Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "CNN" channel.

  1. 28
  2. 10
  3. 9
  4. 9
  5. 8
  6. 8
  7. 7
  8. 6
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18.  @xaenon  is the disease a threat? There is evidence that it is not that deadly. Also, the idea of the lock down was to one, flatten the curve, two, find out more about it, and three, create relief for our healthcare industry. We have all three. Every state has seen either stagnant or dropping number of new cases a day even with more testing. We know more about this virus. And all across the nation there are empty hospital beds. We should start reopening. I am not saying open the flood gates, but slowly. That way we get the economy going but still limit the spread. And even with a spread we have open hospital beds and resources to take it on. You are making sound like I want the flood gates to be open, I don't. My state just opened with restrictions such as 50% capacity in restaurants for example. GA has been open for two weeks now and their number of new cases a day has been dropping despite more testing. "If a rich person is telling you that it's mandatory that you do X, Y, and Z despite the risks.... that person isn't sharing the risk, but will be the one to reap ALL of the rewards." It is not that easy. Take this hair salon owner. None of her workers actually work for her as they are independent contractors. They work at her place but they are self employed. Also, many small business owners actually care about their workers. And most want to work. You make it sound like it is an us vs them mentality when it really isn't in the case you are pointing out. It is on the left. Remember, Barrack Obama can go golfing but his wife tells everyone to stay home. Chris Cuomo can call other fools for wanting to go to the park and back to work where he is making millions just voicing his opinion. The mayor of Chicago can get her hair cut if she wants. The governor of IL enforces a stay at home order while his wife go to FL. "Since we can't bank on a vaccine or cure in the near future (it could happen, but it's not prudent to expect it) , reopening for business will be necessary, but it MUST be done carefully... WE have to evaluate and manage the risks." Which is what we are doing. It is what GA did for the past two weeks and they have seen a drop in cases even though testing has nearly doubled. ""Just Be A Soldier And Go Back To Work" is NOT a viable plan when it's YOUR ass in the line of fire." It isn't like that. Your viewpoint is "be a good comrade and stay home while government tells you want to do and how to live". I am excited for the nation to be opening up, after seeing the success in GA. Come August things will be mostly back to normal except for in NY where Cuomo messed up that state.
    4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. Eksil, to start, a "fact checking" website is not going to do it with me. Sure, facts are important, but how you interpret them, the reasoning behind them, and what they all mean is important. To start, here is title of this paper "“Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada” Mater Sociomed From that paper "Part of the gap between US and Canadian health care costs may be explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital’ capital costs, larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of spending on research and development in the US." Now the paper also said this "Compared to the US system, the Canadian system has lower costs, more services, universal access to health care without financial barriers, and superior health status. Canadians and Germans have longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates than do US residents." However, by this book http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf When you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. The reality is that there are many factors that contribute to life expectancy besides healthcare. On infant mortality “International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related Factors: United States and Europe, 2010” In that report it shows that the US does very well in infant mortality when there is early pre-term births. That is a sign of a strong healthcare system in that a baby can survive even if they leave the womb at 24 weeks. Another issue with infant mortality is that the US has a high pre-term birth rate which will skew the results. Pre-term births can be associated with those who fail to take proper measures during pregnancies to which no matter how much access of healthcare one has it would not be solved. It is the same as obesity where obesity is self inflicted and requires no healthcare access to cure. Also, issues like obesity and diabetes contribute to pre-term births, both of those are typically self inflicted. So citing infant mortality is flawed. Also, read these reports "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “ Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ
    2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. Alden, the quality for advanced care is lower in other countries. Single payer is great for very very basic care such as routine check ups, pregnancies, and non critical situations. For critical situation and advanced care, such as surgery, it is inferior. As for people being more "economically stable" than the US, what do you mean? People in the US are stable. You bring up bankruptcy, but bankruptcy laws exist to ensure stability for people who fall on hard times. Diversity plays a large role in that different cultures means different economics, different lifestyles, and different ideas. Take the state of Nevada, for example. They are ranked poorly. However, a reason why is not because of their poor schools, it is because there is little incentive to become educated when you can make close to 6 figures parking cars or dealing at the poker table. The culture of the casinos influences their behavior. Now take the neighboring state of Utah. The large Mormon population influences the drinking laws there where beer has half the alcohol content. People die in Canada as well. Read the following papers "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “ Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart “Too many patients with cancer die in acute care hospitals despite palliative options: report" CMAJ The recession started under Hoover. FDR came in 1933 and we saw no recovery until close to 1940 because of WWII. The US economy was terrible under FDR. It shot up to number 1 after the war because every other nation was rebuilding. The New Deal policies were also watered down after FDR left. People who feel that FDR was a good president also feel that Matt Millen was a good GM for the Lions. Under Millen the Lions were terrible. Under FDR the economy was in a depression where it took a war to get us out of it. " In fact, every time in US history that a depression/recession has occurred, it was ALWAYS due to conservative/neo-conservative/neo-liberal policies, typically under Republican presidents." It is much more complex than that bud. Right now we have Trump who is almost as conservative as it gets when it comes to economics, our economy is growing.
