General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Mayor Pete Shredded For His Lies On Medicare For All" video.

What is sad is that people are listening to a "comedian" on this complex issue as opposed to actual experts. Oliver was all over the place on his show and really did not convince anyone.
2
Which studies?
1
He didn't. He was vague and left out a lot.
1
Which study?
1
He isn't wrong. To fund M4A you have to raise taxes on the majority, including the middle class. As for M4A saving money, there is not strong study that says it will save money. There are two studies where one was from UMass that is not peer reviewed nor published. The other gave a range of cost and put the low in on the abstract. And in both cases quality and access are not brought up.
1
@theuniversedoesntcare , endorse who?
1
C W , actually that is not what they said. They gave a range of cost to the government and in the abstract posted the low end, the $32 trillion over 10 years. They said chances are costs will be higher and again, that was just for public spending. When you combine private spending it will be higher than what we have. Plus, as one of the authors said if we do have the low end access and quality issues will arise. But hey, why read the actual studies, just listen to a comedian.
1
@UCD7h48F-BG1wmSBykE59gqA , I will ask you then, why are you listening to a comedian when it comes to the complex issue of healthcare? I watch the video and he is very wrong. For example, he claimed that people in other nations wait for knee surgery. While true it isn't just knee surgery. It is also issues like heart and neurosurgery. And waiting can lead to worse outcomes as pointed out in the study entitled "A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006" "Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers" But again, why listen to experts when you can listen to a "comedian".
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , it does go hand and hand. If you pay more for a car you get a better car. Same with healthcare. If M4A pays less healthcare providers will simply offer less as other nations do.
1
@Carkcast , sure you won't go bankrupt, you just die. As for waiting times, the US has the shortest waiting times in the world with the exception of ER visits by people without insurance. That is actually our form of universal healthcare, ER visits. Lower quality is true. Do you really think healthcare providers will provide the same level of care is you increase the number of patients they see while paying them less, or not paying them more?
1
C W , other nations do have death panels. Rand Paul paid for his care out of pocket. You know, socialized medicine was so bad in Canada private options had to be created. As prof. Katherine Baicker said "On the other hand, a single payer system does not automatically provide high quality care: the provision of low-value care is as pervasive in the single payer Medicare system as it is elsewhere. Single-payer systems are also slow to innovate – as suggested by the fact that it took Medicare 40 years to add a prescription drug benefit, long after most private insurers had done so. Nor do calculations of the costs of a single-payer system measure the utility loss from forcing people with different preferences into a monolithic health insurance plan. The private facilities that have sprung up in Canada to meet the demands of those who want more health care than the public system provides fundamentally undermine the “single payer” nature of the system. "
1
@vikrantpulipati1451 , people die in every nation due to lack of care. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. Obtaining accurate numbers like that is very difficult though. People die on waiting lists waiting for what those nations consider to be "elective" care. As for us getting less, that is 100% not true. We have greater access to advanced care compared to other nations.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 "According to the economically illiterate libertarian's line of thinking, it's okay for people to die from a preventable disease as long as our failing healthcare system remains as is, " People die in every nation due to lack of access to healthcare. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. For example, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. People have died waiting for "elective" heart surgery in Canada.
1
@GoDLiKeKakashi "Well, you currently pay the most for your healthcare and are at the bottom of the ladder for quality " We are not in the bottom of quality. We are superior in access to advanced care and survival rates in advanced care. And the vast majority have access to it. What makes healthcare reform so difficult is that people do like their care. If healthcare was so awful for the majority major changes would have happened long ago. As for the healthcare and car example, insurance is there to counter the issue of inelastic demand. So yes, it is very similar. And in many cases you can shop around.
1
@richardmancha1612 , yes it does. That is very basic economics.
1
@vikrantpulipati1451 "greater access if you can pay for it. " Yes, and most can. That is what makes healthcare reform so challenging. " And far more people die here because of prohibitively expensive care than die in waitlines in other countries." What do you base that off of because I have not seen any study or report that says that.
1
@SplitScreen2 , I can admit that the systems in European nations are strong as well. I never said they weren't. I am saying they have many problems as well. But just like with the US system, they have many strengths. Most people like their healthcare in the US as it is very strong in many ways and fit our culture. Also, European nations have private care.
