Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "2,000 Doctors Say Bernie Sanders Is Right About Universal Healthcare" video.

  1. +scarfacemperor But yet the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world.
    2
  2. +vuk911 https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    2
  3. +vuk911 I just linked you a book that breaks it down. Kyle even said that a little research is all you need. There you are.
    2
  4. There are over 800,000 physicians in the US. 2000 is a small number at that point. You also have to consider that with universal healthcare those doctors have guaranteed jobs. As far as which system is the best, the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. Most of our problems comes from the federal government, such as the payroll tax. Insurance should be for emergencies and accidents. It isn't supposed to be healthcare but insurance. Car insurance pays if someone hits your car, but doesn't pay for oil changes. Problem is that the federal government had to get involved and create these problems. Adding more government is not going to make it better.
    1
  5. +vuk911 If bankruptcy is the only problem we have in the US concerning healthcare then it is safe to say we are doing well. I rather go bankrupt than die. Cost is an issue in the US with healthcare, but that mainly stems from the federal government.
    1
  6. +vuk911 Here is what professor Oshfeldt had to say in rankings "Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates,” he told me. “We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.” These factors (which could also include rates obesity and smoking, also arguably the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily."
    1
  7. +jeova0sanctus0unus I linked a book, twice in fact, on this thread. Prof. Oshfeldt and Prof. Schneider showed how you can make an argument showing how the US has the best healthcare system in the world. I would never say it is the best, but people have to honest in what they say. Here Kyle is ripping on the US system by calling it primitive when there does not exist any statistical supporting evidence for that claim. And making the hand wavy argument of "every other nation does this" is really weak. This is going a little bit off topic but this is why the term "regressive liberal" exist. I am all for improving our healthcare system, but to make actual progress you have to accept facts and not just shout crap.
    1
  8. +scarfacemperor Many people can afford healthcare, but I would agree cost is an issue. That stems from policies established from the federal government. People feel our healthcare system is that of a capitalist system when it isn't. One reason for the problem of cost existing in healthcare is the payroll tax established by the federal government. Every country in Europe has their own system.
    1
  9. +Ae Norist "Single payer is good (for the people), everything else is worse" How? That is an extreme generalization. There is not statistical evidence that supports that.
    1
  10. +IybraesilGaming I never said we did. I said we arguably have the best healthcare system in the world.
    1
  11. +Chairman Sanders "Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates,” he told me. “We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.” These factors (which could also include rates obesity and smoking, also arguably the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily." That was in response to being questioned on his book he wrote called "The Business of Health"
    1
  12. +IybraesilGaming How?
    1
  13. +Chairman Sanders Did you read the book I linked? It addresses cost. I never quoted anything about how the US spends a lot and pays the most. I agree cost is an issue, but that stems from the federal government. But no one can say that we perform the worst. And are system is not "primitive". At best the US has the best healthcare system in the world. Again, read the book. If you refuse to even acknowledge it then you are dense. I am all for improving our system, but we can't approach this in an ignorant way.
    1
  14. +Ae Norist "Its the worst among the most wealthy nations of the western world." If you want to be fair you have to accept that one can form the argument that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. I would never say that the US has the best, and I will criticize those that do. But to say it is the worse is being just as ignorant. There are great arguments against single payer. We lack resources as is. It creates an inefficient system and problems have come up with it.
    1
  15. +Chairman Sanders All studies? Read the book "The Business of Health" by Prof. Robert Oshfeldt and Prof. John Schneider. That is a book that cites numerous peer-reviewed studies. It makes the case that one can argue that the US has the best healthcare system in the world.
    1
  16. +IybraesilGaming "45,000 people die every year due to lack of healthcare." That is a poor argument to make. By law, in other countries, people have access to healthcare so of course they don't die due to "lack of healthcare". They die due to inferior healthcare. "People sometimes can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition." I agree, that is a problem. That stems from the federal government though. Adding more government will not make it better.
    1
  17. +Chairman Sanders "Are you deliberately ignoring facts here?" No. In fact, I will link the book again. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf And what Prof. Oshfeldt had to say. "Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates,” he told me. “We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.” These factors (which could also include rates obesity and smoking, also arguably the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily." So that ranking you are giving me is frivolous.
    1
  18. +scarfacemperor "or another of Team Hillary's paid trolls" Is that really you level of intelligence? When someone comes with a moderate stance on the issue they are a "paid troll"? How myopic of you.
