Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Room Full Of Republicans Cheer Universal Healthcare" video.

Exactly. I ask liberals, who complain about how corrupt the federal government is, why do they want that same government running their healthcare. At the state level you have more control of government.
3
c Dub, you can also look at the sources as well as they list them all and explain the statistical analysis they do. The reality is that just because you can look at a few UN or OECD statistics does not mean you are an expert on healthcare nor do you understand the details. In reality it makes you just as ignorant as those you criticize who just watch local news.
2
People point at roads as he only concrete example of government producing something.
2
The reality is that most on the right won't mind if the states do their own programs . That is how the country was designed and I, as a moderate, can see the benefits of a public option at the state and local level. This is one things I try to talk to liberals about and that is implementing the program at the state level. Why continue fighting at the federal level? Why force it down people's throats who don't want it? Do it at the state level and if it works others will follow. If not than you can easily change it at the state level.
2
Meanwhile universal healthcare failed in Vermont and almost 80% voted against it in Colorado.
1
Petar, Russia spend close to 5% of their GDP on defense. The US spends around 3% of our GDP.
1
Close to 80% of voters in Colorado voted against universal healthcare.
1
Ever heard of Colorado? Close to 80% of voters voted against universal healthcare. Ever heard of Vermont? It did not pass there either. Fact is that people don't want it.
1
"Hey whya ever hear of public polling data?" Yeah, and they have been wrong lately. "Ever heard of every state company running ads 24/7 in Colorado to stop universal coverage?" If people wanted universal healthcare it would not have lost that badly.
1
"Because the average voter has not had it explained in detail" They have. " People want health care for all at a fair price, whats to debate" Because it isn't that easy.
1
Also, Curz did beat Bernie. Cruz brought out numbers showing how much Bernie's plan will cost and how we can't pay for it. Bernie's response was to simply criticize Cruz's tax plan. He could not defend his own program.
1
"They have been within the margin of error." Really? If the majority wants universal healthcare that is around 50%. Close to 80% said no. So you are saying we have a 30% margin of error? That is bad. "The average voter gets their information from news outlets if you can call that detail." Can be. In reality that is the way it should be with how our government is set up with state rights. Nobodies knows the details, not even you a you have no clue what really goes on in other states. "It's a good thing other countries figured out the hard parts for us." They haven't.
1
c Dub, the problem with those polls is that they are extremely vague in their wording and when given details people will change, I will agree. And when given details on universal healthcare people have voted against it. Also, the way those polls are conducted are not very reliable. I don't watch Fox News, and local sources are reliable as people should be more concerned with more local issues. The reality is that the local government is in more control than what people think. Now they should have more and we should limit the fed more, but that is another discussion. "Just like how people think many provisions in the ACA will be a good replacement for Obamacare." I don't buy that. But even if that were the case that shows how little people understand what goes on at the federal level which is why it should be limited. I bet you have little clue what goes on at the federal level as well based on what you are saying. On healthcare https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book. It breaks down the numbers and when you do you realize that the system the US has now is not terrible and is on par with other countries. So with that we should improve the system we have now and not completely replace it. Replacing it means that 1. you are replacing a system with problems with another system with just as many problems 2. you are going to change the economy leading to job loss and an economic decline, even if temporary will still harm many people 3. you will have to make around 320+ million people change the way they think and act On the last one that is the reason why universal healthcare failed to pass in Vermont and Colorado. People saw how much taxes were going to be raised and how much healthcare will change. As a whole people like their healthcare system much like the vast majority like it in Canada, the UK, Norway and so on. In the US they just hate the cost and bureaucracy. That is mainly due to barriers created by the federal government. And as we saw with Obamacare adding more federal government just creates problems. With the US the solution is less federal government, more competition and more state rights to fix the system we have now. Adding more federal government means more problems with the system we have place.
1
c Dub, how about you read the book instead of pulling a logical fallacy. That book was written by two professors, one of them who is the chair of their department and they cited several peer reviewed journals. Now am I saying that everything in that book is correct and that I agree with everything? No. But due to the people writing it work in that field it is worth a read to make you think. The book was published by AEI, it was written by the two professors. Robert Ohsfeldt wrote the book to show that healthcare rankings are arbitrary and that while the US has problem, so do other countries. But please, point to me how the book is bias and how the book is wrong. You claimed that I watch Fox News when I don't. But based on what you said and how easily you will dismiss a source shows that you will only watch ultra liberal sources such as Secular Talk. It seems like I won this case.
