Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Does Impromptu Medicare For All Town Hall In The Street" video.

@eriknephrongfr8847 you are one person. You don't represent the norm
2
@Zachcradd1027 , read my comment to WonderWeezul, I go into details. The reality is this, the Bernie supporters feel that M4A will simply means that our way of paying for healthcare will change and nothing else. That is not true. Under Bernie's plan payouts will be 40% less, what do you think will happen to quality and accessibility?
2
@scoobertmcruppert2915 , how is it cheaper? And are healthcare providers really going to be willing to take a pay cut? Something has to give, that is the reality and those are the issues the far left does not want to discuss. How do we make healthcare manageable? What will be the minimum standard? What will be the cap? Can I just go in and get any treatment I want? Why or why not? What do we do with the very sick? Do we give them care or let them die? How many resources are we willing to spend? These, and many other questions the far left is not willing to take one. They literally feel that M4A will simply means government picks up the tab and nothing else changes. That is a very unwise approach.
2
@JSkyGemini , how are they lies? As for Canada https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560551/ "Of the 2516 patients booked for aortic valve surgery with a primary diagnosis of aortic stenosis, 2237 subjects (88.9%) were eligible for analysis after exclusions. The eligible patients ranged in age from 22 to 95 years, and 36.8% were female. The true median waiting time was 243 days (148 days [25th percentile], 397 days [75th percentile]), which was 3.2 times the interval currently reported as the waiting time (75 days [42, 127]). Thirty-nine patients died while waiting for surgery. Patients used more resources while waiting for surgery than after surgery." People did die.
2
These people are ignorant on this topic. The guy at 1:30 talked about follow ups. In nations with single payer they won't offer advanced care like follow ups. Also, they talk about cancer. In the US we are number 1 in cancer survival rates. M4A supporters have this mindset that under that system we will have the same quality and access to healthcare which is not true. Bernie supporters are very ignorant on this topic.
1
How many experts did he ask?
1
@kekwayblaze3176 , so Canadians are now experts on healthcare? Also, people are dying in Canada because they are denied heart surgery.
1
@olesuhr727 , I never had a problem with the US system.
1
@benjaminpark5460 , sure, but in the US an experiment was done in Oregon and even with access to care their physical health did not improve. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 But hey, why trust a study from experts?
1
How? I see nothing but a career politician that is all talk and no actions.
1
In the UK people are going blind due to them denying cataract surgery. Also, what is the wait time in the US?
1
Private schools are better.
1
He is lying or simply ignorant on the issue of healthcare. There is a lot that is not being said about M4A that should concern people. He is leaving out a lot of negative parts of M4A.
1
@jayj6776 , really? Than why do people die in Canada being denied heart surgery or are going blind in the UK being denied eye surgery?
1
@scoobertmcruppert2915 , I agree. In my post to WonderWeezul I admitted that universal healthcare systems do help out the very poor to where they don't get bankrupts. But that is at the expense of the very sick. Something has to give. That is why people die in Canada being denied heart surgery or are going blind being denied eye surgery in the UK. Now to be fair they are typically old and their death was near anyway, but that is a difficult issue that needs to be discussed. What do we give up to give care to the poor? And should we offer care to the poor? Why are they poor and why are they in bad health to begin with? There is that discussion as well. The far left refuses to have actual discussions like that. They feel M4A is some miracle policy that will save everyone in healthcare and make everyone's lives better. That is now how economics work, something has to give.
1
@scoobertmcruppert2915 , to extend, a problem with the far left is that they are not willing to discuss major issues. They just want the government to handle everything and feel the government can magically solve of our problems. They don't seem to understand there are actual resources that are limited in man power and raw materials. Take the immigration situation right now. The far left complains about how they are treated. We can work to build more facilities but that requires man power and raw material. And then we need to hire more people to work there. The far left also says our infrastructure has a D- rating. So what do you want? Do you want to improve our infrastructure or build more facilities and man them? You have to pick one. The same is with healthcare. You have to decide what you want to give up. Something has to give. To me it comes down to the far left simply not having the experience in actually managing limited resources and trade offs. And they also refuse to think so they just pass the issue onto the government and sweep the issue under the rug. There are hard conversations to have here on healthcare that needs to be done. People like Bernie refuses to have them which is very dangerous. Pushing M4A without having the hard conversation is like traveling the ocean with no map nor compass, you are going to end up lost at sea.
1
@kennethmcneil3478 "Of the 2516 patients booked for aortic valve surgery with a primary diagnosis of aortic stenosis, 2237 subjects (88.9%) were eligible for analysis after exclusions. The eligible patients ranged in age from 22 to 95 years, and 36.8% were female. The true median waiting time was 243 days (148 days [25th percentile], 397 days [75th percentile]), which was 3.2 times the interval currently reported as the waiting time (75 days [42, 127]). Thirty-nine patients died while waiting for surgery. Patients used more resources while waiting for surgery than after surgery." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560551/ Is that a "right wing think tank"? As for the UK https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/thousands-in-britain-left-to-go-blind-due-to-eye-surgery-rationing-report
1
@ln8496 , they don't. Bernie is not having an actual conversation here. He just brings up horror stories from the US and bring up positive stories from Canada. Why doesn't he talk about people dying from lack of heart surgery in Canada? Why doesn't he bring up the tough questions? He is not giving the full picture. There is a lot he is leaving out and is being dishonest or ignorant.
1
@johnnytwotimes7854 people die unnecessarily in all systems.
