Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "NYT Conservative Tweets Anti Single Payer Propaganda u0026 Promptly Gets Owned" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Just because there are sources showing people "have died" waiting for
procedures leaves out soo much detail as to WHY they actually died. What
other complications did they have etc"
I agree, now please hold the same standard when talking about the US system.
" Also in massive country with different regions, health authorities, and demographical challenges "
Like the US.
" But if you are going to cite that, you should probably also cite the
40000+ people that die EVERY YEAR in the US due to lack of BASIC
healthcare. "
I have acknowledged that source and I have gave my counter argument.
I am on a channel where people say that single payer systems are superior and that no one dies due to shortcomings in those systems. Kyle has said that numerous times. So my initial challenge with these individuals are to pull them to the center. That means
1. Show that people do die due to shortcomings
2. That 40,000 a year number is misleading
Once I tug people to the center then we can discuss.
I can admit the US system has shortcomings, but so does every other nation. To say they do it better is, at best, over simplifying the issue without realizing the complexity of it. As a whole nothing indicates they are better. They do many things very well, but so does the US.
" No negative statistic about single payer ANYWHERE in the world can compare to that statistic"
If you look hard enough you can find it. In fact, two professors wrote a book on it. I will link it later.
"end of fucking debate"
At this point you lost. People spend a lot of time looking into this complex issue. You saying the debate is over means you have no argument, and when met with opposing viewpoints you become triggered. That means you have lost the debate which I can argue single payer must suck. Now I won't, but with your attitude I very easily can as you cannot defend your case.
"People act like the fact that single payer systems have flaws is a gotcha answer."
No, it is telling the truth. Refusal to admit it reveals a bias in the person supporting it.
". But when factoring in everything single payer still comes out a million times better "
But they don't come out million times better. If that is true than why aren't Canadians living to be 70 million years old?
1
-
1
-
"I dont see how I've "lost". I never claimed to be an expert,"
Fine, admit your shortcomings on the issue, I can. But in the process you cannot become angry and start cursing and say the debate is over. Who are you to make that claim? Remember, you are not an expert.
", but in the end our health outcomes are better than the US's."
Again, that is objectively not true. Remember, you are not an expert. The data does not show that to be the case.
"We have a higher life expectancy."
Several factors influence life expectancy. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number one in life expectancy. You are literally saying that if I get hit by a bus tonight and die it was because my healthcare quality sucked.
" it costs less per capita"
Irrelevant when you quality is low. Also, who leads the world in research and innovation in healthcare? The US.
" and I dont worry about healthcare, "
I don't either.
"system thats ranked higher "
Based on what?
1
-
"- 12 year old info only related to British-Columbia?"
Date is irrelevant, not much changed in 12 years.
"- 20 year old info?"
Again, irrelevant.
"There were 141 deaths (0.48%) among 29,293 patients"
Again, people died when everyone is supposed to be covered and people like Kyle and others on these comment sections say that no one dies.
The point was that people do die on waiting lists. This is looking at only the BC, not all of Canada, and one type of health issue.
"That is not even related to waiting time or quality of healthcare"
What? It is related to quality of care. People are dying.
"There it is...you're welcome."
You never said anything, you just pointed out what was in the papers. What is your point? My point was that people do die in other countries due to shortcomings.
Kyle points to the 45,000 who dies a year in the US due to lack of access. That is 0.01% of the overall population. Now consider that they are poor to begin with and bad health is associated with poverty, you cannot say that they all died due to lack of access. Do some of them? Sure, but not higher than 45,000 as many die due to poor health habits such as obesity or smoking. So we are talking about less than 0.01% of the population. That is small. And it is clear people die in other countries as well.
This is not to say that the US is superior or other countries are inferior. It is to say that other countries have problems as well. Less than 0.01% of the population supposedly dies due to lack of access. That is minute where chances are that value is similar in other countries. Hard to tell as that small of a value is hard to measure accurately to begin with.
You're welcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This went bad for you lol.. So 3x, turned into 1.25x?"
Not really. One mistake is not going bad, it was a mistake as I read two different sources. I can admit my mistakes though and in the end doctors in the US are paid more.
"Then you called the elective, glamour surgeries that rich people get, "advanced care""
What? Why is it always about the rich for you? Elective surgery has little to do with this in all reality. Where are you coming with this? Advanced care as in MRIs and critical surgery such as advanced knee surgery and brain surgery and heart surgery.
"Then you claimed we have the best medical care when we don't have the highest life expectancy, by far."
There are many factors that contribute to life expectancy. For example, the US is high in obesity rates. Read the book "Debunking Utopia" and that is mentioned in how other countries have healthier lifestyle. Also, read the book "The Business of Health" where two professors showed that if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. In fact, I will link that book in another comment.
You are saying that overall life expectancy is related only to healthcare. That means if I were to get hit by a bus tonight and die on the road in seconds it was because of our healthcare system. You are literally saying that as life expectancy is not influence by other factors.
" We have people dying of middle age sicknesses because they can't access healthcare.. "
Same thing happens in other countries as well. A girl in the UK died at the age of 16 because she was denied an MRI by multiple doctors. I will link you that story as well. You see, we offer the MRI. Sure, our doctors get paid more, and it ends up costing more, but we catch those things.
"We people who lose their house because their daughter or grandma get sick. "
Who is losing their house?
" If you think it's OK for millions of people to die"
Millions? So we are at millions now? I thought it was 45,000?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Government spending can increase, yet become inefficient, less cost-effective or poorly targeted"
I agree. But my point was that many say government spending is being cut which is not true.
