Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "MSNBC Flops With Staggeringly Atrocious Questions At The #DemDebate" video.

Kyle isn't too bright. Democrats are divided on M4A. Also, one can frame M4A is a push for government take over in healthcare.
2
They are.
2
@Tyranastrasza , they are divided. You are not going to attract moderates with M4A. M4A is going to scare away moderates. I was talking to a democrat voter the other day and he opposes M4A as written. So there is a divide in their base.
2
That is the issue overall. Look at youtube. There are hour long videos of experts going into details of complex issues. And there are top 10 videos and cat videos. The views speak for themselves. People don't want to be informed, they want to be entertained. That is the market. We live in a click bait society now where intellectual thought is no longer sought out for. That is why politicians like Bernie and Warren are polling so well. They only have talking points.
1
@chaunceystewart9960 , true. Polls are completely unreliable in this case. They are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. As prof. Andrew Gelman said, polls are a snapshot, not a forecast. When more information is given opinions change.
1
@chaunceystewart9960 , also, the irony of Kyle citing polls. He complains about politicians who voted for war, but after 9/11 every poll showed that war was popular. So by Kyle's standard politicians were doing the will of the people.
1
Polls are unreliable.They are vague questions on complex answers being asked to non experts. As for stats, as the moderator said, democrats are winning purple areas by not running on M4A. And every attempt to establish universal healthcare at the state level failed.
1
As long as blue states are the only ones funding it then fine. Now consider how every attempt to pass universal healthcare in blue states have failed I doubt they really want it.
1
Obamacare was pushed on deception and misinformation. Because of that people are highly skeptical of M4A. Obamacare was supposed to save us money but didn't. So no M4A will? Why should we believe supporters of it?
1
Considering how all he does is yells talking points, why question him?
1
@MercerVerse , so? Anyone can write garbage. Doesn't make it good.
1
@parsonj39 , coverage does not equal access. Just because you are covered on paper does not mean you have access. Case in point, on paper in South Africa everyone has a right to a home. But homeless people exist there. My plan? The difficult part will be to change the mindset of the culture in this nation which is hard in a nation of our size. To me the issue is the payroll tax. Because of that businesses pay with benefits like healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage as they are tax free ways to pay employees. That creates problem with healthcare insurance. You have no say in your plan, and if you quit jobs you have to change. Also, healthcare insurance covers all of healthcare as opposed to unplanned, expensive situations. With no payroll tax businesses will pay with a higher wage and people can buy their own plans. That will force insurance companies to compete and cater to the consumer lowering prices and improving quality. That will allow people to get insurance when they are young and healthy with no pre existing conditions. They can change jobs and keep their plan. Also, a lot of healthcare can be paid for out of pocket which will also lower prices thus insurance will cover unplanned, expensive situations like car insurance or home owner's insurance does. There will be some people who still can't afford it so at the local level they can establish programs to give access to the poor such as local charities or local government programs. Just bear in mind they won't be strong. I used a government funded source for an STD check up. It took 6 hours to do. I used my insurance a year later and went to a private source, took me 30 minutes. That is my plan. And again, coverage does not equal access.
1
@trolltothebank , same with M4A.
1
@lapiz4azulli Do they have better outcomes? The US does many things better than those nations. Saying they have "better outcomes" is very vague.
1
@lapiz4azulli , ok, so your anecdotal evidence is sufficient in this complex issue?
1
@lapiz4azulli and i read a ton of studies
1
@lapiz4azulli , they do reject Bernie's plan. Every attempt to establish universal healthcare at the state level has failed.
1
@lapiz4azulli , now you are playing the whole corruption card. In CO, a left leaning state that voted for Bernie, 80% said no to universal healthcare. Also, is it propaganda? Or is it legit concerns? Bernie pushes M4A on a lot of deception and misinformation. But why do you give him a pass?
1
@lapiz4azulli , to start, just because something is popular in the polls does not mean it is the best option. Consider that the war in the Middle East was popular at one point. Next, you are making excuses. M4A was a big deal in 2016 and 80% said no. As for corruption and lies, both sides do it. Bernie is pushing M4A under a lot of misinformation an deception, but you don't call him out on it. And where is your evidence that more voters will vote yes on universal healthcare? I agree the insurance being tied to the job is a problem, but that is because of the payroll tax which the political left created and wants to expand. Also, our culture have become so used to that situation, and many enjoy it, that it will be hard to change. Many do like their healthcare insurance. I am all for healthcare reform, but I have not seen a convincing argument that M4A is the answer mainly because those pushing it are being very deceptive and are not honest.