    1
  19. +Chairman Sanders "What? That has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Private health insurance companies have to make a profit which is why they are trying to deny care as much as possible." Actually it does have a lot to do with the federal government. Around 70% of people who are employed get insurance through their employer. The reason why is because of the payroll tax. With the payroll tax if an employer pays a higher wage they have to pay a higher tax. A way to avoid that is by offering benefits such as stocks and healthcare insurance. That means people get a generic plan at the mercy of their employer. And if they quit they have to change plans. With no federal payroll tax businesses will pay with a higher wage thus people will instead buy a plan that caters to them that will also be cheaper due to competition (no more generic plans). "Do you know how many times people are denied care in single-payer systems? Never. It's just not a thing." Actually that is not true. People are denied a lot. One of my colleagues, who is Canadian, was denied knee surgery in Canada. His cousin was denied heart surgery because it was not considered critical. "You are sick? You get healthcare. It's really that simple." I agree, it should be that simple. Problem is that people equate healthcare insurance to healthcare. Insurance is if something radical happens, such as an accident. Compare it to car insurance. Car insurance pays if a tree falls on your car, but not oil changes. Healthcare should be the same thing. Insurance should be if I fall off of the roof while getting a Frisbee off it and break my arm. If I am sick that is not critical then I should be able to go to different doctors and have them compete for my money, no insurance necessary. But as I said, the payroll tax prevents that. " You are arguing that pre-existing conditions are the governments fault, even though pre-existing conditions don't exist in government-run healthcare systems." If I had the option to pick my own healthcare insurance plan then it wouldn't be a problem, because my plan would be for emergency care. All other care would be out of my pocket which due to competition would be cheaper. You want an example? LASIK surgery has gotten better and cheaper over the past few years. It is not covered at all with insurance and it not critical. Is that logical enough for you?
    1
  20. +Chairman Sanders " All he's arguing is that it is difficult to compare healthcare outcomes between countries." Which is a legit argument. "But all the evidence we have suggests that the US performs worst among industrialized nations and that US citizens pay significantly more than europeans." What evidence? If the difference of life expectancy was 15 to 20 years then you have an argument. But a difference of a few years isn't a strong argument. "I'm tired of this, you don't seem to be interested in having an actual discussion and instead keep quoting the same irrelevant passage over and over again." I am interested in having a actual discussion in this, and I have stated in the past that I can see the benefits of single payer if it were ran at the state level. But people have to be honest here. You are not. You are automatically dismissing the success of the US system by claiming it is the worst. " If you enjoy getting ripped off by health-insurance companies I really don't know what to tell you" I really don't enjoy getting ripped off my the federal government either.
    1
  21. +Chairman Sanders "THE EVIDENCE STILL SUGGESTS THAT THE US DOES WORSE AND THAT YOU PAY 2.5 TIMES MORE." Again, read the book. It covers those issues.
    1
  22. +scarfacemperor That is a legit question. To me the private system is fine, the problems falls on the fact that the federal government created the payroll tax which means people end up getting healthcare through their insurance plan. The private system has a lot of benefits, but insurance should only be for emergencies and critical care. The payroll tax is like several other federal programs that just stirs the pot and creates more problems. It is similar to the student loan program. The student loan program led to higher tuition. Bill Maher said that if the government is going to pay for the bill then they should also control the cost. By not doing that even with single payer what is going to stop healthcare companies from just raising prices? There are arguments for single payer as well. I would see the benefits of it if it were ran at the state and local level much like K-12 education is.
    1
  23. +Chairman Sanders I am debating you. You are saying that the US is the worse when there are no statistics that show that.
    1
  24. +Chairman Sanders I am not debating the commonwealthfund, I am debating you.
    1
  25. +Chairman Sanders So why can you cite sources but yet when I cite a book that runs through the statistics you cry " I'm debating you, not a fucking book"? Please explain your logic behind that.
    1
  26. +Hypatia It is funny that you say that considering how I am the one that 1. said there are advantages to single payer 2. I want to improve the US system 3. admitted that no one can say that the US system is the best. The other two people I am arguing against is saying that the US system is the worse and single payer is the way to go. Their ideology bars them from even considering an alternative to the government getting involved.
    1
  27. +Bryan Duran "Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates,” he told me. “We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.” These factors (which could also include rates obesity and smoking, also arguably the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily."
