Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox News Breaks When Voter Says Her Husband Died From Lack Of Healthcare" video.

  1. And here is the problem. You feel people on the right have no empathy. They do. They have different ideas in how to improve a system.
    7
  2. Also, all the emotions in the world does not change the reality that healthcare is complex.
    7
  3. Stan, exactly. This is why we have Trump. When someone on the right tries to engage in conversation with someone on the left and disagrees with them they get labeled as bad people. I don't support Medicare for all for several reasons, that does not mean I want people to die. According to the left I do. They say that because they can't defend their position. Kyle can't which is why he brings up these stories.
    3
  4. frowden flugar, when the far left claims that people on the right don't care that is a problem. I want to improve healthcare and I do care when people die. My ideas of improving healthcare differs from you. Just because my ideas differs from you does not mean I don't care.
    3
  5.  @karlmarxthebolshevikrabbi2536  , employers provide healthcare insurance to their employees because it is a tax free way to pay employees. It has nothing to do with them being healthy. If they were concerned about their health they will give them gym memberships as well but they don't. If employers did not pay employees with healthcare insurance than insurance becomes insurance. Since healthcare insurance is a form of payment insurance has become healthcare. That means healthcare insurance covers all of healthcare. In reality many issues in healthcare can be paid for out of pocket where insurance can pay for unplanned, expensive situations. But since it is a form of payment insurance has become healthcare. To give two examples, LASIK is not covered by insurance but paid for out of pocket. Over time the price has dropped and the quality had improved. Another example is car insurance. Despite state laws requiring people to buy it car insurance prices are still low. The reason is that car insurance covers unplanned, expensive situations like an accident but does not cover oil changes or new tires even though those are needed for a safe, and reliable car. Is that an intelligent enough response for you?
    2
  6. Karl Marx, how is private insurance inefficient? Private insurance provides for way more than Medicare does. The profit motive means that a company has to provide or they will lose to a competitor. If employer based insurance is gone than it would improve the system in my opinion. You claim the same problems will persist but give no evidence. I agree, LASIK is optional. A lot of healthcare is optional and can be paid for out of pocket. Some cases aren't which is where insurance comes ins. Cancer is one of those cases. It is comparable to car insurance. Car insurance pays for an accident but not for oil changes or new tires. That is why car insurance is affordable. Pre-existing conditions can also be alleviate with a free market system. People can buy insurance at a younger age or the fact that insurance covers only unplanned, expensive cases they don't worry about pre-existing conditions as something like being severely injured in a car accident doesn't matter if you had some pre-existing condition.
    2
  7. Randy, no system covers everyone. Resources are limited. As for Medicare for all being cheaper, that is not true unless you lower the quality. Medicare does lower quality in some ways and there is a history of that. For example, it took Medicare around 40 years to provide prescription benefits where private insurance was providing it long before Medicare was.
    2
  8. Etham, I support improving our healthcare system.
    2
  9. Here is how it typically goes Leftists: "People are dying due to your healthcare system" Right: "I know, we should improve it" Left: "We need medicare for all: Right: "Well, I feel that is not the best route for many reasons. I feel we can solve this with other methods" Left: "You don't care about people and want them to die!" And that is where the conversation ends.
    2
  10.  @randyozaeta1026 , no nation guarantees full coverage to everyone.
    2
  11. The Awoken and Broken Matt Hardy, there are suggestions. John McCain suggested moving away from employer based healthcare insurance. What that will do is allow the people to buy healthcare insurance which will create competition which will lower prices. One issue we have is how employers use healthcare insurance as a form of payment as opposed to just paying a higher wage. A reason why is because insurance is a tax free way to pay employees. Because of that healthcare insurance has become healthcare and covers almost all healthcare related issues. That drives up prices as the consumers don't see the actual price. LASIK is paid for out of pocket and as a result the price has dropped and the quality has gone up. Car insurance is mandated by every state but despite that is still affordable. The reason is that car insurance covers only unplanned, expensive cases but not routine cases like oil changes and new tires. A lot of healthcare services can be paid for out of pocket. If healthcare was ran like that where insurance paid for unplanned, expensive cases only than the price will drop. So yes, the free market is arguably a better route. Sorry you do not understand what the free market is but that is a brief description of it and what will happen.
