Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump Official: Medicare For All 'Too Good To Be True'" video.

  1. Thomas, people die in every system. That is the reality. My point on those 40,000 being poor is that bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity and type II diabetes with the poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? You really can't say. A study out of Oregon gave healthcare access to many poor people and their physical condition did not improve. Even with healthcare they were still at a high risk of becoming sick and dying.
    2
  2. tim, I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. I never said medicine.
    2
  3. The population size is legit. A larger population means more diversity making it harder to create a one size fits all policy. How many nations have 100+ million people with universal healthcare and a strong economy?
    2
  4. The study is entitled "The Oregon Experiment-Effects on Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes" A lot of times people get sick due to poor lifestyle choices. The US is number 1 in obesity rates for OECD nations. That is due to poor healthcare choices.
    2
  5. meg50, two years is a long time. I agree that detecting illness is good. Also, it did reduce stress. However, proper diet can also reduce stress. I am not saying it is all bad, but the idea that giving people healthcare will better their lives and situation is not exactly true. A lot of illnesses are due to poor diet and lack of exercise.
    2
  6. It is too good to be true. People who support it are living in a fantasy world and have to lie to push the idea.
    2
  7. Bernie wants to ban private insurance. Why doesn't Kyle cover that? It is in his medicare for all bill he proposed. So when Kyle says one can have private insurance that is not true.
    1
  8. How does Kyle, having a degree in political science, make him an expert in healthcare? The bill is S. 1804-115th Congress. It is in section 107 of the bill. You can find it online.
    1
  9. tim, you are attacking my character and now what I said. The bill does make private health insurance illegal. Duplicating is anything on par or better than what Medicare for all will offer. Why not allow people to buy a private option if they wan to?
    1
  10. tim, I talk about my education as it shows I am not some random fool on the internet. I give plenty of facts on the healthcare discussion and cite numerous papers. Why do parents send their kids to private schools? Because they are better. Bernie wants to ban those options which would be similar to banning private schools.
    1
  11. tim, I do have two undergrad degrees and I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. You must be confused with someone else. Bernie is banning private care. You say "additional benefits". That means if I want an MRI I have to take Medicare instead of going a private route because an MRI will be covered from Medicare.
    1
  12. tim, I never said that. Universal healthcare is done differently in different countries. I don't care what happens in your country, I care about the US. Under Bernie's law private care will be outlaw. Additional benefits are elective care such as "elective" surgery. An MRI that is needed is not elective, will be covered by Medicare, will require me to wait for months because I cannot go through a private option. Other nations have a black market in healthcare. In Australia up to 7000 people die a year waiting for "elective" care.
    1
  13. What happens in other nations is mainly based on culture and not the system. Your culture is different. Anyway, up to 7000 people die a year waiting for "elective" surgery in Australia. How do you define "elective"? There is a legal way in doing that and it is challenging. You bring up cancer where in the US you have a higher chance of surviving cancer. As for percent and how those numbers are gathered, that is difficult as there are many ways to look at the data. That is what makes this discussion so difficult. When you break it down the reality is that the US system is arguably on par with other nations. There is many ways to look at the data. Healthcare is very complex. Bernie wants to make private care illegal. If Medicare covers MRI you can't buy a private option that covers MRIs. You know why? Because doing so means the person with the private option can get fast tracked holding everyone else behind. The point is that everyone has the same healthcare as that point. So a rich person has to wait just as long for an MRI as a poor person.
    1
  14. tim, that is not how the law is written. Extra care is extra care. If an MRI is covered by Medicare than that is not considered extra care. That is how I read the law and that is how lawyers will read it. I never said Australia's culture is better, it is different. Our culture has more productivity and more R&D in healthcare and technology. One can argue the US culture is better. I won't as I don't get into such silly, frivolous arguments as I understand the complexity and subjectivity of the the issue. 7000 is 0.02% of the population. Many people cite the 45,000 in the US that die due to lack of access which is 0.01% of the population. So based on that standard the healthcare systems are pretty much equal. The US spends a lot due to our massive R&D and due to our high quality.
