Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Justice Dem Ro Khanna Runs Circles Around Fox Host On Medicare For All" video.
-
2
-
Lee B, 30,000 people is less then 0.01% of the population. No system is ideal as they all have shortcomings leading to people's deaths or making them worse off. The fact that only 30,000 people die a year, supposedly (I will cover that here later) can be seen as as success. Compare it to this, 35,000 die a year in traffic accidents. So should we ban driving? Doing so will save those 35,000 lives. However, it will also hinder progress. So do we ban driving? Or do we allow driving like we do now knowing how much it benefits society even though it costs 35,000 lives a year? Same with healthcare, do we keep the system we have and try to improve on it even though supposedly 30,000 die a year? Or do we try to change it even though it could make even more people worse off or make the overall situation worse.
Also, those 30,000 people are typically poor and statistically have bad health to begin with due to their own actions. You cannot definitively say that the only reason why they die is because of lack of healthcare.
You need to stop throwing numbers out there without fully understanding what they mean.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Really? Is that why I literally deconstruct every single point you post
and make you look like a moron who knows nothing of the topic? Lets
continue. "
Actually you don't. I give a rebuttal to all of your points and you end up going silent or name call me in the end.
"1) I never stated the AMA wanted single payer, I openly stared their
opinion on Trumpcare on the issues as I posted above in a comment again.
"
Yous said this
"If its only by the one study that literally cherry picked statistics,
than you really should leave it to physicians such a the American
medical association, not idiots that know nothing of the healthcare
system."
The AMA said they do not want single payer. So based on what you said single payer is not good. I am taking what you said literally and applying it.
"2) Even arguing this logic, they want to move towards more coverage for patients."
Everyone is for that. People want high quality healthcare for as many people as possible. The issue is that we simply lack supply. Single pay does not do it because you have rationing and longer wait times. The quality goes down. That is why other countries, even with their smaller populations, produce the same results.
"They are against stripping any parts of the ACA and against removing
more people off of insurance. In fact, they argue for more coverage
towards more of the population just more in the private sector. This is
due to funds of the physicians being affected if we go under single
payer."
They were against the ACA when it was first created. To me this seems like an issue of them being against major change to a complex system. Also, if they really wanted to cover more people, how about they work for less? Make healthcare cheaper. That is on them at that point.
"However going to physicians AROUND THE GLOBE, universally physicians
support the idea of single payer in all countries due to the oath we
take when starting school and through our careers."
Again, they can work for less. An oath is only as good as the person willing to follow it. I live off of $23,000 a year, they can as well. Why do they need to earn six figures? I see a lot of hypocrisy there. Plus, forcing others to pay for someone's healthcare is not following that oath. It is easy to tell others what to do. Until you take actions yourself you have no room to talk.
"So openly, you are contradicted in more coverage and looking at the
globally physician population, almost completely support universal
healthcare in the argument."
I do not see that through their actions. For example, you may have someone who says they support helping the poor but they do so by taxing the rich more for more food stamps. Now compare that to someone who donates their own time and money to help the poor. Who really wants to help the poor? Until those same doctors donate their own time and money to help people, then I will believe them. But supporting a system that has high taxes to pay for other people's things is not following that oath. No matter how hard you try to justify it you are not following that oath. You need to take actions yourself.
"However even just focusing on the AMA, they openly are against Trumpcare
as posted by multiple emails and release statements and want expansion
of coverage.
What a great "debate" you had, you misunderstood a point and then failed
to back it up with anything meaningful. "
I backed it up. You said listened to the AMA and I am when they say they are against single payer. You are just backpedaling like you always do. I even gave you links supporting my case and all you did was say
"blah blah blah.....oath....blah blah blah".
How about you give me a link to that oath? Seriously, this isn't that hard.
"No moron, this is what you are claiming. I have already explained this
to you over 50 times the arguments why healthcare can have role in car
accidents, murders, suicide, etc."
You never mentioned car accidents. Suicides was not a part of that statistical regression model. On murders, you said that murderers lacked access to healthcare. I then linked you a list of murderers that had access to healthcare. You did not reply.
"Didn't know statistics, World Health organization, Common wealth study ,
and health affair peer review journal were ultra leftist talking
points?"
I told you about the issues of the WHO. Criticized so much that they have not released another ranking in almost 20 years. The compared the US, and other larger countries like France, Germany, etc. to Malta and San Marino. That is similar to comparing Bishop Gorman High School Football to the New York Jets. You can't do it.
The Common Wealth Study is not peer reviewed
You have not linked any study by Health Affair, ever. If there are so many studies then you should have no problem listing them.
"I believe you are projecting since the only study you basically know is
from 2 conservative economists that literally cherry pick statistics to
argue healthcare(something they know nothing about). "
Prof. Robert Oshfeldt
https://sph.tamhsc.edu/hpm/faculty/hpm-adjuncts/cvs/ohsfeldt-r-cv.pdf
Seems to work a lot in research dealing with healthcare.
John Schneider
https://www.lexvisio.com/expert-witness/john-e-schneider-phd
Again, does a lot of research in healthcare.
