Comments by "DEL J" (@IWLDELJ) on "Why American Health Care Makes No Sense" video.

It has nothing to do with biased media. He doesn't make sense to anyone who is willing to do their own objective research. Bernie's appeal is purely to ignorance. Bernie's camp is nearly devoid of all critical thought. People eat up what he says because they like the way it sounds too much to analyze it objectively before deciding that it's correct.
6
@jodders619 No. I'm not ignoring the evidence of "EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON EARTH," and pretending that I am just proves that you haven't actually researched it. I KNOW that single payer systems don't work BECAUSE I've studied the other countries. I've looked at their official economic records published by their government. Every one that was accessible in English, anyway. They are all insolvent. Every single one. They are going broke. This is all while having higher health conscious populations than the US. Beyond that, the largest problems in the US system are caused by government programs. The US government constricts supply of providers and of facilities, meanwhile they subsidize demand directly and indirectly. You are the one arguing the flat earth of economics. Supply, demand, and scarcity are realities that exist, and do not go away because a policy promised to overcome them. If you people cared as much as you wish to convey that you do, then you would care enough to do the work to check out how those situations are actually developing.
2
@Kyroro97 Yeah. So? Is that relevant?
2
@ScroteLopez You guys' positions would be laughable if they weren't so worrying. Your healthcare isn't free. That's a fact. It's free at the point of service. It's also a fact that I've researched the official numbers of every government run health system of every country that makes their numbers available in English, and literally every single one of them is insolvent. It's among the most concerning things I've ever seen. One of the few things more concerning is that people don't know this fact, or don't care. What you are doing when you promote non-market based healthcare is you are purchasing temporary luxury at the cost of the future. FACT. The numbers agree.
2
@shiishani3302 I know that single payer systems don't work BECAUSE I've studied the other countries. I've looked at their official economic records published by their government. Every one that was accessible in English, anyway. They are all insolvent. Every single one. They are going broke. This is all while having higher health conscious populations than the US. Beyond that, the largest problems in the US system are caused by government programs. The US government constricts supply of providers and of facilities, meanwhile they subsidize demand directly and indirectly. It's empiric, it's objective, it's fact. You can't argue with the FACT that the trend says unsustainable. You are purchasing temporary luxury at the expense of the future, and just hoping you can kick the can far enough down the road to get to fully automated magic medicine before it collapses, which evidence suggests would come about quicker in a market based industry.
2
@jodders619 The fact that you think any sort of bias is what made me see the actual fucking numbers published directly by the NHS is proof that you haven't cared to check the numbers. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00724/SN00724.pdf There is NO room for interpretation. It follows the same exact trend as every other socialized healthcare program that I've found available in English, it looks almost exactly like the graphs and tables from the US federal government and US state government medical systems. https://www.cms.gov/files/zip/nhe-tables.zip Tell us how to run our shit when yours is solvent.
2
@jodders619 Do you... not know what insolvent means? Insolvent means unable to pay debts owed. It takes time to become insolvent. It doesn't happen instantly. You keep accruing more debt until you are finally in way over your head. This is something that happens with every nation state that engages in massive spending. That being said, link me your country's official economic information in English. I will read it myself and tell you point blank if your country is insolvent or not. If you're the person from Austria, then I admit I've not read your country's economic publications. I have only read Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, Scotland, United States, and Wales that I remember off the top of my head. They all have the same trajectory. Some are in DEEP trouble already, others aren't quite there yet, but the graphs look the same, just in different time frames. The US is no exception, and unlike people seem to think, social programs in the US make up a larger share of spending than even our defense. The US federal government's largest debt is Medicaid/Medicare, followed by social security, THEN defense. They should ALL be cut to nothing.
2
@ScroteLopez Why is it that you guys can so rarely make a comment without revealing MORE ignorance. You are just grasping at straws, hoping you'll get something right and nail something I don't know. You plainly haven't looked at the numbers. I have. Those programs are not unsustainable because of a hypothetical conservative privatization effort. Why don't you just admit you've never looked at the official publications instead of trying to pretend that opinion pieces are official records?
1
@shiishani3302 I'm well aware of the debt. The exact clock that you linked confirms that BOTH of our largest expenditures are social expenses. Nearly country has debt because of democracy giving ignorance the same weight as knowledge. If you cared to read more of my comments, you would have seen, in this very conversation: "The US is no exception, and unlike people seem to think, social programs in the US make up a larger share of spending than even our defense. The US federal government's largest debt is Medicaid/Medicare, followed by social security, THEN defense. They should ALL be cut to nothing." - DEL-J
1
@shiishani3302 You are avoiding looking at the realities of the situation. I said we should cut military spending. We should cut it to nothing. However, there is no merit in what you are saying. You do not understand US demographics and you do not understand economics. Our social program expenditures cost us far more than European countries, because we have a different population. But the dysgenic nature of those programs are bringing European populations in line with the US demographics. The story is told in numbers that you blatantly have ignored for one reason or another. I'm telling you that you now have no excuse. Look the shit up. Read the base statistics from which all others spring. Edit: Additionally, part of the reason no one else has to spend very much on their military is BECAUSE of the US military. If the US cut its military spending down as they should, then all of the other UN and NATO members would be compelled to step up their own spending, and that shit would hurt.
