Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Republican Congressman Shredded On Medicare For All" video.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonyabusiness366 to start you said there were cuts to the NHS. I said, correctly, that spending as a percent of GDP has been going up. You then claimed it has not kept pace with inflation. I then asked you what method of inflation. You refused to say. Besides, spending on the NHS is outpacing your GDP growth as shown that spending, in terms of percent of GDP, has been increasing.
"You didn't prove they deny people, they were seen to and the doctors deemed it was not necessary to have it at they were unlikely they would go blind. "
So they were denied care. Thanks for proving my point.
"You also ignored the fact that if you don't have insurance you will be denied treatment and if you have insurance but it won't cover the treatment you a faced with a choice bankruptcy or no treatment and be denied."
Where the vast majority do have healthcare insurance in the US which makes reform difficult. Also, I rather go bankrupt than die.
And again, the US is superior in access to advanced care. It beats out the UK. The UK denies people care. That is the reality.
"You also ignored that it isn't just one study that shows the UK has better healthcare but multiple ones who use multiple different methods. "
What studies?
"Yea take those two things out if you want but they effect life expectancy which is only one data point when choosing which healthcare system is better."
The point is, as I said before, anyone can pay with the data and come up with any ranking they want. That is why zero academic sources have ever developed a healthcare ranking and where every healthcare ranking has come from a special interest group. You point to healthcare rankings which are completely arbitrary. Again, ZERO academic sources have ever produced a healthcare ranking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zel Zwrd of those without insurance how many are by choice and are young? Also, there is little correlation between mortality rate and people who are uninsured. Prof. Richard Kronick wrote in his paper entitled
"Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited"
The following
"but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States."
As prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give care to those people who are uninsured and they live only 5 months later, was that a success?
You see, you are doing what all far leftists do, you take one variable or one stat and draw a very strong conclusion based on it. People just don't die from one heath complication. Typically they have many.
"then,why is it that americans paid 200% more in terms of medical fee compared to other country that practice NHS and yet receives worse healthcare compared to them?"
Do we receive worse healthcare? As I mentioned earlier the US has the highest access to advanced testing and care and thus have the highest survival rates in advanced illnesses. Other nations just limit how much care one receives. If you are very sick they will deny you care and simply drug you up saying it is your time to go.
That brings me to my next point, amenable mortality that you keep avoiding. You say
"i dont see any articles or research that shows their NHS causes 26000 death per year.do you have that number?"
That 26,000 number has ranged being as low as nearly zero according to a UCSD study to around 60,000. It ranges so much because, as I said, there are many variables involved to which it is very challenging to get accurate numbers on that issue. Also, 26,000 is a very minute portion of the nation. In economics there is a law called the "law of diminishing returns". Can we save those lives? Possibly. But at what cost? We can spend a ton of money keeping them alive for a few more months, but it will bankrupt our nation. To give you another, more straight forward example on the law of diminishing returns, around 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. We can reduce that by lowering speed limits. But eventually you get to a point where lowering speed limits won't have a significant, it all effect on that number. Sure, if we cap speed limits to 15 mph that number will be zero, but now commute times greatly increase harming the economy that way. So in connection to that 26,000 deaths, sure we can spend a shit ton of money keeping them alive, but is it worth it, especially when it will cost a lot and statistically they will only live a few more months?
As with the UK, you asked for an article. From what I am aware no such study exist. So what that does is make that 26,000 stat you give what I call an "'empty stat" is that there is nothing to compare it to. Is that 26,000 high, low or the norm compared to other nations? You don't know as no other similar study was done in other nations. Also, amenable mortality is hard to measure to begin with. As mentioned in the two studies entitled
"Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study"
and
"Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review."
They write
"Given these gaps in knowledge, between-country differences in levels of mortality from amenable conditions should not be used for routine surveillance of healthcare performance"
and
"At this stage, it is premature to use amenable mortality in ONS's healthcare output calculations."
Respectively. You have issues like standards for example. The US has higher standards than the UK. As I said we offer more advanced testing. So if someone dies in the US for lack of care and someone in the UK dies for the same situation, the US will list that as an "amenable mortality" where the UK won't as the UK typically won't offer said care where the US typically does. So you have to realize that.
Again, like most far leftists you take one variable or one stat and run with it making a strong conclusion ignoring everything else. This is why M4A is failing to much, you are not making convincing argument.
1
-
Zel Zwrd as for M4A saving money, that is making the assumption on the fact that Medicare pays 40% less than private insurance. With that you have to then consider access and quality issues. If you pay healthcare providers 40% less they will offer less care, period. That is especially true when you increase their demand as well. Also, those studies make vague assumptions such as healthcare exist in a bubble economically. For example, in the UMass study, they have a section where people will have to change jobs and move. If you force people to move housing prices change. Those houses they will be moving from will drop in prices and the homes they will be moving to will go up in prices due to a very amazing economic theory, supply and demand. Also, you now have to consider the issue of property taxes and how certain places that have health insurance company offices will be losing property taxes when they are forced to shut down.
