I think it is fair to say that Lee has a better understanding than TJ, therefore it would be an easy debate, however that doesn't mean that Lee is right and TJ is wrong.
We have socialized healthcare in Britain and every single American I know who has lived in both Britain and America has said that they prefer the British system.
Also, if the capital gains tax loophole was closed, you would be surprised how little people it would take to pay for healthcare.
@citizenfitz george orwell was a socialist too and he was the biggest critic of stalin and hitler...1984 and animal farm were about totalitarianism not socialism. stalin and hitler used socialism in name only, even a retard could see that. you've been fooled by doublespeak
@citizenfitz But, then again: Sweden is a Socialistic country, and people over here are some of the most happy ones on the Planet. Much happier than capitalistic bullshit ideology of the U.S.
As it happens i live in Denmark, and yes we have a political party called the democratic socialists. You are right sir. BUT ACTUALLY, Obamas policies are much more alike the parties on the right wing here in Denmark. His policies are nowhere NEAR the democratic socialist policies.. Stupid idiot piece of shit..
If Socialism and Fascism are similar in nature, does that mean that the idea of commie nazis isn't so outrageous with a swatstika on one arm, the sickle and hammer on the other?
most of the people at the rally were more than likely rednecks. lots of them were misspelling shit on signs. rednecks dont belong in politics STAY HOME USE YOUR SECOND AMMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SHOOT AT DEER AN WATH MONSER TRUCKS RUN SHIT OVER ON PAY PER VEIW WHITE TRASH LIKE YOU RUIN THE COUNTRY FOR THE REST OF US SMART PEOPLE
it's called SOFCIAL-DEMOCRATS and most of the world leaders are called social-democrats - this has nothing to do with classic socialism, but you gotta know, since your name says so.. LOL
You can be against private insurance without wanting public insurance. The rhetorical advantage that liberals have on this issue is that if you don't think American care is perfect in every way, then you must be in favour of socialized healthcare. It's like all of the theorizing they did in the Bush years about spending the war budget on hospitals. "Neither" wasn't an option. You could either accept the status quo, or buy into the left-wing solution. No refunds.
Well I can't see how private inssurance (or public inssurance for that matter) would actually produce efficient results. Like YOUR video highlighted the whole system encourages waste. I really can not see how a viable and effective market can be set up for the provision of health care. Its one of the areas that is simply not suited to markets, like the police, teh fire service or the army. Privatisation simply does not make sense in these reas.
@evilreligion It encourages waste as more people rely on it. The graph in the video makes this point clearly: The higher percentage of our total healthcare expenditure that is spent by insurance companies as opposed to the consumers themselves, the more healthcare costs. Insurance is only supposed to be for emergencies. The current system would be like having our car insurance companies pay for our gasoline and then being surprised when car insurance prices rise.
I could make a graph showing the correlation between countries with a high GDP and countries with high obesity rates, but that doesn't mean that overeating makes you rich.
... sooo without these necessary conditions for a functioning efficient market the busineses do what they are supposed to do. They maximise profits. Without informed consumers, the rigors of competition or the ability of consumers to excercise choice we see waste and excessive profits. The system is not made efficient becasue there is simply no need to do so. If the conditions could be imposed then the market system WOULD work and work better than a bureaucratic one but I really don't ..
"necessary conditions for an efficient market are not and can not be presen"
You didn't explain why they can't be present. Given, they aren't nearly prevalent enough, and I'd like to see healthcare become a more competitive market, that's not at all what's going to happen if the government is put in charge. Yes, some health insurers may be against competition, but so what? Businesses love government favoritism.
Unless everyone in becomes a medical doctor specailising in the treatment that they need its almost impossible to make a truely informed choice in medical matters.
Unless you build at LEAST two or there hospitals in every town with duplicated specialist in every medical area its impossible exercise this choice.
In order to give genuine competition and choice you would need to double up on at least everything. Increasing compeition for inssurance companies will not solve the problem.
@evilreligion You're right, I'm not a doctor specializing in the treatment that I need, but I'm also not a dentist, and I'm capable of choosing what toothpaste I want. I'm not an automechanic, but I can still choose what car I want, and I'm not a realtor, but I can still be left the task of buying my own house. Just because I'm not a doctor doesn't mean that the government has to make all medical decisions for me, in an attempt to protect me from my own ignorance.
You can't make and informed choice between which medical proceedure is best because you don't have the knowledge and never will. This means you are wide open to manipulation. If those providing the health care are motivated by profit then you will be manipulated. If they are not motivated by profit then there will be less manipulation.
@evilreligion You can call it a straw man, but this entire logic you've introduced can be used for just about any field of knowledge. We aren't all experts on everything, therefore we can all be manipulated about something, therefore the government has to control everything. It's fallacious.
Most human beings are able to make an informd choice on a car because they really don't need to understand how it works just what it does. Similarly with a house or any other of the examples you give. But with medicine or differing medical opinions you really are not in a position to make an informed choice. This is why all of the expert proffesions are heavily regulated by governments, so yes the government does indeed need to control these proffesions - as it does by regulation.
@evilreligion You don't seem to explain what makes a doctor any more likely to mislead you than a real estate agent, a plumber, or a car salesman. In reality, it's possible for all of these people to mislead their customers, but the vast majority of them don't, and even so this wouldn't justify nationalization.
2- Becasue its harder to prove negligence or bad advice
3- Because he is not fleecing a person he is fleecing an inssurance company. As such he will have far less guilt in doing so. Its one thing to advice and expensive but pointless battery of tests if its coming out of your petinets own pocket but another thing completely if its all covered by inssurance. The system encourges and incentivises this inefficiency.
@evilreligion Saying that he can "get away with it better" doesn't explain anything, nor does saying that it's "harder to prove negligence or bad advice." The question, in case you truly didn't understand, is *WHY* it's easier for the doctor to get away with it. In a free market system, what makes you think doctors would mislead customers any more than the specialist of the next industry? I don't see any real explanation being offered by anybody.
Because there is no incentive for an NHS doctor to order expensive unecessary tests. He gets paid the same regardless and in fact pointless tests would blow his departments budget. As such doctors are actualu incetivised only to order tests that are necessary for patient care. This improve efficiency. In the private system the hospital has EVERY incentive to order as many pointless tests as possible as it equates to more money.
Now you have your explanation- money is a great motivator
@evilreligion Well I don't see why this doesn't apply to literally every service field. All you have to do is overestimate the ignorance of consumers, and then assume that their ignorance is set in stone. Consumer awareness is a thriving industry in and of itself which employs plenty of specialists that examine business practices. The market naturally punishes malpractice, and even in a privatized system fraud would be punishable by law.
@evilreligion "Its one thing to advice and expensive but pointless battery of tests if its coming out of your petinets own pocket but another thing completely if its all covered by insurance."
This is actually one of the reasons that govt healthcare is so inefficient. Economic reform should be judged by the incentives that they create, not by the theoretical outcomes that politicians desire.
John Stossel explains this in greater detail, here: /watch?v=LNhn5KUseSc
@Ilikelimpbizkit those are called 'glasses', they are not part of his face. They are an instrument to aid when a person is having difficulty with their sight.
I could tell just by looking at this person that i don't like him... yeah... lets not tax the rich and not give them restrictions so they can expand faster and, out source more jobs
@gamepro94z Companies outsource jobs overseas most frequently when it's required of them in order to sustain their business in its entirety. In doing so there is a net gain in American jobs because the outsourced savings allow them to not go out of business. Companies that do ship jobs overseas typically hire more domestic workers than those that don't.
Proven not to work? In what sense? I've seen firsthand the downsides of the NHS in the UK, and the different downsides of variations on the systems of 'social' healthcare in Australia and the Netherlands.
They're all irritating at times. (and very irritating for someone with my type of problems), but no evidence I've ever come across shows the US to be in any way shape or form better. And if you can find me a country without 'social' medicine that is better off for it...
and judgmental. i think most fiscal libertarians are prejudicial toward poor people. i'll take back the part about him being selfish tho, i am not sure whether he is or not. many fiscal libertarians are selfish. "i don't want the gov't taxing ME."
it's amazing to me that people who have never read a history book can dictate what is right and wrong. to quote F.A. hayek: "Fascism and Communism are merely variants of the same totalitarianism which central control of economic activity tends to produce"
Saying fascism isn't communism just because stalin didn't like hitler is like saying I'm not human simply because I don't like humans and say that I'm not.
