Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Over 1 Million Watch Bernie's Medicare For All Town Hall, Media Yawns" video.

  1. These stories happen in other countries. Despite what Kyle says that number is not zero in other countries. If you want to progress in healthcare you have to be hones.
    2
  2. I agree. When Kyle says that and his viewers believe it then you cannot begin to discuss healthcare reform. At that point it isn't about which system is better or worse but more of that there are shortcomings in other systems.
    2
  3. Shapiro is correct in his assessment in that case.
    1
  4. Ant Man, true. Kyle also lives in a bubble and refuses to debate anyone.
    1
  5. Definition of a troll: Someone whom I disagree with. At this point calling someone a troll is similar to calling them a bigot or racist. It does not mean anything anymore.
    1
  6. Herb, I do provide a legit debate. I give sources. On this issue I give peer reviewed sources. With this video I am starting out by saying that Kyle is wrong that people do die in other nations due to shortcomings in their healthcare system. That is where I am starting from. Being a troll is calling universal healthcare "communist care" or something like that. I do not do that. I look to discuss the issue, but first some facts have to be laid out. If being a troll is simply presenting facts then I find being called a troll a compliment.
    1
  7. "Herb Bluntman my favourite is when they post Koch funded think tank “research papers” that are cherry picked so the numbers don’t make the US healthcare system is as bad as it is." Like when Kyle says no one dies in other systems. Or that 36,000 number he cites where a Harvard professor counters that by saying those individuals have bad health to begin with. Thus do they die due to lack of access or simply being in bad health to begin with? Or I guess Harvard is a "think tank" to you.
    1
  8. You can call me a boring poster, but I bring legit arguments. You just told me that you can just throw the letter calling you to jury duty away when that is illegal.
    1
  9. "They had bad health to begin with because they couldn't afford preventative healthcare." Issues like obesity, type II diabetes and smoking can be prevented with zero access to healthcare.
    1
  10. "Some of them like whyimmrpink78 have to be paid trolls." Alex Jones is that you?
    1
  11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjXLPW6geL0
    1
  12. killerbee256, you have conspiracy theories much like Alex Jones does, so I can only assume you are Alex Jones, just like you assume I am a troll.
    1
  13. Ibin Rogers, or you can live in a bubble.
    1
  14. Zack West, I read what people post. I even quote it when arguing against it, and many times i agree with it. The problem is that people, instead of posting opposing viewpoints just call me a troll. It shows you cannot debate the issue so yoy rather name call. I take that as a compliment.
    1
  15. You see, you need to know what a troll actually is. Someone like Keknology is a troll when they post a comment saying "Batshit Bernie is a prime example of why we need to gather up the 100 wealthiest (highest IQ) people in the country and make them elect a President instead of the feeble ignorant masses." That adds nothing to the conversation. He also wrote this "One word: Bots" Now when I post this "These stories happen in other countries. Despite what Kyle says that number is not zero in other countries. If you want to progress in healthcare you have to be hones." The last word should say "honest", that is a typo, but I am fair and leave my entire comment as it. But when I write that I am stating a fact and pointing out where Kyle is wrong. I want an actual discussion here but at first people have to be honest. On this issue of single payer you have to realize that other countries have shortcomings, that people do die because of them. Failure to admit that makes your argument irrelevant. But when I post that I get called a troll. Anymore people have a firmly held religious like belief on this issue that any counter points someone brings up they plug their ears and go "la la la". That is not being a progressive. That is why I call you guys "leftists" as opposed to "progressives" or "liberal".
