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

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "POLL: Medical Professionals Overwhelmingly Want Medicare For All" video.

@krazykris9396 ,no, and neither does Kyle. That is the point. Looking at nurses and physicians, who are on the bottom of the totem pole in terms of skill set in healthcare, is not an argument. That is similar to the high school history teacher loving teacher unions as they can keep their job when special ed and STEM teachers don't have to worry about a job as they are more skilled.
5
@krazykris9396 , saying "healthcare professional" is vague. What field do they work in? There are many fields in healthcare. The poll was of around 2000 adults of nurses, physicians, and administration. How many were actually physicians? And in what? There is so much being left out. Again, why do you have double standards? You support Kyle with his vague arguments with little evidence, but not mine. Tell me, why do you have double standards?
5
If you make healthcare a right it will.
5
@krazykris9396 , in this entire healthcare discussion Kyle continues to leave a lot of information out. This is why you should not take him serious.
4
@krazykris9396 , but you don't dismiss Kyle for not providing that information? I am dismissing Kyle's point due to his lack of evidence. Why do you have double standards?
4
@DaSquareful , what is a "right" in Canada is not the same as in the US.
4
They will. Noticed how this poll does not include specialist?
3
@johnyman9184 , they don't choose to be slaves. Even if they get paid why should they be forced to serve people they don't want to? Also, jury members get "paid", but is the pay sufficient? Saying they get paid does not change the fact that they will be forced to work. Slaves were given homes and food in the 1800s, is that right? Also, cops don't have to serve people, look up Warren v DC. You don't have a right to police services, that is the point.
3
@reefermadnesss , when you are "pre-med" you are not in med school.
3
@krazykris9396 , also, why do you blindly follow things? Why don't you ever question these polls and data? Are you that shallow?
2
@krazykris9396 , how so? I see the far left having very week arguments. Take Kyle for example, he points to vague polls and completely misrepresents data and goes as far as to completely dismiss the other side on issues. I find his arguments to be very poor.
2
@krazykris9396 , he is "far left" because he completely dismisses the other side. Look at the healthcare argument, he ignores counter viewpoints on the issue. Look at the min. wage, he says there is no argument against it when in fact there are. The right uses data a lot, so does the center. When you break it down and go to the very core the political left bases their arguments on emotions, the political right bases their arguments on facts and reasoning. Look at Kyle, he keeps pushing the appeal to emotion argument of 45,000 people dying a year due to lack of access to healthcare despite the many logical arguments against it.
2
@jojoboko6990 , nope. No different than having a right to a jury. If you refuse jury duty you go to jail. This is why you just mock my argument as you have no counter point to it.
2
@jojoboko6990 , yes it will. Refusing to give representation can lead to the courts being punished. You have not countered my argument. Simply saying "no" is not an argument. Really, you need to study law and come up with better arguments.
2
@Paul B , it isn't part of her obligation. She can always quit or refuse to serve people. Just like you don't have a right to police services thus cops don't have to serve you.
2
@johnyman9184 , their pay does matter. They will refuse to help people if their work load becomes too great. Doctors are too busy as is. That article Kyle cites even mentions that.
2
@jojoboko6990 , it does not have to be a lawyer, it can be a judge or a politician. It just says representation. That is the point. Again, come up with better arguments.
2
@Richard Mancha , so psychologists are not doctors? Then why does my healthcare insurance pay for my visit to my psychologist that has......wait for it.....a PhD? Healthcare law is not a "humanitarian entitlement". That has to be one of the worse arguments ever. Many doctors decide what insurance they take. Many work in small clinics and through that clinic, which they essentially run, they decide what insurance to take. Like my eye doctor runs his own company and decides what insurance to take. There are several reasons to deny insurance such as low payments or payments that are not on time. But whatever, according to you a psychologist is not a doctor that works in healthcare.
2
@jojoboko6990 , I get it, you can't form a strong argument. If a court does not provide representation of some kind they will be punished.
