Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie: Medicare For All Isn't A Litmus Test" video.

Albert Einstein was a physicist, not an economists. MLK Jr was a preacher, not an economists.
5
Because leftists are either 1. fascists and want to push their ideas on other people 2. can't fathom the idea of doing things on their own I am all for state rights. So is Trump and many of his supporters. So what is stopping all these leftists from pushing single payer at the state level?
3
Levi, the bigger the system the harder it is to micromanage it. Here is an example. Say you want to buy Subway sandwiches for 5 people. You can order 5 individual sandwiches giving them all that they want. Now say you want to order for 50 people. You may buy a tray of generic sandwiches. You may buy too few so some go hungry, or too many so there is now waste (not cheaper anymore). And many are not going to get what they want. Those 50 people get the same sandwiches. Now apply that to healthcare. This is a similar problem the founding fathers ran into. Some states wanted some things, some states wanted others. So they created state rights so states can develop the domestic policies they wanted. There are other ideas behind it as well, but the idea of "more people" being "cheaper" is simply not true.
2
"California, Washington, and maybe New York could and would probably be able to do single payer no problem. But places like Vermont or Maine might not be able to." Why not? Every state runs and funds their own K-12 education system. Around 84% of funding for K-12 education is state and local, only 8% is federal.
2
" How you solve that is by having bureaucracy, and not having one guy run it all." Who will be that one guy? And why would you trust them? Also, at the state level the more local government is the more control the people have over it. It will be the people running healthcare with elected officials. With how the federal government is set up healthcare will be ran by "one guy" that is a cabinet member picked by the president. Do you want another Scott Pruitt or Besty DeVos running healthcare?
2
"It's not an issue of funding, it's an issue of market share. At least one State (I think it was Vermont actually) has implemented single-payer and was forced to scrap it because health-care providers refused to negotiate reasonable payouts from the State." Same with CA. " A more populous State might have the clout to make it work, but a small pool of customers makes a weak negotiating position." Again, it failed in CA. "Single-payer healthcare is essentially a mandatory non-profit insurance program. It does not need micromangement" Yes it does. Without micromanagement you have waste. "the specifics of care are as decentralized as possible being left to individual doctors and their individual patients" Not true. Can you pick cabinet members? Can you vote for the head of the FBI? At the federal level you have no say in federal workers. At that point you are stuck with a doctor the federal government is willing to pay and he doctor has to be willing to accept the government payment. "All the government is doing in this system is paying the bills." And what is stopping doctors from raising prices? Colleges did it with the student loan program. Government was willing to write a check so colleges raised tuition.
2
"They can charge whatever they want, the single-payer will pay what the single-payer thinks it's worth. That's how Medicare and health insurance companies do it now." That sounds like micromanaging. "No, it will remain like it is currently where the costs of different types of care are agreed beforehand." So what will prevent a doctor or provider from raising prices again? You are jumping around the issue. Nothing stopped colleges from raising tuition. So what will stop doctors?
2
"Of course, we are and always will be stuck receiving medical care from people who are willing to give it and able to be licensed in it. Doing it any other way would be slavery or just irresponsible." So can you pick your own doctor? Also, how do you make up for the shortages of doctors? You have to ration care at that point. So when you ration care, how do you do it? "The fact that they either accept what the single-payer is willing to pay them or have no business. " At that point it is slavery. If the federal government offers too little then no doctor will work unless you allow them to ration care. Rationing care means not everyone is covered. If you do not allow rationing and force them to take on more customers you are asking them to work more for less. "Though even without me explaining this very simple concept to you it should be evident that something is controlling price hikes since all single-payer nations spend significantly less on healthcare than the US per capita." Because they ration care. They have lower quality in many ways and have less innovation and progress. The US is the leader in research and innovation in healthcare. Those countries are taking advantage of us. Even at that, those countries are small, as in the size of states. Name me one country with 100+ million people with a successful economy and successful single payer healthcare system. You can't. Even at 90+ million. Japan comes close, but they are facing problems as well https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/19/national/japans-buckling-health-care-system-crossroads/#.WabnhNGQxPY Japan has a lot of success because of their culture of working very hard. But they also have a high suicide rate. "Right. We should control costs by adopting the European model of publicly funding higher education institutions directly, perhaps even making them tuition free." And in those countries they ration that as well. The government tracks students and if the government feels you do not have the ability to earn a degree then you do not go. I know a guy from Germany where he was tracked for a trade school. He came to the US to go to college as he was not allowed to go in Germany. He is now a PhD candidate. Also, the US by far the best university system in the world. There is a reason why we have the highest amount of international students. Our university system is very strong and we allow opportunity for a lot of people with our smaller colleges. I went to a small school and did not receive the best K-12 education. I went to a small, cheap college and now I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. I was given that opportunity. I did so by working hard and applying to a lot of schools. In other countries they do not give that opportunity. For example, in Denmark I believe you are only allowed to apply to one medical school a year. If you do not get accepted then you have to wait a year. Also, what is the value of something that is free? Nothing.
