Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Sold His Medal To Pay Medical Bills" video.

It is a highly debatable topic. When you have to pull extreme cases like this to push for universal healthcare it makes your argument look weak.
4
Compounded Derivatives, to ultra leftists it isn't. They want to avoid the debate as they have no way to defend their ideas.
4
Except we don't have a free market system.
2
C Wilson, you should have a comma after "Jesus" if you want to be a grammar Nazi.
2
He was well off. This case is the extreme case that exists in every nation. It is also a rare case and does not represent the norm.
1
Dying at 96 is not him failing either. Fact was that he was old. He was an old individual looking to live much longer than he should have. I suggest people read the book entitled "Being Mortal". It talks about cases like these where people keep pushing to live. This sounds like a case like that where he was willing to sell his Nobel prize to live a few weeks longer. As a whole this wasn't the failure of the medical system. In fact, it shows something amazing when someone can live to be 96.
1
Most of them. A 96 year old man with a brain problem is extreme in an nation.
1
I do recall Shapiro bringing up that story. I disagreed with it as well as it is an extreme case. There are other ways to criticize universal healthcare.
1
Jambott, saying other nations have it is dismissing the argument. You are ignoring a plethora of variables and ignoring the shortcomings they have as well. There are several indications that the US has better quality of healthcare compared to those nations. You complain about profits when profit motives improve quality in many cases.
1
JR 14, I never vanish. I don't get notices in my emails but usually other people vanish.
1
Justin Griffith, there is a debate. You saying there isn't any is you dismissing the argument as you can't form one yourself.
1
Mega X, I have given studies to back up my claims. What does the left have? They have people like Kyle looking at the death of a 96 year old man with a brain problem. Also, we don't have a free market healthcare system in the US.
1
Mega X, I have read the studies and have nothing to hide.
1
Oxygen is not a commodity. It naturally exist, there lies the difference.
1
Healthcare is a commodity as someone has to provide it.
1
Someone has to provide healthcare, education and infrastructure. That makes it a commodity. Unless there is someone there to provide it no amount of money it going to make it exist.
1
Go to the extreme case. If there are no doctors than how do you provide healthcare to people? I can breath oxygen free of charge as it is natural. Doctors need to be trained.
1
Ikilledsugarspook45 , so the government misplaced money? And your solution is to raise taxes and allow them to control more of it?
1
@Gaff. , I don't vanish. I don't get notices and what I have found out is after a couple days people move on to the next video, so I do too. I feel both sides have legit arguments. I actually support many ideas on the right on almost every issue, including healthcare. But Kyle and his fan base have very poor arguments that don't progress us as all.
1
@Gaff. , you apparently have not read all of my comments. I see the desire for a public option. I do see the desire for some sort of healthcare to people in poverty. I support it as long as it is at the state level. There are arguments to be made in these cases such as lower stress level for example. Kyle and his fan base have very poor arguments and have nothing but talking points. On Shapiro and Paul, they are referring to if you make healthcare a right to which you will have to enslave doctors.
1
@Gaff. , at the state level you can micromanage the program which saves money. Compare it to this. Say you were buying sandwiches for 5 people. You can get each person the sandwich they want. Now say you are doing it for 100 to 200 people. At that point you just guy generic sandwiches. You don't know how many people exactly so you order too many which becomes a waste. Or you order too little and people go hungry. It becomes harder. Most of our programs in the US are ran locally. K-12 education is ran at the state and local level for example. Some states don't want universal healthcare, why force them to do it? It is the same other way around. Some people in some states may want it, why should other states stop them? If CA wants universal healthcare why should TX stop them? Or why should CA force TX to have universal healthcare? This is the challenge in government. There is a desire to have government, but what kind is challenging. The larger the country the more challenges you have due to diversity. More local government is better as it serves the people. The more local a system is the less diversity you have. As for enslaving doctors, if you make healthcare a right you will be just like we force people to do jury duty.
1
JumpinJimmie, either way someone has to provide it.
1
What makes you think states can't afford it? At the state level you can micromanage the issue more where you end up spending money better. And what makes you thinks states are in favor of it? If you refuse to do jury duty you go to jail. People have a right to a trial by jury so the government forces people to do jury duty. You don't have a right to the DMV, post office, librarian or other government jobs. That is the difference. Right to a trial by jury is a right thus people are forced to serve as a juror. The DMV is not a right thus people are not forced to work there. That is why if you make healthcare a right you will be enslaving doctors.