    1
  15. tim, SC justice read laws for a living and they disagree in what a law says. That is why you get laws that have a 5-4 ruling. Look at Obamacare. Some justices saw the individual mandate as a fine where some saw it as a tax. I want to improve healthcare, I feel a free market approach is best. We can discuss that if you want. A free market approach means competition which leads to lower prices and better quality. A great example is LASIK. I have read up on healthcare a lot and feel a universal healthcare system will not be better than the system we have now based on many factors. We can discuss if you want but in my opinion, based on the culture in the US and evidence out there, a free market approach is the best route. You feel a universal healthcare approach is best but so far have not provided strong evidence. You claim that your healthcare system is superior but provided little to no evidence to that case. Also, culture does play a role in healthcare. For example, the US is number 1 in OECD nations in obesity rates. Obesity causes many complications in healthcare. The fact that the US does so well in healthcare outcomes despite our high obesity rates is a sign of how high our quality is. The US also has a higher smoking rate compared to Australia. You should consider that as well. I fully understand the complexity of the system. You don't as you dismiss the idea of culture playing a role in healthcare. I can cite numerous studies and books on the issue as I read up on healthcare on my free time as I find the topic interesting. I agree that comparing the 7000 and 45,000 is comparing apples and oranges. The point is that people do die in Australia due to lack of access to healthcare. That is a fact. People claim it happens in the US as well and point to the 45,000 when many factors influence that stat that cannot be accounted for. Also, when someone makes that 45,000 claim there is nothing to compare it to. As I pointed out people die in Australia due to lack of access to healthcare as well. So is that 45,000 in the US high, low, or the average? We don't know making that stat empty. That is similar to me saying I pay $700 a month in rent. Based on that alone you can't make a conclusion on if I am paying too much, or if I am getting a good deal. People just throw numbers out there similar to what you are doing to make a strong claim. You are making a strong claim saying that Australia's healthcare system is better but gave nothing to compare it to the US system. So I did the same thing and you pulled a double standard by saying my claim is not valid. While I agree, your claims are not valid as well. Your anecdotal story means nothing. I know Canadians that told me that US system is superior. So there, my story debunks yours. See how easy that was. You talk about stats. If you want to discuss stats we can. I have read up on them. When you look at the stats and you break it down the reality is that the US system is on par with other nations.
    1
  16. Proxel, I provide a counter argument to ultra leftists' arguments. I provide sources as well. That does not make me a troll. But whatever, live in a bubble I guess.
    1
  17. tim, you also have not pointed out when I lied about my education. Find the comment and point it out.
    1
  18. Universal healthcare is an ultra leftist stance. You are talking about completely transforming our healthcare system, which is 1/6 of our economy, when nothing will improve. You have not given a solid argument that universal healthcare will be better. You can read a law in many ways. That is why we have judges.
    1
  19. People die in all nations due to lack of access to healthcare.
    1
  20. They all have issues with their healthcare systems as well.
    1
  21. Thomas, people die in every nation due to shortcomings in healthcare. Those 40,000 you point to are poor and we have higher rates of obesity and smoking with the poor. Also, a study out of Oregon led by a Harvard professor argued that giving the poor access to healthcare does not improve their physical health situation.
    1
  22. civilunific, getting access to information in how to live healthy is offered through K-12 education. People still decide to eat crap.
    1
  23. meg50, Japan has a lot of debt and a society where people literally work themselves to death.
    1
  24. Count Deku, for the most part obesity is the result of poor diet and lack of exercise. There are some genetic factors, but for the most part it is due to poor lifestyle choices.
    1
  25. Thomas, I never said it wasn't good for them. I said that even if you give them access to healthcare their situation will not improve. One can argue that they become a burden to our overall society as you are trying to keep people alive who choose unhealthy lifestyle choices. If someone is obese and refuses to keep themselves healthy, why should we spend limited resources on them? There is a debate if they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. That is what makes this topic so complex.
    1
  26. meeg50, uh, no it doesn't. I acknowledged that point. The point I made was that physical health did not improve. I did say there was less stress and I agree healthcare was used more. In fact, I feel that using healthcare more is a drawback as these individuals, despite using healthcare more and despite having less stress, did not improve physically. That is the whole point. If you give someone who is poor healthcare and they refuse to live a healthier lifestyle, and they end up living three months longer because of it, what have you gained? Not much. Two years is a long time. Some can earn a degree in that time. Two years is plenty of time to see how much someone has improve physically. Point being is that those individuals are in bad health due to life style choices. Giving them access to healthcare does not improve their physical health. They are still at high risk of being in bad health.
