Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Baby Survives Being Born With Heart Outside Of Her Body!" video.

Probably nothing as insurance would have covered it. Without insurance the hospital and/or donors would have picked up the tab.
1
Marie, this involves a child and children's hospitals will pick up the tab along with donors in an emergency situation like this. Many times hospitals do as well. That happens more often than you think. The situation you are looking at is rare and involves adults.
1
Marie, I am not saying the situation you see does not happen. With children like these there are donors and children's hospitals that pick up the tab. Many times the hospitals pick up the tab. A friend of mine was in a similar situation where insurance only paid for the amount up to around $100,000. The hospital just waved the rest of the $100,00 to where they did not have to pay it. This is one reason why healthcare reform is so complicated. Many people experience different things. Sure, that family you are talking about may have a $200,000 bill where I know of another one that had their bill waved by their hospital. As a whole this isn't as easy as saying "in the US they would have had their credit destroyed". There is more to it than that.
1
Chris, things cost money, period. In the UK tax payers picked up the tab. So what is the difference at that point? Do you think these skilled workers work for free?
1
Marie, in other countries people die on waiting lists while waiting for healthcare, or they end up becoming worse off. So what do you want? Bad credit that you can possibly fix later, or being dead? You work in New Jersey, so you work in a large city or a rural area? Because that plays a role as well.
1
To add on NJ, it is the most densely populated state in the US. That plays a role as in areas like that they lack resources. So their healthcare situation is different than the story I laid out in Iowa. In other countries areas of high population have many problems as well. Too many people and not enough resources. So that plays a role in your situation.
1
"Yes, it does cost money, but it is much cheaper to pay for these services through taxes and cover everyone." Not true as everyone is not covered. No system covers everyone. In other countries they lack resources where people have to wait for long times and end up dying or becoming worse off. Also, in the US we lead the world in research and innovation in healthcare. That price creates that environment.
1
" People do not usually die waiting on healthcare in other countries. That is rare unless the person needs and organ transplant, which is a problem everywhere because there is obviously a shortage." "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “ "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ I can provide more if you want.
1
"Most of our research and development comes from universities and tax dollars actually." Eh, depends. Yes, universities do a lot of research, but how much development do they do? Very little. A lot of the research the comes from academics go nowhere. It is more or less carving out information out of the universe. That is important, but a lot does not go anywhere. For the most part it is slinging shit on the wall and seeing what sticks. Private companies take what sticks and develop it. I do scientific research for a living so this is something I know a lot about.
1
Marie, that is not necessarily true. In other countries people die on waiting lists. Here are some examples in Canada some for "elective" heart surgery. "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “ "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ Even at that waiting for "elective" surgery can make your situation worse making it more difficult for you to return to work “Incapacity for work in elective orthopaedic surgery: a study of occurrence and the probability of returning to work after treatment.” J Epidemiol Community Health "Universal health care in general have better outcomes and spend less." That is also not true. I will link you a book on that. There is a lot to healthcare. You cannot simply say "they get better outcomes" because that can be determined in many ways. For example, in this book I will give you when you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. You are looking at raw statistics when they are what they are, raw. There are many factors beyond healthcare that influence those numbers so to say "they get better outcomes" is very vague. As for cost, the US leads the world in research and innovation in health. Also, in the US we pursue more advanced testing all which drives up the cost. Many of those advanced testing is done by choice. " Take for instance Sweden which the infant mortality rate is 2.76 for every 1000 live birth compared to the us 6.26 out of a 1,000 live birth" Infant mortality is measured in different ways and thus is a tricky way to actually compared healthcare. "International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related Factors: United States and Europe, 2010" National Vital Statistics Reports When you read the report they had to adjust for the varying methods countries use to measure IMR. The US is including babies who die at a younger age (less than 24 weeks) where other aren't. You adjust for that the US IMR is 1/3 less of what it is and less than the UK. Also, one report from 2009 said that one reason for the high IMR in the US is due to the high rate of preterm births "Behind International Rankings of Infant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe" National Center for Health Statistics What this means is that these raw stats are not good to go off of. Sure, the US may have a higher IMR, but why? What other factors have you included? It goes beyond healthcare. "Or the mortality rate for males age 15 to 60 is double compared to Sweden." And that can be contributed to our high murder rate. Our murder is 4 times higher than Sweden's. Over 3/4 of the victims murdered in the US are male. Again, that is not an issue of healthcare. You have to be careful here with these numbers.
1
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf This is not to say the US has a superior system with no problems, nor that other countries are inferior. The US system does have problems, but so do other countries. And from what I have seen they are not better than the US. They do many things well, but also fail in many ways. It isn't as easy as "they pay less and get better outcomes" as you and many leftists claim. The stats are raw and many things influences those numbers besides healthcare. This is what makes this issue so complex.
1
"it may happen but the numbers are so vanishingly small you never hear about them.Whereas the numbers who die from having no money for medical treatment in the US is so huge you cant take it in" Numbers in the US are small as well to where you do not hear about it. Kyle spews about the 45,000 who die a year due to lack of healthcare access. However, that number is misleading. To start, that is 0.01% of the overall population. That is minute in the big picture and with small numbers like that they are sensitive to any variable changes in statistical regression models. To compare around 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents in the US. Does that mean all of those people were with bad drivers? Or in unsafe cars? Or on unsafe roads? You can't limit it to just one variable. 1/3 of traffic deaths involve drunk drivers thus reducing that 30,000 to 20,000 that can be a factor of bad driving (while sober), bad roads, bad cars, etc. On that 45,000 you have to consider that those people are poor to begin with and there is a correlation between being poor and being in bad health such as high rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes. That is self inflicted. So the question becomes did they die due to lack of access or simply due to being in bad health to begin with? You cannot say with high accuracy. People who throw out these numbers are doing a huge disservice to the conversation as healthcare is a much more complex issue than people realize. So when you say " the numbers who die from having no money for medical treatment in the US is so huge you cant take it in" That is based off of nothing but pure exaggeration and abuse of the numbers.