@opethfan92 Pff. Ever experienced it first-hand? It drives me insane at times, but it works a lot better than people who have never dealt with it themselves proclaim.
@opethfan92 Fair enough. But I hear so many criticisms from people that haven't got a clue what they're talking about, and are relying on incredibly biased tabloid journalism for their 'facts'.
Trouble is, would not having the NHS exist at all make the situation better? I highly doubt it.
fascist - 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Why havent you responded to my comment and try to discredit my comment about Beck launching his 9/12 project? wHY? Because your oh so very wrong!!!! Come on dude own up to your lies about the 9/12 project....... Lawyer?
Glenn Beck created it you fool!!!!! Watch the episode where he clearly states its "his idea for America". Also type into google "9 Principles, 12 Values : Glenn Beck The 912 Project" and you will get the truth. also type into youtube "Glenn Beck: The 9-12 Project" He states he "layed out a plan called the 9/12 project" Dam your a fool get your facts straight..
Yes,yes,yes, we all know God isn't real, and we want to ban religion in all public places, yes, yes ,yes. You see the difference between you and me is that I keep my atheism in my pants.
why do you have a problem with obama being on tv-i think that shows that he isnt scared about being questioned about his health care bill-at least its not the same ole dribble from gbush-and to compare obama with mussolini,a facist dictator is just a joke-and if you do beleave that ,you wouldnt be posting on youtube you'd be hiding in a hole from facist obama's secret police ready to take your ass to the gallows for treason-and the 912ers are a bunch of fuckin sheep following fools like you
Republicans prefer the worst case. To show this, Obama's speech to schools was all about learning, and growing, and serving Obama (WHAT?! oh wait, they cut that part out.) Where as Bush's speech was all about not failing and not dropping out.
I'm not sure why Lee is foolish enough to think that any of those protestors supported Obama in the first place. Those are the white, Christians, conservatives who felt left behind.
Wharever should you then call corporations taking over the goverment? The result seems to be the same, with "interest groups" representing their own collective.
So, the Amazing Athiest came off with all these bad things that have happened to him? Bad things happen to most people. Self pity turns you into a bitter, hateful person. Unfortunate events will either make you bitter or better. It's your choice. I've talked with enough athiets to find that they harbor tremendous amounts of bitterness over unfortunate things that happened in their lives, and if you really dig, you end up with all that 'poor me, boo hoo.'
MaoZeDong had his own ideas of socialism and communism, too. He was sure that he had it all worked out. NOT! When are these kooks going to figure out that you need to work, produce, and consume in a FREE environment?
I happen to live in Sweden and Obama would be out on the far right wing in this country. Same as in other parts of europe. Out party is called "Social Democrats" When a journalist asked the former party leader Göran Persson if he considerd himself a socialist and he said no. "Social" is just a historical note on what the party used to be like. Obama would be far right wing in most european counries. Btw when you look at taxes overall you look at the % tax of the BNP = National product.
You are human trash. The death of a loved one is not a joke.
You lie for money. You pump up your own videos with sockpuppets because you are paid to get out the message of billion dollar interests. They want you to get people to go along with the things that make money for those interests.
@biantai888 He didn't say the death of a loved one is a joke. This sock-puppet thing is completely unsubstantiated. Nothing else you said has any meaning. Your insults are self-defeating.
I'm so sorry I couldn't have been at the 9/12 march! I really wanted to come and hopefully get to shake your hand in person, but alas, thanks to being disabled, I wasn't able to be there in person. I saw your speech online, though, *fantastic* job! Keep it up!
Both my grandfathers fought for this country. All my family lives here. This is my home. Unlike Obama, I love this country. I believe its not too late to fix this thing.
Oh you were sarcastic in your first post i thought you were some idiot extreme right that thought Obama destroyed the country intentionally. Sorry, my mistake :)
Obama loves this country. His grandfather fought for it. Part of his family lives here. This is his home. I wonder how conservatives get it in there head that Obama hates America.
I think Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and joe Biden hate this country too. i guess i think that because they are black. no ...wait...they arent black.
I believe all of the above including Barack Obama hate this country because its the only explanation for the way they are acting. their policies are going to destroy us...but im sure you have drank so much Kool-aid that you believe they just want whats good for you. haha..haha..haha...
Clinton had a much better run than Bush. The way they are acting? What way? You mean like Obama's buckling on the public option which, unlike Iraq, was supposed to actually help people?
But I supposed you've polished off the sixpacks Palin had been talking about.
Seriously the Kool-Aid stereotype jokes are getting lame.
It might have something to do with the 20 years or so he spent in the pews of Reverend 'God damn Amerikkka!", his friendship with William Ayers and his mentor Frank Marshall.
But hey, evidence is like cryptonite to Obamatons whose sole intellectual weapon is the race card.
I don't see why you say socialized medicine has been proven not to work every time it has been tried. Has anyone ever been denied coverage because they're sick? No. That in itself makes American healthcare look terrible and manipulative. The fact that corporations can do that to people is terrifying.
i might be misinterpreting your comment...if so, im sorry. but socialist healthcare denies people of needed medical services all the time. one of the most recent in Canada is the lack of funds to provide the elderly with hip replacements. the thing with socialist healthcare is that if the money runs out, so does the services. and one thing is certain. the money always runs out when you have politicians involved.
So why, if this is the case, do socialised healthcare systems make up 36 of the top 37 healthcare systems in the world?
Socialised health care may indeed fail when the countries money runs out, private health care of course fails when any idividuals money runs out. The evidence from around the world shows us which causes the most people to be denied the right of healthcare.
WHO rankings are biased in favor of UHC. They place a greater emphasis on equality rather than quality. For example, the US was rated #1 in responsiveness (12.5% weight) but since the US didn't perform as well in the categories that have nothing or little to do with actual healthcare performance, we end up in 37th. Countries like Columbia (ranked 1st in financial fairness 25% weight) unfairly get higher rankings because of how WHOs bias. Egalitarian doesn't always mean better.
The WHO base their assessment on a large number of criteria actually. You can't just dismiss the results of a comprehensive study because you don't like them. Also you can't cherry pick one elements that the US apparently does well in.
Lets have a look at some meaningful stats shall we i.e. the results:
Infant moraility 46rd in the world
Life expectancy 47in the world
Maternal deaths 22 in the world
Percentage of life live in illhealth 13.5 % (for other 1st world nations its around 11%)
3 out of the 5 factors WHO uses to construct rankings have nothing to do with healthcare performance but are judging equality and inequality in the system. They favor the uniformity of govt healthcare systems. Those 3 factors have a total weight of 62.5%. I dont like the WHO study because their ranking system is based on ideology and isnt a good measure of actual healthcare performance.
Life expectancy is heavily affected by factors not related to healthcare performance such as accidents,homicides,life style choices, & also poverty. Higher infant mortality is also misleading seeing how there is variation in how many European countries define infant mortality which leads to under reporting in those countries. Socio-economic factors also play a role.The US healthcare system has a well trained medical labor force,is innovative, & have latest technology.We dont deserve 37th
So you're saying its all a conspirecy to put America down?
As noted in my previous comment you do have all the technology and well trained doctors. With the amount you spend you should have the best healthcare system in the world by far. You should all be living into you're late 80's given the amount of money you pay for healthcare. In any public system that well funded you would indeed have the best health care in the world. But instead your ranked 37th.
Americans do lives well into their 80s. An American aged 65 has a life expectancy of 18.7 years. Females aged 65 actually have life expectancy of 20 years. An American aged 75 has the life expectancy of 12 years. Life expectancy for people aged 65 is better in the US than life expectancy in the UK.
And yet life expectancy overall is lower than other first world nations who spend far less on healthcare. You can cherry pick stats all you like but deep down you know they really don't stack up.
Face facts health care in America is a collossal waste of money. Even looking at you;re cherry picked stats is still a rubbsih system. You spend 3 times as much per capita than the UK... 3 times!!! Think about that.
We spend 3 times as much & our health care is 50 times better. You know how we can spot a POM? Bad teeth. And why is that? Because dentistry isn't covered by the Nation health Scam. You boys continue to sit in ambulances instead of being treated. POM healthcare is a national embarassment.!!! We will NEVER go there.