    1
  27. meg50, my research does no contradict me because they said that physical health did not improve. Self reported health is vague and can be simply being aware of a situation. Two years is enough. Many people lose a lot of weight in a few weeks.
    1
  28. Also, that paper is in the journal with the highest impact factor, so the felt 2 years is enough.
    1
  29. A larger population is relevant. Hard to micromanage something with a large population. Healthy people are usually younger and have less money and can't afford to pay.
    1
  30. Obi Alfred, people doe die in other nations due to lack of access in healthcare. In Canada people have died waiting for "elective" heart surgery. You really need to do more reading on this topic.
    1
  31. meg50, that control group was not given access to Medicaid. They were poor and did not have insurance. Now you are playing the emotional card on me to attack me. I don't want people to die, but reality is that resources are limited. This is a topic that is up for debate. Read the book entitled "Being Mortal" by Atul Gawande It talks about people and the healthcare industry when someone is near death. One issue is that many look towards the healthcare industry to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they may live only another 5 or 10 months. So many resources are used on these people keeping them alive when they produce little to nothing in society. Should we be doing that or should we be using resources to help other people who do need it and will live longer? It is a topic that is up for debate. Fact is resources are limited but desire is limitless. We all want this amazing healthcare system where no one dies and everyone is healthy and happy. It doesn't exist. To add, the poor do suffer in our system but the poor also have bad lifestyle choices. They have higher rates of obesity so the question becomes should we be helping people who have no desire to take care of themselves? I am all for improving our system, but you have to look logically and objectively here. You are going off of emotions, which is not completely wrong. But when you become too emotional you lose logic.
    1
  32. Daniel, people do die in other nations due to lack of care. Also, you claim I don't understand the topic but yet I am the one who points to studies and books on the issue.
    1
  33. Kris Taylor, nice counter argument. Really changes my perspective on things.
    1
  34. Michael, it is a legit argument on if they are harming society. Resources are being used on them that can be used elsewhere. If someone is obese they require more healthcare taking away limited resources that can be used elsewhere. They can lose weight and require less healthcare. It is the argument of rewarding failure as opposed to rewarding success. Rewarding failure means people stop trying as they become entitled and thus resources are limited.
    1
  35. meg50, the study did not praise Medicaid. It showed that even with access to healthcare people still have physical health problems. The poor are usually poor for a reason. Also, there are higher rates of obesity and type II diabetes with the poor. They refuse to take care of themselves. Even at that one can argue how much of a say they should have. You are supporting a system where we reward failure. You call me a sociopath when you want to drag a nation down to cater to failure. Saying the civilized world uses it is a poor argument. They have shortcomings as well.
    1
  36. So we have the largest economy and don't have universal healthcare? Hmmm....... Failure does not deserve a reward. You can help people but at some point you have to let them fail. What does Jesus have to do with it?
    1
  37. meg, you are attacking my character because you have no argument. I am more than willing to discuss this issue with facts and logic, you apparently don't have that ability. I am not religious. I don't want people dying but the reality is that no system is ideal. I can pull the same trick on you. You are atheist so why should you care? There is no soul. There is no meaning. We are just a cluster of atoms in this vast space. When we die we go back into the earth. So why care?
    1
  38. Fredik, they haven't been debunked. I point to people dying waiting for "elective" heart surgery to counter that argument of no one dying due to lack of access in other nations. Clearly they do. Heart surgery is just one of many cases. The issue is that many point to the 45,000 who die due to lack of access in the US. They then claim that number is zero in other nations. There are a few problems there 1. That 45,000 is a hard number to confirm if it is accurate. There are arguments against it including a study out of Oregon led by a Harvard professor. 2. That number is not zero in other nations as I clearly pointed out just by looking at heart surgery alone 3. No similar study was done in other nations making that 45,000 number an empty stat. You have nothing to compare it to. Clearly that number is not zero in other nations, so what is the real number? You can't say as no study was done. You say "treat sick people". A lot of people are sick due to poor lifestyle choices. In the US bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. One can argue that they are sick due to their life style and they can avoid needing healthcare if they live a healthier life. School is there for a certain IQ. If you can't understand the material you fail. If you start a fire that is called arson and is a crime. So thanks for those examples. If you never committed a crime you don't need a public defender.
