Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Red Flags Ignored Regading Trump u0026 Money Laundering" video.

Most businesses went bankrupt? Facts don't sit well with you.
2
He won't as Crowder brings up great points. The arguments from the far left on M4A are shallow.
2
@august-5085 "A lot of those studies were funded by private interests" That is a logical fallacy. The Commonwealth Fund that Kyle and the far left point to is funded by private interest as well. There are arguments on both sides but the far left has very shallow arguments on this issue of M4A. " There's a reason so many modern countries have a medicare for all equivalent." That, right there, is one of of those shallow arguments.
2
proud American , true. Nobody is saying Crowder is an intellectual, but Kyle isn't either. Kyle is just another youtuber. Difference is that Crowder steps out of echo chamber where Kyle doesn't.
2
@Blake West , Kyle only has a handful of talking points and that was one of Crowder's points in his video. The far left has a handful of talking points that are easy to counter. Look at the rankings for example. Those rankings look at overall life expectancy but does not account for lifestyle choices which is outside of healthcare.
2
@smocloud , I always go quiet? I never back down from a challenge. Kyle is honest? Far from it. There are plenty of legit arguments against Medicare for All from experts that Kyle ignores. Kyle goes as far as saying M4A is the answer and there is no debate. That is despite experts having a debate.
2
mountaingoat1003 , define "need".
1
@august-5085 , also, you never countered anything Crowder said.
1
@august-5085 , have you even read those studies? I doubt it. As Crowder brings up when the far left pushes for M4A they claim the US does poorly in healthcare and the points they bring up are life expectancy (where rankings typically weigh them around 50% because reason), amenable mortality and occasionally infant mortality. But the issue is that factors outside of healthcare influence those outcomes. For example, we are number 1 of OECD nations for obesity rates where that leads to lower life expectancy, pre-mature births where pre-mature births increases the chances of infant mortality. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/06/obesity-before-pregnancy-linked-to-earliest-preterm-births--stan.html https://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20100720/obesity-may-increase-risk-of-preterm-birth#1 Is that funded by "private interest"? Also, as Prof. Katherine Baicker pointed out in her study from Oregon even when given access to healthcare people still had bad physical health due to poor lifestyle choices. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 At the bottom here is the funding "Supported by grants from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services; the California HealthCare Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the National Institute on Aging (P30AG012810, RC2AGO36631, and R01AG0345151); the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Smith Richardson Foundation; and the Social Security Administration (5 RRC 08098400-03-00, to the National Bureau of Economic Research as part of the Retirement Research Consortium of the Social Security Administration); and by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services." Is that all private interest? What that study showed was that people are in bad health due to poor life style choices. Thus that influences life expectancy and infant mortality. As for amenable mortality https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843 As for the cost study you bring up they said you have to assume that healthcare providers will have to take a 40% pay cut. And that cost is just for public spending, not private. I suggest you actually read the study. It doesn't say it will save money. No country provides healthcare to all of their citizens. There are shortcomings in every system. That is why I say your argument is shallow. You are refusing to look at the complexity of the issue. I gave you a handful of studies. You can also read the book by Stanford Prof. Scott Atlas entitled "In Excellent Health".
1
@alonsoarana5307 , considering how my lab is a laser lab in the basement I agree, I hardly see daylight.
1
proud American , here is a great video about Bernie and AOC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzikkFm-6M That shows that Bernie lied there
1
@sharper68 , there are many arguments by experts against it. Here is one http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf But hey, what does a professor in the field knows? I mean, you are a part of the crowd pushing for "free college".
1
mountaingoat1003 , ok, now who determines that? My need, according to me, is high. If I am a position to pay for my own healthcare why should I wait?
1
mountaingoat1003 , how do the doctors determine it? Are there tests done first? Who will decide what doctors do this? You are asking doctors to make crucial decisions based on law instead of personal choice. Why should I wait? If I have the ability to pay than it is cleared I am valuable in the market. Take, for example, a knee injury. I need to be on my feet to work. One may say a knee injury is not necessary to live thus I should wait, but for me it is. Also, there are many problems with forcing people to wait for care that harms people psychologically, financially and physically. You are essentially saying that some arbitrary person who does not understand my situation should decide my fate.