2
"In Lithuania (a Northern European country with a population of ~2.9M) there are around 40 universities; some, like Šiaulių Universitetas, actually have government-funded dance programs. Would you force taxpayers to pay for that in America?" To be honest, I feel they would. People who push for "tuition free" college do not understand the real value of it. Most subjects in college can be self taught. The STEM fields are the fields that require any sort of training in my opinion. But other subjects, like dance, business, art, psychology, etc. can be self taught. The real value is 1. Learning how to juggle a busy schedule with class, homework, activities, and work 2. Learning how to invest and manage money 3. Developing connections Also, college is supposed to be an area of diversity and open discussion to challenge yourself, but I am questioning that with how left it has become. But besides that point, what you learn in college is what I listed above. People on the left do not realize that when you make it "free" you remove the first two components I listed.
2
With the government running it the government gives everyone a Sedan and only politicians get the Ferrari. A free market system will work great in healthcare, we just haven't had one in over 50 years.
2
Kunal, we do not control insurance companies mainly because of the payroll tax. Let me ask you two questions 1. Why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? 2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare?
2
"Most single-payer systems allow that." Ok, now what is going to stop them from raising prices? "Primarily by urgency of need, " How do you determine that without testing first? Many cases you do not know until you are tested. "Healthcare is a scarce resource everywhere." I agree, but throughout history what produced the most was a capitalistic society, not a socialist one. "You say that, yet dozens of nations' healthcare systems are ranked overall higher than the US." That is simply not true. Every ranking is arbitrary where they do not even give out their methods as they are hiding things. The one that do are methods that are vague. Two professors ran through the numbers and showed that not country does better than the US. At that point any ranking is arbitrary, like university rankings. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf "Medical research in the US is funded primarily by public grants and charity." Yes, charities from rich people like the Koch brothers. Also, a lot of public funds goes to basic research as in minor projects. After information is published private companies take it and expand on it. For example, while the government invented the internet the private sector made it strong with Youtube, Amazon, Google, etc. Same with healthcare research. "As it happens there's only a dozen countries that even have over 100 million inhabitants, and only 3 of them (the US, Japan, and Russia) are industrialized. Japan of course is single-payer and ranked higher than the US, though you corporatists can feel free to pat yourselves on the back for beating Russia." Again, rankings are arbitrary. I just showed you how Japan is having problems as well. Also, Japan's success is from a culture of working hard. They, however, also have a high suicide rate. Also, yes, only three countries are industrialized. So again, name me one country with a population of over 100+ million people that has a strong economy and a strong healthcare system with single payer. You can't. If you want to compare the US to other countries compare it to one of equal size. " I do wonder why you might imagine single-payer works very well in Denmark and the UK (~11 times as populous as Denmark) but it won't work in the US (~5 times as populous as the UK). What mechanism do suppose puts a ceiling on it's scalability?" I told you with micromanaging. Also, less diversity. With a larger population you have more diversity. Meeting a guy from Denmark the other day he said Denmark has a very homogeneous population. That is due to the small size. In the US we are essentially 50 countries in one. Every state has their different cultures, different economies, different challenges, etc. Travel the US and you will see. You are making the false assumption that everyone is the same thus a one size fits all policy is all you need. That is not true. What makes you think that everyone is the same across the US? Even with all of those countries you point at, they all run their own systems that differ in many ways. "Oh, you knew about Japan? Of course they have problems, everyone has problems. It so happens that their healthcare system has fewer problems than the US, " Again, with the numbers nothing suggests that is true. "Education is a scarce resource everywhere." Yes, but again, capitalism is the system that produces the most. "Good for those who can afford it. Putting aside anecdotes about single individuals I wonder how upward mobility compares between the US and Germany " What? Besides you again stating a false claim, college is very affordable in the US. Even after the federal government subsidizing it which lead to higher tuition, it is affordable. People qualify for loans. There are cheap options. My college as an undergrad was $10,000 a year. JC's and CC's are cheaper. And when you earn the right degree the payoff is great. "Because being by far the most populous industrialized nation in the world gives us the largest capacity for higher education and our immigration authorities are rather generous with student visas?" It is based on percent. We have the highest percent of international students.
