@totheman An ineffective health care is a health care system in which insurers only want to insure healthy people and make sick people pay more. Its insurance which is about spreading risk and not selecting for it!!! An ineffective system has fee-for-service which incentivizes over treatment of wealthy/insured and úndertreatment of poor and unsinsured. An effective service is one which costs $6k instead of $13k per year per person yet its clients live longer and in better health.
If all doctors were salaried and paid for like the firefighters, they would be assured of their income and could focus 100% on using their medical skills. They would not have to fight insurance companies or employ clerks to handle the paperwork and wouldn't worry about keeping patients rolling through the doors to maintain their income.
The US system incentivizes over treatment of the insured and undertreatment of the uninsured. It is stupid.
If Canon was right, in France or Germany, or Spain, or England, where doctors and nurses have a right to work in public or private practice and people have a right to public or private health care or insurance, there would be ineffective health care. In fact the opposite is true. It IS effective and available to everyone and costs HALF the price of health care in the US,
Health care resource utilization has what economists call a negative utility of consumption. Put simply, a person who spends 1 day in hospital is not better off than a person who spends 10 days in hospital.
Would you be better off if the Fire Department had hose down a fire at your house once a year instead of once every 10 years? Its the same with health care once you take payment out of the equation...
Did the millions of Russians that starved to death under Lenin and Stalin have 'the right' to not starve to death? Probably; but because they believed in that right, they starved to death.
You have a right to freedom and Voluntarism, not a right to commit criminal coercion.
Coercive Sector Medical Care is criminal and all of the individuals upholding it should be charged as such. Everything should be voluntary, the opposite of criminal socialism.
Healthcare is not a right! We only have unalienable Rights. When these Rights are view through the prism of science (see my channel video), one will find they apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems. Most understand the Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.
Healthcare is a right... health insurance is not. We as Americans have the right to purchase any good or service that is available on the open market. To draw a parallel... according to the constitution, we have the right to bear arms... now that does not mean that the government should levy taxes in order to provide a gun for everyunarmed citizen. Medical Savings accounts in pre-tax dollars makes more sense than universal healthcare. We would eliminate 30% of the system's overhead.
Also, I hate to be stereotypical, the woman is in the academic settings. Not many professors (bless their hearts) go on to put what they read in practice. You can read all you want about engines but when it comes to doing it you have to PRACTICE.
She is talking about moving forward, well you have to look back at what caused it too. You can't just look forward or else you keep padding (padding = more expense) the leak and not finding out the valve isn't shut (free and just some action).
We are a republic, just because everyone thinks it is a right, doesn't make it so.
If I don't get paid for neurologist why would I be one? I have the right to pursue property with money as a neurologist.
See - if someone got shot on the street, sure I wont let them bleed but people can't take that for granted. So, if I accept him bleeding on the street why do we need to make a law about it? It should be between the doctor and the client.
I am willing to bet health was cheaper in 1800's.
Healthcare costs so much because people are seeing doctors for very trivial illnesses that can be tended to by more appropriate and affordable means.
Major illnesses must be the top priority of any medical practitioner, but when people see their doctor because of a sniffle, sore throat, or cough, its wasting valuable resources that could be better utilised for serious illnesses like Cancer, Parkinsons, or diabetes. Do you concur with this?
Well, wasting resources? I can't hold someone's ignorance against themselves. If resources you mean time? I don't think looking at an irritated throat is more detrimental than CHEMO. A doctor's visit is like $100 with no insurance. I think companies are holding monopolies on the "higher end" things. There are lawsuits and patents up top that are making things expensive. Doctors are specialized... Chemo therapist and a throat doctors don't compete.
Another problem with American healthcare is that the doctor/patient relationship is being interfered with by some non-compliant Insurance Companies.
If a doctor thinks you need Chemo, why would the Insurance company turn around and deem it medically unesessary? Surely, doctors know what is best for their patients, not Insurance Companies.
If pay bso much a year through Insurance and I get diabetes I expect the value of treatment I invested in Insurance? Do you agree?
I think doctors and patients should pay to each other for their services. Dollars for service.
Right. An insurance company controls your health which should be illegal in my book. Health care costs are largely due to Patents and regulations. If an insurance company guarantees money the hospital wont care what the price is. The insurance always pays out.
What you put in you should get out. Your market value should hold. You have a right to choice not the right to be served.
@pluto4847 I hope I am making sense. I am JUST learning health care and all the other governmental intervention. Bare with me if I'm not at your "expertise". Hell, I am just learning how to guard my opinion. I don't even know what you were inferring to mostly it's that bad. I just feel making something a RIGHT means I GET IT no matter what. So you have an infinite demand but not enough supply and prices skyrocket. Imagine the right to oreo cookies. Poor oreo makers.
@pluto4847 My last uneducated response. From what I gather, when things becomes rights... it's less money in your control and more between business and those who subsidize it. Then some people are pissed cause many want control of their money. Money is voting. Take the money away you vote for nothing. Government can't build corporations it needs corporations to build for it... so it subsidizes the corporation and the corporation gets all the money. Government becomes BROKE. There are always poor
This is whats gonna happen. The gov promises someone roses money to make healthcare free and available to all. Once the bill is underway, some other leftist cause must be fought and won, but to pay for this née cause, money from healthcare will be dipped into
I am French-American and I am flabbergast to see how many Americans still support the current U.S. healthcare system ? If this happened in France, people would be out on the street decades ago to run down all those "interested parties" ! This is NOT a political issue ! This is a fundamental issue, a human's Right issue! A moral issue! Oh, I forgot, there is no such "moral thing" in our society anymore... It is all about profit.
Universal Healthcare is GOOD dumasses. Look north of where your world end to Canada. We are overall healthier, we live longer, we are less obiec, we pay less for healthcare, and it's a RIGHT. The US always fails at things everyone else does (Medicare), just ask and I think we Canadians would help you make a system that is better then most developing countries, mabby even better then 1 or 2 Eurpean countries. BTW about Obamas "Death Panls" dont you already have those, Like EVERY insurents company
@dave Canada is behind the US be every indicator,including waitinglists,doctors per capita,and survaival rates for most diseases.Are Candians healthier?Perhaps.Do we live longer? Yes,but this there are several factors responsible for this,other than healthcare.In 1962 Saskatchewan was equal to the US in the quality of care,since then we fell behind and are faced wioth the same solution, more centralisation and trow mor money at it.This is unsutainalbe and after 50 years its time for change.
Yepyep, here you get housing, social security, healthcare and education to any level... so socialist? but at the same time we're more competitive than the u.s. and we're also one of the most innovative countries(with the nordic nations), we're the most peaceful, we're more healthier, our public education just recently ranked #1
Nordic nations are at the moment of the best places to live free and happy...
and pls dont reply some pseudo bullshit bout socialism, when clearly you guys have it wrong
Oh, the irony! Her opening sentences: "Some 47 million Americans don't have health insurance, some of them by choice. Fixing that is a top priority of the Obama Administration." Notice that having a "choice" is one of the things that Obamacare will "fix".
@Clyaton u know what u can have free speech and all that but DO NOT adress the president or anypresident in the U.S. in that manner asshole. you are an american and will not disrespect the country u got married in had kids in, the land where your dad fucked your mom to make you in. you are a disgrace to the country and me as a person serving in the armed forces i am ashamed to fight for freedom for people like you.
Hmm... You sound like a crazy person... PTSD? What comment would you be referring to, I don't see my self as lacking patriotism, the only one really being disrespectful is you, and me when I say fuck you.... Leave me alone, and I'll do the same. ;) I almost joined the military and have many friends who have.. Don't confuse my disrespect for YOU to be a disrespect for our troops. They aren't the one's who have decided to go to undeclared wars.
@Guns1inger777 heh! Simple: because they want health care insurance to be not just a right but an OBLIGATION. The only way to make it "affordable" for the sick was if all the healthy folks are required to pay in as well ... hence the individual mandate. Americans love rights, so the Democrats dressed up this new obligation and called it a RIGHT, and we fell for it.
