a monopoly. Insurance does not create a pool. That is not how insurance works. Insurance works by paying out on situations where extreme cases happen. Many people who pay insurance will actually pay in more than they will ever receive back when they actually need it. But you pay into it just in case something happens. But this idea that it is a pool is false.
"If only the people who needed healthcare bought healthcare insurance,
then the cost of health insurance would rise dramatically. "
That is not how insurance works though. You don't buy insurance when you need it. You buy it just in case you need it. Just in case something unexpected happens.
"The fact that insurers are pulling out of exchanges is as much a failure
of the private insurance industry as it is a failure of the ACA."
No, that is a failure of the government creating barriers in the insurance market. To me it really stems from the payroll tax. I ask this to highlight the problem.
1. Why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher rate?
2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
"The fact that insurance companies can't provide quality service at a
reasonable cost to so many people without endangering their profits is a
demonstration that they are an ineffective solution to providing
healthcare on a national scale. "
No, that is because the federal government created barriers in the market. Look back at my two questions. People never really had a choice to begin with when it came to healthcare insurance.
"Granted, this problem could have been mitigated if the ACA provided more subsidies and/or price controls. "
Both of which would have made the situation worse. Price control never works in economics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ marcus casillas "niversal Healthcare is completly affordable, as it takes the responisibility off employers and places it on the individuals"
Actually no, it increases demand without increasing supply. If you want to take the responsibility off of employees and give it to individuals then get rid of the payroll tax.
"not to mention you are no longer forced to pay premiums."
We will be paying a higher tax, no different.
"as far as quality is concerned, do you mean that by changing how our
healthcare system works that suddenly doctors and nurses will just not
give a shit? or are you talking about waiting lists? because waiting
lists is considered rationing healthcare, which we already do"
Resources are limited as is. We lack doctors and nurses and supplies. You are supporting rationing where I support getting the most out of our resources.
Think of this, I do research in a lab where I am on my feet constantly. I am also a college sports official and thus move around a lot. If I hurt my knee that is not a "life threatening" injury. I put life threatening in quotations because to me it is, but to the government with limited resources it isn't if it plans on giving care to everyone. At that point I am on a waiting list and can't work as a sports official and become limited in research while someone ahead of me gets care. If that person ahead of me is someone in their mid 30s who works a low paying job, refuses to get better, and contributes little to society then is it the best use of our resources that they get care first or me? The reality is me, but by the government standards it is first come first serve.
This is why socialism fails in a lot of ways. You are rewarding failure and hindering success out of "equality". Even with that the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world.
"have you even read what Bernie said about tuition? a Wall Street
Speculation tax will more than cover tuition costs for everyone that
wants to attend and can get accepted."
Actually I have, he said that will cover 2/3 of the cost. The states will pick up the rest which will be ?????? So have you read it?
" obviously not everyone is going to go to college"
Says who? Are you going to limit that? If it were "free" then why not go to college a get a degree in life just for shits and giggles?
And again, as with healthcare, you are increasing demand without increasing supply.
"any other questions?"
Yes. So if Bernie does become president and pass his policies, are you going to take economics in college so you can realize how everything got messed up under Bernie's plan?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+kristabella222 I based that $4.50 off of the cost of living in my city. If you have four adults living in a one bedroom apartment, all splitting rent and utilities evenly, and paying for their own healthcare, and gas (if they even drive), and food, then you have $4.50. And 4 people living together is not extreme. It happens. People go farther to save money. I knew of 3 guys in a studio. My co-worker while living in so cal going to college lived in a 2 bedroom with 11 other guys. That is why the "living wage" is subjective.
What businesses are seeing huge profits? You might be able to point towards a few corporations (who have to keep shareholders happy mind you), but that is it. Even at that, if you were to look at Walmart, they are at 3--5% profit margins. Most businesses work off of very thin profit margins. They simply can't afford higher wages.
On stagnate wages, you have to
1. Look up Skilled Biased Technological Change
2. Businesses pay more in healthcare benefits
3. Consider that for the past few decades women involvement in the workforce has increased 15% since the 70s, men has dropped around 10%. Men get paid more than women (another topic all together)
4. Productivity increase means more wealth and cheaper goods and services that are better. Consider that you smart phone has more computing power than what put a man on the moon in the late 60s. People have more wealth overall
5. Disposable income is 7 times higher than it was in the 70s.
While people may seem to be earning the same wage, as a whole they are not.
"When wages are higher people have more disposable income which stimulates the economy. "
Stimulate what? Buying 2 dozen eggs instead of one for the month? That does not grow the economy. That is why there is not many, if any politician that supports raising the min. wage based off of growing the economy. Even Christina Romer said raising the min. wage will, at best grow the economy. 0.02%.
Now this is not to say that all has been good. I for one want to improve the situation as well. But to say it has all been bad, and to basically give out, at best deceptive information (and really wrong information in several ways) is not the solution to take. And with the min. wage, considering it has never been linked to any economic growth, but has been linked to job loss and price increases, it is not a route to take.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** What is "ethical and fair treatment of employees"? That is a very broad term. I worked at a warehouse ran by Amazon and when I was starting there several people complained online how it was "hot" and was "hard work" and they force a rate on them. I got there and thought the job was easy. My level a "fair" treatment is different than others. It is very subjective.
One the 40 hour work week, someone later mentioned worker's rights. There really is no such thing as worker's rights. Rights are supposed to cover everyone, but small business owners basically work 24/7 in that they are on call. I work close to 60 hours a week but don't get OT due to being on salary. You are also removing the worker's ability to negotiate. Let us look at this scenario
Worker: I need money and can't find a second job right now, can I pick up more hours here?
Employer: Sure, but I can't give you more than 40.
Worker: Why not?
Employer: Because the law says if I do I will have to pay you time and a half which I can't afford. You are a hard worker and reliable and would love to get you as many hours as you want, but the law prevents me.
Worker: But can we do it in secret?
Employer: Nope, too risky. I have to max you out at 40 hours a week.
Ok, now the min. wage.
Unemployed: I want to work, can I work for you?
Employer: I would like to hire you but you have no experience and little skills. You are too much of a risk to hire right now.
Unemployed: I will work for little.
Employer: If I could I would hire you for little, but the law says I can't, I have to pay you the min. wage and with everything factor in you are not worth the risk.
Not really beneficial for the workers. I do see benefits of some business regulations, but they are overreaching, archaic and disproportionally hurt the poor. Your fear that if we removed the 40 hour work week and than businesses will force workers to work more is made up. People naturally will put themselves in a position to work less and earn more. They will push themselves to be in better working conditions and put their children in better conditions. I once said we should do away with child labor laws. People cried that will lead to more children in factories and mines. That isn't going to happen. More children are staying with their parents more, going to college, starting careers later. Children are working at later age.
If you want worker's protection laws then do it at the state level. There are several areas that don't need them and all they are doing is hurting those at a disadvantage, mostly the poor. Even with a 40 hour work week how many people actually work up to 40 hours? Not as many as you may think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bat Guano You are off on min. wage workers.
"
Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed
teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 20 percent
earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and older. (See tables 1 and 7.) "
Source, BLS Characteristics of the Minimum Wage Worker, 2013
Also from there it says that only 2% work full time, that is because the min. wage worker is usually supplemental income.
The average household income of those earning $9.50/hr or less is over $47,000/yr. Read Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser paper Minimum Wage and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor?
Your problem with comparing the min. wage to inflation is that not everything inflates. The VCR cost around $2000 when it first came out, Blu-Ray players cost around $80 now. Like how not every good inflates so is the same for labor. Some jobs become worth more, others worth less. The tractor made the farm worker worthl $0/hr. A battery plant in my hometown employed over 800 employees in the 90s when several appliances used batteries. It closed down 2 years ago with only 200 employees because now appliances have batteries on board that are rechargeable thus the demand for those workers have dropped making them worth $0/hr. So in short you can't tie the min. wage to inflation.
Your NYTimes source didn't cite much of anything. 88% is way off of the BLS statistics. One could live off of $15,000/yr, I live off of around $20,000/yr. In a rural area that is a pretty nice living.
I suggest you do a little more research on that topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How is Cruz a liar?
"Universal health care should not be looked as a gateway to other social programs"
Why not? Government has been growing for years. Also, other nations do ration.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
That book has plenty of stats.
"I am a healthy person at the moment. It's not just having a healthy lifestyle though, anyone can get hit with cancer. "
But the more healthy people we have the less chance they have getting cancer or sick. Thus doctors have more time to care for people and healthcare expenses will be lower.
"Let's fund health care by the states. "
If a state wants to do that than fine, that is constitutional.
" If there is a better system, great. "
The point is that there isn't one.
" But all the major countries, with their best and brightest, were unable to think of a better solution other than universal care"
What they have is not terrible either. It is no par with what the US has.
"Taking away the lines around the states aren't going to change much. "
It goes beyond that.
"Stop blaming the government"
Why? They seem to be causing all the problems.
"Free market principles don't really apply with health care. Price gouging will still occur."
Not in a competitive market.
"I don't know. It's probably a combination of reasons. It's probably
cheaper for employers. Also an extra $3-4/hr wouldn't really be worth
it in the long run for the employee. "
The reason why is because of the payroll tax. If a business were to pay a higher wage they will pay a higher tax. It is a tax free way of paying employees.
"Because you may need a treatment you couldn't afford without it."
Which is fine in some cases. Insurance should be for specialized and emergency care. But why should my insurance pay for my routine checkups? Just like car insurance pays for accidents but not oil changes.
"If you're looking for a middle ground and not regress to the "norm", why not have universal emergency care?"
That can be an option if it is ran at the state level. I see the advantages of a public option or government program of some kind, if it is managed at the state level. The reason for that is because at the state level you can control these programs easier and they are ran better.
My major issue, though, is that so many people feel that the US system is inferior compared to other countries when nothing shows that is the case. The US has problems, but so do other countries. The US is on par with other countries. With that in mind we need to improve what we have as opposed to completely scrapping it. Going to single payer federally will mean
1. replacing one system with problems with another system with just as many problems
2. perturbing the economy leading to job loss and and economic decline
3. forcing 320+ million people to change their mentality and habits when it comes to healthcare
It is too drastic of a change. We should work with the system we have now and leave it to the states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Celrador Question 1. Goods and services just don't exist, they have to be created. And those with the most skills that society demands gets compensated the most. That isn't bad because they can better their skills and improve society more. But with socialism you have the government going up to successful people and take what they earned and give to those that do nothing. Where is the incentive to work hard anymore? And those who are successful get brought down.
I showed mathematically how CEO pay isn't that high when compared to all the workers they are responsible for. But people want to take their money. Ok, and then do want with it? There isn't much there in the big picture. All you have done is bring people down. If you were to tax the top 1% or something like that 100% our country will still be in a deficit. But people want to tax them more just to purely bring them down.
Question 2. In socialism the government is controlling resources. If people have control of the government that isn't bad. But at the large scale, like the government the size of the federal government, you don't have control of the government, thus the become rich. Look how many millionaires are in congress? Five of the top 10 richest counties in the US are around DC. There is a reason why.
Socialism can be successful at smaller more local government, that is because you control the government. But at the large scale you don't have control, and thus you get the problems we have now, rich politicians are politically connected businesses.
"Tough luck... You probably won't live a better life than your parents in our current state of the capitalist system.
Also... What about socialism is preventing you from doing that if you were to live in a socialist society?"
I do live a better life than them, same with you and your parents. If not then you messed up. People drive better cars. I own a smart phone, my parents never had one when they were my age (in the 80s). I have 4 computers in my home (6 if you count the phones). People as a whole have it better. I am statistically more likely to live longer, same wit others in my generation when compared to my parents.
To answer that question. I am pursuing a career that pays around $120,000/yr. With socialism I will get taxed more where I wouldn't be able to afford land. If I did I will pay higher property taxes meaning I will own less land. Socialism will prevent me from doing that.
""In capitalism in order for someone to get money they have to generate a good or service someone demands."
How is that different in socialism?!"
Completely different. In socialism people get something for nothing. Thus things get created on a volunteer basis at times out of the pure kindness of one's heart. In capitalism if one wants something they have to create it. It is completely different.
"So you are too stupid to even understand that money is just the
quantification of wealth... Alright.
So yeah... Money is based on our limited resources. (i.e. actual
material resources or time) You might be able to create money out of
thin air, but it loses its value, if you do it.
Ever heard of inflation?!
If you only have 100$ to go around and then suddenly print 900$ more,
the things that previously cost 1$ will now cost 10$...
The only way to actually CREATE wealth is by transforming lifetime into
labourtime."
I agree with what you said. The problem is that in socialism you do just that, you give people $100 for doing nothing. That is what influences inflation. So you are correct on what money is, you just are failing to connect the dots of how socialism is causing the exact problem you just mentioned.
"After all the other nonsense I had to read from you, I doubt that you
are even intelligent enough for a simple single-digit addition..."
I have a math minor and I tutor math for a living.
Look up the Oxford dictionary of socialism and get back to me........or better yet here it is.
"A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Completely different then what you just said. I don't even see your definition anywhere. And you call me a "fucking idiot"? Man, you need to learn how to read the Oxford dictionary.
Socialism isn't "a factory is owned by the employees working in that factory and the management of that factory is democratically decided"
Socialism involves government action and force.
You got the definition of capitalism right, so I know there is potential.
"that the Capitalist system will just lead to a Master-Slave relationship between Capitalists and Human Capital,"
You get that with socialism where the government is the masters and we are the slaves. That happens when you have socialism without control of the government. In capitalism all a business can do is offer you a job and a products. They can't force you do do anything, but government does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Celrador Let us start with your inability to properly define socialism. Until you properly define it you have little to no credibility.
Highlighting a few points where you are wrong
"If you have a proper constitution"
We do have one, we just need to follow it.
"There are only so many millionaires in congress in the first place, because of Capitalism."
No, because of socialism. To get rich in capitalism you have to actually generate something society demands. Society doesn't demand politics and bureaucrats. That is actually inefficient. So no, capitalism does not create rich politicians. You are now showing your lack of understanding of capitalism. Please re-read your definition of capitalism as that was the only thing you got right in your last comment.
" Due to the GROWING WEALTH INEQUALITY"
There has always been wealth inequality, even some of the most liberal researches realize this. Wealth does not equal income, or resources. You need to learn what wealth is as well before you gain credibility. My generation is wealthier than the previous, and that has always been the trend.
"Most people advocating Socialism or social policies in general are in favor of paying people for their work "
Which you are in capitalism. In socialism people want a paycheck, they don't want to work.
"I don't need the Oxford dictionary for that. "
Really?
" I used my own words to describe Socialism."
Really? I guess I can say that socialism means rape. Simple, if we can define something as we want.
"Socialism has nothing to do whatsoever with taxation."
Really?
Wow, you are not bright.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Cavecat There is a great video titled
"Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups"
There Friedman explains the importance of a smaller more local government and people are able to see if they are getting their money's worth. At the federal level if they spend money in Florida then I have no clue it if was spent well, I live on the other side of the country. Where as in the state level I can see if my tax dollars are spent in a way the is beneficial and in the most effective way. Even more so at the local level.
You have to realize what government is for. You, me and everyone else can in no way keep track of everything that goes on in society. If someone breaks a law I am not going to spend time seeing if they are guilty or not and what the punishment should be. I have my own responsibility in life. We hire DA's for that, and elect judges, and have jury selection and so on. A government entity. There are several examples of government being beneficial.
With that said we can't allow the government to become too powerful. We have to keep it in check. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. In the US at the state level laws are passed very easily. People have more control of their government at the local level. This is easily seen in the low approval rating of congress and the high retention rating. People feel that their federal representative is in the right and that everyone else is in the wrong.
When the bay area elects Nancy Pelosi they do so because one, it benefits them, and two, they feel they are in the right and doing the country well. In reality they are doing a complete injustice to the rest of the country and this is seen because she is one of the most hated members of congress. But people can't vote for her outside of the bay area.
In the end, to sum it up, it is about checks and balance of power. We need government, what kind is the question. What is it's role is the question. And we need to maintain the ability to control government. As Friedman puts it make sure they are the servants. You do that with smaller more local government.
Look at it like this. You will never ask a principal of a school to teach all the students. You have teachers that do that. Under the principal you have vice principals, AD's and other administration. With much larger schools you have departments and department heads.
On a football team you will never had the head coach coach everything. You have assistance. At the college level you have GAs. The same holds true for government and policy. What works in Denmark and it's tiny size of 5 million will not necessarily (and history shows this) work in the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The methodology of those polls are vague and do not represent the people as a whole. Also, during election time through ads people become more informed on the issues. For example, on healthcare, when people find out how much taxes will be raised they vote against it because in reality our healthcare system is not terrible and nothing indicates single payer is any better. If Bernie would have went up against Trump all Trump would have had to do was show people his Bernie's tax plan and Bernie would have been destroyed. Bernie's policies are vague and more of a dream than a reality.
High school and middle school employers educators who have, at best, a masters in education, which is not a hard degree to obtain. They have equipment that is of low quality and same with classrooms compared to colleges. Colleges employ people with at least a masters degree (with the exception of TAs) to educate, people with skills. They have equipment that is better but more expensive. They have limited equipment though with limited classrooms and time slots. In K-12 schools they cram more students in a classroom and call it good. You can't do that in college. The structure of college is different overall compared to K-12 education as well. For example, if a teacher is sick in K-12 schools you can't just send the students home. In college you can. Also, K-12 education is ran and funded locally, not federally. Bernie wants federal funding for college.
1
-
1
-
"Lack of specificity in the questions used is a very different claim than methodology being vague"
The questions are vague, and the methods are not reliable. Phone surveys are not reliable, and depending on which region of the country you are polling you will get varying results.
"I would hazard a guess that you would be generally unwilling to accept
that a survey's questions are specific enough to be indicative of
people's true desires unless it indicated that those desires matched
your own preconceptions though. "
Nope, if the question gave specific details I will accept it more. For example, if you were to ask someone if they supported free speech and they said yes, I would question it. If you were to ask later "would you support the KKK having a rally at a park even after they got a permit for it" and they said no, I would say they do no support freedom of speech. As long as the KKK is not doing a call to action, they have that right. The second question is more specific.
With healthcare. If you ask if the federal government should offer it to the people and you said yes I will question it. If the question said "should the federal government provide healthcare and as a result your taxes will triple" and you said yes, than I will believe your stance a little more. We have that though, it was called the election results. The people of Colorado did not want single payer as it would have raised their taxes.
"You're really just explaining why college is more costly rather than explaining why it matters that it is more costly."
We can hardly afford K-12 education as is. What makes you think we can afford college without lowering the quality? Also, compared public school campuses to college campuses. My college campus just built a new gym has a library that is less than 10 years old, a science building that is 7 years old, and is beautiful. My undergrad institution is beautiful and is building an indoor practice facility and recently built a research facility. I was at UCA the other day and that campus was beautiful. Universities have beautiful campuses with a lot to offer. K-12 schools have to twist arms to get new textbooks and computers. I, as a grad student, just got new computer today. Never mind the new computers at our new student study area my university received.
The government would never be able to afford it without lowering the quality. I went to a middle school with no air conditioning. Read the book The Shame of the Nation by Jonathon Kozol. He talks about how low quality the schools in NYC are. Do you want your college campuses to be like that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TCt83067695, I am going to ask you the same thing I ask every Bernie supporter. So Bernie wants universal healthcare and free college tuition for all. How is he going to provide it? We lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, pharmacists, researchers in healthcare. We lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, and numerous skilled workers in both sectors. How are we going to provide those things to people when we don't have the skilled workers to offer it?
For example, in my university we lack TAs. We are opening up weekend courses because we lack resources. We are hiring TAs to each a subject they did not even major it because they are a warm body. That is giving the student a lower quality education. So how do we provide those services to people when we lack the skilled workers?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zack West, if you are going to make accusations you have to back them
up, period. If you don't than no one with intelligence can take your
argument serious.
"You misapplied the term "safe space" as a means of dishonestly attacking my integrity."
No I did not. What you did was come up, call me stupid, and then ran away. Now you did come back, but with the internet you have the option to block and ignore me like you are suggesting others to do which shows you do not like to interact with opposing viewpoints. So I did not misapply the term "safe space".
"Furthermore, I do not have enough time for your bullshit. Between my own
small business, the hobby debate community I help run which we're
looking to translate into a professional site, my communicating with my
colleagues for each, and daily recreation time, I have very limited time
I can spend arguing with a dense clown such as you. As much as I would
love countering every comment you make, I prioritize on the things which
matter more to me like my career, hobby, and friends."
These comments do not take long as long as you know what you are talking about. I am a PhD candidate, I work a second job for more income. I work as a football official and am moving my way up to the college ranks. I do spring ball for semi-pro, camps and college scrimmages. I work out on a regular basis as well. I also have friends to hang out with. So I am very busy as well. The reality is that you simply are not witty enough to type a somewhat coherent, intelligent comment to rebuttal what I say, which is fine. I do not expect a PhD thesis here, but some sort of opinion is enough.
This comment took 5 minutes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheAtheistPaladin Actually money isn't infinite because money isn't a resource. Money derives it's value from the goods and services it creates. We can print money with a higher value on it, they are doing that in Zimbabwe. But money is infinite which is the problem. Also wealth does not equal money.
I have looked up living wage, it is a subjective concept. What is your standard to survive? Someone living in a studio with 4 other individuals? Is AC necessary? What kind of food? What age do you place a limit on living? Is it 30, 40, 50? You haven't set a standard. You feel that everyone needs food, if that food is Raman Noodles and bread they probably won't live long. You are not being clear in what you support here.
What kind of healthcare? Once again resources are limited. There is a waiting list for organs. We don't have enough people donating kidneys. Who do we give a kidney too? We lack doctors, so who gets care? There is a cost part in this. Due to limited resources something has to give. Are you going to force others to donate a kidney? What is your solution to the limited resources in healthcare?
Healthcare is necessary? I haven't used healthcare in years, I am doing fine. What kind of utilities? People lived for years without utilities. As I said in CA, we are limited in water in some places. What if there isn't enough to give everyone "whatever is necessary to live"? What do you do now? Let everyone die?
Actually in cities you are able to live without transportation easier then in rural areas. In cities everything is so close together. In rural areas you have to drive 10 miles at times to get to the store. I walk so much in the city I live in, in the rural town I use to live in I had to drive a lot because everything was so spread out. But in rural areas there are no buses. Plus, what is a reasonable walking distance? My friend walks an hour to work a day. That is once again subjective.
I am not asking a bunch of random questions. You are saying subjective words that can mean anything and haven't tackled the issue of limited resources. As I said with healthcare, we are limited in resources. People are unable to get a kidney because of that. Or with CA and water, your response is "whatever is necessary to live", well, what if there isn't enough for that as well? You need to think about those issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To expand and to give you an example of what I mean by 100% being covered but the quality being low, but 90% being covered by the quality is high, I will use a topic I know very well, education. I work in education and I teach at the college level.
We can offer college education to all. In order to do so we will have to expand classroom sizes, offer more online courses, hire lower quality professors and TAs, create a less personal environment with students and instructors and peers and so on. Is that a high quality education? No. But everyone has it.
Or, we can have a system where less have access, such as say 70% (using a low number). But the quality is high so the vast majority of that 70% are highly educated and skilled now. That grows the economy and society better. Sure you have 30% who are no going to do well, but some of them can break through if one of the 70% offers to charities, offers to help them in some way or so on. But just because we provide something to more people does not mean that is a success. Holding society back by regressing them to the norm is no a win.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Arthur Fuksayk I am not happy seeing discrimination, I told you that, this is the 3rd time now. How do you discriminate against a state? By not going there, not establishing residence, not doing business there, that is how. No different then when you choose to discriminate by not attending church, or shop at a certain business, or not date certain people, etc. It isn't a law, it is called freedom and rights. You have the right to pursue happiness, you have the right to your property and religious practice and speech and so on. By discriminating against a state you are discriminating against the individual people live there just like someone can discriminate against gays.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Arthur Fuksayk So you support arbitrarily stopping certain forms of discrimination, that is unequal not to mention that the CRA of 1964 violates the 10th amendment. You are saying "don't discriminate in this way, but you can in that way", and based on what?
The school example isn't stupid, we are seeing more segregation now then in the past. Whites are choosing to go to mostly white schools, blacks mostly black. Now there is an economic divide so there is that form of discrimination as well, poor kids go to poor schools and rich go to rich. Why not intermix them?
So you support any law the government just creates? You support the CRA of 1964 just because the government says so? Ok, now I see why you think the way you do, it is because you don't think. I am not arguing against the law, I am arguing against the idea of the law and if it is constitutional or not. You are simply bowing down to a law just because the government created it. You know, separate but equal use to be legal, you would have been a person to support that because there were laws that made it that way.
Based on your definition gays are not individuals, but a business owner is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Science and Truth 2 Rock
Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory that gives predictions. It is a theory with a lot of supporting evidence and not other theory rivals it as of now so it is used. But in evolution that is a lot of uncertainty in a lot of areas. Take an evolution course. It is typically a grad. level course so it isn't easy, but taking it will open your mind on how complex evolution is.
Scientists are humans and are not immune from being persuaded by special interest groups. Yes scientists are trying to bring attention to climate change, but they realize that we can't make drastic changes. As I said earlier, around 70% of our energy comes from fossil fuels and that is not changing anytime soon.
" How are you denying that it's man made? "
Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. It is a driving force in evolution. Is man playing a role right now? Yes, but how much? And is it even bad? Nature has evolved for millennia during climate change, why would that all of a sudden change?
" Do you have data to back that up, that doesn't come from the carbon or oil industry?"
I have 4 billion years worth of data.
"I have no idea who your friend is, look up Germaine's new fusion tests."
I looked it up, I really don't see anything. There is not a single society that powers their community from fusion. What is going on is similar to what my friends do. It is plasma research. I feel you are not that knowledgeable on the topic. That is not ripping on you but pointing out a flaw in your thinking and will explains why you are saying what you are saying.
", and since when is solar not efficient?"
Since always
In industry solar and wind are not efficient. You get the largest energy output with fossil fuels. You can run small towns off of wind, like what is happening in Rock Port, MO. You can run homes off of solar. The issue is that you can't store unused energy for very long and the energy you get is low. When it comes to running a lab like Los Alamos you need fossil fuels. When it comes to running major cities you need fossil fuels. We are using solar and wind as is, but we are right now using the the best we can. There are other issues as well. For example with wind you have to move the turbines to there. That has destroyed a lot of roads. You have to rent out the land. These things cost money and effects the economy. I am all for going to alternative forms of energy, but I am not ignorant in doing it.
"Who cares if China makes them?"
When they corner the market and jack the price up 10 times what they use to be worth then it does matter. Mining regulations has hurt us in research in solar cells.
"Why do we need vast quantities of f elements just to do research?"
So we can learn more about their properties and develop better solar cells. Do you even know what f elements are?
"Politics are needed or nothing will get done"
Why? Politics are the barrier between where you are and where you want to be.
1
-
+Science and Truth 2 Rock
Observing something is supporting evidence, it still doesn't make it a fact. People observed that after it rains worms appeared. They felt that it rained worms. After a lot of studies later that theory was squashed. People felt that light traveled though aether. the Michelson-Morley experiment gave rise to a new theory. Science does prove anything or provide facts, it gives predictions which are theories.
Extinction is a part of evolution. A species could not adjust to changes thus it dies off. It happens.
"How do you explain the co2s matching the Industrial Age? Look at the data, look at the graphs"
You are comparing around 150 years worth of data to 4 billion years. That is minute and not comparable.
"Again, by the numbers, solar is at over 40%, while fossil is at 38% efficiency."
That over 40% of rare and expensive for solar. It is rare because if the sun don't shine you get nothing. What is 40% of 10? What is 38% of 1,000,000? Which number is bigger?
"I have 20 solar panels, the energy they produce is such, the my entire
electrical panel had to be upgraded because it would have melted the
previous one otherwise."
I already said solar works great at the small scale, but not the industrial level.
f elements are lanthanides and actinides on the periodic table.
We need government, but we need to control government. I never suggested no government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are companies investing in Michigan again. For example, GM is doing so. Seems like they didn't miss the memo.
"Look at the guy's record, he's actively campaigned agaisnt those things
(except for CEO's and top central businessmen---of course one doesn't
shit on their own margarine call) "
I don't see anything about him being against those things.
"there's a reason why the only real wages that have gone up sicne Regan have been CEO's and high business employees."
Not true.
"
yeah surprisingly how that works..."
I know. We can't even elect cabinet members.
"most business people are corrupt too."
Again, not true. You just have an utter hate for successful people out of pure jealousy.
"Politicians at least have a public record and or have had experience in public service"
And so do business people. Difference is that those in business have to actually produce. All a politician has to do is make voters happen and change the rules in their favor.
"they also have a mandated responsibility to the people,"
Which is vague. As long as they keep the people happy, or produce the illusion they are working for them then they are fine. They don't have to be successful like a business owner does.
"oh yeah, let's see how many of them come from families with money, lol
only in your people's words does getting born into wealth count as
earning it"
Very few are actually born into money.
"not too mention i would like to see the business practices and ethics
used to get this money, chances are bribing, lobbying and buying
politicians helped them considerably,"
Yeah, so let us put people in those positions that have no need to be bought out. We are alleviating corruption now.
"hell trump ran on the fact he owned and bought both parties and that's how he knew they were corrupt"
I know, and that is one reason why I supported him. He wasn't making the laws, politicians were. But yet people like you continued to vote for them feeling that someday they will do you a favor and someone with money.
"i guess the thought of greed never crossed your mind?"
Who really is the greedy one here? You are jealous that someone is rich. I feel you are greedy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Khashon Haselrig , to start, what is a "climate scientist"? The climate involves a broad part of science including physics, chemistry, ecology, astronomy, etc. An ecologist will view something completely different than a physicist would. I, as a physical chemist, view the world from a molecular viewpoint and see how little we know in how molecules act in different temperatures, pH, concentration, etc. We know very little about photosynthesis and evolution where a biologist will look at it from a macro viewpoint, I will look at it from a molecular and quantum viewpoint. We know very little.
So with all that said, you will be very hard pressed to find a large group of scientists who will make the strong conclusion that current climate change is a threat. It is an area we should look into much like looking into how diabetes occur. But to say it is a major threat is something very few scientists will say and those that will have an agenda and a huge ego to where you will find that in every field.
As for it being man made, man plays a role. Now how much is the question. We don't know as we have on control to compare to. So again, you can't ask me to prove a negative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 , saying M4A will save money is simply flaw. I feel you are trying to respond to me. To start, that "opinion piece" cited other studies. If it is wrong than point out where. And Bernie is just a politician. He has a motive. But let us get to cost. On the one that says it will save $2 million they are assuming an immediate 40% pay cut, you can't predict what will happen to access and quality. Look at the 6 minute mark here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e893Ky7iM6Y&t=376s
You can't just throw out a number and expect it to mean anything. You also can't just change our healthcare system that much and not expect changes.
As for the PERI study, it has several flaws. As pointed out in that article one is overhead cost. They claim medicare has lower overhead cost. Problem is that Medicare passes many costs onto other agencies like the CDC and IRS. Also, Medicare funds for older people who require more healthcare and thus more of their spending will go towards healthcare. Compare it to this, say you spend $3,000 a month and I spend $2,000 a month. And say I spend $1000 on rent and you spend $1000 on rent. Yes, you spend a smaller portion of your income on rent but you pay more as a whole.
Next, that study factors in people losing their jobs and having to move to find new ones. The numbers they show appear to be made up. They assume that the market will not change. If you force people to leave one area and move to another prices will change. People's homes prices will drop causing them to lose on their investment and the places they move two will see an increase in home pricing. Also, they don't factor in the psychological aspect of moving. I am facing that right now in considering a job in a different state. I am content and comfortable with where I am at. Moving is difficult to some, and harder for those with kids. But that PERI study treats people as pawns.
As for the Rational National, I have watched him and he is worse than Kyle.
You see, I actually read these sources and break them down. I just don't dismiss them. But back to Bernie being another politician, that is what he is. He is a politician with a motive. And that PERI study is done by people who, as Jonathan Gruber put it, are taking advantage of useful idiots.
I suggest you dig deeper and develop a strong argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JediMobius , what higher paying jobs? You mean doctors and nurses? We lack them to begin with. Every med school has less than a 50% acceptance rate. Being a doctor is challenging. What I find to be sad with far leftists is they want these great things, like healthcare for all, but they are not willing to put in the work to do it. They feel that magically the goods and services will appear.
10% is a lot and far from manageable. If I were to increase your workload by 10% how will you react?
The care will change because you are increasing demand in the system without increasing supply. That will cost a lot if you want the same quality of care. Again, if your workload was increased by 10% I imagine you will demand a raise. Under Bernie's plan, though, he will pay 40% less. That will mean less access and lower quality. If I were to cut your pay by 40% how will you react? Something has to give.
This is very basic economics, I mean as basic as it gets. You can't expect to add 30 million people to healthcare and not expect it to be very expensive. You can't expect to reduce pay by 40% and not expect a drop in quality and access. To feel that way is pure ignorance.
As for Bernie's point, he doesn't know how insurance companies, or really any company works. A lot of those profits go to shareholders where shareholders is the reason why these companies are so big to begin with.
I am all for healthcare reform, but this is a challenging topic. M4A may be the solution, but you have to be honest. If you can't get the basic economics of it how I can take you seriously. Watch this video on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e893Ky7iM6Y
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vikrantpulipati1451 , you can't tie the min. wage to productivity as you are talking about overall productivity. Just because the engineer is more productive due to a new software or computers being faster does not mean the fast food worker is more productive.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.t02.htm
Look at the food industry. The unit labor cost is positive. Unit labor cost is the price of labor over productivity. That means that the price of labor is outpacing productivity in the food service industry.
As for Norway and good wages. One, what is their cost of living? Two, what is their teenage and low skilled employment like? Three, what is their overall economy like? You are taking a complex economy and limiting it down to the min. wage, you can't do that. Seattle raised their min. wage to $15/hr with little problems. How? Well one, people can argue their are problems as the teenage unemployment rate is high. But Seattle is a city in a state with low taxes on the rich and is home to major headquarters such as Amazon, Starbucks, Boeing, etc. Those are some of the top employers there and as such their economy is strong to begin with. The min. wage set by the market was high to begin with.
It is like this, say the market set the cost of milk to $3/gal. If the government were to come in and demand that milk cost $2.50 gal the sale of milk will not drop as the market set the min. at $3/gal. But if the government were to demand milk to be sold at $3.50/gal the sales of milk will drop. The same is with labor. Seattle set a high min. wage but the market most likely had a higher one to begin with. Now connect that to Norway.
Another example is that Robert Reich argued that in the 90s they raised the min. wage wage and saw a drop in unemployment. While that was true there are two factors there. 1, Unemployment was dropping to begin with, and 2, the percent of workers working at or below the min. wage was dropping as well. So the market as in place that the min. wage was already at $5.15/hr. It was all purely a political stunt
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm
https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
They raised the min. wage in 1997, when the economy was strong.
Telling me to "google it" is not an argument. What do you want me to google? There are many studies that argue against the min. wage. There are arguments on both sides. You say there are countless studies, then provide me one. Just don't tell me to Google it.
I want people to have high wages, I just don't want the government to get involved as I feel it leads to corruption such as crony unionism. I support private unions, but when government gets involved government is in the best interest of themselves and not the people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Deaths due to traffic accidents, and deaths due to the inability to
afford/have access healthcare are two significantly different things"
They aren't as in they are the shortcomings in the systems we have. First rule of economics is that there is no such things as a free lunch, everything comes at a cost. With driving allowing people to drive greatly increases our productivity, but it comes at a cost of 30,000 deaths a year. We can make that 30,000 to be zero if we ban driving, but then our productivity will drop a lot. We allow driving because 30,000 is very small, 0.01% of the overall population. And they happen for numerous reasons where you cannot pinpoint one cause.
For that 45,000 deaths you have to consider this factor. They are poor and bad health is associated with poverty to begin with. A Harvard professors brought this up in a counter argument against that 45,000 number as it is hard to get an accurate number to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. So the question becomes are they poor due to lacking healthcare access or due to being in bad health to begin with?
With that in mind you have to next consider that no country had that number at zero. People die in every country due to lack of healthcare access due to limited resources. So now you have two situations here. One, that number is not zero anywhere, and two, that 45,000 is not an accurate number and is most likely lower than 45,000.
But besides that, even if it is 45,000, and let us say it is a higher rate compared to other countries (where 0.01% is still small to me). The US leads the world in research and innovation in healthcare. That is where our system is strong. Other systems lack in that even though they "cover" everyone. Looking at that situation you have one of two situations. Either the very poor suffer with no access or bankruptcy. Or they really sick suffer with poor quality and no experimental and progressive care. The first situation is the US system, the other situation is every other country. Someone is going to suffer and it will always be the extreme.
In the end the comparison is is legit as both are examples of opportunity cost. No country has that number as zero unless you lower the standard of "covered" or "access".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
tim, SC justice read laws for a living and they disagree in what a law says. That is why you get laws that have a 5-4 ruling. Look at Obamacare. Some justices saw the individual mandate as a fine where some saw it as a tax.
I want to improve healthcare, I feel a free market approach is best. We can discuss that if you want. A free market approach means competition which leads to lower prices and better quality. A great example is LASIK. I have read up on healthcare a lot and feel a universal healthcare system will not be better than the system we have now based on many factors. We can discuss if you want but in my opinion, based on the culture in the US and evidence out there, a free market approach is the best route. You feel a universal healthcare approach is best but so far have not provided strong evidence.
You claim that your healthcare system is superior but provided little to no evidence to that case. Also, culture does play a role in healthcare. For example, the US is number 1 in OECD nations in obesity rates. Obesity causes many complications in healthcare. The fact that the US does so well in healthcare outcomes despite our high obesity rates is a sign of how high our quality is. The US also has a higher smoking rate compared to Australia. You should consider that as well.
I fully understand the complexity of the system. You don't as you dismiss the idea of culture playing a role in healthcare. I can cite numerous studies and books on the issue as I read up on healthcare on my free time as I find the topic interesting.
I agree that comparing the 7000 and 45,000 is comparing apples and oranges. The point is that people do die in Australia due to lack of access to healthcare. That is a fact. People claim it happens in the US as well and point to the 45,000 when many factors influence that stat that cannot be accounted for. Also, when someone makes that 45,000 claim there is nothing to compare it to. As I pointed out people die in Australia due to lack of access to healthcare as well. So is that 45,000 in the US high, low, or the average? We don't know making that stat empty. That is similar to me saying I pay $700 a month in rent. Based on that alone you can't make a conclusion on if I am paying too much, or if I am getting a good deal. People just throw numbers out there similar to what you are doing to make a strong claim. You are making a strong claim saying that Australia's healthcare system is better but gave nothing to compare it to the US system. So I did the same thing and you pulled a double standard by saying my claim is not valid. While I agree, your claims are not valid as well.
Your anecdotal story means nothing. I know Canadians that told me that US system is superior. So there, my story debunks yours. See how easy that was. You talk about stats. If you want to discuss stats we can. I have read up on them. When you look at the stats and you break it down the reality is that the US system is on par with other nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Inside Voice so you go from anti gay to anti trans? What is it? Are all gay people trans to you? And what anti trans policies?
BLM, as I pointed out in numerous examples, has many issues and has committed a lot of vandalism. How does tearing down a small business end police brutality? How is setting a Wendy's on fire stop police brutality? And again, I pointed out where they jump to conclusion. So apparently you feel that a man, who was resisting arrest, was tazed twice, and reaching for his gun which at that point led to cops shooting him is a form of police brutality? Also, have these people ever thought about, I don't know, having a conversation on the issue as opposed to burning down buildings and looting? And if not that, have a conversation as opposed to yelling?
Give me the stats on systemic racism. You say it exists but do give any.
Employment tendencies? How? Remember, this nation recently elected a black president. You say the stats exist, the onus is on your to confirm that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jojo
Experts don't make arguments against the round earth. As for climate change, the issues are if it is a threat? How much does man play a role? And if it is a threat what should be done? You are making a poor comparison here. As a scientist I understand the issue of climate change well. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. The ecosystem has evolved during that time where climate change is a driving force behind it. What makes people think that the ecosystem is going to stop evolving? Notice how on climate change it is the media and politicians that are screaming it is a major problem and not scientists going public in it? Why? Because scientists, the actual experts, are the ones understanding the complexity of the issue. Not the media and politicians. But thanks for bringing that up, it supports my point even more.
I have never seen Kyle argue the issue with someone who has a lot of intelligence and knowledge on the issue. I wish he would take phone calls though.
Germany, for example, created their system in 1883, The NHS was created in 1946 while the UK was rebuilding after WWII.
I am actually not trying to make arguments comparing the US to other nations. In fact, I have said many times the issue is complex saying that any comparison has many shortcomings. That is why I said in the past that healthcare rankings are arbitrary and can't be used.
We are developed in that we are a nation where people are very well off. People have their set ways making any radical changes difficult. Going with that 45,000 death stat, even if it was so that all died due to lack of access, that is still around 0.01% of the total population. That is minute. That means 99.99% of the population is fine in way of healthcare one can argue. Why change it that drastically?
It is radical as you are asking to completely change 1/6 of the total economy. No one has addressed how to do that, not even Bernie.
People are trying to convince others to do something new where others are trying to convince them differently. There is a battle. Also, a major issue is that so many people are well off that they won't support the side of higher taxes. It doesn't help when people like Kyle and Bernie completely dismiss the other side in their arguments. The argument from the left at this point is "we are going to raise your taxes and trust us, you will be better off". If you start going into numbers you run into one of two problems. One, you get people who are not interested and will ignore them, or you get into a situation where they will look at the numbers, then look at counter views and that runs the risk of the votes being split. Now add in the fact that someone like Bernie is saying "trust me, the other side is wrong" but research shows they have a strong argument, more will vote against Bernie's plan.
The economy is complex, it will take more than 5 minutes to figure out all the numbers. You can't ignore the issue of jobs being loss, people having less money, at least initially, then businesses stop investing and so on. Look at the crash due to the housing market which is 5% of the economy. Now imagine 1/6 of the economy causing a crash.
Also, you are the ignorant one as you are not willing to accept the possibility of a crash in the economy. Someone like Bernie or Kyle is not giving that possibility. They must because there is a chance it will happen. If it does happen what will they do? What will they do with the jobs that will be lost? How will they account for people slowing down consumption after their taxes go up? You are ignoring those points which is foolish. You need to look at this in all angles. This is not an argument in saying Medicare for all will be bad, it is an argument in how will you transition to it without causing a crash? What should I do? My taxes will go up meaning I will have less money. Tell me, what should I do? You will refuse to give me advice or sympathize in my position as you don't care to learn nor understand it.
Why do you want an expert's opinion? According to you it does not matter? Recessions do happen because there is a change in the system. The economy does change due to a change in the system. A war caused the US to get out of a depression, same for Germany. Keeping interest rates low led to hyperinflation where they had to be raised to 21%.
Medicare for all will create an environment if unpredictability. Every new election cycle we don't know which new party will pay how. How will government spend, and why? What will the lawyers say? Who will be favored? When government expands you create bureaucracy and less predictability. This comes back to why many argue a free market is better.
And yes, the government controls a lot in healthcare and costs are up. Thanks for that point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Just because there are sources showing people "have died" waiting for
procedures leaves out soo much detail as to WHY they actually died. What
other complications did they have etc"
I agree, now please hold the same standard when talking about the US system.
" Also in massive country with different regions, health authorities, and demographical challenges "
Like the US.
" But if you are going to cite that, you should probably also cite the
40000+ people that die EVERY YEAR in the US due to lack of BASIC
healthcare. "
I have acknowledged that source and I have gave my counter argument.
I am on a channel where people say that single payer systems are superior and that no one dies due to shortcomings in those systems. Kyle has said that numerous times. So my initial challenge with these individuals are to pull them to the center. That means
1. Show that people do die due to shortcomings
2. That 40,000 a year number is misleading
Once I tug people to the center then we can discuss.
I can admit the US system has shortcomings, but so does every other nation. To say they do it better is, at best, over simplifying the issue without realizing the complexity of it. As a whole nothing indicates they are better. They do many things very well, but so does the US.
" No negative statistic about single payer ANYWHERE in the world can compare to that statistic"
If you look hard enough you can find it. In fact, two professors wrote a book on it. I will link it later.
"end of fucking debate"
At this point you lost. People spend a lot of time looking into this complex issue. You saying the debate is over means you have no argument, and when met with opposing viewpoints you become triggered. That means you have lost the debate which I can argue single payer must suck. Now I won't, but with your attitude I very easily can as you cannot defend your case.
"People act like the fact that single payer systems have flaws is a gotcha answer."
No, it is telling the truth. Refusal to admit it reveals a bias in the person supporting it.
". But when factoring in everything single payer still comes out a million times better "
But they don't come out million times better. If that is true than why aren't Canadians living to be 70 million years old?
1
-
1
-
"I dont see how I've "lost". I never claimed to be an expert,"
Fine, admit your shortcomings on the issue, I can. But in the process you cannot become angry and start cursing and say the debate is over. Who are you to make that claim? Remember, you are not an expert.
", but in the end our health outcomes are better than the US's."
Again, that is objectively not true. Remember, you are not an expert. The data does not show that to be the case.
"We have a higher life expectancy."
Several factors influence life expectancy. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number one in life expectancy. You are literally saying that if I get hit by a bus tonight and die it was because my healthcare quality sucked.
" it costs less per capita"
Irrelevant when you quality is low. Also, who leads the world in research and innovation in healthcare? The US.
" and I dont worry about healthcare, "
I don't either.
"system thats ranked higher "
Based on what?
1
-
"- 12 year old info only related to British-Columbia?"
Date is irrelevant, not much changed in 12 years.
"- 20 year old info?"
Again, irrelevant.
"There were 141 deaths (0.48%) among 29,293 patients"
Again, people died when everyone is supposed to be covered and people like Kyle and others on these comment sections say that no one dies.
The point was that people do die on waiting lists. This is looking at only the BC, not all of Canada, and one type of health issue.
"That is not even related to waiting time or quality of healthcare"
What? It is related to quality of care. People are dying.
"There it is...you're welcome."
You never said anything, you just pointed out what was in the papers. What is your point? My point was that people do die in other countries due to shortcomings.
Kyle points to the 45,000 who dies a year in the US due to lack of access. That is 0.01% of the overall population. Now consider that they are poor to begin with and bad health is associated with poverty, you cannot say that they all died due to lack of access. Do some of them? Sure, but not higher than 45,000 as many die due to poor health habits such as obesity or smoking. So we are talking about less than 0.01% of the population. That is small. And it is clear people die in other countries as well.
This is not to say that the US is superior or other countries are inferior. It is to say that other countries have problems as well. Less than 0.01% of the population supposedly dies due to lack of access. That is minute where chances are that value is similar in other countries. Hard to tell as that small of a value is hard to measure accurately to begin with.
You're welcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Count Deku, you said you support a democracy, which is majority rules. So I gave you an example of the majority wanting to kill gay people. You then moved the goal posts saying we live in a civilized society. To me that would mean being against mob rule. This is why we have a constitution, to place limits on all governments. And at the federal level nothing is ever determined by the simply majority for that reason.
"The thing about the American people is that they are very conservative.
Any new policy proposal will leave most initially skeptical."
Is that bad? So you don't think we should be skeptical?
"Obamacare had a minority approval rating for a long time, but now that
trump is trying to take it away, people are beginning to understand what
it actually does for them and have flipped, and now approve Obamacare
more than oppose it."
That is not true. People voted for republicans and Trump on the idea of removing Obamacare.
"and now this is happening with universal healthcare. For decades this
idea was nothing short of a fantasy. But as more counties became
successful at implementing it,"
Successful is subjective and has a lot of variables. Also, none of those countries have 320+ million people or our economic size.
"If a majority of Americans want a policy, then it should be implemented,"
So again, if the majority wants to kill gay people would you want that implemented? Or if the majority wants to ban free speech, would you want that implemented?
" A growing 60% means that America is just about ready to move forward with the rest of the world."
Again, 80% said now in Colorado. That 60% number is based off a vague question with around 1000 people answering to a poll. That is not an accurate representation of what the people want.
But again, you are not consistent with your argument. If 60% wanted to end free speech and wanted people like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly to no longer have a show according to the law, would you support that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" "leftist talking points" you mean peer reviewed facts? He even cited his sources for you moron."
Facts presented in a deceptive way. First off, you don't "peer review" facts, they are what they are. Next, to give a couple of examples of how he was deceptive take the 45,000 a year dying.
"Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor, echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse health."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
Why doesn't he listen to that Harvard professor? Reason why is because it goes against his rhetoric. So sure, he can quote a paper on that number, but that number is
1. A very small subset of the total population (0.02%)
2. There are many factors in play you can't account for in an accurate way
Both of those make that number essentially meaningless unless you want to take my approach and say "45,000, that's it?" as that is a small number.
To also say that number is zero in other countries is him setting a low standard in those countries and placing the US at a high standard. If you go to the ER you are not denied care in the US, so everyone is covered. Now if you want to talk about being bankrupt than fine, but we are talking about healthcare access which everyone has as well in the US. But even at that I can give you the fact that in the end they will have to pay. But in othe countries people lack healthcare access as well due to limited supplies. People die in other systems as well due to shortcomings. To claim that does not happen in other countries is Kyle lowering the standards. Yes, on paper everyone is covered, but that is on paper only. Just like in S. Africa everyone, on paper, has a right to a home, but they still have homeless people.
Another example is the gun debate. He points to Australia which is a poor example. The gun murder rate before the buy back was dropping already. Gun suicide rate was dropping as well. Kyle ignores that by truncating the data. He eventually went to the extreme of asking a loaded question of "does more guns equal more peace". There are many factors to that, but in the US for the past 20+ years guns have been increasing and crime has been dropping.
I watched the video and what I saw was Kyle giving the same leftist's talking points which is why he is losing viewers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" leftist talking points that have been debunked? Please give an example."
I gave two examples on healthcare and guns. To expand on healthcare on that 45,000 number correlation does not equal causation especially when dealing with small numbers. 45,000 is 0.02% of the population. In comparison 30,000 die in traffic accidents. Is that because of bad drivers, bad roads, bad road conditions? What is it?
Sure, we can make that 45,000 to be zero if we change standards. By having the government, on paper, cover everyone than yes, that number is zero. But do they live? How do you measure that? Kyle's healthcare talking point has been debunked as he is changing the standards and grossly oversimplifying the issue. Another comparison is mass shootings. You can have over 300 in a year in the US when you have the definition of 3 or more are injured, or have less that 10 when the definition is only 4+ are killed.
Kyle does this often and someone with more intelligence or who was better prepared would have easily called him out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" First of all, the paper Kyle cites talks about how it is directly correlated with the people not having access to healthcare. You completely missed my point."
I didn't miss the point. If it does say "correlate" or "correlation" than Kyle needs to state that as that is a major point. Correlation does not equal causation. Kyle refuses to do that is intellectual dishonesty.
"The variable is inherent to access to healthcare."
By how much? That is the point. You can't weigh it as you have no control. You can revive one of those individuals and have them live the same life again but this time with healthcare insurance. And that point all you are looking at is a correlation.
"Most of the people are poor and die because of the fact that they cannot afford the healthcare."
And because they have poor health such as obesity and type II diabetes that are from personal practices. Smoking is also correlated with low income. There is a higher chance of unwanted pregnancies for those in poverty which adds to stress level. There are many factors beyond healthcare.
"A wealthy person with diabetes or any illness will more likely survive in the US as they can afford the medication and costly procedures. "
What's your point? All things even I will say yes, a person who has healthcare insurance has a greater chance of living than those who don't. But again, that is all things even. Chances are that wealthy person is not obese, if they have diabetes it is type I, do not smoke, and lives a healthier lifestyle all around.
"Cancer is an even better example. If you can't afford the treatment, you're going to die."
If you don't smoke you have a less chance to get cancer.
" If you're poor, you most likely can't afford insurance, if you can't afford insurance, you can't afford the treatment."
If you live a healthy lifestyle you are less likely to need treatment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 states like IL and NY are open about inflating the death numbers. Also, people die for many reasons. 92% who have died because of the virus are 55 and older. Almost all who died are either old or have other health complications to begin with, thus were at high risk of death overall. There is also data out of Germany, USC and the University of Miami suggesting the infection rate is much higher making this virus less deadly.
At this point we are on the path of what is worse, the virus or the bad economy? A bad economy can lead to death as well. Also, as I mentioned, people die for many reasons, but we do not shut down that nation. For example, 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents but we do not ban driving.
There is a political divide on this virus. Those on the left have an irrational fear of it at this point as they are refusing to look at the data. Also, as I said in the past, this is a far leftists' dream. Kill the private sector and make people depend on the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@btw3344 , again,you say saved. Again, what are the benefits? How high of access do they have of a loan? What charities do they have available to? Also, a pandemic is a very rare event. As we have seen communities and governments are taking action on both sides. You are looking at a rare and unusual event to try to challenge something that is the norm, capitalism. Your argument is flawed as this point.
As for medical bankruptcies, that number has been overstated many times. It is estimated to be around 100,000 people a year. That is around 0.02% of population. At this point we are looking at the economic issue of "the law of diminishing returns". Sure, a M4A system may make that 100,000 to be zero, but at what cost? There will be a drawback.
Not to be rude but you don't seem to understand economics well, so I will give you a very simple example of the law of diminishing returns and opportunity cost. Right now there are around 40,000 deaths due to traffic accidents a year. By lowering speed limits it has shown to save lives. But how low should we go? Say we lower speed limits 10 mph nation wide and it saves 5,000 lives, is that a success? Now say we lower it another 10 mph nation wide and it saves only saves 1000 lives, now is that success? At what point do you simply accept higher speed limits at the small cost of 40,000 people? Sure, lower speed limits may save lives, but at what cost to the economy?
Now apply that to healthcare. As of now the US system offers the most advanced testing in the world and thus has the highest survival rates in the world for advanced illnesses. Now there are arguments for and against that. But you need to realize that.
So to point to a pandemic as an example of a free market system not working is flawed. That is similar to saying a nuclear war shows capitalism does not work.
1
-
@bulzome664 this is something in both my international business and renewable energy course. Lesser developed nations depend on farming, developed nations depend on service jobs. For example, on low income countries around 27% of their GDP is in agriculture, in middle income it is around 10% where 36% is based on industry. In high income nation only around 2% is based on agriculture, 30% is based on industry and 64% is service. So yes, as a nation becomes more developed it does become more service base. It depends on many factors, education is one of them. Higher income nations also are better educated which is needed for many service jobs such as trade, financial, community services, etc.
According to FRED stats manufacturing jobs were dropping since 1979 long before those trade deals.
According to FRED stats since 1988 manufacturing jobs were dropping on S. Korea as well.
According to FRED stats the percent of those working manufacturing jobs in France has been dropping and was around 12% in 2012. Same trend in Germany.
Sorry, but since the 70s I see nothing but manufacturing jobs dropping in these developed nations.
China is still developing. They are getting into the range of middle income where most of the manufacturing jobs lie.
The gig economy is something very recent so of course it is fast growing. And it is meant to be part time for people who simply want some extra cash, tax free, on the side. The gig economy, until CA ruins it, is tax free if you know what you are doing. But we do need more people in healthcare, research, community service, etc. Again, the issue is that we are not pushing people hard enough. We have people, like you, who falsely feel that manufacturing jobs should exist here when all indications is that technology took them away, and developed nations are more service base than industry base.
Also, this idea that a manufacturing job is meant to raise a family off of is rooted on the idea that after WWII people did that. Well, after WWII the entire world was rebuilding, the US wasn't. So we had an economic advantage. But again, in all the developed nations you asked me to look at, France, Germany, and South Korea, they jobs have been dropping since essentially the 70s. In the case of France and Germany the drop has been steady.
1
-
@intransigencex558 depends on what you look at. We spend the most because we have the highest access to advanced testing. That cost money. Other nations spend less because they cap how much care one receives. As for your link, one source they cited was the Commonwealth Fund, a private, special interest group. Do you even know they developed their ranking? While admitting the US is superior in cancer survival rates, they only use life expectancy and amenable mortality. There are flaws in both. One, life expectancy has many factors outside of healthcare. For example, the US, of all the nations on that list, has the highest percentage of blacks where blacks have higher risk of heart disease due to genetic issue. That drags our numbers down. As for amenable mortality, read the two studies entitled
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review."
and
"Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study"
Where they argued that amenable mortality cannot be used as an indicator of healthcare system strength.
As for the Harvard study, obesity is due to personal life choices. A Harvard professor did a lottery in Oregon giving half people access to Medicaid and found no improvement in physical health. Higher obesity leads to shorter life and higher rates of premature birth just higher rates of maternal mortality.
Overall, there are many factors at play. So saying we have worse outcomes is highly flawed as those who say that point to very raw, and vague statistics.
1
-
1
-
@bulzome664 FRED is as accurate as it gets. As for metrics, I will give you the title of the book. It is
"Beyond Economic Growth: An Introduction to Sustainable Development" by Tatyana P. Soubbotina. Chapter 9 talks about industrialization and postindustralization. Fact is that developed nations are service based. As I shown you with multiple stats, developed nations like France, Germany and S. Korea have been seeing a drop in manufacturing jobs.
Actually your Trading Economics source is showing a decline in manufacturing jobs. Did you actually read your own sources? As for automation taking away industry jobs, again, since the 70s industry jobs have been disappearing in developed nations. That was before trade deals. So explain to me where those jobs went?
""But again, in all the developed nations you asked me to look at, France, Germany, and South Korea, they jobs have been dropping since essentially the 70s. In the case of France and Germany the drop has been steady."
You used an outdated, discontinued source notorious for its inaccuracies pertaining to measuring foreign economies. Its also contradicted by my more numerous far more recent sources. "
But yet your trading economics data literally supports what I am saying.
"A primary reason the gig economy picked up was because of the 2008 recession and the inability for people to find full-time work"
Uber did not start until 2009. Also, the percent of those working more than one job has been dropping. Again, how many in the gig economy are doing so just for extra cash that is tax free? Everyone I know that does Uber, or any other gig economy do not have to do it. Heck, I am in the gig economy, I do so for fun.
"The majority of people are then relegated to working multiple, low-paying part-time jobs in the service sector."
What? Stats don't sit well with you. The percent of those working more than one job has been dropping. Again, FRED stats, the percent of workers working more than one job was high in 1997, even higher than the recession. It is now around 5%. Last I checked 5% is not the majority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bulzome664 again, using your own data. France, since the 70s, dropped from 40% to 20%. Germany, since the 70s, dropped from around 42% to 26%. Those are both significant. Also, as I said in the beginning, industry makes up around 30% of GDP. No percent GDP is different than percent of the workforce, but those are similar numbers. Also, I find it ironic how I cited a graduate level textbook and you just pound your fist and cry when I used your own data against you. A drop from 40% to 20% is significant. But go ahead and keep ignoring the fact you can't read a y-axis. '
Really, though, I am concerned at this point. I do feel you are delusional and seeing things.
1
-
1
-
@bulzome664 you said the majority. Right away you are showing how wrong you are. Again, your data shows that industry jobs were dropping in other developed nations since the 1970s. And as for the 16 year old book, again, we are looking at the past. So the fact that the book is 16 years old is irrelevant. Again, prior to the trade deals industry jobs were dropping.
"The data supports my own view. All three of those countries have had stable employment in the industrial sector over the last 25 years"
Losing half from 40% to 20% is not stable. If you want to compare to the US, using Trading economics, the US went from around 32% to around 20% since the 70. So they are comparable to France and Germany now. In fact, they loss less than both France and Germany. So again, you are incorrect there.
" and one that remains far above that of the US which ranges from anywhere between 15-10 percent"
Trading economics says around 20%.
"and then by the late '90s and 2000s began to stabilize in between 20-25 percent in France and Germany"
From 1995 the US was around 25% and is now around 20%. France, in that same time range, went from around 27% to around 20%, Germany in that same time frame went from 36% to around 27%.
The numbers are not looking good for you bud.
"to all three of these Western countries and how it was a matter of policy decisions and not these magic economic or technological forces that you've failed to provide evidence for"
Plenty of evidence. For example, the tractor removed farmers who transferred to industry. Technology is replacing workers in industry. Listen, we can create millions of jobs right now if we outlaw tractors, but we food productivity will go down.
According to a Ball State Study 85% of jobs losses are actually from technology, not trade. Read the Financial Times article entitled
"Most US manufacturing jobs lost to technology, not trade"
We are producing more than ever with less people. Also , another Ball State article entitled "The Myth and the Reality of Manufacturing in America" says
"Overwhelmingly, the largest impact is productivity. Almost 88 percent of job losses in manufacturing in recent years can be attributable to productivity growth, and the long-term changes to manufacturing employment are mostly linked to the productivity of American factories."
So yes, it is technology. Technology replaced the farmer, technology replaced many industry workers. And again, your numbers of France and Germany are comparable to the US.
As for China, China is a nation in developing. They are also considered a BRIC nation which are nations in developing with strong economic growth. That is why China is growing so much.
Also, as for developing nations being more agriculture and developed ones being more service base, read the World Economic Outlook report from 2018, chapter 3 which is entitled
"Manufacturing Jobs: Implications for Productivity and Inequality"
Look at Figure 3.2. This is a more recent source since you did not enjoy my first one.
"The fact is throughout this discussion you have failed to cite sources for automation, "
I just did in a Ball State study. Also, again, the numbers you give me for France and Germany you are not even getting correct. You said that in the US industry makes up around 10 to 15 percent of the jobs when, using the same source you do, it is closer to 20%. You said that since the 90s Germany and France have remain consistent in industry jobs when, in fact, they are dropping.
This is not looking to good for you.
"you apparently somehow interpret that as a "steady decline" "
In consider a drop from 27% to 20% in France, and 36% to 27% in Germany to be steady, especially when the US went from 25% to around 20%. So the US dropped less.
I am curious how you are going to respond to all of this now that I showed you, with your own sources, the numbers don't support your narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bulzome664 I read what you wrote. You claimed that the US is around 10 to 15 percent in industry jobs. I used your same source in Trading Economics to show it wasn't. I also used your same sources to show that the drop in France, Germany and the US were around the same. When you can't get basic facts straight we cannot go onto opinions.
What is your point on the BLS link? Your Quartz article does not counter the Ball State study. Also, I noticed something. I am the one citing academic sources and you are citing.....? You own article says this
"It’s not perfectly clear what, exactly, is the culprit behind relatively anemic growth in manufacturing output."
They even admit technology plays a role. You article also says this
"Why did China have such a big impact? In their 2016 study, economists Justin Pierce and Peter Schott argue that China’s accession to the WTO in 2001—set in motion by president Bill Clinton—sparked a sharp drop in US manufacturing employment. "
But again, jobs were going away since the 70s, before China joined the WTO.
So I don't see how that article counters the Ball State one. In fact, they cited more studies on how technology led to job less compared to outsourcing. And again, I don't see anywhere about the article talking about the trend starting in the 70s.
"Very simple market manipulation and distortion. For much the same reason as wages have been stagnating even as productivity has gone up"
Really, so it is all just a conspiracy? Productivity has gone up, no one can deny that. As for wages, they are arguably not been stagnant. The only data to suggest they have been is looking at average wages to CPI inflation. To start, there are shortcomings in CPI inflation such as new technology bias and replacement bias. Next, there are other measures of inflation such as PCE, GDP deflator and CPI. CPI just so happens to be the one to overstate inflation the most which is why politicians use it the most. I don't have it on my computer at home but on my work computer I have two studies arguing how wages have not been stagnant.
I agree China does currency manipulation, but why do you think the US is? The standard is still the dollar. Doing manipulation will lead to a global mess.
""Losing half from 40% to 20% is not stable. If you want to compare to the US, using Trading economics, the US went from around 32% to around 20% since the 70. So they are comparable to France and Germany now. In fact, they loss less than both France and Germany. So again, you are incorrect there."
I'm going to quote myself now
"Yes, that was my mistake did not mean to say the majority. Though that is a point we're heading towards. Point is, job growth is being dominated by low paying, low skill service economy jobs. Many of which are part-time."
"All of these and my other sources show relatively stable employment in the industrial sector over the past 12 years.""
You talking about a mistake was about people working more than one job. You are completely ignoring the comment I am making about how the US, France and Germany all seen similar drops in the industry sector when you claim that was not true and that France and Germany have been steady compared to the US. So again, if you can't get basic facts straight we cannot begin to go to opinions.
"I explained the data, I showed the unique position the US industrial sector has been in compared to other Western nations, "
Yes, incorrectly, as I pointed out. Here, I will quote you
"All three of those countries have had stable employment in the industrial sector over the last 25 years, remaining anywhere from about 30-20 (give or take) percent of employment. Which is in line with my assertion as to these countries having relatively stable employment in that sector and one that remains far above that of the US which ranges from anywhere between 15-10 percent and the decline since the 90s has been much steeper than any experienced by France or Germany"
Which again, as I pointed out, is 100% wrong. One, the US is around 20%. Two, the drop in the past 25 years for each nation has been around 6%. Why are you ignoring this point? I also just quoted you so no going back now.
" Don't act as you know more about something than you do and then double down by acting intentionally dense and misusing data the opponent provided while failing to provide sources, its embarrassing."
I provided sources. I even used your sources. Why are you ignoring them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anthony, so the AEI is bad but the Legatrum Institute is good? I never said the AEI was good, I am just making a comparison.
The issue with data is that there are many ways to look at it. For example, with life expectancy, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. The US has higher obesity rates than European countries which hurts any numbers related to healthcare. On education our society focuses on other goals. For example, in S. Korea they do well in education but that is because they send their kids to private after school programs to study. Our kids, after school, do sports, work jobs or play video games.
I would say the US is not healthier than Scandinavian countries, but that is not because of our healthcare system. When we spend over 40% of our food dollar eating out and we have higher obesity rates because people refuse to eat healthy that is an issue of person lifestyle choices, not a particular system.
But go ahead and blindly follow the list of some private organization that you have yet to give their credentials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aypriux, college will never be an investment. People make the mistake of thinking you go to college to learn course material. In reality most degrees you can learn on your own. You go to college to develop connections, learn how to manage a schedule with class and work, and show employers you are willing to invest time and money into a long term goal.
If you make college "free" you take a lot of that away. Also, we simply lack supply of dorms, classrooms, professors, TAs, etc. Something will have to give. Either you limit who can attend college, raise prices pushing our country in to more debt, or lower the quality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philipnorthfield , healthcare rankings are completely arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and come up with any ranking they want. Do you even know how the WHO came up with that ranking? I doubt it. Also, it compares the US to nations like Malta, is that really fair? To take something as complex as healthcare and reduce it down to a simple ranking is foolish.
Politicians from other nations come to the US for care, it goes both ways. Those are individuals cases.
As for the 40,000 who die, that is a complex issue. To start, as Katherine Baicker puts it, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with those in poverty. There are higher rates of obesity type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of care or due to being in bad health to begin with? Also, people in that situation where they die that quickly typically have many health issues to begin with. Read the book "Being Mortal". In that book the author writes about how people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they will live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 40,000 receive care and live a few more months and than die, is that a success? Is it a success if they live those few months in agony?
I read a lot of literature on this issue, I bet more so than you and Kyle combine. This is why I can get into great detail in my arguments and you just point to a ranking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ponderingnugget , you really can't use amenable mortality to determine healthcare systems as there are many factors that influence them. Read the following study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
As for the 43,000 who die, there are many arguments against that. First, just because they have access to healthcare does not mean they will end up better off. Read the following study
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
When they were given access to healthcare their physical health did not improve because that is strongly dependent on lifestyle choices. Those 43,000 are poor and bad health is associated with those in poverty. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being bad health to begin with? Also, as was mentioned in the book "Being Mortal", people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they will only live another 5 or 10 months. So even if the receive care and live a few more months with many problems, is that a success?
Single payer will not save money. The studies you are pointing to make very vague and questionable assumptions. Also, the federal government is poor at managing these issues. Look at the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 and how it made mental health in this nation worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prophet , you may not have said it but others have. So it is funny to see the excuses ensue.
As for Bernie being balanced, I question that. He just repeats the same things over and over again no matter how hard people push him to get into details on his radical ideas. Either he shouts talking points or rhetorical questions.
"Politics to you is a sports game. That's why you're a sociopathic moron. "
No, I want the best candidate to win,not a crazy communist.
"People rationalizing their medication is not crazy for you."
It is, but under M4A rationing will be worse and not by choice but with the federal government saying. Also, Bernie not only wants to expand healthcare to US citizens but even illegals. You don't think that will lead to massive rationing?
"The demonization of immigrants and minorities is not crazy for you. Children being forcibly separated from their parents who have been deported is not crazy for yo"
People have a problem with illegal immigrants as they should. Also, kids separated for two reasons. One, when you break the law you lose your kids. That is true all across the nation. Next, many illegals are using kids to gain entry into the nation when they are actually drug dealers abusing the kid. Thus they are separated and it is determined if they are the kids' parents or not. There is actual logic to it.
" More and more people losing their homes is not crazy for you. The environment being constantly polluted is not crazy for you. "
Who is losing their home? And pollution is dropping.
The issue is that Bernie and his fans live in a bubble and refuse to actually discuss the issues. You are doing what Bernie does, just say talking points with no actual details. Again, as I said, people had years to look at Bernie's plans and they are realizing that what he is saying is not really a major problem and there is a lot more complexity to it. As I showed you in that study about wealth inequality. Just screaming "wealth inequality" does not paint the whole picture. Same with everything else you just said. On children being separated, there is actual logic there. It isn't just happening out of spite.
"You're so stupid that your specific definition of far left economics is centralized, radical change with a far left idea."
They are far left ideas. Pushing to completely dismantle our current healthcare system and going to one payer, Medicare, is radical in a nation of 320+ million. Pushing to end all of fossil fuels is not only illegal but radical, especially with having the federal government overtake the energy sector. And Bernie's ideas are pushed on misinformation. As I showed you on wealth inequality, there is a ton to it. Same with an issue like medical bankruptcy, as the paper entitled
"Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies"
They write
"But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems."
That study was published in 2018. You see, people did what Bernie wanted and looked at the issues he wanted. Doing so is placing a lot of doubt in Bernie's ideas. Sorry that when one looks closely at these radical ideas they produce a result you don't like. You can choose to ignore it but it does not change the reality.
"nd now you backtrack by making up an excuse of leftists will say Sam won no matter what and that'll hurt your ego. "
Never said it will hurt my ego, I don't see why should I waste my time. With you I am literally giving you studies to place doubt in Bernie's ideas and talking points and you just ignore them. That is my point. As I said, many people have looked at the ideas Bernie is pushing and what is coming out is a lot of doubt. Same with looking at Scandinavian nations. People looked at that as well and revealed they do things completely different than what Bernie wants. Bernie, in fact, does not want to follow their model.
Again, sorry you live in a bubble but reality is that Bernie's ideas are radical, people exposed them and he is losing to a guy who does not even know who his sister is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onnol917 , on that 40% what are their benefits? What is their money management situation like? How easily to the have access to loans? You can't just throw a number out there and expect it to mean anything.
You see, this is why the far left is losing. I give credit where credit is due, Bernie did get people to talk about issues like poverty, healthcare, college tuition, etc. Problem is when people looked into them they came up with results that goes against his talking points and creates doubt in his ideas. Bernie and his fan base does exactly what you just did, give out a number with no other context and proclaim things are bad. However, when you did deeper you find out they are not as bad as what Bernie and his fans claim.
I give you an example. Bernie screams about wealth inequality. On the surface it may seem bad, but a study was published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, one of those academic journals used in colleges and university, entitled "Measuring Inequality". There they said 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."
That paper came out in 2019.
On the issue of "underinsured", how many are by choice? And define "underinsured". How many are young and don't need a lot of insurance right now? Again, more context is neeed.
"And you throw a book at me to supplement your argument? You want me to read a whole darn book? Cite some data, its like a christian telling me to read to bible to find proof for God. Your claim your burden of proof."
Not comparable and ironic. To start, these books are by experts. Next, I find it ironic how the group that wants "free college" to "educate" people refuse to read and analyze things on their own where I do. This is where I say that becoming educated is on your. Apparently you don't want to read books and rather have things spoon fed to you. No wonder you can't go beyond talking points.
As for stats a few things. One, ever read the book "How to Lie With Statistics"? Required reading for all stat majors.......oh.....wait......you don't read books. You rather have things spoon fed to you. Basically it outlines how you can take stats and create any story or conclusion you want. So just saying "give me stats" is a very flawed argument. I, and others can take the same stats you have and use them against you. For example, the point on wealth inequality I just cited. Next, ever head of Bloom's Taxonomy? Simply citing stats or facts is the very low rung on the Taxonomy. The higher you move up the more you look at facts and stats in a deeper way. You just citing stats places you at the bottom. Me citing experts and going into details places me higher up.
The more I talk to Bernie fans the more I realize they just want to be spoon fed everything. Rather sad. I find it ironic as you support college education when it was college that I learned how to read and analyze material from experts and not just have things spoon fed. I recommend you read more books.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onnol917 , you are far left. Here is how
1. You claim there is some major problem
2. You claim the solutions are easy and without consequence
3. You claim they are popular
4. Anyone who opposes them are either ignorant, a bigot or corrupt
That is your base on everything thus what you do is distort the facts to fit your pre-determined reality.
You claim you read books but when I offer you books from experts you just dismiss them. And you do live in a bubble because I offer you opinions from experts and you just dismiss them. Your argument on 'counterstats" shows your ignorance on stats alone. It isn't about providing "counterstats" but providing a counter argument by understanding other variables exist. Again, using wealth inequality as an example. I won't deny a stat by Bernie on wealth inequality. What I argue, and so have others, is that there is a lot to it and just shouting "wealth inequality" as if it is extremely bad does not present the whole picture. One can easily argue it is not bad at all. And as for me saying people refuse to read and analyze things on their own, I say that because you just repeat the same talking points Bernie and other far leftists do. You are being spoon fed talking points where I take those talking points and look deeper. Again, this is why Bernie and the far left is losing so badly. People had time to look at their talking points and realize the issues they bring up are not as bad as the far left claim.
"This is how it goes. Many Americans can not afford an emergency up to 1000 dollars, many Americans are under- or uninsured with result in them not seeking care because the for profit healthcare and insurance industry will be price you above that 1000 dollars. Other western countries do not have this problem, there are plenty of stories out there of families driving their dying child to the ER themselves because calling an ambulance would bankrupt them."
Several problems with your argument. Again, in the 1000 dollar argument, that value is based on savings. What are their benefits? What is their access to loans? What access to charities and payment options do they have? You are taking one data point and running with it to the extreme as if things are bad when they arguably aren't when you look deeper. Again, you need to look at more variables. Same with the "under insured". What is their age? Younger people don't need as much insurance as they seek less healthcare.
Saying other western nations don't have the problem is 100% false. Other nations have plenty of problems related to healthcare. Amenable mortality is an issue in every nations. Other nations have lower survival rates in advanced illnesses because they deny care, particularly advanced care and testing. There are arguments to be made for and against that but that is the reality. A reason why other nations pay less in healthcare is because they offer less. As laid out in Prof Scott Atlas's book "In Excellent Health" the US offers the most advanced testing and thus have higher survival rates in advanced illnesses. Again, dig deeper. Sure, other nations don't face issues like bankruptcies in healthcare. However, they face problems as in lower survival rates in advanced illnesses and with longer wait times that leads to many physical, mental and financial problems for patients. As mentioned in the study entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
They write
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers "
So yes, other nations do face problems in their healthcare system. This is another reason why you are a far leftist, you don't understand basic economics like opportunity cost. Sure, under M4A we may solve some problems, but others will arise.
"You question how they spend their money, fine but it does not adress the situation. You ask how and why are they under- or uninsured, fine but it does not adress the situation. You claim that many people have acces to great healthcare yet the situation I just described means in reality people do not have that acces. Why on earth is go fund me so full of people with medical bills?"
It does address their situation. You are acting like someone's person responsibility should not account for their situation. Why? So we should reward failure? Also, you ignore other points such as benefits and age. And what is wrong with go fund me? So charities are now wrong?
"But medical bankrupty, not calling an ambulance, avoid seeing the doctor out of fear for costs are not among them. How is that for "acces". You can easely compare Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK etc to the US' healthcare and see obvious flaws when it comes to "acces"."
As I mentioned above they deny care. They deny access to advanced testing. I will write another comment on the arguments for and against that, but that is the reality. For example, you have someone in their 80s who is very sick and what do those nations do? Drug them up so they die pain free. In the US we actually offer them care to keep them alive as long as possible. So yes, they do have limited access. I recommend you study this issue more if you want a strong opinion on it. You are just repeating what other far leftists say.
1
-
@onnol917 , here, let me talk about healthcare to show how shallow you are. As I said in the book "In Excellent Health" the US offers the most advanced testing in the world and we have the highest survival rates in advanced illnesses. Other nations deny access to those test. As I said there are pros and cons.
Due to the access to advanced testing our healthcare is expensive. Yes, it does lead to bankruptcies but a NEJM paper suggests that is around 100,000 a year. Now talking statistically here is that high? Maybe. Those on the far left will say yes and that M4A will end that. I will agree that M4A will make that number zero, but other problems will arise. Under M4A healthcare spending will be cut by 40% and thus the US, like other nations, will limit access to advanced care and thus survival rates of advanced illnesses will drop. Many will view that as bad, especially in the US where we have a society that is used to keeping the very sick alive as long as possible and value that. But there are counter arguments to that. As mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will live only an extra 5 or 10 months. So sure, we can keep someone very sick or very old alive longer, but when it is only 5 months, should we? Should we spend limited resources that way?
Also, many argue those tests are unnecessary. Giving the case of a teenage girl in the UK. She saw over 10 doctors for months for headaches. They said it was migraines. Finally one doctor scheduled an MRI but she had to wait 4 months. It turned out to be a tumor. She died. If she would have received that MRI sooner she would be alive. In the US she would be alive as she would have been offered that MRI sooner. However, a counter argument is that statistically chances were it was just migraines. And that sure, offering that test sooner would have kept her alive, but thousands or even millions of other cases the test is unnecessary. So do we want to spend limited resources that way?
A problem with the far left is that they one, don't understand economics, and two, refuse to have the difficult conversations, and three, have no skin in the issues they support and don't care how others have to pick up the pieces.
On point one you have economic issues like opportunity costs and the law of diminishing returns. With M4A sure, medical bankruptcies go to zero, but what other problems arise? The far left refuses to say. I do and I laid out some above such as limited access to care and lower survival rates.
On point two you just throw a stat out there and go to the extreme and claim your ideas will solve them. However, you refuse to discuss counter issues. As in healthcare someone will still suffer. Will our society accept letting that 80 year old woman die sooner, or deny access to advanced care where someone ends up having a severe illness and dies due to being denied care?
On point three the far left are not the ones working in the healthcare industry. You will pass M4A and then have the healthcare providers have to make difficult decisions, not you. Same in tuition free college. You will pass it and have college admin have to make the difficult changes such as enrollment, acceptance, scheduling, etc. The reality is you have no actual responsibilities. You have no problem pushing these radical ideas because you don't have any involvement in how they function. As Hickenlooper said to Bernie, he wants to throw out a radical plan and let everyone pick up the pieces.
From here I know your counter arguments will be to deny my points, say I am wrong and give more talking points. I will say this. This election should be a wake up call for you, but you are so lost in your bubble it apparently is not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Colony, there is this thing called research and stats. Many economists disagree on that issue. For example, there are many ways to look at inflation. PCE has a lower inflation rate and using PCE has shown to have wages increase. Read the paper entitled
"Fifty Years of Growth in American Consumption, Income, and Wage" by prof. Bruce Sacerdote. You can point to charts, I can point to in depth analysis and research. Prof. Don Boudreaux has argued that wages have increased when you include benefits where most of the charts you point to do not include. Also, there are many shortcomings in inflation. For example, inflation does not include technological advancement. If you look at cars the price tag on cars is higher compared to the 70s, but cars today last longer, get better gas mileage and are safer, all which saves money. So again, point to charts all you want, but you have to consider that with statistics there are many ways to look at them. You can also read the paper entitled
"Did Wages Reflect Growth in Productivity?" by prof. Martin S. Feldstein.
SS is running out of money, so is Medicare where many doctors don't take medicare. Black crime rate is related to healthcare as people who experience violence need healthcare. Also, people who commit violence typically are not productivity in society. There is also the issue of us being number 1 in obesity rate for OECD nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gyroofthyme , how do you know quality won't be effected? The US pays so much in healthcare because, compare to other nations, our quality is the best. Read the book "In Excellent Health" by prof. Scott Atlas, he outlines how the US is superior in advanced care as in what we provide and offer and our survival rates. Kyle and his fan base assumes that under M4A we will still be receiving the same quality of care and have the same access to advanced testing as we do now. If you cut pay by 40% you won't. Also consider how inefficient government is. For example, it took Medicare 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits where private insurance was covering long before that
http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690175/
There are advantages to a M4A system, but problem is that supporters of it are not willing to have the hard discussions. The advantages of a universal healthcare system like other nations have, where payments are around 10% of GDP, is that the very poor can receive care of some kind where in the US there is data to suggests that the poor are dying or going bankrupt due to our healthcare system. But the draw back is that the very sick suffer. The very sick lack access to advanced testing which is why people are dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery in nations like Canada and Australia. People also end up worse off financially, physically and psychologically because of waiting lists.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3617466/
"There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers"
On the flip side the US system does well in offering the very sick advanced care with high survival rates. And the issue of the poor has arguments against it. For example, there is a strong argument to be made that healthcare is not a major problem in bankruptcies
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1716604
Also, the issue of the very poor dying due to lack of access has arguments against it. For example, Prof. Katherine Baicker stated that bad health is associated with poverty, so the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to begin in bad health to begin with? For example, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. And to say that access to healthcare will improve that, the following study brings doubt to that
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
"This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years,"
Overall, in either system someone will suffer, either the very sick or the very poor. Also, you have to consider, as mentioned in the book "Being Mortal", people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months.
Kyle and his fans refuse to have these hard discussions. If you switch to M4A someone will suffer. Chances are it will the very sick and elderly. Are you willing to push for that? Kyle has no details and does not discuss healthcare well at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thefelix7767 not true. To start, Medicare has other government agencies to pass cost onto that do not count towards overhead cost in Medicare. For example, the IRS collecting taxes does not count as overhead cost in Medicare where private insurance does not have that luxury. Private insurance also make payments that reduce costs such as fraud prevention for example where Medicare, again, can pass that onto other agencies.
If you were to do an administrative cost per beneficiary Medicare cost more. Why? Because medicare patients are older and thus the healthcare cost to them are already expensive. Thus if you look at total payment from Medicare and their overhead costs (which again they pass many onto other agencies) and do a ratio, you will get 3% only because the total payments in general are so high.
A simple math lesson. Say Medicare pays $100 in healthcare bills $3 of it is overhead, that is 3%. Now say private insurance pays $10 in healthcare bills to someone and pay $1 in overhead, that is 10%. However, they paid less per person already in overhead.
An article in Forbes entitled
"The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'"
Explains it. Basically, at the very least, you are comparing two completely different programs that, at the very least, calculate overhead costs differently make a comparison a challenge to begin with.
1
-
1
-
@thefelix7767 one reason why healthcare is so expensive is that even though medicare pays a lot, they still pay 40% less than private insurance. Why? Well, in the 70s and early 80s healthcare providers were sucking Medicare dry. They were over treating patients and having them stay in hospitals for too long. And why should the patient care, they were not paying.
So in the 80s bipartisan reform was done saying Medicare will essentially only pay X amount. So that means Medicare pays, overall, 40% less than private insurance. Another reason is that many visit the ER and do not pay. I went to the ER recently. They gave me care and then charged me. I did not have to pay right away and if I did not pay they cannot do anything.
So in the end what healthcare providers do is jack up prices for others. You see, in a way we do have universal healthcare in that regards.
Compare it to this. Say you ran a restaurant. There, you have a set of customers that pay 40% less, mixed in with the fact you have to serve customers first and then charge them where a good portion do not pay. What will you do? For those who do pay you will charge more.
" If we expanded coverage for everyone then we would have an influx of less costly patients that would make the overall system cheaper on average per patient. "
Not true. One, the "less costly patients" will be younger ones that pay very little taxes to begin with. So now you will be covering them when they pay essentially zero. So now you doubled down on the system on that you have the retired who are getting care while paying zero, and the young as well. You made the system more expensive.
1
-
@joshcourt1393 you know what creates monopolies? Government restrictions. A free market expands and gives people more choices and thus a better system. Government restrictions limits options which is what we are seeing now with this vaccine.
Who bought my government? If it has limitations no one can.
Think about how lobbying and corruption will grow even more if the federal government was paying for your healthcare. That is 1/6 of the economy. That is screaming for corruption. It will become "see this doctor, not this one" or "take this medication, not this one" while politicians and the elites pay their way to get to the front of the line. Consider how many politicians already "received" the vaccine.
The more local the government the more it serves the people as they have more control over it
As for your solutions
1. It will fail as now the current, established politicians will change the rules so only they and their buddies get money
2. Define "popular", also, airtime is limited and different slots have different viewership
3. No term limits on judges and House of representatives. On judges, they have to make very unpopular decisions at times. With the House, they are up for re-election every 2 years and change is often. There are arguments for term limits which I would like in the Senate as they serve 6 year terms, but the counter argument is that if someone is doing well, why remove them?
4. Ok, what?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dj Luminol , a study out or Oregon showed that even when you give poor people healthcare they still had problems. The reason why is because bad health is mostly associated with poor lifestyle choices, such as diet.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
So one can argue that those variables won't be handled. Also, I encourage you to read the book "Being Mortal". If someone has an illness that is considered curable but still dies from it, chances are they had many issues as well.
On my question I will give you my opinions
1. The payroll tax led to employers paying with healthcare insurance. It became a tax free way to pay employees. Just like other benefits. Employers would rather pay with a higher wage as it is easier, but the payroll tax prevents that.
2. Since healthcare insurance has become a form of payment it has become healthcare. What I mean is that healthcare insurance essentially covers everything. There is a desire to have insurance as sometimes demand is inelastic. A case like an emergency is such that. But why should insurance pay for things you can shop around for? Such as an Xray, an MRI, routine check ups, prescription drugs, etc. Same as with car insurance. Car insurance covers an accident when you don't have time to shop around. It won't for new tires even though tires are necessary for a safe car. I have a prescription I take. Why do I need to see if insurance covers it? Why can't I just pay for it out of pocket and shop around?
That, to me, is a major starting point in why healthcare is so expensive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Richard, let me explain to you the difference between banning something and not recognizing something.
Federal law bans fully automatic fire arms. If I have one without being licensed I will go to jail. Why? Because they are banned. Now say I were to call my shot gun a fully automatic fire arm. It isn't by definition, but say I were to call it that. The government would not recognize it as such and thus I would be allowed to own that gun.
Another example on recognition. Say I were to read a lot of books, write a lot of essays, and do a lot of problems related to math, physics, chemistry, etc. out of college text books. After a few years of that I draw up a diploma and claim I have a college degree. I frame it an post it on my wall and everything. Now while I may say I have a college degree, and may have done a lot of work in the process, no one will recognize it as I never actually done the work in an accredited college. I would not go to jail, it just won't be recognized.
I can dig deeper. Look up Watson v US. In that case an individual traded a gun for drugs. Now there is a law that carries a harsher sentence whenever a gun is used in a drug deal. Now one can say a gun was used in that drug deal where the gun was exchanged for drugs. But the court ruled that the idea of "use" is using the gun for violence. Trading it is not "using" the gun. So while using a gun in a drug deal is "banned", the court recognized that situation was not "using" the gun and thus there wasn't a harsher sentence.
I can go on and give many more examples, but the point is this, homosexual marriage was never banned in the US, it simply was not recognized by the government. I encourage you to understand the difference if you want to have an opinion on these issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@texkillerson6681 , to add on my last point, this is classic Bernie and his fans. When Bernie was asked by a hair salon owner during the debate against Cruz on Obamacare and her business, his response was "follow the law". He had no desire to try to understand her profit margins in comparison to other businesses, not desire to understand her expenses, employee turnover, etc. All he saw was a business and said "screw you, pay up". That is an issue. Bernie dismissed someone simply because he went against his agenda.
Maybe Bernie's ideas are best for the nation, but it will force people to change their ways and adjust. You should try to understand those individuals. You refusing to do that shows you don't care. Same with Bernie. And this is why people mock him. He is a greedy, corrupt, career politician.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ch33tos Sesh, let us go through the numbers
1. When Obama took over the economy was losing jobs. So it makes sense jobs were gained, the bar was low.
2. Same thing, the bar was low.
3. Stocks rose higher under Trump. Also, this was a part of easy monetary policy set by the Fed.
4. Premiums rose slowly due to a bad economy. Also, saying less are uninsured is a fallacy as people were forced to buy insurance.
5. Republicans took over the House to lower the deficit
6. This is good?
7. When you change the definition you get higher results
8. This was the trend to begin with
9. Ok, and?
10. the murder rate was dropping to begin with
Under Trump we are seeing higher interest rates, GDP growth, higher consumption, a decline in initial claims, stagnate worker participation rate when it was dropping for years. Fact is things are better under Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kensol2579 Here
The 40,000 deaths a year. To start, what numbers from other nations do you have to compare that to? Nothing. Thus you can't say if that number is high, low or the norm.
Next, as prof. Katherine Baicker put it, those people are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So you don't know if those individuals die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. Also, people in that situation who die most likely have a lot of issues going on. As mentioned in his book "Being Mortal" the author says that people seek modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will live only another 5 or 10 months. So if we place a lot of resources in those 40,000 and they live only 5 more months, is that a success?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brian2440 , my ideas align with Trump in that we need to stop politicizing this issue and leave it to scientists. The left wants to politicize this issue where politics poison everything in my opinions. Politics leads to bureaucracy, corruption, special interest groups, etc. Politicians look to get elected so they will do what they want to get elected. While some politicians may be there to better our situation, a lot will look at short term goals to get elected. One can be investing in "green energy" to cater to far left environmentalists even if it is not the best solution. This is why SC justices are not elected and why the Federal Reserve is not elected. They make tough decisions that are unpopular but best for the long run.
I want to get politics out of science and leave science to the scientist. I look at this issue of climate change and I see a bunch of scientific illiterate people making strong opinions for political gains. And if you are someone who disagrees with the left you become a climate change denier even though I have said many times that climate change is happening. Also, the left feels that the only solution is from government where in reality the free market can help this. A lot of "green energy" solutions save money in which the free market has pushed for. We have cars with better gas mileage. We have better insulation in homes.
As for government funding being non-bias, I will argue that is not true. I feel they are bias in some ways. I have seen people get grants for producing nothing but get them for political reasons.
As for Trump cutting funding, we are a nation in deep debt. We need to cut funding. That is the reality. That is how we get the economy back on track. I am not going to be bias here and say "we should cut funding except for research in science", I will say that we need to cut funding everywhere.
Overall, I want limited government involved in science. The issue of climate change is complex, we can't make strong conclusions and we must do more research, and we need to allow the free market to improve technology like it always has. That is my stance on this issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CDM_Enigma, there is a lot that contributes to life expectancy. Health habits, diet, culture, etc. Two professors showed that if you remove murder and car accidents, two variables not strongly connected to healthcare, the US is number 1 in life expectancy. In the book "Debunking Utopia" it is mentioned that other countries have healthier habits. For example, a lot of US citizens eat out.
45,000 people is 0.02% of the population. Those individuals are poor to begin with where there is a strong correlation with being poor and have poor health such as obesity and type II diabetes. So you can't say they die only due to lack of medical care. There are other factors as well. Also, 35,000 people die on the roads in car accidents in comparison. So do we ban driving to save those lives? Or do we accept the shortcomings of a system that has many advantages?
"over 60,000,000 are currently uninsured "
I agree that is a problem. But the bigger problem, in my opinion, is why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare in this country?
1
-
"So you're okay with 0.02% of the country dying every year because they're too poor to afford health insurance? "
No. What I am saying is that you are looking at a very minute portion of the population. You have some things to consider such as
1. You can't say, with high certainty, that they only reason why they die is because of lack of access to healthcare.
2. Every system has shortcomings. In other countries people die because of them as well. No system is ideal. When you say 45,000 people I think, after accessing the entire situation and understanding that many of them most likely have poor health to begin, that's it? That is literally my reaction. Only 45,000? I see that as a success all things considered. You may call me a jerk, but that is the reality.
"What if one of those 45,000 was your friend, your mother, your child?"
This is where your argument falls apart. You have not logic or facts on your side so you try to be emotional. Going to the car accidents, what if you had a friend die because of a car accident? 35,000 die a year because of that. Will you support banning driving for the public? Why don't you care about that 35,000? Why do you support 35,000 dead people a year that can be avoided by simply banning driving? Ever consider that?
"You do also realize single-payer healthcare would dramatically reduce the severity of these issues, right?"
How? When you look at the numbers nothing indicates that single payer is number.
Read this book for more information
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Plus, you say "dramatically". 45,000 people is 0.02% of the population. That is not dramatic at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franklance9167 , that estimated cost is an underestimate and is assuming that providers will be willing to take a 40% pay cut. That will lower quality.
Federal taxes involved a lot including income, payroll, corporate, etc. A guy from Denmark forced Bernie to admit that he will have to raise taxes on everyone. Denmark has their highest tax bracket at $55,000. In the US it is at $400,000.
Also, $3.97 trillion to $7.23 trillion, for all intents and purposes, is double. Also, cutting defense to zero will not even come close to funding healthcare. Defense spending has been dropping for decades as is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Xpistos510 again, on "welfare", most of it is in farm subsidizes. Prior to that food used to be taken from the government, stored, transported and given to low income schools as farmers were producing too much food. What ended up being cheaper was simply paying farmers to stop producing food. That is not welfare.
On your second point, you are talking about a major difference in technology What is the cost of living in Silicon Valley? Consider that as well.
You say rural areas are poor. Define that. CA, where Silicon Valley resides, has one of the lowest home ownership rates by states. WV, a very blue state, is number 1 in home ownership rate.
"There really is no such thing as a purely independent individual."
I agree. But those on the right depend more on those closed to them, friends, family, and the local community. Those on the left are not the ones going out and interacting with their community gaining connections, working with charities, volunteering and/or working in the community. They simply ask for a handout.
One of my favorite scenes in Family Guy is when Quagmire ripped on Brian for being this ultra liberal how awful the poor has it. But then rips on Brian for never volunteering for the poor where he said "want to help. grab a ladle".
I have the same experience. I work hard in my community and I am involved. Those around me lean right. I have noticed that. Those who lean left, I noticed, do not. To give you an example, I am a sports official. On Saturdays I work Junior College games where one is mostly black. On a given Saturday I will work with over 60 black individuals, many who come from broken homes, and work their games and treat them fairly.
Meanwhile, at my university, I get emails lecturing me in diversity and racism and people who sign it may interact with 2 or 3 black individuals a year. There lies the difference between the left and right. Me, who leans right, actually interacts with society and understands what is going on. Those no the left lives in an illusion as they do not interact with society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Oruam1111 saying conservatives do not get things done is not how it works. Being conservative means supporting the initial design of how this nation was developed, limited centralized government and more state rights where states can make changes. It is keeping with the initial design and standards as opposed to just moving the goal posts.
Saying there is more money in cities is a flawed argument. In rural areas they simply need less resources. I lived near rural areas that had no stop signs on their roads as they do not need it. That is why, once again, those on the right support more local government. What works in one area will not work in another. I grew up in a small town where I personally knew my dentist, my doctor, my mechanic (who was my cousin), and my insurance agent. When I got my DUI I talked to my car insurance agent who knew me my whole life as we went to the same church. His response was that he will not raise my rate but to never do it again as he knew that overall I was a good driver and person that made one mistake.
I now live in the city and see the desire for more government and more regulations. I do not even know my own neighbors and knew no one when I moved to the city I did. There is a desire to have something as simple as stop signs.
There is no one size fits all policy. You try to make it out that there is which is why you throw out one stat and make a grand conclusion when it is much more complex than that.
I, personally admit I have no real stake in this election. In fact, under a Biden presidency, much like under an Obama one, I will be better off. But I am not selfish. I know that under Trump society, as a whole, will be better off and those that won't will be the elites. But if people want Biden as president where the poor and middle class suffer and many, like you, do not understand why, I can just go with it. I will have my PhD. I can easily join the ranks of the elites and just roll with it. I have worked with poor individuals. I had a student who was poor who struggled in physics but worked her way up with my help. I had a student with an immune problem this semester that struggled but with my help was able to make it through chemistry. I had another study who struggled and I spent 2 hours in a zoom call getting her grade up and having her understand the material. I am not selfish. However, I can easily join the ranks of the elites while others suffer is that is how some people in this nation wants it go to.
What did Trump have to gain becoming president? Nothing. He did it to serve his nation and make it better. Instead, people like you fell for what elitists said that he was a boogey man and was evil despite the nation being better under him.
Hey, you want an old man with dementia for president who has done nothing outside of politics and will serve the elites, then so be it. In the end I will be fine. I will always have a roof over my head and food on the table. While others suffer and those on the left complain about it I will just keep saying, at least you beat Trump.
Congrats.
1
-
@Oruam1111 the way the system was set up allowed for change, you do know that? And there has been plenty of change using that system.
You do know there is more to the economy than money? In urban areas compared to rural ones you have many negatives such as typically longer commute times, longer wait times in many places such as banks for example, or post offices. A lot of little things that add up. Not saying one area is better than the other. You are saying urban areas are better and your only justification is that they have a higher median income while ignoring many other factors. You know what else cities have more of compared to rural areas? They have more homeless people.
"Biden will personally help me. He'll be helping millions by doing really basic things like raising the minimum wage. You just say Trump would help people but you don't elaborate. Why? I bet it's because you couldn't if you tried."
So you work a min. wage job? Also, raising the min. wage has never helped out millions. I has actually harmed more people. Read up on the min. wage, it does more harm than good. As for Trump, under him crime was going down, the economy was improving under many indicators. Wages were going up, worker participation was going up and even at that unemployment was dropping. Home ownership was going up. Democrats had nothing to run on against Trump so they dramatized this virus to make him look bad. And again, what did Trump have to gain by becoming president? Nothing. You say stroke his ego when his brand was basically ruined. Him, his family and many of his friends left nice careers, took pay cuts to help out society and risked losing so much. And in a lot of ways they have lost a lot. Think, around half the nation hates the Trump family now where before people did not care.
" Trump doesn't even talk at a higher level than a fourth-grader. "
Is that really a bad thing? Just because you should smart does not mean you are. Noam Chomsky is a great example. He write very well and speak well, but when you look past that you realize he has no clue what he is talking about outside of his field of expertise.
Also, Trump never started any new wars, Biden will.
I know a lot about you guys. I know you guys are delusional. You had a great thing with Trump as president but instead you decided to just revert back to the old ways of elites becoming richer while you guys get screwed. They will make blind moves like raising the min. wage which, again, does more harm than good, while they get richer. Trump ran on the idea that for years we had people like Biden in charge and politicians became richer while millions of the poor and working class suffered. How is it that Biden and his entire family own large homes off of a government salary? Heck, even Bernie Sanders owns three homes. Many do not even own one. You guys are fools.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@comingviking the owners risk a lot. Even if the company operates at a loss the workers still get paid. Even considered that? As for QE, that was money to keep banks afloat. It wasn't just pumped into the economy.
"Workers would invest in their livelyhood, the Corporation. IF they were running Things. "
Would they? Many of the Amazon workers did not even invest in themselves. Many, at most, possess a GED. What makes you think these workers will be able to understand supply chain management, marketing, tax laws, etc.
As for the Spain company, you are looking at one case. There are cases where worker coop can work, but that does not mean it will work in every company. For example, In and Out Burger is successful by having a limited menu and limited locations. Does that mean every restaurant should follow suit?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@comingviking pee in the bottle? Really? I heard all these so call horror stories from Amazon, they seem so few and far between. I don't buy them.
So you are saying that the workers should dictate their pay? What is going to stop them from just raising their wages to an expensive level? Again, these workers don't understand supply chain management, tax law, marketing, etc. They do not know how a business functions and nor do they care. So why give them a voice? As I said, these were the same workers who argued over what music to play.
Recessions happen. Only around three times in this nation, since the 1900, have we seen major recessions. They were the great depression, the hyper inflation during the 70s, and 2008. Each time it was the Federal Reserve that caused those recessions. All throughout history, though, hands off government has led to faster recovery. And what crisis? Things are better than ever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@comingviking and once again it comes back to the issue that the regular worker does not understand what makes a company successful. Someone working as a picker in the warehouse with only a GED will not understand accounting, payroll, tax laws, etc. And people will just end up voting what benefits them as opposed to the company out of greed and ignorance. That is why you need a manager to actually control these things as they are the ones who knows what is going on. Also, if you place complex decision making in the hands of the workers investors won't trust that and they won't invest causing stock prices to drop and thus the company will have to down size.
Not to be rude but you do not seem to understand the complexity of managing and running a company. You don't seem to understand how ignorant a lot of people are and how they do not understand the complexity of running a business. An argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. Fact is people understand very little. You shown it yourself when you said Bezos pays himself billions when in reality he does not even pay himself six figures.
You also have another major flaw, you say you will have workers with different jobs. Who decides that? Are people going to just pick what they want to do? I see that as becoming a mess. You see, eventually you need a leader saying "you do this, you do this, now go". What you are pushing for is mass chaos.
As for bankrupting now, Amazon seems very successful. I do not see it bankrupting anytime soon.
Also, I do not support oppression of any kind. Who is being oppressed in my system?
1
-
@comingviking you brought up one that employs engineers and computer programmers, intelligent and skilled workers. You can't compare that Amazon who hires people with GED. I never said worker controlled enterprises cannot work. I am saying they won't work everywhere. Again, you yourself displayed ignorance when you said that Bezos decided to pay himself 100 billion dollars when he does not. He pays himself $80,000 a year. But again, you can't compare a company that hires skilled workers to that of a company that hires unskilled workers. You also can't make broad generalization in that if it works in one company it can surely work in another. Again, as I said earlier, In and Out Burger has success by having limited locations and a limited menu. Should every restaurant follow suit? Should there be no places to serve chicken, pasta, tacos, etc. because of In and Out's success? No, because the market is diverse. So again, I never once said worker coop will not work. I acknowledge it will in some cases, but not all as you claim.
Also, who is oppressing people here? I do not see it. Are the executives of Amazon holding guns to people's heads forcing them to work? No. Thus, no one is being oppressed.
1
-
@comingviking he has that much wealth, but wealth does not equal income. Most of his wealth are in shares of his company where he is the largest shareholder. He can't just liquidated it as doing so in a frivolous way means his company is not a wise investment as Bezos will just waste funds. Also, him being the largest share holder shows investors that he is willing to stand by his product which is his company. Thus the price goes up of his shares. Him owning those shares increases the value.
Compare it to this. Say you were to give a responsible person a home and an irresponsible person the same exact home. In the long run what will you place bets on whose home is better? The responsible one. Same with Bezos owning so many shares. But he can't just liquidated them unless it is in a way that, for the most part, investors improve on. So no, he does not have all this money.
And yes, for the most part unskilled workers are not capable of making informed decisions on complex issues. A programmer spent years in schooling learning how to solve problems, thus they can figure out complex issues much more easier than someone who works simply picking items off of a shelf and placing it in a bin. Also, fun note, a lot of CEOs are engineers. Bezos has an engineering degree for example.
You used your example and again, I worked in Amazon warehouse. They argued over what type of music to play. That was their concern. That is where you need management to come in and simply say "this is what will be played or nothing at all". You also avoided the point on who will decide what job to do? In Amazon warehouse you have different task, picker, crissplant where you chute, sort, you have the fork lift drivers, etc. Being a fork lift driver requires more safety regulations. They never allowed temps to do that. But what if someone wants to do it? Who will be the one who tells them no? That is where a manager comes in.
I don't have a disdain for ordinary people. In fact, my understanding of ordinary people is why I feel the way I do. I understand that these hourly workers do not care. All they care about is working, collecting their check, going home to fuck their spouse and drink beer. They are not like a manager who thinks 4 or 5 steps ahead. As with my conversation with my department chair, hourly workers are not as dedicated as salary workers. I used to think that people were dedicate to their job but found out they aren't. A manager will spend hours, even after work figuring things out. How many of those Amazon employees are willing to take their work home with them? Essentially none. So they should not be making decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bryant Fox, you have little idea what you are talking about. To start, Bezos started his business in a garage. He is rich because of the stocks he owns, he only earns around $80,000 a year in income.
Next, you say "300× less than the salary of the CEO ". That is very deceptive. CEOs are paid differently than workers. I will link you a story from Harvard on that. Also, you are comparing the CEO pay to one worker as opposed to the entire staff. If you were to take the salaries of the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread it to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart those workers will gain an extra $147 a year. That's it. At that point what had you gained by taking CEO's money? The workers are not going to gain that much more.
Also, I did a quick, and simple analysis showing that the CEO of Walmart over the past 20 years is earning less when you compare his pay per employee hired. I do not have it right now but given time I can create it. But to briefly give an explanation with a small example, say a CEO is paid $1 million and hires 100 employees. Now say 20 years later he has 200 employees and earns $1.5 million a year. He earns 50% more but hired 100% more. That is a comparison you need to consider.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chewrraxia, the NRA pushed for gun laws in the past. The issue is that now the left wants more gun laws that infringe on people's rights. For example, banning the AR15 opens legal pathways to ban other guns. Look at the magazine limit. In some states they pushed a 7 round limit because apparently a 30 round limit was too high. Prior to that a 100 round limit was too high. The left keeps pushing laws to the point of banning all guns. That is why the NRA is attacking back.
With mentally unstable people that is a very challenging subject. To start, there is no quantitative way to measure mental health issues. It isn't like diabetes where you can measure blood sugar limits. Thus most people may not even know if they have an issue. Next, the issue if very subjective. I, on record, have a mental health issue. I take prescribed medication and see a doctor often. By many leftists' standards I should be banned from owning guns even though both of my doctors, and my friends who know my condition, are fine with me owning them. Both of my doctors, after many conversations, feel it is safe for me to own them. But leftists' want to push for laws to ban me from owning a gun because some outside person who does not know me personally says so.
Other nations don't experience shootings because they have lower crime all together. If you remove all gun murders from the US the US murder rate is still higher than many nations. The problem is culture, not guns. At some point the left has to admit that. Change the person, don't take away the guns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AslanW , according to CNN Money is where I get those numbers from. I will link you in another comment because sometimes links don't allow the comment to post. But the titled is
"Top Income tax rate: How the US really compares"
As for my 60%, I am incorrect in that was the tax rate, however, the median income in Denmark is around $43,000 a year, close to $55,000. The US median income is around $63,000 a year, much farther away (around 7 times that) than the top income bracket. Looking closer yes, the top tax bracket covers around 10% (a little over) but in the US it only covers the top 0.01%. 10% is much more people compared to 0.01%. Also, you have the VAT tax as well. So there is that. You told me to "google it", I did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christianknuchel , the ER cannot deny you. Many people go to the ER, receive care and can't pay. That is one of many reasons why healthcare is so expensive, hospitals charge other people more who can pay. It is also one reason for having the individual mandate.
In Oregon a study was performed and published in the New England Journal of Medicine gave access to healthcare to 6000 poor individuals and 6000 others did not receive Medicaid. When the two groups were compared there wasn't any differences in physical health. Why? Because their lifestyle choices did not change. That is why bad health is associated with being poor, they have poor lifestyle choices.
I read the study, it is difficult to account for obesity and smoking. Also, it isn't just obesity. One can be in poor physical health and not be obese due to poor diet, that is a function of one's genetics which that study does not account for.
My argument on the 5 months is not extreme. Read the book "Being Mortal". There the author discusses the issue how many look at healthcare as a way to live another 5 or 10 years but end up living only another 5 or 10 months, and during that time they are in agony or not doing well. The reason is that when people are near death when you fix one problem another comes up. It is similar to an old car. When you fix the broken power steering now you have a problem with a turn signal. When you fix that now you have a problem with say another bad sensor. The same is with the human body. As I said most of those people have bad diets and don't exercise. You may fix one health issue, but with the complexity involved due to them not being healthy to begin with, other issues may arise that you now have to fix.
I have read up on this issue a lot. I suggest you do if you want to have a strong opinion.
Other nations tax their citizens more with higher consumption taxes. The far left just wants to tax the rich. That is closer to the Venezuela model where you tax one source to pay for another. The European model is tax the citizens and then give them that service. That is the difference. The far left does not want that, they want to tax the rich and give to others. Just like how Venezuela took revenue from oil and gave to others. When the oil market dried up Venezuela went under. Other nations tax citizens and then give back to them. That area won't dry up as citizens won't leave the nation like the rich can.
Again, I have read up on this and looked into it. I suggest you do as well. This is an interesting topic and complex. If you have any other questions just ask.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Juryiat Peter Schiff destroyed Sam. Also, Sam, as I said, just deflects. One thing Sam does well is deflect and his group of cackling hyenas back him up. It is no different then Bill Maher when he gets a conservative on his show. The conservative will say something and Bill will rebuttal and his fans clap like seals giving the impression the conservative is wrong. Sam never has actual points in his arguments. As with Bill Maher, when he is out of his elements, he struggles. Like he did against Dan Crenshaw. Same with Sam. Look at the debate he did against Kirk at Politicon. Sam was out of his elements and he did poorly. At the beginning he was telling people to "google it". Well, google what? He as telling people to google wages in relation to inflation in that he is saying wages have not kept up with inflation. Well, google what? What form of inflation? CPI, GDP deflator, PCE? Does he even know there is more then one way to measure inflation? Or what about the Atlanta Federal Reserve that said wages have been outpacing CPI inflation which has the highest form of inflation. Or what about the shortcomings of inflation? What should I google?
Sam had weak arguments there as he was outside of element.
And yes, it is a part of personal finances. It is a culture issue. Our culture is very materialistic. Think about how many need to buy the new iPhone but really don't. Think about how many buy the new Madden game even thought is hardly changes year by year where the only thing that really changes are the players. 40% of the American food dollar is spent eating out where in a nation like Japan and the UK it is around 20%. Think about people going to Starbucks as opposed to brewing their own coffee.
So yes, it is about personal responsibilities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@H22prelude32 as for proposals, we need to reopen the economy. There is more evidence coming out the virus is not that dangerous. And there is evidence of herd immunity in many states. A Penn State study suggested that early case numbers, as in March, were actually 80 times higher than what was reported. That was because testing was low, many did not seek care, and many were asymptomatic. That means that instead of 100,000 cases in March existing they suggest around 8.8 million. That is more then what is reported now. 94% who died had comorbidities where the average number of underlying conditions is 2.6. Most who die are either old or sick to begin with.
With that these lock downs is leading to increases in substance abuse, suicide rates, and anti depressant use among other issues. With anti depressant use Zoloft was placed on the FDA drug shortage list where a University of Texas psychiatrist said he have never seen that in 35 years. All this for a virus where the vast majority have an over 99% chance of surviving from.
In life we have to make tough decisions for the best of society. We are not doing that with this virus. Instead we just locked down and our politicians ignore all other problems. Again, easy for them, they have a paycheck. Again, NY, NJ, PA, MI, MA and other states have had low cases for around 3 months. They can reopen. Why aren't they? Why is NJ still banning indoor dining? In April there were seeing over 3000 cases a day. Now they are seeing around 300 and have since the middle of June. Why are they not reopening? Explain that to me, please.
1
-
@H22prelude32 I gave you a proposal.
Fauci was not helping. In fact, he was making things worse. At first it was deaths saying there will be over 2 million. Pictures of mass graves and temporary morgues in NY. When deaths started to drop the next point was to not open up too soon as it will cause problems. We have to stay shut down Fauci will say. We opened up in some places and were fine. Cases started to go up in June so the next point were cases with him saying we are going in the wrong direction. However, deaths were still low. He said we would see 100,000 a day. We never did. And deaths remained low. With around 70,000 cases a day we were seeing less than 1000 deaths where in April we were seeing over 2000 deaths a day with only around 30,000 cases a day. But Fauci kept fear mongering.
Trump then gave a speech without Fauci on stage. Fauci cried about it saying the virus is not going anywhere. If that is the case then why do what we do? We just have to live with it. If it is not going anywhere then I guess lock downs mean nothing. Now cases are starting to drop but Fauci comes out saying we did it all wrong, we need to change, and we need to wear goggles.
All he did was fear monger. Zero positive news, just shifting from one fear mongering point to the next.
It isn't Trump's job to give out stimulus, that is Congress's job. Again, in the US we have separation of powers.
1
-
1
-
@H22prelude32 you can't look at total cases and deaths as you have to factor in population. Let us see here, let us look at those states position in total population
CA-1
TX-2
FL-3
NY-4
GA-8
IL-6
AZ-14
NJ-11
NC-9
TN-16
You see a correlation? Especially in the top 4? So again, you have to go by per million. Of course CA and TX will have many cases and deaths, they have a lot of people. But if you want to go by that standard of total deaths (deaths is all that is important, cases do not matter if they recover), we can
NY-D
NJ-D
CA-D
TX-R
FL-R
MA-R
IL-D
PA-D
MI-D
GA-R
Six democrats, and of the top 5 for are democrat.
"so you would rather the doctor that believes in demon sperm "
Still a practicing a doctor. Many experts have questionable beliefs. That is why with experts I only listen to them when they talk about their own field. They can have opinions outside of their field, and if they cite sources it makes a bit more stronger, but still, in the end it is not their field. For example, me. I am getting a PhD studying multidimensional spectroscopy. I know a lot about it. I can explain it on the back of a napkin off of the top of my head. But when it comes to something outside of my field I will admit I do not know everything, but what I do know I can cite references. But in the end, I encourage people to dig farther.
But in the end she is a medical expert and thus her word should be taken seriously. Same with Fauci. One of the bigger mistakes we made was listening to only one expert, Fauci, while censoring others. Trump should have pushed for other experts to be heard. This situation is very complex and no one person has all the answer. And also, as Fauci showed, even experts can be wrong. He was on all of his predictions and he showed he does not know how to lead with his constant fear mongering.
"your ok with the death's of millions of old/sick people "
They were near death to begin with. For example, according to the University of Minnesota 40% of covid deaths were in nursing homes. According to UCSF 50% of new nursing home patients die within 5 months. The virus has been around for 5 months. So statistically speaking of those 40% who died, at least half of them would have been dead anyway. Meanwhile, suicide rates are up, people are going to be harmed financially, substance abuse is up causing physical harm.
So I can easily say you are ok with people in their 20s and 30s, with long lives ahead of them, dying so an old person can live a few more months. It goes both ways.
"So you wouldn't have done anything? Every other country is doing alot better than us "
I would have taken some actions, and including shut downs. But now it is time to open up in many states. NY, NJ, PA, MI and other states have low cases, they can open up now. The idea was to flatten the curve and relieve the healthcare system. We did that. And states like FL, TX and AZ are approaching low case numbers as well.
Tell me, at what point do we open back up? Again, NJ was seeing over 3000 cases in April but since June was seeing around 300 and have been consistent there since then. Why are they still close? And why do you ignore my questions? Can you at least answer these.
Also, we are 11th in deaths per million beating out nations like Italy, UK, and Spain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffarnold3800 I do not think people are afraid. And for those who are, fine, they can stay at home. But I have been out and about in public for months and I see few social distancing. I have seen few actually wearing masks properly. Here is my experience. I work in academics. The people pushing these measures of social distancing and mask wearing are people like professors, the university president and provost. Those that oppose it are basically everyone else. Students are not social distancing. A lot of construction is going on on campus and the construction workers do not care. No social distancing, no mask wearing. A lot of the staff thinks what we are doing is stupid.
So you know that that says to me? This is purely a power divide. University presidents and provosts and professors want power. The average American, as in the construction worker, or the university student who will work a middle class job, and so on, do not care. They do not care about this virus and just want to live life. But many in "power", want it. This is a part of Trump's America. Trump has directed America to a point that people have become so independent that people such as university professors and democrats are not longer needed. Democrats live to have people rely on them. University professors are such failures that they go to admin as they can't succeed elsewhere. And thus they need people to rely on them. Thus, they overblown this virus to have people rely on them. That is the reality.
I was at the gas station last night. There were college students joking about the virus talking about grandma dying because someone did not wear their mask properly. That is the harsh reality, people do not care. This virus is a hoax. We need to get back to normal. Sorry that Trump made America to the point that people are high independent from the government, but that is great.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" First, you need to do your research before making this statement. "
Such as? If you think I am wrong than clearly I am missing something. How about you provide me with something.
"Second, any intellectual property related field cannot be purely free market. "
I agree. But you can set up a system where many components can exist, even within government. For example, with state rights, that will be states competing with each other. You will still have government involved, but states are competing to provide for their citizens the best living situation possible.
" No one's saying that. Read the paper I posted."
I will read it. I have a test to study for and my own projects to do. I most likely won't get to it until this weekend to fully read and think about it. But I have it saved. But many are saying that about price gouging and government. They want federal take over on the idea of the federal government negotiating prices when the free market does that as well.
" Actual analyses of clinical trials and the process of brining a drug to market. "
Which is fine. I will read it and come up with my opinion based on what I know.
"And state governments aren't and don't?"
They can be. But at the state level your voice is louder. You can vote for more members of your state legislature. How many congress members can you vote for at the federal level? I can't vote for Bernie or Nancy Pelosi. And many on the left can vote for Cassidy an Graham. But they are pushing for legislature that directly influences your life, at least Bernie is. The more local government is the more control you have over it. I met both candidates for mayor last election season and I live in a city of 400,000 people. You just have to be active. Also, if a state is that corrupt than you can move and remain a US citizen.
Look up the video "Milton Friedman Smashes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups". He talks about local government. There is a desire to have government, and not system is ideal. The more local government is the easier it is to control and the easier it is for you to see if government is working for you.
To give another example, the local school district in my city wants to take land to build a new school. Many members of the community are having a meeting this week to discuss that. They are getting involved and they are not elected officials but normal people.
"This is surely not an argument. Why would state governments be better at negotiating drug prices than the federal government?"
I don't think any government can be consistently. I did not limit that to the state. So yes, it is an argument. But on that point in my city our mayor is a former business owner that built up many successful businesses. She has done well in negotiating prices for numerous projects. Expansion of our schools, renovating downtown, building of the new bridge, etc. I will trust her and I can vote for her. I don't trust Bernie nor can I vote for him.
"Moreover, are you really under the impression that Sanders would personally be negotiating drug prices?"
Not necessarily, but even the people he hires I will question. Again, he has a very limited understanding of business, the economy and the market. That has been clear in his debates. When a small business owner asked him how she should pay for healthcare for her employees he outright said that he does not understand the hair salon business. All businesses operate in very similar ways. He should have basic understanding of that. Bill Clinton did when Herman Cain asked him a similar question.
"Look, a public option is not centralizing power. It's creating a government option that competes with the private markets. "
At the federal level it is centralized power. At the state it isn't. Also, should it be competing with the private market, or should it be there for a last resort? That is debatable and I want to leave that to the state and local governments. There are arguments on both sides, and I support many of them. This is a complex issue that I feel a one size fits all policy is not the solution considering our diverse culture and the complexity involved.
"I'd like you to explain what free market healthcare would actually look like. "
I said push for a more free market system. To me the first step should be to get rid of the payroll tax. Because of the payroll tax businesses pay with benefits, such as healthcare insurance, as opposed to a higher wage. Those benefits are a way to pay employees without paying taxes. One of those benefits is healthcare insurance. If you remove the payroll tax businesses will instead pay with a higher wage. Those employees can pay for their own insurance. With that they can pick a plan they want, and can keep it even if they switch jobs. They can get a plan to where women don't have to pay for viagra and men don't have to pay for contraceptives. It can go even farther. Insurance should be for unplanned, expensive situations such as an accident. But for things like routine checkups. contraceptives, elective surgery, etc. they can be paid for out of pocket. That will force companies to drive prices down and improve quality much like what happened with LASIK. And insurance companies will only cover unplanned cases which will lower prices. Much like car insurance covers accidents but not oil changes.
However, what we have is that people get a plan through their employer as a form of payment. They can't pick their plan, they have to change when they switch jobs (which is were pre-existing conditions come in), and since it is payment insurance has become healthcare.
With my idea insurance companies will be limited. They will not have control over all of our healthcare. People will force companies to compete.
So my first step will be to remove the payroll tax.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Angel Castillo, you are right in some ways, but the democrats are worse. But on the military that is
1. constitutional
2. serves everyone
3. they train those workers and are discipline
On education, if you think you need the government to educate you than you are clearly not educated yourself.
"And also the government works FOR the people and BY the people."
And I totally agree. Now how do we do that? To me we do it by keeping government as local as possible which is what Trump wants. The more local government is the more you can see if it is serving you and remaining the servants as opposed to the masters. You have more control of local governments. At the federal level I bet you complain about Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Now can you vote for them? No (or at the very very least only one). I don't like Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders, and I can't vote for them, so I don't want them running my life.
The founding fathers set up state rights for a reason and a Constitution to limit government. There is a desire to have government, but we must control it. You, like all liberals, are complaining about what Trump and the Republicans are doing. Well, you created this with Obamacare, now you are getting a taste of our own medicine. Republican said keep healthcare as a state issue. You did not listen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Angel Castillo, the military is for the purpose. There is always conflict with other countries. We are in a position where we solve conflict off of the battlefield without violence. Thinking that we just go to war displays ignorance on what is really going on.
"second I never said that government should be in charge of our everyday life"
I know, but you do want it to be in charge of many components of it.
"but they have control over the funding that is necessary to improve programs,"
If they are going to pick up the tab they are going to control it, period. That means they control you unless you control the government. Also, the federal government has a long history of breaking everything it touches.
"Third, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are already an embarrassment within their own party"
But they keep winning and you can't vote for them. So what's your point? Also, on top of that, you typically can't write other representatives. I was going to write Bernie Sanders an email but I could not because I did not live in his district. So much for controlling the government and government of the people and for the people.
"which later somehow they backtrack on because "reasons" even though they
have full control of the Senate and House of Representatives as well
with the Executive Branch (President)"
Remember Obama's first term?
"Last, most liberals are progressives so for you to say that in a negative tone is surprising,"
They are "progressives".
"because you sound like a person who does his/her research but somehow it
always ends with Democrats are the only ones that have fucked up, how
about denounce both the Democratic and Republican parties"
I do denounce both, democrats are just more extreme now. They have become irrational and over emotional. They deny facts and act like the over emotional religious right used to act a couple decades ago. It is pathetic.
In 1994 Bill Clinton and Herman Cain had a discussion on Bill's healthcare law. Clinton ran through numbers with Cain and has logic behind his argument. While I agreed with Cain in the end, I respected Bill. Now here we are 23 years later and when Bernie Sanders was approached with the same question by a small business owner he said "it is 2017, you should pay for their healthcare". No numbers, no concern for her if she could afford it, nothing. Just do it or fail, that was his mentality. And that is the mentality of the left. Their mentality is they will pass laws and if you can't work with them you will fail and live off of the government. And their only argument against Trump was that he is a racist and sexist with no actual proof.
The left has become too radical. They need to act like Bill Clinton acted or they will continue to lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
David Ace, why not cite a textbook or a peer reviewed paper? You must have access if you took the course?
As far as crashes, they happen one happened in the late 70s. Why doesn't any talk about that? Because Reagan was elected and did hands off government and the economy recovered. Look at the crashes in the US, the two major ones, they were the great depression and the great recession of 2007. The federal government reacted with massive spending to "fix" the economy, they only times that happened. That did not happen in the recession of 1921, or the Panic of 1873, or the Panic of 1837.
" and the recession was worsening before FDR even took office"
Doesn't matter, it did for Reagan as well but we recovered.
" that’s why he was elected in a landslide"
The incumbent always has the inside track unless something bad happens under his watch. Look at the presidents from 1900 and look at how many did not win re-election? And consider what was happening when they lost . Hoover, Carter and Bush are three I can think of and under them the economy tanks. FDR won because he was elected to fix the economy to begin with. Our nation is very forgiving and will re-elect poor presidents. Obama was despite things not being well.
" there’s a podcast called planet money that might clue you in to how the economy actually works"
I will give it a listen but I feel that by what you have given me so far it might not be that great.
"when growth is based on nothing more than increases in business spending and increased lending it is doomed to fail because no actual growth is happening"
The same can be said about government spending. With business spending, however, businesses have something to lose. The government can just raise the debt ceiling. Businesses go bankrupt and go under unless they have government to bail them out like what happened in 2007. Business spending is not bad as businesses are investing and taking a risk. When there is risk involved they are careful. With government there is no risk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattrogers6107 , it isn't that simple bud. To start, that 50,000 stat has been all over the place. One study says 61,000, another said 45,000, another 18,000 ,and another suggested that expanding insurance will not have a significant drop in deaths. Also, amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. So saying that 50,000 will disappear is based off of very little evidence.
Also, in economics there are two major concepts, one is the "law of diminishing returns" and the second is "opportunity costs". If we go to a M4A system one of two things will happen. One, it will cost a shit ton of money where everyone's taxes will have to go up, not just the rich. Or two, we allow to have it where Medicare pays 40% less than private insurance at which quality and access as we know it drops. Maybe that is the best route. One reason why we spend so much in the US is because, compared to the rest of the world, we offer the most care, especially advanced care. However, an argument can be made that is a waste. Take, for example, the case of a girl in the UK who saw over 10 doctors for months complaining about headaches and was told it was simply migraines. Eventually a doctor scheduled an MRI but she had to wait months. It was revealed she had a tumor that was caught too late and she died. In the US she would have been offered the MRI sooner and would have lived. However, an argument is to be made that, statistically, it was simply migraines and thus they denied the care. However, there is always the old "better safe than sorry" argument.
The harsh reality with M4A supporters is this, they refuse to have the very difficult conversations on something has to give. Sure, under M4A some issues we face may go away like bankruptcies and some deaths, but other issues will rise up such as people with major illnesses and the elderly being denied care and dying early.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@higglyjuff , it will cost more because of free loaders abusing the system where the poor typically are in bad health due to lifestyle choices to begin with. It will cost more because us, as a society, will refuse to see a drop in quality. That is why the federal debt is so high. The federal government creates a program and then refuses to cut. It will cost more because of bureaucracy. It will cost more because, as with what happened in the Community Mental Health Act of 1963, the states will just pass all the responsibilities to the federal government. Saying there is no "middleman" is false. The middle man is the government.
The GND is centralized control of our economy like what happened in Venezuela. Is is the federal government dictating the direction the economy will flow which will never work in a nation as large as ours. And you say it provides jobs, what kind of jobs? Do you really think low skilled, unemployed people can handle jobs in infrastructure?
Yes, the Nordic model has stronger unions because they are a free market when it comes to employer/employee relationships. The min. wage is frivolous as it is how much you are paid per hour, not per week. When hours are cut than what is the point?
The system is favored to the rich? How? Also, the US, federally, was never a democracy. The reason why this system favors the rich at all is because government has too much power to sell to the highest bidder. Expanding government makes the problem worse. Besides that, the top 10% earn 40% of the income but pay 70% of federal income taxes. So how are the rich favored again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. The US leads the world in R&D, is number 1 in cancer research, offers the most advanced care such as CT scans, etc. Our quality is unmatched in the world with the exception of maybe India due to how skilled their doctors are.
2. There are many ways to examine the facts. I ask of you, have you ever read their methods? I did for the CWF. One indicator they used was amenable mortality. The paper entitled
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature review" from Health Stat Quarterly
argued that amenable mortality is unreliable due to factors outside of healthcare that can influence it and the fact that nations report it differently. But again, I ask of you, have you read their methods? And if so why do you trust them so much?
3. I just gave one. The book "The Business of Health" has argued that a universal healthcare system would not necessarily be better. That book was written by two profess. Prof. Katherine Baicker has argued against universal healthcare. She gave a great talk where you can find the transcript of from March 24, 2009 related to healthcare and medicare for all.
The point is that healthcare is very complex. No one in the field of academics is going to come up with a strong conclusion like private, special interest groups like the CWF do. In academics if one did they they would be attacked greatly. This issue is complex and to reduce it down to an arbitrary ranking is foolish. I have read many sources on this issue like the book "Being Mortal". When you really dig deep in the issue, especially from academic sources, you see less of "this country is better than this one" and more of "here are the challenges in healthcare and what could possibly improve them".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kielweiss3606 , as for Bernie's poor performance, a large factor is that people have looked into his policies and a lot of doubt has been created. I give credit where credit is due, Bernie does bring up points we should discuss like poverty, healthcare, etc. Issue is that people have and they are finding a lot of doubt in what Bernie in saying. That is mainly how much are these things a major issue and is the solution really as easy as Bernie says? Well, a lot of people are saying no.
Take wealth inequality for example. Bernie screams it and on the surface it may look bad, but recently a study published in 2019 in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy entitled "Measuring Inequality" said 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."
So when Bernie starts yelling about wealth inequality and people had time to think about it they really don't see a problem. Same with all his other policies. You can blame fraud or suppression all you want but fact is that Bernie nor his fans have no actual arguments to convince people that their ideas are best because they can't go beyond talking points.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kielweiss3606 , so how will M4A create more teachers? And no, schools do not turn away qualified candidates. The reality is that Med school is very difficult. You have to know your shit because if you don't you get the situation of life or death. It also goes beyond knowing your shit, but you have to be able to handle the stress. Fact is very few are able to do it. No different than a lot of people can't do the natural sciences even though a degree in that field will earn you more money. I teach chemistry and physics and I see it first hand, people simply can't handle the material. So it isn't due to lack of space. It is due to them not having the ability to handle the work.
Care to link me those studies? Also, polling data if highly flawed. Depending on how you phrase the question gives different results. Also, as prof. Andrew Gelman said, polls are a snap shot, not a forecast. Opinions change when more info is given. If it poll so well why are supporters of M4A losing? Why did 80% vote against universal healthcare in CO?
And how am I constantly proven wrong? You say "look at studies" but don't provide them. You, like Kyle, say "polls" but yet people don't vote for the policies that supposedly polls well. And thus you keep making excuses as opposed to accepting reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kielweiss3606 , the free market has worked well. Capitalism is the best economic system out there. Prof. are paid very well. On the low end at the nursing program at my university they make around $90,000 a year. Most make 6 figures. Also, reading the article it once again brings up the concerns I have been saying, the supply is not there despite the demand being there. Even that article itself that there was a high demand in nurses. You said earlier that with demand going up there will be more jobs thus more healthcare workers. Except the demand in teachers in nursing programs is high but the number of teachers aren't.
Also, this is an issue that both being a college professor, especially in a professional field like nursing, and being a nurse are both very high skilled job. As I said many people simply don't have the ability to get an advanced degree in those hard fields. So naturally there will be a shortage. Think about it, only around 2% of the population gets a doctorate, and that is all doctorates including a PhD in history or liberal arts.
Actually many studies have shown care is denied. One reason why our healthcare system is so expensive is that we offer the most advanced testing in the world and have higher survival rates in advanced illnesses. Other nations cap how much care one receives which is why they have lower survival rates. I recommend you read the book "In Excellent Health" by Prof. Scott Atlas where he outlines that. We offer the CT scans and MRIs per capita for example. Now there are arguments for and against that and I will tell you a couple stories on that.
One, a few years back there was a UK girl who was 16 saw over 10 doctors over many months complaining about headaches. They said they were migraines. Eventually, after many months, one doctor scheduled and MRI but she had to wait three months. It was a tumor they got too late and she died. In the US they would have offered he an MRI almost immediately. However, statistically it was most likely migraines and not a tumor. So you run into the issue of better being safe than sorry and spending the money or denying care and playing the stat game of chances are it is nothing.
Another point is our elderly. Other nations do deny care to the very sick like the very old. In the US over 80% of people die in hospitals now where that number was much less a few decades ago. The trend is up according to the book "Being Mortal", required reading for our nursing students. In the UK, for example, the percent of people dying in hospitals has been dropping. Why? Because in universal healthcare system they just drug you up and have you die without pain. In the US we offer care to people keeping them alive as much as possible. But as that book said, people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So it becomes an issue of culture. Yes, care is denied under universal healthcare systems. Medicare pays 40% less and that will make our spending in line with other nations at around 10% of GDP. However, like other nations we will simply have to deny care to people to limit it. Sure, we can keep giving care to the 80 year old woman which will cost a lot. Or we just deny care and tell her it her time. We can spend a lot of money and offer a lot of advanced care to people like we do now. Or we deny it playing the game of statistics that while yes, chances are there may be something worse, the chance that it is is very small.
You see, this entire issue is why I say the far left refuses to have the very difficult issues discussed. Sure, M4A has positives. It may take away the 100,000 bankruptcies a year, and it can give a portion of the nation less stress. But at what cost? If we have the same access and quality we do now it will cost a shit ton. If we cut by 40% access will be limited and so will quality. And now we get into the situation where we tell that old lady she has to go, or we deny advanced care to someone placing them at some risk. But is it worth it? As with that story of that UK girl, was her death worth it to stop bankruptcies? Again, you refuse to have that difficult conversation. You say care is not denied when it is.
"There is no reason for hospitals to randonmly/arbitrarily raise prices."
There is as demand increases while supply doesn't. Also, you keep going back and forth on supply. First you say we have supply, then you say we don't, but now you say we do? What is it?
On the article about financial aid and tuition, they are, one, talking about all aid where I said loans. Almost anyone can get a loan, grants are more restricted. Next, the graduate student who did research said he saw no significant increase in graduate tuition and community college tuition. Community colleges are designed to be cheap to take advantage of lower income students who students who struggled in schools. Graduate programs have the advantage of graduate assistants where their tuition is covered by the department they work in so very few graduate students actually pay tuition and thus don't need a loan. So you have to consider that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is more complicated than that. One, nothing at the federal level is determined by the majority. Next, we are very divided as a nation, more so than ever. Many are suffering but they disagree on why. Meanwhile, people like Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, or even at the local level of Newsome and Lightfoot, enjoy millions, enjoy nice dinners, enjoy vacations while millions suffer.
Doesn't it bother you that we are this divided as a nation while career, corrupt politicians do very well? Biden, a guy who has done nothing in his life except try to become president, just beat Trump who really did not have to become president but did anyway. Think about that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Wow. So because you have a rudimentary understanding of capitalism, you think you're in a place to tell me I'm wrong. "
I am. In the US the vast majority of people with healthcare insurance cannot pick their own plan. They get it from their employer. The reason for that is because of the payroll tax. Businesses than pay employees with healthcare insurance which has become healthcare. I, along with the vast majority of the country, cannot pick the insurance plan they want. That is not capitalism as a government program greatly influences how the consumers get a product.
"Capitalism is any system that is controlled (even if not fully) by private companies for PROFIT. "
Not true at all. You can have a profit motive and have socialism as well. Profit motive is not the indicator for capitalism.
"And, to provide aid to you, the reason why it doesn't work in this arena is because "choice" and "innovation" are non-existant. You get sick, you need treatment. What "innovation" is going to make the paper pushing more effective? "
If I get sick with some new disease innovation can change my life. Or new drugs can save my life. Without innovation people will still be using leaches and drilling heads to cure headaches.
"I would challenge you to point to anywhere and anytime, in the history of humanity, where a capitalist approach to health insurance has even remotely work. "
Here is your problem, insurance in the US is not insurance, it is healthcare. Government regulations have made insurance into healthcare. Tell me why car insurance does not fix a broken tail light? Or home insurance does not replace your carpet? But healthcare insurance pays for contraceptives? Again, we do not have a capitalist system in healthcare.
"Contrarily, every other major country has socialized medicine and their citizens report high greater satisfaction while also saving tons on cost. "
Not true.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"God is a broad term, it doesn't necessarily mean Christian"
True, I can agree. However, one argument is that the morals were based on Christian beliefs such as freedom and liberty.
"Also, look at the founding father's, actual stance on Christianity, most of them were actually anti-Christianity"
That is actually highly debated. But to say they were "anti-christianity" is to me, false. They may not have practice, but they supported many ideas morally. David Holmes wrote an entire book on it, but again, that issue is debatable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Herb, with price control you create inefficiencies in the market. Look at rent control. Because of rent control landlords have no incentive to make apartments better because they don't have the money. They don't have the money because they can't raise prices when demand goes up. The same will happen with healthcare. You will be asking doctors to take on more patients but will be capping how much they can earn. You will be telling drug companies how much they can charge. They will produce less drugs and doctors will give lower quality service.
On Britain, Canada and other countries, they do many things well, but they also have shortcomings. When you run through the numbers they are no better off. I firmly believe that if we were to push for a single payer system it could get established and things will be the same overall, a healthcare system with problems as no system is ideal. The problem is that in implementing it we will be radically changing our system which is 1/6 of the economy. That means our tax code, how people are paid, insurance company jobs will be lost, business spending habits will change along with people's spending habit, all in a country of 320+ million people. That will lead to a major recession where millions will suffer.
I will never say that the system other countries have is inferior, it works and they do well. I will never say the US system is superior, it has shortcomings. However, the US system does money things well and single payer has its faults. So, with that said we should improve the system we have, not radically change it by completely replacing it. To me, it would be similar to replacing your car with a flat tire with a car with broken tail lights. Why replace the car when you can replace the tires?
1
-
1
-
Spencerwalker21, 45,000 people is 0.02% of the population. That is minute overall. Also, those individuals are poor and there is a strong correlation with poor people and poor health to begin with. You can't say, with high certainty, that they die purely because of lack of access to healthcare.
On bankruptcy, replace that with long wait times. The shortcomings are the same to me. I rather be bankrupt than dead.
Basing on need is subjective. I personally feel I need healthcare now. I put myself in a position to receive it soon, why should I wait? I am productive, I earned what I have, I should get it. You may call me greedy but who is the greedy one? Me who worked hard to have what I earned, or someone who is entitled? That is subjective but as a whole you have to consider that.
1
-
"Wait times are not that bad. It is highly unlikely that you're gonna die waiting for care. "
First part is subjective. Why should I wait if I put myself in a position to have high quality care? Also, many have died waiting.
"I called my doctor a couple of days ago, and have an appointment in two days. Is that a horribly long time to wait? "
Again, that is subjective.
"The thing with a public system, is that you can not walk in and demand
"I want that, i want that". Your doctor decides if x-ray is necessary,
or if you need to see a specialist. "
And how long will that take? And why? And after what testing? This is not an easy issue to take on.
"Then, when he finally sees a doctor, he says he wants an x-ray taken. That would just be waisting resources."
Not necessarily, and that is where the US system excels. What might be a minor issue on the surface can be more severe. In the US we push and are willing to pay to have advanced testing done on us to look for something that we might not see otherwise. When I hurt my knee the doctor was sure it was just a dislocation, but I still got an MRI to look for a ligament tear. I did not have one, but I am glad I got one. In the UK there are stories of people being denied advanced testing and dying such as this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-dies-tumour-migraine-edinburgh-stephanie-dickson-a7555711.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486789/Natasha-16-complained-headaches-She-died-13-doctors-failed-diagnose-brain-tumour.html
" Private systems are a lot more wasteful, "
Is it wasteful?
"The common argument is that competition will drive down costs, which is
usually true when people know what they need/want. Very few of us are
experts in medicine, meaning that we have no idea what we need. "
I disagree. In the US, and as a whole, when we have to pay directly we do research. Talking to a Canadian he said a major difference he noticed was that in Canada you go in, get care, and leave. In the US people ask questions to their doctor to become more informed on what is going on. They are more aggressive so they can see that they get the most bang for their buck. That is a difference in culture.
" Is that really fair when other people die because they receive no care at all?"
Is it "fair" that others die due to lower quality?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Carissa Wu uh, government has been trying to "fix" healthcare for decades, that is why we have problems. We have a heavily regulated system. For example, in the 80s Medicare was was running out of money because healthcare providers will take in patients, give them too much care, and leave them in there too long. So reform was done in that decade to cap how much Medicare is willing to pay and for what. Thus, to make up the difference healthcare providers starting charging more for little things like a band aid.
If we asked for more government regulations either prices will go up, or quality and access will drop. That will be especially true if we had M4A.
Repealing Obamacare (which a complete repeal of has not happened) is a good route. Forcing people to buy healthcare insurance is not the free market. Also, having healthcare insurance being healthcare is a problem as well. Think about it, why does healthcare insurance pay for basically every form of healthcare? Because for most it is a form of payment by the employers. It would be similar to car insurance paying for oil changes. Healthcare insurance should only pay for unplanned, expensive situations, rest out of pocket. That can be done if people bought their own plans as opposed to relying on employers. That will also solve other problems as well such as forcing insurance companies to compete, having people get the plans they want, and being able to move around on jobs.
The "pandemic" is a scam. This virus is not that dangerous. Now it is just being used to make people's lives miserable to try to beat Trump. But with college starting along with K-12 schools, when people start seeing not spread over the next couple of months, things will open up and the economy will quickly get going. And the economy doing great before the "pandemic" does matter. It means that the economy did not fall because of some flaw in the system but instead of government forcing shutdowns.
I do watch Kyle's videos. As Stephen Michael Davis said, Kyle only has 6 different arguments and just recycles them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrperfectisperfect0328 the virus is a scam. To start, deaths are overstated. 94% had comorbidities. 40% were in nursing homes. The vast majority were of people high risk of death to begin with.
Next evidence is that changes of standards. Many democrat ran states refuse to open up despite having low cases. In April NY as seeing around 11,000 cases a day Now they see around 700 since June, but they are not opening schools. They had around 300,000 active cases in June, now they are around 60,000. NJ saw around 4000 cases a day in April but now see around 300 and have since June. They were at 130,000 active cases a day in May, now they are at around 17,000, and they cannot even eat indoors.
The whole point of shut downs was to relieve our healthcare system. We did but many democrat ran states still want to lock down. Why? To keep people's lives miserable to try to beat Trump. Pelosi went into a hair salon and then blamed the owner.
The virus is real, it is that democrats are abusing the situation to try to beat Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
thefourshowflip, college is more expensive because of the federal loan program. That increased demand without increasing supply. We lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, etc. So colleges raised tuition. In my university we are increasing enrollment. We do not have enough TAs and professors and dorms. One of our new dorms was at 137% capacity recently. We are pushing for new offices but cant' get them. Some offices are over crowded.
I agree, universities spend a lot on things like chefs, but that is a drop in the bucket overall.
"With regards to cellphones and computers being a product of the free market...sure, but it really depends on where you draw the line. Keep going back to the start of the century and things like transistors and semi conductors were of so little interest that only pure scientific passion drove the research in university laboratories.."
We see that today, what is your point?
".bell labs could well have had the transistor (thanks to the genius claude Shannon) but they didn't even give a shit enough to patent it because they didn't see the potential...that's the problem with the free market--if there is no perceived demand"
That is not true. The free market sees demand. A rival company will always be creative to find a competitive edge. Again, the great things we have were because of the free market, not government.
"The free market is not a solution to all problems no matter how many times that is asserted. "
As a whole it is. For research the issue is that the government does fund a lot of it. So what private companies do is allow academics throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Private companies takes what sticks and improves on it. I work in research in academics. Most of what we do is almost pointless. However, in the big picture we are throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks. A creative private business will take what works and expand on it. In the end the free market produces the best where government doesn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skyblue9991 , scientists are not saying climate change is a "global emergency". They are not saying, as from Bernie's site
"that we have less than 11 years left to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, if we are going to leave this planet healthy and habitable for ourselves, our children, grandchildren, and future generations"
Because there is so much doubt. Such hard talking points have been criticized by climate scientists such as Mike Hulme, who recently published a nature paper on the dangers of a climate deadline, and Myles Allen, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report Bernie points to.
As for his plans, going to no fossil fuels in 11 years is not possible. Many people, especially in rural areas, will not switch to electric cars nor will have the capabilities to. Changing our buildings to be more energy efficient will not happen in 11 years as that radical changes in infrastructure takes a lot of time and will halt productivity. At my university they are redoing just one floor of the chemistry building. It is going to take 2 years and during the time many labs had to be moved and at times people simply have days they can't work because of construction.
1
-
1
-
@skyblue9991 Bioscience has an impact factor of around 5. Nature climate change has an impact factor of around 13. So it isn't about a single scientists. Popular Technology released a list of peer reviewed studies being skeptical of climate change. The title is
"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"
On your list, not all are scientist in the field of climate change. For example, one person was Alexander Ac, a post doc. Not a professor. Another one is a senior lecturer, not a researcher. There were PhD candidates listed. In all, that list of "scientists" is very vague. Some people did not have a title. Let me ask you, did you even read the list of signatures? One person, Andi Ahmad Yani, had no title. That can be the janitor for all I know.
Not to be rude but I feel you are just posting something without reading it. No wonder this paper was published in a journal of low impact.
I listed two scientists, one was the lead author of the IPCC report. The other published a paper in an higher impact journal.
As for Bernie's plan, I can tell you it is not doable. Changing our infrastructure that much too soon is not possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@applecatnyango rich on the authors' point when on the climate change consensus studies authors have commented in saying their work is misrepresented, to goes both ways. Why do you ignore that? Or ignore that the climate change consensus studies cherry pick papers and have loose definitions? Why? It goes both ways. To me it just underlines how complex this issues is, a stance I always take. That there is no clear path on this issue. So it comes back to how will a GND work? We do not know. So why radically change the economy with high doubt?
"So according to you "we" don't know about climate change enough to take immediate actions and laying foundations to move away from fossil fuel onto renewable energy, but non-virologist like YOU know without a shadow of doubt that COVID-19 isn't dangerous, without ever once talking about what lasting damage it could do to the survivors... therefore more cases are good? But when cases are down it's also good because it makes Trump admin look good?"
According to scientists we do not know much about climate change. On the virus it is showing not to be that deadly. In fact, it is now comparable to the Hong Kong flu of 1968, a time where we never shut down. So why shut down now? And other experts feel the virus is not that deadly such as Prof. John Ioannidis and Sucharit Bhakdi. But I guess ignore the, or better yet, censor them. Scary experts. And lasting damage? How often does it happen? And what were their health like to begin with? And how long does it last? What about the lasting damage of people dying from suicides, or kids not getting the proper education, or divorce? Or the lasting damage of substance abuse, and alcohol abuse? You ignore all of that. Why? Because when an issue become complex you refuse to dig deeper as you cannot think that far. As with climate change, you have a one track mind. Same here, you only focus on the virus, not other issues that are arising due to the lock downs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@applecatnyango I reply to a lot of comments as well. I never run away from a discussion. You have to understand I have a life as well. So it I post a comment and then have to do work, I can come back many hours later and may move onto another video, or cannot find the comment thread I was working on.
And which comment thread are you talking about? Point me to it an I will respond.
To answer the question, red states.
What is the point of your covid question?
"You're selectively discrediting the very source you claim to be accurately support your argument."
How? Because I accurately say deaths are overstated? We should discuss age and comorbidities.. According to the University of Minnesota around 40% of deaths with covid are in nursing homes. According to a report from UCSF around 50% of new nursing home patients die in 5 months. So of those 40% who died, even if they all survived the virus, statistically speaking half of them will be dead in 5 months anyway.
So this begs the question on if what we are doing is worth it? We are doing lock downs so that some old people live another 5 months. Meanwhile, substance abuse is up, depression is up, use of antidepressant is up. Zoloft, one of the 5 main SSRIs used in depression treatment was placed on the FDA shortage list. UT psychiatry professor Charles Nemeroff said he has never experienced a shortage in Zoloft in 35 years of treating patients.
I can use myself as an example. I have major depression disorder and I take Lexapro, another SSRI. I have been fine until recently. The shut downs occurred so I can no longer teach, go to bars, go to work, go to the gym, go to class, etc. I just sit at home. Well, doing so struck up my alcoholism I had in the past. I am now getting it back under control but with another antidepressant, trazodone.
But again, with covid you guys ignore all of that. People are suffering and for what, a virus that is not that deadly? That is my point. However, as with most far leftists you think in black and white.
I rather trust my MBA professors over some random source you did not cite. Also, taking risk means increased uncertainty.
"Sorry that you cannot grasp the very concept of citing the numbers from the source you ciaim to have read."
What numbers do you want? If you go to worldometer coronavirus you can look at different nations. In the US you can look at different states. Go near the bottom and you can see cases a day and you can see the 7 day average. It was 55,490 yesterday. Is it difficult for you to read charts? On July 21 it was 68,499.
And asking me to quote a book on a complex issue, that is a problem. These issues are so complex people spend time writing entire books on them. If an argument can be torn down by one quote, or if an issue can be solved by one quote people would not write books.
Again, problem with far leftists. They refuse to dig deeper on very complex issues and have a black and white mentality.
1
-
1
-
@applecatnyango On Cook's consensus study authors came out and said their work was misrepresented. Craig Idso, Nils-Axel Morner, Nicola Scafetta and Nir J. Shaviv. Richard Tol of the IPCC said of the work
"the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.”
And Oreskes' work was criticized in that they only looked at abstracts. The Nature paper entitled
"Modelling the Effects of Subjective and Objective Decision Making in Scientific Peer Review"
Talks about flaws in the practices.
Did I ever say keep carbon emissions high? No. You make it sound like I want to do nothing. I feel we should do change, but it can't be extreme where it will destroy the economy. Also, to feel that government has to be the one to solve it and the private sector can't is foolish as well.
Again, you are thinking purely in black and white.
"We do. FDR pulled it off."
And when was the last time it took a decade to recover from a recession? It did not help. Also, the GND is way beyond what FDR did. Eliminating and entire section of the economy is extreme. FDR never did that.
"It's not what low UA index means, but you still nevertheless claimed that us Americans are "risk-takers" by nature. What's with the defeatist mentality?"
Not to that extreme. Again, you are thinking black and white.
"And you always avoid mentioning things that we DO know about it."
That it is happening and has been for over 4 billion years.
"Define "deadly" then. Let's see how your standards apply to this virus."
A Penn State study mentioned how the virus is not that lethal, just highly contagious. That it spreads fast, but not highly lethal. Also, even with around 50,000 cases we are seeing low deaths. The recovery rate continues to climb and has steadily since March 24 and has been positive since April 16. If it is so deadly how is the recovery rate going up?
"n what way is it comparable to that pandemic? Be specific.
P.S.: "Hong Kong" flu killed approximately 33,800 Americans within six months, meanwhile Covid-19 has killed over than 150,000 within the same timespan."
It was said to kill over 100,000. In proportion of our population that is the same as we are seeing now. And again, the death count of covid is overstated as I mentioned. And the Hong Kong flu killed a million world wide, more than covid. So yes, they are comparable.
"His intial analysis exluded contagion factor, which makes his theory just as incomplete as the "missing data" he complains about.
The contagion factor of this virus is far greater than influenza that he used as comparison, so if you don’t take measures to slow the spread you get a higher death rate because you can’t treat all the sick at once. Also, Covid-19’s viral shed factor is 1,000 times greater than influenza, and it’s peak shed is during incubation when many times there are asymptomatics (as opposed to influenza, which peaks after it settles into the lungs).
Not to mention his initial prediction of "10,000 influenza-like deaths" was way off the mark"
Just like Fauci's 2 million? Also, you do not need to slow the spread of people are recovery and if treatment is available, which is where we are at now. Cases are double what they were in April but deaths are low. You always seem to avoid that point.
"Without any evidence, he claims that only 1% of those infected get sick and, in the worst case, 30 people per day die of COVID-19... contradicting the information provided by the Robert Koch Institue and the situation in Italy and Spain. Also without any study or evidence, he attributes the higher death rates in Wuhan and Italy to air pollution and environmental influences.
Apparently he was interviewed by a known German conspiracy theorist named Ken Jebsten, basically giving the crook science legitimacy. Yikes."
What do you mean no evidence? Also, what about the doctors at the white coat summit? What about the Bakersfield doctors. Why do we only listen to Dr. Fauci who does nothing but fear monger? You are pulling every excuse out of the book. It really shows how antiscience you are in that you take this complex issue and make it black and white. How is this virus dangerous compared to what we are doing now? Depression is up, suicides are up, etc.
"They're not censored, just ignored by the masses for being baseless fringe contrarian I already laid out above."
No, censored. But Fauci is not censored despite him doing nothing but fear monger. First it were deaths. Then he shifts to not opening up too soon. Then it were cases even though deaths are low. Now recently, even with cases dropping, he says we are going about this wrong and we need to wear goggles. He is a hack. Tell me, why do we listen to Fauci? Care to give me reasons why he should be listened to? As I laid out he is a fear mongering hack that, for the first time in his life, got the camera placed on him and he is enjoying it.
Ok, so no evidence of lasting effects.
"You always resort to whataboutism to derail the discussion. I smell desperation."
What? This is literally happening right now. Again, an antidepressant was placed on the FDA's shortage list. The use of antidepressant is up.
Again, everything is black and white with you. Actions have on consequences according to you. These lockdowns are not causing an uptick in depression and suicides according to you. Just focus on the virus as you do not have the ability to think about anything else as it is too complex.
"But it's you who immediately resigned to your partisan assumption that GND cannot work, without giving it further thoughts. You just revel in your lack of intellectual curiosity and let "we don't know" be end of discussion."
I did. Pushing to completely remove an entire section of the market will destroy it. What will do you with workers in the fossil fuel industry? You may say "give them jobs', ok, what? Will they be trained for it? Are they able to be trained for it? Many renewable energy sources and jobs required different skills that can take years to developed. I know someone who is a petroleum engineer, has an advanced degree for it that took years to get and works for BP. Do you think he can just transfer to another job in renewable energy that easily?
It seems you have put zero thought into it. You feel that it can just pass with no negative consequences. Just as with the lock downs. You feel they should be done and no negative consequences will come from it despite the evidence. But I remember, you do not care if someone dies of suicide as long as they do not die from the virus.
"Your entire shtick is just sowing doubt and halt any notion to change, without actually providing solutions yourself. "
Because you never fully picked my brain. I have solutions, but with people here I have to first pull them away from their far left positions and create doubt that their radical ideas will actually work. And when I do that I become attacked like you are doing now. You never once asked me, on any of these positions, my ideas and potential solutions.
"Had we followed the necessary safety guidelines, we could've settled with just temporary partial shutdown and taken the time to get the virus' spread under control by ramping up testing from the start."
What makes you say that? This virus is new but is shown to be very contagious. That is why I feel lock downs do not work with this virus. With others maybe, but not this one. Case in point, CA had strict lockdowns and were first, never seen a drop in cases. So I see little evidence that following some guidelines would have prevented the spread. But instead lockdowns increased depression, substance abuse, domestic abuse, etc. All of which you ignore and you do not care if someone commits suicide.
1
-
@applecatnyango in a perfect example with you being one track mind, on the virus, you feel the virus is dangerous and shutdowns are necessary, but refuse to consider the negative consequences that are arising from the shutdowns. Them being increase in antidepressant use. As I said, I know this personally as I just been placed on another antidepressant with the one I am already on. Increase in depression, increase in suicide rate, people not being able to pay rent.
Or the fact that schools are not opening up. Kids are going to be harmed in their learning. I was just talking about this today with people I know. One guy was saying that him and his wife have flexible jobs and can work at home and give their kids all the technology they need. But as he said, he is the exception, not the rule. What about poor families with 4 kids, what makes you think they have 4 computers? Or special needs kids who need specialized education?
You do not think about any of those negative consequence. Maybe because it does not deal with you. But they are real. And a discussion needs to be made is that all of what we are doing is necessary for a virus that is not as deadly as we thought? Or that, at least, the message from people like Fauci should change. Because when he says the virus is not going anywhere, and our approach is not work, then why still do it? Why not go back to normal?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@applecatnyango ok
"That's a you problem."
Not really. Love having discussions.
"You made excuse to not debate BuckeyeOwl via Discord and you actually told that to me instead of the respective person. So, did the debate happen already?"
What is discord?
"You think you're the only one? Cheesus Crust."
No, sometimes life gets in the way.
"Ad HAMMERS Trump For Healthcare Failure."
Ok, I will look for it. Found it and responded. There.
"You're obviously ignoring the undiagnosed deaths caused by Covid-19 attributed to Pneumonia."
Does not exist.
"So they still died from covid-19 anyway, even if they don't have long. This is not an argument to exclude them from the total death tolls. You're just reaching."
It is as it is part of the discussion. This is a part of healthcare that we need to discuss, along with our economy. Even if we were to give them care statistically speaking they would die soon anyway. So the question becomes is what we are doing worth it? The economy is shut down. Many businesses will never reopen again. Depression is up, suicide rates are up (which you continue to ignore). And for what? So an 80 year old person can live another 3 months?
This is, once again, showing you cannot understand the complexity of an issue. If someone dies with covid you are saying it is purely from covid and nothing else. You are ignoring all other factors. Also, you are ignoring all other consequences on what we are doing such as suicides being up.
"What happens to the other 50%?"
On average, they die in 14 months.
I have to ask, is death a new concept to you? Have you never heard of people dying before covid?
"What a roundabout way to say it's okay to cull the old and weak to save money and resources."
This happens all the time. Consider driving. 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. To make that number to be zero we can ban driving, so why don't we?
"So that the younger relatives of these people wouldn't have to live with the fact that they infected their parents/grandparents with covid-19 and sent them to early graves. Survivor guilt is a thing."
Again, statistically speaking they would have died soon anyway. My grandma died at 83. My other grandparents are in their 90s are are failing. Death is a part of life. If my grandparents were to die right now I will simply say "well, they were 90 and lived a long life". Again, I ask of you, is death a novel concept to you? Have you never realized that people die in life? At this point I feel you never experienced death. I attended a funeral of a 5 year old girl who died in a car accident. By your standard I should push to ban driving.
"Everyone is in the same boat except our politicians and their rich donors."
I can agree with that.
"
People say until they actually catch it. Being on the young side doesn't guarantee you surviving it unscathed."
I know people who are young who had covid and were fine. Being young means the chances of death are basically zero.
Again, rather trust my MBA professors who have multiple papers, not some random source.
"This broken system only gives us two options:
- Expose ourselves to the virus without compensation and endanger everyone around us, especially older relatives just to make a living
- Rot at home because our government would rather bail out big businesses that can take hit instead of helping us"
Here you go again with the black and white option. This virus is not that dangerous. More and more people are realizing that. I am interacting with the public now more often and I am seeing more people looking at these protocols and saying "screw it". For example, I was at a division I football scrimmage recently. The players, if they did not have their helmet on the sideline were supposed to wear their face coverings that were under their shoulder pads. Less than half were. Of their helmets they had eye shields, which is common, but they also had plastic shields on their masks. I asked them if they liked it and they said it made it hard to breath. Overall, the vast majority of players do not agree with what is going on. Now expand that to the entire nation. The nation does not agree with the actions we are doing. People want to open up and go back to normal.
"How would anyone know that when you say "cases are dropping" you're actually referring to 7-days average??
What makes you think the cases aren't being under-reported?"
What makes you think cases are under reported?
"Then you probably shouldn't have brought up a book to back up your online argument when you have no direct access to it for citation purpose."
Again, if an issue or an argument can be settled by a simple quote, why write a book on it? You are proving that you cannot think deeply on complex issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tetrapack24 , doesn't matter. He took the financial risk to create that company and that job and despite competition he succeeded. It was him having that desire to succeed. Yes, there were workers involved, but it was him taking the risk.
Take the extreme route, and I will use myself as an example. I am earning my PhD. I put in the work. There are two points there.
1. Even with the janitor keeping the building clean, or someone building it, or facilities running the campus, in the end I am the one doing the work to earn my PhD. Other people can to it but I am instead.
2. Even with out all those workers I will find a way. If we were in a situation where there were no buildings, roads, workers, etc., than I will find a way to get things done. That is back to the old times where people took their land, built their own cabin, farmed their own crops, etc.
Either way, he is a self made man. If one of those 3 million workers don't want to work he will find a new one. In comparison to me again, my K-12 classmates received the same education I did. They could have went to the same college. They could have studied as hard as I did. They didn't. Someone else could have took the financial risk to create a Starbucks but didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zack West, I never said everyone else were nuts. But when I present facts and people deny them, it makes me wonder. I also see why some people end up acting like trolls.
"For one, quote-mining is a huge problem, with a wider issue of taking quotes out of context. You do both"
Quote mining is not a problem. I do it to show that I do read what others write and I break it down point by point.
"In previous arguments with you, you've repeatedly taken my parts of what I said and twisted them to suit your narrative. "
Care to give examples?
" Even now, you try to paint me as a zealot, when time and time again,
I've had respectable arguments with people on the other side of the
political spectrum, or those of other ideologies who disagree with me,
like centrists, syndicalists, socialists, etc.. You don't know anything
about me, but you love crafting bogus narratives to discredit people."
Because you called me a troll with zero justification.
""People die for lots of reasons. Nothing is ideal. 45,000 people is only 0.01% [sic] of the population. I do not see a problem.""
I stand by that statement. 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. How do you make that number to be zero? The reality is you can't unless you ban driving. People are looking at that value but not putting it in proper perspective. For one, no country has that number at zero. Every country has a system with shortcomings where people die. Considering it is 0.01% of the population and comparable to other deaths (traffic accidents for example), I have a hard time seeing that as a major problem. Should we push in making that number zero? Yes. But anymore there comes a point where there will always be flaws. There will always be shortcomings, especially when standards are raised.
Next, that number is deceptive as you cannot get an accurate measure on that issue. Those individuals are poor and there is a correlation between being poor and being in bad health due to personal choices such as higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes. So did they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with?
I do not see that 45,000 to be a major problem to begin with. I do support pushing to make that number to be zero. But there are a couple things you need to at least consider in my argument
1. No country has that number at zero, period
2. at the very least you need to give these numbers in the proper perspective. People here throw that number out there as if it is an example of our healthcare system being a disaster but fail to look at counter arguments against it. I am not saying that our healthcare system does not have problems. I am saying that using that value and considering all variables you cannot, at the very least, say we have a major problem.
"For numerous reasons, I found your statement to be inhumane, unintelligible, and ineludibly wrong."
And why? Here is the issue. You cannot explain why. I explained why I stand by that statement. I have asked repeatedly how do you make that 45,000 to be zero? Give me the solution and you, along with others, failed to deliver. Again, it is not that I do not want that number to be zero, I do. But I live in reality. I would like for teleportation to exist and for us to be using fusion as an energy source, but we can't. The ideal healthcare system where everyone is covered at a high rate and at a low price does not exist. Every system has shortcomings leading to people's deaths. I understand that so I put the numbers in the proper perspective by considering all the variables. When I do that I do not consider that 45,000 to be a problem. I see it as a shortcoming that exist in all systems.
But please, tell me how you would make that number to be zero. Until you do what I see is a person who cannot argue against what I say and thus will resort to name calling. I feel bad for people dying early due to lack of coverage. But again, until there is a way to make that number zero, it is something we have to deal with.
"When the counter "When is it too many? One million? Two? Three?" was
raised, you just ignored it and kept with your initial stance that you
clearly know is patently untrue."
I did not ignore it because in the end you cannot make that number to be zero. How much is too much? I cannot really say. But as I said, I compared it to traffic deaths. That 45,000 is close to that value. But even at that, I pose you the same question. Why is 45,000 too much when we cannot make that number to be zero? To me 0.01% of the population is minute especially considering how you cannot get an accurate number to begin with.
1
-
Zack West, you called me names but never justified your stance. Here is my question to you on that issue. How do you make that 45,000 to be zero? Also, do you understand why you cannot get an accurate value in that case?
The fact is that when you realize you cannot make that number to be zero, and that finding how many die due to lack of access to healthcare is a challenging number to find to begin with, your argument falls apart. Considering those variables along with others I do not see that 45,000 to be a problem. Again, I feel bad for them dying, but I also feel bad for people dying in traffic accidents. I do not push to ban driving, I realize it is a price to pay in allowing it. Just like 45,000 deaths (which again is a hard number to accurately get) is a price to pay with our healthcare system which provides many benefits.
It isn't about me being inhumane, it is me realizing reality and understanding economics.
But I ask you again, how do you make that number to be zero?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carll231 yes, deaths are overstated. Yes, 94% were comorbidities. That means the death rate is much lower. Or this, according to the University of MN 40% of the dead were in nursing homes. According to UCSF 50% of new nursing home patients die within 5 months. That means basically most of those 40% will be dead by this time anyway to begin with. So here we are making people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, etc. suffer with higher suicide rates, higher divorce rates, higher substance abuse use rate, businesses going under, and for what? For a virus that has an over 99% chance of surviving from.
Also, why do the goal posts keep moving? First it was lower cases and relive our hospitals, but it isn't that anymore. Take NY, They peaked at around 11,000 cases a day, since june they been study at around 500 a day. The went from nearly 300,000 active cases to around 60,000. But yet they refuse to open back up.
You can't just throw numbers out there and expect them to mean anything. Guess what, people die, what a novel concept.. Sorry death is a new thing for you. I attended a funeral of 5 year old girl who died in a car accident, but I do not support banning driving.
I am so sorry you never lost anyone in your life. Must be great. But others have and they know how to handle death and not let it stop them.
1
-
1
-
@JohnnyCageRock yes it did. Again, home ownership went up, was stagnant prior. Worker participation went up, was stagnant prior. Wages went up. The economy was doing better. The only people who it was not doing better for are people who simply do not want to work.
Business love to expand. It gives them more flexibility. You never read up on running a business. If you higher the bare minimum you place yourself at risk of losing an employee and now having to pick up their hours. The owner picks up the hours. Instead they hire more so they can be flexible. Plus, it is more of income taxes being lower so spending goes up..
I explained the kids in cages situation. I guess you support drug dealers dragging kids in the desert and then leaving them after they cross the border.
I explained the wall as well as democrats do not support giving DACA citizenship.
Doesn't matter. You are denying what he said in February when he said this virus was going to cause no harm. Trump admitted masks are good. He literally gave a press conference showing his mask off. Do you even keep up to date on the issues? Besides, a point is that no one is following any other guidelines. I was at a casino this weekend and guess what, all slot machines were full and large crowds of now one social distancing. So what is point? Or how many democrat governors and mayors are not following guidelines to reopen. Since June NY has seen low daily cases active cases dropped nearly 80%. But they still refuse to open up
So states like NY, NJ, MI, IL? All ran by democrats. Plus, do you know the limited powers of the federal government? Have you took an civics or political science course in your life? He had no power to do a federal order.
I am sorry that you have to work under Trump's economy and just receive Obamabucks, life is hard.
1
-
1
-
@JohnnyCageRock prior to the scamdemic home ownership was going up. In fact, this scamdemic really proves how successful Trump is. It took democrats using a virus as a pathetic excuse to shut down economies and make lives miserable. Trump as so successful that democrats had no other way to beat him, so they took this virus and overblown it. But now that is not working as more and more people are seeing cases drop and that this virus is not that deadly.
How does worker participation go up if jobs are being outsourced? You are clearly not understanding the issue.
"You don't hire people if you can't afford them"
Sure, but with the tax cuts more people had more money thus they were spending more. And thus companies had more money to hire more. Amazing concept really.
A lawfirm will expand if they can. In fact, companies like that want to expand so they do not have all their eggs in one basket. And hiring more interns looks good for the company and gives them more options to possibly hire one of them. Why do NFL teams bring in 90 players during preason even though they can dress less than 50 during games? They have more options to look at increasing their possibility of finding the best players.
Your concept of how business operates is very weak.
A bank will provide a loan when the economy is strong. The tax cuts lead to that.
People live paycheck to paycheck because of poor money management. And that is the point. Yes, the tax cuts led to them having more money and guess what, they spent it. Very few save money in the big picture. People get their money and want to enjoy it. It isn't just the poor, it is almost everyone. Most people do not understand the concept of money, nor the economy itself. Thus those that do, like Trump, establish a situation to have the economy get better. The downfall of the situation is that you have people like democrats that take advantage of these useful idiots. Example, the scamdemic. Many on the left felt we can simply lock down and hand out checks to people and they will be fine. The economy is not that simple. Someone, in the end, will have to leave lock down and produce.
That is why the paycheck to paycheck argument is weak, very weak.
Sure, they put them in "cages" is you want to stretch the definition of a cage. But you admitted you support drug dealers dragging them through the desert, using them to cross the border, and then leaving them to die. You blame Trump for what was going one when that was the process during the Obama years. Funny how no one brought up that issue until Trump was president. But hey, you admitted you support drug dealers kidnapping kids.
Democrats denied protection for DACA because they did not want to give Trump money for the wall. Also, when they had control during the Obama years, why didn't they give DACA people citizenship?
You seem to be blindly following democrats. You ignore the fact that Obama also put kids in "cages" or how democrats, when in power, never tried to give DACA people citizenship.
You have serious TDS.
Fauci is a fraud. First it was it was not that bad. Then it was over 2 million was going to die and all about deaths. Then when deaths dropped it was about how we should not open back up too soon. Things were fine and then cases went up even though deaths were low. Fauci said we were heading in the wrong direction and could see a 100,000 cases a day (we never did). But deaths were still low. Cases mean nothing if deaths are low. When cases started to drop again he said we did it all wrong and that we need to wear goggles. He also said recently the virus is not going away. If that it case we should go back to life and just deal with it.
Overall, Fauci just fear mongered the entire time. No actual positive news and progress to get people to keep fighting. He never gave the full story, he just fear mongered. Trump at least started to give positive progress on the virus and positive news. That encourages people to keep taking precautions. When you just fear monger like Fauci did you create three camps of people, those that live in irrational fear, those who are confused, and those who are like "fuck it, I going back to living life".
Many complain how there are people who refuse to wear mask and social distance or lock down. Why? Because you had people like Fauci and democrats who just fear mongered and never gave the full story. Thus you have people like me who stopped listening.
A time of crisis is conflict with foreign enemies. With the virus every state experienced it differently. When NY was being hit hard South Dakota never locked down. Why should South Dakota lock down just because NY was being hit hard? Just look at it now. The state of FL is opened up, they are fine. They handled it fine. Or even early on, GA was the first state to open back up and they were fine. Why should they remain locked down? You can't create a one size fits all policy.
Besides, it is clear at this point no matter what Trump did people like you will blame him no matter what. What it is a moot point.
I am safe in the US. What's your point? Trump created a great nation. It took democrats, who had absolutely zero policies, to overblow a virus to try to beat Trump. It is not working. That shows who strong Trump is. Democrats have no idea how to beat him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" With regard to the "taxed twice" argument, how about you consider it as a tax on the inheritors, rather than the deceased?"
In which I agree. I did say that I see the other side's argument in this. But with that why not call it income and tax it as income?
" Capitalism works because people are paid to be useful. Inheritance does not follow this rule, "
It does as many do give their inheritance to people and kids they like and, for the most part, feel are useful. Being "useful" is subjective in many ways. If I have a business and I feel my kid can run it well that is "useful" to me which is why I will give it to them.
"(Anyway, wouldn't it be taxing twice to tax both income and consumption, as you advocate?)"
No, as consumption is choice. You don't have to spend your money. Now that is not practical, but again, you don't have to.
"When you tax a company's inheritance, you do not have to cut back
on the company: you can either get a loan (which should be easy if the
company's already established and profitable) or sell shares."
Most companies don't have shares, and those shares if they do have them would be valued less due to the money they have to pay. Also, pulling out a loan is not always ideal. Companies work on thin profit margins to begin with. Asking them to pull out a loan can bankrupt them.
"After all, the demand and supply which the company deals with has not
changed, so it's not like the company's going to lose revenue."
You added another expense, they will lose revenue.
"On top of that, if your kids would be that much better at running the
company (the only reason to "trust" them with it) than other
shareholders,"
Again, not every company runs on shares. You are acting like Bernie Sanders and Kyle as if this only influences the mega rich and billionaires and corporations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gusmarin6031 , poll are irrelevant as no debate has taken place. And pointing to polls of his policies is flawed for two reasons, one, they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. For example, while a M4A system may be popular on the surface, when you take those same people being polled and give them an advanced education on healthcare, tell them that taxes will go up, accessibility and quality will drop, and they will lose their current plan, chances are support will drop. The second issue is that polls don't show how passionate people are on the issue. They may support it in a poll but not in the voting booth.
As for his plans, they are not detailed. Take allowing prisoners to vote. Say someone from CA is placed in Leavenworth in KS. When they vote do they vote as a citizen of CA or as a citizen of KS? Take tuition free college, how will he handle the NCAA? How will he handle enrollment? Say everyone in AZ wants to attend ASU? Cost is no longer a factor so people may do that. With eliminating student loan debt how will he handle the law suits of those who paid off their loans? With M4A at what point will he cap healthcare to keep cost low?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Adrian, I don't have twitter for personal reasons. Also, he will most likely listen to his fans, especially if several contact him.
On this video there are two points. One, when he says that 83% of the tax cuts went to the rich that is because the rich pay the vast majority of taxes to begin with. The bottom 47% pay no federal income taxes to begin with. You can't cut from zero. He called that giving them a corporate welfare check. Allowing people and companies to keep the money they earned is not giving them a check.
Next, the current deficit is around 4.8% of GDP, that is normal based on past deficit rates. During Obama's first couple years the deficit was around 8% of GDP and under the democrat Congress it was higher. So the current deficit is normal. Also, this is the first year of the tax cuts. You first cut and then growth happens. It is taking a step back before going forward. Give it time before criticizing. So considering how the tax cuts just happened and have not had time to go into full effect, and the current deficit is around the average, this is not a big deal. Those are facts that Kyle, and the political left, are either ignoring or simply don't know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Olivia P , the study gave a range from $32 trillion to over $50 trillion. In the abstract it gave the $32 trillion as the conservative estimate and admitted that it will most likely be higher. Here
"The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, the Medicare for All Act
(M4A), would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by
approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031),
assuming enactment in 2018. This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would
equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022, rising to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031
and further thereafter. Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income
tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. It is likely that
the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume
significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare
providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than
those currently paid by private health insurance."
So no, the study does not say that. Also, it does not factor in quality and access. Medicare has a 40% less payment. With that access and quality will drop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Being blunt this is where you are wrong. BLM was rioting and vandalizing private businesses that had nothing to do with policing in this nation. How does burning down a Wendy's lead to police reform? Also, BLM riots were going on for months. What happened on Jan. 6th was a one time event. And even at that, it was people angry at our government and they went after the government, not private businesses.
As for situations like "justice for George Floyd" or Breonna Taylor, the issue is that BLM is jumping to conclusion on these issues before there is an investigation and a trial. Look at Jakob Blake. There were riots over his shooting where evidence showed he was told by police to stop, he kept walking to his car, he opened his car door and got a knife and then was shot. However, riots started over him in the name of "injustice". BLM are wrong more times than they are correct on these issues, that is why many don't take them seriously. On the George Floyd situation, the knee on the neck look bad. However, he was high on drugs, he was in bad health and thus was at high risk of a heart attack. It does not mean what Derek did was correct. If it was typical police action then you look to change that, not punish Derek. And even if what he did was wrong does not mean it was an act of racism. Look up Tony Timpa, very similar situation.
So no, what BLM is doing is not just.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Agentmax5000 we are not fully open, nowhere close. Restaurants cannot profit off of 25% capacity so millions are still out of work. Also, the economy does not have to tank, not to this degree. We make decisions in life all the time that go as far as to leading to people dying, but we still allow it as any, radical alternative will destroy the economy and millions of lives. Take driving for example.
The economic and psychological damage done from these lock downs exceed any damage the virus would have done at this point. Even those at risk, nursing home patients, are saying they rather die from covid than be alone. Life is more than just a heart beat.
As for the case numbers going up, it is people are done. They do not care. When the narrative changes everyday and that narrative is fear mongering all the way, people just say "screw it". Because if the virus is not going away as Fauci said, if things are not getting better as the media says, than what we are doing with the lock downs are pointless. Thus people are going to live life.
1
-
@rogalos2459 he did a travel ban and was called a racist. He created a task force as well. Him downplaying it was to prevent a panic. Great leaders understand that panicking is the most contagious thing ever. The leader panics all panic and the issue becomes worse.
Other nations are seeing a second spike larger than their first, nations like the UK, France, Italy, Spain, etc.
People are done with this virus. The CDC released a report entitled
"Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020"
they say
"Although more excess deaths have occurred among older age groups, relative to past years, adults aged 25–44 years have experienced the largest average percentage increase in the number of deaths from all causes from late January through October 3, 2020. The age distribution of COVID-19 deaths shifted toward younger age groups from May through August (9); however, these disproportionate increases might also be related to underlying trends in other causes of death."
That age range makes up 3% of the population. So what are they dying from? Substance abuse, suicides, depression, etc. So while we save grandma so she can live 2 more months, people with decades of life in front of them are dying due to the economic and psychological damage from these lock downs. And you can blame Trump, but why is NY still refusing to open up? Same with NJ, CA, ,etc. Newsome just placed restrictions on Thanksgiving gatherings despite CA seeing low cases and deaths. Why?
People are done because the entire narrative has been nothing but fear mongering. First it was deaths, then it was "don't open up too soon", then it was only cases as deaths are still low. Now it is "wear masks" even though deaths are still low. Nursing home patients are saying they rather die from covid than be alone.
Life is dangerous, people know that. This virus was pushed to make people's lives miserable to try to make Trump look bad. We have had a handle on this virus for months now. Deaths are low. Why are we still under lock down?
"no sense left denying what the scientists and doctors are telling us."
There are doctors out there saying this virus is not that dangerous. Even the CDC contradicts themselves. Sorry, but when the only "doctors" given media attention are fear mongering propagandists like Fauci people stop listening.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , the highest marginal tax rate was meaningless. As Joseph Barb said in the 60s in 1967 there were 155 Americans who, at that time, earned over $200,000 that year that paid zero dollars in federal taxes. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was passed which instituted the minimum tax.
"The vast majority cannot make more than min. wage because min. wage comprises the vast majority of positions. "
That is 100% false. But if it is true, please give me a source for that.
"You said you cited a paper that claimed min. wage workers all live with richer families. "
No, they live in households with another earner to where they are not poor. Here is the title of the paper
"Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50Federal Minimum Wage Really Help theWorking Poor?"
Where they say
" Moreover, the proposal to raise the federalminimum wage to$9.50 per hour is unlikely to be any better at reducing poverty because (i) most workers (89.0%)who are affected are not poor, (ii) many poor workers (48.9%) already earn hourly wagesgreater than $9.50 per hour, and (iii) the minimum wage increase is likely to cause adverseemployment effects for the working poor."
"That's like arguing that vaccines cause autism when you do not really believe that. Both sides is not an argument, you may as well take flat earthers seriously if that's the case."
I love how you guys run to that when shoved in a corner. Many issues are complex where there are experts on both sides that disagree. On flat earth there is nothing to support that idea, same with vaccines causing autism. You pick two examples to deflect. I am literally shoving you in a corner on these issues and instead of taking them on you deflect. Show me proof that most jobs are min. wage jobs? I will wait.
"then when you get challenged by the appeal to authority fallacy, you then say they do not make ultimate decisions and do not really have to support it, and finally move the goalposts back about bragging about them like an elementary student."
Because this is how experts act. Nothing is certain. There are arguments to be made on both sides. I recommend you read these studies. I recommend you read studies from academics and see their tone. It shows why I am so far ahead of the game when I debate you. You literally made a claim that is not true. But please, if you can, show me how most jobs are min. wage jobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , the minimum tax rate has it so the rich has to pay a certain amount no matter how many write offs.
Again, give me a source. You are making the claim. I gave you a source. According to BLS the median weekly earnings is around $814 week. Gallup has people working around 47 hours a week. That is the highest value I know. So $814/47 hours a week is around $17/hr. So, on the median, over half of the nation earns $17/hr or more. But hey, you don't care about facts.
"Pooling their money is a form of communism you denounce all the time."
That is on their own free will. I support that. What's your point?
"Taking household size into account, they would still be poor."
No it doesn't. When I was earning the min. wage my dad was earning $60,000 a year.
Two examples is not enough. You gave two examples when we are talking about multiple issues. Plus, I do not bring up those issues. Bernie does not bring up flat earth or anti-vaxxers. Neither have I. So you are deflecting.
"You only use experts when it is convenient. If they do not support it, then it is not a side,"
I agree there are experts on both sides. I cited Ben Bernanke where I did not agree with his actions as the Fed Chair. However, I understand his arguments and I can admit he is very intelligent.
"show me how most jobs are high wage jobs. "
I just did, very easily. And yes, college starts for me Tuesday. I am taking three courses for my MBA and I have to teach a chemistry lab. I am excited. How does it make you feel that I am going to get an MBA, a PhD in physical chemistry and will be teaching students?
1
-
@EE-gv9wt , under Bernie's M4A system private care will be banned. Read the bill.
Denmark, like other Nordic nations, is free market, they admit it. They have lower regulations, lower corporate taxes, and a free market in wage negotiation. They pay for their welfare system by taxing their citizens more. And no, the government does not make the collective bargain. That is called "crony unionism" which is what destroyed unions in the US. Too much government destroyed unions in the US.
I gave you examples of nations with no min. wage.
Yes, it matters if everyone is affected. The government taxes us for our entire life and then gives us the money back as opposed to letting us keep it. Also, most people have old people in their lives that if influenced by Medicare. These programs don't get reduced because of that. There is a reason why the Federal Reserve and SC justices are not elected, they have to make very unpopular decisions that are bad in the short term but good in the long term. Paul Volcker raised interest rates in the late 70s to slow down inflation. It cost Carter the election as the economy tanked in the short term, but became strong in the long term.
"'m talking actual measurements of healthcare standards, you know, those that put us under costa rica, barely in the top 40?"
What stats? You have to give me some. I gave you stats. Again, read Scott Atlas's book on that. We lead the world in access to advanced are and survival rates of advanced care. I feel that is important. If I have some advanced illness like a heart problem I want a system where my chances of survival are high. The US has just that. What stats are you talking about though?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Logically progressive most like their private insurance and it does not kick ill people off. Medicare, however, limits what care you can get. Also, a hospital cannot force you out, even if you can't pay. That is one reason why healthcare is so expensive in the US, many receive it and don't pay. Also, Medicare limits how much one can stay in the hospital. Do you even now how Medicare works
Far leftists like yourself will complain about government doing wrong but then turn around and say you want more.. As I always say, far leftists are like an abused partner in a relationship. They are abused so their solution is to marry the person thinking that will stop it, but it gets worse. So they have a kid, but it gets worse, so they have another, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheMCPlayer2003, the constitution can be changed. As a strict constructionist myself I support changing the constitution if necessary. To me term limits limits the power of the federal government as it prevents career politicians messing up society. As for voting, when you have a politician that is deceptive or develops a way to misinform the people basically keeping them dumb it is easy to keep winning.
"econdly, Term limits does not equal less corruption. A corrupt person that has been in office and is term limited could just advocate for another person they think will continue their policies, and that person could just get elected who would represent another term of that corrupt politician essentially making it useless"
But here is the thing. That next person has to be just as good of a politician as the previous person was. Why do you see a constant change in party in the presidency? We had Bush (R), Clinton (D), Bush (R), Obama (D), Trump (R). By your opinion we should be having just one party controlling the presidency election after election. However, that is not the case. While term limits does not guarantee a change, it does go a long way in making it.
"Again, if you are not corrupt and you are popular among your people, then you should deserve another term. "
But what if you are corrupt and deceptive and fool people in voting for you all the time?
"America had to choose between the two most unpopular candidates in history."
Which can happen which is why there is a lot of restrictions on government. Also, that is why there are term limits. If you flat out suck you will eventually be booted no matter what.
The idea is this, if politicians are forced to live in the society they influence after their time they will act differently. If Bernie Sanders were forced to get a job after being a Senator and no longer have healthcare provided by the people he will act differently towards healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojoboko6990 , you don't seem to have much knowledge on the NCAA. I worked in college athletics during my undergrad so I know a lot about this.
First off, the athletes at larger schools are paid with a free education, free gear, food (mostly during season), tutoring, etc. Next, most colleges won't be able to afford to pay athletes because they don't make enough money. With the exception of football and basketball in major programs like Alabama (football) or Duke (men's basketball), these programs make almost nothing or may operate at a loss. How much does the women's tennis team bring in?
Also, Title IX has it so that every athlete has to be paid the same. So if the QB of Alabama gets money the backup catcher for the softball team has to be paid the same amount. So those are major reasons why college athletes are not paid.
Now besides that, the scholarship limits are there to for two majors reasons
1. To separate the schools from large ones to smaller ones
and
2. To prevent large schools from hoarding all the talent
Basically, it is a competitive balance issue. Just like the salary cap in football. Take football for example, Division I has 85 full ride scholarships so they can bring in 85 athletes and give them a full ride. Thus they bring in the best talent. In division II they have 36 full ride scholarships. Now they can split that up if they want to so that two athletes get a half ride, and typically they do that as they have, at least, 60 roster spots to fill and want them on scholarships, so they do. Thus division II cannot attract better talent because of that. They essentially "pay" athletes less with lower scholarships. But they still have a program.
Another restriction is that if you are a scholarship athlete in one sport in order to play for another sport you have to be on scholarship on that sport as well. For example, if you are on a football scholarship in Alabama in order for you to run track you have to be on scholarship to run track as well. That prevents big schools from hoarding all the talent, such as giving out a bunch of fast guys track scholarships, having them play WR in football and use the free up scholarship for other positions.
Now with all that said, how do you account for the NCAA in tuition free college? Without scholarship limits big schools like Alabama and Clemson will just attract the best athletes with their amazing facilities. And smaller schools like Central Missouri and Ferris State won't be able to get anything kind of athlete thus they will have to shut down their program down hurting opportunities for many students, not just student athletes.
So tell me, how do you account for the NCAA in tuition free college?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojoboko6990 , you will be changing people's lives drastically against their will. Look at how many people vote for politicians on the basis they will bring factory jobs back. Whether or not that happens is a different story, but look at how they vote. Why? Because they don't want a new job. They don't want to train for a new one. At the age of 30 or 40 where they have a home and a family they don't want a new job. They don't want to move. If they did then they would be pursuing more training to find higher paying jobs and move, but they don't.
Consider this, in my small town from K-12 I went to school with 52% of the same students. Out of my graduating class I went to school since kindergarten with 52% of them. And that does not include the ones who went to the private K-8 school before going to the only high school in the town. Well over 60% of the people I graduated with went to K-12 in the same town. They did not move. That puts into perspective how people just want to settle.
People losing their jobs because of market forces is minute compared to what this medicare for all bill will do. Plus, people in that position are typically low skilled and work unstable jobs to begin with. They are not a part of the middle class with stable job, so it is not a solid comparison.
Are people's lives being ruined because of the current healthcare system? We have had this debate and I have stated that it could be because of life choices. Also, is medicare for all the best route? I feel a free market system will work better and will not lead to this massive job loss. I am all for improving the healthcare system and I feel we can do so without killing many jobs.
The government is killing the job, I don't agree with that. That is government telling people they have to change their lives drastically.
Shapiro is a person who pushes for success, that is his mentality. But I bet you that he will support people settling and living out their life in one place as he understands the common man like most on the right do. A major problem on the left is that they don't understand the common man. This issue is a great example. Many people like their situation in life, including healthcare. But here you have a bill being pushed that will force people to take on new jobs and change their healthcare and the left's argument is that they will say "your life will be better" as if they understand that person's position. They don't.
Switching to medicare for all will lead to a major recession. You are talking about government drastically changing 1/6 of our economy. Housing was 5% of our economy and look at the recession that caused. Also, I can argue that our healthcare system is strong and only minor changes are needed. I can argue that medicare for all will be worse. You are pushing the idea that we need to ruin the economy and ruin people's lives now because in the future they will be better off. Again, you have no connection with the common man. That is the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojoboko6990
1. People don't like to leave their comfort zone. Nothing wrong with that. Why should government force that on people?
2. The fact that change happens is a big argument. It is government controlling the economy and effecting people's lives in a drastic way. When Obamacare was passed people's lives were change in a negative way and thus the republicans won the house. How would you feel if the government told you that your current job is gone, and you will have to move thousands of miles away and retrain for a new job? If you say that you won't mind than I will ask of you, why are you not doing it now? I did. I moved 1500 miles away from my family to pursue a PhD and better myself. But even with that I see why others don't.
3. Ok, what?
4. If there is a crash people still don't move, they suffer until the market stabilizes. But people don't just move.
5. Medical bills being the #1 cause for bankruptcy can, arguably, be because of life choices. Poor people generally have bad health due to poor life choices, and poor people are at high risk of bankruptcy. There is a correlation. As for insurance companies, I agree they have too much power. But instead of getting rid of them I support pushing for a free market approach which allows the consumers to control them more. Right now they can't and Medicare for all, in my opinion, will lead to centralizing the problem where the consumer has essentially no power
6. Exactly. Create competition. Don't centralize the problem.
7. Because you never actually thought about my ideas. The point is that when you have competition that leads to lower prices and higher quality. Where is the incentive to improve when you have one provider? Why should the government improve in a medicare for all system?
8. Federal workers are different. They knew what they were getting themselves into picking up a federal job. And, in the end, they got paid and many people helped us out. If anything this shows that when things become rough the local community and charities will help out society. No need for big federal government. For example, in my state the energy company allowed any federal worker to not pay their energy bill until the government re-opened. This shutdown showed how little we don't need the federal government which supports my point.
But consider this. If the government can shut down that easily and not pay people, what makes you think they can't just shut down and not pay for medicare? The government shut down shows how we should not depend on the federal government which is a victory for Trump and the right.
9. Maybe is the left wasn't killing the coal industry those workers will have jobs.
10. Over with what? The left has no desire to connect with the common man. I can give many examples of that if you want. That is why Trump is president.
11. It is.
12. People on the left are not everyday people from what I see. They are cry babies and SJW snowflakes who feel they are better than others. Also, considering how 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare really shows that people do like their healthcare.
And again, I can give many examples on how the left has no connection with the common man.
13. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Changing the economy that drastically will lead to investors refusing to invest leading to a major recession, period.
14. How are reforms getting louder? Remember, 80% of voters in Colorado said no. It seems like the left feels the calls are getting louder when in reality the common man is fine. This is an example of how delusional the left has become.
15. It is a certainty that it will ruin the economy. The government changing 1/6 of the economy leads to major economic uncertainty thus less investment thus a crash. I have proven the common man. 80% in Colorado said no. How many Justice Democrats won? 5? if these far left ideas were so popular than they would be winning big time. They aren't.
Enjoy 4 more years of Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackflagsnroses6013 , you are making this too easy. To start, Republicans are moderate. If they weren't they would have pushed for major changes when they were in power but didn't. As Ann Coulter said, they vote in republicans to remove the department of education but instead get NCLB. They elected Kavanaugh as a SC justice where the left was concerned about abortion laws but when he had a chance to restrict abortions he voted in favor of planned parenthood.
Your one shiny example was Obamacare. Obamacare was not a right wing idea. What the Heritage Foundation came up with was the individual mandate to counter the business mandate. They did not support the business mandate. Also, the individual mandate never was presented for voting and it is highly questionable if many republicans supported it to begin with. By your standard I can easily say the entire democratic party supports Medicare for all because a few right wing think tanks support it and a few democrats proposed it. So do you agree that the democratic party supports Medicare for all?
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/
Read that. I was never laid out how to finance it. It was more or less just words at that point. So no, Obamacare as not a right wing plan.
As for you saying "social liberals" are moderates in the developed world, that is completely untrue. I can give you clear examples of how the democratic party is full of radicals
1. They complete refusal to work with Trump on major issues. Look how they treated Kavanaugh. Look at the issue of the wall. Despite Trump giving democrats many deals they refused to pay for his wall despite supporting barriers in the past. Their refusal to work with republicans on the tax law.
2. The media simply attacks Trump on all ends but he keeps gaining support.
3. Clinton refused to rally in swing states and felt she had the election won
4. Politicians like AOC, Bernie, Harris, etc are becoming louder voices where they are as radical as it gets
On that last note they are radical. You may say they aren't but here are why there are radicals. They are pushing for major changes to our economy. For example, Medicare for all will drastically change 1/6 of our economy. You say in other nations they are moderates but no politician in other nations are looking to change something that is 1/6 of their economy that much. That is being a radical when you just want to completely overhaul major portions of our economy.
Another point is that I assume you are talking about Nordic nations when you talk about developed nations. The reality is that people like Bernie want to raise taxes on the rich, raise the min. wage and centralize the government. Many of those Nordic nations have no min. wage, they have lower corporate taxes, they have more of a flat tax compared to us, they tried a tax on the wealthy but scrapped it. Their system taxes citizens more, not just the rich, and they have less regulations when it comes to businesses where they have more of a free market compared to the US. Bernie and his crowd just cry about taxing the rich and corporations.
Watch this video, it is very informative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQwBA2QlJ3w&t=308s
What many on the left wants is nothing like the developed world has. You pull out a few things here and there but ignore details.
So again, show me how republicans are right now radicals?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Conservative: "Guns aren't the problem! People with mental illnesses are the problem!""
It is one of the problems.
"Everyone else : "Ah, so you would support increased healthcare funding to ensure that they get the help that they need?"
C: "NO! Free healthcare is bad! If they want healthcare, they should pay for it themselves!""
We lack resources to provide healthcare to all. The argument is that under a free market system there will be more resources for the following reasons
1. Resources will be used more efficiently as if they aren't a company goes broke
2. Society will have the mindset that they need to work to do well as opposed to live off of the government, thus they will pursue jobs with higher skills such as being doctors and nurses to provide mental healthcare.
"E: "Ah, so you would support a raise in the minimum wage to ensure that they are able to afford it?"
C: "NO! If people want to get paid more money, then they should go to school and learn a trade to get a better job!""
Raising the min. wage increases amount paid per hour, not per week. Also, it has been shown to kill jobs for those who are at a disadvantage such as the poor.
"E: "Ah, so you would support an increase in education funding to help
students pay for tuition?"
C: "NO! If people can't afford an education, then they should do
something else to help them get their education, like join the
military!""
As with healthcare we lack resources to provide education to more people. Increasing demand without increasing supply either raises prices or lowers quality.
It seems like you need to have more conversations with conservatives who are intelligent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matthew O'Rosco 1. How were they misrepresented? Saying they are and not explaining how is not an argument.
Here, I can use the same argument for you. Cook misrepresented the papers.....and I have proof
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/research--commentary-the-myth-of-a-global-warming-consensus?source=policybot
"Richard Tol, a lead author of the United Nations’ IPCC reports, says the study by Cook et al. claiming 97 percent of peer-reviewed studies on climate agree “humans are causing global warming” is riddled with procedural errors. "
2. Bill Nye does have a STEM degree. You are citing a cartoonist. Even at that I cited Mike Hulme,
"Even prominent “alarmists” in the climate change debate admit there is no consensus. Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, when asked if the debate on climate change is over, told the BBC, “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.” Mike Hulme, also a professor at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to IPCC reports, wrote in 2009: “What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change.”"
He has a PhD in applied climatology.
3. Cool, so do I. Potholer is also not an alarmist. He goes after low hanging fruit and have misrepresented people's arguments at times. For example, he misrepresented what Patrick Moore said. You have double standards bud.
4. When did I post PragerU?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SkankHunt42 , it is hard to tell. As I pointed out there are shortcomings in that 45,000 stat. Here
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
"His paper, published in August 2009 in HSR: Health Services Research, found that uninsured participants had no different risk of dying than those were covered by employer-sponsored group insurance. The finding was surprising coming from Kronick, who told PolitiFact then it was "not the answer I wanted.""
"Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor, echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse health.
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said."
There are a lot of moving parts as I described earlier. I can go deeper is you want.
No other similar study was done in other nations so you can't compare. You may say we can compare amenable mortality, and some people do. But there are flaws there as well
https://jech.bmj.com/content/67/2/139
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
In short, you can't tell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ZoommaiR, it is a flawed study. Here is a short analysis I wrote on it.
I took the time to read the study. At the start they display their bias
with this
"Trump’s lack of support among people
of color and his popularity among white subgroups with less tolerant
attitudes (such as whites
without college degrees)"
Just because you do not have a college degree does not mean you have a
"less tolerant attitude". They make that claim but do not link any
psychological or sociological study to it.
"Moreover, Trump’s call for law and order in the context of discussing
urban
unrest"
How is this race related? Urban is not a race.
"While previous work has shown that racial attitudes predict support for
Donald Trump"
Again, none listed. As someone who writes peer reviewed work in
academics this is a perfect time to list such work.
"Given the unusually racialized nature of Trump’s campaign"
How was his campaign racialized?
"Given his clear racial and ethno-nationalist appeals—for example, about
President Obama’s country of origin, his support for a Muslim ban, the
state of the African American community, and negative comments about
Mexicans"
I agree, Trump pushing the birther idea was asinine, but not racist.
There wasn't a Muslim ban. The "state of the African American community"
is nothing on him. And his "negative comments about Mexicans" were
towards illegal immigrants.
The fact they used only 764 people makes for a small sample size. They
failed to include the ages, income level, education attainment (even
though they mentioned it as a variable in the introduction),
geographical location, etc. of the people sampled.
This is coming from mainly the first half of the "study". I find this
to be bias and poorly done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If they don't have better outcomes then why do they live longer on average?"
Several reasons beyond healthcare such as eating habits, health habits, etc. If you remove car accidents and murder, two things not strongly connected to healthcare, than the US has the longest life expectancy. Now that is not to say that the US is number 1. What that means is that the difference in outcome, like life expectancy, is so minute that you can't use that data to say if one country has better outcome.
A few years ago I had the average life expectancy of the world to be 71 years with a standard deviation of 7 years. The US was just over 78 years, so one standard deviation over. The highest was 89 years. Other countries like Norway, France, etc, were only a few years over the US. That is not much when you factor in the many variables involved.
In short, you can't just use pure life expectancy as many factors contribute to overall life expectancy. You are saying that life expectancy is only dependent on healthcare meaning if I were to get hit by a bus today that is only because I had bad healthcare. That is what you are saying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, you rather be Trump because this is the issue of mail in votes. Off of a sudden Biden overcame Trump? Also, considering how WI has Evers as governor and MI has Whitmer as governor, two democrat governors who hate Trump, and the vote difference is within less than 1%, something is funny here.
However, if people want a corrupt, racist, career politician that has never done anything for the general public, who has never accomplished anything outside of politics, and cannot speak a coherent sentence after 5 minutes of talking, so be it. Do not complain when things do not get better while these career politicians get rich.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeremiahbarnes6313 , easy, I did on another comment with Ted Cruz, you can see the link on the fact check. Kyle, in a video about a guy doing a shooting who hand made the guns but was a felon, said that the guy legally owned the guns when, in fact, he didn't. Also, Kyle is drastically wrong on issues like economics, healthcare and climate change. He says the other side has no arguments but in reality they do. Him dismissing the other side like that make him wrong. Take this video fro example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8rT1bwiKYk
And now the counter argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoxBdLBw-sQ
Kyle making the issue out to be elitists vs normal people is way too shallow. Higher interest rates exist for many reasons. For example, I have a high interest rate because I have benefits and cash back deals. I pay $0 in interest because I pay my loan back on time. I only use my card for the cash back deals. To make blanket statements like Kyle does shows a high level of ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kielweiss3606 , also, I don't run and hide because here I am. Kyle preaches about how there are no arguments against his ideas even though experts disagree. Take climate change for example. He says there is no argument and that it is a major threat and we need to act now. In doing so he points to certain recent events that are more attributed to weather. For example, blaming the droughts in CA for the wild fires is not a solid argument on if climate change is a threat as the rate of droughts, globally, have not change much in the last 60 years
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11575
Also, if you read the book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" by Prof. Mike Hulme, someone who worked for the IPCC, he lays out why people disagree about climate change, many who are experts. So there is a debate to begin with.
The same is with healthcare. He is says there is no argument and a single payer system is the way to go even though experts do argue. He feels the US has poor outcomes but Stanford Prof. Scott Atlas, in his book "In Excellent Health" outlines how the US has a strong healthcare system.
What makes Kyle wrong is that he completely dismisses the other side of the argument as if there is no argument despite experts disagreeing. He claims he has the facts on his side when the same facts he presents can be used against him. In the debate against Razorfist his argument was simply to say "that is not true" but provides no evidence. If Razorfist was more prepared, like I would be if I debated Kyle, he would have gave Kyle evidence by experts making Kyle looking like a fool. In an interview with JLP Kyle made a comment about something Peterson said where Kyle asked if it was a study from some university. Well here I provided two books by experts and a study from one of the most prestigious journals in science. So yes, there are experts and documentations by them that will disagree with Kyle.
It isn't to say that Kyle doesn't provide a point, it is that he completely dismisses the other side so quickly and easily which makes him wrong. Both sides have legit arguments. Kyle dismissing the other side makes him wrong and will make him easy to debate against. It is probably why Kyle hardly steps out of his bubble.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
, Kyle has a handful of stats and talking points and uses them to push a very emotional driven rant. Take healthcare for example. He pushes the 45,000 a year dying due to lack of access to healthcare and than rants about how poor the US system is. But there are several problems with that data. One, what similar study was done in other countries to compare? None. So you don't know if that 45,000 is high, low or the norm. Kyle claims that number is 0 in other nations but provides no study to support that. Meanwhile, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective surgery". People die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. So yes, people due die in other nations due to lack of access.
Also, that 45,000 number is hard to determine accurately. Those 45,000 are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with those in poverty, all self inflicted. So as prof. Katherine Baicker puts it, do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? And as laid out in her study even with access to healthcare their physical health did not improve increasing their chance of death
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
Also, as mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" the author there mentions how people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really will live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 45,000 receive care and live only 5 months more using up limited resources and living in pain, is that a success?
I can give a lot more arguments against Kyle's points, the fact is that these issues are far more complex than he is willing to present or acknowledge. He isn't data driven, he is emotionally driven. He takes on data point, that 45,000 stat, and runs with it on a emotional rant. I took that number and then referenced other nations in how people die, I reference a book and I referenced a professor in the field. That is where Kyle fails.
Watch videos by Stephen Michael Davis. He does two things well. One, he admits that leftist ideas can possibly work and two, when he makes an argument he cites many sources such as books for one to read if they so desire. Kyle doesn't and Kyle just dismisses the other side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cuthulhu In the deep , if you go by population 7000 in Australia is around 0.02% of the population, 45,000 in the US is around 0.01%. So the US has less. You do know that the US has more people?
"That’s a steaming pile of bullshit since the rest of the developed world doesn’t have those numbers"
What do you base that off of?
"there aren’t poor people in those countries? "
Sure, and they have healthy problems as well. But in the US we lead all OECD nations in obesity. Also, many of those who are poor in other nations most likely have early deaths as well. But as I said not similar study, to my knowledge, has been done in other nations. That is what makes that 45,000 number flawed, you have nothing to compare it to.
Here, I am going to throw out a number to you and I want you to make a conclusion. I pay $800 a month in rent. Now make a conclusion on if I pay too much or if I am getting a good deal.
You doubt my numbers but Trump Kyle? Also, you did not counter anything else I said such as people still being in poor physical health even after having access to healthcare or how people in that situation typically die anyway when given access to healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicolas4601 , you are really stretching it out now which means you don't have an argument.
There are shortcomings in amenable mortality studies, even that study I linked you admits that
"It is important to highlight some of the limitations of the analysis presented here. Challenges related to the concept of amenable mortality have been discussed in detail elsewhere. 12,13,25
In brief, one of the difficulties is to define the list of conditions to be considered as amenable to health care. A death from any cause is typically the final event in a complex chain of processes that include underlying social and economic factors and lifestyles, as well as preventive and curative health care. 5 Thus, in interpreting the findings, a degree of judgment is needed with regard to the attribution of outcomes to activities in the health system.
Furthermore, the concept is limited in that it captures mortality under age seventy-five and so considers only about half of the mortality experience in high-income countries. 12 Although this risks devaluing the role of curative care for people at older ages, extending the concept beyond age seventy-five continues to pose methodological challenges. 12"
and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
Point being is that people do die in other nations due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems. They do die due to preventable diseases. So I just showed that what Kyle is saying is factually incorrect. You changing the narrative that it is lower in other nations (which again, is hard to determine) is you now admitting that you were wrong at the very beginning. What is the difference between being denied and having to wait a long time or receiving inferior care? You have no standards at this point.
There is a lot more to overall life expectancy beyond healthcare. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-business-of-health/
The US has the highest rate of blacks compared to other OECD nations where blacks have higher rates of heart disease
https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/consumer-healthcare/what-is-cardiovascular-disease/african-americans-and-heart-disease-stroke
Also, the US has higher rates of obesity compared to OECD nations. Correlating life expectancy directly to healthcare quality is a weak argument as there is not a 1 to 1 correlation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cuthulhu In the deep , yes there is a correlation between less education and more obesity, but education is on the person. Everyone is offered a K-12 education. It is on the person to decide if they want to be educated. You can offer it to them all you want, if they don't value it that is on them.
Here, I will give you an example. In NV it is ranked low in education a lot. People may view that as bad but in NV you can make a strong living working in the mines (as in 6 figures), parking cars in casinos (as in around $80,000 after tips), or serving drinks, or doing construction. Where is the incentive to become educated in that state when you can do well doing that? That culture does not value education as high.
Now compared that to MA, a state with Harvard, MIT, Boston College, Boston University, etc. More colleges and universities and thus a more educated population. Their culture values education as that is how they were raised.
A problem with the far left is that complete ignore culture and what people are willing to accept and value. You can say all you want about offering people an education but if they won't receive it what is the difference? Again, they are offered a K-12 education, it is on them to use it. You need to change the person and the culture which is hard and questionable if we should do it to begin with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cuthulhu In the deep , it isn't me patting myself on the back. The reality is that I am successful myself because I work and created my own opportunities. This is despite me being an off the chart introvert, with a mental health issue, and living in a poor family. I have seen this a lot as well. You talk about giving people opportunity, we do in society. And from there we have essentially four branches of people who arise from it
1. People who are successful through hard work and creating opportunity and don't make excuses
2. People who settle in life and are fine with it
3. People who struggle and make excuses in doing so asking for handouts
4. Elitists
Listen, at some point you have to cut people off and have them learn to live life. Are you going to live with your parents for the rest of your life?
You say I use emotions when I am having a very logical approach here. I cite a lot of evidence, you cited very vague blogs. I cited books and peer reviewed studies.
No, M4A will not save us money. I have read those studies. The authors of one said it will only save money if healthcare providers are willing to take a pay cut. What will happen to quality? The other study assumed that the market is in a bubble and prices, all around, won't change. My evidence is on history and how the federal government is over $20 trillion in debt because their programs don't save money. And how programs like the Community Mental Health Act made mental healthcare worse, something I have experienced first hand.
Again, I am all for helping people out. A part of that is having them learn on their own. Holding their hand every step of the way is not that. You are offered a K-12 education, now use it. An actual education is developing skills to teach yourself, not having everything fed to you. You should be able to read a book and learn things, or watch videos online. People who view "Free college" and an opportunity through education don't understand what college is all about. College is an investment. Most in college you can teach yourself. College is you investing your time and money to show people you are willing to invest and work towards a long term goal. You make college "Free" you remove that part of it to where it is now a low standard and successful people will find other ways to separate themselves from the pack.
I am being honest. If you want to be happy you should put yourself in one of the first two groups I listed. You can find a way to separate yourself from the pack, or simply be content with what you have. And if you want to help people than actually interact with your community. I do a lot of work in my community, which is a part of separating myself from the pack. And my experience is that those on the far left who want government handouts are not the ones volunteering. Help people in our community. Volunteer, mentor others, help people grow. Stop virtue signaling through government programs that have shown, with a plethora of evidence, to not help.
1
-
Cuthulhu In the deep , on your min. wage paper immediately there is a flaw. They start by pointing out inflation and the min. wage. What method of inflation? CPI? PCE? GDP inflator? Did you even know there is more than one method of inflation? Also, not everything inflates. Many goods and services have dropped in price. For example, take the price of the brick cell phone. By adjusting for CPI inflation it would cost around $4000 today based on the price in the 80s. But in all reality they are worthless as we have smart phones which have more computing power that put a man on the moon that are given away. The same is with labor. Consider the Blockbuster employee, they are worth $0/hr. But based on that article not only should they be employed at Blockbuster, but they should be earning around $15/hr.
Also, there are many shortcomings in inflation measures
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-macroeconomics/chapter/examining-the-consumer-price-index/
Hard for me to cite my textbook but that website lays out very similar points.
Next, they talk about "low wage worker", define that. Min. wage workers typically work part time. The BLS is not available right now but min. wage workers work part time. Now to be fair the BLS considers the federal min. wage, but as I pointed out in two other links, most in poverty don't even work full time. So it isn't an issue of a low wage but an issue of low hours. Thus, the article you gave me is questionable. They made this statement
"This decline in purchasing power means low-wage workers have to work longer hours now just to achieve the standard of living that was considered the bare minimum half a century ago."
With zero citations. Also, define "standard of living".
Next, it says productivity. If you look at unit labor cost, which is the hour compensation of employee over productivity, it has been growing for the food industry which typically pays the min. wage. Again, the BLS is down for some reason (government at work), when I notice it is up I will link you the data since 1987. Also, saying productivity is up is flawed. Productivity is up because of technology. Look up "Skilled Biased Technological Change" in how improved technology increased productivity and those who invested in it and work in it saw a pay increase. Even with that increased productivity lowers prices. Going back to inflation, increased productivity made things like cars better. So even with the sticker price of a car arguably being higher, cars today are much safer, last longer, and get better gas mileage, all that saves money.
Now onto the report pushed by old Bernie. Going through the bullet points
1. I discussed inflation and the flaws behind it
2. Effect workers how? They are assuming that everyone will keep the same hours. A major flaw in the min. wage is that it enforces how much to pay per hour, not per week. So if someone has their hours cut, what have you accomplished?
3. Will it lift the wages? Again, if hours are cut is that a success? You are assuming nothing else will change. In a town hall in Vegas Bernie was pushed on prices going up. He openly admitted that prices will go up. So if prices go up what was accomplished?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1cuTmJh8xM
Go to the 24 minute mark.
4. Saying lower wage workers spend most of their money is flawed. First, if they spend their money that quickly as opposed to saving and investing than they are poor for a reason. Also, as economist Christina Romer put it, it will barely grow the economy
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html
"All of this is true, but the effects would probably be small. The president’s proposal would raise annual income by $3,500 for a full-time minimum-wage worker. A recent analysis found that 13 million workers earn less than $9 an hour. If they were all working full time at the current minimum — and a majority are not — the income increase from the higher minimum wage would be only about $50 billion. Even assuming that all of that higher income was redistributed from the wealthiest families, the difference in spending behavior between low-income and high-income consumers is likely to translate into only about an additional $10 billion to $20 billion in consumer purchases. That’s not much in a $15 trillion economy."
5. Pointing to an average is flawed as averages can be skewed by outliers. Saying the average age is 35 is flawed as most min. wage workers are less than 25. That 35 arises due to senior citizens working part time jobs.
I can go on but maybe you get the point. I took that article and went into deeper details outlining the flaws. I can go farther if you want but I suggest you read article above where Christina Romer questioned the min. wage saying things like
"RAISING the minimum wage, as President Obama proposed in his State of the Union address, tends to be more popular with the general public than with economists."
or how the min. wage will harm the poor due to labor to labor substitution
"Some evidence suggests that employment doesn’t fall much because the higher minimum wage lowers labor turnover, which raises productivity and labor demand. But it’s possible that productivity also rises because the higher minimum attracts more efficient workers to the labor pool. If these new workers are typically more affluent — perhaps middle-income spouses or retirees — and end up taking some jobs held by poorer workers, a higher minimum could harm the truly disadvantaged."
Also, it is questionable if min. wage workers are poor to begin with.
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/Sabia_Burkhauser_SEJ_Jan10.pdf
Again, I can go farther if you want. The fact is that the min. wage is a very small component of a very complex economy. Simply raising it is not going to improve anything, in my opinion, considering how small of a role it plays in the large economy. .
1
-
Cuthulhu In the deep , on healthcare again, read the book "In Excellent Health". Also, Katherine Baicker questions M4A
http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf
Please, give me evidence it will save money.
I don't want people to make choices based on how I want them to live. I want them to live and let live. If they have problems seek friends, family and local communities for help. Don't be seeking help from the federal government and drag everyone else down. That is not how you improve a society. I am all for helping people out and do it often. We improve when we help out our community on our own will and not by force of the government.
Now I can counter the healthcare article you gave me as well, but I will have to later as I have to attend work. But some highlights
1. Ok, and?
2. When you make it required by law through Obamacare of course
5. Again, a requirement through Obamacare
7. And we have better cancer survival rates
9. What is the average? What is the result? Spending money can save money a lot of times.
12. Healthcare rankings are arbitrary, read the book I cited
14. And what happened since the 60s? Creation of Medicare and Medicaid. More government leading to more costs. And I am to trust that M4A will save money?
Again, I can go on if you want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cuthulhu In the deep , saying other nations do it is a shallow argument as you are ignoring many variables, mainly culture. Also, many nations don't have a min. wage like Denmark for example. And we arguably do have universal healthcare, just in a different way.
I am not saying those nations are not successful, but that is more on culture than the actual program. The US does many things well, and so do other nations. And when you look at it objectively you see that the US is on par with other nations. There is a desire to change and improve, but we must do it within the system we have. We can't dismantle the current system.
You have to understand culture is the main thing here. As I pointed out in comparing NV to MA the culture of those two states, when it comes to education, differs a lot. MA values education a lot where NV doesn't. So offering the people of NV a "free education" won't do much, if at all, because they don't value it. You are wasting money and energy at that point at the expense of the people of MA.
The problem with the left is that their solutions are too simple for a complex issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cuthulhu In the deep , many sources. For example, I gave you "In Excellent Health" by Stanford prof. Scott Atlas. I also gave you the book "The Business of Health". You say you can post studies after studies, please do it. I gave you two books. The one on amenable mortality was showing that yes, people do die due to lack of access to healthcare for preventable situations. That debunks what Kyle was saying in that number is zero. That study also mentioned shortcomings in their numbers and admitted it. So no, it doesn't say the US is performing poorly. But please, give me these studies.
And yes, culture plays a major role. Again, on healthcare, the US has a culture of poor diets and lifestyles. That is why we are number 1 of OECD nations in obesity rates. That plays a role. Or how blacks have higher rates of heart disease and compared to other OECD nations we have a higher percentage of blacks. We are also a culture that don't want higher taxes on their citizens, so implementing these programs will be difficult. We are a much more diverse culture as well where the Nordic nations you point at are smaller than many of our states. Consider education, again, compare NV to MA. NV is a gambling and mining state. People can make a strong living working in the mines and working at casinos. Where is the incentive to get educated when you can make $80,000 a year parking cars and serving drinks? Thus that state does not have education as a high priority. That is why there are only two major universities there. Compare that to MA that has Harvard, MIT, Boston College, etc. More 4 year colleges per capita and some are the most prestigious. That is why MA is ranked high in education often. Their culture has education as a high priority. It doesn't mean that one state is better than another. They simply have different cultures.
Culture plays a huge role. It is based on how people act and what they are willing to accept. You can't just force things on people. That is what the left tries to do and that is a major problem for them. They want to force their policies on people and the claim it is for their own good. You want to force your ideas on others and claim you know better than them. However, you never interact with these people. The founding fathers ran into the issue of culture at the very beginning, that is why they wanted these issues like education to be ran by the states. Because what one state with their culture wanted is not what another state wanted. You can't just force things on people, claim you know better, and expect them to accept it.
As for the book I referenced, how was it debunked? That author has been involved in policy making in his nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
caller347, you need to understand what wealth is. If someone had debt they could have negative wealth. A person with no debt and only $10 to their name has more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because many people, like me, have debt either in homes, a business or student loans. I have negative wealth but I have a reliable car, my own apartment, I eat well and I have all that I need. My negative wealth comes from my student loans.
The average home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home a person has little wealth, but they could still be fine. Compare that to Bezos who has a lot of wealth due to his numerous shares he owns of Amazon. Or the Walton family who owns half of the shares of Walmart. That is where their wealth comes from. That is not actual income, it is simply shares of a company that the market values high.
CO2 levels are still very low and were much higher thousands of years ago and the ecosystem still changed. I study physical chemistry, in particular I study vibrational states in molecules. The science community agrees climate change is an issue on the idea we should continue to research it. But there is no strong conclusion if it is a threat.
I can't comment on arms selling as I have not read up on that, but every president has done that. I support what Trump is doing to the EPA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Raizhen010, the free market has the best track record in solving our problems and progressing us the most. There is a desire to have government, but it must always be controlled. Medicare, medicaid and SS are all running out of money. And yes, FDR worsened the depression. The numbers justify that.
I am not saying the free market will solve all problems, no system does. That is the reality. I can admit that. However, you feel the government can solve all of our problems despite its very poor track record. You are looking for some magical, ideal solution when none exist. This is why I am a moderate and you are a radical. I can admit flaws and shortcomings in any system, you can't.
I never suggested privatizing the post office. However, it was the private sector that forced the post office to improve.
Fire departments are privatized in some areas. In others they are short resources thus they have volunteers. The government cannot even provide funds for fire fighters but you feel it can for healthcare.
I never said the road system should be completely privatized.
But tell me, how can a government who cannot provide enough funds for fire fighters going to fund healthcare?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Frank Lance, read the report entitle
"Sorry, Bernie, Few Full-Time Workers Live in Poverty"
According to Census data 2% of full time workers who worked year round were in poverty. You are lowering the standards by looking at just 27 weeks. Again, poor people work unstable jobs. Working for only 27 weeks is not working full time.
