Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "7 Million People Have Lost Health Insurance Under Trump Admin" video.

@hugoguerreiro1078 , the media is bias towards the left. Look at the MAGA kids for example and how the media treated them for a recent example.
4
@antman1672 , I love how people bitch about Shapiro and mock him but have never produced an actual argument against him. That shows you the intellectual capacity of Secular Talk fans.
2
@JohnSmith-xi2ew , Kyle is hardly honest here. The fact is that the only part of Obamacare that is gone is the individual mandate. Just like how the individual mandate led to more people having healthcare insurance, removing it led to people no longer having it. There is a correlation.
2
@O..BLASFEMO , healthcare prices were already going up.
2
@hugoguerreiro1078 , the problem is that our insurance companies have too much power because healthcare insurance has become healthcare. Insurance should be insurance and healthcare should be healthcare.
2
Why?
1
@thekernewekpenguin , compare to the US the UK is homogenous. We have more diversity simply by having states larger than most nations. Compare the people of MN to the people to TX, they are vastly different. In fact, compare UT to NV, two neighboring states and how different they are. Read the book "Debunking Utopia" where the author explains that.
1
@mecher3k , it isn't. The UK is not as diverse as the US simply due to population. Our large population leads to many cultures.
1
@jojoboko6990 , population does correlate with diversity. A larger population means a more diverse nation.
1
It is about how healthcare is a commodity, someone has to provide it. Here, watch this video for full context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SznOanekygY&t=218s
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , someone had to pay?
1
@hugoguerreiro1078 , we don't have a free market system, that is one of his arguments and it is legit
1
@Just-Passing-Through 11 , yes
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , people pay for it in one way or another either through higher taxes or lower quality. No such thing as a free lunch, first rule of economics.
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , we don't, we have a heavily regulated and subsidized system.
1
@Just-Passing-Through 11 , how so?
1
@Just-Passing-Through 11 , defense spending is around 4% of GDP, healthcare is 1/6 of our GDP. Cutting defense to zero will not come close to funding for healthcare. Also, for the past 50 years government spending on defense has dropped and government spending on healthcare has grown. So your idea of government cutting defense to spend more on healthcare is already happening. Look where we are at.
1
@Richard Mancha 1. The healthcare provider they work for can decide and typically they decide based on what the doctors there say. 2. Shapiro knows they get paid. He is saying if you make healthcare a right you have to force them to work and cover people regardless of pay. Thus is someone is caring for 10 patients they can be told to now care for 20 due to lack of resources but still receive the same pay. I have seen this in my line of work. Working as a grad student I teach labs. Our enrollment is up but the number of TAs isn't. They now have us teaching more students but do not give us more pay. 3. They ask for insurance because they, at times, don't take certain insurance.
1
@Just-Passing-Through 11 , many things 1. No such thing as "free" 2. What savings? 3. We pay more because we receive more. For example, we offer the most CT scans in the world. 4. Saying we spend more on defense than X amount of nations combined is a bad argument. Our GDP is comparable to them combined. Also, we spend more on education than many of those nations combined. Does that mean we should cut education? 5. What makes you think those nations have better healthcare than the US? There are several arguments to suggest they don't.
1
@Richard Mancha , you say Shapiro is stupid but have not given a reason why you feel that way. Disagreeing with someone does not make them stupid.
1
@Richard Mancha , what has he said incorrect? You can't just say he is incorrect. You have to explain how and give evidence. You say "more care providers", that typically means general practitioners, not specialists. That is the difference. Compare it to education. If a school A has 20 history teachers and 2 science teachers, and school B has 10 history teachers and 6 science teachers, school A has more teachers, but which school is better? I will argue school B as they have a strong science program. That is the point. You have to look at specialists. Every nation has shortcomings in their healthcare system. I will not say we are in a crisis. What "facts" is Shapiro getting wrong? Also, you can disagree in what the facts mean. There are many ways to interpret facts. As I showed you with the number of care providers. When you reduce the standard in what a care provider is you inflate the stats. Compare it to school shootings. After Parkland people claimed that there was a school shooting every other day up to that point. That was because the compared the Parkland shooting to someone committing suicide on school grounds after hours. That is why that stat exist. It is a "fact" but I would easily argue that a suicide after hours on a school ground is not comparable to a craze gunman shooting up a school. You see, there are different ways to interpret "facts".