    2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. Paul Ryan is stating the truth behind the 2nd amendment. It is there to prevent tyranny. Both Obama and Hillary are anti-gun. You have to explain the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. It isn't for hunting, it is to prevent tyranny. It is to prevent a government from becoming too violent and oppressive that when all other civil methods fail then we can counter with violence. "The shooter who shot the republican representatives had a known history of violence and should not have been allowed to own guns" What violence? You have to be specific. "But hey, the republicans don't have the nerve to say that even someone like that shouldn't own guns" Again, what has he done to require him losing his rights to own a gun? You do know republicans and the NRA came up with background checks in the pass, which we have now (and this guy passed). " Furthermore,  republicans give "free money" to corporations" How? If they do I don't agree with it. But again, how? If you say tax breaks that is allowing them to keep the money the earned. "universal healthcare wouldn't be free and no one said it would be. " It would be free for those who don't pay taxes. Remember, democrats want to raise taxes on the rich to make them pay for it, not the poor. "  I do believe that community college ought to be free for anyone who graduates high school, " So K-12 is not enough then? After 13 years of government schooling is not enough we need more? "and why should "state" college education cost an arm and a leg? " As that to the people who created the federal student loan program. " If we weren't going bankrupt supporting a bloated military budget " Defense spending accounts for less then 20% of our federal budget. We spend more on social welfare programs. Defense spending accounts for around 4% of our GDP. We spend more on education.
    1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. +Brian Anderson "Ideally, Congress would be representative of the electorate " They do. Problem is that we are such a diverse country that members of congress represent their voters. As in the members of Wyoming represent those individuals and the members of CA represent those individuals and so on. The reality is that people have little control of the federal government which is why we have to place strict limits on it and establish smaller, more local governments. "which is actually these ultra-rich shadowy figures behind our elected officials pushing their own agenda," Which wouldn't be a problem if the federal government had no power. It has no power than it can't be bought. "To simply blame "the federal government" is to miss the fact that RIGHT NOW they already don't represent us," I do feel like they represent us, but as I said we are such a diverse country that the role of government is not clear at the federal level. Politicians will push for what their people want. Everyone disagrees until someone with money comes in and persuades them differently. This is why the constitution was designed to place strict limitations on the federal government and established more state rights. The founding fathers could not agree on what government should do domestically so they left it up to the states and wanted to prevent a federal government from being too powerful. Members of congress I do feel represent their people for the most part, but what every state wants is so different then it becomes impossible to come up with a solution that most people can agree on. Money thus plays a factor in persuading politicians in supporting something. The fact is that the federal government should not have that power to begin with.