Min. wage increases does create job loss for low skill workers. States with higher min. wages have higher teenage unemployment. Here is the issue with the study you point at. There are many factors outside of the min. wage the influences unemployment. Take, for example, Emeryville, CA. It had for years the highest min. wage in the nation but low unemployment. Why? Because some of their top employers are Pixar and pharmaceutical companies. Seattle is able to raise their min. wage and get away with it because some of their top employers are the headquarters for Boeing, Amazon and Starbucks. They had jobs that already pay a high wage to begin with, so the min. wage those markets set was high.
It is like this. Say the market set the min. price for milk at $3 a gallon. If the government were to come in and mandate a min.price on milk to $2.50/gal there will be no decrease in the sales of milk. Why? Because the market set the min. price of milk at $3/gal. If the government were to demand a min. price on milk to $3.50/gal their could be a drop in sales in milk, maybe. If other prices fall or if the economy is growing maybe not. A small increase in like that might not have a negative effect. But if it were raised to $5/gal than yes, sales would drop.
The same is with wages. If an increase in $0.25 is done that might be small enough that you won't see any real changes due to other factors. For example, in my town when the min. wage went up from $5.15 to $7.25 in two years the company I worked for countered by no longer giving out raises to more veteran workers. So employment numbers did not drop. One of those studies looking at neighboring counties did not look at payroll data which makes their data flawed.
You see, I am well read on these issues. You are welcome for your economics lesson.
1
-
Frank Lance, did you read what I linked? Around 2% of people worked full time year round receive welfare, that's it. When you lower the standards to 27 weeks you will get an inflated stat. You have to be honest here. People who are poor work unstable or part time jobs. That is a fact. They are not working full time.
Ah, the whole "adjusted for inflation" argument. You do know there is more than one way to calculated inflation? You have the CPI, GDP deflator, PCE, Boskin Commission adjustment and so on. So what measure do you want to use. Also, not everything inflates in the market. The price of some goods and services go up where some go down. Take, for example, the brick cell phone. In the late 80s it cost close to $4000 in today's money. Would you pay $4000 for a brick cell phone today? No. My smart phone was free and it is not only a phone but a calculator, a radio, I can look at the internet, I can text, play games, etc. Much more advanced than a brick cell phone and much cheaper. But according to you I should have paid at least $4000 for that cell phone.
The same is with labor. How much is the Blockbuster employer worth? $0. But according to you not only should we still have Blockbuster employees nation wide, but they should be paid greater than $7.25/hr.
You can't just tie the min. wage to inflation, it isn't that easy. Economics is way more complex. Noticed how I broke down the flaws of looking at the min. wage and employment? Noticed how I pointed to one of the studies you did and how they did not look at payroll data making their study flawed? You tell me to "cite sources" which shows to me you don't even read the ones you cited. How am I to take you seriously?
As for buying power and stimulating the economy, there are several flaws there. Min. wage workers are not the ones driving the economy. Economist Christina Romer stated that if you raised the min. wage to $9.50/hr, and assuming no job loss, that it will grow the economy around 0.01%. That is insignificant. Less than 4% of the work force earns the min. wage and only around 3% of the work full time. They are a minute part of the overall economy.
Next, if they are going to spend that money that quickly as opposed to invest it, then they are poor for a reason. They are bad at money management.
Finally, what drives the economy is producing, not spending. When more is produced you have more wealth that goes around. That makes goods and services better and cheaper. Back to the cell phone example, it was free for me because a lot of cell phones are produced which drives down the cost. Thus I have money to spend elsewhere. My buying power is increased due to increases in wealth even though my salary was not increased. So no, it isn't as simple as raising wages.
As for the incentive to create more goods and technology, that is already there. When new technology first hits the market it is expensive. Companies build new technology out of competition and out of people simply wanting better things. If the people don't have the money they will lower the cost and find a way to do so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
So this guy brings up a situation but does not give any law reference? And as for rule of law, it went in place. The House impeached Trump and the Senate turned it down. That is how it works via the Constitution. Also, he does not own his businesses anymore.
Trump did not "gas" protestors. He sent federal troops to protect a federal courthouse, but did not use them to enforce any state or local laws.
As for his campaign heads being felons, what were the crimes? Someone getting a felony for DUI but becomes sober is not the same as someone who committed murder.
The "grab them by the pussy" issue was locker room talk. And it is true, someone of Trump's status can get away with a lot if he wants to.
What is wrong with the briefings being in picture book format? In my MBA courses we learn that some people do better with pictures. As for the disinfectant comment, he was speaking after new information was given to him to try to understand the situation better. I have no problem with that. He admitted he was not a doctor, what politician is?
This guy brings up a few, vague examples when you can go through any politicians' history and find questionable decisions on a legal matter. I consider the rule of law and what I like about Trump is that he limits the federal government and gives the states more rights, which is how our nation was designed. He promoted SC justice that follow the Constitution strictly and, from what I can tell so far, will not legislate from the bench. Even with the Senate he will not pack the courts but when Biden was asked about it, as many democrats suggest we should, Biden refused too answer. While it will not be illegal, there comes an ethic side to it. As for equality, when has Trump ever promoted inequality?
While some of this guy's content is good, this video was not one of them. I am not convince Trump did anymore more severe than other politicians. Not saying he is perfect, but how about this guy questions vp candidate Harris on here history like Gabbard did?
It goes both ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xxxxOS , people have to wait and end up dying or becoming worse off. Reality is that resources are limited, something has to give. So no, no nation guarantees healthcare to all.
That 40,000 stat is deceptive. To start, what do you have to compare that to? Nothing as no similar study was done in other nations. Amenable morality is an issue in all nations. Next, as Prof. Katherine Baicker said, those people are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So the question becomes do they due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? To extend, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with those in poverty, all self inflicted, and as pointed out in this study, even when given access to healthcare their physical health does not improve increasing their chances of an early death
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
Also, as mentioned in the book "Being Mortal", required reading for nursing students in my university, people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years, but in reality they will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those people access to care and they live 5 more months in pain using up limited resources, is that a success?
This is a problem with the Bernie crowd on healthcare, they refuse to take on the challenging issues. They assume that we can just pass Medicare for all and everything else in healthcare will be the same. It isn't that easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl_2J391hZc&t=276s
Go to the 8:50 mark in that video. That guy is from Australia. Healthcare is complex and difficult to handle. I provide many sources on this topic and I end up getting berated. It really shows how ignorant M4A supporters are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DanDelos , the confidence interval is simply a mathematical abstraction, that is the point. I really means nothing overall.
We don't live in a democracy and for good reason. If slavery was popular should we pass it? What is the old saying? The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter? I come to these comment sections and I am glad we don't have a democracy federally. I see way too many people here ignorant on the issue of healthcare. Also, opinions change when more information is given. If the majority supports and votes for "medicare for all" and then turns around and supports to "lower taxes", now we have a problem. That is why we don't live in a democracy.
I don't support polling data for many reasons. For example, phone polling does not include someone's reaction. You may ask a question and get a response, but you don't see how they react to that question. In polling you don't know their income level, education, work experience, family size, etc. So much is left out. Also, in the end, when you talk about democracy, voting matters. What do the people feel is the most important. Many on the left point to the poll of around 90% supporting expanding background checks on guns. But when democrats did just that, expanded gun laws, they were voted out. Why? Because people who actually cared about the issue, the 10%, voted the most one can argue. Or when more information is given people changed their mind, take your pick.
As that article says, polls show a snapshot, not a trend.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Milo Kaye "Gov. Ron DeSantis in Florida is starting to re-open beaches, and they don't even have the virus under control there; they have nearly 30,000 cases and they're currently in a plateau. If you loosen guidelines during a plateau, cases will start to go up again."
You go at your own risk. Why shouldn't people be allowed to go to beaches? If you are so concerned than stay home. Also, as I said, there is evidence that the virus is not that deadly. And there is also evidence that warmer weather alleviates the spread.
"South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster said that next week SC will start to re-open beaches and retail stores. Right now they only have about 4,500 cases, and you can expect those to start going up once they re-open."
Same with FL. Also, there isn't any data that shows a correlation between locking down and lack of spreading. But to add, at some point you have to trust people will do the right thing. Open the beaches and let people decide. You can't just use the strong hand of government and continue to force people to do what you want.
"Georgia Governor Brian Kemp said that as soon as tomorrow, gyms, barbershops, and hair stylists can re-open. He said that theaters and restaurants will follow on Monday.
"
Great, which is what we need. We are in a position that we have vacant hospital beds, that we have to lay hospital staff off as we have too many. And again, the virus might not be that deadly. Let GA open up and let us see what happens. If nothing bad happens than great, we can proceed to going back to normal. And again, you don't have to go to the hair salon or the gym if you are concerned.
"If you look back to the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918, there were instances of some parts of the country ending quarantine early and very quickly, the number of cases exploded. Philadelphia was an example of this."
1918 was a different time in terms of technology and data collection and information. We are much more informed with better technology.
"There are also widespread protests going on around the country, predominantly by people who are of the political right. This will inevitably lead to a spike in cases. The overwhelming majority of them were holding up Trump signs and Tea Party flags."
Will it though? I do not see it. And again, a lot is suggesting the virus is not that deadly as in a study done in Santa Clara County, in USC and in Germany.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kubemaster there is no cure for the common cold. Plus, as I said, evidence is coming out that coronavirus isn't that deadly. Data from Germany, Santa Clara, USC and NY. Also, your article says this
"Doctors and scientists are working on estimating the mortality rate of COVID-19,"
Which means they do not know. But as I said, researchers have data suggesting that it is not that deadly. Read the USC article entitled
"Early antibody testing suggests COVID-19 infections in L.A. County greatly exceed documented cases"
Where they say
"Though the results indicate a lower risk of death among those with infection than was previously thought"
Point being, studies are still being done. However, there is data popping up suggesting it is not that deadly. Also, according to the CDC 92% of the deaths are from people who are 55 and older. Almost all of the deaths are from people who are either old or sick to begin with. People who are at high risk of death overall. You also have to factor that in.
1
-
1
-
@Milo Kaye at the beginning I understand the shut down. But more information of the virus is coming out. Some suggesting it is not as deadly as originally thought. Now you have a situation where the economy is tanking and people can't pay bills. And the government cannot just give money away as that will destroy the dollar.
Since the shut down here is what has happened
1. Our hospitals are caught up. We have vacant beds and too much staff. In many places other, temporary, beds were put in place and none were use. Thus in healthcare we have enough resources.
2. This virus is not as deadly as we originally thought. Data from NY, Germany, Santa Clara and USC suggest it has a much lower death rate.
3. Now we have to decide what is worse, the bad economy or the virus?
4. Also, we have to realize who is dying because of the virus.
With the virus being not as deadly as we thought, and 92% deaths are people 55 and older. Where the death rate is higher with higher age. And how well over 95% of the deaths are either people who are old or pre-existing conditions, we need to strongly conisider reopening the economy. The risk appears to be lower now and the reality is that 20, 30 and 40 year olds should not suffer because an 80 year old person, who is going to die soon anyway, can live.
This is the harsh reality in life. In economics we have opportunity costs all the time. Consider driving. 40,000 people die a year in traffic accidents. We can make that number to be zero if we ban driving, but that will harm the economy. Thus we accept 40,000 deaths a year to allow people to drive. Same with the virus. Sorry, but the reality is that some life is worth more than others. A 20 year old losing their job, being stressed, having an uncertain future, and falling into depression is not worth saving an 80 year old. People have died early due to being unemployed. So yes, we need to start reopening the economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anticorncob6 , I can break down how they are far left. On major issues Democrats refused to vote with Trump. They did not vote for his cabinet picks. No one voted for Gorsuch and only one voted for Kavanaugh after they smeared him. During the ACA creation they had close door meetings.
Also, look at the presidential candidates. Clinton did not rally in swing states to reach out to the common man because she is so far left she was delusional. Bernie Sanders has no desire to try to understand the position and I can give examples on that. One is that during the debate against Ted Cruz on Obamacare a hair salon owner asked Bernie how she can expand her business and afford to pay for her employees' healthcare. Bernie simply said that she has to do it, not advice. No numbers, nothing. He never tried to understand her profit margins, how many part time to full time employees she had, how much her bills cost, etc. He had no desire to try to understand how a business works and the challenges they face. Compare that to Bill Clinton being asked a similar question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy542UgSelQ&t=18s
Bill had numbers showing he did his homework to understand how a business operates and the challenges they face. What that shows is that he took the time to understand the other side's position. The reality is that Bernie voted for the ACA which would harm businesses. The benefits are that it gives access to healthcare to many people, but some people will be harm. Bernie had no desire to understand their position because he is a radical.
Take the Las Vegas town hall when asked about the min. wage. It is at the 24 minute mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1cuTmJh8xM&t=1448s
He did not answer the guy's question. He just went on a rant about people working full time and not being poor (when in reality only around 2% who work full time year round are poor). He had no specifics on the issues because he is a radical.
Now don't get me started on AOC. Reality is that they are far left. They have no specifics in their plans, only talking points. They have no desire to listen to the other side, they just dismiss the other side. If they want to win they need to be more centrist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Admiral, if you want to go to GDP per capita Alaska, Connecticut, North Dakota, Delaware, Massachusetts, Wyoming, New Jersey and Washington all have higher GDP per capita. Also, CA has a much higher cost of living than TX where CA is number 1 in poverty, number 1 in income inequality, and number 1 in illiteracy rate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
kokofan50, during the debate with Ted Cruz Bernie berated that hair salon owner. She asked him how she is supposed pay for her employers healthcare under Obamacare if she expanded her business. Bernie simply said "I don't know how business works, but you have to pay". That is not connecting to her. That is not trying to understand her situation and finding a common ground. That is berating her. That is no different then someone on the ultra right going up to someone who is poor and saying "pull yourself up by your boot straps".
Compare that to Bill Clinton, one of our best presidents ever. Herman Cain posed him the same question. Clinton ran through numbers showing he understands, to some degree how business works. And gave Cain a suggestion. Cain countered back with his numbers. In the end, though, Clinton was showing he understood Cain's issue and was willing to work with him. Clinton was able to understand other people's issues. Bernie doesn't. He does not understand what it is like to struggle as a business owner. He does not understand how there are many people who worked hard and struggle to become successful and do not want to see their hard work being taken away. Bernie just on his typical rant of "There are poor people, thus we need to give away free shit, because rich people have too much money." Well, what about that small business owner? What about that middle class family who wants to buy a new home but saw their healthcare prices go up? What about college student who is looking for a job? Bernie never connected with those individuals.
"and what Bernie said was a gaffe."
So he gets a pass but not Trump?
"Trump was a minor celebrity before becoming president, "
That rallied in areas to connect with the common individual.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kyle9401 , bud, the issue is that climate change and evolution can occur at different rates. Consider something as simple as the folding of proteins. It occurs in the sub-picosecond time range where we are now just finding ways to monitor movements that fast. Saying that climate change is occurring at a too fast of a rate is an argument with no strong supporting evidence to it.
We don't know how the ecosystem works. We don't even know how photosynthesis works, let along how it will be influenced by climate change. My research involves studying biological materials in different environments, like temperature, solvents and pH and seeing how they react through nonlinear spectroscopic techniques, so I know a lot about this. Fact is that we know very little about the ecosystem nor how it will react to current climate change. Saying we do is a very dangerous route to take.
You can call me a troll all you want, it is your avoiding discussing the issue. At this point, based on what the far left is saying, we are doom. See you in 12 years when the world is like the Road Warrior, or Water World, take you pick.
1
-
1
-
@jojoboko6990
1. Humans have seen a lot of change, what's your point? And we have survived that change. We have more technology than ever. I don't see how this change is bad. Why isn't this change good? You still haven't given me a reason. Just saying it isn't good is not a solid argument. "Good" is subjective in many ways.
2. How do you know the ice sheets were going to keep growing? What control do you have to compare to? Prior to Pangea breaking apart Antarctica was green with vegetation. I guess you are going to blame man on that.
3. We had droughts during the dust bowl, what's your point? It happens. We adjust.
5. You keep saying "most scientists" but yet I don't see scientists in the media or in public crying for major change. I see politicians and far left people using the talking point of "most scientists" as if that is an argument. The reality is that the science is far from settled which is why more research is being done in the issue.
I am all for reducing carbon emissions and going to greener sources of energy, I just don't want to force the issue. I also feel the private sector with engineers and scientists are the best route to take. No politicians who worked as a bartender and have no understanding of industry, physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc.
The problem is that the far left has turned climate change into a fear mongering issue to make an excuse to push communism and centralize the economy. And when you have intelligent people, like me, who actually work in the field that create doubt in the severity of the issue, we get ridiculed and get labeled that we don't want to improve the system when we do. . We just want more realistic methods and don't want to panic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojoboko6990
1. I agree that we should move away from fossil fuels, but we can't force it. Also, other technology can make adjustments. Again, I don't see how we will all of a sudden stop advancing.
2.I have. There is important information. The issue is that it is a group looking for something to push a narrative. No different than when the intelligence committee in the early 2000s was looking for WMDs and "found" it even though none existed. They were looking for something, "found" it and pushed the narrative. I feel the IPCC does the same thing. If climate change is not a major issue than people won't pay attention to them. There is an advantage in them pushing the narrative in making climate change a major issue.
3. And "climate scientists" don't study the effects on temperature change on how chemical reactions occur. That is the point. I know ecologists that do climate change related research and reading that research they don't mention what will happen at the atomic level which is very complex and influences what will happen. That is why I have so much doubt here. If a few degree change in the overall temperature, or a change in the pH influences evolution to were life thrives, I don't see that as a problem. The issue is that "climate scientist" can't describe what will happen. I know many ecologists who don't know how a laser works, let along what it can be used to study the effects of pH changes to a molecular system. So why should I fully trust one who makes a strong conclusion saying current climate change is a major threat? In reality very few, if any scientists are making that conclusion unless they are a part of a special interest group. But in the end science is complex and I can easily argue, and have, that my research is related to climate change. You just refuse to accept how complex science is.
4. Why do they exist? A power grab. Why do tax cuts for the rich exist? So you feel that everything the government does is for the benefit of the people and not the politicians?
5. The Paris Climate Agreement is similar to NATO. No one was going to follow it and we were going to lose money. You have to look past the name of the agreement and understand how it was actually going to be implemented. It is like a diabetic going from drinking 4 L of soda a day to drinking 3 L of soda a day. They are still going to lose a foot. Also, there is no guarantee they would change to begin with.
6. You just gave me proof as saying they are working as at "snails pace".
7. Arguably no. But I know your bias and lack of having an actual rational argument at this point. You just dismiss experts when convenient.
8. They are pushing for it. Look at AOC's Green New Deal. That is a power grab.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Barry Nichols, polls show a snapshot, not a direction. Read the article entitled
"How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?"
Opinions can change when more information is given. Healthcare is very complex and asking people if they support a Medicare for all system is vague. They may on the surface but when the cost is included, taxes, the threat to jobs in the private section of healthcare, the potential negative influence on the quality of care, etc., opinions change.
Also, you have to understand the shortcomings in these polls. You don't know who you are polling. What is the education level, income level, political affiliation, etc. And with phone polling you cannot view their expression which can be imperative in results. If they show a highly emotional response it increases the possibility they are very concerned about the topic and are less likely to change opinions. If not they they are not that concerned and will change their opinions when more information is given.
Polls have many shortcomings. I see Kyle and his fan base continue to point to them but their ideas continue to lose. Every attempt to establish universal healthcare has failed and no one made a huge uproar about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franklance9167 , ok, now how much did the sun play a role? What green house gases and where did they come from?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
That is what I posted
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
That is the article Skeptical Science is talking about, completely different. Also, here is what John Cook said about the PopTech article
""I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..."
- John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science"
Demonstrate it? I just did by bringing up photosynthesis which lead to this paper
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301010411001443
Or look at this
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp4120546
Look at how small of a system they are looking at. Why? Because in science we know very little.
"Uh, no. You cited me a bullshit link that is evidently bullshit by the very fact that they used the 31,000 figure as an argument."
You call it BS because you have no actual argument against it. Here
"Disclaimer: Even though the most prolific authors on the list are skeptics, the inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against Alarmism. Some papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.
This is a bibliographic resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics."
So again, tell me what is wrong with that article? You are completely ignoring it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adithyasathya2578 , a public option should not be the main source for people. It should be a last resort and thus of low quality. I used a public option for a STD check up one time in my city. It was low cost but the service sucked. I went to one building to answer questions and the had to take a form to another building and waited 5 hours before I went to pee in a cup and get blood drawn. A year later I used my insurance and went to a private option and within 30 minutes I drove there, signed in, peed in a cup, got blood drawn, and was at home eating breakfast. If I were to have paid out of pocket I would have cost more but would have been better.
The public option should be a last resort. We should encourage people to get better and not depend on the government.
Also, with a free market system drug and healthcare prices will drop. A major problem we have is that people don't actually pay for healthcare. Let me ask you this. Why do so many employers pay their employees with healthcare as opposed to a higher wage? And why does healthcare insurance pay for all of healthcare? The main reason is because of the payroll tax. If we did not have that than people will pay for healthcare insurance out of pocket. At that healthcare insurance will be insurance and will pay for only unplanned, expensive cases. Everything else would be paid for out of pocket. So in my STD checkup case, I can shop around and find the cheapest option. With transparent pricing and me deciding where I can go the price will drop. And the price of insurance will drop as all it will pay for is unplanned, expensive cases.
The public option can differ by area, but essentially with the private market lowering prices the public option can be in many forms. It can either be a government run service with low quality like I experienced. Or it can be, for people below a certain income level, similar to food stamps where the government pays for certain things. The free market in food has allowed for food prices to be low and to be a lot of food available.
I don't support the Canada's system as it forces the local areas to establish something. I see no difference between that and a centralized system. And as we have seen in programs like the Community Mental Health Act the states will simply refuse and force the federal government to pick up the system.
As for your criticisms of my system
1. There won't be a pool. The free market will drive down costs. The government either picks up the tab for low income people or offer a service that is of low quality. Ever been in line for food stamps? The line is long. Or the post office, the service sucks. This whole "risk pool" thing is a flawed argument. A lot of healthcare can be paid for out of pocket to begin with. The whole "risk pool" idea is a major thought process to have in healthcare. It is what Obamacare was designed on and it has shown to fail
2. This happens anyway. In mental health if you are a psychologist and work in a rural area for 10 years you get your student loan paid off, all of it. Why? Because they lack doctors in those area. Rural areas lack resources to begin with. Just because the federal government says they will provide something doesn't mean they can't. If no one wants to work in a certain area they won't. Or to get them to they have to raise the incentive, such as paying them more which will end up costing M4A even more. Fact is those areas are simply use to limited resources. One major problem I have with the far left is that they are on the outside looking in and don't realize people in certain areas don't want your help.
But as a whole, M4A won't solve this problem unless you pay a lot of money.
3. It depends on the area. In rural areas, where I am from, local charities were fine. In more urban areas maybe not. Again, it depends. That is why I want the local communities to decide on their own. There are many ways to approach this.
4. Insurance companies counter the inelastic nature of some forms of healthcare. Other forms are not inelastic. Compare it to a car. Oil changes and new tires are necessary to keep the car safe. Insurance does not cover that as you can shop around. But if a tree falls on your car insurance will cover that. That is not planned and you don't have time to shop around. Healthcare insurance should be the same. Problem is that healthcare insurance in this nation, since a lot of people receive insurance as a form of payment, covers almost all of healthcare which creates many problems and high prices.
So the inelastic argument is poor as insurance is the counter for that.
5. The private sector has far less bureaucracies and people can decide which doctors they want
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@underside483 , I disagree with being centralized. A centralized system lowers competition and innovation. It may work in smaller nations like Germany, but for the US of over 320+ million people I feel it can't. A centralized system, to me, creates these problems.
1. Lack of competition
2. Lack of micromanaging
3. Lack of improvement.
On the last part where is the incentive and comparison to improve? To me with states and local governments managing it if one state does some creative thing to improve healthcare other states can follow if they so desire. But at a centralize lever there is no comparison. Germany, from what I can tell, has a private sector to compare to. But supporters of M4A want to do away with that.
I compare it to education. Compare NV to MA. NV has low education results. Many blame the system but in NV you can earn a nice living work for the Casinos, working in the mines or working construction. Where is the incentive to get educated when you can make $80,000 a year parking cars? That is why there are only two four year universities in NV and why the society there does not value education as high.
Now compare to MA which is home of MIT, Boston College, Harvard, etc. They have more four year colleges per capita than NV, and some of the most prestigious. They value education there as a society and thus their education outcomes are higher. In comparing those two states it is not an issue of system but an issue of culture.
That is why I support some government being involved in healthcare, but it should be at the state and local level. Across the nation the idea of how much taxes should be paid, what level should government provide, how should they do it, etc. differs. A centralized system cannot account for that. One thing that irritates me is that people try to compare the US to Norway where we have 30 states larger than Norway. It is hard to compare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@magnummax78 , it does prove about waiting list, people do die waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Bottom line is that in every nation people do die due to shortcomings in the healthcare system. As for learning they need the care I assume you are talking about preventative care and check ups. A study showed that even with access to healthcare people's physical health did not change. While they were made more aware of their conditions their physical health did not improve making them a high risk for bad health.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
People are typically in bad health due to poor life style choices. That is a major problem in the US that M4A will not cure based on that study.
I understand the goal of M4A, the reality is that those goals are not attainable. You have to change, and by that I mean lower your standard of healthcare. In the UK people are going blind due to the NHS refusing to offer eye surgery.
Here is the bottom line. A system like the US does well for the very sick at the expense of the very poor. A universal system does well for the very poor at the expense of the very sick. Universal healthcare systems are great for very basic needs and it does offer healthcare to the very poor, but the very sick suffer. In the US the poor do go bankrupt and some do die due to having no insurance. But our survival rates are much higher for the very sick. Something has to give.
To go deeper the very sick in other nations are old at times, such as the individuals going blind are because the UK denying cataract where most who have that are old. Those dying due to "elective" heart surgery in Canada are typically old. Maybe that is the route we need to take. Also, in the US we have higher survival rates because we offer advanced testing, such as we offer more CT scans.
A major problem I have with M4A supporters is that they are not willing to have difficult discussions like that. What do we do with the elderly and very sick? At what point do we stop offering advanced testing? M4A supporters want the luxury of the quality of our current system but the security of Medicare paying for it. You can't have that.
The far left refuses to have difficult discussions on this issue. The reason why M4A is not gaining traction in the US is because the far left is not presenting these challenges and when, months later, they are presented people question the political left at that point. Be honest, that is my suggestion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" The point still stands the the government didn't buy you a flat screen TV, you chose to spend your extra money on the TV,"
You only have that extra money because the government gave you money. Sure, they may said "you can only spend these checks on X, Y, and Z", but in the end they gave you money when you were already earning money.
That is different than if government were to fund you 100%. At that point they control where all of your money goes.
" just like Planned Parenthood is choosing to spend that extra money"
Again, that is the key point, "extra money" you did not have before. You had money to begin with, the government gave you more so you can spend the money you had to begin with easier.
" It's funny that people use that logic for Planned Parenthood, but don't
bother applying the same logic to hospitals. Hospitals perform
abortions too, so by giving money to them you're indirectly funding
abortions, right? "
I choose to give my money to a hospital. But you can say we have a choice in taxes. I can argue against that, but I will give it to you. But the hospital gets my money only when I use their services.
I am not saying I support or oppose abortion, I am pointing out how that person's friend is right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
michardav, that training to "upgrade" is very basic and is a couple day course. You are asking people to spend a semesters worth of training learning a completely new skill. That is the issue. Also, most jobs being replaced by automation are low skill jobs to begin with, the people doing them have little desire to actually learn anything new, especially in their 40s.
Yes, taxes were lowered, after years of having high taxes. High skill jobs are available. In fact, we have too few workers to fill those jobs. Right now under Trump we are seeing an increase in labor participation after years of it dropping, less initial claims, lower unemployment, and interest rates going up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dedier, there are numerous sources that give counter viewpoints. I know that if you use CPI inflation numbers that wages have been going down. But the Minneapolis Fed showed that with PCE inflation wages have gone up. Also, using GDP deflator wages have gone up as well. It isn't so much about what source is acceptable, information is valuable. It is that you have to look deep into the sources and see what methods they use. Someone using only one measure of inflation I question.
You also have to consider the shortcomings in inflation measurements. The CPI is around 100 years old, that is archaic. Inflation does not take into account situation like new product bias or better technology, New product bias is where a new product is more expensive when it first enters the market but quickly drops in price. Smart phones and flat screen TVs are examples. Better technology is how a good may be more expensive by dollar amount, but in the long run is cheaper. Cars are great examples in how they last longer, get better gas mileage and are cheaper. So there is that.
I am not saying that everything is great, nor that we can't improve. But you can't just say that wages have been going down when there is numerous evidence against that. You are looking at a complex issue and over simplifying it. I am all for improving a situation, but you have to try your best to fully understand an issue first, or understand much more than you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
C W , remember, you berate people mental disorders.
As for that 45,000 there are several arguments against it. One, what study from other nations do you have to compare that too? Nothing. So you can't say if that 45,000 is high, low, or the norm. Up to 7000 die a year in Australia waiting for "elective surgery"
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/hospitals/elective-surgery-waiting-times-2017-18/data
Go to the data, download the excel sheet and go to T 2.1
Also, those 45,000 who die are poor and bad health is associated with being poor as Katherine Baicker pointed out. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? In a paper where she was a lead author on when patients were given access to Medicaid their physical health did not improve. Why? That is because of poor life style choices. Even with access to healthcare their risk of death was high
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
Also, in the book "Being Mortal" the author there describes how people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when they may live only another 5 or 10 months. Thus if those 45,000 receive care and live a few more months in pain and agony and costing their family a lot of money along with using up limited resources in the healthcare industry, is that a success?
You see, I can take you "fact" and go deeper as opposed to just calling someone names.
1
-
1
-
@javierchamorro8988 , I don't see it as barbaric as abortion is, arguably murder. So if we place a murderer in jail for 30 years is that barbaric? Not saying I agree with the law, just saying I don't see how it is barbaric and will lead us to the dark ages where the dark ages involved many things. What were abortion laws like in the dark ages? As for a miscarriage, she wont' be jailed for that.
He said that law was barbaric which sets the tone of if Ben supports it than he is barbaric, or if he doesn't than it questions his pro life stance. I, myself, support a state in passing that law on the grounds of state rights. Does that make be barbaric? You can't frame a question like that and expect to be taken seriously. You may say people have legit concerns in what is written, but to call it barbaric is not being an honest character.
I never said people who disagree with me are far left. I know many people who will disagree with me and lean left. The problem is that many on the left are far left in that they refuse to listen to the other side and label the other side as evil. The best example is here, listen to Clinton's response to this question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy542UgSelQ&t=18s
Now listen to Bernie's response to a similar question in a debate, go to the 35 minute mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bapp45Vx0UE&t=2138s
Notice the difference? Clinton had numbers and showed that he understood the challenges a business faces and that his law will increase those challenges. He took the time to understand a law he supported will have opposition and for good reasons. That there are drawbacks to the law. Bernie has never done that. He simply says "it is the law and you have to follow it". He had no desire to try to understand her position as a business owner. That is being far left. I disagreed with Clinton but I respected his approach, thus he is not far left.
In relation to this interview with Shapiro to immediately label a law as barbaric is being far left. You are labeling the other side as evil without having a discussion first. I listen to both sides. The problem is that the far left in this country refuses to listen to the other side and we have too many who are far left.
1
-
@javierchamorro8988 , to start, you don't know my belief in abortion. I never said it was murder. I said it was "arguably murder". Big difference. You never picked my brain on my stance on abortion so you are now just assuming things.
Neill said the new law will take us back to the dark ages. I see no difference between saying that and saying they are barbaric. How does the new law take us back to the dark ages? He framed the question in a way to trigger the audience in that the law is inherently bad as opposed to controversial and debatable. He is not being honest at that point. You can't have a discussion with a dishonest person.
I bash the far left, not the left. If you pick my brain you will see that I support many ideas on the left. The issue is that the far left just berates and smears their opponents. Saying a law will take us back to the dark ages is doing just that. Or how the left smeared Kavanaugh. Or how the left reacted in the Smollet incident and so on.
Aren't businesses ran by people? Those business owners are not the "ultra rich" as Bernie says. That one lady did not have healthcare insurance herself. Also, most businesses do care about the people as well. That lady wanted to offer her customers a good product at a low price. She does not want to raise prices on her customers. To say that those three only care about businesses and not people is foolish. And to say Bernie cares about people is foolish. Why doesn't he try to understand the other side's position? Why didn't he take the time and try to understand how businesses and business owners (people) will be harmed? He didn't. Why? Because he doesn't care.
Why should a business be forced to pay healthcare to begin with? The business simply offers workers a job. They don't have to take it. You are making it sound like that a business is holding a gun to the workers head and forcing them to work there when they aren't. You really don't know the relationship between that business owner and the workers. Their relationship may be very strong and simply due to the market she can't afford healthcare insurance where many business models can't. She asked Bernie that question because Bernie supported a law that placed restrictions on her business and while doing so he did not consider her side of the issue. It showed he does not care.
As for saying she can go out of business, you are literally saying that almost every hair saloon, except those ran by large corporations, should go out of business. The market has it that hair saloons have very low profit margins. That is not her fault, that is how the market is. Your statement there, not to be rude, displays a high level of ignorance and is shallow. But I guess business owners are not people according to you.
You will not pay less in healthcare for all. The economics doesn't make sense if you say that.
I respect Clinton's approach because he was willing to take the time to understand the other side's position. Bernie does not. I can give other examples as well if you want. To progress in this nation we need to listen to both sides fairly. Neill immediately labeling a law as taking us to the dark ages is not that. This kind of behavior is why Trump got elected. The far left refuses to have discussions. They rather berate and smear. You did so yourself in saying that business owner should simply close down without trying to understand how the hair saloon business operates in our market.
1
-
@jordanmercier3616 , uh, no. They have different systems but as a whole they are developed and also have many moderate to right leaning systems as well. For example, in Denmark they have more of a flat tax than the US does. The US has one of the most progressive tax codes in the world, even more so than European nations where the top tax bracket in Denmark starts at $55,000, in the US it is around $400,000. A flat tax is a right leaning policy. Same in how they have lower corporate taxes or some nations, like Canada and Norway have more oil production.
What makes Bernie far left is that he wants to completely dismantle our current system and completely replace it with left wing ideas as opposed to working with the system we currently have. That is no different than someone wanting to completely do away with Medicare. I don't think we should have ever established Medicare, but we did. Doing away with it is a right wing idea but also, at this point of time, a radical one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shikoi73 , uh, no. I am not a libertarian. I follow the Constitution and the design of this nation. There is a role for government, but how much is the question. This nation was designed where the federal government handles foreign affairs and commerce between states. The states and local governments handle the rest of the issues within the frame of the Constitution.
You say roads, I say they are ran and funded locally all differently. What is you minimum standard for a "road"? Some towns have roads with no stop signs, I doubt you knew that. Some areas have roads where the snow does not get plowed unless farmer John decides to do it himself. Again, I bet you did not know that. Some roads are simply dirt roads or gravel. So what is your minimum standard for a "road"? The federal funding that goes into roads are 1. Constitutional, and 2. deal with commerce between states so people and federal officials can travel across state lines.
Now compare to healthcare and education. What is your minimum standard for each? Just like how some areas have roads with no stop signs or have roads that are dirt and gravel, one can simply say the government providing healthcare stops at simply paying for aspirin to alleviate any pain, that's it. Or with education, one can argue that simply providing a public library is all that is needed. The material is there, now you need to pursue it. Some areas have high schools with no AP courses, no calculus courses, not physics courses, etc. In fact, here is the class schedule of a small school in MO that I had a relative go to once
http://www.nnr6.k12.mo.us/MSHS/Class%20Schedule2018-2019.PNG
No physics, no chemistry, no advanced math, etc. Is that acceptable for you?
I am not "anti-government". The issue is what is the minimum role for government? It varies and depends. You say government should provide education and healthcare. Ok, how much? Just like with roads. Some roads are 4 lane and nice, some are dirt with no stop signs. What is your standard? And how do you accomplish it?
1
-
1
-
@Shikoi73 , states don't have to follow the federal standards on education. Under the Obama administration close to 10 states did not follow CCSS and less than 20 followed NGSS. So the idea that states have to follow federal standards is simply not true. States don't even have to have an education system. There is no law requiring that. You bring up TX where TX was one of the states that did not follow CCSS.
Physical science is a very watered down version of physics and chemistry. It is usually a pre-req for those courses. So no, they don't have physics and chemistry. They have physical science? Let me ask, and not to be rude. But how much education have you studied? I work in the local school district and know the difference between physical science and physics and chemistry. Physical science gives a very watered down version of those topics. Physics covers, in more detail, Newtonian mechanics with more math and in more dimensions. Chemistry will cover percent yield, stoichiometery, maybe touch based on quantum chemistry and thermal chemistry, etc.
College algebra is not calculus. Algebra II does not include pre-calc. maybe College Algebra might, but not Algebra II. Again, do you even know the material being taught in those subjects? Dual credit is usually with another university where not all universities accept dual credit. That was an issue we ran into with my high school where one university accepted dual credit as it was through that university, but another didn't. But a lot more accept AP courses.
Again, not to be rude, but I feel you have very little understanding in how the education system actually function. When you say Algebra two teaches pre-calc that is all I need to know.
Also, you don't seem to know about snow clearing in rural areas. Many rural areas don't get their roads cleared unless someone volunteers to do it. Most people just chain up and use a 4 wheel drive. Answer me this, have you ever lived in a rural area for a significant amount of time?
Define "To provide what is necessary in order to meet the needs of the person requiring aid." Again, that is vague. Resources are limited. Many small schools don't offer calculus or AP courses because they simply don't have the people who can teach it. Notice how there was no foreign language offered in that school? Fact is that resources are limited. That is why not every road gets plowed. That is why not every road has stop signs. That is why some schools don't offer advanced courses. That is why 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. You have this idea that the government has some magic wand to create things out of thin air, the reality is that is not true. We have a waiting lists for organs, how do you solve that?
1
-
@Shikoi73 , you saying that in Algebra II they teach pre-calc makes me question your knowledge on the material. I work in the school district, I have a math minor, a chem degree, a physics degree, and I teach chemistry and physics at my university. I know what is taught in different subjects. Physical science does not come close to teaching what is taught in physics and chemistry. I am not insulting you, I am pointing out how little you know in a particular subject. Nothing to be ashamed of. I am laying out basic facts before we get into opinions.
Those teachers can laugh all the want, but it is true. States are not required to have an education system, period. They choose to do it. Yeah, sure, states may have it in their constitution to provide education, but that is not a federal mandate, that is the point. I suggest your teachers learn about government a little more. For me to work in our school district I had to take a course on federal constitution and on my state constitution. That was discussed how states run education, not the federal government. So keep laughing, it is you projecting.
States do not have to put forth their own standard, where is that written?
On physical science you can argue that biology teaches chemistry and physics. You are splitting hairs here at this point. And no, algebra II does not cover pre-calc. Read what is in a pre-calc book sometime. If you work in a school one should be available.
Yes, I lived in a rural area where it snowed. You apparently didn't.
You are vague because, in the end, when you say the government should provide healthcare and education and pointed to roads as an example I pointed out what standard and level do you want? Again, some roads have stop signs, some don't. On education, the school district I work at now requires a proficiency exam to graduate, my didn't. Define "college ready". Over half students have to take remedial college courses. The problem I have with your statements is that you simply say the government should provide education and healthcare but do not say what amount. You are vague. What is your standard and why? You can laugh at me all you want but that is a question you have to answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"In the same way the puddle in my driveway and the Pacific Ocean are both bodies of water. "
They are.
"And no, the reason why healthcare should not be treated as a commodity
is because almost all transactions related to healthcare are
non-voluntary."
Not true. A lot of healthcare voluntary. Also, it is a commodity because someone has to provide it. It just doesn't exist. On major problem with the left on this issue (and most issue) is that they feel the government can just wave a magic wand and things appear. Someone has to provide healthcare. That is why it cannot be classified as a right.
This is not to argue for or against a government ran system. It is to state the fact that no matter what system you have someone has to provide it. Just like someone has to build roads, or run the fire department, or run the schools.
" If I'm under cardiac arrest, I'm not shopping around for the cheapest doctor,"
You shop around for the cheapest healthcare insurance. An issue we have is that the vast majority of the people can't do that as healthcare insurance is a form of payment and thus insurance has become healthcare. Also, people being dependent on their employers for healthcare prevents consumers from shopping around. That situation exist due to the federal government. We lack a free market system in healthcare.
I agree healthcare can be inelastic at times in demand. However, insurance is supposed to counter that. Issue is that we don't have a free market system when it comes to purchasing insurance, and insurance covers everything including situations where you can shop around.
"No one needs expensive furniture, everyone needs healthcare"
Shapiro explained his stance and compared it to bread when questioned. You should watch the video. I will link it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prophet , notice how, at times, it is many hours before I respond? Their are days I don't say anything at all. It all depends. With Sam I don't have time in the morning to call him. Kyle posts his videos in the afternoon when I am at my computer processing data or writing. In the morning I am preparing instrumentation for work. I will try my best to debate him as he will be an easy opponent, but again, time is hard to manage. Commenting on youtube is much more flexible.
The editor did say it was not peer reviewed.
People here are far leftists. How do I say that? They support far leftists like Kyle and Bernie Sanders. How are they far leftists? They have no desire to consider the other side. They have no desire to consider other people's legit concerns. Compare Bernie here at the 35 minute mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bapp45Vx0UE&t=2068s
To Bill Clinton here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WP5dYfBBzU
Notice how Clinton had a general idea of the challenges businesses face and ran through numbers? Bernie does not do that. He simply said "screw you, you have to do it". He had no desire to try to understand her profit margins how many full time to part time workers she had, how many long term to short term profit she had, compare that to her competitors, etc. He has zero desire to actually listen to the other side. People on these comment sections are the same way. I post studies and books by experts and I get called a troll. That is not how you progress. On these issues there are experts on both sides with legit concerns. Dismissing one entire side makes you a far leftist.
Now how am I a fascist? I explained to you why you are a far leftist.
Uh, Scandinavia. I find it funny how you bring the up. Those nations have more of a flat tax than what Bernie and his fans want. The have lower corporate tax rates and less regulations. You cherry pick what you want out of them. Watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQwBA2QlJ3w&t=164s
You want the Scandinavian level of welfare with the US level of taxation. You are cherry picking what you want. So no, you are no where near in line with what Scandinavian is. But you will just dismiss that as well. Tell me, why do you ignore their level of taxation?
I never asked any of my students if they support single payer. I might have individually the ones I became more personal with and done so outside of class, but never to my entire class.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prophet , to extend, the platform of the far left is this
1. There are major problems
2. The solutions to them are simple and without consequences
3. They are popular
4. If you disagree you are ignorant, corrupt or a bigot
Take healthcare, the far left's point
1. People are dying and our healthcare system is terrible
2. The solution is simple, M4A
3. Polls say it is popular
4. It doesn't happen because insurance companies corrupt our politicians
Now for the reality
1. Yes, the US system has problems, but so do other systems in other nations. When you break it down our system is no par with other nations as we do many thing very well compared to them
2. We should really work with the system we have and improve on that as opposed to completely scrapping it and replacing it
3. The polls are vague questions on complex issues being asked to people who are not experts. They are unreliable
4. If you want to have an in depth conversation about healthcare we can. I will point to sources by Prof. Scott Atlas, Prof. Katherine Baicker and other experts, so I am clearly not ignorant, and I don't receive a dime
Here is a video explaining that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsmUw5FMxH0
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
George, if Kyle is not wrong he is very deceptive. Here are a few of many examples I can give.
1. He constantly points to opinion polls as if they are facts to push ideas. There are several flaws with that. To start, polls are vague with vague questions. He recently looked at a poll on medicare for all and said 59% supported it. However, nowhere in that polling did they mention taxes. If you included that how would the poll go? Also, in the methods they asked for the youngest adult which skews the results as they are going after the youngest participants. To add, 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare. Colorado is a left leaning state that supported Bernie. If polls say one thing why do people vote another way?
Also, going off of polls is not how we create policy. Kyle is saying if you do not support medicare for all than you are against what the people want and that is wrong. Well, if the majority supported banning abortion, or creating religious like laws would Kyle support that? If the polls say people supported them would Kyle say that is the will of the people and it must be done?
2. He has said there isn't any argument against raising the min. wage when in fact there are numerous experts who oppose the idea.
3. He said there isn't any argument against medicare for all when there are many experts who oppose the idea.
4. On healthcare he keeps bringing up the 45,000 deaths a year. Now never mind the many flaws in how inaccurate that number can be, what Kyle would do is follow up and say that number is zero in other nations. That is not true as in other nations people die due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems. For example, people have died on waiting lists in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery.
5. On the gun issue he has said that other countries have stricter gun laws and lower murder rates. In reality they have lower murder rates in general. For example, the US has a murder rate that is 5 times higher than the UK. If you remove all gun murders from the US the US still has a murder rate that is 2 times higher than the UK. Kyle also points to Australia when before their buyback program gun murders were dropping to begin with.
6. Kyle has said that our defense budget increase can pay for "free college" when he is ignoring increase in demand without increasing supply.
This just scratches the surface. I can come up with more. At the very least he is highly deceptive if he is not flat out wrong. You can argue Crowder is the same way, but what Crowder does that Kyle doesn't is that Crowder goes out and debates people. He has people on his show. Kyle doesn't. Kyle literally works in a bubble. He makes a BS excuse in why he won't debate Crowder and Shapiro.
My major issue, though, is how many will rip on Crowder and say they refuse to take him seriously when Kyle, at the very least practices the same deceptive technique as Crowder. Kyle supporters have double standards at that point.
1
-
Brian,
1. Paul Krugman is an economist who earned his PhD in economics from MIT. He is a Nobel Prize winner. Other economists are Kristen Eastlick, Bradley Schiller, Thomas Sowell, JJ Sabia, Richard Burkhauser.....I can go on but there are plenty. In fact, a survey done by the AEA showed that 73% of economists believed that raising the min. wage will lead to employment losses. This is very simple information to find. But the fact you did not know who Paul Krugman was makes you unfit for this discussion. You can easily find that he is an economist.
2. Kyle doesn't debate, period. Razorfist is not a political commenter like Crowder. Kyle runs from opposition that can actually challenge him. Crowder and Shapiro have discussed healthcare and economic issues a lot. Why not debate them? Because Kyle is scared.
3. " The simplest way to test this out is who benefits from kyle saying
minimum wage should be increased? The people. Who benefits from the
government providing health care? The people. "
Union can benefit greatly from min. wage increases which is why you have crony unionism. The min. wage has been shown to kill many unskilled jobs hurting people it is designed to help. The government can benefit greatly with government ran healthcare as now it has another bargaining chip to become even more corrupt.
" Name a single issue Kyle argues that would benefit a corporation. "
The min. wage as larger companies can afford it. Walmart argued for an increase in the min. wage at one point. Healthcare as the government will pick favorites in what healthcare provider to use.
" All of the arguments he espouses that benefit the government are driven by appealing to the best interests of the people.
"
What is the best interest of the people? Obama was at one point, was he the best interest? Justice Democrats are losing, but according to Kyle people support their ideas. Then why do they lose? Also, if government is so corrupt, why does Kyle want it to have more power?
Shapiro and Crowder push for more freedom and less government which lowers government corruption. They want people to be free from government and thus government corruption. Kyle wants the opposite.
" Kyle does his show to clear the misconceptions commonly put fourth via
mainstream outlets. He is debunking the myths people commonly are
brainwashed with. In doing so, yes he makes flaws. LOL This does not
make Kyle dumb if he over looks certain subjects."
There is a difference between overlooking and flat out not reading something. Studies he cites himself I have used against him. That is a problem.
1
-
""You are avoiding the substance of the discussion which is THOUSANDS of
people DIE annually because they cannot get access to basic healthcare
which in most countries aside to places like afghanistan and somalia
those people WOULD NOT DIE. ""
I have to comment on this separately as it shows how bad Kyle is. To start, you saying
"which in most countries aside to places like afghanistan and somalia
those people WOULD NOT DIE. "
That is 100% not true. Here are titles of papers to read
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic
stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
"Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among
29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
“Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals
despite palliative options: report" CMAJ
That is from Canada alone. Google those titles and the papers will come up. The fact is that in other nations people do die. Kyle bringing up that 45,000 number is him being highly deceptive and attracting idiots who refuse to question his talking points.
1. That 45,000 number is not accurate as it is hard to obtain accurate numbers there according to Katherine Baicker, a Harvard professor. Those individuals are poor to begin with and there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. All of those issues are self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with.
2. That 45,000 is 0.01% of the population, minute overall considering how no nation covers everyone as I just showed you
3. Kyle and you saying that number is zero in other nations is 100% false
4. That 45,000 number is not compared to other nations as no study as been done in comparison. So that number is very empty without proper comparison.
That is not to say that number does not possess value. It is to say that it is empty and should be taken with very high skepticism.
"You are acting like a snowflake and have not addressed that many points that would make someone not support Kyle."
I just did. I just showed you how that 45,000 number Kyle presents is highly misleading. Either he is too dumb to look deeper into it, or he is being misleading to gain views from idiots who refuse to look deeper into it. Take your pick.
But you won't, you did not know who Paul Krugman was.
1
-
1
-
Brian,
1. Paul Krugman is an economist. He has arguments against the min. wage even in his own textbook. Admit it, you have no clue who he was until I brought him up.
2. Yeah, it took forever.
3. Define "reasonable wage". That is very vague.
4. Walmart has pushed for a min. wage increase. knowing it would hurt smaller competitors.
"The fact is the government intervention in having a minimum wage is what keeps American corporations from paying people pennies on the hour."
People will not work for such low wages. Also, Walmart pays above the min. wage.
" The effect of increasing the minimum wage on walmart would hypothetically cost walmart $1,400, 000 dollars extra each hour. There is absolutely no logical reason for Walmart to try and drive the competition by willfully incurring this cost when their competition is minimal."
"That's a cost they would be stuck paying even after driving competition out of business which makes no sense at all to any investor."
When you have a monopoly it doesn't matter.
5. The Tea Party won first round
Kyle supports many of their policies.
"Having a reasonable standard of living and health care are in the best interests of the people. That's just common sense."
It isn't "common sense" because there is an argument to begin with. Also, define "reasonable". That's vague.
"That statement is half true because on one hand they want a larger government (bigger police, bigger military etc) and on the other hand they want less taxation and such. The fact of the matter is they want more and less at the same time. Saying they only want less government is an inaccurate statement."
Defense is constitutional and makes up only 16% of the federal budget. Defense spending has been dropping. Also, I see nothing saying they want to expand it. Police are funded and ran locally, irrelevant here.
"Again another misleading statement as it's only partially true. The government is already corrupt. The military is already corrupt. Policing is already corrupt. The courts are already corrupt. They want these aspects of government to continue or be increased. They do not advocate for less government in regard to subjects that are grossly corrupt today. "
Police are ran locally, how are they corrupt? How is the court corrupt? How is the military corrupt?
"With this being said, I don't believe this makes Kyle dumb or dishonest. Just misguided and wrong at times. I don't think he's 100% all of the time. "
Why don't you give Crowder the same pass?
"The main thing Kyle has going for him is his genuine approach to always going with what he believes to be the truth regardless."
If he were genuine he will debate people like Crowder and he would dig deep into an issue that can easily be found.
1
-
Brian,
"The bigger crime is the fact that health care is profitable and cures to cancer are NOT allowed to exist. The predatory health care industry suppresses such remedies and offers alternative solutions they patent and profit off."
The US leads the world in R&D. Our issues with healthcare is that it is a for profit system but not a free market system. Healthcare has many government restrictions driving up costs.
"Just so you're aware, it's not a good thing that American's die because they can't get access to health care."
I agree, but what I am saying is that happens in other nations as well.
"No, you didn't. You nit picked a very miniscule topic even though it remains truthful. LOL Perhaps if thousands of people DID NOT die annually because they couldn't access health care you would have a case. However this is not the case at all. Thousands of people do die annually and Kyle is correct in bringing that point up. He may be incorrect on the exact annual figure. "
As I said, a Harvard professor talked about the flaws of those numbers. It is arguable that 45,000 is actually lower. Also, as I said, that happens in other nations.
So here are the issues
1. It is arguable that number is not accurate to begin with
2. It is no compared to other nations, so that number is meaningless.Yes, 45,000 dying is bad, but what is the rate in other nations? It is not zero. So what is it? Where is a similar study? One does not exist making this number irrelevant.
So yes, I do have a strong case here.
1
-
1
-
"141 deaths... 141 dude. One hundred and forty one."
Yes, with a smaller population and that is only one form of death. You are looking at 45,000 dude, in a nation of 320+ million dude, for all types of deaths, dude. Also, as I said and as I just linked, one can argue that 45,000 is an exaggeration.
"I understand that republicans and people like yourself don't care that thousands of their fellow citizens die annually"
Oh shut the fuck up. Really. Just because we have different ideas does not mean I want people to die or don't care about people dying. I do. My ideas are different, but I can defend them. I will never say that Kyle does not care about anyone nor that he wants people to die. You are coming off that your ideas are morally superior and if I disagree in any way that I am a bad person. Seriously, shut the fuck up. This is why republicans won, people are sick of that attitude.
I am trying to help you here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brian, I watched the "documentary". He starts out by saying the truth, healthcare is complicated. I agree with that 100%. That is why I am saying you and Kyle cannot simply say that all we have to do is raise taxes, have the government run healthcare, and things will be better. Healthcare is far too complicated.
You want a simple solution to a very complex problem. That is my problem with people like you, Kyle and others on the ultra left. Healthcare is very complex. I have friends that work in it. I do research myself that is healthcare related with my NIH grant. I know this first hand. You are on the outside looking in. You are saying
"Well gee, all we have to do is raise taxes and create a law that has the government cover everyone and things will be all better, derp".
It isn't that easy. I wish it was, I really do. I wish there was this easy button to push but guess what, it does not exist.
Healthcare is a nearly $4 trillion industry where the government already pays $1 trillion into it. The workers in it spend nearly a decade in post secondary schooling and then many years in residency to work in that field. It is a highly evolving field that is very stressful. I am highly critical of your "solutions" because they are very vague and thus poor on a complex issue. And when I even bring that idea up, and show you how wrong Kyle is by refusing to dig in the issue, you say I want to kill people. That is a problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brian, the phrase "living wage" is 100% subjective and means nothing. I have shown people that by earning $6/hr I can have enough to live off of and still be saving over $100 a month. My "living wage" is different than that of my neighbor, my co-worker, my boss, etc. It is all subjective which is why that phrase means nothing. It is another appeal to emotion phrase used by the left to avoid going into details on complex issues.
"You always hold dear the positions that fuck over the public than get all pissy when people call you out for being heartless and gutless."
Here is the problem. At the very core, when you go deep on these issues, especially economically, the political left bases their ideas on emotions, the political right bases their ideas on facts, logic and reasoning for the most part. And what we have done is argued far enough to get to that core. I am sticking to facts and reasoning, you are going with emotions. You are saying that my ideas "fuck over the public" with zero evidence and then get all emotional.
Now that is no to say one side is better than the other. We always need facts and reasoning, but we are still human and thus we do have emotions. This is to say that is who each side bases their ideas. It is not me getting pissy, it's you. I am forcing you to try to defend your stance with facts and reasoning and you just claim that I want others to die.
" What positions do you advocate that positively impact the poor and sick? None so far. Why is that? Is it because you hate the poor and dont want the sick to become healthy? OR is it because youd rather people die than imagine a gun to Bens Shapiros wifes head?"
I can easily argue how a free market system will behoove us more in healthcare. I have shown you how that even with universal healthcare people still die in those systems. Our for profit system in the US has led to better R&D, higher cancer survival rates, and better quality of care for critical situations. The problem is cost. Cost is high due to the lack of a free market system. No free market system means the consumer cannot negotiate prices and force companies to compete. We do not have a free market due to many government restrictions. You want to add more. LASIK is a part of the free market. It is not covered by insurance and is not heavily regulated by the government. Overtime it has become cheaper and better. The government restricts healthcare a lot giving too much power to the insurance companies. You simply want to transfer that power from insurance companies to the federal government. I want to spread that power to the people as that has always led to a better product with lower prices.
My ideas do improve people's lives and I have a long history to point to. I don't hate poor people either. I was raised poor.
"Private health care is great even if it kills far more people than socialized health care."
You have zero evidence to support that statement.
"Is private policing something your free markets would keep in check? What about private intelligence agencies? How about private courts is that ideal too? Private militaries would be great because the rich could truly rule more directly than you could settle everything once and for all!!"
You see, this is where I have standards. You can't have private courts and military due to the Constitution. The Constitution outlines the role of the federal government. There is a desire to have government, but it must be limited. That is what the Constitution is there for.
You see, I have standards with my ideas. I don't have to resort to appeal to emotion statements like "living wage" or "reasonable". You do as you do not understand the topic well enough. You really need to branch away from Kyle.
1
-
"100% subjective but still has meaning. You think it means slave like
conditions and others think it means a wage that allows for a standard
of living above the poverty line. "
It is 100% thus it has no meaning when it comes to policy. As for slaves, slaves were forced to work.
Brian, I know people get sick, I know people miss work. I have been there. But also people can get roommates, they can work more than one job, they can learn how to balance a budget and find activities for enjoyment that do not cost money, or in my case actually brings in money. For example, I am a sports official, that pays me money as is an activity I do for fun. You can do basketball and earn $60 a game. You exercise, spend time with some friends and earn money. Or you can read which costs almost nothing. There are ways.
You say
"You like always, are arguing for slave like conditions,"
Slaves were forced to work. They were treated like property. You are bringing up another appeal to emotion statement to ignore the details of the argument.
You say
"but have no regard for real life factors - tune out reality."
I just gave you reality. People can learn how to balance a budget, get roommates, take on a second job, or even go in temporary debt until they get a higher paying job. That's life. I am in debt now due to college loans, but I am a PhD candidate close to graduating and seeing my yearly income increase, at least, 300%. Life is work. You don't get everything you want.
"Yes you are breaking down simple math and looking at it logically. So am I. The difference is I have morals and ethics."
Really? What is moral about paying people more then they are worth? What is moral about teaching laziness? That is what you are doing? I want to teach people who to manage a budget, how to work hard and move up and become more productive in society. You want to teach people how to complain and use government force to get what they want. What is moral about that?
Again, you are saying your ideas are morally superior to try to silence me. I work very hard myself and I have worked hard to push people to become productive. I have worked hard to teach people advanced topics in physics and chemistry so they can become more productive in society. What have you done? Don't come to me as if I have no morals.
" I don't preach for a wage that reduces my fellow citizens to slum like conditions that forces a life of endless work."
No, you preach for a government to hold a gun to people's head and force them to pay. Or worse, you preach for a system where businesses have to make a choice of taking a loss or not hiring people at all. The min. wage has been known to kill lots of jobs for the disadvantage. Congrats, you support making people unemployed. Who is the moral one now?
"The worst is people like you turn around and demean and devalue these
types of people in society and blame them for where they are when in
reality it's the system you protect with basic math and
oversimplifications of the real world that forces a large portion of
society to live in these conditions."
I was poor once in my life. I earned $5.15/hr. I still only earn $23,000 a year.
"
You assume a very unreasonable life - a life that is perfect and without
error - to save. This is simply not the case and borders on the line of
slavery."
Again, slaves were forced to work. Plus, the issues you brought up I have accounted for. For example, I will live walking distance from work, no need for a car. The apartment will take care of plumbing. I don't watch TV. The apartment pays for internet. I included cellphone cost in my analysis.
So what is a "living wage"? You talk about a world that is not perfect. OK. What about someone who gets cancer? What about someone with three kids whose wife dies and one of their kids needs heart surgery? Their "living wage" is very high? Why not make the "living wage" $1000/hr? Also, how many hours? Why not make it a "living salary" to eliminate businesses restricting hours? Heck, why not mail people $100,000 a year? Eliminate the lack of perfection in this world?
You are the one claiming the world is perfect and all you need is government to make it that way.
1
-
"I will assume you just hate the people more than the CEO at mcdicks.
"
Mcdicks, cute, nice maturity. The CEO of McDonalds does not set wages. They are franchised.
Fun fact, though. If you were to cut the pay of CEOs to zero and spread their money to all of the employees there, they will earn very little. For example, cut the salaries of the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread that money to the 525,000 lowest paid workers of Walmart those workers will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. What do you gain by complaining about CEO pay?
"
I don't engage in these conversations, I never have. I will admit, that I
find your stances appalling. You can somehow argue that having 80 000
000 people in your country just scraping by is good. "
You refuse to engage because you, like Kyle, live in a bubble. I want to solve poverty, but people are in poverty due to numerous reasons. It is not because people are rich. And you don't solve poverty by just giving money away, that makes it worse. What history has shown is that the free market solves it.
"You seem to want to argue that people shouldn't have access to healthcare and it's fine."
Never have once. I want everyone to have access to very high quality of care.
"All of your positions have negative effects on large groups of people"
You have never justified that position.
However, please stop saying I don't want to help others. I do. I want what is best for this country. You don't as you don't want to engage in an honest conversation without smearing your opponent. This is why your side is losing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grmpEqweer , that 45,000 stat has been challenged. To start, what do you have to compare that to? Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. You can't just throw a stat out there with no comparison. People die in every nation due to lack of access. So is that 45,000 high, low or the average? Well, around 40,000 die a year in car accidents, but I don't see an uproar on that.
Also, as prof. Katherine Baicker said, those 45,000 are poor, and bad health is associated with those in poverty. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As pointed out in the book "Being Mortal" required reading for nursing majors in my university, people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those 45,000 healthcare and they live only 5 more months, what was the success? Also, Prof. Richard Kronick did a similar study and found that expanding coverage will not lead to less deaths.
You have to try harder than talking points.
As for us paying more, that is because we offer more. In the book "In Excellent Health" the author there breaks down how we offer more advanced testing compare to other nations. For example, we offer more CT scans and MRIs per capita. Those testing cost money. Other nations cap how much care you receive. That is why the US leads the world in survival rates of advanced illnesses.
As for medical bankruptcy, that is arguably a myth. Read the study entitled
"Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies"
I have seen all the talking points that you have given. This is the problem with the far left. They have nothing beyond talking points. These issues are very complex. I need more than just talking points. You have to dig farther.
1
-
@mgenetos , you know why healthcare costs have gone up so much? Because of government regulations and subsidizes. Medicare costs have gone up slower because Medicare simply covers less. For example, it took 40 years for Medicare to finally cover prescription benefits where private insurance was covering it long before that. Also, Medicare is heavily subsidized by private insurance. If we were all on Medicare access and quality of healthcare will drop due to lower payments. So you say private insurance cost more, because they provide more. That is the harsh reality. You point to cost but completely ignore access and quality. Again, it took Medicare 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits. Look beyond cost bud.
"Medicare is not subsidized. It’s healthcare provided by private hospitals paid for by public taxes."
In the current state it is. One reason why healthcare is so expensive is that
1. Many go to the ER, receive care and don't pay
and
2. Medicare pays 40% less.
Healthcare providers make up the difference by charging private insurance more. The money has to come from somewhere.
"Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, Wave power.
Federal Jobs programs to manufacture pipes on a nationwide scale to repipe places like Flint, most of Texas, Missouri, Ohio etc. Trade school for pipe-layers, Jobs digging, and rebuilding infrastructure. "
So you think people are going to just be willing to work those jobs, or have the ability to work them? Also, once those things are built, then what? Now those jobs are gone.
"Row-boating across the ocean seems like an unfruitful endeavor. What stops the rowers from unionizing and throwing you overboard because there’s no way you’re paying them enough to get you across the Atlantic?"
Well, what is going to stop those people building pipes from unionizing and striking? It goes both ways.
"College for all is useless? Is high-school for all is useless? Grade school for all useless? "
K-12 is ran and funded locally and is the community placing a program to help out kids. College is an investment you make as an adult. That is where the value comes from. College is vastly different than K-12 education. Compare the two. In college you are an adult, you make the choice to go to college. One problem we have in our nation is that many don't view college that way, they have the viewpoint you have that college is simply and extension of high school and thus approach college wrong. College is an investment. When you approach college that way it will benefit you more. If you view college as an extension of high school you won't gain anything. .
"nd, you know exactly why I brought up military spending. If military spending is out of control and it doesn’t help any Americans"
Why not? Also, many problems there.
1. I never brought up defense spending
2. Defense spending has been dropping for decades
3. Everyone agrees we need a defense, not so much on if the federal government should manage healthcare
"In the richest, most industrialized nation ever—you’re really telling us Pink—that healthcare for all is not possible?"
Healthcare for all is not possible anywhere. Resources are limited. This is something you learn day one in any economics course. For example, my econ professor did a thought experiment. Ask random people if driving can ever be too safe. They will say no. In reality, economically, the answer is yes. How? Well, we can make driving very safe by restricting speeds to 15 mph. What is the drawback? Much longer travel times. Now apply that same idea to healthcare. Can we provide healthcare to all? Possibly. But us as a society will have to be very restrictive in controlling people's diet, lifestyle, money, etc.
Far leftists have these impossible dreams because they simply don't understand economics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You do realize inflation exists, right?"
You do realize there are many flaws in inflation, right? To start, there are 4 measures of inflation. The CPI, PPI, PCE and GDP deflator and each one gives different results. Next, there are flaws in inflation such as quality bias, new product bias and so on. On quality bias, inflation stats hardly take into account quality. For example, a car today cost more than one from the 50s. However, cars today are safer, get better mileage, and last longer, all of which saves money in the long run. No one had a smart phone in the 50s, no poor people have them. A smart phone has more computing power than what put a man on the moon.
It is true that someone in the middle class today would be considered rich in 1950. Now there is more to it, but for the most part that saying is true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arkthul8872 the scamdemic is an excuse to make people's lives miserable to try to beat Trump. The economy was going great and thus democrats were desperate, found an opportunity and went with it. And deaths happen, that's life. We don't limit speed limits to 10 mph because of traffic deaths? We don't ban alcohol due to alcohol poisoning?
Why are you preaching me on the Fed? I know how it works. I took an entire course on it.
Biden is way different than Trump on economics. Trump cut out the fat in the federal government and gave more powers to the states. Also, politicians have climate change wrong. We do not know if it is even a threat?
The scamdemic is an attempt to beat Trump. Ironic how this is happening during an election year. Also, noticed how states with the highest death rates and still with the strictest lock downs are mainly ran by democrats? Take NY for example, in April they were having around 11,000 cases a day, now, since June, they have been around 700 cases a day. In June they had around 300,000 active cases a day, now they are around 60,000. They did it, they relieved their healthcare system. They can open up. But just now Cuomo is looking to allow indoor dining at 25%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"- Not true. Wages have been stagnant since the early 80's. This is an empirically researched fact. "
Not true for a couple of reasons. One, depending on what method of inflation you look at wages have either been stagnate or gone up. If you use the PCE or GDP deflator inflation rate wages have increased. There are multiple methods in measuring inflation. Also, it is difficult to account for improve quality when measuring inflation. For example, cars are more expensive today but are much cheaper overall due to begin safer, lasting longer and getting better mileage.
"Skilled biased technological change is normal and a direct result of progress. "
That has taken off due to the computer.
"That actually makes the argument for a SUSTAINABLE living minimum wage, "
The term "living wage" is subjective and thus meaningless. Anyway, increased technology leads to better goods and services that are cheaper which is similar to increasing wages.
" In reality, it's the only way capitalism will be sustainable. "
Not true. Capitalism is always sustainable as it accounts for the subjective nature of man.
"when it takes 10 years of training to quality for an entry level job, people will need a universal basic income to subsist.
"
It doesn't take 10 years of training. There are still many entry level jobs, they just changed. For example, the people who work the front desk at my gym is entry level, they are not going anywhere. Increasing the min. wage does kill those jobs.
" The top 10 percent hold approximately 76% of the wealth"
Wealth does not equal income. Take Jeff Bezos, he earns $80,000 a year, that's it. However, he has so much wealth because of the stocks he owns in Amazon. He is valued that much. Those stock prices are worth that much because of how successful his business is. However, he does not have that much money.
The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. The average home owner has 30 time more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to now wealth. Why? Because not everyone owns major shares for a large company like Bezos does. A person with zero assets and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because many, like me, are in debt due to home loans or college loans (college loan in my case). Is that bad? No as it shows we allow people to regress in order to purchase major things and then progress forward.
Pointing to wealth inequality is bad as you have to realize what wealth is. Bezos is worth a lot because of Amazon, not because of the money he has. He own shares in Amazon. However, if those shares were to be in someone's hands either than Bezos the company will lose value as they will not have the ability to keep the company valuable thus making them worthless. Wealth is highly subjective. But more importantly, wealth is not income.
1
-
"I thought it was becasue they buy off politicians to write loopholes and
laws that benefit them over others, you know the very same thing Donald
trump himself campaigned on and spoke out about..."
Trump eliminated many loopholes. Even at that I agree, the loopholes need to go. That is a problem of government. That is why I support, at the federal level, a flat tax and a consumption tax, or a tax on the states like it was prior to 1913.
"Lol the poor are not getting richer in the sense that you are implying,
over half the country doesn't make more than 30k a year..."
A very vague statement. I earn $23,000 a year and I am well off. Why? Because there are numerous factors to consider. Cost of living, if they have roommates or a spouse or are a teenage living with parents, etc. You can't just throw numbers out there and expect it to stick. You have to put them in perspective.
Consider this, around 62% of the US population is working age (15-64). Out of that half earn $30,000 or less. That is 31% of the total population. The median income of those between 16-24 is less than $27,000 a year. About 11% make up that age range. So you have 20% of the nation, over 25 years of age, that earns less than $30,000 a year. And that is not including the unemployed. So there is some errors, but close enough. Now out of that 20% how many have spouses? You have to factor that in. How many live in rural areas with lower cost of living? Consider that WV is 3rd to last in median per capita income but is number 1 in home ownership rate.
Again, stop throwing numbers around with zero perspective.
"As for this idea that somehow the rich didn't make more money o could
improve their situations or get richer in the 1920's is false. "
My lifestyle is much better than that of a rich person in the 20s. I am more likely to live longer, I have a better car, a smart phone, high speed internet, etc.
"slavery used to be a thing, should all poor black people who cannot
afford to feed their children or keep their houses not care about that
becasue hey, "slavery used to exist" so you could be worse off?
"
We should always push for improvement, but the point is that the poor are not getting poorer. Anyone who says that has no idea what they are talking about.
If you want to have an actual, progressive conversation on these issues you have to be honest. You have to admit the poor have become richer over the years. Now have they become richer at a rate we would like? Now that is something we can discuss. But when you say they are getting poorer then I cannot take you serious.
1
-
1
-
"We aren't talking about inflation"
So am I. As I said there are multiple measures in inflation and studies has shown that with two of them, the PCE and GDP deflator, that wages are going up.
"We are talking about WAGES. The current minimum wage is not a living wage and measuring it has nothing to do with inflation. "
I did bring up wages. Also, you are paid the market rate. It is up to you to find a way to live. The phrase "living wage" is subjective and means nothing. My living wage is much lower than that of a person with multiple health problems and a kid who has health problems. It is dependent on your situation and thus subjective.
" This has nothing to do with inequality, but since you bring it up, the
majority of cars still operate via gasoline - not sustainable in the
long run and completely obsolete compared to electric cars. "
A car today gets way better gas mileage than one in the 70s, that is the point. And this does have to do with inequality. Sure, Jeff Bezos is rich, but he provided an easy way for me to buy goods where I do not even need a car. He made my life easier.
" OK, well let me objectify it for you. living wage: A wage, regardless
of job title, that can support the minimum basic needs of an individual.
The average minimum wage in America is $7.25. You can't survive on
that alone. "
Depending on my situation I can easily live off that much. So 7.25, let us say $6 to account for taxes and other expenses I may forget. At 40 hours a week, 4 weeks a month that is $960 a month. I will use my expenses. I pay $600 a month for rent. I will have to cut that down, there is a nice apartment that charges $545 a month with a shared kitchen. They pay all utilities including internet, so I pay $545 for rent, heat, electricity, water and internet.
Food, I spend around $80 a month for that. I can cut that down (stop buying steak for example), but I will stick to it. So now at $625. I don't need a car, that apartment is within a 10 minute walking distance from work. Cell phone, I will keep my $90 plan just to jack my expenses up, so now at $715 a month (I can cut cell phone as well but nope).
So my monthly expenses are $715 a month, I end up saving $245 a month. Now does that mean everyone can do that? No. Say if I had a kid, and I had to drive to work, and I was diabetic (or my kid was), now my expenses are much higher. It would not be healthy to live in that place. I would have medical expenses and a stricter diet. I will have gas and car expenses.
This is why the phrase "living wage" is subjective. You say "basic needs", what are those needs? They vary by person.
" That doesn't even make sense. We aren't talking about the nature of man"
There is a subjective and an objective side to economics. With capitalism the people can decide how to spend their money the way it suits them. That is subjective in many ways. For example, if I buy a bottle of booze that is an investment to me, subjectively, but not for others.
" If anything, this is an argument about the nature of capitalism, which is CONSUMPTION."
Consumption of what? And how is that bad?
"You missed the first part of that when I said "In the future" - being
not now. If you really are as educated as you proclaim you are, then
you will know what an exponential growth curve is and you will know how
quickly it's accelerating. "
Most entry level jobs are not going anywhere for decades, if not centuries. We will cross that bridge when we get to it.
" I wonder how many people were saying that before the housing bubble burst in '08. Hint: It was a lot."
Yes, the housing bubble did increase the wealth gap.
"Bezos is worth 124.3 Billion dollars and hundreds of his employees are on food stamps - mic drop."
He is worth that much because of stocks. Stocks are not food, you cannot eat them. They are simply shares of a company that retain value based on how the market perceives how much it is worth based on several variables. If Bezos were to sell of off his shares one of two things will happen
1. Even with all of the money he makes from selling it that does not increase the supply of food, so he won't be able to give food to his workers.
2. He could sell his stocks to someone who is not business savvy which will bankrupt the company and thus those workers will become unemployed.
Even at that there isn't that much money out there to buy all of those stocks. That is how much he is worth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"But this isn't even relevant, the argument you keep posing is a single
state didn't pass it thus the entire country doesn't want it which
logically makes no sense. "
It makes perfect sense. The polls you look at polled around 1000 people, and from where? It does not say. What age group? It does not say. However, Colorado is a left leaning state that Bernie won in the primaries. Over 2 million voted and 80% of them said no. If people really wanted universal healthcare they would at least support it at the state level. Or at least it would not lose by 80%.
"The argument you are posing is just idiotic and you keep posting over
and over again with this argument on secular talk videos every time even
though it makes no sense. Who are you trying to convince with the
non-nonsensical argument that has no relevance to the topic?
"
I am trying to get people to think about this issue. This is a complex issue. To think that all we need is for the government to run it and it will be all better is incredibly ignorant.
"People support a system that will give federal power to healthcare, thus
having more bargaining power, being able to control costs and
regulations and price of healthcare providers. "
How is the federal government going to bargain? And why can't the people do it? Why not give that power to the people? And basic economics shows that price setting creates inefficiencies in the market.
"Having a single state try it is almost impossible due to the reasons named above,"
It isn't. States run education, infrastructure, police, most of our parks, etc.
".(Such as states having different funds available, comparing California which is the richest state to Mississippi for example)."
Different cost of living as well.
"You are trying to extrapolate a single state to the entire country which is beyond illogical. "
It isn't. Again, left leaning state that supported Bernie and 80% said no.
"Anyways, do some research when trying to post 80% of voters argument in
colorado over and over and over again. It's getting ridiculous. "
At this point all I have to do is just wait. Single payer is never going to happen at the federal level,period. Come talk to me in 20 years and you will see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GoodMorningRatchets, I read that article Kyle was referring to entitled "The Cool Kid's Philosopher". It is not exactly the best literature to read to gain intelligence. To point out a couple flaws the author went to mention how Shapiro says that all you have to do to not be in poverty is
1. Graduate high school
2. Get a full time job
3. Not have babies until you are married
The author's counter argument is
"of course people who have full-time jobs usually aren’t in poverty, the problem is that black people disproportionately can’t get jobs."
That misses many points. The three points of Shapiro are connected. If you do not graduate high school, or if you are a single mom with commitment to kids, you will have a harder time getting a job. Also, if you do not do well in high school or have committed crime that will prevent you from getting a job. These are all actions that are done personally. There are also government barriers such as the min. wage where Milton Friedman called that the most anti-negro law on the books. When the in. wage was established black teen unemployment shot up.
Later the author brought up the study in how blacks receive 20% longer sentencing for crimes compared to whites. However, that same study said it was a correlation, and that correlation does not equal causation. That same report the author cited which makes me question if they actually read it. It was mentioned on page 32 of the report and Endnote 60. There are other factors you cannot measure that can contribute to that 20% gap. Factors such as courtroom appearance and attitude.
In comparison, there is close to a 20% gap in high school graduation rate between blacks and whites as well, does that mean high schools are racist and refuse to hand out diplomas to blacks? Or maybe that is because of their attitude.
Come on, you have to do better than that. That author makes it too easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomasdendtler4077 , Bernie praised Venezuela and Cuba in the past and then was quite when they failed. Also, his ideas are more in line with those nations. Denmark has more of a flat tax compared to the US. For example, the median income in the US is around $63,000 a year, the top tax rate is around 6.3 time more than that at $400,000. Denmark's median income is around $43,000. Their top tax rate is around 1.3 times more than than at around $55,000 a year. In short, Denmark has more of a flat tax. Bernie either
1. Wants to copy Venezuela and centralize the country and base it on one source of income, the rich (where Venezuela relied on oil)
or
2. He does want to copy Denmark raises taxes on everyone including the middle class, and is lying.
Take your pick
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LukewarmEnthusiast , Nordic nations have a lower corporate tax rate. Nordic nations have a higher tax on the middle class. During a debate against Cruz a guy from Denmark pushed Bernie in the corner saying he wanted to spend like a Scandinavian but not tax like one. So what is it?
"But let's be adults here. There's no such thing a free lunch. There will be a minor increase in middle-class tax rates but will be an outright bargain compared to being bankrupted by medical expenses."
Will it? Most who go bankrupt are poor to begin with.
" Just imagine: no insurance premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays, no doctor bills, no hospital bills, no fighting with insurance companies, actually being covered if you currently can't get insurance, $200 annual max out of pocket for prescription drugs. "
Long wait times, less access and quality of care, more waste.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Amr S, see a specific doctor could very well make your treatment differently. Doctors may change the dosage of a medication, they may give different rehab assignments, different diets, or different counseling. Healthcare is very personalized. There are some generic treatments, but there are also very specific and specialized treatments depending on the person. There are genetic factors to consider, diet, the type of work they do and so on.
If you have a pain or discomfort that turns out to be worse than chances are you have many other issues that play a role. In the study entitled
"The Oregon Experiment-Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes"
People who received Medicaid did not improve in physical health. Why? Because a lot of it has to do with diet, exercise and genetics. Again, even if you receive care does not mean you will live a significant amount of time. If you receive care and die 3 months later due to another complication, is that a success?
How do you monitor pain and health issue? People aren't doctors. They need to see a doctor to monitor that properly but they can't if the wait times are too long. And again, what they have can be very subjective.
I will suggest that if this issue is so important to you that you read up on it more. I feel you haven't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the instrumentation does not exist than more money will not be able to buy you any. You cannot consume what you don't produce. And even if you do buy it you still need people to run it.
I will compare it to the field I work in, science. One of my instruments cost $300,000. Another is $80,000. Overall an entire set up of mine would cost around $500,000. Now you may say "if you had the money you can have those instruments", which is true, but I am the only one in that lab that can run it. So even if we bought a new set up I simply don't have the time to manage two. You may say "train someone else", but there is no one else to train.
Medicare spending has been increasing for years. Medicare was around 1% of GDP in 1980 and now is around 3% of GDP. To say medicare spending has not been increasing is simply not true. As for doctors, med schools have less than a 50% acceptance rate. We lack them. And simply throwing more money at the issue does not increase the amount of doctors. Also, you have to realize that the money is simply not there. I can buy a house if I spent more money on my housing, but I don't have that kind of money so I rent a one bedroom apartment. Same with the government and healthcare. The money is not there for the government to fund healthcare.
1. Competition has always led to more innovation. History shows that. Apple struggled and became creative and create better products due to competition. Amazon challenged Walmart so now Walmart has their pick up service that attracts customers. Competition has always led to innovation. Government is what creates monopolies as it harms small businesses with expensive regulations. Government is a main reason why healthcare has as many problems as it does. Read the article
"How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive"
Government creating expensive regulations prevents small businesses from expanding as small business simply can't afford them. Large businesses have more resources to work around those regulation where small ones don't. Government creates monopolies.
2. I never said no government at the federal level. There is a desire to have a federal government, but it needs to be restricted. We have a Constitution that does that. The Constitution gives all the responsibilities of the federal government. That is the limits it should work in. Everything else should be left up to the states and local government. The federal government should govern the states, not the people. That was the design. The federal government served the states where the states served the people. That way the federal government has very little power to potentially oppress the people.
Most infrastructure spending is done at the local level. 3/4 of funding for roads is done locally. Education is ran and funded locally. The department of education did not exist until the 1970s. I find it ironic where most on the left point to the 50s and 60s as time of huge economic growth where those were times we had limited federal government. We did not have the EPA, OSHA, or the department of education. To be fair there were other factors involved in that economic growth as well, but reality is we had decades of limited federal government with no problems. States managed their own education systems and still do. States managed their infrastructure and still do. By your thought process states would have never been able to create an education system or roads but they did.
At the federal level you have no voice. You cannot vote for the vast majority of the politicians. As much as I assume you hate Ted Cruz if you are not from his district you cannot vote for him. And if you can you surely cannot vote for Mitch McConnell. Just like I cannot vote for Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pelosi. That is why I want limited federal government. I want people who I can actually vote for influence my life. You apparently don't. You want the federal government to have more power and then complain when it becomes corrupt, or a Trump like individual becomes president.
3. Money is in politics because it has power to sell. With a free market government has no power thus it cannot sell anything. In a free market a business can give as much money as they want to the government but the government cannot do anything, so that business just wasted their money. With a federal government with more power businesses can pay them off to have the government create laws to benefit the businesses.
If you were to create a national healthcare system the healthcare providers with the most money will pay off the government to force people to use their services as opposed to small businesses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Identifying information was redacted. How is that putting anyone in harm's way?"
Releasing personal information on people and attaching them to that statement they made can put them in harms way.
"Second, employers need to understand something here: the job would exist even if they did not. "
Eh, not really. If there isn't anyone to invest then the job won't exist.
"The employer creates nothing,"
100% not true. They are the ones investing to create what the consumer wants. If the consumer wants better phones and no one is there to create it and/or sell it than it does not matter.
"Being born to rich parents does more for a person's chances of succeeding in this country than being incredibly intelligent."
What is "intelligence? Is being able to mange your money and work with others intelligence? People born into rich families are taught those skills at a young age by their parents.
"Third, if companies can claim you have to represent them at all times, how is that anything more than a license to control your life?"
They did not have to hire you, period. If you want to work for them you have to act in a certain. Don't like it than find a new job or create your own company. By your second remark you claim it is easy. That employer pays you, you represent them. If you misrepresent them they can fire you.
Say you run a company and one of your cashiers cussed out a customer, will you not fire them? Or say you are a school teacher, don't you have to behave in society? For lower wages jobs, like min. wage jobs, there is more flexibility as they are low paying jobs. But for prestige jobs the scrutiny is higher.
I take it you have never been in a professional setting before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Marie, that is not necessarily true. In other countries people die on waiting lists. Here are some examples in Canada some for "elective" heart surgery.
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic
stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
"Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among
29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
“Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals
despite palliative options: report" CMAJ
Even at that waiting for "elective" surgery can make your situation worse making it more difficult for you to return to work
“Incapacity for work in elective orthopaedic surgery: a
study of occurrence and the probability of returning to work after treatment.” J Epidemiol Community Health
"Universal health care in general have better outcomes and spend less."
That is also not true. I will link you a book on that. There is a lot to healthcare. You cannot simply say "they get better outcomes" because that can be determined in many ways. For example, in this book I will give you when you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. You are looking at raw statistics when they are what they are, raw. There are many factors beyond healthcare that influence those numbers so to say "they get better outcomes" is very vague. As for cost, the US leads the world in research and innovation in health. Also, in the US we pursue more advanced testing all which drives up the cost. Many of those advanced testing is done by choice.
" Take for instance Sweden which the infant mortality rate is 2.76 for
every 1000 live birth compared to the us 6.26 out of a 1,000 live birth"
Infant mortality is measured in different ways and thus is a tricky way to actually compared healthcare.
"International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related Factors: United States and Europe, 2010" National Vital Statistics Reports
When you read the report they had to adjust for the varying methods countries use to measure IMR. The US is including babies who die at a younger age (less than 24 weeks) where other aren't. You adjust for that the US IMR is 1/3 less of what it is and less than the UK. Also, one report from 2009 said that one reason for the high IMR in the US is due to the high rate of preterm births
"Behind International Rankings of Infant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe" National Center for Health Statistics
What this means is that these raw stats are not good to go off of. Sure, the US may have a higher IMR, but why? What other factors have you included? It goes beyond healthcare.
"Or the mortality rate for males age 15 to 60 is double compared to Sweden."
And that can be contributed to our high murder rate. Our murder is 4 times higher than Sweden's. Over 3/4 of the victims murdered in the US are male. Again, that is not an issue of healthcare.
You have to be careful here with these numbers.
1
-
1
-
"it may happen but the numbers are so vanishingly small you never hear
about them.Whereas the numbers who die from having no money for medical
treatment in the US is so huge you cant take it in"
Numbers in the US are small as well to where you do not hear about it. Kyle spews about the 45,000 who die a year due to lack of healthcare access. However, that number is misleading. To start, that is 0.01% of the overall population. That is minute in the big picture and with small numbers like that they are sensitive to any variable changes in statistical regression models. To compare around 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents in the US. Does that mean all of those people were with bad drivers? Or in unsafe cars? Or on unsafe roads? You can't limit it to just one variable. 1/3 of traffic deaths involve drunk drivers thus reducing that 30,000 to 20,000 that can be a factor of bad driving (while sober), bad roads, bad cars, etc.
On that 45,000 you have to consider that those people are poor to begin with and there is a correlation between being poor and being in bad health such as high rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes. That is self inflicted. So the question becomes did they die due to lack of access or simply due to being in bad health to begin with? You cannot say with high accuracy.
People who throw out these numbers are doing a huge disservice to the conversation as healthcare is a much more complex issue than people realize. So when you say
" the numbers who die from having no money for medical treatment in the US is so huge you cant take it in"
That is based off of nothing but pure exaggeration and abuse of the numbers.
1
-
1
-
"you know I was referring to your waiting list."
Sure. I feel that if you worked hard in life and put yourself in a position to obtain healthcare in a timely manner then yes, you should get care quickly. There are exceptions and we have them. In the ER you cannot be denied if you have a life threatening situation. And in ICU doctors do ration if needed
“The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine” Chest
But there are people who will drain the system if we just give them care even though they cannot afford it.
"What limited resources are you referring to? What limited resources are you referring to? What if we allocate our
defense budget cut it into a third and imagine putting it towards
education and healthcare. "
Money is not the resource I am talking about. But on money quickly, defense spending is 3% of our GDP. Healthcare is 1/6 of our GDP. We already spend more on healthcare at the federal level than we do defense. In fact, over the years healthcare spending has been increasing at the federal level and defense spending has been dropping. In 1960 defense spending was 10% of GDP, now it is 3%. As for education, that is funded locally Around 84% of funding for education is state and local. It isn't as easy as "allocate money from defense" as
1. There isn't that much money in defense to begin with
2. How defense, healthcare and education are funded are completely different
But on actual resources I am talking about doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment, etc. We have a waiting list for organs due to limitations. That paper I referenced talks about rationing care because of limited resources. Pumping more money in the system does not increase the number of doctors and nurses. The reason why is because we do not have enough people pursuing those careers. Of those that do a good portion fail. Most med schools have a less than 50% acceptance rate. I teach college labs and around 40 students a semester and I hand out grades to where 2 to 3 pre-med or pre-nursing students "fail" (as in get a B where they need an A). Despite the high pay people do not become doctors due to the high stress and high demand of work. It isn't an issue of money as doctors are paid well. It is an issue of them not being able to do it or not willing.
Even if it weren't that. Even if it were as easy as "allocate money" to education to train more doctors. Why not allocate from our largest spending source? Social welfare programs like medicare, medicaid, SS, etc. Why give people money to have food and healthcare when we can give them money to be trained to produce? Why go after defense?
"Have government programs for medical research and engineering."
We do. Problem is we lack workers. I do scientific research for a living. I have projects piling on. It would help me to have someone else pick up the slack but we can't find anyone because no one is willing to do it. I work 10+ hours a day, sometimes 12 hours a day every day. I cut back on Saturday a bit and work only around 8 hours, but still a decent amount. People are not willing to do that. And not even that extreme. People are not willing to work 40 hours a week doing research. There are reasons why and we can discuss them if you want. But again, it isn't as easy as "have government programs" because if the people are not willing to put in the work than it does not matter.
"There would still be a free market for the hospital all socialize
medicine would do is give more people access to Healthcare coverage and
cut out the insurance company "
What is going to prevent healthcare providers from just raising prices than? You just increased demand without increasing supply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
cptmiller132
1. What? There is more to the GDP than that. Investments are up which is why interest rates went up
2. Yes, but under Obama labor participation rate was going down as well. Obama's unemployment rate was going down because people stopped looking for work
3. Investment leads to growth.
4. Initial claims is not just jobless claims but also welfare claims. Again, learn these terms.
5. Labor participation was trending downward for years even under Obama. Since 2016 it has been stagnate with some increase.
Production is up due to technology. Depending on what method of inflation you use you either get stagnate wages or increases in wages. For example, the Minneapolis Fed showed that if you use PCE method of inflation wages have increased around 4% since the 70s. Prof. Don Bourdeaux showed that with GDP defllator wages increased by 10%.
The problem with inflation is that there are several variables that are not accounted for. For example, it does not account for improved quality. A car today is more expensive than cars years ago, but cars today last longer, get better mileage, and are safer, all that saves money. Look at the fact that in the late 80s you had a cell phone, a walkman, a pocket calculator, and a camera. You had to buy those things individually. Now you have all of that in your smart phone. That is from increases in productivity which created better goods and services at a lower prices. That is the same as a wage increase.
1
-
1
-
cptmiller132
1. Ok, and? GDP growth is up. That means investments will be up. So you think economic growth is a bad thing?
2. Under Trump labor participation has stagnate and moved up slightly. Yes, under Obama we had a recession, and he hindered recovery. So thanks for admitting that under Obama things got worse.
3. Again, interest rates are being raised to prevent this so call "bubble".
4. You did not know what initial claims were. Again, learn what these terms are if you are going to discuss them.
5. You just said labor participation went down under Trump, now you are saying it is stagnate? Make up your mind.
You are complaining about 4% wage increase? What will make you happy. Also, you are pointing at the price of eggs and bread, so what? You do know there are other goods and services in the economy? Technology has made things cheaper for people. Cars today last longer, get better gas mileage and are safer. Computers today are much faster where you can shop online saving money. A lot of appliances use less energy. You looked at food when in the US we produce too much food. We throw a lot of food away and we have an obesity problem, especially with the poor.
The min. wage is the minimum. Not every job in the market increases in productivity or value. Think about how many goods and services disappear over time. How many people buy VHS tapes? Not many. The same is with jobs. How many Blockbuster employees are there? Essentially zero. But according to you not only should there be Blockbuster employees but they should be making more than the min. wage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" the government will pay the costs to run the schools, like they already do for state schools,"
We currently lack professors, TAs, dorms, classrooms, etc. You are wanting to increase demand for colleges without increase supply. What is going to stop universities from doubling the salaries of professors? What is going to stop professors from demanding a higher salary considering they will have to take on a larger work load?
This is why I said tuition will go up. You say there will be no tuition, but those professors, staff, and other workers will want to get paid. And if you increase their work load than they will demand more money.
I can look at my situation. Our university lacks TAs to the point one coordinator said to me they needed "warm bodies". They hired a computer science major to teach physics where they are not learning anything. Is that really getting an education? Us TAs demanded higher pay because they made us do more work. Come Fall 2018 they are going to give us an extra $300 a month. That adds up. We are short TAs and the demand went up, so did our price. Our professors because of increase in demand received a $10,000 a year raise recently.
This is why I said "free college" will end up costing more than what Kyle said it would. You increase demand without increasing supply. This is basic economics.
"How do you think public elementary and high schools operate?"
84% of funding for public schools are local and state. So that completely undermines your argument as you are pushing for federal funding of college education while pointing towards a state ran function.
Next, we lack teachers as is. That is why there are incentives for special ed teachers and science and math teachers. Also, go to your local high schools and go to university campuses. Compare who much better universities are. Universities have better computers, classrooms, offices, buildings, etc. Almost every campus I have been in was beautiful with the exception of campuses in CA. Even at that many CA campuses were beautiful compared to high schools.
Look at the science labs at colleges. There are NMRs, FTIRs, UV-Vis in chemistry labs. Good luck finding a spectrometer in high schools. In colleges you have dorms, gyms, lounges, a student union, etc. Things you will not find on a high school campus.
You cannot compare high school to college. You are over simplifying this issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Similar to drugs, it become addicting but in the end is a career where you are done by the age of 40. You can make over $100,000, even after taxes, a year. But when young you can waste it, not be educated and than be worthless at the age of 40, and that is the best case scenario.
Another reason is that it is similar to porn in that women, unless you are near the top, have very little power. No unions, no representation, women are a dime a dozen, and the men in the industry want their fantasy to where you have to do things you may not like and is degrading.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Should I now list all the other harsh jobs with no unions that are perfectly legal? "
You can, and what will be your point? Again, I am not saying it should be legal or not, I am just saying what the situation will be.
"That's where regulating prostitution comes in, but that can't happen while it's illegal, "
Porn and stripping are legal and regulated but they have similar problems.
"Yes, you dream of a world where you can say no more hookers and everyone listens because you wrote a law that says so, no one will ever go behind your back and work for a harsh pimp, and fuck them if they do, they "chose the pimp", it's not your fault, right?"
Again, I am not saying it should be legal or illegal, I am just showing you the problems that come with prostitution and why it is illegal. It develops the society that doesn't condone it and can protect women.
"Advocating in favor of pimps (your username sure doesn't help you there) and human traffickers leaves very little for you to claim you don't care about. "
One of my friends was pimped out and got out of the situation. They now run a charity where they help women who have been in that situation. I, in on way support pimps. Also, unlike you I have experience in this field. I agree with some of what you are saying. But you are ignoring the drawbacks of legalized prostitution. You should understand the entire situation before you make a strong opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jshowa o it depends on the scam. You do know the government can be just as deceptive? How much power do you want to give the government and how much do you trust it? I personally rather gather information myself.
On gay marriage both sides had legit concerns, but also had poor arguments. The left made the argument that republicans are stripping away "gay rights" when no gay person was denied any right. Marriage is not a right. If democrats had a better argument besides an emotional one they may attract more support. Also, there are legal concerns when it comes to marriage that had to be considered. Not saying I oppose or support gay marriage. Simply saying you are over simplifying the issue.
You found one case of voter fraud, which was caught and justice happened, and made a grand conclusion? The Heritage Foundation has examples of voter fraud and showing it exist on both sides.
Again, little is known about transgender. The reason why they are banned from the military is because they have a very high suicide rate. Why? We do not know. Many on the left claim it is because they are not accepted. However, it could be because of a mental disorder. We do not know as there is little data and info on the situation. Both could play the role. With suicide it is an mental issue and very complex. I deal with a mental disorder myself of major depression disorder where I take medication and therapy. While doing it I understood it more and the challenge with it is that it isn't like a broken arm that you see or diabetes that you can measure blood sugar levels. Thus, with transgender, there is little known. They are banned from the military as it is a highly stressful situation where people's lives are on the line. You do not want someone with a high chance of suicide out there as it can make things worse.
On the pandemic out of the 8 states with the highest deaths per million, seven have democrats for governors. Now there is a lot to that as some data is suggesting herd immunity is taking place. I will discuss that later. For Trump, though, what I find to be ironic is how so many on the left called him a dictator and fascist. Yet when he had a chance to become one with this virus he left it up to the states like he always has. He has always pushed for state rights. NY, IL and CA are really the only states struggling and begging for money. They also have some of the most oppressive governments. The mayor of Chicago got her hair cut. The IL Governor issued a stay at home order while his wife traveled to their second home in FL. When asked about it he refused to answer. Also, Trump eventually banned travel from Europe. But at the time it was not known it can come from Europe.
As for the virus, I have a been watching this like a hawk. Why? Because I am a scientist and thus a nerd. So much is not known about the virus. Why? Because it takes months, and even years to get all the information and still a lot won't be known. What is pathetic is that when two doctors from Bakersfield post a youtube video giving their data and opinions they had their video taken down. One comment was that their work was not peer reviewed. When I heard that I said "no shit" as it takes months, or even a year to get work peer reviewed. Nothing on this virus is peer reviewed. So many on the left are ignoring valuable data and opinions and are using this virus to gain in power and fear monger. What is sad is that so many, like you, are falling for it.
Here is the reality with the virus. The lock down was to slow the spread to get relief to the hospitals. Also, little was known about this virus. Now hospitals have space. However, many democrats are still staying lock down where the WI Supreme Court forced WI to open up. They are using this as a power grab. Data is suggesting the virus is no that deadly. Of those 80,000 deaths that is overstated as every hospital is listed someone dying with the virus as a virus death. However, almost all who die are either old or have other health complications to begin with making them high risk for death overall. Thus, the lock down would not have saved very many, if any lives. It simply provided relief for healthcare.
We need to reopen the economy for two reasons. One, to get it rolling, and two, learn more about the virus. We will never learn until more people become infected. Doing so will see if it evolves, if we can build up an immunity, if a strain can be used as a vaccine, etc. With herd immunity, NY, NJ and LA were three states hit very hard at the beginning but now have seen some of the sharpest decline. CA was one of the first states to shut down and is not seeing decline. That suggests those three states accidentally created a herd immunity where CA has not.
So overall, little is known about this virus, but to me republicans have handled it much better. Democrats are using it as a power grab telling people it is scary and stay home. Meanwhile the state of GA has been open for almost 3 weeks now with less cases despite more tests.
You can call me a troll all you want but you seem to have little understanding here.
1
-
1
-
@jshowa o every state issued a lock down but states like NY, NJ and MA are seeing a decline. That suggests a herd immunity. But again, we will not know until we start reopening slowly and monitoring it. CA closed down early and have not seen a decline. Now states are opening back up and are not seeing a spike. Why is that? Maybe because more people were infected than we thought or maybe the virus is not that deadly or severe.
He issued a travel ban, and was called a racist in doing it, in February when there were only a few cases and no deaths. At this point you are simply showing that no matter how Trump would have handled this you would criticize him on it. How do you do a travel ban when there were only a few cases and no deaths? You can't.
It is up to the states to handle this. That is a part of state rights.
Fauci estimated the deaths would be in the millions. His models are all over the place. He also said that opening up too early would cause a spike. However, states are doing it with no spike.
We gamble with people's lives everyday. You take a risk when you leave your home. There are millions of ways to die. This virus is just one more. Is death something new to you? If so you are going to have a hard life to live. Fact is people die for many reasons. Gun shot, car accident, heart disease, cancer, etc. But now a virus comes and this is the one time we shut down? Think about how foolish that sounds. Why now? We gamble with people's lives all the time. But now this virus is different? Really, have you never heard of anyone dying before?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Arshan, sorry for the late reply, I do have responsibilities.
Bernie misrepresented the study by claiming medicare for all would save the American people money. That is not what the study concludes. Bernie made that conclusion by pointing to the $32 trillion over 10 years the study published. Bernie did a grossly oversimplification presentation with that number and compared it to what we pay now and said we will save money. However, you have to see what that $32 trillion over 10 years actually is.
To start, that number is just for public spending, it does not include private which will still exist even with medicare for all. Bernie using what we pay now includes both private and public. Next, that $32 trillion was the lower bound. They found a range of numbers but published the lower bound. Chances are the cost will be higher. They also made assumptions based on Bernie's numbers that are most likely not going to happen. For example, they are saying that despite increasing demand prices will not go up which is an economic fallacy. Also, they are saying that health providers will be willing to take 40% less money, that is based on Bernie's numbers. That is unrealistic unless quality goes down or you do some sort of tort reform because doctors and hospitals pay a lot in liability insurance to protect against malpractice lawsuits.
Overall, that $32 trillion
1. Does not include private care cost
2. Was a conservative estimate
3. Made many assumptions that economically will not happen
Bernie compare that number to
1. A number that includes both public and private cost
2. He did not give the full details about the study
In the end Bernie is misrepresenting the study because Bernie is a corrupt, career politician. He doesn't care about actually discussing the issues and progressing our country, he only cares about keeping his seat in office.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pidayrocks2235 the 80 million case is a stretch, but it is based on antibody testing out of NY, Santa Clara and USC where more people than expected had the antibody. That suggests many were infected without knowing it.
As for statistics, I just made a remark to someone else how, with your method, you are saying that those who die with the virus is purely because of the virus and thus there is a 17% mortality rate. However, there are comorbitities in that almost all who died have other health issues. Thus, the proper way is to weigh out to what degree the virus plays a role. For example, if someone had heart disease, diabetes, and the virus and the virus is listed as 3rd in cause of death and heart disease was number one, the proper way would bee to say, and just giving a number, that the virus contributed 20% to the person's death where 50% was from hear disease and 30% was from diabetes. The issue is that no one know to what degree the virus plays a role because one, we do not have a control, and two, the data set is low. As I pointed out in the example of number of people dying due to lack of healthcare access, that number ranges from essentially zero to 60,000 a year. But again, those people are sick to begin with.
In the book "Being Mortal" the author writes how people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live only 5 or 10 months. That is because people in that case who die have many issues. So with this virus, basically all who died were old and/or sick to begin with. So their chances of dying in a few months was high to begin with.
As for upper and lower bounds, you are throwing out words you do not understand. That is basically a function of the math. No different than an average and a standard deviation. You can have an average with a low SD with a small data set. And you can have an average with a higher SD with a larger data set. What is more accurate? Many will argue the larger data set.
In the Scientific American article entitled
"How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?"
Prof. Andrew Gelman writes
"The margin of error is a mathematical abstraction, and there are a number of reasons why actual errors in surveys are larger."
Basically, it falls from the math which is why a lot of times end results differ greater than the polls. Same with what you are throwing out. A lot of numbers in stats are mathematical abstractions. A famous book is "How to Lie with Statistics". Basically, people can do legit analysis on any stat and come up with varying conclusions.
Bottom line, 100,000 is a small sample size for something this complex. And you claim I do not understand statistics?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chadnorris8257 ok, instead of banning driving, limit speed limits to 15 mph. That will surely save lives.
"The government could fix a lot of the ills in this country, but they don't"
Can they? Also, at what cost? At the expense of our rights and liberties? How far are you willing to go? We can lock everyone up in rubber rooms and have "essential" workers only leave and deliver us our daily rations. Is that what you want? Also, hindsight is 20/20. Coulda, shoulda, woulda, easy to say now.
"Most of the people who died, are people who didn't have to"
Are you sure? Again, 94% had comorbidities. 50% were 75 and older, near death to begin with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, I will watch that video, here is my take. Lack of citations aside
On Karl Marx, I can give him that. That's one. I can admit when someone was wrong.
On Hitler and private property, Shapiro's comment was on Stalin being a fascist, which he was. So was Hitler. It has nothing to do with private property. This guy took one things Shapiro said and turned it into something else. So far 1 for 2.
On to the third point. The guy showed one point, income of workers. That's it. There are other resources that showed Hitler did practice fascist and socialist ideas
https://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1930-1939/4-roadtowar/1-germany/index.html
"By 1935, Germany had become a fascist state. The
government exercised total control over all political, economic, and
cultural activities."
"In some cases, Hitler's government put people to work developing and manufacturing "Volks" products (the people's). "
You can also read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
Various sources show different results.
So my final conclusion is this on each point
1. Ben is wrong on Marx and Hitler, so you have one
2. This man on the video is wrong here, he took one thing Shapiro said and made something else out of it
3. Both Shapiro and this man are not correct on the fact there is more to it than what both sides presented
Also, capitalism is not fascism. That alone makes that guy irrelevant based on his standards of not getting basic facts straight.
So you got one, congrats. Keep pushing, you might get two.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Koala, with any doctorate it is very specialized. As with lawyers you have ones that practice different areas of law, with those with chemistry PhDs practice different areas (organic, inorganic, physical, etc.), with medical doctors they practice different forms of medical care. Some are surgeons (which has varying fields), some are neurologists, some are anesthesiologists. Many do not do any kind of research in the medical field at all, they work on their specialized area. Thus it is very likely they lack understanding of the complexity of healthcare as in the research and economics.
To give an example in my field I have colleagues getting a PhD in physics. One is specializing in plasma physics. While they will have a PhD in physics they will struggle with atomic and molecular physics as they focused on plasma.
Just because they are "doctors" does not mean they have a complete understanding of the healthcare situation. And just seeing one hospital while not seeing the economics of it, the issues Canada faces in healthcare, the set up as in taxes and spending, etc. and coming up with the conclusions they do makes me question their intellectual thought.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
brasschick42, while not in medicine I work in the STEM field as a researcher in physical chemistry. I also work with many nurses and future nurses and a few future doctors. My experience is this, it is very specialized. Doctors and nurses to me do not understand, completely, the research involved as in the economics, challenges, time, procedures, etc. Doctors and nurses to me do not understand the economics involved in healthcare and how it influences our society.
As for being involved politically, by interacting with professors they are involved politically as well. It still does not mean they fully know what is going on. Most of the time they know just their specialized field and that's it.
To give an example, our department chair will spend time finding the best deal on chemicals and equipment and ensuring he gets his money's worth on his grant. But then he get irritated with our university facility manager when he does the same thing where he is talking to contractors and trying to manage a budget and time frame. The department chair will make a comment of "I can just do it myself as I do it all the time at home". Where in reality you have to deal with unions, government funds, coordination of traffic, students and workers, etc.
My point is this. Just because you work in medicine or are a doctor does not mean you have a complete understanding of it. Especially in a specialized world chances are you know very little.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SomeRandon
Money out of politics: Money in politics is nothing more than a symptom of a disease. That disease is the federal government having too much power that we cannot control. Limit the powers of the federal government, give more powers to the states, and create more checks and balances with that process. Also, if the federal government is so corrupt, why do you want it to run your education and healthcare?
Universal health care: This is simply not possible due to our lack of doctors, nurses, surgeons, researchers, etc. If you want more healthcare for people then push for more people to become doctors and nurses. Do not reward failure by increasing the min. wage. People want high quality healthcare to as many people as possible. Understanding reality does not make one stupid.
Raise the min. wage: This has never benefited anyone
Affordable education: People support this, but we also have to keep the quality high. Placing 500+ students in one room and placing a warm body in front of them to lecture things straight out of a textbook is not an education. But that is what you leftists are pushing for.
The big issue, though, is that you are strawmanning. You feel that if we do not support your stance then we are against education and healthcare and hate poor people. That is simply not true. The reality is that we understand that you just can't magically creating these things out of thin air. We have a waiting list for organs for example. Does is that because they are just sitting there in the freezer and the government just needs a law to distribute them? Or maybe we just lack them? Which is it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@baburnit " It would be asinine to assume that what I have listed will not improve communities and the well-being of the citizens of that community - especially in contrast to more militarized police."
It depends on the community. Would a government managed program work better or some charity and volunteer system? And I did not misunderstood what you meant by funding and reliability. It is an argument I hear from the left all the time. They complain that a system will work better if it is funded better. That, to me, says that government programs are poorly mismanaged as a whole, they can't be creative and cannot make best use of their resources. This is why so many say government programs are inefficient. There are others but that is one.
I work at a university, not a top tier one thus we do not have much money. We have to become creative in how we build our instruments. We are not like MIT that has a plethora of money laying around. Thus, a lot of times we find cheap equipment online and become creative.
And please, list the studies. I will love to read them. Overall, though, it is not a black and white as you make it out to be. Just throwing money at an issue does not mean it will improve, especially if it is a failing system to begin with.
Also, the private sector has participated in local community efforts. Let me ask you, how often have you participated in your local community? I do a lot and see a lot of donations from private businesses.
You bring up "militarized police departments", I did not know the police had F-21 fighter jets and access to nuclear warheads.
"there are hundreds of sociologists, historians, and public policy experts that have documented the impact of policing and the gutting of public services in the past 50 years."
Then list me a few and I can follow the paper trail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
G Kaiser, your gave no evidence to show that single payer was "better". You only pointed to one set of numbers, that was deaths where I showed you numerous factors play a role in that.
"Why do researchers still compare with other countries? Gee i dunno,
could it be because they want to see which healthcare perfroms the best?
Hurrrr durrrr. "
You said single payer was better and that was a fact. If it is so factual why continue to do research?
"Unlike Kyle, I never NOT ONCE said Canadas healthcare is perfect, just BETTER than the US. Thats a fact."
If it is a fact then why do researchers still do research in the area? Why did two professors write a book on the subject of comparing countries' healthcare systems? Why would they waste their time?
"Also many Canadians are aware that their system could be better. Which
is why many of them support adding more FUNDS to healthcare "
It is not as easy as adding funds.
"10k deaths may be a small amount to an American who's accustomed to
worse results but to a Canadian that is still an unacceptable number."
One, where did you get that number? Next, you are only giving one stat. Do you understand how complex healthcare is? It is around 10% of Canada's GDP. Programs like defense, education, housing, etc. are usually around 5%. That alone should tell you how complex it is. But whatever, ignore all the experts who spend their life researching this topic and just look at one stat and come to a hard conclusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
G Kaiser, that was a recent study showing that people still do comparisons of healthcare systems and do not come to strong conclusions on which system is better. Also, many factors contribute to the costs.
"Utility costs and high profit margins are only present in private care."
So government has not utilities? Also, profits means progress. I agree profits are too high in healthcare, but that is due to the lack of a free market. With government you are going to see more lobbying instead of profits. On top of that, how much do you really think you will save with reduced profits? Profit margins are usually between 10 to 20 percent.
" The profit margin is substantially higher to ANY SERVICE that is inelastic. And healthcare, being a necessity, IS a service that has customers willing to pay more despite the inferiority of the service and high costs. "
I agree in being inelastic to a degree. Not all of healthcare is like that though. The problem with the US system is that insurance covers everything when it shouldn't. If I have a bad ankle I should be able to pick and choose where I go and have companies compete. Insurance should be for emergency situations. Also, people should be able to force insurance companies to compete. Problem is that government regulations have made it so people can't as most get it from their employers. What you are failing to understand is that government is causing these problems in healthcare, not the market. You go to universal healthcare you create a monopoly at that point.
"Every modern nation pays HALF of what the US pays."
Ok, and? I pay half in rent then my boss. I guess my apartment is better (it isn't).
"Every fucking study shows the US administers healthcare LESS than any modrrn nation while paying for MORE. This is an INEFFICIENT system."
What studies?
"The difference is THE AMOUNT of people that die. In canada its around 10 thousand in 13 years. In the US its 45 thousand every single year. "
Again, where do you get that number. Are the standards in defining those deaths the same?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ron Maimon , you bring up some good points. However, to start with the incentive. The issue we have in the US is that there is no free market in healthcare and thus no consumer power over insurance companies. If we had a free market system if an insurance company were to deny care they would not get any customers. Problem is that in the US we can't choose our insurance as we are dependent on our employer.
As for the government determining life or death, it isn't that simple. It is very difficult to determine if someone is close to death many times. That is why many people die waiting for "elective" heart surgery as it is hard to determine the severity. Government decides based on budget on that point. In order to keep spending low they cap how much care one receives. Thus many diseases are not detected and people end up worse off or dying.
As for advanced testing, one can argue if they are necessary or not. There are arguments to be made. But in the US we offer them and we end up detecting advanced cases. For example, in 2014 a 16 year old girl in the UK named Natasha was complaining about headaches. She saw over 10 doctors and they all said it was migraines. After seeing so many doctors she was finally given a chance for a CAT scan but had to wait 4 months. After the scan they found a tumor. Now chances are it was simply migraines, so they denied her care for such a long time. She ended up dying.
Here in the US I have a friend who was complaining about the same thing. They immediately gave her a CAT scan and found a tumor. They did surgery and she lived.
Here is the harsh reality. Universal healthcare is great for very basic care. It allows everyone to have a chance to receive some sort of very basic care. However, when it comes to advanced care it is terrible. Government simply won't fund it and thus providers won't offer it unless it gets to an extreme case. The US for profit system is great in that it gives more access to advanced care, but the very poor lacks access to any kind if care. So in the end either the very poor suffer or the very sick.
Looking at both groups the very poor typically have bad health due to poor lifestyle choices. Should we give them access to care? It would be great. But resources are limited. If we give them access the very sick will lose access to care. However, when you look at the very sick and you read the book "Being Mortal", it is written there that people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live only 5 or 10 months. So if you give them access to care and they die in 5 months, is that a success? However, the same can be said about the very poor. They are in bad health due to poor lifestyle choices. Beyond genetic factors people just don't get sick. So with the very poor do we offer them care when they will continue to make poor lifestyle choices?
At that point it comes down to a difficult game of statistics and morals. Resources are limited, something has to give, period. There is no utopia where everyone has access to high quality of care. The person I was responding to, kosys, does not realize that certain forms of heart surgery are considered elective because of that reason. Maybe M4A will be the best system. I don't think so but I am willing to concede. But right now it is not being pushed with honesty. It is being pushed on deception and misinformation. If this nation were to pass Bernie's M4A bill millions of people will be blindsided with things they did not know and will be pissed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anil Singh, the problem of following one's passion is, as that guy put it in that video, is that people become unaware of the truth. They may want to be a famous singer but fail to realize they suck. I work with someone who feels they are PhD material but in reality they aren't. People need to face reality.
The point of the video, if you actually watched it (I doubt you did) is that you should be passionate. As they said, bring your passion with you. But realize that you may not be fit for certain jobs. I love football and I am passionate about it. I was never good enough to play. An alternative is that I became a football referee. I am passionate about that, but I realize that I may never go above being a JuCo ref. If I do great, but if not I am enjoying what I am at now.
As for the couch comparison and Ben Shapiro, he is correct. Healthcare is a commodity. We need to treat it as such. When you realize that and do treat it as that we can discuss healthcare reform. The reality is that some procedures and drugs will be more expensive. Heart surgery will cost more than a routine checkup. That is the reality. That is why healthcare is not a right. It is a commodity that someone has to provide. When you realize that then we can discuss healthcare reform and types of systems.
You simply saying
"Ben Shapiro compared purchasing health insurance to buying a couch."
Is not getting into detail. How does that make him an idiot? You have to explain. Just highlighting what he said does nothing. Those who have a bias against him will agree with you, but those who don't will not follow, and after my detail analysis will actually follow me.
This again shows how you can't explain how they are wrong, you simply say they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pinkies Out, here is the problem. We do not have a free market system. In a free market system people can negotiate prices. Now you may say with healthcare we do not that ability to shop around when something extreme happens, and I will agree. Healthcare is inelastic with demand at times. But that is what insurance is for.
With insurance we lack a free market system. Why? Because of the payroll tax. Well over half of the country, as in over 60%, receive their healthcare through their employer. Why? Because paying with benefit is a tax free way to pay employees where a higher wage means a higher tax thanks to the payroll tax. Because of that people rely on their employer for healthcare insurance and since insurance is a form of payment insurance has become healthcare. Instead of allowing people to earn a higher wage, shop for a plan that suits them that only pays for expensive, unplanned events like an accident, healthcare insurance pays for all of healthcare.
Certain things should be paid for out of pocket as it can be planned. Eye exams, pregnancies, routine checkups, etc. If insurance did not cover that insurance prices will drop. Also, if people paid for those things out of pocket the price will drop. LASIK is a prime example in that happening.
If people bought their own plans then insurance companies will have to compete and people can get plans they want. That will lower prices even more. Fact is we do not have any of that. Insurance is a form of payment at at job, thus it becomes healthcare. The consumer does not see the cost of healthcare, only the insurance companies do. The consumer cannot choose their plans as the employer does. Thus healthcare providers and insurance companies can just jack up the prices as no one is there to stop them.
Now those on the left will say government can stop that, but providers will just lower quality as now the people are dependent on the government for healthcare. The dependency goes from business to government.
Giving the people negotiating power is key. They don't have it which leads to high cost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZXD7250 , every nation was "unprepared". You can't predict these things and you can't just magically make up testing kits and ppe. Here is the thing in economics, it is referred to as the "law of diminishing returns". Sure, we could have made a ton of testing kits and PPE and spend resources storing them away in some warehouse on some unexpected, and unlikely event. But it will come at what cost?
To give you a more clear example of this law, right now there are 40,000 deaths a year due to traffic accidents. We can make that number zero if we cap all cars to 15 mph. But the drawback is that commute time is now much longer hindering the economy. You can lower the speed limits and thus save lives, but eventually you reach a point where lowering the speed limit does not save a significant amount of lives and instead now you are causing harm in a different way. Same is with his issue. No one could have predicted how much PPE and testing kits we needed. Not you, not old Bernie, not Obama, not Trump. Again, sure we could have made a crap ton in the unlikely event something like this happens, but what would have been the drawback? Wasting space and resources storing them and making them.
So blame Trump all you want, it wasn't his fault.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nmarbletoe8210 , ok, now read the Forbes article entitled
"The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'"
There they cite the study entitled
"Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance"
As I said, Medicare covers old people who get sick more, thus they spend more on healthcare by default. Per patient they pay more in administration cost.
For example, say my healthcare provider pays $1000 in one month on me, $900 on healthcare and $100 on administration cost. Yes, that is 10%. Now say Medicare paid $10,000 on healthcare for someone, $200 on admin cost and $9800 on healthcare. Yes, the percent is lower at 2%, but the cost overall is higher per patient.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vic5015 , how do you determine who is a "known danger"? Unless they committed some crime in the past you can't say. What standard do you go off of? You are saying that people who are a danger to themselves or others should not have a gun. I agree 100%, now I am asking you, how do you determine that?
If your friend works as a mental health counselor then they will tell you that mental health is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine. There is no quantitative way to measure it, it is purely subjective. I, myself, have a mental health problem that I take medication for. I own four guns. I was suicidal at one point but after long discussions with my psychiatrist and psychologist they said I am safe to own guns. However, you want to take my guns away from me for some arbitrary reason.
So again, tell me how do you determine who is a "known danger"? You have not answering that point. I agree, people who are a danger to others should not have guns, now how do you make that determination?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Count Deku, things like formula cost a lot because many people go to the ER and cannot pay. So healthcare providers charge a lot for little things like formula to make up for those cost. We basically have socialized healthcare already by the fact that the ER cannot turn people away. So healthcare providers charge other people more.
If we had the government pay for it than it would be worse as more people will use the system causing healthcare providers to charge even more. If they don't charge more they lower the quality.
The simple fact is this. Universal healthcare does a great job and covering the very poor in getting them care they would not be able to afford. But as a result the very sick suffer. That is why you have longer wait times for "elective" care where up to 7000 people die a year in Australia for "elective" surgery, or people die in Canada for "elective" heart surgery, or people become worse off waiting for "elective" care in New Zealand. Yes, poor people get covered, but the really sick and really hurt suffer.
In the US the really sick and really hurt get great care at a fast rate. However, the very poor are not "covered" unless they go to the ER. Is that bad? Well it depends. The very poor tend to be less healthy with higher rates of obesity and smoking, both self inflicted. So a lot of their problems are their fault and we do not want them weighing down the system.
Resources are limited. In every system someone suffers. Universal healthcare is great for very basic care, but sucks for advanced care. The US system is great for advanced care, and can be affordable, but the government added too many regulations.
Pick your poison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Classical Scholar "Zero people die for that reason in every other developed nation!"
100% not true. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. For example, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective surgery" which can include certain forms of heart and neurosurgery according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Also, that 40,000 number has been challenged. For example, Prof. Richard Kronick wrote a paper entitled
"Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited"
Saying
"The Institute of Medicine's estimate that lack of insurance leads to 18,000 excess deaths each year is almost certainly incorrect. It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analyses, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States."
Prof. Katherine Baicker mentioned that those 40,000 are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or simply because they are in bad health to begin with? As written in the book "Being Mortal", people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those 40,000 healthcare and they die 5 months later, was that a success?
"Look at the empirical data."
I have looked at the data. You clearly haven't when you don't even know what amendable mortality is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Classical Scholar , you apparently don't know what amenable mortality is. it is deaths due to lack of access to healthcare. In every system people die due to lack of access. As I said, up to 7000 people in Australia die waiting for "elective surgery" according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
As for being unethical, read the paper entitled
"The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine"
The reality is this, these are the difficult discussions and choices that are made daily in healthcare. The far left completely ignores them. If you go to a M4A system the very sick are going to suffer as they will be denied access to advanced care or will have to wait a long time. That has shown to harm people. Read the paper entitled
"Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence"
They say
"However, long wait times are a source of distress to patients, and in some cases have adverse health consequences."
And also say
"Although not all publicly funded healthcare systems have wait-time problems, wait lists are more likely to be found in public systems. This is because universal access to care, when combined with the government's desire to control health spending, can mean that the supply of treatment does not meet demand"
Also read
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
Where they write
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers"
There are many ethical questions that come up in healthcare. Resources are limited. You say I am unethical when you are the one that is unethical by refusing to dig deeper on this complex issue and learning about it more.
Reality is that something has to give, and no matter the system people die. The challenge is deciding want system is the best both objectively, with the numbers, and subjectively, in what society wants.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I disagree. There is consensus in the scientific community because there
is clear evidence that the carbon in our atmosphere has come from the
burning of fossil fuels by people and not natural sources or processes.
Times have changed from the time when the initial hockey stick graph
appeared."
There is no consensus. The "consensus" has been debunked many times. Read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". They break down the consensus on the issue. Even at that, when you read the consensus none of them are saying it is a threat. They are just saying that it is happening and that man is contributing. Now again, is that bad? We cannot say.
"Yes, I think those phenomena are bad because they lead to human suffering. Call me crazy but I think human suffering is bad."
Human suffering happens from many things. 35,000 die a year in car accidents, so should we ban cars? People suffer from smoking. Should we ban smoking? Also, humans in developing nations are suffering due to lack of industry. Pushing for laws to prevent them from growing means they will suffer. The industrial revolution led to our society being strong and making us well off. Not allowing other nations to do it makes those citizens suffer.
"It is based on evidence. The current massive increase in temperature is
definitely not due to the continuation of natural processes that affect
carbon distribution on Earth. There are many journal papers on the
subject."
Which papers? I would read them as I do have experience in reading and understand science literature. Also, I, and others, do not deny the trend in temperature increase. A few things. Again, is it bad. Next, that data I have seen is around 100 years old. 100 years may sound like a lot to you as it is a lifetime, but the world is over 4 billion years old. In that perspective it is minute. You have to consider that which is why there is a disagreement on the issue.
"We're basically at the tipping point right now. Clean energy is
starting to get cheaper than fossil fuels because the price of clean
energy has dropped dramatically. "
I agree, but we are not there yet. We can't force it. Forcing it leads to an economic decline causing more problems. It will happen. Companies are investing in "clean energy". I support that move. I just don't want it forced.
"Clean energy is already here and even if you choose not to agree with
me, it is simply true that there are companies making a huge amount of
money right now from clean energy technology."
I fully agree with you. I am just saying we can't force it. Forcing it will lead to problems. My research, for example, requires a reliable energy source to run my LASER set up. Without it my set up can get destroyed, and it has happened because of an unreliable source. Mirrors that cost thousands of dollars along with waveplates that cost that much are damaged. And that is minor. The pump laser can get destroyed if we have unreliable sources of power. If that goes out I am screwed on my research as that can cost, at least, $80,000. That does not even include getting the guy in to replace it. That is why we have to use fossil fuels at the industrial level for now until "clean energy" becomes fully reliable.
"Clean energy" is fine at the small level. Rockport, MO is ran fully on windmills. But that town has almost nothing in terms of industry. I fully support going to "clean energy". However, we can't force it.
1
-
Bruce, that book is written by three individuals with their PhDs. They cite all of their sources.
Now let me break down your link before I get to that fool Potholer54, who, by the way, is not a scientists.
"On the other hand, perhaps the intended audience isn’t scientists are
even people who closely follow the science. Perhaps their intended
audience is legislators, teachers, and others who have influence over
society?"
Yes, the same as other resources like Potholer54 or SkepticalScience. Their target audience is not scientists.
"With this as a backdrop, I received a copy of a humorous report from an elected official in the USA."
Calling it "humorous" is immediately trying to discredit it. Unnecessary statement where I question the validity of this article and the maturity of the author.
"As a scientist, when I read any manuscript I ask a number of questions."
I am a scientist as well. The author does not describe what field. I will. I study physical chemistry.
"Who wrote it and what is their expertise in the field?"
The authors and sources are listed and easy to look up. But the author of this article does not list their credentials.
" When statements and conclusions are made, what is the evidence? How do
these conclusions fit into prior work in the field? Is the new study
confirming prior work or in conflict with it? If there is conflict, why?"
Those answers are in the book.
"The authors of this manuscript are Craig Idso, the late Robert Carter,
and Fred Singer. These three are not exactly (or even nearly) a trio of
reputable climate scientists."
"Climate science" is a broad field. You will be hard pressed to find "climate science" as an actual degree of study. Climate science involves fields in physics, astronomy, ecology, biology, chemistry, etc. I would not trust and ecologist to explain the me the quantum mechanics of photosynthesis, in which we know little about.
" According to a literature search performed using the search engine
SCOPUS, neither Idso nor Singer published a credible paper on global
climate change or its implications in years."
Research in "climate change" is broad. One can study quantum coherence and it can, technically, but related to climate change.
"One way to measure the authors’ impact is by counting how many people
have read and cited their work. For both of these authors, the number of
people who have cited them is shockingly low. "
There is some truth there. But also, how much work have they produced lately? Many incredible scientists simply do not do work in academics or write papers anymore. A main reason why is because they do not pick up students as they are working on other things. Also, Fred Singer works in physics. Physics is a field that is challenging to publish in. Physics journals usually have low impact factors because of that compared to biology journals. But more importantly, he says "shockingly low" but does not give a quantitative value to compare to. He mentions another scientists but does not mention their field or research. He is hiding things.
"The measurements have been done many different ways, all leading to the same conclusion – the consensus is strong. "
The "consensus" is that climate change is happening in which that book does not refute. They refute on whether it is a threat and how much man is playing a role. The book tears about the consensus that this author seemed to have missed.
"you have about 3% of the less-talented scientists in dissent."
What makes them "less talented"?
Skip some stuff because the book broke down those studies.
"I could go on, but you get the point. "
Oh please go on as you left a lot out of what is written in the book.
"While I won’t spend too much time on the scientifically incorrect or misleading statements in the Heartland report,"
You won't because in doing so you will have to actually list what they say showing that how much of a fraud the author is.
"This is what happens when you have a fossil fuel-funded political
organization parade a document as a scientific publication. You get
nonsense and non-science. "
They actually cite sources, where is this author's sources?
You have been taken for a fool.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thepurityofchaos , medical improvement is done through competition. For example, Medicare only covered prescription benefits after private insurance did it.
Centralized government, by default, can't compete. Who will it compete with?
I grew up in a rural place. My cousin graduated with a class of 7 in a small, rural high school. So yes, I experienced it and fully understand. The problem with data is that it treats people as numbers, not people. I don't buy the data because when you look at how those people act, again, they are fine.
A lot of jobs serve no value. In some nations they have government jobs where one person takes the bus ticket, hands it to someone else to punch it. Is that what you want? Two people doing a one person job?
I am not strawmanning. You need to lay out what jobs will be offered and why. The issue of retraining people for different jobs in the past has been tried and failed. Give me time and I can provided sources for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dongerlord7874 I never said philosophy is not important, I am saying that a PhD in philosophy is not challenging compared to one in physics or biology. I study philosophy because it is valuable, but why should I spend a lot of time writing a 200 page dissertation to prove that I understand it?
I do understand the common man. Has West been a janitor in his life? I have. Has he ever worked with rural individuals who simply want to live a simple life? I have. Here is West saying the system is racist, but how much has he actually interacted with the system? What has he done outside of academics? Very little if anything. I substitute teach on the side and interact with the general public in that way. I am a sports official in multiple sports and interact with people in different fields that way. I worked a game were I am a graduate student, another official is a teach, another is a lawyer, another is a truck driver, etc. Think about that variety. Has West ever worked with people like that, the common man? I doubt it. I have. This is a problem with the left, they do not interact with the common man and they wonder why, despite being the loudest of the bunch, they constantly lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You seem to be confused as to my point. I'm not Nostradamus, and can't say what legislation could have prevented the Las Vegas massacre (beyond an assault weapon ban), but there are many other measures that would at least have been preventative steps, or could potentially stop future shootings. "
Such as what? Pick any shooting and start naming laws. It does not have to be this one? What about Sandy Hook? Oh, wait, that guy stole his gun he used.
We have laws on the books, and NV just expanded their background checks. If you look at the trend gun murders have been dropping for over 20 years, even after the removal of the "assault weapons" ban. I am not downplaying these tragedies. But that is what they are, tradegies, not the norm. How many people died in the Joplin tornado years ago? It would have been great if the government would have done something? But they can't. I don't mean to sound cold, but emotions won't work on me. We have laws on the books already.
"I'm not explicitly saying the NRA is against saving lives, just that the second amendment rights of Americans matter more than their lives."
In many cases rights are more important than lives. We have a military that will risk their lives to protect our rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , again, adding something to a bill is not impressive. As I said, it is similar to you adding an air freshner to your car and calling yourself a mechanic. Also, on the $100 million one, it is easy to spend other people's money. Again, why doesn't he donate some of his? Noticed how after he became a millionaire he only talks about billionaires now?
Bezos was not pressured by Bernie. He said that to get Bernie off of his back. Bernie is an annoyance. Bezos is simply playing politics there.
The economy is very strong.
"What exactly would bernie have to do for you to consider him genuine? "
Be honest. And I am not saying donate all of his money, but at least some. Or he could have posted the book online for free. You see, he has no problem taking from others, but he can't give himself. Again, talk is cheap. While he is holding rallies and his fans are cheering, there are people out there actually volunteering and working for others in need. What does he do? Sit in congress and push to spend other people's money.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
1. Been in politics all his life and was never successful anywhere else. If he cared so deeply about the issues he would take actual physical actions. He doesn't. I care a lot about people being educated and having a chance for a better life. I teach at a university. I don't just sit there and say "people should be educated, let us expand the government". I take actual action. Also, if he cared so much about the issues he would listen to all sides, he cherry picks. There are people with legit concerns about his ideas and he just dismisses them. Consider how he treated that hair salon owner during the debate against Cruz? He had no desire to understand her position.
"Also yes he's never done anything other than politics really but that shows he's dedicated his life to public service. How is that a bad thing?"
He is living off of the government dime. People support term limits for a reason. You do your time and then go back to what you were doing prior to politics.
2. I disagree with Bernie's idea of government to begin with. Yes, he wants to take my money and spend it how he seems fit without my say. That is not how this nation was designed.
3. I read the article, ever thought Bezos was lying? Again, that politics. I gave you the example of Robert Reich and the min. wage. Bezos was playing politics.
4. Yes, inflation is a thing. What method of inflation? CPI, PCE, GDP deflator? Also, inflation has flaws as well. The Atlanta Fed has wages going up. Home ownership was dropping until Trump became president and has since then been going up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , on Trans that is still being looked into. I doubt it is because they are not accepted.
Amendments are, again, additions to a bill. He never produced anything original.
Sure, protests can work. But usually more actions are done after that.
1. How powerful is Bernie's campaign? Sure he is winning the primaries, but when he loses the general, big deal.
2. That is my point. He never was in a position to higher managers for a business or major projects.
3. Well, she was not a feminist which explains her success. Also, really disproves Trump being a sexist
4. Sure, start a business. That benefits others by employing people. His book sales only benefit him. Plus, to keep the business going he has to provide something people actually demand. His book sales sold mainly off of his name.
5. No. I am saying he has never been in a position to develop large projects and hired people in power. He has been a politician, that's it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , on trans people again, it is a complex issue. One can easily argue the mental state is terrible as how can someone who is a guy think they are a girl? More research is needed.
1. I base the idea that Trump will win on history. How many times did the incumbent lose? Very few. The times they loss was during a change in the economy to an economic decline. So based on history Trump will win.
Bernie is a communist. Take the fact that he praised Castro, Ortega and the Soviet Union. He praised those areas and leaders and never took back the statements.
2. He has no leadership experience. He never worked to be in a position of leadership. He just lived off of the government dime.
3. In the eyes of the law women are treated equal. That is all you can ask for. Everything else you bring up is due to differences in genders that will always exist. For example, men, genetically, will always be physically stronger. That is why no women play in the NFL. But let us go point by point on what you said
"such as much higher levels of sexual assault"
Men, naturally, are more aggressive when it comes to sex. Women are more selective. It is a part of Batemen's principle. Not saying sexual assault is good, it isn't. But this is not an issue of the law but the issue of nature.
"nconscious bias against women"
Such as......?
"he disparity in pay between men and women which can be largely explained by the continued (and stupid) enforcement of gender roles"
The pay gap is a myth. To start, you can't have all things be equal as you move up in the pay scale. Sure, in a place like a fast food restaurant you can keep all things equal, but as you move up in the job world people end up with different roles and responsibilities. Mostly men earn more as a whole because they work more, they pick up more advanced degrees (like engineering), and they take on harder jobs. For example, around 90% of work related deaths involve men.
Feminists are just a bunch of cry babies that refuse to work for a better life.
4. If he loses the election he still has his three homes and his millions. No risk there.
5. It matters because it shows he has no success outside of politics. If it weren't for the government job he would not have a job. That is sad. He cannot make it in the real world so he has to live off of the government.
1
-
@Fantaldark , again, the phrase "living wage" is a subjective and does nothing but appeal to emotions. I will give you two situations
Person A: Has three roommates, walks to work, no health problems, has no problem eating cheap food.
Person B: Lives alone, has to drive to work, is diabetic so has to be careful in what they eat
Who has a higher "living wage"? Person B. So should Person A earn less? So yes, a "living age" is 100% subjective. My mom earns $0 as she does not work. Tell me how she is able to live? Because my dad works and earns enough for both of them.
I earn $20,000 a year. Look at how much graduate students as a teaching assistant or a graduate assistant earns. $20,000 a year is the norm.
"Bernie made the wealth through his book and inherited his 'third mansion'. Under his policies he'd be hit just as hard as any of his colleagues despite already being the lowest paid politician in the country."
Why did he change his talking points from "millionaires and billionaires" to "billionaires"? Also, he is paid the same as every other member of congress. And why did he accept all the tax breaks?
"And he's been consistent in his career since he became a politician while everyone around him perfected the art of flip flopping"
No he hasn't. He praised Cuba, the USSR, Venezuela and when pushed recently he is now praising Denmark and Norway. He was anti immigration until recently. He was pro gun until recently. He is constantly changing his tone. He is far from consistent.
"but his talking point today is that billionaires SHOULDN'T EXIST"
Why?
"He cites a study funded by the Koch brothers"
He misrepresents that study. To start, they gave a range of cost from around $30 trillion to over $50 trillion. In the abstract they gave the low end saying it will cost at least that much and said chances are it will cost more. The also said that was for government spending and they have a portion showing both public and private spending. They also admitted that there will be access and quality issues as well. Bernie completely leaves out all of that and simply pulled out one number of a multi page study. Did you even read the study?
"And you're claiming Sanders cherry picks his figures? "
Yes he does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
1. Bernie is a communist. And how was that video taken out of context? He is praising breadlines which shows how bad a nation is doing. And yes, he praised the USSR. Nicaragua was doing a "revolution" as Bernie was saying and that was good. So is Bernie's "revolution" going to look like that?
The economy is strong. Home ownership is up, wages are ups, people are doing well.
2. Trump has his leadership experience from running his companies. Bernie's "leadership" experience was being the mayor of a "city" of only 38,000 with low diversity and minimal issues. Being small with limited diversity means that all the government has to do is sit back and not overdue things. There are no issues to deal with. Also, Bernie living off of the government shows he could not make it in the private sector or in the market. He has to live off of a government jobs.
3. I agree that sexual assault is bad. I never supported it. But saying that women are sexually assaulted more than men is not an argument of women lacking equality. You are talking about an issue of genetics.
On hiring women less, again, what is their degree? What is their experience? As I said, men are more likely to go after highly skilled fields like engineering. There are many factors at play.
Why are those fields paid more? Because they are worth more. What is worth more, an engineer designing a building that is energy efficient and can withstand an earthquake, or a job as a Pre-K teacher? The former is worth more in the market. That is the reality. And feminists these days are cry babies. Again, what rights to do women lack? There are a lot of powerful women out there that are successful. Feminists are making women look bad these days.
4. Yes, he sold a book as opposed to posting it online for free. He pocketed the millions as opposed to donating it. Also, how many books would have sold if he wrote it in 2014 before he ran for president? I really feel Bernie is simply running to gain popularity, get more money to leave his kids when he dies. If I were to write a book (and I essentially will with my PhD dissertation) how many will read it? Tell me, what will have more value? Bernie's book about his "revolution" or my dissertation describing nonlinear techniques to do studies related to obtaining information that can aid in chemical synthesis and dynamics of molecular systems? I will argue the latter. But I will say maybe 15 people, at most, will read it.
5. Firefighters are locally ran .Local government is completely different than federal government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
1. It wasn't taken out of context. If the people in Nicaragua were starving to death why were they still alive? Fact is that a nation with bread lines is in bad shape. And he did praise the USSR. He did his honeymoon there. And praising Cuba is an issue. He said they "educated" their kids. Educated how? I say more of indoctrination. Ever thought that the "education" was brainwashing? That is literally the scary part about Bernie. He will take a completely failing system and cherry pick the positives no matter how bad the system is. So if he is president and his programs are making our nation worse, what will be his reaction? Will it be "well I am giving you healthcare!". Sorry, I can't buy into that.
This is actually very common with Bernie. When looking at the Nordic nations the praises their welfare system. However, as the video pointed out, he ignores many other aspects of it such as them having a higher VAT tax, lower corporate taxes, lower business regulations, no min. wage, and more of a flat tax on their citizens. He claims that he just wants to tax the rich. However, that is not how the Nordic nations function. This cherry picking that Bernie does is dangerous and scary all around. He is not being honest.
2. Wages are going up, so is home ownership. It goes beyond unemployment. More jobs are available. The economy is better. You point to people dying due to lack of healthcare, that happens in every nation. Also, numbers like that have been challenged. We can get into the healthcare debate if you want. I know that topic very well. As for student loans, I don't see that as an issue as if done correctly one can pay off their loans quickly.
Pointing to Trump's bankruptcy is a flawed argument in that with success comes failure. Mariano Rivera blew a save in game 7 of the 2001 WS. Does that mean he was a bad closer?
3. I explained via Bateman's Principle. Men have the attitude of wanting to spread their seed around where women are much more selective. That leads to men being more aggressive. Again, sexual assault is not good, but saying women are assaulted more is rooted on genetics.
As for jobs, women, genetically, are more likely to go into a field like elementary ed due to their nature of raising kids. That is also genetic. Women are more likely to be care givers of the youth and kids where men are more likely to be the bread winners. This is also based on Batemen's Principle.
Abortion is not a right, neither is birth control.
4. Yes he is in it for the money. Why didn't he run earlier? Why now? And why did he write the book after he ran? Bernie is a con artist.
5. A local government is controlled by the people more. Also, there is an issue of government jobs in that, a lot of times they are no necessary and a waste. Government creates jobs so that politicians can remain in office. They don't create jobs out of necessity but out of buying votes.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
1. Prior to Castro's take over Cuba's population was increasing. They were not starving to death to me. Why breadlines are so bad is because it shows a nation's inability to generate enough food which is basic.
As for the press, Bernie makes that claim about everything, that big corporations are controlling everything. That is a conspiracy theory. Besides, that is capitalism. Youtuber Stephen Michael Davis said it best, capitalism is the best at generally giving people what they want. However, there is a drawback in that capitalism is the best at generally giving people what they want. Having a McDonalds on every street corner isn't good for the obesity rates now is it. With the media there are legit, hour long videos of experts going into details of important issues. Check them out and look at the views, they may have around 1000 a piece. Now check out the views of top 10 videos or stupid cat videos. Fact is that the people want quick, click bait talking points. Look at the issue of climate change, they rather listen to Greta or Al Gore as opposed to actual scientists. Good or bad that is how people react. What is Bernie's alternative? Change human behavior? Push propaganda down people's throats? And he was praising the USSR and Ortega. You can't deny he was praising Ortega.
"Cuba has the best education system in Latin america"
Because they killed off the weak and forced people to live a certain lifestyle. They lack freedom. Again, with capitalism, you get the good and bad. With what Cuba did they forced people to live a certain life. How will Bernie change human behavior in the US?
Saying "wealth inequality" if flawed. Read the paper entitled "Measuring Inequality" from the Oxford Review of Economic Policy. They say
"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. "
One can argue that high wealth inequality is good as the system is in place where one can pull out a loan to buy larger items where the lender is confident the loans will be paid back. I have negative wealth due to my college and car loans. The homeless person on the street with no debt has more wealth than I do on paper. Who is better off? A lot of the "wealthy" in the US, like Bezos, are that way because they are the major shareholders of their company. One, that wealth is not liquidated, two, they owning those shares give them that high of value. To give you example of how who owns said wealth influences its value consider the car I just bought. I have a history of taking good care of cars, it is a manual. My sister can't drive a manual and she has a history of destroying cars. Who will get the most value out of the car I have, myself or her if she bought it? Same is with wealth.
Another issue of wealth and why Nordic nations no longer tax wealth, is that taxing it does not mean it will keep the same value. In fact, taxing it reduces its value because the owner of said wealth has to liquidated it somehow.
Also, with the Nordic nations Bernie and his fans always ignore one important variable, culture. Read the book "Debunking Utopia" where the author there argues it is culture that drives their success, not the welfare system.
2. "People in most European countries don't die because they can't afford healthcare."
'
They do, amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. Saying healthcare should be rationed based on need is difficult as a "need" can be very subjective. Also, it is very hard to determine what is a "need".
As for your link on wages, Trump has been president for only 3 years now. Your data goes back to the 60s. Also, it is flawed as only CPI inflation was used and not other forms of inflation. Data is out there suggesting wages have gone up. Read the two papers
"Fifty Years of Growth in American Consumption, Income, and Wages" by prof. Bruce Sacerdote
"Did Wages Reflect Growth in Productivity?" by prof. Martin S. Feldstein
Canceling student debt will cause massive inflation and ruin the credit history of those students. Also, most can pay off their loans.
Trump going bankrupt only 4 times compared to his massive success is nothing.
3. I said that sexual assault is bad and it should end, but the reason why women are assaulted more is geared into genetics.
"Men aren't genetically better at STEM subjects than women."
Never said they were. And I want more women in STEM fields.
"On abortion, Roe v Wade disagrees with your that it isn't a right, why shouldn't it be. "
You don't have a right to kill.
"And why shouldn't birth control be a right? I feel like that's contradictory, how can you not want to allow a woman to have an abortion, but also want to deny her access to things that could have helped her avoid getting pregnant in the first place. "
You don't have a right to other people's goods and services. Also, birth control is easy to access. Who is denying access to birth control?
4. He is about to die so he needs to give his kids something in his will.
5. Local governments have more power.
The federal Department of Education should go away, it was nothing but a job creation program. That is an example of a wasteful government job.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
1. A nation would not exist if they were starving. So yes, breadlines are bad. They destroyed the economy to the point that food becomes limited.
"He praised the Nicaraguan president for some of his left wing policies "
Which can only take place with force. In the end Bernie's ideas come with force. It comes with government holding a gun to your head and acting in a certain way. That is how Cuba "educated" their kids.
Corporations can only buy politicians if politicians have power to sell. My opinions I feel we should limit the powers of the federal government, not expand it like Bernie wants to. This is what I don't get about Bernie fans. They complain about a corrupt federal government but want it to manage their healthcare and more of their money with higher taxes. Makes zero sense.
Also, corporations owning the media is a cost of freedom. What is your suggestion at that point? It is on you to determine what is real and what isn't. I don't want some arbitrary government official making that decision for me.
"he was praising the good aspects of what they did."
They used physical force to get their way. Holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to live a certain way does not become justify because they also provided them "healthcare". The reality is that Bernie's ideas require force. What if people refuse to work under Bernie's plan? That is a legit concern. Where is the incentive to work under Bernie's plan if he promises you healthcare, paid time off, a "living wage", a strong welfare system, etc.? This is why those nations had to use force.
"but I think it is necessary to try and prevent the downsides as if you don't you end up with massive inequality."
What is wrong with inequality?
"ernie isnt an authoritarian, he wants to stop the government having influence in a lot of ways, like stopping the government getting in the way of a woman's right to choose, legalising weed and ending mass incarceration."
And his approach is to expand the federal government?
"Wealth inequality is a valid measure as long as you use it right. Wages are one useful way of looking at it, as the implication with billionares earning so much is that they work thousands of times harder than someone who works three jobs and earns not much at all, which is clearly BS. Social mobility is also a good indicator and the US doesn't do very well with that."
Wealth goes beyond income. Just because Bezos is the largest shareholder of his company does not mean others are worse off. What are the shares of his company? They are essentially non-consumable wealth. It isn't food, clothes, homes, oil, etc. That is why shouting wealth inequality is very poor and flawed. Again, I, on paper, have less wealth than a homeless guy. Who is worse off?
"Why does everyone need some much debt? Yes the current economy allows you to take out a student loan, but if the economy was better you wouldn't have to take out a student loan, so who cares?"
Loans help grow the economy. Also, loans shows a strong economy as it shows that people are willing to lend. Some things are expensive and require a loan.
"You might get more value out of it "
That is the point. That car will generate more value in my hands. Just like the shares of Amazon have more value when Bezos owns a large portion of them.
"Yes that's the point of taxing wealth it's to redistribute it from the mega rich to the rest of us. Obviously if you tax them their wealth goes down that's the point.
"
It isn't their wealth going down but the value of their wealth. If you take Bezos' shares and give it to some random person on the street the value of those shares will drop. So it won't be wealth redistribution but wealth destruction.
Culture is huge. Every nations has different culture. I am taking an international business course and most of the class is about culture. How people act is important in how a program functions. That is why many times when a company tries to go international they struggle when they ignore culture. Geert Hofstede did research related to cultures across different nations and came up with different measures. For example if a nation is more individualist or collective. Nations like Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Germany, etc. are more collective compared to the US. Another ranking was maculinity vs feminism. The US is ranked as more masculine where nations like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are very feminine. What does that means? Feminity means "a situation where in which the dominant values in society are caring for others and the quality of life." Masculinity is "a situation where the dominant values are in success, money and things". So yes, culture plays a role. A more masculine nation like the US will have a hard time accept programs like that from feminine nations like Norway.
2.."If healthcare is free how can you die from not being able to afford it?"
They cap how much care is offer. So if you can't afford a private option you die. Also, waiting can lead to negative side effects. As written in the paper entield
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
They write
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers"
In my position if I require knee surgery I will want it quickly. I am not waiting.
The economy is doing better under Trump.
"The reason it uses that measure of inflation is its measuring the cost of living, which is what is important to people who are barely getting by. "
There are other ways to measure inflation. When you consider those wages have gone up.
"Do you have any source for student debt cancellation ruining credit scores? Also you know what else ruins a credit score? not being able to pay off a loan. "
That is the point. You weren't able to pay off your loan so the government bailed your out.
"You shouldn't have to pay for education. "
You don't. Libraries exist. You are investing into accomplish a goal when you pay for college.
3. "Okay so you want to stop the epidemic of sexual assault and you want more women in STEM fields then you're (at least on some issues) a feminist."
Not a feminist, I want a better nation. I want more people in the STEM field in general.
"oh ffs how can someone studying medical science or whatever think that destroying a ball of cells is somehow equivalent to killing a fully formed human?
"
Because it is killing. Not say I am pro choice or pro life. I really don't care. I care about standards. Abortion is not a right. Not saying I am for or against it, the reality is that it is not a right.
"Also you know what I mean when it comes to birth control, I mean it should be avalible to everyone for free, not that you should be able to force people to make it for you. The government has the power to you know, BUY it, and then give it to people for free. I don't mean stealing it. "
What if resources are limited? Or what if companies jack up the prices?
"He already has over a million dollars why would he go to the trouble of running for President to get more wouldn't he just write another book? "
He most likely is.
""Local government has more power" okay so what? What's wrong with the department of education? "
It matters. The more local a government is the more it serves the people.
The DOE did not exist until the 70s. Education is ran locally as is, there is no need to have the DOE. Me saying get rid of the DOE does not mean no government.
"This is my issue with this "libertarian, no government" mindset, it's over the top."
When did I push for no government?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fantaldark , let me break this down to you in the simplest terms possible. You, once again, posted a comment with zero sources. You said I have "anecdotal evidence" when one, it is far more evidence than you have provided and two, I was giving you different scenarios. For example, consider all of the adults in the world that don't earn a wage as they don't have a job but still live? How is that possible? Well, when you live in a household with one bread winner that earns enough for two then there you go. That person's living wage is $0.
"while telling everyone else that they're wrong for bringing data and arguments that have been backed up by various people over the course of this entire thread"
What data? Also, I have provided data in arguments against wage stagnation and you proceeded to complete ignore them. Why? Or do you have such a firmly held religious like belief on your ideas that you don't need data for your arguments and any data I give you ignore.
" Finally, to discuss a FEDERAL policy (that of the FEDERAL minimum wage), the data used to back it needs to take a FEDERAL level scale. That is, living in Seattle is vastly more expensive than Ohio, but for the purposes of FEDERAL policy they both are considered in the FEDERAL average. This is why STATES have their own data and dictate their own minimum wage, based on the FEDERAL decision for what a minimum wage should be. You are deliberately playing dumb and thinking that this dismantles an argument you do not understand because you do not understand an 'average' in any sense of the term."
Uh, that is not how it is done. But now you are admitting many things here. One, with the federal government setting some standard based on the "average" you are admitting that the federal min. wage will be too high in some areas. So why not let the state and local governments handle it? That is how essentially every other domestic issue is handled. States and local governments handle K-12 education, not the federal. States and local government handle the vast majority of law enforcement where the federal government handle laws when criminals cross state lines. States and local governments fund 3/4 of roads. Again, these are hard data and facts that I can provide evidence for even though you will ignore it. But why should the federal government set some "min wage" based on the average harming the economies of areas where the average is too high?
"The fact that you misinterpret basic terms people learn in grade school, whether deliberately or simply because you are too ignorant to understand the concepts in play, is further proof that you cannot back up your arguments"
Here we go. The fact that you don't understand statistics, nor economics nor that you can make broad claims does not help your arguments. Here is a huge fundamental flaw of any min. wage, it dictates how much is paid per hour, not per week. So if you raise the wage to a 'living wage" and hours are cut, what have you succeeded? Nothing. This comes down to you make very broad claims in that a set wage is a "living wage" without consider
1. Their household income
2 How many hours they actually work
3. What their actual cost of living is as in if they have roommates
and so on. You have yet to give me the data to show what a living wage is and how that value came about. You have providing nothing. Why is $7.25/hr a "living wage" by the federal standard? Again, you said many academic sources exist but you have provided absolutely nothing. You talk about the field of academics, if you were making the arguments you were with no sources people will ignore you.
"Why does everyone else have to define simple terms learned in grade school to you in order for you to actually understand the conversation in play, but you make blanket statements such as 'Bernie is a communist' without ANY evidence. "
I have said this many times, Bernie wants a command economy that was practice in East Germany and USSR. I gave plenty of evidence for that. But of course and economic illiterate like you, who provides zero sources, who does not understand what averages are, will not know that.
"You lack the ability to discuss, debate, or argue any given point, because you lack basic comprehension skills and have no understanding of the terms 'subjective', 'average', or - apparently - 'federal'. Stop embarrassing yourself."
Says the person who provides no sources.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , why $15/hr? Where does that number come from? Also, what experts? There are many experts who oppose a min. wage all together. Again, the problem with the "living wage" argument is that it is completely subjective. Read the study entitled
"Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50Federal Minimum Wage Really Help theWorking Poor?"
Where they say
"Our results show that recent minimum wage increases between 2003 and2007 had noeffect on state poverty rates. Moreover, the proposal to raise the federalminimum wage to$9.50 per hour is unlikely to be any better at reducing poverty because (i) most workers (89.0%)who are affected are not poor, (ii) many poor workers (48.9%) already earn hourly wagesgreater than $9.50 per hour, and (iii) the minimum wage increase is likely to cause adverseemployment effects for the working poor."
How is it that around 90% earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor, but of those who are poor close to 50% earn more than $9.50/hr? Explain that to me.
Also, the $50/hr argument is based on the fact that the far left assume you can just raise the min. wage and nothing bad will happen. Well, it depends on the economic situation and we can discuss that in detail if you want (such as the supply and demand equilibrium is higher than some price floor set by the government, this happened in the 90s). But doubling the min. wage will surely cause many negative things to the economy.
1
-
1
-
@Fantaldark , here, since you don't understand economics nor statistics I will give you another example since you are not budging on the "living wage" as you refuse to tell me what standard was used to determine the so call "average". Take inflation. Many on the far left point to CPI inflation and say wages have been stagnant. There are several problems there. One, using only on measurement method is lacking. There are other forms of inflation measurement such as PCE, GDP deflator, Boskin Commission adjusted CPI and so on. Next, inflation measurements have flaws. Read the article entitled
"Problems in Measuring Inflation"
From economics help. One example is how inflation does not always account for new technology. For example, cars today are safer, last longer and get better gas mileage, all that saves money. There is data to suggest that wages have not been stagnant as pointed out in these two papers
"Fifty Years of Growth in American Consumption, Income, and Wages" by prof. Bruce Sacerdote
"Did Wages Reflect Growth in Productivity?" by prof. Martin S. Feldstein
Now let us go back to the "living wage" argument and the average. I kept demanding you to give me what average. You deflected by saying I was giving an anecdote when I was giving you different scenarios. You claimed that the government decided that average but you could not give me a source in how. You kept deflecting. I pushed you in the corner and you deflected. So again, what was their standard for an "average"? Was it considering roommates? Was it considering family size? Was it considering people moving? That is the challenge with statistics. You can move the needle around and come up with different values.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "The first paper just says that if you use a different measure you get a different result"
Exactly, that is my point. Welcome to statistics.
" it hasn't negatively effected people I'm the states where it's been done. "
I has. States with higher min. wages have higher teenage unemployment. Also, look at the min. wage and the economy as a whole is flawed. Seattle, for example, has a very high min. wage. They are also home to major headquarters like Boeing, Amazon and Starbucks who are some of their major employers. They also have lower taxes, especially on the rich. So the supply and demand curve in the market has an equilibrium where wages are already high. At that point raising the min. wage was a political stunt. No different than when Robert Reich and Bill Clinton did it in the 90s where prior to doing it unemployment was dropping and the percent of workers working at or below the min. wage going up.
"The reason we don't want to raise it to 50$ is because that would be far too much"
But $15/hr, which is more than double, is not too much? Why?
"Regardless of whether you think that is an accurate living wage, do you support a living wage? "
Again, that is subjective. Also, you can raise "wages" by making goods and services cheaper. As I said earlier with inflation arguments, there are flaws. For example, a brick cell phone, based on inflation, cost hundreds of dollars in the late 80s. Smart phones, which has more computing power than what put a man on the moon, are essentially free. You can "raise wages" but having prices drop. This is where I say this issue is very complex. I support people being better off, there is more to it than just wages. If you arbitrary raise wages and productivity does not improve then you have not accomplished anything. To me you need to generate more goods and services.
"The reason we support a living wage is because if you work full time your shouldn't be in poverty"
Define poverty, that is another issue.
1
-
@Fantaldark "That's where you take aaaaaaallllllll these numbers, as many numbers as must need be compared, and you then divide those numbers by their own sum."
Congrats, you are proving my point in that you don't understand statistics. You are taking the definition of an average and assuming you can simply apply it in all cases. That is flawed as you have outliers and special cases.
Let us look at some averages. According to FRED the mean family income on the US is around $106,000 in 2018. Average personal income in the US is around $50,000 a year, again, according to FRED.
"So if we compare the total expenditure of 327.2 million American citizens, add them all together, then divide that figure by 327.2 million, we get a figure that is called an 'average'. Also known as a median in more advanced mathematics"
100% false. The mean and median are not the same. The mean, or average, is what you described, you sum all the values of say X, and divide by the total number of X. The median describes the middle point where half of the data is below a certain value and half are above a certain value. For example, the average personal income, as I said, is around $50,000 a year. The median personal income is around $31,000 a year. Guess what, those two numbers are not equal. So no, the median is not the same as the average.
At that point you have literally proved you don't understand basic statistics. You literally said the median is the same as the average. That is 100% false.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , what kind of average is being used? Were outliers removed? Were there weights? Again, many factors influence the stats. That is why you can't just throw numbers out there without context nor methods.
"Why does it matter how many are "living beyond their means". Are you just trying to make the ridiculous right wing argument that it's poor people's fault that they are poor? "
No. If you are going to use an "average" to talk about a "living wage" which is the min. wage to live with basic needs, according to those that support it, you have to add weights to those who live beyond their means.
"yes but just because something is complex in the background doesn't mean it can't also be simple"
No, if it is complex the solution is not simple. In fact, there are many difficult questions that many refuse to take on.
"Well what are you saying then? I listed earlier all of the reasons I support Bernie and the policies I want to see happen, you mentioned you supported Tulsi (I think you said you liked Tulsi, apologies if I've got that wrong) or Trump, so why specifically do you support them and which of their policies do you want to see enacted? "
I like their strong leadership skills and their ability to work with others. Instead of dismissing people like Bernie does they will look at the entire issue in order to push for a stronger economy.
"I said that the current minimum wage isn't enough to live off, "
Based on what? As I said, most earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor.
"So essentially what your arguing is that if you give the poorest people any decent amount of money that will break the economy, "
I feel it hinders economic growth as you devalue that money, especially if the federal government does it. Money has no actual value until it is spent in a way that the people spending it value what they buy. By giving money away to people who produce nothing to reduce the value of money.
"oh fuck off with this stupid right wing talking point. Fine if you think it's the poor people's fault that they are poor then prove it. Do you really think that people work 3 jobs because they "aren't good at managing money","
Reality is, most people are poor because of their own life choices. If you work full time year round there is only a 2% chance you are poor. That is the stats.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , it does make it subjective as with stats they only show a portion of the issue. A problem with stats is that you can't quantify humor emotions and behavior 100%. Compare it to this. Kyle mentioned a study that said black were sentence to prison at a 20% higher rate than whites for the same crime, all things held equal. But that same study said correlation does not equal causation (something Kyle left out). Why? Because some things you can't quantify such as courtroom behavior. For example, if to people with the same crime, same judge, same jury, etc. showed up to court, but one behaved in court, dressed nice and so on, and the other was wearing rags and misbehaved in court, that will influence the sentencing. The same is with all stats. Many variables you can't quantify.
It is hard to determine who lives beyond their means? That is an issue. I just stayed at a guy's house who lived alone but had three bedrooms and two vehicles. Does he need that? I live alone with one bedroom and one vehicle. But do I need a bedroom? A studio is sufficient. That is my point. That is an issue with stats. You can't clearly define these standards.
" I disagree I think there can be solutions of varying complexity for different issues but what do you think the solution should be to poverty in the US then? "
Improve the economy with less federal government and improve mental health with less federal government. The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 made mental healthcare worse. Remove that and give the responsibilities back to the states/local governments.
" Bernie does work with others, he is often working with democrats and republicans in the senate in order to get stuff done. He teamed up with a republican senator to form a bill to stop the US aiding the Saudi genocide in Yemen, it passed but Trump Vetoed it. "
No, he dismisses others. You have seen that often when pushed on his issues. He just starts going on rants of talking points or rhetorical questions. Look at how he treated that hair salon owner during his debate against Cruz. He has no desire to understand how a business operates or the challenges they face. He simply says "fuck you, pay up".
"Also I asked which policies you support, not for some vague fairly meaningless statement about "strong leadership" as that is highly subjective."
That is complex because policies are complex. To me working with both sides delivers a moderate approach on the issues. That makes any policy strong. A moderate policy is great. Radical policies like what Bernie supports is not great. Mainly, Trump and Tulsi will work with both sides to get a moderate policy passed that improves our nation.
"according to who? The cost of living is always above about $21000 a year, and if you are the main provider for a large family then you will be struggling even more. Also $9.50 isn't the federal minimum wage. I don't see what your arguing here, are you arguing that poverty isn't an issue?"
I gave you the study but here is the title of the paper again
"Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor?"
By Joseph J. Sabia and Richard V. Burkhauser
Also, where do you get your $21,000 figure from? I agree poverty is an issue but most who are poor don't work full time or don't work at all. Again, only around 2% of people who work full time year round are poor.
"How does it devalue the money? If you give poor people more money they will spend it immediately on things like food, healthcare, maybe a car. If you give rich people more money they will sit on it. Getting more money to the poorest in society is good for the economy, that's part of the argument for cancelling all student debt as well. "
It devalues money because you are just giving it away. If you just gave your car away you don't value it. Same is with money. Saying they will "spend it" is increasing demand without increasing supply, thus prices go up. Just giving money away does not grow the economy as it does not create goods and services. In fact, it reduces the drive to work. If you just give money away why work? Thus less goods and services.
Compare it to this, at the small level. Say you have an apartment complex, say mine with 64 units. Rent is around $1000 a month. Now say you give everyone in my city $1000 a month. What will happen to my rent? It will go up as now everyone in the city have more money. People living in studios will try to move into one of the units in my complex as they are one and two bedrooms. So my land lord will raise rent as a response. Why? People have more money but the number of units remained the same.
"Yes someone who is born into a poor family and lives an area with a shit school and can't afford to go to college is only poor because of "their own life choices". How about we fix the economy and make it fair and then if loads of people are still poor you guys can make this stupid argument?"
Excuses is all I hear at that point. But, one point you brought up is the mentality of people. You talk about stats and averages, but one reason why many don't leave a poor situation is because they are raised in it and are used to it. Very few people really know what it is like to be in a different situation. This is why I always oppose opinion polls that Kyle cites or support more local government. People don't understand what life is like in a different situation. How do you fix that situation. Limit the powers of the federal government and give more power to the states and local governments. By just being an outsider looking in and giving money away you don't actually help people.
1
-
@Fantaldark , uh, knowing that the average and median are not the same is very basic. And you wrote it with great confidence. You wrote it as
So if we compare the total expenditure of 327.2 million American citizens, add them all together, then divide that figure by 327.2 million, we get a figure that is called an 'average'. Also known as a median in more advanced mathematics (I'm talking grade 5 maths here)"
What is ironic is that you say calling an average a median is "advanced mathematics" and made the comment of that we are talking about 5th grade math here. There is no excuse at this point, you proved to me you don't understand statistics.
"Depression can be subjective, but here's the thing; clinical depression is a concrete term. "
And varies by individual and is difficult to measure because, again, there is no quantify way of measuring it. It is very subjective. I suffer through depression. So does my sister. We do so in very different ways thus we were treated very differently. My aunt does and she tried to commit suicide in a very different way compared to what I did. Saying "clinical depression" is a concrete term is not true as it varies from individual.
" It's more than 'feeling a little sad' like you seem to think,"
I never said it was "feeling a little sad". When did I ever say that? I never delete my comments, so point out where I said that. I understand depression is an ongoing issue people face. I know, I have it myself. I have major depression disorder. It wasn't me "feeling a little sad". It is me not being able to get out of bed at night. It was me having delusions. It was me putting a loaded gun in my mouth and playing Russian roulette with myself putting fate in my hands. It is an ongoing situation, but also very complex.
"What ISN'T subjective about depression is that there are studies linking it to higher cases of self-harm and suicide behaviour, and at least a correlation between symptoms and feelings of isolation from society"
What level of harm? My aunt tried an drug overdose, I tried a gun. Also, what correlation exists? You claim there are studies, care to link them? Or is this another case where you make a claim without sources?
Also, many people are not isolated but still suffer from depression. In my case I came from a loving an supportive family that was stable, I also had a high intellectual threshold. That is why my depression never caught up to me until I was 30 as my life i lived and my intellectual threshold had be break through the barriers until they became too strong. That is why I said many feel that people with with mental health problems are derelicts but in reality they are people who are very successful. In fact, the successful people are harder to treat and diagnose.
"But, no, your entire argument was about how you have depression and a supportive family so it's entirely subjective, when my counterpoint was that trans people often DON'T have supportive families and your situation doesn't inform the average situat- oh there's that term you don't understand again. "
Do you mean median as you feel average and median are the same things. But funny how you bring up a word that defines a quantitative measurement. As I said, you can't quantify depression and mental health as it is subjective. It isn't like diabetes where you can measure blood sugar levels. I am not saying that not coming from a supportive family does not play a role with trans people. It very well could. I am saying that there is a lot more to the issue as it is complex. What makes mental health even harder is that you you can't take a quantitative measurement of it. It is very subjective.
"You're using both anecdotal evidence AND subjective argument here, trying to claim you, yourself, as the standard."
When did I ever say I was the standard? I was giving you an example. Have you ever read books and studies based on healthcare and psychological issues? Many times they give out stories. One book I read recently was "Resilient Identities" by Prof. William Swann. That book is full of individual stories. But again, here I am giving an actual source where you will not provide any. But hey, I guess I have to keep my standards low for someone who does not understand that an average and a median are different things.
"And finally, yes, there are arguments against raising tree minimum wage, as I already tore apart your refuge in audacity argument 'WhY nOt $50' earlier. "
You did not tear apart the arguments. Many economists oppose the min. wage.
"Concrete terms have concrete definitions"
It isn't that easy. It isn't like you are pointing to a car and saying "that is a car". That is concrete. Something like poverty varies in many ways. One can say a homeless person is in poverty which would be fair, but many people in large cities are "homeless" by choice due to high cost of rent. The youtube channel
Don's Walk, Run! Productions" did a video entitled
"California’s Housing Crisis Looks Like Fun!"
He went through examples of "homeless" people choosing to live in their vehicles. So will you say they are in poverty? One can raise the standard of being in "poverty" if they have to live with roommates. Again, we are talking about a subject you struggle with, statistics. You can change the standards.
"you don't get to demand people define basic terms for five days straight without looking like an idiot. Here's an idea; why not define poverty yourself?
"
That varies. Unlike you I understand the complexity of these issues. Like depression where I tried a gun to kill myself and my aunt tried pills. Or how medication was mainly all I needed but my sister needed ECT. Again, it varies. With poverty someone deciding to live in their vehicle to save money is "homeless" but no in poverty. Someone living with 2 roommates in a studio is not "homeless" but can still be in poverty.
You see, this is no different than when Bernie fans make the claim that half of the nation earns $30,000 or less. That is true based on the median (not average, remember, different values) personal yearly income. But that does not tell the full story as, once again, these issues are complex. Myself and most of my graduate student colleagues earn less than $30,000 a year. We are in our mid 20s to 30s. mainly. We are pursuing our PhDs and Masters and already have college degrees. So will you say we are in bad shape? The vast majority of people will say no.
The point is that these terms are not "concrete" as they vary by individuals. You may take the "average" all you want (where many will say the median is a better stat to measure with) but it does not tell the full story. You by looking at the average are ignoring one very important factor, human behavior and emotions. You are assuming that you can just take an issue, stamp a number on it and the argument ends as definitions are "concrete". It isn't that easy. That is why experts continue to do research on these topics.
But again, you have shown you don't understand statistics nor you will ever give me a source.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "No one is saying the only issue affecting poverty is the minimum wage. As for the argument about the 20% statistic, what do you think causes it? Unless all black people "dress in bad clothes" then that's clearly not the issue is it? Also why should someone be sentenced more harshly if they don't have good clothes, that's essentially just being unfair to poor people. "
I am not saying it is just how they dress. There is a 20% difference in high school graduation rates compared to black and whites as well. How you dress in a court room does make a difference. If you dress nice it shows you care, or at least pretend to. When you don't then you don't care. I am not talking about a suit and tie but a nice polo shirt and slacks. How much do those things actually cost? Not much. But when you show a judge and jury you don't care how will they think? Also, appearance does make a difference. But there could be other reasons as well why sentencing is higher. Coming from an area of high crime can play a role in that a judge could be trying to make a statement. Overall, stats don't tell the whole story.
"Was this guy you stayed with struggling to get by with money? "
No.
" As for you're example about yourself, no you probably don't need a bedroom but I don't really think that having a bedroom is a particularly high standard is it? Surely we can agree people having a bedroom isn't really a luxury."
Why not? It allow me to own a couch, have extra space. I know people who live in studios or have roommates. I feel I live a nice life. Again, we are talking about something that is subjective. I personally could never do roommates, but others don't mind.
""Improve the economy will less federal government" improve it for who? Normally removing regulation only improves it for the rich. "
Who says it will only benefit the rich? A federal government with limited powers cannot be bought. Thus for someone to become rich they have to cater to the people.
"Okay I want to know WHICH policies though. Which specific actual policies in trump or tulsi 's platform do you want? "
Again, that is vague. To me a president cannot have specific policies as they have to deal with congress. So to me working with congress is what matters.
As for your link, ever heard of the article "Faces of $15" where businesses go under due to an increase in the min. wage?
As for your article as well, they are looking at overall employment. Emeryville, CA for years had the highest min. wage in the nation but low unemployment. Why? Because three of their top four employers were pharmaceutical companies and Pixar. Seattle is able to get away with a high min. wage because their top employers are the headquarters of Boeing, Amazon and Starbucks. That is why I look at groups that are effected by the min. wage the most such as teenagers. States with the highest min. wage also have higher unemployment for low skilled workers like teens. Seattle raising their min. wage to $15/hr is not going to influence a worker at Boeing HQ earning close to six figures.
"I notice that a lot of the anti minimum wage studies are very hypothetical and predicting, but if you look at what actually happened (yours was from 2010, that one I linked is 2015 I believe) A lot of these predictions don't come true. "
And else happened? Overall unemployment went down. My point, there is a lot more to the economy then the min. wage. That is why I said in the 90s when Robert Reich and Clinton raised the min. wage nothing happened as the market's equilibrium already set the "min. wage" above the $5.15/hr mark at that time.
I am getting the 2% value from the article entitled
"Sorry, Bernie, Few Full-Time Workers Live in Poverty"
Most in poverty don't work or only work part time. .
"And about half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck,"
How much is because of poor money management? Again, other factors are at play.
"Also redistribution of wealth isn't creating new wealth it's redistributing it from the rich. The poor will be spending more but the rich have less."
Again, most wealth is not liquidated. If you force Bezos to give up shares of his company the value of the shares will drop. So again, you are destroying wealth, not creating.
"How the fuck is being born in a poor area with shit schools and not being able to afford an education an excuse?"
Education is affordable.
""That's why I always oppose opinion polls" "we need the people to have more of a say" is that not a direct contradiction? If you think ordinary people are shit at seeing things from a different perspective why do you want them having more power?"
No. You give people more power by making government as local as possible. At the local level you can see if government is working for you. And you can establish a government that you agree with. A major problem I have with the far left is that they assume everyone is the same when they aren't. People in different areas value government programs differently. That is why a more local government is best. People can establish programs they desire as opposed to having programs shoved down their throats.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , what you wear matters. Same with a job interview, you want to show up in nice clothes or you don't get a job. People make mistakes and commit crime, but if you show up to court wearing rags how can you think that person cares?
As for high crime areas, more money is pumped into those areas compared to others. The issue is not money, it is much more complex.
"On this next point I just disagree I don't think a bedroom is a luxury but your entitled to your opinion about that so fair enough. "
That is why say these issues are subjective. I feel great living in a one bedroom as opposed to having roommates. Others are fine with roommates. It is subjective. That is why having poverty measurements is difficult.
"The reason it will benifit the rich is if there isn't regulation to stop the rich ripping people off then they will rip people off. Look what happened when you deregulated wall Street. Look what happens when you allow the fossil fuel companies to get away with destroying the planet. These greedy pricks don't care about helping you and I."
They care about making money. In the end it comes down to two ways, one, buy off the government or two, serve the people. When government has limited powers it can't be bought. So no, I don't see how they can rip people off.
"The article I linked literally says "the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers" in it. (I think it's quoting something else but it's in that link).
No I haven't heard of that article do you have a link to it?"
I gave you the title, many times links don't work. However, again, this is a complex issue. Why is it that states with higher min. wages have higher teenage unemployment?
"Also do you have any source or even logically basis for your "poor people are shit at managing money" claim, as I don't belive that at all, as I've explained multiple times if someone is born in a poor area what the hell are they supposed to do about that? You can't choose which area you're born into or the wealth of you're family."
In the end it does come down, for the most part, to poor money management. That is the reality. Many people worked hard and left poverty. There is still a lot to it which is why I support more local governments. Doing so will create stronger communities. I feel the far left solution of just giving them money is not the solution. Just giving them money without interacting with them does nothing.
You also need to learn what wealth is. Wealth is also very subjective as who possess it can determine its worth. We have been through this. Taking shares of Amazon out of Bezos' hands and giving it to someone else will reduce the value a lot. Also, it is not liquidated.
"Can't you argue this point down to the level where individual streets make their own decisions?"
That does happen. Ever heard of gated communities or neighbor watch?
"The federal government should set Baselines for obvious stuff like healthcare being a right, a decent minimum wage, free education, legal weed, stuff like that. Then local government can make decisions on more local matters. "
What will be that "baseline". Define "decent". Healthcare cannot be a right. Define an "education". Again, these issues are very complex. That is why I support a local government. The system is that the federal government deals with foreign affairs and commerce between states, everything is left up to the states and local governments where all governments are restricted to the Constitution.
1
-
@Fantaldark , no, you said an average is the same as the median. Now you are saying it is the "mean", which is true. But now you are saying it and not before. It is clear you had to read up on statistics to finally change your statement to you saying you meant "mean". Face it, you failed at this point.
Also, again, you have no sources. My recent Youtube video cited a news article. But again, no sources from you, that is strike 2.
"You have demanded that three guys on the internet define for you the term 'average' for five days"
Actually I asked that you define what a "living wage" is. Not what an average is. So now you don't even know what I was asking. You are moving the goal posts again. That is strike 3.
"Your profession has changed three times over this week, from being a medical researcher for a highly successful small team to being a teacher and now to being a grad student. "
Never said that I was a medical researcher. I am a grad student. Do you know how graduate students get PhDs? They do original research, publish it, and write a dissertation. I do research as part of my graduate studies. So now you are admitting you don't know how a graduate program operates.
"You argue subjective examples as if they are the standards you believe exist, provide anecdotal evidence to back up blanket claims as if your opinion is objective fact,"
Wow, you are really lost here. I gave examples of how these issues are vague. I cited a professor on the issue of mental health how they cite individual stories where you, once again, cited nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fantaldark
1. Being drunk is not an excuse to make such a minor error. Admit it, you proved you don't know statistics.
2. I did cite books and papers from experts, you cited nothing so far.
3. What is an "average American". If it is so obvious define it? The US is huge with many different cultures. People in CA act differently than the people in OK. That is why in this current primary Biden won some states and Bernie has won others. Also, I said define a "living wage", you are the one who brought up the average.
4. I do teach students and I do research. You know that a lot of graduate students become teaching assistants? Again, you don't understand the graduate school system.
" But I've still not spent a week demanding people define the term average to me. "
I never once asked for you to define the term "average" to me. Point to me where I did. I wanted you to define the term "living wage".
" I've not made subjective and anecdotal arguments to back up my blanket statements as if they're objective fact"
Yeah, you haven't provided anything. I am giving you examples on how you can't go off of numbers alone like an average. In statistics they do weigh certain variables. If you actually studied statistics you will know this. For example, let us talk about poverty. On the vague definition by the federal government MS has the highest poverty level. But when the Census Bureau factored in cost of living, weighing a variable, CA has the highest poverty rate and MS is around the middle. Again, with stats there are many ways to look at them. FRED looks at "seasonally adjusted" stats at times.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , dressing up shows you have the potential to care. That is important. It shows you have the potential to try to change. That has value.
"A lot of high crime areas have been historically underfunded which means people are trapped in poverty. If it's not because of money what do you think it is because of?"
To me it is an issue of culture. There are many areas of low income that have no crime. It comes down to culture.
"That doesn't make it subjective though, as the poverty standards will have a criteria that they decided upon. "
It does make it subjective as people have different standards in how they want to live or are willing to live.
"If we passed laws to get money out of politics then the government would also have to serve the people. Corporations only care about making money as you said, so they won't serve the people unless they are forced to. "
All a corporation can do is offer you a job/product. That is it. I have never seen a corporation force people to give up their money. Amazon became successful because they made shopping for consumers. Politicians are there to gain votes. In many ways they will push for policy to look good in the short term but not the long term. They take advantage useful idiots in the process.
The min. wage is complex overall. Again, states with higher min. wages also have higher teenage unemployment. And again, your article was looking at the time when overall unemployment was dropping. You also have to consider Labor to Labor Substitution. Overall, the min. wage has very little, if any positive effects and far more negative effects.
"Okay so I assume "no" is the answer to my question of whether you have any sources or logic for this. "
Most of the time it is because of poor money management skills.
"Stronger communities are great but they don't really solve the issue of people not having enough money. "
Just giving them money does not educate them, nor change their moral, or makes them feel wanted. This is a problem with far leftists. They feel that just giving money away is the answer when the better answer is interacting with these people and changing their culture. Giving them a positive example and influence.
" Why will it? What "wealth" is Bezoz Amazon shares creating for ordinary people? And clearly a lot of it is liquidated if he can just donate $10 billion on a whim.
"
He can liquidated by choice. Forcing liquidation will lower the value. Also, taking his shares and giving it to some random person on the street will lower the value and now investors see the company as a high risk. Bezos being a major shareholder shows he trust his company and thus investors are willing to invest.
"yes but I meant more that you can argue that most decisions should be taken on a street by street basis. I don't fundamentally believe that government has to be more local for it to be more fair. I believe that if we get money out of policies and have fair funding of elections, then all of the corrupt politicians won't have a chance against the ones who are genuine. "
The more local government is the more control you have over it. In the end you can only vote for 3 members of the 535 members of Congress. You may hate Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz, but can you vote for them? Now why do you want them to have a strong say in what goes on in you life. As for money in politics, that has been around since government has existed. That isn't a novel argument. Giving more power to the government to "end" money in politics will not end it as they are the ones enforcing the rules. To give power to the people you make government as local as possible and limit the powers of the federal government.
"I'll just quote my last comment "stuff like healthcare being a right, a decent minimum wage, free education, legal weed, stuff like that" "
With the exception of legal weed everything else is vague. Also, there are arguments for and against legal weed so it should be left up to the states.
"And decent being above $13 in my opinion, but that's up to the politicians to decide ultimately, and it can increase over time if it needs to. "
How will they decide? What will they base that off of? Every economy is different in each state and town. Demanding some "baseline" will be too high for some areas and too low for others.
""Define an "education"" - "the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university." aka free public college and proper funding of schools in all areas. "
College is not about education but about an investment. Most you can learn on your own, go to the public library. College is about you making an investment in yourself. That is the value in college. By the time you enter college if you need the government to educate yourself you are lost. Also, saying "proper funding" is vague. A lot of schools with bad outcomes have a lot of funding.
"Those two statements aren't really related. You can think the issues are complex and still think the federal government should have power in the issues. "
At the local level you can micromanage the issues more and create a system those individuals value. To give an example with education. NV is constantly ranked low in education. With them the citizens simply don't value education as high because where is the incentive to become educated when you can make 6 figures working in the mines or $80,000 parking cars or serving drinks? Thus they only have 2 four year universities there.
MA is constantly ranked high in education. Their culture values education more because MA is home of Harvard, MIT, Boston College, etc. So it isn't the system but the culture. A federal government trying to push a one size fits all policy, or a base line creates the following problems. With states like NV you force them to try to reach some standard in education their culture does not want to reach. With MA you create a bar that is too low and they don't push for their best ability and are dragged down by states like NV. To make it worse people will say "NV is doing poorly, give them more money" where a state like MA gets dragged down.
You see, it isn't that easy.
"okay but what's wrong with the federal government setting a baseline? If they don't you end up with shit like the abortion stuff happening in Alabama or the fact that loads of states don't even have a minimum wage or if they do it's something like $5. The only reason those states have to pay $7.25 is because that's the federal minimum wage."
As I said, you drag some people down and force others to do what they don't wan to do. A major problem I have with far leftists is that they are on the outside looking in feeling that they know what is best for people without actually interacting and trying to understand them. If AL wants to ban abortion what is wrong with that if the citizens agree? NY and CA still have abortion illegal. With your mindset the federal government can make abortion illegal all over. How will you feel if Trump, and a congress filled with republicans made abortion illegal federally? I bet you will disagree, but that is the standard you want as you want to give the federal government that power. I want to leave it to the states. If the people of AL want it illegal then fine. Do you live there? If not then don't complain. Other states have abortion legal by law. As the people of AL most likely don't want the federal government making abortion legal, I bet the people of NY don't want the federal government making it illegal.
Again, people are different. People in different states have different cultures. Just because you and the people around you feel a certain way does not mean others.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 ,when you dress nice you show you have some base to start with. When you wear rags you are presenting yourself that you don't have a base to start with to rehab. So yes, how you dress makes a difference. Again, people are different. Two people committing the same crime are not the same overall.
On culture, some areas have high crime because that is what the people are used to and that is what they think should happen. No different than a sports team that loses all the time. That is the culture of losing and they have not learned how to win. With crime they live in high crime area and that is the culture. The see their parents and friends drop out of high school and that is how they feel life should be. In fact, when you give them money it makes it worse. I substitute teach occasionally for extra money. I subbed at a school for kids who were troubled kids where one girl said her career goals were to have a lot of kids and collect welfare and child support like her mom did. Do you think giving her more money would help?
"It does make it subjective as people have different standards in how they want to live or are willing to live.
Individuals having difference between them does not make the overall number subjective thats literally why they take an average instead of just picking a random person. "
Again, there are problem with stats. It ignores the human though and emotions. As I said many people in CA are fine with roommates or even living in their cars. I grew up in the Midwest. Being "poor" there meant you still had a home and a yard. Being "poor" in a city like LA means you are in the street or living with 5 roommates. So there is a difference based on experience.
"This argument only works if it s voluntary things like a book off of amazon. Healthcare and medicine isn't voluntary therefore companies can essentially force you to pay ridiculous prices or you will die. "
A lot of healthcare is voluntary and healthcare insurance is voluntary. A problem with healthcare in this nation is that we don't have a free market system.
"Where is your source for this teenage unemployment thing? My source I posted disagrees with you. Also I'm pretty sure my article didn't just lok at those times but even if it did so what that doesn't mean a minimum wage affected the unemployment rate. And by substitution do you mean like robots replacing workers? As just leaving the minimum wage really low and forcing people to live in poverty isn't really an answer to that. "
According to the US Department of labor, states with the highest min. wage are
WA, OR, NY, NJ, MN, MA, HI, CT, CO, CA, AZ, AK, AR, MD, ME, RI, VI
Those are states with over $10/hr min. wage
States with the highest according to governing dot com
WV, WA, OR, NM, MI, LA, GA, AL, AK, IL
Of that list, WA, OR, AK all have min. wages above $10. The others, WV, NM,MI, IL have min. wages above the federal. There are 7 states with teenage unemployment less than 10%. Of them 5 have the min. wage set at the federal.
So yes, there is a strong correlation.
With labor to labor substitution what that means is that you have a group of higher skilled workers who are not working but with a higher wage offered they decide to join the workforce displacing lower skilled workers.
"That isn't a source. "
Look at factors such as education attainment, crime rates, number of jobs held, etc.
"We aren't far leftists and we don't want to give money away, point disproven. "
The what do you want because every answer seems to be "under funded" or "they don't have enough money".
"Okay but did amazon collapse when he liquidated for the $10 billion? And no one wants to give amazon shares to random people. "
No, because he liquidated it himself and did so in a way that can be a tax write off. He wasn't forced to liquidated it. And who do you want to give the wealth to?
"The first argument still applies at a state and local level there will still be representatives you don't get a change to elect. Yes corrupt politicians won't get money out of politics thats why we want Bernie and the Justice Democrats "
At the local level you can vote for all of your representatives. And also thought that there is little change because the people like them? Also, Bernie and Justice Democrats are corrupt themselves. Just look at Cenk recently begging for money. And this whole notion of "electing the right people", wasn't Obama supposed to be the "right person"? Wasn't Warren supposed to be the "right person"? Also, ever thought politicians can con you to become elected? Again, taking advantage of useful idiots.
"Why is universal healthcare vague? And by minimum wage we mean at least $13.60 an hour, free education means free public college. Also waht are the arguments against weed? And why should it be up to the states even if there are argument against it? I have arguments against a lot fo US military policy does that mean that should be up to the states? "
Universal healthcare is vague because what level of care will be offered? Other nations keep costs low by capping how much care one receives. At what point do you cap care? Who decides how much care one receives? Who decides what is elective and what isn't?
$13.60/hr will destroy a lot of rural towns in the midwest where cost of living is low.
"Free" public college? So ruin the value of a college degree?
Against weed, it hinders one potential. I leads to people doing ignorant things much like alcohol. Again, it all depends on the society. I have no problem with wee, but I see why people oppose it. And why should it be up to the states? Because of the complexity of what government's purpose is and what society wants. If a state wants weed to be illegal why should you say no? Just like others should not pass a federal mandate making weed illegal nation wide. Some areas have weed legal with no problems.
Military is a part of foreign affairs, the responsibility of the federal government. As a balance the military cannot enforce state law without consent of the state governor.
"We already answered this multiple times. "
You have not, that is my point. Why should the state of NV be forced to reach some high level of education standard because other states, like MA, skew the average? Again, the people of NV seem fine not valuing education.
"College is about education, a lot of jobs require a degree. "By the time you enter college if you need the government to educate yourself you are lost" What? We want the government to fund it we don't want congresspeople teaching the classes. Funding plays a huge role in outcomes. "
College is an investment you make as an adult. With college you show employers you are willing to invest both time and resources to complete along term goal. If you make it "tuition free" you make it way to accessible thus the value drops. Where is the value of a college degree if people don't have to spend that much resources on it? And education is on you. You can learn just as much without going to college. College is you showing you are willing to invest resources and time to complete a long term goal. If you have government funding it successful and intelligent people will find an alternative to separate themselves from the crowd.
"Okay but how would giving anyone who wants it free public college education drag either of those states down? MIT would still exist and people in NV could choose not to go to college. "
Because federal officials will see NV doing poorly in education and thus take resources from MA to give to NV without realizing that NV is doing poorly because of culture, not because of the system or lack of funds. So yes, they will bring MA down.
"Do you actually think your far leftists or are you just trolling on that point? Which ones of Bernies policies will drag people down? And no AL shouldn't be allowed to ban abortion. I don't care what idiot conservative fundamentalist christians think, they shouldn't have a right to control what a woman does with her own body. Abortion should be completely off the table the government should not be allowed to deny it to anyone, same with things like LGBTQ rights.
"
Bernie completely changing the economy, centralizing it and dismissing other arguments will bring the nation. An issue with far leftists is that it is literally the ignorant against the intelligent. Rich people are rich because they are intelligent. Bernie fans feel that all we have to do is tax them. As if they are going to take it. They will find a way to avoid them even if that means buying off current politicians to change the laws. Or finding loopholes or passing the cost on. They will find a way. They are rich for a reason.
Why should AL be allowed to ban abortion? Many view it as murder. Also, many women are pro life. Ever thought the majority of women in AL support a ban on abortion? Again, you are on the outside looking in. As with LGBTQ rights, what rights are denied? Point to me in the Constitution where the rights are denied? I said that the Constitution limits all government, so go.
"Hating gay people and forcing women to have babies they don't want to have isn't culture, this is why I am against these states being able to make these decisions as a more conservative state will be filled with assholes who want to take peoples rights away. "
It is an issue of culture. Again, many view abortion as murder. Abortion is not a right. As for gays, what rights do they lack?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , it isn't just clothes, court room behavior can be one as well.
"What do you suggest we do then? Give them less money? And again no one is trying to "give people money"."
The far left is. That is their main argue, just give them money as opposed to working with them.
"Yes it does account for the "human factor" as it takes an average. Again what do you suggest do you want each person to have their own assigned living wage? And I'm pretty sure no one is happy living in their car."
There are people fine with living in their cars. And no, the average does not consider the human factor all the way. Human behavior is very hard to factor in. Also, what I suggest is stop saying "living wage" as that is subjective. Explain how several adults earn $0 and still live?
"How often does this happen with the higher skilled people replacing lower skilled people. If you have a job that is low skilled why would an employer hire a high skilled person for it if it makes no difference.
"
Higher skilled are more productive. If an employer is forced to pay a higher wage they will go after higher skilled workers and low skilled workers are unemployed. That is why so many say the min. wage removes the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
"Just telling me to look it up isn't a source either, I'm not doing your research for you."
There is a strong correlation with those who are poor and have lower levels of education attainment and lower levels of hours work.
"We want free public college, higher minimum wage, universal healthcare, action on climate change and higher taxes on the rich. None of that is "giving money away". "
That is giving money away. "Free" college will reduce the value of a college degree. Your ideas on climate change are anti science and radical. Higher taxes on the rich is taking money from them and giving it away.
"What's the difference if he is "Forced" (whatever that means) to liquidate them?"
Because you are forcing him to liquidate the assets in a way that the market and investors don't value. Thus investors pull out and the value of the stocks drop.
" It doesn't make any actual difference to the shares. "
It makes a huge difference. If the government forces Bezos to liquidate his assets to spend in things you don't value what will you do? You will pull out of his company. That is what investors will do.
"You can't vote for them all at a state level and again how small do you want government to be. I'm not sure what you mean "people like them". "
You can vote for them at the state level. Also, how small? We have the Constitution to lay that out. The federal government is restricted to dealing with foreign affairs and commerce between states. The states go from there. It varies at that point. You see, you and I have been arguing about what government should do and why for days. It is complex. So the best solution is reduce it down to the state level. What government should and should not do is, in many ways, subjective.
"How is bernie and justice democrats corrupt? When was Cenk begging for money? Even if he was I would rather politicians begged the people for money than begged corporations and billionares for money. And yes politicians can be con artists, look at trump, he hasnt done a lot of what he promised (which in some cases is a good thing). But Bernie has been consistent his whole career. Some people said Obama and Warren were the right people but I never really agreed with those people so I don't see your point here."
Bernie was a nobody in Vermont and then, in his 70s, decide to run for president, gain fame and made millions off of his book sales. He used to cry "millionaires and billionaires" in 2016, but now he just says "billionaires" now that he is a millionaire. He endorsed Clinton after she cheated him from the election. He just wants money and enjoy his three homes. He doesn't care about others.
Watch the recent Dame Pesos video about Cenk. It was all about Cenk in his campaign begging for money. That is all he does on TYT.
Trump did a lot he promised. That is why the economy is strong.
"It's normally things that aren't live threatening may be rationed based on need, which makes sense. What we do at the moment is rationing based on welath which is immoral and stupid."
Not true, we ration based on need in many ways. Also, define "need". As mentioned in the study entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
They say
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers"
Also, who will decide the "need"? You are, again, over simplifying this issue. Who decides need? It isn't that easy.
"Why will it destroy towns in the mid West?
How the hell does it "devalue education" Education shouldn't be about how much money you have. You are essentially admitting you think a college degree should be an advantage only well off people can buy."
It will destroy the midwest because many small town have very low cost of living due to low income. Look at housing pricing in places like KS, MO, NE and compare to housing prices in CA and NY.
As for devaluing education, you make it too easily accessible. Again, college is an investment you make as an adult. Almost everyone has access to loans. So saying people without money can't go is simply not true. And you may say "they should not have to pull out a loan", well, why do business owners have to pull out a loan to start a business? It is the same thing.
When something is very easily accessible it has lower value. Try selling sand in the desert, you can't because sand is all over the place. That is very basic economics.
"How does weed hinder your potential? It should absolutely be legal as it's not hurting anyone, if you don't want to use it you don't have to."
Many people have hindered their life with weed, same with alcohol. Not saying it should be illegal but there are arguments against it. Again, you are being a far leftist by dismissing any counter points.
"I agree that military should be federal my point was your argument for local government controlling tons of things was in my opinion silly.
Who is trying to hold them to a standard? We just want free public college.
"
Why is local government controlling tons of things silly? Does the boss of a major company do every single thing? No. Same with government. The power is spread. You want to centralize the power in one place and then complain when those politicians become corrupt. I want to spread out the power to give more of it to the people.
This is what I find to be ironic by the left. They support unions in the work place which gives power to the workers. But in government when you bring up giving power to the people through state rights they oppose it and want to centralize the power to the federal government.
And you saying you just want free public college is simply not true. You will keep asking for more and more. Where is your stopping point? Next you will want to be paid to go to college.
"Lol you just admitted it "it will be too widely available" God forbid the poor have access to an education. Your argument is so ridiculous. You obviously shouldnt be able to buy yourself success. As I've said multiple times many careers need a college degree, employers require it. "
I want everyone to have an education. We have that through K-12 which every state offers. College is an investment you make as an adult. As for "buying' your war to success. That's life. You have to work for success. If you make college free employers won't value it so they will look for other attributes.
"Your argument about funding makes no sense. If we introduce free public college and no one in NV decides to use it then they won't need as much funding. And even if funding for free public college was diverted away from MA then they would have no less money than they do now. Not that that is how it works.
"
No, people will see that NV is ""struggling" and push more funds there.
"So wanting to change things is far left? And how does he want to centralise the economy. "
No, completely dismantling a system is far left. Just like completely taking away medicare as is would be far right.
Rich people are intelligent. Do you think they were the hill billies shooting at some food and struck oil?
"good for them, they don't have to have an abortion, but they have absolutely no right telling another woman what she can do with her body."
They are concerned with what is inside the body , not the woman. Major difference. Also, I find irony here. You are wanting to stop a group of people from demanding someone does not have an abortion, but you want a centralized government forcing your will on others?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 ""Forced integration is just as bad as forced segregation" what the fuck? How is it?"
You are forcing people to act in a way they don't like and that can lead to regression. When you force people to do things they rebel. One reason why so many opposed gay marriage is because the gay community cried so much about it and shoved it down people's throat. Live your life and when you do that people will accept. But if you force me to accept something I will oppose, so will others.
Another issue is what is called "the soft bigotry of low expectations". You are setting a standard in you are saying that people like gays or blacks are so inferior that they need government help to succeed where I feel they can sell themselves to a "greedy" business owner who wants to make money, and if they can show they are a more productive worker they will be hired and if not that "greedy" business owner will lose profits. There have been many successful people who are gay, women, blacks, etc. without government help.
Another issue is that you are saying that a large portion of the nation is full of bigots. You have pushed that card so much that you have given people a choice. That is either pick person A who is the better candidate/prospect but doing so will have fringed people calling you a racist, or person B who is an inferior candidate/prospect that will cause regression but you won't be call a bigot. This is why Trump was president. You limited our choice to elect him who was clearly better than Clinton, but be called a racist. Now it will come down to elect Trump and be called a racist, or elect Biden who has dementia, or Comrade Bernie who feels we have too many options of deodorant to choose from. That is literally the bar you set with forced integration.
""the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.". Not going to church isn't discrimination, and only going to one church also isn't discrimination"
It is, you are discriminating against a type of religion.
" And telling employers they can't fire gay people for being gay isn't "Forced integration", it's protecting gay people from collosal bigoted pieces of shit who hate them for who they are."
Three things
1. Again, that is the "soft bigotry of low expectations" because you are saying gay people are so weak that instead of finding a different job they need protection
2. Why would a gay person want to work in such a situation?
3. I want to know if someone is firing people people for being gay so I can oppose their business.
You see, you have freedom of speech, not freedom to force people to do what they don't want to do. So with that you combat that bigot with words, not government. You give the government to decide who can and cannot be fired you give them the power to dictate how people act. Aren't you supposed to be on the side worrying about a corrupt government going against the will of the people? Why do you want to give them more power?
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "hat the fuck do you mean "who they interact with" No one is forcing you to be friends with a gay person if you really don't want to, but gay people shouldn't be fired for being gay, how the fuck can you defend that?"
I don't defend it, I defend the right. No different than I don't defend the messages from the KKK, but I support their freedom of speech? Do you understand the difference? if you can't then I see why you need a large government to hold your hand. But overall, I don't support someone firing someone simply because they are gay, I find that go be very foolish. But I defend their freedom to do so, just like I have the freedom to call them out on it and refuse to go to their business. You see the difference? You want to use government force to force people to act a certain way. I want to use freedom to pressure them and also refuse to interact with them.
"You do not have the right to oppress people."
The irony of this statement. Your exact idea is oppressing people. You are telling people that they have to keep the guy they don't like employed or else they will be jailed. That is oppression.
"the fact is a lof of people on the right seem to have this idea that everything is a legitimate opinion that should be allowed and debated. I don't necessarily agree with this, I certainly don't think the government should arrest you for saying you don't like gay people, but I don't think that it's an opinion that should be tolerated, it's not a legitimate position to be bigoted against someone because of sexuality or gender or race or religion or anything."
And who on the right hate gay people? If you talk to the right they will say a business owner refusing to serve a gay person is foolish and they are refusing to accept money. If you talk to the right they will say that if a business person fires a very productive and skill worker just because they are gay is foolish as they are losing out on a lot of productivity and thus profits. I think you are misrepresenting the right which is common with the left. I will point to you a study.
Prof. Jonathan Haidt did a study where he took people who were politically left and politically right and asked them their opinions and thoughts on certain topics. He then asked them to predict how the other side will feel, as in someone on the right predicted how the left will feel about an issue. What he found was that those who were politically right did a better job at predicting how the left felt about issues compared to how the left felt how the right felt about an issue.
Now why did that result come up? Who knows. I feel it is because the media is so left wing and that the left shuts down arguments from the right with with emotional talking points. I have said many times that when you go to the core of the issues, especially economically, the political left bases their ideas on emotions where the political right bases their ideas on facts and reasoning and I can give many examples how. Not saying one side is better, we need facts and reasoning but we are also human and have emotions. So we need both sides. Author Brooks brought this up in his Ted Talk entitled "A Conservative's Plea: Let's Work Together". But tying this to the whole gay issue and employment, the right will sit there and, in the end, hire a gay person over a straight person if the gay person is far more qualified. The left makes this emotional argument that there is no legal protection for them but ignore the stupidity, business wise, to fire a productive worker for such reasons.
"I'm just making the point that people's "right to discriminate" isn't and should never be a thing."
Which is a very poor point. If I fire a gay employee because they are not productive, and come after me saying I fired them for being gay, how do you help that person? I am not saying there is not a group of people who fire others for being gay, they exist. But they are a very minute group of people to where they are irrelevant. Consider the position Trump gay Richard Grenell, an openly gay person.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "how you behave in a court room also shouldn't matter unless you commit another crime by misbehaving. In my opinion the only thing that should matter is the crime you committed and your past record."
It isn't that easy. Using me as an example I committed a DUI. I had a clean record. In my state a first offense was 6 months jail time. Because of my clean record and my history I received no jail time. I receive that plea bargain by showing up at the DA's office dressed nicely. It makes a difference.
"We don't want to give money away."
Yes you do, Bernie's spending plan is proof enough.
"Find me these people who are fine living in their cars"
Watch the "Don't Walk Run! Productions" video entitled
"California’s Housing Crisis Looks Like Fun!"
Plenty of people do it by choice.
"How do you suggest it factors in the "human factor" it's an average of people, people have a human factor, therefore the "human factor" (whatever the fuck that means) is factored in. "
To a degree, but as a whole it isn't. You can't quantify human behavior as in how they will react to a change in the system or issues like culture.
"If work is low skilled though how is it possible to be really high skilled at it?"
You arbitrarily raise the wage and a higher skilled worker is available they will get hired.
"Ffs saying "there is a strong correlation" is not a source either."
It is.
"A college degree should have value as it is difficult, not because you have to be wealthy to get one. Also lol are you a climate change denier? What the fuck do you mean it's "anti science" to want to do something about climate change. "
A college degree is not difficult. And many who are poor receive one. Also, on climate change, the far left fear monger about it. They rather listen to a 17 year old girl as opposed to scientists. I recommend reading the paper entitled
"Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous"
By prof. Mike Hulme. It is published in Nature Climate Change, a very prestigious journal. He also has a great book entitled "Why We Disagree About Climate Change". You are proving, once again, you are a far leftist by calling me a denier. I don't deny climate change. I just understand the science behind it and how it is very complex and how little we know, thus any hard predictions and ideas on it are radical.
"What do you mean the marker doesn't "value" the way he liquidated them? Why does the market care, the same amount of value is moved around. "
If Bezos tried to liquidate his assets to buy mud investors will agree with that and won't buy thus the values of his shares go down. So it does matter. His assets only become liquidated if someone is willing to buy them.
"Members of the State Legislature are elected by district. The rest of your argument is just "some people disagree with the federal government doing things therefore I'm right" you keep using this argument that because there is disagreement it means you are right, it doesn't necessarily."
If I disagree with how a state operates I have a louder voice. I can also move to another state and remain a US citizen. That is the advantage. There is a disagreement which is fine. I should have the ability to voice my opinion and if things don't go my way go to a state whose government I agree with more.
Bernie doesn't care about others. If he did why doesn't he donate some of his millions? Why doesn't he try to understand everyone's position such as that hair salon owner? He just wants to push his communist agenda.
I gave you a video in how all Cenk does is ask for money. He is like Catholic church priest, simply asking for money all the time.
Trump cut taxes, he is reducing involvement in the middle east, he is stricter on immigration. That is to name a few. And yes, the economy is stronger for most. The only people who it is not stronger for are people who refuse to actually work.
So doctors decide on need? What if a rich person comes in and bribes the doctor to get to the front of the line?
Again, small towns have people with lower incomes. Just look at housing prices in places in the midwest. Not even picking a town, in Kearney, NE I found a home for sale of 3 bedroom 2 baths for around $150,000 a year. How much will such a home cost in LA?
"yes that's the point. Everyone should have access to it. "
And the value of it drops. Again, the value of college comes from it being an investment. Read my other comment on that. But if you make it that accessible successful people will find a way to separate themselves from others.
It will make MA worse because outsider looking in, which is what far leftists do, will say "NV is doing poorly in education, let us throw more money at them". Just like when they point to nations like Denmark, Norway etc. they ignore a very important factor, culture. They over simplify an complex issue and say spending more money is the solution.
"What system are we dismantling?"
Healthcare, energy, college.
Rich people are rich because they are intelligent.
"is a lump of cells. Still none of anyone else's buisness. "
Which is a living thing and is, arguably, other's business.
"I want the people to be able to decide on issues that affect them, but the issue of abortion doesn't affect men or the women who would never choose to get an abortion anyway. If you want there to be a refurendum on abortion that only women can vote in then I would support that. "
Suicide is illegal many states. How about is someone shoots up with heroin and never harms anyone? Should heroin be legal? What if someone decide to kill their 1 year old kid? That harms no one besides that kid who never really lived a life to influence anyone else to begin with?
"From my perspective it doesn't appear you are arguing in good faith "
why not? Not to be rude but I am giving details on a complex issue and you are simply giving talking points. For example, on "free college" you are assuming that nothing else will change if the government started funding for a college education. It isn't that simple. On gays you feel that gays are inferior and that the nation is full of bigots that they will sacrifice profits to fire a person simply because they are gay. But earlier you said business owners only care about profits.
I am going to tell you something. A reason why your side is losing and Trump is president is because you are all over the place in your standards. Really strongly consider them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , "What legal issues? What reasoning is there against it other than religious BS. And Jesus fucking christ stop using words like "radical" and "far leftist" you don't know what they mean. "
And this is why I call you a far leftist. You take a complex issue and reduce it down to one variable and dismiss everything else. There are laws tied to marriage such as zoning laws and tax laws for example. It isn't based purely on religion. Not saying I oppose or support gay marriage. This is why I am a moderate and you are a radical. I look at the whole issue from all sides, you just consider one variable, dismiss everything else, and make an emotional argument from that.
"The right not to be discriminated against in the workplace based on your sexual orientation, to phrase it in a more fancy way. "
Which is not a right. Again, learn what rights are in this nation. Rights are there so the that people can challenge the government. You are making up rights on just pure emotions as opposed to reasoning which is why, again, you are a far leftist. I asked for what rights they are denied and you just make one up. There is no "right not to be discriminated against" in this nation. So I ask again, what rights do they lack?
"No I'm not saying that, argue against what I am actually saying not what you think I'm saying. I'll say it again: Wanting people to have EQUAL rights and EQUAL opportunities on a LEVEL playing field is what I want. Notice how on a level playing field everyone starts at the same level, therefore implying everyone has a fair change to succeed, therefore implying I on't think anyone is inferior?"
Again, what rights do they lack? As for opportunities, what do you base that off of? Again, I have zero shot of playing in the NFL. I was not born with high athletic skills. Should we change the laws to make it "equal" to where I can play in the NFL?
Fact is that no one is equal all around. All we can ask for is that the law treats us as equal. Beyond that you are dealing with many variables such as genetics, lifestyle, background, culture, etc. You can't create this mythical "equality" that you desire. The law treats us equally, that's it. Beyond that you can't do anything. Again, this is also why I call you a far leftist, you are going off of emotions as opposed to any type of reasoning. Tell me how do you make things equal? How can I play for the NFL?
As for your gallup poll, polls are very unreliable for many reasons. One, these are phone polling to where you cannot see the expression of the person being polled which matters. You also don't know how strongly they feel about their opinion. Also, with polls, they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. This is why, many times, Kyle will point to polling data but the voting results end up differently. He just did a video on M4A how it polls well but Biden is winning. Why? Because polls are unreliable. So on the issue of gay relationship, a poll is not reliable. I will agree that there are some people who feel that way but again, they are the vast minority.
"You can't just say "its a complex issue" for everything and expect me to concede you the point. How is it "uneducated" to acknowledge the connection between lack of acceptance and feelings of anxiety and depression? "
I agree there is a connection, but there is more to it than that. Why did Robin Williams commit suicide? People loved him. He was married. So why did he kill himself? Again, these issues are complex. In trans more research is needed, that is what I am saying. Unlike you I am not going to a hard conclusion based on one variable. That is why I am a moderate and you are a far leftist.
1. Were they fired strictly for being gay? Again, I need to see the whole situation before I make a conclusion. Also, as I said, I don't support a business doing that but I support their freedom to do that.
"There are ways to stop them being bought though, such as banning super pacs and big money donations. That's what we want. "
Yep, because the federal government will be willing to concede at that point. Again, you are giving them power and expect them to behave. I am pushing to limit their powers knowing they won't behave.
"FFS are you EVER going to acknowledge ANY of the times I have called you out for misusing this term? "
I have broken down why you are a far leftist.
As for my metaphor, it works. You are simply saying "we can ban super pacs" is similar to you saying " I will simply marry the person, that will end the abuse". The whole point of money in politics has been argued for years, it is not a novel problem. The solution is to limit government, not expand it and expecting that now is when it will stop being corrupt.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "No you are calling me a far leftists because you don't know what I means and refuse to acknowledge me telling you what it means. Go and read my long comment about it.
Why would gay marriage cause an issue with these laws?
So supporting gay marrige is radical now? Or are you once again just refusing to state your own position.
"
Never said supporting gay marriage was being radical. Being a radical is you completely dismissing the other side's argument like you constantly do and taking a complex issue and reducing it to something that is over simplified. On gay marriage there are laws influenced by marriage. You can't deny that. How will the economy and society react? We don't know as we have to look at it.
Again, rights in this nation are what people have to challenge the government without oppression. Freedom of speech means I can criticize the government. Freedom from search and seizure prevents the government from invading my private residence. Also,the UN is not a reliable source. The UN posted a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" which contradicts itself. Article 24 says
"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."
Ok, define "reasonable". What if doctors felt that 10 hours a week was "reasonable" and that every doctor wanted Christmas off? How will you guarantee Article 25 which states
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."
How will they receive medical care if every doctor was exercising their "right" to have pay holidays off? Or how will you enforce
"(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
Which is article 17 if a doctor does not want to serve someone? How will you enforce Article 25 by ensuring people have a home if you can't take away property?
That is why the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no legal binds to it, especially in the US court of law. In the US judges use the Constitution, no the UN's UDHR.
"You should have equal opportunity, we want equal opportunity not equal outcome. Not everyone who wants to be an NFL player will get to be but they should have equal chance and it should be decided on merit of play only. "
I never had equal chance to play in the NFL as I, genetically, was not physically fit enough. That is the point. You say "equal opportunity" which that can never be achieved with out oppressing someone. Again, the only equality you have is that in the eyes of the law you are treated equal. That's it. To have equal opportunity you literally have to create a communist nation. Why? Because you will have to enforce how kids are raised. If Child A comes from a home with two parents who are doctors and Child B comes from a home whose two parents don't care about education which child do you think will do better? Based on your standard we need to take both Child A and Child B away from their homes and have the government raise them. Tell me how else in the situation I gave you that both Child A and Child B have "equal opportunity"? Child A comes from a home with successful parents who will, most likely, pass that on to their kid where Child B's parents don't care about education and won't push their kid. How do you change that?
"Why would someones "expression" matter? "Should gay people be in jail for being gay" is not a complex issue, its a basic morality check. The reason Biden is winning is because the media are spinning a lie that he is electable despite him appearing to have dementia, and a lot of people actually think he supports M4A (I have no idea why he clearly doesn't if you follow this stuff at all closely) . If you won't let me cite a poll how else am I supposed to prove this to you? "
Expression is a part of nonverbal communication which plays a role.
Biden is winning because Bernie is a bad candidate. I am watching the Fox Town Hall debate and at the beginning one of the moderators, in talking about the Coronavirus, challenged Bernie's talking point in saying that what he is saying at that point he would have also said prior to Coronavirus. Point is that the people are bored with his talking points. Also, very few support M4A as written. Again, polls are irrelevant as they are vague questions being asked to nonexperts on complex issues. When told that M4A as written will take away private insurance support drops.
"Based on what? Sounds like an emotional argument to me."
Based on the fact on when was the last time gays or any minorities were actually attacked? We have come to the point that hoax hate have to be created. Look at the Jussie Smollet incident. People have to make things up to push the idea that there are a ton of racists out there but aren't. Look up Matt Christiansen and his "hoax hates" he has.
"Yes it's compex but earlier you essentially said you didn't think it was because of the stigma against being trans. You said something like "I don't think its because they are not accepted". and you seem to think its inherent because they are transgender or something.
"
I never said that. Again, you as a far leftist, is making things up. Being accepted can play a role, I agreed to that. I am simply saying there is more to it.
Most work places have dress codes. If I showed up to work in my underwear I will be asked to leave. So is this an issue of trans for a dress code issue?
Plus, you found two cases out of how many? We are nation of over 327+ million people, and you find only two cases with a vague story? Where I worked during my undergrad we hired three gay people. Two were fine, no problems. We had a problem with a third so we fired him/her (he was a cross dresser but acted like a woman). We did so because they were incredibly annoying and made workers uncomfortable with how they acted and comments they made (like telling a waitress that they were more of a woman than she was).
So you found two stories out of our massive nation and create that as the norm?
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "The "federal governement" isn't just one never changing entity. Bernie and the Justice Dems do want to change it, hence why we want to get them elected. "
You do want to change it. You want to expand it's power ten fold.
I have broken down why you are a far leftist. You grossly over simplify complex issues. You dismiss the other side as opposed to looking into their argument in that they do have legit points and concerns. You make up things about your opponent. To add you don't understand the legal system in that you feel that UN's UDHR is a legal document supported by the US courts when it isn't, the Constitution is. You also find two vague stories of trans people being fired and push that as if it is the norm. You have all the boxes and more of a far leftist.
I will give you an example pointing to Kyle. Him, like you, will take a complex issue, like the economy, and simplify it. One example is that Kyle will take one fact, like saying 50% in the US earn less than $30,000 a year, which is true, and go on a long, appeal to emotion rant on it while ignoring many other factors. Other factors are cost of living, household income, benefits, chances of growth, etc. For example, myself and all of my grad student colleagues earn around $20,000 a year. Are we in bad shape? According to Kyle we are. However, we are mainly in our 20s and 30s, with degrees, and pursuing Masters and PhDs. The vast majority will say no and they are correct.
You do the same thing. You take two articles on trans getting fired (where one appeared to be more of a dress code violation) and ran with it like it was the norm and we have a major issue in this nation.
" No it doesn't work. Going with your metaphor, what I want to do is break up with the person abusing me, and find another person who genuinely cares about me and marry them. What you want to do is swear off of marriage forever. "
Yeah, because Obama was supposed to be that new person, and Warren, and others. And yeah, the federal government is so full of "progressives". How do you expect to change? You are having a hard time winning. A TX politician AOC endorsed lost big time. Cenk lost big time. You want to give the federal government more power and expect it to finally behave.
If you want to "swear off of marriage forever" you would push to limit the powers of the federal government, the complete opposite of what Bernie wants.
"but based on the few views you have expressed on specific policy you would like, I’m assuming you are a right wing libertarian, although I’m not sure if this is what you would call yourself and I’m happy to be corrected on that. But notice that I haven’t called you anything in this discussion apart from referring to you as “right wing” which I think is fair"
Well I am not because I support many government programs and see the value in them. I just support the states running them within the confines of the Constitution as I feel these issues are very complex. This is especially true with the individual mindset of our nation. On Hofstede's Cultural Dimension Theory the US is scored at a 91 on individualism where 100 is the highest. To me expecting a one size fits all policy at the federal level to work will simply not happen. We are too diverse and too individualistic. This is why I am a moderate, I am well read on the issues and look at them from all sides. You, have not.
Here is a break down of a far leftist
1. They claim there is some major problem
2. They feel that their solutions are simple and without consequence
3. They feel their ideas are popular
4. If you oppose them you are either a bigot, corrupt or voting against your own best interest.
Let me give you an example, healthcare.
1. They claim that our healthcare system is expensive and achieve worse outcomes: Reality: It is expensive because of many government subsidizes and regulations and lack of a free market. Also, we lead the world in R&D, which cost money, and drug companies donate a lot of resources to third world nations so they have drugs and training. Overall, we supply the world with healthcare. Developed nations take our drugs and cap the price and the US flips the bill. Also, in healthcare we offer the most advanced testing as outlined by Prof. Scott Atlas in his book "In Excellent Health" and thus we have higher survival rates compared to other nations.
2. Far leftists claim M4A is the simple solution with no problem and will save money: Reality: It will "save" money because Medicare pays 40% less. With a 40% cut in pay yes, our spending in terms of percent of GDP will match other developed nations, but like other developed nations access will be limited and quality will drop. R&D will drop leading to less drugs and access will drop in advanced testing leading to higher death rates for those with advanced illnesses. Will our culture accept that? Doubt it.
3. Polls say it is popular: Reality: On the abstract sure, but why did 80% voted against it in Colorado? And when more information is given polls change. For example, when told private insurance goes away support drops.
4. If you oppose M4A you are ignorant or taking money from insurance companies: Reality: There are experts on both sides that disagree and many people in the US are highly skeptical of the federal government managing these programs, and rightfully so. And most do enjoy their coverage.
You see the difference between what you, a far leftist will say, and myself? I go into great detail. I don't create these radical conspiracy that solutions to complex issues are easy and the only reason why they don't get passed is because of ignorance, hate or corruption. If you want to go deep into the discussion on healthcare for me to really prove my point we can. I have, at times, defended M4A and say that maybe it is the best for this nation. I feel that, overall, it isn't as I feel our society won't accept it. But a major problem I have with far leftists on that issue is that they are not willing to make the very difficult discussions on M4A such as there will be people who will suffer and die, and we end up playing the game of statistics with human lives. For example, is it worth keeping grandma alive for as long as possible when, statistically, she will live around 6 more months as mentioned in the book "Being Mortal"? Other nations say no, people in the US say yes. I don't see far leftists willing to take on those challenges.
That is the reality. You don't know you are a far leftist because you are extreme yourself. Let us have a discussion on healthcare. Doing so will reveal that. Or better yet, here is the best example I can give. On tuition free college how do you handle the NCAA?
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
1. Bernie is a communist. He supports a centralized, command economy. Him and his fans will say that he doesn't want to seize all property. Bernie said in a speech once that he doesn't want to take away the local grocery store. Well, there is a lot more to the economy than just that. Him wanting to over take the energy sector with the GND is pushing for a centralized, command economy. A lot of the GND is an excuses for the federal government to create jobs and decide what "wealth" to create. That is a centralized, command economy. You can ignore it all you want, I have you plenty of examples. You are feeling that unless he overtakes all private businesses he cannot be a communist. The reality is that he wants to overtake a large portion of the economy. It is like this, if guy kills 10 people in a room with 15 or all 15 he is still a mass murderer.
2. I have broken down many times why you are a far leftist. But I will take a simple approach. On "tuition free college" how do you handle the NCAA? Answer that. Your answer will reveal a lot about you.