1
@UC2IsXIzufthIUWUGs2IQmJA , ok, provide those hundred sources? I shown you two books by three experts in the field. Also, one can argue we do have the best? Scott Atlas wrote that in his book. I suggest you read it. The US has, arguably, the best university system in the world. That is why we have the most international students. Our advancement in technology is behind? Really? Google was developed in the US.
1
@jojoboko6990 , great, now you can see my criticisms of it.
1
@Just-Passing-Through 11 , who?
1
@Dsullivann , saying other nations do it is not a solid argument. There are many factors at play and even with that they still face shortcomings. You say we have the worst health outcomes, what do you base that off of? There are that suggest otherwise including a book by Prof. Scott Atlas from Stanford. As for that 40,000 stat, there are several flaws in that. First, people die in every nation due to lack of healthcare. For example, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective surgery". So what do you have to compare that 40,000 number to? Nothing as no similar study was done in other nations. Next, those 40,000 a poor and bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of healthcare access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Also, people in that condition have many issues. As mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really will live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give these people care and they live only a few months more is that a success? This issue is complex, I suggest you read up on it.
1
@Just-Passing-Through 11 , what talking points of Shapiro have been disproved?
1
@Dsullivann , I don't think you do. I just cited two books on the issue. If you did than you would not be making the statements you do and you would understand the counter arguments to the 45,000 deaths stats. You say we have the shortest life expectancy. You do know there are many factors outside of healthcare that influence life expectancy? For example, the US is number 1 in obesity rates for OECD nations. Obesity compounds health problems such as shorter life. Two professors showed that if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. And we have a higher black population than other OECD nations where blacks have a higher rate of heart disease leading to shorter life. So you can't just use life expectancy. As for infant mortality obesity leads to pre-mature births which leads to higher rate of infant mortality. Again, we lead OECD nations in infant mortality. As for your first article I will ask, what makes the Commonwealth Fund relevant? You do know they are a private business with a motive? And I read their rankings. One factor they considered was amenable mortality where this article suggests you can't use that as a way to determine healthcare system strength https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843 So that questions the strength of that ranking. That ranking also ignores survival rates of advanced care such as cancer care which we are number 1 in. As for that Harvard study I told you the flaws behind it. As former Harvard professor and now current University of Chicago professor Katherine Baicker said, "So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/ Baicker was the lead author on the Oregon study where when people were offered Medicaid and were compared to those that weren't the physical health of those with Medicaid did not improve, that is because their lifestyle choices did not change https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 So there are shortcomings in that 45,000 stat. And for the 7000 in Australia, compare the populations. When you say "Do you know how many people die in another country because they can't afford healthcare? ZERO." Now you are changing the standards. In the Harvard study it is talking about lack of access. You are not saying in other nations it is due to them not being able to afford it. You have different standards. In other nations they can "afford" it because the government pays for it. That does not mean they have access. I am keeping the same standards and using access. Dying while waiting for care is no different, in my opinion, than lacking insurance in the US. In both cases you lacked access. Again, I suggest you do more research on this topic. You claim you know a lot about it but so far you cited a questionable ranking and a study that has many counter arguments to it.
1
Rights are things the government cannot take away without due process. They are not guaranteed by the government.
1
@therealivydawg , if a "right to life" means government guarantees me life than a right to bear arms means the government should give me a gun by your standard.
1
@therealivydawg , no, the 2nd amendment allows me to own a gun, it does not have the government give me a gun. Just like the "right to life" allows me to have life without the government taking it away without due process. It doesn't mean the government guarantees me life. Also, in order to guarantee healthcare to someone the government must take from someone else which deprives them of life and happiness. So it become contradictory. What rights do the LGBT community lack?
1
@CassiopeiaDream , you don't have a right to a job.
1
@therealivydawg , someone has to provide it. You have to force someone to serve others which means you are taking away their life and happiness.
1
@therealivydawg , if I forced you to work would you consider that to be just?
1
How so?
1
Kyle doesn't care about honesty
1