Comments by "oolong2" (@oolong2) on "Andrew Yang Backpedals from Medicare for All" video.

Bullshit... It amazes me how people just swallow a politician's bullshit so easily. As if the fact that Australia has some private insurance, magically means that it's the same situation we have in the US. Well it's not. Any proposal that leaves a trillion dollar industry in place to buy off politicians and repeal progress is not a real proposal, sorry.
6
Yeah just like you pay or when you need to put out fires, solve crime, drive on the roads, drink clean water, breath clean aire, and hundreds of other things. Why don't you go back to school and learn how taxes actually work instead of pretending it's all about "poor people getting things that I have the privilege of having".
2
Medicare for all, by definition, means to apply a medicare like system to everyone in the country. That is fundamentally NOT what Yang is proposing. Pretending that he supports applying Medicare to all is in fact a LIE. Your wall of text is based on nothing but a straw man.
2
@makelvin LOL... The reason Yang doesn't say he wants Medicare to apply to "all ages" is because Yang does not support Medicare For All. 😂 It's pretty simple dude... Nowhere in Sander's bill does it say that private insurance is not allowed. Just that private insurance can't charge people for the same benefits they already get under Medicare. So it is in fact disingenuous for you to keep pretending that it's not Medicare which is simply single payer insurance beyond a certain age Bernie Sanders has spent nearly two decade promoting Medicare For All. We are not going to let lying politicians hijack "Medicare For All" and ride his coattails simply because it is now popular.
2
@makelvin Again, Bernie's actual bill that he wrote in 2019 DOES NOT BAN HEALTH INSURANCE. It only bans health insurance companies from covering what someone already get's under Medicare. If you want health insurance to cover plastic surgery or a trip to a specialist in Zurich, or something not covered then you're more than welcome to do so. You can make up whatever bs that you want, but unlike Yang Sanders has an actual detailed bill that he is running on. Not just vague political promises. Again, NOWHERE in Yang's vague plan does he offer medicare for everyone, sorry. That does not exist and you're simply lying about it plain and simple. The fact is he said in this interview that he is only working towards the "vision of universal coverage". So sure keep lying to make yourself feel better. Just like a standard politician.
2
@winterburden News flash kid. You live in a country that practices socialism just like every other country in the world. The military is entirely socialized, the post office was literally written in the constitution. Go to your local public school, or go to a public library, or sit in a public park and learn something about how government works instead of the BS propaganda that you obviously listen to that is causing you to embarrass yourself terribly in these comments.
1
@winterburden So in other words you cannot address the facts of what I said. You can only all people "libtards" and various other names. Do you see how low information voters like you are thought of as jokes? Maybe inform yourself a little on the actual issues instead of just pretending you can get by with spouting labels like "socialism!" "liberal!" over and over when you don't even understand what those things mean.
1
@makelvin Creating a public option that people can buy into is not Medicare for All. Please stop lying to people. A "public option" is the exact same plan that Obama proposed over a decade ago. It is NOT Medicare For All. The reason why Bernie Sanders came up with Medicare For All is to expand the current system of Medicare, which is paid through taxes and is free at the point of service, TO ALL. Medicare is not a public option. So quit your BS already.
1
@makelvin You are lying because he specifically says he will lower the age requirement which is not the same as having Medicare for ALL PEOPLE. Bernie Sanders is expanding medicare and having it apply to ALL PEOPLE. Which is exactly what MEDICARE FOR ALL is. Some vague notion about lowering the age requirement for Medicare does not help a family know if they can survive a cancer diagnosis or or a trip to the emergency room in the next 5 years. Do you not get that?!
1
@makelvin 1. He never said he would lower the age to zero. Stop making misleading statements. In fact he's not giving any specifics on ages or timelines. Which is very troubling. 2. Sander's plan isn't completely different than Medicare. It's paid through taxes and is free at the point of service. It's not different than Medicare except expanded to include everyone in the country and provide a few additional benefits. So again, stop lying. You're trying to play semantic games in order to get to the conclusion you want. It's rather disingenuous.
