General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Kyle Debates Conservative YouTuber Razorfist On Drunken Peasants" video.

Ben Shapiro will destroy Kyle as Ben will come prepared. This debate as very poor on both sides.
16
Ben will destroy Kyle. This debate was bad on both parts. Razorfist did not come prepared and Kyle just rambled on the same leftist talking points that have been either debunked or fully explained to where it does not support leftist's case. There is a reason why Kyle is losing viewers.
4
Knives are very deadly, in some ways deadlier than guns.
4
Kyle can't win the argument without being rude as he really has little to back up his talking points.
4
@RUGteam ,Kyle debated a weak opponent. To say he has "irrefutable facts" is a huge stretch. If Razorfist would have done research on Kyle he could have easily debunked Kyle.
4
" no one person can stab 50 people to death in a night, please use logic" That incident is an outlier. However, one can easily make a bomb with everyday items. Look at the Bath Township School bombing. Almost 50 dead. Or they can use a truck like what happened in France. But again, we are looking at outliers here. Remove those it issue of a gun vs a knife is a legit point. If you want to look at outliers you have to include other methods such as bombings and trucks. Please use logic.
3
Alonso Arana, I like to listen to both sides and I can criticize both sides. I did where by criticizing Razorfist in saying he was not prepared.
2
I saw the discussion between Shapiro and Pakman, neither won and Pakman went to the extreme on the gun issue. Shapiro approached it from a legal perspective in what you want to define an "arm" as. Shapiro knew very well what was in the 2nd amendment. It just came down to a legal interpretation. Shapiro is very intelligent and those who say he is an "idiot" are an idiot themselves. I read these comments and that is what I see, people calling him an "idiot" without justification meaning they are an idiot themselves or don't even listen to what he says.
2
NovaCane, bread lines only exist because government manipulating the economy on a large scale killed productivity so much that there isn't enough food. In a capitalist system we produce too much food. Breadlines are a bad thing.
2
drunkenchef24, those situations are outliers. Remove the gun and they will use bombs or trucks.
2
Both gun shots and knifes are bad. However, knives can be worse and do more damage depending on the knife. What is also bad is martial arts. Why don't we ban that now?
2
Kyle won by simply being more aggressive. Against someone who is more informed Kyle would be destroyed as all he has are talking points. Anyone can give a number, how it is presented is key. Kyle presents numbers in very deceptive way and ignores many factors and variable.
2
@adnanomerhodzic3869 , take healthcare for example. Kyle is pushing the 45,000 deaths a year in the US and says that number is zero in other nations. That is not true. Amenable mortality is a thing in every nation, so every nation has people dying from "curable" cases due to lack of healthcare. Also, that 45,000 number is a hard number to obtain to begin with. Those individuals are poor and 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. To extend, there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So their bad health is due to their life style. And as listed in the book "Being Mortal" the author there mentions how people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give access to those 45,000 and they live only 5 more months in pain and using up limited resources, is that a success? Kyle is my favorite leftist to watch and I would love to debate him someday on the issues of economics, healthcare and climate change. I doubt that will be arranged. But reality is that Kyle only has talking points and a handful of them. He never goes beyond them and someone with more knowledge can easily tear him apart.
2
For those that are interested people die in the NHS system waiting for heart surgery as well https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560551/
2
Jeremy, thanks. I misread that. Point being, though, is that people do die on waiting lists in universal care. As a whole I am not saying that the US is great in healthcare and their system is terrible. It is that when Kyle and other leftists say that no on dies in their systems than it is simply not true. Kyle refusing to accept that shows he is bias, and in my opinion unfit to have a discussion with.
2
Spencerwalker21, a "leftist" is someone who supports leftists policies without question. Basically Kyle and most of the people on this comment section. People here are saying that Kyle won when I have easily debunked his healthcare talking point. As for taxes, when you support a progressive tax than yes, it is free for the poor. But if you really want the poor to pay taxes than why keep talking about the 1%? They already pay more in taxes.
2
To dissect your comment "Kyle- 45,000 people die every year in the US because they don't have access to basic healthcare. That number in Canada and Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden is zero. Razor- ya, and ,and that's invariably what you'll fall back on. but more people have access... Kyle- because it's true. That's why I fall back on it." That 45,000 is very deceptive. To start, you have no research from other countries to make a comparison. Kyle says, falsely, that no one dies in other nations due to lack of access. As I showed they do. Next, 45,000 is 0.01% of the population. Around 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents, around 40,000 a diagnosed with HIV in comparison. Also, those 45,000 are poor to begin with where there are higher rates of poverty, 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? Thus that 45,000 is a number that is not accurate and prone to many variables. "Kykle- The people in Canada disagree. The people in Norway disagree. Apparently they have the magic Harry Potter wand, because they're making it work right now and our system is not working. " Again, I showed how in other nations people die. Look at these papers "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “ Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart Those are the titles and journals. This is where Kyle is factually incorrect. Next, saying "people disagree" is not an argument. One, the people being polled are not experts. Next, they have not experienced other systems, typically. So you cannot take what they say seriously. I felt both Razorfist and Kyle were weak here. Many say Kyle won this because he cited one study despite the plethora of studies to counter it.
2
I didn't work for Trump as Trump as not cursing every third word and was acting mature during debates. When he did act that way it was not to the extreme Kyle was and it was to call out corruption in politics which is fine. It isn't "that's bullshit" or "you are a 14 year old". Kyle's style is immature and he is losing viewers because of it.
2
"Shapiro thinks money equals speech. " It does as it is one way you can support a candidate. You can also volunteer and post signs up or have a Youtube channel dedicated to a candidate.
1
Vivid Venom, care to give some examples of Shapiro's actions?
1
"A guy who graduated from harvard thinks money=speech and denies science.." He doens't deny science, and on money being speech is is correct. Some people support candidates with money, others volunteer their time. Some post signs up in their yards and some dedicate a Youtube channel to candidates. Money is just one way to do it. Unless there is quid pro quo there is nothing illegal.
1
"cenk isn't nearly as well organized in talking points as Kyle. Kyle would obliterate Ben" Saying "bullshit" all the time and saying the same debunked talking points is not how you win debates.
1
I see a lot of people criticizing Shapiro but they never give examples of where he is wrong and why.
1
" Shapiro is vacuos moron who resides provenly false bs very quick and pseudo-eloquently to confuse other morons into thinking he’s correct." Care to give examples?
