Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Tea Party Goon Owned On Universal Healthcare" video.

If you have the money to fly to other countries like that you have the money to get any care you want. In all people that fly to other countries like that are rich to begin with and are not a great example to point to.
3
Only if you are lazy and refuse to develop skills
3
Universal healthcare has been destroyed several times. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Here is a good book on it by two professors. You can read their citations and methods as well.
2
A86, the US had great healthcare before the 60s when it was a free market. Granted there are other variables as well involved, but the system was great. In the mid 60s we expanded the payroll tax and have not been free market since. With the payroll tax you made it so if a business paid higher wages they paid higher taxes. So to counter that they offer payment that are not wages and thus tax free such as healthcare insurance. What that created was the situation where people can't pick their own plan but instead get a generic plan by their employer. They have a harder time leaving a job because doing so means a new plan. If they are old they have pre-existing conditions making getting a new plan harder to get. Also, it makes it so healthcare insurance has become healthcare. People use it for everything as opposed to emergencies. And they can't force companies to compete when means prices go up as opposed to down. You can trace the problems of healthcare back to the federal government. On top of that nothing says that other countries have a better system. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book. They run through the stats and show that other countries with universal healthcare are not necessarily better and the US system is no par with them. And as far as people leaving countries, that is a poor comparison. People who do that typically are well off and do so to see specialists. As a whole the left has very poor arguments when it comes to healthcare.
2
A86, not to be rude but you are showing you ignorance on statistics again. Before the 60s healthcare was affordable and of high quality in terms of what we have now. These days it is expensive which goes against a strong economy. The three areas that have seen the largest increase in prices the past few decades are 1. healthcare 2. housing 3. college tuition All programs that the federal government has a major influence on 1. I explained how 2. the FHA 3. college loan program Now with your stats take life expectancy for example. From 1930 to 1960 life expectancy went up 10 years from 59 years to 69 years. From 1960 to now it went up around 10 years from 69 years to 79 years. So in reality I can say that medicare has slowed down the growth of life expectancy. But me being intelligent I know there is more to it than that. Some variables are 1. There is a plateau 2. From 1930 to 1960 we saw WWII which hurt life expectancy, so after the war we saw a spike But as a whole life expectancy was already improving before medicare came. So saying that medicare is why US life expectancy went up is false.
2
A86, I want the market before the 60s with the technology and quality we have now. Learn the difference.
2
I didn't see anyone get "owned" but two guys just saying BS. On the question we don't have a free market system in the US.
1
It is coverage. Healthcare was more affordable than. In a healthy market when allowed to grow goods and services become better and cheaper. The federal government has had a huge influence on healthcare leading to price increases. "yet they best us in all categories" Read that book I linked you, that is not the case. The statistics are all minute in terms of difference and depending on what statistical regression model you use the US is, at times, the best. But because of that no country out ranks the US (at the same time the US does not out rank them, they are all equal and any difference is noise). So no, they don't "best us in all categories" as you claim. I noticed you are now silenced on life expectancy.
1
Tony, people who have enough money to fly to another country have access to healthcare to begin with. Where they choose to go is meaningless at that point.
1
The rate of increase was slower after Obamacare because of the recession. Also, free market worked well in the US when we had it before the 60s. Since the 60s we don't have a free market system mainly because of the payroll tax. Saying that "happiness" in other countries is higher is deceptive as you can't quantitatively measure healthcare. Also, it is the same reason why Coloradocare, Vermontcare, and Obamacare were met with such criticism and hate. People like their healthcare systems in other countries and in the US. When faced with another option they go against it. This guy needs to name one country that socialized healthcare is better than the US system. You can't.
1
The WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not created another one since 2000. For example, it compared the US to countries like Andorra. Andorra has a small population that we can fit everyone in many of our football stadiums with room to spare. Andorra has around 80% of their GDP in tourism and is a tax haven. They are a small population that attracts money. Is that a valid comparison to the US or any country?
1
Happiness is deceptive in many ways. One, in the US we just say in Colorado and Vermont that when given an option they don't want single payer. Also, happy with their healthcare as in how? Are people not happy because they want something better, or they just don't understand the issue as a whole? It becomes more complex than that. If you were to ask me I will say I lean to no because I want to do away with the payroll tax, medicare, medicaid, and any federal government's influence on healthcare. But considering the options we have now I will say I am happy. It is also a societal thing. You are raised in on system and have it for decades it is hard to change.
1
RandomTopicTeen, read this book http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf As Robert Ohsfeldt said, those rankings are like university rankings, arbitrary.
