Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "WATCH: Trump's Biggest Fans Weigh In On 'Medicare For All'" video.

person human, to start, that Mercatus Study did not say it will save Americans trillions. They number they produced they admitted was on the lower bound and that chances are it would cost more. Also, that number they produced was just for public spending and does not include private spending where what we spend now is for both public and private. Also, they assumed that despite increase in demand prices will not go up and that healthcare providers will be willing to take a 40% paycut while still offering the same quality of care. Next, right at the beginning of that video, who is Andrea Witte? How many publications does she have on healthcare? How many books? How is she credible? She talks about "love of math". I have a math minor and a physics degree. Prof. Robert L. Ohsfeldt and Prof. John E. Schneider both have PhD's and specialize in stats and healthcare economics and wrote the book entitled "The Business of Health" that suggest that a universal healthcare system is not any better than what we have now. But I guess ignore that, let us listen to this lady with no credentials except for her self proclaim love of math. She says 2/3 of our healthcare spending is tax finance. To start, where did she get that stat? According to tax policy center the federal government spends $980 billion on healthcare. Now maybe she is including state and local taxes which is fair, but she needs to list sources. She says that having one payer will lower healthcare costs but gives zero reasoning. In reality that is a monopoly where the government has control. You also create the situation where healthcare providers will just jack up the prices and if the government refuses to pay than people don't get healthcare. If the government tries to price set than healthcare providers will lower the quality. Having one payer removes competition where competition reduces prices and improves quality. Right away, less than 5 minutes this woman is a hack. She points to the study you mention where the current system is for both public and private where Bernie's system is just for public and does not include private. But go ahead and ignore that part, this lady, with so many credentials surely knows what she is talking about. In around 6 minutes I am done. Maybe I will watch it some more for entertainment, but if this is the best you can do you are in trouble. I suggest you read the book I suggested by two experts in this field.
4
person human, the book is free online. I am watching the video and she is ignoring many things. As I mentioned in that study, that is for only public care and does not include private. Also, the study assumes that increasing demand will not increase prices. That will not happen. The federal student loan program increased demand for college where universities ended up raising tuition as a result. I do truly understand the issue and that is why I acted the way I did. I have read books and papers on this issue and this lady is making a gross simplification of a complex issue and is ignoring many variables and misrepresented a study. I will watch the video some more but this lady gave very little references and is making a lot of assumption. Right now I am at the point where she is talking about negotiating drug prices. What makes her think the government can properly negotiate drug prices? What makes her think the private sector can't do it? Tell me, why does she ignoring the point of increasing demand will not increase prices even though basic economics and history shows that not to be true?
3
Istcloud, other nations have many shortcomings and when you break it down they are not better than the US.
3
person human, maybe she mentions it later in the video (I am at the 20 minute mark), but she has not mentioned the influence on the economy it will have changing to a system like that. Healthcare is 1/6 of our $18 trillion economy. Changing something that large in our economy that much will come with devastating results. To use the analogy she did with the person moving apartments and moving to apartment B saves her $200 a month, she ignores the fact that moving means paying for a new deposit, paying to have things moved in both time and money, taking time to change address, taking time to find a place to begin with, etc. She ignores all of that. Now expand that to 320+ million people in a $18 trillion economy. Even if medicare for all is better switching to it will cause major problems in the economy will harm many people.
3
person human, also, she says that 2/3 of spending is tax financed. We have that but healthcare costs are high. To me that is an argument to get government out of healthcare as the large role of government has caused prices to go up. Read the source entitled "How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive"
3
person human, I watched around 30 minutes of it. I will try to finish the rest. I do have work to do. This lady is making a lot assumptions. On major one is trying to sell to the public to accept higher taxes and that government will save us money despite the poor history the government has in managing money. She never addresses that. Never mind the numbers at that point (which I strongly disagree with). How do you convince the people of Medicare for all? How do you convince them that taxing them more will actually save them money?
3
There are many arguments against it. Talk to many economic professors and you will see.
2
@thereverseeffect7269 , in every healthcare system people die due to shortcomings. In Australia up to 7000 die a year on waiting lists waiting for "elective" care. People die in Canada waiting for "elective" care. That 40,000 is very deceptive for these reasons 1. As I just mentioned, people die in all nations 2. No similar study was done in other nations so you have nothing to compare that 40,000 to 3. Those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with being poor such as obesity. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? You say wait longer for treatment, why? How do you determine how long people should wait? And for what? That is not easy. They have problem in New Zealand of people ending up worse off financially, psychologically and physically due to waiting too long.
2
This goes both ways. You see many on the right attend these protests and find dumb people on the left to speak.
1
Medicare for all won't be cheaper.
1
The Koch Brother study shows Medicare for all costing more.
1
Trump would lose independents. That is how you win elections, through independents. If Trump did many left wing policies he would lose as many independents would not see a difference between him and the democrats. Kyle failed politics.
1
@jojoboko6990 , what are you talking about? That study was just for public spending and does not include private. Also, you are ignoring the other assumptions they made.
1
person human, I watched the entire video. There is so much wrong in what she said. If you want me to give a break down I will tonight. I am busy today with work but will have time tonight.
1
Jay0321, in terms of percent GDP our defense budget has been dropping. It was at 10% in the 60s and now it is less than 4%. Meanwhile SS, Medicare and Medicaid has been increasing in relation to percent GDP.
1
Bud, look at defense spending as a percent of GDP. It has been decreasing. I know ultra leftists don't like facts but that is the truth.
1