Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Study: Recessions, Poverty Are Literally Deadly" video.

@Robert Gomez, what makes you think that mental health will be solved by single payer? Look at the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. That was a federal program designed to help those with mental health but the issue got worse.
1
@Bmanritchie , how do you make mental healthcare more accessible? The federal government tried that in 1963 but it ended up making it worse. Also, mental health is very challenging to tackle as there is no quantitative way to measure it. It is very subjective. Many have mental health but don't even know it so they don't seek out help.
1
C W , I see that comment and I can understand why you are a child with no maturity and cannot develop an intelligent conversation. I know a lot about mental health because yes, I have one. I sought help and was given proper care to where I am fine now. During the discussion with my psychiatrist she brought up a great point, many don't seek mental health care because there is a stigma placed on society, for example, by people like you that use it as a way to berate and ridicule people. In reality, many successful and intelligent people have mental health issues. So congrats, you are a part of the problem. You push the stigma that people with mental health problems inferior and should be ridiculed. For now on I will just respond to your comments constantly reminding you how you use mental health problems as a way to insult people.
1
@Bmanritchie , the point is that the federal government tried to "fix" the mental health issue by having a big hand in it. As a result it made it worse. It ended up costing more than projected and many states just passed on the responsibilities to the federal government. It shows that when the federal government tries to get involved in something complex in an over simplified way many factors they don't account for show up and these programs cost more than expect. So simply saying that we can go to single payer and our mental healthcare will improve is too simple in a complex issue like mental healthcare, or healthcare in general.
1
@Bmanritchie , compare it to this. When Obamacare was passed Obama said you can keep your doctor. Turns out many lost their doctors. That was a factor he did not consider in passing that law. This happens all too often at the federal level.
1
@Bmanritchie 1. Yes I have. It is an example of how the federal government was trying to "fix" the mental healthcare issue at the federal level but ended up making it worse due to unplanned costs and barriers 2. Yes, that is the point. Too many people are overlooking other barriers. 3. Obamacare led to higher costs. Prof. Jonathan Gruber of MIT even admitted that they took advantage of the "useful idiots" of the American people to pass it. 4. Uh, police and fire fighters are ran and funded locally. If you want to discuss government policies you should know how government is ran to begin with. The federal government essentially has zero say in how police and fire fighters function. Heck, 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. This is not to be rude but if you want to have a strong opinion on these issues you need to know how government functions and that means knowing that police and fire departments are ran at the local level, not the federal.
1
@Bmanritchie , Obamacare was not a GOP plan. https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/ Uh, car manufactures can set their own price. Difference is that we have a free market system in cars. We don't have a free market system in healthcare. We have a heavily regulated and subsidized healthcare system. A free market system will, arguably, lower prices. I agree Obamacare gave insurance companies too much power which I oppose. A way to fix that is a free market system.
1
@Bmanritchie The policy I am referring to was the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. Maybe you should read my comments. No, the ACA was not a republican plan. The plan proposed by the republicans in the 90s was simply a proposal. It was never brought to a vote and many republicans disagreed with it. Saying it was a republican plan is grasping for straws. That is like saying democrats are racists because they created the KKK. It is grasping for straws. Did they come up with the individual mandate? Yes. But not the business mandate, not medicaid expansion, and it had no real plan to actually pay for these things. The regulations on the auto industry is essentially small compared to healthcare. Also, most regulations are local. The requirement to buy auto insurance is a state law, and that is only if you drive to begin with. Some areas require smog testings, others don't. The regulations go beyond the ACA. It isn't just the ACA that creates regulations. Issues like the payroll tax. You can read this https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
1
@Bmanritchie 1. I stated it a long time ago. 2. The individual mandate was a plan the republicans pushed in the past in response to Clinton's bill. But it was never put to a vote and it was not favored by republicans. Overall, though, you are citing one part of a large bill. That is similar to saying that republicans passed a bill that taxes citizens thus they support high taxes. It is far more complicated than that. 3. Those standards are very loose and as of right now they are not being enforced due to Trump. Even at that cars were pushing for fuel efficient cars already, the law is pointless. 4. I gave you a source that lists regulations, how about you read it. Also, healthcare is arguably expensive in the US because our quality is so high. I read those two studies, the second one argues Medicare for will be more expensive than what we have now, and the second one has many flaws and shortcomings.
1
@Bmanritchie 1.It is the second comment in this thread. 2. Again, you are pointing to one part of a large bill, that does not make it a GOP plan. 3. He rollback the regulations. Even at that cars were already pushing to be more fuel efficient, the law is pointless. 4. Uh, the study does not say that. It showed a cost and said chances are it will cost much more. Did you even read the study? I doubt it. The UMass study has flaws in that it assumes many things. For example, it admitted jobs will be lost and they just assumed that X amount of money is needed to retrain these people and give them new jobs. It does not factor in people moving, the changes in home prices due to changes in home demands, the psychological effects of children moving schools, etc. It treats people as pawns as if they have no emotions and also treats the economy as being stagnate as opposed to reacting to major changes. MFA will not save money unless you lower the quality.
