Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Medicare For All Is Now Wildly Popular (u0026 Getting More Popular)" video.
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"They also did the same with gay marriage and weed once upon a time, things change pops. "
Weed and gay marriage are social issues that do not touch a person's wallet. Healthcare is with increased taxes and how their healthcare is ran. Many supported gay marriage and weed due to the fact that it does not touch their wallet or does not effect them at all. Having the government run healthcare does.
"No not true, cause both the republicans and the democrat parties are still and ave been for decades, beholden to the various entities and lobbies that oppose medicare for all..."
Kind of a reach there. 80% in Colorado said no. Every state that tried to set it up said no and those politicians still have jobs. The outcry by the public is weak. Even if the majority supports it they do not very strongly as there is no major push for it at the state level.
"This is a straw-man, yes it has happened but that does not mean it is terrible... ten times more die in the US becasue thy can't even afford to go to the hospital for anything let alone elective surgeries..."
Where you do you get that "ten time"? I feel you are making up a stat there. Also, my point was not a straw man. It is a fact. Now I would agree that does not mean it is terrible. At that point I ask you hold the same standard to the US system as, to me, the system is not terrible. I did not say the Canada system was terrible, I am simply pointing out is has flaws. So does the US. You saying the US has more flaws is based off of nothing.
"whenever Americans like to talk about our waiting times, i like to remind them, the only reason they don't have similar incidents is becasue at least half of the populace is too poor to even afford the insurance to go see a doctor let alone actually pay for any kind of surgery... "
There is more to it than that. With a for profit system there is a greater incentive to provide timely care. Also, the poor in our country have higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes, and smoking. The issue of the poor in the US isn't all about lacking access but also about the fact they are in bad health to begin with due to poor health habits. You don't need access to healthcare to know how to eat healthy.
"Well that's actually a good place for a debate on the issue. "
Maybe, but to me I feel I can spend my money better. Even if not I should be allowed to in my life. It is my money, my life and I should live it up.
"No such thing...not too mention a free market system if it actually was possibly and could wk (which it can't) would kill the insurance industry (there literally would be no need for it) and cause massive unemployment and job loss, isn't that right?"
Insurance is there to remove the inelastic demand for healthcare. To me most healthcare services can be paid for out of pocket. Routine checkups, getting an injury looked at that is not life threatening, pregnancies you can plan. You can shop around and force providers to compete.
Some cases require insurance. A major accident or an unplanned, major illness. Compare it to car insurance. Car insurance covers you if a tree falls on your car, but not for oil changes or new tires even though those are needed for a safe, and reliable care. Why? New tires can be budgeted and the consumer can shop around. A tree falling on your care means you have to fix it now. You don't have time, or the finances to shop around. Same with healthcare. I get routine check ups twice a year. I can shop around for that. But if I were to break my leg slipping on ice I need care now, I can't shop around.
The issue is that healthcare is a form of payment by employers for numerous reason that federal government created. As a result healthcare insurance becomes healthcare. It covers everything healthcare related. And the majority of the country does not shop around for care or for an insurance plan. Providers and insurance companies do not compete, and insurance covers all of healthcare which raises the price. There is no free market system.
Look at LASIK, it is free market and has become cheaper and better over time.
To say a free market system will kill insurance companies is simply not true. It will limit them, but not kill them. There is a need for insurance companies. And a free market system can work. What evidence do you have it won't?
1
-
1
-
"1212 is definitely enough for an accurate picture of public opinion when properly weighted"
No it's not in a nation of 320+ million people. That diversity is too large. Also, most of these polls, and this on in this case, are phone polls. Phone polling is very unreliable as you never know who you are really polling, you cannot see their expression, body language, etc., and you know very little about the individual. Someone can be very emotional on this issue which you cannot see in a phone poll.
Next, these polls do not get into details on how such a plan will be implemented. If you were to ask the same question on medicare for all but add "and taxes will be increase by X amount", the results would be greatly different. As a whole these polls are unreliable.
