Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "CBO: 52 Million Will Be Uninsured With Trumpcare" video.

  1. In Europe they have waiting lists and even at that they are still not better than what the US has. When you break down the numbers you see that single payer is not any better than what the US has system wise. But, in the end, the ultra left wanted healthcare reform so badly that they gave the federal government power to create it. So they did. Now the republicans are in control and look at what is happening. This is why I support state rights. If you want to compare us to Europe we have states the size of those countries, and those countries run their own systems.
    2
  2. Scott, it is far more complicated than that. Even so when you break down the numbers the US still has a strong system. No need to replace it but instead improve it.
    2
  3. Hey liberals, this is what you wanted. You wanted the federal government to be involved with healthcare so this is what you are getting. Maybe if we just left healthcare to the states this would not have happened. And to those who wanted single payer, imagine what Trump and the republicans will be doing wit that. But this is the situation you created allowing the federal government to be involved in healthcare. Enjoy!
    1
  4. lybraesilGaming, this is government being involved with healthcare. Really no different at that point. This is why I support state rights. Liberals could have had the ACA at their state and Trump and the Republicans could not do anything. But to ultra liberals these days it is feast or famine. This is what you wanted so now enjoy.
    1
  5. Jace, imagine what the republicans will be doing if we had single payer. They will be stripping that away. At the state level you have more control of the government and somebody in another state can't change what you have. You say single payer is the only choice we have but there are a lot of Americans who disagree and voted for Trump and the republicans to keep that from happening. You don't like what they are doing just like republican supporters don't want single payer. Create it at your state and we will be fine.
    1
  6. " single payer would cut costs by more than half," That makes zero sense economically. Increasing demand without increasing supply will raise prices.
    1
  7. " what demand is being increased " You are increasing the number of patients. If you go single payer that means those who are not covered now will be. So unless you creating a queuing system demand will go up.
    1
  8. "the purpose is to have all people covered" Which is impossible due to limited supply. The government can't just magically create more doctors. "There isn't any argument against single player." There are a lot of arguments. "Also under single player supply of healthcare will go up because insurance companies aren't taking their piece." That makes zero sense.
    1
  9. "It will cut costs because the government will be able to negotiate drug prices, " Which lowers the quality. But why not have the people negotiate prices? "And stop with this bullshit "waiting line" talking point. It has been disproven countless times, " Not true. Plus, you are ignoring the root of the problem. Republicans are now in charge and see what they are doing? Do you want them controlling your healthcare?
    1
  10. Rodney, if you force drug companies to lower prices they will lower their quality. You can call it "negotiation" all you want, but in the end it is price setting. "Healthcare is too important of an issue to be left to individual states, and literally almost every problem with healthcare in America centers on private insurance companies manipulating the market." Every problem with healthcare centers around the federal government. Also, we leave other things to the states such as education, what makes healthcare so different?
    1
  11. "There is a reason no other modern country in the world handles healthcare the way we do. " And the system they have is not any better http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  12. Omar, imagine what the republicans would be doing if we had single payer at the federal level. How about we leave healthcare to the states.
    1
  13. Omar, that is not so. They will push to change it on some way that liberals will disagree with.
    1
  14. Hal Jordan, there is this little thing called the Constitution that places limitations on all governments. Why is everything to radical with your ultra liberals. This is why this healthcare law is being created in the first place. You became radical, pushed for healthcare reform at the federal level giving that government that power, an now republicans are in control causing this. Enjoy the system you created.
    1
  15. Omar, protect all citizens how? And at who's expense? " How is it justifiable that a government has the means to provide healthcare for citizens but declines to do so ?" Because they don't have the means to do it unless they take from someone else.
    1
  16. Omar, you are ignoring the root of the problem. The republicans are now in charge, do you want them controlling your healthcare?
    1
  17. Hal, Brown vs Board was a 14th amendment ruling. Roe vs Wade was an incorrect ruling. But again, they pointed to the constitution. "Most Americans want government healthcare that covers everyone. " That is why 80% voted for it in Colorado....oh, no, 80% voted against it? "Republicans are just trying their best to roll it back to what it used to be," So what? They are in power now. You wanted this so you got it. Complain all you want. Point to the polls all you want. My way with state rights and the constitution was a median ground. You wanted to go radical so this is what you have. You made your bed now sleep in it.
    1
  18. Omar, the FBI enforce federal law which is necessary. Some of the laws are unconstitutional, but that is a different topic. The army and roads are constitution. Even at that 3/4 of funding for roads is at the state and local level. " Taxes, they are a contract between people and the state whereby people get services that they can not practically provide for themsleves." Yes, the state who you can vote in politicians for. At the federal level the only tax should be on the states, not the citizens.
