Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Sanders Vs Ted Cruz On Obamacare" video.
-
17
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1. I agree with you how the country was designed. The states were to have autonomy and run domestic programs on their own. They were taxed by the federal government to run DC. With that said if there were to be government involved in healthcare at all it should be done at the state level, not the federal level. I see the argument for government involvement in healthcare and support it in some ways. But to me it has to be done at the state level. Right now we have the federal government involved in healthcare dating back since the mid 1960s and it has created barriers leading to higher prices.
2. While I am glad you said Bernie was wrong, you numbers are too simplistic. If the company ends up earning an extra $2000 per employee the government will tax it. With the system we have no the government wants people to spend money and if you don't they will tax it. So in the end Bernie will get that money. Even if they employer pays in a higher wage they will have to pay a higher payroll tax. So it is in some ways a benefit for an employer to pay for the insurance.
On employers offering healthcare benefits because of the payroll tax. The payroll tax means that an employer pays a higher tax if they pay a higher wage. Businesses work around that buy offering benefits that are 100% tax free. It isn't just healthcare. Another one is I have a friend who works at Hertz and he is allowed to drive their cars for free and fill up at any of their gas stations for free. But healthcare is the norm. In a free market people will demand a higher wage instead making that the norm to where they buy their own healthcare insurance. Instead the norm became employers offer it. So in some ways it is to force employees to stay, but mainly it is because it has become a norm in terms of payment.
To counter your argument on forcing employees to stay, some companies pay for college. The gas station down the street does along with benefits. Why would they do that knowing that once they get a degree they will pursue a job that pays more than $10/hr? The bank my sister worked at paid for her MBA. The second she got it she quit and got a higher paying job. So it isn't just about forcing people to stay.
3. I actually agree with what you said here. Again, I support the states doing something, not the fed. I love how Bernie complained about the federal government being corrupt but wants them to run our healthcare.
On price differences we see that already on some ares. I live in Nevada and UNR offers in state tuition to bordering counties from California. It attracts them to UNR and as a grad student there I see a lot of people from CA saying the cost of UNR was cheaper than any CA school they could have gone to. It creates competition. In the mid west, where I am from, we had so many collleges that it drove tuition down and raised quality. Now tuition is still high, but that is another discussion. But states competing will help the system all together.
I am all for the government getting involved. We have to do it at the state level to ensure that it won't be corrupt and create competition. Even on the level of how every state is different shows the complexity of the situation. As Cruz said, TX is different than Vermont.
2
-
2
-
1. They should. They cherry picked what they said. Cruz brought up a lot of data, it would be interesting to see how they relate to a fact check. Also, Bernie hardly brought up any facts at all. All he brought up were ideas and opinions with no data to back it up . At the very least Cruz was prepared and Sanders wasn't which is the norm for Sanders. He never has data or facts to back up his arguments, just emotions.
2. Polls have been wrong lately and are flawed in many ways. For example, Bernie says that people want to improve the ACA is deceptive. As Cruz said people have been voting republicans for the past few elections on the promise of an ACA repeal. Also, the some of the sources are not credible on the basis that they only bring one source as opposed to many.
3. They did black him out.
4. They do have a left leaning bias like the vast majority of the media does simply because they are stationed in LA and NYC, very liberal cities. The media pretty much considered Trump a joke and was expecting a Clinton victory showing how out of touch they are with the rest of the country, mainly the Rust Belt. Also, facts are one thing, how you interpret them is key. Giving credit where credit is due on the 45,000 dying a year because of lack of insurance it is true that you can't make that claim on face value. Several of those individuals are poor and unhealthy to begin with. So you say facts and I say how do you interpret them. There is a major difference. Anyone of any bias can show facts and statistics and lie with them. Ever heard of the book How to Lie with Statistics?
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That is a false equivalence, as healthcare =/= guns"
The discussion is not about guns but instead what rights are.
" A better comparison would be healthcare to the maintenance of roads and
ridges. Who is providing those services? Oh right, taxes and taxpayers.
"
No, actually someone builds them, and tax payers don't always maintain them. One, 3/4 of funding for roads comes at the state and local level. Next, all across the country, especially in rural areas you have gravel and dirt roads with no traffic signs. Many of them don't get plowed after it snows unless a volunteer from the local community does it. In the end no one is being forced to provide it though. If no one builds it or plows it it won't get done.
"And public education system. What about that? "
K-12 education is ran and funded at the state and local level as well. Also, if we don't have teachers than we just don't have them. We don't force people to teach, we don't force people to be nurses and janitors there. We don't force people to be substitutes. So as with roads if no one is there to provide it than no one will receive it. You don't have a right to it at that point. States don't have to offer public education nor do they have to offer roads.
