Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Mayor Pete Takes Very Misleading u0026 Silly Shots At Medicare For All" video.

@doctorlemon243 , me to. I literally give peer reviewed papers and books on this topic. What has Kyle provided? Nothing. But people take his word. It is sad that people seek out information from people like Kyle as opposed to experts.
2
@Khuno2 , that isn't what insurance should be. A problem with healthcare in this nation is that healthcare insurance has become healthcare. That is because healthcare insurance is a form of payment. We need to get rid of the employer based healthcare we have and have an actual free market in healthcare.
2
No he wasn't.
1
He hasn't. He doesn't explain how he will pay for it. His only response is supposedly it will cut costs. That is how Obamacare was pushed, that it will low healthcare prices. What makes Bernie's ideas different?
1
@Mason Rued , he doesn't say on Joe Rogan's podcast. All he says is that he will implement it in 4 years and it will be simple. I heard nothing on tax rates. I heard nothing on who will keep drug prices down, who determines what is elective and what isn't, etc.
1
@Paul B , he hasn't. Again, who will decide what is elective and what isn't? How will he stop healthcare providers from jacking up prices or cutting back quality?
1
@Mason Rued , that won't pay for it.
1
@gyroofthyme , Bernie and Kyle don't explain things well. On M4A they say it will be cheaper and better but don't explain how. All they have are talking points, no details and they ignore the complexities of the issues.
1
@gyroofthyme , I have seen a lot of Kyle's videos and he does a very poor job breaking down the issues. For example, in M4A he claims it is better as it will be cheaper. Sure, it may be cheaper, but at what cost? How will quality be effected? What about accessibility? Other nations keep costs down by limiting how much healthcare one can receive. For example, the US offers more CT scans and MRIs in the world. In other nations people are placed on waiting lists for "elective" heart surgery. Kyle claims elective care is cosmetic care but in reality it consists of certain types of heart and neurosurgery. My problem with people like Bernie and Kyle is that they support radical ideas but are refusing to accept the complexity of the issue.
1
@gyroofthyme , how do you know quality won't be effected? The US pays so much in healthcare because, compare to other nations, our quality is the best. Read the book "In Excellent Health" by prof. Scott Atlas, he outlines how the US is superior in advanced care as in what we provide and offer and our survival rates. Kyle and his fan base assumes that under M4A we will still be receiving the same quality of care and have the same access to advanced testing as we do now. If you cut pay by 40% you won't. Also consider how inefficient government is. For example, it took Medicare 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits where private insurance was covering long before that http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690175/ There are advantages to a M4A system, but problem is that supporters of it are not willing to have the hard discussions. The advantages of a universal healthcare system like other nations have, where payments are around 10% of GDP, is that the very poor can receive care of some kind where in the US there is data to suggests that the poor are dying or going bankrupt due to our healthcare system. But the draw back is that the very sick suffer. The very sick lack access to advanced testing which is why people are dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery in nations like Canada and Australia. People also end up worse off financially, physically and psychologically because of waiting lists. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3617466/ "There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers" On the flip side the US system does well in offering the very sick advanced care with high survival rates. And the issue of the poor has arguments against it. For example, there is a strong argument to be made that healthcare is not a major problem in bankruptcies https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1716604 Also, the issue of the very poor dying due to lack of access has arguments against it. For example, Prof. Katherine Baicker stated that bad health is associated with poverty, so the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to begin in bad health to begin with? For example, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. And to say that access to healthcare will improve that, the following study brings doubt to that https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 "This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years," Overall, in either system someone will suffer, either the very sick or the very poor. Also, you have to consider, as mentioned in the book "Being Mortal", people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. Kyle and his fans refuse to have these hard discussions. If you switch to M4A someone will suffer. Chances are it will the very sick and elderly. Are you willing to push for that? Kyle has no details and does not discuss healthcare well at all.
1
@gyroofthyme , to add, Kyle brings up the 45,000 dying a year due to lack of access in the US and says that number is zero in other nations. That is 100% false. Amenable mortality is an issue in every nation. Kyle cannot get simple facts correct, how can I take his opinion seriously?