WEll that's wrong, but consider this. People complain they will have to pick up other people's tabs. Not so! Because 'EVERYBODY' has to buy health insurance under Obama--rich and poor. If one class does not obey, they go to jail.
That's fair! I've seen much worse things so not to worry, just go with the flow. Live in Great Britain, you'll soon understand. But Britain's healthcare is mucvh more better. Trust me! I've experienced their system. Much better than the USA.
@pluto4847 What you don't understand is that this is put in place to force current health insurance to raise premiums in order for the libtards to eventually force a single payer plan and put private insurance out of business. As you can see, their plan is working just as conservatives said it would.
the first guys argument is weak, reason we have fire departments is because if your neighbors property catches on fire if he chooses to let it burn or could not afford a firefighter to hoose it down, it will then damage your home...so its fair for everyone, because it protects us from each other, ie public safety, but if you refuse to pay your doctor your neighbors heart will not fail but yours, but if everybody is charged for your hearts failure, then others are bearing your cost not fair
It looks like health care reform will be law but and not a right. I think we are far from a super-majority of congress and State ratification to amend the Constitution. But, if people think healthcare is a right then wouldn't food be a right? I'll die much quicker without food then I will without healthcare. You have a right to pursue these but they are not a right.
Here in England everyone supposedly has the right to healthcare but an appointment with your GP can be several weeks away, and if you go to the A & E you could be waiting for hours.
And even here there's a two-tier system, if you want an operation sooner rather than later you can pay and go forward in the queue.
Its not even a matter of gov't run v not gov't run its a matter of efficiency and from what I have seen the NHS is not very efficient, I can't comment on American hospitals.
It IS easy to rip apart how it's been done in the past, and the more constructive thing is to look forward as to how to make it better, but the thing is, you can't look to the future without taking into account the mistakes of the past so that we may make BETTER decisions going forward. That being said, I don't want to pay for someone's treatment of emphezima or cancer if they choose to be a smoker, or to treat someone who is obese because those are choices that they made, not me.
How can health care be a right? There are medical treatments today that did not exist 10 years ago. Were the people 10 years ago denied their rights by not getting said treatment? Future treatments will extend and enhance our lives beyond our wildest dreams. Do we have a right to them today? Also, why should this right stop at a national border. The single payer crowd never suggests giving universal access to everyone on earth.
you can seek whatever you want. if you can pay for whatever you seek, you can buy it. somebody has to pay, otherwise it's called theft. i'm not paying for you. you are not paying for me. it's called the right to private property. not having the right to private property is known as communism. is that what you want?
Citing a big tubby like Michael Moore in an argument for a right-to-health-care just makes me laugh.
And die a little.
And I love how the lady says the debate shouldn't be one of absolutes, then says that Obama's election was (absolutely) the nation's expression that health care is a right. HAHAHA!!!
Havin been in canada for ten years I can tell you WITH CERTAINTY that statist HC is NEITHER a RIGHT and certainly NEVER A PRIVILEGE.....It is for CHUMPS....A Mandate that FORCES people to buy into a plan that does not include VIABLE TORT REFORM, HC Access across state lines, and generic meds with deadly cuts to medicare and gun control vending machine control abortion control and pits union and private sectors against each other in WAR is just PURE COMMUNISM via SOCIALISM...by chumps for chumps.
In the Bill of Rights of the Soviet Union, they were honest about health care it states that "citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection." This document also stipulated Soviet citizens have the "right to work" not longer than 41 hours in a workweek, the "right to rest and leisure," the "right to education," the "right to enjoy cultural benefits."
Sure I get it dog, I have the same opinion you do that we are the US not the Soviet Union and we have more freedoms and responsibilities that are not rights like health care.
By making free public health care a right, it's infringing upon my individual right to the fruits of my labor. It's contrary to the idea of liberty.
People love to attack capitalism in favor of socialism, but they fail to see the connection socialism has to the degradation of individual rights.
Socialism as an economic policy will always lead to socialism as a political policy- where liberty (individual rights and individual freedom) comes after the "good of society".
No not the "good of society".... the good of those who think they are so far superior to you they know better....the 'good of the elite' is more accurate
the UK is a liberal democracy, and has been for 2 hundred years....
We have had government funded healthcare since 1948, and this has not changed the fact we are a capitalist nation.
We are not blinded by ideology but generally use our reason to decide public policy based on what we think works best, and what the evidence says...
Maybe free healthcare is impeding on your rights, thats an opinion.. but the statisitcal emperical evidence shows us that free healthcare is cheaper and better
receiving police assistance is a 'right' and we pay via taxes.
And if its free, we go in for tr small things.. which is a GOOD thing in health, because small things can develop into massivle y expensive diseases. And its a moral question also. Why cant we see the docter if we have a cold? In the UK we dont worry, you get ill, u get treated.. simple.
Your knees hurting? than go in, see a physio... doesnt this appeal to you guys.?
i had an online friend in London with the same medical condition i have. i got operated on within 4 hours. she died after 10 months of agony. she was on a waiting list. it would have been 7 MORE months before she got the operation I got in 4 hours!
maybe England's care is 'free"... just pray you live long enough to GET that care.
i can see my doc in less than two hours I can get an op in less than 24 hours.
im sorry for your friend, but one anecdote proves little. Also what americans keep forgetting is we have private health care aswell as public, so if you want to be seen immediately than you can pay... but of course not everyone can pay, and thats the whole point of this argument.
The simple fact is America has a relatively poor performance in healthcare.. perhaps you are better in some aspects, such as technology etc... but if you look at the whole system you will see public ones are superior
of course healthcare is a right. I cant believe this debate even occurs... only in America I want to add.
Weve figured out its a right around 60 years ago. We therefore own our health system. the NHS is one of best inventions in the UK. I urge the USA to 'invent' the same thing
Think of the advantages a free market of worker co-ops would help deal with the issues regard vehicle MPG's. If workers were in charge of the factories there would be more of an incentive to make vehicles that appealed to the worker (ie high MPG) since the workers themselves are in charge.
A capitalist though subject to competition may still make cars that appealed to the consumer but the incentive to make cars with high MPG wouldn't be as high as if the workers owned the companies.
haha Cannon just shut her up at the end. He used economic facts what the government has done and she responds with some crap bout lookin to the future.
@yammyspeed13 Fire and police services place a burden on those who don't need them - they cost taxpayer dollars, and realistically they cost just as much as a nationalised healthcare system would. Are you saying that those aren't rights? If protection from criminal behaviour and emergency situations is a right then why isn't there a right to healthcare (and thus a right to live)?
@TaylorTayMusic No, public services are not rights. They are paid for by the threat of force and violence and can be taken away at anytime for any reason. If we truly wish to live free society the first thing we need to do is reject the notion that turning your fellow man into a slave will set you free. Then we must look to free market solutions to keep thing moving, instead of throwing our money down the rat hole of the State finance.
@yammyspeed13 Public schooling, also - if I'm sending my kids to a private school why am I paying taxes to send other people's kids to a public school?
@TaylorTayMusic If your happy then I'm happy. I will not force you to stop any of your own personal funding when it comes social programs or any private ones for that matter. I only ask you extend me the same courtesy when I exercise my right to choose how I dispose of MY property.
the academic left has been hard at work redefining the concept of a right for years. They say we now have the right to water, to food, to health care. So, I guess I can just sit on the couch and somebody will bring all these things to me. What if they don't want to work and pay for me to get these things? They have no right to complain.
@DaveDoggOwns The cost of military defense is collectivized in a laize-faire society too, yet, you don't really believe the cost of it will skyrocket.
@Rodriguez8611 You're comparing apples to oranges. For one I do not choose to buy military defense the same way I get to choose to buy healthcare. There is no choice. The government controls the military and controls access and distribution of it. Second, those that recieve the most benefits from military pay the most awhile those that recieve the least benefits from it pay the least. Service recieved is proportional to how much you pay unlike UHC.