3. "For example you were trying to say that all of us lefties wouldn’t be happy with free college and we would want the government to pay us to go to college. I’m not sure where you got this from "
Because where is your stopping point? That is what I am saying. My stopping point resides in the Constitution. There are other nations who pay students to attend college. So where is your stopping point? You have not given me a clear line. It is the same on the issues of guns. When a mass shooting happens leftists push for more gun control. I ask "if you get them and another mass shooting happens, then what, more gun laws?" This is another issue with far leftists. You have no standard. Why not pay college kids to go to college? Germany does that?
"You also keep insisting that we want to just “give money away” and a few comments ago you made a statement akin to “giving Bezoz’s Amazon Shares away would devalue them” which to me implies you think we just want to literally give random people Amazon Shares, which we have never said at all."
Who do you want to give Amazon's shares to, and why? Also, a big reason why it will devalue his shares is that you are saturating the market with his shares. If you give a bunch of people in poverty some of his shares they will sell them as they value money, not shares. However, no one will buy as the market was saturated with it. It is called supply and demand. Supply goes up prices go down.
Again, another example of you being a far leftist. You feel you can just take shares of Amazon from Bezos and give them to people and nothing else will change. Why? What makes you think that?
4. You are making emotional arguments. You are calling things like healthcare and education "rights" when they are not. You say they are "rights" is an emotional argument and not a logical one. I broke down what rights are with a standard. You just want to call anything you morally seem fit a "right". Same with abortion, you claim that it is simply because of religion people oppose it. That is an emotional argument.
5. Ok, I get it. Rich people are dumb. They just stumbled on their wealth and income by pure luck.
At the state level you do get to elect all your representatives. You saying that it is not true does not make it so. Again, you can, at best, elect 3 members of congress. That is not much to represent you.
My point on bringing up my personal experience on depression is to show these issues are complex. As a far leftist you want to reduce it down to one variable, acceptance. I am saying there is a lot more to it than that. Using myself and others as examples shows that. Also, saying I can't use myself and others as examples is a flawed argument. As I pointed out by pointing to Prof. Swann's book, or any psychological study, personal stories are used all the time. But you choose to ignore that. Why?
"however you can’t use it as 100% of your argument, especially when there have been studies done, quite a few of which disagree with your conclusion"
Care to point to me these studies? Another sign you are a far leftist. You make the claim of "there are studies" by provide zero. Meanwhile I pointed to an entire book by a prof. in the field. So no, I just don't use myself as an example.
6. The other guy here has no credibility. How can you not see that? He claimed that I edit my comments when I only did one to show what it looks like when you do edit a comment. So with that how can you trust him? And why did it take a few comments later for him to say he meant "mean"? You are taking his side because you simply agree with him no matter what.
7. We are a nation of 320+ million people. So I can't point to a specific policy at the federal level as it is vague. Here is another reason why you are a far leftist. You feel that the federal government can create a one size fits all policy that the vast majority will like and benefit. It is much more complex than that. If you want something specific, I want a federal government with reduced power and giving more power to the states. Go from there. These issues are complex. Giving one specific policy is not the approach. I know Bernie fans love to say he is all about policies but he isn't. I will ask you this, with tuition free college how do you handle the NCAA? I never heard Bernie say how, maybe you can.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , and, as expected, you are proving how you are a far leftist with my simple question. As Hickenlooper said to Bernie, he just wants to throw out a plan and have everyone else pick up the pieces. Your lack of understanding of the NCAA shows you have put zero thought into these complex issues and just want to throw out a plan without care.
How will tuition free college influence the NCAA? Greatly. The NCAA has different divisions, DI, DII, and DIII. They are al based on scholarship limitations. DIII athletes are all walk ons. They are typically private schools where rich kids go to to begin with. In football DII has 36 full ride scholarships that they can split up. In DI FBS, the highest level, they have 86 full rid scholarships where typically they give a full ride to an athlete. That is why they get the better athletes but there is a limit and thus DII can still get solid athletes. The scholarship limit evens the playing field (you are all about equal opportunity, there it is). If you make college "tuition free" the scholarship issue goes away. Thus, how should the NCAA now set up their divisions and even the playing field? You apparently put zero thought into this. As I said before, you want to implement a plan and feel that in doing so there are no consequences. Let me, again, break down how far leftists think
1. They feel there are major problems
2. They feel the solutions are simple without consequences
3. They feel their solutions are popular
4. They feel that if you oppose them you are either corrupt, a bigot or ignorant
What I just gave you an example of on the NCAA is number 2. You feel we can do tuition free college and there are zero consequences when I just proved to you there will be. And that is just one example. I can give more such as enrollment issues for example. Now apply that to healthcare with M4A where it is literally a life or death situation.
This is why you are a far leftist.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "Again you are telling me what I believe instead of listening to me. I don’t see how expanding an already existing program (Medicare) and paying for tuition fees is “expanding it ten fold”. Also that’s not really expanding it’s power, it’s just expanding the programmes it runs. Expanding it’s power would be stuff like making more “things” illegal. "
It is expanding the power. Now you are having government have power over everyone's healthcare and college education. And it is expanding it ten fold. Consider how many people are 65 and older and compare that to people who are younger?
You haven't given me a definition of a far leftist. I am calling you a far leftist because you support left wing ideas without considering the consequences and without considering the other side of the argument. Again
1. You feel we have major problems
2. You feel the solutions are simple and without consequences
3. You feel your ideas are popular
4. If someone opposes them you feel they are corrupt, a bigot or ignorant
Think about it. You exaggerate an issue. You over simplify the solutions and ignore counter arguments. You have a delusional mindset that your ideas are popular, and you dismiss opposing arguments in that the people are either dumb or corrupt. The reality is that it is way more complex than that. That is why you are a far leftist. You never put any thought into these issues. I proved that with the NCAA.
"It's not an “appeal to emotion” to point out that you think something is bad. He’s not telling us loads of sob stories he’s just stating a statistic. "
It is an appeal to emotion to say something is bad without justification. Again, there are many factors involved such as cost of living, household income, benefits, etc. That is the issue with Kyle and other far leftists like yourself. You point to one variable and run with it. You ignore everything else. With statistics I have said many times other variables are at play. You can't just pick one number and make a strong conclusion with it. So yes, Kyle is going off of appeal to emotion. On the surface it may seem bad that half the nation earns less than $30,000 a year. But when you factor in other variables such as cost of living and household income the story changes.
"That’s just an anecdote though, also the fact is if you or another student was in an accident or got seriously ill you would likely have to pay out of pocket for healthcare. "
Actually this is where the benefit parts come in where I mention. We have all healthcare insurance paid for as well. So again, other factors are at play.
"Also nearly half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck so any extra expense that comes up could cause a big issue. "
Again, other factors are at play. How much of that is due to poor money management? Also, how many of those people have insurance? Again, you said that if I, or one of my colleagues get seriously ill we will have to pay out of pocket for healthcare when we all have healthcare insurance. So you look at our yearly income of around $20,000 but don't realize we all have healthcare insurance. Again, other factors are at play.
There seems to be a common denominator here. You are ignoring other variables.
" Okay 1) Only 1 article was about a trans person the other was about someone who is gay, did you even read the articles?
And 2) You asked for examples, I gave some, I never said it affects millions of people, but the fact is it does happen and that’s an issue.
Also 3) It clearly wasn’t about the dress code (at least not in an honest way)"
I glanced at them. The first one mentioned a dress code to where, in a funeral parlor, I can understand as that is a professional setting. I can understand a strict dress code. So immediately I was skeptical. And again, you gave two examples in a nation of our size. I never said that it does not happen. I am willing to admit it does. How, once again, it is not the norm but the very very minute situation.
"I don’t like Obama or Warren really so I don’t see your point here."
Because other "progressives" did.
"Again we don’t really want to give it more power we just want it to set a few baselines, and we don’t “expect it to behave” we want to pass legislation to make it behave, and yeah no one said this is gonna be easy. "
So you want them to pass legislation to make them 'behave"? That is similar to having prisoners make the rules. And yes, you want to give them more power. As for baselines, you never set any. I have pointed out that there are inconsistencies in your standards. The baselines to me are listed in the Constitution. As I pointed out in tuition free college, will it expand to paying students to attend college? Or on gun laws, where is your stopping point?
"Yes that was my point, you are the one who is swearing off of marriage forever, not me. My point was that swearing off marriage forever doesn’t really make sense, as the concept of marriage wasn’t the issue it was the hypothetical partner that was the issue. "
How am I swearing off marriage forever? And the concept of marriage is an issue. There are laws tied to marriage such as zoning laws and tax laws.
" but Bernie is still doing pretty well "
So why is he losing to Biden?
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "What does Bernie want to nationalise? Give me your example."
Colleges, our healthcare, the energy sector. Those are major portions of our economy. Especially his GND which has portions of creating government jobs just to create jobs as opposed to having the market create jobs that have value. So yes, he is a communist.
2. You are a far leftist mainly because you don't consider the other side of the argument and just dismiss them on simple reasons such as ignorance, bigotry or corruption. The NCAA example is a simple example of that. You have not put any thought on these issues. You feel we can pass tuition free college and nothing else will change when it will. Now apply that to something more complex as in healthcare or wealth. With wealth you feel you can take Bezos' shares of his company and give it to someone else and the value of it won't change when, in fact, it will. You grossly over simplify these issues because you are a far leftist. Same as someone who is far right. I feel Medicare as a whole is unconstitutional and should not exist to begin with. However, it is here and people depend on it. A far right solution would be just to eliminate Medicare completely while ignoring the thousands of people who depend on it. I do not support that. While my standard is that Medicare is unconstitutional, I realize that it does exist and now people depend on it and we can't just eliminate it. You see the difference? I doubt it.
3. "What? Our stopping point is free public college, why are you so convinced we are going to want more than that all of a sudden? "
Because first it was Medicare for the elderly, now it is Medicare for all. Or first it was college loans, and now it is just paying off the college. These programs keep expanding. So where is your stopping point and why? When you pass "free college" why should I expect the next generation to not go farther?
"We want universal background checks and to close the gun show loophole, so what we essentially want to do is stop criminals and people with mental health issues from getting guns, how can anyone be against that? Yes I’ll admit there are some on the left who want to ban guns and stuff, but that doesn’t mean universal background checks is a slippery slope to that, why would it be? We literally just want to follow the second amendment and “well regulate” guns. "
It was "well regulated militia" which, at that time, meant well prepared. Study the constitution.
The gun show loophole is a myth. And we have background checks. People with felons already can't own guns. Saying you want criminals to not have guns is flawed as many who commit crimes with guns were not criminals to begin with. We don't live in the world of Minority Report. As for mental health, again, that is very complex as I mentioned above. I have 4 guns despite my depression. I have had personal, and long conversations with my doctors about it and they feel I am stable enough to own my guns. The problem with wanting to ban guns from those with mental health issues is that you are deputizing doctors and placing pressure on them. If someone has just one red flag the doctor has to ban the guns or face potential law suits. That is not how our legal system is designed. We don't take away rights until someone has committed a crime. You say "how can anyone be against that" when I gave you reasons why. One, you can't tell someone is a criminal until they commit an actual crime. Many people who commit mass shootings had no prior history to begin with. Next, on mental health issues, many people have mental health issues but are not violent at all. It becomes a very personal issue at that point. As I pointed out in the past mental health is very subjective which makes it challenging.
So answer this, with my depression, should I be allowed to own my four guns? Based on what you said that would be no even though my doctors said I am fine owning them. However, you want some arbitrary government official to say I can't.
And no, you don't want to follow the second amendment.
4. In other nations healthcare is not a right. Also, I broke down what rights are. Read the following study entitled
"Health care is not a human right"
by Philip Barlow
And again, calling it a "right" is an emotional argument. Anyone can call anything a right. Why aren't homes a right? Why aren't cars a right? Why isn't money a right? Again, you need standards and I broke down what rights are in this nation. Also, if you make healthcare a right you have to force doctors to work just like how a trial by jury is a right and we force people to do jury duty.
"The courts decided a woman has a right to not have the government get in the way of her and her body. And my argument isn’t “because religious people oppose it” that’s a strawman, my argument is that it’s none of their business. "
Ok, someone has sex with their 10 year old daughter, that is none of your business. Should that be illegal? Also, the court ruled in Casey v PP that government can get in the way.
5. "My original point was that not all rich people are intelligent, as a lot of them are born into rich families. Also there’s clearly a luck aspect to it as well even if you are born poor and become rich, it’s not just about intelligence, otherwise why wasn’t Stephen Hawking the richest man? "
Stephen Hawking was very rich himself. And yes, it is mainly because of intelligence. People just don't become and stay rich. You may point out a few cases where luck was involved but that is not the norm. This is a major issue I have with those who oppose rich people. They don't realize how smart they really are and it leads to problems. People on the far left try to take on the rich with large federal government policies that are over simplified such as higher taxes but then get screwed because it is literally the ignorant against the intelligent.
"Yes but no one ever denied it was complex we were saying that the stigma against being transgender is a large contributor to the increased suicide rate among trans people. "
You have denied it was complex. You were opposed to Trump banning trans from the military when I said a reason why is because more research is needed on them.
Also, i am still waiting for these studies you said existed.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "So I’m not saying you can’t use your own personal experience, I’m saying you can’t ONLY use your own personal experience. "
I am not. I cited an entire book.
Ok, you provided one study. Anymore? I have said many times that more research is needed. We are still in the research phase in if acceptance will lower suicide rates. So you said there were many studies and you only posted one. Not a strong argument.
"Wasn’t that book just a source for you claim that “individual stories are used when studying depression” which I never denied? Also citing an entire book is a bit vague, I don’t have time to read whole books just for a youtube argument, when I cite something I try and take quotes out of it to show you why I am citing it (which to your credit you do often do as well). "
Because the issue of mental health is vague. The author of that book even concluded that. There are many people who are well off and accepted in society that are suicidal. Why? For many factors. I never denied that lack of acceptance did not play a role, it could. What I am saying is that more research is needed. Trans committing suicide at a higher rate is a novel area of research and issues that involve psychology takes years to study. Increasing acceptance of trans and seeing if it lowers suicides takes years of research. This is why there is a ban on them in the military, the research is novel. So you can't say that there are a lot of studies that counter what I am saying because I am not making the strong conclusion, you are. I am saying more research is needed.
6. "Well because making one mistake doesn’t mean everything you are saying is wrong, that’s not how it works, I have made minor mistakes in this discussion, but I acknowledged them (like when I had missed the bit where you said you were at Uni), you make mistake (like calling us far leftists), but when you are called out on them you just ignore us and pretend you are right. (Well there’s also the fact we have debunked a shit ton of your points and you haven’t acknowledged that but that’s not a minor mistake that’s the actual discussion, so I was leaving that out.) "
When I make mistakes I owe up to them immediately and don't make excuses. I correct them immediately as well and not a few comments later. Also, I have broken down many times why you are a far leftist. Your lack of understanding of the NCAA shows that. You support a left wing idea, tuition free college, without any thought in how it will change the system. That is being a radical. You don't think. You have put zero thought into these issues.
I will give you another example using Bernie. In a debate against Cruz about healthcare a hair salon owner from TX asked Bernie how, under Obamacare, she can expand her business to over 50 employees and afford healthcare insurance without raising prices. Bernie simply said "you have to do it". He never tried to understand her profit margins, how many expenses she had, how many full time to part time employees she had, and compare it to competitors in the market.
Now compare that to Bill Clinton in 1994 when Herman Cain asked a very similar question related to Clinton's healthcare bill and employment. Clinton came back with numbers as in 1/3 of Cain's expenses were in payroll, and a certain percent will go towards healthcare and so on. It showed that Clinton actually did some basic research to understand what a business goes through.
The reality is this, any law you pass will influence some people in a negative way. You should try to understand that. Not saying we should not pass the law as it can have positives. I have said, and admitted, that M4A may be the best solution, but it will come with drawbacks. Simply drugging up grandma so she dies pain free as opposed to do what we do now in our society and that is keeping her alive as long as possible may be the best option overall. But will our society accept it? I think not. You, on the other hand, refuse to actually look at the whole issue. You ignore the other side and just dismiss them all together. Bernie does that as well. When someone opposes his ideas he dismisses them as corrupt or as a billionaire when there are many middle class Americans who oppose him (which is why he is losing to Biden).
So again, I broke down why you are a far leftist. You simply don't look deep into the issues and consider why someone will oppose what you support.
7. "Well earlier you said you want congress and the president to work together, well work together for what? "
A middle ground. Worked great under the Clinton years with a Republican congress.
"Also you said you want the federal government to get out of healthcare completely, so that’s a policy, so clearly you can point to one or two policies. And fine what policies do you want at a state level then? "
I never said out completely. They should have never become involved to begin with but they are. Thus, to me, we reform the system we have now in a moderate way. As I said earlier with Medicare, it exists and we have to deal with it. We can't just remove it as many depend on it. But we reform it some way to make it better such as states picking up part of the tab and transitioning to a state voucher system.
At the state level it all depends on the state. I have said in the past that the role of government is something many argue about. It is broad and covers many areas. You can't just say one policy and expect every state will accept. It all depends on culture. I gave you the example of education and comparing NV to MA. To extend, the economies of those states differ. NV allows, by state law, prostitution in every county except for two, Clark and Washoe county. Why? Because they have large counties with very little population and thus limited economies. In MA they have a well educated population that is less sparse in population and thus their economy is manage differently. In MO they limit casinos to river boats. In Utah they have strict drinking laws. It all depends. There is no one answer to that which is why I say Bernie and his fans are not about policy as they never discuss it. Think of that states with no income tax like FL. They are fine with it. Other states have it. A state like TN not only has it, but if you are resident there but work in another state year round (say MO), you have to pay TN state income tax. But if you are a resident of MO but work in another state year round (say KS), you don't have to pay state income taxes.
You see, it all varies. I understand that. That is why I can't say what policies I support as it all depends.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
"I'm not going to be aware of how a program will affect literally every scholarship system or whatever, and neither are you. "
But the issue is that you never considered it. That is why you are a far leftist. You just want to pass a law without care and have everyone else pick up the pieces. You refuse to accept the complexity of these issues and you just want to push simple solutions without thought.
1. They are getting scholarships to go to college.
2. Paying athletes has been discussed many times and it simply is not a solution for many reasons. One, only around 20 or so programs (not schools, individual programs) actually generate any profit. Most break even. So they can't afford to pay. Next, it will create an uneven playing field. Without splitting hairs in the big picture a chemistry class in the University of Iowa is the same as one in Notre Dame. Thus, the scholarships are of equal value. But if it came down to a payment method Notre Dame has more resources to pay more. So if it came down to Notre Dame offering an athlete a $2000 a month stipend and Iowa offering a $500 a month one, who will get the better athletes? So the scholarship program evens the playing field and places limits.
Next, you have the issue of Title IX. If you were to pay the starting QB of Clemson $2000 a month, you have to pay the back up catcher of the softball team the same amount where no softball program generates a profit. So there is that legal issue as well.
So again, this issue is complex. And college athletic are valuable for many people's education. You say that not everyone goes to college to be an athlete. But many non athletes work in athletics as student trainers, student managers, marketing, broadcasting, etc. That is training overall. Removing college athletics deprive those students from that opportunity.
Again, the issue is complex and you showing you put no thought into it makes you a far leftist.
"You aren't explaining why this actually relies on college costing money."
If college is "free" there is no scholarship. You asking
" Where are these kids getting scholarships to? "
Makes me highly question your knowledge on this issue. They are getting a scholarship to go to that college. Do you know how scholarships work? If not than you are really clueless on this topic and should not have an opinion on it.
1. Your ideology is that of far left.
2. Yes they are
3. I have read
And your definition of far left describes you. Here
"Typically used to describe more hardline or authoritarian forms of left-wing ideology"
Such as a centralized system without care of the other side. For example, wanting to create tuition free college without understanding the scholarship system in the NCAA. Or taking away Bezos' stocks and feeling it won't change the value of them. Or making abortion legal nation wide when many states want it illegal as that is how their citizens feel.
You see, you are an authoritarian with your whole "baseline" argument in the central government. I support spreading out the powers of government and letting the people decide. You support a centralized system forcing your will onto others. That is authoritarian.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , ever heard of the "golden rule"? Those who have the gold makes the rule? If they are going to fund education they are going to dictate how it functions.
" And kindof the same with M4A too, they are using public money to fund private hospitals, its not socialised healthcare its single payer. And the government “having power” isn’t the issue with corruption if you are defining power as M4A and free college. Corruption is what would stop them passing those things in the first place. "
Ok, so healthcare providers limit care as Medicare pays 40% less, now what? Does the government swoop in and make changes? Also, saying corruption is what is stopping them from passing is point 4 on my list. You feel M4A is not passing because of corruption as opposed to some legit concerns over it. That is, again, why you are a far leftist. You do not want to hear the other side of the argument against M4A and you just chalk it up to corruption.
"LOL are you trolling? I have given you the definition at least 4 times now."
And I just used it to show you are a far leftist. Thanks
"Lol I’m not ignoring counter arguments I’ve been responding to you for over a week now. "
You are as you said M4A is not passing because of corruption.
"And our ideas are popular if you look at the polls. "
As I said before, polls are unreliable as they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. As prof. Andrew Gelman said, polls are a snap shot, not a forecast. Opinions change when more information is given. Watch the Stephen Michael Davis video entitled
"Kyle Kulinski DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC!"
Where he points out the flaws of polls. Consider how the war in Iraq was popular when congress voted for it.
"But of course you don’t believe in polls. "
For many reasons that I have broken down. If Bernie and his ideas are so popular why is he losing? Oh, I get it, it is because he is being attacked. To that brings to question the polls. If the is able to change people's minds so easily why should we trust polls? The Humanist Report discussed in one video how when lies came out on M4A support drop. If people are that easily persuade why should we trust polls? If just a little bit of different information changes people's opinion so much, how reliable are these polls?
"And for the 12th time you can’t just say “there are many factors”. Again almost half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. "
And how much of that is because of poor money management? Again, you are ignoring other factors. You give one bit of information and make the solid claim that we have a major problem (point 1 of my list). Other factors are at play.
"He doesn’t pick one number though you are lying by omission. He quotes the $30000 number, the paycheck to paycheck statistic, as well as other figures about wages and healthcare costs. "
And each one has many factors to it. I told you about the $30,000 number in relation to factors like household income and benefits. On paycheck to paycheck I told you about money management. On healthcare costs you have the situation of insurance. On wages I gave you studies arguing that wages have gone up. Again, other factors are at play.
"What? What benefit parts. And have you heard of deductibles and out of pocket expenses and some things not being covered?"
Well another advantage we have is the student heath center which offers low cost services and our insurance covers all of it. Again, other factors are at play.
"
I don’t know, why don’t you provide me with any sortof source that back up this claim about poor money management instead of just asking it as a question."
Or how about you. You are the one saying that it is bad. I am skeptical. Show me how it is bad. Consider how around 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt. There is a reason why, poor money management. You are the one that is throwing a number out there saying it is bad without any other context or comparison.
"No I didn’t “not realise you have health insurance” but the fact is a lot of stuff isn’t covered under health insurance. “other factors are at play” isn’t an argument. WHAT other factors? "
I listed them. Household income. Many of my colleagues have roommates. Age, benefits, cost of living, etc. Someone earning $30,000 in rural NE is better off, most likely, than someone earning that much in the Bay Area in CA.
You are saying "half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck" and make the claim that is bad with no other context. You can't draw a strong conclusion based on one issue or stat. You need more. What kind of insurance do they have? What is their money management skills like. What situation, overall, are they in? Do they have easy access to a loan? Again, these issues are complex. You have to go beyond talking points.
"There’s another one, you just keep saying “other variables” as if that’s an argument. You are also assuming I haven’t considered things which often I have. "
You haven't and I proved it many times. I proved it with the NCAA. I proved it on mental healthcare when I said more research is needed and you dismissed it. I proved it on the paycheck to paycheck argument and you dismissed the issue of money management.
"OMG I literally explained this twice now. The stopping point is THERE, right there."
Where?
"I never said it was the norm, I think its more than “very very minute” but as I said I don’t really care how often it happens it should never happen, not once.
“Because other "progressives" did.” Which ones? Then again you think I’m far left so you probably think Hillary Clinton is a progressive. "
Well murder should never happen but it does. The world is an imperfect place.
And yes, others have done it. The federal income tax used to be unconstitutional and was pushed many times. It was pushed after the War of 1812 but failed. It was passed after the Civil War to pay for it but was ruled unconstitutional. It was finally made Constitutional and since then has become this mess where Corporations don't pay taxes according to the left, you have imbalances in write offs where, according to the left, rich people are paying less than the secretaries. It used to be the only federal taxes were in imports and exports and on the states. Individuals were not taxed.
Same with gun laws. First 100 round drums were banned because, who needs that the left will ask. Now some states have 30 round magazines banned. Now in some areas they are trying to ban 10 round magazines. Where is the stopping point?
Medicare never existed until the 60s. It was passed to help out old people. Now it is being expanded to all.
The student loan program was passed to help students go to college. Now people want to forgive student loan debt and pay for college.
Again, where is your stopping point? I have all of history to back up my concerns. What do you have?
"He’s behind by about 150 delegates so he’s very close to Biden. If his ideas were as unpopular as you seem to think they are surely he would be doing much worse. And as I said earlier about 20% of Biden supporters thought he supported M4A, and as Kyle has said it is above water in every exit poll."
Again, polls are unreliable. Also, if people feel Biden is for M4A it shows how ignorant the voters are. So why trust them in the polls?
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
"You do realise they are called public colleges right? All Bernie wants to do is fund the fully so theres no tuition. "
Ok so how do you handle the NCAA? And how do you handle enrollment? What if a high number of people, since cost is no longer an issue, what to attend ASU? How do you handle enrollment?
"No your just completely wrong on this he wants single payer healthcare, aka public funding for private hospitals, not nationalised healthcare like the UKs NHS."
Ok, so with a 40% less funding doctors limit access to care. Then what?
"He wants the energy to be managed by public power districts though which are municipally owned so not really full nationalisation of all of it"
And he is going to use federal law to demand that. Also, what about all these government jobs he talks about?
"Oh ffs are we back to this “government jobs are worthless” argument again. Why?"
Never said they are worthless. There are value in many government jobs. But just creating jobs to create jobs has issues. Creating jobs is easy. We can outlaw tractors and many farming jobs are created. But food production drops. Creating jobs the market does not value is not productive.
"Lol none of this stuff means he is a communist. Is Western Europe communist?"
No. And Bernie does not want to follow their model. They have essentially a flat tax, lower corporate taxes, no min. wage as they have a free market in wages and prices, etc. He wants a command economy practices in Cuba and East Germany. In Western Europe the market is a free market. The citizens agree to pay higher taxes to fund certain programs. That is very similar to a charity. Bernie wants to tax the rich and dictate how the economy functions.
"but I’m not saying Medicare for All is good because its opponents are corrupt"
There are many people who oppose it who are not corrupt. There are many legit reasons to oppose M4A. I gave you examples of how I feel that mainly our culture won't accept it. It goes beyond corruption.
"Lol yeah I don’t know all the details of one specific thing therefore I haven’t considered any of it okay sure that makjes perfect sense."
It proves a point that you have not given any of these things any thought. You just want to pass something and have everyone else pick up the pieces. As I said in point 2, you claim you ideas are simple without consequences. There are consequences though, and you should consider them. Maybe "free college" is best. But again, there are many hurdles to clear and consider which you aren't. You are pushing it on the idea that you want to be moral and "educate" people without considering other factors. Again, you are going off of emotions.
"Lol I literally said about 6 times that I don’t want to do that, again you are projecting your own ideas of what I think onto me."
Ok, so now you don't support the wealth tax?
"
Well no I likely wasn’t alive when most of that stuff was passed, I have always believe in healthcare for all and free public college. Ideas evolve over time, I can’t promise you that in 20 years someone won’t want more radical change on this or that, but the fact is we don’t want that, we just want what we are talking about now. "
Now you are admitting that people will push for more. So again, where is your stopping point? I have mine, it is called the Constitution.
"Well challenge the next generation on that then, that’s not my problem. "
And again, that is why you are a far leftist. You saying "that is not my problem" is you dismissing other people's concern. How "liberal" of you.
"Back then the concept of an automatic gun that you can carry around would have made them all shit a brick so what’s your point? "
Actually automatic guns did exist it that time such as the Girandoni air rifle for example. So learn history. Also, to think that the founding fathers, where one was an inventor, would not have thought that technology will improve is rather asinine.
The gun show loophole is a myth as basically all of them are licensed.
How do you enforce universal background checks? None of my guns are registered. I bought one off of a friend. How do you know that transaction took place?
As far as "some are criminals", they are buying guns illegally then. They are already breaking the law to begin with. How are more laws going to stop that?
Minority Report is a movie starring Tom Cruise, how old are you?
"Okay so your doctors decided you were able to own them so why can’t they also decide someone else isn’t? And I wasn’t really referring to depression. "
Because now you place pressure on doctors. I have a history of a mental illness and suicide attempts. Say I were to take one of my guns and shoot up a place and commit suicide afterwards. With my long history of mental health they will ask my doctors why they allowed me to keep my guns. They will get in trouble and lawsuits will occur where doctors will just ban guns for all of their patients. That creates another issue of those with mental health will be hesitate to receive care out of fear of losing some rights.
"f it was the law that they have to ban people if they have “x” red flags how would they get sued as long as they followed that? "
Because, as I said, mental healthcare is very subjective.
"No one is taking away rights. "
Yes you are, the 2nd amendment. But considering how you don't know what rights are I am not surprised you feel that way.
"And some do, whats your point? We aren’t saying this would stop all gun crime, the only way to stop all gun crime is to ban all guns but again neither I nor Bernie support that. "
Ok, you pass more laws and another shooting happens, then what? More laws? Where is your stopping point?
"Again just saying something is subjective isn’t an argument on its own. We want background checks, we don’t want anyone with an mental health issue banned from owning a gun."
Then why bring up mental health?
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
"No I never said that. I want UBC not just to ban anyone with mental health issues from owning a gun.
Also quick question why do you need 4 guns as a university grad student working on medical research? I don’t mind or want to stop you or anything it just seems completely unnecessary to me unless it’s like a hobby or something idk. "
Then why bring up mental health. Also, I own four guns because I like them. Again, everyone has their differences.
And no, you don't want to follow the second amendment. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You brought up "well regulated" but left out "militia".
"It is a right in that everyone is entitled to it and gets it. In the UK for example everyone gets healthcare, no exceptions. "
Not true. Many are denied healthcare. For example, many in the UK are going blind being denied cataract eye surgery.
"Well according to the UN as you quoted a home is a right but that’s besides the point. I believe it should be a right, if I just said that yes that may be an emotional argument but we also say about how people go bankrupt from it and how 60,000 people die a year from lack of access to it. Look at COVID-19, people can’t afford to get tested. "
I told you why the UN document is flawed. Say a home is a right. Bernie has three homes. Should he be forced to give up one of his homes to a homeless person?
As for your numbers on healthcare, this is my bread and butter. To start, bankruptcies are often overstated. As mentioned in the NEJM article entitled
"Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies"
People like Bernie claim that it is 500,000 a year where they said it is more around 100,000 a year as most who go bankrupt have other financial problems as well. Is that a high number? Maybe. But while other nations don't see that they limit access to care. So in the US you may get that life saving test and go bankrupt, or do what other nations do, be denied care and die or end up worse off. As mentioned in the study entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
They say
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers "
So even under universal healthcare systems healthcare leads to financial issues for patients. As for the 60,000 stat, one, I find it ironic how often that number changes. First it was 45,000, then 30,000, then 18,000, one study from Prof. Kronick said essentially zero, and now 60,000? Pick one. Next, Amenable mortality is an issue every system faces. So is that 60,000, compared to international numbers, high, low, or the norm?
This is where the difficult questions the far let refuses to take on. Every system has shortcomings. So it becomes a very difficult discussion. For example, as mentioned in the book "Being Mortal", people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live another 5 or 10 months. So in that case of those 60,000, if they receive care and live another 5 months, is that a success? It is the same situation of the Coronavirus. People are freaking out where those who are dying have health issues to begin with and are very sick or old to begin with. That is the difficult issue with healthcare is that what is the best? As I said, is it best to keep grandma alive when, statistically she will only live a few more months, or let her die and use resources elsewhere?
"How? I mentioned the UK, do they have loads of slave doctors? No, you don’t have to force people to become doctors. This argument is ridiculous (it comes from Ben Shapiro if I recall correctly so I don’t know why I’m surprised it makes no sense). "
It makes perfect sense. The UK has a different legal system than us. As I said, people have a right to a trial by jury. If you are called to jury duty and refuse you go to jail. So if healthcare is a right and a doctor refuses care guess what, they are going to jail.
You really struggle with the legal system don't you?
"OMG how many times do I have to repeat myself until you listen to me. YES, that should be illegal, because that affects the daughter, and the daughter is a living breathing human who is capable of caring about things and being affected by things. A ball of cells is none of those things. "
What if the daughter is fine with it? Why should it be illegal? It isn't effecting you.
"He wasn’t the richest person ever though so its clearly not just based on intelligence. As you would say “there are multiple factors”. Luck is one of them. "
He was rich in many ways. Having a job where you can't get fired and being well known is one. It isn't just finances. Also, who said he was really that intelligent? As a PhD student myself I have seen many people with PhDs or who are pursuing them that are great in their field but ignorant elsewhere. The best example I give is Noam Chomsky. Great in his field, ignorant elsewhere.
"No one is against all rich people, just the mega rich billionaires as its not possible to earn a billion dollars as that implies you are working 1000 + times harder or are 1000+ times more intelligent than a normal person, which is absurd. "
Ever heard of "work smarter, not harder". Also, so what if they have billions. How did they earn it? Bezos became rich by making shopping easier for most. He became rich by providing society with a better option. Is that wrong? Also, I find some inconsistencies here. Bernie said in the past no one should be a millionaire. And he used to rip on millionaires and billionaires in the past. But when he became a millionaire himself now it is just billionaires. But why can't someone become a billionaire?
Current tax policies were created by lefties. The political right and moderates want a simplify tax code. Again, it used to be just a tax on the states. I support a federal flaw tax and a consumption tax. No loopholes. Some of this was pushed but the left complain because teachers were no longer go to have school supplies as a write off for example. But here is the problem, if you are going to allow teachers to write off school supplies, you also gave the federal government to allow rich people and corporations to have write offs.
You see the issue there? You see why I support a limited federal government? You want the federal government to have all this power to create write offs for poor and middle class, and tax the rich more through an uneven tax code, but then complain when the federal government uses that same to create loopholes where corporations pay no taxes. Your system you advocate for creates the problems you hate.
How does banning trans from the military play a large role in their high suicide rate? Again, more research is needed. Overall, what percent of trans wanted to join the military to begin with? If it is not high then the high suicide rates are not because of the ban. Again, more research is needed. Trump even admitted it was a difficult decision to make but again, more research is needed.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
No, you are making the claim that the paycheck to paycheck issue is bad with no other evidence. As I pointed out in the example of the median income being around $30,000 a year and people like Kyle take that stat as if it is all bad is flawed. It leaves out other variables. How many also live paycheck to paycheck because they want to enjoy their money? There is that concept of it as well. So no, you can't just take one stat, that being that half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and make a very strong conclusion off of it.
"I have addressed that argument though, I said its not a good indicator on its own and I am then quoting other factors as well but you just pretend that it not being useful out of context means it isn’t useful at all. How would you want me to prove to you that poverty is a huge issue in this country? "
I also said how those other indicators are flawed. And poverty is challenging as well as it is also subjective and based on other variables. If you go off of the strict definition of poverty MS is the state with the most. But if you use the Census data that adjusted for cost of living CA has the most and MS doesn't even crack the top ten. I grew up in the midwest. If you were "poor" based on income in that part of the nation you still owned a home with a yard. If you are "poor" in LA or NYC you are living in a tiny ass apartment with roommates. Or you may be living in a closet. So just bringing up income levels is flawed. You also have to understand people have different levels of satisfaction. In fact, this was one of my test questions on my econ test last night. It was about how there is income inequality and some have more income than others. A reason was because some have different levels of satisfaction. Some people may be fine with a lower income compared to others. As with the paycheck to paycheck issue, some may be fine spending all their money each paycheck to enjoy life.
As for poverty being a huge issue, I don't feel it is a huge issue. It is an issue but not a huge one. This goes back to point 1 I make, far leftists say there are major issues when really they aren't bad. Yes, poverty is an issue but I don't see it as a huge one.
"Health insurance is another factor yes, I have talked about that how not having great healthcare if you can’t afford it means an accident or a complication can bankrupt you. "
But most can. That is what makes reform so difficult and a problem with your side. Same with poverty. The issues you point out are not major ones to justify complete transformation of the economy. Do some go bankrupt because of healthcare bills? Sure, but numbers suggest 100,000 a year which, in a nation as large as ours, is not much. But you are claiming it is a major problem that justifies the federal government banning insurance companies and picking up the entire tab through M4A. As I said, maybe M4A is the best option, but it has problems. Sure, it could end those 100,000 bankruptcies, but at what costs? In economics there is always a trade off. And these are the difficult discussions the far left who support M4A refuses to have. Sure, M4A could end those bankruptcies, but then you have limited access to certain forms of care where people die or end up worse off because of it as seen in other nations. But maybe that trade off is worth it.
To give you a simple example in economics on trade offs. Around 40,000 die a year in car accidents. We can make that number zero by capping the speed of cars to 15 mph. Is that productive though? Now commute time increases a lot. What happens? Economic slow down is one. Thus, us as a society feel, unconsciously, that 40,000 deaths a year is worth faster cars.
The same is with healthcare. Us, as a nation, feel that 100,000 bankruptcies a year is worth having higher access to healthcare.
" I never dismissed that other factors are important on mental health, and all you have proved with the NCAA is that I don’t know a very minute part of a policy, because no one who isn’t a politician can be expected to."
But you seem so set to believe that trans commit suicides more mainly because they are not accepted when I say more research is needed. As for the NCAA, why doesn't Bernie understand it? Also, it goes beyond that. The NCAA is a large part of colleges. If you are going to propose a radical idea you should look deep into it as opposed to just going along with it. It is disturbing that you are willing to follow an idea based off of little knowledge. It is the same with healthcare. I just broke down the flaws in bankruptcy stats and death stats and the drawbacks that will come with a M4A system. You give a few numbers but dismiss, or don't even know the counter arguments and blame corruption. I bet you did not know that medical bankruptcy stats are over stated? I bet you did not know the numbers behind deaths and people living only a few months after care? You just throw a number out there such as the 60,000 stat without knowing that one, amenable mortality exist in all systems, and two, those people are very sick to begin with and chances are that even if they receive care they would die anyway. As prof. Katherine Baicker said, the question become do the die due to lack of care or due to being sick to begin with?
Yes, murder is illegal. With gun laws you are hindering law abiding citizens from possessing them giving more power to criminals.
Also, just because Bernie has a stopping point means nothing. The reason why the Constitution was created was to place bounds on the government. Sure, you may have a stopping point, but the next guy may not. After Sanders is done being president what will stop the next guy from expanding? Herman Cain was posed a same question on his 9 9 9 tax plan on he was creating a new tax. What will stop future politicians from expanding it?
You see, I have a set standard based on a legal document to prevent that expansion. You don't have standards.
"Okay yeah but that seems like a perfectly natural stopping point. Again not wanting a policy now because of what policies could come in the future is silly. "
Why is that a natural stopping point? Why not make all colleges free both private and public? Why not give students money to go to college? Why is your stopping point natural?
And again, not wanting a policy because of what can occur in the future is not silly. I broke down to you many laws and policies that were expanded. This is a real concern and why the Constitution was created. One could consider, for example, a "natural stopping point" to allow the government to ban the speech of hateful groups like the KKK. But now you gave the government legal pathways to ban all speech they disagree with.
On gun laws many want to ban the AR 15. Why? Because doing so will create legal pathways to ban all guns. When another mass shooting happens they will push for more bans. They pick the AR 15 because it is scary looking but have no mention of the Ruger Mini 14 which has the same firing power and same round. Diane Feinstein to Neil Gorsuch brought up the DC v Heller case on guns where one SC justice talk about guns that were "and the like" and she used that wording to justify stricter gun laws to a ban on assault weapons. So yes, we should be concern how these policies can expand. That is why the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did.
"Well because how accurate a poll is has nothing to do with how “ignorant” the voters are."
Yes is does. The Irag war was polling well in the past, consider that.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927
"Yes but wasn’t that book just about how doctors use personal experience as a measure, it wasn’t specific to trans people.
Also I put a few more studies in a reply to another comment. And you have yet to explain why us being in the “research” phase means we need to ban them form the military. And again trump never said any of this he just did it. "
Sure, but the book used personal stories. Also, again, trans have a high rate of suicide. The military is a stressful place. We don't know exactly what causes trans to commit suicide thus we prevent the from going into a stressful situation as in the military. In fact, one of your studies mentioned that one factor was the stress of going through gender reassignment. If they can't handle that stress can they handle the stress of being shot at?
I read your definition of a far leftist and used it on you. You have an authoritarian mindset. You want to stop all states from making abortion illegal. You want to force states to establish anti discrimination laws without actually trying to understand their culture. You want to pass M4A and claim anyone who opposes it is corrupt while ignoring legit concerns by others. Again, if you bring up M4A bans private insurance many oppose it but you ignore that. You want to ban private insurance and force people on Medicare. The list goes on.
"Okay yeah M4A might mean the rich people can’t skip the queue but I don’t care about that they shouldn’t be doing that anyway. "
Why not? That is very authoritarian of you?
Why is Bernie losing?
"Specific policies that were passed in that era?? "
Welfare reform was a major one.
Are people happy with Medicare? Even if that it doesn't matter. You can be happy with a system because you do not experience anything else. Also, just because people are happy with a system does not make it the best.
Culture plays a huge role in how a program functions.
In NV they accept prostitution because in counties like Nye it is huge with limited resources. Prostitution creates a resource.
"Okay and? You can’t just list differences between states, I want certain things to be controlled by the fed government, non of what you are saying is an argument against that."
Yes it is. Not everyone wants higher taxes on the rich. Not everyone wants M4A or a government run healthcare system. Not everyone wants student loan forgiveness. That is why I say give the powers to the states and let the people decide, not a centralized source. As I said, you may support the federal government doing x, y and z, but when a group of republicans come in and do a, b, and c that you disagree with I bet you will cry. But you gave them that power to begin with. You created that problem.
"Okay then what state do you live in and what policies do you support for that state. "
My state has no income taxes and more freedom in the market. As a result our economy, at least in my city, is doing well.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "How though? How are they, where in Bernies plan does it say this."
You don't think the government spending all that money is not going to dictate how that program functions?
How are they going to negotiate with hospitals? Here is how
Government: "We will pay x for that care."
Healthcare providers: "We will charge y" where y>x
Government:"We won't pay."
Healthcare providers: "Ok, we will deny that care."
Not really want I see as a success.
How is M4A right? You have not given me a reason that I have not countered. There are flaws and drawbacks that you are refusing to accept. Again, you are over simplifying this complex issue.
"Well the public are non experts by definition, therefore any method of trying to find out what they think will have the same issue, so whats your point? "
Because we have seen times where people's opinions easily change. There are polls that show when you tell the people that M4A takes away their private insurance they oppose it. But you ignore them. If the people are that easily persuade why should we trust them?
"Oh god that guy is an idiot, I think I’ve seen that video, is that the one where he pretends that the only argument Kyle is making is that things are popular, which isn’t the argument Kyle is making at all. I’ll watch it at some point if I geta chance but as RougeFang pointed out if Kyle isn’t a legit source then neither is some other random youtuber. "
How is he an idiot? Also, he points to a lot of reliable sources from experts in his video, much more than Kyle does. Not saying he is an expert, but there are two important things he does in his videos
1. He is willing admit he could be wrong
2. He cites many experts and their opinions
Kyle, on the other hand, does none of that. I have yet to see him admit when he was wrong. But to that video, the point is that Kyle points to polls saying his ideas are popular and when they don't pass he makes excuses that a the people are fooled. If they are so easily fooled why should we take those polls seriously anyway?
Besides, calling him an idiot is not an argument against his point. You, as a far leftist, just dismiss him.
"People changing their minds quickly doesn’t mean polls are unreliable it means people are inconsistent. "
No, it shows they are unreliable. If new information changes people's opinion the polls are flawed. Also, how you word it plays a role. People may support M4A on the abstract, but if you give them a year long course in healthcare economics they will think differently.
Also,, here is the sanity I see from the far left. You point to polls but when you lose you make up excuses. At what point do you no longer trust polls?
I listed many factors.
Wages have gone up. If not people will be in the same shape as they were in the 70s. However, they aren't. Cars are better, people have cell phones, computers, access to more wealth, etc. That is the problem with inflation measurements as it is hard to account for new technology. Also, when you use PCE and GDP deflator method of inflation wages have gone up. Again, with stats there are many factors to look at. The only data to suggest wages have not gone up are average wages and CPI inflation. Another problem with using averages is that outliers skew the results. From the 70s what also happened was an increase in immigration. Having a lot of Hispanic enter the market does pull down the average wage.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , also, two points. One, your side is losing bad. Why? Because your side pushes these radical ideas with no actual details and the only argument you have is that people like your ideas without realizing they don't.
Next, compare Stephen Michael Davis and Kyle. Neither are experts but Stephen acts more mature, cites sources and opinions from experts and reveals them, Kyle does not, and Stephen is willing to admit he is wrong. Him, like me, admitted that M4A may be the best system. On my end, with M4A, I can admit it may be the best, but I need stronger and more honest arguments from the supporters. Simply giving a handful of stats and showing a lack of understanding of the economics of it is a poor argument. Simply saying "X amount of people die in our system" without digging deeper is a poor and unconvincing argument.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 , I will start with the short one and take care of that before I teach
"As I have said they are doing well in the polls. If you don't believe in polls then the best you can say is "we don't know if they are doing well or not". And you can say "oh well bernie is losing" but there are other reasons for that too, for one the media is hugely biased against him, you can't deny this, secondly he is doing better with younger people who tend to be more informed and watch more actual news sources instead of the bullshit on TV. "
Younger people are more informed? Also, what "actual news sources"? From what I have seen the media, all around, is the same. Again, on Stephen Michael Davis has a video on this as well entitled "The Youtube Cargo Cult" where he talks about how there are hour long videos of actual experts going into details on complex issues. There are also top ten videos, slime videos and cat videos. What is more popular? The views speak for themselves. People rather watch the top 10 videos. If someone gets their news from The Hill or Kyle or TYT that is no different than getting it from Fox or CNN. It is all click bait appeal to emotion material. So no, young people are not more informed. Also, they are not voting as usual as shown by Bernie getting destroyed.
As for the media being biased towards Bernie, I see some of it but it is still a poor excuse. If the media can change people's opinion that easily maybe polls are not reliable. Ever considered that?
""Stephen acts more mature" how does he act more mature? The video you referenced is literally called "DESTROYED WITH FACTS AND LOGIC" or whatever. That's not very mature (not that I think that really matters tbh). Kyle cites sources and he cites polls, he does that often. I don't watch that much Steven Michael Davis as I don't like that style of youtubers tbh (I.e. The "Let's just shit on progressives non stop with disengenuous arguments" youtuber. "Actual Justice Warrior" is another one like that). But from what I have watched on him a lot of his arguments don't really make sense or he has kindof missed the point of what someone was saying.
"
Yes, he had a click bait title, welcome to the show. Kyle hardly cites sources. Stephen cites many books and studies and mentions them for people to read themselves. When does Kyle do that? Hardly ever. And Kyle hardly admits when he is wrong. He did a story about a guy who homemade a gun and had a felony and did a shooting. He said the cops did not go to his home and take away his gun when in reality he homemade it, they did not know he had it. Kyle did not correct himself. And how does his arguments not make sense? Saying they don't is not an argument? Maybe, I guess, you like Kyle better making farting noises and funny voices as opposed to someone citing a book for you to read. Makes sense now why you are struggling in this argument with me where I cite books from experts and you just dismiss them.
Ironic as far leftists claim to be the "educated" crowd but they refuse to read anything.
"You also keep saying we don't "understand the economics", from my perspective you don't understand any of the economics around healthcare. I have pointed out multiple times that if you deregulate the insurance companies they will jack prices up as healthcare isn't an "optional good" or whatever as you need it or you will die, but you keep just ignoring me when I make this argument. "
If an insurance company jacks up the prices a competitor will come in with a lower price that consumers will buy. That is how the free market works. The reason why prices are so high to begin with is because healthcare insurance has no competition as we don't have a free market system. Your mindset is economic illiteracy.
"If the facts that it probably save money and at worst only cost a bit more, "
Yep,a federal government that is over $20 trillion in debt is now finally going to create a program that saves money.
"freedom to change job or become self employed without losing their doctor or all of their coverage isn't enough for you to support it, then what argument can we make that will make you support it? "
How do you know we won't lose our doctor? The doctor now has, potentially, more patients to cover. You are saying things with no actual guarantee it will happen. That is another problem with far leftists. They are saying "we are going to make radical changes but trust us, everything will be better." People ask how and they say " it just will". Not really a convincing argument.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "Yes, MSM is crap, even if you don’t like Kyle he is objectively better than MSM, for the simple reason that he acknowledges his bias. MSM never does. "
Kyle is no better. He does not acknowledge his bias. He is no different than the MSM. Again, watch that video I talked about by Stephen Michael Davis entitled "The Youtube Cargo Cult". He breaks it down how people like Kyle get his information from the MSM.
"New Media" is just as bad, if not worse, than MSM. As Stephen said, it is easier to rip on MSM because they are popular and "New Media" like Kyle are the little guys. In fact, notice who people like Kyle, Sam Seder, Rational National, etc. talk and rip MSM but MSM does not talk about them? Because they are punching up. They are trying to be relevant when most people don't care about them. What is sad is that they continue to think they are popular and their ideas are popular but
1. They get little views and attention
and
2. Their politicians are losing
So it makes me wonder who is more informed.
"Also by “and mentions them for people to read themselves” do you mean he does the thing you do where you just name drop a book and then expect me to read a whole book every day just for your one very specific point? "
Nope, being open about my sources so you can read them yourself if you want. What is wrong with reading books?
"Isn’t an argument. For 1) Like I have said multiple times, a decent number of people think Biden supports M4A, and 2) there is more than one factor that influences how people vote. If you watch MSM all the time and are convinced only Joe Biden can beat Trump (he won’t imo), then you may think “oh well I would like M4A but there’s no point voting for Bernie if he is unelectable”. "
1.Again, it shows how ignorant the voting base is thus why trust their opinions on polls? You are contradicting yourself in saying "The people know what they want, the polls show that" and then saying "the people don't know better as they think Biden is for M4A."
2. A lot of people know that Biden can't be Trump. The reality is that Bernie is unelectable and is a bad face for the democrat party. People are not going to support and old communist that praised Castro and Ortega. Even if he is not a communist you have so much dirt on his such as him praising Cuba and Venezuela, him praising breadlines, him defending Castro, etc. Those little sound bites alone will do him harm. You are making the claim that the MSM is harming Bernie, so why do you think he is able to beat Trump? Also, his talking points are old. Probably the worse part about Bernie compared to Trump is that Bernie is so negative. He keeps saying we have major problems and that most people are suffering where Trump is positive about "making America great again" and how the economy is doing well. In strong economic times like now people are not going to elect an angry old guy.
"Also telling someone to read an entire book for one point is lazy imo, nobody is going to rad an entire book for a ten minute video, because people don’t have time, when I source an article I tend to quote a specific bit from it as well. "
When I cite a book, an Stephen does this as well, I point out a point. Stephen does as well. The point in giving the sources is that you can read it yourself to show we are not hiding anything. But we give the point.
"Says the person who refused to read the definition of a far leftist for about a week"
I read it and I used it to describe you. You support an authoritarian centralized style of government because "morals".
"Okay again why did it take you a week to address this point? You say I don’t read stuff but then you ignore huge parts of my comments for multiple days. "
Because you never brought up deregulation in insurance companies until now.
"On the actual point, no, that isn’t really how it works, if one company increases their prices there is nothing to stop the other increasing them too, as you have to get healthcare. Also if you want a specific doctor or you want something covered that is only in a certain plan then you may need to go with a specific insurer, or you may not have many insurers available in your area. The companies can also do backroom deals to jack up the prices at the same time. "
Clearly you don't understand economics. If a company raises their prices another will have a lower price to attract customers. That is the competitive market. That is why we constantly see the price of goods and services drop over time. The problem we have with insurance companies is lack of competition. Also, insurance covers all of healthcare which is another problem as a lot of healthcare can be paid for out of pocket. Look at LASIK, over time it has become cheaper and better due to competition and not being tied to insurance.
"The reason there is a “price” at all at least in the sense you are talking about it (i.e. a price on top of tax that everyone pays) is because the insurance companies exist at all."
So you are saying goods and services cost money? What a novel concept! Besides, insurance is there to counter the in-elasticity of healthcare prices as sometimes it is. At times, in cases of unplanned emergencies, you don't have time to shop around thus insurance helps. Think of car insurance. Car insurance pays for an accident if someone hits your car, but not oil changes and new tires even though they are just as needed for a safe, and reliable car. Why? The latter two you can shop around on. The problem with healthcare insurance, because of the payroll tax, is that many employers pay their employees with healthcare insurance as it is tax free. Thus healthcare insurance is healthcare and no longer a free market system.
"What? How much debt the government has, has nothing to do with how much M4A will cost."
Yes it does because if the debt grows too much cuts will have to be made.
"Why would you lose your doctor? The doctor having more patients to cover doesn’t mean they won’t be able to cover you."
Yes it does. There is only so much time people have. Thus doctors have to deny people care as what happens in other nations. What makes you think doctors have unlimited time? Consider this. If your boss gives you more work to do will it take more time? Eventually as some point you won't have enough time.
"On M4A, there is also the decent point that I'm not sure if I have already made yet that if a free market system is so great why isn't every other developed country desperately trying to establish one? "
Very poor argument. They have different cultures all around and their system has many problems as well such as lack of innovation, lower quality and lower access. In the US we lead the world in R&D and quality. We basically propped up the world in healthcare resources.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "If more people are applying and they run out of room they would have to increase the entry requirements. As for the NCAA you have yet to actually explain to me what the issue is other than that the money part would be unnecessary, but I don’t see how that’s a bad thing? (I would also like to point out, that while I’m sure Free College wouldn’t screw up the NCAA, one small program being slightly screwed up by a program that will help millions isn’t the biggest issue in the world, as you say yourself, nothing is a completely100% perfect solution)."
Yes, free college will screw the NCAA, I told you how. They base their divisions on scholarship limits. With free college there are no longer scholarships. Do you know what a scholarship is? So how does the NCAA separate their divisions while keeping an even playing field without the scholarship limits? And the NCAA is a huge part of college. You saying it is not a bad thing is you dismissing it. Also, it is what Hickenlooper said, Bernie and his fans want to throw a plan out there and let everyone pick up the pieces. A huge problem with Bernie fans is that they don't have any skin in these issues. They want to tax the rich but not themselves. On issues like "free college" they will screw over the NCAA and issues like enrollment that other people have to handle. On M4A they will create a system where healthcare providers have to change their methods. But Bernie fans will do nothing.
You ignored the point in how Medicare pays 40% less. And saying the government can just "negotiate" prices is a very weak argument. How?
" The government would have to negotiate so they didn’t limit access to care"
How? Healthcare providers are just going to offer the same amount of resources at a lower price? They won't. They will just limit care.
"Creating jobs to help establish a lot more green energy isn’t “creating jobs to create jobs”. "
It is as a lot of those "green energy" jobs are not valued by the market currently. If they were there will be more. Also, it begs the question if the jobs are necessary? Climate change is grossly overstated by the far left which is why they don't actually have scientists speaking for them but a 17 year old girl.
"The market needs green energy, if the planet is fucked the market won’t like that. "
Is the planet "fucked"? We don't know.
"And how is tax similar to a charity? You have to pay the tax. "
Because you can vote for taxes. In the US it used to be that the federal government did not tax people but states. The idea was that the more local government is that more control you have. Again, this comes back to that the role of government is vague. Some societies say that you need government for some things but some say you don't. Take fire departments for example. Some places have it funded by government, some have it private, and some areas have volunteer fire fighters.
Thus, with taxes, it is local societies deciding that having a tax to fund a program is best as opposed to volunteers. Thus, similar to a charity.
"I’m not saying everyone who opposed it is corrupt, I’m saying that statistically about 99% of the POLITICIANS who oppose it ARE corrupt.
And you have yet to explain what you really mean by “culture”."
Based on what? Where do you get that 99% stat from? And this is why I am saying you just dismiss counter arguments. There are many legit concerns about M4A.
As for culture, read up on Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory and compare nations. Scandinavian nations are more "feminine" compared to the US. What does that mean? Feminine nations are dominated by the idea that society is about caring for others and the quality of life. Masculinity is about how society values success, money and things. On the masculinity scale the US is at around 60. Denmark around 10, Sweden is close to zero, Norway is around 10. Huge difference. On individualism the US is around 90. We are a vastly individualistic society. Study culture. I am taking an international business course right now and over 90% of the class is about culture. It impacts how a nation functions.
"How evil of me to want to do what is moral. Of course I should just be choosing what is best for the “economy”, without really defining what that means or establishing if that actually helps people. "
But you have to remain objective. You ignore many important objective realities. You feel that expanding the number of patients a doctor has won't take up more of their time to where they have to deny care. That makes zero economic sense.
"That’s not what a wealth tax is. A wealth tax isn’t giving amazon shares to random people. It’s taxing rich people and investing that money in social programmes."
So random people. And again, here is where you once again place morals over facts. If you do that the value of the wealth will drop.
And you have no standard. You claim you won't go farther but others will. That is why the Constitution was created, to give a stopping point. You want to create a program that will continue to expand down the road screwing over people.
"No because it literally isn’t my problem, if someone else in the future wants to advocate for further change then that is them deciding to do that, I have no influence on that."
Yep, that's it. Fuck 'em. Who cares as long as you get yours. This is common with far leftists. You don't care as long as you get yours. You don't care that M4A will force healthcare providers to make vast adjustments to how they operate. You don't work there. You don't care that free college will force administrators to make major changes as in enrollment, scheduling, etc. You don't work there. You don't care about the NCAA, you don't work there. You want to throw out a plan, get yours and left everyone else do the work.
" Well yeah but there’s no way they thought it would get this advanced, societies never think technology will advance in the way it does. And they likely wrote it for the time not for several hundreds years time. "
Sure. You are talking about some of the brightest men of all time. Again, one was an inventor. You are making poor excuses. Should we limit speech because the internet did not exist in that time? Based on your standard that will be yes.
"I don’t claim to be an expert on guns and gun laws,"
Then don't talk about it.
"I don’t think its really subjective in that way, you can still set criteria. "
The criteria is in the law, you have to commit a crime to lose your rights. As i said with mental health, there is no way to quantify it. It isn't like a tumor you can see or cancer. It is highly subjective.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "So that isn’t a problem with universal healthcare it’s a problem with the right wing UK government starving the NHS of funds"
Uh, the whole "starving for funds" excuse. Since 2000 UK healthcare spending as a percent of GDP went from around 4.5% to over 7%. It is increasing. The reality is that more money is being pumped into it, not less.
I showed you how the UN document is flawed. Again, they say people have a right to medical care. But workers also have a right to paid holidays off. So if every doctor took Christmas off and someone needs medical care, what do you do? Whose right gets removed? Don't you see the flaws? If not you need to learn how to read.
"Even if you 100,000 figure is true, that’s still a fucking lot of people. "
Is it? That is around 0.02% of the population. That is the issue. You want to completely change a system to cater to 0.02% of the population. Also, as I said, universal healthcare systems have flaws. So if you go to M4A and that 0.02% of the population no longer has bankruptcies, but now 0.05% of the population receive inferior care and are worse off, is that a success?
Again, this is why you refuse to have difficult discussions like most far leftists. You just want to get yours and not care about others.
"LOL stop quoting this New Zealand study this is like the 4th time you’ve shown me it as if it proves anything. "
What! It shows that people in universal healthcare systems become worse off due to wait times. Can you not read?
"The rest of your argument here is just “oh but we might not want X to happen” okay then we won’t make X happen, "
Yeah as if it that easy. If it were than why do other nations continue to have problems? Why haven't they fixed them? Because it isn't easy. You are claiming it is easy which is scary and shows ignorance on your part.
"What? This has nothing to do with the legal system. You’re just being ridiculous, of course universal healthcare won’t FORCE doctors to work. I mean if they don’t work they’ll be fired, but that would also happen now, that happens in any job (obviously). "
A lot of doctors are independent. But now you are saying healthcare is not a right?
"What? This has nothing to do with abortion, how many times, A BALL OF CELLS ISN’T CAPABLE OF GIVING A SHIT. Also a ten year old can’t give consent. "
Why not? Why don't you care? That isn't your daughter. You aren't them. You are not having a double standard. The "ball of cells" can't give consent either.
"Exactly this is my point, a lot of really good scientists are probably more intelligent than Bill Gates or Jeff Bezoz, and yet they aren’t any where near as rich. "
Bill Gates and Bezos are very intelligent. And no, I am not baiting you with Chomsky, I am giving an example of a guy who people claim is intelligent but is ignorant in many ways.
"Is Bill Gates 1000x more intelligent than you or me? "
In some ways yes.
"Because no one can earn a billion dollars. And when did Bernie say about millionaires"
Look up how 2016 campaign. And while being mayor he said that no millionaires should exist. Watch the ReasonTV video entitled
"Why Bernie Sanders' Communist Misadventures Still Matter"
And who says you can't earn billions?
"The tax code being complicated isn’t the issue, the issue is all the loopholes that are purposefully in there. "
Again, if you are going to give the federal government power to create loopholes for teachers buying supplies you give them the power to give loopholes to the rich.
"Well no because I want to elect people who won’t create loopholes so what’s your point? "
So then no loopholes at all? I will agree with that.
And saying you want to elect those people is flawed. Again, you can only vote for 3 members of congress. So good luck with that.
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "Okay except I’m not doing that, stop lying. I am showing you multiple statistics, your entire argument here and in the next paragraph is just “oh your making an argument in isolation” but the only reason you think tat is because you are ignoring my other points. Most of your issues with my statistics is “that isn’t enough on their own”, and then when I provide multiple you just pretend I’m still looking at them in isolation. "
And I challenged all those stats as they are shallow.
"500,000 (or 100,000) people is a huge issue, 0 should go bankrupt for becoming ill. And again you keep making this “limited access to care” argument without any real proof of it other than like 2 countries where it’s an issue. No one is saying it’s impossible to do a single payer system badly, we are saying that we will do it well. "
Read the book "In Excellent Health" by Prof. Scott Atlas. He outlines that while yes, we pay more, compared to other nations we offer higher access to care. Other countries spend less because they offer less. They limit care. That is why people die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. And as for the number being zero on bankruptcies, again, what is the drawback? What flaws will rich up? If say 500,000 are denied MRIs and end up worse off physically is that good?
"Yes but what is the equivalent down side in healthcare here? Rich people not being able to skip the queue? (I’d also like to point out when you say less access to advanced care, it’s only rich people who can access that anyway, and again if it isn’t covered under M4A you can still have insurance for it). "
False, most have access to advanced care. That is why healthcare reform is so challenging. As as written by Prof. Atlas we offer more to most people. If it were only "rich people" we would not have such high access to advanced care nation wide.
"By what metric? You don’t believe in polls so how do you know that what your saying isn’t BS?
"
By the fact that universal healthcare has not passed anywhere, even at the state level.
"I personally think it is a large aspect of it and studies agree that it is a significant aspect so yes I think it’s reasonable for me to hold that opinion. I’m not saying the medical community should go off of my opinion, but the studies that the medical community produce agree with me more than they agree with you. "
False. I read the studies and they give many reasons. So no, the medical community does not agree with you.
"Okay but I’m not doing that. Not knowing one very specific aspect of something doesn’t not equal knowing nothing about it. And how is it a “large part of colleges” I don’t see what you mean by that. "
Because you don't care, it doesn't influence you. Just like you don't care about the future if these programs expand as long as you get yours. Throw out a plan, force everyone else to adjust while you do nothing.
On bankruptcies the 500,000 comes from the fact that most have large debt to begin with and a small medical bill put them over the top. So no, it was not purely from medical bills, only around 100,000.
How do you know politicians opposed M4A because of corruption? That is a poor excuse based off of zero evidence.
"Okay yeah but if they were sick to begin with why were they sick? Probably because they couldn’t afford healthcare."
Katherine Baicker did a study out of Oregon entitled
"The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes"
Where they say
"This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years"
Suggesting that poor lifestyle, not lack of healthcare, leads to bad health.
On guns the issue of more guns leads to more deaths is 100% false. Over the past few decades the number of guns have increased in this nation and murder is at an all time low. And your vox article is asinine. Of course owning a gun in your home increases your chance of being killed with it as opposed to if you don't have one at all. Guess what, owning a pool increases your chance of drowning at home from 0% to some small percent.So ban pools?
"My standards are that we live in a democracy so if you don’t want something don’t vote for it."
We don't live in a democracy. Nothing at the federal level is ever determined by the majority for very great reasons. What is popular is not always right.
"If people don't want further gun laws they will vote against them. A slippery slope only works if the people agree with it."
Which is a problem. That is why you create a stopping point. Having people just vote on it deprives others of freedom. Democracy is 51% telling 49% what to do. That is why we don't have a democracy and why we have standards.
1
-
1
-
@pointlesstwat8927 "Not inherently no, tell me how you think it will’, convince me of your argument."
Because that is what they always do with any program. Even SNAP they limit what you can buy.
"Okay yeah but then the hospitals would go bankrupt. As you have said many times, “its not that simple”. "
How? They will go bankrupt making bad deals. Providing a service at below market rate is what causes bankruptcy. If the federal government is only going to pay, say $500 for care, and a particular test cost $1000 the hospital will deny it. They will offer care up to $500 just to break even. That is how other nations do it.
"You haven’t countered anything I have said you have just quoted random studies about other countries and then pretended we will inherently have the same issue. It’s right as it will either save money or only cost a tiny bit more, it eliminates the for profit insurance mafia that only exist to make money off of people who are sick"
No profit means no investment and thus no growth. Healthcare advancements will cease. And yes, pointing to other nations shows that universal healthcare systems have issues. And saying it will save money is based off of very little evidence and completely ignores quality and access issues.
"No I’m refusing to accept that these drawbacks are inherent at the level you say they will be. Yes there will always be avoidable deaths in literally any system but at the moment we have was too many that are easily avoidable. "
How do we have too many? What do you base that off of?
"Okay well you’re not making an argument as to why polls aren’t valid you are making an argument that when you change the questions people’s opinions change. Yes as I have said many times if you phrase it in a way to make it sound scary on purpose when it isn’t then people don’t like it, but if you point out that you get to keep your doctor and have the freedom to move jobs etc then people like it. Just saying “it takes away your insurance” without mentioning that your insurance is no longer necessary and M4A has more benefits than your insurance is disingenuous. "
Ok, and who says you get to keep your doctor? That was a promise under Obamacare. So we should believe the government now? Or the economics of it that 40% pay cut means lower access. Have fun waiting months for that MRI while you suffer. Or that it will cover illegals. There are many flaws. Simply asking "do you support M4A" is shallow.
1. He has said that maybe "progressive" ideas are best. His criticism, like mine, is that the supporters over simplify the issues and ignore many things. One point he said how they ignore one huge factor, culture and he cited the book "Debunking Utopia". I mentioned culture as well in another comment citing Hofstede's method.
2. You can read what he cites and see if he does understand them. That is why he gives the reference. At this point you are dismissing him without looking deeper.
Also Kyle cited the Koch Brothers study to say M4A will save money. He clearly did not know what they were saying. One, the value they gave in the abstract was an admitted low value and they said chances are it will be higher. Next, they placed the public spending cost and later showed both public and private which both combine were greater. Kyle ignores that. Also, one of the authors is quoted in saying that with a 40% pay cut with Medicare quality and access issues will arise. So Kyle quoted something without clearly understanding it. I can give other examples as well.
"Yeah but is that not fairly logical? If stuff is popular then why isn’t it getting passed? And why do you think polls are so unreliable, why would you lie about supporting or not supporting M4A for example if someone asked you in a poll? "
Are they popular? Also, there are other factors as well. Again, one may, at that time, support M4A, but when given more info they change. As I said, polls are a snapshot, not a forecast. Also, just because someone says one thing in a poll does not mean they will go out and vote.
"According to who? A lot of medical professionals and experts support it."
And there is a lot who don't. Also, I said they will think differently, doesn't mean they won't support it.
"Cars have got cheaper, so have phones and computers. Also what do you mean “access to more wealth”"
People with AC has gone up. People with fridges have gone up. People with have higher access to food and technology.
"A lot of economists argue PCE is too broad to be used for wage change over time, but that’s besides my main point. You saying that “oh well wages have gone up by this measure” doesn’t mean you have proved they have, as I can given another measure where they haven’t. Do you have sources that use these inflation measures? "
I gave you the sources. Here are the titles
"Fifty Years of Growth in American Consumption, Income, and Wages" by prof. Bruce Sacerdote
"Did Wages Reflect Growth in Productivity?" by prof. Martin S. Feldstein
As for PCE being broad, so is CPI. As prof. Don Boudreaux argued, using just one method to measure wage growth is flawed. Those who use just CPI and average wages is going about it in a shallow way as other methods shows different things. It is not to say wage have gone up at a rate we want, but saying they have not gone up at all is saying we have a huge problem with other data suggests otherwise. We should look into it but not freak out.
"How do Hispanics pull down the average wage? Unless you just mean like they earn less, but how does that “skew the results”, why shouldn’t we include everyone in the average? "
It shows a flaw in using an average. I am not saying not use them but realize that. Hispanics do work lower paying jobs and an increase in immigration with them will skew the results.
"And if outliers in averages skew my results then they also skew yours."
Actually I use more than averages. To consider outliers we should do t-tests and p-value analysis to see how accurate the number is based on the Gaussian distribution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
StrikeWing17971, when Person A, who is in the 1%, pays more in taxes and 9 people receive something while paying almost nothing in taxes, it is free for them.
To give you numbers, say you have one rich person, and 9 average people and you have a program that cost $10,000 a person, so $100,000. Now that rich person pays $90,000 and the other 9 pay $10,000 combine, but all receive the same benefits. Guess what? It was free for those 9 people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kort2436 , he has worked all his life? Word on the street was that he wasn't a good carpenter. And him being a career politician proves my point. What has he actually done? How many fundraisers has he ran? How many charities has he ran? How many businesses has he ran? When has he actually gone out in public and worked? Ever seen that Family Guy episode where Quagmire rips on Brian? At one point he says "want to help, grab a ladle". That is the issue with Bernie, what has he done besides run his mouth? I, myself, help out in the community a lot. I don't see Bernie doing that.
Albert Einstein being a socialist is irrelevant, he is not an economist nor is he a politician. He was a scientist and did a lot of work there. Noam Chomsky is not an economist nor a politician. He is great in his field but outside of it he is very ignorant. Michael Moore is a trickster. Ever seen the movie "Michael Moore Hates America"? What has Moore done? He made millions off of other people's tragedies but does nothing to help them.
" Clearly, you have no economic or political ideas so turn to personal attacks; "
I do, the fact is that Bernie has done nothing but run his mouth. You point to Chomsky and Moore where they did the exact same thing. What have they actually done? Einstein help shape quantum mechanics. Anyone can run their mouth, talk is cheap. The issue with Bernie and his fans is that they never actually work in the fields they push to change. They want M4A, now how many are training to be doctors and nurses? For as bad as the Koch brothers are they donated to medical research. They did their part. Bernie and his fans push for tuition free college. Now how many are striving to become college professors? I am a graduate student and I offer a lot of my time teaching and tutoring undergraduates. What has Bernie done? I have done actual scientific research to progress us as a society. What has Bernie done? He claims we need to do something about climate change. His ideas are simply tax and spend more while he does nothing. I at least do research and have publications.
And you saying that Noam or Moore are worth millions is irrelevant. You know who else is worth millions? Paris Hilton. Big deal. Again, talk is cheap, I want to see actual action.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" not knowing precicely how RNA folds does not cast any doubt on the theory of evolution."
It does. Even without that there is always doubt in science. As Richard Feynman said, science is a culture of doubt. That is why scientists do research.
"Organism produce offspring with largely similar but somewhat modified genetics, and this is what is relevant to evolution"
That's fine, and I agree, but that is also vague. At that point if you want to admit evolution as a theory is very vague that's fine.
"Don't lazyly throw up "quantum" and "energy", with no context"
I didn't. Also, if you want to sound educated stop using childish criticisms. The reality is evolution is a theory that was designed by a biologist and is, as a whole, vague. Saying certain traits are passed on (there is a lot more to evolution than that, but we will stick to this part) is vague. How are they passed on, and why? Saying something like the dominate specie survives than why doesn't man have 10 arms to increase productivity?
The problem I have here is that so many are treating evolution as gospel and when someone like Pruitt has a legit criticism of it, or even when I do we get treated like witches. You treat science like a religion at that point. The reality is evolution, like everything in science, has shortcomings. If you can't admit it then fine, don't study science but also don't have an opinion on it. Leave science to the scientists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lordmeandor2328 , what about European nations? Also, was China rebuilding? I agree that Russia was, but was China? You also have to understand those were big nations so when they were destroyed how much was actually destroyed? You have to consider that as well.
There is more to the economy than just taxation, that is the issue. What you should also understand is that in the 50s and 60s many of the programs established by FDR were stripped. Also, in the 70s you saw the expansion of the federal government with the creation of the EPA, OSHA, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, the Community Mental Health Act (that was in 1963 but after the 50s) and so on. So there is that as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prophet , it is not centralized to demand completely replacing established systems that work well.
"For government ran healthcare system, I assume you mean government funded of a private service since that is the topic in the States. If that's radical left, why does the Conservative Party of Canada support public funded healthcare? "
For the same reasons why most in the US don't want M4A and every attempt to pass universal healthcare has failed. It is radical to completely dismantle and replace the Canadian system. Instead, they took small steps to approach it, like allowing private programs to exist. There is a desire to improve the US system, but as a whole it is strong in many ways. So we should make minor improvements, not completely tear down and replace.
Problem is that you are so far left that anything slightly to the right to you is center. Asking to completely tear down any system is radical. For example, as a moderate I feel Medicare and SS are unconstitutional. However, I will never push to completely dismantle them as I know people now depend on it. A far right idea is to dismantle them just like a far left idea is to dismantle our current healthcare system and switch to a centralized, government ran system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Its really funny that you assert that the left derives their opinions
from their emotions and the right derives their opinions based on facts
and logic without providing any facts to support your opinion."
I can. I will use healthcare as an example. The political left wants major reform to the point of a universal healthcare system. They do so based on emotions and brings up the fact that people are dying due to lack of access. Now that is a fact, but the reality is that is mainly due to lack of resources that exist in all nations. When the political right talks about healthcare and goes deep into it they acknowledge the deaths, but they do so saying that is due to lack of resources, and no matter what system we have people will die. Also, many on the left bring up the 45,000 stat, but when dug deeper the reality is that those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes did they die due to lack of access of due to being in bad healthcare to begin with.
So the left starts with some facts, but they are shallow. That is where logic and reasoning comes in. The political right, the ones who are intelligent, will dig deeper like I did with that 45,000 number and point out other variables that are involved. They will also point out the deaths in other nations as well with universal healthcare systems. When that is done the political left will, in the end, give appeal to emotion statements of how everyone should be covered. They begin to deny the issues. That is why Bernie Sanders, when pushed in the corner with facts, brings up polls. He is appealing to emotions.
1
-
Tusker Doodle, to give another example consider the min. wage. There is a great video on the min. wage that is an hour and a half long. After a long debate by both sides those on the right show, with numerous evidence, that at best a min. wage increase does nothing positive and actually leads to negative results. The political left will at that point go down the route of pointing to single mothers working multiple jobs which is an appeal to emotion argument.
Take another issue, the gun issue. Right now you are seeing the left parade around young kids and throwing out empty numbers of 96 people dying a day and showing pictures of AR 15s as they are scary. The political right digs deeper and shows that 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, most are by hand guns. Of the 1/3 that are not suicides you have justified killings by cops, in self defense, and gang related issues.
The political left will say that nations, with stricter gun control laws, have lower murder rates. However, they have lower rates in general. For example, the US has a murder rate 5 times higher than the UK. But if you remove all gun murders the US has a murder rate that is still higher than the UK by two times. At that point it is clear that the US is simple a more violent nation which is a not a gun issue. At that point the political left calls you a child murderer and says they only want "common sense" gun laws.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also, your report says this
"Research demonstrates that gaining health insurance improves access to
health care considerably and diminishes the adverse effects of having
been uninsured."
When I read that I say "no shit". However, again, that is empty. At what cost does "covering" everybody come with? As we have seen premiums went up with the passage of the ACA. Also, this goes into a deeper issue of insurance and its role in healthcare. Just providing people with insurance is not a solution and you are forcing them to be charities as opposed to a business.
But again, your study you pointed me to says
" A comprehensive review of research on the effects of the ACA Medicaid
expansion finds that expansion led to positive effects on access to
care, utilization of services, the affordability of care, and financial
security among the low-income population"
Yes, for those groups. However, how did it influence the entire market both short term and long term? Also, there have been counter evidence to that study.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/obamacare-no-lives-saved/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peanutawesome1 , saying 9 of the 10 poorest states are "deep red" is very deceptive. To start, if you factor in cost of living it is more or less a 50/50 split between "red" states and "blue" states for having the highest poverty rates. Also, I put them in quotes because it is, at times, difficult to define if a state is "red" or "blue". For example, many saying Louisiana is a "red" state, but 2/3 of the governors in that state's history were democrat. They have a long history of being, to a degree, "blue".
Really it comes down to culture. There are areas of "deep red" that are very successful. Utah is a "red state" that has had a lot of success. There are areas of "deep blue" that are successful as well. MA is that way. This is why local government is desirable as opposed to centralized government. Even in areas that are considered to be poor their culture does not see it that way.
Point being, your argument is shallow. Come up with better ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peanutawesome1 , what makes you think southern states need progressive policy? You have to understand that is their culture. Good luck changing a culture.
Take education for example. NV is constantly ranked low in education, as an outsider, may say progressive policy is needed to improve. However, the reality is that the culture there does not prioritize education high. When you can make $80,000 a year parking cars in a casino, or six figures working in the mines, or be well off working construction, where is the incentive to become educated? So not many do. MA has typically ranked high in education. That state is home of MIT, Harvard, Boston College, etc. Their culture is well educated and thus prioritize it.
The problem with you, and many on the far left, is that you are on the outside looking and and refuse to try to look at someone's life or situation through their eyes. You sit there are cry "that area is not doing well so I must change it" but refuse to consider that maybe in that person's eyes, or that society's eyes, they are fine. You are acting like an elitist at that point. This is a problem with the far left. They have no desire to actually try to engage in actual conversation with other people and try to understand their situation. You just want to force your way of life on others. And when I give you a counter argument you say I become all "snowflakey". All I am doing is giving you a rebuttals to those stats you gave. The situation is far more complex than what you realize.
This is why I oppose top down centralize government. It is a fascist viewpoint in my opinion. You are acting like a fascist at this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peanutawesome1 , then fine, fix the problem. The far left are one of three things
1. Ignorant
2. Fascist
3. Lazy
To explain
1. They are simply ignorant of the law, the data, the issues, the Constitution, the history, etc. and blindly follow what feels right
2. They are fascist in that they want to enforce their way on others
3. Or they are lazy in which, not to be rude, is you. They refuse to put forth effort to change their area and local community and expect others to do it. They look towards the federal government for help.
Again, push to improve your community. Become involved. I am.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Futa Nari, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia on waiting lists for "elective" surgery. That 45,000 you cite is very deceptive. They are poor and bad health is associated with the poor where there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access to care or due to being in bad health to begin with?
Also, you bring up 45,000, what standard to you have to compare that to? None. So it is an empty number. As for 30 million being uninsured, two points. One, why does insurance equal healthcare? Two, no country covers everyone, period.
Stop with the talking points.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Only when you assume that you have to have a single managing body for the entire thing. Take for example Germany with its 80 mil people. Do you think the german education system is controlled by Berlin? Fuck no. Germany has 16 states, ....."
The US has the same thing where all 50 states run their own education curriculum. This goes against your population argument as even countries with only 80 million are looking to reduce the size to allow for micromanagement.
"Thats just nonsensical blathering. Social democratic systems are designed to lift everybody up to the same level, regardless of the individual positions people are in. Thats the entire point of it."
What level? Based on what? Take poverty for example. CA is not even in the top 10 if you go just of the federal poverty rate. But when you include PPP then it is number 1. Take the min. wage for example, $7.25/hr is a high wage in many parts of the country. Why was it so hard to get 60 senate democrats to pass the ACA? Because across the nation they deal with different issues.
". Like, take a look in detail at Finlands educational system or Germanys healthcare system and say again that they are one size fits all policies or that they are unscalable(population size). "
We have around 30 states with a population larger than Finland. And you just said that Germany has the states run it. I am all for more state rights in the US. I have several reasons why, but one reason is because of a country like Finland. They do many things well, but they have 5 million people. Also, and this is a different topic, but Germany and Finland have issues with their healthcare and education systems as well.
"What is it you think they have in common that Americans don't? Compassion? Solidarity?"
Different experiences. Go to TX and then go to MN. You will see many different cultures. Now live in each area for 10 years, you start to see little differences. I lived in the midwest for years. Now I live out west. There are many differences such as the food they eat, how relationships work out, drinking habits, exercise habits, etc. Little things you would not see unless you really live in those areas and are involved. Education is different. Take NV for example. It is really low on education. However that is mainly because of Vegas. They have a problem with education because people realize you can make $80,000 a year parking cars. Why get educated? That changes their culture drastically.
"Its not ethnic diversity thats prevents social democracy in the US. Its big business and its massive influence on politics and media."
Now you are changing the topic to big business and big government. There is a desire to have government. However, you need to be able to control it. You blame big businesses when in reality they have no power, government does. You need to control government. You do that placing restrictions on it and keeping it as local as possible. That, again, shows the value of population. Think about it, how many members of congress can you vote for? Now how many of your state representatives you can vote for? Keeping government as local as possible ensure it remains the servants and not the masters.
"Healthcare and education are basic needs of everyone. Even the people who don't think they need it, need it."
Healthcare is very, very, very complex. Different places deal with different issues. Many places have strong charities. Many places have different rates of obesity and cancer and AIDS. But again, healthcare is very complex. Other nations who have universal healthcare have many issues.
Education is very vague. Also, education can be a form of indoctrination. That, again, is why it should remain local to ensure the government is not using it as a way to keep people stupid.
But as a whole just saying "healthcare" or "education" is very vague.
"Social democracy is about giving everyone the same opportunities in life"
Again, that's vague. You talk about education and healthcare, every state offers K-12 education. They have that opportunity. If you dig deeper you realize there are many places they probably don't simply due to lack of resources. You can't just snap your fingers and these things appear for all. On healthcare that is vague. So an obese individual should have the same healthcare access as I do?
"You don't really get to reap the benefits of universal healthcare when your closest doctor is a 4 hour drive away and you don't have a car."
So do you want to give them a car or force doctors to live next to them?
"How would population size or diversity lead to problems in a universal healthcare system specifically? How would these factors affect an education system thats modeled after social democratic ideals?"
Different diversities, different cultures, different economies, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Haseeb, "free college" is not free, it will come at a cost of higher taxes and/or lower quality. We lack professors, dorms, TAs, tutors, classrooms, etc. Something has to give. What will give is is the quality as universities will be forced to hire any professor no matter the quality where they would be sticking warm body in front of a class of 500+ students.
Medicare for all is not cheaper, anyone who says it is does not understand economics. We lack doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" 'Republicans do not believe man has a negative effect on the atmosphere and push policies that according to scientific consensus could harm the planet'"
Eh, that is vague. Define "negative". Are are influencing the climate? Yes based purely on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Now how much? You can't say, and you cannot say it is bad based on how little we know.
"I think rising sea levels that will cause diaspora for a multitude of the populace is pretty bad dude"
You may say that, but with production come destruction. We see that in all walks of life. The tractor destroyed many jobs in farming, but increased food production. Was that bad?
"Anyways, do you have a source stating that the scientific conesus on manmade climate change is a hoax,"
I never said man made climate change is a hoax? If you read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" they bring up a lot of great counter points on the issue. Is the book flawed? Yes, but so are all those consensus studies as well. To me with those studies and those books I see a handful of people on the radical ends where most scientists have not taken a radical stance.
"Chomsky even with just his linguistics stuff has had far more of an impact on the intellectual community than Shapiro"
I would agree but mainly due to his age and sticking with academics. Having a strong impact does not mean you are the best source to go to. And example in my field is that every university uses Jackson's E&M graduate level textbook. However, many have said it is not the best book on the market and others are out there. But since the vast majority of universities use it it is influential in the field.
" there's linguisitics classes in colleve named after the man for Christ's sake"
Because that is his field. Shapiro runs a law firm. What's your point? I never took anything away from Chomsky in his field if linguistic. He has impacted in that field. I am saying that outside of his field when he talks about politics and economics is where I am not impressed. Just like how Shapiro runs a law firm, that is his field. My field is physical chemistry. I have papers published there. Chomsky doesn't. So am I better than him? At science I am as that is my field. You are comparing apples and oranges. My issue with Chomsky is that in economics and politics and social issues he is wrong. Or at least I disagree. I never took anything away from his work in linguistic.
" The reason the book went on for so long was to give examples in recent history and throughout the world where the media obfuscating the news in order to make the United States look better. Basically it was to support the hypothesis."
The point was made early on. I got bored easily as it repeated the same thing over and over again on a topic that to me I already knew about. You made your point, move on, that is my opinion.
1
-
1
-
" don't know how specific you want me to be dude, I cant do every single bit of research for you.
Theres this, but the rest you wil need to research on your own."
I have done the research. I work in science for a living. I do not deny the data behind climate change. As for your NASA leak no where are they saying that any of that is bad. They are predicting the effects. Many have happened in the past like droughts. Ever heard of the Dust Bowl? We survived that.
You are making the claim that climate change is bad when no one can make that definitive of a claim. The ecosystem has evolved. So unless you deny evolution you cannot say that climate change is bad.
"I don't think there will be much time for innovation when there is a
migrant crisis of epic proportions occurring. I mean look at the current
European migrant crisis, What will stem from these rising sea levels is
going to be far worse than even that, and tensions are already high
just off of this relatively small migrant crisis. There is no possible
way you can argue for another possible migrant crisis being a good
thing."
We stop immigration. That is a must. That could force them to find a way to develop their own country. Even at that what is going on in Europe is different from the US. The immigration you are concerned about is migration from one area of land to another that is close by. They are not going to go to the US in that case. If they do we adjust. Mankind have been through a lot in the past. We will adjust with the changes. If needed.
"As for Chomsky not being qualified to talk about economics, politics
etc.. I don't necessarily think you need a degree behind your name to
make seemingly correct postulations in a certain field. Chomsky educates
himself in these fields and if you say he's not fit to discuss them
solely due to not having an economics degree etc.. Thats a pretty silly
notion, especially when if you read most of his political works he has
citations for each and every point he makes from people who do have
degrees in the field of the issue he is discussing."
He can have an opinion much like I do. But understand that he does not formally study the field. People like Paul Krugman and Thomas Sowell understand and know economics way more that he does. I have an opinion on economics and can justify it really well. But I will never say I am an expert, nor should Chomsky. Anyone who thinks he is is a fool and Chomsky is being very dishonest by not telling people he isn't an expert. He is fooling people and you seem to be one of them.
He can have an opinion and if he justifies it well with sources and logic I can take it seriously. But in the end he is not an economist. He is not an expert.
"Regarding Manufacturing Consent, so you're really gullible enough to
accept someones hypothesis after its been laid out, without even reading
the evidence for said hypothesis?"
No, I just feel you do not need 400+ pages to do it. PhD thesis are shorter than that with references and figures.
"Anyways, My point in all this is that I don't think when Chomsky posits
that the republican party is gravely dangerous threat, that its all that
farfetched. "
They aren't. He is literally being a radical old fool by saying that. His example is climate change but Chomsky gives zero solution to climate change himself. He is not educated enough to talk about the topic himself, let alone have an opinion. His claim about the republican party has zero justification at that point.
"Regarding Chomsky vs Shapiro, in sorry, but I just can't reconcile
myself with the notion that Shapiro is on par with an intellectual giant
like Chomsky."
He is though. And to be honest so am I. I am a doctorate candidate with published work and Shapiro has published work. I am not a famous as Chomsky and Shapiro is not as well known as Chomsky, but that does not mean we are not on the same level as him. So Chomsky has an opinion outside of his field. Big deal. So do I and Shapiro. I can admit that I am not an expert and I have seen Shapiro admit the does not claim to know everything. That is why I respect him.
On your first video this is one reason why I do not like Chomsky. He has no connection with the common man and society. To me he is a man who spent his entire life reading books and creating an opinion based on zero experience.
Take what he said around 5:20
"Another task is to understand very clearly the nature of power and oppression and terror and destruction in our own society, and that certainly includes the institutions you mention as well as the central institutions of any industrial society namely the economic, commercial and financial institutions, in particular in the coming period the great multi-national corporations......., those are the basic institutions, of, uh, oppression and coercion, and autocratic rule that appear to be neutral....."
I disagree. Corporations are subjected to the market which is why many have failed throughout the years. They are not oppressive as I have never seen a corporation hold a gun to anyone's head forcing them to work there and/or buy their product. Chomsky is making no sense at this point calling corporations oppressive and coercive. He is, in my opinion, spewing crap.
He would end by talking about creativity and freedom to creativity and dignity. The harsh reality is that things have to get done. Someone has to produce and we cannot live a society where people can all be free to just be creative. Or do what he did, read a lot of books and become a professor at MIT. Not everyone can be a professor at MIT.
That video is a great example of a part of my dislike of Chomsky. He has little understanding of society. He is pure ideology. It is easy to form a opinion about it behind a desk, but when you have actually be involved in it and interacted with people your mindset changes. People have to work and at times that are not tapping into their creativity. But we can develop a society where they have free time to do so, and for the most part we do.
For the Ben Shapiro's video, I agree sociology is not an expert field. Anyone can read a sociological study as opposed to a scientific paper written with quantum notation. I read psychological books all the time.
I agree with Shapiro's argument on authority. And I agree on Shapiro's take on you do not need a 7 year degree to know BS when you need it. The person Shapiro is debating there was poor as he kept questioning Shapiro's credential and Shapiro kept trying to push the student to attack the argument. That is something an intellectual will do. They push people. Shapiro was correct in that he read the studies and formed an opinion on them, much like Chomsky read studies and books and formed an opinion on them as well.
Shapiro is correct on the transgender issue. You are either male or female. That is basic biology. Shapiro handled that second individual very well.
1
-
"The appeal to authority fallacy might be a valid argument here, if not
for the fact Chomsky cites almost everything he claims as fact in his
book"
Which is fine. Naomi Klein cited everything in her book "The Shock Doctrine", it still doesn't mean she is correct. I had to read that book for a grad level course and found it to be junk. She cited everything. Someone can cite things and still be wrong.
"Most people who read Chomsky arent just blindly being yes men soley
because hes luminary at MIT. They read him because he is often correct,
as scary as that may be."
Eh, I beg to differ. You seem to blindly follow Chomsky and proof is in that video you gave me. Do you really feel corporations are oppressive and coercive? Again, I never seen a corporation hold a gun to someone's head and forced them to do thing. People here are blindly citing him as an intellectual that cannot be taken on when I just did here, easily in these comments. As a scientist I find his views on climate change to be drastically wrong. And the fact he cannot give a solution but calls a political party in the US destructive is highly asinine.
Others read him for a course they take. They may blindly follow him as well just based on that and not wanting to find other sources.
I am not saying Chomsky in not an intellectual, he is. Shapiro is as well and has shown that several times. Chomsky, like Shapiro, can be wrong and have been. That video you gave me shows that Chomsky is just spewing his ideology. He is saying his opinion which to me is based off of very little evidence. But yet people seem to follow him blindly.
And I will admit, many follow Shapiro blindly as well, and I criticize those individuals as well. But he is an intellectual.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hoosierladyus48 rights are being taken away. Also, as for that person who lost their grandma, how old were they? Around 80% of deaths are of people who are 65 and older. The fact is that more evidence is coming out that this virus is not that dangerous. Also, consider this, in April 24 we saw are highest case number of around 39,000. It has dropped to the lowest recently being around 24,000, less than 50%. With deaths the peak was around the same day with around 2100, now it has dropped around 400 deaths, a close to 80% drop.
The drops in deaths is around twice as fast as the drops of new cases. The idea of the lock downs is to get our healthcare system in a position to give care to those who need it and have others, based on more knowledge, understand how to become well themselves. We are there. Despite these spike in cases deaths are still dropping.
It was never about stopping the spread but about adjusting the healthcare system to reduce deaths.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" If highways are public property, then that means everyone has the right to use them.'
They have that "right" due to the 14th amendment. If the government is going to fund a highway with tax dollars then they have to allow everyone to use it. The highway is not a right, the right becomes freedom from discrimination by the government. Even at that there are many roads that are toll. I paid $5 the other day to take the bay bridge. If I did not have $5 I could not use it, period. So no, you do not have a right to the highway.
"The police department's job is to stop criminals, which keeps the communities safe"
There are many ways to keep the community safe. The police is just one outlet to do it. In other communities they have citizens with guns. In small communities police are not necessary as there is essentially no crime. They elect a county sheriff, but that's it. The idea that you need police to keep the community safe is flawed. In some cases you do, but not universally, which is why that issue is left up to the states and local governments. So you do not have a right to police either. All you have a right to is that no tax funded law enforcement can discriminate.
" The fire department's job is to stop fire, which again, keeps communities safe."
Again, does not have to be provided by government. Many places have private fire departments such as in places in TN. Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer.
You have not rights to these services as in many places they do not exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Jurors also need time to sleep, eat, and keep their sanity. Just because jury duty is mandated by the law does not mean that jurors are literal slaves."
They are given that, but if they refuse to do jury duty they are arrested. In the end someone is holding a gun to their head forcing them to serve on the jury.
"Also, people don't have the right to police protection?"
No they do not.
"What rights do they have, exactly?"
Listed in the Constitution.
"Without legal protection, your right to life, liberty, and property are essentially meaningless."
You see, here is your lack of understanding of what rights are in this country. Rights are there to protect us from the government. They are things the government cannot take away without due process, and during due process we have the right to a jury and representation. You say "life, liberty and property" when those are things people can pursue. You having a right to them means the government cannot take any of those things away without due process.
Look at other rights, you have the right to bear arms but the government does not give you a gun. You have a right to free speech but the government does not give you a TV show. So no, those rights you listed are not meaningless. Government does not give you property, it just cannot take it away without due process. Government does not give you life, it just cannot take it away.
1
-
1
-
Ah, Jonathan, my favorite "doctor" who cannot look up peer reviewed sources related to healthcare. Where I do not study the field at all and I can find sources quickly. Missed you.
"you are saying that because a Physician must go to medical school and learn a wide arrangements of skills(Trust me I know, already did Biochemistry, Immuno, Musculoskeletal, CardioPulm, Renal, and GI all in around 4.5 months) in great depth, that they somehow cannot be compared to other jobs also provided by the government. "
Correct, and that applies in the private sector as well. The complexity of the situation leads to different approaches to the point you can't compare them to other jobs. You cannot compare funding for roads, which can be done with zero federal income taxes, to funding doctors who are much more expensive.
"Understand(and try to read slowly), the act of providing healthcare or a service through the government in no way is held down by the fact that someone needs X amount of years to become A/B/C or D. I have no idea why you think this and why you even think this is a decent argument(because you makes you look like an utter moron). "
I see you still have your childish insults. I find this funny because again, I am the one that actually reads peer reviewed sources. You have never given me one at all. I find peer reviewed sources in your field of healthcare when you find blog sites.
But anyway, you are incorrect. We lack doctors much like we lack professors because they are careers that require a lot of training and few people are willing and/or able to do it. If the government funds it by law it has to provide it to all. You increase demand without increasing supply. Increasing supply of doctors is much more challenging as it does take a lot of training. You increase demand those current doctors will demand a higher price or will lower quality.
With fire fighters we lack them as well, but communities get around that with volunteers. Why? Because you do not need 10+ years of schooling to become a fire fighter. Thus volunteers can do the job. You do not get that with healthcare.
"Even the analogy you said is an utter failure because you don't seem to understand what people are attempting to argue(Again failure in reading comp skills). To make it very simple Lets assume there are 3 services provided by the government Service A: Takes 6 weeks to train/study/etc Service B: Takes 1 year to train/study/etc Service C: Takes 2-4 years to train/study/etc Now someone wants to add service D to the list of services to the government which takes 8 years to train for. Your argument is because they go to school longer, and because they use more complex tools for surgeries(Whether it be cardio, neuro, etc), that they can't be compared to services A,B, or C even though their skill and time has NO merit for arguing for or against government offering the service. "
It does. I will explain again. There is a limited supply of workers who require that 8 years of training. Why? Because
1. The schooling is challenging thus less people do it
2. Those that do it take a long time to train thus you are creating less doctors over a longer period of time
This is basic economics. Compare it to cars. Henry Ford was able to drastically lower the price of the car because he found a way to build more cars in a shorter amount of time increasing supply. With doctors you cannot increase supply fast enough to keep up with demand thus prices will skyrocket. If new law enforcement is needed we can train cops much faster if needed. As I said with fire fighters we have people who volunteer to fill the gaps. Doctors cannot volunteer.
" To simplify, someone needing more training and needing constant update of training doesn't strengthen or weaken an argument for single payer healthcare"
It does because as we have seen in other countries, like the UK where the NHS is suffering, overtime demand starts to outpace supply. Why? Because it takes a long time to train doctors, but producing more human beings does not. Also, since people are living longer you have even more humans needing medical care.
"Furthermore, the point people argue with police officers or any service for that matter is the fact we pay through taxes to get Service A. Service A/B/C....All the way to infinity can be offered through government if taxes are payed in order to supplement the program, the training and the personal to run the program(Whether it be police, teachers, FBI, military or doctors). "
Ok, if you want to make that argument you can. But there is no guarantee that the cops will protect me. You have to admit that. I was going 80 MPH in a 65 MPH zone today. Cops did not catch me. There are unsolved murders in the US. Cops are not solving them. At that point you have to admit that even with cops, teachers, etc. that people are not going to get their services. We have teachers who are terrible at teaching. So that comes down to that even if the government were to provide healthcare it does not mean people will be able to get those services. We lack cops thus there are murders. We lack teachers thus there are kids who do not get a proper education. This is especially the case in Title I schools, people who need it the most.
" Try to read this slowly and actually go to school and attempt to understand a subject because you attempt to argue for a side. "
Again, this is ironic as you pretend to be a doctor but yet I am the one who provides peer reviewed sources. How? Because I am a PhD candidate so I know how to find them. You don't. And being a Medical Doctor is not my field but yet I can find sources in it.
You tell me to go to school when I can find actual resources and I have shown I understand basic economics. You feel we can just increase demand for healthcare with limited doctors and feel training time is not an issue, it is. Or maybe we can just let doctors volunteer like we do with fire fighters. Is that a solution you support?
"Which is even sadder because he is a moron that can't even understand simple scientific literature. "
You have never posted any link at all in our many discussion from any scientific source. Why do you keep coming here?
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, the "CommonWeathFund" is not peer reviewed. I debunked that article constantly. On your first link I applaud you, you found a peer reviewed article. Here
"Our results suggest that cancer care in the United States did not always avert deaths compared to Western Europe, and when it did avert deaths, it often did so at substantial costs".
A few things there. One, they said "not always" meaning that there are times it did. Thus, the US is no par, at best, with the rest of the world. Europe is not doing any better. In some cases Europe is doing better, in some cases the US is doing better, which is what I have been telling you all along. Next, it said when it did it came at a cost which means the more expensive something is the better the quality. That is not surprising.
So thanks for giving me that. It supports what I have been saying to you all along.
"The commonwealth study is peer reviewed "
The first link only brings up the CommonWealthFund (CWF) here
"A notable exception is the Commonwealth Fund, which reports health care systems performance and offers international comparisons for some indicators."
Where does it say it is peer reviewed? Also, I am talking about the ranking you always post which is not peer reviewed and has been debunked many times. For example, they never list clear standards and methods. Where it says "peer reviewed" is in your second link where it is expected when they publish in journals. But again, I am talking about that ranking where they rank the US last, it is not peer reviewed.
And again, you are so easy to trust the CWF but never that book I give you.
"WHO Peer reviewed"
The WHO, like the CWF, does released peer reviewed work as well. I am talking about that ranking again that
1. was criticized so bad that it has not released another one in almost 20 years
2. did not have any authors names attached to i
3. had vague methods
As for that link, it was not peer reviewed as it is not in any journal. Do you even know what "peer reviewed" means?
So out of your first 4 links you have only given me 2 peer reviewed sources where one agrees with me and another does not support anything you said.
Moving on (this is fun, I am glad you are back)
"I have multiple resources(3 above all peer reviewed). "
You gave two, one of which supported me in the end.
What is your point of your next sources? That you can look up random sources? You are not even staying on topic. The discussion we are having is that is about healthcare systems, the benefits and shortcomings of them, etc. You post some random papers about some diseases that are not related to this topic. Why? Anyone can do that. The sources I post are actually relevant.
"You need actual login from hospitals or medical schools to see different
symptoms you could input, areas of infection, age, weight, etc.
Something again you know little about. But don't worry, I'm sure you'll
come back posting a paper possibly from louder with crowder with
information you do not even understand. "
I actually never posted a paper from "Louder with Crowder" in any of these comments. Do you even read my comments? And as you can tell I do have access to those papers as I quoted two of them. Also, when you look at NCBI typically you do not need any login information. A lot of content from NCBI is open access. The allow individuals to read papers from other journals. For example, the one about pyloric gland was open access as it gave me the whole article. The one about laparoscopic isn't as it did not give me the whole article. However, it gives me the journal and DOI. So I went to that. And in the rare case where you cannot access it you can request it from the library. An example for me is when I wanted a paper by Kubo that dealt with line shaping. I could not access it through WebOfScience so I requested it through my university library and was able to get it.
You apparently do not know what the NCBI is as you just randomly search things on google.
"You cannot compare the costs because they would be drastically different
depending on how many doctors, what kinds of roads, etc. What you can
do however is compare paying both services by taxes which is the point of the argument which you don't understand.
"
It isn't as easy as "paying with taxes" as you can pay in other ways as well. To start, roads are locally funded for the most part. In many areas they simply do not repair roads as the money and resources are not there. People just have to drive around the potholes. When it snows people have to drive on the ice slowly. In rural areas volunteers plow the roads or use 4 wheel drive pickups. Is that how you want healthcare to be ran? If you are deadly sick you just have to deal with it due to limited resources? I can manage driving around potholes, but if I am sick or hurt I want care quickly so i can get back on my feet quickly. A researcher found that when people wait too long it does more damage
“Incapacity for work in elective orthopaedic surgery: a
study of occurrence and the probability of returning to work after treatment.” J Epidemiol Community Health
Is that the healthcare system you want? When it become bogged down with patients and we lack resources do you want people just to deal with it like we do potholes? Even at that roads is not a dynamic thing. You can only build a road so many ways. Healthcare is evolving as diseases are evolving. You just cited a paper about a new disease. Think about this. It isn't as easy as "fund it with taxes".
"Again this has NOTHING to do with government being able to provide the
service. The fact that it takes less time to be a fire fighter has
nothing to do with providing a physician through the correct allotted
times. "
Yes it does because we fill in the gap of lack of fire fighters and methods to pay for them by using volunteers. Do you want doctors to volunteer?
"The length it takes to become a physician has nothing to do with being provided by the government,"
Yes it does as you are increasing the demand and lowering the incentive to become a doctor. We have volunteer fire fighters as the government cannot afford them. Why become a doctor when you have to take a pay cut to the point of volunteering? Teachers also volunteer a lot of their time as well.
" There is a massive doctor shortage here in this US which is why my
school and many others are attempting to get more people into primary
care where there is a massive shortage all over the country."
Almost all med schools has less than a 50% acceptance rate. They are not doing it very well.
"This is because private or public, there is a shortage because the rate
at which doctors are being produced, either here or in the UK which take
the same amount of time = 4 years in school with 2 in classes and 2 in
rotation + residency(also may vary dependent on specialty) can't keep up
with population."
There are arguments to be made in those 2 extra years. Being a doctor is more than just knowing medicine. You have to be well rounded. You have to be able to interact with a general population that is not well educated and have to be able to communicate. You can gain that knowledge with those 2 extra years. Working with med students, nursing students, and considering pharmacy school at one point they all tell me the same thing. You need social skills. It takes more than just knowledge, you have to understand how to act around people.
I told a pharmacist that I officiated lacrosse and asked if that can help me get into pharmacy school if I wanted. He said not only will it help, but that I should keep doing it as the medical field wants people who can interact with people. So telling people to cut school short is not always the best solution. Just reading up on medicine and nothing else leads to poor doctors in many ways.
"Again you keep posing this argument but it holds no water because it
isn't occurring faster at the private level. We are at a massive
shortage of doctors and in proportion to population, have far less in
supply compared to other nations which fund them publicly. "
I would not say much less. 2.6 compared to 2.8 in the UK, 3.2 in France, not much of a difference. But let us look at countries with 100+ million people. We are beating all of them. Japan has 2.2 per 1,000. I see a trend here. Countries with smaller populations have a higher rate. I know it is "per capita", but you also have to consider population size as well. If you have a place with 100 people and 2 doctors that can care for them all, and another place with 1,000 people and 3 doctors that can care for them all, the first place has more doctors per capita, but the second place is doing fine.
This comes back to the idea of comparing the US to countries of much smaller size. You it makes it very challenging. I do not deny the numbers. I am saying there is a lot more to it. Also, there is a culture issue as well. Doctors in the US are paid much more than in other countries. Are doctors going to take a pay cut in the US? And what is the standard of becoming a doctor in those countries? If you lower the standard is that really good?
1
-
part 2
"We are also suffering, I have no idea how you think this is a point in the US favor. "
I agree that we have issues, I never said we weren't. But the reasons why are because of the federal government. Adding more federal government is not the solution. To me it is remove the payroll tax so businesses pay with a wage as opposed to insurance. Allow consumers to pick their own plan and not be tied to their job for insurance. Have insurance be insurance and not healthcare, and give states responsibilities for any reform.
"We offer care to less people,"
Nope, we offer just as much as every other country. As I showed you in the past, no country covers everyone.
"This is true for anything, government or private. Soldiers might not
protect me, firefighters may not stop fires, UPS may stop delivering
packages to me. Again these arguments can be immediately broken down to
useless because this is true about everything."
Which is fine. The point is that you and others say that going to single payer will solve our problems and everyone will get care. That is not true. You have to admit that.
"All you are really doing is saying that the government could become evil
and then everyone could technically stop doing their job. However this
is true about the private sector and actually has merit for the issues
in our healthcare system.
"
The government can become inefficient and lower quality. With no competition why should it give out high quality care? In the private sector if people stopped working someone will take their place. There is a much greater chance of the government stopping than the private sector. Remember, the post office does not work on Sundays.
"Again your arguments are either vague, incorrect or just useless for the argument you have"
Actually yours are. You are not understanding the points.
"I don't think you understand the argument being posed because you keep saying idiotic comments like this. "
That is a vague argument. What is wrong with what I said?
1
-
Jonathan, you are not understanding my points which is why I am being honest when I say you are not going to be a very good doctor. To start, out of hundreds of doctors, nurses, med students and nursing students I met, you are the first to support single payer healthcare. Are there more? Sure. But you are the first I have ever met (again, if you are a doctor) to support it.
Next, my point is not that the US has a superior system. My point is that, as a whole, the US system in on par with the rest of the world, and nothing indicates that single payer is better. You have not given me anything that says single payer is. You gave me the WHO ranking which I told you why that does not work, and the CWF which gave a ranking that was not peer reviewed. I gave you a book where two professors ran through the numbers and showed that you can do legit statistical regression models and come up with any ranking you want. You can make a ranking that will make the US to be number 1 in healthcare. Is that true? No, as there are too many variables involved.
I am all for healthcare reform, but to blindly support single payer as it is a broad solution to a complex issue in a country of 320+ million people is a highly ignorant thing to do. If you were going to be a doctor you need to understand that. That is why very worker in the medical field does not support single payer. They may support healthcare reform, but not going to a federal single payer system.
Really, you call me moronic but you are saying "going to a federal single payer system in a nation of 320+ million people will work, it works in nations of only a few million, derp".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That doesn't compare. No one is forcing anyone to be a doctor and a doctor is able to quit his job if he so chooses."
Yes, because healthcare is not a right. That is the difference. You have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers. That is why they force people to do jury duty. You DO NOT have a right to healthcare, which is why they DO NOT force doctors to work.
"That matters little, these countries have recognized these things as "rights" because they realize how important they are."
It is important because schematics get argued like this in court all the time. If you want to define healthcare as a "right" you are saying that doctors have to serve you and the government will make them by force, similar to jury duty.
"Except they are. Who's left out in Canada or the UK? "
Lots of people, that is why they have long waiting times and people have died waiting for care in those countries. If you want to say "everyone is covered" on the standard that everyone can eventually get healthcare, then sure, everyone is covered on paper. But that is a low standard to set. They are not covered on the fact that there are limited resources and people have died in those countries on waiting lists.
Compare it to K-12 education in the US. On paper everyone has access to it. However in many schools they do not offer AP courses, or physics, or multiple language courses. Why? Because they do not have the resources. There are small towns in my county that do not offer physics. But those students, no paper, have "access" to a K-12 education system.
When you lower down the standard the sure, you can easily say everyone is covered. I can say that in the US as the ER cannot deny care.
"Medicare covers everyone at and over 65 currently and is guaranteed"
Actually not true as many doctors do not take Medicare.
"no doctors are being forced out of their homes,"
Again, HEALTHCARE IS NOT A RIGHT, that is why they are not being forced. What is a right? Jury duty, so people are forced to do jury duty. Do you see the difference?
"and there's no reason to believe it would happen if the medicare age was down to 0. You're not convincing anyone here."
Again, many doctors do not take medicare. So there is every reason to believe that number will not be zero. And again, in other countries people are not covered.
I am not convincing anyone because people have this firmly held religious like belief in something that no matter what you tell them they will not change their mind. A little clue for you, this is why Trump is president, people got sick of the myopic political left.
1
-
"The Framers borrowed the the notion of rights from philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in particular, from whom the term "natural rights" was sourced. Locke believed that the role of government was to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens, which could not effectively be protected by an individual in nature without perpetually living in a state of war."
Not true. They did support the natural rights, but thus supported that the government could not take them away without due process. It wasn't about the government "protecting" life and property because in reality in order to do that you have to threaten and ultimately take away someone's life in doing so. If someone tries to steal your property the government, in order to stop them, must threaten their life to the degree of taking it. So they are taking life in order to protect property.
Those rights are things the government cannot take away without due process. This is understood in law which is why you have a right to property, but the government does not give you a home. You have a right to bear arms, the government does not give you a gun.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed " -Declaration of Independence "
Yes, secure those rights from government. That is why it says "Governments are instituted among Men". There are two points there. One, the government is made up of men (humans) who are naturally flawed and can become oppressive. Two, the government is made up of the people and thus the government is there to serve the people, not enslave them or oppress them. Thus those rights are protected from government. That is why it says "secure these rights". That means that those rights cannot be taken away from government. Even at that nowhere does it say healthcare is a right.
Now there is more
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
That is also in the DOI. As you read the DOI it too was laid out on the idea of limiting government.
"Thus, Jefferson did not merely state that governments must not infringe upon these rights, but that they are created to secure these rights. Obviously, it makes no sense to say, "Government is created to prevent government from taking away peoples' rights". "
It makes perfect sense. Why? Because if you read the Constitution and the DOI they were against an oppressive government. They wanted people to be free and have liberty thus they wanted a limited government. This is something most scholars, lawyers and judges will agree to. Government has a role in society, but it must not take away natural rights when it serves the people. That is what the Constitution and DOI was aiming for.
There is a desire to have government and the founding fathers just fought a war against an oppressive government. By your logic it would make more sense to write the DOI to eliminate government, have not government at all. However that is not how it was done. What was done was pushing for a government but a limited one, one the people can control, one the people are free from and thus does not depend on. A government the people do not have to be afraid of thus a government that does not arbitrarily take away life and property.
"By your logic, a nonexistent government would satisfy all the terms of the Constitution"
And you can argue that, except I am going with what is written in the Constitution (law of the land) and DOI. The idea is to have government but limit it. By your logic the government should provide me with a home, with and advanced security system, and armored vehicles so I can get to work safely even if I am in an accident. By your standards the government should give me a gun and my own TV show. By your standard the government should be giving me free food so I can have life.
Now you may say the government can never guarantee you life and property, and I will agree. However, that comes down to the argument of what is the best route to where the most people can have those things? Is it provided by the government or not? Thus it comes down to the idea the government is simply doing its job if it allows the free market to work.
But one thing is clear, the DOI is not written to guarantee healthcare to the people.
"But clearly, the Constitution was created due to the fact that the Articles of Confederation did not give the government enough power to secure the rights of the many peoples in the different states."
The Constitution was written, again, to limit government. The AoC allowed for state rights but did not limit governments. Thus states did what they pleased. The Constitution placed restrictions on the states.
"The government can't take away your health care without due process either. "
Yes, and I agree 100%. Now you are finally getting it. The government take it away. It limits governments.
"So by your own (useless) definition of rights, health care is a right."
By definition is not useless as many lawyers and scholars will agree with it. Ted Cruz in his debate against Bernie Sanders laid out the same definition. Ted Cruz is an actual lawyer. Take off your bias blinders and realize that is what is taught in law school.
You say "healthcare is a right". You are wrong as that is not written anywhere in the Constitution or DOI. What is a right is the right to pursue happiness. A part of that is pursuing healthcare. You have a right to healthcare, but you do not have a right to someone's property and/or service. That last part is written in the Constitution in the 13th amendment and the 5th.
Thus, you are a right to pursue healthcare, but you do not have a right to force others to serve you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheLokiToki,
1. Wealth is assets and income, not just income. As I said, I can be in the 1% in wealth if you simply give my the Hope Diamond. But my income will still be very low. There are people with a lot of wealth because they own a lot of businesses that are valued very high. The average home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to now wealth. And as I said before many have negative wealth due to loans.
" i'm not interested in the semantics of this conversation."
This is crucial though.
"Do you really think that people taking out loans is the major reason we have wealth inequality?"
It is a major part of it. I have negative wealth. The Walton Family owns half of Walmart, that is massive wealth inequality. However, if you were to take a Walmart, as in one store and give it to some random person than that building and land will lose value as chances are high that person cannot maintain the store's value due to lack of business skills. That also contributes to wealth inequality.
Another example is that if you were to give a home to two people where both homes are valued the same within a short amount of time both homes will be valued less. One person may take care of the home, invest in it, etc. The other might now allowing it to be worn. That also creates wealth inequality. Some people just don't know how to develop wealth.
"though even factoring in the average students loans after college, which is like $38,000 "
What is the overall student loan debt?
" Redistribution is key there, you should understand it before you discuss economics."
Says the guy that doesn't understand what wealth is.
2. I do see adults working at Wendy's. What is your point? They are alive.
"Also as a fun fact the average age of a fast food worker is something like 29 or 30. "
What is the average of these three numbers? 16, 21, 58. There are many old people who retire and decide to work fast food. That skews the average. But anyway, the fact they can work there and still live shows the success of this country. Go there and also look at how over weight some of them are.
3. While we are capitalist we still have many government regulations a the federal level creating problems. And they are growing. After WWII federal government spending was 14% of GDP, now it is 20%. Defense spending was 10% of GDP in 1960, now it is 3%. The government of cutting defense spending and increasing overall spending that left wants is happening. Programs that the federal government is highly involved in, housing (the FHA), college (student loans), and healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, payroll tax and around $1 trillion spent) have been increasing in price by a lot.
As for avoiding taxes, there are deductions you can use. I use them all the time as I know tax laws. It just doesn't favor the rich. Also, the top 10% earn 40% of the income but pay 70% of federal income taxes. They pay more than you I promise you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh, that 45,000 number. Now this gets good.
To start, on people dying in Canada for "elective" heart surgery, read the paper entitled
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" in the journal Can J Cardiol. That is just for one type of care. People do die in Canada waiting for "elective" care.
On that 45,000, there are several shortcomings to that number. To start, it is hard to obtain accurate numbers in an issue like that. As prof Katherine Baicker said, bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Next, read the study entitled
"The Oregon Experiment-Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes"
When people were given Medicaid and compared to those that weren't, there wasn't improvement on physical health. A lot of those 45,000 deaths are arguably from poor lifestyle choices and not due to lack of access.
Finally, as I showed you people die in Canada, and all nations, due to shortcomings in healthcare systems. What do you have to compare that 45,000 number to? Nothing. So you can't say if that number is high, low, or the norm.
You bring up anecdotal, I received an MRI, waited 2 days to get it and paid nothing. What's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrSlutzkin , I read the report. It starts on 108 and ends around 121 where they say "fair levels of support" on page 120. They don't get into details on the issues. They just assume people will be willing to be retrained and move. They assumed it would cost $10,000 a person to be relocated, a number they give no sources in how they came up with it.
In that study they ignore the human element of the issue. They assume people will have no problem quitting a job they enjoy and moving from a place they live at. They don't factor in how situations such as how divorce rates are higher for the unemployed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12179707
Now a lot of that is due to income, intelligence and responsibilities. But there is a factor of when people don't get time away from each other they get annoyed and end up getting divorce. Same in how retirement increases the chance of divorce
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlaura/2013/01/24/can-your-marriage-survive-retirement/#66103f877d63
"These days it’s common to see couples divorcing later in life, particularly during retirement. “Jobs can mask the quality of your relationship since you spend 10-12 hours away from each other, but now you’re faced with each other full time and you may find your interests aren’t as compatible as they once were,” says Pascale"
Factors like that are ignored. This is a major problem with the left when it comes to this issue, the completely ignored the human element of it.
Also, they are ignoring the inflation impact of their program. They will be giving money to people who produce nothing. That causes inflation. When you give money away you devalue the dollar which causes prices to go up. And if inflation does go up are they going to factor that in for the "wage guarantee"? If wages go up 3 or 4 percent throughout the year, are they going to raise wages for those displaced workers?
As for being peer reviewed, hand picking your reviewers is not sufficient. If I wrote a paper and asked my lab mate to review it that is not peer reviewed.
But tell me, how does that study factor in the issues I brought up?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prophet "If Bernie praising some things about the Soviet Union, Castro, and Ortega is evidence for him wanting a command economy, does that mean Trump is also for a command economy since he praised Kim Jong un?
"
When did he praise Kim Jong un? Also, his praise of those nations is that he claims the US lied about the state of those nations where in reality they are doing well. Now that and his praise of Castro's and Ortega's revolutions and he is pushing a revolution himself, how else should I think?
"You stating more private sectors will be overtaken leading to a command economy under Bernie's plan is just speculation. Would you have made that speculation for FDR's New Deal? "
Yes.
" How about the Iraq invasion for starters"
Which was popular at the time it happened. Isn't the Bernie crowd supposed to be about doing what the people want? Despite that, what do you want, isolation? Not saying I support the war but every developed nation has troops in other nations. Denmark help the US in the Iraq war. Also, I never fully support the US foreign affairs. However, you bringing them up has nothing to do if Bernie is a communist or not, or if Bernie ideas are far left. You are deflecting.
" Provide some political ideologies that is based on far left economics"
Again, pushing to completely dismantle function systems and replacing them with a left wing idea is radical. It is not different than if people on the right push to completely end Medicare in a short amount of time. That would be a radical right wing idea. Hundreds of millions of people rely on the current healthcare system and many enjoy it. Pushing to completely dismantle it and replace it with a one payer system is radical. Again, it is similar to taking your car with a broken headlight and buying a new one instead of fixing the headlight.
How is this so hard to understand?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RCaugh , food is cheap. There are plenty of cheap options. I never said medicine was cheap. I never said cancer treatment is cheap. However, we have the highest cancer survival rates in the world. Sure, it is "free" in other nations when you die.
Do you know how that healthcare ranking was developed? I doubt it. It was made nearly 20 years ago and was criticized so much they did not create another one again . As prof. Robert Ohsfeldt said, healthcare rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and come up with any ranking they want. That is why no academic sources have ever created a ranking, special interest groups do.
On infant mortality, we lead the world in obesity rates which is due to, arguably, poor life styles. A Stanford study showed that obesity is linked to premature births which increases the chance of infant mortality. Now consider that obesity is higher for those in poverty, and pregnancies, especially unwanted pregnancies are higher for those in poverty, you have a major outlier dragging our numbers down.
You say I don't have a leg to stand on when I just cited a study and an expert. Again, if you have an actual discussion with me on healthcare you would be greatly surprise. You are doing what most far leftists do, give some data point and run with it on just emotions, not logic.
1
-
1
-
@RCaugh , don't buy organic.
Other nations do have other factors at play. That is what this makes this topic so difficult. When you compare the US system to other systems you will see man benefits and disadvantages of all systems. The US does many things very well but have many shortcomings. So do other systems. So it comes down to what each nation, and ultimately culture, accepts.
"They are measuring HEALTHCARE OUTCOMES not diet"
Diet and lifestyle choices play a very important role in healthcare outcomes. If someone eats a ton of sugar and gets diabetes that is not because of a healthcare system. If that same person dies because of heart problems that is not because of a healthcare system but because of a poor diet.
Medicare errors happen in all nations. Problem with medical errors is how they are report. In the US we have a tort system where malpractice lawsuits occur a lot, thus medical errors are reported more in the US, doesn't mean they occur more. It is why doctors pay malpractice insurance in the US.
"ALL the other countries on the planet don’t have neonatal variables of poverty and unwanted pregnancies, etc?"
Maybe, what is the rate? This is where we dig deeper and start asking more difficult questions.
But I come back to the culture. The US culture has high expectations for healthcare. We, compared to other nations, receive more care. We have higher access to advanced care/testing and thus have higher survival rates of advanced illnesses. But should we be doing that? People with advanced illnesses have a very high chance of dying. As written in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will live only 5 or 10 months. With that said in the US we still push to keep very sick and very old people alive as long as possible. Other nations just drug them up and let them die.
This is the difficult issue the far left does not want to talk about. Healthcare is very complex and involves life and death situations. If we go to a M4A system sure, it may cost less, sure, certain people will have coverage that didn't in the past, sure positive things will occur. But there will be drawbacks. Will our culture accept those drawbacks? I doubt it. That is what makes healthcare reform so difficult.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattrogers6107 Bernie is a communist. He wants a centralized, planned economy like what was done in the Soviet Union.
Polls are unreliable as they are vague questions on complex issues being asked no non experts. If M4A is so popular why did 80% of voters in Colorado voted against it?
In the primary exist polling it showed a few things. One, it showed that many did not even know what Bernie's M4A plan is. They assumed it was a public option. That is further supported by the fact that the questions asking about public option received a lot of support, and the questions asking if they would support a M4A system if it took away private insurance and most said no. Again, these are dem voters.
But again, the polls you are point to are flawed. They are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. Also, people here on the left say an idea is popular but people will vote against it because the media has lied to them. Well, the the people are that easily malleable to have their minds change on a policy it really begs the question if it is really that popular.
"Oh wait, no, it’s whiny cunts and hairdressers. Stop attacking your government from the wrong side of the issue, it helps no one,"
Uh, so bow down to the government without question. Are the on the wrong side of the issue? I feel they aren't. We are on the path where the bad economy is now worse than this virus. More information is out on the virus that it is not that deadly. People die for millions of reasons every day, this virus made it a million and one. Meanwhile we have record high unemployment, domestic abuse is up, depression is up, substance abuse is up, and for what? So 80 year old grandma does not get the virus?
Meanwhile, you have the mayor of Chicago getting her hair done. The mayor of NYC going to the gym but telling people they cannot practice their first amendment right. In Dallas they released prisoners from jail but sent a hair salon owner to jail for wanting to feed her kids.
You are a sad person when you are so willing to let the government trample on your rights. You are a communist.
"As I keep having to point out to you dummies, they’re trying to starve you out, they want the people so desperate that, even if the virus starts hitting new peaks, they’ll be begging to be allowed outside to make money. "
No, it is a few things. One, people want to chase their dreams and live life. That Dallas hair salon owner owns that place. Her workers are independent contractors. They do not work for her, they work for themselves. You really need to understand how economics work. You have many "greedy" small business owners who, instead of taking the loan to pay their employees instead fired them as the employees would have made more on unemployment.
Next, we need to get the economy going again. You cannot print food. We have a meat shortage. We have a shortage in TP. Oil is at negative prices. You can give people all the money you want but if there is no productivity it does not matter as there is nothing to buy.
You guys are really economic illiterates. There is way more to the economy than just money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lynnpabontheelitehero6579 people die for many reasons. We have learned that this virus is not as deadly as we thought. We have caught up with open hospital beds. Also, most of the people dying are the elderly, the over 50 crowd who are a high risk of dying to begin with. How many people are going to suffer because of the bad economy?
That is the issue we are at now. We have to decide what will cause more damage, the virus or the bad economy. People cannot pay bills, rent, etc. Businesses are going under. Eventually the bad economy will be more harmful.
Reality is that we make decisions like this all the time in our society, we just don't know it. For example, 40,000 people die a year in traffic accidents. What will make that number to be zero will be to ban driving. Is that a solution? No. Us as society accept 40,000 a year dying so we can drive. The same is with this virus now. Sure people will die, but a strong economy is worth it.
1
-
@MrTalithan an economy that tanks too much will take a long time to recover leading to high level of stress, depression, businesses going under, etc. And again, the vast majority who are dying are near death to begin with. It comes down to the point that we have to consider what will do less harm.
Where do you get the 2% from?
But anyway, we make decisions like this all the time in life without knowing it. For example, 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. What will make that number to be zero? Ban driving. But that will do major harm to the economy and society. Thus us, as a society, accept 40,000 deaths a year to drive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fgsaramago , there is an arguments to be made there. But again consider how we lead the world in survival rates of advanced illnesses.
Here is where the difficult issues the far left refuses to talk about comes in. In the UK a few years ago a girl saw over 10 doctors complaining about headaches. They said they were migraines. After many months and many doctor visits they scheduled an MRI which she had to wait 4 months. They found a tumor where if they would have found it sooner she would have lived. But, like all other universal healthcare systems, they denied her that care. In the US she would have been offered the MRI if not the first visit but the second and she would be alive.
Here is where the difficult questions come in that far leftists like yourself refuse to die. Do we offer advanced testing like that playing the "better safe than sorry" card or do we deny them knowing that, statistically, chances are the case is not severe? Chances were it was just migraines. In this case it wasn't and she died. But the trade off is that we deny the care knowing that, statistically, she will be fine and save money and resources.
Consider the very sick and elderly. Other nations just drug them up so they die pain free. In the US we push to keep people alive as long as possible. But should we? In the book "Being Mortal" he writes that people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. In other nations they just let them die. In the US we push to keep them alive. But should we? I have seen this first hand. I just had a friend die of cancer. When I heard he had it, me being the highly objective person I am knew he did not have long to live. But they still gave him a lot of care. In his final days he was on a feeding tube and a wheelchair. He died 3 months after the diagnoses.
Or when my grandma died. She was in and out of hospitals. She could not make it to the bathroom. I knew her time was up but the rest of the family wanted to keep her alive.
You see, our culture is different. You far leftists don't realize that. Sure, under M4A we will spend less, but now we have to go up to people like my grandma and her family, or my friend and his family and instead of offering them a lot of care we say "well, we can't offer that, it is time for you love one to go". But here is the bigger issue, it won't be people like you making those decisions and comments so you don't care.
I recommend you study up on the issue of healthcare more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JeremiahGR , some of your concerns with Bernie are my issues with him and his fans. While I feel his policies are not the best, I am willing to admit they could be. The problem with Bernie and his fans is that they don't look at the pros and cons of his ideas. They only look at the potential goods and if you bring up some negative parts of them they dismiss them. Bernie fans don't understand the complexity of his ideas. An easy example I give is tuition free college and the NCAA. I ask that because the NCAA separates their divisions based on scholarship limits and use it to level the playing field. With tuition free college that goes away. So how should the NCAA adjust? Basically his fans say they don't care. It is like what Hickenlooper said, Bernie wants to throw out a plan and have everyone else pick up the pieces.
Another comparison is how Bernie treated that hair saloon owner from TX during the debate with Cruz. She asked how can she expand her business and afford healthcare to her employees. Bernie said he did not know but she will have to do it. He had no desire to understand her profit margins, how many full time to part time employees she has, how many long term to short term employees she had, compare it to competitors, etc. Bernie voted for Obamacare but did not care to take the time to see how it will harm certain people Sure, Obamacare had some positives to it, but it will harm others. Bernie and his fans literally don't care about the people it harm.
That is a very dangerous approach which is why Bernie should not be president. Overall, during the debates people will see that in Bernie and he will lose big time to Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Most single-payer systems allow that."
Ok, now what is going to stop them from raising prices?
"Primarily by urgency of need, "
How do you determine that without testing first? Many cases you do not know until you are tested.
"Healthcare is a scarce resource everywhere."
I agree, but throughout history what produced the most was a capitalistic society, not a socialist one.
"You say that, yet dozens of nations' healthcare systems are ranked overall higher than the US."
That is simply not true. Every ranking is arbitrary where they do not even give out their methods as they are hiding things. The one that do are methods that are vague. Two professors ran through the numbers and showed that not country does better than the US. At that point any ranking is arbitrary, like university rankings.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
"Medical research in the US is funded primarily by public grants and charity."
Yes, charities from rich people like the Koch brothers. Also, a lot of public funds goes to basic research as in minor projects. After information is published private companies take it and expand on it. For example, while the government invented the internet the private sector made it strong with Youtube, Amazon, Google, etc. Same with healthcare research.
"As it happens there's only a dozen countries that even have over 100
million inhabitants, and only 3 of them (the US, Japan, and Russia) are
industrialized. Japan of course is single-payer and ranked higher than
the US, though you corporatists can feel free to pat yourselves on the
back for beating Russia."
Again, rankings are arbitrary. I just showed you how Japan is having problems as well. Also, Japan's success is from a culture of working hard. They, however, also have a high suicide rate. Also, yes, only three countries are industrialized. So again, name me one country with a population of over 100+ million people that has a strong economy and a strong healthcare system with single payer. You can't. If you want to compare the US to other countries compare it to one of equal size.
" I do wonder why you might imagine single-payer works very well in
Denmark and the UK (~11 times as populous as Denmark) but it won't work
in the US (~5 times as populous as the UK). What mechanism do suppose
puts a ceiling on it's scalability?"
I told you with micromanaging. Also, less diversity. With a larger population you have more diversity. Meeting a guy from Denmark the other day he said Denmark has a very homogeneous population. That is due to the small size. In the US we are essentially 50 countries in one. Every state has their different cultures, different economies, different challenges, etc. Travel the US and you will see. You are making the false assumption that everyone is the same thus a one size fits all policy is all you need. That is not true. What makes you think that everyone is the same across the US? Even with all of those countries you point at, they all run their own systems that differ in many ways.
"Oh, you knew about Japan? Of course they have problems, everyone has
problems. It so happens that their healthcare system has fewer problems
than the US, "
Again, with the numbers nothing suggests that is true.
"Education is a scarce resource everywhere."
Yes, but again, capitalism is the system that produces the most.
"Good for those who can afford it. Putting aside anecdotes about single
individuals I wonder how upward mobility compares between the US and
Germany "
What? Besides you again stating a false claim, college is very affordable in the US. Even after the federal government subsidizing it which lead to higher tuition, it is affordable. People qualify for loans. There are cheap options. My college as an undergrad was $10,000 a year. JC's and CC's are cheaper. And when you earn the right degree the payoff is great.
"Because being by far the most populous industrialized nation in the
world gives us the largest capacity for higher education and our
immigration authorities are rather generous with student visas?"
It is based on percent. We have the highest percent of international students.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I'll refer you to the previous times I've answered that question."
You have not answered the question. You said that the government sets the price so doctors have to take it or leave it. So what will prevent doctors from saying no to new patients? Something has to give. Either doctors do not pick up more patients, or you pay them more, or you force them to work more for less? In the third case people will refuse to be doctors. So what gives? You feel that magically doctors will just be willing to take what the government gives them when they won't.
"Thus the importance of preventative medicine, which is often
disincentivized in non-single-payer systems particularly among the
uninsured and underinsured."
In "preventative medicine" you still have to get checked up which again, requires doctors. So in the three situations I gave you you either have
1. Doctors refusing to pick up new patients so they don't get care
2. Higher prices
3. Forcing doctors to work more for less
You have to check up on these people with a doctor. Also, preventative medicine does not always work. Many times issues just come.
"Concrete numbers then? How about Health Expenditure per capita? I
think we can agree that generally lower is better, of OECD countries the
US is ranked last (35th)."
You clearly did not read the book I linked you. Yes, we spend a lot on healthcare, but that is why we have high quality. We lead the way in research and innovation in healthcare for a reason. We also so more tests compared to other countries. You get what you pay for in other countries and that is low quality.
"Life expectancy at birth (both sexes)? Higher is better right? US is ranked 31st."
Several factors influence life expectancy. As that book shows if you remove murders and car accidents, things not strongly connected to healthcare, the US is number 1 in life expectancy.
Now that is not to say that the US has the best system. What it shows that the numbers are minute and you can't just make a determination off of raw data. Just because you look at UN stats does not make you an expert in healthcare.
When you look at the average life expectancy of the entire world it is 71±7 years. The US is over 79 years, over one standard deviation above the average. Other countries you are comparing us to are around 2 or 3 years off. That is minute in the big picture and you cannot say that the difference is solely because of healthcare. Other factors play a role as well.
""But wait time on non-critical care!" you retort. Yeah, you corporatists "
How am I a corporatist? You are resorting to name calling now. I hate corporations thus I support a free market system.
"I think you and I both know that the only reason you've chosen 100+
million people is because you know that the few countries that meet that
criteria are overwhelming unindustrialized "
But yet you choose only OCED countries. You also choose only overall life expectancy but no data that factors in other reasons for differences in life expectancy. You are being guilty of cherry picking data.
Also, I used that size of a country to show you that there is not a successful example of single payer in a country that large.
" I bet if you didn't have that article and had previously known Japan
has more than 100 million inhabitants you'd have set your arbitrary
threshold at 200+ million.
"
Nope, I knew about it. I am informed on this topic.
"Honestly do you really think that for the purpose of a social policy the
exact number of people really matters at all once you're over 1
million? "
It does.
"Nothing. It's single payer not single provider .
Individual doctors and patients would continue to determine what
individual treatments are necessary or advisable in their individual
cases."
Economies are different across the country. Healthcare costs, like housing costs, schooling cost, taxes, etc, are all different across the nation. Also, again, what will prevent doctors from raising prices? You are now leaving it to the doctors.
"Did you know that working full-time all year at the federal minimum wage will earn you a grand total of $15,080?"
And? Do you know that close to 90% of workers earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor?
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~lrazzolini/GR2010.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jacob Strom two things.
One, I, and many, feel like this virus is not dangerous. There are millions of dangers in life, this virus is just one more and really is not that big of a threat. Unfortunately, the government and media misled us with this virus dividing us.
Two, even if it is a threat, if the government is not going to offer aid or help at that point us, as American people, need to take matters into our own hands. Open back up with pre-cautions, protect the vulnerable that want to be protected, and tell government officials to fuck off.
In the end, it is on us to succeed and progress in life. We should not depend so much on the government. If we do that gives them so much power to basically enslave us which is what they are doing now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" You saying that the military spending is federal and constitutional is not a defense for how ridiculously high it is and what a waste of money that is"
It is less than 4% of GDP, that is not high. Also, we spend more on federal social welfare programs which are not Constitutional. The Constitution is the standard for how government is ran in this country. Defense spending is Constitutional, welfare programs are not at the federal level. So yes, defense spending is not that high.
"The thing is that there is a federal budget and those funds can be allocated to all sorts of things. How do you justify 28-47% of that going to the military. "
Again, it is Constitutional. That is the standard. How do you justify the federal government spending money on other programs? I can get into detail on the many things that are good that the military do, but all I have to say is that it is Constitutional.
And yes, we have to use GDP here as it is the universal standard here. You may want the federal government to spend more on education. But when you look at percent of GDP the nation already spends more on education than military. That is because there is only one source of funding for defense, that is the federal government. There are multiple sources for education funding. That is why the federal government does not spend so much money on it. Also, again, the Constitution does not demand it.
My standard is the Constitution. Infrastructure comes from many state and local programs. At this point if you want less money going to the military then you should push for lower federal taxes to allow more money to stay with the states. So do you support lower taxes on everyone?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" No, you cannot jump to the conclusion that race and race alone caused
the difference in sentencing. But since it is one of the only factors
left and other studies confirm this, it is likely the factor."
There are other factors which is why they say correlation, and why they say
"Therefore, the demographic differences in sentencing outcomes revealed
by these analyses should not be interpreted as a finding that
demographic factors caused those differences. "
However, you are doing that. You are saying that the demographic differences that is found is based on demographics.
"All you have left to do at this point is nitpick at studies, which is good, but the fact is you can nitpick at every study"
I agree 100%, but you don't seem to.
"The fact remains that you have been rambling all this time about black
people having worse attitudes and you have provided ZERO studies that
track black attitudes versus white attitudes."
Then why do they have lower GPAs? According to you they have lower standards placed on them, so why do they still do worse? Why do they have lower graduation rates? Why do they have higher rates of single mothers? Why do they have higher rates of violent crime activity and gang activity? That is because of their attitude. It is no different then those who are poor have higher rates of obesity and smoking.
Attitude is a vague statement, but negative attitude comes with a negative lifestyle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Happy2_B_Blue they are racist for their support of BLM which is a racist group now. Also, when a cop kills a black guy they immediately cry racism before the evidence comes out. Look at the George Floyd case, when more body cam footage came out it was clearly not an act of racism.
Other nations have various forms of universal healthcare, including the US. Our form is that you cannot be denied care at the ER. On reason why we pay so much is that we provide so much care in the US where other nations cap it. That is something "progressives" tend to ignore.
On troops, I support pulling some out. However, defense spending has been dropping in the US for decades.
As for police, they are often not violent. Millions of interactions are involved between police and citizens every year. Very few turn out violent.
But on racism. Read my first part. When the left immediately runs to racism for an excuse and before the facts come out, that makes them racist.
The riots are not going to solve anything. It just causes more harm. Many businesses are destroyed now.
You are receive lifelong damage for many things. From what I have seen basically anyone who do receive lifelong damage represents a rare and extreme case, and had underlying conditions to begin with. So no, 5 million are not going to suffer. As for the dead, almost all were old or sick to begin with and thus were at high risk of death. 40% were in nursing homes where, according to the UCSF, 50% of new nursing home patients die in 5 months. So we are basically destroying our society and the economy so grandma can possibly live a few more months.
This is another issue I have with the left, how little they understand science. Not just with the virus but on issues like climate change as well and it leads to a lot of misinformation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Happy2_B_Blue BLM is racist because with everything that goes wrong with black individuals they blame race. When they marched for Alton Sterling after he was shot by the cops I could not take them seriously. Now look at how they are acting in the George Floyd incident? But when David Dorn was killed I did not see anyone BLM groups march for him.
With Floyd, have you seen the whole video? There were three other people in the car, all black. All were arrested and not harmed. Floyd did not want to get out of the car. He finally did. They struggled to handcuff him. He did not want to get in the back of the patrol saying he could the breath. The cops said they would roll down the window. He eventually said he wanted to lay on the ground.
While I do not agree with the knee on the neck, what happened was not an act of racism. That is my point. Poor policing or even poor police training, one can argue that. But clearly not racism at that point.
Also, BLM rioted when Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed when that was also not an act of racism.
"The healthcare issue, I believe, shouldn't' be an issue when going by per capita. The funding of the government is limited by the number of taxpayers in the country."
the entire economy depends on the number of people.
Less than 20% of our federal budget goes to defense. 4% of our overall economy goes to defense. Other nations it is around 2%.
" which surpasses all modern countries combined. "
Flawed argument. Our overall GDP is larger than many nations combine. We spend more on education than many nations combined. Should we cut education?
"The financial issue would be furthered relieved we reallocated a substantial fraction of that fund away from the military."
That is not true. 4% of our total GDP is spent on defense. And again, defense spending has been dropping for decades.
Look up military expenditure as a percent of GDP. In the 60s it was around 9%. Not it is less than 4%.
As for police, it comes down to this. On average 7500 die a day in the US, a lot of cases are preventable. We never talk about that. We do when there is a mass shooting or a cop killing someone. Why? Because they are rare and isolated events and should be treated as such.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCbDeFiRw268yvns8uVTBokg , on the 45,000 number there are many flaws for that. To start, compared to other nations is that number high, low or the average? You can't say as no similar study was done in other nations so you can't compare to other nations.
Next, it is hard to obtain accurate numbers on that issue. Those 45,000 are poor where, as prof. Katherine Baicker put it, bad health is associated with being poor. Thus did they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with the poor, all self inflicted. People like that are at high risk of dying to begin with. In the book "Being Mortal" the author there writes how people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 45,000 receive care and live another 5 months while in pain and using up a lot of resources, is that a success?
You can't just throw out numbers, you have to give them actual meaning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"While it is true that people tend to get a little bit more conservative
as they age, they don't typically become as conservative as the previous
generation. "
They become more conservative economically. You can make an argument for social issues, but economically people become conservative with age and are just as conservative as the previous administration.
"t is also on the wrong side of the culture war,"
How so? Trump was the first president to enter the office supporting gay marriage. No democratic president supported gay marriage until Obama in 2012.
"Marijuana, same-sex marriage, the rise of the religious nones, favoring
gender and race equality, etc, have all seen increases in support.
Conversely, conservative values are on the decline."
Again, economics. Most republicans don't care about those issues. Marijuana is a none issue. Same sex marriage was settled in the SC. How are the genders and races unequal according to the law?
On that last point that is why Democrats are losing. You bring up identity politics way too much. You cry out racism when none exist.
"If the GOP doesn't evolve in the next twenty years, they won't win another general election."
I heard that before. In was in 2008 when everyone said the GOP was dead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MsScarletwings , again, they don't make that much in income. Bezos earns $80,000 a year, that's it. Most of his wealth are non liquidated assets. It is not M1 money. Bezos has a lot of wealth because he is the largest shareholder of his company. Him being that large of a shareholder shows he has confidence in his company thus it increases the values of his shares and thus his wealth.
Take it on the small end. I just bought a new car. It is a manual. I drive it well. Now say you were to give that car to someone who does not know how to drive a manual, I mean has no idea period. Overall, who will get the most value out of that car? Naturally me as it will last longer under me and be driven better under me. Now is that a guarantee? No. But chances are that is the case. Me, by simply owning that car, gives it the ability to create more value overall compared to the other person who will probably wear down the clutch in 50,000 miles.
Same with Bezos and his shares. Him owning those shares shows he is willing to go down with his company, but trusts it so much he owns the shares. If he were to give up those shares to someone like you or me it will send a red flag to investors and they will pull out causing the value of the shares to drop.
So it isn't about them working harder or not. There is a lot more to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LaviArray, the countries listed are not socialist countries and they do not do what Bernie and his supporters want. Countries like Norway, Denmark, Iceland etc. have lower corporate tax rates, no min. wage, have higher oil productivity, a free market when it comes to employer/employee relationships. Bernie and his fans want higher corporate taxes, a higher min. wage, less oil productivity, etc.
You also have to consider the differences in culture those nations have and the fact that they have much smaller populations. You really can't compare them to the US and you can't say that what they do would work in the US. All Behar did was list countries without any details.
McCain's argument had flaws but she is right, most in the midwest are not going to support the ideas of people like Bernie and AOC. Behar is another New Yorker that lives in a bubble and has no connection with people from the Midwest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ghost Yuki , when you say inflation you have to consider a couple of things. One, there is more than one way to measure inflation and they produce different results. And two, there are flaws in inflation measurements.
This is going to be long but informative. On the first part there are many ways to measure inflation. Most use the CPI, and I will tell you why here in a second. But you also have PCE, GDP deflator, Boskin Commission CPI and so on. They produce different levels of inflation. If you use Boskin Commission CPI or PCE wages have out paced inflation by those measures. And it isn't that those methods are not reliable, they are. The Fed uses PCE all the time. It is that CPI gives the highest inflation rate so politicians and the media use it the most to overstate inflation. Politicians use it because many government jobs wages/salaries are tied to inflation. In the late 80s early 90s the Boskin Commission was developed to find the actual inflation rate for CPI and they found that CPI was overstating inflation by 2 to 3 percent. Government officials ignored it because they know they would not win elections by telling government workers their wages were going to be cut. Imagine you are an elected official and you say to the public that you are going to cut raises to government workers because inflation is not as high as it is listed? While that person may be correct, imagine how the media will portray it? They will use it to smear that politician to where they will lose the election.
Positions that are not elected in government are that way because they have to make the correct decision no matter how unpopular it is early on if it is best in the long term. For example, SC justices are in that position. The Federal Reserve Governors are another. They use both PCE and CPI inflation to set interest rates. The Minneapolis Fed argued that PCE is better
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/i-say-cpi-you-say-pce
On the second part there are shortcomings in inflation measurements. For example, inflation methods have a difficult time factoring in improvements in technology. A car today may be more expensive in pure sticker price compared to the 70s. But cars today last longer, are safer, get better gas mileage, are easier to drive, etc. All which saves money. Same in that people have smart phones where in the 70s no one has them. You can make informed decisions like that. Or through the internet. You can read reviews of a product before buying. That forces companies to produce better products that will last longer which saves money. Or how you can buy something online which saves money as you don't have to drive around.
Another issue is that CPI inflation has a tendency to lump things together. For example, they will lump all meat together. So if the price of fish goes up 100% due to some issues in the fishing industry, CPI will say the price of meat went up even if all other meat prices stay the same or drop. If fish prices go up than people will buy other kinds of meat. Another issue is what is called "new product bias". When a new product hits the market the price is jacked up as people really want it. Take flat screen TVs for example. When they hit the market they were really expensive. But shortly after the price dropped. That jacked up price overstates inflation.
And with wage stagnation, many people don't include benefits to it. Here are some sources to look into
https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=160s
As a whole, there is data to suggest that wages have been stagnated. But there is also a lot of data and variables that exists that one can use to argue that wages have not been stagnated as well. Someone who just points to CPI inflation to make a strong argument, in my opinion, is pulling wool over your eyes.
If you want more details than just ask. But that is why I say that wage stagnation is arguably a myth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevisitor135 , they are not supported. If they were then we will have them in place already. Also, opinion polls are unreliable. To start, they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. Next, opinion polls done online or through phone cannot catch the expression of the person being polled. Also, you don't' know the actual dedication the person being polled has. For example, they may support background checks on guns, but when it comes to vote they might not care enough to vote.
Overall, on polls, as prof. Andrew Gelman said in a Scientific American article
"Finally, the 3 percent margin of error is an understatement because opinions change. On January 3, 2004, the Gallup poll included 410 Democrats, 26 percent of whom supported Howard Dean for president. The margin of error was 5 percent, and so we can be pretty sure that on that date, between 21 percent and 31 percent of Democrats supported Dean. But a lot of them have changed their minds. A poll is a snapshot, not a forecast."
But keep pointing to polls if it makes you feel good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sharper68 , you say bankruptcies, I rather be bankrupt than dead. Other nations have lower survival rates in advanced illnesses because they cap how much care you receive. That is where our quality is high. We have higher access to advanced testing and thus higher survival rates.
Many factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy and child mortality. You have to point to broad stats to push your point where I point to specific, healthcare related stats. High access to advanced testing and high survival rates of advanced illnesses is predominately dependent on healthcare. With life expectancy there are factors outside of healthcare. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. The US is number 1 in obesity rates which increases the chances of a quicker death. The US, compared to OECD nations, has the highest percent of blacks where blacks have, genetically, a higher chance of heart disease leading to a shorter life.
On child mortality obesity, according to a Stanford study, increases the chance of premature birth and thus increases the chance of infant mortality. Now add in the fact that obesity is higher for those in poverty, and pregnancy is higher for those in poverty, especially unwanted pregnancies, you have an outlier that skews the data.
Again, you can't just look at raw, vague stats like overall life expectancy and infant mortality.
"We are the only first world nation to let citizens die in support of a profit motive."
Not true. Other nations let people die because they don't want to pay. That is why people Australia and Canada die waiting for "elective" heart surgery.
"Our "shortcomings" mean if you are rich our health care is great. For everyone else getting sick might just bankrupt or kill you. "
Not true. The vast majority are fine with their healthcare with no problems. That is why reform is so difficult.
You say I am fact free when I have given way more facts that you have.
1
-
1
-
@sharper68 , most can afford though. That is why access is so high and that is why healthcare reform is so challenging. And yes, other nations cap how much care they offer.
I agree, many things influence infant mortality. Many things outside of healthcare. Diet, lifestyle, the woman's overall health, etc. You are looking at something that is strongly influenced by factors beyond healthcare. When I look at survival rates of advanced illnesses I am looking at something that is strongly influenced by healthcare.
""Your assertion about being dead would indicate you think we have better survival rates on most medical metrics"
We do have better survival rates.
"The fact is our system is far more likely to kill you simply because you are can not afford the available care."
Other systems make you wait a long time to where you are worse off physically, emotionally and financially, or dead. In the paper entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
The write
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers"
In the paper entitled
"Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence."
They write
"t is often observed that elective wait times are low in the USA, one of the few countries where the majority of care has been financed by non-universal private insurance."
So you keep pointing to infant mortality and life expectancy, and then claim our survival rates are low even though the data suggests otherwise.
"You are misrepresenting the other systems wait times. Canada and Australia for example have very comparable wait times to us on critical care (life threatening) issues. Elective issues like knee surgeries and non critical MRI's you are forced wait longer for"
Actually that is not true at all. It is difficult to define "critical" care in many cases. That is why, as pointed out in that New Zealand study, many end up worse off. Also, "elective" care is not just knee surgery. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has certain forms of heart and neurosurgery listed as "elective" where up to 7000 people die a year waiting for "elective" surgery. In Canada people have died waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Read the studies entilted
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol.
"Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
So once again you are factually incorrect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" but I believe Bernie was talking about how when the minimum wage goes
up, people can afford to buy more products so even if prices go up a
little, it's more than evened out by the increased wages."
He did not address the question as prices can go up above what the new min. wage is keeping them in poverty. Say the min. wage went up 50% and so did prices, what have you solved? Also, what about people not earning the min. wage, now their prices are higher? Bernie avoided that by simply saying raising the min. wage will take people out of poverty but failed to address the issue that price could go up. Is justification is that there are rich people.
"He's one of the few politicians who is willing to say I will raise your
taxes to eliminate all of your healthcare costs. Why can't you respect
this level of honesty?
"
He only said he would raise taxes after someone from Denmark pushed him into the corner. For a long time he only talked about the rich paying taxes.
"I remember that town hall with Cruz and Bernie told the woman in
question he was sorry, but he didn't believe anyone should be without
healthcare and as an employer she has a moral responsibility to her
employees for their healthcare in our current system. He also told her
that if an employee does get sick and can no longer work that is
actually harmful to her business so she should want to give them quality
health insurance for preventative care. If that's not answering the
question for you then I have no idea what is. "
The question was how. How does she provide it? Bernie never cared about her revenue, her expenses, how many of her employees are part time, full time, temporary, etc. In his eyes he sees a business and feels that businesses must offer employees something even if they cannot afford it.
There are several problems there. He supports a law that will make running her business harder, and make her life harder. She is asking Bernie for advice in how to overcome those barriers and Bernie had no idea how to answer it nor had the desire to learn how a business operates. That is very disturbing.
"He told her, basically, you're free to disagree, but I'm sorry, I don't find your decision moral or financially smart. "
Is it moral to force a business to give up their money? It is financially smart to pay more than you can afford? Also, as for employees getting sick or hurt, those are situations you take care of when they come. What if one of her employees house burns down? Should she give away home owners insurance as well? What if one of her employees get into a major car accident? Should she pay for public transportation as well? You and Bernie giving these what ifs does not justify your stance as that can be done with a lot of things.
" The politician answer would have been to evade and never really answer it to avoid offending a small business owner."
Bill Clinton was posed the same question in 1994 by Herman Cain. Clinton gave an answer with numbers and data showing he understood the challenges that law will create. You can find the video on Youtube. That is the correct approach. Bernie gave the typical politician answer.
"Why can't you at least say I disagree with Bernie, but he tells it like it is when it comes to what he believes in? "
Because Bernie has been pushed in a corner many times and resorts to talking points of "living wage" and "fair share" or "rich people" or "income inequality" etc. He never gets into details. Cruz said multiple times that Bernie wants to raise everyone's taxes where Bernie never responded. The guy from Denmark finally showed the tax rates in Denmark where Bernie admitted he would have to raise everyone's taxes but went on a rant about free shit. He never said how much he would have to raise, he never said how his policies would be implemented. He just kept dodging the issue and when pushed he went on a rant with his talking points.
"Even when I disagree with Bernie, like when he only runs positive issue based campaigns"
He has called Trump a bigot numerous times in his campaign and has attacked rich people.
"As for Vitter, I want her to answer questions on all cases. Don't you? Don't you want to get actual answers? "
It is a trap question and here is why. If she answered yes or no they would ask her on more controversial cases such as Roe v Wade. Also, her opinion is irrelevant as she has to rule based on rulings from SC cases. As a lower court judge she has to rule based on rulings done by the SC in the past. So with her answer being irrelevant she nipped the issue in the butt. I saw the answer as being correct.
" The fact that she did this evasive bs on Brown v Board, something we all agree with"
Ok, what about Roe v Wade? Not so clear now.
1
-
1
-
"Bernie doesn't agree with the notion that raising the minimum wage
raises prices higher than the wage hike and studies have shown that to
be true."
There is more to it. You also have reduction of hours for example. Businesses usually reduce hours first as raising prices will mean less customers. Business owners diversify their resources for that reason. You create a situation where say a franchise owner of 15 McDonalds will cut down to 10 McDonalds. He will still own 10 McDonalds and will save money by cutting down leading to less jobs. So I will agree it isn't as easy as prices will go up, but as numerous studies have shown nothing positive has ever come from a min. wage increase on the large scale.
As for the study they have 5 points in their summary. A couple points are that a large min. wage increase leads to higher prices. A greater than 100% price increase in the min. wage is a large increase as it has never been raised that high recently. Next, they say varying results when looking at federal, state and local cases. Bernie was citing cities likes Seattle and San Fran for his justification where this very study showed that what happens in the city differs from what happens federally. Also, while I have not read the paper closely, but the paper does get into detail of the effect of jobs and how that influences prices like I did. As I said, someone going from 15 restaurants to 10 can keep prices the same. They just made up for the cost by reducing the price of labor. There is also the point that if you raise the min. wage to $15/hr you have people making, say $15.10/hr. They are not getting a raise but now prices have gone up. That paper did say prices do go up in the end.
"I followed Bernie Sanders closely during the campaign and you're just
wrong about the tax issue. He said time and time again taxes will go up
for nearly everyone but that healthcare costs will go down."
I followed him closely as well. I did not see him say that at all. Cruz pushed Bernie and Bernie did not admit it. Bernie kept saying the rich will pay. Even on Bill Maher's show Bernie refused to admit that he will raise taxes on everyone, he said only the rich will pay.
"Bernie really doesn't like the employer based healthcare system and
neither do progressives, but if that's the system we're going to have
then every employer must participate."
The employer base system exist because of the payroll tax which was a "progressive" action. Bernie wants to raise the tax. Also, why must every employer participate? That is the problem. "Progressives" created this environment with the payroll tax and then create more laws forcing employers to do things they cannot afford. What makes it worse in Bernie's case is that he does not care about the situation the business is in. He literally says "screw you, pay up". Bill Clinton, in his remarks to Cain, at least showed he understood how a business operates and that his new law will influence prices and expense. Bernie had no desire to do that. The only thing he suggested was that it would lead to higher prices which harms the poor, the very people he is trying to help.
"He said time and time again taxes will go up for nearly everyone but that healthcare costs will go down."
Nothing suggests healthcare costs will go down. It makes zero sense economically to say that increasing demand while keeping supply the same will lead to lower cost.
"How else are we going to get to universal quality coverage?"
With innovation and by incentivizing becoming a doctor. Reality is, though, that every nation has limited resources. No nation covers everyone unless they are very small and very rich. Resources are limited and as of now there will always be people that are not covered. Read the paper entitled
"The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" in the journal Chest.
You want to cover everyone, so do I. My way is more realistic. Your way is to "cover" everyone on paper while many people wait on waiting lists and end up dying. Your way clogs the system to where less people get covered in all reality. But you say that everyone is "covered" as, on paper, they are. But what happens on paper and in reality are not true. Compare it to this, on paper everyone has access to a K-12 education. However, due to limited resources, many students in rural areas are no offered AP courses. But on paper they have a high school education just like someone from a larger city with access to numerous AP courses. Are they equal? On paper they are, but in reality they aren't.
" I'm sure you wouldn't argue for private fire insurance for this very reason"
Many cities have private fire departments. Fire departments are locally ran and funded and around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Also, the fire department puts out the fire, it does not buy you a new home.
"Trump is a bigot. "
How? You have to give me examples. Trump is the same person who allowed a woman to live in one of his hotel for free after her family was murder to protect her. He has appeared on TV shows and movies with many minorities like Fresh Prince for example.
"and was successfully sued for not renting to African Americans."
That was not him but the management of that apartment complex. He owns many businesses and cannot micromanage all of them. When the issue was brought up he ended up taking it to court because, like in all cases, the person pressing charges is asking for a large amount of money and Trump was going to fight it to settle for a smaller amount. It was a case he was going to lose from the beginning, and he knew that. But he fought it and settled for a smaller amount. That was not him, though, enforcing that policy.
"he said during the campaign like calling most Mexicans coming across the border rapists and criminals."
He said illegals who are criminals. As for being rapist, I would agree, they aren't. However, he is being a politician at that point. Just like when Bernie makes the assumption that all min. wage workers are poor when they aren't. Or that they are working full time jobs when they aren't. He is exaggerating things to rally voters. Welcome to politicians. He did not say all Mexicans though, he said only illegals.
" The right wing views what papers to you read as a gotcha. Just answer
the damn question. And her opinion on Brown v Board of Education is
certainly relevant since we don't want someone biased against minorities
ruling on issues that predominately impact minorities."
We want justices to rule based on the law, the Constitution and based on prior cases. Her answer is irrelevant. If you have actual proof that she ruled on a case in a bias way than point it out and it can be handled in an appropriate way. In this case the SC would take charge. The question was a trap question.
"Just talk like a normal person and answer questions"
At that level it isn't that easy as any words you use can be used against you for political gain. You are doing it yourself with Trump. You are twisting his words to smear him. You are twisting stories to smear him. Welcome to the world of politics.
1
-
" Raising wages increases profit for businesses because people have more money to spend."
Huh? How? Those businesses have to pay more. There is no guarantee that others will spend more at that business. Also, if those individuals are so quick to spend their money then they are poor for a reason. They should save and invest it.
You cited work that said prices went up. That is the point. How do you stop prices from going up? Any price increase hurts me as I am on salary. A min. wage increase does not raise my salary.
" He had exactly how each policy was going to be paid for written down in
detail on his website and answered questions about paying for his
policies time and time again"
I read his website. It was vague. Also, he ignores increase in demand. Take, for example, tuition free college. You increase demand for college you will increase prices. In fact, the college loan program is what cause tuition to go up to begin with. Bernie wants to make it worse. Saying "tax the rich" is not an argument.
"Red states have continued to slash education time and time again and we
base funding on education on property tax rates. Since the wealthy pay
more in property tax, their schools are funded far more than schools in
poor neighborhoods. That's the root of the issue with education. It's
also a large part of the reason why teachers are now striking across the
country. You can only push people so far before they finally stand up."
There are several components to that. To start, the idea of property taxes funding education is so that schools can improve internally attracting people with money. Next, Title I schools receive a lot of federal dollars. Also, there have been cuts due to the most recent recession. States, unlike the federal government, has to balance a budget. Education is typically the largest portion of a state's budget. What do you think will be cut?
There are several problems to the education system, I agree. But to me it is the unions that care more about dollars than actually encouraging teachers to work for the kids and community.
"Progressives are the ones who want to free up employers to not provide
healthcare by moving to a single payer system like nearly all of the
rest of the world has"
We can also do that by removing the payroll tax. Why not that way? You want more government. I am saying government created the problem, so why add more?
" You're the one who wants to ration care based on income. Progressives want to do it based on need."
Need, like in Canada where people died waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Read the papers
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic
stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
"Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among
29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
"I like how you ignored the fact that Trump wanted to execute innocent
black men for a crime they did not commit after he knew they were
innocent. "
When? Also, he has no authority in that case, so it is irrelevant.
"On that alone, he's a racist piece of crap."
I felt OJ Simpson was guilty, but I guess that makes me racist.
"Also, he's a politician so that excuses the Mexicans are rapists and criminals line? "
Again, illegal Mexicans, not all. They are criminals by definition at the very least.
"This is on top of calling for a blatant Muslim ban "
Read the law, never happened. Again, look at the difference between talking like a politician and actions. He never put in place a "Muslim ban".
" Or going 1MPH over the speed limit? In that case, you would be a criminal too. We all would."
You are, but 1 MPH over is not even a misdemeanor. Illegal immigration is much worse.
"Volunteer fire departments existing does not change the fact that fire service is a public service we all receive. "
Again, many are private. Also, it shows that we lack funds for a fire department so many places need volunteers. Do you want volunteer doctors? You see the same issue in K-12 education. You need many volunteers due to lack of funds and workers. Taxing the rich more does not help either. Many places just don't have the fund period.
"Please tell me you're not in favor of fire service only for those that
pay for a private fire service. That's not only absurdly immoral, but
ridiculously stupid as well. You'd have entire towns and cities burning
to the ground because one family didn't have fire insurance for
whatever reason plus competing fire companies fighting over hydrant use."
Again, many cities do it already with no problems.
"I still don't know if you're in favor of the Brown v Board of Education decision"
I am to the point. I feel it should have repealed Plessy v Ferguson. But besides that the decision was correct. What's your point?
" Even John Roberts said he was in favor of the decision during his hearing, btw. "
When he was in running for SC justice. He has the ability to overturn SC rulings. This justice does not. She will work in the lower courts and must obey SC rules. Different situations all together.
1
-
"It raises profits because people have more money to spend that typically overrides the increased cost in labor. "
That is not true. If someone produces only $8/hr than they will only produce that much product. If people have more money than demand goes up, but not supply. So prices have to go up. You are not increasing productivity. You may go on an say "hire more people" but they only produce $8/hr as well. Now you are overpaying. That is costing a business money.
You can't consume what you don't produce. If people have more money that does not mean productivity goes up. In fact, productivity will stay the same as people were given raises who did not deserve it. If the company does not have anything to sell than no one can buy it and their profits do not go up.
Also, if you want to go that route just skip the middle man. Just give people checks for $50,000.
"Yes, prices went up, but they went up far less than the wage increase itself was. "
What happen to labor hours? Again, there is more to this. If a company can cut hours they will before raising prices.
" I also don't find it all that compelling that someone who is already
doing well has to pay a few cents more per item complaining about that
when other people struggle just to put food on the table."
That few cents add up. Restaurants around my city raised prices and I stopped eating out. Why? I cannot afford it. Same goes for others.
" I'd gladly pay an extra ten cents for my burger so someone can make a living wage."
That's you. How about you just tip them.
"You're still misstating or misremembering Bernie's policies because he
had exactly how he would pay for everyone on his website down to the
percentage tax increases. "
He doesn't. Picking one at random. "Decent paying jobs". To start, define "decent". Next, he says "putting 13 million Americans to work". Who? What kind of skills do they have? Just giving people jobs is not a solution. He is talking about infrastructure. Do all those 13 million have that experience?
He went on and talked about the cost of $1 trillion, but never says how he will pay for it. Right there, picking one at random, he does not say how he will pay for it. Where will that $1 trillion come from?
"The issue with cutting education is you're not investing in the future."
Eh, debatable. There are many ways to invest in education. Also, education comes from the individual and families. Just throwing money at it is not a solution. If the student does not care or the parents than nothing happens.
"We literally have schools that are physically falling apart in many
areas and that's why so many teachers are fed up with it and have
demanded more funding without taking no for an answer. "
So you are saying a government program is failing? What a shocker. And you want more government?
That aside, many schools are falling apart, a main reason why is because of the students. Students don't take care of the schools. I work for the public school system. I see many textbooks, that are only a couple years old, torn apart. My city built a new high school and within a year the students destroyed it. You know what I say about that? Fuck them. They don't care so I don't care.
"So you found one story about someone dying from a wait list. "
Not a story, a peer reviewed study of numerous people dying. I suggest you read that paper.
"In the United States nearly 50K die each year due to a lack of health
insurance. The scale just isn't the same and it's misleading to pretend
that they are the same."
I was waiting for that. That is deceptive. To start, 50,000 is around 0.01% of the total population. That is minute. I have shown you that numerous people have died on waiting lists for heart surgery only in Canada. Point to me a study that does a comparison between the US and other countries. You can't find one as no one has done such as study. That makes that 50,000 an empty number as it has no comparison. Also, those individuals are poor and there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. All of that self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of healthcare or due to being in bad health to begin with?
"Are you comparing OJ Simpson, a man who wrote a book on how he would
have committed the murders he was accused of, to the Central Park Five,
who we KNOW are innocent thanks to DNA evidence? "
To a degree yes. You brought race into it. There was nothing racist with what Trump said.
"And again, no they don't with fire departments. "
They exist in AZ and TN. That is something you can easily look up. This is a very basic fact you need to know.
" If not, be aware that just one person not have fire insurance means
your entire community could burn to the ground without an issue"
Not true. In 2010 a home caught on fire in Obion County, TN. The fire department showed up only to make sure neighboring property, of people who do pay the fee, did not catch on fire. Their town is not going up in flames.
Anyway, the issue of fire departments is asinine. They are ran locally. You are pushing for more federal government and federal government take over of 1/6 of our economy (healthcare) by pointing to fire departments. Really?
"Again Brown v Board of Education is not a controversial case. There is
no reason to avoid answering a question about it for any nominee."
Slippery slope. She answers that than they ask her about other cases that are controversial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kirito Kun , they are. First, on the 40,000 deaths, is that high, low or the norm compared to the rest of the world? Every nation suffers with amenable mortality. Also, numbers that small are subjected to many variables. As prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As for the 500,000 bankruptcies, that is an arguably a myth. Read the paper entitled
"Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies"
As for drug prices, they are expensive in the US because of our massive R&D and the fact that they do donate a lot of aid to developing nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kirito Kun
1. It wasn't "underfunded" in the sense to purposely destroy it, it was underfunded because it ended up costing more than projected. So considering how the federal government cannot manage simply mental healthcare, how can they manage all of healthcare?
"You need comprehensive healthcare to reliably bring depression rates down. Depression is a result of many epigenetic factors including obesity and intestinal disorders"
I agree, but mental healthcare is very complex as there is no quantitative way in measuring it.
On preventative care, a study out of Oregon was done where some people were given access to Medicaid and others weren't. What was found was that even with access to Medicaid their physical health did not change. That is because of their poor lifestyle choices.
"These diseases are heart disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke."
Cancer is hardly preventable. As for heart disease, a lot if genetic. Also, blacks have a higher rate of heart disease due to their genetics. The US, compared to other OECD nations, have a higher percentage of blacks. Again, other variables outside of healthcare play a role.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dreivieracht7105 , Uh, the Commonwealth Fund "study". To start, what makes that study relevant? Do you even know how they did those rankings? One is that look at amenable mortality where it is hard to use that as an indicator in healthcare outcomes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
They also used life expectancy essentially (I forgot the exact one they used, they gave an acronym without actually saying that it stood for in their paper and I had to fish for it, lazy on their part, but it is essentially life expectancy). There are many factors outside of healthcare that influence life expectancy. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-business-of-health/
Also, we lead all OECD nations in obesity rates where that leads to shorter life span. Also, blacks have higher rates of heart disease and we have a higher percentage of blacks living in the US compared to other OECD nations. That drives down our overall life expectancy numbers. Plus, Prof. Scott Atlas argued in his book "In Excellent Health" that we do many things well in the US.
But again, how is the Commonwealth Fund relevant? What makes that ranking relevant? Why do you support it so much?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yg2522 we are number 1 there because of our large population. That is why you have to look at per capita to which we are 11th beating out nations like Spain, France and so on. And cases are not bad if deaths are still low. The recovery rate continues to climb. Also, cases are now starting to flat line as states like FL, TX, GA and AZ see declining cases.
We are doing well. As I said, recovery rate continues to climb, we have expanded testing, there is evidence of herd immunity and so on. But you won't hear that from the media. At the beginning it was all about deaths with pictures of mass graves and temporary morgues in NYC. Now the talk is just about cases. Why? Because deaths are low. Talking about positive progress gives a light at the end of the tunnel. Just fear mongering creates three crowds of people, those who hide in fear, those who are confused, and those who just throw their hands in the air saying "to hell with it" and go back to living life.
As for Fauci, he is a fear mongering hack, he is not a scientist. It is one things to give warnings but when that is all you do people tune out. Again, he should give insight on positive news. For example, in May an article was published in Science showing that people who get the virus build up T-cells which means long term immunity. He could have presented that story showing there is a light at the end of the tunnel and we just need to keep fighting. Instead he fear monger and never explained the science to people.
There is also evidence of cases dropping here soon. I ran through the numbers and feel by late August cases will be low. I can make better predictions than Fauci.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheHuxleyAgnostic , uh, the Commonwealth Fund ranking. To start, do you even know how it was developed? I doubt it. So I will tell you. They admitted that the US was number 1 in cancer survival rates but don't including that in their ranking. They include amenable mortality (where that is people dying due to lack of healthcare for curable diseases, goes against the narrative Kyle claims that no one dies due to lack of access in other nations), and something they called DALE. They don't say what DALE which is careless on their part, but it is "disability adjusted life expectancy.
That's it. Amenable mortality has been challenged as an indicator of healthcare system
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
And life expectancy has been challenged in this book
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-business-of-health/
In short, many factors outside of healthcare influence those stats. Reality is the Commonwealth fund is a private organization with a motive. But again, what makes them relevant?
As for the WHO, it was criticized so much they have not developed a new one in nearly 20 years.
Again, healthcare rankings are arbitrary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bohemianwriter1 , Kyle dismissed the other side constantly. He does so in situations like the min. wage and healthcare. He said there are no arguments against M4A when experts do argue against it. Take Katherine Baicker for example
http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf
"On the other hand, a single payer system does not
automatically provide high quality care: the provision of low-value care is as pervasive in the
single payer Medicare system as it is elsewhere. Single-payer systems are also slow to innovate
– as suggested by the fact that it took Medicare 40 years to add a prescription drug benefit, long
after most private insurers had done so. Nor do calculations of the costs of a single-payer system
measure the utility loss from forcing people with different preferences into a monolithic health
insurance plan. The private facilities that have sprung up in Canada to meet the demands of
those who want more health care than the public system provides fundamentally undermine the
“single payer” nature of the system. "
The very fact that an expert, along with other experts, disagree shows that there is an argument from the other side.
The political right has had many legit arguments. Take the issue of wage stagnation and this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=162s
Building a single bomb is a drop in the bucket in terms of cost, especially compared to healthcare. Education is ran by the states, and define "basic". A major problem with the far left is that they say vague words with zero details.
I am actually a moderate. Both sides have legit arguments. People like Kyle, though, who are on the far left, dismiss the other side and that is where zero progress is done. Kyle is a part of the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheHuxleyAgnostic , that 42,000 stat is deceptive. To start, is that number high, low or normal compared to the developed world? You can't say. Also, those 42,000 are poor and as Prof. Katherine Baicker said, bad health is associated with being poor. So you don't know if those 42,000 die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. To extend, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. And as mentioned in the book "Being Mortal", people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really they live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 42,000 receive care and die 5 months later in pain and using up limited resources, is that a success?
You talk about "coverage". Being covered and receive care are two completely different things.
What source are you talking about with the 72 indicators? Even at that, from what I read they leave out a lot, especially in health care outcomes. Have you actually read the studies? I doubt it.
I don't expect for people to do thing perfectly, but the reality is this. Most people are in bad health due to their poor lifestyle choices. The bad healthcare outcomes you point to are strongly connected to bad health choices such as higher obesity rates for example. Ignoring that is being intellectually dishonest. Why don't these healthcare rankings factor that in? Because they are pushing an agenda.
" At least, if you have access to regular checkups, you might have someone to regularly suggest lifestyle changes."
Not according to this study
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
A health tax? So you want to control people's lifestyles? How far are you willing to go with this? This is what people on the right literally fear, government controlling our lives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jorgebarragan5495 , Kyle provided two studies that have many flaws. In one of the studies he only gave a number in the abstract and, as usual, did not present what was actually in the study in how the price tag they gave to M4A was a low estimate and chances are it would cost much more. Bottom line, a nation that is $20+ trillion in debt I am highly skeptical will all of a sudden save money on something as complex as healthcare.
People die in every nation due to lack of access to healthcare. Those people count, but there are many factors to it. In the US as prof. Katherine Baicker said, those who lack access are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Hard to tell.
Medicare four all is a debatable issue, that is why experts debate it. Take this speech by Katherine Baicker
http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf
" On the other hand, a single payer system does not automatically provide high quality care: the provision of low-value care is as pervasive in the single payer Medicare system as it is elsewhere. Single-payer systems are also slow to innovate – as suggested by the fact that it took Medicare 40 years to add a prescription drug benefit, long after most private insurers had done so. Nor do calculations of the costs of a single-payer system measure the utility loss from forcing people with different preferences into a monolithic health insurance plan. The private facilities that have sprung up in Canada to meet the demands of those who want more health care than the public system provides fundamentally undermine the “single payer” nature of the system. "
She references the Canadian system.
A little advice for you, stop listening to Kyle and start seeking out actual experts in the field. Kyle is not an expert. He has a handful of talking points on the issues he discussion, especially healthcare. I come here providing numerous books and studies and his fan base, people like you, say the issue is not up for debate. If it isn't than why do experts debate it? Oh.......I forgot.....according to Kyle those who oppose M4A are simply corrupt.
Really, how can you take Kyle seriously at this point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheHuxleyAgnostic " Zero people are dying DUE to not having coverage"
100% factually wrong. Look up "amenable mortality". If you can't get basic facts correct we cannot begin to go into opinions.
" Nobody can die, DUE to lack of coverage, if everyone has coverage. "
Being "covered" and having "access" are two completely different things. In the US everyone, on paper, is offered a K-12 education system. Does that mean everyone gets the same quality? Or in S. Africa, everyone has a right to a home, but they have homeless people there. Saying no one dies due to lack of "coverage" is a very low bar to set. I, on the other hand, have much higher standards. I want people to have access and not just be "covered" on paper.
"You just seem to want to control for every tiny little thing, in some lame attempt to argue it's impossible to find the US system is bad, or that it's impossible to compare to others and find it's worse. You know that would also mean it's impossible to find the US system is good, right? But you've tried to argue that it is. If it's impossible to measure, if all measures are completely arbitrary, then you've got zero grounds for arguing it's a good system."
I said the US system in on par with other nations. It has flaws, but so do other nations. Case in point, you really have to lower the bar to defend those nations by saying no one dies due to lack of "coverage". I am saying people due die in those nations due to lack of access. Saying "coverage" is flawed. Consider this scenario. Say you have a deserted island with 4 people and 3 sandwiches. There they say everyone has a right to a sandwich and make it a law there on paper. In there end there are still 4 people and three sandwiches. With healthcare saying people are "covered" does not mean they have access.
"The Commonwealth Fund study. You know, the doctor run organization. Not the American Enterprise Institute, run by Ayn Rand types. "
Still a private entity with a motive. Tell me what was wrong with the AEI source I referenced? You did not give any reasons. I did with the CWF study. For example, they used amenable mortality as an indicator where this study argues that is flawed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
https://jech.bmj.com/content/67/2/139
You see the difference between me and you? I have higher standards and I actually read opposing viewpoints and give counter arguments with evidence. I just don't pull logical fallacies. Also, I find it ironic how you cite the CWF study where they used amenable mortality. A definition of that
"Mortality amenable to healthcare is a measure of the rates of death considered preventable by timely and effective care. "
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/indicator/quality/mortality-amenable-healthcare/
But you said that no one dies in other nations due to lack of access......Oh, that's right, you lowered the standard to "coverage".
"So, how do you think that diabetes and depression management would play out over 20 years, or more? How do you think the increased visits would affect the elderly, and children?"
Uh, now here is the moderate in me. I do support some form of government provided healthcare. I feel it should be done at the state and local level. There are advantages to it such as lower stress and security. But a problem with government ran system is lack of progress. Government gets in the way of progress. Watch this video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e00tPtBRUg
As said in the end people want the benefits of economics dynamism but want the security of economic stagnation. You can't have both. You need to pick one. A M4A system will be economic stagnation as government has no incentive to improve on the system they have now as there is no competition.
Again, I support some form of government provided healthcare, but it should be managed locally. There are benefits, but going to a complete government ran system would lead to stagnation.
"Firstly, you were the one all concerned, and singling out lifestyle choices, not me. That's a way to deal with lifestyle choices. Are you opposed to speeding and seatbelt laws"
Speeding is you putting other lives in dangers. Seat belt laws are in place because of mandatory insurance which exist because of liability. We can discuss that as well.
"Secondly, you right wingers "
I am actually a moderate, not a right winger. Way to label me when you don't even know me.
"eem to be willy nilly with your support, or disdain, for consumption costs/taxes. You're perfectly good with corporations making billions using public roads and infrastructure while paying little to nothing for those things, want parents or students to cover their own education costs, want people to cover their own private healthcare costs, but if healthcare goes public you don't want people who make shit choices to pay a little more towards it. "
If you want to discuss taxes we can. To me the only federal taxes should be either a tax on the state as it was pre 1913, or a flat income tax with a consumption tax. No corporate taxes but also no payroll taxes. States can run their own tax systems.
Roads are a drop in the bucket in terms of overall cost, plus 3/4 of funding for roads is state and local.
If you are talking about college education that is a personal investment you make as an adult. Just like an adult invests to start a business, you invest to get an education. That is the real value in a college education. You can teach most of the subjects yourself. The value is in the investment part. On healthcare, at what point do you make people pay for their own things?
"That's not "controlling" your life. That's simply charging you an extra fee for an express lane pass to needing healthcare. Like higher car insurance for young or bad drivers. Like higher life insurance for smokers."
That is a part of the free market, not some government mandate. There is the difference . Please learn it.
Not to be rude but you are a radical leftist. If you want to pick my brain you can, but right now you have a grossly over simplified approach to these issues. They are far more complex than you realize. You calling me a right winger and pointing to roads (which are mainly funded locally) really shows that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fuckjaredmilton , why single payer will not be better? The main reason is because of progress and quality. Where is the incentive for the federal government to provide a high quality produce in healthcare? And where it the incentive for government to progress in healthcare and improve the system? You may say that the people will vote them out, but there are several flaws there. Here they are
1. There is more issues than just healthcare.
2. People are ignorant all around and are easily fooled by politicians
3. No competition
There are more but the last one is key. Without competition there is no desire for one provider, government in this case. to actually improve the system. Also, there is no comparison. We, the people, can't tell if what government is offering us is really the best that is possible as there is no comparison. Having one provider leads to lower quality as you have no competition and no comparison.
As for the 30,000 stat, that is deceptive. To start, people die in every nation due to lack of access. So is that number high, low or the norm? Next, as prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. So you don't know if they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. To extend, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. Also, as mentioned in the book "Being Mortal", people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 30,000 receive care but live only 5 more months in pain using up limited resources, is that a success?
A problem with the far left and M4A supporters is that they are unwilling it take on the tough questions. They have unrealistic expectations in that they want government to cover everyone and have everyone have the same high quality care. That simply isn't possible. Healthcare is complex and challenging and you have to take on tough situations. The far left isn't willing to. The far left wants the successes of capitalism but the security of socialism. Or as put near the end of this video, the successes of economic dynamism but the security of economic stagnation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e00tPtBRUg
You can't have that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The end game has three goals. One is transparency to see if this election was actually legit. There are so many irregularities. Why is the media and so many politicians are so quick to say "election is over" without considering the possibility of fraud? And I know many will say that court cases were threw out, but at this point how can people really trust this government after this year?
The next goal is to rally people on the right to come out in 2022 and 2024 and vote in republicans. Many simply voted for Biden just because he wasn't Trump. People were not motivated to vote for Biden, they wanted to beat Trump. So even if this election was legit, that is why there were so many ballots of just Biden and nothing else.
A third goal is to hopefully bring our nation together. The sad part is that we are divided more than ever and politicians are taking advantage of it, especially democrats. So while we sit there, as people, and argue saying we need to open up, or the other half says stay lock down and complain about not receiving money from the government. Government officials are enjoying their millions, their nice homes, fancy dinners, etc.
These next two years are going to be chaotic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lapiz4azulli , to start, just because something is popular in the polls does not mean it is the best option. Consider that the war in the Middle East was popular at one point. Next, you are making excuses. M4A was a big deal in 2016 and 80% said no. As for corruption and lies, both sides do it. Bernie is pushing M4A under a lot of misinformation an deception, but you don't call him out on it. And where is your evidence that more voters will vote yes on universal healthcare?
I agree the insurance being tied to the job is a problem, but that is because of the payroll tax which the political left created and wants to expand. Also, our culture have become so used to that situation, and many enjoy it, that it will be hard to change. Many do like their healthcare insurance. I am all for healthcare reform, but I have not seen a convincing argument that M4A is the answer mainly because those pushing it are being very deceptive and are not honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kraisedion , Bezos came up with the idea of selling online and marketed it well. He expanded that with same day shipping, streaming, renting books, etc. As a whole it creates competition. The library in my city now offers online book rental as a result. Companies like Netflix and Hulu have to compete to provide a better product. Also, Amazon has the advantage of being able to sell things that are not really popular. I forgot the term but I will look for it in my MBA notes, but basically a brick and mortar place is limited in space and thus will sell popular items only. Amazon will be able to hold less popular items in a warehouse for people to buy.
As for the company, who really generated that value? Him, the workers or the investors? With corporations you have to pay back the share holders as they did invest in the company and expect a return on it. You feel the employees developed the value but did they really? Compare Walmart to a company like Hy Vee. Both retail, both pay similar wages. Walmart is much larger because they are a corporation with share holders. Without the share holders Walmart will be the size of Hy Vee and exist mainly in AL, the state it originated from. So you have to understand that as well. With Amazon, he isn't paying just the workers but he is paying share holders as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This went bad for you lol.. So 3x, turned into 1.25x?"
Not really. One mistake is not going bad, it was a mistake as I read two different sources. I can admit my mistakes though and in the end doctors in the US are paid more.
"Then you called the elective, glamour surgeries that rich people get, "advanced care""
What? Why is it always about the rich for you? Elective surgery has little to do with this in all reality. Where are you coming with this? Advanced care as in MRIs and critical surgery such as advanced knee surgery and brain surgery and heart surgery.
"Then you claimed we have the best medical care when we don't have the highest life expectancy, by far."
There are many factors that contribute to life expectancy. For example, the US is high in obesity rates. Read the book "Debunking Utopia" and that is mentioned in how other countries have healthier lifestyle. Also, read the book "The Business of Health" where two professors showed that if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. In fact, I will link that book in another comment.
You are saying that overall life expectancy is related only to healthcare. That means if I were to get hit by a bus tonight and die on the road in seconds it was because of our healthcare system. You are literally saying that as life expectancy is not influence by other factors.
" We have people dying of middle age sicknesses because they can't access healthcare.. "
Same thing happens in other countries as well. A girl in the UK died at the age of 16 because she was denied an MRI by multiple doctors. I will link you that story as well. You see, we offer the MRI. Sure, our doctors get paid more, and it ends up costing more, but we catch those things.
"We people who lose their house because their daughter or grandma get sick. "
Who is losing their house?
" If you think it's OK for millions of people to die"
Millions? So we are at millions now? I thought it was 45,000?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cole Trickle, I know what inflation is. There are for measures of it, the CPI, the GDP deflator, the PCE and the PPI. Did you know that? Did you know that if you use the GDP deflator and PCE that wages have actually outpaced inflation?
Now why the disparity? Because inflation is had to measure. Why? Because it is hard to take into account quality of goods. For example, a car is more expensive today than in the past. However, a car today last longer, gets better mileage and is safe, all of which saves money in the long run. A VCR cost around $1000 in the 80s. You had to connect it to the TV, had to rewind tapes, etc. Now you can watch movies on your smart phone, skip around easily, and watch almost anywhere,
So by what metric? Many, including inflation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It actually is, you even admitted it. "
I never did admit it. Read my new comment on how wealth is created, not shifted.
"actually tens of thousands of jobs were being lost a day, the automotive
industry (for example) was close to collapse, the unemployment was
abysmal, etc. etc. there was no growth only collapse."
It would have eventually stopped. The spending did nothing but hinder growth. The economy is not going to keep tanking.
"While also dealing with all the other financial shit that was happening, so no freaking duh. "
What financial shit?
"We had growth under Obama,"
Around 2% is arguably not growth as it is very close to zero. In fact we never reached our potential unit 2015. There is a thing called "potential GDP".
"in fact most of trump's economic success have nothing to do with him,
the market was on an up and seeing record growth under Obama,"
Record growth, really?
Now was there some growth prior to Trump? Sure, but now this is Trump's second year, this is his economy. Interest rates just went up because it is expected the economy is going to grow faster now. Anyway, if you want to credit Obama for this growth then you have to credit Bush for the stimulus as he signed it, not Obama.
1
-
1
-
"Suppose we have economic and technological growth under slavery, would that be an argument for slavery?"
No, because slavery is forcing people to work against their will. That is a completely different topic.
"And I'm not at all convinced that capitalism is the driving force of innovation"
All throughout history it has been, and it is best for the most people. No system is ideal, but capitalism, the idea of it, is the best.
"We're in digital age now because some guys in universities decades ago invented the technology we now use, that is computers and the internet. With public funding."
The internet is what it is today because of capitalism. Same with computers. Capitalism created Google, Amazon, Youtube, etc. Our high speed computers are because of capitalism. The fact that you have a computer in the palm of your hand that has more computing power than what put a man on the moon is because of capitalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leinja, what goes on in the Soviet Union and China is different than from the US as they are still developing in many ways. When the US was developing we had jobs with "horrific conditions" (which is subjective) because we were developing. But also working conditions improved greatly under capitalism.
How social liberalism came to be was government politicians realizing they can buy their way into office by promising free money to people. That has never been sustainable long term but it does motivate voters, who have little understanding of economics, to vote for them. The workers have always been able to protect themselves from the employers. In mining is a great example. Unions, free from government intervention, pushed to improve the safety in mining and deaths dropped a lot.
" If there would be no welfare state to look after its people, "
There is value in having government and having a social welfare system as long as it is localized. Problem is when it becomes too big. FDR created a huge welfare system which is why the recession he took over became a depression and took over 10 years to recover from. His welfare system hindered investment and growth. There is value in having a welfare system, but on the large scale it becomes a problem.
You leftists always point to these problems of income inequality we have today. Consider these facts.
1. Since 1960 defense spending went from 10% of GDP to around 3%.
2. Since 1960 SS, Medicare and Medicaid all increased in spending in terms of percent of GDP. For example, SS went from around 2% to approaching 5%.
The idea of cutting defense spending and increasing social welfare programs have been in place or decades.
"The poor would have no choice but to accept the conditions capitalists (owners of the means of production) give them or face dying to hunger. "
If working conditions are poor no one will work for them. You have to consider that. That is so in a developed nation. For example, my dad works at a factory that is very dangerous with lead in the air. That company has a hard time hiring people so they start their employees around $30/hr, give great benefit and stock options. If you look at the parking lot most of the employees have brand new cars as they can afford them. Will there be harsh working conditions? Yes. But due to competition businesses will have to pay more.
"Other issues to consider"
Each point
1. Wealth inequality is not bad. You have to learn what wealth is. Wealth is not income. Someone like Jeff Bezos is wealthy because he is the largest share holder of Amazon. However, Bezos only earns $80,000 a year. My boss earns that much as well. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Also, we have large wealth inequality because of loans. We allow people to go deep into debt with home loans and student loans which allows them to purchase something large and progress in the future. For example, I am well off with my own apartment, car, health, etc. However I have negative wealth due to my college loan. I, on paper, have less wealth than a poor guy in Ethiopia whose net wealth is most likely zero where mine is in the red. Now who has a better life?
You can't just scream wealth inequality as if it is a problem. You also have to consider how much wealth. What is bigger? 50% of 100 or 10% of 1000? If I have 10% of the wealth and someone else has 90%, but that 10% is of 1000, I would take that over the 50% of 100.
2. Businesses have never forced someone to work for them. They are not tyrannical.
You ask "Why shouldn't the workers own the place they work in? "
To answer that they are not taking the financial risk. Also, many do not want that responsibility nor do they have the ability. Take Amazon for example. Many workers there have a GED at best. Do you want them making large financial decisions? Do you want them making critical decisions for the future of the company? Also, they, arguably, do own something. They own their labor and they decided to sell it to a business for an agreed upon rate.
3. "The studies saying sociopaths are over-represented high in the corporate ladder and politicians is no wonder to me."
So, does that make them bad people? Again, businesses are not forcing anyone to work for them. For how bad Walmart and Amazon may be, I have never seen them hold a gun to someone's head and force people to work for them.
"Koch brothers are a prime example of sociopathical behaviour: they fund climate change denialist propaganda for their own benefit despite the extreme implications of the climate change."
As a scientist myself, who receives zero funding in making this statement, I can tell you that climate change is a complex issue. There exist a high level of doubt on what the implications actually are.
1
-
"Subjective, eh? Well experiences are subjective, you're not entirely wrong there. However..."
It is subjective. It is safe to assume that 100 years ago people will view working conditions today as horrific. In the 1700s working conditions were horrific compared to the 1800s.
Each point
1. The US was developing. We had limited jobs at the time and limited competition. Today we have more competition and better technology. Sure things were "horrific" then by today standards. But at that time that was the norm. At the time life expectancy was lower for several reasons. Infant mortality rate was higher due to the poor healthcare in comparison to what we have now. It wasn't just working conditions, it was everything.
2. Wages were low compared to what?
3. There were unions
4. Again, limited technology. That was the best they can offer.
I can go on but here is the issue. You are comparing today's standard to that of the late 1800s early 1900s. We still have work related deaths. Why don't we eliminate all of them? Because there are many shortcomings that still exist. There are far less due to technological advancements, but they still exist. Why don't we just have a magical machine that creates all of the goods we need out of thin air? Because it does not exist. People still have to work. During the times you are looking at technology was inferior compared to today, or course working conditions were "horrific" by today's standards. But they improved over time due to technology.
Do you really think businesses want dead employees? Do you think they want to deal with that, the families, the mess, and then training new workers? If you think so you are ignorant on the topic. As for child labor, yes, children worked more in that time. But due to advancements in technology less children work in general. Teenage unemployment is at an all time high. Amazon requires you have at least a GED to work for them. Mining companies pay well over $60,000 a year. They will not hired children. Due to our advancement college enrollment is growing and less children are leaving their parent's home.
"Take that as you will."
I am. Again, you are comparing standards of the early 1900s to now. That is why I said someone who is poor now is richer than a rich person from the 20s.
"So I was talking about capitalism if there was no welfare to take care of the poor. "
If no one is producing no one gets taken care of. Someone has to produce. There is desire to take care of the poor, but in the end what is best if for people to be producing. Take your situation to the extreme route where you give money to people who produce nothing, you just devalued money. But look at this, 15% of the nation is in poverty. Say you give that 15% money for producing nothing. The wealth we have in the nation is not what 100% produces for 100%, but what 85% produces for 100%. Capitalism motivates people to work and produce which generates more wealth to go around. Welfare programs don't. You are not helping anyone by just giving them money. You help them by making them produce.
"And I also pointed out earlier in that post that during the
industrialization those were pretty much the conditions (no welfare
state) and as a result capitalists got to dictate terms and conditions. "
As I told you, different times, different eras. Even the rich were not well off. Life expectancy was low for a reason.
1
-
" I suspect the wealthier one (usually the capitalist) would be in a
favorable position as he can simply wait for the laborer to go hungry
and be forced to accept capitalist's conditions"
The only way someone becomes wealthy is when they provide something the people want. This is your gross misunderstanding of the issue. Jeff Bezos was not born rich. He did not shoot at some food and struck oil. He developed a company that provided for people. If that "wealthy" person just waited until people came hungry he will go broke. Wealthy people actually provide. If people are hungry and die then there will be no workers and no customers. If people are hungry then food places will lower prices due to decrease in demand and find a way to generate more food.
You are making it sound like wealthy people are just born rich or magically obtained their money. They at not true. They did so by providing to people.
"There's plenty of problems associated with wealth/economic inequality, take a look"
It isn't that easy. Again, learn what wealth is. Bezos derives his wealth form Amazon' s shares. You can't eat shares, live under shares, warm your home with shares. Share are just the value of the company. If you were to give Bezos' company to some random joe, like you, the company will go bankrupt making it worthless.
To look at wealth say you were to give two people the exact same home of same value. Over time one person will keep the home up to date and nice increasing the value (or at least keeping it the same) and the other person may ruin the home, letting it go to crap which lowers the value. Thus you have wealth inequality.
What you are pointing at involves many variables besides wealth inequality. Bezos has a lot of wealth, but he made my life easier. So why should I care? That is the point.
But again, please please please learn the difference between wealth and income. Bezos earns $80,000 a year, that's it. His wealth is derived from his company which will be worthless in other people's hands.
1
-
1
-
Ok, each point
1. "Why is taking or not taking a risk an issue?" It is a huge issue. You take the financial risk you have more at play. There are other factors as well. If you are a long term employee you have more at play. That is why many companies, like Amazon, offers stock options to employees that they can only take out after a set amount of years. Why? Because it shows you have a long term commitment.
Now you point at one company that does it, great. I am not saying no company should do it. However, does a company who hires low skilled workers, with low education, and are short term want to act that way? Take, for example, McDonalds. Do you want the workers, who may not have a high school diploma, and may not even be there for a year, making important decisions? No. If you feel that way then run a company like that and I will guarantee you it will go bankrupt.
Yes, there is a desire in having employees having more control. But those employees have to have something to lose. A part time, short term employee doesn't. Why should they make important decisions towards the company? If I were working at Amazon for a living I do not want some temp making important decisions.
"Workers do own themselves but they do not own their labor. "
They do own their labor which is why they get paid. What do you want them to have? Take my line of work for example. I do research. I use lasers to study molecular dynamics and structures, it is called spectroscopy. I take my work and publish it. Do I own it? No, the journal and university does. Do I care? No as I cannot sell my work to my landlord to pay rent. I give him money. In the end I am paid money. Same as with someone working at Amazon. What do they produce? Can they take what they produce and use it to pay rent? No they can't. They can with money.
"The fruits of labor, surplus value, goes to the capitalist"
I will address the "capitalist" remark you keep saying. You have no clue what it means.
2. To start, pothler54 is a journalist, not a scientist. I would take his scientific videos with a grain of salt. I have called him out on his practices on how he is condescending, goes after easy targets, and lacks a lot of understanding on science.
Now for my field, I study physical chemistry and study structure and dynamics of biological materials. Is that related to climate change? Yes as it is a broad field. How so? Well consider this in climate change. It has been happening for over 4 billion years. The issue are
1. How much is man playing a role (it is based purely on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, now how much)
2. Is it even bad
3. If it is bad, what is the solution
On the 2nd point, is it even bad, you have to consider how little we know about the environment. I study biological materials because we do not understand the energy pathway proteins and RNA take when it folds. That is why we do not have a cure of Alzheimer. I have friends (and colleagues in my field) who study photosynthesis. We do not understand how it works physically as in how the electrons are placed into a coherence and what pathway, energetically, they take in order give energy to plants. With our models photosynthesis should be very inefficient, but it occurs with around 90% efficiency.
My "skepticism" of the climate change issue comes from my career in science and how little we know. This is why no scientists are making the claim politicians and the media are making about climate change. That is that climate change is a major threat and we need to act. You do not hear that from scientists but from only politicians and the media.
3. Working conditions, compared to standards today, were bad. But again, you have to consider the limited knowledge, technology and skills that existed. All conditions were worse off during that time, not just in working conditions. Again, that is why life expectancy was much lower those days than now.
4. I care about wages in the US, not England.
5. Again, I care about unions in the US
6. What makes you feel they had no consideration of the workers in that time? You have little evidence for that.
7. The industrial revolution was the time of development. There was lack of knowledge, skills and technology. Now you bring up regulations. OSHA did not come into existence until the 1970s. So what accounted for the decline in deaths prior to that? Worker working with companies.
"The most successful effort to improve work safety during the nineteenth
century began on the railroads in the 1880s as a small band of railroad
regulators, workers, and managers began to campaign for the development
of better brakes and couplers for freight cars. In response George
Westinghouse modified his passenger train air brake in about 1887 so it
would work on long freights, while at roughly the same time Ely Janney
developed an automatic car coupler. For the railroads such equipment
meant not only better safety, but also higher productivity and after
1888 they began to deploy it."
I will give you the link later.
8. Again, I will address the work "capitalist"
9. $300,000 is nothing. Also, he had to grow that. It is safe to assume if you were given that money you would waste it.
10. How many homes does he own? How many are tied to his company? Even at that it does not matter. Who cares? He makes my life easier in shopping.
11. Why? Why is a large difference in wealth inequality a problem? You have never explained why? Again, if I own 10% of 1000 and someone owns 90% of 1000 I am better off than owning 50% of 100. I do not care if someone is wealthy if my lifestyle is much improves. Again, Bezos made my shopping lifestyle a lot easier. I am ordering two movies off of there tonight.
12. Bezos is one person who made hundreds of millions of lives better. That is not a problem. Also, I looked, he own 5 homes. Big deal. How many people can that house? Not many compared to the number of people he help make life easier. You are making it sound like he owns half of the homes in the US while others go homeless.
13. From his company.
14. I can argue you are "full of shit".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"A capitalist means the owner of means of production."
I will link you the definition later.
"Tbh, I have a rather hard time believing you are even part of the academia, in any way."
Why? Because I am not ultra liberal? There are more conservatives and moderates (which I am that) than you think.
" You hand waved the working conditions during the industrial revolution "
I did not hand wave them. I told you the truth about how there are many factors that influenced the poor working conditions. Lack of technology, skills, knowledge, etc. Did greedy business owners play a role? Sure. During that time I will agree because of lack of ability for people to move or obtain knowledge. Today, with technology, people have the ability to move easier and obtain information easier. Here you have Kyle giving information on how Amazon runs giving people the choice to either shop there and/or work there. But it was not the only factor, and arguably not the major factor. I just gave you a link showing how may workers pushed for safety and companies followed suit.
" your explanation for how social liberalism came to be was bollocks "
How so? That is a legit argument made by many economists and political experts. The founding fathers wanted limited government for a reason as they knew government can become corrupt and powerful but hid it by promising handouts. Government can very well buy votes with handouts, especially in harsh economic times.
" you say wealth inequality (part of economic inequality) doesn't matter despite being pointed otherwise"
You never pointed to me otherwise. There is a lot to wealth inequality. I told you where Bezos derives his wealth from, from shares of his company. Can you eat those shares? Can you live under them? Can you run your car on them? No. Understands what shares are and why they are valued so high for Amazon. It isn't like Bezos is hoarding all the food, homes, cars, resources, etc. and no one has access to them. He derives his value from his company.
Compare it to this, Bezos has a warehouse in KS that covers 855,000 acres. That warehouse is worth a lot as it is a part of Amazon. There is an old factory in my hometown that is just as large but produces nothing. It is worthless as no one is willing to buy it because it produces nothing. Both places take up the same amount of space, but one is worth way more because it actually produces.
You see the difference?
" implying that Bezos lives like an average Joe "
Never said he did.
"No, you are no academic at all, I smell the stench of a free market propagandist."
To be honest a lot of people in academics think like me, like most MBA professors for example.
"Not only that, but you are also a climate change "skeptic"."
Being skeptical is a major part of science. I laid out the issues with climate change. I told you why I feel that way. Your only counter argument is to insult me. Many scientists are skeptical on climate change.
" Btw, Potholer is not just a journalist, he has a degree in geology,"
He is a journalist. Yes, he has a degree in geology, but he has never done any research in the field, never published any work in the field, and as a geologist he never studied, in depth, physics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trentrubenacker9718 , you don't work more than your parents. Also, that CEO pay to employee pay ratio is highly deceptive. To start, CEOs are paid differently than employees, so you really can't compare
https://hbr.org/2017/02/why-we-need-to-stop-obsessing-over-ceo-pay-ratios
Also, if that CEO increases his work force than why shouldn't he get paid more? Say a CEO is paid $1,000,000 and employs 100 people. Now 10 years later he is paid $1,500,000 and employs 200 people. Yes, he pay end up 50%, but he increased the workforce by 100%. How about you look at the CEO pay vs number of employees ratio. Cutting CEO pay will not increase worker pay a significant amount. For example, if you were to cut the top 6 executive of Walmart to zero and give that money to the bottom 525,000 workers of Walmart those workers will get an extra $47 a year. That's it.
As for the min. wage, the real min. wage is $0. That $20 an hour is a cherry pick, and deceptive number.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By the time....,
Potholer54 has an undergrad degree geology. "Climate change" is a very broad field covering all sciences including physics. Dr. Patrick Moore has a degree in ecology that is also related to climate change. Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physics, that is related to climate change as well. He did a video for PragerU.
As for presenting data. Anyone can present data. But that is only the beginning. Look at Bloom's Taxonomy. If you studied that you would learn that at the very you have "knowledge". That is learning about the data. In Kindergarten that is learning sight words. In science, my field, that can be learning the atom and the parts of it. As you move up in Bloom's Taxonomy you learn how to "synthesize" and "evaluate". The progress in words is sight words, than understanding what the words mean, then forming sentences, then essays, books, arguments, etc. In science you learn the atom, then the parts of it, then the functions, then you learn about the quantum properties of it and and then doing research with them.
Just presenting data is at around level 2 of Bloom's Taxonomy, that is comprehension. As you move up in Bloom's Taxonomy you need more experience. If not you end up applying that knowledge incorrectly and presenting false ideas and opinions. So yes, a science degree is important here.
On Moore's point, Moore was saying climate changed with no influence of humans in the past. Potholer54 said it is true that climate has changed in the past, but it was due to CO2. I have no clue why potholer54 brought up CO2. Moore said nothing about CO2, potholer54 did. So potholer54 does not debunk Moore, he actually ends up supporting Moore that the climate has changed in the past without the influence of humans.
When Moore said there are other factors at play besides CO2, he is correct. There are many factors at play. Moore does not say CO2 does not play a role, many factors play a role along with CO2. Looking at just CO2 and temperature is simply seeing a correlation where one thing you learn in science is that correlation does not equal causation. Just like when it rains worms show up. It does not mean that it rains worms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By the time...,
So in the end what potholer54 says is irrelevant compared to Dr. Patrick Moore as neither of them has done the research. Would you agree? I would admit I do not do research in climate change directly. I base my opinion the fact that we know very little in science. I am currently writing a paper where we are looking a molecule with only 11 atoms. That's it. We are pushing it in a journal with an impact factor of 8. You think with only 11 atoms we would know a lot about it, but we don't. The same is with climate change. We know very little about it. So when I hear Dr. Moore's opinion on it I see it as him talking as a scientist who understands we know very little about the topic, and there is a lot at play, thus we do not know. Same with Dr. Lindzen.
But if you want to go down the route of they have not done research in climate change, than you need to hold the same standard to potholer54. So what both of them say is irrelevant.
People can present data in numerous ways. That is the issue. Potholer54 is not doing any favors by presenting a few papers and only a few set of data points on this complex issue. Also, you say he has a degree. Dr. Moore and Dr. Lindzen do as well. Why are you holding them to different standards? I have a physics and chemistry degree, so I can understand literature in science as well. I have different opinions based on my background in physics and my current research. Why do you dismiss me or hold me to a different standard?
Many factors are at play besides CO2. The sun, increases in population, level of moisture, a species destroying vegetation over time, etc. There are other factors. The CO2 to temperature correlation is important, but is only one factor. Also, is it even bad? That is another point. The ecosystem has evolved for millions of years.
This is the part where I get annoyed with the ultra left about. They rip on others for not supporting evolution (supposedly), but when it comes to climate change they all of a sudden ignore evolution themselves. Even if CO2 is the main driving force in climate change, and man is the driving force. Why won't they ecosystem system?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By the time....,
potholer54 presents data, and that is where he needs to stop. In his video about Moore Dr. Moore made the claim that climate was changing before man had an influence on it. Potholer54 then presents data and relating it to CO2. That is irrelevant to what Moore is saying as Moore never mentioned CO2. Also, if potholer54 is going to present data, he needs to encourage people to look deeper. He hardly does that. He shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature and goes from there. His audience then follows him blindly without thinking about what papers he is sourcing, the methods behind the studies, the actual conclusion, and any other studies related to it. As a whole potholer54 is hardly scratching the surface of this complex issue which is a disservice to the field.
It isn't a false equivocation. My research helps understanding chemical reactions, and molecular dynamics in different environment, that includes temperature. This leads to one of my points of how we do not know if climate change is a threat. We hardly understand how chemical reactions work. We hardly understand how biological materials move in different conditions. We do not know what will happen in the ecosystem during current climate change. I am writing a paper on a molecule with 11 atoms. We are not even close to do this kind of work on a much larger system.
In comparison, I read a paper on a 6 residue peptide. Do you know how many residues are in a peptide? A lot more than 6. Right now we are still trying to understand how one with 6 residues act in different environments.
My point is that we know very little in science. So for potholer54 to make strong claims is doing science a disservice. The same is with man made climate change. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. How much is man playing a role in it? We do not know. Yes, man is playing a role, but we have no control to compare to.
As for papers who "disagrees with him". That is not how science works. It isn't one person says one thing and another person disagrees. In science we leave a lot of ideas open. We present data, give an explanation, but hardly give strong certainty. The reason why is because the science is not settled.
potholer54 is presenting data as if the science is settled. I cannot present a paper that disagrees with him for two reasons
1. The data is the data and that cannot be disputed
2. What the data means is up for interpretation, but the conclusion is not certain. potholer54 presents it as if it is. I am saying that is not how science works. I cannot prove a negative.
Compare it to this. potholer54 is saying big foot is real. I say I have doubt. potholer54 presents blurry pictures and a footprint for his evidence and has strong certainty. I say that is not enough evidence so I have doubt. potholer54 asks for my evidence for my doubt. I cannot do that as my reasoning is lack of evidence.
In connection to climate change, my reasoning for my stance is lack of evidence, as in a control. Also, it is based on my experience that science is very dynamic and we know very little.
You are holding people to different standards. You are supporting potholer54 while dismissing the professors who created PragerU videos.
Yes, the sun's intensity does fluctuate. It is one of many factors that contribute to climate change. I am not saying it is just the sun. I am not saying CO2 does not play a role. It is many parts playing a role. Higher population means entropy increases at a higher rate. It means more movement thus greater generation of thermal energy, that can mean higher temperature. The world's population has gone up around 5 times since 1900. There is a correlation between earth population and temperature anomaly. I haven't overlapped the graphs but they seem to be going up exponentially starting at 1900. Species destroying vegetation means increase levels of CO2 or different moisture level.
There are many things at play. I am not denying man's contribution. I am just saying there is no quantitative number you can give to say how much man is playing a role. I am also saying that current climate change could be fine and not a threat.
I support looking into the issue, I just get irritated and people like potholer54 doing more harm than good and people blindly following him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lampropeltis001 Also, if one wants to use deaths per capita we can do that as well to see improvements. States hit hard at the beginning, NY, NJ, MI, MD, etc. have higher deaths per capita then states that were just recently hit hard in FL, TX, AZ, CA, etc. So that shows improvement
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" If there are no doctors, how could there be private practitioners?
"
I agree, there won't be. Just like if there isn't anyone to build furniture there won't be any furniture. That is the point. In the very end someone has to provide healthcare and the resources involved in it. That costs money as it costs someone's time and resources. Just like furniture does.
"Let's get to the basics of the healthcare industry. What drives the
availability of doctors? A combination of individuals earning the
education, for the money, for the interest in a career in the field, for
the interest of helping people, etc. A shortcoming of these and other
factors in principle leads to the shortage of doctors. "
Let us break down those factors
1. Education: You can study a lot of subjects related to healthcare and never work in it.
2. Money: If the government pays too little then why become a doctor?
3. You can be interested in the career and work in it without being a doctor directly. Such as you can do research instead.
4. You can help people in many ways
However, there are other factors as well. Stress, ability, time. Becoming a doctor requires a lot of work and is very stressful. There is a reason why are have a shortage of them. And many simply can't do it. Almost every med school has a less than 50% acceptance rate.
"Your rhetoric of "if there is no doctor" is an empty and loaded
rhetoric, that just as similarly, absurdly, applies to privatized
healthcare as it does to a public program. "
I agree it can apply to private healthcare as well. The overall point is this. Healthcare, like furniture, is a commodity that someone has to provide, period. And we need to treat it as such.
". But which developed country, due to any shortages, have worse healthcare statistics than the USA?"
You have to be careful here. When you break down the numbers you will see that other countries are not getting better outcomes then the US. They are on par with the US overall as many variables influence those numbers. Read the book "The Business of Health". I will link it in another comment. But to answer your question directly, none as they are on par with the US.
"And do you think there's no similar shortages in private sectors in the USA?"
There are, and I do not deny that as in the end healthcare is a commodity. Someone has to provide it.
"You think the electorates of those nations don't know their taxes go to
those doctors? The electorates, comprising mostly of healthy people who
rarely even visit doctors?"
Which is fine in how they want to fund their system. But in the end they are paying doctors to provide healthcare. Someone has to provide healthcare making it a commodity, like furniture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You mean healthcare statistics of other developed nations with public
healthcare? Don't you already know the statistics of healthcare around
the world or do you really need to go one by one into every category?"
Let us break it down
1. On paper everyone is "covered", but that is only on paper. On paper everyone in S. Africa has a right to a home, but they still have homeless people. In the US on paper people are innocent until proven guilty, however we still send innocent people to jail. On paper in the US everyone has access to a K-12 education, however many schools do not teach calculus and physics due to lack of resources.
Look at "percentage covered" is a very low standard as on nation covers everyone.
2. When you lower the standard costs go down as well. Another poor standard to go off of. The US is expensive because of two reasons
a: lack of a free market despite having a for profit system
b: our advancements in innovation and technology which is strength
3. Many factors influence life expectancy such as personal health choices for example. Two professors showed if you remove car accidents and murder the US is number 1 in life expectancy.
4. The US has high quality of care, this is something that even many on the left agree one. They just complain how people do not have access
5. The US is very low in wait times. In fact there was a paper that revealed that Canada has some of the longest wait times in the world, it was entitled
"International comparisons of waiting times in health care-Limitations and prospects"
To be fair, though, countries calculate wait times differently thus this is a poor standard to use as you can never obtain accurate numbers
6. Same as with cost. Overall, in the US people do go bankrupt. However, the fact that we allow people to regress in life to where they have a chance to progress shows success of our society. In other nations people die. Here we have enough resources to allow people to take more then they can afford and maybe pay it off later. That is charitable in many ways
7. Happiness is subjective. 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare. Seems like people like the system we have.
The problem with these statistics is that there are many ways you can look at them as there are many variables involved in them beyond healthcare. Life expectancy is a great example, there are more factors then just healthcare. And happiness is not a statistic you can measure.
"Public healthcare is a commodity as much as private. "
Exactly, it is a commodity. If you feel the government should pay for it then fine, but remember that in the end it is a commodity that someone has to provide. If there is not anyone to provide it then it won't exist. Just like in my high school they never offered German as a foreign language class as there was not anyone there to teach it. Or why we do teleport, we do not have teleportation.
"Commodities means so many things."
It means some one has to provide it. Depending on the situation it may cost more. So the furniture comparison is correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fl00fydragon,
1. People like the interpersonal connection. Also, education is expanding. College enrollment is going up. There is an increased demand for tutors, professors, administration, etc. There will always be a need for secretaries. In retail there will always be a need for workers there. If I need my car fix I will go to a mechanic and consult them. In many fields there will always be a need for people. If a computer replaces someone at the checkout aisle in a store than that person who could have worked there will go off to another job. They can stock shelves making the store look more attractive, or work at another company as a secretary.
There will always be jobs.
2. I looked at monopolies, they were created by government. If a monopoly is created in the free market and survives then they simply offered great goods/services and jobs. If not people would eventually change the situation either by someone creating another company or by people moving. That has always happened.
What goes on in Europe is actually the free market. They have lower corporate taxes and they give more freedom to the businesses.
You bring up the outside force. The outside force is another company and the consumers deciding how to change. Again, Amazon challenged Walmart. Netflix challenged Blockbuster. Pepsi challenge Coke. Government creates monopolies, the free market prevents them.
3. What experts? You have not provided any.
a) If they are alive they are paid a "living wage".
b) I should be using "labor force participation rate"
By the definition in FRED
"The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is teh labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population"
Sorry for the confusion. Under Obama it was dropping. Now we are seeing a slight increase.
Again, learn basic facts.
c) Huh?
I answered all your points. You cannot get basic facts correct.
To answer your question I will say that there will always be jobs. That is the reality. If we ever get to a system where computers replaced every worker than we are essentially living in a utopia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@D_McGeezacks , it isn't about it being perfect parallels, he is nowhere close to close to what Nordic nations do. For example, in the US the median income is around $31,000 a year, the top tax rate is around $400,00. The top tax rate is around 13 times higher than the median income. In Denmark the median income is around $41,000, the top tax rate is around $55,000. The top tax rate is around 1.3 times higher than the median income. The same trend is with other Nordic nations. In short, they tax everyone high, including the middle class. Bernie says he will only tax the rich, Wall Street and corporations. He wants a wealth tax when Nordic nations scrapped them. He wants higher corporate taxes when Nordic nations have lower corporate taxes. As a guy from Denmark said to Bernie during a debate against Cruz, Bernie wants to spend like a Scandinavian but not tax like one.
Bernie wants to do away with fossil fuels when Norway funds their programs with oil. He wants to centralized a large portion of our economy which is what communism does. That is what the Soviet Union did and what they did in East Germany. It failed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mckenzie .Latham, replacement is not necessary. They ran without a replacement option. Replacement was brought up on the left.
"also 35k people dying from car accidents a year was tripled before we
bought in safety features and or regulations and laws for diving...
"
Yes, we improved a system we had in place which we can do with our healthcare system. Asking for federal government take over is completely scrapping what we have now which will lead to many problems.
"he's basically saying, eh people die anyway so why bother or care about fixing healthcare or tying to stop that."
No, I am saying that there are shortcomings and everything has a cost. Compare it to driving, we can save 35,000 lives a year by banning driving. However, it behooves society more to allow driving even though it costs 35,000 lives a year. Single payer has shortcomings and there are studies to show that. When you run through the numbers you will see that they have just as many problems, if not more. So saying 20,000 die a year is a weak argument. One, because that is around 0.01% of the population, two, no system is idea, and three, many of those are poor to begin and poor people typically have health problems such as obesity and diabetes, something that is on their own fault.
I am for improving our system, but to completely replace it is not a solution. That will lead to an economic decline where data shows we will have just as many problems.
So no, I haven't forgotten anything, I actually know what I am talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"First of all you might find this shocking , but people can operate a
service efficiently on other principles than Profit , like actually
giving a shit human lives and about managing a budget to most
efficiently serve as many as possible with , and get promoted and paid
more for doing a good work . "
How do you get paid more if you are not generating more profits? Also, in the end people need to eat. They will want to be paid.
"and most importantly , Healthcare again costs way less elsewhere ,
because again this may come as a surprise , they are trying to lower
cost there as well !"
They do so by lowering quality and rationing care.
" Public healthcare isn't Profit motive free . Companies are battling each year for that juicy Government mass contract"
Just like colleges are by raising tuition. Also, with contract bids they can cost a lot. Look at what CC Myers did in his bids.
"This is getting pointless you are religiously convinced market can do no harm . "
Never said that, but your viewpoint on government's involvement in healthcare is poor. Healthcare is a complex issue that government cannot manage at the federal level.. We lack doctors, nurses, researchers, etc. How do you plan on accounting for that?
Also, as for other countries having cheaper care, they are not better off
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I do not doubt that the numbers sourced in the books are peer reviewed. However, as I have stated before people will interpret the facts as they want to suit their biases."
Sure, but they give all of their methods for you to criticize. All you have to do is read.
" For example, police brutality. The number of white persons killed by police officers are numerically higher than minorities. However, when you look on the ratio of minorities to the overall population who are killed, minorites are statistically disproportionately killed by police records than there white counterparts. "
People know that. However, you can look at it like this
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/
Also consider that blacks commit a disproportional amount of violent crime. So you bring up police brutality, but how many of those shootings were justified? If it is justified it is not police brutality.