" Interesting though that when it comes to the most important one,
healthcare and preventing deaths, people like you think that people who
can't afford it "
In comparison to education and roads healthcare consists of highly skilled workers who are expensive, specialized equipment which is expensive. Healthcare is far more complex than roads and education. And as we have seen in roads the government can't provide us with even high quality of roads or even guarantee them to be clear after a snow fall. So that is a poor comparison in itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"But how do you know one is related to the other?"
Kind of ironic that would happen. Again, not saying it is bad, just saying when you change anything in our country it will have an impact on life.
"-If people don't have a source of legitimate income they'll seek out less savory ones. "
Like if they have no job because they were priced out of the market due to the min. wage?
"-"No job" and "Job that doesn't help you support yourself" are pretty much the same scenario"
Completely false. Having a job means an opportunity to move up. No job means no experience at all. This is why people do volunteer internships, to gain experience.
"if "job creators" are only creating low-paying jobs, they're hardly solving the problem of unemployment"
Still better than no job at all for many.
Define "fair" and "unfair".
" How can you provide a service worth $14 dollars but not be worth the cost of that service? "
A business has to buy supplies, pay rent, if they are a franchise pay fees, pay taxes, pay for licenses etc.
"It's arguable; I don't know if we can say it's subjective. "
In many ways it is subjective. Why is it fair to price people out of the market with a min. wage?
"Nonsense. One can argue about how much is needed to live without
resorting to emotion. Plenty of counties have already calculated local
living wages."
Nope. There are several variables tied to what one can consider to be a "living wage". For example, my girlfriend a few years back earned $8.50/hr. Is that a living wage? Well in reality it was a luxury wage as she bought a $10,000 car with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Okay, there is no factual way raising the minimum wage hurts bargaining power."
It does by raising prices and reducing working hours.
" I've worked as a chef, security, and even as an editor. All of these jobs are jobs with high skill requirements. "
No, those are not high skilled jobs. They are also jobs that are low in demand and of high supply. Unless you are a professional chef for an expensive restaurant or security for a high profile celebrity you are low skilled.
"Companies making any sort of profit can, however, afford to pay higher
wages. Profit is money made in excess of what the company spent. Any
company that gives bonuses to top tier employees can afford to pay
higher wages too."
I assume you mean corporations. Corporations have to keep shareholders happy. Also, let us look at Walmart. If you were to take the top 6 executives in Walmart and spread their salaries to the 525,000 lowest paid employees in Walmart they will earn an extra $147 a year, that's it. They don't have the money.
"Typically it's because of debt they accrued going to school, buying a
car to get to work, or even for medical expenses for injuries that
happen (most of the time through no fault of their own). But even
ignoring all the debt they have to face, people don't make enough money
to even pay for living these days on a minimum wage, even at 40-60 hours
a week."
One, most min. wage workers are part time. Next, if you go to school and get debt you should pursue a degree that is in high demand. And don't buy a car if you can't afford it.
"A car, the piece of machinery most need to get to work, costs an average of 9k a year to own and maintain"
Don't buy it if you can't afford it.
" The average rent for an apartment in america is about 1,000 dollars"
Get roommates.
" plenty of positions that pay decent wages"
Define "decent wages".
"The fact is that America treats their lowest class like shit. "
Not really except for maybe democrats. Remember, Bernie said the poor was getting poorer and bought a third home.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AJ, that was a good criticism of the book. I have criticism of the book as well and I don't consider it to be all that great. I reference that book because, as Robert Ohsfeldt said, the differences between every country is minute thus any healthcare rankings, like university rankings, are arbitrary. I agree with that. Every country faces problems and there are many reasons beyond healthcare as why those problems exist. I am not saying the US does not have problems, it does. They addressed that in the book. What they are saying, along with what I am saying, is that we can't just go from one extreme to another. So many people say that other countries do it far better when in reality nothing suggests that at all. If that were the case than I will push for radical change, but the reality is that isn't. Thus we should be looking to improve as opposed to making radical changes that will change the economy drastically costing jobs and leading to an economic downfall.
The US system has problems, but so does every other country. We should improve on the system we have as opposed to just completely scrapping it. Even our politicians know that which is why it took so long to get 60 senate democrats to agree on one healthcare bill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I did skim through segments of it,"
So you didn't read it in detail.
"single payer outclasses the US system. "
What comparisons?
"and bend the outcome so that the slightly less regulated appears better."
No, they are showing how close the statistics are and thus any difference between results in terms of healthcare is simply noise.
" It is an illusion, it is like saying that Pittsburgh Penguins is the
best hockey team in the world, because they always wins against other US
teams - without international comparisons, you cannot possibly draw
that conclusion. So yes, it is fraudulent."
The differences are minute, that is the issue. You are making the claim that the US system sucks when in reality nothing says that. That book never says the US system is inferior, it simply says that the US system has problems and so do other countries. Again, if you read the book in details you will see that.
