Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Biden: Medicare For All Wouldn't Help Us In A Pandemic" video.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prophet , you may not have said it but others have. So it is funny to see the excuses ensue.
As for Bernie being balanced, I question that. He just repeats the same things over and over again no matter how hard people push him to get into details on his radical ideas. Either he shouts talking points or rhetorical questions.
"Politics to you is a sports game. That's why you're a sociopathic moron. "
No, I want the best candidate to win,not a crazy communist.
"People rationalizing their medication is not crazy for you."
It is, but under M4A rationing will be worse and not by choice but with the federal government saying. Also, Bernie not only wants to expand healthcare to US citizens but even illegals. You don't think that will lead to massive rationing?
"The demonization of immigrants and minorities is not crazy for you. Children being forcibly separated from their parents who have been deported is not crazy for yo"
People have a problem with illegal immigrants as they should. Also, kids separated for two reasons. One, when you break the law you lose your kids. That is true all across the nation. Next, many illegals are using kids to gain entry into the nation when they are actually drug dealers abusing the kid. Thus they are separated and it is determined if they are the kids' parents or not. There is actual logic to it.
" More and more people losing their homes is not crazy for you. The environment being constantly polluted is not crazy for you. "
Who is losing their home? And pollution is dropping.
The issue is that Bernie and his fans live in a bubble and refuse to actually discuss the issues. You are doing what Bernie does, just say talking points with no actual details. Again, as I said, people had years to look at Bernie's plans and they are realizing that what he is saying is not really a major problem and there is a lot more complexity to it. As I showed you in that study about wealth inequality. Just screaming "wealth inequality" does not paint the whole picture. Same with everything else you just said. On children being separated, there is actual logic there. It isn't just happening out of spite.
"You're so stupid that your specific definition of far left economics is centralized, radical change with a far left idea."
They are far left ideas. Pushing to completely dismantle our current healthcare system and going to one payer, Medicare, is radical in a nation of 320+ million. Pushing to end all of fossil fuels is not only illegal but radical, especially with having the federal government overtake the energy sector. And Bernie's ideas are pushed on misinformation. As I showed you on wealth inequality, there is a ton to it. Same with an issue like medical bankruptcy, as the paper entitled
"Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies"
They write
"But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems."
That study was published in 2018. You see, people did what Bernie wanted and looked at the issues he wanted. Doing so is placing a lot of doubt in Bernie's ideas. Sorry that when one looks closely at these radical ideas they produce a result you don't like. You can choose to ignore it but it does not change the reality.
"nd now you backtrack by making up an excuse of leftists will say Sam won no matter what and that'll hurt your ego. "
Never said it will hurt my ego, I don't see why should I waste my time. With you I am literally giving you studies to place doubt in Bernie's ideas and talking points and you just ignore them. That is my point. As I said, many people have looked at the ideas Bernie is pushing and what is coming out is a lot of doubt. Same with looking at Scandinavian nations. People looked at that as well and revealed they do things completely different than what Bernie wants. Bernie, in fact, does not want to follow their model.
Again, sorry you live in a bubble but reality is that Bernie's ideas are radical, people exposed them and he is losing to a guy who does not even know who his sister is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onnol917 , on that 40% what are their benefits? What is their money management situation like? How easily to the have access to loans? You can't just throw a number out there and expect it to mean anything.
You see, this is why the far left is losing. I give credit where credit is due, Bernie did get people to talk about issues like poverty, healthcare, college tuition, etc. Problem is when people looked into them they came up with results that goes against his talking points and creates doubt in his ideas. Bernie and his fan base does exactly what you just did, give out a number with no other context and proclaim things are bad. However, when you did deeper you find out they are not as bad as what Bernie and his fans claim.
