Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Paul Ryan: Healthcare Isn't A Right" video.
-
12
-
6
-
5
-
Ari Takalo, you are incorrect. Rights are things the government can't take away nor make you do without due process. The government cannot take away our life without due process. The government cannot take away our freedom of speech without due process. Those are rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a document that contradicts itself. In article 4 it says
" No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms"
And article 24 says
"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."
And article 25 says
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and
the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are
entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in
or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."
And article 26 says
"(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at
least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education
shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made
generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to
all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the
full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or
religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations
for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
Now looking at just those four, how do you guarantee that everyone has food if no one is willing to work? To do that you have to force people to work and give up what they produce. But that violates article 4. Same with education, what if no one wants to be a teacher? Now you have to force people to teach. What if it is Thanksgiving and someone does not have any food? Now you have to force someone to provide food for them on a holiday which violates Article 24. The document contradicts itself and is nothing more than an Xmas list of what people want. If you call healthcare a right you have to force someone to provide it. What if someone gets sick on Christmas? A doctor will have to give up their right to leisure on a holiday to serve that person. Or that person does not get their right to care. What gives?
In the US we have two services that are "rights". They are
1. your right to a jury
2. a defense by military
If you refuse to do jury duty you go to jail. If you avoid the draft you go to jail. If you sign up for the military and do not serve out your term you go to jail. Do you see a trend?
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Disentropic, I did not see that you replied to my comment. After reading your comment, while I do like the effort, you did not change my opinion because you clearly don't know my opinion.
On life expectancy, they give their sources and their methods. You can read their statistical regression model yourself. What the two authors were trying to show in that book with all of their statistical regression models was that depending on how you look at that data the numbers and rankings differ. There are many things that contribute to life expectancy such as murders, car accidents, life style choices, etc. It isn't based only on healthcare. But read their methods and go from there.
" The US citizen has a life expectancy of about 79.3 years, compared with almost 84 years for the Japanese."
The average life expectancy in the world is 71±7 years. The US is one standard deviation away from the average and less than 5 years away from Japan. That 5 years is minute as a whole and can be for many factors beyond healthcare. That is what the authors are trying to show. Many people and some rankings (like Bloomberg's ranking for example) put heavy emphasis on life expectancy when there are many contributing factors to it. The fact that people in Japan live 5 years longer than people in the US does not mean they have a better healthcare system.
"A brief article apparently contradicting/debunking your claim:"
Actually, that supported my claim.
I will have the read that meta analysis you gave me a bit closer. Glancing at it I doubt it will change my opinion as my opinion is that Canada's system is not better nor worse than the US system, but I will give a look.
"Rather than speculate through any partisan perspective, let's keep this conversation about observable facts, please"
I am looking at the facts, but that is just step one, and a minor step in the process. How you interpret the facts is key. As that book does with the data, depending on how you interpret the data you will see varying results. Many people just look at UN numbers and make a determination off of the raw data. But people who study science, math and statistics understand that you have to go beyond that in order to understand the full story.
" Unless you have data that shows that poor individuals are unhealthy and
"irresponsible", and particularly so in the United States, since this
ought to be just as true in any other nation, I'll have you refrain from
throwing out ideological arti-"facts" such as those during discussion."
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667
There is an article showing that as poverty rate increases so does obesity rate. You can find many others on how typically the poor are not as healthy. On being irresponsible, people are typically poor for a reason, and mainly due to lack of responsibility. You see higher rates of teen pregnancies amongst the poor for example. You have lower levels of education. It is not difficult to see that there is a responsibility factor involved. I am not saying it is all due to poor health and irresponsibility. But you can't ignore that. You are again saying that 45,000 people die a year ONLY because they lack access to healthcare. In reality there is more to it than that.
"This is another common trolling tactic, regurgitating ideological
slogans in place of real arguments. I don't care why you think people
don't have diplomas, I care about the actual facts."
