General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fact Checking Jake Tapper’s Grossly Inaccurate ‘Fact Check’ On Medicare For All" video.

It is fact checking to a degree. The paper never said medicare for all would save money. However, Bernie is saying that it would. Bernie is misrepresenting the study.
12
Douglas Ebanks, this is why I rip on Bernie all the time and feel he is a dangerous, corrupt politician. He is not being honest and people believe him.
2
The study breaks it down how they said that was a conservative estimate and chances are it would cost much more. You are assuming hospitals would be willing to take a 40% pay cut and that increasing demand will not increase prices. Also, that number is just for public spending and not private. Read that actual study and not headlines.
2
Jaseeka Rawr, you are a problem. I come here to have a civil discussion and get called a Troll. This is why Trump won, the ultra left has no desire to have an actual discussion on the issues. Look at Bernie. He completely misrepresents this study, gets called out for it and says nothing to retract his statement. Bernie preaches about discussing the issues but he has no desire to read actual studies.
2
E W, the fact is that Bernie is a corrupt, career politician. He will present this study in the way he did to gain votes of ignorant people (like Kyle and his fans) who refuse to read the study. A lot of people are ignorant for many reasons which isn't necessarily bad. Many simply don't have time to learn about the issues due to jobs and family. But Bernie is doing a huge disservice misrepresenting this study because he is a corrupt politician. Bernie always preaches about discussing the issue. Here is a study that does just that. What does Bernie do? He misrepresents it. This is why many rip on him as much as they do. They see how fake he is. If he wants to discuss the issues he has to be honest. He isn't. This action but the ultra left is why Trump won.
2
Seth the Wicked, Trump won because the political left has no desire to actually discuss the issues. It isn't so much about calling each other trolls, it is the fact that when Republicans try to have a discussion about the issues the political left shuts them by calling them racist, bigots, or labels them as a bad person that needs to be punished. Republicans are too PC to be aggressive back but Trump did not care. He said what he said and won. Fact is people are sick of our politicians acting they way they do where they have no actual discussions. Bernie is very bad at that.
2
E W, exactly. In reality the RNC wanted Bernie to beat Clinton because there is so much dirt on him. If Bernie runs against Trump Bernie would be destroyed.
2
Chikiko, the paper only gave how much medicare for all will cost the government. It does not include the private sector cost if we have a medicare for all system.
2
Kyle is showing why Trump won. This study is clear on what they say and Kyle is not presenting it. Bernie and AOC misrepresented the study and even when the evidence is there Kyle ignores it.
1
That isn't what the study says.
1
Welcome to the radical left. They deny evidence even when it is right in front of their face. This is why people are making fun of AOC.
1
TheGamingViillas, he is dangerous because he isn't honest. He preaches about how we need to talk about the issues. This study is doing just that. That study researched the issue. Bernie is lying about the conclusion of the study. He is not representing his opponents fairly and honestly. That makes him dangerous. If Bernie wants an actual conversation on the issues he has to be honest in what his opponents says. Instead he is being deceptive and misleading. Also, by doing that why would anyone want to have a discussion with him on the issues?
1
Working For A Better Tomrrow, I wrote a comment to TheGamingVillas explaining that. To add, he is going to flat out lie to gain votes as a politician. He is not an honest character in this issue of healthcare. He is lying about what the study is saying. That makes him a corrupt politician. He has no desire to talk about the issues.
1
the one winged angel, you did not read the study. I did. Bernie did lie.
1
The Koch brothers study admitted that their number was an under estimate. It made the assumption that hospitals would take 40% less money.
1
Spencerwalker21, you have to be careful with administrative costs. Medicare administrative costs seem lower for a couple of reasons. One, they have the ability to pass on other responsibilities to other government agencies. Private insurance pays for disease awareness where medicare has the CDC. Medicare has the IRS for collecting funds where private insurance doesn't. Next, medicare covers old people who require more healthcare so it is natural that more money goes to healthcare. If you were to do a per patient administrative cost medicare actually cost more per patient.
