GOP Resorts To Outright Lies To Argue Against Medicare For All

For FREE help finding a Medicare plan,
Click here or call 1-800-729-9590.

Read More At:

Support The Show On Patreon:

Here's Our Amazon Link:

Follow Kyle on Twitter:

Like the show on Facebook:

Clip from The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio Monday – Friday 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Eastern time zone.

Listen to the Live Show or On Demand archive at:

Check out our website – and become a member – at:

 

Share This:

77 thoughts on “GOP Resorts To Outright Lies To Argue Against Medicare For All

    • Count Deku
      Correction: they *claim* to be Christian. It’s very important to remember that _identifying as a Christian_ and _actually being devout and practicing_ are different.

    • celvester allison thats called the “not a true scotsman” fallacy. Because you dont like their behaviour and or opinions doesnt make them less “christian”.

    • TheMrfrodough So can I call myself a soldier even though I have never enlisted. So apparently words mean nothing. I don’t really practice anything so I guess I can call myself a Jew and a Muslim now since apparently those are just titles.

  1. No matter what the GOP says, there are no downsides to Medicare for all. Their only valid argument aginst it is longer wait times for elective non emergency surgery that can be offset with private clinics. Medicare for all is cheaper per capita, gets for profit insurance companies, gets rid of the real “death panels” (aka insurance denying people care), lowers prescription drugs, saves money for small and medium businesses who don’t have to cover their employees’ insurance, and covers everyone. Healthcare is one thing capitalism and the free market cannot provide for less and morally.

    • The FBIs statistics on crime are generally considered the most comprehensive.

      Texas vs. Illinois was in question because it was brought up by your fellow commentator. He said Illinois has a higher crime rate than Texas. He was wrong, both in terms of property crime and violent crime. The only thing for which Illinois had a higher rate was homicide.

      Your own numbers don’t match up with your assertion that crime is centered in “liberal cities” in every state.

      In Texas county offenses, counties with populations over 100,000 reported 144 murders. Counties under 100,000 combined reported 140 murders. Seems pretty well split between rural counties and higher population counties. In municipal crime, there were 830 in cities with population over 100,000…if you are claiming that all cities in Texas with more than 100,000 people is a “liberal city,” you are really barking up the wrong tree.

      Crime rates and total number of crimes are not the same thing. The crime rate is the quantity of a particular crime per 100,000 persons. So, the violent rate of 405.9 in Texas means that for every 100,000 people, there were 405.9 violent crimes committed.

      How can you still assert that welfare increased poverty rates when poverty rates have declined since welfare was enacted? That is absurd. Also, the article you shared, “Does Welfare Diminish Poverty,” is from 1984…right after a large recession. The fact that poverty increases during recessions is pretty much a given.

      The poverty rate has bounced between 11% and 15% since we first hit 11%. So, yes, welfare doesn’t work perfectly. But to claim it INCREASES poverty is literally, factually, incorrect.

      The fact that many people believe welfare is the root cause of persistent poverty doesn’t make it true. That is an appeal to common belief fallacy. It is illogical to assume that the majority of people agreeing about something means that it is true.

      I’ll get back to this later…time to watch some Netflix with the family.

    • UsernameFECKLE Talbott is right about liberal cities which have high crime rates regardless it is Texas or Illinois.Liberal cities run by democrat mayors have higher crime rates . Look in the FBI crime rates in Texas

      https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-8/table-8-state-cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_texas_by_city_2013.xls

      Majority of the crimes are in Dallas, Houston,San Antonio, Austin . These are big welfare cities with lot of poverty in inner cities. All of them are liberal cities. You are missing the whole point about welfare. Welfare doesn’t pull people out of poverty it puts them in permanent dependency.The war on poverty was meant to eradicate poverty .Instead it has only put people in poverty.

      You can take a look at how liberal cities are more prone to crime than conservative cities. I believe that is what Talbott was referring to.

      http://www.rollitup.org/t/crime-rates-in-liberal-cities-shockingly-higher-than-in-conservative-cities.757239/

      Bill Clinton signed welfare reform. He took people out of welfare.Due to economic boom , there were people who started working. You didn’t read any of the links I posted. US economy has increased since 1960s so based on your comparison that poverty rate is bouncing between 11% and 15% is not something to be proud of.We had economic boom in 1980s and 1990s .And still the poverty rate is in double digits.