    1
  39. Fredrik 1. I know about that study and I support it. I believe it provides valuable information on this topic. My point is that there are other studies out there that give valuable information as well that one can use to argue against universal healthcare. The Oregon study I cited comes from the journal with the highest impact factor. 2. If you don't receive surgery and die then you did not receive healthcare. Thus you lacked access to it. 3. The number is not zero in other nations, that is the point. You saying it is zero in other nations is factually not true. People die in every nation due to shortcomings in healthcare. Resources are limited and some people just don't get covered. Living healthy reduces your chances of getting sick. That is the point. Universal healthcare is good at giving very basic care to poor people. But poor people are generally unhealthy due to poor lifestyle choices. Should we be catering to them? The drawback of universal healthcare is the fact that the quality drops in advanced care. Even if the school helps if the person refuses to take the help they fail out. Even after the fire department puts out the fire you still have to pay for a new home. Just like if you go to the ER, they have to give you care, you still get the bill. Thanks for those comparisons, it supports my argument.
    1
  40. StromCrown, what is the number in other nations? We can't say. In Australia up to 7000 people die a year on waiting lists waiting for "elective" surgery. Is it 7000? Most likely not as there are other factors at play. Same with the 45,000. But fact is people do die in other nations due to lack of care. The problem with that 45,000 number is that there has not been a similar study done in other nations making that 45,000 a stat you can't compare to. So you can't say if that number is high, low, or the average. Compare it to this. I pay $700 a month in rent. Based on that alone and nothing else I want to you come up with a strong conclusion on if I am paying too much, or if I am getting a good deal. Healthy food is not that expensive. A burger is more expensive than a salad at the store. On the elderly that is a debatable topic as well. Read the book "Being Mortal". Insurance is there to cover accidents. Insurance companies do raise rates on people who live unhealthy life styles. Just like car insurance raises rates on people who cause accidents or get DUIs.
    1
  41. Fredrik, a waiting list is the same as lack of healthcare coverage. They are waiting due to lack of healthcare resources. If resources were infinite than there would be no waiting lists. In the US if resources were infinite, or high, than costs will be low. How do you know I can get the same apartment for cheaper? That is the point. You don't know the average rent where I live. You don't know how much space I get, etc. You know nothing else thus you can't make a conclusion. Same with that 45,000. You know nothing else so you can't make a conclusion if it is high, low, or average. People are born with different advantages and disadvantages. I wasn't born as a 6' 6" guy with quick feet and strength, so I can't play in the NFL. I was born with a mind that allows me to comprehend different issues and do math very well. Should we place limits on my intellect just because others can't do what I do? Should we prevent people from going to the weight room so others who want to play in the NFL can? That's life. You are going to deal with issues. I was born with a strong mind that allows me to pursue a PhD. There is also a history of mental illness in my family and it has made my life difficult that I take medication for. I don't complain. I accept it as a challenge for me to take on. I have been blessed with many things. I don't ask for any handouts. Life requires work, deal with it.
    1
  42. Fredrik 1. Yes it does. It compared people who received access to healthcare to those that didn't. 2. It is. They are waiting because.....wait for it......they lack healthcare access. They can't afford a private option so they go public and due to lack of resources they have to wait. If you want to change standards than in the US no one lacks healthcare access as the ER cannot deny people. You can't change standards to suit your bias. 3. It is not zero. But if you want to play that route than it is zero in the US as well as everyone is legally covered. Again, the ER cannot deny care. In every nation there is limited resources, that is why people die on waiting lists. Your healthy lifestyle plays a role. When you are healthy you use healthcare less. There is a need for insurance for unplanned situations, but that's it. Universal healthcare is good for very basic care but is poor for advanced care. Quality does drop in universal healthcare. The US offers the most CT scans for example. Europe arguably does not have better outcomes. Paying for a new home is the same as treatment. Putting out the fire prevents it from spreading. It doesn't pay for the home. Anyway, fire departments are locally ran and funded and 70% of fires fighters are volunteer. Your fire department comparison is poor at that point. Sometimes you need to stay in the hospital for treatment. If you want to make a legit argument on the fire department comparison than you would be arguing for killing the sick to prevent them from spreading their diseases. Killing them is cheaper than treating them. Just like putting out the fire is cheaper than putting out the fire and then building them a new home.