1
Spencerwalker21, read the Forbes article entitled "The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'" The reality is this, medicare is ran drastically different compared to private insurance for numerous factors. Saying Medicare has lower administrative costs is saying that Medicare and private insurance are essentially the same programs, they aren't. As for more money going to healthcare with medicare that is because Medicare covers older people who require more healthcare, so it costs more in general. Fact is that comparing medicare to private insurance with administrative costs is difficult due to factors I gave.
1
Billsama, care to give those examples and studies?
1
Jaguar Rose, the headline took one small part of a paper. The paper said it was a conservative estimate and that chances are the number would be much higher. Also, the number is for public cost only and does not include private. There isn't any back tracking, they are sticking to what they reported. What this is doing is making Bernie look terrible. There are many legit arguments against single payer systems. Administrative costs are very deceptive and there are arguments against those as well. The reality is that Bernie is not being honest here, he is being a corrupt politician.
1
Billsama, saying we are the only nation to not implement single payer healthcare is a weak argument. You are ignoring several factors. Just because we spend more does not mean our healthcare system is terrible. We offer more advanced care which is one reason why prices are high. As for the first study you linked they looked at only public spending, not private. They also made assumptions that kept the cost down such as increase demand will not increase prices. You second study (which has been referenced only once) has flaws. First, some of their measures of quality listed in Table 2 are flawed in that many factors influence those numbers. For example, they point to life expectancy when factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy. In the book "The Business of Health" they removed car accidents and murders and showed that the US is number 1 in life expectancy when you do that. On administrative cost government systems pass the cost onto other agencies. So the costs are there, they are just paid for by other agencies. Next, they say that "free market" and "privatization" can be interchanged. They can't. We don't have a free market system in healthcare, so that report is wrong there. Also, they point to education where in the US that is ran and funded locally. I can go on but I don't want to make this comment too long. Your next reference mentioned how the ACA increased bureaucracy. It criticizes the ACA and then comes to the conclusion that we need more government but does not go into details why. On the last report, I will have to look closer but did they account for cost of living? It doesn't seem to. Also, they are looking as physicians. What about surgeons? I applaud you for giving me these sources, I am interested in this topic. However, and not to be rude, but just because other countries do it does not mean we should nor does it mean that our system is terrible.
1
Ashley, people die in other nations due to lack of access to healthcare.
1
Billsama, it is basic economics that it would cost more. You are increasing demand without increasing supply. Look at what the student loan program did with college tuition, it caused it to go up a lot. Under Bernie's plan he is making the assumption that healthcare providers will take a 40% pay cut. Do you think that will actually happen? Do other countries have better health outcomes? Is our system objectively worse? There are several arguments against those points. The "risk pool" is a poor argument as you are including very unhealthy people in the pool, people who refuse to live a healthy lifestyle. Another problem is what is called "moral hazard". Where is the incentive to stay healthy or solve health problems yourself when you can just have the government pay for it? It is the same problem that came up with banks and the FDIC which caused the S&L crisis. The 45,000 deaths a year is deceptive. I call it an "empty stat" because there is no study done in a similar way from other nations. However, there are many reports of people who do die due to lack of access to healthcare. For example, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia on waiting lists waiting for "elective surgery". Also, that 45,000 are poor and bad health is associated with the poor. There are higher rates of obesity and smoking, all self inflicted issues with the poor. So the question becomes did they die because of lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? The raw data you point to is flawed in that many factors influence those numbers. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. In the book "Debunking Utopia" the author mentions how other nations have lower obesity rates and simply live healthier lifestyles leading to higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates. The US has a high obesity rate where obesity increases the chance of premature births which increases the chance of infant mortality. Healthcare is very complex and thus it is hard to compare two countries. Read the book entitled "The Business of Health" They do an in depth comparison of healthcare systems but they don't do a ranking. Why? Because, as prof. Robert Oshfeldt said (one of the authors of the book) rankings are arbitrary due to several factors outside of healthcare that influence the stats. I also did not do a one sentence reply. I wrote two paragraphs criticizing one article alone. I can go deeper if you want but I do have other responsibilities.
