Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "CNN Host Uses Dumb Right-Wing Talking Points u0026 White Board To Debate Bernie" video.

We need to challenge our politicians. I find it scary that Kyle has a problem with this. Every politician needs to be challenged like this.
8
Miguel, being local makes a difference. At the local level government can micromanage finances better and the people can see if government is actually working for them. For example, in my county we as a need for money as we saw our schools were literally overflowing. Thus us, as a county, voted to raise our sales tax. At the federal level it becomes a different issue. Polices are ran and funded locally, same with fire fighters where 70% of them are volunteer. Also, those programs are nowhere near as complex, nor expensive as healthcare. Sorry, but I do not see doctors volunteering like fire fighters and some teachers do.
3
xa xa, exactly. These were softball questions. Bernie has little to no patience which is why when he is challenged he resorts to talking points and get angry.
2
Great, it "works" in other countries. There are many variables that contribute to that. Also, the US system is on par with the rest of the world. So what's your point?
2
A B, I know when you immediately cite the WHO ranking, or any ranking, and make the conclusion you do. I am not saying those rankings does not have value, they do. But healthcare is much more complicated than that. You say "depending on how you weight each criterion", ok, how? And why? That is the issue with stats, you can do any legit analysis and come up with a lot of conclusions. I go back to the issue of life expectancy, remove car accidents and murders and the US is number 1. In the book "Debunking Utopia" it is mentioned that in other nations they live healthier lifestyles and that is seen through stats like lower obesity rates. The US spends around 40% of their food dollar eating out. The UK spends around 20%. We have higher rates of obesity where obesity can contribute to pre-term births that the US has a higher rate of. Pre-term births lead to higher infant mortality rates that the US has a higher rate of. Obesity is a self inflicted situation. No level of healthcare quality or access will prevent people from refusing to eat healthy and exercise. The US has shorter wait times than Canada. And "elective" is subjective. Read the paper "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" People die waiting for "elective" heart surgery. I say you are bias because you are blindly following shallow studies. You say you support data, and that's great. But data can be interpret in many different ways and several factors can influence that data. With the data we have and the analysis one can do there is little to suggest that universal healthcare is the best route. Again, not saying it is terrible, just saying it is no better than what the US has. I am on an ultra leftist channel here. Anything towards the center will seem like a "right wing ideological talking point". I have a moderate approach here. A right wing talking point would be saying that universal healthcare is inferior and that the US system is the best. I don't have that approach. Universal healthcare systems do many things well, but the reality is healthcare is a complex issue and as a whole the US system is on par with other nations.
2
It is so much about it being scary but more of it being almost impossible to implement without created a massive recession. Going to a federally ran universal healthcare system would be similar to changing to the metric system. It can't be done.
1
Andrew_Owens, the Civil Rights Movement did not have a major impact on the overall economy as healthcare will as it focused mainly on local issues. The American Revolution was extreme and the country was in a dire situation afterwards and had a lot of rebuilding to do. It took many years to establish and a lot of bloodshed and people dying.
1
No nation offers healthcare to everyone. Resources are limited. That is the reality.
1
Why Does the Left Hate America, exactly. But to ultra leftists like Kyle and his fans it isn't. They feel the government has a magic wand to create anything they want but are being paid not to by lobbyist.
1
Nightingale, great argument, your argument really changes my perspective on healthcare compared to the numerous studies I have read on it.
1
Public schools are locally ran and funded.
1
chelecovers, in other countries people die due to lower quality or become worse off due to advanced care being so poor. Every system has shortcomings.
1
Miguel, the US does not receive worse outcomes. Read the book "The Business of Health". The reality is that many factors contribute to healthcare and when you run through all of them the US is on par with other nations. Those that say it isn't are doing very shallow studies that are easily debunked.
1
Miguel, it does make a difference. You can't just say "we have schools thus we should have universal healthcare". It is a poor comparison as the role of K-12 education is different than healthcare, and how it is ran is different. Why won't you read my book? It is written by two professors who research the field. Simply looking for one stat in a complex system like healthcare is not going to cut it. If that is all you need to change your mind then you are too myopic to be taken seriously in this conversation. This is why universal healthcare is not getting passed in the US. Actual experts argue this and show people like Bernie, and you are wrong as have arguments that are way too shallow.