    1
  19. "This is simply your opinion. Abortion is a right that's protected under the 14th amendment." Nope because the word "abortion" does not exist in that amendment. It was an incorrect ruling much like Kelo vs City of New London "You point to state, while I cite the poll," Than why the wide gap? Colorado is a decent size, and pretty liberal state. "That's a pretty callous way to be, considering republicans will now be essentially killing people, by denying them care." The democrats had the same reaction when the right complained about Obamacare. What goes around comes around. "The only people that 'wanted this' are republicans and their money-daddys." And only democrats wanted Obamacare. "On gay marriage, abortion, and segregation, your way has lead to failure for those most vulnerable" Abortion was an incorrect ruling. No government can segregate as covered in the 14th amendment. Marriage is a state issue and gay marriage was, in some ways, an incorrect ruling. " your way has lead to failure for those most vulnerable" And your way leads to the mess we have now with republicans now changing healthcare. This is what you wanted. "Why blame me, when it is people like you and Paul Ryan that are leading to this? " If Paul Ryan did not have that power you gave him this would not be an issue. I want states to handle these issues. I want people like Paul Ryan to not have any say in healthcare. You did.
    1
  20. "If they were, we wouldn't have all these vaccines for viral infection," A virus, by definition, is not living thing. A fetus is. That is basic biology.
    1
  21. "Again, this is simply your opinion. " Nope, I go off of the constitution and it is black and white to me. Abortion is not a right thus it should be a state law. If abortion is a right why isn't assisted suicide? "This talk about Colorado is pointless. The fact is that most of the country supports single-payer healthcare. " But it failed in two states. So pointing at Colorado is not pointless. It is like how most of the polls said Clinton will win many swing states, some by wide margins but lost. "This is a lie. Obama Care saved thousands" You can't determine that as thousands is a minute amount of people. How many people did Obamacare make worse off financially? "Most Americans want single-payer healthcare." Then why did it fail to pass in Vermont and Colorado? Why did so many republicans win on the idea of repealing Obamacare? "That's simply your opinion on Roe v Wade, Jim Crow was rampant until Brown v Board of Education was won, and you don't agree with gays being protected? Great. Figures." Roe vs Wade as an incorrect ruling as nothing in the Constitution mentions abortion. On Brown vs Board you have the 14th amendment in that case in how no government can discriminate. That is the difference. On gays, name me one right that gays lack. And please cite the constitution. "Blaming me, for the sins of you and your fellows, is a cheap, dishonest tactic." I want to get to the root of the problem. If Paul Ryan did not have power he could not do this. With state rights these issues are isolated at the state level where the people have more control. On top of you giving Paul Ryan power, can you even vote for him? I can't. You created this problem now you have to deal with it. "Incorrect. Paul Ryan is simply doing what you wish, and rolling it back to the dark days, when the government was out, and the insurance companies were in complete control." Not true. The government has been involved in healthcare for decades. They have hurt the ability for the people to negotiate insurance coverage and drug prices. Healthcare should be a state issue. You can create your healthcare laws in your state and go from there. You don't have to force it on others and others won't force their laws on you. Sound fair? People complained about Obamacare for years but you supported it. Now it is the other person's turn to force their law on you. Whether I agree with Paul Ryan or not is not the issue. What is is the fact that you gave him that power now you are crying about it.
    1
  22. "How and at what level taxes are collected is not the issue, " Yes it is. The more local government is the more control you have over it. You also have the greater ability to see if you are getting your money's worth on taxes. How many of these liberals that watch Kyle, including you, can actually vote for Paul Ryan? "once you admit that healthcare (not neccessarily single payer system) is a right " It isn't. Rights are things the government can't take away.
    1
  23. "Viruses are very much living things. " A virus, by definition, is not a living thing. That is why it is so hard to find cures for viruses like the common cold and HIV, they are not even alive to begin with. How do you kill something that is not alive. You need to learn some basic facts before you can go on to opinions.
    1
  24. Azerfield, if the polls keep saying that the people want universal healthcare than 80% of people would not have voted against it in Colorado. The fact is that 80% did showing that they don't want universal healthcare. You can make all the excuses you want, but in the end people voted against it. It is similar to how many polls said Clinton would win swing states, and by large margins, but she lost. Or how 87% of people want universal background checks on guns. But in Maine that failed when but to a vote and in NV it passed by only 0.45%, with many county sheriff departments saying they won't even enforce it. You can point to polls all you want, but in the end what happens in the voting booth is all that matters. On Cruz vs Sanders, both Cruz and Sanders used emotions. Difference was that Cruz did his homework and brought facts and data where Bernie didn't. The best was when Cruz ripped on Bernie's plan on how we can't pay for it. Did Bernie give a counter argument? No. He just attacked Cruz's tax plan which is deflection. Bernie lost that debate so badly that ultra liberal channels like TYT and Secular Talk did not talk about it in detail. They swept it under the rug.