@DaveDoggOwns You're not clear how I'm comparing apples to oranges. That there's no choice do not rebut the fact that we're talking about "collectivizing" a service, and cost of the military is paid by the collective. It's about the math. I don't understand what you try to say by "the gov. controls the military"..... and therefore, what is it?.
Also, liberal/left approach to health care do not equates UHC, others like me believe that medical service should be granted to those who......
@Rodriguez8611 I already told you the distribution of the miltary defense is not the same as UHC. WIth the military the benefits you receive from it are proportional to how much yu pay. With UHC this operates in th exact reverse fasion. You gain more benefits for less pay and those that pay more into it get no added benefit from paying more of the bill.
@DaveDoggOwns Well, you didn't really address what I wrote, and you didn't clarify what you meant by "the gov. controls the military", because an UHC, the controls it as well. You did tell me that "the distribution of the military is not the same", but you didn't explain absolutely nothing to make your case. In other words, you don't say an iota of the roll of "distribution" in the cost, or what are the alleged "benefits" you recieve "proportional" to the % of taxes you pay.
@Rodriguez8611 Last I checked if you are rich you own more of the nation so yes you do get more benefits from the military than a poor person. I don't know what is so complicated about that. You either get it or you don't.
@DaveDoggOwns Actually, it is left-wing economists who say that taxes should be higher for rich people because the own more and have more to loose. I don't understand what you're doing using it, maybe that's why you sound confusing and inconsistent. So, if you just were "going along with it", and military cost is not collective in laissez-faire, then how does it work?. And it is exactly because the military is no "consumed" the way UHC is, then how can the cost be "proportional"?, because.....
@Rodriguez8611 Actually, pretty much every economist on the planet saids if you are going to have taxes then they should be progressive since the rich dont get hurt by taxation as much as the lower classes. They may not agree how much taxes there should be, but the all agree that if there is going to be taxes then they should be progressive.
A 100% LF society is basically a stateless society. So obviously the military wouldn't be collectivized.
@DaveDoggOwns No, not every econimist agrees with progressive taxes. Laissez-faire economists suggests Flat-rate Taxation, liberal/left economists Progressive taxation, but I think they have variations, I'm not sure. I can read where you say "the military wouldn't be collectivized", but I don't see where it explains at least a bit, you're just repeating yourself and therefore, I keep repeating the my questions. It's becoming tiresome.
It is unconciveable for someone to think that because......
@Rodriguez8611 Let me explain to you why the fact that the government controlls the military is important to this discussion. With the military you are not choosing how much service you buy. The government decides whether you will buy it or not and how much you pay.
This is not the case with collectizing the cost of healthcare. In healthcare, yes the government is making one class of people help the lower class, but the lower class is stil making the actual choice to get healthcare.
@DaveDoggOwns So what happens is the class of people who originally were not limmitted by their own incomes in their buying of healthcare are not NOT LIMMITTED. and so demand just keeps going up and up and up increasing the price of healthcare.
This doesn't happen with military service because it is not a consumer choice how much military service they get. It's the governments.
@DaveDoggOwns ......and therefore the cost will skyrocket? You're making this TOO hard!. You use non-sensical analogies to explain, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful. And, actually, if we choose with UHC and not the military, and we can educate people to live healthier, then it may result in lower cost, don't you think?. That's the case of Japan and the U.K, would you dare to disagree?.
So, the "it's proportional" and the "is not consumed like UHC", are totally unfounded reasons.
@Rodriguez8611 No I disagree. Let me ask you this. Why not have Universal Food insurance? Why not Universal Car Insurance? How about Universal Fire Insurance? Why not have Universal Transportation for all. Everyone has a right to a car. Why not?
I mean if the free market isn't good at providing healthcare then why would it be good to allow it to supply ANYTHING else?
@DaveDoggOwns Universal food insurance is silly, there is food stamps in instead. Universal car insurance is even more silly since cars is not basic human need, we can use public transportation. We have fire departments provided by the goverment, and paid by taxation. Play the video at 0:39 And nobody is saying that people have the right to have cars, people have the right to receive medical care even if they can't affort it, we can't just pass by and let people die. I know that, that's......
@Rodriguez8611 The exact opposite result happens with UHC. A poor person gets to get as much healthcare as he/she wants without having to pay for it awhile the middle and upper class have to foot the bill and recieve no extra benefit for footing more of the bill.
@DaveDoggOwns I mean, how is the "distribution" of military defense "proportional" that distinguishes it from UHC? Does the military of a nation focus more protection on those who paid more taxes?.... Given your confusing, unexplained, and inconsistent responses, the fact remains intact: the cost of the military will be collectivized in a laissez-faire economy, and that doesn't mean the cost will skyrocket.
@Rodriguez8611 No. The military focues on protection of the nation and if you are rich obviously you own more of the nation than everyone else dude.
And actually no a Lf economy doesn't result in the military being collectivized. I just went along with you, because it doesn't matter even if it is collectivized. The military is not consumed the way UHC is.
@DaveDoggOwns ......military defense is given to everybody equally, it doesn't matter if you own a pencil and the next guy next to you, a large multinational. UHC and the military are 1.runned by the gov. 2.prices are controlled by the gov. 3.for everybody. So, how's the military different for it not to be considered a "collectivized cost" just as UHC?. You say it's because "the lower class is still making the actual choice".........
@Rodriguez8611 1)UHC doesn't mean government runs every single aspect of healthcare. In the context of my comment on collctivization of costs the government is helpiing foot the bill for the uninsured, but it isn't controlling all the other aspects of healthcare such as how the doctor performs the care....how much the doctor charges, etc. The government is just involving itself in healthcare insurance. Not healthcare itself.
@DaveDoggOwns ......there is UHC, the goverment controls "how doctors perform the care" as if I suggested that the goverment is a medical association or something. Where in my comments did I talk about the goverment providing or having anything to do with it, except for the cost?..... What's a matter with you?!!
So, if the goverment doesn't control health care price, how will skyrocket? I mean.....
@Rodriguez8611 2)The government is not dictating the prices of healthcare. If it is then obviously my comment on how collecitivizing costs sky rockets prices doesn't apply (And I never meant it to apply to such a situation)since there is no longer a price system that is free to correlate with the fluctuations of the market.
3)Yes, UHC is for everyone, but the benefits of it are not equal. One class is footing the bill and another is free loading.
@DaveDoggOwns ......could you se an actual example, just as I use Japan and the U.K, specially Japan, where there's UHC and health care price control, and yet; there is effective health care, healthier people, people visit their doctors around 10-15 times a year, and the cost of it is cheap.
No one is free-loading if they can't afford health care. If that person have the means to receive health care and yet, want it free, then it's freeloading. What an inmature and inhumane way to look at it!
@Rodriguez8611 Military defense is given out fairly, but it is not given out "equally". Obviously a rich person owns more of the nation than a poor person and as a result if a military is given the task to defend a nation of one rich person and one poor person obviously the rich person is gaining more benefits from national defense than the poor person. Yes, the benefits of the military are given out fairly but it nonsensical to say they are given out "equally".
@DaveDoggOwns ......your will, but let me remind you that that doesn't even happens in animals.
I never said that a free market isn't capable at provinding health care, the thing is that it fails at providing health care to those who can't afford it. In other words, in laissez-faire, hc is a commodity, it's a business, and if you can't pay, you die. Nice!, 'I'm so strong for letting another human die.'
I said that military defense is given to eerybody equally because......
@DaveDoggOwns ......you said that the cost is proportional, remember?. What I meant is that, it doesn't matter if you're rich and therefore you have more to protect, and since I'm poor, I have less to lose; the military won't defend your side of the bed more than mines, it will defend the our common space equally, yet you paid more.
