Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Public Pressure Building On Medicare For All" video.

daniel Guzman, has Bernie Sanders ever publicly endorsed Justice Democrats?
3
" actually. In the Preamble. Promote the General Welfare. " It says "promote" general welfare, not guarantee. Promote means to support or actively encourage. But that does not mean they will provide. You have to read the whole thing and not just parts to suit your need. ". Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government." That is one idea, but that is not listed at all in the Constitution. "The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare " Meaning support or encourage, but not provide. "I will assume you have never bothered to read it. " I have a copy of it in my desk at work. I had to take a US Constitution test for one of my jobs. I read it. Plus, it is one thing to read it, another thing to understand it.
1
Coloradocare failed with 80% voting against it. It seems like people do not want medicare for all.
1
Ali, when you run through the numbers you find out that single payer is not any better than what we have. So with that we should improve on what we have as opposed to completely replacing it.
1
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book, they do multiple statistical regression models, give their methods and citations and they conclude that single payer is not any better than what the US has. It is not to say that what the US has is superior nor without flaws. It is saying that single payer is not any better. It isn't that it is a bad system, it is that it is no better than than what the US has. So the US should improve on what it has as opposed to completely dismantling what we have to replace it with a system with just as many problems.
1
Spencer, your numbers are deceptive. Of course no one in Canada dies due to lack of healthcare insurance because they have a difference system. Everyone, by definition, have access in Canada to healthcare. But that does not mean the quality is high. In my state we lowered the standard for graduating high school and changed the definition of what a drop out is and the next year our graduate rate increased by a lot. Does that mean people in my state are more educated? No. So simply saying "no one dies in Canada due to lack of access of healthcare" is deceptive. How many die because the quality is low? Next, 45,000 is only 0.01% of the population in the US. In statistics that is noise. If you have an error of 0.01% in any statistical data set that is great. I have published data with 10% error before in my work. You cannot say, with high certainty, that the reason why those 45,000 people died is because of lack of healthcare access. Most are poor to begin with where poor people are generally less healthy and less responsible. For example, everyone has access to K-12 education but around 10% of the US natural born population do not have a high school diploma. It is offered to them for free, they choose not to pursue it despite data showing that having a degree increases the probability of your life being better off. Just because those 45,000 have access to healthcare does not mean they will pursue it or properly use it. In all they will still die but at that point you can't say they died because of lack of access, they died because they were not responsible. The exact same thing is with bankruptcies. In Canada you just wait a long time and possibly die. In the US you may go bankrupt (643,000 is still 0.02% of the country) but in other countries you die. Also, the fact that other countries do it (in reality they all have their own systems) is not an excuse for the US to regress to the norm. Also, many of those countries are tiny. Iceland had 300,000 people. But as a whole, when you run through the numbers nothing suggests that single payer is better than what the US has.
1
Spencer, read that book I linked you. They go through a lot,including wait times. Also, why should I wait for 2 months for surgery if I put myself in position in life to have it sooner? If I have to wait for 2 months that is 2 months I am limited physically meaning I can't work as much nor I can't do any activities I enjoy. " EVERY COUNTRY in the top 10 highest quality medical systems has single payer." That is not true as again, when you run through the numbers you see that the differences are minute.
1
" People are dense enough to say the richest country in the world's history, " Ever thought we are the richest country because we don't do single payer? "Europe is laughing it up, drowning in new students because everyone who's smart has the OPPORTUNITY to succeed" Meanwhile the US is in the top 5 in productivity and is the richest country in the world. "Also, the only evidence I've seen provided by Mr Pink is a study from a right wing think tank that questions climate change," The vast majority of scientists question causes of climate change and the results. The issues regarding climate change are 1. How much is man playing a role 2. Is it even bad? But, on that book, it is written by two professors that cite their sources, some of them are peer reviewed, and they give their methods.
