Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Parents Consider Divorce To Afford Child's Healthcare" video.

This is the same tired argument from the ultra left of "if you don't agree with my position then you are a bad person." People who argue against universal healthcare are good people, they just have a different, and legit opinion in how to improve our healthcare system. You berating them shows you have no argument to justify your position.
2
C Y, it does happen. Up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. People have died in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Kyle refuses to accept facts and reasoning when it comes to the healthcare issue. That is why he has to dig up stories like these that are the extreme case.
1
Anthony Lalama, people die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Other nations are way behind when it comes to medical research and advancements. Other nations are lower in quality in terms of healthcare. Sure, people may go bankrupt in the US, but in other nations people die or become worse off. Healthcare is complex. No country covers everyone despite what Kyle says. If you feel other countries do it better than you have a lot to learn.
1
Anthony Lalama, those rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can do any analysis they want and create any ranking they want. For example, if you remove car accidents and murder the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Another example is amenable deaths. While the US ranks low as mentioned in an article in Health Statistics Quarterly "There is no consensus in the literature on exactly what constitutions amenable mortality, thereby making the concept in itself imprecise." There are many factors that influence the outcomes in healthcare beyond the healthcare system. The US is ranked high in obesity rates where no healthcare system could solve. The US has citizens who eat out more. When you break it down the US is on par with other nations in terms of healthcare. Universal healthcare systems do many things well, but they have many shortcomings. The same is with the US.
1
Anthony Lalama, also, do you even know the methods in how they created that ranking? Not being rude, just challenging you to see if you know the methods or if you are just blindly following something.
1
Hobo Raiders, how is Commonwealth credible? Serious question. At this point I feel you are just blindly following it. Any private organization (which is what the Commonwealth is) can create any ranking they want. If PragerU created a healthcare ranking I bet you will be all over it ripping it apart. But you blindly follow Commonwealth. As for research, read the paper "How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?" What "american exceptionalism"? I am saying the truth. I know healthcare is complex. You boiled it down to an arbitrary ranking by a private organization with questionable credentials. Again, how is Commonwealth credible? Also, do you even know how they developed their rankings? I doubt it. I do which is why I can criticize it if I need to.
1
Hobo Raiders, it is funny how I know more about the resources you cite than you do.
1
Hobo Raiders, your first source is from PNHP. You don't feel that might have a bias? Also, in your link they made a claim with no citations, hmmmm......
1
Hobo Raiders, I checked. It did not send me anywhere.
1
Hobo Raiders, is that all you have to say?
1
Hobo Raiders, rankings are arbitrary. Do you know the methods behind those rankings? I doubt it.
1
Hobo Raiders, you did not respond to my "elective' heart surgery.
1
Hobo Raiders, your link said "Yet comprehensive data set of all new chemical entities approved between 1982 and 2003 shows that the united states never overtook Europe in research productivity...." They made that claim but yet provided no citation.
1
Hobo Raiders, also, you have not addressed the issue of the Commonwealth Fund. How is that private organization relevant?
1
Hobo Raiders, people still die. The whole talking point by the left is that people only wait for "elective" surgery. Well, if people die than the care wasn't elective in my opinion, it was necessary.
1
Hobo Raiders, it isn't a useless question. I am looking at my citations, two peer reviewed papers. You refuse to answer the question because I am literally questioning you firmly held, religious like belief in healthcare. That is how myopic you are.
1
If there is going to be a public option is should be at the state level. There is value in having a public option for very basic care, but the idea of having the federal government run all of healthcare is poor. We do need a more free market approach with some government at the state level.
1
Kyle won't do well.
1
You can't guarantee healthcare to all, no country does. That is the reality.
1
Zidneya, police are ran and funded locally. The military is there to deal with foreign affairs. Also, they are nowhere near as complex or expensive as healthcare. Poor comparison.
1
Zidneya, and yes, no country can guarantee my safety. That is why I own guns.