"My reason for bringing that up is to show that while the source material may be right. Oftentimes, people, professors or not, will apply there premise upon it and extropolate whatever they want from it"
Again, they gave their sources and methods for you to read.
"I gave two links to fact checkers which show that the American Enterprise Institute is Koch funded and the Koch brothers have sponsored research which only serves the purpose to spread pro-corporate propaganda."
The Koch brothers have also donated money for cancer researcher to John Hopkins. Also, that still doesn't make the work from the AEI not relevant. Why is it not relevant? Where is the proof they push propaganda? How are they wrong? Give me examples and break it down. And again, if you don't want to read that book than read the papers from those professors.
"Again I personally will not read anymore Koch-sponsored propaganda."
Because you are wanting to remain closed minded. I gave you another option. I am still waiting for names of books and papers from you to read.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
""We're in the top 5 in productivity" is very different than "we will be in the top 5 in productivity in 10 years"."
We have been up there for a while now.
"The reason free college is an economic boost is because today a graduate starts professional life with a huge debt."
The average student debt is around $30,000, that is not much when you consider the return. If you pursue the correct degree than it is nothing. We cannot be funding worthless degrees like Liberal Arts.
Also, the value in college education isn't just education, most of what you learn you can learn on your own. The value is showing employers you can pursue a long term goal and are willing to invest both time and money to achieve it. Developing connections is also the goal. Many people feel college is about sitting in a classroom and learning a topic. It is much more than that. Compare the time you spend in a classroom in college compared to high school. You spend around 1/3 of your time in a classroom in college compared to high school. College is about investing to achieve a long term goal and showing you can become independent. Making college "free" removes that.
"If there was free college then there's no debt, and the money will be
spent in buying clothes, car, house or condo, consumer goods,
entertainment, etc."
Those professors are not going to work for free. So instead of paying for tuition why not lower taxes and allow people to choice to go to college?
"Distributing the money through many businesses and creating the jobs
that will attend to the demand, which creates more tax revenue, which
means it's cheaper individually to have free education."
Again, why not lower taxes so people have more money to spend? Right now you are pushing for lowering taxes so people can spend their money the way they want.
"We know this is the way it happens because previous generations who
didn't start in the red did use the money to buy stuff, creating
economic growth"
What went on then was different compared to now.
" It's just logical that when you're starting on your own you spend
money. Keeping all that money as a bank's profit is strangling it from
the rest of the productive economy."
Money in banks are loaned out to start businesses and buy homes. Also, again, why not lower taxes so people have money to spend how they want? You cannot make college free as professors are not going to work for free. So to pay for it you need higher taxes meaning less money for people to spend. You are contradicting yourself right now as you want people to have the option to spend money how they want but also want higher taxes.
"For the infrastructure, I'm not sure what your point is.
Unpredictability has always been there for supplies... and? Has been a
workable problem since forever. "
It hasn't been a workable problem as many projects take longer than expected. And at times to make them faster you have to offer more money as what CC Myers did in 2007 in Oakland. His bid was low but he built the maze fast earning an extra $5 million. Now you can try to avoid that extra cost, but slow repairs slows down traffic and economic activity which can cost the state more money. Your choice. Getting estimates on infrastructure spending is incredibly challenging and usually cost more than expected.
" The government doesn't hire workers to build new infrastructure. It
takes bids for the project from private companies which decide how many
workers they need to do it and put it on their bid."
I agree, and I pointed out an example with CC Myers. Now you expect the government to be good at bidding?
"Just the mere fact that you didn't know this undermines your whole argument."
Actually I do understand this. It seems like you are missing the point. A company can bid and have the project take longer than what can really be done, or simply hire more workers than needed due to the government overpaying. Or the government can be investing in something it does not need to invest in to begin with. The whole point is that just because government is willing to spend on infrastructure does not mean it is the best way to create jobs.
"Why, in your mind, would they do that? "
If their bid allows for a long time then they will do it. As I showed with the CC Myers example getting done fast means bonuses thus costing the government more. Now there is the other sides of economic activity being lost but you have to consider this
1. If the job is done quickly it will mean those jobs are temporary and not long term, and bonuses will make infrastructure spending higher
2. If you lower the bonuses for quick finishes than workers will have jobs longer and infrastructure spending will be lower, but economic activity will be limited due to delays in traffic for example
My point, this issue is not that easy as "we spend X amount and that will grow the economy". Also, most infrastructure spending is local anyway.
"Because the vast majority of the time the problem with government services is that they're understaffed"
In a lot of office and agencies they do. I my school district we have too many administrators and the city is being challenged right now to remove some due to it costing too much money. In federal programs like the EPA there are too many workers which is why the current administration is laying them off. In some areas such as teachers and the IRS it is understaffed, but in others there are too many workers. A lot of times politicians create agencies and programs to simply create government jobs.
As a whole the government has shown to be inefficient with money, especially the federal government. To think more federal government spending is going to grow the economy is not likely.
1
-
The Felix, to say again on infrastructure spending as in my long comment this point might have been lost. To start, most of it is local anyway, so pointing to federal dollars is meaningless. You say my comment is undermined as I supposedly did not understand that private companies do the work. I do understand that. But the fact that someone is pointing to federal dollars feeling that can fund our infrastructure when that is not how it works also undermines their argument. You have to be fair here.
Also, when looking at infrastructure spending you have to consider these
1. If the job is done quickly it will mean those jobs are temporary and
not long term, and bonuses will make infrastructure spending higher
2. If you lower the bonuses for quick finishes than workers will have
jobs longer and infrastructure spending will be lower, but economic
activity will be limited due to delays in traffic for example
So again, it isn't as easy as "we have X amount and it can pay for Y amount which can create Z jobs". There is more to it than that. If you are repairing a bridge that creates 50 jobs, but thousands of workers now have to wait an extra 30 minutes to an hour to get to work that hinders productive economic activity. On the flip side you say "get the job done faster" so they do, but as a result huge bonuses are paid out that cost the government more.
You also have to consider was the bridge repair necessary to begin with? One of my colleagues is the facilities manager at the university I work at. He has these challenges all the time to face. They are not easy to handle. In the end, this idea of "X amount of money can be spent here creating economic growth" is way too simplified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sagisli the country is not leading the world in infections and deaths when you take population into account. Nations with more deaths per million, San Marino, Andorra, Spain, Belgium, Italy France, etc. There are several in front of the US. That is even with us over stating the numbers (such as someone with coronavirus dies is listed as a coronavirus death even if the cause was coronavirus or not).
Trump did well, he let the states handle it. The reason why is because every state is experiencing this issue differently. Most of the cases/deaths in the US are in the New England area such as Connecticut, NY, NJ, etc. Newsome is just lucky he is in an area that was not hit hard.
Also, there is evidence to suggest that the early flu season in CA was actually the virus. Thus people in CA already experienced the virus and built up an immunity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gsdgsdgdhsadds and read my other comments, the age range with the highest increase were 25-44. So you cannot say the vast majority are attributed to covid as that age group makes up less than 3% of covid deaths. And what evidence do you have that without lock downs the deaths would be in the millions? According to a Penn State study when the number of infected people were reported to be 100,000 nation wide in the US it was really closer to 9 million. Many are infected without knowing.
Where do you get the estimated cost of each death being 9 million dollars? I find that hard to believe.
I consider human lives to be valuable, but reality is that, in the end, we have to make decisions on what is best for most in society. Also, some humans are more valuable than others to say the hard truth. The average age of death from this virus is over 80 years old.. So here we are trying to prevent an 80 year old from dying from the virus when they will most likely die soon to begin with while people in their 20s, 30s and 40s with potentially more value are either dying or are going to suffer long term hardship for years.
Truth is people die. At this point we have to think about what is going to cause more damage, the virus or the lock downs. Reality is we make decisions like this all the time. On average 7500 people die a day, a lot of situation are avoidable, but we never make a big deal about that unless it is a rare event like a school shooting, a plane crash or in this case a virus.
1
-
@gsdgsdgdhsadds were they increasing from a small number? Also, what are they dying from? Why does that age range have an excess?
And the 2 million deaths was prior to knowing how deadly this virus really is. We now know it is not that deadly. Most get it without even knowing.
On the value of life I feel you are not fully understanding it. When someone dies it does not cost society $9 million. Reading the report and the article it is about how much one is willing to spend. Milton Friedman discussed this with the issue of the Ford Pinto that blew up when rear ended and a $10 part would have prevented that. However, Friedman posed the question on what if the part cost a million dollars? Should it be required then?
As the article said, it is subjective. People make foolish decisions all the time that places their lives in danger. They will buy a cheaper, less safe car, or smoke. So it is hard to place a value on a life. But overall it does not cost society $9 million.
You can't compare deaths of covid to 9/11 deaths. 9/11 deaths were from a direct result of a terrorist attack. Covid deaths are more complex in that how many had a weak immune system or were sick to begin with?
"Finally, the economic effect on people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s can be mitigated by a stimulus package from the government."
It is not that easy. A lot are business owners, how do we help them out? Many lost their careers that will be hard to get back. There are psychological issues as well at play. People do need social interaction. They do need to get out of their homes. So it isn't as easy as giving people money. How much money? What do you base if off of?
And Asian nations are simply healthier to begin with. You really can't compare. Lock downs, to me, do not work simply by how contagious this virus is to begin with. What we should have done is open up, protect the vulnerable, and let everyone else mingle and get herd immunity.
1
-
@gsdgsdgdhsadds it is relevant to the larger point. And look at figure 2, with the older crowd excess deaths saw two spikes that corresponded to the two spikes of covid deaths overall. For the age range of 25-44 the excess deaths were flatline, no spike. They were dying at an excess rate during the lock downs.
Worldometer stats are off. According to a Penn State study 9 million were infected in March when only 100,000 were infected. That is because many had the virus and had little to no symptoms, especially early on.
It isn't downplaying the deaths but making the decision on what is more harmful, the virus or the lock downs. Compare it to driving. 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. To make that number to be zero we can cap speed limits to 15 mph, but as a result productivity in the economy will be very slow .
Not knowing how much to give is important. They gave everyone a stimulus when someone like me still had a job.
Asian nations are simply healthier overall. They wear masks to begin with. And it being socially acceptable is an issue of culture. Look at the history of the US. Taking risks is engrained in it.. People came here by getting on a big boat and going across a dangerous ocean. This nation became a country by people deciding to fight the most powerful army in the world at the time. We expanded by people loading up their wagons and going through danger to head west where 10s of thousands died on the Oregon Trail. We take more risks in the US, that is our culture. Besides, S. Korea is an island, like New Zealand. They were isolated from the beginning here in the US we aren't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorinelson7523 how is it cold? Death is a part of life. Is death a novel thing to you? People die all the time. In life we try to find a way to keep the damage as low as possible. Thus we have to decide what is worse, the virus or the lock downs? If my grandparents were to die with covid I will simply say "while sad, they were 90 years old, they were at high risk to die as a whole to begin with".
How about people losing love ones due to increases in suicides and substance abuse? How about those losing their businesses and careers due to the lock downs? You are focusing on just one thing and not the whole picture.
"I don't understand how YOU don't understand that most of the over 250,000 people that have died from Covid would be alive today if they hadn't caught the virus!"
Actually one can argue against that. 40% of deaths occurred in nursing homes. According to UCSF 50% of new nursing home patients die within 6 month. Chances are those 40% would be dead anyway. Now factor in those who are old and not in nursing homes chances are most of those 250,000 would be dead anyway. Meanwhile, substance abuse is up, divorce is up, suicides are up, businesses are being shut down, careers are being lost, people are going to be suffering for years because of the lock downs. You ask how I can be so cold, I can ask the same from you. How can you be so cold and not care about people leading to substance abuse due to the lock downs and now are going to face years of financial and psychological hardships?
A serial killer is a poor example as that is someone directly killing someone else. The virus is different in that there are other factors at play along with the lock downs causing problems.
"How can you be so dismissive of death by virus? How? Is it any less a death to you?"
I am not dismissive, I am saying there are other factors at play. Someone in their 80s is near death to begin with regardless of the virus. But what about people who lose their lively hood because of the lock downs? Do you not care about them?
40,000 people die a year on average due to traffic accidents. To make that number to be zero we can cap speed limits to 15 mph, but that will cause more damage. As with this virus, sure, it can kill people like all viruses, but the lock downs are arguably worse now.
1
-
@lorinelson7523 " If the majority people would would have followed the simple safety guidelines from the beginning of the pandemic (wearing a mask in public places & social distancing) we would, by some accounts, have less than half the deaths from Covid that we have had & we wouldn't have to have lockdowns now."
And that is the BS part. The standards kept changing. Wear a mask, lock down, social distance, do this, do that, blah blah blah. It is about control. Look at all these politicians doing a power grab but not following their own orders such as Gavin Newsome or Lori Lightfoot. It has nothing to do with safety or the virus but about a power grab and control. Also, it goes beyond suicides, you have substance abuse, domestic abuse, divorce, etc. I just got out of detox for the second time this year due to substance abuse. During detox we have group meetings to discuss how to not relapse and use again. One person said they volunteered at the animal shelter but guess what, they can't now because of covid not allowing it.
When you shut down the economy to where people cannot socialize, gather, volunteer, do things they enjoy they become depressed. Someone like Gavin Newsome tells people not hold thanksgiving but ends up dining at a fancy restaurant.
"So, let me get this straight---you prefer death to a temporary lockdown?"
One, deaths are overstated, two, this has been going on for 9 months now. Where is the end? I am not seeing it along with others. That is why people are telling the government to fuck off and are pushing to go back to normal. Where is the end?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
RandomGuy7092,
"Except you can't, it's objective reality that single payer healthcare
systems are better, everyone is covered, life expectancy is higher,
nearly all other positive stats are better."
Read the book "The Business of Health" by Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt and Prof. John Schneider. They break down the numbers with their statistical regression models and come to the conclusion that the numbers do not indicate that single payer systems are better. For example, when you remove car accidents and murder the US is number 1 in life expectancy.
Now here is the thing. That is not to say the US is number 1, it simply shows a lot influences those numbers. You cannot say that life expectancy is only influenced by healthcare. There are factors as well. Next, that book lists all of their methods and citations. If you are going to blindly follow what Kyle says but then turn around and rip on this book without ever reading it or ever citing where they are incorrect then you are not fit to discuss any of the complex issues. You are just a left wing sheep at that point. I do not agree with everything in that book, but it does show the complexity of the issue and how blanket statements like you and Kyle make are foolish.
As for "everyone is covered". That is impossible as there is a lack of supplies. Every system rations. Read the paper "The Ethics and Realty of Rationing in Medicine". Now you may say other countries ration based on need, however that is not true. In other countries people do die on waiting lists which means they are not covered nor rationed based on need. Read the paper
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic
stenosis surgery" in Can J Cardiol.
I will like you all of these later. Sometimes the link prevents the comment from posting. But in that paper people die waiting for heart surgery, sometimes listed as "elective".
Now that I have given you these resources this is the time you ignore me or call me a "right wing idiot" or something like that. However, nowhere did I say that the US system is superior, or that single payer is inferior. I am simply saying it has shortcomings and that Kyle and his fans ignore them or the complexity of the issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonyabusiness366 to start you said there were cuts to the NHS. I said, correctly, that spending as a percent of GDP has been going up. You then claimed it has not kept pace with inflation. I then asked you what method of inflation. You refused to say. Besides, spending on the NHS is outpacing your GDP growth as shown that spending, in terms of percent of GDP, has been increasing.
"You didn't prove they deny people, they were seen to and the doctors deemed it was not necessary to have it at they were unlikely they would go blind. "
So they were denied care. Thanks for proving my point.
"You also ignored the fact that if you don't have insurance you will be denied treatment and if you have insurance but it won't cover the treatment you a faced with a choice bankruptcy or no treatment and be denied."
Where the vast majority do have healthcare insurance in the US which makes reform difficult. Also, I rather go bankrupt than die.
And again, the US is superior in access to advanced care. It beats out the UK. The UK denies people care. That is the reality.
"You also ignored that it isn't just one study that shows the UK has better healthcare but multiple ones who use multiple different methods. "
What studies?
"Yea take those two things out if you want but they effect life expectancy which is only one data point when choosing which healthcare system is better."
The point is, as I said before, anyone can pay with the data and come up with any ranking they want. That is why zero academic sources have ever developed a healthcare ranking and where every healthcare ranking has come from a special interest group. You point to healthcare rankings which are completely arbitrary. Again, ZERO academic sources have ever produced a healthcare ranking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" meanwhile you have not shown any sort of proof for this so called waiting list"
I gave title of papers talking about waiting lists. Here they are again
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic
stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
"Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among
29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
Just put those titles in Google and they will pop up.
"plus, even in the U.S. we have waiting lists, for example, for heart
transplants, the difference is that in the U.S. we often prioritize
money, in those countries they prioritize health needs. "
Again, I just gave you titles of papers of people dying waiting for heart surgery in Canada. It happens in other countries. Rationing is a thing based limited resources. We do it based on need in the US as well.
“The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine” Chest
Read that paper on it.
" Data from the U.S. Census, used to determine the amount of medical bankruptcies "
Ok, and? Poor people have a higher risk of going bankrupt. What's your point?
"The American Journal of Public Health - Deaths linked to lack of health coverage"
I have read that, and here is a counter argument to that from a Harvard professor
"
Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor,
echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between
lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than
those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse
health.
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't
know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower
income," Baicker said."
What does that mean? Well, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with those in poverty. So the question becomes are they dying due to lack of insurance or due to being in bad health to begin with? 45,000 is 0.01% of the overall population. When you deal with numbers that small a lot can factor in for the reasoning. 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents and the accidents occur for many reasons.
"Plus, you never showed any proof that they didn't switched? "
Neither did you. I never said they switched. We are talking about something over 50 years ago. That is irrelevant to today's politicians.
" but you haven't given any reason(s) disproving the use of the Southern Strategy by Republicans. Here is a link "
That occurred around the same time as the Southern Manifesto. There are also some debates on the Southern Strategy as it can be tied to economic reasons or religion.
But hey, if you want to go with racism by a group of people in the 50s and 60s, then you have to accept that the Democrats, in the same time period, did the Southern Manifesto.
1
-
1
-
1
-
" The debate isn't about single payer being perfect, it's about whether
or not it's better than our current system. Based on the evidence at
hand it is in most cases, flaws aside. "
Objectively it isn't. I gave numerous sources showing that. When you run through the numbers the reality is that single payer is not any better than what the US has. Is it worse? No, and I criticize people who make that claim. Single payer does many things well, but it has many shortcomings. This is why you resort to polls which are subjective. People in those countries do not experience any other system and they have a different mentality compare to people in the US. That poll is similar to a poll of what is their favorite sport or favorite past time. It is meaningless.
The issue is that healthcare is a very complex issue with many moving parts. The debate cannot be settled off of subjective polls and raw stats. There is a lot to it.
"especially considering that people support the ACA more than Obama care based on name alone "
I question that as I have not seen strong evidence showing that is true. Most people have no idea what is in the ACA or how it will effect the economy. That is why Prof. Gruber made the response he did about the ACA when creating it. In short, people are idiots. Well, that may be too harsh. My textbook states it like that. But in reality people just don't know.
" Also, wasn't the most recent debate about the Medicaid expansion repeal
all the talk? People hated the individual mandate, not the program as a
whole. People love the Medicaid expansion the ACA(Obama care) provided."
Sure, but would they support higher taxes? In Colorado they said no. An issue we have in the US is that people will support expanding social programs like Medicaid but not paying more themselves. Supporting medicaid expansion on the surface means nothing as many will oppose raising taxes while doing it.
"People don't want a government run system? Have you seen the numbers on
support for Medicare and Medicaid? Has either of them failed?"
Medicare and medicaid are losing money, and many doctors do not take medicare. And I have seen the numbers on support, they are questionable. Remember, 80% of voters said no in Colorado when asked to pass universal healthcare.
"can share excerpts from your sources that illustrate why our system is better?"
I never said our system was better. I said it was on par with the rest of the world. There are many parts to this. You cannot just limit it down to a few excerpts. That is why I encourage you to read these sources and find others.
To give you one example from the paper
“Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States,
Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed
"Part of the gap between US and Canadian health care costs may be
explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital’ capital costs,
larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of
spending on research and development in the US"
When you talk about costs that is one of many things to consider. Another is from this report from the CDC
“International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related
Factors: United States and Europe, 2010”
"About 39% of the United States' higher infant mortality rate when compared with that of Sweden was due to the higher U.S. percentage of preterm births."
If you read the article they showed that if the US had the same percentage of preterm births as Sweden and used the same standard of infant mortality rate of Sweden after 37 weeks of gestation the US infant mortality rate will be at 2.4 which is comparable to Sweden's 2.1.
Point being, there is a lot to healthcare. You are looking for a simple answer to a complex question. This isn't an issue where you can just "Google it" or find a conclusion in a report. This is an issue that requires teams of researcher looking at every possible case and coming up with a report rich with asterisks that may give a conclusion. I am not someone that says the US system does it better as I see nothing that makes that so. But I also see nothing that shows that single payer is better. So with that I push to improve the system we have now as opposed to completely destroying it, which will bring us into a major recession, and replacing it with something that is not better.
1
-
1
-
Black Dream, point by point
1. Again, subjective. I feel the US healthcare system is great as I pay $0 and never had any problems. Does that make it true? Does that mean it has not problems?
People experience what they live with and most never experience another system. Polling people who never experienced another system is not an accurate way to come up with a conclusion. Anyway, Gallup is not a reliable polling cite. They did not do a presidential election poll. Gallup said that over 60% of the nation wants universal healthcare but 80% in Colorado said no. Gallup said that over 80% wanted expanded universal background check on guns but in Maine that law was voted down by the people and in NV it passed by only 0.45%.
You point to these polls is not an argument because one, Gallup has been wrong lately. And two, it is 100% subjective. You are looking at polls where people most likely never experienced another system or had to deal with healthcare that much to begin with.
2. You just agreed that people do not know, so why are you trusting the polls? You just contradicted yourself. I told you why I do not trust the polls, people have little experience in healthcare. You trust those polls but then turn around and say that people do not know better?
3. This is our culture. People like to control their own money because in all reality people do it better than the government. Even if that wasn't the case it comes down to freedom and liberty. We work for that money and we should be able to spend it as we please.
Even at that little suggests single payer would save people money. I would personally be paying more as I already pay $0 in healthcare. Same with almost everyone I know. Most people do not pay a dime in healthcare as their employers pay for it.
4. Medicare, at least, is losing money. Even Bernie admitted that. Adding more people to it is not a solution. Saying it "works" everywhere in the world is a very low bar to set and is vague. How does it "work"? By what standard? I can remove someone's head lice problem by shaving their head, is that a solution? I can get rid of a rat infestation problem in a building by blowing it up, is that a solution?
"All data is questionable btw, even yours. "
It isn't so much questionable but more of it can be interpreted in many ways. There are numerous statistical analysis you can do that can create any ranking where many can have the US as number 1.
"Combine this with the fact that healthcare costs are projected to
increase and you have another win for a single payer system, as it's
been shown that it would save money. "
That is false. To begin with that makes zero sense economically that increasing demand would save money. It will lead to higher costs. This is why no economist and politician (besides radical Bernie) points to this analysis.
Next, on these numbers. The cost of single payer varies as healthcare costs vary. That source you gave me that gives the $49 trillion talks about a 5.6% growth when you cannot predict that far ahead. There are too many variables. I could have looked over it by the Urban Institute does not mention the 5.6% growth rate. They only mention that they assumed a 0.5% lower than expected growth rate (page 9 of the report). If you read page 8 of the Urban Institute's report at the paragraph starting at "By buidling...." they make the assumption that all demand is met.
So that $32 trillion is a gross underestimation. Comparing it to the $49 trillion is comparing apples and oranges. That is why I do not buy into the $17 trillion talking point. I go off of history on how the federal government is always underestimating how much these programs cost and how Medicare is losing money.
I have to ask, you are actually reading these reports or are you just blindly following the headlines?
"The examples you list are questionable, the first is mere speculation."
How so?
" In regards to infant mortality, I would ask how or if abortions factor into the statistic.
"
That is a good point. What that shows is that comparing numbers between countries is difficult due to the many differences.
"All that said, I do agree that it is a complex issue, but the free market ain't cutting it here in the US. "
Except we do not have a free market system. We have in over 50 years.
"More money for similar results? No thanks."
We have more R&D which is vital in improving our system.
1
-
Black Dream,
1. No it can't. They are subjective. Polling people who have never experienced multiple systems and know very little about healthcare in general is not an argument. This is why we do not run our country on polls. This is why we never have anything at the federal level determined by a majority. And as voting results show, people do not want government run healthcare. Colorado voters turned it down, and republicans won because of Obamacare in 2010.
2. People hated Obamacare. Republicans ran on repealing it and they won. But now you are back pedaling. Are people smart or not? If they confuse Obamacare with the ACA then are they smart? What is it.
3. "Can you show me that private insurance companies work better for people
than government funded programs? To say you and most people you know pay
$0 for health insurance is misleading. As far as I know most companies
provide health insurance, but at a cost to the employee. I currently pay
about $160 per pay period for a silver level HRA from United. Look at
your next pay stub for healthcare deductions."
It is free for me and my co-workers. We pay zero. Nothing is taken out of our paychecks. As for insurance companies working better than government funded programs. Medicare is losing money. And the private sector has always done it better than the public on the large scale. The issue is that we DO NOT have a free market system.
" This is a perfect segway into another benefit for single payer; businesses wouldn't have to fund employee healthcare."
Why do they fund healthcare? Because of the payroll tax. It is a tax free way to pay employees and healthcare is not payroll. Same with other benefits. If employers do not have to pay healthcare insurance than they just won't pay employees. Employee are now earning less.
"How many more full-time jobs could be created under a single payer system?"
Not many as you are still having to clear the hurdle of the payroll tax. Payroll will go up expanding people to full time. Bernie wants to pay for universal healthcare by expanding the payroll tax.
4. Every country runs their own system. Which one do you want to cover? And those countries have their own, unique economies. Norway does well because they are top 5 in oil productivity. How many leftists where want to drill for our own oil? Demark has mandatory military. Saying it "works" in other countries is very vague and a low standard to set. Why does it work? How do they manage it? What is their overall economy like? How are their politicians? How is the general public? Read the book "Debunking Utopia". There the author makes the claim that in other countries they live healthier lifestyle so the system is not dragged down. In the US we are unique in that over 40% of our food dollar is used eating out. Other countries are around half of that. Eating out is usually less healthy.
"Because what Bernie suggests is ultimately removing the profit motive of
the greedy middle man. United healthcare alone generated almost $11
billion in profit last year. No profit motive beyond operating costs
with Medicare or Medicaid. "
Not true as profit motive leads to more productivity and innovation. You need resources to invest and grow. Without profit you do not get that. That is why the government hardly innovates.
"Why not? If you average the percentages of healthcare costs increases
over 10 years from 2005-2015 you get a 5.38% increase. Seems they just
followed the trends over the last decade. Based on those numbers the
figures seem reasonable to me."
Because several factors contribute to that growth. The overall economy, taxes, regulations, etc.
"It's seems as if they are just throwing out possible causes, and it
still doesn't necessarily account for the 13 or 14 other countries that
are ahead of the US."
Ahead of us how? Again, we lead the world in R&D. You are looking at just providing healthcare but fail to realize how dynamic healthcare is as an industry. Due to evolution diseases become resistant to drugs requiring new ones. New illnesses and problems come up that require research to battle. Healthcare is not an issue of just having the government write the check. It is a complex industry with highly skilled workers and teams of researchers trying to progress in and ever evolving system.
You are oversimplifying the issue.
1
-
Black Dream,
1. Companies do it their own polls where they are polling people who experienced that system. Is it 100% reliable? No as it involves people who may only experience their system. But in a free market with competing companies consumers can experience different systems and compare.
Many in Canada never experienced the US system, so they can't compare. And many Canada, as in the US, never had a bad experience as they do not face major problems.
Coloradocare is a mark against universal healthcare. You said it was complex. Well, healthcare is complex. It is a nearly four trillion dollar industry with highly educated workers and advanced equipment and involves people's emotions. That is not an easy issue to tackle. My number one beef with people pushing for single payer is they feel if we allow the federal government, or any government to fund healthcare then things will be all better, as if it were that simple. It isn't. And you mentioned lobbying, again, this is a nearly four trillion dollar industry. The lobbying and corruption in healthcare will be huge if more government had a hand in it.
2. The individual mandate was essentially a higher tax. Paying for healthcare out of pocket or paying a higher tax are the same. The reason why people oppose universal healthcare in Colorado was because of the tax attached to it.
3. What is the quality of their healthcare? $15,000 a year is not much in the big picture. In Denmark around 50% of all revenue is taxed. If I earn $60,000 and have $15,000 taken out for healthcare insurance, I would take that over $30,000.
But besides that, I feel the main problem with healthcare is that insurance has become care. I agree insurance is too much, but the reason why is because employers pay employees with healthcare insurance. Consumers cannot force companies to compete and they cannot pay for a plan they want.
As for the private sector. A lot of R&D comes from there. With government you have bureaucracy and a collection of government employees who cannot get a job elsewhere. You get public unions that care more about their pay as opposed to the quality of work. See teacher unions for example.
With the private sector consumers can force companies to compete. Insurance companies will have to compete in order to retain customers. They have to cater to customers with individual plans and insurance can be insurance that covers only expensive, unplanned events.
" Also, consider the burden on small businesses. Elimination of these expenses would promote small business growth. "
Eliminate the payroll tax will do that. The main reason why employers offer insurance is because it is a tax free way to pay employees.
4. Insurance companies are a company, they need a profit as well. Medical providers need money for research. They all have to profit. Also, insurance companies do research such as disease awareness for customers and fraud prevention.
"Again, what does this have to do with the profit motive of health insurance companies?"
One company makes profits, so does another one. Insurance companies push to reduce healthcare costs with negotiation because they have to profit. The government with no profit motive will just raise the debt ceiling. Healthcare providers need to profit for many reasons, including R&D. It is two groups fighting to expand their bottom line.
The problem is that the consumer, the person actually receiving healthcare, has no say in the negotiation process. They cannot pick their plan as they are restricted to what their employer offers. Thus insurance companies can charge higher prices leading to healthcare providers charging higher prices.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PittsburghSonido , that is the harsh reality in life.
Here is the issue, when you dig deep into political issues, especially economic ones, the political left, at the core, 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 in discussing these issues, but we are human and thus have emotions. What I am saying is that you guys on the far left need to, at times, push emotions aside and realize the facts of the issue and think logically here. Resources are limited, instead of discussing that you guys on the far left simply show this story and play the emotional game.
On these issues there are an objective and subjective sides to them. To give another example consider caring for the elderly. When we spend resources keeping the elderly alive that can objectively be a waste as we are spending resources on people who don't produce anything. However, there is an subjective side in keeping these people alive and it is based on emotions which I support to a degree as well. This is not a simple issue to tackle and people in the healthcare industry face this often. Work in healthcare sometime in your life and you will see people who are extremely sick who can't take care of themselves but we keep them alive. Is it worth it? From a resource standpoint it isn't but from an emotional one it is.
You can call me whatever you like, but I am the one who realizes the actual challenges in healthcare and am willing to bring up these harsh points. Just switching to a Medicare for all system does not magically make resources appear. It may make you feel good that on paper government will cover people, but in reality we can't cover everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@warriorwaitress7690 , every other nation has many problems as well unless they are very small with a lot of money like Luxembourg. Up to 7000 people die a year on waiting lists in Australia waiting for "elective surgery" which includes neurosurgery. People die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. The US leads the world in survival rates for extreme illnesses which is impressive considering our high obesity rates. We have a very unhealthy lifestyle in the US but despite that we produce strong results in our healthcare system.
AS for the 40,000 a year stat there are many shortcomings there. One, you can't throw out a number without comparing to something. Has a study like that been done in any other nation? No. So that 40,000 is not compared to anything. You don't know if, compared to other nations, that is too high, low, or the average. Next, those 40,000 individuals are poor and bad health is associated with the poor. Those in poverty have a higher rate of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes, so as Prof. Katherine Baicker puts it, you don't know if they die due to lack of healthcare access or due to being in bad health to begin with. Read the book "Being Mortal" on that issue. People point to modern medicine to live another 5 to 10 years when in reality they may live another 5 or 10 months. So even if those 40,00 receive care but die 5 months later while being in pain and agony, was that a success?
I am all for reforming the system, be we have to have a discussion here. You don't want to have one.
1
-
@warriorwaitress7690 , I will push for a more free market system where local communities such as charities, states and local governments can fill in the gap.
Consider these questions. 1: Why do so many employers offer healthcare insurance to their employees as payment as opposed to simply paying them more money?
2: Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
On each point I think it centers around the payroll tax. The payroll tax has it so that if an employer pays a higher wage they have to pay a higher tax. So to counter that they pay employees through methods that are taxed free such as benefits like healthcare insurance, stock options, company cars, etc. Since healthcare insurance is a form of payment it has become healthcare because insurance pays for all healthcare related expenses. Also, since healthcare insurance is a form of payment it creates many problems such as
1. It makes insurance healthcare
2. People cannot decide what insurance they have, it depends on their employer
3. People cannot change jobs without fear of losing their insurance
4. People have plans that they don't need such as men covering contraceptives or women covering viagra
5. If they try to change jobs they have to change plans, at an older age that leads to the issue of "pre-existing conditions"
and so on.
If we remove the payroll tax employers will pay with a higher wage. Thus people can buy plans themselves. With that they can do the following
1. They can buy plans they want where insurance pays for unplanned, expensive cases such as an accident, but most issues can be paid for out of pocket. Like car insurance pays for an accident but not new tires despite tires being necessary for a safe care. As Ben Shapiro said, why should an X-ray cost insurance companies hundreds of dollars? A machine takes a picture of you and a doctor looks at it. The reason why it cost so much is because we don't have a free market system in healthcare as the consumer is not the one paying.
2. If insurance companies compete and only pay for unplanned things than prices will drop and insurance companies will cater to their customers. Out of pocket things will drop in prices as well due to competition.
3. People can change jobs and not have to change plans
4. People can get a plan at a young age avoiding "pre-existing conditions"
Now will this cover everyone? No. But the gaps will be filled in with local communities. That is my plan, a free market approach.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
$100,000 is a lot.
I agree that PIs who cruise along are the minority. As for papers that are poor, well, I feel they are more common than what you think. But maybe that is just in my field.
Saying you work in "climate change" is very vague as that covers many fields. I question people who say that. That is not to criticize you or anything, but it does make me wonder if what you are saying is true.
As for climate change and being skeptical. I am skeptical on the idea that it is a threat, and man plays a major role. I base that on the idea, as a physicist, that we know very little about the ecosystem. We do not know how photosynthesis works. It isn't about scientists being this or that at that point, that is about government and the media misrepresenting science which is another issue in itself.
But, as a whole, these grants are government funds and like public unions are subjected to abuse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"and just like most commodities, the basic low level version should be very affordable."
Define "affordable". Also, cancer treatment is not the "low level" of healthcare.
" Food, water, clothing, shelter, cars, and even certain levels of education are very affordable for their most basic versions."
Sure, but last I checked the cashier at the grocery store did not have to take 10+ years of post secondary schooling to work there. Doctors do. Last I checked the cars were much cheaper than equipment at hospitals.
" Also, I know you are against paying for other people's healthcare, but
we already do that. Our taxes go towards subsidies for the ACA, and
hospitals charge insured people more to cover the costs of the uninsured
patients."
I do not agree with that system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 to start, I point to lotter winners and athletes as they, typically come from average homes and, in a short time, are given large sums of money. Due to poor money management they go bankrupt.
Next, your first source is all over the place. They give numbers with little to no sources or comparison. For example, on household income, they do not factor in cost of living or various methods of inflation (again, I listed three). Next, they gave a time period starting at 1970. You have to factor in that with improved technology many goods have dropped in prices allowing people to spend their money elsewhere. Take cars for example. Everyone will agree cars today are safer, last longer and get better gas mileage which saves money overall. Thus people can spend their money on other goods/services. Same with electric bills. Due to better insulation energy bills are lower. The internet allows people to read reviews of companies forcing competition and thus lower prices. Your sources mentions none of that.
It talks about wealth which is deceptive. If you read the paper entitled
"Measuring inequality"
In the Oxford Review of Economic Policy they say on wealth
"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."
On those two points, someone like Bezos is very wealthy due to ownership in shares of his company. But almost all of it is illiquid thus limiting his access to it. That means he just can't sell it. On the second point a lot of people have negative wealth and are fine. I have negative wealth due to student loans. The homeless guy down the street has essentially no wealth. Based on your source that homeless guy is better off.
So again, your source is all over the place and missing a lot of valuable information..
On healthcare, first it mentions cost. In the US we pay more because we offer more care. We throw everything at people. Now there are arguments for and against that, but we do. Other nations cap how much care one receives. For example, we offer more CT scans per capita.
As for outcomes, factors outside of healthcare influence those. For example, lifestyle and culture. We lead the developed world in obesity which lowers life expectancy and, according to a Stanford report entitled
"Obesity before pregnancy linked to earliest preterm births, Stanford/Packard study finds"
obesity leads to premature birth which increases the chances of infant mortality. So your source on healthcare is missing a lot of valuable information and just glossy over a complex issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 automation has been around for a while. Productivity is up in manufacturing jobs for a reason. And we do advance by outsourcing. People who would have been working manufacturing jobs can go into other fields now. Same as the tractor led to more food production and people went to do something else. Also, other factors are at play such as cost of resources for example. Watch Stephen Michael Davis video on youtube entitled
"Why Do Companies Outsource?"
He has a great analysis. As for min. wage jobs, they are typically worked by younger people and make up a small portion of the overall workforce.
We do have preventative care. But no matter what you may need advanced care.
"with care that is the primary cause for bankruptcy, something that does not exist in other countries, and as of most recent data shows, leaves 68,000 Americans dying yearly due to lack of coverage or under coverage. "
Look up the NEJM paper entitled
"Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies" by Dobkin, et. al
They say
"But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems."
As for the 68,000 deaths that number is hard to get an accurate value for. To start, 68,000 is a small portion of the overall population. Thus it is prone to high error. Other studies have come out suggesting the number is zero where Richard Kronick did a study entitled
"Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited"
That number is basically zero and prof Katherine Baicker said
""So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said."
Because bad health is associated with poverty. Also, every nation faces amenable mortality. In the review entitled
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality — a literature review"
The author writes
"This implies that the evidence that amenable mortality is an indicator of healthcare quality is far from overwhelming or clear."
Wage stagnation has not been happening. If it were we will still be driving the same clunky cars today, we won't have cell phones, people won't have flat screen tvs.
"leaving the impoverished to need to work multiple jobs to live"
The percent of those working more than one job is low and has been dropping.
"when a single full time job, even in the minimum wage bracket, in previous decades provided for a full family where it can no longer provide for a single person currently"
Not true. To start, almost no one works full time on min. wage job. Next, statistically they are not poor. Most who are poor either only work part time or not at all.
"you support the increasing levels of unnecessary poverty and death through a broken healthcare system foisted upon Americans."
Funny you bring that up and claim I do not know what I am talking about when I am the one providing multiple studies and you provided no studies, only left wing talking points.
1
-
@cuntycat2397 the data shows from automation. Did you even watch the video I recommended? He give hard data that since the 80s required man hours dropped. You talk about restrictions and higher wages but are not looking at the counter point of going to automation and a place were goods and production is cheaper means cheaper goods for others.
"or lost due to times of recession in 2008 or a depression as we're seeing now, are replace nearly altogether with minimum wage jobs. "
The percent working min. wage jobs has been dropping for decades.
"Preventative care is nowhere near the base of our healthcare system, or else we wouldn't have nearly 70 thousand americans dying per year due to lack of coverage"
I debunked that stat. Besides, read the paper by Katherine Baicker entitled
"The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes"
Where they say
"This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years"
So even with access there was no improvement of physical health making them a high risk of death
"Your source cited is now 2 years out of date"
2 years is new, not out of date. It takes years at times to publish data.
On your source they say this
"Studies evaluating the relationship between insurance status and mortality have been limited by the difficulties of reaching sufficient statistical power and of achieving true prospective randomisation.63 Therefore, we also present the estimated number of lives saved by universal health care as a function of the increased mortality risk for uninsured people"
Similar to what I said. 68,000 is low thus hard to obtain accurate numbers. That is why studies ranged from basically zero, to 45,000, to 68,000. That is what Katherine Baicker was saying, it is hard to get numbers that accurately.
"it was enough that a family of 3 was safely above the line"
That is not true. Read the article entitled
"Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor?"
They say
"Moreover, the proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to$9.50 per hour is unlikely to be any better at reducing poverty because (i) most workers (89.0%)who are affected are not poor, (ii) many poor workers (48.9%) already earn hourly wagesgreater than $9.50 per hour, and (iii) the minimum wage increase is likely to cause adverseemployment effects for the working poor. "
Or a more recent study entitled
"The Effects of Minimum Wages on Low‐Skilled Immigrants’ Wages, Employment, and Poverty"
They say
"Our results provide robust evidence that minimum wage increases are associated with an increase in wages but also a decline in the employment‐to‐population ratio of low‐skilled immigrants of Hispanic ethnicity and Mexican origin. We estimate employment elasticities of approximately –0.1, findings that are robust to controls for policy leads, state‐specific time trends, and endogenous immigrant mobility. "
Also, less than 1% of min. wage workers are over the age of 25. Less than 1% of full time workers earned the min. wage, others earn more. These are BLS numbers.
People are not trying to make a living off of the min. wage.
As for your source, one, they did the old trick of picking 1968 and tied it to cpi inflation as that gives the highest number. Why not PCE which is also used by the Federal Reserve, so just as good as an indicator? And again, there are shortcomings in inflation. One is technology bias. As I said, cars today last longer, get better gas mileage and are safer, all which saves money. Or we having greater access to information to make better purchases. Again, saves money. Or new product bias. When a new product is introduced into the market, like a new iPhone, the price is high making it seem like inflation on phones is high. Or consider food. Say the price of fish goes up, that makes it appear that food prices go up because one, fish went up due to some shortage, and purchases of other meats happen.
So just saying "inflation" and picking an arbitrary year is a weak argument.
At this point I really question if you read any of these article or just the headlines and a few words at the beginning and go without question.
Did you even know there are multiple ways to calculate inflation and inflation has shortcomings overall? I doubt it..
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 again, jobs were being lost via automation in the 80s, long before the trade deals. That is a simple fact. And again, the outsourcing happened for several reasons such as lower cost of resources for example. It makes goods cheaper for all. In the end more people benefit from outsourcing. Just like more benefited from the creation of the tractor.
Two years is not out of date. The paper I referenced from Katherine Baicker has been cited nearly a 1000 times and continues to do so. Have you even done research and published papers in peer reviewed journals? I have. I have cited papers that are up to 40 years old. Just glancing at your paper you point to it cited work that is over 10 years old. So based on your standard that paper is worthless and outdated. 68,000 is a small number overall, especially if you use it to completely transform our healthcare system. 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. What will make that number to be zero would be to cap speed limits to 15 mph, why not do that? Don't you care about those 40,000?
As usual, I doubt you will answer that question as you never do. You just say the same old one liner talking points. There is a desire to reform healthcare and make minor changes. But to completely replace it with single payer simply based off of 68,000 people who supposedly die (where your own source admitted it was difficult to obtain accurate numbers to begin with, do you even read your sources?) is foolish. Just like capping speed limits to 15 mph to save 40,000 would be as well as doing that will cause more damage.
Your CDC source is based on interviews, not actual experimentation like Katherine Baicker's study was. The problem with interviews is that people can say one thing, but put in the actual position they act differently.
Again, why are you avoiding my questions? What method of inflation do they use? And why did they pick 1968?
"Further, the issue is American workers, who make up the majority in comparison to business owners, which is why the use of CPI inflation is the more accurate data point"
That makes zero sense. PCE also uses consumer index, why not use that? Because it does not fit your narrative. It is that simple. But again, what you wrote there makes zero sense and shows your lack of understanding of inflation as a whole. And why pick 1968?
From the BLS
"Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about two-fifths of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 6 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 1 percent of workers age 25 and older."
As a whole, they make up a very small portion of the overall work force.
I find it funny you say I do not know what I am talking about but I am the one providing numerous sources and details and you just give talking points. You have not debunked any of my sources where I have challenged yours with details and other sources. I even use The Lancet source against you quoting it directly where they admitted you cannot get accurate numbers on that issue. Your only excuse on my source was that it was "too old" as in 2 years is too old when your source cited sources that were around 10 years old, and almost all of them are 2 years or older. So by your standard you The Lancet source was citing outdated data and should be ignored.
I do not understand people like you. You change the facts to fit your pre-determined reality. And your reasoning for using CPI inflation is bogus. Besides, your EPI source did not say what method if inflation it uses, so why do you assume CPI?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 you did not lay out any of my sources as "garbage". All you said it was 2 years old. And PCE also describes American's buying habits. And again, inflation has shortcomings as I said such as new technology bias. And again, your EPI source does not even say what method of inflation they used. Maybe they did use PCE? Maybe they used GDP deflator?
Again, many live paycheck to paycheck due to poor money management. And jobs outsourced are not replaced by low wage jobs by higher paying ones. Just like farmers were replaced by the tractor those workers went to factory work which paid more. As in how people going to more tech jobs that pay more compared to factory work. And again, goods and services are becoming cheaper which is the same as a higher wage.
"Hmm, and the entire paragraph before the once you quoted explains their own work and methodology and sourced information to arrive at the number of 68531 deaths per year when we go without a medicare for all system"
And in the end they admitted that it is difficult to get accurate numbers. Also, again, compare it to driving. 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. To make that number to be zero we can cap speed limits to 15 mph. Do you support that?
With 68,000 that is a small number overall. Going to M4A will mean replacing a system that is 1/6 of our entire economy. So while we may save those 68,000 lives, where even your own study you cited has doubt, how many will suffer due to job loss, or having to move and losing value in their property, or others being denied healthcare for other reasons? Things do not exist in a bubble.
1
-
@cuntycat2397 "back then it was 30,000 deaths a year that would have been prevented by Medicare for all, though now with new data, and Trump's administration having lost millions their coverage since he began, we have up to date data, as well as a study that looks into the question of if medicare for all would save lives, which, again, is what this study does"
You are all over the place. On study originally said around 45,000 then a newer study later came out saying it is essentially zero. Seems the numbers are all over the place. Why? Because in a nation of over 320 million people numbers of under 100,000 is minute and prone to numerous variables.
Compare it to this. You have a cup of water and you place an ice cube in it. You will be able to measure a noticeable temperature change. Why? The cup of water is a small amount of water. Now place that same ice cube in the ocean. You will not be able to get a measurable temperature change. Why? Because the ocean is large.
The same is with your death numbers compared to our overall population. 68,000 in minute in the big picture. Completely dismantling our healthcare system as we have it and replacing it would cause a lot more damage. Just like capping speed limits to 15 mph to save the 40,000 a year that die due to traffic accidents would cause more damage. You also keep avoiding that topic so it is safe to say you do not care about human life as you do not care about the 40,000 who die due to traffic accidents. So why do you care about the 68,000? You are a hypocrite.
You clearly do not understand inflation and again, your EPI source does not say what method of inflation it used. I was the one that brought up the different methods. You are avoiding that a well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 sure, but not the EPI one. But why CPI? Again, PCE also uses consumer spending. And why do you continue to ignore the shortcomings of inflation as a whole such as new technology bias for example? Read the Investopedia article entitled
"What are some limitations of the consumer price index (CPI)?"
Compare it to this, people are driving better cars today than they were in the 70s. But based on your standard not only should cars be more expensive, but the quality should be the same because of "inflation". You, like most far leftists, are oversimplifying a complex issue. Please try to keep up.
" Every other study has hovered between 30-45000, the only one saying zero are ones likely as dishonest as yourself and whose methodology I would love to look into, of course the number would rise after the increase of coverage loss under Trump,"
Again, I covered via a NEJM article that even when given coverage physical health does not improve making people at high risk of death. Those without healthcare insurance are typically poor where those in poverty have higher rates of smoking, type II diabetes and obesity, all self inflicted. They are at high risk of death to begin with. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Also, the ER cannot turn you away. Many people go to the ER and receive care and do not pay which is one reason why healthcare is so expensive in the US, many receive care without paying. I was just in the ER. They billed me and said I could pay there or later. I paid there as it was $200. But I could have opted out, not pay the bill and nothing will happen. Many do that. So the idea that people die due to lack of access is simply false. And the number of uninsured under Trump because people were not forced to buy insurance. When you create a law forcing people to do or not do something you see a difference. For example, the university I go to saw an uptick in students attending 090 math level course, which is an introductory course, to a 100 level course. Why? Because it turned out scholarships offered by the university stopped paying for the 090 courses when they did in the past.
"And we don't need an idiotic comparison that has, yet again, no bearing on the reality of the situation, especially when we have the data on hand, but nice try with yet another attempt at obfuscating things that are completely disconnected with what American workers are experiencing."
What idiotic comparison? It is a valid comparison. We can make radical changes in many situations to "save lives" but it will cause more damage overall. Healthcare is 1/6 of our overall economy. Pushing to radically change it will harm millions and for what? To maybe save 68,000? That is foolish.
"Your general support for americans needlessly dying at a rate of a vietnam war every year is hilariously telling, especially when every major study into medicare for all, even studies bent against the policy, cannot help but show that it is cheaper for Americans"
That is 100% not true. To start, they are not "major studies" as almost all were not published in peer reviewed journals. Next, it does not factor in quality. On one study it uses the fact that Medicare pays 40% less than private insurance. So if healthcare providers receive 40% less they will offer less care. If your employer cut your pay by 40% how will you react? As with most questions I pose I doubt you will answer. Finally, those "studies" make very vague assumptions. Again on the Amherst study threw out numbers with no justification. They threw out a number to help people move to a new area when they have to due to their jobs being lost when private insurance goes away. But you can't predict that. The market will change. The person moving will not be able to sell their old home at a higher price due to lower demand, and due to increase demand they cannot find an affordable home. And that does not factor in retraining for a new job, kids having to adjust to a new school and the psychological factors there and so on. That study does not factor in jobs being lost in hospitals that just handle insurance. I was just in the ER and a detox center. In both places I had to deal with someone talking about insurance and payment. Under M4A bye bye those jobs.
Weren't you the one complaining about jobs being lost due to outsourcing? Now you want to kill jobs via M4A. You complain about intellectual dishonesty on my part, what about you? Under M4A jobs will be lost. The insurance lady at the detox center I was at was named Rebecca. I guess you are going to say screw her. Why is her position important when insurance no longer exists?
1
-
@cuntycat2397 "And getting rid of that payment obligation saves the business untold amounts of money when it is no longer their problem to have to collect and pay for partly out of their pocket as well, which is why businesses have to switch plans to save for themselves as well, as recent data shows that much of pay raises get eaten into heightened revenue costs, again you show you do not know what you are talking about."
Again, watch the bouncing ball here, businesses pay with healthcare benefits as it is a tax free way to paying employees due to the payroll tax. Businesses rather pay with a higher wage, less to manage. Easier to pay with more money as opposed to shifting through plans, telling employees about the plans, etc. But with the payroll tax these businesses find tax free way to pay employees. Just like many individuals, like myself, find a way to get tax breaks.
"It wasn't just the Amherst study, which was the most in depth look at the policy, "
It was hardly in depth and I explained why. None of their numbers are explained and assume that healthcare works in a bubble and is not connected to other parts of the market when that is not true.
"whose methodology has yet to be shown to be improper or inaccurate in their findings as the paper has been out for years now, "
Because it was never published in a peer reviewed journal, so why bother?
Do you understand the peer reviewed process? Basically their study is no different than a blog.
" the Koch brothers' funded study, despite trying to shrink that figure, still found a savings of at least 2 trillion per decade, "
Not true. The $2 million was on the low end to start. Next, it was just of public spending where if you factor in private spending it actually cost more. And the authors even admitted that quality was not factor that if that low end is done, which assumes 40% less pay, quality and access will drop. Did you even read the study? Do you read anything beyond headlines?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FishBay,
"So, what is your position regarding money in politics? Is it good or bad
that corporate and special interests are legally able to give
politicians money? Should we expand that practice or limit that
practice?"
1. Fine as long as there is no quid pro quo. It is one of many methods one can use to show support for a candidate. You can post a sign in your yard, someone can give a candidate money. No difference at that point.
2. Yes, just like you are legally allowed to post a sign in your yard
3. LImit what? Limit speech? No. We can limit government so it has nothing to sell.
"If your argument is that there is no guarantee that politicians will
enact the policies that large campaign donors desire, will that
narrative lead to more corruption or less corruption?"
We have that situation already.
"Do rich campaign donors share the same interests as you do as an individual average American Citizen?"
They live a different life. In some ways they do, in some ways they don't. That is the same no matter what income people have. You and I have different interest. My colleagues and I have different interests. it is more than just money.
"Do corporate lobbyists and the results of their lobbying efforts benefit
you as an American Citizen? If so, how? And if so, are there also ways
in which it does not benefit you?"
1. I do not care as I vote for who I think is the best.
"Do you think you have more in common with the other people here in
YouTube regardless of who they vote for, or do you have more in common
with large corporate and special interests and their goals?"
I am my own person. I vote who I think is the best candidate.
I stated my issue on money in politics. I will state it again. If the federal government had limited powers than it will have nothing to sell, period. If it has nothing to sell rich donors will not try to buy off politicians. You give powers to the state and local governments where the people have more control of the government and this issue is alleviated.
This example with Rosie is great to look at. If at the federal level we had a flat income tax with a consumption tax than Rosie would not be able to donate money to politicians persuading their votes. No one can. All politicians can vote on is what the rate of the flat tax and consumption tax should be. No loopholes for the rich, no tax breaks for the rich. Just one rate.
Let the states set up their own complex tax code. If you do not like it you have more powers at the state and local level. If it works great, if it fails it is isolated at that state and the people their can rally to change it, or they can move and remain US citizens.
You want to remove money out of politics. It is similar to wanting to take alcohol away from the abusive husband. They will still be abusive. I want to get rid of the husband all together. Just like I want to limit the powers the federal government has. I want to remove the root of the problem.
Answer this, why do rich donors give politicians money?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mckenzie, your understanding of the Constitution if poor.
"Um no it regulates it genius.."
That is what limiting it means.
"Um yes they do...anti discrimination laws are a perfect example, as well as federal safety regulations and standards etc. etc. "
Actually they don't, those should be determined by the state via the 10th amendment. Point to me where in the Constitution the federal government has that authority.
"I'd like to hear such an argument that wasn't just, "I'm simply being a racist or bigoted asshole becasue i feel like it.""
People have religious beliefs, personal experiences, how they were raised. Everyone is raised differently. You can't fault people for that. How you were raised makes it so you lack understanding the Constitution.
"replace gays with any other race or minority and it sounds really bad:"
Nope, sounds the same to me.
""Yeah i mean those Jews could have just gone to another country" or "the
blacks could have just gone to the colored section of town instead of
standing up for themselves...""
Poor analogy, towns and country are determined by government which can't discriminate.
"again those people also would have been ruined for not making the cake
regardless, given how many people would see them as bigots and blockade
their business. "
Which is the free market. They have the right to discriminate and people have the right to discriminate against that business. So what's the big deal?
"State government forced it, Federal government stopped it with the civil
rights act which you have stated as being federal mandate should not
have been allowed or legal...."
Through the 14th amendment, again,the Constitution limits government.
"By mr. pink's logic JFK should not have sent troops to protect black people tying to go to school"
100% not true. I support that as that is the federal government enforcing the Constitution on a government program.
"and that any and all federal mandates supporting civil rights and or
enforcing laws protecting blacks from lynchings,beatings, discrimination
and murder was wrong and unacceptable.
"
States develop murder laws and they have to enforce them equally via the 14th amendment.
Mckenzie, you went from a private business to government. How do you not see the difference?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dsullivann , saying other nations do it is not a solid argument. There are many factors at play and even with that they still face shortcomings. You say we have the worst health outcomes, what do you base that off of? There are that suggest otherwise including a book by Prof. Scott Atlas from Stanford. As for that 40,000 stat, there are several flaws in that. First, people die in every nation due to lack of healthcare. For example, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective surgery". So what do you have to compare that 40,000 number to? Nothing as no similar study was done in other nations. Next, those 40,000 a poor and bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of healthcare access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Also, people in that condition have many issues. As mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really will live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give these people care and they live only a few months more is that a success?
This issue is complex, I suggest you read up on it.
1
-
1
-
@Dsullivann , I don't think you do. I just cited two books on the issue. If you did than you would not be making the statements you do and you would understand the counter arguments to the 45,000 deaths stats.
You say we have the shortest life expectancy. You do know there are many factors outside of healthcare that influence life expectancy? For example, the US is number 1 in obesity rates for OECD nations. Obesity compounds health problems such as shorter life. Two professors showed that if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. And we have a higher black population than other OECD nations where blacks have a higher rate of heart disease leading to shorter life. So you can't just use life expectancy. As for infant mortality obesity leads to pre-mature births which leads to higher rate of infant mortality. Again, we lead OECD nations in infant mortality.
As for your first article I will ask, what makes the Commonwealth Fund relevant? You do know they are a private business with a motive? And I read their rankings. One factor they considered was amenable mortality where this article suggests you can't use that as a way to determine healthcare system strength
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
So that questions the strength of that ranking. That ranking also ignores survival rates of advanced care such as cancer care which we are number 1 in.
As for that Harvard study I told you the flaws behind it. As former Harvard professor and now current University of Chicago professor Katherine Baicker said, "So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income,"
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
Baicker was the lead author on the Oregon study where when people were offered Medicaid and were compared to those that weren't the physical health of those with Medicaid did not improve, that is because their lifestyle choices did not change
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
So there are shortcomings in that 45,000 stat. And for the 7000 in Australia, compare the populations.
When you say
"Do you know how many people die in another country because they can't afford healthcare? ZERO."
Now you are changing the standards. In the Harvard study it is talking about lack of access. You are not saying in other nations it is due to them not being able to afford it. You have different standards. In other nations they can "afford" it because the government pays for it. That does not mean they have access. I am keeping the same standards and using access. Dying while waiting for care is no different, in my opinion, than lacking insurance in the US. In both cases you lacked access.
Again, I suggest you do more research on this topic. You claim you know a lot about it but so far you cited a questionable ranking and a study that has many counter arguments to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Billsama, saying we are the only nation to not implement single payer healthcare is a weak argument. You are ignoring several factors. Just because we spend more does not mean our healthcare system is terrible. We offer more advanced care which is one reason why prices are high.
As for the first study you linked they looked at only public spending, not private. They also made assumptions that kept the cost down such as increase demand will not increase prices.
You second study (which has been referenced only once) has flaws. First, some of their measures of quality listed in Table 2 are flawed in that many factors influence those numbers. For example, they point to life expectancy when factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy. In the book "The Business of Health" they removed car accidents and murders and showed that the US is number 1 in life expectancy when you do that. On administrative cost government systems pass the cost onto other agencies. So the costs are there, they are just paid for by other agencies.
Next, they say that "free market" and "privatization" can be interchanged. They can't. We don't have a free market system in healthcare, so that report is wrong there. Also, they point to education where in the US that is ran and funded locally. I can go on but I don't want to make this comment too long.
Your next reference mentioned how the ACA increased bureaucracy. It criticizes the ACA and then comes to the conclusion that we need more government but does not go into details why.
On the last report, I will have to look closer but did they account for cost of living? It doesn't seem to. Also, they are looking as physicians. What about surgeons?
I applaud you for giving me these sources, I am interested in this topic. However, and not to be rude, but just because other countries do it does not mean we should nor does it mean that our system is terrible.
1
-
1
-
Billsama, it is basic economics that it would cost more. You are increasing demand without increasing supply. Look at what the student loan program did with college tuition, it caused it to go up a lot. Under Bernie's plan he is making the assumption that healthcare providers will take a 40% pay cut. Do you think that will actually happen?
Do other countries have better health outcomes? Is our system objectively worse? There are several arguments against those points. The "risk pool" is a poor argument as you are including very unhealthy people in the pool, people who refuse to live a healthy lifestyle. Another problem is what is called "moral hazard". Where is the incentive to stay healthy or solve health problems yourself when you can just have the government pay for it? It is the same problem that came up with banks and the FDIC which caused the S&L crisis.
The 45,000 deaths a year is deceptive. I call it an "empty stat" because there is no study done in a similar way from other nations. However, there are many reports of people who do die due to lack of access to healthcare. For example, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia on waiting lists waiting for "elective surgery". Also, that 45,000 are poor and bad health is associated with the poor. There are higher rates of obesity and smoking, all self inflicted issues with the poor. So the question becomes did they die because of lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with?
The raw data you point to is flawed in that many factors influence those numbers. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. In the book "Debunking Utopia" the author mentions how other nations have lower obesity rates and simply live healthier lifestyles leading to higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates. The US has a high obesity rate where obesity increases the chance of premature births which increases the chance of infant mortality.
Healthcare is very complex and thus it is hard to compare two countries. Read the book entitled
"The Business of Health"
They do an in depth comparison of healthcare systems but they don't do a ranking. Why? Because, as prof. Robert Oshfeldt said (one of the authors of the book) rankings are arbitrary due to several factors outside of healthcare that influence the stats.
I also did not do a one sentence reply. I wrote two paragraphs criticizing one article alone. I can go deeper if you want but I do have other responsibilities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Billsama, what 40% figure? Are you talking about healthcare providers taking a 40% pay cut? That was from the Koch brothers study where they cited Bernie's numbers.
Unhealthy people usually pay higher rates or don't have insurance to begin with since most are poor.
It isn't so much about single payer dis-incentivizing people to stay healthcare but the fact that the US has a lifestyle of poor health. That is a lifestyle choice. The US has higher obesity rate because of our culture. That is not because of our healthcare system. It is because of our poor diet.
I know where that 45,000 comes from. It has been criticized by Harvard professor and as I said, what do you have to compare it to? People die in other nations as well. So is that 45,000, which is 0.01% of the population, high, low, or the norm? As for the 7000 you are correct, why did they die? Was it because of them not receive care or was it for other reasons? The same is with that 45,000. Again, there are higher rates of obesity and smoking with those who are poor. Being obese adds complications to any health problem thus making a minor situation more severe leading to death.
Uh, saying "peer reviewed" does not mean it is without flaws. Do you know how the peer review process works? You submit a paper to a journal and you can request reviewers. Typically reviewers are people you know and unless there is egregious error it gets published. That book was written by two professors who cite all of their sources and gave their methods for anyone to criticize. Not saying it is without flaws, but it does have valid points. Any published work, whether peer reviewed or not, has flaws and can be criticized. I have 4 peer reviewed papers published and I can criticize all of them myself.
1
-
1
-
Billsama, if they make less money there is less of an incentive to work in those professions and you end up with less resources. Thus you end up with lower quality. In other nations they lack specialists because of that. It is also why the US is number 1 in R&D.
Having access to healthcare can make people unhealthy as they do not learn how to care for themselves. The US has a major problem of people living unhealthy lifestyles. Also, you are adding more people to the system meaning they will, arguably, receive less care due to the system be clogged with too many patients for frivolous situations.
The Harvard professor was Katherine Baicker. You also have UCSD professor Richard Kronick that wrote a rebuttal in his paper entitled
"Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited"
There he talks about how obtaining numbers like that 45,000 are hard and usually not accurate. The problem is that it is very challenging to account for those cases. Again, someone being obese adds complications to any health issue. You can't compare person A to person B completely as there are many variables you cannot account for.
I like how you say that 7000 is causation but support the 45,000 so quickly. Fact is people die in other nations due to lack of access in healthcare. You see this in Canada and in New Zealand you have a major problem of wait times leading to major problem financially and physically.
I told you the shortcomings in infant mortality as well. I pointed you to a study on amendable mortality where you have no criticism of. You are simply dismissing it because you refuse to accept the other side of the argument. Most studies do not make hard conclusions. In fact, some of the best studies do not make hard conclusions as this issue is complex and requires a lot of analysis. Thus experts don't make hard conclusions as doing so creates a situation where they can be ridiculed.
1. There are flaws in peer review. All peer review does is prevent egregious errors, that's it. Again, I have four peer reviewed papers published. Every paper can be criticized. 2. The book is an easy read. I am pushing you to learn more about healthcare. I can tell you a lot and also point you to sources. 3. That book is peer reviewed as well. Was it peer reviewed like what goes on in academic journals? No. But other experts in the field have read the book and so far there has not been much criticism of it. There has been some and I will lead it to you to find it. But for now it has been peer reviewed, just not in a way you would like.
Yes, I have 4 published papers and I am working on a 5th.
1
-
On our link going through each talking point
1. Administrative costs are deceptive. To start, medicare passes a lot of costs to other government agencies. For example, the IRS pays to collect the revenue where insurance has to hire people to do that. Also, if you did a cost per patient analysis economists Robert Book showed that medicare administrative cost is higher per patient compared to insurance.
2. Yes, bankruptcy is a problem. The reality is that single payer healthcare systems are great for very basic things and does help out poor people who would not have received care or end up going bankrupt. However, single payer systems are terrible for advanced care. The US is number 1 in cancer survival rates and they offer the most CT scans along with other advanced care. The US system is great for cases of being very sick or very hurt.
So, single payer does well in covering the very poor, one extreme, but suffers in helping the very sick and hurt, the other extreme. The US system is great at helping the very sick and very hurt, but the poor suffer. In both cases someone suffers. So who do you want to help? Considering how in the US the poor also live unhealthy lifestyle one can argue help the very sick. Also, helping the very sick leads to more R&D and progress.
That is the reality of single payer systems. Just complaining about bankruptcy does not tell the whole situation. If the US were to switch to a single payer system bankruptcies will go down but at what cost? Something has to give.
3. Yes, the US government pays a lot in healthcare already. That is arguably one major reason why we spend so much.
4. Healthcare rankings are arbitrary as many factors outside of healthcare influence the states. One source there is a survey. Surveying people who are not experts on the topic and only experience on system is not strong evidence. And as I pointed out in point 2 the extreme cases suffer. Most people don't have terrible healthcare experiences. That is why close to 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare and why democrats were removed after passing the ACA, people in the US do like their healthcare.
5. Same as point 3. However, it does beg the question why employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? A reason why is because of the payroll tax. Healthcare insurance is a tax free way to pay employees. No one asks that question.
6. The issue of nursing homes is complex. Read the book "Being Mortal" for that. Beyond that I cannot comment here as I have not read up on this issue very much.
7. I would agree
8. Again, bad health is correlated with being poor. Obesity is a self inflicted situation (usually) and adds complications to any illness or injury. How many of those people with chronic illness and don't have access could be better off if they simply lived a healthier lifestyle?
9. Same as point 1
I can go on but it is getting late. Point being is that all of those points can easily be argued against. The reality is this, when you break it down the US system in on par with other nations. Yes, we have problems, but so do other nations. The best route is to fix the system we have, not completely replace it.
1
-
Billsama,
Many people have access to healthcare and are still unhealthy. Reality is that in the US people are unhealthy due to their lifestyles. Giving them access to healthcare will not change that.
It is hard to account for a situation like obesity. I gave you a counter study showing how numbers like that 45,000 are arguably not accurate. I like how you did not give a rebuttal on that.
That 45,000 is also a correlation, not causation. Again, many factors you cannot account for. Their are genetic factors, lifestyle factors, etc.
You did not dismiss my claim on amenable mortality. The study supports my case that the data relate to healthcare is complex and challenging to analyze and there is not consensus in how to do so. Read that actual study as well. Why are you not reading the studies I give you?
1. Books are acceptable as well. In one of my papers I cited a book. Many books have been cited as well. I work in academics for a living, I know the standard. Books can be used. When a book is published it is open for criticism by the peers. In a peer reviewed process a paper gets reviewed by 2 to 3 people, that's it. And they are looking for egregious errors. I have been through the process and I have reviewed papers myself. I know how it goes. Just because something is "peer reviewed" does not mean it is gospel nor free from criticism. And just because a book is not "peer reviewed" does not mean is irrelevant. That book I pointed you to has many peer reviewed sources and lists their methods for you to criticize.
I won't cite you my 4 papers. I choose to remain anonymous here.
1. Saying that single payer is cheaper is flawed. You are looking at only one part of the puzzle. The US does pay more, but we also offer more advanced care. For example we offer more CT scans compared to other countries. That drives up the cost when you pay for more expensive services.
2. You bring up the law in cancer survival rates. That is an issue of government. Also, there is the psychological issue as well. Read the book entitled
"Being Mortal"
By Atul Gawande
But you probably won't as it is not "peer reviewed" even though it is required reading for nursing students in the university I work at. However, in the book he describes the challenges we face of people who are dying and how we push to keep them alive longer.
45,000 people is 0.01% of the population, that's it. Also, again, how many die due to poor lifestyle choices?
3. What the government pays does matter. It is inflating the cost of healthcare. Government usually cares about short term, not long term. That is why the Federal Reserve is independent within government. It is so it can care about long term and not worry about votes.
4. If half of the country wants single payer than why did close to 80% of voters said no in Colorado? Blaming lobbying is not an argument. If there is such strong support for single payer than it should pass easily and not have close to 80% vote against it. Also, you are pointing to polls to justify support in single payer. Those polls are vague questions on a complex issue and the people being polled are not that informed on the issue. They are not reliable.
5. Point being that the payroll tax has created problems.
8. You cannot account for all factors. Again, I pointed you to a paper that gave a rebuttal. How do you account for genetic factors? How do you truly account for lifestyle choices? You can't. That is what makes this issue difficult.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benmidnightflame , you may feel you dismantled the obesity claim but it still exist. Also, there are other factors at play. Obesity is relevant. I don't see how you can't say it isn't. Consider the 3 year difference in overall life expectancy between Canada and the US and the obesity rate. That plays a role.
Yes, blacks have a higher rate of heart disease, that plays a role as well. Again, we are talking about a 3 year difference. You say blacks are 13% of the population, that is enough for a 3 year difference when the world's standard deviation is 7 years.
"t's actually counted under circulatory disease, which Canada had a better outcome for overall in comparison to America"
Care to give a reference to that?
Canada also has people dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery. I can reference that if you want.
"Poorer americans are more likely to get heart disease, "
Because of poor lifestyle choices as outlined by prof. Katherine Baicker. Here, again, I am citing actual experts.
I suggest you read the Oregon experiment which I will reference in another comment. There, even with access to healthcare, physical health did not improve. Your assumption that with universal healthcare people will have better health outcomes is simply not true.
Again, you have to show me how Canada have better healthcare outcomes beyond overall life expectancy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benmidnightflame , what study? And again, many factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy. Same with mortality. Take infant mortality for example. Again, US is number 1 in obesity rates. High obesity is linked to pre mature births which can cause infant mortality
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/06/obesity-before-pregnancy-linked-to-earliest-preterm-births--stan.html
And there are other factors. Again, read the book "In Excellent Health" where he points out that we are superior in survival rates of advance care. You are looking at two vague examples where issues outside of a healthcare system plays a role. You have to give me more then that.
I actually don't watch Shapiro. I never denied Canada has higher life expectancy, by argument is that it is by only 3 years when the world's standard deviation is 7 years. To me those three years is because of factors outside of healthcare systems which I clearly laid out. Again, you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in overall life expectancy. But you choose to ignore that.
In Canada people are dying due to lack of access to healthcare. And rationing exist through the government. And the bankruptcy issue has been challenged
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1716604
But again, what do I know? I am the one who is citing actual studies and experts.
Next, time, if you are going to challenge someone who knows more then you do, don't be so emotional. I clearly am citing more studies then you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Carissa Wu ok, sure. Look at states hit hard in March/April, NY, NJ, MD, MI, etc., their deaths per million are high. Now look at states that just got hit hard recently, FL, TX, CA, AZ, their deaths per million are low. Seems like we made progress.
Also, Trump could never make masks mandatory. Besides, Fauci said at the beginning not to wear a mask.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@debaronAZK our nation is different than others. We have states that are larger than many nations. We are designed differently. If they want to laugh than fine, what will they do to manage a nation of 320+ million people?
The lockdowns are an overreach. In many states cases are low now. NJ is one of them but gyms are still closed. Why? Cuomo talked about following "Trump's" CDC guidelines when he placed infected people into nursing homes (he wasn't following it), but when his case numbers were dropping over a month he did not open up even though the CDC said after 14 days of declining cases you can. And care to give me proof he tried to steal medical supplies? From what I have seen we are giving medicals supplies to other nations like we always do. And others are to blame for their failures of the pandemic. Trump did what he always does, give power to the states and let them manage it. For as much as the left calls hims a dictator he has no problem giving up power.
And yes, you need to look at the positive in all of this. Being completely negative that the media and people like Fauci are creates three camps of people, those that are in fear, those who are confused, and those who are like me saying "to hell with it, let us open back up because apparently nothing we are doing is working".
The fact is that all that is being done right now is to make our lives miserable so Biden can win. Democrats have no problem stripping us of our rights and liberties to gain power. Trump is one of the greatest presidents of all time. The economy was booming under him, home ownership going up, wages going up, worker participation going up, the economy was booming. It took the virus to give democrats the excuse to shut down. It is sad because what democrats are saying is this "elect our guy and you will get your rights and liberties back". How can you not see that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"so to you, the following are "free lunches": law enforcement, national security, the courts, public education, access to clean water, infrastructure like roads, bridges, tunnels etc, sanitation services, etc etc I can go on."
Most of those things are ran locally, such as law enforcement, education, water, roads, etc. Others are constitutional like defense. I never said we should not have government. There is value in having government and government programs. But we need to keep them as local as possible as they are best ran that way, and government needs to be confined to the limits of the Constitution. However, pointing to locally ran programs to push for federal healthcare is a poor argument. Those programs are not nearly as complex as healthcare. Last I checked police officers do not need around 10 years of post high school training to become a cop. Doctors do.
"And BTW, I have a degree in economics and THAT IS NOT THE FIRST RULE OF ECONOMICS. The first rule of economics is supply and demand. The cost of a service/good is relative to the demand for it and it's availability. "
Uh, it is pretty well known that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/99/Econ-101.htm
"e've consistently ranked last in HEALTH CARE ACCESS, COSTS, HEALTH OUTCOMES, AND HEALTH RELATED PREVENTABLE DEATHS for industrialized nations and even behind some non-industrialized ones"
Here is the problem with rankings and the lists you gave. Anyone can create any list they want where the US can be number 1. There are many factors the contribute to the numbers. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Life expectancy is always weighted high in those rankings. As a whole those rankings are arbitrary.
The WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not created on in almost 20 years. And how is the CWF credible? I keep seeing this link but no one has yet to lay out their credentials. But again, those rankings are arbitrary. I can create a ranking where the US is number 1 or last. You can do that with stats. That is what the authors of that book linked you did.
The problem with the public option and having people pay for it with taxes is that it brings the middle class down. In comparison to K-12 education, around 90% of kids go to public schools. Only the rich an well off can afford to go to a private school.
Healthcare is not a right, period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rynegreen7902 , you love moving the goal posts. Those individuals at the Trump rally are being disruptive and are essentially trespassing at that point. Asking to punch them is not the same as killing.
Just recently two GOP candidates, in Minnesota if I recall, were beaten and hospitalized where one almost died. Someone was sending Trump and his family members letters with ricin in them. Or when an antifa person attacked a journalist who was filming them by putting stables in their head. Or look at the violence in Portland, OR where the mayor there supports them.
There are many examples on violent actions on the left that the media chooses to ignore.
As for your points,
1. The 70% are mainly religious extremist and thus classified as "right wing". That does not mean they support other right wing ideas economically, socially or in government. Saying "right wing" is very broad and vague. Kim Jong is "left wing" in many was, that does not mean everyone on the left supports communism.
2. I looked up the shooter at an abortion clinic. Glancing at it the most recent one was 2 years ago.
3. A "racist shooter" does not mean "right wing".
4. In this incident you have a peaceful protest that became violent when BLM and antifa showed up. Eventually someone was going to die. If it wasn't from that person with the car someone from antifa would have done it. You had two extreme groups acting in violence. Both sides are to blame.
5. Haven't heard of this one, I will have to punt.
6. I mentioned this one earlier, also, this was 2 years ago.
7. This man was already crazy with multiple felonies. Trump had nothing to do with this.
8. Ok, and? Again, Trump had nothing to do with this. Another crazy person.
9. Didn't hear this one either, I will have to punt.
10. Care to give proof?
Anyway, I just gave you three very recent examples of people on the left attacking others. You are going back 2 years. Fact is there is a lot of violence on the left, the media does not report it as they are bias towards the left. This is why Trump attacks the media and this is why Trump won, people are tired of the BS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roswellsatterwhite3906 , you can't do a comprehensive study determining poor outcomes as there are way too many variables and way too many ways to measure it. In the US I recommend the book "In Excellent Health" by prof. Scott Atlas. He outlines how the US is superior in access to advanced care and outcomes in advanced illnesses. Where we struggle is the cost and lack of coverage for some people.
However, other nations struggle with access as well. Kyle, during his debate with Razorfist, said that no one dies due to lack of access to healthcare. That is 100% false. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. For example, people die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Such examples are listed in the paper entitled
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery"
And also
"Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada"
Also, in the study entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
They say
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers "
And in the study entitled
"Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence"
They say
"It is often observed that elective wait times are low in the USA, one of the few countries where the majority of care has been financed by non-universal private insurance."
Where elective form of care can include certain forms of heart and neurosurgery. It isn't just "chin surgery" as Kyle claims.
There are advantages to a universal healthcare system, and if you want me to break it down compared to the advantages of a for profit system I can. But the harsh reality is this, expanding coverage does not expand access as you don't increase the supply of healthcare. You do, however, increase the demand thus access will most likely drop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Colony Three, working in Congress is challenging, that's my point. She has no experience. She is going to get burned. What she is doing is similar to someone studying algebra in high school one semester learning about the quadratic equation and than graduate level modern algebra studying Galois theory the next semester. It is too big of a jump.
Humans do play a role in climate change, but how much? You can't place a quantitative value on it as there is no control to compare. But again, why do you deny evolution?
Sea levels have been changing for years. People have been displaced for years for numerous reasons whether it be weather, resources, diseases, etc. Virginia City, NV was one of the largest cities in the US until the mines when dry to which people left. The world is changing, we just have to adjust. It has been that way for billions of years. Look at the Maya civilization, it became a tourist area where in the past it was home to many people.
i do care about the truth. You refuse to listen to counter arguments. You are making that assumption that this current change is bad when in reality change has been happening for millennia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zidneya , there is not set rate for evolution or climate change because of how complex they are. There is so little we know about those issues. I will point to my research to give an example. I study vibrational states in molecular systems to measure the structure and dynamics of them along with energy pathway in any energy transfer. As of now we can't model how a protein or RNA folds on itself which can lead to various diseases. So far, experimentally, we have gone up to a 6 residue peptide where our group has done a 4 residue peptide with our technique. So no one has actually done a large system. Our group is close but we are not there yet.
How proteins and RNA fold, or how energy is transfer within a molecular system which influences reactions and dynamics, can vary depending on many factors such as the pH, amount of hydrogen bonding or temperature. The fact we don't know how these systems react due to those changes shows how little we know. And even those systems are tinker toys, imagine a 20 residue peptide within an organism.
My point is that we are hardly scratching the surface on this issue. We don't know how the ecosystem will react. You may talk to a biologist and get one answer, and I, as a physicist, will give a different. I was at a poster session the other day and someone was explaining their work with viruses and how it is selective in killing off bacteria. I asked if that virus could evolve to kill off another bacteria and they could not answer and said I would have to ask an evolution biologist. I did and I then asked how would that virus evolve. They could not answer. Reminded by of when Richard Feynman was hanging out in a class with biologist and the professor showed how the chlorophyll was missing in a cell and he asked how and the professor could not answer.
My point, there is so much we don't know. You are insulting science making a strong conclusion on climate change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ryan D, I know what communism and democratic socialism are. Bernie claims Nordic countries do it. Nordic countries have no min. wage because they have a free market in allowing workers to negotiate wages with employers. They have lower corporate tax rates and with that people have the freedom to work and thus with that, and their small population, they can establish the society they have where everyone is taxed high, not just the rich.
Bernie wants to tax everyone high but masks it as if he only wants to tax the rich. So right away he is lying. When pushed on the issue he claims he will do it so he can give everyone "free healthcare" and "free college". However, he wants higher taxes on corporations which is a job killer. He wants a higher min. wage as well and he wants to offer all these things to people. How does he offer it? He never explains how. So when people refuse to work to become doctors, professors, and other skilled workers to fill those jobs needed to offer "free college" and "free healthcare", what will he do? He will push to force people to do it.
He is a communist because of that and because he has no details on how he will implement his plans. He lies about his plans, he makes up numbers about them, and when concerned citizens ask him about the issues on the details he has no desire to listen to the other side. He is a communist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GeorgePiazza , actually that study you are pointing to is not peer reviewed. It is more of a report at that point as it is not published in any peer reviewed journal.
Next, it has many flaws. To start, they say costs will go down. Sure, under M4A payouts will drop by 40%. But accessibility and quality will drop as well. Let me ask you this, if your boss cuts your pay by 40% how will you react?
Next, many of their numbers are highly questionable. They admit that jobs will be lost and people will have to be retrained and relocated. The give a number for a relocation cost but don't explain how they obtained it. Also, those numbers are very hard to obtain as the market will change drastically. If a bunch of people have to leave City X and move to City Y to get a new jobs, their homes in City X will be very hard to sell and will drop in value and the homes in City Y will go up in costs meaning they are going to lose money. Sure, the government may pick up the slack, but how much that slack is will be impossible to tell. And just the fact that the government is going to subsidize the program will lead to even more costs.
To add to that, they are assuming people will be just willing to move. That is a very poor assumption. Also, think of the psychological effect it will have on kids being forced to leave their hometown and schools. When a new high school was built in my city any senior and junior zoned for that high school had the option of remaining in their current high school for that reason.
Next, they talk about retraining. What makes you think these people will be willing to be retrained or have the ability to? And retrained to do what? Saying "retrain them" is a poor argument. It is one of many the far left makes. They are vague with no details. In the article entitled
"Evaluating Retraining Programs
in OECD Countries: Lessons Learned"
They lay out how retraining programs struggle to succeed. And again, we have to consider the psychological aspect of this. If someone likes their job you are forcing them to take up a new one they might not like.
Also, that "study" assumes that Medicare has lower overhead costs when in reality it doesn't. To me it is not that reliable. And again, when you cut costs quality and accessibility will drop as well. And also consider that study is from the same economic department that has one of the authors for M4A.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grmpEqweer , that 45,000 stat has been challenged and is misleading. To start, amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. Next, with those 45,000, there are several variables there. As Prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. The poor are in bad health typically because of their lifestyle choices. So the question becomes do the die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As pointed out in the book "Being Mortal", people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years, but will really only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those 45,000 access to care and they die in 5 months, was that a success? Plus, Prof. Richard Kronick did a similar study and found little to no correlation between having insurance and early death.
So to point to that 45,000 stat is very misleading. As for advanced illnesses, read the book "In Excellent Health" by Prof. Scott Atlas. As for healthcare rankings, they are completely arbitrary and any ranking I have seen is by some special interest group with a motive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Are you seriously arguing that mindsets can’t change over time? "
In a country of 320+ million people I would say no. It wasn't until Obama was elected that finally half of democrats supported legalizing gay marriage. If the mindset changes it takes a long time. But as a whole the US is driven off of people being aggressive and managing their lives as opposed to the government doing it.
" The reason why Canada thinks as they do is because they don’t have to worry about medical bills or expenses, so they go and leave."
Or maybe because they lived in that system.
"Higher taxes? Canada pays barely any more taxes than we"
They do, everything is expensive there.
"And clearly the Scandinavian countries, even when they pay higher taxes, are far happier in a happiness indexes and studies than we are. "
Happiness is a completely subjective quality to measure. There are no numbers to go off of. When you are raised under one system and experience nothing else, or hardly experience anything at all than you will be happy.
"Yes you’ll pay higher taxes, but you’ll also save money from private insurance, thus keeping more money in your pocket."
So I am supposed to trust a federal government that is $20 trillion in debt, and where the Pentagon lost a lot of money, and that sued credit rating agencies to save me money?
You see, the mind set of US citizens is that won't happen. We can save our own money and get better quality products.
"Your study is from 1991 to 2000. If you can produce me evidence of people dying at the same rate there as they do in America pre Aca (or even during aca), then you can show it to me."
Studies like that take time to produce. That paper was released in 2006, so it looked at data that was at least 6 years old. But the point is that people in Canada do die due to shortcomings in their systems. To deny their shortcomings is being bias. I am not saying their system sucks, I am simply saying they have shortcomings and as a whole they are not any better than the US is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The government isn’t doing anything aside from using the tax money that you already pay to go to healthcare. You are still choosing where to go for treatment, which hospitals to choose, the doctors you want. "
So what will prevent doctors from just raising prices or denying customers like they do with Medicare?
"Gay marriage took time but eventually we did have approval. According to most polls, the majority of the people do think the government should provide some sort of healthcare."
The government does in medicare and medicaid. 80% voted against it in Colorado and in every state they tried to implement in it failed.
"Really nice way to dodge the studies that show these countries are far more satisfied with their country than Americans are. "
It is stating a fact. There is not quantitative way to show happiness. It is purely subjective. It is similar to saying that blue is the best color. The best color for what? And why? It is subjective.
"Their taxes are not that much higher."
They are.
"When every government in the world of an advanced nation pays less than we do on healthcare, when studies show how much we would save in relation to what we currently pay, it’s pretty obvious which system is superior."
They don't produce better outcomes. What the US excels in is research and innovation of healthcare. We are number 1 in that. Healthcare costs are expensive because of that as R&D is expensive. Also, another reasons for prices being high is because we lack a free market system in healthcare. We have a for profit system with many government barriers that raises prices. LASIK is free from insurance and is free market. Over time it has become better and cheaper.
But to simply say "other countries pay less" is ignoring a lot of variables. We can pay less, but our progress in research and innovation goes down.
"Once again, if you can show me a study where 45000 people die every year due to lack of healthcare in Canada or other countries with a universal healthcare system, then show me that one. "
Ah, the 45,000 value comes again. That number is highly deceptive as correlation does not equal causation. Those individuals are poor and there is a correlation of bad health amongst those in poverty such as higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking. So you can't say that those 45,000 die only because of lack of insurance or because of being in bad health to begin with. Also, 45,000 is 0.02% of the population. In comparison 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. Do we take an extreme case and ban driving? Or do we work with the system we have and realize the benefits outweigh the negatives?
Now that is not to say that people don't die due to lack of access to healthcare (which is also deceptive to say as legally the ER cannot turn people back), I am sure some do. But that number is small, and others die in other countries as well due to lack of healthcare resources. So when you say 45,000 die in the US, a country of 320+ million people, my reaction is "that's it?". As that number is small on the grand scale, especially considering how it is most likely not that big.
"If you look at every state that has used the Medicaid expansion, the number of people who die in those states is minimal to none"
That is not true, but OK.
"Similarly, every other country with a universal system has next to 0 deaths due."
Which again is not true which I showed you with that study. People do die due to lack of resources. Now if you want to simply say they are covered and thus don't die due to lack of coverage then that is setting the standard very low as on paper they are covered, but that is it. Just like on paper everyone has access to a K-12 education, but the gas station attendant could not give me the correct change the other day. On paper they have access.
You need to be consistent with your standards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p are they getting direct benefits? If so, that is quid pro quo which is illegal. The fact is they aren't. Yes, a rich person or a company, or even unions donating money to a politician is doing so because they agree with their policies. But they are not directly getting some benefits. That is the law. I know complex things like the law are a struggle for you, but that is how it works.
"Again you keep making these moronic comparisons even though they aren't the same. Speaking on YouTube, the street or volunteering is not giving to the candidate. You are attempting to speak to the population with literal free speech. You are literally using the 1st amendment in its totality to speak to the population. You aren't paying the politician a dime and you are actually using your own time to speak to people. "
It is the same. Say I run some major news source, or a youtube channel that gets millions of views. Instead of charging a candidate money to have them place an ad on my show, I just support them. That will be millions dollars worth of free advertisements.
Economics is a hard subject for you, I know. But when you see a political ad, guess what, it wasn't free. It cost that candidate money.
But I know far leftists like you feel everything is free. Guess what, it isn't.
Please learn the law and what quid pro quo actually is.
Cheers
1
-
@J4535-b9p learn economics bud, and the law. If a rich person gives money to politician to help them out with their campaign that is not illegal as there is no quid pro quo.
I know complex things are challenging for you but you have to understand this.
'Jesus how can you be this dense? If you choose to openly support the candidate and use your airtime to support them, that is completely fine. This is because everyone literally has the ability to go on youtube or other sources to speak openly. "
Yeah, just like people can ignore adds by politicians.
You are desperate. Unless there is direct benefits being done, which is quid pro quo, there is nothing illegal. So I I were to donate a million dollars to a politician for them to use to create ads or pay for campaigning, or if I were to use that million dollars, instead, to give free advertisement to that politician, what is the difference? Nothing
I know these things are very complex and hard for you to understand, but trust me, you are out of your league here bud. Go back to pretending you are a medical student, despite the fact that your girlfriend could not understand Colorado law, and despite the fact that you do not understand basic research in the medical field, and let the big boys handle this.
Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p you see, you claim you be in the medical field (you aren't), but I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. I am also an MBA student and I am required to be diverse and read a lot of material from many experts. In one of my current course we are reading Switch by Chip and Dan Heath. One thing they bring up is the concept of wiggle room. One issue I see with the far left, like you, is the "wiggle room". You have vague laws to try to stop certain things but your laws are so vague it creates loopholes (which is also discussed in that book).
I am going to be blunt with you, and this is for your own good, be honest with yourself. You are not a medical student. You are not as smart as you think you are. Sorry that I, who reads essentially a book a day, and can analyze experts, is much more intelligent than you. But for your own mental health, stop being delusional. As soon as you realize that you will be much happier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KarlEriksenopinion a couple of issues. One, if you limit the amount of money rich people will find another way. As I said, they donate their private plane for travel, or donate some of their land for a rally. Consider what happened recently in NJ. The gym owners who tried to open up their gym finally were able to when a politician labeled it as one of his campaign offices, as the law was that gyms cannot be open but campaigning sites can be. They simply changed what their company was.
Next, a lot of times it is not worth going after someone who breaks the law. Have you seen the movie "Liar Liar" with Jim Carey? There is one scene where he gets his car from the impound and there is a huge scratch in it. When asked what he was going to do about it he simply said nothing because he would end up taking the company to a small claims court, where they most likely won't show up, spend all day there and get nothing.
I ran into the same situation with a car dealership. I tried to exchange my car but on the title my dad was listed as TOD, transferable on death. They claimed he had to be there to sign the paper work as well (he did not according to all laws in every state). I could have took them to court saying they violated the paper work I signed, but for $200 (what they were offering me for my car) is not worth it. I took the car to a company called Pick and Pull that took it off my hands for a hundred dollars in a matter of minutes. So instead of fighting a company that would have taken hours, I just moved on.
The same is with police and the DA, at times you learn some hills are not worth dying on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" But you just stated only 4% of the workforce is on the minimum wage? If the minimum wage was lower it would further the sentiment by Republicans of "immigrants are taking our jobs""
Immigration is a separate issue in itself and the reality is that if someone is willing to work for less than you need to work for less to get that job, or develop skills to earn more. The issue here, though, is you saying that without a min. wage businesses will all pay very little. However the evidence does not show that. Why do mining companies pay very well? Why does Google pay their employees around 6 figures? Why do factories all pay over $15/hr? Why are those companies all not paying the min. wage?
"Do you have any evidence that it would create jobs."
No because it never been tried. However, we have evidence of it killing jobs. When the min. wage goes up so does teenage unemployment, especially black teens. Black teens are at a huge disadvantage due to several reasons such as poor schools, limited references, and limited skills due to the environment they grow up at. The min. wage prices them out of a job. Instead of getting jobs they are joining gangs. If there wasn't a min. wage they can get a job and have a greater chance of getting out of poverty. Those jobs give them work experience for the competitive market.
"Also on top of this, people aren't able to survive on $4 an hour,"
That is not necessarily true. That is why I said around 90% who earn $9.50/hr hour or less are not poor. They are second or third earners of a household with roommates, spouses or parents. If someone earns $4/hr and has a parent who earns $20/hr, are they poor? You are making the false assumption that these individuals are living by themselves trying to make it which isn't the case.
"The minimum wage is already really low in america "
It is the highest it has ever been.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"google and most manufacturing companies (tesla, boeing lockheed martin
etc) all require highly skilled workers that have gotten a lot of
training in their field their pay will obviously not be affected."
That is the point, they are high skilled and thus earn more. Min. wage workers have little to now skill and thus are paid less. And if your skill set is worth less than the min. wage you will earn zero as you will not get hired. That is why the min. wage is called "removing the bottom rungs of the economic ladder" and is called a job killer.
On your first link I agree, Christina Romer said that with a $9.50/hr min. wage will do this
" If they were all working full time at the current minimum — and a
majority are not — the income increase from the higher minimum wage
would be only about $50 billion. Even assuming that all of that higher
income was redistributed from the wealthiest families, the difference in
spending behavior between low-income and high-income consumers is
likely to translate into only about an additional $10 billion to $20
billion in consumer purchases. That’s not much in a $15 trillion
economy."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/10/finally-a-sensible-democrat-on-the-minimum-wage-dont-raise-it-use-the-eitc-instead/#4e981433209d
Notice that point of "That's not much...."
$22 billion is around 0.1% of the overall economy. That is minute. And that is making the assumption that nothing else changes. No price increases, no hours cut, no influence in hiring rate, etc. That is the best case scenario. So you are getting excited over nothing.
Other points that article makes
"Because low-wage workers are much more likely to spend extra earnings,
raising their wages can boost economic activity when consumer spending
is low"
Eh, it isn't that easy. If spending is increased but production isn't prices will simply go up.
A quick example here. Say someone is earning $8/hr and produces $9/hr for their employer over 10 hours a day. They are producing $90 worth of goods and earn $80. Now they are earning $10.10/hr with their new min. wage. They are still only producing $90 worth of goods but are paid $101.00. Now say prior to the min. wage increase demand for that company is at $90 worth of goods a day, they sell as much as they produce. Now say it goes up to $98 worth of goods due to the min. wage increase. That worker is not able produce that much. Now you may say hire another worker, but now they are producing $180 worth of goods (assuming they produce the same) while being paid $202.
The business owner would have to adjust. Either raise prices, cut hours to where they are open only during busy times (depending on their business), or cut hours. Saying the first one down to 6 so they are earning $60.60 day and produce $54 worth of goods. The second won can work 5 hours earning $50.50 per day and produce $45 worth of goods. So they produce $99 a day limiting waste. They are paid $111.10 a day. The boss can raise the price a little to make up the difference. So you have higher prices and lower hours.
That is one of many options where the business will pass the cost onto the consumer and/or worker.
But that aside, if these low wage workers are going to spend that money that quickly as opposed to save it and invest it, the harsh reality is they are poor for a reason.
As for employment they are looking at overall employment. Saying the min. wage has no effect on employment is a very shallow statement. As we have seen increasing it to $10.10 will, at best, change the economy by 0.2% which is nothing There are many variables that influence overall employment such as taxes, regulations, resources in the area, investment by companies, etc. You are looking at a very small portion of the overall economy and comparing it to something large. When you look at target groups and the min. wage, such as low skilled workers, you do see an increase in unemployment. When the min. wage goes up so does teenage unemployment. States with the highest teenage unemployment also have the highest min. wage.
On your second article it talks about payroll tax cuts. I agree, we should eliminate the payroll tax. It is by far the dumbest tax ever. I would actually support increasing income taxes if we removed the payroll tax completely. It punishes employers for giving out raises and hiring new workers.
Most of the second article has nothing to do with the min. wage though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vikrantpulipati1451 , the issue is that does not make an objective argument. How would his policies save lives? He does not say how. He simply say they would and if you don't support his ideas people will die. That is not an argument.
Those nations are not necessarily smarter. They are not necessarily healthier or happier. And even if they were that is an issue of culture, not the system. For example, the US has higher obesity rates than those nations, that is due to our poor lifestyle choices. Creating a single payer healthcare system will not solve that.
You claiming that ignorance and greed does not lead to an honest conversation. I agree. People like Kyle are ignorant. He completely ignores arguments on the right where their ideas are strong and can improve our nation. He, along with your, are ignoring several variables. Norway has 5 million people, so essentially no diversity compared to the US. That is, arguably, why they are "happier".
Overall, the problem is that Kyle cannot argue his ideas objectively in details thus he pulls a pure emotional argument.
1
-
@yamiyomizuki , I can explain though. Take, for example, healthcare. A strong argument can be made that the reason why healthcare is so expensive is because of government involvement
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
So expanding government is not really a solution to me. Our for profit system does, arguably, provide us with better quality. Read books by Stanford prof. Scott Atlas on that, especially his 2011 book. And the argument that giving people access to healthcare will save lives is debatable. Kyle constantly points to the 45,000 deaths a year number where there are strong counter arguments to that. For example, Katherine Baicker argued that those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. The poor have higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. In her Oregon study published in the NEJM it was shown that when poor people were given access to Medicaid their physical health did not improve suggesting that lot of bad health is associated with bad lifestyle choices. Also, in the book "Being Mortal" the author there talks about how people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 45,000 receive care and live another 5 months producing nothing and living in agony, is that a success?
You also have to look at lack of resources. Creating medicare for all does not magically create resources.
I can explain, most likely better than Kyle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jack Ban, MLK was a preacher, not an economist. I would not try to shut him up. I will point that out showing that you have to be highly skeptical of what he is saying. I my opinions on capitalism as well, I am a year away from getting a PhD. Why isn't my opinion relevant at that point?
You are using what is called "appeal to authority" which is a logical fallacy.
As for me agreeing with Steven Crowder (I don't listen to Milo), I do. However, he is an economist either, so I would not cite him on anything, I am skeptical on everything he says, and I disagree at times.
With Chomsky, it is that he is flat out wrong. Look at his support of Venezuela until it went to crap, or how he called corporations "oppressive" and "coercive". A disagreement will be whether or not Walmart is good for society, and if so in what ways. But no matter how awful you feel Walmart is, they do not hold a gun to anyone's head forcing people to shop at their stores and/or force people to give them money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darkstar4494 , GDP is the baseline as that is how you can compare all spending equally. And why do you think defense spending is way too high?
Medicare and SS going up in spending shows, a lot of times, the inefficiency of those federal programs. They are losing money. And how is the military spending not benefiting Americans? You are giving an arbitrary number saying it should be cut in half.
FDR turned a recession into a depression. He came in and doubled down on what Hoover was doing and recovery did not happen until the war. When was the last time it took nearly a decade to recover from a recession? Never.
Yes, most congress people are out of town, but how many are like her giving speeches across the nation during her time there? She is giving speeches and going on talk shows. On her being too busy, youtuber Don't Walk, Run! Productions did a video entitled
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is Way Too Busy!"
In which AOC claimed she is too busy to answer questions but has time to go on talk shows. She is acting like a celebrity, not a congress person. How many congress members are doing what she does? Essentially no one.
My point on grad students is that just because someone is earning less than some set amount does not mean they are in bad shape. Again, myself and all my colleagues earn less than $25,000 a year. Are we in bad shape?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, breaking it down
Myth 2: Access to care: They focus only on US stats and not others. To start, saying there are 45 million without insurance is an issue of why is insurance healthcare? That is a whole different discussion in itself but this article is doubling down on that idea of insurance being healthcare and refusing to address that problem. Next, many of those 45 million are poor and poor people always lack resources in all nations. Saying 60 million lack insurance at some point in the year is a lot to do with employer based insurance which is, once again, a problem of insurance being healthcare. A lot of our problems are due to lack of a free market.
In the run down of the stats they gave they gave zero comparisons to other nations. They said mainly "X amount of people lack insurance". Ok, and? The ER cannot deny anyone, so based on that no one lacks care. It is one reason why healthcare is so expensive in the US. In other nations people have died or ended up worse off due to waiting. In Australia up to 7000 die a year waiting for "elective" surgery. In Canada people have died waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Read the following reports
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery"
and
"Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada"
In New Zealand people have ended up worse off financially, physically and psychologically due to wait times. Read the report entitled
"Waiting for elective surgery: effects on health-related quality of life"
Myth 2: You can't be denied in the ER, that is why it is overcrowded. That law is our "universal healthcare". Also, they picked LA, the 2nd largest city in the nation with a large immigration population from Mexico, hmmmm.....
Myth 7: Cost Containment: In other nations they lack in R&D. They offer less quality of care, for example, the US offers more CT scans than other nations. Things like that raise costs. In nations like Canada they keep costs down by rationing advanced care.
Myth 10: Administrative costs are deceptive in that Medicare can pass costs onto other agencies such as the CDC or IRS.
On myth 4 they give zero references and say the people in the US don't get better care. So I am supposed to trust that?
I can go on but you get the point. There is a reason why this paper was cited only 4 times despite being 13 years old.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@igneouswatchman over 2 million die a year. Almost all who died were either old or sick to begin with and thus had a high chance of death. The virus deaths are overstated and hospitals are being told to list anyone dying with the virus as a coronavirus death. 70,000 is around 0.02% of the nation. With a percent that small you are dealing with so many variables and you cannot tell to what issue contributed the most. The reason why is due to lack of data. Consider how small 70,000 is overall.
The same is with the 30,000 stat you bring up. That number actually varies. One study says 18,000, another says 60,000. Now think about that, 18,000 is around half of 30,000. 60,000 is double of 30,000. That is essentially an error bar of over 50%. That is huge. Same with flu deaths. If you look at flu deaths it ranges with 20% error. Why? Because the overall numbers are small.
So you can't just throw numbers out there and expect them to mean anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jrsydvl, take this issue for example. The article, and Kyle simply say "adjusted for inflation". Well, what level of inflation? I can only assume the CPI as it is the most used. However, you also have the PPI, PCE and GDP deflator, all methods of measuring inflation that are just as acceptable as the CPI.
To give an example of how different measures can lead to different results, Robert Reich used CPI to say that since 1976 wages have been falling and have fell by 4%. However, Minneapolis Fed showed, using PCE, that wages have actually gone up using PCE method of inflation.
Also, with inflation you have several flaws. You have substitution bias, where different items are weigh differently in the inflation methods. No matter the demand the weights stay the same. You have quality bias where inflation does not account for quality of goods or service, for example, a car today cost way more than one 40 years ago, but cars today are far better that save money in the long run, and other flaws as well.
This is not to say that teachers are underpaid or overpaid. It is to show the major differences between the left and the right. The left will take this very shallow study and say "teachers are underpaid" going on pure emotions at that point. People in the right will dig deeper and do what I do and dig deeper showing the issue is, at the very least, more complicated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jrsydvl, you are doing it as well.
"CEO and investor pay went up 1000% vs 10% for workers when adjusted for inflation"
There are several flaws there. To start, CEOs are paid different than workers, so any comparison between their pay and worker pay is difficult. Next, you have to factor in the idea of how many workers a CEO is responsible for? Or how much wealth that company develops? For example, say a CEO of a company employs 100 people all earning $10/hr and he earns $1,000,000 a year. Now 30 years later those workers earn $11/hr (10%), but he has 10,000 employees and earns $100,000,000 a year. Sure, his pay is up 1000%, but he hired 1000% more workers. That means more jobs and more productivity and thus more wealth for all. All of society benefits as well.
Again, you can't just throw numbers out there in this way. Doing so makes them irrelevant as all you are doing is stirring up emotions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojoboko6990 , you said that people will be saving money, I am showing you there is more to it than just healthcare
1. Uh, yes, "free college" will require new taxes. You are making the false assumption that colleges won't jack up prices when demand goes up. They will. Your solution, again, over simplifies the issue. Also, you are ignoring the point where a college degree loses value thus our society is funding for useless degrees.
2. 6% is a large amount, especially considering how many are investors. That means less money in banks, less to loan out if I want to buy a car, less investment to grow businesses thus less jobs, less investment to build new apartments thus rent goes up, etc.
You want to know something? Nothing exists in a bubble.
1
-
@jojoboko6990 , but back on the average person. The average is a poor indicator. You have people with cancer who pay a lot in healthcare that skew the average. A better way to look at it is with the median. Consider this, you have 10 people in a room. Five pay $0 in healthcare a year, four pay $1000 a year. One person pays $50,000 a year because maybe they have cancer or some rare disease or a severe disability. On average those people are paying $5100 a year. But that is because one person skews the average. However, the median is $500 for that group. At 4% increase in income taxes at $29,000 a year that is $1160. That means people will be paying more. In fact, out of that 10, 9 of them will be paying more now.
You can't just look at the average as outliers skew it. Also, again, someone could be paying around $9000 a year because they are paying for not only themselves but also for their family. those people are typically more well off. And again, you are ignoring quality and how that will be influenced or how the healthcare industry will react such as will healthcare providers be willing to take a 40% pay cut?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrYikes-dk2mb , not true. To start, a lot of our high cost is derived from all the advanced testing we offer. Because of that we have the highest survival rate for severe situations. I suggest you read the book "In Excellent Health" by Prof. Scott Atlas.
On the number, it is flawed to point to the 40,000 deaths a year. To start, what numbers from other nations do you have to compare that to? Nothing. Thus you can't say if that number is high, low or the norm.
Next, as prof. Katherine Baicker put it, those people are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So you don't know if those individuals die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. Also, people in that situation who die most likely have a lot of issues going on. As mentioned in his book "Being Mortal" the author says that people seek modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will live only another 5 or 10 months. So if we place a lot of resources in those 40,000 and they live only 5 more months, is that a success?
I saw that "study" that created that arbitrary ranking. To start, how is that sturdy credible? Next, look at the numbers. They used amenable mortality as one indicator despite the flaws
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
https://jech.bmj.com/content/67/2/139
So yes, I have read studies on this issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"PS., if small companies can't handle the min wage increase, I don't care. Those businesses had margins too low and would have failed from any number of things, "
You are literally supporting large corporations when you say that. Many businesses work on thin profit margins where larger businesses have more resources to do with less until the market stabilizes.
For example, a small diner will have no choice but to close down. A owner of say 11 McDonalds in a city can shut down 3 of them and thus still have 8.
This brings me to my next point. The idea that if you raise the min. wage that nothing will change is correct to a degree, but it isn't that simple. You are assuming that prices across the board, including the price of labor, will just increase evenly, you use the example of a nurse for that. However, it isn't that simple. If the min. wage gets doubled nurses wages are not going to double. They may go up 50%, but not 100%. Also, many companies will offset the cost by cutting hours as I showed you with the McDonalds example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
David he isn't wrong in that democrats, like they always do, politicize everything. It wasn't Trump that sent infected people to nursing homes and then did daily briefings while people died, it was Cuomo. Noticed how it is the democrat governors that are receiving all this attention, Whitmer, Murphy,Cuomo, Pritzker. They receive all this praise and attention from the media while have some of the highest death rates in the US. Meanwhile, Gov. Noem of SD did not shut down and her state if fine. FL and AZ have low death counts and are starting to see a decline in cases.
What wrecked the economy were the lock downs. it was forcing people to shut down their businesses that wrecked the economy. And even with cases being low in blue states like NY and NJ, they refuse to open back up. NJ still has gyms that are closed. Why? That is not Trump's fault.
" Also, he had to take the dementia/alzheimer test, apparently the doctors were concerned that he might have dementia. "
And Joe Biden doesn't? Have you heard Joe speak? Trump has been working in one of the most stressful jobs out there in his 70s and he is showing he can handle it. Being president is stressful. Consider Obama and Bill Clinton, they entered the presidency looking young and energetic and left looking beaten and gray. Trump has proven to handle the presidency. Biden cannot handle a simple debate. What makes you think he can handle the presidency?
"He is even bragging that he can remember five words and repeat them. Every child can do it."
Sure, but can someone in their late 70s do it. Biden cannot even read off of a teleprompter.
"Finally, no incumbent in the last 100 years have won re-election when the economy is in recession/depression no matter whose fault it is. 80% think that the country is in a wrong track. "
But the economy did not tank because of a crack in the system but because government forced shutdowns and kept them even though cases are low. NY is only in Phase 4 which still does not allow indoor dining and enforces social distancing. That is despite their case rate being being below 1000 a day since June 12. To put it in perspective it peaked over 10,000 a day in April. At what point does he open up the entire economy? FL had their gym open for months and 50% capacity. Their death rate is low at around 385 per million. NY is around 1600 per million. NJ has seen low cases for weeks but refuses to open up their gyms. People are leaving NY so fast that Cuomo is promising to buy them a beer.
I am in the silent majority. People feel we are not going into the right direction because of democrats. They are letting their cities burn. They have lied about the Floyd incident which will cause even more riots when the cops are acquitted. They kept their economies shut down for now reasons. Now Trump has done actual action to help those in need with his executive orders.
Trump is going to win.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bunceman4613 , easy. Take healthcare for example. Kyle and Bernie are two people on the far left. Now both sides will use emotions and both sides will use facts. But when you push to the core the left bases their ideas on emotions. For example. Kyle points to the 45,000 who die a year due to lack of access to healthcare in the US. He then goes on a pure emotional rant on how that is terrible, and how it doesn't happen in other nations, and how we need to do something and that M4A is the solution. That is how the far left acts.
Now, someone on the right will proceed like this. They will explain how in every nation someone dies due from "preventable" cases due to lack of access, it is referred to as amenable mortality. It happens in all nations. But there are shortcomings in how amenable mortality is measure making that number difficult to obtain and compared. But Kyle saying the number of deaths in other nations due to lack of healthcare is zero is factually incorrect because he is making an emotional argument. Also, you have to consider the lifestyle of those 45,000. As Katherine Baicker put it, those 45,000 a 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. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. There is also the limitation so resources. Kyle and Bernie will claim healthcare should be a right. But consider this, you have 4 people on a deserted island with three sandwiches. They decide to make a sandwich a right. That still leaves them with only 3. Making something a right does not produce more of it. But calling it a right is purely an emotional argument. Resources are limited, that is a fact that one must realize.
There are other examples but some sound bites by a far leftists, Bernie. He says "living wage", "fair share", "milllionaires and billionaires", "wealth inequality" etc. But he doesn't provide an actual logic argument. He only stirs emotions.
There is value in having emotions. We are human. It is the whole subjective vs objective part of the issue. Consider a small example. Say I were to buy one of my friends a drink at the bar. Was that a wise investment? Objectively no as I gained nothing of material value. But subjectively it is as I enjoy buying drinks for my friends. That is based on my personal feeling. Now expand that to the large scale. Should we find a way to get access to those 45,000? Sure. But we have to see the whole picture. What is their overall health? What is their lifestyle? What diseases do they actually have? What is their chance of survival? We have to consider all of that and it becomes complex. The problem is that the emotional argument is the easiest one to make thus the left over takes the media with their appeal to emotion arguments where the factual and logical one takes a long time to explain and break down.
Again, this does not mean one side is greater than the other. We need both.
1
-
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 , I did. Kyle takes some small data point and makes an emotional argument on it without digging deeper. To give another example, Kyle will say that 50% of wage earners earn $30,000 or less. He will push that on a purely emotional rant. The logical side will dig deeper and look at cost of living, household income, etc. Kyle will saying something like 76% live paycheck to paycheck and then go on an emotional rant. The logical side will dig deeper and think how many of them are simply bad at managing money.
The left will take a bit of information and make an emotional argument on it. Going back to the 45,000 number. You did it yourself saying " the point was that the number is so large there is a very very good chance that a significant number of them didn't need to die." What do you base that off of? Pure emotions. How is that number large? Compare to what? And if you give them access to healthcare what is their chances of survival? In the book "Being Mortal" the author there writes that people seek modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when really they will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those 45,000 care and they live only 5 more months, is that a success?
That is the problem with the far left, they refuse to ask these questions. They refuse to dig deeper. They take one piece of information and then run with it on an emotional rant.
"no it's an ethical argument. also, what resource shortage are you referring to? lol."
Ethical as in emotional. And resources are limited. Did you even read my scenario? The same applies in healthcare. Doctors, nurses, beds, medication, etc. are limited. That is why rationing exists to begin with.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415127/
"in the first place, talking points aren't a bias; they are a means of communicating; you just don't understand the arguments."
Taking points are designed to stir emotions.
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205
"You don't know what an emotional claim or stance is - what you describe here is an ethical position. Everyone has their reasons for an ethical position. Those are what can be emotional or not."
Ethical as in emotional. You are proving my point.
"Fyi, this is the opposite of logos. People's lives have improved for thousands of years in the absence of liquid currency, so any correlation between free market, bettering people's lives even at the bottom, is vapid - uninformed - and while intuitive, also emotional. Also, kind of the nail in the coffin: free markets don't exist. Corollary: There is good evidence that in absence of regulation a 'free market' quickly becomes authoritarian and tyrannical. This is easily observed if you know anything about the world, so I won't waste my time explaining why."
What? What evidence do you have? The free market is authoritarian? You refuse to waste your time as you don't have evidence. That is you making an emotional argument there. When you say things like "waste my time" or "look it up" or "common sense" you are really saying that you don't have an actual rebuttal, that your emotions are getting the best of you and instead of a logical argument you just dismiss the discussion.
The free market leads to investment. In competition you want to beat your competitors. To do that you have to invest.
To grow the stock price they have to actually sell to the consumers.
We have a lot of scarcity in this nation. You bring up food and buildings, which I agree. But we have scarcity in skilled labor. We have scarcity in proper technology. I work in science. I am a researcher in that field. We have a ton of projects to do and so do many other groups. Why? To start we are good at what we do. Next, it is because of lack of skilled labor. There is so much to uncover in science but few people can actually do what we do. Relatively speaking only a handful of people can do what I do. Thus I am given a lot of projects. If we had more skilled labor we can get those projects done.
1
-
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 The date point is small when you don't factor in everything. To give another example, Kyle talks about wage stagnation. There is data on that, but only if you use CPI inflation. If you use PCE inflation or GDP deflator or Boskin Commission adjustment wages have not been stagnate. There is an argument on both sides of that issue, but to really progress you need to look at the full story and meet in the middle.
You say it isn't small to someone else, which is true. But that is the subjective point of the issue. Again with wage stagnation. The far right point of view is looking at every data point and realizing that wages have not been stagnant. The far left point is to look at one data, CPI inflation alone, and say wages have been stagnant. The middle is realizing that wages have not been stagnant based on many data points, but there is always room for improvement.
You saying "common sense" is an emotional argument. You are dismissing the argument simply based on feeling as opposed to an actual rebuttal.
"You're being emotional. Some do ask more questions than others. Like in any other group of people."
How am I being emotional? I am simply stating a fact. The far left will take a point and go on a purely emotional rant about it without digging deeper.
My scenario is legit. I expanded it to healthcare and gave a study related to it. You are now dismissing it. How are resources not scarce?
Yes, both sides use talking points. The issue is that on the far left, when pushed, they don't have anything else besides talking points. Look at Bernie, he is the far left. He has been pushed many times and he only has talking points. Look at how he reacted to that hair saloon owner. He had no desire to understand her business, her profit margins, how many long term vs temporary employees she had, etc. He only saw a business that must pay more. That is the radical, far left point of view. He was not looking at the issue objectively. And no, not every argument is designed to evoke emotions. Many arguments are there to look at something purely objectively with no emotions at all.
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 , ethical is subjective thus it is emotional. What is ethical to you may not be ethical to someone else. It is ethical to keep old people alive who don't produce anything? There is an example.
How do free markets not exist?
You refuse to give a rebuttal because you don't have one. You just went on a rant dismissing the argument as opposed to giving a rebuttal. It isn't me being emotional but me being logical. Dismissing the argument is being emotional. Being logical is breaking down an argument and giving an actual rebuttal. In your long rant on why you refuse to give a rebuttal you could have actually given on.
The free market leads to investment. Proof? Look at Amazon. They worked in the free market and invested. The invested to allow for streaming, to do next day delivery, to expand. That forced competitors like Walmart to compete to do Walmart pickup. Now compare that to a government ran system where they have no actual incentive to serve the consumer, at least not the federal government (local ones are different). Look at the many failed federal governments systems such as the Community Mental Health Act or how Medicare took nearly 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits.
Again, a company has to actually serve the consumer, period. You talk about trade, which is true. But for the company to see their stock prices go up they have to have a consumer. You are, again, dismissing the argument.
Yes, we have a scarcity in medicine, doctors, nurses, etc.
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 , there is a ton of data to suggest that wages have not been stagnant
https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=162s
The far left viewpoint is to pull out that one data point that suggests wages have been stagnant, run on it as if things are bad, stir emotions, and present an over simplified solution. Fore example, Kyle will take that point, claim things are bad, and either provide no solution or say that we need to raise the min. wage, which is an over simplified solution.
The far right will look at all the data and dig deeper and see that wages are not stagnant based on all the data presented as more data shows it isn't, and claim there isn't a problem and offer zero solution. Both extremes are not good as one wants a grossly over simplified solution that really creates more problems and the far right wants to do nothing. The situation can be reversed but that is typically how it falls out. The solution is really in the middle. Yes, most data shows that wages have not been stagnant. But that doesn't mean things can't be better nor that we should try to change things as some people are still struggling.
Most people who are not informed typically make emotional arguments, such as Kyle.
"Especially when you call a group of people less rational than another when all you have are anecdotes."
I am giving solid examples based on policy ideas. Ideas like min. wage, M4A, living wage, vilifying rich people, ripping on corporations like Amazon are all being pushed on emotional arguments by the far left. Bernie Sanders is the best example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bapp45Vx0UE&t=2138s
Fast forward to the 35 minute mark. Bernie had no desire to try to understand her profit margins, how much was spent on payroll, the number of long term vs short term employees, etc. Later he simply pulled the argument of "what if your employees get sick?" , a purely emotional take. When pushed to the corner he pulls emotions.
Now compare that to Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy542UgSelQ&t=18s
Bill was a centrist democrat. Notice how he at least understood the other side's position? He showed he knew how a business operates and the challenges they faced. He was willing to discuss the numbers and facts.
Clinton understood the complexity of the issue, Bernie doesn't. Bernie just feels that we can magically give people healthcare and ignores the complexity involved.
"So far the only scarcity you've demonstrated is a scarcity of time | time to train people | time to engineer people perhaps."
It isn't time but lack of people willing to become doctors, scientists, engineers, etc. There is plenty of time, people just don't want be trained. That brings up another point. The far left pushes the Green New Deal and one point is that they can re-train people for new jobs. Again, a grossly over simplified solution to a very complex issue as if people are going to be willing to change careers.
The far left either has no solutions or grossly over simplify them. Typically the far left has over simplified excuses where the far right has none. A great point on the left's easy solutions is outlined in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsmUw5FMxH0&t=76s
"Also it occurs to me your analogy is a little inaccurate.
The right isn't a free sandwich. The right is to partake in a food called sandwich, when it becomes available and according to need."
If you want to go with that than we have that right already with healthcare.
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 "When one makes an ethical claim, it's usually based on some other ethic, which hopefully both parties agree on.
It need not be subjective, and the process of the argument need not be emotional - depending on what is discussed and how passionate each side is.
"
Being ethical is subjective. Is it ethical to have the death penalty? It is ethical to limit how many kids parents can have? That varies by nations. It is purely subjective.
"look up what a free market is and try to find one."
Easy, all across the US. All throughout history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc
If you want to go to the extreme of free market means zero government then sure. But to me free markets means limited government. If you want I can go farther but the best growth we have in this nation when the federal government is hands off and allows the states and individuals to be free in the market.
"Sure, you're right.
It's not cause this is a tangent, and way too deep a topic for a forum.
"
I love discussing these issues, I am all for a discussion. So at this point I will just pass this off as you have not argument. You are making an emotional argument at that point.
"When you assume you know why I refuse to debate in the way you want ~ you are not using any evidence because you have none available to you."
Well, as I said in my earlier comment, the far left typically offers over simplified solutions as they refuse to dig deeper and understand the complexity of the issue. Thus they make an over simplified claim and move one which is what you are doing. You can't go farther beyond the emotions.
"Look, I don't disagree, so I'm not sure if you know you're going on a tangent, but...
you need to prove that free market implies investment, so you need to prove that a free market can't exist if it doesn't lead to investment."
In order to succeed in competition you have to invest. The evidence is clear, in a free market you need to invest. If you don't than your competitors will beat you. It leads to economic dynamism. Consider this video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e00tPtBRUg&t=2s
Why is it that the cabbing company wants to restrict Uber? Because Uber is investing to grow and are a competitor in a free market. The cabbing industry wants to restrict that. The free market leads to investment.
That wasn't a tall order at all.
"Don't disagree, except look at all the companies that have failed. They aren't countable."
Companies fail because they made poor investments and a competitor over powered them. Companies fail all the time. That is not a bad thing. That happens in a free market. What doesn't happen in the free market is companies failing but using government to keep alive. Case in point in that video, the cabbing companies trying to use government to restrict the growth of Uber.
1
-
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205
"You can't really have anything close to a free market if government is subsidizing education, transportation, food and water, and communication."
If you are talking about free markets as in zero government than I agree. But what I am talking about is limited government that serves the best interest of the people. Even people on the far right understand the need for government. In the US the federal government is limited to dealing with foreign affairs and handling commerce between states. All the rest of the duties are left to the states and local governments but they are restricted by the Constitution. Watch that Milton Friedman video I sent you. He said there is a desire to have money spent by government, but it should be local to see if people are getting their money's worth. The more local the government is the more it serves the people. So on the issues you brought up, they are mostly ran and funded locally. Only 8% of all money in education is federal, the rest are private, state and local. States set up their own curriculum. Water is ran locally. At the local level government works for the people and the people are free from and overbearing, oppressing central force.
"About making simplified claims, what is it you think you are doing when you say lefties tend to make simplified claims? "
I didn't say all lefties. I have you an example of Bill Clinton. I am talking about the radical left. That is because when you go to the core the political left bases their ideas on emotions. Doesn't mean they can't use facts and doesn't mean they always make simplified claims. The right can be guilty of it as well. But when you interact with a person on the far left, like Kyle here, you get grossly over simplified claims. On the far right you get basically get zero solutions. The answer, once again, is in the middle. You can be a leftist and still realize the complexity of an issue. Same that someone on the right can understand the subjective point of view and emotions.
"You are hardly being nuanced, trying to find out why it is you have come to that opinion. You are stating it as a fact and using dubious anecdotes where people behave like people."
What anecdotes? I am giving you clear example of policies being pushed and how they are being pushed. Wanting to tax the rich more is going off of people's jealousy and greed. Pushing for a higher min. wage on the idea that people are poor to help the poor single mother is picking on emotions. Saying wages are stagnant by using one data point and pushing the idea that we need to change something is playing with emotions. Saying people are dying and pushing it to change our healthcare system is using emotions. Using a mass shooting to push for gun control is playing with emotions. I can give you a lot of claims.
"How about whenever someone on the right says abortion is murder because mothers speak of them like they're a person. Is this an objective claim?"
Abortion is essentially the one issue that is mainly subjective on both sides. That is why I am pointing to economic issues.
"but also you didn't show a free market implies investment since you didn't show competition leads to investment. you said if there isn't investment they lose to people who do invest more ~ but that's not exactly true a lot of the time. often it is the company that invests more wisely that does better. in addition, if no one tries to compete in the way you suggest - that is if they don't throw money at the problem, there are still ways they can compete with each other, and so there are ways it can be a free market in an important way."
You can have competition without the a free market, but typically it doesn't happen because there is little to no reward and the risk is too high.
"so why assume government failing is a bad thing?"
Government can use force and the ignorance of voters to get what they want, especially the larger the government is. How many businesses have been open for over 200 years and is over $20 trillion in debt?
"Also, you can't effectively argue government is the only kind of organization with longlasting failures when the pharmaceutical industry is so powerful in America. If that market isn't a complete fail I don't know what it is lol."
The healthcare industry is a problem because of the federal government.
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
In healthcare we don't have a free market system. We have a heavily regulated and subsidized system that the government is highly involved it.
1
-
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 , the right does have solutions, but I am saying that the far right doesn't. The radical right has no solution, typically where the radical left has grossly over simplified solutions.
One each point, this is my take on these points.
Gay Rights: Name one right that gays lack. You can't. They have the exact same rights as anyone else. If you bring up marriage their is no right to marriage. Gay marriage was never illegal, it just wasn't recognized by the government. If you feel it should than that is another discussion on the government's role in marriage. But "gay rights" is an emotionally filled argument as you making it sound like that gays are lacking rights where they aren't. If you want to talk about defense against discrimination that is not a right either. Now should there be laws against it? That is another discussion in itself as well. But as whole gays did not lack any rights that straight people had.
Church rights: I don't know where you are going with this so I will punt.
Religion: There is freedom of religion. Government cannot establish anything based on religion. The Constitution is clear on that.
American imperialism: American has done many things well in a short amount of time.
Gun rights: We have a right to bear arms. It is there because it is about personal defense.
Freedom of speech: It is important as it allows for the exchange of ideas
Left leaning ideologies: I don't know where you are going with this?
Death penalty: Some people are for it, some are against it. It is all about culture. I am personally opposed to it. I can see why others are for it.
Immigration: We need to control it. Not opposed to immigrants, but we can't just allow people to come and go on their own free will.
Corporate socialism: The right is against it, and so am I.
Free markets: We discussed this
Flat earth: Who is a flat earther? I have never met one.
Climate change: A complex issue. I feel the left are alarmists. On climate change the issues are
1. How much does man play a role?
2. Is it even a threat?
3. If it is what is the solution?
Prof. Mike Hulme wrote the book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change", a very good book on the issue and why there a discussion to begin with. The far left will use emotions by being alarmists saying the earth is on fire and we are going to die unless we act now. The far right will say it is all natural and we don't need to do anything. The answer is really in the middle. There is a lot of doubt that climate change is a major threat. But like anything we should look into it and change in some way.
You say my position is difficult to defend but I can do so very easily, it just takes me going into great detail as these issues are complex. Climate change, though, is another example of the far left using emotions as opposed to facts and logic. Being alarmists on the issue is going off of pure emotions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"People who are dependent on government would be dependent on what if government were not around? "
Society, friends and family, the private sector. This isn't to say we should not have a government, we should. But we have to keep it limited and as local as possible to be able to control it so it remains the servants as opposed to being the masters.
"If they die because they are not getting proper assistance, do you see
that as a good thing that we have one less person dependent on
government?"
Why did they not get "proper assistance"? Was it their fault or the fault of society for not providing it as in having enough doctors, teachers, etc. What is "proper assistance"? What is the standard? Also, realize the government does not have a magic wand.
"This is essentially what you are saying. You are assuming that if they were not dependent on government, they would be fine."
Never said that. But you are saying that they need government to survive as if they have a magic wand.
"Without government, would corporations spend money to help the poor and sick?"
Maybe as dead people cannot give them money. Maybe not as there are limited resources. Plus, it isn't just government and corporations. There are local communities and small businesses as well.
"hey have all the money in the world right now and they are not doing a whole to help America beside paying taxes"
Even with high tax revenue the government still does not have a magic wand. If there are not any resources than people cannot receive anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. I agree there are advantages of giving people healthcare coverage. I never disputed that. My argument is that their physical condition did not improve. That is because of their poor lifestyle. The argument becomes at that point is if we should be giving people like that healthcare coverage when they refuse to push for a healthier lifestyle to begin with? Also, if you give them coverage and they use it how much longer do they live? Read the book "Being Mortal". There the author discusses healthcare and people near the end of life. So many look towards medicine to extend their life 5 to 10 years when in reality they will only live an extra 5 to 10 months. A question becomes should we be using valuable resources, that are limited, on them when their time is almost up? These are people who produce very little to begin with. You are arguably dragging down a system to cater to people who have limited time to live to begin with.
2. The US has short wait times. I waited a couple days for my MRI. Compare that to months for people in nations like Canada and the UK.
3. It is not zero in Europe. Stop saying things that are not true.
But back to point one. The issue is how do we make the best out of our limited resources. You feel it is best to offer healthcare coverage to poor people who, due to their lifestyle choices, produce less in society, are less likely to live a long time, and will take up the most resources in healthcare. Is that the best use of our limited resources? To me I feel it is better to use our limited resources to people who have placed themselves in a position to have easier access to healthcare.
Fact is this, resources are limited. You refuse to accept that. You refuse to accept that every system has shortcomings because of that. We see it in many programs. Even something as simple as the fire department. Because of limited resources 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Look at our K-12 education system. We lack teachers. How many doctors are going to volunteer?
You now just admitted that you need to put out the fire and then do repairs is equal to universal healthcare treating an illness. So you just admitted your fire department comparison is poor. Also, some areas have private fire departments.
Putting out a fire is similar to killing the sick. You are killing someone to stop the spread of disease. Just like you are putting out a fire to stop it from spreading. To treat someone increases the risk of malpractice, spreading the disease, or keeping them alive to get sick again as they clearly have a bad immune system. All of that cost money to fix. Just like repairing a home.
As a whole, the fire department comparison is poor. Fire departments are locally ran and fund where some are private. 70% of fire fighters are volunteer, and they are a drop in the bucket in terms of cost and challenges compare to healthcare.
1
-
Fredrik, by law no one can be denied services in the ER. So they are covered by your standard.
Know, you don't know my information, that is the point. On that 45,000 stat you got that study that was done in the US. Now point to a similar study done in other nations. None exist thus you can't compare that 45,000 number to anything. That is my point.
Yes, healthcare "cheaper" in other nations, but what is the quality? Lower
You also misunderstood my NFL point. Everyone is born with shortcomings and advantages. I wasn't born with physical ability to make millions playing in the NFL. Instead I earn my money by using my intellectual ability. Why does Aaron Rodgers get to be paid millions and I get paid $20,0900 a year? Because of different abilities we were born with. I am pursuing a PhD as a result, he plays in the NFL. Should we punish Rodgers for being born with talent?
Child labor was a problem due to us being a developing nation. Machines still required adult strength, even more than now. You are trying to divert the topic. Child labor went away because we developed as a nation. Just like we have AC, cars with better gas mileage that last longer, produce more food, high speed internet, etc. Technology changed that. Technology led to where we can have this discussion online.
I teach at a university, so I help others. I also do research for a living so I know who contributes to medical advancement. It is the private sector.
You say I use the same arguments when in fact you do. You are "done" with me because you can't justify your stance. You had to divert the conversation to child labor when you started to do poorly on the healthcare topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LiveTheDream24 , the polls show he has the highest approval ratings with his voters of his state. If you look at that poll there is a trend. They are senators from small states. The top for senators are from Vermont and Wyoming. Just because the people of Vermont like him does not mean the rest of the nation does.
I did watch the video. Kyle keeps yelling about the polls. Watch the Stephen Michael Davis video entitled
"Kyle Kulinski DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC!!"
He brought up two great points. One, just because polling data says something does not mean people will vote that way. Next, just because it polls well does not mean it is the best. Case in point, the War on Drugs was popular when it was passed in the 90s. Also, as prof. Andrew Gelman said in the ScientificAmerican article entitled
"How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?"
He writes
"Finally, the 3 percent margin of error is an understatement because opinions change. On January 3, 2004, the Gallup poll included 410 Democrats, 26 percent of whom supported Howard Dean for president. The margin of error was 5 percent, and so we can be pretty sure that on that date, between 21 percent and 31 percent of Democrats supported Dean. But a lot of them have changed their minds. A poll is a snapshot, not a forecast."
Even if Bernie is polling well nationally there are two major issues there
1. Elections are done at the state level
2. There has been zero attack ads by the Trump team on Bernie. So too early to tell.
Based on everything out there in Trump being the incumbent, the awful political games done by the democrats, and the strong economy, Bernie has very little chance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lookingforsomething it did. The legal system, especially these days with the shut down, takes time. You can't just arrest people. This is true considering how they called the cops and they two were not going anywhere. At that point the prosecuting attorney has to see if there is a case. The issue is that with one of the individual having a professional relationship with local officials it had to be bumped up which delayed the process. You want that as you don't want that to go to trial when one of the individuals is strongly connected. In fact, that is illegal in some ways.
"There was just a week or so ago a video of a police officer arresting a doctor on his own backyard for loading up his van with medical equipment when he was going out to help the homeless."
Care to give me more context? That is the point. You can't just give me one small bit of information. It is similar to BLM. When Alton Sterling of Louisiana was killed BLM made it sound like he was killed for selling CDs. In reality, and there is film of this, he was resisting arrest, tazed twice, and started to reach for his gun. But BLM still marked for him saying the killing was unjust.
That is my point, most of the time when far leftists look at these instances they immediately assume the shooter is guilty. I say take it to the justice system and lay out all the facts and arguments. My standard is 100% consistent. Your standard is not. You immediately assume guilt but after the facts and arguments are laid out, you are shown to be incorrect, but you still ignore the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lookingforsomething here is another issue. I have said that I support groups like BLM if they remained principle. However, often they don't. In the eyes of the law everyone should be treated equally. But laws are enforced by humans which creates an immediate flaw. With BLM I feel they should consolidate their resources and anytime there is a black guy killed by a white guy, especially if it is a cop, they hire a private investigator and a private attorney and dig deep. However, when the evidence does not show it was an unjust killing they should move one.
The issue is that no matter what the evidence says they march the streets and complain. As I said with the Alton Sterling case, BLM said he was killed for selling CDs. No, he was killed for resisting arrest, was tazed twice, and then started reaching for his gun. But BLM still marched for him.
For anyone out there, how can I take things you guys say seriously anymore when many on the left, especially BLM, label that as an unjust killing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lookingforsomething to add, consider Writ of Habeas Corpus. These men admitted to the killing. They, at the time, argued stand their ground and citizens' arrest, but which are legal. Now add in the fact that they were connected professionally to local officials and that they show no signs of running, if arrested at that point a lawyer will argue Writ of Habeau Corpus. If they win that case now you have no case as an unlawful arrest was used. And even if a case is brought up chances are this will be a manslaughter charge and they will serve less prison time due to unlawful arrest.
Basically, they showed no sign of running, thus there was time to build up a case. That occurred. Now they have a reason to arrest them and not fear Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The law and justice system is written out in that if some kind of unjust practice is occurred the person that happens to ends up with the advantage. The court had no reason to risk that as the men showed no sign of running. So why arrest them until you know you have a case?
Again, they admitted to the killing and has some legal support. If arrested at that point, when they were showing no sign of running, a Writ of Habeas Corpus could, with high potential, be ruled in their favor. Now you have a much higher legal mess on their hands where those two guys have an advantage.
So consider all of that. Again, there is a lot to this.
1
-
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 what you fail to see is that in many ways the system is designed to have it so you are innocent until proven to be guilty, and that those being charged have a lot of rights, and for great reason. I rather have a million guilty men walk free as opposed to arresting one innocent man.
So here
1. That is being investigated. We did not know until recently
2. He "defended" himself against who? Were the men brandishing their guns in a threatening manner? Where they making threatening comments? We cannot tell. Thus, him trying to take away that guy's gun can, arguably, make him the dangerous one.
3. Yes, that is how you do it legally. It went to two places where in both cases there were personal and professional connections. Thus it has to go to a court system where there is no such connection. That is to prevent a mistrial.
4. There was little outcry. Those who did it do not understand the system.
Here is it, my process not only has standards but also has the potential to give them the harsher sentencing. These are two individuals who called the cops, admitted to the killing, and had no intention to run away. If you were to arrest them sooner Writ of Habeas Corpus would have been pushed causing them to be released from jail. That such action would have led to a lighter sentencing as, from the very beginning, a lawyer can argue that his clients were mistreated. Again, the system is there to give rights and protections to those begin charged.
Next, it had to go through two systems which took time due to personal and professional connection. If it would have be ran at those systems a mistrial could have been filed creating a much larger legal mess. That is why it took so long to finally be investigated leading to arrest and charges.
So at this point, with your ignorance on they system, you should be glad there are people out there who know what they are doing. If they would have went your route these two individuals, if found guilty, would surely receive a shorter sentencing due to mistrials and unlawful arrest at the beginning. You should be cheering me on because, if found guilty, the situation is set up to give them the harshest sentencing available. You are welcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lookingforsomething let us compare it to the Jussie Smollet case. The investigators had a lot of information that it was staged and that his friends were in on it. They did not say anything for a long time because his friends were out of the country. If they would have the friends would not re-enter the country. When they did then the prosecutors took actions. They waited it out until they can take action to push for the longest sentencing possible. So yes, it is common to wait it out. Considering how they called the cops, admitted to the killing, and were not running away. And it went through two DA offices, it is clear why it took so long. The people pressing charges now waited until they felt they had the strongest case possible and did not give the two individuals anything they can use in their defense, such as an unlawful arrest. So you should be happy now.
As for the UBI argument. To start, the current unemployment benefit situation is showing how much of a mess the government is. At the state level unemployment programs are very archaic and cannot handle this many people, thus millions are not getting their check. The federal government just arbitrary created $600/week. What that did is create a situation where many are earning more through unemployment than their actual job. There were some "greedy" small business owners who, instead of taking out the government loan to pay their employees, they fired them as they would earn more via unemployment. That shows how inefficient the government is.
Next, a UBI is pointless is there are goods to buy. Right now we have a meat shortage and the meat we have is seeing an increase in prices. Remember when there was no toilet paper? If you give out a UBI and productivity does not match it prices will go up. Thus that woman will have be in the same boat. Simply giving money way shows how shallow the far left can be and how little they know objectively. You can't consume what you don't produce. A UBI will lead to higher prices where that hair salon owner will still have to work.
"It has a considerably higher multiplier effect on the economy than nearly any other economic policy."
Yeah, as in higher inflation as again, there is currently low to no productivity due to no one working. You can go to almost any Wendys and ask for a hamburger and offer hundreds of dollars. Guess what, you won't get it as they don't have it. So tell me how will a UBI work when there are no goods to buy?
"There are plenty of logical arguments for UBI and Kyle did make a logical argument."
There were none as he is completely ignoring the part that goods are limited, especially now with no one producing. I have been going to the grocery store and many shelves are empty. In some places there is no bleach or cleaners. How will more money help me buy something that isn't available?
" Woman needs income to feed her kids -> guarantee her income."
Limited food available->food prices go up->she is in the same situation as before
This is proving my point. You guys are ignore a very important part of the issue, when there are no goods to be bought more money does not mean anything. All a UBI will do at this point is just raise prices.
" have read plenty of scientific studies on UBI and there are many good reasons for it to work."
Doubt it as very few examples exist. And in Canada they are starting to see an increase in food prices as well as expected. As for infection wise, Canada is around 125 deaths per million, the US is around 270 deaths per million. However, we have outliers. 34 of our states have less than 125 deaths per million. In two states, NY and NJ, they have over 1000 deaths per million. Remove those states the US is on par with Canada. So no, they are not doing better with the virus.
This is what I am saying. You take one bit of information and run with it purely on emotions and do not dig farther. The UBI situation is key. Again, how do you buy something that does not exist?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lookingforsomething the majority of cases are like that. That is why it takes months to take a case to trial. While it is from 1986, the BJS said that felony cases resulting trials take around 7.5 months. So yes, it does take time. It takes time to gather evidence, develop a case, and go through all the processes.
" Every country on earth has cheaper health care than the US though and the US health care is not even in the top 40 in international rankings. "
Healthcare rankings are 100% arbitrary. The US does many things well. As pointed out in the book "In Excellent Health" by Prof. Scott Atlas, we lead the world in access to advanced testing and care and lead the world in survival rates in advanced illnesses. Now there are arguments for and against that. However, every healthcare ranking comes from special interest groups with a motive. The US does many things well, but so do other nations. They reason why other nations pay less is because they simply offer less. They offer less care. We are seeing that now with the virus where many nations with universal healthcare like the UK, Spain, France, etc. are doing worse than the US. So you cannot say a centralized system is better than the private system as the US system does beat out other nations in many ways. Not saying those systems are inferior,they do many things well, but they do have shortcomings.
"UBI is extremely less maintenance heavy than your example of unemployment benefits. All you need is a system that verifies that every person gets only one case of UBI and you are set."
It is not that easy. All you are doing is now raising the floor from zero to some number. That will raise prices.
"You are sidestepping the issue. She can't afford food for her kids, not because prices went up, but because she has 0 income. Zero. Even if prices wen up 20% (which they haven't) on a regular salary a person who used to manage could still manage."
Why won't prices go up?
"Also you saying that the food prices have gone up in the US and in Canada would be a pretty good argument for the UBI not being the cause of the price rise. Honestly you didn't show any correlation. You just observed two things and assumed that there might be a connection, for your own benefit."
Prices are up because supply is limited. So no, it is not a good argument for UBI. With UBI supplies do not magically appear. Thus you increase demand which will increase prices.
"Returning back to the lady, her problem is that she is getting no money. There is either the non option of her going back to work and spreading the virus, or some sort of alternative income. As I said before UBI is a completely valid solution to that. You saying that UBI has problems doesn't change the fact that it would solve her problem. "
It will 100% not solve her problem as, again, we have a shortage of supplies. Just giving people money does not increase supplies. Thus prices will go up. Now she is in the same situation. Here is a problem I have with the far left, they grossly oversimplify these complex issues. You say that a UBI will solve her problem but completely ignore that supplies are right now limited. Retail stores have to limit the amount of TP and cleaner to buy as supplies are limited. You are ignoring all of that. Thus, a UBI will simply raise prices as demand will go up but supply won't.
"There is a clear chain of causality. (woman has no money to feed her kids) -> UBI -> (woman has money to feed her kids). So yes UBI is a logical solution to her problem. "
No, it is a grossly oversimplification of the problem. As I said, I could go into my retail store and offer hundreds of dollars for bleach and I would not be able to get it. Why? There were none on the shelves. You can't consume what you don't produce. You do know that the economy is much more than just money? Your logical conclusion is flawed in that a UBI will not magically create more food. Thus food prices will go up and she still won't be able to afford food. And if food prices do not go up due to lack of productivity the supply of food will drop a lot making a UBI pointless as there is now nothing to buy.
"If we spent 1 trillion on UBI, do you think it would increase inflation more than the corporate bailouts that cost way over 5 trillion dollars pushed for by Pelosi, Biden, McConnel and Trump?"
Never said I agree with that. However, there is a difference in how a corporation spends money and how an individual does. You really can't compare the two. Thus it is a poor argument to make. A corporation is looking to keep investors because without investors the corporation will have to downsize causing more layoffs and less supplies. An individual downsizing only influences themselves and those around them. And starting up as an individual is easier than a corporation. For example, in the airline industry, if it shuts down to re-open it you have to test all the planes, apply for licenses, test all the equipment and coding, etc.
Again, not defending the corporate bailouts. But to compared to individual bailouts is grossly oversimplifying the issue. Also, giving individuals money is pointless if there is nowhere to buy things.
"Also what do you think the inflation rate for UBI would be? I'm not denying that there wouldn't be any,"
Right now it is a double edge sword of no productivity and pumping money into the system. So inflation will be high.
"The multiplier effect is a very real thing. A person that has a million dollars consumes a lot less than a thousand people with one thousand dollars. This is taught in economics 101."
100% not true. How a million spends is different compared to an individual. A millionaire will spend to invest which grows the economy, or some sector of it. Someone is a millionaire because they provided something the people wanted.
"From a moral point of view (now this is a moral/emotional argument if you will) do you think it's better that we gave the richest 1% 5 trillion dollars, than the people who can't afford to get tested, face masks or food on the table to get, let's say, 0,5 trillion dollars? Why do you think what you believe?"
Depends, more complicated than that. I earn $23,000 a year. I am not asking for a dime to do what I feel is right under these times because I still have a job.
When did I say people are lazy?
There is a shortage of goods. For, example, we have a meat shortage.
1
-
@lookingforsomething it isn't a difference between two moral arguments. Again, on UBI you take that and run with it on pure emotions and nothing else saying that will help. You see someone with no money and basically say "that is bad, we need to give them money, that will solve everything" It is started on the idea that, emotionally, you feel it is bad and can't go beyond that. However, the factual and logical argument attached to it is that it is not tacking the elephant in the room, and that is productivity. A UBI will not increase productivity. Machines and people can only produce so much. Even in strong economic times a UBI will not all of a sudden increase productivity. That is why the "multiplier effect" is bogus as a UBI does not increase anything besides money in someone's pocket. Thus prices will go up.
Now take these times. Productivity is low. Shelves are empty in retail stores. A UBI will just make the situation worse at this point. I say far left because going to far on one side or another is bad as all solutions are in the middle. With the hair salon owner yes, I feel for her and thus oppose the lock down restrictions for her to work. I feel bad (emotional side) but also understand that in earning the money it will not harm the economy as a UBI would (factual and logical side). With you you feel bad for her (emotional side), but you become so emotional that you completely dismiss the complexity of the issue and feel that just throwing money at her will somehow solve this very complex problem.
Now take the far right perspective. They do not feel bad for her (no emotions) and feel that she should have went after a more stable career. Many of my friends earned their PhDs and are doing well working at home. Why not her?.......That is the far right's argument. Ignore emotions that she is actually passionate about owning a salon despite how risky it is and how a bad economy can cause hardships.
You see the two extremes? Your extreme says just throw money at it and things will magically get better. You are ignore the facts and logic that supply is limited, especially now with low productivity. And a UBI will not magically create more supply. You cannot consume what you do not produce. That is why a UBI will not solve this problem. The economy goes way beyond money. You learn that in Econ 101.
1
-
1
-
@lookingforsomething you bring up this 20%, where do you get this? Again, we have empty shelves. There is no productivity right now. Giving away money is pointless when there is no productivity.
Read carefully: You cannot consume what you don't produce. Giving everyone a UBI just raises prices and that salon owner is in the exact same position as before.
"You seem to be ignoring how the market works. Yes UBI creates demand. That is exactly it's purpose. It increases demand, which in turn creates supply"
I do know how it works. Productivity can only go so high. Machines can only produce so much. People can only become so productive. Look up "law of diminishing returns" where eventually no matter how much invest your output will not improve. I am going to explain this economic concept for you
On that law say with zero studying you will get a 50% on a test. Now say with 5 hours of studying you can improve to 85%. So by that logic 2.5 hours more of studying you should get a 100%. In reality you may only get an 87%. Why? Because as some point you can only gain so much. You reach a point that to obtain max amount you have to spend a lot of time/resources.
Now to give a couple of economic issues. First take healthcare. Gov. Cuomo said something that is you we spend a trillion dollars and save one person's life it was worth it. Well, in reality it wasn't. That is why in every healthcare system people end up dying due to lack of access. Other nations save money by simply capping how much care one receives.
But let us take an easier example. Say a man can run an 8 minute mile. You say you will give them 50 dollars if they ran a 6 minute one. They work hard and eventually do it. Now you say you will pay them 500 dollars to run a 4 minute mile. However, no matter how hard they try they can't do it for many reasons maybe age, health, genetics, etc. Say you raise it to a million dollars, but they still can't do it. Why? Because he, genetically or physically or whatever has a max. You actually see this with many professional athletes.
Same is in economics. Eventually productivity will max out thus prices will go up. People can only work so much.
"That is the core philosophy of capitalism. When there is demand the market reacts and creates supply."
I brought up an example of a cell phone at one point. A cell phone in the 80s was for only the rich. It was not created because a large group can afford it. It was created that the general public do want better technology. Those making it know that most cannot afford it. But over time, as technology improved, more can. That is why so many own smart phone. People desire better goods and services regardless of their income. Thus companies find a way to provide that at a low price.
Now if you give people money and they are willing to spend for teleportation will they get it? No, because it does not exist. But again, most were not going to spend money on brick cell phones but they were still created.
Your idea on the economy and market is flawed.
"Anyhow, during depression the problem is that there is no demand"
Huh? You just agreed there is a demand for TP and bleach? Now you are saying there isn't? Also, low demand means lower prices. Notice how low gas prices are?
"That's why when you inject money in to the economy it is done in hopes of creating more demand"
Which never has worked.
"More over UBI is extremely fair"
Emotional argument.
"For the people with nothing it can provide security, and for those who are decently off it provides a rung up in quality of life. "
Actually, as with the min. wage, it raises the lower rungs.
Say in my city everyone got an extra $1000 a month. Landlords will raise rent. Why? Because rent is around $800 a month for a one bedroom apartment. Demand will go up thus rent prices will go up. And you will claim "they will build more apartments". That takes a couple of years.
"She is saying "she has no money to feed her children" UBI is literally a solution to that. It is a solution that removes the need of her to endanger herself and others during lock down"'
Again, no it is not. Ready slowly
You cannot consume what you don't produce.
Production is low right now. You create a UBI prices of food all across the board due to
1. Lack of productivity
and
2. Higher demand across the board
Thus that salon owner will be in the same situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lookingforsomething "I doubt you can be bothered to crawl through everything we wrote here, but I asked pink about 3 times to explain how he identifies a "far left" person since he seems to believe a huge amount of things about these "far left" people. So far he has not managed to answer my questions, so I'll just keep on asking until he can explain himself."
I have explained it, but here we go. Anyone on the radical side of the political spectrum completely ignore the other side of the argument or other people's positions on an issue. To give you an example I will use Bernie.
During a debate against Ted Cruz Bernie was ask by a hair salon owners in TX on how, with Obamacare, can she expand her business to over 50 employees and afford to pay for there healthcare insurance without raising prices on their customers. Bernie's response was that if she expanded her business she will have to provide her employees with healthcare insurance. So immediately he did not answer the question. She asked how. He said "I don't know" and then went on a rant about some hypothetical situation of another hair salon that charges more so they can pay for employees healthcare insurance. She responded that the profit margins in that business is small. He said he does not know much about the hair stylist business but if she expands she has to provide healthcare insurance to her employees.
In that entire situation he never once tried to understand her profit margins, what expenses she has, what revenue she had, debt, long term vs short term employees, etc. As a whole he voted for Obamacare never once trying to understand the basics challenges of what a business owner goes through.
Now compare that to Bill Clinton. In 1994 Herman Cain ask Bill Clinton a similar question related to his business mandate. Cain said he went through the numbers himself and compared to other businesses and the cost of Bill's plan was more than expected. Cain asked to Clinton what should he tell his employees when he has to lay them off because he can't afford their healthcare insurance.
Clinton responded with actual numbers. He said that around 1/3 of expenses are payroll and Cain said that is an "adequate estimation". Clinton then ran through numbers and gave Cain advice on raising pizza prices $2 and then made a settle joke where the crowd laugh. In which Clinton said to the crowd that Cain has a very serious question, 40% of the American food dollar is spent eating out. Cain disagreed with Clinton's conclusion and gave his numbers.
Overall, while I disagreed with Clinton he at least looked into a policy he supported and saw both sides of the issue. It is not to say you need to know everything, but you should have a basic understanding. With any government policy there is going to be a drawback. People on the radical side on either part of the spectrum completely ignores those drawbacks. As with Obamacare and Bernie. Yes, an advantage is that it gave people healthcare insurance who did not have it before. However, a drawback is that some businesses will not be able to expand. When that hair salon owner brought that up Bernie simply dismissed her saying "follow the law". That compare to Clinton where he took the time to understand the challenges and barriers a business faces knowing full well that his bill would create another.
That is what makes someone far left, and I see it here all the time. Take healthcare for example. You yourself talked about how other nations pay less and are better where I, with sources, explained how that is not true. There is a drawback. Many on the far left point to the Koch brothers study in how M4A will cost less. But it isn't that easy. Many still assume that under a M4A system it will cost less but quality will still be the same. That is not true. M4A only cost less if we assume that usual 40% less pay it has now compared to private insurance. So with that healthcare providers will limit access to care as other nations do to keep spending low. There are arguments for and against that but it is legit. A reason why Medicare even works in the US is because it is subsidized by private insurance. A reason why healthcare cost so much is because Medicare pays 40% less and thus healthcare providers charge private insurance, that covers other people, more to make up the difference.
We are also seeing it now with this virus. Ben Shapiro did a video last week entitled
"Ben Shapiro SLAMS Democrats For Pushing For Continued Lockdowns"
Many states are reopening and many on the far left are calling them stupid and that they are wanting to kill people. As Ben said, what is the solution? Staying lock down is not one as the bad economy is going to kill as well. The far left just keeps pushing to stayed lock down. You see that in CA where, despite low infection and deaths, are in "phase 2" but still have not opened up dining areas where in my state "phase 1" has. Or how Maine extended their lock down until the end of May. And you have far leftists who rip on people wanting to open up. The Humanist Report did a recent video of a man in WI saying "fuck you" to the protesters as opposed to trying to understand their position.
1
-
@lookingforsomething It comes down to this. I call people here far left because when I give a legit counter argument to what they support, or being up legit concerns I get berated and dismissed. Stephen Michael Davis broke down how those people think and it goes like this
1. There is a major problem
2. The solutions are simple and without consequences
3. They are popular
4. If you disagree you are either corrupt, a bigot or ignorant
The last part is key. If you disagree with their ideas you are one of those three. However, the reality is this. On the issues far leftists talk about there are experts on all sides with different opinions. I have said that many times. I have said there are advantages to a universal healthcare system. I realize that. But there are major drawbacks as well but the far left ignores them.
But in the conversation you and I had with UBI. You say UBI will increase productivity. While I will agree to a point it will, but there is a max. That is why many bring up the radical point when it comes to the min. wage of "why not $100/hr" or with UBI in "why not give everyone a million dollars". Many in support of those programs will admit, then, that is too much. What they are doing without knowing is admitting to the economy concept of the "law of diminishing returns". What that means is that no matter how much you invest in something what you get in return will be low, if at all. I gave you the example of offering someone a million dollars to run a 3 minute mile. Even with that much offered it won't happen. You see that a lot in where many professional athletes do not live up to their contracts.
But let us use another example. Take the case of C.C. Myers and the MacArthur Maze project. His bid only covered 1/3 of the cost. However there was an incentive of $200,000 a day if he completed before the June 27th deadly. He finished May 24 and received $5 million dollars. So yes, the incentive had him finish early. But why not finish May 20, or May 17 and get even more money? Because, in the end, you can only work and produce so much.
With you I bring up that point with UBI and you dismiss it. Why? Because you are a far leftist. Not saying you are a bad person or that you are dumb. A lot of people really cannot see beyond themselves which is why we have a government system the way it is. But the reality is that during our conversation I brought up the issues of UBI and you dismissed the fact that eventually productivity will be maxed out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cthulhu In the deep I am not saying there is no food. What I am saying is that she, along with others, cannot afford food. Your solution is UBI. However, if you give people a UBI food prices will go up thus they are in the same situation. And also, we have a meat shortage as is. Food and supplies are dropping which is why prices are going up. A UBI will make prices go up more. You are not solving anything by giving money away as productivity is low.
"0 income < 600 income"
Not true if you give everyone $600.
Let us use a simple example. Say you have 10 people and 5 sandwiches. Zero dollars is the baseline. Say 5 people earn zero dollars and 5 people earn $10. Thus the sandwich will cost, say $5. Now you say "well those other 5 should be able to by a sandwich", so you create the UBI of $10. Now 5 people earn $10 and 5 earn $20. The sandwich shop will raise the price of the sandwich to at least $11 as they, in the end, only have 5 of them.
You see the scenario? Creating a UBI does not means more goods will appear.
"You just said the economy is down and productivity is low, ok fine, then start a ubi program to boost the economy and production, no now the economy is maxed out because of the diminishing law of return and it’s not possible to increase production and ubi will raise prices. "
Again, you are not reading what I wrote. So I will break it down again.
1. The economy is currently down and productivity is low because the government shut it down. This is not a normal situation. A UBI will not matter if people are not allowed to work. Thus pushing for a UBI now is pointless as, again, people are not allowed to work.
2. On the second part of the law of diminishing returns, I am now looking at normal economic times. You are claiming that a UBI will increase productivity. Under normal economic times I will agree, but to a point. I shown that with the C C Myers example that despite the incentive to finish early he finished on May 24 as opposed to May 17.
You are conflating two points. The first part is during the situation now in that people are not allowed to work. The second part is under normal economic times. Please try go follow along.
"with 0 source or evidence."
Ironic how you have not provided anything yourself. Meanwhile I cited an actual economic law and an example with C C Myers.
1
-
@lookingforsomething "I haven't seen the clip you speak of, so it's hard for me to comment. Anyhow I think what Bernie should have answered is that health insurance is a must and that if she can employ 50 people she is well enough off to be able to pay for the health insurance. It's alright for prices to go up if it still guarantees good working conditions for workers."
It isn't that simple as healthcare benefits cost employers a lot more than wages. My former employer at small business said that if they paid healthcare insurance they will go bankrupt. They simply can't afford it. As for raising prices, Herman Cain brought that up with Clinton in that larger competitors have more staying power over smaller ones in that larger competitors can simply do with less for the time being and avoid the price increase. We are seeing it now in that larger companies are doing fine where smaller ones are fighting to reopen.
To give an example, take the min. wage. Say you have a local burger shack competing with McDonalds. The min. wage is increased. The local burger shack raises prices to pay for it. The franchise owner of say 12 McDonalds can simply downsize to 10. Or say out of those 12 say 8 are open 24 hours and thus downsize to only have 6 being open 24 hours. So instead of raising prices they cut hours.
So saying to raise prices is not that simple.
"If Bernie said that the problem is in our current health insurance policy not giving universal coverage and therefore putting different employers in unjust and unfair positions, then he is right."
He did not say that.
"That makes it so that each hairdresser has to pay about the same amount and the playing field is equal, which is a prerequisite for a functioning market economy."
The playing field is never equal, and I just gave you an example.
"Bernie is a politician. He is not meant to give her business advice,"
He needs to understand trade off in policy which he clearly does not. That is the issue. He does not care to hear about the other side or other people's concerns which is my point. He passed a bill without considering how it will harm others. That is a problem. When considering policies you need to weigh out the pros and cons and make a decision. He clearly does not and clearly does not care to.
"Maybe he should have better people skills, but there are plenty of clips out there where Bernie really does listen to every day Americans."
No he doesn't. Another example is during a town hall in Las Vegas. Someone asked him how he will prevent businesses from raising prices when he raises the min. wage. He went on a rant on how people working full time should not be poor. He did not answer the question. So the guy asked it again. Bernie then said prices will go up, but people will be making more which is not an answer. What about people making $20/hr? They will see higher prices but not a wage increase under Bernie's plan. That is a concern.
Or take the Fox News town hall where he was pressed on taxes and donations. He became a millionaire and was pressed on why he accepted the tax write offs on Trump's tax cuts, or why doesn't he donate some of his money. He deflected by asking the the hosts why they don't donate their money. He did not answer the question.
That is the problem with Bernie. He deflects when pressed on the issues and just goes to talking points. He ignores other people's legit concerns. That is why he is a far leftist.
To give another example beyond Bernie, I asked many people here about Bernie's plan and some shortcomings on them. Take tuition free college. I ask a lot how will Bernie handle the NCAA. They simply say they don't care or that it will be dealt with. What it shows is that they have not looked at the issue in full. Tuition free college will greatly change the NCAA with scholarship limitations and the different divisions. As Hickenlooper said, Bernie wants to throw a plan out there and let everyone else pick up the pieces. His supporters are the same way. With tuition free college you will have to make changes to the NCAA, enrollment, scheduling, etc. Bernie fans don't care because they are not the one who has to deal with it.
As for your solution, again, a UBI will not work as productivity is down. I just gave this example but I will give it here. Say you have 10 people and 5 sandwiches. Say 5 people earn zero and 5 people earn $10 and a sandwich cost $5. So only 5 people can afford it. Your solution will be to create a UBI of say $10. Now 5 people have $10 and 5 people have $20. The sandwich shop still only has 5 sandwiches and will, at least, raise the price to $11. Thus those 5 people who were originally earning zero are in on better shape.
That is my point, a UBI will not magically create more goods. As for a jobs guarantee, jobs are easy to create, wealth is different. We can create millions of jobs by banning the tractor, but food production will go down. On reason why Trump's economy was doing so well is that he eliminated many government jobs so people ended up working job that developed wealth. A reason why CA and NY are struggling is because they created a bunch of government jobs that produced little and thus created a waste. So simply guaranteeing jobs is not that simple.
On Stephen Michael Davis I am not doing that. I am not saying the solutions are simple and without consequences. I admit that opening up the economy can potentially lead to more deaths from the virus and more spread. But it comes down to a balance. I support slowly reopening the economy for two reasons
1. We need to get people back to work to increase productivity and grow the economy
2. We need to learn more about the virus. The more who are exposed to it the more we can learn. Right now our healthcare system can handle people now. And evidence is arising up that the virus is not that deadly and more people than we think had it. GA has been open for over two weeks now and their number of new cases per day has been stagnant despite more testing. By opening up we can gain more information about the virus.
So no, I am not saying the solutions are simple. I have said many times they are complex which is why I go into great details in these discussions.
"No one is calling for 100 dollar minimum wage. That's not what we are advocating for. My personal perspective is that minimum wage should be tied to an index that follows inflation. That way it doesn't result in spikes of inflation. "
Why not 100 dollar per hour? Because you are admitting that at some point it will be too high. As for inflation, what method of inflation? CPI, GDP deflator, PCE, Boskin Commission CPI? I bet you did not know there were more than one way to measure inflation. Most who bring up "inflation" look at CPI as it gives the highest inflation rate of them all. Politicians use it for that reason. When the Boskin Commission showed that CPI, at that time, overstated inflation by 2.5% politicians ignored it. Why? Because many government workers' salaries are based on CPI. Imagine a politician running for office saying that CPI inflation is overstated. That means government workers will not see that much of a wage increase. That will be a huge attack add. So they don't do it.
Also, inflation has flaws such as new technology bias. For example, a brick cell phone in the 80s cost, in today's dollars, $4000. These days smart phones are given away and have more computing power that put a man on the moon and plus many features. But based on your argument a smart phone should cost, at least, $4000. Same with cars. Cars today, in many ways, cost more than cars in the 70s. However, cars today are safer, last longer and get better fuel mileage.
So simply citing inflation is grossly oversimplifying the issue.
"I dismiss your point of productivity eventually being maxed out because it is not a major problem when it doesn't come to necessities."
I gave you two clear examples of athletes and C C Myers. Why didn't C C Myers complete his project on May 17 as opposed to May 24? Because he simply could not get his workers to work that fast. Why can't someone run a 3 minute mile even with millions waved at him? Because there is a limit.
Consider simply travel. For me to get to work I have to walk 15 minutes. So everyday I spend 30 minutes simply traveling. That is 30 minutes of no productivity. I can't teleport there. As a whole there is a limit in productivity. Right now they are doing renovations in the building I work at and it is going to take at least a year. Why not get it done in four months? Because there are limitations in how much people can produce.
That is the economics of it. There is a max. People and machines can only produce so much.
We are running out of food. Again, there is a meat shortage.
As for people not paying rent, a UBI will not solve the problem. Sure, they can pay rent, but now you injected more money in the economy. You have someone like me who can pay rent. So I will have more money to buy something else leading to increase in demand overall and thus increase in prices. We actually saw this in the 60s and 70s. The Federal Reserve practice easy monetary policy with low interest rates because, at the time, it was thought that inflation meant low unemployment. However, over time high inflation led to higher unemployment. Volcker was selected to be the Chair of the Federal Reserve and he jacked up interest rates to stop massive inflation which led to lower unemployment.
Easy monetary policy eventually leads to more inflation and higher unemployment. We have history of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snuzzlebumble , we have an expensive care because we offer more advanced testing compared to other nations. For example, we offer more MRIs and CT scans compared to other nations. Other nations keep cost down by capping how much care one receives. Other nations deny care as well.
SS is losing money because like all federal government programs it ends up costing more than expected. In accounting working with pensions are a bitch as you can't predict how long people will live, their health, how long they will work, etc. SS is very similar. It was released with the average life expectancy was lower than the age to qualify for it. Now more people are living longer. Another example of the federal government mismanaging funds is the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. Only half of the hospitals were open and none of them were fully funded.
Uh, min. wage does kill jobs and raise prices. Economists know this and agree with it.
FDR turned a recession into a depression.
"So allowing women to vote is a human right, but being able to not die from sickness is not a human right?"
Major differences. The former does not require anyone's services or goods. The latter does. Rights in the US are there to allow for individuals to take on the government. Also, rights are things that cannot be taken away without due process. So no, healthcare is not a human right.
Healthcare rankings are completely arbitrary. Anyone can do any legit analysis on the stats and come up with any ranking they want. That is why every healthcare ranking comes from special interest groups with a motive.
Comparing M4A to programs like police, roads, schools, etc. is flawed. All of those programs you listed are locally ran and funded, and are a drop in the bucket compared to cost. You are trying to push a federal programs by looking at locally ran programs. Also, again, what will stop providers from just raising prices? If the government is not willing to pay then what will stop providers from denying care?
1
-
@grmpEqweer , ok, on the 45,000 stat there are several issues there. One, amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. So is that 45,000 high, low, or the norm compared to other nations? You can't say as no similar study was done. Plus, amenable mortality is very difficult to measure.
On that 45,000 stat Prof. Katherine Baicker said that 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? I mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live only 5 or 10 months. So if you give access to care to those 45,000 and they die in 5 months, was that a success? So it is difficult to determine how and why those 45,000 die.
As for insulin, a major problem is that there is little competition in healthcare. The federal government prevents competition from happening in healthcare. Nationalizing it won't increase competition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"No less arbitrary than some insinuation that a military budget be capped by percentage of GDP rather than fixed cost. "
As the economy grows so does government spending including the military. That is why we look at percent of GDP. The federal government spent around $360 million in defense in 1970. We have not even doubled that even though our GDP has gone up 20x. A larger economy means more workers and thus a larger military.
"The arbitrariness of a measurement doesn’t inherently make it weaker.
The Commonwealth Fund grouped its analyses by quality, equity, access,
efficiency, and healthy lives. Those are metrics that can have a
substantial effect on the lives of millions."
It is arbitrary an vague. As I said anyone can do a legit analysis on the data to come up with their own rankings where the US can be number 1. What make the CWF so special?
"When comparing to developed nations in the aggregate (i.e. multivariate analysis) the U.S. healthcare system fails to compete."
How so?
"“The report does reveal bright spots: Americans are more likely to
survive cancer or stroke, and if we live to age 75 we're likely to keep
on living longer than others. But these advances are dwarfed by the grave shortcomings.”"
What shortcomings? And how do they "dwarf" cancer survival rate?
Also, did the CWF factor in obesity rates, smoking rates, type II diabetes? Did the CWF factor in exposure to sunlight? Did they factor in overall health habits such as how active people are? There are many factors involved in this you cannot ignore. That is what makes these analysis vague and these rankings arbitrary.
"On the issue of military spending, the main takeaway is that waste
exists in the system, and that waste should be cut. Justifying military
spending as percentage of GDP does nothing to address the actual waste."
I agree there is waste and I agree it should be audited. But that applies for every program, including SS and medicare.
" Put another way, if we could defend our nation just as well with half the budget why not cut it at least somewhat?"
Because it isn't that easy. You can't just cut the budget in half. It still represents around 3% of the overall economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theangrycynic4389 , his policies are far left as he is pushing to completely dismantle many programs in our current system and change them completely. That is radical in any nation. M4A is far left as currently written eliminates current healthcare insurance, cuts pay by 40%, places 30+ million on the system, will raise taxes on every all of which is completely changing our current system. Major changes will result from that with lower accessibility, lower quality and so on. Something has to give. This is not to say that M4A is not the best solution, it might be. But with Kyle he pushes for M4A as if there will be no consequences or drawbacks of any kind when there clearly would be. There are advantages of M4A but there will be drawbacks, just like there are advantages to our current system but with drawbacks. Kyle dismisses the drawbacks.
With the debate he refused to debate Crowder but I agree with Shapiro, Shapiro is deceptive as well and in something like healthcare he fumbles at times. Kyle would most likely "win" the debate because he will cite some source where Shapiro won't. But Kyle will cite the source in a very deceptive way and than make another claim and cite nothing, but his fan base will say "he has facts and sources".
The reality is this, Kyle is selling something to a target audience. The media does this all around as it gets views. Watch this video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3miF4KqOMA
The guy lays it out well. People want to watch talking heads like Kyle and Shapiro, or CNN and Fox as they give them short talking points they like to hear. They don't want to listen to some expert give an hour long presentation on the issues as that will bore them. They want to hear Kyle shout about M4A and dismiss the other side. People want to hear Shapiro rip on AOC. And with debate it becomes a game but really none of these people are experts. I feel they are intelligent, but not experts.
I come here often to debate people on the issues and when I do I cite studies and books by experts. For example, on healthcare I cite works by Prof. Katherine Baicker, by Prof. Scott Atlas, by Prof. John Schneider and by medical doctors like Atul Gawande. These are actual experts and when you read their sources you realize how complex healthcare really is and just pushing for M4A as it is the cure all for healthcare, or the political left pushing the idea that universal healthcare will lead to an inferior system is dangerous on both sides. But when I cite these sources here on Kyle's videos his fans literally refuse to read them. They refuse to read a 200 page book on the issue. They rather listen to Kyle. It is disturbing to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Algie, I agree that the wage for someone worth billions is different, and that is my point. You just can't say "tax them at 90% and they will have millions" or something like that because you, unlike that person who earns $30,000, are not taxing income. You will have to tax their stock options which can harm the company.
Now if you want to talk about how messed up and complicated our tax code is we can, but fact is this, rich people have completely different financial situation. Just because they have more money does not mean you can tax them more and claim they will still be fine.
Businesses want to make working conditions better or they will lose good workers. Businesses do push for better working conditions. That is why they, without government regulations, offer lunch time and paid vacation.
Robotics replacing workers is not bad, it frees up people to do other jobs with more skills.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jojo
A wage would be better than a benefit, but in the end it is a form of payment an isn't taxed.
The payroll tax has increased in the past and continued to do so. Other factors include the Tax Reform Act of 1969, increase in immigration, increase of women in the work force, creation of OSHA, etc. Many government programs and government expansion took place. People point to wage stagnation as the fault of deregulation and the free market when in reality during the 70s government expanded quite a bit.
Many economists say that PCE is better. The Fed uses PCE as well. Why is the CPI better? The CPI is arguably archaic and needs to be adjusted.
It is impossible to account for every variable. Studies will admit that. Studies will say there are shortcomings in their work.
1. GDP growth is similar to wage growth. Wealth increases for all
2. Life expectancy means the way of living is better.
3. A poor person today is living better than a rich person 100 years ago. That is a fact. I earn $23,000 a year. I have a reliable car, nice meals, my own apartment, etc. Poor people have smart phones, AC, better cars, etc. If wages were stagnate than people would still be in the bad situation they were in the 70s. If wages were stagnate people would not have smart phones. But they do.
This is why wage stagnation is arguably a myth. It is also why very few talk about it as many indicators people are better off. Do you want the same wage people earned in the 70s with the same technology?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nathan D, people who claim that having the government offer healthcare to all as a solution are being very vague about it. They claim that it "works". In comparison I said that killing homeless people will "work" in ending the homeless problem. Saying something "works" is a poor argument.
When you run through the numbers nothing suggests that single payer is better than what the US has.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Healthcare is a complex issue with expensive equipment, highly skilled workers, and the evolving human body and diseases (unless you are one of those ultra leftists who do not support evolution). Simply saying that the government funding it with Medicare for all will solve our problems is being highly ignorant. It isn't that simple.
Now on to some of the things you said
" The failure of logic is so glaring because he provides no proof of
"low quality care" and instantly paints your idea as an equivalent to
"killing homeless". "
I just linked you a book showing that other countries do not get better results. The US is number 1 in the world in research and innovation in healthcare. Our quality is high, even supporters of single payer has said that.
"Stop discussing these things with people like that because they will
pull you into some crazy shit like "where will we get the doctors?" "
It is a valid question. Where do we get the doctors? We lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, etc. How do you expect to provide healthcare to all when you lack doctors.
Let me give you a scenario and you try to solve it, you have 10 people and 5 TVs, now how do you give every person a TV? Remember, you have only 5 TVs. Now the same is with doctors. How do you provide healthcare to all when we lack doctors.
" or use actual shortages that cant be currently solved (organs or some
other non-manufacturable commodity) and compare it to things we can like
simply training people for the roles."
We cannot simply train doctors. Going to medical school is challenging. Many do not get admitted as almost every one of them has less than a 50% acceptance rate. We lack doctors for two reasons
1. People do not want to do the work
2. People are not able to do the work
This is the problem with the Medicare for all people. They turn a blind eye to the actual challenges that they will face in establishing this program. You are doing it yourself and just proceed to attack me saying I am creating a strawman. How about you come up with solutions to the barriers I present. Until you do than I will simply say that Medicare for all is not the solution.
1
-
"ut you're right, I am just dragging myself down to the level of someone
who constructs alarmingly illogical arguments. Such a bonkers fallacy
confuses and disturbs me too, but maybe that's just because I spent time
studying fallacies of argumentation for law school. "
You are trying to dismiss my argument as opposed to taking it on. You started with this
"Providing basic medical care for all citizens"
And I responded with this
"define "basic medical care". That is vague. "
Which is true. You then proceeded to do an appeal to emotion argument which does not go well to people who are intelligent and logical.
" It's just that the saddest part is that my experience is hardly unique.
And a lack of study on the issue along with lack of compassion does
still throw me for a loop. "
I looked at the issue and I feel compassion, to me having Medicare for all is not the solution. Again, how many people will suffer to cater to you? You have to consider that. You are, in a way, wishing ill will on others so you can do well. Nothing is free.
As I said, I am all for improving our healthcare system as it has problems. If it were as simple as Medicare for all then I will be all for it. However, knowing the complexity of healthcare and the inefficiencies of our federal government, it is not that simple.
Again, I feel bad for your situation, but I have to think logically here. Unless you have an intelligent comment to support Medicare for all I have to dismiss your comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wealth did trickle down. A few things Kyle fails at here. First, he confuses wealth with income which immediately shows his economic illiteracy here. Next, our of the Forbes 400 in 1982, only 36 remain. Thus there are 464 new members. Now you may talk about inheritance, and I will give you that. But still, the 400 riches in 1982 are different than now.
Next, to say that the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom whatever is deceptive. Many, including me, have negative wealth which is good. We, us a nation, allows others to regress in total wealth to succeed. I have negative wealth because of college loans. A person with no assets and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the nation.
This is not to say everything is great, but to paint it as bad as Kyle does is being intellectually dishonest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Luigi Lama, I understand that there is more to the economy than interest rates, but the two major recessions, and the time of hyperinflation all corresponded to low interest rates.
You say "excessive lending practices" which is the result of.....wait for it.....low interest rates.
There was hyperinflation in the 70s, inflation was over 11% in the 70s according to FRED stats. We allowed it at the time because, at the time, many economists supported the Phillips curve where when inflation goes up unemployment goes down. Eventually that trend stopped because employers realize that wages and expenses were too high and thus stopped hiring. To alleviate inflation the Fed raised interest rates. Inflation was at the highest point in the US in 1974 and 1980, both over 11%. The next highest time besides those two points is around 5.8%. If you don't think 11% is hyperinflation compared to 5.8% than I don't know what is.
In 2002 on Friedman's 90th birthday Bernanke said, and I quote
"I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
You can find that on the Fed's website in an article entitled
"Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To add
"Our study has several limitations. We examined three expansion states,
and the results are largely driven by the largest (New York), so our
results may not be generalizable to other states"
"The mortality data set did not allow us to control for individual-level
characteristics other than race, sex, and age (e.g., socioeconomic
status or health status with respect to specific chronic diseases). We
had to impute values for small subsamples after stratification according
to county, race, sex, and age, although the results were robust with
different imputation approaches."
"Most important, our analysis is a nonrandomized design and cannot definitively show causality. "
"Alternatively, states may choose to expand Medicaid when their economies
are thriving, and economic prosperity broadly improves coverage and
access, which could produce a spurious association between eligibility
expansions and health"
Again, read your own source. They even admit flaws. There are many factors that play a role in life expectancy beyond healthcare.
" and it would thus take extraordinary evidence to convince a rational individual of the opposie"
And I am waiting for that evidence. Having access to high quality healthcare will mean higher life expectancy, I would agree. But you are leaving out the quality. And also, just because the government offers healthcare coverage does not mean it will be of high quality.
Again, think about this. There are many moving parts and anyone who is intelligent, such as the writers of that paper you gave me, understand that. That is why they said "may" and expressed their limitations in their data.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bear in mind I said very basic care where the quality is not great. To give an example, I went to a free healthcare clinic for a STD check up. The only time you can use it is on Tuesday and Thursday and the wait times are long, as in 3 to 4 hours. When I used my insurance to go to a private clinic within 30 minutes I checked in, got blood drawn, pissed in a cup, and was back at home. So when I say being able to afford it the care has to be very basic and it should be understood that the quality will not be good.
We have states that are larger than Ireland. This comes back to lower population means less diversity and the system can be micromanage easier. How many nations over over 100+ million people have universal healthcare and a strong economy?
Also, I doubt you talked to economists or looked at many studies because if you did you would realize the challenges that exist.
The problems you listed for states make no sense. In fact, at the federal level you have more corruption and bureaucracy which leads to higher prices.
Competition does not lead us to concentration of profits. It leads to the exact opposite. Having one spender does that as that is called a monopoly. That is why a federal system would be a bad idea. You have one buyer with no competition so you have no standard to compare it to, and it makes it harder to change.
Define "feasible to help them". Also, what if doctors refuse to help them? The reasons could be as simple as too few of doctors? Do you force doctors to work longer hours? The issue is the definition of a right. Now if you want to call it a service that the government pays for that is fine which is different. Consider education. You don't have a right to education, the states and local governments provide it. If there is no teacher than they can't. Education is not a right. That is the difference.
You are not required by law to carry an ID.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" you again are expecting me to explain everything just to prove my
point, when you easily can find the answers, or they are already common
knowledge."
It isn't common knowledge to start. Next, I have studied education for over a year with the desire of being a teacher, and I still keep up on it. So I know a decent amount about it. I also study economics and taking a graduate level course on it as well. The fact is on these issues there are many variables to where you, and I, cannot say that other countries are better or worse.
" People are happier in other countries"
That is subjective. People in other countries, and in the US, hardly experience other cultures and countries. So to say they are happy is very deceptive. That depends on the individual. People in the US who are, on paper, poor are happy as they are content. Suicide rates are higher with people with higher incomes for example. Also, in the US it depends on where you live. One of my friends lives near Mountain View, CA and it takes them an hour to drive to work which is 10 miles a way. It takes my dad 45 minutes to drive 45 miles to his work in rural midwest. Living in that different traffic can influence happiness. It is very subjective. To say they are "happier" is very vague, and a low bar to set.
"they have improved living conditions"
So does the US. We lead the world in R&D in healthcare and technology.
"and their education systems aren't based around creating bot like factory workers."
And many schools in the US aren't either. It depends. There is no one size fits all policy. In Germany they track their students to where if they feel you cannot attend college they won't place you on that route starting in high school. In the US we have, arguably, the best university system in the world and this is seen with the number of international students.
"Those are the most basic reasons other countries are better."
Which is your problem. This is not something you can be basic about. You are giving talking points on a complex issue. You saying other countries have it better is vague. I asked you for details and you just simply say "just because". At that point I can 100% dismiss our argument. It is not to be rude to you but instead it is challenging you to defend your point. If you can then great. But right now you aren't. You are telling me to look this information up when in reality I have, and my knowledge of it has it so I am not making a vague claim like you are. If I do I will defend it. I understand how complex these issues are and using the very low, and subjective standard of happiness shows how poor your argument can be.
Challenge yourself. You are telling me to look up the information. I have. I want you to do it now.
1
-
"omfg you are seriously mistaken if you say that certain things that I've explained aren't common knowledge"
Scholars argue these issues a lot. When I was studying education one of my professors said he can easily argue the US has the best education system in the world based on our population alone.
"It's obvious that at one point, you will learn about life in other countries, and how compared to the US, it is so much better in a lot of them. "
Again, based on what?
" Everyone thinks happiness is having everything you want, when in reality, happiness can be achieved by having a good home to live in, a decent making in their job, and a good education."
Define "decent". Define a "good education". And again, happiness is 100% subjective.
"The US fails miserably in all those categories. "
How, and in what ways?
"Just about all the houses in my neighborhood have issues, never mind the rest of my city. "
And? In other nations people have issues as well. And even they are subjective.
" Most of that is due to people just barely getting by on their paycheck, literally living week to week with it. "
That is common in all nations.
"Our education level nationally is so low compared to other countries,"
Again, how?
"our writing seems like you are blindly following the rhetoric that most politicians right now are giving out, the basic " we're the best country, because we say we are!", "
Actually I never said the US was the best.
" when studies show that it just isn't true in the slightest!"
What studies? I can give you an entire book showing how other nations have many problems in healthcare.
"You're telling me the exact same thing I told you, because my words don't fit your views, "
No, it is because you have not given any details on how those other nations are better, you just say they are.
" I'm telling you to look it up because you don't actually seem to know what is actually going on,"
Look up where? Fox News? PragerU? You are not even pointing me to a direction. You make a claim, say it is common knowledge (which is a logical fallacy), and tell me to "look it up".
"All you've blabbed about is how I'm being vague, not once stopping to consider that just because you can't comprehend it immediately doesn't mean it's vague. "
Scholars spend years studying these issues and write entire books on them. What you are saying is vague.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"No one puts a gun to your head and requires you to take your employers'
health coverage over another privately-sourced plan, you know. "
I know, however that is how they pay me. If I refused they are not going to give me a higher salary. I will just be working for less.
" I'm also very interested to hear how innovation-stifling regulation
has hampered the development of drugs in the US, which is correctly
ranked as #1 in healthcare innovations. "
And our drugs are expensive because of those regulations. We have a for profit system with many regulations. But we do not have a free market system.
"Insurance companies are incentivized, at least have been in the past,
not to take on cases/customers whom may present a substantial amount of
risk of costly healthcare claims. This is the number-one reason for
the previous rate of rejection for pre-existing conditions. "
I agree that is a problem. A big reason for that is because healthcare insurance is tied to our employer. If we are paid a higher wage as opposed to with insurance we can buy our own plan at a younger age and keep it no matter how many jobs we have.
"Yes, there is a problem with healthcare monopolies in the US, but a
free-market system devoid of regulation is not the best solution to this
problem, as such as system would likely do nothing but lay the
framework for such monopolies to expand their influence and edge out
competitors"
Monopolies exist because of lack of competition that has been killed by government.
"If you're going to champion a system that will probably result in
anti-competitive practices, you're just as well off to support a massive
monopoly in the form of single-payer healthcare,"
The free market does not lead to monopolies.
"And no, I won't be reading your cherrypicked piece from the American
Enterprise Institute, because I've got 150 pages of reading for one
graduate course to get through by Wednesday to say nothing of the other
two. "
It is a very easy read and I am a grad student as well. I found time to read it.
But here is the fact, government regulations create monopolies, not the free market. And ask yourself why do businesses pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? And no, I can't just pay for my own option.
If you are really a grad student you will think like that.
1
-
1
-
"But you pointed out that consumers can't negotiate prices, how would that even work?"
Let me give you my opinion. Because of the payroll tax business pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage. If they paid a higher wage they would pay a higher tax. Benefits like insurance are a tax free way to pay employees.
What that created was the fact that people cannot choose their own plan. They get the plan their employers offer. And since it is a form of payment insurance has become healthcare.
For me if you eliminate the payroll tax businesses will pay with a higher wage to where consumers will buy insurance out of pocket and get a plan they want. That means no more women paying for Viagra and men won't pay for contraceptives. Also, they will force companies to compete which will lower prices.
Insurance can also be insurance at that point. Think about car insurance, it pays for car accidents. But it does not pay for oil changes and tire rotations. That is out of pocket. Healthcare insurance should pay for unplanned, expensive situations. Cases like pregnancies, routine checkups, elective surgery, etc. can be paid for out of pocket which will drive down prices as well because of negotiation. Insurance will be cheaper as well.
Instead people are paid with insurance they don't want and it has become healthcare.
"Also, if your daughter is allergic to bee stings you have to buy some
epipens for her, this is a life and death Issue, unlike what you pay for
consumer goods like Cars."
That is an unplanned case. After finding that out I can buy epipens ahead of time.
1
-
1
-
"So you're admitting you've made a choice to accept your employer-based healthcare plan, that's good."
It wasn't much of a choice, either get paid with that or not. They were not going to pay me any other way.
"Sourcing your insurance through means other than your employer does not
provide means of overcoming the inevitable function of insurance firms -
to maximize returns on premiums while minimizing the amount of money
doled out through claims. You're simply foregoing a middleman. "
Read my comment about my opinion on healthcare insurance.
"Businesses pay with healthcare insurance because they're legally required to,"
They didn't have to prior to Obamacare but still did.
"if they had the option to forego providing such benefits to employees, they would."
100% not true, in the early 1990s Bill Clinton said that around 90% of Americans had insurance through their employer. This is not to be rude but as a grad student you need to understand the basic facts before we can get to opinions.
" If businesses had the option to skimp on healthcare benefits without
being compelled to pay higher wages to their workers, why on earth would
they provide higher wages?"
Because in the competitive market if you do not pay employees enough no one will work for you. That is why they offered healthcare insurance, it was a way to pay them more without paying higher taxes. Business pay higher wages already even though they are not legally obligated to.
"Monopolies exist because of government?"
Yes. Regulations hurt smaller competitors where larger ones have more staying power to overcome them.
"At this point I'm convinced that you're conflating "perfectly
competitive markets" with "the free market," monopolies can of course
exist in free markets, but not in perfectly competitive ones. To claim
otherwise is either sheer economic ignorance or pure dogmatism. "
Not to be rude but you claimed that businesses, if given the choice would not pay with healthcare insurance even though I showed you they did.
" I don't really need to expand on this point further here, economists have been doing so for decades. "
Sounds like a cop out to me. Please expand further.
"Any time someone insists on having an opponent discuss the merits of one
source over any other, it is more than safe to assume there is some
form of "texas sharpshooter" scenario at play. Perhaps you would be
better served to take a more well-rounded approach to the topic rather
than doggedly pursuing the spread of one set of beliefs from one
particular thinktank with a well-noted slant. "
I see a lot of dodging by you. You claim I am using talking points when I am not. You, however, made the claim that businesses won't pay higher wages even though they do, and they won't pay with insurance if they were not forced to even though they did. Again, this is not to be rude, but learn some basic facts before you go to opinions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"At no point have 90% of Americans received health coverage through their
employers, and certainly at no point in the 1990s - in 1988 some 67% of
Americans were receiving full or partial coverage through their
employers, though this had declined to 61% by 1993. This figure has
been pulled straight out of your ass, plain and simple. "
That figure came from Clinton. The wording was "9 of 10 Americans receive coverage through their employer". What that means is that of all Americans who have insurance, 90% of them received them through their employers. Now overall 67% could have received it through their employers, but that is all Americans meaning those with and without insurance. But as a whole what this shows is that before Obamacare businesses were still providing insurance to their employees.
"this argument begins and ends here. "
It ended when you said businesses would not provide healthcare insurance unless forced to. However, they did. You are now trying to weasel your way out of this one.
"You've still failed to grasp the difference between the free market and a perfectly competitive one"
No I haven't.
"Instead, you've elected to attack your opponent rather than brush up on your own lacking economic fundamentals. "
I never attacked you, I corrected you and gave you advice as a grad student. You have to understand facts before you can give your opinion.
"You've also seemingly forgotten that businesses receive tax writeoffs in
exchange for providing health coverage for employees through their
firms. "
I acknowledge they did, I did not forget that. However, that is not the free market.
"While recruiting is one benefit of providing healthcare coverage, the
shift toward part-time employment at the level that is currently
occurring and the fact that these positions are filled, and filled
quickly, is a de facto proof that people will work for businesses even
if benefits are provided, because, similarly as you've noted in your own
dilemma over whether to accept your employers' healthcare benefits or
not, they don't actually have much of an economic choice to make in this
matter,"
I agree, they don't have a choice because of the payroll tax. That is not the free market.
"Instead of focusing in on a perfectly-competitive market which you've apparently just now learned exists,"
Ok, what? In your ramble in the previous paragraph where did you ever show that a competitive market does not exist? Also, I never said anything was perfect. You are.
"you may be better served to brush up on the marketplace that currently exists."
I know what exists and that is the problem.
" A simple play-through of the game Monopoly should rigidly enforce the
need for some agency to engage in anti-trust regulation if a stable
economic system is to persist"
You are comparing a board game to the complex economy and healthcare system. Also, in Monopoly you can go the entire time without paying taxes if the dice roll in your favor.
"Please stop dealing in talking points"
What talking points?
"or at least brush up on the economic reality we live in before continuing this discussion."
Really? I just showed you how your thoughts in how businesses would not provide healthcare insurance without Obamacare is wrong. And you tried to compare our economy to a board game, one that is driven on the chance of a dice throw and only hotels. You do know there is no healthcare besides that one card you might not draw at all during the game?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Ohh, so now the book that you are trotting out you don't 100% agree
with? How convenient, yet you have been insisting that we read it for
the longest time. "
It provides an alternative view and has a lot of information. But even at that I can disagree with parts of it. I can think for myself, especially when I read opposing viewpoints.
" For those facts, re-read the thread, wonder why I would have to tell you that and you're a pH. D candidate hmmm,"
How about you list them again. My memory does not have you giving any.
"In my four years of college I have read extensively, I.e. whenever
exploring a subject I explore both sides of the argument as I know that
though there are facts there is most times a bias in the interpretation
of those facts."
I doubt it. Again, that book lists all of their sources and methods. Also, by the way you have been writing these comments I question your education. You went to character attacks and have not presented much in terms of data and interpretation of them.
"You have a libertarian slant through ur supposed 'readings' and I've
developed a progressive outlook as the evidence bears out in that way. "
That is fine. But you can't completely dismiss my viewpoint nor say what I present is wrong without reading it. Also, you have to support your stance which you are struggling to do.
"The "dollar and sense" in your approach which is great if we were
robots, but unluckily for you Economics isn't arbitrary and contains a
humanitarian aspect."
I agree, there is a psychological component as well. For example, in marketing, it is presented in chapter one that pricing something high will actually increase sales as people perceive it as being better. That goes against the economic viewpoint of people want to pay low prices always.
"For example, in "dollars and sense" it would make more sense to free up
to market to 0 mandated cost to the individual under a pay for play
system , however, nuance would dictate that healthcare for all is
beneficial to economic growth as the economic base of a capitalistic
society is it's human population, and if said people cannot afford the
pay for play system then said economy would suffer as a result."
The other problem you are not bringing up is that not everyone will be willing to work hard to see to it that healthcare system will work. We have an obesity problem in this country to start. Also, there is the psychological component of people demanding they get their money's worth. When they directly pay for things they demand a better product. This is why I support smaller, more local government as tax dollars can see if their tax money is being spent well. When you don't directly pay for things you are less likely to see if you are getting the best for your money.
Also, another component is that with your system you are making productive people wait while unproductive people get care. For example, I am a productive person as in I can do what very few people can. I work in the STEM fields. I have healthcare insurance. If I need care that is not deemed "critical" I can get it quickly. Under your system I will have to wait while someone else who is not as productive as me gets care. Meanwhile, that problem I have could hinder my productivity at work as I do have to be active and move around. Now expand that to 320+ million people. That hinders productivity. Under our system productive people get care quickly and get back to work. That leads to economic growth.
"It's simple economics"
Again, not that simple. I gave you a counter argument. Productive people have access to care and can get it quickly to get back to work. That is part of the reason why they are productive.
"So unless you can ensure that will be no monopoly, (need the government for that)"
In today's market with technology the chances of a monopoly is low. Government regulations is the major driving force of a monopoly. Even at that, if a business is successful, why should the government tear it down? That is regressive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"A wise philosopher once said that if ones slings mud, mud will most likely be slung back at them. In my observation you don't argue like a critical thinker, and interpret this as a character assassination as you like, you don't show the cognitive ability needed to pursue a Masters much less a Ph. D."
Again, what sources should I read? And what is stopping you from reading publications from those professors in peer reviewed journals?
https://sph.tamhsc.edu/hpm/faculty/ohsfeldt.html
"Unlike what you desperately want to believe I have actually read up on libertarian positions as added reading for some courses I was doing in College."
Like what? Give me names. Give me titles. I would like to read them as well if I haven't already.
" but like most things the amoral nature of the free market actually negates the idea of a free market"
The free market is arguably very moral. Businesses have to cater to the customers. If not no one will buy their product. How is the free market amoral?
"Additionally, the amorality of the free market means that a business's end goal is to turn a profit."
And people want to turn a profit. I will look for the best bargain, so will others.
"Again I have read libertarian Economists literature and studies in College as additional reading, "
Again, who? I have read work by Paul Krugman and Richard Wolf on top of other materials. Those are names off of the top of my head. How about you tell my the sources you read. Until you do I cannot take you seriously.
"and I have no desire to read more Koch-funded literature today."
Nothing suggests it was funded by the Koch brothers. And if you don't want to read that than read some of his other sources. I gave you the link to his website.
"Again you try to appear to be seeking an intellectual debate but then go on to dismiss all counter-viewpoints out of hand because in your mind as long as it disagrees with you, by definition it is wrong."
I am giving you opposing viewpoints and I am asking you to give me other sources to read.
"I don't see this conversation as serious because the nature of being behind a keyboard and typing into a global network means that you are speaking into a echo chamber and people oftentimes are seeking confirmation bias. "
I came to an ultra leftist video looking for a discussion on the issue. Give me sources to read and I will. You claim you have read a lot, so what have you read?
"People seeing higher price as quality when buying a house or car, but when you have necessities such a health or education most people just want a reasonable price."
Not always.
" Most people don't want to go through hefty legal paperwork to determine the quality of their healthcare plan and most people cannot afford a legal counsel to do it for them,"
Who says you need all that paper work? Insurance companies have created that. A lot of the paper work is minor. You just sign a waver just like a sign one for the gym.
"I do not believe that you work in Stem research. If that is perceived as a character assassination so be it."
I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry and my work involves developing methods to determine structure and dynamics of biological materials. I use ultra fast techniques such as pump probe and multi-dimensional spectroscopy with a femtosecond laser to do that. The textbook sitting on my desk right now is Quantum Mechanics by Cohen-Tonnaoudji. That book, along with JJ Sakuri, are the basic quantum level textbooks. I used Jackson for E&M, Patheria for Stat Mech, and Fetter and Walecka for Classical Mechanics. That book was not that good so I personally subsidized it with Goldstein and Taylor (which is an undergrad book but it is still helpful). Goldstein did a much better job at explaining Hamiltonian dynamics than Fetter and Walecka did. Goldstein also had more problems.
So you can believe what you want. I can go farther if you want to prove I work in the STEM field. I will not give you my name though, that's it.
"That depends on how you define productivity. As a supposed STEM researcher (which I again don't believe, cry if you want :-)) you're market value is higher than a cashier at Starbucks. But in talking about hours of work spent and the output of production, your productivity is no higher than the average Joe at Starbucks."
Not true. My productivity is much higher. That is why I get paid more than a cashier. That is why STEM workers get paid so well.
"Healthcare is a contributory factor to productivity not the common denominator. You can be as fit as a fiddle and not possess the mental accuity to do STEM or Actuarial Science. So you see there are other factors, that contribute to this phenomena."
I agree there are other factors, but you brought it up.
"If you fall sick tmrw, under a free market without government protections the company could just fire you and employ a healthy person."
That is a really shitty company to work for and skilled workers won't work there. Also, I never said there shouldn't be any government. I support local government.
Yes, the internet negates monopolies. I can shop at Amazon or Walmart. I have choices. With the internet I can get coupons for the grocery store I shop at and points. I can also get information and reviews.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Again, all those billions companies make now would be put back into paying docs more whether they specialise or not, just dont see why not."
Those companies, like all companies, make razor thin profits. Even if you cut CEO pay to zero and all profits to zero that will not lead to a reduction in prices.
"Take for example the issue with wait times, i envision doctors getting together and deciding how long is too long a wait time for 'X' procedure and develop a standard, amd adjust standard as needed. We would get feedback from patients so I dont see it as impossible."
It isn't that easy. To start, you don't have that much time as a medical provider. You have to make decisions quick. Also, healthcare is already ration. Read the paper
"The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" Chest
"The USA and soviet union competed in the space race by having publically funded space programs. Those were very successful. And led to many advancements in tech not just for space The USA has the most powerful army in the world, brought to you by a publically funded military. That helped create the internet we all know and love."
If you remember we had many failed missions in the space race where people died. The internet is what it is due to the private sector. Defense spending has to be federal by law. Also, it is very discipline by design.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Manny EHC, on that 30,000 deaths a year here are a few points on that. To start that is less than 0.01% of the overall population. That is arguably minute. We have that many deaths by car accidents a year but I don't see a push for radical change in our traffic laws. There are some changes, but they are minute. I feel the same should be done with healthcare. We need change, but they need to be minute. We can't radically change the system we have.
Next, as a Harvard professor said, it is hard to get accurate numbers in that case. Why? Poor health is associated with poverty. There are higher rates of smoking, type II diabetes and obesity with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes did they die due to lack of healthcare access or due to being in poor health to begin with? You can't say. And with numbers that small it is hard to differentiate between the two.
Also, point to me a comparable study that was done in other nations. You can't as no one has ever done it. No system is ideal. Every system has shortcomings where people die. You see deaths in other nations. No one has done a study like the one you are referring to though. With that in mind you have to realize that 30,000 number has nothing to compare it two making it almost useless. You can't just throw numbers out there and come up with a strong conclusion. You need to compare them and break them down in numerous ways.
This is not to say those 30,000 is a non-issue, it is. However, there is a to it. My opinion is that the people who suffer in either system are either the very very poor, or the very very sick/injured. In the US system we can cure the very very sick/injured very well. We have the best advanced care and have success such as the highest cancer survival rate. However, I will agree people go bankrupt or poor people simply refuse to seek care. However, in other countries the very very sick suffer with long wait times and inferior care when it comes to advanced techniques. Yes, poor people have access and don't have to worry about bankruptcy. But that comes at a cost.
Every system has shortcomings, period. At the very least people have to admit the US system is on par with other nations. Denying that is being bias. I have my opinions beyond that but that addresses the 30,000 deaths a year and why there is a lot more to it than what others present.
1
-
1
-
9jaGNAT, systematic racism is very hard to prove which is why many argue against it to the point they say it does not exist. You say
" I've never heard him, as someone who has a juris doctorate, address the phenomenon of prosecutors who overcharge defendants, especially among cases involving black men. "
You have to prove that is actually happening. Right now you can't. Shapiro has said many times point out the racist and we can take them on together. He, like most, oppose racism. But to just cry "systematic racism" like you do is crying racism every step of the way while ignoring other variables. For example, Kyle and an opponent of Shapiro cited a source showing that black individuals receive sentences that are 20% longer than white in the justice system. One may say that is an example of systematic racism. However, that same sources admits correlation does not equal causation. There are variables at play that one cannot quantitatively measure. Variables such as court room appearance and attitude and representation. Also, in comparison, there is around 20% difference in high school graduation rates with blacks and whites as well. Hmmmmm........There seems to be a comparison there.
This is not to say there are racists in our society, there are. But if you want to alleviate racism you need to stop yelling racism when ever you see some inequality. Because when actual racist do show up I cannot take you seriously. To give an example, when the issue in Charlottesville happened I did not believe there were actual racists there. Why? Because everyone was crying racism for years. However, turns out there were racists. Steven Crowder did a video on this about a little teddy bear who cried Nazi.
There are many variables that create inequality with races. It isn't just racism. Crying "systematic racism" every step of the way is not helping your cause, it is hurting it. I suggest you stop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"They also did the same with gay marriage and weed once upon a time, things change pops. "
Weed and gay marriage are social issues that do not touch a person's wallet. Healthcare is with increased taxes and how their healthcare is ran. Many supported gay marriage and weed due to the fact that it does not touch their wallet or does not effect them at all. Having the government run healthcare does.
"No not true, cause both the republicans and the democrat parties are still and ave been for decades, beholden to the various entities and lobbies that oppose medicare for all..."
Kind of a reach there. 80% in Colorado said no. Every state that tried to set it up said no and those politicians still have jobs. The outcry by the public is weak. Even if the majority supports it they do not very strongly as there is no major push for it at the state level.
"This is a straw-man, yes it has happened but that does not mean it is terrible... ten times more die in the US becasue thy can't even afford to go to the hospital for anything let alone elective surgeries..."
Where you do you get that "ten time"? I feel you are making up a stat there. Also, my point was not a straw man. It is a fact. Now I would agree that does not mean it is terrible. At that point I ask you hold the same standard to the US system as, to me, the system is not terrible. I did not say the Canada system was terrible, I am simply pointing out is has flaws. So does the US. You saying the US has more flaws is based off of nothing.
"whenever Americans like to talk about our waiting times, i like to remind them, the only reason they don't have similar incidents is becasue at least half of the populace is too poor to even afford the insurance to go see a doctor let alone actually pay for any kind of surgery... "
There is more to it than that. With a for profit system there is a greater incentive to provide timely care. Also, the poor in our country have higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes, and smoking. The issue of the poor in the US isn't all about lacking access but also about the fact they are in bad health to begin with due to poor health habits. You don't need access to healthcare to know how to eat healthy.
"Well that's actually a good place for a debate on the issue. "
Maybe, but to me I feel I can spend my money better. Even if not I should be allowed to in my life. It is my money, my life and I should live it up.
"No such thing...not too mention a free market system if it actually was possibly and could wk (which it can't) would kill the insurance industry (there literally would be no need for it) and cause massive unemployment and job loss, isn't that right?"
Insurance is there to remove the inelastic demand for healthcare. To me most healthcare services can be paid for out of pocket. Routine checkups, getting an injury looked at that is not life threatening, pregnancies you can plan. You can shop around and force providers to compete.
Some cases require insurance. A major accident or an unplanned, major illness. Compare it to car insurance. Car insurance covers you if a tree falls on your car, but not for oil changes or new tires even though those are needed for a safe, and reliable care. Why? New tires can be budgeted and the consumer can shop around. A tree falling on your care means you have to fix it now. You don't have time, or the finances to shop around. Same with healthcare. I get routine check ups twice a year. I can shop around for that. But if I were to break my leg slipping on ice I need care now, I can't shop around.
The issue is that healthcare is a form of payment by employers for numerous reason that federal government created. As a result healthcare insurance becomes healthcare. It covers everything healthcare related. And the majority of the country does not shop around for care or for an insurance plan. Providers and insurance companies do not compete, and insurance covers all of healthcare which raises the price. There is no free market system.
Look at LASIK, it is free market and has become cheaper and better over time.
To say a free market system will kill insurance companies is simply not true. It will limit them, but not kill them. There is a need for insurance companies. And a free market system can work. What evidence do you have it won't?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeremypaton4300 , I support insurance. I will tell you want I support. I support removing the payroll tax. With that businesses will pay employees with a higher wage as opposed to paying with healthcare insurance. With that people can buy insurance at a younger age and insurance can pay for unplanned, expensive situations. No more men paying for contraceptives and women paying for Viagra. Also, at a younger age you are healthier and thus less chance for pre existing conditions.
With having your own insurance you can move jobs easier. You can force insurance companies to compete to give you a plan cater to you. The older you get and with more income you can expand it to cover kids. But a lot of healthcare spending can be done out of pocket. With that you force healthcare providers to compete thus lowering prices. Overall, insurance companies will compete and so will healthcare providers. And with insurance companies paying for only unplanned, expensive cases, their prices will drop.
Finally, I will admit this won't cover everyone. Local communities at that point, either through charities or local government programs, can fill in the gap. But those services will not be great. For example, I had an STD check up through a locally ran program. It took 6 hours to do. I used my insurance (or could have paid $50) to use a private route and it took me 30 minutes.
Overall, it is about creating competition and give the people the choice. Again, on your plan what if pharma companies jack up prices? Government will still have to pay or feel the wrath of the people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You know there was a point in history where some people considered
interracial marriage or a woman having the right to vote to be a radical
idea."
Not really, interracial marriage was passed in the SC with a 9-0 vote. How often does that happen? On women voting, that took an amendment which 2/3 of the states have to agree to. How often does that happen?
" Out of all the nations who are our allies, we are the only one who doesn't have healthcare as a right"
That is not true. Even a liberal source like politifact agrees with that
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/29/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-us-only-major-country-doesnt-guaran/
" but conservatives and people like you are so used to the current status
quo so much that you fail to see how it's a system that's slowly
getting worse and not better."
I believe it is getting worse, bu that is because of the federal government having a strong influence on it. However, we do many things very well such as our research and innovation is on top. Even at that we are still on par with the rest of the world.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Also, psychologically, everyone supports the status quo in developed countries. We have a strong system, so do other countries. Other countries will revolt if their government tried to radically change their healthcare system as they are used to it. Same with the US and we did. When Obamacare was passed the democrats lost. And many attempts to pass single payer in states have failed. People do not want radical change. As a whole our system is great. It has shortcomings, but so do other nations as well. Pushing for complete federal government take over is not the solution, it is extreme.
"In the words of Bernie Sanders "Healthcare as a right is not a radical
idea, not having health care as a right is a radical idea.""
No nation promises healthcare to their citizens. They may on paper, but in reality they don't as there is a shortage of it and shortcomings. That is why they have problems as well. Bernie wants to offer you healthcare on paper by having the federal government take it over, but he can never deliver.
Compare it to this, on paper every state offer K-12 education to everyone. However, would you say the students in say, Hopkins, MO receive the same education as someone who goes to Stevenson HS in IL? I, at one point, lived near Hopkins. They had a biology major teaching physics. No AP courses, no honor courses, no Calculus. But when they graduate they receive a HS diploma much like the graduates from Stevenson HS did. On paper they have the same diploma. But do they? Same is with healthcare. On paper everyone is covered, but if the quality is low does it matter?
Your ideas are radical because they are too simple. I would love to cover everyone, but it isn't that simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" You brought up interesting points throughout this comment thread and I'm happy to see you're not the troll you seemed after that first comment. Personally, I'll check out those links you provided and see where they go, "
I appreciate that. Many on here automatically shut me off and refuse to read what I post. I read sources other people post and address them. This is how I learn. I am not saying I have all the answers nor whatever I post do as well. However, they are counter viewpoints that people need to consider which is why there is a debate to begin with. Ignoring them is being a radical.
"yes, Kyle is a moderate internationally,"
I would disagree. For one, he does not accept the short comings of other healthcare systems. There was a video he entitled called "When the US Healthcare System Kills". He gave a story and said "you know here this doesn't happen...." and proceeded to list off a bunch of countries. But here is the issue. You can find stories like that in those countries. I can give two stories of girls having headaches and after seeing many doctors were not given any treatment until it was too late and it was discovered that they had a tumor and died. People can bring up horror stories from other healthcare systems as well, but Kyle not ignores them but claims they never happen.
For another, he wants to completely transform our healthcare system. The US system is strong in many ways. Other systems are as well. It is no different than if someone in Canada wanting to remove the universal healthcare system, that is being radical. Completely transforming a system that works in many ways is being a radical.
" I'm Australian, with friends and family throughout the world, and I've been in the USA and watched your news. Yes, he's telling the truth when he says that a lot of ideas that Americans fight and squabble over are just "no brainers" in many other countries, and you would be considered (just glancing over your comments) as a radical libertarian/conservative if you started running for office here "
Again, I disagree because I will never push for a radical transformation of Australia's healthcare system. I will work with what is there. Just like the US system. We shouldn't just completely replace it, we should work with it. It isn't "no brainers", this is a complex system. People who try to over simplify it are ignorant in my opinion. You are dealing with a decent portion of the economy, with different cultures, with highly skilled workers that spend around a decade studying for this in college, evolving diseases and so on. You just can't radically change it. The US system works well and as a whole the vast majority of people like it. 80% of voters in Colorado voted against single payer. They don't want change, and neither do other countries. It is similar to the US being the only country that uses the standard system instead of metric. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Should the US completely change to metric? Every other country does it? Ok, now how do you do it when 300+ million refuses to? The same problem is with healthcare.
"and Australia is also a comparatively conservative country, we're not Denmark or Germany. It's not an opinion: Kyle is moderate."
A moderate sees both sides of the issues. If you can't accept shortcomings in your ideas and understand why certain people oppose universal healthcare, than you are a radical.
"Also, in your comments, you ignore the assertions that Medicare for all would net SAVE money"
How so? Economically it makes no sense. You increase demand without increasing supply. The college loan program which subsidized loans did the same thing and college tuition went up.
"but they nonetheless act as if it is by guaranteeing it to all as best as they can; why can they, we, do that while Americans insist it's a pipedream?"
Several reasons. More diversity, larger populations, different cultures, different economies. Also, no country offers healthcare to all. They do on paper, but not in reality. Other countries ration their care and offer lower quality. A reason why the US system is so expensive is because we offer more testing in a faster time. For example, when I hurt my knee after an x-ray and the doctor looking at it he determined it to be a dislocation. He still gave me an MRI which I was able to get in less than a week to look for ligament damage. A colleague of mine in Canada needed knee surgery. He had to wait months just to get it looked at. Now that saves money, but is that the best system? Again, every system has shortcomings.
"The example of Flint is to highlight the confused priorities, everyone knows it's a local issue; but the fact it hasn't been fixed through emergency funding, immediately, is notable."
It is a local issue, you don't want the federal government invading on local issues like that because now you made it a nation wide problem. Every part of the country faces problems, should the federal government invade on state rights?
"However the $300 million could still have been spent more wisely. So your point is irrelevant. "
It is not irrelevant, it is a very small portion of the overall GDP. $300 million, as a whole, buys nothing.
"You're supposed to spend more on caring for your people than war, especially since the "3%" figure is misleading: what's the actual cost of those wars and interventions? That aren't necessary?"
Most of our resources in defense goes towards keeping peace. There is always conflict in the world, however we solve many of them off of the battle field. Violent conflict is right now with terrorism and radical countries with inept governments. We push to work with those governments to keep peace where we do for the most part. We just don't go out there starting wars.
"The point is, if people are dying because they're being ripped off by drug companies and thousand dollar hospital bills, and you're saying that's okay while you drop billions of dollars of ordnance around the world, are your priorities straight?"
Defense is 3% of our GDP. In 1960 it as 10%, so defense spending has been dropping. Healthcare is 1/6 of our GDP where the federal government spends $1 trillion in healthcare. So for the past few decades defense spending has been dropping and healthcare spending has been increasing at the federal level. The left in this country are getting exactly what they want, it is just taking time as opposed to it being immediate.
As far as expensive drugs are concerned, one reason why they are expensive is because not only are we paying for the price and R&D of that drug, but for other drugs that never see the market. In healthcare, unless you do not support the theory of evolution, diseases evolve. That requires new drugs. However, many new drugs never see the market for various reasons. That may been deemed as waste, but that waste is how R&D works. Many projects go nowhere and but that is how you learn and why the US leads the world in research and innovation of healthcare.
"but in the 2000s people were dying from preventable illness because of a crap healthcare system?"
Same thing happens in other countries as well. My point in the moon landing is that we should not be following what other countries do just because other countries do it. Why can't we be independent and push for a better system? That is why I said it was "regressing to the mean".
"But you can't just say "Oh yeah?! Well, we went to the moon once decades ago!""
I can. Based on what you are saying we should not have as no other country has done it. We should do what other countries do and not push for something better. That was my point.
Your system has shortcomings as well. Your refusal to admit them is you displaying ignorance. I am not saying the US system is the best, but it does many things well and as a whole is on par with other nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" I mention Trump because some consider him a right wing radical"
Only people on the far left do. Others that do consider him to be different. To me he is a moderate.
"I know you are Trumpist."
Doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.
"The shortcomings of those countries does not compare with millions of people without healthcare coverage in the US, "
It does, which is why the overall numbers are the same. People lack coverage in other countries as well. On paper they don't, but in reality they do.
"In top healthcare system rankings, the US doesn't even make the top ten
and the top nations in that ranking have universal healthcare systems. "
Again, those rankings are arbitrary. What do they weigh and why? Luxembourg is strong all around. Also, I have seen many rankings that have placed those countries in different spots. For example, Canada was 30th in the WHO ranking. Why? As I said, depending on how you weigh the variables you can get different results.
" Why not for all citizens of the US?"
Because it is not possible. We lack resources. No country offers healthcare to all which is why we ration care. I do want healthcare for all, and I want it to be high quality. I also want everyone to own a home and a nice car and have a job that they want and a spouse they want, etc. However, that is not possible. We lack resources.
"Ask yourself, what is the point being the most powerful nation in the
world when you can't provide healthcare to all your citizens? "
No nation, no matter how powerful, has. Tell me, why didn't Rome when they were powerful find a cure for cancer? Why didn't England, when they were powerful, have proper dental care to where people needed wooden teeth? They were powerful at the time. Look at our situation, we lack organs and have a waiting list for organ donations. Just because we are a powerful nation doesn't mean we can magically make things appear out of nowhere.
"Why are you against doing what other top ranking nations have done?"
Because the solution is not that simple, and to take a complex situation and limit it down to an arbitrary list is ignorant.
1
-
"In November 1998, South Carolina finally removed its constitutional ban
on interracial marriage, In November 2000, Alabama became the last state
to overturn a law banning interracial marriage."
It didn't matter as the SC ruled in favor in it. All that means is that they took the time to do the paper work to officially take it off the books. This comes back to what is on paper and what actually happens in reality.
"We do it to by wealth and other countries do it by need,"
We don't ration care, we follow economics. Rationing is done by force. In the US when a demand is created a provider will work in creating the supply needed. In single payer you wait until it arrives at the government's discretion. This is why we lead the world in research and innovation. People demand better care and for profit companies, in order to get money, deliver. The government has your money with taxes, they have no incentive to deliver a higher quality product so they just give it to you when they want, thus rationing.
"Universal healthcare nation wide would only increase your payroll taxes by an estimated 1.4% I'm sure you can afford it"
What makes you think that? Why don't you just pay more and I pay nothing. Sounds fair? Also, increased payroll taxes means lower wages.
"no mandate was needed at the time because all states had written it into
their constitution Federal mandate for equal and standardized levels of
education or lose federal funding for all its schools. "
Only 8% of funding for education is federal, at most goes to Title I schools. Several states do not use CCSS.
"No rebuttal is need because they are talking points(opinion) and not facts, I'm only interested in the facts."
I gave facts to support my opinions. You are just brushing it off saying I can afford a higher tax where you do not understand my financial situation at all.
" How is that any different than now? doctors can and do refuse services all the time with or without insurance."
If you make it a right you have to force doctors to serve people. You have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers. If you are called for jury duty and refuse you go to jail. That is what happens in the US when you make it a right.
1
-
1
-
"oh now the ruling doesn't matter, you brought up the ruling not me"
Uh, no. The ruling mattered. What I will saying, so I will re-word it, is that what those states had by law on their books did not matter as the SC ruled them unconstitutional. The laws were killed. The ruling mattered and made those laws meaningless.
"5 of the top US economist estimated 1.4% "
Give me names and reasoning they are "top economists". That is vague.
"and why would that lower wages that makes no sense"
Payroll taxes means if a business pays a higher wage they pay a higher tax. The reason why businesses pay employees with healthcare insurance to begin with is because it is a tax free way to pay employees. Benefits are tax free. That is why businesses pay with stock options and a company like Hertz allows their employees to drive one of their cars and fuel up at Hertz filling stations for free. It is a tax free way to pay employees. Wages are payroll and thus are taxed. Higher payroll means a higher tax. Higher payroll taxes means lower wages. Think about you, if something is more expensive will you buy more or less of it?
" all healthcare is rationed either by wealth or by need in every country"
Ration is, by definition, forced. There is a difference between a lack of supply and managing to increase that and rationing.
"no you don't, just because its a human right doesn't make it a LAW don't conflate the two."
You can call it a human right which we have in this country. You have the right to pursue healthcare. But by the law and Constitution it is not a right.
" 8% does not include grants for special needs, teachers education and certification."
It does.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
"Hmm maybe low property values, home ownership does not correlate to median income on a national level."
Or maybe low cost of living, lower taxes, and overall different economies. Those maps you showed me do vague comparisons that are meaningless overall.
" retirement has no impact on life expectancy with FL being the exception."
It does. Older people live there that have the wealth to move there. They typically live longer. That skews the stats. If someone dies before they have a chance to move to FL than they don't lower FL's life expectancy.
" but its not just that source I've checked many sources and there all
pretty close to the same and all their sources come from well establish
and accredited institutions"
Like what? Gallup is not accredited. Measure of America is no accredited. Tax Foundation (which was criticized by liberal Paul Krugman) is not accredited. You are being fooled. Why do you believe them so easily? Because they fit your narrative? That is very myopic. You are believing something that supports your bias. This is called "conformational bias". That is a problem and is a problem with people mentally and holds them back from being successful. I suggest you correct it.
1
-
"so if its not a law or in the constitution it can't be a human right WTF I don't see any law or amendment saying its not'
You can call it a right all you want. But by the law and Constitution it isn't a right. You only have the right to pursue it. If you want the government to recognize it as a right they have to force doctors to serve much like jury duty.
"yep tell that to all the mothers and father that are forced to watch their sick and dying children because of lack healthcare that we don't ration to the wealthy. "
We lack resources. Sorry that reality hurts. We have people dying because we don't have enough organs. Do you force people to give up their organs? At this point what is your solution? We lack resources.
" the fact that millions of American are forced into poverty over healthcare costs."
People in poverty are in poverty many reasons beyond healthcare.