1
I am not saying it is an ideal situation where people die due to lack of access to healthcare. But the fact is that it does happen in every nation.
1
Justin Moore, in very small countries that are rich that number may be zero. But reality is that resources are limited and people end up dying because of that. You have little evidence to support that medicare for all will reduce the number of deaths. In fact the number of deaths due to lack of healthcare has been dropping in the US already.
1
Billsama, what 40% figure? Are you talking about healthcare providers taking a 40% pay cut? That was from the Koch brothers study where they cited Bernie's numbers. Unhealthy people usually pay higher rates or don't have insurance to begin with since most are poor. It isn't so much about single payer dis-incentivizing people to stay healthcare but the fact that the US has a lifestyle of poor health. That is a lifestyle choice. The US has higher obesity rate because of our culture. That is not because of our healthcare system. It is because of our poor diet. I know where that 45,000 comes from. It has been criticized by Harvard professor and as I said, what do you have to compare it to? People die in other nations as well. So is that 45,000, which is 0.01% of the population, high, low, or the norm? As for the 7000 you are correct, why did they die? Was it because of them not receive care or was it for other reasons? The same is with that 45,000. Again, there are higher rates of obesity and smoking with those who are poor. Being obese adds complications to any health problem thus making a minor situation more severe leading to death. Uh, saying "peer reviewed" does not mean it is without flaws. Do you know how the peer review process works? You submit a paper to a journal and you can request reviewers. Typically reviewers are people you know and unless there is egregious error it gets published. That book was written by two professors who cite all of their sources and gave their methods for anyone to criticize. Not saying it is without flaws, but it does have valid points. Any published work, whether peer reviewed or not, has flaws and can be criticized. I have 4 peer reviewed papers published and I can criticize all of them myself.
1
Bilsama, read the paper entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature review" They talk about the flaws in using preventable deaths as an indicator of healthcare quality. That is a peer reviewed paper if that is the standard you want to use.
1
Billsama, if they make less money there is less of an incentive to work in those professions and you end up with less resources. Thus you end up with lower quality. In other nations they lack specialists because of that. It is also why the US is number 1 in R&D. Having access to healthcare can make people unhealthy as they do not learn how to care for themselves. The US has a major problem of people living unhealthy lifestyles. Also, you are adding more people to the system meaning they will, arguably, receive less care due to the system be clogged with too many patients for frivolous situations. The Harvard professor was Katherine Baicker. You also have UCSD professor Richard Kronick that wrote a rebuttal in his paper entitled "Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited" There he talks about how obtaining numbers like that 45,000 are hard and usually not accurate. The problem is that it is very challenging to account for those cases. Again, someone being obese adds complications to any health issue. You can't compare person A to person B completely as there are many variables you cannot account for. I like how you say that 7000 is causation but support the 45,000 so quickly. Fact is people die in other nations due to lack of access in healthcare. You see this in Canada and in New Zealand you have a major problem of wait times leading to major problem financially and physically. I told you the shortcomings in infant mortality as well. I pointed you to a study on amendable mortality where you have no criticism of. You are simply dismissing it because you refuse to accept the other side of the argument. Most studies do not make hard conclusions. In fact, some of the best studies do not make hard conclusions as this issue is complex and requires a lot of analysis. Thus experts don't make hard conclusions as doing so creates a situation where they can be ridiculed. 1. There are flaws in peer review. All peer review does is prevent egregious errors, that's it. Again, I have four peer reviewed papers published. Every paper can be criticized. 2. The book is an easy read. I am pushing you to learn more about healthcare. I can tell you a lot and also point you to sources. 3. That book is peer reviewed as well. Was it peer reviewed like what goes on in academic journals? No. But other experts in the field have read the book and so far there has not been much criticism of it. There has been some and I will lead it to you to find it. But for now it has been peer reviewed, just not in a way you would like. Yes, I have 4 published papers and I am working on a 5th.
