Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "WATCH: JFK Argued For Medicare For All" video.

  1. It is radical, especially how it is being pushed. You are asking to completely transform our healthcare system. And in doing so it is being pushed on misinformation and deception. So much is being left out and the far left is not being honest.
    2
  2. That is deceptive as many factors influence those stats beyond healthcare. For example, the US has high obesity rates where obesity, according to a Stanford article entitled "Obesity before pregnancy linked to earliest preterm births, Stanford/Packard study finds" leads to premature births. That increases the chance of infant mortality. Now consider we are number 1 in all OECD nations in obesity rates. Obesity is higher for those in poverty, and more pregnancies, including unwanted ones are higher for those in poverty, that is a factor that drives our numbers down.
    1
  3.  @Supernautiloid  , sending a man to the moon is much easier then changing a system that is 1/6 of our economy and influences 320+ million people. The revolution is not here, Trump will win in 2020.
    1
  4.  @ItsOgre  , they transformed they decades ago when they were still developing. The UK did it after they were destroyed in a war.
    1
  5.  @Supernautiloid  , global fascism? What has Trump done that is fascist? And your "revolution" takes away freedom.
    1
  6.  @Supernautiloid  , funny, in the 1770s this nation was founded on revolution for less taxes and decentralized government. Now people are having a "revolution" for more taxes and centralized government.
    1
  7.  @ItsOgre  , it won't make it harder as after a war a nation is rebuilding. Also, Canada has so many problems they had to allow for private facilities to be open when they were originally banned.
    1
  8.  @Supernautiloid  , I never seen a corporation force anyone to do anything through gun point.
    1
  9.  @Supernautiloid  , it is. You do know that education can be used as a form of indoctrination? Also, if what they give us is inferior in quality, and we don't have any other choices, then yes, that is fascism.
    1
  10.  @Supernautiloid  , eh, there was a lot more to it then that. They were fighting against a centralized government. In reality there was a split in who supported the war in that time and the Colonies actually paid less taxes. Distributing power by centralizing the programs? I actually support limited government and giving more power to the people.
    1
  11.  @ItsOgre  , the Federal Reserve cause the 1929 crash and FDR prolonged the recession through centralizing the government.
    1
  12.  @oof239  , how is he violating the Constitution? What war crimes did he commit? Who is he blackmailing?
    1
  13.  @dustingilbert3877  what about coca cola? What about unionization?
    1
  14.  @dustingilbert3877  , that wasn't coke, that was someone on the outside. If coke themselves did it they would be protested against.
    1
  15.  @dustingilbert3877  , see, we don't need government to stop these things. Besides, imagine if that were to happen today with social media. So if you want to make a claim that one or two were coercive, then fair. But give me recent examples from the modern world. That is my point.
    1
  16.  @dustingilbert3877  . that happened in Colombia, not the US. Colombia has many problems themselves and is prone to violence. I am talking about the US.
    1
  17.  @dustingilbert3877  , in Colombia where violence is high there. Where have this case happened in the US? You are talking about workers in Colombia acting out.
    1
  18.  @dustingilbert3877  , I have never had a corporation force me to do anything.
    1
  19.  @ugeofaltron5003  , putting a man on the moon is much easier. How many people did it directly effect? A handful relatively speaking. With healthcare you are talking about 1/6 of the economy, 320+ million people, many who enjoy their healthcare, and a life or death situation on a very complex issue. Healthcare is way more complex then putting a man on the moon. Beyond that, the major problem with the push for M4A is how deceptive the supporters are of it. You point to France and the UK when they have lower quality and lower accessibility compared to us. Why don't you bring that up? Also, you are proving my point with the time. They established their system when they were still developing as a nation. We are developed. We should improve the system we have, not completely dismantle and replace it with another system that will have flaws as well.
    1
  20.  @ugeofaltron5003  , tell me how you will establish M4A? I will lay out the issues 1. How do you get 320+ million people to agree to give up their healthcare? 2. How do you convince these same people to pay more in taxes? 3. Under Bernie's plan cuts in payment will be made by 40%. So yes, overall it will cost less and be comparable to other nations. Now how do you decide at what point you cap healthcare like other nations do? In that you have limited access to care. 4. Who decides what is elective and why? 5. What about the jobs that will be loss in the insurance businesses? That is just to name a few. I can give more if you want, but we will start there.