    1
  28. +Coastwalker I read on that. The fact is that death by human error is very hard to measure. Was it due to medical mistakes or the disease itself or the individual? This comes back to the book I keep referring to. Statistics can be used to argue that the US is poor in healthcare. But statistics that are just as reliable can be used to show it is the best. There are problems in the US system, but to say it is "primitive", or the worse in the world is pushing propaganda.
    1
  29. +Chairman Sanders I linked a book written by 2 professors, one of them who is a department that cites several studies as well many that are peer reviewed.
    1
  30. +Chairman Sanders I live in a world of facts and accept that the US does have problem with their healthcare system. The problem is that you feel the government route is the only way to go. What is ironic is that you won't say what route considering how every country does something different. Your argument is vague.
    1
  31. +Celrador Nice logical fallacy. The book cited from AEI cites peer reviewed articles and is written by two professors in that field.
    1
  32. +moneymaker2dx " it doesn't matter if the majority of people cant damn afford it " Actually the vast majority can. But I do agree cost is an issue. That problem stems from the federal government. " if you look at our performance ranking in education we suck compared to many of the other post industrial nations " That depends. Do you want people who test well or do you want productive workers? We are in the top 5 in productivity in the world. You can be the most knowledgeable person in the world, but if you can't produce anything then what does it matter?
    1
  33. +Celrador I never said the book was cited by AEI. I said the book cited several sources from peer reviewed journals. What you did is a logical fallacy. You are attacking the source instead of the content. How about you criticize why the source is bad? How about you write a book about it. How about you do research in it for a living like Prof. Oshfeldt and Prof. Schneider do. Your only only argument is that it is from AEI so it is not good. That is not a strong argument.
    1
  34. +Celrador My bad on the typo. So people can't make mistakes? It is a logical fallacy. What about the source makes it unreliable? Or do you not agree with scientific research and writing? Why are you so anti-science, anti-research and anti-education?
    1
  35. +BillyBowlster "Locking your hospital doors and saying no one is sick is a good way to show no one is sick too. Also having bankruptcy looming over your head is a good way to deter poor people from visiting also." And other countries make you wait due to lack of resources. We, along with other countries lack resources. We lack hospital beds, doctors, there is a waiting line for organs. How do you solve that problem?
    1
  36. +BillyBowlster "Universal medicare does away with the parasite middle man " And replaces it with the government, is that more efficient? No. That is what the book shows at that end, that for profit system does not make the system worse. You feel that with the federal government everything will be all better when history has shown it doesn't. There are a reasons why people want to change the NHS. There are people who have problems with Canada's system. My overall point is that you can't just look at the US system and says "it is primitive" or "it is the worse in the world". There is no evidence for that. That book shows that. Is it the best? I can't make the claim, and those that do are just as ignorant as those who say that the US system is the worse. It has problems, and I am all for fixing it. In order to progress you have to accept facts first. This is why the term "regressive liberals" exist. They are people, like you and many others on this comment thread, that deny reality. They make vague claims and do not have distinct solutions. To you, and others simply having universal healthcare will somehow solve the problem. Believe me, if it were that easy I would do it. But it isn't. What is the old saying? If something seems too good to be true then it is? You need to accept facts and have an open mind to solve this problem. Without that we are not going to improve this situation.
    1
  37. +Ae Norist Well it isn't an argument, it is them showing how myopic they are. You may feel I am "beyond reason", but I came at this with facts and wanting to improve the US healthcare system. Simply saying "we need universal healthcare" is not a solution. If it were that easy then I would be all over it. It isn't. It is clear that the US system is not primitive, or the worst. It is clear that we do have problems that need to be fixed. And it is clear that the problems we do have stem from the federal government, not government itself as in state and local government actions are fine, but the federal government, like all of our problems. If you want to be myopic then fine, go that route. In the end I am well off, there is no reason for me to push for changing the system. But if you want to improve the system then I suggest you open your mind a little bit and accept facts before you start discussing opinions.
    1
  38. +Anita K "Search more information about this if you are not believe this." Ah, the old "look it up" argument.
