Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Shows US Doctors Canada's Single Payer Healthcare System" video.

  1. Random, Bernie Sanders is a propagandist as well. So what's your point? How is he more relevant then Crowder?
    3
  2. How do you know Bernie tells the truth?
    2
  3. I looked at the evidence as well and feel Bernie is acting like a politician.
    2
  4. Except he isn't telling the truth. He is very deceptive.
    2
  5. Andrew Ryan, you idea of capitalism is flawed. If people are going to be thrown out on the streets then businesses will not have any customers. In capitalism those few you talk about with a lot only get there by providing to others. Also, only a few have a lot because in reality they are the only ones who want to work that hard. Most people don't. Most people just want enough and then live life. How many people want to run a business as large as a corporation? With what Bernie Sanders wants, communism, the few that are successful are politicians who become rich with force.
    2
  6. Joshua, even if the government funds it the US still spends a lot in R&D which does drive up our prices.
    2
  7. That 40,000 number is deceptive. First off that is 0.01% of the overall population. To me I say "that's it?". But besides that, those individuals are poor and poor people have bad health to begin with due to personal choices. There is a higher rate of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with the poor. So the question becomes did they die due to lack of access or simply because they have poor health?
    2
  8. RandomGuy7092, unless you can come up with a way to make that number to be zero then you can't comment. How do you make that number zero? You can't as no country has been able to do it and we do not have the resources. It would be great to have that, and I want to push for that, but reality right now is we can't. Thus I put that number in perspective. 40,000 is 0.01% of the population, small. And also I told you the factors that can make it much less. In comparison 35,000 die on the roads in traffic accidents a year. Why don't we just ban driving to make that number to be zero?
    2
  9. "So there already is a easy way to make it zero, have a universal healthcare system like the rest of the modern world does" People still die because of lack of access to care. I gave you a peer reviewed paper about that.
    2
  10. Alex, you make cures to make money, profit. Also, diseases evolve, thus there is always a push in developing cures. I find it ironic how leftists call themselves the "party of science", but when it comes to healthcare they ignore evolution.
    2
  11. Sharper68, why haven't you replied back to my comment after I called you out for being factually incorrect?
    2
  12. Kyle is too scared to debate him.
    2
  13. ZTK, you are correct. There are people dying on waiting lists for "elective" heart surgery. I come to these comment sections a lot and I always give data and peer reviewed papers on the issue and many people still deny it. It is sad how people cannot admit that Canada's system has problems. This is not to say that it sucks, or that the US system is great. It is to simply say it has problems.
    2
  14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560551/ Is this paper from a "think tank"? I love how leftists ignore facts and refuse to have an intellectual discussion on these issues.
    1
  15. I hear a lot of anecdotal stories. I have a friend who is Canadian where their family had to transfer his cousin from Canada to the US because of the waiting times for heart surgery. My experience with the US system is great. So based on my anecdotal stories Canada sucks and the US is awesome. Considering how people are just giving anecdotal stories here my experience is all I need.
    1
  16. Competition. If you keep people healthy others will come to you for healthcare. Just like what profit is there in making cars that last 200,000 miles? Build cars that last 50,000 miles. More people will buy your car based on your thought process.
    1
  17. Miss Nina Mimi, our healthcare system is not free market. I agree people don't have time to shop for healthcare when they need it. However, you should be able to buy insurance you want and shop around for that. But that is not the case in the US.
    1
  18. Many people have no idea what goes on outside of their own backyard. Not just people from the US. Watching this video and reading these comments it seems like many have no idea what goes on in the healthcare system with Canada. Many die on waiting lists and Canada is a country with very strict immigration laws.
    1
  19. This video showed a lot of anecdotal evidence as opposed to facts. This is left wing propaganda.
    1
  20. location4898, people die in Canada's system as well on waiting lists.
    1
  21. Bloomberg arbitrarily weighs overall life expectancy at 60% in their ranking. Also, they use overall life expectancy and do not adjust for other factors such as diet, murders, car accidents, etc. Essentially they are saying if I were to die by getting hit by a bus today it was because I had bad healthcare.
    1
  22. TheMCPlayer2003, it doesn't matter if his campaign was funded by small donations, that was because he was promising free shit to them. He is a career politician becoming rich by promising free shit to people he can never deliver. He is corrupt and a prime reason why we need term limits in congress.