Calling me a troll is deflection. Just because I disagree with something does not mean I am a troll. Also, I do care why someone does not have a high school diploma. They are essentially free and require little effort in my eyes. And those that don't get one typically have a lower income. If you can't do something as simple as get a high school diploma, how do I expect you to remain healthy? Again, I am not saying that is why they are dying. There is some part of it that they do lack access to healthcare. But that is not the only reason, and that is my point. And considering how 45,000 people is 0.01% of the population, and considering the other variables involved, at that point that value is simply noise in statistics. Again, not saying there is not a problem, but you are massaging the data to make something look worse than what it really is to push propaganda.
"What? Replacing a system means replacing it with another system. Your
assertion that there are an equal number of problems is completely
unsupported."
That book runs through all the data for you to read and analyze. As of now I have yet to have anyone convince me that single payer or universal healthcare is better. Not saying it is worse, it has advantages, but it is not better than what the US has now.
"Evidence? I'm lost at this point. If you don't start using cited facts
to make points I'm just going to have to write you off and move along.
"
You are complaining about me not citing facts when I have. Just because you don't like them does not mean you have to get angry.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?locations=US
Healthcare is around 1/6 of our GDP. A radical change will mean a recession of some sort because the economy will have to stabilize. People will change their spending habits due to higher taxes. Businesses will change investment due to higher taxes and different methods of payment, and that will hurt the economy. While it may be temporary, it is unnecessary since we gain nothing.
a: how are they lying?
b. how are they mistaken?
c:how can they be ranked with such minute difference? What statistical regression model will you use and why?
d:This is the truth
On points a and b, you have to give evidence that they are lying or mistaken. On c you have to explain why the statistical regression model you used is the best, which is, from my experience, impossible. Thus, unless you can prove point a or b you arrive at d. Rankings are hard. You can say the US has a better system than Syria easily, because the US as a whole is a better country. But you can't say the US has a better system than Norway or Canada, nor can you say Norway and Canada are better than the US. It is like university rankings. Which college is better? Stanford or MIT? You can't say, they are both great. Any ranking is arbitrary.
"Previously, you told me all their methodology was present in that text. "
They do. I have a feeling you have a hard time reading and understanding statistical regression models. I have a feeling you have not studied advanced stats or any advanced mathematics. It is fair, healthcare is a complicated issue which is why you rather stick to talking point. I don't expect many people to fully understand the issue.
On that last paper you gave me, they said "on possibility". You see the difference between how you react to data and how an expert reacts to it? The author of that paper did not come up with a definitive conclusion. Neither did the authors of that book, and neither am I. You are though. That is what I am trying to change with you. Even at that, that paper only covered on area of the book, not others. But in the end they did not make a definitive claim.
1
-
"Dodged the question. Why does their data produce higher scores for some
nations and lower scores for others when accounting for murders and
accidents? Answer this question, I'm not going to answer it for you."
Why will I re-write what is already written in that book?
"My mistake, there was an article which linked to that article that I intended to show you, but I'm not sure where."
Ok
"What you'd need to show for this to be relevant is that poverty doesn't actually cause this behaviour. "
People
are poor because they are irresponsible. That is one reason and a big
one. Not saying it is the only one, but it is one reason. Teenage
pregnancy rate is higher in areas of higher poverty for example, same
with STD transmission.
https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/social-determinants-disparities-teen-pregnancy.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752095/
Also,
they have a lower level of education. Again, that is not the only
factor, but it is one. Now to what degree does it play is hard to
determine. But it is a factor. To ignore it is being bias.
" 45,000 people is simply noise in statistics, whereas the 50,000 people
killed by murders and motor vehicle accidents is a reasonable
explanation for life expectancy differences between nations, and once
corrected for sends the US vaulting into 1st place?"
Let us look at it in two ways.
1.
50,000 is a lot of people: If you want to say that than fine, you see
why accounting for them is vital in our statistical regression model
2.
50,000 is not a lot of people: If you want to say this, which is what I
will do, you see how little a difference 5 years (79 years in US
compared to 84 in Japan) is in terms of life expectancy, and that minute
difference is essentially noise. We can call it that because when we
remove a variable that contributes to that noise we get a different
result.
But, based on your earlier comment you feel that 50,000 is small.
