Weiner lies about car insurance. 20 years ago, insurance was renewed on an annual basis. Then manditory insurance (PIP) was required and insurance became a bi-annual process. They amount I paid DOUBLED overnight with passage of manditory auto insurance. The only ones who benifit from ObamaCare are the insurance companies... HUGE donors to various PACs.
Hey anthony, if anyone gets hit by a bus, they will go to the ER all the time. This bill doesnt change that. The only way to reduce costs is to follow the dollars. The drivers of healthcare costs are not people (they have the same diseases they always did, and there are more people), it is the hospitals, pharma and insurance companies working together to keep costs high, WITHOUT any competition. Look at what insurance companies pay to the hospital versus private doctor for the same thing!
@dwatsonpt Absurdity. Blaming private conspiracies for US HC costs is like looking at a road full of drunks and methheads and assuming that the reason the road is so unsafe is becauce the lines must be painted incorrectly. The primary reason for HC costs in the US is skyrocketing pool risk due to abyssmal national health stats (ie, 34% obesity), which is exactly why the left wants the healthy and responsible to assume even more of the costs of an extraordinarily unhealthy population. Grand!
@lloydmauler and in theory, the individual mandate will cut down on this severely. This is why insurance companies don't want this. they can't cherry pick anymore
@lloydmauler The insurance companies don't want what? Massively increased revenue streams and further market entrenchment through mandates to buy a monopolized, pigeonholed product??? Are these the same evil insurance co's who gave hundreds of millions to DEMOCRATS in 09, not the evil "other guys"? Huh. Ironically, the Left has played strategies straight out of the Bush handbook, yet none seem the wiser.
@lloydmauler Who honestly believes universal HC is a good idea in a country where only the slimmest of minorities takes responsibility for their health, ie, their systemic risk-level? The primary reason for American HC costs is abyssmal national health; which also happens to be the very reason that Obamacare's only practical end is spreading liability through the mandate and buying restrictions. Why the heck should healthy young students be forced to pay for baby boomer bypasses??? Absurd.
I might agree with that about abysmal level healthcare, except in seattle, washington, a cash paid checkup no bloodwork is 300$. in canada, its about 100$
@lloydmauler Exactly, but the primary reason for overall cost increases is increased risk due to an insanely unhealthy country. I come from the NW, a healthier part of the US, and yet even I pay substantially more than I ought to for unnecessary, yet required coverage for crap that's intended for obese people and smokers; treatments that ultimately only treat the effect of the problem (diabetes, lung cancer, heart "disease", etc) not the cause of the problem (patient irresponsibility).
What happens to folks who are still too poor to afford insurance even after these subsidies? Should we then just allow to die on the streets? How about people who are mis-read contracts and are refused payments by these companies. Last time I checked, people making $10k a year can't afford a lawyer.
There has be another for this cost to be shared between government and these insurance companies.
Yeah my insurance went up this year but it also went up last year and the previous 3 years before that. The main bill doesn't take effect yet. I know you think California is going to raise rates by 59% but it wasn't allowed when the tried to do it last time! Now that we've lost Feingold and Grayson I'm glad we still have people left like Weiner.
I guess the Repubs. only trust the CBO when it benefits them. That's how everything goes with them.
I can't vouch for anything he said, but it sure is nice to see some articulate politicians that know how to convey information without a bunch of fluff and buzzwords to satisfy the urban retards.
sorry im giving them to much credit I mean that if they actually do cut 100 bill they will still be in the hole. But as of now it would be 330. My Bad.
I'm sick of all this free market BS people talk about. Most people have no clue what Adam Smith wrote on the subject. He said free markets were the most important thing for a strong economy. But the lines directly following that read that just as important as that are government oversight and control of that same economy. Why? He was living in a time where monopolies were devastating entire cultures and raping them for everything they had. The repercussions from that time are still felt today.
No matter what Weiner says, no one is listening. Republicans are not voting with reason or intelligence, they're voting counter to whatever the Democrats for for, whether it's a good idea or not.
They're merely grudge voting, not actually giving a shit about actual Americans. They're ALL already rich and well off, they couldn't give a shit about us. This is personal for them, and they want to see the Democrats fall.
Man, I love Weiner...wait! NO NO that's not what I meant!
All joking aside, we need a LOT more politicians like Anthony Weiner, on both sides of the isle. The vast majority of politicians are grandstanding, photo-op whores who only care about making a name for themselves instead of doing the job they were elected to do. Case in point, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. As a Democrat, I'm ashamed that they are/were our party leaders. We all know how hypocritical most Republicans are. Let's start over.
Oh yeah right...its less expensive for "us" to pay for insurance now....BUT, who is paying for it ultimately? Well, check out TYT's video revealing that insurance rates in California are going up 59%. How many people have seen their rates go down?
Weiner is a true practitioner of voodoo economics. The numbers that he spews out are bogus. The CBO now saying the the bill is "deficit neutral". Just get government out of the game completely so companies will have to compete for insurance business.
@StepUPNJ my rates have gone down, thanks!.....where are you getting your sources from because i haven't seen that statistic anywhere, not even on the CBO website........
@Tallyhallrun Really? First instance of rates going down that I have heard of. Here in the NY metro area, I have not heard of ANYONE whose rates have been reduced. Where do you live?
It is PRIVATE INSURANCE and their unregulated, immoral business practices that cost so much, NOT regulation.
The government is in the game of the biggest industries in the country, subsidies for oil, gas, health care companies etc.
Also there is no free market because there is a nearly monopoly on the health insurance market, yet there is an anti-trust exemption. Is that free market?
Private insurance don't have to compete with a public option at all, so yes the costs will go up
The privatization of insurance, a horrible idea. There really is no need for this industry, it profits out of setting limits for you when you get sick, while jacking up your rates to where it become a bigger expense than rent.
The "death panel" nonsense was a corporately funded campaign to discredit the "end of life consultation". By making seniors have no option to plan for end of life, they can make more money in the ICU etc. Profits over peace of mind for familys! Yay GOP
With all respect to Rep. Weiner he is explaining facts to the Reps. that they already know. They are not, and have never been, concerned by the facts. The reasons for the opposition to the health care bill is simple political opportunism. The actual facts are irrelevant.
