Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fact-Checking Trump's Fake News 'Medicare For All' Op-Ed" video.

Up to 7000 people die a year on waiting lists waiting for "elective" healthcare in Australia.
1
Jack Gray, people die in all nations due to lack of access to healthcare. Just stating facts.
1
Space Wizard, i do show numbers, I have in the past. That is when people run away. I did here with Australia. Why don't people ever fact check Kyle?
1
Space Wizard, read the study entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature reviewed" An actual peer reviewed study and not something from a private company with a special interest.
1
Phillip, they died while waiting for "elective" care. Now they may have died from something else, but the same can be said about that 45,000 stat Kyle keeps bringing up.
1
Deep Res, that 45,000 is deceptive and there are arguments against it. The main one being that those individuals are poor and bad health due to lifestyle choices is associated to being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with those in poverty. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? In Oregon a study led by a Harvard professor showed that even when you give access to healthcare to poor individuals their physical health does not improve. Being in bad physical health adds complications to any healthcare problem where even after you fix one problem another arises. Read the book entitled "Being Mortal" where it discusses people near the end of life. There the author mentioned how people will fix one problem with the hopes of living another 5 years but then another problem comes and they really end up living another 5 months in miserable conditions. So the issue is that even if you give those 45,000 access to healthcare would they even live a significantly long time? If you give them access to healthcare and they live another 2 months, what was the difference? That is what makes this issue so complicated. There are many moving parts. This is why Kyle is bad when it comes to discussing healthcare. He ignores the many counter arguments to his claims.
1
That 7000 is 7000 per year.
1
Hugh Gordon, no. I gave a stat to show that people do die in other nations due to lack of healthcare. Kyle says that number is zero when in reality it isn't. Also, the criticism you gave to me is the same you can give to Kyle. He keeps pushing that 45,000 death despite the arguments against it. As for polls there are problems there. Just because a system is popular does not mean it is the best. If polls showed slavery was popular should we allow it? Also, polls are unreliable. They are vague questions on complex issue to a group of people who are not informed on those issues. Opinions change when more information is given. Read the article entitled "How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?" And if Medicare for all was so popular, why did close to 80% of voters in Colorado vote against universal healthcare in 2016?
1
Go to "Elective surgery waiting times 2016-2017: Australian hospital statistics" from the aihw.gov site. You can pick other dates as well. Click on data and download the excel spreadsheet and go to table 2.4.
1
Hugh, also, pointing to polls is a bully tactic. It is saying "no matter how legit your argument is, no matter how strong your stats are, we must do it our way because we outnumber you." And again, you have a double standard here. Kyle constantly uses the same stat no matter what. Why don't you criticize him for that?
1
jojo, I never say that everything is null and void. The issue I have is when people like Kyle and his fans drastically push for medicare for all and do so by misrepresenting data and dismissing the other side's argument. I support many arguments on the left. I feel we should improve our healthcare system. My idea is somewhere in the middle and not a medicare for all system. Anyone pushing for a medicare for all system are doing so out of complete ignorance, out of being lazy, or for a power grab. My point on saying that there are arguments against what others are saying is that a moderate approach is best in solving these problems. Dismissing the other side's argument and pushing for a radical solution is not best.
1
jojo, Kyle dismisses the other side of the argument. You see that in his videos where he says there is no argument against medicare for all where there clearly is. I agree, we should improve our healthcare system. I have ideas but I will admit my ideas have flaws. And no system is ideal. There where be shortcomings. Desire is limitless but resources are limited. I don't know you so I can't label you, but here is each person Lazy: They simply want a handout Power: Politicians or special interest groups Ignorant: This one is more complex. The ignorance can come from an inflated ego not admitting that Medicare for all might not be the best system (like Kyle), not understanding the stat and how complex they are, or not realizing how it is almost impossible to implement Medicare for all without destroying the economy. On that last part healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Going to Medicare for all means many jobs will be lost in the insurance market. Many stocks are tied to healthcare which will go under. Taxes will go up where many people will slow down consumption until their finances stabilize. Many companies won't invest all which will cause a major recession. The housing market is 5% of the economy and look what that cause. You also have to convince millions of Americans that raising their taxes will be best for them. Our culture won't approve of that. So even after you crunch all the numbers and feel that Medicare for all would be best, how do you implement it without creating problems? How do you convince hundred of millions of tax payers that raising their taxes will be best? That is what makes healthcare so tricky. Also, saying that other nations do it is a weak argument as you are ignoring their shortcomings and other variables. A guy from Denmark pushed Bernie into a corner and got him to admit that he will have to raise taxes on all. It was then brought up that half of Denmark's income is taxed. In the US it is around 25 to 30 percent. Are the American people willing to accept that much of a jump in taxes? That is what makes it radical. We should improve the system we have as opposed to completely changing.
