Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "DEAD ON ARRIVAL: Trumpcare Isn't Winning Anymore" video.

Angel Castillo, that is the sad part. It increased our dependency on the federal government. In the end democrats got what they wanted out of Obamacare, increased dependency on them. Look at it like this, the established democrats are going to run a campaign saying you need them to keep your healthcare. So you vote for them, you keep your healthcare, and they become rich. Congrats.
2
Neither could the democrats until they did a closed door private meeting.
2
How many times did Obamacare fail? The democrats had to have a secret meeting behind closed doors to push for it to pass.
1
Angel Castillo, you are right in some ways, but the democrats are worse. But on the military that is 1. constitutional 2. serves everyone 3. they train those workers and are discipline On education, if you think you need the government to educate you than you are clearly not educated yourself. "And also the government works FOR the people and BY the people." And I totally agree. Now how do we do that? To me we do it by keeping government as local as possible which is what Trump wants. The more local government is the more you can see if it is serving you and remaining the servants as opposed to the masters. You have more control of local governments. At the federal level I bet you complain about Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Now can you vote for them? No (or at the very very least only one). I don't like Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders, and I can't vote for them, so I don't want them running my life. The founding fathers set up state rights for a reason and a Constitution to limit government. There is a desire to have government, but we must control it. You, like all liberals, are complaining about what Trump and the Republicans are doing. Well, you created this with Obamacare, now you are getting a taste of our own medicine. Republican said keep healthcare as a state issue. You did not listen.
1
TheFableGamer, read my response to Angel Castillo. I support government, but I want to be able to control it.
1
Burning Sandals, under the democrats things were terrible. Their policies simply do not work on the large scale.
1
Angel Castillo, the military is for the purpose. There is always conflict with other countries. We are in a position where we solve conflict off of the battlefield without violence. Thinking that we just go to war displays ignorance on what is really going on. "second I never said that government should be in charge of our everyday life" I know, but you do want it to be in charge of many components of it. "but they have control over the funding that is necessary to improve programs," If they are going to pick up the tab they are going to control it, period. That means they control you unless you control the government. Also, the federal government has a long history of breaking everything it touches. "Third, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are already an embarrassment within their own party" But they keep winning and you can't vote for them. So what's your point? Also, on top of that, you typically can't write other representatives. I was going to write Bernie Sanders an email but I could not because I did not live in his district. So much for controlling the government and government of the people and for the people. "which later somehow they backtrack on because "reasons" even though they have full control of the Senate and House of Representatives as well with the Executive Branch (President)" Remember Obama's first term? "Last, most liberals are progressives so for you to say that in a negative tone is surprising," They are "progressives". "because you sound like a person who does his/her research but somehow it always ends with Democrats are the only ones that have fucked up, how about denounce both the Democratic and Republican parties" I do denounce both, democrats are just more extreme now. They have become irrational and over emotional. They deny facts and act like the over emotional religious right used to act a couple decades ago. It is pathetic. In 1994 Bill Clinton and Herman Cain had a discussion on Bill's healthcare law. Clinton ran through numbers with Cain and has logic behind his argument. While I agreed with Cain in the end, I respected Bill. Now here we are 23 years later and when Bernie Sanders was approached with the same question by a small business owner he said "it is 2017, you should pay for their healthcare". No numbers, no concern for her if she could afford it, nothing. Just do it or fail, that was his mentality. And that is the mentality of the left. Their mentality is they will pass laws and if you can't work with them you will fail and live off of the government. And their only argument against Trump was that he is a racist and sexist with no actual proof. The left has become too radical. They need to act like Bill Clinton acted or they will continue to lose.
1
Adrian Le Gras, Clinton was a great president and I liked what he did. He worked well with a republican congress to progress our country. George Bush led us into a terrible war just like the first Bush did which is why Jeb Bush lost so badly.
1
Adrian, the fact is that when you break it down nothing suggests that universal healthcare i any better than what we have now. So with that in mind we need to improve on what we have as opposed to completely replace it.
