Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "MSNBC Concern Trolls About Medicare For All's Popularity" video.

Exactly. Maybe M4A is the best route. I don't think so but I am willing to concede. However, the far left is not being honest in what they are saying.
2
Because far leftists don't care about personal responsibility. The US is number 1 on obesity rates of OECD nations. Universal healthcare "works" in other nations for many reasons, that is one of them.
2
Uh, the question about getting rid of private insurance is legit. How many people would rather have their private insurance as opposed to Medicare?
1
@scottw9267 , 70% on a deceptive question.
1
@brandonm949 , still doesn't mean it is the best system.
1
Well, he is on the losing end. At that point he has no argument and can't admit that his ideas are wrong. This is normal. When people have a firmly held belief in something they will defend it to the max, think religion. What makes it worse is that Kyle's livelihood depends on it as his job is to run a show pushing far left ideas.
1
Not an argument. The US does many things very well compared to those nations.
1
@kosys5338 , Kyle does not understand healthcare. He simply throws out one stat and makes an appeal to emotion argument on it. He claims that other nations do healthcare better but provided zero evidence for that claim. Meanwhile, many experts will admit the US does many things well compared to other nations.
1
Ron Maimon , public schools are ran and funded locally. Also, public schooling is far less complex than healthcare and is not a life or death situation. Last I checked school teachers don't have to do 4 years of Med school and years of residency. Healthcare insurance can be done well privately. Problem is we do not have a free market system in healthcare.
1
@kosys5338 , drugs cost less in Canada because your R&D is essentially nothing compare to the US. I see my doctor every month and am on medication. Cost me $20 a month. What's your point?
1
@James Wheeldon , access to advance care and survival rates in advanced illnesses.
1
@burtosis , not true. The US excels in accessibility to advanced testing and survival rates in advanced illnesses.
1
@kosys5338 , why would I go to Canada? All your comment is now is you cursing and insulting. I take that as you don't have an argument now.
1
@kosys5338 , sure, they just die sooner. Canada has lower survival rates in advanced illnesses like Cancer. People in Canada also die waiting for "elective" heart surgery. I rather go bankrupt than die. "No Canadian dies because they don't have healthcare ever" 100% not true. Amenable mortality is an issue in every nation.
1
@kosys5338 , I actually answered your question. The fact that you don't feel that Canada experiences amenable mortality shows you cannot get basic facts straight.
1
@kosys5338 , read the paper entitled "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" They write "The waiting time intervals are subdivided into those designated by the surgeon as ‘urgent’ and those designated ‘elective’ at the time their names were added to the waiting list." Yes, certain forms of heart surgery are considered elective. Also, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare lists certain forms of heart and neurosurgery as "elective" . Again, you are denying basic facts bud.
1
@kosys5338 , also read the paper entitled "Delay in admission for elective coronary-artery bypass grafting is associated with increased in-hospital mortality"
1
@kosys5338 , why is it that it appears I know more about the Canadian healthcare system than you do?
1
@kosys5338 , be interesting to see how you respond.
1
Rebecca Brown , how am I a troll when I am giving peer reviewed papers on this topic?
1
@kosys5338 you quit because i gave evidence that you are completely wrong. Certain forms of heart surgery is elective. If you can't get basic facts straight how can I take you seriously?
1
Rebecca Brown , this is where far leftists like yourself contradict yourself. You want "tuition free college" where their source of information is directly from peer reviewed resources like the ones I posted. So you want to lead individuals to institution who's information is unreliable? A lot of peer reviewed studies are not highly funded. They do it simply out of carving out information for others. So if the whole system is corrupt why do you want to give it more power?
1
Ron Maimon , you bring up some good points. However, to start with the incentive. The issue we have in the US is that there is no free market in healthcare and thus no consumer power over insurance companies. If we had a free market system if an insurance company were to deny care they would not get any customers. Problem is that in the US we can't choose our insurance as we are dependent on our employer. As for the government determining life or death, it isn't that simple. It is very difficult to determine if someone is close to death many times. That is why many people die waiting for "elective" heart surgery as it is hard to determine the severity. Government decides based on budget on that point. In order to keep spending low they cap how much care one receives. Thus many diseases are not detected and people end up worse off or dying. As for advanced testing, one can argue if they are necessary or not. There are arguments to be made. But in the US we offer them and we end up detecting advanced cases. For example, in 2014 a 16 year old girl in the UK named Natasha was complaining about headaches. She saw over 10 doctors and they all said it was migraines. After seeing so many doctors she was finally given a chance for a CAT scan but had to wait 4 months. After the scan they found a tumor. Now chances are it was simply migraines, so they denied her care for such a long time. She ended up dying. Here in the US I have a friend who was complaining about the same thing. They immediately gave her a CAT scan and found a tumor. They did surgery and she lived. Here is the harsh reality. Universal healthcare is great for very basic care. It allows everyone to have a chance to receive some sort of very basic care. However, when it comes to advanced care it is terrible. Government simply won't fund it and thus providers won't offer it unless it gets to an extreme case. The US for profit system is great in that it gives more access to advanced care, but the very poor lacks access to any kind if care. So in the end either the very poor suffer or the very sick. Looking at both groups the very poor typically have bad health due to poor lifestyle choices. Should we give them access to care? It would be great. But resources are limited. If we give them access the very sick will lose access to care. However, when you look at the very sick and you read the book "Being Mortal", it is written there that people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live only 5 or 10 months. So if you give them access to care and they die in 5 months, is that a success? However, the same can be said about the very poor. They are in bad health due to poor lifestyle choices. Beyond genetic factors people just don't get sick. So with the very poor do we offer them care when they will continue to make poor lifestyle choices? At that point it comes down to a difficult game of statistics and morals. Resources are limited, something has to give, period. There is no utopia where everyone has access to high quality of care. The person I was responding to, kosys, does not realize that certain forms of heart surgery are considered elective because of that reason. Maybe M4A will be the best system. I don't think so but I am willing to concede. But right now it is not being pushed with honesty. It is being pushed on deception and misinformation. If this nation were to pass Bernie's M4A bill millions of people will be blindsided with things they did not know and will be pissed.
