Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Tulsi On Her 'Single Payer Plus' Healthcare Plan" video.

So no competition for that one provider?
7
@MrWebweaver , I agree. This is a problem with the far left. They are pushing M4A under misinformation and deception. While I have my doubts I am willing to admit that maybe M4A is the best system. But we have to be honest in pushing it. Right now supporters of it aren't.
7
@crobinson2624 , no he doesn't. He does not bring up what will happen when healthcare providers refuse access to care for example.
4
She takes on the status quo in a professional way by calling out corrupt politicians. That as opposed to Warren who lies, Bernie who just yells, Biden who is boring, etc. She has the attitude of wanting to work with the other side which is what we need in politics because we lack it.
3
Well, this is a problem of social programs, they screw over the middle class. Middle class individuals cannot afford both, so they are stuck with the public option. The rich benefits.
2
Yes. She is really the best chance to beat Trump. Level headed, willing to work with others, right attitude, calls out corruption.
2
No, it screws over the middle class. Only the rich can buy the high quality care at that point. Everyone else is dragged down.
2
@danrichards6350 , I agree. This is a problem with the far left. They are pushing M4A on a ton of misinformation and deception.
2
Arctic Ruffner , it isn't about them getting paid. They will be getting paid less. So with that they will simply deny care. If you are paid 40% less than you are now, will you still put forth the same effort at work?
2
@captainawesome730 , in other nations "elective" care includes certain forms of heart and neurosurgery. Issues like MRIs and CT scans are limited in other nations. The US offers the most advanced testing in the world which adds to our high costs.
2
So reduce choice and limit access?
2
Coverage does not equal access. This is where M4A fails.
1
Flash Gordon , pay less get less.
1
@karlmarxthebolshevikrabbi2536 , no, the middle class gets dragged down.
1
@captainawesome730 , yes it is. For example, Medicare has a much lower payout rate. So when a doctor refuses to give out certain services what do you do?
1
@crobinson2624 , it is. We see it a lot. Private delivery forced the UPS to make adjustments.
1
@crobinson2624 , but they aren't small stuff. And people's lives are on the line in this case.
1
Arctic Ruffner , in other nations people have to worry as well.
1
Arctic Ruffner , it isn't fake. And you say " Not to the degree the the United States does". What do you base that off of? As for the Australian stat. It goes to show that I know where to find these numbers and studies from. You only parrot what Kyle presents to you. I have presented a lot more as I have actually read up on these issues.
1
@MFink-oq5hy , I agree the quality is not higher, but accessibility is higher. That is important. You can have high quality care, but if accessibility is limited what is the point? In the US we have higher accessibility rates. As I said, the US offers more CT scans and MRIs compared to the rest of the world. That means something. Other nations don't because they cap how much care one has access to. Sure, they may pay less as a nation, but they have access to less.
1
@captainawesome730 , costs go down because we are limited to services. Other nations keep costs down because they limit how much care one can receive. That is the reality. And what makes you think there won't be some elective heart or neurosurgery?
1
Prophet , I am 32 years old.
1
Arctic Ruffner "Doctors cannot deny care. Other countries don’t" So you want to make doctors slaves? This is where the slave argument comes from. At that point you will have to force doctors to serve regardless how much they are paid. And in other nations doctors do deny care. Read the article entitled "Natasha, 16, complained of headaches. She died after 13 doctors failed to diagnose a brain tumour" But at least you now admitted that people do die in other nations due to lack of access to healthcare. So now I have to get you to understand that doctors do deny care as well. There is hope for you yet.
1
@captainawesome730 , I agree costs could go down. But so will quality and accessibility. Again, other nations pay more because they simply offer less. In the US they offer every test under the sun. Is it necessary? That is debatable. And that is where the difficult conversations exist that those pushing for M4A refuse to have. There is nothing to understand. Those pushing for M4A are doing so on deception and misinformation. Bernie called elective surgery to be nose surgery. In reality it is much more than that.