Again, many variables are involved. Healthcare is 1/6 of the economy. Anyone who is saying it will save money, without reduction in quality and access, and no other consequences in the rest of the economy is either very ignorant or lying to you.
1
-
1
-
Zel Zwrd "see this? this is the difference between you, a selfish conservative moron compared to a compassionate smart liberal like me."
And this is another reason why M4A is failing so badly. You are pushing it saying that if you don't support it you want people to die. I don't. I want a great healthcare system. Based on all that I have read I simply feel M4A is not the answer. The issue is that M4A supporters, like you, when you get pushed into a corner you play this moral high ground with a handful of talking points while ignoring everything else. You are not willing to have the difficult conversations on this issue.
"this is why you conservative morons has no problem overlook the facts that there are 27 million uninsured people,26000 people died because they cant pay medical bills and so on."
Or they realize that there is more to those numbers than what you present. As I said, that 26,000 stat has ranged from nearly zero in one study to around 60,000 in another. What that says is that this issue is complex and obtaining accurate numbers is challenging if not impossible. Also, you have the law of diminishing returns. This is where far leftists like yourself refuse to have the very difficult conversations on this issue. Say it is 26,000 like you claim. How much will it cost to keep them alive? And how long will they live? As I said, people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 to 10 years but will only live 5 or 10 months. So say we spend hundreds of thousands keeping one of those 26,000 alive and they die 5 months later? Was that a success? Now multiply that hundreds of thousands by 26,000. Now you are talking about trillion of dollars just to save around 0.008% of our population to live, at best, another year. Is that something we should do?
1
-
Zel Zwrd it isn't in a bubble. Going to M4A will mean certain jobs will be lost, you will have a change in property taxes, you will have a change in people's benefits, there are a lot of stocks tied to healthcare. As for the increase in prices in healthcare, a lot of that is partly to blame for government involvement. Medicare and Medicaid was not created until the late 60s, notice how one of the graphs starts in 1970? I see a connection. Mike Holly received his MBA and for his thesis he wrote how government regulations made healthcare more expensive. You can read the condense version of it on Mises entitled
"How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive"
On admin cost, Medicare has arguably more admin cost. When you do a cost per patient you have higher admin cost in Medicare. It seems lower on the surface for two main reasons.
1. Medicare has the ability to pass on admit cots to other agencies such as the CDC and IRS. Private insurance does not.
2. People on Medicare are old and old people typically are require more healthcare. So with Medicare having their consumer base be people who demand more healthcare of course more will be spent on them. But again, on a per patient basis Medicare has more admin cost.
Also, a lot of admin cost is there to keep prices low such as fraud prevention for example. So no, it isn't like they are just pocketing 25% of the revenue. According to Statista profit margins for a lot of healthcare insurance companies is around 4 to 9 percent. In comparison companies like legal forms and accounting and real estate have over 15% profit margins. So non, healthcare insurance do not have high profit margins.
"why are you making the assumption that the private insurance industry is going to completely shut down with the introduction of m4a?"
It is written in Bernie's plan? And some of those studies you point to say that as well.
M4A will not create competition as most of the middle class cannot pay double. You will have a case where the middle class will be paying higher taxes thus cannot afford private healthcare insurance if they want to.
"sure.and yet,healthcare causes 26,000 people to die every year.are you that heartless to the point you dont care the amount of people that can fit a stadium to die every year?"
I noticed how you ignore that point I addressed in detail. Here, you like bullet points
1. That number has ranged from nearly zero to 60,000. In short, it is hard to obtain accurate numbers on that issue.
2. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. But with limited data and irregular standards, you can't compare. Thus you don't know if that 26,000 is high, low or the norm
3. Those individuals are in bad health to begin with and are statistically have a high chance of dying in a few months even with access to care.
4. As I pointed out in the law of diminishing returns, if we pay trillions keeping them alive and they live only a few months producing nothing during that time, what have you accomplished?
You call me heartless when I am simply pointing out the economics of the situation. You know one reason why healthcare prices have gone up so high? It isn't only because of government regulations, it is because our nation actually provides care. Other nations cap how much care you can receive, we don't. Medicare is willing to pay to keep grandma alive for a long time, other nations don't.
1
-
Zel Zwrd you never brought up the law of diminishing returns. As I said, in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. With those 26,000 again, if we give them healthcare it will hundreds of thousands per person. And chances are they won't live long. And during that time they won't produce much.
Here is your problem, you refuse to see the objective truth here. You are going on pure emotions, nothing else. I have given you so much objective fact on the economics of the situation but you dismiss them because you have such a firmly held, religious like belief on this issue that you ignore reality.
As for me being heartless, I just had a friend die due to cancer. When I heard he had it I knew he did not have much time left. He lived only 3 more months since his diagnoses. During his final days he was in a wheelchair, eating from a feeding tube and lost a lot of weight. He was not working either. Really, was it good to keep him alive that long spending limited resources? Again, in other nations they would have just let him die. I experienced the same thing with my grandma. So I know a lot about this. I can look past emotions and consider the very difficult issues faced in healthcare. You apparently cannot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1