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

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Medicare For All Saves $5.1 TRILLION | New Study" video.

Nice strawman.
6
Questionable study. When they say "decent universal healthcare" that is a vague statement. What is "decent"? On transitioning for new jobs they say "fair levels of support". What is "fair"? Right away I see this "study" as highly deceptive. Also, the study was not published in a peer reviewed source. Now would you expect Kyle to mention any of this? No. I doubt he even read the study.
3
Rather poor study, leaves a lot of factors out.
3
It is almost impossible to determine the actual cost. All of these "studies" leave out a lot of information. One reason why our healthcare costs are high and our outcomes are low is because of our poor diet. We have the highest obesity rates for OECD nations. That study does not mention that once. So they are leaving out that portion of our healthcare issue.
3
I read part of the study and they leave a lot out. For example, they say "decent healthcare", what is decent? They point to the 45,000 deaths claim but did not cite Katherine Baicker's famous Oregon study from the NEJM. They talk about healthcare outcomes but did not mention obesity rates once. They are leaving a lot out. But would Kyle mention any of that? Nope.
2
@OO-il6sl , if you are talking about the Mercatus study they admitted that the number they produces was on the low end and that chances are it would cost much more. This "study" left a lot of factors out making it, at the very least, flawed.
2
@andreshernandez3107 , not true. In the open market if someone refuses to give care a competitor will come in and provide it.
2
@linusmlgtips2123 , there will still be people spending on private just like people use private education.
2
@rynegreen7902 , actually I want the insurance companies to have less power. A free market will fix that. Government gave them a lot of power to begin with.
2
@franciscoestrada5995 , police are roads are locally ran and funded. Not a valid comparison.
2
@rogersmith996 , healthcare is 16% of GDP. Defense is 4% of GDP.
2
@franciscoestrada5995 , look what happened to mental health after the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 was passed.
2
@franciscoestrada5995 , the law enforcement at the federal level do not enforce state laws. They enforce federal laws which is usually immigration laws or commerce laws. The size of infrastructure is the issue as the size of government is the issue. This is far more complex than you are making it out to be.
2
@franciscoestrada5995 , it isn't so much privatizing. There is a desire to have government and government spending and government involved in issues. The question is how much? Also, you need to be able to control government. You control government in two ways. 1. Place strict limitations on it 2. Keep it as local as possible. Keeping government local ensures that people can see if they are getting their money's worth and if government working for them. If not they can change it. How government should function is mainly placed at the hands of the people, same with the market. In some areas they don't have a local police force or stop signs. In some places 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. In some places the person who clears the roads are a local volunteer. It all depends. There is value in the free market and privatization. There is value in government. How much is complex.
2
@franciscoestrada5995 , it is about finding a median. There is value in government, but too much government is just as bad as no government. Problem is that many on the left wants to push for a centralized government but when those on the right question that they the left berates them or goes as far as saying "well you don't want any government". That is not true. The issue is far more complex than that.
2
The federal government messed up mental health in the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. Many who push Medicare for all refuse to do actual research on this issue and just resorts to talking points and attacks.
2
This is a hard issue to study as there are many factors at play, some that are hard to account for. I look at history and how the federal government typically does poorly at managing these issues.
1
@MrFly151 , you are increasing demand for healthcare thus you need to increase workers in the field. If not the quality will either go down or the cost will go up. Overall, this study leaves a lot out and makes a lot of assumptions leading to many red flags.
1
@thefreestofspeech6951 , many on the left feel the government has a magic wand and will just make everything better. They refuse to see the complexity of this issue. They live in a fantasy world.
1
@MrFly151 , spent years researching the variables but say phrases such as "decent universal healthcare" and leave out factors such as obesity rates. I read parts of the study and I find too many red flags. Just because they spent years studying it does not mean it is valid. You are pulling a logical fallacy there.
1
@MrFly151 , also, you can't just make hospitals. Someone has to be willing to make it. That also requires contracting, determining price of steel and concrete which is hard to predict, and then you have to staff it. It isn't that easy and very hard to predict the cost.
