Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Hospital Charges Family $18k After Giving Baby Bottle Of Formula" video.

  1. Fire and police are nowhere near as complex as healthcare.
    4
  2. Futa Nari, crony capitalism is the result of big government.
    3
  3. Arguably we do.
    2
  4. Lisa, the legal system is complex and that is why we have lawyers. The police department isn't.
    2
  5. Jared, with your colorful language I can see you are not mature enough to discuss something as complex as healthcare and economics.
    2
  6. Little things like this cost this much because it makes up for the difference for people who receive care but cannot pay. Healthcare is expensive. There are a large group of people who receive healthcare for nothing in the US, so the offset is paid for by this. A Medicare for all system would be worse unless you want to lower the quality.
    1
  7. Kyle is clueless when it comes to research.
    1
  8. Lunar, that ranking is arbitrary. If you think it is legit to compare use to a country like Malta you are easily fooled.
    1
  9. Count Deku, we offer more advance care which is why we are number 1 in cancer survival rate and offer the most CT scans. We are number 1 in R&D and technology. The main problem is cost which 1. You get what you pay for 2. Many government regulations increase the cost Other countries have many shortcomings with lower quality care and restrictions in what they can actually do. Up to 7000 people in Australia die waiting for "elective" surgery. Now am I saying the US does have the best? No. But one can make an argument that we do.
    1
  10. Count Deku, this video does not disprove anything. Kyle repeats the same talking points that have been challenged a lot. You can't say who is the best as the numbers are too close. There are several factors that influence the data. That is why any healthcare ranking is arbitrary. It is the same as university rankings. Which is better? MIT or Standford? Well, it all depends and in the big picture neither is. You are asking an question that no intelligent person would ever give you a straight answer to.
    1
  11. Count Deku, things like formula cost a lot because many people go to the ER and cannot pay. So healthcare providers charge a lot for little things like formula to make up for those cost. We basically have socialized healthcare already by the fact that the ER cannot turn people away. So healthcare providers charge other people more. If we had the government pay for it than it would be worse as more people will use the system causing healthcare providers to charge even more. If they don't charge more they lower the quality. The simple fact is this. Universal healthcare does a great job and covering the very poor in getting them care they would not be able to afford. But as a result the very sick suffer. That is why you have longer wait times for "elective" care where up to 7000 people die a year in Australia for "elective" surgery, or people die in Canada for "elective" heart surgery, or people become worse off waiting for "elective" care in New Zealand. Yes, poor people get covered, but the really sick and really hurt suffer. In the US the really sick and really hurt get great care at a fast rate. However, the very poor are not "covered" unless they go to the ER. Is that bad? Well it depends. The very poor tend to be less healthy with higher rates of obesity and smoking, both self inflicted. So a lot of their problems are their fault and we do not want them weighing down the system. Resources are limited. In every system someone suffers. Universal healthcare is great for very basic care, but sucks for advanced care. The US system is great for advanced care, and can be affordable, but the government added too many regulations. Pick your poison.
    1
  12. Lauren, healthcare is complex. Even in countries with universal healthcare systems it is around 10% of their GDP. Healthcare involves workers who spend years in school and residency and has diseases that evolve with new drugs coming out because of that. You have unique situations with people which is why many drugs are available. The administrative cost is a myth. It is lower in Medicare because Medicare can pass situations like fraud prevention and disease awareness to other agencies in the government. Also, if you were to look at cost per patient private insurance pays around $453 per patient in administration cost where Medicare pays around $509.
    1
  13. Uchiha, insurance companies cover the cost to which the consumers do not care how much it cost at that point, so healthcare providers raise the price. Also, so many people visit the ER and cannot pay so healthcare providers charge high prices for little things like this in order to make up for the cost of people receiving healthcare and not paying. If you create a Medicare for all system this situation would be worse as now even more people will be using healthcare but pay nothing in taxes. So healthcare providers will have to raise prices even more.
    1
  14. Uchiha, that is not an argument.
    1
  15. Matt Schilling, I don't see police officers going to years of medical school and residency to become cops. To become a cop is much easier than becoming a doctor. The research involved in medicine is complex due to how little we know about the human body and the evolving diseases. That is why healthcare is much more expensive than the police departmnet.