"Secondly, even debating this issue is already a loss. It is the same with creationists. "
An asinine comparison because you are comparing science to something that isn't science. That is like asking what is better, an orange or a Ford pickup. Where do you begin? With this healthcare discussion it comes down to this
Are other countries better off with their system compared to the US? The answer is no. Are they worse of? That answer is also no. So with that we can't do universal healthcare because
1. It will require dismantling the system we have now which will destroy the economy
2. Our society won't accept it as seen by the failures in Vermont and Colorado and how there is so much hate towards Obamacare
The best solution is to fix the system we have now, not replace it with another system that has just as many problems.
But, you talk about debating the issue is a loss. I can tell I am debating someone who clearly does not understand statistics. This is like debating someone on if we should invest fusion research in laser fusion or particle collision with someone who does not understand physics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I've never seen Bernie rail against successful people, "
He constantly complains about millionaires and billionaires and the 1%.
"all I've seen him rail against is in regards to the concentration of wealth, power and cronyism"
While cronyism is bad his policies will make it worse. On concentration of wealth he reveals his economic illiteracy when he brings that up. There is wealth inequality because not everyone had the desire to run a major corporation. Also since the US is as advanced as it is we have lots of people, me included, that have negative wealth because of debt but are still well off. When he complains about wealth inequality is reveals he has no clue what he is talking about.
But, on successful people again, when he was approached by the small business owner on regulations he immediately started talking about millionaires and billionaires and the 1%.
" I'm not a fan of the ACA, it has a few provisions I think are great but
overall I find it to be a poor compromise. Neither a truly conservative
nor progressive system."
Fair enough.
"From what I've seen from Bernie is that whether he is right or wrong, at
least as I perceive it, he always has the interests of the general
welfare in mind"
Anyone can run their mouth. I watch this debate and I feel Cruz cared about the general welfare. Bernie, to me, wants to give more power to the federal government and make us more dependent on it. He is saying that we need "affordable healthcare" as opposed to high quality healthcare. But, the big issue is how he basically does nothing. He does not have any major charities, he does not volunteer his time to help people. All he does is run his mouth about how unfair things are and when he has money he buys a third home.
"
Overall I think you probably just have missed what his message is and
have probably never given any serious consideration due to your own bias"
I followed Bernie a lot and feel he is a fraud. He has no problem telling businesses what to do with their money. Meanwhile he goes out and buys a third home. So it is OK for him to spend his money as he pleases but when a business wants to expand, or even start, they have to pay for his regulations he wants to impose and a $15/hr min. wage. He goes after businesses who want to expand and create jobs and actually help society with their money. And what does Bernie do with his money? He buys a third home which helps nobody buy himself.
You are just a lost child at this point. You bought into his appeal to emotion rhetoric that he is going to give you free stuff. You feel that he is going to give you a
1. living wage
2. healthcare
3. college
and so on. Anyone can stand on stage and promise free stuff. Harold Camping established a following telling people that the world was going to end. I see no difference in that and Bernie promising free stuff.
1
-
" I still dont get why I need to read a 188 pages propaganda piece."
Maybe because it is a combination of you not being able to read and you are close minded. Why is it a propaganda piece? Please give evidence? The sources you gave (and seem to have deleted now) I criticized in an intelligent way as opposed to just saying 'well it is a propaganda piece". I gave reasoning behind why your sources were poor.
"Ironically, I suppose you at least pretend to have read it, but then
that only shows your limited intelligence, because you refer to the book
in the manner "that is covered in the book" as if that ends the
discussion."
I am not going to re-write the book for you.
"However, from what I did read, there is nothing in the book that
disproves any point, especially not anything in the scientific articles I
linked to."
You clearly did not read the book than. The point they are making is that every country has problems with healthcare and that the system the US has is not inferior to other countries.
"The big bang theory is NOT disproven simply because the bible covers the
start of the universe - this is the level of ridiculous you argue at."
In science nothing is proven, but that is another discussion in itself. I am a scientist by the way so if you want to have that discussion we can, you will learn a few things. But, your comparison is poor. What the authors of that book did was lay out how the US system is on par with the rest of the world. Now it does have problems, but so does universal healthcare and nothing indicates that universal healthcare is better.
"One truth of the matter you ignore is that an impoverished individual will NOT be denied healthcare in Europe. "
They will just have to wait a long time.
" And your attack on Bernie is pathetic, "
How so?
So far you have made any accusations but have given zero evidence or reasoning behind your thoughts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" anybody can cite peer reviewed studies."
I agree, and you can read the book and the studies they cite and come up with your conclusion yourself. I do that all the time in my line of work. I look at studies, look at the citations, read them and their citations and the authors other work and so on. You can do the same with this book.