    1
  43. Waiting lists is the same as lack of coverage. There are waiting lists to account for the limited resources. No nation can cover everyone without doing some kind of rationing due to limited resources. In the US if you need care you go to the ER. I know my rent situation, you don't. You claim I can get it for cheaper. What do you base that off of? Again, you don't know where I live, you don't know the size of my apartment, etc. You know nothing so you can't say if I have a good deal, if I am paying too much, or I am paying the average amount. You have nothing to compare my rent to. Just like you have nothing to compare that 45,000 number to. Not playing in the NFL means I was born with lack of physical ability. That is the point. People are born with different abilities and shortcomings. Do you cater to all? Child labor is down due to the evolution of our economy leading to more technology and less of a demand for workers. Teenage unemployment was recently at an all time high. Also, child labor laws is a different discussion. Our for profit healthcare system leads to better R&D. You going to child labor is your showing you can't argue the point. You have to divert to another topic as opposed to saying on this one.
    1
  44. 1. I agree there are advantages of giving people healthcare coverage. I never disputed that. My argument is that their physical condition did not improve. That is because of their poor lifestyle. The argument becomes at that point is if we should be giving people like that healthcare coverage when they refuse to push for a healthier lifestyle to begin with? Also, if you give them coverage and they use it how much longer do they live? Read the book "Being Mortal". There the author discusses healthcare and people near the end of life. So many look towards medicine to extend their life 5 to 10 years when in reality they will only live an extra 5 to 10 months. A question becomes should we be using valuable resources, that are limited, on them when their time is almost up? These are people who produce very little to begin with. You are arguably dragging down a system to cater to people who have limited time to live to begin with. 2. The US has short wait times. I waited a couple days for my MRI. Compare that to months for people in nations like Canada and the UK. 3. It is not zero in Europe. Stop saying things that are not true. But back to point one. The issue is how do we make the best out of our limited resources. You feel it is best to offer healthcare coverage to poor people who, due to their lifestyle choices, produce less in society, are less likely to live a long time, and will take up the most resources in healthcare. Is that the best use of our limited resources? To me I feel it is better to use our limited resources to people who have placed themselves in a position to have easier access to healthcare. Fact is this, resources are limited. You refuse to accept that. You refuse to accept that every system has shortcomings because of that. We see it in many programs. Even something as simple as the fire department. Because of limited resources 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Look at our K-12 education system. We lack teachers. How many doctors are going to volunteer? You now just admitted that you need to put out the fire and then do repairs is equal to universal healthcare treating an illness. So you just admitted your fire department comparison is poor. Also, some areas have private fire departments. Putting out a fire is similar to killing the sick. You are killing someone to stop the spread of disease. Just like you are putting out a fire to stop it from spreading. To treat someone increases the risk of malpractice, spreading the disease, or keeping them alive to get sick again as they clearly have a bad immune system. All of that cost money to fix. Just like repairing a home. As a whole, the fire department comparison is poor. Fire departments are locally ran and fund where some are private. 70% of fire fighters are volunteer, and they are a drop in the bucket in terms of cost and challenges compare to healthcare.
    1
  45. Fredrik, by law no one can be denied services in the ER. So they are covered by your standard. Know, you don't know my information, that is the point. On that 45,000 stat you got that study that was done in the US. Now point to a similar study done in other nations. None exist thus you can't compare that 45,000 number to anything. That is my point. Yes, healthcare "cheaper" in other nations, but what is the quality? Lower You also misunderstood my NFL point. Everyone is born with shortcomings and advantages. I wasn't born with physical ability to make millions playing in the NFL. Instead I earn my money by using my intellectual ability. Why does Aaron Rodgers get to be paid millions and I get paid $20,0900 a year? Because of different abilities we were born with. I am pursuing a PhD as a result, he plays in the NFL. Should we punish Rodgers for being born with talent? Child labor was a problem due to us being a developing nation. Machines still required adult strength, even more than now. You are trying to divert the topic. Child labor went away because we developed as a nation. Just like we have AC, cars with better gas mileage that last longer, produce more food, high speed internet, etc. Technology changed that. Technology led to where we can have this discussion online. I teach at a university, so I help others. I also do research for a living so I know who contributes to medical advancement. It is the private sector. You say I use the same arguments when in fact you do. You are "done" with me because you can't justify your stance. You had to divert the conversation to child labor when you started to do poorly on the healthcare topic.