I give you an example. Bernie screams about wealth inequality. On the surface it may seem bad, but a study was published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, one of those academic journals used in colleges and university, entitled "Measuring Inequality". There they said this about wealth inequality
"There are a number of challenges, however, in using wealth to study inequality. First, it is illiquid, so it may not give a clear reflection of one’s immediate access to resources. Second, the easily measurable components of wealth—like financial wealth—are incomplete. Take, for example, a student. In many cases their student debt will outweigh their other financial assets, and so they will have negative financial wealth. However, we would not typically say that they are in a worse position than never having studied at all. The reason is because the student has taken on debt to accumulate human capital, which is valuable as a means to increase lifetime earnings but not typically counted as wealth. Policies designed to reduce wealth inequality could therefore have many undesirable consequences, not least redistributing away from people with zero assets towards those with negative assets. These issues could be addressed by valuing human capital, but this is difficult to do. And if we are going to include university education as an asset, then what about other forms of human and social capital, such as charisma, coordination, health, or one of many other personal assets that can have material worth? Or collective assets, like public schools, hospitals, pension funds, and sovereign wealth funds? Ultimately a comprehensive calculation of someone’s wealth is very difficult to measure."
That paper came out in 2019.
On the issue of "underinsured", how many are by choice? And define "underinsured". How many are young and don't need a lot of insurance right now? Again, more context is neeed.
"And you throw a book at me to supplement your argument? You want me to read a whole darn book? Cite some data, its like a christian telling me to read to bible to find proof for God. Your claim your burden of proof."
Not comparable and ironic. To start, these books are by experts. Next, I find it ironic how the group that wants "free college" to "educate" people refuse to read and analyze things on their own where I do. This is where I say that becoming educated is on your. Apparently you don't want to read books and rather have things spoon fed to you. No wonder you can't go beyond talking points.
As for stats a few things. One, ever read the book "How to Lie With Statistics"? Required reading for all stat majors.......oh.....wait......you don't read books. You rather have things spoon fed to you. Basically it outlines how you can take stats and create any story or conclusion you want. So just saying "give me stats" is a very flawed argument. I, and others can take the same stats you have and use them against you. For example, the point on wealth inequality I just cited. Next, ever head of Bloom's Taxonomy? Simply citing stats or facts is the very low rung on the Taxonomy. The higher you move up the more you look at facts and stats in a deeper way. You just citing stats places you at the bottom. Me citing experts and going into details places me higher up.
The more I talk to Bernie fans the more I realize they just want to be spoon fed everything. Rather sad. I find it ironic as you support college education when it was college that I learned how to read and analyze material from experts and not just have things spoon fed. I recommend you read more books.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onnol917 , you are far left. Here is how
1. You claim there is some major problem
2. You claim the solutions are easy and without consequence
3. You claim they are popular
4. Anyone who opposes them are either ignorant, a bigot or corrupt
That is your base on everything thus what you do is distort the facts to fit your pre-determined reality.
You claim you read books but when I offer you books from experts you just dismiss them. And you do live in a bubble because I offer you opinions from experts and you just dismiss them. Your argument on 'counterstats" shows your ignorance on stats alone. It isn't about providing "counterstats" but providing a counter argument by understanding other variables exist. Again, using wealth inequality as an example. I won't deny a stat by Bernie on wealth inequality. What I argue, and so have others, is that there is a lot to it and just shouting "wealth inequality" as if it is extremely bad does not present the whole picture. One can easily argue it is not bad at all. And as for me saying people refuse to read and analyze things on their own, I say that because you just repeat the same talking points Bernie and other far leftists do. You are being spoon fed talking points where I take those talking points and look deeper. Again, this is why Bernie and the far left is losing so badly. People had time to look at their talking points and realize the issues they bring up are not as bad as the far left claim.
"This is how it goes. Many Americans can not afford an emergency up to 1000 dollars, many Americans are under- or uninsured with result in them not seeking care because the for profit healthcare and insurance industry will be price you above that 1000 dollars. Other western countries do not have this problem, there are plenty of stories out there of families driving their dying child to the ER themselves because calling an ambulance would bankrupt them."
Several problems with your argument. Again, in the 1000 dollar argument, that value is based on savings. What are their benefits? What is their access to loans? What access to charities and payment options do they have? You are taking one data point and running with it to the extreme as if things are bad when they arguably aren't when you look deeper. Again, you need to look at more variables. Same with the "under insured". What is their age? Younger people don't need as much insurance as they seek less healthcare.