Yes, the rich will have to pay more...... what a burden!. Those who can't afford health care or food are SOOO lucky!. I wish I was poor man, wouldn't you?
0:46, that is one of the dumbest emails I've ever seen. The reason there are no for-profit fire departments is because of state taxation. If you are being forced to pay for one fire department why waste money on another?
And this logic can be used to rationalize COMPLETE government control of the economy. Car companies could hire some men to start breaking people's car windows and then expect people to pay money for new cars!! Absurdity, absurdity, absurdity!!
I agree with all you folks' sayings about Cannon's being brain-dead and his love of privatize the health care industry. He is clueless and sarcastic and a problem magnifier rather a solution provider. Wait until he or his love ones are terminally ill, then he'll see how the greedy private health insurers deny the benefits.
Bottom line: Simplicity is not the solution to solve the health care crisis. There would need to be many supplemental solutions to eradicate bad policies and greed.
I would urge you to go to Cato's website and actually check out some of Michael's stuff. He shows what the problems are and simple solutions to fix it. You can't really get too much info from these short TV news segments (or these 500 character boxes for that matter).
I agree, on the last point that the guest made... He just gave you the diagnosis of what's wrong with Healthcare, and didn't get a chance to describe the "cure". But she did have a good "simplistic nonsense slogan".
with all the contagious and dangerous diseases around today...I cant believe that these greedy crooks would rather have the public spreading disease than to allow us the OPTION to nationalized healthcare...
NOT EVERY PERSON has to choose it...but we should have the right to that option.
rich corporations get rich through usury, cutting our wages, cutting benefits and when we're in trouble we have no rights but when theyre in trouble they use our tax money to pay for their bailouts..
WHY NOT LET MY TAX MONEY PAY FOR MY HEALTHCARE INSTEAD OF BAILOUTS
The question then becomes: what if you don't have the money to afford to pay for it yourself? I believe in free market medicine, but if someone has a contagious disease and can't afford treatment and just goes about roaming the streets, what are we to do? Shoot him? Their is a role for government when 3rd parties are involved. I don't believe the federal government should fill that roll, but local gov't has to do something.
Either three things will happen in the midst of a government.
1)Everyone will vote to tax themselves in order to pay for this person who cannot afford medical care.
2)They will give charity to this person.
3)They will niether give to charity nor will they vote for statist intervention.
If people are willing to do 1) why not 2)? Why even go through the statist bureacracy? More houses were created in New Orleans through private charity than through the government which spent more money.
The "free market" refers to free trade, no barriers to entry, freedom of association, self-ownership, individual sovereignity, etc and doesn't have a specific position of property rights while "capitalism" refers to private ownership of the means of production in the contex of a free market.
Free market is the umbrella term awhile capitalism is the specific.
That doesn't make any sense to me. How can you have free trade when you don't have property rights? Pleas explain to me how you can have a free market without capitalism.
I do believe in property rights. Just not capitalist property rights. I prefer the mutualist system of property rights where workers own the means of production in the contex of a free market. Sometimes there will be private ownership but that private owner would be a worker.
You mean you don't see why it can't happen now. There are a couple of reasons.
1)Buying the capital respects the capitalist's claim to property. Socialists believe their claims are illegitamite so why would they buy the property when they can just take it?
2)Workers lack resources and collateral.
3)Most people haven't even come to the grips with the idea of worker ownership of capital in the contex of a free market. They always think of Stalin when that idea is brought up.
No, I mean exactly what I said. If "workers" can provide a product or service better than anyone else, then they will own the means of production in the context of a free market. It is not a free market if I am not allowed to own what I want because I am an individual. Your argument is self-contradictory. You can't have a free market and yet not have individual property rights. And you really need to define "worker."
I allready gave you three reasons why worker-cops are not and cannot compete with capitalist workplaces. I'm not going to repeat myself.
Even in a free market there are certain things an individual cannot do. Such as initiating force. All property involves the actual or threatened initiation of force and because of this it is very hard to argue that capitalism is more moral than socialism.
What do you mean "property involves the actual or threatened initiation of force"? In a capitalist system, exchanges are made voluntarily, not by gov't fiat. You want to argue that it's not more moral that property is freely exchanged than stolen from you by gov't?
Defending propert is an initiation of force because defending property is not an act of self-defense. Taking this into account which property system is more moral then.
1)Capitalism: where people can assume exploitive middleman positions of authority and where there is radical class differences?
2)Mutualism(market socialism) where people get the advantages of the free market AND the increase in overall self-determination from workers owning the means of production.
Yeah, defending property is self-defense IF your property is needed to sustain your life. Otherwise, the mere enforcement of property rights is not self-defense.
A worker is the opposite of a capitalist. A capitalist takes advantage of a property right to make a living off workers who cannot support themselves because they lack resources, land, and/or capital.
I want a free market of worker co-operatives. Free market capitalism though efficient it may be contains exploitive middlemen.
That is a Marxist theoretical world. Most people who are wealthy were not born that way and most people who are poor will not remain that way for their whole lives. All that is required to be successful in capitalism is to take in more money than you spend. Not all industries are capital intensive. I'm not sure why you assume that an individual would have more resources than a group of individuals and that for an individual to make money he would have to exploit workers.
1)I'm not a Marxist. Marx was wrong about a lot of things,
2)Most people who are wealthy are wealthy because they came from more privilieged homes and most people who are poor are poor because they have an unprivilieged past. That's the cold hard fact of reality but that's not why I'm argueing against capitalism. I'm argueing against capitalism becuase some people are exploitive middlemen, not necessarily because there is inequality.
The principle is that everyone pools their money together through the government instead of a private for profit company so that when someone needs treatment it gets paid out of that pool.
Medical bills can become very expensive very quickly.
And they become even more expensive when people are using third party payments. That's why there are big problems in American medicine. If people pool their money together under a gov't system, there is no incentive to save or conserve. Back when most medical expenses were paid out of pocket, people were more conservative with their medical decisions. Now that most insurance is provided through employers, people tend to use care that has a diminishing rate of return.
huge and expanded profits for the health insurance companies and the drug companies while continuing this pay-or-die system that has plagued this country for decades, a system that takes 20,000 lives a year, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. Thats about fifty to sixty people who die every day. OR nationalized healthcare where the CEO and his greed are cut out of the equation.
As a health care professional, I'll say this. Just because Dr. Hoangmai is a physician, doesnt mean she knows anything about policy. Many of my peers know very little about the complexities of our health care system or how to reform it. They know what they need to know to do their jobs. They are not all-knowing beings that know every single aspect of our system. Only those who actively research the topic of health care reform really know whats going on, both from their careers & research.
The audacity of those who take personal responsibility & pay for their own health care, cars, food, housing, clothing, etc!
Rights are something that you are born with that cannot be taken away from you, not something that can be given to you at the expense of others. That is called an entitlement. Entitlements are not rights.
How ironic, doesn't this guy feel completel dumb and uneducated. He is a nobody and has no buisness in healthcare and speak to an actual physician who is for universal healthcare...A medical Doctor,tells why universal health care would be better...and this dude,with no knoweldge,no medical education,no experience how the insurance companies scam people,dares to talk about this...pathetic. I am a Nurse and trust me,the worst thing in our nation is the private insurance companies.
I wouldnt say Michael Cannon is completely uneducated on the topic. In fact, he is probably more so qualified to speak on the topic being as he researches it for a living. He is the director of health care studies for the Cato Institute. His job is to research & analyze the costs of health care & what can be done to reform it. He worked in a Senate policy committee studying HC. He has written several books & articles on the subject & has made numerous radio & TV cameos to discuss it.
Are these uneducated americans speaking here,have any logical braincells. Every single fucking time,I hear a negative comment how universal healthcare is bad and it would ruin it.H
How come...every single european country and other nations in asia,who have it do better and would never ever change it....and we are the only nation who waste billions each year on a war,to kill humans....if we have money to kill people...shouldnt we have the money to care for people...especially within in your own country? or do we the US just say in a book,we are a United nation and believe in God? pathetic
This is a Wiki quote on a Commonwealth Fund study titled: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An international update on the comparative performance of American health care:
"In a study of the health care systems in six countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, NZ and the US), the British health care system was ranked in first place for quality of care. It also gained first rank position for equity and efficiency and a top place ranking for performance overall."