1
"You are talking to someone that has to read OECD reports and scientific papers on a regular basis" I have to read scientific papers as well for a living. Also, as I said, just because you can read some OECD statistics does not make you an expert on healthcare. "I could just as easily find two professors for anything and have it sound as convincing as needed." But you haven't. ". Maybe I will read it eventually, but I highly doubt they can overturn decades of empirical evidence" What evidence? Please give me some.
1
Healthcare rankings are arbitrary, just like university rankings are. Look at life expectancy, the US is around 79 years. The top country is around 83 years. That four year difference is minute on the grand scale when you consider the fact that there are several variables involved in life expectancy beyond healthcare. This is why healthcare reform is so challenging to begin with because the reality is that the US system is not terrible and is great in many ways. If it really was terrible I will be pushing for something new as well. But for now the US system, when compared to other countries, is on par with them.
1
To show how poor these rankings are take the WHO for example. It compared the US to countries like Malta and Andorra. We have football stadiums that can fit the entire population of Andorra with room to spare. Around 80% of their GDP is in tourism and they are a tax haven. So they are a country with a small population and has an economy that attracts money. You can't compare them to the US. But people feel like we can for some reason.
1
It is arbitrary. What factor do you weigh the most? It is similar to university rankings or ranking professional athletes. "but if you take the US out as an outlier," How is US an outlier? "However, whenever the healthcare system is a factor we get blown out of the water." Again, how? You have not shown that to be the case. "Changes to the system have to be made" Such as? The fact is that the US is on par in terms of healthcare compared to other countries. Other countries face problems, they are just different. The US faces problems as well, I will never deny that. But they are not getting "blown out of the water" as you put it. The simple fact is that anyone who claims that is either 1. ignorant 2. a politician trying to sell you something 3. is simply lazy and don't want to pay for their own healthcare Now which group do you fall into? This is not to be rude but the fact that you continue to think that the US has a terrible healthcare system when nothing indicates that to be so means you fall in one of those three groups.
1
"live in Spain which has (or had a few years back, anyway) the 6th best healthcare system in the word - USA is #37" That 37th ranking comes from the WHO. That ranking was criticized so much that the WHO refuse to put our another one years later. It ranked the US to countries like Malta and Andorra which you simply can't do. The US system has problems, but so does every other country. If you were to look at the numbers when it comes to healthcare you will see that the US system is not inferior to other countries at all, we just have a different set of problems. So pushing for universal healthcare is not a solution because you will be replacing one system with problems with another system with a whole new set of problems. One top of that, though, you will be messing with the economy so much that it will lead to job loss and an economic decline. The best solution is to improve the system we have now and not completely replace it.
1
ONI OFFICER, what you are saying about healthcare in the US is true. We have a for profit system with many government barriers. I feel one major problem is the payroll tax. With the payroll tax businesses instead pay with healthcare benefits as opposed to a higher wage. That means employers get stuck with a generic plan and if they try to change jobs that means they have to change plans. At an older age you start getting these pre-existing conditions. If people were paid with a higher wage instead they could buy a healthcare plan that suits them and have companies compete leading to lower prices and better quality. But we don't have that.
1
Nicholas, 45,000 is only around 0.01% of the population. There are many reasons why those people die that involve more than just healthcare.
1
I am not Christian but what is Christian about holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to give up their services?
1
tony bennett, the WHO ranking was criticized so much that they refused to do another ranking. The WHO ranked US to countries like Malta and Andorra which you really can't do. The US healthcare system is great in several ways and the only real issue is cost. If the US system completely sucked than I would agree that we should totally replace it with something new. But doing that will mean you will be changing a major part of our economy leading to an economic decline. But the system we have does not suck, it merely has problems like every other country does. So replacing our system with problems with another system with problems is not a solution. A solution is working with the current system we have to improve it. Now with roads, that is a poor example. Around 3/4 of funding for roads comes at the state and local level. There are several roads that are not maintained at all such as gravel and dirt roads. Many of those roads don't have traffic signs and when it snows you the only people who plows them are some locals who volunteer, so at times it does not get plowed. Is that how you want our healthcare system to be ran? Also, roads required workers that are not as skilled as healthcare does. With the exception of an engineer designing a major freeway system we don't have have workers going to 8 years of schooling to build and maintain roads.
1
Michael, how do you know it was a room full of republicans?
1