Saying other western nations don't have the problem is 100% false. Other nations have plenty of problems related to healthcare. Amenable mortality is an issue in every nations. Other nations have lower survival rates in advanced illnesses because they deny care, particularly advanced care and testing. There are arguments to be made for and against that but that is the reality. A reason why other nations pay less in healthcare is because they offer less. As laid out in Prof Scott Atlas's book "In Excellent Health" the US offers the most advanced testing and thus have higher survival rates in advanced illnesses. Again, dig deeper. Sure, other nations don't face issues like bankruptcies in healthcare. However, they face problems as in lower survival rates in advanced illnesses and with longer wait times that leads to many physical, mental and financial problems for patients. As mentioned in the study entitled
"A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006"
They write
"Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers "
So yes, other nations do face problems in their healthcare system. This is another reason why you are a far leftist, you don't understand basic economics like opportunity cost. Sure, under M4A we may solve some problems, but others will arise.
"You question how they spend their money, fine but it does not adress the situation. You ask how and why are they under- or uninsured, fine but it does not adress the situation. You claim that many people have acces to great healthcare yet the situation I just described means in reality people do not have that acces. Why on earth is go fund me so full of people with medical bills?"
It does address their situation. You are acting like someone's person responsibility should not account for their situation. Why? So we should reward failure? Also, you ignore other points such as benefits and age. And what is wrong with go fund me? So charities are now wrong?
"But medical bankrupty, not calling an ambulance, avoid seeing the doctor out of fear for costs are not among them. How is that for "acces". You can easely compare Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK etc to the US' healthcare and see obvious flaws when it comes to "acces"."
As I mentioned above they deny care. They deny access to advanced testing. I will write another comment on the arguments for and against that, but that is the reality. For example, you have someone in their 80s who is very sick and what do those nations do? Drug them up so they die pain free. In the US we actually offer them care to keep them alive as long as possible. So yes, they do have limited access. I recommend you study this issue more if you want a strong opinion on it. You are just repeating what other far leftists say.
1
-
@onnol917 , here, let me talk about healthcare to show how shallow you are. As I said in the book "In Excellent Health" the US offers the most advanced testing in the world and we have the highest survival rates in advanced illnesses. Other nations deny access to those test. As I said there are pros and cons.
Due to the access to advanced testing our healthcare is expensive. Yes, it does lead to bankruptcies but a NEJM paper suggests that is around 100,000 a year. Now talking statistically here is that high? Maybe. Those on the far left will say yes and that M4A will end that. I will agree that M4A will make that number zero, but other problems will arise. Under M4A healthcare spending will be cut by 40% and thus the US, like other nations, will limit access to advanced care and thus survival rates of advanced illnesses will drop. Many will view that as bad, especially in the US where we have a society that is used to keeping the very sick alive as long as possible and value that. But there are counter arguments to that. As mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will live only an extra 5 or 10 months. So sure, we can keep someone very sick or very old alive longer, but when it is only 5 months, should we? Should we spend limited resources that way?
Also, many argue those tests are unnecessary. Giving the case of a teenage girl in the UK. She saw over 10 doctors for months for headaches. They said it was migraines. Finally one doctor scheduled an MRI but she had to wait 4 months. It turned out to be a tumor. She died. If she would have received that MRI sooner she would be alive. In the US she would be alive as she would have been offered that MRI sooner. However, a counter argument is that statistically chances were it was just migraines. And that sure, offering that test sooner would have kept her alive, but thousands or even millions of other cases the test is unnecessary. So do we want to spend limited resources that way?
A problem with the far left is that they one, don't understand economics, and two, refuse to have the difficult conversations, and three, have no skin in the issues they support and don't care how others have to pick up the pieces.
On point one you have economic issues like opportunity costs and the law of diminishing returns. With M4A sure, medical bankruptcies go to zero, but what other problems arise? The far left refuses to say. I do and I laid out some above such as limited access to care and lower survival rates.
On point two you just throw a stat out there and go to the extreme and claim your ideas will solve them. However, you refuse to discuss counter issues. As in healthcare someone will still suffer. Will our society accept letting that 80 year old woman die sooner, or deny access to advanced care where someone ends up having a severe illness and dies due to being denied care?