1
Adrian, we do have problems though as premiums keep going up and the quality is not improving. There is a reason why so many hated Obamacare.
1
Adrian, the ACA is a nation wide bill as it did place restrictions on insurance companies. There is some deception on the rising premiums. It goes beyond expanding medicaid. One is that they are areas of limited insurance companies which created a monopoly. Also, they were areas where there was a higher uninsured rate. It goes beyond the medicaid expansion. Many states did not pick up the medicaid expansion as they could not afford it.
1
Kevin Montrond, it force people to buy coverage which, as a result, raised prices. Also, ever thought that the Trump supporters were the ones who suffered the most?
1
That 40,000 is only around 0.01% of the population which is essentially noise at that point. Also, you can't say the only reason why they die is because of lack of access to healthcare.
1
Kevin, it is noise. 40,000 is minute.
1
"40,000 PEOPLE. If any of those was someone in your family, or close circle of friends, would you still consider it "essentially noise" and "minute?!" " Yes. Unlike ultra liberals I don't let emotions get in the way of facts and logic. "Please tell me you have compassion for human life" I do. The issue with that 40,000 number is that you can't say they die only because of their lack of access to healthcare. Is that a reason? Yes. But to what degree? Most of those 40,000 are poor to begin with and poor people are typically 1. Less healthy 2. Less educated 3. Less responsible Anyone of those three issues could have led to their death. Just because they have access does not mean they will take the responsibility to pursue a healthy life to begin with.
1
LiveTheDream24, the problems with healthcare stem from the federal government and to me stem from the payroll tax. To show you how I will ask two questions 1. Why do so many people rely on their employer for healthcare insurance? 2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare? "And you know damn well that if it was an immediate family member that died because this grossly irresponsible bill passed you would change your tune real quick." Nope, because I understand that when emotions get high logical and reasoning goes down. I can control my emotions when it comes to making important decisions.
1
Drake ICN, the difference with those numbers is that we know the direct cause of those individuals deaths, and they were a one time issue. With that 40,000 no one can say that the only reason why they die is because of their lack of access to healthcare. That is the difference.
1
Nerd Strangler, 40,000 is around 0.01% of the population. That is small. But, more importantly, you can't definitively say that the only reason why they die is because of lack of access to healthcare. Again, these individuals are poor to begin with and nothing indicates they will change lifestyles just because they now have access to healthcare. I agree, healthcare is outpacing inflation. That is because we don't have a free market system. We have a for profit system with many government barriers in the way.
1
one percent, access is important. What makes it affordable is competition. "Single payer is the ONLY way to offer fair coverage for everyone" At what quality? Define fair? Everyone having the same low quality of healthcare is fair.
1
Drake ICN, "Limitations of their study include not knowing if the individuals who participated in the federal survey obtained coverage after their initial interview, or for how long they had it, plus a number of other unmeasured characteristics." "It’s impossible to know precisely how many people die from having no insurance. There’s no national data for it." Also, you have this counter study http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00973.x/full Like all liberals, you can't do your own research.
1
Graham Parker, you clearly did not get what I am saying. You can't say that they die only because of lack of access to healthcare. They could have died for many reasons such as lack of responsibility or simply not pursuing healthcare to begin with. You say they "could" live. But how much are you willing to bet on that?