@evilreligion So even after it's been established that their 37th ranking is a complete misnomer based on the ideological basis of a bureaucratic United Nations report filed over a decade ago, you still hold onto it as a talking point in the argument, and flaunt your own country's higher ranking (from the same index) as a note of superiority. How telling. Oh, and life expectancy is not a measure of the quality of healthcare whatsoever, but I doubt you care for your own year-old errors.
@evilreligion Life expectancy is not better in any third world nation than it is in the United States. Countries that manage higher life expectancy do so because they have a healthier culture, not because they let their government run their healthcare systems. For example Japan's life expectancy wouldn't slump to below America's if the government stopped paying its people's healthcare bills and instead reimbursed that money to its people. There's simply no correlation.
I agree that healthier lifestyles do make a difference. But so many countries have a higher life expectancy than America you can't just dismiss all of them as just being healthier. We can see the truth of this is we compare life expetancies by walth. Wealthy ameircans have roughly the same life expectancy as say wealthy people in the France or UK. But Americas poor has significantly lower life expectancy than the poor of France and the UK.
@evilreligion There are tonnes of factors that go into life expectancy. The average diet in Japan is healthier than it is in America. Americans have a higher chance of dying in car accidents, or dying in gun violence, and get less exercise. The difference in reported life expectancy between Japan and the US is still only 4.3 years. Between the US and the UK, 1.1 years. You cannot ignore all factors and dismiss poorer life expectancy as the result of capitalist healthcare.
If every other first world country on Earth has socialized healthcare and the United States comes in 4th overall for quality of care, then you'd declare socialized healthcare better simply because those 3 countries WITH socialized care are better, overlooking the hundreds of countries that have it worse. You have a huge rhetorical advantage here: Either US care is world-class and perfect in every way, or socialized medicine wins. All you have to do is find a flaw in the market. Not a hard task.
If the US came in fourth and the other 3 higher countries sill spend 1/3 of what the US does then yes I'd say that socialised care is more efficient. Thats the argument here the US spends 3 times as much per capita than the UK on health care and by almost any objective measure of overall quaility score way lower. The US system of free trade is collosally inefficient. Some things just don't work well in the private sector.
@evilreligion Then what do you mean by "any objective measure"? That WHO study certainly wasn't objective. As another user noted, the majority of the weighted areas were just a matter of determining which healthcare systems were the most egalitarian, not determining which had the best outcomes. The real cost of inefficiency is in shortages. For example Britain has half the amount of CAT scanners per capita than the United States, despite having been the inventor and primary exporter of them.
@evilreligion The use of high-tech medical procedures is also a concern. Annually per 100,000 people there are 388 uses for cases of coronary angioplasty and 203 for coronary bypasses, as opposed to 51 and 41 in the UK. These comparisons can also apply to Canada, though not as drastically as to the UK. In terms of wait times, and the average time patients spend in the hospital (more efficient systems get them in and out quickly to accommodate for future patients), the US comes in first globally.
@evilreligion Wealthy people in America have access to much better healthcare than wealthy people in France or the UK, and by your own admission they do not live longer. Naturally the availability of wealth increases lifespan. The difference between lifespan among the poor in the US v. UK doesn't necessitate causation in healthcare availability. Wealthy people may simply be less susceptible to the aforementioned factors (gun violence, etc.). Do you have statistics of incidence in that regard?
It could be due to increase violece in the US. I could be due to a more unhealthy life style. Maybe but I think you are clutching at straws really in desperation to save the free market idology that private enterprise is always the most efficient way of allocating resources. I know for a fact that if we trebbled the budget of the NHS in the UK so that we spned the same per capita as the US we would have by far the best health servcie in the world. Socialised health is just more efficient
@evilreligion Or perhaps you're ignoring more influential factors to blame their shorter lifespans on the market? It's not like the net effects of increased crime and auto accidents cannot be quantified. The United States spends more money on healthcare than the rest of the world because for the most part they receive more for their money. You aren't getting the same product in return. They pay more for a reason.
The US pays more and gets less. According to almost any way you want to measure it.
Higher infant mortality. Higer maternal mortality, Lower life expetancy. etc etc etc This is not just the WHO reports either there are many studies showing this.
@evilreligion I've listed several ways that the United States gets more. "Many studies" are mere comparisons between the self-reported numbers of various countries. Infant mortality wouldn't be higher in those countries if they were to adapt a market system. Life expectancy, again, has almost nothing to do with healthcare. In the United States, the life expectancy for a newborn Asian male is 81 years, while for an African male it's 68 years. Nobody thinks these differences are due to healthcare.
"Of women diagnosed with breast cancer, 20% die in the United States, 33% in France and Germany, and almost 50% in the UK and New Zealand."
"Fewer than 20% of men [with] prostate cancer die in the United States, 25% in Canada, almost 50% in France, and more than 50% in the UK."
"Among people with chronic renal failure, only half as many Canadians as Americans get dialysis, and only a third as many Britons on a per capita basis."
No sure what stats you are refering to. A recent study in CA journal shows a 27% mortality rate in the UK and 20.1% in the US from breast cancer. The same study shows a 6.2% MR in China 12.8% in Khazakstan. This is why you can't isolate a few diseases and make generalities. This is why you need to look at overall health care provision and general indicators of health like life expectancy. You dismiss the WHO report becasue you don't like what it says.
@evilreligion It depends what year you're referring to, who was responsible for it, and when it was published. But I don't care to get into that because you agree that the UK has a higher breast cancer mortality rate, and didn't respond to any other criteria.
I dismiss the WHO report for being complete rubbish, and for the third time I link you to CATO's analysis that you likely haven't bothered reading.
@evilreligion I'm not saying that America's system is better than the NHS simply because of breast cancer survival rate. That is but one example of critical areas wherein the United States performs better than other developed nations. You said: "The US pays more and gets less. According to almost any way you want to measure it." Well, if we can't measure it by survival rates of ... well, anything, then how do you propose we measure it? Life expectancy is not an option, as I've already explained.
@evilreligion So we can't look at who has the most advanced equipment, the better doctors, med schools, how many high-tech medical devices or family doctors there are to go around, or cancer survival rates. Then what exactly is the NHS doing better in? There's no correlation between healthcare spending and life expectancy, or even healthcare ranking on that WHO index and life expectancy. There is no "spend more; get more" in the public sector.
Look I have covered all this in a 1000 word response but I can't send it to you becasue you only accept messages from friends. There is an exceptionally strong correlaton between health care spending and life expectancy. Some countries fall off he curb Cuba does so in a good way America in a bad way .
@evilreligion Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world at 82.6 years, and they spend $2,249 USD annually on healthcare per capita. Canada has a life expectancy of 80.7 years, and they spend $2,989 USD annually on healthcare per capita. Look at the top 10 or 20 countries for healthcare spending in comparison with the top 10 or 20 for life expectancy; less than half of the names are reoccurring. I don't accept private messages because I don't see why you can't post your response here.
There is of course variation on life expectancy between countries for reasons OTHER than healthcare spending. Both Canada and Japan are off the curb a bit. But the correlation curb still remains strong. There is a very strong correlation between life expectancy and health care spending for most countries. America falls WAY off the curb - this needs explaining.
The reason why I can't post a full response here is the word limit is just too limiting to make proper points.
@evilreligion Looking just at socialized systems, the top five countries in terms of healthcare expenditure are Norway, Switzerland, Canada, the Netherlands, and Austria. They place in 13th, 4th, 11th, 16th, and 16th in life expectancy, respectively. I'm just not seeing the correlation you're referring to. If you just mean that nations with higher life expectancy generally spend more than nations with low life expectancy, e.g. France spending more than Swaziland, then it's a false correlation.
@evilreligion Given your logic here, if you were to compare France to Swaziland, or Japan to Zambia, then what you'd find is that having a higher obesity rate contributes to having a higher life expectancy, since wealthy countries often have more of both. Similarly, if wealthy citizens play golf more often than poorer citizens, then we can conclude that golf raises life expectancy since wealthy people live longer than poor people.
@evilreligion It's only when you stop making such drastic comparisons, i.e. very high end to very low end, that the correlation fades. Compare wealthy people who play golf to wealthy people that don't play golf and suddenly there's no correlation between life expectancy and golf.
Finally, I don't see what's so hard about posting multiple YouTube comments.
