Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "The Propagandists Are Coming To Make You Hate Medicare For All" video.

Bernie did not give a reason why. He makes a claim that M4A will somehow be cheaper despite history saying otherwise.
2
, how am I a liar?
2
Amat3rasuMLP1550 , no study has proven that. One was from UMass that used very vague numbers and very conservative values. For example, they gave a number in saying it will cost X amount of dollars to train and relocate people from the insurance industry to other jobs. Well, how do they adjust for the fact that moving people increases demand in housing in one area raising prices and decreases demand in housing in another area so they can't sell their homes as high? And what about the psychological effects of forcing people to move? The Koch brothers study said it will cost, on the low end, $32 trillion over 10 years but gave a range from there to over $50 trillion. Plus, that was just for public spending where on page 4 they gave both public and private spending which is more than we pay now. So no, Bernie has not explained anything. He did what you did, say "studies shown" where when you actually read the studies there are glaring flaws.
2
@pointlesstwat8927 , read my comment to Amat3rasuMLP1550 on those studies. They are flawed where one admitted chances are it will cost much more. If Bernie talked about those studies more people will actually read them and tear them apart.
2
@j_west7219 , read my comment to Amat3rasuMLP1550 on those studies. The Koch Brother study gave a conservative estimate. The abstract said this "The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, the Medicare for All Act (M4A), would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018. This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022, rising to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and further thereafter. Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance." At this point, not to be rude, but did you actually read the studies? I doubt it. If you did you would know that $32 trillion was on the low end where it ranged from that to over $50 trillion. And that was just for public spending where page 4 gave both public and private spending which was more overall. Also, one of the authors brought up, correctly, that is assuming a 40% less pay out rate. So when you consider that you have to factor in accessibility and quality issues. "Also history says the opposite, medicare was passed during the great depression" It was passed in the 60s. " yet to this day has a higher approval rating than ANY private insurance" With much less efficiency. As Prof. Katherine Baicker said to congress in 2009 "On the other hand, a single payer system does not automatically provide high quality care: the provision of low-value care is as pervasive in the single payer Medicare system as it is elsewhere. Single-payer systems are also slow to innovate – as suggested by the fact that it took Medicare 40 years to add a prescription drug benefit, long after most private insurers had done so. Nor do calculations of the costs of a single-payer system measure the utility loss from forcing people with different preferences into a monolithic health insurance plan. The private facilities that have sprung up in Canada to meet the demands of those who want more health care than the public system provides fundamentally undermine the “single payer” nature of the system. " Read the study entitled "A Political History of Medicare and Prescription Drug Coverage" Doesn't seem very efficient to me. Also, other times the federal government became involved in healthcare and failed. The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 became a disaster as only half of the facilities were opened and none were fully funded. "Our outrageous cost comes from private companies price gouging us." No, it comes from the lack of a free market created by the federal government. Most people cannot choose their healthcare plan. How is that a free market system? "The same insulin made by the same company costs 1/10 in mexico what it does here. Why?" Because we lack a free market. Also, we have way more R&D here. "Now go ahead and rattle off your talking points." Now considering how I gave actual studies and quotes from experts I don't see how I have talking points. You cited the Koch Brothers study and I did as well giving you a completely different conclusion. Why? Because I actually read it, you haven't.
2
@youandyourmusic , again, the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 was underfunded and made mental health worse.
2
@tim211292 , it is a PhD in physical chemistry.
2
@j_west7219 , to me a free market solution will be best. The problem in the US is that we don't have a free market. Due to the payroll tax businesses, to avoid taxes, pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage. Because of that healthcare is a form of payment and thus healthcare insurance becomes healthcare. What makes it worse is that people can't choose their plan, they are at the mercy of their employer. This causes many problems 1. People who change their jobs have to worry about their healthcare 2. They get a plan they don't want 3. If they leave their job at an older age pre existing conditions becomes an issue If businesses were to pay with a higher wage consumers can buy a plan they want. They can force insurance companies to compete driving down prices and improving services. A lot of healthcare can be paid for out of pocket where unplanned, expensive cases will be covered by insurance. There will be gaps but they can filled locally through charities or a local public option. Real world example? LASIK surgery. It is through the free market and as a result prices drop and quality improved.
