Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Dr. Oz Cut Off By Fox For Making Sense On Medicare For All" video.

  1. What did he reference? He gave a stat with no citations.
    3
  2.  @jasonruggles4622  uh it is well known you start with the reference
    2
  3. Because left wing logic. M4A being better makes zero sense. It may be better now, but in the long run will it be? Where is the incentive for M4A to improve? And where is the comparison? For example, it took Medicare 40 years to cover prescription benefits long before insurance companies were doing it.
    1
  4.  @rahowherox1177  , roads and schools are funded locally and are a drop in the bucket in terms of cost. Also, everyone agrees we need law enforcement and roads, not so much agreeing if the federal government to control our healthcare.
    1
  5.  @TwoOffTheTeeGolf  ,healthcare is very complicated and this is the problem with the far left. They push for M4A and claim it will be better, but don't say how. They will say it "covers" more people but coverage does not equal access. They say it will be cheaper but don't address potential consequences on lower prices. They point to other nations but fail to address the fact that they have lower survival rates on complex and advanced illnesses and cap how much care you get no matter what your need is. Under Bernie's plan who decides what is rationed? Who decides what is a need and what isn't? At what point do you cap care offered and who decides that? None of these points are being addressed by Bernie and his team. It is rather scary really that a man looking to radically change our healthcare system doesn't bring up difficult points in his bills and proposals.
    1
  6.  @rahowherox1177  , saying it has "success" everyone else is vague. Success how? I will admit there are advantages to a universal healthcare system, but there are disadvantages. For example, they ration a lot more of their care and cap out how much one can receive. The US offers more CT scans and MRIs per capita and excel in survival rates for advance illnesses. Schools, roads and police are all ran and funded locally. It is a community effort at that time that runs them. I, as a member of my community, can see if my local tax dollars are being spent well and if not I can push to change it or move to a better place and remain a US citizen. You can't do that federally. Federally you are stuck with one centralized system. People complain about some states having crap schools. Now imagine if that was a federal issue? The whole nation will be screwed. Highways are constitution as a part of postal roads. And federal funded does not work better. Case in point, the Community Mental Health Act passed over 40 years ago. It made our mental healthcare worse as the federal government could not manage it.
    1
  7.  @rahowherox1177  , what is right? Forcing people to live under one system? What if a group of federal politicians made any form of public healthcare at any form of government illegal? How will you feel? I won't agree as I feel states should decide. Same with education. And it won't achieve parity if done federally. Many areas of the country will receive more funds. We already see this with Title I schools. At the local level if a policy fails it is much easier to change it.
    1
  8.  @rahowherox1177  , define "basic".
    1
  9. What did he reference? And also, why do they like it?
    1
  10.  @adamnicholes1002  , google what? And why do they support it?
    1
  11.  @adamnicholes1002  , again, google what? Also, Medicare has a 40% less payout rate. Why would they support it?
    1
  12.  @thepurityofchaos  , M4A has a 40% less payout rate. Why would they support it? Also, what government program ever had less paper work?
    1
  13.  @thepurityofchaos  , so you are saying doctors will be willing to take on more customers and get paid less? Also, they typically hire people to handle the paper work.
    1
  14.  @thepurityofchaos  , so you are supporting less jobs? Bernie admitted that M4A will pay out at 40% less.
    1
  15.  C W  , you again? When are you going to form an argument? Also, no profit means no production. Have fun using drugs that are too old to be useful.
    1
  16.  @thepurityofchaos  , a "jobs" program? What kind of jobs? Will they be productive jobs? Will they be jobs society demands and actually generates wealth? That is a problem with these "jobs" programs. It is easy to create jobs, it is difficult to generate wealth. If you want productive jobs then leave that to the private sector. You will pay out less? You are one person. Also, consider how with a 40% pay cut that means less quality and lower accessibility. Cost isn't the only issue to be concerned about. This is a problem with M4A supporters. They claim it will be cheaper and "covers" everyone but leave out accessibility and quality and how that will be influenced.
    1
  17.  @thepurityofchaos  , rebuilding the infrastructure our government did so poorly to build to begin with?