    1
  23. TheMCPlayer2003, the constitution can be changed. As a strict constructionist myself I support changing the constitution if necessary. To me term limits limits the power of the federal government as it prevents career politicians messing up society. As for voting, when you have a politician that is deceptive or develops a way to misinform the people basically keeping them dumb it is easy to keep winning. "econdly, Term limits does not equal less corruption. A corrupt person that has been in office and is term limited could just advocate for another person they think will continue their policies, and that person could just get elected who would represent another term of that corrupt politician essentially making it useless" But here is the thing. That next person has to be just as good of a politician as the previous person was. Why do you see a constant change in party in the presidency? We had Bush (R), Clinton (D), Bush (R), Obama (D), Trump (R). By your opinion we should be having just one party controlling the presidency election after election. However, that is not the case. While term limits does not guarantee a change, it does go a long way in making it. "Again, if you are not corrupt and you are popular among your people, then you should deserve another term. " But what if you are corrupt and deceptive and fool people in voting for you all the time? "America had to choose between the two most unpopular candidates in history." Which can happen which is why there is a lot of restrictions on government. Also, that is why there are term limits. If you flat out suck you will eventually be booted no matter what. The idea is this, if politicians are forced to live in the society they influence after their time they will act differently. If Bernie Sanders were forced to get a job after being a Senator and no longer have healthcare provided by the people he will act differently towards healthcare.
    1
  24. Bernie wants to tax everyone in various forms such as a higher payroll tax and sales tax.
    1
  25. I live in the US. Healthcare has been fine for me with no problems.
    1
  26. So a handful of handpicked doctors getting one glimpse of Canada's system is enough to make a decision on a complex issue like healthcare?
    1
  27. tonycodolo, that is not an argument. There is a lot to it. To start, look at countries with 100+ million people. The US is number 1in GDP per capita. Japan is second and is successful mainly because of how hard the people work. Those countries have single payer. You are trying to compare the US to small countries, that is very challenging where you can't do it. The economics are too different. Next, those countries all have shortcomings. Read the book "The Business of Health" by Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt and Prof. John Schneider. At the very least there is a disagreement on the quality of healthcare between countries. But to me, and based on what I read, those countries are not better off than the US. They have shortcomings as well. "so why not give Single Payer a chance." Because when you run through the numbers with a cost analysis the US does many things well and single payer is not any better. To me I want to improve the system we have. Radically changing to single payer in a country of 320+ million where healthcare is 1/6 of our economy will lead to a major recession. The reason why is because you are going to radically change the tax code and people's and businesses' spending habits will change. Initially it will change to them not spending until the market stabilizing leading to a recession. And considering how single payer is not any better than what we have making people worse off to get a system that is not any better than what we have now is not a solution.
    1
  28. Koala, with any doctorate it is very specialized. As with lawyers you have ones that practice different areas of law, with those with chemistry PhDs practice different areas (organic, inorganic, physical, etc.), with medical doctors they practice different forms of medical care. Some are surgeons (which has varying fields), some are neurologists, some are anesthesiologists. Many do not do any kind of research in the medical field at all, they work on their specialized area. Thus it is very likely they lack understanding of the complexity of healthcare as in the research and economics. To give an example in my field I have colleagues getting a PhD in physics. One is specializing in plasma physics. While they will have a PhD in physics they will struggle with atomic and molecular physics as they focused on plasma. Just because they are "doctors" does not mean they have a complete understanding of the healthcare situation. And just seeing one hospital while not seeing the economics of it, the issues Canada faces in healthcare, the set up as in taxes and spending, etc. and coming up with the conclusions they do makes me question their intellectual thought.
    1
  29. Koala, you are pulling a logical fallacy here. Just because they are doctors does not mean they have a complete understanding of the complexity of the medical field .
    1
  30. "Lol! And the doctors in the US do not talk to their colleagues overseas?" Maybe, maybe not. Many doctors could just work where they work in the field they do and move on. Medical doctors are not doing research like someone with a PhD.
    1
  31. Cross Counter, to start, I am a PhD candidate, so I can think intellectually. Next, look at my comment to Koala. They are medical doctors. Many do not do any kind of research in medicine or healthcare. They are specialized in their field and work in that. They will learn about new techniques and drugs related to their field, but that may be it. Are they going to look at the economics of it? They challenges Canadians face? Have they? Just because they are doctors does not mean they have a complete understanding of the field. Let me give you a comparison in my field. I have a colleague defending here soon to get her PhD in chemistry. You may say she understands chemistry. From an organic perspective I will say yes. But with spectroscopy the reality is no as she has not done research in that field. She has a general idea but she would not understand how people are currently designing attosecond lasers. Even though many chemists are looking to use them and understand how they will work, they are physical chemist. And a physical chemist will not understand how to synthesis drugs. The field is very specialized. Just because they are "doctors" does not mean they have a complete understanding healthcare.