"If you want to make an argument you should try this. Find a point made
in one of these books, check the sources and the reliability of those
sources, if you come to the same conclusion as the authors of the book
then explain the argument to us and provide the original, quality peer
reviewed sources for us to look into."
My argument is this.
1. Nothing shows that the US has an inferior system compared to other countries, or that other countries, with universal care, are doing so much better.
2. Yes, the US has problems, but we must fix them with the current system we have, not scrap it to replace it with another system with problems and also destroy our economy
People are saying that universal healthcare is the best when nothing says that is the case. If the US system was extremely terrible than yes, I will be in support of something radically different. Fact is that isn't the case. As of now you have not given me anything to support your case at all.
"Giving a link to a non scientific agenda driven story book isn't an argument, it's just lazy"
More than what you have provided. Also, I don't 100% agree with that book, but it is full of information for one to consider. The whole "every other country does it and does it better" is a lazy argument.
" If I sent you a link to a book about climate change that referenced
scientific journals but was written by Leonardo DiCaprio, would you take
the time to read through it? "
If Leonado DiCaprio changed careers, got a PhD in this field and studied it for years than yes, will read it. As of now that is not the case.
" Or would you safely assume it would be a waste of time considering it lacks an objective scientific approach or presentation?"
How is that related to that book?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The purpose of denial is not to win an argument, but to sow confusion,
thereby delaying action, mayhaps indefinitely. As eloquently explained
in this comic:"
What am I denying?
""If Leonado DiCaprio changed careers, got a PhD in this field and
studied it for years than yes, will read it. As of now that is not the
case."
Appeal to authority"
Nope, appeal to authority means that what they are saying is right just because they have a PhD. What I am saying is that you can take what they say in consideration. If you are going to call out logical fallacies understand what they mean.
Here are some examples.
1. Mark has a PhD so he knows how to fix a computer.
That is appeal to authority. Mark having a PhD does not mean he is an expert in fixing a computer. If his PhD was in philosophy he might not know how to fix a computer
2. Mark has a PhD in chemistry so he knows what he is talking about with protein synthesis.
This is also appeal to authority. While many chemists can synthesis proteins and do it for their research and thus know a lot about it does not mean Mark does as chemistry is a broad field. Mark could be a theorist meaning he never steps foot in a lab.
3. Mark has a PhD in chemistry, let us ask him about protein synthesis.
This is not appeal to authority. No one is saying Mark knows everything, nor are they saying Mark will know anything at all. But Mark does have experience in the field and could give his two cents worth, or more importantly give people guidance on where to go and who to ask when it comes to the topic.
4. Mark has a PhD in chemistry and studied the f-elements, so he is a great source to talk to when it comes to lanthanides.
Not appealing to authority. Mark, based on his background knows a lot about the f-elements thus will know a lot about Lanthanides. That does not mean he will know everything, but he will know a lot.
Do you understand?
1
-
Drake, I have said the US system has problems. You say inefficient and I will agree, that does exist in some ways. For being unjust I will agree as well. But I have a feeling you feel that it is to a large degree when compared to other countries that is not the case. Other countries possess inefficiencies as well and are unjust in certain ways.
"find whatever segment you believe proves that US healthcare is as good as all other developed nations healthcare"
The reality is that is the case. Nothing says that other countries are better. I am not saying they are worse, but the reality is that they are not better.
" Either, our sources do not have the proper credentials "
You wrote two comments with sources where one is no longer present. The other is from Wikipedia.
"since they contradict the holy book, they are wrong by default.
"
One, never said that book was holy as I do not completely agree with it. Next, I said your sources were flawed and I laid out my reasoning why. For example, you showed me a poll of doctors but that poll never mentioned their methodology. They could have picked 20 doctors or 2000, I don't know because it didn't say.
"Critical thinking is the foundation of science."
Which you showed none of it. You said the US system is "unjust" and "inefficient" and are alluding to other countries' systems aren't. But you gave nothing showing that was the case. Like I said, the US system has problems, but when compared to other countries our system is just as strong. Our problems are different, that's it.
1
-
1
-
Drake, here is the issue. The US does have problems in healthcare, but so do every other country. The reasoning behind those problems are due to numerous reasons, many beyond healthcare. For example we have a growing immigration population where around 67% of them do not have a high school diploma. In Canada they have strict immigration laws where you have to have a job sponsor you if you want to use their healthcare system. Meanwhile we have people, where 1/3 of them don't have a high school diploma, coming in and using our healthcare system. There are many factors involved and when you run through the numbers you see that the differences between them are minute.