Ok, so we don't want socialized health care. Well, considering that currently those who can't / don't pay their bills get covered by the state and taxpayers, how about this: If you don't have insurance when you get to the hospital, you have to pay up front, if you can't afford it - tough. Maybe after a couple months of the working class Republicans and Tea Party-types dying in waiting rooms, then we can sit down and talk about this again.
@burntjoint Nope, it sure won't... but this ridiculous system of for-profit health care -- a service that is by it's very concept is at odds with a core tenant of Christianity (care for your brother) -- has gotten out of hand... and maybe it's only absurd thought experiments (or hell, implement the idea) that will shake these fools from their dream that there's nothing wrong with our system. They're already asking us to die, but just slower, and in much greater debt.
@n8dogg87 Sorry republican induced rage clouded my word choice... My apologies to the homosexual community and that I am a firm believer that the term "faggot" not be associated with homosexuals. In place of "faggot" and in an attempt to be politically correct, I will label republicans as Shit-eating jerk offs that don't deserve the luxury of good health.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The hierarchical scale of good to evil: God Ronald Reagan Myself Regular People Lawyers Used Car Salesman Felons Murders Pond Scum Necrophiliacs Beelzebub Journalist Democrats Politicians Liberal Politicians Anthony the Weiner The is nothing more evil than Anthony the Weiner
We need Mr. Weiner to be in the Obama administration so he can make the republican party STFU because they have no plan to fix the economy. All the republican party has to offer is to try to fuck up everything Obama did. Vote democrat in 2012!!
that was such a succinct and commonsensical explanation of the HCR benefits that it was funny! Who do they think pays for emergency care, which is where the uninsured go when they need care...the bill fairy?
here is a fact CA. just raised its insurance premiums 35%. why is that congressman.the free market and competition is what will drive down costs like you said earlier. i am not ready to have all my info given and transmitted to some govt office for others to read and possibly use against me later. that is very troubling.
1) CA doesn't collect insurance premiums. Perhaps you meant some specific company in CA? Oh, yes, you meant that one company raised its rates on some individual people by 35%. (Only a few people, but whatever.)
2) Rates have been going up 10 to 20% a year for 30 years.
3) There's plenty of competition now. Companies can even compete across state lines: I'm in CA, my health insurance company is in Indiana.
But don't let facts get in the way of your religion ('the free market')
@DataJackOne listen, genius. i didn't say the cbo had anything to gain by this. this is not the cbo's fault. the numbers are off because they can only use the information that they were given. they were told not to include things like the doc fix. again, it's not the cbo's fault that these projections are wrong. stop with your silly attacks and pay attention. i don't fox news. there's a clip of paul ryan speaking to obama on this. he does not blame the cbo.
@cristoballs he explains it quite clearly, the reason the cbo's numbers are not reliable, is not because of any fault of their own. it's because the people who wrote up this bill did not provide them with all the information for calculating an accurated projection. get it? i repeat... THIS IS NOT THE CBO'S FAULT. can i make myself any clearer than that?
@DataJackOne: LMAO!! EVERYONE is partisan to an extent. Get a clue!! Look at the "revised" CBO estimates when Republicans put forward the REAL numbers.
a) AGAIN, how ignorant does one have to be to actually believe that insuring millions on a month-to-month basis is cheaper than covering as-needed care for only a fraction
b) YOU obviously don't understand how h/c will work. Govt subsidized is a good start. If Govt's not handling, why is there costs? LOL Procedures covered is another. Obama's own Administrator said Govt will ration.
c) YES, SS/Medicare is slated to go bankrupt in 2017 --- Educate yourself!!
@2010GOP You sound like you're the type who hears Boehner say, "Well of course the American people know that ObamaCare will add to the deficit" and think, "That's it! That's the empirical evidence, the incontrovertible truth, the plain as day facts of life! Numbers be damned! We don't need no stinking numbers!" Newsflash: forbes.com just today is saying that insurance companies are reporting a major uptick in small business group policy purchases in 2010!
I have heard Anthony Weiner speak a number of times, on many different issues and he does very well with trying to get his point across. He speaks clearly, he gestures a lot, he speaks in different rhythms with different pitches. In short I see how one with very little brain power could be hypnotized into believing the words that come out of his mouth. 4:44 "Its (Health Care) the opposite of a government takeover." A flat out lie. He's either a moron, or intentionally deceiving his listeners
@sloopskipper: You're all a bunch of retards who've been duped.
Only a fk'ing idiot could:
a) Believe insuring millions vs. funding as-needed care for only a fraction of those millions would save $
b) The Govt can handle this massive program given that SS/Medicare is slated to go bankrupt in 2017 after decades in trying to figure out how to make it function out of the red --- there is still no fix!
Stage One: We all pay for uninsured when they go to the hospital. Therefore, paying a subsidy upfront will reduce that cost;
Stage One thinkers stop there.
Stage Two: The Subsidy will over time inflate the price of the insurance, making this analogous to University Tuition that has increased exponentially every year. This will make subsidies more likely over time.
Stage One: "corrects" short-term problem and creates long-term budget buster.
@HowTheWorldWorks Your "Stage One" argument is patently false. Paying a subsidy upfront isn't reducing cost at all. It's merely transferring the cost from payment at time of service to payment upfront. The rest of your argument fails under false assertion.
@HowTheWorldWorks Your "Stage One" argument is false. Paying from a "subsidy upfront" as you (incorrectly) describe the process won't reduce the cost. It merely transfers the payment from time of service. It doesn't reduce it.
And how is this analogous to university tuition? Many universities offer a tuition reduction if a student pays all four years "upfront", the opposite of what you claim.
Maybe you should have asked your questions before you declared by fiat what I said was false.
1) When student loans are subsidized, absent any price controls on tuition (n.b. I don't advocate price controls), the schools have an incentive to increase tuition b/c the gov't will pay for it. The same is true in fact with any subsidy. Those subsidies will increase the price over time;
2) Third-party payers absent rationing (don't support either), will always increase prices.
1. Correlation does not equal causation. Unless you can demonstrate that education subsidies are a direct driver of increasing tuition, your argument really doesn't have a leg to stand on...I'd love to see data that supports your assertion. I also disagree with your blithely generalized statement that "any subsidy will increase prices over time" -- not true. Take a look at the solar electric market and the impact that THOSE subsidies have had in recent years.
