Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "" video.

  1. Jake Tapper is completely full of shit. That $40 Trillion is almost entirely made up of "$32 Trillion for Medicare-for-All". Tapper literally just had to do a retraction on his Medicare-for-All "fact-check" where he did the exact same bullshit. According to a Koch funded study, Medicare-for-All would SAVE $2 Trillion for the tax payers and Jake Tapper KNOWS THIS. He got a huge amount of shit for it only 2 weeks ago.
    5
  2. Because Jake Tapper is pure trash. CNN literally just made him do a retraction on his Medicare-for-All nonfactual "fact-check" from the other week and now he's doing the same bullshit propaganda here by not telling viewers what our CURRENT SYSTEM COSTS ($34-$49 Trillion for current healthcare system). Medicare-for-All SAVE $2 Trillion for the tax payers at a MINIMUM!
    4
  3. +ashleykutcher - Wow. He just gave you all that info and you just completely ignored it and instead responded with something completely irrelevant. You want to see where Jake Tapper gets his "information" on Medicare-for-All? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgyK3yb5qic Notice the like/dislike ratio and how Jake Tapper's "fact-check" is based on asking the author of a study his opinion. Jake Tapper is establishment garbage and you're too thick to even realize it.
    3
  4. +Mr. Reality - Probably because he ambushed her with a bunch of numbers that she's never seen before within the span of 60 seconds. He knew exactly what he was doing. MSM does this bullshit nonstop. When they don't have an argument, they smear. Go watch his bullshit "fact-check" on Medicare-for-All yourself, which he later had to retract. His $32 Trillion number at the top of this list doesn't mention how much our system CURRENTLY costs. This is now becoming the oldest trick in the book in terms of CNN misleading its viewers. They pretend like it's $32 Trillion ON TOP of what we already pay. Medicare-for-All REPLACES our current system. Any 5th grader can tell you that when you replace one number with another, you SUBTRACT the difference between the two and Jake Tapper had to admit only 2 weeks ago that Medicare-for-All SAVES $2 Trillion for the tax payers otherwise CNN wouldn't have made him do a retraction. The study he referenced was from the Koch Brothers funded Mercatus Center and even that FAR RIGHT study found that Medicare-for-All would cost $32 Trillion while our current system costs $34 to $35 Trillion. These are the FACTS of the study, which he doesn't clarify even in the SLIGHTEST.
    2
  5.  Joe M  It saves $2 Trillion over a 10 year period according to a right-wing Mercatus Center study that went out to discredit Medicare for All, instead it accidentally gave the statistics that it costs $32 Trillion over 10 years and REPLACES our current system, which will cost $34 Trillion over a 10 year period. Our healthcare system is already the most expensive system in the world while a large portion of Americans are not even insured. It's highly inefficient, it "saves money", as you asked, because it's the process of replacing an inefficient system with an efficient system that has far less overhead and middle man costs. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies currently price gouge the American people, when you take those costs out of the system, the US taxpayers Save far more money.
    2
  6. You're a complete dumbass if you actually think Medicare-for-All costs "$32 Trillion" as Jake Tapper claims here. He literally just had to do a retraction on his Medicare-for-All story the other week and now he's doing the same bullshit here AGAIN.
    2
  7.  @joshamezcua3322  It would be $32 Trillion over the next 10 years under a Medicare for All system, while our current system would cost $34 Trillion over the next 10 years if we didn't change it at all, however, that second number doesn't take into account how much our healthcare costs go up every year under our current system where we have an exponential growth of about 5% increase in costs every year, so there have been Harvard studies that estimate our current system could cost as much as $49 Trillion over the next 10 years if costs get exponentially worse and worse. Compared to a Medicare-for-All system, we save anywhere from $2 Trillion to $17 Trillion.
    1
  8. +Slim Machado - "the US protects almost the entire world". You must be joking....
    1
  9. Jake Tapper pulled that $40 Trillion straight out of his ASS. Any person with a brain should immediately know that "$32 Trillion for Medicare-for-All" is bullshit propaganda considering the retraction Jake Tapper literally just had to do on his last Medicare-for-All "fact-check". He's doing the exact same bullshit here AGAIN.
    1
  10.  @jacobtsatskis5335  "Medicare for all would be the costliest initiative, coming in at about $32 trillion" You say that while entirely NEGLECTING what our current system costs, the system that Medicare for All would REPLACE. Go ahead and look it up. You're referencing a right-wing study that literally proved that it would SAVE $2 Trillion because our current system costs Minimum $34 Trillion, but other, more accurate studies by U-Mass Amherst, have our current system estimated at $37 Trillion over the next ten years. You have completely bought into the propaganda. Any pundit or news anchor that tells you how much Medicare for All costs without commenting about the cost of our current system is intentionally trying to mislead you. Do your fucking homework or listen to professionals that aren't biased in favor of the establishment and for-profit insurance companies. If you're still scoffing at what I'm saying at this point, then answer one question for me. Why do all other 1st world countries have full Single Payer systems yet pay far LESS in healthcare than the United States?
    1
  11.  @jacobtsatskis5335  Here's an even WORSE estimate on our current healthcare system. "CMS estimated that U.S. health care spending would reach about $5.7 trillion by 2026." Now take that number, multiply it by 10 and tell me whether a $32 Trillion system (over 10 years) that covers EVERYONE is somehow still "too costly". Fyi "CMS" is the government's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
    1
  12.  @bigbruin1977  You're literally quoting the billionaire epicenter of journalism who are not even quoting any real statistics from the study. The Mercatus Center tried to spin the study after their statistics were favorable to Leftists, when Bloomberg (of all outlets) writes a story on it do you think they're going to write an in-depth piece on the stats or just quote some right-wing think tank spin-doctor who wrote a bullshit summary that tries to ignore the findings of the study? Jake Tapper did the same thing with his non-factual "fact-check" on CNN and later had to retract the story for being a shit fact-checker and only "quoting the writer of the study" and his opinion, not the actual study itself and the stats.
    1
  13.  @bigbruin1977  The claim that "doubling federal individual and corporate tax would not cover the full cost" is complete and utter bullshit. Here's an article from Politico on the whole situation, a media outlet that writes 10 hit pieces against Bernie Sanders a day. The fact-check should be "Mostly True" in my opinion because Bernie Sanders was write about it saving max $2 Trillion, but whatever, they're still Politico at the end of the day. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-sanders/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/
    1
  14.  @bigbruin1977  Also let's not forget this is a study by a right-wing think tank and, in their study, they did not even use a variable for how much our current healthcare system increases in cost every year by over 5%. Other, more accurate, studies by U-Mass Amherst and Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) have concluded that Medicare for All saves $5.1 Trillion over a ten year period. https://truthout.org/articles/new-study-shows-medicare-for-all-would-save-us-5-1-trillion-over-ten-years/
    1