1
@aretwodeetoo1181 , in the US you can go to the ER and receive care. Also, Prof. Richard Kronick did a study arguing that even with insurance there will be no significant changes in deaths. The reality is that people who are near the end of life die regardless of coverage. Read the book "Being Mortal". The author there writes that people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live only 5 or 10 months. So if you give access to these very sick people and they live 5 more months while using up limited resources, is that a success? These are the difficult conversations the far left is not willing to have. They feel that with M4A these people will not die when the vast majority of the data shows that 1. They have a very high chance of dying 2. Keeping them alive a short amount of time longer uses up limited resources. There are arguments in keeping them alive. But the left is not willing to have these discussions.
1
@aretwodeetoo1181 , as for bankruptcies, read the article entitled "Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies" They write "But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems." While there is an argument to be made there, over stating bankruptcies does not progress the issue. Again, this is a problem with the far left. They are not willing to have the difficult conversations on these complex issues. When you are dishonest, or simply have ignorance, that is a problem. And you claim I am not informed? I find irony in that.
1
@Naija4K , that problem with that is that it only favors the rich. Everyone will have the low quality public care, both middle class and poor. While the rich can afford the high quality care. The middle class gets screwed.
1
@captainawesome730 "Accessibility by its very nature increases when a universal system is implemented." That is 100% not true. You are increasing demand without increasing supply. You now have more people chasing after the same supply of something. Take this example, say you have 5 people and 4 sandwiches on an island. You can moralize all you want about if a sandwich is a right, you can pass legislation making it a right. But in the end you have 5 people and 4 sandwiches. Same with healthcare. Covering people does not increase the supply. Thus accessibility goes down. As for "elective" procedures, what will those be? Who defines them? Bernie does not mention that at all in his bill. As for outcomes being better in other nations, by what measures? The US is superior when it comes to outcomes on advanced illnesses. My difficult conversations are not secondary, they are legit. And how am I being deceptive?
1
@captainawesome730 , here is the reality. Universal healthcare is great for very basic care. Yes, everyone has a chance to have some sort of basic care. Yes, no one will go bankrupt. However, the price is that the very sick will suffer. Universal healthcare does offer very basic care to all, but the price is that advanced care is limited. You see that in where they offer less advanced testing compare to the US. The US for profit system is great for advanced care in terms of access and outcomes. But the price is that the very poor do suffer. In both systems there are issues. Either the very poor suffer, as in the for profit system, or the very sick as in the universal system. But let us look at both groups. With the very poor some say they die due to lack of access. While some numbers suggest that, how many is the question. Also, as Prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are in bad health to begin with thus the question becomes do the die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with the poor, all self inflicted. With bankruptcies they are always overstated in the US. Read the paper entitled "Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies" Where they outline how medical bankruptcies in the US are exaggerated. Do they happen? Sure. But not as high as many say. With the very sick there is a moral desire to keep them alive as well. But this applies to both the very poor and the very sick. In the book "Being Mortal" it is mentioned that modern medicine is sought upon to have people live another 5 or 10 years but they only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give any of those group of people, especially the very sick, care, and they live 5 more months whil using up limited resources, is that a success? Medicare highest costs are during the last 6 months of someone's life. Bottom line, something has to give. Either the very poor suffer or the very sick. Pick one. You claim I am giving misinformation when you are living in this utopia idea that M4A will offer high quality of healthcare to all when nothing suggests it will. Other nations can't do it.
1
@captainawesome730 , why is primary care prioritized? How much primary care can be avoided simply by a better diet?
1
@Unclejamsarmy , not true. There are many who are near the end of life not on medicare or medicaid. And yes, doctors will refuse a lot of care simply because the pay is low. They will simply say that they won't provide certain forms of care as the payout is low. How is my understanding of healthcare bias? You have to give me reasons why. How are other nations systems better? So dying because someone had to wait for an elective heart surgery is better?