1
A B, the WHO's ranking was criticized so much that they have not made a new one in almost 20 years. It compared the US to countries like Malta. Is that a valid comparison? Rankings are arbitrary which is why you will not see any academic sources creating them. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the data and have any developed country they want be number 1. You say I am a troll that won't accept things. However, I find it to be highly ignorant to blindly accept some ranking with no knowledge in how it was created. I bet you would stick your head in fire if someone like the WHO or Bernie told you that you could see hell doing it. Just blindly believing what other people tell you without question.
1
Miguel, healthcare is a complex issue that you cannot settle on an arbitrary ranking. Do you even know how that ranking was developed? I will bet you my car that you don't. You just blindly follow it without question. Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt said that healthcare rankings are arbitrary due to numerous factors that contribute to the data. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. But again, what were the WHO methods? I bet you don't know which makes your argument irrelevant as it means you just blindly follow information to support your conformation bias.
1
Miguel, consider this. I look at research and books and have come up with the conclusion that the US system is on par with other nations. You look at some ranking, without understanding the actual methods behind that ranking, to come up with your conclusion. Now between you and me who do you think an open mind and more intelligence?
1
A B, you do blindly trust people. Do you even know the methods behind the creation of that ranking? Also, do you see it valid to compare the US, or even Canada, France and Germany to Malta? As for the WHO ranking, the one I find is from 2000. What is the most recent one you see? As for other rankings, the ones I have seen are from Bloomberg, who weighed life expectancy at 50% but gave no reason why, and The CommonWealth Fund where I still have yet to have someone give me what their credentials are and why they have any credibility. As for an academic criticism, they exist. As I said, Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt called those rankings arbitrary. Ognjen Ridic, from the International University of Sarajevo in his paper entitled "Comparisons of Health Care in the United States, Germany and Canada" said "One should mention that data from different countries may not be directly comparable for several reasons and therefore, should be accepted with some skepticism." There is a reason why you will not find any academic sources that have rankings like the WHO or Bloomberg does. You saying that the US system is objectively worse is false. You say wait times are worse which is 100% not true, even supporters of single payer admit that wait times are longer. I feel you have no desire to even research this topic and just blindly follow anything to fit your bias.
1
Miguel, if you want to make the comparison of schools we can. Many schools do not have AP courses or offer a foreign language. There are some high schools that I lived by that did not offer physics or calculus. You say to copy what works, there is a lot of evidence that the US system works and the free market system would work even better.
1
Miguel, you anecdotal experience is not the norm. I know people who grew up in Canada and despise that system compared to the US.
1
Miguel, what "peer reviewed" study did you give? Also, no, I never said that my book has the right answer. It has a lot of information worth looking into. I don't agree with everything that book says but it does say something when I point to a book that is over 180 pages with numerous sources and you only point to a ranking that you have yet to show me that you know the methods in creating it.
1
A B, you can call me condescending, but the fact is that healthcare is a very complex topic. You can't just make a conclusion off of one statistic or some ranking. If you are going to point to a ranking you should at least know the methods in creating it. I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry. I have studied advanced stats and I have the mind to look deeper into issues. I just don't blindly follow sources. You, like Miguel, just follow some ranking without looking deeper into it. I look at other sources on top of those rankings and see that the issue is complex. I am not saying that single payer is inferior. I am not saying the US system does not have problem. What I am saying is that healthcare is a very complex issue and when you go deep into it with an open mind you will see that the US system is on par with other nations. You don't do that. You just buy into these rankings and what Bernie says without question. If healthcare is such and non-debatable topic to you then why did two professors spend time writing an entire book on it?
1
Miguel, look at LASIK surgery. It is free from insurance and government beyond some basic regulations. Over the years the price has dropped and the quality has improved. The reality is that the US does not have a free market healthcare system.