1. Correlation does not equal causation. Unless you can demonstrate that education subsidies are a direct driver of increasing tuition, your argument really doesn't have a leg to stand on...I'd love to see data that supports your assertion. I also disagree with your blithely generalized statement that "any subsidy will increase prices over time" -- not true. Take a look at the solar electric market and the impact that THOSE subsidies have had in recent years.
@HowTheWorldWorks You have that backwards. Tuition increases at public institutions have FAR outpaced those at private institutions. The increases happen not because the government will pay, but because they will NOT pay.
You know whats funny, the Republicans promised to cut 100 billion, but by repealing health care they will add 230 billion. so they will actually be 130 billion in the hole in terms of their goal. Leave it to Republicans to put politics before promised policy.
@7tmo Um, your logic is flawed. After repealing the bill, they would have to cut the original 100 billion they promised as well as 230 billion on top of that. They would effectively be starting out 330 billion below what they promised.
They are saying that by cutting the bill, costs will be cut by 100bil. So the country saves 100bil. directly. The effects, however, end up costing an extra 230bil. So in the end, we're 130bil. in the hole.
If more Democrats in Congress acted like Rep. Weiner less of them would have lost their most recent elections. Republicans should walk their talk or just admit that their obsession with deficit spending is only in affect of those deficts benefit the American Tax Payer.
health water power roads should be run by governments, they were formed to look after the people. I didnt mind the unemployed getting the same health care tretment as me and every other employed person. in my opion when private health was intrduced (15years roughly big push in last 5 years) here it was the beging of the end of public health. we all need health care so why not have a public health care sysyem.
@me001ist people say i dont need so much cover when iam young, well you will get old and those levys youve been paying were looking after everyone, now because you wanted to save a couple of dollars in your youth public health is gone and your old, now you will end up paying more than you saved.
my counrty had health care for all untill our government wanted the health system you have wich is what pay as you go, doesnt work especialy if you`ve got no money. here (employed people) we would pay a levy once a year out of our tax refunds so we never missed it (500 a year) i have had 4 operations and never paid a cent extra.things like medications are subsidized as well as xrays and other scans. seeing your local doctor GP is covered. if your unemployed you still get the same treatment.
The Republicans don't care. What we need to do is find out why people are voting so illogically, for Republicans, and get them to vote for their own interests. One way is to charge the right-wing media with election fraud, as they are tricking millions of people into voting for Republicans.
Thank you so much Rep. Weiner for (in the words of Denzel Washington's character in the movie Philadelphia), explaining it to us like we're 4 year olds, lol.
How about we remove insurance and let people be in charge of their own fucking health? That's a plan. No insurance. No insurance= costs going WAY down.
IF the Republicans want to repeal the bill, and IF they have a better bill,(as they say they do), why not bring out their bill, add a section stating that upon passage and signing, the current bill would be repealled?
Time to PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!
Anthony Weiner makes too much sense for them to understand.
the problem with weiner's argument is that it's based on the assumption that cbo's numbers are correct, in that the hc reform act will save money. however, as pointed by people like rep. paul ryan of wisconsin, the health care bill actually adds to our deficits. the way the cbo calculated savings was by overlooking things like the "doc fix" and using other accounting tricks.
@cristoballs The problem in general is getting accurate data. Is it calculated how many work days are lost to sick employees who didn't have access to affordable health care insurance? Is it calculated how many people lost jobs because of health problems that could've been taken care of if they had insurance? Is it calculated how many people went bankrupt trying to pay for health care without insurance? Is it calculated the worth of lives lost to curable diseases that went untreated?
@MarmaladeINFP none of that is the govt's responsibility. the fact that the federal has continually tried to regulate not only the health insurance industry, but also the medical and pharmaceutical industries, has led to higher costs. if the government would just get out of the way, the market would be able to respond more quickly to these problems. but all too often we hear more and more how the high costs of health are because there is not enough regulation. when are people gonna wise up?
@cristoballs You have a nice theory about how you think the world should and would work according to your beliefs/ideals, but I was asking about the facts that we can know. When are people going to wise up to actual facts? I really don't know.
@MarmaladeINFP well, what are the facts? do you deny that the reason health care is so expensive is because of excessive regulations. or do you think there are not enough regulations?
It is so expensive because it is so profitable for your greedy fucking businessmen. For fuck sakes americans, your system isn't perfect. If 10 guys could charge everybody thousands of dollars a year for water and air they would.
The reason healthcare is so expensive is because it is a for-profit system. They will find any way to gouge you, and when you get sick (before this bill) they would just drop your ass for no reason at all.
@cristoballs My point is that I don't know the facts, you don't know the facts, and the politicians in Washington apparently don't know the facts. This is the problem. People come to conclusions based on their beliefs before even knowing the facts. Your comment was an example of this. You assume a particular answer without even fully knowing the details of the problem. Playing games of rhetoric is no way to decide public policy.
@MarmaladeINFP if nobody knows any facts, why would you trust the federal government when it makes this claims that this bill is going reduce deficits. maybe i don't know every fact. i can concede that. but i know enough to know that a lot was left out of the cbo calculations that should anyone seriously question any politician who says this bill is going to decrease deficits.
@cristoballs If you want to discount the CBO estimates when they disagree with what policy items you oppose fine. But that should also mean that I get to reject CBO estimates when they say things I don't like too, right? Were the Republicans who relied on CBO estimates to criticize the Stimulous Bill last Congress wrong to do so?
Or should we maybe just accept that the CBO is a non-partisan advisory group that provides objective analysis of bills that affect the budget for Congress?
@TheRationalHatter i really wish people would playing these partisan games. you're the perfect example. you seem to think i care if this proposal came from a democrat or a republican. the simple fact is the cbo was not allowed to take into consideration things like the doc fix when figuring their numbers. watch the video where rep. paul ryan's explains this to obama. he doesn't blaim the cbo. all he is saying is that their estimates are wrong because they leave out things like the doc fix.
@bungerman1000 look. if you're looking for someone to defend bush, you're talking to the wrong person. i think bush was a horrible president. now, we please stay on the subject of the health care bill, or do you all really want to keep skirting the issue?
@cristoballs we can stick by the issues all you wish, but their hypocrisy can't go without notice.
Regarding the CBO, just as the next person mentions here
watch?v=ejBLHatglMw
You can either go with the CBO scores or not.