1
On our link going through each talking point 1. Administrative costs are deceptive. To start, medicare passes a lot of costs to other government agencies. For example, the IRS pays to collect the revenue where insurance has to hire people to do that. Also, if you did a cost per patient analysis economists Robert Book showed that medicare administrative cost is higher per patient compared to insurance. 2. Yes, bankruptcy is a problem. The reality is that single payer healthcare systems are great for very basic things and does help out poor people who would not have received care or end up going bankrupt. However, single payer systems are terrible for advanced care. The US is number 1 in cancer survival rates and they offer the most CT scans along with other advanced care. The US system is great for cases of being very sick or very hurt. So, single payer does well in covering the very poor, one extreme, but suffers in helping the very sick and hurt, the other extreme. The US system is great at helping the very sick and very hurt, but the poor suffer. In both cases someone suffers. So who do you want to help? Considering how in the US the poor also live unhealthy lifestyle one can argue help the very sick. Also, helping the very sick leads to more R&D and progress. That is the reality of single payer systems. Just complaining about bankruptcy does not tell the whole situation. If the US were to switch to a single payer system bankruptcies will go down but at what cost? Something has to give. 3. Yes, the US government pays a lot in healthcare already. That is arguably one major reason why we spend so much. 4. Healthcare rankings are arbitrary as many factors outside of healthcare influence the states. One source there is a survey. Surveying people who are not experts on the topic and only experience on system is not strong evidence. And as I pointed out in point 2 the extreme cases suffer. Most people don't have terrible healthcare experiences. That is why close to 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare and why democrats were removed after passing the ACA, people in the US do like their healthcare. 5. Same as point 3. However, it does beg the question why employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? A reason why is because of the payroll tax. Healthcare insurance is a tax free way to pay employees. No one asks that question. 6. The issue of nursing homes is complex. Read the book "Being Mortal" for that. Beyond that I cannot comment here as I have not read up on this issue very much. 7. I would agree 8. Again, bad health is correlated with being poor. Obesity is a self inflicted situation (usually) and adds complications to any illness or injury. How many of those people with chronic illness and don't have access could be better off if they simply lived a healthier lifestyle? 9. Same as point 1 I can go on but it is getting late. Point being is that all of those points can easily be argued against. The reality is this, when you break it down the US system in on par with other nations. Yes, we have problems, but so do other nations. The best route is to fix the system we have, not completely replace it.
1
Billsama, Many people have access to healthcare and are still unhealthy. Reality is that in the US people are unhealthy due to their lifestyles. Giving them access to healthcare will not change that. It is hard to account for a situation like obesity. I gave you a counter study showing how numbers like that 45,000 are arguably not accurate. I like how you did not give a rebuttal on that. That 45,000 is also a correlation, not causation. Again, many factors you cannot account for. Their are genetic factors, lifestyle factors, etc. You did not dismiss my claim on amenable mortality. The study supports my case that the data relate to healthcare is complex and challenging to analyze and there is not consensus in how to do so. Read that actual study as well. Why are you not reading the studies I give you? 1. Books are acceptable as well. In one of my papers I cited a book. Many books have been cited as well. I work in academics for a living, I know the standard. Books can be used. When a book is published it is open for criticism by the peers. In a peer reviewed process a paper gets reviewed by 2 to 3 people, that's it. And they are looking for egregious errors. I have been through the process and I have reviewed papers myself. I know how it goes. Just because something is "peer reviewed" does not mean it is gospel nor free from criticism. And just because a book is not "peer reviewed" does not mean is irrelevant. That book I pointed you to has many peer reviewed sources and lists their methods for you to criticize. I won't cite you my 4 papers. I choose to remain anonymous here. 1. Saying that single payer is cheaper is flawed. You are looking at only one part of the puzzle. The US does pay more, but we also offer more advanced care. For example we offer more CT scans compared to other countries. That drives up the cost when you pay for more expensive services. 2. You bring up the law in cancer survival rates. That is an issue of government. Also, there is the psychological issue as well. Read the book entitled "Being Mortal" By Atul Gawande But you probably won't as it is not "peer reviewed" even though it is required reading for nursing students in the university I work at. However, in the book he describes the challenges we face of people who are dying and how we push to keep them alive longer. 45,000 people is 0.01% of the population, that's it. Also, again, how many die due to poor lifestyle choices? 3. What the government pays does matter. It is inflating the cost of healthcare. Government usually cares about short term, not long term. That is why the Federal Reserve is independent within government. It is so it can care about long term and not worry about votes. 4. If half of the country wants single payer than why did close to 80% of voters said no in Colorado? Blaming lobbying is not an argument. If there is such strong support for single payer than it should pass easily and not have close to 80% vote against it. Also, you are pointing to polls to justify support in single payer. Those polls are vague questions on a complex issue and the people being polled are not that informed on the issue. They are not reliable. 5. Point being that the payroll tax has created problems. 8. You cannot account for all factors. Again, I pointed you to a paper that gave a rebuttal. How do you account for genetic factors? How do you truly account for lifestyle choices? You can't. That is what makes this issue difficult.
