Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "Andrew Yang Flips Pro-Trump Republican: "It's Automation Not Immigration"" video.

I don't know when people are gonna realize that Bernie is our 1 shot to win this election, he always has been. not to mention he's the only one whose actually for Medicare for All, while everyone else has compromised and lied about it.
10
@jcbenefiel "he is for medicare for all just not banning private insurance". That's NOT Medicare for All, that's a public option if your not eliminating duplicative private care, which is predatory by nature. Medicare for All is the only way to create a Single Payer system that works, we know this by looking at every other country in the world. Medicare for All is ALREADY a compromise from getting a fully nationalized healthcare system like the UK, if you compromise more it's only going to give us the same corrupt system we have now.
5
@samus598 Yes, if we have to choose one, let's go with the one whose aggregate polling is at 3.3% over the one whose at 17.6% and has the most individual donors out of any campaign by a long shot.
4
@CAFEkatArt Yang apparently changed it to stack with SSDI, but it still doesn't stack with SSI ie makes you choose between UBI and SSI, which is also a form of Social Security for disabled citizens. Not to mention it's still going to make people choose between many other benefits. If he's funding it with a regressive form of sales tax (and yes, a VAT tax is regressive by definition), you would NEED to ensure those poor Americans see a net gain, and if many Americans currently receive $1,000 or more from SSI and other programs, they will likely see a net loss from his UBI. If Yang were serious about curbing poverty, he would make his UBI actually universal, not conditional only for the poorest Americans and he would fund his UBI through a top marginal tax rate, capital gains tax, re-implementing the estate tax, formally cutting corporate welfare to fund public welfare (ubi) for citizens, or even placing a tax on Wall Street speculation, which yang has mentioned before but failed to attach to any of his policies as proposed funding methods.
3
@samus598 Except if you're making that case by using the polling, Yang's still only at 3.3% in the aggregate poll numbers. If you're looking past the aggregate polling, then you can easily make the case that Bernie has also been growing fast considering he has the best fundraising numbers more than anyone (grassroots or corporate funded), in addition to the largest base of volunteers that have an extensive network of organizers. No candidate is going to get any of their bold platforms implemented unless they have the kind of grassroots network Bernie has right now and actually talk about a means to USE it for rallying people around implementing progressive policy after 2020. I have heard neither Warren or Yang make these arguments or promises to realistically carry out their agendas. Yang is the most shaky on this because not only has he not talked about the strategy side of it, but he has never even been in elected office before and has next to no political capital aside from what's he's made over the past few months as a candidate, which is not very much.
3
@Cyrribrae That's not Medicare for All, that's a public option, it's in the title you just laid out. Medicare for All is not a "framework" like Warren says, it's a bill on the House and/or it's a bill in the Senate. If it doesn't eliminate duplicative private insurance, which is predatory BY NATURE, then it is not Medicare for All. You're not promoting a Single Payer healthcare system if half the system is being price gouged by mafia-like middle-men whose only goal is to make billions in profits.
1
@CAFEkatArt I don't think that's the problem, the issue is that it doesn't do enough for poor Americans. Nobody's going to try to nullify a program that benefits the rich more than anyone. The bottom 90% of the country will use every penny of their $1,000 allowance, while the rich will just hoard it just like they always do. Then the VAT tax will ensure that everyone pays for the program, both manufacturers and consumers. When average Americans use every cent of their federal income, they, in turn, pay for the VAT tax more than any individual wealthy person who sit on the vast majority of their wealth that is not taxed at all, this is the case even with Amazon and corporations paying a share of the VAT tax, on the individual level it is still massively unbalanced towards the rich. This results in more money being shifted towards the 1% and top income earners because it does nothing to actually push the burden of UBI on the wealthy and relieve the people who need the most help, the burden will be on average people and the working class, whether Yang supporters want to admit it or not. Then we get to the worst party, where the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country gain nothing from the freedom dividend when they're already receiving more in benefits from SSI, food stamps, and many other programs. These people will either receive nothing from Yang's UBI or will receive far less in total than people who are much more wealthy. These people will undeniably be the biggest losers in yang's proposed economy, especially the people who gain nothing, but, in turn, have to deal with the burden of the VAT tax in one way or another.
1
@stephenwonghongweng4298 Thanks for the Ted Cruz anecdotal evidence, but here in the real world NHS ranks far better than nearly any other healthcare system in the world. They ration based on critical necessity, which turns out is the best way to save the most lives and gain the most success with a healthcare system. When you ration based on the size of a person's wallet you end up with 45,000 people dying every year from lack of care and an extraordinary amount of people going into medical bankruptcy simply because they want to save their spouse or family member's life. If the cost of a healthcare system that actually works is to have longer wait lines for non-life-threatening procedures, then it's a very easy decision and we should consider ourselves lucky that that's all we have to deal with for a system where you can see the doctor and it's free at point of service. If you get sick, you get help, that's all there should be to it.
1