Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Brain Surgery For Teenage Girl Denied By Health Ins Company" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel, you should look up the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
You say in my second link that was a "specific kind of tumor". That does not matter as in the end the MRI detected it. She was denied one after many visits and when she was scheduled for one she had to wait months. In the US they do push for more advanced testing to look for cases like that to get to them. That is one reason why we pay so much in the US system. It is optional but offered. And when offered you do not wait months.
But that aside, even if it was a "special kind of tumor", this woman's case in this video was looking at surgery that was in the developmental process according to the insurance company. And in fact, if you read the link Kyle posted, the insurance company approves of a more expensive procedure. Whether or not the procedure she was denied for is experimental or not, why would they approve the more expensive procedure if the are in it for the money? But on experimental procedures, insurance companies and governments do not cover those. In the US Medicare does not cover experimental procedures.
Ok, now that you have been laid out more facts and were shown the tumor case is comparable to this case, on to size. Size is an argument. Larger size means larger diversity, more societies, more economies, and a much more complex system. Economically it is challenging to micromanage the issue when you grow in size.
Consider this comparison. Say you want to buy Subway sandwiches for 4 people. You can get the exact sandwich they want and know the price down to the penny. Ok, now say for between 200 to 300 people? You do not know the exact amount. So you buy a tray of generic sandwiches. You do not now how many you need exactly so you order too much and you have waste Order too little and people go hungry. You can't micromanage. You create waste and shortcomings which hurt growth.
That is why size does matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"By the way I am an economist and have analysed the data."
Doubt it, if you did then you would not say this
"His tax plan alone will cost the middle class 4.5 trillion dollars "
So getting a tax cut is costing them money?
"If today, the United States suddenly adopted Norway or Denmark’s method
of tax collection, public policy, economic policy, social, education,
and health policies, etc. it would probably be the wealthiest country
the world has ever seen with the happiest and most educated people."
The US is the wealthiest country. That aside, you can't just adopt their system. We are a nation of 320+ million people with a GDP over $16 trillion. Adopting their program is very extreme and will be a shock to the system causing a major recession. The change in taxation, spending, etc. will lead to a financial meltdown as people will literally stop spending until the market stabilizes. This is why our politicians argued over Obamacare and could not agree on one healthcare bill and why the Republicans argued over taxes. They both had goals. Democrats wanted more healthcare to all, but they can't just create a nationalized system as it will mean much higher taxes and destroying the private sector leading to job loss and a radical change in our financial system. Republicans wanted a simplified tax code to where many wanted it to be a flat tax, basically one page long in code. But you can't go from 70,000 pages to 1. That is too extreme. I support a federal flat tax, but I will not support going from 70,000 pages to 1 in one clean sweep, we have to gradually go there.
Even at that, I noticed you ignored other things those countries do such as Norway actually drilling for their own oil and Denmark having mandatory military. Do you support mandatory military and drilling for our oil? Or more fracking to expand our oil supply?
And "happiness" is 100% subjective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SodaBoy628, those sources are peer reviewed. As for the 45,000, here is what another Harvard professor said.
"
Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor,
echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between
lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than
those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse
health.
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't
know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower
income," Baicker said."
To extend, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. 45,000 is 0.01% of the population. That is small number. In comparison 35,000 die a year in traffic accidents. Do we ban driving to make that number zero?
With that 45,000 you do not know if they die due to lack of access to healthcare or because they were in bad health to begin with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SodaBoy628, I gave you peer reviewed sources. You just laughed at me. That right there proves my point.
"Look at abstinence-only sex ed."
Which is something that should be taught in line with other forms of sex ed. People on the right do not teach that. They support all forms of sex ed being taught. If you want to find a few radicals on the right then fine, I can find radicals on the left as well, such as that individual who supported Bernie and shot people, or AntiFa. But I can be rational and ignore those individuals as they are not the norm.
Consider this, people with money typically vote republican and they send their kids to private schools. Private schools teach all forms of sex ed. Look at their curriculum.
"Look at the "War on Drugs"."
Which has been pushed by the left.
"Look at trickle-down economics. "
Which is not even an economic term. Again, right=facts, left=emotions. That is not an economic term, it is an appeal to emotion term preached by the left. That is a great example, thanks for giving it to me.
"Look at the deregulation that has occurred since 1981"
What "deregulation"? Again, you are shouting appeal to emotion phrases with no real evidence.
" Look at the Iraq War."
Which was supported by the left as well. The Bush's were war presidents which the right is against. That is why Jeb Bush lost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1