1
Billsama, here is your problem. You fail to realize how complex this issue is so you don't accept opposing viewpoints. And when ones are giving you pull a logical fallacy in saying that the source is not "peer reviewed" even though books are references in peer reviewed papers all the time and they are assigned in classes. I also gave you peer reviewed sources that you completely ignored like the paper from Richard Kronick but then you claim I did not cite anything. Many believe I published papers like my boss, my coworkers, my friends, and my collaborators. You are not going to go far by pulling logical fallacies. That book I referenced cites peer reviewed journals and is written by two experts in the field. You are very myopic on this topic and I feel bad for you. Healthcare is a very interesting topic and I encourage you to open you mind and appreciate how complex it is.
1
Billsama, I would love to see your response now.
1
Billsama, I am busy so I can't type much, but I did cite a counter study to the 45,000. I will cite it again. It is entitled "Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited" by Richard Kronick. Why do you ignore things I cite?
1
Care to explain?
1
Adam, it is impossible to determine which country has the best healthcare system. That is why you can't just google this issue.
1
Adam, there are many sources that argue different points. This is an issue that is highly debatable which makes healthcare reform so challenging to begin with.
1
Adam, that is not what sources say. Any sources that does claim the US is 3rd world status in healthcare is bias or worthless. Cost per capita is debatable as you need to include quality.
1
psychobyte00, that is not true.
1
Adam, rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and come up with any ranking they want. Yes, you look at overall cost, but you are ignoring quality. I pay less in rent than my boss does. My boss has a 2 bedroom apartment in a nicer neighborhood. I have a one bedroom apartment. That is why he pays more. You can Google anything you want, that is the problem. America ranks very high in quality of treatment. Many factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US becomes number 1 in life expectancy. That is why you can't just use raw statistics like you want to. I have read many books and studies on healthcare and the reality is that when you break it down the US is on par with other nations. This issue is complicated which is why no academic source makes claim on which system is the best. The reason why is that anyone can give strong supporting evidence to say the US has the best healthcare system in the world. But in reality intelligent people understand it isn't that easy.
1
Mega X, ever read the book "How to Lie with Statistics"? The reality is that anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and come up with any conclusion they way, including a ranking. As in that that book I cite that removes car accidents and murders and when you do that the US becomes number 1 in life expectancy. Or in the book "Debunking Utopia" where the author argues that in Nordic countries people live healthier lifestyles with healthier diets and lower smoking rates. So that increases their life expectancy. Or how some rankings use amenable mortality where the paper entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature review" the author breaks down the shortcomings in using amenable mortality. More importantly it is this. It isn't so much that they are arbitrary. It is that you and people like Adam blindly follow them without question. Do you even know how those rankings were developed? Also, why do you follow them without question? Is it wrong to challenge the validity of those rankings? If you want to claim I am dismissing them then fine. To me I am strongly questioning them and pointing out shortcomings and legit counter arguments against them. Is that wrong? Or should we just blindly follow them without question?
1
Mega X, those rankings are not peer reviewed. They come from organizations with a goal in mind. Also, that book "How to Lie with Statistics" is required reading for every stat major.
1
DynamicWorld, how can you refute what I said?