    1
  32. donHooligan, I can save money on my rent by living in an old studio apartment in the ghetto with roommates. When you lower the quality you can save money.
    1
  33. Koala, the only reason why I don't have the degree is because I have not written my thesis and defended it yet. I have two papers and I am submitting one more this week and writing another one. I essentially have a PhD, I just haven't completely the paper work. "So you don’t even have the degree yet and you think youre correct on this more than the doctors here" Even at that, just because they are doctors does not mean they understand the entire situation. Do they understand the economics of healthcare? How many of them do actual research and understand that? How many work in ER? How many work with children? How many do surgery? The issue is complex. " I said that they had a far better understanding than some conservative YouTube commenter using dishonest talking points backed with no real evidence. " What makes you think I am a conservative? Also, what makes you think they have a better understanding then me? If you want to play that game as a grad student I teach labs. I have taught many nursing students who are studying healthcare and they hate the idea of single payer healthcare. These are nurses. "No one claimed it was perfect, but it is far better." Claiming it is "far better" is not true, that is the issue. You have nothing to back that idea up. "Canada is doing far better economically on healthcare than we are." How so? Also. Bloomberg is not libertarian. Besides that, their ranking is questionable. They weighed life expectancy, overall life expectancy, at 60%. Why? And is life expectancy only dependent on healthcare? So if I get hit by a bus today and die was it because I had bad healthcare?
    1
  34. Koala, my plan is this. I would first eliminate the payroll tax. Consider these questions. 1. Why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? 2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare? On those points it comes down to the payroll tax in my opinion. Businesses pay with benefits such as healthcare insurance because it is a tax free way to pay employees. If employers pay a higher wage they have to pay a higher tax. Thus they pay with benefits instead. However, this created many problems. 1. People are given a generic plan such as men paying for contraceptives and women paying for Viagra 2. People are now stuck with their jobs as switching jobs means switching healthcare providers to where the older you are pre-existing conditions come in 3. Consumers are not able to force companies to compete thus prices go up and quality go down 4. Healthcare insurance becomes healthcare at that point which isn't best There are others, but those are the highlights. If businesses paid with a higher wage instead people will buy plans they want. They will force companies to compete which will lower insurance prices and raise quality. They can get it at a young age and keep it their entire life no matter what job they have. Pre-existing conditions are no longer a problem. For planned situations of care such as routine checkups, pregnancies, elective surgery, etc. that can be paid for out of pocket which drives cost down much like what happens with LASIK. Insurance can be for unplanned, expensive cases which will make insurance cheap. Much like car insurance being for car accidents but does not pay for oil changes. If there is to be a public option the states should run it how they please. But as a whole my idea is to advance to a free market system as we do not have a free market healthcare system.
    1
  35. brasschick42, while not in medicine I work in the STEM field as a researcher in physical chemistry. I also work with many nurses and future nurses and a few future doctors. My experience is this, it is very specialized. Doctors and nurses to me do not understand, completely, the research involved as in the economics, challenges, time, procedures, etc. Doctors and nurses to me do not understand the economics involved in healthcare and how it influences our society. As for being involved politically, by interacting with professors they are involved politically as well. It still does not mean they fully know what is going on. Most of the time they know just their specialized field and that's it. To give an example, our department chair will spend time finding the best deal on chemicals and equipment and ensuring he gets his money's worth on his grant. But then he get irritated with our university facility manager when he does the same thing where he is talking to contractors and trying to manage a budget and time frame. The department chair will make a comment of "I can just do it myself as I do it all the time at home". Where in reality you have to deal with unions, government funds, coordination of traffic, students and workers, etc. My point is this. Just because you work in medicine or are a doctor does not mean you have a complete understanding of it. Especially in a specialized world chances are you know very little.
    1
  36. When you are a career politician you have a lot of time. Bernie never does any work. He never has.
    1
  37. TheUltimateBeing01, golf is a very political game. It is where people go to discuss business.
    1
  38. All Bernie does is run his mouth. When has he actually produced anything? He does zero research. When challenged on Denmark's healthcare system Cruz gave numbers where Bernie has nothing. Anyone can move around running their mouth.
    1
  39. TheUltimateBeing01, what do you do while golfing? You walk around, hit a ball, and then chat. It is a political game. Every president does it and many relations are done on the golf course.
    1
  40. What Bernie is doing here is anecdotal as well. He isn't talking to researchers in the field, he is simply showing a few handpicked doctors a hospital. At this point he is on the same level as Steven Crowder.
    1
  41. Mr Munchies, I did not say Crowder was right. In reality he is on the same level as Sanders with this video.
    1
  42. Handpicked doctors seeing just a glimpse of the healthcare system is not a way to come up with a conclusion on a complex issue like healthcare.
