Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox Host: "Only" 27 Millions Americans Don't Have Health Insurance!" video.

It was pathetic. Softball questions by Joe and Bernie just spewing his talking points.
2
In a lot of ways it is. Healthcare is a commodity.
1
@wesleygrove9635 , you will not save money under M4A.
1
@janettejack7721 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jeqj5JGs2zs
1
@wesleygrove9635 , it doesn't reduce administration costs as admin costs are arguably higher under Medicare. Without a profit incentive you don't have progress. Profit leads to investment which leads to better goods and services. With no profit motive where is the incentive to improve? Medicare took around 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits where, because of competition, private insurance covered it long ago. Who will compete against Medicare? Also, I pay very little in healthcare, so no, my taxes will be more than what I pay now. Plus, what federal government program actually saves money?
1
@civilunific , it is a commodity, someone has to provide it.
1
@wesleygrove9635 , what? You need to micromanage. Without it the system will fall apart in some way or certain people will suffer. You will have to cap how much healthcare one receives to prevent leaches, but on the flip side someone who is really sick will be denied actual care? And you don't reduce the price per person. You are increasing the demand for a product. You are causing more people to chase after the same amount of healthcare. Executives don't account for much in the overall expenses of a company. But besides that, you have many federal agencies that will demand more cost such as the IRS and CDC. And did you read my article on admin costs? Medicare arguably has higher cost. Two reasons why the costs seem lower are 1. The federal government passes some cost onto other agencies 2. Medicare, right now, caters to the very old who require much more healthcare that the percentage is lower, but the admin cost per person is actually higher. A politician running to improve a federal system? Every politician does that. And improve based on what? Again, where is the comparison?
1
@janettejack7721 , when government subsidizes something prices go up. And no, healthcare is not a right. Define "basic health". That is the first barrier.
1
@janettejack7721 , if you put a cap on basic healthcare needs than something has to give. That means less access to advanced care and advanced testing. One reason why healthcare cost so much in the US is because the high price of basic care subsidizes advanced care. This is pure economics, something has to give. Also, define "basic healthcare". Telling me to "google it" shows you really don't know what you are talking about.
1
It is. This issue is a difficult situation of statistics. Something has to give. We may cover those 27 million but at what expense? Millions will be denied advance treatment and die earlier or end up in major pain and worse off.
1
@kensol2579 Here The 40,000 deaths a year. To start, what numbers from other nations do you have to compare that to? Nothing. Thus you can't say if that number is high, low or the norm. Next, as prof. Katherine Baicker put it, those people are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So you don't know if those individuals die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. Also, people in that situation who die most likely have a lot of issues going on. As mentioned in his book "Being Mortal" the author says that people seek modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will live only another 5 or 10 months. So if we place a lot of resources in those 40,000 and they live only 5 more months, is that a success?
1
It is a winning argument to go against M4A. Those pushing for M4A are not being honest. You can't add 30+ million people to the current system and not expect major changes. Under Bernie's plan there is no discussion about capping the amount of care that one has access to, what we do with our elderly, what we do with the very sick, if we can actually keep our doctor, etc. Kyle is a part of the problem as well. Saying we can keep our doctor? Wasn't Obamacare pushed on the idea we can keep our insurance but many got kicked off? And we are supposed to trust the federal government now?
1
M4A will kill many people.
1
They have a plan, the issue is that healthcare is very complex and screaming "M4A" isn't the solution.
1
@stevebottrell9154 , well the "fuck you and die" is the far left plan. The republican plan is to push for a free market system with states filling on the gaps.
1
@Schmidty1 , the left has no plan. Saying "M4A" is not a solution if you are not willing to have difficult conversations on this complex issues.
1
There are many flaws in that number. Plus, every nation has people dying due to lack of access to healthcare.
1
@perthdude21 , why does that matter?
1
@mecher3k , amenable mortality is an issue in every nation. I bet you never heard of that term before.
1
@MrYikes-dk2mb , not true. To start, a lot of our high cost is derived from all the advanced testing we offer. Because of that we have the highest survival rate for severe situations. I suggest you read the book "In Excellent Health" by Prof. Scott Atlas. On the number, it is flawed to point to the 40,000 deaths a year. To start, what numbers from other nations do you have to compare that to? Nothing. Thus you can't say if that number is high, low or the norm. Next, as prof. Katherine Baicker put it, those people are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So you don't know if those individuals die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. Also, people in that situation who die most likely have a lot of issues going on. As mentioned in his book "Being Mortal" the author says that people seek modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will live only another 5 or 10 months. So if we place a lot of resources in those 40,000 and they live only 5 more months, is that a success? I saw that "study" that created that arbitrary ranking. To start, how is that sturdy credible? Next, look at the numbers. They used amenable mortality as one indicator despite the flaws https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843 https://jech.bmj.com/content/67/2/139 So yes, I have read studies on this issue.
1
@mclovin9165 , in other nations people die due to lack of access, amenable mortality is something every nation faces. That is the reality.
1
@aussiepete8914 , it isn't zero
1
@carlwilliams897 no it wasn't. Look at the like ratio on the JRE clips
1
@toxendon , nothing was discussed in the video. All Bernie did was give his talking points. Take on the pharmaceutical companies? Ok, how? On tuition free college how will he take on the challenges that will arise such as enrollment and the NCAA? On green energy he says he will retrain workers, how? On what? I need details. He was given an hour.
1
@toxendon , also, I thought Bernie was popular?
1
@toxendon , we have 30 states that are larger than Norway. Our diversity and culture is vastly different. Also, no one on Bernie side want what Norway has. Norway actually taps into their oil, Bernie wants to get away from oil. Norway has more of a flat tax, Bernie wants to just tax the rich. Norway has lower corporate tax rates, Bernie wants to raise those taxes.
1
@toxendon , what? We are far more diverse compared to other nations. Simply compare NV to UT, two neighboring states with completely different cultures. What may work in one state might not work in another due to different cultures. Even the nations that surround Norway have a different system. As for what Bernie wants https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQwBA2QlJ3w&t=247s Norway has more of a flat tax compared to the US.
1
@toxendon , we won't save money under M4A unless we lower the quality. And our defense budget is less than 4% of our GDP.
1
@mathunit1 ,how "liberal" of you.
1