Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "UN Head: US Has 'Morally Wrong' Healthcare System Because Of Corruption" video.

  1. Jamitty Man, "common sense" is not an argument. We have background checks already. Also, just because the majority support it does not make it the best policy. If the majority supported an all out gun ban should we do it?
    3
  2. It does happen in Canada. People have died in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. How much innovation does Canada have? Not much. Also, I do support negotiating prices, problem is we don't have a free market system in healthcare in the US preventing negotiation.
    2
  3. RTSA, I listed facts as well bud. Rankings are arbitrary. Do you even know how those rankings are developed?
    2
  4. John A., all you did was say "you're wrong" with zero evidence.
    2
  5. Defense spending is around 4% of GDP where healthcare is 1/6 of GDP. Basic math does not sit well with you.
    2
  6. Chewrraxia, the AR15 is not "military grade". Also, the founding fathers understood technology would get better. But if you want to apply that standard to the 2nd amendment why not apply it to the first? The internet did not exist at the time, so why not change the 1st amendment to account for the internet? As for shootings, gun murders have been dropping on the US for years. What's your point?
    1
  7. Chewrraxia, the NRA pushed for gun laws in the past. The issue is that now the left wants more gun laws that infringe on people's rights. For example, banning the AR15 opens legal pathways to ban other guns. Look at the magazine limit. In some states they pushed a 7 round limit because apparently a 30 round limit was too high. Prior to that a 100 round limit was too high. The left keeps pushing laws to the point of banning all guns. That is why the NRA is attacking back. With mentally unstable people that is a very challenging subject. To start, there is no quantitative way to measure mental health issues. It isn't like diabetes where you can measure blood sugar limits. Thus most people may not even know if they have an issue. Next, the issue if very subjective. I, on record, have a mental health issue. I take prescribed medication and see a doctor often. By many leftists' standards I should be banned from owning guns even though both of my doctors, and my friends who know my condition, are fine with me owning them. Both of my doctors, after many conversations, feel it is safe for me to own them. But leftists' want to push for laws to ban me from owning a gun because some outside person who does not know me personally says so. Other nations don't experience shootings because they have lower crime all together. If you remove all gun murders from the US the US murder rate is still higher than many nations. The problem is culture, not guns. At some point the left has to admit that. Change the person, don't take away the guns.
    1
  8. Matthew P., what do you define as a "psycho"? If someone commits a crime and has gone through due process then yes, take their guns away (depending on the crime). But mental illness is a very complex issue. Again, I have a mental illness on record that I take medication for. By your standard I should not be allowed to own my four guns. However, my doctors and friends disagree. They are fine with me owning my guns.
    1
  9. Matthew P., you are now deputizing doctors. If any red flag comes up on a patient that will be grounds to deny them a gun. If a doctor allows someone to own a gun with a mental illness and that person does a shooting that can be grounds to sue the doctor. Psyche evaluations can be cheated very easily. Mental illness is challenging to take on because there is no quantify way of testing it. It isn't like diabetes where you can measure blood sugar levels.
    1
  10. And up to 7000 people die a year on waiting lists in Australia waiting for elective surgery.
    1
  11. No they won't. But that time the economy will be so strong people will be ignoring radicals like Bernie and AOC.
    1
  12. In other nations they would have to wait for the healthcare. Also, one story does not represent the norm.
    1
  13. slctdmbntwrx, even with that there is still long wait times. People have died in other nations waiting for "elective" care.
    1
  14. Uh, that 45,000 number. Now this gets good. To start, on people dying in Canada for "elective" heart surgery, read the paper entitled "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" in the journal Can J Cardiol. That is just for one type of care. People do die in Canada waiting for "elective" care. On that 45,000, there are several shortcomings to that number. To start, it is hard to obtain accurate numbers in an issue like that. As prof Katherine Baicker said, bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Next, read the study entitled "The Oregon Experiment-Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes" When people were given Medicaid and compared to those that weren't, there wasn't improvement on physical health. A lot of those 45,000 deaths are arguably from poor lifestyle choices and not due to lack of access. Finally, as I showed you people die in Canada, and all nations, due to shortcomings in healthcare systems. What do you have to compare that 45,000 number to? Nothing. So you can't say if that number is high, low, or the norm. You bring up anecdotal, I received an MRI, waited 2 days to get it and paid nothing. What's your point?
