Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Man Forced To Use Cheaper Insulin To Save For His Wedding, He Dies" video.
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Odinsday , in a single payer system that Bernie wants where there is a 40% pay cut to providers advanced care will be rationed heavily. You see this in other nations. Sure, this man may have lived, but someone with some difficult illness would have died. You see this in other nations which is why people in Canada die being denied heart surgery, up to 7000 people die in Australia waiting for "elective" surgery. People are going blind in the UK because they are denied eye surgery.
The reality is this, something has to give. Resources are limited. In a the US system the very poor do suffer, but we have higher survival rates, offer more advanced testing and have more R&D. In single payer the poor do get care, but they deny advanced care to where the very sick and elderly die earlier. Something has got to give. My problem with the far left, like Kyle, who support M4A is that they either refuse to have these difficult conversations on this issue or simply choose to deny them and live in a fantasy world. Maybe M4A is the best route, but we have to understand that something has to give.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ThatMarchingBunny , to start, you can make as many moral arguments as you want, and I won't say they are not legit. But it does not change the objective reality that resources are limit.
Here is the reality, at the very core the political left bases their ideas on emotions and the political right bases their ideas on facts and reasoning. Not saying one is better than the other. We need facts and reasoning, but we are humans so emotions play a role. But that is the reality. Look at Kyle and other far leftists. They are pushing this story purely on an emotional stance.
You say people want to live, sure. I agree. But at resources are limited, period. The problem I have with the far left on this issue is that they are not willing to have the difficult discussion on this issue. They feel that we can pass M4A and everyone will get access to very high quality of care and life a long time. That isn't the case anywhere.
You say that some people don't have the opportunity, that exists everywhere. You say if it harms it is immoral. Well, harm in what ways? Something has to give. With M4A sure you will cover people who are poor, but something will give will some people will suffer.
Universal healthcare does not even the playing field. If you add 30+ million to our current system with our level of care it will cost a shit ton of money. The US system excels, compare to other nations, in that we have higher survival rates for advanced illnesses and offer more advanced care in a timely manner. A single payer nation under Bernie's plan will cover more people, including the poor, for very basic care. But the cost will be lower quality. That means less access to advanced care, advanced treatment, thus lower survival rates and people who are really sick suffering more or dying. They are being harmed.
You bring up mortality rate, again, many factors outside of healthcare influence that. We lead the world in obesity rates for OECD nations. That plays a major role. Blacks have a greater risk of heart disease genetic to them, we have more blacks compared to other OECD nations. You are using one raw state to make a strong claim, you can't do that.
I am a moral person. You says based on statistics. Read the book entitled "In Excellent Health" where the author there breaks down the numbers in how the US is superior in advanced care and survival rates.
The reality is this, under a universal system the very poor will will be covered, but our high quality of care will drop leading to the very sick dying and our survival rates dropping. In our system the very sick do get care and survive, but the very poor suffer.
The problem with the left is that they are not willing to have these difficult conversations. They feel universal healthcare is a utopia, that people will have access to the current health that is offered now. That is not true.
So, I give you a moral argument, are you willing to tell someone with a heart condition that they have to wait for healthcare and possibly die? Are you willing to tell someone who needs eye surgery that they will go blind by denying them eye surgery? Are you willing to tell someone that their grandma will die because you are denying them care?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ThatMarchingBunny
1. Money isn't the resource. It is doctors, nurses, instruments, etc. Throwing more money at the system does not magically create more goods and services.
2. Uh, facts and reasoning is an objective situation that is a part of economics.
3. Other nations suffer in other ways such as lack of access to advanced care like heart surgery leading to deaths in that way. They have lower survival rates in advanced situation. So to say they are doing better is simply not true. Are they doing worse? As a whole they aren't. They just have different issues. There are many components to this. As for statistics, I offer an entire book with it entitled "In Excellent Health". I bring statistics all the time to the table. I am more than willing to argue the statistics. Bring them. As for costing more, we pay more because we offer more advanced testing and treatments. For example, we offer more CT scans per capita. That advanced treatment comes at a cost.
4. US has a high mortality rate because of their high obesity rate and poor diet. You have to factor that in as well. You can't just look at one stat and make a direct one to one correlation to healthcare. There are other factors at play. This is where the reasoning side comes into play. You are playing the emotional side.
5. The US is in debt because of our social welfare programs. So yes, look at the budget, we are already spending a lot on healthcare at the federal level.
6. You posted a link related to mortality rate. I am talking about survival rates when you receive the care. Here, I will quote a part of the book
"treatment outcomes from the most serious diseases including cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, severe pre-maturity birth, and control of the prime risk factors for death, like hypertension and diabetes, are superior under the medical care in the United States".
The problem in the US is cost. Yes, we have a portion of people who don't have access to that advanced care, but most do. In other nations very few except the very rich have access to that advanced care. Cost is high in the US for two reasons
1. That advanced care does cost a lot of money
2. We don't have a free market healthcare system, we have a heavily regulated and subsidized system.
People on the far left in this nation feel we can add 30+ million to the current system all chasing after the same level of care and it will somehow cost less. That makes zero sense economically. Something has to give.
7. Again, your link talks about mortality rates. They don't define what they mean. From WebMD it is "the percentage of deaths associated with a disease or medical treatment". I am having a difficult time seeing how this relates to a healthcare system. Dying due to a disease in the circulatory system, which is influenced by obesity, does not suggest that a healthcare system is poor. It suggests other things like poor diet, smoking, poor environment, etc. I am mainly talking about people who actually receive the care which is important. Most that is listed in your link is associated with diet. One interesting is suicides which involves mental disorders. You do know the federal government has a heavy hand in mental healthcare with the passage of the Community Mental Health Act around 50 years ago? And since then mental healthcare has become worse. Kind of places a lot of doubt in how efficient the federal government will be in managing all of healthcare. But what do I know?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1