    1
  25. "Yes they would, for much of the same reasons people like the Affordable Care Act, but hate "Obamacare."" People hated the ACA which is why they kept voting republicans. " And as for the debate, no, a lot of Ted Cruz's talking points were flat out wrong." How so? Just saying they are does not make it so. "Those "horror stories" he talked about aren't that as frequent as everyone tries to make it out to be, and he also ignored the fact that healthcare in the US is rationed as well" Yeah, but the fact is problems still exist. When you run through the numbers like these two professors did https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf You see that nothing indicates what other countries do is even better. Cruz is trying to sell a more free market plan, which I support. But as a moderate I will say that what other countries do is no any better than what we do. So with that in mind there is no need to scrap our plan and replace it with something else because 1. You are replacing one plan with problems with another plan with just as many problems 2. You will perturb the economy to the point where jobs will be lost and a recession will happen. Even if temporary lives will still be harmed. 3. You will have to tell the majority of US citizens how to change their lives such as pay higher taxes. That is why Coloradocare and Vermontcare and Obamacare have been met with so much hate. To me we should improve on the system we have since there is no advantage in completely changing it. There are advantages to single payer, but when broken down you see that it is no better than what they US has.
    1
  26. Calvin, the tax breaks was pure deflection by Bernie as he had no response. On pre-existing conditions, you don't get healthcare insurance when you need it. That is not how it works. On people losing healthcare insurance. Cruz responded to that. He wants to create competition which will lower premiums. And everyone rations, Cruz addressed that as well. Bernie got destroyed as he did not bring anything in terms of data or facts. "His "facts" were fact checked the day after and most of them were incorrect." Only a handful, the vast majority of them were not. " Cruz used emotional arguments by using anecdotes " So did Bernie. "whereas Bernie actually talked about people as a whole" Nope. "presenting facts about how premiums were rising before ACA, and how women were considered pre existing conditions. " Obamacare was passed on the idea that premiums will drop but they didn't. Also, on women, get insurance before you get pregnant. On top of that, with competition insurance companies will cater to the customers. Cruz brought that up. "Or how millions would lose insurance under the repeal" Just like millions lost it and saw their premiums go up when it was passed. "Mentioned how we pay more for healthcare while getting worse outcomes." We do not get worse outcomes. When you run through the numbers you see that single payer is not any better than what we have. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Bernie even admitted he struggled in science which it is safe to assume he struggled in math. When you look at the data the US does not get worse outcomes. "These are facts." Not really. He made talking points but never gave hard data, so in reality they are opinions. "Sanders even cited the conservative leaning Wall Street journal and how the plan is just a giant tax break to the rich. " Which is deflection. The topic was healthcare, not taxes. "He mentioned sanders plan and how he wouldn't be able to pay for it a the very end when sanders couldn't respond. Not to mention that Cruz did not cite anything; it was just declarative statements. " Cruz gave his citation. What did Bernie do? He deflected by talking about taxes. "And it shows, majority of the American people approve of the ACA currently. " Nope, people voted for republicans to repeal it. "Town halls are packed with people who don't want it repealed" Being louder does not mean you are the majority. Look at how many people attended the women's march but Trump still won. When I look at those town halls I see a bunch of cry babies.
    1
  27. Calvin, that book is written by two professors, one who is the chair of their department. They cite peer reviewed journals and gave their methods. The fact that you refuse to read it just because it is from AEI shows how myopic you are. On politifact, they did not fact check everything Cruz said but only a handful of what he said. There were many facts that politifact refused to look at. So just pointing to a few and ignoring the rest does not show that Cruz was wrong.
    1
  28. cjgt77, companies competing for your healthcare means they cater to you. If they provide people a poor service they will go out of business. Government has not pressure on them. "We already have a free market " No we do not. We have many government barriers like the payroll tax for example.