1
" "leftist talking points" you mean peer reviewed facts? He even cited his sources for you moron." Facts presented in a deceptive way. First off, you don't "peer review" facts, they are what they are. Next, to give a couple of examples of how he was deceptive take the 45,000 a year dying. "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." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/ Why doesn't he listen to that Harvard professor? Reason why is because it goes against his rhetoric. So sure, he can quote a paper on that number, but that number is 1. A very small subset of the total population (0.02%) 2. There are many factors in play you can't account for in an accurate way Both of those make that number essentially meaningless unless you want to take my approach and say "45,000, that's it?" as that is a small number. To also say that number is zero in other countries is him setting a low standard in those countries and placing the US at a high standard. If you go to the ER you are not denied care in the US, so everyone is covered. Now if you want to talk about being bankrupt than fine, but we are talking about healthcare access which everyone has as well in the US. But even at that I can give you the fact that in the end they will have to pay. But in othe countries people lack healthcare access as well due to limited supplies. People die in other systems as well due to shortcomings. To claim that does not happen in other countries is Kyle lowering the standards. Yes, on paper everyone is covered, but that is on paper only. Just like in S. Africa everyone, on paper, has a right to a home, but they still have homeless people. Another example is the gun debate. He points to Australia which is a poor example. The gun murder rate before the buy back was dropping already. Gun suicide rate was dropping as well. Kyle ignores that by truncating the data. He eventually went to the extreme of asking a loaded question of "does more guns equal more peace". There are many factors to that, but in the US for the past 20+ years guns have been increasing and crime has been dropping. I watched the video and what I saw was Kyle giving the same leftist's talking points which is why he is losing viewers.
1
Nameless King, I agree. Kyle was slinging insults most of the time and saying Razorfist's points were "bullshit" and calling him a 14 year old that read Ayn Rand. Anyone with any maturity will dismiss Kyle on that alone. Pakman is a lot more respectable to where you can have a conversation. As much as I disagree with Pakman he does have intelligence and his discussion with Shapiro on guns was good on both parts as it brought up both sides. A Kyle vs Shapiro debate won't go well for Kyle as Shapiro will frustrate Kyle like he did Cenk.
1
"Anyone that argues you can't be moral without the Bible is a fool." Morality is subjective. If you dismiss someone on that than you should not be having a discussion on topics.
1
"Of course Ben Shapiro is brilliant. Cause buying healthcare is just like shopping for furniture." You are one of those people who did not listen to what Shapiro said. He has covered this many times. He is saying we need to treat healthcare like a commodity. Someone has to provide healthcare as it is a good and service. The left does not realize that, or refuses to and feels that all the government has to do is wave its magic wand and everyone will be covered. That is what Kyle thinks. However that is not the case. Healthcare is provided by someone. We can have a discussion on healthcare reform, but there are some facts you have to realize and one being that healthcare is a commodity, and certain services are going to cost more similar to furniture. Those who tried to ridicule Shapiro did so purely in an emotional way which ignores important standards.
1
" leftist talking points that have been debunked? Please give an example." I gave two examples on healthcare and guns. To expand on healthcare on that 45,000 number correlation does not equal causation especially when dealing with small numbers. 45,000 is 0.02% of the population. In comparison 30,000 die in traffic accidents. Is that because of bad drivers, bad roads, bad road conditions? What is it? Sure, we can make that 45,000 to be zero if we change standards. By having the government, on paper, cover everyone than yes, that number is zero. But do they live? How do you measure that? Kyle's healthcare talking point has been debunked as he is changing the standards and grossly oversimplifying the issue. Another comparison is mass shootings. You can have over 300 in a year in the US when you have the definition of 3 or more are injured, or have less that 10 when the definition is only 4+ are killed. Kyle does this often and someone with more intelligence or who was better prepared would have easily called him out.
1
" So why are we okay with stealing the labor of cops and firefighters then?" Who said anything about stealing? But here is the issue on that. One, cops and fire fighters are ran and funded locally. If you know my idea of government in the US I support smaller, more local government within the confides of the Constitution. Cops are fire fighters are ran and funded locally if the local government feels the need to have them. Also, on fire fighters, in some areas they are ran privately. In other they have volunteers. Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. When you and Kyle point to cops and fire fighters you are trying to justify expanding the federal government by pointing at local things. That is a poor comparison. That is similar to calling someone an alcoholic because they drank one beer.
1
LiquidBeagle, it is a commodity because someone has to provide it.
1
" Wut? Death in traffic is due to a variable that is inherent to traffic." Such as bad drivers, bad roads, bad cars, etc. You can't pinpoint it to just one variable, that is the point. "Same goes for healthcare." In which there are several variables as well. Those who don't have insurance are typically poor and have poor health to begin with due to personal choices. There are higher rates of obesity and type II diabetes in areas of high poverty. Access to healthcare has very little to do with that. "but we do know if they had care they would've either survived or had a chance at surviving." And if we had teleportation than traffic accidents will be zero. You are looking at a small number and feel you can fix it with a radical idea. That is the issue because you cannot even say that they die because of lack of insurance to begin with.
1
" Also, the FBI, the army, and other federal 'services' should either be run locally or not exist in your ideal government?" The army is constitutional and deals with foreign affairs. The military cannot enforce domestic laws without consent of the state's legislature and/or governor. So the military is a non-issue as it is there to serve the US states. When you look at the design of the country the federal government was there to serve the states and the states ran the federal government. That is why we have the Electoral College and prior to 1913 the federal tax was a tax on the states. The military was there to deal with foreign enemies, thus serving the states. The state were made up of the people and serve the people. The people ran the states. That was the design which I support. The more local government is the more you can control it. As for the FBI there is value in having a federal investigation team for federal issues. However, the FBI has over step their bounds in spying on people they thought were communists J. Edgar Hoover something leftists complained about especially by Seth Rosefeld in his book Subversives.