    1
  16. Matt Schilling, 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. How many doctors volunteer?
    1
  17. bernman23, so ignoring the other side is your solution? That is not progressive at all. Also, Sam "uh uh umm" Seder is a buffoon. There is a reason why many leftists never debate people on the right. And no, Seder taking random callers is not a debate. I mean doing what Ben Shapiro does and go on leftist shows. Just living in a bubble.
    1
  18. Futa Nari, you have not provided anything to show that universal healthcare is "objectively better". There are many reasons why other countries do it. But as a whole their systems are not better than the US system. Are they worse? No. They do many things well. But they are not better. You are simply dismissing my side of the argument because you have none.
    1
  19. Phil, if you get robbed the police take their sweet time getting there and never solve the case. So if you want to compare healthcare to police if you make healthcare public than they will take their sweet time fixing you and you might not get fixed.
    1
  20. Futa Nari, how do you know they are foreigners? Also, go to other videos and you have foreigners who despise universal healthcare. And by recent elections it seems that US citizens like their healthcare system.
    1
  21. CA does have Medical......hmmmmmm
    1
  22. Futa Nari, that ranking is arbitrary. Do you even know how they developed it? I doubt it, you just blindly follow it. It compared the US to countries like Malta. If you think that is valid you are easily fooled.
    1
  23. Matt Schilling, I do know what I am arguing.
    1
  24. Futa Nari, Colorado placed universal healthcare on the ballot in 2016. Close to 80% said no to it in Colorado. Colorado is a blue state that voted for Bernie in the primaries. 80% of the voting population there does not want universal healthcare.
    1
  25. Matt Schilling, care to give examples? You saying what my arguments have does not mean anything. You have to point out what I said and why it is a logical fallacy.
    1
  26. Matt Schilling, what false premises and nonsequiturs? I never said complexity leads to skyrocketing of prices. I am saying that the fire department and police are not as complex as healthcare. I guess I was not clear but what I am saying is that you cannot compare healthcare to police and the fire department. I don't see doctorates working in the police and fire departments. Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. How many volunteer doctors are there? The number of volunteer fire fighters shows how simple it is compared to healthcare and the fact that they work for free keeps prices low. Other countries face many shortcomings with lower quality of care. Again, we offer more CT scans than any other country. We are number 1 in cancer survival rates. You are look at other countries and only costs and nothing else. You can't do that. Healthcare is too complex. Doctors spend over 8 years in college studying to become doctors for a reason. Med schools have a less than 50% acceptance rates. I am not saying the US system does not have problems. He does. But the problems lie in the fact that we do not have a free market system. We have a for profit system with many government regulations that jack up the prices. And our society refuses to accept lower quality of care. If we were willing to accept the quality other countries have than healthcare would be cheaper. Fact is this, healthcare is complex. Simply looking at the price is only one piece of the argument.
    1
  27. Matt Schilling, compared healthcare to the police department and fire department is a logical fallacy in itself.
    1
  28. Gehrig75, people die in other countries due to the shortcomings in their healthcare systems. They have problems as well.
    1
  29. D. San, police is nowhere near a complex as healthcare. Yes, forensic is difficult, but it is not as dynamic as healthcare research. Look at how many diseases we do not have cures for. Look at how many illnesses we have many drugs for because a illness can depend on an individual case. I am seeing a doctor right now for a situation and they are giving me one medication. If in a few weeks nothing works they will try another. Or it could work. We don't know because in healthcare it is hard to do many tests due to limitations in what we actually know. Forensic, investigation, law, etc. are pretty well established. Yes, it is dynamic as well, but it is pretty well established. We keep pushing research in healthcare because many illnesses we have little idea how they occur. Healthcare is more complex.
    1
  30. Fuh Que, I don't get alerted when someone replies to these comments. Eventually I move on to another video, or I get busy. I do have a life and responsibilities. I do not recall you even calling me out. What was wrong with what I said in this comment thread? If it isn't hard to call me out than do it.
    1
  31. RandomGamer95, people die in Canada as well. What's your point?
    1
  32. Jonas Schall, read the book "The Business of Health". That is written by two professors who study health economics. If you are taking a health economic course right now and read these studies please list them, I would enjoy reading them.
    1
  33. Space Wizard, and.....? What standard do yo have to compare that number to? If you don't have it then it becomes an empty stat.
