Added: 8 months ago
From: washingtonstakeout
Views: 3,015
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (31)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @UBSCARED What possible difference does that make? Facts are facts.

  • I love how he dodged the last question about poor people in Europe. Serious, indeed!

  • Oh wait and even better, in the US 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to healthcare.

    If someone can find a single person from a single-payer country that's died because they couldn't get healthcare be my guest.

  • @AndroidPolitician The whole statistic is wrong. The authors of the study have retracted. No one dies because they do not have access to healthcare. There are people who died who have perfectly good medical insurance. The Democrats who used the false statistic knew they were lying. If you really believed it, would you put off healthcare reform from 5 years?

  • @CommonSenseJoe

    I don't recall any of the Harvard researchers retracting the study. I mean you can make a million arguments but please don't make stuff up.

  • @AndroidPolitician I am not making anything up. The authors of the study said that the Democrats were misusing their research. There was no way to prove that 45,000 people were dying every year because they did not have health insurance. People die everyday who have perfectly good health insurance because they choose to NOT go to the doctor. It is just another example of a manufactured crisis by the liberals. It was a takeover, pure and simple, designed to destroy insurance companies.

  • @CommonSenseJoe

    Can I get a source for that?

  • @AndroidPoliticianResearchers of the Harvard based their conclusion upon national surveys participants filled from 1986-1994. After checking how many of the adults died by the year 2000, researchers proceeded to make the unbelievable leap in assumption and faith that the uninsured stayed uninsured for all those years - and died as a result.

  • @CommonSenseJoe

    I just checked and they made no such leap of faith, they knew exactly how many died from lack of insurance, (hence uninsured being 40% more likely to die) and they clearly stated that this translates to 45,000 dieing from lack of insurance.

    The study co-author went on to say "“Historically, every other

    developed nation has achieved universal health care..Our failure to do so means that all

    Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives"

    not retract.

  • @AndroidPolitician The study was done improperly and began with the conclusion in mind. The authors have long advocated for socialized medicine. The report was produced by Physicians for a National Health Program, “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.”

  • @CommonSenseJoe

    Nope, PNHP had nothing to do with it whatsoever, it was conducted by the Harvard medical school and the results were obviously not pre-planned. Seriously how many lies to does that make now?

    - The researchers retracted their statement

    - There was no data on how many uninsured died

    - The PNHP was somehow involved

    Seriously that's three bold faced lies so far.

  • @AndroidPolitician The study followed 9,005 adults under 65 years old who took part in a national survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1986 through 1994. After 12 years, 351 people had died. Sixty of them were uninsured and 291 were insured. From this, and based on the estimate of 40 million uninsured, they extrapolated 45,000 deaths per year. Nowhere did they investigate the cause of the deaths, they simply attributed all deaths to lack of insurance.

  • @CommonSenseJoe

    Well seeing as how your name has "Common Sense" in it and seeing as how the uninsured where 40% more likely to die than the average, chances are it's not because they were all more likely to be in a car crash, it's because they didn't have insurance.

    I mean there's all these correlations with smoking and cancer but we don't KNOW if smoking is what caused it, all we know is smokers are more likely to get it and that cigarettes cause cancer.

  • @AndroidPolitician It is a flawed assumption. I know people who have GREAT insurance, but still will not go get any screening or tests done. To say someone died simply because THEY did not have insurance is simply unprovable. They used the 40 million uninsured figure which is erroneous. How many of the uninsured today on illegals who cannot get insurance?  How many are young people who CHOOSE not buy it so they can drive nicer cars and have newer cellphones? We need to deal with the facts

  • @CommonSenseJoe

    It sounds like your going off "I knew a guy who had great healthcare," the point is people without insurance are 40% more likely to die than people with insurance, what do you think this means? Is it just a random coincidence?

    "Do some die because they could see a specialist on time?"

    That was my original challenge, find a single example of this happening in a single-payer country, find one.

  • @AndroidPolitician Everyone dies, whether they have insurance or not. The assumption that you are 40% more likely to die without insurance is flawed. People die on Medicare and Medicaid all the time. There are far too many complex factors involved to determine that a lack of insurance is the cause. "Socialized Medicine Director Dies After Waiting Nine Months for Operation" Google it!

  • @CommonSenseJoe

    Oh really? And what are those "complex factors" that just happened to make it so that people without health insurance are 40% more likely to die which the Harvard specialists apparently chose to ignore?

    Face it, your trying to rationalize an obviously irrational belief just like how some people think that there are "complex factors" for why people who smoke coincidentally have more cancer.

    (Cont.)

  • @CommonSenseJoe

    (Cont.)

    Other medical studies have had similar estimates, Harvard has a bigger estimate, the Occam's razor solution is that people without health insurance die without it just like how smoking probably causes cancer notwithstanding "complex factors".

    The study focused on those under 65 so the medicare comparison is bogus and with regards to that one example, you chose a British tabloid, not a credible source but a Tabloid.

    Also read the first comment not just this.

  • @AndroidPolitician The study co-author has been a proponent of universal healthcare for decades, so the bias is obvious. Yes, they did, and not just one by many flawed assumptions to arrive at their numbers. Why is it that estimates for the uninsured continued to increase during the healthcare debate? First, 20 then 30 and sudden 40 million people without insurance. Also people don't always have insurance or a lack of it. As they change jobs and locations, their insurance changes as well.

  • @AndroidPolitician That is, again, a flawed comparison. Do people in a single-payer system still die? Do some die because they could see a specialist on time? Do they die because government won't spend the money on every new treatment or drug? How many new drugs are developed and sold exclusively in countries with socialized medicine? My argument is that the QUALITY of our care is better because we do not rely on the government to make those decisions, the consumer does.

  • I think Ryan forgot about how private healthcare costs are rising much faster than medicare.

  • @AndroidPolitician That's because Medicare does not pay the actual costs. This is why the costs are going up for everyone else. This is also why providers are dropping Medicare assignment and making patients pay their own bills. Whent seniors fail to get fully reimbursed by the Medicare, just listen to them scream then.

  • @CommonSenseJoe

    What exactly do you mean "Medicare does not pay the costs"? Medicare can't negotiate costs or set costs of any kind.

  • @AndroidPolitician Medicare does NOT pay the full cost of treating Medicare patients. Currently, they pay 80% of the actual cost of care. Medicaid is worse and reimburses only 60% of the cost. You are right. Medicare does not negotiate. It simply does not pay.

  • what an uninformed clown

  • watch the bullshit spewing from this delusional sociopath.

  • there is a special room in HELL for this man ! Millions have died waiting to get help from the state they pay taxes in & go to emergency rooms that r over flowing with Mexicans ppl die waiting in emergency rooms over five thousand die in texas every yr from having no health care republicans are all working for satan nothing less death belongs to satan not GOD

  • Must say, the part about not having enough people paying in for all those retiring sounds very similar to the Groupon Ponzi scheme idea and collapse;

    In addition, I really don't care for Ryan's smug sensibility. Sounds an awful lot like LeBron James' comment made yesterday about waking up everyday to the same life, while he is free to do what he wants because he is a highly paid athlete, while the "working class" indirectly pay his salary.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more