Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Why The Left Must HAMMER The Medicare For All Opposition" video.

  1. People die in Canada waiting for "elective" care.
    4
  2. Read the papers entitled "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" and "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada"
    3
  3. Jeff Beck, care to give me a source on that?
    3
  4. Bernie: "White people don't know what it is like to be poor."
    2
  5. There are many experts that oppose Medicare for all and do so for legit reasons.
    2
  6. 2bRealist, you bring up a great point. I grew up in a rural area where on some streets we did not have stop signs. Now I live in a city. I see the desire for government and I see why on some places they don't want government. There is no one size fits all policy and the founding fathers saw this back in the day which is why they pushed to limit government and establish more state rights. People on the left fear big corporation where people on the right fear big government. More local government is smaller government that can still take on corporations if needed.
    2
  7. Ben Gagnon, there are many indicators the US is the best. The US does many things well in healthcare but has many shortcomings. So do other nations. Great, I know Canadians who despise the healthcare system there. So what's your point?
    2
  8. Big Seltzer, do you?
    1
  9. shaving ryan's privates, that is a very deceptive stat. What is their household income? What is their cost of living? You have to put these numbers in perspective.
    1
  10. jojo, yep. Why don't you call out Kyle for his talking points on healthcare?
    1
  11. jojo, never said that. Stats are valuable, the presentation is deceptive. I love how you strawman mean after all this time.
    1
  12. jojo, these issues are complex and we can't just go off of a simple stat with a strong conclusion. My point on the response to half the nation making less than $30,000 a year is that there are more factors to it. Someone comes out and says "half the nation makes $30,000 a year or less thus we are in deep trouble with so many poor people" is taking a simple stat and making a strong conclusion. That is deceptive. Have they ever considered household income? Benefits? Cost of living? They aren't. I ask those questions so that people look deeper into the issues and not make a knee jerk reaction. If they don't care about those factors than they should not have an opinion to begin with.
    1
  13. Henry, because I never said it was the best.
    1
  14. jojo, I have not looked deeply into those factors. Why? Because I feel that we, as a nation, are not in terrible shape. We have issues that need to be solved and we should always look to improve. But to suggest that half the nation is poor is simply false. If you look at census data of median household by state every state is above $40,000. That is just by a quick look at census data.
    1
  15. Henry, I never said it was one of the worse either. Why is everything so black and white with you?
    1
  16. Amine, what institutional racism?
    1
  17. You have a masters degree and can't get a job? Boy you messed up.
    1
  18. It isn't scalable. Smaller countries can micromanage the program easier.
    1
  19.  @andrewj4426  , I support state level programs.
    1
  20. Patrik, that is not true.
    1
  21. Rip Sumrall, many professors such as John Schneider and Robert Oshfeldt for example. Read their book "The Business of Health".
    1
  22. Rip, it is a good book, I suggest you read it. It is free online.
    1
  23. Rip, also read Katherine Baicker's opinion on the healthcare system. There is one from March 24, 2009 where she gives her opinion on Medicare and the private insurance. It is interesting.
    1
  24. Austin, yes and no. In some ways rural areas are slower with less stress. In urban areas you have more traffic and have to deal with more idiots and people who are rude.
    1
  25.  Austin Hernandez , i agree.
    1
  26. There are many arguments against Medicare for all. Kyle really needs to stop using talking points and actually research the topic if he is going to have a strong opinion on it.
    1
  27. jojo, which is a problem. People buy into what he says as opposed to digging deeper on the issues. And it becomes more of a problem when he just dismisses the other side.
    1
  28. Justice Anonymous, no you haven't. But if it makes you sleep well at night then think whatever you want.
    1
  29. I work at a university.
    1
  30. I am in my lab right now working on a paper.
    1
  31. I doubt it.
    1
  32. jojo, i am not. I am just grabbed a sandwich from Jimmy Johns while the floor of my lab dries. I mop the lab floor every month because the janitors are not allowed in it as it is a laser lab with a laser constantly on.
    1
  33. Amos, I agree with you, but could you provide a source for people leaving the US for organ transplants. I am looking for one and I can't find it. It would be interesting. Again, I agree with you for the most part, I just would like a source.