1
A B, the problem is that you do not question the WHO at all. Again, is it fair to compare the US, or France, Canada, Germany, etc. to Malta or San Marino? Even if the WHO is trustworthy they are not without flaws. They are ran by humans. At this point I am asking why are you not questioning their ranking? You do not need a degree in the topic to be able to break down studies. Having a degree and an advanced education does help. My degree is in physics and chemistry, and I a pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. I have the ability to read up on issues and methods and see how they come up with their conclusions. Am I an expert? No. But I can see that there are limitations, there are many ways to do these studies, and there are experts who disagree with these rankings and studies. To me, when I see this ranking and then I see two professors write an entire book on the issue with one saying these rankings are arbitrary, I see that there is at least an argument. I advocate for moderate policies all the time. I has supported a public option on numerous occasions, I just want it to be ran at the state level and not the federal level. I support many left wing policies and see the advantages of them. There are advantages to a government funded healthcare system, but it should be ran at the state and local level. Milton Friedman said there is a desire to have money spent by government, but we have to ensure government remains the servants and not the masters. You do that by keeping it as local as possible because you at the local level can see if government is actually working for you. I support many left wing policies. I voted to increase our taxes in my county to fund for more schools. The vast majority receives care in the US. That is why 80% in Colorado said no to universal healthcare. And no system covers everyone, that is a fact. Resources are scarce.
1
Jon Oz, they have different standards for what "works" when it comes to talking about socialized medicine.
1
Daniel Pierik, care to point that out? Care to point out the page and quote? I would love to see that as I guess I must have missed it while reading it. Until you do your comment is irrelevant.
1
Maria A, I have covered those rankings. They are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the numbers and create any ranking they want. You say we live shorter lives where is you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. You say we live sicker lives when a lot of that is due to our poor diets. You say "basic facts" when multiple variables contribute to those fact. I have done the research which is why I feel that the US system is on par with other nations in healthcare. You just blindly follow a ranking and raw data.
1
LaseRamon, healthcare is not cheaper under single payer. Maybe for individual cases they are, but not as a whole. There are ways to lower down the price using the current system we have. Going to single payer is not the answer. As for Daniel Pierik, I would love for him to point out the page and quote from that book where they support single payer.
1
Steven Chong, so you don't think the people are smart enough to find the best deal when it comes to healthcare? In the world of information we have today with the internet I disagree. People can look up a lot on the internet and learn a lot. When I took my car to the shop and had it repaired the problems I was reading on the internet were what the shop found, and the repair costs were in line with what the shop charged. The same is with healthcare. You can read up on reviews of insurance companies, healthcare providers, symptoms, etc. Due to the online review process businesses act better knowing they can lose customers if they don't. A part of that is good customer services.
1
Tenshi, to start, I am a guy. Next, I am not religious at all. Even at that, if I were Christian, Jewish, Baptist, Muslim, etc. does not matter. And what "holy bewk" are you talking about? Here is the problem. I never once said single payer was inferior. I said it has shortcomings and as a whole is no better or worse than the US system where the US system is on par with the rest of the world. Every system can use improvements and no system is ideal. You talk about "logic and reason" when I used that to challenge those rankings people keep posting. I will ask you, the WHO ranked the US, along with France, Canada, Germany, etc. to countries like Malta and San Marino. I only heard of Malta after watching a MST3K episode. Is that really a fair comparison to compare the US to a country like that? Or San Marino whose main economic drivers are being a tax haven and tourism meaning they attract people with money? Is that a logical route to take?
1
Tenshi, also, I challenge people to think about what they hear and read. I push people to dive into the methods in how those rankings are done and not just blindly follow them. That is how you become informed on the issues.
1
bhsWD96, that is great and all but can you 1. Post it in a better fashion to make it easier to read 2. Explain it.
1
Nikola Jevtic, there are personal attacks because people have a religious like belief on these issues which makes them closed minded. I, as a whole, do not care that if someone support single payer. However, they should understand that there are strong arguments against it and it is not ideal. People cannot accept that and become very personal. As for life expectancy, many factors play a role in that. That is why it is hard to use just that. Yes, it is true that medical advances have prolonged life, but one can argue that is not the best. You mentioned the situation about how an operation is a "success" but the person died. That is being truthful. You can have a successful operation on someone who is very old and their frail situation caused them to die. I am currently reading the book "Being Mortal" by Atul Gawande and at the beginning he mentions a story of a guy who had a successful surgery to remove a tumor, if I recall, that was compressing on his spinal cord. However, with his poor condition he died shortly afterwards anyway. He mentions how only 17% of people die at home where in the 40s the number was much great. Many are dying in hospitals now as they try to prolong life through medical advances. But the argument that comes up is if that is really the best thing? If doing numerous medical procedures to keep people alive a little while longer the best? Sure, doing so extends life and extends the overall life expectancy of a country. But is that the best solution? The book is very interesting to read and I suggest it to anyone who is interested in reading about healthcare. You say the US has "worse outcomes" when one can easily argue against that. How are they the worse? By what measure? And why do you use those measures? As for cost, there are factors such as R&D that increase the cost. I see that as being great, we are progressing in healthcare. As for the free market and information being imbalance, many on the right, including Milton Freidman, supports laws forcing businesses to be honest and open with information. I forgot what the term is called and will have to look in one of my business administration textbook, but there is a solid argument about how the seller has more information and laws should be in place to force the sellers to present more information. But that does not mean we should completely dismantle the free market and go to a government ran system. As for shopping around, that is why insurance companies exist. You have time to shop around for insurance companies where insurance pays for expensive, unplanned situations you do not have time to shp around for to fix.