" If so, how can 50,000 deaths in the US, minus the deaths in
other countries from these same causes add up to a number sufficient to
offset life expectancy numbers on a population of 324.7 million people?"
That is what you said.
" Massaging the data means manipulating it,"
No, it means analyzing it in a different way. Bloomberg did his ranking for healthcare and he arbitrarily weighed life expectancy at 0.6 and cost at 0.4 and ultra liberals support his work. There are many ways to look at the data and as the authors of the book showed when you do that you get varying results.
But, I never said 50,000 explained everything. What it shows is that a minute change in the data set leads to drastically different result meaning the difference of a few years in life expectancy is noise and can't be contributed to only healthcare system quality.
"Based on what analysis? Show me. I'm not challenging that healthcare
is 1/6 of GDP, I'm asking you how you know how a shift to single-payer
will affect the economy, and I demand evidence to demonstrate your
conclusion."
Take housing for example, it is around 9% of our GDP. When the housing market crashed we had a major recession. When you change a segment of our economy that much it will cause a recession. Now I am not saying it will last a long time, maybe not even a year. But that is long enough to hurt people. When the housing market crashed many businesses stop hiring and even fired employees and people stop spending until the market stabilized. Same thing will happen with healthcare. Increasing taxes and changing spending habits will cause a recession while businesses, investors and individuals wait for the market to stabilize.
"You have the burden of proof here, not me"
No, actually you do. You are making the claim they are wrong or lying, no how? How are they wrong or lying?
" You claimed that d is correct, so I'm asking you to show me that a, b, and c are false. Can you do that?"
I told you that if you read the book when they run through the stats nothing indicates that single payer is better. Thus you can't rank the systems. You say you can and you base that off of the authors lying or being wrong. Now prove that is the case.
"I can clearly see you don't care for rational argument. When you go
around talking about your opponent's education it sounds an awful lot
like ad hominem, the same thing you do to poor people trying to create a
quality distinction between yourself and anyone who opposes you."
I am making an observation. I based that off of the fact that you are making a definitive claim on a complex issue. The only claim I made is that the US system is neither better nor worse than what other developed countries have. You feel that the US system is terrible but gave nothing to support your case. Even one of your sources have not made a definitive claim. With that observation I am assuming you lack some level of research and critical analysis skills. Not saying that is a wrong as many people do. Just saying it explains my thought process compared to yours.
Take the 45,000 for example. You are making the assumption that they die only because they lack access to healthcare. My thought process is that there are other factors, one being they are poor and thus are generally less responsible and less healthy to begin with. Not saying saying that their lack of access is a cause as I feel it is. But to what degree is the question. You can't say to what degree nor find any data set that will say that.
" Fortunately, that's not how debate works. The facts are the facts and personal attacks only serve to diminish your argument. "
I did not make a personal attack, I made an observation. Another is how you want me to explain what is already written in the book.
" I'm fully capable of engaging with any supporting evidence you can provide,"
But yet you refuse to read it and want me to explain it to you.
"Sure, that paper doesn't definitively conclude anything, it just
demonstrates the methodological failures of your source and discusses
the potential ramifications of re-evaluating the data. "
Which I agree is a good point to make, and you should question all sources you are given and find. It does show the complexity of the issue, but also shows to me how easily the data can be manipulated. The authors of the book looked at more than just life expectancy though. But I agree, it is something to look at. In the end, though, the authors of the book was showing how minute the differences in healthcare systems are and when you look at life expectancy the differences between countries is minute, so in many ways that paper supports what they are saying.
"So how about you acknowledge what it says and not make this about me? "
I just did. About you I am showing you how they did not make a definitive conclusion.
" You say you don't make definitive conclusions from data, and yet you
obviously make definitive conclusions with no data at all. "
Not true.
"When you say that poor people are irresponsible and that it causes their
poverty, you're shamelessly pulling that straight out of your ass."
But yet they have higher rates of STDs, teen pregnancies and low education attainment level. Responsibility plays a role in that. Again, not the sole cause of it, but it is one cause of it.
"The idea that you think I have something to learn from you on that front is jaw-dropping"
I beg to differ.
1
-
1