    1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157.  @JediMobius  , what higher paying jobs? You mean doctors and nurses? We lack them to begin with. Every med school has less than a 50% acceptance rate. Being a doctor is challenging. What I find to be sad with far leftists is they want these great things, like healthcare for all, but they are not willing to put in the work to do it. They feel that magically the goods and services will appear. 10% is a lot and far from manageable. If I were to increase your workload by 10% how will you react? The care will change because you are increasing demand in the system without increasing supply. That will cost a lot if you want the same quality of care. Again, if your workload was increased by 10% I imagine you will demand a raise. Under Bernie's plan, though, he will pay 40% less. That will mean less access and lower quality. If I were to cut your pay by 40% how will you react? Something has to give. This is very basic economics, I mean as basic as it gets. You can't expect to add 30 million people to healthcare and not expect it to be very expensive. You can't expect to reduce pay by 40% and not expect a drop in quality and access. To feel that way is pure ignorance. As for Bernie's point, he doesn't know how insurance companies, or really any company works. A lot of those profits go to shareholders where shareholders is the reason why these companies are so big to begin with. I am all for healthcare reform, but this is a challenging topic. M4A may be the solution, but you have to be honest. If you can't get the basic economics of it how I can take you seriously. Watch this video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e893Ky7iM6Y
    1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. Arshan, sorry for the late reply, I do have responsibilities. Bernie misrepresented the study by claiming medicare for all would save the American people money. That is not what the study concludes. Bernie made that conclusion by pointing to the $32 trillion over 10 years the study published. Bernie did a grossly oversimplification presentation with that number and compared it to what we pay now and said we will save money. However, you have to see what that $32 trillion over 10 years actually is. To start, that number is just for public spending, it does not include private which will still exist even with medicare for all. Bernie using what we pay now includes both private and public. Next, that $32 trillion was the lower bound. They found a range of numbers but published the lower bound. Chances are the cost will be higher. They also made assumptions based on Bernie's numbers that are most likely not going to happen. For example, they are saying that despite increasing demand prices will not go up which is an economic fallacy. Also, they are saying that health providers will be willing to take 40% less money, that is based on Bernie's numbers. That is unrealistic unless quality goes down or you do some sort of tort reform because doctors and hospitals pay a lot in liability insurance to protect against malpractice lawsuits. Overall, that $32 trillion 1. Does not include private care cost 2. Was a conservative estimate 3. Made many assumptions that economically will not happen Bernie compare that number to 1. A number that includes both public and private cost 2. He did not give the full details about the study In the end Bernie is misrepresenting the study because Bernie is a corrupt, career politician. He doesn't care about actually discussing the issues and progressing our country, he only cares about keeping his seat in office.
    1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212.  @pidayrocks2235  the 80 million case is a stretch, but it is based on antibody testing out of NY, Santa Clara and USC where more people than expected had the antibody. That suggests many were infected without knowing it. As for statistics, I just made a remark to someone else how, with your method, you are saying that those who die with the virus is purely because of the virus and thus there is a 17% mortality rate. However, there are comorbitities in that almost all who died have other health issues. Thus, the proper way is to weigh out to what degree the virus plays a role. For example, if someone had heart disease, diabetes, and the virus and the virus is listed as 3rd in cause of death and heart disease was number one, the proper way would bee to say, and just giving a number, that the virus contributed 20% to the person's death where 50% was from hear disease and 30% was from diabetes. The issue is that no one know to what degree the virus plays a role because one, we do not have a control, and two, the data set is low. As I pointed out in the example of number of people dying due to lack of healthcare access, that number ranges from essentially zero to 60,000 a year. But again, those people are sick to begin with. In the book "Being Mortal" the author writes how people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live only 5 or 10 months. That is because people in that case who die have many issues. So with this virus, basically all who died were old and/or sick to begin with. So their chances of dying in a few months was high to begin with. As for upper and lower bounds, you are throwing out words you do not understand. That is basically a function of the math. No different than an average and a standard deviation. You can have an average with a low SD with a small data set. And you can have an average with a higher SD with a larger data set. What is more accurate? Many will argue the larger data set. In the Scientific American article entitled "How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?" Prof. Andrew Gelman writes "The margin of error is a mathematical abstraction, and there are a number of reasons why actual errors in surveys are larger." Basically, it falls from the math which is why a lot of times end results differ greater than the polls. Same with what you are throwing out. A lot of numbers in stats are mathematical abstractions. A famous book is "How to Lie with Statistics". Basically, people can do legit analysis on any stat and come up with varying conclusions. Bottom line, 100,000 is a small sample size for something this complex. And you claim I do not understand statistics?