    1
  39. +Javed Alam Ok, here is what Prof. Oshfeldt had to say "Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates,” he told me. “We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.” These factors (which could also include rates obesity and smoking, also arguably the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily." http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/
    1
  40. +Javed Alam Ok, now for my rebuttal "It's funny that you have ignored all of the literature out there that contradicts your argument, " Actually I haven't because that book cites literature from numerous sources including peer review journals that you would claim "contradicts my argument". The simple fact is this. I have never claimed that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, neither did Prof. Oshfeldt and Prof. Schneider. At the same time no one can claim that the US system is the worse or "primitive". No such literature exists to show that. Anyone such literature that tries to make that claim is making a ranking that is arbitrary as Prof. Oshfeldt said. Let me give you another example. If you go to Wikipedia (I know, not a reliable source, but it is still pretty good in this case) and look up life expectancy, you will see that the average in the world is around 71 years ± 7 years with the WHO numbers it cites. That is by me doing a quick analysis, but still pretty good. The US is at 79 years, so already one standard deviation away from the means. The US is 5 years (less than on SD away) from Japan who was number one. Does that mean that Japan has a better healthcare system? No. There are several variables involved in the outcome of a society's health beyond healthcare. That five year difference is noise at that point due to several other societal differences. The same goes for every other method in determining healthcare quality. Overall that is what that book was doing, showing how frivolous those rankings are. You saying that the US healthcare is the worst in the industrialized world is not different than saying "'murica numba 1". You are not in the same category as those individual. You can say that the US healthcare system has problems and I would agree. You can say we need to improve and I would also agree. But the second you say that it is primitive, or worse than country X, or the worst in the world, then I immediately know you are bias and have no desire to actually improve the healthcare system. You denial of facts and refusal to have an actual intelligent discussion on the topic shows that.
    1
  41. +Anna Alētheia Oh, my bad. I can use the exact same argument you did. I have been living with the US system for 29 years and I have yet to see any that would impact my life negatively. We can all point to individual stories and find horror stories of poor healthcare quality in the US and the UK. You can look at overall statistics and see that the differences between each country is minute. The overall point is that no one can that either system is terrible or the worst. Both have their problems, both can be improved upon, and both have working with different societies.
    1
  42. +Ae Norist One, how am I a broken record? Everyone is here saying that the US system is the worst in the industrialized world when there is zero statistical evidence to support that. Next, how is that book bias? It never says that the US has the best system or that other country's systems are inferior. It is showing that no one can definitively say that one system trumps another system. They all have problems an statistically they are all producing similar results. Everyone else here is bias saying that the US system is the worst and primitive and want to take the radical approach of scrapping it all together and developing something completely new. Healthcare is around 16% of our GDP and they want the federal government to run that. That is larger than our military which is around 4% of GDP. I am all for improving healthcare in the US, I am just intelligence enough to realize that we can't just take a radical approach in doing. What is ironic is that I am the only one that is providing the most resources here to support my claim and that I am the only one who is not bias nor a broken record. Everyone else here is saying that the US system is the worst and that universal healthcare is the way to go with zero evidence to support their claim.
    1
  43. +Ae Norist So tell me, where have I been wrong in any of my comments. It doesn't take much. Just point out anywhere I have been wrong.
    1
  44. +Ae Norist "You disregard overwhelming evidence / facts to the contrary" Contrary to what? "and charrypick stuff " What did I cherry pick? "You are religious" No I am not, and when did I ever show any indications I was. "not interested in facts" But yet I cite a book with numerous peer reviewed citations. "Your mind will not be changed" How did you come up with that conclusion? "and everyone else can see for themselfes how ridiculous your position is." What is my position? You need to be clear on that. "There is no aedequate explanation for 2.5 times the spending to achive a result that is basically the same" Because one can argue that we are not achieving the same but in fact better. We are number one in cancer survival rate and if you remove car accidents and murder we are number one in life expectancy. You can't just assume that a universal healthcare system will all of a sudden make things better in any way. I am not saying the US system is without flaws, cost is an issue. To me cost stems from policies set by the federal government. Adding more federal government is not going to fix it. I am all for discussing a solution, but we have to get past this barrier called facts first before we can get to opinions.
