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

They are not reported until Monday due to less staff on weekends.
1
Eskil Tho, my point is that healthcare is very complex. You limited yourself to a simple "fact checking" website where I have read papers on this issue. I have looked deep into this issue and understand that overall the US is on par with other nations. Healthcare is very complex, much more complex than you are making it. I am not saying single payer is inferior, I am saying it has shortcomings and is not any better, nor worse than the US system. As I showed you I can easily argue against the life expectancy and infant mortality issue really easily.
1
James Guilford, the Federal Reserve controls the money supply. As for the government responding to the will of the people? That's vague. And no, the government cannot just lower the cost of medicine without some consequences. Interstate commerce is commerce across state lines. There are many things the federal government cannot regulate that influences our economy. For example, K-12 education. States control their own curriculum and how teachers get paid. Government can influence the economy, but when it does it too much is when problems happen.
1
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
Eskil Tho, I do not campaign for "billionaires and companies". I push for what I feel is the best system that will work in the US. I am not saying single payer is an inferior system, I am saying it has shortcomings. But so does the US. By our culture, and our established system we have it is best to work with the system we have, not completely replace it which will lead the the biggest economic recession ever in the history of modern times. I look at solutions and I have looked at this issue in details. That is why I can admit the US system has flaws and single payer does many things well. I just don't bash one system and praise the other. But I understand that the entire situation is complex and as a whole the US is on par with other nations when it comes to healthcare. That is why 80% of voters in a blue state voted against single payer healthcare. That is why every attempt to establish it in the US has failed with no uproar. People are fine with they system they have just like in other countries.
1
Eskil, not to be rude but you are over simplifying this situation. Healthcare is very complex. This is why there is a huge debate to begin with and why two professors wrote an entire book on the issue. You approaching this issue as if there is not debate and single payer has no problems. I can admit there is a debate and that every system has problems. Your issue is you can't. That is not bad as most people want to live a simple life. But the reality is that your mindset adds little to the conversation and issue. This is not an attempt to silence you as I encourage you to keep looking into this issue and keep bringing up points so that others can, in a polite way, challenge you. That is how you learn. But you have to admit two thing 1. There is a debate 2. Every system has pros and cons
1
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
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
Al Clark, it isn't "ethnic diversity" but culture. Many cultures act different. There is a video that compares Nevada to Utah, two neighboring states with many differences. Different cultures influence how the overall economy, including healthcare, function. The population argument is 100% legit. Name me one country with 100+ million people, a universal healthcare system, and a strong economy.
1
Al Clark, you saying that single payer wins with no contest is a major problem. I covered this with Eskil, but the reality is that there is a debate and every system has pros and cons. As a whole the US system is on par with other nations. You saying there is no contest means you refuse to accept the shortcomings of single payer and refuse to learn more about the issue of healthcare. That is a problem. I will never say the US system is the best, nor will I say single payer is terrible. I admit there is a debate. You should as well. You refusing to creates a problem.
1
Al Clark, also, medicare and medicaid are running out of money.
1
Al Clark, on defense spending you have to understand that for the past 50 years defense spending has been dropping. It went from 10% of GDP to now less than 4%. Not saying we should increase it, but what Trump is doing is countering what Obama did not want to do. There are pros and cons of the two party system. As for the the talking point of us spending more than the next 10 countries combine, our GDP is comparable to those countries combine. If you combine the GDP of those countries and look at defense spending it is around 2.5% of GDP. Our defense spending is at 3.5% of GDP. Still higher, but only by 1%. You do know that we spend more on education than many of those countries combine? Should we cut on education spending as well? Also, defense spending is less than 4% of GDP, healthcare is 1/6 of GDP. Cutting defense spending would not come close to funding healthcare.
1
Eskil, money isn't the only resource. It is doctors, nurses, technology, etc. Simply having money does not mean having enough resources. Also, ever thought that the US is so wealthy because we do not have a single payer healthcare system? That our system has led to the US being as rich and powerful as it is?
1
Mark Bloemberg, it isn't that easy. Saying you have more tax payers thus you have more money is over simplifying the issue. If a good portion do not pay taxes than you have more people with less money.
1
Eskil, the capitalist system generates wealth. As I said earlier, the US leads the world in R&D. Our progress in healthcare is the top. The for profit system creates more wealth. Yes, we pay more, but our quality is much better in advanced care. If I want to live in a better place I have to pay more. It comes at a cost. We have a lot compared to Europeans. What do Europeans have that we lack?