    1
  34. K-Fro, the point of the papers is to show people do die on waiting lists. Now how much we can't exactly say as no official study, as I can tell, has been done. You point to the 45,000 stat which is deceptive in many ways. One is that what do you have to compare it to? I just showed you how people do die in Canada due to lack of access to healthcare by looking at two studies that looked at a specific case. Now show me a study that was done in other nations that shows how many die due to lack of access. No study exist making that 45,000 stat what I call an "empty stat". You don't know if that 45,000 is high, low or average. Compare it to this, I pay $700 a month in rent. Now based on that alone I want you to conclude if you think I am paying too much, or if I am getting a good deal. Next, those 45,000 are poor and 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? Poor people are typically in bad health due to self inflicted reasons like bad diet and exercise which is why they have higher rates of obesity and type II diabetes. A study led by a Harvard professor entitled "The Oregon Experiment-Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes" showed that even when you give people access to Medicaid their physical health does not improve. Just giving them access does not mean they will live. Also, I suggest reading the book "Being Mortal". There the author discusses at one point where many people seek healthcare to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they may live another 5 or 10 months. And what condition will they be in? On those 45,000 if you give them access to healthcare how much longer do they live? Do they live another 5 years or only another 5 months with compounding issues where you solve one issue and another comes up? You can't say. Overall, you have to be very careful with that 45,000 stat and don't make a strong conclusion on that stat alone. Dig deeper.
    1
  35. k3v1n47, ok, now give me the source showing similar research that was done in other nations. I need to compare that 45,000 number to something.
    1
  36. walt charamba, define "danger of dying". Also, just because you are not in danger of dying does not mean the care is not critical. I know this is from New Zealand but read the paper entitled "Waiting for elective surgery: effects on health-related quality of life" People who wait too long end up worse off financially, physically and psychologically. Interesting you bring up Cancer considering how the US is number 1 in cancer survival rates. Also, close to 80% of voters in Colorado said not to universal healthcare. Seems like people like it here as well.
    1
  37. k3v1n47, people die in other nations waiting for care. In Australia up to 7000 die a year waiting for "elective care". So you are admitting you can't provide sources to compare that 45,000 number too making it an empty stat.
    1
  38. Ben Gagnon, obesity is a factor of poor diet, not healthcare quality.
    1
  39. walt, it isn't that simple as something minor can become major and visa versa. Why should I ask people in other nations who have never lived in other nations?
    1
  40. Ben Gagnon, I never said we were the best, I said there are indicators. Some are our high R&D, our high cancer survival rates, when you remove car accidents and murders from all nations the US is number 1 in life expectancy, the fact we do so well despite our poor diet, etc.
    1
  41. Ben Gagnon, healthcare rankings are arbitrary.
    1
  42. Ben Gagnon, many factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy.
    1
  43. Garin, it comes down to this. Universal healthcare systems are great in giving care to people who can't afford it, so the poor. But what suffers is quality due to limited supplies. Workers have to spend time helping those poor at the expense of those who are really sick. In a private system quality is high and it is great for major cases like cancer, or complex surgery and so on. Issue is that, due to lack of supply, the poor suffer as they can't afford it. In one case the poor suffer, in another the very sick suffer. At that point you have to pick who do you want to help? The poor or the very sick? Something has to give. In the US our poor have bad health due to personal life choices so many feel we should help the really sick as opposed to the poor. In all cases someone is going to suffer.
    1
  44. I talked to Canadians and I received various opinions where some hated it.
    1
  45. Define "urgency". Nations have problem defining that. You don't need universal healthcare to educate people.
    1
  46. jojo, you clearly have not read the book nor the blog from the WSJ that I pointed you to. The blog is where Oshfeldt even admitted his regression analysis was a simple one but the point was to show that many factors influence life expectancy. Why can't you accept these arguments?
    1
  47. meeg_2005, nice counter argument, really changes my perspective on things.
    1
  48. jojo, all you showed is how complex this issue is where experts on both sides disagree making this a very debatable topic.
    1
  49. patlefofort, you picked two extreme cases. Now say someone with a migraine. Now add in the fact that person is obese or is an alcoholic. Would you consider that urgent? Say after waiting months it turns out that migraine was a tumor. What is your suggest?
    1
  50. jojo, so you criticize me with no asterisks but not others or Kyle? Now you have double standards bud.