He mentioned that on the committee he and Ryan were both on he cited CBO plenty when it benefited or suited him, but now because of(whats that nasty word you told people not to use?) oh yea, partisanship, he chose not to use the numbers because they didn't fit his point
@bungerman1000 ok, i watched your video. now what's your point? he never claimed that the cbo was to blame. what he said was they were not given all the information necessary, from people outside of the cbo, to make an accurate calculation of how much this bill will actually cost. i'm sure they're math is fine, given the information they were presented. ryan is not denying that. he's saying that some information was intentionally not given to the cbo to make it look like a decrease in spending.
@cristoballs I see. So you claim no loyalty to the Republican party and your opposition to the health insurance reforms has nothing to do with partisan politics, huh? Whatever the answer to that question is (and believe me I don't give a shit about your personal politics) I'm going to take the word of profesional economists over the opinion of some douchebag on YouTube. :P
This has been flagged as spam show
How much fun is this making video's .. When you have time come visit my channe
pheromoneaction 11 months ago
Weiner lies about car insurance. 20 years ago, insurance was renewed on an annual basis. Then manditory insurance (PIP) was required and insurance became a bi-annual process. They amount I paid DOUBLED overnight with passage of manditory auto insurance. The only ones who benifit from ObamaCare are the insurance companies... HUGE donors to various PACs.
aeronautic1 1 year ago
@aeronautic1 thats why Anthony wants single payer.
lloydmauler 11 months ago
Hey anthony, if anyone gets hit by a bus, they will go to the ER all the time. This bill doesnt change that. The only way to reduce costs is to follow the dollars. The drivers of healthcare costs are not people (they have the same diseases they always did, and there are more people), it is the hospitals, pharma and insurance companies working together to keep costs high, WITHOUT any competition. Look at what insurance companies pay to the hospital versus private doctor for the same thing!
dwatsonpt 1 year ago
@dwatsonpt Absurdity. Blaming private conspiracies for US HC costs is like looking at a road full of drunks and methheads and assuming that the reason the road is so unsafe is becauce the lines must be painted incorrectly. The primary reason for HC costs in the US is skyrocketing pool risk due to abyssmal national health stats (ie, 34% obesity), which is exactly why the left wants the healthy and responsible to assume even more of the costs of an extraordinarily unhealthy population. Grand!
thereinliestherib 10 months ago
I figured out why people don't want heathcare reform. They want the state to pay all of their bills..
no1saphead 1 year ago
@no1saphead people with no insurance are already being paid by the state.
lloydmauler 11 months ago
@lloydmauler Rubbish, no they're not
splicedenergy 10 months ago
@lloydmauler and in theory, the individual mandate will cut down on this severely. This is why insurance companies don't want this. they can't cherry pick anymore
lloydmauler 10 months ago
@lloydmauler The insurance companies don't want what? Massively increased revenue streams and further market entrenchment through mandates to buy a monopolized, pigeonholed product??? Are these the same evil insurance co's who gave hundreds of millions to DEMOCRATS in 09, not the evil "other guys"? Huh. Ironically, the Left has played strategies straight out of the Bush handbook, yet none seem the wiser.
thereinliestherib 10 months ago
@no1saphead so you admit now that the taxes you are paying right now, you could end wars and pay for universal healthcare? AMAZING!
lloydmauler 10 months ago
@lloydmauler Who honestly believes universal HC is a good idea in a country where only the slimmest of minorities takes responsibility for their health, ie, their systemic risk-level? The primary reason for American HC costs is abyssmal national health; which also happens to be the very reason that Obamacare's only practical end is spreading liability through the mandate and buying restrictions. Why the heck should healthy young students be forced to pay for baby boomer bypasses??? Absurd.
thereinliestherib 10 months ago
@thereinliestherib
I might agree with that about abysmal level healthcare, except in seattle, washington, a cash paid checkup no bloodwork is 300$. in canada, its about 100$
lloydmauler 10 months ago
@lloydmauler Exactly, but the primary reason for overall cost increases is increased risk due to an insanely unhealthy country. I come from the NW, a healthier part of the US, and yet even I pay substantially more than I ought to for unnecessary, yet required coverage for crap that's intended for obese people and smokers; treatments that ultimately only treat the effect of the problem (diabetes, lung cancer, heart "disease", etc) not the cause of the problem (patient irresponsibility).
thereinliestherib 10 months ago
@lloydmauler And this difference is redistributed among a higher risk US pool than in Canada. Thanks for making my point.
thereinliestherib 10 months ago
What happens to folks who are still too poor to afford insurance even after these subsidies? Should we then just allow to die on the streets? How about people who are mis-read contracts and are refused payments by these companies. Last time I checked, people making $10k a year can't afford a lawyer.
There has be another for this cost to be shared between government and these insurance companies.
TrollingOnline 1 year ago
@TrollingOnline i suggest you marry a canadian
lloydmauler 10 months ago
This explanation is for five year olds, not legislators, right?
RedXofInsanity 1 year ago
Bohner, when taking over, promised he'd allow amendments & now he says no - Was he lying?
DillonDee1 1 year ago
HP's argument is brilliant, simply brilliant. He must be a brilliant Obama supporting Democrat.
kudzuATL 1 year ago
we need more anthony weiners.
mgoldberg333 1 year ago 3
fucking republicans...selfish, racist, bible reading hillbillies.
HPhenomenal 1 year ago
...did you just accuse someone of being prejudice with a prejudiced statement?
p0p0k0pf 1 year ago
Yeah my insurance went up this year but it also went up last year and the previous 3 years before that. The main bill doesn't take effect yet. I know you think California is going to raise rates by 59% but it wasn't allowed when the tried to do it last time! Now that we've lost Feingold and Grayson I'm glad we still have people left like Weiner.
I guess the Repubs. only trust the CBO when it benefits them. That's how everything goes with them.
pezcrow 1 year ago
I can't vouch for anything he said, but it sure is nice to see some articulate politicians that know how to convey information without a bunch of fluff and buzzwords to satisfy the urban retards.
jeffpmorgan 1 year ago
Need more people like him in office.
timthetortoise 1 year ago 3
@timthetortoise
That's why I vote Democrat. Get more guys that want to actually fix this country in office who can actually do it.
Sarstan 1 year ago
@timthetortoise I wish he was representing NM
abqleyba56 1 year ago
sorry im giving them to much credit I mean that if they actually do cut 100 bill they will still be in the hole. But as of now it would be 330. My Bad.
