Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Jim Carrey w/ Bill Maher: Canadians Are Nice Because We Have Healthcare" video.

Police are ran locally. Fire departments are ran locally as well where in some places they are private and 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Also, they are no where near a complex as healthcare.
2
The Rational National, I have seen your videos, you are not very honest. What you just pulled with your comment is a logical fallacy. If you have to pull that as opposed to trying to counter what Crowder says it shows who is the real dishonest one.
2
JustAThought, David is saying "it is obvious" or "common sense" and then points to polls that are unreliable. He says those statements because he has no argument. He cannot defend his argument with facts and logic so he pulls logical fallacies. Polls are unreliable because it is a vague question on a complex issue being asked to people who don't understand the issue. Wait times in Canada are longer compared to the US. If you don't have money in the US you can still get care in the ER. That is one reason why it is so expensive in the US, people pay for not only their care but care for others who get care but can't afford to pay. David's talking points are easy to debunk. I suggest you read up on healthcare as it is a very interesting topic and not take the advice from some bias Youtuber.
2
It is from the International Journal for Quality in Health Care. It has an impact factor of 2.5. It is published by the Oxford University Press. Again, you can look all of these things up. I can see why the ultra left struggles in the healthcare debate. They can't look things up themselves.
2
David Grider Jr. , i have read a lot about Medicare for all. I bet i know more than you do
1
David, what was debunked?
1
Matthew, other nations have different cultures that influence how healthcare operates. For example, the US is number 1 in OECD nations in obesity. Not having obese people reduces the strain on any healthcare system. And the US healthcare system does many things well that other nations don't. You can't deny that. Up to 7000 people die a year on waiting lists waiting for "elective care" in Australia.
1
A study out of Oregon led by a Harvard professor showed that giving people access to healthcare does not improve their lives physically. Most health problems are due to genetic and lifestyle issues, not lack of access.
1
People die in every nations due to lack of access. In Australia up to 7000 die a year on waiting lists waiting for "elective surgery". There are shortcomings in that 45,000 number. As Katherine Baicker argued, those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with the poor, all self inflicted. The question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As Baicker and others have shown in their study in Oregon giving access to healthcare to people did not improve their physical health placing them at high risk of facing health problems. We can talk about those numbers and studies if you want. There is a lot to them, but you can't just blindly push them.
1
JustAThought, people get sick and end up worse off due to poor lifestyle choices. Read the paper entitled "The Oregon Experiment-Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes" When people were given access to healthcare their physical situation did not improve.
1
Mars Falcon, I never said it would make their life worse. I am saying that their physical wellness did not improve. The reason being is due to genetic and lifestyle factors. Define "taking care of their own". One can easily argue that reducing the role of government in healthcare will improve the situation.
1
Mars, if the government "provides" healthcare but what they provide is worse than what the private sector offered, is that really taking care of the citizens? That is my point. One can argue that taking care of the citizens is removing the constraints of government and allow the free market to prosper. But instead of having a discussion you just call me a troll. This is why we have a president like Trump, the political left rather name call as opposed to have a discussion.
1
Teenkitsune, if a company provides a poor service another one will take its place. That is why a free market is arguably better. With a government system if they provide a poor service you are stuck. The issue we have now is a highly regulated system thus we don't have a free market system. In most areas of the economy it is, for the most part, a free market. Food is that way and we produce so much food that we have an obesity problem. Food is essential for living. Countries with universal healthcare don't get rid of it for the same reason why we don't establish it, doing so would mean completely destruction of something that is over 10% of a nation's GDP which would lead a huge economic recession.
1
Mars, insurance companies are heavily regulated. Our healthcare industry is heavily regulated. We don't have a free market system.
1
Healthcare is not a right.
1
Xyz Same, every nations has issues as well in their systems. Also, those nations have completely different cultures and there are so many variables you have to account for but aren't. In every nation there are people who aren't covered due to lack of resources. I come here to have an intelligent discussion on these issues and I get responses from people like you where you just point to other nations while ignoring a plethora of other variables involved in this discussion.