    1
  51. jojo, what are you talking about? I provide a source but openly admit that this issue is complex and arguments can be made on either side. I stated a stat and you counter to which I agree, that counter argument is legit. You know what? The authors of that book agree as well. Why? Because this issue is complex. I am not making a definitive answer. You feel like I am where I am not. I am simply showing how complex this issue is and how it is up for debate. Most on this channel and Kyle himself feel it isn't up for debate.
    1
  52.  @k3v1n47  , there are many ways to interpret facts. Facts are the lowest level of Blooms Taxonomy for a reason. Anyone can come up with facts, how you look at them is key. You can give a set of facts to two experts and they can come up with different results. People die in every nation due to shortcoming in their healthcare systems. You say the debate is over when it is far from over. I encourage you to read what actual experts have to say as opposed to Kyle who clearly has not done much research on this topic.
    1
  53.  @MorelloZzT7  , I have ideas on how to improve healthcare, but even my ideas I can admit are flawed and won't be easy to establish in a nation of over 320+ million people. Bill Kristol in Politicon said it well, major reform of healthcare is challenging as most people do like their healthcare. Close to 80% of voters voted against universal healthcare. The democrats lost congress after Obamacare. Bill Clinton lost the congress when he tried to push for major healthcare reform. Most people like their healthcare and they enjoy the employer based healthcare. It is something we are used to and don't want to change. My opinion is that the payroll tax is to blame for our problems in healthcare. The payroll tax means that if an employer wants to pay a higher wage they have to pay a higher tax. It punishes employers for giving out raises. So instead employers pay with benefits that are a tax free way to pay employees. Because of that people receive healthcare insurance from their employer. Here is the problem it creates 1. People are stuck with their employer because changing jobs means losing healthcare 2. If someone loses their job they lose their healthcare 3. If they change jobs at an order age you increase the change of "pre-existing" conditions where is you get insurance at a young age you can keep it for a long time 4. People have little say in the type of insurance they can buy so you have men paying for  contraceptives and women paying for viagra 5. Since healthcare insurance is a form of payment it becomes healthcare and covers all of healthcare Those are some of the problems it creates. If we remove the employer based healthcare insurance here is what will happen. 1. People will be paying for their own insurance so they force companies to compete lowering the price and increasing the quality 2. People will buy insurance to pay for expensive cases that are unplanned where other health related cases will be paid for out of pocket. Compare it to car insurance where it covers car accidents but not oil changes 3. People change or lose jobs and not lose their insurance. 4. People can get insurance at a young age and keep it their entire life. At a young age they have less of a change of pre-existing condition. Like car insurance, you keep the same plan for a long time. This can be solved if employers pay with a higher wage as opposed to paying with healthcare. Also, it makes employers' jobs easier. This is not an ideal solution I know, and there is a need for government. But the government role can be local.
    1
  54.  walt charamba  , he says the same talking points that can easily be countered. And for him to say there is no argument against Medicare for all is foolish. There are plenty of strong arguments against it. Repeating the same things over and over again is not doing research.
    1
  55.  @k3v1n47 , ok, let us look at that 45,000 stat to give you an example of how there are many ways to look at it. To start, what do you have to compare that 45,000 to? People die in every nation due to shortcomings in healthcare. Up to 7000 people die a year in Australia on waiting lists waiting for "elective care". So what do you have to compare that 45,000 to? As far as I know nothing. No research of that kind has been done in other nations meaning you have not standard to go off of. You can't say if that 45,000 is high, low, or average. Compare it to this, I pay $700 a month in rent. Now tell me off of that alone am I paying too high or if I am getting a good deal. Also, those 45,000 are poor and in the US bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? In Oregon a study lead by a former Harvard professor showed that when you give access to Medicaid to people their physical health did not improve. That is because that is related to personal life style choices. So you can't say for sure if they die due to lack of access or due to bad health. In the book "Being Mortal" the author writes about people who are in bad health and near death have their problems compound. So when you fix one issue another comes up. People look towards healthcare to live another 5 or 10 years but in reality they live another 5 or 10 months. So with those 45,000 if you give them access to healthcare and they live 5 more months as opposed to 5 more years, what have you accomplished? You see, I took that 45,000 stat and looked at it in a completely different way you did while citing experts.
