Obamacare was signed on March 2010 with 59% of the people disapproving according to a CNN poll. The CBO scored Obamacare on six years of coverage for 10 years of taxes, which is how the CBO showed the bill to be deficit neutral . It’s unconstitutional mandating all citizens to purchase health care. Even Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in it.” watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To It’s also meant to take over industry watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
Dude yes! I don't know if you'll read this or in fact any of the over videos ive commented on in the last couple of hours but this is exactly what I wanted. A simple rebuttal/suggestion video that explains, in a non-aggressive way, your beliefs and reasons.
OBAMA is not a REAL PATRIOT!!! OBAMA is a SOCIALIST and is from MUSLIM! LEE DOREN is a REAL PATRIOT and a true FREEDOM LIBERTY LOVING AMERICAN.
RESPECT to you, GOOD SIR. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
DONT TREAD ON ME!!!! We are ONE NATION UNDER GOD just like it says in the CONSTITUION!! Don't LET OBAMA destroy our FOUNDING FATHERS AMERICA!! OBAMA IS FROM MULSIM!!!
We are most certainly not a nation under god as the image rendered in Biblical reference and glorified by Christianity. I reject such an absurd notion. If you do however mean god as a broad metaphor for simply a power or meaning greater than that of physical nature then I can't wholly disagree because that would indeed encompass a nearly infinite amount of possibilities.
I also couldn't help but notice your emphasis on the Muslim. Are you declaring holy war on the Muslims? Enlist in the Army.
you, SIR, are obviously a zombie of the PROGRESSIVE RADICALS that are trying to REWRITE the glorious history of this GREAT NATION UNDER GOD!!! You, SIR, will not succeed in your attempts!!
I am a PATRIOT and I will DEFEND the CONSTITUTION! I was a PATRIOT, I am a PATRIOT, and I will always be a PATRIOT!!!!
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" (1 Cor. 14:33b-36 NIV).
No doctor can charge "whatever they want" to any patient that has insurance that the physician participates with. We are bound by insurance fee schedules and contractual agreements. Doctors also expect up to 30% of their practice to be charity care.
Medicare or any other insurance plan does not cover preventive or maintenance care. Only a few chosen conditions qualify for screening on a preventive basis. They only cover care that is intended to afford a cure for an acute condition.
I was recently refused medication that I needed to cure an infection by my last insurance company because I was switching insurance providers within the following month. Basically it was like "Give me your past payment and GTFO." WTF???
We need regulation or a public option, but I do feel sympathy for the taxpayers. If a public option is established, what if those with private insurance got a 35% tax cut? After all, free insurance is urealistic, but the current situation is just unfair.
I posted several comments before, but my question was never resolved:
Basically, if we have scarcity of resources in a community (which we do - though not with everything), what is the problem with rationing it equally, as opposed to unequal distribution?
The problem with rationing healthcare equally is how to do it. In a socialist system, there will always be preferential treatment of the government, thus unequal distribution. More importantly, there is little incentive in such a system to increase the supply.
In a free market, when there is scarcity, the price goes up, thus unequal distribution. However, many doctors do charitable work, in the case of healthcare. (continued)
Since the price is higher, there is an incentive to become a doctor, nurse, or to expand your hospital. This increases the supply of medicine, therefore providing more access and lowering the costs. It is just basic supply and demand.
As for the poor, there are charities to help them and many doctors do charity work. The only problem is the government financial regulations getting in the way of this.
If you assume that higher price of health care means higher incentive for doctors, etc., which then increases supply, then this in turn would bring down prices, lowering incentive and decreasing supply, thus the process begins again.
In a socialist system, there will not always be preferential treatment of the government, especially considering the fact that socialism necessitates a democratically run economy. (cont.)
A democratically run economy would have administrators, but would not have an exploitative government, insofar as the people as a whole can't exploit themselves.
The incentive in a democratically planned economy to increase supply would be the communal need for, say, more doctors. Given equal distribution, everyone is impacted by a scarcity, so it is in the interest of everyone to create a solution.
Supply and demand would come to an equilibrium where there is enough supply to meet demand. There wouldn't be too much nor too little, unless some disaster happened.
Also, in a socialist system, you end up having endless regulation and red tape, creating overhead.
Democratic governments are run mostly by the special interests, so you shouldn't assume that the people will have sole authority.
The equilibrium was exactly my point - I was simply refuting the idea that scarcity provides both high incentives and low costs through market economics.
Endless regulation and red tape are not a fundamental part of a socialist system, and I see no evidence to suggest that it would be.
Democratic governments are "run by special interests" because of our current economic system. These same special interests would not have power without capitalism.
The equilibrium establishes itself at a point that satisfies the effectual demand. We have plenty of food, clothing, luxuries, etc., all of which were scarce, but became more abundant at a lower price through the market.
Red Tape is in every democratic government, and I would like to see an example of one without.
There are still special interests in socialism, because there are individuals or groups with more power over the government; not in theory, but in practice.
"We have plenty of food, clothing, luxuries, etc."
What an absurd statement. In 2001, the FAO estimated that 826 million people were undernourished. Furthermore, 58% of deaths yearly are related (directly or indirectly) to undernourishment.
Red tape comes from bureaucracy not from democracy. Certain bureaucratic elements are necessary, but minimizing them is a feasible goal.
Special interest groups that represent groups of people would only have power democratically.
When I said we had plenty, I meant the US and the developed world. Sorry.
In many communist countries, they have tried collective farming, but that actually reduced agricultural output and people starved. Look at the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao.
Red Tape does come from bureaucracy, but all of those bureaus are necessary for the government to manage a country. Again, look at every democratic country, you will see endless bureaucracy associated with government programs.
The US imports 16% of its total imports from China, 10% from Mexico. To consider the US and the developed world as economic independent from the developing is foolish.
The USSR and China were not communist, and I don't know why you're bringing up collective farming.
Bureaucracy exists in government, and also in the private sector. Why is it more necessary in one than the other (as you claim)?
I am not for pure democracy, no one is. No one thinks it is okay to kill 49% of the population because 51% say it's all right to do that. That is what interest groups do, figuratively.
Interests groups control the government, which may be good or bad. Sometimes they do good things, but often they seek to benefit themselves at the expense of others, such as businesses seeking tariffs to reduce competition. This helps them obviously, but as for the consumer, he must now pay extra.
Pure democracy without provisions to protect the minority is infeasible given our current situation. I never suggested this. However, that doesn't mean that it is always infeasible.
Interest groups currently control the government, so to speak, because by their influence a certain person gains power. Your examples, however, are only applicable in a capitalist economy. If you can provide one for a socialized economy, I will gladly consider it.
I didn't say that the developed world is independent from the 3rd world.
The USSR and China were largely communist (not Marxist). I brought up collective farming to show how socialism fails. Farmers in those countries farmed for the good of the collective, not for profit, and there was a food shortage.
Bureaucracy is not necessary in a democratic government, but it is a reality. In the private sector, minimizing it means more profit, but in government there is no incentive.