1
@jojoboko6990 , when they mention healthcare quality and outcomes. Obesity rates influence outcomes.
1
@BillyBowlster , many have written books on the healthcare issue. I suggest you read them.
1
People who say this will save money are living in a fantasy world. Increasing demand without increasing supply will not save money unless the quality drops. When you read this study they say "decent healthcare". What's "decent"? They don't describe.
1
@oneman5753 , removing the profit motive removes innovation and progress. Why work in a system if you can't profit in it? I read the study and saw several red flags.
1
@carsongoeglein8892 , I read the study. I don't deny it, I see too many red flags. Have you read the study or just headlines?
1
Figgy G , not true. Most innovation is done at the private sector. And I agree, economics cannot be boiled down to supply and demand, just like you can't just scream Medicare for all and expect it to fix all of our healthcare problems.
1
@carsongoeglein8892 , the read flags make sense. When they did not cite Katherine Baicker's Oregon study that was published in the NEJM, or say phrases such as "decent universal healthcare" which is vague, and don't factor in obesity rates for quality, they are leaving out a lot of factors. Just quickly glancing at this shows how many red flags there are that you have to be very careful with this study.
1
@jojoboko6990 , more than most people are willing like Kyle.
1
@torchlord11 , that is not true. You cannot say that they have better health outcomes because there are indications they are not doing better. Also, a lot of health outcomes is the result of culture and lifestyle choices as opposed to healthcare systems. You can't simplify this issue that much.
1
@torchlord11 , most medical research is private. I work in research so I would know. I was funded by an NIH grant. As for Bush cutting funding, that is not true. Under Bush funding for scientific research went up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk
1
@MrSlutzkin , it does not define "decent". That is vague. Will I be limited on what days I can used Medicare for all? Will I be able to pick my own doctor? Will I receive advanced care if I desire? It does not get into details. Define "older worker". How much is the pension? Retraining? I don't consider that to be "fair". Why should we force people to retrain for a new job? How would you feel if you were in your 40s, with kids, a spouse, hobbies, etc. and you were being forced to completely change your career and possibly have to move? Is that factored in? And no. PERI is not a peer reviewed source. I have read the study. I am just smart enough not to fall into the trap of feel good words.
1
@MrSlutzkin , people under medicare now still have to pay a co-pay. Also, Medicare took 40 years to cover prescription benefits. Do you really want something like that for your healthcare coverage? Is that "decent" to you? A lot of doctors don't take Medicare. Also, you will be changing the system drastically by placing everyone on it. It isn't as easy as saying "it will be the same for everyone as it is for those over 65". A lot of our healthcare costs comes from the fact that many people subsidize healthcare since Medicare pays out a 40% lower rate. Peer reviewed is important as it means it was scrutinized.
1
@MrSlutzkin , so you think that a system that takes so long to progress is good to you? I am asking a lot of questions because the issue is complex. You expect people to just easily be retrained? And even after that they will probably have to move due to the job market changing. Is that mentioned? Do you understand what peer reviewed means? When you submit to a journal for publications it gets sent to reviewers. They make comments and decide if it should be published or not. You don't know who these reviewers (but you can typically guess when you are in the field long enough). The link you sent me shows nothing about it going through a proper peer reviewed process.
1
@MrSlutzkin , let me ask you. Say you had a job, a family, was in your 40s and working towards paying off a home and enjoyed where you lived and work. Now say the government comes in, takes away your job, but retrains you to where you have to take time to learn a new skill you might not enjoy and have to move. Would you feel that is right?
1
@BillyBowlster , I want high quality healthcare for all.