1
Healthcare for all is not cheaper.
1
If, hypothetically, guaranteeing healthcare for all was cheaper to implement in a superior way to the current American system, I would be in favor of it. However, nothing indicates that it is.
1
I read that report on single payer being cheaper. It is completely ignoring the fact that you are increasing demand without increasing supply. In a competitive, free market healthcare providers and insurance companies do have to provide a high quality healthcare to you at an affordable price. The problem is that we don't have a free market system. On overhead, medicare actually cost more per employee in overhead than private insurance does. Robert Book showed that medicare overhead costs $509/patient where insurance is $453. Also, a lot of overhead private insurance pays for medicare can pass onto another program. For example, in disease awareness medicare has the CDC, private insurance doesn't. Medicare has the Department of Health and Human Services to help manage fraud prevention, private insurance doesn't. So the who point of single payer saving on overhead cost is mainly a myth. Government just passes it to another agency. The US does not have sub par results. When you break down healthcare across the world the US is on par with other developed nations. Other countries don't use our program for the same reason why we are not using their's. We are developed and radically changing any healthcare system that much would lead to a major recession. Every country, instead, tries to improve the system they have as opposed to changing it. If single payer is so great than states would be establishing it, but so far every attempt at the state level has failed.
1
Lobbying is the exact opposite of the free market. Also, there is a desire to have government, but with too much government leads to corruption and inefficiencies.
1
Lobby is the result of big government. If the government has limited power it has nothing to sell.
1
Zidneya, a gun increases my chance of safety. It does not guarantee it, but it increases it. Kyle keeps preaching how in other nations no one dies due to their healthcare systems. That is saying government does have a magic wand as apparently they somehow can magically provide healthcare to all. In reality they don't, but Kyle claims he does. By percent GDP our defense spending is low compared to history and the world. You are going off on the deep end here bud.
1
Zidneya, the US has a violent culture. If you remove all gun murders the US still has a higher murder rate than most developed countries. For example, if you remove all gun murders from the US alone the US still has a murder rate that is twice as high as the UK. The issue is our gang violence that is isolated in inner cities. Remove those outliers and the US is very safe. Many people go through their entire lives without experience violence. Also, John Lott showed that other nations has more mass shootings. The idea that having a gun in your home increases the chances of your being shot by one is a completely foolish thing to study. Having a pool in my home increases my chances of drowning. Driving a car increases my chance of getting into an accident where not driving one doesn't. Those studies you point at are flawed on those grounds alone. I grew up with guns, I have four, I have never used any of them to shoot one. A study by the CDC showed that guns prevent at least 500,000 deaths a year. The idea of a gun possibly being around prevents a lot of crime. But of course you ignore those issues. Kyle keeps preaching how universal healthcare would prevent those 45,000 deaths a year. That is him literally saying that universal healthcare guarantees people will live. I admit that with our system there are shortcomings just like a universal healthcare system has shortcomings where people will die. You and Kyle can't. In the debate against Razorfist Kyle go to the 16 minute mark. He pulled out the 45,000 deaths stat again and said in other countries it is zero. He literally said that. You cannot deny it.
1
Kyle never denies people dying in other countries, I can agree to that. However, Kyle is saying that no one dies in other nations due to lack of access to healthcare. That is factually not true. Up to 7000 people die a year in Australia on waiting lists for "elective surgery". People have died in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Kyle is saying that no one dies in other nations due to lack of access to healthcare where in the US that number is 45,000. He is being dishonest or literally feels that the government does have a magic wand. I did not say anything ridiculous, I literally quoted what Kyle said.