So how is it they know nothing about the issue? And how did they cherry pick statistics? They give all of their methods in that book and list all of their sources. But again, how is it they know nothing about the issue? It is their field of study by the way.
Sigh, we have been through this, but here we go.
On your first link. I see no methods nor do I see any citations. I do see this
"Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent
limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high
performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and
experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important
dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from
medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’
assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations,
which could differ by country and culture."
They admit their flaws. You see, I actually read your sources, quote them, and reference them while criticizing them.
On you second one, congrats! You gave me a peer reviewed source! You are improving. However, you have to consider that the US has had the highest cancer survival rate in the world. Some of those numbers has to be other countries catching up. With that said I will look into that paper as soon as I get to my work computer later today. I am on my home computer and my universal library is doing maintenance so I cannot log into Web of Science at my home computer through the library's website.
Already covered the WHO site
On your last three I do not deny those numbers. No one does. But they are raw numbers. Again on life expectancy, no matter how hard you try you have to realize that when you die in a car accident it is not because of the quality of healthcare you have. There are many factors involved in that. The US is near the top in obesity, that is a culture issue. Not a healthcare issue. In cost we offer more MRIs and other specialized, expensive care to people that people are willing to pay.
"Took me 2 seconds to re-find the old posts."
If you are really studying to be a doctor you should have a list of studies done in your head that you can link immediately. In my field if you were to ask me questions on it I can give you names of authors and the paper they wrote on it. For example, when I was presenting my work the issue of Fermi resonance came up with the samples I use. It is a concern as with a Fermi resonance it can change the direction of the dipole. Someone asked me how I will address that issue. I said I will isotopically label the probes as it was shown to remove the Fermi. I mentioned the author's name and the title of the paper. I was able to do that immediately as it involves my field.
You supposedly work in healthcare. You should be able to know these studies off of the top of your head. The fact that you can't and simply site raw statistics of cost and life expectancy shows you have little understanding of the issue and only off of ultra leftists talking points. I cannot take you serious at this point. You do not even know the oath you mentioned. You cannot even link that.
". If you don't respond with some actual citations or information, you
quite frankly aren't worth anyones time. Someone who knows as little in
healthcare as you do really shouldn't be commenting on it. "
You should take your own advice. You do not understand healthcare. The two professors I linked you to you claim do not understand healthcare even though that is their research, healthcare. You clearly never studied their CVs because upon doing so you will see that they do research in the field of healthcare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"so you think everyone's only motivation is money? "
No, there are other motivating factors as well. Autonomy is one.
" Like cleaning my apartment. Going out and enjoying the sun. "
You like cleaning your apartment to enjoy a clean and comfortable apartment. You like going out in the sun because you have the time and freedom to do so .
" Helping out my neighbors. "
Those are individuals you personally know. That is no different then helping out your friends. However, in none of those examples does it take 8+ years of schooling to do.
As for your link, it shows it will cost the US government too much.
"
So, oddly, our calculation produced exactly the same amount of
federal health spending -- $1.38 trillion a year -- as Sanders’ own
estimate for his single-payer plan.
However, if you use the higher cost estimates -- the ones in the $2.4
trillion to $2.8 trillion range -- then Trump has a point that a
single-payer plan would be more expensive than what the government is
already paying for health care."
The Sanders plan produces the same value as the government is spending now on healthcare. Thus Bernie's plan is full of crap as you are transferring all of the cost to the government. Also, nowhere in that link did they mention the increase in demand without increasing supply which will raise prices. That is what happened with the student loan programs, it increased demand to where universities increased tuition. Healthcare providers will do the same thing.
I love the facts you presented, it supports my case. Thanks for agreeing that single payer at the federal level will be too expensive. Remember, we also have a $20 trillion debt.
1
-
"man you really pulled a Stephen Crowder on this one! Good job! He's a
master of taking info and twisting it into something it isn't."
Or maybe it is more likely that I, along with him, present info in a different way that can still be seen as correct. Just because you disagree with how data is interpret does not make it wrong.
"You want to see single payer done right? All you have to do is look at
all the other countries in the world that implement it and do it well. "
Ok, I have
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
I do not see it being any better then what the US has right now.
" I love how you skipped over the facts that support a single payer system"
I didn't.
"You do know that we pay more in GDP for our healthcare than all the other countries that employ a single payer system, right? "
We also produce better results such as higher cancer survival rates. We also lead the world in research and innovation of healthcare.
" We also pay at least 4 times as much for our prescription medication.
You want to LOWER health care costs, it would appear that Single Payer
would be the way to go then, right?"
What will happen to the quality? I want to pay lower rent, but I do not want roommates nor do I want to live in the ghetto. You are preaching about lower costs but not about quality.
" Why would it cost more, when all the other countries that do it pay less? '"
There are many reasons for that. In the case of the US we have many government regulations that stand in the way. We do have a problem of the federal government being in bed with insurance and pharmaceutical companies. With that the last thing I want is a federal healthcare program.