1
"Okay and we can argue the difference between local and federal, but it's still a government provided service." The more local it is the easier it is for the people to control. I personally know what goes on in my public schools, public police force, how my roads are managed, etc. as I see them on a daily basis for the most part. I can attend city meetings. The role of government is vague and different for many people. The founding fathers ran into this problem which is why they allowed for state managed programs. Also, when spending by government is local you can see if you are getting your money's worth. There is a desire to have government. But we have to be able to control it. You do that by keeping it as local as possible as you can see if it is remaining the servants as opposed to the being the masters. "What I'm saying is there is a different argument to be had than to just say it's a commodity therefore we can never even discuss universal healthcare. " You have to realize that it is a commodity and in the end unless someone provides it than it won't exist. There are schools that do not teach physics and calculus as they do not have teachers who can teach it. But when you understand that it is a commodity than sure, we can discuss healthcare reform with universal healthcare being one of it. "That is completely disingenuous as you are okay with government providing some commodities. Why not have locally run hospitals then? " I have supported a public option in healthcare if ran locally. I never once said not to do it, I am saying we have to lay out proper standards.
1
James Brewer, I would agree with you but Cenk has always been insulting. But with Kyle acting insulting to his opponent and then spewing the same things over and over again is not going well for him.
1
The Shapiro and Pakman discussion was just that, a discussion. Shapiro knows what is in the second amendment. If you can point to me where in the video he showed he didn't I will watch it. But I see nothing that indicates it otherwise. Pakman went to the extreme on the issue in talking about nukes which is a fair area to discuss. As a whole both brought up good points. Kyle is over emotional and Shapiro will destroy him on that. Kyle's emotions are not justified but are simply immature. You say Bernie Sanders gets emotional and I will agree and it is one reason why he lost, he is an angry old communist and when cornered in the debate against Cruz he got angry and fell apart. As a whole I feel Kyle is simply a moron himself. Until he challenges himself and debates Crowder or Shapiro he is a moron that lives in a bubble.
1
" First of all, the paper Kyle cites talks about how it is directly correlated with the people not having access to healthcare. You completely missed my point." I didn't miss the point. If it does say "correlate" or "correlation" than Kyle needs to state that as that is a major point. Correlation does not equal causation. Kyle refuses to do that is intellectual dishonesty. "The variable is inherent to access to healthcare." By how much? That is the point. You can't weigh it as you have no control. You can revive one of those individuals and have them live the same life again but this time with healthcare insurance. And that point all you are looking at is a correlation. "Most of the people are poor and die because of the fact that they cannot afford the healthcare." And because they have poor health such as obesity and type II diabetes that are from personal practices. Smoking is also correlated with low income. There is a higher chance of unwanted pregnancies for those in poverty which adds to stress level. There are many factors beyond healthcare. "A wealthy person with diabetes or any illness will more likely survive in the US as they can afford the medication and costly procedures. " What's your point? All things even I will say yes, a person who has healthcare insurance has a greater chance of living than those who don't. But again, that is all things even. Chances are that wealthy person is not obese, if they have diabetes it is type I, do not smoke, and lives a healthier lifestyle all around. "Cancer is an even better example. If you can't afford the treatment, you're going to die." If you don't smoke you have a less chance to get cancer. " If you're poor, you most likely can't afford insurance, if you can't afford insurance, you can't afford the treatment." If you live a healthy lifestyle you are less likely to need treatment.
1
"But I also disagree with your opinion on local governments, because as you pointed out, some local governments will not be able to provide the commodities necessary for the people if there is no one available to do it" It isn't that easy. They lack people to do it because no one lives there that can. The citizens there make due with what they have and they are fine with it. I came from a small town and they are fine. You are on the outside looking in. " Which is why universal nationwide healthcare is better in my opinion." But again, just because it exist does not mean it will exist all across the nations. Are you going to force doctors to live and work in an area they don't want to? That is the issue. Resources are limited. In some areas they don't even have a hospital. Now you may say we should build on with federal revenue, now who works there? "For the places that do not have the means to support themselves, we can fund through the federal government and assure every one of my American brothers and sisters receives the care they need." Again, just because you fund it does not mean people will work there. It isn't as easy as "funding it". There has to be people there to actually provide it which is why it needs to be treated as a commodity.
1
" kyle is losing viewers. Right. He just hit 500k a few weeks ago and is already at 503k. Smear campaign from Mr pink." Subscribers are cumulative over time. He is losing views per month.
1
jawn jawn, Shapiro is correct on Citizens United. Unless there is quid pro quo nothing illegal is happening. Also, some people support candidates in different ways. Some have lots to money, some do so with volunteering and posting signs in their yard, and some, like Cenk, dedicate their entire show to one candidate. To say that all money in politics is bad is being ignorant or being hypocritical. In what Shapiro was saying Cenk is hypocritical in that he runs a show dedicated to one side. No different than groups donating money in politics. The issue is that if we keep government limited in power than it can't be bought as it has nothing to sell. Money in politics is not the issue, the fact it can sell power to the largest bidders is. On the "burger eating peasants" part he is showing that giving the poor more money so they can eat more hamburgers does not grow the economy such as create the new line of technology. Investment does.
1
If you are from Australia you would know that gun murders were dropping prior to the buy back. That one mass shooting was an extreme outlier in Austalia's case. As a whole gun murders were always low and dropping already.
1
Countries with universal healthcare such as S. Korea and Japan have high suicide rates. In Australia suicide rates have been increasing for years, however, gun related suicides were dropping in Australia. There is more to it than healthcare and guns.
1
@Jan-vt4zs , nothing. The gun murder rate in Australia was low to begin with and was dropping prior to the law. Those who point to Australia need to look at the full picture.
1
The same with with ultra leftists like Kyle and Bernie Sanders. I don't understand the hatred towards Trump, as in the extreme hatred. He is getting torn apart by people and the reactions are extreme to where people are unfriending others on Facebook because of him. He hasn't done anything that extreme to justify that hate.
1
Roman, I know what policies Bernie supports, and they are extreme. First off, pushing for a large increase in taxes across the entire nation, and completely dismantling and replacing our healthcare system, and completely replacing our university system is extreme. That will lead to an economic recession in a country of 320+ million people. Next, Kyle cannot defend his own ideas, he has to lie about them. He denies that people die due to wait times in healthcare, Bernie does as well as he feels in other countries they ration based on "need". However, heart surgery is considered "elective" at times and people have died. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1728656/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560551/ I know what favors the support and they are extreme. That is why the are ultra leftists.
1
Around 7000 died on waiting lists in Australia a year. The US has over 10 times the population than Australia. 7000 is around 0.02% of Australia's population. 45,000 is around 0.01% of US population.