Universal healthcare will mean higher taxes, period. Even Bernie admitted that. People in the US will not support that.
1
-
1
-
Niklas, I understand the concept of sample size. I broke down to you why this doesn't work here. I will do it again. To start, 1212 people, to me, is very minute in a population of 320+ million people. You say it isn't and that it is simply a sample size. I say it is because you are dealing with a very diverse group of people with different cultures.
As I mentioned, if you were to disproportionately survey one group that will skew the results. As I said with surveying more people in the bay area will skew the results left. The methods mentioned about surveying people that are 18 and older. Say if over 50% of those surveyed are between the ages of 18 to 29, a group that leans left where the young have always lean left on issues. Now you have less than 50% making up the ages of 31 and up, a large range. That will skew the results left.
You major assumption is that you are treating everyone the same. That someone who is 22 is the same as someone that is 50, and the only difference is their idea on medicare for all. It goes much deeper than that. It you study statistics you would understand that. To add, as I already mentioned, these polling questions are vague and leave many things out. If one were to add the part of increased taxes to the question the results would be different.
Compare all of this to the Coloradocare vote. In there it was mentioned how much taxes would go up, that swung the results where 80% said no. Also, in Colorado that is a defined basis set, people of Colorado leading to a less diverse crowd.
I study science for a living and as such I look at issues at all angles. You are blindly following a poll of a vague question with limited details and claim that I have no idea what I am talking about. Doesn't matter. The direction of this country is clearly not towards medicare for all. It will never happen in our lifetime.
1
-
1
-
Niklas, read the methodology section of the poll.
"For the landline sample, respondents were selected by asking for the youngest adult male or female currently at home based on a random rotation. If no one of that gender was available, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult of the opposite gender. For the cell phone sample, interviews were conducted with the adult who answered the phone."
A major problem of phone polling data is that you cannot guarantee if that person is an adult. Also, why did they ask for the youngest?
The methodology did not mention about times they were called. Calling at a set time will remove a large portion of the population out due to work schedule. Your link even mentions that.
Next, it talks about weighing based on race, education and sex along with cell phone usage. However, it does take into account income level or career. Someone with a higher income and a more demanding career will not take the time to do a phone survey.
In stats you have variables that can change results. Even if you want to use the idea that 1212 respondents is a large enough sample size, you have to admit that many variables are left out and/or not clearly accounted for in the methodology section.
Again, as a scientist I look for these things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dezzz, the what makes the CommonWealth Fund a "real organization"? I read their study as well. Again, anyone can do a legit analysis on statistics and come up with any ranking. The CommonWealth Fund, like the WHO, weighs overall life expectancy high when many factors influence overall life expectancy. This is why you are not seeing any ranking from any academic source because as Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt said, they are arbitrary.
As for OECD stats, again, many variables contributes to those stats. Ever heard of the book "How to Lie with Statistics" or the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics"? I looked at those stats and once again many factors contribute to them. Yes, the US has high cost but a major reason for that is
1. R&D, the US leads the world in that
2. People are willing to do more advanced testing
Both of those lead to higher cost. As for "subpar results", nothing suggests that is true. The US leads the world in cancer survival rate. As I told you, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number one in life expectancy. Read the book "Debunking Utopia", there the author mentions how in other nations they simply have a healthier life style than use as in diet and exercising leading to longer life expectancy. It isn't just healthcare.
"YOU said that anyone can shift the studies to make America last OR FIRST. I’ve told you to show a study where that’s remotely true."
People who understand the issues that can do that don't because of one simple reason, it is a waste of time. Healthcare is a complex issue and those who are willing to reduce the issue down to an arbitrary and vague ranking are choosing to remain ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dezzz, you say "facts are the facts", that is very vague. You say "America isn't ranked ahead of their peers", again, I asked of you, based on what?