    1
  16. Zack West, I never said everyone else were nuts. But when I present facts and people deny them, it makes me wonder. I also see why some people end up acting like trolls. "For one, quote-mining is a huge problem, with a wider issue of taking quotes out of context. You do both" Quote mining is not a problem. I do it to show that I do read what others write and I break it down point by point. "In previous arguments with you, you've repeatedly taken my parts of what I said and twisted them to suit your narrative. " Care to give examples? " Even now, you try to paint me as a zealot, when time and time again, I've had respectable arguments with people on the other side of the political spectrum, or those of other ideologies who disagree with me, like centrists, syndicalists, socialists, etc.. You don't know anything about me, but you love crafting bogus narratives to discredit people." Because you called me a troll with zero justification. ""People die for lots of reasons. Nothing is ideal. 45,000 people is only 0.01% [sic] of the population. I do not see a problem."" I stand by that statement. 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. How do you make that number to be zero? The reality is you can't unless you ban driving. People are looking at that value but not putting it in proper perspective. For one, no country has that number at zero. Every country has a system with shortcomings where people die. Considering it is 0.01% of the population and comparable to other deaths (traffic accidents for example), I have a hard time seeing that as a major problem. Should we push in making that number zero? Yes. But anymore there comes a point where there will always be flaws. There will always be shortcomings, especially when standards are raised. Next, that number is deceptive as you cannot get an accurate measure on that issue. Those individuals are poor and there is a correlation between being poor and being in bad health due to personal choices such as higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes. So did they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? I do not see that 45,000 to be a major problem to begin with. I do support pushing to make that number to be zero. But there are a couple things you need to at least consider in my argument 1. No country has that number at zero, period 2. at the very least you need to give these numbers in the proper perspective. People here throw that number out there as if it is an example of our healthcare system being a disaster but fail to look at counter arguments against it. I am not saying that our healthcare system does not have problems. I am saying that using that value and considering all variables you cannot, at the very least, say we have a major problem. "For numerous reasons, I found your statement to be inhumane, unintelligible, and ineludibly wrong." And why? Here is the issue. You cannot explain why. I explained why I stand by that statement. I have asked repeatedly how do you make that 45,000 to be zero? Give me the solution and you, along with others, failed to deliver. Again, it is not that I do not want that number to be zero, I do. But I live in reality. I would like for teleportation to exist and for us to be using fusion as an energy source, but we can't. The ideal healthcare system where everyone is covered at a high rate and at a low price does not exist. Every system has shortcomings leading to people's deaths. I understand that so I put the numbers in the proper perspective by considering all the variables. When I do that I do not consider that 45,000 to be a problem. I see it as a shortcoming that exist in all systems. But please, tell me how you would make that number to be zero. Until you do what I see is a person who cannot argue against what I say and thus will resort to name calling. I feel bad for people dying early due to lack of coverage. But again, until there is a way to make that number zero, it is something we have to deal with. "When the counter "When is it too many? One million? Two? Three?" was raised, you just ignored it and kept with your initial stance that you clearly know is patently untrue." I did not ignore it because in the end you cannot make that number to be zero. How much is too much? I cannot really say. But as I said, I compared it to traffic deaths. That 45,000 is close to that value. But even at that, I pose you the same question. Why is 45,000 too much when we cannot make that number to be zero? To me 0.01% of the population is minute especially considering how you cannot get an accurate number to begin with.
    1
  17. Zack West, you called me names but never justified your stance. Here is my question to you on that issue. How do you make that 45,000 to be zero? Also, do you understand why you cannot get an accurate value in that case? The fact is that when you realize you cannot make that number to be zero, and that finding how many die due to lack of access to healthcare is a challenging number to find to begin with, your argument falls apart. Considering those variables along with others I do not see that 45,000 to be a problem. Again, I feel bad for them dying, but I also feel bad for people dying in traffic accidents. I do not push to ban driving, I realize it is a price to pay in allowing it. Just like 45,000 deaths (which again is a hard number to accurately get) is a price to pay with our healthcare system which provides many benefits. It isn't about me being inhumane, it is me realizing reality and understanding economics. But I ask you again, how do you make that number to be zero?