@9jv4 Ok I don't think you understand statistics very well. Look here. ucatlas(dot)ucsc(dot)edu/spend(dot)php look at the 3rd graph. Do you see the correlation? Its pretty clear right? Now which countries are OFF the curb? These are the abnormal countries. These are the ones where something DIFFERENT is going on. Iraq - War Cuba - Massive socialised health program (more doctors per capita than any country) South Africa - AIDS and crime America - ??? Why is America off the curve?
@evilreligion I understand that in order for correlative statistics to have any meaning there must be causation, and in this case there is no causation even if you can identify correlation, and I still don't think you can. I'd gone to your link the first time it was posted. The graph that you sent me to ( tinyurl . com / 357jcf ) shows no correlation at all and the scale was OBVIOUSLY arranged to make the United States stand out.
Cuba: communist govt that self-reports its stats. See also: lies.
The scale of the grpah really won't make much difference to the fact that the US falls way off the curve. You are correct the correlation does not necessarily mean causation. But are you actually disputing a link between health spending and life expectancy? A few posts ago you were say that America spends more and so gets better health care. So which is it? If you do acept a causal link between spending on health and health you now need to explain why America is a statistical anomoly.
Also whats the graph OBVIOUSLY arranged to make Iraq, Cuba and Singapore stand out? If so why? Why would the university of california do this? What would be the purpose of this lie?
Why would an American university deliberatly trash America in this way? Why would they promote Cuba, and Singapore?
Please look at the 3rd graph as well. It shows the correlation curve far better.
"Why would an American university deliberatly trash America in this way?"
Because they want socialized medicine.
"It shows the correlation curve far better."
To quote myself: "In order for correlative statistics to have any meaning there must be causation, and in this case there is no causation even if you can identify correlation."
People with wealth live longer than those who don't, and coincidentally countries with wealthy people spend more on healthcare than those that don't.
So you don't think that spending on health care improves health. Really? Seriously? There is no causal linke between health care spending and health? Thats your argument? Come on you can't possibly think that. In fact I know you don't becasue you were arguing the exact oposite a few posts ago when you justfied Americas massive spending on health as generating better returns.
@evilreligion American healthcare is more market-based, and in a market, price reflects either quality or quantity, whereas in a bureaucracy, higher spending can often lead to poorer quality because there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that money is spent efficiently. Economic models are not judged by their intentions nor by their capacity to succeed, but by the incentives they create and by the realities that ensue.
In a market price will reflect quality or quantity IF there is competion, a genuine choice and informed customers (i.e. they have the information to make a choise). Without these 3 things present a market will not function efficiently, in fact it will tend towards huges profits and waste. My argument is that none of the 3 conditions for an efficient market are present in health care and I don't see how they ever can be. As such a bureaucracy will actually be more efficient.
@evilreligion .... compete with a self financing government system then it is less efficient than that system. Thats why they didn't want the public option because it would expose their inefficiencies and exessive profits. If the private sector was more efficient then the public option should not have been any problem. They should have welcomed it because it would not have been a threat in any way shape or form. The fact that they were terrified of it is really telling.
I think it is fair to say that Lee has a better understanding than TJ, therefore it would be an easy debate, however that doesn't mean that Lee is right and TJ is wrong.
We have socialized healthcare in Britain and every single American I know who has lived in both Britain and America has said that they prefer the British system.
Also, if the capital gains tax loophole was closed, you would be surprised how little people it would take to pay for healthcare.
Even the top 1% alone could.
ec123456789able 2 weeks ago
Lee, you really got a lot of things wrong in this video. Do your research.
PolitcalIslam 2 weeks ago
America isn't a "capitalist" country. And while I agree that America is on its way out - so is Sweden. Just a few more years....
citizenfitz 6 months ago
Commies and nazis had a whole lot in common. The differences between them were like the differences between Mets fans versus Yankee fans.
citizenfitz 7 months ago
Stalin was a soclialist. Hitler was a socialist. Obama is a socialist. No one with a brain cell holds otherwise.
citizenfitz 8 months ago
@citizenfitz george orwell was a socialist too and he was the biggest critic of stalin and hitler...1984 and animal farm were about totalitarianism not socialism. stalin and hitler used socialism in name only, even a retard could see that. you've been fooled by doublespeak
Odysseus087 7 months ago 5
@citizenfitz Hitler was a vegetarian. So fucking what?
philateliceun 7 months ago
@philateliceun Your non-sequiturs are becoming humorous.
citizenfitz 7 months ago
@citizenfitz But, then again: Sweden is a Socialistic country, and people over here are some of the most happy ones on the Planet. Much happier than capitalistic bullshit ideology of the U.S.
Socialism = Happy population
Capitalism = Shit.
America is a dying regime.
SixtySeventh 6 months ago
@SixtySeventh Yes, in Sweden people are very happy. That is why they are one of the main 20 countries in the world with the higgest suicide rate
crocve 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crocve Sure. But we're still very goddamn happy. So, we're one of the happiest countries in the world, but also is on the top 20 suicide lists.
Hmmm....... Anyhow what's your point? mine was we're happy, and yours is that we're not? Well, I have statistics that contradicts that claim.
So please, never write a YouTube comment again you intellectually weak piece of nothing.
SixtySeventh 6 months ago
As it happens i live in Denmark, and yes we have a political party called the democratic socialists. You are right sir. BUT ACTUALLY, Obamas policies are much more alike the parties on the right wing here in Denmark. His policies are nowhere NEAR the democratic socialist policies.. Stupid idiot piece of shit..
xxNewAbortionxx 8 months ago
If Socialism and Fascism are similar in nature, does that mean that the idea of commie nazis isn't so outrageous with a swatstika on one arm, the sickle and hammer on the other?
Remus0387 10 months ago
@Remus0387 The natonal bolsheviks in Russia have a nazi flag, but instead of having a swastika, it has an hammer and sickle in the center.
crocve 6 months ago
most of the people at the rally were more than likely rednecks. lots of them were misspelling shit on signs. rednecks dont belong in politics STAY HOME USE YOUR SECOND AMMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SHOOT AT DEER AN WATH MONSER TRUCKS RUN SHIT OVER ON PAY PER VEIW WHITE TRASH LIKE YOU RUIN THE COUNTRY FOR THE REST OF US SMART PEOPLE
youarenotaslave1 10 months ago
You have class. You really do!
antiloqax 10 months ago
it's called SOFCIAL-DEMOCRATS and most of the world leaders are called social-democrats - this has nothing to do with classic socialism, but you gotta know, since your name says so.. LOL
m0rbusPolytox 10 months ago
i think you need to get laid
bojanks15 11 months ago
You can be against private insurance without wanting public insurance. The rhetorical advantage that liberals have on this issue is that if you don't think American care is perfect in every way, then you must be in favour of socialized healthcare. It's like all of the theorizing they did in the Bush years about spending the war budget on hospitals. "Neither" wasn't an option. You could either accept the status quo, or buy into the left-wing solution. No refunds.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
Well I can't see how private inssurance (or public inssurance for that matter) would actually produce efficient results. Like YOUR video highlighted the whole system encourages waste. I really can not see how a viable and effective market can be set up for the provision of health care. Its one of the areas that is simply not suited to markets, like the police, teh fire service or the army. Privatisation simply does not make sense in these reas.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion It encourages waste as more people rely on it. The graph in the video makes this point clearly: The higher percentage of our total healthcare expenditure that is spent by insurance companies as opposed to the consumers themselves, the more healthcare costs. Insurance is only supposed to be for emergencies. The current system would be like having our car insurance companies pay for our gasoline and then being surprised when car insurance prices rise.
9jv4 11 months ago
@evilreligion
I could make a graph showing the correlation between countries with a high GDP and countries with high obesity rates, but that doesn't mean that overeating makes you rich.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
... sooo without these necessary conditions for a functioning efficient market the busineses do what they are supposed to do. They maximise profits. Without informed consumers, the rigors of competition or the ability of consumers to excercise choice we see waste and excessive profits. The system is not made efficient becasue there is simply no need to do so. If the conditions could be imposed then the market system WOULD work and work better than a bureaucratic one but I really don't ..
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion
"necessary conditions for an efficient market are not and can not be presen"
You didn't explain why they can't be present. Given, they aren't nearly prevalent enough, and I'd like to see healthcare become a more competitive market, that's not at all what's going to happen if the government is put in charge. Yes, some health insurers may be against competition, but so what? Businesses love government favoritism.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
Unless everyone in becomes a medical doctor specailising in the treatment that they need its almost impossible to make a truely informed choice in medical matters.
