Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

127 - Postgame ft. Malaika Jabali (Patreon)

Published:
2020-02-13 02:10:32
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

thanks, patrons!

Files

Previews only

Postgame - 127 - ft. Malaika Jabali

Multistreaming with https://restream.io/ Thanks for being patrons!

Comments

James Hendra

There's no audio at the beginning

Bijou Smith

@48:00 you guys need serious re-education. Biden, Klobuchar, Bernie, Burgis, Broooksy, Iglesias,... you are all wrong about M4A. Bernie gets it more right than the others though: M4A will lower costs for families, AND put thousands of insurance workers out of work, AND reduce costs to all businesses formerly providing healthcare insurance for their employees enabling them to cut their prices, adding to deflationary pressure. You can then LOWER taxes. That's the appropriate fiscal adjustment. Or (which I prefer) you could not touch taxes (because anyway, taxes are not used to fund Federal spending) but instead increase the fiscal injection (gov. deficit) to fund a Job Guarantee program so the ex-insurance workers have a guaranteed employment back-stop. This is basic economics, I am surprised Griscomb did not butt in to point this out. If you raise taxes (falsely thinking taxes fund the currency issuer) you will cause huge deflationary pressures --- PARTICULARLY if that's middle class taxes. It's absolutely the opposite of what you should do to introduce free healthcare. Further, in terms of the REAL ECONOMY, for productive healthy workers, offering government deficit funded free healthcare raises productivity, so that increases tax revenue naturally without any tax structure adjustment, so we say, free healthcare mostly pays for itself. Bottom line is raising taxes does not, and should not, pay for free healthcare. The cost is the real shift of resources OUT of the private sector INTO the public sector, which will likely be a real cost in terms of lost jobs (because M4A does not need any insurance people). You "pay for" that by funding new jobs, which is best done directly through either increasing public sector hiring, or a job guarantee. Since the wokers losing their jobs are not doctors and nurses, but insurance administrators, the best policy adjustment to "pay for" Medicare For All would be a job guarantee, which btw will also employ plenty of local JG administrators, quite well suited from insurance administration, for things like catching JG fraud, risk and health & safety paper-work. The ONLY sense in which the Federal government uses tax as a "pay for" is to fight inflation, period. Taxes remove money from circulation, so that's deflation, and that's all general taxes ever "pay for". Since the transition period to Medicare for All is deflationary, there is no tax "pay for" required.

Bijou Smith

There is ZERO downside to putting ALL the healthcare benefits the Culinary Union workers won into Medicare For All. Good healthcare pays for itself in the REAL ECONOMY. So the pure deficit spending, for this sort of special purpose, cannot, and will not, cause any inflation --- unless the supply of hospitals and clinics is insufficient, that's the ONLY reason a transition is needed, to make sure waiting times do not explode. The Federal government is not monetarily constrained, it is constrained by real resources.