1
@MrSlutzkin , I read the report. It starts on 108 and ends around 121 where they say "fair levels of support" on page 120. They don't get into details on the issues. They just assume people will be willing to be retrained and move. They assumed it would cost $10,000 a person to be relocated, a number they give no sources in how they came up with it. In that study they ignore the human element of the issue. They assume people will have no problem quitting a job they enjoy and moving from a place they live at. They don't factor in how situations such as how divorce rates are higher for the unemployed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12179707 Now a lot of that is due to income, intelligence and responsibilities. But there is a factor of when people don't get time away from each other they get annoyed and end up getting divorce. Same in how retirement increases the chance of divorce https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlaura/2013/01/24/can-your-marriage-survive-retirement/#66103f877d63 "These days it’s common to see couples divorcing later in life, particularly during retirement. “Jobs can mask the quality of your relationship since you spend 10-12 hours away from each other, but now you’re faced with each other full time and you may find your interests aren’t as compatible as they once were,” says Pascale" Factors like that are ignored. This is a major problem with the left when it comes to this issue, the completely ignored the human element of it. Also, they are ignoring the inflation impact of their program. They will be giving money to people who produce nothing. That causes inflation. When you give money away you devalue the dollar which causes prices to go up. And if inflation does go up are they going to factor that in for the "wage guarantee"? If wages go up 3 or 4 percent throughout the year, are they going to raise wages for those displaced workers? As for being peer reviewed, hand picking your reviewers is not sufficient. If I wrote a paper and asked my lab mate to review it that is not peer reviewed. But tell me, how does that study factor in the issues I brought up?
1
@MrSlutzkin , also, they don't factor in consumer changes when you raise taxes or change people's jobs. That will influence the economy.
1
@AdamSmith-gs2dv , Henry thinks the federal government controls the money supply which is not true. The Federal Reserve does. He supports MMT which is a joke.
1
@henrygustav7948 -does not understand economics nor the Federal Reserve.
1
@henrygustav7948 , several such as obesity rates influencing outcomes, Katherine Baicker's Oregon study published in the NEJM, how will they handle the psychological component of people losing their jobs and having to switch to another one, the economics of raising taxes. Way too much is left out of this study. The Federal Reserve acts on its own. Please study it sometime.
1
@thehumanity0 , if you make healthcare a right you are going to enslave doctors. His point on healthcare is that you need to treat it as a commodity. Watch the following video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SznOanekygY&t=218s
1
@thehumanity0 , how about you criticize what he says as opposed to mocking it.
1
@andreshernandez3107 , how is it stupid? Saying it is stupid is not an argument.
1
@andreshernandez3107 , if you make healthcare a right you will be enslaving doctors. Compare it to jury duty. If you are called for jury duty and refuse than you are arrested.
1
@OfficialSeth , medicare is not a right, that is the point. If you make healthcare a right you enslave doctors.
1
@andreshernandez3107 , you don't have a right to cops and fire fighters. Construction workers are contracted by the government, they don't have to work for them. In military we have the draft. You don't have a right to garbage men where in many places they are private. You don't have a right to postal workers. You see the point there? you don't have a right to any of those services.
1
@jojoboko6990 , yes you do, same with jury duty. You have a right to a trial by jury. If someone refuses jury duty the can go to jail.
1
@jojoboko6990 , you correct, you do.
1
@Adrian Nelson , that is not true. Read the case of Warren v District of Columbia. As for fire fighters, 70% of them are volunteer and some places are private. So you don't have a right to fire fighters. Please read up on law.
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , you don't have a right to fire fighters, that is the point. 70% of them are volunteer and they don't have to serve you. As for soldiers if you sign up for the military you have to serve a certain amount of time. And if things get extreme we have selective service where the government can force you to serve.
1
@soup8786 , we are talking about making healthcare a right. If you make healthcare a right than yes, you are going to enslave doctors. If you make healthcare a service that the government pays for than that is a different issue. That is the difference between making healthcare a right or not.
1
@chadsimmons4496 , you should read my comments. If you make healthcare a right then yes, you will enslave doctors. Just like with a right to a jury if you refuse jury duty you go to jail.
1
@chadsimmons4496 , the fire department does not have to serve you. In some places it is private and up to 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. You leftists need to come up with better arguments, you make this way too easy for me.