"statistic show only FL life expectancy is skewed due to the mass influx of retirees all other state are close to being correct as I stated before"
You never stated that. But, as a whole, I showed how one of your many maps are not reliable.
"a higher payroll tax pales in comparison to the amount they cough up in health insurance premiums"
No it doesn't. That is why they pay with healthcare insurance to begin with. But you are setting it up where wages will be lowered. Many leftist love to talk about how since the early 70s wages have not kept up with productivity. Well, in the mid 60s the payroll tax increased.
"I have monthly meeting on the status of the company I work for and universal healthcare would increase the company profits by 15-18% depending on new taxes"
I doubt that. But if you want to play that game I pay zero dollars in healthcare. My employer pays for it all. You are wanting to tax me more so I can get the same thing? I will be losing money.
"Ben Bernanke and Joseph Stiglitz I believe were two listed on the study panel, also Anders Fremstad, Professor of Economics at the University of Colorado, Dean Baker Co-director and Founder for the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C"
That's four. And how do they qualify as "top economists"? Again, that is vague. There are hundreds of economists out there with various opinions.
"Rank (1 = Most Dependent) in federal aide State Total Score ‘State Residents’ Dependency’ Rank ‘State Government’s Dependency’ Rank 1 Kentucky 76.16 6 5 2 Mississippi 75.59 7 1 3 New Mexico 73.88 3 17 4 Alabama 72.45 4 14 5 West Virginia 68.97 5 <------State Residents/15 State Government’s Dependency"
Again, there are several variables with that.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/04/solved-why-poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/#10f1f55e1d60
" I have to site all my sources so you can refute them without siting your sources"
I can debunk your sources with questionable citations like you used, and/or use my knowledge of statistics and reasoning to do so. I showed you how one can change variables to change the perceptions of those maps. For example, if you include PPP CA has the highest poverty rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate
But again, your failure is when you said those sources are from "accredited" places, which is not true.
" I have yet to see you site any sources other than the 8% on education"
Oh I have. I cited this on healthcare
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
By two professors from accredited universities that cited peer reviewed sources.
"but I'm just supposed to take your word for it, no thanks. sources or I'm done listening to your BS"
I gave your sources now. You are making many claims without citations. Again, how are those four (not five like I asked) economists "top economists". That is vague. What standard do you use and why?
It seems like to me that I questioned your firmly held religious like belief and you are taking offense to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So your argument is, because different rankings measure different
things, there’s no way to tell if mainly single payer systems are better
than mainly private insurance based systems,"
Yes. Because as a whole the results are no different when you compare the US system to single payer. As that book showed when you remove car accidents and murder the US is number one in life expectancy. In the book "Debunking Utopia" the author explained how Nordic countries have a culture of healthier diets. We have an obesity problem in the US meaning we have a population that cannot stay healthy. Over 40% of our food dollar is spent eating out, that is high compared to other nations.
All those rankings you look at are vague and do not do an in depth analysis of the data. They are thus arbitrary. One can used the data available to make the US system look amazing if they so desire.
" but yet you proclaim mainly private insurance based systems are better
with absolutely no empirical evidence nor studies to back it up?"
I never said they were better. I said it excels in many ways but also has flaws. Point to me where I said the US system was better and I will retract my statement. I, however, do not feel the US system is better. It has shortcomings, but so do single payer systems. As a whole they are essentially equal as nothing can determine which system is superior. You can if you want to look at specific cases and variables, but as a whole you can't.
"I agree with you that the solution is not simple, but there’s plenty of
evidence that even poorer countries than the US that have some form of
single payer system are way better off than the US’s current system."
But they are not "way better". Nothing indicates that, as a whole, they are way better. And again, I am not saying the US is superior.
"And guess what, those top ranked countries also have private health insurance for those who can afford it. "
Which is mainly the rich. Around 90% of K-12 students attend public schools. That is because with public systems the middle class cannot afford to pay higher taxes on top of paying for a private option. So they settle for the public system only. That is why many say that socialist programs bring down the middle class. Again, not saying it is an inferior system, but for you to simply say "also have private health insurance" is not fully understanding the situation.
In another comparison. Many people are paid with insurance through their employer. They cannot afford to pay for more and thus insurance has become healthcare. Yes, there will be options, but can people afford it with higher taxes?
"When you dismiss the evidence without even providing any examples of
higher ranked nations with free market private insurers, your argument
doesn’t have a leg to stand on."
I haven't dismissed the evidence, I gave rebuttals using the evidence you gave me. One ranking given to me had Japan ranked high. However, this piece has criticisms of Japan.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/19/national/japans-buckling-health-care-system-crossroads/
Also, Japan has a culture of working hard to the point of suicide in many cases. After they were bombed they had to work hard to rebuild. That is why they are successful. That goes beyond healthcare. But does that ranking consider that?
You are saying that I "don't have a leg to stand on" when you are so quick to trust sources that support your bias. You need to question your sources and also not accuse me of anything. When you trust your sources without question, get offended when people do have legit criticisms of them, and than accuse your opponent of things they did not way, you do not have a leg to stand on.
1
-
"With what basis can you claim that what the US is equal to universal healthcare systems, by definition you say rankings and studies are flawed so how can you make that argument? Using your own logic, you can’t. "
I am using my logic. You can't say that one system excels over the other because the difference in the data are minute. It is similar to university rankings, or rankings of best guitarists, or rankings of best QBs. How do you do it? What variables to do you use? How do you weigh them? People create these rankings because use as a society naturally like to look at them for entertainment. Mix in a bias and people will rank the US system low. However, a bias person can rank the US system high with the exact same data. They will just use a different statistical regression model.
You can take a team of researchers and have them do regression models on all the data in many ways and you will come up with thousands of rankings, some ranking the US high, some low. What it means is that the differences in the data are so minute that you can't say which system is better.
"If that book you quoted refers to studies that support your point, please share those sources, as usually opinion books tend to cherry pick parts of studies. I’m not saying the book is wrong or right."
I don't agree with that book, but it does bother me how people refuse to read it. One person refused to read it because it did not create a ranking when the authors found rankings to be arbitrary. The point is that the differences in the data are minute. There is another great book called "How to Lie with Statistics". Very famous. People to come up with these rankings are doing just that, lying with statistics.
"Did you even read that Japanese article? It proves my point entirely, yes they have administrative problems like, they need to “reduce waste in the system and alleviate the shortage of doctors and nurses in some parts of the country without significantly increasing overall resources”"
Ok, now how? Easy to point out a problem, now how do you do it? Do doctors appear out of nowhere?
"And it mentions that an informal survey found they can do improvements against other nations that have similar healthcare systems, the article never implies that they have to get away from universal care, quite the contrary."
I never said that they have to get away from universal healthcare. I am pointing out they have problems. Just like the US system does. However, we don't completely transform the entire system. Going to a federal universal system will mean
1. Many jobs will be lost in insurance companies
2. Taxes will go up
3. Spending habits will change drastically with consumers and businesses
4. Production will change due to spending habits changing
5. A mass recession will happen
Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. When you change the economy that much there will be a recession. I, along with millions will have to get used to our new financial situation, see where it goes before we spend. Businesses will as well. They will not hire as many people, or give out raises, or give more hours, etc. The economy will have to stabilize first leading to a recession.
So no, I never said Japan should do away with universal healthcare, I am saying it has problems like the US does.
"Note that nowhere in that article they never proposed to eliminate universal healthcare or anything like that."
I didn't either. Again, tell me where I said they should?
"So thank you for providing more evidence to prove my point! "
Which was what? That universal healthcare has flaws? You never admitted that.
"Proven by many countries that provide universal healthcare with even less resources than the US, zero healthcare will always be better than no healthcare. Yes way better!"
You are going to the extreme again. The US is on par with other countries, the data shows that. So with that we should improve the system we have, not completely replace it which is radical. Just like Japan should improve the system they have, not completely replace it.
Again, you have to understand my position on this which you do not seem to. I am not saying universal healthcare is inferior nor that countries with it should replace it. I am saying it is not superior and is on par with the US. And that the US should improve the system they have, not completely replace it leading to a recession to where in the end we are not better off.
1
-
"So basically you rely on data to say "the US is on par with other
countries the data shows that." Yet when I say that the data clearly
shows the US is bellow other countries you say all data is lying. Huge
double standard. "
Not a double standard. I rely on the exact same data. What you gave me manipulates it with different regression models to produce the ranking they do. For example, many leftists point to the CommonWealthFund's rankings. However, they leave out important information such as cancer survival rate. Bloomberg's ranking arbitrarily weighs life expectancy at 60%. Why? And why overall life expectancy? As that book showed, remove two variables that one can argue are not related to healthcare strongly (murder and car accidents), the US is number 1 in life expectancy.
So again, I am looking at the exact same data. There are many ways you can look at it.
"Where did I said universal health care has no flaws? My argument has
always been that it is better than what the US has now, based on several
studies, and by the fact that millions of people in the US don't have
healthcare because they can't afford it. "
You never admitted to the flaws, and you never admitted to the flaws of the "studies" you look at. I say "studies" because they are not detailed but instead are very vague. Also, in other countries they lack healthcare, it is just rationed. You can find cases all over about people not getting proper care. It is comparable to what I said earlier about education. Every US child has access to K-12 education. But a student from Hopkins, MO does not have the same access as someone who goes to Stevenson High School in IL. In Hopkins they lack a calculus teacher, a physics teacher, many teachers to teach foreign languages. But in the end they get a high school diploma so on paper they have "graduated high school". Receiving healthcare, in some cases, is simply seeing a doctor. So sure, everyone is "covered", but if the quality is low does it matter?
Again, dig deeper.
"So, unless you provide several studies that show that the US is on par
with universal systems, instead of just quoting books that say you can
game statistics (duh) or linking articles that actually prove my point.
You have no argument."
I can easily say you have not argument. One, you gave me one "study". Next, it was not detailed at all and had very little sources. Also, they made a ranking for arbitrary reasons.
As I told you, you have a firmly held religious belief that universal healthcare is great. In reality the US system is great and is on par with other countries who have strong systems as well. Pushing for a complete change in the system is radical. That is the whole point of this, the idea of universal healthcare is radical because it will not make us better overall and will put us in a major recession making millions of lives harder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zel Zwrd of those without insurance how many are by choice and are young? Also, there is little correlation between mortality rate and people who are uninsured. Prof. Richard Kronick wrote in his paper entitled
"Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited"
The following
"but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States."
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? As mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give care to those people who are uninsured and they live only 5 months later, was that a success?
You see, you are doing what all far leftists do, you take one variable or one stat and draw a very strong conclusion based on it. People just don't die from one heath complication. Typically they have many.
"then,why is it that americans paid 200% more in terms of medical fee compared to other country that practice NHS and yet receives worse healthcare compared to them?"
Do we receive worse healthcare? As I mentioned earlier the US has the highest access to advanced testing and care and thus have the highest survival rates in advanced illnesses. Other nations just limit how much care one receives. If you are very sick they will deny you care and simply drug you up saying it is your time to go.
That brings me to my next point, amenable mortality that you keep avoiding. You say
"i dont see any articles or research that shows their NHS causes 26000 death per year.do you have that number?"
That 26,000 number has ranged being as low as nearly zero according to a UCSD study to around 60,000. It ranges so much because, as I said, there are many variables involved to which it is very challenging to get accurate numbers on that issue. Also, 26,000 is a very minute portion of the nation. In economics there is a law called the "law of diminishing returns". Can we save those lives? Possibly. But at what cost? We can spend a ton of money keeping them alive for a few more months, but it will bankrupt our nation. To give you another, more straight forward example on the law of diminishing returns, around 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. We can reduce that by lowering speed limits. But eventually you get to a point where lowering speed limits won't have a significant, it all effect on that number. Sure, if we cap speed limits to 15 mph that number will be zero, but now commute times greatly increase harming the economy that way. So in connection to that 26,000 deaths, sure we can spend a shit ton of money keeping them alive, but is it worth it, especially when it will cost a lot and statistically they will only live a few more months?
As with the UK, you asked for an article. From what I am aware no such study exist. So what that does is make that 26,000 stat you give what I call an "'empty stat" is that there is nothing to compare it to. Is that 26,000 high, low or the norm compared to other nations? You don't know as no other similar study was done in other nations. Also, amenable mortality is hard to measure to begin with. As mentioned in the two studies entitled
"Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study"
and
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review."
They write
"Given these gaps in knowledge, between-country differences in levels of mortality from amenable conditions should not be used for routine surveillance of healthcare performance"
and
"At this stage, it is premature to use amenable mortality in ONS's healthcare output calculations."
Respectively. You have issues like standards for example. The US has higher standards than the UK. As I said we offer more advanced testing. So if someone dies in the US for lack of care and someone in the UK dies for the same situation, the US will list that as an "amenable mortality" where the UK won't as the UK typically won't offer said care where the US typically does. So you have to realize that.
Again, like most far leftists you take one variable or one stat and run with it making a strong conclusion ignoring everything else. This is why M4A is failing to much, you are not making convincing argument.
1
-
Zel Zwrd as for M4A saving money, that is making the assumption on the fact that Medicare pays 40% less than private insurance. With that you have to then consider access and quality issues. If you pay healthcare providers 40% less they will offer less care, period. That is especially true when you increase their demand as well. Also, those studies make vague assumptions such as healthcare exist in a bubble economically. For example, in the UMass study, they have a section where people will have to change jobs and move. If you force people to move housing prices change. Those houses they will be moving from will drop in prices and the homes they will be moving to will go up in prices due to a very amazing economic theory, supply and demand. Also, you now have to consider the issue of property taxes and how certain places that have health insurance company offices will be losing property taxes when they are forced to shut down.
Again, many variables are involved. Healthcare is 1/6 of the economy. Anyone who is saying it will save money, without reduction in quality and access, and no other consequences in the rest of the economy is either very ignorant or lying to you.
1
-
1
-
Zel Zwrd "see this? this is the difference between you, a selfish conservative moron compared to a compassionate smart liberal like me."
And this is another reason why M4A is failing so badly. You are pushing it saying that if you don't support it you want people to die. I don't. I want a great healthcare system. Based on all that I have read I simply feel M4A is not the answer. The issue is that M4A supporters, like you, when you get pushed into a corner you play this moral high ground with a handful of talking points while ignoring everything else. You are not willing to have the difficult conversations on this issue.
"this is why you conservative morons has no problem overlook the facts that there are 27 million uninsured people,26000 people died because they cant pay medical bills and so on."
Or they realize that there is more to those numbers than what you present. As I said, that 26,000 stat has ranged from nearly zero in one study to around 60,000 in another. What that says is that this issue is complex and obtaining accurate numbers is challenging if not impossible. Also, you have the law of diminishing returns. This is where far leftists like yourself refuse to have the very difficult conversations on this issue. Say it is 26,000 like you claim. How much will it cost to keep them alive? And how long will they live? As I said, people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 to 10 years but will only live 5 or 10 months. So say we spend hundreds of thousands keeping one of those 26,000 alive and they die 5 months later? Was that a success? Now multiply that hundreds of thousands by 26,000. Now you are talking about trillion of dollars just to save around 0.008% of our population to live, at best, another year. Is that something we should do?
1
-
Zel Zwrd it isn't in a bubble. Going to M4A will mean certain jobs will be lost, you will have a change in property taxes, you will have a change in people's benefits, there are a lot of stocks tied to healthcare. As for the increase in prices in healthcare, a lot of that is partly to blame for government involvement. Medicare and Medicaid was not created until the late 60s, notice how one of the graphs starts in 1970? I see a connection. Mike Holly received his MBA and for his thesis he wrote how government regulations made healthcare more expensive. You can read the condense version of it on Mises entitled
"How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive"
On admin cost, Medicare has arguably more admin cost. When you do a cost per patient you have higher admin cost in Medicare. It seems lower on the surface for two main reasons.
1. Medicare has the ability to pass on admit cots to other agencies such as the CDC and IRS. Private insurance does not.
2. People on Medicare are old and old people typically are require more healthcare. So with Medicare having their consumer base be people who demand more healthcare of course more will be spent on them. But again, on a per patient basis Medicare has more admin cost.
Also, a lot of admin cost is there to keep prices low such as fraud prevention for example. So no, it isn't like they are just pocketing 25% of the revenue. According to Statista profit margins for a lot of healthcare insurance companies is around 4 to 9 percent. In comparison companies like legal forms and accounting and real estate have over 15% profit margins. So non, healthcare insurance do not have high profit margins.
"why are you making the assumption that the private insurance industry is going to completely shut down with the introduction of m4a?"
It is written in Bernie's plan? And some of those studies you point to say that as well.
M4A will not create competition as most of the middle class cannot pay double. You will have a case where the middle class will be paying higher taxes thus cannot afford private healthcare insurance if they want to.
"sure.and yet,healthcare causes 26,000 people to die every year.are you that heartless to the point you dont care the amount of people that can fit a stadium to die every year?"
I noticed how you ignore that point I addressed in detail. Here, you like bullet points
1. That number has ranged from nearly zero to 60,000. In short, it is hard to obtain accurate numbers on that issue.
2. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. But with limited data and irregular standards, you can't compare. Thus you don't know if that 26,000 is high, low or the norm
3. Those individuals are in bad health to begin with and are statistically have a high chance of dying in a few months even with access to care.
4. As I pointed out in the law of diminishing returns, if we pay trillions keeping them alive and they live only a few months producing nothing during that time, what have you accomplished?
You call me heartless when I am simply pointing out the economics of the situation. You know one reason why healthcare prices have gone up so high? It isn't only because of government regulations, it is because our nation actually provides care. Other nations cap how much care you can receive, we don't. Medicare is willing to pay to keep grandma alive for a long time, other nations don't.
1
-
Zel Zwrd you never brought up the law of diminishing returns. As I said, in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. With those 26,000 again, if we give them healthcare it will hundreds of thousands per person. And chances are they won't live long. And during that time they won't produce much.
Here is your problem, you refuse to see the objective truth here. You are going on pure emotions, nothing else. I have given you so much objective fact on the economics of the situation but you dismiss them because you have such a firmly held, religious like belief on this issue that you ignore reality.
As for me being heartless, I just had a friend die due to cancer. When I heard he had it I knew he did not have much time left. He lived only 3 more months since his diagnoses. During his final days he was in a wheelchair, eating from a feeding tube and lost a lot of weight. He was not working either. Really, was it good to keep him alive that long spending limited resources? Again, in other nations they would have just let him die. I experienced the same thing with my grandma. So I know a lot about this. I can look past emotions and consider the very difficult issues faced in healthcare. You apparently cannot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@interdimensionalsteve8172 , so you are Canadian but then claim I am not American? You claim that I am from a different country that wants to divide it? But then you claim you want to help America even though you are not from there? One, what makes you think I am not from the US? What evidence do you have? Next, what makes you think I don't want to help the US? Just because I have a different opinion in how to improve something does not mean I don't want to help the US.
This is why we have a president like Trump and why the left is ridiculed by many. They, and people like you, simply dismiss the other side as if we don't want to help. You dismiss the other side as if they want to divide the nation. You refuse to hear their situation or ideas and take them into account when pushing for new policy.
In the debate against Cruz Bernie Sanders was asked by a hair salon owner how she can afford to pay for healthcare for her employees. Bernie simply said "I don't know". He gave no advice, he had no desire to try to understand her position such as her profit margins, how many full time and part time employees she had, how many are short term vs long term, how much she pays in bills, etc. He has no desire to understand other people's position. In 1994 Bill Clinton was posed a similar question by Herman Cain. Clinton at least showed he understood the struggles businesses go through using actual numbers. He understand his new bill will add more to a business and was willing to listen and understand other people's side.
Right now the political left refuses to listen and try to understand the other side's position and where they are coming from. At this point all I can say is keep doing it. Trump will keep winning at that point. Maybe you will eventually learn come 2024 when we get a new Republican president, the radical democrats are ran out of office and hopefully replaced with more moderate ones, and Trump was a huge success, or maybe not.
1
-
1
-
Steve, the Bernie comment is justified. I don't expect him to fully understand everything, but he should try to understand that business owner's position. He should try to understand what her profit margins are compared to similar companies, how much her bills are, taxes, etc. If they can't provide that than that is their fault. But Bernie never tried to understand their position.
Bernie trying to understand the other person's position is showing they are willing to learn and adjust if needed. Bernie has no desire for that. As I said, if the business owner did not have the data or facts then they are at fault. But if they did and Bernie refuses to listen then he is at fault. Reality is that no law is ideal and a law will harm someone and benefit others. The question was related to Obamacare and yes, it harmed that business owner from expanding, but Obamacare did expand coverage to more people. I actually listen to the other side and see where they are coming from. People on the left, like Bernie, don't. That is the problem.
What was wrong with Kavanaugh? I do defend him for several reasons.
You are done as you cannot form an argument. You have gone to the point where you can't defend your ideas. Mix in with Trump being successful and you can't admit that maybe you are in the wrong.
Again, I take on other opinions and see where they are coming from, I suggest you do the same thing. Right now you don't. That is why you are running away and throw insults with zero justifications.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ubc1454 so in the end it costs money. And with profit comes progress. With profits comes the ability to invest. Think about you on a personal level. You work, you earn money. But also to work you spend money. How? Well, driving to work cost you gas. Food cost you money. Clothes do as well. However, you, in the end, come out ahead. For example, if you spend $3 a day driving to and from work but earn $100 that day, you are ahead. Or if you buy many polo shirts and nice pants which, all together, cost $500, within a week you are now even in that aspect.
That extra money you can use to benefit your in some way. With a company they can spend it to grow the company and in order for a company to succeed in a free market they have to do so in a way that benefits the customer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@draconicgaming8706 , Trump never said it will end all immigration. In a recent speech he said it will slow it down by, at best, 50%. Also, how much do the walls in your house cost? You can't compare the cost of a lock in your home to that of the cost of a border wall. A lock is pointless without a wall. My point was that even with barriers when there is a will there is a way. It is there to slow down people. In fact, Kyle did a video about immigrants climbing a wall in Arizona claiming it did not work. In fact it did. Is slowed them down to allow for cameras to recognize them easier and border patrol to get there and they were caught. The wall worked. At this point the left has almost no argument against the wall. Your only argument is "well it won't stop it completely so why bother". Ok, well speed limits don't stop everyone from speeding, so I guess we should remove all speed limits.
If you are a bad company a competitor will take you out, that's capitalism. You have not shown how the free market creates monopoly besides mocking me and claiming I watch PragerU (I don't). I have described to you how government regulations create monopolies as it makes business more expensive for smaller competitors. For example, Walmart in the past supported a min. wage increase knowing it will harm smaller businesses. Tell me how the free market creates monopolies? And be in detail. If there is a shitty company in a community than a local bank would be more than willing to loan out money to someone to compete with that company.
If a large business is overcharging for their prices guess what you can do in the free market? You can go elsewhere. For example, one company charged me $100 for an oil change. They told me the price after they changed my oil. You know what I did? I left a bad review and I don't go there anymore. In the free market there are plenty of companies to get my car worked on. I go to one company now constantly. They provide great services because they know I can go elsewhere. The other day they saved me $1000 for a cracked fuel pump by finding out it was under a recall. They provide that kind of service because I take my car there often. If not I would go to another company and have. Another example is how H&R block ripped me off on my taxes. My response? I now go through Turbo Tax.
You talk about Big Pharma. The reality is that we don't have a free market in healthcare. We have a heavily regulated and subsidized healthcare system. Read the following link
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
Tell me, how do we have a free market in healthcare when companies can't compete across state lines? Or when most people rely on their employers for insurance as opposed to buying it themselves? Your idea of the free market is essentially 100% wrong. It wasn't the free market that jacked up prices, it was government regulations, it was lack of a free market.
Medicare for all does outlaw private insurance
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text
Read section 107.
Small insurance companies are tough to start due to government regulations that prevent competition.
Minimum wage does eliminate jobs for low skilled workers. Not every state has illegal immigrants. In fact, besides southern states near the border, most don't have illegal immigrants. My home state has essentially none. Really, do you think about what you write? And no, those companies don't have billions at their disposal.
College is very affordable to be honest. When there is a will there is a way. Stop making excuses.
Trump took credit for the shut down. All I will say is this. You leftists keep under estimating him. I am waiting for the reaction from the left when the SC rules in his favor.
The travel ban was shut down by district courts. The SC ruled in favor with a 9-0 vote.
Saying your brother bases his ideas on "common sense" is a very poor argument. These issues are not "common sense" when there is a debate to begin with. Also, I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry, so it is safe to say I know more science than you and your brother. You claim I am losing my marbles when you argument is "common sense" according to you which essentially is dismissing my point, and you can't even get basic facts correct such as Medicare for all does outlaw private insurance.
1
-
@jojoboko6990 , there is a lot on his side. First off, border patrol supports a wall saying it will make their job easier. Next, Trump can get the secretary of defense to show how much of a threat it is. For example, human trafficking and illegal drugs. People claim that most illegal drug flow is through legal ports of entry. However, the flaw in that is that those are the drugs that are caught. You don't know how many get through and aren't caught. Thus that number will be challenged heavily in court. Also, in the past both sides, and including now, has said that we need to do something to alleviate illegal immigration. People on the left, including Schumer, has stated a barrier is needed and voted on it in the past. Now they are refusing to simply because they hate Trump.
So overall, he can easily show that illegal immigration is a problem. He can show that both sides admit to that. He can show that he tried to work with democrats this entire time where democrats simply refused because they are simply playing politics. So with that, since Congress is not doing their job to fix a problem, despite his efforts, he can show this is a case of national emergency.
He has a very solid case. You guys keep taking Trump for granted. If he wins this case I am going to enjoy the reaction from the left.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@draconicgaming8706 , uh, no. No one is saying the wall will stop all illegal immigration. They are saying it will alleviate it. Nothing is ideal, but what you are saying if it isn't 100% efficient than we should not do it. That is incredibly asinine. Again, speeding laws don't stop all people from speeding, I guess by your standard we should scrap all speed limits. As for barbed wire, it is a humanitarian issue. Barbed wire leads to cuts, infections, diseases and people dying. If you want to go to the barbed wire point than we might as well shoot them. People are not looking to kill these people, they are looking to prevent them from entering our country illegally. And extend to my speed limit analogy, it creates a deterrent. With a wall they are less likely to cross over, and it slows them down to allow for us to allocate our resources better. With a wall we can make better use of our current agents and drones.
Monopolies occur due to government actions. Here, I will give you an example with Southwest Airlines. Back in 1971 Southwest was pushing to create their HQ in Texas and fly into Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. At the time Texas International, Braniff and Continental existed. Continental used political power to try to snuff Southwest by making the creation of that airline more expensive. As a result the "Wright Amendment" was create. The amendment prevented direct flight into Love Field so anyone flying Southwest will have to buy separate tickets. It was pushed by other airlines to stop Southwest. It was a business using government to kill the free market to create a monopoly. You say my argument is cartoonish but don't explain how. Regulations increases business cost. Regulations to hinder growth of success businesses simply punishes success. Also, federal regulations increases the powers of the federal government so it can be bought so that regulations favor the highest bidder. Also, one can argue that unions do a much better job at protecting workers. Deaths in mining in the early 1900s dropped a lot because of the power of unions in the free market. And businesses provide safety for workers because of liability and also because they insure them. It keeps their cost of insurance down. So businesses offer safety already. And if a job is not safe they pay more. For example, my dad works in a dangerous factory with lead in the air. The company can't prevent it. Because of that they pay their workers over $30/hr with great benefits, not bad for a job you only need a high school diploma for.
H&R block is not owned by Intuit. They used the software they provide, different issue. It is like saying I work for Coherent because I use a Coherent laser. And if the point on Intuit lobbying to prevent taxpayers from having more freedom is true than you literally proved my point. The company is using government to kill the free market and push for a monopoly. The cereal I buy is the store brand. As for Robert Reich, for as intelligent he is he is a politician and is deceptive. He is the one that claimed wages have been stagnate despite the data suggesting it isn't. Here is a video on that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=160s
Uh, what is wrong with the article I linked you? It is from someone's Masters thesis. Also, you are pulling a logical fallacy. You can say that about any source really. That is like saying "David Duke support brushing your teeth. Since he is the leader of the KKK I won't take his opinion on that seriously so I will stop brushing my teeth". You need to point out where the article I linked you is wrong, not pull a logical fallacy.
I never said there is a free market in healthcare. We don't have a free market in healthcare. We have a heavily regulated and subsidized healthcare system where insurance companies have all the power. Going to Medicare for all will simply centralize the problem making it, arguably, worse.
I agree with your interpretation of the outlawing private insurance part. The issue is that it forces everyone to use the same system and there is nothing for Medicare to compete with. That is a monopoly. Also, this same problem happened in Canada where a lawsuit happened pushing Canada to allow for private insurance as people were dying.
Minimum wage does kill jobs for low skilled workers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-BGi4NIFww&t=228s
Go to the 3:30 mark and listen to Walter Williams.
On the $1000 point you can get this thing called a loan, or you can ask friends or family for money. Or maybe if the min. wage did not kill teenage jobs they could have a job while in high school, save money, and then pay. You just make an argument against the min. wage.
The fact there is a debate to begin with does not make the common sense. You see here we are having a debate, thus it is no longer common sense but issues people, including experts, disagree on. Also, I have people skills. I studied education for over a year, I am also pursuing my MBA and I have a hobby that requires me to converse with others in a short amount of time in a calm way. You say I am "bullshitting" you but don't explain how. Your only argument is that this is all "common sense" when it isn't. There is a debate to begin with. I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. I am saying there is an argument that exists on both sides making this far from common sense. And if your brother is pissed at me than he clearly does not have people's skills. I am not going to squirm. I am going to go to work, get things done there, study for my MBA class, and then go to the gym. I am relaxed here. .
Also, I am not here to make you like me. You don't have to agree with me. I am simply showing you that these issues are complex and there are strong arguments on both sides. I encourage you to dig deeper, that means listen to much more intelligent people than Kyle who is deceptive and foolish. But again, if your brother is pissed he needs to work on his peoples skills.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jessica Trentwood, it doesn't exist. Kyle when SJW on us. One, he ignored the conclusion that women receive less sentencing then men. Next, this study dated back to 70s when there was discrimination. But that was then, now it hardly exists. If you look at the trend in sentencing Fig. 1 they are converging. Also, there are many factors that are ignored such as attitude in the court room, quality of lawyers, plea bargains, influence in the community, etc.
In order to show actual racism and discrimination you literally have to go case by case to find it. However, that is almost impossible to do. No two crimes are the same. No two lawyers, judges, police departments, etc. are the same. No two criminals are the same. There are many factors you cannot account for in a statistical study.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marketsocialist6421 never said everything is fine. Simply saying democrats are the ones causing these problems. They are pushing to make lives miserable to try to beat Trump. Look at states with the strictest lock downs still, they are ran by democrats. That is despite their case numbers being low. Governor Murphy refuses to open up NJ despite, since June, they have had low cases. Look at the double standards during the "pandemic". Governor Lightfoot banned hair salons but was able to get a hair cut herself (being fair she needs as much help as she can get when it comes to looks). The governor of IL banned travel but when his wife went to their second home in FL he dismissed. Whitmer opposed the anti lockdown protests, but then marched with BLM later.
Fact is that the democrats are insane. There are some good ones, but they are being overshadowed by the crazy, power hungry ones.
Again, I am not saying everything is fine. I am saying the problem lies with the democrats. Noticed how all this violence happens in democrat ran states and cities? That brings up another point, Mayor Durkan had no problem with CHAZ until they started building one in her neighborhood. It wasn't the vandalism and it wasn't the killing of a teenager, but they started attacking her neighborhood.
Really, how can you not see democrats as being the problem?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"But I instantly knew what the commenter meant,"
Good for you. We communicated differently.
"I had read about the isotope ratio in science articles on climate change."
Isotope ratio is involved in a lot of things like carbon dating. Heck, I work in isotopically labeled atoms to change vibrational frequencies in order to study vibrational transitions easier. I know about isotopes. I feel you just read a "big, science like word" and use to to sound smart.
"There was nothing wrong with the phrasing of that question"
It was. How are isotope ratios relevant to climate change? I never heard of that and have a hard time imagining how it will matter unless it involves the vibrations of CO2.
"Also, anyone can look up test questions on the internet, "
It is not a test question, here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390782/
You can read that to start. They show the amount it shifts. It is not a test question but numbers I obtain from reading the literature. I brought it up as I am working on a project like that where I labeled the carbon and oxygen to shift the frequency of the mode and measure the coupling between them. What coupling? Well, coupling between two modes that occurs when they vibrate. When they vibrate they are charged particles and thus generate an electric field. The fields interact in space and thus couple. With transition dipole coupling on can determine the distance and angle between the dipoles.
Now why so we label them? We label them because when you have many C=O transitions they overlap. Labeling them allows one to shift the frequency so it isolates them from the other transition and you can see the coupling peaks easier. That is the disadvantage of using Amide I modes as it is expensive to do labeling, but Amide I modes are natural and do not perturbed the system making them a good IR probe.
Other probes are nitriles, azides, metal carbonyls, Si-H, selenocyanates, etc. They are non-natural (well, not Si-H) which perturb the system somewhat. But they do not have to be isotopically labeled making them cheaper.
That involves some of my work. I am moving on to other projects as well such as looking at electronic states, but still spectroscopy. So no, I did not pull that out of a test question. That literally involves my research.
" In fact you don't even say it in your responses to other commenters on this video."
I do. I just do not feel the need to express myself in that way to everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leaf Village, polls are a snapshot, they are not the direction a country is going. And again, they are vague questions on complex issues. Asking about medicare for all without giving details about cost, taxes, quality, effects on the private sector, jobs, etc. is a vague poll. You cannot take it serious. Also, just because something is popular does not mean it is the best policy. If it were popular, according to polls, for the government to censor what they consider to be "fake news", would that be a good idea?
Independents don't care about the rich. If they really hated the rich they would not be watching athletes or movies as much as they do and they would be complaining about rich people often. Most people only care what is happening in their life. They don't live this life of jealousy like the ultra left does. As long as things are great for them that is all they care about. Attacking the rich is not explaining how the lives of independents will improve.
Trump hardly talked about Medicare for all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, welcome back. Maybe you have time to answer this question you failed to answer. Why isn't productivity connected to education?
Now on to your comment.
"First problem you are arguing, you are attempting how much we should spend to how much a country uses in comparison to their GDP. This statistic is completely useless when trying to argue how much we can or should spend, or arguing what should be increased or decreased. As always, I have to explain the simplest things to you. "
It isn't how much we should or should not spend. People are constantly pointing at the dollar value without putting it into perspective. For over 50 years we have been cutting defense spending when you look at it in terms of percent of GDP.
Now many on the left love to push the narrative of inflation and how everything is becoming expensive. So why shouldn't military spending? Yes, we are spending more on defense in terms of dollar amount. But in comparison to GDP we aren't. The economy is growing while defense spending is not at the same rate meaning we are scaling back defense spending.
"This is because every country has drastically different Gross domestic products in quantity, and the military power isn't demonstrated by how much you spend in GDP rather how much you spend in actual dollars which allows you purchasing power of military technology, soldiers, etc, which is what we measure as military power. "
Then why when it comes to healthcare you look at GDP? Why the different standards? Also, you have to look at GDP in military. A smaller country means less of a demand for a military. That means less tanks, jets, soldiers, etc. You talk about GDP and GDP per capita with everything else, but now all of a sudden when it comes to defense you don't? Why are you moving the goal posts?
"That is you can have two countries Country A: Spends 95% of their GDP on military Country B: Spends 5% of their GDP on military If I ask you, what country is more powerful and who is a larger threat, any idiot will understand the answer is...You can't tell, because you have no idea what their percentage actually stands for."'
Change defense to education. Country A spends 95% on education where Country B spends 5%. Country B has a plethora of doctorates which drives the cost of education down due to an over supply of professors. Country B is clearly more educated if Country A has less doctorates per capita which leads to limited classroom spots and thus higher prices.
"If I then said Country A GDP = 10 billion Country B GDP = 2 Trillion Then you would say Country A = .95 * 10 billion - >9.5 billion Country B = .05 * 2 trillion -> 100 billion Now which one is a bigger threat? Oh look, country B would most likely be a far larger threat since they are spending more than 10x the amount even though their percentage is far less. "
How big is country B? The US has a GDP of nearly $20 trillion. Our size alone makes us powerful. We can cut all defense spending and have everyone fight with the guns they own and we can beat a country like Mexico Canada with a weak military due to the fact we have 6 times more people.
"The reality is, the GDP that other countries spend has no actual relevance in terms of power. "
It does as GDP is the overall economy and is also the limitations in the economy of that country. If you are going to make that claim then stop making the claim of comparing healthcare costs and education in terms of GDP. The US spends more in pure dollar amount in education compared to other countries thus we have a way more powerful education system. Agree?
"The United States doesn't need to spend more in military because they are already a power house when it comes to it. GDP% does not determine strength of military as example above because it doesn't tell you how much that actually is."
I never said the US needs to spend more. However, you have to compare with GDP percent, there is no other way. We spend more than most countries for one simple reason, we have the largest economy in the world. Just like we spend more in pure dollar amount on education than every other country because......wait for it.......we have the largest economy in the world.
"Theres a reason why people advocate increasing costs in healthcare, education. It's because we are suppose to attempt to increase them to help the public that is paying the taxes."
Why education? Remember, education has nothing to do with productivity according to you. It will be a waste. Also, we spend more on healthcare at the federal level than we do on defense already.
"Increasing military more and more is a giant waste of money since we are already the strongest at it."
And we spend more on education and healthcare compared to the rest of the world, so maybe we should cut that as well. Especially considering how education has nothing to do with productivity.
"Comparing GDP % as if it demonstrates any type of military capability is beyond moronic."
Except many sources give it as such.
"Anyways, I have to go back to my studies,"
Why waste your time? You are not going to be any more productive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gabeclaufredd1099 , good question. That is brought up here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126951/
"Firstly, health care is difficult to define. It clearly encompasses preventive care (for example, immunisation), public health measures, health promotion, and medical and surgical treatment of established illness. Is the so called human right to health care a right to basic provision of clean water and adequate food, or does everyone in the world have a right to organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery, infertility treatment, and the most expensive medicine? For something to count as a human right the minimum requirement should surely be that the right in question is capable of definition."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Heat and Serve, I am a scientist and I understand how scientists think and act.
"and been overwhelmed with information that by far would have proven you wrong and yet you persist in spreading false information. "
What information I have spread has been false?
"Scientific consensus right now is that man contributes a surplus of carbon dioxide which contributes to an increased greenhouse effect."
I have never read that. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it does influence our climate. But to what degree is the issue. Remember, the climate has changed for over 4 billion years. And by the 2nd law of thermodynamics man plays a role. But again, to what degree? You will not see hard numbers on those questions.
"It's almost undoubtedly bad. "
So change and evolution are bad? So when the dinosaurs died off and mammals took over that was bad? For dinosaurs it was. But evolution happens.
"But on the other hand floods and droughts "
Have been happening for centuries.
"As regular, small-minded humans we could be a bit more aware of our carbon footprint and try to minimize it. Use public transport if possible, don't buy electricity from companies that invest heavily in fossil fuel, etc, etc"
Public transportation is inefficient for many people. Fossil fuels are the best source we have. With electricity, many areas of science research need a reliable source of energy. How do you think they power Los Alamos National Laboratory? Or even my lab with my laser system, I need reliable energy. If you push for other forms of energy you will hinder scientific research in other fields.
The solution is not that simple. But besides that. When you say
1. Man is a main contributor
I question if you are a young earth theorist or not as you are ignoring climate change prior to man's time on earth
When you say
2. It is bad
I question if you accept evolution as you are saying the ecosystem will not evolve to the changes like it always has.
I am all for doing research on the issue and looking farther in it. But as a scientist I understand the uncertainty on the issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Yes, we've heard you're a scientist. Are you trying your hand at
Argumentum ad verecundiam? Well, I'll have you know that I'm a mentally
challenged janitor at a public high school. So deconstruct my arguments
based on that."
No, I am saying I understand how scientists think and how they approach an issue. There is a reason why people like Kyle and Bernie Sanders make the claims of "X percent of scientists say this" while not being able to list any of these scientist or get them to make a comment. Bernie had Bill Nye, that's it. Why? Because scientists are not making the jump to conclusion claim that Kyle, Bernie and other ultra leftists are as doing so will be suicide for their career.
"It makes it difficult to formulate a proper response when you're trying to deconstruct ever little sentence."
I do so to show you that I do read what you write and analyze it.
"Your first, and really only mistake, in your line of questioning is that
you're ignoring common and well-known facts. Scientific finds that are
shared with the public. There's even been scientific studies of the published scientific studies
just to prove that a majority of published papers treat climate change
as a reality, as a negative and that man contributes a surplus of
greenhouse gases that affects the climate. "
A couple things here. One, "facts" in science are observables. It is the data that is collected. What it means is what ends up being discussed and debated. As for "prove", science does not "prove" anything, period.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
Also, you write
" that a majority of published papers treat climate change
as a reality, as a negative and that man contributes a surplus of..."
Again, what papers? Care to link them? As of now you are making a claim with no support and that claim is very vague.
"There is plenty of hard data on this, would you chose to actually take part of it. "
I do take a part of the data and accept it.
"Scientists have managed to quantify the anthropogenic contributions
using empirical observation and good ole physics such as conservation of
energy."
Physics cannot explain photosynthesis. Why do I say that? We cannot explain a very basic concept taught in middle school showing how little we know about the ecosystem.
"Fossil fuels are by far not our "best" (most efficient?) source of energy. "
They are.
"Hydroelectric power plants have a conversion efficiency upwards 95% for large installations."
Great, I do not live near water. I live in a desert.
"Even wind turbines, peaking at 45% conversion efficiency, beat coal
power plants which usually operate at between 32 % to 42 % conversion
efficiency. "
What? You are making this up. Windmills can power small towns. Rockport, MO was the first town powered only by windmills. But that requires a lot of space and......wait for it......wind. In many areas, such as larger cities, you lack wind and space.
"Solar panels are also becoming more efficient and cheaper."
You finally said one thing that was correct. At the industrial level solar, wind and water are not good sources of energies. Again, I need a consistent source of energy to power my laser. But do not look at me, look at Los Alamos National Labs and how they are not going off of those energy sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When was Moore a politician? "
He is a political activist that leans left. Essentially the same as Kyle and Rush Limbaugh. They are involved in politics.
"But what exactly do you want him do do? "
He complains about other people struggling while owning 9 homes. Why does he own 9 homes? If he is a landlord and runs low income housing then fine. Or if he has those homes to be a place for some sort of healthcare, like therapy for example for the mentally ill, that is fine. Does he? I can't say for sure. But nothing I read shows that he actually does. That instead he owns 9 homes. I don't expect him to help out everyone, but with his wealth and income he can help out some. He can try to help the people of Flint.
"Bernie is affluent through decades in politics which is a fairly high
paying job. How does him selling a book take away from the policies he
has been fighting for for decades? "
Because again, it is all talk. What has he done to help people? You may say that he does by being a politician. Ok, then why did he wait until now to run for president? Why didn't he do it after Bush?
I will agree that being a politician is a way to help out society, but most have done other work before that. What has Bernie done? He could not even pay his bills. That is an issue. He mooched off of others.
"Where is your grief with way richer republican and democratic politicians then?"
Because they are not demanding to take more of my money and saying they are doing it for my benefit. At the very least, with the fact that Bernie could not run his finances when he was my age, I am very suspicious. Bernie could not pay his bills. I do. But yet he feels that by raising my taxes he can benefit me?
" But what people like Bernie is fighting for is systemic change where
the the people are given more leverage and the rich guy can´t skew
policies to his own advantage. "
I agree, however that is because of big government in which Bernie wants to make bigger. Also, Bernie and Moore did not get rich with grit. Bernie became a politician when he could not find a job elsewhere. Moore sued the company he worked for and made movies of him walking around with a camera and profiting off of other people's struggle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The company I worked for before I retired and what they are doing on healthcare while making strong profits is not rare in today's America."
A lot of companies give out healthcare. Those that don't do so for one simple reason, they can't afford to. I bet your company could not afford to either. You complain about your boss but in reality if you were to cut the pay of a boss down to zero it would not do anything to raise worker's salaries. Take, for example, Walmart. If you were to take the salaries of the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread it to the 525,000 lowest paid workers of Walmart those workers will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it.
"Anyway if you look at the polls more than 50% of the people in America want Medicare for all or a single payer plan"
Polls are very deceptive and vague. While they may support it, if you ask them about taxes the majority do not want higher taxes. In Colorado, a left leaning state that voted for Bernie in the primaries, 80% said no to universal healthcare. In every state it has been tried it fail with no uproar. Republicans ran on the idea of repealing Obamacare and won. You look at polls when every other indicator shows differently. You keep looking at polls that are wrong.
".you say people in other countries enjoy their healthcare system...and they may do. But Sanders isn't willing to look at the short comings...because the debate is about a better system with fewer short comings not a 100% perfect model nothing man made is perfect but the Universal system is much better for everyone and thats the point not that it could still have a few short comings"
Read the book "The Business of Health". There they break down the numbers in healthcare and show other countries are not better. You say they are but give zero evidence of the fact. Just saying they are better does not make it true. Bernie does not give any numbers either on healthcare. He just says in other countries they do it better. And when pushed with actual facts and pricing he goes to a subjective poll. That is all he has. Meanwhile, in the US we are moving away from a system like that with Republicans winning and states saying no where in Colorado 80% said no. If people wanted universal healthcare a state would have passed it by now.
"And yes when you met many people from different countries that all have the same type of system and they all use that system and its been around for 50..40..30..years and they all speak highly of that system...a word to the wise,take heed on that message,because its working."
I like the US system. Everyone I met in the US like it. So by your low standards the US system is great.
"And when small businesses or even larger ones don't offer decent healthcare benefits its much harder to keep good help because this issue is very important to families/workers. "
EXACTLY, that is how the free market works. Businesses want to pay more. You contradicted yourself when you talk about greedy companies. Businesses want to pay more but don't for one simple reason, they can't afford it.
"My point isn't about hurting the small business owner but a healthcare system change will help them."
It won't as they would not be able to afford the higher taxes. Bernie wants to expand the payroll tax which is a wage killer.
"listen to Mark Blyth on this subject."
I listened to him. He is not an economists and went on a rant about Friedman that made zero sense. But as a whole, he is not an economist. I don't know why people take what he says in that issue that seriously.
" And as we move away from the small business world into the bigger companies we know record profits are being made the wealth gap "
Income and wealth are not equal. Also, there are large profits for two reasons.
1. Larger companies with more shares
2. They were not willing to invest with Obama. If Bernie were in office they would not invest at all.
" wages are pretty stagnant for many years."
Wage stagnation is a myth. If you use the PCE of GDP deflator method of inflation wages have been going up. Also, inflation tends to over exaggerate the rate, this is called the "Boskin rule". As a whole wage stagnation is a myth.
1
-
"The company I retired from could very well pay a lot more towards the healthcare plan"
Great, that is your one anecdotal evidence. Maybe you should have found a new job.
" Again its common today to see well to do companies not offering healthcare or offering horrible plans."
Because they can't afford it. Also, the number one problem I have is that our healthcare situation is so that people rely on their employers for healthcare to begin with. I am in favor of ending that by removing the payroll tax.
"And to say people are happy with the healthcare system in America..no disrespect, is just plain crazy. "
But it exists and as recent elections shown the are the majority.
"Town Hall meetings and healthcare rallies were popping up all across the country with citizens very upset with our system"
But yet 80% of voters in Colorado said no. And nothing is getting passed in other states.
" Thats why even in red states when Sanders did town meetings on this issue even the people who support the GOP applauded him"
What evidence is there that they supported the GOP?
" And lets not forget we pay more in healthcare costs than countries like Canada we pay twice sometimes three times as much in our system...how is that better or even just as bad??"
My boss pays more for rent than I do in our apartments. Does that mean my apartment is better? Saying we pay more is not an argument. There is a lot more to it. A car that cost more is typically better than one that cost less.
"And you say business want to pay more...well in reality they rather work on the shoe string level and take their chances then offer strong wages and good benefits."
If an employer does not pay an employee well they will not get the good employees.
" Companies in a capitalist system only think of the bottom line..the greatest profits,"
And you do as well. You think about your profits as well which is why you want universal healthcare and a higher wage.
"As for payroll tax or paying more in taxes in general does not kill workers if these taxes are used to help citizens when it comes to healthcare or higher education..so forth,its a strong investment into the country"
The payroll tax taxes payroll. If a company were to give someone a raise they would have to pay a higher payroll tax. That is why businesses pay with benefits to begin with. You not only want to raise the payroll tax but you want to allow the government to give healthcare benefits as well. That is reducing wages for workers in numerous ways.
1. No more benefits
2. Higher taxes
3. Higher taxes on employer if they were to give out a higher wage, so they won't give our raises.
"If wages kept up with production we would be at much higher levels in 2018"
Very deceptive. To start, from very basic stats hourly earnings have kept up with productivity. Unit labor cost is positive meaning hourly compensation is outpacing productivity. Also, you have to factor in that productivity is up due to technology, and more productivity means better goods and services that are cheaper. For example, cars today get better mileage, last longer and are safe, all of which save money in the long run. That is essentially a wage increase.
" In the end we both see these issues through different lenses we could dance this dance in circles from now to the end of time we are both fairly well versed in our teachings and beliefs"
I question that as you cited Blyth as if he is a legit economist. You also brought up the myth of wage stagnation and failed to realize the numerous variables involved.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Claire McDaniel, that letter is pointless as it does not lay out any facts or gives an argument.
To start, one has to understand what an attorney general does. They do not write laws, they are simply the lawyer of the district they represent. When legal actions is taken they represent the government. Again, they do not write laws.
As for the voter fraud case, he felt he had a case on hand so he went after 14 ballots, that's it, 14. He never done it before and never done it since. What was the detail of the case? I do not know. But he felt he had a case and went with it, and he was going by the letter of the law. He lost, that happens.
But people trying to call Jeff Sessions a racist off of one incident are asinine. Again, this is one incident. I see no history of this being common. He went after something he thought he had a case for and lost. Sessions also went after the KKK after they killed a black man. He opposed the KKK in that case. But of course people ignore that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"No, a market does spontaneously crash, you want examples? Here"
The market does crash, that is how growth happens. We saw recessions in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc. It happens as the economy changes, new jobs come and go, people spend differently, etc. How we recover is key. Only two times has the economy took over 5 years to recover from a recession, the 1930s and after the 2007 recession. Those were also the only two times where the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive domestic spending.
As for Reagan, here is a little fact for you, congress controls the purse. Democrats controlled congress in the 80s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Cost of living is more expensive than our minimum wage."
A couple of flaws there. One, the min. wage is what it is, the minimum. How you pay for things is up to you. You can get roommates, live with parents, have a spouse, etc.
Next, cost of living has gone down in many ways due to increase technology and productivity. For example, cars are much cheaper today than they were in the 70s. The only things that have seen an increase in price are healthcare, college, and homes. Ironically they are influenced by the government with medicare/medicaid and the payroll tax, the college loan program, and the FHA.
" If people are simply refusing to work, then get them to work by enticing them"
Many are refusing to work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cg29legend It is around half.
Uh, there are plenty of studies saying otherwise about the min. wage. It all depends on the state of the economy and how much you raise it. For example, in the mid 90s the Clinton administration raised the min. wage to $5.15/hr, basically less than a dollar more. Unemployment went down. However, prior to that unemployment was already dropping and the percent of workers earning at or below the min. wage was dropping as well. What does that mean? The market already had a "min. wage" that was set higher than what it was legally. Thus, it did not matter. However, in 2007 it was raised and unemployment went up. But again, it is complicated. Overall, the vast majority of min. wage workers are not poor as their household income is high, and they do not work full time. So raising the min. wage does nothing.
Making college free makes the degree worthless. The value of a college degree is that you are showing employers you are willing to invest and find a way to complete a long term goal. If you make college "free" you make it easily accessible to people where employers will no longer value it. What is the value of a "free" thing? Nothing overall.
Also, with free college, how will you handle the NCAA? This is an issue I have with far leftists, they have these ideas but put zero thought into them. They don't understand the complexity of the issues.
Access will drop in single payer because you are increasing demand without increasing supply. We see that in other nations where they limit how much care one receives. The US leads the world in access to advanced testing and advanced care and also leads the world in survival rates of advanced illnesses. So yes, quality will also drop.
As for wait lists, it has been shown in studies that longer wait times do lead to negative outcomes.
I have plenty of sources on healthcare if you want. I am going to enjoy a movie for now but tomorrow I can really break down all these arguments and show how you are mistaken.
But for now, with free college how do you handle the NCAA?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Money is speech. As long as there is no quid pro quo there is nothing illegal about it. People can support candidates either by rallying for them, posting signs, wearing buttons, dedicating an entire youtube channel to them, or by donating money. Yes, rich people have more to give, but certain media outlets, like TYT, have more air time and a larger following to advertise to.
If you ban money in politics because of campaign donations then you go down the route of forcing CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, and even TYT and the Daily Wire to give equal air time to each candidate because they are large networks and should not influence elections like that. That is also a violation of free speech.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brentshowers741 , these issues are complex. That is something the far left refuses to realize. Here is the platform of the far left
1. There is a problem
2. The solutions are simple and with no consequences
3. Their solutions are popular
4. If you disagree you are either ignorant, a bigot or corrupt
When that is your starting point you have no room to move and adjust to work with others. This is why Bernie and his fan base are so dismissive of any counter point no matter how legit it is and why, when pushed, Bernie becomes very angry. He has no room to actually adjust his ideas to something better that won't have major consequences.
Let us take an example. Wage stagnation
1. Wages have been stagnant according to the far left
2. The solution is to raise the min. wage
3. That idea is popular according to some poll
4. If you disagree you are ignorant or you are receiving money from some major corporation doing their bidding
Now for the truth
1. While some data suggests wages have been stagnant, there is a ton of data suggesting they haven't. You look at other methods of inflation, such as PCE which is used by the Federal Reserve, wages have outpaced inflation. Also, CPI inflation is filled with many flaws. For example, while a car may be more expensive today in pure sticker price than 30 years ago, cars are much cheaper overall in that they last longer, get better gas mileage and are safer. And if you include benefits wages have also gone up as well.
So yes, there is some data to suggest wages have been stagnant, but there is a lot more to suggest they haven't. Doesn't mean things are fine, but to say wage stagnation is a major problem is a stretch.
2. Raising the min. wage to $15/hr is not a solution. Those earning $15/hr or more will not see a wage increase and could possibly see a wage decrease as some businesses will counter by raising prices. Also, a flaw of the min. wage is how much to pay per hour, not per week. If hours are cut what was gained?
3. Any poll suggesting that raising the min. wage is popular typically is for small increases. Raising it to $15/hr is not popular.
4. I receive no money from a billionaire or millionaire and I cited many sources showing I am not ignorant.
See how that is done? Bernie fans have short talking points and are not willing to budge on anything. That won't solve any problems in our society, it just makes things worse. That is the problem with the far left. That is why, no matter how many sources I give from experts, I simply get dismissed on these comments. People here refuse to budge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry for your lost, but here is the issue.
1. The AR 15 is a Trojan Horse in pushing for a gun ban. Less than 15% of mass shootings involved an AR 15. You have had deadly shootings, like the one in VA Tech, involving hand guns. To attack the AR 15 is buying into the talking points of the media. Also the AR 15 is not a "war gun"
2. During the time of the founding fathers there were guns that were able to shoot off multiple rounds in a short amount of time. Steven Crowder has a great video on this. The founding fathers were intelligent, one was an inventor. They saw a time where technology would get better. Even at that, you can apply your same logic to freedom of speech and the internet.
3. The argument of people behaving better is legit. Instead of stripping rights for safety we should push to cure the person. If you want to strip rights for safety then start with the 4th amendment. Randomly searching people's homes can lower a lot of crime.
On your proposals.
"OK...the right of people to bear arms that were designed and built in the late 1700s should not be infringed."
I already mentioned this. Why not apply this to freedom of speech and the internet? Also, guns in those time were deadly as well.
"Now lets have a real conversation about ownership of modern weapons and who can own them...and how to go about the selling and distribution of them. Also we can have a conversation about what is an appropriate number of bullets to carry in a magazine...or to sell to an individual. "
We can also have a conversation behind the idea of the 2nd amendment. The history of it, the reasoning of it, compare it to other rights, and possible other methods to lower crime without removing rights. There is a lot to this. We cannot just converse about what you want to, we have to converse about the whole issue.
"Finally, guns like the AR-15 give a single person enough power to quickly and efficiently kill numerous people with few legal hurdles "
Same with many instruments out there like cars, resources to make bombs, resources to make your own guns, etc. The deadliest attack on a school was with a bomb.
Again, I am sorry for your lost but you cannot let that get in the way of rational, and intellectual debate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Sorry that I think an AR15 is too much firepower for an 18-19-year-old to possess."
What about a 12 gauge shot gun? Even more fire power. What about a 1917 Enfield? Even more fire power. In reality the AR 15 has little fire power compared to what is out there. Not to be rude but I do see you as a person who has little knowledge about guns.
"..wat? What does voting age have to do with purchasing an AR15, AK, etc.? "
You feel they are not old enough to possess a gun, so why should they be old enough to vote on policies now? You picking the age of 25 is completely arbitrary. I was shooting guns since I was 6, and I have friends who were a lot younger.
"How?"
They know who has the guns and thus they can just go in there and take them with any minor reason. Say a murder too place near your home, they can go in and take them as "evidence". That is invasion of privacy as well. Just because I decided to own a gun does not mean I should have my privacy invaded. Why not do the same for having kids? Why not send social services in every home every few months to make sure every kid is being cared for?
"Yes, they will. "
Ok, then why have an age limit?
"1. I didn't specifically say 25, "25-28+" 2. Usually, at that age, you're more mature and educated than an 18-19 y/o."
Ok, then they can't vote until they are 25. You want them to be allowed to vote at 18 but then claim they are not educated nor mature enough to own a gun. I see double standards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I want to honestly inquire whether you think a majority of "leftists" aren't working. "
Define work. I see many leftists pushing for free healthcare and free college, but how many of them are studying to become doctors? How many of them are working to earn a high income. When I see leftists two things
1. They are people who do not push for success
2. They are people who make excuses
There are plenty on the right who do not push for success. However, they do not care for the most part. They have no problem with their living conditions. For the left, though, they are the ones who want single payer healthcare but they are not the ones studying to be doctors, nurses, surgeons, etc. They rather have others do the work.
" Given what you know about employment rates and everything, was your
last statement going to even actually apply to the majority of people
that identify with the left? Or is it that anyone that's actually
working, you exclude from your term "leftist"?"
Employment rate does not tell the whole story. To give you an example, one of my co-workers is working on their PhD but does not do much work to do it. The two papers they are working on are mainly because of a post-doc. They have little desire to learn and become a researcher. They want to be a lecturer, which is fine, but it is a job a Masters degree holder can do and is not paid a lot.
However, they are ultra left. They complain about the rich and how much the president of the university make and claims they do nothing. She complains when certain jobs do not get done on campus even though she does not understand the cost. And example is how she wanted a parking garage for more parking. She does not understand that it cost $30,000 a parking space to build one, and that is just to build one. That does not include maintenance. Parking garages have 80 years payoff time.
My point on that story is that the left, to me, do not see things through an objective lens and the reason why is because of lack of work to actually understand what is going on in society. Now the same can be said about many on the right. However, they, for the most part, just mind their own business. They are not acting like elitists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tony H, to start I would not take Chomsky's advice on debate. Next, you are not giving them "50% of the reasoning". If they are wrong you will then be showing the audience how wrong your opponent is.
"Someone who doesn’t believe in manmade climate change doesnt deserve to be debated. "
Two things there
1. Crowder has said numerous times climate change is real and man plays a role. This is where Kyle continues to lie (he is constantly wrong to be honest, most recently he said Ted Cruz supported a ban on dildos when a simple fact check showed that not to be true, for a guy all about fact checking he continues to get them wrong).
2. If the discussion was on economics or foreign affairs, why should it matter? I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. That is my expertise. I support a free market system in healthcare. Does that take away my knowledge and opinions related to anything science? No as they are unrelated.
You are making an excuse dismissing someone on something that simple. Anyway, as I said, Kyle is misrepresenting Crowder there placing him in the wrong.
"Anyway, I understand you’re a busy person with your masters degree but why don’t you create a channel and form a solid opinion instead of rooting through comment sections?"
That requires more work and I like to remain anonymous. Lately I have not been commenting as much because I have been even more busy. I am starting to write my dissertation and I am aligning myself for a job. My responsibilities are adding up. I choose to remain anonymous as I have a career choice where I am heavily scrutinized and anything I say can destroy my career.
"I would love to hear your arguments against Kulinski in a podcast or extended youtube video."
This comes back to why I am stepping away for the most part. Kyle is wrong constantly but his fans refuse to see it even after I literally post peer reviewed sources showing that. The only way I will come out of hiding, so to speak, is if I were to debate him on issues such as economics, gun control, and healthcare as I understand those topics the best. I would easily expose how wrong he is. But I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dannyslag , so immediately you assume my political affiliation and used that in saying that all conservatives are dumb. How can I take your argument seriously? There are experts on both sides of the aisle. For example, Prof. Robert Oshfeldt and Prof. John Schneider published a book through the Heritage Foundation, a right wing think tank. The book is called "The Business of Health". They do research related to statistics and healthcare. You also have this individual
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=160s
Now are these people conservatives? I don't know. But they are appearing on conservative leaning sources. Do you feel they are illiterate about statistician? About me, one, I am a moderate that sees both sides of the issue. And two, I have a physics and chemistry degree with a math minor and I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. So I have studied some statistics to the point I can understand them and make a logical conclusion.
So let me break down your comment. What you say initially is true, but then you said "wealth". Wealth is not income. So if you are going to berate people learn basic definitions first. Next, there are ways that they account for that. For example, Fred uses the median and does account for inflation. Fred also uses just wage earners and not salary earners where those earning $5 million are salary, typically. The BLS does similar things. When you look at the median wages have gone up as well
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/02/are-wages-increasing-or-decreasing/
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/median-weekly-earnings-were-806-for-women-1004-for-men-in-first-quarter-2019.htm
So no, they are not looking at just the average. To add on that person earning $5 million, they don't add much weight to the overall data because most of their money is made through company shares and not straight income. And they don't contribute to the overall numbers as there are very few of them and thus they apply little weight to the system. Let me you give a very simple example as you don't seem to get this. Say you had 100 million people in a country and the average weight of them was 200 pounds. Now you added a 600 pound person in that country. What is the average weight of that country now? I will let you do the math. So you do the comparison of one guy seeing an increase in $1 million compared to one guy earning an extra $5,0000 when in reality it is one guy earning an extra $1 million and thousands earning an extra $5,000. That is the reality. That one rich person does not have much weight in the overall statistics.
As for learning math, again, I have a math minor.
You call me ignorant when I do look deeply in the stats. I find what you say to be ironic coming from a Kyle Kulinski video when Kyle, himself, even in this own video, misuses stats. Take the point about 70% living paycheck to paycheck. Does that account for benefits? This also applies to Kyle saying people cannot afford an emergency. If you have insurance than even without savings you can afford an emergency. Or does that living paycheck to paycheck include people who are poor at money management? Or when Kyle says half the nation earns $30,000 a year. What is their cost of living? What is their household income? What are their benefits? You criticize me for not looking deeper in stats but yet give Kyle and his fan base a pass. Why?
The U6 has been dropping as well
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
And yes, while it started to drop under Obama, labor participation was dropping as well. But under Trump labor participation has been stagnant and even grown a little. So more people are looking for jobs and unemployment is still dropping
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
Even at that Obama entered a recession, so unemployment has no where to go but down.
And I agree there are other indicators of a strong economy. Fred uses many to determine a recession. In the charts I gave you that gray areas are defined as recessions. But there are other indicators of a strong economy under Trump. Wages up, inflation is low, unemployment is low. Labor participation is going up due to higher moral, the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to slow down economic growth where under Obama interest rates were essentially zero and so on.
But what do I know, I am, according to you, a conservative who is ignorant about statistics. I doubt you will reply to this as most don't when I prove them wrong.
1
-
1
-
@dannyslag , ok, what? Let us use the car for example. Cars today are much better and cheaper than in the past. You can argue that on pure sticker price a car today is more expensive, but when you including amenities, life span, gas mileage, safety, etc. cars are much cheaper. As for that worker supporting the family, the economy changes. People use to be able to support a family being a driver of a horse team, but that career is gone due to technological advancements. So you have to give me more details. What you are describing is the economy changes which isn't bad as it, overall, improves society. Take my car example.
As for wages they have arguably kept up, or outpace inflation. Read the following sources
https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf
There are many methods to measure inflation such as PCE, CPI, Boskin Commission adjustment, etc. Also, there are flaws in inflation such as it not considering technological advancement or new product bias.
http://econperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/10/limitations-of-using-consumer-price.html
But what do I know? I am just a conservative who is illiterate with statistics.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PPAAUS00000A156NCEN
Seems like poverty is dropping lately. Also, I stumbled on this
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Median household income, adjusted for CPI inflation, is going up. Hmmmm
Many have poor money management skills. That is a completely different, and long discussion in itself as one can argue that it is both good and bad. But the reality is that people are living paycheck to paycheck because they lack money management skills.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrcasualgamerznull5476 , Costco also hires far fewer employees. Costco is able to pay a higher wage because
1. They have less stores, many places don't even have a Costco. In my city I live closer to two Walmarts than I do a Costco
2. They have memberships
3. They are not 24 hours, they are limited in hours
4. They sell things in bulk
So in fact Walmart and Costco run completely different businesses. Walmart is 24 hours, has more stores, has more employees, and does not sell in bulk. Costco has 214,000 employees, Walmart has over 2 million. So if you are one of the select, lucky few to get hired at Costco than yes, you will be paid more. But you have to get hired where Costco is selective. Why do you not complain about how few Costco hire? And again, Costco and Walmart are not similar companies, they differ in many ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SamWeltzin
1. Well thankfully we do not live in a democracy. We have a legal system in place. We do not just go by who wins the popular vote, we have a system with standards for a reason. And like any system, it is not free from irregularities, mistakes and fraud. It should be looked into for transparency. This should be an apolitical situation. I do not see why those on the left are so quick to just push Trump away.
2. Care to give examples? I am still not seeing it. As for the photo op, he did not gas them. The only thing I saw him do in Portland was protect a federal building which is within his powers. Beyond that he did nothing else. He never once enforced state law. He simply protected a federal building. And the protestors were not peaceful.
3. Uh, a lot of nations did not get this under control by the left's standards. Almost all European nations saw a second wave that was larger than the first. He never discouraged lock downs from the beginning and, in fact, gave aid to states who requested it early. He never discouraged mask wearing but gave more information on it. Such as he was tested everyday, why should he wear a mask? Where someone like Biden was just wearing a mask in his own home to virtue signal. Or how about the clip of Biden pulling down his mask to cough in his hand, and pulling it back up? Or Biden taking off is mask when he was walking in the aisle of a church giving a speech? I hear nothing about that.
Also, this nation was founded on people taking risk. People loaded up on a big boat, went across a dangerous ocean to colonize this land. People fought the most powerful nation in the world at the time to become a nation. People loaded up their wagons and went across mountains and the desert to move out west. Taking risk is in our blood, in our culture. People are not going to be scared of a little bug over time. There are far more dangers in the world. That is especially true when
A: Businesses are forced to shut down with zero help
B: The same ones enforcing or supporting the lock downs do not follow their own rules
4. No, he worked with them. Did you see what he said about Kim Jong?
5. He is not making money off of them. If so, blame previous law makers for the loopholes, not him. Foreign leaders staying in his hotels is not wrong as Trump knows how his hotels work and function so he knows they will be treated well. No different than when I attend conferences and the ones I do recommend hotels for me to stay in. I get a good rate and I will be treated well.
Have you ever been to a conference where you had to stay in a hotel?
6. He did.
7. Our security is strong because of him. Covid was out of his hands. He could not tell states what to do. He did all he can do.
Is the hacking his fault? it isn't like Trump can control every little aspect that goes on. You said it went on during covid. Maybe if we weren't freaking out so much about covid we can worry about our security. Man, what a shocker that when you shut down an economy, a nation, we become weaker.
"The general function of the government to me is to do large projects the private sector can't handle and to protect the American people from threats, foreign and domestic."
That is vague and debatable. To me the federal government is there to handle foreign affairs and commerce between states. Everything else, mainly domestic situations, are left up to the states. The government's function varies and is vague, thus most responsibilities are left to the states. That is what Trump supported which is why our nation was going strong. Unfortunately, many democrat governors took advantage of that and used the virus to ruin people's lives and then blame Trump for not doing enough when he did all he could do.
8. Democrats refused to work with republicans. Look at how they treated Kavanaugh? Biden worked on unification when someone on his staff called republicans fuckers. AOC is saying they need to make members of Trump staff pay. Even in the media if you listen, Don Lemon said to get rid of conservative friends.
Newt worked well with Clinton in the 90s. Democrats did not work with republicans.
9. How was Trump worse? Things were getting better under him. It took the democrats abusing the virus situation to gain power.
10. The EC is needed. It is a balance so that larger states have a larger voice, but is limited. Much like how Congress is set up. The federal government is there to serve the states, not the people. That is why nothing at the federal level is ever determined by the simple majority of the people.
Also, if you hear Trump supporters, they are not saying investigate and go to court until he wins, but investigate for transparency. Most will be fine with Trump losing if the election is fair. But the fact that the left keeps blocking investigation and the media keeps saying "the election is over" from the very beginning and dismissing any investigation is fishy. This should be apolitical. Trump supporters just want transparency. The fact that the media and democrats are pushing that idea away does not look good at all and raises more questions.
11. What articles? And I am not seeing violence from them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bsears85 "you do realize that with the EC, a handful of states end up deciding close elections,"
Not true. The EC limits powers states have. While you do have swing states, in the end no one state can bully the other states essentially. Same as with the congress in how it is designed.
"The electoral college is an outdated, useless, un-democratic institution that the founders just added at the last minute during the constitutional convention"
Not true. To start, we are not a democracy at the federal level for great reason. A democracy means 51% tells 49% what to do. Also, the federal government is there to serve the states, not the people. The founders knew what they were doing.
"It deters many people from actually voting, and makes a red vote in a blue state, blue vote in a red state worthless.
"
Not true as you have local elections. Again, the federal is there to serve the states, not the people.
"Why vote if you already know your state is going to choose the opposite candidate you prefer?"
Because you have local elections where local politicians actually have a much more impact on your life.
"A true democratic election isnt balanced, the majority wins pure and simple, ensuring the will of the people."
If the majority supported slavery should that be allowed?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Andrew Mildenberg, I criticize republicans a lot. However, these days democrats are radicals. And on this channel Kyle and his fans are radicals. I am giving a moderate approach here, not defending republicans.
"One, entitlement programs ARE NOT WELFARE. Entitlement programs are things you EARN by WORKING. "
I earned money while working. Why should the government tax it now only to give it back to me later if I happen to reach the age of 65?
"Social security is paid into throughout the entirety of your working adult life, you are OWED that money."
Or they can let me keep it, ever thought of that as an argument?
"Two, Welfare programs ARE NOT the biggest part of our budget"
Actually it is. SS, medicare, unemployment, etc. make up around 60% of our budget.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
kristabella222, there are good arguments, you are not looking for them. We can discuss single payer healthcare. To start little indicates that it saves money. Other nations spend less because the lower the quality and provide less advanced care. Two professors wrote a book on the issue entitled "The Business of Health". It is by Prof Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and Prof John Schneider formally of University of Iowa. They concluded
"Proponents of sweeping reforms often point to health systems in other developed nations as models to be emulated. However, as we have argued, comparison countries have many shortcomings, and it is not clear whether the benefits of centralized control would offset the costs of a centralized system were it to be implemented in the United States."
You can find the book online. You say logic and reasoning is on the side of joining in the rest of the world. I find that ironic. In my time studying the political spectrum, and being a moderate, I have found that when you go to the very core of each side the political left bases their arguments on emotions and the political right bases their arguments on facts and reasoning. That is not to say one side is better than the other. You need facts and reasoning, but we are humans and thus have emotions and there is a desire to have some policy based on that. One great example I can give is the elderly in healthcare. On a pure number standpoint they are a drain to our healthcare system as they produce nothing and end up using a lot of resources. It would behoove us financially to just let them die. But there is an emotional argument to be made in letting them live. Read the book "Being Mortal" by Atul Gawande for more information on that topic. But in the end there is an emotional side in keeping the elderly alive.
But I digress, in the end the political left bases their arguments on emotions and the political right bases their arguments on facts and reasoning. Not saying neither side does not use both, but at the core that is their base. With the Bernie crowd you see that. They may point on a vague, opinion poll and then make an emotional argument. Or they may point at a stat such as 45,000 dying every year in the US due to lack of access in healthcare and make an emotional argument. But on the right one can look deeper in that number and realize that no comparable study was done in other nations making that 45,000 number an empty stat. People die in other nations as well due to shortcomings in healthcare. You cannot say if that 45,000 if high, low or the norm. Also, considering the poor health lifestyle the poor has with higher rates of smoking and obesity there are many complications that one cannot account for that play a role.
In the end there is a reason why Bernie and his fans point to vague opinion polls, arbitrary rankings and a handful of stats and people on the right have books and numerous studies to point at. There are arguments on the right, you just have to look for it.
1
-
kristabella222, I can continue with healthcare if you want. Having a friend who is a nurse I know a lot about it. But I will move on to another topic, the "free college" idea. To start, saying that with the military budget we can pay for free college is shallow. You will be increasing demand in college thus universities will increase prices. So no, you cannot pay for "free college" with that budget.
Next, college is an investment. It is not like K-12 schooling. Compare college to high school. In high school you spend around 35 hours a week in school. You do a lot of work in school, you have a structure schedule, most students live with their parents, etc. In college you spend around 15 hours a week in school. You cover as much material in one semester in college as you would a year in high school. You are living on your own. It is on you to develop a schedule, find time to study, to eat, work, etc. College is a personal investment much like investing to start a business. When you first invest to start a business you are the manager, janitor, maintenance, etc. In college you are investing to achieve a goal. The value in college is not in the classroom learning. Most degrees you can learn on your own by simply buying books. The value is in the people you meet, the connections. The value is showing an employer you are willing to invest time and money in pursuing a long term goal. The value is you learning how to manage your life and challenge yourself. When you make college "free" you take out a vital part of that investment.
You next say "living wage". That is a subjective phrase that means nothing. This comes back to the left basing their ideas on emotions. What is a "living wage"? What is it quantitatively and why? To me it is an appeal to emotion phrase. I can show you how I can live on a $6/hr wage and still be saving $150 a month.
I can go on but that is a start.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John, he is corrupt because he refuses to try to understand his opponents' positions. A clear example was during the debate against Cruz a hair salon owner asked Bernie how she can expand her business where Obamacare requires she pays healthcare insurance that she can't afford. Bernie simply said he does not know and admitted he does not know much about the hair salon business. That is fine, but he never tried to understand her revenue, her profit margin, how much insurance costs, etc. He never tried to understand her situation. Compare that to Bill Clinton responding to Herman Cain in 1994 where Clinton understood how a business operates, the cost, etc. Clinton had actual data and numbers, Bernie does not care. All he saw was a business and that she must provide her employees healthcare insurance if she hires 50+ workers.
More recently that Medicare for all study by the Koch brothers. Bernie said the study shows that Medicare for all would save the American people money. It does not say that. It said that the number was a conservative estimate and would most likely be higher. It made assumptions that healthcare providers will take a 40% pay cut (they won't), or that prices will not go up despite demand going up which is an economic fallacy. Also, it was just for public spending and does not include private where Bernie used the cost we pay now was for both public and private.
Amazon recently reacted to Bernie's attacks by laying out several valid points. One being that Bernie has never visited a fulfillment center. Bernie complains about them but he has never actually been to one. Amazon tried reaching out to Bernie to take him to one but he does not respond. Why? Because he has no desire to actually try to understand his opponents' position.
That is what makes him corrupt. He refuses to treat his opponents fairly. He is all about "discussing the issues" but he doesn't want a discussion, he just wants to preach his ideas. That is what the debates were, him preaching his talking points. He has no desire to understand other people's position. I can bring up more examples if you want. Bernie does not care about anyone but himself. When he lost he endorsed Clinton, bought a third home and made a million selling his book in Walmart where he could have released that book for free.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anzumazaki7798 , Bernie will lost FL due to his praise of Castro. Many Hispanic individuals are highly skeptical of Bernie's push for socialism as it did not work in Hispanic nations thus he will lose states like NV, AZ and NM. Swing states like OH and PA will vote for Trump because the economy is doing well. Bernie will win around 10 to 15 states at best. He will win CA, VT, NH, NY (maybe, I say yes but this is not sure), HI, ME, WA, OR, CT and RI. He might win MA and NJ, and he could lose WA. But that is around how many he will win. Out of those states CA and NY are the only large ones. You are looking at maybe 150 EC votes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LaseRamon, I do not know your personal financial situation. I admitted that some people will save money. Bernie's plan is a 4% payroll tax increase. Say you make $80,000 a year. That is $3200 a year you have to pay in taxes. Bernie plan would only cover half of what medicare for all would cost.
In a debate against Cruz a guy from Denmark pushed Bernie into a corner and made him admit that he would have to raise taxes on everyone. That includes sales taxes and income taxes. The US has around 30% of its GDP that is taxed. Those Nordic countries tax around 45% with Denmark going over 50%. So Bernie would have to raise the tax rate by 15%. So say you are earning $80,000. A 15% increase on your taxes would be $12,000 a year.
However, Bernie wants a progressive tax. So if you earn less than $37,000 you will not see a significant tax increase. Everyone else will. That $37,000 is a little less than the median. So over half of the country will see a significant tax increase of over 15%.
Around 55% of people have some of their healthcare paid for by their employer. For me they pay for all of it. So I would go from paying $0 to something in healthcare just by that tax increase. Even if an employer only pays for part of it the employers will stop paying for healthcare so those individuals would end up paying more. On average workers pay around $4300 a year in premiums. Just out of the increase in the payroll tax alone has someone who earns $80,000 a year paying $3200 in taxes. Now add in consumption taxes, higher income taxes, etc., the value becomes higher.
We are also not including quality of healthcare, or the fact that Bernie wants to increase the payroll tax on employers by 7% which will mean lower wages. Businesses can avoid payroll taxes by paying lower wages. Lower wages means lower payroll thus lower taxes.
In the end it would cost the majority more. Maybe not your individually, but the majority it will.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dienekes, I love your talking points.
No country covers everyone. They can with lower quality of care meaning less advance care, longer wait times, and limitations in catering to personal needs. But other countries fall behind the US in cancer survival rates, the US gives the most CT scans, you have up to 7000 people dying a year in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. You have people dying in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery and so on.
As for your numbers you given, it sucks for you that I understand stats and know that many factors outside of healthcare influence those numbers.
1. Cost: The US is number 1 in R&D and we offer more advance care to our patients. That cost money.
2. Infant mortality: The US has high infant mortality, but is also has a higher rate of pre-term births. Pre-term births increases the chance of infant mortality. The US has a higher rate of smoking and obesity where both increases the chance of pre-term births. No healthcare system will lower obesity and smoking rates. One can easily argue that the high infant mortality rate is a factor of outside forces and not healthcare.
3. Amenable Mortality: Read the paper
"Commentary on "In Amenable Mortality-Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care-Progress in the US lags That of Three European Countries"
There the author breaks down how outside factors not relate do to healthcare impact those numbers. I encourage you to read it along with the references.
I will skip the rest and go on the the WHO ranking you cited. That ranking was criticized so much that they have not created another one in nearly 20 years. Do you find it valid to compare the US to a country like Malta? Also, do you even know how those rankings are done? I doubt it. You just blindly follow it. Those rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can create their own rankings where the US can be number 1 through any legit analysis.
Fact is you have raw data and blindly follow it. You say you have facts on your side. I accept your facts. I support your facts. But here is the reality, I am smart enough to know that there is a lot more to facts than what is on the surface. I encourage you to read that paper I reference. There are many factors outside of healthcare that influence those numbers
1.The US has higher obesity rates
2. The US has higher type II diabetes rates
3. The US has a less healthy lifestyle overall
4. The US has a higher rate of unwanted pregnancies.
The list goes on. That paper I referenced point to those issues. For example, a paper in Health Statistics Quarterly showed that socioeconomic and life style variables, such as smoking, employment, played a larger impact on amenable mortality than the quality of the healthcare system. But I bet you will choose to ignore that.
1
-
Dienekes, you are all over the place in your argument.
1. I am not ignoring your talking points. I addressed them by calling them what they are, talking points.
2. No country covers everyone. That is a fact. Resources are limited.
3. I read the facts. Why does the US have more CT scans? Why is it number one in cancer survival rates? Why do up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective" care?
4. I can cite them
CT scans: "Number of examinations with computer tomography (CT) in slected countries as of 2015 (per 1000 inhabitants)" from statista
Cancer survival rates: The CommonWealth Fund even admits the US is number one in that one
7000 deaths: From the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Canada and heart surgery: Read the paper "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" from the journal Can J Cardiol
Also, I love how you ask me for citations but you don't give any
5. The WHO's ranking was criticized so much that they have not created another one since. Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M said healthcare rankings are arbitrary. The problem with you is that you just blindly follow it without question. That is an issue
6. Well if it is "no shit" then why are you blindly following these rankings?
7. No country comes close to us in R&D
8. Uh, that plays a role in the numbers. Higher obesity rates means higher rates of pre-term births meaning higher infant mortality. That is a factor not related to healthcare.
9. I did read the paper, I doubt you did.
10. Healthcare plays a role, but so do other factors. You are ignoring that.
11. Nope, got bored and ran out of time. I do have responsibilities.
12. I am a PhD student in physical chemistry that has a math minor and took advanced stats. So yes, I am qualified to interpret the data. I am on the same level as the WHO.
13. The US has 320+ million people. It is valid to compare use to Malta, or Norway, or Denmark and so on? The fact is you blindly follow that list and you admitted yourself you just posted it. You did not even bother to read the methods in how that ranking was done. They could have drawn countries out of a hat for all you know.
14. I said I supported the facts and even cite them.
15. You don't need healthcare to eat healthy and exercise
16. You don't need healthcare to eat healthy and exercise
17. You don't need healthcare to live a healthier lifestyle.
18. What?
19. Your answers are the same because you have never thought of this. Apparently, according to you, people are fat because of lack of healthcare, not because of their diet and lack of exercise.
20. I did not ignore the 50 million part. That is a different topic in itself. Right now we are at the beginning steps here to get you to realize that just pointing at raw data and blindly following an arbitrary ranking is not a strong argument. Healthcare is more complex than that. Also, you have to admit that no country covers everyone, period. I can give you my opinion on that point but that is a whole different discussion in itself. We are not even there yet. I need to teach you critical thinking skills and stat analysis and some facts.
I support many reforms to the US system. You are making an strawman argument against me. I have my ideas in how to improve the US system. Reality is that all things considered the US is on par with other nations. This issue is complex and you don't seem to have the experience to realize and appreciate that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Accelerationist, I see you have given the typical links. Very predictable.
1. Skeptical Science has been debunked. It has been debunked by the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". I can get into details on Skeptical Sceince, but that book does it well enough. And I know you won't be able to debunk that book.
2. Again, I never denied that man did not cause climate change. By the 2nd law of thermodynamics we are adding entropy. So this source of yours supports exactly what I said.
3. The "consensus" was also debunked in that book I encourage you to read. One point is that they never ask if current climate change is bad. Another is that they never directly ask how much man is playing a role. Orekes study only looked at abstracts which do not get into the details of the study. As a person who have actually wrote peer reviewed papers I understand this. There as a nature paper that described that as well. In Bray's work they sampled around 500 scientists and 40% responded. And their work as only asking about how accurate the models are. It is not saying if climate change is bad. Doran's study simply asked
"When compared to pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?"
None of those are asking is climate change is bad. They had a response rate of 30%. Such a low response rate is sensitive to a bias for one. They ended up narrowing down the respondents to 79 overall, who remained unnamed so we can't double check their work. We just have to take their word for it.
4. Never heard of James Powell. I will pass on this one as I never read his work.
5. Same as before, read the book I pointed you to
You, predictably, gave the same sources everyone else does. They are cherry picked. I have read many of those sources and feel the same. Again, on "consensus" study only looked at abstracts where several researchers who were references were insulted by the fact their work was misrepresented. Another "consensus" study submitted a poll of cherry picked scientists and received around a 30% response rate. What is 97% of 30%?
Climate change is happening, it has been for over 4 billion years. Man is playing a role. The questions are is it even bad? And how much is man playing a role? You said there were many peer reviewed papers. You gave me no more than 20 from the usual sources I always receive. Climate science is a broad field that involves physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, atmospheric science, etc. You cited James Powell who is a ecologists. I am 100% sure he will not understand the complexity of photosynthesis at the quantum level that is being studied by Dr. Graham Fleming. I bring that up because we know very little about the ecosystem. We cannot even explain photosynthesis. We can't predict how it will evolve. The idea that current climate change is bad is a hard, religious like idea to take. Science is science. Science is not a religion.
I suggest you actually read the references you post. I have. I suggest you study more science. I have. I suggest you look for new material and not recycle what every other climate change alarmist gives me. It doesn't work on me.
1
-
1
-
"That book has been debunked completely. It was pushed by the Heartland Institute. It's a well-known fraud"
How is it a fraud? You have to give examples. Here we go again with you saying one thing with zero support. This is why I said you would not be able to debunk that book. Notices how with sources I actually read them, quoted them, and gave my opinion. You are just saying "it is a fraud" without supporting evidence.
". It can't possibly stack up against the list I gave. They're not cherry picked. These are literally hundreds of national academies of sciences and other scientific institutions from all over the world"
That list you gave said man is contributing to climate change which I said I agreed with. Also, that book agrees as well. You would know that if you read it.
"Of course you're going to pass because he's the one that has done some of the best meta-analyses"
Based on what? I told you he is an ecologist. He does not understand the physics involved in climate change and the ecosystem.
"Look at his meta-analyses about peer-reviewed papers on the subject. In the end that's all that matters. It isn't 97% or 99% of climate scientists that we're talking about, it's 97% or 99% of peer-reviewed papers on the subject, you idiot."
I told you it was selected peer reviewed papers. He is citing the same thing Cook did. He did not look at all papers.
"And read that last link. Don't mention that book. Read the link, because you clearly haven't."
That book discussed the IPCC. Again, read the book.
"[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
"likely". You see that word. It doesn't say it is, it says "likely". This is where my scientific background puts me at an advantage. Man is playing a role. How much is the question. You will be hard pressed to find scientists to give a hard number or give a certainty. That is why they say "likely".
Again, you need to try harder. I study science for a living. I understand how scientists think and the community. That word "likely" leaves doubt which is what science is driven off of. It is also common practice in science as scientists are not going to make the strong claim you are.
Also, I did read your sources. I quoted them. I gave my intelligent analysis. You have not read the source you gave. You simply said "It was debunked!" with zero evidence.
Again, try harder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Wrong again, The book is Koch Brothers propaganda. The Heartland Institute is a corporate lobby group pretending to be an independent think tank."
And how does that make them wrong? What did they write that was wrong? You are pulling a logical fallacy. You have to give a reason why they are wrong. Until you do than what you say is meaningless.
"Nope, the list says caused by, not contributing. "
Let us break that down. You are right, it says "cause". It is a source from the CA government, not scientists but instead politicians. The worse part of climate change is that it has been politicize where people who are not scientist, like you, are ignorant on the issue.
Next, when you say "cause' you are acting like a young earth theorist as you are literally saying that only man causes climate change Not solar patterns, not volcanic actions, not beavers building a dam, but only man. The climate only changed because of man. Despite the evidence saying that the climate has always changed according to you the earth is not 4 billion years old.
"And the book does not debunk the consensus. Period. "
Again, why not? Give me evidence. You just saying it is does not make it so.
"He's a geologist."
Ok, still lacks understanding of physics and chemistry that is related to climate change.
"It's not just likely, it's extremely likely. I guess evolution is just likely, right? Lol!"
Funny you brought up evolution because you clearly deny it. You say climate change is bad. I am saying it isn't as climate change has been a driving force in evolution for over billions of years. You are saying that the ecosystem can't evolve thus the current climate change is bad.
So not only are you a young earth creationist, you also deny evolution.
"Of course I know what an abstraction is. Do you? It's a brief summery but it has the conclusion in it."
The key word is "brief". It does not give the details of the methods. It does not give the details of the finding. Science is about details. Science is a complex field. You can't just go off of the abstract. The abstract is there to give the reader a quick understanding if the paper is relevant to their work. For example, when I write papers I read an abstract to see if reading the paper is worth my time. If it is I read the entire paper and get the details.
"hat's why they do it. 99.94% of the peer-reviewed papers he surveyed agrees that humans are causing global warming. Are you really that dense?"
What papers? Why did he pick the papers he did? How did he come up with that conclusion? What exactly did those papers say? That is important.
You see, unlike you I look for those detail. You just take things off of face value. I actually look deeper.
"You're making it too easy for me. You can't think for yourself. You need a book by the Heartland Institute to think for you. Why don't you read all the books that support the consensus?"
Actually I have read a lot of material on the subject. Noticed how I was quoting it?
"I don't need a book to counter the highest standard in science. "
Really? What is wrong with that book? They cite Nature and Science. It is written by three scientists. What is wrong with that book? Tell me. And just because something is from one source of a certain standard does not mean they can't be incorrect. Or most likely you do not know what they are actually saying. As in the "likely" part.
"The fact that it was based on abstracts is not a counterargument, let alone a refutation."
It is a counter argument. The abstract is a summary. Read the paper
"Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review"
By Park, Peacey and Munafo published in Nature.
"Try harder. Or do your own research. Do your own meta-analysis and submit it to a credible journal. Otherwise shut the fuck up."
Well I hit a nerve there. I will not do my own meta-analysis as I am busy doing my projects for my PhD. My project involves developing methods to study structure and dynamics of biological materials. The fact is, though, is that you refuse to actually read anything. You are giving me the same material that I have seen many times. You haven't even read your own sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Accelerationist, Exxon Mobil donated money to fund the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm.
Anyway, again, why haven't you read the book? I read your sources, why haven't you read the book? But I will read your article
"With this as a backdrop, I received a copy of a humorous report"
What makes it humorous? Already the author is setting the tone of his bias towards the book before they even open it. As I can see this person already was close minded.
"As a scientist, when I read any manuscript I ask a number of questions. Who wrote it and what is their expertise in the field? "
Listed on the cover. I guess this guy has a hard time reading?
"When statements and conclusions are made, what is the evidence? "
Well, that is why you read the book.
"These three are not exactly (or even nearly) a trio of reputable climate scientists"
What defines a "climate scientist"? That is a vague field. A physicist studying solar patterns is study something that influences the climate. Dr. Graham Flemming using 2D EV to study the physics of photosynthesis is contributing to climate science on the evolution side.
In science it is a collective effort.
" According to a literature search performed using the search engine
SCOPUS, neither Idso nor Singer published a credible paper on global
climate change or its implications in years."
Again, what would be a "credible paper"? And why? He does not give his standards.
"One way to measure the authors’ impact is by counting how many people
have read and cited their work. For both of these authors, the number of
people who have cited them is shockingly low. "
Because they are both scientists who no longer do academic research. But if you want to play that game, Cook, whom you cited often, is not cited much. Using the comparison of Kevin Trenberth, John Cook has almost no citations. I smell a double standard here.
"The Heartland publication falsely calls Dr. Oreskes a “non-scientist.” "
Can't confirm they said that. But Dr. Oreskes does not do any formal research in science. From her website
"Professor Oreskes’s research focuses on the earth and environmental
sciences, with a particular interest in understanding scientific
consensus and dissent.
"
Not data collection or physical explanation. Simply studying consensus and dissent. That is simply polling. I question her scientific background as well. But I am willing to give here and say sure, she is a scientist. However, the author of that article never gives a direct quote in that book or page number reference.
I went looking and found it on page 11. Despite the "not a scientist" claim, they broke down how her work was not peer reviewed, something this author does not deny nor mention. Hmmmm..... It seems like our author is hiding things.
"I wouldn’t disagree with either of their conclusions. The 97% of
scientists that agree are more productive and younger than those who
disagree. The references that the Heartland uses to support its
conclusions are from its own website, from the Wall Street Journal, and
other non-scientific outlets. Not very convincing"
He said he does not disagree. But then he goes on to disagree? I am confused?
"The Heartland document finally attacks the 2013 study by John Cook and colleagues of the scientific literature."
I mentioned how Cook has low citations.
" Just like before, in response to this the Heartland document cites no
peer-reviewed scientific sources — just think-tank literature, websites,
and blog posts."
That is not true as I showed you that Nature paper they cited in their website.
"I could go on,"
Oh please do because this is fun finding your double standards.
He goes on stating facts and criticizes the book for no references while he gives none himself.
1
-
Accelerationist, you see what I did? I read the article, quoted it, and gave my intelligent opinion. Why do you refuse to read the book and come up with your own thoughts?
"Are you really going to make me look up all their official statements?
Because I'm going to embarrass you with a very long post if you do."
Oh please do because this is fun.
"Geology is a crucial part of climatology, and him being a geologist does
not in the least disqualify him from doing credible meta-analyses."
All science is physics and stamp collecting. He is a stamp collector. He can't explain anything physically which is crucial in understand the impact of climate change.
"It's bad if it's artificial"
How is it artificial?
" 200 species going extinct every day "
What? And what cities are drowning?
"Yeah, you were quoting them and didn't offer a single refutation."
Actually I refuted everything.
"That paper was written by an economist and an experimental psychologist.
Does it debunk the notion that peer-review is the highest scientific
standard? I highly doubt it."
Do you even know the impact factor of Nature? Wait, do you know what impact factor is?
"I actually have read a lot of stuff on climate change. I frequently read
Skeptical Science, which your book does not debunk. I also recommend
potholer54.
"
So you read one sided articles. That is your problem. I suggest you fix it. I already criticized Cook. As for potholer54, he isn't even a scientist. He is a journalist. You refused to take that Nature paper seriously based on the fact that guy was not a scientist, but you take potholer54 seriously? Also, I had a long discussion with him as well. When I called him out on his tactics he ran away. One tactic is that he picks easy targets like in one he picks a 14 year old girl. Wow. What a challenge for him. And him trying to discredit PragerU was funny. He randomly picked one video that was an opinion video that was discussing religion. He disregards other videos with important information. But there is also a double standard. He showed a study from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. That university also teaches religion. So according to him they should not be taken seriously.
BTW, I know PragerU is not accredited. I also do not agree with everything they say. I am just showing that potholer54 is a terrible source to go to with his condescending attitude.
" And you're the one that's biased. I'm with hundreds of scientific organizations, and you're with the Heartland Institute"
Actually I live in the scientific community. I am highly critical of that book. The point was that it was debunking the "consensus". Cook pushes that "consensus" where he is about as reliable as those authors of that book. I explained that in my other comment. My understanding of science has it where I know how scientists think and act and I know how science works. A geologist does not understand physics. They collect data and present a conclusion that is not set. A physicist does not know the hard numbers or correlations found by geologists. Science is a collective effort. There are not "experts" in climate science as that is a vague field.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nicolas de Condorcet, " All science is physics and stamp collecting", that is from Ernest Rutherford and the statement is true. What is done in science? Data is collected to give supporting evidence to theories. What are theories? They are models designed to explain natural occurrences and predict future occurrences. They are models that can be flawed and in many cases are. The vast majority of those models are developed by physicists using the data collected.
Now that does not mean the work that geologist does is meaningless, it is very important. I also never once said his work and papers are invalid. My point is that there is a lot we do not know about science. As I mentioned before, we do not know how photosynthesis works at the quantum level with quantum coherence. A group at my university researches something as simple as the acidity of alcohols. We have numerous models of water that all have their advantages and disadvantages. We do not even has an ideal model for water. For example, in one of my papers we used the Onsager model and CPCM model. That is just two of many.
The problem we have here is that
1. These opinions are opinions are non-physicists who seem to lack the understanding of the complexity of science. While their work is important, they are geologist, ecologists, environmentalists who are not the ones developing theoretical models or are not the ones trying to understand this at the atomic level
2. We do not have a comparison, as in a control. We do not have another earth where we change the variables to see what happens. Thus we are going off of speculation and in reality going off of very little information data as a whole.
I am not saying climate change isn't happening, it is. I am not saying man is not playing a role, it is. I am not denying the data. What I am saying is that in the field of science we know very little about the universe. We do not know how much man is playing a role as we do not have a comparison. We do not know if this is bad we we know very little about the ecosystem.
I study science for a living, I understand the complexity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Pruitt did deny it, and I told you how."
No you didn't. He never denied climate change.
"How do I know you really read those papers? I can cite papers all day. Demonstrate your credentials. Stop beating around the bush and show that you're legit. "
They are all papers that are related to multi-dimensional spectroscopy. One is by the Hochstrasser who created 2D-IR. He was the first to publish a paper on it where Fayer from Standford published the first high impact paper. Rubstov worked for Hochstrasser as a post-doc where he cited Hochstrasser in the paper by Robstov I pointed you to.
How much more do you want me to go? I can explain to you that there are two ways to plot 2D-IR plots. Fayer does one way and those who worked with Hochstrasser does another. They place the detection and excitation axis differently. I can go deeper but there comes a point I will be literally telling you my name where there are too many creeps on the internet.
"You know what would debunk the consensus? A professional survey of climate scientists that contradicts the consensus. Where is that? Or how about a list of major scientific institutions like the one I gave you?"
Two things. One, they showed how those "consensus" studies are vague and unreliable. For example, looking at abstracts does not give details on what the paper actually says. Anyway, I doubt you read the book. Where are they wrong? Tell me. They go through all the "consensus" studies and break them down. What is your rebuttal? Next, polling "scientists" is vague. In those consensus studies all they do is poll geologists and environmentalists. I do not see them polling physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc.
"Fully 87% of AAAS members say climate change is occurring due to human activity"
Which I agree, but that is not the only reason. Nor are they saying to what degree. Pruitt said that as well. Man is contributing, but by how much?
"Fully 77% of AAAS members say climate change is a very serious problem. "
There is not reference there I am immediately dismissing this source.
The Bray survey has been covered and is also not peer reviewed. You want something professional for me to present but you never present something yourself.
You keep citing Cook, why?
"If you would actually examine that list you would see that nothing there is vague"
Actually it is.
" There are tons of links with not only statements, but peer-reviewed literature. "
Same thing as that book.
"This is not a leap of faith"
By scientists it isn't. That is why those polls have low response rates to begin with. Scientists are not taking leaps of faith, you are.
" Again, you're using the same talking points as creationists. Major scientific institutions don't just say stuff like that. It's always backed up by evidence. "
What? I find that funny as you are denying evolution and support young earth theory. See how easy it was to resort to name calling?
" He isn't even a scientist."
And neither are you, so what's your point?
"You, and people like Pruitt, are treating man-made global warming as a religion. "
Because we have doubt? Science is a culture a doubt. Richard Feynman said that.
"You refuse to accept the consensus, like creationists on evolution or the age of the Earth."
I question the "consensus" and realize that science is not ran on "consensus". It is ran on evidence and experiments. You are accepting the "consensus" like a religion. And people how are as extreme as you are deny evolution because you feel that climate change bad and the ecosystem won't evolve. Or you are a young earth creationist as you feel that only man causes climate and all the time before man did not exist.
1
-
Nicolas de Condorcet, here is your problem. You have such a strongly held, religious like belief in climate change that when someone comes up and questions if man is playing a major role or not, and question if it is even bad, you freak out. I never once said climate change wasn't happening, it is. I never once said man was not playing a role. They are. I question how much. I also question if it is even bad as the ecosystem has always evolved.
My approach is 100% science. There are many scientists who agree with me. You have a handful on your sides, Cook, Powell....and that's about it. I can find more in my department that agree with me. Again, it is
1. Climate change is happening
2. Man is playing a role, but we do not know how much simply because we don't have a comparison or control
3. We cannot say if it is bad as the ecosystem has always evolved.
The reason why I say people like you deny evolution because you must surely believe that the ecosystem does not evolve. The reason why I call you a young earth theorist is because you believe only man influences climate change thus only when man was on earth is when the climate changed, where there is evidence of it happening all throughout the existence of earth.
Also, I feel we should do more research on it because unlike you I know that science is never settle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"They are "semi-pro" for a reason. If you are familiar with it, then you would know that they are not on the same level"
Some players are talented at that level. There are also some D-II athletes who get a chance in training camps who are talented. The point is that there is a lot of talent out there and if the current NFL players want to quit than fine, others will replace them easily.
"The stars sell the merch., not simple "players"."
And how many stars are there? And how many will be willing to quit? In the Texans incident only one was a pro bowler from what I saw. Only one of the ten, and where does his jersey sell rank?
"The owners are NOTHING without the players, that's a fact. "
Not true. I listed owners who have investments outside of the NFL. And the fact remains that if those players want to quit they will find new ones. The NFL does not seem to be missing a beat with Kaepernick being gone.
"And again, if you're "so familiar" with semi pro ball, of any kind, then you should know that the stadiums never sell out, and the fan base is thin, kind of akin to a handful of locals at the local bar.........."
So? The NFL makes money off of TV contracts. Just having that label of NFL increases sales by a lot.
"And as long as the owners are making a fortune selling merch,"
They make the majority of their money off of TV contracts.
Fact is the owners will be fine, the players won't. Without the NFL the players will have no where to go. There is not organization as large and organized as the NFL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
troye cara, the media and leftist politicians are using these kids for political gain. They should be receiving counseling but instead are being paraded around. You have one kid saying it is harder to make weekend plans with friends than it is to purchase a fully automatic. No one on the left or the media calls her out on that false statement (unless she has crappy friends), and if you do than you get labeled a child murderer. The CNN town hall "debate" was a joke. You had one kid saying she cares more about the NRA representative's kids than they do. You had another saying when he looked at Rubio he was looking down a barrel of an AR 15 and saw Cruz. You had the crowd booing Rubio instead of letting him speak and calling him and the NRA representative child murderers. You have kids saying "you are either with us or against us". They are using children as puppets for political gain. It is sickening. Instead of talking about the objective facts they are using appeal to emotions.
To say their lives are in danger is false. Violent crime is dropping in the US has has for over 20 years. This should be presented to this children as fact because it is. Also, there are many kids who disagree with these protestors but are not heard or seen in the media. Ben Shapiro discussed this. You had the kid whose question was denied by CNN. What about the majority of children who simply did not care? What about the majority who did not march or walkout? They seem content and don't feel their lives are in danger.
As for background checks, we have them. Unless you commit a crime and gone through due process you are allowed to buy a gun. We don't live in the world of minority report. As for a psychological test, one, you can fake those. Next, that is vague. By definition I have mental problems by seeing a therapist. However, I am not a threat to anyone. I own four guns and will never shoot anyone. However, you want to create a system that will deny me my rights even though I have never posed a threat to anyone. Now you may argue this individual should not have had a gun due to FBI visits, and that is fair. But how will that stop other shootings? How would that have stopped the Vegas shooting? You talk about bump stocks, so instead of 50 people he kills 40? Now what? With Sandy Hook that guy stole his guns from his mother. How do you stop that? We have laws on the books. And you say what you propose is "sensible", but in reality they are debatable making them far from sensible.
"factually mass shootings do not happen as often in other countries"
John Lott in his most recent book released a study showing that mass shootings do happen in other countries. I encourage you to read it. Not saying he is correct, but if you are going to have a passionate discussion on this, and claim you ideas are "sensible", you should view the other side's analysis. Until you do I will have to be blunt, you are not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on this topic. I am critical of Lott's work as I read it, and I will be one of the first to admit he has a bias. But he does bring up legit points and it does show that stats and how other countries fact problems as well and how there are many variables to this topic.
"It’s common sense gun laws because they are common sense."
It is "common sense" to you because you know very little about the issue to begin with. You later wrote " banning assault rifles, " What is an "assault rifle"? That is very vague. We had an "assault weapon" ban in the past. We removed it in the 90s. You know what happened? Gun violence dropped. Now many factors accounted for that, but you have to accept that trend. You talk about bump stocks when only one mass shooting involved it. And again, if that reduced the deaths from 59 to 49, what have you solved? Also, if you get your bump stock ban (which, BTW, I support) and your assault rifle ban (which again, is vague), and another mass shooting happens, then what? What is your next step? The VA Tech shooter killed around 30 people with two hand guns. I bet you did not know that.
This is not to be rude by it is "common sense" to you because you know very little about the issue. You are very ignorant on it so this seems like a very basic problem with a simple solution when in reality it isn't. I know you have not read John Lott's study, I know you have no idea that there is no legal definition of an "assault weapon", I know you did not know what types of guns the VA Tech shooter used.
1
-
1
-
1
-
troye cara, a lot of people are pushing to reduce violence (that has been dropping for over 20 years), they just have different ideas. I support allowing teachers to be armed with restrictions, they don't. When I disagree with them they will refer to people like me as child murderers. The NRA pushes for a safer society, but these kids want to disband the NRA and want to prevent them from donating money to politicians that also want a safer environment. I am all for a rational, and intellectual discussion on the issues. But what these kids are doing is silencing their opposition. The media is as well by handing behind these kids. I have seen interviews with them and I find them to be ignorant on the topic. What new laws do they want? And how would it stop these shootings? And what is wrong with the opposition's ideas? They never get into details. That is the issue. Again, one girl said it was harder to make weekend plans with friends compared to buying a full auto rifle. Another compared Rubio to Cruz who committed the shooting. How can your have an intellectual discussion with people like that? When that one kid felt that Rubio's idea is supporting mass murders of children, that is sickening. Rubio wants to provide a safer environment as well, his ideas are just different.
"If it takes you say 10 minutes to make plans with your friends, I am
positive there have been people who have been able to purchase a gun in
that time. "
She said fully automatic rifle which requires an extensive background check, waiting period, and those guns are expensive. She did not say guns, she said full autos. Do you even listen to what they say? It was Emma Gonzalez who made that statement. I actually listen to what these kids say.
" And I highly doubt that a sane person would label you a child murderer for disagreeing with that"
But these kids are. Emma Gonzalez told Dana Loesch that she "will support her two children the way she will not". Emma literally said that Loesch does not support her children because she has a different idea in how to approach the gun violence issue. That was during the town hall debate.
" but at the same time the teens knew damn well that the NRA representative and Rubio weren’t going to do jack shit for them"
What makes you say that? This is why I am critical of these kids and you. Their ideas are different but valid with numerous evidence in place supporting it. Why do you think they are not going go to do "jack shit" for them? Give evidence. Give your reasoning. Booing them is silencing them, not debating them. When you silence your opponent you do so because you don't have an argument.
"They feel they are in danger because a school shooting can happen to any school. "
A shooting can happen anywhere, what's your point? If you are so scared than live in a padded room. But look at the facts. Shootings are on a decline and these shootings happen in gun free zones. You have to consider that. But reality is that you take a risk no matter where you go. But if you feel schools are that dangerous than ban schools and push for home schooling, or place large fences around them with on entry point. If you view schools to be that dangerous than do that. Why are you not pushing for that?
"pointing out some very irrelevant things like the fact that the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns"
It is a relevant point. You remove the AR 15 there are a plethora of other guns to use.
"You seem to believe you’re much more knowledgeable on this topic than I am and maybe you are"
Based on how you did now know what Emma Gonzalez said I will say I do. I actually listened to these speeches. The fact you feel schools are that dangerous makes me question how much you know. Again, why not fence in schools with one entry point?
" Like there was something terribly wrong in 2012 when a classroom of
first grade children were murdered and nothing happened in terms of
prevention and gun control. "
What law would have stopped that?
"If you disagree that literally nothing is wrong than I have no interest discussing with you. "
I am not downplaying the tragedies, I am showing you what the reality is. These are two shootings in a span of 5 years. And what new law would have stopped these? Tell me. Give me details. Saying "more gun control" is not an argument, you need details.
" why not narrow that down to a ban on semi-automatic guns?"
The vast majority of guns are semi auto. Also, they are not hard to make. At that point you are hindering law abiding citizens from owning guns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What a ridiculous comparison. First all, Bernie doesn't run a business."
I can tell.
"Second, the Walton Family gives people low-wage jobs and their employees have to go on welfare to survive."
They didn't have to employ anyone. They can shut down many stores leaving more people without jobs. Having a job is better than nothing. It isn't Walmart's fault their employees have to go on Welfare. All Walmart did was offer them a job in which they did not have to do. What does Bernie do? He preaches the idea of holding a gun to people's head forcing them to do things. And he became rich doing it while doing nothing else in his life. He is a great example of why we need term limits in congress. If Bernie was forced to leave office he would have to find a job in the market and produce. However, he hasn't.
"What's the point of all the jobs that Walmart has created if people can't even live a decent life on those jobs."
What is a "decent life"? That is vague. Next, again, they did not have to offer them a job at all. Now they are earning $0.
"If you want high quality healthcare then you can go right over to Canada, where they have a quality single payer system: exactly the kind of system Bernie wants to implement here. And guess what? Their health outcomes are better than ours."
That is simply not true. When you run through the numbers very little indicates they are doing better. Even at that they are a completely different culture.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
"By opposing Bernie's plans, you're actually making your life and life of every American unnecessarily harder. "
Not true.
"You still have not explained how Bernie is forcing people to work so that probably means it was bullshit like everything else you said."
Under Bernie's America why work hard in becoming a doctor or professor? I am a PhD candidate myself and it is a lot of stress. However, if Bernie promises you
Living wages
Healthcare
Retirement
Paid vacation
Paid maternity
And so on no matter what job you worked, why work hard? Why not work at McDonalds full time? When people decide to do that as opposed to becoming doctors, professors, nurses, researchers, how do you improve our country? How do you provide healthcare to all when we lack workers? Why work construction to build infrastructure when you can work at McDonalds instead? At that point you will have to force people to work.
"I also don't know what you mean by working in society. I work too, but I also want all the same things that Bernie wants"
What is your job?
"The taxes that rich people pay in addition to everybody else funds your schools, roads, utilities, etc."
All of which are ran locally. 84% of funding for schools is local, 8% is federal, 8% if private. 3/4 of funding for roads is local. Utilities are local. Also, if you do not have any teachers or if people refuse to build a road, how do you get it done? We lack teachers in our schools
"What people like me are saying is those taxes should also be used to fund things that every other developed country has like universal healthcare so that you're not paying sky-high healthcare premiums every month"
Again, those programs are localized. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy and the federal government already pays around $1 trillion in healthcare. Despite it being expensive our quality is high and we lead the world in research and innovation of healthcare.
"Everything that you're writing appears to just be typical right-wing talking points."
How?
"you're obviously not a PhD candidate. A PhD candidate wouldn't feel the need to tell random people in youtube comments to validate themselves. "
People have called me an idiot on these comment threads. I bring up my credentials to show I am not an idiot. I brought it up here because Lord Crump said that Bernie works harder than me. However, I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. I work very hard. I understand the stress involved. I do so to live a better life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
" giving people those perks would make them want to work at McDonald's? funny, because Australia, the UK, Canada, France, and other countries with those policies still have doctors, nurses, engineers, and researchers, along with McDonald's workers."
Except, they don't have what Bernie wants. Also, we produce more than many of those countries. Not too long ago there were capitalist. Now they are starting to regress with their expanded socialist programs. Read the book "Debunking Utopia".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"pretty much every health organization says otherwise. "
Who? And what are their reasoning? I showed you how the Common Wealth Fund is a flawed source.
"clearly, you're ignoring reality and facts."
I have read your sources, here
"First, as described above, our sensitivity analyses suggest that the overall country rankings are somewhat sensitive to small changes in the data or indicators included in the analysis. "
Which is what that book I linked you shows making any ranking arbitrary. Your source immediately reveals that minor changes in the variables can lead to different results in the ranking.
"Third, we base our assessment of overall health system performance on five domains—Care Process, Access, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Health Care Outcomes—which we weight equally in calculating each countries’ overall performance score. "
Why did they weigh them equally? That is arbitrary.
"The Commonwealth Fund surveys offer unique and detailed data on the experiences of patients and primary care physicians. However, they do not capture important dimensions that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Furthermore, patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their expectations, which could differ by country and culture."
As mentioned in that article I linked, they surveyed patients where it is subjective at that point. That is unreliable. Also, they used a phone survey which has many flaws. Mainly the flaws are that you cannot see a person's expression in how they respond to certain questions nor you can't determine if the person on the other side of the line telling the truth. I have a review article I can link you later if you want on my work computer. I am on my home computer. But as a whole the survey is not reliable. Also, I read your sources and critique them. Why are you not reading mine? And you are the one who says I am ignoring reality and facts?
"both of those people died from misdiagnoses, not lack of access to health care"
No, they died because of lack of access. In the US they will push for more testing to find things like that. When I hurt my knee I received an x-ray. The doctor said it was most likely a dislocation, but they still gave me an MRI to see if it was worse. It wasn't, but the test was still done. In the US those girls would have been given the option for more testing to find cases like that. In other countries they won't because they ration care.
1
-
1
-
"Can the average American access the healthcare that they need without putting themselves into medical bankruptcy or debt? Medical bankruptcies aren't a thing in Canada, or England or Australia."
In those countries people die because of lower quality care. You get what you pay for. I linked two stories of that happening. Sure, healthcare is expensive, but our quality is high. You are complaining about cost, but I rather be bankrupt than dead.
Also, pointing to bankruptcy is flawed. People who are poor are at high risk of going bankrupt to begin with. If not healthcare it will be something else. Other countries have high bankruptcy rates as well while still having universal healthcare.
http://world.edu/bankruptcy-rates-around-the-world/
And when you break it down by state some states have low bankruptcy rates
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-personal-bankruptcy-rates-in-the-us-by-state.html
Bankruptcy is a problem of the poor. It happens with or without our current healthcare system. Not saying what goes on in the US isn't a problem. It is. However, it is not as extreme as you make it out to be.
To expand, name me one country that is 90+ million people and a successful economy along with single payer healthcare? You can't. Japan comes close, but they have massive debt and problems
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-20-countries-with-the-biggest-public-debt.html
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/19/national/japans-buckling-health-care-system-crossroads/#.WbVxrdGQyUk
So you keep pointing at bankruptcy when there are many variables involved.
"Of course, you can't be convinced, you've been programmed to think that government is always bad while benefiting from programs that said government produces."
Government has never given me healthcare, doctors have. If you want to talk about other programs government produces than we can. I never said government was all bad. There is a desire to have government. However, we have to keep it as local as possible to control it. That is another discussion if you want to have it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"because pro-corporate propaganda isn't a "different viewpoint," it's meaningless drivel designed to push an agenda. "
It is a different viewpoint. If it is so bias it should be easy to debunk. You seem to be struggling with that. I read your source and gave my criticism of it. Why aren't you? Again, that book is written by two professors, they cite all of their sources, many that are peer reviewed, and give all of their methods.
"bringing up anything from AEI in a conversation about health care is akin to bringing up creationist literature in a conversation about evolution. "
Poor analogy. Again, that book cites peer reviewed work. So what is wrong with it? If it is so bad you should be able to easily debunk it.
" a short, simple study is more than enough to show how the health care systems of different countries compare to one another. "
Not true. This is a complicate issue. People earn their PhDs studying this topic. Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt has a career studying the issue and is a department chair. You point to a "short, simple study" because you refuse to look deeper into the issue. Again, people earn doctorates studying this issue.
" more of a fact than an opinion. red states are being found guilty left and right of gerrymandering districts and writing draconian voter ID laws meant to suppress voting among minorities"
Again, not true. Gerrymandering exists on both sides. That is not necessarily bad as people move and society changes. And no, "red states" are not oppressing minorities. You are the one who feel minorities are too stupid to get an ID.
"h, and the broken Electoral College "
The Electoral College is not broken. It is there based on the design of this country. Nothing at the federal level has ever been determined by a simple majority of the people. The federal government serves the states, thus with the EC that is how states vote.
" a lot of Americans are certainly stupid"
You surely think minorities are stupid as you feel they are not able to get a simple ID. Also, I see projection in that comment. I give you a book you read and you refuse. You give me a "short, simple study" that I easily read on a complex issue and showed how it is flawed.
1
-
1
-
"Again you're being purposely obtuse. HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED IN THE USA. It is rationed based on the size of your wallet. "
That is not called rationing, that is called the market. Rationing is something that is forced. The market is will push to create more when there is demand. Not government as it just rations it out. So there is a big difference. In the market I pay what I feel something is worth. The other day I had a nasty bug bite that was infected. After some research online, and talking to one of my former students who is a nursing major, I decided not to go to the doctor. Now the doctor visit would have been free because of my insurance, and my antibiotics I would have received would have been around $10. However, I decided to save my money and time. However, if I want to receive care I easily can and not be placed on a waiting list and have it rationed by force. I see the doctor for routine checkups. I just walk in, go in, and leave. A 30 minute wait time at most.
"You just contradicted yourself again. Whether it's Obamacare or single payer there is anecdotal evidence of people dying from the wrong medical diagnosis."
It is in less occurrence in the US.
"AGAIN, show me the evidence of people dying en-mass from poor healthcare in Canada or the UK or Australia"
It is there. People are being turned away because of lack of resources.
"While there is widely documented evidence that as high as 45000 people per year die from a lack of access to healthcare or health insurance in the USA"
That number is very deceptive. Not saying it isn't something we should consider. And no system is ideal. The US system has problems, I admit to that. However, to say that in other countries people do not die due to shortcomings is pure ignorance. Sure, you can say that no one in other countries die because of lack of access because on paper everyone has access. However, if what you have access to is of poor quality, what is the difference? Back to my comparison of high school education, a student from North Nodaway High School in Missouri has "access" to a high school education just like someone from Stevenson High School in IL has access to a high school education. However, in NNHS they do not have AP or honors courses. They do not have a calculus and physics teacher. They do not receive the same quality of education. However, on paper they both have "access" to a high school education.
Also, for someone with an econ degree you love to just throw out numbers without deciding what they mean. 45,000 people is around 0.02% of the overall population. Those people are generally poor who have poor health to begin with. Poor people have a higher rate of obesity and diabetes due to poor life choices. To say they die simply because of lack of access is simply not true. Next, as I said, no system is ideal. Compare that number to the 35,000 that die in traffic accidents a year. Should we ban driving so save those lives? Or do we allow driving knowing that in doing so society benefits a lot at the cost of 35,000 lives a year? Everything comes at a cost. In economics that is calls "opportunity cost". Allowing people to drive behooves society greatly despite the 35,000 lives it cost. Also, in many cases those deaths were the individual's fault. With our healthcare system there are many benefits. Sure, 45,000 may die a year (again, you have to consider a lot of it has to be at their own fault), but there are many benefits. So you can't just throw numbers out there without giving them proper meaning.
1
-
"That's not true, the California bill presented measures that could be taken that could increase the revenue coming to the state, in order to account for the increase in spending."
Not true, it cost around $400 billion and the revenue plan, at best, was going to bring in $200 billion.
"It was Anthony Rendon's job to explore these measures but he blocked it out of hand because he was beholden to his Health Insurance donors who didn't want single payer to happen."
Or maybe because you can't just magically come up with $200 billion.
"Bear in mind that only 1 in 3 Californians are insured and have access to healthcare. "
Like Texas, CA has a large immigration population from Hispanic countries who are generally poor. That plays a role. Just like how CA has the highest poverty rate and the lowest literacy rate. A large portion of it is because of their large Hispanic population. TX faces similar problems as seen with their low high school graduate percent. Again, put these numbers in proper perspective.
"Under a single payer system every Californian would have access to primary care and would only have to wait on elective procedures."
Again, they could not afford it. States that have tried couldn't. 80% voted against it in Colorado because they did not want to pay higher taxes. VT turned it down because it cost too much.
"You assert that the government is inefficient when it comes to healthcare but fail to prove how a private system such as what we have now is more efficient."
Look at LASIK, it has become better and cheaper. Our best drugs comes from the private sector.
"Again you are lying. If you were able to comprehend English Zyou would have read me say that Charities are not entitled to give you there money, hence you cannot tell the poor to seek a charity when they are sick. "
I never told the poor to seek out charities. But it does beg the question, if you as an individual can't fend for yourself, and you do not have any friends and family to help you, what are you worth in society?
"Healthcare under our current system costs 1.38 trillion dollars, what Bernie Sanders is proposing has about the same price tag, so again you're lying. Corporate loopholes cost the federal government about 100 million a year, so cutting them would free that money up to be spent on other things."
It isn't that simple. One, those corporations will move money out of the country if you tax if even more. Next, you will be increasing demand of healthcare which will raise the price. Just like the student loan program raised tuition costs.
"The military got about 550 billion from discretionary and it costs at least 1.3 million a day per soldier to maintain our military operations overseas. A lot of this money is spent purcahsing tanks and fighter jets that's we don't need and on interventions that are unnecessary in the Middle East."
That is also not true. And again, defense is 3% of GDP, healthcare is 1/6 of GDP. And how do you plan on making up for are lack of doctors, nurses, researchers, hospitals, etc? We lack resources. You will have to lower quality meaning I will have to wait longer. That hinders progress and production and you are forcing people who are productive to wait for "elective" procedures while others who produce little get care. And I say "elective" because elective to you is not elective to others. If I need knee surgery you may say that is "elective", but it is vital for me and my life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Do you think it's better to have a system where some are covered and
then you work on improving it, or to have everyone covered and then work
on improving it"
Not everyone is covered though. On paper they are, but the only reason why people are covered is because the quality is low and the care is rationed. That hinders progress. The reasons why are first, no profit motive. Next, you refuse care to people who are productive to give care to those who aren't. You bring people down.
On the latter point, I am productive. I have care. If I want knee surgery I should be able to get it. After that I will go back to work and continue to be productive. With your idea I will have to wait. So while waiting my productivity drops. Now expand that across a nation of 320+ million people. That is why many of those countries lack in productivity.
You don't improve a system by bringing people down.
"And it's not just on paper. Everyone being covered is everyone being covered."
No, it is only on paper. We lack resources. So what they do is ration care and lower the quality.
" How many people die a year in those systems?"
Quite a bit. If you scroll up in my comments I gave examples of people dying.
" Since you're so well-informed about this subject I imagine you already
know that and so support a system where everyone is covered."
I want everyone to have high quality healthcare. However, I understand the reality of the situation. That is why you lower the standard and say "everyone is covered". That is your standard. You make no mention of quality, cost, production, progress, etc. You just want everyone to be "covered". Simply seeing a doctor is being "covered". But is that high quality care? When they put you on an arbitrary waiting list to where your condition can worsen, is that high quality care?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BookerT48 happiness is relative and deals strongly with culture. You can't quantify happiness. Also, just because you are happy does not mean you are in the best case. Consider a homeless guy who finally gets a studio apartment, they are happy. Now consider a guy who owns a home, loses it and has to reduce down to a studio apartment, they are not happy.
But with culture, look up Hofstede cultural dimension. Compare Norway, Denmark and Sweden to the US. Look at the masculinity measurement. The numbers are very low for those three nations but in the 60s for the US. A low masculinity means the nation is feminine which means their culture value doing good for society. A masculine culture is a competitive who look up to success.
Now there are pros and cons to both. While sure, a feminine culture may be "happy", but communist nations are also feminine. Russia is feminine as they are comrades that serve when their country calls. Many may say masculine cultures are greedy, and sure. But to obtain success you typically have to cater to someone. For example, Bezos became successful by providing an easy way to shop for many Americans. Or consider myself. I am a PhD candidate. To get a PhD I have to do original research and publish it carving out new information in the science world.
So it goes beyond universal healthcare .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
James Asper , saying he is a poor congress member is like saying someone is the skinnest person at a fat camp. Big deal. And yes, he has not produced anything. Has he ran any fundraisers or charities. How many businesses has he ran? What has he actually produced to help people? All he does is run his mouth. He wants a system where everyone else works and he just sits there.
This is similar to Family Guy when Quagmire ripped on Brian. At point Quagmire brought up how Brian is always talking about the poor and how they need help, but Brian is never actually doing anything about it. As Quagmire said, if you want to help grab a ladle. Bernie runs his mouth about how people need help, now what has he done? He just made millions off of his book sale. Why doesn't he donate it?
As for a job as a mayor (in a "city" of around 40,000) and a Senator shows he is simply a career politician and nothing else. He could not make it in the private sector. And again, all he does is run is mouth.
"nd Bernie Sanders EXPLICITLY (!!!) makes the case that this revolution is about VOTER TURNOUT and VOTER PARTICIPATION in the democratic process"
Yep, not actually going out and working to clean up streets and help the poor. Just vote. Meanwhile, people like me are actually working to create a better society. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cynthiavaldez5941 , Greta does not fact check. She does not listen to scientists. That is what is sad, people rather listen to her as opposed to scientists. When I wrote my report to counter her I cited actual peer reviewed papers and scientists. It is sad people rather listen to her as opposed to scientists.
Trump's bankruptcies are overpowered by his many successful companies. With success comes failure. The Chiefs lost 4 games in 2019 but one the super bowl in the end.
"Clearly you don't know anything about business because in real life when a business is struggling more often than not employees don't get paid on time, and sometimes, not all all. "
100% false as that is illegal.
"If the company goes under, more often than not the owner doesn't lose very much."
Again, 100% false.
"Many of these big corporate CEOs deliberately cook the books so they can pretend the company is wildly profitable so they get paid huge bonuses which they hide away in tax shelters overseas that the government can't touch"
Now you are going from a business to a corporation. Please stay consistent.
"except now most of the jobs hiring nowadays are low paying jobs, so that means now they have to work several jobs, with no benefits."
Again, not true. The percent of workers working more than one job has been dropping. But again, you rather listen to Greta on the issue of climate change as opposed to actual scientists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vibesanm I trust a Penn State study that was published in Science, one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journals out there.
I never said NY downplayed the numbers. Many people were asymptomatic, thus they never were tested. That is why the total number of cases being reported is actually lower then how many there actually were.
" , there is an interview of this girl who got fired in Florida because she did't want to comply with the governor's order to manipulate the number of cases and deaths,"
You mean the same girl who had a felony on her record, was insubordinate and has a history of it, and was escorted by the cops out of the HR office when working at LSU? Yeah, not a trustworthy person. Also, she wasn't responsible for reporting numbers to begin with.
"I'm pretty sure there is a Penn state study questioning the reality of the number of cases, but I'm also sure that you completely dreamt up the rest of whatever the hell it is you are trying to say here."
Dreamt up what? You are the one who is saying that I claimed democrat governors are under reporting cases. I never said that. You can read about the study in Penn State News entitled
"Initial COVID-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported"
"Also, why is it that only in New York, the actual number is 80 times the reported number, but that's not the case in republican states and cities"
No, it is that way in other states as well. I pick NY because in March it had the most cases. But it is that way in other states as well. As the researchers said
"Remarkably, the size of the observed surge of excess ILI corresponds to more than 8.7 million new cases during the last three weeks of March, compared to the roughly 100,000 cases that were officially reported during the same time period."
So it was all states.
" if stattes don't have lockdowns or tell people to wear masks, they will have more cases. it's as simple as that. you gotta do something to stop the spread. "
Are you sure? CA did lockdowns and cases did not drop. As mentioned in the Penn State study, this virus is very contagious. The lockdowns did nothing. Also, the death rate was higher in democrat ran states.
1
-
@vibesanm that isn't what I meant when I cited the Penn State study. You are making accusations at this point. As I said, many people were asymptomatic.
The study came out around a month ago, in late June. Do you know how the peer reviewed process works? It takes a lot of time.
"There is way more testing now, and I'm pretty sure that we no longer have 80 times the reported number"
You sure? Also, a CDC director said chances are that the number of cases is actually 10 times higher than what is being reported. Again, many got it and either were asymptomatic or never got tested.
"you took an irrelevant study "
It was published in Science, one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journals out there. It is far from irrelevant. I thought your side was supportive of science?
"The girl was fired for "insubordination", as in, refusing to cook up numbers like the superiors tell her to."
She wasn't in charge of the numbers. Do you even know what your role was? And no, I did not make up the felony. Have you even looked at the situation? If not I am not surprised as you are also dismissing a study published in Science. Why are you so anti science?
It is not proven that masks work.
"And when someone touches any place that you sneezed on, "
Actually you do not get it from surfaces. In a paper entitled
"SARS-CoV-2 in environmental samples of quarantined households"
The found that common touch surfaces, such as door knobs, only around 3% had evidence of the virus.
"If you are saying objective things about this situation, I wouldn't be talking to you man, you are making up bull sh't about how republican run states re so freakin awesome and all that crap"
I am the one citing studies and you are the one being anti science dismissing them. Also, republican ran states have a lower death rate. TX has 423 deaths per million. NY, NJ and MA have over 1000 deaths per million.
1
-
1
-
@vibesanm you do dismiss the study.
"as of now, almost 5.5 million people have the covid. to have the real numbers,for people who have covid but not show symptoms to be 80 times the estimate, the us population needs to be 440 million. "
No, that 5.5 million is the current number. Now watch the bouncing ball, the 80 times point were cases early on. Not cases now. Early on testing was limited. Thus, early on the number of cases was over 80 times higher than what was recorded due to limited testing, people not seeking care thinking it was just the flu, and asymptomatic people. Key words there are early on. The study pointed on where in March 100,000 cases nation wide were recorded when it was really in the range of 8 million. March is "early on", not currently.
So again, you do not understand the study.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScyphKordan , saying "other nations do it" is not a solid argument as there are many factors you have to consider. One is that they all run their form of healthcare. Next, they have different cultures, history, economies, etc. Also, they have many shortcomings as well such as in Canada people die waiting for "elective" heart surgery. You should read the books "The Business of Health" and
https://www.hoover.org/research/excellent-health-setting-record-straight-americas-health-care
There are many studies to suggest Medicare for all won't work. As for it being cheaper, the studies people point to are flawed. Take, for example, the Koch brothers one. They admitted that it was a lower estimate and said that chances are the cost will be much higher. Also, the just showed the cost of public care and do not include private. They also assume that healthcare providers will be willing to take a 40% paycut.
As for the University of Mass. one, if we are thinking of the same one, they make way too many assumptions. For example, they admit that jobs will be lost. So they estimate the cost to retrain those people, along with giving them a wage and money for moving. However, they never say where they get those numbers from. Also, they never discuss if they will help people sell their homes, buy new homes when they move, how they controlled for the change in the housing market, how they will handle people moving with families in chanign schools, etc. And that is just one of many assumptions they make that are way too vague to take that study serious.
So the federal government cannot handle mental health but you expect them to handle all of healthcare now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Malnutrition includes starvation as well."
I agree, but it isn't just starvation. It makes it more vague.
"Okay. So why does an inhaler cost 175$ in the US and 25 pounds in the UK? "
There are several reasons why healthcare is more expensive in the US. One is because of of R&D. But the main reason why is because we DO NOT have a free market system in healthcare. I am correct when I say in the free market prices go down. In healthcare we do not have a free market system. We have a for profit system with many government barriers.
"Productivity has only been going up in the recent years."
Productivity has been increasing for decades mainly due to technology.
"Yet wages are stagnant and prices are going up. "
That is debatable. But I always get shown this chart
http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
Now I can give numerous reasons for that trend. But you have to realize that gap started to occur around the time the "war on poverty" started and we also created medicare and medicaid. Now am I saying that is the only reason for that trend? No. In fact I can argue that prices have dropped. Take, for example, a car. A car in the 70s was more expensive compared to a car today. A car today gets better gas mileage, is safer, and can last longer. That lowers the price of the car as you are getting more out of it. A smart phone has more computing power than what put a man on the moon. But smart phones are far cheaper than a brick cell phone from the 80s.
So when you say wages are stagnate and prices have been going up that is not exactly true. However, if you want to go that route I point you to that EPI link and will tell you what occurred around when that trend started.
"The shortage is artificial because the health insurance companies want the base price to reach the skies "
I agree insurance companies are a problem. They are necessary, but due to our lack of a free market they are a problem. Let me ask you these two question
1. Why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage?
2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
" The supply of educators is low because people don't want to be teachers because it is one of the most ungrateful jobs you can get"
I am not talking about teachers, I am talking about college professors. We do not have enough professors, TAs, tutors, etc. at universities to take on more students.
"You want to know what is more expensive? Private health care. "
Private healthcare is arguably better, we just need to allow the free market to reign. Again we DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
1
-
"I never claimed that cutting the defense budget would cover the cost of healthcare. If you were to ask me, I think we could take a 100 billion hit to to the military budget and could then spend that on college tuition. "
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Problem with that is now you are comparing apples and oranges. You have to look at supply and demand. In the military we do not lack supply in some ways. We have enough people wanting to join. Our academies have a low acceptance rates (the Air Force Academy has a 12% acceptance rate). People from our academies are highly trained and are efficient. That is actually one reason why defense spending has been dropping for decades. It went from 10% of GDP to 3% of GDP.
In education, however, as in our universities, we lack professors. We lack TAs, tutors, dorms, labs, equipment, classrooms, etc. The atmosphere in universities is much different that the military. Military personal are highly trained and discipline where university professors and grad students have more autonomy and will fight for it, especially professors after they get tenure. It isn't as easy as "take money here and place it there" as the money in defense spending is used up differently than in education. Also, by just paying for tuition you will increase demand without increasing supply where colleges will charge more.
I am seeing first hand in my university. We are increasing enrollment from 17,000 to 25,000 over a span of 8 years. We lack TAs right now where one of our TA coordinators literally told me he needs warm bodies. Doesn't matter the qualifications, he just needs someone to stand in front of the class and lecture. We have a computer science major teaching physics, think about that. Are those students learning anything? And the current TAs are demanding more money now as our workload has increased.
"Hell, we could even just cut 100 billion off period just to reduce the deficit. "
That will hardly dent it. But if you want to play that game we can, and that means cut everywhere.
" For single payer health care, we should just raise taxes/add a new tax that's more or less equivelant to the current cost of health insurance."
And that isn't that simple either as we lack resources in healthcare. Also, our society will not accept that. When put up to a vote in Colorado 80% of voters said no. Our society does not want to pay higher taxes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p sigh, it is apparent to you that many on the far left, like yourself, is using this crisis as as way to justify M4A when I have proven to you that nations with universal healthcare are doing worse than us. Listen, I know you love to dodge difficult points but that is the issue.
You claim that the UK and France are not doing well because they were initial cases is not supported on evidence. Also, why do they have less testing? That is another issue. Many on the far left complain how testing is low here in the US when we have more testing than them. As for the "idiot president" comment (showing you are not an actual med student, an intellectual will understand every president in our nation's history has been intelligent), maybe if democrats weren't so concern with frivolous Russian investigation and impeachment trials the President and his admin can do something. But yeah, completely ignore that.
"The question is will individuals likely live longer with it if they can go to the doctor and not fear of the bill since as demonstrated by studies, individuals hold off going to the doctor due to the economic cost of going. The answer is yes because individuals will likely wait longer for treatment, have worse consequences due to the cascade of events that happen medically"
Then why do those nations have more deaths and less testing? You are ignoring the testing part as well I see.
You are struggling bud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Government spending can increase, yet become inefficient, less cost-effective or poorly targeted"
I agree. But my point was that many say government spending is being cut which is not true.
"For example, here in Ireland, we have serious problems with our
healthcare, the government keeps increasing spending, yet we have a
continual shortage of nurses and doctors "
That is a problem in every nation to be honest. As for administration cost, that comes with government programs. That is what makes the US system have problems, too much government.
I can go on, but in the end you are correct, the issue is complex. To me people who simplify the issue by saying there have been cuts or we are not spending enough are not correct. That was my overall point. If we go farther we are will be going down another path that is worth discussing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@retromillenium
1. We do lack freedom in healthcare. The ACA made it worse. So you want more government? You are saying the government did what corporations wanted. So why do you want government to have more control of your healthcare?
2. The medical bankruptcy issue has been argued against. You say "study after study". What studies? I gave you one. Bernie cited two in one of his articles where they stated medical bills "contribute" to bankruptcies. The study I linked looked to determine how much they contribute which is why it is in such a high impact journal. A small portion of medical bills directly cause bankruptcies. Most are because someone had a current debt at that point. For example, if someone has a $50,000 debt and then received a $500 medical bill that put them over the top to have bankruptcy, it was mainly because of other loans. It was not because of the medical bill itself. In short, those people had a very high chance of bankruptcy and would have most likely filed to overall due to other reasons.
3. Telling me to "look it up" is flawed. Read the article entitled
"Our Imagination of Future Happiness and Its Shortcomings Daniel Gilbert, Stumbling on Happiness"
By Jan Ott. He outlines shortcomings in measuring happiness. For example, he discusses the subjectivity of it as in how one cannot fathom how a paralyze person is happy. Overall, happiness is a subjective issue and a cultural issue as well. You really can't use it as an indicator of success. Our culture is vastly different than those Nordic nations. We have more people with much more diversity. Our culture has a different history as well. Again, just because they are happy does not mean they are in the best shape objectively. You say "studies" but point me to none. I pointed you to one though. Who is more informed at this point?
4. There is little evidence to suggest giving a homeless person a home saves money as little data exists on that. But please, give me these so call studies. Besides, you missed the point of the scenario. The point is that if you place two people in the same situation one will be happy and another wrote. It depends on their previous situation and how they view the future.
5. While I agree we increased our budget with little push back, there are many flaws there.
A: Defense spending has been dropping for decades where social welfare spending has been increasing in relation to percent of GDP.
B: Defense is constitutional
C: Everyone agrees we need the federal government to manage defense, not so much healthcare
D: You are deflecting with that argument.
Finally, the free market did not create corruption. Crony capitalism did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you listen to many on the right that really support Trump they have the stance of it doesn't matter if Trump won or lost but if the election was fair. Considering how these career, corrupt politicians have acted during Trump's presidency, and how weird this year has been, and how sketchy this election has been, an investigation and transparency is needed.
What so many liked about Trump is that he called out the career, corrupt politicians who do not care about people but only power, and the media who is showing double standards now. After years of calling Trump supporters racists, Nazis, bigots, etc., they are now saying not to treat them bad? Really? As if we will forget how we were treated. And if Biden really won, they should be open to an investigation. Why aren't they?
An investigation is best for the people and should be apolitical as people should want a fair election.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lookingforsomething Bernie himself said he will raise taxes on people making $29,000 or more. How many of those in the lower bracket are young and hardly use healthcare? Unless Bernie is not being consistent with his tax law.
"Every year more and more hundreds of thousands of Americans go bankrupt because of medical debt"
Most that do have other outstanding debts as well. Around 100,000 go bankrupt directly due to medical bills. Others have outstanding debt. So the issue is more complex than what you are making it out to be. I will also address this issue later. Also, many rather be bankrupt than dead.
"Obesity doesn't explain the difference in America"
It does as it is exponential. When you have bad health your issues arise exponentially. Also, it isn't just obesity. We also have more diabetics compared to Finland and Denmark. So in relation to Denmark, the US is over twice the obesity rate compared to them, that can very well lead to 4 times the maternal death rate. It isn't a linear relation. Read the article entitled
"The Impact of Maternal Obesity on Maternal and Fetal Health"
Where they say
"Not only does maternal obesity affect the woman, but it also impacts the health of the child, leading to increased childhood obesity and diabetes."
On obesity and infant mortality, read the Stanford article entitled
"Obesity before pregnancy linked to earliest preterm births, Stanford/Packard study finds"
Where they say
"Prematurity can lead to lifelong health problems, such as cerebral palsy, developmental delays and impaired vision or hearing. Babies born before 28 weeks of pregnancy are at especially high risk."
BTW, I don't send links because sometimes they don't post. Just look up the titles.
However, the reality is that the US simply have less healthy practices compared to other nations. 40% of the American food dollar is spent eating out where other nations spend half of that. We have high levels of high fructose corn syrup in our food. So yes, diet and lifestyle matters.
"If the American health care doesn't have it's basics down it should not focus on advanced care."
Why not? Most basic care can be avoided simply by living a healthier lifestyle. But I will address this later as well.
"Being 15th or below on health care rankings is not something we should have"
Healthcare rankings are completely arbitrary. That is why zero academic sources have ever posted one. The only groups who have are special interest groups with a motive. Anyone can play with the stats and come up with any legit ranking they want.
As for accessibility, the US is number one in access to advanced care and testing.
"Infant mortality rates increased from 2.4/1000 among normal weight women (BMI 18.5–24.9) to 5.8/1000 among women with obesity grade 3"
Care to give me a source for that? Also, as the Stanford article said, first time pregnancies are at higher risk. So how much of that was because that was their first kid?
1
-
@lookingforsomething to address this as a whole as I said will be coming back to this. There are two major issues I have with the far left on this. They both are tied to the fact that you only have appeal to emotion arguments. You may take one or two stats, but run with it on a appeal to emotion argument without considering the whole story.
Here is the whole story. Universal healthcare is fine for very basic care such as routine check ups and pregnancies. However, it is short when it comes to advanced care and development. The US leads the world in R&D, access to advanced care and testing, survival rates in advanced illnesses, and quality. Sure, it is expensive, and as such you have issues like bankruptcies. But the advantages are the vast majority have access to the best care in the world.
The reality is that some group has to suffer. In other nations people with advanced illnesses do. They very sick and very old suffer. In the US the very poor do with bankruptcies and maybe even death. However, here are the issues. With the very sick and very old chances of them living a long time is low. As written in the book "Being Mortal", people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give them care and they die 5 months later, was that a success? I just had a friend die of cancer. When I heard he had stage 4 cancer I knew he did not have long to live. Stanford medical aided in giving him care and he still died in 3 months. During his last few weeks he was in a wheel chair and a feeding tube. The family and friends spent a lot of time to keep him alive as much as possible. But was it worth it?
Same with my grandma. During here last times she would be fine and then do very poorly. He six kids would constantly drive hours to see her, come back home just to turn around and see her again. They pushed to keep her alive as much as possible. It added a lot of stress to the kids. Was it worth it?
In both cases it was to those friends and family. Other nations would have let them die. With other nations yes the poor get care at the expense of the very sick and very old. However, a counter argument to that is that the poor, especially in the US, simply live less responsible lives. So why should we cater to them? Individual people rather see their grandma live longer as opposed to caring if some poor person avoids bankruptcy.
This leads to the main point that far leftists ignore. Despite the fact that I outlined the pros and cons of both systems. And in both systems someone will suffer in the end. What far leftists fail to realize is that culture plays a huge role. Look up Hofstede cultural dimension. If you look at the Scandinavian nations on the masculinity scale they rank very low. For Denmark, Norway and Sweden they score 16, 8, and 5 respectively. The US is a 62. What does that mean? A high score means a society is driven on competition and success. A low score means society cares about others. With Denmark, Sweden and Norway scoring very low they will value a universal healthcare system. The US citizens won't with a high masculinity score.
Now there are pros and cons to those relative scores. Sure, a low masculinity score will produce nations like Denmark. But you know who else have low scores? Communist nations. Russia, for example, has a low score due to their communist history. When your country calls. With a high masculinity score one may say people are greedy. However, to become successful typically you have provide something. For example, people may criticize Bezos but he became successful by providing a very easy way to shop. Or myself, I am pursuing a PhD. To do that I have to publish research papers that provide more information in science.
So yes, the issue is very complex. But this brings me to an even bigger issue I have. And that is that the far left, as Hickenlooper said, wants to throw a plan out there and let everyone else pick up the pieces. Under M4A changes will have to be made. Healthcare providers will see increases in demand and lower payments. They will have to make the very difficult decisions of who gets care and how much. Now Bernie, not his fans, healthcare provides. People like you and Bernie don't work in the industry so you have no responsibilities. So you don't care. That is why you cannot look at this issue beyond talking points. You don't realize how complex it is and how M4A will created a lot of pressure and stress on healthcare providers in now they will have to do something like go up to a family and say "sorry, the government won't pay for your grandma's care. Unless you have the money she is going to die."
That is the reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattellis8429 "yeah Bernie's endgame was healthcare for all and improved standard of living for working class and poor Americans"
Yeah, just like Castro did as Bernie said. As long as the ends justify the means.
"70%-80% of Americans are in debt depending on what study you look at... most of that is from either medical or student loan debt."
Where do you get that from? I have a hard time believing that considering how only around 30% of the population has a college degree to begin with. Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with debt. It is a part of the inverted pyramid.
"the younger generation having massive amounts of student debt is a problem for the entire system"
How so? They become more skilled and, statistically, earn more.
"Millennials aren't buying houses, aren't having children"
That is for many reasons. The country, and the world in general, is becoming more urbanized. In urban areas people are more liking to rent due to higher population densities. Also, as for children, both the husband and wife are career oriented. A reason why people are getting married later and having kids later is, because as I put it, we let women out of the kitchen. Not saying that is bad. Just saying more and more women are pursuing degrees and careers and thus are less likely to have kids.
"I wouldn't expect you to understand any of this nuance based on your response.. but I do hope for your own sake you take some time to "learn or die" LOL"
I feel you have some learning to do bud. You write that millennials not having kids is a bad thing when, again, how much of that is because women are more career oriented?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@somethingginterestingg4275 he is not considered a moderate. No nation guarantees healthcare. The US healthcare system is strong in many ways and well established. There can be improvements done but to completely dismantle and replace it, especially given our culture, is radical. And that is another point that makes Bernie a radical. He does not consider other factors on these issues. One major reason why Bernie lost worse this time around is that people took time to look into the issues he wants to talk about and found out he has nothing beyond talking points. He has no plan. As Hickenlooper said, he wants to throw a policy out there and have everyone else pick up the pieces.
"We would take away the middlemen"
There will still be a middleman called the government. In other nations government simply refuses to pay which is why access and quality of advanced care is limited in other nations. Government refuses to pay.
"It's sad that you view something that would save tens of thousands of Americans, save hundreds of thousands from bankruptcy as treat healthcare as a fundamental need of everyone in society (like infrastructure, fire department, public education, etc) as "radical""
Infrastructure, public education and the fire department are paid for and ran locally. You cannot look at local entities to justify a federally ran program. Not to be rude but this does show the ignorance of the left. They do not understand the different layers of government we have and how our programs actually function.
As for saving lives, little suggests that is the case. Every healthcare system has amenable mortality. The issue is who's lives do we save? Other nations, with the very old and sick simply deny care to them, drug them up and have them die pain free. In the US we actually give them care a shown by the fact we offer more advanced testing and higher survival rates of advanced illnesses. With bankruptcies it is the same thing. Under M4A bankruptcies may go down to zero, but at what cost? A less efficient system? There is always a trade off. In economics it is called "opportunity cost".
"You don't find it radical that a family who's daughter needs insulin to survive will pay the same for 1 month's worth of insulin in the US, as 12 months if they cross the border to Canada? "
You don't find it radical that in Canada they will decide if your heart surgery is elective or not to make you wait where people have died waiting for "elective" heart surgery. The heart care that Bernie received in the US he would have waited months for as it would have been considered "elective".
" What exactly is radical? That people may have longer wait times? Or is it the saving lives and saving financial ruin? "
Longer wait times have made many people worse off in the long run. Wait times are an issue. Wait times do not exist just for "chin surgery" but also for certain forms of heart surgery. Even for knee surgery it can make people worse off the longer they wait.
Every healthcare system has flaws. When you break it down the US system is just as strong as other systems. We just deal with different issues. We accept them and our system for one major reason, culture. Culture is something the far left seems to continue to ignore. However, culture is a driving force in a lot of our policies. Bernie's ideas will never resonate with our culture, another reason why he is a radical. He does not understand the common man. That is why when approached by the hair salon owner during the debate against Cruz Bernie could not give her an answer. He has no desire to try to understand how the common American works and lives. He is a radical.
1
-
@somethingginterestingg4275 and there are many other credible sources that give varying results. Prof. Katherine Baicker commented on the "deaths" that will be saved. As she said, those individuals are poor and bad healthcare is associated with those in poverty. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. Studies on people who die due to lack of access of care has ranged from zero according to a UCSD study, around 18,000, around 45,000 according to a Harvard study, and 60,000 by the Yale study. So why such varying numbers? It is very difficult to determine their actual death as prof. Katherine Baicker said. As with the current virus case, many who are dying are sick or old to begin with. So was it the virus or a collection of things. A written by the book "Being Mortal", people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give healthcare to those individuals and they die 5 months later, was that a success? Also, as I said, amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces.
"So I'm basing it off of one of the most prestigious universities in the world and looking at relative stats from literally every other developed nation. Several of which have better health metrics than the us. "
And I pointed to several other sources showing the numbers vary. It all depends on the methods. That is what makes this issue so challenging. And you can't say other nations have better healthcare. In many ways they lag behind us such as limited access to advanced care and lower survival rates in advanced illnesses.
"The truth is a lot of Americans go bankrupt healthcare costs. That's a fact.
I don't understand how people spin their audience to be against healthcare As a guarantee"
Rather be bankrupt than dead. And again, no nation guarantees healthcare to all.
"Someone has to buy the healthcare.
Right now, insurance companies buy it, raise price and sell it to individuals.
They are middlemen. "
And government refuses to pay thus healthcare providers deny care. Take your pick.
Also, that is not how insurance works.
"Do you ever question the profit motive of the people who spout your narrative? Billions. 60 percent of ad revenue across all msm is pharma companies."
Profit margins of insurance companies is around 8%, that is pretty normal for a lot of service companies. Also, pharma leads us to strong R&D and also donates a lot of medication to developing nations.
"I guess if you don't care about those who suffer under our system, I song change your mind.
And you seem pretty convinced that right-wing media always haS your best interests in mind. Shame really."
What makes you think I listen to right wing media? Also, in every system someone suffers. No system is ideal. Also, what makes you think far leftists like Bernie and AOC care about you? Bernie just endorsed Biden. He ran for president, made his millions, and now is enjoying his three homes. AOC got into office and now is kissing Pelosi's ass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@somethingginterestingg4275 "We have higher rates of infant mortality, all-cause mortality, premature death, death amendable to healthcare, and overall disease burden. "
I knew you will bring up those stats. There are a few problems with them. One, many factors outside of healthcare influence them. For example, a Stanford study showed that obesity leads to pre mature births which increases the chances of infant mortality. Now consider how the US leads OECD nations in obesity rates. How obesity is higher for the poor and pregnancies, especially unwanted pregnancies, is higher for the poor, you have a huge source weighing the numbers down. Obesity is an issue of lifestyle choices. Also, nations report numbers differently. Take amenable mortality for example. Read the following two articles on it
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review."
and
"Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study"
In short, they both say that amenable mortality is not reliable enough to use as an indicator of healthcare system success.
"The underlining issue is that while we may have the best outcomes for advanced illnesses, that's only for those who can afford it."
The issue is, though, is that most can afford it. That is a reason why healthcare reform is so challenging. As I said, access is also high meaning the vast majority have access.
"Chomsky talks about the pitfalls of unregulated capitalism quite clearly and is leagues more knowledgable than I am. "
Eh, don't give Chomsky too much credit. He is great in his field, outside of it he is foolish. The issue is that he sounds smart and writes well (due to what he received his doctrine in), but trust me, he is foolish outside of his field. I can give many examples as in how he does not understand polling data, or how he called big corporations coercive when they are not, or how he praised Venezuela, etc. That aside, he is not a healthcare expert. What you just pulled is a logical fallacy. He understands very little about healthcare and economics in all honesty.
"And their is a HUGE profit incentive to keep people wanting private healthcare. Huge. There isn't a huge incentive for Medicare for all, except for helping Americans who don't feel they can afford healthcare."
No profit means no progress. Also, in a free market system there is an incentive to actually provide high quality goods and services. With Medicare what incentive does the federal government have? None.
"To be honest, I don't care if people have underlying conditions, are old or if its 18000 dying or 60000 dying. It sounds like ratiomalizing a number that in any other case, would be considered a major loss of American life. If we lost 16000 in a war, a pandemic or anything else, people would go crazy and call it unacceptable. "
Here is the harsh reality, resources are limited. Not to be rude but another major issues is that far leftists think with emotions. Not saying that is all bad. When you go to the core on political sides when dealing with economic issues the political left is driven off of emotions and the political right is driven off of facts and reasoning. Now saying one side is better. We need facts and reasoning but we are human. But when you talk about those dying and being old or sick, at some point you have to ask yourself if it is worth it economically? I believe it was Cuomo that said, during this pandemic, that if we spend $1 trillion dollars and saves someone's life it was worth it. Reality is that it isn't, because chances are that person will never produce $1 trillion throughout their lifetime. That is why I asked if you give healthcare to those individuals and they die 5 months later, was it worth it? These are the very difficult questions many on the far left refuse to have. But that is the reality.
It is the same as this current virus situation. We are now in a situation where we have to ask ourselves who will cause people to suffer more, the virus or the bad economy? That is why there is current talk of opening the economy back up.
Resources are limited. It would be great to keep everyone healthcare and alive as long as possible. But resources are limited.
" Everyone should have access to healthcare if we pay taxes. I believe it should be a right as citizens. We pay taxes for fundamental needs that we all need in society. Healthcare seems to me, to be the most fundamental of anything a government can offer. "
Great, but not everyone agrees. Also, you can't make healthcare a right in this nation. Also, again, resources are limited. You can't give access to all. We pay taxes for a lot of things but everyone does not have access to those goods/services.
"I see it as a moral issue. "
Which is the problem as you are completely ignoring the economic side as well. You are also ignoring a moral side in that other nations just let their very sick and old die. I just had a friend die because of cancer. When I heard he had stage 4 cancer I knew he would not last long. However, the family pushed to keep him alive as long as possible. He died in 3 months. During his last days he was in a wheelchair on a feeding tube and could not produce anything economically. Was that a success? Should we have kept him alive that long? Our society says yes. Others say no. They would have denied him care and he would have died sooner. So there is that moral issue of it as well.
"We can hold the government accountable to some degree with healthcare. We can't hold private companies accountable. "
I beg to differ. At the federal level you almost no control. Consider Congress's approval rating and their retention rating. Corporations you have a lot of control. Just don't give them business. What corporation in the US has a $20 trillion debt?
"but republicans seem to forget that power is still there, it just shifts to corporations"
All a corporation can do is offer you a job and a good/service. That's it. They have no power. As when Chomsky said corporations are coercive, they are not. For as bad as Amazon may be I have never seen them hold a gun to someone's head and force them to do things.
"And corporations by definition and there to maximise profits, which can easily be at the expense of he American people "
The only way they can make a profit is by giving people what they want.
"You don't think every American should have healthcare"
I think they should. I am saying resources are limited. There is a cap in how much we can actually offer. I feel every American should live a great life, but resources are limited. Something has to give.
"You prioritize advanced medical procedures for those who can afford it, over access for all tax paying Americans."
Under a M4A system there will be less access. That is the point. You cannot increase demand and cut pay by 40% and expect the same amount of access to exist. Other nations pay less because they offer less.
"Drug prices are exponentially higher than anywhere else. "
Because of our massive R&D and the fact that our drug companies donate a lot of drugs to developing nations. Those "greedy" drug companies are actually helping out other nations in need. Also, patents exist because where is the incentive to make and expensive drug so that people can copy it afterwards?
"I'm assuming you don't believe in Medicare when your too old to work? Because the same arguments we're made for Medicare. "
Medicare is a contributing factor to our quickly increasing healthcare prices.
"I have issues with people suffering because they have to decide between bankruptcy or not getting treated. "
But you don't have issues with people suffering because of wait times? Read the article entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
they write
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers "
So long wait times do have people suffering. It goes both ways.
"Their are several countries that aren't perfect and have varying models of supplying healthcare to all citizens. "
Again, they all limit how much healthcare one can receive. They don't provide healthcare to all.
"I don't understand how we can be the richest country in the history of the world and refuse to figure out a way to do it even better than other countries. "
In many ways we arguably do it better than other nations.
And we do have great minds. If you listen to them you will see that the issue is very complex. Listen to the experts in the field. Not Chomsky. Remember, he is not an healthcare expert. He is a guy who writes and speaks well thus people become blinded in how he is saying and do not listen to what he says.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p ok, here is the issue. You are clearly over emotional and if you are a medical student you won't last long in as a doctor because the second a patient of yours dies in your care you will cry and than your other two patients will die.
Here it is, you say I am a right wing extremist even though I have, many times, argued in favor for a universal healthcare system as I say they do many things well. But so does the US system which you deny and so do others here despite the plethora of evidence I give. That is why I call you and others far leftists. They ignore the other side of the argument.
Now I will break down your comments here like I always do but me, as a moderate, is going to give you another very important variable why a M4A system will not work in this nation. That is because, as a moderate, I look at this issue in many ways and not myopically like you do.
A very important reason why a universal healthcare system won't work in the US is because of culture. Hofstede Cultural Dimension is used in academics a lot. He developed several cultural measures such as uncertainty avoidance, power distance, individualism, and one I will discuss here, masculinity. When you compare the US to Sweden, Denmark and Norway in masculinity there is a stark difference. The US scores a 62. Sweden, Denmark and Norway score a 5, 26, and 8, respectively. What does that mean? A more masculine a nation is the more the competitive a culture is and the more individual success is rewarded. As the website says
"A high score (Masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner/best in field "
A more feminine nation (lower masculine score) values society success more. As the source says
"A low score (Feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. A Feminine society is one where quality of life is the sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable"
The US is a masculine society. You showed that yourself when you threw your credentials out there saying you were a med student to "stand out from the crowd". Feminine nations will value a universal healthcare system much more than a masculine one will.
On characteristic is not better than the other. One can say feminine nations care about each other. But nations with communist histories, like Russia, are also feminine as well as they have a history of being comrades and acting when the nation calls without question. One can say that being masculine is being greedy. But in many ways in order to succeed as an individual you have to produce that people want. For example, Jeff Bezos became rich by providing citizens what they want, an easier way to shop. Or myself, as a PhD student. To earn a PhD I have to publish original research to carve out more information in science.
If you are a med student it won't be surprising. Typically people who go really deep in a field ends up being that is all they know. So healthcare is all you know. But you don't understand economics, i.e., healthcare economics, where M4A is driven more on the economics of healthcare and not healthcare itself. You don't understand statistics. You don't understand business. You don't understand variables like culture that explains why a society acts the way it does.
You see, many like you and others here are far leftists because you completely ignore legit, and important variables, like culture, to try to fit a round peg through a square hole.
Now I started with this because when I respond you usually only respond to the first couple comments and run away. You take a few jabs and run away so you don't get beaten into submission. But if you are so intelligent, tell me how our culture will ever accept a universal healthcare system like I just laid out. Or why do you ignore a variable like culture?
1
-
@GeneriicUsername498 "You know, for someone who tries to sound informed. When you say "Under him the economy is strong" you really gotta think about what you're saying. In reality, the "economy" is only good for the top 1% while the middle class (if it even still exists) and others are getting shafted. "
The middle class was doing better. Wages were up, home ownership was up, worker participation was going up.
"We are humans and there are thousands of problems that we should change."
What change? I agree things can improve, but change should be minor. There are no major issues.
"Why do I never see far-right supporters bring up the environment? This isn't some hoax anymore, it is real (don't even try to argue this)."
Who denies climate change where I assume that is what you are talking about? Those on the right do care about the environment. The issue is that they don't fear monger. Scientists like Myles Allen of the IPCC and Mike Hulme have argued that the dooms day propaganda pushed by the left is dangerous and not productive. Read Mike Hulme's nature paper entitled
"Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous"
Also, read up on the comparison of Al Gore's home to George Bush's home and how the latter is more environmentally friendly. But why is it that the left listens to Gore and Greta as opposed to scientists on the issues of the environment as opposed to scientists?
"Nature takes a long time to react to the velocity of our impacts."
What do you base that off of?
"Really the main issue is that governments only look at short term problems and when I say short I mean very short term (just look at how long it took for Trump to say it was just the flu, to treating it as an actual virus). "
And Bernie, in March, said we should not shut down the border and simply said that Trump, by shutting down the borders, was using the virus as an excuse to simply ban immigration. Or how Pelosi was going to China town hugging chinese people. Trump did all he can do. He can't force states to do anything due to the 10th amendment. You guys have been calling Trump a dictator for years. This was a time where he can act like one but instead he left the issues up to the states and did all he was allowed to do, close the borders.
"the creeping of climate change is gradual but deadly."
Based on what? Climate change is a very complex issue we know very little about. That is why scientists have been critical of the alarmists and disagree with their messages.
1
-
@J4535-b9p "Please stop calling everyone far left who disagrees with you. Especially when it is clear that you are extremely right on the issues who literally appeals to emotional arguments constantly by misrepresenting a vast array of information. "
No, i am a moderate. I look at the entire issue. I have praised universal healthcare a lot in prior comments and said, as a whole, that both the US system and other developed nations are all on par with each other. They all face issues that are different and, by my recent comment to you, it is simply want the society accepts. Other nations accept the fact that grandma is old and thus those nations drug them up and have them die pain free. In the US we push to keep grandma alive. And as I pointed out with culture, the US is a more masculine culture. You acted that way yourself by throwing out your credentials. So I am a moderate as I look at the entire issue where you ignore legit arguments against your point of views.
"To start off This is simply incorrect since you are trying to argue that in other nations they don't get advanced care or the "sick suffer"
"
The very sick suffer as the amount of care you can receive is capped. Again, as I pointed out in the book "In Excellent Health" by Stanford prof. Scott Atlas, the US offers the most advanced testing and care and thus has the highest survival rates in advanced illnesses. With the heart attack Bernie had he would have had to wait months in a nation like Canada to receive care where in the US he received immediate care.
"The sick AND poor are many times united because they sick are also poor and die without the treatment.
"
And the poor in the US have bad lifestyle habits with higher rates of smoking, type II diabetes and obesity, all self inflicted. And as pointed out by Prof. Katherine Baicker in her NEJM article entitled
"The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes"
She wrote
"This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years"
So even with access to healthcare they did not improve physically. And in fact, let us consider culture here again. The US in long term orientation is scored at a 26 where the other nations I mentioned, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, score higher. When scoring high a society looks to the future. With a low score our society does not look long term and thus short term. Thus people rather enjoy unhealthy food now as opposed to thinking long term. So there is that to consider. But hey, you feel I am an extreme right winger despite me looking at a ton of different variables.
"because the ones who suffer in our system are the really sick since they can't afford care at all for many items due to the insane cost. If you are born with a condition here(The really sick), you are in a horrible position compared to other nations. "
And other nations will deny you care even if you are middle class or poor. That is the point. Other nations have issues as well.
"Why don't you tell me what chemotherapy drugs they don't have in Germany, or France, etc?
Are you saying they don't have cisplatin? Paclitaxel? Cyclophosphamide? Trastuzumab? Etc."
I never said they don't have that type of care. I am saying the citizens there have less access. Healthcare economics seem to be a weak subject to you so I will use an analogy of person income. I have around a few thousand dollars in my checking account. It is safe to assume Bezos has a lot more in his checking account. By you standard I am just as rich as Bezos because I have money. No matter how much more he has, I simply have money thus I am just as rich as he is.
Now with healthcare, those nations have that type of care, they just have less of it. For example, they also have MRIs and CT scans, per capita they offer less compared to the US. That is the point. I never said they don't have that care. I am saying the citizens have less access to it thus the lower survival rates with those illnesses.
You try to sound smart but you have to make things up to try to debunk me. Shows how little you know and understand and poor of an argument you have.
"You are painting a picture where the US has superior drugs and technology and it isn't demonstrated by the reality. The US/Germany/Japan/France/Canada has the same chemotherapy drugs as offered to their patients alongside a drugs for all other diseases. The US is not 50 years ahead or whatever nonsense you think we are in terms of drugs."
No, I said they simply have lower access to those drugs. I never once suggested that those nations lack those drugs and care. I am saying the have less of them and thus the citizens have less access to them. I am not painting that picture, you are. Please learn how to read. I said the US has higher survival rates in those illnesses. That means in other nations the citizens survive as well as there is care for those illnesses as well, they just have less of them.
Again, you making things up shows how poor your arguments are. If you want to have an honest debate please try to represent your opponent fairly.
"And for the love of god, please please PLEASE stop referencing being mortal since you are completely misrepresenting what the book is.
The idea of being mortal was when doctors have to understand when individuals may not live and their last few months may be utterly destroyed by medications doctors are using to try to keep them alive. Its about coming to terms with death.
It is NOT about individuals who want treatment and want to live and many diseases are surely treatable but die or get far far sicker and die due to the economic basis of the healthcare system.
If you are going to reference a book, please please please READ IT.
"
I actually read the book and fully understand it. You clearly haven't. The entire book was about the challenges of dealing with human life near the end of their life. In healthcare there are several objective and moral arguments to be made. For example, the story of a patient who was told not to drink as it will not work well with their medication. They did anyway. The question was why not allow them to drink? Have them enjoy the final days of their lives as opposed to being hopped up on drugs. And yes, one point of the book was an economics argument on how people view modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. The part you are referring to about people coming to terms with death is one of many parts of the book. You are cherry picking one part of it which leads me to believe you never read it. There were other parts about how shoving the old in a nursing home is not the best and the innovation of placing animals in there and having kids visit led to less medication use and longer life.
However, there is a part where many times doctors will consult with patients saying "if you take this medication or have this surgery you can live, but the changes are low". Some people will take the medication or surgery hoping to live longer but don't. So yes, I am quoting and representing the book correctly. I recommend you read it, it is a good book.
Also, it does bring up the point where in the US people do push to keep the elderly alive a long as possible where in other nations they simply drug them up and tell them it is their time. We see it here with the coronavirus. We are shutting down an entire economy so the virus kills less people where most who are dying are old and don't work to begin with. Is that a success?
"They also mention the fact that the fetus is increased risk for macrosomia, still birth, diabetes in the future, etc. Essentially putting large amounts of risks into the children.
So whats the issue with the article posted?
One of the main conclusions drawn from the article is the entire idea of preventative care with physicians. Essentially stating that physicians are not doing a proper job in caring for the patients since many do not stress the weight issue."
As I mentioned even if physicians stress weight issues people don't follow. I referenced a NEJM article on that. My point was that we have an obesity issue in this nation and obesity leads to premature births. But way to completely ignore that. We teach about obesity in our schools at a young age. So why do we continue to have an issue? Because of poor lifestyle choices. You do not need access to healthcare and a doctor to tell you that you are obese and need to eat healthy. That is very basic stuff. At that point you are too far gone. So you are making excuses. The I represented the article correctly. You assume that a doctor telling someone to lose weight will be the magic light that will have them do it when eating healthy is a common thing to know.
"And then one of the main conclusion issues was that many Americans don't have access to healthcare. "
And again, as I pointed out in the NEJM article, even with access to healthcare people are still in bad physical shape. You don't need a doctor to tell you to eat healthcare and exercise and that you are obese. That is very basic stuff. You are making excuses at this point. Many people never see a doctor and are very healthy as it is very basic to know what food is healthy and what isn't.
1
-
@J4535-b9p "
J4535
1 hour ago (edited)
@whyamimrpink78 whyamimrpink78 Continued
Furthermore this is also problematic in its own sense because medically speaking, the argument is trying to put the issue on the person and saying it is due to poor lifestyle choices.
I have already posted this in the past and this is already a issue in the medical community. Genetic and epigentic predisposition make it more difficult for individuals to lose weight. Therefore, it is a massive problem trying to blame patients that it is their fault for being fat and therefore they do not deserve any medical care. "
I agree genetics can play a role and I have brought that up on the issue of heart disease and the black community where genetically they have a higher chance of heart disease. However, many people it does come down to life style choices. That is a problem we have, many simply choose a poor lifestyle and that weighs down the system. If we did not have so many doing a poor lifestyle choices than those who actually need help will get it. And even with genetic factors a healthy lifestyle can make a big difference. But ignore that.
"I mean you literally have no idea what I am speaking about yet you are posting articles and points that are either completely incorrect or misleading. "
I do know what I am talking about which is why I am a moderate and you are a radical. I fully agree genetics play a factor. I have brought up genetics a lot as I said with heart disease and blacks. My point is that a lot of poor health can be avoided with better lifestyle choices. 40% of the American food dollar is spent eating out where in other nations that is half that. In the US we eat more junk food. That is the reality. Even with genetic issues one can alleviate the situation by eating healthy. If you deny that than you a very poor doctor. I never once denied genetic issues. I am saying that, compared to other nations, we have a less healthy lifestyle.
But go ahead and make things up about me and ignore a very important factor here, lifestyle choices. To you it is always one issue and nothing else. Why do you ignore lifestyle choices? So you are saying I can drink gallons of soda a day and not exercise and the only determining factor in if I become obese is my genetics?
" mean look at this statement.
Leads the world in advanced care and testing?
How do we lead the world in advanced care? Can you name some drugs the US has that every other modern natiob does not have? cisplatin? Paclitaxel? '
Again, never said those nations don't have those drugs. I say we have higher access to them. I referenced a book by a Stanford professor on that. But again, you are making things up about me showing you have a very poor argument.
Again, by your standard I am just as rich as Bezos as I have money and so does he.
"And they argue that these "between-country differences probably reflect largely wasted overuse" in the United States""
And I agree with that argument and, if you read all my posts in all these videos, I have brought that up.
Here is the issue. By offering those testing we play a "better safe than sorry" case. As I pointed out to you, and we have argued before, the case of Natasha in the UK, a 16 year old girl who complained about headaches, saw over 10 doctors many times over many months and they said they were simply said they were migraines. She was finally given an MRI but had to wait months for it. It was a tumor and she died. In the US she would have been offered an MRI sooner and would be alive.
However, this is where the economics and statistics argument comes into play. I know those are two weak subjects for you so I will do my best to be detailed. Statistically yes, she most likely just had migraines. But by providing an MRI you eliminate the possibly of something more severe. But that ends up costing a nation more. So it comes down to a game of statistics and economics.
Gov. Cuomo said that if we spend a trillion dollars and save one life that was worth it. Was it? You, by what you are saying, is no. It is related to the advanced testing. We offer these advanced testing to say, keeping the numbers simple, 1000 people. Out of them 1 of them has a severe case and we save them. Was it worth the money? It is a fair question. The US says yes. Other nations say no.
Now I know economics is not your strong point along with healthcare economics but I will use the example of driving to point out two important economic terms, the law of diminishing returns and opportunity cost.
Around 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. Most will agree that lowering speed limits will lower that numbers. With the law of diminishing returns say we lower free speed limits 5 MPH and it saves 5,000 lives. Ok, so we lower it again 5 MPH but only 1000 lives were saves. That is the law of diminishing returns. That eventually you reach a point where no matter how far you go you are not gaining much. Compare it to studying for a test. Say zero studying you receive a 50%. Say 5 hours of study you receive an 85%. Say 5 more hours you receive an 88%. The gain is dropping.
It is also opportunity costs. In study you could have done something else with those last 5 hours and gained more. Or with traffic accidents. Capping speed limits to 20 MPH will lead, most likely, to zero traffic deaths. However, commute times will increase harming our economy.
So with healthcare those laws apply. You, and other far leftists don't seem to understand that and that is what I am constantly trying to drive home. Sure, giving all that advanced testing can be seen as a waste and does drive up our healthcare costs, but it will save a life or two. Was it worth it? Some will say yes, others will say no. But you are not willing to have that difficult discussion which is why I call you a radical. I am willing to discuss those issues.
As we are facing now with the virus. We are not on a path of what will do more harm, the virus or the economy being shut down? That is why people want the economy re-opened. Many don't have jobs. Many can't pay rent. And we are at the point of picking the lesser of two evils. That is the difficult situation when it comes to healthcare that the left refuses to talk about.
1
-
@J4535-b9p , I doubt you will reply but to sum up the last part of my comment, as it is the basis I am arguing for. It is about healthcare economics. You seem knowledgeable, to a degree, in healthcare. But you seem to not know much in economics. I recommend you read the last part of my recent comment. As you correctly pointed out a lot of that advanced testing is pointless, but it may save a life or two. So is that worth it? Some will say yes, others will say no. In other nations they say it is not worth it. Statistically chances are people don't have a severe case so they deny advanced care. In the US we are not willing to take that chance.
That is the economics of it. There is opportunity cost. Denying advanced care will lead to lower healthcare prices, but the cost will be those few who die for a undetected illnesses. Same with what we are dealing with now. Our economy is shut down and tanking, but people are dying because of the virus. Now what is doing more harm? The bad economy or the virus? These are the difficult discussions related to healthcare the far left, like you, are not willing to make. And that is the core of all my arguments. It is the economics of it. I have said many times a universal healthcare system will solve some of our underlying problems such as bankruptcies and the poor not receiving care. But other issues will arise such as limited access to care and lower quality. It comes down to what does our society accept.
As with driving, our society accepts the 40,000 deaths, whether they know it or not, for higher speed limits. We can lower speed limits to 20 mph to have zero deaths, but the economy will suffer and other people will suffer in other ways.
That is the underlying theme of my arguments. These issues are complex, not simple like the far left makes it out to be. The economics of it are complex and comes with cost of some kind. The fact you cannot see that shows to me you lack understand of economics. Which is why you cannot see my underlying message. I recommend you read up on economics and the economics of healthcare and the difficult decisions people have to make.
This current situation should show that. Right now ask yourself, what will do more harm to more people? The bad economy or the virus? And also consider who is being harmed? Most dying because of the virus are either very old or very sick with other issues. People suffering because of the economy are healthy, productive people. So consider that.
I doubt I get a response but overall, and for others, this is the underlying argument in healthcare, the economics of it and the difficult, complex decisions that need to be made both financially and morally.
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p "You are definitely not a moderate. You have argued for extreme free market captalism for the healthcare system and state the most ridiculous things. "
No, I argue that a free market system where we can choose our own healthcare insurance where insurance is insurance, and have local communities such as charities or a local public option is the best. Noticed how I brought up a local public option?
Right now we don't have a free market system. We have a heavily regulated and subsidized system. For example, the payroll tax has it so you cannot choose your own insurance plan. I suggest eliminating the payroll tax so there employers pay with a higher wage and the employee can by an insurance plan they want forcing companies to compete. You can thus get the plan you want and have insurance be insurance and pay for everything else out of pocket. Just like care insurance pays for an accident which is unplanned and expensive but does not pay for oil changes which is needed for a safe car. Healthcare insurance can pay for unplanned, expensive situations and the rest if out of pocket. The issue is that since healthcare insurance is a form of payment it pays for all of healthcare. Also, you cannot choose your plan and when you switch jobs you have to switch insurance. That creates problems.
You see, you do not even know what I support. And as I said, local sources such as charities and a local public option can fill in the gaps.
Again, if you are going to criticize me you have to understand my position fairly.
"Again cite something because there is no evidence demonstrating that. Unless you are speaking about pallative and end of care treatment which is also here in the United States. "
They have lower survival rates and offer less access to advanced care. That is how they spend less. In the US the most expensive part of a person's life is their last 6 months. There is a reason for that. We offer them that much care.
"Does this study actually demonstrate that there is absolutely no change in preventative care? Of course not, because it only measures 3 variables where numerous diseases are caught and life saving if caught early."
Oh, so now other variables matter to you. Why now? I never denied that other variables don't matter. Also, I will admit that article brought up some advantages to expanding medicaid such as lower stress for example. You see, as a moderate I am willing to look at the whole issue. The issue is that when I bring up poor physical health people bring up preventative care when lifestyle choices and aid in that. BTW, the NEJM has the highest impact factor of any peer reviewed journals. And the lead author of that paper in a speech to Congress brought this up in comparing a free market system to a universal healthcare system
"Focusing on the underlying issues discussed here suggests that the fundamental problems facing our health insurance system are unlikely to be cured by the extremes of either a single payer system or an unfettered marketplace. On the one hand, the unregulated marketplace is unlikely to provide long-run stable insurance. Private insurers will always have an incentive to try to shed their highest cost enrollees, so without regulatory safeguards even the insured sick will be at risk of losing the insurance protections to which they are entitled. Private insurance fundamentally cannot provide the kind of redistribution based on underlying health risk or income that social insurance can. On the other hand, a single payer system does not automatically provide high quality care: the provision of low-value care is as pervasive in the single payer Medicare system as it is elsewhere. Single-payer systems are also slow to innovate – as suggested by the fact that it took Medicare 40 years to add a prescription drug benefit, long after most private insurers had done so. Nor do calculations of the costs of a single-payer system measure the utility loss from forcing people with different preferences into a monolithic health insurance plan. The private facilities that have sprung up in Canada to meet the demands of those who want more health care than the public system provides fundamentally undermine the “single payer” nature of the system."
You see, the issue is complex which is what I am saying. There are pros and cons to both systems. So I am going to keep repeating this but it comes down to the economics of it. What is the cost, and what our society, and ultimately our culture is willing to accept.
1
-
@J4535-b9p "This study is simply indicating a few lab values that did not change and pink is attempting to argue ALL preventative care is not making a difference."
Never said it would not make a difference. Just saying there is more to it. Again, you do not need a doctor to tell you to eat healthy.
"No they don't for non-elective procedures. They don't just deny you care, you continue to state this without evidence."
Define an "elective" procedure. In places like Canada and Australia that can be certain forms of heart and neurosurgery. Or it can be that advanced testing you need that will detect a more severe situation. Or even something like knee surgery. If I have a bad knee I want it fixed quickly as my jobs and activities have me on my feet often. So that is not "elective" to me. Also, wait times have had bad results. As mentioned in the paper entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
Where they write
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers"
Also, it begs the question who decides what is elective and what isn't? Based on what? And why? Hickenlooper was critical of Bernie saying he wants to throw a plan out there and have others pick up the pieces. Bernie, no where in his bill, defines what is elective and what isn't. That places the pressure on medical personal to decide. And again, will our culture accept it?
"That's good right? Actually no, you see many times in the medical community unnecssary scans are done which have no indication, end up costing more and doing more damage."
Which I admit is an argument that you completely ignored I made. And again, this comes back to the economics of it. Sure, if we offer less care we will spend less. However, there will be cases of people dying for an undetected situation that an advanced test could have found. As I pointed out in that story of the UK girl. She was denied an MRI for months. She had a tumor. Now statistically chances were it was nothing. But that was a case where it was.
And again, it comes down to the underlying argument I am making, the economics of it. If, in all those testings, we save 0.02% of the population, is that good? Well, many argue in that M4A it will save 45,000 people a year who die due to lack of access. That is around 0.02% of the population. But as a trade off less advanced testing is offered.
Are you seeing the economics of it now?
"= better healthcare is simply wrong. It shows your lack of knowledge in the field which is beyond laughable to me a med student let alone a doctor who may see this. "
And there is an argument to be made there as well. You see, I can look at all sides. But again, it comes down to the economics of it and what our culture is willing to accept.
"They don't, that is my entire point. They don't have lower access to those drugs. Because the only thing you can point to is CT/MRI scans which I demonstrated above does more damage than good, has no statistical significant increase, and why it isn't an argument. "
Again, if you end up saving 0.02% of the population, is that good? Again, many argue that 45,000 people die a year due to lack of access. That is around 0.02% of the population. So what is better? This is, again, the complex nature of this issue that you are completely ignoring. Instead you call me a far right winger when I have argued for both sides.
"It is very clear that you have not read the book, especially pulling 2 random examples out. And that is literally what I said above. It's about doctors coming to terms with death, understanding what you should do for the last couple of months. How destroying someones last months with medications may not be best."
Uh, more to the book than that. It is also about giving people a choice. If they want medication and surgery they should be offered it. Clearly you have not read it. I recommend you do, it is a good read.
"THEY DON'T, that is my point. I literally posted cancer survival rates above and amendable mortality overall"
Uh, amenable mortality. Read the paper entitled
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review."
Where they say
"No study has explicitly used a healthcare activity or quality variable in their analyses. This implies that the evidence that amenable mortality is an indicator of healthcare quality is far from overwhelming or clear."
And
"Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study"
Where they say
"Given these gaps in knowledge, between-country differences in levels of mortality from amenable conditions should not be used for routine surveillance of healthcare performance. "
Also, it goes beyond cancer. There are other forms of advanced illnesses as well. But you are a doctor, you should know that.
You also capitalize the words because you are acting like an immature child. Again, too emotional to be a doctor. Feel bad for your patients.
"There are a variety of reasons many individuals are obese(one of which i pointed out above was genetics) but even emotional issues that many individuals have. This is the issue, your own article again argued against your premise. The point of the article was demonstrating proper help from physicians to work with it."
And I am not denying any of that. However, stress can lead to weight loss and exercise and proper diet can reduce stress as well. Again, this issue is complex. My point is that there are a collective group of people who life poor lifestyle choices and it limits care of those who actually need it.
"Based off of what? You are saying many peoples faults are lifestyle choices. Where is that from? Again there is a huge emphasis on lifestyle but there is tons of evidence demonstrating many individuals have terrible points due to genetics, epigenetics and environmental issues"
Again, I never denied that. Again, so I can drink gallons of soda a day and not exercise and the only way I will become obese is based on my genetics? I bet you think smoking is not bad for you either.
"Again this is where your lack of statistical and medical understanding come into play. This is because you simply don't understand how scans work, and indications.
You believe if you have a headache, and just go back for headaches, they just give you an MRI. This is FALSE. You do not get MRI's just for headaches, you need to have an indication for the scan.
So what that means is, a headache is to generic of a symptom, you need to have something called alarm or red flag symptoms. This is something indicating that something else is likely occurring. "
And this is the point I am making. Also, why are you ignoring a lot of my comments? I brought up statistics and how statistically it was nothing. But now here is the point, you are placing a finite value on a human life. You are going to deny her expensive care because, chances are, what she has is not serious. Thus you are saying she is worth X amount. And that is the entire point of my arguments. Something has to give. You are now placing a value on a human life.
So I highly understand the stats and brought it up numerous times. Why do you ignore that?
"Again these analogies are terrible because we constantly do things to ensure traffic accidents are minimized. Making cars safer, seatbelts being law, and traffic checkpoints. The argument you are making is simply moronic because the example you gave was actually stating decrease 5MPH = save 5000 lives.
However if I said statistically there was no difference in the number of deaths by decreasing the speed limit, would you say lower it? That is the point, there is no statistical differences in lives saved by doing the scans. Stating 1 person more is saved is not a statistical difference."
I am talking about at this point in time. And you say
"That is the point, there is no statistical differences in lives saved by doing the scans. "
And the same can be said about going to a M4A system. The highest value of deaths due to lack of access was a Yale study of 60,000. Is that significant? That is less than 0.02% of the total population. Is that significant? Now consider other studies with varying results like a Harvard one that said 45,000, a UCSD one that suggested almost zero, and another one that says 18,000. Now you have varying numbers as a result.
So you are literally proving my point.
1
-
@J4535-b9p , at this point you are literally proving my point in two ways. To start, you ignore a plethora of my comments. But the two points are
1. The economics of the issue. I agree one can argue that all these advanced testing can be unnecessary. But it has saved some lives. Now it may be very little, but it has save some. But now you are placing a finite value on a human life. You are saying that a human life is worth X amount and thus no pre-cautions will be taken and thus no advanced testing unless it is absolutely clear we need to do it.
This is a major point I have argued a lot. There is an economic point to it. Yes, statistically those advanced testing are not necessary. But now you placed a value on human life that no "better safe than sorry" test is need.
As I said with opportunity cost. As people said, some people die due to lack of access. That number has ranged as little as 18,000 to 60,000. So few points there. One, that number ranging that much shows it is difficult to obtain an accurate value. But if M4A saves those lives, how many lives will it cost?
The second point you made for me is that yes, statistically it is not significant. Even at 60,000 deaths that is still around 0.02% of the population. Now consider how much that value ranges, and how other experts question those values such as them being in poor health to begin with, so even with access to care they are at a high chance of dying. Now you have a statistic that is not significant.
So I thank you for making my points for me. Too bad you ignored them when I made them.
And why are you ignoring culture?
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p "I don't understand how explaining disease processes, linking massive amounts of resources to you that medical students and physicians use, and breaking down papers show I am over-emotional. Why don't you just listen to people who know more than you in the field? Why is that so hard? "
You write in all caps. You label me and extreme right winger even though everything I write shows I am a moderate. You ignore a plethora of my comments such as the advanced testing comment. I even admitted that arguably we offer too much advanced testing. And in the case of that UK girl statistically it was most likely nothing. You ended up making that comment but ignore the fact I made it.
I see it now, you are in ICU with three patients. One dies, you cry and in doing so you are not focused and your other two patients die. You get sued and lose your job.
I recommend you try to be more mature from now on. As in my recent comments you are literally proving my point. One is on economics in that you literally placed a value on a human life. The second is statistics where you claim that the advanced tests do not lead to significant results where I argue that, with 60,000 deaths at best, less than 0.02% is not significant.
As for culture, Japan is a more collective culture, so that plays a role. So is the UK and 2 points, as studied in my international business course, that is significant. There is also long term orientation as well.
The US with being a masculine nation, with low LT, and high individualism will not accept a M4A system.
"I don't understand why you make it seem like universal healthcare would suddenly make the country lazy or non-competitive"
Never said it would. Saying our society won't accept such a system.
"Well I'm sorry pink, I do care about people. Hell I even want you to have access to everything you need in the nation.'
I beg to differ. If so why do you ignore a massive amount of my comments such as how I argued, in the case of that UK girl, that statistically chances were she did not have a severe case. Why?
Out of all of that, why do you ignore the massive amount of my comments?
1
-
@J4535-b9p I have read your posts. You do not read mine. Again, on the UK girl I have argued that, statistically chances were high that all she had were migraines. In the US we play a better safe than sorry route. In other nations they cap how much care you receive. Statistically there is an argument to be made there. In that offering all these advanced testing and saving a very small portion of lives, was it worth? But the same can said about M4A and the 18000-60,0000 deaths a year due to lack of access. That is 0.02% of the nation. And considering the multiple variables it becomes even less significant. But of course you will ignore that side of the argument due to your firmly held, religious like belief.
Bottom line is this. Despite you not reading my arguments where I said the exact same things you did prior to you saying it. Despite you completely misrepresenting me and not realizing I stand for, when I make these arguments it comes down the three things of this complex issue.
1. Economics. You yourself admitted there is a finite value on life. You admitted that when you said that those advanced care is not necessary and the people who die due to lack of access of it was not statistically significant. Thus you are placing a value on human life. The reality is that there is a value of human life and it varies. For example, there are reasons why some earn the min. wage and others earn six figures. That is the harsh reality. Gov. Cuomo said something along the lines of if we spend a trillion dollars to save one life it was worth it. Reality is that it isn't.
Right now us, as a nation, have to make a choice in what will do more harm to more people. This virus or the poor economy. Do we keep the economy shut down where people are unemployed, can't pay bills, can't pay rent to keep people from getting the virus? Or do we re-open the economy so people have jobs and some people get the virus? Now add in that, statistically the people who will most likely die due the virus are either old or sick. Where people suffering due to the poor economy are productive people trying to pay rent, bills, buy food, etc. So what do we do? Something has to give. So there is an economics side to healthcare.
Also, as one of the authors of the Koch brothers' study said. Sure, M4A may cost less with a 40% less payment. But you have to now bring up access and quality issue. That is called "opportunity cost" in economics.
2. Statistical significance. You brought it up in the relation of advanced testing and how the deaths due to lack of it was not significant statistically. I agree. But also the 18,000 to 60,000 deaths due to lack of access are also not significant as I said earlier as one, the range is large as it is hard to obtain accurate number. Two, at worse it is around 0.02% of the population, And three, many variables are involved. Or medical bankruptcy. A NEJM paper suggests that there are only around 100,000 bankruptcies due to medical bills alone. That is 0.03% of the population. You are suggesting completely dismantling the entire US healthcare system to cater to 0.03% of the nation. Is that wise?
Or other stats. When you run through them and completely break them down the US is on par with other nations. For example, life expectancy. This is a few years old but the world average is 71±7 years. The US is around 79 year, over one standard deviation. Now add in other factors the influence overall life expectancy and you see that the difference of a few years between nations is not significant and cannot be blamed on a healthcare system.
3. Culture. The US has over 327 million people. Good luck convincing a nation as large as us to accept higher taxes and government control healthcare.
You are grossly over simplifying this issue. You are ignoring the issues I brought up as you feel your the solution is simple. It is not. That is why when challenged by me you become highly offended. Your beliefs are religious like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p I have very little knowledge on the topic? Really? Again, it comes down to three issues, culture, economics and statistics. I took time to think about all you write. You just write medical terms here and there but ignore statistics, the culture and the economics where those are the main concerns of this issue. You entire comment completely ignores all that I said because, as usual, you have a firmly held, religious like belief on what you think that you just ignore anything that goes against that. So I will try again, starting with the easiest one, culture.
Culture: We have a nation of over 320 million people who, for decades, used the system we have now where most have no problems. Good luck convincing them to support a M4A system that raises their taxes and takes away their healthcare insurance.
Statistics: I brought up significance like you did with the 60,000 deaths and you just, while displaying a high level of ignorance, dismissed it. My point is that 60,000 is less than 0.02% of the overall population. You are demanding that we radically change our healthcare system to cater to 0.02% of the population. 0.02% is not significant. To give a perspective I am submitting a paper for publication (to let you know that means it gets peer reviewed and published, I know you don't know that process but in academics that is the standard) and some of my error bars are around 24%. But the data is still considered reliable. 0.02% is not significant and is due to many variables as we saw that number, from numerous studies, ranges from essentially zero to 60,000. So with statistics there is nothing significant to suggests that a M4A system will be better than what we have.
Economics: You completely ignored this one. But you admitted that there is a finite value on a human life. You admitted that tests are denied as the lives saved are not statistically significant. You are placing a value on a human life. As Gov. Cuomo said, if we spend a trillion dollars and save one life that is worth it. In reality that isn't worth it. This is the economics of it. Healthcare economics does not seem to be your strong point so I will, again, use the case of traffic deaths. Around 40,000 people die a year due to traffic deaths. We can, right now with the technology we have, reduce that number to basically zero by capping all speed limits to 20 MPH. However, that means commute times will be greater causing harm to the economy such as longer shipping times, people wasting time in their cars when they can be doing something productive, etc. Thus us, as a society, accept 40,000 deaths a year to have higher speed limits. The same is in healthcare. While our healthcare system has flaws, it does many things well such as more R&D, higher survival rates in advanced illnesses, and it fits our culture. We can go to a M4A system but other flaws will arise. And again, in every system lives are lost because, in the end, there is a finite value set on them.
You seem to be somewhat knowledgeable on healthcare. But you seem highly ignorant on culture, statistics and economics. I recommend that one, you tone down your emotions. As I said, if you are working in ICU and one of your patients dies, you can't become over emotional as then your other two patients will die. And next, do not talk about issues you know nothing about. I will be the first to admit I am not an expert on healthcare, or economics, but I know enough about them, compare to people on these comment sections, to have an opinion and guide people in the right direction. You just throw around healthcare terms but continue to completely ignore the points I am making.
1
-
@J4535-b9p in your entire ramble you once again completely missed the points I am making. You claimed you know what peer reviewed means and then cite the Commonwealth Fund which is not an academic source but a private organization that is a special interest group. You are making that too easy. Also, in your description of statistics you showed you do not know what you are talking about. But here we go.
"Most Americans depise the US healthcare system. I have no idea where you are getting this information."
From reality and not from opinion polls. As Prof. Andrew Gelman said (I know you don't trust professors but I do this anyway)
"Finally, the 3 percent margin of error is an understatement because opinions change. On January 3, 2004, the Gallup poll included 410 Democrats, 26 percent of whom supported Howard Dean for president. The margin of error was 5 percent, and so we can be pretty sure that on that date, between 21 percent and 31 percent of Democrats supported Dean. But a lot of them have changed their minds. A poll is a snapshot, not a forecast."
Also, as one of my former boss said, who has a masters in statistics, when she see a poll was done via phone polling she dismisses it. The reason why is because with phone polling you cannot see the expression on someone's face, you do not know who you are polling, you do not know how passionate they are about a topic. Someone may say they support M4A but do not feel too passionate about it. Also, Actual Justice Warrior did a video on this talking about how Kyle does not understand polling data. He broke down the exit polls showing that democrats support more of a public option. That brings me to a point that I have always said about polling, they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. If you asked about M4A and brought up losing their insurance and higher taxes support drops a lot, even with democrats. But go ahead and ignore that.
Also consider how the democrats could not get 60 democrat senators to agree on one healthcare bill in 2009. Fact is that you are not going to convince our culture to accept M4A as written by Bernie. But go ahead and point to polls and ignore everything else.
"Except this is why I explained statistical significance. Because you are using it incorrectly. I explained what it meant statistically(which you still apparently don't understand) and studies do demonstrate statiscal significant increases in survival rates with medications. Because what you need to look at is medications, and what overall statistically increase.
Example for blood pressure, many americans are denied medications to treat it and it statistically significantly increases the survival rate. "
I do not see any statistical analysis in that paper, so what are you saying? Also, you did not explain statistical significance (which is why you posted a paper with zero statistical analysis). I am talking about how many people preach that M4A will save lies and that up to 60,000 deaths occur a year because of lack of access. However, numerous other studies range from essentially zero to 60,000 showing that any changes in the methods can lead to varying numbers creating a high degree of uncertainty begging the question should we radically change our system when, at best, it will save less than 0.02% of the population, and that comes with high uncertainty. That is my point on the stats which you seem to struggle with.
"I mean I don't get why you keep saying this over and over again. I have literally explained to you what peer review meant in other videos numerous times. I have defined it, linked to papers(for example the common wealth fund) and showed how they did their peer reviewed process. Then you explained the error bars but that has nothing to do with statistical significance.
Statistical significance is demonstrated through confidence intervals and can have large error bars. The 60k you gave was not in reference to any statistical methodology. You simply keep stating the stat without understand what it means. You have literally no idea what you are speaking about statistically. Please demonstrate a study if you'd like"
The fact that you point to the Commonwealth Fund to try to show understanding of the peer reviewed process is funny. I am talking about the standard in academics. As I said the Commonwealth Fund is a private organization and is a special interest group.
As for stats, it goes beyond confidence intervals and error bars. A lot of times those numbers simply come as a result of the math. Stats you seem to struggle with so I will go a simple route. Consider averages and standard deviation. You can have an average with a low standard deviation with only 5 data points. You can have 500 data points and have a higher standard deviation. What average is more reliable? The 500 data point one despite a higher standard deviation.
The 60,000 death stat is from a recent Yale report. Besides that I have stated that other studies show varying numbers which creates doubt in the accuracy of the numbers as several variables are involved. Prof. Katherine Baicker even brought that up, but I know how you do not trust academic sources. And again, 0.02% is small. 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents but I do not see us taking the radical approach in banning driving. So with 60,000 deaths why take a radical approach in going to M4A?
"No it does, because you increase access to medications, access to surgeries, save Americans in the process, decrease the cost, and overall have statistically no changes in results in most departments."
Do you increase access? That is questionable. The researchers who did the Koch Brothers' study on the cost of M4A said it will only cost less as it pays 40% less. But, as the authors say, you start getting into access issues, quality issues, etc. So does it increase access? You sound so certain but have no evidence for that. As I mentioned in there nations they limit how much care people receive. In Canada people die due to being denied "elective" heart surgery. You sound so certain in your claim with no actual evidence. Also, as I said in the past, people who typically die due to healthcare complications have many issues and are at high risk of dying to begin with. So even if you give them access to care and they die in a few months, was that a success?
You also don't seem to understand statistics, so I will keep this simple. Say M4A does save those 60,000 lives. Now say it cost a crap ton of money and they die in a few months, now it cost a lot for little results. Say also that 80,000 die now being denied "elective" care? We are worse off in two ways. One, we are spending more on a group that produce nothing, and two, more people are dying. You have yet to convince me, or anyone really beyond far left wingers that M4A will not come with problems that I described.
"Unfortunately not only is that not what I am saying(as explained above by statistical significance) but this again is telling me you don't understand more scans can be worse and hurt more people."
And a M4A system can be worse for our economy and others as well as I just described. People who die of healthcare complications have many problems typically. If we give them expensive care and they die in 5 months producing nothing in the economy, that is, economically, a waste. Now our economy is worse off. Economics does not seem to be your strong point but that is the reality. You are saying that under M4A the benefits will be significant there the drawbacks will not with zero details in why nor zero support. This is why M4A is not winning anywhere, your arguments are that weak.
1
-
@J4535-b9p "I am not putting a finite value on human life rather explaining that doing more cause actually causes more harm and leads to fewer lives saved.
It is extremely complex which is why I am stating that you can't simply deny individuals on the fact that you feel that they are not living good lifestyles. You have many misconceptions about the nature of medication, how they function, and how they work. "
I agree it is complex, but you are the one over simplifying by pointing to unreliable opinion polls and ignoring the economics of it. You point to mammograms, but how are MRIs dangerous? I do not see it. Also, in your over simplifying it you claim that M4A will have significant benefits with no significant drawbacks with zero details in how. I explained to you some drawbacks that will be significant to our economics and healthcare outcomes. Or, at least, on par with the benefits. This is, overall, the bottom line that I always say. All things consider the US healthcare system is on par with other nations. We have issues, but so do other nations. But we do many things very well, so do other nations. For example, people complain about drug prices here but in the US we lead the world in R&D and our drug companies donate drugs to developing nations and donate resources to train people there. That was a case study we had to read up on in my international business course.
"1) I have literally posted numerous stats showing we do NOT have higher survival rates in the United States. We don't and you have provided no evidence to this claim. We on average have equal or worse survival rates in most departments.
Again this is not difficult to understand why. You have large segments of the population not able to access medications.
2) Furthermore, the vast majority of Americans now approval of the notion of universal healthcare. Whether looking at gallop, pew research, exit polls. The reality is the country is changing. The younger generations(less than 45) especially overwhelming support it. Likely when the older generations pass, it will become overwhelming popular. And its already popular now according to most polls. "
1: You posted data on cancer, that's it. I am talking about all advanced care as a whole. I also cited a Stanford professor on that topic. The book is "In Excellent Health" by Scott Atlas. Again, I know professors are people you don't agree with, but he breaks it down well.
2: Again, read the exit polls. It shows that people do not understand M4A as written and support more of a public option. And it wasn't people but democrats. Do independents and republicans feel the same way? Actual Justice Warrior has a great video on it where he breaks down the polling data. For a guy who claims to understand stats you really suck at polling data. The polls show what I say all the time, polls are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. And if M4A is so popular why did it fail in Colorado? Oh, I know you will make excuses about misinformation. But that begs the question, if people are so easily persuaded by the media and counter arguments, it really begs the question if it was that popular to begin with. Or as I said earlier it begs the question on how passionate people are about it.
"I mean your example of the car accidents again was a terrible example because as I explained above, it isnt that decreasing the speed limit saves lives.
It would be as if you decreased the speed limits, saved lives here and lost more lives overall since people sped more and caused more traffic collisions. It is extremely complicated which is why I am trying to explain it to you. '"
No, we mandate that all cars cannot go faster than 20 mph. It isn't so much about setting a speed limit but designing cars that can only go so fast. But hey, let us go farther and ban driving. That will guarantee zero traffic deaths. So my car example is legit. It was discussed in my economics course.
"I've explained all 3 to you. Using polling, "
And I explained to you how polling is unreliable. I even cited a statistics professor in Andrew Gelman in how opinions change over time and polls are a snapshot, not a forecast. Again, stats is not your strong point.
That UMass study has many flaws which is why it is a report and not an actual paper. One flaw is that they assume that healthcare, economically, exists in a vacuum. They have a portion where they give a cost in aiding people in finding a job. One of that is them having to move to get a new job. That creates problems in housing prices. If you force the market where certain people have to move from one location to another, housing prices change that do not benefit the consumers. Those homes people are leaving will drop in value to where the home owners lose out on their investment where typically a home increases in price. The homes they end up buying, due to increases in demand, go up in price. So many people will have to down size. There is also the psychological effects in moving, especially with kids.
Another flaw is property taxes. With home prices dropping and insurance companies going under, the value of property, such as offices of the insurance companies, will drop leading to less property taxes for a local community. That means less money for schools. So that study has many flaws to it. They also admitted that doctors will be earning less but assume they will still provide the same level of care. That is completely foolish. Almost anywhere in the market when payment is cut productivity drops unless it was agreed upon by the workers. And what about malpractice insurance? That is not included as well. That study has way too many holes for my taste. The economics of healthcare do not reside in a bubble. Also, it is a report, not a paper published in any journal. So even with reviews it would still exist online. You do not seem to understand the peer reviewed process so I will explain it. The peer reviewed process means some of my peers have to approve the paper for publication. I cannot have it floating around online (well I can, no one will take is seriously) until it gets approved. That is why that report is on the university website and not in an actual journal.
"Anyways, the point is I am truly trying to educate you. You have such hardcore beliefs that you continue to state the same things over and over and over and over. You used the car analogy over and over again even though I have attempted to explain to you the difference. "
It is more of I am educating you. The car analogy is used in economic courses. You cite polling data while claiming to understand statistics even though statisticians understand the major flaws in polls and why they are unreliable.
1
-
@J4535-b9p Here is the major road block with you, again, you do not understand culture, economics and statistics. So I will do it again.
Culture: Again, our culture will not accept higher taxes and losing their healthcare insurance. I know you point to polls but again, they are unreliable as I explained. And even the exit polls of democrats show that one, they do not under what M4A even is, and two, they support more of a public option. I recommend you watch Actual Justice Warrior's video on it. He breaks down the same polls you are referring to. Also, that is of democrats, it does not mean independents and republicans feel the same. Also, as I showed you with Coloradocare, people's excuse was that misinformation was given. Well, if people are so easily persuade, how can we take their opinion seriously? It is the point that I bring up of how passionate these people are of a topic. But you ignore all of that. You pointing to polls shows you lack of understanding of them
Statistics: You claimed that the benefits will be statistically significant and that the drawbacks won't be but provided zero evidence in doing so. I explained to you that 60,000 deaths, at most, might be saved, but that is 0.02% of the population. Is it worth radically changing our healthcare system for so little? And again, that number ranges from essentially zero to 60,000, thus there is a lot of uncertainty in the numbers. Also, there will still be drawbacks. Every nation suffers from amenable mortality. The Commonwealth Fund, which you so support, even admits that. So there are still deaths due to lack of access to healthcare. All of that you seem to completely ignore. And as with the car example that, again, economists look at. A guaranteed way to go from 40,000 deaths to 0, right now, is to ban driving.
Economics: You really do not understand the economics of this issue. As I pointed out healthcare economics is not in a vacuum. It will influence the entire economy greatly as it is 1/6 of our economy. The housing market is 5% of the economy. When it crashed look what happened. Now consider healthcare. Consider property taxes lost. Consider how businesses will have to freeze hiring as they adjust for the higher payroll tax. Consider how a higher payroll tax means lower wages and so on.
Now consider the elephant in the room, the value of a life. Harsh reality is that there is a set value on a life. We do have our objective value which is our income per year. There is also the subjective value of how others view us. That is really complex. But bottom line there is a set value on a life. If we spend five hundred thousand dollars to keep a man alive for 5 more months, was that worth it?
Going a more direct route consider what is going on now. We are now on the path on what is worse, the virus or the bad economy. With the virus we, directly see people die. But also consider who is dying? Typically the old who don't work to begin with or the very sick. You also have a collective group of people who died and whose bodies were not claimed as they had no loved ones in their life. With the bad economy we are seeing people protest because they want to work. Small businesses are shutting down. People are unemployed. This causes stress, psychological issues, depression, etc. So that is the economics of it.
You claim you are trying to educate me when in reality it is the other way around. Maybe you are studying to become a doctor. In my experience in graduate school people who go that far are myopic. That is all they know. I see it in my field of physics and chemistry. They have strong opinions on other topics but are typically wrong. I am different as I am a nerd that is also getting my MBA. I also have activities, such as being a sports official, where I interact with lawyers, doctors, nurses, engineers, school teachers, construction workers, etc. So I am well rounded. You, on the other, are not. Not saying that is wrong, just saying the truth. You show that by not understand culture, not understanding statistics (this is really big when you point to polling data), and not understanding economics. For your sanity I recommend you just stick to healthcare and not have an opinion on healthcare economics such as M4A. You will be happier as, while M4A continues to lose badly, you won't go insane and make up excuses in why.
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p and here you are, punching and running away while ignoring the plethora of points I made. If it is so easy to embarrass me than address my points. I will break it down to you again the main issue
Culture: Our culture will not accept a M4A system. Even the exit polls of democrats favor a public option and not M4A as written by Sanders. The exit polls also show how little people know about M4A. But considering how 80% voted against Coloradocare, and how multiple attempts to reform healthcare has been meant with failure, it is clear our society will not accept M4A, period. Your only sources are polls where I told you how unreliable they are. My sources are the history of this nation. Look at how people voted out democrats when they passed Obamacare. And look at how much push back now republicans got when they tried to repeal Obamacare. People do not want to see drastic changes in healthcare.
Statistics: I pointed to you, in detail, the issue with the stats. Again, the number of people who die due to lack of access has ranged to essentially zero to 60,000. That creates a lot of doubt in those numbers alone. Now consider how amenable mortality is an issue every system faces, what system will lead to less deaths? We cannot say with high certainty. So I find it foolish to radically change a system with such high uncertainty.
Economics: I can go into detail on this one but again, there is a finite value on a human life. Using the current situation we are on a path on what is worse, the virus or the bad economy? People are dying because of the virus, but people are also worse off because of the bad economy and are suffering that way. Eventually we have to make a choice and either accept the deaths from the virus and let people work so they can pay bills, or save people from the virus while people suffer in building up debt and having to move back with their parents as they can't pay rent.
Those are the three issues you have a very difficult time grasping. I noticed that every time I bring them up you ignore them, especially the economics part.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Harry Christofi, when Reagan ran for a second term there were 2 states that voted against him.
If Bernie run he may win CA, VT, NY, NH, OR, NJ, CO, WA, IL, HI. That will be my prediction, and I question CO and NJ.
Bernie will not win. As for approval rating, Bernie is not even the president, it is not comparable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Raizhen010 , Kyle's argument against the right is to simply say "that is not true" which is not an argument. Take healthcare for example, he says that no one dies in other nations due to lack of access but when people say that they do his argument is "that is not true" but provides no evidence. People do die on waiting lists in other nations. He also claims that cosmetic surgery is "elective surgery" where it is. But neurosurgery is also considered "elective" in some nations. So it is not as simple as "chin surgery" as he claims. Kyle has no clue what the right argues because he simply dismisses them.
Seder moves the goal posts in his arguments and to someone who does not understand that falls apart. For example, one person called in and was debating about local governments being strong thus at the state level. Seder than moved the goal posts and said "what about just a street" or something like that. Well, in some areas you do have gated communities that write their own rules in that area. So there is that. A clever person will lay that on him. Seder has no actual arguments for what he supports, he just moves the goal posts on others. Take a recent video on the min. wage. His simple argument was to look at Seattle when the economy is far more complex than that.
In his debate at Politicon he told people to "look it up" in dealing with wage stagnation. No sources given, no details given, just telling people to look it up. Well I did and I found this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=160s
I also found other sources as well (one, if I recall, that was cited over 200 times) dealing with it. They are on my work computer so I can't provide it now, but will when I get a chance. But there are experts who argue against the idea that wages have been stagnant and have data to support it. Seder told me to look it up and I did and found counter arguments against him.
It isn't about liking their ideas or not. It is about how fake they are and an intelligent person can easily expose them. Take Peter Schiff for example and how he tore Seder apart when they debated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Raizhen010 , it is very debatable if wages have been stagnate or not. I just gave you three sources on that. Experts will debate that. You saying it is not debatable makes your entire argument worthless as you are essentially dismissing the other side despite there being strong evidence to support their ideas.
That 40,000 is very debatable as well and has been questioned by experts like Katherine Baicker. Those 40,000 are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Prof. Baicker was the leading author on the Oregon study that was published in the NEJM, the journal with the highest impact factor. There people who were given access to medicaid were compared to those that weren't. The physical health of those who were given medicaid did not improve. Why? Because their issues were due to poor lifestyle choices. So even with access to healthcare they were at a high risk of dying. Also, in the book "Being Moral" by Atul Gawande, MD, he states how people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but in reality they live only anther 5 or 10 months. So with those 40,000 if you give them access to healthcare and they live 5 more months, while costing the system a lot of resources and they are in agony, is that a success?
You say I am just looking at anecdotes when i literally just cited a paper from the journal with the highest impact factor and a book by an MD that is required reading for students in the nursing program at my university.
As for Pew Research, they are not an academic source. And that article you pointed me to is flawed. For example, they don't say what method of inflation was used. They just said "inflation". I assumed CPI as it provides the highest rate and also is the most used. But PCE is argued to be better. Look at this article from the Minneapolis Fed
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/i-say-cpi-you-say-pce
It is very debatable is wages have been stagnate. The Federal Reserve uses PCE inflation and PCE inflation has wages outpacing inflation. So those articles are not doing what others do, economists point to many methods of inflation. In fact, someone who just uses to statistical method to measure something is foolish.
As for polling, polls are unreliable. They are vague questions on complex issues being asked to people who are not experts on them. Opinions change when more information is given.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/
You need to come up with better arguments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"By the same logic of inactivity, if a person is too poor to buy food should they be forced to starve to death?"
You have no right to food. So to a degree the answer is yes. Someone has to provide the food to them. Should we just steal from others to give to those who refuse to work?
"Gtimo, torture/execution (violation of 8th amendment)"
Not really. It says
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The key word is punishment. Intensive interrogation is not punishment. Whether or not it is moral is another argument. However, it is not punishment. Also, there is a good argument in them not being US citizens thus they are not offered the same rights.
"the NSA, Patriot act "
I agree are unconstitutional which I am against.
"prove otherwise but you keep believing that fairy-tale. "
It isn't a fairy tale. That is what rights are on paper. Same can be said with universal healthcare. Just because the government, on paper, covers everyone does not mean everyone will be covered. We see similar problems with education. An education policy "promises" certain things but fail to offer.
"Oh and by the way, jury duty is a service to your fellow man"
That is being done by force. Me working at my job is a service to my fellow man.
" Personally when someone's fate and freedom is on the line I'd like at least to see if they're guilty or not. "
Become a judge and a lawyer than. Not saying we should not have a jury system, but your argument is very weak.
"so is serving in the military which is completely voluntary (the draft got kicked to curb decades ago) to sign up for..."
You still have to sign up for selective service. The draft is still an option. Also, if you sign up for the military you have to serve your time or go to jail.
"Again typical libertarian.right wing ideology...
only be for yourself and only you matter."
Really? Who is the one who wants to force others to do things? You want to force others to do jury duty as it is a "service to your fellow man" when you can very easily become a lawyer and work on becoming a judge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"funny how only you people ever mention "those who refuse to work" i
believe my statement said the people too poor to pay for food..."
Food is very cheap and is given away in many ways. If you can't afford food you have major problems.
"but i realize you lot know if you just said, "i don't want to help
anyone...period." that would make you out to be immoral cunts so you
must lie and misrepresent the facts. "
When have I ever said I do not want to help anyone? I help many people. I just don't want the federal government doing it. I want individuals and state and local governments doing it.
"If you have a right to life, you have a right to live"
That simply means the government cannot take it away from you without due process. Say you need a heart transplant. Without it you die. Do you take it from someone else killing them in the process? Or say you need a kidney, without it you die. Do you force someone else to give it up making their life harder? Where does this "right to life" contradict itself?
"Yes so Guantanamo, where no one was charged, no rights and no constitution apply..."
Those were not US citizens.
"Lol intensive interrogation, in other words, "let's change the name of the action as a cop out""
Not a cop out, that is how laws are written. Study law, they are detailed for a reason. It used to be that you had to be "over 18" to buy land. People wrote 18 on the bottoms of their shoes saying there were "over 18" as opposed to over the age of 18 years.
"and i thought you lot were supposed to be smart..."
I am, I understand what punishment is and how it is different from interrogation. Smart people do that.
"if i grabbed you off the street and simulated drowning you right now
would you be feeding me that horse-shit about intensive interrogation
not being a punishment? "
Am I being punished? No. However, we do have kidnapping laws as well so you are breaking that.
"and unusual punishments such as using humans as guinea pigs for untested
death drugs that backfire and cause painful and agonizing deaths and
constitute human experimentation without consent..."
Again, is it punishment? Never mind the moral argument. I am not making that. I am asking if it is punishment? If not than it is not unconstitutional.
"I find it funny that when it comes to fee speech, free speech only means
the government can;t censor you, and yet you lot and many others like
to say the "spit" of the law/constitution should matter...until it comes
to things like the gitmo prisoners...apparently the spirit of law only
should apply to Americans and not in general. "
There is a strong argument on both sides on if whether the Constitution should apply only to US citizens or not.
"Nothing but words, i can write something on toilet paper, doesn't mean jack. "
What do your words mean? That is the point
"I don't really care, my point is if you're going to be hypocrites then at least help people doing so..."
How am I a hypocrite?
"Because it is sabotaged, hindered and or blocked by other members of government, private citizens or companies etc..."
Or maybe we just lack resources.
"lol when you cut public education, sue public education, etc. etc you actively ensure that those promises go unfulfilled."
Public education funding has been growing for years.
"It's only done by force if you don't comply...why wouldn't you comply?
"
In the end it is done by force. Why don't you speed? Because the law says you can't. If you don't follow the law the government will force you to. You are doing something against your own free will. It doesn't matter if I comply or not, I am still forced to do it.
"If i can find someone smarter, better and cheaper then you as your free market prescribes, you're obsolete/useless. "
Very true, happens all the time.
"LOl no yours is, you just said that if you want to affect the justice
system then you should either be a lawyer or a judge...you forget the
part the "citezen" plays in the judicial process...forgot or
ignored...as i said you're obviously trying to find a way to say, "i
only want to care about myself" without coming off as an asshole..."
You can choose to be a judge and/or a lawyer. You can choose to give you opinion on a court case. You are force to do jury duty.
"Actually no you don't, and anything can be an option, lol as long as you
have a government body that can make up laws anything can be an
option...
"
You are forced to sign up for selective service.
"these are the kind of people who think things like being forced to save
someone in need and or not being allowed to let someone die cause it
might personally inconvenience them to be force and dictatorship..."
It isn't so much about personal inconvenience, it is about how far you are willing to go? If someone needs a kidney are you going to force me to give up mine? That makes my life more difficult. How far are you willing to go with this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Expect them to behave how? By not being able to interfere on anything? so now they have no say in decisions that could hep the united states economy and again if you haven noticed the government allows businesses to act freely with exceptions of regulations that provide safety. "
You went to an extreme. There is a desire to have government. However, the people have to be able to control it to ensure it remains the servants and not the masters. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. The more local government is the easier it is to control. The was the great wisdom of the founding fathers when they established this country. That is why, with the exception of the draft and treason, both that deal with protection of the overall nation, the federal government had no control over the individual person. The only federal tax was a tax on the states, not individual. With a local government you can see first hand if it is working for you.
"No your just allowing them to do what they would have had to bribe politicians to do. "
In a free market companies can bribe politicians all they want. Politicians cannot do anything though. Think about it, you have a free market. Government does not influence the market. A company pays a politician a lot of money. Now what can that politician do? Nothing, because we have a free market to where the politicians cannot influence the market. It is like you going into a liquor store wanting to buy a car. You can't because they do not sell cars.
"When making the constitution founders scrapped the articles of confederation as it was effectively useless. And your right the federal government serves the states, by doing what the states could not which it controlling commerce and tax revenue. The states alone failed economically in the articles of confederation due to the fact they lacked centralization for the economy. "
Not true. They used the AoC as a blueprint in designing the Constitution. They wanted the states to be united so they gave the federal government powers and limited all governments equally with the Constitution. For example, states could not attack a foreign nation. However, states were given the power to run a public education program if they wanted. States have their own tax systems. Before 1913 individual income tax were unconstitutional at the federal level. The tax was a tax on the states. There was failure in the AoC because of lack of unity. The Constitution did that by giving powers to the federal government to serve the states. The federal government protected the states from foreign enemies and dealt with foreign trade. However, it did not create laws on businesses, education, and so one that influenced individual's lives.
"Again false, either your ignorant of this or your lying because other countries (for instance Denmark) have higher quality healthcare under a single payer system. Also Causation =/= correlation"
I like how you make the causation correlation argument. What makes you think those countries are better in healthcare quality? What do you base that off of? When you run through the numbers the reality is that nothing indicates that to be the case. Here is a great book for you to read on that
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
1
-
"And endorse political leaders (local, state, federal) and or contribute
to their campaigns financially (local, state, federal)... o as in the
case o Donald trump run for office (local, state, federal) "
And again, if government has limited power than it does not matter. It has nothing to sale to those businesses. Also, endorsing a politicians is not illegal. Kyle does it all the time in endorsing Bernie Sanders. People contribute to politicians all the time besides using money. The volunteer their time as well. Do you want to ban that? Many people gave money to Bernie. TYT dedicate their entire program to him. Why is that OK but a business giving money to a politician, when there is no quid pro quo, bad?
"
Um no it's not:
Cronyism: "the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications."
"
And who has authority? Government.
"Not too mention you have not proved how more localized government would fix that...?"
You have more control at the local level. I met both candidate for mayor in my city. I can personally walk into the local school and talk to administration. I can attend town hall meetings and state my case. I can vote for all of the representatives of my city. I can't do that for congress. Presidents and presidential candidates are almost off limits to the general public. The more local government is the more control you have over it. You just have to be active in the community. At this point I can assume you aren't. But the mayor of my city I met and I voted for because I saw how she built up downtown and improved it as a business owner and is still doing it as mayor.
"which still wouldn't change with less "federal" government, in fact by
localizing government to municipal and state levels, you will only
guarantee that corporations turn their marketing, ads and big money
towards them only..."