    1
  21.  @dustingilbert3877  , money has been speech for decades. And money is a form of speech. And no living wage? First, define a "living wage". Next, these people are alive so I guess it is a "living wage". As for bankruptcy and being sick, I assume you mean medical ones. That issue has been overstated as point out by the NEJM article entitled "Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies" Also, why are you blaming corporations? All a corporation can do is offer you a job and/or a product. That's it.
    1
  22.  @dustingilbert3877  , the number of people working more then one job is low. Also, how many do it just for enjoyment and really don't have to? You have to factor that in.
    1
  23.  @dustingilbert3877  , who has more speech? Me or Tucker Carlson? Who has more speech, some random guy at McDonalds or Kyle Kulinski? If you want to play that game then Tucker and Kyle should give up some of their air time for people like me as they have more speech then I do.
    1
  24.  @ItsOgre  , such as? Even at that, give more recent examples. We also have a violent history when it comes to government as well.
    1
  25.  @Username-ei4ff  , they can cut me off at any time. Also, that will only be for a few minutes. Why not hour long programs day in and day out?
    1
  26.  @ItsOgre  , do people hate insurance companies? Also, I feel they are a problem, but to me the solution is not to replace the system but improve it. Also, people in the US like the system as is. Reality is when you break it down all systems have flaws and advantages. In the US we lead the world in survival rates for advance illnesses for a reason. Now we can adopt a universal healthcare system but you have to be willing to accept that a lot of advanced testing will be greatly limited. That means if you want your MRI you will have to wait months, if they allow you to have it at all.
    1
  27.  @dustingilbert3877  , they take money to pay for campaign. That is why it is speech. No quid pro quo.
    1
  28.  @nathanlynn4929  , how do corporations eliminate competition? And what is "wage slavery"?
    1
  29.  @ItsOgre  , I know a lot of people who like their insurance. As for polls, they are unreliable for several reasons. Mainly they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. As Prof. Andrew Gelman said, when more information is given opinions change. Polls are a snapshot, not a forecast. Government has a ton of bureaucracy in it.
    1
  30.  @ItsOgre  , as for corporations and influencing politics. That is an issue of government having too much power that it can sell. Also, stop saying "wage slavery". Slaves were forced to work.
    1
  31.  @ItsOgre  , uh, not really. Polls are unreliable because they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. If you tell the same people that taxes will go up, they will lose their private insurance, and quality will drop, will they support it? Healthcare is complex. Polls also don't get people's reaction when they are online or phone polling. Polls also don't measure how passionate they are about the topic. Sure they may support it. But if their passion is lower then those who don't support it, less supporters will go out and vote. Also, as I said, polls are a snapshot, not a forecast. Opinions change over time.
    1
  32.  @dynamicworlds1  , it isn't a moderate position. It is pushing to completely replace our current system and is being pushed on deception and misinformation.
    1
  33.  Classical Scholar  , is it broken? Yes, it has flaws, but so does every system. For example, universal healthcare systems are terrible when it comes to advanced illnesses. I am not saying the US system is perfect, and I am more then willing to admit it. But when you break it down it is on par with other systems.
    1
  34.  Classical Scholar  "Zero people die for that reason in every other developed nation!" 100% not true. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. For example, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective surgery" which can include certain forms of heart and neurosurgery according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Also, that 40,000 number has been challenged. For example, Prof. Richard Kronick wrote a paper entitled "Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited" Saying "The Institute of Medicine's estimate that lack of insurance leads to 18,000 excess deaths each year is almost certainly incorrect. It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analyses, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States." Prof. Katherine Baicker mentioned that those 40,000 are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or simply because they are in bad health to begin with? As written in the book "Being Mortal", people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those 40,000 healthcare and they die 5 months later, was that a success? "Look at the empirical data." I have looked at the data. You clearly haven't when you don't even know what amendable mortality is.
    1
  35.  @ugeofaltron5003  , how did the WHO create that ranking? I bet you don't know. Their ranking was criticized so much that they have not created another one in nearly 20 years. Healthcare rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can work with the stats and create any ranking they want. "Also, our system is on par with everyone else's despite having more deaths from a lack of healthcare than any other developed nation combined" 100% not true. If you can't get basic facts correct we can't go to opinions.
    1
  36.  Classical Scholar  , I am all for holding insurance companies accountable. We do that via the free market, not government regulations.
    1
  37. Seriously, where do you guys get your information from?
    1
  38.  @ugeofaltron5003  , people are going blind in the UK because they refuse to give cataract eye surgery to them.