    1
  34. Andrew Westgate, I suggest you do some research. Other countries do not have a better healthcare system.
    1
  35. Andrew Westgate, people die on waiting lists in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery.
    1
  36. We don't have a free market system. We have many government regulations that led to this.
    1
  37. fl00fydragon, if AI replaces workers those workers can do other jobs which benefits society more.
    1
  38. Jared, it doesn't work like that. Insurance can be a part of the free market as well but isn't.
    1
  39. Futa Nari, if the government has limited powers than it can't be bought. Also, Shapiro said quid pro quo is illegal.
    1
  40. TheFallinhalo, I agree, insurance companies are a problem. Why? Because we have no free market to hold them accountable.
    1
  41. fl00fydragon 1. There is always demand for high skilled work. I do scientific research myself and we are backlogged with work to do and too few workers. When technology replaces one set of workers people go elsewhere. You failed basic economics 2. You have no clue what AI even is 3. What? 4. No. Crony capitalism requires government with power that can be bought.
    1
  42. Futa Nair, you have no clue what quid pro quo even is.
    1
  43. Futa Nari, small government does exist and exist well.
    1
  44. Futa Nari, you can only donate to super PACs bud.
    1
  45. Futa Nari, it is still speech. People have many ways to support a candidate. One is posting signs. One is dedicating an entire Youtube channel to a candidate, one is with donating to campaigns. Should Kyle be limited in how much air time he gives Bernie Sanders? He has more power than I do. Also, unions donate a lot of money to campaigns, Planned Parenthood does as well. But you don't complain about that.
    1
  46. fl00fydragon, wasn't Obamacare supposed to reduce prices?
    1
  47. Name And Address Supplied, it seemed like you are scared of opposition.
    1
  48. Paul, if our entire workforce is ran by robots then we live in utopia.
    1
  49. Testimonium Ignis, you are describing the inelasticity of demand that happens at times in healthcare. That is what insurance is for. There are situations where you don't have time to shop around for the best deal, you take what you can get. Insurance is there to cover for that. Issue is that we do not have a free market system in insurance. Government regulations create the situation where many people rely on their job for insurance and can't shop around. Also, if they change jobs they have to change plans where at an older age they have pre-existing conditions where an insurance company will deny them. We need to create a situation where people can shop around for insurance and allow insurance to be insurance and not healthcare. You do that then prices will drop and quality will improve.
    1
  50. Alexander, N. Korea has universal healthcare. See how easy it is to make asinine arguments.
    1
  51. Alexander, that ranking is arbitrary. It ignores cancer survival rates but uses "Amenable Mortality" despite the shortcomings. Read the paper "Commentary on "In Amenable Mortality-Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care-Progress in the US Lags That of Three European Countries" Many factors beyond healthcare influence those numbers. That makes those healthcare rankings arbitrary. Also, how is the "CommonWealth Fund" relevant?
    1
  52. Alexander, apparently you did not read the entire report "However, a previous literature review has demonstrated that there are several problems with using amenable mortality as an indicator. First, there is variability in the definition of 'amenable mortality', making it difficult to compile evidence for this measure" I believe you read the original piece. Read the title of the paper, make sure you are reading the correct one. So no, I did not prove your point unless that point was you can't read a title of an article properly.
    1
  53. Alexander, the CommonWealth Fund is a private organization, NASA isn't. It was developed by a business owner name Anna Harkness where looking into it I do not see her having any credentials related to healthcare. I don't see how they are credible at that point.
    1
  54. Alexander, the paper you read was "In Amenable Mortality-Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care-Progress in the US Lags That of European Countries" Read the one that starts out as "Commentary on "In Amenable....." It is a review of the paper you read. Again, look closely at the title. It is written by Faye Ramkissoon.
    1
  55. Alexander, what you linked me does not have a conclusion section. It ends by saying "Future research assessing its impact on amenable mortality, both in comparison to other countries and within itself, would be of great interest." Point being is that the data people look at has many shortcomings. Life expectancy is another one. Two professors showed that by removing car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Many factors beyond healthcare influence life expectancy. Infant mortality can be influenced by obesity. The US has higher obesity rates where obesity increases the risk of pre-term births which increases the risk of infant mortality. There is so much to the data beyond healthcare. That is why these rankings are arbitrary. The Commonwealth Fund, in their own study, admitted that the US is number 1 in cancer survival rates but did not use that in creating their ranking. Why? They do not say. They are selective in how they make these rankings. You call me an "uniformed person" when I was the one who pointed you to a piece of literature showing the complexity of these numbers.