And at the local level I have a stronger voice. The community can stop that. There are some cities that the community does not allow a McDonalds, like Montpelier, VT for example. And if a local community becomes too corrupt you can move and remain a US citizen.
You want to centralize the problem to where the entire country goes down. Take what happened in Flint and their water. While that is bad, it was localized. Now if we had a centralized water system the entire country is screwed. But instead only Flint is harmed. Again, not great, but with your idea it would have been worse.
"without actually making it illegal and or capping the amount of money an
Individual and corporation can donate to a campaign or politician etc.
you do not defeat cronyism or corporations buying out politicians/the
law."
Ok, how about capping how much members of the media can talk about politicians? Kyle can only release one video about Bernie every two weeks and it can't be longer than 10 minutes. Sound good? Same with TYT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@captainawesome730 , here is the reality. Universal healthcare is great for very basic care. Yes, everyone has a chance to have some sort of basic care. Yes, no one will go bankrupt. However, the price is that the very sick will suffer. Universal healthcare does offer very basic care to all, but the price is that advanced care is limited. You see that in where they offer less advanced testing compare to the US.
The US for profit system is great for advanced care in terms of access and outcomes. But the price is that the very poor do suffer. In both systems there are issues. Either the very poor suffer, as in the for profit system, or the very sick as in the universal system. But let us look at both groups.
With the very poor some say they die due to lack of access. While some numbers suggest that, how many is the question. Also, as Prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are in bad health to begin with thus the question becomes do the die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with the poor, all self inflicted.
With bankruptcies they are always overstated in the US. Read the paper entitled
"Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies"
Where they outline how medical bankruptcies in the US are exaggerated. Do they happen? Sure. But not as high as many say.
With the very sick there is a moral desire to keep them alive as well. But this applies to both the very poor and the very sick. In the book "Being Mortal" it is mentioned that modern medicine is sought upon to have people live another 5 or 10 years but they only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give any of those group of people, especially the very sick, care, and they live 5 more months whil using up limited resources, is that a success? Medicare highest costs are during the last 6 months of someone's life.
Bottom line, something has to give. Either the very poor suffer or the very sick. Pick one. You claim I am giving misinformation when you are living in this utopia idea that M4A will offer high quality of healthcare to all when nothing suggests it will. Other nations can't do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@captainawesome730 , google what? What sources? That's vague. In the book "In Excellent Health" prof Scott Atlas argues that the US is superior in advanced care and advanced testing in terms of outcomes, accessibility and quality. You have to point me to a source. And I do care, notice how I am the one who is giving sources and you aren't? Why? Because I have actually read up on this topic. I can grab sources easily. Why aren't you grabbing sources?
The idea of preventative care is something one can argue against. Read the paper entitled
"The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes"
Where they write
"This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years"
Why? Because a lot of bad health is due to poor life style choices. So even with access to care their physical health did not improve placing them in higher risk of death. So saying preventative care will improve is based off of nothing.
My study is in the NEJM, the highest peer reviewed journal one can publish in. They say this
"ut our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems."
They are arguing what I am, that we need the full story to improve the system. Overstating medical bankruptcies is dangerous. Also, how is the study slanted? Give me evidence of that. . Again, you are making a claim with zero support. And if it is slanted then write up on it and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.
In other nations your healthcare is tied to the country's wallet. Is that really good? Is that what you want, some government official who you have no say in how they received their position deciding if you should receive care or not? That is what will happen. In a free market system if an insurance company refuses to cover someone no one will buy their coverage. You don't have a choice in government. If the government refuses to cover you what will you do? Remember, you don't have a say in who makes those decisions. You may say "vote in new politicians". Remember, you can only vote for a handful of federal politicians. Good luck making changes.
How is what we have now worse than M4A? You have yet to show me anything to suggest that. You claim other nations have better outcomes but when pushed you told me to "google it". You make the bankruptcy argument but when I give you a study you just called it bias. If it was really bias it won't be in the NEJM as they don't allow bias work to be published. Their impact is too high.
Other nations have problem. In the UK they are denying eye surgery and people are going blind. In Canada they deny heart surgery as it is "elective" and people are dying. Read the article entitled
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery"
Due to long wait times people end up worse off financially, physical and mentally. Read the paper entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
Where they write
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers "
And a government system does increase wait times. Read the article entitled
"Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence"
Where they write
"wait lists are more likely to be found in public systems. This is because universal access to care, when combined with the government's desire to control health spending, can mean that the supply of treatment does not meet demand"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, Jonathan, you came back for more :)
"Continue: 2) A system that is not based off need rather based off of income or insurance that you have(that usually is affected by income or job). That is, you may have brain Cancer but if you are poor or can't afford the treatment then you will not receive treatment."
We have a system based on need. If you go to the ER and your situation is dire then you get looked at first. In ICU doctors are trained all the time to decide who to see and have to make decisions and analysis. Look up the paper
"The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" Chest
There two medical doctors discuss rationing in healthcare and why it occurs. In the US beyond extreme situations in ICUs what is a "need" is subjective. My need is important to me. If I put myself in a position to get care I should get it. Funny you should mention brain cancer considering the US has the highest cancer survival rate in the world and also one of those articles I pointed you to talked about people dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery. But I guess that was not a need.
"The reality is, we ration care just like any other countries. You don't think I am seeing that in the medical field? "
I question it based on your comments.
"However the system must be changed so that the person who has the serious condition will come before the person who doesn't. "
Again, we have that in this country. One driving force for Obamacare was that many people were going to the ER and legally they can't be turned away. So they get care, get a bill they can't pay and bankrupt the system. Thus if they are forced to buy healthcare insurance that won't happen. Not saying I agree with the idea, just saying that is how it works in the US. If you work in the medical profession you would know that. I just pointed you to another paper discussion rationing and how it occurs in ICU.
"I understand that frustrates you, but just like a police officer having 2 calls at the same time. He goes to the person who needs the most help at the moment, not the person who makes the most money who he deems is more productive thus should be saved because they may be more useful."'
Police is an extremely different concept. First off, police are ran and funded locally. Next, we do lack cops where in situations a cop might not show up in time. Also, people with more money live in areas of less crime just like people with more money typically have better health overall due to lifestyle. Also, to become a cop you only need a small amount of training. Cops don't have to go to cop school for 10 years, plus residency, plus deal with millions dollars worth of equipment in an ever changing field of evolving diseases and the human body. Come on, you are comparing a complex situation in healthcare to that of police which is not complex at all in comparison.
"Actually I usually always reply however because of my studies in med school, been a bit busy. Doing a midterm every 1-2 weeks of different classes, fun stuff. "
I have work and class too. I am working on another paper to hopefully publish in PCCP and another in JACS. My laser set up was unstable so I had to correct that. We have a speaker coming that I have to arrange for lunch for later this week and host his meeting for. Getting a PhD is challenging. I always find time to reply.
"However just like every other time, you never actually demonstrate anything to actually back up your points. I will literally demonstrate all statistics demonstrating the major issues in our system. "'
I gave another peer reviewed source. You gave the CommonWealth Fund which has been debunked in a WashingtonExaminer article. Read the article
"Flawed study ranks United States as the worst health care system".
The WashingtonExaminer is not a great source, but neither is the Commonwealth fund. It is not peer reviewed, has vague methods, leads a lot of valuable data points out, and does not give the credentials of the authors of the article. I have no clue what degree they hold, where they earned on, and what they have done. When you pick up a peer reviewed paper or go to a poster session you see where the authors of those resources are from, what university or institution they work for.
Please stop using that source. It is pointless. It is sad at that point that I can find peer reviewed sources on this topic where you, a person who is supposedly studying to be a doctor, can't. In my line of work I can find sources quickly when asked. A co-worker asked me a question on our work and anharmonicities and I immediately went to this paper
"Vibrational Anharmonicities Revealed by Coherent Two-Dimensional Infrared Spectroscopy" Physical Review Letters
Immediately, had it saved in my computer and knew where to go. This is where I question if you are becoming a doctor as you can't do that. You can't find sources from peer reviewed journals to back up your case. I do and I am not dedicated to the field. You are dedicated to the field, or so you claim, and you are using the CommonWealth Fund as a source. Sad.
The WHO is questionable as well. I have looked all across their website and they do not list any names of who contributes to their work. I have no idea of their credentials, research, experience, etc. It is a mystery. And they came up with a ranking that was criticized so much that the refuse to make another one. It compared the US to Malta and San Marino.
You healthaffairs link is not working.
As for cost, no one denies we spend a lot. However, as I showed you with that book we are on par with the rest of the world in terms of outcomes and cost comparisons. Also, we are number one in research and innovation in healthcare. That is expensive. That is why it costs so much. We produce the best drugs and technology. You bring up cost as if it is a bad thing when it isn't. You by a car the car that is typically better is more expensive.
Infant mortality is poor as different countries have different standards. And we have discussed life expectancy so much. There are many factors that influence it such as lifestyle choices, car accidents, murders, etc. As shown in that book when you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Healthcare is not the only thing that influences it, but you keep acting like it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roger9685 , ever heard of the book "How to Lie with Statistics". You can't just throw a number out there and expect it to mean anything. On that 80% how many live that way because of poor money management? He never explains that. As for the people earning $30,000 or less what is their household income? What benefits do they have? What is the cost of living they have?
A major problem with Kyle is that he will pull out one stat and then make a strong, appeal to emotion statement with it along with a strong conclusion when, in reality, there are many factors at play. For example, I earn less than $30,000 a year. I just bought a new car with a three year warranty. I live by myself and I am fine. Now I will eventually get my PhD and earn more, but right now I am in that less than $30,000 stat along with most of my colleagues. So again, dig deeper.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jerry flounders , that 45,000 stat comes from a Harvard study to be fair. However, there are flaws in that number. One, every nation faces amenable mortality. So is that 45,000 high, low, or average compared to other nations? We can't say as gathering data like that is difficult. Next, former Harvard Prof. Katherine Baicker mentioned that those 45,000 are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. So do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As pointed out in the book "Being Mortal", people seek modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live only 5 or 10 months. So if you give those 45,000 care and they die 5 months later, was that a success?
The problem with the far left is that on these complex issues they take one stat and then run with it on a completely appeal to emotion argument. They don't dig deeper. They will say "45,000 die according to a Harvard study, gotcha". Meanwhile, other experts have other points as well that challenges that numbers, or at the very least places doubt in it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
treydarling , with increased technology means better goods and services that are cheaper. I say that because this paper you posted only used CPI inflation where there are shortcomings in CPI inflation. CPI has a tendency to overstate inflation which is why it is used the most by politicians and leftists activists in economics like Robert Reich. CPI has shortcomings in that it does not include certain biases. One is "new product" bias where a new product that enters the market will be over priced. For example, a new Iphone will enter the market and be priced very high which, in CPI, will be listed as cell phone prices have gone up. But shortly after the price falls. Even at that there are other cell phones on the market that are very cheap. Essentially, CPI does not account for the outlier. Same with technology. CPI has a difficult time accounting for technology. A couple of examples are the car and the cell phone. Cars today are, in sticker price, more expensive than cars in the 60s. But cars today are much safer, last longer, and get better gas mileage all which saves money. A brick cell phone in the 80s would cost $4000 if you include CPI inflation. However, cell phones today are essentially free where a smart phone has more computing power than what put a man on the moon.
There are other methods to measure inflation such as PCE where the Minneapolis Fed argued that should be used instead
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/i-say-cpi-you-say-pce
You also have GDP deflator and the Boskin Commission adjustment for inflation. When you use that there are arguments to be made that wages have outpaced inflation and productivity
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf
https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf
The second article has been cited over 150 times. So while the paper you sent me has valuable information and a good argument, they do use only one method to measure inflation which I find to be a major flaw. It is forcing a conclusion they believed from the beginning.
But as a whole, you are comparing the overall productivity to the work force to the lowest earning members of the work force. You can't do that. As I said, just because the medical doctor is more productive does not mean the fast food worker is.
As for increasing the min. wage and problems. the issue is that there is more to the economy than the min. wage. If you increase it by a little bit you may not see, overall, any changes. Any changes will be essentially lost in the statistical noise. As for a car being a luxury item? Increase in productivity made cars more affordable. As I said, cars today last longer, get better mileage and are safer.
As for increases in demand, the demand is there, the supply isn't. There is a demand for better goods and services, you don't need to artificially create it. Businesses will push to provide those better goods and services at a lower price. But if you increase the min. wage you are increasing demand without increasing supply. That will raise prices.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alden, the book does not say that the US has worst overall care. I can tell you have not read the book. There are several variables to account for when considering the healthcare issues. One major reason why we have worse outcomes are because issues outside of healthcare. The US is number 1in obesity rates for OECD nations. The US has a less healthy lifestyle. Read the paper entitled
"The Oregon Experiment-Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes"
There 6000 were given Medicaid and 6000 weren't. Of the 6000 given Medicaid they did not see improvement in their physical health despite being given access to healthcare. Why? Because a lot of health issues are related to one's lifestyle. How they eat, how they exercise, etc. The report showed lower level of stress and depression for those who received Medicaid, but one can argue that a proper diet and exercise can also lower stress and depression on top of improving physical health.
Just giving access to healthcare to people does not mean they will be better off health wise.
Each point
1. No country guarantees healthcare to all citizens.
2. Ok, and? Poor people have a higher risk of going bankrupt. I do agree this is a problem but other nations struggle on advanced care. I would agree a universal healthcare system does help the really poor, but the really sick struggle. In the US, as I just mentioned, the really poor have bad health due to lifestyle choices so the question becomes does giving them access to healthcare make it worth it considering how they cannot take care of themselves?
3. And what do you have to compare that 40,000 number to? People die in every nation due to lack of access. In Australia up to 7000 people die a year waiting for "elective" surgery. As Harvard professor Katherine Baicker argued (lead author on that paper) it is hard to determine if someone died due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. Bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. All of those issues are self inflicted. Being obese makes any health problem more complicated. As was mentioned in that study I posted, just because they have access to healthcare does not mean they will be better of physically meaning their chances of dying are essentially the same.
4. I agree, that is a problem. That is why I support a free market system where insurance companies will be forced to serve the people or go bankrupt. Also, healthcare insurance would be insurance and not healthcare.
5. Most drug development is privately funded. That is why it is so expensive.
Every nation has problems. You just ignore them. You did not even read the book I suggested.
If people in the US don't like our healthcare system why did 80% of voters in Colorado voted to keep it?
1
-
Adlen, the book is using the same stats you are looking at and forming the strong argument that the US healthcare system is on par with other nations. The issue with stats is that anyone can do a legit analysis with them and come up with any conclusion they want. In the book they removed car accidents and murders from all nations and when they did the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Read the paper entitled
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature review"
There they author argues the point that amenable mortality is difficult to use as an indicator of how good a healthcare system is as many factors outside of healthcare influence deaths. The US is number 1 in obesity for OECD nations. That plays a role in our healthcare outcomes. Obese people are more likely to have cancer and have pre-mature births leading to higher infant mortality rates.
1. Many citizens are denied care in every nation. Up to 7000 die in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. Resources are limited.
2. You can be poor and still eat healthy and exercise. It just comes from laziness.
3. You bring up the case of Amy Vilela when you can read the case about Natasha Simmonds who saw 13 doctors for months, and then was scheduled for an MRI in November but had to wait until January to get it. She waited over 2 months for her MRI. When she got one they found a tumor and she died from it. She had to wait over 2 months for an MRI. Read the paper entitled
"Waiting for elective surgery: effects on health-related quality of life"
Waiting too long for care can harm you financially, physically and psychologically.
4. Saying no nation does a free market healthcare system thus it can't be done is a poor argument. There is no cure for cancer, so guess it can't be cured. Profit motive is what drives innovation and progress.
5. The US is number 1 in R&D. Expensive drugs are a reason for that. Also, lack of competition and lack of a free market leads to higher prices.
You do ignore their problems. Their problems are just as severe as the US. FDR turned a recession into a depression, he was not a good president. You refuse to read the book because you are scared to have your thoughts challenged.
The Jake Tapper's piece was legit. I am sorry that a bunch of ignorant, over emotional fools disagreed with him. Fact is that Bernie lied about that study. Bernie constantly lies and is constantly deceptive. He is a career, corrupt politician. Tapper called him out and the Bernie fans cried. What is sad is that Bernie preaches about discussing the issues, but when someone does a study to do just that Bernie misrepresents it. That is why people don't take him serious and refuse to have discussions with him. He has no desire to have an honest discussion on the issues, he just wants a stage to say his talking points. Same with you. You have no desire to read that book, you just want to go off of talking points.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" And what do you think defunding education would do as Global Warming "Skeptic" here is suggesting? "
People who pursue engineering degrees are not worries about cost. The payout in the end is high and any loans you get you can pay off easily. Thus cutting education is not an issue at that point. People simply do not want to work at pursuing those degrees. 6 of the top 10 highest earning degrees are engineering degrees.
"4% of the GDP. Why are you using the GDP when it comes to budget spendings?!? Using the GDP you can make all other payments seem 6 times as small. What a dishonest way of framing it. That's like saying my taxes are super low when compared to the revenue of the business that employs me. Idiotic and purposefully dishonest. "
Because defense spending is 100% federally funding. No private funding and no state and local funding. That is in the Constitution. Other programs such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. comes from various sources, state, local, federal, private, etc. You need a set standard to compare it too and GDP is. It is not a dishonest way of framing it, it is framing it on a set standard. When you look at education we spend more on education than defense compared to GDP when you look at local, state, federal and private.
"Nationalpriorities shows a rough breakdown of the average tax dollar. 23.4% go DIRECTLY to the military. "
Which is Constitutional and again, it is all federal.
"The vast majority of innovations already are tax funded and come from the NIH(National Institute of Health). Hepatitis C medicine Sovaldi is a good example. Developed mostly with taxpayer money, one treatment now costs 84000$(price gouged). "
I personally work in research and I have an NIH grant. Most research funded from government grants produce little work in terms of practicality. We are just carving out information in the universe where a private business will take that info and expand it to use. It is this, those grant dollars allow researchers to throw shit at the wall and see whats sticks. And from what sticks private companies take it and advanced.
You look at one thing, Hepatitis C. Now look at the many successful things the private sector has developed.
"So the most risky and innovative research is mostly tax funded,"
Not true.
"The US spends more for the same medicine compared to Canada or any other country. There are several surveys that show that the US healthcare system ranks EXTREMELY low(sometimes lowest) in efficiency, equity and outcomes."
While we spend a lot, saying your outcomes are poor is simply not true. You say "surveys" that do no statistical analysis and just go off of vague numbers. Here is a good book for you to read
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
1
-
"Actually that isn't necessarily true. Going into education or research generally doesn't pay that well."
Yes it does.
"Also the pay HIGHLY depends on what field of study you are pursuing. So something like programming will be overcrowded while other areas will be severely lacking in qualified people. "
Computer engineers earn a lot. Again, those degrees earn a lot, money is not an issue.
"Also why are we talking about higher degrees? Defunding EDUCATION makes it MUCH less likely for people to even reach the level of higher education. A less educated populus will lead to less innovation. That's just common sense."
To start it is not "common sense" or we will not be having a discussion over it. Saying it is "common sense" is saying you have no way to defend you stance. What is and "educated popolus"? How do you achieve that? Do you achieve that by placing a bunch of students in a classroom like cattle and having a warm body lecture out of a book? Or do you push for on the field training and push people to teach themselves more? Just throwing money at something does not mean it will improve it. People who want to be educated will find a way. That is based on the individual person. There is a desire to have it funded. However, in the end, it is based on the individual person and if people do not want to be educated then we are wasting money at that point.
"How are the engineers and skilled workers rewarded for their laziness now anyway? They can already go into crushing debt as you want them to and maybe pay it off later on. Yet you still say the engineers are shit. "
I never said engineers are lazy. I am saying several people refuse to pursue challenging degrees.
"Which is why when discussing federal spending bringing up non-federal-budget numbers is irrelevant. "
No it is not. There is less desire for the federal government to spend on education and infrastructure because it comes from other sources. Defense spending comes from one source.
"If you want to talk about percentage GDP cost we can do that though. Not on the issue of military spending, since as I pointed out that is irrelevant and just a way to justify the absurd military spending. The US people spend far more on healthcare than other nations going by GDP: "
You saying the defense spending is "absurd" is simply our opinion. Compared to many other programs such as social welfare programs, it is low. Defense spending is constitutional, welfare programs at the federal level aren't. Also, on healthcare, we spend more because we do more testing than other nations. We are also willing to do new forms of care on people have rare conditions. We lead the world in research and innovation of healthcare for a reason and also lead the world in cancer survival rate. You get what you pay for. Also, another reason why healthcare is so expensive is because of the lack of a free market. We do not have a free market system in healthcare, we have many government barriers. The federal government also spends more on healthcare than it does no defense where that spending is not Constitutional.
"More amazing yet, the quality of care they receive is in many cases worse than for countries that pay FAR less. '
That is not true. At the very least the quality is on par with other nations. Say it is "far less" is trying to exaggerate something that you cannot defend.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
"As I pointed out 75% of the cutting edge medical innovations came from NIH funding. "
I explained that already to you where you are mistaken.
"Just pasting a 190 page link without even the smallest summary. You really expect me to read that when I don't even know what your takeaway message and objections are? "
Who is the lazy one? That book is written by two professors with all of their citations and methods listed. They run through the numbers. So you will rather go off of buzzwords and talking points as opposed to looking at the full picture objectively? Not to be rude but I cannot take you seriously if you refuse to look at things objectively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So even without taking Japan(which is among the top military spenders that equal the US budget), it doesn't look good. These four nations with higher combined GDP spend just over 50% of the US's military budget. What's your point? "
Ok, I will do the math for you.
GDP (in trillion dollars)
China: 11.2
Russia: 1.2
Saudi Arabia: 0.646
France: 2.5
UK: 2.6
India: 2.25
Germany: 3.5
That is $23.896 trillion. Our GDP $18.6. Our defense spending is $610 billion, thus 3.2% of our GDP. For those other nations it is $601 billion, or 2.5%. That is a difference of 0.7%. That is not much.
People on the left make the claim that we spend so much the military by trying to compare us to other countries. When you do you see that in reality the difference is not large. If other nations would fallow the NATO agreement it will be much closer in the difference, if not them spending higher. But making the statement of
"The US spends more on defense than the next # of countries combine"
Is being intellectually dishonest or being ignorant. You are trying to make it look like the US is spending a lot by exaggerating the situation by comparing us to just countries that people naturally see as being large. However, when you look at GDP you see the differences is not large. It is only a 0.7% difference.
" Productivity is not a good indicator for education. Reading comprehension, math skills, knowledge etc is. But that wouldn't fit your agenda would it, so again you opt for something unrelated. ;o) "
Productivity is the indicator. So you would rather have a lot of good test takers that produce nothing? Being able to repeat facts that one reads from a book, or being able to read a lot and giving your educated opinion is not a sign of intelligence. What is is producing. I rather have people producing than people who can just test well.
" I thought you were against welfare spending?"
Nope. I support giving people money who earn it through work. I do not support giving money away. I never said I was against welfare. Point to me where I said that.
"What an incredibly stupid argument to make. You are fine with wasting money on military to keep them busy and employed but would be outraged if the same money went to employ and pay teachers. "
Never said any of that.
"I'll break this down easy enough that even you can understand this. If we've got 100 apples. 80 are military apples which are thrown in the garbage and 20 are healthcare apples which go to a person. A person needs 40 apples to bake some shit. In this case the person has to buy 20 more apples from his own money. Now if we have 70 military apples that are wasted and 30 healthcare apples that the person can use, he only needs to buy 10 extra apples. I know this is really advanced thinking and it's hard to follow but basically using some of that money that is wasted on the military for medicals lessens the burden on the people. And if it is in the form of medicare for all it lowers the cost. Meaning that in that example the person only needs 35 apples to bake some shit. "
Ok, now here is where you analogy is wrong.
First, you feel that defense spending is wasteful but never said why. Why is it wasteful? Next, defense spending as a percent of GDP is dropping. Federal healthcare spending has been rising during that same time while healthcare cost also rise. So already you idea of taking money from defense and transferring it to healthcare is already being done. Also, healthcare cannot be compared to the military. With healthcare you are dealing with workers who spend 8+ years in college. You have advanced equipment that is expensive. You have diseases that are evolving (unless you do not support evolution). With healthcare you lack doctors, nurses, medicine, facilities, equipment, etc. With defense we have a lot of people to pick from. The supply and quality of supply is vastly different. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Using your analogy here is a problem. You say "take 10 apples from defense" to pay for someone's care. However, with medicare for all you are taking 10 apples from defense to pay for more than one person's care. You increase the demand as well which increases the supply.
But again, the federal government (this does not include state and local) spends almost $1 trillion in healthcare, but only $610 billion in defense. So your apple analogy is wrong from the very beginning.
"OK how many countries is the US bombing at the moment and do you even know why? "
How many? Tell me? Compared to the 90s almost none. I was alive in the 90s and saw constant bombings. The rate is much lower.
"And like when they trained the forces to fight ISIS and then they either joined them or handed over all the weapons. "
That is not bad. We trained them so we know how they will act in certain situations. Also, when we give them weapons we know what they are capable of. Also, training other armies allows us to solve many conflicts off of the battlefield. But as a whole it is knowing your enemy.
"Develop connections with other nations, and push for peace.... which is why all across the world America is seen as the most destabilizing factor and biggest threat to world peace. "
Except we aren't. Why do you continue to make things up?
"Utter bullshit. Having profit motive at every level doesn't increase the quality. "
It does. The problem is that we do not have a free market system. We have a for profit system with many government barriers that allows for a monopoly. Reduce the influence of government in healthcare and you will see higher quality and lower prices. Increase the influence of government and you will see higher prices and/or lower quality.
"I notice you didn't talk about how certain engineering areas make a lot less money and therefore paying back exorbitant debts actually is a real issue."
It is not worth addressing as engineers earn a lot. They have no problem paying off debt. It is another thing you made up.
1
-
Why we do not have a free market system in healthcare is because of the payroll tax. With the payroll tax if a business pays a higher wage they have to pay higher taxes. But benefits such as insurance and stock options are tax free. So businesses pay their employees with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage.
If people were paid with a higher wage they can buy their own plan forcing companies to compete and they can buy a plan that suits them. That means women are not paying for Viagra and men are not paying for contraceptives. Also, you get on a plan at a young age you can keep it for life while changing jobs. No more pre-existing conditions.
What will also happen is that insurance pays for only unplanned cases that are expensive, such as an accident. But for other things such as routine checkups, pregnancies, elective surgeries, can all be paid for out of pocket which forces providers to compete and lower prices, just like what happened with LASIK surgery which is not tied to insurance.
However, what we have instead is that people are dependent on their employer for insurance. They get the plan their employers offer no matter if they want it or not. And if they switch jobs they have to switch plans. Also, since it is a form of payment healthcare insurance ends up covering everything that can be paid for out of pocket.
Car insurance pays for if someone wrecks your car. But it does not pay for oil changes and tire rotations, both necessary for a safe car. Healthcare insurance should be the same way. However, we do not have a free market and have not had one for over 50 years.
1
-
" Actually that is how that works. You saying that it only is 0,7%
difference is intentionally misleading since it says nothing about the
base point. If the base point is 90% then it isn't even 1% difference
however if it is 1,4% it's basically 50% difference.
That's like saying going from 280ppm to 400ppm is negligible since that
only is 0,012%. Nobody would ever do that. I'd ask for your money back
on that supposed education. ;o) "
There is a base point, that is 0%. Your comparison of 280 ppm to 400 ppm is flawed as you are looking at a percent difference between numbers that are not a percent. Looking at 2.5% and 3.2% is looking at percent. The difference is 0.7%. The difference between 400 ppm and 280 ppm is 120 ppm. If a country spends $0 on defense they spend 0% of their GDP on defense. I put the numbers in percentages and then compared them.
My education is fine. I am currently a PhD candidate in physical chemistry.
"Also talking about percentages of GDP kind of misses the point anyway.
How many nations do you want to go to war with simultaneously? If you're
spending more than the next 4 nations combined wouldn't that make you
"safe" already? "
Again with the "next # nations combined". That is misleading. Those nations are smaller than us. That is why you look at percent GDP. Also, defense is used for more than just going to war. Get that out of your mind.
" Yeah you really should ask for a refund for your supposed education.
I did the calculations for you earlier: 28,9 GDP compared to the US GDP with 18,6
Hint: That's not 22% higher "
I used my numbers of around $23 trillion. Let me do the math.
$18 trillion/$23 trillion=0.7826, so roughly 22% higher. I did the math quickly. I suggest you get an education as you seem to lack reading skills.
"Did you just take the 601 figure that was arbitrarily chosen(military
spending of several countries combined) and compared it to the 610 of
the US?
601/610 = 0,983 = ~2%
Those countries were chosen to see how many other country's defense
spending it takes to get the same as the US. You can compare that to the
US's spending since that number is utterly meaningless.
If the next country had a $9 billion defense spending would that mean
that the US spends 0% more on defense? xD "
Ok, what? I took that $601 billion from the source I linked you. Also, you are the one making the claim that the US spends more than other nations combine. I am showing you how saying that is deceptive. Now you say was can't make that claim?
" Actually no. The know-how can come from anywhere and it can increase
the productivity. That is exactly what I tried to point out with my
robot example. If the Chinese branch of a US company opens a factory
with tons of robots in China, that counts as China's productivity
sky-rocketing. Does that mean that their school system suddenly got
better? "
Their productivity will not skyrocket in terms of percent GDP per hour. They are unskilled workers. When you look at productivity per hour worked you see the US is near the top
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV
Put it this way, a person can work very hard at McDonalds but produce very little in 8 hours. A person can work 1 hour and produce many times more than that McDonalds worker did in 8 hours. That is why you can't use your China example.
"Again you completely undermine your own argument.
If they pay for the kids to attend after school programs where they study more,... isn't that an educational program? -.- "
Yes, but it is private. Our private schools in the US are great. Our university system is great as well where many people pay for it out of pocket. When people pay for it out of pocket the quality is higher as opposed to the government paying for it.
"Aren't the South Korean kids much better equipped for the workforce and producing then? "
Depends, according to the number they aren't, and they also have higher suicide rates.
"I miss spoke and meant federal funding for education(last comment I said state) which you said is unconstitutional. "
It is. Only 8% of funding for education is from the federal level. Most goes to Title I schools, not hiring teachers. Also, me wanting to follow a standard in how programs are funded does not mean I want to cut them.
" Do I really have to spell out why unnecessary wars all across the world
without an objective are wasteful? How is having military bases in
countries that are US allies and no threat even close to them NOT
wasteful? Those tanks the pentagon didn't want or need... sure sounds
wasteful"
You are avoiding it again.
"Isn't that part of the freemarket though? If they don't like the
insurance they get from their employer they can just go somewhere else
or buy it themselves. Remember the magically freemarket fixes
everything! "
How can they go out and get insurance elsewhere? They will be paying double in the end. Their employer does not give them the option of either taking insurance from them or a higher wage. A form of payment is insurance. That is how employees are getting paid. They are working and get paid by insurance. If they get another plan they are also paying for that as well.
The free market will be not to tax wages which will allow companies to pay employees how they please. They will pay with wages where people will buy the plan they want. I am paid with healthcare insurance. I can't afford other plans. I rather be paid with a higher salary to where I can buy my own plan.
" What does that even mean?
Before ObamaCare people could chose to be uninsured without consequence
no? How wasn't that already your free market utopia? Why was the
healthcare system still fucked? "
I support the idea that people can go uninsured if they want. However, there are other factors as well such as the payroll tax.
"If the insurance isn't good enough for you, you can always buy extra.
"
People can't afford to pay double. That is why socialism screws over the middle class. 90% of K-12 students attend public schools despite private being better. The reason why is because the middle class cannot afford to pay the high taxes for the socialist programs on top of paying for a private option. So they can't afford extra unless they are rich. Socialism benefits the rich and adds to income inequality because it brings the middle class down.
"Oh how ironic that just before you said that I need to understand what
insurance is you said ""My plan does not cover everyone."" -- Actually
it does cover everybody that shares the same insurance as you. "
To a point. My plan offers discounts to those who are healthy. But again, that is not insurance. Look up what insurance is.
"The whole idea of insurance is balancing out the risks. The higher the amount of people the better the risk is distributed. "
Not true. The idea of insurance is that the consumer pays for it planning for the worse. They may never use it. I have never used my car insurance and hope not to. That is because insurance is there for expensive, unplanned events. Car insurance covers car accidents, not oil changes.
"Not what happened in other countries, plus big bad government can make that illegal. "
In other countries they ration care. Also, the depend on us because we lead the world in research and innovation of healthcare. Other nations have lower quality and longer wait times. Also, if the government sets a price ceiling that lowers quality. Look up "rent control" and how it makes apartments worse.
"There have been several studies that concluded that single payer healthcare system ends up saving
~$600 billion savings per year with better coverage and care. "
What studies? List them. I gave you an entire book that you have yet to read.
On your link it is from a bias source. Gerald Friedman's plan for healthcare will raise taxes on people that make just above what he makes. So he wants to raise taxes on others but not himself. Also, many states including Vermont and CA could not pass healthcare as it was too expensive.
The idea that increasing demand without increasing supply will lower prices is economic illiteracy. Also, you are increasing demand of healthcare with the unhealthy in society. Also, in your link it does not provide tax rates or how money will be allocated. It gives numbers that are based off of nothing.
"he Department of Veterans Affairs for instance which in 2016 alone cost $273 billion."
The VA is a mess. Even at that that is still over $700 billion, more than defense.
"Yes 1. Don't get involved if it's not necessary 2. Don't make them more
dangerous by providing weapons and training 3. You can evaluate
people's danger WITHOUT making them more dangerous."
1. you have to get involved, if not they will eventually attack you
2. you are not making them more dangerous as you know what they have and what they are capable of, a reason why we beat the British was because they did not plan for the weaponry we had (hunting rifles which are better in many ways) and how we attacked in a different manner then what other countries did. It is also why terrorists are so hard to fight as they are not predictable.
3. You evaluate them by interacting with them.
1
-
1
-
"How is it misleading though? If you spend as much as the next 4 countries combined you'd think you are able to whoop their asses. So looking at GDP is quite irrelevant here."
Looking at GDP is relevant. Larger country, more people, larger GDP. So it makes sense to have more money going towards defense compared to countries with smaller GDPs. We spend more on education than those countries combine as well. That is why you look at percent GDP.
The rest of your comment on defense spending is incoherent. I will give you another chance to explain what you are trying to say. Until then, I will move away from it as it seems like you have no idea what you are talking about.
"Sure I can. When the US exported all their shit to China, did their productivity during that time sky-rocket or not? "
Sky-rocket? No. Because those are low skilled jobs. They produce very little per person per hour.
"What difference does it makes if it's publicly or privately funded? How does that effect the quality?? Do you think that the private schools in the US being decent might have something to do with proper funding? "
Or maybe it has to do with the fact that when people pay for it out of their own pocket they demand better quality. It isn't always about funding. For example, you can pay me a lot of money to teach history. However, I will not do well because history is not my subject. You can pay me millions but the quality will be low. Now you can pay me a few thousand a year to teach physics which I will do well at because I have a physics degree and taught physics for that little in the past.
Just throwing money at it does not mean you will get a better product. This is why socialism on the large scale does not work.
"Something else you have to take into consideration when you talk about productivity is that it also depends on the infrastructure. South Korea is relatively young compared to the US. "
The US is young compared to European countries. So I guess those countries should be kicking our ass in productivity according to you. The US is one of the youngest countries in the world.
"How is it avoidance when I am literally spelling out how wasteful the military is? They are buying stuff that is collecting dust. The military is engaged in wars with no purpose or objective and dropping millions of dollars in bombs with no results. "
You are stating your opinion. You disagree with the wars, does not mean they are wasteful or unnecessary. What evidence do you have that the stuff they buy collects dust? You are saying things without backing it up.
" Look for a different employer. Isn't that the whole idea of the free market? That certainly is the excuse I hear from the people that pray to the free market when it comes to workers not being paid a living wage. If they don't like it, look for a different employer. Alright, let's apply this excuse here. "
You clearly did not read what I wrote. When finding a job the agreement between you and your employer in how you are paid should be without barriers. However, the payroll tax creates the barrier to where the employer offers healthcare insurance as a form of payment whether you like it or not.
You talk about finding another job for a higher wage. That is strictly a wage, not insurance. When people find jobs they want to be paid with a wage as money is the universal resource in trade. Healthcare insurance isn't. But as a whole, what you are discussing is not the free market as the payroll tax places barriers in the negotiation process between employer and employee payment.
Also, when you pay for your own insurance you can change jobs without the fear of losing your insurance. You can pursue jobs that pay a higher wage without losing your insurance.
"As I pointed out I know several people that only want to get insurance through their employer since that is A LOT cheaper for them. "
With our current system, yes. However, in a free market system it will be a lot cheaper and better. And you can change jobs without fear of losing your insurance.
" Oh right you are one of those. Cutting taxes and still expecting society to function properly... -.- "
A couple things. One, what makes you think that cutting taxes will harm society? Right now you are just parroting leftist talking points. There is more to the economy than just taxes. Next, I never said cut taxes. I said remove the payroll tax. .You can substitute with an increase in the income tax. We need taxes, but to me we need to keep the tax code as simplified as possible. In doing so you limit barriers in the market. Why do we need the payroll tax? Why don't we just eliminate it and raise the income tax? Do you know what the income tax was before 1913 at the federal level? 0% as it was unconstitutional to have one. The states were taxed based on population. Very simple.
" I am curious did you have a look at how much your premiums would be? Do they compare to what your employer is paying the insurance companies? "
Again, we do not have a free market system in healthcare. So looking now is meaningless. If we had a free market system I, and everyone else, will force companies to compete which will drive down prices. The reason why premiums are high is because of the lack of a free market system. You are not understanding that, so let me explain like this
Premiums are high because we do not have a free market system in healthcare.
"The middle class in America already is pretty much dead. The bottom 90% of the country make an average of 33 000$. They aren't going to upgrade regardless. "
Ok, one, I want a citation for that. According to this around 30% of households earn less than $35,000 a year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/
Next, that does not tell the whole story. Benefits, such as healthcare insurance paid for by the employers, does not count as income. You have to factor in cost of living. How many of those people who earn little are young with no children and have roommates. I earn $23,000 a year myself. That is actually high for a graduate student. I have my own apartment, car, three meals a day, etc. You have to stop throwing numbers out there without putting them in proper perspective.
"The single payer care in other countries actually is excellent despite what FOX so-called News would make you believe. And even in those countries there are plenty of privately ensured people. "
It isn't excellent. It isn't awful, but it isn't excellent either. Again, I point you to this book
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Also, just because it works there does not mean it will work in the US. We have different cultures, economies, barriers, etc.
"It depends on how you implement it, but you can have all basic procedures are paid by the normal single payer "
What will you include as "basic"? Open heart surgery? MRIs? Kidney replacements? We lack organs by the way, how do you solve that problem?
"Yeah and health insurance pays for surgeries etc. Is a doctors visit considered an oil change? Are you saying they shouldn't be covered by insurance?"
A doctor visit should be paid for out of pocket as a routine checkup is just that, routine. Just like oil changes are routine. You can shop around and find a doctor that offers a lower price. That is the free market. With insurance you remove that process to where some doctors might not take your plan. You do not pay thus you do not negotiate. The price goes up. Also, doctor visits are not unplanned like an accident is.
"What do they ration? If you've got cancer in another country you get treatment almost immediately. What happens in the US? The insurance looks through your papers and decides if they are going to pay for it or not(that's a death panel for you). "
The US has the highest cancer survival rate in the world. Other countries have longer wait times and ration their care due to limited resources. If they feel you are not in danger they will make you wait even though what could seem like a minor problem can be major. That is how you have people with headaches ending up dying because they have to wait months for MRIs.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-dies-tumour-migraine-edinburgh-stephanie-dickson-a7555711.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486789/Natasha-16-complained-headaches-She-died-13-doctors-failed-diagnose-brain-tumour.html
"Lower quality also is nonsense. The quality of care in America only applies *IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT*. How many people are uninsured because they can't afford it? How many people just get the very basic insurance that doesn't cover shit? Meanwhile in those other countries all the same people would get proper treatment. "
No country covers everyone because they lack resources. In other countries they ration care through government force. Also, many can afford care in the US. How many can't? Very little. No system is ideal, and I admit that the US system has problems. But the evidence shows that a free market system will be better. Yes, some people will suffer and die. But people suffer and die in a single payer system as well. If you deny that than you are living in a fantasy land. Right now I feel you are as you think single payer will magically cover everyone when it doesn't.
Also, on elective procedures, what is an "elective procedure"? Say I need knee surgery. It isn't life threatening, but I need it to simply move around better. I have two jobs that require me to move around a lot. Holding off on knee surgery can hinder my productivity and also can make my knees worse over time to where surgery cannot fix it. Now expand to across an entire nation. To me that is not "elective" but necessary. If I can afford it why should I wait?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What you did when you compared the 601 number for 8 countries
combined(!!) military spending with that of the US 610 is meaningless.
If I instead said the US only has more military spending than the next 2
countries combined, it would sound much more favorable to your side no?"
No it wouldn't as it is a poor comparison. The US spends a lot because it has a large economy, that is the point.
"Not realizing that the 601 number for the 8 countries combined is
somewhat arbitrary as it can change depending on how the actual numbers
play out. How is the 2% number the least bit relevant when it comes to
the claim that the US spends MORE than the next 8 countries combined? Is
your defense that is only 2% MORE than the next 8 COUNTRIES (actually it's 9) combined? "
It was 7 countries. You are missing my point. The point is that saying "the US spends more than # of countries combine in defense" is a poor statement as our GDP is much larger than them. That is similar to saying an MLB team is a combine weight that is much higher than a class of 30 third graders, thus the MLB players are overweight. Or maybe it is that that MLB team are full grown men who are athletes. You can't just go around and make any comparison you want. You have to use the proper numbers. So when I look at the combine GDP of those countries and look at defense spending, I see that the spending difference is less than 1%.
And you idea that the military is there to invade other countries or handle threats is foolish. That is not the only role in defense. It is there for many reasons. We are becoming very civil as a world and you can see that as defense spending as a percent of GDP is dropping world wide. Your viewpoint on the military is asinine.
"When I talked about people making a certain amount of money you used the more favorable household numbers. Interesting. "
I question that data
http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/
Typing in $34,000 puts one in the 41 percentile. Thus 59% earn less than that, not 90%. Also, you have to include several other variables there such as household income and cost of living. Again, throwing out numbers does not mean anything.
"Since 1980-2012 the bottom 90% had their real incomes GO DOWN by 6%, while average income went UP 24%. The top 0,01% had an income growth of +431%. Before that income growth was very similar for all levels. "
A few things there. One, goods and services are getting better and cheaper. So to say their income is going down is simply not true. Look up "Hockey Stick of Human Prosperity". Next, I can show the calculation if you want, but I showed how the CEO of Walmart was earning around $20 an employee in the late 80s and is now earning around $10 a employee. So while the rich are earning more, they have more they are responsible for. For example, a guy can employ say 100 employees and earn $100,000 (using simple numbers). But then ten years later can employ 200 employees but earn only $150,000. So they employ twice as much but are not paid twice as much. Also, look up "Skilled Biased Technological Change".
"If you really want to know why people can't afford shit, that's why. "
Cars are better, we have smart phones, smart TVs, high speed internet, etc.
"Reaganomics fucked the country"
We had strong economic growth under Reagan. Why blame Reagan? I can easily blame FDR.
". Deregulations and tax cuts only for the rich screwed over the bottom 90% of the country. "
What deregulations and what tax cuts?
"Yeah I am sure those sick people don't care if they get healthy again or not.
They only REALLY care about that if they paid for it themselves!
The same goes for education."
When you pay for it out of pocket you are more aggressive in what happens meaning you get better quality.
" After WW2 when Europe was in rubbles and the US still had all its infrastructure standing, what happened? "
The US is still young.
"Pentagon never has been audited. 1 trillion dollars are unaccounted for and billions are lost all the time. "
I support auditing the Pentagon. However, why do you want the federal government, who clearly waste money, to run our healthcare system? Will you be anger if a federal healthcare system lost that much money as well and was never audited?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Oh wow perhaps you don't realize your fuck-up after all. What sounds worse? If I say the US spends more than the next 2 countries or the next 8 countries combined? It's the latter. "
Both statements are meaningless. You need to compare them in the proper way. That is why I look at their combine GDP and the GDP of the US. When you do that you see the differences are minute. You are comparing the US to countries that are vastly smaller than it. And you comparison is one to one. How much they spend and how much the US spends. You have to look at percent GDP. When you do that the US is not number one in defense spending, it is number four. The US spends so much on defense overall because it has the highest GDP in the world. If you look at education spending the US spends more than a lot of countries combine as well. But again, that is because we have the highest GDP in the world. But according to you we can't look at it like that. So the US, according to your standards, is spending too much on education as well as we spend more than a lot of countries combine. So by your standards you support cutting education.
"Again I have to suggest that you ask for your money back on your supposed education(which I am questioning more and more). If you actually had any sort of real education you wouldn't be surprised when you type in 34k$ that you aren't being told that you are part of the bottom 90%. Basically the ~30% above you and the ~60% below you average out. This really is just about getting an average and percentages, nothing advanced... "
Uh no, that is how much people earn. So again, I question the data you are collecting. Here is a leftist source that says around 25% of the population earn more than $50,000
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html
"You can check the numbers if you want, I had a look at the official numbers at some point and they do check out. "
I checked the out again and here is what I found. The source you linked me has it listed as "household inocme". I first used "household income" and you said I can't do that. However, you source did just that. Next, reading the UC Berkeley source they linked, I see nothing that indicates that 90% earn $34,000 or less. However, I used this link from the Berkeley source
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/filing-season-statistics
I looked at all three sets from 2013 and I totaled the number of returns of those who earned $40,000 or less. I had around 57% earning $40,000 or less. You should check your numbers again.
"They are using several deflators such as the consumer price index which shows you how much buying power you actually have."
Where is that mentioned in your source? I read your source, have you?
"is a convenient way to excuse away how people are being exploited. At first glance it all sounds great. Life expectancy being higher, people not dying from cancer, convenient life, etc. Except now we see that life expectancy is going down in the US, especially for the bottom percentiles. It changes very little about wealth inequality or different income growth. Also a lot of things such as internet now are considered essential, as you need them for your day to day life. "
People who are well off financially have always done better. That is from nature and evolution itself. I am going to do better than some poor bum on the streets. That is life. However, the poor today are much better than the middle class, and even the rich in some ways, 50 years ago. Some factors you mentioned like life expectancy are simply on that individual. You have a higher rate of diabetes and obesity with the poor. They lead unhealthy life styles. You have higher rate of crime with the poor, particularly violent crime. Factor like that hinder their wealth. However, they are better off as a whole. To say they are not is simply lying or being ignorant.
" I doubt the 1:10 ratio. However I'm not really interested in a cherry picked example anyway. Show me the general CEO to worker ratio actually going down."
I can run through the numbers, but it will be cumbersome. But, in short, what it is about is enlarging the pie for all. While a CEO earns more today, they do so because the pie is much larger and more people are better off. Here is a source on that
https://hbr.org/2017/02/why-we-need-to-stop-obsessing-over-ceo-pay-ratios
Businesses are larger and produce more. So as a result the CEO earns more. However, society as a whole are much better off.
"Because only the rich profited. Reagan killed the middle class. "
Again, why?
"His massive deregulations to such sectors as the banking system(which inevitably of course led to the bubble popping after such great growth...). Or cutting the taxes of the rich by almost 50%. "
What deregulation? What tax cuts? You have to give me specific policies with names for me to counter you argument. You refusing to do so means you are hiding something.
"Reaganomics aka supply side economics aka voodoo economics aka trickle down economics doesn't work. The rich don't share their wealth around when they get to keep more, they just hoard it. "
A few things
1. "Trickle down economics" is not an economic term. It is a term used by politicians and economic illiterates. Now which one are you?
2. Why doesn't his ideas work? He had strong economic growth in his time.
3. Wealth and income are different, please learn it
4. The rich do not "hoard" anything. They invest. If they just stash their money what company they run will not grow. Also, saving money in banks allows banks to loan it out to people to buy houses and businesses. So no, the rich are not hoarding anything. The rich actually spend more than the middle class in many ways.
" Because single payer system has been shown to be A LOT better and cost effective system all across world. "
Not true
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Also, I am sticking to the US here. You said so yourself that the Pentagon was not audited and it wasted funds. What makes you think a US ran healthcare system, the same government that runs the Pentagon, will be any different?
"I somehow doubt that they would ever let it be as wasteful as the military though."
Why? Healthcare is a much larger and more complex market. I see it being more wasteful an corrupt. Now you are dealing with doctors who are very intelligent and have advanced degrees and know how to play the system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@henrygustav7948 , that 45,000 has been criticize a lot. One, no healthcare system covers everyone where people die due to it. In Australia up to 7000 people die a year while waiting for "elective" surgery. People die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. So here are the problems with that 45,000 stat
1. What do you have to compare that to? No similar study was done in other nations making that stat what I like to call an "empty stat". You don't know if that 45,000 is high, low, or the norm as you have nothing to compare it to. It is similar to me saying I pay $700 a month in rent. You can't tell off of that if I am paying too much, if I am getting a good deal or if I am paying average. Is it bad that people die? Yes. But reality is that it happens in all nations so you need to compare that 45,000 to something. It would be great is that 45,000 was zero and it would also be great is we can teleport.
2. Those 45,000 are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. Poor people have higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes, all self inflicted. So you can't say if they die due to lack of access to healthcare or due to being in bad health to begin with. This study
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
Showed that when you gave access to healthcare to people in poverty their physical health did not improve raising the question of will they even live if they had access as they are in bad healthcare to begin with? Maybe they do, but that raises the next question in how long will they live, and what condition will they be in? Read the book entitled "Being Moral" where the author there discusses people who are near death and the many challenges they face. One point he makes is that people look at modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but in reality they may live only 5 or 10 months. So if you give access to healthcare to those 45,000 and they live, on average, an extra 3 months, was that a success? How about if during that time they bring a lot of stress to their friends and family? Is that a success?
There are arguments to be made in helping those people. There is a strong argument to be made in reducing financial stress on the poor, something included in that study I linked. I support those arguments. I have look at this issue deeply and see the other side of the argument. The problem is that the left hardly has looked at this issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@henrygustav7948
1. You can't say that as there are other factors at play. They are poor and bad health is associated with those in poverty. The question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As I pointed out in that study I linked, even with access to healthcare their physical health was still bad. And as I said by pointing out the book "Being Mortal", people who are near death have many issues they face and will not really live that much longer. So if you give them access to healthcare and they live a few months longer, is that a success? That is a legit debate to have.
2. The Federal Reserve controls the money supply.
3. The "empty homes" are mainly unlivable homes that you can buy for $100. Yes, we have food waste, we also have an obesity problem with the poor. We lack skilled workers such as doctors, engineers, those in the STEM fields, etc. I work in the STEM field. I work 12 hour days at times. I worked from 9 AM to 3 AM yesterday (that is not a typo, I worked until 3 in the morning) and I came back to work at 9 AM today and I am here collecting more data as I type this. Now I love my work and want a PhD that is actually worth something, but at the same time I do what I do because not many can. There is so much research and progress to be done but not enough skilled workers to do it. These things don't magically appear out of the air.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Glenn, there are less people living in Australia. 7000 is around 0.02% of the population of Australia where 40,000 is 0.01% of the population of the US.
As for other nations, in Canada there have been reports of around 20,000 to 40,000. The issue is that finding accurate numbers like that are very hard as many factors contribute to those deaths. As for Scandinavian nations no actual study has been done making that 40,000 you cite what I call an empty stat. There are reports of people dying in other nations due to lack of access of care. So to say it does not happen in other nations is simply false. And to say that 40,000 is bad is incorrect as you have nothing to compare it to. Is it bad as we want that number to be zero? Yes. But in every nation that number is not zero. So compared to other nations is that 40,000 high, low, or the average? You can't say making that 40,000 number almost irrelevant for this discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Defialos "You're telling me that the guy that just fought for and won the argument on allowing über/Lyft, drivers and other people that aren't normally eligible for unemployment benefits to receive said benefits during this pandemic is just all talking points? "
They are independent contractors. What is his doing will get rid of independent contractors which is bad. Independent contractors have more freedom in their work schedule and lower tax rates. So Bernie, as usual, wants to create a group of people to tax more.
I am an independent contractor with some of my hobbies so I know a lot about this. One form of independent contractors are football officials in high school and college. In south bay of the bay area in CA a football official was injured during a game. He sued the assigner saying that under CA law the assigner has to pay for his disability. The assigner said, correctly, that he was an independent contractor and he was responsible for his own healthcare coverage. He took them to court and a liberal Santa Clara circuit judge ruled in favor of the official. You know what schools do now? Schools demand that if you work at their site you have to provide an I9, a W2, and proof of liability insurance. In the past you just worked the game, the schools funded the organization and the organization sent out the checks. And every year you get a 1099 where you can do tax write offs.
Basically, in short, you had a situation where those independent contractors now have it worse off with more work and higher taxes.
So yes, we are talking about that guy. By making so Uber and Lyft drivers are no longer independent contractors they will end up paying higher taxes. Many do the gig economy for extra spending cash that is tax free. For example, I am a sports official (which is why I know that story). I get my 1099s and I have a lot of write offs. In one sport via high school and youth I earned an extra $3000. Not bad for a side gig. On taxes I earned $8. Why? Because there are write offs like mileage, if I buy a pair of workout shoes. If I buy a gym membership. If I buy lunch on the way home, etc. One day I bought a polo shirt and used it as a write off because I wore that shirt, at times, traveling to the game site. Now I wear it other times as well, but it was allowed for a write off.
So congrats, Bernie supports higher taxes on middle class and working citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dante Ratto, I give you a link, up to you to read it.
How is your doubt increasing? You give no reason?
I am not trolling, I gave you sources. It seems like you are done because you have no counter argument. I expanded my resources as well to show you that the vast majority of full time workers are not poor, as in close to 98% of them. SNAP recipients are usually part time workers or unemployed. Also, it strongly depends on their household income, not individual income.
You have no counter argument but to call me a troll. The reality is that Bernie is being deceptive here. He is leaving out several facts to push a point. I bring up the facts and you just call me a troll. You need to include children as many people have children who receive SNAP. Again, SNAP is dependent on household income, not individual income. If a company hires person A and they have no children, and person B who has a kid and pay people the same rate, person B could receive SNAP. Why should person B receive more money from the company? Also, it isn't the responsibility of the company to decide if they should hire someone based on if they have a kid or not.
On disability, many companies hire people with a disability. Walmart does. Should they not give them a job?
This is the thought process you should have but don't. I dig deeper on the issue and you just call me a troll. This is why someone like Bernie does not win.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MrAzul132, what claims did I make without sources?
Shapiro broke down his point on healthcare and furniture. He is saying, correctly, that healthcare is a commodity. I will like you a video on what he means by that.
"We had a healthcare system with little regulation and it sucked so hard we had to implement something ASAP. "
Not true. We have had many regulations for decades. I will also provide you a link to that.
"Shapiro's idea is idiotic and barbaric."
How so? Saying it is is not an argument.
"There's a reason why all of the best healthcare systems in the world are single payer systems,"
Not true, I will link you a book to read on that.
"We ration care by wallet size in this country, not need"
Not true. Read the papers entitled
"The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" in the journal Chest
and
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" in the journal Can J Cardiol
"If a country can't, first and foremost, provide their citizens with safety from natural causes like illness, then it will fall"
Well it seems like every country is failing then because no country can guarantee that.
"And yes Bernie had a well thought out plan."
No he doesn't. In the debate against Cruz he was cornered by a guy from Denmark that finally got Bernie to admit that he has to raise taxes on everyone.
" Every other modern country has a successful single payer system. And all of the numbers bare out that it would be much cheaper."
What is your standard for "successful"? And being cheaper is not better. A 5 bedroom home is more expensive than my apartment. Is my apartment better?
"Healthcare isn't a care or TV."
On the point that it is a commodity that someone has to provide it is.
"And how do you have "healthcare competition" when there are companies and people that capitalize on a treatment and then inflate the prices exorbitantly."
Prices go up due to no competition.
"And yes, I do think having debates about climate change is exactly like having debates about a flat earth or a geocentric universe. It's fucking ridiculous when the massive amount of scientific evidence and scientists say it's real and a problem. "
As a scientist myself I can tell you that is not true. Reality is that there is not hard conclusion on the issue. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. A driving force in evolution is climate change. So unless you are a young earth theorist, or do not support evolution you have to realize we do not know if climate change is a major problem. That is why no one on the political left can get scientists to speak up on the issue when many on the right have, like Steven Crowder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Funny your argument regarding the debate Crowder was owned in lol"
How was he owned? The kid saying "Sweden" or "Norway" is not an argument. The kid just repeated talking points that he heard from Kyle. I am not saying Crowder was better, he wasn't. But the kid was not great.
"To nitpick his WORD CHOICES is fucking childish as hell. "
It is not because words have definitions. Autistic has a definition. And he had to explain why Crowder was shill. He couldn't. Also, calling Nordic countries socialist countries is false, they are more free market than the US.
"Crowder knew full well wat he meant by the words he used, and yet he chose to pretend like he didn't and make the kid explain himself."
He didn't, neither did I. The kid was just saying words without thought.
" And they he got in the kids face to try and trip him up, and used the audience against him."
I can agree that Crowder did that and I have said many times that Crowder was not any better. What I saw were the equivalent of two NFL teams that were 2-10 playing each other. No matter who won they both sucked. But for Crowder he showed he was at least going to engage in a discussion with people where Kyle does not.
"And furthermore, have you seen any of Crowder's recent big speeches/talking events? He alost alwats caps them off with a VERY disturbing anti-leftwing speech where he draws the audience in making them out to be "Victims of the left" and then gets all worked up over it and comes off like a humungous jackass with ZERO understanding of what the general left actually is. Hint: We're not SJWs and we're not "out to get you.""
The political left has two major problems.
1. The SJWs
2. They lost connection with the common man
I agree not everyone are SJWs, but enough of them are and not enough on the left are trying to stop it. As for losing connection with the common man, that is why Clinton lost. She was too busy reading her own feel good stories. You have the media making these claims about what the people want. You have ultra leftists saying the same thing too. You feel you think you know what the people want, you don't. Here is a clue for you. People do not want the federal government tampering with their lives. They don't want universal healthcare and education. They don't want the federal government invading their lives and wallet. They want freedom and liberty. You say you are not out to get me. I disagree 100%. Most people want to mind their own business. You want to invade it.
But here is the major problem with the left. You want to create policy to invade people's lives. And maybe not. Maybe you do want to help people. However, there are many ways to help people and those on the right have their ideas. The problem with the left is that if someone disagrees with you than you feel they lack morals and need to be punished. That is a problem. And that is why the left is losing. You refuse to engage in a conversation with anyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Harry, you are calling republicans and the political right anti-science. What that tells me is that you cannot create an argument and thus smear your opponent with zero justification (and in some cases, like Pruitt, lie). Your perceived values of the right are incorrect, that is my issues. You call them anti-science, anti-weed, etc. with no justification besides
1. Pointing a few that might be
2. Lying, or being factually incorrect
A Bernie Sanders supporters shot at politicians, does that make them all violent? No. You say the AG is against weed, does that make all republicans against weed, or even the majority? No. As I said they do not see it as a major issue.
"If, everytime 'the right' gets legit criticism, you take that personally
& think people are calling you names & trying to silence you,"
Here is the problem, you have yet to give a legit criticism. You started out labeling them as "anti-science" and "anti-education" and so on. Immediately I cannot take your arguments seriously as you have an extreme bias against the right. You view them as anti-education because they have different ideas. You may disagree with their ideas but you cannot say they are anti-education unless you have very strong evidence towards that. You don't. As I said, I feel many on the left support education, affordable healthcare, science, etc. I just disagree for several reasons. You are pushing to silence the other side by saying their stance on the issues are "anti-science", "anti-education", "anti-affordable healthcare" and so on. If I did that so you how would you feel? Here, I feel the political left is "anti-education". See how simple that was?
"You can't call people SJW's just because they don't agree with Republican Policy. "
I don't. I call them that when they place labels on others without justification.
"No you didn't. Only 16% conservative Republicans accept the 99% scientific consensus of man made climate change."
Uh, the old "consensus" argument that gets abused by the left constantly. To start, climate change has been happening for over 4 billions years. Is man playing a role? Yes based on purely the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However we cannot say to what degree. To those who feel man is playing the only role in climate change I call young earth theorist as they are ignoring the climate change that occurred before man was on earth.
Now reading your poll, the question was
"Almost all climate scientists agree that human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change".
To start, the methods of this poll not listed and thus this poll is highly unreliable. However, let us go with it. The questioning is poor. "Climate scientist" is very vague. That can technically involve me as my research can contribute to the influence of climate change on the environment. Next, saying "mostly" is vague as well because there is no quantitative value placed on that anywhere. As I said, climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years.
Also, nowhere in that poll does it say "deny climate change". If you were to ask me those questions I would align with the political right if I were given only those options. However, in all reality I understand the issue is more complex than that. Now does that make me anti-science?
Now with your quote on Pruitt, please explain where he denied climate change. Again, i will wait.
Here is the equivalent of what you are doing. If I were to say there wasn't any sun out today because it was cloudy you would say that I made the claim the sun doesn't exist. That is not true as I am saying it was not sunny today because of clouds.
The fact is that anyone you disagree with you on climate change you call a denier and label them as "anti-science". You cannot argue your point on the issue so you do that. So I ask again, when did Pruitt ever deny climate change?
"54 per cent favourability seems like a popular candidate to me."
If he is popular than why did he lose? Also, I told you about how he has never been attacked. Why? Because he is not considered a threat and the RNC wanted him to win the primaries. If you look Paul Ryan as a 34% approval rating. Why? As I mentioned before he is well known and has been attacked like Pelosi was as speaker. And again, approval does not equal popular. Bernie is not in power like Ryan and Trump are. Thus he is irrelevant.
"Congratulations, the far right are emboldened, nazi memes are cool, hate
crimes are up, education is falling, scientists are snubbed, lifelong
citizens are deported & you're being silenced by me, a nobody on
youtube who wields zero authority."
And this is why you are a SJW. You are labeling republicans as Nazis. Who is saying Nazi memes are cool? No one. Who is snubbing scientists? No one. Education is doing fine. Crime has been dropping for decades.
You claim you are standing by what you believe in. Truth is that you cannot support what you believe in. I asked for evidence to show where Pruitt denied climate change. You have not given it to me. All you have shown was that you love to twist words to suit your agenda and flat out lie in many cases. I can do that as well. Bernie Sanders hates America and wants us to live in a communist country like USSR did under Stalin. There, see how easy that was? Do I need support? No as you have not provided any. Oh, wait, I do have support. Bernie spent his honeymoon in USSR in 1988. There, that is all I need. I am simply going off of your standards now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Harry, I am not trying to silence you as I am simply playing you at your own game. You label the right as "anti-science" with no justification, so I am as well. All I am doing is showing you that by doing the same actions you are that we are not going to have a productive conversation. If you just label people like a SJW does than we will not have a productive conversation.
" You refuse to accept stats, polls or differing opinions on the Republican Party"
Except I referenced the polls and my concerns about them. As for stats, what stats? What have you give me? You have only given me opinion polls where I pointed out the flaws.
"As to why you're on a leftie channel, one could only hope it's so that
you can hear views outside of the right-wing echo chamber. "
I listen to both sides as I don't live in an echo chamber.
"Bernie, with 54% *favourability*, is the most popular politician in the USA."
Did that poll ask about every politician? No. So it is irrelevant. Unless every politician is on that list, and we can keep it to federal ones, that poll is irrelevant. There are 535 voting members of congress. I did not see all of them on there. Also, you are refusing to address the issue of how he has never been attacked like Paul Ryan, Clinton and Trump has. You did not see attack ads on Bernie from the RNC. If you did his approval would be different.
Opinion polls are not facts, they are opinion polls. Polls have vague questions on complex issues and thus have many flaws and are unreliable. I just gave you another reason for the Bernie one. They were missing a lot of congress members. How can you say he is the most popular when you are not even comparing him to every federal politician?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojoboko6990 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
That does say that
"This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years,"
It is clear that if you don't improve physically than your chances of dying are high. You are really being picky here. So are you saying that if you are obese you don't have a higher chance of dying? Are you saying ig you have high chlorestral you don't have a higher chance of dying? If you are saying that than you have no business discussing healthcare. Also, this
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
"Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor, echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse health.
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said."
"In addition to Kronick’s skepticism, he pointed to a study of Oregon’s Medicaid experiment (which Baicker co-authored and PolitiFact looked at here) that found no significant improvement in health outcomes, including conditions like blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar, between a group of new Medicaid enrollees and uninsured Oregonians who could not get on the Medicaid rolls.
"Like Kronick, I am a strong advocate of measures to achieve universal insurance coverage and would rather that Kronick’s study and the Oregon project provided evidence in support of my policy preference," he said. "But, as far as mortality is concerned, they just don’t.""
You make this way too easy for me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Richard Mancha , most goods and services in healthcare can be paid for out of pocket. Insurance should be insurance, which is for unplanned, expensive situations. The problem is this. Because of the payroll tax businesses pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage. Thus healthcare insurance is a form of payment and has become healthcare. Healthcare insurance covers most of healthcare related things, including situations that can be paid for out of pocket. So since the people can't force healthcare providers to compete, and they can't force healthcare insurance companies to compete as they don't have a say in who they get, the price goes up.
Look at car insurance. Despite all 50 states requiring everyone to have it the cost is low. Why? Because car insurance pays for only unplanned, expensive situations. It does not pay for oil changes, tire rotations, etc. all things to keep the car running efficiently.
If we had a free market in healthcare people will pay out of pocket for many goods and services which will drive down prices. Also, they will buy insurance they desire forcing companies to compete which will drive down prices there as well. You see that in the free market. Look at areas in the market where prices have gone up dramatically, College tuition and healthcare. Both are heavily subsidized by the federal government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Wrong, science is drive by evidence. Science is never so arrogant as to
say anything as absolute but does demonstrate the truth of its claims. "
Science is driven on the scientific method and doubt, never proof. That evidence is simply observables to support a theory, not proof. It was observed that waves needed a median to travel through so the theory of ether was developed to describe light waves. However, future experiments made that theory poor thus new ones were developed.
"I can demonstrate that gravity does exist by dropping a pen"
You just showed an observable and you have a model to describe it, that being that being the gravitational force model. It does not explain what gravity truly is. Why did the pen fall? You will say gravity, OK, what's gravity? What is this force? Why does it exist?
"If you god was as demonstrable as that we wouldn't be having this
conversation but to date there is no verifiable evidence that
demonstrates your god. "
It isn't "my god" as I am not religious. However, one can argue everything, including gravity exists because of god.
" Science does have verifiable and testable evidence"
It has the scientific method.
" That is only you ignorance talking. You are falling into the classic
argument from ignorance fallacy. You can't explain it so god did it?"
A legit argument that does not take away from science. God could have created all of this and we just model it. Does not take away from science at all.
"unlike religion which make shit up all the time,"
Newton developed Calculus to explain gravity.
"Remember, science has verifiable evidence, testable claims and able to predict on what it knows. "
That is the scientific method.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jordan, I have on numerous occasions shown where Kyle is flat out wrong. One example is in healthcare where Kyle said there is not debate which is wrong. Professors still research the issue constantly and it is highly debatable if universal healthcare is the best option. And if it is how do you implement it? Kyle also said that no one in other countries die while waiting for "elective" care when that is 100% wrong, and I have references to prove it.
On this point SS and Medicare are losing money,period. We need to reform it. Reform does not necessarily mean cut, but we need to reform it. Even far leftists like Bernie Sanders agree we need to reform it, he just wants to go the other way.
On the tax cuts the republicans pass, you cannot say it will add deficit as any projections are based on current economic growth. If you cut taxes and the economy boom you do not have a deficit. On a simple term say you have economic growth of 2%, and you cut taxes in half and the economy now grows at 4%, economic growth has doubled after cutting taxes in half, thus you have a net gain and loss of zero.
Kyle went on a rant about donors where I got bored as he just rambles crap. But Kyle did mention about how sly republicans are but he is a hardcore Bernie supporter. Bernie was saying in all of 2016 he was going to give people healthcare and education, but was going to only raise taxes on the rich. It took over a year and a debate against Cruz for him to finally admit he will have to raise everyone's taxes. Bernie was flat out lying all of 2016. Kyle never brings that up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Pierik, I never heard of Razorfist until that debate. Crowder gets over 100,000 views a show, and Shapiro is very well known nation wide. Kyle just passes them off as "idiots" and "stupid" when if they are that unqualified then he should have no issue debating them. So why is he avoiding them? Also, I will challenge you, point to me where Crowder and Shapiro are wrong, why?
As for Kyle he was factually wrong. Near the beginning he said that no one died in other countries on waiting lists as they ration based on need. And that anyone with a critical issue gets seen quickly. That is 100% wrong. In Canada people die on waiting lists for what are considered "elective" heart surgery. Read the paper
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery"
There is a peer reviewed paper that shows Kyle is wrong. People are dying on waiting lists. Kyle hardly cited anything. The only study he cited on that issue was that Harvard study of the 45,000 a year that die which was countered by another Harvard professor. The counter argument is this, those 45,000 are poor to begin with and there is a correlation of bad health and being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. So the question becomes do they die because of lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? It comes down to correlation does not equal causation. 45,000 is 0.01% of the population, a very small fraction of the overall population. Having an accurate assessment on why they died is extremely difficult.
On top of that every system has shortcomings, as Razorfist said no country has this magic wand to solve everything. Kyle claims they did however, as studies have shown, people do die due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems. No system is ideal, period. The US does many things well in healthcare that Kyle ignores to push his propaganda. He will ignore actual studies in order to push his propaganda. Someone like Crowder and Shapiro will give counter arguments with studies making Kyle look like a fool. That is why Kyle refuses to debate them, he is scared.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The whole point is that 0.004% is a huge number! "
Really? Compared to what? Look at the many other deaths in the US or the world even. 0.004% is minute. You are dealing with a small number. Say you were to get your gun registry you wanted and that number dropped from 0.004% to 0.00356%. What was the reasoning? Was it your new gun law or was it due to the trend of murders as a whole have been dropping to begin with? Or is it that 0.004% is a small, and thus sensitive number? What if after you new gun law the number increased from 0.004% to 0.0052%? What will be your reaction? Mine would be the same, we are dealing with small and thus sensitive numbers here. A difference of 0.0012% is nothing.
So my question to you are you willing to remain as consistent as I am? If you were to get one of your gun laws you wanted and we saw gun deaths go up from 0.004% to 0.0052%, would you say that is a big difference and we should revoke the law?
"but to call it flyshit is just mindboggling to anybody in a civilised country,"
Countries with different cultures, economies, populations, etc. With numbers so small you cannot pinpoint the reasoning for the differences.
To compare with other small numbers, but numbers that are actually bigger than 0.004%. Two professors showed that if you simply remove car accidents and murders the US becomes number 1 in life expectancy. Why? Because the difference in life expectancies between developed countries is so minute and thus sensitive that any minor changes lead to a large difference. On gun deaths, if you were to remove gang related murders what will the numbers be?
"Your gun-homicide rate (as y'all ignore the suicides that could be
prevented) is a factor of 10 higher than in Finland, a factor of 20
higher than Spain and a factor of 40 higher than Germany and a factor of
50 higher than the UK. "
And? What is the murder rate?
US: 4.88
Finland: 1.6, US is only 3 times larger than them
Spain: 0.66, the US has around 7 times larger then them
UK: 0.92, US is around 5 times larger then them
My point? Those cultures have far less crime than the US. That is a culture issue. And again, what would it be like without our outliers of gangs and larger cities?
To add, we have 10 times the gun murder rate than Finland, but only 3 times the overall murder rate. So play some numbers here. If we remove all gun murders we will have around 4000 murders
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
Now to be fair I got the murder rate from this source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
So be liberal here we will say 7000 murders. Doing that our murder rate will be around 2.4, still higher than the UK, Spain and Finland. What does that mean? That means there culture have less murders overall. Even if we remove all gun related murders we still have more murders. To me that is not a gun issue but a culture issue.
To be really fair I can use the FBI numbers and say 4000. Our murder rate gets dropped down to 1/3 of what it is. So that is a murder rate of around 1.6. We are now tied with Finland but still higher than Spain and the UK.
"Yes, you know what S Korea did? They made it much harder to get
pesticides and their suicide rate dropped. This is a well-known
phenomenon. "
Not really. The ban happened in 2011, prior to that suicides by poisoning was dropping already
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4823193/
And the suicide rate was essentially stagnate from 2004 to 2011. From 2000 to 2004 for males it went up around 30% but then remained stagnate for the next 7 years. Not saying it does not play a role, but correlation does not equal causation.
"Yes, it is a cultural issue - but do you at least acknowledge that the US has a problem?"
We have problems, every nation has problems. Now what is it and what is the solution? I will agree we do have a violence problem to a degree. However, again, remove outliers and do we? Look at outliers like St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, etc that have murder rates 10x more than the national rate. But even if we include the outliers, is the solution attacking guns and taking away people's freedom? Or is the solution somewhere else?
When you start factoring in the outliers, and the fact that the overall gun murder rate is tiny percent wise, and the fact that other variables are at play besides guns such as economic status for example, the issue is much more complex. To me attacking the gun is not helping the person which is why I am against it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@baseboy1241 , size has everything to do with it. A larger size means larger diversity across the board. You have different cultures across this nation. I grew up in the midwest for 24 years, now I have been living out west for nearly a decade. I have seen major differences. But to give you a clear example, compare NV and MA in education. NV is constantly ranked low in education. However, where is the incentive to become educated when you can make $80,000 parking cars or serving drinks or 6 figures working in the mines? Thus their culture there does not value education as much.
MA is ranked high in education. MA is also home to MIT, Harvard, Boston College, etc. It has more 4 year colleges than NV. Their culture values education more. So with that, if Bernie were to push his "tuition free college" federally, how open would the people of NV be about it? Not much.
You see, size has a lot to do with it. You are assuming that everyone across the board values those programs Bernie pushes for the same. They don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
imnodog, when you understand what wealth is you realize it is not a major issue. The 1% own their wealth through shares of their company. Bezos owns most of Amazon. He is not hoarding homes, food, water, oil, etc. He owns most of the shares of Amazon. In reality those shares of Amazon are worthless to a poor person in Ethiopia as they are in a position in needing food and water now. If you were to give that person in Ethiopia shares of Amazon they would be wealthier on paper, but they are not investors. They don't have time to invest it, generate, income, and then buy things.
This is why these numbers are deceptive. There is a lot to them. But go ahead, take Bezos shares of Amazon and give it to poor people in Ethiopia. Give them those slips of paper. They have zero understanding of investment. But go ahead and do it. You will make them wealthier on paper, but are you really making them better off?
1
-
1
-
imnodog, shares are worth something only to investors. Shares are worth a lot to me and you and others who can invest. But to someone in Ethiopia they are worthless. It is not food, water, oil, etc. They are nothing more than slips or paper or numbers on a screen.
If you sell shares and get the money that does not increase the amount of food, water, oil, homes, etc. in society. So even if you sell your shares and give the money away to feed the hungry you did not solve anything. Someone still has to produce that food. Someone still has to deliver it. And in the long run you really need to educate those people so they can feed themselves. It isn't as easy as "give them the money". The resources and knowledge is not there.
What makes these companies valuable is that they provide long term benefits towards society. They give people jobs, they produce goods and services for people to consume. That is why those shares are worth a lot. If you just took all the shares of Amazon and sold it for money you essentially destroy Amazon. That means no more jobs, no more wealth create. If you give that money to someone who is poor they will not invest it.
This is why the whole wealth inequality talking point is very deceptive. It isn't that simple. You can't just sell shares, get money and then feed the hungry. You have to understand why those shares are so valuable to begin with. You also have to understand that someone still has to produce the food and you have to look at long term investment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
imnodog, no, I am taking conversation down to where it needs to go. You started with a political, appeal to emotion talking point. That talking point is empty as it requires a lot of details which I am providing. Is there wealth inequality? Yes. Now what does it mean.
On your first paragraph. The bank will have enough money for me as I don't have much in the bank. However, it won't have enough for everyone as it is required to loan out the money and hold onto only around 10%. This creates what is called the "inverted pyramid". Now a bank can retain more money through other banks or the Fed if needed, but that will only occur during dire economic times. That is where the Fed becomes the lender of last resort. So there is a lot to it.
Next, to say that money has no value is true to a degree. But you have to realize where it obtains its value. It obtains it by being invested in the market. When it is invested in a way to generate wealth and value in the market then the money increases in value. A reason why people become rich is because they invest their money wisely to generate wealth. Many don't thus they do not become rich. Investors can take that money and buy shares of a company to have that money grow by shares increasing in value. It is a form of investment where I put my money in a bank to collect interest. In the end, though, it is not food, water, oil, etc. It is just money on a screen. I will agree with you on that. But in our nation and in our monetary system it has value. However, in Ethiopia for one person, or even a group of people it doesn't. And giving money to a homeless person on the US does not increase value of money as they are poor with money. Harsh reality is they are poor for a reason.
"no one is saying people should give shares to the poor, you brought it
up as an example only. I only made an argument before about selling
shares to show you how they have value, no one is making that argument
though."
Fine, then why complain about wealth inequality? That is where most of their wealth in the 1% comes from. To add in the US a home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. A home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Now are they starving to death? Are they in terrible shape? No. They are fine. That is why there is no "revolution" on this wealth inequality issue. The vast majority do not care to be like the Walton family and own half of Walmart. That is why the Walton family is so wealthy.
So unless you demand to give up their shares, what is your point in bringing up wealth inequality, especially in relation to hunger?
"sure, they pay most of their work force minimum wage and provide people
with goods that their workforce probably can't pay to have themselves."
This is a different topic but Walmart pays above the min. wage. Many jobs pay the min. wage are small businesses. Why don't you attack them? Why attack Walmart? Why aren't you attacking Hy Vee or Raleys? They are both retail stores as well. Even at that they still gave people jobs and offer a convenient way for others to buy goods. You complaining about them paying a wage you deem to be too low is you literally saying "if they don't pay higher they should not be hiring at all". So if a company does not pay enough, according to you, should they just not hire people? Never mind the fact that they cannot afford higher wages. They offered people a job that could not find work anywhere else. You see that as a problem?
"Now I don't know much about shares and investments, but I'm pretty sure
people buy/sell stocks all the time. You give monetary value to own a
little bit of something, that's how stocks work, correct? So people sell
shares all the time, how is Amazon still standing?"
That to is a whole different discussion in itself. However, it again comes down to what I mentioned earlier. Shares are not food, oil, homes, etc. They are a form of investment where the market and the people involve value it.
"no it ain't"
It is. This is why there isn't an uprising on the streets. This is why Bernie's "revolution" never took off. This is why OWS died off. It isn't a big deal. Most people just want to mind their own business. They have their families, homes, cars, careers, etc. Just because Bezos is rich does not mean others are suffering. In fact he became wealthy by making other lives' easier.
"no one is arguing to sell shares, they're probably arguing to tax the rich more..."
The rich are already paying the vast majority of taxes. And why tax them more? What do you gain?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I make a claim, you should refute my claim, not refute something I am not claiming."
I am refuting your claim. The discussion is wealth inequality. I am showing you why wealth inequality exists, why it isn't a major issue, and how you can't compare it to world hunger.
"you didn't understand what I said, I don't care how much money you got
in the bank, the bank does not have the money to pay everyone because
the money isn't real, it's just digits on the screen..."
A bank is required to, by law, hold a certain about of currency. It is around 10% of the deposits. This is mandated by the Fed. The idea is what is called the "inverted pyramid" where banks loan out funds to people to invest in the economy and keep it running. But it has funds for those who want cash.
"I never said money has no value, I said money isn't real. The value of it is
real. you have some reading comprehension issues. My example using
money is only to show that something that ins't real can have value,
just like stocks..."
If you want to say that then fine. But at that point you have to understand what money is and why it exist which is another topic in itself.
"such a simple way of looking at things. People who become rich
are outliers. in reality if you are born rich chances are you will die
rich, if you are born poor chances are you will die poor. there aren't
many people who are born poor becoming rich. This is because the
capitalist system isn't fair or just. A poor individual has no money to
invest, no education to progress..."
This is another topic that has a lot to it. For example, you have the nature vs nurture argument. Being born poor or rich can influence your future lifestyle. Being raised a certain way contributes to that, or your genetic makeup. Capitalism has little to do with that. You are, again, taking a complex issue and limiting it down to an appeal to emotion talking point. In this case it is capitalism and how it isn't "fair".
"okay, let me try to write this in a simple way; stocks have value, the rich have stocks therefore they have wealth. this doesn't mean I think we should give stocks to the poor.."
Ok, than what's your point in complaining about wealth inequality?
"homes are tangible things, money and stocks aren't... A very wealthy
person does not have 60% of their wealth in their homes, your using a
bad example."
I agree a wealthy person does not have 60% of their value tied into their home, they have it in stocks. Are you now seeing where wealth inequality comes from?
"lol, did you just say the Walton family is so wealthy because the vast
majority of people do not care to be like the Walton family?"
Do you want to run a major business like Walmart? I sure don't. I know many that don't.
"no one is asking people to give up their shares, they're asking to raise taxes."
What's the difference?
"it seems 42% of workers get paid less than $15.00 US an hour."
Ok, and? To start, I do not believe that stat. Next, how many work part time? How many have a spouse who is well off? How many are kids who live with parents? What is the cost of living where they reside? I am technically in that 42%, I am fine. Again, you can't just throw vague statements out there.
"no it ain't. you made a claim that Amazon would be worthless if people
sell their shares, I'm only pointing out people do that on a daily
basis."
I was referring to Jeff Bezos giving it to a homeless person who then sells it for pennies on the dollars. There is a difference between free buying and selling and giving it away. You support the latter. You literally said you want to tax them more which is taking their money. This is not an argument against taxes, it is an argument in how you see someone you see as wealthy and wanting to tax them more when they have shares, not income.
"most people in the US aren't in their worst of the worst, they can get
by on the little they get so they become complacent. This isn't true for
the rest of the world though."
Globally is a completely different situation that is even more complex. How do you tackle the situation in Chad with multiple religions, languages and cultures? Look the diversity there. Their literacy rate is less than 50%.
"proportionally they pay the least."
Again, more to it than that. Many of the rich pay 50% of their income in taxes.
"lol, you have written way to much to say that is a long answer,
I'll take that as a none answer, and this will be my last answer to you.
You're not an honest player here for me to continue to waste my time
on.
"
This is a complex issue and you wanted a discussion. I gave you one. To simplify this issue with simple talking points is very dangerous.
"that's just your bias showing through. peace out."
So poor people all made intelligent decisions with their money but ran into bad luck? That is not true. Why do around 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikewest3108 , graduate school admissions in many cases are not that competitive. And there are other factors as well such as GRE scores, research experience, recommendation letters. etc. I as accepted in every graduate program I applied for with just a 3.3 GPA. A reason why is because I have a peer reviewed paper as an undergrad. Also, grad school will look at subject GPA. For example, my major GPA was close to a 4.00, I had low grades in other courses.
GPA is not that important if you have strong recommendations and work experience. Consider this, you have two applicants, one with a 4.00 but no work experience, or someone with a 2.90 and strong work experience. Who will you hire? I will hire the latter a they show they can keep a job and work, especially if their employer recommends them. The former most likely just studied and did no other activities making them too 1 dimensional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roswellsatterwhite3906 , define "economic inequality". It is hard to measure. Read the study entitled
"Measuring inequality"
In the Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Bernie harps on "wealth inequality" when that is flaws. One thing they write on that is
"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."
This is a problem with Bernie and his fans.They scream "inequality" with no real analysis.
1
-
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709
1. Welfare is nowhere in the Constitution, thus it, like public education, state roads, murder laws, etc. are state issues. Some areas don't have to rely heavily on government welfare as they have strong charities. Others do. It all depends on the area. A one size fits all policy never works.
2. They do benefit all. The rich received more because they pay more to begin with. When you pay $0 in taxes you can't cut more. Also, one can easily argue tax cuts lead to growth and thus more revenue. What is higher, 50% of 100 or 10% of 1000?
3. Yes he is by limiting the powers the federal government has. That is why so many democrats hate him.
4. They are here illegally. We give them shelter, food and water. Really I feel we should just shoot them but that is just me. We house them and send them back. What do you want to give them? A stay at a 5 star hotel with a pool and a free massage?
5. So I cited two scientists on the issue and you just dismiss me? How can I take you serious at this point?
6. We can't drop more or we go below the NATO agreement. While other nations don't follow it, we do. Shows why the Paris Agreement was garbage.
7. You call me dumb but you dismissed actual scientists' opinions on climate change, one that was one of the lead authors of that IPCC report.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mezzaninex, I never said the UK's system is worse than the US. If I did then please quote me in saying that.
Next, I do not deny the facts. The reality is that just regurgitating facts is only part of the issue. Being able to analysis them logically and understand what the mean under different conditions is important. Compare it to the progress in education and specifically Bloom's Taxonomy. At the very bottom you learn basic facts, as you move up you learn how to analyze them, then you have synthesis which is applying the facts you learn to other elements, and then evaluating which is arguing your opinion based on different ideas and criteria. In education at the very basic level in kindergarten you learn "site words". As you move up you learn how to create sentences, then how to make paragraphs, how to write essays and so one. Or in my field, science. You learn, say the atom. The parts of it as in the neutrons, protons and electrons. Then you learn about their functions and role in the atom, then you eventually go up to there being an entire book called the "Physics of the Atom" that is a college text book. And after college you do your own research if you go to grad school.
This is not to be rude but you are near the bottom on this issue. You are just presenting two data points, cost and infant mortality. I explained to you why cost is so high and how it is not all bad. In infant mortality I explained to you the factors beyond healthcare that influence those numbers. I take those facts and go deeper. You are at an elementary school level of thought and I am at an undergrad college level of thought here.
This is why you are replying back say that I "lost the argument". You have no argument. You are still on the playground and you are taking your ball and going home.
1
-
1
-
Phillip Evans, saying my arguments are "wrong" is not an argument in itself.
To start, people do die for "elective" care in Australia like they do in other countries. If they don't die they become worse off due to longer wait times. I believe I cited a paper that did a study in New Zealand about that where that paper referenced another study from Canada on that issue. Something like a knee injury may not be "life threatening" to an outsider, but to the person who has it that injury could very well greatly influence their life. If I need knee surgery I want it quickly so I can rehab and get back to work and to my activities and be productive. I do not want the government saying "we feel it isn't life threatening so you have to wait". To me it is my life. The longer you wait to fix those issues the worse they become and the mental repercussions start to build as well.
That is a problem with calling those types of care "elective". To an outsider they are elective, but for the person involved they aren't. Also, you just agreed with me that every country lacks resources, so people do die because of that. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare over 7000 people died or were not contactable a year since 2012 while being on waiting list that were classified as "elective" surgery. So what you are saying is wrong.
The WHO's ranking is arbitrary. To start, it is valid to compare the US and Australia to a country like Malta? Next, what are their methods? Everyone who points me to that source never read the methods nor can understand them. They just blindly follow it as it supports their confirmation bias. Finally, that ranking is arbitrary because anyone can do a legit analysis and create any ranking they want. For example, two professors showed that if you remove car accidents and murder the US is number 1 in life expectancy. For infant mortality being obese increases the chance for pre-term births where pre-term births increases the chance for infant mortality. The US has a high obesity rate. You can weigh that in as well. The US is number 1 in cancer survival rate, that is never considered. The US is number 1 in R&D. There are so many ways to look at the data. You should read the book "How to Lie with Statistics".
1
-
1
-
Phillip Evans, your character attack is when you asked if I like being wrong all the time. That aside, on that report it is listed as "elective" surgery. That 7000 deaths can be from numerous "elective" surgery. I question if they are "elective" when people die. They seem pretty important to me.
I will be fair, many do die from more than just the ailment they are waiting to cure. But you have to be 100% honest, some die due to the ailment they are waiting to get cure. The term "elective surgery" is very broad when you read it. One is "unlikely to deteriorate quickly" which is hard to determine unless you get it looked at to begin with. One case in the UK was a girl with headaches. It was considered to be migraines so an MRI was delayed for months and ended up being a tumor where she died.
As for people getting the private option, only the rich can afford that, at least in the US. In comparison 90% of students in K-12 attend public schools. Why? Because the middle class cannot afford higher taxes plus the tuition for a private option. They cannot afford to pay twice for education.
The WHO has valuable material, but that ranking was criticized so much that they have not created another one in almost 20 years. Again, is it valid to compare the US and Australia to Malta, or Iceland? We have football stadiums in the US that can hold the entire population of Malta with room to spare.
What motivation does that WHO have to lie? Recognition. The WHO has always favored universal healthcare systems. They are an organization that has very little oversight. Why do they exist? Who created them? Who runs the WHO? I agree that some of their information is valuable, but their information is just one piece of a complex situation.
As for the two professors I referenced, no one paid them. Their book is free online. One is from Texas A&M and the other worked for the University of Iowa. The book is called "The Business of Health".
But again, what were the WHO methods in creating that ranking? If you cannot explain than you are just blindly following a source to support your firmly held, religious like belief in healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Spencerwalker21, that 45,000 is a very deceptive stat. To start, those 45,000 are poor and poor people have bad health to begin with with higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? A study out of the state of Oregon led by a Harvard professor expanded Medicaid to 6000 people and 6000 were not given Medicaid. Those given Medicaid did not see their physical health improve because that is dependent on one's lifestyle and genetics. So even with Medicaid they were still in bad health.
Next, that 45,000 came from a Harvard study. As I have pointed out people die in other nations due to shortcomings as well. Has there been any similar study done in other nations to compare that 45,000 to? No. Thus that 45,000 is what I call am empty stat as there is nothing to compare it to. You don't know if it is high, low or average. Compare it to this, I pay $700 a month in rent. Based on that I want you to come to the conclusion if I am paying too much in rent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Muhammad, Bernie is popular because there has not been any attacks towards him by the RNC. The RNC wanted him to beat Clinton as Bernie has a lot of dirt on him.
Kyle constantly points to polls as if they are facts. Polls are very flawed. To start, a poll of 1000 people does not represent the nations of over 200 million voters. Next, the polls are vague questions on complex issues and the people being polled are not experts on those complex issues. For example, polling asking about medicare for all does not get into the details about tax rates, cost, quality, etc. And how many being polled understand healthcare, economics, finances, etc. Besides, in 2016 close to 80% of voters in Colorado voted against universal healthcare. So the polls are not even matching the voting results.
There are many falsehoods that Kyle says. He can point to polls all he wants. It would be interesting to see what he says when his candidates lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joshua, using old textbooks is not a problem. Most topics have not change that drastically. As for teachers purchasing supplies, that happens in every job. I have to buy materials for my job. You work at a job you have to buy certain clothes at times. That's life. Buying a car to get to work is arguably buying supplies for work.
As for you teaching your kids, great. Do it. Push them to succeed. You point to physics, calculus, etc. Those are advanced courses. They typically have the best students and thus the bests supplies that don't get destroyed. And a lot of schools don't offer those advanced courses where one can take them in college if they want where people are required to buy their own materials.
I support teachers, but in the end it is a part time job compared to most jobs on the market. You become a teacher with the desire to teach, not to become rich. Also, a harsh reality people have to understand is that a K-12 education is really not that valuable. You learn the very basics. As I mentioned earlier, topics like physics, calculus, etc. are taught in college. They offer remedial courses.
I am a substitute teacher. I studied education in grad school for a year and understand the issue. I inspired to be a teacher at one point but realized my talents are needed elsewhere. I teach at a university and see the product the K-12 education produces. When I left high school I lacked a lot of skills, but I was taught basic things. I had college to help be progress and remedial courses if needed.
In my opinion the K-12 education needs to be approached differently, and there is not real clear answer in how though. But in the very end a teacher becomes a teacher for their desire to teach and serve the community. They don't do it for the money. I find this strike to be disturbing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thesoundofmerk by throwing the cases out of court is blocking the investigation. With this recent one in the SC it is being thrown out not on lack of evidence but because TX simply can't sue PA just because PA changed their voting laws. Doing so creates a major problem where a state like CA can sue other states if they do not like that other state's abortion law. Other cases got thrown out due to not being submitted on time. But just because local and state courts are throwing them out does not mean evidence does not exist. It should be apolitical to want transparency. This election was so different with so many irregularities. And the media was so quick to declare Biden the winner and the media and the left is so quick to just sweep everything under the rug refusing to even considering an investigation. This was after, prior to the election the media and left said Trump was going to rig the election by dismantling the post office when he did not, or via his SC justices pick, which isn't happening.
In the end it isn't about Trump winning or losing but about transparency. With no transparency we all lose.
How was Trump bad? And Trump did not divide us, the MSM, democrats and left wing elites did. When you go around calling your opponent racist, bigots, sexists, every bad name in the book, and you push to censor them and succeed at times, that is dividing us. Don Lemon said a few months ago to get rid of your conservative friends, but after Biden was declared the winner and made a speech about unity, Lemon is saying we need to now come together? Really? The democrats impeached Trump for nothing. They called Kavanaugh a rapist with no evidence, but an investigation and a hearing still took place. During the debate Trump was pressed to denounce white supremacy where the moderator quoted Trump out of context for the Charlottesvilles incident where Trump did denounce white supremacy during the speech.
Trump did not divide us. Trump is nothing more than a symptom of a disease. That disease is that you have the MSM who misleads to flat out lying ran by elites and well connected individuals. The disease are career, corrupt politicians like Biden and Harris who have done nothing outside of government work and have no connection with the common man. How is it that the entire Biden family owns such large houses? How is it that a career politician like Bernie Sanders owns three homes while having zero success outside of government?
Under Biden we are going to become even more divided now. After years of the media calling Trump and his supporters fascists, racists, bigots, stupid, etc. After years of impeachment push and flat out lies towards Trump and his supporters, do you really think Trump supporters are just going to forget and unite? No.
1
-
1
-
@thesoundofmerk how did Trump divide us? As I said, Trump was a symptom of a disease and that disease is the political left. The MSM, democrats and other leftists. In 2016 Clinton did not campaign in swing states to the degree Trump did. Trump rallied a lot in swing states where Clinton hung out with her celebrity friends. Democrats are the ones calling their opponents racists, bigots, stupid, etc. Again, look at how they treated Kavanaugh by calling him a rapist. Now look at this virus. You have democrats making people's lives miserable but shutting down their businesses but then not following their own rules. Newsom is enjoying fine dining while small businesses are shut down. Lightfoot was able to get a hair cut while hair salons in Chicago were shut down. They were calling Trump rallies super spreader events, but when Biden was declared the winner there were large crowds of Biden supporters celebrating some not wearing masks including people like Schumer and Lightfoot.
With the "pandemic", what did you want him to do? He did all he could do within his power. The left called Trump a fascist and dictator but with this virus he could have done just that but did not. People like Cuomo and Newsom are, but not Trump. As for what else you wrote, the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes to begin with, so any tax cut will favor them. What kick backs for deregulation of corporations? And what deregulations? We have too many government agencies to begin with which slows down progress. Under Trump the economy was booming. Homeownership was going up, wages were going up, worker participation was going up and even at that unemployment was still going down. It took the democrats misrepresenting the virus to shut down the economy to ruin it. And even at that when we started to reopen the economy was quickly coming back so it had to be shut down again to try to make Trump look bad.
PA violated the constitution with changing of voting laws without going through the legislative branch of their state government. The courts legislated from the bench and all the cases being brought to PA supreme court are thrown out via party lines, 5-2. Setting up cases take time, especially if you are going to eventually take it to the supreme court. There were ballot drops in some of these swing states at night when they said counting was going to stop. The issue is that it is hard to determine at this point what ballots should count and what shouldn't. But there were many irregularities that should be considered.
So you are saying that politicians use donations for campaign money? What a shocker. That is basically every politician. Bernie lost and received a third home. Ilhan Omar gave hundreds of thousands to her husband claiming he was her campaign manager or something like that. Look at the Biden family, they are loaded but Joe has done nothing outside of government work.
As Trump said in his inauguration speech, people in DC were getting richer while everyone else suffered and he was pushing to change that and he was doing it. But now we are going back to career, corrupt politicians taking over and them doing favors for each other.
It is funny you brought up the fact that Trump dismantled agencies. How many of those agencies were created so politicians in charge can just give one of their buddies a job? If Trump was as corrupt as you thought he was and wanted to favor corporations as much as you thought he did he would have created more government agencies and given jobs to people in those corporations to complete rig the economy in their favor. He did not. Biden will.
You really have nothing to support that Trump divided us or that he was a bad president.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattrogers6107 1. Wages were going up under Trump, that is according to the Atlanta Federal Reserve. People did not lose healthcare, they were given the choice of if they wanted to buy it or not. Under Obama, though, people did lose their plans. Taxes were cut and as for jobs being outsourced, that is going to happen regardless. Under Trump unemployment was dropping despite worker participation going up.
2. Science denier? Really? There are many experts that felt we went too far with the shut downs. Even the WHO is saying end the lock downs. At the beginning you had Fauci saying millions would die. When deaths started drop his next fear mongering story was not to open up too soon. We opened up. Things were fine. Cases started to go up, but deaths were low but the next talking point was about cases and that we were doing it all wrong.
All you heard was fear from the left. Nothing about how this virus one has an over 99.6% chance of surviving from, and how the lock downs have become a power grab and is not based on science. Dining outdoors is banned but protests are OK? Trump's rallies are super spreader events but people gathering to celebrate Biden's victory is not? Or people gathering to John Lewis's funeral in the state of GA is not? Hundreds can gather in a Walmart and Costco but not dine outdoors? Explain to me what is scientific about that?
3. I have seen many on the left threaten people. Look at BLM and antifa. Heck, they took over entire blocks of a city and the mayor did nothing until they started to set up in front of her house. As for your "a racist piece of shit " comment, you mean Biden? He literally said racist things. What has Trump said that was racist? There is a reason why he gained black votes.
4. Who is going to die for Trump? Almost all Trump supporters will just move on in life and vote in the mid terms and in 2024 giving democrats a huge defeat. Unlike the left people on the right don't cry, bitch and moan and do nothing (well, many on the left burn, loot and murder, not all, and not the majority, but they are the vocal minority).
And what you are saying is sick to be honest. For years all we heard was how Trump is a bigot, a racist, a sexist with no evidence. That he was a fascist when he simply gave more freedom to the states and individuals. And push for impeachment. That is all you heard from the left.
5. How is he going to give healthcare to all? Does he have some magic wand? As for the min. wage, wages were going up under him anyways, so what is the point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sprybug, again, I stand by that statement. You had radical groups in the KKK, Neo Nazis, BLM and Antifa all coming together and getting violent. They are radical groups who should not represent any side of the political spectrum. They looked for trouble, caused violence, and someone died. I cannot feel bad for someone like that. If it was an innocent bystander then yes, I will feel bad. However it wasn't.
"Kicking his ass is a figure of speech. "
Can't be too sure these days, remember, someone just died by being run over by a car. A BLM person killed two cops after the BLM group chanted for dead cops.
" If I actually did get in a room with him, I would just LOVE to talk with him,"
Based on your comments and how you approach me I doubt it.
" That's why he spews out his propaganda. He wants to keep the power and money he has, "
You base that on what?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, I bet you once again when I reply to you you will run away
"None of the evidence points to school systems that are public being
poor, especially when looking at the vast majority of European nations
when comparing education. I can literally break down his argument and
preemptively respond to his talking points"
Oh goody, this will be fun coming form a guy who cannot find peer reviewed papers related to healthcare when we debate that topic.
"The US funds schools locally k-12 which means many students have a
variety of different educations due to lack of funding or high amounts
of funding. That is if you live in a poor area, you tend to have a
terrible education. If you live in a rich area, you tend to have a
drastically high education. "
I work in the education system as a substitute and I studied it for 2 years at one point when I considered being a teacher. Here is the reality. Yes, schools are funded locally. However, the federal government funds Title I schools that are in poorer neighborhoods to make up for the gap. In many cases they have access to better resources such as Ipads and smart boards. In major cities there is a problem of lack of funding for many schools, but major cities like New York and LA have limited resources in almost everything. We see that especially in healthcare.
Also, in "rich areas" you have two factors. One is more donors, and two are better parents all around. A big factor in education is parenting. You can have the best teachers in the world with the most resources. If the parents do not take action it does not matter. You have to factor that in as well. Private schools do very well but a very fair argument is that people to send their kids to private schools are rich to begin with and are better parents. I bet you will agree to that argument on private schools. But now all of a sudden you turn around an look at funding when it comes to public schools? It shows inconsistency of the arguments from the left.
"However lets compare it to a global scale, when looking at nations that
have only federally funded systems, in comparison to ours, where do we
stand? "
How many of those nations have 100+ million people? That is the issue. The main argument for state funded education is that you have to keep government localized in order to control it. Also, it leads to competition as you have 50 states competing to be number 1. Having a centralized system is telling many successful states to regress to the norm.
But again, you are comparing nations of 5 million people or so to the US. Even Sir Ken Robinson said that is an unfair comparison when he was looking at Finland's education (who does many things very well). So your comparison is flawed. You cannot compare the US to nations of small size. Now you may say I did in my earlier comments, and I will agree. But others insisted on doing so thus I went along to show that the US has arguably the best education system in the world. As one of my professors in education said, he can easily make that argument based on our size and diversity of the US alone.
Also, you are comparing funding of different countries where funding occurs in various ways. That is hard to compare.
If you were really a doctor these are the points you will be making but you fail to do. This is why I question your credentials.
"Basically when you demonstrate that our country pales in comparison
overall to other nations, he tends to bring up productivity as if our
education(or lack of) causes our nation to be a high productive nation.
Even though productivity has nothing to do with education since "
Based on this statement
"Even though productivity has nothing to do with education"
You are literally arguing against government funded education especially government funded college education. The main argument for government funded college education is to have a more educated, and thus productive society. But now you are saying there is zero correlation with education and productivity. So what gives? Also, read the report on "Skilled Biased Technological Change". There they bring up the fact that more skilled workers are earning more.
You also have to consider there is a correlation between educational attainment and income. And there is a correlation between income and productivity. Fact is there is a strong correlation between education and productivity. Is it exactly 1 to 1? No as there is a lot to it. But one exists. You saying productivity has nothing to do with education makes it very hard to take your comments seriously. I can accept mistakes here and there, but that remark is very telling of your knowledge. Consider this. Someone educated in computational skills can program a computer to be far more efficient. That alone shows how a higher education correlates with higher productivity.
"Again he has no evidence to actually demonstrate that our system is
doing better, in fact there is loads of evidence demonstrating that our
system is doing far worse."
Such as?
"btw the california system is a power house in the public sector
UCLA
UCSD
UC Berkley
UC Davis
Cal State SD
Cal State San Luis Obispo"
Those schools do very well, I agreed to that. But there are many schools in CA that are poor. Also, CA has so many schools due its size. TX has many schools that do well with the A&M school, Texas Tech, Rice, Baylor, etc. That is because is so large. Compare that Arizona which is small but has one of the best astronomy programs in the nation. MIT is strong, but Massachusetts is a small state.
CA has many schools that are average with Bakersfield, Northridge, Fullerton, etc. You have to consider that as well. But again you fail to look at other variables.
"If you mean locally funded high schools or some CC's, congratulations,
that actually demonstrates why our system should be completely federal."
The CA school system is local. What's your point?
" Thank you for pointing out the reason why we should go federal and supporting our argument. "
Why fund for schooling at all? It has nothing to do with productivity according to you. Also, again, schools like UCLA and UC Berkeley are funded locally. You are contradicting yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Donald Smith , average people are doing well under Trump. Wages are up and so is household income. And it is very easy to argue that wages have not been stagnant for the past 40 years. Read the following papers
"Fifty Years of Growth in American Consumption, Income, and Wages" by prof. Bruce Sacerdote
"Did Wages Reflect Growth in Productivity?" by prof. Martin S. Feldstein
Even if they were, what does that have to do with Trump? He has been president for only 3 years. What happened prior to that was not on him. During those 40 years Bernie has been in Congress for over half of that time, I guess we can blame him. And look the wage growth tracker at the Atlanta Federal Reserve, wages are going up. That is just one of many pieces of evidence to point at. Kyle has nothing. He pointed to the U6 which is low as well. He talked about taxes and said the middle class ones expire. True, but in 10 years when Trump and most members of congress will be gone. Also, no tax code is permanent, it just means it has no expiration date.
Kyle has no desire to have an actual discussion. Neither are his fans. That is why they act like you do, make a claim with zero evidence. Tell me how Kirk lost and Kyle won? I will wait.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , they can shout over them. The democrats are a mess right now. Moderate democrats are being shouted over by the radial leftist. People will support those two, but right now they are supporting Biden who was pushed by the moderate democrats first. If Biden was out they will switch to him. As for Bernie not being well known and growing, he only had to go against one candidate.
Bush was a strong governor and did very well as a president. He had to deal with 9/11 and worked with democrats during his tenure. After the 2006 election democrats took over and he worked with them. And taking people to Canada is nothing. How about Bernie tries to work with others as opposed to dismissing them.
Trump is not a radical, and Bernie, as a career politician, would have pushed for the same thing of wanting more power. The problem we have right now with our political system is that democrats just name call in calling people who disagree with them racist, bigots, ignorant, etc., and republicans were too PC to say anything. Trump has no problem barking back. Look at how Bernie criticizes Trump. He never attacks policy. He just calls Trump a liar and a bigot.
If Trump ran against Bernie Bernie will win 10 states. Bernie will have to answer to how well the economy is doing and how his radical changes will work. The economy is doing very well under almost every measure. For example, since Q2 home ownership rate has been increasing. Give me examples of when Bernie questioned the state of the economy? Even if he has the reality is it is better, and the people are going to question it. Bernie is out of touch with reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , there were three.
Bernie hardly works with the other side. Again, look at how he treated that hair salon owner. When Hickenlooper called him out all he did was throw his arms in the air. Hickenlooper said it correctly. Bernie wants to throw a plan out there and have others pick up the pieces. He has never been in that position to manage changes like that. Working with the other side is not vague. It is listening to them, understanding their position and finding a common ground.
I will admit in the end Bush was weak. I feel 9/11 added a very high level of stress and ruined him. But he was a strong governor.
Uh, I did not say Hoover instituted a hands off government plan. In 1920, when Hoover was developing a plan to improve the economy the government was essentially doing nothing at the time until then. In 1929 Hoover implemented his plan a it was laid out which was a hands on government plan. Again, learn history. FDR doubled down. Also, learn how to read my comments.
You keep bring up John Lambert is you deflecting. Also, under Trump the economy is doing very well. You have literally gave zero arguments at this point. And most have recovered from the last recession. For example, since Q2 of 2016 (what happened that year) home ownership has been going up. But wait, you don't accept facts.
I never said that you said that. I am saying that Bernie is saying that to that lady in refusing to understand the challenges she faces as a business. But yet he passed a law that makes doing business for her even more challenging. I don't care if Bernie will take me to Canada. I want him to understand my situation. On M4A my healthcare costs will go up. Right now I pay $20 a month on healthcare. His tax increase will be more then I pay right now. I want him to know that as others will face it. On him waiving student debt I want him to know that many people like me knew what we were doing in taking out those loans and earned actual degrees with value so we can pay them off. We see college as an investment.
On the hair salon owner you are refusing to accept the fact that he had no desire to understand how a business operates and the challenges they face. He has never ran through the numbers, he has never looked at the barriers they have to go through. That is insulting. I don't see how you can't realize that. Why do you keep avoiding the topics I bring up? And why do you have difficulty reading my comments?
Bernie has never challenged Trump's policies. On taxes he completely lied about. On the environment he is 100% wrong on that. He claims that every scientist say one thing when in reality there is a lot of doubt on that. On the IPCC report that Bernie keeps bringing up Bernie keeps saying we only have 12 years left. Meanwhile the lead author of that report says that is not true at all. When the lead author of the IPCC report says something different then Bernie is saying, how can you support Bernie?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Yes, I looked it up, in 2009 cancer survival was around 83.9% in the
US, whereas Canada had a survival rate of 69.5%. But cancer survival
within the US is also very much dependant on your economic situation.
Breast cancer survival for instance is around 63% chance of survival for
the insured, but that number falls to 49% for people without insurance.
"
Sure, I agree. However, the point is that one can argue that the quality in the US is much higher.
"Considering that 51% of Americans live on $30,000 a year or less, "
That is a very deceptive number. First off, that is individual income, not household income. Someone earning a low wage with a spouse or partner that earns more is not poor. As a professor from UNR showed with min. wage earners who are married, several has spouses who earned more
https://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2011/university-economist-refutes-conventional-wisdom-about-minimum-wage-earners
You also have to consider that you can be covered off of your spouse's insurance. You also have the young like me who are in college or are working their way up and will earn a higher income quickly. I earn $23,000 a year, but I am a PhD candidate an in a couple years I will earn a lot more. You say that half of the country earns $30,000 or less. However, before Obamacare only around 15% were not insured.
"it demonstrates that you frankly just don't give a shit about more than half of your fellow citizens."
I do as I am in that category. I just don't fall for appeal to emotions numbers without looking into them deeper. I don't deny that half of the country earns $30,000 or less. But you have to factor in
1. age
2. household income
3. cost of living
4. possibility of growth and movement
Along with many other factors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrjollyguy25 , your first link does not work. But as for "experts" who were they? What were their credentials? And why do they support something? What do they have to gain? Again, we need more. That makes polls unreliable.
As for Bernie being electable, again, opinions change when more information is given. Bernie has not been attacked by the RNC. How is he going to explain how private insurance will be illegal? How will he explain higher taxes on everyone? The town hall he did in Fox did not serve him well. When pressed on why he didn't donate some of his money he vilified the hosts.
As for the GND it is an online poll. Many problems exist with online polls and phone polling. You can't see the person's reactions, you can't get their reasoning, you can't actually know who you are polling. Someone may claim to be for one party but really isn't. You don't know their income level, education level, etc. In the article it says that the GND is covered more by conservative media and low and behold, support for the viewers drop. How much do democrat supporters actually know of the GND? At this point I feel very little. Again, you can't know that based on a simple online poll.
Bernie's approval rating is from his state. There are many factors for that. I have seen that approval rating poll. It was only from the state and there is a correlation between state population and approval rating. For example, the top 4 senators on that list were from Vermont and Wyoming, the two smallest states in the union.
"Colorado is a special case. Their constitution bans public funding to go to abortions. Colorado is very pro-choice, so many pro-choice organizations that had strong support among progressives opposed the single-payer bill. The problem was the bill was set in stone and not able to be adjusted later. I would have opposed this bill as well."
What does abortion have to do with single payer? The ban is already there. They know no matter the law single payer would not cover abortion. That is a very poor reason to oppose it and shows the ignorance of the people if that was their reasoning. Also, saying the bill can't be adjusted is simply not true.
Top down government is hardly the solution. Slavery was about human rights and allow humans to be free. That is completely different than something as complex as healthcare. Healthcare, like education, domestic laws, etc. should be handled at the state level. State rights are important in this nation and allows our diverse nation to thrive. To me those who oppose state rights fall in one of three camps
1. They are ignorant and don't understand the reasoning behind state rights
2. They are lazy and as opposed to doing work themselves they want others on the outside to do it
3. They are fascist and want to enforce what they feel is right on others
None of those three are good.
1
-
@mrjollyguy25 , so nurses approve? What about specialists? Talking to a radiologist the other day he was opposed to a M4A system. Also, reading the article there were rebuttals against single payer and I could not find the methods. So I will have to take this poll with large doubt.
I already broke down the flaws of the GND poll.
You say Biden will fall in the polls, what makes you think Bernie won't? I feel he will.
Some polls are valid, but most are flawed. Also, they are a snapshot, not a trend
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/
"Finally, the 3 percent margin of error is an understatement because opinions change. On January 3, 2004, the Gallup poll included 410 Democrats, 26 percent of whom supported Howard Dean for president. The margin of error was 5 percent, and so we can be pretty sure that on that date, between 21 percent and 31 percent of Democrats supported Dean. But a lot of them have changed their minds. A poll is a snapshot, not a forecast."
Key point there is that opinions change when more information is given.
Why should state funds be used to fund abortions? Abortion, for the most part, if an elective care. Besides that, since it failed in CO it has been brought to the table, changed and put up for a vote in 2018......oh......wait.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@francd2981 , you can't prove anything in science. Read the article entitled
"Misconceptions about science"
From UC Berkeley. They say
"MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.
CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them"
And
"MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.
CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives."
Also read the Psychology Today's article entitled
"Common misconceptions about science I: Scientific proof"
So no, you can't prove anything in science. Proof means without a doubt. That is what is so great about science that there is doubt that allows us to do more research and change when more supporting evidence is discovered.
Next, when did I ever deny climate change? My overall point is that the issue of climate change is far more complex then what AOC presents. Her definitive answer on it is actually anti-science and that is one of many articles I can give to counter AOC. She is giving a hard deadline and that article describes the danger in that mainly because of how unsure we are about climate change.
To extend, at what rate should the earth warm up? And why? You can't answer that. No one can. That is why I said that we don't even know if current climate change is a threat.
I recommend you read the book
"Why We Disagree About Climate Change" by prof. Mike Hulme. He has a PhD in applied climatology and worked for the IPCC.
As for the 12 year bit and you claiming some scientist are saying we have less, care to give me a link to the papers where that is written? Not some quote, but a peer reviewed paper like I gave.
Overall, point being is that AOC is being very deceptive in what she is saying about climate change and is, in my opinion, spreading a lot of misinformation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The5armdamput33, a few things
1. No two cases are the exact same. Two cases for murder will have some settle differences in it.
2. There are two type of justices, strict constructionist and judicial activists. No one is exactly one or the other. What you are supporting is a strict constructionist standpoint which is counterproductive of those on the left. I say that because if you want to go your route than issues like abortion would not be a federal issue as it is not mentioned at all in the Constitution. Roe v Wade would have went against your favor. While we have laws that are black and white, we are human thus there is always room for interpretation and adjustments to a case by case basis
3. If we do go your route of removing the arbitrary discretion we will have to have thousands of books with thousands of pages accountant for every scenario. That will grind our justice system to a halt as multiple lawyers and judges will be arguing on those issues for years.
On that last point, compare it to football and replay. We can make the game 100% fair and review every play over the course of a game, but the game will become long and boring. However, there is a point in making the game as fair as possible, so we allowed replay in the game when the time calls for it. It was the balance of making the game fair but also keeping the game moving. Same with the justice system, we have to make it as fair and equal as possible. However, there are settle differences in every case and by us simply being human will lead to differences.
In all, in my opinion, if you feel it is a problem then do not break the law, simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What you do is find similar cases and see if there is a difference in the way people were treated."
Similar, not the same, already there are differences.
" You do mock juries."
Mock, not ideal, a variable you cannot account for.
"You send our resumes with black-sounding names and see if identical
resumes with white-sounding names get the same amount of call-backs."
With the same references? Sent at the same time? If one resume was sent later that resume could be near the top increasing the chances of a call. Were the letters of intent written the same? I am seeing some differences one can't account for.
"You do studies with black actors who are trying out for a job and white
actors trying out for a job and see if the white actors with criminal
records get more call backs than the black actors without."
You are giving a criminal record to whites. Even at that, no two actors are the same.
"You ask white people what the average drug user looks like to them and 97% imagine a black person."
Because most drug dealers are black? You ask me what the average NBA player looks like and I will say black. You ask me what they average physics student looks like and I will say nerdy like in the Big Bang show. That's stereotypes which are not bad. If black people don't like it than don't deal drugs.
"There are like tons of studies that show almost beyond the shadow of a
doubt that we have racial bias against black people, and you are
actually proving my point. "
Not so. We have a bias in certain situations. As I said, a Title I school will have the bias of having undisciplined, low achieving students. It just so happens that mostly black people go there. As I said, remove race, only show the zip code and the fact it is a Title I school and you will have that low expectation from the beginning. That is not race at that point. There are studies that show that as well. But you are ignoring those, you are only looking at the ones that factor in race.
1
-
1
-
"Yes, it IS supported. It is consistent with the data and the data found in other studies. "
Those studies find correlation, not causation. In order to find actual racism you have to go case by case. The wider you go with this the more variables you are adding to the point you cannot account for them all nor factor in how they are connected. Over a large trend black people receive longer sentencing. Now why? Is it racism? Is it attitude? Is it because they have lower incomes? Is it that they commit a crime in an area of higher crime? And how are they connected?
"This is hilarious. I have dozens of studies that control for most
factors and indicate that racial bias is a significant problem in our
society."
I don't think you actually read these studies. One you linked me did not mention the schools that were used, the experience of the teachers, administration, etc.
" I am saying we have subconcious racial biases that effect the way we react to people of a certain race"
And this can go many ways without race. I see a guy with long, braided or messed up hair I will think of him as a stoner. I see a guy in a suit I will see him as a professional. I see a guy standing assertive I will treat him differently then someone who is slouching. That is body language and appearance, not race. If I drive in a rich neighborhood I won't see many cops and see nice homes. Now compare that to the ghetto. I can tell by driving around in an area the number of cops present if that area is bad or not. Again, no race needed.
You are factoring this only on race where others are saying other factors are in play.
" Given the data, we have to say that the most likely explanation is racial bias within society"
No, we say there is a correlation. That is how we treat things in academics. In order to find actual discrimination you have to find actual examples. Looking at a trend on a large scale leads to too many questions.
1
-
1
-
" Then you are saying that we should throw out all studies on human psychology and draw no conclusions?"
Nope, I am saying they all have flaws. You are wanting to go from one extreme to the next. With this study you want to make the claim that there is a racial bias in society even though the study never makes that conclusion. I point out shortcomings and you translate to wanting to disregard the study all together. You are on the extreme and I am trying to pull you to a rational point. Even that authors admit flaws.
"Do they account for different brain sizes? The color of their shirts?
How tall they are? The distance they are from the person? The color of
the carpet? The time of day? The location in the building? The
temperature outside? The polon levels? The color of the wallpaper? The
makeup of the people watching? What the judge ate for breakfast? His
education level? The direction the wind is blowing? The smell of the
bailiff's cologne? The angle with which you are facing someong?"
Now you are getting ridiculous at this point. Let me ask you, have you ever seen My Cousin Vinny? The director of the movie has a law degree and several lawyers have stated the accuracy in what goes on in the court room. There Joe Pesci puts on a show to create doubt in the juror's eyes so they defendants are innocent until proven guilty. That is a psychological factor in how he speaks, what he says, how he acts, etc. That happens in law to persuade judges and jurors the type of sentencing that occurs.
A similar situation was during a mock trial I was participating in the defendant had to show remorse for a killing to be let off. How they acted is considered. This is why we have trials in court. With your mindset we should remove that and just have a check system.
1. Did you commit murder....check
2. Did they plan it out.....check
Ok, 50 years in prison, next.
That is literally your legal system you want. No trial, no court, no judges and jury.
"Therefore, by your logic, studies are POINTLESS. "
Not saying pointless, just saying shortcomings as you have no control or can't account for many variables.
"I refuse to play this game. You want a study that is "ideal" ,"
No, I want you to think and not just blindly follow something. That is what intelligent people do.
On your study they say that with blacks drugs are more likely to be sold outdoors. In that case you have an increase chance of gang activity and those drugs being sold in low income, high crime areas.
Even at that in that study they polled blacks, hispanics, and economically disadvantage non-blacks non-hispanics. So out of the whites they studied they limited it down to those who were economically disadvantaged.
Do you even read these studies?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I already said they have flaws. I said this hundreds of times. So what are you arguing against."
You never did say it had flaws.
"No, I make the claim based upon this and other studies and the opinion
of various psychologists and sociologists who study the human mind and
certain biases that we have. Is it certain that we have racial bias?
Nothing is certain in science, but the data suggests that to be the
case."
This study you are pointing at even said that you cannot come to the conclusion you are making. It is simply showing correlation.
"Then why are you pointing out the shortcomings. I have not said the
studies 100% prove anything. I am saying they suggest and support racial
bias"
Actually they don't suggest that, you would know if you read the study.
"Based upon what? What studies do you have that support this claim? "
I pointed out how a lot of communication is based on body language. If you studied psychology you would know that.
"No, no, no, dude. All I have said is that the data suggests that racial bias plays a role in sentencing"
In which this study you keep praising never makes that conclusion. If you want to make that conclusion then fine, but none of these studies are, they are only showing correlation.
"No, no, no. Let's establish why I brought up that study. YOU said blacks
are more likely to deal drugs. You said this with NO data. However, the
article I linked to indicates that this might not be the case."
That article selected the non-blacks non-hispancis to look at and compared it to all blacks and hispanics. That is similar to saying that private schools do better overall when in reality people with more money send their kids to private school and there is a correlation between families of higher income and children doing better in schools to begin with. Overall I find that study to be highly flawed.
"I do. But you have read ZERO studies to support the numerous claims you have made and you keep on pulling them out of your ass"
You have not read these studies. You admitted to it in the past, but now you claim you do?
1
-
1
-
As for Paul Bloom and that video, that is an asinine question. You have the photo of the president whom is very well known. And they asked a very vague question "who's more American"?
However, what this guy is saying goes against you. Yes, we are all prejudice in many ways. Not just in race, but in sex. For example, men are more likely to hire women then women in hiring men. That is because men went to schools with mostly female teachers and are more comfortable with working with the opposite sex then women are. People are prejudice based on the clothes one wears, or how people act, or what types of music they listen to. The list goes one, this is why you are friends with some and not with others.
You, in the end, are basing it on only one thing, race and race alone. You are making a claim that the difference in sentencing is only on race and that this study makes the claim. When I called you out on that on how you haven't even read that study you backtracked.
Is there prejudice based on race? Yes. That is why some of our schools are more segregated than ever. Read the book "The Shame of the Nation". This is why we have places like Korean town. People naturally want to be around their own kind. However, in the court of law, I do not see evidence for strong prejudice based on race. Not saying it doesn't happen, but to find it you have to go case by case. But as a whole I see no evidence as nothing can account for every variable and a 20% difference is small in the big picture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"No, it's not vague at all. It's the type of question you can ask on a
SAT. "American" basically means "born in America" or "an American
citizen." Obama qualifies for that title more so than Tony Blair
therefore he is obviously more American. "
People have different opinions on what "American" means. To some it goes beyond being born here. Many "patriotic" individuals can see that as supporting the Constitution and the foundation of the US.
" I accept that study. I accept those findings."
Sure, but you do not seem to accept that correlation does not equal causation. Or that they are not saying there is a racial bias.
"I went through the entire online Yale course."
I did an online psychology course as well, what is your point?
"But you just cited a study that based it on one thing: sex and sex alone. "
Yeah, and there is a correlation, not causation.
"I have never once said, it's definitely racial bias"
You did, and I quoted many times where you did.
"You accept the study about women without a thought,"
No, I said there is a correlation. For example, women have a more nurturing attitude compared to men. Men are more aggressive. Men being aggressive is one factor why they get paid more. Women being nurturing is a reason why they may receive a lighter sentence. That is attitude and personality, not sex.
" I did not say that the difference in sentencing is only race."
You did as you wrote this to another commenter
""Do you not understand what hypothetical possibilities are?
I have not at any point said that I can explain why black men are given
longer sentences. What I have said is that the 'it's racism' argument is
not supported"
Yes, it IS supported. It is consistent with the data and the data found
in other studies. "
You are saying the data supports that it is racism at play here. And when others say other factors are at play such as attitude you get angry and write this
"but you have affirmatively claimed over and over again like a madman "IT'S ATTITUDE! IT'S ATTITUDE!""
And then call me a bigot. You are disregarding attitude completely by what you saying and how you are saying it. Thus you are saying that only race is the factor. When I later pointed out that this very study says that you cannot come to that conclusion you start to backtrack.
1
-
1
-
"No, you just ignored the fucking quote. My point was that he said "studies SHOW". You claim that such language is unscientific"
Never said it as "unscientific". In fact, I have never typed that word once in all of my comments.
"So, the fact that racist people can become less racist doesn't support the fact that there is racial bias in the justice system?"
What makes you think they are racist? If I don't want to be around Mexicans does that make me racist? If I don't want to be around band geeks does that make me a bigot? Even at that, we are now back to you saying there is a racial bias in the justice system.
"But if you had a conversation with him, you would hide things and misrepresent me. If we both had a conversation with him, he would say racial bias is likely a factor in the disparity in sentencing."
I doubt that. To start, you can't speak for Bloom. Next, no credible researcher will take such a strong stance as there are other variables at play. Does it play a role? Maybe. But it is a stretch and to really prove it you have to literally go case by case which most researchers will agree with. Same with the disparity in sentencing based on sex. Also, I will never misrepresent you. In fact, I would not bring you up at all as I feel what you have been saying adds very little to the conversation. You are going to extremes and you have become very angry.
"You want a cookie? You should agree with Bloom's quote. But here is the problem YOU BITCHED AT ME FOR DAMNED NEAR 24 HOURS FOR USING THE WORD "SHOW"."
No, I criticized the fact that you said they reason for the disparity in the sentencing was because of a racial bias. Maybe that exists, however I also brought up another factor, attitude to which you disregarded completely with your actions. It has nothing to do with the word "show", you brought that up. It has to do with your strong stance on the racial bias and your lack of accepting of other variables at play, like attitude and personality.
"But in the quote I was referring to SEVERAL studies taken in concert. And I used "seem" and "likely". And once again, BLOOM USES NEARLY THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE. "
Carelessness on his part. Saying "likely" is a strong word to say. You should say "could, but I agree other factors can be at play".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"In the 20% disparity, there are possibly factors at play other than
racial bias. I say maybe it's courtroom behavior because there is no
data to suggest this to be likely. I say that it is likely racial bias
because there IS data to suggest that racial bias plays a role in how
people judge cases and make judgements in general. If you had data to
suggest that a black murderer has worse courtroom behavior than a white
murderer, I would accept that as a "likely" possibility. However, such
data was not presented, so it (just like height and clothing) is only a
possibility."
Here is the problem, you can't measure quantitatively "courtroom behavior". That is why no study exist. However, there is a 13% gap in high school graduate rates between blacks and whites. There is also a near 20% college graduation rate between blacks and whites.
So I will as this as a follow up?
1. Does that suggest a "racial bias" in the education system? That schools are simply refusing to hand out degrees to blacks?
" Well, me being perturbed is irrelevant really. "
It is because it shows you cannot keep your cool. When emotions go up logic and reasoning go down. You cannot stick to the argument which is why you constantly moved the goal posts. A great example the correlation vs causation issue.
" Like I said, you could have used height, clothing, etc. but you chose "attitude"."
Clothing is related to attitude. If you dress the part you have a positive attitude. If not you have a negative one. So I do include clothing, I just lumped into attitude. In fact, I believe I mentioned clothing already.
But you mentioned height. You can actually measure that. So here is another question
2. If there was a correlation with height and sentencing length, would yous say there is "likely" a 'bias" in the justice system with height?
"You chose something that directly attacks black people as being at fault whereas racial bias attacks nobody."
Well considering how blacks are less likely to graduate high school and college, have higher rates of gang activity, and have more single mothers, I would consider that to be poor attitude as well. Not saying race is a factor, just saying there is a correlation.
"However, of all the possible factors, you chose and you harped away at one that attacks an entire group of people."
As opposed to you attacking the justice system and the people involved?
"And you have tried to put this suspicion of yours on equal footing with
the result of numerous studies that show racial bias in society.
"
Well I don't see a racial bias in society to begin with. As I mentioned how blacks are more likely to participate in gang activity, etc.
"The logical part of my anger is that your claim might have been OK if
you had provided studies that indicate a difference in court room
behavior."
You can't statistically measure that though. That is the issue. You can measure if someone is black or white. You can't, in a quantitative way, measure attitude and behavior.
"Especially since you saw no problem with repeating "It is attitude" with
no qualifiers such as "maybe", but wanted me to add such a qualifier to
a widely accepted psychological phenomenon such as racial bias."
When those studies are saying correlation, not causation. All we see are a trend in those studies, but that does not mean causation. Same with the 20% college graduate gap, is that based on race or based on the fact that more black people simply do not finish college? Is the college education system racist? What is it?
"In short, you gave me no reason to put attitude at an equal level of possibility as racial bias. That is my gripe."
I gave you plenty.
"Firstly, we have to make sure people don't end up in the court room in the first place. "
I agree.
"This would entail legalizing drugs. In school, getting rid of zero
tolerance policies which suspend and expell black kids at an alarming
rate would slow down the school-to-prison pipeline. And, in our prisons,
we can focus more on rehabilitation and community service rather than
punishment resulting in higher recidivism rates."
Three points
1. There are strong arguments in making drugs illegal, but I want to leave that to the states
2. "Zero tolerance" is in response to if a kid does shoot up a school, for example, the school can be off the hook. They can claim they did all they can do and thus cannot be blamed for that kid's action. When something tragic happens people like to blame others. The school is just taking actions to get off of the blame.
3. I agree that prisons should be for rehabilitation.
"Legally, it would take a drastic reconfiguration of the justice system,
but we could make it easier to challenge the validity of cases on the
basis of demonstrated racial bias. "
And how? You have to eliminate all factors, including attitude, dress (which is included in attitude), quality of lawyer, and many other subjective variables. You have to have some arbiter do that sitting in the court room. How do you do that? We lack resources?
So follow up question
3. How do you reconfigure the justice system? Who will be that arbiter?
"However, as of now, court case like Wren V. United States make it near
impossible to challenge such things even when you are able to present
relevant data. "
Data can be looked at in numerous ways, especially subjectively. As we are doing here. You see one data set and you see a racial bias. I see it and I only see a correlation. I base my opinion on the fact that
1. Blacks are less likely to graduate high school (13% gap)
2. Blacks are less likely to graduate college (20% gap)
3. Blacks are more likely to participate in gang activity (>20% gap)
And so on. I see a trend there as well. I am looking at personal responsibility at that point.
"Some might say not revealing the identity of defendants in court cases
would be a solution to consider. Just let the jury or judge read the
facts of the case and make a determination. "
Well this can't work because if the juror does know the defendant then they can have a bias. Also, just going off of the facts is not a good idea as there is a subjective side to the case. So this leads me to my next point
4. Why do you want to remove the subjective side of the court room and cases? Why do you want to prevent people from making an emotional case in why they should receive a lesser sentence?
" I do know that one judge allowed a defendant to change his appearance
in order to minimize joror bias (he had a swastika tatoo on his face).
Why not extend that to black defendants by allowing them not to appear
in court?"
They are given that option, they do not have to take it.
"Well, you can do studies similar to the one we have been talking about
and then you have to force the judge to take an account for his actions."
And these studies show a correlation, not causation. These exact same studies are saying that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JustinHmusic , you are just throwing numbers out there with no details or analysis. Going through each point
"So you don’t think it’s radical that 49% of all new income goes to the top 1%?"
That is factually not true.
" You don’t think it’s radical that 30-45k people die every year due to a lack of basic healthcare coverage"
People die in every nation due to lack of access to healthcare. Amenable mortality is an issue in every nation. So you have to ask, is that 45,000 high, low or the norm? Also, as Prof. Katherine Baicker said, do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Typically when people die they have a lot of health issues, not just one. Read the book "Being Mortal" for more details.
" 30-40 million Americans don’t have health insurance, and one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills?"
Yes, that is an issue. But giving them coverage will cost a lot and will bankrupt the nation. Or if we go Bernie's route of cutting pay where M4A will cut pay by 40%, than you will have quality and accessibility issues. The US system offers more MRIs and CT scans to patients for a reason. Something has to give.
"You don’t think it’s radical that we have over a trillion dollars in student loan debt, "
No. College is an investment. Like a business owner pulls out a loan to start a business.
"You don’t think it’s radical that half of working people in this country are making $30k or less, 76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck?"
Of those earning $30,000 or less, what is their household income? What is their cost of living? What benefits do they receive to offset the cost? As for the 76%, how many are poor at money management? Around 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt.
" You don’t think it’s radical that Trump passed a tax bill in which 83% of the benefits go to the top 1% over a ten year period, and actually raises taxes on people making $75k a year or less over that same time period? "
The top 1% pay most of the taxes to begin with. You can't cut from zero that the lower income brackets paid. And the reason why the middle class tax cuts are not permanent is because the Senate did not get the 60 votes. But notice how it expires in 10 years when we will have a new president and essentially a new congress?
So no, I don't see any of that as radical. You have to give me more details to convince. I am willing to admit that some of Bernie's policies may be best for this nation, but they require a lot of discussion and a lot of details before simply passing them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Evan Zuppardo uh, the CDC getting funds gutted does not mean they set low standards in defining what a virus death is. But let us look at flu deaths and CDC stats.
In 2012-2013, under Obama, before it got "gutted", there were 42,570 flu deaths. However, the error range is 35,785 to 58,386. That is around 25% error bar.
In 2017 to 2018, after the "gutting", there were 61,099 deaths with an error rage of 46,404 to 94,987. So around 30% error bar. Not much difference.
So I see no evidence that the cuts to the CDC led to any issues.
Your last comment makes you sound like a kid where I am the one acting like an adult.
1
-
1
-
@javierchamorro8988 they never made that conclusion. They were saying that we need to start asking ourselves is being shut down is the best route. Also, as for being peer reviewed, there are right now zero reports that are peer reviewed on the virus. Why? Because it takes months, or even a year to do that. You have to analyze the data, write up on it, edit it, have it reviewed, edit it again, have the editor approve and then published. So the whole "peer reviewed" argument shows a high level of ignorance as nothing on the virus is peer reviewed.
We need as much information as we can get at this point. Dismissing those doctors is foolish. That is especially true since there no legit reason for dismissing them have been given. On group made the claim they just want more patients. Well, ever thought that research group wants to virus situation to last longer so they get more grant money to research it?
So yes, it is leftists' fault. When other states open up and are fine and states ran by crazy democrats suffer you will see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@javierchamorro8988 your point on deaths not being considered as they die at home is simply not true. Yes, there are some, but we perform autopsies for a reason. Also, again, people dying with the virus typically have a lot of other healthcare complications involved. So you cannot say, with certainty, that the virus was a main contributor. That is what those two doctors are saying and they are correct.
I doubt the the numbers because of the fact that a lot of the media and government officials are censoring things and creating vague forms of regulations. For example, I cannot go to my tailor but I just went to the grocery store full of people. That makes no sense. On top of that you have Barrack Obama going golfing where other people can't. And Michelle is telling people to stay home while his husband golfs. I see this as more of a power grab than trying to keep us safe. There are millions of ways to die, but now this virus is forcing us to stay locked up? I am questioning that.
You claim you want Pelosi out when all government officials supporting lock down are benefiting. What has Bernie done? Nothing but enjoy his millions and his three homes. Same with AOC. This is government oppression. But you are willing to go with it for "safety". You say our rights were taken away long ago. But I was still able to attend sporting events, concerts, go get my hair done, drink at the bar, etc. Can't now.
As for 30 million dying, what do you base that off of? I see no evidence of that. And 30 million does not mean 1/10 of the economy goes away. Most of them will be old and do not produce anything to begin with. When an 80 year old dies the economy actually, arguably, improves as now we do not have to give them money in SS while they produce nothing.
And I agree, we need more data. So why do you support censoring those two doctors? Tell me that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacobkobald1753 , why do we have enough doctors? Maybe because they are pay well. Doctors are not going to be willing to take a 40% pay cut.
The 40,000 stat has been challenged many times. For one, people die in all nations due to lack of access. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. So how do you know that 40,000 is high? Next, it is hard to determine if they really die due to lack of care or simply because they are sick to begin with. As Prof. Katherine Baicker said, being in bad health is associated with being poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to bad health? As pointed out in the book "Being Mortal", people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those 40,000 healthcare and they die 5 months later, what was the success? Also, Prof. Richard Kronick wrote in his paper entitled
"Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited"
The following
"The Institute of Medicine's estimate that lack of insurance leads to 18,000 excess deaths each year is almost certainly incorrect. It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analyses, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheInfallibleFallacy , other nations have issues as well. The issue with healthcare is that very few take the time to fully understand. They hardly scratch the surface. There are many factors at play such as the economics, culture, expectations, etc. If we go with M4A our spending will drop down to around 10% of GDP which is similar to other nations. However, like other nations we will have to cap how much care people receive. One reason why healthcare is so expensive in the US is because we offer the most advanced care/testing and as a result we have the highest survival rates of advanced illnesses.
With that said there are counter arguments to that. One, how much of that advanced testing is necessary? One can say that, statistically it isn't. Someone else can say better safe than sorry. Next, with advanced care as written in the book "Being Mortal", people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when they will only live another 4 or 10 months. The issue becomes do we offer care who are very sick knowing they will die a few months later? Or do we save money like other nations do and deny advanced care unless they are willing to pay?
There is more to it but the reality is that in the healthcare debate no one is willing to have the difficult questions, especially the far left in pushing for M4A. People feel that M4A will lower costs but also provide the same level of care it does now. That makes zero sense economically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A German Viewpoint, you comment on the rich is confusing. They will move, or they will bride politicians to give them favors. Bernie wants to expand the federal government which means it has more power to sell to the highest bidder. This is not to say I support no government, I do. But it needs to be restricted at the all levels and most to all change needs to come at the state an local level. Bernie wants the federal government to control your healthcare and education. While he may not take big money, what is going to stop the next guy after him from taking big money now that they have more avenues to be corrupt?
1. The US has massive R&D compared to the rest of the world. Healthcare is very dynamic for two reason. One, we know very little about diseases and the human body. My work I do in research is attempting to map out protein folding as we do not understand it. Two, diseases evolve and become resistant to drugs requiring new drugs. I always find it ironic how the political left claims to the be party of science but then ignore evolution when it comes to healthcare, as if it will never change. You may call this a strawman but when you simplify healthcare to the idea that the government can pay for it you are ignoring how complex it is and one reason is because of evolution.
Yes, other countries profit from R&D because they are not the ones doing it. And there is a ton of research showing the shortcomings of single payer systems and how the US system, as a whole, is on par with the rest of the world. In the end healthcare is not a right. Calling it a right means you can force someone to serve you much like we force people to do jury duty.
2. I agree that alternative forms of energy is the future, but fossil fuels is still the best option we have. Also, my point was that in other countries like Norway and Canada they produce more oil than the US. If Bernie wants to copy those countries so bad why doesn't he bring that issue up?
3. When you say "the poor are becoming poorer" I cannot take you seriously. They aren't. The poor live a much better lifestyle than the rich did in the 20s. Just because the gap between the rich and poor widen does not mean that is a problem. Sure Jeff Bezos is much richer than I am, but he created a company where I can order things from my home. Millions benefited.
You also have to consider how the rich benefited people and how taking their money does nothing. Take Walmart. If you were to take the top 6 executive of Walmart and give their salaries to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart those employees will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. I did a quick analysis showing how the CEO of Walmart is earning less per employee. Bernie and his fans are so stuck on comparing the CEO of a company to the pay of one worker. But they are not focusing on how much they earn per employee.
I do not have the numbers now, but you give you the idea say a CEO earned $1,000,000 a year and employed 100 people. Now say 10 years later he earns $1,500,000 a year and employs 200 people. Let us say the average wage of those 100 employees was $20/hr, and now it is $25/hr. Yes, the CEO saw a 50% increase in pay while the workers saw only a 25% increase. But that CEO expanded the business by 100%. More jobs, more wealth creation. You also have to factor in that with more wealth creation means goods and services are better and cheaper.
Bernie does not bring any issues like that up. To Bernie it is "This guy makes millions of dollars, and this guy only makes $50,000, that's wrong!". You need to put these numbers in perspective.
"every statistic tells you that."
Ever read the book "How to Lie with Statistics"? Ever heard the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics"? I have seen the stats. As a PhD candidate in the sciences I understand statistics. I am not fooled by them because I know how to look at them in different angles.
4. "So let's say you have millions and millions of people that are trained in jobs that are no longer needed? And you have less and less jobs for humans in general, because of technology? What are you gonna do about that?"
The market will adjust like it always has. When the tractor was created workers went from the farms to the factories. Technology creates new jobs whiling killing others. People just need to go to the new ones. If you leave the market alone it will gradually adjust that way. We need more workers in the STEM fields and education field. That is where the market is progressing to. If we leave it be it will progress to that. If we force it the market will fall apart and only favor the rich and talented. Why? Because those who are rich and talented will overcome the obstacles or be at an advantage to overcome them. People at the bottom will suffer as they will lose job at a faster pace.
To explain what I mean if you were to raise the min. wage to $15/hr as Bernie wants automation will take over. Now you may say it is going to happen, and I will agree. But if left alone it will happen gradually. People working on min. wage jobs will eventually leave them as most are short term and others will go to new min. wage jobs not taken over by automation, such as the workers at the front desk at the gym I go to. But with a $15/hr min. wage the company will just lay off those workers and other companies will not have time to create new jobs leaving a group of low skilled workers out of work preventing them from moving up in the market.
In short, I agree technology will take over. But we have to allow the market to adjust gradually.
"There are already not enough jobs for all the people."
There are, they just require more skills. In my line of work we are short many workers. I have so many projects piling up that we need more workers, but there is no one to hire as they do not have the skills. There are jobs, people just need to develop skills. If we leave the market alone people will migrate to those jobs. If we just give them handouts like Bernie wants they won't.
One major reason for income inequality is that we have a large portion of the population living off of handouts and another actually working. Those that are working are moving ahead in life.
There are jobs, people just need to develop skills. And they are not hard jobs. While what I do is difficult, I can train workers beneath me to make it easy if people want to work. But workers do not exist with minimal computational skills or skills with any sort of technology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Get Social,
1. We have background checks already. And what type of guns will you ban? People are pushing for the AR 15 when a Ruger mini 14 is essentially the same gun. Also, in VA Tech around 30 people were killed with hand guns in that shooting.
As for the UK if you look at the murder rate of the US and the UK the murder rate in the US is 5 times higher. However, if you remove all gun murders from the equation only from the US the US still has a murder rate that is twice as high as the UK. What does that mean? That shows a difference in culture where we have more murders in general for various reasons besides guns. You can't just look at gun laws and murder rates as many factors play in murder rates.
2. I don't blame the kids for being emotional, but they should be seeing a counselor, not the media. As for you saying "tragedies like this happening much too often" what do you base that off of? John Lott did a study where he compared mass shootings in the US to other countries and found that in countries like Norway, Finland and France have more deaths due to mass shootings and a higher rate of mass shootings. He had the US at 12th and 11th in those rankings. How did he come up with that? Well, he factor in population and he looked at mass shootings (that he defined as 4 or more deaths) where the only crime was the shooting. That means if there was a shooting that involved gangs where four people were killed he ruled those out. Why? Because gang activity is illegal and the shooting was targeting people. That is an issue of gangs and comparing a gang shooting, which are isolated and a different topic, to a shooting like what occurred in Florida is not a fair comparison. This shooter was not targeting a particular group but instead was targeting people without discrimination. Does that mean we do not have a problem? No. What it means is that it is not as severe as what others make it out to be.
"What I find to be more sickening is how there are people that refuse to
see the obvious and are treating the kids like nuisances or enemies to
their precious guns."
It is not treating them as enemies but instead calling them out for their lack of respect and inability to have an intelligent, and progressive conversation. This is why nothing will get passed. When one side calls you a child murderer for not agreeing with them you cannot take them seriously. I don't support the murder of anyone, Rubio feels the same way as does the NRA. If you want to have an intellectual conversation you have to treat the other side with respect and be willing to talk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 , no, he is a radical in that he wants to completely dismantle a functioning system and completely replace it. He is doing so on deception and misinformation.
Take M4A for example and a lot of his talking points. He talks about how other nations pay less. Yes, they do. But they also receive less. For example ,we offer more advance care then other nations. We offer more CT scans and MRIs per capita. Bernie won't tell you that.
He says he wants to be like Denmark and Norway. However, he just wants to mimic their welfare system. He does not want to mimic their tax system which has a lower corporate tax (he wants to raise ours), higher VAT tax, and more of a flat tax. For example, the highest tax bracket in Denmark is around $55,000 a year. In the US it is around $400,000 a year. But Bernie does not want to following the Denmark's tax code, he just wants to tax the rich. So no, he doesn't want to be like Denmark despite his claims.
With the hair salon owner having 5 salons is still a small business.
" If she can't expand her businesns under the current healthcare system, the there are a couple ways to look at this: she's a terrible business owner for trying to expand when it's not economically viable, or she could do that if there was a single-payer system so that she wouldn't have to pay out of her profit margin healthcare for her employees."
And here is also what makes Bernie and his fans radicals. They refuse to actually try to understand the issues a business face. The average hair salon profit margin is around 8%. What is considered "good" is around 10%. So the average is below what is considered "good". So no matter how good of a manager she may be, the market will restrict her, and other hair salons from having a high profit margin. That is the market. Bernie and his supporters simply see a business and feel they are just ranking in the cash when in reality they aren't. So saying she must be a bad business owner without understanding how the market works is what makes you a radical.
I recommend you take some business courses and realize how businesses operate and what issues they have to deal with.
As for saying she could do it under a single payer system that is simply not true. Under Bernie's plan he wants to pay for it with expanding the payroll tax meaning businesses will have to pay a higher tax. He wants people like that hair salon owner to pay more.
Reality is that Bernie is a radical, period. I will give you another example, tuition free college. How will you handle the NCAA? No one on Bernie's team ever brings that up. Bernie is pushing these ideas on deception and misinformation.
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 , here is the harsh reality on universal healthcare compared to the private system. Universal healthcare is fine for very basic care as it gives everyone a chance, at least, to have access to very basic care. Yes, there are no medical bankruptcy and there is data to suggest they have less amenable mortality. But they lack in advanced care. As Prof. Scott Atlas outlined in his book "In Excellent Health" the US leads the world in access to advanced testing and survival rates in advanced illnesses. If you read up on the stats they vary, where the CommonWealth Fund has the US number 2 in MRIs per capita (you said they were 4) behind Germany, so does the OECD website (but far less in hospitals showing that people in Germany have to seek out private routes such as outpatient care). But the reality is that when you match all the numbers together, the US leads the world in accessibility to advanced care and survival rates in advanced illnesses where universal healthcare they lack in that.
To expand, in the US healthcare yes, there are some bankruptcies. Yes, some who are poor lack access. But to give counter points on both of those. On medical bankruptcies there are arguments against that in that mainly they are overstated. As pointing out in the NEJM article entitled
"Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies"
They write
"But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems."
It shows how deceptive Bernie is when there are actual highly ranked studies that give a much bigger picture. As for people dying due to lack of access to care that Bernie loves to point out. Prof. Katherine Baicker said those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So the questions becomes do the die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live only another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those in poverty, who are in bad health they are near death, healthcare and they live only 5 more months, was that a success?
Also amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. But as listed in the two studies entitled
"Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study"
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review."
It is hard to use that an an indicator for healthcare system.
But with the very sick with advanced illnesses. Again, pointing to that book "Being Mortal" is it really worth it to give them care when they will only live another 5 months.
In the end someone suffers. In other nations the very sick suffer as they are denied advanced care as the government refuses to pay for it. In the US the very poor suffer. But in both cases those groups are typically the least healthy.
The far left like Bernie and his fans are not willing to have these difficult conversations and thus are deceptive. Notice how I provide a plethora of studies and you haven't? It is because I know about this topic a lot and know how difficult of an issue it is, especially since it is literally a life or death situation. And I did not even begin to get into culture. Imagine the uproar when people seek care and the doctor says "sorry, if you want that MRI you have to pay extra or wait many months" when in the past they will wait a week. And if you think waiting does not matter, consider the study entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 200–2006"
Where they say
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers"
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 , ok, thought experiment. Hip replacement is not considered life threatening thus they make you wait months before you can get it. Meanwhile you become physically worse off and financially worse off. This is common. In the paper entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
They say
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers "
Also in the paper entitled
"Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence"
They say
"Although not all publicly funded healthcare systems have wait-time problems, wait lists are more likely to be found in public systems. This is because universal access to care, when combined with the government's desire to control health spending, can mean that the supply of treatment does not meet demand"
"It is often observed that elective wait times are low in the USA, one of the few countries where the majority of care has been financed by non-universal private insurance."
"However, long wait times are a source of distress to patients, and in some cases have adverse health consequences"
So even under a government funded system you will still have to wait and suffer.
The NEJM has the highest impact of any peer reviewed journal. I doubt you even read that paper. The point is what I am saying the entire time, give the full story. They say this
" But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems."
Basically, there is a need for reform. And maybe M4A is the option. But you have to be honest.
"As for Scott Atlas' book, that is easily dismissed since his points and narrative are based on manipulated data from a couple failing professors falsely justifying a market-based healthcare system over a federal-run health insurance program"
Scott Atlas works in one of the most prestigious medical institution. And Robert Ohsfeldt is the PhD program chair of his department. I don't consider that to be failing. Besides that, what data did they manipulate? Care to give me examples? Until you do the reality is you are making claims without evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 , my thought experiment is not irrelevant. Hip surgery is not "life threatening" thus you will have to wait months before you receive it. If by "access" you means waiting months while you become worse off physically, financially and emotionally, then fine. I give that to you. But why deny what I say?
I agree that wait times are about management, but again, demand is much higher under a universal healthcare system. That is why, as I pointed out with a study, that wait times are higher under universal healthcare system. Consider the US, you will be adding 30+ million people to the system with no increase in supply, what do you think will happen?
As for rationing based on needs, define that? People die in Canada waiting for "elective" hear surgery. If my knee is messed up I personally feel I "need" a knee surgery as a lot of my work requires me to be on my feet. But as that is not life threatening some arbitrary government official will say it is not a "need". That is the problem with the "need" argument. A lot of it is subjective.
Again, I have provided a plethora of studies for you to considered. All you have done is dismiss them without justification. Be interesting to see what you do now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Having feelings about an issue doesn't make a person incapable of applying facts to it. "
I agree 100%, there are two sides to an issues, factual and emotional. In politics at the very core the right wing is fact based where the left wing is emotional based. And I say at the very core meaning when you dig as deep as you can on the issues on the vast majority of them the right will go with facts and the left will go with emotions. This gun debate is a perfect example. Many here are breaking down the numbers and see that in the big picture we do not have a major problem. Many on the left like you and Kyle are pushing the emotional narrative kids dying.
This is not to say one side is better than the other as facts are very important, but we are human. However, when you push the fact based narrative immediately you are going off of your core and are almost refusing to accept the position of the other side.
"Most people would feel strongly about pedophilia being wrong and rightly illegal. "
And we do so based on facts and emotions. Factually kids do not have the experience and maturity to make decisions related to sex.
"My feeling is that 200 deaths is too many. "Too many" is of course
subjective, but can become objective when compared to othet rates."
Maybe. 200 a year is what percent of the population? On a factual side it is very small considering the numerous variables involved such as gang activity and accidents. 200 is literally 0.00006% of the population. That is small. What do you propose to make that number to be zero? Or even lower it?
Let me play a scenario to you. Say you supported a guy law that you thought was going to lower the number of children being killed. After it was passed that 0.00006% lowered to 0.000053%. Would you say that was based on that law? I would personally say that is too small to make any conclusion, as we are dealing with small, and thus sensitive numbers. But now say after we passed that law that number went from 0.00006% to 0.000075%? What will be your reaction then? Would you support revoking the law? My personal reaction will be the same as I am consistent. What will be yours?
Now on an emotional side I will agree, children dying is bad. However, we cannot let emotions get in the way of the facts. I am all for considering the emotions and I feel for people in that situation. I will push to lower gun deaths as a whole. But I will do so while considering the facts. The reason why I want to get rid of gun deaths is because yes, someone dying is emotional. But again, we have facts related as well.
" You also assume emotion preceeds factual realities or supercedes them."
I never said that. There are variables at play. At the small scale emotions can play a major role, even more than facts. Emotions are important as we are human. But again, we have to keep the facts in mind. With gun deaths the facts, to me, show we do not have a major problem when you consider other variables. I feel bad for people dying, and I want to limit it. I have other ideas in how to do it though. Emotionally I do feel bad for people dying, and that drives me to lower murder rates. But factually I realize that guns are not the issue.
And going back to if I had a child being shot what will my emotions be? Well, I will feel bad which is why I will take measures to prevent something like that happening to my child. But that is me alone and not the larger picture which is another valuable point. You have to consider the scale of the argument. With scale you point to 200 kids nation wide. That is large. Where with my child that is me individually.
1
-
"You complained my comments were too heavily based on "emotion" and not enough on reason, were presented with legitimate facts to the contrary of both your opinion and the dominant right-wing view on guns in the US"
I read your previous comment and you only gave one number, the 200 deaths of children and you said that was too much, but you also said that was subjective. I compared the number to overall population and showed how it is a minute amount of people overall.
"You're quibbling about facts but presenting random opinions of yours"
I am showing you numbers and showing you how minute they are. I even posed you a scenario that you are ignoring.
"Show that conservative positions like mass gun ownership are good for society with credible sources."
Well when you consider that the number of guns in this country have been increasing while overall crime have been decreasing, that is evidence there. To be fair correlation does not equal causation, but the left idea that "more guns=more crimes" is not supported in that case. Also, did I ever say "mass gun ownership"? Has really anyone on the right made that claim? No. You are strawmanning at that point.
"Optional: also review the conservative, pro-gun comments on this video and notice that none provide anything but arguments based on conjecture and anecdotes."
Look up Stefan Molyneux's videos on guns. He provides a lot of data.
"Planned Parenthood "selling baby parts", "the gay agenda", impending widespread forced adoption of sharia in the US, trickle down economics, etc."
Let us look at those cases. To start, I said "most issues". But on each on
PP: The right does not like the idea of giving money to PP. There is a constitutional argument to it and a legal argument in how we should not be using government money for abortions. Now before you say that is illegal the fact is when the government gives money to PP yes, it is not giving for abortions directly, but it allows PP to allocate their funds towards abortion. That is the issue which is fact base.
On "gay agenda": It comes down to gays never lacked any rights. Name me one right that gays lacked in this nation? You can't name one.
On "trickle down economics": that is not even an economic term. That is the best example ever you can give. It is an appeal to emotion term used by politicians or economic illiterates to try to stir up emotions
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leinja, I read that article. Here are some flaws
"However, when scholars study these mass shootings, they frequently
exclude terrorist attacks from the analysis, for much the same reason
Lott excludes burglaries and gang violence: the motivations are
different. When researchers use a more appropriate set of criteria,"
What is the "more appropriate set of criteria"? This article never explains that, and why it is appropriate.
"As Table 3 on page 7
(pictured below) clearly demonstrates, the increase in aggravated
assault for county level data is statistically significant, yet is not
bolded by the authors like all the other statistically significant
findings. In statistics, a result is usually considered significant
if there is a less than 5 percent chance that the result is due to
random chance, meaning it has a “t-statistic” greater than 1.96. A
significant result in turn means that the authors of a study can put a
higher degree of confidence in their finding. As the table below shows,
the “stat” for the “post-law trend” for “Assault” (highlighted with a
red box) has t-statistics of 2.8 and 2.25 for the general and specific
model respectively. Further, the result itself is a positive number,
indicating an increase in assault."
The article have their standard of "significant" where the paper has their own. This is a debatable issue in statistics and neither side is incorrect. The paper bolded murder with a t-stat of >7 where the article is talking about a t-stat of around 2. It comes down to what they deemed to be "significant".
" Also in 2003, Lott supported (and initially co-authored) a paper
appearing in the Stanford Law Review by Plassman and Whitley that also
appeared to support the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Again, Donohue
proved that their results were based on coding errors, undermining the
authors’ central claim."
Mistakes happen, what's their point?
"However, what Lott repeats in public is quite different from what his
report actually shows. While Lott’s public statements equate gun-free
zones with areas that prohibit concealed carry, his mass shooting report
expands the gun-free zone definition to include areas where Lott feels
it might be difficult to obtain a permit or where there might not be
many permit holders despite being able to legally carry. Indeed, Lott
admits in the report that more than six mass public shootings in the
past six years have occurred in areas that legally allow citizens to
carry their firearms, a direct contradiction of his public statements."
Nothing wrong with his definition as pushing more gun laws makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy and carry guns. It is in line with the idea that gun free zones are targets for mass shootings. If you hinder the ability for law abiding citizens to possess a gun you increase the chances of a shooting, arguably.
"However, while it is true that campus guards were unarmed, Lott’s claim
that concealed carry was prohibited is definitively false. Public
colleges in Oregon are prohibited from banning guns
on campus, thanks to a 2011 state court decision. The Umpqua Community
College student handbook also expressly states that there is an
exception to the prohibition of firearms “as expressly authorized by law
or college regulations.” This includes concealed carry permits."
In order to have a CCW in Oregon you have to be at least 21. That eliminates the vast majority of the student body making it essentially a "gun free zone". Lott has a legit point here as well.
I can go on but you get the point. You see what I did? I quoted the article and gave my viewpoints. I did not just say "thinkprogress is a bias cite and thus a fraud". I gave examples.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leinja, I mentioned John Lott to give a counter viewpoint. I later wrote "To add on John Lott, I am not saying what is released is 100% correct,
or settles all gun debates, or that the other side cannot develop a
point. What I am saying is that there are many ways to look at this
issue....."
I admit that Lott has a bias. I admit that what he presents has shortcomings. But at the same time so does everyone else on this issue. There are many variables involved. Lott gives his viewpoint which is legit in many ways. To simply call him a fraud is to complete dismiss him and silence him when his viewpoint is just as strong as others. But at the very beginning I admitted he has shortcomings. It was not when I was met with a controversial figure. You can read the comment thread, I posted that comment before you posted your link.
" And you did the same thing when we talked about climate change on the
other Secular Talk clip, implying that there is a serious controversy
inside the scientific community whether human action is the driving
force behind the current trend of global warming. Which is untrue, of
course.
"
That is a different topic in itself, but in short, due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics humans do play a role. However, climate change has occurred for over 4 billion years, so how much of a role is in question. And if it is even a threat is in question as well. These topics are very complex with many variables which is why there is a large debate to begin with. Your problem is this, you are taking a strong side on the stance when I am taking a moderate approach that leans in one direction. I admit shortcomings due to the complexity and I admit I am not an expert (in climate change I am a scientist so that plays a role). Thus I do not take a strong stance on the issue. I have my opinion and can justify it, but again, it is my opinion. And I, at the very beginning, admitted my sources and ideas have shortcomings and are not that simplistic. Again, read the comment thread.
1
-
Ok, now on to your points.
On that literature, that was not peer reviewed and is the equivalent of a blog site by Harvard. Harvard has many of these which I have read and posted before in talking about other issues. For example, they have writings in support of the free market. But I bet you will deny those based on previous comments. For example, I posted a link from Harvard talking about how people need to stop the CEO to worker pay ratio. That is a free market approach. Do you agree? You seem to be against the free market. However, members of Harvard support it.
That aside. With that report there are other factors that influence homicide. Simply looking at the UK and the US the US has a murder rate of around 5 times that of the UK. However, if you remove all gun murders from the US the US still has a murder rate of twice that of the UK. At that point you have to be 100% honest and admit other factors are at play.
Next, the sources they cite are all over the place. On point three they cite a source that grabs data from 1988-1997 when gun murders were at a peak in the US. This is 10 years after the DC hand gun ban of 1976 where after that passed murders spiked in DC. Looking at just those years has shortcomings. Also, you had the assault weapon ban during that time as well thus it is arguable there were stricter gun laws.
On the first study it says
"None of the studies can prove causation and none have completely eliminated the possibility that the association might be entirely due to reverse causation or omitted variables".
It also states
"International.......in countries with more firearms........higher risk for homicide,....."
I expanded by saying
"This result is primarily due to the United states, which has the highest levels of household ownership of private firearms,....., and the highest homicide rates."
That is saying that the US is an outlier that skews the results. And as I showed you by simply comparing the UK and the US the US has a much higher murder rate as a whole even with gun murders being removed. Also, factcheck has an article on that source as well.
This is not so say their data is not important nor irrelevant. It is to say that there is a lot more to it that they even admit it has shortcomings. I strongly encourage you to read these articles like I am and not take them on face value. You will learn a lot more and will be able to think for yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doug Casey, both sides are strawmanning anymore. I see that as a problem in politics which is why Trump was elected. There was a time where both sides engaged in intellectual conversations. Find the video of Bill Clinton and Herman Cain discussing healthcare in 1994. Both sides used numbers and reasoning in their arguments. While I sided with Cain I see Clinton's reasoning and respected the fact that he understood Cain's position.
These days I feel the political left is too radical. I come to these videos trying to pull people like Jonathan to the middle. I feel a need to have the political left and their programs around in our society. But these days I feel they are too extreme. They push over simplified policies on complex issues, and if you disagree with them they berate you, call you a bad person and feel you need to be punished. Those on the right don't counter their arguments at that point because of fear of being painted poorly. Trump does not care how others view him.
The political left needs to engage in intellectual discussions, not be so emotional and accept that the other side does have a legit argument. That is what happened in the 90s between Bill Clinton and Newt.
As for us going farther right in the US, I can easily argue that we have gone farther left. In some issues we have gone left in others we have gone right. To say we have many problems in the US to me is simply not true. Yes, we have issues and there is always room for improvement, but they are not that extreme. There is a desire to discuss these issues and someone like Bernie stirs that up. However, both sides continue to shut people down on the discussion.
As a whole I feel both sides have legit arguments. I have my opinions that will differ from you, but I see your side of the issue and understand a need to resolve it. I feel both sides are not doing well in engaging in conversation.
As for my question towards Jonathan, it is to see how consistent he it. I know he isn't but he said that a panel of psychologist should determine the law and vote on what conditions should be set to allow someone with a mental illness if they should own a gun or not. My psychologist and psychiatrist know me personally and have for months. They know my behavior and what I deal with and how I handle it. In their opinion they feel I should be allowed to own a gun. By Jonathan's standard a group of arbitrarily picked psychologist, whom I have no say in how they are selected, and do not know me personally, should determine my fate on if I should own a gun or not. That was the idea behind my question towards him. If I ever interact with him again I will ask that question and point out the holes in his reasoning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hughmiller6389 , I gave the popular technology source. You can find them. Every peer reviewed paper has to give their sources. The title of the article is entitled
"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism "
"Again Climate Change is in fact supported by not 98% of all scientist, and 97% of all paper."
That is 100% deceptive. Every scientist agrees that climate change is happening. Beyond that several questions remain such as how much man plays a role, is climate change a threat, and what can we do? You keep pointing to the "consensus" argument when you don't even know what scientists are saying. You know why? Because you never actually read the studies. And you just pass ones that supposedly disagree with you are being corrupt.
"Chemistry explaining how CO2 and Methane absorb heat. "
As a scientist myself I will tell you that is physics via quantum mechanics. But why split hairs?
"Study of glaciers showing that most glacier are shrinking, "
Some areas have them growing some are shrinking. Even at that the question is why? And is it a threat?
" study plants, animals, and the ecology showing movement, increase desertication in Africa and Austrila"
As I pointed out in a Nature paper, droughts have no increased a significant amount. Do you know how high the impact factor of the journal Nature is? Also, there is so much that goes on in the ecosystem. You do know we don't even know how photosynthesis occurs physically? But maybe you know. How can an incoherent light source like the sun create a quantum coherence energy transport that is around 90% efficient?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hughmiller6389 , dude, slavery forced people to work. That is an asinine comparison. You are forcing job loss which is just as bad.
"ou see if you kill the fossil fuel company and build a green energy market, job lost is about net 0. Maybe some training will be require, but you see climate change will cost more jobs and lost of property. "
So you are going to retrain people in their 30s and 40s to try to understand new technology and the complexity of renewable energy? Also, will they have to move? And what if they don't want to be retrained? Green technology is advanced technology. I was looking at a job in it recently and a PhD in Chemistry, Physics, Engineering or a related field was required. So you are saying a coal miner will be willing to do the level of work a PhD individual can?
"More CO2 and Methane result in higher temperature"
'
Isn't that straight forward.
"which melt the glaciers which expose more land to raise the temperature little more since white glacier reflect light"
Eh, a little more complex than that. People talk about methane and CO2 in absorbing IR to keep in heat. Now you are talking about reflection? Also, depending on the angle of light water allows light to transmit. Ever heard of Snell's law? Again, physics.
"melting frozen methane "
What? The melting point of methane is 90 K. Show me where, in nature, on earth, that Methane is a solid. If you think that there is naturally occurring solid methane one earth it is clear you don't understand science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@confusedarmchairphilosopher , then why look at Denmark? Far leftists point to Denmark as the standard but when pushed on what they actually do far leftists like Kyle just plug their ears. The reality is that these issues are very complex. It is much more then just "government pays for it". They run their systems completely different. For example, in tuition free college how will you account for the NCAA? Just saying billionaires will pay for it is a over simplifying the issue completely. To start, "billionaires" earn their "money" completely different then the middle class. I say "money" a lot of their value comes from their assets and not actual M1 money. So taxing them is difficult. It isn't like me where most of my assets are M1 money.
And no, I won't save money. To start, I pay around $20 a month in healthcare, that's it. And under Bernie's plan, if we were to copy what Denmark does, will bring down the cost to around 10% of GDP, like Denmark. However, like in Denmark, accessibility and quality will drop as well. Far leftists feel we can have the cost of the Nordic system with the quality and access we have now. That is impossible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zandman26 , did you even read the paper?
Here
"Our study estimated healthcare systems’ efficiency using two separate DEA models. The first included mostly inputs considered to be within the discretionary control of the healthcare system, and the second one included mostly inputs beyond the short-term discretionary control of the healthcare system. The fact that the healthcare systems of several large and stable economies were defined as efficient by the first model, yet not by the second, emphasizes the importance of broadening policy measures to areas currently beyond the short-term discretionary control of the healthcare system (population behavior and welfare) rather than focusing only on ensuring adequate medical care. In addition, countries striving at improving healthcare efficiency may consider avoiding specific institutional arrangements, namely gatekeeping and the presence of multiple insurers. And finally, the ambiguous association that was found between socioeconomic and environmental indicators and a country’s healthcare system’s efficiency necessitates caution when interpreting different ranking techniques in a cross-country efficiency evaluation and needs further exploration."
"This limitation does not weaken our results, since, as mentioned above, there was no attempt to provide the accurate level of countries’ healthcare systems’ efficiency, but rather to provide a more general concept of the determinants associated with efficiency. Finally, the nature and validity of cross-country efficiency measurement have been questioned [5], and should, therefore, be interpreted cautiously."
They admit there are limits and overall they are simply giving another way to evaluate healthcare systems. That is my argument as well. I have said there are advantages to a universal healthcare system, but the US does many things very well.
As for their model, there are some vague stats they use. For example, they use overall life expectancy when many factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy. They also used infant mortality. The problem with that when it comes to the US is that we lead the OECD nations in obesity rates where obesity leads to higher premature births as mentioned in a Stanford study
"Obesity before pregnancy linked to earliest preterm births, Stanford/Packard study finds"
Now add in the fact that obesity rates are higher for the poor, and the rate of pregnancies, especially unwanted pregnancies, are also higher for the poor that leads to a large factor weighing our infant mortality rates down. This is why I focus on two things
1. Access to advanced testing
2. Survival rates of advanced illnesses
We lead the world in both.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"1212 is definitely enough for an accurate picture of public opinion when properly weighted"
No it's not in a nation of 320+ million people. That diversity is too large. Also, most of these polls, and this on in this case, are phone polls. Phone polling is very unreliable as you never know who you are really polling, you cannot see their expression, body language, etc., and you know very little about the individual. Someone can be very emotional on this issue which you cannot see in a phone poll.
Next, these polls do not get into details on how such a plan will be implemented. If you were to ask the same question on medicare for all but add "and taxes will be increase by X amount", the results would be greatly different. As a whole these polls are unreliable.
Universal healthcare will mean higher taxes, period. Even Bernie admitted that. People in the US will not support that.
1
-
1
-
Niklas, I understand the concept of sample size. I broke down to you why this doesn't work here. I will do it again. To start, 1212 people, to me, is very minute in a population of 320+ million people. You say it isn't and that it is simply a sample size. I say it is because you are dealing with a very diverse group of people with different cultures.
As I mentioned, if you were to disproportionately survey one group that will skew the results. As I said with surveying more people in the bay area will skew the results left. The methods mentioned about surveying people that are 18 and older. Say if over 50% of those surveyed are between the ages of 18 to 29, a group that leans left where the young have always lean left on issues. Now you have less than 50% making up the ages of 31 and up, a large range. That will skew the results left.
You major assumption is that you are treating everyone the same. That someone who is 22 is the same as someone that is 50, and the only difference is their idea on medicare for all. It goes much deeper than that. It you study statistics you would understand that. To add, as I already mentioned, these polling questions are vague and leave many things out. If one were to add the part of increased taxes to the question the results would be different.
Compare all of this to the Coloradocare vote. In there it was mentioned how much taxes would go up, that swung the results where 80% said no. Also, in Colorado that is a defined basis set, people of Colorado leading to a less diverse crowd.
I study science for a living and as such I look at issues at all angles. You are blindly following a poll of a vague question with limited details and claim that I have no idea what I am talking about. Doesn't matter. The direction of this country is clearly not towards medicare for all. It will never happen in our lifetime.
1
-
1
-
Niklas, read the methodology section of the poll.
"For the landline sample, respondents were selected by asking for the youngest adult male or female currently at home based on a random rotation. If no one of that gender was available, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult of the opposite gender. For the cell phone sample, interviews were conducted with the adult who answered the phone."
A major problem of phone polling data is that you cannot guarantee if that person is an adult. Also, why did they ask for the youngest?
The methodology did not mention about times they were called. Calling at a set time will remove a large portion of the population out due to work schedule. Your link even mentions that.
Next, it talks about weighing based on race, education and sex along with cell phone usage. However, it does take into account income level or career. Someone with a higher income and a more demanding career will not take the time to do a phone survey.
In stats you have variables that can change results. Even if you want to use the idea that 1212 respondents is a large enough sample size, you have to admit that many variables are left out and/or not clearly accounted for in the methodology section.
Again, as a scientist I look for these things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GoinSupaOnEm, it isn't that simple. Just because the government decides to cover everyone does not mean you increase the supply of healthcare. Also, you saying "common sense" is not an argument as there are strong arguments against what you said.
More mental health treat: The issue is, besides lack of mental healthcare providers, is the fact that mental health is a very challenging issue to tackle. There is little quantitative data on mental health. It isn't like diabetes where you can take blood sugar readings. It is very personal and there is a culture stigma on people with mental health. Many relate mental health with those who are homeless or can't keep a job where many have a high enough intellect and thus a high baseline and can manage but still have mental health.
Americans get treatment: Again, lack of resources. However, the US has high obesity rates. A major problem in the US is that we simply refuse to take care of ourselves. As Bill Maher told Michael Moore, we eat shit. We poison ourselves. We see this especially with the poor. It does not require healthcare to know how to eat healthy.
Businesses: The reason why businesses pay for healthcare to begin with is because of the payroll tax. A government tax created the employer based healthcare situation. Businesses would rather pay with a higher wage as it is much easier than paying with healthcare benefits but they don't.
For most the tax increases will not save money. The very poor might, but for most the taxes would be higher.
Insurance companies do have a lot of power, I agree. However, the reason why is because of many government regulations that killed the free market in healthcare. Also, the government can deny you care as we have seen in other nations.
Healthcare is not that simple, it never will be.
Just because other countries have universal healthcare does not mean it is the best system. They have many shortcomings as well.
Bernie's plan is asinine. He will push for an increase in the payroll tax meaning that employers will pay lower wages. If they paid a higher wage they will have to pay a higher tax.
Your "counter argument" you gave shows you have little desire to actually listen to the other side so most likely you will ignore my comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GoinSupaOnEm,
There is no "common sense" here as there is a debate to begin with. I feel that the phrase "common sense" is used by people to pull wool over others' eyes. Or it is a degrading term as if you are saying "if you don't agree with me you are clearly stupid". And I saw that at the end of your comment.
Mental health is complicated and a lot of people who need it usually do not pursue it until it is too late because of the stigma and the fact you cannot quantitatively measure it.
Ever thought we are rich due to us not having universal healthcare? Also, lack of resources means lack of doctors, medicine, equipment, etc. We have a waiting list for organs. This is why other countries ration care. Read the paper
"The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" in Chest by Leslie P. Scheunemann and Douglas White.
Yes we eat shit. Other countries don't. For example, over 40% of our food dollar is spent eating out where in the UK it is around 20%. That is a reason why universal healthcare "works" in other countries, they simply have healthier lifestyle choices.
We don't have to gut social welfare programs, we can reform them and give power to the states. States can manage these programs better as they can factor in cost of living, inflation at the state level, contributions of charities, etc. At times the federal government tries to account for those factors, but it is difficult. If we ran those social welfare programs like Social Security locally then we can save money. There is value in having those programs, but government has to manage money correctly as well.
When Bernie was pushed in a corner by a guy from Denmark Bernie admitted he would have to raise taxes on everyone.
For regulations read the Mises Institute article "How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive".
To me the main one is the payroll tax and how paying with insurance is tax free for employers. Because of that insurance has become a form of payment thus healthcare insurance has become healthcare. People do not shop around for their own plans and use insurance strictly for insurance. Most rely on their employer for insurance and thus it becomes healthcare. They cannot force insurance companies and providers to compete thus prices go up. In the end we do not have a free market in healthcare.
The problem with pointing to other countries is that you are ignoring a lot of factors. Denmark for years has had mandatory military. S. Korea has the culture of wanting their kids to be highly educate so they send their kids to private after school programs to simply study where our kids play football and get CTE after school. Norway is a large oil produce to pay for their things. Those Nordic countries have no min. wage and lower corporate taxes where Bernie wants a higher min. wage and higher corporate taxes. You can't just look at one other countries and say "look, it works". It isn't that simply. Their culture and diversity is much different than ours.
I listen to policy. The problem with Bernie is that he is pretty much a joke anymore. He repeats the same things over and over again. He rants about how we need to talk about how "we are the only major country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare as a right". Well, that has been discussed and quickly shot down. Also, that is not a policy discussion statement. It is a statement of wanting to push for universal healthcare. A policy discussion statement would be "we need to discuss about healthcare, the issues surrounding it, and how to improve it". Bernie's remark is simply him wanting to know why we don't have universal healthcare. Well, we can discuss that all we want and never get to how to improve our healthcare situation. He has no desire to keep our current system which is a problem. It is reasons like that and many other why Bernie is a joke to many. It is why Ben Shapiro said that Bernie has no policy substance in his argument.
I can write a whole long comment on Bernie if you want showing how he has no policy substance in his arguments.
I agree with some of your reforms. We need stricter immigration laws. We need term limits on politicians. No need to remove them when they are done after a while. Ending wars is difficult as most of what our military does is actually working towards peace and civility.
1
-
1
-
"The recession of 1937 was the result of FDR cutting spending, because a
lot of people feared that he was spending too much on his New Deal
programs."
He was spending too much as he was not creating wealth. He had to cut back and a recession happened. Why? Because government spending like that is not long term, it never it. It is dropping money from a helicopter.
"In 1931, Hoover literally used the word "depression" to describe the economic situation at the time."
So?
"In 1921, the unemployment rate was about 10%. It's a lot easier to
bounce back from a 10% unemployment rate than it is to bounce back from a
25% unemployment rate."
It was closer to 17%.
"Yes, he did. Have you ever heard of the Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act? That was a piece of legislation that Reagan signed
in 1982, which undid most of the 1981 tax cuts."
I have heard of that. It did not increase the top marginal tax rates and did not increase income taxes. You are also forgetting that Reagan only signed the bill on the idea that Congress cut spending as well. You have to factor that in as well. But I bet you choose to ignore that or did not know.
There is more to the economy than just taxes.
"This was also the first of ELEVEN times that Reagan raised taxes throughout the 80s."
Again, there was a spending aspect as well where Reagan worked with a moderate democrat congress. Just like Clinton worked with a moderate republican congress. You are placing a lot of blame on the president while ignoring congress bud. Who controls the purse?
"No, they weren't quick in recovery at all.
"
They were, less than 5 years. The Great Depression took over 10 along with the Great Recession. Those are also the only two times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with spending. There is a strong correlation there.
I bet if FDR cut spending and the recession happened you would be singing a different tune. Instead you aren't. Again, the two times it took the longest to recover from a recession were the Great Depression and the Great Recession. They were also the only two times were the federal government tried to "fix' the economy by spending. Every other recession they didn't and we recovered in 5 years or less. There is a strong correlation there.
"Which "experts"? The people at Fox News are not experts.
"
I posted two links, none from Fox News.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Walter Morales, you seemed to be missing something big here. Shapiro is in the political entertainment business. You said "would put anybody reading them to sleep". That is the point. Shapiro is not going to read legal documents to that extent on his show or in speeches as people will not listen. And he will not respond to you in that way as it would take too much time.
You point began with Shapiro saying that the high taxation of Bernie's plan would leave those with more income invading taxes. Now is it that simple? No. But as a whole history has shown that to happen. That is why despite a 90% tax rate in the past there were 155 Americans in 1967 who earned over $200,000 that paid $0 in federal income taxes. If you want to get into a detailed discussion in how it would work out the yes, there is a lot to it that would put people to sleep. But as a whole the rich will invade taxes some how as they are already doing it now with our high corporate taxes.
As for taxing the middle class more when pushed in a corner by a guy from Denmark Bernie admitted that he would have to raise everyone's taxes. That is the reality.
You claim that you have legal documents that counter Shapiro proving he is wrong when one, you have yet to post any so I am doubting you. Not saying you are wrong, just doubting you. But again, you are missing the point, Shapiro is not going to waste time arguing legal documents with some random person and he will not chase audience away with reading them. That is how politics work. Listen to Kyle, he goes on a simplified rant about universal healthcare while ignoring pages and even books that counter his argument. Do you feel Kyle is smart? Look at politicians. They say appeal to emotion talking points or simplified statements to rally an audience. That's politics.
Shapiro has a Harvard law degree. I am sure he understands and has read those legal documents. I am sure people like Warren, Cruz, Obama, etc. have as well. Shapiro has debated politicians in Congress. He knows his stuff. You need to understand his approach and why he does it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Walter, government can create limitations on the market, and also it doesn't. That is another topic all together. But a limited government means not corporate welfare, period. At that point you are literally making things up to smear Shapiro. Unless you find a direct quote from him showing he supports corporate welfare I cannot take you seriously. If you are going to criticize your opponent you have to treat them fairly.
Uh, the FOMC does not control taxes. On that quote where does he show support for corporate welfare. Obama pushed for more regulation controlled by government, not the Fed. Welfare programs like Medicare have increases some under Obama. And yes, it is careless to talk about easy money programs and not mention the Fed. But again, the chair is chosen by the president and confirmed by Congress. They can place some pressure on them to enact some policy. To say they don't would be foolish. That is why I say the Fed is quasi government.
" For example, the constitution only permits for 10% interest rates"
What Constitution? The US Constitution? I do not see that anywhere. Also, it can range from 10% to I believe 12%. It just hasn't change in years. I do not know the exact number but there is a small range, it just remains at 10%. But again, what constitution?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Walter, you said you had cases and laws that you gave Shapiro. I asked for you to give them to me, even just a link that I can read. You have not done that. You have also shown to show a lack of understanding of the Fed such as saying they control taxes and prices. Also, the Fed is not completely independent government. From the book "The Financial System, Financial Regulation and Central Bank Policy" by Thomas Cargill, in chapter 11 section 11.6 it says the story that goes like this
"A new research staff member to the Board of Governors asked one of the board members if the Federal Reserve was independent. The board member responded: "Yes of course, the Federal Reserve is independent." The new staff member then asked. "Does that mean the Federal Reserve can raise interest rates to prevent inflation even if it causes unemployment rate to increase, say, from 5 to 5.5 percent?" The response "Yes, of course, that's what independence means. We can pursue a policy that might conflict with the government." The new staff member persisted and asked: "What about if unemployment rate increases from 5 to 6 or 6.5 percent?" The board member took more time to respond: "Probably not, because then we would lose our independence."
It was Governor McChesney Martine that said the Fed has "independence within government rather than independence from government".
"You have not provided laws that would prove the validity that the Federal Reserve is quasi-government"
You haven't provided any laws either considering how you claimed to have some. You have not provided any laws showing that the central bank is independent from government. However, the president promotes the chair of the Fed and congress confirms it. If the Fed were to change interest rates causing massive inflation or massive unemployment, or if they were to abuse their "lender of last resort" tool, government will step in and make changes. The Fed is its own entity, but government can and does influence its actions.
I can see why no one wants to debate you. You came across as someone who knows what they are talking about claiming you can cite case studies and law, but when I pushed you to do that you haven't.
1
-
Walter, the Fed only controls, or more correctly, influences prices of securities and loans by buying and selling them. If that is what you mean you are correct. However, it does not control the price of gas, or the milk I just bought, or my rent, etc.
You say my research and knowledge only scratches the surface and I agree. However, I understand that government does influence how the Fed acts, and the Fed does not create tax laws.
"The money supply is decreased through increasing interest rates and raising reserve requirements, which cause unemployment and enduring recessions to depressions. "
Eh, not really. Raising interest rates in the past under Volcker led to lower unemployment in the long run because in the past low interest meant higher inflation and was believed to have lowered unemployment. The Fed has not raised reserve requirements in years. But I agree that raising it, and raising interest rates does lower the money supply which lowers inflation.
But again, I am still waiting for these laws and case studies you claim to have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" I'm not asking you to believe me I'm asking you to do your own research."
Where? So far you have only pointed me to one book. I referenced a book myself. Your response is similar to Cenk saying "Google it". Where should I look? Should I email and ask Shapiro? Telling me to do "research" is a cop out from you when you claimed to know the material and have resources to give. All I am asking from you are the same case studies and law references that you gave Shapiro and I can go from there. You are not even providing that. You are instead telling me to do my own research and expect me to find the right answer based on the plethora of information, both fact and opinion, out there.
"Why would I put the people who I've helped in court at risk for exposing the Federal Reserve when there is plenty of case laws with regards to the Howey case and Horizontal and Vertical Commonality Tests."
Because these cases are open for the public. You are not putting anyone at risk.
" I understand that I have not provided the amount of cases you seek, but when you give barber shop arguments it gives me reason to believe that there is no interest in learning. "
I am interested in learning. The fact is this, you made a claim so I asked you to back it up. You have not. That is the problem. That is why I cannot believe what you are saying. I have very high doubt you ever contacted Shapiro with law references and case studies.
"You make the statement that the Federal Reserve is only exclusive to securities but have not read article 3 and article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code to see how the Federal Reserve affects farm products, real estate, student loans, credit,.. etc"
Uh, Article 8 deals with securities which I mentioned is one of the two purposes of the Fed. The Fed controls the money supply through buying and selling securities and changing interest rates, and the Fed is the lender of last resort. What you are doing, once again, is getting into the meat of the issue where I mentioned before is the whole "forest for the trees" issue. You are trying to sound smart by referencing minor details.
"Why should I continue if there is no intention of giving it some research?"
Because I want to learn which is why I approached you. You have said you have challenged Shapiro so I was curious in how. You have not given me any case studies and now have given me a law that I am reading up on now. That is what I asked from the very beginning and you have failed to deliver.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kohlcooke8789 I have looked at many reports from medical experts. Some are saying it is dangerous, but more and more are saying it is not. Nature, one of the top journals in academics, has a series of articles they post almost everyday and many of them are suggesting it is not that dangerous from saying that those with certain blood types are low risk
"The ABO blood group locus and a chromosome 3 gene cluster associate with SARS-CoV-2 respiratory failure in an Italian-Spanish genome-wide association analysis"
To that the youth are less likely to be in danger
"Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in Geneva, Switzerland (SEROCoV-POP): a population-based study"
"Susceptibility to and transmission of COVID-19 amongst children and adolescents compared with adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
To the idea that surfaces pose a low risk of infection
"SARS-CoV-2 in environmental samples of quarantined households"
And also in Science, another well respected journal in academics, had an article showing that not only are people building up long term immunity to it, but that there is evidence to suggest that some already have it from other coronaviruses
"T cells found in coronavirus patients ‘bode well’ for long-term immunity"
To me it comes down to this. We need to open up because
1. We have relieved the healthcare system where all across the nation we have empty hospitals that can take on another "wave" if it were to happen, which I doubt
2. It is summer and with warmer weather and being outside the spread will be slower
3. With all the evidence I just posted of a good portion of people being immune, and that certain groups of people are low risk that this virus is not that dangerous, and will also slow down the spread
We need to open back to up spread the virus over the next few months before winter. The reason is so we can build up herd immunity so the virus is not an issue. Staying locked up is going to weaken our immune systems to where not only is the virus an issue, but other diseases. And it will also harm our economy which will harm, arguably, more people.
Deaths are dropping still. Cases are not going up and recovery rate is high and still continues to go up. If you want to hide from the scary virus than so be it. Most see it as simply another risk in life like cancer, car accidents, heart attacks, etc.
Also, what I put in quotes are the titles of the articles as a lot of times links do not work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fuh Que, the top 10% earn 40% of the income but pay around 70% of the federal income taxes. Also, they possess a lot of wealth because beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Not many people have the desire to run a major corporation and thus be the major shareholder of that company. There is also the issue of debt where a lot of people, like me, have debt and thus negative wealth. That is a good thing as it means we allow people to take steps back to buy larger things before going forward such as a home or a college education..
As for the remark on saying that they will be fine after you tax them more, that is very shallow. They have completely different financial responsibilities. I worry about paying rent and bills. Someone with that $100 million is worrying about running a major company, paying employees, investing to expand, charities, and other major expenses. Different lifestyles. You tax them more that is less money for them to invest. Sure, they may be fine, but their companies suffer. That means less jobs and less innovation.
The republicans gave tax cuts to the poor and middle class.
1
-
Mr. Moderate, I did cringe when I listened to Shapiro talk about this issue, but I do on both sides with the exception of Crowder (minus his 5 myths video that was cringe worthy).
The issues of climate change is this, and this is where Crowder lies as well
1. How much is man playing a role? Yes, man is playing a role, but we do not know by how much. We have no control experiment to compare to and the ecosystem is too complex to give a hard value on how much man is playing a role.
2. Is it even bad? The ecosystem has evolved and has done so through other climate change for millions of years. Why would it stop?
3. If it is bad what is the solution? Many on the right feel government isn't and the issue needs to stick with scientists.
The whole consensus studies are poor to look at. To start, they are cherry picked and vague in the conclusion. Next, they are misrepresented. So it is a combination of them not really giving any sort of conclusion on top of the political left misrepresenting them. They are not saying man plays a major role and they are not saying that it is bad for humanity. They do suggest that man can be playing a major role and that there are some consequences we need to possibly address, but nothing too certain as the political left makes it out to be.
Both sides are not presenting the climate change issue well. As I said, with the exception of the 5 myths video, Crowder does it the best because he presents it in the viewpoint that there is a lot of doubt and uncertainty in science and we cannot draw hard conclusions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" using people's health as payment is not a moral solution."
Why not? Demanding other people provide their services at a discount is not moral.
" in the rest of the world's advanced societies it has been shown again and again that the costs drop overall."
They also have lower quality and less R&D. There is no such thing as a free lunch. My apartment, which is one bedroom, is cheaper than a three bedroom apartment. Does that mean my apartment is better?
"First, the middle-man is eliminated "
Not really. You have increased bureaucracy now with government and government playing favorites.
" Second, everyone gets basic healthcare; this actually has the effect of
reducing very expensive procedures and costs because treatment for
issues starts much earlier. "
Possibly, but again, you have limited resources. You now have longer wait times like in the DMV. You also have this issue called "moral hazard". You saw this with the FDIC that caused the S&L crisis in the 80s. Banks were doing bad loans knowing the FDIC will bail them out. You will see something similar with healthcare in that why should people care about the cost when the government will just flip the bill? There is no desire to live a healthy life style or manage their own healthcare as the government will flip the bill.
"Third, negotiation for drug prices is hugely effected due to purchasing in volume."
The government is poor at negotiation. Also, government has special interest. If a politician who favors a certain company is in charge what will stop them simply overpaying? Also, why can't individuals negotiate prices?
"Also, remember that the largest group of bankruptcies in the US is due to health related costs."
You just bankrupt the country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" yes immigration has an effect, but you can't deny that the system does a
terrible job and insuring individual prosperity for all citizens, "
How so? People have never had it better. We drive better cars, we have better entertainment centers. Food is very cheap these days. We have an obesity epidemic. I see very little to suggest things have not improved.
"from the number of people dying from lack of healthcare to homelessness to the massive student loan debt."
The people dying due to "lack of healthcare" is an unmeasurable stat as many variables are involved. Life expectancy is growing. As for student loan debt, I do say it contributes to the rising cost of tuition. But again, the fact that we can allow people to regress in society before moving forward shows how well off we are. Other nations cannot do that. We allow people to regress with no guarantee they can pay off their loan. I see that as as success. If you pursue the right degree loans will not be a problem.
" American's quality if life can massively improve if effective wealth redistribution is undertaken."
It will actually become worse. There is no such thing as wealth redistribution, only wealth destruction.
Here is an example, say a wealthy man owned two homes, and a homeless man owned none. You say that isn't fair so you give that homeless man one of that wealthy man's home The homeless man, however, has no idea how to generate wealth and maintain a home. In 5 years the home you gave him is destroyed and he is homeless again. Meanwhile that wealthy man ended up buying a new home and now rents it out to people.
Fact is some people have little idea and/or desire to develop a lot of wealth.
1
-
"It's slang for supply-side economics "
It is not an economic term, you will not see it in any textbook.
"which failed on most avenues"
If you want to talk about "supply side" then you are wrong, advanced countries have used the free market. The best example is N. Korea vs S. Korea. S. Korea took a free market approach and became a powerhouse. All of history shows that a free market approach works wonders. Even those Nordic countries leftists praise do that. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc. have no min. wage and allow for unions to freely negotiate.
"wages remained stagnant along with massive increase in the deficit. "
The increase in deficit is due to government. Wage stagnation is a myth, that is why only extreme leftists point to it.
"Increase in innovation has nothing to do with supply side economics."
WHAT! Jonathan, you have said a lot of foolish things in your days, but this is the top. This has everything to do with supply side as investors have money to invest and innovate in a competitive market.
"however wages have no increased "
They have. What is you standard of "wages increase"? Is it the raw value or what you can purchase for your dollar? I use the latter. People have better cars, better entertainment centers, food is cheaper, homes and appliances are more energy efficient. The fact is that the vast majority of goods and services are much cheaper compared to 20 years ago.
"and the supply side method heavily failed under Reagan."
Why Reagan? Under him we had an economic boom? Why not Clinton, or Carter? Why not the democratic congress that we had under Reagan?
" Having an increase in technology has nothing to do with trickle down economics."
Oh, so those high speed computers just appeared out of thin air?
" It has to do with progression of technology due to innovation which is inevitable as research is used on anything"
It is not inevitable, why do many countries like N. Korea lack in advanced technology? You saying it is "inevitable" is not true.
"Take a simple economics class if you don't understand the concepts."
Actually I am taking a grad level economics course this semester for a graduate minor offered by my university. It is called
"Financial and Monetary Economics"
I love studying economics on the side so I figured I get credit for it and another certification. The book we are using is
"The Financial System, Financial Regulation and Central Bank Policy"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The market in the United States and in multiple other countries have
grown using Different methods from supply side economics, such as
keynesian economics"
I would agree, but successful countries lean towards supply side and allowing the free market to reign.
" N korea has failed to thrive since the nation is a full dictatorship
with no real system in place except a military which is progressing as
shown with nuclear tests"
They failed because they pushed for communist and at that point the only jobs they can create are the military.
"You are arguing a free market approach which can be driven through a
multitude of economic policies, not just supply side economics. "
The free market allows consumer, who are also investors, spend freely. It allows people to invest their money as they seem fit. That leads to innovation and better technology. People demand better things and businesses, out of competition, offer it. If people are not allowed to spend freely then they will only demand the essentials to survive. Supply side has lead to more inventions.
"Again take a economics course, wage stagnation is not a myth taking into account inflation."
Uh, as i told you I am registered for an economics course. Wage stagnation is a myth. Look up the videos by Learn Liberty entitled
"The Real "Truth About the Economy." Have Wages Stagnaged?"
And
"Is the Cost of Living Really Rising?"
At the very least, the idea of wage stagnation is debatable. As shown there are multiple ways to calculate inflation. It seems like you need to study economics.
"No, capitalism which allows for innovation in the market place is what
leads to a competitive market. How we arrive there, through a variety of
economic models has little to do with innovation in itself.
"
The only reason why people innovate is due to competition and capitalism. Why work hard and be creative if you going to lose your money?
"Essentially you are saying free market enterprise and supply side economics are the same thing which is nothing of the sort."
They are very similar as the free market allows for people and investors to freely invest their money. As long as people who earned their money have it to spend that will lead to growth. People who earned their money earned it by developing wealth. They worked. That is the free market.
"Investment in ideas has occurred before supply side economics and would
continue through all different assortment of economic policies, such as
keynesian economics."
Not true because with Keynesian economics it runs on the idea of just giving money to people who never earned it. It lowers productivity and thus wealth creation. Investors cannot invest and thus new innovation does not occur. That is why it never works. Our two biggest recessions took so long to recover from because we were practicing that model.
"Innovation or progression of technology is NOT the same thing as wages increasing."
Yes it is, I can purchase more for my dollar. If something costs $10 an hour to make but after technology it now costs $5/hr to make, that item will be cheaper, period.
"Read actual studies from economists and analysts who are in the field. "
Like the two videos I pointed you to? There are many economists on this issue that will agree with me. So I do listen to actual economists. I listen to many and not cherry picked ones like you do.
"As I pointed out, this thought process was heavily attempted under
reagan which did have job growth but wages which he assumed would
increased, remained stagnant. "
Economic boom, people were living better lives. I see no problems.
"Progression of technology has NOTHING to do with wages remaining
stagnant. Seriously, do I have to explain every difference to you? "
Oh, please do, this will be great. The fact that my car is cheaper, and gets better MPG means nothing to my overall income? It does not mean I have more money to be spent elsewhere?
"It's quite apparent you are not in a grad level economics course. You
literally are arguing wage increase with the idea of progression of
technology."
How is it obvious? You are saying that me being able to buy a car that lasts longer, and gets better MPG has zero influence on my overall income?
"Assuming you are barely taking the course, it's an introduction course and has nothing to do with the topic at hand"
It is a grad level course. I have no clue where you found that as I am sure many universities offer courses of similar names. But this is a grad level course.
" Do you have some kind of mental deficit? Not only did you provide a
class that doesn't actually lend weight to the argument, it's shown as
an undergrad course"
Funny as it is a grad level course.
"Again, please get an education and actually understand when something is applicable."
Yep, apparently me having a car that lasts longer means I have less money, gotcha.
"You know how I posted 3 different links showing how what you called was a "leftist myth" is true?
"
And I pointed you to two professors that say it is a myth. What's your point? I can find more if you want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"the rich person rode in a plane or limo in the 60s you idiot. They don't give a fuck about a car. "
Good for them, I and many others do.
"second, If the rich paid taxes and funded NASA, medical science, physics, and education, we would probably be living on Mars and Earth, cured cancer, and have nuclear fusion reactors. "
I have a degree in physics, I have many friends who are doctoral students in physics who research fusion, I am a grad student myself. We are nowhere near using fusion as an energy source.
You say "cure for cancer", what kind? There are many kind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel, you should look up the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
You say in my second link that was a "specific kind of tumor". That does not matter as in the end the MRI detected it. She was denied one after many visits and when she was scheduled for one she had to wait months. In the US they do push for more advanced testing to look for cases like that to get to them. That is one reason why we pay so much in the US system. It is optional but offered. And when offered you do not wait months.
But that aside, even if it was a "special kind of tumor", this woman's case in this video was looking at surgery that was in the developmental process according to the insurance company. And in fact, if you read the link Kyle posted, the insurance company approves of a more expensive procedure. Whether or not the procedure she was denied for is experimental or not, why would they approve the more expensive procedure if the are in it for the money? But on experimental procedures, insurance companies and governments do not cover those. In the US Medicare does not cover experimental procedures.
Ok, now that you have been laid out more facts and were shown the tumor case is comparable to this case, on to size. Size is an argument. Larger size means larger diversity, more societies, more economies, and a much more complex system. Economically it is challenging to micromanage the issue when you grow in size.
Consider this comparison. Say you want to buy Subway sandwiches for 4 people. You can get the exact sandwich they want and know the price down to the penny. Ok, now say for between 200 to 300 people? You do not know the exact amount. So you buy a tray of generic sandwiches. You do not now how many you need exactly so you order too much and you have waste Order too little and people go hungry. You can't micromanage. You create waste and shortcomings which hurt growth.
That is why size does matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hellenistic Helmet you do not know what I am talking about. To start, if you go by deaths per million many other nations are doing worse such as Italy, Spain, France, and so on. Also, our stats are inflated by the fact that NY and NJ have almost half of the deaths.
Next, the issue is that many factors play a role in a person's death with the virus. Almost all who die are either old or sick to begin with. So you cannot say if he virus is the cause or something else, or a collection of things. Most who die beyond an accident or murder have several health complications.
As for your steak knife example, that is not my point. My point is that there are risks in life that can kill us. We can die from cancer, traffic accidents, murder, heart attacks, etc. What we do in life is that we access the risk, take precautions and go from there. With the steak knife example it is "it is sharp so handle it with care". Same with this virus, take precautions to alleviate the chances of getting it. If so, take precautions to get better.
To add, there is evidence that an immunity with T-cells can be developed. A Science article talks about it. But why listen to scientists?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Megan, my "hypothetical question" is something that is logical and is connected to the issue at hand as it involves the business that was involved and the employee. You placed my family in that situation which is appealing to emotions. My question is making you look at the perspective of the business looking at that one employee. A hypothetical question would be "Say your dad ran that business and that truck driver, a few weeks later, cost that company millions?". I would not as that as that is a loaded question and unnecessary and deflects.
"as you're willing to let a stranger die for the sake of a companies bottom line"
People die. Sorry, that happens. If that is surprising to you than you are going to live a hard life. Also, no, I do not support just letting an employee die for a companies bottom line. I want companies to take actions to protect workers. My job does and so do others. The job my dad works at does. They require him to take a shower for one hour before he leaves work due to the lead in the air. They pay for it, but that is what they do to protect him. In the end, though, there lies responsibility on the employee and that is what you have to realize.
"It's only what works for you and your emotions, not the companies best interest you claim to care about."
What emotions? I am coming at this from a rational view. I am putting emotions aside, looking at both parties involved, and going with experience.
"You had no issue if the worker (unknown worker) lost his life, so long as the company didn't lose millions"
Again, who is at fault? Businesses take actions to protect workers, but their lies responsibilities on the workers as well. You have no concern about the business and feel they are completely to blame. I am saying that in this case the truck driver was inexperienced. He should have read a weather report and stopped at a truck stop overnight. They give truck drivers reading material on these things.
"I asked that question to prove you only cared about the companies bottom
line when it's convenient for you. If you truly cared about a companies
bottom line like you claimed, your views would be consistent regardless
of who had to die if it meant a company saved millions."
I told you that if my "love ones" were involved I would want them to do what will keep them alive, but also realize and understand that they will lose their job and they put themselves in that situation. You see the difference? I support the firing of this employee. You don't. I understand how businesses work and why. It is great this man is alive, but he has to realize his actions cost him his job.
I work with class 4 lasers. If I did something to put my life or others in danger I will be fired. If I did something to risk my life, and had to do a hard shut down of the laser which will cost the university hundreds of thousands of dollars, I will walk away unharmed but will be fired as well.
"Just admit you're fine with sacrificing someone elses loved one, just
not someone you care about for the sake of a companies bottom line. "
You are making things up. I never said sacrifice. I said that if you are an employee and you put yourself in a position to cost the company millions and/or are a risk, you will be fired. It does not have to be life or death either.
Why do you hate businesses so much?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardhannay7105 , it isn't about the an breaking his leg. It is about the person who has one problem, it gets fixed and than another one comes up.
Read the book "Being Mortal". It talks about how people near the end of their lives constantly have problems that come up. When they get sick they get cured, but other problems arise. That is the point I am talking about. And how much do people like that actually produce? These are the difficult discussions people on the left don't want to have.
As for you points, here
1. Fire departments are ran and funded locally. In some areas they are private and in some areas they are volunteer jobs where 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Also, the fire department puts out the fire, they don't buy you a new home
2. Roads are paid for and ran locally. In some areas they are dirt roads. Also, the roads are used to increase productivity of a society.
3. Police are paid for and ran locally. You starting to see a trend? They exist for safety of a community which everyone agrees on. Not everyone agrees to have a government paid for healthcare system.
Also, in comparison to healthcare, those programs are much cheaper, not as complex, and not as dynamic as healthcare. Healthcare is very expensive, is very dynamic in R&D, and very complex. So your comparison is poor. It doesn't take a decade worth of schooling to become a fire fighter, it does to become a doctor.
1
-
@richardhannay7105 , how are the chances in the US worse? What do you base that off of?
"the key word here is "localy funded" genius, roads are payed for by state government, not individuals"
Locally funded is very important. At the local level you can determine if your money is being spent well by the government and the programs can be micromanaged easier. It allows the local community to decide how a program should be ran. The economy is complex and having a centralized entity manage is it impossible. Read the essay entitled "I, Pencil" where it shows how complex it is to make a pencil. Now imagine other programs? The local communities run them as they are managed better. In some areas they are fine with volunteer fire fighters and dirt roads. You can't point to locally ran programs to justify expanding the federal government.
The issue is what role should government play? That is very subjective. How many police officers should exist? In some places they only have the sheriff. It varies. There is value in having government programs, but what kind depends on the area. Maybe a government ran healthcare system will work in some areas, but not throughout the entire nation. The locally part is very important.
"Also, imagine if you were able to get regular checkups, the problem in the US is that people don't get checked and go to the doctor in terminal conditions. "
Uh, not really. According to this study even with access and awareness of issues their physical health did not improve
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
A lot of bad health is due to poor lifestyle choices.
"Also, you agree the public education should exist but not public healthcare, as if these systems are run differently."
I won't mind if the states and local governments had their version of a government healthcare system. It all depends. K-12 education is ran and funded by the states as well and it differs from state to state. Compare NV to MA for example. NV does not value education as high as you can make $80,000 a year parking cars in casinos or 6 figures working in the mines. In MA it is home to Boston College, Harvard, MIT and other four year colleges. Their society values education more. As a result MA has better outcomes in education compare to NV simply because of their culture. You as assuming the entire nation is the same when in reality it is very diverse. Maybe some areas will value a public healthcare system, some may not. You can't just say "you support this government system so you should support others". There is a desire to have government programs, but what kind and how much depends on many factors. Let us take you idea to the extreme. Why not ban all private companies and have only government companies and government jobs? You support K-12 education, why not have public restaurants ran by government? Why not have public retail stores ran by government? Why stop at schools?
As for non-profit, profit is what drives innovation and progress. Compare public schools to private schools, which ones typically have better facilities? As for being safer, how many private schools experience mass shootings compared to public ones?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zee Risek, stocks are not income. I cannot take stocks and buy bread with it. I can sell it to a buyer and gain income, but now that runs the risk for the buyer of that stock growing or shrinking. If Jeff Bezos were to sell off all of his stocks for, say $100 a piece, there is no guarantee that it would be worth that in 5 years. A new CEO could ruin the value of that company or another company could take over.
As for Zuckerberg, he pays his bills from his company. All of his assets are tied into his company. But as a whole the value of a company differs greatly than the value of money.
"By not paying their fair share of taxes, the tax burden is then put on the poor and middle class, thus causing poverty."
Most of the poor don't pay taxes at all. Also, the reason why stock options are taxed differently is because they differ from income. It is a part of a company that grows, creates jobs and wealth. Taxing it higher can, arguably, lower job creation and wealth creation. That is why businesses can write off business expenses. Now I am all for a simplified tax code federally of a flat income tax and a consumption tax. That will eliminate that issue. Also, define "fair share".
You are complaining about the structure of our tax code and financial system where I can alleviate by creating a federal flat tax and a consumption tax. Or go back to taxing the states based on population like we had pre 1913.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KingJT80 , no system is ideal. I feel a free market system is the best at covering the most people with the highest quality out there. I ultimately support a free market healthcare system where local communities, whether it be local charities or local government, filling in the gaps that the free market does not cover.
Your example of fire departments supports me 100%. Fire departments are ran and funded locally. Some are actually private in some areas. In many areas fire fighters are volunteer where nation wide 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. The fire department is literally the local community working together to help out their local society. Whether it be through a private system, or a public system, or a volunteer system. Even at that, the cost of a fire department is nothing compared to the cost of healthcare. You say "that's a rediculous line of thinking with so many implications I dont know where to start" because, not to be rude, you don't have a strong argument to begin with and don't understand how the system is ran. So you pull a logical fallacy.
Pointing to other nations is flawed in many ways as there are way too many factors to consider. To start, most of those nations are smaller than a lot of our states. Name me a nation with 100+ million people, universal healthcare and a strong economy? How about we use that standard. Next, those nations have many shortcomings as well. Our for profit system has led us to lead the work in R&D in technology and drug development in healthcare. Other nations take advantage of our advancements. Also, their survival rate, as argued by Prof. Scott Atlas in his book I cited, is lower than ours.
You say "right to life". All that means is that the government cannot take life without due process. On your idea of right to life how far do you want to take it? Do we give people food? Do we give people a home? And for how long? Eventually people die. At want point do we stop caring for them? Saying "right to life" is purely an emotional system by the way you are presenting it. In reality all it means is that government cannot take life away without due process.
All we have proved, in the US, is that crony capitalism does not work which is what we have in the US healthcare system. Adding more government will only make that situation worse, not better.
1
-
@KingJT80 , never said we need private companies running everything. In fact, I said I support a government system to fill in the gaps if needed. There is a desire to have government, but government, like businesses, are flawed. Society needs to control government and these government programs need to work for the people. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. That is why fire departments are locally ran and funded. Same with police, K-12 education, public libraries, etc. Military is a federal issue as it deals with foreign affairs and serves the states. The military is not allowed to enforce domestic laws on the people.
You says "poor communities get horrible service". What do you base that off of?
Profit motive leads to more supply as there is a motive to create more.
In order to give someone healthcare you have to force someone to provide it. Your "right to life" idea means forcing someone to give up their services. Say a "poor community" had no doctor and the people there need healthcare. That means you have to force someone to move there to serve them whether they want to or not. You, at that point, are arguably depriving that doctor to their right to life.
Military members actually serve and work for our nation. What's your point?
The smaller the nation the easier it is to micromanage those programs. Also, the culture is less diverse to more people are on the same page. That is why local programs work much better than federal ones.
That isn't want the Koch Brothers study said. I suggest you read the actual study.
There are many arguments to say that other nations are not better than ours. I pointed to an book by a Stanford professor.
Again, saying "point to another country" is not an argument. Point to another animal in the animal kingdom that uses a computer,you can't. I guess us as humans should stop using computers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BericD , it ins't about understanding basic economics. What he is commenting on is way more complex. Why was the economy so strong in the 50s and 60s? He is saying because of the high tax rates. That is a very shallow comment for a anyone to make, especially for someone who supposedly has a degree in economics. There are many arguments against that. Here are some
1. No one paid that high rate. Joseph Barr complained to Congress that in 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that year and paid $0 in federal taxes. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was established that placed a minimum on tax.
2. During that time the entire world was rebuilding so the US was ahead giving us an economic advantage.
3. During that time many government regulations and spending was being cut. In fact, in the late 60s and early 70s the federal government was expanded with OSHA, the EPA, Department of Ed, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. So one can argue limited federal government led to growth.
And so on. This guy studied Managerial economics. Does he understand basic economics? Yes. But so do I through my MBA studies. I am required to take an economics course through the MBA program and I took two. I studied the Federal Reserve, different methods for measuring inflation, central banking in other nations, etc. Does that mean I am an expert in economics or the history of it? No. Or a better example. I am also pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. Does that mean I am an expert in synthetic chemistry? No. But I have a basic understanding of it.
You say he has a basic understanding of economics and I will agree he does. But we are talking about a much more complex issue. From what he said there are one of two points here
1. He does not know what he is talking about
or
2. He is being deceptive to fool useful idiots.
You are pulling logical fallacies here, or you are just being foolish.
1
-
@H6enRal , I have, and I will again.
1. No one paid those high rates. Joseph Barr complained that in 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that year that paid $0 in federal taxes. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was created to actually raise taxes on the rich.
2. During that time the entire world was rebuilding thus we had an economic advantage. This was actually covered in one of my economic courses I took for my MBA program. So is that professor wrong? Which is it? That was on a textbook. That was comment was by a professor who wrote a textbook. So are they wrong?
3. During that time the federal government was smaller. In the 60s and 70s we saw the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, the EPA, the department of Ed, etc. So in the 50s and early 60s the federal government was small.
So yes, I have refuted what he said. There are other factors at play.
As for the depression what arguable caused it was the Federal Reserve, even Ben Bernanke admitted that. But whatever, believe what you want to believe. Just ignore what other experts say and just follow this guy with his shallow comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BericD . do you know what Managerial Economics is? He did not study economics in depth. He studied management. You need to understand that. He did not study economics in depth.
Compare it to me. I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. As such I took many physics classes such as E&M, Quantum, Stat Mech, and many chem courses such as organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, etc. Does that mean I know, in detail, about synthetic chemistry or plasma physics? No. Because my PhD is in physical chemistry particularly spectroscopy through non-linear effects. I have a basic understanding of those topics, but I am not an expert in them. Neither is this guy when it comes to economics. He is an expert in management. This is how desperate you guys are. You use Bill Nye the science guy to push the climate change issue and now you use a professor from MIT for economic issues and say "he is a professor from MIT" when he isn't even an economist.
Is what he is saying wrong? Not really, but at the very least deceptive. There is a lot more to the economy than tax rates. Any honest economist will tell you that. There is the fact that no one paid those high rates. There is the fact that in the 50s and 60s the federal government was much smaller. There is the fact that the entire world was rebuilding giving us an economic edge.
You did not counter anything you said. You simply said "he is a professor from MIT so he is correct". You know who else was a prof. from MIT and fooled the American people? Jonathan Gruber when he helped develop that ACA.
This is why you call me a troll, you have no real counter argument to what I say. I broke down my reasoning and you just pulled a logical fallacy in saying "he is a professor from MIT". Is that all you have?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the claims
1. Best nations: Consider that we have 320+ million people and still is very successful. The far left has to compare us to much smaller nations. So out of our pure size and the success we have we are arguably the best nation in the world. Kyle points to arbitrary rankings and Kyle has no clue how to look at objective stats.
2. Defense spending has been dropping for over 50 years. There is an argument that we need to fund it more. People like AOC want to give money illegals as opposed to our defense. That is anti-America
3. There is a push from some states to have late term abortion. Murder is a state law that can be adjusted in each state. Kyle clearly does not understand how laws are developed in this nation.
4. Trump doesn't care about the consequences because the far left doesn't. It is a reaction to what the far left says. Consider how Ilhan Omar rips on Trump for what he says and it causing reactions to people, but is quiet on this recent attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESGnB66Whtk
5. On immigration at this point they seem to be for open borders. They have no suggestion in how to reform our immigration or crack down on it. A recent video came out on it where AOC literally did not know the law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY7nsd_947U
6. Bernie's plan bans private insurance, period. Also, after Obamacare why should we trust politicians on healthcare reform?
7. A federal min. wage of $15/hr will kill jobs in many states, period. Kyle talks about other states but those "studies" don't factor in many other variables as other variables factor into employment.
Statistically, when you work full time year round, you are most likely not poor as only around 2% are poor.
Kyle really needs to stop talking about economics.
8. Abolishing the electoral college is a terrible idea. The states decide the president, not the people. Kyle does not understand how and why our nation is developed the way it is.
That last point is a great example in why they don't like America. The far left continues to lose so they want to change the rules. That is against standards, against principles, and against the design of this nation that does make it strong. So yes, Justice Democrats do hate America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The only thing will be the potential end of the drama. My feeling is that if Biden wins it will be some people saying "fine, give the crying baby their damn rattle, now shut up and let us have our lives back", or simply the democrats beat people to submission. In the former case all the democrats and MSM did was cry and complain about Trump. They went as far as calling Kavanaugh a rapist. They called him and his supporters every name in the book. Trump countered with all the Tweets. If you look at the first debate with all the interrupting (which Biden started), that summed up the Trump's presidency in the eyes of many people, drama. Thus, give the democrats the white house, have them shut up and people will go back to drinking beer, fucking, going to sport games, etc.
On the latter part this year the democrats did the strict lock downs making people's lives miserable to where they gave in to democrats and Biden.
So in the big picture, it will be like the Obama years under Biden. Little to no drama, especially from the media, most people will be fine overall, even though they can be better, and poor neighborhoods will suffer. Business as usual prior to Trump. And for some that is OK. I considered voting for Biden because I know under Biden the coronavirus will magically go away and I can attend concerts, do sporting events, actually go to class, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"By the way I am an economist and have analysed the data."
Doubt it, if you did then you would not say this
"His tax plan alone will cost the middle class 4.5 trillion dollars "
So getting a tax cut is costing them money?
"If today, the United States suddenly adopted Norway or Denmark’s method
of tax collection, public policy, economic policy, social, education,
and health policies, etc. it would probably be the wealthiest country
the world has ever seen with the happiest and most educated people."
The US is the wealthiest country. That aside, you can't just adopt their system. We are a nation of 320+ million people with a GDP over $16 trillion. Adopting their program is very extreme and will be a shock to the system causing a major recession. The change in taxation, spending, etc. will lead to a financial meltdown as people will literally stop spending until the market stabilizes. This is why our politicians argued over Obamacare and could not agree on one healthcare bill and why the Republicans argued over taxes. They both had goals. Democrats wanted more healthcare to all, but they can't just create a nationalized system as it will mean much higher taxes and destroying the private sector leading to job loss and a radical change in our financial system. Republicans wanted a simplified tax code to where many wanted it to be a flat tax, basically one page long in code. But you can't go from 70,000 pages to 1. That is too extreme. I support a federal flat tax, but I will not support going from 70,000 pages to 1 in one clean sweep, we have to gradually go there.
Even at that, I noticed you ignored other things those countries do such as Norway actually drilling for their own oil and Denmark having mandatory military. Do you support mandatory military and drilling for our oil? Or more fracking to expand our oil supply?
And "happiness" is 100% subjective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"in a competitive market in which there is demand for the products."
If people lack money than a business will have to drop prices in order to get customers. They will also find a way to increase productivity in order to create more which drives down prices. However, with you increasing demand by giving people money that does not mean there will be an increase in production. To give an example, the college loan program increase demand as college students were given money. But we lack professors, dorms, TAs, tutors, classrooms, etc. Thus colleges raised prices.
" businesses invest if they think there is demand for more products. "
They invest to beat competition. Why does Apple continue to release new iPhones? Because they know people want the next best phone. Many people cannot afford it, but they still create it. I also makes older models cheaper for others. And eventually that new iPhone will become cheaper.
" And if prices fall, demand does not go up."
That is not true.
" Increasing demand is not buying a greater volume. it is buying a greater amount in dollars even without a change in price."
You only do that with greater productivity. If people had more money but productivity does not increase than prices go up, period. We need to produce.
1
-
"That is not true. You're wrong. I tried to explain it before. Get an
economics textbook. The first chapters will cover what is money, then
go onto demand and supply curves."
There are a lot of economic textbooks, which one?
" Let us say. At a price of $10, you may get sales of 100 items for a
normal product. !t $15 you get sales of 80 items, at $20 only 60 items.
You then plot the graph with two axes: price and volume sales. But
what you plot is a demand curve. "
I agree, you raise the price you lower demand. From a company's perspective that is all they can control, the price. They can't control what the people actually demand. If consumers demand go up but not supply than prices will go up.
" However, if you start getting 120 items sold at $10, and 100 items
sold at $15, and 80 items sold at $20 - THAT is an increase in demand.
This is early classes of economics."
But if you can only produce 100 items, you will not sell 120 items, ever, until you find a way to produce 120 items. If you do not have the workers to do it than you won't be able to produce. Now you may say "hire more workers". But if there is simply not enough people willing to or able to work, than it won't get done.
This is also taught in economics.
1
-
"You are confusing supply side and demand side economics. I refer to
demand side, you to supply side. They are different things. "
I know.
" If people have more money, there will likely be an increase n demand.
they have more money, so they have the opportunity to spend more, and
probably will - at least to a degree = increased demand. "
I agree.
"If there are more customers with more money to spend, suppliers will want a piece of the action. Don;t confuse things. this is simple stuff."
Well, it isn't that simple as you are confused. Yes, suppliers want a piece of the action. But again, if there isn't anyone to work or able to work to produce, than you won't get more supplies, thus prices go up. You have not accomplished anything. A reason why you will lack workers is that the normal consumer has more money, so why would they want to work more?
I go back to the college tuition. We lack professors, TAs and tutors as we lack skilled workers to actually do those jobs. We lack dorms and classrooms as we simply can't build fast enough. The college loan program gave students money to spend on a college education but did not increase the supply of those goods and services I listed. Thus colleges raised tuition.
