Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Man Bitten By Snake Hit With $153k In Medical Bills" video.

  1. Walter Mantler In Canada he probably would have died due to the cure simply not being there.
    1
  2. MobiusCoin I had sport injuries as well, cost me about the same for multiple MRIs on my knees and rehab. A friend of mine from Canada came to the US to get knee surgery because he couldn't get it in Canada. His family had to bring his brother from Canada to the US to get care for heart surgery. I am not saying the Canadian system is bad, but it isn't that great, and isn't far superior than the US system if at all.
    1
  3. silat13 Wow, ok, I never said any of those myths. I never said Canada's care was terrible. But I did say that the US is number one in life expectancy when you remove murder and accidents (things essentially not tied to healthcare) and is number one in cancer survival rates. We are also number 1 in shortest wait time (I did see one study that had us at number 2 behind Germany though). The main problem in the US is cost, but quality is high and arguably the best. Cost is high due to several government policies that I mentioned in another comment.
    1
  4. Jersey Dragon If we had Bernie's way that man would have died due to there not being a cure to begin with.
    1
  5. cedkira Is this a "conservatives are anti-science" rant? As Neil deGrasse Tyson put it, no republican wants to die poor. That is why they invested in science under the Bush administration to improve wealth in this country.
    1
  6. CaseAgainstFaith1 That is debatable. If you were to remove murder and accidents as variables the US will be number 1 in life expectancy. Murder and accidents are essentially not tied to healthcare. The US is number 1 in cancer survival rate. The only real problem is cost in the US healthcare system. I have a comment on here that explains why that is, it involves the federal government dating back to the 40s.
    1
  7. Brent Cottons That ranking that 37th comes from is flawed.
    1
  8. cedkira Not true. Under the Bush administration spending in science research went up. Look up Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about how republicans do support science. Spending in science research went up under Bush but not under Clinton and not much under Obama.
    1
  9. Now in this guy's situation snake venom is not a common thing to care for.  If we had a socialized system he would most likely be dead due to the care simply not existing.  A little something for you, the number one problem in the US system is cost (as I mentioned due to the federal government). But we have arguably the best system in the world.  We are number one in cancer survival rate and when you remove murder and accidents, things not tied to healthcare, we are number 1 in life expectancy.  Other modern nations may laugh at us, that is fine.  We have arguably the best which is saying a lot in a country of 300 million people.
    1
  10. ***** Every system has flaws. That is why I said we are arguably the best. Infant mortality rates are not universally done, but it is a problem in the US. But even at that it isn't like we are drastically worse than other countries. Same with life expectancy, it isn't like other countries are drastically worse than the US. It is really close. People are splitting hairs here without thinking of the proper way to solve the problem, or the challenges at hand.
    1
  11. Actually high healthcare cost go back to the 40s.  After FDR's run and higher taxes and regulations it cost both businesses and employees more taxes to get a raise.  So when that evil business wanted to give a raise they resisted to avoid paying higher taxes. So what did they do?  They found a loop hole where they can pay the employee through a benefit, as in healthcare insurance, which was 100% tax free. Now here is where he problem comes in.  If the employee would have gotten a raise they could have took that money and bought their own insurance and due to competition insurance companies would have offered a better, more personalized policy at an affordable price.  Instead insurance companies offer generic policies because it makes it easier for companies to pay employees that way.  Thus we get a situation where a woman is paying for Viagra.  Also, due to lack of competition since employees are getting there benefits without much choice insurance companies can raise prices and offer low quality policies due to having basically a guaranteed customer.  And when someone gets a new job and tries to get new insurance, well, they can't due to "pre-existing conditions".  Man, all these problems sound familiar. So now after the government created a policy that led to increase healthcare cost what is the best solution?  Well more government of course.  Now we have the ACA.  Under it's first full year we are seeing rates go up higher than usual.  There comes a point where we need to stop adding government, it is causing the problem.