1
@aliciamontero7061 , what stats? Care to point me in a certain direction?
1
@aliciamontero7061 , data from the WHO has validity, but that is not the only source for data.
1
Ron Maimon , single payer is only better for the rich as the best care is priced to a point that only the rich can afford. In the US the vast majority have access to high quality of care. On your story, in other nations they would have avoided advanced testing as much as possible. In your case you are not representing the norm. In the US they would have thrown the everything at her in testing. That is one reason why the US system costs so much. Now is that testing necessary? One can argue either way. But that is how it is done in the US which is why in other nations people die waiting for "elective" heart surgery or neurosurgery. Advanced testing is denied them and doctors don't know the full severity. In the rest of your comment you gave nothing but anecdotes where I gave actual studies. Anyone can give anecdotes on both sides. I look at actual studies. Everything I read is exactly what I said. In the end someone will suffer. Why? Because resources are limited, period. Either the very poor, who are typically in bad health to begin with due to poor lifestyle choices, will suffer. Or the very sick. Take your pick. There is no utopia. Your comment is purely appeal to emotion with no objectivity. You claim M4A will be cheaper where the only reason why it will be is that quality will drop. And yes, lifestyle choices are an issue here. People just don't get sick beyond genetic factors. Stop eating junk food and you will be fine.
1
Ron Maimon , no, not everyone suffers which is why healthcare reform is so challenging. Define "elective supplemental insurance". To me a knee surgery is not elective. Getting an MRI to see if what I have is more severe is not elective. Bernie's plan is not well defined as it does not define "elective procedures". He claims it will be cosmetic surgery, but in reality it will be certain forms of heart and neurosurgery along with advanced care. You say my vision is evil is you making an appeal to emotional argument. In reality you are the one who is pushing for radical changes with zero details.
1
Ron Maimon , uh, not every one suffers. That is why healthcare reform is so challenging. Medicare has a 40% less payout rate. That means less money for healthcare providers and thus they will limit how much care one receives. Medicare is heavily subsidized by private insurance. Apparently Medicare is difficult for you to understand. Also, it is not efficient. For example, it took Medicare 40 years to cover prescription benefits where private insurance was covering it long before that. The US system does many things well. I just want to modify that, not replace it.
1
Not only that, but background checks already exist.
1
Each point 1. Medicare arguably does not have lower admin costs. For example, Medicare passes a lot of admin costs to the IRS and the CDC. 2. I agree, we need to remove the employer dependent healthcare situation. You do that by removing the payroll tax. 3. Coverage does not equal access. 4. The payroll tax leads to lower wages. 5. Cost control will be worse. If Medicare refuses to pay healthcare providers will refuse to serve. Thus the people will complain to the government causing the government ti spend more. 6. Again, removal of the payroll tax solves that 7. Uh, medicare has more fraud.
1
@brandonm949 , on the payroll tax employers have to pay a portion of it as well. Thus, if your employer gives you a raise they end up paying more in taxes. I feel the payroll tax is the dumbest tax ever as it is an incentive not to give out higher wages. Employers thus have ways around that. They offer stock options, healthcare insurance, a company car, etc. as ways to "pay" employees where it is not a wage. Thus it won't be taxed. If you remove the payroll tax employers will take the simple route of paying with a higher wage. When you by an insurance plan you force insurance companies to compete and thus you get a plan that is catered to you and is lower in cost. So in the end you benefit. You choose your plan, it will be cheaper, it will suit your needs, and if you quit jobs you can keep your plan.
1
@scottw9267 ,this is what makes polls unreliable. They are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts. When more details are given opinions change. Overall, M4A will fail in that people will be very confused and thus become highly skeptical.
1
When you only look at it as a moral one then you create a huge economic problem and end up blindsiding a lot of people on it. There is a huge economic argument to be made with M4A that people like Bernie are not presenting.
1
@Kazutoification , define "duplicate care". There lines the problem. Nowhere is it defined so who determines that on a legal level?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , what is it? What will Medicare cover exactly? I need details.
1
jerry flounders , that 45,000 stat comes from a Harvard study to be fair. However, there are flaws in that number. One, every nation faces amenable mortality. So is that 45,000 high, low, or average compared to other nations? We can't say as gathering data like that is difficult. Next, former Harvard Prof. Katherine Baicker mentioned that those 45,000 are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. So do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As pointed out in the book "Being Mortal", people seek modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live only 5 or 10 months. So if you give those 45,000 care and they die 5 months later, was that a success? The problem with the far left is that on these complex issues they take one stat and then run with it on a completely appeal to emotion argument. They don't dig deeper. They will say "45,000 die according to a Harvard study, gotcha". Meanwhile, other experts have other points as well that challenges that numbers, or at the very least places doubt in it.
1
jerry flounders , true. Richard Kronick from UC San Diego did a study showing that expanding coverage to everyone will not have a significant drop in deaths. 45,000 is around 0.01% of the population. Many factors play a role when talking about numbers that small.
1
So when more information is given opinions change? This shows how irrelevant these polls are. If people are this malleable should you trust these polls?
1
@tianamaycry , so we should still trust the government?
1
Or, do you support a M4A system where, with a lower payout rate, will lower quality and accessibility of healthcare?
1
Doctors will turn down patients or simply offer less care. You are correct which is why M4A is being pushed on dangerous talking points. The people pushing it are not being honest such as situation like these.
1