1
"If you want to compare the US with Europe, you should compare the entirety of the US to the entirety of the EU, which incidentally has a GDP per capita that's 32% lower and almost 2x higher unemployment than in the US. Why not make that your campaign slogan?" Because to him population does not matter. A black family in Mississippi are the same as the rich white family in the hills in Orange County. There is no diversity to leftist except when it suits their ideas.
1
"Do you think Betsy DeVos has control over the wages of teachers?" Nope. Teacher unions and local districts do that.
1
"I'll refer you to the previous times I've answered that question." You have not answered the question. You said that the government sets the price so doctors have to take it or leave it. So what will prevent doctors from saying no to new patients? Something has to give. Either doctors do not pick up more patients, or you pay them more, or you force them to work more for less? In the third case people will refuse to be doctors. So what gives? You feel that magically doctors will just be willing to take what the government gives them when they won't. "Thus the importance of preventative medicine, which is often disincentivized in non-single-payer systems particularly among the uninsured and underinsured." In "preventative medicine" you still have to get checked up which again, requires doctors. So in the three situations I gave you you either have 1. Doctors refusing to pick up new patients so they don't get care 2. Higher prices 3. Forcing doctors to work more for less You have to check up on these people with a doctor. Also, preventative medicine does not always work. Many times issues just come. "Concrete numbers then? How about Health Expenditure per capita? I think we can agree that generally lower is better, of OECD countries the US is ranked last (35th)." You clearly did not read the book I linked you. Yes, we spend a lot on healthcare, but that is why we have high quality. We lead the way in research and innovation in healthcare for a reason. We also so more tests compared to other countries. You get what you pay for in other countries and that is low quality. "Life expectancy at birth (both sexes)? Higher is better right? US is ranked 31st." Several factors influence life expectancy. As that book shows if you remove murders and car accidents, things not strongly connected to healthcare, the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Now that is not to say that the US has the best system. What it shows that the numbers are minute and you can't just make a determination off of raw data. Just because you look at UN stats does not make you an expert in healthcare. When you look at the average life expectancy of the entire world it is 71±7 years. The US is over 79 years, over one standard deviation above the average. Other countries you are comparing us to are around 2 or 3 years off. That is minute in the big picture and you cannot say that the difference is solely because of healthcare. Other factors play a role as well. ""But wait time on non-critical care!" you retort. Yeah, you corporatists " How am I a corporatist? You are resorting to name calling now. I hate corporations thus I support a free market system. "I think you and I both know that the only reason you've chosen 100+ million people is because you know that the few countries that meet that criteria are overwhelming unindustrialized " But yet you choose only OCED countries. You also choose only overall life expectancy but no data that factors in other reasons for differences in life expectancy. You are being guilty of cherry picking data. Also, I used that size of a country to show you that there is not a successful example of single payer in a country that large. " I bet if you didn't have that article and had previously known Japan has more than 100 million inhabitants you'd have set your arbitrary threshold at 200+ million. " Nope, I knew about it. I am informed on this topic. "Honestly do you really think that for the purpose of a social policy the exact number of people really matters at all once you're over 1 million? " It does. "Nothing. It's single payer not single provider . Individual doctors and patients would continue to determine what individual treatments are necessary or advisable in their individual cases." Economies are different across the country. Healthcare costs, like housing costs, schooling cost, taxes, etc, are all different across the nation. Also, again, what will prevent doctors from raising prices? You are now leaving it to the doctors. "Did you know that working full-time all year at the federal minimum wage will earn you a grand total of $15,080?" And? Do you know that close to 90% of workers earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor? http://www.people.vcu.edu/~lrazzolini/GR2010.pdf
1
"An analysis by Nima Sanandaji in his book "Debunking Utopia" of Nordic (and other) societies during the 20th century prove that this has less to do with the healthcare system than with how people work out and eat. The US has >30% obesity rate cause you drive too much (bad city planning) and eat unhealthy (even though you can afford better)." Great point! It is amazing how leftists refuse to look at facts and statistical analysis. They just look at one thing, such as overall life expectancy, and make a very general claim off of it. I bet this person would not even consider reading that book.