1
Nikola, the reality is this 1. The US system is strong in many ways and overall is on par with other nations. It has shortcomings, but it is strong. Every system has shortcomings and can use improvements 2. The concerns you bring up can be addressed with the free market and limited government regulations 3. The data behind healthcare is subjected to numerous variables where no one can honestly say that the US system is inferior. 4. There are solid arguments for a government ran system. In the culture of the US I feel it should be left to the states.
1
bhsWD96, I can read the methods and understand it just fine. Can you? That is the point.
1
I am the one who flocks, someone has to profit. If the providers of healthcare profit they will push to provide better services.
1
bhsWD96, nice excuse.
1
D Hackman, no. What I am saying is that there is a lot of research out there that gives numerous results. Out of that group of the WHO, OCED, UN and EU, the WHO is the only one who came up with a hard conclusion with their rankings. The others haven't. I have posted studies from universities. If you actually read those studies they do not come with hard conclusions on which system is better. That is what I am saying. When has the OCED created a ranking? Or the UN? What meta analysis studies? I am from the US and the experience I have had with healthcare is great. You are from Germany, the same country who had a poor economy and reacted by killing an entire group of people? And no, Germany does not produce better outcomes. Germany is on par with the US.
1
D Hackman, if you actually read the studies you would see that healthcare is complex with many variables involved. That is why no study from a university is going to create ranking or come up with a hard conclusion like you are.
1
John Phantom, people die in other nations as well due to shortcomings in healthcare. What's your point? Also, the problem with study like those is that poor people lack insurance but also have poor health. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes, and smoking with the poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of insurance or due to being in bad health to begin with? A Harvard professor brought up that point. To extend, I referenced to book "Being Mortal" where the author discusses how people live longer but end up dying in the hospital. We have the ability to extend life, but it is arguable if it is necessary. You pointed to studies of people in their 50s and 60s, that's old buddy. I do not deny any of these studies nor do I feel they do not add value to the discussion, they do. But again, as I keep mentioning, you have to dig deeper. Healthcare is way beyond just having insurance.
1
John Phantom, there are limited resources in healthcare, that is the reality. In other nations people die on waiting lists or due to lower quality of care. There is no magic wand to create healthcare for everyone. You point to those studies, now where are the comparable studies done in other nations? They don't exist. Thus those numbers have nothing to compare to. They are essentially empty numbers. They have value, but with no standard to go off of their value is small.
1
Erik Marcinik, when you say "objectively far less people die from lack of access....in countries...single payer", what numbers do you have to compare with? As for cost, they have lower quality, especially in advanced care. You can explain it to me with hard research and a deep explanation of it as this topic is complex. Right now all you have are talking points. This is why single payer will never happen in the US, you cannot defend your case with actual strong arguments.