1
Also, allowing the states to control healthcare follows the design of our nation. That design is that states have the freedom to run themselves as long as they don't violated people's constitutional rights. The federal government is there for national defense and to keep peace between states.
1
I feel the states can afford some very basic forms of healthcare to a degree. And I mean very basic where the quality will not be good. I also never said the nation can't afford it. What makes you think the federal government has the tax revenue? Your problems you are listing don't make sense in why states can't handle it. With states handling it you also have competition which means states will push for the best system. You are forced to do jury duty, that is the point. The issue there is that almost everyone can do jury duty where only a select few can be a doctor. I have never been on a jury because of our large population. You don't have a right to the DMV nor an ID.
1
Bear in mind I said very basic care where the quality is not great. To give an example, I went to a free healthcare clinic for a STD check up. The only time you can use it is on Tuesday and Thursday and the wait times are long, as in 3 to 4 hours. When I used my insurance to go to a private clinic within 30 minutes I checked in, got blood drawn, pissed in a cup, and was back at home. So when I say being able to afford it the care has to be very basic and it should be understood that the quality will not be good. We have states that are larger than Ireland. This comes back to lower population means less diversity and the system can be micromanage easier. How many nations over over 100+ million people have universal healthcare and a strong economy? Also, I doubt you talked to economists or looked at many studies because if you did you would realize the challenges that exist. The problems you listed for states make no sense. In fact, at the federal level you have more corruption and bureaucracy which leads to higher prices. Competition does not lead us to concentration of profits. It leads to the exact opposite. Having one spender does that as that is called a monopoly. That is why a federal system would be a bad idea. You have one buyer with no competition so you have no standard to compare it to, and it makes it harder to change. Define "feasible to help them". Also, what if doctors refuse to help them? The reasons could be as simple as too few of doctors? Do you force doctors to work longer hours? The issue is the definition of a right. Now if you want to call it a service that the government pays for that is fine which is different. Consider education. You don't have a right to education, the states and local governments provide it. If there is no teacher than they can't. Education is not a right. That is the difference. You are not required by law to carry an ID.
1
Define "afford". You have to include quality. Also, you have to factor in efficiency. At the federal level you have a greater chance for waste due to lack of micromanagement. And quality will go down due to lack of micromanagement. Diversity is important. You are talking about different economics, different education levels, different lifestyles, etc. You can't have a one size fits all policy. The greater the diversity the greater number of variables that will exist. That is why 60 senate democrats could not agree on one form of healthcare reform in 2008. The bureaucracy at the local level is minute compared to the federal level. Things get done faster at the state and local level as they represent the people. Competition never leads to concentration of profits. In competition entities who compete have to invest money to grow. If they just hoard it then a competitor will invest and grow overtaking the competition. That is why Amazon got so big despite making almost no profits for years. You have to argue definitions. If you make healthcare a "right" than you have to force doctors to serve people. Words have meanings in law.
1
You can't combine powers. That goes against the design of this nation and violates state rights. Many states would oppose that idea as you are forcing them to do things they don't want to do. So you blame corruption? Ever thought that maybe their voters did not like it? Local government has little corruption because if it did then either people will rally to change or they will move. You can move to another state and remain a US citizen, another beauty of state rights. Amazon recently bought those businesses. When you invest money you are not hoarding it. Investing it means growth which means more wealth for society. That's a good thing. With one buyer the federal government has no incentive to improve. If you make healthcare a right you have to, by definition, make doctors slaves.
1
You can't combine powers because at that point the federal government will favor certain states. Also, I feel the population is smart, the issue is that people can't know everything. Many decide to raise families or take on hobbies. They don't have time to learn about everything. That is another reason why local government is the best route. At the local level you can see if government is working for you as you are experiencing it. At the federal level you can't unless you do some hardcore research which many people don't have time to do. I mean voters. You can move to another state. And no, they are not all corrupt. But by your standard all government is corrupt so why give it so much power to begin with? Why give it power to control your healthcare? But at the local level people can rally. It isn't so much rallying but more of they interact with the community. They do when they work, when they eat at a restaurant, when they go to a bar, when they attend a high school event, when they shop, etc. Companies buy and sell companies all the time. Investment means growth and more wealth for all. If the company grows than people benefit in more jobs and easier access to wealth. Walmart invested in the Walmart pickup where people pick their items online and simply drive up and pick it up. That saves time in shopping. With one buyer in single pay healthcare providers will raise prices. If you make healthcare a right you enslave doctors. It comes down to what a right is legally. That is the issue. If you make it a service the government pays for that is different. So don't call healthcare a right if you don't want to enslave doctors.