Next Cannon claims that when considered a right, health care will become expensive, inefficient and of poor quality. Utter nonsense of course! None of his statements are based on the empirical evidence, which demonstrates that it is possible to have a free universal health care system which is cheap, efficient, is of good quality and most importantly, covers everyone. Just look at all of Europe, Japan, and Canada, all of which are vastly superior to the US system on all of these points.
Michael Cannon... what a complete moron! He either doesn't know what he is talking about or he is being incredibly dishonest.
First there's the ridiculous strawman argument that when something is a right the providers do not get paid. This is refuted by the existence of fire and police services, neither of which require payment before they attend the fire/crime scene, yet still manage to get paid.
For clarify: NO ONE is claiming that medical providers must work for free!
If Obama says he will sign his family up for Health rationing, and makes congress join it too, then I will support it. But the truth is, you and I are getting forced this 2nd rate plan by those socialists because they consider us 2nd class citizens. That is why congress has put language into the plans that specifically exempt them from being forced to participate.
lol yea.. lets not look at history to learn lessons on how to move forward. lets just go ahead and forget about the fact that government has never increased the quality or reduced the price of anything in human history. yes, doing so would be much too simplistic.
I think there is an aswer to this, lets help our selves, instead of paying an insurance company lets pay our welfare service, instead of paying the Money Machine of the insurance company who does not want to pay for services later, it is offset by our taxes in the end...example, if I put in 300 a month, that is 3600 a year, times the amount of working people in the U.S, that is a start to cover our healthcare...Now if you can not work you better have a damn good reason to do not pay it though
If health care is a right then why isn't food? Food is infinitely more important to every single person's survival than health care. If you don't eat I don't care how much free health care you get... YOU IS GONNA DIE. Yet I don't hear many people suggesting everyone should get food for free.
I think since I don't directly pay the police, they must work for free. Oy Vey! This just shows that Libertarians are this generations answer to campus Communists: elegant, yet worthless, solutions that appeal to simpletons!
Communists want to control you. Libertarians want to contol themselves.
If you live in a city or county and pay property taxes as the property owner (or pay rent that helps pay that property tax) then you are paying for your police and fire department. You are probably payiny for your teachers too. But thats a good thing. You have much more control when it is local. However, when the Federal Gov. claims their "right" to take your money and redistribute it as they see fit, thats extortion.
I would take your slant on the libertarians much more seriously if they:
1) made 1/20 stink they one they make about healthcare against the most bloated, insidious federal bureaucracy of all: the Pentagon
2)they really represented a citizens movement and not just the Koch family.
I stand by elegant comment. The are no simple answers or magic pills. It always makes sense to be wary of anyone who pretends otherwise, be they communist or libertarian.
If healthcare is a right, there should be state-issued firearms for every eligible citizen (right to bear arms IS in the Constitution). Obviously that's ridiculous because we have a right to a self-directed action, not a good or service from another.
If you want an example of healthcare working well, look at Dr. Ron Paul (when he's practicing and not in congress). He doesn't accept Medicare or Medicaid. Instead, he offers his services at a discount or for free to those who couldn't otherwise afford it, and it works. That used to be the understood standard for hospitals and doctors before the government got involved.
And she pulled a Jim Taggart when she (essentially) said we should look at how to fix the problem and not what caused it.
by definition, the exercise of a right cannot mandate the action of another individual; rights are only things within one's own power. If someone can prevent an action by doing nothing, the action is not a right. The only way to fix healthcare is to make it mutually beneficial to those who provide the service (allowing them to make money) and those who pay for the service. As long as any of the people paying for healthcare are not the recipients of it, the problems will remain.
@totheman An ineffective health care is a health care system in which insurers only want to insure healthy people and make sick people pay more. Its insurance which is about spreading risk and not selecting for it!!! An ineffective system has fee-for-service which incentivizes over treatment of wealthy/insured and úndertreatment of poor and unsinsured. An effective service is one which costs $6k instead of $13k per year per person yet its clients live longer and in better health.
hauskalainen 2 months ago
USA System = make money off of sick patients
Any other modern country = lets try to make our population healthy
which one is healthcare?
berbatovinho77 4 months ago
Of course Cannon is wrong he wants to vaucherizie Medicare.
MsZeitgeist85 5 months ago
If all doctors were salaried and paid for like the firefighters, they would be assured of their income and could focus 100% on using their medical skills. They would not have to fight insurance companies or employ clerks to handle the paperwork and wouldn't worry about keeping patients rolling through the doors to maintain their income.
The US system incentivizes over treatment of the insured and undertreatment of the uninsured. It is stupid.
hauskalainen 6 months ago
If Canon was right, in France or Germany, or Spain, or England, where doctors and nurses have a right to work in public or private practice and people have a right to public or private health care or insurance, there would be ineffective health care. In fact the opposite is true. It IS effective and available to everyone and costs HALF the price of health care in the US,
hauskalainen 6 months ago
@hauskalainen What would qualify as ineffective health care?
totheman 4 months ago
Health care resource utilization has what economists call a negative utility of consumption. Put simply, a person who spends 1 day in hospital is not better off than a person who spends 10 days in hospital.
Would you be better off if the Fire Department had hose down a fire at your house once a year instead of once every 10 years? Its the same with health care once you take payment out of the equation...
hauskalainen 6 months ago
Did the millions of Russians that starved to death under Lenin and Stalin have 'the right' to not starve to death? Probably; but because they believed in that right, they starved to death.
guyjohn59 8 months ago 2
You have a right to freedom and Voluntarism, not a right to commit criminal coercion.
Coercive Sector Medical Care is criminal and all of the individuals upholding it should be charged as such. Everything should be voluntary, the opposite of criminal socialism.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
Healthcare is not a right! We only have unalienable Rights. When these Rights are view through the prism of science (see my channel video), one will find they apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems. Most understand the Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.
Mike10four 1 year ago
How can you have the right to another persons livelihood?
Amakisongs 1 year ago
Healthcare is a right... health insurance is not. We as Americans have the right to purchase any good or service that is available on the open market. To draw a parallel... according to the constitution, we have the right to bear arms... now that does not mean that the government should levy taxes in order to provide a gun for everyunarmed citizen. Medical Savings accounts in pre-tax dollars makes more sense than universal healthcare. We would eliminate 30% of the system's overhead.
dlacr 1 year ago
Also, I hate to be stereotypical, the woman is in the academic settings. Not many professors (bless their hearts) go on to put what they read in practice. You can read all you want about engines but when it comes to doing it you have to PRACTICE.
She is talking about moving forward, well you have to look back at what caused it too. You can't just look forward or else you keep padding (padding = more expense) the leak and not finding out the valve isn't shut (free and just some action).
Shrunkenhead61 1 year ago
We are a republic, just because everyone thinks it is a right, doesn't make it so.
If I don't get paid for neurologist why would I be one? I have the right to pursue property with money as a neurologist.
See - if someone got shot on the street, sure I wont let them bleed but people can't take that for granted. So, if I accept him bleeding on the street why do we need to make a law about it? It should be between the doctor and the client.
I am willing to bet health was cheaper in 1800's.
Shrunkenhead61 1 year ago
@Shrunkenhead61
Lets examine this objectively:
Healthcare costs so much because people are seeing doctors for very trivial illnesses that can be tended to by more appropriate and affordable means.
Major illnesses must be the top priority of any medical practitioner, but when people see their doctor because of a sniffle, sore throat, or cough, its wasting valuable resources that could be better utilised for serious illnesses like Cancer, Parkinsons, or diabetes. Do you concur with this?
pluto4847 1 year ago
@pluto4847 Yeah, that makes sense.