Now if the differences were great, for example if the US was at a life expectancy of 70 years and every other country was at 85 years or greater, than I will say we need to drastically change some things. But the reality that is not the case. Thus we can't make radical changes. Pushing for a nationalized single payer system will
1. Replace one model with problems with another model with just as many, and as severe problems
2. Lead to the destruction of the economy due to jobs being lost and changes in the tax code
3. Require that a nation of 320+ million people think differently
That is way too extreme which is why any federal healthcare reform has been so challenging to pass in the first place. It is why around 80% of voters in Colorado were against. Such changes are hard in other policies, such as social security. No one is suggesting complete removal of it knowing the economic impact will be destructive. The same is with healthcare.
I am all for reform, but I feel it should come at the state and local level. I can see a public option working in the state level and support it in many ways. I support more competition in healthcare and with the states handling it that create that. But to do a radical change going to universal healthcare where nothing suggest that will be better is not a solution. That will just create more problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathon, you clearly don't get it.
"it has massive flaws in it since its presented from economists, not people in medicine or healthcare."
Healthcare plays a large role in economics. So what's wrong with looking at what economists say? Bernie's healthcare plan was designed by an economist that, ironically enough, created a tax plan to pay for him that just barely left him out of the tax increases. But, if you learn economics in a proper way you will be taught how to understand and analyze statistics. So the fact they are economists means they are qualified to give a proper analysis on healthcare where Kyle with only a political science degree isn't.
" he attempts to argue systems that have Universal healthcare have a
limited amount of physicians but we are also heavily understaffed in
physicians, especially PCP which is a massive issue here in the
privatized market. "
But the difference is that with universal healthcare you are increasing demand meaning that either
1. prices will go up meaning higher taxes or increasing the national debt
2. quality will have to do down such as longer wait times and overworked workers giving lowing quality care
But, how does Bernie expect to offer healthcare to everyone when we are limited in staff? He never addresses that.
"He then makes massive claims such as people who are not insured may not want to be "
Yes, there are some people who don't want to be insured like some people don't want to own a home or a car. Same thing, they don't want the payments.
"Not to mention many statistics were heavily cherry picked, example he removed all deaths that happened from fatal injuries such as shootings"
Robert Oshfeldt addressed that in a Wall Street Blog saying the aim was to show the the differences in numbers, such as life expectancy, are so minute that any minor change can rearrange the rankings. I this case car accidents and murder, which are not that strongly connected with healthcare, leads to the US being number one in life expectancy. The whole point is that when the difference is that minute any ranking in healthcare is arbitrary. There are several factors that play a role in life expectancy beyond healthcare. In an advanced statistics course (which I took as a math minor) you study situation like these.
"An example would be if you got shot and were bleeding out, and died later, they removed this."
And how often does someone who is shot and die later happen? That can be looked at as well. How about you include that in your statistical analysis.
"That means if you are in a poor area, you have less access to healthcare
and even if a hospital * was closer*, they would look for hospitals
that were farther out that were designed for poor individuals. Therefore
the death that was caused by healthcare issues with hospitals was just
ignored, I mean aren't you a college student(so you claim), don't you
understand the issues with this?"
With all of that you should be seeing the complexity of the situation here and that is what Robert Oshfeldt was pointing out. There are so many variables involved beyond healthcare that you can't just say look at raw numbers and make a determination.
"You essentially posted a conservative argument to why he believes
healthcare has benefits in the US and avoided all the issues without any
provable statements "
If you read the entire book he makes suggestions. Also, his main objective was to show the US does not have inferior care compared to other countries nor that universal healthcare is the goal.
"here was a reason we were ranked low in WHO"
As the author said those rankings are arbitrary. Also the WHO's ranking was criticized so much that they refused to do another ranking. For example, Andorra was ranked in the top 5. There are around 80,000 people in Andorra where that country is a tax haven and has around 80% of their GDP is in tourism. They are a small country that attracts money and people with money. Of course they do well in healthcare like they do well overall in the entire economy. That is not a valid comparison.
"there was a reason we had millions of people uninsured and dying every year."
People die for lots of reasons beyond healthcare.
"There was a reason most people in the country were heavily dissatisfied with the healthcare. "
Most people are dissatisfied with the ACA.
"Please stop posting, you have already proven yourself a moron on previous posts in other videos."
Ironic you say that because you still hold onto that WHO ranking that really no one looks at due to how flawed it was. You feel it is a valid comparison to compare the US to countries like Malta and Andorra, countries I am sure you never knew existed if it were for that list and me mentioning them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It doesn't have a role because the point of health insurance is to cover people and allow them to survive,"
Healthcare makes up almost 20% of our economy. It plays a large role.
"The question shouldn't be "well if I drop them I get make extra money
even if they die". If someone dies in the process, then economics has no
role in it. The fact that I have to keep explaining the simplest thing
to you shows how simplest your mind works. "
It isn't that simple though. I agree that insurance companies shouldn't be dropping people, but why are they doing that? To me the reason why is because the people have essentially no control over their insurance companies. The reason for that is because they mainly get it through their employer. And the reason for that is because of the payroll tax.