    1
  29. Calvin, Bernie in all of his debates always deflects. He brings up a handful of talking points. He either talks about millionaires and billionaires, big corporations, the top 1%, or exaggerates stories of how people are suffering. Every politician deflects in some ways, but that is all Bernie does. I have never heard him in a debate where he doesn't. Bernie was debating Douglas Holtz-Eakin on the minimum wage and Bernie immediately starting talking about Walmat. When Douglas brought up the fact that there are other businesses Bernie went back to Walmart. He is a fool. " He didn't even review what bernie's plan actually was. " And Bernie did not even know what his plan is as he did not defend it. "That doesn't address anything. Bernie mentioned how people were denied coverage due to arbitrary pre-existing conditions." Due to lack of competition and also people all of a sudden feeling they need insurance now that they are sick. But, pre-existing conditions can be solved with both the free market and local government intervention. " Does not address people losing their insurance, does not address how costs would lower. " Yes it does because competition means lower cost. If a company charged too much a rival will charge a lower price to attract customers. "Meanwhile he was getting slaughtered as Bernie continued to hammer away on how people would lose insurance" Cruz responded to that with offering more choices. Being covered is just one step. Bernie wants people to be covered but never mentions the quality. If we are covered but quality is low it does not matter. "He didn't say "everyone rations" that's you saying it. Cruz specifically tried to attack single payer by bringing up the outdated rationing argument, meaning that he thinks the US doesn't." No. Rationing by the government creating some arbitrary list is not good. If someone put themselves in an position to have access to healthcare, why should they wait? " whereas Bernie actually spoke of millions of people losing insurance." And millions lost it because of Obamacare. "With no evidence to back it up. Again, declarative statement. if Cruz said what you just said in your first two sentences of this paragraph, he'd be getting death threats. " Obama said Obamacare will lower premiums. That was the promise Obama made. Cruz did not make that up. "The rate of rising premiums have actually slowed down because of ACA" Because of the recession. "Cool opinion. Almost every objective study which has examined different country's healthcare disagrees with you completely." I guess you did not read that book I gave you which did many statistical regression. Looking at UN numbers does not make it a study. How about you give me those studies, i did. "our outcomes are worse" Based off of zero evidence. "What citation? it was mostly just declarative statements. Yes Bernie talked about taxes, because Cruz's plan and the republican healthcare plan in general is nothing but that. A transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. Raising premiums and other costs dramatically." Cruz gave citations, watch the video again. And the topic was healthcare, not taxes. "Because Trump..." Trump did not run in 2010 or 2012 or 2014, when Republicans won. "Women's march was after he won." Yeah, he won. Maybe if people voted they could get what they wanted. Or maybe they are just the loud minority.
    1
  30. cjgt77, most people, including me, get their insurance through their employer because of the payroll tax. So most people don't have a choice. They get what their employer offers them. " I just want coverage " But with what quality?
    1
  31. "(citation needed) (empirical evidence needed) " Ironic you say that when you have not given one yourself. Look at the free market in other sectors. You see lower prices and better quality. Now look at programs ran by the federal government such as the post office or the VA or public education. "This problem wasn't solved when those pre-existing conditions existed and when there was more competition" We have not had more competition in years. "Yes, let's act like getting a life saving medication when you're almost dying is akin to buying furniture. Same fucking thing, right?" When it comes to insurance it is. "Your simplistic view of the world is amazing." Ironic coming from a guy who feels that single payer will solve everything ignoring the complexity of the issue. "if someone is completely dependent on a treatment to the point where they're guaranteed to buy it" Like food? But the price of food has been dropping for years. Housing is important where the federal government, with the FHA, has been subsidizing that for years and housing has gone up. Hmmmm "what reason would these companies have to lower their price?" Gain more customers, just like other businesses offer lower prices and sales. "if they know that you will buy it because death is threatening you, why wouldn't they charge however they see fit and then bill them later? " Because a rival company will charge less. " People don't have time to shop around for the best deal when they're sick and desperate" For insurance they do. "Bernie had little time to respond to it, nor was the debate about Bernie's plan" He had ample amount of time to respond, especially if he stayed on topic and didn't go to taxes immediately. "People in Canada and Scandniavia are doing better than we are;" Not really. When you analyze the stats you see that they are not better off and they face problems. " in fact they laugh at us" And people in the US laugh at them.....so what's your point? "Except it's not arbitrary. it's done by need and emergency" Define an emergency. Life threatening is one thing, which is already given priority. But what about knee surgery or hip surgery? Why do I have to wait for that? I put myself in a position to receive care, I should get it and get back to work. Not be held back because I have to wait for someone else to get care. " Let's ignore the fact that more people gained insurance" You forced them to buy it. "Let's ignore how more people were dying" Nothing suggests that was the case. People die on waiting lists. "On my phone, but commonwealthfund, bloomberg, World health organization," Commonwealthfund admitted their "study" had flaws. The WHO was criticized so much that they did not release another ranking since. They compared the US to countries like Andorra and Malta. We football stadiums that can hold the population of Andorra with room to spare. Andorra is a tax haven with around 80% of their GDP tied into tourism. That is a small population that attracts money. That is not a valid comparison. I did not see Bloomberg, but considering it is not academic it is safe to say it is flawed. "I mean you can simply look at our life expectancy" There are several factors that play a role in life expectancy. For example, Professors John Schneider and Robert Ohsfeldt showed that if you remove car accidents and murder, things not strongly connected to healthcare, the US is number one in life expectancy. Also, the life expectancy of the world is 71±7 years. The US is close to 79 years, so one standard deviation above the average. Japan is at 85 years. That six year difference is noise in statistics. Again, just looking at UN numbers does not make you an expert on healthcare. You have to analyze the data, not just look at the raw numbers. "What citations did he give? And for what statements?" I cited a book called "The Business of Health" by Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider. I will give you the link in another comment. "Its not a deflection, though. It relates to the topic at hand, which is why he brings it up" It is not related. Cruz showed that buy taxing the rich we still can't pay for healthcare. Bernie did not give a rebuttal on the numbers. Cruz's tax plan means nothing at that point because the issue was that Bernie's plan is expensive and we can't afford it. Bernie did not disagree. Bernie tried to smear Cruz with his deflection but failed to stay on topic.