      Based on war on poverty ultimate motive , poverty should have been eliminated or at least very low but that is not how it worked.

      The official poverty rate is 13.5 percent, based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2015 estimates. That year, an estimated 43.1 million Americans lived in poverty according to the official measure.

      you can check the source here https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

      13.5 percent proves that still more people who are poor than the 19% of people who were poor before 1964 based on the population. The current population of US is 320 million 13 5% of the population who are poor meaning 43 million people are poor. Back in 1964 before the war on poverty the population of US was 192 million. The poverty rate was 19% which was 36 million people who were poor.Did poverty rate increase or decrease? . Why more people are poor 50 years after war on poverty?. So has welfare increased poverty or decreased it?

    • POVERTY RATE IS THE % OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY!!!!

      You don’t even know the difference between a raw number and a RATE.

      THE POVERTY RATE HAS DECLINED! Is 13.5% in 2015 less than 19% in 1964? YES.

      This article will explain why the supplemental poverty measure is likely more accurate than the official poverty measure, and why it shows that poverty has been declining pretty steadily since the late 1960s. It also shows how the Columbia study from 2012 found that, without transfers, the poverty rate today would actually be HIGHER than in the late 1960s:
      http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/how-the-war-on-poverty-succeeded-in-four-charts

      This article explains why many numbers in this debate can be muddy and difficult to analyze, among other things:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/paul-ryans-claim-that-15-trillion-has-been-spent-on-the-war-on-poverty/2013/08/01/b2599058-faf9-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_blog.html?utm_term=.d877b0a88cb9

      This article shows how welfare has impacted various groups by race (showing a HUGE decline in poverty among black Americans), and total government spending in dollar terms, as well as a % of GDP. Note that the growth in spending is almost all due to INCREASING COSTS OF MEDICAL CARE, and not programs such as TANF.
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/?utm_term=.f883a6c0d437

      More general information. Note that the Columbia study of the alternative measure, without anti-poverty programs, the alternate poverty measure would be HIGHER today than in the late 1960s.
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-war-on-poverty/?utm_term=.a14cf11251b0

      Other anti-poverty programs not usually considered to be “welfare,” like Job Corps, also have a significant impact on poverty and on REDUCING crime.

      The official poverty measure is hugely flawed. It is based on a very basic metric that is reflective of the cost of food for a family of three in the early 1960s. It doesn’t do justice to how effective many of these anti-poverty programs have been.

      Now, I agree that Lyndon Johnson’s goal has not been achieved, but that isn’t surprising. Presidents usually aren’t right about how long things take. But if you look at the alternative poverty measure over the past 50+ years, the programs ARE WORKING. We could certainly do more to have greater affect, such as more effort in grants and scholarships for college, more useful reforms to education, more job training…but the fact that a huge portion of people think that NO PROGRAMS work, or falsely believe that poverty HAS GONE UP since the war on poverty began is a big hurdle to overcome in making useful changes.

    • So if 13.5% equals 43 million and 19%  equals 36 million .So there is a 7 million uptick in the number of poor people but you tell me that war on poverty has worked because you should not look at number of people who are poor but just look at percentage .More people in poverty is Okay?. we can be satisfied that the percentage is lesser than it was in 1964 but number of people who are poor are more. So when population grows number of poor people should also grow?. Is that the aim of war on poverty?.

  2. If Jesus were alive today, these “God-fearing” people of the GOP who claim to love him so much would view him as a degenerate hippie commie who cares a little too much about helping people other than himself and mega corporations.

    • donHooligan,

      Hillary won the primary because she rigged it, not because of voter fraud. And some more legitimate reasons like Bernie wasn’t as well known when the primaries started and so had a late start.