    1
  56. Source for what? I wrote a lot. Please remind me.
    1
  57.  @k3v1n47  , facts are open to interpretation. That is what experts argue about. Look at Bloom's Taxonomy. Near the bottom is learning facts. Near the top is analyzing and evaluation. You can give two experts a set of facts and they can come up with different conclusions. That is why we have these discussions. I never once denied any fact. I took facts you gave me and gave you a different way of looking at them. You did not like it so you proceeded to name call me which shows your lack of maturity. You call me a child but to me you seem to be young and lack experience and have never talked to experts on topics like these.
    1
  58.  @oswarz  , I actually gave the titles of two papers and also the title of a book. So how can you say I did not provide a source?
    1
  59.  @k3v1n47  , go back and read my comment to K-Fro where I discussed the 45,000 deaths stat. I took that stat, that would be fair to call a "fact", and gave you an interpretation that is legit where I cited two experts in doing so. Some may look at the 45,000 deaths and see it as a bad thing, which is 100% fair. But I look at it and see many shortcomings in that number and the way it is presented which is also fair. You don't like my interpretation so you just call me a child and run away.
    1
  60.  @jojoboko6990 , people should always be looking to learn more. No one knows everything and there is so much to learn. I encourage people to keep reading up on these things. I will be the first to admit I don't know a lot and I am far from an expert.
    1
  61.  @k3v1n47  , facts are open to interpretation. You bring up deaths. To that I encourage you to read the book "Being Mortal". Until you actually done a lot of research on the subject you can't have a strong opinion on it.
    1
  62.  @k3v1n47  , the book I pointed you to discusses the healthcare industry when people are near death. It is valuable to understand that if you want to have an opinion on healthcare. In every nation people die due to lack of access to healthcare. I discussed that in the 45,000 death issue. You don't have an argument at this point. You are simply name calling and using profanity because you can't debate this issue.
    1
  63. People die in every system for numerous reasons. Healthcare is complex, that is the point. That is why it is up to debate.
    1
  64. jojo, changing healthcare drastically is a losing battle politically because people, overall, are fine with the system they have. You may push for Medicare for all and argue that it will be better and save money, but you still have to raise taxes on everyone. That is the reality. People are not going to accept that. Same thing that you can push to end employer based healthcare but people like that as well. Major changes are a losing thing politically. How do I know most people like their healthcare? Close to 80% in Colorado voted against universal healthcare. Democrats lost Congress when they passed Obamacare. Every attempt to establish universal healthcare at the state level failed. Giving out raises means employers will pay a higher tax. If you pay someone $100 and then raise their wage to $200, you are paying a higher tax. Yes, the rate is the same, but you are still paying a higher dollar amount. You are being punished for giving out a raise. To counter employers give out benefits that are tax free. Employers give out raises because people want more money. If an employer does not give our raises no one will work for them. Eventually the employer has to look at the cost benefit of giving out raises and not giving out raises. It is the same concept that employers will love to pay workers as little as possible but they don't because if they did then no one will work for them. It is also the same concept that employers would love to have workers work for them with zero breaks but many companies give out paid lunch breaks even though they are not required to. Same with paid time off. Sorry for the typo, I met to say "older". As for your plan covering certain things, that is up to you. You decide what your plan should cover. To me insurance should only cover unplanned, expensive situations where everything else can be paid for out of pocket. Same with car insurance where you decide what is covered and what isn't. Providers can compete in cases where people pay for it out of pocket. Yes, healthcare can be inelastic at times and that is where insurance comes in. There is a desire to have insurance, but at times people can pay for it out of pocket. At that point providers have to compete. Quality of care will increase as well due to competition. We see that with LASIK surgery. If insurance companies screw people over they will lose customers. That is especially true in the information age we live in. If insurance companies screw people over people will go to another company. You see that in a free market. Why are oil changes cheap? Because people can shop around for the best deal. You say doctor visits are not cheap. Why? Because unlike oil changes we don't have a free market system in it. You are proving my point now. No system is ideal. By young age I mean as a young adult. Yes, people develop pre-existing conditions at a young age. There are ways around it. Insurance can cover unplanned cases such as a major accident that no pre-existing condition can account for. For some pre-existing conditions it is already in the person's life so it is planned. Also, if insurance has less to cover for other people it could be willing to take on younger people even with pre-existing conditions. As for not being able to afford it, we see that in everything. That's life. With the price being lower more people can afford it, but in the end very poor people might not be able to afford it. That's life. Something has to give. My local I mean the states on down. Also, I won't demand higher wages, the workers will like always.