    1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. Eskil Tho, if there is no doubt then why did two professors proceeded to write an entire book on the subject? 1. We have over 320 million people. Sure, we have more resources, but we also have more people and a greater diversity which creates barriers. 2. Not true at all. 3. We also lead the world in R&D in healthcare and technology. I agree cost is an issue where the federal government has created a lot of that problem. But again, our quality is high. The high price of those drugs counter the affordable cost of the advanced care we offer. 4. Not true. Profit base does not equal higher cost. If that is the case then rent would be extremely high as it is necessary to have a home to live. 5. Single payer has problems as well. I never said our system does not have problems, it does. But in single payer systems they have longer wait times where people end up in worse shape than they were when they first hurt. That is a major problem as well. You are over simplifying this issue. I look deep because this is a complex issue. You brought up a handful of points as if single payer is the ideal system with no problems. Not to be rude but you are delusional. Sure, there is a debate in the US, but that is because we push for the best system as opposed to settling. Also, the majority do not want single payer. When placed on a ballot in Colorado, a blue state that voted for Bernie in the primaries, 80% said no to single payer healthcare. It seems like people are happy with the system we have. Most people in developed nations are not in the risk of dying as a whole. That is why the numbers in healthcare are so closed. But the reality is this, the US system leads to better R&D and better outcomes in advanced and critical situations. Other countries also do many things very well such as covering the very poor. But the consequence is lower quality in advanced care leading to people dying for "elective" heart surgery. No system is ideal. If you cannot admit that single payer has many flaws than you are delusional.
    1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. James Guilford, the Constitution is the framework in which the government can work in. I am a strict constructionist so no, I feel it is not vague. Your point on government working for the "will of the people" is vague because with our large population and diversity that is a lot. That is what the founding fathers ran into when they developed this country so in the Constitution they laid out the roles and responsibilities of the federal government and gave power to the states. If you look at the design of the Constitution domestic issues were given to the states where the federal government controlled commerce between states and foreign affairs. For example, prior to 1913 the federal tax was a tax on the states, not individuals. The consequences of lowering prices is the same as any price ceiling, lower quality. That is basic economics. Your talking point of private jets and islands is simply that, a talking point and not reality. The Constitution says that the federal government can coin money which is a part of foreign trade and interstate commerce. But that does not control the money supply. The Fed does. Having the Fed be quasi government has many benefits. Without influence of government the Fed can do what is right as opposed to do what the government wants. To give an example of that in the 60s and 70s we had massive inflation. Volcker was promoted as chairman of the Fed and he said that we needed to raise interest rates in order to stop massive inflation and stabilize the economy. That initially things would be terrible, but in the long run things would be great. Politicians think short term and they will enact short term policies in order to get re-elected. The Fed won't. Volcker's policies made it rough in the beginning and it led to Carter, the same guy who promoted him, to lose to Reagan. In the long run the economy stabilized and things were great. If the Fed is controlled by government then it would be subjected to politicians who care more about being re-elected as opposed to doing what is actually right. I said that the federal government influences the economy. What you said about interstate commerce is "You do know that the US Constitution gives congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and I am sure that you realize that interstate commerce is the substance of our natural economy, correct?" Two points there. On, interstate policy is a substance of our economy, not the natural economy. There are differences. Next, you saying "substance of our natural economy" made it sound like it was a major portion of it, or the economy in itself. I could have misunderstood you but my point is that there are other factors with much more weight than interstate commerce in our economy. The wealthy are able to over take the government when you have a government with too much power that you cannot control. That is not the fault of freedom but the fault of giving the government too much power. You want the federal government to control drug prices. What is going to stop them from being bought out by drug companies to create monopolies and increase drug prices? There is a desire to have government, but we have to keep it so that it remains the servants and not the master. You do that by limiting the powers of the federal government and giving more power to the states and local governments. At the local level you have more control of government as you can attend town halls, you can personally meet your representatives, you can see if government is working for you simply by looking out your window. You can see if your tax dollars are being spent well. And if you local government is not working for you you can either change it which is easier at the local level, or move and remain a US citizen. It is much more difficult to change the federal government. Sure, you may vote in a new Senator, but that is just one and at most two out of 100 from your one state compared to 49 other states you have no say in who they vote in as