1
"Do you have $100,000 in the bank in case you need a surgery?" I have insurance
1
Drake ICN, ever tried this thing called reading? "In conclusion, our results offer new evidence that the expansion of Medicaid coverage may reduce mortality among adults, particularly those between the ages of 35 and 64 years, minorities, and those living in poorer areas. Ongoing research on the basis of randomized data13,45 will be invaluable in expanding on these findings" Noticed how they said "may". May means inconclusive as nothing is saying that it definitively does improve in those areas. Also I question their methods for control states. Just because a state is neighboring another state does not mean you can do a direct 1:1 comparison. For example, they compared AZ to NV. Being in both states and knowing a lot about them I can tell you they are far from similar. NV has a low educated populous because of the casino atmosphere. In Clark County you can earn a nice living parking cars or serving drinks to where many people do not pursue a high level of education. That does play a role in terms of healthcare result. Also, I don't like how they truncated the data to 2005. They should have went farther as in the 90s or 80s as that would have shown a trend. If the trend was that mortality was improving in those states already than the expanded medicaid did nothing. To me they are hiding data. You are right when you say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Right now you have provided none. Instead you have just cherry picked a source to suit your needs. I am not saying that source you gave me is incorrect or flat out wrong. It has valuable information, I am saying that you are displaying a high level of ignorance by 1. Not realizing they said "may" 2. Now reading the entire source yourself and asking questions like I did
1
To add "Our study has several limitations. We examined three expansion states, and the results are largely driven by the largest (New York), so our results may not be generalizable to other states" "The mortality data set did not allow us to control for individual-level characteristics other than race, sex, and age (e.g., socioeconomic status or health status with respect to specific chronic diseases). We had to impute values for small subsamples after stratification according to county, race, sex, and age, although the results were robust with different imputation approaches." "Most important, our analysis is a nonrandomized design and cannot definitively show causality. " "Alternatively, states may choose to expand Medicaid when their economies are thriving, and economic prosperity broadly improves coverage and access, which could produce a spurious association between eligibility expansions and health" Again, read your own source. They even admit flaws. There are many factors that play a role in life expectancy beyond healthcare. " and it would thus take extraordinary evidence to convince a rational individual of the opposie" And I am waiting for that evidence. Having access to high quality healthcare will mean higher life expectancy, I would agree. But you are leaving out the quality. And also, just because the government offers healthcare coverage does not mean it will be of high quality. Again, think about this. There are many moving parts and anyone who is intelligent, such as the writers of that paper you gave me, understand that. That is why they said "may" and expressed their limitations in their data.
1
Drake, the difference between you and me is that I spend a career looking at an objective lens because I do research for a living. I am trained to question things that are given to me and not go off of a some one liners. That paper you gave me is informative and does provide valuable information, but it is also lacking a lot of information as well and the authors acknowledge that. You run to a conclusion where myself, and the authors of that paper don't. Anyway, that paper did not address the original issue of how 45,000 people a year die because of lack of access to healthcare. That was the original point which you seem to have drifted away from. Healthcare is a complicated issue and to me the problems we have stem from the federal government. Adding more federal government is not the solution.
1
Obamacare failed many times and took a closed door hearing with no republicans being invited to get it to passed. So calling this a failure is a bit of a stretch.
1
The Bernie Revolution failed like Wolf-PAC did, OWS did and Justice Democrats will.
1
Curtis Roberts, Trumpcare will get done as well.
1
Malphisto Cichol, the Bernie Revolution is done. Has he even acknowledge Justice Democrats? No. He lost the primaries than sold out to the establishment and bought a third home. Bernie is just a little chihuahua that barks with no bite and barks until the democrats tell him to heel. Obamacare took many times to pass, so will Trumpcare. Obamacare will be repealed. So go head and celebrate early, you will look like fools in the end. Remember, no one even though Trump was going to run at the beginning. "Justice Democrats are making the DNC Elites sweat" That is the funniest thing I read this morning. Again, has Bernie even acknowledge Justice Democrats?
1
John Riggins, healthcare is expensive in this country because of barriers created by the federal government. The last thing we need is more government involved in healthcare.
1
dwayne johnson, I have insurance. I earned that insurance by my hard work. For college I pulled out a loan and I pursued a degree that is actually worth something. How about you stop making excuses.
1
John, Obama had a majority.
1
John, Obama had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house.
1
Obamacare failed many times and took a private, closed door meeting with democrats to pass it. Also, look at the list of failures from the ultra left OWS Bernie's Revolution Wolf-PAC and soon Justice Democrats
1
Bernie's revolution is a failure. He ran off and bought a third home.
1
Kommentatus Casodes, right now the left is radical which is why they lost.
1