    1
  43. EpicMango, you need more than an idea. Did they look at the economics of it? How money was spent? Challenges they face? Just showing people a hospital means nothing. Michael Moore showed people a hospital in Cuba and make their system look great. I believe it was John Stossel that showed other hospitals in Cuba where they looked terrible. Same thing where Steven Crowder showed the many problems with Canada's healthcare in one of his videos and talked to workers there. You can't come up with a conclusion by looking at a glimpse of the system. Bernie showing the doctors the highlights of the system is not going to convince me and shouldn't convince anyone.
    1
  44. Tell what? There was a propaganda video by Bernie Sanders? Steven Crowder did the same thing with Canada and made a video. Who should I believe?
    1
  45. Or maybe, just maybe, healthcare is complex and in reality Canada's system is not any better than the US system.
    1
  46. The CommonWealth Fund's ranking is not that great. It leaves our many variables such as cancer survival rate which would rank the US higher. Overall, healthcare is a complex situation and just reducing it down to a simple ranking is an insult to those who do actual research in it.
    1
  47. userasdf, "cancer survival rates are notoriously inaccurate" Why? Many of these rankings use overall life expectancy which is also inaccurate. They are inaccurate as several factors influence overall life expectancy such as health habits for example. If you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. "The us has higher rates of useless screening tests like psas and people getting random cat scans so cancers are picked up earlier" I do not see that as useless, I see that as an advantage. However, those rankings are arbitrary as anyone can legitimately work with the numbers and make any ranking they want, including having the US be number 1.
    1
  48. sharper68, the US has the shortest wait times in world. That is a fact you can't deny nor can others, including Bernie Sanders. As for rationing, I gave you a peer reviewed paper on another comment thread showing how people die in Canada waiting for heart surgery. But I bet you will choose to ignore that.
    1
  49. Sharper68, read the paper "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" You made the comment of "40 thousand die here for lack of care compared to zero in Canada " When that paper said "Thirty-nine patients died while waiting for surgery." So immediately I can dismiss what you are saying as you clearly do not know the facts. As for that 40,000 number, correlation does not equal causation. Those 40,000 a poor and poor people have bad health to begin with such as higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking, all self inflicted. There is a high chance they died simply because of bad health, not because of lack of access to healthcare. Even at that no ER can deny care to people. So no one, on paper, dies because of lack on care. At least not on paper.
    1
  50. "The number of Canadian's who die because they cant afford care is zero. " I proved that wrong. "You are being dishonest or ignorant " I find irony in that statement.
    1
  51. "The bigger the pool the better your bargaining power is on behalf of consumers is, again further lowering costs. " Not true. The bigger the pool the less micromanaging you can do. Compare it to this. Say you want to buy Subway sandwiches for 4 people. You can get the exact sandwich everyone wants and know down to the penny how much it costs. Now say you want to get it for 100 people. You will buy a tray of generic sandwiches, not personalized. You don't want people to go hungry so you will buy more than you need which some will get more or some sandwiches will be thrown away. Or you may buy less then you need to save money meaning some will go hungry. Same thing will be with healthcare. To give another example of how a larger pool does not mean less cost. If you were to take 10 men to a restaurant and you paid for their meal it will cost more than 5 women because men typically eat more then women. Those 10 men ended up costing your more per meal then 5 women despite you having more men.
    1
  52. "No one died while waiting for a knee surgery" There is more to it then that. Waiting for knee surgery can keep you out of commission when it comes to work. While you are waiting for knee surgery your productivity goes down meaning you will earn less at a job or not have the ability to move up. Expand that over an entire country and the overall country sees less productivity. If you place yourself in a position to afford healthcare in a free market system why should you be forced to wait for surgery? You are productive in society and should get care to get back to work.
    1
  53. I see Sharper68 is no match for facts when he is called out.
    1
  54. I had had debates with sharper68 before. He is an ultra leftists that bases their ideas on pure emotions. When give facts they deny them if it goes against their emotions.
    1
  55. "The number of Canadains that die because they can not afford care is zero," You see, I have shown that to be factually not true. I gave you a peer reviewed paper but you continue to deny facts. This is not to say the Canadian system sucks or that the US system is superior. It is to show that in Canada people do die due to shortcomings in the system. If you cannot accept basic facts then we cannot have an intelligent conversation here. This is why I am "waving" my hands in victory.