    1
  15. The issue is that Canada's system is broken. I am not saying the US system is perfect, it needs improvement. But to say socialized medicine is the answer is something one can argue against. You have this idea that Canada has a better system when they don't. When you break it down the US is on par with other nations.
    1
  16. Ok, to start rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can play with the stats and create any ranking they want. That link cited the Common Wealth Fund (CWF) where the CWF is a private special interest group. Their ranking said that the US is high in cancer survival rates but did not include that stat in their ranking. They looked at life expectancy when many factors outside of healthcare plays a role in life expectancy. For example, two professors in the book entitled "The Business of Health" showed that when you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. The CWF looked at amenable mortality where the paper entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature review" breaks down the shortcomings in amenable mortality. As a whole that ranking is arbitrary. Anyone can make any ranking they want.
    1
  17. sictdmbntwrx, I am a scientists myself that is a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. I have read up on healthcare a lot. Do you even know how those healthcare rankings are developed? I doubt it. I do. I have read those studies you pointed me to. I don't think you have. You just looked at the rankings.
    1
  18. Angelica Hill, quantity is a part of quality. Most research project fail in the big picture. One reason why the US does so well in R&D is that we are willing to try many things to eventually find something that works. Very little is known about the human body and diseases to a lot of research is needed. I do research in biological materials and it is amazing how little we know.
    1
  19. Jared, every nation has shortcomings in their healthcare systems.
    1
  20. Jared, other nations kill their citizens as well, what's your point?
    1
  21. RTSA, sictdmbntwrx, is that it? Am I too much for you? I love discussing these issues but you have not replied. I am going to watch a movie, I will be back later.
    1
  22. slctdmbntwrx, Breaking Bad was a TV show. Also, in other nations a person with cancer has a less chance of survival. So if you want to bring up cancer as an argument we can. 0.48% can arguably be high when 45,000 is 0.01% of the total population of the US. I gave a counter argument to the 45,000 deaths and you just doubled down on it. You say they die due to lack of insurance when a study gave poor people insurance and they still had poor physical health. The Koch Brothers study did not say that single payer would save money. Read the actual study. It gave a number that was a conservative estimate and admitted that the cost would most likely be much higher. The price they gave was just for public spending and does not include private. Also, it made the assumption that with increase demand prices won't go up and that health care providers will be willing to take a 40% pay cut. Let me ask you two questions. One, if your boss cut your pay by 40% would you still work as hard as you do now? Two, if your boss gave you more work to do would you not expect more money? You need to study up on this topic more and move away from talking points.
    1
  23. Richard Powell, what studies? I pointed to some, where are your studies? Why hasn't other nations moved away from it? For the exact same reasons the US has not established a universal healthcare system anywhere, even at the state level. Doing so is too great of a challenge and when you break it down the system the US has is on par with other nations.
    1
  24. slctdmbntwrx, it isn't zero in other nations. I just showed you a study of people dying due to lack of healthcare in Canada.
    1
  25. Boogie Loo, there are legit arguments against a medicare for all system. I cited studies, how does that make me a troll?
    1
  26. What are you talking about in home interest rates?
    1
  27. Monopolies are a function of government because government kills competition. The free market hinders the establishment of monopolies. A reason why healthcare has so many problems in the US is because of many regulations that prevents competition. We do not have a free market system in healthcare. In some places there is a private fire department. Also, fire departments are ran and funded locally. On top of that 70% of fire fighters are volunteer.