2
@jojoboko6990 , the point is that if you make healthcare a right you will have to force doctors to serve just like we do with people on a jury or the courts in representation where the judges will be punished.
2
@Richard Mancha , what punch lines? You feel psychologists don't provide healthcare. Then why does my healthcare insurance pays for my psychologist visits?
2
@Richard Mancha , again, my psychologist has.....wait for it......a PhD. He provides therapy which is a part of healthcare. According to you that is research. According to Ben his wife went to medical school and residency. Where is your proof that she is not a doctor? According to what I read she studied behavioral science and medicine and did residency. This further proves, again, you don't know anything and yet continue to think being assertive must mean you are correct.
2
@shavingryansprivates4332 , if you make healthcare a right they will.
2
@shavingryansprivates4332 , how is it a retarded system?
2
@Richard Mancha , she did study medicine, that is why she has an MD. You seem confused on what a PhD entails. A nursing practitioner can do research as well. Same with doctors who practice and do research. That is actually common. But again, she has an MD.
2
Atheos B. Sapien , so enslave people you don't like?
2
"Pre-med", so you are not working in the field yet I see.
2
@DanDelos , do you know how margins of error works? It is simply a mathematical abstraction. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/
1
@DanDelos , Kyle is being dishonest. The issue with polls are they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to people who are typically not experts on the issues. When Kyle says 70% support medicare for all, how is that poll reliable? Are the people experts? Will those people still support it when they see the tax increase or how it will lead to private insurance being illegal? Opinions change when more information is given. As for this poll you can argue they are experts, but they say "physicians". What do they work in? How many are surgeons for example? How many are family physicians? That plays a role. With administration, they will always look for easier work so it is not surprising that they support it. The point is that you can't fully trust polls, they are highly flawed. Those who point the them and make a strong conclusion really have no other argument on their side. Kyle can't point to actual studies and data to support his side so he points to opinion polls. He is being dishonest or is just an idiot.
1
@DanDelos , the confidence interval is simply a mathematical abstraction, that is the point. I really means nothing overall. We don't live in a democracy and for good reason. If slavery was popular should we pass it? What is the old saying? The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter? I come to these comment sections and I am glad we don't have a democracy federally. I see way too many people here ignorant on the issue of healthcare. Also, opinions change when more information is given. If the majority supports and votes for "medicare for all" and then turns around and supports to "lower taxes", now we have a problem. That is why we don't live in a democracy. I don't support polling data for many reasons. For example, phone polling does not include someone's reaction. You may ask a question and get a response, but you don't see how they react to that question. In polling you don't know their income level, education, work experience, family size, etc. So much is left out. Also, in the end, when you talk about democracy, voting matters. What do the people feel is the most important. Many on the left point to the poll of around 90% supporting expanding background checks on guns. But when democrats did just that, expanded gun laws, they were voted out. Why? Because people who actually cared about the issue, the 10%, voted the most one can argue. Or when more information is given people changed their mind, take your pick. As that article says, polls show a snapshot, not a trend.
1
@DanDelos , many times numbers can be applied to reality, especially in physics. In this case I can't see it. I don't see what the margin of error means besides saying that they polled a certain amount of people and thus mathematically they get a margin of error. One can see the questions as misleading. I don't know the methods of this poll but take this poll https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-progressives/ It says "A Policy of Medicare for All". Ok, what policy? 70% may support a policy, but that is vague. What tax code will they support to it? Would they support the current proposed law of how private insurance is banned? Will they support expanding it to dental and eye care? This is the same problem that happened with the passage of Obamacare. The democrats agreed we needed healthcare reform, and so did the people at the time. But it was very challenging to get 60 senate democrats to agree on one form of healthcare reform and the people did not agree with Obamacare. So even though people agreed we need healthcare reform, they disagreed on how. That is what makes these questions misleading and unreliable. These issues are complex. If you were to ask me a question such as "do we need healthcare reform in the US" I will say yes. But that does not mean I support Medicare for all. Slavery was banned via the Constitution. The constitution places limits on government and gives people rights. That is about of our republic. It is there to prevent mob rule. Democracy is 51% telling 49% what to do. That is why it doesn't exist at the federal level. Our nation is not a democracy federally, to say it is shows a high level of ignorance on how nation is ran and designed.