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , they don't have to put it out. Also, 70% of fire fighters are volunteer and some places have private fire departments.
1
@soup8786 , if you make healthcare a right you have to force doctors to serve you. No different than we force people to do jury duty because people have a right to a jury.
1
@chadsimmons4496 , if you call single payer healthcare tax paid services then yes, doctors WILL NOT be enslaved. That is the difference. In your case it is a service, others are calling it a right so I am arguing to them that if you make healthcare a right you are enslaving doctors. Healthcare is much more difficult than you are making it out to be.
1
@jojoboko6990 , if you make healthcare a right they will go to prison just like if someone refuses to do jury duty.
1
@soup8786 , if you make healthcare a right and they refuse to work then they will go to jail. Just like if someone refuses to do jury duty.
1
@chadsimmons4496 , you are saying single payer. I am arguing the point of making healthcare a right. If you define healthcare as a right than the government will force doctors to serve people. No different than how people have a right to a jury thus we force people to do jury duty. I noticed how no one has argued against that.
1
@chadsimmons4496 , no one has argued against the jury duty point. They keep saying that doctors will not be enslaved. My point is that if you make healthcare a right the government will force doctors to work just like they force people to do jury duty. The government also forces people to sign up for selective service and can do the draft if they do desire.
1
@jojoboko6990 , you are forced to do jury duty. I don't see how it is a civic duty if I am forced to do it. If you refuse to do jury duty you will be arrested, period. You have not countered that point. The same will be with if you make healthcare a right. Other universal nations don't define healthcare as a right. If they do than their legal definition of a right is different so you really can't compare.
1
@jojoboko6990 https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/29/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-us-only-major-country-doesnt-guaran/
1
@jojoboko6990 , obeying a law I have no control over? Fact is people have a right to a trial by jury. That is in the Constitution. If you refuse to do that than you go to jail. That is different than obeying a law I can vote or rally to change. Same with taxes. You are arrested if you refuse to do jury duty. The same would be if you make healthcare a right. You saying "no" is not a counter argument. According to you all did. The reality is that some do and some don't. The ones that do have no legal pressure to actually provide it either as they are basing it off of the UN's standard of rights. I am basing rights off of what the US has. People have a right to a jury. If you refuse to do jury duty you go to jail. If you make healthcare a right and a doctor refuses to serve they will go to jail. You have not provided a counter argument yet besides saying "no".
1
@jojoboko6990 , if you want to use that standard as a "civic duty" than it still does not change the fact that calling healthcare a right will enslave doctors just like people are forced to do jury duty. This is similar to the asinine "social contract". Just because it is a "civic duty" does not change what it is nor makes it right. It was the "civic duty" to allow slavery to happen. Is that right? It is a "civic duty" to pay taxes to fund wars, is that right? A public attorney has to be offered. If not than the courts involved will be punished in some ways or the case will be changed. A similar situation happened in Gideon v Wainwright were many people were released from prison. It was illegal for the court to deny representation so the decision that court made was overturned. "Do you even have an example of doctors being slaves and being thrown into prison in other universal healthcare countries where yes in their constitution healthcare is a right." You didn't say all, but the point is that the legal term "right" is different than what is in the US. If other nations have it than their legal definition of a "right" is different. Just like in South Africa people have a right to a home, but there are still homeless people there.
1
@jojoboko6990 , what countries have healthcare as a right in their constitution? Can you list them and list where it is a "right"?
1
@soup8786 , if you want to have a serious discussion on this complex issue you can't use buzzwords. Healthcare is complex and should be discussed beyond buzzwords. If that is all you have than I cannot take your argument seriously. I just wrote a comment to someone who did not understand the free market. They felt that Obamacare was the free market solution to healthcare, such as having government force me to buy a product is the free market.
1
@soup8786 , I can easily argue how Medicare for all will not be any better than what we have now and a for profit system will be better.
