Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trumpcare Torn To Shreds By Non-Partisan CBO" video.

  1. To counter a couple points. 1. The CBO estimate on people being dropped is exaggerated. It assumes that the young being dropped will refuse to buy their own insurance. Some might, but many will eventually. 2. The idea of taxing the rich to pay for medicaid is one major reason why prices are going up. You are artificially increasing demand for healthcare which leads to higher prices. It isn't as easy as "well you can tax people this much an we can pay for this much". If the resources are not there, such as the doctors and supplies, then all you do is increase prices.
    2
  2. Brandon, that is your choice. But don't complain when you get sick later and get turned down.
    1
  3. GWS, we need to give power back to the people in healthcare. The people should decide what kind of coverage they receive and pay for. Right now we don't have that and I feel the main reason why is because of the payroll tax.
    1
  4. Brandon, lucky for you two professors in the field has compared stats in healthcare and wrote a book on it https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  5. bryan s, read the book I cited for Brandon. No country covers everyone unless you lower the standards. Saying that they "cover" everyone is true on paper, but when you have longer wait times and lower quality then is that really a success? In the US everyone, on paper is able to receive a K-12 education. But in some areas they don't have AP courses or even physics and calculus classes. So do they receive a high quality education? In my state we increased our graduation rate by lowering the standards. Saying that other countries "covers" everyone in healthcare is a very low standard.
    1
  6. "All the claims about long wait times and lower quality are talking points that have been proven wrong many times" No it hasn't. Even Bernie Sanders admitted that there are longer wait times and healthcare is rationed. " Canada, for example, has longer wait times for some elective procedures but not for necessary care" What is "necessary care"? That is vague and deceptive. I had an ear ache the other day. Is that necessary? It isn't life threatening. But I could not sleep and if not seen quickly it could have become worse making me worse off. Claiming "necessary care" is lowering the standards. I worked to put myself to see a doctor quickly, I should be able to see them. "And what about the millions of people in the US that can't afford insurance or are denied coverage? " What about people who die or end up being worse off because of longer wait times or lower quality? No system is ideal. You have to realize that. If you read the book I linked you will see that universal healthcare has shortcomings. This is why people who strongly support it, like you, lower the standards to push for it. "The US may have some top-of-the-line equipment/doctors for some things, but that's a flawed concept because there's so many people who can't afford it." So many people, can, as in the vast majority of the country. And people going bankrupt is not necessarily a bad thing. It shows that us as a nation is wealthy enough to allow people to go into debt and be well off. In poor nations people don't have debt. People argue a lot how there is a lot of wealth inequality in the US. That is because many people are in debt. Poor countries like Ethiopia have low wealth inequality because no one has wealth nor debt. A poor Ethiopian man has more wealth then me because I have negative wealth. But I have a better life. My point is that you cry about bankruptcy but the alternatives are people either dying or having their condition worsen beyond repair due to low quality or long wait times. "And it seems like you're saying that it would be better to have a system with excellent care available, but millions who can't afford the insurance, or are denied, are just out of luck. Is this the system you want?" No system is ideal. You have to realize that. There will always be people who will suffer or fall short in the end. You see that all across the world. To me universal healthcare is no better then what we currently have. Switching to it will lead to a major recession hurting a lot of people. To me a more free market system and letting the states handle it is the best route. Right now we don't have a free market system which is the problem.
    1
  7. "I mean they honestly believe a socialist healthcare program is evil and will kill grandma and grandpa .... DESPITE the fact that we already have a socialist healthcare system in Medicare" You just said it, we already have a socialize system, so why keep fighting?
    1
  8. "Do you have a study or book that has been published more recently? I glossed through The Business of Health, but my only concern is that it was published in 2006, making it 10 years old. " As of now, no. But the reality is no one else does as far as I know. My stance is that universal healthcare has advantages. I actually would support a public option if it were ran at the state level. However, people have to realize that universal healthcare has many shortcomings and when you compare the US to other countries in the outcomes the differences are minute. That is what that book does. So neither system is really better. And as someone just said, we already have as socialized system in medicare and medicaid. Those that support single payer end up muddying the waters with their vague standards. For example, one will say "everyone is covered" which on paper is true. But are they covered with high quality care? Waiting months for an MRI is being covered, but you wait for months while your condition may worsen. So it is vague. Or as someone else said, "necessary care". That usually translate to "life threatening". In the US if you have a life threatening situation you are seen immediately in ER. Beyond that what is "necessary care" and how do you determine that without seeing a doctor or nurse first? Single payer has problem, so does the US system. I don't support completely replacing it federally as it will lead to a major recession harming many people. Even if temporarily it will harm people. To me we need to do the following 1. give power back to the states 2. replace the payroll tax as the payroll tax has it so businesses pay employees with insurance as opposed to a higher wage 3. with the payroll tax being gone allow for a more free market system where consumers buy their own plans forcing companies to compete 4. get the federal government out of healthcare all together
    1
  9. Niklas, you need a home to stay alive and water but yet we have to pay for that a lot of times. Problem with healthcare is that it is complicated and involves highly skilled workers with expensive equipment. You use the example of cancer where care for cancer isn't readily available. The government can't just snap its fingers and cancer cure will magically appear. If it were that simple we would do it. But it isn't. This is why I don't support centralizing the issue of healthcare.