    1
  32. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf There is the book
    1
  33. "Yes, because Obama completely broke his promise of hope and change" Hope and change is broad. " and instead gave us a right-wing healthcare plan" That received zero support from republicans. " It's one of the many reasons why Democrats were wiped out completely in 2016," Because their policies suck. "plus republicans are able to message in a way that's persuading while democrats kind of just cave into pressure. " Or maybe because their policies suck. " So people see that their costs are rising but don't realize that their costs would be even worse under republicans" They rose with Obamacare on the promise they will drop. "2012 obama won by the way" He was the incumbent. How many presidents lose their re-election? Since 1900 we have had 19 presidents now. Only 6 did not serve a second term. Out of the 6 two died in office. So that means 4 lost. Saying Obama won is not much of an accomplishment.
    1
  34. "Funny how you say that when you have yet to cite a single country that uses your shitty and regressive free market plan" So what? Regressing to the norm is not a solution. Other countries use different systems anyway and when you break it down you see that the US system is not terrible compared to other countries. So what are you arguing here? That other countries are different? That is not an argument. "Pre-ACA there was plenty of competition" Not true. Most people get their healthcare from their employer because of the payroll tax. They don't have a choice but instead are stuck with what their employer offers. "What? They've been increasing Even if they did decrease, i thought we didn't live in a free market." Food prices have been decreasing. Also, I said our healthcare is not a free market system. Neither is food but food is more free than healthcare in that people can still grow in their yard for example and can choose where to get their food. "No where did i say it would solve everything lmao. I'm just saying it's a better system based on empirical evidence and data. " Except data shows it isn't a better system. You are being too simplistic here. Nothing indicates that single payer is better. Is it worse? No, it isn't that either. It just isn't better than what the US has now. "How much less? And what guarantee is it that it'll be enough?" You are not guaranteed anything. Just like with single payer you are not guaranteed care. "Except Cruz completely strayed from the topic. He talked about BERNIE's Healthcare plan and not the ACA/its replacement which was the point of discussion." Bernie wrote part of the ACA and is pushing for single payer. Cruz is showing that government care has many flaws, one of which we can't afford it. He was on topic the whole time. " and instead Bernie did the smart thing and went back on topic, " The topic was healthcare, not taxes. Bernie went way off topic like he always does. "where he mentioned how the replacements would not only give the rich even more money" One, that was his tax plan, not his healthcare plan. Next, not give but allow them to keep the money they earned. " When the plan itself says that it would give tax break to the wealthy " Which was his tax plan, not healthcare plan. "Based on partisan and right-wing nonsense. Of course they face problems, but they also don't die NEARLY enough, nor do they go bankrupt like we do." All the references and methods are there for you to criticize. How are they wrong? Also,where are your numbers that show "they also don't die NEARLY enough"? "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." That was from the Commonwealthfund. They admitted flaws. "And which WHO study are you looking at? They ranked every country on a scale and used many different factors to determine which one has the best or worst healthcare. US was 37th. " I am looking at that one. It is from 2000 and was criticized so much they refuse to make another ranking. The Bloomberg study is rather vague as they only looked at life expectancy (as I showed you can depend on many variables) and expenditures. Healthcare is more complicated than that. "Murder isn't strongly connected to healthcare? So mental health has no role in murder cases" I said strongly connect. One, how many murders seek care? Next, the point was that there are many variables involved in life expectancy such as lifestyle for example. It just isn't about healthcare. "6 years is a lot" As a whole it isn't when the standard deviation is 7 years. "If you can live 6 years more, that makes a world of difference. " Does it? Lying in a bed for a few more years is not living. But, as a whole, 6 years is not a lot. As as we have seen, when you remove two variables the numbers change drastically showing the sensitivity of the data. That means that 6 years is noise. Study some advanced stats someday. " No, that's the citation that YOU gave. I'm talking about Cruz." Re-watch the video. " It wasn't a smear, that's their plan" That was his tax plan. "At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year [2008] ... were on patients age 65 or older.” And more than 1,500 of those, it turned out, were on patients over 85." And? How long did they have to wait? "The bottom line: Canada doesn’t deny hip replacements to older people." What was the waiting time? "Know who gets most of the hip replacements in the United States? Older people. " No shit, they are old and fragile.