"Bernie sanders plan did not matter, because it was a tax estimate that other economists disputed, but the point is to cover everyone equally
and not allow people to get sick and die without coverage. That's the
problem you don't understand, you are looking at patients from a $$$
point of view which you can't. You should never do that because you are
trying to justify people dying but putting a $$$ on them and that you
cannot do in the medical field, again something you know nothing about
has no role here."
The economy is more than just dollars. It is about goods and services. Bernie wants to cover everyone equally, the reality is that we lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, researchers and so on in the industry. We lack skilled workers to provide healthcare to all without lowering the quality. Also, you have to consider the fact that you will be giving people care in an order as opposed to giving care to people who are more productive in society. For example, say I need a knee surgery. I have insurance and can get it and doing so will get me back to work where I am productive to society and produce wealth. But say I have to wait while someone who is not productive nor has a job gets care in front of me? Now I am our of commission which limits my productivity. There is a reason why the US beats several countries in productivity as well. So there is that side to it as well. Economics is not just about dollars, but in your simplistic mind it is.
"It will be addressed the same way it has been addressed in other
nations, it will open more schools, take larger classes and graduate
more physicians."
Larger classes means lower quality of education meaning lower quality of doctors. We lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, equipment and so on in universities to offer education to people. And go to med school is highly stressful as is. I teach at a university and as a PhD student I have live with the stress and it does not compare to that in the medical field. Not many people can do it or are willing to do it. Also, under Bernie he wants to guarantee
1. a living wage
2. paternity leave
3. sick days
4. vacation time
5. healthcare
6. retirement
And so on to anyone working. So where is the incentive to become a doctor? This isn't a situation of you building it and they will come. It is stressful to do that job.
"The same thing is happening here, something I would know being in the field.
We are having the same issues, the difference is doctors must adapt to
more patients and we have to open more schools. The wait times may
increase but it doesn't matter, the point is I'm sure someone rather wait 2 weeks than never getting serviced. You keep avoiding the obvious and make ludicrous points, essentially they can die if they can't afford it."
I doubt you have experience in the field because if you did you will see it is much more complicated than just opening more schools and then magically more doctors appear. And I rather not wait that long as I will be out of commission, same with other productive workers.
" Again he is assuming this point without any actual empirical
evidence, it's just a claim he makes randomly in the study attempting to
justify the massive amounts of uninsured. When already multiple studies
were done at the time that tons of people were getting rejected due to
pre-existing conditions which you keep avoiding."
I am not rejecting the pre-existing conditions. It is a problem, but why? To me it comes back to people getting insurance through their employer as opposed to getting it at a young age on their own. And you say you have knowledge in the field which I highly doubt. If you did you will realize that we can't just open more colleges and than doctors will appear. I failed a handful of students wanting to attend nursing school because they simply could not handle the work. And I work hard as an educator trying to get them to understand physics. I always get great reviews as an instructor, the students just couldn't get it.
"I'm not arguing the reasons it could have different influences, but by removing all those situations, then he is removing tons of facts that play roles in healthcare. I can name several others that he would name."
Again, you missed the point. He is showing how sensitive the data related to healthcare is and how minor changes can lead to the numbers being ranked in a different order. That shows the differences in healthcare quality with those countries is so minute that you can't make the claim that they are doing it better. You can do a statistical analysis showing the US is terrible and on can do a statistical analysis that is just as legit to show the US is the best.
"I included tons of examples above and that's the issue, he removed all
these problems that can happen very frequently. It's simple,
preventative care is the best type of care because many issues that are small"
And Prof. Oshfeldt even said that other issues such as diet and exercising and smoking play a role. None of those require healthcare but basic knowledge that proper dieting and exercising is good for your health and smoking isn't. And I do feel preventative care is good, but this brings up the point of why do we have to rely on insurance for that? Why can't we just pay out of pocket?
"I'm not just looking at the numbers, I'm looking at the very important
points which I listed multiple times that you just keep avoiding and
even the economists avoided heavily in the report. You don't seem to
understand these issues or you are just avoiding them whole sale.
"
You are making up scenarios but are not giving them any statistical context. Plus, when these ranking are made people look at numbers.
"It is inferior healthcare, "
You say that but you haven't given any reason why you feel that way besides plausible situations. You haven't shown anything that preventative care can actually lower healthcare costs or improve the quality. I feel many people go to the hospital for asinine reasons. I had a manager who weighed over 500 pounds and every doctor told her what I told her, that she needed to change her diet and lose weight. That doesn't take a doctor to say that, but she took time away from doctors. If you are going to make accusations you have to back them up. So far you haven't.
1
-
Part 2
"It is because many of the issues is why we ranked low
-Not everyone was insured
-Not everyone could afford healthcare
-People could be denied healthcare
-People could be dropped by healthcare
-People could be denied treatment because the insurance company thought the treatment was not useful."