    1
  45. +Ae Norist "And 250% the cost for 102% the result is a shitty return on investment." I would agree, but is universal healthcare the option? And if so, which country do you want to copy? Each one does something different. I don't agree with scrapping the entire system we have and replacing, but instead building on the current one we have now. Scrapping the system we have now will have devastating effects on the economy. To me the main problem is cost that stems from the federal government. " that the government drives that cost is unfounded." Anything the federal government touches outside of its constitutional authority breaks. Look at the federal student loan program and college tuition. Government got involved when it created the payroll tax. In the 60s it expanded the payroll tax. With an increase in the payroll tax that means that businesses paid a higher tax if they paid a higher wage. A loophole is that businesses instead offer benefits such as stock options and healthcare insurance. Those were way to pay employees that were 100% tax free. Ultra liberals love to point out that wages have been stagnated since the 70s which is true in a way, but it ignores benefits that have been offered due to the payroll tax, so it is deceptive. As is over 60% (and I think 70%, but I am not 100% sure, one can look it up) of employees get their healthcare through their employer. They get a generic plan. This is where you get problems such as women getting coverage for Viagra when they don't want it, or people leaving a job and having to go to another one but end up being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. People refuse to leave their job because doing so means losing their healthcare coverage. What has happened is that healthcare insurance has become healthcare coverage. Insurance should be for emergencies, like car insurance is. Car insurance does not pay for oil changes, but pays if a tree falls on your car. Healthcare insurance should pay if you fall off of roof cleaning the gutters, not for the routine checkup you are doing. But that isn't the case due to people getting coverage from what their employer offers. If the payroll tax was removed then businesses will instead pay with a higher wage. That will allow people to buy the insurance they want that caters to them. Due to competition they will get coverage that is affordable and covers what they want. LASIK surgery is not tied to insurance and has dropped in price while getting better. The common myth is that we have a capitalist system in our healthcare when in reality we don't. That is how the federal government has hurt the price of healthcare, it removed competition which is not capitalist. "You cherrypicked the issue of quality, because you can hide in the margin of error and disputable details there," That is not true. Others have said that the quality in the US is poor. I am exposing that we, at the very least, get similar results. One can argue better, but at the very least we get similar results. "You chose to ignore the issues of price," I actually don't ignore the issue of price. I have said repeatedly that cost is an issue. I just outlined for you how the federal government hurt competition in the healthcare industry which increased the price. "you convieniently forgot that government does not work for profit, and can even work at a loss in that department" Which is not good for the economy. Building on our current debt does not grow the economy. Plus, lack of a profit motive hinders growth. Almost all of the progress we have in this country is due to profit motive. Profit is what drives progress. "whereas private insurance is a industry with massive profits" And it becomes a problem when there is no competition or it has to cater to the employer instead of the consumer. An insurance company is going to offer care that an employer wants, not individual consumers. Thus the consumer who is actually using the insurance is screwed due to lack of competition. "This alone clearly shows how inaedequate private buisness is to provide healthcare for the benefit of the people. Its not evil, its just flawed by design." The design is flaw because there lacks competition. People feel that it is simply the fact that this is for profit that is causing the problem. The reality is that it is for profit without competition. I hate my insurance plan. I stick with it because my employer gives it to me as part of my payment. I could buy my own but then I will be essentially be paying for double. The middle class get screwed in that case. I, along with others, am at the mercy of my employer when it comes to healthcare. I can't go around from company to company bargaining prices and picking a coverage that fits me. I have to take what my employer offers along with others. Now how is that a capitalist system? And your solution is to limit my options even more? Just take what the federal government offers? The same federal government where only 1/50 of the senators represent my state and runs an $18 trillion debt? I don't see that as a legit solution. "And now try to actually reply to that, without citing from your little book (which again is obviously flawed and in contrast to the vast majority of literature. " Ok, what literature? I keep hearing you saying that it contrast a "vast majority of literature". Which ones? Please show me the peer reviewed literature it contrasts. The pure fact is that the main issue of our system is cost. That derives from our lack of options as consumers and lack of competition in the market. Elective care is expensive, but LASIK surgery has become cheaper and better despite being elective as well. That is because insurance does not cover it. It comes out of the consumers' pockets forcing companies to compete. People way we have a free market system which is 100% false. Again, we need to get past these facts before we get into opinions.
    1
  46. +Ae Norist "Just fixing problems as they arise is a methodology that leads to extreme inefficiency in every field, not just healthcare." Not really. If I get sick somehow and then see the doctor and get cured then that is fixing a problem as it arises. It isn't just getting sick, the same can be said for elective surgery. I could benefit from knee surgery as is. I don't get it because the costs right now don't outweigh the benefits. I do numerous exercises to keep healthy so I don't have to use healthcare. "But you know what? I simply don´t care enough to discuss you further, its a waste of my time." Which means you don't want to actually solve the problem. This is common for people that want to take the simplistic approach of just letting the federal government fix it. Why work when they can do it all for you? "You drank the libertarian coolaid" How? I already said that I do see the benefits of a government funded healthcare program and see how it can work well if funded and ran at the state and local level.