1
@fy1727 You have no idea what you're talking about. My political views are based on not what ANY person has told me. My political views are based on sheer, raw numbers from reputable record keepers, with NO interpretation of the numbers other than my own. Your insistence that we need to "keep up with the rest of the world," is proof positive that you haven't looked at the story told by raw data. The other countries are on the road to bankruptcy. Every redistributionist program from every country that publishes their official government accounting in English that I have found is on the road to bankruptcy. Government can't overcome supply, demand, and scarcity. The fact that you don't know that all these countries are on the road to insolvency, or don't care, the fact that all of those countries and the US constantly purchase current political capital at the expense of the future (on the right and on the left), is evidence that democracy is an unsustainable ideology. You and other low information idiots that assume that anyone who disagrees is ignorant and mislead, when you guys REFUSE to look at the objective numbers, in many cases when I link them FOR people, they still refuse to look, because looking through census information is boring or whatever, this is hopeless. You people will vote us into ruin due to envy and an idea about how you think things SHOULD be with no understanding of why things are how they are.
1
@elizabethcsicsery-ronay1633 You people are dangerously ignorant. You think that resistance to your ideas show ignorance, but you are revealing ignorance of your own when you support these ruinous policies. You guys think that just because everyone else is doing it that it's right, while you people ignore the fact that every single one of those countries is on the road to insolvency. You are purchasing luxury now at the expense of the future. Redistributionist policies are unsustainable in one hundred percent of cases that I've studied, which is a significant number. The US' two largest expenditures are redistributionist policies. The federal government spends more on medicaid and medicare and on social security than it does on the military. Also, if the US spent less on military (which the numbers say we should), then all of those European countries would have to stop shitting on the US all the time and actually pay for their own militaries, which wouldn't help their situation at all.
1
This is insanity. You have no idea what I know. You people assume that just because someone questions your narrative, that they know nothing. While in some cases, ignorant people will question your narrative, you have NO idea what I know. My information comes from countless hours pouring over records from dozens of programs from multiple countries. You people are evidence of why democracy is a bad idea. Envy powers your ideas, and you people don't need to do the OBJECTIVE research to be sure that you are not only correct, but that anyone who disagrees is a bad person, though you are the ones that are purchasing temporary luxury at the cost of the future. These programs are unsustainable.
1
@fy1727 You have no idea what you are talking about. You just continue to reveal ignorance. People can get any statistics they want. If you guarantee everyone has coverage, then yes, you can taut that. However, you're confusing causation and correlation. Europeans have better life expectancy because the US populace as a whole makes worse lifestyle choices. Your system benefits from that, not causes it. Also if you think the world is becoming a worse place, you are again just admitting DEEP ignorance of reality. The world is better in almost every statistic metric measured year over year for decades, to not realize that is insane. You don't think the US taxes the rich? That's also insane. FACTS: in 2016, there were 141,000,000 federal tax payers in the US (out of about 330,000,000 population). The top 1% of earners (about 33,000,000 people) make up about 20% of all of the federal tax payers. Those roughly 33,000,000 contributed 37% of ALL federal tax revenue, more from them alone than the remaining 90% of the population combined, who collectively contributed about 31% of federal taxes during the same year. The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 27% individual income tax, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay about 4% individual income tax. Source: The mother fucking federal Internal Revenue Service: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares No, democracy isn't beautiful, because deeply ignorant people have just as much say as people who aren't ignorant. Democracy and government are vessels through with people can outsource the costs of their preferences.
1
@jodders619 Yes, insolvent means unable to pay debts. Yes, the NHS is part of the British government. Yes, the entire British government is on the road to insolvency. The costs of social programs rise as the same social programs create permanently dependent populations. The trends could change, but as they are, with poor, low IQ populations (the ones that cost) outbreeding higher income, higher IQ populations (the ones that contribute), the path is toward insolvency. You can continue to refuse to see my point, but I won't entertain fantasy.
1
@erichalfbee503 If you think that just because its owned by a government that means it can't go broke, you are not the person that gets to decide what is and isn't a stupid comment or who is or isn't educated. Whole story. There are plenty of government programs and even entire governments that have gone completely broke. If you don't know that, you have no place in this conversation. Your comment seems to reveal more ignorance than knowledge. I have personally done original economic research from primary sources about government healthcare spending. Have you ever surveyed decades of raw economic data just to scratch out a paragraph's worth of understanding so that morons who don't even understand basic economic reality, let alone how to conduct original objective economic research can tell you that you are "totally uneducated on the facts," IN a comment where they inadvertently reveal that they've never gone near anything resembling actual research on the topic? So glad I'm about to be done sharing a country with any of you fucking morons.