1
@lapiz4azulli , that 50% stat is very misleading. To start, what is the cost of living where they are at? Also, that does not include benefits. And what is their household income? If someone earns $20,000 a year but have a spouse that earns $120,000 a year, are they in bad shape? So you can't just throw a number out there and expect it to mean anything. This is a problem with far leftists. They throw a number out there and try to make a strong appeal to emotion argument with it. It is weak.
1
@lapiz4azulli , I read sources from experts. I don't listen to the news. Bernie only appeals to spoiled people who refuse to work.
1
Actually the deficit, in terms of percent GDP, is normal compared to previous years. So it isn't really an issue.
1
@usfdave10 , we aren't printing money.
1
@usfdave10 , I know what a deficit is. I agree that debt is a round about way of printing money. But as a whole it isn't printing money and does not actually increase the money supply. The Federal Reserve does that. Also, in a lot of ways debt is good for the economy. It deals with the inverted pyramid. A lot of major companies have debt. Now the difference with major companies and the government is that a company's quick ratio will be higher than one (along with other ratios showing they can pay off their debt). Right now the GDP is less than the current debt which is a problem. But when a credit rating source lowers the credit score of the federal government, they sue them.
1
It will cost votes. M4A is being pushed on deception and misinformation. Last healthcare reform was pushed this way as Obamacare. Many people still remember that. This push for M4A will not go well.
1
@kyle9401 , doctors will deny care at that point.
1
@samuelvibritannia4831 , saying it "works" in other nations is very vague. Works how? Other nations face many shortcomings. And what metrics? The US does many things well such as more R&D, more access to advanced testing, higher survival rates in advanced illnesses, etc. As for doc to patient ratios, they have a lot of general practitioners, but lack specialists.
1
@samuelvibritannia4831 , so when Obamacare failed the answer is more government? This is why people are skeptical of M4A. So when problems arise with M4A what will be the solution then? Many people still remember the mess of Obamacare. The deceptions, the corruption, the lies. Good luck convincing people that M4A is the solution now. Remember, Obamacare was supposed to lower prices as well. That was the message sold to us. Why should we believe M4A will be cheaper?
1
@samuelvibritannia4831 , those nations are starving for specialists. When you look at advanced care the US is superior. We are also superior in R&D. Where we struggle is in the prices and in the fact that some people are not covered. But even at that the ER cannot deny you. If you get cancer you have a higher chance of surviving in the US. People die in every nation because of shortcomings in the healthcare system. To make money in the free market you have to actually provide a good and service. If you don't no one will buy your product. We pay so much for two reasons 1. Many government regulations 2. We offer more advanced care. How does the free market fuck me? Also, I don't feel the government is completely evil. I feel it should be limited in power and controlled. Tell me, why do you want this corrupt government in charge of your healthcare?
1
@Bobgo27 , you just described the far left like Bernie.
1
@ottoernst3735 polls are unreliable. They are vague questions on complex issues asked to non experts. On the surface they may support it. But when you add in things like higher taxes, lower accessibility, losing private insurance and so on, support drops. Besides, just because it polls well does not make it great. The war in the middle east was popular at one point. As prof Andrew Gelman said, polls are a snapshot, not a forecast.
1
@ottoernst3735 , does it harm people? One can easily argue that M4A harms people. The problem is that when told the facts on single payer it becomes very complex, which is why the far left never does tell the facts. They leave out a lot of information. Under M4A accessibility will drop.
1
@ottoernst3735 , accessibility will drop. Coverage does not equal access. You will be adding 30 million to the system without increasing supply. Thus access to healthcare will drop for many. And how things are rationed will be based on the size of the government's wallet.
1
@ottoernst3735 , do they have better outcomes? In what ways? The US is superior in R&D, access to advanced care and survival rates in advanced illnesses. Other nations have many problems they face. Saying they have better outcomes is vague and really there is nothing to support it. Again, coverage does not equal access. You need to understand that. And waiting long times have been shown to have more harsh effects.
1
@ottoernst3735 , read the book "In Excellent Health" by Stanford Prof. Scott Atlas. He outlines how we have superior outcomes in advanced illnesses and better access to advanced testing. For example, we offer more MRIs and CT scans. Wait times are longer. Read the paper entitled "A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006" Where 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" Also read "Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence " Where they write "wait lists are more likely to be found in public systems. This is because universal access to care, when combined with the government's desire to control health spending, can mean that the supply of treatment does not meet demand." You talking to other people does not represent the norm.
1
@ottoernst3735 , periods bud.
1
Fair point.
1
Ok, now who will be in charge of that? Who will decide what is true and what isn't? Government can lie just as easily.
1