1
Mark, police are locally ran and funded and are a drop in the bucket compared to healthcare in cost. Also, police are there to create control and order in our society. That is different than from healthcare.
1
Mark, police are locally ran and funded. In some areas all they have is the local sheriff. In many neighborhoods crime is low where there are no cops most of the time. Why? Because there is a shortage of cops. Cops cannot cover every area in the public. Wait lines are longer with single payer. You increase demand without increasing supply. You talk about adding more clinics but it isn't just that, it is lack of doctors, nurses, equipment, etc. This is not Field of Dreams, you can't just build it and they will come. We are short doctors and nurses. Also, there are many people who do not pay taxes. If you increase the number of people on the healthcare bill but not increase taxes then we cannot afford it. Around half of the country does not pay any federal income taxes. You have to raise everyone's taxes to compensate. I have made many good arguments, you should go back and read them.
1
Alden, social security is running out of money because not enough people are paying taxes while more people are taking from it.
1
Mark, more people pay into social security and medicare than those who take from it. Those programs are losing money.
1
Alden, many things cause poverty. It isn't just medical bills. Under universal healthcare you would bankrupt the country.
1
Alden, I have posted a lot of comments breaking down the shortcomings of universal healthcare.
1
Alden, I posted evidence and papers to read. Other countries can "afford" universal healthcare by lowering the quality. Also, taxes are very high increasing cost of living. Along with that, those countries are small in population and have less diversity. How many nations with 100+ people, universal healthcare and a strong economy? But besides all of that the reality is that universal healthcare has many shortcomings. You get what you pay for. Wait lines have not been debunked. I posted titles of papers where people die in Canada in waiting lines. Other nations have much higher tax rates. FDR turned a recession into a depression. He hindered economic growth. He did not break up big banks. In fact, he created the FDIC which created the problem of moral hazard which created the S&L crisis. Now is the FDIC bad? Not really as it did solve many problems at the tie. But FDR did not help the economy.
1
Alden, also, you never countered anything I said, you just called them talking points. How are they talking points?
1
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
Egyptian, you are correct. The reality is that we do not have a free market system in healthcare. We have a heavily regulated one with a lot of government intervention. To me the main problem is the payroll tax where if a company pays a higher wage they will have to pay a higher tax. To counter that they pay with healthcare insurance. Because of that healthcare insurance is now healthcare and covers everything healthcare related. Many healthcare services can be paid for out of pocket. Issues like non-life threatening MRIs, elective surgeries, planned pregnancies, etc. Insurance does not have to cover that. Pregnancies can be tricky as you may want a personal doctor, but something like an x-ray or a routine checkup people can shop around. We have seen with LASIK that costs have gone down and the quality has gone up and LASIK is not covered by insurance. Insurance should be there for unplanned, expensive situations. Car insurance does not cover oil changes or tire rotations even though they are necessary for a safe, and reliable car. But it does cover car accidents that are unplanned and expensive. Healthcare insurance should be the same thing. And if people were allowed to shop around as opposed to depending on their employers for insurance they can force companies to compete which will lower prices.
1
John X, in the debate against Cruz Bernie was pushed in a corner by a guy from Denmark and Bernie admitted that he will have to raise taxes on everyone. But then he claimed that his healthcare plan would save people money and mentioned something along the lines of $2000 a month. He did not say where he got his numbers from, he just made that claim. Bernie is a fraud.
1
John X, when Bernie talks about wealth inequality he is technically correct, but is very deceptive. You are correct on income. But the truth is that income does not equal wealth. Bernie is correct in how there are a few who own as much wealth as 50% of the nation (I forgot the numbers but it is something like that). But there are many variables missing. In the US if you have no debt and only $10 in your name you have more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because many people have debt that exceeds their income. People like me. Is that bad? No as that debt is something big as in real estate, a business or in my case a college loan. Us as a nation is so strong that we allow others to go into debt to make large purchases and eventually move ahead in life. I have less wealth than a poor person in Ethiopia as that person has zero wealth where I have negative wealth. To be 100% fair Bernie is correct to a degree. Yes, it would be great if he references things, but the truth is he is being very very deceptive. Someone like Bezos earns $80,000 a year. He is so wealthy because he owns most of Amazon. He does that to keep other shareholders happy to keep the business strong. The point is that what Bernie is presenting is very deceptive and is much more complex. But we have enough ignorant people in this country that by into it.
1
John X, but you are correct on taxes. Bernie preaches about "fair share" but never says what that actually is.