    1
  56. " You showed nothing of the kind, you showed that some people in the Canadian system die waiting for care they need." I showed you that people have died because they lacked access to care. " That is not the same thing as dying because they can not afford it even though it is "available" " It is not available. And they could not afford a private option, that is the point. "I agree that people die because of short coming in their systems, I highlighted that I recognize their system is not perfect." You have when I gave you facts and pushed you in a corner. " My point is not that they have no problems just that they have far far fewer people falling between the cracks of their system than we do in ours. " Where is your evidence for that? So far I have seen no data or resources from you. "The point you make is moot as I am not disputing they have elements to improve as well," You never said that until I pushed you in a corner with facts. "I responded at length to your several post and this attempt at misrepresentation of what I even said is all I get? " Here is your quote " The number of Canadains that die because they can not afford care is zero, " So my question to you is why did those people dying on wait lists not go to a private option? I mean, according to you they can afford it. So why did they not use the private option? I literally pointed out where you were factually wrong. I did not misrepresent you. I literally quoted you.
    1
  57. sharper68, if you want to say that no one dies in other countries because they are "covered" then fine, but that is a very low standard to have. Yes, on paper everyone is covered. But the reality is that not everyone has access due to limited resources. That is a fact. If you cannot admit that then we cannot have an intelligent conversation.
    1
  58. "The answer to why these people did not go with a private option is there is no private option in Canada." Again, if you want to have an intellectual discussion you have to get basic facts right. Look up the court case Chaoulli v Quebec Canada has a private option in healthcare
    1
  59. sharper68, that court case was done in 2005, it is settled. There are private options in Canada. You also said this " Very few Canadians or Americans can afford to go to the US and pay to get to the front of the line out of pocket anyway" You are literally saying that Canadians cannot afford to use other options, including going to the US. Thus, this statement you made "The number of Canadains that die because they can not afford care is zero," Is not true. The number is not zero as people are forced to wait as they cannot afford a private option, even if they go to the US. No matter how many ways you spin it people die on waiting lists as they cannot afford a private option.
    1
  60. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Private_sector Read the section on "Private sector"
    1
  61. sharper68, you also continue to ignore wait times after I showed you were wrong there as well. Fact is this, people die on waiting lists in Canada's system. Even if it requires going to the US they have an option to get covered if they can afford it. They can't. Thus people die in Canada as they cannot afford healthcare.
    1
  62. " If you want to continue this intellectual discussion you should probably acknowledge this truth." I have acknowledged the truth. They cannot afford healthcare so they are stuck with the public option to which they have to wait and they end up dying.
    1
  63. sharper68, no matter how many ways you try to tap dance around it you are simply wrong, just like you were wrong on wait times.
    1
  64. sharper68, I called you out. People in Canada die on waiting lists, period. Why don't they go for a private option? Because they cannot afford it. However, you said that never happened in Canada. Please read what I send. You also have not read what I said on waiting times how they are long in Canada. "The fact is the care they need as a community is as readily available to all despite income" Then why have people died on waiting lists in Canada? I am sorry, but when I have peer reviewed papers on my side and have pointed out where you are factually wrong I cannot take what you say seriously.
    1
  65. Desert Sand, he did say that and I called him out on it. I quoted his comment but he still denies it. That is the type of person he is.
    1
  66. Luxembourg is a very small country with a lot of money. It is successful all around. However, the city I live in has more people in it. Not really a strong comparison to the US.
    1
  67. oz nez, we pay a lot because we create a lot. Without the US most of those medical supplies will not exist.
    1
  68. It isn't so much about incentive, it is about resources. Equipment cost money. So do chemicals. And then it takes a lot of time. And many times what is produce does not even see the market. I find your attitude to be pathetic where you want doctors and researchers to work for free.
    1
  69. Cross Counter, to say that public dollars do not fund abortions is deceptive. PP receives tax dollars thus they can allocate other funds to pay for abortions.
    1
  70. Ben Ford, they pay higher taxes. Also, you are going to extort someone no matter what. There are longer wait times in Canada where people die waiting for heart surgery. Even for something like knee surgery waiting can be devastating. While waiting you can't work with a bad knee making your life worse off.
    1
  71. chuhrros, his point is this, healthcare should be treated like a commodity like furniture. The more rare the furniture is and harder it is to build the more expensive it is. Same with healthcare. The more rare the treatment is and harder it is to do the more expensive it becomes. That is also simple economics. We can have a discussion on how healthcare should be provided, as in if government should do it to a degree or not. However, you have to realize that in the very end someone has to provide healthcare much like someone has to make furniture. His comment was not "stupid or deceptive". It is correct. People who criticize Shapiro and that comment do so without any details. They are pulling a logical fallacy in the very end.