1
@Carkcast "so what happens with those without insurance? They die. " Not necessarily. On reason why healthcare is so expensive in the US is because of our own version of universal healthcare. Many go to the ER and simply can't pay, so others have to pick up the slack. I agree with looking at the whole picture, but the problem is that the far left refuses to do that. That is why they make very shallow arguments such as 1. It will cost less 2. It will save lives 3. It is what the people want With no actual details. And when you dig deeper on the topic you find out that it is way more complex than that. I am willing to admit that maybe M4A will be the best system. I don't think so due to our culture and how the federal government operates, but I am willing to concede when more evidence is given. Problem is that the far left is not willing to have difficult conversations on this issue.
1
@pashico7082 , ok, I live in the US. The US system is awesome. Case closed. See how easy it is to make shallow arguments?
1
@richardmancha1612 , the more you spend the more you get. A lot of healthcare can be spent out of pocket. I have to get a physical every year. My insurance covers it but why? It is not an emergency. I can just pay out of pocket. Insurance can be there for unplanned, expensive cases. Compare it to car insurance. Car insurance will pay for a car accident, unplanned and expensive. But it won't pay for oil changes and new tires even though they are needed for a reliable car. The issue we have in this nation is that we have a for profit system that is heavily regulated and subsidized. Let me ask you, why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? And why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare? It is because of the payroll tax. If we had a free market system a lot of healthcare can be paid for out of pocket with us shopping around. Instead, since insurance is a form of payment, I have to rely on my insurance company to pay. I rather be paid a higher wage and shop around, and use insurance in emergencies. That will be much cheaper and much more affordable. As for paying more being better, that is the reality. More expensive items typically are better. There are special cases like luxury items like diamonds, but overall a more expensive item is better.
1
@wakannnai1 , I waited 3 days for my MRI on my knee. So what's your point?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 "The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare did a report between 2001 and 2010, and it showed that nearly 6500 in total died within that time period, not 7000 die a year." That is 100% false. Here, I will walk people through it to show Look up "Elective surgery waiting times 2016–17: Australian hospital statistics" From the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Click on "Data" Open the data, it should be an excel sheet. Go to Table 2.4. By year 2012-2013: 7504 2013-2014: 7868 2014-2015: 7311 2015-2016: 7295 2016-2017: 7554 So you were saying?
1
@Carkcast , I can agree the system can be improved, but scrapping and replacing it completely is not a solution to me. As for support of M4A, remember, the war in the middle east had strong support in the early 2000s at one point.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , that is why I said "up to". But hey, ignore what I write. Continue to lie.
1
@Carkcast , I feel M4A, based on the history of the US federal government, and our culture, will simply not work.
1
@richardmancha1612 , I clarify a lot. How about you answer my points in why employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage and why healthcare insurance equals healthcare.
1
@gilbertg7 , and I can assure you that M4A will never happen. The culture in the US will not accept 1. higher taxes 2. limited access to care 3. letting the very sick suffer and die "Emergencies are always treated timely so there are no death resulting from waiting." Same in the US. What's your point? You have people dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , I didn't lie. I said up to. You lied in saying it was over years. When I proved you wrong you are now back pedaling. It shows you never actually read any resources on this issue.
1
@richardmancha1612 , I am actually not a libertarian. If you actually pick my brain on this issue you would know I am a moderate that actually supports a locally ran, public option. But hey, anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a libertarian to far leftists.
1
@richardmancha1612 "Like you literally asked me why employers don't pay people thousands of dollars more." Why not? Why don't that route, which is easier, as opposed to paying via healthcare insurance?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , considering how you feel a paper from the NEJM, a peer reviewed journal with an impact factor of over 70, is not reliable makes any argument from you irrelevant at this point Also, you literally made up a stat where I pointed to you where I get mine. So how can I trust anything you say? But again, you say peer reviewed journals are not reliable sources.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , you dismissed a paper from the NEJM, a peer reviewed journal with the highest impact factor. Your reasoning is poor. If their data was unreliable it would not have been published in a journal with such a high impact. And I did not lie, I said "up to". But again, you dismissed a paper from the NEJM.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , unlike you I don't say peer reviewed journals are unreliable but comedians are.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , how did I lie? You, however, lied about me.
