Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "YOU Are Getting Politicians To Support Medicare For All!" video.

Doesn't matter, it won't pass anyways. Republicans have been voting for the Obamcare repeal for years, now that they have the chance they did not vote. Same thing will happen with democrats in this case.
1
The public does not want it though. And the more public it becomes the more attacks it will get.
1
The public does not want it. That is why it failed in Colorado and Vermont.
1
The reality is this, when you run through the numbers you see that single payer is no better than what they US has. It is not worse, but it is also not better. So with that we should improve on what we have. Going to single payer will mean 1. You are replacing one system with problems with another system with just as many problems 2. You will perturb the economy causing a recession and jobs being lost which is unnecessary considering we don't gain anything
1
" many of those jobs would be transitioned to the newly formed "national health service" or whatever they call it. Obviously it wouldn't be all of them and they would likely have to relocate, but you make it sound like literally all the jobs would be gone, which is false." So kill private jobs and give them government jobs? I don't like that solution.
1
" So why isn't there a recession in Norway and Sweden? " If Norway and Sweden were to completely dismantle their healthcare systems and replace it with what the US has they too will see a recession and job loss. It happens when you completely change a major sector of the economy that drastically. I said that if the US were to change to single payer they will see a recession. The reason why is that you are completely changing what is 1/6 of our economy drastically. Companies will stop investing for a while, people will lose their jobs and stop spending, and money will stop being invested until the economy stabilizes. "And why did Scandinavia, with its single payer handle the 2008 financial crisis better than the US?" What happened in 2008 involved a lot more than just healthcare. If the US did not do the bailouts we would have recovered by now. To answer your question 1. it is not related to healthcare that strongly, 2. we had an asinine congress and president doing a massive bank bailout. " The private sector is not good in and of itself. Some things are just not meant to be profitable. " I see nothing to suggest what you said is true. "Like your health, your education, or the environment. Apparently all industrialized nations in the world, except the US, understand this." And when you run through the numbers other countries' healthcare systems are not any better than the US. The US has a very strong education system depending on how you measure it, especially our post secondary system.
1
Reich-Wing Watch, the WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not released another one since 2000. It compared the US to countries like Malta and Andorra. Can you really take a list that compares the US, or even Canada, Japan, the UK, Germany and so on to Malta and Andorra? The only reason I have ever heard of Malta was because of a MST3K episode. As a whole the WHO list is worthless.
1
"My friend, you don't change an entire economic system overnight. After the Affordable Care Act was passed, it took about 5 years for it to go into complete effect. Nationalization is not a hostile takeover. The private sector and the government operates differently. The government tends to ease into change when it takes over. This gives people time to plan for their immediate to mid-term future." It will still lead to job loss and a recession. Even though minor it will be unnecessary as we are not gaining anything. Yes, the ACA too years, but during that time our economy has been stagnate. Businesses did not invest as much. But even at that there were a lot of moving parts in the ACA , single payer is just single payer. It is one thing. "The only way we fuck this up is if a politician decides to deliberately fuck it up. Like cutting funding for it, refusing to pass parts of the law, etc. But that might cost them reelection. " Or we run out of funds like we are with SS, Medicare and Medicaid. " I agree. My point in my comment you quoted was to illustrate how it's absurd to assume universal health care would lead to a recession, despite the fact other places in the world are doing perfectly fine with it." And you, once again, misunderstood my comment. Implementing universal healthcare would lead to a recession because you are drastically changing the tax code and will be killing jobs. I repeating, implementing universal healthcare, as in during the the processing of replacing our current system we have now with universal healthcare will lead to a recession. Other places did not face a recession because they have had universal healthcare for decades. Do you see the difference? "Please explain how the private sector is objectively good in and of itself." The private sector has to actually provide us with a good service and product. If they don't than a competitor will come in and replace them. Thus they will push and invest to keep improving to provide a high quality product to the people at an affordable price. With government run programs you don't get that. Where is the incentive for the government to serve the people on the large scale? On the local level government does which is why local governments are better. But at the federal level the vast majority of congress members you can't vote for, so in reality they don't care about you. So they have no incentive to cater to you but only their voters. And if their voters have little to no issue with healthcare, why would they improve. To give an example of how private improved and public didn't, FedEx created tracking numbers where the USPS did not. The only reason why the USPS has tracking numbers is because a private company came up with the idea. With healthcare our progress and innovation has come at the private level. " 'Depending on how you measure it' is very important and interesting. As it pertains to research, the US education system is the best in the world. But it's ability to educate its population. It fails miserably compared to other 1st world nations. And note that these great research institutions, some who are indeed private, receive government funding to achieve their goals. Especially when it comes to scientific research..." How do you measure success in education? Test results or productivity? With productivity the US is in the top 5 meaning we educate people to be productive as opposed just taking tests. Now which is more important? You should also understand it is challenging to measure quality of education across societies as they are all different. S. Korea, in terms of test scores, is at the top. The reason why, though, is because parents pay to have their kids study for around 5 hours a day after schools in private tutoring programs. In the US we allow our kids to join extra curricular activities or get jobs. Also, what happens in S. Korea does create problems. Their unemployment rate for those with a tertiary education is high and they have a high suicide rate. Working with a student from S. Korea he said the schools in the US are not worse than those in S. Korea, he said they society is just different. But in the end it depends on how you measure it. I go off of productivity because I rather have workers who are productive. "The problem is access. In Scandinavia, thousands of people aren't dying every year due to a lack of basic health care. " They die because of low quality. They have "access" based on the fact that their system "covers' everyone by definition. But if the quality if low or the wait times are high, than it does not matter. That is the point, single payer has a whole different set of problems.