On point three the far left are not the ones working in the healthcare industry. You will pass M4A and then have the healthcare providers have to make difficult decisions, not you. Same in tuition free college. You will pass it and have college admin have to make the difficult changes such as enrollment, acceptance, scheduling, etc. The reality is you have no actual responsibilities. You have no problem pushing these radical ideas because you don't have any involvement in how they function. As Hickenlooper said to Bernie, he wants to throw out a radical plan and let everyone pick up the pieces.
From here I know your counter arguments will be to deny my points, say I am wrong and give more talking points. I will say this. This election should be a wake up call for you, but you are so lost in your bubble it apparently is not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattrogers6107 , it isn't that simple bud. To start, that 50,000 stat has been all over the place. One study says 61,000, another said 45,000, another 18,000 ,and another suggested that expanding insurance will not have a significant drop in deaths. Also, amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. So saying that 50,000 will disappear is based off of very little evidence.
Also, in economics there are two major concepts, one is the "law of diminishing returns" and the second is "opportunity costs". If we go to a M4A system one of two things will happen. One, it will cost a shit ton of money where everyone's taxes will have to go up, not just the rich. Or two, we allow to have it where Medicare pays 40% less than private insurance at which quality and access as we know it drops. Maybe that is the best route. One reason why we spend so much in the US is because, compared to the rest of the world, we offer the most care, especially advanced care. However, an argument can be made that is a waste. Take, for example, the case of a girl in the UK who saw over 10 doctors for months complaining about headaches and was told it was simply migraines. Eventually a doctor scheduled an MRI but she had to wait months. It was revealed she had a tumor that was caught too late and she died. In the US she would have been offered the MRI sooner and would have lived. However, an argument is to be made that, statistically, it was simply migraines and thus they denied the care. However, there is always the old "better safe than sorry" argument.
The harsh reality with M4A supporters is this, they refuse to have the very difficult conversations on something has to give. Sure, under M4A some issues we face may go away like bankruptcies and some deaths, but other issues will rise up such as people with major illnesses and the elderly being denied care and dying early.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kielweiss3606 , as for Bernie's poor performance, a large factor is that people have looked into his policies and a lot of doubt has been created. I give credit where credit is due, Bernie does bring up points we should discuss like poverty, healthcare, etc. Issue is that people have and they are finding a lot of doubt in what Bernie in saying. That is mainly how much are these things a major issue and is the solution really as easy as Bernie says? Well, a lot of people are saying no.
Take wealth inequality for example. Bernie screams it and on the surface it may look bad, but recently a study published in 2019 in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy entitled "Measuring Inequality" said this about wealth inequality
"There are a number of challenges, however, in using wealth to study inequality. First, it is illiquid, so it may not give a clear reflection of one’s immediate access to resources. Second, the easily measurable components of wealth—like financial wealth—are incomplete. Take, for example, a student. In many cases their student debt will outweigh their other financial assets, and so they will have negative financial wealth. However, we would not typically say that they are in a worse position than never having studied at all. The reason is because the student has taken on debt to accumulate human capital, which is valuable as a means to increase lifetime earnings but not typically counted as wealth. Policies designed to reduce wealth inequality could therefore have many undesirable consequences, not least redistributing away from people with zero assets towards those with negative assets."
So when Bernie starts yelling about wealth inequality and people had time to think about it they really don't see a problem. Same with all his other policies. You can blame fraud or suppression all you want but fact is that Bernie nor his fans have no actual arguments to convince people that their ideas are best because they can't go beyond talking points.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kielweiss3606 , so how will M4A create more teachers? And no, schools do not turn away qualified candidates. The reality is that Med school is very difficult. You have to know your shit because if you don't you get the situation of life or death. It also goes beyond knowing your shit, but you have to be able to handle the stress. Fact is very few are able to do it. No different than a lot of people can't do the natural sciences even though a degree in that field will earn you more money. I teach chemistry and physics and I see it first hand, people simply can't handle the material. So it isn't due to lack of space. It is due to them not having the ability to handle the work.
Care to link me those studies? Also, polling data if highly flawed. Depending on how you phrase the question gives different results. Also, as prof. Andrew Gelman said, polls are a snap shot, not a forecast. Opinions change when more info is given. If it poll so well why are supporters of M4A losing? Why did 80% vote against universal healthcare in CO?