1
Polls are a bully tactic. It isn't discussing the issue objectively but instead saying "we have more people who support it thus we should do it". If slavery was popular according to the polls would it be the best system? No. But according to you we should pass it anyway just because the majority wants it. That is a bully tactic.
1
@jojoboko6990 Kyle does dismiss the other side. He says there is no argument against universal healthcare despite experts making arguments against it. There are experts who make arguments for is so I admit there are argument for universal healthcare. I don't dismiss the other side. Kyle does. Main reason is because he can't argue the issue so he just dismisses the other side. Other nations implemented universal healthcare while they were developing or rebuilding. Also, they have much smaller populations. We have 320+ million and a $18.5 trillion economy where healthcare takes up 1/6 of that. We are developed. You can't just radically change something in the economy that much. How do you convince millions of Americans their taxes will go up? What do you do with the jobs that will be lost? What do you do with the fact that people will have less money initially at least? You tell me how many jobs will be lost? If you want Medicare for all you have to understand that an address it. How much do people pay in healthcare? I pay zero dollars so I will be losing money. Same with many people. How many will end up paying more and how will they consume after that? I need numbers? You are not providing any? This is where the ignorance comes in. Companies won't invest if people don't buy. A recession will happen. You can't change the economy that much without expecting one to happen. You allow the government to control 1/6 of the economy creates an environment of unpredictability where investors won't invest until the economy becomes stable. Our culture won't approve of higher taxes and government controlling healthcare. One major issue we have is how our welfare programs have been increasing but the people refuse to pay higher taxes so we just increase the debt. How often do we allow the federal government to change 1/6 of our economy that much? Never.
1
@jojoboko6990 , the slavery argument is legit. How about this. Say the majority supporting taxing the rich 90%? Should we do it? should we attack the rich just because the majority support it? What if the majority wanted to ban smoking? Should we do it? What if the majority did not want Medicare for all? We don't run on mob rule. That is the point. You do know polls have people saying taxes are too high? But yet you want to raise it. Why do you ignore those polls? You little safe space comment shows you have no argument. I shows you are falling apart after I called you out on how polls are irrelevant and they only give a snapshot and not a forecast. Opinions change after more information is given. Also, we don't run on mob rule. What if the majority supporting getting rid of medicare all together, would you support that?
1
jojo, polls aren't scary as the people are voting differently according to the polls. Also, opinions change when more information is given. I don't take the polls seriously. At this point I just should mock people who point to them, especially if Republicans win come the midterms.
1
jojo Experts don't make arguments against the round earth. As for climate change, the issues are if it is a threat? How much does man play a role? And if it is a threat what should be done? You are making a poor comparison here. As a scientist I understand the issue of climate change well. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. The ecosystem has evolved during that time where climate change is a driving force behind it. What makes people think that the ecosystem is going to stop evolving? Notice how on climate change it is the media and politicians that are screaming it is a major problem and not scientists going public in it? Why? Because scientists, the actual experts, are the ones understanding the complexity of the issue. Not the media and politicians. But thanks for bringing that up, it supports my point even more. I have never seen Kyle argue the issue with someone who has a lot of intelligence and knowledge on the issue. I wish he would take phone calls though. Germany, for example, created their system in 1883, The NHS was created in 1946 while the UK was rebuilding after WWII. I am actually not trying to make arguments comparing the US to other nations. In fact, I have said many times the issue is complex saying that any comparison has many shortcomings. That is why I said in the past that healthcare rankings are arbitrary and can't be used. We are developed in that we are a nation where people are very well off. People have their set ways making any radical changes difficult. Going with that 45,000 death stat, even if it was so that all died due to lack of access, that is still around 0.01% of the total population. That is minute. That means 99.99% of the population is fine in way of healthcare one can argue. Why change it that drastically? It is radical as you are asking to completely change 1/6 of the total economy. No one has addressed how to do that, not even Bernie. People are trying to convince others to do something new where others are trying to convince them differently. There is a battle. Also, a major issue is that so many people are well off that they won't support the side of higher taxes. It doesn't help when people like Kyle and Bernie completely dismiss the other side in their arguments. The argument from the left at this point is "we are going to raise your taxes and trust us, you will be better off". If you