1
What do you mean by "not do that?" And how do you control it? The issue is that there are many factors at play here. The federal government may favor a state due to their population, economy, education level, etc. It becomes a mess and an even bigger mess than we have now with our current healthcare system. Corruption hardly happens at the local level. Why? Because they are people who actually interact with the public. I met my governor. I met both candidates for mayor. I was just in a room with some of the richest people in my city and talked to a few of them. Now I am very active in my community but the reality is that at the local level the common person is more likely to interact with those in power and thus those in power have to actually cater to the common person. The issue of "clean water" is complex as replacing our piping system is challenging. Beyond that, you have maybe a handful of areas with bad water. But imagine if it were centralized. Imagine if the federal government ran our water system and messed up. Now the whole nation so screwed as opposed to pockets of area. So that is another beauty of state rights. Define "decent wages". Unemployment is new an all time low. Also, I don't have to worry about Cuomo, he does not represent my area. Another beauty of state rights. You have some Alex Jones level of conspiracy there. So most politicians are corrupt? I guess we are screwed either ways. Power and responsibility goes hand and hand. Also, it is easier to hold local governments accountable. However, according to you they are corrupt to begin with and we are not holding them accountable. So why would things change now? Define "living wage". Also, most areas have clean water. I feel the representatives a the local level push for a better environment and those that don't have high levels of poverty. Point to me where we are having major problems. Businesses always bought and sold other businesses. What's your point? Wage slavery? Really? Are we going to go there? Stop with the talking points. Slaves were forced to work. Walmart does not have to give them a job and the people who work there don't have to work there if they don't want to. Buying another company is spending profits. Healthcare providers can raise prices. If the US government refuses to pay then people will not get healthcare and politicians will be voted out. That is why government programs always end up costing more.
1
Here is your problem. I am poking holes in your argument and the best you can do is say "that is not a rebuttal" when it was. You say all governments are corrupt. But then you claim that you want the federal government to run our healthcare. I ask why as you feel government is corrupt. You claim that we have to hold government accountable. But then I bring up the point in how we are not doing it now. Also, to add, you said people are not educated. So how do you expect the people to hold government accountable? We aren't doing it now? Your logic is not strong here. The conspiracy I mean is you saying that all government officials are corrupt. With water the problem are the old pipes. Replacing them all will cost a lot of money and time and resources, all of which are limited. The issue is that there are alternative methods to tackle it such as filters. Also, over time people's lives still improve with higher life expectancy so how major of a problem is it? As for federal regulations, all the federal government can do is control commerce between states. They have limited power. And again, imagine if this was ran federally and we had this problem, now the whole country is screwed. Read a book? What book? The Communist Manifesto? Nice rebuttal there. Read a book. Really? Which one?
1
You are refusing to take on the point of how you feel government is corrupt but also want it to run our healthcare system. Also, you are refusing to take on the issue of if government does a poor job in providing healthcare that we should hold them accountable. But by what you said we are not holding them accountable to begin with as it is corrupt. This is what is so annoying with the ultra left. They claim government is corrupt but the whats it to have more power. And their solution is to say "we need to elect the right people" even though we are not doing it now. The ultra left is like that wife in an abusive relationship. Instead of leaving it they decide to have kids with their abusive husband.
1
Abolishing slavery required a war and destroying the economy of many states. Not saying that was not a good idea, just saying that is what happened.
1
You have an old individual where healthcare is complex. People need to read the book "Being Mortal" to get a deeper understanding on this issue. You won't learn anything about healthcare listening to Kyle.
1
You can look that up yourself but it is over 300 pages. Some of those are references so around 280 pages.
1
Matthew, it does take that much knowledge as healthcare is complex. There are many indicators that the US has better outcomes.
1
The fact you refuse to read a book or dismiss experts on opposing sides shows how ignorant you are.