    1
  35. " so what's wrong with trying single-payer to find out how good or bad it is? " Because when you run through the numbers you see that what the US has is not worse than what other countries have. Or in other words, single payer is not any better. Going to single payer would mean 1. Replacing our system with problems with another system with just as many problems 2. Perturbing the economy in a way that many jobs will be lost and a recession will happen. Even if temporary it will harms lives where nothing is gained. 3. You will be changing how millions of people act because their taxes will go up. People will have to adjust for that and to the changes. This is related to point two. We should improve on the system we have. If any healthcare reform is to be done it should be done at the state level. If a state wants single payer than fine, ruin (or improve) their own state. But not at the federal level. " I remember all the fear-mongering the GOP did with Obamacare," Which is happening now with the Republican's plan. "before the ACA, people complained greatly about the system and demanded change" Which is complicated which is why I say leave it to the states. "What you're really proposing is a time before the ACA " Not really. "Like my example earlier, I can choose from different car plans, but they all proposed pretty much the same price with only a marginal amount of savings to me while cutting options" Which can mean a lot really. Even at that what that showed was the market settled due to competition.
    1
  36. cjgt77, I see the advantages of a government system. Working with an ex-Canadian who hated the Canadian system, he said single payer had advantages. Now in the end he preferred the US system, but he said universal healthcare has advantages. I see the advantages but to me, when you break it down, single payer is not any better than what the US has. I am not saying it is worse, I am saying it is not any better. Healthcare is complicated and any reform should be left up to the states. I have no problem with that. But people who massively want to dismantle the system we have with federal reform and replace it completely are, to me, ignorant and refuse to look at the complexity of the situation and have not actually studied the issue.
    1
  37. cjgt77, healthcare is complicated here. You can't simplify the system. You are not building a road here with construction workers that might have some college education. You are dealing with a system that has workers with a large portion of them having advanced degrees. You are dealing with a system here that is evolving every day. You are dealing with a system here that is highly stressful and hard work. Trust me, if it were as simple as going to single payer will be all for it. But it isn't. "People are paying upwards of $1,000 for healthcare right now. Do you really think that they'd rather pay $100 to $1,000 opposed to $75 under single-payer? " Where do you get your numbers from? "every working person paying 75 will contribute over 13 billion a month for single payer." We currently lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, researchers and other highly skilled workers in healthcare. Increasing demand means higher prices. It isn't as easy as you are making it.
    1
  38. The federal government is around $20 trillion in debt, what makes you think they have money?
    1
  39. Hal, by definition a virus is not a living thing. If you have a problem with cell theory than study biology, earn a doctorate in it and change it. We don't kill viruses, we destroy them. But, by definition, they are not alive. Viral diseases are so hard to combat because viruses are not alive to begin with. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/ Hal, there is more to it than what you think. Please study some science.
    1
  40. " we will see how many people want single payer in the following years" In Colorado only around 20% of the voters. "Did the American people also want funding for climate science to be spent on our military instead? " Different topic. Military funding is constitutional. Also, people are not so concerned about funding and more concerned about the left's abusing science to push for their policies of higher taxes and regulations. "will you also say that they voted for Trump and fully understood he would do this?" Yes.
    1
  41. Hal, if cell theory is so outdated and flawed, why do we still teach it? Viruses lack things that cells have which is why they are not alive. Without a host they will cease to reproduce. I study science for a living. While you have some understanding of science you clearly have some holes. If a theory is flawed it will be adjusted. For example, if physicists were to discover the magnetic monopole than Maxwell's equations will be altered to fit the new findings. Clearly that is not happening in biology thus cell theory is still strong.
    1
  42. Hal, if you show me a peer reviewed article on viruses being alive and cell theory being outdated, than I will agree with you. Until then you are not producing anything like that. As a doctorate candidate in science that is how I approach these topics.
    1
  43. Newtonian Mechanics are not outdated as it works very well at the macroscopic level. There is a reason why there is a 700 level course on it. Now we have adjusted some materials to teach Hamiltonian dynamics which creates the bridge, more or less, between quantum and classical. But as a whole Newtonian mechanics are not outdated. "You're a school teacher turned chemist. Bio is not even your field. " I am a doctorate candidate that has study physics and chemistry. Biology, compared to biology and physics, is not a challenging topic to understand. "Incorrect. It's still taught, despite glaring flaws. " If there are "glaring flaws" than why isn't their a push to reform the theory and teach the "glaring flaws" in introductory biology courses? You mentioned "Freudian theories about psychology" but other theories are taught on top of that. I asked for a peer reviewed journal. I don't see anything about seeker's, or the author's credentials on that link you gave me.