1
Alden, eating fast food is more expensive than eating at home.
1
Egyptian, I agree with you for the most part. As for the government not doing anything right, I disagree to a point. There is a desire to have government. But it should not control healthcare to the degree it does on Canada. More competition would benefit the system in the US. I agree that competition means lower prices and better quality. I also agree that the private sector has the incentive to serve because if they don't they end up failing as a business. The government does not. They can create laws, raise the debt ceiling, and do numerous other things and still be around. Name me one company that is over 200 years old and is $20 trillion in debt? You can't. However, the US government is.
1
Mark, police are ran and funded locally. The more local a government program is the easier it is to control and micromanage financially. In government there is no one size fits all policy when you start talking about domestic issues like healthcare. Many places do not want universal healthcare. Many places may want it but have it ran in different ways. That is why most domestic programs like police, education, infrastructure, etc. are ran and funded locally. If you want to talk about a locally ran single payer healthcare system we can. But you cannot look at police and say "well we have police to obviously we can have universal healthcare at the federal level". It isn't that easy. 1. Police are ran locally making the finances and program different from state to state 2. Police departments are nowhere near as complex as healthcare. Last I checked cops do not need years of medical school to become cops 3. Police departments are a drop in the bucket in terms of cost compared to healthcare As for everyone paying in so we can afford for people who need it, the problem is moral hazard. There will be people who do not pay in but take a lot. That is why programs like SS, medicare and medicaid are losing money. More is being taken out then taken in. That is because you have leeches on the system. Where is the incentive to work hard when you can just take from others? Wait lines are a legit argument and not changing the subject.
1
Al Clark, care to give numbers on your "fair share" and reasons behind them?
1
Al Clark, single payer is government control healthcare. They set the price and determines who can get what type of healthcare. Government is the largest bureaucratic entity ever.
1
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
Al Clark, "That's pure bullshit.The single payer administration negotiates prices, and does so with the greater negotiating power of a large volume buyer. " Ok, what stops providers from raising prices? You place the government in a hard situation. If the government refuses to pay then hundreds of millions of people are without healthcare. Thus the government pays the very high price.
1
Al Clark, 1. What studies? I gave you a few and none of them support what you do. You pointed to Bloomberg as if they are credible and "Nationmaster" where I responded with "who?". Costs different in every state for numerous reasons. Does gas cost the same in every state? How about rent? Do jobs pay the same? The fact is that cost do fluctuate in every state. If you break you collarbone in another state and the state you are a resident in has single payer they can pick up the cost, or choose not to. You took the risk going to another state. That's life. If I get a speeding ticket in another state I have to pay their fine. The fines are different in every state. Local governments have far less bureaucrats. But again, what studies? I would love to read them. 2. SS is running out of money. Also, the poverty rate of seniors was dropping prior to SS as a trend of overall poverty. I am not proposing eliminating SS. I do support reforms. I do not support eliminating SS for a similar reason why I do not support dismantling our healthcare system for single payer. Doing so will cause a major recession. We cannot change anything in the economy that much. 3. Saying other nations is not an argument. Also, yes, people want affordable healthcare. They realize that single payer is not that. That is why 80% said no in Colorado.
1
Al Clark, I work in scientific research for a living and I have an NIH grant. Most publicly funded research in universities do not produce new drugs, they only carve out information that can be used in a big picture. Most new drugs are created in the private sector. As far as curing for finding symptom alleviation and not a cure for the disease, the issue is that the disease is so complex and difficult to cure to begin with. Finding a way to alleviate the symptom is much easier to people are in less pain and are able to function in life while a cure is developed. You know nothing about medical research.
1
@palillo2006 this is what they wanted. Also, deaths are not going up.
1
Trump is offering hope. He is talking about re-opening the economy May 1 in some way. The issue is that he is doing what is correct. Not freaking out and letting states handle this. Most of the cases/deaths are in the New England area as is. With that in mind we should start considering opening up the economy in many states.
1
We do not have the highest rate of the virus.
1
Those people are always at high risk for any kind of health issue.
1
Jupiter Skye ok, and?
1
Is it worse? Deaths are still low. That is the key thing. Right now we are pushing for herd immunity which there is evidence of.
1
If CA were to succeed they will fall apart economically.
1
They will be too busy paying taxes and trying to work through a poor economy is Bernie was president.
1
Love how people are starting to realize that death is a part of life. We, as a society, are so spoiled, that we cannot even accept death anymore.
1