And in other countries people are denied care as well because of rationing. So what's the difference? People die in other countries because of that.
"Again all these issues were massive problems in our healthcare, you just keep avoiding them and again"
I don't avoid them, I feel they are problems. But allowing the federal government which has a terrible track record and is corrupt to run our healthcare is not the solution.
"Again this is a stupid point, I am saying many people died because of
those insurance issues that shouldn't exist. That's like you pointing
out the issue with drunk driving and instead of being trying to fix the
issue I just point out "people die from lots of things every year". That
is true but has nothing to do with the issue."
People die for many reasons. With healthcare the main reason is because they are poor and unhealthy to begin with. You can find some rare instances but they are what they are, rare.
"Not even close to the old system, everyone essentially loves all the new
stiuplations, the only thing people hated was the mandate. They loved
-The ability not to get denied
-The ability to always get coverage regardless of income
-The ability to be on parents insurance until 26
-The ability to not be denied treatment because insurance did not want
to pay
The list goes on and on, the only thing people don't like of the
ACA is the fact that they are forced to pay a penalty if they don't opt
in. That was literally the only thing that was under 50% when they
polled for the ACA."
One, the polls have been wrong lately. Next, people keep voting for republicans who for years have been running on the idea of repealing Obamacare. I trust the election results.
"This is why I saw economists have no roll in this system, because you
are thinking of $$$$ rather than common sense for treatment."
The rest of your comment is crap because in the end the people are voting for the repeal. So when you say "the majority like...." means nothing as clearly the election results say otherwise. But, the highlight of your ignorance falls in that last sentence. One, there is a lot to economics besides dollars. As I mentioned with colleges, we lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms and so on. That is not money but actual services to provide a college education to people. How do you account for that? Economists look at that where a simpleton will just look at dollars. Next you say "common sense". This is clearly not common sense as a major news source and two high profile politicians just had a debate on the issue. "Common sense" is saying most people like dress warm during the winter. This issue is far more complex than that and you saying "common sense" means you have no argument.
Your solution is myopic and ignorant. I feel we have problems but I understand the situation is far more complex. I feel the issue stems from the federal government and feel that it starts with the payroll tax. To highlight that I will ask these two questions
1. Why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage?
2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
1
-
"This is the biggest issue with the argument and exactly why you are a
simpleton that doesn't understand any sort of complexity. People did not
vote Trump to replace ACA, the vast majority of the people who voted
for him claimed he would not cut social security, medicaid and medicare
and if replace the ACA, they would replace it with a system that had
the same perks but was cheaper. Again this is why so many Republicans
are having such controversy in replacing Obamacare with a system that
removes its perks, this is why many mayors are starting to go against
the republican house/senate that wants to remove it, this is why many
Republicans are openly coming out and saying this should not happen."
The reality is that Obamacare shouldn't exist at all, but it is hear and politicians know you can't just make radical changes. That is why democrats could not agree on one form of healthcare because the change was radical and was going to have dire results which it had, many of which were bad which is why republicans won on the campaign of replacing it. This is also why universal healthcare is not getting passed because that is an extreme change and will cause major damage to our economy.
" This post is so idiotic, it's just baffling because the reason Trump
won was because of how terrible of a candidate Hilary was, and because
the public hated her. "
And Hilary beat Bernie, so what does that make Bernie?
"You understand if Bernie Sanders went against Trump, he would of destroyed him correct?"
How so? He could not even beat Hilary who was a terrible candidate herself. Also, based on this debate Bernie would have been destroyed by Trump. Bernie demonizing that small business owner reveals his true colors and how radical the left has become. In 1994 Herman Cain approached Bill Clinton with a similar question. Clinton was respectful and answered Cain with number and data. He even went as far as to say that Cain's question was legit because 40% of the food dollar is spent eating out. Cain countered with facts and numbers of his own. I disagreed with Clinton but I respected is approach and saw why people liked him. Here we are over 20 years later and Bernie, on of the main candidates for the democrats, just demonizes small business owners saying "this is America and you have to give them insurance" and demonizes any of his opponents that challenges him with nothing more that appeal to emotions propaganda. That is why he lost and why democrats lost. People saw through his crap how he could not back up any of his policies with actual numbers and data. Just like you couldn't as well.
" Again by your logic, that would mean everyone wanted Universal healthcare"
Except one, Bernie lost, and two, such proposals lost by extreme margins in Vermont and Colorado.
"No, you moron I pointed out the issues multiple times. Common sense is
If a doctor says you need X, the insurance company should not make the
determination if it is needed"
When they are paying for it they can. This is a problem of us not having control of insurance companies. We don't have control mainly because we can't pick our own insurance companies because most people get it through their employers because of the payroll tax. Also, as Cruz pointed out, the number of insurance companies are limited.