    1
  65. jojo, every attempt to massively reform healthcare brought negative backlash. It cost Clinton Congress, it cost Obama the house, and every attempt to establish universal healthcare at the state level has failed. I agree that what is popular may not be best. My point is that the population won't support a tax increase even if it is for their own benefit. People don't always accept a tax increase which is how political parties lose. It is why we have a massive welfare system but still low taxes and thus increasing debt. It is why the governors of the Federal Reserve are picked as opposed to elected because they may make very unpopular decisions that are actually the best in the long run. So they are not depending on the votes of the people where politicians are. Overall, the point is that the people won't like a tax increase even if it is best for them. That is the political barrier that needs to be overcome. McCain pushed to remove employer based healthcare and was met with a lot of negative comments. Establishing prohibition led to the mob which is why it ended. Also, ending prohibition was not major as it was not a major part of our economy. A lot of the Civil Rights change occurred locally. What major tax changes have we had in the past? It isn't so much Colorado, why hasn't any state done major reforms related to healthcare? Because people like their coverage for the most part. Democrats did lose the house because of Obamacare. That is well known because people did not like Obamacare. Many republicans won on the idea of repealing and replacing Obamacare. You blame the recession when the recession was occurring in 2008 when the democrats had control of Congress and still kept their seats. Employers rather give out a wage as it is much easier than benefits. With benefits you are adding more variables such as dealing with insurance companies, or in giving out a car to someone you have to worry about that person's driving record and so on. Unless the benefit is cheaper than a wage most employers will give out wages. Employers may get away with paying employees less, but not in a strong economy. What age? Lower to mid 20s. All depends. With a free market you can work with insurance companies on what you want to have covered. You can get an individual plan as opposed to a generic one. One of the points of higher quality. I agree insurance can scam people, but that can be solved through the free market and minimal laws. Not major laws. If it is paid for out of pocket there will be competition with providers. And out of pocket prices will become cheaper. A major reason why healthcare is so expensive is that people don't see the price of it and they don't pay out of pocket. Yes, new innovation led to LASIK being better and cheaper. Now tell me, why hasn't new innovation led to other areas of healthcare being cheaper? In a free market any insurance company that screws people over will not gain new customers and go under. Oil changes are cheap because of the free market. You need oil changes for your car to run and for you to travel and get to work and take care of business. There is a high need for oil. Same with new tires. Same with many other aspects in a car. It is cheap because people see the prices and are able to push for competition. As Ben Shapiro said, why is an x-ray so expensive? It is a machine where a technician takes a picture and someone looks at it. Why are x-rays so expensive? A lot of things in healthcare are very expensive due to lack of a free market. Why do hospitals charge hundreds of dollars for band-aids? They are cheap in the market. Catastrophic coverage is that unplanned, expensive situation insurance will cover. Will pre-existing condition still be a thing? I would admit it could. If you get insurance at a young age chances are it won't as an insurance company can see you as a low risk even with a pre-existing condition and you will be giving them money for years. If you are older than that is on you. If you can't afford it there can be charities or that is where you can have a local, government option. I see the desire for some sort of government healthcare to fill in gaps like that. Issue is that the quality of such care should be low. To give an example, I went to Planned Parenthood for an STD check up. It was "free" as it was government funded, but I was restricted to going there only on Tuesday or Thursday for that service and I had to wait for hours to get blood drawn and pee in a cup. I went to another clinic and had my insurance pay for it, or I could have paid $40 if I wanted. In 30 minutes I checked in, got blood drawn, peed in a cup, and was back at home. Very quick and easy. The government service was not quick, was restricted, but did not cost me anything. I can see a situation like that. I can't provide research for this situation as no research exists as this situation has never been pushed forth from what I know. I am basing it on the fact that despite laws requiring certain wages businesses still pay higher than a min. wage. Despite the fact that businesses were not required to pay employees with healthcare insurance they still did. They still paid for time off and retirement. So my "research" is simply looking at how the market acts now. You are looking at this specific case where in reality there are many moving parts. Also, every state has different standards for their people. Look at K-12 education. Every state has different standards there. Same with driving laws.
    1
  66. Matt Rogers, over the years spending on SS, Medicare and Medicaid has increased when you look at it in percent GDP. Our welfare system is growing where are tax revenue, in terms of percent of GDP, has been essentially the same.
    1
  67.  @wcjerky  , what's your point?
    1