    2
  12. This is why we need to push to end employer based healthcare insurance. Push for a free market system where you pay for your own plan and when you switch jobs you don't have to worry about healthcare. There are ways around your problem that does not involve more government.
    1
  13.  @dollcrazy300  , in a free market system healthcare insurance will be cheaper. The reason being is that insurance will be insurance and cover expensive, unplanned cases only. Everything else will be paid for out of pocket. Also, when employers don't pay employees with healthcare insurance they will pay with a higher wage so they can afford it.
    1
  14.  @NarmyHiiragi  , the free market can work. Profit motive means providing a better good and service because if you don't people don't buy your product.
    1
  15.  @__Andrew  , police, education and fire departments are ran and funded locally. Even at that they lack resources. Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. How many doctors are willing to volunteer? Many government programs are inefficient. For example, it took Medicare 40 years to start covering prescription benefits where private insurance covered it long before that. Or how the Community Health Act of 1963 only built half of the facilities they planned and none of them were fully funded making our mental health situation worse.
    1
  16. Narmy, I agree. That is why I support making insurance more affordable. A part of that is having insurance pay for unplanned, expensive cases only.
    1
  17. Karl Marx, there will always be people who aren't covered. Even if the government says they will provide healthcare to all there are limited resources thus people will have to wait. Also, as I keep saying, when insurance covers unplanned expensive situations only it will become cheaper. Most healthcare services and goods can be paid for out of pocket meaning there isn't a desire to have insurance. Insurance can become insurance and when it is that than it becomes like car insurance, affordable. Government has the most bureaucracy ever. You point to administrative cost which is deceptive. Government has the ability to pass the cost onto other agencies. The cost is still there, it just isn't listed as Medicare. For example, the IRS collects funds, private insurance has to collect it themselves. Pre-existing condition is a problem because insurance is healthcare. If insurance covered unplanned, expensive cases than it won't have to worry about pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing conditions are planned for as they are there. The young and healthy can pay for a lower quality plan and pay into it much like young people buy a lower quality car insurance and pay into it but may never use it. i see the problems and I want to alleviate them. I feel that doing so is to have a free market system in healthcare. Right now we don't. You are blaming private insurance when really the problem is that we lack a free market system in healthcare.
    1
  18.  @karlmarxthebolshevikrabbi2536  , read the book "The Business of Health" to start. There are other sources as well I can give that are on my work computer, but that is a good start. You are hardly scratching the surface on this issue. Up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. You point to that 40,000 number, what do you have to compare it to? Nothing. So you can't say it is a "disaster" as there is no standard. When you pay out of pocket you see the cost first hand so you will end up paying less, that is the point. You feel that the cost will remain the same but in a free market the cost will drop. On administrative cost read the article entitled "The Myth of Medicare's Low Administrative Costs" Also, there are several shortcomings in a public system. Read what Katherine Baicker said in March 2009 about healthcare. Point is that this issue is complex. You are looking for simple answers to a complex issue, that is foolish.
    1
  19.  @dollcrazy300  , charities or families.
    1
  20.  @456MrPeople  , uh the US does many things well. You say that the US has worse outcomes but that is not true. Many stats show that the US does well.
    1
  21.  @456MrPeople  , you are taking a complex issue and trying to look for a simple solution, you won't find it. I suggest you read more on this issue if you want to have a strong opinion on it. The Commonwealth Fund is not an "independent study", it is a special interest group with an agenda. What makes it credible? Please tell me. No one has yet to tell me.
    1
  22.  @456MrPeople  , I get my stats from academic sources.
    1
  23.  @dollcrazy300  , three points. One, no system is ideal, someone is going to suffer. In a universal healthcare system that person you are talking about may get covered, but the person who needs knee surgery might not for months. During that time they are in pain and limited in movement and thus become worse off physically, psychology and financially. This is a major problem in New Zealand. Something has to give. Two, maybe there is a desire to have a public option at the state and local level. Some areas could survive off of charities, some not making the desire for a public option ran locally. It all depends. There is not one size fits all option. Three, you have to consider if a person has no job, no family and no friends what are they worth in society?