2
@aikohuyse3118 , I agree, M4A is a massive change and is hard to predict. So with that I go through history. Medicare is losing money right now as people are living longer. Ask any accountant and they will tell you pensions are a bitch. Why? Because they are hard to predict. You can't predict how long someone will live, how healthy they will be, etc. That is one reason why SS and Medicare are losing money. Another is that the political nature makes changes difficult. When republicans talk about Medicare reform Democrats fear monger saying they are going to cut medicare. Thus, nothing happens. That is why it took over 40 years for Medicare to finally prescription benefits. Now also take the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. It ended up costing more than projected where only half of the facilities were built and none were fully funded. Based on all of that I have a very hard time buying into M4A . Now you talk about how other nations spend less as a percent of GDP which is true. They do that by maxing out how much care one receives. In the US we have higher access to advanced care, that is one reason why costs are high. Other nations limit how much care you receive. So you have to consider that.
2
mister.T Jr , except I am the one who provides evidence from experts and details. Bernie just says "it is cheaper" and "everyone is covered" but zero details.
2
@mathunit1 , because I challenge them.
2
@youandyourmusic , I gave you an example of when the US tried, at the federal level, get involved in a portion of healthcare. It failed.
2
@youandyourmusic , a bad example? Really? If they can't handle mental health how do you expect them to to handle all of healthcare? And other nations have many problems with their healthcare system as well.
2
@j_west7219 ,when the funds aren't there it doesn't matter. So you say "lack of funding" which means you admit a M4A system will cost more than the current system to be efficient. That is the point. You literally just admitted a federal government program will be more expensive.
2
@OGL iaDL , true. I just got one to admit that M4A will be more expensive than the current system.
2
@tim211292 , I never claimed that. I am pursuing a PhD which makes me know that I should seek our experts' opinions on this issue, not opinions from people like Kyle. That is why I cite experts when I argue this point and not just throw out numbers like Kyle does.
2
@tim211292 , no, I use it to let you know that I am not an expert, but I I point to experts. Meanwhile, you point to talking points like Kyle.
2
@hentaishugi4450 , on healthcare I recommend two books. One "In Excellent Health" and the other is "Being Mortal".
2
And then ask them if they experienced any other system. Most likely they haven't. So how can you take their word so serious? Plus, I met plenty of Canadians who hated their healthcare system.
2
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , I love how strong I have become that I had someone created a troll account. Instead of coming at me with a solid argument you just troll.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , you have zero proof that I lied.
1
@youandyourmusic , in the US healthcare reform is challenging as well. So it goes both ways.
1
@j_west7219 , you did. Underfunded means that it will cost more. That is why these federal programs end up costing more than expected.
1
mister.T Jr , Medicare is losing money, they admitted it. Robert Reich is a hack. There are many deceptive things he has said. If you want me to give examples I can. You saying you want me to die slowly shows you have no actual argument. But hey, go with it I guess.
1
@JohnnyCageRock , I have given you real answers many times.
1
A Volcel , the US has failed many times in federally ran programs.
1
@Tom-it6gi , saying other nations do it is not an argument. They have vastly different cultures and even their systems have short comings. Also, coverage does not equal access. We can "cover" all on paper, but that does not mean they have access. "People in insurance jobs mostly won't have to move" What do you base that off of? In the government jobs are contracted thus chances are they will have to move. Why do you want to force people to do things they don't want to do?
1
@aikohuyse3118 , many factors outside of healthcare influences life expectancy. Yes, care is maxed out in other nations. They simply refuse to offer many advanced testing. That is why survival rates in advanced illnesses are lower in other nations. The CMHA was a failure because the federal government did not predict the cost. So you have Bernie saying M4A will cost X amount. What makes you think he is predicting the correct cost?