"Common sense is If the doctor says you need it, it's makes common sense to believe him/her "
Doctors have been known to offer care that is frivolous simply to gain money.
"I mean it's shocking that you have this issue, the fact that you are
literally arguing for a system where a doctor gets overridden by the
insurance who has no experience in the field. "
But they are the ones picking up the tab, why shouldn't they have a say? Who is going to check up on the doctors now seeing they are not price gouging insurance companies?
1
-
"Still doesn't have relevance to how doctors treat patients"
Yes it does.
"It is very simple, if you give the private market people to do that then
you can do that because unfortunately they will raise cost if they are
forced to take people who get sick. "
If an insurance company raises cost for people for just getting sick when they have been on their plan for years, than that company will receive poor reviews and go out of business in the competitive market. Fact is we don't have a free market system in healthcare at all. We have the federal government being involved in a big way.
"You don't seem to understand the saying, when I mean it is dollars I
mean you are essentially sending people to death because in your mind,
they aren't productive."
That's life. If someone can't afford a home they will have a greater chance of becoming sick. Same with being able to afford healthy food. But we don't see the need to make housing and food a "right". If someone is poor and can only afford to live in the ghetto of high crime they have a greater chance of being murder. Or if they are poor and can't afford a safer car they have a greater chance of dying in a car accident.
"Saying that people should essentially die because you think you are more
productive really speaks value of the kind of piece of crap you really
are. I truly hope you get sick and I truly hope you lose coverage and
understand how terrible the US system really was."
Now you are becoming emotional and are falling apart to the point you wish ill will on me. You are now losing this argument. I am all for fixing healthcare in the US, but we have to realize reality here. You are living in a fantasy where you feel that we can just snap our fingers and everything will be all better. That we can just build more schools and more doctors will appear. I am being realistic here. You are being emotional.
"Do you know how many people are accepted per year? Around 120-200 out of
5000+ applications usually, I'll give an example. The class I was
accepted too was around 120 out of 6500 applications, so they only took
around 2% of the applications. Not only would tons of people jump at the
oppertunity to get in, but many people are extremely qualified but it's
become so competitive, even with an MCAT of a 511, you struggle to get
interviews in many allopathic schools and need a score of around 506 to
get interviews to osteopathic schools."
Because it is as stressful field so you have to know your shit. As one of my nursing students told me, she has to know what she is doing because if she makes one mistake someone will die and she could get sued. In fact that is happening to money of my colleague's sister. Also, we lack professors, TAs, tutors, classrooms, equipment and so on to actually teach these people. That is why acceptance rates are so low. At my university we are literally putting warm bodies in front of students to teach them in labs. Not TAs who actually know the subject, but warm bodies. Don't talk about topics you know little about.
"You are a moron, of course I know about it because I am in the field and
they are already doing this as they speak. They are opening allopathic
and osteopathic schools every year attempting to keep up with the influx
of doctors they have to pump out, the difference is they need to
educate more doctors. This issue is happening right now in the country,
the only difference is they need to keep up with them. No magically
doctors won't show up, but the reality is many people are highly
qualified but are turned down due to the massive amounts of people.
People with MCATS as high as (510ish)80th percentile at times are
finding issues trying to get into medical schools that are allopathic.
Even new medical schools open try to shoot around that mark, not
speaking of established schools."
Again, who is going to teach them? And the 80th percentile is low for that kind of job. It seems like you tried to become a doctor yourself but failed and now you are bitter and becoming emotional here.
"Again it isn't the best if a doctor cannot dictate what treatment you get"
Insurance companies are picking up the tab though. They have a say. I agree that is a problem, but right now you don't have a solution. If we had single payer the government will instead make that decision. Cruz wants the people to be in control. You haven't suggested that at all.
"What happens if you can't afford it out of pocket? What if something more serious is found? Then what do you do? Pray?"
There is a role for insurance for specialized care and emergencies. Car insurance does not cover oil changes, but it covers a car accident or if someone breaks into my car. Same should be for insurance. I should
1. Have control of what insurance i want to buy and not be at the mercy of my employer
2. Have control of what kind of insurance I get and use it for extreme cases and not small things like simple check ups.
"The fact that you are arguing that it can lower healthcost is ridiculous, "
So affordable healthcare is not possible and we should just have the entire country go bankrupt?
" It isn't "Wait does it cost more or less", and again if you have no idea whats wrong with her why comment? "
There is a lot of irony in that question coming from you.
"If I am the doctor and I say X, Y and Z, an idiot like you should have no input in what she gets since you have no experience in the field and that should never be disputed."
If you are the one picking up the tab than it is. This is why, as Cruz said, the people should be in control of healthcare insurance and healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1