    1
  28. slctdmbntwrx, I don't want Fox News. I understand how monopolies work. In a free market you have competition. If a company is that good that they are the only one that exists than there is nothing wrong with that. In a free market companies compete. That is true today with advanced technology. With the internet people can review companies. With cars people can travel easier. You refuse to explain it to me because you don't understand yourself. You are becoming frustrated because of the fact that you don't understand and that maybe you could be wrong.
    1
  29. The free market led to Amazon to compete against Walmart. Walmart now has the Walmart pick up. Competition led to Hy Vee and Raleys. Competition led to Netflix and Redbox. As for suicide, there are several factors for that. The US beats Canada in GDP per capita.
    1
  30. Dan O, employers offering healthcare is a problem. I rather have them pay a higher wage and have people buy their own insurance. However, the payroll tax (which Bernie wants to increase) makes it difficult. Healthcare insurance is a tax free way to pay employees because paying a higher wage means paying a higher tax.
    1
  31. The problem with stats is that many factors influence them. Take life expectancy for example. Other nations have a higher life expectancy but they also have a healthier lifestyle with lower obesity rates. That is not a function of socialist or capitalist but of culture. Also, many "socialist" nations that the left points to in Europe are not socialist but have more of a free market with lower regulation, lower corporate taxes, and no min. wage. They tax their citizens at a high rate where many on the left want to tax the rich and corporations. But with stats one can easily argue against your point.
    1
  32. Rameel, you can't have a completely free market just like you can't have a market completely controlled by government. Strong unions that are free from corruption is more of a free market. The problem in the US is crony unionism. One reason why the min. wage exist is because of unions as it is used as a negotiating tool for wages. In those Nordic nations unions are free from government corruption so it becomes an agreement between unions and employers. That is the free market. In order to pay those lower corporate tax rates businesses have to pay for lawyers and accountants which becomes expensive (but still cheaper than paying the tax rate). Simply lowering the tax rate and removing loopholes is more cost efficient. Their healthcare system has many shortcomings and when you break it down the US is on par with other nations in healthcare.
    1
  33. John A., that was almost a pointless rant you made. If you want to have a civil discussion we can. Let us start with healthcare and I can show you how flawed your argument and the same with people who argue that socialist nations are better. I can provide many resources as well that go far beyond a google search.
    1
  34. Rameel, there is such thing as crony unionism. Unions are some of the top political donors. Amazon makes very little in profits. When you break it down the US healthcare is on par with other nations.
    1
  35. Salkafar, define "serve the needs of the people". One can be allowing the free market to reign leading to higher innovation and more wealth for all.
    1
  36. StrikeWing, healthcare is not a right. A right to life means government cannot take away life without due process. Please study law.
    1
  37. Strikewing, you are dismissing the other side with you comment. There are arguments to be made on both sides.
    1
  38. Salkafar, healthcare is not a "right" because it requires people's services and resources. Law is important because we have legal definitions of things that can lead to certain people being oppressed if not careful.
    1
  39. Adrian, no nations covers everyone.
    1
  40. bryan s, if we had universal healthcare like other nations we would have other issues to deal with like other nations face.
    1
  41. They legally can't do that.
    1
  42. If so many support it than why has every attempt to establish it fail?
    1
  43. Close to 80% of voters in Colorado said no.
    1
  44. It isn't a poll. In 2016 Colorado put universal healthcare on the ballot and close to 80% said no.
    1
  45. Evan, most programs we have are ran at the state and local level. Education is one of them ran locally. Why can't healthcare? Your excuse is poor at that point. Fact is that when more information is given people don't approve of universal healthcare. Universal healthcare will not save money. Anyone who says it does, while keeping the same quality, is stating an economic fallacy. You don't increase demand and expect prices to drop or remain the same.
    1
  46. Kyle does not have all the answers. He has talking points. He would do terrible in the debates and the only chance he has of winning is in a very blue area. if he were to get elected he would look like a fool when his ideas fail or when he is challenged by someone with much more intelligence.