1
@pointlesstwat8927 , yes, it is difficult to predict the price. This is true for most federal government programs which is why the federal government has such a large debt. Saying hospitals can save money is simply not true. Demand will go up but supply won't. They will have to raise prices.
1
@Olivia P , I have commented on that study. It actually shows cost will be higher. Read page 4 of the study (if you can read) and it gives both public and private spending.
1
A Volcel , I push for politicians to reduce the powers of the federal government and give more powers to the states.
1
@Olivia P , the study gave a range from $32 trillion to over $50 trillion. In the abstract it gave the $32 trillion as the conservative estimate and admitted that it will most likely be higher. Here "The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, the Medicare for All Act (M4A), would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018. This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022, rising to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and further thereafter. Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance." So no, the study does not say that. Also, it does not factor in quality and access. Medicare has a 40% less payment. With that access and quality will drop.
1
@Olivia P , again, you are giving the conservative estimate. Chances are costs will be much higher. Even the study says that. Did you even read the study?
1
@Olivia P , we pay the most because we receive the most care. We have higher access to advanced testing where other nations cap how much care you receive.
1
@aikohuyse3118 , it is maxed out. The US offers the most advanced testing for a reason. In other nations they give you essentially the bare minimum unless you see the doctor multiple times. The CMHA failed because it cost more than projected. So now I am supposed to believe M4A will cost as much as people like Bernie claim? If you cut healthcare payment to around 10% like other nations do then, like other nations, we will have limited access to care. We offer the most advanced testing. For example, we offer the most MRIs and CT scans per captia.
1
@Tom-it6gi , I hate the insurance industry, but I feel M4A is worse and is also being pushed on misinformation and deception. I come here and give detailed answers on this issue and people like you claim I am being paid. Goes to show how shallow the argument from the left is. Saying other nations can do it is a poor argument. They are smaller, less diverse with different cultures. Read the book "Debunking Utopia" where the author there outlines how culture is why those programs work so well. And sure, their system may cost less, but again, they cap how much care they receive. In the US they throw everything at you. We have the highest access to advanced care compared to other nations. That cost money. Yes, people will be forced to move as different contractors will demand that. If not then why did that study list that as an expense?
1
@aikohuyse3118 , it is maxed out. Read the book "In Excellent Health" by prof. Scott Atlas. He outlines how the US offers more advanced care. In the US they throw everything at you. Other nations max how much care you receive. The federal government is bad at predicting costs of these programs. This is especially true for healthcare as you can't predict many things such as how much care people will pursue, how long they will live, how the market will react, etc. Medicare as is is running out of money for that reason. You say hospitals charge more, what is going to stop them from charging more under M4A? You are now literally admitting M4A will cost more than the current system.
1
@Olivia P , we have better outcomes when it comes to survival rates in advanced care. What "studies"? Also, every "study" I have seen gives a very wide range of costs as you can't predict these things. Based on history M4A will cost more as the federal government is very poor at managing a budget.
1
@pointlesstwat8927 , supply of healthcare resources such as doctors, medication, nurses, etc. So with increase in demand but supply not increasing cost will go up. That is very basic economics. No different than Obamacare when Jonathan Gruber said it will cost less but it was exposed that he admitted it was an economic fallacy to force people to buy a product and expect it to cost less. How should we trust the government now?
1
@PunchUp01 , I have commented on that study. The conservative estimate was around $32 trillion when they had numbers of over $50 trillion. I doubt you even read the study.
1
@hitreset0291 , lack of profit means no growth and production. That is why Medicare took over 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits.
1
Healthcare is very complex. You can give many questions related to M4A and get different answers in the polls. On the choice option, what if a lot of people go to one doctor that they have to refuse care to some? Now my choice of a doctor is gone. But leftists ignore that point.
1