1
Erik, there is not "consensus" on the issue of healthcare that you are talking about. I have read plenty of reports on it. You say that being uninsured means a greater chance of dying. I agree. But the uninsured are poor to begin with and have a greater chance of dying for numerous reasons. Whether it be for being in bad health to begin with (bad health for self inflicted issues like obesity are associated with the poor), living in a high crime area, not having something like AC on a hot day or whatever. It is more than just healthcare. You are pointing at one variable in a complex issue. Next, just insuring people does not increase the quantity of healthcare. Resources are limited, that is why in the US and in every other country people lack healthcare. People die in other countries due to lack of healthcare as well. The issue is that it hardly gets reported because they are legally "covered" on paper. But they still end up dying. ""....because when it comes to healthcare, reason and trends have a left wing bias...." That is 100% not true. This topic is highly debated. You only bring up one point, just one in a very complex issue. That is coverage where I have said that coverage does not equal healthcare. Why? Because coverage does not mean increased quantity. You have people dying in Canada in waiting for "elective" heart surgery for example. They were, on paper, covered, but they still died. Read the book "The Business of Health" where they break down the numbers showing that the US is no par with other nations. As for keeping people alive, read the book "Being Mortal". Your argument comes down to 1. covering people 2. Keeping them alive There are strong arguments to be made that keeping unproductive people alive bogs down the entire economic system. There is a moral argument to be made on your side, but there are strong arguments from the right as well. So when you say that the facts and reasons have a left wing bias, you are not proving your case very well as all you have done is look at two things in the end 1. coverage, which again does increase the quantity and 2. If people live where there is an argument to be if we should be keeping them alive, and in reality people die for numerous reasons beyond healthcare You wrote a long comment but you need a stronger argument Erik.
1
Nikola, other factors besides healthcare contribute to infant mortality. For example, we have a high rate of obesity in the US, that is self inflicted. Obesity increases the chance of pre-term births which increases the chance of infant mortality. Like Erik, you are providing only one small portion of a complex issue. Healthcare is very complex. You can't just give out raw data or one point and make a strong conclusion on it.
1
D Hackman, I have never seen the OECD ranking, but if one exists chances are that they use raw stats making those ranking arbitrary. I am not a researcher in healthcare. I am a researcher in physical chemistry. I just understand that rankings are arbitrary which is why no academic source creates them. A poor economy was one reason why Germany killed an entire group of people. And Hitler was left wing in many ways. You calling him a "right wing lunatic" shows your bias as Hitler, in the end, was neither left nor right but a man of his own. The US healthcare system is on par with other nations. When you break down the numbers we have similar outcomes where the high price is typically associates with 1. government regulations and subsidizes 2. our strong R&D 3. our strong advanced care Where we struggle is covering the very poor. Other countries struggle in advanced care where the US struggles in covering the poor. However, the poor are typically less healthy to begin with due to self inflicted practices such as smoking and higher obesity so chances are they are going to die at a younger age to begin with.
1
Erik, to add. To be 100% fair, single payer does a good job in covering the very poor, but falls short in advanced care which is why people in Canada die waiting for heart surgery. Single payer is great for very very basic care which can benefit the poor which can keep them alive and prevent them from dying from basic, curable diseases. But the drawback if lack of R&D and lower quality in advanced care. That is why there is longer wait times for advanced care such as surgery. The US excels in advanced care but struggles at covering the poor. Now it depends on what you support? Do you support covering the poor and letting people with complex issues like knee surgery suffer? Or do you support helping out people with complex issues while the poor suffer? Again, increasing coverage does not increase quantity. Something has to give. To me I support helping out people with complex issues because 1. They have proven their productivity 2. You don't grow the economy by bringing the top down It is up to you. But again, there are many strong arguments on the right on this issue. The fact that you dismiss them so easily shows your bias and that you have no desire to have an open conversation about this. That is why you limited your argument down to "coverage" and keeping people alive.
1
Michael Southard, it isn't fascism, it is survival of the fittest. Fascism is using government force to kill them. What I am talking about is that if they cannot care for themselves, nor have any friends or family to help them, what are they worth to society? Now do I completely feel that way? No. But you have to be 100% honest here and agree that if a poor person with no friends nor family were to die today no one would really care.
1
Erik, healthcare cannot remain high quality if you create a universal healthcare system because resources are limited. The government does not magically create it out of thin air. Compare it to price ceilings in rent. That has led to rentals being of lower quality. Sure, the poor can afford something, but the middle class ends up getting the same low quality places to live in. Why? There is no incentive to actually produce something valuable. In other nations they do well in covering the poor for very basic care. But they are not good in advanced care which is why people die in waiting lines for heart surgery and the US leads the world in cancer survival rates. When you run through the numbers of every system the outcomes are similar. The reason why is because in advanced countries there are very few that are very poor or very sick. The vast majority are fine. But in single payer countries the very sick suffer due to low quality of care. Even at that those who are not very sick but may have something like knee problems suffer with longer wait times for knee surgery. That will not end their lives so in healthcare stats they are not driving down numbers like life expectancy or infant mortality. But it does harm them in productivity and in life while they wait and their conditions get worse.
1