1
@richardmancha1612 , I know why it would be more expensive. It is because of the payroll tax. The payroll tax led to employers paying with insurance as opposed to a higher wage. I rather be paid a higher wage and buy my own plan. Most don't have that option. Thus insurance companies get a lot of power.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , how am I morally bankrupt? You just argued against universal healthcare now in many comments. You can't even get your arguments straight. "You ignoring the fact that it's not "up to" 7000 Aussies dying a year while waiting for elective surgery, but around that number either dead or unable to be contacted" I said up to. Also, you originally said that 7000 was over like 10 years. So when I pointed the data out to you you back pedaled You literally made up data. "You choosing to ignore people's sources because they either are allegedly arbitrary, not peer-reviewed, or not agreeing with your fantasy beliefs, is not a lie. " No, I break down why I disagree. I don't make things up like you do. You are now crying because you are losing the argument. You tried to counter a NEJM article with a Daily Beast article. I also pointed out how anyone can write a letter to the editor in response to that paper, but the Daily Beast write did not. Why? Why not express their concerns with the authors?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , here is your problem. You don't know how research works, you don't know how the peer reviewed process works, you don't know how statistics works, you just post random sources as if they have actual value. By the way, I posted way more sources than you have and they are far more credible. You don't read any of my sources but instead get opinions from others. A great example is the "Being Mortal" source in that you had no clue what the author actually wrote. And you don't even read my comments, you assume I am a libertarian when, at one point, I gave an argument in favor of universal healthcare pointing to the Oregon Experiment where you have since then been trying to dismiss it. That is you arguing against universal healthcare.
1
@richardmancha1612 , it has everything to do with the payroll tax. Do you know what the payroll tax is?
1
@richardmancha1612 , it has a lot to do with employer benefits. The payroll tax is paid by both the employer and employee. If an employer pays a higher wage they will pay a higher tax. Loopholes are benefits such as stock options, a company car and healthcare insurance.
1
@richardmancha1612 , it is factual. Why would a company want to take on the headache of providing healthcare insurance, and thus interacting with another company, as opposed to just giving them a higher wage?
1
@richardmancha1612 , you don't have much experience. Many companies offer a company car as payment. Why? Because it is a tax free way to pay employees. Instead of paying a higher wage, where they will have to end up paying more in payroll taxes, they offer benefits.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , well your boy Carroll admitted that Medicare is bad. The WHO is a special interest group. Their ranking uses vague stats like life expectancy. The CWF is a private special interest group. Their ranking uses amenable mortality even though I gave you one study and one review explaining how using that as a metric is flawed. In their report, at one point, they gave an acronym but did not say what it met. That is very careless. The Kaiser Peterson organization is a private, special interest group. You claim that you won't accept data from a libertarian group by gladly accept it from these private special interest groups? It is not to say that their data does not hold value, it does. But they are leaving a lot of things out. As I mentioned with the CWF, they ignore arguments against amenable mortality. And they admit that the US is number 1 in cancer survival rates, but leave it out of their rankings, why? Also, I don't see anything that suggest the KFF says private insurance system is a failure. And again, how am I a libertarian? You keep claiming I am, so how am I? You are so far left that anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a libertarian to you. And yes, you lied about the numbers. You said over 9 years, but did not even provide the source. Notice how I am providing sources? On my point I said "up to". So you are lying about what I said. I know reading must be difficult for you as when I posted the Oregon Study arguing in favor of universal healthcare you even dismissed that, but when I said "up to" that means no more than 7000. It can be less and I am willing to admit that. But again, your boy Carroll formed an argument against Medicare. And you seem to be against universal healthcare as well based on your arguments. You keep pointing to private organizations while I look at independent experts.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , who said anything about lobbying? They are special interest groups as they are not scrutinized by anyone before they release data. They present data in a very misleading way and people take what they say as full truth. The WHO is connected with the UN, the same UN who proposed NATO that no other nation follows besides the US. The same UN that proposed the Paris Agreement that no one is following. So I am supposed to trust the WHO? The CWF is a private organization whose founder is open about supporting a government run healthcare system. Of course they will manipulate the data. They both presented healthcare rankings. Notice how no academic source has ever published a ranking of healthcare systems? Because the academic community will dismiss it as they are all arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and come up with any ranking they want. Also, there are variables that you can't quantify that you will have to take into account, such as culture. That is why only special interest groups make rankings. So it isn't about lobbying but about presenting misleading data to a very ignorant public. One example of looking at the stats differently is your boy Carroll. Why did he look at life expectancy after the age of 65? Why not after 55? Or after 45? Why not consider percent of people who die in a hospital vs at home and compare those life expectancy? Also, what you are saying about Carroll makes no sense. The data he presented had times when democrats were in control. Medicare has been around for nearly 60 years, many times democrats were in control. So the whole "blame republicans" argument is shallow. Next, he is saying Medicare right now is awful