Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Congressman Shows Townhall He Doesn't Know How Insurance Works" video.

  1. "nearly 80% of pregnancies are unplanned." Not true.
    4
  2. John, I watched the video. Insurance is for unplanned things that are expensive. Look at car insurance. It does not cover oil changes but covers if someone hits your car. But you can pick different plans for your car if you want.
    3
  3. TYT doesn't know how insurance works. Insurance is for unplanned events that are expensive. Maternity care is not that.
    3
  4. Because insurance is there to cover for unplanned events that are expensive. Maternity care is not that as it is, ideally, not unplanned.
    2
  5. I never said they should not be covered by insurance. If you want it in your plan than pick up a plan that pays for it and expect to pay a little more. Some car insurance companies offer plans that won't pay if someone else hits your car. They are cheaper plans.
    2
  6. "with health insurance there isnt the probability that you might get someone else sick" Yes there is. Just interacting with society can do that. " do you make 7 or 8 figures?" I make $23,000 a year. "so why do you insist on defending people who use your pawn ass?" Because the only people that do are the federal government.
    2
  7. Not true. Insurance companies are for unplanned events that are expensive. Maternity care is not that. But because of the payroll tax insurance has essentially become healthcare in this country.
    2
  8. "How does your model benefit us as a country and species?" If people were allowed to buy their own plans companies will compete which will lower prices and raise the quality.
    1
  9. "go compare the price of a car repair and healthcare. It doesn't work that way. The main issue technically isn't insurance, it's the cost of healthcare in our country. But that's a whole other conversation." I agree. Let me ask you this. 1. Why do so many employers pay their employees with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? 2. Why does insurance equal healthcare in this country? When you think about those questions, especially the first one, you should get to the root of the problem, at least in my opinion.
    1
  10. " you realize that they don't have to compete. " In the free market they will. Yes, people will have to buy insurance for the most part. But people have to buy food, homes, cars, etc. You don't see the price of them sky rocketing. In fact, with cars, they are getting better and cheaper. " They have no incentive to negotiate or compete " I agree, when you as a customer can't buy your own. Most people rely on their employer for their plan and they get a generic one. That is a problem. If we were paid a higher wage and bought our own plans companies will compete leading to lower prices and higher quality.
    1
  11. Matthew Morvillo, I want to pay less for healthcare and receive more. Private companies have many advantages. Why do you want the federal government, a group that can't even create a website, run your healthcare?
    1
  12. "you're not paying for healthcare, you're paying for insurance" I agree, and it should be cheaper. You do that with competition.
    1
  13. " Public insurance is the only proven method to make health insurance cheaper. " Not true. " you do not understand how health insurance markets work. The more policyholders you have, the lower the rates you get from healthcare providers." Again, that is also not the case. If an insurance company was insuring more obese people will rates drop? Or if there were only one company will rates drop? On the latter one they will have a monopoly. "Segmenting those policyholders among a bunch of different insurance companies, simply means they lose the ability to negotiate favorable prices for their policyholders." It means the consumer gets to negotiate lower prices for their plans.
    1
  14. "Paradoxically, the more competition in the health insurance market, the less efficient it becomes. That's because a fractured health insurance market means each individual insurer has less bargaining power; " Not true. What it means is that the consumer will have more bargaining power in what kind of plan they get. "a smaller pool of insured means less leverage to use against healthcare providers" Not so as those providers will have to lower their prices as well with insurance companies. "Medicare (representing 45 million Americans) is currently the most efficient "insurer"" Not really.
    1
  15. More competition means companies have to compete for consumers which means lower prices. Also, healthcare providers will have to compete as people will not be picking up plans that cover everything. As of now healthcare insurance covers everything. But if people picked up plans that did not cover things such as maternity care and consumers went to providers looking for the lowest price instead as they planned to have a baby, then prices will drop. There are some things that you can't do that for, but as a whole they are rare and unplanned which is what insurance is used for.
    1
  16. "Show me a private healthcare system that even comes close to the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of a public healthcare system." The US system is on par with the rest of the world. It just has many barriers created by the federal government holding it back. " That's why it's important to put your healthcare finance system under democratic control," So the government now controls you.
    1
  17. Matthew, read this book https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf They run through the numbers, give all their citations and methods and show that single payer is not any better than what the US has.
    1
  18. realCevra, read this book. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  19. anti-establishment, I cited a book you can read on the issue. The Bloomberg rating arbitrarily weights life expectancy at 60%. Why 60%? Why not 30%? As as that book shows there are more factors than just healthcare than influence life expectancy. As a whole that ranking is meaningless at that point.
    1
  20. J Berg, I can call all of you guys communist. See how dumb that argument is at that point?
    1
  21. " That book is from the American Enterprise Institute. They are a conservative think tank" That book is written by two professors, one who is the chair of their department. They give all of their methods and citations, some that are peer reviewed. I am not saying the book is the one that ends all debates, I am not saying those authors are the top in their fields. I am also not saying I agree with everything in that book. But with everything I listed about it, as in the citations, authors and methods, it is worth reading and has valuable information for this discussion. The simple fact that you are unwilling to read it or are so easy to pass it off by simply saying it is from AEI and not give actual constructive criticism of it shows your lack of intelligence. Noticed when I criticized the Bloomberg ranking I actually mentioned what methods they used and criticized that? It is because I actually read it and thought about it.