    1
  18.  @thepurityofchaos  , it isn't that old. Plus, most infrastructure is locally managed. Also, those are temporary jobs. And how many workers can actually do it? Are you going to train them? You are assuming people with no jobs right now can do those actual jobs.
    1
  19.  @thepurityofchaos  , it does have to be locally managed. Also, training how? What if the people don't want to be trained? What if they don't have the skill set?You are treating people like robots as this point.
    1
  20.  @thepurityofchaos  , what different job? Sitting around drinking beer? The more local a program is the better managed it is as the people can see if they are getting their money's worth.
    1
  21.  @adamnicholes1002  , so less paper means more jobs in the medical field? How does that work out? I actually in in college now and I teach in the STEM fields. Most people pursue business. Every medical school has a 50% or less acceptance rate. I agree that we need more people but many are not willing to do it or simply can't. I have students in advance chemistry courses that don't know how to use excel or digital multimeters.
    1
  22.  @thepurityofchaos  , not a strawman. At some point you have to tell people to take a job or leave it. If a job serves no value then why allow people to do it? Local programs are managed people as the local representatives have to actually serve people. And resources are not the issue. Many rural places know they lack resources and don't care. And with local programs yes, people can see how their neighbors are doing and compare and compete. With a centralized system you can't. Politics are much slower at the federal level. Think about the approval rating of Congress and the retention rate.
    1
  23.  @whyispinkysoinsane7898  , mine is. You can schedule an appointment and they will tell you when you are up.
    1
  24.  @whyispinkysoinsane7898  , no, more like hours.
    1
  25.  @thepurityofchaos  , it isn't a strawman argument. What are your limits and why? Some value? No, many jobs serve no value. You never been to many rural places have you? This is a problem with the far left. They are on the outside looking in. They never experience what those individuals actually experience or what they actually want. Centralize government can't compete by definition. You improve through competition. Plus, improvement can be subjective.
    1
  26.  @thepurityofchaos  , medical improvement is done through competition. For example, Medicare only covered prescription benefits after private insurance did it. Centralized government, by default, can't compete. Who will it compete with? I grew up in a rural place. My cousin graduated with a class of 7 in a small, rural high school. So yes, I experienced it and fully understand. The problem with data is that it treats people as numbers, not people. I don't buy the data because when you look at how those people act, again, they are fine. A lot of jobs serve no value. In some nations they have government jobs where one person takes the bus ticket, hands it to someone else to punch it. Is that what you want? Two people doing a one person job? I am not strawmanning. You need to lay out what jobs will be offered and why. The issue of retraining people for different jobs in the past has been tried and failed. Give me time and I can provided sources for that.
    1
  27.  @thepurityofchaos  , not true on the medical improvements. Most are done in the private sector. I work in research for a living so I know a lot about this. The public sector is limited in what it produces as workers work limited hours with no deadlines. Hospitals are different then fire departments and the police. The complexity is vast. Even at that if you want it to be ran like that then they will have to be ran locally, not federally. I actually support some sort of public option as long as it is ran locally, not federally. "I buy the data because 45,000 people a year die as a direct result of lack of health insurance in the US. Health insurance companies are noncompetitive, anyways." That 45,000 stat has been challenged many times. Also, I agree, insurance companies have no competition due to many government regulations killing the free market system. I want healthcare insurance companies to compete. "Well, it could compete with other governments." What other governments? You centralized it. https://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA500970110&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=01490370&p=AONE&sw=w FDR caused a depression. I will not point to him for success.
    1
  28.  @thepurityofchaos  https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8540484
    1
  29.  @qcjackson5612  , he could have started with a reference, such as "accord to....".
    1
  30.  charmander  , Kyle is not an honest character. For M4A to cost less it will have to cut pay by 40%. With that what will happen to quality and accessibility? There are many other factors Kyle gets wrong on healthcare as well such as amenable mortality being an issue in all nations when he claims it isn't. Or that elective care is only cosmetic surgery when it really involves major things like heart surgery.
    1
  31.  Siddesh Gannu  , he hasn't explained anything. He just has talking points. And "private tax", really?
    1
  32.  @carldean3159  , saying it "works" in those nations is a stretch. "Works" in what ways?