    1
  18. Zack West, here is how it goes. You say "45,000 die a year due to not having healthcare insurance". And you say that as if that is a major problem. I come in and put that number in a different perspective showing why it is, at the very least, not a major problem. In my opinion it is not a problem due to the benefits of our system. But at the very least it is not a major problem. You call me inhumane with zero justification while not addressing any of my points such as how do you make that number to be zero? Why is 45,000 too large? Is that an accurate number? Also, an issue we can discuss is why does insurance equal healthcare? That is an issue that many leftists seem to have a problem with, why do insurance companies have so much power which I will agree they do. What I see here is that I, in an intelligent way, countered a leftist talking point and you could not give a rebuttal leading you to name calling.
    1
  19. " However, since then, you've denied that you said that" I never denied that I said that. I can stand by my comments and defend them.
    1
  20. "The responder will point out what is false or questionable, perhaps cite a source proving their point and then Pink will come back with, "Your source isn't credible"" I only say that, or say the source is wrong while justifying my position. There is a difference. I challenge others to do the same to my source. For example, I post a book by AEI a lot. Many people immediately dismiss it simply because it is from AEI which is not an argument. People at times point me to the WHO ranking in healthcare where I point out why I do not buy into it by stating that they have not made another ranking in almost 20 years and how they compared the US to countries like Malta. If I were to simply say "that source is not credible" or say "it is wrong" and that's it then yes, I will agree I am a troll. But I do not do that. Herb, you are making a claim against me that is simply not true. If I disagree with a source I explain why. I criticize people who call my sources bad without justification. If I were to do the same that would make me a hypocrite. What we have here is a great example of you not wanting to represent me fairly, which is why I support my stance of you calling anyone who disagree with you a troll. As for trolls that name call I agree, they are pointless. But as for me, I suggest you try to criticize people fairly. Refusing to do so makes you myopic.
    1
  21. Herb, also, I never claim to have all the answers. Anymore over 90% of the time I am trying to pull people to the middle on theses issues as I am a moderate and people here are radical leftists. Whenever someone gives me a source I try to get them to look at it in a different light. For example, I had a recent discussion on wage stagnation where I feel it is mainly a myth. I got ripped apart for it on this channel. But my points were that many goods have become better which drives down prices. Such as cars, TVs, smart phones. Cars today last much longer, get better gas mileage, and are safer. I get criticized for that point as apparently cheaper goods that last longer mean nothing when it comes to wages. Other flaws I pointed out is that most economists use CPI when talking about inflation and wage stagnation where there are around 4 to 5 methods in determining inflation where some show that wages have outpaced them. And some flaws of CPI is that it does not take into account quality of goods. I laid these points our and I get called a troll. What is ironic is that a week later we covered this very topic in my graduate level MBA course. In all it isn't about me having the answers or being right but more of how people should look at these issues in a different way that is more moderate. Really, what I see here is someone that cannot debate me and thus they run away calling me a troll.
    1
  22. That is the problem. This town hall was all anecdotal. You can find this in other systems where they showed their problems. Steven Crowder did this with Canada. No where in this discussion was the other side represented and there were not statistical analysis being done. It became a huge circle jerk for single payer.
    1
  23. Sharon Rants, I watched. There are arguments against single payer. They could have brought in doctors from Norway and Canada to give their opposing viewpoints. They could have brought in researchers as well. At one point on individual said that Norway's healthcare system is much better than the US without any data to support that. Why should we take her word for it?
    1
  24. Sharon Rants, there are many factors in life expectancy. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number one in life expectancy.
    1
  25. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  26. Other factors play in as well. We are near the top in obesity rates for example. Correlating life expectancy to just healthcare is asinine.
    1
  27. Sharon Rants, to start, that book was written by two professors. They cite all of their sources, many that are peer reviewed, and they give all of their methods. How about you read the book and point out where they are wrong. Next, there are many other sources showing the shortcomings of universal healthcare systems. Here are a few of them “International comparisons of waiting times in health care – Limitations and prospects” Health Policy “Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed “Measurement of surgical wait times in universal health care systems” Can Urol Assoc J. "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “   Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart   “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ   “Incapacity for work in elective orthopaedic surgery: a study of occurrence and the probability of returning to work after treatment.”  J Epidemiol
    1
  28. Sharon Rants, it would behoove you to read up on this issue. It is more complex than what you think.
    1
  29. If you make healthcare a right that means you force doctors to give up their services just like with jury duty you force others to give up their services.