1
@unserkatzenland8884 If it was that simple, it would already be done. It isn't that simple. The simple solution, the only solution, is adherence to market reality.
1
@unserkatzenland8884 It doesn't matter whether it "should," because it straight up doesn't work that way. Your statements are just revealing that you aren't anywhere near the requisite understanding for this conversation. You're imagining a world where there are only consumers and profit margins, you're missing the entire reality that is intentionally obscured by these dangerously ideologically blinded idiots. There isn't a well of limitless medicine and time machines, and secret books full of all of the secrets of healthcare that are being held hostage by the rich. We can't just beg them enough or promise them enough for them to unlock these secret resources. They do not exist until they are produced. They are produced by people using finite time and finite tools with little guidance and many dead ends. I don't even know where to start with someone so ignorant that they think you can literally just negotiate away expense. It only works that way due to mass ignorance of economics and the stupidity that allows idiots to vote to kick a problem down the road, they don't fix it, they just make their kids have to pay more for it later.
1
@vladlu6362 No, their point is absolutely not to be insolvent. Your comment is an outright admission of deep economic misunderstanding from multiple angles. Non-profit doesn't mean insolvent. Tax funded doesn't mean non-profit, nor does it mean insolvent. Insolvent means on the road to bankruptcy. Entire countries can go bankrupt. A bankrupt country can't run healthcare. Solvency matters. Get your head out of your ass and into reality. For my sake, for your own sake, and for the sake of everyone else, seriously, PLEASE either go study up on economic realities or stop sharing your literally disastrously dangerous opinion like you give a damn. If you aren't willing to study and understand the MOST BASIC shit about an issue, you DO NOT CARE about the issue. If your goal is the most healthcare for the most people, solvency should be one of your top concerns.
1
@-Subtle- Neither. Research without bias. I haven't read Harvard's research, but if you link it, I'll give it an unbiased look. Here's the thing, it's hard not to think they are wrong ahead of time, or at least that their findings have been misrepresented by lefty outlets, because 1) I've studied this shit in deep depth for years and EVERY country that publishes their medical costs in English as far as I've found have indicated that single payer healthcare is unsustainable. Australia, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, and the UK are confirmed to be unsustainable by their own numbers on their own government websites. That's a fact as far as I understand it from looking at their own records. 2) Bernie Sanders' proposal that most lefties, and hopefully I'm wrong, but presumably Harvard also, requires cutting pay to providers. Straight up. If you deny or don't know that, you are lying or uninformed. If Harvard's study includes those cut rate calculations, it's not admissible evidence, because it's not actually a viable strategy. Regardless, I'll give it a look, if you can provide the study. If you can't provide the study itself for me to read, and if your conclusions are formed based on articles ABOUT the study, rather than the study itself, you should be questioning your ideas right now.
1
@mijp Your surface level understanding of things doesn't at all reveal what you think it does. You're only admitting that you haven't studied this in depth. The US is in debt because we spend far too much on far too many things, including subsidizing the German military, so they don't have to spend as much. You're calling someone a liar in a comment where you reveal that you have a very shallow understanding of the situation. Weak shit. I can't find the comment you're referring to, so I don't know which studies you're talking about. In a long comment chain, include some quotes or something if you want discussion. Also, probably don't call people liars if you want a discussion, especially when you're saying things that reveal you don't know much.
1
@Dan-zt7uj Yeah, I gave up civility with these dangerously ideological people a few years ago. My comments aren't even intended to engage with these people, they are for lurkers and to gather my own food for thought.
1
@SwordSprite 1) You're not making the point you think you're making, you're just revealing that you don't understand anything beyond a surface level. 2) If you think the government uses 100% of any of its earmarked revenue on any particular project, you are a DANGEROUSLY gullible person. 3) a) An exception isn't a rule. I specifically mentioned places that are commonly discussed and that publish their budgets in English. Good for Germany that they aren't major deficit spenders. Doesn't change the conversation in any significant way. b) A three second search shows that Germany's healthcare expenditures are growing at what appears to be an exponential rate, meaning they are following the same course as the other countries I've researched, and you haven't even fact checked your OWN apparent go-to example. You are a dangerously stupid person.
1
@BlahblahblahblahblahblahblahFU This is one of the dumbest takes I've seen. You're wrong in interpretation, you're wrong in premise, and you're wrong in conclusion. It isn't the government's JOB to create revenue. No one said it was. However, if you want certain things, like healthcare, then the providers must be compensated. In order to be compensated, they need revenue. When that revenue is from the government, that system is unsustainable, and when it dries up, then the healthcare is gone.
1