but he wants too expand it to all citizens? How will that make it better? Overall, what this shows is what I say about far leftists all the time. They are like the partner in an abused relationship. When they are abused they feel that marrying them will stop the abuse. It doesn't. So they go farther and have a kid, the abuse still happens. So they decide to have another kid and so on. Far leftists complain that the federal government is corrupt and you are now saying that Carroll thinks Medicare is bad. But now your solution is to expand the federal government? That makes zero sense logically. And you can blame republicans all you want, they will always exist and be in congress. There will be times they will be in control. You want them in control of medicare when you claim they are they reason why it fails? Are you in an abusive relationship? There are places to receive help. But I am confused on your logic. Medicare, right now, is bad according to Carroll, but you feel we should expand it to cover all?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , I did make a valid argument against your sources. You see, I cite sources mainly from academic which are held to a higher level than private, special interest groups. Someone like Scott Atlas publishes what would be considered bad that will harm him in the future in trying to publish peer reviewed papers. The CWF does not have that scrutiny as they just publish on their own site. They are guilty of favoring a universal healthcare system by presenting cherry picked data like amenable mortality despite a peer reviewed paper and a literature review explaining how amenable mortality can't be used to determine healthcare system effectiveness. Despite me presenting those articles to you you dismissed them. If they really want to be honest about healthcare they will present all the arguments. They don't. They have an agenda. But again, I am the one citing graduate level books and peer reviewed papers, you are citing blogs, special interest groups and comedians. I just told you about a case study we had to read in my international business course about price negotiation in healthcare, mainly drug prices. Yes, other nations do it but they have much less R&D than us. Also, the US, along with our R&D, also helps pay for developing nations access to drugs. So yes, we spend a lot in the US, but we offer a lot not just in our nation but also globally. Is that what you want? Do you want developing nations to suffer? Do you want less R&D in medication? I get it, you are arguing against someone with way more ammo than you and way more knowledge. You come with predictable sources and I keep coming back with detailed rebuttals with strong sources. It makes you angry. And you have to actual rebuttal in what I offer. For example, on the CWF and amenable mortality, you have not addressed that at all.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , and you are resorting to name calling by calling me a moron and idiot. And again, how am I a libertarian?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , the NEJM is peer reviewed, the CWF isn't. I said that about that standard. To publish in the NEJM you have to submit work there and have it peer reviewed and approved. The CWF just has their workers write material and post it on their site. There lies the difference. It isn't the people from the NEJM writing the work and posting it but people who are not associated with the journal at all. There lies the difference. But again, you feel academic sources are unreliable. Ironic coming from a Bernie fan who supports "tuition free" college. You do know that I get a lot of my information and thoughts by being a graduate student in college? Makes you rethink tuition free college does it?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 "Whether nations have more or less R&D, or how much the US spends on medical innovation, is irrelevent to the conversation." It isn't. I know you deny evolution but diseases evolve all the time, new medication is needed. And not everyone reacts the same to a medication. That is why, for example, we have many different forms of SSRIs. "The fact that we spend more in general while providing less services to Americans" We don't provide less as I explained many times. We have higher access to advanced care where other nations cap how much care one receives. Same with drugs. Other nations like Germany won't pay for a more expensive drug. They will pay a portion, but not the whole thing. We just discussed this in my MBA course ( I know, academics so you will dismiss this". "Offering more doesn't mean squat if people can't afford" Reality is most can, and that is why healthcare reform is so challenging. Most can afford it. "which leads to serious injury or death. " Such as people dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery? Or again, I will point you to the study entitled "A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006" Where they say "Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers " And the study "Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence" Where they say "It is often observed that elective wait times are low in the USA, one of the few countries where the majority of care has been financed by non-universal private insurance" Longer wait times lead to serious injuries. "Your line of thinking on health expenditure compared to other countries is literally meaningless when those countries don't have any statistics on how many people die annually because they can't afford getting care, yet we do" Really? You pointed to amenable mortality yourself. So they do have stats. I simply pointed out that obtaining accurate numbers on that data is difficult. So what is it, do they have data or now? You are moving the goal posts.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , they publish other people's work in their journal. It isn't the staff of the NEJM writing the reports and publishing them with no outside arbiter deciding if the work is of high quality. Do you even know how the peer reviewed process works? Let us start there. I am highly educated and look how I turned out. Many people are like me in college, especially in the field of business. I should be, according to you, an argument to deter people away from college. Also, it isn't as easy as saying "cut here and spend here" as prices will go up due to increase in demand. Plus, college is an investment you make as an adult. I realized that which is why I have so much success in college. That is why I am able to quickly pull out academic sources where you can't.