      Yes Hillary beat Trump in the popular vote by about 3 million, that is an established fact. This happened before too when Bush won. It happens because of the electoral college and a higher percentage of liberal voters live in cities so their actual votes have less of an impact on the college than they do on the popular vote

    • Patrick Schaefer exactly. And honestly in whats supposed to be some form of democracy it should be total vote count vs total vote count. And thats not me wanting clinton i despised both her and trump.

    • I can’t decide if I want the college taken out. Its purpose is to make the many values and viewpoints throughout the country have a voice. Without it every election would basically be decided by NY and CA alone and that doesn’t really seem fair. Unfortunately, as a liberalish voter, the college tends to harm my views

    • Patrick Schaefer the college is a severely double edged sword. Basicly in every state up to 49% of the votes essentially dont count

    • Patrick-
      ELECTION fraud…i NEVER said voter fraud.
      you should do More Thinking and Less Regurgitating.

      if you beLIEve that Hillary beat BOTH Trump AND Bernie by “3 million votes” (what a coinky-dink) then you are, quite possibly, void of any critical thinking skills.

  3. Despite the fact that the United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other developed nation by far, it is probably the only developed, industrialized nation whose overall life expectancy still doesn’t even surpass 80. One of the main reasons (along with obesity and murder rate) is lack of guaranteed coverage. Inefficient healthcare system!

    • “ut you’re right, I am just dragging myself down to the level of someone
      who constructs alarmingly illogical arguments. Such a bonkers fallacy
      confuses and disturbs me too, but maybe that’s just because I spent time
      studying fallacies of argumentation for law school. ”

      You are trying to dismiss my argument as opposed to taking it on. You started with this

      “Providing basic medical care for all citizens”

      And I responded with this

      “define “basic medical care”. That is vague. ”

      Which is true. You then proceeded to do an appeal to emotion argument which does not go well to people who are intelligent and logical.

      ” It’s just that the saddest part is that my experience is hardly unique.
      And a lack of study on the issue along with lack of compassion does
      still throw me for a loop. ”

      I looked at the issue and I feel compassion, to me having Medicare for all is not the solution. Again, how many people will suffer to cater to you? You have to consider that. You are, in a way, wishing ill will on others so you can do well. Nothing is free.

      As I said, I am all for improving our healthcare system as it has problems. If it were as simple as Medicare for all then I will be all for it. However, knowing the complexity of healthcare and the inefficiencies of our federal government, it is not that simple.

      Again, I feel bad for your situation, but I have to think logically here. Unless you have an intelligent comment to support Medicare for all I have to dismiss your comment.

    • +whyamimrpink78 nice paper. All 111 pages of it seemed legit until I looked up the source. AEI is a think tank supported by the Koch foundation. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Enterprise_Institute
      It’s quite disgusting when you see another human being tell another human being that her health problems aren’t theirs. I’m glad I live in a country that provides national healthcare to everyone – in fact they won’t deny it to even tourists. I guess that’s the (tax) price you pay for living in a humane society. Hope your insurance doesn’t deny you your heart transplant one day.

    • +Mal c.H come to the UK to study where you can get treated. UK won’t throw you away. You’re fighting the good fight so don’t give up.

    • Noonelikes, that book is written by two professors who are experts in that field. They cite all of their sources and give all of their resources for you to read and criticize if needed.

      It’s quite disgusting that you will dismiss a source that easily without reading it yourself and coming up with you own original thoughts.

  4. What’s more depressing is the millions of idiots that believe that bullshit and still don’t understand that Going bankrupt over medical bills is a uniquely American thing

  5. Bernie is asking all of us who live in countries with Medicare for All, to send him our experiences. We need to help our American friends to get this done.

  6. Of course the Democrats are supporting single-payer healthcare… they don’t have the power to get it done.
    Just like the Republicans could vote in the House every few weeks to repeal the ACA… because they didn’t have the power to get it done.

    When the Democrats eventually return to power, then the Capitalist class swap out ruling parties to give everyone the illusion of choice, the Democratic Party will suddenly never have heard of single-payer.

  7. But..but…muh free market!! Even though the market for insurance does literally nothing to improve actual care and wastes money for everyone, and leaves people to die.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *