Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump's FEMA Head Appears To Have No Clue What's Going On" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZXD7250 , every nation was "unprepared". You can't predict these things and you can't just magically make up testing kits and ppe. Here is the thing in economics, it is referred to as the "law of diminishing returns". Sure, we could have made a ton of testing kits and PPE and spend resources storing them away in some warehouse on some unexpected, and unlikely event. But it will come at what cost?
To give you a more clear example of this law, right now there are 40,000 deaths a year due to traffic accidents. We can make that number zero if we cap all cars to 15 mph. But the drawback is that commute time is now much longer hindering the economy. You can lower the speed limits and thus save lives, but eventually you reach a point where lowering the speed limit does not save a significant amount of lives and instead now you are causing harm in a different way. Same is with his issue. No one could have predicted how much PPE and testing kits we needed. Not you, not old Bernie, not Obama, not Trump. Again, sure we could have made a crap ton in the unlikely event something like this happens, but what would have been the drawback? Wasting space and resources storing them and making them.
So blame Trump all you want, it wasn't his fault.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fgsaramago , there is an arguments to be made there. But again consider how we lead the world in survival rates of advanced illnesses.
Here is where the difficult issues the far left refuses to talk about comes in. In the UK a few years ago a girl saw over 10 doctors complaining about headaches. They said they were migraines. After many months and many doctor visits they scheduled an MRI which she had to wait 4 months. They found a tumor where if they would have found it sooner she would have lived. But, like all other universal healthcare systems, they denied her that care. In the US she would have been offered the MRI if not the first visit but the second and she would be alive.
Here is where the difficult questions come in that far leftists like yourself refuse to die. Do we offer advanced testing like that playing the "better safe than sorry" card or do we deny them knowing that, statistically, chances are the case is not severe? Chances were it was just migraines. In this case it wasn't and she died. But the trade off is that we deny the care knowing that, statistically, she will be fine and save money and resources.
Consider the very sick and elderly. Other nations just drug them up so they die pain free. In the US we push to keep people alive as long as possible. But should we? In the book "Being Mortal" he writes that people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. In other nations they just let them die. In the US we push to keep them alive. But should we? I have seen this first hand. I just had a friend die of cancer. When I heard he had it, me being the highly objective person I am knew he did not have long to live. But they still gave him a lot of care. In his final days he was on a feeding tube and a wheelchair. He died 3 months after the diagnoses.
Or when my grandma died. She was in and out of hospitals. She could not make it to the bathroom. I knew her time was up but the rest of the family wanted to keep her alive.
You see, our culture is different. You far leftists don't realize that. Sure, under M4A we will spend less, but now we have to go up to people like my grandma and her family, or my friend and his family and instead of offering them a lot of care we say "well, we can't offer that, it is time for you love one to go". But here is the bigger issue, it won't be people like you making those decisions and comments so you don't care.
I recommend you study up on the issue of healthcare more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1