1
@damirbecirbegovic3374 , doctors don't worry about cost in college, so making college "free" won't actually do anything.
1
@mecher3k , they don't. People who go to med school pull out big loans because they know that when they become a doctor they will be paid well enough to pay it back.
1
@jojoboko6990 , private lawyers aren't.
1
@Richard Mancha , his wife has an MD, not a PhD. You do know there are many fields in healthcare? With your comments I doubt it.
1
@Richard Mancha , look at the journal of New England Journal of Medicine. That has the highest impact factor of all peer reviewed journals. There doctors who both practice and do research write in that journal.
1
@jojoboko6990 , saying it is a "civic duty" does not change the fact that it is, by law, forced upon people. Also, why is it a "civic duty"? What is that standard set? Why is that not set for other issues like public transportation or fire departments where 70% of fire fighters are volunteered and not forced? It isn't about not doing their job, it is about not following the law. If I decided not to show up to work tomorrow my boss will get mad, but the government will not punish me. That is the point. Judges can be disbarred ruining their career. The government won't take away my job if I don't do it for a day. They won't take away my PhD credentials if I don't show up to work tomorrow. There is the difference, government force vs non-government.
1
@jojoboko6990 , judges work for the government but they are not part of the government? Really? You claim that jury duty is a "civic duty", but now you claim that you don't know why it is forced upon us? I have some ideas why, but I doubt you will listen.
1
@Richard Mancha, not all doctors who do research give healthcare to their patients for free. A lot do, but not all. Many do research and still practice. That is the reality. I do academic research for a living so this is something I know a lot about. I don't think you fully understand what really goes on in healthcare.
1
@URFTBOUND4LIFE , if you see a crime being committed and don't do anything you can be held accountable. That is different than being entitled to services of a cop.
1
@Robert Gomez . last I checked republicans gained seats in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi is now speaker. Seems like the far left is not going anywhere. How is the "revolution" going?
1
@Richard Mancha , there are psychiatrists on my campus that provide services to which they charge patients for and also do research. There are doctors who do the same. Again, I do research for a living, this is something I know a lot about.
1
Atheos B. Sapien , yep, like the Community Mental Health Act of of 1963 saved money........
1
@aperson6077 1.Define "elective" procedures. That is vague and subjective. That is why up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective surgery". 2. Define "need". Again, vague. 3. Not true. Becoming a doctor is not easy. They don't magically appear. 4. Again, define "elective". 5. Under Bernie's medicare for all bill private insurance will be illegal.
1
@MrAapasuo , think about population. How many live in Australia compared to the US?
1
@aperson6077 1. Ok, define that. One can argue for almost anything is necessary. Read the following paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10411289 People waiting for "elective surgery" end up worse off financially, physically and mentally. You say "survival", define that. You can't come to this complex issue with vague statements. A knee surgery for me can be for survival based on my lifestyle, but to someone else it isn't. Who are you to make that decision? 2. It is subjective. Who are these "experts"? Politicians? Doctors that we get to choose? Who? 3. How? The incentive is already high, people just don't have the skills. 5. Not true. In Canada there was a lawsuit to bring back private healthcare because wait times were too long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v_Quebec_(AG) Also, saying "provided to all" is very vague and a low standard. If I have to wait months for an MRI I technically have healthcare access, but I had to wait months where with private care I wait a few days.