    1
  10. Daniel, just because you can't read doesn't mean I did not deliver my conclusion.
    1
  11. " Paying for water is the dumbest thing the so called "free market" has ever produced. What if we just own the rain? Just no, your capital does not warrant you owning the planet. " So what do you suggest? No one owns anything? Can I take a crap on your lawn? "Nice to know you are battling strawmen. Who is talking about a magical cancer cure? " You are because you are not realizing the fact that we lack supply in healthcare. Adding more people to the system will mean higher prices or lower quality. " Is there cancer treatment available? " Not enough to cover everyone. "Now, Imagine people who need it actually have access to it " When it doesn't exist then you don't have access to it. Again, government can't just create something out of nothing. You ultra liberals are trying to make government god-like. "Can you just, for once, acknowledge that life doesn´t matter to you unless people have money? " If you don't have resources then you die, period. Money is a part of that. Also consider that when people die the world keeps spinning and essentially no one cares. " But isn´t the U.S cancer treatment among the best in the world? Yes, but how will letting more people take part of it destroy it?" Because we lack resources. "More demand = less research, interest and capital? How? " Being a doctor or a researcher in the medical field is a high paying career. Despite that we lack workers in that field. That is the problem. We do not have enough workers despite them being careers that pay 6 figures. "Still, healthcare is twice as expensive in the U.S than in countries with universal healthcare and with overall worse health outcomes for the public" Our outcomes are on par with other countries, and in some cases better.
    1
  12. "So the solution to having a shortage of doctors is to let a certain % of the population (the low income) die, as opposed to covering everyone and find ways to limit the shortage? Nice." In other countries they ration care thus people die because of low quality care or waiting. It goes both ways. No country covers everyone.
    1
  13. bryan s, the WHO ranking was criticized so much that the refused to do another ranking. It compared the US to countries like Malta and San Andorra. That is not a valid comparison at all.
    1
  14. "you are paying more, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME." In some cases we are better. In some cases we are worse. As a whole our system is on par with other nations. "mosf cures have been found by government funding btw. " Not necessarily true. ". YOU make the free market out to be a god like thing, We simply refer to historical evidence that social democracies have functioned pretty fucking well and that america is verging on collapse thanks to the conservacunts." History has shown that free market has always been better.
    1
  15. "So you're just repeating the false claim that people in other countries are dying because of rationing or low quality." It is not a false claim. If they were doing so much better they would be blowing us out of the water in the statistics. They aren't though. Comparing our healthcare system to them and saying they are better is similar to comparing the top 10 NFL passing leaders and saying Peyton Manning is the best QB ever while ignoring several other variables. Other countries ration care. Even Bernie admits that. It is a shortcoming that has led to people's deaths. "The WHO has avoided doing another numerical ranking to avoid controversy, but that doesn't mean the data they used to determine things like quality and access isn't relevant." The book I cited to you used the same data and came up with a different conclusion. That book ran through all of their methods and cited all of their sources as well. You blindly follow the WHO which was vague in what they did but won't follow the book I cited because it goes against what you support. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  16. " If you have a study concerning quality, which the United States often ranks 5th place or below in almost every health category from studies I have read through" Could you list those studies?
    1
  17. A major problem with the WHO is that it compared all countries together. It placed the US on the same level of countries like Malta and San Marino. Be completely 100% honest, is it valid to compare the US, or France, Norway, Canada to San Marino? San Marino has 31,000 people. We can fit the entire population of San Marino in all of our MLB stadiums with room to spare. It is a tax haven and their top economic source is tourism. A small country with limited problems that attracts people with money is going to be success all across the board. The second someone cites the WHO I immediately discredit them as they are blindly following a ranking that is basically full of crap.
    1
  18. Team Bad Deck, every study has inherit flaws. When you read the literature they will mention that. Any literature that doesn't is not credible. Also, the US spends 40% of their food dollar on take out food which is generally less healthy. Japan spends around 20% of their food dollar on that and that, the UK is around 33%. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/how-do-united-states-consumer-expenditures-compare-with-the-united-kingdom-and-japan.htm That contributes to your higher rates of diabetes and heart disease. Us as a nation spend money on greasy fast food with high sodium.
    1
  19. "What I should have said earlier is that I don't know how the US is doing compared to other countries, but I do know how badly it is doing compared to itself." I agree with that statement 100%. I don't like to compare the US to other countries as there are too many variables. But looking at just the US I agree, people are taking many medications. People are not eating the best food (including me). Obesity is a problem. Healthcare does have problems in the US but we can't compare ourselves to other countries. We need to focus on our problems only and try to fix the problems we have.
    1
  20. Daniel Pierik, we don't have a free market system in healthcare in the US due mainly to the payroll tax.
    1
  21. " well the fact that the free market is not beholden to any form of controll if the healthcare sector does not need to have some form of quality" It does have control. In the free market if a company gives out a bad product then no one will buy it. That is the control. In the US people don't have that control because most people get their insurance through their employers. That is mainly because of the payroll tax. It would be better for an employer to pay a higher wage and allow the employee to buy a plan they want. But that is not how it happens. ". if they manage to all deliver shit service, none of them has to deliver good service." And if a rival company provides a better service then people will buy that service putting the others out of business. Dial up internet is far cheaper but people hardly use it today. "thats where the problem with the free market solution, its not beholden to any form of control." The consumer controls it. " its been proven that it went wrong," How? As I told you we don't have a free market system in healthcare. When most people get care through their employer and thus have very little say in what kind of care they receive, how is that the free market? Or when insurance companies can't compete across state lines, how is that free market?
    1
  22. ". you missed the entire goddamn argument WILLFULLY i might add. If there is no controll, insurance comp. can deliver shit service." I understood the argument. If an insurance company offers "shit service" then they will go out of business in the free market because no one will buy their services.
    1
  23. Jonathan. Dr. Henry Bello just killed another doctor in that hospital shooting. But according to you Dr. Henry Bello had poor healthcare coverage.
    1