    1
  24. dollcrazy300 1. I have a colleague from Canada. His cousin was placed on a long waiting lists for heart surgery where they had to come to the US to get it. That is not uncommon. Read the following papers "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" and "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Also, the same colleague was denied knee surgery as it was not considered "life threatening" so he received it in the US. 2. Actually in Canada Providences manage healthcare. But I do agree that one argument for universal healthcare is that it can reduce stress for many people and there is a study to show that. 3. I personally don't determine someone's worth, society does. But since you find this issue to be a individual thing why don't you do around donating your time and money helping those people in need?
    1
  25. 1. The US leads the world in R&D, is number 1 in cancer research, offers the most advanced care such as CT scans, etc. Our quality is unmatched in the world with the exception of maybe India due to how skilled their doctors are. 2. There are many ways to examine the facts. I ask of you, have you ever read their methods? I did for the CWF. One indicator they used was amenable mortality. The paper entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature review" from Health Stat Quarterly argued that amenable mortality is unreliable due to factors outside of healthcare that can influence it and the fact that nations report it differently. But again, I ask of you, have you read their methods? And if so why do you trust them so much? 3. I just gave one. The book "The Business of Health" has argued that a universal healthcare system would not necessarily be better. That book was written by two profess. Prof. Katherine Baicker has argued against universal healthcare. She gave a great talk where you can find the transcript of from March 24, 2009 related to healthcare and medicare for all. The point is that healthcare is very complex. No one in the field of academics is going to come up with a strong conclusion like private, special interest groups like the CWF do. In academics if one did they they would be attacked greatly. This issue is complex and to reduce it down to an arbitrary ranking is foolish. I have read many sources on this issue like the book "Being Mortal". When you really dig deep in the issue, especially from academic sources, you see less of "this country is better than this one" and more of "here are the challenges in healthcare and what could possibly improve them".
    1
  26. Saminul Haque, the vast majority have access to that care. That is why healthcare reform is so challenging. As a whole the vast majority have access. The point is this. Either the very sick and injured will suffer or the very poor suffer. In universal healthcare systems the very poor do have access to care which helps them. But the cost is that the very sick and injured suffer as the poor take limited resources away from advanced care. In the US the very sick receive high quality care but the very poor suffer with bankruptcy or not receiving care at all. Now it comes down to who do you want to help? The very poor or the very sick? There are arguments to be made for both cases. But in the end no system covers everyone and there are shortcomings. You say "many studies" but have only provided two from special interest groups. You even admitted you are not qualified to have an opinion on a particular point to where you end with the usual talking point of the high cost in the US and reduce access, both of which can be argued against. My suggestion is that if you want to have a strong opinion on this you read up more on it.
    1
  27. dollcrazy300, society does determine people's worth. That is why some people earn more than others. That's life.
    1
  28. Saminul Haque, what makes you think their purpose is to get data correct? They are private organizations. There is no rules against them. Also, you can interpret data in many ways. That is the point of the paper on amenable mortality. Raw data can only show so much. Just like when two professors showed that by removing car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. There are many to interpret data. Many factors influence life expectancy beyond healthcare. For example, the US is number 1 in obesity rates of OECD nations, or how black individuals have higher risk of heart diseases where the US has a higher black population than those nations. That plays a role in life expectancy as well. You are looking at raw data only and not factoring in other variables. You say single payer is better but provided little evidence. You haven't even read the methods of those "research organizations" but blindly follow them. That is an issue. I am encouraging you to read up on this issue more before coming to a solid conclusion.
    1
  29. How did this man die? What condition did he have? What was his lifestyle? You need more information before making a conclusion. Also, there are many ways to improve healthcare that does not require expanding government.
    1
  30. It doesn't say it guarantees those things. Also, all that means is that the government cannot take those away without due process.
    1
  31. Because government ran systems are usually inefficient. Look at the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 and how much of a failure that was. Or how Medicare is inferior in quality compared to private insurance. For example, it took Medicare 40 years to cover prescription benefits where private insurance did it long before that.
    1
  32.  @RH-xs8gz  , that is due to lack of a free market.
    1
  33. @Bill Anderson , we don't have a free market system in healthcare. Also, you don't have any ideas either how to improve it. You just screech "Medicare for all" while ignoring the many ways Medicare is inferior to a private system.