    1
  39.  Classical Scholar  "Medicare for all is proven to ensure a healthier population by every metric." By what metrics? Again, I have read the data. So far you haven't given me any. You only have talking points. I will admit there are advantages to a universal healthcare system. But there are many flaws as well. The issue is that people like Bernie are not presenting those flaws. If M4A were to pass the US population will be incredibly shocked at how much our healthcare system has changed to where they won't approve. When your doctor tells you that you can't have that MRI unless you pay a shit ton of money or wait a year, you will be angry. I know I will.
    1
  40.  Classical Scholar  , you apparently don't know what amenable mortality is. it is deaths due to lack of access to healthcare. In every system people die due to lack of access. As I said, up to 7000 people in Australia die waiting for "elective surgery" according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. As for being unethical, read the paper entitled "The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" The reality is this, these are the difficult discussions and choices that are made daily in healthcare. The far left completely ignores them. If you go to a M4A system the very sick are going to suffer as they will be denied access to advanced care or will have to wait a long time. That has shown to harm people. Read the paper entitled "Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence" They say "However, long wait times are a source of distress to patients, and in some cases have adverse health consequences." And also say "Although not all publicly funded healthcare systems have wait-time problems, wait lists are more likely to be found in public systems. This is because universal access to care, when combined with the government's desire to control health spending, can mean that the supply of treatment does not meet demand" Also read "A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006" Where they write "Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers" There are many ethical questions that come up in healthcare. Resources are limited. You say I am unethical when you are the one that is unethical by refusing to dig deeper on this complex issue and learning about it more. Reality is that something has to give, and no matter the system people die. The challenge is deciding want system is the best both objectively, with the numbers, and subjectively, in what society wants.
    1
  41.  Classical Scholar  , the solution is not "common sense" when there are arguments to be made on both sides. And now we have made it to the core of far leftists. When you go to the core of the political left their arguments are based on emotions. When you go the core of the political right their arguments are based on facts and logic. Not saying one side is completely emotional and one side is completely objective. Just saying at the core. And not saying one side is better then the other. We need both. There is an emotional side to be made with healthcare. Yes, people have feelings and there are difficult choices to make. But the facts are that resources are limited. Something has to give. You are showing how irrational the far left is. You give one stat and run with it on an purely emotional argument. I have pushed you to the point where you claim I am "unethical" as you have no actual objective argument to make, just emotional. Is it unethical to let people die? Well, to be 100% honest, it depends. As I said, if you give someone care and they live only 5 more months, was that a success? One can argue either way. And this is where the difficult discussions come. But right now the far left is not willing to have them, and that is dangerous.
    1
  42.  Classical Scholar  go by percent. Australia has less people
    1
  43.  Classical Scholar  actually a lot of those sources support a universal system. Why aren't you reading them?
    1
  44.  Classical Scholar  , those sources have to give their funding sources. Ever read peer reviewed sources? At this point I can tell you haven't. If they don't submit a funding source their work can be taken down.
    1
  45.  Classical Scholar  , empathy, emotion, same thing. I see a lot of anger from you. "Second, medical resources would not decline under medicare for all." I know, just the demand for them will increase.
    1
  46.  Classical Scholar  , I suggest you use Web of Science, more reliable. Besides, why are you not reading the sources I gave? Some of them actually support a universal healthcare system. The reality is this, there are so many things involved with it. My point is that people pushing for it are not being honest. As for your source 1. Coverage does not equal access 2. And how much in taxes? Many people will be losing money. Besides, did Bernie say only the rich will pay? Didn't Warren say middle class taxes will not go up? 3. Bargain how? 4. Is it a burden? 5. Getting rid of the payroll tax can do that. Government created that problem 6. What? 7. What? 8. Medicare pays less which is why private insurance pays more, to offset the cost. So quality will drop Nowhere is quality and accessibility mentioned. Why?
    1
  47.  @ugeofaltron5003  i cited more then him.
    1
  48.  Classical Scholar  , that is now how conservatives think.
    1
  49. @Michael Isbell , the FDA is there to regulate food across state lines. Also, that does not take away anyone's services/goods like a universal healthcare system will.
    1
  50. Fire departments are ran and funded locally where 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Also, fire departments are far less complex. Do you want a volunteer doctor with no education taking care of you?
    1
  51. Define "decent healthcare".
    1
  52.  @Greendalewitch  , we won't be spending less.
    1