1
Hermes, where is that book incorrect? They list all their references and their methods. Now point to me where they are wrong. You just saying it is is not an argument. I am sorry. " As others have previously explained, they cherry-pick data (as most "conservative" publications) and exclude key pieces of the overall healthcare picture to make it seem like single-payer is only equivalent to the current American system" Ok, how? What was wrong with their methods? "The VAST majority of healthcare workers are on the side of single-payer" Eh, not really. Nothing suggests that is the case. " because it's the objectively better option, based on studies that evaluate outcomes and cost for overall cost-efficiency" Ok, I will look at them. "Providing universal coverage lowers costs dramatically" But at what quality? I always hear two things from the left on this issue 1. low cost 2. everyone is covered But they never mention quality. Even Bernie Sanders admits there will be rationing. "I could go on and on about the benefits, but you clearly are either too stupid or too arrogant and self-deluded to be convinced by objective truths, just like the "conservatives" (true conservatives believe in CONSERVATION) that believe climate change is a hoax..." Insults displays your lack of intelligence meaning almost anything you say is purely opinion at that point. Also, climate change has nothing to do with this, but if you want to discuss that we can as I am a scientist myself. Ok, now to your sources. Your first one is giving opinions and her is why. Their references are for data for the ACA, but they they give this " A single-payer NHP, in contrast, would provide comprehensive coverage without copayments or deductibles to everyone in the country, replacing our current complex and wasteful patchwork of coverage.All medically necessary services would be covered, including inpatient, outpatient, and dental care, as well as prescription drugs. The NHP would also cover long-term care, a benefit that few Americans currently enjoy." No references at all. So what do they base that off of? Simply opinion. Same here "Significant sums would also be saved by allowing the NHP to negotiate with drug companies over prices, as do universal health programs in other advanced nations. The greater efficiency and simplicity of the NHP would curb inflation in health costs, so that cost savings would grow with time." No references. And the whole section under payment had.....you guessed it, zero references to support their claim. So that source is done. The next one That book has cited that paper already, so I will leave it at that. Goes to show that book does not "cherry pick" data as they cite sources you are citing right now. On source three Your third source simply outlines what should be the goal in healthcare and how the US is trying it. It does not praise single payer. It does point to the NHS but also pointed towards the employer offering care with the help of the union. Or states offering it. But again, this source does not indicate single payer is superior. Now the last one The problem with pointing to administration cost is this, with a government program they can hide the cost in other agencies. For example, with insurance, they pay for disease awareness to lower costs for customers where with medicare they have the CDC pay for that. That is why medicare has lower overhead cost than insurance. That same is with healthcare. Also, single payer does have less efficiency and with the private option you can sue them, you really can't sue the government so much. But I will say this, this is the one source that looks the most promising and I will read it closer later. So one out of four is your result. You need to try harder.
1
1. Taxes are not bad if we are getting our money's worth. You do that with a smaller, more local government. Even Milton Friedman supported government spending, but society has to see if our money is being spent to benefit us. You can see that at the local level, not the federal level. Look up the video "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups" 2. If you include PPP those values of min. wages are lower 3. If anything destroyed unions and wages it was unions and the expansion of immigration in the US 4. If you take a day off for being sick someone has to make up for your work. Plus I see irony there. You talk about lower wages but now support people just taking off work when they feel like it. Anyway, most workers receive sick days already through the private sector. 5. "t that led to 70 years of stable banking, " We actually faced many recessions since FDr. 6. You have no clue how insurance works.
1
Speed limits are set by the states and local government where some roads don't have speed limits. The ultra left has really become stupid when it comes to government.
1
caitiff52, some of that overhead cost by insurance companies save money. For example they will spend on fraud prevention (which they should to for medicare and medicaid) and in disease awareness. The government offers disease awareness through another agency, the CDC. With insurance they don't have that luxury. So those percentages are not what you seem.
1
"In one of the threads on this video, the jackass claims he's a medical graduate" Nope, never claimed that. " In another on Sam Seder's Majority Report, he claimed to be a business owner. " Nope, never claimed that either. If you are going to criticize me you should know what I actually say.
1
"FYI, medicare & medicaid do spend on fraud prevention programs" Not enough as there is plenty of fraud that happens. But when you don't have a profit motive you don't care as you can just raise taxes. "When insurance companies launch "health awareness" campaigns, however, they are often linked to their marketing strategies (ie., they're really just advertisements for their companies, the pharmaceutical industry does the same thing x10). And any awareness campaign by the NIH or CDC benefits them just as much" Not really. You should seek out multiple sources for information. "Bottom line, though. whatever "money-saving" scheme they have as part of their overhead costs translates into profits, and not better healthcare outcomes." Not true. If you look at other countries that do single payer nothing indicates that they get better results. Also, nothing indicates that medicare and medicaid produce better results. But they are programs that are running out of money.
1
If medicare and medicaid are so great, why is it losing money? Same with SS.
1
caitiff52, if an insurance company is getting screwed over by fraud than it will go out of business. It is not like the government where they can just raise taxes. Filing claims and making payments cost a lot of money and insurance companies do a lot to prevent fraud.
1
Medicare and medicaid is losing money, they admitted to it. SS is losing money as well. That is why Bernie wants to raise taxes so it can remain solvent for longer but for only around 47 years based on his numbers.
1
The private sector developed the best quality in healthcare. The problem with our healthcare system is the fact the federal government created barriers which has led to higher prices.
1
Most people get their insurance through their employer because of the payroll tax. The payroll tax is a 100% tax free way in paying employees. So instead of getting a higher wage to buy a plan they want, they are stuck with what their employer offers them. If they switch jobs they switch plans meaning if they are older they have a preexisting condition as opposed to getting a plan at a younger age and sticking to it. That is one way the federal government has created a barrier, they created the payroll tax. If people had a higher wage they can bargain with insurance companies to get a plan that suits them and with competition companies will lower their prices. But most people don't have that option.
1
Manc26, no they won't in the competitive market. Now they will deny them if they get sick and now all of a sudden need healthcare, but that is different. But in the competitive market they won't.
1