1
@aretwodeetoo1181 , so when something disagrees with you you pull the whole "being paid to do some millionaire's bidding" argument? This is why the far left is struggling and what is dangerous about their ideas. There are legit arguments and concerns against M4A. Just dismissing them is dangerous. And the far left is pushing to nationalize everything. That is the reality. When M4A ends up having flaws what is your next solution? More government? Where is your stopping point? I know mine. As for doctors providing care, they simply won't. Doctors will most likely become unionized like teachers are and simply set their hours. How many teachers are willing to volunteer their time? If you force a teacher to do something they will complain to the union. Doctors will be the same. Is that what you want?
1
@aretwodeetoo1181 , hire more doctor? How? They don't exist. That is the problem. Just because you create M4A does not mean doctors will magically appear. As for building more hospitals, how? Who is going to manage that? Under a private system if a business does not serve the people they won't get customers. As for bribing politicians, that occurs because government has too much power. Under M4A what is going to stop healthcare providers from bribing politicians so that they write laws that the people can only use their product?
1
@captainawesome730 , demand is outpacing supply already in healthcare. That is why our hospitals are over crowded, especially in cities. With mental health if you work as a psychologist in a rural area the government will pay back all of your student loans because they lack doctors there. They have to pay a lot of money to get doctors to work in certain areas. What measures other nations do better? You not giving examples shows you are just talking as opposed to supporting your case People will still die because of lack of care under M4A system. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. And people who die are in very bad health to begin with. As discussed in the book "Being Mortal", even with access to healthcare they will continue to need it and will still die in a short amount of time. This is why death panels exist in other nations. At some point they simply say that they won't pay for some advanced care for very sick people and thus they die. With bankruptcy, again, I point you to the study entitled "Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies" The studies are out there. Bankruptcy is arguably not a major issue in healthcare. My choice is not false. You do have to choose between the very poor and the very sick. Other nations deny care to the very sick as it is not economically feasible to them and there is an argument to be made there. Healthcare is very complex where you have to make very challenging decisions that involve people's lives. The far left completely ignores them. They have the mindset you do, that all we have to do is pass M4A and magically everything will be perfect. It won't be. There will be flaws. Bottom line is that the far left, you included, are not willing to have the difficult conversations on this issue. That is dangerous. Healthcare is very complex and involves people's lives. Tell me, how are you going to give access to healthcare to all of these people?
1
@captainawesome730 , google what? What sources? That's vague. In the book "In Excellent Health" prof Scott Atlas argues that the US is superior in advanced care and advanced testing in terms of outcomes, accessibility and quality. You have to point me to a source. And I do care, notice how I am the one who is giving sources and you aren't? Why? Because I have actually read up on this topic. I can grab sources easily. Why aren't you grabbing sources? The idea of preventative care is something one can argue against. Read the paper entitled "The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes" Where they write "This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years" Why? Because a lot of bad health is due to poor life style choices. So even with access to care their physical health did not improve placing them in higher risk of death. So saying preventative care will improve is based off of nothing. My study is in the NEJM, the highest peer reviewed journal one can publish in. They say this "ut our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems." They are arguing what I am, that we need the full story to improve the system. Overstating medical bankruptcies is dangerous. Also, how is the study slanted? Give me evidence of that. . Again, you are making a claim with zero support. And if it is slanted then write up on it and publish it in a peer reviewed journal. In other nations your healthcare is tied to the country's wallet. Is that really good? Is that what you want, some government official who you have no say in how they received their position deciding if you should receive care or not? That is what will happen. In a free market system if an insurance company refuses to cover someone no one will buy their coverage. You don't have a choice in government. If the government refuses to cover you what will you do? Remember, you don't have a say in who makes those decisions. You may say "vote in new politicians". Remember, you can only vote for a handful of federal politicians. Good luck making changes. How is what we have now worse than M4A? You have yet to show me anything to suggest that. You claim other nations have better outcomes but when