Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Democrats Sing, Republicans Laugh While America Cries As Obamacare Dies" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, the reason why you did not go is because you are a fake. You told you about the video and there were plenty there that would have disagreed with you and called you a fake like you did me. Instead you stayed in an echo chamber.
"If you want a actual debate with people who understand science, may want
to pick a channel that actually deals with science, such as potholer. "
Then why do you go to TYT or Secular Talk? They do not deal with science? Also, potholer, while respectable in some ways is a fake himself. There is a reason why he only attacks people like Steven Crowder and young earth theorist. They are easy targets. He studied a little geology and feels he has an in depth understanding of science. But he was challenged on his channel. Someone asked him about the video entitled
"Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax"
Here as potholer's response
"I'm interested to know why you are confused. This guy is an expert in
electron tunneling in semiconductors, he has never published or even
studied climatology in his life. If he said you can catch herpes from
eating margarine would you believe him, simply because he's a Nobel
laureate? People seem to have this belief that as soon as someone wins a
Nobel prize he must be an expert in every branch of science he's never
studied, and I don't know where they get that idea."
He does not address the content of the video to the person asking about it. Instead he
1. Pulled a logical fallacy saying that Ivar Giaever does not study climatology (neither does potholer has he does not hold a graduate degree in it nor has any published research, irony) even though he does study science
2. He deflected by pulling out some radical, meaning example of "If he said you can catch herpes from
eating margarine would you believe him, simply because he's a Nobel
laureate?"
Well, why should we trust potholer? What makes him the expert? Ivar has a track record of studying science for a living. Climate science is a broad field that involves all fields of science. I have not seen potholer show that understands advanced quantum mechanics which is relevant in how the ecosystem works.
But I digress. What you have just shown is that
1. You refuse to leave your echo chamber
2. You contradicted yourself. You said one should have a debate about science with people who understand science that actually deals with science. Then why do you go to Secular Talk and discuss science?
"You can, especially if its due to conditions that are treatable with medication or through treatment but were not given"
You can't because the 40,000 are
1. generally poor
2. less healthy (poor people have higher rates of obesity and diabetes)
3. less responsible (poor people have higher rates of unwanted pregnancies and are less educated)
And nothing indicates that they will seek out healthcare even if they had access to it. K-12 education is free for everyone and it is shown that with a high school diploma you have a higher probability of earning more. But around 12% of the natural born country lack a high school diploma.
"That doesn't really make any difference, the HIV pandemic was a massive
issue with healthcare and it only hit a few million in the US. Again,
you aren't going to have issues that are usually affecting 50-70% of the
population, if you need a number like that."
0.01% was noise. The HIV epidemic was such because HIV is such a deadly virus and it was new at the time. There were myths going around such as it can be spread by kissing. Now that we know there is a very low chance of it being spread as in around 1% by a sexual encounter (depending on many factors, even if they are infected it is still around 1%), and more is known about it makes it no longer an epidemic. You have to put it in perspective. But again, 0.01% is noise and as I shown you with another source it is impossible to cover everyone. Other countries with single payer do not cover everyone. People still die due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems. No system is ideal.
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=jbel
"Don't use terms you don't understand"
I fully understand what noise is. If you think 0.01% is not noise than you need to take a statistic course.
"How so? It covered more people, we dropped to a record low in uninsured,
how is that a bad thing? Is it bad just because it was done federally? "
Saying it covered more people is deceptive. With what quality? That is something you have to consider. Like single payer. You may say that it gives everyone healthcare, but you never say the quality. You are leaving out very important details. We can put all homeless people in a home. But if means you have 10 people living in a studio, is that a success?
"we dropped to a record low in uninsured,"
You force people to buy it. That is how it was done. That is a very low bar for success.
Obamacare was passed on the idea of lowering healthcare cost. But under it healthcare premiums went up. Now before you say "well they went up slower" you have to remember that we were in a recession. Nothing went up in price. In reality healthcare premiums should have remained stagnate in a recession like almost everything else, but it still went up.
"It compounded our problems? What does that even mean? Are you saying healthcare got worse? Is that why more people received treatment and far less people were uninsured?"
Again with the insured. People were dropped from their insurance and others saw their premiums go up higher than ever. There is a reason why people voted against democrats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1