    1
  22. " Obviously you know this, and are just trying to weasel out of your responsibility to substantiate your baseless and incorrect claims rather than admit you have no idea what you are talking about." I find that statement ironic considering how you completely refuse to read the book at all to prevent exposing yourself from different viewpoints or ideas that challenges your firmly held belief.
    1
  23. realCevra, the book compared healthcare systems across the world by looking at price and outcomes. Every system has problems, period. If you read the book you would have seen they said that the US system has problems. But so do other countries. For all of your criticisms of the book you have to explain why you feel that way. For example, you say this "it claims that u.s. healthcare is a hybrid system, which it is not." But give nothing to say why. You just saying it is so does not make it true. The US is a hybrid system as we have medicare and medicaid and the VA. So please explain how the book is garbage. Because like our economics discussion we had you are once again 1. not giving any specifics on why you feel the way you do 2. not giving any sources to support your claim
    1
  24. "it is wrong in its assessment of the quality of u.s. healthcare " How? Please explain. " it doesn't get the basic principles of shared risk pools, which are the basis of private health insurances," That is not the basis of insurance companies. Insurance companies are there for unplanned, expensive incidents. "it misassesses the potential of high-deductible health insurances in an employee unfriendly economy focused on short-lived success." Again, how. If you read the book you should be able to point to where this is the case.
    1
  25. J Berg, you calling me a libertarian because I challenge your firmly held belief shows you lack intelligence for this conversation. You are quick to pull a logical fallacy instead of having an actual discussion. I support many forms of government reform and involvement. I just support them at the state and local level as you have more control over government at that level. Does that make me a libertarian? Not really. But of course you will just ignore everything I say and just label me as if you are holding 4 aces.
    1
  26. Nerd Strangler, the fact is that you gave the typical response most people give when I link them that book which does show you have little desire to improve your knowledge. " But that doesn't change the fact that you are purposefully putting an onerous burden on everyone because you are incapable of articulating your points. " I can, or I can easily just point you to other resources to read. " If you had actually read the book, and were smart enough to understand it, you would be able to use that knowledge within the discussion as it became relevant. " Or I can give you an opposing viewpoint for you to read. In the end you will most likely ask me to cite my sources which I will then give you that book. Might as well just give it to you at the beginning. You, as a whole, are making excuses. I you just pissed that I came up with a source that was much better than you can ever provide, along with anyone else. So you became all perturbed and first ripped on the book from being from AEI. And when I pointed out how credible it is you just said I lacked intelligence which is ironic considering how I was the one who came up with a better source.
    1
  27. "The fact that this argument is focused on Insurance really shows how ridiculous this entire healthcare conversation has become" I agree, that is a problem. " Insurance is a service whose profits are predicated on controlling (denying) your access to care" Not so. If that were the case they will receive no business. "Also, how are you to have a "free market" healthcare industry, when unless you're an expert in the field you have no idea how to shop, where to shop, and what you're paying for? " That can be said about anything. This is why we have to simplify it as much as possible. In reality the free market is the simplest. way. When you start adding government in the mix than you have pages of laws and legislation and bureaucracy that makes it much more challenging and screws over the middle class. Take the tax code for example. 7000 pages long and screws over people unless you are intelligent and can understand it or can afford an accountant. People do not realize that adding more government just complicates things making it harder for the middle class. "There are numerous alternatives to the American system that are much better," Not from the data out there. "none of them involve a middle man" Like the government? "you just provide Libertarian reading in defense of your argument" Did you even read the book?
    1
  28. " can't be fired for being ill? sick time? ok, you now proven you live in lala land, many companies are phasing out "sick time" for general "off time" and reducing those hours," Companies are phasing them out because of the high taxes and regulations. And yes, under the free market wages go up. In the mid 60s the federal government expanded with more regulations, mainly the payroll tax, and wages dropped.
    1
  29. Nerd Strangler, your comment is ironic. First I gave you a book to read and you immediately dismissed it by saying it is from AEI. After I showed you it has credibility you attack me by saying I am not intelligent. All I am doing is giving you a source to read on the issue of healthcare. You can read it, criticize it, take what you want from it and we can have a discussion from there. But you still refused to read it. Now you are saying I am 12. At this point I have nothing to say to you. I gave you a source to read on the issue. Do you want me to send you a tape recording of me reading it as well? Do you want to meet up so I can read it to you? I am giving you a source to read on the topic. I have led you to water, I can't drink it for you.
    1
  30. Jason Wooster, if that is all you have than it is safe to say that I am superior in this comment thread. I give people a source to read and once again no one reads it because it goes against their firmly held belief. You ultra liberals are as bad as radical religious folks.