1
@gyroofthyme , yes, the pay will be cut by 40% Medicare has a 40% less pay rate. And as for the government being inefficient, look at what happened to our mental health care after the passage of the Community Mental Health Act. It made mental healthcare worse in our nation. The federal government ended up having a huge hand in mental healthcare and it made it worse. And again, it took medicare 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits. And as for covering things, with a 40% pay cut what makes you think healthcare providers will still provide the same level of care they do now? I agree people are not willing to have the hard discussions and that is a problem. Refusing to have the hard discussions only harms the less fortunate in society.
1
@millieknockit4916 , because they never experienced anything else. Most like their healthcare in the US.
1
Is it cheaper? And is it better?
1
True. Young people with no insurance will see taxes go up. I, myself, pay very little in healthcare and thus will pay more under M4A.
1
Kyle is going full blown communist at this point.
1
@SouthCom1917 , medicare for all is not economically feasible in our nation. You are talking about completely dismantling our current healthcare system and replacing it with one that will be, at best, the same in outcomes. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Dismantling like that will cause a major recession.
1
@doctorlemon243 , the far left does not understand how complex healthcare is. If they did they would be against M4A. All you will get from them are talking points.
1
@doctorlemon243 , I agree. I feel it is two problems. One, we are entitled in this wealthy nation, and two, with Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. people just look for click bait talking points as opposed to digging deeper on the issues. This guy here has a great video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3miF4KqOMA There are plenty of videos of experts talking about the issues, but the views speak for themselves.
1
@ihl0700677525 , in some areas there are private fire departments. 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Also, fire departments are ran and funded locally.
1
@doctorlemon243 , I like that guy, he has in depth analysis and cites sources in his videos. Far better than Kyle. He goes after Kyle a lot.
1
@gaston6800 , he always does. You should watch his other videos.
1
@Blue-ke9fu , sure, that study says that assuming a 40% pay cut to providers, but what do you think providers will do when you cut pay by 40%? Quality and accessibility will drop.
1
@SouthCom1917 , evidence for what? Completely dismantling the healthcare system, which is 1/6 of our economy, will cause a major recession. Think of all the people who will lose jobs? Think of the economic uncertainty the higher taxes will cost? The government overtaking 1/6 of our economy will destroy it. The housing market was 5% of our economy and look how much of a mess that created? Also, I can provide a ton of evidence on healthcare. Why do you support Kyle who provides no evidence in his videos? I see double standard here.
1
@SouthCom1917 , I have a lot of studies. I suggest you read the book "In Excellent Health" by prof Scott Atlas. Why do you not hold the same standard for Kyle who provides zero studies?
1
@SouthCom1917 , a book is fine in any debate. I am simply pointing you to an expert's opinion. And that book cites many peer reviewed studies for you to read. What does Kyle cite? Hardly anything. To start, he makes the claim of 45,000 people dying in the US due to lack of access to healthcare and claims that number is zero in other nations. That is 100% false. Amenable mortality is an issue in every nation. Also, that 45,000 stat is questionable because as Prof. Katherine Baicker said, bad health is associated with being poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As pointed out in this study even with access to healthcare physical health did not improve https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 "This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years" Kyle also brings up medical bankruptcies where there is doubt in how serious they are https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1716604 Kyle is extremely shallow on the topic of healthcare. Even pointing to the Mercatus study is shallow. They admit, that with a 40% pay cut to providers, healthcare costs will go down. But you have to realize that quality and accessibility will go down as well. Let me ask you this, if your employer cut your pay by 40% how will you react? The evidence is against Kyle in many ways which is why he never points to actual studies or opinions from experts. You rip on me for my comments but I have to ask you again, why are you giving Kyle a pass?