1
Which is one reason why these programs cost so much. People have the attitude of "it isn't my money". Thus they don't value it as much.
1
Because it is a complex issue.
1
So people rather listen to a "comedian" as opposed to experts on this issue? That is what is sad. I watched the clip, he was very vague.
1
C W , and experts disagree. As for saving money, the ones who say it will save money ignore quality and access.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , he brought up a few sources and only a handful of individual stories. He was not detailed. For example, he said people have to wait for "elective" care like a knee surgery. However, other forms of "elective" care are certain forms of heart and neurosurgery. And as pointed out in the study "A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006" They write "Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers " But Oliver does not point those issues out.
1
C W , I already counter the Rand Paul bit. He paid out of pocket because Canada's system was so bad they had to allow for private options to rise up.
1
Simon Farre " but studies show the waiting lines in the US is on par with countries like the UK anyway." It depends. If you remove our version of universal healthcare, which are ER visits by people with no insurance, wait times are very low in the US. As for the NHS, people are going blind because they are being denied cataract eye surgery.
1
C W , and Rand paid for his own care out of pocket. Again, if socialized medicine is so great why did private options have to rise up?
1
C W , he still paid out of pocket.
1
Simon Farre , I live in the US and I don't experience any problems. So what's your point? Someone I know just received heart surgery where in Nordic nations and Canada it would have been considered elective and he would have had to wait. He received the care quickly and it was affordable. As for wait times, again, remove the ER portion of US and our wait times are much lower. And yes, people are being denied cataract surgery in the UK. Other nations cap how much care one receives. That is how they keep prices low.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , the Commonwealth Fund is a private institution with a motive. Do you know how they developed their rankings? I doubt it. I do because I actually read the report. They admitted the US is number 1 in cancer survival rates but leave it out in their ranking. But again, I doubt you ever read the report. They used amenable mortality in their ranking where they are admitting that people die in every system due to lack of access. However, amenable as an indicator of healthcare system has been challenge. Read the following report "Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study" and "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review." But go ahead and cite a source from private institution with a motive, and a report that I know you did not read.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , private and non partisan? Really? Besides, I proved to you that I actually read the report and gave two studies to counter it. You apparently never read it.
1
Simon Farre , please link them.
1
Simon Farre , being blunt, your articles are predictable. I argue this issue so well because I read all types of articles from both sides. You did what Oliver did and what people on the far left do a lot. You take articles that makes the US system look awful without going deeper on the data. You are also ignoring the reality that a M4A system, like all universal healthcare systems, will have flaws. Oliver picked individual stories which anyone can do. For example, in 2013 a UK girl named Natasha saw 13 doctors complaining about headaches. They simply said it was migraines. She was finally offered an MRI but had to wait months. The MRI found a tumor that, if caught sooner, would have been removed. She died. Why did that happen? Because in a universal healthcare system like the NHS, that does spend less, they cap how much care you receive. In the US they throw everything at you. There are arguments for and against that. Statistically yes, chances are that all she had was a migraine. But the old saying is "better be safe than sorry". So it becomes difficult to decide. You see this in universal healthcare often, advanced treatment being denied. That is why people die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery as point out in these two studies "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 Or why up to 7000 die a year in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. Or, as pointed out in the study entitled "A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006" Waiting a long time for "elective" care can lead to worse outcomes and bad results. You see, here is the issue. I will go with your 45,000 stat and go deeper. That number has been challenged many times. To start, compared to other systems is that high, low or the norm? You can't say as no similar study has been done in other systems. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces, getting the exact numbers is difficult because the numbers are low to begin with. 45,000 is around 0.01% of the total population. Numbers that small are highly sensitive to to many variables. That is why Prof. Kronick in his study entitled "Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited" Wrote "It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analyses, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States." As prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As written in the book "Being Mortal", required reading for nursing students in my university, people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if we give them care and they live 5 months and die, was that a success? And this comes down to the harsh reality of the situation. Our culture simply won't accept a universal healthcare system similar to what other nations have. Why? Because one, we won't accept the higher taxes, and two, we won't accept the limited access. In our society if one is very sick we keep them alive as long as possible. Is that the best route? One can argue either way. In my personal experience I just had a friend die of cancer. He was in bad shape his final month in a wheel chair, had a feeding tube and so on. Personally, why waste resources on him, just let him die. Or when my grandma was near the end, it added a lot of stress to the family. But they kept her alive even though he end was near. That is our culture. We try to keep the very sick alive. Other nations simply let them die and deny them advanced care. With them yes, they have no bankruptcies, yes, people have access to some form of basic care. And yes, a universal healthcare system can have benefits such as less stress as pointed out in the following study "The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes" Where she writes "This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain." So there are benefits to it, but there are drawbacks. I doubt our society will accept a system that limits access to advanced care and simply let the very sick die early.
