Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Is Medicare For All A Good Idea If Republicans Try u0026 Destroy It?" video.

With Medicare for all, do you want a corrupt group of politicians running your healthcare? That is a major reason why people oppose a federally ran healthcare system. It gives too much power to the government.
2
Herb, 1. Yes, unless the government does not control prices than no, they will just charge more just like colleges do with the student loan program. 2. I am not the one to say so I can't give you a hard number. The median is around 190,000 dollars a year. For the work they do and the malpractice insurance they pay I would say that is alright.
2
"The government would hire doctors and proffesionals to treat patients. How would the government "corrupt" healthcare?" Just like how Trump hired scientists to run the EPA, and DeVos to run the Department of Ed. So you are admitting that Trump is doing a good job.
1
"Medicare is run very efficiently. " It is running out of money and many doctors do not take it. " Plenty of other countries have universal healthcare" And face many problems as well. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf However, they are small countries that are smaller than most of our states. I see advantages to states running this program. The more local the government is the easier it is to control it.
1
Kevin Ellington, Alex has a point. Doctors will be underpaid and we will lack workers. We won't be able to keep up with demand in healthcare thus doctors will just lower the quality. Similar to what colleges are doing in expanding classroom sizes and offering less office hours.
1
Brian, I support government programs and see advantages of a government run healthcare system. However, you have control of the government by keeping it local. In the US we have 320+ million people. We can't vote for all of our congress members. I can't vote for Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi just like many left wing supporters can't vote for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. You say "your more likely to know who to fire(vote out) if the government messes something up as is you right as a citizen" but it isn't that easy. Watch the video "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups". He talks about government spending and keeping it local. Also, healthcare is complicated. Do the citizens really know if the government is running it efficiently or not? If there is a problem people may blame government, but if the problem can't be solved, or can be but will requires raising taxes and forcing citizens to make sacrifices, how will that work? You made it an entitlement program at that point. People will be less likely to make sacrifices. "Private health care on the other hand has the 'company name change game' to protect it from such worries and the 'not an investor/person of money' view of most " That is not so. When you are in charged of your own money you will be more aggressive in seeing if you are getting the best product. But when you make it an entitlement program that won't happen.
1
"Single-payer is not a government run system." It pretty much is as in the end they are paying so they are the ones calling the shots. If not than private companies will just raise prices. If the government refuses to pay than they are calling the shots. "Furthermore, you honestly think a private corporation taking profit into consideration is the best way to go? " In many ways I do. They have a profit motive meaning they have to actually provide to earn money. All government has to do is hold a gun to your head and take it from you.
1
Kevin, I have no problem increasing demand for healthcare, but we have to focus on increasing supply first. To do that we need more doctors, researchers, nurses, etc. If you increase supply prices will go down and more people will get care.
1
Spencerwalker21, I don't lie. They ration care and people have long wait times. Or they will raise prices just colleges raised tuition under the student loan program.
1
Herb, with price control you create inefficiencies in the market. Look at rent control. Because of rent control landlords have no incentive to make apartments better because they don't have the money. They don't have the money because they can't raise prices when demand goes up. The same will happen with healthcare. You will be asking doctors to take on more patients but will be capping how much they can earn. You will be telling drug companies how much they can charge. They will produce less drugs and doctors will give lower quality service. On Britain, Canada and other countries, they do many things well, but they also have shortcomings. When you run through the numbers they are no better off. I firmly believe that if we were to push for a single payer system it could get established and things will be the same overall, a healthcare system with problems as no system is ideal. The problem is that in implementing it we will be radically changing our system which is 1/6 of the economy. That means our tax code, how people are paid, insurance company jobs will be lost, business spending habits will change along with people's spending habit, all in a country of 320+ million people. That will lead to a major recession where millions will suffer. I will never say that the system other countries have is inferior, it works and they do well. I will never say the US system is superior, it has shortcomings. However, the US system does money things well and single payer has its faults. So, with that said we should improve the system we have, not radically change it by completely replacing it. To me, it would be similar to replacing your car with a flat tire with a car with broken tail lights. Why replace the car when you can replace the tires?