1
@makelvin 1. I've already stated several times now that Bernie's bill prevents insurance from covering what you are already getting under Medicare. Sorry, but you're not fooling anyone by reposting the facts that I've already stated. 2. Yang stated that he isn't providing Medicare For All. Only the "spirit" of it and yet you're sitting there lying about it. 3. Bernie has also stated that health insurance as we know it today will effectively be obsolete, and as you saw for yourself his bill DOES NOT ban health insurance only duplicating coverage. 4. Your argument is as silly as saying that the US military isn't the US military if state militias are banned or made obsolete. It's a not a real argument. So now your argument is about getting M4A passed? Gee... how many congress people have endorsed M4A compared to a UBI?... 😂 Has anyone even endorsed the "spirit" of a UBI? 🤣 Your arguments are just one stretch after another, completely absurd.
1
@makelvin I specifically mentioned "cosmetic surgery" as an example when I brought up the bill. So stop lying about what I left out. You're not fooling anyone with these games. The whole point of Medicare is to provide comprehensive health coverage, by definition that would include everything that is "medically necessary". Leaving everything else to other companies and insurers. It's the same reason why you can have private security but not private vigilantes. --"which means he his implementing the Medicare for All that is different from Bernie;" You're completely making that up. All of your other assertions about "lowering the age to zero" are also made up. What exactly do you hope to accomplish by simply making up what Yang's position is? Yang has no plan to offer single payer health coverage (Medicare) to everyone in the country. Period. Do you understand the idea of starting with a strong position and then compromising, vs starting with a weak position and then compromising? This is negotiation 101, which is what the Obama administration failed at with the ACA. I also noticed you conveniently ignored my point about the UBI as well... Hmmm.....
1
@makelvin "not medically necessary" is not the same as "non-health related". You are once again changing facts to purposely mislead.... You've done this over and over. You cannot change facts to suit your argument, sorry. Vigilantism overlaps what police do which is why it is illegal. That was the point I was making. --"I was proposing the keep lowering the age can get to a point where everyone can get into the Medicare program." Which is nothing that Yang ever proposed. Hence you made it up. Not sure what you're arguing here.... You made up something that has nothing to do with Yang's actual position. --"You on the other hand immediately accused Yang as lying " No, I accused you of lying about Yang's position. Whereas Yang is clearly backing away from his support of M4A. --"These are all slightly different in the spirit of UBI." My point was that it is entirely hypocritical of you to believe that M4A will never pass when the bill already has over a hundred co-sponsors compared to the ZERO congressmen who have voiced support of a UBI.
1
@makelvin --"police does not exclude private security at all" That's the point I was making Genius....😂 --" expanding the current Medicare system to make it more accessible." Which is NOT the same as expanding it to "everyone" is it?.... --"So I am not lying" You are clearly changing Yang's actual proposal to suit your argument. Which to me is lying. --"Could you please give a clear example of "not medically necessary"" Acupuncture, chiropractic care, various forms of holistic medicine, experimental treatments, yoga, lasik eye surgery. I also gave the example of flying to a specialist in Zurich. There are tons of things that are health related but not considered "medically necessary"..
1
@makelvin Okay so two people supporting a UBI vs over a hundred that have actually cosponsored Bernie's bill. That doesn't make your point any less hypocritical. --"You keep on trying to hold Yang's short conversation as some sort of his Gospel" He's given multiple interviews on the topic and he's published a plan that doesn't include any support for medicare for all. In his recent interviews he's even mentioned that people will have to make some kind of co-payment or "Skln in the game" when they get hospital care. Which is completely different than being free at the point of service which is an essential part of Medicare. You can try and twist Yang's position as much as you want but it's clear he's not for Medicare for all. I was saying that YOU pretending that Yang supports M4A is a lie lol 🤣
1
@makelvin --"To me that could definitely mean for everyone at some point" Sorry, but your interpretation of what "something could mean" is not Yang's actual position, nor part of his plan. If you rely on wishful thinking of what a politician might do you're in for a long life of disappointment Just ask many of the people who voted for Trump, or even Obama for that matter. --"Both Chiropractic care and Lasik can be covered by the current Medicare Plan B" Which requires a monthly premium for most people. Someone can pay for a plan B or another plan. Which is my point. Same with all other forms of healthcare that are not deemed "medically necessary". --"As for UBI support, there are definitely more than 2" But far less than 120 which makes your argument against M4A rather hypocritical. Can you not see that? Alaska's yearly dividend is based on oil/resource profits is not a UBI. Alaska still relies on federal welfare and entitlements just like any other state despite the "bonus" that people get at the end of the year. A true UBI has not been implemented anywhere however there are many examples of various forms of single payer systems all over the world. Furthermore the politics of 2009 isn't the same as the politics of 2019. There are literally hundreds of things throughout history that were difficult to pass one year but became easier in later on (gay marriage, marijuana legalization, etc.). The fact that M4A is now a hot issue is a GOOD thing.