1
Mega X, I also referenced a peer reviewed paper.
1
Mega X, which one are you talking about?
1
Adam, the fact that you point to rankings without question. I have pointed out numerous shortcomings in the rankings. Also, you said that one can just Google the topic. You can't simply Google it as this is a complicated topic. Every study does not point to the same conclusion. That is the point. The Koch Brothers study does not say single payer is cheaper. Did you even read the study? At this point it is clear you haven't. Cost per capita is just one part of a complex puzzle. You haven't provided anything to support your point.
1
Adam, if every study points to the same conclusion then why are you not providing any? Because facts don't have feelings. The facts don't support your feelings.
1
The Koch Brohters study does not show that. The study says that the number is a conservative estimate and chances are the cost would be higher. The cost is also for public care only and does not include private. The assumptions they made were that healthcare providers would be willing to take 40% less pay and that increases in demand will not increase prices which is an economic fallacy. So no, the Koch brothers study does not say what you think it says. You are looking at just spending. There are many other factors involved. For example, the US gives more CT scans per capita. That is one of many reasons why prices are higher, we offer higher quality of care. Google the book entitled "The Business of Health" by prof. Robert Ohsfeldt and prof. John Schneider I know books are challenging for you but I encourage you to read it.
1
Adam, I am insulting you because you feel this issue can be settled by simply Googling it. This issue is far more complex than what you are making it out to be. Also, you keep pointing out one factor and that is cost per capita. You do know that my boss pays more in rent than I do. You know why? Because he pays for a better apartment and has a 2 bedroom apartment. I have a one bedroom apartment. He pays more and gets more. Saying other countries do it at a lower cost is not an argument as you are ignoring numerous other factors as well. I live in the US and get great care. You anecdotal experience means little. But again, you feel I can simply Google this issue and come up with a strong conclusion. How about you read the book I recommended. I mean, according to you every study points to the same conclusion, so what are you afraid of? Maybe you can Google spark notes for it.
1
Adam, I am also insulting you because you said every study comes to the same conclusion. So why not provide me with those studies? Why do you want me to Google it?
1
Adam, yes, we do pay more compared to other nations. I never denied that. What I am saying is there is a lot more to it than just how much we pay. On the studies, it isn't even almost all of them. The issue is highly debated. The "study" you gave me was only about cost. Your anecdotal experience is your experience and does not represent the whole picture. This is why we have studies. If you want to use anecdotal experiences I have had nothing but great experience in our healthcare system. I have a co-worker from Canada who is in his 40s that will take the US system over the Canadian system. So that over rules your experience.
1
Adam, so you refuse to read a book on the issue of healthcare even though you have a strong opinion on it?
1
Adam, just pointing to cost is only one part of the puzzle. That is great that you want everyone to have great healthcare, so do I and almost everyone on the right. My suggestion is that if you are going to have a strong opinion on it that you become informed on the issue. Don't say things like how almost every study says a certain conclusion when it is not true.
1
Adam, I never said that American was number 1. I have said the issue is complex so I will never say America is number 1. You are only pointing at cost where there is a lot more to healthcare than just how much we pay. You say it costs more in the US when that is not necessarily true. What is true is that we pay more, but we also offer more advanced care. It isn't that it cost more but instead that we pay more. Don't bring up climate change. I am a scientist and understand the complexity of that. You talk about the 3% who don't believe in climate change. Reality is that every scientist supports the idea of climate change as it has been happening for over 4 billion years. The issues are how much does man play a role and is it even a threat. Also, ti isn't 3%. That 97% consensus is highly inaccurate and does not say what you think it says. In reality scientists disagree on the issue of climate change and there is no real consensus. It is a challenging topic. You say that more than 60% of Americans want universal healthcare. However, close to 80% in Colorado voted against it. Fact is that the polls you are pointing to are unreliable. They are vague questions on complex issues asked towards people who do not understand them. When you break it down the US healthcare system is on par with other nations. That is the reality. If you want to talk about insulting people you actually insulted me first by criticizing the idea that I cannot use Google and then suggested that I go dust off a book at the library.