In your ideal, the government does what the people want because they want to get reelected and the people are the only means, since there are no special interests.
This is fine except for two things: First, politicians are full of empty promises. People will elect them hoping for good things, but they won't deliver, and this cycle continues. Second, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The government itself is the "interest group" in socialism.
Socialized economies dont work. Can you not see what is happening to the american economy now that Obama is trying to convert us to socialism? Look at canada look at England, theyve converted to socialism and they are going broke. Capitalism works. Its time honored and proven.
Is this guy whacked out on drugs still? Dude...at least sit back from the camera and talk like an adult instead of a freaking out crazy person to make your point.
Uhhh...like I care....who cares about the crazy kid ranting and raving like a manman in the video. He's not even mature enough to make his point like a rational adult. Kid needs to get out more
"Old age" is not "Old age" it is old people dying from sickness because their immune system can't take anymore. Now, if we didn't give them healthcare, they would die earlier. Ever wondered why you have a lower expected living age in US than countries with Scandinavian standards?
One simple flaw in your reporting is that in the US many people grew up in the time of romantization of smoking cigarettes and many die of lung related disease unlike Sweden droppin life expectancy.Also we have more auto accidents,murders and accidental and occupational deaths. Also the trend today in medicine is that technology can keep people alive longer resulting in people choosing advanced directives for dying. Obama care will cut medicare also people will continue to die of old age.
I can state it more simply...the HC bill is literally a massive tax bill, with over 1600 new taxes on products and services (gyms, tanning booths, toothpaste, hypodermics etc etc). The theory being gov't can spend any amount...as long as they tax us more...it will magically reduce the deficit.
In the real world however, enormous taxes crush the economy...so taxes actually collected are reduced as poverty grows. So the deficit grows despite the simplistic theory.
another thought ... IF the majority of US citizens is scared by the European system , then just look NORTH ... a country called ... what was the name again ... I think ... CANADA ... they seemed to be happy ... :-)))
I will have to look into healthcare reform further. I want to look at all sources and get back to you HTWW. I just want to be fair in my comment. I am on medicaid, but I have seen family give a lot of money for scripts or not get them due to bad insurance. I would like to see everyone get covered like I do, but I do admit there are flaws in the healthcare reform bill. I hope our leaders will hopefully come to some type of concenses that truly helps those uninsured.
as much as like listen to the arguments this guy is proposing , I hate the fact that someone intelligent , thats the way he looks to me , is talking only in terms of finacing , when it comes to health care !
It works in Europe , is it perfect , NO ... but nobody has to die because someone is holding a chart stating that is costs to much ... again , not perfect , but it works Brgds
Can anyone tell me if Lee is a Republican, or just Conservative? My intentions with this question are in no way meant to be hostile, I'm just curious. Thank.
He is a self-proclaimed libertarian-conservative. He avoids answering questions about defense, though, so i think he leans more toward neo-conservatism.
I made a video response to this adressing this issue so i hope he answers.
Honestly, I can see the appeals of capitalism in some situations, but to make profit out of peoples suffering, that's just sick. Think of it as charity, please? think about all the people in need... I'd rather give a bit too much than too little
Where are you getting your facts from? I like to back up my comments with sources. You said for your argument that while the health care proposals would help you with preventative care should you have a heart attack, it would not help the majority. What an extreme comment to make with no facts. Idiots are willing to accept your opinions because you're intelligent. Stick to facts not Fox news.
Seriously though... what else is there to preventative care? I couldn't see a preventative care regiment outside of maybe a Flintstones multi-vitamin supplement every day? Well that in addition to the aforementioned exercise and proper diet...
This should be at the governments expense as the government earns more money on people who have a job than people who are unemployed. Because of this the taxes does not have to be raised as dramatically as you might think.
It's hard to me to think about medical care as a business more than what is is, treatment of those who are ill. Most people who are against the new health care reform focus on how much it will cost to maintain such a system, but not on how the society will benefit from it. IMO we should focus on how to get most people in to work. Because of the system many are kept form doing an effort because they don't have the money to get a treatment.
See, the Senate bill sucks. I'm called a "lib" but this bill is too weak and weakened by special interest and lobbiests. Very disapointed in both parties. One is too weak and one is too crazy.
Gosh can I just say you are probably my favorite conservative in the world. I'm a very leftist thinking person, but gosh you're so calm and rational with your beliefs. Thank you SO much for being maybe a shining example of how to present a political opinion rationally!! :) It truly makes me want to listen to your side honestly.
The federal government involvement with health care in the way it currently is and in the way it wants to become, is completely unconstitutional. There is no way around that unless several major changes are made to the constitution. All that has been going on is that the constitution has been ignored and arbitrarily dismissed.
This is not a unique situation in history. Please look up the Weimar Republic and see what happened to them because their constitution was ignored.
I am a nerdfighter and i watch HTWW all the time. I like having two points of view to watch from two people are are generally well educated on different topics. It would be a great idea for the brothers Green and Lee to talk about different topics from opposing worldviews. There are things that I agree from both channels and an open ended discussion would be great for both channels. Thanks Lee.
I had a very interesting email exchange with Debbie Schlussel about what she said about Crowder. If you like I will forward them to you. She said "lying video by a guy who has a gay mancrush on Steven Crowder" .
I work in healthcare & can vouch that the reimbursement received from Medicare doesn't cover cost. Medicaid reimbursement is even less. Obamacare would be the same - its gov't. To stay afloat, cost would have to be reduced. Lean projects work a little. However, if the supplies necessary for a procedure remain the same, I'd imagine cutting corners, inferior supplies &/or staff reduction become necessary. Either way, the effectiveness of service becomes diminished. Patients lose in the end.
It's impossible, Lee, for two people to "know what they are talking about" and yet have a different opinion. One is right, and the other is not, or they are both wrong.
That is not how it works. One thing is not totally wrong or totally right. One guy believes that the gains outweigh the cons. The other guy, vice versa
I understand they have different opinions, but one of them is correct and the other is wrong, or they are both wrong. The world does not work in the way a lot of people have been made to believe, that everyone has a slice of some mystical "pie". You are either right, or you are wrong.
@killerbandit There can of course be parts of truth existent in two wrong arguments... but ultimately they are both wrong. Some knowledge is often more dangerous than no knowledge...
Oh my gosh! Thanks so much for making a video just because of my comment. What you say makes a lot of sense. I still believe that we need to make some changes to the health care system, even in the direction of socialized medicine, but you make it clear that this could cause problems. Personally, I think that healthy people should be willing to share some of their good fortune to help pay for those less fortunate, but the way we make that happen has to be carefully planned. Thanks again!
What if insurance companies instituted a waiting period of 6 months to buy insurance for individuals who have been going without it? There would be a much greater risk in choosing to be uninsured because people might have to pay for 6 months of their own healthcare costs. That could prevent gaming the system. Technically it should not adversely affect the general insured public.