7tmo 1 year ago
We <3 Weiner!
inuyasha103190 1 year ago
I'm sick of all this free market BS people talk about. Most people have no clue what Adam Smith wrote on the subject. He said free markets were the most important thing for a strong economy. But the lines directly following that read that just as important as that are government oversight and control of that same economy. Why? He was living in a time where monopolies were devastating entire cultures and raping them for everything they had. The repercussions from that time are still felt today.
ContagiousD 1 year ago 4
boss
pedriano999 1 year ago
No matter what Weiner says, no one is listening. Republicans are not voting with reason or intelligence, they're voting counter to whatever the Democrats for for, whether it's a good idea or not.
They're merely grudge voting, not actually giving a shit about actual Americans. They're ALL already rich and well off, they couldn't give a shit about us. This is personal for them, and they want to see the Democrats fall.
Sad day for America. Look at what we've become.
xRawlins 1 year ago
Good job, Anthony.
BalzacOfTheTubes 1 year ago
Man, I love Weiner...wait! NO NO that's not what I meant!
All joking aside, we need a LOT more politicians like Anthony Weiner, on both sides of the isle. The vast majority of politicians are grandstanding, photo-op whores who only care about making a name for themselves instead of doing the job they were elected to do. Case in point, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. As a Democrat, I'm ashamed that they are/were our party leaders. We all know how hypocritical most Republicans are. Let's start over.
thedavehatessheep 1 year ago 3
@thedavehatessheep Anthony Weiner Majority leader, Alan Grayson Majority whip
lloydmauler 10 months ago
Government takeover - no. Government intervention - most definitely. But there is nothing wrong with that - it's hardly, however, free market.
airfalcon 1 year ago 2
Oh yeah right...its less expensive for "us" to pay for insurance now....BUT, who is paying for it ultimately? Well, check out TYT's video revealing that insurance rates in California are going up 59%. How many people have seen their rates go down?
Weiner is a true practitioner of voodoo economics. The numbers that he spews out are bogus. The CBO now saying the the bill is "deficit neutral". Just get government out of the game completely so companies will have to compete for insurance business.
StepUPNJ 1 year ago
@StepUPNJ my rates have gone down, thanks!.....where are you getting your sources from because i haven't seen that statistic anywhere, not even on the CBO website........
Tallyhallrun 1 year ago
@Tallyhallrun Really? First instance of rates going down that I have heard of. Here in the NY metro area, I have not heard of ANYONE whose rates have been reduced. Where do you live?
StepUPNJ 1 year ago
@StepUPNJ
It is PRIVATE INSURANCE and their unregulated, immoral business practices that cost so much, NOT regulation.
The government is in the game of the biggest industries in the country, subsidies for oil, gas, health care companies etc.
Also there is no free market because there is a nearly monopoly on the health insurance market, yet there is an anti-trust exemption. Is that free market?
Private insurance don't have to compete with a public option at all, so yes the costs will go up
micahgee 1 year ago
The privatization of insurance, a horrible idea. There really is no need for this industry, it profits out of setting limits for you when you get sick, while jacking up your rates to where it become a bigger expense than rent.
The "death panel" nonsense was a corporately funded campaign to discredit the "end of life consultation". By making seniors have no option to plan for end of life, they can make more money in the ICU etc. Profits over peace of mind for familys! Yay GOP
micahgee 1 year ago 3
@micahgee Agree completely.
StepUPNJ 1 year ago
This man is brilliant.
Joeey 1 year ago 3
Rego Park represent!
cgbaldwin 1 year ago
With all respect to Rep. Weiner he is explaining facts to the Reps. that they already know. They are not, and have never been, concerned by the facts. The reasons for the opposition to the health care bill is simple political opportunism. The actual facts are irrelevant.
stephenry2 1 year ago 33
@stephenry2 Today I Learned that current Republicans are self serving thieves and will bankrupt the country to enrich themselves and their friends.
Joeey 1 year ago 4
@stephenry2 facts and statistics are two very different things.
manguy01 1 year ago
Republicans paying for things? Ppffffchchhhhahahahahhahaa
dmitrogg 1 year ago
I love this guy. I wish he was from my state.
b2ferrara 1 year ago 2
This guy's a really good speaker
emeraldice2006 1 year ago 2
he looks like that dude with the forehead in startrek
buttrdtost 1 year ago
Preach!
sample45 1 year ago
Universal healthcare for all! Cut the department of offense by 75%
studape 1 year ago 4
lol weiner.
ZeroGravityTerrific 1 year ago
Ok, so we don't want socialized health care. Well, considering that currently those who can't / don't pay their bills get covered by the state and taxpayers, how about this: If you don't have insurance when you get to the hospital, you have to pay up front, if you can't afford it - tough. Maybe after a couple months of the working class Republicans and Tea Party-types dying in waiting rooms, then we can sit down and talk about this again.
silentbobsc 1 year ago
@silentbobsc except for the fact that it wont only be republicans going to hospital uninsured...
burntjoint 1 year ago
@burntjoint Nope, it sure won't... but this ridiculous system of for-profit health care -- a service that is by it's very concept is at odds with a core tenant of Christianity (care for your brother) -- has gotten out of hand... and maybe it's only absurd thought experiments (or hell, implement the idea) that will shake these fools from their dream that there's nothing wrong with our system. They're already asking us to die, but just slower, and in much greater debt.
silentbobsc 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
Konkaver 1 year ago
@Konkaver Calling them 'faggots' would be offensive to the homosexual community.
n8dogg87 1 year ago
@n8dogg87 Sorry republican induced rage clouded my word choice... My apologies to the homosexual community and that I am a firm believer that the term "faggot" not be associated with homosexuals. In place of "faggot" and in an attempt to be politically correct, I will label republicans as Shit-eating jerk offs that don't deserve the luxury of good health.
Konkaver 1 year ago
This guy shoves his weiner down their throats and makes them listen. Good on him!
RubberRoss 1 year ago
(My First EVER comment on YouTube - Finally something Inspiring enough to warrant a word.)
Brilliant!!! Move this man to the head of the queue!!!
querip 1 year ago
LOL 2EZ
doobie7777 1 year ago
If he was playing Halo, that would be called "UBER PWNAGE, BITCH."
metallicakixtotalass 1 year ago
President Weiner, sounds good.