    1
  72. Herb, that is not what he said. Besides your misquote, what Shapiro said is correct. Healthcare, like furniture, is a commodity that someone has to provide. Now if you want the government to pay for it then fine, but in the end someone has to provide it. If the treatment is very specialized and rare then it will be expensive much like expensive furniture is.
    1
  73. chuhrros, in the very end someone has to provide healthcare services and goods to the people. The government can decide if they want to pay for it if they want, but someone has to provide it. Now you say this " they have the authority to legislate for the interests of its people, reducing healthcare and drug costs." You can only reduce costs so much before a doctor says no. That is what it comes down to. If a doctor refuses to serve someone then what? You do not get the care. At that point the government has to force that doctor to work. Or if there simply isn't a doctor to perform the services then what? What you are suggesting is that the government uses force to make doctors work. Now is that ethical? "It is incomparable to furniture" It is because in the end someone has to provide it, period. Healthcare just doesn't exist. Someone has to provide it. Even if the government funds your heart surgery it was a doctor that did it with the equipment available. That is the whole point. If you live in an area of only one heart surgeon and there are 10 people needing heart surgery, what will happen? That surgeon will ask for a higher price due to increased demand. " I ask you and the conservative intellectual champ Shapiro this: do people suffer and die when they can't afford a more expensive couch?" No. And if you want to get into a discussion about inelastic and elastic demand then fine, we can. However, let me ask you this: How do you provide the people healthcare if there are no doctors? " How many reasonable people choose to go bankrupt because of the expensive marble dining table they want so badly?" I do not know. But how do you expect the government to pay for healthcare with our massive debt and lack of resources?
    1
  74. chuhrros, I will ask again: If there are not any doctors to provide healthcare, how does the government offer it to people? The point is this, in the very end healthcare, like furniture, is a commodity that someone has to provide, period.
    1
  75. " If there are no doctors, how could there be private practitioners? " I agree, there won't be. Just like if there isn't anyone to build furniture there won't be any furniture. That is the point. In the very end someone has to provide healthcare and the resources involved in it. That costs money as it costs someone's time and resources. Just like furniture does. "Let's get to the basics of the healthcare industry. What drives the availability of doctors? A combination of individuals earning the education, for the money, for the interest in a career in the field, for the interest of helping people, etc. A shortcoming of these and other factors in principle leads to the shortage of doctors. " Let us break down those factors 1. Education: You can study a lot of subjects related to healthcare and never work in it. 2. Money: If the government pays too little then why become a doctor? 3. You can be interested in the career and work in it without being a doctor directly. Such as you can do research instead. 4. You can help people in many ways However, there are other factors as well. Stress, ability, time. Becoming a doctor requires a lot of work and is very stressful. There is a reason why are have a shortage of them. And many simply can't do it. Almost every med school has a less than 50% acceptance rate. "Your rhetoric of "if there is no doctor" is an empty and loaded rhetoric, that just as similarly, absurdly, applies to privatized healthcare as it does to a public program. " I agree it can apply to private healthcare as well. The overall point is this. Healthcare, like furniture, is a commodity that someone has to provide, period. And we need to treat it as such. ". But which developed country, due to any shortages, have worse healthcare statistics than the USA?" You have to be careful here. When you break down the numbers you will see that other countries are not getting better outcomes then the US. They are on par with the US overall as many variables influence those numbers. Read the book "The Business of Health". I will link it in another comment. But to answer your question directly, none as they are on par with the US. "And do you think there's no similar shortages in private sectors in the USA?" There are, and I do not deny that as in the end healthcare is a commodity. Someone has to provide it. "You think the electorates of those nations don't know their taxes go to those doctors? The electorates, comprising mostly of healthy people who rarely even visit doctors?" Which is fine in how they want to fund their system. But in the end they are paying doctors to provide healthcare. Someone has to provide healthcare making it a commodity, like furniture.
    1
  76. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf There is the book
    1
  77. chuhrros, in the very end someone has to provide healthcare making it a commodity. Just like someone has to provide furniture. It just doesn't exist. Someone has to provide it. That is the point of Shapiro's comment. We have to treat healthcare like a commodity. The left has a tendency to become too emotional on the issue and feel the government has a magic wand to just make things better. That isn't the case though. You have to realize that in order for healthcare to exist someone has to provide it, period.