1
Ali Arwani, the Australia stat is from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. As for other stats, they are hard to come by which makes the healthcare argument complex. There are many factors involved that people cannot account for. People point to that 45,000 in the US where a Harvard professor pointed out that those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with the poor such as obesity and type II diabetes. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with?
1
Crowder did not run from the debate. A meeting was discussed but Potholer54 took off on vacation. He came back and Crowder's show is much larger now and organized. Potholer54 could not wake up in time do the debate as 5 AM is too early for him which is odd considering that is how early I wake up daily. Potholer54 than said that a debate was one but Crowder never agreed. Potholer54 was trying to be relevant but failed.
1
Jimmy, Potholer did not end him. Crowder has debated many people and pushed for a debate with Kyle. What happened with Potholer was a miscommunication and Potholer refusing to wake up for a 5 AM debate.
1
Won't happen. Kyle is scared to debate someone who knows that they are talking about. Kyle went after an easy target here. Razorfist does game reviews, not political commentary. Shapiro knows what he is talking about.
1
This was bad on both parts. Razorfist did not come prepared and Kyle just rattled off leftist's talking points that have been either debunked or have been broken down to where they don't support leftist's points. For example, on healthcare. Kyle brought up the 45,000 dying in the US. A Harvard professor said this "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 considering how 45,000 is 0.02% of the population and the factors that are involved it makes it difficult to trust that number. And to say that no one dies in other countries due to lack of healthcare is simply not true. Yes, on paper everyone is covered, but that is a low standard. What happens on paper is not what happens in reality. People die in other countries to due to shortcomings in the healthcare systems. Kyle ignoring that is moving the goal posts on the issue. Razorfist did not come prepared and Kyle repeated the same junk he always does which is causing him to lose views. This debate was a waste of time.
1
"Making a link between correlation and causation is difficult." Exactly, especially with such small numbers. . 45,000 is a small number. Around 30,000 die a year in car accidents. That does mean we have that many bad drivers? No as some were passengers. We also have road conditions and the condition of the cars and so on. To take a small number and pinpoint it to one thing is almost impossible. Some people "lack" healthcare simply by where they life. You live in rural part of the country and have a heart attack and can't get to a hospital in time because the closes one is over 30 minutes away than by definition you died because of lack of access of healthcare. Now maybe that report covered for that, but Kyle is literally saying the government has a magic wand and can cover everyone. In reality they only do it on paper.
1
Miles Dixon, you can present facts in a bias way. Look up the book "How to Lie with Statistics".
1
Heartofserenity555, you are right about Kyle. Many who support him feel he is a moderate but he leaves out very important information like you brought up. Kyle and truth does not go well. The past year or so I have seen him become more frustrated. I don't think his show will last the Trump administration.
1
This was bad on both sides. Razorfist did not come prepared and Kyle acted like his immature self saying his debunked talking points he always says. This was a waste of time. People take Razorfist seriously for his game reviews from what I understand, I never watch him. Only fools take Kyle seriously at this point.
1
Kyle is uninformed about healthcare in general.
1
"no you can look it up everything kyle said about american refugee vetting and health Care is correct" I have looked up on what Kyle said about healthcare. Kyle is a moron when it comes to healthcare. It makes me want to debate him on the topic as he would look like a fool.
1
"From 2005-2013 only 10 thousand died from lack of care in canada mostly from mistakes or wait times. In the US 45 thousand die every single year." Very deceptive. Most of those 45,000 are in bad health to begin with and even with healthcare they would have died. "So yes. Its a fact that canadian healthcare is better." Not it isn't. Canada has many flaws.
1
G Kaiser, if Canada has better healthcare than why do researchers still study and compare the countries? Seems to me that it is, at the very least, debatable. I really hate how ignorant people who refuse to understand how complex healthcare is decide to make strong conclusions off of very simple, and shallow facts.
1
G Kaiser, citing poll is not an argument. To start, how many polled actually understand the healthcare system? Next, it is subjective because how many have actually experienced a system outside of their own? Stop citing opinion polls as if they are facts.
1
" moron, the 45 thpusand died from LACK OF CARE" That is a hard number to obtain. First, what did they lack? Many lack organs due to limited resources. Many lack care due to where they live. For example, in a rural area it can take around 30 minutes to an hour to even get to a hospital. In many big cities there are so many people and so few doctors that they cannot take on everyone. "Thier condition WORSENED due to NOT receiving care and they died. " A lot of people's conditions worsen due to their poor lifestyle choices. Eating a lot of food with high fructose corn syrup, for example, harms people. As Bill Maher said to Michael Moore, people eat shit. Sorry, but you do not need healthcare access to eat healthier and move around a times.
1
G Kaiser, your gave no evidence to show that single payer was "better". You only pointed to one set of numbers, that was deaths where I showed you numerous factors play a role in that. "Why do researchers still compare with other countries? Gee i dunno, could it be because they want to see which healthcare perfroms the best? Hurrrr durrrr. " You said single payer was better and that was a fact. If it is so factual why continue to do research? "Unlike Kyle, I never NOT ONCE said Canadas healthcare is perfect, just BETTER than the US. Thats a fact." If it is a fact then why do researchers still do research in the area? Why did two professors write a book on the subject of comparing countries' healthcare systems? Why would they waste their time? "Also many Canadians are aware that their system could be better. Which is why many of them support adding more FUNDS to healthcare " It is not as easy as adding funds. "10k deaths may be a small amount to an American who's accustomed to worse results but to a Canadian that is still an unacceptable number." One, where did you get that number? Next, you are only giving one stat. Do you understand how complex healthcare is? It is around 10% of Canada's GDP. Programs like defense, education, housing, etc. are usually around 5%. That alone should tell you how complex it is. But whatever, ignore all the experts who spend their life researching this topic and just look at one stat and come to a hard conclusion.