Let us go with a simple model. Say you have a community of 10,000 people who work various jobs. One company sells widgets at 100 a day. Now you give a tax break to the middle class and raise taxes on that business owner. Now more people want widgets. But he only produces 100 a day. He can't sell more. So you say "hire more people". But why would anyone want to work another job? They have more money because of a tax break. And go to the extreme route of all 10,000 people have a job (excluding any children), there is no one left to hire. Thus he will raise prices.
Now say instead you had a tax cut on the rich, or simply you don't raise their taxes at all. A rival company may see an opportunity to build a company there that produces a better widget, a widget 2. People will buy that instead so the other company has to lower their price so that people who could not afford the widget can, and that same company may have to push for an even better widget. And so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GreenIdLady 1 , not true as it was raised in 2007 and a recession took place. Not to say they are related, but to say every time it was raised we saw economic growth is simply false. Also, there is much more to the economy than the min. wage.
"People who have more money buy more goods and services. "
Isn't that easy because is those goods and services don't exist you can't buy them. You can't consume what you don't produce. Also, many European nations don't have a min. wage. But you taking a complex economy and reduce it down to the min. wage and the price of the Whopper is very foolish.
Looking at Seattle and NYC is foolish as well as, again, there are many factors involved. To start, NY and WA have higher teenage unemployment. Also, looknig at Seattle, they have lower taxes and is home to major HQ of Amazon and Starbucks. Thus, their economy set higher wages all around. This is no different than in Emeryville, CA who has had a high min. wage for years. Three of their top employers are Pixar and two pharmaceutical companies.
You see, all of that is no different than in the 90s when the min. wage was increased under Clinton. While unemployment did drop prior to the min. wage increase unemployment was already dropping along with the percent of those earning at, or below the min. wage was dropping. That means that people were being hired above the min. wage.
So yes, I do look at history. I recommend you do as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EE-gv9wt , on pollution, locally, you can install local laws or have it so people refuse to go there. As for workplace hazards, people won't work there unless they are paid well. My dad works in a dangerous factory where they have a hard time getting workers. Thus they pay a lot. Do you think people are going to just work at a dangerous place? As for interest rates, I recommend you watch the Stephen Michael Davis video entitled
Kyle Kulinski Doesn't Get Interest Rates
On interest rates, again, people have higher rates because they are essentially higher risk. If you place a cap on interest rates you will get a situation where people cannot get credit cards.
As for eliminating the min, wage, many nations don't have a min. wage and do fine. For example, Denmark does not have one. Same with Norway. There are many nations with no min. wage. Singapore has one of the best economies in the world and no min. wage. But again, you are taking a very complex issue of the economy and reducing it down to the min. wage. Besides, you are ignoring my point in how, despite a min. wage, many businesses already pay much more. Why is that? Why isn't every business paying the min. wage?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EE-gv9wt you do have more control at the local level. The more local a government is the more you can see if it is actually working for you. Also, the more local a government is the easier it is for you to leave and remain a US citizen. So local governments want to create an environment where people stay.
Capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other system. You see that in developing nations. Problem is that many developing nations don't follow capitalism.
" Libertarianism always works in theory we know that already."
I am not a libertarian, but we have seen this in other cases where something was made illegal. Consider prohibition for example, or drugs. It occurred underground.
We actually increased the min. wage prior to the downfall. And again, there is way more to the economy than the min. wage.
"They pay more than minimum wage only because they have to, to keep talent around."
Why? No one is forcing them to according to you.
"Minimum wage jobs usually don't require so much talent and are easily replaceable, but someone still has to do those jobs and people who do them (imo) should not starve. "
Does someone have to do them? A job only exist if the market values it. If you raise the min. wage too high many jobs go away. We have seen this. For example, states with higher min. wage typically have higher teenage unemployment. A major flaw of the min. wage is that it dictates how much is paid per hour, not per week. Again, far leftists over simplify these complex issues and wonder why their ideas continue to fail.
As for them not starving, most min. wage workers don't even work full time. On reason why they are paid a lower wage is because they work less and have flexible schedule. It isn't just skills that dictate wages but also how many hours you are willing to work, if your schedule is flexible or not, and so on. But statistically speaking around 90% earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor, and the vast majority who work a min. wage job works part time.
You criticize me about theory when so much suggests that the min. wage is not necessary. You point to Australia where, again, there is way more to the economy than the min. wage. Remember the US raised their min. wage and the recession followed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aaron, you said this
"The ones Kyle keeps mentioning? Have you heard of the Tax Policy Center?"
So I assume you meant Kyle. Now did he say TPC? I cannot say for sure and Kyle just goes off on tangents. But I never heard him give any sources and you have given one.
"Your source shows that the analysis used while disagreeing on the amount
of growth all agree that the growth will not offset the cost "
It doesn't. It is an article, not an analysis. It brings up the point that growth can offset the cuts. Higher taxes does not always mean higher revenue. That is the whole point here. In order to really cut the deficit without harming society we need to create economic growth. Even if the deficit does grow to start with if the economy grows over time it will eventually cut into the deficit. Why? Because you are taking from a larger pie. What is larger? 10% of 1000 or 50% of 100? We have to get to that 1000 first. And at times you have to take steps back.
For example, you may go into debt while earning a degree. You are in the whole. You regressed. But after you get a degree you get a high paying job and pay that debt off and are now earning more.
"These projections consider a variety of possibilities and while varying a
lot and containing a lot of room for error do use a lot of good
methodology for giving us a better picture"
Explain to me that "methodology". I will admit that I have not read the TPC analysis as I do not have time. I am too busy with my projects at my job. That is why I approach this issue the way I am. That even if we do have a deficit if we have economic growth that is a success. Because under democrats, who are criticizing this bill, we have had large deficit with little economic growth.
"
When you say "Over time if we stick with it for years it will" why should I listen to you and not listen to these projections?"
Because I think you do not know what these projections even mean? Also, they are over 10 years. If after 10 years the economy has grown so big that we are now having a surplus? How would you feel? That is why I am saying "over time". If we take a few steps back in our federal debt but our economy booms I will consider that to be a success. There is more to the economy than just tax rates and national debt.
"Gasp are you refusing to consider other thoughts on the issue?"
I have considered other thoughts on the issue. I just disagree and/or looked at it deeper. To me the fact that the democrats and someone as radical and economically illiterate as Bernie Sanders keeps bringing this issue up means that it is a non-issue. Again, even if we have more debt over the next few years but the economy booms that is a success. Over time the economy will be large to where these tax rates will lead to the deficit going down.
As with the college debt analogy. You go to college, get in debt, get a high paying job and be able to buy a home, save up for retirement, and pay off your loan because you decided to regress a little bit. Or you do not go to college and work a low wage job the rest of your life.
You are focusing on one negative aspect of this bill and not considering other factors while doing it. .
1
-
". Are you trying to tell me that the growth from tax cut stimulus will
permanently and consistently increases the rate of increased growth?"
No. But right now we just had over the past 10 years less than 3% GDP growth per year. If this tax bill leads to a higher growth rate, as in around 5%, than we will have a bigger pot to tax from.
"I know what projection means. It doesn't invalidate their results. "
It makes them flawed though. Like predicting who will win the Superbowl in 2019. You can have some ideas, but you cannot do it accurately due to many variables that will happen.
" There is a lot of potential error but when you do a projection with the
intention of being accurate prediction you include every factor you
expect to change and you analyse data and trends to back that up."
Sure, but this is the biggest tax cut in decades. Also, there is more than taxes involved. There are regulations, federal spending, state taxes, private and personal investments, etc. These things are hard to predict. If the republicans win in 2018 and 2020 things could change drastically, same if the democrats took over in 2020. If that were to happen everything in this tax bill will be null as it will be changed.
"My challenge is specifically towards you saying that these tax cuts
ultimately will eventually remove the dept or deficit when I can't even
find a single analysis that says it will even make up for its own impact
on the deficit."
If you are talking about the debt completely I will say no as that will take decades. $20 trillion is larger than our overall GDP. So no, this will not eliminate the debt, at least not for decades. And that is only if we keep with this plan which we won't, democrats will take over and change the situation. As for the deficit, I feel it will but in a few years. We will continue to see a deficit but only for a few years. But some of that depends on which party wins in 2018 and 2020. Also, there are other factors as well. N. Korea starting a war can be one. And if they start one how will it be handled.
Again, it is all projection. This tax bill is really new and written in a few months. The TPC analysis is based on what has been release to the public and that has only been around a few weeks. There is too much to factor in here. To me, if most things go right this bill will reduce the deficit over time to where near the end of Trump's presidency in 2024 we will have a surplus.
"This is the definition of refusing to consider other thoughts on the issue and a classic ad hominem."
I consider their points, but right now the democratic party is extreme. I will post two videos showing why. I supported many democrats in the past but these days I feel they are extreme.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kyle9401 , if you allow individual donations you have to allow organizations as well. For example, I support gun rights. Say I would to buy a membership from the NRA and the NRA donates to a campaign of a person who is pro gun. I am, indirectly, donating to that campaign. I, myself, won't be able to donate much, but a collective group can. That is what makes those donation valuable.
Yes, quid pro quo may be involved, but you have to consider what was the chicken and what was the egg? Again, consider the NRA. They will donate to politicians who are pro gun. It isn't that they give them money and then the politicians became pro gun, they were pro gun to begin with. Same with other issues and donations.
And yes, money is speech. All 9 justice admitted that in the Citizens United ruling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FalconFlyer75 what makes you say that? The point of the lock downs were to keep hospitalizations and deaths low. We have accomplished that. Noticed how the narrative is not longer about deaths but cases? Because cases do not matter if deaths are low, which they are compared to months ago.
Government support would not have solved psychological damage. People became depressed and abused substances due to losing their job, their activities, the ability to socialize with others, etc. We are seeing it now in nursing homes where patients are saying they rather die from the virus than be alone. Just sending people a check is not a solution. Eventually people want to interac, which they are now. They do not care.
"and also the VAST majority of scientists support climate change "
All do. The questions with climate change are, one, is it even a threat, two, how much does man play a role, and three, if it is a threat, what do we do? That is not me saying it but scientists like Mike Hulme. I recommend you read his book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change"
Good book.
"the only people listening to bartenders are the ones to deny it"
So the people who listen to AOC?
1
-
1
-
@FalconFlyer75 Then what level of deaths is in control for you? You won't get zero until we get a vaccine, and even that is not guaranteed. We can't just stay locked down as people are now suffering because of it. In the CDC report entitled
"Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020"
They say
"Although more excess deaths have occurred among older age groups, relative to past years, adults aged 25–44 years have experienced the largest average percentage increase in the number of deaths from all causes from late January through October 3, 2020. The age distribution of COVID-19 deaths shifted toward younger age groups from May through August (9); however, these disproportionate increases might also be related to underlying trends in other causes of death."
Where that age group makes up only 3% of "covid deaths". So what are they dying from? Most likely from suicides, substance abuse, depression, stress, etc. And if you look at Figure 3, their excess death rate has been consistently around 40% for 6 months where others saw a spike and a decline. So the lock downs are, arguably, causing more problems. At some point we have to realize the lock downs are doing more economic, psychological and physical harm than the virus will ever come close to.
1. Why where a mask when there are no gatherings? Being asked to wear a mask when no one is around is pointless. Plus, you can't just create laws, it takes congress to do that. Why do you want to give governors that much unchecked powers?
2. How is doing that?
3. Most who are sick do not even know
4. This virus is not that deadly. No deadlier than the severe flu which happens a lot.
Saying it is "common sense" is not an argument because there are valid points on both sides.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AltoSnow 1. Scandinavian nations have more of a flat tax compared to the US. For example, Denmark's highest tax rate covers those who earn $55,000 a year or more. The US highest tax rate is for those making $400,000 a year or more. Bernie and AOC preaches about taxing the rich more, not increasing all taxes. So no, they don't want a Scandinavian system, they want a Venezuela system. Venezuela based their economy on one source, oil. And when that failed the economy failed. AOC and Bernie want to fund their economy on one source, the rich. So what if they move?
Nordic nations are much smaller and their culture is vastly different. They are willing to pay higher taxes, US citizens don't. So tell me, how do they want to copy the Scandinavian model when they only want to tax the rich?
2. Then why did her website talk about people getting money even if they are unwilling to work?
Also, where is the incentive to work when Bernie promises you, no matter what job you have a "living wage", healthcare, no loans, vacation and maternity leave, etc.? Tell me, why should I work harder when I can just expect all of these things from the government?
3. If it was a draft, then where is the final work? She may have retracted it but the GND is her baby. I don't expect her to let something like that leak so easily. If so then I don't trust her at all on anything. But again, where is the final draft?
4. You source even said that most of the Tea Party are sincere where as AOC is saying they are all white supremacists. This is a problem with the far left. They cry racism on everything without any evidence. Are there white supremacists in the tea party? Maybe, I am willing to accept that. But when you evidence is that they are supposedly meeting up with them then I can't really buy into it.
5. FDR turned a recession into a depression. And no, as mentioned above, their ideas are not aligned with the rest of the Western world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AltoSnow
1. They want to base their economy on taxing the rich only whether it be corporations or "millionaires and billionaires". Nordic nations that you pointed to and people like AOC and Bernie pointed to have more of a flat tax and tax far more people at a higher rate. They are not placing all their eggs in one basket like Venezuela. So yes, they do want to copy Venezuela in funding their large welfare programs from one source.
" Sander's proposed tax plan leaves brackets of people earning under $250,000 per year completely unaltered, for example"
Which is my point. Nordic nations tax everyone more, not just the rich.
"You said it yourself, Scandinavian economies are much smaller. Hence why, when we adapt their system, we would obviously have to make some necessary tweaks, such as increasing the number of tax brackets."
Smaller means you can micromanage because you are dealing with a less diverse crowd. Take education for example in the US. A state like NV is constantly ranked low in K-12 education because they don't value education as high. Why? Because you can live find without a strong education. You can work in the mines or make $80,000 a year serving drinks or parking cars. Now a state like MA values education high. It is also home to Boston College, Harvard, MIT, etc. They have more 4 year college per capita compared to NV. So why should the people of NV agree to pay more in taxes when they don't value what it is being spent on?
2. Ok, so where is the final copy?
"People still need to put food on the table, and take care of their kids (even if they don't need to spend their entire lives saving to put them through college anymore) but instead of working out of desperation, they work to raise their standard of living.
"
Why? Ask Bernie for a handout. Isn't he pushing for universal childcare and pre-k?
Also, if people want to raise their standard of living why aren't more people pushing to become engineers or doctors?
I know about Malta. It is heavily based on tourism, people with money. So of course they have a lot of funds. Also, with such a small population it is easy to micromanage programs like that. The city urban area I live in has more people than Malta. So Malta is a poor comparison. They have far less diversity, a completely different culture, and a good portion of their economy is based on tourism which is a lot of money. Besides, Malta's highest tax bracket is around $67,000 a year or more.
3. Ok, where it is on her website?
4. So you are not willing to admit AOC plays identity politics and is a hypocrite when she does it?
5. Again, no. Their tax brackets cover way more people which you are ignoring. Again with Malta, their highest tax bracket covers people earning around $67,000 a year or more. You even admitted that anyone earning less than $250,000 a year or less in the US won't see an increase in taxes. So Bernie and AOC want to spend like those other nations but not tax like them. So no, they don't want to copy those nations which is my point.
"America is the only developed western country that doesn't have some form of single payer. "
Not really an argument. We do many things well in healthcare.
FDR turned a recession into a depression. When was the last time it took nearly a decade to recover from a recession? Also, the war got us out. The New Deal caused many problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AltoSnow , how many of those living paycheck to paycheck do so because of poor money management? For example, around 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt. You can't just throw a number out there without context. l
Wages are going up.
So I am expected to believe a random Reddit post? Also, that is one person. Stats show otherwise. According to BLS unemployment rate for engineers is around 2%, below the national average.
As for the minimum wage workers, what are their degrees in? You have to factor that in. If you earn a degree in liberal arts or humanities, unemployment is high there. Around 6% according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. Guess what, it is also one of the lowest earning fields. So again, context. You can't just throw numbers out there and expect them to mean anything.
Bezos just can't sell a fair portion of his stock. Again, that will send out red flags to investors as they will feel something is happening to the company and Bezos is bailing, thus they will too lowering the price of the stocks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stratecaster547 , but no 100 million.
What I am saying is that smaller nations have less diversity and different cultures to where their systems work. But just because it "works" there does not mean it will work elsewhere. Germany also has a culture of less freedom. Look at their education system, for example, in how they track their students.
Again, your anti-progressive question does not work here. We have seen the free market excel in every part of our society. Look at LASIK for example, over time it has become cheaper and better. Now look at mental health. When the federal government took over mental health with the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 it led to less mental health facilities and our mental health patients being released without proper treatment.
Also, again with the free market, our healthcare in the US was very strong before government takeover of it. In the 40s and 50s guess what we didn't have? Medicare and Medicaid but yet our healthcare at the time was strong. Now there were other reasons for it as well, but there is a free market example.
But again, with your mindset of "it doesn't exist therefore it will never exist" is anti-progress. You are the type of person that would has said in the 60s that putting a man on the moon is impossible because it has never been done.
Again, come up with better arguments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stratecaster547 , but it didn't happen yet, so your mindset would have been "can't be done:". There is a ton of evidence of the free market excelling over government programs. We have a ton of evidence of federal government programs failing, like I did with mental health in the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. There is a lot of evidence of single payer not doing well.
You point to a healthcare ranking, do you even know how that ranking was developed? I doubt it. The reality is that healthcare rankings are arbitrary as anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and create any ranking they want. That is why no academic source develops these rankings but instead special interest groups with a motive do. Also, some of those nations ranked higher than the US are Malta and San Marino, is it fair to compare us to them? At this point it is clear you are just blindly following something without question. Why do you do that?
There is no market motive to put a man on the moon where the motive was more international relations as we were competing with the Russians. That is the role of the federal government. Noticed how we have not done it lately? Because there is no value there. But the government did create the internet where the free market create Google, Amazon, Youtube, etc. Noticed how much better the free market made the internet? Another example of the free market excelling. If there was a financial advantage in going to the moon constantly the free market will find a better way to do it than the government would where astronauts died in Apollo 1 and some other almost died in Apollo 13.
So far, though, you have not shown strong evidence that single payer is inferior. Tell me, why do you blindly follow an arbitrary ranking? Do you even know how that ranking is developed?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
swiftset, K-12 education is not a right. Also, the federal government only funds 8% of K-12 education. 84% of it is state and local (the rest is private). So to make an argument for "basic healthcare" by pointing to K-12 education is very flawed. A solid argument against education is that it can be a form of indoctrination. One reason why it is localized is so that can be avoided. If one state wants to push for that people can move to a state that actually educates the kids.
You also say "basic healthcare". In comparison to education there are many districts that do not offer AP and honor courses. Students are not offered advanced courses like physics. They, arguably, receive "basic education" in basic algebra, writing, etc. So with healthcare "basic healthcare" could be like the DMV. Going to a health clinic office, waiting for a long time for a twisted ankle, a major ongoing headache, or whatever you have. After that you see an overworked physician who does not care much about you, especially personally, and they give you some basic medication that might work. Is that really the quality you want? I guess it beats nothing. Problem is that many here want universal healthcare to pay for major heart surgery and other advanced care. That is not "basic".
Finally, like education healthcare is very dependent on you. One major issue we have in this nation is the fact that people eat shit, as Bill Maher said to Michael Moore. People need to take care of themselves. As with education, people need to try to educate themselves. You can give the kid homework. If they don't do it what is the point? With healthcare, if people refuse to do their part to remain healthy what is the point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
David Davies, there is no "right" to an education. Legally states do not have to provide it. If you look at what rights are in this nation they are things the government cannot take away without due process. Also, a lot of them are used to revolt against the government in some way, or be protected against the government. With education that can be used to indoctrinate individuals. This is not to argue against education but to give you what it really is and some issues that can arise.
Also, as a counter point, if no one wants to teach how do you provide education? And define "basic"? Many districts do not offer AP courses. One school in my district is so isolated they have two teachers in the entire school. Those teachers teach around 20 students ranging from K-12. Do those 20 students receive a "basic" education?
"Further, you have it wrong the argument for localised education. THAT is
where indoctrination comes in. If you have a national curriculum set at
the federal level, you're LESS likely to receive indoctrination because
it has to be a one-size-fits-all approach. "
Not correct. With one standard there is nothing to counter it. With every state setting a curriculum that creates a situation were people can see what works better. If one state, say CA, does indoctrination but another state, say FL, doesn't, people can see that the people of FL are intelligent and the people of CA aren't. People can move. But at the federal level they can set one standard with nothing to contradict or test it against.
" A prime example of that is the fact that a surprisingly large number of
people within the US bible belt still believe that the Earth is just a
few thousand years old, "
A lot of people believe a lot of things that are ignorant, like you who have no ideas what rights are in this country, or their purpose.
"My daughters, for a time, went to a church school. Not because we're
religious in any way, but because it was a good school. On one occasion
her class was given a project, with a prize given for the best one. My
daughter decided to do a project on primates. The last page was about
humans. So she was effectively bringing up the topic of evolution in a
church school....."
First, what is a "church school"? If you mean private catholic schools they all teach evolution. In fact, the debate of teaching intelligent design in science classroom does not exist in those private catholic schools. It only exist in public schools. In those private catholic schools they understand intelligent design is not science, so they do not teach it in a science classroom.
I feel you story is made up. Also, look up Dover v Penn.
"The problem these days with people educating themselves is that they
often start with a particular world view, which then means that they are
likely to pick up misinformation and treat it as fact."
I agree that is a problem. But I feel it is worse to have government dictate what we learn. Using your story say government officials were to get into power and strip away evolution from the classroom and teach intelligent design instead as fact? Would you support that? I doubt it. But you created the system where the federal government has that power and nothing to counter it. You created a system where the federal government reigns down and forces their will on the people. I bet you would be fine if you had your people in office creating the curriculum, but would complain when people you disagree with are not. I complain about the government having that power. Now you may say "vote them out", but if the government keeps people dumb, how do you?
"You could be the fittest person on the planet but still suffer a heart attack."
That is why you buy insurance.
" So, sorry to say this but your argument on healthcare is not only ignorant but arrogant."
Not true. My argument is legit and made by professionals and experts. Same with universal healthcare. You are dismissing my argument like that as you have no argument. I never dismissed the argument for universal healthcare, I as showing the flaws in it and how you cannot compare it to education.
1
-
David Davies, as for your healthcare cost analysis, it isn't that simple. To start, universal healthcare would raise prices due to increase demand. Next, medicare and medicaid cost more per customer. At times it seems to cost less but that is due to government agencies sharing the cost. For example, insurance companies work in disease awareness, the government has the CDC for that. Or in fraud prevention, the government has the IRS for that.
Next, yes the US healthcare system is expensive. But we have the highest quality and best R&D in the world. Also, the expensive cost comes from government involvement. Adding more government and creating a monopoly in universal healthcare does not appear to be the solution. Arguably it can be on the idea of "well we have some government, we have to go all the way at this point and remove the government/private sector combination". But there are many barriers in that.
In short, the US system is expensive due to the lack of a free market.
"Don't you wish healthcare was a right, huh?"
No.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cee Wil and that is where you are wrong. If you watch the whole speech he condemned white supremacy. He said this
"As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.
And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."
In August 14. On August 15 he said
"Well, I do think there’s blame – yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say."
and
"Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo — and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. …
It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too."
He condemned white supremacy. His said there were fine people on both sides as there were people there who wanted to take down the statues that were good people who did not want to commit violence, and there were people who were there that wanted to keep the statues up that did not want to commit violence.
The ironic thing is that him saying that is a unifying statement. He is saying that a difference of opinion does not mean someone is bad. Meanwhile, you have Biden claiming that if BLM were to storm Capitol Hill they would have been treated worse which is a divisive statement in itself.
The Pentagon cannot remove the statues as it is a state issue.
You need to accept reality.
1
-
@nonenone6704 " The establishment, socially left but economically libertarian Democrats are buddy buddy with the tech companies, the banks, the media, and the government bureaucracies. They want to make as much profit and rob the America people as much as possible. Even if they are willing to ignore BLM riots, wave rainbow flags, and call for more diversity... as long as it does not threaten corporate power. While Bernie Sanders and the Juctice Democrats, right or wrong, keep pushing for leftwing economic polices, but keep getting shut down."
You are proving my point. You listed institutions controlled by the left. And you bring up Bernie and JD, they bent the knee to the establishments. So how are they any better?
I agree the republican party is not all great which is why Trump gained a following. The republican party was the party of Romney, Mr. Polite Guy that let people walk all over him. Trump came in with spine. He started by attacking republicans in the primaries, and then the whole system.
If there is another civil war I feel Trump supporters will win. They have more will power and others see them as a joke. .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I know for a fact that's a lie. It's certainly not Kyle or Bernie's
fault you're an ideologically blinded dumbass whose relentless, wilful
ignorance preempts you from understanding simple concepts like "taxpayer
funded", "non-profit health insurance", or "for all". "
Those are talking points. I will agree that "non-profit" is clear, but define "for all"? What standard? Is getting a bottle of Advil for a tumor being classified as covered? I can easily lower the standard of "access" to that and have healthcare "for all". With "tax payer funded" what will be the quality? What will be the tax rate? How will it influence the economy? How do other countries do it? You need details.
" To say nothing of marginally more advanced concepts like "spend half as
much on healthcare per capita" or "have better health outcomes in
almost every measurable category". "
It very much is because you are ignoring several factors. From this paper alone
“Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States,
Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed
"Part of the gap between US and Canadian health care costs may be
explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital’ capital costs,
larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of
spending on research and development in the US."
And that is from just one source. There are easily many others that give several variables leading to differences in cost. Also, in terms of outcomes, they do not produce better outcomes.
"One certainly cannot find horror stories like this in any industrialized nation but the US"
Oh, that is not true, read these papers of people dying on waiting lists
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic
stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
"Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among
29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
Or read the story entitled "Natasha, 16, complained of headaches. She died after 13 doctors failed to diagnose a brain tumour"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh, that 45,000 deaths number. Here is the issue with that number. First from a Harvard professor
"
Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor,
echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between
lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than
those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse
health.
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't
know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower
income," Baicker said."
What does that mean? Well, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. So did they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with?
Also, 45,000 is a small number. 0.01% of the population. 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents, do we ban driving? No nation has that number at zero. People die in other nations due to lack of access to healthcare.
You have to try much harder than that. It seems like you lack understanding in how complex healthcare really is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kevin Ellington, government exists for numerous reasons. There is value in having government. Some reasons are for control, structure, protection, or even providing certain programs. However, government is still ran by people who can be corrupt and oppressive. So there is always a desire to control government so it remains the servants and not the masters.
So when you ask "why do governments exist", that is a very vague question. They exist for many reasons, and those reasons differ depending on the economy, culture, history and so on of that area. So there is no one answer to that question.
I support government, but we need to be able to control it. That is why it should remain as local as possible so people can control it and also establish the government that fits their needs and wants.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lisacanterbury6248 , yep, he was an independent until he decided to run for president. Seems like a hack to me.
The middle class is growing. You can't just look at wealth as wealth is measured in many ways. A lot of time wealth can drop for the middle class and it is because they are actually doing better. For example, a loan leads to negative wealth. But if banks are willing to loan more money to people to buy homes that is a good thing. My wealth dropped recently because I pulled out a loan to buy a car. So you can't just look at wealth growth. Home ownership is going up now where prior to Trump it was dropping.
Medicare for all does not have a 70% approval rating. Polls are unreliable as they are vague questions, on complex issues being asked to non experts. If you tell those same people that M4A will ban private insurance, limit access to care, and raise taxes they will not approve. As for defense spending, it has been dropping for decades. How far do you want to drop it?
"Bernie is easily the most likely candidate to unite the Dem party"
He isn't. He has a lot of dirt in his past, he pushes for radical ideas and refuses to listen to opposing viewpoints. Look at how he just dismissed Hickenlooper in the debates when he expressed concerns about Bernie's policies? Look at how he dismissed the hair salon owner during the debate against Cruz. I give credit where credit is due, he energizes his base and got them out to vote. But saying he won states is deceptive considering the number of candidates out there splitting the votes. As this point you have
Mayor Cheat
Pocohontas
Senile Biden
Amy
Bernie
Amy is really the only safe one there, but her low energy is not inspiring anyone. He is in a weak field right now.
1
-
1
-
@Crimsonfangg , many say he wants to copy the Nordic nations. Issue is he doesn't. Bernie just wants to tax the rich as in corporations, Wall Street and "billionaires" (he used to say "millionaires and billionaires" until he became a millionaire himself). He also wants a wealth tax. Nordic nations scrapped the wealth tax as it did not work. They have a lower corporate tax rate. They have more of a flat tax compared to the US. For example, the top tax bracket in the US is around $400,000, around 13 times higher than the median income. The top tax rate in Denmark is around $55,000, around 1.5 times higher than the median income. The same trend holds true for other Nordic nations. So yes, their top tax bracket percent is higher than ours, but they also cover way more people including the middle class.
What Bernie wants is essentially what Venezuela is doing. Venezuela put all their eggs in one basket, oil. They created a command economy because of that. Nordic nations tax their citizens more. That is far more stable. When oil dropped Venezuela suffered. With Bernie's case when the rich leave now what? There goes our source of revenue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jemollk, read my comment to Jeremy Chase. If people are persuaded that easily to where support will swing from around 60% saying yes to 80% saying no, then people do not want it.
"Finally, this is not 80% (or, more accurately, 78%) of Coloradans, but rather, 80% of people who voted in Colorado in 2016."
Fair enough. But you have to hold the same standards with those polls. They are polls that sample around 1000 people. So you cannot say those polls indicate that the nation wants single payer healthcare.
" I'm not sure if you're actually aware of this, but voter turnout was
absurdly low that year. ~40% nationally IIRC, which is unprecedentedly
low for a presidential election. "
That is not true.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-voter-turnout-records-history-obama-clinton-2016-11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
Voter turnout has been pretty much the same since the 1970s and was around 50% last time, not 40%.
1
-
" Again, they said no to this bill, not to single-payer as a whole"
It was a bill to provide universal healthcare in the state, similar to single payer. They said no to it. You are moving the goal posts.
"Also, random sample polls are actually remarkably reliable."
Actually they aren't, especially phone polls ever since the onset of caller ID. Another example is how polls showed that over 80% support expanded background checks on guns but that law failed in Maine and passed in NV by only 0.45%.
" They survey a representative random sample of the population and get an approximation of the country's position."
In a country of 320+ million that is impossible to do with only 1000 being polled. If you were to poll 1000 people in a state or region of the country it can be accurate, but nation wide that is difficult. That is why you saw the disparity with gun laws and universal healthcare when you compared the polls to actual voting.
If you poll 1000 people and 80% of them come from the city, that will make the polls lean left immediately. 80% is 800 people. Considering how 80% live in urban areas that idea is not far fetch. Now you may say that would be a correct analysis of the nation, but consider that in some cases voter turnout is lower in urban areas than in rural, that ends up skewing the results.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/309190-cities-lead-the-nation-in-many-ways-but-not-in-voter-turnout
When you poll areas that have people that are less likely to vote, is support really strong?
This is not to say that polls are unreliable, they can provide important information. But to make blanket statements such as "Americans support single payer healthcare" and base it on a vague poll of only 1000 people while ignoring many other factors as well, is not a wise thing to do.
1
-
"Colorado is to small, 5 million insurers is not a base large enough to spread the risk and finance it by making savings."
Being small means you can micromanage the program. A lot of programs are funded and ran locally, like our K-12 education system.
"So the proposal was a 10% increase in payroll tax to finance it, that was the reason for the NO vote"
Which is the US culture and this issue has been brought up by many economists. Us in the US want all of these things but we do not want to pay for it. For years government spending has gone up but taxes have not in comparison. To pay for these major programs like healthcare we need a tax increase which our society will not approve of. This was brought up in the Cruz vs Sanders debate.
"The California AND the Sanders proposals are quite different since they
are greatly financed by efficiency savings and price control via
purchasing power."
You can't price control this issue as price setting means lower quality. Nothing is free, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you control prices quality will go down like we saw in rent control.
"It would also have savings in the form of that the incentive would be to keep people healthy."
Most of our health problems are self inflicted like our high obesity rates.
"In the current system the incentive is to keep people sick, nobody earns money on curing people."
I agree to a point, but that to me is a problem of lack of a free market. I do agree insurance companies have too much power, but we also do not have a free market system. Consider this
1. Why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage?
2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
To extend on price control, what will prevent healthcare provider from just killing you off? They will still get money.
"No incentive to provide preventive care, "
With single payer there is no reason to cure people at all. Let them die as those individuals are not paying, the government is. As long as there is a government they get their check.
1
-
1
-
Fleming, you are looking at polls. i am looking at actual voting results. The problem with polls is that they are phone polls so you really do not know the person they are polling. Next, the questions are vague. For example.
"Do you think that removing the current health care system and replacing it with a single payer system, in which the federal government would expand Medicare to cover the medical expenses of every American citizen, is a good idea or a bad idea? "
They say nothing about taxes, or how much it will cost, or how it will function. It is similar to free speech
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/august_2017/73_say_freedom_of_speech_worth_dying_for
https://today.yougov.com/news/2017/08/24/americans-wary-extending-free-speech-extremists/
While different set of polls you have one poll showing that free speech is important with over 80% agreeing. But the other poll gets more specific and people want to restrict freedom of speech to people of ISIS and the KKK with around 50% wanting to restrict that.
This was brought up in a conversation one time where someone asked if we support freedom of speech. Everyone said yes. He then asked do you support the KKK holding a rally in a park? Some people said no. He later said that is where people do not support free speech even though they claim they do. If the KKK has a permit and is peaceful they have that right to free speech.
That is the problem with these polls. They are vague questions. What happened in Colorado is that they became more informed and realized that universal healthcare will cost a lot of money and mean higher taxes, so they said no. When more information is given results change.
This is why you can't cite polls. You citing polls is you living in a fantasy land. People said no in Colorado. Politicians said no in NV, VT, and CA and no one rallied to remove them. People said no to Obamacare by electing republicans who ran on moving away from universal healthcare. People do not want it. You can keep citing polls, it is never going to happen. Why? Because the people do not want it.
Here is a decent article describing the limitations of these polls
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2017/09/28/free-speech-and-good-vs-bad-polls/?utm_term=.ed8643c6f058
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great, one doctor. What's your point? There are many doctors that work in Canada's system. Why not get all of their opinions? Read this paper
“International comparisons of waiting times in health care –
Limitations and prospects” Health Policy
Wait times are terrible in the Canada system.
As for that doctor, she does not cite any sources that shows Canada's system is better. Her saying they have better results is not an argument. You need to cite a source to give the viewers a chance to see how those numbers come about.
She could not give an accurate number of people dying a year on waiting list meaning she does not care to look into the issue. However, she stated that 45,000 a year who die in the US. That number is very deceptive. To start, that is 0.01% of the overall population, a very minute number overall where again, every system has shortcomings. 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. Next, those individuals are poor and bad health, such as higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes, and smoking, all self inflicted, is associated with those in poverty. So the question becomes are they dying due to lack of access or because they are in bad health to begin with? This very point was brought up by Harvard professor Katherine Baicker.
Later, Bernie asked asinine questions. Bernie asked if that PM of Canada is socialist. She said that the PM is conservative while giving zero examples. She said that no one wants to move to the American system. But in the US people do not want single payer as evidence by republicans winning on the idea of repealing Obamacare and 80% saying no in Colorado.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Crowder has said many things about climate change, including that it's not happening, and/or that it's not man made."
When? I would like to see that video.
" His last claim was that it's happening, but that we don't really know
how much it is man made, and that it is impossible to predict the
outcome. "
Which is true.
" Which is verifiably wrong."
No its not. Scientists don't know now much man is playing a role and if it is even bad. To me people that make claims that man is playing a dominant role and it is bad are either
1. Young earth theorist as they feel the climate only changes because of man but has never changed for over 4 billion years long before man was on earth
2. Deny evolution as they feel the ecosystem can't evolve during climate change when it has all throughout history
"If he was certain and nuanced, he would debate someone like potholer54. "
potholer54 is not a scientists, he is a journalist. He has no formal study on the issue of climate change. What he does is finds an easy target, such as a 14 year old girl (there is a video of him doing that) and googling counter points. Anyone can do that. potholer54 is pulling wool over people's eyes as he has a very limited understanding on the issue.
"Instead he's only been inviting Patrick Moore several times to his show,
labeling the video "true sciensts:...", while Patrick Moore is not a scientist at all,"
Patrick Moore has a PhD in ecology and forest biology and has several peer reviewed papers. potholer54 has zero peer reviewed papers. Why do you leftists give pothler54 so much credibility?
"after claiming that just because scientists say something, it's not true, because of an argument by authority."
Both sides use argument by authority. But again, why do you give potholer54 so much credibility over Patrick Moore?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franklance9167
1. He shows a source saying that undocumented immigrants pay $12 billion a year but does not provide any numbers related to how much they take. Some sources say they take around $50 billion a year.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216
There is also the cost of added work and less jobs for people. For example, in K-12 education that is more work for teachers who arguably have too large of classrooms. Or with jobs as Ann Coulter put it undocumented immigrants hindered people from getting jobs. Even with Kyle saying they do not benefit in some way, he made it sound like they pay more than they take which is arguably not true.
2. Around 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt, there is a correlation. People do live beyond their means. It is natural in many ways. Now does that mean all 70% are bad with their money? No. But you can't deny the fact that many are. The fact that you fall right in line with Kyle in feeling that is a sign of times being bad shows a double standard on your part. You have to be honest that a lot are in that situation because of poor money management.
3. Most infrastructure spending is state and local. Here is a small example
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54539
It is no different than education where most funding for education, as in around 82% of it, is state and local. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government authority to invest in infrastructure beyond roads for post offices, commerce between states, and defense.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52463
So while the federal government does invest in some of it, it is small compared to state and local. Kyle is showing his lack of understanding of government and economics on this one.
4. He said it at the 5:20 mark. He is being deceptive here. There are several factors. One, benefits, how much do they earn after benefits? Two, cost of living. What is their cost of living? Three, household income? What is their household income? I earn $23,000 a year, I am fine. I also have no kids, live in an affordable apartment, get my healthcare insurance paid for, is able to walk to work and I have limited problems. Kyle has a bad history of just throwing numbers out there with zero context.
5. I never said a natural born citizen=immigrant. Point to me where I said that? Also, my point is this
1. You can't lump legal immigrants with illegal immigrants and say they are the same thing. It is a trick the left does on issues to inflate stats. Just like how they say there are a lot of school shootings but lumps someone committing suicide at at school after hours with a crazed gun man. You can't say the two cases are the same. Just like you can't say illegal immigrants are the same a legal. Legal immigrants went through a process and we are allowing them in here. A part of that is knowing their criminal record. So chances are they will not commit a crime where a natural born citizen is here regardless. Next, an illegal immigrant is not allowed in here. We did not allow them in here, they are essentially trespassing. Even if they commit a crime or not is not the point, they are not allow in here.
As for my home, I allow people in my home. I never suggested closing borders. I am saying there is a method in allowing people in our nation just like we do with our home. We don't just allow anyone in our home just like we shouldn't just allow people in our country.
With your hotel analogy you have limited rooms, and if you want a high class hotel you want certain people there that can actually produce and pay as opposed to take. If people broke into your hotel and just started squatting there, will you allow that? That can lead to less customers. So your analogy is weak.
I have proven he is a hack. Giving numbers out of context. Being selective in what laws to support. Being selective in standards in how policies are passed, he is a hack. Watch that video. Compare Kyle's standards to the wars and then to the bump stock ban.
The Constitution is very clear. Another example where Kyle is a hack is that he may say take it to court. But in the case of Citizen's United, he claims the courts and government is corrupt (despite the legit arguments for it being Constitutional via the 1st amendment). But in other cases he praises the courts as being just. To him when something does not go his way he cries corruption despite the strong arguments.
Kyle is a hack. He has no principles and continues to present data in a very deceptive way. The fact he has a following is disturbing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 , well your boy Carroll admitted that Medicare is bad.
The WHO is a special interest group. Their ranking uses vague stats like life expectancy. The CWF is a private special interest group. Their ranking uses amenable mortality even though I gave you one study and one review explaining how using that as a metric is flawed. In their report, at one point, they gave an acronym but did not say what it met. That is very careless. The Kaiser Peterson organization is a private, special interest group. You claim that you won't accept data from a libertarian group by gladly accept it from these private special interest groups? It is not to say that their data does not hold value, it does. But they are leaving a lot of things out. As I mentioned with the CWF, they ignore arguments against amenable mortality. And they admit that the US is number 1 in cancer survival rates, but leave it out of their rankings, why? Also, I don't see anything that suggest the KFF says private insurance system is a failure.
And again, how am I a libertarian? You keep claiming I am, so how am I? You are so far left that anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a libertarian to you. And yes, you lied about the numbers. You said over 9 years, but did not even provide the source. Notice how I am providing sources? On my point I said "up to". So you are lying about what I said. I know reading must be difficult for you as when I posted the Oregon Study arguing in favor of universal healthcare you even dismissed that, but when I said "up to" that means no more than 7000. It can be less and I am willing to admit that.
But again, your boy Carroll formed an argument against Medicare. And you seem to be against universal healthcare as well based on your arguments. You keep pointing to private organizations while I look at independent experts.
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 , who said anything about lobbying? They are special interest groups as they are not scrutinized by anyone before they release data. They present data in a very misleading way and people take what they say as full truth. The WHO is connected with the UN, the same UN who proposed NATO that no other nation follows besides the US. The same UN that proposed the Paris Agreement that no one is following. So I am supposed to trust the WHO? The CWF is a private organization whose founder is open about supporting a government run healthcare system. Of course they will manipulate the data. They both presented healthcare rankings. Notice how no academic source has ever published a ranking of healthcare systems? Because the academic community will dismiss it as they are all arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and come up with any ranking they want. Also, there are variables that you can't quantify that you will have to take into account, such as culture. That is why only special interest groups make rankings. So it isn't about lobbying but about presenting misleading data to a very ignorant public.
One example of looking at the stats differently is your boy Carroll. Why did he look at life expectancy after the age of 65? Why not after 55? Or after 45? Why not consider percent of people who die in a hospital vs at home and compare those life expectancy?
Also, what you are saying about Carroll makes no sense. The data he presented had times when democrats were in control. Medicare has been around for nearly 60 years, many times democrats were in control. So the whole "blame republicans" argument is shallow. Next, he is saying Medicare right now is awful but he wants too expand it to all citizens? How will that make it better?
Overall, what this shows is what I say about far leftists all the time. They are like the partner in an abused relationship. When they are abused they feel that marrying them will stop the abuse. It doesn't. So they go farther and have a kid, the abuse still happens. So they decide to have another kid and so on. Far leftists complain that the federal government is corrupt and you are now saying that Carroll thinks Medicare is bad. But now your solution is to expand the federal government? That makes zero sense logically. And you can blame republicans all you want, they will always exist and be in congress. There will be times they will be in control. You want them in control of medicare when you claim they are they reason why it fails?
Are you in an abusive relationship? There are places to receive help. But I am confused on your logic. Medicare, right now, is bad according to Carroll, but you feel we should expand it to cover all?
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 , I did make a valid argument against your sources. You see, I cite sources mainly from academic which are held to a higher level than private, special interest groups. Someone like Scott Atlas publishes what would be considered bad that will harm him in the future in trying to publish peer reviewed papers. The CWF does not have that scrutiny as they just publish on their own site. They are guilty of favoring a universal healthcare system by presenting cherry picked data like amenable mortality despite a peer reviewed paper and a literature review explaining how amenable mortality can't be used to determine healthcare system effectiveness. Despite me presenting those articles to you you dismissed them.
If they really want to be honest about healthcare they will present all the arguments. They don't. They have an agenda. But again, I am the one citing graduate level books and peer reviewed papers, you are citing blogs, special interest groups and comedians. I just told you about a case study we had to read in my international business course about price negotiation in healthcare, mainly drug prices. Yes, other nations do it but they have much less R&D than us. Also, the US, along with our R&D, also helps pay for developing nations access to drugs. So yes, we spend a lot in the US, but we offer a lot not just in our nation but also globally. Is that what you want? Do you want developing nations to suffer? Do you want less R&D in medication?
I get it, you are arguing against someone with way more ammo than you and way more knowledge. You come with predictable sources and I keep coming back with detailed rebuttals with strong sources. It makes you angry. And you have to actual rebuttal in what I offer. For example, on the CWF and amenable mortality, you have not addressed that at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 "Whether nations have more or less R&D, or how much the US spends on medical innovation, is irrelevent to the conversation."
It isn't. I know you deny evolution but diseases evolve all the time, new medication is needed. And not everyone reacts the same to a medication. That is why, for example, we have many different forms of SSRIs.
"The fact that we spend more in general while providing less services to Americans"
We don't provide less as I explained many times. We have higher access to advanced care where other nations cap how much care one receives. Same with drugs. Other nations like Germany won't pay for a more expensive drug. They will pay a portion, but not the whole thing. We just discussed this in my MBA course ( I know, academics so you will dismiss this".
"Offering more doesn't mean squat if people can't afford"
Reality is most can, and that is why healthcare reform is so challenging. Most can afford it.
"which leads to serious injury or death. "
Such as people dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery? Or again, I will point you to the study entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
Where they say
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers "
And the study
"Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence"
Where they say
"It is often observed that elective wait times are low in the USA, one of the few countries where the majority of care has been financed by non-universal private insurance"
Longer wait times lead to serious injuries.
"Your line of thinking on health expenditure compared to other countries is literally meaningless when those countries don't have any statistics on how many people die annually because they can't afford getting care, yet we do"
Really? You pointed to amenable mortality yourself. So they do have stats. I simply pointed out that obtaining accurate numbers on that data is difficult. So what is it, do they have data or now? You are moving the goal posts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You say that like it’s a good thing. Doctors, who people depend on to live, can blatantly refuse to do their job. "
This was not an emergency and the child still received care. Also, you need food and a home to live but yet companies who provide those can deny people all they want.
" Even if you don’t work for the government, you still have to follow the damn law, which in most cases protects people from discrimination. "
Just because it is a law doesn't make it moral or mean we should bow down to it. Forcing people to do things they are against is not moral, arguably.
" Of course, this wouldn’t be an issue if the healthcare/medical systems
in America weren’t such a mess. But I bet you’re against what works fine
for literally every developed nation, right? "
I can only assume you mean universal healthcare. Saying it "works" is a very low bar to set. I can take a bunch of meth and lose weight. That "works" in losing weight. Is it healthy though?
"Somehow you believe...."
Ok, going point by point. It is highly arguable if the federal government should be developing anti-discrimination laws and that it should be left up to the states. During the time it was passed maybe, but now they are arguably pointless due to social media and technology and our changing culture. Look at how Starbucks is attack in a situation where they are being labeled as racial profiling (they arguably weren't, but that is a different target). They literally have to close down shops and the CEO has to write a letter of apology due to the outcry.
The FDA is there to ensure that businesses release proper information, something free market supporters feel is necessary. It is forcing businesses to release correct information which costs them nothing new in terms of the product they release.
The min. wage is a very dumb law all together due to it being a job killer for the poor. Child labor laws are pointless these days as the free market made it so children are not really employable.
Overtime the free market made things better. Yes, things were terrible in the past, but we were developing. You talk about child labor laws, to use them as an example, we have very high teenage unemployment rate. Even though teenagers want jobs they can't have them. Businesses don't have the desire to hire children.
" If someone is an asshole, and as a result I don’t like that person, that is not discrimination."
Do you attend church? If not you are discriminating. Not saying it is right or wrong, just saying you do discriminate. So do others.
"And what if it was an emergency? Would to say you lose your right to refuse service if the case is an emergency?"
An emergency is a rare situation and is the exception to the rule. Everything has exceptions. Nothing is ideal. I support working with the situation that presents itself. You want to remove all ability to freely participate in the market due to some boogeyman that doesn't exist anymore or due to some scenario that we can account for as the exception.
I am willing to adjust to different cases and stay on principle. I also don't have to create a boogeyman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SouthCom1917 , a book is fine in any debate. I am simply pointing you to an expert's opinion. And that book cites many peer reviewed studies for you to read. What does Kyle cite? Hardly anything. To start, he makes the claim of 45,000 people dying in the US due to lack of access to healthcare and claims that number is zero in other nations. That is 100% false. Amenable mortality is an issue in every nation. Also, that 45,000 stat is questionable because as Prof. Katherine Baicker said, 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? As pointed out in this study even with access to healthcare physical health did not improve
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
"This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years"
Kyle also brings up medical bankruptcies where there is doubt in how serious they are
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1716604
Kyle is extremely shallow on the topic of healthcare. Even pointing to the Mercatus study is shallow. They admit, that with a 40% pay cut to providers, healthcare costs will go down. But you have to realize that quality and accessibility will go down as well. Let me ask you this, if your employer cut your pay by 40% how will you react?
The evidence is against Kyle in many ways which is why he never points to actual studies or opinions from experts. You rip on me for my comments but I have to ask you again, why are you giving Kyle a pass?
1
-
@SouthCom1917 , I never give robotic responses.
How does the Oregon experiment need more analyzing? You do know the NEJM has the highest impact factor of all peer reviewed journals? That means any paper published in it is a good as it gets. Fact being is that even with access to healthcare people's physical health did not improve because of poor lifestyle choices.
Next, on bankruptcy, you cited CNBC, while not a terrible source, nothing compared to the NEJM. But to go beyond that as I don't like to pull logical fallacies, the point is that people who go bankrupt typically have other debt as well. Very few go bankrupt that is caused directly by healthcare bills. It is less then 10%. Most have some other debt. For example, a person with $10,000 in debt receives a $500 bill, and that bill pushes them over the top to go bankrupt, it wasn't directly due to healthcare bills. And $500 is small compared to the overall debt.
Whether or not you base your views off of Kyle is not the point. The point is he provides no references but you give him a pass.
1
-
@nrf91 , it is dismantling it. To start, you are removing healthcare insurance companies and thus all of those workers will lose jobs. Next, you are creating a system that has a 40% less pay rate, thus providers will be receiving 40% less money. Therefore the will have to adjust in some way such as lowering quality, lowering accessibility, and maybe firing staff. You are also raising taxes on everyone, even Bernie admits that the payroll tax will go up. .With higher taxes people will change spending habits in ways we cannot predict. Also, with a higher payroll tax business will stop giving out raises and hiring until they can adjust their expenses. .
As for the current system, yes it has flaws, but it does many things well. Read the book "In Excellent Health" by prof. Scott Atlas. We are superior in access to advance testing and outcomes in advance care. We should improve the system we have now, not dismantle it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nrf91 , even if M4A will save people money in the long run, people won't view it like that. They will see the higher taxes and will change their spending habits. Around 70% live paycheck to paycheck mainly because of poor money management. How many actually lay out their budget to determine how much they have to spend and do that? Very few. Also, how many are spending that much on healthcare? I, myself, spend very little on healthcare. Thus the tax increase will be more then I spend on healthcare. You are assuming that most people will be spending less but yet base that off of nothing.
Next, there are zero peer reviewed studies to show that M4A will save money. There are studies, but none of them are peer reviewed. Also, those studies just show the cost. It does not account for the quality or accessibility. Sure, under Medicare costs will be cut by 40%, but what will happen to quality and accessibility? Let me ask you this, if your employer cut you pay by 40% how will you react? Those who point to those studies only look at cost. They don't look at accessibility or quality. One problem with far leftist on this issue of healthcare is that they only look at part of the picture, not the whole thing.
As for people finding new jobs, what makes you think people will be willing to work those new jobs or be educated? What happens of they will be required to move? You say "boo hoo" shows you have no care at all about those people's situation. You are literally going to force those people to change careers without care of their personal situation. That is communist at that point.
As for renegotiating payments, what makes you think that Bernie has that power? He says he will do it but consider that two black live matters individuals just walked on stage and took the mic from him. Not really an aggressive individual. Other nations have lower cost because they have lower quality. That is the reality. Bernie is not telling you that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I was under the impression, that people get jobs, so that they could get money to live. "
They get jobs to get money and expand their resume. Saying "to live" is vague as it can be for extra income. I work a part time, second job for extra income for fun. I don't need it. Someone who lives in a household that earns $50,000 a year already me work a low wage, part time job for extra money such as teens or a spouse after the kids left. It can be for busy work or to build a resume.
Saying "to live" involves other factors such as spouses, roommates, cost of living, etc.
"Also, yes if the minimum wage goes up, poor conditions get better, because they can afford better livestyles."
Not true as they get priced out of the job market. They are low skilled and and expendable. Companies with larger staying power can cut back. For example, a franchise owners of 12 McDonalds can scale down to 10. Or a business that is open 24 hours can scale down to be open from 6 AM to 11 PM which are peak hours. Also, there is something called "labor to labor" substitution. Increasing the min. wage means people not pushing for jobs, such as people with spouses who earn a lot, can decide to re-enter the workforce as there is a greater incentive to work. Someone with a college degree, married to a spouse who earns say $60,000 a year, and is doing well but has been out of the workforce to be a stay at home parent can decide to pick up a part time job since $15/hr is a nice wage for 10 to 15 hours of work a week.
"The point is that if you work full-time on any job, you should at least be able to support yourself."
Most min. wage workers do not work full time. One reason why they are paid so low is due to lack of commitment to the company and the fact they are most likely short term. They are paid a low wage, but they have limited hours and flexible scheduling. There is an advantage there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Darth Revan, saying Bernie is the poorest senator is not an argument. So you support failure? Also, he earned a million selling his book in Walmart, a company he berated.
As for his homes, many politicians sleep in their DC offices, why doesn't Bernie? And why does he need a vacation home? That contributes to inequality.
I have no problem with people being rich, Bernie does. That is the problem. I have no problem with someone owing multiple homes as long as they are not a hypocrite. Bernie owning multiple homes reveals the major problem of him spending his entire life working in politics, contributing very little, and becoming rich off of it. Meanwhile, the Koch brothers have donated for cancer research, the Walton family actually provide jobs and low priced goods for the poor, and Bernie berates them for it. That is a problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Marshall Mackey, I question these polls as if the people have a high level of concern about money in politics. The majority might be against it, but is it top concern? A lot of people I know hate politicians to begin with and see it as just part of the game.
" Small dollar donations from the PEOPLE and not the corporations is totally fine and even necessary. "
What's the difference? If you get a job at a small business or a large one a job is a job. If you buy a product at a large business or a small one what is the difference? People who run corporations have a voice as well. You are picking and choosing who can and cannot donate at that point. Why stop at corporations? What about rich celebrities? What about organizations like Planned Parenthood or the NRA? Where is the stopping point? To me I am all or nothing when it comes to the law. There are a few exceptions, but in law it is all equal.
"Secondly,, if you could put down your cup of Kool-Aid for a second,
government policies that directly benefit the people (such as Medicare
for all) is the end goal the "left" has been fighting for. "
Does it "benefit the people" or make the highly dependent on the government? If you vote out politicians you feel are corrupt who replaces them can take away medicare for all. So you would instead stick with a corrupt politician just because you want medicare for all. You are supporting the lesser of two evils.
"If you think for one second that the money being shuffled in to our
campaigns from corporate donors isn't bribery, than your even dumber
then I previously thought.. "
You have to prove quid pro quo. Until you do it is not bribery. Those who donate to a candidate expect certain policies, but nothing is guaranteed. Just like those who donated to Bernie.
" Do the research,, look at the policies being pushed on the federal
level (deregulating Wall Street/big banks, tax cuts for the wealthy,
gutting our environmental protections). You're not being represented."
I support limited federal government and more state rights. I support what the current administration is doing and I want them to go farther.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"if you look at photos of air quality in the '70s compared to photos
taken in the same spots recently, you'll see the EPA and adequate
regulations have had a considerable effect"
Depends on where you look. There are several areas in the country that has always had clean air. In others there still is poor air quality. I can take a photo in the LA area and if done right have it so it looks worse than any time before the 70s. Some things that have contributed to better air quality are cars with better mileage, and appliances that are more energy efficient. That is from the free market as people want to save money.
"there is a climate crisis like a slow-motion train wreck taking place, but that's not entirely the EPA's fault"
You sure? You are being selective in how you show support for the EPA.
"not when you consider that the gop and their industry donors and
lobbyists have fought tooth and nail to prevent the kinds of regulations
needed to affect the necessary changes."
Regulations have been increasing for years. I don't see anything to suggest regulations have been decreasing. The code of regulations have grown from around 71,000 pages to around 178,000 pages. So where is this deregulation you are talking about?
"later in your thread you say that environmental protections should be
left up to each state....that's pretty much impossible since we have
only one atmosphere that all the states must share, and that rivers/etc
don't care about state borders"
Not impossible as the federal government deals with commerce. If a state is allowing pollution to occur in their state that is their business. But if that pollution leaks into a neighboring state that exceeds that state's standards, than the federal government can step in and tell that state to stop polluting that state. For example, if Nevada were to have pollution go into Utah that exceeds Utah's standard, Nevada will have to do something or pay a fine. But that's it. No federal EPA required.
"finally, since Congress is Constitutionally charged with providing for
the welfare of the citizenry, i don't buy your "the EPA is
unConstitutional" argument."
It is to "promote" general welfare. Promote means to encourage. The structure of the country is so: The federal government is there to serve the states. It is made up of the states. That is why prior to 1913 there was not a federal individual income tax but a tax on the states. That is why we have the electoral college. The states are there to serve the people and the people make up the state. That is why states taxed individuals. So yes, the EPA is unconstitutional as it sets as it influences individuals' lives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gabrielchan6475 , on your first video those individuals were caught. Why? Because the wall slowed them down so border patrol agents can identify them and catch them. So thanks for supporting my case that a wall works.
Bernie's plan will cost way more than $32 trillion. And on David's video, he completely ignores the human element of the issue, such as how will people and investors react with such drastic changes to our economy. Raising people's taxes 4% means they will consume less meaning less demand and thus less jobs. It isn't as easy as "find money here", it is far more complicated than that.
Saying other nations do it is not a solid argument. You are ignoring many factors such as culture for example. You are also ignoring the fact that those citizens are willing to pay higher taxes were our citizens aren't. As for that 30,000 number, that number is easily countered. For example, as prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity , type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Read the book "Being Mortal", there the author talks about how people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they will live only another 5 or 10 months. So if those 30,000 receive care and live 5 more months producing noting and being in agony, is that a success? Also, people die in every nation due to lack of access. For example, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for elective surgery.
I encourage you to listen to actual experts on this issue, not Kyle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SquallAKALeon , the value in college is that you, as an adult, is making an investment to better yourself. With a college degree you show to employers you are willing to invest both time and money to better yourself and you will apply that to the workplace.
Compare college to high school. In high school you spend around 35 hours a week in the classroom. The teachers there essentially guide you on the subject. In college you will spend around 15 hours a week in the classroom. Some professors may help you out, but it is one you to read up on the material on your own, seek outside help from tutors and help centers on campus, and find time to do all of this. In high school you have that 8 to 3 time. In college you may not have class on Thursday so you will use that time to work a job for income or study.
People don't know what the real value of a college degree is. They feel it is going to class, learning something, and earning a degree. That is not it. The real value is that you show employers you are willing to invest both time and money to accomplish a long term goal. And to accomplish that you have to manage a budget, manage a schedule, and accomplish things on your own. If you make college tuition free you remove the investment part of it thus lowering the value of a college degree.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojoboko6990
But what have you earned? You did not invest into anything. You are an adult, it is on you to make investment. Making grades is one thing, that is what you did in high school. It is the investment part that gives value to a college degree. Also, if after a K-12 education if you feel you need government to educate your than you are beyond help.
You can prove you're expertise without a degree if you make a degree worthless. You invest in doing internships instead. You invest in other ways. Again, college is an investment.You are showing employers you are willing to make sacrifices and invest time and money to achieve a long term goal. If you make college "tuition free" than what value is there sitting in a classroom and taking tests? Great, so you read books and got a grade, but you did not do any actual investment.
Uh, I work with many international students. One of my best friends is international. One of our research group is only internationals. Half of my research group are internationals. They are not rich.
I told you, we have the best research in terms of publications with China only rivaling us. We have the most international students. You can look at employment rate as well and earnings after a college degree. Also, some nations only allow their best and brightest through tracking students and force others to attend trade schools. While studying education a common complaint comes up is that many students enter college without remedial skills.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/education-strategies.pdf
However, I say that is a success of the US system. We allow people without remedial skills to attend college if they want to invest in themselves and get better. Other nations deny them access to college. And it also begs the question if people are leaving a K-12 education without remedial skills, why allow government to run college education? They seem to be doing a poor job at K-12.
But overall, if you feel you need government to educate you after a K-12 education as opposed to investing in yourself, than you are beyond help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SquallAKALeon , I actually don't make that complaint about college. I feel many people are entering college not fully understanding what it is all about. Many students, like you, feel college is simply more than an extension to high school where you show up to class, take notes, do homework, pass tests and make the grade. That is what you did in high school. They don't understand that college is you, as an adult, investing into your future. But besides that no, I don't feel college is like that. So way to strawman me.
If you make college "tuition free" than yes, you make it a daycare for adults.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fowfow7119 , I have actually addressed the issue of illegals overstaying their visas. Just because that problem exists does not mean we can't tackle another one. It is like this, say your car has a broken tail light and a broken radio. Your mindset is "well I can't fix both so might as well scrap the car". My mindset is fix the tail light as it is necessary and the easiest to fix, go after the radio later. You guys are really grasping for straws to deny this wall. At this point it is becoming clear that you do support open borders. I have never made that claim but after conversations here I feel you do. You literally have the standard of "the wall won't stop illegal immigration completely so why do it". So at that point I say that since what we are doing now is not working so might as well stop all together.
As for the 30,000 a year stat on healthcare, I have covered that. Those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with being poor as prof. Katherine Baicker said. There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Also, as the book "Being Mortal" pointed out, people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but in reality they may live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 30,000 receive care and live another 5 months in agony and not producing, is that a success? You can't just throw numbers out there and expect them to mean anything without proper perspective. Plus, people die in all nations due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems. You claim I live in an echo chamber but you literally just spewed out talking points and threw out numbers with zero perspective.
As for a progressive tax, we have a more progressive tax than those Nordic nations do. I bet you will shit your pants if you had to pay the rate they did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fowfow7119 , your success is on your, period. Is there a desire to have government? Yes. But government help, if any, should be localized and minimal. You talk about "free education", even if it is free it is on you to study and actually learn the material. Look at the arguments you on the far left are making. You are complaining about problems where the people you are arguing against are, for the most part, fine. Why? Because those individuals find a way to get things done. I earn $23,000 a year as a grad student, I find a way to live life. I don't go around begging for help, I find a way to get things done. You don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franklance9167 , I gave you evidence. Those people are poor and bad health due to life style choices is associated with being poor. Also, if you did give them care and they live a few extra months and then die, is that a success?
Yes, it did increase the use of health services, but physical health did not improve. Detecting diabetes does not mean they saw a cure for it. I can point to someone who is fat but that does not mean they will lose rate. That is the point, their physical health did not improve. I did not say there weren't positives, but the reality their lifestyle did not change making them at high risk for bad health.
Here
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
"Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor, echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse health.
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said."
"Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, told us in an interview that he, too, thinks the number of deaths is impossible to nail down. In addition to Kronick’s skepticism, he pointed to a study of Oregon’s Medicaid experiment (which Baicker co-authored and PolitiFact looked at here) that found no significant improvement in health outcomes, including conditions like blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar, between a group of new Medicaid enrollees and uninsured Oregonians who could not get on the Medicaid rolls."
That source had everything to do with lifestyle choices. Did you even read it? I mean, I thought leftists were supposed to be the educated one? Why am I the one citing experts with counter arguments here where you simply tell me to "fuck" myself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevindayton9757
1. Wealth inequality is not bad. To start, do you even know what wealth is? Wealth is the total assets one owns. The reason why we have high wealth inequality is because, one, those with a lot of wealth like Jeff Bezos is the major share holder of their company. Very few have a desire to be in that position. Also, him owning those shares makes the company valuable to begin with. It shows he stands by his business. Next, a lot of people, like me, have negative wealth due to a home loan, a college loan or a car loan. They pull out a loan to buy expensive things they would not be able to afford without a loan. We are such a rich nation we allow people to take the risk of lending out money to others. So just talking about wealth inequality is not an argument. .
M4A lack details. Let me ask you, where in Bernie's plan will he handle the fact that healthcare providers will have to reduce accessibility to advanced techniques like other nations do? Who will Bernie put in charge to handle the issue of how healthcare is rationed and who receives what? Tell me that.
And no, his plans do not have majority support.
2. All he does is blame the rich
3. When problems happen he will push for more government
You don't know my interest. You see, you just dismiss the other side like Bernie does.
1
-
@kevindayton9757 1. Polls are unreliable. They are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. Opinions change when more information is given. Polls also show a snapshot, not a trend.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/
Also, polls don't show how passionate someone is about an issue. They may support something, but if they are not highly passionate than they won't go to the booth.
But with polls being unreliable as they are not experts, consider the one you mention about climate change. Would you trust some people being polled or would you trust an expert in Mike Hulme?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0543-4
Here is the reality, watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3miF4KqOMA
The reality is that most people get their information from either mainstream news like CNN or Fox, or independent news like TYT or Daily Wire. Both are the same, they are there to entertain, not inform. As mentioned in that video people rather watch those talking heads as opposed to an expert going into great detail about a complex issue. So why would you trust those polls knowing that? Let me ask you, why do you trust Kyle so much? On climate change I just cited an expert in the field and cited a Nature paper he authored. Nature has one of the highest impact factor of all peer reviewed journals. So you can point to polls all you want, I will trust experts. If Mike Hulme gave a lecture to those same people being polled on climate change I will guarantee you more people will not be worried about it.
As for healthcare, I suggest you read the book "In Excellent Health" by prof. Scott Atlas. We lead the world in survival rates and accessibility in advanced treatments and testing.
2. What is unfair? Saying words like "fair" purely appeal to emotions, not logic
3. Uh, I have a lot of data. I just cited experts on the issue of healthcare and climate change. You only cite polls.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, I am impressed, you actually read something I linked go you.
"I mean not to mention, most of the article just openly stated over and over again "He took trips here and there, thus a communist". Example: He stated he has Soviet flag in his office,where is the evidence he put up this flag? Any evidence? "
There is another article saying it. And he went to the Soviet Union during his honeymoon during his time in office. He was clearly fascinated by the place.
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2015/08/kremlin-tv-backing-bolshevik-bernie-for-president/
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/bernie-sanders-is-a-communist-sympathizer/
"If you want to know what he is, he is a democratic socialist, which means he believes certain programs should be done by the government rather than the private market for varied reasons. "
Which eventually turns into communist in development when people refuse to work. When people refuse to become doctors, professors, or build infrastructure, etc. because it is much easier live off of the government that promises you free stuff, than the government forces you to work. Bernie can call himself whatever he likes, it doesn't change the fact that he is a communist.
"A communist literally is someone who believes in the saying of communism, - "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." "
Which is what Bernie will push for. He keeps saying "we all have to work together". If people refused to work, who will provide healthcare to all? Who will build the infrastructure? Who will provide education? Why work hard when you can work at McDonalds for a "living wage" while having healthcare, retirement, maternity leave, etc. all promised by the government?
"Has never hinted nor stated that for all enterprise in the United States, a random article without any proof except he took a honey moon trip to Moscow is not evidence that he supports this ideology. "
When questioned by business owners he berates them and shows he has no passion for businesses. When he talks about "the 1%" and "big corporations" he is referring to all businesses. He masks it as if he is talking about Coca-Cola or Walmart, however many small businesses will have to pay his $15/hr min. wage he can't afford. A small business owner asked him about Obamacare and providing healthcare to her workers and how she should do it. He just said she should. Gave zero advice. To him she is a business and must do what he says or fail. To which that will lead to more unemployed having to work for the government.
Bernie's plan will kill businesses except for those strongly tied to the government to where we are working for the government based on our ability. Thus communism.
"Get your education from either actual facts(Supporting) said by said person or shown by someone. As well as clearly peer review papers that have joint presentations throughout experiments or studies and raw statistics"
I find it ironic you say that because you never do that yourself. And when I do you refuse to read those articles. You are becoming a hypocrite. But you are also the same person who could not read and understand the Coloradocare bill. You also did not know that people can be covered on healthcare can be covered by their spouse. And you believe if someone dies in a car accident it was because they had poor healthcare.
Jonathan, let me ask you this. When people refuse to work hard under Bernie's America and choose to work at a fast food joint and still be promised a
1. Living wage
2. Healthcare
3. Retirement
4. Paid maternity
5. Paid vacation
And so on. How do you expect to improve our country? People naturally take the path of least resistance. Why work hard on earning an advanced degree when you can work a low skilled job, which is less stress, and still live a nice life? When people refuse to work hard the government under Bernie's America will have to force them to work. But tell me, what are your thoughts on that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Richard Mancha, to answer your question on homosexual marriage, there are several arguments against it. One is that if government should be tied to marriage to begin with? Now justices cannot make laws, so they cannot make that. Next, is marriage even a Constitutional right? Arguably it isn't. So they can rule against it based on the fact that there is not right to marriage. One can argue for equality based on the 14th amendment. But one can argue the case in why should married people get special benefits to begin with as that also violates the 14th amendment.
There are several arguments against it that does not involve any feelings which is why it was a 5-4 decision. You say that nothing in the Constitution bans homosexual marriage. Well, nothing bans murder as well in the Constitution. Also, homosexual marriage was never banned, ever. It just wasn't recognized by law.
On that point, homosexual marriage was no recognized by law. Thus it can be argued that the states should be the deciding factor in this situation if they have a vested interest in allowing homosexual marriage or not. It is similar Casey v PP where it was ruled that states can outlaw abortion based on certain situations if the had a vested interest in doing so. There are several cases and situations were it was left up to the states. Take Michigan State Department of Police v Sitz. The court, in the end, left DUI checkpoints to the states even though one can argue DUI checkpoints violate the 4th amendment. The same can be said about homosexual marriage. One can argue that not recognizing it violates the 14th amendment, but one can also argue that it should be left up to the states. Again, that is why there was a 5-4 ruling.
Now with her and Brown v Board, her opinion is irrelevant. It was a decision made long ago. If she said no to the answer she would have been labeled a racist. If she would have said yes, or even saying no, she would be labeled as an activist that will rule in cases despite previous cases making clear ruling in the opposite. She would be labeled as an activist that will want to use her judicial powers to overturn previous cases in some way. She will have not logic or reasoning behind her decisions. And with logic and reasoning I mean using the Constitution or other court cases and laws. .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Your argument is that the supreme court must make a verdict by objectivity. "
No, they to make decisions based on support, either through the Constitution, law or previous court cases.
" Does due process and equal rights applies (this is the argument) to homosexual Marriage (this is the framing)."
Yes.
". Now the Supreme court has ruled in favor of similar issues we should consider Scalia's record on homosexual cases he voted against all of them regardless of argument being presented in the case."
There are arguments on both sides. But let us go back to your argument of due process and equal rights. Marriage is not a right to start, thus no due process is needed as denying homosexual marriage is not denying any rights. Also, as I mentioned earlier, homosexual marriage we never illegal to begin with, it just wasn't recognized by law.
You should read Scalia's dissenting opinion on that Obergefell v Hodges case. He cites numerous amendments and court cases. He wasn't just making a ruling based on how he felt. He had support from the Constitution and previous cases. You are claiming he doesn't. You are claiming that the people who ruled in the majority of the homosexual case had objective reasoning and people like Scalia didn't. He did.
" That is objectively not accurate I could have pick the cases concerning jim crow and how the Supreme court deemed many jim crow laws constitutional, because again your Hypothesis was that the supreme court justice's vote not from reason of belief or feeling"
Jim Crow ruling was based on state rights. Again, objective and in the Constitution.
"I am saying that the supreme court justice's have also voted subjectively"
When they write an opinion they have to cite other court cases and the Constitution. You are making it sound like they don't. You are making it sound like that Scalia did not have a Constitutional, nor legal argument to oppose gay marriage. He did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojoboko6990
1. It is vague. Again, this issue is complex. I know you refuse to accept that because you refuse to actually read the numerous books and studies on this issue, but it is. That is why medical schools have less than a 50% acceptance rate and why it take 4 years to complete and plus residency. Physician is vague, what are their specialties? It doesn't say. Asking a family physician something will produce a different answer than asking a surgeon. Just like in science how asking a biologist something will produce a different answer.
2. I am not creating a new argument. I am standing by the point that saying "physician" is a poor argument.
3. 2000 is not high. In 2016 alone there were over 80,000 medical students. And again, that 2000 includes both nurses and administration. How many physicians were there actually polled? And what were their expertise? Also, need I give you this again?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/
4. So you admit the poll is unreliable as they are not covering all the bases.
5. That should be the point of the poll. Why do you not understand how polling data works and the shortcomings of it? This is a very basic thing taught in statistics. But I forgot, you feel a gamma function is "baby math".
6. I don't because they are vague. These issues are complex. This is why you hardly see academic sources point to polls. Again, on healthcare there are several books and papers on this topic. To reduce it down to an opinion poll of people who I have no clue what their actual profession is, or reasoning for answering the way they do, is not reliable.
Tell me, why do follow this poll so blindly? Why don't you ever question these things?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kyle, as usual, is so wrong here. To start, we are a much larger and diverse nation. Most on the right have no problem establishing some government programs at the state and local level. They just don't want it centralized. Nordic nations are smaller than most of our states.
Next, on the corporate tax rates. Sure they may be paying less on paper, but consider all the lawyers and accountants they have to hire to do that. They can use those resources for more productive things. So it becomes a waste.
Also, Nordic nations have more of a flat tax compared to the US. If we followed their tax bracket the highest bracket will be around $50,000 to $60,000. In the US our highest bracket is at $400,000, and Bernie wants to raise it even more.
So in all Rand is correct, Bernie does not want to follow the Nordic style.
1
-
1
-
Drake, I have been around football for over 15 years from the youth level on to the professional. There are many benefits to football. Simple point, if a person wants to play it and they understand the risk than why stop them?
There are many activities that people do that are worse for you, and so what? You only live once. Enjoy life. I enjoyed football and I am still active in it as a non-player.
On your points:
1. Many athletes do multiple sports. However, some don't. I did football and track. I was unique as I ran middle distance in track but was a lineman in football. My agility was not great so I did not play basketball. I did not play baseball as I was scared of the ball (baseball is very dangerous as well). Soccer was the same excuse as basketball. So football was my sport. I loved it.
2. We don't need sports for that. Why not just ban sports all together and make everyone exercise for no reason?
3. ". In other words, aside from the quarterbacks, football is about sheer brute strength, weight, and speed"
Not true at all, especially with the emphasis on targeting. I officiate football at the HS and NCAA level. With targeting players are being taught to lower their target zone and reposition themselves quickly. There is a lot of mobility involved that is amazing to see first hand. When you see a division one prospect make and amazing, one handed sideline catch you will know. There is a lot of hand eye coordination and agility.
4. There is a lot of things that make people "a man". I never heard a parent bring this up.
What is great about football is this
1. Almost anyone can play it. You can be big and large and play line. Small and quick and play tail back. Be slow at foot but have a nice arm and play QB. Or have a strong leg and be a kicker. It requires players of different attributes all playing at once.
2. It is a game of amazing strategy. With basketball you can win with one or two players. Put Lebron James on any team and they are a playoff team. You can't have that in football at the higher levels. You have 22 players on the field and you are looking for a lot. As an official I can read defenses and offenses and understand the concept of the game, how coaches coach, how players play, and why they do what they do. For example, if a corner lines up outside of a receiver what does that mean? He has inside help.
You have that other sports as well, but to me football has it more.
3. It is something else that brings diversity to our society. Not everyone wants to play basketball or soccer. Why do you want to take that away from others?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thcrmsnchn1056 , yes, the people make up the states, that is why state issues are determined by the majority. The federal government is there to deal with foreign affairs and deal with commerce between states. The federal government serves the states, not the people. The states serve the people. That is why law enforcement is ran locally. That is why education is ran locally. The bill or rights are limitations on all governments, local, state and federal. The Bill of Rights give zero power to government but gives powers to the people and limits governments.
The Senate is not based on population basis.
The point of 10 states give a majority is to counter the idea that 21% means someone can win. It goes both ways. But there are some states that do lean far let or fight right, that is a fact. Also, it is possible that all of the largest states can lean the same politically. Why can't they?
The point is this, the federal government is there to serve the state, not the people. Just because one state has a much larger population does not mean they should have that much power. I love how the political left talks about helping the minority and the little guy but then support ideas that goes against that. The EC is there to support the little guy.
1
-
1
-
@thcrmsnchn1056 , 1. the country is made up of the states. That is why it is called the "United States", not the united people.
2. What you described falls in line with foreign affairs and commerce between states. Collected taxes is needed to deal with those issues. Laws have to follow the commerce clause. That is why states control K-12 education, not the federal government. You literally supported my cases with your comment, thanks.
3. The federal government serves the states, not the people. The federal government does not provide law enforcement, education, fire departments, murder laws, etc.
4. The FBI deals with federal laws that handle laws that occur over state lines which is a part of interstate commerce. If you were to compare federal prison to state prisons state prisons are more violent as they are typically filled with violent criminals who violated violent laws within the state. Federal prisons are filled with criminals who violated commerce laws which are typically laws dealing with fraud and financial situations across state lines. Tell me, when was the last time the FBI pulled over someone for speeding?
5. The Constitution is there to limit government. So you are agreeing that the Federal Government supposed to be limited. Again, thanks for agreeing with me.
6. The existence of the house and senate is the balance of having larger states have a larger voice to a degree, but limited in the Senate. Just like larger states have the most EC votes, but they are limited. It is a balance. CA still has the most EC votes, so what is your problem at this point?
7. And what candidate won with only 21% of the vote? It goes both ways.
8. Easy, the Constitution. Also the fact that states fun public education, public law enforcement, and numerous other domestic laws. You are making this way too easy.
9. People vote based on what they experience subjectively. That is the reality. Just because millions view one way of life does not mean they should control the nation. You are assuming that people are generally strongly informed on the issues but in reality they aren't. They rarely seen past their own backyard. Why should people in CA influence the lives, strongly, of the people in WY? Just because there are more in CA should not give them that power. That is the issue. You are literally supporting the majority oppressing the minority. You are literally supporting the big guy oppressing the little guy.
10. No, you are against the little guy. You are against small states like WY from having a voice. You know, if CA messes up their state you feel smaller states like WY should pay.
11. The "little guy" are states with less population. Just because they have fewer people does not mean they should not have a voice. You literally want to snuff smaller states from having a voice.
1
-
@thcrmsnchn1056
1. You are splitting hairs here. The Constitution clearly lays out the difference between the states and the people. But based on your point I can call Bernie Sanders a communist no matter what he calls himself.
2. The VA is for the military which is a part of foreign affairs. It is highly arguable that SS, Medicare and Medicaid are not constitutional.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
3. The federal government only provides funding for schools if they follow certain standards. As is close to 10 states don't follow CCSS. And most funding for schools are to Title I schools. 92% of funding for schools are state, local and private where only 8% is federal.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
4. What you mentioned in law enforcement is either foreign affairs or interstate commerce. Again, when was the last time the FBI pulled someone over for speeding?
5. What is your point on murder laws? They differ by states and most murder laws are handled at state courts. They are only handled federally if one, it was a spree of murders across many states (interstate commerce), or two, there was a misruling at the local level. But tell me why do murder laws differ in each state?
5. Ok
A: Foreign affiars
B: Foreign affairs
C: Foreign affairs and interstate commerce if it crosses state lines
D: Interstate commerce
E: Interstate commerce
F: Interstate commerce as shown in the word "transnational"
G: Interstate commerce
H: Interstate commerce where I mentioned about a killing spree in many states
Do you know what interstate commerce is? At this point I don't think you do.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/interstate_commerce
6: Most people in federal prisons committed interstate crimes which are usually financial crimes. Murder laws are handled at the state level thus they go to state prisons
7: The constitution is there to limit government. It outlines the duties of the federal government with limitations and gives the rest of the powers to the states. If you look at the rights they are not provided by the government. The government does not give you free speech, the bill of rights prevents the government from taking it away from you without due process. The rights listed are things you already have or can pursue. I have never seen the government give me a gun, I bought them myself. I have never seen the government give the the ability to express my opinion freely, I can do that myself. With the exception of a jury and representation in court show me what has government given to me in those rights? Did government give me property? No. The bill of rights prevents government from illegally entering my home. What has the federal government given me at that point? Nothing.
8. Congress represents the states. That is why I cannot vote for any representatives in Congress outside of my state. I don't live in CA, thus I do not have a say in who they send to represent their state. If you want to go your route than remove that part as well. Let the nation vote for all 535 members of congress. Why separate them by states? Why don't I get a say if Nancy Pelosi is in Congress or not?
9: You do realize that leader that is elected at the federal level is limited in powers? Again, it is a balance.
10: Anyone ruling over anyone is not good. Your idea is to have the majority rule over the minority. We had that in slavery. My idea is spread of power and checks on that power. Again, the president in limited in power. How about instead of changing the rules of the game you find a way to win with them. Remember, you just had Obama, he seem to win twice with the current rules. Also consider why the rules are in place to begin with. You are grossly oversimplifying this issue.
11: The Constitution is a strong citation
12: Why stop at the EC? Why not allow everyone to vote for every member off congress? Again, why should I not get a say in if Nancy Pelosi should have a seat in Congress? And yes, I know the president is not a dictator, he is there to serve the states. So the sates decide who wins.
13: Our country is diverse, or do you not support diversity? People in CA have little to no idea how the people in WY live and act, and visa versa. I support the idea that states should not overrule other states. Again, it isn't about the people at the federal level, it is about the states. That is why states send representatives to Congress to come up with ideas as opposed to the federal government doing a simple majority. What will work in WY will not work in CA and visa versa. Most people do not live outside the state they were raised. I have. I moved 1500 miles away from the town I lived at for 24 years. I have seen the culture difference. That is why no one state should have a lot of power. You advocate for that which is not wise.
14: What rights are being violated? The EC does not take away anyone's rights. Again, the president is not a dictator.
15: I do accept democracy at the state level. If one state messes up it is localized at that state. The far left wants a centralized government. Take the Flint incident for example. Water systems are ran locally. For as bad as the Flint water incident was it was isolated to Flint and was easily fixed. You want a federally ran water system where if there is a problem the whole nation suffers and it is much harder to fix.
It isn't about support a certain idea or not. If you were to really pick my brain you would see I support many ideas on the left. It is about standards and principles and how these laws are created. If the state of CA were to pass laws I disagree with I would disagree with those laws, but I will support that state in having the right to pass those laws as long as it does not violated the Constitution. Same with free speech. I do not support the KKK, I think they are a hateful and unproductive, but I support their freedom of speech. I do not support the message, I support their rights. See the difference? Doubt it.
It is you that hate the standards because it hinders your policies you support in getting passed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
tim, you saying you are done shows you do not want your firmly held, religious like beliefs challenged.
I read that link. Here is the issue, I use the exact same information you do. You say you use objective facts when I use the same ones you do, I just go deeper. To start, saying medicare has lower administrative cost is very deceptive. Medicare has the luxury of other government agencies to pay for things, insurance doesn't. For example, insurance needs to pay for accounting and disease awareness. Medicare has the IRS and CDC for that. Next, if you did a per patient cost economists Robert Book showed that medicare administration costs more per patient with it costing $509/patient and insurance costing $453/patient. As for saving businesses money, businesses pay for healthcare insurance because of the payroll tax. A way to save money is to remove the payroll tax. Bernie wants to expand it which would cost businesses more. Also, in his entire report I see no citations for his numbers, but you are quick to believe that.
Bernie and AOC are radicals anywhere. Pushing to completely dismantle and change a healthcare system of a nation of 320+ million people with a $18 trillion economy where healthcare is 1/6 of that is radical.
You can't bring up economies of scale. Not everyone is the same.
The EU manages it because individuals countries do something different.
You can make a claim that someone can fudge the stats, welcome to statistics. That is why there is a book out called "How to Lie with Statistics". That is why any healthcare ranking is arbitrary. Anyone can create any ranking they want and it can be legit.
I like how you say I am wrong but never give a reason why. But yet you blindly follow sources and have no clue what their methods are.
I gave the example of sports but also mentioned how many simply go home and are lazy. Also, many don't play sports after high school. There is an correlation between education and health as well.
But go ahead and run away or post something from Bernie that has zero citations.
1
-
1
-
tim
1. They are not centrist. They are asking for radical transformation in a nation of 320+ million people with a GDP of $18.5 trillion. Asking for the federal government to pay for college, healthcare, to double the min. wage, to pay for vacation, etc. in a nation that large with an economy that large is radical and in their case is radical to the left. It doesn't matter what nation you are in. Also, many programs they want other countries don't have. For example, other nations produce more oil including Australia. Australia produces more oil per capita than the US. Bernie and AOC want to move away from oil. Other nations have a lower corporate tax rate, Bernie wants to raise it. Bernie wants to double the min. wage when many nations have none and the ones that do have one that is comparable to the US. When you do a cost of living analysis the min. wage in Australia is around $11/hr, Bernie wants to go up to $15/hr which would more than double what we have now. If someone in Australia pushed to double the min. wage they would be a radical.
2. I have you lots of facts, I even pointed you to a paper on amenable mortality and a source showing that up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective"surgery. I pointed you to a book on statistics. I have seen the facts and stats on the issue. The fact you dismiss the ones I give you and then make a character attack on me says a lot about you.
3. To answer your question it is the same reason why the US has not established a universal healthcare system despite numerous attempts even at the state level. As a whole the system the US has now is strong. It has shortcomings but so does universal healthcare system. When you break it down the US is on par with other nations in healthcare. The US does many things well with better advanced care and better R&D. Universal healthcare systems also does many things well. But both systems have shortcomings. Changing any healthcare system that radically is extremely difficult to where it really can't be done. Thus that is why Australia, and the US have not went to one system or the other. Also, Australia has gone though many generations with the system they have now, they are used to it. They don't know of any other system and thus one can argue they are not informed enough to know that changing to a US system would be better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BootBizarre , on your first question, yes. If that is what the people in that state wants then why should I care? I don't live there. I don't know how they think or live. That is their culture. I will compare with education. NV is ranked low in education. Is that bad? Well consider how you can earn $80,000 a year parking cars or serving drinks. Or six figures working in the mines. They don't value education as high as you can earn a great living without a strong education. Now compare that to MA, home of MIT, Harvard, Boston College, etc. They value education high because they have many 4 year universities that are strong. So does that mean MA should have a say in how NV educate their kids, or visa versa? No. The cultures are different. That is the beauty of state rights.
For your slave argument now you are being foolish. As I said in another comment the Constitution limits all governments. The Constitution bans slavery as it allows people to have freedom and rights. The Constitution was not designed to government more power but to limit government and to have it so it serves the people. So no, I don't believe the federal government was wrong in that case as it was a push to limit government.
For basic protections we have that in the Constitution.
As for hundreds of Congressmen again, we have 50 states. The bicameral form of congress was this, the Senate gave every state equal representation, the House gives every state representation based on population. It is the balance. What do you want? Only one guy decide how to fund things? Now you have a dictatorship. The way it is set up is that even with rules in place there is still a chance they will be broken, thus with hundreds of congress members, a president, and a supreme court, it was incredibly hard to make changes at the federal level for good reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BootBizarre , federal laws cannot go against the Constitution. I understand the whole "federal law is over state law", but that is only if the federal law is Constitutional.
" If local entities can't afford the minimum requirements then we can offer subsidies to help them meet those requirements."
Are you going to force people to live there to handle it as well? A lot of times it isn't about money but about lack of man power. And what if a state or local entity does not want to do the minimum? Again, why are you supporting oppression by forcing other people to live a certain way?
"Sticking with my energy example, why should a local energy company be allowed to dispose of their toxic waste in an unsafe manner and poison people just because "they can't afford to dispose of it properly"? That's fucked up! And how many people do you know that WANT to be poisoned by energy companies? "
If the local community don't care why should you? How about you answer this, why should you care when the people who live there don't care? One problem I have with the far left is that they are on the outside looking in and feel they know what is best for people. The reality is you don't.
" For the record in my example, I'm talking about protecting people's health by preventing toxins from being dumped into their water supplies, how many conservatives do you think would be unhappy with that? Just curious..."
No conservative will oppose some regulation, they just wants the states to handle it as opposed to some centralized, overpowering government. It comes down to a balance of having government and controlling it. We have very little control of the federal government. You and I can only vote for a handful of federal politicians. We can vote for all of our politicians at the local level.
"No... adding a law that "bans" something is MORE government"
No, this limits government. Slaves, on paper, were considered property. They were legal property. Now no government entity can do that.
" If the federal government can only do "foreign affairs" and "interstate commerce" (as you said) then how could the federal government ban it? "
It wasn't a federal law, it was an amendment placed in the Constitution.
" are you saying that poisoning people is not be banned or that it shouldn't be banned? Can I as an individual poison you? "
Murder laws are state laws, not federal law until you cross state lines.
"So... you work in a restaurant and you didn't know that the FDA doesn't regulate chicken eggs?"
Not this place as it is local. Watch the movie "Tapped" about the water bottle industry. One company does not have to follow FDA laws as they do all business in one state. An FDA official says that. As for the department of agriculture, we don't have to go through them either. Also, the FDA gets involved in restaurants. You struggle with laws.
You are losing the argument because you don't even understand the laws. The FDA handles restaurants.
1
-
1
-
@BootBizarre
1. Because it is a moot point. It comes down to the Constitution dictates if a law is allowed to exist.
2. Laws the federal government sets that overpowers state laws fall within the commerce clause. Again, it has to follow the Constitution.
3. When did I say I support companies polluting? I don't. I support state rights. Compare it to this. I do not support the KKK. But I will support their freedom of speech. Big difference. You are avoiding my questions I am asking. Why do you support oppressing other people? If a state or local government has no problem with a company polluting, why should you care. I answered your questions, now answer mine. If the people who live there, vote for their representatives and laws, pay taxes there, etc. have no problem with companies polluting, why should you, as an outsider, force them to live a different life?
4. You avoided answering my question. I do care, but I care about standards more. Again, I hate the KKK, but I will defend their freedom of speech. It is about principles. Also, letting people live the life they want to live is caring about them. If a local community does not care if a company pollutes, why should you? You have a very oppressive attitude here. How about this, if someone wants to eat cake every day and have no problem being obese, why should you care? Will you force them to go on a diet? Why are you so oppressive?
5. I don't support anti vaxxers and feel the federal government, under the commerce clause, has a role in stopping that. You are now making assumptions of me. Also, I am not a "right winger" I am a moderate. If you picked my brain I bet you will see I agree with a lot of policies you do, I just have standards in establishing them (such as following the Constitution to limit government).
6. Again, slavery was about limiting government. Law, created and enforced by government, allowed for people to be treated as property. An amendment was created to limit government so they can't create such laws. You fail to seem to understand that the ending of slavery was to limit government.
7. Local communities actually have little to no government. Have you been to one? One by my hometown has no stop signs. They have volunteer fire fighters. The only law enforcement is the sheriff who people know personally. And if things are a problem they can easily change it or move. I feel you are like Kyle in that you have never seen farm land before. I recommend you live in a small town for a while, you will then see how they act and why they oppose large government. You act as if they are a bunch of ignorant people when you are just an outsider looking in.
8. Again, on slavery, it was to limit government. The Constitution gives freedom and rights to the people by limiting government. Like freedom of speech. No government can stop that. Like search and seizure, no government violate that. The banning of slavery was to give more freedom to the people and limit government. Your ideas are the opposite. You want to expand government and prevent people from doing what they want through the force of law. If someone wants to be a slave they have every right to do that. The Constitution prevents government from forcing it, that's it. It is limiting government. You, however, want to use government law to force people how to live. Again, if someone wants to be a slave then why should I care? That is their freedom to do so.
9. I will say it again, the amendments limited government from creating such laws. If someone wants to be a slave they have every right to do that. The government can't force it.
10. As for abortion Casey v PP actually allows for abortion to be legal to a degree. And abortion laws have been challenged a lot based on state rights. That is why many states, like NY, allow for abortion to happen even late term, and CA allows for abortion to happen as they have it in their Constitution. But read Casey v PP, it allows the states to ban abortion if they have a vested interested in keeping the child alive. As for murder laws, read the article entitled
"10 ways murders become a federal crime"
From Wallin & Klarich. Essentially, it involves murder across state lines and government officials which falls in the commerce clause. As the article said, if commit murder in CA you will face trail based on their laws.
11. The FDA regulates restaurants. I was talking about that bud. But consider how you don't know how murder laws work I question your knowledge on laws in general.
12. We went through no on. The guy sold us his ages. We were inspected by the local inspector but we did not have to follow federal FDA laws as we were a local restaurant.
13. I know every state has their version of the FDA, and we followed their law, not federal law. But again, you don't know how murder laws work.
14. How are farmers crushed by Trump?
15. Again, i am not a right winger, I am a moderate. If you were to pick my brain I bet you will see I fall in line with many policies you agree with. However, people like you inspire me to vote for Trump. You have this attitude that you are better then everyone else and know better and thus people should live the life you feel is best. That attitude drives people to the right. Lean standards and learn the law. And actually answer my questions as opposed to deflecting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Matt-ww9wv , wealth inequality is a very challenging issue to discuss. In a recent paper from the Oxford Review of Economic Policy entitled
"Measuring inequality"
They have an entire section on that. To give some points
"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. "
This is a major problem I have with the far left. They cry "inequality" but don't go beyond that. Here, I have a 6 figure debt due to college loans. I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry. Will you say I am worse off compared to a homeless guy on the street with no debt? You would say no, but in reality I have negative wealth and he has little to no wealth, and thus has more wealth than me. You have to factor that in. No different than how Kyle and his fans cry about how half the nation earns $30,000 or less. Well, I and my colleagues fall in that stat. We are graduate students pursuing our Masters and PhDs. Do you think we are in bad shape?
The far left just throws out a stat as if it means something when the issue is far more complex than that. As for
" Examples like nobody in their company can make more than 8 times than the least paid employee is one that is popular.
"
Why? If you take the top 6 executives from Wal Mart and spread their money to the 545,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart, they will get an extra $147 a year. That's it. What do you gain by capping how much one earns?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Remind me again of how polling a thousand people isn´t statistically relevant"
With varying ages, culture, races, genders, income level, etc., it is challenging to get an accurate feel on what is going on. But that aside, these questions are vague. Look at "approval rating". Approval of what? How many of those being polled really know what Trump is actually doing?
Ignore the "statistically relevant" part for a while. While I can counter that, and basically did at the beginning, how you can not realize how vague the questions are? Also, why are you assuming the people being poll are informed on these issues to begin with?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Niklas, read this
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/
"The margin of error is a mathematical abstraction, and there are a
number of reasons why actual errors in surveys are larger. Even with
random sampling, people in the population have unequal probabilities
of inclusion in the survey. For instance, if you don't have a telephone, you won't be in
the survey, but if you have two phone lines, you have two chances to be
included. In addition, women, whites, older people and college-educated people are more
likely to participate in surveys. Polling organizations correct for
these nonresponse biases by adjusting the sample to match the
population, but such adjustments can never be perfect because they only
correct for known biases. For example, "surly people" are less likely
to respond to a survey, but we don't know how many surly people are in
the population or how this would bias polling results.
"
Tell me how are they wrong?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joshua Caine, again, how do you know they lack empathy? Even at that, so what? That's politics at that point. People have different personalities. Has Trump ever killed anyone? No, so what is the problem? He is just playing the game of politics at this point. How many politicians do you think feel empathy, or feel it like you do? Do you think Bernie Sanders, with his three homes and his million dollars in book sales he sold in Walmart feels empathy? If so then you are bias in saying that Trump doesn't. Bernie has shown many times he does not care about other people's well being.
" It means that you know what the other person is feeling"
That is very vague and can cover almost anyone. Have you ever experienced a school shooting? Statistically I can say no. I haven't either. I have no clue how those kids are feeling and neither does the majority of the nation. So do I and the majority of the nation lack empathy? I have never been an orphan, does that mean I cannot show empathy towards orphans? I have no clue how they feel as I never been in their shoes.
I can easily say you lack empathy as there are many situations you have never experienced in your life.
"And you don't seem to know doctors very well. Doctors do not act
emotionless. If you think that a doctor is acting emotionless when they
relay the sad news of a patient's death to said patient's family, you
don't understand human body language very well."
I work with people in the medical field. They are trained to be emotionless. Not doing so can lead to lawsuits, chaos and more dead patients.
"If Trump is wired to contain his emotions, why doesn't he do that more often? "
He does.
"The amount of tantrums he's posted on twitter in the last two years alone is staggering. "
What tantrums?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leinja, most of the time I have a legit point, people just strongly disagree with me.
No, I am not a libertarian. I support some of their ideas, but I am not a libertarian. I support the Constitution and the design of it and the country. The Constitution gave a layout on the purpose of the federal government and what it is allowed to do. Anything else was left up to the states. And all governments are restricted by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights were there to give the people the ability to control government.
I can go into detail if you want which will be long, but in short the design of the country was this. The federal government serves the states which is why nothing at the federal level is determined by a majority. That is why the states were taxed originally and not individuals. It serves the states and states make up the federal government. This is why I opposed federally ran healthcare, welfare, education, etc.
State and local governments serve the people. I actually lean left on a lot of issues such as healthcare, welfare, taxes, etc. I just want those programs to be ran at the state and local level.
There are many reasons why but as a whole that is what I support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The UltimateBeing01, not to be rude but this is one of your weaker arguments. You literally had to reword the amendment to fit your narrative when I am giving you what is written in the Constitution word for word and breaking it down.
"Good point, buddy.
And you also fail to realize that argument can be used against you.
Couldn't they have said "People" in the Second if they meant to give ALL AMERICANS gun rights?"
It does say "the people". That's my point.
"What sense does it make to specify a certain group of Americans, the "militia," if EVERYONE was meant to have the right of ownership and usage of guns?"
Because the idea was for "the people" to form a militia like they did during the Revolutionary war. Ever heard of the "minutemen"? They were a militia that were independently formed.
"The writers were meaning to give everyone unlimited gun rights, yet ONLY speaks of militias?"
No, it clearly says "the people". The idea was so they can form a militia if needed like the minutemen did.
"You mean to tell me the writers didn't realize they could have worded it like this if they meant to give everyone a gun? "
They listed the reasoning for the 2nd amendment, it is allow the people to form a militia just as they did with the 1st amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
They allowed for freedom of speech, press and assembly so the people can "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
They listed the right for the people and a reasoning behind it.
Another example is the 4th amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
They list what the government cannot do, in this case no illegal search. The reasoning was so "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects,"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What you guys don't understand is that these amendments had intents behind it that are not congruent to a modern America. "
Why not? They basic idea was to give freedom and liberty to defend themselves whether it be against invaders, other citizens, or the government itself. The 1st amendment was there for people to criticize the government. The 2nd is there to violently overthrow them if needed. The 4th is there to prevent government from searching your property. They idea of limiting government is never old. One should always support that.
Yes, over time laws can change. But does that mean every law should change? Murder has been illegal for centuries, should we change that? You can't just say "it was written in a different time" as an argument. Yes, to a degree that is true. But there is more to it. In this case the idea is to limit government. Yes, guns are different today, and so is society. But gun murders are dropping and have been for decades. So yes, while gun rights were written in a different time, as we can see by the stats guns are not an issue.
"The ratifiers had no knowledge of today's weapons or our expansive military. Nor did they predict the gun crimes that would be allowed by the second amendment's deliberate misinterpretation by gun lobbies, like you guys are doing in this very thread. "
The internet did not exist as well, so should we remove the 1st amendment? Also, as I said, gun crimes are dropping and have for decades. If gun violence was on a rise then yes, I would say we should consider some major changes with the 2nd amendment being one of them. But that isn't the case. Also, there is the point of should we be removing rights for "safety"? If you want to do that then how about we remove the 4th amendment. I can make a strong argument that more of these mass shootings would not have happened is we allowed the government to randomly search our homes. The movie theater shooting would not have happened as police would have found the homemade bombs. Parkland would not have happened as the police would have had a much larger profile on Cruz. We have had situation of kidnappings that can be solved by removing the 4th amendment. Why not remove that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 scientists disagree on the threat of this virus. The WHO is even saying to stop the lock downs as they are causing more problems. The issue is that people are only listening to government scientists like Fauci who have an agenda and silence others. The lock downs are causing more problems.
Also, Justice Democrats did not grow, basically all who won were incumbents and do nothing once they get into office.
Republicans actually want to help people and solve problems. Democrats, right now, don't. Look at who is running the party still, Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer. All corrupt, career politicians. But hey, you guys beat Trump. A guy who basically had no reason to be president but did anyway. You are replacing him with a guy who spent his life trying to be president as he has done nothing else in life. Congrats.
1
-
@cuntycat2397 they do disagree. There is evidence that the lock downs keeping people closed up causes a spread. And again, the WHO said to stop the lock downs. Sweden was in the top 10 in deaths per capita world wide but has since dropped. Besides, how nations report cases and deaths differ. Hard to compare. The UK, Spain and Italy had strict lock downs and have more deaths per capita.
Wow, three people. How much of Bush's victory, which was not much, was based off of race in an area of a large black population? Same with Jamaal Bowman. With Marie Newman, she almost won in 2018. But in the end, three races? Wow, impressive. Republican gained more seats in the House.
Who botched corona? We were mislead mainly because information is not being told. If the virus is so dangerous why did Newsome hold a dinner in Napa Valley with 20 people? Why did people like Lightfoot and Newsome attend large rallies celebrating Biden's victory with no mask on? Why did Pelosi get her hair done with no mask? This virus is a scam designed to divide us, make our lives miserable, and have government grow in power. That sad part is that it is working.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 the spread is happening regardless. We have strict lock downs but still high cases. Same with masks. Almost every state has a mask mandate but it is still spreading. At some point we have to deal with it. Sweden doing a lock down last month is pretty late to me based on your standards. And again, nations like Italy, Spain and the UK had strict lock downs and did worse. So it goes against your point.
Of those "progressive" wins, how blue are those areas? What are their demographics? How much change can they actually do? How come I am not seeing any win as a governor? Kara Eastman lost again in Nebraska. Seems like Justice Democrats cannot win in red areas, only deep blue areas. Does not sit well as you win ideas and elections by winning over moderates. As for my philosophy dying, how is your philosophy doing? Democrats just showed that they can play dirty games for the establishment to win. How many "progressives" are being picked for the cabinet? None. Here you are, you beat Trump. Your reward? Biden and Harris, two career, corrupt politicians. With how they acted, and how local politicians like Newsome, Cuomo and Lightfoot acted, they now feel they can get away with basically murder. That is not going to attract moderates to the democrat side which will ruin justice democrats chances in purple areas as people will see the "democrat" name next to them. That is why none of these justice democrats are winning in purple areas.
" and a resolution for masks,"
Again, we are all wearing masks, it is not doing anything. Based on what you are saying cases should be low because since the summer there have been mask mandates in almost every state.
" yet Trump calls into question whether masks work because people might touch them as opposed to breathing unfiltered air altogether? "
He isn't wrong.
" Or even his constant delaying of state funding for setting up their own systems as he demanded"
Again, Congress controls the purse.
"Moron, we're in the middle of a surge, there is the equivalent of a 9/11 daily due to the virus, "
Around 7500 people die a day on average, and even more so during this time of year. The average age of death via 9/11 in NYC was around 40 years old, the oldest being 79. For the virus it is over 80 years old. You can't compare the two. But based on what you said, with the 7500 dying a day in general, we should remain in lock down until we find a way to end all forms of deaths. Why not?
I doubt you will answer that.
"with a kill rate near 4 times the rate of the WORST flu years"
The survival rate is over 99.6% which is comparable to the flu. Deaths are overstated because if someone dies of a gun shot but had the virus, and someone who is 90 with kidney failure, and gets the virus, they are counted the same when they clearly aren't. A coroner in the state of CO said recently she found it disturbing that people who died of gun shots, but tested positive for the virus, are being listed as covid deaths.
As I said, 7500 people die a day on average, many cases are avoidable. We do not talk about them. We talk about it, though, if someone does in a mass shooting or in a hurricane. Why? Because they are actually rare events.
Take mass shooting deaths, for example. Some people die in one and people focus so much on it to the point they say shootings are a major problem and gun reform is needed. Even at that a lot of gun reforms they push would have done nothing to stop a shooting. Such as a background check would not have stopped someone who stole their gun and then committed a shooting. Or who was a law abiding citizen to begin with. But it is still pushed. And even at that, gun violence has been dropping for 20 years. But we focus so much on it that people feel it is a major problem when it is not.
Same is with this virus. We are so focused on it that the numbers become inflated, and it becomes a bigger concern than what it really is.
"Again, Newsome and Pelosi, right wing democrats who act like you want them to, will not receive defense from me"
But they are in charge and will continue to be in charge. Are these justice democrats going to try to stop them?
And oh my god!!!!!! People die!!!!
LET'S ALL FREAK OUT AND HIDE!!!!!!
PEOPLE DIE!!!!!!!
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!!!!!!!????????????
1
-
@cuntycat2397 that last part, is you. If you want to hide in your closet, under you blanket, so be it. If you define that as living life, that is on you. I personally want to go out and live and enjoy life as, in the end, I have a limited amount of time on it. I am in my 30s so I feel fine. If I die I rather die enjoying life than being scared.
Tell me, how is hiding from a virus that one has an over 99% chance of dying from living life? Even at that, even if the over 300,000 deaths are legit, nearly 3 million die a year to begin with, for numerous reasons, many that are avoidable.
Tell me, how can you live the way you do? And why do you want to drag others down with you?
Again, we just had a college football seasons, 3 major conferences with full seasons and fans in the stands. Guess what? No major issues. But based on your standards we should have hundreds of college athletes dead along with college coaches and staff. We don't. Why?
1
-
@cuntycat2397 with Russian Roulette I have a 1/6 chance of dying from. With the virus I basically have a zero percent chance of dying from. In fact, that is the majority. Again, we just had a college football season, 3 major conferences with full seasons and fans in the stands. Zero deaths. It was going so well that coronabros had to enact contact tracing in order to try to stop the season, it did not work.
People are dying because of the lock downs. A recent CDC report said overdoses are up this year. Millions are suffering because of the lock downs.
"the equivalent of a 9/11 on average"
Why don't you ever read anything I write nor try to counter anything I write? The average age of those dying with covid is over 80 years old. The average age of those who died in NYC via 9/11 was 40, with the oldest being at 79. You can't compare the two.
Also, again, on average 7500 die a day as is. So again, why were you not supporting lock downs prior to covid?
Again, you won't even answer my questions as you have no counter points.
The survival rate is over 99%. That is from the CDC itself, including Dr. Fauci.
"The difference between dying from a car crash and being infected by someone as moronic as yourself is that your freedoms end at my front door."
Ok, now who is going to your front door to infect you? No one.
I find it ironic you say that. I have said you can hide under the blanket in your closet all you want. You do not have to allow people in your front do.
So thanks for agreeing with me :).
"When I go out and drive and take a risk, that is one thing, when I, or you put others at risk, that's something entirely different"
You put others at risk as well by driving. It goes both ways. If you do not drive your chances of causing an accident is zero.
HIV has no cure, there lies the difference. And it is also not that contagious.
"Again, we are in the middle of a surge with the equivalent of a 9/11 daily, ICU's at increasingly full capacity,"
Again, you cannot compare this to 9/11. Around 3000 died from 9/11, on average around 7500 die a day in the US. Why did we not lock down then? And ICU beds are always near capacity. That is how hospitals make money.
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 for those who are young and healthy the chances of death is essentially zero. For those who are old and sick it is higher, but death as a whole is high to begin with.
Overall, across all ages the chances of survival is over 99.6%. For those who are young the chance is much higher where your chances of dying is very low to begin with. For those who are old their chances of dying is higher, but their chances of dying to begin with is high.
You keep bringing up 9/11. People that day had a higher chance of dying from an attack like that than the virus. Again, the average age of death via covid is over 80 years old. The average age of death via 9/11 was 40 years old.
"Ok, now you're saying that the death is from over doses when you earlier said it is because people are spreading the virus indoors,"
I never phrased it like that.
Again, why do you never read my comments?
"I don't generally look at the number of people dying en masse"
But you are when you care making the 9/11 comparison. That is your standard. If deaths per day equal or exceed that of what happened in 9/11 than we need to make radical changes in society.
So why not lock down prior to covid?
"On average 7500 die from a variety of natural and accidental causes"
Yeah, like a virus. They also die for avoidable reasons like car accidents, murders, suicides, etc. But you ignore all of those. You just focus on this virus.
Now I explained the flaws of focusing on this virus alone in comparison to mass shootings and why they are both dramatized so much. They are both rare overall and we are focusing on it so much. So much so that we dramatize the actual issue and push for changes that would do nothing. As with a mass shooting and a new gun law in how that new gun law would not have done anything to stop that shooting. A lot of what we are pushing for is not actually stopping the spread.
For example, I noticed you are no longer bringing up masks when I pointed out that despite almost every state having a mask mandate (including the one I live in) we are seeing high cases.
"it is a death that can be avoided"
And just locking everyone in rubber rooms and only allowing a few "essential" worker deliver you your daily rations. We can avoid deaths via car accidents, murders, fires, suicides, other forms of accidents (like a skiing one) and so on.
So I see you support a full 100% lock down because it will lead to deaths that can be avoided.
"the difference is that your freedom stops at my front door."
Sure, as I said, you can lock yourself up in your home and not allow anyone in.
"you're lying with the survival rate being 99%. It has fluctuated from being 10% to its current number 3% here in America,"
No, it is over 99%. We had around 9 million infected back in March when only 100,000 were reported. That is according to a Penn State study. So many have become infected with mild to no symptoms they are not getting reported. Thus the actual number of infected reported is much lower.
Again, that is why college football was able to have a season with fans in the stands and zero deaths. Basically all who tested positive had no symptoms. Another point you continue to ignore.
YOU HIV comparison is poor because, again, HIV is not that contagious. The survival rate of HIV is very low where the survival rate of COVID is over 99%. Again, that is according to the CDC.
ICUs are always at high capacity. That is how hospitals make money. Do you think a hospital want so operate and only a small capacity and not make money?
Again, stop the 9/11 comparison.
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 and I asked this again, where you keep avoiding my difficult questions. Is living in fear, like you are, and wanting to remain locked down really living life?
Also, why don't you care about the millions suffering? The millions losing their jobs, their homes, their careers, their families, their businesses because of the lock downs? Why are you only focused on the virus?
Again, I doubt you will answer. I am going to predict your next response, something about 9/11, and how deadly this virus is (even though college football had a season, with fans with no deaths) despite the high survival rate, and something about your front door even though I said you can lock yourself at home all you want and don't have to allow people in.
As I said at the beginning, if you want to lock yourself up in your closet under the blanket, you can do that. Others will live life.
1
-
@cuntycat2397 " And the problem is that with normal contagions such as influenza, the death rate is less than 1% across the board of ages, whereas with covid, it goes over 20% in the higher age brackets, and breaks past 1% in the age range of 45-55"
You described the flu as well. And where do you get 20% at? Care to give me a source for that. But with the flu it is the old that die as well. What's your point? Old people are at a higher risk of death? I agree. So we should shut down an entire nation just because old people die? It has been happening for centuries.
" if you believe middle aged to older Americans should simply live with this new and demonstrably more severe illness, as your own president admitted 10 months ago on audio, then you simply lose on the democratic process of it, as polling had covid as the highest issue of concern for Americans across the board"
The polls? The same polls that were drastically wrong the past two elections? The ones that were predicting a democrat landslide that did not occur?
And if one is concerned about covid then they can hide at home. That is your choice. Why should my life, along with millions of others who are not concerned about it, be forced to bow down to others?
"Again, your figure is not born out in the data, the current death to case ratio"
Deaths are overstated, and as I said, while pointing to a Penn State study, cases are understated. Look at he recovery rate of just the data we have, it has increase since April. Why? Because since April we have done more testing and contact tracing finding more cases where people are not dying. Many have no symptoms. There are 10s of millions that have had it without even knowing nor reporting. That is why the survival rate, again, according to the CDC, is over 99%
Numbers and data is not your strong point.
"7500 deaths from a wide array of causes vs 7500 deaths from one single cause."
Doesn't matter. Your standard is now set. They are
1. In comparison to 9/11 totals
2. If any of them are preventable.
We have both in those 7500. That number is higher than the 9/11 total and many are preventable. Also, over 90% who die with covid also had other issues. Thus it was not just from one single cause.
So if you want to change the standard to "one single cause" we should end the lock downs as we are not having 3000 people die because of one single cause but from a collection of causes.
"The highest number of mass shooting deaths in the us was 12000 per year. The covid deaths number 300,000. "
Depends on what you define as a mass shooting? There is no legal definition. Or a school shooting in general. After one happens people lower the standard to have it seem like one happens every day. Or you look at Gun Violence Archive where they say we have over 600 mass shootings a year. But that is because they define a mass shooting of 3 or more injuries, not deaths. But when one happens people lower the bar to make the issue seem more like a problem than it is.
Same with this virus. You say 300,000 dead. Meanwhile, a coroner in CO said that she had to list gun shot victims as covid deaths because even though the gun shot is what killed them, they tested positive for covid.
As I said, 94% of those who died had underlying conditions. 40% were in nursing homes where the average life expectancy for nursing home patients is around a year. These are people who are near death to begin with. The numbers are inflated.
I will ask again. Why, after a full season of football with fans in the stands, did no one die?
Why do you bring up masks when I proved to you they are not working? We have a mask mandate in my state, we are seeing high cases.
"the argument is to address covid deaths, as their death rate, as the data shows, is astronomically higher than the number you keep lying about"
I cited the CDC and a Penn State study. What have you cited?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 "Or how bout the polling data that showed that Biden would win, which he did."
He was supposed to win by a landslide, including swing states. He did not.
"Good, an assertion without an argument. Again, showing your moronocism, great job lol. If cases are 'understated' as you say, then that means more deaths are attributed to covid, not less, did you mean to do that self own? Again, as the data shows with the ratio of deaths, and the number of cases world wide, it is not 99%. I'm sorry if you failed simple percentiles along with statistical analysis, but your idiotic understanding of numbers is not how reality operates hun, again, you don't know what you're talking about.
"
Deaths are overstated. As the CDC said, 94% had underlying conditions. Consider this, 40% of the deaths occur in nursing homes. According to a report from UCSF 50% of new nursing home patients die within 6 months. So during these 9 months one can easily argue that those 40% would be dead anyway. So here we are shutting down the economy ruining the lives of millions so a few 10s of thousands who would be dead anyway do not die of the virus.
Also read the 4 CBS Denver article entitled
"Grand County Coroner Raises Concern On Deaths Among COVID Cases"
People dying via gun shot wounds are being listed as covid deaths.
And cases are understated because, again, so many have mild to no symptoms and do not get tested. Thus you have a combination of deaths being overstated and cases being understated.
1
-
@cuntycat2397 "And again, it correlates with the surge, as the CDC data shows. In fact, when we isolated it to the college football season, it shows a total of 100,000 deaths during that time. "
How many of those were college football players, coaches, staff, etc. ? Also, look at CDC states of deaths per week since 2015 during the months of November to March is when we see the highest deaths.
So by your standard we need to lock down during those months in general.
"I actually can cite CDC, WHO, EDCD data"
Yeah, no you don't. And if you did you would know that WHO is literally saying to end the lock downs.
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 I do have data. I just gave it to you. What data have you provided? None, with no citation.
"Lol again, we have the data via CDC WHO EDCD cases and deaths"
Again, death are overstated. I broke down how. Cases are understated. CDC director Redfield admitted that the number of infected is most likely 10 times higher than what is reported. Again, a CDC director. But you will ignore that because you do not live in reality.
It isn't as simple as using cases and deaths. Again, deaths are overstated. If you look at flu deaths per year there is always a range of around 20%. Why? Because so many die with the flu and have other conditions as well. Same with the virus.
And again with cases, many have mild to no systems and do not get reported, so cases are understand as CDC director Redfield said, cases are most likely 10 times higher than what are reported. If you actually cited CDC stats you would know that.
Bottom line, admit, you are weak. Again, millions are going out in life, gathering and not caring. Again, we had a college football season with zero deaths. Why? I thought the virus was very deadly? Surely there would have been at least one with all those athletes gathering, hitting each other, breathing on each other.. Why zero deaths?
Again, if you want to be weak and live in fear, that is your choice. Do not bring others down with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 ""I'll answer your question as soon as you answer why you are actively in favor of trying to cause 2.7 million more deaths when it's a temporary fix,"
Well, I asked first. Again, I see you love to avoid topics. Perhaps, because, you don't know what you are talking about?
Next, you laid out your standard on if the deaths are preventable we should take radical actions to stop them. Of those nearly 3 million there are many cases that are preventable. So why not lock down.
Is it a temporary fix? First the story was about deaths, and how over 2 million were going to die. We locked down on the idea of flattening the curve and reducing hospitalizations. We did that but the next talking point was not to open up too early as it will become worse. We opened up, partly. After a month cases went up, but not deaths. The recovery rate climbed as more data came out and continues to climb. But the talking point is just cases, deaths. Now we are pushing for more lock downs saying "hang in there just a little longer" when a new strain came.
From the beginning this was supposed to last a few weeks, not basically a year. And with the new strain how will the goal posts move again? You say this is temporary, I say you are foolish.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cuntycat2397 "sounds like plenty of like minded people as yourself killed their families. "
No one in my family died and they continue to live a normal life. Even at that, guess what, death is a part of life. If my grandparents died and were tested positive of covid I will say they died because they were 90 years old.
":I'm curious though why you're in favor of no action being taken when you admit yourself that a 9/11 amount of deaths is occurring, and for that to remain the norm"
Because death is a part of life. Sorry that is a very novel concept for you, but that is reality. Again, you can hide in fear of death, but I will live life. 7500 die a day on average, based on your standard we should have shut down long ago. Why don't we?
" rather than enact a temporary measure until vaccines are available, why is that your stance? "
Because that was never the goal. Waiting until we find a cure was never the goal. Why don't we lock up until there is a cure for HIV? Why don't we lock up, brainwash people to stop all murders and suicides? Why don't we lock up until we find a way to make driving 100% safe? It will all be temporary.
Also, again, from the beginning this was supposed to last a few weeks, not almost a year. It was never about waiting until there is a cure. And why do you trust this vaccine so much?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To start, anyone who says Shapiro is an idiot I usually see lacking evidence. Shapiro is very intelligent and more and more I am sensing jealousy as someone on the right is bashing those on the left.
Not to the link that Christopher Huymh posted going point by point
First question: I agree that Shapiro needs to elaborate more on that than simply answering "yes". Now for the author of this article to talk about the "social contract" is him being dismissive as well as there isn't one. In the US we only have the Constitution, that's it. But I agree, Shapiro needs to elaborate on this.
Second question: While Ben did not answer the question, the question was bad to begin with as it points to KS when one can point to Connecticut for a counter example (also, KS is not doing poorly despite their limited resources).
The author proceeded to talk about this
"The assumption is that everyone benefits, but while taxes have been cut from an ‘official’ (but rarely paid, of course, by the rich!) 70-90% down to the 30s and 20s, with multi-millionaires often paying even less in between kickbacks and massive tax-dodging operations, the everyday American isn’t doing so well. Real wages have declined alongside four decades of massive tax cuts,"
For one, and the author agrees, no one paid that high rate. In 1967 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that year paid $0 in federal taxes. So that will support Ben's argument. I will say no as during that time it was after WWI and the entire world was rebuilding and we weren't giving us an edge. Next, for real wages, what you had was the expansion of the payroll tax, increase immigration and more women joining the work force which is all driving down wages. In the latter part you increase supply you decrease prices. However, goods and services have gotten better. Cars, technology, and overall life has gotten better. You have to consider that when factoring in wages. When your car lasts longer, is safer, get better mileage and gets you to your destination faster, that is saving you money and time. Anyone who points to the "wages of stagnant" point needs to realize that.
On Ben's argument on taxes, he has a point. The rich are the ones who invest and generate wealth, not the poor and middle class. A flat tax, at least, is the best and more fair. However, I support a tax on the states, but that is a different discussion.
On this point the author made a poor argument himself.
"First, the entire reason why there even HAD to be a minimum wage debate is because wages did not appropriately grow despite increased work hours, greater worker productivity, and exponential growth in corporate profit:"
First off, what Ben said is true. The increase in the min. wage has led to higher unemployment for people with low skills, especially black teens. Next, I discussed the wage issue. On productivity that is going up because of technology, not because people are working harder. But increased productivity leads to lower prices and better goods which is raising wages as well. Also, the flaw of the min. wage is you enforce how much is paid per hour and not per week.
"In the 22 times the federal minimum wage has been raised, and the over 300 times that states or localities have raised their minimum wages just since the 1980, these concerns have never materialized. The effect of increasing the minimum wage on employment is probably the most studied topic in labor economics, and the consensus of the literature is that moderate increases in the minimum wage have little to no effect on employment. In fact, this was the conclusion of a letter sent to the leaders of both houses of Congress in 2014, signed by over 600 PhD economists—including 8 winners of the Nobel Prize"
First off, that 600 economist letter was countered by a 500 one. Next, 600 is a very small portion on it. Also, that conclusion made of the times the min. wage was increased looked at overall employment in which there are several factors involved in that. For example, when it was raised in the mid 90s unemployment dropped. However, unemployment was dropping already prior to that and the percent of those earning at or below the min. wage was dropping. Point being is that employers were already hiring and paying more than the min. wage.
Shapiro is correct on the min. wage argument, the author is wrong.
Third question:
"First, let’s discuss rights, since Ben Shapiro is confused about their meaning. Although he likes to say ‘we have a right to X, but not Y’ as an expression of his ideology, the fact is, rights are NOTHING but what the Social Contract confers."
Not true. Rights are things that the government cannot take away without due process, period.
" Yet while Shapiro might be OK with taxes for pro-Israel spending (‘necessary’ good), roads (‘collective’ good), or fraud protections (a government function he explicitly supports), he makes an arbitrary distinction between those rights and healthcare."
Those aren't rights.
"If health care is not a right, as Shapiro argues, then why would a non-payer (assuming we have perfect knowledge of future non-payment) be entitled to a doctor’s time and resources in the emergency room?"
They aren't.
The author is wrong on this one.
Question four:
Kyle is correct in this one. Going to friends and family is a way. Simple fact is that if you do not have any friends and family to help you and you cannot help yourself than what are you worth? Sorry that the truth hurts and it seemed to trigger a lot of people.
Author is wrong on this one.
Question five:
"Otherwise, we are stuck with protections that contradict Shapiro’s worldview, such as zero-consequence emergency room visits (protects life)"
That does not protect life. Protecting life is making laws against murder. Even at that there is no guarantee there.
At this point I am bored. I give credit where credit is due, this man tried to point to examples. However, in 4 of the 5 he was wrong. When you do not know what rights are by law then that is a problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ousarlxsfjsbvbg8588 I looked at the paper. One concern is that they are talking about after a financial crisis as opposed to normal economic times. During a crisis economic is slow to begin with. Next, interest rates are lowered to encourage people to no longer save money but spend it, thus pull it out of banks. So while an interesting studies, it is one of many pieces of the puzzle. And again, it was talking about a financial crisis, not normal economic time.
The Glass Steagall repeal did not cause the banking crisis. Several banks who went under did not fall under Glass Steagall. Read the NPR article entitled
"Fact Check: Did Glass-Steagall Cause The 2008 Financial Crisis?"
They say in the end
"The 1999 changes to Glass-Steagall led to much bigger banks, but that was, at best, just one factor in the 2008 financial crisis."
Next, HUD gave Fannie and Freddy authority to take on riskier loans. Before HUD's changes 30% of their loans were supposed to be low income, but under Clinton it went up to 50% and under Bush up to 55%. Also, they made the risk because they were going to be bailed out in the end. That is not capitalism. It is, once again, a "heads I win tails you lose" situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As for that 36,000 number (I keep getting varying numbers by the way, 45,000 or 32,000, etc.), it is hard to get accurate numbers in that situation. As a Harvard professor said, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with people in poverty. That is self inflicted. So the question becomes did they die because of bad health or lacking healthcare?
Also, in comparison 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. Do we ban driving to make that number zero?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gilbertgaines672 the 80,000 deaths is actually an overstatement. Basically you have someone dying from heart disease and also had the virus and it is listed as a virus death even though it is not the main contributor. So the deaths are overstated.
"For the simple fact the entire population in America has not been tested yet."
Except more people are being tested and we are not seeing a surge in cases. In GA, a their peak, were around 700 to 900 new cases a day with around 3500 tests a day. Now they are averaging around 600 new cases a day with around 5000 tests day and that with being opened for over 2 weeks now. That suggests three things
1. Our measures of distancing and precautions are working
2. The symptoms are mild
3. More people got the virus and are immune
Overall, it is most likely a combination of the three.
You say I have no objective fact, well, there is right there.
As for it being May, it is suggested that summer will alleviate the spread. The fact is this. In order to learn more about the virus we have to simply open up the economy, slowly, and have people become infected. In doing so we can learn more about it. We can learn how severe it is, if we can build up an immunity, if it will evolve, etc. You know how small pox vaccine was discovered? Dairy farmers were being infected with cow pox and they were not being infected by small pox. Literally people were being infected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gilbertgaines672 I know limited is known. But again, a lot of virus deaths are comorbitities. That means there were other factors at play. An 80 year old person is at high risk of death all around. Chances are very high they were going to die anyways.
What does being pro-life have to do with anything? Fact is that in life we take risks and place other people's lives in danger all the time. We live with it. Take driving for example. You place other people's lives in danger all the time when doing so, but we still do it. Why? Because we understand it very well.
"telling the older generation that their life is meaningless. "
Never once said that. In the book "Being Mortal", which is required reading for nursing students at my university, the author there brought up a case of an elderly person, on medication and care, was told not to drink alcohol. What did she do? She drank anyways. Why? Because why not? Enjoy life. Here you want to lock people down and not let people live life. I am saying open up slowly, learn more about the virus, and get back to normal. Being lock down is not living life.
In 2017 there are around 7700 deaths per day. So 2000 is actually low.
"At the beginning of this conversation, you stated that America has 40,000 deaths per year"
From traffic accidents. In 2017 the US had over 2.8 million deaths. So 100,000 is actually low. And again, a lot of the virus deaths are comorbitities which is actually common with a lot of deaths, as in many factors played a role. In fact, of the top causes of deaths, number one in 2017 was from heart disease and number 4 is chronic lower respiratory diseases. That means some of the top forms of death involve the respiratory and heart to begin with. You have to factor that in. As I said, someone dying from heart disease and also had the virus was most likely going to die to begin with. But you ignore that.
"You seriously have no concept of the magnitude of this situation."
And neither do you. That is why we need to start opening up the economy and see what happens. If you want to stay in your home and live in fear that is your choice. When my state opened back up recently the first thing I did was go to my favorite bar. It was fun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gilbertgaines672 around 7700 people die a day in the US. And yes, the number of cases is dropping. The death rate is overstated as hospitals are pressured to report every death as a virus death if they have the virus. When the final tally comes there will be a huge error bar. Just like how in flu deaths there is an error bar of around 20 to 30 percent.
As for every life being important, sure. But in life there are a million ways to die and millions of inconveniences. You can die in a car accident, from the flu, cancer, gun shot, choking, etc. In life you can feel miserable from the flu, a sprain ankle, a broken arm, a sun burn, etc. This virus is just one more. Thankfully more people are starting to feel like I do and are going out and enjoying life realizing all of that. You can stay inside if you want. Come August when this who situation blows over you will be looking very foolish.
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is a legit point to that argument, albeit shallow. However, we do have high obesity rates in this nation and it does beg the question on why should someone who is healthy pay for others?
Also, it comes down to the community. Other nations, like Denmark, is able to have the system they do their to their small size. Thus any government program they can see if it is working for them. In the US we have over 320 million people. I can't tell is government is working for me. As Milton Friedman once said, there is a desire to have money spent by government, but the people should get their money's worth. To ensure that you keep government as local as possible. With that you can see if government is working for you. Also, some areas don't desire government and rely on other methods, like charities.
So with an argument like that, I bet a person like that would be willing to help out their neighbor, or local community. So do I. However, they don't want to help someone they will never meet nor have an influence on their life across the nation.
I grew up in the Midwest, but now live out west. I meet many people that been out west, out east, but never in any flyover states. Some did not know that there was Kansas City, MO. Why should that person dictate how those citizens live, and visa versa.
So there is where the argument comes from. It is shallow but it has a point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Punk__pixie , to add when you say this
"I understand that but I actually want to debate these people, it seems like this is the only argument I get from them, I cant just write all them off I dont wanna be in am echo chamber."
Again, to expand. I agree with the initial argument to a point. I support state rights and strong local governments for many reasons. Two are
1. Why should I force other people, who have no influence in my life, what to do?
2. Why should they force me how to live?
For example, Why should the people of Montana be forced what to do because some people in CA tells them to though some law? This is why state rights were created. As I said, living out west many people never step foot in a Midwest state, let alone know how people there act nor what they desire.
I, myself have no problem helping out my local community and do. However, I don't want to help out people in another state. I leave that to them, and I expect the same in return.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BB-nm6oz everyone knows someone who died in a car accident. So should we place radical restrictions on driving? We don't because that will actually cause more harm.
94% of covid deaths had underlying conditions. They were old and/or sick to begin with, they were near death. Pretty much they would be dead overall. Take nursing home patients. 40% of covid deaths are nursing home patients. According to UCSF 50% of new nursing home patients die within 5 months. So statistically a good portion of those 40% would be dead anyway during this time frame. Meanwhile, people are losing their businesses for life. People in their 20s, 30s and 40s with decades of potential life are suffering and dying. So basically we are sacrificing one form of death for another. We are preventing grandma from dying from covid when they are likely to die soon anyway, while someone in their 30s dies or will face major psychological issues for years.
These lock downs are causing major economic and psychological damage, more than the virus would have ever done. The lock downs were necessary at the beginning as the virus was new, but now it isn't as we know the virus is being overblown.
It is not unusual to overblow a situation like this. Consider how 7500 people die a day on average, a lot of cases are avoidable. We never talk about that. We talk about people dying in a shooting, dying in a warehouse explosion, etc. Why? Because they are rare. But when a school shooting happens it gets overblown as if school shootings and guns are a major problem when they aren't. Same is with this virus. People can talk about someone dying, but again, almost all near death to begin with.
Overall, this virus is not that dangerous. We need to get back to normal.
"As for a divided nation, trump has been doing that for 4 years. Besides the both sides argument that has been used allot l, just look at his recent behavior. He literally could not directly condemn white supremacist groups."
He did. After Charlottesville he condemned them. But of course the media ignores that just like the media ignored the "you ain't black" statement by Biden.
"If you are going to question trump at the very least trying to be a dictator, he regularly discredits all media, even fox, if he doesn't agree with them."
Because the media is a problem. But his actions do not make him a dictator. A dictator will create law to silence the media. He has never done that. Discrediting is not using force to do anything. And the media is the one dividing us. They are a big problem and need to be called out. Just look at the virus situation how often they changed their stance on it, how often they moved the goal posts to just fear monger. And as a result people like you fall for it. There are experts that disagree with people like Fauci but the media ignores them. With the virus at the start it was all about deaths, pictures of mass graves and temporary morgues. After those dropped it switched "we can't open up too early", a vague response that really is an example of poor leadership. After that we opened up and we were fine. Then cases went up and the talk became only about cases as deaths are low. No more talk about deaths, only cases. But the media has to fear monger all the way.
You also have the issue of BLM where the media does not give the full story, they just immediately jump to racism. You have the issue of cancel culture. When the Girl Scouts sent out a tweet about ACB congratulating her on becoming the 5th woman to be on the Supreme Court. They later took it down because they were harassed by people. It only happened because ACB is Trump's pick.
The political left and the media is dividing our nation. Look at the current faces of the democrat party. Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders........all career politicians that have zero success outside of government. They also have zero leadership experience. They are corrupt, career politicians and only care about power, not the people. Trump actually cared about people. He had no reason to run for president. He literally took a pay cut becoming president, so did his family. People like Biden and Harris became rich only working for government. They never actually created anything. Tell me, what has Biden ever accomplished?
"Trump also had that church incident where he silenced peaceful protesters in order to get a photo op. "
That is a lie from the media, that was not the case.
As for separation of children, they do that because many adults use kids as a way to get in the nation, so they are separated to see if the adults are the kid's parents. When it is confirmed they are reunited. And you bring up mental issues (ironic you bring that up but ignore it when it comes to the lock downs), these kids are coming from a poor, crime ridden nation. Being separated from their parents for a short time is nothing. Also, the media never talked about it when Obama did it.
Seeking asylum is not legal.
"Parents simply don't bring their kids on such a dangerous journey for the fun of it"
Here is the issue and a misunderstanding of culture and those people's position. You may feel parents may not act like that, but you come from a rich nation and is most likely well off. These people don't.
Trump was not the problem, the democrats and the media are. Congrats, we are going to have a corrupt, career politician that can't even stay awake. Imagine how world leaders are going to push him over. Thinking of some fun with this, I am ready for his state of the union addresses where Harris will have to poke him with a stick to keep him awake.
But here is an example of the divide in our nation. This election was a mess. Our election process should not be this messy. The talking points from the left is cheering that Biden won. Opinion people on the right talking points are that we should be concern about how piss poor our election system is. It begs the question if our election system is legit.
Another example was when RBG died. The media and democrats were making it political saying something about her dying wish and that Trump should not get to pick a justice. The talks from the Republicans? They praised RBG even though they disagreed with her. They honored her, it was apolitical.
How can you not realize how divisive the democrats are?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BB-nm6oz it is not a weak response. Covid is not that deadly, it has an over 99.6% survival rate. Basically, at worse, it is comparable to the severe flu. You bring up car regulations, even with that 40,000 die a year on the road in traffic accidents. Why not cap speed limits to 15 mph? Or why not have a cop at every street corner stopping you making sure you are following the law? Or why not make every care the size of tanks so if one gets into an accident they will live? The reason why is because all those options lead to worse outcomes. Just like with this virus. Information is out that what we are doing now is leading to worse outcomes.
"As for what you say regarding old people who will "die anyway" the lives of the elderly are equally valuable. It's easy to say that if it's someone else's grandma or grandpa, but not one's own."
I had a grandma die at the age of 83. When my dad called me while I was at work I knew what it was about, my grandma died. She was in and out of hospitals and near death. My other grandparents are in their 90s. If they die I won't be shocked.
Here is a novel concept for many leftists and coronabros like yourself, death is a part of life. People die. When my grandma died I knew it was coming. If my other grandparents died it was because they were in their 90s.
"f there's one thing I agree on it is that people in their 20s and 30s are dying. "
Which are very rare and isolated cases. They do not represent the norm. We do not make policy changes on rare cases. People in their 20s die with the flu. Why not lock down for that?
" The whole myth of only old people dying or getting majorly affected is exactly that, a myth. "
It is not. The average age of death is over 80 years old.
"In the U.S. and Ireland the people most affected by covid were people with diabetes, obesity, asthma, high blood pressure, etc. Since nearly 1/3 of our country is obese, that's nearly 1/3 people who can be seriously affected by this virus."
So underlying conditions, I agree. I do not see an issue. Those people are at high risk of death to begin with. And obesity is mainly a personal choice. If you are obese you are at high risk of death overall. So where is the issue?
"children who are affected develop rare symptoms like those of Kawasakis syndrome."
I have heard this and I have yet to see any legit report on this. Even so, chances are it is minor thus irrelevant as, again, we do not make radical policy changes for rare, isolated events.
"Getting back to your argument of people with "decades of life left" you didn't explain how aside from covid, they are dying en masse."
I did, suicides, substance abuse, depression, all of which are high now. In fact, I will use myself as a case study. I suffer with major depression disorder. I was fine for the most part on my medication and therapy session. When the virus hit with the lock downs I could not go teach my class, I could not go to class, I could not go to the gym, I could not do my activities, and so on. I was told to stay home. I could, though, walk down to the local gas station and pick up booze and drink there alcoholism runs in my family. It got worse to the point I had to go to detox. My blood pressure was up, my heart rate was up, and I was at risk of stroke or heart attack at the age of 33.
So great, I am shielded from the virus when alcoholism can kill me. Congrats, you traded one death, the virus, for another. And that is what is happening. People in the age range of 25-44 are dying due to increase in suicides, substance abuse and depression.
And you bring up the economy. The issue with the left is they really do not care about people. They feel being "alive" and "living" is having a heart beat. It is way more than that. People love to socialize and do activities. People love to get out and interact with others. When you stop that psychological issues happen. I teach a lab at my university. I talked to my students about how my university is approaching classes with over 90% of them being virtual, they hate it. They are not learning anything. Here you are having over a year worth of education of students being hindered.
With labs student attend half of them in person and the other half virtually. One student was concerned with how things are going if she were to apply for a job she would have no hands on experience with anything. So what can she do? And I agreed. she was paying full tuition but not receiving what she paid for. Her future is much harder now.
1
-
@BB-nm6oz school shootings are down overall and have been dropping since the early 90s. So yes, they are overblown when they happen.
The point is this, we do not make radical changes due to rare, isolated events as the radical changes will be worse. Yes, the deaths are bad, but we have to think rationally here and compare and contrast. So you have a school shooting which, again, is rare. You pass some major gun restriction reform preventing law abiding citizens from getting guns. What will happen? Law breakers will get the guns anyway and they will still commit crime. You have solved nothing.
Same with this virus. You have a virus that kills people who are, statistically, likely to die soon anyway. But you shut down the nation for it causing millions to suffer and even die and for what? To save a few thousand that would die in a short time to begin with?
That is the discussion you, and others, do not want to seem to have. There are dangers all over the world. There are millions of ways to die, the virus is just one more and as we see it is not dangerous, no more dangerous than the severe flu. Most do not even have symptoms.
This is not a global pandemic, even with higher cases deaths are low.
As for Trump and racism, racism is overblown to begin with. Where is actual racism happening? The pendulum has swung so far to the other side you have a situation like what happened in UCLA. In May a non white student requested that black students be given more time and an easier final in the class due to what was going on in Minnesota. The professor refused. As a response students complained and he was suspended for 3 weeks. The black students were given an easier test. The black students were treated differently due to their race, that is racism and it is from the left.
The left is the true racist side and it is called "the soft bigotry of low expectations".
"Scientists continuously prove and disprove theories based on trial and error. "
I am a scientist myself and I will say this, science does not prove anything. Please understand that. Read the UC Berkeley article entitled
"Misconceptions about science"
They say
"MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.
CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives."
"MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.
CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them."
"As for those experts you speak of. Those are people who are as credible as a sack of potatoes. "
What do you base that off of? I have a hard time trusting you judgement at this point considering you do not know how science works and how it does not prove anything.
"These include those who believe in heard immunity. In order to have that you need 75%of the population to have the disease. We are nowhere near that."
More people have been infected than what we know. A Penn State study suggested that over 8 million were infected back in March when only 100,000 people were reported to be infected. That is because so many had mild to no symptoms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BB-nm6oz I look for actual studies, not the media. With the virus I am giving actual reports from universities.
As for the shooter, you are watching the MSM. Again, watch the full video. A guy put his hands up and backed off. He was not shot. The kid was acting in self defense in the end. If he was a shooter why did he not shoot people who did not attack him? You are ignore that.
It isn't about him sacrificing his presidential salary, he could have pursued many options to make millions. He decided to take on the stress of the presidency for nothing. Same with many of his staff. They could have made millions doing what they did, but they all took paycuts to help out society.
I recommend you read the book "Good Profits" by Charles G. Koch. I know, you will say "he is a Koch brother" and completely dismiss him, but the reality is they have a long history of doing what is best for society. I met high members who worked for him and they all talk about helping out society. For example, they supported the Keystone pipeline even though it would actually harm them as they have a large portion of their company in oil. The Keystone pipeline would lead to more companies being involved in oil harming Koch industry. Why would they do that? Because they want society to be better and the Keystone pipeline would lead to more competition and thus more innovation.
Have an open mind, read the book. You would be surprised. Not all rich people are bad.
And Trump never once say the virus is a hoax. If you have evidence of that please give it. I have not seen it because it does not exist.
" Data is important, but it is equally important to know who funds that data and studies. Who interprets the data, which in this case is you, and what data is emphasized. "
You are desperate at this point. The fact is that I am giving well respected sources where you provided nothing. I recommend, once again, read the book "Good Profits". Early on Charles Koch praised the fact that his dad did not get involved in asbestos. But Koch industry, according to the media, is awful for society despite doing things like want to push for competition for alternative energy and not using asbestos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" I'm willing to put my money that the majority of the people in
suboptimal situations don't have a good grasp on their situation and/or
don't have the capacity (or lack the skill) to do quality research to
improve their situation. "
I disagree. This is why people move to begin with. This is why people pursue college and improve in life. People have the ability, plenty of people do. To me, if those with ability move from areas that are not doing well then that state or city needs to find a way to keep those skilled and intelligent people there.
"I just look at the average American and look at how they operate within
the economy and how willing they are to take on certain risks and debt
without any good understanding how that affects their lives."
Things are dynamic, but to say that they have not done some sort or research is simply not true.
"I also have to disagree that prices are lower predominantly due to lower taxes and regulation."
For the most part they are.
"When we talk about cities that could do well to have people move out due
to high cost of living, not all of them have high property taxes or
sales tax"
There are places that do well and have low prices. Texas is an example. FL is another. Both have low taxes.
"To be honest, with the exception of California, sales tax and property
tax don't really deviate all that much and plenty of the Midwest states
are in the middle of the pack for both rather than the bottom."
Midwest states also have income taxes. Iowa has no sales tax on food (at least when I lived in that area). States with no income taxes are WA, NV, WY, SD, TX, AK, and FL, none in the Midwest.
" but there is just a stark contrast of prices between very urban areas and more rural areas that aren't bridged by these taxes."
I agree there is a difference between rural prices and urban prices. That is because in urban places you have a lot more skilled workers and skilled jobs.
"I have to conclude that high urban cost of living mostly has to deal
with demand due to a high concentration of people in a single area. "
That does play a role. However, in some urban areas the cost is much higher then others. There are plenty of jobs in other areas of the country with low cost of living.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Kyle is at least able to criticize Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren"
Never seen him do it. But I have to ask, where has Ben Shapiro been wrong? What studies does he ignore? Give me examples. I have my complaints on Shapiro, but he is very knowledgeable and he isn't just a safe space for conservative. I really have yet to see anyone debunk him.
"Ben's main economic view is straight up libertarian capitalism where there is no regulations."
That is simply not true. He has supported government actions.
"He literally wants private businesses to take over the lives of the average American in place of the government"
To be 100% fair, private businesses can't take over people's lives. All a business can do is offer you a job and/or a product. Government can force you to do things.
"Of course, to the average viewer here, this is a ridiculous notion since there should be a mix of capitalist and socialism"
Which is what? I bet Shapiro will agree. Even Milton Friedman agreed on that. He just wanted it to be localized. I will be honest, I can not speak for Shapiro, but I feel you are misrepresenting him. I can assume that he will support government as well as long as it is localized at the state and local level.
" I can go on, but just watch him yourself. "
I agree, watch him. I want Kyle to see opposing viewpoints. But I can criticize Kyle fairly. No one out there want zero government, not even Shapiro.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@burninghard , when did I ever deny climate change and when did I ever say Mike Hulme denied climate change? And when did I ever say that man did not contribute and when did I ever say that Mike Hulme said that man did not contribute?
This is the problem with your side. You never cite actual scientists but when I push you in the corner with opinions on experts you cry the whole "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER" call.
"and that it will have catastrophic effects"
Here is what Mike Hulme said
"Mike Hulme, also a professor at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to IPCC reports, wrote in 2009: “What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change.”"
Hmmmmm.....doesn't seem like he is saying climate change is catastrophic. He is expressing doubt. Also, read the Popular Technology article entitled
"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"
Again, pee reviewed papers.
So far I have given you peer reviewed papers and you have given me zero.
" You kind of find a lot of youtube videos that deal with scientists trying to persuade denier knuckleheads"
Again, who denies climate change? When have I ever denied climate change? I am pushing you in the corner and you are pushing back calling me a denier when I have never once denied climate change.
"But to your point about that peer reviewed papers that deny human contribute to the current climate change effects. "
No one denies that human contribute. The issue is how much do they contribute? Again, you making things up. I have never once said that humans don't contribute.
"They exist for sure but that are around 0,5% of all studies examining the issue."
Care to give me a list of all the studies? I just gave you a list. And again, I ask, who is saying man does not contribute to climate change? The question is how much does man contribute?
"But this
"No scientists is saying that man contributes highly to climate change as we don't know. "
is simply untrue."
And should take your word for it? Why?
"And the thing she preaches over and over again is that politics should listen to the science and act accordingly.
"
Act how? And I agree, listen to scientists. How about she gives us a list and papers to read up on.
"And no she is not fear mongering but merely citing scientific studies."
When has she cited studies? I have not seen it. Maybe you can point to me a time where she did and what studies she cited.
"She is extremly well informed about the topic for her age."
I 100% disagree. It takes years to understand science and climate change in particular due to the influence it has on politics, our economy, our society, etc. All she does is fear monger.
"You might think it is fear mongering that within the next 100 years most of coral reafs will disappear and the ocean will rise around 1m + vast areas of the earth will be inhabitable due to 365 days per year being too humid and hot to stay outside but that is what the scientific models predict. "
You can't predict that far ahead. But remember when Al Gore made his predictions and were wrong? We tried to predict drought rates but were off. Read the nature paper entitled
"Little change in global drought over the past 60 years"
But go ahead and listen to Greta, I am listening to the actual scientists. I have yet to see you cite a single scientist on this topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@burninghard , wikipedia is not a reliable source. I recommend you read the Popular Technology article entitled
"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism "
Well, not really an article, just a list of peer reviewed papers. You know, a reliable source. When you are getting information from sources that are non scientific I can see why you yell "denier" when shoved into the corner. You are not up to speed on this topic.
On that quote about that book, congrats, you have on person's opinion. What's your point? It is also from Natasha Mitchell who has done zero work in the field. Zero publications. So who would you rather trust more? Seems like everyone else praises the book. You know, I thought you guys were all about "consensus"? So when one person criticizes it and everyone else praises it, does the "consensus" go against Mitchell? You have a double standard now. Not surprising, it is a trait on people who don't know much about a topic.
"You cited two scientists (wrong) and denied the influence of mankind througout almost all your comments up till now. Do I need to cite you again? Do you really believe you cornered me with anything you wrote there? Wow man you are amazing."
Now I just cited over 1300 papers. But whatever. Keep citing Wikipedia and Mitchell who doesn't even work in the field.
"Well first of all truth does not have an opinion to "agree" with someone. Some scientific theory is true until proven wrong or not. This one has continously resisted to be proven wrong."
Now you are 100% wrong on science. Science never proves anything. That is why it is different from religion. Prove means without a doubt and no doubt is aligned with faith like a religion. As Richard Feynman said, religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt. But don't believe me, how about you read up from a very right wing source, UC Berkeley in the articled entitled
"Misconceptions about science"
They write
"MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.
CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them."
But hey, what does a very right wing, bias source like UC Berkeley know?
And now you cited the "consensus" argument where before, despite most praising Hulme's book you only needed one person, Mitchell, to discredit it. So now all you need is one person and not a "consensus"? What is it?
"So because I believe in scientific evidence I am a leftist?"
No, it is because you don't understand science which makes you a far leftist. Let us go through the list
1. You claimed I deny climate change even though I never once did
2. You cite Wikipedia when I cite peer reviewed papers, over 1300 now
3. You argue the consensus point but then turn around and used only one person's opinion, Mitchell, to discredit Hulme's book despite everyone else praising (giving the consensus it is good)
4. The best part is that you don't even understand science. You said science "proves" things. It doesn't. But I doubt you will trust a very bias, right wing source like UC Berkeley.
But hey, what do I know. You are calling me a denier when I shoved you into the corner.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Your theory has been tried and tested over the last forty years, "
Actually it hasn't. The idea of cutting the defense budget and increasing federal spending has for the past 50+ years. Defense spending has been dropping from 10% of GDP to 3% where the federal budget went from 14% of GDP after WWII to now 20%.
" In those forty years, wages have not gone up at all with worker productivity and inflation,"
That is not true. First off, we created the payroll tax that hinder wage growth. But also goods and services have become better and cheaper over the years. A car now is much better and cheaper than 40 years ago. The areas of the market that has seen the largest increase in prices have been healthcare, college tuition, and housing. They are also the ones that have the most federal government influence in medicare and medicare and the payroll tax, college loan program, and the FHA and bank bailouts respectively.
"Tell me what is more of a waste of money, funding that gender studies
student or providing tax breaks for large corporations so they can stash
their money or pay it out as dividends to millionaires, who put it in
their bank accounts."
Both are wasteful which is why I support a flat income tax and a consumption tax at the federal level. Don't tax corporations and they will stay.
"Take a look at what happened after the Bush tax cuts."
A lot happened. You can't just blame that on taxes.
"Take a look at who ended up bailing those same people out when the market crashed in 2008."
The government bailed them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh, you. There are studies that show hydroxychoroquine has potential. Read the studies entitled
"Breakthrough: Chloroquine Phosphate Has Shown Apparent Efficacy in Treatment of COVID-19 Associated Pneumonia in Clinical Studies"
and
"Chloroquine as prophylactic agent against COVID-19?"
And Trump never said inject bleach. The reality is this, this virus is not that dangerous. It is simply being abused to people on the left as a final attempt to try to beat Trump. Notice how this is going on during an election year? From Feb. 1 to May 23, according to the CDC, more have died with pneumonia compared to this virus. Most who are dying are either old or sick to begin with. We need to reopen now and start pushing for herd immunity during the summer. There was a recent article in science suggesting long term immunity can take place and some may already have it due other infections from other coronaviruses
"T cells found in COVID-19 patients ‘bode well’ for long-term immunity"
And again, Trump never said inject bleach.
So you are correct, there are people who are scientifically illiterate, and you are one of them. There are millions of ways to die. Gun shot, cancer, car accidents, flu, pneumonia, heart attacking, drowning, etc., but we live our lives everyday. But now this virus is going to stop us? And again, it is not that deadly unless you are old or sick to begin with where you are already near death as a whole. And the current shut down is leading to more suicides, substance abuse, lack of cancer screening, domestic abuse, psychological issues, etc. The care is now becoming the problem, but go ahead and ignore that.
You have proven time and time again to not understand science and are essentially a communist. What is going on right now is your wet dream. People having to rely on the government, the private sector being destroyed, government gaining in power, etc.
Now go ahead and do what you always do. Run away, or simply ignore half of my comment, make vague statements that do not address anything I say, and run away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p oh, you responded, what a surprise.
I agree on Hydroxychloroquine, but to complete dismiss it like you do is not based on science. It is based on the fact that you simply hate Trump. As I pointed out while citing experts it is not dangerous and there are promising results. But again, with science, more information is needed. We should not completely dismiss is like you do as that is anti science.
You did not give a solid argument on the fact that there have been more deaths from pneumonia compared to the virus. My point is that we have an issue that is causing more deaths but we are not talking about that or going into lockdown. Why? The reason why is because this is an election year and people need to find something to take down Trump. So why are we not locking down from deaths from pneumonia?
"My god you continue to link articles to things you don't understand."
You say that but you do not explain how I do not understand it. You are really struggling here bud.
And when did Trump ever say to inject bleach?
"You posted an article that was outdated,"
And you posted zero studies.
" I post numerous scientific papers"
When?
Here is the reality. You are simply a communist. Nowhere in your comment did you, as predicted, address the concerns of people being worse off due to lock downs. That means substance abuse, domestic abuse, depression, psychological consequences in children not living out a live a normal child would. I said that you would not address my entire comment, and the parts you would you would simply be vague and ramble. I was correct. You ignored the issues of lock downs causing problems, and you also said I did not understand the Science article I cited but did not say how.
The fact is that this virus is proving who are elitists and communists in this nation. You are a communist. You love the fact that government is forcing businesses to shut down. You love the fact that government is defining what jobs are "essential", because that is literally what communist nations do. You love the fact that more people are going to have to rely on the government. You are literally a communist. It isn't about the science to you. If it was than why are you not addressing the fact that people are suffering under lock downs? Why did you not address the fact that Youtube censored two doctors from Bakersfield giving their data? Why did you dismiss the fact that I cited two medical doctors saying Hydroxychloroquine is not dangerous? You only want to listen to the experts you agree with and not others.
You say I get embarrassed when I am proving to you that you are anti science and you are literally a communist at this point. Luckily enough people are seeing through this bullshit and are simply going out and enjoying life. I feel July 4th will be huge this year. And there will be no spike. And after the election the media will no longer talk about this virus. Thus, from here on out I am going to remember this issue. And when you try to challenge me, even though you fail many times, I will bring up the fact that you were so wrong about this virus along with others.
Cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PolymorphBanana , you want me to provide sources I can. Again, those saying M4A will lower how much we spend does have some truth to it. But if our spending is going to go down to the level other nations have so will our quality and access. Read the book "In Excellent Health" by Stanford Prof. Scott Atlas. He outlines how the US is superior when it comes to access to advanced testing and survival rates of advanced illnesses. For example, we offer more CT scans and MRIs per capita. And M4A as written bans private insurance where that failed in other nations. As prof. Katherine Baicker said
"On the other hand, a single payer system does not automatically provide high quality care: the provision of low-value care is as pervasive in the single payer Medicare system as it is elsewhere. Single-payer systems are also slow to innovate – as suggested by the fact that it took Medicare 40 years to add a prescription drug benefit, long after most private insurers had done so. Nor do calculations of the costs of a single-payer system measure the utility loss from forcing people with different preferences into a monolithic health insurance plan. The private facilities that have sprung up in Canada to meet the demands of those who want more health care than the public system provides fundamentally undermine the “single payer” nature of the system. "
The harsh reality is this, other nations spend less because they offer less. That is why people die in other nations waiting for "elective heart surgery" or "elective neurosurgery". Read the paper entitled
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery"
Under M4A you are increasing demand with out increasing supply, and you are also cutting pay. If I cut your pay by 40% how will you feel?
You say
" Medicare for all is where anybody can go to any doctor, any hospital they want, and the government simply pays for it. That’s it"
What is doctors jack up their prices? Or what if people want to see the best doctors who have limited time? Then what? Now Medicare for all will cost much more as doctors will charge more. If the government refuses to pay than doctors will refuse to serve. That is what other nations do. That is why they have much longer wait times which has dire effects. Read the paper entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
Where they say
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers "
You are over simplifying this very complex issue
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joemoe974 you labor is not inherently worth anything. In reality it is worth nothing until an employer hires you. If you don''t like how much you are getting paid than find a new job. You are making it sound like that one's labor has some already determined value when it doesn't. It is only worth as much as an employer is willing to pay. No different than when you buy an item from the store, you felt like it is worth however much you spent on it. There is one difference, though. If the employer operates at a loss for a week it will still have to pay the employee.
As far as saying "one for you 10 for me", it is much more complex than that. Many companies operate at thin profit margins. For example, fast food joints operate around 5% profit margins or less.
As for min. wage law, you are enforcing how much is paid per hour, not per week. If you raise the min. wage and a company cuts hours, what was accomplished? Also, Amazon already pays well above the min. wage. As for the employee giving the owner labor, yes, at a cost call a wage. Again, your labor is not inherently worth something until someone values it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cruzanassassin the deaths by the virus are overblown. The reason is because you have a group of people with the pre-determined conclusion that it is deadly, for whatever reason, mainly for gaining power, and thus watered down the standards on what qualifies as a "covid death". When people who are dying from gun shots are considered a "covid death", or someone in their 90s is considered it as opposed to being called dying from old age, that is a problem.
Compare to to gun violence. Gun violence has been dropping for 20 years. However, when a shooting happens those who support gun laws will water down the standards on what is a "mass shooting" or "school shooting" to push an agenda. For example, after the school shooting in FL people were saying that, at that time, there were around 1 school shooting every other day. However, that is because they watered down the standard to where a kid committing suicide on school grounds, at night, with a gun to be called a school shooting and equate it to some person going into a school and randomly killing people.
So yes, the virus deaths are overblown. You can find any answer you want when you already have a preset bias and can easily change the standards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thesoundofmerk if someone is foolish enough to give away their money that is on them. I did not donate a dime. Also, I never received an email despite me supporting him. So why did I not receive an email?
As with this phone call, he is asking for an investigation. He is not forcing anything. TDS is so strong with you guys that you will stretch anything beyond the limits to fit your narrative.
It isn't about "my guy" being right but about transparency during a weird year with so many irregularities. This was not a normal election. We have never seen so many mail in ballots and even with this GA run off we now have over 2 million votes cast already? That is a high number considering it is a special election and not a general one.
The left's intentions are not good. They labeled Trump as a bigot, white supremacist, racist, etc. They labeled Kavanaugh as a rapist. They pushed for impeachment with little to no evidence. And this year they overblew this virus, creating lock downs ruining many people's lives, and blamed Trump while violating their own restrictions without care.
The democrats literally used their position of power to shut down businesses, kill people's jobs, ruin people's lives while violating their own restrictions in the process. Pelosi was caught getting her hair done inside when that was not allowed and blamed the owner on it. When people were suffering she was showing off her expensive fridge full of ice cream. Mayor De Blasio and his wife were dancing in Time Square on NYE. You know, he told the peasants to stay home so him and his wife and a few friends can enjoy it for themselves.
All that and yet you claim Trump is worse? This past year the environment is created where now democrats have unchecked power and can get away with anything.
They are playing a very dangerous game here, they better hope it does not blow up too bad in their face.
1
-
@holden6104 you are correct, a big problem is that we have a nation of useful idiots. I say all the time, our politicians are not dumb, I feel almost all of them are very intelligent. They just take advantage of useful idiots.
From the get go they kept pushing the idea that Trump is a racist, a sexist, a fascist, a white supremacist even though he condemned all those things. In the first debate he had to condemn white supremacy even though he did it many times. He had to say there wasn't a racist bone in his body. As a whole those are not things that should be discussed because one, Trump is not a racist, and two, it simply becomes a distraction. But the media kept pushing it.
Trump was different than nice guys like McCain and Romney. Ben Shapiro did say the election was rigged and was by the media favoring Biden and blasting Trump. Trump said what was on people's minds. One example is "go ahead, call me a racist, I still support these ideas as I feel they are not racist".
I feel things are going to get worse over the next couple of years. Wonder how the political left and media will act when they have a hard time hiding it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CheesyChez421 , what do you mean? I know how proportions work. As for percentage it is very hard to tell. But when Kyle brings up the 45,000 deaths in the US that is a challenging number to obtain as well. Kyle brings that up and then claims that number is zero in other nations when it clearly isn't. So with that there are two major flaws with that 45,000 number
1. What do you have to compare it to? No other study of that kind was done for comparison. So you don't know if that number is high, low or the average. Compare it to this. I pay $800 a month in rent. Off of that alone make a conclusion on if I am getting a good deal or paying too much
2. It is hard to get accurate numbers like that. As Prof. Katherine Baicker said those 45,000 are poor to begin with and bad health is associated with being poor. Thus you don't know if they die due to lack of coverage or being in bad health to begin with. To expand, there are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with those in poverty, all self inflicted and all adds complications to health issues. Also, as written in the book "Being Mortal", people look towards modern medicine to live an extra 5 or 10 years but really will live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 45,000 receive care and live another 5 months in pain and using up valuable resources, is that a success?
There is a lot to it that Kyle and his fan base fail to realize or try to understand. This is what makes watching Kyle so painful and why I want to debate him. He spreads a large amount of ignorance on complex issues but his fans claim he is intelligent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Odinsday , in a single payer system that Bernie wants where there is a 40% pay cut to providers advanced care will be rationed heavily. You see this in other nations. Sure, this man may have lived, but someone with some difficult illness would have died. You see this in other nations which is why people in Canada die being denied heart surgery, up to 7000 people die in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. People are going blind in the UK because they are denied eye surgery.
The reality is this, something has to give. Resources are limited. In a the US system the very poor do suffer, but we have higher survival rates, offer more advanced testing and have more R&D. In single payer the poor do get care, but they deny advanced care to where the very sick and elderly die earlier. Something has got to give. My problem with the far left, like Kyle, who support M4A is that they either refuse to have these difficult conversations on this issue or simply choose to deny them and live in a fantasy world. Maybe M4A is the best route, but we have to understand that something has to give.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ThatMarchingBunny , to start, you can make as many moral arguments as you want, and I won't say they are not legit. But it does not change the objective reality that resources are limit.
Here is the reality, at the very core the political left bases their ideas on emotions and the political right bases their ideas on facts and reasoning. Not saying one is better than the other. We need facts and reasoning, but we are humans so emotions play a role. But that is the reality. Look at Kyle and other far leftists. They are pushing this story purely on an emotional stance.
You say people want to live, sure. I agree. But at resources are limited, period. The problem I have with the far left on this issue is that they are not willing to have the difficult discussion on this issue. They feel that we can pass M4A and everyone will get access to very high quality of care and life a long time. That isn't the case anywhere.
You say that some people don't have the opportunity, that exists everywhere. You say if it harms it is immoral. Well, harm in what ways? Something has to give. With M4A sure you will cover people who are poor, but something will give will some people will suffer.
Universal healthcare does not even the playing field. If you add 30+ million to our current system with our level of care it will cost a shit ton of money. The US system excels, compare to other nations, in that we have higher survival rates for advanced illnesses and offer more advanced care in a timely manner. A single payer nation under Bernie's plan will cover more people, including the poor, for very basic care. But the cost will be lower quality. That means less access to advanced care, advanced treatment, thus lower survival rates and people who are really sick suffering more or dying. They are being harmed.
You bring up mortality rate, again, many factors outside of healthcare influence that. We lead the world in obesity rates for OECD nations. That plays a major role. Blacks have a greater risk of heart disease genetic to them, we have more blacks compared to other OECD nations. You are using one raw state to make a strong claim, you can't do that.
I am a moral person. You says based on statistics. Read the book entitled "In Excellent Health" where the author there breaks down the numbers in how the US is superior in advanced care and survival rates.
The reality is this, under a universal system the very poor will will be covered, but our high quality of care will drop leading to the very sick dying and our survival rates dropping. In our system the very sick do get care and survive, but the very poor suffer.
The problem with the left is that they are not willing to have these difficult conversations. They feel universal healthcare is a utopia, that people will have access to the current health that is offered now. That is not true.
So, I give you a moral argument, are you willing to tell someone with a heart condition that they have to wait for healthcare and possibly die? Are you willing to tell someone who needs eye surgery that they will go blind by denying them eye surgery? Are you willing to tell someone that their grandma will die because you are denying them care?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ThatMarchingBunny
1. Money isn't the resource. It is doctors, nurses, instruments, etc. Throwing more money at the system does not magically create more goods and services.
2. Uh, facts and reasoning is an objective situation that is a part of economics.
3. Other nations suffer in other ways such as lack of access to advanced care like heart surgery leading to deaths in that way. They have lower survival rates in advanced situation. So to say they are doing better is simply not true. Are they doing worse? As a whole they aren't. They just have different issues. There are many components to this. As for statistics, I offer an entire book with it entitled "In Excellent Health". I bring statistics all the time to the table. I am more than willing to argue the statistics. Bring them. As for costing more, we pay more because we offer more advanced testing and treatments. For example, we offer more CT scans per capita. That advanced treatment comes at a cost.
4. US has a high mortality rate because of their high obesity rate and poor diet. You have to factor that in as well. You can't just look at one stat and make a direct one to one correlation to healthcare. There are other factors at play. This is where the reasoning side comes into play. You are playing the emotional side.
5. The US is in debt because of our social welfare programs. So yes, look at the budget, we are already spending a lot on healthcare at the federal level.
6. You posted a link related to mortality rate. I am talking about survival rates when you receive the care. Here, I will quote a part of the book
"treatment outcomes from the most serious diseases including cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, severe pre-maturity birth, and control of the prime risk factors for death, like hypertension and diabetes, are superior under the medical care in the United States".
The problem in the US is cost. Yes, we have a portion of people who don't have access to that advanced care, but most do. In other nations very few except the very rich have access to that advanced care. Cost is high in the US for two reasons
1. That advanced care does cost a lot of money
2. We don't have a free market healthcare system, we have a heavily regulated and subsidized system.
People on the far left in this nation feel we can add 30+ million to the current system all chasing after the same level of care and it will somehow cost less. That makes zero sense economically. Something has to give.
7. Again, your link talks about mortality rates. They don't define what they mean. From WebMD it is "the percentage of deaths associated with a disease or medical treatment". I am having a difficult time seeing how this relates to a healthcare system. Dying due to a disease in the circulatory system, which is influenced by obesity, does not suggest that a healthcare system is poor. It suggests other things like poor diet, smoking, poor environment, etc. I am mainly talking about people who actually receive the care which is important. Most that is listed in your link is associated with diet. One interesting is suicides which involves mental disorders. You do know the federal government has a heavy hand in mental healthcare with the passage of the Community Mental Health Act around 50 years ago? And since then mental healthcare has become worse. Kind of places a lot of doubt in how efficient the federal government will be in managing all of healthcare. But what do I know?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ramon Suarez,
1. Again, I read that report. I question it a lot. Not saying our infrastructure does not need repairs, but to say it is terrible is an exaggeration. Also, your logical fallacy is not an argument.
2. The cost in infrastructure is almost impossible to figure out. The price of concrete and steel varies and changes a lot. Also, if the government were to start investing in it that will jack up prices due to increased demand.
Next, to rebuild requires the re-direction of traffic and movement. If you start rebuilding bridges and roads that will cause the shut down of lanes and slow down the movement of traffic. How much will that cost the economy? In 2007 the McArthur Maze in Oakland was destroyed by a tanker explosion. CC Myers took the job on a low bid but with a high payout if the job was completely quickly. He finished it quickly and earned a lot of money. You have to factor that in as well. In order to alleviate the delay in traffic flow you have to encourage jobs to be done quickly and that means paying these companies more. You are talking about 2027 to completion, that is a long time.
This is why I question the reports you give me. These numbers vary a lot and may variables are involved.
3. You do not know what wealth is. Wealth is not income. Wealth is asset. The top 1% own so much wealth due to shares of the companies they own. Jeff Bezos is the largest share holder of Amazon. Those shares of Amazon are not food, gas, homes, etc. They are shares of a company that give it value based on numerous factors such as number of jobs, revenue, production, etc. But at the very core those shares are not consumable resources like food, gas, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ramon,
1. I find it ironic how you want me to give specifics but you refused to do so on my video I linked. I am trying to open the report card link right now but can't. Maybe later I can and I can give you a better analysis by quoting it, but right now I can't. I am going off of what I read in the past such as an over exaggeration.
2. "Gee, which one will I believe? Your anecdotal point that you don't see
crumbling infrastructure or a nationwide study conducted by the oldest
engineering society in America? Tough choice..."
That was your logical fallacy. You are appealing to authority. You don't think that they have a motive in what they report? Was their report peer reviewed by someone? I clicked in the report card link from their website and it did not work. They are having a hard time running a website.
I am not saying their work has no value, it does. But like everything it should be questioned.
3. Yes, the cost of infrastructure is almost impossible to figure out. Concrete and steel prices change a lot. You have labor cost, cost of completion, bids, etc. And with anything, you increase demand prices go up. You also have to factor in cost for productivity going down due to traffic delays, fuel being wasted in traffic, etc.
4. We face traffic problems due to location. Look at areas with bad traffic. The LA area, the bay area, NYC, the DC area, etc. They are shoved in a corner where they are building up, not out. You can't build out as one side is water. In the Bay area, for example. One whole side is water. You can only go so far east.
5. Taxing wealth like you would income is not smart. The value of wealth is subjective. You tax something that is valued at a certain price and assume that person has that money. For example, you tax my car which cost me $70 a year thinking I have that money. Now I do, but that is income, not my car. That is the flaw of taxing wealth.
As for company shares, that is where most of the wealthy have their wealth tied into. They don't have that income. Jeff Bezos earns $80,000 a year. He has billions in wealth due to his shares. That is why the capital gains tax rate is so low, it isn't actual money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@camronyearout1158 it is not a stupid comparison. When you drive you put others at risk as well. You say
"when you decide to drive you make a conscience decision to accept that risk"
But again, you put others at risk. Now you can stay at home, but then how will you get money? How will you get groceries? Same with the virus. You can stay home and be free from risk of the virus, but is that living life?
"Not only is this a stupid comparison, and one I'd expect from a fourteen year old. "
Funny how economists make the same comparison.
"Assuming that you are suggesting we just weather the risks of the virus without any precautions. It's laughable that you'd use a comparison to a situation wherein we've done the exact opposite."
Not saying we should not take precautions. We should always take precautions. We should have always protected our vulnerable. But what we are doing now is going too far. Keeping the economy in lock down is now leading to worse outcomes. Suicide rates are up, substance abuse is up, domestic abuse and divorces are up, etc.
So we are at a point of what is worse? The virus or the current economic lock downs? That is something Trump is bringing up. So back to the comparison, 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. We can make that to be zero by capping speed limits to 15 mph, but our economy will suffer. Just like we can make the virus death to be essentially zero by forcing everyone to stay home, but our economy will suffer.
"Once again, comparing car accidents with viral infection is stupid"
How so? I have yet to see how?
"A better comparison would be the people taking precautions are akin to drivers who wear their seatbelt, drive the speed limit and pay attention.
People who don't care or think we should do nothing about Covid are the people going 20 over not wearing their seatbelt, all the while fiddling with the radio.
Even so the person speeding is clearly in the wrong in this scenario."
So why not have a cop every half mile to stop those speeding? Why not do stops at every block or every exit to see who are following the laws and who aren't? It will be similar to a DUI checkpoint.
What I brought up there is another example of going too far. But it will lead to zero deaths. If, at every block we had cops checking to see if people are following the law, or at every exit on the freeway deaths will be down to zero. So why don't we do it? Why stop at seat belt laws and speed limit laws? Why not go farther?
Same with the virus. One can easily argue now that these lock downs are going too far. Think of all the small businesses who are struggling. Think of all the people who can't get a job or kids not getting an education. I teach at a university and almost all of my students are saying they are gaining nothing with virtual learning where over 90% of classes are taught that way. And for what? To protect ourselves from a virus that basically all have an over 99% chance of surviving from.
But if you think my comparison is stupid as you can see I can use yours.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maximilian3394 define it being over? Look at how many times the left have too move the goal posts to keep justifying the lock downs? First it was all about deaths, pictures of mass graves and temporary morgues. When they dropped it went to we cannot open up too soon or it will get worse. We opened up. Cases went up but deaths did not so the talk was only about cases, not deaths. Then cases dropped but people said we got it wrong, people like Fauci. Now it is about cases again.
The whole point was to prevent the healthcare system from being overran and alleviate deaths, we have done both. People are going to die with this virus unless we just lock everyone up. Just like we can make traffic accident death be zero if we max speed limits to 15 mph, or do traffic stops similar to DUI checkpoints at every block. But doing so will destroy the economy leading to higher unemployment, higher rates of depression, higher rates of suicides and substance abuse, etc.
Same is with this virus. The current restrictions are causing more problems than the virus is. We have ways to take on this virus while opening up the economy. But you saying we can later focus on the economy, many small businesses are never coming back. Many people became divorce. Many are now addicted to drugs and alcohol. I am actually a prime example. Genetically, I am of risk of alcoholism. When the shutdown occurred I had to stay home so I drank, a lot and it got worse. I had to go to detox and even after that trying to break the addiction is draining and challenging to where I will spend an entire Saturday just sleeping as I am so emotionally and physically drained from working all week and fighting the urge.
But hey, to you it is all worth it so a handful of people do not get the virus.
1
-
@maximilian3394 deaths are overstated to begin with. And again, you say "saving lives", what is causing more harm to lives, the virus or the lock downs? Right now the lock downs are causing more damage.
My pre cautions is to protect our vulnerable and open the economy. What happened in Sweden was they had a voluntary lock down. A lot of people over 40 participated, but younger people did not. People in their 20s mingled, gathered, and the virus spread. They built up herd immunity and have a low death rate. Other European nations did a strict lock down and as a result they saw a second spike that was larger than their first, Sweden did not. Even in the US, FL has been open compared to other states like NY, allowed gatherings, protected their elderly, and reached herd immunity with low deaths. And again, deaths are overstated to begin with. What we should have done from August is open up the campuses, let college kids gather in classrooms and football games, have it spread to where they become immune and we can be completely open now with low cases. Instead, we did not. Now we are seeing record cases in some places and the economy is still bad. Now we have two problems.
So at this point we need to open up to solve the problem of the economy and protect our elderly alleviate deaths.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maximilian3394 I don't want people to die either, but the reality is that it will always happen. So us, as a society, have to decide what is the best route. Again, many people are suffering from other issues such as suicides, substance abuse, domestic abuse, etc. That is arguably worse than the virus because, right now, we are seeing high cases but less deaths compared to March.
Compare it to this, 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. We can make that number to be zero if we limit speed limits to 15 MPH. Do you support that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Under the Republican tax plan, most of the tax cuts would go to the wealthy. "
The wealthy pay most of the taxes to begin with.
" When the tax cuts expire, the poor and the middle class will see an
increase in taxes while those above would still have a decrease in
taxes. "
Which is in 2025, all that does is force future politicians to pass a tax reform bill.
"Kyle says people in other modern nations don't die due to lack of
healthcare, not that we don't die due to shortcomings in our system.
There's a difference."
There isn't a difference. People are on waiting lists because they lack healthcare. They end up dying because of it. So what Kyle said is incorrect.
" Link me the video where Kyle was using identity politics regarding sentencing on blacks. "
You can find it on his channel really easily.
"Even if he was, Kyle still doesn't use identity politics as much as PragerU does."
Still doesn't give Kyle the excuse. As for the other person's examples of identity politics and PragerU, when the left constantly calls the right racists and bigots sometimes you have to show there are people on the right who are black, hispanic, etc.
"As a STEM expert, most of us tend to be social democratic(liberal in your country). The exception is the fossil fuel industry. "
Again, that is academics. Also, how many STEM experts understand economics? How many understand social issues such as guns for example? Just because they lean left means nothing. Business owners lean right. They are successful as well. Pointing to professors or STEM majors is an appeal to authority.
"From my opinion, a lot of students in the Divided States of Retards tend
to get an education for the sake of settling in a job rather than for
the sake of knowledge. "
Minus your unnecessary and immature comment, you can gain knowledge anywhere. College is an investment to obtain a job. Also, being able to work that job shows intelligence. What shows more intelligence? Rattling off facts or being able to solve problems and produce?
"I'm not certain if you think Trump is a racist or not, but if you don't think he is, you did bring up the birther movement. "
I brought up the birther movement as I disagreed with it. I felt those that pushed it were being ignorant, including Trump. I can actually criticize politicians fairly and with objective facts.
"Supply side economics didn't work under Bush. Not going to work now.
History has already shown it to be unsustainable with short term growths
followed by economic collapses."
That is not true. Under Bush you had loan agencies giving out bad loans. They failed. That happens and what should have happened is to allow the banks to fail and allow other banks to buy them out. Smaller ones were successful during the recession. My small, local bank actually grew under the recession without a bailout. What was the real problem was that the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with the bailouts and spending. That was tried one other time, in 1929 under Hoover and later under FDR.
Recessions happen, how we recover is key. History has shown that with hands off government recessions end quickly and we actually recover.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@august-5085 , have you even read those studies? I doubt it. As Crowder brings up when the far left pushes for M4A they claim the US does poorly in healthcare and the points they bring up are life expectancy (where rankings typically weigh them around 50% because reason), amenable mortality and occasionally infant mortality. But the issue is that factors outside of healthcare influence those outcomes. For example, we are number 1 of OECD nations for obesity rates where that leads to lower life expectancy, pre-mature births where pre-mature births increases the chances of infant mortality.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/06/obesity-before-pregnancy-linked-to-earliest-preterm-births--stan.html
https://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20100720/obesity-may-increase-risk-of-preterm-birth#1
Is that funded by "private interest"?
Also, as Prof. Katherine Baicker pointed out in her study from Oregon even when given access to healthcare people still had bad physical health due to poor lifestyle choices.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
At the bottom here is the funding
"Supported by grants from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services; the California HealthCare Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the National Institute on Aging (P30AG012810, RC2AGO36631, and R01AG0345151); the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Smith Richardson Foundation; and the Social Security Administration (5 RRC 08098400-03-00, to the National Bureau of Economic Research as part of the Retirement Research Consortium of the Social Security Administration); and by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services."
Is that all private interest? What that study showed was that people are in bad health due to poor life style choices. Thus that influences life expectancy and infant mortality. As for amenable mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
As for the cost study you bring up they said you have to assume that healthcare providers will have to take a 40% pay cut. And that cost is just for public spending, not private. I suggest you actually read the study. It doesn't say it will save money.
No country provides healthcare to all of their citizens. There are shortcomings in every system. That is why I say your argument is shallow. You are refusing to look at the complexity of the issue.
I gave you a handful of studies. You can also read the book by Stanford Prof. Scott Atlas entitled "In Excellent Health".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That's a moronic statistic to measure defense spending. "
No its not as it is a set comparison to a standard. GDP is going up, defense spending isn't.
"When you spend more money on the military than the next 8 nations combined,"
A very deceptive stat. First off, when you look at percent of GDP and you combine the GDP of all of those nations, they spend around 2.5% of their GDP on defense, we spend 3.5%. Yes, it is higher, but only by a difference of 1%. We spend more on education than Germany, the UK and France combine. Should we cut education spending? Or is it that our GDP is so much larger then them that it only makes sense that we spend more then them combine?
"To just compare the percent of GDP that defense spending had 58 years
ago with the present is a overly broad, misguided, and down right
stupid."
But comparing defense spending to 8 combined countries with a fraction of our GDP isn't? France has a GDP that is 1/10 of ours, how can you compare raw dollars at that point. Again, we spend more on education then France, is that bad?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" the end result of the tax code is the issue. "
How do you get to the end result? You do not know without understanding the complexity.
"Let's say that the flat tax is 25%, which is about what the millionaire
in the video paid in taxes in 2015. Who is going to be more adversely
affected by losing a quarter of their income, someone who earns 1.3
million per year, or someone who earns 25,000 per year?"
That is a question you cannot ask because both individuals have different financial responsibilities. Why is that guy rich? Maybe he runs a business where that person making $25,000 a year simply pays rent and bills. That rich person runs a company and if you tax him more that is less money for him to invest. Or maybe less money to donate, or pass on to his family, or have it sit in a bank where the bank can loan out to the next business owner.
The thought process of "the rich have enough money so tax them more" is the wrong thought process to have. They have different lifestyles and responsibilities. Now you may say a rich person may not invest money, may not donate, may not put it in banks. And I would agree. But on the same line of thinking there are poor people who do refuse to work and do take advantage of our welfare system. So do you scrap the whole thing due to a select few?
"Now, how do you fund the govt and not raise the deficit? Lemme guess, by cutting every social program that benefits lower income people?"
You have to cut, period. And not so much cut, but let the local governments run it so they can micromanage it. Even at that there is more to this than just taxes and spending. You have economic growth involved as well.
1
-
1
-
"The question of who can be trusted to interpret the code is different from how one goes about getting to the bottom of the code"
They are related. Who do you trust? To me it is people I am connected to more, and with government that is the local officials. There are arguments to be made for complex tax codes, but why, and how? And, who can you trust?
To me it comes down to this, at the federal level keep it simple, a flat tax with a consumption tax. Why? Because we are a nation of 320+ million people and the vast majority of members of congress we cannot vote for. And with our size it is hard to manage our government.
At the local level, however, you can start getting into a more specialized tax code. Why? Because you at the local community can see if government is actually working for you and if you are getting your money's worth in government spending.
" Obviously, with anything that human beings are involved in, you're
never going to be able to eliminate the influence of partisanship,
corruption, self-interest, etc. "
But you can alleviate it. To me you do that by keeping government as local as possible. You say have legislatures debate the topic. Now how many can you vote for federally? Now how many can you vote for locally? Also, at the local level you can attend town hall meetings and be more involved.
"he "flat tax" might be simple to comprehend on its face, but its ramifications are just as complicated"
It is not as you are keeping it simple at the massive level and allow the states and local government to micromanage the economy.
1
-
"- Firstly, I'd just like to make the point that we're hugely off topic from my original comment"
We are not as we are talking about the tax code here. I support a flat tax and I gave my reasons why. You wanted a tax code to be debated and discussed by "experts" and legislatures and I showed you the issues with that.
"which pertains to Trump's lack of transparency."
If that is the topic then it is related. To start, I do not care about Trump's tax return. He gets audited with his income level. Next, I want transparency in the government and in my opinion that comes from a simplified tax code.
"Pointing to the convoluted nature of our current tax code does not
somehow excuse Trump's opacity with respect to his finances. He's been
opaque on this issue even by Washington standards -- he's the only
president in modern history to withhold his tax information from the
public. So I'd like you to acknowledge that, please. "
Ok, I will. I do not care. He is audited because of his financial status. If he releases it what does that do? What will that mean? Nothing to me. He wants tax reform. That is all I care about.
"Who do we trust to interpret the tax code, when most voters are not
experts and will never spend the time reading the code? The short answer
is: no one specific person"
I agree 100%.
"Ideally, you want as many non-partisan and dispassionate economists and
tax experts to view and debate the proposal as possible. That's going to
be as much the case with your flat tax as it is with any other
proposal. "
I agree. To me there is not one ideal form of taxes. That is why I support leaving it to the states. In fact prior to 1913 the federal tax was a tax on the states. The idea was to tax the states equally based on populations and let the states handle the finer details of the tax codes. I do not support that because of varying economies, even though there is a correlation between population and GDP. But a flat income tax is a nice substitute.
" That's also going to be as much the case at the local level as it is at
the federal level, so I don't really see how what you're imagining
makes any of this any easier. "
It makes it easier because economics is a highly debated topic. What is the best tax code, and why? You can get 100 economists in the room and none of them will agree. So to me is to let the states handle it locally. They can adjust based on their needs and if something does work two things happen
1. it is isolated in that state
2. they can change it much easier
"Personally, my first and foremost concern is that my tax dollars go to
the things that the govt tells me they are going towards, and not into
their own pockets, for example. Corruption is going to be an issue at
any level of govt you care to look at, so again, I'm not sure I'm seeing
how your scenario solves anything. "
The more local government is the more control you have over it. Look up the video "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups". He explains that the more local government is the easier it is to see if you are getting your money's worth, especially if you are involved. I am highly active in my city. I met both candidates for mayor. I work for the school district and see how our schools are ran. I participate in activities with my community. And even at that just looking outside your window can tell you a lot. And if you do not like how your local government is being ran you can rally at town halls or simply move and remain a US citizen. There are several states I will never move at as I disagree with their governments. At the federal level though, can you go to Congress and state your opinion? I can't as it is too far away. But I can literally walk to my town hall in my city. If you disagree with a congress member can you vote for them? Chances are no. But you can all your local representatives. Corruptions is almost null at the local level.
1
-
1
-
"Who said I'm not concerned about or suspicious of the fucking Congress?! If I make a point about Trump's dubious lack of transparency, that somehow means I'm cool with everyone else's corruption?"
You are targeting Trump when he isn't the one writing the tax bill to begin with, it is congress. Also, are you willing to look at 535 members of congress tax returns to form an opinion?
"Every other president in modern history has made public their tax returns. Trump has not. "
So what? And every other president in modern history has held a political office of some kind besides Trump. What's your point?
"So it stands to reason that he has something to hide."
Maybe, maybe not. What about the other members of congress? You know, the people who write the bill?
"I see that you don't really want to talk about Trump's obvious corruption and sketchy lack of transparency"
We can, but what you are saying does not fall in line with the actual issues.
1. Trump is not writing the bill, Congress is. You are not demanding the returns of Congress members but of Trump
2. I support a limited federal government to no matter how corrupt they can be their powers will be limited. A flat federal income tax will stop any kind of corruption
3. You feel that we can control the tax bill and see the ends of it with reading it and having "experts" and legislatures look at it. However, I told you that isn't that easy with a country of our size. Also, again, you are ignoring the tax returns of those legislatures and experts
4. And it comes back to Trump. When I pushed you on the issue you fall back to Trump. You ignore Congress, you ignore the experts, you focus on Trump.
Again, Trump is not writing the tax bill. Congress is.
" Yeah, great, if Trump paid the same amount of taxes as everyone else, due to a flat tax, then I wouldn't have had to make my post in the first place, but so fucking what?! "
Because we do not have a flat tax. If he released his return people will complain about the write offs he made when that is not his fault, he is just following the law. Now let us ignore congress for a minute and focus on Trump. Say he released his return and you opposed the write offs he made and the rate he paid. But again, he is following the law. He signs this new tax bill. Are you going to read this tax bill and compare it to the old tax law to see if it changed the rate he would have paid? Be honest. And remember, we are ignoring congress here because if we add them it becomes much more complex. Are you going to read the 2016 tax law and look at Trump's 2016 tax return and compare the rate he paid then to what he would have paid under this new law? Are you going to crunch the numbers?
"Does that somehow make corruption disappear, or mean that politicians can't have financial conflicts of interest anymore? "
They can still be corrupt, but that restrictions places limits on them. If you say the federal tax has to be a flat tax, period, then they cannot create a tax code to benefit them. Same as Constitutional amendments place limits on government. Even if a politician is very religious they cannot establish one. I am wanting to place restrictions on government.
"Either way, we don't have a flat tax, the Republicans aren't proposing a flat tax, the Democrats aren't proposing a flat tax, and Donald Trump is still even shadier than everyone else who has held his office in modern history! Your whole argument is fucking irrelevant!! "
You are entitled to you opinion, but you are focusing on Trump, not the people actually writing the law. And again, are you willing to crunch the numbers to compare tax laws? Be honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randyozaeta1026 , with growth comes recessions. That is the evolution of the economy. The Federal Reserve tries to alleviate that, but they still happen. In fact, the two major recessions were because of the Fed keeping interest rates too low creating a bubble. Ben Bernanke even admitted that the Fed caused the 1929 crash.
No system is ideal, but the one I support, I believe, is the best. Yes, there are recessions, but for the most part they are minor. The system the left is pushing for (and people on this comment thread) creates essentially no growth. Yes, there may be no crashes, but that is because there is no growth.
Compare it to this. If you own a car you get around easier. But eventually that car will need repairs and you will have to buy a new one. An alternative would be to not own a car. No repairs, no need to buy a new one. But commuting is much more difficult. The idea pushed by the far left is simply not to have a car. My idea is to have a car. Sure, you need to pay for repairs like I did recently, but commuting is much easier and my life is, overall, better off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The difference between my argument and yours, is that statistics and common sense support my statement. "
Well you haven't given me any statistics. Also, saying "common sense", to me, means you do not have an argument. If it is "common sense" then there will be no argument. However there is. People get PhDs discussion topics like these.
"You acknowledged it has a statistical impact, whereas Illegal Immigration, if there is any effect at all, is negligible at best."
I never said illegal immigrants. I said immigration. Why do you suddenly assume illegal immigration?
"Then again, I guess it's easier to preserve your disdain towards
Immigrants than it is to acknowledge that they aren't the root cause of
all of Americas problems."
I never said they were the root cause to the problem. I feel the root cause is the lack of following the Constitution and the expansion of the federal government. However, uncontrolled immigration does play a role. Or immigration in general will change society in many ways. Whether it is good or bad is another topic. But to say that immigration does not change society is simply ignorant. To me one way it did change was lowering the average wage. Again, not saying that is good or bad, just saying that is what happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fuh Que, is income inequality a major problem in this country? You have to ask yourself why does it exist to begin with? There are many factors to consider. Also, you have to consider is it even bad to begin with?
"Corruption within our Government is a MASSIVE problem that has been plaguing this Country for several decades. "
I agree. But that is a symptom of a disease. That disease is of a federal government with too much power. Limit the power of the federal government and corruption is alleviated. There is a desire to have government. But we have to control government. You do that by keeping it as local as possible.
"Corrupted, while, as the statistics in this video show, the rest have not seen consistent growth"
That statistic does not show anything about corruption in government. Stop listening to Kyle, he is a fool.
"When wealth is disproportionately being siphoned to the top 10%,"
Please, I beg of you, learn what wealth is. Wealth and income are different. In reality, wealth inequality in a country is good. How? In a wealthy country people can afford to go into debt before going forward. I have negative wealth. A homeless bum with no debt has more wealth than me. But our society allows me to have negative wealth and move forward later. Pointing out wealth inequality is not an argument unless you know what wealth is.
"Again, the answer should be common sense"
It isn't "common sense". As I said, people with PhDs argue over this.
"Any objective, unbiased research will lead you to the same conclusion."
Such as? At this point you are falling apart. I just showed you how wealth inequality is not necessarily bad. For example, you can look at my life in two different ways. I have negative with with college loans. You may view that as bad. However, I have my own apartment, a reliable car, I am a PhD candidate, and I am healthy. So I am well off. Our society is so well off we can allow people like me to regress in terms of wealth and then later do better. That contributes to the wealth inequality.
Please learn the difference between wealth and income.
1
-
"Yes......It is bad. "
Why? Why is it bad if someone is vastly richer than me? If I am doing well than so what? I earn $23,000 a year. I have my own car, my own apartment, I am a PhD candidate. I am doing well in that regards if you completely ignore my income. People who complain about income inequality are, for the most part, jealous. You also have to consider that maybe they are rich because they grew society. For example, the CEO of Walmart 20 to 30 years ago earned more per employee than the CEO of Walmart does now. What that means is that while the CEO of Walmart earns a lot, they are also hiring more.
For example, a CEO of a company that has 1000 employees could have earned $1,000,000 (keeping simple numbers). Years later they could have 10,0000 employees and now earn $5,000,000. Sure, that CEO saw their salary go up by 500%. But they hire 1000% more employees. is that bad? More people have jobs. More wealth is being created to go around. So once again, is it bad?
Another example. If I were to create a new drug that cured diabetes I could earn millions. I will contribute to that income inequality. However, in doing so many people have a problem that is fixed and they can become more productive. Again, is that bad?
" The Government has ALWAYS been the most powerful entity in the Country"
That is not true at all. In reality the federal government had limits listed in the Constitution. The Constitution was there to limit government and in many ways it still does. For example, that is why states run their own education systems. That is why the military cannot enforce state law without consent of the state's legislature. This country was designed to have limited government.
"This talking point of minimizing Government and reducing/ridding
Corporate interests of their Regulations, has happened before. Maybe
you've heard about the 2 major instances of Governmental deregulation of
the Corporate sector: The Great Depression and The Great Recession?"
The Great Depression and Great Recession were times of government growth where the government grew in spending. During the Great Recession we had many regulations, the regulations just favored the banks such as the bailouts. That is a regulation. You fear these businesses when all a business can do is offer you a job and/or a product. They can't do anything. Government can though. During the recession the banks got bigger. That was not due to lack of regulations. That was due to the government. Bernie Sanders talks about breaking up the big banks. The free market did that. It was government that held them together.
" The level of Power our Government possesses, isn't the problem. "
Yes it is, because when you can't control it than it becomes corrupt. There is a desire to have government, but we have to keep it as local as possible to control it. That is why the Constitution was created to limit government as government has the actual power to oppress you.
"I didn't say that because Kyle also happens to believe it, again, common sense dictates it to be the Truth. "
Again, it is not "common sense" as there is an argument that is done by scholars.
" Federal Minimum wage, while working FULL TIME, still lands people below the Poverty line."
Less than 2% of min. wage workers work full time. Most are part time. And the vast majority of those earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor.
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/Sabia_Burkhauser_SEJ_Jan10.pdf
" Anyways, who benefits the most from Minimum Wage NOT being increased?"
The poor, such as teens from poor neighborhoods, particularly black teens. Raising the min. wage prices them out of the market.
" Increasing the MInimum wage and tying it inflation will not only
incentivise Corporations to NOT increase prices, but it will quite
literally put MORE money into the Economy."
More money in the economy does not mean more wealth will be in the economy. Money is worthless until it is given value by creating wealth. More money in the economy does not mean more wealth. Thus prices will go up. Even at that, Christina Romer said that if we had a $9.50/hr min. wage it will, at best, grow the economy by $20 billion. That is only a growth of 0.1%. Again, at best.
"Also, how about the fact that we spend nearly $200 Billion on Corporate
Subsidies (welfare) on corporations that, for the most part, Don't need
it,"
I don't agree with the subsidies. But that is another government regulations. If you want the federal government to offer you healthcare and and education you are going to have to live with them giving corporations subsidies. I want to strip the federal government of that power and give that power to the states and local government and thus the people.
" and increasing the Minimum Wage and Tying it to inflation"
You can't tie the min. wage to inflation because not everything inflates.
"Plenty of Scientists also claim that Global Warming doesn't exist,"
That is not related on this issue but to break that down for you every scientists knows that climate change is happening. What they disagree on is
1. how much is man playing a role
2. is it even bad
When you listen to these climate change fear mongerers like Kyle none of them can get an actual scientist on their show nor do they cite any scientist. That is because when you read the literature you will see that none of the scientists are saying it is a major threat to our planet. BTW, I am a scientist myself.
"Because Income leads to Wealth"
Production leads to wealth. You do not need income to generate wealth.
1
-
"First, if you want to maintain this discussion, don't engage in
fallacious tactics. Claiming I in any way said it's bad that someone is
richer than ANYONE, and creating an argument against that point, is the
definition of a Straw Man. "
You said that income inequality was bad.
" The difference between what we are discussing, is to which DEGREE, is
it acceptable. If the top 20 positions in a Company are paying their
employees shit wages that land them below the poverty line simply so
they can siphon more profits into their own bank accounts, THAT is where
the problem arises."
Ever thought they can't afford higher wage?
"Currently, an estimated 45 million people are living in poverty in America."
Which is better off compared to other countries. Also, how many of those simply don't have a job to begin with?
"Say a CEO employs 1,000 at minimum wage, 20 years ago, and made
$1,000,000 in annual income. 20 years later, he employs 10,000 at
minimum wage, and has an annual income of $60,000,000. He employs more
people, so isn't it a great situation overall? "
It depends. Say they expanded their company with technology and they create a product that is now cheaper and better for the consumer. Society still benefits. That is comparable to my other example of me curing diabetes and becoming rich in doing so.
"Without taking into consideration that Minimum Wage WHILE working full time, lands people below the Poverty Line"
Most people earning the min. wage are not poor nor do they work full time.
"I agree with how the Government responded to the Great Recession. But
again, I'm talking about what CAUSED the Great Recession and Great
Depression. "
Recession happen. It is a part of economic growth. Ethiopia has not faced a major recession in over 25 years. Is that the economic model you want to follow?
"Please, explain to me how Government spending resulted in those crashes."
Never said they did. I said it hindered recovery. Recessions happen in a growing economy. How we recover is key. When left alone the economy, historically, recovers quickly.
" Using your argument, you would have to completely strip ALL power from
ALL Government entities (Local and National) in order to end the
corruption"
Not true. The more local government is the more control the people have over it. If your local government becomes corrupt you can rally to vote it out or move and still be a US citizen.
" In which case, the corrupting isn't needed, as Corporate Interests would have full control to begin with."
All a corporation can do is offer you a job and/or a product. For how evil Walmart is they have never held a gun to my head and forced me to do anything.
"If Federal control was dropped in favor of local control, the Local
Governance would simply be the primary target of Corrupting influences.
(Local Governments are already being corrupted, but Federal control is
the Primary target.) So your solution isn't even a solution at all. "
Yes it is. I personally met both candidates for mayor. I know what goes on in my city and state. I am involved. Become involved. That is your problem. You are complaining but not acting.
1
-
"That is simply not true. According to the BLS, out of ALL full time
employees (Regardless of Wage) 2% make Minimum wage. Claiming only 2% of
minimum wage workers (exclusively) are full time, is complete bullshit.
"
Still, few workers are working full time on min. wage.
"Lol? They are ALREADY priced out of the Market. Raising the minimum wage
to the cost of living and tying it to inflation, literally, guarantees
that NOBODY will be priced out of the market."
Ok, what? Raise the price of gas to $10/gal. Will gas sales go up or down? Double the price of rent. Will more people rent? It is called basic economics. You raise the price of something less people will buy it.
"It is a Government regulation...because, get this....The Corporations
who receive the Subsidies, lobbied to get them. Again, Corruption is the
root cause. "
Nope, the government having the power that can be bought is the cause.
"You tie it to the inflation of necessities, also known as products that
effect the 'Cost of Living' (Groceries, Housing, utilities, etc.)."
A lot of things influence cost of living. So someone with a roommate who can walk to work should earn a lower wage compared to someone living alone that has to drive?
"I was using it as an example of how fallacious your reasoning is. And
yes, NOW most Scientists accept global warming, because the ones who
denied it, realized the evidence/public opinion was against them."
Not true. Again, I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. They have said climate change is happening.
" Look at Global CO2 emissions from before the first Industrial
Revolution, through the First and 2nd industrial Revolution and the
'Great Expansion' of the 1950's, and it's stunningly obvious that Human
involvement has been drastic"
100 years of data is minute in a 4.6 billion year old earth. Or are you a young earth theorist?
"The simple fact that you claim to be a scientist is only an attempt to make an 'Appeal to Authority' and nothing else. "
No, it means I understand how scientists think. Just like you trust 100 years of data in a 4.6 billion year old earth. I understand the magnitude of numbers and data.
"Production leads to income for the people producing and selling the
Product. Incomes (Or Wealth earned from a previous Income) are needed to
purchase and create products that can potentially increase ones overall
Wealth..please explain what you are attempting to say."
If the wealth does not exist you cannot buy it. More wealth means lower prices. You do not necessarily need more income.
I am explaining economics to you. However, considering how you do not understand that when prices go up less will be bought, it is going to be difficult.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ben H, again, the Constitution is limitation on government. Quoting the 14th amendment
" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
A business is not the state. The state is the government. As for "equal protection", doesn't a business owner deserve protection? Going back to that cake shop owner, they lost their business. Where was their protection? You also say "non-citizens" when the 14th amendment does not say "non-citizens" but only citizens.
The 14th amendment was a limit on government, not people.
". Also, the Supreme Court in the Katenzbach v McClung case held
that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause in
forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to
interste commerce"
Now you are referencing the commerce clause, not the 14th amendment. This is another debatable topic as the federal government was to deal with commerce between states.
"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;":
Not between people, between states. With Katzenbach v. McClung the company in question purchased resources from out of state thus they interacted in interstate commerce. Thus that is within the federal government's jurisdiction. Also, it is argued that such racial discrimination hinders interstate travel. It is a fair argument.
But understand these points
1. This had nothing to do with the 14th amendment as that amendment limits government
2. This has to do with the commerce clause due to interstate commerce and is the power given to congress
3. In both cases it involves government and the level of power government has, not people.
I understand Constitutional law.
"The Bible also says that a person must obey the laws of the land as long
as it does not force them to actively engage in sin. Baking a cake for a
gay couple (sinners according to the Bible) is not in itself a sin."
Arguably it is. However, the SC case in that situation is based on freedom of speech as the law is the law and courts cannot change laws.
1
-
" Corporations definitely have power and their "campaign contributions" have seen politicians change their stances on issues"
Again, corporations are not the one creating laws, government is. If government has limited powers it has nothing to sell.
" If we are a democracy the things that have such a high public support
including marijuana legalisation should be a priority for politicians.
But it's not. Why? Because of special interests groups"
Nothing at the federal level has ever been determined by a simple majority. We don't run our nation on mob rule.
"And on your final point about if public support were to encourage
discrimination would I encourage it? No. Just like if 90% of people
wanted slavery back. Sure according to my previous statement I emphazise
public support and rule by majority. But there's a fundamental
difference Why? Because it's unethical, immoral and more importantly
unconstitutional."
You are moving the goal posts now. You see, you support universal healthcare and strong background checks on guns based on popular polling. But now you don't support discrimination even if it were popular and you say there is a difference in ethics, morality and constitutional. Let me tear this apart and show your double standard.
1. Discrimination is not unconstitutional if it occurs between private citizens and business. The CRA was a law that was ruled Constitutional based on the Commerce Clause. It was a new law that was created within the framework of the Constitution. So your constitutional argument is out the window
2. Your morality argument is gone as I do not see it moral to force people to serve others they don't want to serve
3. Your ethic argument is gone for the same reasons
4. You say "public support" and "rule by majority". There is no difference. You are saying that 60% support single payer healthcare thus we should have it, no questions ask. But if even 90% supported allowing businesses to discriminate you now say majority support is irrelevant because of morals and the Constitution. You are moving the goal posts.
An again, nothing in the Constitution stops private businesses and individuals from discriminating. That is why the CRA was passed by law. But in Brown v Board no new law was passed, the Constitution was used as, and I repeat, the Constitution places limitations on government, not people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yep, all worth it for a virus that the vast majority has an over 99% chance of dying from.
What is sad is that our nation has a long history of taking on challenges, including diseases, to advance and live life. Think about how our nation grew. People loaded up on a big boat and traveled across a ocean to come here. People, in the mid 1800s, loaded up their wagons, placing themselves and their family in danger of diseases like malaria, small pox, cholera, etc. where man died. Over 20,000 died on the Oregon trail. But people still did it. But with covid people freaked out. Sad knowing the history of our nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
martin austin, that 45,000 is a deceptive number. To start, that is 0.01% of the overall population. No country has that number at zero as every nation has people dying due to shortcomings. To me 0.01% is a minute number. Every system has flaws. Compare that number to 30,000 who die a year in traffic accidents, do we ban driving to make that number to be zero?
Next, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with those in poverty. So the question becomes did those individuals die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? It is hard to get accurate numbers when dealing with values that small (again, 0.01% of the overall population).
As or "least amount of care". The US has excellent quality. As a whole the US is on par with other nations. You say "Our healthcare system is listed very low on basically ever credited organization that rates a nations healthcare", reality is those organizations have a bias, are not peer reviewed, and those ranking are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the data and develop any ranking. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number one in life expectancy. If you factor that in the US will be ranked much higher in those rankings considering how heavily they weigh life expectancy.
Kyle has to use an appeal to emotion argument and the stats and data are not on his side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dennis Feenstra "Excess deaths from March to July go above and beyond what is expected for yearly deaths in that same time period"
That is deceptive. Read the CDC report entitled
"Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020"
They say
"Although more excess deaths have occurred among older age groups, relative to past years, adults aged 25–44 years have experienced the largest average percentage increase in the number of deaths from all causes from late January through October 3, 2020. The age distribution of COVID-19 deaths shifted toward younger age groups from May through August (9); however, these disproportionate increases might also be related to underlying trends in other causes of death."
Now look at Figure 2. Those ages 25-44 for 6 months consistently say excess deaths. Higher age groups saw two spikes that correspond to when we saw spikes in "covid deaths". So what is that 25-44 age group is dying from? They make up only 3% of "covid deaths". Most likely from suicides, substance abuse, depression, basically things associated with the lock downs. The lock downs are arguably doing more damage no than the virus ever can do.
"Co-morbidities do NOT mean they didn't die of Covid19, or that Covid19 was NOT the leading factor. Co-morbidities reduce the health of patients, or covid19 allows co-morbidities to kill people."
You have to factor that in. According to the University of Minnesota 40% of deaths were in nursing homes. According to UCSF 50% of new nursing home patients die within 5 months. The average lifespan of a nursing home patient is 1.1 years. In all, they are at high risk to die to begin with. So locking down while people in their 20s, 30s and 40s suffer so someone does not die with covid but would have died anyway is not a solution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dennis Feenstra deaths being overstated is not a baseless claim. Again, 40% of them were in nursing homes where almost all of those patients would be dead anyway during this time frame.
"Does.Not.Matter. If you get shot, bleed to death and you have underlying conditions, the bleeding to death killed you. Utter m0r0n."
It does matter. If someone dies of a heart attack while having covid they had a bad heart to begin with and thus their chances of dying from a heart attack was high overall. Thus, even without covid they would still be dead in a short amount of time.
"And would've lived longer without covid19, meaning covid19 killed them."
How much longer? I cited a UCSF report stating that the lifetime of nursing patients is short overall. So how much longer? A week, a month, 2 months? As I said, 50% of new nursing home patients die within 5 months. The average lifespan is 1.1 years. So great, we locked them up from the rest of the world, we ruined the lives of younger people in their 20s, 30s and 40s so that a nursing home patient dies of something else, but not with covid.
"Which is IMPOSSIBLE if 8 million are infected in March. Do you freaking understand how respiratory virusses spread?"
So I cite an actual Penn State study that was cited in Science and you deny it? So many were infected and did not know as they had no symptoms or were mild. Most of my students I teach at my university had the virus and only knew because they were tested. They had no symptoms. Chances are they had it and still attended my class. In one of the dorms they are having 15 new cases a day where none of them have symptoms.
To quote Biden "come on".
1
-
Dennis Feenstra ok, listen up
1. Deaths are overstated in covid because someone with underlying conditions dying with covid is listed as a covid death. One major reason is because hospitals are receiving money from the government for such patients
2. Pre-existing conditions should be considered as they are people at high risk of death overall. Thus they can die with the flu or cold as well. 40% of deaths are in nursing homes where those individuals are at high risk of death to begin with. According to a report from UCSF 50% of new nursing home patients die within 5 months. So even if we protect them from covid, they will still die from some other cause. Same is with those with pre-existing conditions. Even if we protect them from covid they are still a high risk of death. That is a part of life and always will be.
3. I gave evidence that covid deaths are overstated. Again, look at nursing home deaths. As I said, 50% of new nursing home patients die within 5 months. So covid or not, they are still going to die. So why list them purely as a covid death? What we need to be doing is taking these people dying with covid, finding out their other underlying conditions, consider how longer they might have lived without covid, and adjust the numbers. In statistics that happens all the time, you weigh the numbers.
For example, covid has been around 8 months. You take those nursing home patients, which again, represent 40% of overall death total. And consider how 50% of new nursing home patients die within 5 months, and the average lifespan of a nursing home patient is 1.1 years, you do that and the number of covid deaths drop because, in the end, you say a good portion of those nursing home patients would be dead anyway during these 8 months.
Now compare that to those who die or are suffering from the lock downs? That number is way more than the number of deaths, with or without adjustments. This is what you have to do with data. You can't just say "this person died, they had covid, thus it is a covid death". I need to give more information. I know statistics is a hard subject for some, but that is how it is done.
4. "This means that from May through August there's an excess death count above what is considered normal. Since Covid19 death attribution is through rigorous evidence-based reasoning,"
There were lock downs after March, but yet the people of ages 25-44 still saw excess deaths, explain that? You have not. Again, that age group makes up 3% of covid deaths. That's it. Even the CDC report does not understand why that age group is so high and said further investigation is needed. I can tell you why. When you lose your job, your paycheck, your healthcare, etc. And at that age range is when people are first starting out in their career, they are first trying to start a family or pay off a mortgage or rent, that leads to increase rates of depression, substance abuse, suicides, etc. Zoloft, an SSRI, was placed on the FDA drug shortage list. A University of Texas psychiatrist said that in his 35 years of treating patients he has never experienced that. Why did that happen? Depression rates were up.
But again, you are not explaining why that age range has consistently seen a high amount of excess deaths where the other age ranges were in two spikes.
5. Members of the CDC are saying the virus is super dangerous. They keep changing their story. At the very beginning it was all about deaths, pictures of mass graves and lines of temporary morgues. When that dropped the next story was to not open up too soon. We opened up and was fine. In the summer cases went up and the talking point then were cases, not deaths, cases. And that continues to be the talking point. Deaths are low despite record high cases. The original goal was to prevent the hospitals from being overran and to keep deaths low. We have done both. But we are still under lock downs. So where are the standards? There are none. This virus is no longer new. We know how to handle it, we know who is at risk and who isn't. It is time to open back up.
"The USPS has been sabotaged by decomissioning perfectly fine sorting machines without replacing them. The USPS lost 300.000 mail-in ballots: Mail-in ballots favoring democrats by 80%. These have not yet been found despite a court order gave them a deadline."
Care to provide a source for that?
1
-
1
-
Dennis Feenstra ok, watch the bouncing ball here
1. Writing in all caps shows how unhinged you are. Bringing up underlying conditions is important as those individuals are at high risk of death overall. It does not give the full threat of the virus. So many are getting it with zero symptoms. Everyone I know that has had it has had zero symptoms. So at this point we have to start deciding what is worse, the virus or the lock downs? As based on the data available the lock downs are now worse as over 99% of people who get the virus are fine. The less than 0.1% who get it and die were near death to begin with. So you want to let someone live a few extra weeks while millions of people in their 20s, 30s and 40s suffer.
2. That is not a baseless assertion. Hospitals are receiving money if they have to place a patient on a ventilator where they end up dying. Remember, we have a for profit healthcare system. Or do you far leftists ignore that idea when it becomes convenient? Just like you ignore evolution when it comes to climate change. I dealt with many far leftists, I know how you guys move the goal posts.
3. Yes, being high risk should, at least, lead to adjusting the deaths. Again, I fully understand statistics is a hard subject for most. But you need to weigh out the deaths. People are not dying purely from covid.
4. It does matter. We are drastically changing our society and economy because we feel we need to protect a large group of people who were at high risk to begin with.
Compare it to traffic deaths. 40,000 people die a year in traffic accidents. We can make that to be zero if we max out speed limits to 15 MPH. So why don't we do it? I will let you think about that. I doubt you will respond.
5. Does the death happen later? And if so, if it is a few weeks, what is the point? Many in their 20s, 30s and 40s, who have decades of potentially great life are now dying because of the lock downs. So basically we are letting grandma "live" one more month while someone in their 30s who loses their job, becomes divorce ends up dying. Congrats, you traded one month worth of life for potentially 5 decades worth. Congrats. Also, many in the nursing home said they rather die via covid than being alone
Also, on a personal note, I have considered killing myself. I suffer through major depression disorder and alcoholism. During this time my alcoholism went way up to the point I need to go to detox. I am seeing two doctors, a psychologist and a psychiatrist. I am a prime example of how these lock downs have harmed someone. But hey, you do not care about people like me, you only care about people who can get the virus.
6. That is how causalities work. And please, stop typing in all caps
7. That is how it works
1
-
Dennis Feenstra you are not really teaching
1. An underlying condition is a factor. Why is it that we have not seen an excess amount of deaths for those under the age of 25? Because they are generally healthier. Fact is that if you have underlying conditions you are at high risk of death for many factors, not just covid.
2. Is covid the major role? Again, we have to look at the data. As I said with nursing home patients. 50% of new ones die within 5 months. So you can sit there and say all you want about how this and that, fact is they were at high risk to begin with and thus the virus is meaningless
3. How many people with asthma are dying from this virus? The average age of death is around 80 years old. You can point to someone who is young who dies but here is the reality. On average, 7500 people die a day in the US, most of the deaths are avoidable. We do not talk about them because it is a normal part of life. But we talk about rare events such as school shootings or a building blowing up. Why? Because they are rare but pushed as the norm. Same with this virus. The fact is that basically everyone who died where old and/or sick to begin with. But since this virus is new, and the deaths are actually rare, we make a big deal about it. Consider that
4. Ok, and?
5. Many nursing home patients are protesting saying they rather die from covid than being alone. People do not go to nursing homes to be treated like prisoners, but they are now being denied access to seeing their loved ones. It comes down to what is living? Is it simply having a heart beat? It appears to the left that is what it is. But to others it is actually interacting with others socially, taking risks, and living life.
6. Nursing home patients are going to die in one way or another. If not from covid from something else in the same time frame. I recommend to you the book "Being Mortal", he breaks down real well about people near the end of their life
7. Hospitals always work at high capacity. That is how they make money. If capacity is low they lose money. No different than airlines how they want to pack the planes as much as they can because empty seats means no money. Same with hospitals, empty beds means no money. I just was released from a hospital. In doing so they wanted to do it quickly so they can get someone to replace me and they can make more money.
8. The only people getting the so call permanent damage had other conditions to begin with. And how much of that damage was due to substance abuse?
I addressed your points.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kamran Keyium, there are several flaws there. To start, there is no study for what you are asking for as far as I know, so you can't prove or disprove anything at that point.
Next, in your 45,000 number that is very deceptive. One, as a Harvard professor said bad health is associated with the poor to begin with. So the question becomes are they dying due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. All of that is self inflicted.
Two, you have nothing to compare that 45,000 number to. So at that point it is a pointless number as there is no number to compare it to as no study has been done for other countries. Now considering that 1. no country covers everyone and people die due to shortcomings, 2. that 45,000 is not accurate to begin with and chances are it is a lower number, 3. that 45,000 is only 0.01% of the population, I am very skeptical of that number and do not take is seriously.
I would love for that number to be zero, but again that situation does not exist in any country, period. So with everything I have seen that 45,000 number is unfortunate, but not a major problem. Consider that around 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents, or around 40,000 are infected with HIV a year that 45,000 is not a major issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Deez Nuts, I am giving counter evidence by presenting research. But if others can do it why don't they? Why haven't you?
The research is from journals, not the government. Even at that I never once said I do not trust the government. I am skeptical as one should be. I just feel that using them to provide healthcare in the US is no the best route.
The Red Scare is a legit point. However, it goes beyond that. It comes down to basic economics and the idea of limited federal government.
"You talk about states' rights, but then that logic can be applied to cities, districts and even smaller forms"
I agree 100%. We see that with police and school districts. Police are ran at the city level. We see smaller forms with gated communities and them having their own security. Thanks for agreeing with me.
"States won't always be able to adjust, some are already in debt and need federal assistance."
If they are in debt that is their issue. However, one reason why is because the federal government collects too much tax revenue to begin with leaving less for the states. You have to understand the federal government has nothing until it takes from people. Giving money to the states is literally robbing Peter to pay Paul.
" you do realize American voters are less likely to get the policies they voted for? Trump ran on anti war, healthcare coverage, and draining the swamp just like Bernie did. And even then, that only won him the electoral college and not the popular vote."
Bernie did not run on draining the swamp. He ran on free shit. He would have expanded the swamp. Trump literally drained the swamp. And if the people want leftist policies they can establish them at the state level. With the exception of war they can do that. What is stopping states from establishing universal healthcare? Oh, wait, they either can't afford it or they don't want it like in Colorado where 80% said no. And before you say that that the federal government can afford it you have to understand the facts of
1. The federal government, like the states have no revenue until it taxes
2. It is in great debt were many states aren't
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"No Libertarian ever answers this question. Even if I were to buy the
theory that small government equals no corporate and wealthy influence,
which I don't, how do you get there without eliminating that influence
to begin with? "
It has been addressed. If the federal government is limited in their powers it cannot be bought. For example, I support a federal tax of either taxing the states like we did in the past with no income tax, or a flat income tax with no loopholes along with a consumption tax. If you had that in place no matter how much money Wall Street or Goldman Sachs gives to the federal government they cannot create loopholes to favor the rich. They cannot change the income tax rate as it is the same for everyone. If you want your progressive tax than do it at the state level.
You set the restrictions of where the federal government set the tax rate but it would have to change for everyone. Having a flat tax means everyone is taxed at the same rate. It can be 10%, 15%, 20%, etc. That's it. If the rich were to give the federal government money to create a loophole where the rich pays only 10% and everyone else pays 15% that would not be allowed as the government would not have that power. They can give the federal government all the money they want, they won't get any special favors.
"Literally something like a universal background check has 90+% approval and yet because of the NRA's money, it doesn't get done"
We have background checks. That is a non issue.
You have a democracy, it is called the state governments.
I want money out of politics as well. I just realize that in order to do so you have to limit their power. If the government has nothing to sell no one will buy anything. Do you buy a hamburger at Jimmy Johns? No. Why? Because they don't sell it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Raizhen010, I am impressed. Now what was wrong with what I said? Glancing back at it I am stating the truth. You cannot have background checks on all "gun transfers"unless you have a gun registry. If I were to give my gun up to one of my friends there is no record of me owning that gun, so how do you do a background check? There are a lot of guns out there without an record on them. Also, as we see with that democratic law maker, a gun registry is a stepping stone to gun confiscation.
I am still waiting to see you light concrete on fire.
As in that Tennessee case, again, they don't seem to have a problem with it as they still have that private system in place. You are arguing against for profit fire department when some exist with no major issues.
Fires are easier to control than you think. We have had major forest fires in CA they were able to control and limit damage. But again, if the private fire department system is so terrible, why do they still have it?
Also, you never addressed this. You oppose the private fire department and want to enact your will on other cities and feel it is OK. How would you feel if other people forced their way on to you and forced your public fire departments to go private? My suggestion to you, stop trying to be the moral one here as you are not doing a good job at it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stephen, saying every country has universal healthcare is a very poor argument. You are ignoring many variables such as tax rates, how those programs are set up, the quality of those programs, etc. You also have to look at culture, overall crime rates, economies, healthy habits, etc.
Next, as a whole the US is on par with other nations. We do many things well. Yes, we have shortcomings, but so do other nations. Saying universal healthcare is "cheaper" is a poor argument. A studio apartment is cheaper than a 2 bedroom apartment. Is the studio better?