Well, wasting resources? I can't hold someone's ignorance against themselves. If resources you mean time? I don't think looking at an irritated throat is more detrimental than CHEMO. A doctor's visit is like $100 with no insurance. I think companies are holding monopolies on the "higher end" things. There are lawsuits and patents up top that are making things expensive. Doctors are specialized... Chemo therapist and a throat doctors don't compete.
Shrunkenhead61 1 year ago
@Shrunkenhead61
Another problem with American healthcare is that the doctor/patient relationship is being interfered with by some non-compliant Insurance Companies.
If a doctor thinks you need Chemo, why would the Insurance company turn around and deem it medically unesessary? Surely, doctors know what is best for their patients, not Insurance Companies.
If pay bso much a year through Insurance and I get diabetes I expect the value of treatment I invested in Insurance? Do you agree?
pluto4847 1 year ago
@pluto4847
I think doctors and patients should pay to each other for their services. Dollars for service.
Right. An insurance company controls your health which should be illegal in my book. Health care costs are largely due to Patents and regulations. If an insurance company guarantees money the hospital wont care what the price is. The insurance always pays out.
What you put in you should get out. Your market value should hold. You have a right to choice not the right to be served.
Shrunkenhead61 1 year ago
@pluto4847 I hope I am making sense. I am JUST learning health care and all the other governmental intervention. Bare with me if I'm not at your "expertise". Hell, I am just learning how to guard my opinion. I don't even know what you were inferring to mostly it's that bad. I just feel making something a RIGHT means I GET IT no matter what. So you have an infinite demand but not enough supply and prices skyrocket. Imagine the right to oreo cookies. Poor oreo makers.
Shrunkenhead61 1 year ago
@pluto4847 My last uneducated response. From what I gather, when things becomes rights... it's less money in your control and more between business and those who subsidize it. Then some people are pissed cause many want control of their money. Money is voting. Take the money away you vote for nothing. Government can't build corporations it needs corporations to build for it... so it subsidizes the corporation and the corporation gets all the money. Government becomes BROKE. There are always poor
Shrunkenhead61 1 year ago
5:20 - HOLY CRAP!!!! A CNBC anchor who actually kind of GETS IT? Where did SHE come from?
CaptainCocaine 1 year ago
This is whats gonna happen. The gov promises someone roses money to make healthcare free and available to all. Once the bill is underway, some other leftist cause must be fought and won, but to pay for this née cause, money from healthcare will be dipped into
tatsumakisempyukaku 1 year ago
Electing Obama constitutes deciding that healthcare is a right? Words cannot describe the preening arrogance of lefties.
Forty-five percent of Americans voted AGAINST Obama. But, of course, lefties never care about minorities. Ironic.
twk373 1 year ago 2
I am French-American and I am flabbergast to see how many Americans still support the current U.S. healthcare system ? If this happened in France, people would be out on the street decades ago to run down all those "interested parties" ! This is NOT a political issue ! This is a fundamental issue, a human's Right issue! A moral issue! Oh, I forgot, there is no such "moral thing" in our society anymore... It is all about profit.
lacomtessealice 1 year ago
This woman Pham is a dope!
vince33x 1 year ago
So another words, if the people vote to say the earth is flat...does that mean it is? Repeal the 19th Amendment.
vince33x 1 year ago
Universal Healthcare is GOOD dumasses. Look north of where your world end to Canada. We are overall healthier, we live longer, we are less obiec, we pay less for healthcare, and it's a RIGHT. The US always fails at things everyone else does (Medicare), just ask and I think we Canadians would help you make a system that is better then most developing countries, mabby even better then 1 or 2 Eurpean countries. BTW about Obamas "Death Panls" dont you already have those, Like EVERY insurents company
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave Canada is behind the US be every indicator,including waitinglists,doctors per capita,and survaival rates for most diseases.Are Candians healthier?Perhaps.Do we live longer? Yes,but this there are several factors responsible for this,other than healthcare.In 1962 Saskatchewan was equal to the US in the quality of care,since then we fell behind and are faced wioth the same solution, more centralisation and trow mor money at it.This is unsutainalbe and after 50 years its time for change.
Knoss 1 year ago
@dave19941000 EXACTLY! The Death Panels are the Insurance companies.
pluto4847 1 year ago
Yepyep, here you get housing, social security, healthcare and education to any level... so socialist? but at the same time we're more competitive than the u.s. and we're also one of the most innovative countries(with the nordic nations), we're the most peaceful, we're more healthier, our public education just recently ranked #1
Nordic nations are at the moment of the best places to live free and happy...
and pls dont reply some pseudo bullshit bout socialism, when clearly you guys have it wrong
Darusdei 1 year ago
Cato ownage.
UcanbeGOD 1 year ago 2
Oh, the irony! Her opening sentences: "Some 47 million Americans don't have health insurance, some of them by choice. Fixing that is a top priority of the Obama Administration." Notice that having a "choice" is one of the things that Obamacare will "fix".
nasaguy 1 year ago
yeah i dont like the idea of having it cost me money one way or the other. i made 13,000 dollars last year. i cant afford anything.
koffeekage 1 year ago
If healthcare is a right, then why should a fine be levied against me if I choose to waive that right?
Guns1inger777 1 year ago 2
there are loopholes..... Not that I support our FURTHER socialized system of medicine.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Clyaton u know what u can have free speech and all that but DO NOT adress the president or anypresident in the U.S. in that manner asshole. you are an american and will not disrespect the country u got married in had kids in, the land where your dad fucked your mom to make you in. you are a disgrace to the country and me as a person serving in the armed forces i am ashamed to fight for freedom for people like you.
nrgbro 1 year ago
Hmm... You sound like a crazy person... PTSD? What comment would you be referring to, I don't see my self as lacking patriotism, the only one really being disrespectful is you, and me when I say fuck you.... Leave me alone, and I'll do the same. ;) I almost joined the military and have many friends who have.. Don't confuse my disrespect for YOU to be a disrespect for our troops. They aren't the one's who have decided to go to undeclared wars.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Guns1inger777 heh! Simple: because they want health care insurance to be not just a right but an OBLIGATION. The only way to make it "affordable" for the sick was if all the healthy folks are required to pay in as well ... hence the individual mandate. Americans love rights, so the Democrats dressed up this new obligation and called it a RIGHT, and we fell for it.
nasaguy 1 year ago
@Guns1inger777
WEll that's wrong, but consider this. People complain they will have to pick up other people's tabs. Not so! Because 'EVERYBODY' has to buy health insurance under Obama--rich and poor. If one class does not obey, they go to jail.
That's fair! I've seen much worse things so not to worry, just go with the flow. Live in Great Britain, you'll soon understand. But Britain's healthcare is mucvh more better. Trust me! I've experienced their system. Much better than the USA.
pluto4847 1 year ago
@pluto4847 What you don't understand is that this is put in place to force current health insurance to raise premiums in order for the libtards to eventually force a single payer plan and put private insurance out of business. As you can see, their plan is working just as conservatives said it would.
Guns1inger777 1 year ago
the first guys argument is weak, reason we have fire departments is because if your neighbors property catches on fire if he chooses to let it burn or could not afford a firefighter to hoose it down, it will then damage your home...so its fair for everyone, because it protects us from each other, ie public safety, but if you refuse to pay your doctor your neighbors heart will not fail but yours, but if everybody is charged for your hearts failure, then others are bearing your cost not fair
mavinga 1 year ago
It looks like health care reform will be law but and not a right. I think we are far from a super-majority of congress and State ratification to amend the Constitution. But, if people think healthcare is a right then wouldn't food be a right? I'll die much quicker without food then I will without healthcare. You have a right to pursue these but they are not a right.
JBright9939 1 year ago
Here in England everyone supposedly has the right to healthcare but an appointment with your GP can be several weeks away, and if you go to the A & E you could be waiting for hours.