"For example, here in Ireland, we have serious problems with our
healthcare, the government keeps increasing spending, yet we have a
continual shortage of nurses and doctors "
That is a problem in every nation to be honest. As for administration cost, that comes with government programs. That is what makes the US system have problems, too much government.
I can go on, but in the end you are correct, the issue is complex. To me people who simplify the issue by saying there have been cuts or we are not spending enough are not correct. That was my overall point. If we go farther we are will be going down another path that is worth discussing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jemollk, read my comment to Jeremy Chase. If people are persuaded that easily to where support will swing from around 60% saying yes to 80% saying no, then people do not want it.
"Finally, this is not 80% (or, more accurately, 78%) of Coloradans, but rather, 80% of people who voted in Colorado in 2016."
Fair enough. But you have to hold the same standards with those polls. They are polls that sample around 1000 people. So you cannot say those polls indicate that the nation wants single payer healthcare.
" I'm not sure if you're actually aware of this, but voter turnout was
absurdly low that year. ~40% nationally IIRC, which is unprecedentedly
low for a presidential election. "
That is not true.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-voter-turnout-records-history-obama-clinton-2016-11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
Voter turnout has been pretty much the same since the 1970s and was around 50% last time, not 40%.
1
-
" Again, they said no to this bill, not to single-payer as a whole"
It was a bill to provide universal healthcare in the state, similar to single payer. They said no to it. You are moving the goal posts.
"Also, random sample polls are actually remarkably reliable."
Actually they aren't, especially phone polls ever since the onset of caller ID. Another example is how polls showed that over 80% support expanded background checks on guns but that law failed in Maine and passed in NV by only 0.45%.
" They survey a representative random sample of the population and get an approximation of the country's position."
In a country of 320+ million that is impossible to do with only 1000 being polled. If you were to poll 1000 people in a state or region of the country it can be accurate, but nation wide that is difficult. That is why you saw the disparity with gun laws and universal healthcare when you compared the polls to actual voting.
If you poll 1000 people and 80% of them come from the city, that will make the polls lean left immediately. 80% is 800 people. Considering how 80% live in urban areas that idea is not far fetch. Now you may say that would be a correct analysis of the nation, but consider that in some cases voter turnout is lower in urban areas than in rural, that ends up skewing the results.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/309190-cities-lead-the-nation-in-many-ways-but-not-in-voter-turnout
When you poll areas that have people that are less likely to vote, is support really strong?
This is not to say that polls are unreliable, they can provide important information. But to make blanket statements such as "Americans support single payer healthcare" and base it on a vague poll of only 1000 people while ignoring many other factors as well, is not a wise thing to do.
1
-
"Colorado is to small, 5 million insurers is not a base large enough to spread the risk and finance it by making savings."
Being small means you can micromanage the program. A lot of programs are funded and ran locally, like our K-12 education system.
"So the proposal was a 10% increase in payroll tax to finance it, that was the reason for the NO vote"
Which is the US culture and this issue has been brought up by many economists. Us in the US want all of these things but we do not want to pay for it. For years government spending has gone up but taxes have not in comparison. To pay for these major programs like healthcare we need a tax increase which our society will not approve of. This was brought up in the Cruz vs Sanders debate.
"The California AND the Sanders proposals are quite different since they
are greatly financed by efficiency savings and price control via
purchasing power."
You can't price control this issue as price setting means lower quality. Nothing is free, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you control prices quality will go down like we saw in rent control.
"It would also have savings in the form of that the incentive would be to keep people healthy."
Most of our health problems are self inflicted like our high obesity rates.
"In the current system the incentive is to keep people sick, nobody earns money on curing people."
I agree to a point, but that to me is a problem of lack of a free market. I do agree insurance companies have too much power, but we also do not have a free market system. Consider this
1. Why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage?
2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
To extend on price control, what will prevent healthcare provider from just killing you off? They will still get money.
"No incentive to provide preventive care, "
With single payer there is no reason to cure people at all. Let them die as those individuals are not paying, the government is. As long as there is a government they get their check.
1
-
1
-
Fleming, you are looking at polls. i am looking at actual voting results. The problem with polls is that they are phone polls so you really do not know the person they are polling. Next, the questions are vague. For example.
"Do you think that removing the current health care system and replacing it with a single payer system, in which the federal government would expand Medicare to cover the medical expenses of every American citizen, is a good idea or a bad idea? "
They say nothing about taxes, or how much it will cost, or how it will function. It is similar to free speech
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/august_2017/73_say_freedom_of_speech_worth_dying_for
https://today.yougov.com/news/2017/08/24/americans-wary-extending-free-speech-extremists/
While different set of polls you have one poll showing that free speech is important with over 80% agreeing. But the other poll gets more specific and people want to restrict freedom of speech to people of ISIS and the KKK with around 50% wanting to restrict that.
This was brought up in a conversation one time where someone asked if we support freedom of speech. Everyone said yes. He then asked do you support the KKK holding a rally in a park? Some people said no. He later said that is where people do not support free speech even though they claim they do. If the KKK has a permit and is peaceful they have that right to free speech.
That is the problem with these polls. They are vague questions. What happened in Colorado is that they became more informed and realized that universal healthcare will cost a lot of money and mean higher taxes, so they said no. When more information is given results change.
This is why you can't cite polls. You citing polls is you living in a fantasy land. People said no in Colorado. Politicians said no in NV, VT, and CA and no one rallied to remove them. People said no to Obamacare by electing republicans who ran on moving away from universal healthcare. People do not want it. You can keep citing polls, it is never going to happen. Why? Because the people do not want it.
Here is a decent article describing the limitations of these polls
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2017/09/28/free-speech-and-good-vs-bad-polls/?utm_term=.ed8643c6f058
1