1
"Yes, healthcare is 10% of the GDP. But in the US its 20% so they SPEND LESS THAN WE DO. Thats a fact." There are several reasons why they pay less. From this paper “Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed "Part of the gap between US and Canadian health care costs may be explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital’ capital costs, larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of spending on research and development in the US." Better R&D is great. Healthcare is very dynamic. Diseases evolve. That paper is from 2012. It seems like comparison studies are still being done. Hmmmm........ " But not ONE FUCKING STUDY shows the US as superior to a single payer country. " Never said one existed. "The numerous studies showing affordability and availabilty per country PROVES THAT. " But you have yet to list any. " U like u I a tually took econ and they explained it well. Under private insurance u have to pay for excess utility costs " I took an economic course as well. If you did you would understand that government agencies are able to spread the cost to other programs. For example, insurance companies pay for disease awareness. The federal government has the CDC for that. So if you included the expense of other agencies government funded healthcare will increase. "Fucking moron, these people died from NOT RECEIVING CARE because they were uninsured (due to high costs) or lacked sufficent insurance to be covered for the ailment they had. This is COMPLETELY the fault of private insurance." So if they die due to lack of care provided by the government what is the difference?
1
G Kaiser, I better tell the authors of that paper I cited that they wasted their time writing it because you, with you one stat, has shown that Canada clearly has a better healthcare system.
1
G Kaiser, that was a recent study showing that people still do comparisons of healthcare systems and do not come to strong conclusions on which system is better. Also, many factors contribute to the costs. "Utility costs and high profit margins are only present in private care." So government has not utilities? Also, profits means progress. I agree profits are too high in healthcare, but that is due to the lack of a free market. With government you are going to see more lobbying instead of profits. On top of that, how much do you really think you will save with reduced profits? Profit margins are usually between 10 to 20 percent. " The profit margin is substantially higher to ANY SERVICE that is inelastic. And healthcare, being a necessity, IS a service that has customers willing to pay more despite the inferiority of the service and high costs. " I agree in being inelastic to a degree. Not all of healthcare is like that though. The problem with the US system is that insurance covers everything when it shouldn't. If I have a bad ankle I should be able to pick and choose where I go and have companies compete. Insurance should be for emergency situations. Also, people should be able to force insurance companies to compete. Problem is that government regulations have made it so people can't as most get it from their employers. What you are failing to understand is that government is causing these problems in healthcare, not the market. You go to universal healthcare you create a monopoly at that point. "Every modern nation pays HALF of what the US pays." Ok, and? I pay half in rent then my boss. I guess my apartment is better (it isn't). "Every fucking study shows the US administers healthcare LESS than any modrrn nation while paying for MORE. This is an INEFFICIENT system." What studies? "The difference is THE AMOUNT of people that die. In canada its around 10 thousand in 13 years. In the US its 45 thousand every single year. " Again, where do you get that number. Are the standards in defining those deaths the same?
1
"Private care has high profit margins due to the INELASTICITY of the care provided. " It has high profit margins due to the complexity of it. Also, it is due to not being a free market system. There is inelastic demand for homes but prices are not extremely high because of the free market. Insurance counters for the inelasticity of demand for healthcare. Problem is that there is no free market system for insurance. Since insurance is a form of payment it is now healthcare and people cannot choose their plans. "EVERY study shows that the US pays double and receives LESS CARE" Which studies? I have asked this more than once. "Fucking moron, ur comparing rent to healthcare? " Yes, both are needed. In fact, you need a place to live first. "Not ONE EXAMPLE of a free market healthcare that is successful." How so? Also, again, the US does not have a free market system.
1
G Kaiser, I see you cited the CommonWealth Fund. What makes them relevant? What are their credentials? Here is a book by two professors in the topic http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf "And rent can be paid for with a decent wage" Define "decent wage". Also, healthcare can as well. Why do you want government to run healthcare but not housing? Why not pay a "decent wage" where people can afford both rent and healthcare? "Healthcare, btw is more necessary than a nice place to live. No matter what ailment u have, it must be treated" You can avoid being sick if you have a nice home and good food.
1
"8 common wealth fund used the OECD and even ur book isnt bothered by using them as a source Lmfao. " Actually they did, look at page 155. "The common wealthy study shows u how they got their numbers. " So does the book, they have a section called "References". "Also ur book neglects to mention one thing" You didn't read the book. "Except healthcare is MORE EXPENSIVE privitized than as single payer." Again, my boss's 2 bedroom apartment in a better part of town has higher rent then my one bedroom in a part of town filled with noisy college students. Saying something is more expensive is not an argument when you ignore other factors.
1
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
1
You keep going to cost but ignore quality and how the US leads the world in R&D. Again, my apartment is cheaper than my boss's apartment. Does that mean my apartment is better?
1
Kyle: Immature response and debunked talking points.
1
Many doctors do not use Medicare, and the middle class cannot afford to pay double (as in taxes for Medicare plus a private option). Thus you will be pulling the middle class down with a Medicare for all system.
1
" per capita nations with single payer systems spend less than the U.S. on health care. " Is that a success when they have lower quality? "The total number that would be spent on single payer vs the greater total amount that will be spent by keeping the private insurance companies was used to refute people saying Medicare for All would be too expensive." Many doctors do not accept Medicare. And in single payer systems they have shortcomings as well as in people dying on waiting lists for "elective" heart surgery.
1
The Felix, the WHO is not peer reviewed. They generated their own list from their own arbitrary criteria that ranked the US to countries like Malta and San Marino. It was criticized so much that they have not created a new one in almost 20 years. The WHO also never listed the names who generate that ranking. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book, they break down how those rankings are arbitrary.
1
". He should bring up the nordic countries again and when shapiro talks about how they are electing right wingers because of slow economic growth he should ask why icelands economy grew at 7.2%. " Iceland has around 300,000 people. The city I live in has more. Iceland's GDP growth was around 7% prior to the recession as well. But as a whole comparing the US to an island of 300,000 people is bad practice.
1
I keep seeing people criticize Ben Shapiro but never give examples in how he is wrong.
1
Razorfist is an easy target which is why Kyle picked him. Ben Shapiro will research Kyle and know what he will say ahead of time as Kyle is predictable and Shapiro will destroy Kyle on his talking points. It will lead to Kyle resorting to loaded questions like he did in the gun control issue where he asked "if more guns equal more peace". That is a loaded question as no matter how you answer he will make you look like you are wrong. Shapiro will be able to work around that making Kyle look foolish.
1
The fact is the number is not zero and Kyle is displaying intellectual dishonesty saying it is. He makes the claim of 45,000 in the US but the issues is that poor people have poor health due to personal choices. There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with poor people. So are they dying due to lack of insurance or is it due to poor health? You can't say for sure making that 45,000 an unreliable number. It is comparable to 30,000 dying a year in traffic accidents. Was it because of bad drivers, bad roads, bad cars, etc.? You can't pick one as it is all of them. As a whole the differences between the US system and Canada's system in terms of outcomes in comparison to spending is minute meaning that neither Canada nor the US has the better system, they are just different.