1
@MrAapasuo , the issue is that these numbers are hard to obtain. Take the 45,000 for example, how can you say they directly die due to lack of access? They are poor and bad health is associated with being poor with higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes, 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? Read the book "Being Mortal" where the author there discusses healthcare with people who are near death. An issue can be raised on those 45,000 that if they did receive healthcare will they even live that much longer? People look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they will live only another 5 or 10 months. If they receive healthcare and die 5 months later while being in agony is that a success? Also, people do end up worse off waiting for "elective surgery" even if they don't die. Read the following paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10411289 People end up worse off financially, physically and psychologically while waiting. Is that a success? There are arguments on both sides of this issue, you should realize them if you are going to have a strong opinion on it.
1
@MrAapasuo , maybe they do die due to bad health, I completely agree. That is my overall point, this issue is complex. You can't just throw numbers out there and expect that to be an argument. Data and stats can be viewed in many ways. Just giving one is not an argument, you need to give reasoning.
1
@phillipevans9414 , that isn't my logic. If you read my comment I said that the 45,000 who die in the US are in bad health to begin with and thus the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? I suggested the book "Being Mortal" where the author talks about how people in bad health, even after receiving care, die a few months later. You are completely right that those 7000 in Australia could die due to being in bad health to begin with with many complications, that is my point. You can't just throw numbers out there and expect to have a strong argument. There are many ways to look at stats. Also, I love the strawman argument you made against me. I shows you have no counter argument to my points. I love how you made the point in Australia about those dying have many medical issues but you completely ignored my point about the 45,000 who die also have many medical issues. Why do you have double standards?
1
@phillipevans9414 , also, I love how you call me a troll. So a troll is someone who disagrees with you?
1
@phillipevans9414 , also, if I am a troll, why do I cite many sources such as books and peer reviewed papers on this issue? It seems like you are a snowflake who melts when pressed with strong counter arguments.
1
@MrAapasuo , i can cite more books such as "The Business of Health" and this one https://www.hoover.org/research/excellent-health-setting-record-straight-americas-health-care I can cite more studies as well. Under Bernie's plan private insurance will be banned. Read section 107 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text Ok, what? The study clearly shows that people who waited with severe conditions ended up worse off. " The lengthy wait for surgery experienced by many participants represents a burden in terms of living with the unrelieved severe symptoms and poor health-related quality of life." So yes, it sounds like their lives are in danger.
1
Ok, what about specialist? Nurses and physicians are only two set of workers in the healthcare business. Specialists will not be willing to take a paycut and take on more patients. Kyle, once again, shows his ignorance on healthcare. He really needs to stop talking about it.
1
@jojoboko6990 , you wish that because you know you have no counter argument.
1
@frenchflag9390 , ok, when?
1
@jojoboko6990 , you don't.
1
@jojoboko6990 , no they aren't. A specialist is someone like a surgeon.
1
@jojoboko6990 , uh, the ol' "google it" argument. https://www.racp.edu.au/about/what-is-a-physician "All Physicians are Specialists, yet not all Specialists are Physicians" Hmmm.......
1
@jojoboko6990 https://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/insurance-doctor-types#4
1
@jojoboko6990 You are not too bright.
1
@jojoboko6990 , reading the article it does not list the professions of the physicians, as in what they do. Also, it says 2503 adults, but does not list how many are physicians, nurses, etc. Once again you are being fooled by a unreliable poll.
1
@jojoboko6990 , the point is that saying "physicians" is vague. There are many fields in healthcare as I pointed out in one link. Only around 2000 people were polled and that includes nurses and administration. Did they poll someone from every field in healthcare? And why do those people feel the way they do? So much is missing from this poll that I can' take it serious. But hey, go ahead and blindly follow another poll without question, that is what you do.
1
@jojoboko6990 , ok, what exactly do they practice? That is the point. Being a family physician is not the same as being a surgeon. That is similar to saying a kicker is the same as a quarterback. They are both football players but clearly vastly different. I clicked the link, you have to register to see it. I am not doing that. I made a strong point. How about pharmacists? Why aren't they polled? Why are they ignoring them?