1
Simon Farre , with all that said I doubt you read what I wrote. But bottom line it is this, our culture won't accept a system that 1. taxes us more 2. limits access to care 3. simply lets the very sick die early There are arguments for and against a universal healthcare system. In many ways I see benefits of a universal healthcare system. I encourage you, though, to look at the draw backs such as limited access to advanced care, and lower survival rates of advanced illnesses. However, one can argue if we should be pushing to keep the very sick alive. As in that book "Being Mortal" mentioned, statistically they have a low chance of living. So one can argue why spend the resources? This is why the far left is so poor at arguing for a M4A system. They refuse to look at the objective reality. They look at it purely subjectively when you really need to look at the stats and consider if it is worth is, and if our culture will accept it. The far left feel that a M4A system will save lives when in reality it just leads to different, and still difficult decisions involving people's lives.
1
Simon Farre , all Oliver did was present individual stories. And it isn't mistreatment, it is how the system is ran. Universal healthcare systems do spend less, because they offer less. TYT had a guest from Australia years back talking about that. He said in using the US healthcare system they threw every test at him. In Australia they don't do that because the government won't pay for it. You see it also in other nations. I just wrote up on a case study on drug pricing across the world. In Germany they cap how much they are willing to spend on drugs, the individual has to make up the difference. "But the US system is the ONLY western system on this planet that massively kills people" That is not true, and I gave you many studies showing that. You claimed that all i have are anecdotes. You posted many links and expected me to read the. I have, and i went into a deep discussion posting studies myself, and this is the response I get? Really?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 "7000 Australians don't die a year while waiting for elective surgery. The report shows that they either died or couldn't be contacted." Again, I said "up to". As with any stat there are many variables to them. Now why don't you apply the same standard when talking about the US healthcare system? And you call me an economic illiterate? "There has been no such challenge on the number of people dying in the US due to the inability to afford (not access) healthcare. The Oregon Experiment is not a valid source due to it's lack of sample size and details." There has. Prof. Katherine Baicker challenged it. Prof. Kronick did his own study. As for the Oregon Experiment, it is published in the NEJM. That journal has the highest impact factor of any peer reviewed journal. Do you even know how the peer reviewed process works or what "impact factors" means? I see nothing to suggest that Atul Gawande supports M4A. Even is so, what makes their argument moot? "There would be less of a demand for advanced care if we had a system that made it afforable to get basic stuff like preventative care." The Oregon Experiment paper suggests that is not true as even with access to healthcare their physical health was still poor. But hey, you feel a journal with an impact factor over 70 is not reliable. For comparison, Nature and Science are two very prestigious journals to publish in, they both have an impact factor of around 40. This shows you don't know what peer reviewed journals are. John Oliver presented a few sources, but mainly individual stories. Again, I suggest you listen to experts, not comedians. But again, you feel that NEJM is not a reliable source despite its high impact.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 " but the idiot who thinks no one ever died in an Amazon warehouse " I never said that. But again, I get my information from experts which you feel are not reliable. You get your information from a comedian. And you call me an "economic illiterate"? Really?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , again, I said "up to". And again, this shows how the stats are subjected to many variables. So why are you not applying the same standard to the US? Again, if the Oregon Experiment's data was lacking it would not be published in a journal with an impact factor of over 70. Also, who is saying that the Oregon Experiment sample size was too small? Please point that out. You saying it is does not make it true. Notice how I am the one who always provides evidence? "He has stated that employer-based health insurance is an utter failure to the entirety of our failing healthcare system, and his book concludes that no doctor should ever give up on end-of-life care for patients whereas you have made previous arguments that sum up to "dying patients are a waste of money."" I agree the employer based health insurance is a failure and I oppose it myself. It doesn't mean he supports M4A. Also, I never said dying patients are a waste of money. I said one can argue it but our society does not see it so. How did I deny the deaths in Amazon? And you have yet to outline how Amazon's working conditions are bad. Bad compared to what? And how will you improve it? You have no argument at this point. You dismissed a peer reviewed paper claiming that it had a small sample size but provided no sources saying that. And the NEJM though it was enough to publish. But you don't agree with peer reviewed journals, you rather listen to comedians for your information. I rather listen to experts.