And how am I constantly proven wrong? You say "look at studies" but don't provide them. You, like Kyle, say "polls" but yet people don't vote for the policies that supposedly polls well. And thus you keep making excuses as opposed to accepting reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kielweiss3606 , the free market has worked well. Capitalism is the best economic system out there. Prof. are paid very well. On the low end at the nursing program at my university they make around $90,000 a year. Most make 6 figures. Also, reading the article it once again brings up the concerns I have been saying, the supply is not there despite the demand being there. Even that article itself that there was a high demand in nurses. You said earlier that with demand going up there will be more jobs thus more healthcare workers. Except the demand in teachers in nursing programs is high but the number of teachers aren't.
Also, this is an issue that both being a college professor, especially in a professional field like nursing, and being a nurse are both very high skilled job. As I said many people simply don't have the ability to get an advanced degree in those hard fields. So naturally there will be a shortage. Think about it, only around 2% of the population gets a doctorate, and that is all doctorates including a PhD in history or liberal arts.
Actually many studies have shown care is denied. One reason why our healthcare system is so expensive is that we offer the most advanced testing in the world and have higher survival rates in advanced illnesses. Other nations cap how much care one receives which is why they have lower survival rates. I recommend you read the book "In Excellent Health" by Prof. Scott Atlas where he outlines that. We offer the CT scans and MRIs per capita for example. Now there are arguments for and against that and I will tell you a couple stories on that.
One, a few years back there was a UK girl who was 16 saw over 10 doctors over many months complaining about headaches. They said they were migraines. Eventually, after many months, one doctor scheduled and MRI but she had to wait three months. It was a tumor they got too late and she died. In the US they would have offered he an MRI almost immediately. However, statistically it was most likely migraines and not a tumor. So you run into the issue of better being safe than sorry and spending the money or denying care and playing the stat game of chances are it is nothing.
Another point is our elderly. Other nations do deny care to the very sick like the very old. In the US over 80% of people die in hospitals now where that number was much less a few decades ago. The trend is up according to the book "Being Mortal", required reading for our nursing students. In the UK, for example, the percent of people dying in hospitals has been dropping. Why? Because in universal healthcare system they just drug you up and have you die without pain. In the US we offer care to people keeping them alive as much as possible. But as that book said, people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will only live another 5 or 10 months. So it becomes an issue of culture. Yes, care is denied under universal healthcare systems. Medicare pays 40% less and that will make our spending in line with other nations at around 10% of GDP. However, like other nations we will simply have to deny care to people to limit it. Sure, we can keep giving care to the 80 year old woman which will cost a lot. Or we just deny care and tell her it her time. We can spend a lot of money and offer a lot of advanced care to people like we do now. Or we deny it playing the game of statistics that while yes, chances are there may be something worse, the chance that it is is very small.
You see, this entire issue is why I say the far left refuses to have the very difficult issues discussed. Sure, M4A has positives. It may take away the 100,000 bankruptcies a year, and it can give a portion of the nation less stress. But at what cost? If we have the same access and quality we do now it will cost a shit ton. If we cut by 40% access will be limited and so will quality. And now we get into the situation where we tell that old lady she has to go, or we deny advanced care to someone placing them at some risk. But is it worth it? As with that story of that UK girl, was her death worth it to stop bankruptcies? Again, you refuse to have that difficult conversation. You say care is not denied when it is.
"There is no reason for hospitals to randonmly/arbitrarily raise prices."
There is as demand increases while supply doesn't. Also, you keep going back and forth on supply. First you say we have supply, then you say we don't, but now you say we do? What is it?
On the article about financial aid and tuition, they are, one, talking about all aid where I said loans. Almost anyone can get a loan, grants are more restricted. Next, the graduate student who did research said he saw no significant increase in graduate tuition and community college tuition. Community colleges are designed to be cheap to take advantage of lower income students who students who struggled in schools. Graduate programs have the advantage of graduate assistants where their tuition is covered by the department they work in so very few graduate students actually pay tuition and thus don't need a loan. So you have to consider that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1