Unless you build at LEAST two or there hospitals in every town with duplicated specialist in every medical area its impossible exercise this choice.
In order to give genuine competition and choice you would need to double up on at least everything. Increasing compeition for inssurance companies will not solve the problem.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion You're right, I'm not a doctor specializing in the treatment that I need, but I'm also not a dentist, and I'm capable of choosing what toothpaste I want. I'm not an automechanic, but I can still choose what car I want, and I'm not a realtor, but I can still be left the task of buying my own house. Just because I'm not a doctor doesn't mean that the government has to make all medical decisions for me, in an attempt to protect me from my own ignorance.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4 - What a complete strawman.
You can't make and informed choice between which medical proceedure is best because you don't have the knowledge and never will. This means you are wide open to manipulation. If those providing the health care are motivated by profit then you will be manipulated. If they are not motivated by profit then there will be less manipulation.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion You can call it a straw man, but this entire logic you've introduced can be used for just about any field of knowledge. We aren't all experts on everything, therefore we can all be manipulated about something, therefore the government has to control everything. It's fallacious.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
Most human beings are able to make an informd choice on a car because they really don't need to understand how it works just what it does. Similarly with a house or any other of the examples you give. But with medicine or differing medical opinions you really are not in a position to make an informed choice. This is why all of the expert proffesions are heavily regulated by governments, so yes the government does indeed need to control these proffesions - as it does by regulation.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion You don't seem to explain what makes a doctor any more likely to mislead you than a real estate agent, a plumber, or a car salesman. In reality, it's possible for all of these people to mislead their customers, but the vast majority of them don't, and even so this wouldn't justify nationalization.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
1- Because he can get away with it better.
2- Becasue its harder to prove negligence or bad advice
3- Because he is not fleecing a person he is fleecing an inssurance company. As such he will have far less guilt in doing so. Its one thing to advice and expensive but pointless battery of tests if its coming out of your petinets own pocket but another thing completely if its all covered by inssurance. The system encourges and incentivises this inefficiency.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion Saying that he can "get away with it better" doesn't explain anything, nor does saying that it's "harder to prove negligence or bad advice." The question, in case you truly didn't understand, is *WHY* it's easier for the doctor to get away with it. In a free market system, what makes you think doctors would mislead customers any more than the specialist of the next industry? I don't see any real explanation being offered by anybody.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
Because there is no incentive for an NHS doctor to order expensive unecessary tests. He gets paid the same regardless and in fact pointless tests would blow his departments budget. As such doctors are actualu incetivised only to order tests that are necessary for patient care. This improve efficiency. In the private system the hospital has EVERY incentive to order as many pointless tests as possible as it equates to more money.
Now you have your explanation- money is a great motivator
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion Well I don't see why this doesn't apply to literally every service field. All you have to do is overestimate the ignorance of consumers, and then assume that their ignorance is set in stone. Consumer awareness is a thriving industry in and of itself which employs plenty of specialists that examine business practices. The market naturally punishes malpractice, and even in a privatized system fraud would be punishable by law.
9jv4 11 months ago
@evilreligion "Its one thing to advice and expensive but pointless battery of tests if its coming out of your petinets own pocket but another thing completely if its all covered by insurance."
This is actually one of the reasons that govt healthcare is so inefficient. Economic reform should be judged by the incentives that they create, not by the theoretical outcomes that politicians desire.
John Stossel explains this in greater detail, here: /watch?v=LNhn5KUseSc
9jv4 11 months ago
As I say if you want my full analysis friend me and I'll send you it. You can always unfriendme afterwards if you are the paranoid type.
evilreligion 11 months ago
Very calm, well-spoken video.
9jv4 11 months ago
Comment removed
missyego 1 year ago
lol what a retard man
missyego 1 year ago
I really dislike this guy, I resent that youtube keeps recommending his shitty video's becouse I looked at one.
angrydead 1 year ago
though i dont agree, i think this guy is one of the most well spoken conservatists ive met
drums4woodstock 1 year ago
Hmm who do i dislike the most him or the athiest.....
sclf 1 year ago
NEEEEERRRDDDD!!!! NERDY NERD NERD NERD-FACE! NERD! good video
Ilikelimpbizkit 1 year ago
@Ilikelimpbizkit those are called 'glasses', they are not part of his face. They are an instrument to aid when a person is having difficulty with their sight.
steviewonder74CEA 1 year ago
I could tell just by looking at this person that i don't like him... yeah... lets not tax the rich and not give them restrictions so they can expand faster and, out source more jobs
gamepro94z 1 year ago
@gamepro94z Companies outsource jobs overseas most frequently when it's required of them in order to sustain their business in its entirety. In doing so there is a net gain in American jobs because the outsourced savings allow them to not go out of business. Companies that do ship jobs overseas typically hire more domestic workers than those that don't.
9jv4 11 months ago
Proven not to work? In what sense? I've seen firsthand the downsides of the NHS in the UK, and the different downsides of variations on the systems of 'social' healthcare in Australia and the Netherlands.
They're all irritating at times. (and very irritating for someone with my type of problems), but no evidence I've ever come across shows the US to be in any way shape or form better. And if you can find me a country without 'social' medicine that is better off for it...
KuraIthys 1 year ago
this guy is selfish, ignorant and condescending.
exbronco1980 1 year ago
and judgmental. i think most fiscal libertarians are prejudicial toward poor people. i'll take back the part about him being selfish tho, i am not sure whether he is or not. many fiscal libertarians are selfish. "i don't want the gov't taxing ME."
exbronco1980 1 year ago
it's amazing to me that people who have never read a history book can dictate what is right and wrong. to quote F.A. hayek: "Fascism and Communism are merely variants of the same totalitarianism which central control of economic activity tends to produce"
Saying fascism isn't communism just because stalin didn't like hitler is like saying I'm not human simply because I don't like humans and say that I'm not.
rygos 1 year ago
this guy is retarded.
ky1esty1e 1 year ago
You're so fucking lame. Really? give TJ a hug? go fuck yourself and get the hell out of here
BeastHeldByChains 1 year ago
Mussolini was not a life long socialist, he was only one for a couple years in his youth and radically changed his political ideas later on.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Do the internet a favor and kill yourself.
Kzierbold 1 year ago
A system that doesn't work? Ever heard of the NHS?
opethfan92 1 year ago
@opethfan92 Pff. Ever experienced it first-hand? It drives me insane at times, but it works a lot better than people who have never dealt with it themselves proclaim.
KuraIthys 1 year ago
@KuraIthys Yes I have actually, I live in the UK.
opethfan92 1 year ago
@opethfan92 Fair enough. But I hear so many criticisms from people that haven't got a clue what they're talking about, and are relying on incredibly biased tabloid journalism for their 'facts'.
Trouble is, would not having the NHS exist at all make the situation better? I highly doubt it.
KuraIthys 1 year ago
You linked..of all the different possible articles....THE DAILY MAIL! THE single worst news source from the UK!
DiseaseMachine 1 year ago 2
Powning the shit out of TJ is so easy. I am surprised he even attempts debate. The fat loser needs to stick to atheism and blue berry pie videos.
gworksnell 1 year ago
i think u need a bullet in the ear
pauliejay77 1 year ago
Social democracy != Socialism
That was kind of a sneaky way to go about describing Obama as a socialist, sorry to say.
WiwuX 1 year ago
"...you've been being so passive aggressive, calling me out..." -HTWW
that's aggressive, because hes not being PASSIVE by taking action against you.
wow.
don't even know the definition of basic terms/words...
please continue bathing us in your obvious ocean of knowledge.
aacchhiilllleess 1 year ago
Your arrogance and self-satisfaction is truely unnerving.
I find it astounding how any mentally stable person could find you in any way likable.
Also, where the fuck did you learn your "History"?
Grow up son.
lemonlorry 2 years ago 2
you really are running around the whole fascism idea. you seem to be confusing Stalin with Hitler.
rsolgtp 2 years ago
They had alot of similar ideals. Themselves! Not the countries they ran.
NeverAloneForever 1 year ago
Oh, and Hitler was a "national socialist", not a fascist.
NeverAloneForever 1 year ago
@rsolgtp there's nothing to confuse abut, lol.