And even here there's a two-tier system, if you want an operation sooner rather than later you can pay and go forward in the queue.
Its not even a matter of gov't run v not gov't run its a matter of efficiency and from what I have seen the NHS is not very efficient, I can't comment on American hospitals.
theporksicle 1 year ago
It IS easy to rip apart how it's been done in the past, and the more constructive thing is to look forward as to how to make it better, but the thing is, you can't look to the future without taking into account the mistakes of the past so that we may make BETTER decisions going forward. That being said, I don't want to pay for someone's treatment of emphezima or cancer if they choose to be a smoker, or to treat someone who is obese because those are choices that they made, not me.
pacomagnifico 1 year ago
How can health care be a right? There are medical treatments today that did not exist 10 years ago. Were the people 10 years ago denied their rights by not getting said treatment? Future treatments will extend and enhance our lives beyond our wildest dreams. Do we have a right to them today? Also, why should this right stop at a national border. The single payer crowd never suggests giving universal access to everyone on earth.
rrp1973 1 year ago
you can seek whatever you want. if you can pay for whatever you seek, you can buy it. somebody has to pay, otherwise it's called theft. i'm not paying for you. you are not paying for me. it's called the right to private property. not having the right to private property is known as communism. is that what you want?
hiodr 1 year ago
Citing a big tubby like Michael Moore in an argument for a right-to-health-care just makes me laugh.
And die a little.
And I love how the lady says the debate shouldn't be one of absolutes, then says that Obama's election was (absolutely) the nation's expression that health care is a right. HAHAHA!!!
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Havin been in canada for ten years I can tell you WITH CERTAINTY that statist HC is NEITHER a RIGHT and certainly NEVER A PRIVILEGE.....It is for CHUMPS....A Mandate that FORCES people to buy into a plan that does not include VIABLE TORT REFORM, HC Access across state lines, and generic meds with deadly cuts to medicare and gun control vending machine control abortion control and pits union and private sectors against each other in WAR is just PURE COMMUNISM via SOCIALISM...by chumps for chumps.
hadenufnow 1 year ago 2
Man that guy is a tool. Complete straw man argument.
scooped13 2 years ago
This argument just annoys me... privalege or right, who cares... what we should focus on is what is cheaper and more effective.
The evidence CLEARLY shows that public owned and implimented healthcare is cheaper and keeps people healthier.
By owning our own health systems, we have the power to manioulate it to our liking via democracy.
markgg1 2 years ago
some screenname! are you a female? I love your brain, but if you're a female and close to NY state...I wanna meet you!!!!!
thordoggie 2 years ago
In the Bill of Rights of the Soviet Union, they were honest about health care it states that "citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection." This document also stipulated Soviet citizens have the "right to work" not longer than 41 hours in a workweek, the "right to rest and leisure," the "right to education," the "right to enjoy cultural benefits."
trickplay96 2 years ago
look how fucked up the soviet union was!
Rights are God-given, DO NOT COST MONEY. Freedom of speech, press...to defend myself or be secure in my privacy doesn't COST anybody else money.
demanding someone else pays your bills is not a right, that is THEFT!!!
Look at the Soviet "rights" you've placed in quotes. everyone of THOSE rights costs somebody else money.
and in the USSR, you also had the right to be thrown in a Gulag for differing with the gov't.
GET IT?
thordoggie 2 years ago
Sure I get it dog, I have the same opinion you do that we are the US not the Soviet Union and we have more freedoms and responsibilities that are not rights like health care.
trickplay96 2 years ago
well than trick, i don't get it if you were being satirical, or if you were promoting and insisting on those 'Soviet" rights.
If you're going to be satirical, be more absurd!
thordoggie 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If your comparing modern liberal western europe to the soviet union, than I think you need to see a psychologist.
markgg1 2 years ago
For a 24 year old beer drinking nature boy you sure do not know much. Oh professional student maybe you should learn to earn!
trickplay96 2 years ago
@trickplay96 learn to earn?
well I have a job if thats what you mean
markgg1 2 years ago
By making free public health care a right, it's infringing upon my individual right to the fruits of my labor. It's contrary to the idea of liberty.
People love to attack capitalism in favor of socialism, but they fail to see the connection socialism has to the degradation of individual rights.
Socialism as an economic policy will always lead to socialism as a political policy- where liberty (individual rights and individual freedom) comes after the "good of society".
diggingforgold 2 years ago
No not the "good of society".... the good of those who think they are so far superior to you they know better....the 'good of the elite' is more accurate
thordoggie 2 years ago
the UK is a liberal democracy, and has been for 2 hundred years....
We have had government funded healthcare since 1948, and this has not changed the fact we are a capitalist nation.
We are not blinded by ideology but generally use our reason to decide public policy based on what we think works best, and what the evidence says...
Maybe free healthcare is impeding on your rights, thats an opinion.. but the statisitcal emperical evidence shows us that free healthcare is cheaper and better
markgg1 2 years ago
wthat guiys such a turd
receiving police assistance is a 'right' and we pay via taxes.
And if its free, we go in for tr small things.. which is a GOOD thing in health, because small things can develop into massivle y expensive diseases. And its a moral question also. Why cant we see the docter if we have a cold? In the UK we dont worry, you get ill, u get treated.. simple.
Your knees hurting? than go in, see a physio... doesnt this appeal to you guys.?
Imagine that!
markgg1 2 years ago
i had an online friend in London with the same medical condition i have. i got operated on within 4 hours. she died after 10 months of agony. she was on a waiting list. it would have been 7 MORE months before she got the operation I got in 4 hours!
maybe England's care is 'free"... just pray you live long enough to GET that care.
i can see my doc in less than two hours I can get an op in less than 24 hours.
thordoggie 2 years ago
im sorry for your friend, but one anecdote proves little. Also what americans keep forgetting is we have private health care aswell as public, so if you want to be seen immediately than you can pay... but of course not everyone can pay, and thats the whole point of this argument.
The simple fact is America has a relatively poor performance in healthcare.. perhaps you are better in some aspects, such as technology etc... but if you look at the whole system you will see public ones are superior
markgg1 2 years ago
What a stupid debate
of course healthcare is a right. I cant believe this debate even occurs... only in America I want to add.
Weve figured out its a right around 60 years ago. We therefore own our health system. the NHS is one of best inventions in the UK. I urge the USA to 'invent' the same thing
markgg1 2 years ago
she lets the socialist get the last word. typical.
hiodr 2 years ago
lol saying " You must have a job to seek medical treatment" Sounds more like hitler than obama does.
Ovito85 1 year ago
who said that? i didn't.
hiodr 1 year ago
thats your logic
Ovito85 1 year ago
The president's duty is to serve the people, how dare Obama charges the people $100K a year?
ntn1987 2 years ago
Think of the advantages a free market of worker co-ops would help deal with the issues regard vehicle MPG's. If workers were in charge of the factories there would be more of an incentive to make vehicles that appealed to the worker (ie high MPG) since the workers themselves are in charge.
A capitalist though subject to competition may still make cars that appealed to the consumer but the incentive to make cars with high MPG wouldn't be as high as if the workers owned the companies.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
haha Cannon just shut her up at the end. He used economic facts what the government has done and she responds with some crap bout lookin to the future.
Libertarian71776 2 years ago
come to canada, we'll take care of you :)
drunkee11 2 years ago
Ha!
That was an easy one for Michael!
Poor socialist lady got SERVED!
SERVED!
pizzakid770 2 years ago
Michael Cannon was absolutely wrong and completely out of his league in this discussion.
R0YB0T 2 years ago
Rights never put a involuntary burden on your fellow man.
Privileges can be taken away at any time.
yammyspeed13 2 years ago 8
@yammyspeed13 Fire and police services place a burden on those who don't need them - they cost taxpayer dollars, and realistically they cost just as much as a nationalised healthcare system would. Are you saying that those aren't rights? If protection from criminal behaviour and emergency situations is a right then why isn't there a right to healthcare (and thus a right to live)?
