Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "Andrew Yang: "Medicare For All Is Not The Name Of A Bill" (Yes It Is)" video.

The new Yang Gang tactic apparently is "M4A really isn't that popular when you tell people it will outlaw private insurance". Joe Biden talking points 101, Nice.
45
@jamesomowumi7542 It's not the $1,000 a month that is the problem, it's the fact that he proposes to fund it using a regressive tax that will inevitably be worse for the poor. This was, at the very least, a tolerable thing when he was offering Medicare for All in addition, but now his healthcare plan is basically just tweaks around the edges like Biden's. From the sound of it, it's not even a public option anymore. Nobody wants to fight for a vision for America that has 300 bad faith clauses after the fact. The surprises just keep on coming from Yang's campaign, this is doubtful to be the last dishonest policy decision based on the direction his campaign is headed.
17
Biden gets soft balls because he's a part of the club. Yang gets objective journalism because he's not a part of the club. Bernie gets smeared because he's a threat to the club.
10
@SecretJanitor Just to clarify, when you tell those same Americans that it will eliminate private insurance *but you will be able to see any doctor you want under one single pool, support skyrockets back up and above where it originally was polled at.
10
@sebbywarcraft3398 Yes, polls that were literally funded by think tanks from Biden's (& Buttigieg's) administration determining how to word the polls to specifically drive down support. It was shown later that if you told people "M4A will eliminate your private insurance *but you will be able to go to any doctor in one single pool", support shoots right back up for it. Like I said, it's Biden neoliberalism dishonesty 101.
10
Side note: Yang says he's most similar in ideology to Joe Biden and says he would gladly be Biden's VP.
8
Yang gets objective journalism because he's not a part of the club. Bernie gets smeared because he's a threat to the club.
8
Yes, he will lose those whole 4 percentage points. What a historic drop.
6
@SecretJanitor Also, that's some Joe Biden talking points 101, nice job.
5
On the same side *except on healthcare, free college, charter schools, regulations, breaking up big tech and monopolies, wealth tax, income inequality, billionaires existing in a civilized society & meritocracy, more.
4
@stephenguerra2841 Yes, there are multiple bills, they are all extremely similar and work to expand Medicare to everyone, hence "Medicare for ALL". Yang's bill does no such thing, it's barely even "Medicare for those who want it", but at least Mayor Pipsqueak is being slightly honest about his position. If Yang were being honest he'd call his bill "Medicare Tweaks Around the Edges" aka Tweaks for All.
3
@GnomesRox I never claimed it to be regressive, I said it was funded by a regressive tax, a completely true statement. (though it will actually be regressive for some distinct people who already receive $1,000 in assistance yet will still be paying a VAT tax). If you read the post above, I go into very specific detail in why funding it with a regressive tax diminishes the entire point of having a UBI. The VAT tax specifically ensures it would shift the tax burden onto the poor even more due to the working class spending 100% of their paychecks and a larger percentage of a regressive VAT tax, while the wealthy sit on their money, accumulating interest on it over time. It's the exact opposite for the poor and a VAT tax would only make it worse, not to mention making people on gov't assistance choose whether to take the Freedom Dividend or their current benefits. They barely get anything from a UBI if it's set up this way. There are some people who won't see any benefit at all and others who will see a net negative in their budgets if they have enough assistance for whatever their situation.
2
It doesn't matter what you call it, it's a public option and it's meant to cater to the mafia-like for-profit private insurance industry. Edit: actually not even sure if it's even a public option anymore. From what it sounds like, it's just tweaks around the edges like Biden's.
2
@ZenonLite No, Tulsi's is more similar to the Australian healthcare system, a two tiered system that is flawed compared to true Single Payer healthcare especially when applied to the US that already has a $700 Billion private insurance industry (probably bigger) that needs to be done away with or shrunk to the point where it is as small as Australia's private insurance companies to even operate at universal coverage with minimum expenses; Yang's is more similar to Biden and Buttigieg's plans, he literally says so in this clip.
2
@izzylandyt Nah, every time he releases a new proposal, it's like Christmas Day for America.
2
Tired of this shit man. There's only one person who supports Medicare for All, it's been that way this entire race if you had actually paid attention.
2
Yang 2 months ago: "Medicare for All is too disruptive (to the insurance companies)" after claiming to support it for an entire year and displaying it as one of the top policies on his website. Not sure why people didn't figure this out 2 months ago.
2
@DaHanG I'm not arguing it wouldn't help poor people. It would help the poor just like Warren's "funding proposal" for Medicare for All would overall help most people when you couple a regressive head tax with giving people free healthcare at the point of service. The problem is that it helps people a lot less than simply just doing your program without the added negative of a regressive tax. In the case of Yang's UBI, it is still regressive in terms of income inequality because it would literally benefit the rich more than the poor when you implement his Freedom Dividend. When you fund it through a VAT tax on goods, you're just making the working class pay for their own dividends they get back. Problem with that idea is that the poor and many in the middle class would end up using ever penny of their $1,000, while the rich and higher income earners would either save it or use considerably less. In this scenario, you have a working class individual (around the 70% of the country that lives paycheck to paycheck) buying products and paying close to 90-100% of their money on that regressive tax (taxed at a certain rate) aside from groceries and basic food items which would be exempt according to Yang. And before you respond, yes, of course a wealthy person is going to pay more money when they buy more expensive items, but is it going to be the same percentage of their total income or wealth as the working class person who is using ALL their money and having to pay a greater portion of a regressive VAT tax? The answer is no, it will be a far less percentage and lower ratio compared to their total income. Rich people sit on a huge portion of their wealth, accumulating interest, while working class people spend their entire paycheck and pay sales taxes. If you add MORE regressive taxes, the tax burden on the working class will only become larger. See, this is the problem. The Freedom Dividend, coupled with UBI is going to end up shifting wealth even more towards the wealthy and powerful given the difference in the percentage they pay back into the system through the regressive VAT tax. You could simply fix this by just funding UBI through a progressive payroll tax, but Yang won't do that because he knows it would actually fund UBI in a way that benefits the working class, places more of the tax burden on the wealthy than on the working class, and would actually increase taxes on the rich. I'm also not even mentioning how it would cut social programs and some of the poorest and most desperate Americans wouldn't even get a full $1,000 due to already receiving SSI (only SSDI stacks), food stamps, child assistance, housing assistance, income tax credit, and so on. Some distinctive older or disabled people already receiving $1,000 in assistance wouldn't even get any benefit from the Freedom Dividend, yet they would still have to pay for the VAT tax (or any inflation or rent increase that occurs), making it a a net negative for some of the poorest people. You can argue that his Freedom Dividend is an overall benefit to most people, but it has far too many added portions that diminish the entire purpose of having a ubi. I actually support the concept of a basic income and have for a long time, but Yang's version is a pale imitation of what a progressive UBI would look like, and based on his specifics, it would only end up worsening wealth inequality, something I massively disagree with him on.
1
...is a shiny object compared to something concrete like free healthcare Single Payer that cannot be phased out overtime or lose significance due to inflation or funding from a regressive tax.
1