FIipMode 1 year ago 3
thanks adamthelang good come back. what r u doing up so late?. i am in china working thats why i am up.
aca319ca 1 year ago
what a boss
georgegmz 1 year ago
why can't the rest of the people responsible for the running of our country be this passionate and intelligent?
Mexikun 1 year ago 5
Oregon salutes you Mr. Congressman.
Kheldarr2217 1 year ago 2
I was waiting for him to say, "now you set it and forget it."
kgbstalin 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
randy3y 1 year ago
We need Mr. Weiner to be in the Obama administration so he can make the republican party STFU because they have no plan to fix the economy. All the republican party has to offer is to try to fuck up everything Obama did. Vote democrat in 2012!!
dudguitar752 1 year ago
My car insurance never went down when the government forced us all to have it.
blank264 1 year ago
@blank264 For that matter my health insurance already went up with a higher deductible. It will go up again this year.
blank264 1 year ago
Weiner is the best congressman in America. Hands down.
plual226 1 year ago 4
@plual226 Well, I really like Kucinich too, but Weiner is really really good. Clarity is so refreshing. The facts do count.
Wolfiemouse 1 year ago
that was such a succinct and commonsensical explanation of the HCR benefits that it was funny! Who do they think pays for emergency care, which is where the uninsured go when they need care...the bill fairy?
beatyatoit1 1 year ago 3
Weiner is one of the few congressmen we can trust in this country anymore.
leeroyjenks 1 year ago
here is a fact CA. just raised its insurance premiums 35%. why is that congressman.the free market and competition is what will drive down costs like you said earlier. i am not ready to have all my info given and transmitted to some govt office for others to read and possibly use against me later. that is very troubling.
aca319ca 1 year ago
@aca319ca Buh?
1) CA doesn't collect insurance premiums. Perhaps you meant some specific company in CA? Oh, yes, you meant that one company raised its rates on some individual people by 35%. (Only a few people, but whatever.)
2) Rates have been going up 10 to 20% a year for 30 years.
3) There's plenty of competition now. Companies can even compete across state lines: I'm in CA, my health insurance company is in Indiana.
But don't let facts get in the way of your religion ('the free market')
AdamTheLang 1 year ago
@aca319ca The government already has all of your information.
samusssbm85 1 year ago
I love Weiner and hate Boehner.
CatalyticDragon 1 year ago
I <3 Weiner
acerbic42 1 year ago
Weiner, kick the corrupt Republicans' asses.
zombays 1 year ago 4
so proud to have this man representing my state!
jayshemwell 1 year ago
This is the most coherent argument regarding health care that I've heard in months.
HypocriticalElitist 1 year ago 3
@DataJackOne listen, genius. i didn't say the cbo had anything to gain by this. this is not the cbo's fault. the numbers are off because they can only use the information that they were given. they were told not to include things like the doc fix. again, it's not the cbo's fault that these projections are wrong. stop with your silly attacks and pay attention. i don't fox news. there's a clip of paul ryan speaking to obama on this. he does not blame the cbo.
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs he explains it quite clearly, the reason the cbo's numbers are not reliable, is not because of any fault of their own. it's because the people who wrote up this bill did not provide them with all the information for calculating an accurated projection. get it? i repeat... THIS IS NOT THE CBO'S FAULT. can i make myself any clearer than that?
cristoballs 1 year ago
@DataJackOne: LMAO!! EVERYONE is partisan to an extent. Get a clue!! Look at the "revised" CBO estimates when Republicans put forward the REAL numbers.
2010GOP 1 year ago
@DataJackOne: I'm NOT wrong
a) AGAIN, how ignorant does one have to be to actually believe that insuring millions on a month-to-month basis is cheaper than covering as-needed care for only a fraction
b) YOU obviously don't understand how h/c will work. Govt subsidized is a good start. If Govt's not handling, why is there costs? LOL Procedures covered is another. Obama's own Administrator said Govt will ration.
c) YES, SS/Medicare is slated to go bankrupt in 2017 --- Educate yourself!!
2010GOP 1 year ago
@2010GOP You sound like you're the type who hears Boehner say, "Well of course the American people know that ObamaCare will add to the deficit" and think, "That's it! That's the empirical evidence, the incontrovertible truth, the plain as day facts of life! Numbers be damned! We don't need no stinking numbers!" Newsflash: forbes.com just today is saying that insurance companies are reporting a major uptick in small business group policy purchases in 2010!
TheAjc612 1 year ago 2
I'm man enough to say it ... I LOVE WEINER!!!
nutt66 1 year ago 2
I have heard Anthony Weiner speak a number of times, on many different issues and he does very well with trying to get his point across. He speaks clearly, he gestures a lot, he speaks in different rhythms with different pitches. In short I see how one with very little brain power could be hypnotized into believing the words that come out of his mouth. 4:44 "Its (Health Care) the opposite of a government takeover." A flat out lie. He's either a moron, or intentionally deceiving his listeners
Ibrownedmyself 1 year ago
Give 'em hell Harry (sorry, ANTHONY!).
A voice of reason in this foolishness!
sloopskipper 1 year ago
@sloopskipper: You're all a bunch of retards who've been duped.
Only a fk'ing idiot could:
a) Believe insuring millions vs. funding as-needed care for only a fraction of those millions would save $
b) The Govt can handle this massive program given that SS/Medicare is slated to go bankrupt in 2017 after decades in trying to figure out how to make it function out of the red --- there is still no fix!
2010GOP 1 year ago
WHAM-O!!!
yoursaxman 1 year ago
Weiner should run for president!
jayssus 1 year ago 93
@jayssus 2016 Anthony Weiner ... is a contender!!! Well spoken, with a respect to the facts. Right on.
Wolfiemouse 1 year ago
@jayssus Yeah no.
RedStarr2121 1 year ago
@jayssus fuck that, weiner should run for BATMAN
uberscheisse 1 year ago 66
@jayssus thats what they said about obama. obama would have been a better vp imho.
allenbina 1 year ago
@jayssus i like weiner but i wouldn't want him to be president
darkmarsh77 1 year ago
@jayssus If America can elect an Obama, they can elect a Weiner.
thrashertm 1 year ago
This is classic "Stage-one thinking."