    1
  56. Alexander, Elon Musk has a PhD in applied physics which can be used to engineering cars. Anna Harkness has no experience in healthcare and I do not see any credentials in the way of statistical analysis. I see a private citizen with an agenda. I ask again, how is the Commonwealth Fund credible? Two professors wrote the book "The Business of Health" breaking down the numbers in healthcare arguing that the US is no par with the rest of the world. I know their credentials, they have doctorates in the field where one is the chair of their department in Texas A&M. What are the credentials of the Commonwealth Fund? Here is another thing, I know how they developed their ranking. I actually read the methods, you haven't. You just blindly follow it. Why is it that it is questionable sources like the Commonwealth Fund that create these rankings but not sources from academics? Because people in academics know that these rankings are arbitrary and unreliable and can easily be discredited. Healthcare is very complex, limiting it down to a simple ranking is asinine.
    1
  57. Alexander, the red cross has issues as well. I like how you looked up their credentials, but that still does not mean they are not free from criticisms. Also, that ranking they released, who reviewed it? And why did they ignore the fact that US is number 1 in cancer survival rates? Fact is this, you are blindly following a ranking without question. That is an issue. I am not saying their work does not have value, but it does have many flaws. That is why it is released from the Commonwealth Fund and not in ad academic journal.
    1
  58. Alexander, I am not moving the goal posts, I am being an intellectual here. The fact is this, healthcare is complex. That is why I pointed you to that source. They admitted there are shortcomings in amenable mortality. They point to infant mortality and life expectancy where there are other sources that point to the shortcomings in those as well. As I pointed out, two professors wrote in a book the shortcomings of life expectancy. That source I linked you does bring into question amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality. They admitted to it. They had to pull out other data to try to justify a stance. Reality is this, healthcare is complex. Many factors influence those data points. The fact that you ignore that and blindly follow a healthcare ranking shows how uninformed you are. Why is it that these rankings never come from academic journals? Because every intelligent researcher in the field that is subjected to the peer reviewed process in academics understands that these rankings are arbitrary.
    1
  59. I love how you dismiss those two professors without justification. I have justified my stance. I also never said the "world is wrong". I am pointing out how there is a lot of variables that influence the data and when you break down the numbers the US is on par with the rest of the world in healthcare.
    1
  60. Alexander, it isn't about disagreeing with something. It is about pointing out the complexity of the issue. Healthcare is complex. You say I am dismissing empirical statistics. I am pointing out the reality that anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats to come up with any conclusion they want. Ever heard of the book "How to Lie with Statistics"? It is a very basic concept taught in stats that you can come up with many conclusions with stats. A lot of cost in healthcare comes from government regulations but also from our advanced care we offer and our R&D. Read the paper "How can we explain teh American dominance in biomedical research and development?" by Dr. Thomas Boehm. There he explains the US is willing to accept waste in order to develop more. Many drugs do not see the market for several reasons, but funds were spent to develop them. The waiting lines is not a talking point as there are reports on that as well. You dismissing it shows you have zero desire to actually read up on this complex issue. You have a firmly held, religious like belief on this issue and dismiss anything that counters that viewpoint. Up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. The waiting line issue is a legit concern. It isn't a "right wing talking point." If you want to play that game than all you have given are left wing talking points of costs and bankruptcy.
    1
  61. Fuh Que, there is value in having government, but we have to limit its power. Government can have the power to regulate companies, but the people should be able to regulate government. You do that by keeping government as local as possible. Also, most government regulations necessary are simply forcing companies to be open about their products so consumers are informed about what they are buying.
    1
  62. Fuh Que, up to 7000 people die a year in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. I know it is not black and white. If you read my comments I go deep into all the stats and have said many times the issue is complex. You clearly have not read my arguments.
    1
  63. Alexander, the fact that you completely dismiss any counter points, or felt that I was going to bring up "god" shows you have no argument here.
    1