Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Rand Paul Travels To Evil Socialized Medicine Canada For Surgery" video.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philipnorthfield , healthcare rankings are completely arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and come up with any ranking they want. Do you even know how the WHO came up with that ranking? I doubt it. Also, it compares the US to nations like Malta, is that really fair? To take something as complex as healthcare and reduce it down to a simple ranking is foolish.
Politicians from other nations come to the US for care, it goes both ways. Those are individuals cases.
As for the 40,000 who die, that is a complex issue. To start, as Katherine Baicker puts it, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with those in poverty. There are higher rates of obesity type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of care or due to being in bad health to begin with? Also, people in that situation where they die that quickly typically have many health issues to begin with. Read the book "Being Mortal". In that book the author writes about how people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they will live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 40,000 receive care and live a few more months and than die, is that a success? Is it a success if they live those few months in agony?
I read a lot of literature on this issue, I bet more so than you and Kyle combine. This is why I can get into great detail in my arguments and you just point to a ranking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ponderingnugget , you really can't use amenable mortality to determine healthcare systems as there are many factors that influence them. Read the following study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823843
As for the 43,000 who die, there are many arguments against that. First, just because they have access to healthcare does not mean they will end up better off. Read the following study
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
When they were given access to healthcare their physical health did not improve because that is strongly dependent on lifestyle choices. Those 43,000 are poor and bad health is associated with those in poverty. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being bad health to begin with? Also, as was mentioned in the book "Being Mortal", people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when in reality they will only live another 5 or 10 months. So even if the receive care and live a few more months with many problems, is that a success?
Single payer will not save money. The studies you are pointing to make very vague and questionable assumptions. Also, the federal government is poor at managing these issues. Look at the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 and how it made mental health in this nation worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1