    1
  47. +Anna Alētheia The major disadvantage of healthcare is that the government is not in the business to actually generate profits and thus has no incentive to actually improve. There is a desire to have government and money spent by government. I do see the advantages of government funding healthcare. The issue is that we have to keep government as local as possible to ensure that we are getting our money's worth and the government remains the servants instead of the maters. The majority wants to remove corruption from the federal government. This is why candidates like Trump and Sanders are actually legit candidates in that they are winning in a lot of ways. The reason why corruption exists in government is because it has power that can be bought. If government had no power then it can't be bought. Now this is not to say we shouldn't have government. What we need to do is keep it as local as possible to control it. People are trying to compare the US, with 320+ million people, to a country like Finland who has a population that is less than at least 30 of our states. That is why those policies "work" in those countries. If you want to establish single payer at the state and local level thing great, I can actually see it working. But at the federal level you just open the door for more corruption. Think of it like this, do you want a Ted Cruz like politician becoming president, or politicians like him in congress whom you can't vote for running your healthcare?
    1
  48. +Anna Alētheia " Business men are just as corrupt as politicians" All a businessman can do is offer me a product or a job. The government is the only thing that can do something by force. "With single payer health care quality isn't a big issue, as the government needs healthy people" Not really, especially with technology. All they need are a few intelligent individuals and everyone else to be drones that obey them. " Also, just because the state provides health care, doesn't mean the state runs all doctors and hospitals" Then how are you going to manage the price and actually offer healthcare to people?
    1
  49. +Anna Alētheia "The state decides on the prices of their doctors treatments and the doctors are ok with that, because the state pays them well" Define "well". Who determines who much doctors get paid? Will there be some kind of union? Will there be negotiation between groups of doctors? Will there be laws in set? Beyond that, who determines how many patients do they see? Who determines how much time off they should get? This seems like it is adding levels of bureaucracy which will make the system inefficient.
    1
  50. +Tanner Post The poor do have an option, it is called Medicaid.
    1
  51. +Anita K I have a right to bear arms.....so where is my free gun?
    1
  52. +Dara Marc Sasmaz You do have a right to access healthcare, but you don't have a right to someone's service or property. That is why saying that healthcare is a right is 100% not true. If you are saying healthcare is a right in that you have the right to pursue it then sure. But saying it is a right in that you should be guaranteed it is 100% false.
    1
  53. +Zappa I don't know.
    1
  54. +Dara Marc Sasmaz Those goods have to come from somewhere. Thus you are taking property from others.
    1
  55. +Mckenzie .Latham "Do you really need a gun to live?" Depends on where I live. If I live in a neighborhood of high crime then yes. So no, it isn't a false equivalence. You also have to realize that you don't have a right to someone's services. So no, healthcare is not a right. You have a right to pursue it, but you don't have a right to force others to give you something.
    1
  56. +TaleDreamer Fire departments are locally funded and around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Police departments are locally ran and funded. Public education is locally ran and funded. Around 3/4 of roads are locally funded. Sanitation is locally funded. If you want healthcare to be ran locally then fine, but not federally. There is a big difference. With the military it is constitutional and cannot enforce domestic policies but deals with only foreign affairs. It follows the design of the constitution where the federal government was not supposed to have power over the people.
    1
  57. +Dara Marc Sasmaz "Yes, running healthcare locally is definately better also in my opinion" If you want to run it locally then sure, I can see the benefits of it. People try to compare the US to countries like Denmark and Finland which isn't a great comparison considering how those countries have populations that are smaller than most of our states. It goes to show that locally ran programs are far better. "But leaving it to the private sector is absolutely retarded," Not necessarily. Goods in the private sector has improved a lot compared to the public sector. With the public sector you lack profit motive as an incentive and you have bureaucracy. Look at social security and how it essentially hasn't changed in almost 80 years. Healthcare is complex. We can't expect the same methods we use today to work 80 years from now.
    1
  58. +TaleDreamer " it is a proof of concept, tax-funded "services" are viable" If they are implemented correctly then yes. To grow economically you have to get the most out of your resources. The more local government is the more you can see if you are actually getting your money's worth and change it if you aren't.