1
@captlanc he isn't funny nor is he an expert
1
@captlanc there is a huge debate that it will save money. Those that say it does assumes the typical medicare payments which is 40 percent less. With that quality and access will drop.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , uh, it is subjected to many variables. That is how statistics work. Many factors influence the numbers. "Just because NEJM has a high impact factor does not mean that every source they publish is entirely effective" Sure, but the chances are very high. And you can't counter a peer reviewed study in a journal of that high of an impact with a non peer reviewed source like the Daily Beast. But unlike you I read other sources and break them down. I don't have others think for me. They say "About 35,000 people won the lottery, and thus had the right to submit an application, but only about 60% of these lottery winners actually sent the application back. This ought to tell any common sense person a lot about the revealed preference for how much the uninsured value the coverage on offer." It is so much a preference or lack of responsibility? People in poverty are typically poor for a reason, lack of responsibility. But they ignore that. Besides, the amount who submitted an application is irrelevant. They say "the winner acted irrationally about long-term benefits versus immediate inconvenience. " Which suggests irresponsibility on that part of the poor which is connected to their bad health and bad life style. "This would mean that you couldn’t just compare the people who won the lottery and submitted the forms to those who lost the lottery. We don’t know who among the lottery losers would have been the ones to submit the application if they had won, so we would have to compare those who got the coverage only to the prudent losers of the lottery." You can, and this is where the author of this non peer reviewed article is wrong. You can make that comparison. The point was to see how people who get insurance through medicaid compared to those who don't. On the numbers they are way off. They say "As an illustrative example, a reduction of 0.0001 in the probability of death over a ten-year horizon multiplied by 50 million uninsured people means giving 5,000 human beings a chunk of their lives back. I’d call that morally significant. " And I will say that depending on the context it is not. For example, 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. We can make that zero by capping speed limits to 15 mph. But now travel time is greatly increased. So you can't just say "5000 is morally significant" with no other context. What does that 5000 come at a cost of? Reading the rest of the report the only statistically insignificant part was the part on smoking. Did you actually read the article? I doubt it. "To simply question the idea of how far doctors should go for their dying patients is unacceptable regardless of the cost, and that's exactly what Gawande is saying unlike you who merely cherry picks part of his parts of his book to create a bs narrative of how we should limit end-of-life care. " He doesn't say that because you did not read his book. There is a lot more to it such as who should be making decisions on people's health near the end? Doctors, family members, the individual? He concluded that it is a challenging topic but talking about it is a great start. Just like the Daily Beast article you told me to read you did not read that book. You are making this way too easy for me. " but if they're gonna to such lengths like presenting sources from experts and case study groups for people to explore for themselves, then there's nothing wrong with giving them a moment of my time." Then read them. And counter with something that is not from a Daily Beast source. You can't counter a peer reviewed study with a blog. That is not how it works in academics. The NEJM is such a high impact and relevant to the field people can respond to the editor expressing their concerns about it. So why didn't Megan do that? It allows the authors to respond and have actual discussions? This also shows you did not read the NEJM study nor how it functions.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , uh, amenable mortality. I suggest you read the article entitled "Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study" Where they say "Given these gaps in knowledge, between-country differences in levels of mortality from amenable conditions should not be used for routine surveillance of healthcare performance. The timing and pace of mortality decline from amenable conditions may provide better indicators of healthcare performance." And the study entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review." Where they say "At this stage, it is premature to use amenable mortality in ONS's healthcare output calculations. We welcome comments from those interested in this field, and suggestions to improve understanding in this area" I also find it ironic how you are now bringing that up when I was the one who mentioned amenable mortality from the very beginning. Another sign you have no clue what you are talking about. I know your secret now. I bring up legit sources and you dig to find someone else's argument against them. You don't actually read them and think for yourself where I do. Also, the Peterson