a Senator. That all leads back to government working for the will of the people and me saying it is vague. It is vague as the will of the people in one area of the country is completely different than people in another part of the country. I am not understanding your point on finite vs scarce? If you are talking about resources then yes, they are scarce and in many cases finite. It depends and it is a different discussion in itself that is long. However, the idea of a capitalist system is that people are in charge of their own resources which is mainly their income. They will then be more willing to invest it properly leading to more wealth growth and more resources to do around. When you do programs like welfare programs or price setting you end up with shortages. As in drug pricing, if you set a price ceiling then more people can afford it, but that does not increase the quantity of them leading to a shortage. Someone has to produce those drugs but if there is no profit motive why would they? That is why price ceilings do not work. As for the "invisible hand", that is the natural economy.
    1
  358. Al Clark, to start, your anecdotal evidence is only your experience. Your experience is not the norm nor does it represent the reality when we are talking about nations with millions of people, with varying economies, culture and so on. Next 1. 100% false. No system covers everyone. Read the paper "The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" by Dr. Scheunemann and Dr. White. The reality is that resources are scarce everywhere and that every system rations in some way. No system covers everyone which is why you have people dying in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery. On paper they may be covered, but that is a very low standard to set. If you want to set that low of a standard than you have to for the US as well because by law the ER cannot turn anyone away thus everyone in the US is covered as well. 2. Not a strong argument. My one bedroom apartment is cheaper than a three bedroom apartment. Does that make my apartment better? Also, there are many factors that influence cost. The US leads the world in R&D and has much better advanced care. Along with that we have many cases of people using the ER but cannot pay so the cost gets passed onto other customers. 3. Learn what insurance companies are. They are not charities. 4. Instead you die. 5. Same as in the US. Just get insurance earlier. 6. I agree that the employer based healthcare we have is a major problem and I feel that is the number 1 problem in the US. I feel that should be corrected and a free market system should be established. The US does many things well because we have a for profit system, but due to it not being a free market system costs do go up due to no negotiation and insurance equals healthcare as opposed to being insurance. This is a major problem and I can go into greater detail if you want. But this can be solved without establishing single payer. 7. Now you are just picking fly shit out of pepper. 8. So? I have no problem filing a claim. It keeps people honest. 9. There really isn't one to begin with. 10. Really? The government is the largest bureaucratic entity that exists. 11. The WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not created another one in almost 20 years. It compared the US to countries like Malta. I have no clue what The CommonWealth Fund's credentials are. I ask this all the time and no one can say. The reality is that those rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit statistical analysis on healthcare systems across the world and have the US be number 1 or be ranked very low. The CWF used overall life expectancy where two professors showed that if you remove car accidents and murders that the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Point being is that many factors influence overall life expectancy. In the book "Debunking Utopia" it was brought up that in other nations people live healthier life styles. They have lower obesity rates for example. Obesity can lead to shorter life spans and a higher rate of pre-term births where pre-term births leads to a higher chance of infant mortality. The CWF and WHO ignore situations like that. Their rankings, while having some value, are, for the most part, arbitrary. 12. That does not happen in other countries. It won't happen here. Single payer is government controlling healthcare. Ever heard of the "golden rule"? It is "Those who have the gold makes the rules". Government will be financing healthcare so they will be making the rules. That is the reality. If they don't then healthcare will becoming like college tuition where they will just jack up the price. College tuition was low until the federal government started to subsidize it particularly with student loans. At that point colleges just jacked up tuition. Same will happen in healthcare unless government takes control of it. As Bill Maher said, if they are going to be picking up the tab, they are also going to want to control the price. The administrative cost issue is not as simple as you make it sound. It is lower in medicare because medicare can pass the cost onto other agencies such as the CDC for disease awareness where insurance can't. Insurance also pays for fraud prevention which saves money. Also, how administrative cost is calculated in comparison between the two is not equal. Read the Forbes article "The Myth of Medicare's Low Administrative Cost" Many doctors do not take medicare. But a free market system will increase competition. Single payer will create a monopoly. The whole "pool" argument is very poor. You are increasing demand with single payer which will raise prices or lower quality. Also, you have to tackle the issue of moral hazard. Why should someone take care of themselves when they can just use government run healthcare? This is similar to the FDIC and the S&L crisis. Banks made bad decisions but did so because they knew the federal government will bail them out. Sound familiar? Why would people be responsible if the federal government is going to bail them out?