Now you talk about regular checkups. One, what makes you think people will do that? Next, people can choose to eat healthy and exercise a little more if they so desire which requires no access to healthcare. When I went to the gym this morning I showed my ID, not my insurance card.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OHIOspikey, thanks for the link, but again, you have to put the numbers in perspective. It isn't denying the facts, it is putting them in proper perspective. I earn $23,000 a year. I am in that bottom 50%. I am also a PhD student who is a couple years a away from earning my PhD and seeing my income go up around three times or more within a year. That is why you can't just throw numbers out there.
"This data is the most useful information, because it tells you what is happening at the per person level"
In a country of 320+ million people there are many variables. WV is ranked third to last in median household income of around $40,000 a year. However that state is ranked number 1 in home ownership rate. Why? Because cost of living is low. When you include cost of living WV is not in the top 10 in poverty rates, CA is where CA is ranked 9th in median household income.
" This means that the average worker can work 40 hours of week for a year
at 15 dollars per hour and be in the middle of the economy. "
Again, you have to put that number in perspective. One is what economy do they live in? If they live in rural Nebraska then that value is much higher than in the bay area in CA, thus they are a larger participate in the economy.
"I don't care where you live in America. 31k/year or less is poor or in poverty."
No it isn't. Again, WV is number 1 in home ownership rate.
"As for the the stock market, 84% of all stocks are owned by the top 10%"
I agree, but higher stocks means the company has more assets to invest and grow benefiting society in both jobs and wealth. Sure the worker may not own stock, but now they have a job.
1
-
"I find it odd that you would pick home ownership as your metric for a successful economy."
The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. A home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Also, owning a home is tied into the "American Dream". Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth as they have little to no desire to run a business. Owning a home is a part of having high assets that you can pass onto your children and can greatly increase your credit score. It is a strong indicator of success.
" It doesn't tell a lot about the health of economy when home ownership includes people that are still paying a bank for a home"
They are able to get the loan because of a strong economy.
"It also doesn't make a lot of sense to pay rent, if you can finance a house for cheaper than the cost of rent."
For some people rent is cheaper.
"So, it makes sense that people are buying, rather than renting with rent costs that high. "
WV is the cheapest state to rent in. I will post the link later.
"I would think that a better metric for gauging the economy would be median equity gained per household"
Arguably it is. I don't disagree. But you cannot look at median income, or any number at that and expect to make a conclusion. Consider this, 66% of the country is between the ages of 15 to 64, working age. Half of that is 33%. So 33% earn less than $30,000 a year. Out of that 66% 13% of them are 16-24. The average earnings for that age group is around $27,000 a year. So strip out 13% of 33% and you have 20% of the nation left who are over 24 years old earning less than $30,000 a year, a rough estimate. Is the number so bad now? Especially considering other factors?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Evan, police are locally ran and funded, and even at that we has a shortage. Fire fighters are locally ran and funded and 70% of them are volunteer. And with police, fire fighters and military, none of them have to go through the same level of schooling and training that doctors do. Becoming a doctor is much more challenging than becoming a police officer or someone in the military. There is a reason why many can join the military at the age of 18 where med schools have a less than 50% acceptance rate. And again, 70% of fire fighters are volunteer.
Government creates monopolies. That is the reality.
Making government local does alleviate the problem of corruption. When you are active in your community you can personally know your local representatives. You can see if what they are doing is actually helping locally, you can attend town hall meetings and you have a louder voice. I met my mayor and the person she was running against and it persuaded me to vote for her. I met my local sheriff. I am involved in the school district and it persuaded me how to vote when it came to taxes.
As for the tax bill raising the debt, it was out of control to begin with. The idea of the tax bill is long term plans. Long term it will grow the economy leading to more revenue to tax leading to more money. Again, what is higher, 10% of 1000 or 50% of 100? As for your comment on economists, economists have different opinions on the tax bill. What you said about every economists saying it is "horrendous" is 100% not true. You can never get economists to agree like that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hana9916
1. The NCAA deals with athletics in college. In the US we have different classes, Division I, Division II and Division III. Division I is the highest with the best athletes. The ranking is determined on scholarship limits. Division III are all walk ones, zero scholarships for athletes. Typically those schools are private schools of rich kids like Case Western for example. Division I has the most scholarships. For example, in football Division I has 85 full ride scholarships. Division II football has, if I recall, 36 full rides. They can be split up, for example, two players can have two half ride scholarship. In Division II you see that a lot, but in Division I they all get full rides which is why better athletes go there. There are also limitations such as if you are as scholarship athlete in football and you want to run track you have to be on scholarship for track. It is a balance between allowing bigger schools to succeed but also hindering them from taking all the athletes where smaller schools can still have programs.
If you make college "tuition free" than how do you adjust for the NCAA no longer having to give out scholarships? What will prevent larger schools like Alabama and Clemson from just hoarding all of the athletes and smaller ones like Central Missouri from literally getting nothing? That, to me, is a huge elephant in the room when it comes to "tuition free college".
2. In the US we view college as an investment you make as an adult. If is you, after a K-12 education, and you, now as an adult, investing to better yourself. That is the real value in college. Most of what you learn in college can be self taught. The value in college is that you are showing to employers you are willing to invest in yourself to achieve a long term goal.
2. Maybe he is not poor? Maybe he is from a rural area? Rural schools have limited resources as well.
3. The idea of tests predicting success is highly debated. What I find to be ironic about the testing part is that people on the far left in the US talk about opportunity and giving it to people. But a test will prevent just that. A test will prevent someone from getting their foot in the door. In my opinion we allow for great opportunity in the US college system. If you can't afford it we have the loan program. And if you work hard enough you will succeed. In college is becomes more subjective than objective. I have a student now who struggles but they are seeking a lot of help and is personable. Even if they get a B I will recommend them over an A student who hardly conversed with me. College isn't about getting the grade. It is about investing yourself to accomplish a long term goal. It is about showing people above you that you are willing to overcome barriers to succeed. You make it "tuition free" you remove a very valuable part of college.
1
-
@Hana9916
1. In the US college sports is very popular and provide a lot of jobs and opportunities for college students. I, myself, worked in college athletics during my undergrad and it helped me progress in life. As for paying a salary, universities can't. The reason why is because with the exception of large football or men's basketball programs, college sports don't generate a profit. ESPN did a show on that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6u271jIEGM
As a whole, if athletes were paid essentially the only sports that will exist will be football and men's basketball, but Title IX won't allow that as women's sports need to exist in equal quantity to that of men's sports and women's sports don't generate high revenue.
2. Define a "well educated populace". Is going to college and learning poetry really the best for society? Is good test takers good for society? Or is productive workers best for society? There are very successful people out there who did not attend college but instead worked. Also, government offers a K-12 education to everyone. After that you are an adult, it is up to you to find away to succeed in life. Maybe college is that. Or maybe it is working a job. But that is on you as an adult. At what point do you tell people to be an adult and stop funding them? They get a K-12 education, and now you want to extend it through college? Why not go farther. Why not give people to start businesses? Why should people go into large debt to open a business and employ people?
3. This comment shows your true colors. You don't have to go into debt to finish college, many don't. But debt is opportunity. Us, as a nation, allows people to go into debt to push for a large goal. That can be a home, college, a business, etc. Us, as a nation, is so well off we allow people to go into a hole to, in the long run, succeed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" And I stand by my comment 97% of people wished we had more stronger rules"
What do you base that on? Looking it up I can imagine it is from Quinnipiac poll that said 97% supported background checks. However, that same source said
"American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent"
Not 97%. And that is after a mass shooting, do it months afterwards. So only 66% support stricter gun laws. As for that background checks and 97%, it said "universal" which is vague. One, we already have it. Two, you cannot regulate private sales that strongly unless you create a gun registry.
" And it's called putting ones self in another shoes"
So unless I experience a horrific event I cannot have an opinion? Does a doctor need to suffer through cancer before they can give medical treatment to someone with cancer?
I agree there is an emotional side to an argument, but there are facts and reasoning as well. I feel bad for those who have died and their family members. And I have ideas to alleviate this from happening. However, we cannot ignore the facts when it comes to guns. You are with your appeal to emotion statements and your deceptive presentation of polling data which was done after a mass shooting which skews the results.
"We all need to sit a the table and come up with simple rules that make mass murder by guns less."
I agree, that means you need to understand the entire issue and not give out meaningless numbers.
" Arming teachers is a problem when most are stressed with class sizes and poor level of pay etc.."'
Many teachers are armed in many districts in TX and Ohio. Also, it isn't about arming all teachers. There will be rules. My idea is that
1. The teacher is experienced in teaching and has worked in the field for years
2. They take proper training
3. It is voluntary
Teachers that are armed in Ohio have the gun locked away in safe that requires fingerprints to open. The safe is hidden. It isn't that they have it on them. No different than how I have a loaded gun in my home. I don't have it on me, it is in my drawer. I have access to it if needed.
I agree, we need to sit down and discuss this. But your thought process of how teachers will be armed is wrong. You can easily look at how other districts are doing it already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesguilford6807 , you need to understand what rights are in this nation. Rights give the US citizens power over the government rights can only be taken away through due process. Freedom of speech allows people to criticize the government. Freedom for search and seizure prevents the government to invading into your private residence and so on. All "right to life" means that the government cannot take away life without due process. If you make healthcare a "right" you have to force doctors to serve people which enslaves them and, ironically, takes away their life in the process.
"ou obviously do not care about the fact that in this nation we also cap how much healthcare an individual receives according to their ability to pay for it"
Sure, but the vast majority still receive the high quality of care. Other nations cap it because the government does not want to pay. Is that something you support? In our system people are given a choice.
"It would make far more sense if we in this nation were to limit healthcare resources in such a way as to allow most Americans to access non elective medical care,"
Define "non elective"? Also, this is where the difficult discussions come that the left does not want to have. How much resources do we spend on someone who, statistically, is going to die anyway? Written in the book 'Being Mortal" the author there says that many seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. Other nations, with old and really sick, just end up shooting them with drugs so they die pain free. In the US we push to keep them alive. Should we? Again, chances are they are going to die soon anyways. I saw this first hand with my grandma who was very sick in her 80s. The kids had to travel long distances to care for her and we eventually moved her to another state to live with one of her kids. She was in terrible shape and when she died it was less stressful for the family. However, they wanted to keep her alive.
You see, this is a very complex issue that many on the far left do not want to take on. They just want to pass M4A and have everyone else pick up the pieces.
The rest of your rant on "rights" shows you don't understand what rights are. Also, I support expansion of resources where you have the mindset that resources are finite. Under M4A there will be an issue of limited resources as there is less of an incentive to create more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
K-Fro, the point of the papers is to show people do die on waiting lists. Now how much we can't exactly say as no official study, as I can tell, has been done.
You point to the 45,000 stat which is deceptive in many ways. One is that what do you have to compare it to? I just showed you how people do die in Canada due to lack of access to healthcare by looking at two studies that looked at a specific case. Now show me a study that was done in other nations that shows how many die due to lack of access. No study exist making that 45,000 stat what I call an "empty stat". You don't know if that 45,000 is high, low or average. Compare it to this, I pay $700 a month in rent. Now based on that alone I want you to conclude if you think I am paying too much, or if I am getting a good deal.
Next, those 45,000 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? Poor people are typically in bad health due to self inflicted reasons like bad diet and exercise which is why they have higher rates of obesity and type II diabetes. A study led by a Harvard professor entitled
"The Oregon Experiment-Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes" showed that even when you give people access to Medicaid their physical health does not improve. Just giving them access does not mean they will live.
Also, I suggest reading the book "Being Mortal". There the author discusses at one point where many people seek healthcare to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they may live another 5 or 10 months. And what condition will they be in? On those 45,000 if you give them access to healthcare how much longer do they live? Do they live another 5 years or only another 5 months with compounding issues where you solve one issue and another comes up? You can't say.
Overall, you have to be very careful with that 45,000 stat and don't make a strong conclusion on that stat alone. Dig deeper.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@k3v1n47 , ok, let us look at that 45,000 stat to give you an example of how there are many ways to look at it. To start, what do you have to compare that 45,000 to? People die in every nation due to shortcomings in healthcare. Up to 7000 people die a year in Australia on waiting lists waiting for "elective care". So what do you have to compare that 45,000 to? As far as I know nothing. No research of that kind has been done in other nations meaning you have not standard to go off of. You can't say if that 45,000 is high, low, or average. Compare it to this, I pay $700 a month in rent. Now tell me off of that alone am I paying too high or if I am getting a good deal.
Also, those 45,000 are poor and in the US bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? In Oregon a study lead by a former Harvard professor showed that when you give access to Medicaid to people their physical health did not improve. That is because that is related to personal life style choices. So you can't say for sure if they die due to lack of access or due to bad health. In the book "Being Mortal" the author writes about people who are in bad health and near death have their problems compound. So when you fix one issue another comes up. People look towards healthcare to live another 5 or 10 years but in reality they live another 5 or 10 months. So with those 45,000 if you give them access to healthcare and they live 5 more months as opposed to 5 more years, what have you accomplished?
You see, I took that 45,000 stat and looked at it in a completely different way you did while citing experts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jojo, changing healthcare drastically is a losing battle politically because people, overall, are fine with the system they have. You may push for Medicare for all and argue that it will be better and save money, but you still have to raise taxes on everyone. That is the reality. People are not going to accept that. Same thing that you can push to end employer based healthcare but people like that as well. Major changes are a losing thing politically.
How do I know most people like their healthcare? Close to 80% in Colorado voted against universal healthcare. Democrats lost Congress when they passed Obamacare. Every attempt to establish universal healthcare at the state level failed.
Giving out raises means employers will pay a higher tax. If you pay someone $100 and then raise their wage to $200, you are paying a higher tax. Yes, the rate is the same, but you are still paying a higher dollar amount. You are being punished for giving out a raise. To counter employers give out benefits that are tax free. Employers give out raises because people want more money. If an employer does not give our raises no one will work for them. Eventually the employer has to look at the cost benefit of giving out raises and not giving out raises. It is the same concept that employers will love to pay workers as little as possible but they don't because if they did then no one will work for them. It is also the same concept that employers would love to have workers work for them with zero breaks but many companies give out paid lunch breaks even though they are not required to. Same with paid time off.
Sorry for the typo, I met to say "older".
As for your plan covering certain things, that is up to you. You decide what your plan should cover. To me insurance should only cover unplanned, expensive situations where everything else can be paid for out of pocket. Same with car insurance where you decide what is covered and what isn't.
Providers can compete in cases where people pay for it out of pocket. Yes, healthcare can be inelastic at times and that is where insurance comes in. There is a desire to have insurance, but at times people can pay for it out of pocket. At that point providers have to compete. Quality of care will increase as well due to competition. We see that with LASIK surgery.
If insurance companies screw people over they will lose customers. That is especially true in the information age we live in. If insurance companies screw people over people will go to another company. You see that in a free market.
Why are oil changes cheap? Because people can shop around for the best deal. You say doctor visits are not cheap. Why? Because unlike oil changes we don't have a free market system in it. You are proving my point now.
No system is ideal. By young age I mean as a young adult. Yes, people develop pre-existing conditions at a young age. There are ways around it. Insurance can cover unplanned cases such as a major accident that no pre-existing condition can account for. For some pre-existing conditions it is already in the person's life so it is planned. Also, if insurance has less to cover for other people it could be willing to take on younger people even with pre-existing conditions. As for not being able to afford it, we see that in everything. That's life. With the price being lower more people can afford it, but in the end very poor people might not be able to afford it. That's life. Something has to give.
My local I mean the states on down. Also, I won't demand higher wages, the workers will like always.
1
-
jojo, every attempt to massively reform healthcare brought negative backlash. It cost Clinton Congress, it cost Obama the house, and every attempt to establish universal healthcare at the state level has failed.
I agree that what is popular may not be best. My point is that the population won't support a tax increase even if it is for their own benefit. People don't always accept a tax increase which is how political parties lose. It is why we have a massive welfare system but still low taxes and thus increasing debt. It is why the governors of the Federal Reserve are picked as opposed to elected because they may make very unpopular decisions that are actually the best in the long run. So they are not depending on the votes of the people where politicians are. Overall, the point is that the people won't like a tax increase even if it is best for them. That is the political barrier that needs to be overcome.
McCain pushed to remove employer based healthcare and was met with a lot of negative comments.
Establishing prohibition led to the mob which is why it ended. Also, ending prohibition was not major as it was not a major part of our economy. A lot of the Civil Rights change occurred locally. What major tax changes have we had in the past?
It isn't so much Colorado, why hasn't any state done major reforms related to healthcare? Because people like their coverage for the most part. Democrats did lose the house because of Obamacare. That is well known because people did not like Obamacare. Many republicans won on the idea of repealing and replacing Obamacare. You blame the recession when the recession was occurring in 2008 when the democrats had control of Congress and still kept their seats.
Employers rather give out a wage as it is much easier than benefits. With benefits you are adding more variables such as dealing with insurance companies, or in giving out a car to someone you have to worry about that person's driving record and so on. Unless the benefit is cheaper than a wage most employers will give out wages.
Employers may get away with paying employees less, but not in a strong economy.
What age? Lower to mid 20s. All depends.
With a free market you can work with insurance companies on what you want to have covered. You can get an individual plan as opposed to a generic one. One of the points of higher quality.
I agree insurance can scam people, but that can be solved through the free market and minimal laws. Not major laws.
If it is paid for out of pocket there will be competition with providers. And out of pocket prices will become cheaper. A major reason why healthcare is so expensive is that people don't see the price of it and they don't pay out of pocket.
Yes, new innovation led to LASIK being better and cheaper. Now tell me, why hasn't new innovation led to other areas of healthcare being cheaper?
In a free market any insurance company that screws people over will not gain new customers and go under.
Oil changes are cheap because of the free market. You need oil changes for your car to run and for you to travel and get to work and take care of business. There is a high need for oil. Same with new tires. Same with many other aspects in a car. It is cheap because people see the prices and are able to push for competition. As Ben Shapiro said, why is an x-ray so expensive? It is a machine where a technician takes a picture and someone looks at it. Why are x-rays so expensive? A lot of things in healthcare are very expensive due to lack of a free market. Why do hospitals charge hundreds of dollars for band-aids? They are cheap in the market.
Catastrophic coverage is that unplanned, expensive situation insurance will cover. Will pre-existing condition still be a thing? I would admit it could. If you get insurance at a young age chances are it won't as an insurance company can see you as a low risk even with a pre-existing condition and you will be giving them money for years. If you are older than that is on you.
If you can't afford it there can be charities or that is where you can have a local, government option. I see the desire for some sort of government healthcare to fill in gaps like that. Issue is that the quality of such care should be low.
To give an example, I went to Planned Parenthood for an STD check up. It was "free" as it was government funded, but I was restricted to going there only on Tuesday or Thursday for that service and I had to wait for hours to get blood drawn and pee in a cup. I went to another clinic and had my insurance pay for it, or I could have paid $40 if I wanted. In 30 minutes I checked in, got blood drawn, peed in a cup, and was back at home. Very quick and easy. The government service was not quick, was restricted, but did not cost me anything. I can see a situation like that.
I can't provide research for this situation as no research exists as this situation has never been pushed forth from what I know. I am basing it on the fact that despite laws requiring certain wages businesses still pay higher than a min. wage. Despite the fact that businesses were not required to pay employees with healthcare insurance they still did. They still paid for time off and retirement. So my "research" is simply looking at how the market acts now. You are looking at this specific case where in reality there are many moving parts.
Also, every state has different standards for their people. Look at K-12 education. Every state has different standards there. Same with driving laws.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" there is no empirical evidence pointing towards social system scaling up badly. On the contrary, they should even work better the more people take part in it."
I beg to differ. Again, what country has 100+ million people, single payer healthcare and a strong economy? Scaling up ignores an important concept in economics, that is the concept of individualization. Now bear with me as I have only taken a few economic courses and done so only through an MBA program, but people want things to be catered to them. In healthcare you have the issue of people wanting their own doctors who understand their issues and can serve them. When you talk about "scaling up" you are creating a one size fits all policy. The large the population the more that policy has to cover. You ignore micromanagement and ignore the concept of individualization. For me my doctors I see have no problem giving me extra time that I pay for, that is an example.
But overall, for your idea of scaling up you have to assume that everyone is the same. That everyone approaches issues the same, or have the same thought process financially, or similar lifestyles, diets, exercise habits, practices, etc. That isn't the case though. Even in the US some states have citizens who are healthier. Some states have citizens who rather pay lower taxes.
" These system work the same in a country of 5 million people, like Norway, and a country of 82 million people, like Germany.
So why wouldn't it work in the US?
I hear that argument all the time, but I've never seen it backed up with either a reasonable causal theory for it not working or empirical evidence pointing towards it not working in the US.
"
I just gave you a theory and evidence. Again, how many nations have 100+ million people, a universal healthcare system, and a strong economy/healthcare system. Next, I gave you the theory behind it of different cultures. People in CA are different than the people in KS. To expect a healthcare system that can work in CA to work in KS is false thinking. Look at those nations of Norway and Germany. Do they have the exact same systems? No. Sure, you can say as a whole they have a universal healthcare system. But they differ in many ways. Does Norway and Germany have the same tax codes, same economic systems, same healthcare systems? No. That is even more evidence there.
" Universal healthcare is much cheaper than the current system the US has. Your average per capita healthcare expenses would be cut in half if the system is implemented properly."
What is the quality? A studio apartment where I have to share a kitchen with three other people is cheaper than my one bedroom apartment where I have my own kitchen. Cheaper is not always better. You can't say something is "cheaper" as if it is an argument that the system is better.
"Americans don't even know what a social democratic system would look like and in what way they would benefit. So how are they supposed to form an educated opinion on the matter?"
The idea of "social democratic system" varies. Look at those European nations, do they all have the same system? Denmark had mandatory military. Norway has no min. wage and strong unions due to a free market in worker and employer relationship, same with Denmark. Norway and Canada are strong oil producers. You label those nations as "social democratic" but never look at the details. What system do you want to cover and why? And again, how do you account for the different cultures in every state. Look at CA, NV, and Utah. CA is left leaning and very blue. Next state over is NV, a libertarian like state that made marijuana legal before CA. 24 hour bars and strip clubs. Next state over is Utah, a religious state with strict drinking laws. All three states within a day driving distance from each other and all have different cultures. That plays a role in what economic systems they have.
"Social democracy maximizes the potential in population by giving everybody access to highest quality education, healthcare and a tight social net that eliminates risks for them."
I can argue against that. Everyone has access to a K-12 education system. Many lack certain courses, like AP courses, due to lack of resources. We have public libraries for people to do all the studying they want. The resources are there, the will isn't. You say "highest quality of education" when we have that. Our culture value different things. One thing that is unique in our universities compared to other nations is the NCAA. No other country has that attached to their universities. We do. In our education system we value extra curricular activities like sports. What is your standard for "highest quality of education"? Also, you have to consider that just like AP courses, we lack professors, TAs, tutors, etc. in colleges meaning that we cannot provide it to all. No nation can. Putting a warm body in front of people is not providing them with it.
On that, in Germany they track their students to where they determine if you are college material or not. If the government feels you are not college material they do not allow you to go. Is that the model you want?
"But these are all results of the system.
Healthy lifestyles correlate heavily with the level of education. 60% of the US work force have no further education than a high school degree. If that were the case in Europe there'd be many of the same problems.
"
That 60% is normal. 44% of adults 25-64 have a college degree. In Norway it is 42%, 36% in Denmark, 27% in Germany who track their students.
" People have no idea how social democracy actually works in Europe and how it would fix the majority of the problems the US is facing and would benefit the vast majority of the American people."
Not to be rude but I feel you don't either considering the stat you gave me on college education. Or how you simply label something "social democracy" while ignoring numerous factors such as oil production, the free market in wage negotiation, or tracking students to restrict who goes to college.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Thats not an argument. There doesn't need to be another country as big as the US with a universal healthcare system to prove that its possible."
It is an argument as you asked for evidence. I gave you evidence as there are not countries the size of the US that have a strong economy and universal healthcare. It is shown to "work" in smaller nations which is one point I used to push for state rights and state ran healthcare, but not in larger nations. But from another viewpoint, I want evidence showing single payer healthcare "works" in larger nations of 100+ people.
"This is another dumb, constructed argument. Its hard to explain why it is so stupid if you don't understand how universal healthcare systems tend to work.
But bottom line: Rational choice."
Translation: I disagree with your comment but cannot justify why so I will just call it dumb.
"Its in everyones best interest to support a universal healthcare system because it produces the best and cheapest results on average."
Numerous arguments against that. Universal healthcare systems have numerous shortcomings. Read the book "The Business of Health" by prof. Robert Oshfeldt and Prof. John Schneider. They break down the numbers showing that one can argue that universal healthcare systems do not produce better results.
Also, you say "everyones best interest" is very ignorant in my opinion. You have no idea what is in my best interest. Universal healthcare may be in your best interest, but not mine or others. This is a major reason why the founding fathers created state rights. What is in the best interest in one state is not in the best interest for others. The reasons are both objective and subjective. There are many objective arguments against universal healthcare systems and subjectively people may not want it. Who you are to decide? You claim the choice is "rational". That is subjective in many ways. I find it irrational for people to spend their money on numerous things, but they do.
"And people in Berlin are different from people in Bavaria."
It is a 4 hour drive from those two areas. It is a four hour flight from CA to KS.
"This stuff was built over the course of a century, its quite intricate. And thats my basic point here, too."
To quote John Maynard Keynes "In the long run we are all dead".
If it takes a century to develop something you are going to have a hard time getting people to accept it. Many care about now, not the long run. Also, the economy of Germany 100 years ago is different compared to the US economy now. We are much more developed. A small example is that during that time Germany was on the gold standard. They aren't anymore.
"Average Quality in OECD countries is actually better than average quality in the US. "
Many factors beyond healthcare contribute to those stats and I will post you that book I mentioned above later. One example is that with life expectancy if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. the US has a higher infant mortality rate due to a high level of pre-term birth. Will universal healthcare prevent that? The stats you provided are raw. They are not influenced by healthcare alone but by other factors as well. Read the book "Debunking Utopia" where the author mentions how in other nations they live healthier lifestyles which contributes to those better numbers. You don't need healthcare to exercise and eat healthy.
"Because "social democracy" is a political system and the details you mentioned were completely unrelated economic details."
They are related. What tax rates do you want to use? How much, in terms of percent GDP, do you want to spend on these programs? You need details.
"I don't even get what kind of point you were trying to make here."
That there is way more to the economy than what you are presenting. You say "they are nations, they have social democracies....." Ok, so I then ask "and what else, what are their tax rate? How much do they spend? How are these programs actually ran? Do I go to a health clinic or do I make an appointment?" And so on. I need details. All of those nations have different systems.
"Sports in Europe is, pretty much in every country, organized completely differently than in the US.
We have a club culture. If you want to play a sport you join a club. These clubs aren't connected to any other institutions.
Its just a different approach than in the US.
But I don' t get what you argument is supposed to be? Just because countries have their differences doesn't mean that you can't have similar policy in these countries."
The economics and culture of a university is tied to sports. Many people choose colleges because of it. You have scholarships and scholarship limits for different school sizes. I will post another comment on this topic here as I know a lot about his due to my involvement in the NCAA and this is a great example of the main point you are missing here.
"I live in Germany. Yes this is a model I want. Its much better than the American system, where the wallet of your parents determines what kind of education you can get. In Germany schools filter people in a way that everyone gets the education that suits them best."
Well, a colleague of mine is from Germany. He was tracked for a trade school. He left and went to college in the US and is now a doctoral student. He was given an opportunity in the US. You may like what you have in Germany which is fine, but in the US we have a different culture. We allow for opportunity. One can go to a Junior College and prepare for a four year college and then grad school even if they done poorly in high school. I know many "non traditional students" who are older and now pursuing degrees and even advanced degrees.
Also, college is very affordable in the US. Many poor individuals do go. The idea that college is only for the rich in the US is a myth. My ex-girlfriend was poor and she got a degree along with her sister. She was raised in a home where they did their math homework in the cold with candle light. They were able to afford college.
"60% is not normal.
You ignore that fact that all these countries have something else besides University.
In Germany only about 30% have a university degree, but 60% of people have completed at least one 3 year apprenticeship. So only 10% of the workforce have nothing but a high school degree."
Uh, an apprenticeship is work experience. That is what we call it in the US.
"Because none of that has anything to do with a country being a social democracy or not.
Do you know what social democracy is?"
Do you?
1
-
Let us focus on the NCAA and colleges as it brings up two points here. One is the plethora of variables you are ignoring here, the other is how different our culture is.
On the second point, we have sports tied to our universities. Many praise that and even pursue colleges for that alone. Those sports create student jobs in athletic training, filming, equipment, parking, advertising, etc. It is a way for students to gain work experience and connections. Depending on the level of play depends on how many scholarships a university can offer. For example, in football D III schools offer zero scholarships where D I FBS schools offer around 85 full scholarships. There are restrictions such as if you play one sport, say football, and are on scholarship, you cannot do another sport, say track, unless you are on scholarship. It is to prevent the big schools from hoarding all the athletes.
If you were to make college "free" then you remove scholarships. That means big schools like Texas, USC, Alabama, etc. can hoard all the best athletes and small schools like Humbolt St., Central Washington, Emporia St., etc. get literally nothing. Athletes will all flock to the big schools as they are not depending on scholarships. Thus the sports programs at small schools would suffer and go under. That means no more jobs and no more experience.
The NCAA adds a lot of value to a university education and is unique in the US. If you made colleges "free" you have to account for that to where you probably have to remove it.
This is your problem. You are ignoring a plethora of variables involved in this issue. You are taking a complex topic and limiting it down to
1. You have other countries
2. They run something you call "social democracies" in which you have yet to define
You say there are hurdles to clear when it isn't that easy. I just gave you one major hurdle to clear that I am sure you will not be able to address as no one will be able to. How do you account for all the big athletes going to the big schools? If you remove the NCAA connection from colleges you will be completely changing a culture in the US that has been established for over 100 years. You say in Germany your system took 100 years to develop. Do you want to now change it? If the answer is no why do you want to change our way of life?
There is so much to this issue you are failing to understand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Living wage is subjective sure, but I'm trying to understand why you are calling it bad"
I want people to earn a high wage, but there are a couple points here
1. simply using government law to raise the wage an arbitrary amount is not a solution as employers can raise prices and/or cut hours. If you say a "living wage" is $15/hr and you use the law to set it at that, and employers simply cut hours from 40 hours a week to 20 hours a week, what have you solved? Sure, they are earning a "living wage" based on your number, but they are working less hours.
2. you can accomplish a lower "living wage" by increasing productivity which means goods and services are cheaper and better. So it isn't just wages.
"a living wage is enough to afford basic amenities, pay off current loans within a reasonable time frame without going into debt, and all without direct federal aid like food stamps while still having enough money to cover an unforeseen expenditure of up to 1000USD. "
Very vague. To start, why have debt? If they have a "living wage" shouldn't they have no debt? Next, what are "basic amenities"? Is it a car? I am able to walk to work. In fact, I can live off of $6/hr in my city and have a savings of $200 a month if I wanted to. That is why it is subjective.
1. A company exist because of customers. Consider fast food, there are people who eat there. The workers there earn a low wage. Why? Because the food there is set at a low price. If a company were to raise prices they would lose customers. The basic business model in the market has it so they simply do not have enough money. Just like there are people who live in apartments with roommates.
2. This is an important factor as in reality many poor individuals are not going to go businesses with low wage workers. Let us use fast food. While I said fast food has low prices, compared to buying food at a store and making it yourself the price is slightly higher. I just spend $8.86 at Subway for a foot long sandwich and a large drink. I could have drank water and made a sandwich at home for less than $2. If you were to force Subway to pay their employees more there is no guarantee that low wage workers are going to eat at Subway more as they probably can't afford to. Or maybe they can. But you also have to factor in how many have transportation there. The Subway I ate has has no homes or apartments nearby. You need a car to get there or you are taking a long walk. People who have cars and drive typically earn a higher wage. If a min. wage worker earns more are they going to go to that particular Subway, or other businesses near it? Not necessarily. So those companies in that area will not be seeing higher revenue.
3. You don't need to buy from Subway.
4. My statement holds true. These people are already alive, they are living and thus are earning a "living wage". You are pushing to give them more money which they should save and invest, not spend that quickly.
Crony capitalism is the result of a government with too much power. Capitalism is the free market with limited government. Crony capitalism is the complete opposite of capitalism and usually results from socialism.
1
-
"You mention that it can not work in a larger nation like the U.S. and I went and debunked your individualization argument."
You didn't debunk it. You actually supported my argument where I would want a localized system so I can see if government is actually working for me and my local community and the people around me.
"he only other 'complaint' you have is the wait times,"
There are others such as lack of specialists and lower R&D. The US leads the world in R&D for a reason.
"more people to see more patients decreases wait times"
How do you create more doctors? It isn't that easy. You have create the incentive to become a doctor it which single payer does not due to price setting.
"You claim it does not work, give a better reason as to why because neither me or Janice can see a monumental problem like we do with the privatized system. "
I never said it doesn't work. Glancing at my comments I never once said it doesn't work. I believe I made a comment that saying it "works" is a low bar to set. What is your standard of "working"? We have to have standards here.
Single payer does many things well. It is great for very basic care and poor people can receive it. It can help in prevention. However, for advanced care it has been shown to fail as there is no incentive to become a surgeon. Single payer has many shortcomings as does the US system. That comes from the simple fact of lack of resources. The reality is that the US system is on par with other nations. Our problems are just different. Again, I never said single payer does not work.
Here is what I did say.
1. The US culture is different and won't accept the high taxation
2. Our population is too large to where you cannot micromanage the system
3. Our country is too large. You could not get 60 senate democrats to agree on one form of healthcare for the longest time. Why? Because each state wants something different just like every country has something different.
4. As mentioned before our healthcare system is no par with the rest of the world. Creating a single payer system means radically changing the current system we have now. Our GDP is nearly $20 trillion, healthcare is 1/6 of that. Going to a federally ran system means killing jobs for all of those insurance workers. It means raising taxes on the majority to where they will change spending habits. Investors will stop investing due to an unpredictable and unstable economy. That will mean less jobs, less spending, less growth and an economic recession this world has ever seen. Housing is around 5% of GDP and look what recession that caused.
You are asking for a complete change of 1/6 of a $20 trillion economy. That is impossible to do.
You concept of insurance is 100% false. That is not how insurance works. It is no longer insurance at that point but a charity.
"You want evidence that it does work and we both have provided examples of the model."
Your evidence is other smaller countries with different cultures, different systems, different economies, different history. That is not proof. I outlined why single payer should not be established in this nation. It can be, but prepare for a major economic recession that will take over a decade, at least, to recover from.
"You bring up this book and mention that it breaks down the numbers. You then conveniently forgot to put any of those numbers in there. The burden of proof is on you, especially when dealing with Janice as she's the one who currently observes the effects of the medical system. "
Read the book. It isn't my job to read it for you. Also, bear in mind that book does not have all the answers. It is not gospel and can be argued against. My point is that universal healthcare systems can be argued against as well. But please read the book. The fact that you can't and want me to tell you want is in it makes me question your intelligence and reasoning on this topic.
"That's kind of the point in one quote. The only way the system is going to work in America or even get established at all is to convince people to stop thinking just in the moment and think to the future as well."
That is how capitalist think. Consider a free market system. Sure going to a free market system would mean some people on medicare and medicaid now would suffer. But in the long run you will see greater innovation and lower prices like we see with LASIK. LASIK is evidence that a free market system works well.
"Janice is the one making the point here. Culture differences don't mean that we can't borrow policy ideas from other nations. "
We can, but again, which ones? Those nations have different healthcare systems. That is my point. What tax code do you want? What level of spending do you want? Also, again, you have to remember that our culture is different. Is the American people willing to have around 50% of their paycheck taxed like it is in Denmark?
I am not saying other countries are inferior or that the US does it better. I am saying we are different, and what we do works very well for use. The US is successful in many ways. We just can't copy other nations like that as it isn't that easy.
"You don't bother to mention how they did. The likeliest answer I can think of is either federal student loans, or they were good enough to get a scholarship. College is not "very affordable" here in the U.S. It depends on where you go and what degree you are getting. My sister spent less on her full bachelors degree double major, than I did in the last year alone. "
College is very affordable if you consider the payout in the end with the career you get. As for the two individuals, one received a scholarship and one worked full time. I came from a low income family. I went to a college that was $10,000 a year. I worked full time and now I get paid to go to graduate school.
A $27,0000 loan is nothing considering how much a college degree can earn you. Median earnings for someone with a high school diploma only is $712 a week. For someone with a Bachelor's degree it is $1173 a week. That is $400 more. In 52 week that is over $20,000. In one year you basically paid off you loan.
Also, it comes back to that college is a personal investment. You are showing employers that you are personally investing time and money to complete a long term goal to put yourself over the top of the competition.
"Apprenticeships in Germany are the equivalent of a 2-year Vocational School degree here"
We have those in the US as well. What is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
College is an investment, period. Most degrees you can learn on your own. As I said, the MBA courses I am taking are easy. So far my lowest grade is an A- mainly because I received an 80% on a paper due to it being too short as I was too lazy to continue it. I read the book and I do well. The STEM fields are really the only fields you need to attend class for.
On you scenario let us add that say one student spent more time in a professor's office, and decided to work a job on the side to pay for college which also expands a resume, and does volunteer work. You can add that. I had three jobs in college that I placed on my resume and I was accepted to 10 of the 12 grad school I applied for. One I was on a waiting list and the other was John Hopkins, my "prestige" school. I had OK test scores and a 3.3 GPA when I graduated.
It goes beyond doing well in school. Grades are only a portion of the equation. You have recommendations, work experience, volunteer work. The situation you gave me only gives on portion of it. The kid paying out of pocket probably works a job making them more valuable in the work place.
You do not go to college to master a trade. You can earn a Masters degree, but you are not learning a trade. You sit in a classroom, study from a text, and take tests. The value in college are the people you meet, learning how to manage time and money, and gaining experience overall whether it be work experience or through hobbies or through volunteer work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mckenzie.latham91 , great, polling data, as if that has been so reliable.......
The law has it so he can declare a state of national emergency.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/house-bill/3884
Congress can stop it with 2/3 votes in both houses. Also, "national emergency" is not clearly defined in the law thus the SC will have to interpret it when it comes to them where Trump does have a very strong argument on his side that this is a national emergency. So his method is constitutional and legal. It is a part of checks of balances. You have a divided congress that is getting nothing with one party refusing to work with the president purely for political reasons and a problem is not getting solves. So there is a method to stop that with that law.
Sorry, but you need to read up on law more if you want to discuss it. Trump looks like the reasonable one because he gave the democrats an offer, they refused. He tried to work with them,they refused, so, as a last resort, he went to a national emergency. Thus democrats get nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A B, you do blindly trust people. Do you even know the methods behind the creation of that ranking? Also, do you see it valid to compare the US, or even Canada, France and Germany to Malta?
As for the WHO ranking, the one I find is from 2000. What is the most recent one you see? As for other rankings, the ones I have seen are from Bloomberg, who weighed life expectancy at 50% but gave no reason why, and The CommonWealth Fund where I still have yet to have someone give me what their credentials are and why they have any credibility.
As for an academic criticism, they exist. As I said, Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt called those rankings arbitrary. Ognjen Ridic, from the International University of Sarajevo in his paper entitled
"Comparisons of Health Care in the United States, Germany and Canada" said
"One should mention that data from different countries may not be directly comparable for several reasons and therefore, should be accepted with some skepticism."
There is a reason why you will not find any academic sources that have rankings like the WHO or Bloomberg does.
You saying that the US system is objectively worse is false. You say wait times are worse which is 100% not true, even supporters of single payer admit that wait times are longer.
I feel you have no desire to even research this topic and just blindly follow anything to fit your bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A B, the problem is that you do not question the WHO at all. Again, is it fair to compare the US, or France, Canada, Germany, etc. to Malta or San Marino? Even if the WHO is trustworthy they are not without flaws. They are ran by humans. At this point I am asking why are you not questioning their ranking?
You do not need a degree in the topic to be able to break down studies. Having a degree and an advanced education does help. My degree is in physics and chemistry, and I a pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. I have the ability to read up on issues and methods and see how they come up with their conclusions. Am I an expert? No. But I can see that there are limitations, there are many ways to do these studies, and there are experts who disagree with these rankings and studies. To me, when I see this ranking and then I see two professors write an entire book on the issue with one saying these rankings are arbitrary, I see that there is at least an argument.
I advocate for moderate policies all the time. I has supported a public option on numerous occasions, I just want it to be ran at the state level and not the federal level. I support many left wing policies and see the advantages of them. There are advantages to a government funded healthcare system, but it should be ran at the state and local level.
Milton Friedman said there is a desire to have money spent by government, but we have to ensure government remains the servants and not the masters. You do that by keeping it as local as possible because you at the local level can see if government is actually working for you. I support many left wing policies. I voted to increase our taxes in my county to fund for more schools.
The vast majority receives care in the US. That is why 80% in Colorado said no to universal healthcare. And no system covers everyone, that is a fact. Resources are scarce.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tenshi, to start, I am a guy. Next, I am not religious at all. Even at that, if I were Christian, Jewish, Baptist, Muslim, etc. does not matter. And what "holy bewk" are you talking about?
Here is the problem. I never once said single payer was inferior. I said it has shortcomings and as a whole is no better or worse than the US system where the US system is on par with the rest of the world. Every system can use improvements and no system is ideal. You talk about "logic and reason" when I used that to challenge those rankings people keep posting. I will ask you, the WHO ranked the US, along with France, Canada, Germany, etc. to countries like Malta and San Marino. I only heard of Malta after watching a MST3K episode. Is that really a fair comparison to compare the US to a country like that? Or San Marino whose main economic drivers are being a tax haven and tourism meaning they attract people with money? Is that a logical route to take?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nikola Jevtic, there are personal attacks because people have a religious like belief on these issues which makes them closed minded. I, as a whole, do not care that if someone support single payer. However, they should understand that there are strong arguments against it and it is not ideal. People cannot accept that and become very personal.
As for life expectancy, many factors play a role in that. That is why it is hard to use just that. Yes, it is true that medical advances have prolonged life, but one can argue that is not the best. You mentioned the situation about how an operation is a "success" but the person died. That is being truthful. You can have a successful operation on someone who is very old and their frail situation caused them to die.
I am currently reading the book "Being Mortal" by Atul Gawande and at the beginning he mentions a story of a guy who had a successful surgery to remove a tumor, if I recall, that was compressing on his spinal cord. However, with his poor condition he died shortly afterwards anyway. He mentions how only 17% of people die at home where in the 40s the number was much great. Many are dying in hospitals now as they try to prolong life through medical advances. But the argument that comes up is if that is really the best thing? If doing numerous medical procedures to keep people alive a little while longer the best? Sure, doing so extends life and extends the overall life expectancy of a country. But is that the best solution?
The book is very interesting to read and I suggest it to anyone who is interested in reading about healthcare.
You say the US has "worse outcomes" when one can easily argue against that. How are they the worse? By what measure? And why do you use those measures? As for cost, there are factors such as R&D that increase the cost. I see that as being great, we are progressing in healthcare.
As for the free market and information being imbalance, many on the right, including Milton Freidman, supports laws forcing businesses to be honest and open with information. I forgot what the term is called and will have to look in one of my business administration textbook, but there is a solid argument about how the seller has more information and laws should be in place to force the sellers to present more information. But that does not mean we should completely dismantle the free market and go to a government ran system.
As for shopping around, that is why insurance companies exist. You have time to shop around for insurance companies where insurance pays for expensive, unplanned situations you do not have time to shp around for to fix.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Phantom, people die in other nations as well due to shortcomings in healthcare. What's your point? Also, the problem with study like those is that poor people lack insurance but also have poor health. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes, and smoking with the poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of insurance or due to being in bad health to begin with? A Harvard professor brought up that point.
To extend, I referenced to book "Being Mortal" where the author discusses how people live longer but end up dying in the hospital. We have the ability to extend life, but it is arguable if it is necessary. You pointed to studies of people in their 50s and 60s, that's old buddy.
I do not deny any of these studies nor do I feel they do not add value to the discussion, they do. But again, as I keep mentioning, you have to dig deeper. Healthcare is way beyond just having insurance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Erik, there is not "consensus" on the issue of healthcare that you are talking about. I have read plenty of reports on it. You say that being uninsured means a greater chance of dying. I agree. But the uninsured are poor to begin with and have a greater chance of dying for numerous reasons. Whether it be for being in bad health to begin with (bad health for self inflicted issues like obesity are associated with the poor), living in a high crime area, not having something like AC on a hot day or whatever. It is more than just healthcare. You are pointing at one variable in a complex issue.
Next, just insuring people does not increase the quantity of healthcare. Resources are limited, that is why in the US and in every other country people lack healthcare. People die in other countries due to lack of healthcare as well. The issue is that it hardly gets reported because they are legally "covered" on paper. But they still end up dying.
""....because when it comes to healthcare, reason and trends have a left wing bias...."
That is 100% not true. This topic is highly debated. You only bring up one point, just one in a very complex issue. That is coverage where I have said that coverage does not equal healthcare. Why? Because coverage does not mean increased quantity. You have people dying in Canada in waiting for "elective" heart surgery for example. They were, on paper, covered, but they still died.
Read the book "The Business of Health" where they break down the numbers showing that the US is no par with other nations. As for keeping people alive, read the book "Being Mortal". Your argument comes down to
1. covering people
2. Keeping them alive
There are strong arguments to be made that keeping unproductive people alive bogs down the entire economic system. There is a moral argument to be made on your side, but there are strong arguments from the right as well.
So when you say that the facts and reasons have a left wing bias, you are not proving your case very well as all you have done is look at two things in the end
1. coverage, which again does increase the quantity
and
2. If people live where there is an argument to be if we should be keeping them alive, and in reality people die for numerous reasons beyond healthcare
You wrote a long comment but you need a stronger argument Erik.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dezzz, the what makes the CommonWealth Fund a "real organization"? I read their study as well. Again, anyone can do a legit analysis on statistics and come up with any ranking. The CommonWealth Fund, like the WHO, weighs overall life expectancy high when many factors influence overall life expectancy. This is why you are not seeing any ranking from any academic source because as Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt said, they are arbitrary.
As for OECD stats, again, many variables contributes to those stats. Ever heard of the book "How to Lie with Statistics" or the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics"? I looked at those stats and once again many factors contribute to them. Yes, the US has high cost but a major reason for that is
1. R&D, the US leads the world in that
2. People are willing to do more advanced testing
Both of those lead to higher cost. As for "subpar results", nothing suggests that is true. The US leads the world in cancer survival rate. As I told you, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number one in life expectancy. Read the book "Debunking Utopia", there the author mentions how in other nations they simply have a healthier life style than use as in diet and exercising leading to longer life expectancy. It isn't just healthcare.
"YOU said that anyone can shift the studies to make America last OR FIRST. I’ve told you to show a study where that’s remotely true."
People who understand the issues that can do that don't because of one simple reason, it is a waste of time. Healthcare is a complex issue and those who are willing to reduce the issue down to an arbitrary and vague ranking are choosing to remain ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dezzz, you say "facts are the facts", that is very vague. You say "America isn't ranked ahead of their peers", again, I asked of you, based on what?
"Again, YOU claimed that ranking America first could be done. You are unable to point to anything reputable that backs up this claim because you're full of shit. "
I have. Take, for example, overall life expectancy. If you were to remove murders and car accidents the US is number 1. Weight that life expectancy at 50% like the CommonWealth Fund does, and add in cancer survival rate and our R&D and the US can be near the top if not number 1.
Now why doesn't anyone do that? Because of one simple reason, it is a waste of time.
I read the studies by WHO and the CommonWealth Fund. I have read the OCED stats. Based on your comments I doubt you have even done that. You are not even reading the studies you are pointing me too. Do you not see the problem here? You are blindly following something you now nothing about. Because of that you have a religious like belief in something.
You are responding to me because I am challenging your religion.
1
-
1
-
Dezzz,
"Again, this is an outright lie, the commonwealth fund ranks us far below our peers on the overall QUALITY of our care."
Based on what? Again, have you actually read those studies?
" I find it comical that you claim I haven't read it considering you're the one missing the entire point"
I read the methods, questioned them, and found them to be vague and arbitrary. You blindly follow them like a religion. You say this ranking ranks us low. Again, I ask of you, based on what? What were their methods? What were their limitations? Have you even read them?
"This is also hilarious."
Why?
"As I pointed out, even if we do not look at life expectancy, America is significantly behind our peers in the aforementioned categories"
Such as? Also, why do these rankings weigh life expectancy so high then?
"You have yet to put out any kind of finding that could rank the quality of our healthcare above our peers. "
Read that book. But again, such rankings are arbitrary and a waste of time.
"I know it sucks man, but you got to get over it. If anyone is religious, it's you. You are clearly an adherent to the religion known as Americanism. "
I actually support reforming healthcare. I just understanding the complexity of it. You are reducing this issue down to an arbitrary ranking from sources that are not academic and you have yet to reveal why they are legit to begin with.
1
-
1
-
"I just laid the categories out in which we are behind our peers. Clearly you're not reading my comments. "
I read your comments. What categories? I need details.
" You site a book by a rightwing think tank who's mission is fundamentally at odds with the single payer system. Even on reading the first bits of that book, its clear they don't back up the claim you made. No organization puts America first in the quality of its health. "
This book doesn't either. It shows the complexity of healthcare. Again, read this book and the studies you cite. Even The CommonWealth Fund admits flaws.
"This report has several limitations. Some are related to the particulars of our analysis and some inherent in any effort to assess overall health system performance.
First, as described above, our sensitivity analyses suggest that the overall country rankings are somewhat sensitive to small changes in the data or indicators included in the analysis.
Second, despite improvements in recent years, the availability of cross-national data on health system performance remains highly variable. The Commonwealth Fund surveys offer unique and detailed data on the experiences of patients and primary care physicians. However, they do not capture important dimensions that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Furthermore, patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their expectations, which could differ by country and culture. In this report, we augment our survey data with other international sources, and include several important indicators of population health and disease-specific outcomes. However, in general, the report relies predominantly on patient experience measures. Moreover, there is little cross-national data available on mental health services and on long-term care services.
Third, we base our assessment of overall health system performance on five domains—Care Process, Access, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Health Care Outcomes—which we weight equally in calculating each countries’ overall performance score. In the past some have argued there are other important elements of system performance that should be considered as well, such as innovativeness or value. After consideration, and based on discussions with our advisory panel, we decided not to add new domains to the report. We believe our current five domains capture a sufficiently broad and comprehensive view of health system performance. In addition, there was a lack of meaningful data to assess these new domains."
That is from the CommonWealth Fund's study itself.
"Uhhhhhh, the sources i'm citing are very academic"
Ok, from what university? The authors from that book are Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt from Texas A&M university and the chair of the of his department, and Prof. John Schneider formally of University of Iowa. So how is the CommonWealth Fun academic?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojoboko6990
1. I agree, the Mercatus study has shortcomings as well, so do the authors. That is why the cost analysis they gave has a wide range to it. The reality is this, healthcare is 1/6 of our $20 trillion economy in a nation of 320+ million people. You can't accurately predict how much Medicare for all will cost. Based on history it will cost a lot as most federal programs ended up costing more than projected. That is why the nation is over $20 trillion in debt. You can't predict human behavior, you are making assumptions that people will believe that M4A will save them money. Why? What makes you think that? Many people can't manage their own budget, but you feel they will understand M4A will save them money (supposedly)? You are ignoring many factors such as local tax revenue being changes due to businesses shutting down, or less consumption due to people paying higher taxes where most local taxes are consumption taxes. Those things, in a nation fo 320+ million people, add up.
2. There are three main issues to climate change
a: How much does man play a role?
b: Is the current change even bad?
c: If it is bad, what is the best approach in fixing it?
The reality is we know very little about climate change and the influence on the ecosystem.
3. "Assume" is a major flaw. You can assume a lot. I have 4 peer reviewed papers and whenever one "assumes" something they give a justification for it. For example, if someone does a theoretical study and ignores higher order terms it is because those terms don't have a significant amount of influence on the numbers and the usually cite a paper that shows that. Or in a paper I am working on now, I say a data set is reliable despite some other factors playing a role in the numbers. My justification is that other factor contributes to less than 5% of the numbers which is within my overall error bar. Or another case I say an initial value is zero and I base that on the theory behind what I study. You can call it "assuming", but I give strong justification for it. I just don't "assume" things, I cite previous work to justify my case. You have to give a reason for you assumptions.
4. I never said every study is worthless. I am finding the Peri study unreliable as they are trying to make a bold prediction on something you can't predict. It is like predicting who will win the Super Bowl in 2030. You can't as there are way too many factors involved. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy that is $20 trillion and our nation has 320+ million people. You can't predict the cost of M4A that closely. It is impossible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ricky Salazarr , what resources? I study science for a living. Tell me, how does photosynthesis work? You can't tell me how it works physically as we don't know. Photosynthesis is one of the most energy efficient processes we have in nature but theory suggests that is should be, at best, 50% efficient where it is actually 90% efficient. I know this because I have colleagues who work on that topic.
The reality is that in science we know very little. I am publishing a paper where I am looking at two molecules, one with 13 atoms and another with 16, that's it. And the impact factor we are pushing it is in 12 which is very respectable. That shows how little we know in science.
What you are saying are simply talking points. You say "it takes millions of years for the noticeable change to the climate to occur...." What do you base that off of? What control do you have to compare to? And is that even bad? Explain to me how that is good or bad?
Healthcare is not a human right as it requires someone to provide it. Also, what level of healthcare is a right? You have to give a minimum standard. You aren't. You are making a appeal to emotion statement with no standard or objective reasoning attached to it. At what point is healthcare no longer a right? Resources are limited. We have a waiting list for organs for example.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not the law, also, it contradicts itself. It says that people have the right to vacation but also have the right to and education and healthcare. So if every doctor uses their right to a vacation, who will provide healthcare? Something has to give. Someone's rights has to be violated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skaterdudeprodutions I can, easily. Trump was giving power back to the people and the country was improving. Democrats response was to push for investigation, impeachment, calling his SC nominee a rapist, etc. No actual push to improve the nation. And when that all failed the virus came. With that states ran by democrats had higher death rates due to mismanagement of them. Their economies are falling apart and they refuse to reopen. Now came the George Floyd incident, a felon that they want to make their martyr. They are using that saying that racism and police brutality is an issue and is using it to turn the people on each other allowing rioters to destroy businesses. Again, this is in mainly democrat cities. But when the public started to ignore the narrative switched back to the virus.
Here is the reality, the political left is on a power grab and is using fear to divide the nation. Kyle says we need major change, we got it with Trump and established democrats responded by trying to destroy our nation. The silver lining is this, people are not being fooled by the democrats. While they can control their local schools and government buildings, they cannot control the bars and beaches. People are starting to give the local democrats the finger and gather. They are having fun. Their poor leadership is going to expose them to more people leading to opening up faster and them losing their spot in office.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dfwsociallyisolatednelly7120 , for several reasons. To start, at some point you have to push people to become adults and make their own choices and investment in life. That can be college, that can be a trade school, that can be entering the workforce and going from there or whatever. Also, where is your stopping point? We have K-12 paid for. Now you want to expand through college? In a few years what will you expand to next? Where is your stopping point.
Next, a college degree means nothing without a job being available. Many, without a college degree, pull out a loan and starts a business. That is their investment as an adult. Why not give them money to start a business? I see no difference between pulling out a loan to start a business or pulling out a loan to go to college.
Also, just because you go to college does not mean you obtain an actual skill. Consider the plethora of worthless degrees out there. Receiving a degree in Women's studies is worth how much? Receiving a degree in religion is worth how much? Is that what you want to spend taxpayer's money on?
To me, after a K-12 education you are now an adult. There are plenty of opportunities if K-12 did not work out such as JC and CC that are very cheap and have professors that actually want to educate people. At some point you have to force people off of the government assistance and have them act as adults.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JAMuUP , you did not hurt my feelings. I just look down on you as you judge others and label others as inferior when they disagree with your politics. That is not bad enough, you do it in a way that degrades other with a condition that is very challenging to solve.
How is supporting Trump a mental disorder? And how does me supporting him mean I don't care about people with a mental disorder? That is also insulting. A major reason why we have a president like Trump is because people on the far left, like you, have no desire to engage in intelligent discussion. You feel a certain people, in this case Trump supporters, have no desire to help others or improve the system when, in fact, they do. I feel that the federal government, when interacting in complex domestic issues like healthcare, cause more problems. For example, The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 was the federal government getting involved in mental healthcare. The result was mental health facilities closing down as the federal government could not manage the issue and people were being release from facilities before they were cured. The federal government made the situation worse.
There are arguments on both sides to improve our system. But when you completely ignore one side that becomes a problem and puts you in the wrong.
1
-
@JAMuUP , let us break down your comment because it defines the problem with the left and a reason why I support Trump
"The "far left" huh? By that do you mean popular?"
What ideas are popular? If they are so popular than why are they not being supported at the local level. For example, every attempt to pass universal healthcare at the state level has failed.
" Most people need to take a "which party am I" quiz because they're clueless where they actually stand. "
Most people don't understand the issue in general which is a major reason why I support smaller, more local governments. I understand my position so there is no need to take an arbitrary test.
"Clearly your feelings are hurt."
Uh, no. I am doing just fine. My feelings don't get hurt by some radical whom I don't know.
"I view bigotry, homophobia and racism as a mental disorder. It's rampant in your Rebub party which has devolved into the far right. Does it not give you pause that nazis and the kkk support your party?"
Just because Nazis and KKK support republicans does not mean anything to me. Radical and hateful people support both sides. I care about the actual politicians. Also, just because the KKK supports a group does not make that group bad. If the KKK supported brushing your teeth would you start promoting tooth decay in response? If the KKK supporting taking showers after going to the gym would you boycott gyms or showers or both?
Also, this is an important part here. A major problem with the left is the playing of identity politics. Issues like racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. are essentially dead. How are republicans racists? How are they sexists? You can't say. I can argue democrats are through the soft bigotry of low expectations. Or by bringing up race and sex on issues that are not related to race and sex. People don't care what someone's race or sex is. But apparently the left does.
"Your side has deeply unpopular policy ideas yet still get support. "
Ever thought that their ideas are popular?
"If your contention is your side votes against their own interests and the interests of it's fellow citizens .."
Here we go. This is another major problem I have with the far left. It is they myopic, elitist attitude. You feel your ideas are in the best interest of others. How many people outside of your political beliefs do you actually know? I bet not many. Ever thought people don't want left wing ideas and for good reason? People are different across the board. To assume your ideas are the best and others are just stupid makes you the bigot one. You saying people are voting against their best interest because they don't know better. That makes you the problem. Ever tried to understand their position?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@glowaru , local governments are easier to control. Also, local governments can create policies that the people want and if they don't work then the people can easily change it. If you don't like the policies of a local government you can push to change it or move and still remain a US citizen. At the federal level you can't do that.
You say "populist" but what does that really mean? What is good for you isn't for someone else.
You talk about getting money out of politics, people have been saying that for years. This is not a novel idea. That is why the founding fathers pushed to limit government knowing that it can become corrupt and oppressive. To reduce money in politics you need to limit the powers it has. When you do that than government has nothing to sell. The far left pushes for a federally ran universal healthcare system. What is going to prevent healthcare providers from bribing politicians at the federal level into catering to them? You may say "elect the right people" but bear in mind you can only vote for 2 senators and a few members in the house. That's it. Other people in the country may not know of the corruption going on or may support what politicians are passing. Or they may not know what politicians are passing. They may say one thing but leave out a lot. For example, Bernie preaches about Medicare for all but does not say that he will have to raise taxes on everyone and that he will push to ban private insurance.
As for the federal government listening to the people, they only want to listen to their votes. That means the Senators for MO will listen to voters of MO. Senators of FL will listen to voters in FL and so on. What people want in MO is different than what people want in FL. Our nation is way too diverse to have a one size fits all policy. Look at Obamacare, they struggled to get 60 senate democrats to agree on one healthcare bill.
The Constitution sets rights which gives power to the people, not the government. If the federal government were to mandate that every state had to had universal healthcare that is giving power to the government. The Constitution is there to limit government and give power to the people to control government.
As for the programs you you listed you are too vague. I will go point by point
Second New Deal: Considering how the first prolonged the recession I will say no
Universal healthcare: Federally, no. I do support a public option at the state level but it has to be restricted. To give an example I used a publicly run healthcare program to get an STD check up. It was free but only offered on Tuesday and Thursday and I had to wait 4 hours to pee in a cup and get blood drawn. Later I used my insurance to use a private option and in 30 minutes I drove to the clinic, checked in, pee in a cup and got blood drawn, and was at home.
Healthcare is complex and I support a free market system with a local public option. I can write an long comment on that if you want. But universal healthcare I do not support for several reasons.
Drugs: Should be a local issue. Drug abuse is a real thing and there is a desire to outlaw it. Drug addicts can cause major problems for society and cost them a lot of money. If you have a drug addict they will end up being a drain to a universal healthcare system.
Prisons: I agree our prisons need to be reformed to rehabbing our prisoners
Gun control: Define "basic gun control". This is where you get vague. What is "basic" to you is not to me I bet.
Funding college: No. College is a personal investment. That is where the value of college comes from. You are making a personal investment. If after a K-12 education (which is ran locally) you cannot find a way to educate yourself you are beyond help. Publicly funded college is a big mistake.
UBI: Will do nothing but cause inflation.
Now if states were to pass them I would support those states' rights to do that. I just won't support the system.
You should never do a federal ballot initiative. Our country is way too diverse to do that. You can't push for a one size fits all policy. Look at my example of the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. What will work in one state will not work in another. Nothing at the federal level is ever determined by a simple majority and for good reason. I will write another comment on this point but that is how it should remain.
Healthcare and education are not rights. They require someone to provide those things. Rights are things that you have that the government cannot take away without due process. They are not things the government gives. You have a right to bear arms until you commit a crime. You have a right to pursue happiness until you commit a crime. You have a right to property until the government offers you proper value for it. All require due process. I encourage you to learn what a "right" is before you start preaching about "basic rights" .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SodaBoy628, those sources are peer reviewed. As for the 45,000, here is what another Harvard professor said.
"
Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor,
echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between
lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than
those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse
health.
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't
know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower
income," Baicker said."
To extend, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. 45,000 is 0.01% of the population. That is small number. In comparison 35,000 die a year in traffic accidents. Do we ban driving to make that number zero?
With that 45,000 you do not know if they die due to lack of access to healthcare or because they were in bad health to begin with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SodaBoy628, I gave you peer reviewed sources. You just laughed at me. That right there proves my point.
"Look at abstinence-only sex ed."
Which is something that should be taught in line with other forms of sex ed. People on the right do not teach that. They support all forms of sex ed being taught. If you want to find a few radicals on the right then fine, I can find radicals on the left as well, such as that individual who supported Bernie and shot people, or AntiFa. But I can be rational and ignore those individuals as they are not the norm.
Consider this, people with money typically vote republican and they send their kids to private schools. Private schools teach all forms of sex ed. Look at their curriculum.
"Look at the "War on Drugs"."
Which has been pushed by the left.
"Look at trickle-down economics. "
Which is not even an economic term. Again, right=facts, left=emotions. That is not an economic term, it is an appeal to emotion term preached by the left. That is a great example, thanks for giving it to me.
"Look at the deregulation that has occurred since 1981"
What "deregulation"? Again, you are shouting appeal to emotion phrases with no real evidence.
" Look at the Iraq War."
Which was supported by the left as well. The Bush's were war presidents which the right is against. That is why Jeb Bush lost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Deez Nuts, ok
First off, those quotes you say I did no not say. I do feel that less regulations and a free market will be better. However, in the end, I do not push for the vague claim you makes. For "trickle down economics", that is not an economic term. It is a phrase used by politicians and economic literates. Now
"As well as complaining about taxes, everyone would hate taxes less if it
goes towards something they can actually use instead of interventionist
wars like your boy Trump wants to do in Venezuela."
People will complain about taxes less if they see if the money is being spent well. You do that by keeping government spending as local as possible. The more local it is the easier you have to see if government is spending your money well. This is why when this country was established the only federal tax was a tax on the states, there wasn't any federal individual income tax. The reasoning behind it was that the federal government served the states. The states served the people. Thus the states and local governments taxed us and paid for programs used by us. The federal government paid for programs to benefit the states. There is a need for government and taxes, however, psychologically, people have to see if their money is benefiting them. And you have to control government. You do that by keeping it local. I find it ironic how Bernie supporters complain about a corrupt federal government, but than want it to run our healthcare.
"And then there's the Red Scare you like to prop up at every single
moment. Well you know a yuge trading partner of the US is the PRC, a
self proclaimed communist country, and that's not changing under Trump"
Which is fine. Foreign trade is the responsibility of the federal government. Domestic policies is the responsibility of the states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"re you talking about the fascist way where we use our wealth to rebuild our infrastructure, have Medicare for all, and universal education?"
There are many problems with that. First take universal education. Here are the problems
1. Public education can either be the greatest thing you can offer society, or the worse. It can be bad when it become indoctrination as you are teaching impressionable minds how to think and what they know. I support a public education system, I work in it. However, it should be localized so we the people can control it.
2. How do you expect to offer college to all when we lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, offices, etc.? This comes down to you are only offering "universal education" on paper only and what you are offering is a very poor product.
On infrastructure, that comes mostly from the state and local government. How do you plan to offer it when we lack engineers? How do you plan on doing it without hindering the economy?
On Medicare for all, how do you plan to offer it when we lack doctors, nurses, researchers, etc.? Also, when you allow the government to control those programs they can control you as if you oppose them they can take those things away. That is why if you are going to have it you have to keep it local.
Another issue is that you have this idea, like most leftists do, that if the government does not offer something than it will cease to exist. Why do you feel the government is the source for those programs? In many areas in the country they support republicans because they do not need government. As a whole there are arguments on both sides which is why people vote they way they do. However, you have to understand people have what they need without government. You should respect that. Leftists make arguments of "without government you have no fire department". However, fire departments are localized and 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. But in some areas there is a need for more government. Thus you should keep those programs localized. I can expand on that if you want, but bottom line is that you do not need government to provide all of those things for you.
" I just want to be clear about these so-called fascist ideas we all apparently have."
To be clear they are fascist because in a lot of areas in the country they do not rely on government for healthcare, education and infrastructure. So why do you want them to force you to live their way? How would you feel if people in those parts of the country came in and took away your fire department and privatized it or said it had to be ran on volunteers? You probably wouldn't like it. Well, they don't like it how they want you to use your healthcare system when they were satisfied with their system. So what did they do? They voted in Trump and republicans to take away the ACA which you wanted in the first place. They are doing to you what you did to them.
"I know how invasive it is when the federal government is trying to spend tax dollars on actual things that will improve peoples' lives "
For many people it is not improving their life. They were fine. They find it invasive. Please understand their position. I understand yours. I am giving you an option to do what you want at the local level to where your community can have "medicare for all" and "universal healthcare". But do not push on others as I assume you would hate if it you established "medicare for all" and the next group of politicians came in, voted by the other guys, and took it away.
"This point is completely baseless, as you're calling the most engaged and activist members of the populace lazy. We already are working to make changes at the local level. We have no other choice since the system is so fundamentally corrupt."
It isn't corrupt, that is how it was designed. I question if you are doing things at the local. But if you are than great. But leave it there. Do not go beyond that. I am involved in my local community as well. People should as it is much easier to see if local government is working for you. But again, keep those programs localized. You will see they are ran much better and you do not have to fear people who do not live in your community coming and messing up what you created.
Again, I understand your position. Please understand other's position and understand why people despise Bernie Sanders and his policies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p , I did not avoid the points. A nations size does matter. Read the book "Debunking Utopia" where he does bring that up. A larger size means more diversity and thus harder to establish programs.
I will give you an example. NV constantly ranks low in education. The culture there does not value it high. That is why there are only 2 four year universities there. The reason is because where is the incentive to become educated when you can make 6 figures working in the mines or $80,000 a year parking cars. Thus NV does not value education as high. MA is constantly ranked high in education. It is home to Boston College, MIT, Harvard, etc. It has more 4 year colleges per capita than NV. Their culture values education a lot more.
Now take that in relation to Bernie's tuition free plan. How many people in NV are going to strongly support it? In Bernie's plan 33% of the costs will be covered by the state. Will the citizens of NV approve? Probably not. Now apply that to any government program. A larger nation means more diversity and thus greater challenges. This is studied in economics.
Single payer will lead to healthcare providers either jacking up the prices or limiting access to care. Other nations have limited access to care because they refuse to pay. If Bernie allows that then fine. I doubt he will based on his talking points of Pharma. His approach, if prices go up or healthcare access is limited, will be to over take healthcare providers.
The tax code is relevant. A guy from Denmark pushed Bernie in the corner in saying he wants to spend like a Scandinavian but not tax like one. Other nations have more of a flat tax. Just taxing the rich does not work as the rich can move their money around a lot easier than the middle and lower class can. This is something else we discussed in another one of my MBA courses. It is great being knowledgeable. With Bernie only wanting to tax the rich they will move their money off shores. That also creates the problem of putting all your eggs in one basket.
My MBA professor is not saying that Bernie is a communist. But when you look at his policies, especially his support of the GND, and compare it to other communist nations of the past, they line up very well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p , a country's size can play a role. Government program work better the smaller the nation. You also have more control of the government. So there is that. Also, those European nations are all connected and allow for travel. You have to consider that as well.
His approach on fossil fuels is a planned economy. One, he is dictating what energy is being used. Next, many jobs will be lost and he will have to replace them so him, and not the market, is determining what jobs will be created. Also, him, not the market, will determine what renewable energy will be used. It is one thing to have regulations, it is another to outlaw an entire sector of the market and replace it with government jobs. Same with M4A. UMass admitted that jobs will be lost and they will have to retrain the workers. That is the government, not the market deciding how to retrain and what jobs to create. That is a planned economy.
A larger nation with more diversity cannot have centralized programs.
You say private companies are involved. Is Bernie going to force them to act?
1
-
@J4535-b9p , no, a larger nation cannot centralize something because of large diversity. The federal government passed the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 and it was a disaster. Medicare, Medicaid and SS are all running out money. I take it you never lived in more than one area. I have. I lived in the midwest for over 20 years and now live out west. The culture is different. I gave you a great example in that with education. Your only response is "we can do it" with zero justification. I take a victory on that topic.
Yes, the government has banned chemicals, but not entire industries like Bernie wants to do with the fossil fuel industries. And on climate change, you have zero idea what you are talking about. You say
"Even if the paper you posted is misleading "
It is in Nature Climate Change, one of the most prestigious journals one can publish in. Do you know how the peer reviewed process works? And do you understand impact factors? The impact factor of Nature Climate Change is 19. I know that means nothing to you as you don't actually know how the peer reviewed process works, but that is high. Mike Hulme has a great book entitled "Why We Disagree About Climate Change". Also, read the Popular Technology list of
"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"
In short, scientists are not sounding the alarm. I know science is a very difficult subject, and dry, but I recommend you read what scientists are saying and not Bernie.
Also, as for 12 years I quote one of the authors of the IPCC report, Myles Allen. In fact, that article you linked is one I got the quote from. But clearly you don't understand science.
You claim to be in medical school but you have zero knowledge in economics, politics and science. Again, read peer reviewed papers on climate change. If you want I can describe to you the peer reviewed process. I am willing to teach.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@N0RTHE , I have read it. I find it funny how the number changes from 18,000, to 45,000, now to 68,000. Another study from Prof. Kronick suggests the number is essentially zero. In short, the numbers are all over the place with varying studies. And it does not account for long term care which was a criticism of it.
"Naturally, the cost of long term care would rise over the next few years due to an aging population, but that's a given under any system, including the current one."
Not true. Other nations simply drug up their elderly and tell them it is their time to go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
StrikeWing, the polls are not reliable. You are asking people vague questions on complex issues. For example, while a poll, of only 1000 people, may support universal healthcare, you are leaving out many details in a poll like that. If you were to include the tax rate to it chances are they will vote differently. In fact we have proof of that. In Colorado, a left leaning state that voted for Bernie in the primaries, close to 80% of voters said no to universal healthcare when the tax rate was included.
These issues are complex, you can't just go off of vague polls that leave out a lot of details. Also, as Prof. Andrew Gelman said, a poll is a snapshot, not a forecast.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"yes, and dishonest, predatory people NEVER run private health insurance companies. "
I have never seen a private company hold a gun to someone's head forcing them to use their product. I also never seen a private company have the ability to remain in debt an still function for over 200 years..
" At least if health insurance companies abuse and exploit us, we can vote them out of office."
Congress has a 90% retention rate. Also, why are you not voting any of these individuals out after this vote? Nancy Pelosi has won how man times?
"We also need to privatize our roads, since currently the government-run roads spy on us."
3/4 of funding for roads is state and local and roads are a drop in the bucket compared to healthcare. Also, I never supported doing away with government, I am for limiting government as in following the Constitution and having smaller more local government as opposed to a centralized government.
" And also the trash collectors"
In a lot of areas, like in my home town, trash collectors are privatized.
" "Abuse can possibly exist" is not an argument."
It is which is why there is a desire to control government. It is obvious to me it is hard to control the federal government which is why I support smaller, more local government and do not support medicare for all at the federal level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Well since you support public roads, would you be willing to support free public college?"
Eh, depends. Again, not that easy. Public roads are very cheap comparable to college. 3/4 of funding for roads is state and local. So if public colleges were ran and funded locally, I can accept it. I can accept it for 2 year colleges, but not four year universities. Why? Because college is not about going to class and learning. It is about developing connections, developing self responsibilities, and showing employers you are willing to invest both time and money into achieving a long term goal. You remove all of that when you make it "free".
" We would only need $60 billion to have free public college for the entire nation"
Not true at all as you will be increasing demand without increasing supply just like the student loan program did which lead to higher prices.
" Slovenia has free college. "
So.
"here is no reason why the richest nation cant afford it. "
Ever thought that was why we are so rich?
"Population size is also irrelevant."'
No it isn't as you are dealing with different cultures, diversity levels, etc.
" If we dont fill those jobs then our economy will collapse."
No, employers will find other methods of filling them such as on the job training, If you make college "free" you lower the value of it so employers will take other routes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Thats not different cultures. Almost everyone in America is like that. "
That was a small example. To go farther, living in the midwest for over 20 years and now living out west near CA the culture is different. Just compare NV and Utah, two neighboring states. Utah is ran by mormans and their society follows that. Where in NV they have 24 hour strip clubs, 24 hour bars, a low educated population due to the fact you can make $80,000 a year parking cars in Vegas.
I recently went to Arkansas and I saw a funeral procession. In my years living where I live now I have not seen one. That is a difference in culture as the midwest does that.
Why do you think it was so hard to get 60 senate democrats to agree on one healthcare bill in 2009? Why do you think we have democrats and republicans to begin with? Because the culture differs all across the nation.
"There is a solution to that though. Just tell them that you cant weigh more than 300 lbs if you want Medicare. Problem solved."
Good luck. That is similar to special education and our public education system. We push for LRE, least resistive environment. Even students who are trouble makers we have to offer them an education as opposed to just kicking them out.
"I think people in America only hate taxes because it goes towards our pointless wars and corporate welfare. "
It is a culture thing, we rather spend our own money. Look at how many states have no income tax.
"I think people would support Medicare for all if you told them that it
costs them more in private taxes paid to the insurance companies than
the amount in actual taxes you pay for the Medicare."
Many won't believe that as the ACA was supposed to lower healthcare prices. Also, for many people, including me, it would actually cost me more. The healthcare situation is different for people.
"Not to mention that our current system costs the government $4.9
trillion per year. Medicare for all would only cost $3.2 trillion per
year."
I do not believe that for a second based on basic economics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" It isnt the citizens who decided those things. They probably dont even know about them "
How do you know that? People know more than you think. If they choose to remain ignorant that is their issue, not yours. Anyway, with a local government you can see if the government is working for you. If having Amazon in GA does well for the people in GA they will be fine. If not they will change it. People can see what directly influences them.
"No, I dont live in those states, I live in SC, but Im am American first
and what other states do can possibly affect my state and the entire
country."
Not that much. That will be isolated to GA. Is it completely? No. But again, you don't live there, you don't pay taxes there. So why should you force those citizens how they should live their life? How would you feel if the people of GA dictated SC and their people, like you, how to live?
"We would still have slavery and segregation if it wasnt for the federal government."
That was banned by the Constitution, not the federal government. The Constitution is there to limit government which means it stops government from discriminating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yarpenzirgin1826 , the economy grows through investment and also through loans. To keep it simple consider you as an individual. In order for your finances to grow you need to invest in some way. You can waste your money on frivolous things and no grow, or you can invest your money in developing a skill, or maybe in real estate, or in technology to better yourself in the long run. As with loans, you can grow by loaning out your money with interest.
Now compare that to the entire economy. The idea of a tax break is that the people do a much better job than the federal government in investing to grow. People talk about the rich stashing their money, one place they do it is in banks. Banks are only allowed to keep 10% of their reserves. That means if you, personally, put $100 in savings in a bank the bank really only has $10 of it, the other $90 is loaned out where the money is put into other banks that are also loaned and generating income. This is referred to as the "inverted pyramid". So if you tax more money that is less money in the banks. Also, the private sector, arguably, does a much better job at investing than the federal government does as the private sector has to actually cater to the people and can't just keep pulling out loans and providing bad services. How many companies are $20+ trillion in debt? And how many companies have a 10% approval rating but a 90% retention rate like Congress does?
Now does that mean there shouldn't be taxes? No. There should be as there is a desire to have a government. The role is a whole different discussion but in short, the federal government's role should be well defined and restricted, and more freedom should be given to the local government because there people can see if they are getting their money's worth. Watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc
As for wages, by what metric are you saying wages have been stagnant? There is plenty of data to suggest otherwise. If you want to stick to facts we can.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AnotherWacko , do they live below the poverty line? When you adjust for cost of living OK is around the middle of the pack in poverty rates. Also, I know people in small towns don't earn much. I grew up by a lot of small towns. I have also seen how the min. wage killed them as they have limited resources and can't afford higher wages. So raising the min. wage will simply kill the jobs there.
Public schools are dependent on more than just tax dollars. It is mainly culture. Compare NV and MA. NV is ranked poorly in public education. Why? Many will blame the schools where in reality it is a culture issue. Where is the incentive to be educated when you can make 6 figures working in the mines, or make a good living doing construction, or make $80,000 a year parking cars or serving drinks? The culture there does not hold education at a high priority. Now compare that to MA, home of Harvard, MIT, Boston College, Boston University, etc. Education is a higher priority there as seen in more 4 year colleges per capita compared to NV. So it goes beyond public schools.
Walmart pushed for a min. wage increase mainly to kill small competitors.
If OK is really that bad than either move or change it. That is the beauty of state rights. A major problem I have with the far left an "populist" is that one of these three
1. Ignorant
2. Fascist
3. Lazy
On each one
1. They are simply ignorant in how our country and government functions.
2. They are fascist in that they have their ideas and feel everyone should adapt to them and thus want a centralized government forcing their way on others including states that don't want programs the far left wants
3. They are lazy in that they see problems in their area and instead of either moving or fixing the problems in their area they want to use centralized government to do it.
Not to be rude but if you are having problems in your area like that you either have to move or change. Pick one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That is not an opinion, its just basic mathematics. "
No, it is incorrect mathematics. You are comparing an average in one variable to the minimum of another. The average life expectancy has grown in the US, but people still die as kids. Why? Because the average is the whole where the minimum is the minimum.
Let me give you some numbers. Here are five numbers
2, 2, 3, 4, 4
What is the average? 3 What is the minimum? 2
Ok, now you have,
1, 1, 10, 15, 18
What is the average? 9 What is the minimum? 1
In the second case you have a lower minimum but a higher average. Are you understanding this simple math lesson?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J4535-b9p "COVID-19 according to uptodate which compiles thousands to tens of thousands of the most up to date research for medical students and physicians.
"The overall case fatality rate is estimated to be between two and three percent. While severe and fatal illness can occur in anyone, the risk rises dramatically with age and the presence of chronic illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, kidney disease, and cancer"
To put this in perspective, the overall death rate for influenza 0.1%. "
German researcher Hendrick Streeck suggests that the virus is less deadly than initially thought. Also, the deaths are overstated. The CDC and NY even admitted that they are overstating deaths. In NY around 30% are the virus "deaths" are assumed with no testing. A lot of the deaths are mixed with other healthcare complications. So what you saying has plenty of evidence against it. But, as you always do, you will ignore the points I make.
"J4535
J4535
2 minutes ago
@whyamimrpink78
My god you continue to spread misinformation. For reference to everyone reading this, I am medical students and utter morons like Pink are truly the biggest scum and issues in the United States.
With the virus there is evidence that it is not that deadly. 91% who are dying are 55 and older and others have other health complications
https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-questions-and-answers?search=covid%2019%20mortality%20rate&source=search_result&selectedTitle=3~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=3
COVID-19 according to uptodate which compiles thousands to tens of thousands of the most up to date research for medical students and physicians.
"The overall case fatality rate is estimated to be between two and three percent. While severe and fatal illness can occur in anyone, the risk rises dramatically with age and the presence of chronic illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, kidney disease, and cancer"
To put this in perspective, the overall death rate for influenza 0.1%.
This means it is around 20-30x increase in the death rate compared to the seasonal flu. Furthermore, the reason influenza isn't as problematic is because we currently have vaccinations for influenza and medication if you contract the flu yearly.
We currently have neither for COVID-19
Furthermore the main issue with COVID-19 isn't the infection but the cascade that comes after it. The infection tends to lead to pneumonia and overall to acute respiratory distress syndrome.
According to the latest peer review papers - Uptodate
"For patients with COVID-19 who develop ARDS, the prognosis is poor with mortality ranging from 52 to 67 percent. The highest rates of death occur in those ≥64 years. (See 'Prognosis' above.)"
Just looking at traffic accidents, he is correct in that around 40,000 die a year from them. We can make that number to be zero if we ban driving.
Its amazing how someone this stupid posts so much on youtube. Do you enjoy making yourself feel like an idiot?
The reason we don't ban driving is that viruses spread through crowds and if you infect a high rate of individuals, you can easily overwhelm the healthcare system. Car accidents occur over the length of a year and someone getting hit in no way affects another individual. You may become infected, be an asymptomatic carrier and infect multiple other individuals in a short span."
Again, it comes down to the economics of it and opportunity cost. People die from being unemployed. People face high level of stress, depression and so on. So it comes down to what is worse, the bad economy or the virus? You keep missing that point. As with driving, what is worse, the 40,000 dying in traffic accidents or the economic issues that will arise from banning driving? Again, economics is not your strong point but this is an situation brought up in economic courses. You call me stupid when I a the one that actually understands the economics of the issue.
"Based off of what? What evidence do you have that COVID-19 numbers are currently being over-reported? You don't even know the methods on how they test the virus,."
Because in NY if you die with coronavirus they claim you die because of despite other health complications. The CDC does that. So yes, it is overstated.
"I am going to say this again, you don't know anything about this. Sit down in the corner, keep your mouth shut, and leave it to us medical professionals."
I know more than you. And again, the bottom line it comes down to what is worse, the virus or the bad economy? You admitted that economics is not your strong point. But the economics of it is this, something has to give. There will be a cost. Either we stay in lock down while millions become unemployed (we are at a recover 22 million filing for unemployment), people lose their small businesses, and people will be depressed and stress. Alcohol sales are up during this lock down. There is a reason why, people are stressed. You are completely ignoring the economics side of this and how people will suffer. South Dakota is open and going on as usual and has the third lowest deaths per million.
Please do not talk about issues you know nothing about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noel7777noel , I want everyone to pay taxes. Doesn't matter if you are rich of poor.
The CEO to employee pay ratio is a shallow argument to make. To start, CEOs are paid completely differently than employees.
https://hbr.org/2017/02/why-we-need-to-stop-obsessing-over-ceo-pay-ratios
You also have to consider other factors such as increased productivity due to the CEO investing in technology and new techniques to make the company more productive. You also have to consider the number of employees hired. I did the math one time and in the 80s the CEO of Walmart was paid around $20 per employee, now he is paid around $10 per employee. Consider a CEO that hires 100 people and earns $1, 000,000. Now say 10 years later they hire 200 people and earn $1,500,000. Yes, they say their salary increase by 50% but they also hired 100% more workers.
Also consider that cutting CEO pay will not increase worker pay by a significant amount. For example, if you were to take all the money of the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread it to the 525,000 lowest paid workers of Walmart those workers will get an extra $47 a year, that's it. So what do you gain by cutting CEO pay? Disney hires 200,000 workers. So why only 25,000 workers?
Capitalism is where there is limited government involvement resulting in free trade.
In the 50s and 60s the US was ahead globally as the rest of the world was rebuilding due to the war. I agree unions were stronger in that time, but what happened was government grew creating crony unionism which resulted in the death of unions. Big government created that problem.
What deregulations?
How have workers seen a decline in standards?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jetswhiteout961 the issue is that these "health orders" have gone too far to where the financial, economical and psychological damage has caused way more damage than this virus would have. The average age of death is in the 80s. 94% of people who died had underlying conditions. Basically people who die with this virus were at high risk of death to begin with.
Consider this, 40% of deaths were in nursing homes. According to a UCSF article published prior to covid, 50% of new nursing home patients die within 6 months. The life expectancy of those in a nursing home is 1 year. Here we are 13 months later. Basically those 40% who have died chances are the vast majority of them would be dead anyway during these past 13 months. Meanwhile, many young people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s are going to face long term issues financially, economically and psychologically.
As for masks, TX lifted their mask mandate a month ago and their cases dropped by over 50%. And if all it took were masks, then we should have full stadiums, all schools being open, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So, when children are doing something against being killed in heir own schools, that's out of fear. "
Yes, because statistically they will not be shot in schools. Shootings, and gun violence as a whole have been declining for over 20 years. It is living in fear thinking you are in danger going to school, and that danger is so great you have to march to change something.
"But when people who are gun nuts, carry guns it's an acceptance of reality? "
Yes, because while I don't carry my gun due to gun laws preventing me on campus, I am willing to leave my home and know my chances of being shot are very slim. That I can go my entire life and never experience a shooting. However, they can happen, and it is nice to have a safety net.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christopher Davis, Kyle just listed things Trump was doing that Kyle disagreed with. That is not a counter argument in why Trump is a bad president. A counter argument is listing something, and then explaining why it is a bad policy. If I were to say Obama was a bad president and say "because he supports more gun laws", that is not an argument, it is just something I disagree with policy why. Now if I were to get into details on how the new gun laws he imposes won't solve any problems and so on, then that is an argument.
Kyle, in debating Razorfist, was wrong in so many ways, especially healthcare. Razorfist was an easy target. I hardly knew who he was prior to that debate and from what I read he does video game reviews, not political analysis for a living. Shapiro does for a living, and would be a harder challenge for Kyle.
1
-
1
-
"Then don't talk about it, that does more harm than good. "
I can admit when I do not now something. I am man enough to do that.
"Being a manager at a McDonald's cannot equate to being a manager of a warehouse. Both have different products, different kinds of workers, different rules "
They can equate as in the end you are managing workers. Some of the most successful CEOs are engineers. They studied engineering but now manage businesses. Why is that so? Because engineers have problems solving skills. Jeff Bezos was an engineer and now runs Amazon. He hardly worked in business, but he had the intelligence and skills to create one. That is what it takes, having the ability to learn. Many managers in one place go on to manage a completely different company. It is also similar to why many college graduates get a career outside of their field of study. Having a college education typically means you can learn depending on the situation.
"That's actually why a lot of businesses fail, because people do not understand what they're doing. And that's what is happening with DeVos."
Businesses fail for many reasons. As for DeVos, how is she failing?
"No matter how you put it, facts aren't subjective. If a state is teaching the wrong facts, they should be stopped."
They will on the idea that they are not educating their citizens. They will have ignorant students who cannot get into college and cannot be productive to grow the local economy. Parents will not send their kids to those schools driving down the property value of those homes ruining the local economy.
The reality is this, states do not have to establish an education system, period. However, all 50 states do.
" In turn, that could affect other states as well, such as interstate commerce. "
No it won't as companies in other states won't hire people from that particular state. There is an incentive for states to educate their citizens, it is competition between states. Your fear mongering prediction will not happen because guess what, states have the choice of setting up a public education system and all 50 states do it. States set up their own curriculum and they all teach facts.
"Sorry, competition is not a good enough solution. We cannot let that particular state create stupid kids. Because that's unfair to the kids, their lives are being destroyed because of one state's failure. "
And that state will fail, and people will move out of it. You want to centralized the problem. Sure, you centralized education and the federal government forces schools to teach 2+2=5. Now what? It is a nation wide problem now. My idea localizes it. Sure one state or one local government may refuse to teach their kids, but it is isolated and that area will suffer as opposed to an entire country.
"She's destroying all regulations put in place to protect kids."
Actually she is not. She is establishing free choice of schools. Again, at the core all 50 states can run their education system as they please already. So nothing is changing from that perspective.
"But what about other states? "
Not my concern. I don't live there, I don't vote there, I don't pay taxes there. In my state Charter schools are great. It is working well in my state. Just because other states are failing does not mean I should be punished and have to regress to their level. You are asking about other states, why should a successful state be punished? Why should a successful state be dragged down?
"I knew you would bring this up, that's why I specifically SCIENCE class. Religion, whether you like it or not, is not a science."
I know, I have a science degree. I am a doctorate student in physical chemistry. I agree 100% religion should not be taught in a science class, just like calculus should not be taught in a French class. So what is your problem?
" And let's for the sake of argument say "States cannot teach religion" I say the federal government comes in and stops it, you say no, that's too much power to the federal government."
The constitution stops it where the Constitution limits government. The Constitution is there to limit government so it supports my ideas.
"Parents do not have the right to force a schooling institution to teach 2+2=5."
They do, they are tax payers. We pay the government to serve us.
"Okay, but imagine for a moment, having not just one DeVos, but fifty or even thousands of them. "
Ok, now say we have only 10 DeVos in 10 states, you still have 40 states without someone else, many of whom you may agree with. So many states will be fine and 10 states will suffer in your eyes. Your solution is to centralize the issue to where one person can ruin it all. My solution is that it takes many to ruin it. And if there are that many, as in 50 or even thousands of them in charge, maybe in the end that is what the people want.
"And, how does that defeat my argument? Again, what happens if at least ten of those EPAs say that dumping toxic wasting into the water sources is okay? What happens if people start to get sick from it,"
I am isolating the situation. Look at the Flint water situation for an example. Say we had a centralized water source. Everyone in the US will be sick from bad water. But as is only Flint is suffering. While bad, it is isolated.
" Also, my education was fine, because let me ask you this, a state's right to do what, exactly? That's right, to own slaves. "
State rights to be free from the federal government's command. As is the federal government is there to serve the states, much like the states are there to serve the people, not control us. The federal government was, arguably, over stepping its authority in trying to ban slavery. There was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to do that. Just like there is nothing in the Constitution about education. That is why all 50 states run their own education system.
" Sorry bud, but you may need to brush up on your history,"
I beg to differ, it seems like you are the one who lacks knowledge in history. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery, but it was also about state rights. The federal government was over reaching as it had not Constitutional authority to ban slavery at the time. People like freedom. It is why the Revolutionary War was fought even though the Colonists were paying less taxes than the British were. People like to be able to control their government and that happens the more local it is which is why state rights is a thing.
You should look into that topic more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Anthonycheesman2024 in a nation of over 320 million people it is. More people have died with pneumonia over the same time period. Almost all who died were either old or sick to begin with and were near death overall. Around half were in nursing homes. NJ, NY, MA, PA, IL and MI have around 60% of the deaths but only 21% of the total population. Ironically they are ran by democrat governors who mismanaged their healthcare systems as well.
Fact is that this virus is not that dangerous. The recovery rate, since mid March, has been going up. The number of active cases, since around May 20, has been flat line, and the number of deaths per day has dropped much faster than the number of new cases despite more testing.
What this virus has exposed is
1. Who the elites are in this nation. Many elites in the media and politicians have no problem with lock downs, they have a paycheck
2. How piss poor a lot of our leaders are
3. How ignorant people are
On the last point I will point to you, you say 113,000 deaths but zero context. You can't throw a number out there without context. 113,000 may sound high, but that is only around 0.03% of the total population. And again, more have died with pneumonia over the same time period. Stop listening to the bias media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1rony230 , according to FRED home ownership in Q2 2016 was 62.9%. Q3 2019 was 64.8%. This was after it dropped from 69.2% in Q2 2004 to 62.9% in Q2 2016. What happened in 2016? So yes, there has been an increase in home ownership. After it dropped nearly 7% in 12 years it has gone up in around 2% in 3 years. You do the math.
Again, more millenials decided to go to college compared to previous generations, and they decided to move and work in the city where they were most likely going to rent. My parents owned a home when there were my age, 32. I live in an apartment. However, I am pursuing my PhD where my dad did not even have a college degree. See the difference? You just can't throw numbers out there and expect them to mean anything. From 1996 to 2006 college enrollment went up 24% according to the National Center for Education Statistics. From 2006 to 2016 post baccalaureate enrollment increased 15%. Again, more millennials are going to college and also going to graduate school delaying owning a home. You know what else people are doing at an older age now? Getting married. Why? They rather focus on schools and staring a career as opposed to getting marriage.
You say 'inflation", what level of inflation? CPI, PCE, GDP deflator? I bet you did not know there were many ways to measure inflation. Also, inflation measures have many flaws. For example, they don't account for new technology. A car today is more expensive then a car in the 70s. However, cars today last longer, get better gas mileage and are safer, all which saves money. I suggest you read the following two studies
"Fifty Years of Growth in American Consumption, Income, and Wages" by prof. Bruce Sacerdote
"Did Wages Reflect Growth in Productivity?" by prof. Martin S. Feldstein
Also, the Atlanta Fed and FRED stats have wages and median earnings going up.
Homeownership has been going up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrjollyguy25 1. And polls show that Bernie is trailing Biden. So what should I believe?
Here is the problem with polls. One, they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to people who are not experts. When you ask if someone supports M4A they may say yes. But if you extend that to high level of taxation, losing your healthcare insurance, and lowering quality of healthcare, support will drop. Polls show a snap shot, not a trend
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/
Second issue is that polls don't show how passionate they are about an issue. 70% may support M4A but if the 30% who oppose it go out and vote, out of the 70% only 20% come out and vote M4A will lose. You see this very well in the gun issue. Many may support background checks, but when placed to a vote it failed in Maine and NV passed it by only 0.45%.
Polls are flawed and don't show reality. I would suggest stop pointing at them.
2. I do feel corruption exist which is why I want to limit government, not expand it. But every problem is not because of corruption. It is far more complex than that. There are legit reasons to oppose Bernie Sanders that goes way beyond corruption. Corruption is just you dismissing the other side.
3. It isn't if those ideas are popular, it is that they were being done before Bernie was a household name.
4. States are actually less of an obstacle. States get things done far more efficiently than the federal government. Look how long it took to get healthcare reform in general at the federal level? Many decades and after it Obamacare is being stripped away. States pass thing far easier than the federal government. Also, why did 80% said no in CO?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrjollyguy25
1. Kyle doesn't cover that exact argument. He points to a vague poll that does not get into details of M4A. None of the polls talk about saving money, or choosing your own doctor. As for quality, as Prof. Scott Atlas said in his book "In Excellent Health" the US is far superior in advanced care which is true. We are the best when it comes to treating people with advanced care. Our problems is that one, our cost are high, and two, the very poor do suffer. In other nations the very sick suffer. Every nation has problems. So no, those nations don't out rank us in quality. Kyle hardly scratches the surface when it comes to healthcare. He just take one stat, throws it out there, and makes a very strong conclusion on it. I can dig much deeper and cite many sources in doing so showing how strong our healthcare system is and that we should improve on the system we have and how single payer systems have many problems such as up to 7000 people dying a year in Australia waiting for elective surgery, people going blind in the UK being denied eye surgery, and people dying being denied heart surgery in Canada.
2. Expanding the government means it has more power to sell. This is what radical left wingers are. They are the wife in an abusive relationship where instead of getting out of it they decide to have a kid with the man. With government it is too big and thus it is bought out, and your solution is to give it more power to sell.
3. I am not missing the point. The min. wage has been around for years and is a part of our society. Other issues are not. Good luck telling our society that you will pay more in taxes for M4A, lose your healthcare insurance, and see lower quality. Our society will not accept that.
4. You really didn't give me concrete examples. Again, the federal government if far less efficient. It took Medicare 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690175/
States used to manage mental healthcare until the Community Mental Health Act which made mental healthcare worse. Under that plan only half of the facilities were open. Also, you contradicted yourself. You said that many states are passing min. wage increases where at the federal level they aren't. Based on your thought process the federal government should have passed the min. wage increase long ago.
1
-
@mrjollyguy25 , Uh, healthcare rankings. Do you even know how healthcare rankings are developed? I doubt it. The WHO was criticized so much that they have not developed another healthcare ranking in around 20 years. Also, experts disagree with those rankings such as Prof. John Schneider and Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt where he is quoted in saying that healthcare rankings are arbitrary.
As for the 45,000 stat, there are flaws there. Amenable mortality is something every nation struggles with. Now you may say "well let us measure that". But experts will disagree in using that as an indicator of healthcare systems strength.
https://jech.bmj.com/content/67/2/139
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
Next, as prof. Katherine Baicker pointed out, those 45,000 a 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? To add, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with poor, all self inflicted. And even with access to healthcare their physical health did not improve as pointed out in this study
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
To extend, you have to consider what their health situation was. In the book "Being Mortal" the author there talks about how people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but in reality they will live only another 5 or 10 months .So if those 45,000 receive care, but live only 5 more months sucking up limited resources, is that a success?
2. The problem is an abusive government. Giving it more power is not going to solve the problem. It will make it worse as now it has more power to sell.
3. M4A will only save money under Bernie's plan because it cuts pay by 40%. When that happens you have to consider limits on access and quality dropping. Other nations save money because they limit how much care one can receive. For example, we offer more CT scans per capita. Other nations offer less MRIs where the US has three times as many MRIs per capita compared to other developed nations.
I am willing to admit that M4A may be the best route, but something has to give.
4. How is the federal level an obstacle? The states used to manage many types of healthcare. Before the passage of the Community Mental Health Act the states managed mental healthcare.
Do we have big problems? That is another problem with the far left. They claim the problems are big but in my opinion they aren't. They are problems but we can fix them within the systems we have, not dismantle them and replace them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dagooch23, Bernie stole electricity from his neighbor. He rallied along side known socialists. This is a guy who could not pay his bills while he was in his 30s, his only job was working as a politician which means he is paid with tax dollars, and he wants to run a system where he raises everyone's taxes to pay for other people's stuff. That will not resonate well with the middle class.
Think about is, you are a middle class worker, working hard to pay bills, raise a family, build up a home, etc. Meanwhile, you see this old socialist who never done any of that. Who could not pay his bills, who could not get an actual job until he was in politics at the age of 40, and now who wants to raise that middle class worker's taxes to pay for other lazy people's things. That will not resonate well at all with that kind if people. He would have been destroyed in states like Ohio, Iowa, Michigan and other swing states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Vineeth, price setting does create inefficiencies in the market. That is basic economics. Price ceilings and price floors create inefficiencies. Also, while other countries may spend less, they also have lower quality and have less production. The US leads the world in research and innovation of healthcare for a reason. As for them doing better, I suggest you read this book
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
Just looking at UN statistics does not make you an expert on healthcare.
"oh really? the republicans opposed everything Obama did except war, "
Obama was a terrible leader. Under him we had less than 3% GDP growth, first time a president had that since Hoover. We have become a more divided country. I have never seen the KKK or Neo Nazis rally until recently. You had the creation of BLM and Antifa. We have radical groups rallying now because we are a more divided country after Obama. Obama was a terrible leader thus opposing him is great. His race has nothing to do with it.
"oh please you don't care if thats what the majority of people want So the citizens wanted more govt involvement in healthcare, also the only difference between state and because currently the ACA have an above 50% approval rating now, do you know why? because people actually like it, because many of them were able to afford healthcare because of it, because they supported it after learning what the bill actually contained why do progressives want more govt involvement? because the ACA is inadequate and doesn't give the govt the means to reduce prices, it only entrenches the private insurance industry"
I support what they people want. Nothing at the federal level has ever been determined by the simple majority. At the state level it is. So I leave these issues to the states. As far as for people wanting more government in healthcare. Remember the people voted for republicans to repeal Obamacare and that 80% of voters in Colorado, a left leaning state that Bernie won in the primaries, voted against single payer.
"how many peoples live do you make worse by helping her out? ZERO"
Really? Longer wait times. Higher taxes. Lack of choice in healthcare. I worked hard for my status in life. Why should I have to wait for my healthcare?
"Your moon landing argument fails because comparing something that hasn't been tried to something that has been tried and know to fail without exception are completely different. can you point to any current free market economy thats thriving or existing? if its actually practical how come no nation is even trying to implement it?"
My moon landing argument is spot on. You would be the type of person who will say in the 60s that we cannot land on the moon because no one has ever done it. Just because it has never been tried does not mean it will not work. Also, prior to the 1960s we had a free market system and our healthcare system was great.
"Free markets have been tried several times and it always fails"
Not true at all.
"I wont deny that the US healthcare is good in some areas but your link just says the US is comparable to nations with single payer yet spends way more According to the World Health Organization the US ranks at 37 among 191 countries"
The WHO was criticized so much that it has not made another ranking in around 20 years. It compared the US to countries like Malta and San Marino.
"healthcare is a NECESSITY like food, water, housing etc. does the concept of inelastic demand not make any sense to you?"
It makes complete sense. But again, do businesses want their customers to die? A dead customer cannot pay them.
1
-
"No, the model for medicare for all and single payer financing that is proposed for the United States does not monopolize health care."
Yes it does, you have one provider, the federal government. That is, by definition, a monopoly.
"The federal government has plenty of resources to pay for this."
The federal government is around $20 trillion in debt. Also, it isn't about paying, it is about providing. We lack doctors, nurses, researchers, etc. So is the federal government going to magically create more resources?
"And no, the 20% I mentioned, is what the profit motivated health insurance companies take for profit. In comparison, a government financed system spends roughly 1% in administration, and takes no profit."
Couple things.
1. No, a lot of that money is for lowering costs such as fraud prevention
2. Profit motive is how things get better. I people are not motivated they will not work hard.
" And there will be no need for "fraud" prevention, since everyone will be entitled to the health care they need. "
How do you know what they need? There is plenty of fraud out there already. .
1
-
"inefficiencies of what?"
Resources. For example, take the min. wage. If you were to set a min. wage of $15/hr than anyone not worth that much will not be hired. They will not be producing anything. Now I know leftist have their arguments for the min. wage so say you set a min. price on cars to $10,000. That means any car not worth $10,000 will be shipped off to scrap metal. People who can't afford a $10,000+ car won't have one and will have to find other means of travel. That means those people are not as productive and useful cars are out of the market.
If you set a price ceiling there is no desire to improve something. Say you set a price ceiling on a wage at say $100/hr. Why would people pursue higher degrees at that point? Why would people work harder if they will not be paid more? Now again, leftist love wage control, so say you set a price max on cars at $15,000. Why develop better cars? Why develop safer cars with more features and better gas mileage when you can't sell it for more? Creating better cars cost money and initially they cost more until more are produced. But when you can't sell it for a price higher than $15,000, what is the point of making it?
There are many sources online. Look up Khan Academy on the min. wage and rent control. Also, any introductory macroeconomic textbook will say the same thing.
"looking at AEI doesn't make you an expert either"
That book is written by two professors who cite all of their source and give all of their methods for you to criticize.
"so free market hasn't been tried but it has been tried, please make up
your mind on whether it has been tried or not
also if the US healthcare system back then was so great then why didn't
more nations emulate it? why didn't the US stay free market? "
The free market has been tried, I said that in the past. Also, other countries have used the free market before. Read the book "Debunking Utopia" on that. Why don't other nations do it? When things are great government can swoop in and become more powerful without people knowing. In the 60s things were great so the federal government came in and created the payroll tax and medicare and medicaid. In the 70s it created OSHA and the EPA. Since then we have had problems such as expensive healthcare. Compare it to this, when you are having fun you do not notice little problems you have in life.
"do you honestly think they care if people die as a result? "
They are losing paying customers so yes. Also, if they provide an inefficient good/service than no one in the future will buy it.
The rest of you comment is all over the place but to put it simply
1. We do not have a free market system in healthcare
2. We do not have a free market system with banks (remember the bank bail outs)
3. On oil and fracking, fracking is safe and cleaner than oil. Alternatives are worse
"2007-08 crisis, the banks and the financial sector KNEW that the
sub-prime mortgages were toxic yet still tried to sell them as highly
safe investments,"
And we had a bank bailout, again, no free market.
"Exxon Mobille knew early on about how dangerous CO2 would be but hid this information because it would hurt their bottom line"
Exxon Mobile help fund the San Gorgonio Wind Farm Pass. Also, they do not have to release that information.
"Texas, many chemical manufacturing companies were opposed to increased
safety regulations by the federal govt to its chemical plants and after
Hurricane Harvey hit those plants experienced failiur and chemical leaks
which could've been avoided if they didn't opposed the federal govt's
new safety regulations, "
Harvey is a massive hurricane and we have massive flooding. No matter how many regulations we have that was going to happen. Unless you make those building strong enough to house a nuclear reactor, that was going to happen. However, making those building that strong will not be cost efficient and that company will cease to exist.
This is not to be rude but you are living in some magical fairy land that the government can just solve everything. I mean, why didn't the government just construct a big laser and zap hurricane Harvey? Just stop the mess all together? You are pushing for more regulations but don't realize that there comes a cost component. 35,000 die a year on the roads in traffic accidents. We can ban driving to save those lives. Or we can find a more "middle ground" and make it so every car does not exceed 30 MPH. Those lives will be saved. However, our economy will suffer as people cannot commute to work in time.
You need to get this out of your head that regulations do not solve every problem. If you had too much regulations on those chemical plants than they will not exist at all meaning jobs will be lost.
"higher taxes but NO CO PAYS, NO DEDUCTIBLES, NO OUT OF POCKET PAYMENTS,
NO PREMIUMS so taxes as an arguments fails as you spend less money
and choice in what exactly?"
Actually I will spend more money. I pay $0 on healthcare as my employer pays for my healthcare. Healthcare insurance is a form of payment. Now I feel that is a problem, however your idea means I will pay more. Also, higher taxes means I have less control of my money.
"in single payer your wait times is based on how severe your ailment is,"
Who determines that and why? I feel any problem I have is severe. Why should I wait? If I need care I want it quickly so I can get back to work and be productive in life.
"why were there neo-nazi, white supremacist and kkk rallies? they showed
up in Charlotsville to protest the removal of a statue... what does
Obama have to do with that?"
These people have been quite for over 30 years. Now all of a sudden they are back. That is because Obama divided us.
"BLM was formed because cops targeted blacks more and there were more police violence against blacks"
There is nothing to indicate cops target blacks. However, blacks make up a disproportional amount of the prison population. They commit more crime and have lower high school graduate rates.
"why are they rallying now? they don't want the removal of the racist
treasonous confederate statues, again what does Obama have to do with
that?"
Why are people now pushing for the removal of these statues? Because Obama divided us making it seem like we have a racism problem in this country when we don't.
1
-
Part 2
"opposing him for what exactly?"
"things to oppose him for:
the war in the middle east
the continued war on drugs
not getting money in politics
not passing gun safety laws
not stopping Israel and Saudi Arabia's illegal actions
supporting the TPP
not breaking up too big to fail businesses
not accepting the Taliban's surrender
"
Each point
1. The real war party are the democrats. That is why Jeb Bush lost. The only republican to start a war was the Bush family.
2. I am against the war on drugs
3. I am against this. However, this is a symptom of a disease. That disease is that of a federal government with too much power. Reduce the powers of the federal government and you get rid of money in politics as politicians have nothing to sell. The Tea Party pushed for that.
4. We have enough laws on the books
5. I have no comment as I do not follow foreign affairs much as I do not care, I care about domestic policies
6. Trump was against TPP
7. Democrats supported this and the Tea Party was against it
8. See comment 5
"but he has also done several good thing like:
passing the Clean water act,
got the US signed into the Paris Climate Accord
supported net neutrality
helped with he Iran Nuclear deal
signed Dodd Frank Act
passed an equal pay rule
passed the Hate Crime Prevention Act
When he came into office the unemployment rate was 10% which he cut to 4.5-5% when he left"
Point by point
1. Unnecessary, already existed before his presidency
2. Terrible deal, watch Ben Shapiro's analysis on it
3. Again, terrible
4. See comment 5 previous section
5. Bad law, there is a reason why GDP growth is low
6. Already passed in the 60s
7. Already passed long before Obama
8. People stopped looking for work and/or got low paying jobs. GDP growth was low
So yes, Obama was a terrible president.
"no it isn't, your lying and you know it, the govt pays for it not provides it. "
Thus government is the provider. They choose which companies to get it from.
"what product does an insurance company provide? an insurance pool."
Nope. Insurance is there for expensive, unplanned events. Like car insurance is there if you get into an accident. But it will not pay for oil changes and tire rotations, both necessary for a safe, long lasting car. Healthcare insurance should be the same way. However, since insurance is a form of payment because of the payroll tax, it isn't. It has become healthcare.
"single payer nations seem to be able to cover everyone
"
On paper only. They ration care and give low quality care. In the US every state offers K-12 education to all students. On paper that is how it is. However in rural areas they lack teachers thus they do not have AP courses or honors courses. They do not have calculus or physics courses. However, on paper if they graduate their high school they get a high school diploma. A student graduating high school from small town Red Oak, IA from Red Oak HS has a diploma much like someone graduating from School of Gifted and Talented in Dallas. Both of those students, on paper, received a high school education. However, the quality is clearly different. In short, other countries saying they "cover" others is setting a low bar.
"the federal govt can easily finance it,"
We are around $20 trillion in debt, so no we can't. Also, how do you account for the lack of doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.?
1
-
1
-
"raising the minimum wage doesn't harm good businesses in anyway, if a business can't afford to pay its employees an income they can live on then that business shouldn't be allowed to operate, "
That is an incredibly asinine statement. How about this. If a worker can't justify earning a higher wage than they shouldn't be allowed to work. That is what happens. When the min. wage goes up so does unemployment for the unskilled.
"According to the CEO of Wetzels Pretzels his business had an increase in revenue after the minimum wage was raised because people having more money means they spend more money"
That is one company. When Seattle raised their min. wage workers who earned a lower income ended up earning less because of reduced hours. You have to look at many other companies as well.
https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/MinWageReport-July2016_Final.pdf
http://www.facesof15.com/
Same with black teens. When the min. wage was established black teen unemployment went up.
"Worker productivity is high wages haven't grown. If you adjust wages for inflation or productivity the minimum wage now would be higher than $15/hour "
Not true. You can't tie the min. wage to inflation because not everything inflates. If you tie the min. wage to inflation than you are saying everything inflates. A brick cell phone in the late 80s cost around $4000 in today's dollars. However, smart phones are essentially free with far more features. The value of them dropped. Same is with labor. How much is the Blockbuster employee worth? $0. However, according to you they should not only have a job, but be paid at least $15/hr.
On productivity, that is because of technology. Look up "Skilled Biased Technological Change". Also, because of increased productivity, many goods and services are not only better but cheaper, like smart phones and cars. So their wage has increased in many ways. Another reason for wages supposedly not increasing is because of the expansion of the payroll tax in the mid 60s.
"Also no business will shut down its business because it has to pay its workers a livable wage"
Define a "livable wage". And yes, businesses will shut down.
"no business person thinks "I have to shut down my entire business because I have to pay my employees a wage they can live on""
Depends on the business owner. A franchise owner of 15 restaurants could shut down a few of them and operate with less. For example, if someone owned 15 McDonalds in a city and the min. wage goes up, they could shut down the 4 that earn the least. They still have 11 running but now people have less hours. This is why business owners invest in many business. They are not putting all of their eggs in one basket.
There is a lot to running a business. You making simplistic statements such as "livable wages" shows how little you understand about running a business. If it were that simple it would be great, but it isn't.
"Nissan was against their US plants unionizing and threatened to shut down those plants... Nisans has plants around the world have unions and they didn't shut down those plants either when they were unionized"
Unions are fine until the government gets involved and they become corrupt. Look at what happened in Detroit.
"in Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland the national govt said minimum wage is determined by negotiation with unions yet none of those businesses have shut down after raising wages or providing extra benefits"
That is the free market. No min. wage is a part of the free market. You are now proving my point. Those countries do not force a min. wage but instead allow the employers and employees to negotiate a wage. That is how it is supposed to be. Again, there is more to it than what you think (for example, there are more McDonalds in the US than in Denmark when you go per person), but what you described in what is happening in those countries is the free market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Master Manny, I care about the American people which is why I want Bernie to lose. I personally believe that the vast majority of our politician are smart, they are just politicians. Bernie, however, is as dumb as it gets. He is only in it for himself and no one else.
In the healthcare debate against Cruz a small business owner asked him a question. Bernie did not care about her situation. Instead of asking about her business operation, here profit margins, taxes, part time/full time employees, etc., he just went on a tangent about some other business and eventually said he does not understand how a business operates.
Bernie does not care about you, he cares about himself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"People should get into the medical field based on interest and skill,
not on their economic position. As it stands, its mostly people of upper
middle class or upper class income who get viably get into the
profession"
People of upper and middle class income also commit less crime, have less risk of disease, have lower obesity rate, and less rates of unwanted pregnancies. There is a lot to it. When you go to medical school you have expanded loan options and you end up earning more. From the University of Minnesota's website
"All US citizens and permanent residents qualify for federally sponsored
financial aid that covers the cost of attendance. While PharmD students
graduating in 2014 had a average of about $140,000 in combined
undergraduate and PharmD student loans, their median starting salary was
$120,000."
https://www.pharmacy.umn.edu/degrees-programs/doctor-pharmacy/admissions/costs-financial-aid-scholarships
" Thus, the pool to draw people into the medical profession is smaller than it should be."
The acceptance rate is less than 50%, the pool is fine. People just refuse to do the work.
"Nothing is free, true. Thats why government pays for it. "
A government with $20 trillion in debt.
" Perhaps tax money should be used for programs and services that benefit the majority of americans and not just the 1%. "
The top 1% pay a disproportional amount of federal income taxes.
"The US is the wealthiest nation to have ever exist in the history of
mankind. Im 99% positive the money is there for socialist programs that
would benefit the US as a whole."
It isn't.
"How come whenever the wealthy need tax cut, money is suddenly not an issue?"
They earned that money.
"Yes healthcare is expensive, subsidized education is expensive,
infrastructure is expensive; but better to spend it on things that will
actually benefit Americans than waste it abroad and on the rich."
We still can't afford it.
"Middle class would swell because more money would stay in the hands of citizens."
More money with, at best, similar production. Prices go up.
"And when the middle class has money, they spend a higher percentage of it than the rich "
Not true. Rich people invest it to produce better cars and electronics.
"This allows a larger percentage of total money to stay circulated within the economy and not just horded in banks"
Banks loan out that money to people to buy homes and start businesses. It just doesn't sit there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"People in the upper class commit less crime, have lower obesity rates,
blah blah blah....yes because they aren't in poverty and are given
advantages in life that poor people don't get."
Or maybe they work hard and are more responsible. Just because you are poor does not give you an excuse to commit crime.
" There are many bright poor people who would make much better doctors
than someone whose parents bought their way into a ivy league school."
You can't buy your way into med school.
"If you have the skills, you should have the same opportunity as someone of wealth."
For the most part you do. There are also several programs that offer a college education to poor people. For example, one of my students, who was poor, only paid $400 a semester for 15 credits.
"Government is in debt thanks to policies that created the 2008 recession "
It has been in debt since the days of Thomas Jefferson at least.
"The rich pay more in taxes, as they should. They can still afford their 6 supercars, 3 mansions, a beach house, and 2 yachts"
Your hatred towards the rich knows no bounds.
". Poor people are working two jobs"
Only around 5% of the country works multiple jobs.
"because wages have been stagnant for 30years."
Because of our massive immigration and our payroll tax.
"Rich people invest in research and development. Great! And their motivation to do that is to make more money. "
So? Do you not make investment to profit?
"Think of how much 150million middle class families contributes to the
economy: 150 millions homes bought, 150millions cars bought, 150million
dishwashers bought, 150million new tvs bought,"
Those are one time purchases. Also, that is a minute portion of the economy. And if they are willing to spend their new money that quickly they are poor for a reason as they have poor money management skills.
1
-
1
-
People do not understand healthcare because it is a complex system. It is 16% of our GDP and in other nations it is around 10% of their's. In comparison in the US education is around 5%, defense is around 4%, housing is around 5%, and so on. Just by the size in our economy one can see how complex it is.
Now consider also the workers in healthcare go to school for years. Around 4 years of undergrad, and then med school of some kind (pharmacy, nursing, etc.), then residency. Add in that in healthcare you are dealing with evolving diseases and a complex human body we know very little about. It is not easy to deal with.
When I hear people, on both sides, talk about healthcare it is annoying as they over simplify it. But it is really annoying hearing the left do it as they feel we can just go to universal healthcare and things would be all better. And their argument is "other countries do it" while ignoring how they do it, what results they have ,their issues they face, and how the system actually works.
I use a "free" healthcare system in the US through my university. It is OK but not great. I use one I have to pay for off campus. It is much better. More personal and catered to me. The "free" one isn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stratecaster547 , humans are vastly different. They all have different lifestyles, ideas, experiences, etc.
Norway has nowhere near the diversity than we do. We have states that are larger than Norway. Compare NV to UT, two neighboring states of similar sizes, they are vastly different. To reduce any argument down to "this country does it and they are happy" is very ignorant. The people of N. Korea are happy, should we copy what they do?
In comparing NV and to UT, NV is rank very poorly in education. Many will blame that state when in reality where is the desire to become educated when you can make $80,000 a year parking cars or serving drinks? That is a challenge that state faces and thus their culture is one of not favoring education. How would the federal government account for that? Less educated people are also less healthy. Does the federal government give more money to NV?
I can easily demonstrate how complex it is. In a three week span I went to TX, than MO, than MN. In TX there were signs written in spanish due to their large hispanic population there. In MO it was very country where I was at. In MN I meant a lot of people from Canada having to deal with a lot of snow and playing curling. The culture is all different there. You reducing people down to "they all eat and shit" is not an argument. You are completely ignoring the diversity and experience they all face which is very anti-liberal of you.
I can provide alternate solutions. I support states and local governments to manage these issues as I realize they are too complex for the federal government to handle. But answer my question from above, should the federal government give more money in education and healthcare due to that state's culture not valuing education? Or how TX has one of the highest obesity rates in the US. Should the federal government give more money to that state for healthcare?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CheshTheTheorist ,yes. These issues are complex. There is no one size fits all solution. There are different cultures, economies, lifestyles, etc. across this nation. To try to micromanage them in a centralized system through the federal government is not going to work. Watch this video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woMaaUl2cA8
Pay close attention to the "I, Pencil" part. Just developing a pencil is challenging. Now attached that to the entire economy and the issues you listed. Take education for example. In NV they are ranked low in education. People rip the system but really the culture is to blame. When most workers are miners, construction workers, or work in casinos earning $60,000 a year parking cars or serving drinks, where is the incentive to become educate? MA is a state who is constantly ranked high. However, they are home of MIT, BC, Harvard, and thus naturally has a higher educated population there. So of course they will rank high. That is the issue that state has to deal with. Is one really better than the other? No. So why should a centralized entity force change in both states? What works in one state will not work in another.
A major part of reform the right pushes for is to limit the federal government, decentralize these programs, and leave the states to handle it. You are seeing that now under Trump. These programs are being handled by the states and our economy is improving. Just because the ideas on the right are not simplistic and centralized does not mean they don't have ideas.
1
-
Dan Shivers , the issue is that there is no clear solution to these problems. As I pointed out with education, how do you get a state like Nevada to improve on education when the culture there has no desire to? Also, is Nevada's situation really bad? They are people living just fine in their situation. It isn't about the financial situation but about the people living in that state. You can give NV a ton of money and their education system will not improve that much. Also, people living in those states do so knowing full well the situation they are in. People rarely perceive life beyond what they experience. That is one reason why we have a divide in this nation. You are on the outside looking in to a state like Wyoming feeling they may be living a bad life when in reality they are completely happy with their life.
In these issues there is an subjective and objective approach to it. The subjective approach is the hardest to take on as you are dealing with different people and different backgrounds, thus the best way to handle it, in my opinion, is to let states and local communities handle it. To give another example, in the small rural town of Hopkins, MO they don't have any stop signs on their streets. Their fire fighters are volunteer. There is little desire to have government there as the town is small and everyone knows everyone. But when you go to a large city you need more government to control the fire department, to install traffic laws and so on.
I can give more examples if you want but watch this video and listen to the part where Friedman talks about local government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc
To add, our nation was designed as such. The federal government was there to serve the states, not the people. That is why prior to 1913 the federal tax was on the states and not individual. It was why we have an electoral college and why states sent representatives. In serving the states the federal government managed commerce between states and foreign affairs. The states are to serve the people by handling domestic issues like education. 92% of education funding is either private, state or local where states design their own curriculum. So when pushing for how republicans are going to fix things, well how can they when the system is designed to limit federal politicians to begin with? And leaving it to the states is very valid argument.
1
-
@CheshTheTheorist , thank you. The creator of that video brings up very strong points and has a lot of information and sources to go to. Not saying he is 100% correct, but he is a different source from the right to go to and he points to resources, such as studies, essays and books to read. Everyone should push for that which I do. I used to be a far right person who supported the whole "pull yourself by your put straps" mentality. Over time I have changed to a moderate stance by actually engaging and listening to those on the left and actually support left wing ideas. I just feel the states should handle it as these issues are complex and the approach differs where you go.
There is a strong desire to have government, but how much is the question. Thus the best, in my opinion, is to allow states to decide which is ultimately allowing the people to decide because you at the local level has a strong voice and can see if government is actually working for you. There are many ways to solve these issues like healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. How is the question. There are many great ideas on the left and right. KS, for example, handles one of their freeways with the Turnpike, works out well for them. Other states don't. It depends on the people.
I agree that politicians never give straight forward answers, but that's politics. And that is why the founding fathers pushed to limit government and why there was a push to keep it local. Politicians are taking advantage of useful idiots. I am highly critical of the far left and when they push for "Free college" or "M4A" they are catering to useful idiots who refuse to dig deeper on the issue. For example, on "free college" how do you tackle the issue of the NCAA? The far left is making it sound like that their ideas are so simple and useful idiots follow them. Just like the right will simply talk about tax cuts and less spending as if that will solve the problem where there is a lot more to it than that. Most people don't want to take the time to dig into the issues which is not wrong, people rather spend time with family, drink and fuck. But the issue is that politicians will take advantage of useful idiots like that. Thus, in my opinion, it is best to leave issues to the local level as you can see if government is actually working for you and not selling you talking points with no direct answer.
But in the end both sides use talking points to garner votes. That's politics. If you dig deeper you will see that the right supports limited federal government and more state rights.
1
-
@that guy , again, these issues are complex. There is not one ideal solution. But here
1. Climate change: The issues are 1, how much is man playing a role. 2, is it even bad, 3, if it is bad is government really the solution? Most on the right says climate change is happening but man's role is low and it is questionable if it is bad. They support going to greener forms of energy but feel the private sector with engineers and scientists, as opposed to government with politicians like AOC who doesn't know what a garbage disposal is is the best route.
2. Healthcare: They support a free market system and letting the states fill in the gaps. Centralizing it is not a strong solution as healthcare is complex.
3. Education: Same with education, let the states handle it.
Here is the problem with the far left, they are looking for simple solutions on complex issues. You become irate when government does not "fix" a problem but reality is that centralized government can't. These issues are far too complex. Sometimes, at the federal level, the best policy is to stay out of it and let the states handle it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dan Ryan, Niklas Hansen does not understand GDP. However, I addressed all of his arguments. I will do the same for you.
"There seem to be unlimited resources for the military to bomb other countries that have done nothing to us "
Defense spending is around 4% of GDP. The federal government spends more on healthcare than defense. Also, we do not spend a lot of resources to "bomb other countries". If we kept doing that there will be nothing left to bomb. And comparing healthcare to defense is ignorant. The resources are different. We lack doctors, surgeons, nurses, researchers, etc. All of which takes years of schooling and training to become one. The equipment in healthcare is expensive.
"The federal government would not RUN healthcare, only pay for it, stop with that tired old argument."
And then the healthcare industry, with the new demand, will just raise prices much like universities did with the student loan program.
"But worst of all is your callous comment about your child dying for lack
of coverage and the world moves on, we don't have money to help that
child so sad day for you."
Again, it isn't about money. It is lack of resources. Throwing more money at something does not increase the number of doctors in the system. Tell me, how is throwing more money at a system increase the number of doctors? Please explain that to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Malic Bk if he is going to have a strong opinion than he better have details on what the problem is and possible solutions.
To start, is police violence an overall problem to begin with? And is racial profiling a problem in police to begin with? Convince me with evidence. I am all for holding police accountable but what got me was when BLM marched for Alton Sterling. He was resisting arrest from two cops, was tazed twice, and then reached for his gun in which then the cops shot him. What more do you want? But again, convince me that police brutality and racial profiling with cops is a major problem to begin with. I feel it is an issue, but a rare and isolated one that should be taken on by a case by case bases.
As for the policy issues, I will go through them
1. Minority populations are "targeted" more because more crime is committed there. It is a huge leap to go from people being killed by cops and going to the conclusion of racism when other factors are at play. Read the study entitled
"Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings"
Case in point, there are other factors at play. Not saying that study is gospel, just saying it is much more complex than saying minority communities are targeted.
2. I agree with this one and have said that groups like BLM can hire private investigators and lawyers to looking into these issues. Now why aren't they? There are intelligent people with the group. Take Cornel West for example. I imagine that he, via working in Harvard and Yale, would know some. Instead he goes on CNN and says something needs to change. Ok, what, professor?
So I agree with this step, now do it.
3. I agree with this one as well. Again, as with number two these organizations should be hiring private investigators to do that. Do not rely on the government.
4. Same as with 2 and 3. You are repeating yourself here but I am actually agreeing with you.
5. The problem with this is that this is the definition of racism in that we should hire cops not on quality but based on the color of their skin. Ever thought we have more white cops in proportion of our population because simply more white people apply?
6. I 100% agree.
7. I agree training should be better and the current training should be investigated. How is training done now and how will you reform it?
8. Care to explain to me for profit police?
9. The police is far from militarized. For example, they do not have fighter jets. However, some of the weaponry they have is excessive as in the vehicles that can be used by only the military. But in some cases they do need them. In LA there was a bank robbery where the robbers had automatic guns and the cops did not. It lead to cops being killed and the situation from not be deesculated. With that the laws were changed allowing cops access to such weaponry. So this isn't that easy of an issue to take one.
10. I say get rid of police unions all together.
You see, I am agreeing with you on many of these, and the ones I don't I am giving reasons why. One is demanding more black cops which is difficult as how many want to be a cop to begin with? You cannot force a round peg through a square hole. And with the first point, it isn't as simple as racism. Again, more crime happens in area where minorities live. That is the reality.
But overall, as you can see i am agree with you on many ways. We need to discuss the details as what I did on the first point.
Also, I heard about those situation which is why I can easily respond. The problem is that they are, in many ways, vague. As with training, now you have to dig into how are cops trained now and what to change. Or with more black cops, dig into why we have a shortage. Just giving a wish list with no details is the problem.
And if you are talking about European nations they simply have less crime all around to begin with. That is their culture. Very difficult to change culture. Why is that is a completely different discussion all together, but you cannot compare us to the nations in Europe.
But I do care as you can see I actually agree with some of your ideas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yaknow Whatiming, I agree that Mrs. Butterworth copied my comment which I am indifferent about, but whatever gets my word out.
Next, you calling me a troll is you dismissing what I am saying. You need to learn what a troll is. A troll is an instigator, I am not. I am simply giving counter arguments here. I just posted two peer reviewed studies showing the shortcomings of the Canadian system where people die due to cancer and waiting for "elective" heart surgery. So anyone who says that no one dies due in universal healthcare systems is simply wrong.
Now this is not to say their system is inferior or that the US system does not have problems. The point is that universal healthcare systems have problems as well, and as a whole both them and the US system have advantages and disadvantages. When you look at the extreme situations in healthcare such as cancer, heart surgery, etc. in the US people go bankrupt. I agree, that is an issue. Or when you look at that 45,000 number, while I showed you a critical counter point on it, it does bring up the issue of some people simply do lack healthcare. But they are the extreme poor. So again, an extreme case.
But when you look at other countries and you look at extreme cases like cancer they have a lower survival rate. Or with heart surgery which is specialized people in Canada die while waiting. They have problems as well.
What Kyle says about universal healthcare systems is being intellectually dishonest, and he needs to stop. The fact that you follow him and for people, like me who question him and give out strong counter arguments while agreeing that the US system has problems, you call a troll shows you have no desire to actually discuss and learn about this topic. You are myopic and a problem in my opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yo Momma , the UMass study is flawed. To start, they don't explain where they get any of their numbers. Next, they treat people like pawns. For example, starting on page 108 they talk about displaced workers and giving them new jobs. New jobs where? How will they be trained? What is they don't want the new job? What if they have to move? People typically don't like to move. There is a reason why that study was not peer reviewed nor published. Let me ask you, have you even read it?
On the College of Physicians, that is an invite only club. I will have to take time to read the first one but so far you are 0 for 2.
"Worker coops are no different, except there is a bunch of them voting instead of one dude"
Again, do you want a group of people, with no education, and no stock in the company making decisions? Worker coop can work in some cases, but not all. You are assuming that workers will be very knowledgeable in how a business operates and will care. Most don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackflagsnroses6013 , what method of inflation are you using? CPI, Boskin Commission adjustment, GDP deflator, PCE? There is more than one and some suggests that wages have outpaced inflation. Also, there are flaws in inflation. For example, inflation, a lot of times, does not take into account technology advancement. So while a car is more expensive today than it was in the 70s on pure sticker price, a car today lasts longer, gets better gas mileage, and is safer, all which saves money. So you have to factor that in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eskil Tho, if there is no doubt then why did two professors proceeded to write an entire book on the subject?
1. We have over 320 million people. Sure, we have more resources, but we also have more people and a greater diversity which creates barriers.
2. Not true at all.
3. We also lead the world in R&D in healthcare and technology. I agree cost is an issue where the federal government has created a lot of that problem. But again, our quality is high. The high price of those drugs counter the affordable cost of the advanced care we offer.
4. Not true. Profit base does not equal higher cost. If that is the case then rent would be extremely high as it is necessary to have a home to live.
5. Single payer has problems as well. I never said our system does not have problems, it does. But in single payer systems they have longer wait times where people end up in worse shape than they were when they first hurt. That is a major problem as well.
You are over simplifying this issue. I look deep because this is a complex issue. You brought up a handful of points as if single payer is the ideal system with no problems. Not to be rude but you are delusional. Sure, there is a debate in the US, but that is because we push for the best system as opposed to settling. Also, the majority do not want single payer. When placed on a ballot in Colorado, a blue state that voted for Bernie in the primaries, 80% said no to single payer healthcare. It seems like people are happy with the system we have.
Most people in developed nations are not in the risk of dying as a whole. That is why the numbers in healthcare are so closed. But the reality is this, the US system leads to better R&D and better outcomes in advanced and critical situations. Other countries also do many things very well such as covering the very poor. But the consequence is lower quality in advanced care leading to people dying for "elective" heart surgery.
No system is ideal. If you cannot admit that single payer has many flaws than you are delusional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
James Guilford, the Constitution is the framework in which the government can work in. I am a strict constructionist so no, I feel it is not vague. Your point on government working for the "will of the people" is vague because with our large population and diversity that is a lot. That is what the founding fathers ran into when they developed this country so in the Constitution they laid out the roles and responsibilities of the federal government and gave power to the states. If you look at the design of the Constitution domestic issues were given to the states where the federal government controlled commerce between states and foreign affairs. For example, prior to 1913 the federal tax was a tax on the states, not individuals.
The consequences of lowering prices is the same as any price ceiling, lower quality. That is basic economics. Your talking point of private jets and islands is simply that, a talking point and not reality.
The Constitution says that the federal government can coin money which is a part of foreign trade and interstate commerce. But that does not control the money supply. The Fed does. Having the Fed be quasi government has many benefits. Without influence of government the Fed can do what is right as opposed to do what the government wants.
To give an example of that in the 60s and 70s we had massive inflation. Volcker was promoted as chairman of the Fed and he said that we needed to raise interest rates in order to stop massive inflation and stabilize the economy. That initially things would be terrible, but in the long run things would be great. Politicians think short term and they will enact short term policies in order to get re-elected. The Fed won't. Volcker's policies made it rough in the beginning and it led to Carter, the same guy who promoted him, to lose to Reagan. In the long run the economy stabilized and things were great. If the Fed is controlled by government then it would be subjected to politicians who care more about being re-elected as opposed to doing what is actually right.
I said that the federal government influences the economy. What you said about interstate commerce is
"You do know that the US Constitution gives congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and I am sure that you realize that interstate commerce is the substance of our natural economy, correct?"
Two points there. On, interstate policy is a substance of our economy, not the natural economy. There are differences. Next, you saying "substance of our natural economy" made it sound like it was a major portion of it, or the economy in itself. I could have misunderstood you but my point is that there are other factors with much more weight than interstate commerce in our economy.
The wealthy are able to over take the government when you have a government with too much power that you cannot control. That is not the fault of freedom but the fault of giving the government too much power. You want the federal government to control drug prices. What is going to stop them from being bought out by drug companies to create monopolies and increase drug prices?
There is a desire to have government, but we have to keep it so that it remains the servants and not the master. You do that by limiting the powers of the federal government and giving more power to the states and local governments. At the local level you have more control of government as you can attend town halls, you can personally meet your representatives, you can see if government is working for you simply by looking out your window. You can see if your tax dollars are being spent well. And if you local government is not working for you you can either change it which is easier at the local level, or move and remain a US citizen. It is much more difficult to change the federal government. Sure, you may vote in a new Senator, but that is just one and at most two out of 100 from your one state compared to 49 other states you have no say in who they vote in as a Senator. That all leads back to government working for the will of the people and me saying it is vague. It is vague as the will of the people in one area of the country is completely different than people in another part of the country.
I am not understanding your point on finite vs scarce? If you are talking about resources then yes, they are scarce and in many cases finite. It depends and it is a different discussion in itself that is long. However, the idea of a capitalist system is that people are in charge of their own resources which is mainly their income. They will then be more willing to invest it properly leading to more wealth growth and more resources to do around. When you do programs like welfare programs or price setting you end up with shortages. As in drug pricing, if you set a price ceiling then more people can afford it, but that does not increase the quantity of them leading to a shortage. Someone has to produce those drugs but if there is no profit motive why would they? That is why price ceilings do not work.
As for the "invisible hand", that is the natural economy.
1
-
Al Clark, to start, your anecdotal evidence is only your experience. Your experience is not the norm nor does it represent the reality when we are talking about nations with millions of people, with varying economies, culture and so on.
Next
1. 100% false. No system covers everyone. Read the paper
"The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" by Dr. Scheunemann and Dr. White.
The reality is that resources are scarce everywhere and that every system rations in some way. No system covers everyone which is why you have people dying in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. On paper they may be covered, but that is a very low standard to set. If you want to set that low of a standard than you have to for the US as well because by law the ER cannot turn anyone away thus everyone in the US is covered as well.
2. Not a strong argument. My one bedroom apartment is cheaper than a three bedroom apartment. Does that make my apartment better? Also, there are many factors that influence cost. The US leads the world in R&D and has much better advanced care. Along with that we have many cases of people using the ER but cannot pay so the cost gets passed onto other customers.
3. Learn what insurance companies are. They are not charities.
4. Instead you die.
5. Same as in the US. Just get insurance earlier.
6. I agree that the employer based healthcare we have is a major problem and I feel that is the number 1 problem in the US. I feel that should be corrected and a free market system should be established. The US does many things well because we have a for profit system, but due to it not being a free market system costs do go up due to no negotiation and insurance equals healthcare as opposed to being insurance. This is a major problem and I can go into greater detail if you want. But this can be solved without establishing single payer.
7. Now you are just picking fly shit out of pepper.
8. So? I have no problem filing a claim. It keeps people honest.
9. There really isn't one to begin with.
10. Really? The government is the largest bureaucratic entity that exists.
11. The WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not created another one in almost 20 years. It compared the US to countries like Malta. I have no clue what The CommonWealth Fund's credentials are. I ask this all the time and no one can say.
The reality is that those rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit statistical analysis on healthcare systems across the world and have the US be number 1 or be ranked very low. The CWF used overall life expectancy where two professors showed that if you remove car accidents and murders that the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Point being is that many factors influence overall life expectancy. In the book "Debunking Utopia" it was brought up that in other nations people live healthier life styles. They have lower obesity rates for example. Obesity can lead to shorter life spans and a higher rate of pre-term births where pre-term births leads to a higher chance of infant mortality. The CWF and WHO ignore situations like that. Their rankings, while having some value, are, for the most part, arbitrary.
12. That does not happen in other countries. It won't happen here.
Single payer is government controlling healthcare. Ever heard of the "golden rule"? It is "Those who have the gold makes the rules". Government will be financing healthcare so they will be making the rules. That is the reality. If they don't then healthcare will becoming like college tuition where they will just jack up the price. College tuition was low until the federal government started to subsidize it particularly with student loans. At that point colleges just jacked up tuition. Same will happen in healthcare unless government takes control of it. As Bill Maher said, if they are going to be picking up the tab, they are also going to want to control the price.
The administrative cost issue is not as simple as you make it sound. It is lower in medicare because medicare can pass the cost onto other agencies such as the CDC for disease awareness where insurance can't. Insurance also pays for fraud prevention which saves money. Also, how administrative cost is calculated in comparison between the two is not equal. Read the Forbes article
"The Myth of Medicare's Low Administrative Cost"
Many doctors do not take medicare. But a free market system will increase competition. Single payer will create a monopoly.
The whole "pool" argument is very poor. You are increasing demand with single payer which will raise prices or lower quality. Also, you have to tackle the issue of moral hazard. Why should someone take care of themselves when they can just use government run healthcare? This is similar to the FDIC and the S&L crisis. Banks made bad decisions but did so because they knew the federal government will bail them out. Sound familiar?
Why would people be responsible if the federal government is going to bail them out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Al Clark, I like how you ignore the papers I posted on people dying in the Canadian healthcare system.
On each point
1. Single payer would not cost less. Basic economics and history shows that. Why would healthcare providers charge less when the government is going to pick up the tab? Also, before you say that government will not pay a lot that means government is price setting and thus controlling healthcare. You just told me that government does not control healthcare.
So considering how government does not control healthcare but will pick up the tab, what will stop providers from charging more?
2. The US system, overall, is no par with Canada in healthcare. You say it is far better than the US system means you have no desire to actually research the topic.
The WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not created another one in almost 20 years. It compared us to countries like Malta.
The Bloomberg ranking arbitrarily weighed life expectancy at 50%. Several factors influence life expectancy beyond healthcare. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy.
Who in the hell is "Nationmaster"? You pull these arbitrary lists out of nowhere. The WHO has strong credentials and realized how bad rankings are and refuses to make another on. How is Bloomberg credible? And who is "Nationmaster"?
A comparison study also said that in the US they pay more due to our strong R&D program. Read the paper
"Comparison of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany, and Canada" by Goran Ridic.
Two quotes
"Part of the gap between US and Canada health care cost may be explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital capital cost, larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of spending on research and development in the US."
Also
"On should mention that data from different countries may not be directly comparable for several reasons and therefor, should be accepted with some skepticism".
It was professor Robert Oshfeldt of Texas A&M University that said that many factors influence the numbers people use in healthcare studies, especially life expectancy. That makes any ranking of healthcare systems, like university rankings, arbitrary.
These are experts in this field that admit that comparison studies are difficult where one admits that rankings are arbitrary. But you are so quick to post and support a ranking from a website called "Nationmaster".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Vineeth,
"oh but if your currently paying for your own health insurance you are already paying for other peoples healthcare as well whether you like it or not
Insurance simply amounts to a group of people poling together money to share the cost burden of any loss or expense arising from an unexpected or contingent occurrence... in layman terms, people share each others costs"
This is where you are mistaken and this is the problem with our healthcare system. Healthcare insurance should not equal healthcare. But it does. Insurance should cover expensive, unplanned situations. Many forms of care such as routine exams, pregnancies, elective surgeries, etc. should be paid for out of pocket. Doing that will force companies to compete which will lower prices.
Compare it to car insurance. Car insurance does not pay for my oil changes and tire rotations, both good in extending the lifetime of my car and keeping it safe. But it will pay for someone hitting my car and causing major damage. Healthcare insurance should be the same thing.
The problem with you example is that healthcare insurance is healthcare in our society. You talk about 100 people. But those 100 people have various health issues due to many things. Someone could be obese because of the junk food they eat. Someone can be born with diabetes. Someone can be very healthy. What Obamacare did was raise the price of the healthy people to pay for the fat person who cannot manage their own diet.
"public education, parks, libraries, museums, fire departments, police, legal courts, roads and bridges, railway lines are all paid by your taxes even if your never gonna use them yet you aren't running around saying "I'm not using the roads and bridges in the other part of town so why should I pay for them"
Public education: Locally ran and funded with many volunteers
Parks: Locally ran and funded
Libraries: Locally ran and funded
Museums: Locally ran and funded
Fire departments: Locally ran and funded with around 70% of fire fighters being volunteer
Police: Locally ran and funded
Legal courts: Constitutional with most being locally ran and funded
Roads and bridges: 3/4 of them are locally ran and funded
Railway lines: Locally ran and funded
Do you see a trend? Those programs are localized. There is a desire to have government and money spent by it. Even Milton Friedman said this. If you watch the video "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups" he will explain how the more local government is the better the spending is because people can see if they are getting their money's worth. Also, pointing to localized programs to justify a federal one is not an argument.
"the US only spends trillions on infrastructure if you total the amounts spent over a few years, otherwise its less than half a billion Do you know why the US infrastructure gets a D+ on its report card? because spending isn't done to improve it but rather maintain it, the railway gets a B because spending is on not just maintaining it but also improving it,"
A few things. Infrastructure is mostly state and local. You should look at that as well. As I said, 3/4 of funding for roads is from that level. It is hard to "improve" our infrastructure without slowing down the economy drastically. When construction is happening look what happens to traffic. It slows down. Try to improve roads in the San Jose area. Traffic is bad enough. Now trying to do it will bring it to a halt harming the economy because of limited flow. In comparison to the railway system, that system is of on its own. You can improve it easily without slowing down the economy as you do not have to worry about traffic.
I agree infrastructure needs to be improved, now how do you do it? The only way to either shut down the economy for a few months and try to build it fast. Also, you have to pay contractors a large amount. If you look up CC Myers and the MacArthur Maze repair what happened was that he was offered a low bid but finished in less than a month. However, he was given a large bonus of around $5 million. He did the same thing earlier in Southern California and earned a bonus that was over $14 million.
If you want to improve our infrastructure you have to shut down the economy in certain areas for at least a month and pay these companies a lot of money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MothersBasementGaming , again, none of those are real pressure. .And none of those give you experience in actual policy or what goes on in politics or the business world. You can learn to deal with people and multi task in many jobs. Big deal. Now did she learn the influence of policy on society? No. That is why Tom Homan was able to own AOC by citing actual laws where AOC did not even know the law. Homan has experience. AOC doesn't.
To give you another example, I work in science for a living. When AOC starts talking about climate change it is clear she has no clue what she is talking about as she has no experience in science or what scientists actually say or think.
On another example, I know the head of IT for the entire education program in my state. We had a discussion on why some areas do poorly in education. For example, the Bay Area struggles because teachers can't afford to live there. In NV they do poorly because you can make $80,000 a year parking cars, or 6 figures working in the mines. Where is the incentive to become educated? In MA they have Boston University, MIT, Harvard, Boston College, etc. That culture there is motivated by education. So it isn't the system, there is much more to it then that. You won't know that unless you take your time to read up on it and talk to others in the system, or experience.
AOC lacks experience, period. That is why she sounds foolish. That is why Homan was able to rip her apart as she has no clue how to read and understand laws.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beaverones41 , you are twisting my words. To start, on the 10%. How many people, percent wise in our nation, actually works as a federal politician? How many actually run a company with success? Or run a company period? Very few. That should say something right there. Most people simply don't have the desire to do so or simply can't. It comes back to the saying of if starting a business and becoming rich is so easy, why don't you do it? The issue of people losing jobs when one person fails is one of many examples of a job with responsibilities.
I worked in the service industry. During the time you are clocked in it may be hard, but afterwards you are done. Ever worked a job where you are always on the clock? Where when something happens you get called in and have to take care of it? If something happened at the bar AOC worked at they won't call her, they will call the manager or owner. She will just be sitting at home with no worries.
I never said part time jobs were not real jobs. That person talking about people who work in restaurant alluded to people working there to earn a living. I brought up the point that many are part time. To expand, they most likely live in a household with someone else who earns more money.
How much you get paid is a big factor in the job. The more you get paid the more challenges and responsibilities you have. If the bar AOC worked at had an issue and a customer complained who will handle it? A manager, not AOC. That is why managers get paid more.
Sorry, but being a bartender does not prepare you to working in Congress. What challenges did she face? What responsibilities did she have? The far left has zero standards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" why do the rest of the modern countries pay less overall for better outcomes?"
It is really debatable if they have better outcomes. They have longer wait times and many people die on those waiting lists. Even if they do not die they become worse off the longer they wait. I will link you a book later where two professors did statistical analysis and found that countries with universal healthcare systems are not receiving better outcomes.
As for cost there are other factors as well. We do lead the world in research and innovation in healthcare and many people do decide to take advance treatment and testing as a precaution which adds to expenses. We do offer more MRIs compared to other countries for example.
"If what you're saying is true, surely the United States should be #1 in healthcare because we pay the most. "
Depends on how you look at it. If you remove car accidents and murders, things not strongly connected to healthcare, the US is number 1 in life expectancy.
" #1 is people don't die from lack of furniture. "
Never made that claim either.
"#2 is that's not how marketing/demand works in an economy."
Which I 100% agree which is another discussion in itself. We are still at stage one though, and that is realizing that healthcare is a commodity as in someone has to provide it. Many people feel that if the government offers healthcare it will just exist. Many people call it a right. That is not how it works. Someone has to provide it and depending on the treatment it will cost more. If it is a routine checkup any doctor can do it will be cheap, much like my disc chairs are very cheap as they are easy to make. But if it is something more complex such as some sort of brain surgery, it will be more expensive like a massaging chair.
We are not talking about the elasticity of demand here. We are talking about the basic fact that someone has to provide healthcare and in some cases it will be more expensive if the treatment is rare and complex. In other countries they pay with longer wait times, here we pay with more money.
If you can accept the basic fact that healthcare, like furniture, is a commodity in that someone has to provide it. And certain treatments, like furniture, are more expensive because of how complex they are, then we can move on to how healthcare can be paid for. But for now you need to realize that healthcare will cost you something either in money or in time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prophet , his show is from 9 to 12 Eastern time if I recall. That is 6 to 9 for me. At 6 I am at the gym. I then eat a quick breakfast and get to work by 8. Maybe one day I will skip the gym, but right now I have a routine this semester to get everything done. I am not a coward, I am just busy with a life. I am pursuing two graduate degrees, I have work and this time of year I have a hobby that takes time. Unlike most people I am very active in life and involved in my community.
As for people avoiding Sam in a debate, I see no evidence. Also, I see little reason why people would debate him. It would be punching down. Look at his views? Look at his subs? People ask why Crowder has so many subs, it is because Crowder goes out and sells himself. Notice how Sam talks about Crowder but not the other way around? it is because Sam is looking for recognition. He is desperate at this point.
Ann Coulter did not back off, she never heard of Kyle. And again, look at the success rate. Ann has many best selling books, what has Kyle done? And Jesse Lee Peterson was never contacted. Kyle lied there as well because Kyle has low views and subs, he is desperate.
Fact is the far left is losing. Trump is successful, your top candidates for president are Pocahontas and a crazy old socialist who recently had a heart attack. Some of your top candidates out there is a crazy ex bartender who doesn't understand economics. Really, the far left is becoming a huge joke to moderates.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thebigotry , so healthcare is not as complicated as mental health? Also, we lack hospitals and workers in healthcare, something has to make up for the increased demand. Also, Medicare for all will ban private insurance, so most healthcare providers will have to become public.
The study is making the assumption that healthcare providers will be willing to take a 40% pay cut even with increased demand. They even said that the overall change in NHE will be insignificant which means the cost of healthcare overall will essentially be, at the very least, the same. But what federal government program has actually saved money? Also, in that study they admitted the number they produced is on the lower bound and that chances are the cost will be much higher.
So no, Medicare for all will not save money, and it will not cover everyone because no healthcare system does that. The cost has to come from somewhere which means advanced care will suffer like it does in other nations.
There is a place for emotions in an argument as we are humans. The problem is that when you become too emotional you end up with these pie in the sky expectations, become irrational, and end up denying reality. That is what the far left and people like Bernie do. They get to a point where they refuse to listen to the other side. Bernie preaches about "discussing the issues" but in reality he is saying "give me a platform so I can preach my talking points" and has no desire for civil discussion. Look at how he treated that hair salon owner from Texas. He had no desire to try to understand her position. He just simply said "that is the law, follow it". Some people get involved in politics for power, others to try to push for a better society.
The reality is these issues are complex, and the left has become so emotional that they refuse to acknowledge that and end up shutting down any discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scottiyoupe7824 , M4A will make a major difference, both good and bad. But after all the dust settle everything suggest we won't be better off in the end. And if so not by much.
The major problem with M4A is how it is being pushed right now. It is being pushed on complete misinformation and deception. You claim you are trying to teach me something when I am the one constantly pointing to studies and experts saying the flaws of universal healthcare systems.
First off, healthcare is not a right. Rights in this nation are there to limit government and let people have control of government. Such as free speech, you can say what you want without fear of oppression of government. Right to bear arms allows you to defend yourself from an oppressive government.
Next, the harsh reality is this. No matter what the system someone has to suffer, period. Yes, a universal healthcare system does give some sort of access to all for very basic care. But it caps that to where advance testing is very limited. Again, that is why people die in other nations waiting for "elective" care. Thus the very sick suffer. In the US system they very sick have a ton of access to advance care. However, the very poor suffer with limited access. However, as Prof. Katherine Baicker pointed out, bad health is associated with being poor. Thus they are sick due to poor lifestyle choices. So even if you give those poor access to care, are they better off? The same can be said about the very sick.
In the book "Being Mortal" the author writes how people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years, but will really live only 5 or 10 months. So in both cases is it worth giving healthcare to those people?
Maybe M4A is the best system, but those pushing it are not saying the whole story. This is a difficult topic because it involves life or death and the far left doesn't want to discuss it. That is why you simply dismiss me as opposed to have an actual conversation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KA-uv8gq , easy. Let us look at some issues
1. Climate change. No one on the right denies it. They are skeptical in how much man plays a role (they admit we do), if it is a threat, and if government should be the one solving the issue.
On the left they are screaming end of the world scenarios, pushing a 17 year old brainwashed girl on stage, and saying that the federal government needs to act drastically with the GND which overtakes our entire economy. No scientist is saying we need to act that quickly. Even Prof. Myles Allen, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report has been critical of the "end of the world" rhetoric.
The left is too far left on this one
2. Abortion. The right is pro life but they want to leave abortion up to the states. And if you get an abortion they won't judge you.
On the left they fear that Roe v Wade will be overturned even though that is not the actual abortion law of importance anymore. Casey v PP is. They were all scared of Kavanaugh overturning it but when he was given a chance to chip away at abortion laws he ruled in favor of PP. And a couple of states are pushing for late term abortions where many pro choice people even say that is extreme.
The left is too far left on this one
3. Healthcare. The right agrees reform is needed but feel we should improve on the system we have now. Our healthcare system is strong in many ways. We lead the work in R&D and access to advanced care and thus survival rates of advanced illnesses.
The left wants to completely dismantle our current healthcare system, ban private insurance, and completely replace it with Medicare where Medicare is losing money despite being subsidized through private insurance as Medicare has an 40% less pay out rate.
The left is too far left on this one
4. Guns. The right says we have enough gun laws and have no problem with background checks as they exist currently as almost all sales have one except for private ones. The right is all for reducing violence as a whole and feel that simply banning guns won't do that.
The left pushes kids on stage that calls anyone who supports guns murders with blood on their hand (basically what David Hogg was saying). They compared the NRA members to the Parkland shooter and said that NRA member does not care about kids. Kyle Kashuv, who was pro gun, was denied entry into Harvard even though his credentials were higher than Hogg's. The excuse was that he made "racist comments" in the past which is low to me. Almost everyone has made mistakes. Plus, Hogg has many many hateful comments as well. A double standard there the left is silent about.
The left is open about banning guns, think about what Beto said. And those that don't are pushing to ban guns in a deceptive way. Despite hand guns causing the most deaths the push to ban the "scary" AR 15. If they can get the AR 15 banned that opens legal doorways to get other guns ban.
The left is too far left on this one.
Care for me to go on?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KA-uv8gq "No one is saying the solution is government control. The solution is a switch to renewables and other measures"
Through government controlling the economy. When you control the energy sector you control the economy. The GND pushes to eliminate the use of fossil fuels causing all those jobs in that sector to disappear. It is pushing to replace all cars to be electric eliminating jobs in the car industry, especially in the use car industry as very few electric cars are used. Most will be new. It is pushing to end planes eliminating jobs in airports. What are you going to do with those loss jobs? The government will have to give them government jobs. That, and more will have a snowball effect where the federal government will, at the very least, over take the majority of the economy. The GND pushes to renovate buildings. The building I work in will be one of them. So while they are renovating it, which will take at least 2 years, what am I supposed to do for work? Will I get paid for nothing? Same goes for other buildings. You see how this is snowballing?
"Stating what needs to be done is not radical in it of itself. "
Does it need to be done? Is climate change a major issue? Scientist are unsure right now. So why push for radical changes? And is the federal government the route to go in improving our society? The left feels it is the only route where a moderate approach is considering many options both public and private. The left is only considering the federal government. AOC feels that M4A is the only solution. AOC feels the federal government must take demand on climate change. AOC feels that billionaires need to give up their power. So someone like Jeff Bezos worked hard to grow Amazon, give jobs, produce something, and add value should give up their power they earn? First, what power does Bezos have? Also, prior to Amazon he had no power, he earned it. AOC wants people like Bezos to give up his "powers" to other arbitrarily. That is radical.
"The government HAD to do it because the private sector COULDN'T and in this case lack the will to do so. To do the switch you need government for the grand scale. Study history and how we retrofitted the economy before."
History shows the private sector and states are far better at developing these programs. For example, it took Medicare 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits when private insurance was covering it long before that.
"In far as states rights.....then what the hell was YOUR point in bringing it up? The right believes in completely outlawing it"
Huh? The right supports state rights.
"And gun control. Taking guns away is what the right parrots from the script of the NRA."
It isn't. We have a lot of gun laws on the books. When a shooting happens the left pushes for more laws. One was banning the AR 15, that is a gun ban. Why? Because when you can ban one gun you can ban all. You open the legal doorways for that. So say the AR 15 is banned and another shooting happens? Then what. I want you to tell me your stopping point on gun laws. If you ban the AR 15 and another shooting happens, then what? More gun laws? Tell me. If you say the left is not radical then tell me your stopping point.
Under Obama the democrats locked themselves in a room to get Obamacare passed. Democrats have simply been out of touch with the common man. Do you know why Trump was elected? Because democrats are radical and divisive. They create racism when non exist. They called the people rallying in Virginia Nazis and expected violence to happen. They claim they know what is best for you by wanting to raise your taxes. All they have done is ridicule those on the right and those that disagree with them. When you do that enough you get a president like Trump. Trump is a creation by the left due to how radical they are. Look at how the treated Kavanaugh for example. Look at the impeachment. How can you say they are not radical?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@palebluedotadventures2500 , ok, going through each one and giving a simple example of how complex these issues are that Bernie never addresses
1. Why do you want to stop people from spending their money how they want. Unless there is quid pro quo you are stopping freedom.
2. I can go on on healthcare and will if you want. But single payer does not prevent amenable mortality. Resources are limited and something has to give. That 30,000 stat is deceptive to begin with
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
"Richard Kronick, a University of California San Diego medical professor who now works for the Department of Health and Human Services, wrote in 2009 that estimates are "almost certainly incorrect."
His paper, published in August 2009 in HSR: Health Services Research, found that uninsured participants had no different risk of dying than those were covered by employer-sponsored group insurance. The finding was surprising coming from Kronick, who told PolitiFact then it was "not the answer I wanted.""
"Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor, echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse health.
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said."
Next, with limited resources something has to give. People die in other nations by having advanced care being rationed. Read this report on rationing
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415127/
3. Negotiate how? Also, if the government is so corrupt do you really want them negotiating prices? And again, Canada faces many problems. They have lower cost because they deny advanced care. That is why people die in Canad being denied heart surgery.
4.Reform police how?
5. Green New Deal is a mess. How will you fund it?
6.With tuition free college how do you handle the NCAA?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It's not just this year alone, it's a weather trend we see which you
already admitted is climate, higher temperatures around the globe year
after year is a weather trend that we have measured and can observe
through instrumentation. "
Your source shows a trend over 138 years and as I said, I can argue that 138 years is minute compared to 4 billion. I am not denying the data, I am showing you a different perspective.
"Citation needed,"
Skepitcal Science is not a reliable source. If you want to go down what route I will give you this
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming
Now I know your reaction will be "Heartland institute is a think tank" or something like that. But what do you think Skeptical Science is?
"We are playing a pretty hefty role, we as a species around the globe
produce carbon emissions, these emissions produce smog, this smog traps
the suns heat in our atmosphere, this leads to an increasing of global
temperatures, which leads to the changing of climate."
Yeah, and? What do you mean by "hefty"?
"Does living on mercury sound like a good thing?"
I assume you mean Venus. Mercury essentially has no atmosphere. If you want to look at Venus look at their CO2 PPM. Not even close to the US.
"The solution is to ween ourselves off carbon emitting sources of energy and fuel, green energy, solar, wind, wave, etc"
I agree that we need to eventually get off of fossil fuels, but it has to be gradual.
"That's the bs talking point narrative I'm talking about, I've addressed all these questions, cited sources and evidence"
You did not address them, and the source you cited was from a think thank which I countered with a think tank.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jack Burton, there are several flaws in what you said.
To start, on that 45,000 deaths, what standard do you have to compare that to? None. There is no standard to compare that to is that is a bad number or not. No system covers everyone where people die. In Australia up to 7000 people die a year on waiting lists waiting for "elective surgery". In Canada people die waiting for "elective" heart surgery. People die in every system due to shortcomings in the healthcare system. So is that 45,000 a bad result? You can't say without a standard.
Next, as a Harvard professor said, it is hard to get accurate numbers in those studies. Those 45,000 a poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. Some healthcare studies use "amenable mortality" as an indicator of healthcare quality. However, as Sophia Kamarudeen pointed out in her article published in Health Statistics Quarterly, that other factors outside of healthcare play a role thus pointing to these type of deaths as an indicator of healthcare is, and I quote, "far from overwhelming or clear."
On bankruptcy, I agree cost is a problem, but that is only one indicator out of many in the quality of a healthcare system. Also, as in the deaths those who go bankrupt are poor and are at higher risk of bankruptcy all together.
As for administration cost, if you do a per person cost Medicare is actually more expensive. The issue in comparing administration cost of medicare and insurance is that Medicare has the ability to shift many costs to other government agencies. For example, insurance pays for disease awareness where Medicare has the CDC. Also, if you did a per patient cost of it Medicare costs $509 per patient where insurance is $453 as reported in the Forbes article "The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'".
On that ranking of those 11 nations, what makes the Commonwealth Fund credible? Not to be rude but do you even know how they came up with that ranking? I doubt it, but just like the 45,000 deaths stat you blindly follow that ranking. You do know that the Commonwealth Fund is a private organization? What if the Koch brothers created their own ranking and had the US be number 1? Would you trust it? I doubt it. But you blindly follow the ranking of the Commonwealth Fund.
Those rankings are arbitrary as anyone can come up with any ranking they want with any legit analysis. To reduce a complex issue like healthcare down to a ranking does not do it justice. To is so much to it.
1
-
Jack Burton, I am not saying Harvard Medical School is not a reputable source. Another Harvard professor gave a counter argument to the 45,000 deaths. Also, what is the standard? There isn't any. You say that every other first world nation has universal healthcare. No how many die because of their system? No study exist thus that 45,000 is an empty stat as there is nothing to compare it to. Remember, up to 7000 die a year in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. People die in other nations as well due to shortcomings in their healthcare system. Problem is that no one has done a study in other countries to compare that 45,000 to.
Compare it to this. I pay $700 a month in rent. Based on that alone you cannot tell me if I am paying too much or too little as you do not know my personal income, you do not know the size of the place I rent and the average rent in my city and so on. So that $700/month is an empty number. Same with that 45,000, there is nothing to compare it to.
Another comparison is that around 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. Do we ban driving to bring that number down to zero? No as that will harm society even more. So 30,000 is the acceptable situation in allowing people to drive. Back to that 45,000, reality is not system is ideal, people die in every system. Is 45,000 the standard? You cannot say as there is no comparison study that exist. Thus that 45,000 number is an empty stat.
On bankruptcy it isn't about "fuckem" but more about that is the reality. No system is ideal, something has to give. Sure we can cover them, but what is the cost? It could mean that someone has to wait longer for surgery they need and they become worse off. Someone is going to get "fucked".
You can't reallocate resources as it isn't that simple. Healthcare has limitations in resources. You will be increasing demand in it without increasing supply. Thus prices will go up or quality will drop. You can't just throw more money at the situation and not expect prices to go up.
I have ideas to improve our healthcare system. I always ask
1. Why do so many businesses pay their employees with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage?
2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
The reality is we do not have a free market system in healthcare. We have a for profit system with many government regulations that increase the cost. One is the payroll tax. Because of the payroll tax businesses pay employees with healthcare insurance as it is a tax free way to pay them. That is not good as consumers do not get to choose their plans. If they switch jobs they have to go to another plan and at an older age there is a greater chance for pre-existing conditions. And since healthcare insurance is a form of payment insurance has become healthcare.
The best solution would be have it so businesses pay with a higher wage as opposed to healthcare insurance. Consumers can get a plan they want and keep it for life. They can pay out of pocket for simple things and insurance can cover expensive, unplanned cases. That will lower the price of healthcare and increase the quality.
Your solution to fix healthcare is to create a monopoly with government. It isn't that easy.
1
-
Jack Burton, the idea of healthy people paying in to cater to the unhealthy people is not really sound. Many are unhealthy due to personal life choices. As I mentioned earlier many of the poor are obese or smoke or have type II diabetes, all self inflicted. The problem with the ACA is that insurance companies cannot deny unhealthy people and have to cover them. Thus you have unhealthy people weighing the system down causing prices to go up and quality to go down. This is not to say we should not try to get a system where people have access to healthcare, but reality is resources are limited and we just can't give it away.
The people dying on waiting lists for "elective" surgery is not a moot point. Government has their way of rationing care. To them they rate everything as the same, as someone needing an ACL repair is the same across the board. However, reality is much more complex than that. Two people can be looking for the same, or similar type of surgery, but other complications can make one person worse or the other. Government does not fine tune those issues.
My point on driving is that despite all the pushes for lower deaths the number is not zero. Also, car insurance mandate is a state law and only liability has to be covered.
The reason why businesses don't pay a higher wage is because of the payroll tax. If a business paid a higher wage they will end up paying a higher tax. Remove the payroll tax and businesses will pay a higher wage. The payroll tax punishes businesses who give out raises to their employees. Trump's tax cuts were just income tax cuts and corporate tax cuts. It did not touch the payroll tax. The reason why businesses pay with healthcare insurance is because it is a tax free way to pay employees.
I would rather have a higher wage and pay for my own insurance so when I switch jobs I do not have to worry about healthcare.
There is value in insurance, problem is that the companies have too much power. Why? Because healthcare insurance equals healthcare. Insurance should be there to cover unplanned, expensive situations. But many cases can be paid for out of pocket. Compare it to car insurance. Car insurance will pay for a car accident, but not for oil changes and new tires even though those are needed for a safe and reliable car. Why? Because you can plan out those situations. You can't a car accident. Same with healthcare, you can plan out a pregnancy, or a routine check up, or an elective surgery. You can't an accident. Problem is that since insurance is a form of payment used by employers insurance has become healthcare and insurance companies have too much power.
LASIK is free from insurance and is essentially the free market. Over time it has dropped in price and improved in quality. We need to push for a more free market system. Medicare for all will not cover everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" if Americans wanted more fuel efficient cars the Prius would be the best seller,"
Not necessarily. There are other components as well. A Prius cost around $23,000 from what I see from a quick Google search. My car cost $6000. To some people that is all they can afford. I get 30 MPG. To me buying a $6000 car with 30 MPG is efficient. There is more to it than just gas mileage. Some people want power. I live in the mountains. I have to get up to speed on the freeway quickly and climb up a mountain. I need a car that can do it.
People want several features in a car. There is not an ideal car. There is always as cost. In economics that is called "opportunity cost". My car is cheaper ($6000 to $23,000), and gets more horsepower (160 hp to 120 hp). Sure, I have 30 MPG and the Prius has over 50 MPG, but I traded that off for the other qualities.
" Fuel efficiency standards are set by the government, "
And? People still want more fuel efficient cars. They are not necessary. Just like before OSHA workers pushed for safer work environments and work related deaths in mines drop significantly before OSHA. You know, the people can push for things without the government.
" LEDs are the most efficient light bulbs yet the worst selling, "
LED lights are constantly changing. Taking to the facility manager at my university he refuses to use LED lights because in a short amount of time they can change. LED lights require different voltage and can shift in color depending on the voltage and temperature. You essentially have to replace all of the light fixtures on campus to do that.
"people still buy incandescents for gods sake!"
There are advantages. I use one for my lava lamp. But as a whole people stopped. I worked in a very conservative part of the country and they switched on their own in 2010.
"Companies did not stop dumping their wastes into our rivers until the EPA forced them to"
Not true. In my city we push for a clean river. We have local laws that prevent that.
"The water treatment facility near where I live resisted uv treatment of
treated waste water until they were forced to just a couple years ago by
the EPA. "
Maybe you should have pushed for it yourself. You live there. My water is fine. In live in two different parts of the country, we were fine.
" One need only look at China for an example of what we would look like without it."
If you want to go to the extreme we can look at N. Korea for an example of an overpowering government. But I like to stick with the US. If your local water has problems than fix it yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Libtard3354, to start, when you say the 1% make more than the bottom 50%, that is not true. The top 10% earned 40% of the income. If you are talking about wealth then there is some truth there, but wealth is not income. Wealth is assets. If you want to have a discussion you have to get facts correct.
Under Obama unemployment was decreasing but so was labor participation. Under Trump labor participation is no longer decreasing but unemployment is still decreasing. More people are looking for jobs but unemployment is still going down.
GDP is a great indicator in how well the economy is doing.
It is arguable that wages have not stagnated. What method are you using to determine that? CPI? PCE? Boskin Commission adjusted inflation?
Walmart has paid above the min. wage for years. Why attack them?
You can scream bubble all you want, it isn't happening. The Fed raised interest rates 3 times this year. In the past major recessions happened due to low interest rates.
I pointed to an approval rating poll for Trump to show how people cherry pick polls. As a whole I don't follow the polls as they are vague questions on complex issues to people who are not informed on the topic. Opinions change when more information is given. People point to Bernie being popular but he has never been attacked by the GOP so any poll on that is irrelevant. People still know very little about him such as him supporting Castro, him stealing electricity from his neighbor, his support for breadlines, or how he wants to raise taxes on everyone and so on.
As for Bernie backed candidates in the rust belt, they won districts they have no chance of winning in the general. And the candidates they really rallied for, like that one in KS, lost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Purple Nurple, pick one that Kyle said in this video and I will.
I will give a couple on the top of my head. And easy one and one that requires more explanation.
The easy one is when Kyle says there is no argument against raising the min. wage. In reality there is. There are experts on both sides of the isle who argue this. So right away Kyle is wrong.
Now the one that requires more explaining. Kyle brings up the 45,000 deaths a year in our healthcare system. That is a very deceptive point to bring up. To start, no comparable study has been done in other nations. In other countries people do die due to lack of access to healthcare. There are people dying in Canada waiting for "elective" surgery, and the same happens in other nations. And even those that don't die experience a harder life style. Read the paper "Waiting for elective surgery: effects on health-related quality of life" for cases like that happening in New Zealand. Kyle, however, claims that other countries do cover everyone and he said that in a debate against Razorfist. If they do cover everyone why do people die or suffer for a long time?
So immediately that 45,000 number is what I call empty as there is not standard or comparison to it. Yes, in other nations people are "covered" on paper. But as many reports show that is not true.
Next, that number is 0.01% of the overall population. That is tiny overall. Yes, I would love that number to be zero, but it isn't in any country as I just discussed. Also, those 45,000 are poor and bad health is associated with being poor as mentioned by a Harvard professor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. Those are all self inflicted and add complications to any other existing health problems. So that 45,000 number is not accurate either and is prone to large error.
Kyle never brings any of that up. He pushes that number to rip on the US system and then praises other countries as if they have no problems when they do. This is why he refuses to debate as his ideas would be challenged and he would get destroyed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Erik, you are missing the point as well. Kyle claimed that no one dies due to shortcomings in universal healthcare systems. That is 100% false as I pointed out that people due while being in waiting lines. Now you bring up how many. The problem there is that no complete study has been done, so I cannot say. I pointed to a couple of papers showing that people died, but it was in Canada for one specific case, "elective" heart surgery. And a specific type of heart surgery.
Now you say "obviously the numbers of people who die in single payer nations i slower than the US....."
How do you know? Now the burden of proof is on you. Kyle points to a study that brings up that 45,000 deaths. I will ask you for a comparison study. Kyle says the number is zero. I pointed out how it isn't. So you and Purple Nurple agree, it ins't zero. Now you ask me how many is it? With that I bring you to my other criticism of that 45,000 number. Show me a comparison study that was done in other countries. Until you do that 45,000 is an empty stat as there is no standard to compare to.
So I expressed my issue with the 45,000 number as there is no standard to compare to. However, according to you there must be as in single payer nations you say "obviously the numbers in people who die in single payer nation is lower...."
If it is so obvious than please show me the comparison study. You say "go to any peer reviewed source and the data will show this."
Ok, present it. The burden on proof is on you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Erik, saying "less Americans die if more are insured" is rather vague. Would some poor people be able to access healthcare that otherwise wouldn't if they had insurance? Yes, I agree. But giving more people insurance does not increase the amount of healthcare we have. There will be a draw back of some kind either through longer wait times, lower quality, or higher prices.
Next, Kyle said that in other countries no one dies due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems as everyone is covered. However, I posted a study showing that people have died in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. In Australia, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, over 7000 people either died or were non-contactable while being on the waiting list. People do die due to lack of access. You blame me for "muddying the waters" when Kyle does just that. If you are going to criticize me in a certain way you have to be fair and criticize Kyle the same way.
The whole point is this.
1. Kyle claimed that no one dies in other nations due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems. They do as I pointed out in two different countries with two different sources. So I debunked that.
2. I pointed out how that that 45,000 number is an empty stat as there is no standard to compare it to. I have ask you and others to give me a study that was done in another country to compare it to. No one has provided it. Thus that 45,000 number is empty. You can't just throw out numbers without comparison. If I say that I pay $700/month for rent what does that mean? It means nothing as I have not given you how much rent is in my city, how much space I have, where I live and so on. I just gave you a number with nothing to compare it to. You have no clue if I am getting a good deal or if I am getting ripped off. You need something to compare that number to. Without a standard to compare it to that number is almost worthless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Purple Nurple, I heard what Kyle said. He is doing a play on words. To start, define "basic". Next, Kyle said that people wait for "elective" care. If you die that is not elective, that is necessary. So people are waiting for necessary care as well. Just because it is defined as "elective" does not change reality.
As for 7000 being smaller than 45,000. To start, those numbers are obtain differently, so they cannot be compared. Next, populations are different. Australia has a population that is 1/10 of that of the US. So based on per capita, 7000 is larger. 70000 is 0.025% of the Australia population. 45,000 is 0.01% of the US population.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Erik, I gave you the source for the 7000 deaths in Australia on waiting lines. It is the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. When you account for the fact that the US has over 10 times the population than Australia that is a higher rate than 45,000.
Now I am always fair, that 45,000 and 7000 are two numbers calculated in two completely different ways, thus they cannot be compared. But the overall point is this, in other nations with universal healthcare systems people do die due to shortcomings. One shortcoming is lack of access simply due to lack of resources.
Am I saying 45,000 deaths a year is great? No. But here it the reality. The lack of accuracy of that number aside, every healthcare system has shortcomings leading to deaths, period. So when you bring up that 45,000 number I asked for a comparison. You cannot provide none. For all I know that could be a great value to have. That no system is ideal thus 45,000 is more than satisfactory in comparison to the benefits.
Compare it to this. Around 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. Do you know how to make that 30,000 to be zero? You ban driving. Is that a solution? No as our economy and productivity will tank. What that means is that 30,000 deaths is an acceptable consequence for allowing people to drive. We take actions to try to lower it, but no system is ideal, people die.
Now tell me how do you make that 45,000 to be zero? Until you do than you automatically admit that in every system people die due to shortcomings. So then I ask of you is that 45,000 bad compared to a standard? Well, there is no standard. So at that you are giving me an empty number.
You are calling me morally bankrupt when you want to drastically change our healthcare system on an empty stat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You have a right to pollute. Did you ask anyone breathing that pollution if it was okay for you to create a cost, then to push that cost off onto others?"
You have the right to pursue healthcare, you have the right to pursuing buying a car and driving it. If you can't afford a car you can't drive and pollute.
" If you provided healthcare to people, that would mean that they don't have to stay at a job they hate because of healthcare."
Getting rid of the payroll tax could help that as well. The reason why businesses pay with healthcare insurance is because of the payroll tax.
" Roughly 40,000 people a year wouldn't die because they lack access to healthcare. "
Ok, and? 30,000 a year die in traffic accidents. That 40,000 a year is a small number overall and it is hard to say that they die just because of that. It is arguable that they die due to being in poor health to begin with where there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted.
"the US government can create money whenever it wants, which the MMT economists have shown"
The Federal Reserve controls the monetary supply. Also, you can't just print money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkyBnaYCUhw
" If the government spends more than it takes in, leaving a deficit, that simply means that there is more money in the private economy. "
Which devalues the currency that causes deflation.
" It can tax to manage inflation, "
Uh, that isn't how it works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derpyswede2507 , not true. The only thing that is similar to Bernie's plan and Scandinavia is his push for social welfare programs. That's it. Bernie wants higher corporate taxes, wealth taxes, and taxing the rich and wall street. Scandinavian nations tax all their citizens more. For example, the highest tax bracket in the US is at $400,000, that is around 8.5 times the highest average income. In the Scandinavian nations their highest tax bracket starts at around 1.5 times higher than the average income. For example, Denmark's highest tax bracket starts at around $55,000 a year.
Scandinavian nations tax their citizens more at a high rate, not just the rich. They don't have a Wall Street to tax, they tax businesses and corporations lower and have no wealth tax. They have a higher VAT tax and a close to 200% tax on cars. They also have no min. wage. Not to be rude but if you are Scandinavian I seem to know more about your economic system than you do. Bernie talks about the welfare system those nations have but ignores the tax system. As a guy from Denmark said, Bernie wants to spend like a Scandinavian but not tax like one.
Also, those nations are vastly different in culture. Read the book "Debunking Utopia" on that point. If you think US citizens are going to accept the Scandinavian economic model you don't know the US culture well.
As for Bernie praising communism, he has for decades. He did his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, he praised Castro and their revolution in Cuba in the 80s, he praised bread lines, he praised Ortega, etc. I am not talking about the recent 60 min. interview, he has a long history of it. Watch the ReasonTV video entitled
"Why Bernie Sanders' Communist Misadventures Still Matter"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GordieKat , here, I will copy and paste one of my comments
On the claims
1. Best nations: Consider that we have 320+ million people and still is very successful. The far left has to compare us to much smaller nations. So out of our pure size and the success we have we are arguably the best nation in the world. Kyle points to arbitrary rankings and Kyle has no clue how to look at objective stats.
2. Defense spending has been dropping for over 50 years. There is an argument that we need to fund it more. People like AOC want to give money illegals as opposed to our defense. That is anti-America
3. There is a push from some states to have late term abortion. Murder is a state law that can be adjusted in each state. Kyle clearly does not understand how laws are developed in this nation.
4. Trump doesn't care about the consequences because the far left doesn't. It is a reaction to what the far left says. Consider how Ilhan Omar rips on Trump for what he says and it causing reactions to people, but is quiet on this recent attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESGnB66Whtk
5. On immigration at this point they seem to be for open borders. They have no suggestion in how to reform our immigration or crack down on it. A recent video came out on it where AOC literally did not know the law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY7nsd_947U
6. Bernie's plan bans private insurance, period. Also, after Obamacare why should we trust politicians on healthcare reform?
7. A federal min. wage of $15/hr will kill jobs in many states, period. Kyle talks about other states but those "studies" don't factor in many other variables as other variables factor into employment.
Statistically, when you work full time year round, you are most likely not poor as only around 2% are poor.
Kyle really needs to stop talking about economics.
8. Abolishing the electoral college is a terrible idea. The states decide the president, not the people. Kyle does not understand how and why our nation is developed the way it is.
That last point is a great example in why they don't like America. The far left continues to lose so they want to change the rules. That is against standards, against principles, and against the design of this nation that does make it strong. So yes, Justice Democrats do hate America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Simon Farre , being blunt, your articles are predictable. I argue this issue so well because I read all types of articles from both sides. You did what Oliver did and what people on the far left do a lot. You take articles that makes the US system look awful without going deeper on the data. You are also ignoring the reality that a M4A system, like all universal healthcare systems, will have flaws.
Oliver picked individual stories which anyone can do. For example, in 2013 a UK girl named Natasha saw 13 doctors complaining about headaches. They simply said it was migraines. She was finally offered an MRI but had to wait months. The MRI found a tumor that, if caught sooner, would have been removed. She died. Why did that happen? Because in a universal healthcare system like the NHS, that does spend less, they cap how much care you receive. In the US they throw everything at you. There are arguments for and against that. Statistically yes, chances are that all she had was a migraine. But the old saying is "better be safe than sorry". So it becomes difficult to decide. You see this in universal healthcare often, advanced treatment being denied. That is why people die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery as point out in these two studies
"True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “
"Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
Or why up to 7000 die a year in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. Or, as pointed out in the study entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
Waiting a long time for "elective" care can lead to worse outcomes and bad results.
You see, here is the issue. I will go with your 45,000 stat and go deeper. That number has been challenged many times. To start, compared to other systems is that high, low or the norm? You can't say as no similar study has been done in other systems. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces, getting the exact numbers is difficult because the numbers are low to begin with. 45,000 is around 0.01% of the total population. Numbers that small are highly sensitive to to many variables. That is why Prof. Kronick in his study entitled
"Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited"
Wrote
"It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analyses, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States."
As prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As written in the book "Being Mortal", required reading for nursing students in my university, people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if we give them care and they live 5 months and die, was that a success?
And this comes down to the harsh reality of the situation. Our culture simply won't accept a universal healthcare system similar to what other nations have. Why? Because one, we won't accept the higher taxes, and two, we won't accept the limited access. In our society if one is very sick we keep them alive as long as possible. Is that the best route? One can argue either way. In my personal experience I just had a friend die of cancer. He was in bad shape his final month in a wheel chair, had a feeding tube and so on. Personally, why waste resources on him, just let him die. Or when my grandma was near the end, it added a lot of stress to the family. But they kept her alive even though he end was near. That is our culture. We try to keep the very sick alive. Other nations simply let them die and deny them advanced care. With them yes, they have no bankruptcies, yes, people have access to some form of basic care. And yes, a universal healthcare system can have benefits such as less stress as pointed out in the following study
"The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes"
Where she writes
"This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain."
So there are benefits to it, but there are drawbacks. I doubt our society will accept a system that limits access to advanced care and simply let the very sick die early.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 "7000 Australians don't die a year while waiting for elective surgery. The report shows that they either died or couldn't be contacted."
Again, I said "up to". As with any stat there are many variables to them. Now why don't you apply the same standard when talking about the US healthcare system? And you call me an economic illiterate?
"There has been no such challenge on the number of people dying in the US due to the inability to afford (not access) healthcare. The Oregon Experiment is not a valid source due to it's lack of sample size and details."
There has. Prof. Katherine Baicker challenged it. Prof. Kronick did his own study. As for the Oregon Experiment, it is published in the NEJM. That journal has the highest impact factor of any peer reviewed journal. Do you even know how the peer reviewed process works or what "impact factors" means?
I see nothing to suggest that Atul Gawande supports M4A. Even is so, what makes their argument moot?
"There would be less of a demand for advanced care if we had a system that made it afforable to get basic stuff like preventative care."
The Oregon Experiment paper suggests that is not true as even with access to healthcare their physical health was still poor. But hey, you feel a journal with an impact factor over 70 is not reliable. For comparison, Nature and Science are two very prestigious journals to publish in, they both have an impact factor of around 40. This shows you don't know what peer reviewed journals are.
John Oliver presented a few sources, but mainly individual stories. Again, I suggest you listen to experts, not comedians. But again, you feel that NEJM is not a reliable source despite its high impact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 , uh, it is subjected to many variables. That is how statistics work. Many factors influence the numbers.
"Just because NEJM has a high impact factor does not mean that every source they publish is entirely effective"
Sure, but the chances are very high. And you can't counter a peer reviewed study in a journal of that high of an impact with a non peer reviewed source like the Daily Beast. But unlike you I read other sources and break them down. I don't have others think for me. They say
"About 35,000 people won the lottery, and thus had the right to submit an application, but only about 60% of these lottery winners actually sent the application back. This ought to tell any common sense person a lot about the revealed preference for how much the uninsured value the coverage on offer."
It is so much a preference or lack of responsibility? People in poverty are typically poor for a reason, lack of responsibility. But they ignore that. Besides, the amount who submitted an application is irrelevant. They say
"the winner acted irrationally about long-term benefits versus immediate inconvenience. "
Which suggests irresponsibility on that part of the poor which is connected to their bad health and bad life style.
"This would mean that you couldn’t just compare the people who won the lottery and submitted the forms to those who lost the lottery. We don’t know who among the lottery losers would have been the ones to submit the application if they had won, so we would have to compare those who got the coverage only to the prudent losers of the lottery."
You can, and this is where the author of this non peer reviewed article is wrong. You can make that comparison. The point was to see how people who get insurance through medicaid compared to those who don't.
On the numbers they are way off. They say
"As an illustrative example, a reduction of 0.0001 in the probability of death over a ten-year horizon multiplied by 50 million uninsured people means giving 5,000 human beings a chunk of their lives back. I’d call that morally significant. "
And I will say that depending on the context it is not. For example, 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. We can make that zero by capping speed limits to 15 mph. But now travel time is greatly increased. So you can't just say "5000 is morally significant" with no other context. What does that 5000 come at a cost of?
Reading the rest of the report the only statistically insignificant part was the part on smoking. Did you actually read the article? I doubt it.
"To simply question the idea of how far doctors should go for their dying patients is unacceptable regardless of the cost, and that's exactly what Gawande is saying unlike you who merely cherry picks part of his parts of his book to create a bs narrative of how we should limit end-of-life care. "
He doesn't say that because you did not read his book. There is a lot more to it such as who should be making decisions on people's health near the end? Doctors, family members, the individual? He concluded that it is a challenging topic but talking about it is a great start. Just like the Daily Beast article you told me to read you did not read that book. You are making this way too easy for me.
" but if they're gonna to such lengths like presenting sources from experts and case study groups for people to explore for themselves, then there's nothing wrong with giving them a moment of my time."
Then read them. And counter with something that is not from a Daily Beast source. You can't counter a peer reviewed study with a blog. That is not how it works in academics. The NEJM is such a high impact and relevant to the field people can respond to the editor expressing their concerns about it. So why didn't Megan do that? It allows the authors to respond and have actual discussions? This also shows you did not read the NEJM study nor how it functions.
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 , uh, amenable mortality. I suggest you read the article entitled
"Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study"
Where they say
"Given these gaps in knowledge, between-country differences in levels of mortality from amenable conditions should not be used for routine surveillance of healthcare performance. The timing and pace of mortality decline from amenable conditions may provide better indicators of healthcare performance."
And the study entitled
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review."
Where they say
"At this stage, it is premature to use amenable mortality in ONS's healthcare output calculations. We welcome comments from those interested in this field, and suggestions to improve understanding in this area"
I also find it ironic how you are now bringing that up when I was the one who mentioned amenable mortality from the very beginning. Another sign you have no clue what you are talking about. I know your secret now. I bring up legit sources and you dig to find someone else's argument against them. You don't actually read them and think for yourself where I do. Also, the Peterson study is not peer reviewed and uses raw data, my studies are.
"For the record, the idiotic libertarian always assumes that quality and cost automatically go hand in hand in the sense that high quality requires high cost and vice-versa. However, Peter Hussey, Samuel Wertheimer, and Ateev Mehrotra came to the conclusion that merely increasing cost of healthcare does not automatically improve quality,"
It is basic economics that better goods and services cost more. And I agree, spending more does not necessarily mean better quality in a system. If money is spent poorly it doesn't matter. You see that often in government. For example, the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 led to more federal spending and lower quality. However, in the private sector if you don't spend well you go broke.
But again, I am citing peer reviewed sources, you are citing the Daily Beast.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Look up the fact I just offered you so that you might confirm for yourself that is, indeed, a fact. If your indeed a doctoral canddiate, I'd like to imagine that you have a basic understanding of reading comprehension, which leaves 'willful ignorance' as the only reason why you're playing dumb"
What do you want me to look up?
"I can also offer this; from the 2012 Texas State Republican campaign platform:"
Care to give a name?
"You think it's not for everyone? Alright, then why shouldn't it be an option? Seriously, if you actually believe that the right is full of intellectuals, giving them an education can only help your cause,"
Define "education". It comes from more than just college. After a K-12 education one can teach themselves. One does not need college to be educated. You can buy books and read the or read them online. There is more to college than an education. The value of college is developing connections as in professors and colleagues and peers, and showing employers you are willing to invest time and money into a long term goal. Also, it helps you learn life skills such as time and money management.
I see why many leftists get a college degree and fail. They have no idea how to approach college.
"The only reason to oppose the option is anti-intellectual distrust of an educated populace."
There is an argument to be made that "education" can be a form of indoctrination. You can't think for yourself so you need government funded education to do it for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You keep mentioning the payroll tax, which is one of those taxes that is
actually regressive. That's the sort of thing I was talking about for
regressive taxes. "
If you want to remove the payroll tax then I agree as it is regressive. It has caused many problems such as healthcare insurance being healthcare and people not being able to choose their own healthcare insurance.
"If we have a federal government that collects spending and spends money
on it's citizens, it's socialism? You don't understand what that word
means. A socialist society by definition has no personal ownership of
private property like factories or other means of production. Just
throwing some wealth redistribution on capitalism isn't the same thing."
Clearly you do not understand what wealth means as wealth does not equal income. So it goes both ways. Are we a completely socialist society? No. But we are far from free market.
"The biggest issue with complaining about the federal government
specifically, is that it just pushes the argument back to the states. Is
the welfare state also bad when a state does it? Is it not socialism
anymore?"
The more local government is the easier it is for the people to control. Milton Friedman even said there is a desire to have government, as long as it remains the servants and not the masters. You do that by keeping as local as possible because in doing so you can personally see if your tax dollars are being spent well and you can see if politicians are working in your best interest.
If you look at the design of this country that is how it was designed. The federal government was there to serve the states, not the people. The states managed the federal government. The states served the people where the people managed the states. Too much government is just as bad as no government. Too much government is one that is big that the people cannot control. You can control a local government much easier than a large, centralized one.
"Money in politics is not just a federal problem. If you eliminate the
federal government, state representatives are still easily bought out.
Money in politics is going to be a thing as long as money=speech.
Limiting government can itself be a goal of lobbyists."
At the local level you can control government easier. And if a state or city government does not function well you can either
1. Go to local meetings and demand a change
2. Rally to vote them out as your vote has more power
3. Move to another state and still be a US citizen
"Private sector labor union membership is actually the lowest its been since 1932, "
I have not problem with unions as long as they do not corrupt government. The problem is that they also have corrupted government. Unions are great as there are situations of large companies that will just fire people without reason. When you have a large company of hundreds of thousands of employees they can fire someone and no one will notice. Giving workers protection is great in that case. However, when they corrupt government that becomes a problem.
"Public and private combined has been cut in half since 1983"
Public unions should not exist as it is legalized money laundering. Public workers are there to serve us.
"You underestimate how many people rely on things like Disability, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid,"
Rely? More like under the strict rule of the federal government. That is the problem. The fact that the simple idea of removing those programs will lead to a revolt means the government has us under control. Now you have politicians saying "vote for me or you will lose your social security". Think about that? That politician is there to serve us. However, we are serving him now. We are giving him a job where he can have great influence in our lives out of the threat of us losing our social security.
This is not to say that state welfare programs are all bad. But you have to consider who is controlling who.
"Which is it? Are taxes too high, or spending? If the deficit has
decreased, one of them must have decreased. Unless the economy is good
enough, which makes the whole "taxes are what kill the economy" claim
bullshit anyway."
There is more to it than that. To me taxes are too complicated. I support a tax on the states at the federal level. And spending is too high. Cut a lot of federal programs and give them to the states. Another advantage of state ran programs is that they can be micromanaged easier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You make no sense. What point are you even making? I showed that
military spending is much larger now in real dollars and your point of
spending as % of GDP means nothing "
Because you are wrong. I earn $23,000 a year. That is poor in today's dollars. But in the early 1900s that was a lot. Yes, more money is being spent in defense. And more money is being spent in research, healthcare, education, buying cars, buying a door, buying a meal, etc. That is why you look at percent GDP. The GDP in 1950 was around $400 billion. Now it is around $18 trillion. The GDP is higher, so of course more money is being spent on defense in terms of real dollars.
"Hell, if you are being consistent, you would then conclude that
government spending increasing is a good thing since the GDP has
increased seven fold since social programs were implemented."
GDP was increasing to begin with.
Not to be rude but you clearly do not understand economics.
"Does population increase and correlated GDP increase warrant an equal increase in military spending and why?"
Defense spending has been dropping. In 1950 it was 10% of GDP, now it is 4% of GDP. Your question is bad at the beginning because defense spending is not increasing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You are describing a drastically different situation which isn't even correct, if you had a previous student that graduated and had nothing to do with the school, she can definitely treat you"
100% as many students have told me this based on the law they are forced to follow. Maybe it is just in my state. But this student broke it down to me that she would not even be allowed to talk to me if I was in the hospital. This is someone I know who is now a nurse (just got hired) and is looking to attend medical school soon.
Again, don't talk about something you know nothing about.
"What you are arguing essentially is, discrimination is fine as long as another doctor is there to serve. That is, if I say I don't want to help black people, it should be fine as long as another doctor is there which wants to serve a black person."
As long as you don't receive government dollars that is fine. You are saying that if you have a deep hatred for black people you should be forced to serve them. That means you will give the inferior care with other options are available. You want to force people to serve others they don't like placing that customer/patient's lives in danger.
To give you an example based on my profession. I have experience being an educator. Say I were to work for a private college as a professor and I hated gay people (I don't, just hypothetical) and I did not want to teach them. You forcing me to teach them means I will grade them with a bias, and teach them with a bias. And that bias is easy to hide. I can give them poor explanations in physics where I can give better explanations in physics to other students in office hours. It would behoove that gay person to pursue another physics professor.
To give another example. In my university there is a known white supremacist. They were outed during a debate one time on campus. It was a small controversy. One of my SJW lab mates who is a TA said they would grade that student with a bias if they had that. Is that fair to that student that just because of their belief they should be punished on something irrelevant? Should my co-worker be forced to treat them the same? If you do, how do you enforce it?
You want to force others to serve people they don't want to placing those customers in potential danger or in a situation where they will receive a inferior good/service. You are making the situation worse.
"If you are still to incompetent to understand, that is not only illegal but also should never be tolerated for any situations.'
The court of law deemed this situation to be 100% legal. So you also don't understand law. As far as "tolerated", I don't tolerate the idea of an oppressive government forcing me to serve people I don't want to serve. Or forcing anyone else as well. You apparently do. You seem to tolerate the idea of fascism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RabiesVariant01 , no, what Sanders is proposing is a centralized system. The more local a system it the more it serves the people. The easier it is to see if people are getting their money's worth. You have competition from other local governments. The easier it is to change. And when there is a problem it is localized. And the programs can run the way the people want.
Take the Flint water issue. As bad as it was it was localized to Flint. Imagine if we had a federal water system and that would have happened?
Now compare K-12 education. Different states value education differently. For example, in NV you can make $80,000 a year parking cars, or serving drinks. You can also make 6 figures in the mines. Where is the incentive to become educated in that state? That is their education system ranks low. It isn't the system but the culture. Now compare that to MA, one of the top states in education. That is home to MIT, Harvard, Boston College, etc. High ranking universities. Their culture values education more.
Having a centralized system is pushing for a one size fits all system. That won't work as it will favor one area over another. So no, what Bernie is proposing is not the same. In fact, his healthcare policy is dangerous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Austin Martín Hernández inflation is tricky. What method? CPI, PCE, GDP deflator? Also, just because the price of something goes up does not mean it is more expensive. Take cars. The price of cars went up, but cars are safer, last longer and get better gas mileage, all of which save money. So that counters inflation.
You say you mentioned facts when I can go deeper. Take, for example, a brick cell phone, when accounted for inflation cost over $2000, at least, in the late 80s. Now smart phones are literally given away. A smart phone that has more computing power than what put a man on the moon are given away. But based on your standard it should cost, at least, $2000.
It isn't as easy as to scream "inflation", there is more to it than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ugeofaltron5003 do you even know what that book by Rutger Bregman is even about? He promotes open borders which will be a disaster all around as there are still many nations with high crime and it will leak into developed nations. He promotes a universal basic income which will not work as it will lead to inflation. He supports a 15 hour work week which will lead to low productivity and more inflation. And he studied history, not economics. You are also ignoring several other factors as well such as psychological ones and, again, culture. I read one case study in how engineers from Germany and from the US, when two companies merged from the two nations, could not get along and thus production was slow. Or one I read recently in the book "Switch" about the case of Jerry Sternin alleviating malnutrition with kinds in villages in Vietnam. To help it he looked at examples of other kids in the same village and had the mothers look and compare. However, he could not look at other villages because they would have had the attitude of
"Those people aren't like us. Our situation is more complicated. Their ideas will not work here"
Point being, you can't just expect different cultures to merge and just get along. Thus, that book by Bregman is essentially a dream.
As for my book, it is written by Nima Sanandaji. He has written more books, has a PhD, and has been involve in actual policy decision. But how about you tell me what is wrong with his book? I broke down the flaws of the book you suggested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franklance9167
1. Ok, two. Do you have more? From what I read engineers haven't really looked into it because it is pie in the sky and the idea won't pass, so why bother?
Most scientists are skeptical on the issue of climate change as in if it is even a threat, how much man plays a role, and what is the solution. Also, when did I ever deny climate change?
2. Underfunded in CA? It ended up costing more than projected. Also, China is a completely different country with different laws. To install a bullet train in the US you have take away properties from people which is illegal. Also, as I said, the bullet train will increase travel time. A bullet train is 200 mph. NYC and LA are around 2800 miles apart. Assuming that you can build a straight line of track from NYC to LA it will take around 13 hours to travel via train. It takes around 6 hours via plane. Congrats, you just doubled travel time. And again, that is assuming if you build a straight line of track. You can't when you consider the mountain ranges and the private property you will have to go around.
It is clear you did not watch that video, but I will give you this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaf6baEu0_w
3. Ok, now what about cost and life time? That was actually brought up in that article. Will a company be willing to invest in that? You are making this seem way too simple. Again, trucks use diesel for a reason.
4. So we need extension cords that are 40 miles long?
5. Many people commute far to work. And fuck my autonomy? At this point I can see why you support the GND as it is a communist piece of legislation. You hate freedom.
6. Why is it called the "Green New Deal"? It is being pushed to combat climate change. So where does the gender pay gap play in?
7. In evolution some species die. I don't see a problem with that.
8. New species come up from evolution. Do you deny evolution? I feel you do. You do know that climate change is a driving force of evolution? I doubt it because you deny evolution.
Also, species move. You ever heard of Pangaea? I bet you feel man caused the continents to split up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrjollyguy25 , I argue the conservative side all the time? You really don't know me then. I disagree with Kyle because him and his fans are shallow. He has nothing but talking points and he completely dismisses the other side, that is a problem. Stephen Michael Douglas acknowledges that let wing ideas can work, and I do as well. Kyle and his fans literally say that there are no arguments from the right which is simply not true. Take healthcare for example, I have said there is a desire for government to provide healthcare to poor people, I just feel it should be the state or local governments doing it. But Kyle and his fan base push for M4A which bans private insurance and goes to centralized government. And when I suggest that would be a bad idea or have flaws I get called a right winger like what you do.
I work in science for a living and I know what scientists say. The issues with climate are
1. How much does man play a role?
2. Is it even a threat?
3. If it is than what is the solution?
Both sides politicize science, the difference is that Republicans want to leave science to the scientists. Also, the left continues to call Republican "anti science" to simply silence then when a lot of evidence exists that they are pro science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk&t=2s
That is the problem the left has. If you disagree with them in any way they simply name call and label you in order to silence you. You call me a denier when I never denied climate change. I question if it is a major threat as I feel the ecosystem will evolve and I feel the private sector is better suited at progressing us and not centralized government led by people who don't know what a garbage disposal is.
Politicians receive donations from people who align with their political beliefs, congrats. That has always happened. And fossil fuel companies are not all bad, Exxon helped fund wind farms
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/exxon-reportedly-eyeing-clean-energy-contracts#gs.efojjj
Oil companies do invest in a lot of research to limit waste. You are acting like if they are all bad when they aren't. They hire engineers to increase sustainability. I was talking to an engineer from BP the other day and his job is to find a use for a lot of left over oil after it goes through the refinery. They push to use it as opposed to wasting it. To make the argument of "oil companies bad" and "those politicians receive money from them" is over simplified. Ted Cruz is from TX, of course he receives money from oil companies.
I do know. One of the "consensus studies" simply looked at the abstracts and not the actual paper where abstracts leave out a lot of information. Other scientists were critical of Cook in that they said he misrepresented their work. Scientists such as Craig Idso and Nicola Scafetta. So you don't trust those scientists? Mike Hulme is quoted in saying in 2009
“What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change.”
Do you not trust him?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrjollyguy25 , I don't give Kyle credit because he refuses to acknowledge that there are experts on both sides of the aisle that disagree and have legit points. The man Kyle is talking about in this video had a small debate with Bill Nye and cited this paper
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11575
Droughts have not change in 60 years on this planet. That guy, Marc Morano, cited that so it does seem that he has done research on the issue. But Kyle simply dismisses him because he worked for infowars.
On M4A Kyle, at the very least, wants the federal government to force states to have it which is no different than having the federal government run it. Also, Bernie's M4A bill does ban private insurance which he does not say. Kyle claims supplemental insurance will exist for "chin surgery" when in reality insurance will not cover that. Also, "elective surgery" is just cosmetic surgery, it can also include neurosurgery like it does in Australia
https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/3323daca-3c97-411c-8de0-610502649b6b/ah16-6-10-elective-surgery.pdf.aspx
I told you left wing ideas I agree with. I agree with a lot like government run healthcare, push for increasing our infrastructure, or regulations on businesses. I just want them managed at the state level. I see the argument and desire for them, I just want the states to manage it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Mr Pink, you are still using a logical fallacy to portray your argument.
You can't assume that rich people couldn't simply vanish"
I very much can. Bernie's number topic in all of his speech is that there are rich people and they have too much money, thus we need to take from them to pay for things. What if there weren't any rich people? Or what if you tax rich people so much they are no longer rich?
"More over, the US, ss it is, is a stable self-sustaining economy that,
given a depression, can easily go into deficit spending like FDR did
from the Great Depression and into the years of WWII. "
That deficit spending that FDR did created the great depression. It hindered recovery. The only too times it took more than 5 years to recover from a recession was the recession of 1929 and the recession of 2007. They are also the only two times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy by spending.
The reality is spending isn't good, what's good is producing. You can tax and spend all you want, but if people do not produce than goods do not exist.
"His tax policy was brutal and his was the least demanding of the rich
(Eisenhower increased taxes). It almost paid off our original debt,
until low tax retards and warmongers decided that they wanted to cash in
on the business of war and top-down economics."
Not true. No on paid that high tax rate. In 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned more than $200,000 that paid $0 in federal taxes. That is why we had the Tax Reform Act of 1969.
"I personally believe in the Scandinavian tax model of high taxation (up
to 70%) for individuals and families to pay for damn public debt that
both Republicans and Democrats refuse to address and cover the
essentials for an educated, productive society."
Funny you bring up productivity and education. The US is in the top 5 in productivity and our education system is great at the college level which is for the most part private as people pay for it out of pocket. The US has the best university system in the world.
"Further incentives could be added to companies that produce locally"
I agree, but that should be left to the local government, not the federal. You can't ask a government overseeing 320+ million people to micromanage like that. You praise the Scandinavian model when you need to realize those countries are smaller than many of our states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnsphpaulin1162 , according to the census website the median household income is around $62,000. You have to factor that in. With your numbers, again, cost of living. Just glancing on Zillow, you can find one bedroom apartments in Laramie, WY for around $600 a month. So again, you can't just throw numbers out there. You need to put them in perspective.
You can't use lifespan as an indicator of healthcare systems as many factors outside of healthcare influence it. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number one in life expectancy. On happiness that is flawed as well as that is highly influenced on culture. Also, it is very subjective. And you talk about taxing the rich when other nations tax all of their citizens more, not just the rich.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" it is true that single payer is cheaper. There have been numerous
studies showing that by going to a single payer system we would save
about 5 trillion dollars over 10 years. "
No legit study exists. I have seen the "studies" and they are all over the place. They do not use consistent data analysis.
"A lot of that savings comes from bloated administrative waste, advertising, and or course the profit margin, etc"
Advertising is a drop in the bucket. I agree profits are a problem with how big they are, but a free market would cure that. Profit margins for businesses in the free market are very thin, as in less than 10%. Administration cost is highly misleading as government as the ability to transfer the cost to other agencies, like the CDC for example. Some overhead cost in insurance goes into disease awareness where the government has the CDC for that. Include that cost with healthcare in the government and cost go up.
". I would just encourage you to look up the numbers on single payer compared to our current system from a non biased source. "
I have seen many sources on it. To start, what is "non-bias"? Next, do you factor in quality? Finally, healthcare is very complex. To just say "single payer is cheaper" is ignoring a plethora of variables. Consider this, doctors spend many years in school and residency for a reason. Even in other countries healthcare is 10% of GDP. Compare that to education where it is around 5%. Healthcare is that complex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dav, your defense spending numbers are misleading. You are looking at total dollars. Do you know we are also spending more on education? Should we cut that as well? In 1960 we were at 10% of GDP in defense spending. It has dropped down to less than 4%. That is what you should compare those dollars to.
" But I never said that wealth equals income"
You have in the thread started by thes7274473
"90% of us are (or were in 2013) in the dark grey area, while 50% are in the near non-existent darker grey area. Those 50% are probably seriously struggling to make ends meet, if not completely destitute and/or living in a car. The Koch Brothers and others are way up at the top of the light grey area. Yes, they have too much money. "
That was in reference to a wealth inequality link.
" if you are making a lot of money you are VERY likely to have a lot of money. If you are not making a lot of money you are very likely to be poor."
It isn't that easy. You are not poor because someone else is rich. You are poor because you are poor. I earn $23,000 a year, I am not poor for various reasons. There are people earning millions. They can earn billions and my life style would not change as a whole. Complaining about rich people is just pure jealousy.
"Your 16% statistic refers to mandatory spending. I was referring to discretionary spending. Any way you slice it, we spend more than the next several countries combined on the military."
We also spend more on education than many of those countries combine, do you want to cut education spending as well? I heard the stat of us spending more than the next 8 countries combine. If you combine those countries GDP and defense spending their spending is around 2.5% of GDP, ours is at 3.5%. So a difference of a percent. Not so large now. We spend more then them combine because our GDP is larger than many of those countries combine. But again, by your standard we should cut education spending as well.
"Healthcare costs are out-of-this-world high in America."
I agree, because we lack a free market system.
" It's actually a lot easier than you think to get costs down: 1. Single-payer medicare for all. 2. Proper regulation of medical costs, especially pharmaceuticals. "
It ins't that easy. In reality single payer would raise prices as you are increasing demand without increasing supply. Saying "regulations" is very vague.
" Don't just let the companies charge anything they want for prescription drugs. "
Ok, they will just lower quality.
"You believe there should be more spending on the military, which is for killing people, than on healthcare,"
Military does way more than kill people. It does research, humane work, help in emergency situations domestically, etc. Also, I never said once I support increasing the defense budget, I am just pointing out that cutting it down to zero would not come close to paying for healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dav, again, you pointed me to a wealth inequality chart. Here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2.png
That is what you pointed me to. I am in the bottom 50% because I have negative wealth. I have student loan debt and essentially zero assets. I am fine as I earn $23,000 in income a year and live in an area where that is plenty to live off of. The average homeowner has over 60% of their wealth tied into their home. The average home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to now wealth. That does not mean they are struggling. Think of the millions of people who own a home and that's it. They are in that 50% you claim to be "seriously struggling". Everyone in my apartment complex are in that 50% and I bet you almost none of them are "seriously struggling". Why? Because they have an income level to make ends meet. They just have no wealth as they have no assets.
You are making the false assumption that people with little to no wealth are poor. That is not true. In fact a good portion, like me, have negative wealth due to loans. Someone with no debt and no assets and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because of loans. Are those people struggling to make ends meet? Maybe. But many aren't, like me as the loans are home loans or student loans. Things that are major investment.
That is where you are equating wealth to income. You are saying little to no wealth means one is poor. Poverty is based on income.
"As I have said, we have, above and beyond the largest military ever
conceived. And we are currently invested militarily in 8, or is it 9,
different countries that did NOT attack us."
And? Other nations invest in us. We do so to keep a civil standing. Most conflicts are settled off of the battlefield. Anymore violent conflict are against nations that are not established or terrorist.
" We shouldn't cut education even more because then people in general would be even less able to critically think. "
Like falsely equating wealth and income :). That aside, my point was that we spend more on education than we do many nations combine. You said we spend more on defense than many nations combine as an argument we spend too much. I am just using your argument against you. Also, not to be rude, but I see a complete lack of critical think skills on your part. You just gave an ultra leftist talking point on defense spending. Again, of course we spend more than a lot of countries combine. Our entire GDP is larger than a lot of countries combine. That is why we also spend more on education than them.
"It's bad enough that school weeks in Oklahoma have already been cut to 4
days in some places, and that school teachers aren't being paid for
shit for educating the next generation of Americans. "
Education is ran locally. Also, one can argue that less time out of the classroom benefits students. Education involves more than just students in a government building listening to government workers regurgitate. I support public education as I work in it. However, there is a lot to reform. Cutting down to 4 days a week can have benefits. Students can spend more time at a job, or doing activities in the community, or with families and so on. Think critically here. The 4 day a week school system is the status quo. Maybe it is time to change? Less days also means less money to spend running the school so maybe teachers get paid more?
" You seem to like talking a lot about statistics, and I guess that's one way of arguing, but I have often cited real examples."
I have a math minor.
"65 of whom hold more wealth than the bottom half of the world's population."
Again, that is deceptive. The Walton family owns so much wealth because they own half of Walmart. That means the shares of Walmart. Walmart is valued as high as it is due to the revenue it generates and number of people they employ. The wealth they own is not oil, food, cars, homes, etc. It is shares of Walmart. If you were to give their portion of Walmart to an average person that company will go broke as they would not be able to manage it lowering the wealth.
Also, you have many people, like me, who have negative wealth and are fine. Not everyone has the desire to run a major corporation. In all reality a poor person in Ethiopia has more wealth than I do. They have zero wealth with no debt or assets. I have negative wealth. Now whose life is better? Mine with my high speed internet and advanced education, or the poor person in Ethiopia?
This is why you citing wealth inequality is very misleading. Again, think critically here.
"Tell people who are starving in Yemen or Somalia (Yemen is in large part
because of the US backing of Saudi Arabia incidentally, and happens
with our seal of approval), or the 500,000 homeless population in
America that they are 'jealous' of the rich because they resent this
injustice."
Those countries are in dire need and are a completely different discussion in itself. But you have way more wealth then they do, why don't you pay higher taxes to help them out? You are near the 1% if you include them in the stats. As for homeless in the US, those are the very poor and are an issue. It is not an easy problem as a lot have severe mental problems and act violent or cannot be cured. Again, it would be great of government can just wave a magic wand and fix these things, they can't.
"Putting it lightly we have the highest drug costs in the world. "
We also lead the world in R&D. Also, a free market system can lower prices like it did for LASIK.
"And they already have lowered the quality in some cases, "
Uh, it is close to a consensus that the US has the highest quality of care.
"The military's PRIMARY intended function is to kill people."
Nope, the primary intent is to defend. As I said, most conflicts are settled off of the battle field. We have programs like R&D through them as well to aid in that. We help other nations with our military to maintain a strong relationship. I know many members in the military who never killed a single person.
"Single payer medicare for all would SAVE money in the long run"
100% not true. Economically that makes zero sense. You are increasing demand without increasing supply. Heck, you just complained about schools having to cut spending and go to less days. By your idea schools, which are government ran, should be swimming in cash.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Random dude the vast majority in the US do have access to doctors. In fact, the US has the highest access to advanced testing in the world. In other nations good luck getting the MRI or CT scan when you need it. And having to wait is an issue. While waiting people have died or become worse off physically, psychologically and financially. So yes, wait times are a concern.
As for Italy being the new Venezuela, I would not go that far. But the far left in the US does want to copy the Venezuela's model, so there is a legit argument there. As for nations doing better, a lot of that have to do with culture and not the healthcare system. In the US we are doing well. Where we are struggling are in high dense areas like NYC. But our individualist culture has it so individuals are not taking proper precautions. Take a lot at all the people partying during spring break for example.
As for your wife, she clearly did something wrong. I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. If you go to graduate school in a STEM field you get paid to go. If not than the school did not want you there to begin with. I am being paid to attend college right now. So there is no "high cost of getting a PhD in science" unless you simply was not that good. And as for your wife earning less than a nurse, I find that hard to believe unless, again, your wife is simply not that good. I have friends with PhDs in physics that earn 6 figures in low income areas. They are well off. If your wife is a professor and does publish she should have tenure, or receiving it soon where that is a job guarantee. That is another form of payment. So gain, if your wife is really not earning much she must be very weak in her field. But during my time in graduate school I have seen a ton of unqualified individuals receive PhDs, so I guess your wife is one of them.
As for nurses and doctor and the cost of college. It is well known that med school is expensive and a common point is that you simply pull out a loan and pay it off later with a high salary of being a doctor. So cost is not an issue there either. And most can afford college, they simply refuse to go and simply can't. So you have it wrong there as well.
1
-
1
-
@therealnoofle5330 2000 participates in a nation of over 300 million is not much. Also, as with any poll, they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. When you bring up the fact that taxes will go up many say no. Simply saying it will replace the cost of private insurance is not that easy. Many, like myself, pay very little in healthcare right now. So yes, I, and many, will be paying more.
As for caring about profits over people, in capitalism to earn a profit you have to serve the people. If you don't no one will buy their product. What incentive does government have? Essentially nothing. So sure, under M4A we may pay less (I doubt it but whatever), but we will also be receiving less as government has no incentive to actually improve and provide the best product out there.
1
-
1
-
@therealnoofle5330 local government has more incentive as laws are typically enforced locally and same with schools. But at the federal level government has very little if any incentive.
Promote general welfare is just that, promote, not provide. But consider the many times government simply refused to serve the public, especially at the federal level. Why? Because they have no incentive. This is especially true with no competition. But again, back to the local part of government. Looking at law enforcement and public schools, which are ran locally, is a flawed argument when pushing for a federal program.
With insurance companies, they don't set the price, healthcare providers do. Drug prices are high because of our massive R&D and also drug companies donate a lot of drugs and resources (such as training) to developing nations. In all, we subsidize the world.
Saying it "works" in other nations is flawed as they have many shortcomings themselves. For example, they have less R&D and lower access to advanced testing. Also, you have the issue of culture. Those nations have different cultures than us. And as for being unsatisfied, most in the US enjoy their healthcare insurance. That is what makes reform so difficult.
"And either way, why would you want a system that judges whether you're worth being taken care of with the money in your pocket?"
M4A will lead to just that.
"The very nature of capitalism seeks to find the most many for your buck and if that means charging people thousands of dollars for treatment they have to get in order to live, then they'll do that? Why? For profit."
In capitalism in order to profit you have to provide people with a good/service they demand. If not no one will buy it. A major problem we have in healthcare is that it is not a free market system even though many feel it is.
"I will reiterate, people who support M4A are aware that taxes will rise that will replace current health insurance and cover ANYTHING whether you had it already insured in your plan or not"
It won't cover anything as medicare pays 40% less. Under M4A we will end up being like other nations where care is denied.
1
-
@therealnoofle5330 I agree on profit. But if you charge too much no one will buy it. I agree, competition does keep prices down. In healthcare I also agree there is no competition in insurance, but it isn't because of lack of regulations but too much regulations. For example, it is not legal to compete across state lines. Also, a big one is that healthcare insurance is a form of payment by employers. Most cannot choose their own healthcare insurance as their employer, because of the payroll tax enacted by the federal government, pays their employees with healthcare insurance. I rather be paid a higher wage and force insurance companies to compete. However, government law prevents that.
As for negotiating demand when life is in danger, insurance is there to counter that. Insurance is there to take in unplanned, expensive situations. Problem is that insurance covers things one can pay for out of pocket. Why? Because healthcare insurance is a form of payment thus it covers all of healthcare. Healthcare insurance should be like car insurance. Car insurance will cover an accident which is unplanned, but it does not cover oil changes even though it is necessary for a safe, and reliable car. Healthcare insurance should operate the same way but doesn't because it is a form of payment. Look at LASIK eye surgery. Over time it has become cheaper and better. It is not covered by insurance but is paid for out of pocket.
Second, M4A depends on the money the government is willing to pay. For example, I went and saw my psychologist yesterday. A couple was there and said Medicare will not cover over the phone therapy, that they had to show up in person. Many therapy sessions are going to over the phone right now for obvious reasons, but Medicare would not cover it. So that what determines will be paid or not.
Third, culture has a lot to do with how a system operates and what government programs are put in place. The US, according to Hofstede Cultural Dimension, is a very individualistic, masculine, risk taking nation. Compare that to Finland who is more collective and more feminine. Same with Norway. Norway scores an 8 on masculinity which, the more feminine you are the more the culture thinks about the greater good of society where more masculine society values things like wealth. Good or bad that is the culture. Compare to the US the cultures are more collective and more feminine. Thus their society is willing to have these strong welfare programs. Also, how they implement them as well is key. Nations like Finland and Norway have more of a flat tax compared to the US, a VAT tax, and lower corporate taxes. Them, as a collective society, also are willing to pay for them. The US, with our culture won't.
Fourth, Those studies make vague interpretations about the economy and also use numbers in where Medicare pays 40% less. On the economy, many are making the assumption the economy exist in a vacuum as opposed to being all connected. For example, the UMass study had a portion where jobs would be lost in the insurance industry but estimated a cost for relocation. If you force relocation from one city to another you change demand in housing where the homes being moved from drop in value and the ones being moved to go up in value. Hard to guess on that. Also, you are ignoring issues like property taxes. If an insurance company goes away that will be less property taxes for a local community. That will cause issues. So there will be cost elsewhere. On the 40% cut, if you cut pay to healthcare providers by 40% there will be quality and access issues. None of those studies, from the ones I read, even bring that up.
Fifth, at the federal level you have far less control over the government. Also, the programs you mentioned are a drop in the bucket in terms of cost and is something basically everyone agrees should exist (minus wars but a defense is necessary). Not everyone agrees the federal government should manage healthcare. The federal government has two roles, deal with foreign affairs and handle commerce between states. Let us look at the programs you mentioned
Interstate: Commerce between states for travel and the postal service
Tax returns: The individual income tax used to be unconstitutional. I will come back to this
Enforcing laws: The federal government enforcing laws across state lines because of the commerce clause. If they did not states will become mad
Defense: We need a defense so foreign enemies don't take over.
As for the incentive, an interstate program is needed for travel and keeping the economy moving. Laws, I gave you the incentive there in that states will sue. Defense, without one foreign nations take over us. But let us look at taxes. Again, federal individual income taxes used to be unconstitutional, it used to be a tax on the states. But it exist and it is thousand of pages long. When was the last time the federal government educated you on the tax code so you can get the most of your return? I have never seen it happen. I had to do it myself. There is no incentive for the federal government to do what is best for people such as educating them on the tax code. Consider that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1