    1
  12. TheKeyser94 He would have paid nothing in those countries because he would have most likely died.
    1
  13. TheKeyser94 The US has arguably the best system in the world, the only problem is price. I have a comment on here explaining that in how the federal government caused that problem dating back to the 40s. If you removed accidents and murders, things not tied to healthcare, the US is number 1 in life expectancy. The US also has the highest survival rate for cancer patients. I am never going to say our system is the best, I will never say that it is perfect. But I will say it is arguably the best, especially considering we are a country of over 300 million people that love to do what this guy did in this video.
    1
  14. A Vauliquin It isn't false. The main horror story you here in the US is bankruptcy. But in other countries you hear of people dying due to lack of care that would have been treated better in the US.
    1
  15. A Vauliquin People die for several reasons. Saying 45,000 people die a year is being very broad. What did they die of? Did they even attempt to seek care? Plus, just because the government is going to offer you healthcare doesn't mean you will get it. Coverage does not equal healthcare.
    1
  16. A Vauliquin Being insured does not equal being covered. Just like having the government offer healthcare does not mean being covered. Resources are limited, there are always going to be people that simply die due to lack of resources in healthcare. We see it all across the world. Look at what you are saying, dying due to lack of access. In other countries everyone has access, so no one dies due to lack of access, they die due to lack of quality and resources. As I said, the highest life expectancy and the highest cancer survival rate.
    1
  17. A Vauliquin Forbes did an article in 2011 entitled "The Myth of America's Poor Life Expectancy" It mentioned of a study done by a Texas A&M and a University of Iowa professors. Plus I didn't say suicide, I said accidents. In the big picture you really can't compare one country to another. Knowing several people in Canada they didn't have much of an opinion. One did and he hated the Canadian's system, but he told me this. He said the people in Canada are just different, their system will never work in the US because their society and how they act are just different. Whether it be good or bad is debatable but it is different. He said Canada's system is great for basic care if you are a pregnant woman or need a basic checkup, but terrible for specialized care. For someone like me that is terrible. I can get into an accident an I can't afford to wait months for surgery. And when I say afford, I mean I have a hobby that I enjoy that is physically active and I refuse to not do it. I will be willing to pay to get care. What my colleague also said was that why do we have to copy other countries? As I just showed you they have problems. People die a lot as seen in low life expectancy (a more reliable stat than X amount of people die because of lack of care). But so does the US, it has problems. But why can't we be different? It will be a major concern if people in the US are literally dying in the streets and health of the citizens were just terrible, but it isn't. Why does the US have to follow other nations, why can't we develop something better? The real answer is that we can as long as the federal government stays out of healthcare. I outlined how it raised the price of it in another comment.
    1
  18. A Vauliquin Bills are high but at the same time the US also leads in research and innovation of medicine and healthcare. That is the advantage of the for profit system. I work in research for a living, an attractiveness about it is the money involved. I have the potential to earn a lot after grad. school and basically write my own ticket to where I want to live. That money motivates people to succeed. You may see it as bad but I see it as progress and production, something the US excels. Having the federal government get involved will create more problems. Everything it touches domestically breaks, it has a long history of that. At the local level that is different but at the federal level our high cost are due to the federal government getting involved. The ACA is making it worse and universal will be even worse.
    1
  19. A Vauliquin The government does regulate though, a lot more than you think. We have basically 4 forms of healthcare, medicare, medicaid, Obamacare and private. Those who get rich at the for profit business do it because it is a hard job. As a grad. student I teach several labs and teach future med, nursing and pharmacy students and the requirements are tough and for good reasons. At the same time these are bright people that can take their talents elsewhere is the incentive isn't there. My research is spectroscopy. I don't get into to much detail on youtube due to being anonymous (I am 1 of around 50 people in the world that can do what I do) but I do a great bit of research in spectroscopy and biological systems.
    1
  20. ***** People die from preventable diseases as well in other countries. One stat is that very deceptive is when people say X amount of people die in the US due to lack of access to care. You don't hear that in other countries because everyone has access to care. But what people don't consider is how many die due to lack of quality of care. They have access to the care but the quality low. That is the point. You are talking about your stomach. In he US you simply don't go, in other countries you go but wait for a long time and end up dying in the wait line. In both cases you die. In the latter you had access to the care, it just wasn't good. You see how saying people die all the time in the US is deceptive? Having access to care means nothing if the quality is low
    1