1
Most of the things Kyle said about Trump are things he disagrees with. I can list a lot of things I disagreed with about Obama and it doesn't make me right or wrong.
1
Pretty much.
1
Kyle was immature in this "debate". Only people agreeing with him are rooting for him to begin with. He won't gain any views and if anything he will lose viewers with his attitude.
1
People in the US feel healthcare is fine as well, and it is. The issue is when you look at extreme cases such as cancer, heart surgery, the poor, etc. than you get the issues. In the US people do go bankrupt for extreme cases like heart surgery, but those people are usually poor as well. In universal healthcare people die while waiting or due to shortcomings. That is why they have lower cancer survival rates.
1
" Yes, I looked it up, in 2009 cancer survival was around 83.9% in the US, whereas Canada had a survival rate of 69.5%. But cancer survival within the US is also very much dependant on your economic situation. Breast cancer survival for instance is around 63% chance of survival for the insured, but that number falls to 49% for people without insurance. " Sure, I agree. However, the point is that one can argue that the quality in the US is much higher. "Considering that 51% of Americans live on $30,000 a year or less, " That is a very deceptive number. First off, that is individual income, not household income. Someone earning a low wage with a spouse or partner that earns more is not poor. As a professor from UNR showed with min. wage earners who are married, several has spouses who earned more https://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2011/university-economist-refutes-conventional-wisdom-about-minimum-wage-earners You also have to consider that you can be covered off of your spouse's insurance. You also have the young like me who are in college or are working their way up and will earn a higher income quickly. I earn $23,000 a year, but I am a PhD candidate an in a couple years I will earn a lot more. You say that half of the country earns $30,000 or less. However, before Obamacare only around 15% were not insured. "it demonstrates that you frankly just don't give a shit about more than half of your fellow citizens." I do as I am in that category. I just don't fall for appeal to emotions numbers without looking into them deeper. I don't deny that half of the country earns $30,000 or less. But you have to factor in 1. age 2. household income 3. cost of living 4. possibility of growth and movement Along with many other factors.
1
Jeremy, interesting videos I will have to watch. Overall, my problem with the healthcare debate is how much the left over simplifies it here in the US. Kyle literally thinks that the government does have a magic wand to where they cover everyone no problem. The reality is that healthcare is complicated and complex and there isn't a simple solution. For Kyle to say what he does about healthcare is not helping the issue but in fact making it worse. He would support the NHS on the idea that it covers everyone when it clearly doesn't, and the workers are over worked and underpaid. But hey, that makes healthcare "cheap" according to him.
1
Ameri, Trump is not stupid. No president is stupid. Anyone who says a president is stupid is stupid themselves and at that point are simply projecting. Less than 5%, at best, can do what the president does. You just don't become president. Now you may disagree with their policies, but to call them stupid is you admitting that you can't come up with a legit criticism against them.
1
Spencerwalker21, it is free when you don't pay taxes. Leftists want the rich to pay taxes, not everyone.
1
" the social contract is why people who are richer should pay more in taxes" There is not "social contract". Please stop saying that. In the US we have the Constitution, that's it. We have our country designed on that. Nothing is mentioned about taxing the rich more. " For taxes we have a stupidly complex system " I agree which is why we should simplify it. I support going back to pre 1913 to where at the federal level only the states were taxed and it was up to the states to find a way to raise the money. "my own world view on economics is equality of opportunity and to achieve that we need tuition free college better wages and single payer Healthcare" I disagree as not every college degree is worth something. Do you want to pay for someone's liberal arts degree? As for healthcare, the US leads the world in research and innovation in healthcare for a reason. " I don't understand why you think Kyle believes leftist polices without question when he's moderate on guns abortions and hates the sjw authoritarian left. " I give him the SJW point as I can't think of an example where he played the race card. On guns he is not moderate as in my opinion we don't have a gun problem. On abortions he would be a moderate if he supported no longer funding PP.
1
NO president is stupid. You just don't become president. You may disagree with their policies or even say they are manipulative, but never stupid.
1
Kyle is scared. His excused to not debate Crowder was that Crowder denies climate change which is not true at all. Kyle listed three reasons why he won't debate Crowder and the only one I agree with was that Hitler was not a liberal. Kyle is scared, it is as simple as that.
1
It is legal.
1
Here http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Also, titles of some papers to read "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “ Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ “Incapacity for work in elective orthopaedic surgery: a study of occurrence and the probability of returning to work after treatment.” J Epidemiol Community Health “The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine” Chest “International comparisons of waiting times in health care – Limitations and prospects” Health Policy “Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed “Measurement of surgical wait times in universal health care systems” Can Urol Assoc J. “International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related Factors: United States and Europe, 2010”
1
Healthcare is complex, and I just gave you papers that showed people dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Fact is that anyone who says that other countries do it better are a fraud. I am not saying the US is better. We have flaws, but we do many things very well. But when Kyle and his fan base make a claim that the US is terrible and other countries like Canada do we very well and essentially have no problems they are frauds.
1
The meta study was rather dumb. As a PhD candidate in physical chemistry saying that "more guns equal more gun crime" is obvious, just like more pools means more drownings, or more people driving means more car accidents. This shows, once again, that Kyle has no idea what he is talking about. I agree Razorfist wasn't great either, but neither was Kyle. On healthcare, that 45,000 is deceptive as most are poor to begin with. Poor people have higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes. Chances are high they died simply because of poor health due to their own lifestyle and not lack of insurance. And to say that in other countries people don't die due to lack of care is simply not true. People have died while waiting or for lack of resources https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1728656/ http://www.cmaj.ca/content/185/10/E451 I know the first one is old, but that has been the trend for heart surgery for decades. Milton Friedman brought up the issue in the 1980s and there are articles that are less than 10 years old that say the same issue. Kyle cherry picks studies.
1
Sanguinem De, how is the "Commonwealth Fund" relevant? What credentials do they have? You are blindly following a "study" without question and I bet you everything I have that you never read the study at all. Meanwhile, 2 professors wrote a book on healthcare. Here http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
1
Avant-Tom, yes.