P.S ironically I usually don't agree with HWW anyway.
Trinivalts 1 year ago
Tj is great I love his stuff, but I think he's at his best when he sticks to what his yt name suggests.
MasterTxJ 2 years ago 2
Well then, why don't you give TJ a big fat homosexual hug?
sexyslimgoody1779 2 years ago 2
Not a bad video.. but stick to the politics
dont patronize, it's not classy in the slightest.
natholomew 2 years ago
"You have a political party called the Democratic Socialists in Europe"
That one made me facepalm.
Jockas4 2 years ago
Lee you are a scumbag! Long Live The Amazing Atheist!
Bullshit, Mussolini wasn´t friends with Lenin! Dude just shut up!
cerritoboy 2 years ago 2
fascist - 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
supermurder67 2 years ago
i'v never got why even if we know we are right we still look behind us. We must never be fully asure of ourselves, even tho we act as if we are.
toyuri 2 years ago
Why havent you responded to my comment and try to discredit my comment about Beck launching his 9/12 project? wHY? Because your oh so very wrong!!!! Come on dude own up to your lies about the 9/12 project....... Lawyer?
maynerd23 2 years ago
Glenn Beck created it you fool!!!!! Watch the episode where he clearly states its "his idea for America". Also type into google "9 Principles, 12 Values : Glenn Beck The 912 Project" and you will get the truth. also type into youtube "Glenn Beck: The 9-12 Project" He states he "layed out a plan called the 9/12 project" Dam your a fool get your facts straight..
maynerd23 2 years ago
you need some balls.
JIMMYguitar07 2 years ago
you disgust me, you make me sad, I'll make sure I never see your ugly rat face on the net.
Good day
cartonhead 2 years ago
You just hate me cuz i'm pale.
RomascuCristi 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:17 You did not actually make any point. 1. You claimed that a party called the Democratic Socialist exists and then said that:
2. Obama's policies are the same as that party without elaborating.
You didn't show us anything.
That is how the world works. All you tried to do was link the word "Obama" with "Socialism". Guilt by association.
Do you need a blackboard?
Vamavid 2 years ago
2:17 You did not actually make any point. 1. You claimed that a party called the Democratic Socialist exists and then said that:
2. Obama's policies are the same as that party without elaborating.
You didn't show us anything.
That is how the world works. All you tried to do was link the word "Obama" with "Socialism". Guilt by association.
Do you need a blackboard?
Vamavid 2 years ago 2
God is Santa Claus for adults.
ColoradoMikeyS 2 years ago
And atheism is for people who wish they were God.
USN1985 2 years ago
and people like you think they are god by tring to get to us.
WritingOnTheWalls65 2 years ago
lol
griffithafrank 2 years ago
richard dawkins is god for atheist and you all suck his dick
KIMBOSLICE66666 2 years ago
Yes,yes,yes, we all know God isn't real, and we want to ban religion in all public places, yes, yes ,yes. You see the difference between you and me is that I keep my atheism in my pants.
cogar48 2 years ago 2
"You see the difference between you and me is that I keep my atheism in my pants. "
Why would I give a shit how we're different? You're just some random dipshit commenting on YouTube.
ColoradoMikeyS 2 years ago
Comment removed
LostRituals 2 years ago
@ColoradoMikeyS Horrible analogy.
Walnut1871 1 year ago
This guy's an idiot
pieceofparadox 2 years ago 5
all atheist like you think alike
KIMBOSLICE66666 2 years ago
I'm agnostic.
pieceofparadox 2 years ago
why do you have a problem with obama being on tv-i think that shows that he isnt scared about being questioned about his health care bill-at least its not the same ole dribble from gbush-and to compare obama with mussolini,a facist dictator is just a joke-and if you do beleave that ,you wouldnt be posting on youtube you'd be hiding in a hole from facist obama's secret police ready to take your ass to the gallows for treason-and the 912ers are a bunch of fuckin sheep following fools like you
TheFruitinater 2 years ago
>why do you have a problem with obama being on tv
No one does except for far-right winged, this Video Blogger doesn't have a problem with it.
>i think that shows that he isnt scared about being questioned about his health care bill
He only shows on specific shows with specific interviews for specific interveiwers who he trusts not to ask.
>The rest of your comment
Neither does he nor do a major part of republican think that he's a muslim dictator.
Also, look up definition of Facism.
malemoogle 2 years ago
I diagree. Barack refuses to enter any debates. He doesn't really answer the questions, he just gives the best case scenario.
thecrusadingdebator 2 years ago 6
All politicians do that.
JackiexAndxGeorge 2 years ago
Republicans prefer the worst case. To show this, Obama's speech to schools was all about learning, and growing, and serving Obama (WHAT?! oh wait, they cut that part out.) Where as Bush's speech was all about not failing and not dropping out.
thecrusadingdebator 2 years ago
@thecrusadingdebator He's addicted to his beloved telleprompter.
jamesdragonforce 1 year ago
Youtube isn't posting my comments!
Savior20061 2 years ago 2
I'm not sure why Lee is foolish enough to think that any of those protestors supported Obama in the first place. Those are the white, Christians, conservatives who felt left behind.
Savior20061 2 years ago 2
Wharever should you then call corporations taking over the goverment? The result seems to be the same, with "interest groups" representing their own collective.
aekel66 2 years ago
Just admit you like each other. Why else do you watch each others videos so much?
puklop 2 years ago
This is boring wtb VFX and all his bull shit back.
Now that was entertaining.
Dinhel 2 years ago
So, the Amazing Athiest came off with all these bad things that have happened to him? Bad things happen to most people. Self pity turns you into a bitter, hateful person. Unfortunate events will either make you bitter or better. It's your choice. I've talked with enough athiets to find that they harbor tremendous amounts of bitterness over unfortunate things that happened in their lives, and if you really dig, you end up with all that 'poor me, boo hoo.'
ttrogersj 2 years ago 2
MaoZeDong had his own ideas of socialism and communism, too. He was sure that he had it all worked out. NOT! When are these kooks going to figure out that you need to work, produce, and consume in a FREE environment?
ttrogersj 2 years ago
Your face hurts me.
CandycaineBabii 2 years ago
I happen to live in Sweden and Obama would be out on the far right wing in this country. Same as in other parts of europe. Out party is called "Social Democrats" When a journalist asked the former party leader Göran Persson if he considerd himself a socialist and he said no. "Social" is just a historical note on what the party used to be like. Obama would be far right wing in most european counries. Btw when you look at taxes overall you look at the % tax of the BNP = National product.
SverigeD2010 2 years ago
Lee,
You are human trash. The death of a loved one is not a joke.
You lie for money. You pump up your own videos with sockpuppets because you are paid to get out the message of billion dollar interests. They want you to get people to go along with the things that make money for those interests.
biantai888 2 years ago 3
@biantai888 He didn't say the death of a loved one is a joke. This sock-puppet thing is completely unsubstantiated. Nothing else you said has any meaning. Your insults are self-defeating.
9jv4 11 months ago
I'm so sorry I couldn't have been at the 9/12 march! I really wanted to come and hopefully get to shake your hand in person, but alas, thanks to being disabled, I wasn't able to be there in person. I saw your speech online, though, *fantastic* job! Keep it up!
BarackNObamaDotNet 2 years ago
5 quote on quotes
faiL
HabHelp 2 years ago
wow. really? i would call him sewer sludge compared to HTWW.
newstar77 2 years ago
Good thing I don't care what people like you think newstar77, now isn't it?
RichieD814 2 years ago
actually it might do you some good if you did. but hey, Obama hasnt taken all of our rights YET so you still have the right to do as you please.
newstar77 2 years ago
newstar77, if you truly believe that Obama is a dictator-to-be, why are you still here? Shouldn't you have hightailed it out of the U.S.A. by now?
RichieD814 2 years ago
Both my grandfathers fought for this country. All my family lives here. This is my home. Unlike Obama, I love this country. I believe its not too late to fix this thing.
are those enough reasons?
newstar77 2 years ago
of course!! i see now!!! obama is trying to ruin the country! obviously. thats why people voted for him.
destroyenatar 2 years ago
So "the people" Knew he was going to ruin the country? And they still voted for him?