1
Gage, LASIK is free market and has become cheaper and better.
1
Gage, I am two years away from my doctorate. I have two papers and I am working on three more. I can get one now if I had my credits done. Also, yes, that is my "data". Do you have an actual counter argument? What makes my data bad? You just mocking it not an argument.
1
Mrs. Butterworth, this is a side project. Making a video will 1. take up too much time 2. not reach much of an audience I am focus too much on my graduate work and life to dedicate myself too much into this. These comments do not take long to make. Also, with these comments I do obtain a lot of information to where I learn a lot. Making a video makes me like Kyle, living in a bubble.
1
TheOddz313, the free market system I talk about was prior to the payroll tax. Because of the payroll tax people cannot choose their own plans and rely on insurance for care. That is because businesses pay with insurance as opposed to a higher wage.
1
"You come onto to Kyle's videos to leave comments almost everyday essentially though and it no it doesn't take to much time," It does take longer to make a video because you have to edit and and upload it. Without editing no one will watch. Also, I do not have the equipment nor do I want to spend the money on it. . Also, with comments it leads to discussions. With videos I say want I say and move on.
1
Shouldn't the "litmus test" be not being a corrupt politician? If you allow corrupt politicians that support medicare for all, what have you done besides give them more power?
1
Bernie is what he is, a career politician. Funny how "anti-establishment" people supports one of the most established politicians out there.
1
Gage, what definitions did I get wrong?
1
Kevin, Gage won't address anything.
1
You can't. Your friends just understand economics better
1
Vatic, if a company has workers and pays them $8/hr and they produce $10/hr, that company is earning $2/hr per worker. Now if they are forced to pay them $15/hr that company is losing $5/hr per worker. So that company either as to 1. Lay off workers and force the ones they keep to work more 2. Lay off workers and be open only during peak hours 3. Raise prices to make their workers worth more The last one is where inflation comes in. Those workers are not worth $15/hr. In order for them to be worth $15/hr the work that they do has to produces at least that much.
1
There is more to inflation then just printing money. People who point to inflation are over simplifying the situation. However, setting prices, like a min. wage, does not help the economy.
1
Count Deku, I am a grad student in physical chemistry. I never claim to be an expert. I come here to give different viewpoints and have discussions to learn. You can give opposing viewpoints as well. But again, I never claimed to be and expert. So with that you should easily debunk everything I say. If not then it shows you abilities.
1
"so their opinions are not valid just because they're not economists? Is that really the silly argument that you're making? If you want an actual economist then talk to Richard Wolff." I will take Wolff's opinion on economics more than I would Einstein. I would take Thomas Sowell's opinion more seriously on economics then I would Einstein as well. I have seen Wolff's work. One has him confusing wealth and income. I have my criticisms of him as I have actually read some of his work. But in comparison of him and and Einstein, I will take Wolff's more serious. Also, my opinions are valid as long as I show some support and logic behind it. But I encourage you to read expert opinions as well, like both Wolff and Sowell.
1
Gage, a democratic workplace can be authoritarian. 51% telling 49% what to do is just that.
1