1
@makelvin Don't care who "considers" it a UBI it isn't one. It is not a monthly income that people live on replacing all other safety nets that Yang is proposing. You pretended to care about actual policy details before. What happened? Apparently you only care about specifics when it comes to MFA and Bernie. --"I am not concern about my current healthcare situation at all" Unfortunately the tens of thousands who die each year and the millions of people without coverage are not so lucky. They don't have the privilege of just being okay with making silly arguments on YouTube. Again if you don't understand how the politics of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, cannabis laws, labor laws, minimum wage, etc have changed over time then you don't know the first thing about the political history of this country and you're just making up arguments as you go along. You like Yang, I get it. Stop pretending you're making logical arguments when you're not.
1
@makelvin --"nowhere does it defines UBI must be paid on a monthly basis." Yang does. He specifically defines it as a monthly income people can live on and replace safety nets. Even in your own link you conveniently neglected this part: " Automatic: Someone's basic income would be automatically paid weekly or monthly into a bank account or similar." Again, you pretended to care about policy details and now you don't.. The Alaska dividend is not an income that anyone can rely on for rent and the amount fluctuates each year. Yang's policy hasn't been implemented anywhere by any country at any point. --"Because I don't have a real need for the healthcare situation; I am less likely to see it with a biased lens". Sure just like people who buy off politicians and are completely separated from the needs of the working class are SO unbiased right?... Sorry but you are not somehow more informed on an issue that you have absolutely no stake in. I think I'll trust the Nurses Union over your uninformed opinion. --"I just don't think he think things through enough about how realistic something is." Bernie Sanders is the only one with an actual detailed bill. Whereas you're relying on nothing but platitudes. So please spare me with your fake assertions on being practical when all you're doing is interpreting Yang's good intentions and "spirit" of M4A. 😂 I'll listen to someone who has an actual plan not someone like you who is indifferent to the tens of thousands who die each year because "you've got yours" and don't need to worry about it.
1
@makelvin Again, nowhere has Yang's UBI been implemented anywhere in the world. Again, Alaska's dividend is not anywhere close to what Yang wants to do and is not an example of Yang's UBI. These are facts. --"You are confusing with details with thoughtfulness." Someone who has spent decades thinking out a detailed plan for the country is indeed being thoughtful even if people like you are unable to see it because you simply don't care, are uninformed, and have no stake in the issue. --" I kept saying Yang is implementing the actual existing Medicare are making it available to all." Again, your beliefs and wishful thinking is not reality. --"The rest of Yang detail healthcare plan is about reducing the root cause of driving up the healthcare cost" M4A will reduce over 5 trillion in costs over 10 years by getting rid of huge administrative costs of insurance companies. Not to mention giving more leverage to negotiate all costs in the system, not just drug prices. All other plans that rely on leaving the insurance infrastructure in place will actually increase costs over M4A. You're confusing details with generic surface level statements that have NO DETAILS. You think Yang is being thoughtful, but he's actually not. He's saying the same vague crap on reducing costs that politicians have said for decades. Obama literally made similar statements during his campaign. First off I care more about thousands of LIVES over thousands of jobs. Sorry, but I'm not going to let someone's family member die to save a job at an insurance company. Second, the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical debt. You literally have 1-2 million people who are impacted by medical bankruptcy each year. Third, it is harder for small businesses to compete with large businesses because of health insurance costs. They don't have the numbers to get the same plans that large businesses have. M4A gives more freedom to the economic engine of small businesses This is just a few of the many things you're entirely ignorant about because you "don't have to worry" about your healthcare....
1