start going into numbers you run into one of two problems. One, you get people who are not interested and will ignore them, or you get into a situation where they will look at the numbers, then look at counter views and that runs the risk of the votes being split. Now add in the fact that someone like Bernie is saying "trust me, the other side is wrong" but research shows they have a strong argument, more will vote against Bernie's plan. The economy is complex, it will take more than 5 minutes to figure out all the numbers. You can't ignore the issue of jobs being loss, people having less money, at least initially, then businesses stop investing and so on. Look at the crash due to the housing market which is 5% of the economy. Now imagine 1/6 of the economy causing a crash. Also, you are the ignorant one as you are not willing to accept the possibility of a crash in the economy. Someone like Bernie or Kyle is not giving that possibility. They must because there is a chance it will happen. If it does happen what will they do? What will they do with the jobs that will be lost? How will they account for people slowing down consumption after their taxes go up? You are ignoring those points which is foolish. You need to look at this in all angles. This is not an argument in saying Medicare for all will be bad, it is an argument in how will you transition to it without causing a crash? What should I do? My taxes will go up meaning I will have less money. Tell me, what should I do? You will refuse to give me advice or sympathize in my position as you don't care to learn nor understand it. Why do you want an expert's opinion? According to you it does not matter? Recessions do happen because there is a change in the system. The economy does change due to a change in the system. A war caused the US to get out of a depression, same for Germany. Keeping interest rates low led to hyperinflation where they had to be raised to 21%. Medicare for all will create an environment if unpredictability. Every new election cycle we don't know which new party will pay how. How will government spend, and why? What will the lawyers say? Who will be favored? When government expands you create bureaucracy and less predictability. This comes back to why many argue a free market is better. And yes, the government controls a lot in healthcare and costs are up. Thanks for that point.
1
And back on polls. The fact you are taking a complex issue like healthcare and limiting down to a poll of non-experts is very ignorant. On your climate change point, if 70% don't support the idea of climate change should we just ignore it? If 70% say the earth is flat should we teach it like that in schools?
1
Most of what Trump said is true. Most of what Kyle said isn't.
1
Wow, this video is full of lies by Kyle. Someone should fact checked him.
1
It was full of lies. Someone needs to fact check Kyle.
1
There are many arguments against Medicare for all. Also, the arguments Kyle makes here are very poor to completely wrong. He is factually wrong on some cases. So hearing Kyle's arguments is a strong argument against Medicare for all.
1
Saying "it's not true" is not an argument nor a fact check.
1
Pointless video as Kyle lies. In Bernie's medicare for all bill it does ban private insurance. Also, the Koch brothers study shows Medicare for all costing more than our system. But hey, Kyle doesn't need to be fact checked when he lives in a bubble.
1
Lucas, he said that no one dies in other nations due to lack of access to healthcare. That is not true. According to the Australian Institute of Healthcare and Welfare up to 7000 people die a year waiting for "elective" care. People have died in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Also, the number who die in the US due to lack of access is deceptive. In Oregon a study led by a Harvard professor gave access to Medicaid to people and not to others and the physical condition of those with Medicaid did not improve. A lot of bad health is due to poor lifestyle choices and not whether or not they have access to healthcare.
1
Lucas, also, the Koch Brothers study does say that Medicare for all will cost more. Look at page 7, Table 2. It says that Medicare for all will cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years. That is a conservative estimate and is the lower bound, chances are it will cost more. Table 2 also points to what the government won't pick up which is essentially be private care. If you include that you will add another $21.4 trillion to the cost of healthcare. So Medicare for all will cost the American people over $50 trillion a year. Again, that is the lower bound.
1
Gerrymandering does not involve the presidency as typically the president wins all of the electoral college votes of that state. Also, it isn't minority rule, it is protecting the minority from the majority which would be mob rule.
1
@deliriousfishsticks4495 , sorry, I have been busy. You know, I do have a life and responsibilities.
1
@jojoboko6990 , the study even admits there are shortcomings. Also, there are legit arguments against it like I mentioned earlier. As you not finding any information, that is the issue. There is no study to compare that 45,000 to. Thus you are working with what I call and "empty stat". It is similar to me saying that I pay $700 a month in rent. On just that alone come to a conclusion if I am paying too much, or if I am getting a good deal. You can't as you have nothing to compare it to. When Kyle points to that 45,000 stat he is ignoring a lot and it does nothing to progress the issue of healthcare.
1
@christopherlee9026 , nations measure waiting times in different ways. Really hard to compare.