1
TheFlakyBiscuit, I would agree that the one problem we have is cost and people don't like that. But the question is why does it cost so much? "You are arguing for a completely free market that will allow the insurance and pharmaceutical companies get away with more than they are already getting away with." The issue is that we don't have a free market system. We have a for profit system with federal government having a strong influence on healthcare. It is the same with college and the student loan program leading to higher tuition. To me the problem with our healthcare system lies with the payroll tax. Because of that business instead paid with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage. Many people get insurance through their employer. Here is the situation it created. Instead of an individual going out and paying for their own insurance they get a generic plan that is offered by their company. Thus you have the issue of women paying for viagra or men paying for contraceptives. If someone wants to quit their job they have to get a new plan, but at an old age you have more pre-existing conditions. Also, you remove the ability for the consumer to negotiate meaning higher prices.....do some of these problems sound familiar? If people were allowed to buy their own insurance they will have companies compete to offer them the best plan that caters to them at the best price. They can stay with that insurance company for life so they can move jobs without fear of losing their plan. They can use insurance only for emergencies as opposed to all healthcare. So a routine checkup is paid out of pocket which drives down cost. Just like car insurance pays for accidents, not oil changes. The free market system can work well for healthcare. Problem is that we don't have it. People feel we do but in reality we don't. Not to be rude but the problem you have is that you feel the free market will mean greed and higher prices when in reality, in any place the free market has been allowed to reign, we have seen the opposite. We have seen lower prices and higher quality.
1
Healthcare isn't a right. Rights are what government can't take away. When you say healthcare is a right you have to provide it somehow which means you have to force doctors to work. Also, there is not one single country or one single system that provides healthcare to all unless that country is small. It is impossible, right now, to offer healthcare to all due to limited resources. "Sooner or later, you'll need to see a doctor and when that times comes" Yes, and I can shop around if needed. If it is an emergency I can use insurance. I see no problem with that. You are making an argument based on emotions, not logic or reasoning.
1
" The problem with the free market there will always be people who can't afford healthcare" Because of limited resources. You have the government offer it than you will have it rationed in a different way. " It's naive of you to think the free market will fix everything" It has a really good track record where the federal government doesn't. " when pharma and health industry got so much influence in the government" That isn't the free market though.
1
Aaron, one, polictfact leans left. I don't fully trust it. Next, they don't give strong evidence on how Ron Paul is wrong. A few things. One, they look at the uninsured. During that time insurance did not have as large as an impact on healthcare because before the payroll tax less people relied on insurance and paid out of pocket. Now insurance covers everything. Next, saying that the old faced financial burdens is flawed. They always do. Medicare gets worse results because the people are old to begin with. So as a whole that article does not "demolish my contention" at all. It is really scarping the bottom of the barrel.
1
You are making an argument based on emotions by bring up morality. If we can offer high quality healthcare to all I will be all for it. Fact is that we can't. How does it force doctors to work? When you increase demand someone has to provide the services. That means current doctors work more. Just like the college loan program increased enrollment and classroom sizes. "There are plenty of examples of countries providing for their citizens" And they ration care and their system is no better than ours. "This is what the premise of my argument is based on." And not to be rude you clearly don't understand the full issue. They ration care to where not everyone gets care. " Easily viewed and studied facts that show their system provides for all and is just simply better and more efficient for the average person" http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book. " Let me use my emotional argument and show you all the inconvenient truths about our government wasting trillions of dollars" While I agree the federal government wastes money this brings up two points. One, why do you want that same government running healthcare? Next, my problem with socialist is that they only look at money. They don't look at the real goods and services we have to offer. Giving out money does not increase the amount of doctors, nurses, researchers, we have. More money does not increase the amount of kidneys we have where we have a waiting list for. Let me ask you, what do you do for a living?
1
"Kyle says it in many of his videos, our country rations care based on the size of your wallet" I agree. "other civilized countries ration care based on need." How do you define that? Let me give you a scenario. I am a productive member of society that works in the STEM field. Say I need knee surgery. I will have to wait while someone who produces very little gets care because it will be deemed "critical". So I am out of work for longer time meaning I produce less. Now expand that across the country. Fact is that people who produce more get paid more and have access to healthcare easier which keeps productivity up. " I want the government to run it because then they won't be controlled and influenced by the special interests and lobbyists." Really? You don't think they will be lobbied by healthcare companies? That some company will force people to buy their product as opposed to what is best out there?
