Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Would Medicare for All Actually Save Us Money?" video.
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eugger3011 "All of the examples that you stated weren't bad government regulation, they were half-baked government regulation." - so it doesn't count because reasons. Okay.
"A wage increase with a loophole is better than no wage increase at all." - are you out of your mind?
Wage increases were BANNED by law in many occupations because the US govt sent off people to die. And then created an unequal situation where wages were taxed but healthcare insurance benefits weren't, which benefited employers. The measures literally threw the people under the bus while giving employers a benefit and you think this is a good thing?
It's one of the reasons US healthcare is totally fucked and you're defending it.
"Medicare and Medicaid that's partially paid for by the government is better than insurance that you fully pay for" - MY DUDE PLEASE READ READ READ READ WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PAY, THE PEOPLE END UP PAYING THROUGH INCREASED HEALTHCARE COSTS
"And the example of employer insurance being exempt from the tax code is an example of deregulation, as they're no longer regulated by tax" - No, because wages were still being taxed. The US govt literally passed a REGULATION that stated they wouldn't tax healthcare benefits. If there was deregulation then the government would allow the employer to choose to give you an untaxed wage increase. Forcing employers to pick a specific form of payment to get the best bang for their buck is a regulation in itself.
For fuck's sake, the government literally BANNED you getting paid more but you call this deregulation.
"but how was the public worse off with these programs?" - I'd be repeating myself but these programs created bad market incentives that took away choice and increased costs.
"Corporate lobbyists want deregulation, not regulation" - then why do they write regulation for politicians to pass? Look at copyright law, Mickey Mouse should be inthe public domain but Disney keeps changing the law.
"They want to be able to do whatever they want, so why would they want more regulation for themselves?" - because de-regulation allows for competition. If you tweak regulations, you can make the letter of the law essentially ban new companies from competing with you. This is widely known.
1
-
@eugger3011 "My original argument was that the free market doesn't work for healthcare" - why?
"And you might be right on the specific examples that you stated, but in general government regulation does not rip off the consumer." - but it does. Most of consumer goods, which are moderately regulated, have dropped in price over the last few decades. Education, healthcare, housing, etc high regulated markets have rised several times above inflation. Hell, the government regulation passed to promote home ownership forced banks to issue riskier loans, one of the reasons for the housing crisis.
"I don't get how corporations would want regulation if they're being negatively impacted" - if you make a product that complies with the regulation but your competitors don't, you essentially got a huge head start.
"An automobile manufacturer won't support regulation that bans cars that don't match up with safety standards because it'll be more expensive to make cars." - read 'em and weep: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/6/18655820/ford-gm-toyota-automakers-trump-lower-emissions-standards-letter-california
17 automobile manufacturers asked Trump to back off deregulation because it's cheaper for them to have all their products obey the same standards. Deregulating too much would actually cost them money.
"Public healthcare that's free actually reinvigorates competition into the market" - no, it doesn't. Because it's "free", aka the government takes your money, there's less competition. They already have your money. There's no incentive to offer a better service.
"I don't see this as bad government regulation." - you only learned about 7 hours ago that many times government regulation makes things worse for the consumer, and somehow what you think is good or bad regulation matters.... You're still working under the naive assumption that government = good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Howling-Mad-Murdock "The figures for how efficient the nhs is are freely available" - yeah I'm sure the government figures were never cooked, just like a decade ago the home office was exposed cooking up the crime numbers to protect tourism revenue.
Forgive the nitpicking but I here it goes
In 1955/6 health spending was 11.2% of the public services budget. In 2015/16 it was 29.7%.[53] This equates to an average rise in spending over the full 60-year period of about 4% a year once inflation has been taken into account. Under the Blair government spending levels increased by around 6% a year on average. Since 2010 spending growth has been constrained to just over 1% a year.[53] Many minor procedures may no longer be available from 2019 and the real reason may be to cut costs.[54]
Since 2010, there has been a cap of 1% on pay rises for staff continuing in the same role. Unions representing doctors, dentists, nurses and other health professionals have called on the government to end the cap on health service pay, claiming the cap is damaging the health service and damaging patient care.[56]
The Guardian has said that GPs face excessive workloads throughout Britain and that this puts the GP's health and that of their patients at risk.[61] The Royal College of Physicians did a survey of doctors in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Two-thirds of doctors surveyed maintained patient safety had deteriorated during the year to 2018, 80% feared they would be unable to provide safe patient care in the coming year while 84% felt increased pressure on the NHS was demoralising the workforce.
The NHS is underresourced compared to health provisions in other developed nations. A King’s Fund study of OECD data from 21 nations, revealed that the NHS has among the lowest numbers of doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita in the western world.[65] Nurses within the NHS maintain that patient care is compromised by the shortage of nurses and the lack of experienced nurses with the necessary qualifications.[66]
Social care will cost more in future according to research by Liverpool University, University College London, and others and higher investment are needed. Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard of the Royal College of GPs said, “It’s a great testament to medical research, and the NHS, that we are living longer – but we need to ensure that our patients are living longer with a good quality of life. For this to happen we need a properly funded, properly staffed health and social care sector with general practice, hospitals and social care all working together – and all communicating well with each other, in the best interests of delivering safe care to all our patients.”[109]
There's a point to all this. You can give me the numbers but it seems to me that it's inefficient as hell. If costs increase 4 percent by year and the NHS had to get its funding cut to keep the cost rise at 1 percent... You're trying to bleed into a hole that leads to the ocean. It's gonna keep costing more and it's already understaffed so if it was actually working properly cost increases would be even worse. And you're trying to tell me it's well managed. I don't think so. If costs almost tripled within 50-60 years what do you think is gonna happen in 2070 and the UK's NHS costs 60 percent of the budget?