    1
  34.  @gradostax  , people in Nordic nations also live healthier lifestyles and their smaller populations allow for those nations to micromanage those programs easier. Also, those nations faces shortcomings as well. In the US Medicare is inferior in quality to the private system in many ways. One can argue that forcing people to use a public system is immoral.
    1
  35.  @paulweatherstone9820  , no system is perfect, that is my point. I can admit that. I support reforming our healthcare system but the reality is no system is perfect. Many on the far left feel a Medicare for all system will magically cover everyone which isn't true. There will be many shortcomings. Overall healthcare is very complex. You can't just spew talking points like "Medicare for all" and expect to be taken seriously. As for a private fast tract system, Bernie Sanders' bill will outlaw private insurance. There is a reasoning for it but that is how the law is written.
    1
  36. Randy, there are many arguments against Medicare for all. Federally ran programs tend to be inefficient, especially related to healthcare. Look at the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 how it led to only half of the facilities being opened and none of them being fully funded.
    1
  37. Bill, we haven't had a free market healthcare for decades. Even before Obamacare we had a heavily regulated an subsidized healthcare system.
    1
  38. Fluff, healthcare rankings are arbitrary. Do you even know how the CommonWealth Fund created their ranking? And what makes that organization credible? I have read their ranking. One indicator they used was amenable mortality. However, read the paper entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature review" Where the author there breaks down how unreliable amenable mortality is. Thus the CommonWealth Fund ranking is arguably very flawed. Why do you blindly follow those rankings?
    1
  39. Fluff, I can provide many sources if you want.
    1
  40. Healthcare rankings are arbitrary.
    1
  41. They didn't like. AG in states are suing because states want less government oversight. Also, where are the democrat AGs pushing to keep the ACA?
    1
  42. A difference is that healthcare has a level of personal responsibility where illegal immigrants should not be here to begin with.
    1
  43. Healthcare rankings are arbitrary.
    1
  44. Healthcare rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and create any ranking the wants.
    1
  45. NicKingPapiChulo, why aren't any academic sources providing rankings? Because they know they would be call out for it. You point to life expectancy when many factors outside of healthcare influence that. The US is number 1 obesity rates of OECD nations. When you remove car accidents and murders from all nations the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Many of these rankings look at just overall life expectancy when factors outside of healthcare influence it. So ranking two nations in healthcare when life expectancy between them is off by a few years is highly flawed. Many experts dismiss those rankings. I bet you don't even know how they are developed or who these "experts" are that created them, you just blindly follow them.
    1
  46.  NicKingPapiChulo  , I am not all over the place. The point is that there are other factors that influence overall life expectancy. These healthcare rankings just look at overall life expectancy where factors outside of healthcare influence that stat. One is that the US has higher obesity rates than other OECD nations which can cause us to die earlier. Two professors showed that when you remove car accidents and murders that the US is number 1 in life expectancy suggesting that even with our high obesity rates we are able to keep people alive which suggests that our healthcare system is strong. The overall point is that when these rankings point to overall life expectancy they are immediately flawed as they are not weighing in factors like that. The WHO's ranking was criticized so much they have not developed another on in nearly 20 years. It compared the US to countries like Malta, is that even valid? Also, the WHO is ran by the UN which has a bias towards a single payer system. But I will ask you, do you even know how these rankings are developed? I doubt it. I bet you just blindly follow them without question. To me that is just foolish. As for these experts I can name three off of the top of my head. Prof. John Schneider formally from the University of Iowa, Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M, and Katherine Baicker of University of Chicago. While the third person has not personally denounced those rankings like the previous two have, based on what she wrote she is highly skeptical of the quality of a government ran system. Also, show me academic sources that create these rankings. The only ones that do are special interest groups with a bias.
    1
  47.  NicKingPapiChulo , the UN has a bias towards universal healthcare systems. You can see that with many of their documents such as the Human Rights document. The only nation to put a man on the moon is the US, seems like we are doing well. Out of nations with 100+ million people how many have universal healthcare and a strong economy? There is a lot to this issue. On that car accidents and murder one, read the book "The Business of Health". What is wrong with Ohsfeldt? What has he written or said that you disagree with and why? You are pulling a logical fallacy. You have to give me specifics. If you can pull a long list then please do so. What is stopping you? It seems that with you comment and bringing up climate change, a different topic, you are shoved in a corner and can't form a counter argument. Sorry you are ignorant on this topic.