1
Avant-Tom, the book was written by two professors who research that topic for a living. They cite all of their sources, many that are academically peer reviewed, and list all their methods. What this shows is that, at the very least, there is a strong debate on which health care system is better. Overall, it makes rankings like the one from commonwealth arbitrary.
1
Avant-Tom, to add I am not saying that AEI is more credible than the CWF. The fact is that two professors took time out of their busy lives to write that book and put their names on it. At the very least this is a topic up for debate where the CWF is not the end all source.
1
Alarios711, he was acting mature. Unless you can point to me examples where he wasn't than please do. I never said anything about Razorfist, so what is your point there?
1
To start, anyone who says Shapiro is an idiot I usually see lacking evidence. Shapiro is very intelligent and more and more I am sensing jealousy as someone on the right is bashing those on the left. Not to the link that Christopher Huymh posted going point by point First question: I agree that Shapiro needs to elaborate more on that than simply answering "yes". Now for the author of this article to talk about the "social contract" is him being dismissive as well as there isn't one. In the US we only have the Constitution, that's it. But I agree, Shapiro needs to elaborate on this. Second question: While Ben did not answer the question, the question was bad to begin with as it points to KS when one can point to Connecticut for a counter example (also, KS is not doing poorly despite their limited resources). The author proceeded to talk about this "The assumption is that everyone benefits, but while taxes have been cut from an ‘official’ (but rarely paid, of course, by the rich!) 70-90% down to the 30s and 20s, with multi-millionaires often paying even less in between kickbacks and massive tax-dodging operations, the everyday American isn’t doing so well. Real wages have declined alongside four decades of massive tax cuts," For one, and the author agrees, no one paid that high rate. In 1967 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that year paid $0 in federal taxes. So that will support Ben's argument. I will say no as during that time it was after WWI and the entire world was rebuilding and we weren't giving us an edge. Next, for real wages, what you had was the expansion of the payroll tax, increase immigration and more women joining the work force which is all driving down wages. In the latter part you increase supply you decrease prices. However, goods and services have gotten better. Cars, technology, and overall life has gotten better. You have to consider that when factoring in wages. When your car lasts longer, is safer, get better mileage and gets you to your destination faster, that is saving you money and time. Anyone who points to the "wages of stagnant" point needs to realize that. On Ben's argument on taxes, he has a point. The rich are the ones who invest and generate wealth, not the poor and middle class. A flat tax, at least, is the best and more fair. However, I support a tax on the states, but that is a different discussion. On this point the author made a poor argument himself. "First, the entire reason why there even HAD to be a minimum wage debate is because wages did not appropriately grow despite increased work hours, greater worker productivity, and exponential growth in corporate profit:" First off, what Ben said is true. The increase in the min. wage has led to higher unemployment for people with low skills, especially black teens. Next, I discussed the wage issue. On productivity that is going up because of technology, not because people are working harder. But increased productivity leads to lower prices and better goods which is raising wages as well. Also, the flaw of the min. wage is you enforce how much is paid per hour and not per week. "In the 22 times the federal minimum wage has been raised, and the over 300 times that states or localities have raised their minimum wages just since the 1980, these concerns have never materialized. The effect of increasing the minimum wage on employment is probably the most studied topic in labor economics, and the consensus of the literature is that moderate increases in the minimum wage have little to no effect on employment. In fact, this was the conclusion of a letter sent to the leaders of both houses of Congress in 2014, signed by over 600 PhD economists—including 8 winners of the Nobel Prize" First off, that 600 economist letter was countered by a 500 one. Next, 600 is a very small portion on it. Also, that conclusion made of the times the min. wage was increased looked at overall employment in which there are several factors involved in that. For example, when it was raised in the mid 90s unemployment dropped. However, unemployment was dropping already prior to that and the percent of those earning at or below the min. wage was dropping. Point being is that employers were already hiring and paying more than the min. wage. Shapiro is correct on the min. wage argument, the author is wrong. Third question: "First, let’s discuss rights, since Ben Shapiro is confused about their meaning. Although he likes to say ‘we have a right to X, but not Y’ as an expression of his ideology, the fact is, rights are NOTHING but what the Social Contract confers." Not true. Rights are things that the government cannot take away without due process, period. " Yet while Shapiro might be OK with taxes for pro-Israel spending (‘necessary’ good), roads (‘collective’ good), or fraud protections (a government function he explicitly supports), he makes an arbitrary distinction between those rights and healthcare." Those aren't rights. "If health care is not a right, as Shapiro argues, then why would a non-payer (assuming we have perfect knowledge of future non-payment) be entitled to a doctor’s time and resources in the emergency room?" They aren't. The author is wrong on this one. Question four: Kyle is correct in this one. Going to friends and family is a way. Simple fact is that if you do not have any friends and family to help you and you cannot help yourself than what are you worth? Sorry that the truth hurts and it seemed to trigger a lot of people. Author is wrong on this one. Question five: "Otherwise, we are stuck with protections that contradict Shapiro’s worldview, such as zero-consequence emergency room visits (protects life)" That does not protect life. Protecting life is making laws against murder. Even at that there is no guarantee there. At this point I am bored. I give credit where credit is due, this man tried to point to examples. However, in 4 of the 5 he was wrong. When you do not know what rights are by law then that is a problem.
1
Alarios711, I disagree. Both Crowder and Shapiro are intelligent and I have yet to see someone properly break down their arguments. Sure, one person tried and they brought up great points as posted on this comment thread. But they also did not know what rights were, and also gave leftist talking points on the min. wage and wages in general.
1
To note, I don't agree with everything Shapiro says. However, I see many criticize him but fail to give examples.
1
Razorfist is not well educated and not prepared. I could have beaten him and I lean right. Kyle acted like a child and repeated the same debunked things he always says. If he were to go against Crowder or Shapiro Kyle would have been destroyed. This debate was to simply make Kyle look more rational in that he will say he does debate people when in reality he doesn't. When you go after easy targets that does not go well for you.
1
People have died due to wait times though https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1728656/
1
I have posted some fact checking to show that Kyle is wrong.
1
Two things: 1. Every president has "failures", but a lot of what Kyle listed were not failures but just him disagreeing with policy. For example, pushing to increase the defense budget is not a success or failure, it is a policy he supports. 2. What you said is the same with Bernie Sanders. Kyle never brought up when Bernie said that white people can't be poor. In the two debates against Cruz Kyle only covered three clips of both of them as Bernie was destroyed by Cruz. And Kyle never criticizes Bernie for making millions off of his book sale that was sold in Walmart. What is Bernie going to do with that money? This debate was a waste of time as you had two individuals who do not understand the issues at all.