Stage One: We all pay for uninsured when they go to the hospital. Therefore, paying a subsidy upfront will reduce that cost;
Stage One thinkers stop there.
Stage Two: The Subsidy will over time inflate the price of the insurance, making this analogous to University Tuition that has increased exponentially every year. This will make subsidies more likely over time.
Stage One: "corrects" short-term problem and creates long-term budget buster.
HowTheWorldWorks 1 year ago
@HowTheWorldWorks Your logic is incorrect.
You can't draw a conclusion ("therefore,...") from a single simple assertion "We all pay for uninsured...".
You have no logically constructed argument at all.
RB1US 1 year ago
@HowTheWorldWorks Your "Stage One" argument is patently false. Paying a subsidy upfront isn't reducing cost at all. It's merely transferring the cost from payment at time of service to payment upfront. The rest of your argument fails under false assertion.
RB1US 1 year ago
@HowTheWorldWorks Your "Stage One" argument is false. Paying from a "subsidy upfront" as you (incorrectly) describe the process won't reduce the cost. It merely transfers the payment from time of service. It doesn't reduce it.
And how is this analogous to university tuition? Many universities offer a tuition reduction if a student pays all four years "upfront", the opposite of what you claim.
RB1US 1 year ago
@RB1US
Maybe you should have asked your questions before you declared by fiat what I said was false.
1) When student loans are subsidized, absent any price controls on tuition (n.b. I don't advocate price controls), the schools have an incentive to increase tuition b/c the gov't will pay for it. The same is true in fact with any subsidy. Those subsidies will increase the price over time;
2) Third-party payers absent rationing (don't support either), will always increase prices.
HowTheWorldWorks 1 year ago
@HowTheWorldWorks: Again you're wrong. I didn't ask any questions.
RB1US 1 year ago
@HowTheWorldWorks
1. Correlation does not equal causation. Unless you can demonstrate that education subsidies are a direct driver of increasing tuition, your argument really doesn't have a leg to stand on...I'd love to see data that supports your assertion. I also disagree with your blithely generalized statement that "any subsidy will increase prices over time" -- not true. Take a look at the solar electric market and the impact that THOSE subsidies have had in recent years.
usemorewind 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HowTheWorldWorks
1. Correlation does not equal causation. Unless you can demonstrate that education subsidies are a direct driver of increasing tuition, your argument really doesn't have a leg to stand on...I'd love to see data that supports your assertion. I also disagree with your blithely generalized statement that "any subsidy will increase prices over time" -- not true. Take a look at the solar electric market and the impact that THOSE subsidies have had in recent years.
usemorewind 1 year ago
@HowTheWorldWorks You have that backwards. Tuition increases at public institutions have FAR outpaced those at private institutions. The increases happen not because the government will pay, but because they will NOT pay.
TheAjc612 1 year ago
@TheAjc612
I'm talking about subsidizing student loans.
HowTheWorldWorks 1 year ago
@HowTheWorldWorks Welcome back, Thunder f00t says HI. Sory sir but you have lost all credibity.
lennaylennay2 1 year ago
The bill fairy? I love this guy.
wittsmith 1 year ago 2
You know whats funny, the Republicans promised to cut 100 billion, but by repealing health care they will add 230 billion. so they will actually be 130 billion in the hole in terms of their goal. Leave it to Republicans to put politics before promised policy.
7tmo 1 year ago 60
@7tmo Um, your logic is flawed. After repealing the bill, they would have to cut the original 100 billion they promised as well as 230 billion on top of that. They would effectively be starting out 330 billion below what they promised.
sanityorsound 1 year ago
@sanityorsound lol, no, it is going to COST 230 billion to repeal.
essnaaaminnaa2007 1 year ago
@7tmo Actually, it's 330 billion in the hole as compared to their goal. I know, math is hard.
TheeUnlikely 1 year ago
Does anybody else think it's funny that we have both a Weiner and a Boehner in the house? Do we have a Koch? I'm sure there's plenty of dicks.
TheeUnlikely 1 year ago
@7tmo
Wouldn't they be 330 billion in the hole then? Or is my math terribly wrong?
bchen5 1 year ago
@7tmo
Wouldn't they be 330 billion in the hole then? Or is my math terribly wrong?
bchen5 1 year ago
@bchen5
They are saying that by cutting the bill, costs will be cut by 100bil. So the country saves 100bil. directly. The effects, however, end up costing an extra 230bil. So in the end, we're 130bil. in the hole.
Sarstan 1 year ago
Comment removed
bobfell 1 year ago
LOL
BlitzNeko 1 year ago
So is it Weener or Winer? lol Good info regardless
a4d2d0 1 year ago
@a4d2d0 Yeah, and is it "Bay - ner" or...
Oh, never mind.
RB1US 1 year ago
Weiner for President 2012! :)
Puroburos 1 year ago
@Puroburos 2016
Wolfiemouse 1 year ago
subscribed
nongo 1 year ago
If more Democrats in Congress acted like Rep. Weiner less of them would have lost their most recent elections. Republicans should walk their talk or just admit that their obsession with deficit spending is only in affect of those deficts benefit the American Tax Payer.
TheRationalHatter 1 year ago 3
@TheRationalHatter Unfortunately Alan Grayson didn't make it.
ronaldgibson 1 year ago
Don't take this the wrong way but, I WANT MORE WEINERS!!!!!!!
executehelenkeller 1 year ago 5
health water power roads should be run by governments, they were formed to look after the people. I didnt mind the unemployed getting the same health care tretment as me and every other employed person. in my opion when private health was intrduced (15years roughly big push in last 5 years) here it was the beging of the end of public health. we all need health care so why not have a public health care sysyem.
me001ist 1 year ago
@me001ist people say i dont need so much cover when iam young, well you will get old and those levys youve been paying were looking after everyone, now because you wanted to save a couple of dollars in your youth public health is gone and your old, now you will end up paying more than you saved.
me001ist 1 year ago
my counrty had health care for all untill our government wanted the health system you have wich is what pay as you go, doesnt work especialy if you`ve got no money. here (employed people) we would pay a levy once a year out of our tax refunds so we never missed it (500 a year) i have had 4 operations and never paid a cent extra.things like medications are subsidized as well as xrays and other scans. seeing your local doctor GP is covered. if your unemployed you still get the same treatment.
me001ist 1 year ago
The Republicans don't care. What we need to do is find out why people are voting so illogically, for Republicans, and get them to vote for their own interests. One way is to charge the right-wing media with election fraud, as they are tricking millions of people into voting for Republicans.