"Again, YOU claimed that ranking America first could be done. You are unable to point to anything reputable that backs up this claim because you're full of shit. "
I have. Take, for example, overall life expectancy. If you were to remove murders and car accidents the US is number 1. Weight that life expectancy at 50% like the CommonWealth Fund does, and add in cancer survival rate and our R&D and the US can be near the top if not number 1.
Now why doesn't anyone do that? Because of one simple reason, it is a waste of time.
I read the studies by WHO and the CommonWealth Fund. I have read the OCED stats. Based on your comments I doubt you have even done that. You are not even reading the studies you are pointing me too. Do you not see the problem here? You are blindly following something you now nothing about. Because of that you have a religious like belief in something.
You are responding to me because I am challenging your religion.
1
-
1
-
Dezzz,
"Again, this is an outright lie, the commonwealth fund ranks us far below our peers on the overall QUALITY of our care."
Based on what? Again, have you actually read those studies?
" I find it comical that you claim I haven't read it considering you're the one missing the entire point"
I read the methods, questioned them, and found them to be vague and arbitrary. You blindly follow them like a religion. You say this ranking ranks us low. Again, I ask of you, based on what? What were their methods? What were their limitations? Have you even read them?
"This is also hilarious."
Why?
"As I pointed out, even if we do not look at life expectancy, America is significantly behind our peers in the aforementioned categories"
Such as? Also, why do these rankings weigh life expectancy so high then?
"You have yet to put out any kind of finding that could rank the quality of our healthcare above our peers. "
Read that book. But again, such rankings are arbitrary and a waste of time.
"I know it sucks man, but you got to get over it. If anyone is religious, it's you. You are clearly an adherent to the religion known as Americanism. "
I actually support reforming healthcare. I just understanding the complexity of it. You are reducing this issue down to an arbitrary ranking from sources that are not academic and you have yet to reveal why they are legit to begin with.
1
-
1
-
"I just laid the categories out in which we are behind our peers. Clearly you're not reading my comments. "
I read your comments. What categories? I need details.
" You site a book by a rightwing think tank who's mission is fundamentally at odds with the single payer system. Even on reading the first bits of that book, its clear they don't back up the claim you made. No organization puts America first in the quality of its health. "
This book doesn't either. It shows the complexity of healthcare. Again, read this book and the studies you cite. Even The CommonWealth Fund admits flaws.
"This report has several limitations. Some are related to the particulars of our analysis and some inherent in any effort to assess overall health system performance.
First, as described above, our sensitivity analyses suggest that the overall country rankings are somewhat sensitive to small changes in the data or indicators included in the analysis.
Second, despite improvements in recent years, the availability of cross-national data on health system performance remains highly variable. The Commonwealth Fund surveys offer unique and detailed data on the experiences of patients and primary care physicians. However, they do not capture important dimensions that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Furthermore, patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their expectations, which could differ by country and culture. In this report, we augment our survey data with other international sources, and include several important indicators of population health and disease-specific outcomes. However, in general, the report relies predominantly on patient experience measures. Moreover, there is little cross-national data available on mental health services and on long-term care services.
Third, we base our assessment of overall health system performance on five domains—Care Process, Access, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Health Care Outcomes—which we weight equally in calculating each countries’ overall performance score. In the past some have argued there are other important elements of system performance that should be considered as well, such as innovativeness or value. After consideration, and based on discussions with our advisory panel, we decided not to add new domains to the report. We believe our current five domains capture a sufficiently broad and comprehensive view of health system performance. In addition, there was a lack of meaningful data to assess these new domains."
That is from the CommonWealth Fund's study itself.
"Uhhhhhh, the sources i'm citing are very academic"
Ok, from what university? The authors from that book are Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt from Texas A&M university and the chair of the of his department, and Prof. John Schneider formally of University of Iowa. So how is the CommonWealth Fun academic?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1