1
"Your scenario is basically insinuating that the low life shouldn't get treated first because you make more stuff and more money. How narcissistic is that? " Not at all. I put myself in a position to get care, why should I be punished for success? Why should others be rewarded for failure? " You make it sound like living in a civilized country should be "survival of the fittest" and those at the bottom should just pick up their boot straps and just start making more money. " That is how it is, sorry. "It certainly would be nice if everyone could make tons of money so we wouldn't have any poor people" Or more people worked to the best of their ability to provide more wealth. "A civilized country should take care of all of their citizens equally " Appealing to emotions does not work. But, how do you do that without oppressing someone else? "but if we can elect the right people, " Like Obama? Clinton?
1
"Explain why countries with universal healthcare spend way less per capita than the US? 8,5k per capita in the US, vs 4,1k in France. Why are they more efficient?" They are not more efficient, they have limitations as well. "in addition we get paid maternity leave, paid sick leave and free daycare. " And lower overall productivity and thus less wealth. "and yet it's ranked one of the lowest among industrialized nations?" Not true. " Healthcare in the US is profit driven, that's why it's inefficient. " It is inefficient because it is profit driven with many government barriers that drives up costs. "Your politicians are bought by the health industry," But yet you want these same politicians to run your healthcare? "So instead of naively blaming the government" They have the power to begin with. Insurance companies have nothing. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book
1
1. You did not show me anything to show they are more efficient. When you compare countries the differences are minute and depending on what statistical regression model you use the US is very efficient 2. US citizens are paid well and when you include PPP we are near the top. Our services are affordable and of high quality. But, as a whole, that is a societal thing. The US is a different society overall. So, at best, we are different. Not better or worse and that is seen when you compare the numbers. 3. The WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not made another one since 2000. They compared Andorra to the US. Andorra has a population that is small enough we can fit it in a lot of our football stadiums with room to spare. Around 80% of their GDP is in tourism and they are a tax haven. A small population that attracts money means they will be great overall. It is an asinine comparison at that point. The Commonwealth Fund said this " Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture." Meaning their ranking is already flawed. Also, professor Robert Ohsfeldt has called these ranking arbitrary after you run through the numbers which he did in this book https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf He compared them to university rankings. 4. Healthcare has a lot of regulations from the federal government. That is why it is so expensive. LASIK has essentially no regulations and has become cheaper and better. For profit is great when you basically leave it alone. Problem is that the federal government has created barriers like the payroll tax which makes a for profit system but not a free market system 5. Easier said that done 6. That book runs through the numbers and gives their methods and citations. The life expectancy part is showing that depending on what statistical regression model you use will yield you different results. The reason why is because the differences are minute. I clearly did not read their conclusion as they said that the US system has problems, but in the end nothing suggests that single payer is superior. But, on the statistical regression model that is what you do in statistics.
1
TheFlakyBiscuit, the book is written by two professors who cite their data and give their methods in details. What does Politifact do? They cherry pick situation they want to fact check and give out sound bites while providing limited resources. Give me a break.
1
" Why do you think prices are so high in the US? " Because we don't have a free market system. "Why do you think healthcare is so cheap in Europe?" They ration their care. Or in other cases they have a society that pushes for lower cost such as mandatory military or in Norway's case they fund it with oil. " it requires pure competition, and for that to happen regulations are required. New comers won't be able to compete fairly against the already established companies. New companies entering the market would go out of business or merge with already established companies which results in fewer choice and prices going up. " That is not the case though. Have you learned anything in college?
1
"name one country that has free market for health insurance that works? " Name me one country that has put a man on Mars. Just because it isn't done does not mean it does not work. "insurance costs were rising before and after the ACA was signed into law, in short the ACA has nothing to do with rising prices since it doesn't DO anything to lower prices" Obamacare was pushed on the promise of lower prices. It did not keep the promise. "really how do they ration it? " With waiting lists. This is well known that even supporters of single payer admit to this. "it is the case, every for-profit business HATES competition, they actively try to dominate the market competition means only one thing, loss of potential market share" Yes, for profit businesses hate competition which is why they use the government to hurt competitors. "it was a free market that caused the great depression, " No, it was the natural growth of the economy. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. The federal government trying to "fix" the economy prolonged recovery. "or how about net neutrality, without it ISP's can collude or threaten sites to lower their speed if they didn't pay a fee, Netflix could pay the ISP's to slow down YouTube or vice versa etc" What's your point? The Internet is one thing the government has little involvement with and look how it grew. "also no country in history has ever had an economy with zero regulations, thats why the notion of an unfettered/unregulated free market is nothing but an abstract concept" I know, but if you go to the other extreme you end up with a disaster like Venezuela.
1
Chen, I feel you understanding of economics is flawed. Regulations hurt competition as smaller businesses have less resources to work around regulations.
1
In all fairness saying people go to other countries for care is deceptive. People like that have money to begin with and have no problem getting care.
1