JEFF9K 1 year ago
Where does the 1.2 Trillion dollars come from that the bill supposedly is generating?
Weiner (supported by CBO and insurance companies) says that
1) Paying for uninsured costs more
2) Price of insurance goes down when more people are insured
The uninsured must cost a lot of money then.
LJonathan 1 year ago
Thank you so much Rep. Weiner for (in the words of Denzel Washington's character in the movie Philadelphia), explaining it to us like we're 4 year olds, lol.
Boobalopbop 1 year ago
Well said...
steven94116 1 year ago
Wow go Weiner!
caseyvill 1 year ago
here come the republitard comments and responses...
cowboyx1970 1 year ago 3
remember if your desperate and destitute rob a republican
bashue69 1 year ago 2
Mr Weiner I frickin love you
MagellansUnderwear 1 year ago
How about we remove insurance and let people be in charge of their own fucking health? That's a plan. No insurance. No insurance= costs going WAY down.
TheMango121 1 year ago
One of the few good guys in Congress. Working for the people.
BeBreezin 1 year ago
IF the Republicans want to repeal the bill, and IF they have a better bill,(as they say they do), why not bring out their bill, add a section stating that upon passage and signing, the current bill would be repealled?
Time to PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!
Anthony Weiner makes too much sense for them to understand.
exsinor 1 year ago 3
@exsinor Exactly. The republicans just have their fucking heads up their asses I believe...
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago 2
I'm glad I live in NY
ELMOisINNOCENT 1 year ago
the problem with weiner's argument is that it's based on the assumption that cbo's numbers are correct, in that the hc reform act will save money. however, as pointed by people like rep. paul ryan of wisconsin, the health care bill actually adds to our deficits. the way the cbo calculated savings was by overlooking things like the "doc fix" and using other accounting tricks.
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs The problem in general is getting accurate data. Is it calculated how many work days are lost to sick employees who didn't have access to affordable health care insurance? Is it calculated how many people lost jobs because of health problems that could've been taken care of if they had insurance? Is it calculated how many people went bankrupt trying to pay for health care without insurance? Is it calculated the worth of lives lost to curable diseases that went untreated?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP none of that is the govt's responsibility. the fact that the federal has continually tried to regulate not only the health insurance industry, but also the medical and pharmaceutical industries, has led to higher costs. if the government would just get out of the way, the market would be able to respond more quickly to these problems. but all too often we hear more and more how the high costs of health are because there is not enough regulation. when are people gonna wise up?
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs You have a nice theory about how you think the world should and would work according to your beliefs/ideals, but I was asking about the facts that we can know. When are people going to wise up to actual facts? I really don't know.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP well, what are the facts? do you deny that the reason health care is so expensive is because of excessive regulations. or do you think there are not enough regulations?
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs
It is so expensive because it is so profitable for your greedy fucking businessmen. For fuck sakes americans, your system isn't perfect. If 10 guys could charge everybody thousands of dollars a year for water and air they would.
Shelbzism 1 year ago
@cristoballs
The reason healthcare is so expensive is because it is a for-profit system. They will find any way to gouge you, and when you get sick (before this bill) they would just drop your ass for no reason at all.
pbmdh 1 year ago
@cristoballs My point is that I don't know the facts, you don't know the facts, and the politicians in Washington apparently don't know the facts. This is the problem. People come to conclusions based on their beliefs before even knowing the facts. Your comment was an example of this. You assume a particular answer without even fully knowing the details of the problem. Playing games of rhetoric is no way to decide public policy.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP if nobody knows any facts, why would you trust the federal government when it makes this claims that this bill is going reduce deficits. maybe i don't know every fact. i can concede that. but i know enough to know that a lot was left out of the cbo calculations that should anyone seriously question any politician who says this bill is going to decrease deficits.
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs If you want to discount the CBO estimates when they disagree with what policy items you oppose fine. But that should also mean that I get to reject CBO estimates when they say things I don't like too, right? Were the Republicans who relied on CBO estimates to criticize the Stimulous Bill last Congress wrong to do so?
Or should we maybe just accept that the CBO is a non-partisan advisory group that provides objective analysis of bills that affect the budget for Congress?
TheRationalHatter 1 year ago 2
@TheRationalHatter i really wish people would playing these partisan games. you're the perfect example. you seem to think i care if this proposal came from a democrat or a republican. the simple fact is the cbo was not allowed to take into consideration things like the doc fix when figuring their numbers. watch the video where rep. paul ryan's explains this to obama. he doesn't blaim the cbo. all he is saying is that their estimates are wrong because they leave out things like the doc fix.
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs *i really wish people wouldn't play these partisan games...
link to paul ryan video:
watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs
cristoballs 1 year ago
is that the same way the repubs took the 2 wars off the budget during the Bush years??
bungerman1000 1 year ago
@bungerman1000 look. if you're looking for someone to defend bush, you're talking to the wrong person. i think bush was a horrible president. now, we please stay on the subject of the health care bill, or do you all really want to keep skirting the issue?
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs we can stick by the issues all you wish, but their hypocrisy can't go without notice.
Regarding the CBO, just as the next person mentions here
watch?v=ejBLHatglMw
You can either go with the CBO scores or not.
He mentioned that on the committee he and Ryan were both on he cited CBO plenty when it benefited or suited him, but now because of(whats that nasty word you told people not to use?) oh yea, partisanship, he chose not to use the numbers because they didn't fit his point
bungerman1000 1 year ago
@bungerman1000 ok, i watched your video. now what's your point? he never claimed that the cbo was to blame. what he said was they were not given all the information necessary, from people outside of the cbo, to make an accurate calculation of how much this bill will actually cost. i'm sure they're math is fine, given the information they were presented. ryan is not denying that. he's saying that some information was intentionally not given to the cbo to make it look like a decrease in spending.
cristoballs 1 year ago
@cristoballs I see. So you claim no loyalty to the Republican party and your opposition to the health insurance reforms has nothing to do with partisan politics, huh? Whatever the answer to that question is (and believe me I don't give a shit about your personal politics) I'm going to take the word of profesional economists over the opinion of some douchebag on YouTube. :P
TheRationalHatter 1 year ago 2