SverigeD2010 2 years ago
ummm... was that sarcastic? cause he didnt ruin the country.... and thats a misquote, i didnt say "the people", i just said "people"
destroyenatar 2 years ago
Oh you were sarcastic in your first post i thought you were some idiot extreme right that thought Obama destroyed the country intentionally. Sorry, my mistake :)
SverigeD2010 2 years ago
Obama loves this country. His grandfather fought for it. Part of his family lives here. This is his home. I wonder how conservatives get it in there head that Obama hates America.
*cough* black man *cough*
Savior20061 2 years ago
I think Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and joe Biden hate this country too. i guess i think that because they are black. no ...wait...they arent black.
I believe all of the above including Barack Obama hate this country because its the only explanation for the way they are acting. their policies are going to destroy us...but im sure you have drank so much Kool-aid that you believe they just want whats good for you. haha..haha..haha...
newstar77 2 years ago
Clinton had a much better run than Bush. The way they are acting? What way? You mean like Obama's buckling on the public option which, unlike Iraq, was supposed to actually help people?
But I supposed you've polished off the sixpacks Palin had been talking about.
Seriously the Kool-Aid stereotype jokes are getting lame.
Savior20061 2 years ago
It might have something to do with the 20 years or so he spent in the pews of Reverend 'God damn Amerikkka!", his friendship with William Ayers and his mentor Frank Marshall.
But hey, evidence is like cryptonite to Obamatons whose sole intellectual weapon is the race card.
ariesvids 2 years ago
I don't see why you say socialized medicine has been proven not to work every time it has been tried. Has anyone ever been denied coverage because they're sick? No. That in itself makes American healthcare look terrible and manipulative. The fact that corporations can do that to people is terrifying.
BrofistNation 2 years ago 3
i might be misinterpreting your comment...if so, im sorry. but socialist healthcare denies people of needed medical services all the time. one of the most recent in Canada is the lack of funds to provide the elderly with hip replacements. the thing with socialist healthcare is that if the money runs out, so does the services. and one thing is certain. the money always runs out when you have politicians involved.
newstar77 2 years ago
So why, if this is the case, do socialised healthcare systems make up 36 of the top 37 healthcare systems in the world?
Socialised health care may indeed fail when the countries money runs out, private health care of course fails when any idividuals money runs out. The evidence from around the world shows us which causes the most people to be denied the right of healthcare.
evilreligion 2 years ago 2
WHO rankings are biased in favor of UHC. They place a greater emphasis on equality rather than quality. For example, the US was rated #1 in responsiveness (12.5% weight) but since the US didn't perform as well in the categories that have nothing or little to do with actual healthcare performance, we end up in 37th. Countries like Columbia (ranked 1st in financial fairness 25% weight) unfairly get higher rankings because of how WHOs bias. Egalitarian doesn't always mean better.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
The WHO base their assessment on a large number of criteria actually. You can't just dismiss the results of a comprehensive study because you don't like them. Also you can't cherry pick one elements that the US apparently does well in.
Lets have a look at some meaningful stats shall we i.e. the results:
Infant moraility 46rd in the world
Life expectancy 47in the world
Maternal deaths 22 in the world
Percentage of life live in illhealth 13.5 % (for other 1st world nations its around 11%)
evilreligion 2 years ago 2
3 out of the 5 factors WHO uses to construct rankings have nothing to do with healthcare performance but are judging equality and inequality in the system. They favor the uniformity of govt healthcare systems. Those 3 factors have a total weight of 62.5%. I dont like the WHO study because their ranking system is based on ideology and isnt a good measure of actual healthcare performance.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
Life expectancy is heavily affected by factors not related to healthcare performance such as accidents,homicides,life style choices, & also poverty. Higher infant mortality is also misleading seeing how there is variation in how many European countries define infant mortality which leads to under reporting in those countries. Socio-economic factors also play a role.The US healthcare system has a well trained medical labor force,is innovative, & have latest technology.We dont deserve 37th
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
So you're saying its all a conspirecy to put America down?
As noted in my previous comment you do have all the technology and well trained doctors. With the amount you spend you should have the best healthcare system in the world by far. You should all be living into you're late 80's given the amount of money you pay for healthcare. In any public system that well funded you would indeed have the best health care in the world. But instead your ranked 37th.
You are being ripped off.
evilreligion 2 years ago
Americans do lives well into their 80s. An American aged 65 has a life expectancy of 18.7 years. Females aged 65 actually have life expectancy of 20 years. An American aged 75 has the life expectancy of 12 years. Life expectancy for people aged 65 is better in the US than life expectancy in the UK.
StephSilvermen 2 years ago
And yet life expectancy overall is lower than other first world nations who spend far less on healthcare. You can cherry pick stats all you like but deep down you know they really don't stack up.
Face facts health care in America is a collossal waste of money. Even looking at you;re cherry picked stats is still a rubbsih system. You spend 3 times as much per capita than the UK... 3 times!!! Think about that.
evilreligion 2 years ago
We spend 3 times as much & our health care is 50 times better. You know how we can spot a POM? Bad teeth. And why is that? Because dentistry isn't covered by the Nation health Scam. You boys continue to sit in ambulances instead of being treated. POM healthcare is a national embarassment.!!! We will NEVER go there.
dot88com 2 years ago
Hmmmm except of course your heath care is 37th in the world and ours is around 11th.
I'm terribly sorry that the facts conflict with your patriotic illusion but thats reality I'm afraid.
evilreligion 2 years ago
what is your source and what is the basis for that source?
Jammer8x8 2 years ago
@evilreligion So even after it's been established that their 37th ranking is a complete misnomer based on the ideological basis of a bureaucratic United Nations report filed over a decade ago, you still hold onto it as a talking point in the argument, and flaunt your own country's higher ranking (from the same index) as a note of superiority. How telling. Oh, and life expectancy is not a measure of the quality of healthcare whatsoever, but I doubt you care for your own year-old errors.
9jv4 11 months ago
@evilreligion Life expectancy is not better in any third world nation than it is in the United States. Countries that manage higher life expectancy do so because they have a healthier culture, not because they let their government run their healthcare systems. For example Japan's life expectancy wouldn't slump to below America's if the government stopped paying its people's healthcare bills and instead reimbursed that money to its people. There's simply no correlation.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
I agree that healthier lifestyles do make a difference. But so many countries have a higher life expectancy than America you can't just dismiss all of them as just being healthier. We can see the truth of this is we compare life expetancies by walth. Wealthy ameircans have roughly the same life expectancy as say wealthy people in the France or UK. But Americas poor has significantly lower life expectancy than the poor of France and the UK.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion There are tonnes of factors that go into life expectancy. The average diet in Japan is healthier than it is in America. Americans have a higher chance of dying in car accidents, or dying in gun violence, and get less exercise. The difference in reported life expectancy between Japan and the US is still only 4.3 years. Between the US and the UK, 1.1 years. You cannot ignore all factors and dismiss poorer life expectancy as the result of capitalist healthcare.
9jv4 11 months ago
If every other first world country on Earth has socialized healthcare and the United States comes in 4th overall for quality of care, then you'd declare socialized healthcare better simply because those 3 countries WITH socialized care are better, overlooking the hundreds of countries that have it worse. You have a huge rhetorical advantage here: Either US care is world-class and perfect in every way, or socialized medicine wins. All you have to do is find a flaw in the market. Not a hard task.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
If the US came in fourth and the other 3 higher countries sill spend 1/3 of what the US does then yes I'd say that socialised care is more efficient. Thats the argument here the US spends 3 times as much per capita than the UK on health care and by almost any objective measure of overall quaility score way lower. The US system of free trade is collosally inefficient. Some things just don't work well in the private sector.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion Then what do you mean by "any objective measure"? That WHO study certainly wasn't objective. As another user noted, the majority of the weighted areas were just a matter of determining which healthcare systems were the most egalitarian, not determining which had the best outcomes. The real cost of inefficiency is in shortages. For example Britain has half the amount of CAT scanners per capita than the United States, despite having been the inventor and primary exporter of them.
9jv4 11 months ago
@evilreligion The use of high-tech medical procedures is also a concern. Annually per 100,000 people there are 388 uses for cases of coronary angioplasty and 203 for coronary bypasses, as opposed to 51 and 41 in the UK. These comparisons can also apply to Canada, though not as drastically as to the UK. In terms of wait times, and the average time patients spend in the hospital (more efficient systems get them in and out quickly to accommodate for future patients), the US comes in first globally.