1
mountaingoat1003 , consider this, what is more valuable to society? Giving me knee surgery so I can get back to work sooner and produce? Or giving care to some poor person in their 30s who produces very little? That is the point. We can go farther. What about people who refuse to live a healthy lifestyle? Should they get priority in care? And no, I am not willing to wait as I have many things in life that involves me being on my feet and active. Why should I have to wait for someone else I know nothing about?
1
@smocloud , ok, a few things. One, there is way more to the argument than just longer wait times and impersonal care. You have the fact that other nations have less R&D than us, less survival rates, and arguably lower quality. Many on the left point to a handful of things for their arguments 1. cost 2. overall life expectancy 3. Infant mortality 4. Number of people covered 5. Amenable mortality There are several points against those, mainly that they are way too vague 1. Cost compared to what outcome? Many saying that Medicare is cheaper due to less overhead administration. That is because Medicare covers old people who need large amounts of care thus their costs are much higher due to private insurance. So you can't say Medicare is cheaper 2. There are factors outside of healthcare that influence overall life expectancy. The US is number 1 of OECD nations for obesity, that plays a role. 3. Same with life expectancy, obesity increases one's chance of premature births 4. Saying someone is "covered" does not mean they receive care. 5. Many arguments against that https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843 As for "right to life". In this nation rights are things the government cannot take away without due process, period. They are not guaranteed to you.
1
@smocloud , I do have a heart, I care a lot about people. I just don't want to be taxed high and have services given to people I don't know. You may say I don't have a heart but why do you feel I should struggle in life so others can benefit?
1
@smocloud , so I should have to pay more for others who don't pull their own weight? Or I should have to pay more for complete strangers? I have no problem helping others out, but I want to do so on my own free will. Again, rights are things the government cannot take away without due process. On your concept of "right to life" say someone needed a heart transplant and the only person with matching blood type in the area was me. Should I die so the other person can live? You have the right to pursue happiness, you are not given it. Sex makes people happy. Should we force people to have sex with others who have a hard time getting sex? Your only argument here is an emotional one, not a rational one.
1
@smocloud , again, rights are things the government cannot take away without due process, period. If you want to play that game than why doesn't the government give me a gun? Or why doesn't the government give me air time on NPR on the basis of "freedom or speech"? You need to understand what rights are in this nation. You did not address my point. If someone needs a heart transplant and I am the only one in the area with matching blood type, should I die to save the person's life? Health requires someone's services and good. Say an area had only one doctor. Should you force that doctor to work 20 hours a day to serve everyone? Based on your standard they should. Now you deprived that doctor's right to life and happiness. That is why you idea of "right to life" and "right to pursue happiness" is completely wrong.
1
@smocloud , you didn't address my point. I gave you several counter arguments and your only response is to berate me. So tell me, should a doctor work 20 hour days to serve everyone?
1
@chuckecheese5251 , a lot of government programs are funded privately. NPR is simply another radio station where most of their money comes from member stations.
1
@chuckecheese5251 , roads are locally ran and funded, that is the major difference.
1
@MohamedHassan-dm9df , it won't save me money.
1
@smocloud , police are locally ran and funded, that is a major difference. Also, you don't have the right to services of a police. Look up the court case Warren v DC. Roads are locally ran and funded as well where many roads don't see maintenance (such as rural roads). If you want to compare roads to healthcare we can, even though it is highly flawed. But the bare minimum road that is offered to many people are gravel and dirt roads with many holes, and when it snows the only way they get cleared is if farmer John hooks up the plow and volunteers to clear it. Is that the type of healthcare you want? Your arguments are weak, that is the problem. Not to be rude but I am more informed on this issue than you are which is why you become emotional. Noticed how I cited a court case related to police services? I suggest you read up on this topic more.
1
@sharper68 , it is an argument. Single payer has many problems attached to it. I you can deny it all you want but it is true. You are completely misrepresenting that study. It assumed that providers will be willing to take a 40% pay cut. If you took a 40% pay cut at your job how will you react? Now imagine how healthcare providers will react? Will the quality be the same at that point? Essentially what you are saying is similar to saying I can save money on groceries by simply eating nothing but bread and water. Is that the best route to take? The fact you dismiss arguments from the other side shows you have no desire to actually progress on this issue. That is why many call the far left regressive. How about you point out how my arguments are weak. Until you do I will walk away knowing I am the more progress individual on this issue.