1
The situation becomes that they die on waiting lists instead because in the end resources are limited. Saying the free market has never worked is flawed on a few things 1. We do not have a free market system in the US, we already have a lot of government oversight 2. The free market works well in other aspects of the economy 3. Saying it has never worked is not an argument. No one has found a cure for cancer so I guess we should just stop doing research in it by your standard
1
More funding does not increase the amount of instrumentation, doctors, nurses, etc. Those resources are limited. Funding has little to do with it. 1. Profits are not "concentrated" in the free market by instead invested to grow more wealth. That is what competition does. 2. Yes, there is some level of regulations, but government needs to be controlled as well. That is why smaller, more local government is the best. 3. Just because something has not been done before does not mean it cannot be done. You are saying that nowhere has a true free market worked. Well by that standard no cancer research has come up with a cure, so we should not pursue it.
1
Instrumentation in healthcare is expensive. MRIs, x-rays, etc. are expensive. As for doctors and nurses, funding is not a problem. They earn a lot. The problem is that people simply can't do it or don't want to. It is a lot of work to become a doctor or nurse. Think about K-12 public education, we lack teachers. Becoming a teacher is much easier than becoming a doctor. 1. Competition will always exist. Someone creative comes. Amazon challenged Walmart. There are smaller companies that challenge them. Blockbuster was huge but Redbox and Netflix challenged them. All throughout history new companies come in to compete. Monopolies happen because of government killing competition where only large companies can succeed and small ones suffer 2. People on the left hardly argue for controlling the government. I bring up the idea of local government and I get ridiculed. They push for more federal government when you can only vote for a handful of congress members. How is that control? Also, giving government more responsibilities means they have more power to control you. 3. There are winners and losers in every system. With your system the winners is the government. The federal government has been growing for years and politicians are getting richer. Name me one company ran by hundreds of millionaires with a $20 trillion debt.
1
If the instrumentation does not exist than more money will not be able to buy you any. You cannot consume what you don't produce. And even if you do buy it you still need people to run it. I will compare it to the field I work in, science. One of my instruments cost $300,000. Another is $80,000. Overall an entire set up of mine would cost around $500,000. Now you may say "if you had the money you can have those instruments", which is true, but I am the only one in that lab that can run it. So even if we bought a new set up I simply don't have the time to manage two. You may say "train someone else", but there is no one else to train. Medicare spending has been increasing for years. Medicare was around 1% of GDP in 1980 and now is around 3% of GDP. To say medicare spending has not been increasing is simply not true. As for doctors, med schools have less than a 50% acceptance rate. We lack them. And simply throwing more money at the issue does not increase the amount of doctors. Also, you have to realize that the money is simply not there. I can buy a house if I spent more money on my housing, but I don't have that kind of money so I rent a one bedroom apartment. Same with the government and healthcare. The money is not there for the government to fund healthcare. 1. Competition has always led to more innovation. History shows that. Apple struggled and became creative and create better products due to competition. Amazon challenged Walmart so now Walmart has their pick up service that attracts customers. Competition has always led to innovation. Government is what creates monopolies as it harms small businesses with expensive regulations. Government is a main reason why healthcare has as many problems as it does. Read the article "How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive" Government creating expensive regulations prevents small businesses from expanding as small business simply can't afford them. Large businesses have more resources to work around those regulation where small ones don't. Government creates monopolies. 2. I never said no government at the federal level. There is a desire to have a federal government, but it needs to be restricted. We have a Constitution that does that. The Constitution gives all the responsibilities of the federal government. That is the limits it should work in. Everything else should be left up to the states and local government. The federal government should govern the states, not the people. That was the design. The federal government served the states where the states served the people. That way the federal government has very little power to potentially oppress the people. Most infrastructure spending is done at the local level. 3/4 of funding for roads is done locally. Education is ran and funded locally. The department of education did not exist until the 1970s. I find it ironic where most on the left point to the 50s and 60s as time of huge economic growth where those were times we had limited federal government. We did not have the EPA, OSHA, or the department of education. To be fair there were other factors involved in that economic growth as well, but reality is we had decades of limited federal government with no problems. States managed their own education systems and still do. States managed their infrastructure and still do. By your thought process states would have never been able to create an education system or roads but they did. At the federal level you have no voice. You cannot vote for the vast majority of the politicians. As much as I assume you hate Ted Cruz if you are not from his district you cannot vote for him. And if you can you surely cannot vote for Mitch McConnell. Just like I cannot vote for Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pelosi. That is why I want limited federal government. I want people who I can actually vote for influence my life. You apparently don't. You want the federal government to have more power and then complain when it becomes corrupt, or a Trump like individual becomes president. 3. Money is in politics because it has power to sell. With a free market government has no power thus it cannot sell anything. In a free market a business can give as much money as they want to the government but the government cannot do anything, so that business just wasted their money. With a federal government with more power businesses can pay them off to have the government create laws to benefit the businesses. If you were to create a national healthcare system the healthcare providers with the most money will pay off the government to force people to use their services as opposed to small businesses.