1
@SouthCom1917 , I never give robotic responses. How does the Oregon experiment need more analyzing? You do know the NEJM has the highest impact factor of all peer reviewed journals? That means any paper published in it is a good as it gets. Fact being is that even with access to healthcare people's physical health did not improve because of poor lifestyle choices. Next, on bankruptcy, you cited CNBC, while not a terrible source, nothing compared to the NEJM. But to go beyond that as I don't like to pull logical fallacies, the point is that people who go bankrupt typically have other debt as well. Very few go bankrupt that is caused directly by healthcare bills. It is less then 10%. Most have some other debt. For example, a person with $10,000 in debt receives a $500 bill, and that bill pushes them over the top to go bankrupt, it wasn't directly due to healthcare bills. And $500 is small compared to the overall debt. Whether or not you base your views off of Kyle is not the point. The point is he provides no references but you give him a pass.
1
@nrf91 , it is dismantling it. To start, you are removing healthcare insurance companies and thus all of those workers will lose jobs. Next, you are creating a system that has a 40% less pay rate, thus providers will be receiving 40% less money. Therefore the will have to adjust in some way such as lowering quality, lowering accessibility, and maybe firing staff. You are also raising taxes on everyone, even Bernie admits that the payroll tax will go up. .With higher taxes people will change spending habits in ways we cannot predict. Also, with a higher payroll tax business will stop giving out raises and hiring until they can adjust their expenses. . As for the current system, yes it has flaws, but it does many things well. Read the book "In Excellent Health" by prof. Scott Atlas. We are superior in access to advance testing and outcomes in advance care. We should improve the system we have now, not dismantle it.
1
@nrf91 , BTW, I am against the power the healthcare insurance companies have.
1
@gaston6800 , I haven't watched the money in politics one yet. On that issue, to me, money in politics is a concern but I feel the far left exaggerates it way too much. They are also bias in reporting it such as unions donate a ton of money. But the far left uses money in politics as an excuse way too much. To them if you oppose M4A or new gun laws you are doing the bidding of the insurance companies or the NRA despite there are people with legit concerns about those policies.
1
@gaston6800 , what comes first? It is the chicken and the egg argument. Did the NRA give money to someone and then they were pro gun? Or were they pro gun and the NRA donated to their campaign?
1
@nrf91 , even if M4A will save people money in the long run, people won't view it like that. They will see the higher taxes and will change their spending habits. Around 70% live paycheck to paycheck mainly because of poor money management. How many actually lay out their budget to determine how much they have to spend and do that? Very few. Also, how many are spending that much on healthcare? I, myself, spend very little on healthcare. Thus the tax increase will be more then I spend on healthcare. You are assuming that most people will be spending less but yet base that off of nothing. Next, there are zero peer reviewed studies to show that M4A will save money. There are studies, but none of them are peer reviewed. Also, those studies just show the cost. It does not account for the quality or accessibility. Sure, under Medicare costs will be cut by 40%, but what will happen to quality and accessibility? Let me ask you this, if your employer cut you pay by 40% how will you react? Those who point to those studies only look at cost. They don't look at accessibility or quality. One problem with far leftist on this issue of healthcare is that they only look at part of the picture, not the whole thing. As for people finding new jobs, what makes you think people will be willing to work those new jobs or be educated? What happens of they will be required to move? You say "boo hoo" shows you have no care at all about those people's situation. You are literally going to force those people to change careers without care of their personal situation. That is communist at that point. As for renegotiating payments, what makes you think that Bernie has that power? He says he will do it but consider that two black live matters individuals just walked on stage and took the mic from him. Not really an aggressive individual. Other nations have lower cost because they have lower quality. That is the reality. Bernie is not telling you that.
1
@nrf91 , I never took a dime from insurance companies. In fact, I feel that insurance companies have too much power. And is Medicare popular? And yes, other nations do have substandard care in some areas. For example, people die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Why would I watch David Doel? He isn't an expert. Read the following report "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery." Again, people die waiting for "elective" heart surgery in Canada. Does David bring that up? Bernie is a fighter? And Jeff Bezos raised wages because of a growing economy. Bernie had nothing to do about it. Bernie's own state could not get single payer pass. Providing insurance is completely different then providing care.
1
Kyle really needs to stop talking about healthcare.
1