study is not peer reviewed and uses raw data, my studies are. "For the record, the idiotic libertarian always assumes that quality and cost automatically go hand in hand in the sense that high quality requires high cost and vice-versa. However, Peter Hussey, Samuel Wertheimer, and Ateev Mehrotra came to the conclusion that merely increasing cost of healthcare does not automatically improve quality," It is basic economics that better goods and services cost more. And I agree, spending more does not necessarily mean better quality in a system. If money is spent poorly it doesn't matter. You see that often in government. For example, the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 led to more federal spending and lower quality. However, in the private sector if you don't spend well you go broke. But again, I am citing peer reviewed sources, you are citing the Daily Beast.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , I also like how now you are using amenable mortality after I brought it up. Again, you never heard of it before until I told you. And you claim you want to have an academic like discussion but instead cite the daily beast to try to counter a peer reviewed study? You are weak.
1
@captlanc , no, there is a debate. Studies vary with numbers. The ones who say it will be less factor in the fact that Medicare pays 40% less than private insurance. When you pay providers 40% less they will cut quality and access.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , again, the NEJM allows for people to respond to the articles. Why didn't they? And peer reviewed is the standard bud. Anyone can write a blog. "Literally, the article goes to show that the Oregon Experiment was pointless from the very start because of it's limited scope and data" Actually it doesn't. And if the study is pointless, why not write to the editor? Because it would be shot down. Much easier to write an article in the Daily Beast as opposed to taking on the actual authors. I gave you a counter point on amenable mortality. But you will ignore that. The Peterson-Kaiser data is not peer reviewed either. It was placed in the Commonwealth Fund, a private institution that advocates for universal healthcare. "So it does well in cancer--big fucking woop--yet still does worse in the majority of statistics presented. " Not true. But again, you don't know how research actually works. You look at raw data as if it means anything. You can't even think for yourself. You have never heard of amenable mortality until I brought it up. You never heard of the Oregon study until I brought it up. What is funny is that I brought it up in defense of universal healthcare which shows you do not even read my comments. I literally caught you being a fraud.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , it is funny. The Oregon study I presented was me making an argument for universal healthcare and you are trying to dismiss it. You are a fraud, or you admit that universal healthcare is terrible.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 the NEJM is not a special interest group as they're peer reviewed. The KFF does not say, from what i see, says private insurance is a failure.
1
@captlanc , so the federal government will bargain how?
1
@captlanc and how will they do that?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 again it isn't about lobbying but about presenting data in a deceptive way. As for negotiating prices healthcare providers respond by offering less. That is the reality. In fact I just had to read a case study about that in one of my MBA courses. But you rather trust the CWF as opposed to something from a graduate level textbook
1
@ugeofaltron5003 it is clear I know more when I get my info from peer reviewed papers and graduate level books. You get your info from comedians, special interest groups and blogs
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , yes it does. When you present data in a deceptive way that is you pushing propaganda to suit your interests. Your definition comes from you just googling it and taking the first one you see. Wikipedia says "A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community within a larger organization with a shared interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within their particular field" If you read in Britannica they talk about how the narrow definition of lobbying is flawed as them saying "Another reason to opt for a broad definition is that in all societies there are many informal groups that are, in effect, interest groups but would not be covered by the narrower definition. For example, in all political systems there are influential groups of political and professional elites that may not be recognized as formal groups but are nonetheless crucial in informally influencing public policy" See the part about "informally influencing". That is done through misinformation. You don't have to lobby to persuade. Spreading misinformation works as well. But again, you are the one who feels academic sources are unreliable. You rather trust a blog.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , it isn't arbitrary. When a group pushes deceptive data you don't find that to be a problem? I know Wikipedia is not a source, but Britannica is. But as with a lot of my other sources go ahead and ignore that.
1