    1
  59. +Dara Marc Sasmaz Corruption only exist because the federal government has power to begin with. With power it can be bought. If you want to eliminate corruption you have to get to the root of the problem. Corruption is just a symptom. Attack the disease, not the symptom.
    1
  60. +TaleDreamer There is a desire to have government, you just have to keep it as local as possible so that the people are able to control it. There are also limitations on governments as listed in the constitution. So no group can use the government to their advantage. "The extreme argument to your point would be to propose Anarchy," Which is 100% false. I support following the constitution and having more local government. There is a desire to have government, but we must keep it under control to make sure it remains the servants and not the masters.
    1
  61. +TaleDreamer "However, this creates a wide margin for disparity between many communities: some are poorer than others, some have better public services, some disagree with their neighbor's policies, some disagree with local deals/agreement terms and etc." And how is that bad? We have diversity in this country which is great. I lived near towns that have no stop signs and do just fine without them. Every area has their differences and creating a one size fits all policy is not the solution. " Hence, the Federal government should retain its power to endorse and enforce policies as seen fit, but the people running the government with bias should be sacked." There are policies listed in the constitution to maintain some continuity. For example our currency, or allowing citizens the ability to move states. Everything is all laid out in the constitution.
    1
  62. +TaleDreamer The federal government was not supposed to have any control of individual citizens' lives. That is why it doesn't run healthcare. If a government runs health care it has the ability to control your life in some ways. At the state and local level you have the ability to control government or move. There are towns who are dying in my home state. A lot has to do with he evolution of the economy. Others are due to the local government which people have tried to change. Some has to do with the federal government as well which is a problem. An example is the federal min. wage. At $7.25/hr small towns, not businesses, but town can't afford it.
    1
  63. +TaleDreamer "As of now, private pharmaceutical companies and health care providers are already actively controlling individual lives due to lack of regulation in production cost and sale prices." Then control that at the state level. At the state level you still control the government. There is a desire to have government, but you have to keep it under control.
    1
  64. +TaleDreamer 1. The cost gets passed on anyways 2. At the federal level a company will just leave all together. At the state level they are still in the US. There is no one solution. You can attract companies with tax breaks and the local economy will prosper. That is what happening in my home state right now. We have a company coming in due to a tax break that is creating several high paying jobs in an area that is struggling now. There will still be restrictions on them. In some areas there isn't a desire to have certain companies thus they don't have those tax breaks. Everyone wants to cut costs and maximize profits, including individuals. You have to find a common ground. That ground is not clear and is different across the country. Just creating a one size fits all policy never works.
    1
  65. +TaleDreamer 1. A public option has benefits, but as I said, we have to keep control of the government. State governments can control drug prices just like it can create a public option. The issue is that too much government is just as bad as no government. 2. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. States won't be strapped for cash if we remove federal involvement in domestic policies. A problem we have is that the fed. takes the money in taxes that shouldn't exist and then tell states to do something or they don't get any money. "If the local community become too dependent on a company for jobs, the company have a lot of leverage over the local government." Every local community is dependent on the people that live and work there. If a local government pisses off intelligent, successful people then they move. It isn't just companies. If they piss off doctors, lawyers, professors and so on, they move.
    1
  66. +TaleDreamer 1. It is not practiced. What is "too much control" is up to the citizens of that state or local government. Whenever a law is being pushed I ask myself 1. is it constitutional 2. what does the government potentially have to gain here. If it is constitutional then the people do have control. People then have to be aware of what the government can gain. 2. What do you mean by empty state? Do you mean a state with no people? While we don't have such states we do have ghost towns where the economy went so sour that people no longer live there.
    1
  67. Simply saying that every other nation does it is not an argument. Every other nation has their own form of healthcare. The US has some sort of healthcare for all if you earn a low enough income, it is called Medicaid. A problem we have is regressive liberals love to make vague arguments such as "every other nation does it, so can we, derp". That is similar to saying "murica is numba 1". I am all for improving healthcare, but we can't be idiots about it. As is we arguably have the best healthcare system in the world, but regressive liberals simply refuse to acknowledge that. So Kyle, you are a part of the problem. Congrats.
    1
  68. +Hung Tang People in other countries die due to inferior healthcare.
    1
  69. +triburst https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1