pushed you told me to "google it". You make the bankruptcy argument but when I give you a study you just called it bias. If it was really bias it won't be in the NEJM as they don't allow bias work to be published. Their impact is too high. Other nations have problem. In the UK they are denying eye surgery and people are going blind. In Canada they deny heart surgery as it is "elective" and people are dying. Read the article entitled "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Due to long wait times people end up worse off financially, physical and mentally. Read the paper entitled "A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006" Where they write "Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers " And a government system does increase wait times. Read the article entitled "Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence" Where they write "wait lists are more likely to be found in public systems. This is because universal access to care, when combined with the government's desire to control health spending, can mean that the supply of treatment does not meet demand"
1
@captainawesome730 , your last comment reveals who you really are. I am giving a plethora of studies but you claim I have not read up on this topic. You have given me nothing. And now you claim I want people to die when I laid out that in any system people die due to lack of access. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces, period. And M4A will not give access to those people as we simply lack supply. That will be even worse because Medicare has a lower payout rate. Let me ask you this? If your employer cut your pay by 40%, how will you react? I bet you will work less. Same will be for healthcare providers. If you cut pay by 40%, which Medicare does, healthcare providers will pay less. One reason why healthcare is so expensive in this nation is because Medicare pays out so low thus private insurance has to make up the cost. Also, less critical care has to make up the cost. That is why a band aid costs hundreds of dollars in a hospital, Medicare pays so low that something has to make up the cost.
1
, the far left has gone insane. They can't even defend their own policies without deflection and name calling. I am willing to admit that maybe M4A is the best system we can have, but it needs to be presented in the correct way. They are presenting it on misinformation and deception. And when I give far leftists studies they just dismiss them as bias or by some corrupt individual doing the insurance companies' bidding.
1
@captainawesome730 , how are they faulty studies? And how are the sources questionable? These are peer reviewed studies in that field. Again, the NEJM has the highest impact factor for any peer reviewed journal. What studies should I trust then? Give me some. I don't know what you are talking about because you provide zero sources. And the ones I provided you say are faulty with zero justification. As for healthcare rankings, they are 100% arbitrary. Anyone can play with the stats and come up with any ranking they want. That is why zero academic sources rank healthcare systems and every healthcare ranking are from special interest groups with a motive. Are people left in the cold to die? Maybe. But that happens in every nation. And in the US we do have higher access to advanced care. Medicare for all will have the same payout rates as Medicare does now. Read Bernie's bill.
1
@captainawesome730 , I have read the bill. There is a 40% less payout compared to private insurance. The vast majority of the middle class has access to advanced care. That is what makes healthcare reform so difficult. The vast majority of the people have high quality care. Those that don't are the very poor. As I said, someone has to suffer. In our case the very poor do. In a universal healthcare case the very sick. I agree that peer reviewed studies have faults. But to just completely dismiss them like you are doing is not an argument. Read the studies and point to me where they are flawed. I doubt you actually read any peer reviewed study. If they leave anything out they have to explain why. I recently had a paper published. One reviewer challenged us on a point that we had to write about and provide a reference. So no, it isn't arbitrary. "No other nation has deaths because of access to basic healthcare with a universal system." Again, 100% false. Amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. If you can't get basic facts correct we cannot move onto opinions. In a free market system if a provider and/or an insurance company denies care no one will buy from them. A private business only succeeds with customers. It isn't like the government where they can use force to take money from the people to buy into a program no matter how bad it is. If a private company denied care they will go bankrupt.
1
@captainawesome730 , it does say that in the bill and that is how the Koch brothers study obtained those numbers. How many are really underinsured? And what is your standard for that? And again, I shown to you that medical bankruptcy is constantly over stated. What is wrong with profits? Profits is where growth happens. And why do insurance companies deny care? Because we do not have a free market healthcare system. You are moving the goal posts now. First you are saying dying due to lack of access, which is amenable mortality. Now you are saying due to lack of insurance. So what is it?