1
Adam, you insulted me by saying I did not know how to use Google. Also, you insulted this issue by saying you can simply Google it when it is far more complex than that. In fact, in your very first comment you questioned how hard it is to Google which nation has the best healthcare system. You are calling other people stupid claiming they cannot use a search engine. I responded with the fact that you cannot simply Google it. I suggest you re-read your comments and see who insulted whom.
1
Adam, you also brought up the facts and feelings argument. In reality you have approached this entire situation in a very condescending way and when someone with more knowledge on the issue (me in this case) challenges you than you become very perturbed and cry. I am all for having a civil discussion, you don't seem to.
1
Adam, if you are passionate about healthcare than why do you refuse to read the book I cite you? And why do you feel that one can simply Google the issue? I have no problem if you support universal healthcare, I just ask that you are informed on the issue because in my opinion you aren't.
1
Adam, I am not right wing, I am a moderate. Do I lean right? Yes. Any more these days most on the right are moderate. Take healthcare for example. That book I pointed you to was published from AEI, a right wing think tank. That book admits that the US healthcare system has problems and needs to be improved. It does not say that US system is superior to other systems. However, on the left they claim that single payer systems are superior and you say that almost all studies make that claim. That is not true. When you look at how the political right approaches issues they understand the complexity and understand there is room for improvement. The political left over simplifies things. Same with climate change. The political right believe in climate change. They just feel that it isn't a threat and that government is not the source to take on the issue. And on your studies on healthcare, I don't dismiss them. I see them are over simplified or just one piece of a complex puzzle.
1
Kyle really needs to stop talking about healthcare. He has no clue what he is talking about and his audience fails to call him out on it.
1
I watched 10 minutes of this video. When I wrote this comment Kyle said that administrative costs are lower in Medicare. That is not true. To start medicare has the luxury of passing other costs to other government agencies. For example, the CDC does disease awareness where private insurance has to pay for disease awareness themselves. Next, if you do a cost per patient administrative cost is higher in medicare. That is because medicare covers older people who require more healthcare and thus naturally more money will be spent on healthcare. Kyle is not presenting the Koch brothers' study correctly. The study never said Medicare for all would cost less. They admitted the number was a conservative estimate and that chances are the price would be higher. They made assumptions that doctors would be willing to take 40% less money and that forcibly increasing demand will not increase prices. It is also ignoring quality as well. This study is looking at one factor, price. Also, the number they produced was for public spending only and not private. I can go on but Kyle is completely wrong on healthcare.
1
StrikeWing, other countries don't prove anything. They have shortcomings as well.
1
I have researched this topic. The shortcomings in other nations are just as severe as in the US.
1
Kennet, Japan is in major debt and has culture where people literally work themselves to death. Germany has many restrictions on their programs. In college they limit who an attend.
1
MLG, healthcare rankings are arbitrary. One of the first things you learn in stats is that you can lie with them.
1
Martin Neumann, insurance is there to counter the fact that sometimes demand is inelastic in healthcare. So yes, free market principle can be applied to healthcare.
1
Medicare for all will not save people money unless you are very poor. Medicare for all would cost more than the system we have now unless you lower the quality.
1
Ari August, your anecdotal experience does not represent the norm.
1
Robert Aylor, where does it say that? In the abstract they admitted their number was an under estimate.
1
Jeremy Elliot, that is not what the study says. This video shows how ignorant Kyle is on the topic of healthcare.
1
Jeremy Elliot, saying it "works" is a low bar to set.
1
I'm allergic to bullshit, the fact that this shows a problem in our country and that is the political left does not want to discuss the issues. Bernie preaches about how we should discuss the issues, and how we should discuss why we don't have universal healthcare. Here is a study that does just that and Bernie misrepresents it. He is not an honest character.