1
"If we put quality people in positions of power then we will have quality outcomes." What is "quality" to you is not quality to someone else on the other side of the country. Do you like Paul Ryan? I bet not. But the people of Wisconsin do. Unless you live there you have no say in him getting voted in or not.
1
Spencerwalker21, 45,000 people is 0.02% of the population. That is minute overall. Also, those individuals are poor and there is a strong correlation with poor people and poor health to begin with. You can't say, with high certainty, that they die purely because of lack of access to healthcare. On bankruptcy, replace that with long wait times. The shortcomings are the same to me. I rather be bankrupt than dead. Basing on need is subjective. I personally feel I need healthcare now. I put myself in a position to receive it soon, why should I wait? I am productive, I earned what I have, I should get it. You may call me greedy but who is the greedy one? Me who worked hard to have what I earned, or someone who is entitled? That is subjective but as a whole you have to consider that.
1
"Wait times are not that bad. It is highly unlikely that you're gonna die waiting for care. " First part is subjective. Why should I wait if I put myself in a position to have high quality care? Also, many have died waiting. "I called my doctor a couple of days ago, and have an appointment in two days. Is that a horribly long time to wait? " Again, that is subjective. "The thing with a public system, is that you can not walk in and demand "I want that, i want that". Your doctor decides if x-ray is necessary, or if you need to see a specialist. " And how long will that take? And why? And after what testing? This is not an easy issue to take on. "Then, when he finally sees a doctor, he says he wants an x-ray taken. That would just be waisting resources." Not necessarily, and that is where the US system excels. What might be a minor issue on the surface can be more severe. In the US we push and are willing to pay to have advanced testing done on us to look for something that we might not see otherwise. When I hurt my knee the doctor was sure it was just a dislocation, but I still got an MRI to look for a ligament tear. I did not have one, but I am glad I got one. In the UK there are stories of people being denied advanced testing and dying such as this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-dies-tumour-migraine-edinburgh-stephanie-dickson-a7555711.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486789/Natasha-16-complained-headaches-She-died-13-doctors-failed-diagnose-brain-tumour.html " Private systems are a lot more wasteful, " Is it wasteful? "The common argument is that competition will drive down costs, which is usually true when people know what they need/want. Very few of us are experts in medicine, meaning that we have no idea what we need. " I disagree. In the US, and as a whole, when we have to pay directly we do research. Talking to a Canadian he said a major difference he noticed was that in Canada you go in, get care, and leave. In the US people ask questions to their doctor to become more informed on what is going on. They are more aggressive so they can see that they get the most bang for their buck. That is a difference in culture. " Is that really fair when other people die because they receive no care at all?" Is it "fair" that others die due to lower quality?
1
Emil M., it goes beyond being individualistic. The US has the system it has, and it excels in many ways. It has shortcomings but as a whole it does well. I see no need to completely change it where we can just improve it. Other countries have the system they have. They grew up on it. It works well but also has shortcomings. They should improve it not change it. Going to Medicare for all will mean radically changing how an entire country thinks and acts, especially financially. That will lead to a recession. It is a culture thing at that point. I was raised in my country along with other Americans. Other people were raised in their culture. To me it is similar to forcing the US to convert to the metric system. How are you going to tell 320+ million people to do that when they system they use is good enough.
1
The Progressive Cynic, read this book https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Saying that the US is "the only OECD nation without a universal program " is not an argument. We are also the only country with a NCAA like program attached to our colleges. So is that bad? I suggest you learn how to critically think to come up with better arguments. Study some culture, economics, sociology, etc. You really need to get informed on this.
1
I don't know your stance but ever thought you were the one who is ignorant? Not calling you that, but some people can be myopic and not see that they are the one who is the problem.
1
From what I am reading at you are not willing to debate opinion with someone who does not understand the facts first, which I fully understand. If someone does not understand the design and history of the Constitution, or our laws, or certain facts, we can't move on to opinions. I have that problem as well.
1
The Political Punch, police are locally ran and funded. Fire departments are locally ran and funded. In some areas they are private and around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer.
1