1
It was criticized because it favored certain qualities over others when making their ranking which was completely arbitrary. I believe it was Bloomberg that made a healthcare ranking at weighed life expectancy at 0.6 and cost at 0.4, both of which are arbitrary making that list worthless. The WHO did a similar thing in weighing out certain qualities higher than others with no strong justification. Also, the numbers that are used (such as life expectancy) do not solely depend on healthcare and are subjected to many variables. For example, if you remove car accidents and murder the US is number one in life expectancy. Now does that mean the US has a great healthcare system? No. It shows who minute the differences are in the raw data that is generally looked in when comparing healthcare systems and how a small change in the data set and statistical regression model can yield varying results. The WHO does not do any of that but instead gives their arbitrary ranking and weighing factor. Now for country sizes, the US has football stadiums that can hold everyone in Andorra with room to spare. Andorra is a tax haven and has around 80% of their GDP tied into tourism. They attract people with money. So, as a whole, they will have a strong country over all and not just in healthcare but in other sectors of the market and economy. It is a small population with a lot of money. Compared to the US with 323+ million people of varying incomes and economic structures, to me it is not a valid comparison. In another way to look at it would you feel that comparing a private school, of limited enrollment, that had a student to teacher ratio of 10:1 to a public school in a low income area with a much larger enrollment, a much larger student to teacher ratio, and typically younger teachers? I wouldn't. But that is exactly what you are doing in comparing the US to Andorra.
1
To add, it isn't about it not fitting a "right wing narrative". It is about how this arbitrary ranking gives the perception of how the other countries supposedly do things better but leaves out a lot of important information. As a whole, and this is not to be rude, but ranking like these appeal to people of low intelligence who are bias towards something, in this case universal healthcare.
1
" I'll also claim some murders and car deaths as mental illness and lack of proper nutrition. " And you can say that, but to what degree? What Robert Ohsfeldt was doing with his simple model was show that there are many factor that influence life expectancy. And with some minor changes the ranking of the countries differ. There are those that look at just life expectancy and use that as an indicator for healthcare system quality but in reality when the differences between two countries is only a few years you can't say who has a better system. To add, the average life expectancy in the world is 71±7 years. The US is at 79 years, one standard deviation higher. Japan is around 84 years. That 5 year difference is noise at that point and can be contributed to anything and not just healthcare. And as shown by prof. Ohsfeldt and prof. Schneider, a minor change change lower Japan and raise the US. "And you've Drastically overstated the difference in a small, wealthy country. " No I have not. In Andorra they have around 80,000 people but an economic system that brings in a lot of wealth. Lower population means less diversity. Also, I find it ironic you say this " I like tearing down statistics too." But then say this' "A teacher ratio of 1:25 vs 10:1? there's 250X more doctors there than here!?" You clearly missed the point, so let me explain it a different way. No, they don't have 250 times more doctors. On the school example, say you have an inner city public school that is low income with 2000 people in it. And in that school you have a teacher to student ratio of 1:25. They are low income and thus less resources. Now you have a private school with an enrollment of only 200 and a teacher to student ratio of 1:10. They hare more income thus more resources. Would it be fair to compare the two schools? Also, Andorra has only 80,000 people. What makes you think I even suggested they had 250 times more doctors? Nothing in your comment suggest that you can tear down statistics.
1
Daniel, you did not create an argument meaning you have no argument. There is a debate. And nothing suggests that Northern Europe has a better system.
1
I knew you made a mistake so I explained my comparison again. " Our country is Far more wealthy than the rest of the world." And much larger as well. Also, ever considered the fact that we don't have single payer contributes to that? "Now you want me to disqualify countries healthcare ratings because of the average income? " I hate it when people compare the US to tiny countries with much less diversity.
1
kirsten mills, when you run through the numbers you find out that single payer is not better than what the US has. Not saying it is worse, just saying it is not better.
1
AJ213, the polls have been wrong lately. For example, on universal background checks on guns when that law was on a ballot it failed in ME and in NV it only passed by 0.45% with many county sheriffs saying they won't enforce it. So no, 86% do not want it. On universal healthcare 80% of people in Colorado did not want it. Also, Gallup refused to do a presidential poll this year. So please, stop citing polls as it is making you look foolish.
1
"Do you have any other suggestions then? Because polls are the best you can get." That's my point. You guys on the ultra left only have polls, and that's it. You are losing. Bernie lost. Trump won. Republicans won and control the majority of offices. And come 2018 it does not look pretty for you as I believe there are 8 democrats defending seats in states where Trump won by double digits. When you go through the polls the only thing that really won there was the increase in the min. wage. Universal background checks on guns failed where MO passed a law allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without permit. And universal healthcare lost big time in Colorado. In the end the people have spoken with votes. The polls have not been accurate. My suggestion, realize defeat and try to push democrats to become more moderate.
1
" I asked for any other evidence for proving what the mass majority want " I gave it to you, it is through election results. You are looking at polls meanwhile the election show different results. "The only reason I cited a poll is because that was the only proof possible and available to prove my point to Global Warming Skeptic. " And your evidence is weak. "Would you rather me rant and provide no proof at all like you did? " When you give weak evidence you don't prove anything.
1