1
Still waiting for this crash that Kyle keeps saying will come.
1
@vikrantpulipati1451 , there is more to it than that. Of course bad economies lead to higher suicide rates, but the question is what is the main cause? Was it the recession or a collection of things where the recession was the final straw?
1
@vikrantpulipati1451 , it is appeal to emotion. Kyle is using emotions to push his far left ideas. He is saying that if we don't establish these far left ideas people will die.
1
@vikrantpulipati1451 , true. But when Kyle pushes the idea that his policies are simply a matter of life or death, than that is appeal to emotions.
1
@vikrantpulipati1451 , the issue is that does not make an objective argument. How would his policies save lives? He does not say how. He simply say they would and if you don't support his ideas people will die. That is not an argument. Those nations are not necessarily smarter. They are not necessarily healthier or happier. And even if they were that is an issue of culture, not the system. For example, the US has higher obesity rates than those nations, that is due to our poor lifestyle choices. Creating a single payer healthcare system will not solve that. You claiming that ignorance and greed does not lead to an honest conversation. I agree. People like Kyle are ignorant. He completely ignores arguments on the right where their ideas are strong and can improve our nation. He, along with your, are ignoring several variables. Norway has 5 million people, so essentially no diversity compared to the US. That is, arguably, why they are "happier". Overall, the problem is that Kyle cannot argue his ideas objectively in details thus he pulls a pure emotional argument.
1
@yamiyomizuki , I can explain though. Take, for example, healthcare. A strong argument can be made that the reason why healthcare is so expensive is because of government involvement https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive So expanding government is not really a solution to me. Our for profit system does, arguably, provide us with better quality. Read books by Stanford prof. Scott Atlas on that, especially his 2011 book. And the argument that giving people access to healthcare will save lives is debatable. Kyle constantly points to the 45,000 deaths a year number where there are strong counter arguments to that. For example, Katherine Baicker argued that those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. The poor have higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. In her Oregon study published in the NEJM it was shown that when poor people were given access to Medicaid their physical health did not improve suggesting that lot of bad health is associated with bad lifestyle choices. Also, in the book "Being Mortal" the author there talks about how people point to modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live another 5 or 10 months. So if those 45,000 receive care and live another 5 months producing nothing and living in agony, is that a success? You also have to look at lack of resources. Creating medicare for all does not magically create resources. I can explain, most likely better than Kyle.
1
Most people are living paycheck to paycheck due to poor money management.
1
@miraprochazka4172 , most live paycheck to paycheck due to poor money management. Consider this, around 70 to 80 percent of lottery winners go bankrupt. Around 70 to 80 percent live paycheck to paycheck. There is a correlation. Also consider this. Think about all those people who buy coffee at Starbucks instead of brewing it themselves, or how they eat out instead of cooking at home, or how they drive to a place that is walking distance away, etc. Imagine how much money they can save if they cut out a bunch of little expenses like that.
1
@miraprochazka4172 , your anecdotal situation does not represent the norm. I live paycheck after paycheck essentially, well, very close. I am willing to admit that most people are poor money management skills. My situation is that I am willing to make a sacrifice to earn my PhD.
1
@miraprochazka4172 , define a "living wage". It is subjective. Also, out of full time workers who work year around only around 2% are poor. You are paid the market rate, it is one you to find a way to make a living. To me people living paycheck to paycheck is due to poor money management. There are two sides to it, though. One side is to save your money for a rainy day. Another is to spend it and have fun. Enjoy that Starbucks coffee. Enjoy eating out. One of my former colleagues received their Masters degree and, despite living alone, now lives in a two bedroom apartment as they have the money to afford it. They could have stayed in a one bedroom, but they simply wanted the extra space.
1
@miraprochazka4172 , "living wage" is subjective. If my co-worker has more expenses does that mean they should earn more than me?
1
@caracrabtree715 , ok, that is your anecdotal situation. That does not describe the norm.
1
@caracrabtree715 , $50K is not the poverty line. Also, out of those people what is the cost of living? What is their household income? What are their benefits? You need to include that. Out of those working full time jobs year round only around 2% are in poverty. If you want to go anecdotal I earn $23,000 a year, I don't consider myself poor. With the $400 unexpected bill, what do you mean? In many cases insurance can cover it. In others our nation is so wealthy that we can allow people to go into debt and pay it off later. For example, I had to pay $450 for my car to be fixed. I put it on the credit card and paid it off in a few months. You can't just throw numbers out there, you have to put them in proper perspective.
1
@caracrabtree715 , what? I don't deny that there is a good portion of people who earn less than $50,000 a year. But again, what is their cost of living? What is their household income? A teenager earning $5000 a year living in a house that earns over $100,000 a year is not poor. You have to put these numbers into proper perspective. Employers pay their workers the market rate.
1