I would love to see a debate between you two just to get more oppinion. I currently side more with Lee but subscribe to both channels and I think with enough open minded viewers we can get discussion started and decide for ourselves based on intelligent conversation between the two
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am not American and I don't know the US political system in depth, but I have lived there and I love the US, that is why I think that what HTWW says is obscene. 18000 Americans die every year for lack of healtcare and HTWW thinks it is ok, he thinks that USA is better off without them. In Europe everybody is covered and goverments spend less money on healtcare than in the US, where not everybody is covered. Insurances take advantages of Americans.Leave Irak and you'll have money for healthcare
Ok, so you give universal insurance and the same amount of people die every year if not more while waiting in line for for rationed government treatment.
Oh yes, the all have health insurance, but access is another story. Just giving everyone insurance does not increase the supply of medical services. This is when rationing occurs because demand exceeds supply. This is dealt with by creating waiting lists. Then people with health insurance die waiting in line.
That study shows that there are waiting lists (demand exceeds supply) and that health deteriorates to the point where patients are prone to suffer from fatal events related to their pathology. The study only covers a small segment of the population for only one condition. Extrapolate the results to the rest of the British population...
I challenge you to find me a reference (academic journal, not some blog) to show that there are no deaths in waiting lists.
Interestingly enough there's a relatively new book out concerning this exact topic as it regards Canada. You can check out Stefbot's channel where he conducts an interview with the author.
Demand doesn't exceed demand and you can't extrapolate anything. The study says: "Although operative mortality rates are comparable with those in other countries, some patients MIGHT experience disabling or fatal stroke while waiting for surgery". So it is not a checked fact. If it was a proven fact I assure you the political repercusion would be hudge. That study means that the British gouverment cares for British people, not like in the US
Demand does exceed supply. If supply of care was adequate, by definition there would be no waiting lists. Waiting lists are a form of rationing.
People do die waiting on lists for care and in the US care is delivered more promptly.
The role of government is to protect the constitution, not take care of people. Its your role as a responsible adult to take care of yourself. Do you like living in a nanny state where the government does everything for you?
Again, you are defending people diying because they are poor and they do not take care of them selves and have no money to pay for healthcare and I tell you that is inmoral and antichristian
Not true, how many people in Europe die because the latest and news drugs or procedures are not made available to them. Or what about the people who while waiting for care have their condition worsen to the point where the proposed treatment isn't effective like it was if they got the care quicker.
what is health care besides a product or service..and if you need a particular one and the government says no we don't provide that have this worse one and you die..are you not lacking health care?
Health care decisions differ from regular service decisions though. Example, suppose you go to a BMW lot and find you cannot afford a new BMW. Well, you could always buy a used one, or buy a car other than a BMW, or not buy anything at all and just walk. So your choices are 1) Buy a car. 2) Don't.
Now suppose you need surgery for a serious heart condition, and that's the only procedure for your particular condition. So, your choices are 1) Pay for the procedure. 2) Die.
Healthcare is not like buying a car, in Europe we are a little bit more serious than that. In Europe nobody dies because the latest or new drugs are not aviable, nor because they are in waiting lists. You just make up facts and I challenge you to find data to support your fake argument
In Europe nobody dies because the latest or new drugs are not aviable, nor because they are in waiting lists. You just make up facts and I challenge you to find data to support your fake argument
In France alone Doctors took the summer off during a heat wave of 2003 which resulted in the death of over 14,000 people.
You're completely indoctrinated Adlershof. Here's your chance to place evidence before agenda. Here's your chance to think for yourself. How well did FNIH cope with the heatwave?
haha, so the crisis was caused by doctors taking the summer off? Assuming you are right about them getting time off, unless they normally made house calls your argument makes no sense at all.
Then illustrate me and tell me what means winning the war in Irak, an illegal and terrorist war that the US began against international law and based on lies. And that is not an opinion, it is a fact, read the UN resolutions
lee i agree and you both bring about very valid points. people need to understand that collaboration is the best way to solve a problem and constructive problem solving in a mature manor is the best way to go about it.
I think that both videos were good. John was the first person I have ever heard who explained his rationale for the Health Care bill without emotion. I think that one point that you could have rebutted was that if a person does not have a car/automobile, or does not use their auto on public roadways, one does not need auto insurance. Before I got my truck, I did not pay into USAA for auto insurance, I was not fined for not doing so. Yadda, yadda, blah, blah.
@comradeperson: but if you are alive, you need health insurance, that's the theory. if you are dead, then yeah, you can opt out.
if there was a way people could opt out of getting any health care (i.e., the ER and every doctor could refuse treatment if they wanted if you didn't have insurance of cash up front), then maybe there is an argument to be made. but right now those with insurance subsidize those who don't (and who don't usually pay up)
A creative way of opting out of health insurance is starting when young having the option to save into a private account dedicated to healthcare and being tax exempt. Those people would not need the subsidies of people who do pay for health insurance. This would create an environment for several things. 1. would reduce the prices doctors charge for healthcare 2) would make people personally responsible for their health and 3) allow freedom to choose when and how health dollars are used.
@bush1tman: I am not sure how that would reduce prices though. even such people would need a high deductible plan because with a risk pool of 1, some individuals will still get very ill and burn through all their savings--which is why we have insurance, to pool that risk. i am in favor of rating premiums based on controllable health factors -- like obesity, diet, smoking, etc. -- to encourage healthy behavior and reduce health care consumption.
Prices would drop because many of the covered services would not be chosen by the patient. For example wasn't the age for advisory mamography raised recently due too many women getting them. Also endoscopy and colonoscopy, ct scans etc are all procedures that are prescribed to jack up the income of doctors,hospitals etc. People would choose not to have procedure or to wait. Also preventative health care can be expensive as well. The problem is the gov't mandating care.
@bush1tman -- i think your model assumes that the patient is knowledgeable enough to choose what services to choose (e.g., classic economic theory assumes all have complete information) -- in reality the patient has a huge information deficit and has to rely on the doctor's recommendation of what care to receive. doctors almost definitely prescribe more care than what is economically optimal, because we don't like to value human life.
Actually I think that patients would have to rely on the doctors recommendation regardless the type of health plan they had. At least the democrats are assuring me that the doctor patient relationship is sacrosanct. I think under another plan a patient will still know when they need a doctor. Once I let a physicians assistant under doctors order to prescribe a stress test. I had Espstein -Barr. The test would have been done but I made her examine me further. If I was paying out of pocket? Whoa!
Lee, what about the French health care system? The French are happy with it overall. Also since there is already "socialized medicine" such as Veterans, Elderly, disabled and the poor, it should be available to all as a single payer plan. Otherwise no Government health care at all.
the unfunded liabilities the french government has because of socialized medicine ect. is rediculous...there's also a lot more i could say but you get the idea
The French system has caused massive unemployement of the French youth causing violent protests against the French government because employers are forced to pay for the system. There is a lot to learn from this system though... It is a much better model than the Canadian or English models. Read Paul Dutton's book Differential Diagnoses for a comparisson of the U.S and French systems of Healthcare.
there are dozens of clips of various dems saying they want a single payer system, and the way to institute it is sweeping healthcare reform. These dems in congress are snakes in the grass, they pretend they want to fix healthcare problems, when they really mean they want to scrap it, and put in their single-payer nightmare.