1
jojo, here is an example of how when a government program grows the more the lawyers get involved to where the only people who win are the lawyers. In section 107 Bernie's bill outlaws duplicate coverage. That is where I argue, and many lawyers will argue, that Bernie's bill outlaws private insurance. Why? Well, in duplicate coverage that means coverage that Medicare already covers. To give an example, say you did not have insurance and I do. Say you need an MRI and I do as well. My insurance will cover the MRI where you will have to pay for it out of pocket. Now say Medicare for all is passed. Now Medicare will pay for your MRI and mine. I can't use my private insurance for the MRI because Medicare covers it. Why does that law exist? Because if private insurance exists that covers it than the situation is created that hospitals will favor private insurance if it pays more or if it pays quicker compared to Medicare. Thus you still have the situation where people get cared based on the size of one's wallet as Bernie will argue. That is what Medicare for all is supposed to prevent. That is the spirit of the law. So any private insurance that covers an MRI will be outlawed where you and I can get an MRI and one of us will have to wait regardless of our income. Is that fair? One can argue either way. But that is why the law is written the way it is. Any additional coverage would be pay for out of pocket as it mainly is to begin with, like LASIK for example. So the point stands that Medicare for all does outlaw private insurance.
1
jojo, saying there are shortcomings in a study does not mean the study is pointless. The study provides valuable information. But the issue is that there is a lot more to it than what one study can make. That is why no academic source creates healthcare rankings where special interest groups do. No academic source will ever come to a strong conclusion like that because a researcher's career will be questioned and attacked. As for the 45,000 and comparing to other nations, of someone dies on a waiting list or due to lack of resources that is the same as dying due to lack of access to healthcare. You can't say that number is zero in other nations because it isn't. You saying it is zero in other nations is you lowering the standards there and holding the US to a higher standard. On paper everyone is covered in other nations, but they are also covered in the US as well by law as the ER cannot deny anyone service regardless of income. You need to set the same standard if you want to do comparisons which is difficult to do.
1
jojo, also, on the part of lawyers getting involved, this comes back to people who support Medicare for all are sometimes ignorant. They don't understand the legal barriers and battles that will come with these laws. Section 107 says duplicate insurance cannot be sold. Now enter the lawyers to argue what is "duplicate", what that word means, and what can be allowed or not. I argued the point with an MRI in how if a private insurance covers it that will not be allowed as Medicare will cover it. However, if the private insurance is willing to pay, say 10% more, than that can also be consider something that is no "duplicate" as it is paying more. Or you can go even farther and say the private insurance not only covers the MRI but having two doctors look at the results where Medicare only has one doctor. Thus the private insurance is not "duplicate" and the person with private insurance goes to the head of the line and gets the care first. So now access to care is still based on a person's income which is what Medicare for all is supposed to alleviate. You see the problems being created here?
1
Celestial, people try to compare but when you do you find out that there are different standards in different nations making the comparisons difficult. That is what makes this topic so difficult which is why I attack Kyle and his fan base for over simplifying this issue.
1
jojo, people get the $2 trillion in comparing the $32.6 trillion,which is $3.2 trillion a year. to the $3.4 trillion that we pay now.
1
jojo, that is what they are doing. I know you read the study and you have been somewhat fair about this. But others aren't. They are using the $32.6 trillion over 10 years and comparing it to what we spend now. It is why I say that many on the far left like Kyle dismiss the other side. They are ignoring what is actually in the study. They are ignoring the entire study and simply looking at one number. You can find a video of Kyle talking about the study back in August 2 where he cites that number.
1
After listening to Kyle I feel his fans don't have brains.
1
@casperguylkn , I can if you want.
1
@casperguylkn , I can. Take the issue of Kyle saying that 45,000 die a year in the US due to lack of access to healthcare. He says that number is zero in other nations. That is not true. People die in other nations due to lack of access as well. In Australia up to 7000 people die a year waiting for "elective" surgery. People die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Another is when Kyle claims the Koch brothers study says Medicare for all will save money. That is not true. If you look at Table 2 on page 7 of the study at NHE you will see it will cost over $50 trillion over 10 years. The cost of the government will be $32.6 trillion which was reported to be a conservative estimate, the lower bound. There will still be private cost which is where the $50 trillion comes to play. Kyle is a fraud and should be fact checked himself.
1
Medicare for all will not save money, it would cost more. Also, as I type this he talks about seniors. A lot of healthcare providers don't take medicare that seniors need such as the nursing home. Along with that there becomes risk assessment in that younger people would receive care over seniors when costs go too high.
1
In Bernie Sanders' medicare for all bill employer based insurance is banned. Kyle lies there.
1
the one winged angel, Kyle is giving a lot of false information here. He said that no one dies in other nations due to lack of access to healthcare. That is not true. For example, up to 7000 die in Australia due to lack of access to healthcare.
1
According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare up to 7000 die a year on waiting lists waiting for "elective" care. Kyle is either dumb or lying when it comes to healthcare. I still haven't figured out which. It is too bad he doesn't take calls. If he did he I would expose him on air.
1
@mrs.witchyperfect9846 , you do know the commonwealth fund is a private special interest group?
1