1
Under Bernie's plan private healthcare insurance would be illegal.
1
It isn't a right.
1
Public schools are locally ran and funded. Police: locally ran and funded Firefighters: Locally ran and funded where some places have a private system. Also, 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Roads: 3/4 of them are locally ran and funded Do you see a trend? Also, none of them are as expensive nor as complex as healthcare.
1
The political right wants high quality healthcare for as many as possible. They understand that giving that to all is impossible due to limited resources and they feel that government is not the source. There are many strong debates against medicare for all.
1
Jonny Boss, we already have a space force program ran by the air force. The idea of creating one is to save money by increasing efficiency in the military. No different than when the Navy ran part of the air force before the air force existed by itself.
1
Jonny Boss, the US also spends more on education than many of those same 8 countries combine. So should we cut education funding? Or maybe, just maybe, our GDP is comparable to those 8 countries GDP combine. I don't know, you pick.
1
Glenn, people die in every nation due to lack of coverage. Up to 7000 die in Australia on waiting lists waiting for "elective" care.
1
Teenkitsune, a study done out of Oregon led by a Harvard professor will argue that point. A lot of bad health is due to poor life style choices. Giving people access to care does not mean they will change their diet.
1
Glenn, there are less people living in Australia. 7000 is around 0.02% of the population of Australia where 40,000 is 0.01% of the population of the US. As for other nations, in Canada there have been reports of around 20,000 to 40,000. The issue is that finding accurate numbers like that are very hard as many factors contribute to those deaths. As for Scandinavian nations no actual study has been done making that 40,000 you cite what I call an empty stat. There are reports of people dying in other nations due to lack of access of care. So to say it does not happen in other nations is simply false. And to say that 40,000 is bad is incorrect as you have nothing to compare it to. Is it bad as we want that number to be zero? Yes. But in every nation that number is not zero. So compared to other nations is that 40,000 high, low, or the average? You can't say making that 40,000 number almost irrelevant for this discussion.
1
Rogan, at times "elective" care can be considered heart surgery. In Canada that is the case. Read the paper entitled "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Also, read "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consective patients in Ontario Canada" Also, read the paper entitled "Waiting for elective surgery: effects on health-related quality of life" It isn't just nose jobs that are elective. It can be knee surgery, MRIs, and even heart surgery. But whatever, call me a troll to ignore any counter arguments.
1
Rogan F, it is challenging to determine if something is "life threatening" as other complications can make a situation worse. That is why in the US we offer advanced care to patients to look for those things where in other nations they don't. At times it requires a deep study to see if something is life threatening or not, that is why others die in other nations on waiting lists. Also, if you have read the third paper I listed you would have seen that people do end up worse off financially, physically and psychologically after waiting too long for "elective" care.
1
Rogan, in other countries they leave that up to bureaucrats who create laws defining what is "life threatening" which is why you have the issue of people dying on waiting lists and one of the main points of that article I sent you. In the US people have personal doctors and advanced tests are offered to people to look for life threatening situations. For example, the US give more CT scans than other nations. It is also why the US is number 1in cancer survival rates. You keep ignoring people dying on waiting lists for what is almost arbitrarily listed as "elective care".
1
Rogan F, 1. It is true. If it weren't than why do people die on waiting lists? What is "elective" is defined by law created by the government. 2. It isn't over testing, it is understanding that something can be more severe than one thinks. Issues like heart disease are due to poor diet. Same with strokes and diabetes. Read the paper entitled "The Oregon Experiment-Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes" There people were given Medicaid and were compared to people who weren't given Medicaid. Those given Medicaid did not improve physically and had the same physical issues. While stress levels went down one can argue that eating healthy and exercising can also reduce stress along with improving physical health. So even if you give those people access to healthcare one can easily argue their healthcare outcomes will not improve making the argument that a single payer system will not improve our results.