1
@jojoboko6990 1. It is vague. Again, this issue is complex. I know you refuse to accept that because you refuse to actually read the numerous books and studies on this issue, but it is. That is why medical schools have less than a 50% acceptance rate and why it take 4 years to complete and plus residency. Physician is vague, what are their specialties? It doesn't say. Asking a family physician something will produce a different answer than asking a surgeon. Just like in science how asking a biologist something will produce a different answer. 2. I am not creating a new argument. I am standing by the point that saying "physician" is a poor argument. 3. 2000 is not high. In 2016 alone there were over 80,000 medical students. And again, that 2000 includes both nurses and administration. How many physicians were there actually polled? And what were their expertise? Also, need I give you this again? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/ 4. So you admit the poll is unreliable as they are not covering all the bases. 5. That should be the point of the poll. Why do you not understand how polling data works and the shortcomings of it? This is a very basic thing taught in statistics. But I forgot, you feel a gamma function is "baby math". 6. I don't because they are vague. These issues are complex. This is why you hardly see academic sources point to polls. Again, on healthcare there are several books and papers on this topic. To reduce it down to an opinion poll of people who I have no clue what their actual profession is, or reasoning for answering the way they do, is not reliable. Tell me, why do follow this poll so blindly? Why don't you ever question these things?
1
@jojoboko6990 1. A family physician is different than a surgeon. Their opinions will differ just like my opinion on science will differ than that of a biologist. As a physicist I view things differently. 2. A kicker is much different than a QB, that is the point. Their viewpoints on something is completely different. 3. Rather not get spam 4. Ok, how many pharmacists are polled? And why do they feel the way they do?
1
@MassimoMD You can say I am pre-med as well. Saying you are "pre-med" does not mean you are a medical student. I teach nursing majors and pre-med students and none of them I met want Medicare for all. Why? Because they realize that current healthcare workers are overworked. Two of my good friends are nurses who hate the idea of Medicare for all as they know people will abuse the system. So if you want to go anecdotal here from my experience with pre-med students, nurses, and medical students they don't want medicare for all.
1
@MassimoMD , there is little indication that Medicare for all will be cheaper. That study you are pointing to gave a lower estimate ans said chances are it will cost more. Also, it just gave the cost for government, it does not include private. Also, Bernie's bill does not include specific costs in what to do with people who lose their jobs and have to move and find new jobs.
1
@MassimoMD , I read that study as well and it used vague terms. Medicare for all will kill jobs in insurance leading to people needing new jobs. How will you account for that? Most of what I read said said they will pay for "just transition" which is vague. Will they pay for a move? Will they pay for a new home? Will they work on selling the home they move from? What about kids having to change schools and find new friends? Is that included? The same is with a "Green New Deal". What do you do with the people who lose jobs? It isn't as easy and training them and having them get a new job. Most people don't want to go through that. Most people like their job and like the fact they can work and come home to their families. They don't want to train for a new job, find a new one, and then go through the hassle of moving. The fact is that you are grossly oversimplifying these issues. Also, as a scientists I see the Green New Deal as being unrealistic. You know how much resistance you are going to face from people who don't want to give up their gas power vehicle? A lot. That is why I disagree with these proposals. They are oversimplified and thus unrealistic.
1
True. Physicians and nurses are not specialist and are essentially the equivalent of public school teachers in that they will go the route to get a job and a paycheck. Why does the poll ignore specialists? Maybe because they are not hurting for money and jobs.
1
@Adrian Nelson , yes. They are both commodities that someone has to provide.
1
@a_can_of_soda , that 45,000 is deceptive. People die in every nation due to lack of access to healthcare. What other study do you have to compare that number to? Nothing which makes it an empty stat. How about you actually research healthcare as opposed to having an appeal to emotion arguments related to it.
1