1
@SDMacMan what studies?
1
@bachirmessaouri4772 , in Canada people die because they are denied heart surgery. In the UK people are going blind because they are being denied eye surgery. In those nations you sacrifice advanced care. That is the reality. You are ignoring the limitation of resources. Something has to give.
1
Saying it "works" there is deceptive. What do you mean by "works"?
1
@malikanthony1149 , under universal healthcare systems typically they just have the very sick die off as opposed to taking care of them.
1
@kennethmcneil3478 , than why do people die in Canada being denied heart surgery? Or people are going blind in the UK being denied eye surgery?
1
@richardhannay7105 " the idea that the healthy pay for the sick is not revolutionary. It is common sense" It isn't common sense as there is a discussion to begin with. Why should I, as a healthy person, have my life held back to pay for a sick person who is not productive? The economics does not make sense.
1
@malikanthony1149 , you can't just throw a stat out there and expect it to mean anything.
1
@masterofalltrades999 , healthcare rankings are completely arbitrary. Do you even know how those rankings are developed? I doubt it, you just blindly follow them.
1
@malikanthony1149 , you say it doesn't happen in other nations to the extent it does in the US. Care to give me data on that? People die in other nations as well due to rationing of care for "elective" procedures. That includes heart and neurosurgery.
1
@richardhannay7105 , funny you bring up cancer. In the US we have the highest cancer survival rate in the world.
1
@malikanthony1149 "Btw, I don’t understand this sick people are unproductive nonsense. Is it meant to be cruel or incorrect on purpose?" No, it is about having difficult conversations on this issue that the far left is not willing to have. Resources are limited, something has to give. You are feeling we can create some utopia system where everyone gets treated and everything is perfect. That is not how it works. Something has to give. People talk about M4A providing basic care, what is your definition of "basic care"? Where is your cap? In other nations they do deny people certain types of care such as in Canada they deny heart surgery to people or in the UK they deny cataract surgery. So what is your limit? This is the problem with the far left, they refuse to have difficult conversations on these complex issues.
1
@richardhannay7105 , it isn't about the an breaking his leg. It is about the person who has one problem, it gets fixed and than another one comes up. Read the book "Being Mortal". It talks about how people near the end of their lives constantly have problems that come up. When they get sick they get cured, but other problems arise. That is the point I am talking about. And how much do people like that actually produce? These are the difficult discussions people on the left don't want to have. As for you points, here 1. Fire departments are ran and funded locally. In some areas they are private and in some areas they are volunteer jobs where 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Also, the fire department puts out the fire, they don't buy you a new home 2. Roads are paid for and ran locally. In some areas they are dirt roads. Also, the roads are used to increase productivity of a society. 3. Police are paid for and ran locally. You starting to see a trend? They exist for safety of a community which everyone agrees on. Not everyone agrees to have a government paid for healthcare system. Also, in comparison to healthcare, those programs are much cheaper, not as complex, and not as dynamic as healthcare. Healthcare is very expensive, is very dynamic in R&D, and very complex. So your comparison is poor. It doesn't take a decade worth of schooling to become a fire fighter, it does to become a doctor.
1
@richardhannay7105 , how are the chances in the US worse? What do you base that off of? "the key word here is "localy funded" genius, roads are payed for by state government, not individuals" Locally funded is very important. At the local level you can determine if your money is being spent well by the government and the programs can be micromanaged easier. It allows the local community to decide how a program should be ran. The economy is complex and having a centralized entity manage is it impossible. Read the essay entitled "I, Pencil" where it shows how complex it is to make a pencil. Now imagine other programs? The local communities run them as they are managed better. In some areas they are fine with volunteer fire fighters and dirt roads. You can't point to locally ran programs to justify expanding the federal government. The issue is what role should government play? That is very subjective. How many police officers should exist? In some places they only have the sheriff. It varies. There is value in having government programs, but what kind depends on the area. Maybe a government ran healthcare system will work in some areas, but not throughout the entire nation. The locally part is very important. "Also, imagine if you were able to get regular checkups, the problem in the US is that people don't get checked and go to the doctor in terminal conditions. " Uh, not really. According to this study even with access and awareness of issues their physical health did not improve https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 A lot of bad health is due to poor lifestyle choices. "Also, you agree the public education should exist but not public healthcare, as if these systems are run differently." I won't mind if the states and local governments had their version of a government healthcare system. It all depends. K-12 education is ran and funded by the states as well and it differs from state to state. Compare NV to MA for example. NV does not value education as high as you can make $80,000 a year parking cars in casinos or 6 figures working in the mines. In MA it is home to Boston College, Harvard, MIT and other four year colleges. Their society values education more. As a result MA has better outcomes in education compare to NV simply because of their culture. You as assuming the entire nation is the same when in reality it is very diverse. Maybe some areas will value a public healthcare system, some may not. You can't just say "you support this government system so you should support others". There is a desire to have government programs, but what kind and how much depends on many factors. Let us take you idea to the extreme. Why not ban all private companies and have only government companies and government jobs? You support K-12 education, why not have public restaurants ran by government? Why not have public retail stores ran by government? Why stop at schools? As for non-profit, profit is what drives innovation and progress. Compare public schools to private schools, which ones typically have better facilities? As for being safer, how many private schools experience mass shootings compared to public ones?
1
Actually that is not true? On the surface M4A sounds like great but when you factor in the taxes and how healthcare will change in access and quality it becomes a losing issue.
1
In his home town, not really challenging.
1