1
@bumpty9830 , I never said that book was convincing nor did I say it was the book to end all discussions. I found the book interesting and worth reading. There are a plethora of sources you can read. As for healthcare rankings, they are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and create any conclusion you want. That ranking is from the Commonwealth Fund, a private special interest group. Do you know how they created that ranking? I doubt it. Two things they did was look at life expectancy and look at amenable mortality. While the US does have lower life expectancy one can argue that is because of factors outside of healthcare. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders in all nations the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Does that mean we have better healthcare? No. What it means is that there are are other factors that influence life expectancy. The same is for amenable mortality. For that read the paper entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality-a literature review" There the author argues that amenable mortality cannot be used as an indicator of healthcare quality due to many factors outside of healthcare that influence it along with how differently countries report it. The CWF also mentioned how the US is number 1 in cancer survival rates but does not use that in their ranking. That is what makes this issue complex. You come with arbitrary rankings from special interest groups and I gave you a counter argument. Now it is your turn. This is not to be rude but I doubt you could give a counter argument to what I gave. This does not mean I am right or you are wrong. It means there is a lot to this topic and you don't understand. To take something as complex like healthcare and reduce it down to a simple ranking is not going to progress us in improving healthcare.
1
@bumpty9830 , as for the book it discusses the issue of people nearing the end of their lives and how we can handle them. What is the proper way of treating people in that condition, what do we say to them, what is the reality and myth and so on. This book covers a point with this scientist. This man was 96 years old and sold his nobel prize to have more money to live a little bit longer. On issue is that many doctors will offer care to the old and the patient will pay thinking they will live another 5 to 10 years and be able to do the activities they love. However, the reality is they will maybe live another 5 or 10 months and be restricted in what they can do. Was it worth it for this scientist to sell his prize to live a little bit longer? That is the hard question. Once again, you refuse to read the book because you don't want to dig deeper into this topic and learn more about it. That is why you rather default to an arbitrary ranking. That is fine, but just admit you don't know enough to have a strong opinion. Just like I don't know enough about trucks to decide if a Chevy is better than a Ford.
1
jojo, the source is from the book "The Business of Health". You can read it yourself, look at their sources and methods. As for life expectancy decreases, I suggest you read the book.
1
Matthew, 1. Profit motives lead to progress. With profits you have more resources to invest to improve healthcare. This is why the US is number 1 in R&D. Profits also attract better workers. 2. In a competitive market you don't make a profit unless you provide a high quality product at an affordable price. LASIK is free from insurance and is essentially the free market. Over time it has dropped in price and improved in quality.
1
jojo, I read the book, there is a lot to it. There are parts where they talked about allowing animals and children go to nursing homes, to people wanting to eat the things they enjoy even though it is bad for their health and so on. It is an interesting read and looks at the issue of near the end of life and the healthcare industry in many angles. .
1
If you are talking about the other book I referenced it is the same way, there is a lot to it.
1
As for using GDP per capita it is making the point that even though we spend more we get better results. Many say we spend more but get worse results which is not necessarily true. That is why they factor in GDP per capita. Also, there are other nations with a higher GDP per capita. Dr. Ohsfeldt admitted that it does not mean the US is number 1 in life expectancy, nor that it means we have the best healthcare system. What he was simply showing was that there are many factors that influence healthcare stats outside of healthcare systems thus any ranking people generate on healthcare systems are arbitrary. That was is point. It comes back to that this issue is complex and people can't make a strong conclusion that the US system is inferior and that other systems are better. There are too many moving parts.
1
jojo, what is "real data"? GDP per capita is real data. Also, the two authors of that book are experts on stats as well. There are many ways to look at stats. You can find the PDF of the book for free on AEI's website and you can read and criticize all you want. You can read their reasoning as well. The point is that there are many ways to look at the stats. Also, they use GDP per capita because as income raises so does spending. People choose to spend more on healthcare as they have more money, thus we spend more on healthcare than other nations. In their book they show that when GDP per capita increases so does healthcare spending with all nations. So no, it is not fraud. Again, read the book and their reasoning. He does look at real life expectancy data. He uses OECD data.
1
Why don't you read the book yourself? It is free online. If you type the name of the book in Google and type "PDF" after it a link should pop up. Or type in the title and "AEI" after it.
1
jojo, many factors influence overall life expectancy. That is the point. The point is this. We have a higher GDP per capita so we spend more on healthcare than other nations. Car accidents and murders are arguably a factor that influences life expectancy that is not dependent on a healthcare system. When you factor in those variable the US has a higher life expectancy. This is common practice in stats where you factor in different variables and come up with different results.
1
You have an old guy with a brain problem. That is a complex issue. In other nations he would not have received high quality care in that situation. Kyle is looking at an extreme situation and expects it to be the norm. This is why we are not getting Medicare for all if this is the type of arguments you want to make.
1
People die in other nations waiting for heart care.
1