    1
  30. P S, representing someone in court is a longer process then giving someone heart surgery.
    1
  31. Ok, what if that extra part to make the Pinto safer cost $1,000,000? What will be your reaction then?
    1
  32. This was a waste of time. There were no counter viewpoints in this discussion. There were no references to peer reviewed studies, no statistical analysis mentioned. It was just some people giving anecdotal stories. This woman is talking about people in their 50s and 60s who are old. And she leaves out important details on these stories such as their diet habits. You can find stories like these in other countries.
    1
  33. Here are some peer reviewed articles of people dying waiting for "elective surgery". "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “  "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart  “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ
    1
  34. TheUltimateBeing, it is striking how you can be fooled so easily. For that one article you gave I can give many more. I can even point you to a book https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf The Canadian's system has many problems. Those that ignore them are lying or ignorant. It is not any better than the US. Is it worse? I will say no. But to the author I will have no problem calling them out. Look at their papers, most are in support of public healthcare. There is a clear bias in their research.
    1
  35. "People in their 50s and 60s are old? " Yes, especially when you factor in health habits such as diets. "Most developed nations have life expectancies in the 80s. America? 78.8, DECLINING." Due to many reasons. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. As mentioned in the book "Debunking Utopia" people in Nordic countries live longer due to healthier lifestyles. "That's the story that statistic tells you." Raw stats. Correlating life expectancy to just healthcare is saying that healthcare is the only thing that influences life expectancy. So if I were to die tonight by getting hit by a bus at the age of 30 it was because I had bad healthcare coverage. That is exactly what you are saying. "You're also perpetuating the common neoliberal lie of blaming individuals for a failure of the system." When you start bringing up individual stories you have to consider individual actions. When you look at the stats objectively the US is on par with other nations. " As if a person who eats well couldn't possibly get cancer." No, but the chances are lower. There are skinny people who eat McDonalds every day. Does that mean their food is healthy?
    1
  36. oswarz, I gave some of my viewpoints in other comments here. If you want to know more than let me know. I have no problem giving my opinions on this issue.
    1
  37. tybofborg, that book was written by two professors who cite all of their sources and methods. What was wrong with it? Also, how is Kyle and Bernie Sanders credible?
    1
  38. tybofborg, no system covers everyone as every system has shortcomings. Overall either the very poor or the very sick get screwed. In the US the very poor get screwed. In other nations the very sick/hurt get screwed. They are both extreme cases. In other countries they lack resources and innovation to cure the really sick/hurt, but they do cover poor people. In the US we can cure the extremely sick/hurt in a timely manner, but poor people are not covered or become bankrupt? So the question comes down to who do you want to kick to the curb? To me I support the US system for these reasons 1. We lead the world in R&D so if I become very sick I know I have a much better chance of living 2. The poor in the US are in bad health due to a lot of their own actions such as high obesity rates and smoking 3. Helping out those who are productive in life but saw bad luck in terms of health is better on a moral sense then those who are poor and not productive. Either way, you have to realize someone is going be screwed. In your case it will be the very sick. It will be that dad working hard but ends up with a rare form of cancer or disease.
    1
  39. As for that book, you need to read it. The show the shortcomings of other systems and how statistically they are not better off.
    1
  40. TheUltimateBeing01, what is wrong with that book in particular? Again, written by two professors (one who is the chair of their department), they cite all of their sources and show all of their methods. You post something about climate change which is irrelevant when it comes to that book on healthcare.