    1
  46. Fredrik 1. I did not leave that part out. I pointed you to the study so you can read it knowing what was in it. The "positives" are less stress and have being checked up more. One can argue that stress can be reduced with proper diet and exercise. Also, you can talk about people at the end of their lives benefiting from healthcare the most as they receive the most healthcare. 2. Define "urgent". Read the study entitled "Waiting for elective surgery: effects on health-related quality of life" There they mention how waiting too long for healthcare has led to financial, physical and psychological hardships. 3. It is not zero. Waiting means they lack access for a long time and when they die while waiting that means they did not have access to care in a timely manner. Universal healthcare pulls the middle class down so that the poor and middle class receive the same quality of care. The poor benefit out of the expense of the middle class. That is why I say that. Doctors don't volunteer that much. Your fire fighter analogy was poor. Locally funded, not as complex as healthcare, 70% are volunteer, some areas have a private system, all it does it prevent the spread of fire, it does not build you a new home.
    1
  47. Insurance is there to deal with expensive, unplanned cases. Now I would agree insurance is a problem in the US as healthcare insurance has become healthcare. And I am willing to discuss that. I feel a lot of treatments in healthcare can be covered out of pocket. Instead insurance covers most care giving them too much power. Problem is that we lack a free market system in healthcare. Everyone is not covered in other nations because people die on waiting lists. They die because they did not receive care. They did not receive care because they were not covered. If everyone had access than why do people die on waiting lists? Quality is lower based on many factors. We offer the most CT scans in the world. We lead the way in R&D. We are number 1 in cancer survival rates despite our high obesity rates. The NFL analogy is spot on. Someone is born with physical ability can play a sport and earn millions and not have to worry about finances, including healthcare. Someone with a strong intellect does not have to worry about getting a job and can receive great healthcare. Children in developing nations probably built it. That is the point. We are developed, they aren't. Private companies spend a lot on research. Most research out of universities don't go anywhere. It is a huge collection of materials and eventually something comes out. That is why grad students are paid around $30,000 a year if you include tuition waiver and healthcare benefits. Researchers in private companies earn a lot more. Again, I do research for a living at a university along with teaching. I know a lot about this. Uh, one can argue the free market led to shorter work weeks and hours. Also, I don't get weekends off because I am actually dedicated to my work. I work around 12 hours a day. So who do I have to thank? Besides that, I support progressing. I feel the free market is the best route and not government artificially forcing it as if it can magically be done. You can't justify your stance. It does not cover everyone. If so than why do people die on waiting lists?
    1
  48. People are covered but then die while waiting for healthcare? I am confused. So if I am waiting in line for a ticket for an event and it gets sold out, that means I saw the event? If you remove car accidents and murders from all nations the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Many factors outside of healthcare influence overall life expectancy. NFL analogy is spot on. It is based on the idea that some people are born with different skills. Many Asians nations are not as developed as us. Insurance pays for healthcare. Private companies pay for R&D. There is a difference. The free market has led to shorter hours. Because of the free market over 70% of workers have paid time off. Only around 4% of workers earn at or below the min. wage. Based on your argument no one should have paid time off and close to 100% of workers should be earning the min. wage Dying while waiting means you are not covered. It is that simple.
    1
  49. 1. Diet is crucial. It influences healthcare results. 2. You refuse to read studies because it might challenge your religious like belief. 3. If you wait for care and die you did not have access to it. Change the standard all you want. Fact is people die in other nations due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems.
    1
  50.  @latjolajban81  Your source does not show what the life expectancy is when you remove car accidents and murders. Read the book "The Business of Health" to see their methods. You still have not answered the point on if someone has access to healthcare why do they die on waiting lists? The reason why is because they did not have access. You can move the goal posts all you want but that is the reality.
    1
  51. That was the wage to begin with.
    1
  52. Also, the economy is doing better leading to higher wages. Bernie had nothing to do with it.
    1
  53. Selarom, the economy is improving. They are raising wages because the number of workers is scarce with lower unemployment. Bezos may say one thing but reality is that the strong economy is leading to higher wages.
    1
  54. donHooligan, I can give support to my opinion. Kyle lied in this video. Under Bernie's Medicare for all bill private healthcare insurance will be illegal. Kyle said that people could still have private insurance if they wanted.
    1
  55.  @GordieKat  section 107 in Bernie's medicare for all bill
    1
  56.  @killerbee2562  I just sourced it
    1