1
If the equipment doesn't exist you can't by it. Someone has to build it and ship it. You pay to have it exist. Money does not magically create things out of thin air. Someone has to build it. There are not enough people to do it. Medicare expenses have been going up and the national debt is as well. The money is not there. That is why there is a cap. 1. Competition leads to innovation. Those people doing the innovations did do it to get paid, that was their life. Do you think people work for free? 2. At the state level people vote for what they want or move to a state that is ran how they like. That is the beauty of state level government. If you want your state to be full blown socialist then fine. As for education, it goes beyond funding. Low income schools are usually the most funded and still struggle. There are many issues behind it from teacher unions to simply the culture. Having parents who don't care hurt the kids. Schools can only do so much. Throwing more money at the issue is not going to help. In fact, it will arguably make it worse as parents will care less and the people there become entitled. 3. Smaller governments are easier to control. I met my mayor. I met my sheriff. I personally know many members on the school board. I have never met the president, I have never meet the head of the FBI. At the local level it is more of a community and you can see if government is actually working for you. I can look out my window and see how things are going. I met the governor of my state. One thing I noticed is that people who do lean right and do support smaller, more local governments are more pro-active locally. They are involved in the community and are aware of what goes on. Those who lean left don't. They are not involved in the community. I am involved in the community and I know how my local politicians act. If they are corrupt I can vote them out or even move cities if I want to. You say "set rules". They will be setting the rules. Those companies will be paying politicians to be setting the rules in their favor. You won't. This is where I see the craziness in the left. They complain about a corrupt federal government and feel that all we need to do is vote the right people in an set good rules. That has been argued for centuries. The very reason why the founding fathers wanted smaller, more local government and a limited federal government was to prevent corruption and power. Government will always be corrupt, that is why you have to limit it. Smaller healthcare providers can afford some instrumentation. Also, some healthcare services require none. One healthcare provider I see workers out of what used to be a home.
1
If the equipment is readily available then it won't be expensive. Simply throwing more money at a system does not increase the number of doctors. People simply cannot do the work required by a doctors. Med schools have a less than 50% acceptance rate for a reason. Medicare for all has higher overhead cost when you do a per patient cost. Also, there is a lot of expenses involved in medicare that is not reported but instead reported in other agencies. Fact is medicare cost more. 1. People invent things to get paid. Sorry, people don't work for free. 2. There is a lot that goes on in the poverty issue. Some government programs designed to alleviate poverty actually make it worse. 3. Local governments are easier to control. Also, America is not "so far gone". In reality it is fine. We have problems but they are really not that severe. You will never remove money out of politics. The solution is to limit their power. Limited powers means they have nothing to sell.
1
Because this is an extreme case and a rare one as well. You don't drastically change an entire system based on selected issues like these.
1
That 10% is high in a lot of states that could not afford it. That is why many states refused to expand medicaid.
1
I thought Obamacare was supposed to fix this?
1
Kyle, once again, shows he has no how to argue the healthcare issue.
1
This is an extreme case where you have a child with a lot of problems. Is this tragic? Yes. But you cannot push to completely transform our current healthcare system based on one extreme case. Push the emotions aside and think logically for once.
1