1
@CutThroatJuggalo , read my comments. It is about defining healthcare as a right.
1
I thought leftists were educated? Have you actually read the study? I doubt it.
1
@jojoboko6990 , I have read part of it. When they used phrases such as "decent universal healthcare" and failed to factor in our obesity rate in our outcomes I see the study to be highly flawed.
1
@jojoboko6990 , they also didn't reference Katherine Baicker's Oregon study that was published in NEJM.
1
@jojoboko6990 , I glanced at parts hear and there. I see many flaws. Does this study have value? Yes. But once again, this issue is very complex. The fact that they leave certain variables out is a huge red flag. One part they talk about transitioning jobs for people where they will offer "fair levels of support". Define "fair". That is vague. Seems like this was made by a bunch of people with an agenda.
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , because it is vague. I can very easily say "I support a free market healthcare system because it provides decent healthcare to all and offers people fair opportunity." Now argue against that.
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , wrong. Free market healthcare will provide decent healthcare for all. Now argue against that.
1
@lextacy2008 , healthcare is a commodity as someone has to provide it.
1
@jojoboko6990 , my point was that saying "decent universal healthcare" is vague and a poor state. I can keep repeating that the free market will provide "decent healthcare to all" just like that study says "decent universal healthcare". I don't define with is "decent" so I will not be wrong in a sense. That is my point. Every system has shortcomings will people are not covered.
1
@admiral7599 , your argument is poor. Saying no system exists is like saying we have no cure for HIV so none will never exist. We have seen the free market succeed in all aspect of the market. Plus, LASIK is free market and over time it has become cheaper and better.
1
@admiral7599 , no healthcare system provides healthcare to all, resources are limited. And there are arguments against the European model. To simply point to them and say "see, they do it so can we" is a bad argument. You are ignoring many variables, mainly culture. You can't compare the US to nations like Finland where we have states with more people than them. Competition does a lot. The only reason why a rival takes time to develop is because of government regulations they can't afford.
1
@lextacy2008 , no, you get paid for by the government. Also, you don't have a right to police services. Look up Warren v DC. You failed at understanding law.
1
@Richard Mancha , most goods and services in healthcare can be paid for out of pocket. Insurance should be insurance, which is for unplanned, expensive situations. The problem is this. Because of the payroll tax businesses pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage. Thus healthcare insurance is a form of payment and has become healthcare. Healthcare insurance covers most of healthcare related things, including situations that can be paid for out of pocket. So since the people can't force healthcare providers to compete, and they can't force healthcare insurance companies to compete as they don't have a say in who they get, the price goes up. Look at car insurance. Despite all 50 states requiring everyone to have it the cost is low. Why? Because car insurance pays for only unplanned, expensive situations. It does not pay for oil changes, tire rotations, etc. all things to keep the car running efficiently. If we had a free market in healthcare people will pay out of pocket for many goods and services which will drive down prices. Also, they will buy insurance they desire forcing companies to compete which will drive down prices there as well. You see that in the free market. Look at areas in the market where prices have gone up dramatically, College tuition and healthcare. Both are heavily subsidized by the federal government.
1
@admiral7599 , a monopoly occurs because of government. Government has created these regulations that gave insurance companies all this power. The lack of a free market is why insurance companies have as much power as they do. The private sector has always led to competition.
1
@Richard Mancha , the cost of healthcare has risen due to the lack of a free market. How has LASIK prices dropped for years? How has the prices of many goods and services in the market have dropped for years? How is car insurance and healthcare insurance a bad comparison? It appears to me you are very uneducated on this topic.
1
@Richard Mancha https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive Also, you are supporting price setting which does not work well in the market. Look at rent control and how that has led to worse rentals. But I guess at this point you will say you can't compare rent to drugs and call me "uneducated" with no justification.