”If you’re not American, why defend a system whose sole reason to exist is profit?” - 1. because I'm not. 2. Everything requires profit. Even you require profit, animals require profit. Imagine if you spent more money getting to work than you were getting paid. You'd be losing money. Animals need to eat more nutrients from the animal they kill than they spent chasing prey or else eventually they get malnourished. Even plants require profit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@b1bbscraz3y that's not true. They actually paid very little because the bracket for high income wages was so high, very few were rich enough to get it. And the rich weren't even rich enough for the 90% to be a lot. For example if the 90% was on the 100,000+ bracket, then a very wealthy man earning 110,000 (which used to be a lot) would only be taxed 90% of his 10,000 dollars. So that bracket was nearly useless. When the tax cuts were implemented more people became more wealthy and although tax rates were lower, they paid more through taxes. If you make a million but pay 30% taxes, the government pockets 300,000. That's more than 9,000.
"also no one has called for taxing anyone at 90% so you're lying" - don't you EVER call me a liar. OP said tax the rich 90% and you said, like almost the majority of the 20th century. I simply corrected your history knowledge and never claimed anything about anyone wanting to tax 90%. I just responded.
"go look up Sanders' tax plan and stop being a bootlicker for people with more money and more power than you" - LMAO sanders has more money and power than you, and yet you act like a bootlicker for him
1
-
1
-
@b1bbscraz3y Several things you've shotgunned at the wall and many of them wrong.
"I believe the 90% tax applies to those making millions" - oof, this discussion has been happening way before people were earning millions per year. If you made 100,000 in the early 1900's you were Great Gatsby level rich.
"when the tax cuts were implemented more people also became more poor, and wages became stagnant" - and employment went down and government revenue increased as well. Wages becoming stagnant is the natural effect of a recovering Europe and Asia competing with America. Want higher wages like in the 1960's? Start WWIII to curbstomp Europe and Asian industries and tell women to be stay at home moms. It's not the 1960's anymore.
"trickle down economics is a fantasy" - because it doesn't exist. Trickle Down Economics was a smear invented by butthurt historians to get back at Andrew Mellon. There is no economic theory called trickle down or that works like trickle down is said to work. Andrew Mellon's stated goal during the Coolidge era was to shift the burden of taxation towards the wealthy and it worked, while also shedding four and a half billion from the national debt.
"I call people whatever the fuck I want" - then that makes you a liar, and by being a liar you're already forfeited this argument. Thanks for playing, you already lost. But I'll keep beating you to the ground.
"OP was obviously being sarcastic" - It is completely irrelevant. You implied that taxation was high in the 20th century and I countered that rhetoric because I have seen hundreds of people parrot that incorrect factoid. What number he said or whether he was sarcastic or not has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.
"the fact still remains the nominal rate was 90%
" - which matters for absolutely nothing considering almost nobody paid that rate, and the bracket was so high most rich people only barely earned above it, meaning that the 90% tax barely contributed to government revenue.
"apparently you don't understand how lobbying, political donations, and bribery works" - Irrelevant. You've giving me corruption talking points when I simply flipped the script - you can't accuse others of being bootlickers and then shill for a career politician.
"yet he is the most grassroot funded politician in the country donated to overwhelmingly by working class people" - and he threw it all away when he bent the knee to the DNC. No refunds.
"he just simply has the most amount of fact-based data and evidence on his side to back his positions" - you mean like his support or breadlines or claiming there's too many deodorants? Or when he kept claiming Scandinavia was socialist and even the prime minister of Denmark or whatever had to respond? I understand people putting their foot in their mouth when they talk for a living but Bernie's position is hardly the FACTS and LOGIC kind. He's an idealist and he'll pick the facts and data that supports his side, just like everyone does.
"[some strawman bs]" - Irrelevant, and also your personal opinion. Blog it, don't post it as an argument.
1
-
@b1bbscraz3y in 1921 you were taxed at 73 percent if you made over 100,000.
"so tax cuts made employment go down and government revenue increase. so why do you support tax cuts then? the logic is inconsistent" - stop being asinine
"if that's the only way you think wages can be raised" - it's the way it worked in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm just stating the facts.
"an accurate term" - it isn't.
"to describe the fantasy economics of the Reagan era" - except that it doesn't come from the Reagan era, please stop being wrong about history
"don't like the term, that's your problem" - by that logic I can call your ideology Asspoop and it ruins the country. It doesn't reflect reality, your problem.
"that is just a term to use to more quickly name the Reagan-era economics that ruined the country" - except that the tax cuts, AGAIN, pulled America out of a crisis, increased government revenue and solved unemployment. And the kicker is, Reagan's problem is that HE INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING. That's what fucked him over and caused the deficit.
"that's actually not irrelevant. because I said no one is calling for 90% taxes, and your response to that was saying that OP is calling for 90% taxes." - except I didn't.
"the nominal rate was still 90% and the effective rates were higher than they are today
" - except that lower nominal rates increased government revenue.
"you don't know the difference between getting money from the citizens of your country which is and should be what a public servant does" - no, it isn't. They get paid more than enough through the government. The taxpayer already funds these leeches, the citizens shouldn't be compelled to fund them even more.
"Sanders was opposed to the Reagan foreign policy of intervention" - but supported the bombing of Yugoslavia and had anti-war protesters evicted from his talk.
"all fact-based data and evidence show to be the best systems in the world" - but also the worst.
"universal healthcare systems are consistently the best ranked and most efficient systems on the planet earth" - but the US ranks 37th, right? There's like 170 countries in the world. You don't get to toss out 140 test tubes and say yeah these 40 test tubes confirm my hypothesis. That's not science.
"I don't know what this refers to" - exactly, because it was so unimportant you don't even remember
1
-
1
-
1
-
1