1
Yaknow Whatiming, I agree that Mrs. Butterworth copied my comment which I am indifferent about, but whatever gets my word out. Next, you calling me a troll is you dismissing what I am saying. You need to learn what a troll is. A troll is an instigator, I am not. I am simply giving counter arguments here. I just posted two peer reviewed studies showing the shortcomings of the Canadian system where people die due to cancer and waiting for "elective" heart surgery. So anyone who says that no one dies due in universal healthcare systems is simply wrong. Now this is not to say their system is inferior or that the US system does not have problems. The point is that universal healthcare systems have problems as well, and as a whole both them and the US system have advantages and disadvantages. When you look at the extreme situations in healthcare such as cancer, heart surgery, etc. in the US people go bankrupt. I agree, that is an issue. Or when you look at that 45,000 number, while I showed you a critical counter point on it, it does bring up the issue of some people simply do lack healthcare. But they are the extreme poor. So again, an extreme case. But when you look at other countries and you look at extreme cases like cancer they have a lower survival rate. Or with heart surgery which is specialized people in Canada die while waiting. They have problems as well. What Kyle says about universal healthcare systems is being intellectually dishonest, and he needs to stop. The fact that you follow him and for people, like me who question him and give out strong counter arguments while agreeing that the US system has problems, you call a troll shows you have no desire to actually discuss and learn about this topic. You are myopic and a problem in my opinion.
1
" simply untrue, and even if it were true WHO CARES?" It is true, and you should care because you are looking at outliers. " Even the "extreme poor" in Canada (something that should not exist in either of our countries) receive healthcare" I just showed you how there are people dying in Canada due to extreme cases such as cancer or waiting for heart surgery. The US is number 1 in cancer survival rate. At that point it appears we sacrifice giving care to the extreme poor to giving care to people who are really sick. Even at that in the US you can get care, you just go bankrupt. " People are not lesser because of where they stand on your idea of an economic ladder" Harsh reality is that they are. "Far LESS die in our system than yours, per capita, " You base that on what? What variables do you use? And why? If you remove car accidents and murder the US is number 1 in life expectancy. "Preventative care is where universal healthcare shines, " A lot of preventative care can be done without healthcare, such as eating right and exercising. As I said there are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes for people in poverty.
1
Cegesh, I just gave two papers showing they do.
1
Yaknow Whatlming, I have changed my stance on the public option in healthcare. I used to be against it but now I see advantages to is as long as it is done locally. I have changed my stance on gun control as well. I am up for an open discussion but most of the time I am either 1. Laying out facts to get the conversation started or 2. Laying out my ideology as most people do what you do, call me a troll without understanding my stance. " You've also literally said before that you have changed your opinion on certain issues before but again, name a specific video that Kyle uploaded where you admitted you were wrong after your arguments were debunked enough times." It isni't just one, it is a collection of videos and discussions. But answer me this, I have laid out a few sources that showed that people do die in waiting lists in Canada's healthcare system. Kyle says that never happens but clearly it does with the studies I listed. Can you admit that Kyle is wrong there? And can you admit that I did give something factual?
1
Yaknow, how many trolls do you know give peer review sources to support their argument?
1
Spencerwalker21, I listed sources showing people dying on waiting lists. As for the 45,000, that number is hard to trust as it is correlation, not causation. Poor people have higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes. Those are self inflicted. At that point you can't say if they die because of lack of insurance or because of poor health.
1
I will give you the titles as sometimes the links don't work, I will also give you the journals "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cordiol. "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Hear "Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ
1
True, I just gave three peer reviewed papers showing how Kyle was wrong and people simply called me a troll or don't even respond.
1
I never had a bad experience in the US system, does that mean it is great? Also, people do die on waiting list in universal healthcare systems and there are studies to show it.
1
Barack, in Australia around 7000 people die on waiting lists for "elective" surgery. They have single payer. Kyle is playing a word game here. This is where I was disappointed with Razorfist. He is correct but failed to give a study showing how Kyle was wrong. There are studies showing people dying on waiting lists in Canada for "elective" heart surgery. If you propose that to Kyle it would be interesting to see him squirm trying to explain that because by definition those people did not have access to healthcare.
1
Barack, it is around 7000 a year. Look at numbers. Not to be rude but the fact you cannot read a simple chart makes you unfit to have a conversation on this complex topic.
1
Harm Dings, resources are limited. In Canada people are "covered" on paper, but lack access and end up dying on waiting lists.
1
FrankDATank1218, that is correct. That is where Kyle is in the wrong as he is simply doing a play on words there and setting different standards for each system. Yes, in other nations people are "covered", but they still lack access.
1
Harm, no country covers everyone, that is a fact. As for waiting lists for "certain procedures", up to 7000 people die a year in Australia on a waiting list for "elective care". There are people in Canada dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery.
1
Mac Berg, those polls are approval ratings. That does not mean people feel they are presidential material. Also, a main problem with those polls is that Bernie was never subjected to any attack ads. Look at some of the politicians who are not favorable. Pelosi, McConnel, Ryan, etc. They are in premier positions and are constantly attacked by the media and their opponents. Bernie isn't. Rumor is that the RNC wanted Bernie to win the primaries as they had a folder two feet think of material to smear him. Issues like him rallying with known socialist and stealing electricity from his neighbor. Bernie comes off as this nice old man which would have been his biggest weakness. When people view you as that nice and clean any dirt was going to look really bad. There is too much dirt on Bernie that the people would have hated him. This is why there are people who hate him so much, they know who he really is.
1
Mac Berg, Bernie, globally, is a radical. Many countries he points to do not have a min. wage nor high corporate taxes. They allow the free market to exist. Bernie is an extremist, period.
1
Defense spending is around 3% of GDP, healthcare is around 1/6 of GDP. Learn some math buddy.
1
He is above debating people smarter than him, like Crowder and Shapiro
1
He is not wrong. Kyle will never support a republican, so why should Trump try to get his vote? Just like republicans don't campaign in CA or democrats don't campaign in OK or TX. When you have an area or a group of people that lean one way so much you don't target them. You target moderates.
1