Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Pharma-Funded Horsford Defeats Justice Dem Amy Vilela" video.

  1. Face it, no one is buying into your BS.
    7
  2. Great, another radical losing.
    5
  3. Moderate politicians.
    1
  4. Bruce Wayne, one of the driving points in having a limited government is that people are not informed for many reasons. It isn't so much stupidity. It can be either from having to work a lot, taking care of family, lack of access to information, or simply not wanting to take the time to do research. Many people just want to mind their own business and fuck. That is why a limited government is key.
    1
  5. Ever thought that people do know what they are voting for? Ever thought that people do not want these radicals?
    1
  6. Get Real, that 60% is from an opinion poll with a vague question. Polls are unreliable as there is never enough information given. If you were to ask people if they want universal healthcare with a higher tax that goes with it most would say no. That is what happened in Colorado in 2016 with 80% saying no.
    1
  7. AboxoroxRoxursox, single payer will not save money. That $32 trillion is an underestimate where they ruled out things like increases in demand will raise prices. Reality is that single payer would cost more than the system we have now unless we lower the quality.
    1
  8. Get Real, so what you are saying is that the voters were easily persuaded to vote against something they originally support? That is my point. When more information is given people will go against what a vague opinion poll says. Why didn't the supporters of universal healthcare sell their material better? If you had the support you should have persuaded them easily.
    1
  9. Spencerwalker21, it will not cost less. When has any government subsidize program lowered costs? Never. You are increasing demand without increasing supply. Other countries keep cost low by keeping the quality low.
    1
  10. Spencerwalker21, I have debunked the 45,000 talking point a lot. It is a deceptive number. As a Harvard professor said those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with the poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Also, what do you have to compare that 45,000 number to? No system is ideal. So what is the standard? People die in every system. With no standard it is an empty number.
    1
  11. Get Real, even without money what it shows is how easily the people can be persuaded. It shows there isn't strong support of universal healthcare. 80% said no. That is a huge swing to go from 60% in one way to 80% in another. It can't be a federal thing as there is no Constitutional power given to the federal government to establish it. Just like education. K-12 education is ran at the state and local level.
    1
  12. Spencerwalker21, it isn't so much people dying but their conditions getting worse. Waiting in line for a knee surgery does two things 1. delays your rehab so your injury becomes worse to even after surgery you will never be fully healed 2. lowers your productivity And that is the same for most other "elective" surgery. If I need knee surgery I cannot wait. I need it quickly so I can rehab and get back to work. It is an emergency to me. I put myself in a position to get surgery so I should be able to have it quickly.
    1
  13. Spencerwalker21, nothing really because overall I see nothing to suggests that single payer is better. I am not saying it is worse, it does many things well. But single payer has many shortcomings.
    1
  14. Spencerwalker21, single payer is great for very basic care. I does over basic care to the poor who would not be able to afford it otherwise. But to offer it to the poor and to keep prices low they set the price of healthcare to that basic care. That means that advanced care such as cancer care or surgery is priced low as well but there is no incentive to work in those fields. You end up lacking doctors in those areas creating a lack of supply and lowering the quality. For advanced care single payer is terrible. Single payer does cover the very poor and gives them basic care, but the very sick end up suffering which is why you have people in Canada dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery. In the US our advanced care is the best which is why we are number 1 in cancer survival rates. We do struggle in covering the very poor. However, the argument against that is that the very poor have many problems in general, many that are self inflicted. They have higher obesity rates and higher rates of smoking, both self inflicted making their health bad to begin with. Their financial situation is mainly the fault of their own. So it is arguable if we should be covering the very poor as they will be weighing down the system as they do in other nations. In the end someone is going to suffer. In other countries the very sick suffer. In the US the very poor suffer. No system covers everyone as resources are limited. When you break it down every system has similar outcomes. Why? Because the vast majority are neither very poor nor very sick. To me I rather have the option to be treated if I do become very sick and I like the fact how the US system leads the way in R&D adding more resources to healthcare.
    1
  15. Spencerwalker21, that 37th ranking is arbitrary. Healthcare rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the healthcare numbers and come up with any ranking they want including having the US be number 1. If you get cancer you have a better chance of survival in the US than you do in other countries.
    1
  16. Spencerwalker21, a hyrbrid system could work at the local level. But the public option should only cover very basic care and should be used rarely. Problem is that if it grows too much it requires more taxes. Now the poor hardly pay taxes, and the rich have enough money to pay more in taxes and still afford the private option. The middle class will be screwed because they cannot afford the higher taxes plus a private option. It is why around 90% of students attend K-12 public schools. Only the rich people can afford to send their kids to private. So you end up bringing down the middle class and only the rich benefit. A public system for very basic care can help, but we cannot let it harm others.
    1
  17. Planned Parenthood is subsidized by the government. It is cheaper because of that. I went there to have a comparison of a STD check up compared to where I usually go. I usually go to a doctor my insurance covers and I get everything done in around 30 minute. I piss in a cup, get blood drawn, and leave and in less than a week I get my results. With PP it is cheaper overall (again, my insurance covers it but if I didn't have insurance PP is cheaper than my doctor), but the process takes a long time. They only do STD check ups on Tues. and Thurs. And I had to go to a separate lab to do the pissing and get blood drawn where I waited for over 2 hours. If the public option is that way that is fine, it should be that way as a STD check up is very basic but it still took a long time. Where I went private and was done in 30 minutes. If you push the public option to be 30 minutes than that is a problem. Now you are dumping too much money into it. People complain about lack of funding for PP but the reality is this, it is there for very basic care and is better than nothing. That should be the purpose of the public option, better than nothing.
    1
  18. There is an argument against the poor paying more. At the federal level I support a flat income tax with a consumption tax. At the local level it is a different issue. To a degree I feel the poor should pay more in one way or another. It is more complicated than that. I support the idea of a public option in healthcare, but the quality should be low to one, save money, and two, encourage people to get off of it. My experience at PP was terrible. I am never using that place again. I will stick with my doctor.
    1
  19. It is a failure. Out of winners so far they are going up against incumbents who won their last elections pretty easily. There are two who has a chance of winning, Kara Eastman and Ro Khanna where Khanna is in congress to begin with, so I do not count him. So at best one winner out of how many candidates?
    1
  20. Zidneya, republicans do not like corrupt politicians either. That is how the Tea Party was formed. That is why they support limited government.
    1
  21. Trump ran on the point that for years politicians have been increasing in the power they have and have becoming richer. Trump ran saying the people he donated to and showed how much the people were being screw. Trump ran against corruption.
    1