    1
  78. "You are predicating your argument on a hypothetical that doctors do not exist" No, this is common in economics. It is the same as when people say raising taxes increase tax revenue, but a 100% tax rate will lead to a tax revenue of $0 as no one will work. You go to the extreme to prove a point. If there are not any doctors how does the government provide healthcare to its citizens? It can't. Now why? Because healthcare, like furniture, is a commodity that requires someone to provide it. "I'm predicating my point based on statistics and facts. Thought experiments are valid as just that. " Such as? I have not seen any facts or statistics from you. But that is besides the point. The overall point is this. You said that Shapiro's comment involving furniture was "stupid". I am pointing out to you what he was saying. He is calling healthcare, like furniture, a commodity. And expensive furniture is expensive because it is rare and of high quality, just like healthcare services. But let us go back to your original comment "No expensive furniture, no problem. No expensive healthcare, illness and death." That is from you. No furniture no one can buy furniture. No healthcare and no one can be cured for their illnesses. You get it? Let me give it to you in this way. If couches did not exist no one will own a couch. If there are no doctors or healthcare providers no one will receive healthcare services.
    1
  79. Healthcare is a commodity and should be treated as such.
    1
  80. "You mean healthcare statistics of other developed nations with public healthcare? Don't you already know the statistics of healthcare around the world or do you really need to go one by one into every category?" Let us break it down 1. On paper everyone is "covered", but that is only on paper. On paper everyone in S. Africa has a right to a home, but they still have homeless people. In the US on paper people are innocent until proven guilty, however we still send innocent people to jail. On paper in the US everyone has access to a K-12 education, however many schools do not teach calculus and physics due to lack of resources. Look at "percentage covered" is a very low standard as on nation covers everyone. 2. When you lower the standard costs go down as well. Another poor standard to go off of. The US is expensive because of two reasons a: lack of a free market despite having a for profit system b: our advancements in innovation and technology which is strength 3. Many factors influence life expectancy such as personal health choices for example. Two professors showed if you remove car accidents and murder the US is number 1 in life expectancy. 4. The US has high quality of care, this is something that even many on the left agree one. They just complain how people do not have access 5. The US is very low in wait times. In fact there was a paper that revealed that Canada has some of the longest wait times in the world, it was entitled "International comparisons of waiting times in health care-Limitations and prospects" To be fair, though, countries calculate wait times differently thus this is a poor standard to use as you can never obtain accurate numbers 6. Same as with cost. Overall, in the US people do go bankrupt. However, the fact that we allow people to regress in life to where they have a chance to progress shows success of our society. In other nations people die. Here we have enough resources to allow people to take more then they can afford and maybe pay it off later. That is charitable in many ways 7. Happiness is subjective. 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare. Seems like people like the system we have. The problem with these statistics is that there are many ways you can look at them as there are many variables involved in them beyond healthcare. Life expectancy is a great example, there are more factors then just healthcare. And happiness is not a statistic you can measure. "Public healthcare is a commodity as much as private. " Exactly, it is a commodity. If you feel the government should pay for it then fine, but remember that in the end it is a commodity that someone has to provide. If there is not anyone to provide it then it won't exist. Just like in my high school they never offered German as a foreign language class as there was not anyone there to teach it. Or why we do teleport, we do not have teleportation. "Commodities means so many things." It means some one has to provide it. Depending on the situation it may cost more. So the furniture comparison is correct.
    1
  81. "Point 1. and you're already lying dude." I am not lying. Explain to me if 100% of people are covered why people have died on waiting lists? In Canada there are plenty of papers out there showing how people have died on waiting lists. In reality they are not covered at that point.
    1
  82. Read these sources "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol.   Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart   “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ
    1
  83. Explain, how do people die on waiting lists if they are "covered"?
    1
  84. People do not like change, it is common.
    1
  85. Roman, 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare. That state voted for Bernie and leans left. People do not like change, especially if what they have is good to begin with.
    1
  86. Canada got rid of private healthcare options and as a result you had Chaoulli v Quebec because wait times were too long.
    1
  87. The US is the only country that is producing in research and innovation. Other countries depend on us at that point. We can go the way of Canada but the entire world will suffer.
    1
  88. 45,000 is 0.01% of the population. When I see that number my reaction is "that's it?". Besides that, those 45,000 a poor to begin with. Poor people typically have bad health such as higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking, all of which are self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of healthcare access or simply because of bad health?
    1
  89. 45,000 is 0.01% of the population. And as I said, they are poor and in bad health because of their own habits. You do not need a doctor to tell you to eat healthy and exercise occasionally. Access to healthcare will not help them in living a healthier lifestyle that you are taught to do in K-12 public education. People die in other countries as well due to lack of healthcare. It isn't just a problem unique to the US. Different with other countries is that on paper everyone is covered. In reality they aren't as they wait in waiting lists and die or use up more resources then necessary. So just saying the US has that problem is not factual at all. As for it being a right, the reality is that is isn't. Rights are things the government cannot take away without due process. You have a right to access healthcare. You do not have a right to others' services. I am not comfortable with people dying. However, tell me a solution to make that number 0. As of now no country has ever found that solution.