I'm a nerdfighter who watches How The World Works too! This is cool. I hope he gets back to you, because watching the two of you debate will help me understand the bill better. Already his video combined with your video has helped my form my opinion. Erm... Well, it made it harder for me to pick a side. You both have valid points, and I'm very torn... I think many people oppose this bill for the wrong reasons, like John mentioned, but you have many many many good points too. Hope he responds!
excellent video! this is exactly how debate should be! polite but firm and factual! excellent video and great character on your part and most likely(though i haven't watched the video yet)johns part
if you have to explain ...why the fed health care is bunko... if you are speaking to people who "think" Obama's health crap is bitchin' ...well Lee ... you are pushing the river...futile to try to proove that those people have a lack of useable brain matter- i have no time to spend elaborating common sense to brainwashed liberal idiots-
the pity is it appears that the rate of liberals being "trained" in Public schools who are basically all wack & brain dead...
i am sure he is aware of it, but john is usually slammed with message and emails as you can imagine. with the baby due, the chances of a response seems slight, but its nice to see people trying to engage in rational and intelligent debates of serious issues instead of screaming about death panels killing grammy.
I'm against Obama care too, I actually prefer a single payer healthcare system. Which has proven to be a good system for everyone.
Wolfman92111 9 months ago
John of Vlogbrothers on Healthcare....your a future dik at fox news
YOur the same that says wars are good for the gdp....fu...and your econ 101
novicelikeafox 1 year ago
Obamacare was signed on March 2010 with 59% of the people disapproving according to a CNN poll. The CBO scored Obamacare on six years of coverage for 10 years of taxes, which is how the CBO showed the bill to be deficit neutral . It’s unconstitutional mandating all citizens to purchase health care. Even Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in it.” watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To It’s also meant to take over industry watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
Allen West 2012
Angellicationify 1 year ago
Dude yes! I don't know if you'll read this or in fact any of the over videos ive commented on in the last couple of hours but this is exactly what I wanted. A simple rebuttal/suggestion video that explains, in a non-aggressive way, your beliefs and reasons.
DarthTomale 1 year ago
wow do you practice
555peck 1 year ago
Almost no doctors do.
invalidcookie 1 year ago
OBAMA is not a REAL PATRIOT!!! OBAMA is a SOCIALIST and is from MUSLIM! LEE DOREN is a REAL PATRIOT and a true FREEDOM LIBERTY LOVING AMERICAN.
RESPECT to you, GOOD SIR. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
DONT TREAD ON ME!!!! We are ONE NATION UNDER GOD just like it says in the CONSTITUION!! Don't LET OBAMA destroy our FOUNDING FATHERS AMERICA!! OBAMA IS FROM MULSIM!!!
JimmyGobright 2 years ago
We are most certainly not a nation under god as the image rendered in Biblical reference and glorified by Christianity. I reject such an absurd notion. If you do however mean god as a broad metaphor for simply a power or meaning greater than that of physical nature then I can't wholly disagree because that would indeed encompass a nearly infinite amount of possibilities.
I also couldn't help but notice your emphasis on the Muslim. Are you declaring holy war on the Muslims? Enlist in the Army.
timongarretson 2 years ago
you, SIR, are obviously a zombie of the PROGRESSIVE RADICALS that are trying to REWRITE the glorious history of this GREAT NATION UNDER GOD!!! You, SIR, will not succeed in your attempts!!
I am a PATRIOT and I will DEFEND the CONSTITUTION! I was a PATRIOT, I am a PATRIOT, and I will always be a PATRIOT!!!!
FREEEEEDOM will RING!!!!!!
JimmyGobright 2 years ago
@JimmyGobright Are you a parody?
SamHagagaga 1 year ago
I think you're a troll pretending to be a "right wing nut".
45means45 1 year ago
Nice bumper stickers... now go drive them off a cliff.
Muradj2002 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HTWW on the Newsweek channel getting a dressing down by Prof. Nourial Roubini
watch?v=dmI3U_rVYA8&feature=fe atured
valhala56 2 years ago
Can you explain this to me?
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" (1 Cor. 14:33b-36 NIV).
orangefield1 2 years ago
No doctor can charge "whatever they want" to any patient that has insurance that the physician participates with. We are bound by insurance fee schedules and contractual agreements. Doctors also expect up to 30% of their practice to be charity care.
Medicare or any other insurance plan does not cover preventive or maintenance care. Only a few chosen conditions qualify for screening on a preventive basis. They only cover care that is intended to afford a cure for an acute condition.
drreedindeed 2 years ago
John's video is unwatchable.
ladalang 2 years ago
Conservative Nerdfighters are fuckholes.
I love how you want to suck up to john to get more subscribers. you probably got rid of most of those sock accounts. or are you still a cheater?
BriBri897 2 years ago
I didn't understand this at all and then my 13 yr old little brother explained it to me. I just don't get ANY of this...:(
TheSamara89kitten 2 years ago
I was recently refused medication that I needed to cure an infection by my last insurance company because I was switching insurance providers within the following month. Basically it was like "Give me your past payment and GTFO." WTF???
We need regulation or a public option, but I do feel sympathy for the taxpayers. If a public option is established, what if those with private insurance got a 35% tax cut? After all, free insurance is urealistic, but the current situation is just unfair.
Squipplekillzbitches 2 years ago
I posted several comments before, but my question was never resolved:
Basically, if we have scarcity of resources in a community (which we do - though not with everything), what is the problem with rationing it equally, as opposed to unequal distribution?
echo29x 2 years ago
I think the problem with any rationing is that many or possibly most will not get what they really need.
bush1tman 2 years ago
Well, that problem would come from scarcity. If there isn't enough to go around, some people won't have enough no matter how you distribute things.
echo29x 2 years ago
@echo29x
The problem with rationing healthcare equally is how to do it. In a socialist system, there will always be preferential treatment of the government, thus unequal distribution. More importantly, there is little incentive in such a system to increase the supply.
In a free market, when there is scarcity, the price goes up, thus unequal distribution. However, many doctors do charitable work, in the case of healthcare. (continued)
xp19375 2 years ago
Since the price is higher, there is an incentive to become a doctor, nurse, or to expand your hospital. This increases the supply of medicine, therefore providing more access and lowering the costs. It is just basic supply and demand.
As for the poor, there are charities to help them and many doctors do charity work. The only problem is the government financial regulations getting in the way of this.
xp19375 2 years ago
@xp19375
A few things here:
If you assume that higher price of health care means higher incentive for doctors, etc., which then increases supply, then this in turn would bring down prices, lowering incentive and decreasing supply, thus the process begins again.
In a socialist system, there will not always be preferential treatment of the government, especially considering the fact that socialism necessitates a democratically run economy. (cont.)
echo29x 2 years ago
A democratically run economy would have administrators, but would not have an exploitative government, insofar as the people as a whole can't exploit themselves.