    1
  47. Rookie2.0, he is smart to a degree in that he does run his own show and speaks well. But he completely dismisses the other side. Now does he do it to cater to an audience? I can't tell. But in his debate against Razorfist he said many inaccurate statements that are easy to debunk. Dismissing the other side is a sign of stupidity and being myopic.
    1
  48. Rookie2.0, he dismisses ideas on the right. For example, he says there is no argument against raising the min. wage where there is. He also says there is no argument against a Medicare for all system when there is. He does that because he can't form a strong argument for his ideas so he just dismisses others.
    1
  49. Rookie2.0, he is dishonest, or he refuses to understand a topic more. Take healthcare for example, there are many arguments against Medicare for all and many studies are out there for him to read. But he dismisses the other side with no evidence.
    1
  50. It arguably still is. Obesity is a major problem of poor people in the US. That tells you how great they have it. They have too much food.
    1
  51. Jessica, 1979 was also a time of high inflation and high unemployment.
    1
  52. resourcedragon, people are educated in what food is healthy and what isn't. Healthy food is affordable, people refuse to eat i.
    1
  53. Arguably it does.
    1
  54. The US leads the world in R&D and does very well in advance care with high rates of cancer survival and offering the most CT scans in the world.
    1
  55. SodayBoy628, we also have the highest obesity rate in the developed world. High obesity lowers life expectancy and increases the chances of pre-mature births and thus infant mortality. That is especially true with the poor who have higher rates of pregnancies. Obesity is a self inflicted issue. Also, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Point being, there are factors outside of healthcare that contribute to those issues. The fact that we have such high obesity and still succeed is arguably a success of our healthcare system.
    1
  56. Saminul, healthcare rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can develop any method they want and come up with any ranking they want. One of the main rules of statistics is that you can lie with it. For example, if you remove car accidents and murder the US is number 1 in life expectancy. The US is number 1 in obesity rates of OECD nations which creates many health problems. That is an issue outside of a healthcare system. I have read the methods and they don't account for situations like that.
    1
  57. While a lot of research is done at universities most of the actual production is done at the private level. I work in scientific research for a living so I know a lot about this. Research done in university is very basic compared to the private industry.
    1
  58. Also, the WHO ranking was criticized so much they have not made another one in nearly 20 years.
    1
  59. Saminul, I never said it was exclusive to the free market, but a free market system does help a lot.
    1
  60. The CWF is a private special interest group. Their study leaves out a lot of stats and variables making it flawed. For example, in their healthcare ranking (which again, they are arbitrary), they leave out cancer survival rates even though they admitted that US excels there. They look at amenable mortality where the paper entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature review" shows the shortcomings in using that. The CWF also looked at life expectancy where two professors showed that by removing car accidents and murders from all countries has the US as number 1 in life expectancy. Fact is that anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and create any ranking they want. That is why those rankings are arbitrary and almost useless. To reduce a complex issue like healthcare down to a simple ranking is a dangerous thing to do.
    1
  61. Saminul Haque, the CWF works in healthcare coverage. A single payer system will benefit them. You have to know that. I do not support the current system as the current system is not a free market system but a heavily regulated system that drives up cost. To me adding more government is not the solution. There is a disagreement on the cost. The Koch brothers system has been misrepresented by the left to a high degree. The study said the number they published was a conservative estimate and the cost would most likely be much higher. They made the assumption that increasing demand will not increase prices and that healthcare providers will be willing to take a 40% paycut but still provide the same quality of care.
    1
  62. You need to read the study closer. It even says that the number the published is on the lower bound and chances are the cost will be much higher. They are making the assumption that even with increasing demand healthcare costs won't rise. That will not be the case. Just like how the federal student loan program led to college tuition to increase a lot, so would healthcare costs if the federal government pays for it. The system before 2008 had problems, but it was still very strong. I prefer a free market system as we have not had one since before the 1970s.
    1
  63. What makes you think the government can negotiate prices? Also, what will stop healthcare providers from lowering quality? The whole "negotiating prices" part seems like the government oppressing healthcare providers. You bring up cost but ignore quality. Read the article entitled "How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive"
    1