1
oswarz, they are using what Bernie says. Saying eliminating employer based health benefits will raise wages is flawed. A reason why employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage is because of the payroll tax that Bernie wants to raise in order to pay for M4A. Raising wages means businesses have to pay more in taxes. So saying that eliminating employer based insurance will raise wages is very flawed. Also, how much would it raise wages by? Again, the whole concept of wages going up is based on what Bernie said. The entire study was using numbers by Bernie. I agree that these are factors we should consider, but the problem is that people like Bernie aren't wanting to consider those factors. When you read the study the study took a moderate approach to the issue and looked at many details. What you listed is one important issue and a fair one to make. However, the bigger problem is that Bernie is not being an honest character here. He took the study and completely misrepresents it.
1
Vaas, it isn't that easy. Also, the number they give is listed as a conservative estimate and they said chances are the price would be much higher. The dollar amount is also just for public spending and not private.
1
Definitive Entertainment, that is why so many hate Bernie. Bernie preaches about discussing the issues but he is never honest when he does. Bernie needs to represent his opponents fairly. He doesn't. The reason why is because he is a corrupt, career politician.
1
Vaas, I have seen the other studies and they are very flawed. And that Koch brothers does not account for private spending. It would help you to actually read the study.
1
Definitive Entertainment, if Bernie told these people that you can see hell by sticking your head in fire they would do it. These Bernie fans are the lowest of the low in intelligence.
1
Durell, it is arguable if other nations have higher quality.
1
burtosis, overhead is very deceptive in that Medicare passes cost to other government agencies.
1
Vaas, that study does not account for private spending. I never said the Koch brothers study isn't flawed. However, I have seen other studies and they are easy to criticize.
1
Durell, read the book entitled "The Business of Health" by prof Robert Oshfeldt and prof John Schneider
1
Durell, on your first article they use amenable mortality. There are problems in using that. Read the paper entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature review" The author says "This implies that the evidence that amenable mortality is an indicator of healthcare quality is far from overwhelming or clear." Your next article does a ranking where rankings are arbitrary. There are many factors outside of healthcare that influence the numbers. For example, two professors showed that if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Your third article points to the CommonWealth Fund. To start, how is that private organization credible? Next, their ranking, like all rankings, are arbitrary. They point to amenable mortality where I mentioned above has many flaws. The study points to cancer survival rates but does not include that in their ranking. It is laughable to look at raw data like you are and come up with a strong conclusion.
1
Durell, there are factors outside of healthcare that influences those numbers in that chart. For example, obesity increases the chance of premature births which increases the chance of infant mortality. The US has a high obesity rate compared to those nations. I gave you a paper about amenable mortality. Rankings are arbitrary. There is a reason why you will never find a ranking in an academic source. Anyone can do a legit analysis with the stats and come up with any ranking they want. Again, how is the CommonWealth Fund credible? Also, I like how you ignored my sources.
1
D. San, except many people lack healthcare. That is why in Australia up to 7000 people die a year on waiting lists waiting for "elective surgery".
1
D. San, people die in Denmark as well. Also, saying you can get surgery quickly if you need it is flaw. How do you define that? Just because it is not life threatening does not mean it is not needed quickly. Read the paper entitled "Waiting for elective surgery: effects on health-related quality of life" People end up worse off if they want too long.
1
JohnnyGotHisGun, I did watch the video. Kyle is wrong as usual.
1
Captain Awesome, that Koch brother study shows that.
1
I'm allergic to bullshit, I try to reason with people because I feel there some level of intelligence with people. However, you are correct in some ways. The fact that they cannot read and comprehend the study themselves and see how much Bernie is lying is scary. It is scary how dumb some of these people are.
1
Captain Aweson, it does. I read the study. Apparently you haven't.
1
Captain Awesome, the numbers they produce does.
1
Captain Awesome, you are correct, the numbers are a conservative estimate as admitted in the study and they said that chances are the cost would be much higher. They made the assumption that prices will stay the same despite increases in demand. Glad we agree on that. Glad we agree the number reported is a conservative estimate.
1
They based their numbers off of the law Bernie proposed. Did you even read the study?
1
Lola Hickey, I am not trying to shut down the conversation. In fact, people are trying to shut me down so I say the truth. Trump won because the political left does not want to have an intellectual conversation on the issues. Trump is no PC so he just spoke his mind and was elected.
1