The incentive in a democratically planned economy to increase supply would be the communal need for, say, more doctors. Given equal distribution, everyone is impacted by a scarcity, so it is in the interest of everyone to create a solution.
echo29x 2 years ago
@echo29x
Supply and demand would come to an equilibrium where there is enough supply to meet demand. There wouldn't be too much nor too little, unless some disaster happened.
Also, in a socialist system, you end up having endless regulation and red tape, creating overhead.
Democratic governments are run mostly by the special interests, so you shouldn't assume that the people will have sole authority.
xp19375 2 years ago
@xp19375
The equilibrium was exactly my point - I was simply refuting the idea that scarcity provides both high incentives and low costs through market economics.
Endless regulation and red tape are not a fundamental part of a socialist system, and I see no evidence to suggest that it would be.
Democratic governments are "run by special interests" because of our current economic system. These same special interests would not have power without capitalism.
echo29x 2 years ago
@echo29x
The equilibrium establishes itself at a point that satisfies the effectual demand. We have plenty of food, clothing, luxuries, etc., all of which were scarce, but became more abundant at a lower price through the market.
Red Tape is in every democratic government, and I would like to see an example of one without.
There are still special interests in socialism, because there are individuals or groups with more power over the government; not in theory, but in practice.
xp19375 2 years ago
@xp19375
"We have plenty of food, clothing, luxuries, etc."
What an absurd statement. In 2001, the FAO estimated that 826 million people were undernourished. Furthermore, 58% of deaths yearly are related (directly or indirectly) to undernourishment.
Red tape comes from bureaucracy not from democracy. Certain bureaucratic elements are necessary, but minimizing them is a feasible goal.
Special interest groups that represent groups of people would only have power democratically.
echo29x 2 years ago
@echo29x
When I said we had plenty, I meant the US and the developed world. Sorry.
In many communist countries, they have tried collective farming, but that actually reduced agricultural output and people starved. Look at the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao.
Red Tape does come from bureaucracy, but all of those bureaus are necessary for the government to manage a country. Again, look at every democratic country, you will see endless bureaucracy associated with government programs.
xp19375 2 years ago
@xp19375
The US imports 16% of its total imports from China, 10% from Mexico. To consider the US and the developed world as economic independent from the developing is foolish.
The USSR and China were not communist, and I don't know why you're bringing up collective farming.
Bureaucracy exists in government, and also in the private sector. Why is it more necessary in one than the other (as you claim)?
echo29x 2 years ago
@echo29x
I am not for pure democracy, no one is. No one thinks it is okay to kill 49% of the population because 51% say it's all right to do that. That is what interest groups do, figuratively.
Interests groups control the government, which may be good or bad. Sometimes they do good things, but often they seek to benefit themselves at the expense of others, such as businesses seeking tariffs to reduce competition. This helps them obviously, but as for the consumer, he must now pay extra.
xp19375 2 years ago
@xp19375
Pure democracy without provisions to protect the minority is infeasible given our current situation. I never suggested this. However, that doesn't mean that it is always infeasible.
Interest groups currently control the government, so to speak, because by their influence a certain person gains power. Your examples, however, are only applicable in a capitalist economy. If you can provide one for a socialized economy, I will gladly consider it.
echo29x 2 years ago
@echo29x
I didn't say that the developed world is independent from the 3rd world.
The USSR and China were largely communist (not Marxist). I brought up collective farming to show how socialism fails. Farmers in those countries farmed for the good of the collective, not for profit, and there was a food shortage.
Bureaucracy is not necessary in a democratic government, but it is a reality. In the private sector, minimizing it means more profit, but in government there is no incentive.
xp19375 2 years ago
@echo29x
In your ideal, the government does what the people want because they want to get reelected and the people are the only means, since there are no special interests.
This is fine except for two things: First, politicians are full of empty promises. People will elect them hoping for good things, but they won't deliver, and this cycle continues. Second, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The government itself is the "interest group" in socialism.
xp19375 2 years ago
Socialized economies dont work. Can you not see what is happening to the american economy now that Obama is trying to convert us to socialism? Look at canada look at England, theyve converted to socialism and they are going broke. Capitalism works. Its time honored and proven.
byuscottira 1 year ago
@byuscottire
You make a lot of statements there. Can you back up any of them?
Also, try looking up "socialism". Learn about its history, its methodology. Or maybe just learn the meaning of the word.
Take care.
echo29x 1 year ago
I really dont like this idiot
Lessien881 2 years ago
Is this guy whacked out on drugs still? Dude...at least sit back from the camera and talk like an adult instead of a freaking out crazy person to make your point.
livelovebe1970 2 years ago
Ok so you won't be back again on the boards. Because too many comments makes it hard to follow the better ones.
bush1tman 2 years ago
Uhhh...like I care....who cares about the crazy kid ranting and raving like a manman in the video. He's not even mature enough to make his point like a rational adult. Kid needs to get out more
livelovebe1970 2 years ago
Comment removed
milowent 2 years ago
Not caring would be ignoring and going your way I would think. But here you are back again. ???
bush1tman 2 years ago
and here you are responding. It takes 30 seconds to write a youtube comment. Its not a lifetime commitment...lol
livelovebe1970 2 years ago
Are you stupid? Most people wont get sick? What do you think is the most common reason of death?
snakeweirdo 2 years ago
Old age and accidents.
bush1tman 2 years ago
"Old age" is not "Old age" it is old people dying from sickness because their immune system can't take anymore. Now, if we didn't give them healthcare, they would die earlier. Ever wondered why you have a lower expected living age in US than countries with Scandinavian standards?
snakeweirdo 2 years ago
In that case their "immune system can't take anymore" IS OLD AGE. What the fuck? All of you morons stay the fuck out of my inbox .Dumbass
bush1tman 2 years ago
You are missing the point completely. If you can prolonge their lives with several years, it's worth it.
snakeweirdo 2 years ago
One simple flaw in your reporting is that in the US many people grew up in the time of romantization of smoking cigarettes and many die of lung related disease unlike Sweden droppin life expectancy.Also we have more auto accidents,murders and accidental and occupational deaths. Also the trend today in medicine is that technology can keep people alive longer resulting in people choosing advanced directives for dying. Obama care will cut medicare also people will continue to die of old age.
bush1tman 2 years ago
People will continue to die no matter why. So why not just say: Fuck medicine?
Basically, that is what you just said.
snakeweirdo 2 years ago
No I did not say that or mean that. But that is what you heard.
bush1tman 2 years ago
That were the consequences of your postulations.
snakeweirdo 2 years ago
I can state it more simply...the HC bill is literally a massive tax bill, with over 1600 new taxes on products and services (gyms, tanning booths, toothpaste, hypodermics etc etc). The theory being gov't can spend any amount...as long as they tax us more...it will magically reduce the deficit.
In the real world however, enormous taxes crush the economy...so taxes actually collected are reduced as poverty grows. So the deficit grows despite the simplistic theory.