"Also, the numbers in the article varied depended on who was studying it."
I agree. However, It is ironic how Bernie's plan ended up with the same value as we spend now federally. That makes zero sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" but you expect me to read nearly 100 pages just for this argument with someone on the Internet? "
Not just for that, but for general knowledge. You give me a link of an arbitrary ranking and expect me to take it seriously? But here I go
"Even though the U.S. is the only country without a publicly financed universal health system"
Around half of our healthcare spending is from the federal government. To say we do not have a publicly financed system is simply not true.
" In contrast, the U.S. devotes a relatively small share of its economy
to social services, such as housing assistance, employment programs,
disability benefits, and food security."
Again, not true. That makes up the majority of our federal spending. And when you include state and local spending, it increases. You have to consider that other countries do not have states.
"Finally, despite its heavy investment in health care, the U.S. sees
poorer results on several key health outcome measures such as life
expectancy and the prevalence of chronic conditions."
As mentioned in that book I linked you, when you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. There are many factors beyond healthcare that determine those results. Right away I can essentially dismiss that source as they are suggesting that the outcomes in life expectancy and other data are only dependent on healthcare. That is not true. As a whole the differences in numbers are minute. You cannot say the reason for those differences are only because of healthcare. They do statistical regression models on that book I linked.
"Mortality rates from cancer are low and have fallen more quickly in the
U.S. than in other countries, but the reverse is true for mortality from
ischemic heart disease.
"
The US also has a higher obesity rate compared to those countries. That is a culture issue and has little to do with healthcare. You can have the best healthcare system in the world, but if people continue to eat unhealthy and be fat then it does not matter.
"The U.S. stood out as a top consumer of sophisticated diagnostic imaging
technology. Americans had the highest per capita rates of MRI, computed
tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) exams among the
countries where data were available. The U.S. and Japan were among the
countries with the highest number of these imaging machines"
That is expected as we lead the world in research and innovation of healthcare.
"Data published by the International Federation of Health Plans suggest
that hospital and physician prices for procedures were highest in the
U.S. in 2013"
We produce better results and perform more procedures such as more MRIs. I do not see that as a problem.
"The U.S. was also the only country studied where health care spending
accounted for a greater share of GDP than social services spending."
Medicaire and medicaid make up social services spending.
"On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers"
Again, the differences are minute and you cannot place that only on healthcare. There are differences in cultures that play a major role.
"The U.S. had the lowest life expectancy at birth of the countries
studied, at 78.8 years in 2013, compared with the OECD median of 81.2
years."
The average life expectancy in the world is 71±7 years. That three year difference between those other countries is noise. Also, this sources fails to give simple statistical figures such as standard deviations.
"The prevalence of chronic diseases also appeared to be higher in the U.S. "
Again, how much is based off of culture? How much is that based off of our diet or life style?
"More than a third of adults in the U.S. were obese in 2012, a rate that
was about 15 percent higher than the next-highest country, New Zealand.
The U.S. had one of the lowest smoking rates in 2013, but one of the
highest rates of tobacco consumption in the 1960s and 1970s."
All of which are not related to the healthcare system.
"The Institute of Medicine found that poorer health in the U.S. was not
simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic
disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in
worse health than their counterparts abroad."
I do not see any figures or citation there.
"
The opposite trend appears for ischemic heart disease, where the U.S.
had among the highest mortality rates in 2013—128 per 100,000 population
compared with 95 in the median OECD country. Since 1995, mortality
rates have fallen significantly in all countries as a result of improved
treatment and changes in risk factors.18 However, this
decline was less pronounced in the U.S., where rates declined from 225
to 128 deaths per 100,000 population—considerably less than countries
like Denmark, where rates declined from 242 to 71 deaths per 100,000
population.
The U.S. also had high rates of adverse outcomes from diabetes, with
17.1 lower extremity amputations per 100,000 population in 2011. Rates
in Sweden, Australia and the U.K. were less than one-third as high."
Heart disease and diabetes are dependent on diet and life styles.
" Even public spending on health care, on a per capita basis, is higher
in the U.S. than in most other countries with universal public coverage."
The source contradicted itself as it said that the US does not have a public system. But at that, our public system goes to the poor, old and vets, all of who cost more.
"High health care spending has far-reaching consequences in the U.S.
economy, contributing to wage stagnation, personal bankruptcy, and
budget deficits, and creating a competitive disadvantage relative to
other nations."
Not really. Let us break down each point
Wage stagnation: There are several factors for that. The payroll tax is one. The increase in immigration is another. The increase in technology has led to prices going down meaning people are begin paid more and so on.
Bankruptcy: This is a problem with out healthcare system, but poor people are bound to go bankrupt for multiple reasons.
Budget deficits: I can only think they are talking about the federal government. Other countries have debt.
Competition: The US leads the world in research and innovation of healthcare.
"A growing body of evidence suggests that social services play an
important role in shaping health trajectories and mitigating health
disparities."
Again, that is an issue with culture and habits. When food stamps can be used on soda, that is a problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1