    1
  41. That is the second paper you posted with only one author. Not a team of researchers mind you, just one author's viewpoint. That same paper starts out by citing the WHO which has been criticized so much that they refuse to do another ranking. Do you even read and think about these sources you post? Or do you just blindly follow what ever suits your firmly held religious like belief? I bet you would stick your head in fire if Bernie Sanders would tell you that you can see hell by doing so.
    1
  42. "Do we need to talk about the medical bankruptcies that happens all the time in this nation?" We can talk about long wait times that happen in other countries. Also, again, for every article you give I can give some as well https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2043071/ France is facing problems of an aging populations and rising cost with limited resources.
    1
  43. TheUltimateBeing01, that is a good question to ask. You saying it isn't automatically dismisses your argument because you are not approaching this issue with an open mind. Like I said, you have a firmly held religious like belief on this issue that you refuse to take other experts' opinions. You went as far as calling them idiots even though they are experts in this field and do research in it for a living. On to the point that patients do not know the real value of medical care, that is true. People do not know the complexity of it, how much R&D cost in terms of resources, money and time. Seeing people push for single payer as if it is a cure all reveals that they do not understand the value of medical care. Consider what Prof. Gruber said about the ACA in that if the American people actually knew what was going on the ACA would have never gotten passed. Why? Because people do not know the real value of healthcare. It isn't about overcharging. You say that competition is the problem. That is 100% not true. We DO NOT have a free market system in healthcare. We have many barriers for example there is no competition across state lines and people cannot choose their insurance. And since insurance is a form of payment insurance has become healthcare giving insurance companies all the power. Going to single payer will give the federal government all the power, where is the incentive to lower prices especially when healthcare providers can lobby to keep prices high? Also, in that book they never argued to keep things in tact. They push for reform.
    1
  44. TheUltimateBeing01, if we had a single payer system what is going to stop healthcare providers from lobbying politicians to keep healthcare prices high much like public unions do and defense contractors do? The government can just give a blank check to healthcare providers so they can price gouge even more. What is going to stop that?
    1
  45. TheUltimateBeing01, when the federal government created the federal student loan program colleges raised tuition by a lot. Why? Because they knew they had higher demand and a group of people buying something they did not know the real value of. Single payer healthcare will cause the same thing. Increase demand and people not knowing the real value. And now considering how the consumer is no longer writing the checks, why should they care?
    1
  46. G Kaiser, it ins't better. At best it is on par with the US. Every objective measure shows that. That is why Kyle has to lie to push his propaganda. That is why Bernie has to hold a town hall of people giving anecdotes as opposed to a debate because he knows a debate like he did against Cruz will make him look like a fool.
    1
  47. It won't save money. How does increasing demand save money? That 37th ranking is from the WHO. That ranking was criticized so much that they refused to generate another ranking had it has been almost 20 years. Those rankings are arbitrary as anyone can legitimately play with the numbers and come up with any ranking, including making the US number 1. Bernie is not a healthcare expert. He admitted to struggling with science thus he struggled with math and stats. He is a politician trying to sell you something. In reality he knows very little about healthcare.
    1
  48. qzamboni, consumers can negotiate just as well. Do you think the corrupt federal government can negotiate healthcare?
    1
  49. Only around 5% of the nation works more than one job.
    1
  50. Ariel, your anecdotal experience does not represent the norm.
    1
  51. If you make healthcare a right you, just like having a jury is a right. If you are called to jury duty and refuse you go to jail. Shapiro has a legit point, you are just ignorant and live in a fantasy world with a dogmatic belief.
    1
  52. I have been called to jury duty, I had a legit excuse to get out, it was that I no longer lived in that state. Unless you have a legit excuse you have to do it. You saying "throw it away" is illegal, so it is safe to assume you have never been called in to do jury duty.
    1
  53. -testify-, it is illegal to ignore jury duty. Now will the government do anything? It depends on the district and how many respond. In the end, though, they have the authority to force to you serve if they want.
    1
  54. S.S .A, correct. People where that bash Shapiro never listen to what he actually says. They just repeat some small quote he made as if that is an argument.
    1