1
@captainawesome730 , I read the bill. Read the article entitled "Projected Medicare Expenditures under an Illustrative Scenario with Alternative Payment Updates to Medicare Providers" From the CMS. Bernie's bill gives no hard numbers. So from there you have to look at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that shows the actual payout rate of Medicare right now. No where in the bill does it say it will raise pay out rates. Thus you have to now go with those numbers as Bernie is pushing for Medicare as it is ran now . Uh, we have not had a free market system in decades. Sorry, but a system where I can't choose my insurance and have to depend on the plan my employer providers is not a free market. Also, when did I say unregulated markets? And how do corporations exploit people? You can have insurance and still not have access. Coverage does not equal access. If you don't know what amenable mortality is we cannot begin to head to opinions.
1
@captainawesome730 , under Bernie's plan M4A will have the same payout of Medicare in the current state. If not then M4A will cost much more than we currently pay now. The only way M4A costs less is if we have the same payout rate as Medicare has currently, which is 40% less than private insurance. So explain how I am wrong? If we are not going off of the pay rate of the current Medicare system, then what will the pay rate be? Do you think doctors and healthcare providers are going to start simply charging less even though demand goes up? The reason why people don't care about choosing their own insurance is because our culture is so used to receiving it from their employer. That is a problem. And that is a major hurdle M4A will face. Even if it is the best system we can have, good luck convincing hundreds of millions of people in our nation that it is. Our culture will have a hard time budging in accepting higher taxes and losing their current private insurance. That is why any major form of universal healthcare is challenging. Under a free market system you can very well choose your doctor and hospital. Just like you can choose if you want to eat at KFC or McDonalds. And I don't mean unregulated. You can have regulations at the state and local level. That is where you have government that serves the people and give the people they want. When I say free market I mean giving people a choice. A part of that is establishing a government that works for them where there is a middle ground that both the businesses and consumers can agree to. You are looking to go to the extreme here of total government control of everything now. How are people exploited by corporations. And corporations influencing laws is an issue of government having too much power that the people can't control. So your answer is to give them more power? What is amenable mortality then?
1
@captainawesome730 , here is the major problem with the far left. The complain that government is corrupt, but their solution is to give government more power? If government ran M4A what will stop them from taking money from a healthcare provider and forcing us to use that provider no matter how poor the quality is? To me the far left is like that abused partner in an abusive relationship. Instead of leaving they decide to marry the person. When the abuse continues to happen they decide to have a kid, and then another, and then another meanwhile still being abused. The best solution is to leave. With far leftists when the government is corrupt they should limit the powers of the government. But instead their solution is to give it more power. And when more problems happen they want to give government even more power. It is rather sad really.
1
@MK-oz2lf , they should be allowed to opt out. They are not slaves.
1
@mmedefarge M4A is not popular. It is a losing issue.
1
Arctic Ruffner , I agree we don't have a choice now, but M4A makes it worse. Why do employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? It is because of the payroll tax. I suggest removing the payroll tax. That way employers pay with a higher wage. People can buy the plans they want and healthcare insurance can act as healthcare. And other nations at least have private insurance.
1
@cloudyskiesnow , actually medical debt is arguably not the leading cause of bankruptcy. As for uninsured, how many are young? I am for increasing choice, that means a free market approach.
1
Kyle is completely wrong. M4A under Bernie reduces choice. One, we can't decide who actually pays for healthcare. Next, M4A has a much lower payout rate thus healthcare providers will cap healthcare access. For example, if you want that MRI you will have to wait months to get it. The public system won't cover a lot of services. Kyle saying M4A should "cover it" does not mean we will have access.
1
@LiveTheDream24 , in a free market if a company acts like that they will get zero customers. Single payer means access to care is limited.
1