    1
  44. Hal, you are completely wrong on Newtonian mechanics and this is an argument you won't win as I have taken graduate level courses on the material. Newtonian mechanics are not outdated and still used in many ways. How about you tell me how it is outdated? It works at the macroscopic level. "What's the treatment you give the patient, which is a replacement of what the patient has lost? " What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with our current discussion. " Flawed and outdated, but good enough to teach what we need, and get these kids jobs? Alright. Lets go on ahead. " No, it isn't like that. The possibility of the magnetic monopole is taught in physics, but one has not been discovered so we don't change Maxwell's equations. Quantum mechanics is taught in introductory physics using many concepts from Newtonian mechanics. Physics seems to have adjusted, why not biology? "Just like how relevant things are taught along outdated things like Cell Theory. What's your point? " If cell theory is so outdated than new theories will be introduce and cell theory won't be taught in depth. Just like my calculus professor taught us the rectangle method for half a day and than later spent many days with integrals. He introduced us to a topic that is no longer used. Science Advances does not even have an impact factor, and is open source. I need something more reliable than that.
    1
  45. Newtonian mechanics is not outdated. It is used in many ways and still taught as a graduate level course. Please explain to me how it is outdated? "What's wrong? I thought bio was fairly easy to understand? " It is. Does that mean I will have a full grasp of it? No. But I can read a book and figure many things out, and with some training I will be fine. Physics is much more difficult. And considering how you feel Newtonian mechanics is outdated it is clear you have a hard time grasping it. Plus you example had little to do with biology and more to do with knowledge a doctor will have. Just like reading a book on lasers does not mean you are an expert on chirped pulse amplification and understanding how opitical parameteric amplification works. So you example is meaningless. "Legacy and convenience. Professors teach what they're told to teach," Lame excuse,and not true. "No one teaches cell theory 'in depth.' It's just a series of tenants that are no longer 100% relevant to modern biology. In your undergrad career, you may get 3 test questions on it, and then you move on with your life, and focus on relevant things." There are many topics in biology. In physics you may get one question on how a laser works, and than move one. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No as the vast majority of spectroscopy uses lasers. "The source is fine, " Nope. No impact factor and open source. Not reliable. I will never cite that journal in any of my works.
    1
  46. An example of something outdated are MASERs. We learn them in optics but than we cover LASERs. We never have a question on MASERs as they are outdated. But the fact that we have questions on cell theory means it is relevant. We cover MASERs briefly as it was a starting point, but it is in a couple paragraphs in the textbook and that's it. That is an example of an outdated topic.
    1
  47. "Again, incorrect." Why? What is your reasoning? "Clearly. " Like you clearly don't have a full grasp on any topic in science. "Newsflash: Doctors practice applied biology. " In some ways. They use certain components of biology. Just like a doctorate in physics does not use all physics. A atomic and molecular guy may not know that much in terms of plasma. An organic chemist may not know that much in terms of quantum chemistry. There are many fields. "The question was fine. You just lack bio knowledge." So if you were to ask a doctorate in biology that question they would be able to answer it in detail? "Again, incorrect. " Nope. If the theory is outdated then why teach it to the point questions are asked? "Yes. Some relevant, and some not. " Yep, like cell theory is relevant to ask questions on it. "But you'll cite a 13-year-old editorial, which sits on the fence on the issue. Great." Scientific American, while not peer reviewed, is a great commercial source for many people. Several credible scientists submit articles there. I will never cite it in any of my publications, but it is, at the very least, on the same level as your source. And "on the fence" is not a bad thing in science as many theories in science are debatable.
    1
  48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43831419?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents That journal has an actual impact factor.