1
" seems to me you are advocating for fewer people to have health insurance so the list gets shorter, am I wrong?" What list? And I want everyone to have high quality healthcare, but reality does not allow that as we lack resources. No country covers everyone, period. That is something people have to realize from the very beginning. For me it comes down to what is the best system that progresses us towards more people having high quality healthcare. And to me that is a system that is based on the free market. We do not have that in the US. Let me ask you this. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare in this country? As a whole you cannot say that other countries do it better because when one digs deep into it nothing indicates that to be so.
1
"you know I was referring to your waiting list." Sure. I feel that if you worked hard in life and put yourself in a position to obtain healthcare in a timely manner then yes, you should get care quickly. There are exceptions and we have them. In the ER you cannot be denied if you have a life threatening situation. And in ICU doctors do ration if needed “The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine” Chest But there are people who will drain the system if we just give them care even though they cannot afford it. "What limited resources are you referring to? What limited resources are you referring to? What if we allocate our defense budget cut it into a third and imagine putting it towards education and healthcare. " Money is not the resource I am talking about. But on money quickly, defense spending is 3% of our GDP. Healthcare is 1/6 of our GDP. We already spend more on healthcare at the federal level than we do defense. In fact, over the years healthcare spending has been increasing at the federal level and defense spending has been dropping. In 1960 defense spending was 10% of GDP, now it is 3%. As for education, that is funded locally Around 84% of funding for education is state and local. It isn't as easy as "allocate money from defense" as 1. There isn't that much money in defense to begin with 2. How defense, healthcare and education are funded are completely different But on actual resources I am talking about doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment, etc. We have a waiting list for organs due to limitations. That paper I referenced talks about rationing care because of limited resources. Pumping more money in the system does not increase the number of doctors and nurses. The reason why is because we do not have enough people pursuing those careers. Of those that do a good portion fail. Most med schools have a less than 50% acceptance rate. I teach college labs and around 40 students a semester and I hand out grades to where 2 to 3 pre-med or pre-nursing students "fail" (as in get a B where they need an A). Despite the high pay people do not become doctors due to the high stress and high demand of work. It isn't an issue of money as doctors are paid well. It is an issue of them not being able to do it or not willing. Even if it weren't that. Even if it were as easy as "allocate money" to education to train more doctors. Why not allocate from our largest spending source? Social welfare programs like medicare, medicaid, SS, etc. Why give people money to have food and healthcare when we can give them money to be trained to produce? Why go after defense? "Have government programs for medical research and engineering." We do. Problem is we lack workers. I do scientific research for a living. I have projects piling on. It would help me to have someone else pick up the slack but we can't find anyone because no one is willing to do it. I work 10+ hours a day, sometimes 12 hours a day every day. I cut back on Saturday a bit and work only around 8 hours, but still a decent amount. People are not willing to do that. And not even that extreme. People are not willing to work 40 hours a week doing research. There are reasons why and we can discuss them if you want. But again, it isn't as easy as "have government programs" because if the people are not willing to put in the work than it does not matter. "There would still be a free market for the hospital all socialize medicine would do is give more people access to Healthcare coverage and cut out the insurance company " What is going to prevent healthcare providers from just raising prices than? You just increased demand without increasing supply.
1
" the United States annual discretionary budget is $597 billion and that was before the $70 billion increase that Congress just passed earlier this year " Again, 3% of our overall GDP and 16% of our federal budget. "We are the richest country in the world we should have Universal Health Care and paid tuition for universities and colleges." You apparently did not read what I wrote. Other countries do not offer that to all of their citizens. What makes you think we can?
1
Marie, it is 16% of the federal budget.
1
If this happened in the US donors and/or the hospital would have picked up the tab due to this being an emergency involving a child.
1
In the US the cost would have been almost nothing as well. With children we have many donors and children's hospitals that cover these things. Also, hospitals are known to cover issues like these as well and not bill parents in cases like these.
1
Not really. Republicans want to keep science with the scientists. Leftists what to politicize science. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, no republican wants to die poor. That is why they have always supported funding for science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk&t=40s
1
DrumWild, conservatives have admitted to their problems and have progressed towards the center lately. For example, more people who lean politically right admit climate change is real. They question how severe it is, which is a legit point, and feel the government is not the source in solving the problem. That latter point is the real difference between people who lean right and people who lean left. People who lean right feel we do not need government to solve a lot of of our problems. People on the left do. That is fine from a moderate perspective, but these days the left is the radical group that needs to clean up their mess. Another example is that the right is not that religious anymore. The radical religious individuals are not overpowering the right anymore as they did around 15 to 20 years ago. I am a moderate, and I criticize both sides. But I feel the left is way more extreme these days than the right.
1
AgentDearestZ, how do people on the right want to make America worse? " getting rid of protections that protect everyone" On fundamental idea of the right is that you do not need the government to protect you every step of the way.
1
Chris, as a man of science I disagree. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said in that video the only argument the left makes for republicans being "anti-science" is the record on the environment and stem cells. If republicans are all about being rich wouldn't it stand to reason that they support science to make running their businesses better? Think of it like this. Wouldn't republicans love innovation so everything in their companies were automated so they wouldn't have to pay high wages and the greedy CEOs can live big? Think about this.
1
" there are various conditions where an individual may have an improper number of chromosomes or a mutation/alteration" They are called mutations for a reason.
1