    1
  31. Matthew, that source has many peer reviewed citations you can look at. They give all their methods for you to read and criticize. " i can show you sources that claim smoking isnt bad and that global warming isnt real" And I will criticize them after reading them. But that is because I have the intellectual ability to read something and then criticize it in an intelligent way. You, on the other had, are acting like a creationist that can't accept anything else because the Bible tells you what you believe. "do you work for a health insurance provider or something?" I work for my university as a PhD candidate, TA and research assistant.
    1
  32. Matthew, when someone gave the Bloomberg healthcare ranking did you notice how I criticized it? I did so showing I actually read it (because I did). I did so by questioning their methods and wondered why they weighted life expectancy they way they did as it was arbitrary. However, your only criticism of that book is that it is from at "think tank". That is a logical fallacy and is not an argument. But go ahead and stick to your firmly held belief like Pat Robertson does. You are on the same level intelligent wise as Pat Robertson. Congrats.
    1
  33. Matthew, I am sorry you are so myopic. Again, they give all their citation, some that are peer reviewed, and they give all their methods.
    1
  34. realCerva, you are the same person who said that authors do not use peer reviewed sources for textbooks. My point on them citing peer reviewed sources is that they are credible. You can read them and they are not hiding thing. They give all their methods and all their sources for you to read. "i can quickly write you an article with 2+2=5 and cite one of your beloved allegedly peer reviewed math textbooks, " Except no textbook will ever support that. Any source you give will show how you are wrong because the reader can read the source you cited. That's the point. "also the time you're a phd candidate is enough for other people to complete two masters" Earning a PhD takes various years. Usually around 5. It takes 2 to 3 years to earn a masters. It all depends. For me, I changed programs a couple times from physics to another program and then to physical chemistry. So I delayed me in some ways. Not completely as I entered the P-chem program with all my courses done. I took my tests. Now I am extending it for a year for three reasons 1. To take MBA courses to work on an MBA 2. Study up on pharmacology so I can hopefully enter the medical field 3. To help my advisor build a lab. On the last part my advisor is new. I am his most productive student. In his 4 years as a professor he just submitted his fourth paper. We are working on a review and three papers for me this summer. Out of all that (one review, seven papers), I contributed to six of those papers. I plan on taking a year to help him get the lab completely organize and write a thesis that is detailed so he can give it to future students so they can learn the theory of the research he does. So you can criticize me all you want. What you have just showed is that you, once again, have no clue how academic works and how peer reviewed works or how books are written. But again, you are the one that can't cite a general econ book.
    1
  35. Matthew, you are just afraid to question your firmly set belief. Just like Ken Hamm or Pat Robertson. "flat earthers cite sources. climate change deniers cite sources" None that are peer reviewed. If they do they misrepresent them. You can read the sources yourself. If you had intelligence you will know how to criticize them. Instead you want to remain on the same intellectual level as Pat Robertson and Ken Hamm.
    1
  36. Ok, so what about this book do you disagree with? If you have an understanding of healthcare than the book should be an easy read and should be easy to criticize.
    1
  37. Gayleen, if you are responsible it isn't.
    1
  38. "you mean there's no such thing as unplanned pregnancy?" There are. Buy a plan that has that in place. Why should I have to though? I am a guy and take actions to not get a girl pregnant. If I do I just have to pay out of pocket.
    1
  39. "for insurance to work you need healthy people paying in for sick people, " Also have people who take measures to remain healthy as well. If you smoke 2 packs a day or are obese you are a liability to the company and will either have to pay a higher rate or get dropped all together. For your pre-existing condition you are born with there are three things. 1. You can take measures to try to work with it and remain healthy and a company can see that and pick you up. 2. Maybe the state and/or local government can have a plan for you. 3. Our society has to accept some people are weak and will just die. The harsh truth is that if you die very few will care, especially months later. The same is with me and the vast majority of society. Do people still cry over Abe Lincoln dying? No. Does the nation stop and cry when some average Joe dies tonight? No. The harsh reality is that if you can't take care of yourself or have others to take care of you than you are not worth much in society. The same goes for me. If I die driving home tonight my family will be sad along with my friends. But they will move one. I do not say that to be rude. It is a reality you have to realize. Your appeal to emotion story won't change my mind.
    1
  40. The reality is that people die. Nothing is ideal. We can make cars almost 100% safe. You want to know how? We can make them all weigh 10 tons and go only 30 mph. We can also limit the number of hours you drive and the time you drive. Is that a smart idea? No. But deaths by car accidents will be almost zero. I feel bad for people but I also see reality. I hope we can develop technology and a system that saves all, but the reality is we can't.
    1
  41. " but obviously you live such a privileged life and selfishness is all you know." It isn't just that. It is evolution. This is not to be rude but you were born a weak species. In the animal kingdom they would have left you to die a long time ago.
    1
  42. Nothings suggests that single payer is better than what we have.
    1
  43. Car insurance is a state law.
    1
  44. Car insurance is a state law, that is the difference.
    1
  45. Troy, we have that already. Every state runs their own K-12 education system. They fund for their own roads for the most part. They have their own police force and so on.
    1
  46. Troy, that is what you are talking about. Please pay attention.
    1