    1
  33.  @carldean3159  , how do you have better outcomes? In many ways the US has better outcomes. You say "every single study" when I bet you haven't read all the studies.
    1
  34.  @ericnick4498  , they aren't answer though. Also, I give a ton of studies from experts on this issue. All I receive in the end are talking points. For example, the guy said that other nations have better outcomes. Prof. Scott Atlas will disagree as mentioned in his book "In Excellent Health".
    1
  35. @firespinner for less care? Really? How?
    1
  36.  @carldean3159  amenable mortality is an issue in every system. What do you have to compare those numbers to? Nothing. So stop presenting them
    1
  37.  @vashtanerata1799  we pay more but receive more. There is a reason why our R&D is so high.
    1
  38.  @carldean3159  again, amenable mortality is an issue in all nations. If you can't get basic facts straight we can't begin to go to opinions.
    1
  39.  @vashtanerata1799  I admit we pay more, but we also receive more. For example, the US offers more CT scans and MRIs per capita. Also, another reason why we pay more is because of many government regulations and subsidizes that drive up the cost. The reality is this, we do not have a free market healthcare system. We have a heavily regulated and subsidized system. Again, our R&D is high because we offer high prices for those medicines. Also, the high prices is typically there for negotiation purposes for insurance companies. For example, the medication I take costs me $8. if I were to pay out of pocket it will cost me $10. It costs the insurance over $200. You tell me to stop playing dumb when you clearly have no clue how the system operates.
    1
  40.  Evan Zuppardo  , 11% with what other cost? Higher life expectancy involves many factors outside of healthcare. For example, we have higher obesity rates as well which lead to shorter life. If you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. You can't throw out a raw stat like that and expect it to mean anything. What studies? Care to give me some. I have a plethora of studies that will go against what Bernie says. Uh no, R&D is not funded by tax payers. What is funded by tax payers is very basic R&D. The major development is by the private sector. I work in research for a living so I know a lot about this.
    1
  41.  @carldean3159  , it is. Amenable mortality is an issue in all nations, period.
    1
  42. @firespinner , we lack nurses, I agree. But that is because very few want to become one or have the ability to become one. Out of all of these Bernie Sanders supporters how many are pushing to join the medical field? One major problem I have with far leftists is that they want others to take actions, not themselves. They want M4A but are not pushing to work in the medical field themselves. How about you do your part and become a doctor?
    1
  43.  Evan Zuppardo  , what? And most R&D comes from the private sector. I have an NIH grant. I produce zero medication. The work I do may be able to produce more, or understand the body more, but that is a maybe. In academics grad students are paid low for a reason, they simply don't produce much. Neither do professors. National labs maybe. But most research done through public funds is literally throwing shit on the walls to see what sticks. What sticks is what we used in the private sector. How are my studies biased? They are peer reviewed and cite peer reviewed sources. You have to break down how they are bias. Saying they are does not make it true. You claim you have read them, what did they say? Prove to me you read them.
    1
  44. @firespinner , ever thought we have too few nurses because very few actually put forth the effort to become one? As for nursing homes that has been an issue for years. Read the book "Being Mortal" on that one.
    1
  45.  Evan Zuppardo  if it has been debunked why don't you publish a paper on it?
    1
  46. @firespinner what question
    1
  47.  Evan Zuppardo  , ok, what journal? And what is the title?
    1
  48.  Evan Zuppardo  , maybe you should post them again. I never recall you posting from an peer reviewed journal.
    1
  49.  Evan Zuppardo  so you have nothing
    1
  50.  Evan Zuppardo  , then give me some. At this point you are all talk and no action.
    1
  51.  Evan Zuppardo  that is not a peer reviewed paper
    1
  52.  Evan Zuppardo  , I posted studies, peer reviewed studies. To counter them you have to go off of that standard. If the studies I posted were debunked then those studies will be in a peer reviewed journal.
    1
  53. One, what did he reference? He gave a stat with zero reference. Next, sure they may like it as it may be easier to handle it compared to insurance companies. But are these same doctors willing to provide the same quality? Need more information.
    1
  54. What reference did he give?
    1