Sorry John...reality sucks.
professorofliberty 2 years ago
well ...
another thought ... IF the majority of US citizens is scared by the European system , then just look NORTH ... a country called ... what was the name again ... I think ... CANADA ... they seemed to be happy ... :-)))
Brgds
GSO
GermanStraight1 2 years ago
I will have to look into healthcare reform further. I want to look at all sources and get back to you HTWW. I just want to be fair in my comment. I am on medicaid, but I have seen family give a lot of money for scripts or not get them due to bad insurance. I would like to see everyone get covered like I do, but I do admit there are flaws in the healthcare reform bill. I hope our leaders will hopefully come to some type of concenses that truly helps those uninsured.
agnosticmind1982 2 years ago
well ...
as much as like listen to the arguments this guy is proposing , I hate the fact that someone intelligent , thats the way he looks to me , is talking only in terms of finacing , when it comes to health care !
It works in Europe , is it perfect , NO ... but nobody has to die because someone is holding a chart stating that is costs to much ... again , not perfect , but it works Brgds
GSO
GermanStraight1 2 years ago
Whenever this guy says "and thats a fact" or just the word "fact" im suspicious, and everyone should be too.
rasmusdr 2 years ago 2
Can anyone tell me if Lee is a Republican, or just Conservative? My intentions with this question are in no way meant to be hostile, I'm just curious. Thank.
ardman911 2 years ago
He is a self-proclaimed libertarian-conservative. He avoids answering questions about defense, though, so i think he leans more toward neo-conservatism.
I made a video response to this adressing this issue so i hope he answers.
axlman5 2 years ago
he's a political tool aka a retarded fag who doesnt know the concept of being intellectual honest.
Brezable 2 years ago
Honestly, I can see the appeals of capitalism in some situations, but to make profit out of peoples suffering, that's just sick. Think of it as charity, please? think about all the people in need... I'd rather give a bit too much than too little
// a Swedish commie
PointlessRiot 2 years ago
Where are you getting your facts from? I like to back up my comments with sources. You said for your argument that while the health care proposals would help you with preventative care should you have a heart attack, it would not help the majority. What an extreme comment to make with no facts. Idiots are willing to accept your opinions because you're intelligent. Stick to facts not Fox news.
Rememberuntothee 2 years ago
this...is...awesome.
educatedidiot0 2 years ago
Preventative care is called eating right and getting plenty of physical activity.
FlowCell 2 years ago 2
Haha. I'm glad I scrolled down cause I was gonna post that too. I don't really know how one can really define preventative care other than that.
timongarretson 2 years ago
You can still post it. Having another voice makes this message louder.
FlowCell 2 years ago
Seriously though... what else is there to preventative care? I couldn't see a preventative care regiment outside of maybe a Flintstones multi-vitamin supplement every day? Well that in addition to the aforementioned exercise and proper diet...
timongarretson 2 years ago
This should be at the governments expense as the government earns more money on people who have a job than people who are unemployed. Because of this the taxes does not have to be raised as dramatically as you might think.
Squabenphlaben 2 years ago
It's hard to me to think about medical care as a business more than what is is, treatment of those who are ill. Most people who are against the new health care reform focus on how much it will cost to maintain such a system, but not on how the society will benefit from it. IMO we should focus on how to get most people in to work. Because of the system many are kept form doing an effort because they don't have the money to get a treatment.
Squabenphlaben 2 years ago
See, the Senate bill sucks. I'm called a "lib" but this bill is too weak and weakened by special interest and lobbiests. Very disapointed in both parties. One is too weak and one is too crazy.
ZacharyDuhamel 2 years ago
I could not have said it better. Brovo!
RatavaTheDyslexic 2 years ago
Gosh can I just say you are probably my favorite conservative in the world. I'm a very leftist thinking person, but gosh you're so calm and rational with your beliefs. Thank you SO much for being maybe a shining example of how to present a political opinion rationally!! :) It truly makes me want to listen to your side honestly.
PeaceLoveNumber 2 years ago 2
You need a cute puppy to make your point.
vanfarowe 2 years ago
Here is the problem.
The federal government involvement with health care in the way it currently is and in the way it wants to become, is completely unconstitutional. There is no way around that unless several major changes are made to the constitution. All that has been going on is that the constitution has been ignored and arbitrarily dismissed.
This is not a unique situation in history. Please look up the Weimar Republic and see what happened to them because their constitution was ignored.
kmg501 2 years ago
I am a nerdfighter and i watch HTWW all the time. I like having two points of view to watch from two people are are generally well educated on different topics. It would be a great idea for the brothers Green and Lee to talk about different topics from opposing worldviews. There are things that I agree from both channels and an open ended discussion would be great for both channels. Thanks Lee.
mortalangyl 2 years ago
The dumb health reform bill doesn't even cover every single American. A tax frenzy scam.
apocalypse1280 2 years ago
Great Vid.
It's nice to know that true open debate still exists on the Tube.
Claymore5by5 2 years ago
I had a very interesting email exchange with Debbie Schlussel about what she said about Crowder. If you like I will forward them to you. She said "lying video by a guy who has a gay mancrush on Steven Crowder" .
you can find me on g mail.
MrMDK187 2 years ago
rofl, "gay mancrush"? That butch even for her.
Xtro2005 2 years ago
I work in healthcare & can vouch that the reimbursement received from Medicare doesn't cover cost. Medicaid reimbursement is even less. Obamacare would be the same - its gov't. To stay afloat, cost would have to be reduced. Lean projects work a little. However, if the supplies necessary for a procedure remain the same, I'd imagine cutting corners, inferior supplies &/or staff reduction become necessary. Either way, the effectiveness of service becomes diminished. Patients lose in the end.
IronythatisLife 2 years ago
It's impossible, Lee, for two people to "know what they are talking about" and yet have a different opinion. One is right, and the other is not, or they are both wrong.
maldos22 2 years ago
That is not how it works. One thing is not totally wrong or totally right. One guy believes that the gains outweigh the cons. The other guy, vice versa
dragonkid72001 2 years ago
I understand they have different opinions, but one of them is correct and the other is wrong, or they are both wrong. The world does not work in the way a lot of people have been made to believe, that everyone has a slice of some mystical "pie". You are either right, or you are wrong.
maldos22 2 years ago
It's called arguing with facts, and coming to a different conclusion.