    1
  49. "Already explained it with the bicycle comparison." No it wasn't. You have to give me details on why Newtonian mechanics are outdated. "Again, incorrect." You have yet to support that. "Incorrect. Again. Almost everything in medicine centers around vast stretches of biology, and in multiple ways. Cellular biology, molecular biology, genetics, anatomy, neurology, biochemistry, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, microbiology, and so on. To be a doctor is to be a jack of all trades. " Not really. To be a doctor you don't have to have a deep understanding of the theory of evolution for example. Researchers worry about that. You have to understand those topics to a degree, but anymore these days things are specialized and you worry about that. "I could have asked my cousin, in undergrad, those questions, and she'd have answers in seconds. " Doubt it. You are asking a question a medical doctor will know. Your question is specialized. I can ask an undergrad in physics to explain BCS theory to me in detail on super conductors. I doubt they could because it is an advanced topic. But you seem to have taken science classes. How about you explain BCS theory to me. I mean, according to you all you need are undergraduate studies. In the end I doubt your cousin could answer your question unless they were, at the very lease, pre-med. Your question is too specialized. " Legacy and convenience. They teach Cell Theory, and then they teach why it's outdated. Get with the program. " Never seen one professor teach that cell theory is outdated. "Only relevant for 3 or 4 questions in an exam. After that? Forget about it. Not relevant. " Then why put it on an exam? We don't ask questions on MASERs in optics or ask students to use the rectangle method in calculus. "Your 13-year-old editorial is somehow equal to my recent study, which itself was cited by many other studies, and was also wrote about by another common source: Popular Science? That's funny. You're funny." I gave you another source from a journal with an actual impact factor. I bet you do not know what impact factor even means. But on that alone my source is better than yours. Please try again.
    1
  50. Face it, you lack a complete understanding of science. I will admit I am somewhat impressed you found an article, but it is from a journal with no impact factor. The professor who wrote that has very few publications. To me they are not that reliable. It is worth reading, but all they did was propose expanding the definition of a living thing. It does not seem that others are going with it though. It is worth a debate but as of now cell theory is not outdated.
    1
  51. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22508375 https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/312921 There are a couple other articles that I found on my own that mention about adding more components on the definition of life. These articles have greater impact factors. So in some ways you are correct that a virus can be considered living, but only if you change the definition of what life is. As of now that has not been changed so a virus is not living, as of yet. Cell theory still holds in many ways but like all theories they are open to change and debate as nothing in science is set in stone. You see the difference between you and me? I look for information that is reliable and I can change my stance when needed. You, on the other hand, are myopic and can't support your stance. You say something and say "nope, I am right" with no justification. For example, you have yet to show that Newtonian mechanics is outdated. You just say "it is". Funny part is that your bicycle comparison goes against you as researchers only recently found out how a bike physically works. In the end all this shows is that my intelligence is far above yours making most of what you say irrelevant.
    1
  52. "Incorrect. Explained it perfectly. " No it wasn't. Please explain in detail how Newtonian mechanics is outdated. "Have done so multiple times." Nope. You can always reference previous comments. "Again, incorrect. Doctors have to understand different mechs of evolution, and how they're relevant clinically, in courses such as genetics. " Not in that great of detail, especially if they are a specialist. "Again. incorrect. The questions are fairly basic, especially the second one." Nope, they are specialized. Point to me a textbook or test that asks that question. "She answered them months ago. " Out of what book or test? What course. "Considering you haven't studied bio ever, I'm not surprised." My research is in biophysics. "We've been over this multiple times. " Nope. "Well, well. We have ourselves a comedian here. " What references do you cite? I cited two and can give more. Please reference some textbook or test. "Yeah. I actually know about viruses, and you don't." You apparently don't as you can't even find proper references. I did very easily. "The comparison was meant to illustrate that a thing can work in certain situations, and still be outdated, like Newtonian Mechanics. Again, you're failing to see the point. " It was a poor comparison as Newtonian mechanics was recently used to describe how a bicycle works http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2084/1955 But according to you they used an outdated technique. Man are a comedian here. Please study some more science.
    1
  53. Face it, you are ignorant. You can't even look up proper citations to justify your point.
    1
  54. Hal, until you give me proper citations such as a textbook, a test from a college course, and/or a peer reviewed paper from a journal with an impact factor, all that you say is meaningless.
    1
  55. ^This guy refuses to cite any peer reviewed references when I have. And when challenged he just mocks the person he is debating showing he can't justify his stance. The laughs never stop.
    1
  56. Hal thinks Newtonian mechanics is outdated even though I just gave him a peer reviewed paper from 2007 showing work done with Newtonian mechanics. The laughs never stop.
    1
  57. Hal gives out a question that he feels any biologist can answer but fails to cite a textbook on where it came from or any test or what course that question will come from. The laughs never stop.
    1
  58. " thinks he knows more about viruses than I do" I cited two papers from Intervirology. You don't even know what journals to cite.
    1
  59. "Why did you say you were pursuing a chem PhD, but now it's biophysics?" My program is physical chemistry, but I study the physics of biological materials such as nucleotides and peptides. I use spectroscopic techniques to do that. So yes, I study biophysics, my programs is physical chemistry. You do understand that is normal, right? I have a physics and chemistry degree and in my research I specialize on the physics side. I work with many biochemist who do not understand physics (for example, they do not even know that LASER stands for, let alone how it works).
    1
  60. "Nah, already gave a source." Not a reliable one. I gave one that you could have easily found if you knew as much as you say you do about viruses.
    1