1
Rogan 1. People die in every system due to limited resources, I agree. So what's your point? 2. Look up "Government of Western Australia Department of Health" for an article entitled "Elective Surgery Patient Information". The department of health in that country defines what elective surgery is. 3. You don't have to take the extra testing.
1
Define "most seriously ill".
1
kevin paul halliday, that is much more difficult than what you think. What is "seriously ill" can be subjective. For example, a knee surgery can be necessary for some but not for others. But due to the large amount of people in the system and limited doctors all knee surgeries are listed the same and thus are placed on waiting lists. Read the paper entitled "Waiting for elective surgery" effects on health-related quality of life" What is listed as "elective care" ends up being serious as it harms people financially, psychologically and physically. There is a highly subjective side to what is "seriously ill". That is why I ask. Despite another person's comment I am not a troll, I want to have a legit discussion here.
1
DynamicWorlds, I just cited a paper. But yep, I am a troll.
1
DynamicWorlds, what behavior? I come here to have a rational discussion.
1
Raymond, it is arguably a crisis. Up to 7000 people die a year waiting for "elective" surgery in Australia. Also, it is arguable that even if you give people access to healthcare that their health situation won't improve. A study was done in Oregon led by a Harvard professor arguing that. In the US most don't support a government healthcare system and that was seen in 2016 when close to 80% of voters said no in Colorado.
1
It is peer reviewed and has been cited 166 times which is a decent amount. You know, you can look these things up yourself.
1
I did answer you question without emotion and outburst. You asked if the paper has been peer reviewed, it has. You asked if it has been fact checked. The issue with "fact checking" is that facts can be viewed in many ways. Ever heard of Bloom's Taxonomy? Facts are the very bottom of the chart. The higher you go on the chart you go from looking at facts to interpreting them in different ways to using them to advance on some new idea. That paper has been peer reviewed and cited 166 times. With that it is clear that the paper provides solid data and gives a strong point. Does that mean that paper is the paper to end all debates? No. It is just one piece of a complex puzzle. I answered your questions, you just refuse to accept the answers. If you have a problem with the paper I suggest you read it and give me your logical criticism of it. Until then all I see from you is someone that can't accept anything that does not confirm your bias.
1
It has been peer reviewed. It is in a peer reviewed journal. And yes facts can be viewed in many ways. That is why there is a debate on this issue to begin with. But again, the paper is in a peer reviewed journal. I answered your question. Sorry you can't accept it.
1
Spencerwalker21, that 45,000 is a very deceptive stat. To start, those 45,000 are poor and poor people have bad health to begin with with higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? A study out of the state of Oregon led by a Harvard professor expanded Medicaid to 6000 people and 6000 were not given Medicaid. Those given Medicaid did not see their physical health improve because that is dependent on one's lifestyle and genetics. So even with Medicaid they were still in bad health. Next, that 45,000 came from a Harvard study. As I have pointed out people die in other nations due to shortcomings as well. Has there been any similar study done in other nations to compare that 45,000 to? No. Thus that 45,000 is what I call am empty stat as there is nothing to compare it to. You don't know if it is high, low or average. Compare it to this, I pay $700 a month in rent. Based on that I want you to come to the conclusion if I am paying too much in rent.
1
Prophet, those 45,000 are poor and there are higher rates of obesity and smoking with the poor. People do become unhealthy due to poor life choices. You are talking about children with cancer (even though obesity increases your chance of cancer by 20%), that is the extreme and rare case. That is not the norm. Also, cancer is a serious situation. However, in the US they would have a higher chance of surviving. I cited the Oregon study being fully aware what is in it. I have nothing to hide. Multiple studies have questioned if a universal healthcare system is better including a book by two professors. You saying I am paid means you have no argument. You just smear. You have not provided any argument on this issue, you just say I am wrong with zero justification.
1