9jv4 11 months ago
@evilreligion Wealthy people in America have access to much better healthcare than wealthy people in France or the UK, and by your own admission they do not live longer. Naturally the availability of wealth increases lifespan. The difference between lifespan among the poor in the US v. UK doesn't necessitate causation in healthcare availability. Wealthy people may simply be less susceptible to the aforementioned factors (gun violence, etc.). Do you have statistics of incidence in that regard?
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
It could be due to increase violece in the US. I could be due to a more unhealthy life style. Maybe but I think you are clutching at straws really in desperation to save the free market idology that private enterprise is always the most efficient way of allocating resources. I know for a fact that if we trebbled the budget of the NHS in the UK so that we spned the same per capita as the US we would have by far the best health servcie in the world. Socialised health is just more efficient
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion Or perhaps you're ignoring more influential factors to blame their shorter lifespans on the market? It's not like the net effects of increased crime and auto accidents cannot be quantified. The United States spends more money on healthcare than the rest of the world because for the most part they receive more for their money. You aren't getting the same product in return. They pay more for a reason.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
The US pays more and gets less. According to almost any way you want to measure it.
Higher infant mortality. Higer maternal mortality, Lower life expetancy. etc etc etc This is not just the WHO reports either there are many studies showing this.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion I've listed several ways that the United States gets more. "Many studies" are mere comparisons between the self-reported numbers of various countries. Infant mortality wouldn't be higher in those countries if they were to adapt a market system. Life expectancy, again, has almost nothing to do with healthcare. In the United States, the life expectancy for a newborn Asian male is 81 years, while for an African male it's 68 years. Nobody thinks these differences are due to healthcare.
9jv4 11 months ago
"Of women diagnosed with breast cancer, 20% die in the United States, 33% in France and Germany, and almost 50% in the UK and New Zealand."
"Fewer than 20% of men [with] prostate cancer die in the United States, 25% in Canada, almost 50% in France, and more than 50% in the UK."
"Among people with chronic renal failure, only half as many Canadians as Americans get dialysis, and only a third as many Britons on a per capita basis."
Paying more and getting less indeed.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
No sure what stats you are refering to. A recent study in CA journal shows a 27% mortality rate in the UK and 20.1% in the US from breast cancer. The same study shows a 6.2% MR in China 12.8% in Khazakstan. This is why you can't isolate a few diseases and make generalities. This is why you need to look at overall health care provision and general indicators of health like life expectancy. You dismiss the WHO report becasue you don't like what it says.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion It depends what year you're referring to, who was responsible for it, and when it was published. But I don't care to get into that because you agree that the UK has a higher breast cancer mortality rate, and didn't respond to any other criteria.
I dismiss the WHO report for being complete rubbish, and for the third time I link you to CATO's analysis that you likely haven't bothered reading.
tinyurl . com / nrpa6r
9jv4 11 months ago
@evilreligion I'm not saying that America's system is better than the NHS simply because of breast cancer survival rate. That is but one example of critical areas wherein the United States performs better than other developed nations. You said: "The US pays more and gets less. According to almost any way you want to measure it." Well, if we can't measure it by survival rates of ... well, anything, then how do you propose we measure it? Life expectancy is not an option, as I've already explained.
9jv4 11 months ago
@evilreligion So we can't look at who has the most advanced equipment, the better doctors, med schools, how many high-tech medical devices or family doctors there are to go around, or cancer survival rates. Then what exactly is the NHS doing better in? There's no correlation between healthcare spending and life expectancy, or even healthcare ranking on that WHO index and life expectancy. There is no "spend more; get more" in the public sector.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
Look I have covered all this in a 1000 word response but I can't send it to you becasue you only accept messages from friends. There is an exceptionally strong correlaton between health care spending and life expectancy. Some countries fall off he curb Cuba does so in a good way America in a bad way .
ucatlas(dotucsc(dot)edu/spend(dot)php
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world at 82.6 years, and they spend $2,249 USD annually on healthcare per capita. Canada has a life expectancy of 80.7 years, and they spend $2,989 USD annually on healthcare per capita. Look at the top 10 or 20 countries for healthcare spending in comparison with the top 10 or 20 for life expectancy; less than half of the names are reoccurring. I don't accept private messages because I don't see why you can't post your response here.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
There is of course variation on life expectancy between countries for reasons OTHER than healthcare spending. Both Canada and Japan are off the curb a bit. But the correlation curb still remains strong. There is a very strong correlation between life expectancy and health care spending for most countries. America falls WAY off the curb - this needs explaining.
The reason why I can't post a full response here is the word limit is just too limiting to make proper points.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion Looking just at socialized systems, the top five countries in terms of healthcare expenditure are Norway, Switzerland, Canada, the Netherlands, and Austria. They place in 13th, 4th, 11th, 16th, and 16th in life expectancy, respectively. I'm just not seeing the correlation you're referring to. If you just mean that nations with higher life expectancy generally spend more than nations with low life expectancy, e.g. France spending more than Swaziland, then it's a false correlation.
9jv4 11 months ago
@evilreligion Given your logic here, if you were to compare France to Swaziland, or Japan to Zambia, then what you'd find is that having a higher obesity rate contributes to having a higher life expectancy, since wealthy countries often have more of both. Similarly, if wealthy citizens play golf more often than poorer citizens, then we can conclude that golf raises life expectancy since wealthy people live longer than poor people.
9jv4 11 months ago
@evilreligion It's only when you stop making such drastic comparisons, i.e. very high end to very low end, that the correlation fades. Compare wealthy people who play golf to wealthy people that don't play golf and suddenly there's no correlation between life expectancy and golf.
Finally, I don't see what's so hard about posting multiple YouTube comments.
9jv4 11 months ago
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion I understand that in order for correlative statistics to have any meaning there must be causation, and in this case there is no causation even if you can identify correlation, and I still don't think you can. I'd gone to your link the first time it was posted. The graph that you sent me to ( tinyurl . com / 357jcf ) shows no correlation at all and the scale was OBVIOUSLY arranged to make the United States stand out.
Cuba: communist govt that self-reports its stats. See also: lies.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
The scale of the grpah really won't make much difference to the fact that the US falls way off the curve. You are correct the correlation does not necessarily mean causation. But are you actually disputing a link between health spending and life expectancy? A few posts ago you were say that America spends more and so gets better health care. So which is it? If you do acept a causal link between spending on health and health you now need to explain why America is a statistical anomoly.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion
Also whats the graph OBVIOUSLY arranged to make Iraq, Cuba and Singapore stand out? If so why? Why would the university of california do this? What would be the purpose of this lie?
Why would an American university deliberatly trash America in this way? Why would they promote Cuba, and Singapore?
Please look at the 3rd graph as well. It shows the correlation curve far better.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion
"Why would an American university deliberatly trash America in this way?"
Because they want socialized medicine.
"It shows the correlation curve far better."
To quote myself: "In order for correlative statistics to have any meaning there must be causation, and in this case there is no causation even if you can identify correlation."
People with wealth live longer than those who don't, and coincidentally countries with wealthy people spend more on healthcare than those that don't.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
So you don't think that spending on health care improves health. Really? Seriously? There is no causal linke between health care spending and health? Thats your argument? Come on you can't possibly think that. In fact I know you don't becasue you were arguing the exact oposite a few posts ago when you justfied Americas massive spending on health as generating better returns.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion American healthcare is more market-based, and in a market, price reflects either quality or quantity, whereas in a bureaucracy, higher spending can often lead to poorer quality because there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that money is spent efficiently. Economic models are not judged by their intentions nor by their capacity to succeed, but by the incentives they create and by the realities that ensue.
9jv4 11 months ago
@9jv4
In a market price will reflect quality or quantity IF there is competion, a genuine choice and informed customers (i.e. they have the information to make a choise). Without these 3 things present a market will not function efficiently, in fact it will tend towards huges profits and waste. My argument is that none of the 3 conditions for an efficient market are present in health care and I don't see how they ever can be. As such a bureaucracy will actually be more efficient.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion .... compete with a self financing government system then it is less efficient than that system. Thats why they didn't want the public option because it would expose their inefficiencies and exessive profits. If the private sector was more efficient then the public option should not have been any problem. They should have welcomed it because it would not have been a threat in any way shape or form. The fact that they were terrified of it is really telling.
evilreligion 11 months ago