Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) Questioned on Medicare for All

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) Questioned on Medicare for All by Sam Husseini from http://www.washingtonstakeout.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ryan
• medicare
• singlepayer
• GOP

[AndroidPolitician]

@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]

@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]

@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!

[AndroidPolitician]

@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.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@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.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@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.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@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

[AndroidPolitician]

@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.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@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.

[AndroidPolitician]

@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.