The world is not black & white, right & wrong. There are shades of grey.
bayushizero 2 years ago
There are shades of grey indeed. However, there is also black and white. Only an immoral man deals in shades of grey...
maldos22 2 years ago
Don't retreat into relativism.
thomaserossi 2 years ago
It is possible for both to be right to a degree.
killerbandit 2 years ago
@killerbandit There can of course be parts of truth existent in two wrong arguments... but ultimately they are both wrong. Some knowledge is often more dangerous than no knowledge...
maldos22 2 years ago
im GLAD you made this video! im tired of his politics!
guitarshreder2 2 years ago
Oh my gosh! Thanks so much for making a video just because of my comment. What you say makes a lot of sense. I still believe that we need to make some changes to the health care system, even in the direction of socialized medicine, but you make it clear that this could cause problems. Personally, I think that healthy people should be willing to share some of their good fortune to help pay for those less fortunate, but the way we make that happen has to be carefully planned. Thanks again!
shortstuph123 2 years ago
i am a nerdfighter!
firepie3331 2 years ago
What if insurance companies instituted a waiting period of 6 months to buy insurance for individuals who have been going without it? There would be a much greater risk in choosing to be uninsured because people might have to pay for 6 months of their own healthcare costs. That could prevent gaming the system. Technically it should not adversely affect the general insured public.
calandur 2 years ago
Nerdfighters can be conservative. ^^ Oh, Lee, you should check out John's video where the same puppy defends capitalism. =D
SaphireCatElf 2 years ago
May I respectfully submit that capitalism isn't a conservative value?
jokertim777 2 years ago
No.
thomaserossi 2 years ago
Just kidding. But it's definitely NOT a postmodern Liberal "value."
thomaserossi 2 years ago
I agree, jokertim777, capitalism is not a conservative value.
maldos22 2 years ago
Let me qualify that, Corporate Capitalism is not a conservative value.
maldos22 2 years ago
DFTBA
c9rm3n 2 years ago
Is that "nerd fighters made of awesome" ?
cataphracts123 2 years ago
omg so much ass liking
MightyUnoriginal 2 years ago
@MightyUnoriginal who the hell don't like ass ? gimme some of that Denning-Kardashian ass anyday
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
I would love to see a debate between you two just to get more oppinion. I currently side more with Lee but subscribe to both channels and I think with enough open minded viewers we can get discussion started and decide for ourselves based on intelligent conversation between the two
BostonDFi 2 years ago 3
Lee, I think this is the best explanation you've given on some of your points.
LosTyger 2 years ago 2
I watched both videos and I can agree with what you are saying, Lee.
MajorMalphunction 2 years ago
Much better to have a sober dialogue than deal with childish name-calling like Thunderf00t chose to do.
Clausfarre 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am not American and I don't know the US political system in depth, but I have lived there and I love the US, that is why I think that what HTWW says is obscene. 18000 Americans die every year for lack of healtcare and HTWW thinks it is ok, he thinks that USA is better off without them. In Europe everybody is covered and goverments spend less money on healtcare than in the US, where not everybody is covered. Insurances take advantages of Americans.Leave Irak and you'll have money for healthcare
Adlershof 2 years ago
Ok, so you give universal insurance and the same amount of people die every year if not more while waiting in line for for rationed government treatment.
obama200 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The number of persons who die every year in Europe for lacking of healthcare is exactly cero
Adlershof 2 years ago
Oh yes, the all have health insurance, but access is another story. Just giving everyone insurance does not increase the supply of medical services. This is when rationing occurs because demand exceeds supply. This is dealt with by creating waiting lists. Then people with health insurance die waiting in line.
obama200 2 years ago
In Europe there is no more demand than supply of health insurance. I challenge you to give data. In Europe nobody dies in waiting lists
Adlershof 2 years ago
The fact that there are waiting lists indicates that demand exceeds supply.
obama200 2 years ago
deaths from waiting in line...
Waiting times for carotid endarterectomy in UK: observational study. BMJ. 338:b1847, 2009.
obama200 2 years ago
Thanks for the study, it proofs my point. Eventhou there are no deaths of people in waiting lists, it seems the British have to make some changes
Adlershof 2 years ago
That study shows that there are waiting lists (demand exceeds supply) and that health deteriorates to the point where patients are prone to suffer from fatal events related to their pathology. The study only covers a small segment of the population for only one condition. Extrapolate the results to the rest of the British population...
I challenge you to find me a reference (academic journal, not some blog) to show that there are no deaths in waiting lists.
obama200 2 years ago
Interestingly enough there's a relatively new book out concerning this exact topic as it regards Canada. You can check out Stefbot's channel where he conducts an interview with the author.
Xtro2005 2 years ago
Demand doesn't exceed demand and you can't extrapolate anything. The study says: "Although operative mortality rates are comparable with those in other countries, some patients MIGHT experience disabling or fatal stroke while waiting for surgery". So it is not a checked fact. If it was a proven fact I assure you the political repercusion would be hudge. That study means that the British gouverment cares for British people, not like in the US
Adlershof 2 years ago
Demand does exceed supply. If supply of care was adequate, by definition there would be no waiting lists. Waiting lists are a form of rationing.
People do die waiting on lists for care and in the US care is delivered more promptly.
The role of government is to protect the constitution, not take care of people. Its your role as a responsible adult to take care of yourself. Do you like living in a nanny state where the government does everything for you?
obama200 2 years ago 2
Again, you are defending people diying because they are poor and they do not take care of them selves and have no money to pay for healthcare and I tell you that is inmoral and antichristian
Adlershof 2 years ago
Comment removed
obama200 2 years ago
Still waiting for your reference that says that rationing care in Britain kills zero people.
obama200 2 years ago
Where's the reference that shows Zero people die in waiting lists?
obama200 2 years ago
Not true, how many people in Europe die because the latest and news drugs or procedures are not made available to them. Or what about the people who while waiting for care have their condition worsen to the point where the proposed treatment isn't effective like it was if they got the care quicker.
what is health care besides a product or service..and if you need a particular one and the government says no we don't provide that have this worse one and you die..are you not lacking health care?
EasyEs 2 years ago 2
Health care decisions differ from regular service decisions though. Example, suppose you go to a BMW lot and find you cannot afford a new BMW. Well, you could always buy a used one, or buy a car other than a BMW, or not buy anything at all and just walk. So your choices are 1) Buy a car. 2) Don't.
Now suppose you need surgery for a serious heart condition, and that's the only procedure for your particular condition. So, your choices are 1) Pay for the procedure. 2) Die.
See the difference?
smiledammit24 2 years ago
Healthcare is not like buying a car, in Europe we are a little bit more serious than that. In Europe nobody dies because the latest or new drugs are not aviable, nor because they are in waiting lists. You just make up facts and I challenge you to find data to support your fake argument
Adlershof 2 years ago
In Europe nobody dies because the latest or new drugs are not aviable, nor because they are in waiting lists. You just make up facts and I challenge you to find data to support your fake argument
Adlershof 2 years ago
Drugs development is driven by the capitalist American market and the British socialist system leeches off of it.
obama200 2 years ago
In France alone Doctors took the summer off during a heat wave of 2003 which resulted in the death of over 14,000 people.
You're completely indoctrinated Adlershof. Here's your chance to place evidence before agenda. Here's your chance to think for yourself. How well did FNIH cope with the heatwave?