    1
  90. K D, you don't have a right to someone's goods and/or services. In order to offer everyone healthcare and shelter you have to force someone to give it to others.
    1
  91. Kevin, that is the mentality of almost everyone. That is why 80% said no to universal healthcare in Colorado. This video here is anecdotal evidence itself.
    1
  92. Josh H, how do you make that number to be zero then? Because right now no country has been able to do that.
    1
  93. "In countries with some kind of single payer they are not dying." Not true. Read this paper "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol.
    1
  94. Socialize video as well. With socialism this is the standard you get.
    1
  95. Lee B, a problem with single payer are wait times. In Canada many die waiting for "elective" heart surgery. If you don't believe me read the paper "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" There are other papers as well highlighting the wait times and people dying or wasting resources.
    1
  96. "you should read the papers highlighting cases where US insurance companies deny care to patients who paid for that care because they deemed it expensive and people died." I have, and I agree that is a problem. " Bottom line is no system is perfect but a properly run single payer is way more efficient and effective than what US has." That is not true as single payer has a lot of shortcomings as well. Read the book "The Business of Health"
    1
  97. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  98. It is as it is a commodity. Someone has to provide it.
    1
  99. If you make healthcare a human right you are going to have to force doctors to work. If they refuse you have to arrest them. Just like having a jury is a right in this country. If you are called for jury duty and refuse you go to jail. So before you say that they will not be arresting doctors think about jury duty. However, if you want to make healthcare a "public good" but not call it a right then fine. But in the very end someone has to provide it making it a commodity. The more advanced the treatment is, and the more rare it is, the more expensive it becomes. Just like expensive furniture. That's basic economics.
    1
  100. There is always a price. Even without a dollar amount it will cost someone's time and/or resources.
    1
  101. Commissar, new techniques and technology is always expensive. In the free market it eventually becomes cheaper. However, when first released it is always expensive and R&D is expensive in itself. You don't expect researchers to work for free? And the equipment they use is not free also.
    1
  102. lefthandovRA, those biologists produce research where most of it goes nowhere, especially in academics. Not saying it doesn't have value, just saying a lot of it goes nowhere. Also, most research done in academics are done by grad students who earn very little to begin with. But eventually they earn a lot as in over 6 figures and are close to the 1%.
    1
  103. And only 9 million people with limited productivity.
    1
  104. Junous Wood, $80 billion will not pay for "tuition free" college as we lack professors, dorms, TAs, tutors, classrooms, etc. Colleges will just raise tuition.
    1
  105. TheMCPlayer2003, not true. Kyle calling people stupid is not an argument
    1
  106. I love how people who oppose Ben Shapiro and feel Kyle can beat him never give examples in how Shapiro is wrong.
    1
  107. And John Stossel did the same thing Michael Moore did, instead he went to other hospitals. When you have an agenda you can make a piece of shit look like gold.
    1
  108. As a US citizen I love the US system.
    1
  109. " talk to someone that lives in Canada" I have and I heard of conflicting things about healthcare in Canada where some praised it and some hated it. The same can be said about the US system. Reality is that both Canada and US have shortcomings, and as a whole one is not really better than the other as both do many things very well and struggle in other areas. Canada has its shortcomings and those that deny it are highly ignorant and really should not be discussing healthcare in my opinion. You have to be honest here.
    1
  110. D Bvnks, people die in Canada's system as well due to lack of care.
    1
  111. This add does have cherry picking in it. Bernie is not an honest politician. There are many shortcomings in Canada's system that Bernie will never bring up, such as people dying while waiting for "elective" heart surgery.
    1
  112. Moonlight Shadow, what you are saying is correct. This is taught in business administration courses and economic courses. You can't have all three. This is not to say that universal healthcare is all great, the reality is that it has shortcomings.
    1
  113. "The Pentagon tried to hide the fact they wasted 125 billion dollars " Who runs the Pentagon? The US government. So you want that same government running your healthcare? By the way, healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Defense is 3%.
    1
  114. Bernie Sanders is one guy. You have 535 members of congress along with the presidency.
    1
  115. Mr. Smiley, that voting seems to be helping out real well isn't it.
    1
  116. Making people wait on lists for "elective" heart surgery to where they die is Canada's way.
    1
  117. Read this book https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  118. The "red scare" is legit. There is a desire to have government, but you have to be able to control it. You do it being keeping it as local as possible. Single payer at the state level can very well work, but never at the federal level.
    1