1
@firespinnr , people keep pointing to the Koch Brothers' study and keep misrepresenting it. The far left has no desire to have an actual intelligent conversation here. If the Koch Brothers' study said M4A would cost much more than the current system the far left will say "it is corporate funded!". Instead it gives numbers showing M4A could cost less than our current system, if you make many assumptions, thus the far left makes the claims they while ignoring the details of the study and the argument it actually presents. That is the intelligent level the far left has.
1
@sharper68 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e893Ky7iM6Y Go to the 6 minute mark. Did you even read the study? "It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance. " https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
1
@sharper68 , you say I have no argument when you get what was in a study completely wrong.
1
@smocloud , there is not right to police services, that is the point.
1
@sharper68 , I literally quoted you the study.
1
@user-oldblindguyD , I have posted sources by Katherine Baicker and Scott Atlas, professors in the field.
1
@user-oldblindguyD , my "laser pointer" is half a million dollars. It is 24 watts of power. Not something I want to be pointing with.
1
@user-oldblindguyD , auto insurance is not a tax. Also, auto insurance is a state law, not a federal one that can be avoided by not owning a car. Insurance also covers unplanned cases but not planned one like new tires. I just got new tires and I had to pay out of pocket. Also, auto insurance, the least you have to have, is liability. So you can't compare that to healthcare.
1
@smocloud , the Constitution outlines the rights citizens have. Citizens don't have rights to police services, that is that case exist. That makes your police comparison poor as even with police you don't have a right to their services. The idea of some duties being equal is based on the 14th amendment. But again, police are ran and funded locally. Local governments don't have to have police services where you see that in many small towns. Many small towns don't have police services, they rely on the county sheriff. So again, your police example is poor.
1
@smocloud , it comes back to your "right to life" argument. All that means is that you cannot have government take away our life without due process. Please learn what rights are.
1
@user-oldblindguyD , so when you have no actual argument against me you just ridicule? How "progressive" of you.
1
@user-oldblindguyD , also, auto insurance can be denied to bad drivers.
1
@user-oldblindguyD , what facts? Auto insurance is insurance. And auto insurance can kick off bad drivers.
1
@user-oldblindguyD , there are benefits to universal healthcare. But there are many shortcomings as well. Also, I feel our system is very strong, it just needs reform and not a complete change. 4% of our GDP goes into defense.
1
@smocloud , again, rights are things the government cannot take away from you without due process. You can't make healthcare a "right" as it requires someone's services and goods. Health insurance does not take away anyone's life, they simply deny payment of something. If you refuse to go shop at a business, which gives that business a profit so they can pay their employees, are you taking away that business owner's and employees' right to life? No. Or how about right to free speech. If a radio company denies me air time are they denying me my right to free speech? No. The rights protect you from government, not private businesses. If a homeless person is cold on the streets and dying and you refuse to take them into your home are you denying that person's right to life? You need to understand rights, laws, and the philosophy behind them.
1
@user-oldblindguyD , there is a long history of success.
1
@sharper68 , that study was the you referred to.
1
@smocloud , I did read your comments. Tell me why some areas don't have a police force?
1
@RLShenans , yes because those rankings are arbitrary. Do you even know how those rankings are done? One uses amenable mortality where it is argued that is flawed to use https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843 Others use overall life expectancy where factors outside of healthcare influence those numbers. For example, the US is number 1 in obesity rates of OECD nations, that decreases life expectancy. Or how blacks have higher rates of heart disease where the US, compared to OECD nations, has a higher population of blacks. Or how two professors showed that when you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy http://www.aei.org/publication/the-business-of-health/ Those rankings are flawed. To take something as complex as healthcare and reduce it down to a simple ranking is foolish.
1
@user-oldblindguyD , funny how I know many people, including myself, who was able to get my knee worked in within weeks because we could pay.
1
@smocloud , paragraphs bud
1