    1
  48.  NicKingPapiChulo , I understand statistics. Statistics don't account for the human element. A larger population means larger diversity making it harder to micromanage those programs. Some areas of the country are healthier than others simply due to culture. The same is with education which is why states run education. A state like Nevada struggles in education standards but a main reason why is because in Clark County you can earn $60,000 or year or more parking cars or serving drinks. There isn't much of a desire to be educated. CA has a low literacy rate but that is because of their large Hispanic population. In the bay area in CA they have problems with education because they can't afford to pay teachers enough to teach and live there. Every part of the nation has different issues. Talk to any statistician and they will admit that there are elements you cannot account for quantitatively. Also, federal take over typically does not go well. Look at the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 and how it ended up lacking funds as they could not micromanage the program. The WHO has a bias towards universal healthcare systems. Also, 194 people do not make up the WHO. Do you even know how the WHO even functions? Great, so you found experts who feel differently. I never said there weren't experts on the other side. Many experts on both sides disagree with this issue which is why it is complex and why healthcare rankings are arbitrary. Besides, Gerald Freidman does not specialize in healthcare economics like the three people I listed do.  Neither does Sen. They are economists but they don't specialized in the healthcare portion of economics.
    1
  49.  NicKingPapiChulo  , so you refuse to read an book related to healthcare but you have this strong of an opinion on it? Why do you want to remain ignorant?
    1
  50.  NicKingPapiChulo  , the World Bank does not specialize in healthcare research. At this point I feel you only believe something if it supports your bias. That is called confirmation bias. Fact is that rankings are arbitrary. Any expert can do a legit analysis on the stats and create any ranking they want. Do you think it is fair to compare the US to a country like Malta? There are many people, including those on the left that are against universal healthcare. You refuse to read the book because doing so will challenge your firmly held, religious like belief. Just like you refuse to read the methods in how these healthcare rankings are developed. You just blindly follow them without thinking there could be flaws. Just because a program is popular does not mean it is great. Slavery was popular at one point. Katherine Baicker has stated that Medicare is inefficient in some ways and one example she gave was how it took 40 years to cover prescription benefits where private insurance did it long before that. Again, if you are going to have a strong opinion on this issue I suggest you read up on it. You clearly don't which is why you resort to insults and talking points.
    1
  51. The voting people supported slavery at the time, so it was popular. The analogy is not stupid but spot on. This is why nothing at the federal level is determined by a simple majority as what is popular can mean passing a bad policy which oppresses people. Uh where do you get the idea that 1/3 of seniors could not afford healthcare? I answered your questions, you refusal to try to expand your knowledge on the issue is all I need to know. You choose to remain ignorant and keep your firmly held religious like belief unchallenged. The guy did run a study and did a statistical regression model. But apparently you know so much about stats that you can surely counter what he says.
    1
  52. Other nations have problems as well.
    1
  53. Beaver Ones, up to 7000 people die a year on waiting lists waiting for "elective" surgery in Australia.
    1
  54.  @aronwilling  , it is from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
    1
  55.  @johnmackay1566  , that is not true. "Elective" is can be vague. One can end up worse off financially, physically and psychologically while waiting for "elective" surgery. This is a problem in New Zealand. It is a controversial issue where something that is "elective" by law is really not in reality. Healthcare is complex, I encourage you to read up on it if you want to have a strong opinion on it.
    1
  56. Kyle needs to stop talking about healthcare, he is clearly ignorant on it.
    1
  57.  @OscarGonzalezTheRealOne , ultra leftists here want everything. They want to be fat and lazy and do what they want but also want a high wage, healthcare, a nice home, etc. They don't understand the concept of responsibilities and hard work.
    1
  58. People here feel that Medicare for all will save money. When you look at it the only way it does is by providing lower quality of care as Medicare has always lagged behind private insurance in quality. For example, it took 40 years for Medicare to offer prescription benefits where private insurance was doing it long before that. So Medicare for all could save money at the expense of lower quality.
    1