1
@admiral7599 , companies and government have a strong relationship because the government has too much power to where it can be bought. Reduce the powers of government and it has nothing to sell. In a free market the powers of government are limited so cronyism is alleviate. You feel that lack of regulations causes corruption, that is not true. It is too much regulations. To give you an example related to taxes. In the recent tax bill being pushed many of my colleagues (who are grad students) did not like the idea how they were pushing to tax tuition waiver. I wanted that on the idea that it was income and should be taxes. That loopholes need to be eliminated. They didn't. So I countered with that if you are going to give government the power to offer loopholes to people, than you can't complain when loopholes are given to the rich. It goes both ways. My solution is simple. At the federal level you have a flat federal income tax and a consumption tax. That's it. No powers beyond that. Problem is that would mean removing tax write offs such as textbooks for students and school supplies for teachers. But if you are going to include those loopholes than you have to accept loopholes for the rich as you gave government that power. So take your pick. Do you want government to have this power to where it can be bought? Sure they may offer you a tax write off or healthcare, but understand they will be favoring the rich. Or do you want limited government that you can control that does not favor the rich? Take your pick.
1
@Richard Mancha , regulations is what creates monopolies as new companies cannot afford these regulations. The cost for the elderly was more because they have more issues. Read the book entitled "Being Mortal" where the author there discusses the issue of the elderly and how healthcare is complex is them. And how little is known for them causing many issues. Medicare is part of the reasons why healthcare costs are going up so much. Even at that medicare is inefficient. For example it took 40 years to cover prescription benefits. Pointing at the elderly is a huge outlier. Inflation is another complex issue. Yes, inflation is a part of economic growth as it generally occurs since people expect higher wages. But inflation does not always mean higher prices. There are many methods to measure inflation such as PCE, CPI, GDP deflator and Boskin Commission adjustment. In a growing economy goods and services typically become better and cheaper. The ACA was in the completely opposite of the free market solution. Do you understand what the free market is? Forcing businesses to offer healthcare insurance, and forcing people to buy it, and forcing healthcare insurance to provide it is the exact opposite of the free market solution? If you are going to criticize the free market you have to understand what it is first. You say there are more problems with my source but yet you don't even understand what the free market is.
1
@Richard Mancha , the market has a natural price control in what people are willing to pay for goods and services. Forcing price control simply leads to inefficiency in the market. For example, say the government placed a cap on your wage to where you can't earn more than $15/hr. Would you work any harder once you are earning $15/hr? No. The same goes for other aspects of the market. In rent control when someone cannot raise the rent they refuse to improve the living quarters.
1
@franciscoestrada5995 , there isn't a federal police. Also, federal infrastructure is a drop in the bucket in terms of cost and constitutional.
1
@25taylorkw , they have many shortcomings. It is debatable if they have high quality.
1
@25taylorkw , not true. Many factors influence overall life expectancy. To give a few of them. One, if you remove car accidents and murders from all nations the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Another is that the US is number 1 in obesity rates for OECD nations. That plays a role in people dying early. Another is that in the US we have a higher percentage of blacks living here. There is a higher rate of heart disease for blacks so that plays a role. You can't just push life expectancy and relate it directly to healthcare as other factors are at play.
1
@rogersmith996 , you can very easily find these numbers on Google.
1
@rogersmith996 , the 16% include all of healthcare spending. Plus, the numbers don't change that much. https://www.statista.com/statistics/184968/us-health-expenditure-as-percent-of-gdp-since-1960/ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US
1
@25taylorkw , how can you say it is the biggest factor? When you remove car accidents and murders the US shoots up to number 1. It seems like that stat is very sensitive to changes.
1
@jojoboko6990 , why? You just deny statistical analysis.
1
@rogersmith996 , huh? It has it around 3% of GDP.
1
@jojoboko6990 , we have been through this before, you just deny statistical analysis. You say it is super questionable but don't explain how. They list their methods for all to read, including you. What was wrong with their analysis?
1
@jojoboko6990 , you did so very poorly.
1
@mrjollyguy25 , did not provide enough funding because it ended up costing more than projected. That is the problem with federal programs, they end up costing more.
1