I accepted your challenge, now accept the facts.
thomaserossi 2 years ago
haha, so the crisis was caused by doctors taking the summer off? Assuming you are right about them getting time off, unless they normally made house calls your argument makes no sense at all.
killerbandit 2 years ago
LOL!!!! A historic heat wave kills people and the French healthcare is guilty! LOL No, catastrophes happen, think for yourself and come down
Adlershof 2 years ago
@Adlershof
We'll leave Iraq when the job is done, hopefully not a minute sooner.
wiz9496 2 years ago
There is not such a thing as job done, that is the problem. You can't win
Adlershof 2 years ago
I think you're stating an opinion as a fact when you say that.
Antitheist98 2 years ago 2
Then illustrate me and tell me what means winning the war in Irak, an illegal and terrorist war that the US began against international law and based on lies. And that is not an opinion, it is a fact, read the UN resolutions
Adlershof 2 years ago
When Iraq has a stable government that is able to protect the state from becoming a terrorist haven.
Antitheist98 2 years ago 3
That's what you think.
wiz9496 2 years ago
lee i agree and you both bring about very valid points. people need to understand that collaboration is the best way to solve a problem and constructive problem solving in a mature manor is the best way to go about it.
bstock21 2 years ago
you explain things well, lee--another excellent video--i'm learning from u...
MargaritasAntesPorco 2 years ago 5
I think that both videos were good. John was the first person I have ever heard who explained his rationale for the Health Care bill without emotion. I think that one point that you could have rebutted was that if a person does not have a car/automobile, or does not use their auto on public roadways, one does not need auto insurance. Before I got my truck, I did not pay into USAA for auto insurance, I was not fined for not doing so. Yadda, yadda, blah, blah.
ComradePerson 2 years ago
@comradeperson: but if you are alive, you need health insurance, that's the theory. if you are dead, then yeah, you can opt out.
if there was a way people could opt out of getting any health care (i.e., the ER and every doctor could refuse treatment if they wanted if you didn't have insurance of cash up front), then maybe there is an argument to be made. but right now those with insurance subsidize those who don't (and who don't usually pay up)
milowent 2 years ago
A creative way of opting out of health insurance is starting when young having the option to save into a private account dedicated to healthcare and being tax exempt. Those people would not need the subsidies of people who do pay for health insurance. This would create an environment for several things. 1. would reduce the prices doctors charge for healthcare 2) would make people personally responsible for their health and 3) allow freedom to choose when and how health dollars are used.
bush1tman 2 years ago
@bush1tman: I am not sure how that would reduce prices though. even such people would need a high deductible plan because with a risk pool of 1, some individuals will still get very ill and burn through all their savings--which is why we have insurance, to pool that risk. i am in favor of rating premiums based on controllable health factors -- like obesity, diet, smoking, etc. -- to encourage healthy behavior and reduce health care consumption.
milowent 2 years ago
Prices would drop because many of the covered services would not be chosen by the patient. For example wasn't the age for advisory mamography raised recently due too many women getting them. Also endoscopy and colonoscopy, ct scans etc are all procedures that are prescribed to jack up the income of doctors,hospitals etc. People would choose not to have procedure or to wait. Also preventative health care can be expensive as well. The problem is the gov't mandating care.
bush1tman 2 years ago
@bush1tman -- i think your model assumes that the patient is knowledgeable enough to choose what services to choose (e.g., classic economic theory assumes all have complete information) -- in reality the patient has a huge information deficit and has to rely on the doctor's recommendation of what care to receive. doctors almost definitely prescribe more care than what is economically optimal, because we don't like to value human life.
milowent 2 years ago
Actually I think that patients would have to rely on the doctors recommendation regardless the type of health plan they had. At least the democrats are assuring me that the doctor patient relationship is sacrosanct. I think under another plan a patient will still know when they need a doctor. Once I let a physicians assistant under doctors order to prescribe a stress test. I had Espstein -Barr. The test would have been done but I made her examine me further. If I was paying out of pocket? Whoa!
bush1tman 2 years ago
Lee. Another amazing video
iphoneblogger 2 years ago
He forgot to tell us to rate it even if we hate it :(
shatwood 2 years ago
Lee: Nice work.. excellent points and well-said.
Spot on all the way through.
satirewriter07 2 years ago
Lee, what about the French health care system? The French are happy with it overall. Also since there is already "socialized medicine" such as Veterans, Elderly, disabled and the poor, it should be available to all as a single payer plan. Otherwise no Government health care at all.
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago 2
the unfunded liabilities the french government has because of socialized medicine ect. is rediculous...there's also a lot more i could say but you get the idea
dirksilver 2 years ago 3
The French system has caused massive unemployement of the French youth causing violent protests against the French government because employers are forced to pay for the system. There is a lot to learn from this system though... It is a much better model than the Canadian or English models. Read Paul Dutton's book Differential Diagnoses for a comparisson of the U.S and French systems of Healthcare.
413DaveRN 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
jrewert 2 years ago
Regardless of intention, you still PWNED!
ArchetypeX 2 years ago 3
YES, YES, we are both HowTheWorldWork-ies, and Nerdfighters:))))!!!!!
thursday2uk 2 years ago 5
there are dozens of clips of various dems saying they want a single payer system, and the way to institute it is sweeping healthcare reform. These dems in congress are snakes in the grass, they pretend they want to fix healthcare problems, when they really mean they want to scrap it, and put in their single-payer nightmare.
VegasBilgeRat 2 years ago 4
Lee,
This is one of your best videos. Great Job!
CTYankeeinTexas 2 years ago 5
Well Said Lee, Great work.
5* & Fav'd
red5llaw 2 years ago 2
I'm a nerdfighter who watches How The World Works too! This is cool. I hope he gets back to you, because watching the two of you debate will help me understand the bill better. Already his video combined with your video has helped my form my opinion. Erm... Well, it made it harder for me to pick a side. You both have valid points, and I'm very torn... I think many people oppose this bill for the wrong reasons, like John mentioned, but you have many many many good points too. Hope he responds!
SpaceAndrew 2 years ago
Comment removed
littlebier8 2 years ago
excellent video! this is exactly how debate should be! polite but firm and factual! excellent video and great character on your part and most likely(though i haven't watched the video yet)johns part
Dirk
dirksilver 2 years ago 2
if you have to explain ...why the fed health care is bunko... if you are speaking to people who "think" Obama's health crap is bitchin' ...well Lee ... you are pushing the river...futile to try to proove that those people have a lack of useable brain matter- i have no time to spend elaborating common sense to brainwashed liberal idiots-
the pity is it appears that the rate of liberals being "trained" in Public schools who are basically all wack & brain dead...
sorry
rentatrip1 2 years ago
This is so cool. I really enjoy inter-channel discussions. I am both a Nerdfighter and a HTWW fan!
ClammehHands 2 years ago 2
@ClammehHands
Well, please tell John. Thanks.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
i am sure he is aware of it, but john is usually slammed with message and emails as you can imagine. with the baby due, the chances of a response seems slight, but its nice to see people trying to engage in rational and intelligent debates of serious issues instead of screaming about death panels killing grammy.
milowent 2 years ago
Great video Lee. You cleared up alot of points.
UtherPendragan 2 years ago