    1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. Alden, ""Leaving health care 100% to the free market" you just killed your ENTIRE argument right there, the free-market? You mean the place where profit is prioritized over the well being of people" Your route is federal government control that does not care if you live or die. If you die they don't care, they never met you and the vast majority of the federal politicians you cannot even vote for. If you die they see that as saving money as they no longer have to pay for your healthcare. " Go ahead and give me ONE example where a completely free-market healthcare system has EVER worked" If you want to split hairs nothing is ever a 100% free market as there is always a desire to have government. However, the for profit system has developed more innovation and more progress and better quality compared to single payer systems. "No system is perfect but it's been factually PROVEN that single payer healthcare systems work FAR better than free-market systems" That is not true at all which is why this debate exist to begin with. You are doing a very poor job at selling your point. You are going to the extremes with your words meaning you have no desire to actually educate yourself on this topic. "The last recession (and not a typical recession, but a Great Recession) was caused, in large part, by Bush" Eh, not really. There are arguments to be made that keeping interest rates low caused the recession. After the small recession of 2001 inflation rose but interest rates did not causing a bubble in the housing market. Now Bernanke admitted that the Fed caused the depression in the 30s, but is not admitting that the Fed caused the recession of 2008.
    1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. Al Clark, I like how you ignore the papers I posted on people dying in the Canadian healthcare system. On each point 1. Single payer would not cost less. Basic economics and history shows that. Why would healthcare providers charge less when the government is going to pick up the tab? Also, before you say that government will not pay a lot that means government is price setting and thus controlling healthcare. You just told me that government does not control healthcare. So considering how government does not control healthcare but will pick up the tab, what will stop providers from charging more? 2. The US system, overall, is no par with Canada in healthcare. You say it is far better than the US system means you have no desire to actually research the topic. The WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not created another one in almost 20 years. It compared us to countries like Malta. The Bloomberg ranking arbitrarily weighed life expectancy at 50%. Several factors influence life expectancy beyond healthcare. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Who in the hell is "Nationmaster"? You pull these arbitrary lists out of nowhere. The WHO has strong credentials and realized how bad rankings are and refuses to make another on. How is Bloomberg credible? And who is "Nationmaster"? A comparison study also said that in the US they pay more due to our strong R&D program. Read the paper "Comparison of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany, and Canada" by Goran Ridic. Two quotes "Part of the gap between US and Canada health care cost may be explained by a failure to account for Canadian hospital capital cost, larger proportion of elderly in the United States and higher level of spending on research and development in the US." Also "On should mention that data from different countries may not be directly comparable for several reasons and therefor, should be accepted with some skepticism". It was professor Robert Oshfeldt of Texas A&M University that said that many factors influence the numbers people use in healthcare studies, especially life expectancy. That makes any ranking of healthcare systems, like university rankings, arbitrary. These are experts in this field that admit that comparison studies are difficult where one admits that rankings are arbitrary. But you are so quick to post and support a ranking from a website called "Nationmaster".
    1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1