TaylorTayMusic 1 year ago
@TaylorTayMusic No, public services are not rights. They are paid for by the threat of force and violence and can be taken away at anytime for any reason. If we truly wish to live free society the first thing we need to do is reject the notion that turning your fellow man into a slave will set you free. Then we must look to free market solutions to keep thing moving, instead of throwing our money down the rat hole of the State finance.
yammyspeed13 1 year ago
@yammyspeed13 Public schooling, also - if I'm sending my kids to a private school why am I paying taxes to send other people's kids to a public school?
TaylorTayMusic 1 year ago
@TaylorTayMusic If your happy then I'm happy. I will not force you to stop any of your own personal funding when it comes social programs or any private ones for that matter. I only ask you extend me the same courtesy when I exercise my right to choose how I dispose of MY property.
yammyspeed13 1 year ago
the academic left has been hard at work redefining the concept of a right for years. They say we now have the right to water, to food, to health care. So, I guess I can just sit on the couch and somebody will bring all these things to me. What if they don't want to work and pay for me to get these things? They have no right to complain.
jeffmagic32 2 years ago
7:46, well duh. That's because Medicare effects the market's allocation of resources. Medicare doesn't operate in a vacuum!
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago 2
7:20, when you collectivize costs.....prices skyrocket. That's just common sense economics. She couldn't be more wrong.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago 4
Exactly!
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
@DaveDoggOwns The cost of military defense is collectivized in a laize-faire society too, yet, you don't really believe the cost of it will skyrocket.
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 You're comparing apples to oranges. For one I do not choose to buy military defense the same way I get to choose to buy healthcare. There is no choice. The government controls the military and controls access and distribution of it. Second, those that recieve the most benefits from military pay the most awhile those that recieve the least benefits from it pay the least. Service recieved is proportional to how much you pay unlike UHC.
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns You're not clear how I'm comparing apples to oranges. That there's no choice do not rebut the fact that we're talking about "collectivizing" a service, and cost of the military is paid by the collective. It's about the math. I don't understand what you try to say by "the gov. controls the military"..... and therefore, what is it?.
Also, liberal/left approach to health care do not equates UHC, others like me believe that medical service should be granted to those who......
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 I already told you the distribution of the miltary defense is not the same as UHC. WIth the military the benefits you receive from it are proportional to how much yu pay. With UHC this operates in th exact reverse fasion. You gain more benefits for less pay and those that pay more into it get no added benefit from paying more of the bill.
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns Well, you didn't really address what I wrote, and you didn't clarify what you meant by "the gov. controls the military", because an UHC, the controls it as well. You did tell me that "the distribution of the military is not the same", but you didn't explain absolutely nothing to make your case. In other words, you don't say an iota of the roll of "distribution" in the cost, or what are the alleged "benefits" you recieve "proportional" to the % of taxes you pay.
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 Last I checked if you are rich you own more of the nation so yes you do get more benefits from the military than a poor person. I don't know what is so complicated about that. You either get it or you don't.
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns Actually, it is left-wing economists who say that taxes should be higher for rich people because the own more and have more to loose. I don't understand what you're doing using it, maybe that's why you sound confusing and inconsistent. So, if you just were "going along with it", and military cost is not collective in laissez-faire, then how does it work?. And it is exactly because the military is no "consumed" the way UHC is, then how can the cost be "proportional"?, because.....
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 Actually, pretty much every economist on the planet saids if you are going to have taxes then they should be progressive since the rich dont get hurt by taxation as much as the lower classes. They may not agree how much taxes there should be, but the all agree that if there is going to be taxes then they should be progressive.
A 100% LF society is basically a stateless society. So obviously the military wouldn't be collectivized.
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns No, not every econimist agrees with progressive taxes. Laissez-faire economists suggests Flat-rate Taxation, liberal/left economists Progressive taxation, but I think they have variations, I'm not sure. I can read where you say "the military wouldn't be collectivized", but I don't see where it explains at least a bit, you're just repeating yourself and therefore, I keep repeating the my questions. It's becoming tiresome.
It is unconciveable for someone to think that because......
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 Let me explain to you why the fact that the government controlls the military is important to this discussion. With the military you are not choosing how much service you buy. The government decides whether you will buy it or not and how much you pay.
This is not the case with collectizing the cost of healthcare. In healthcare, yes the government is making one class of people help the lower class, but the lower class is stil making the actual choice to get healthcare.
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns So what happens is the class of people who originally were not limmitted by their own incomes in their buying of healthcare are not NOT LIMMITTED. and so demand just keeps going up and up and up increasing the price of healthcare.
This doesn't happen with military service because it is not a consumer choice how much military service they get. It's the governments.
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns ......and therefore the cost will skyrocket? You're making this TOO hard!. You use non-sensical analogies to explain, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful. And, actually, if we choose with UHC and not the military, and we can educate people to live healthier, then it may result in lower cost, don't you think?. That's the case of Japan and the U.K, would you dare to disagree?.
So, the "it's proportional" and the "is not consumed like UHC", are totally unfounded reasons.
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 No I disagree. Let me ask you this. Why not have Universal Food insurance? Why not Universal Car Insurance? How about Universal Fire Insurance? Why not have Universal Transportation for all. Everyone has a right to a car. Why not?
I mean if the free market isn't good at providing healthcare then why would it be good to allow it to supply ANYTHING else?
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns Universal food insurance is silly, there is food stamps in instead. Universal car insurance is even more silly since cars is not basic human need, we can use public transportation. We have fire departments provided by the goverment, and paid by taxation. Play the video at 0:39 And nobody is saying that people have the right to have cars, people have the right to receive medical care even if they can't affort it, we can't just pass by and let people die. I know that, that's......
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 The exact opposite result happens with UHC. A poor person gets to get as much healthcare as he/she wants without having to pay for it awhile the middle and upper class have to foot the bill and recieve no extra benefit for footing more of the bill.
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns I mean, how is the "distribution" of military defense "proportional" that distinguishes it from UHC? Does the military of a nation focus more protection on those who paid more taxes?.... Given your confusing, unexplained, and inconsistent responses, the fact remains intact: the cost of the military will be collectivized in a laissez-faire economy, and that doesn't mean the cost will skyrocket.
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 No. The military focues on protection of the nation and if you are rich obviously you own more of the nation than everyone else dude.
And actually no a Lf economy doesn't result in the military being collectivized. I just went along with you, because it doesn't matter even if it is collectivized. The military is not consumed the way UHC is.
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns ......military defense is given to everybody equally, it doesn't matter if you own a pencil and the next guy next to you, a large multinational. UHC and the military are 1.runned by the gov. 2.prices are controlled by the gov. 3.for everybody. So, how's the military different for it not to be considered a "collectivized cost" just as UHC?. You say it's because "the lower class is still making the actual choice".........
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 1)UHC doesn't mean government runs every single aspect of healthcare. In the context of my comment on collctivization of costs the government is helpiing foot the bill for the uninsured, but it isn't controlling all the other aspects of healthcare such as how the doctor performs the care....how much the doctor charges, etc. The government is just involving itself in healthcare insurance. Not healthcare itself.
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns ......there is UHC, the goverment controls "how doctors perform the care" as if I suggested that the goverment is a medical association or something. Where in my comments did I talk about the goverment providing or having anything to do with it, except for the cost?..... What's a matter with you?!!
So, if the goverment doesn't control health care price, how will skyrocket? I mean.....
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 2)The government is not dictating the prices of healthcare. If it is then obviously my comment on how collecitivizing costs sky rockets prices doesn't apply (And I never meant it to apply to such a situation)since there is no longer a price system that is free to correlate with the fluctuations of the market.
3)Yes, UHC is for everyone, but the benefits of it are not equal. One class is footing the bill and another is free loading.
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns ......could you se an actual example, just as I use Japan and the U.K, specially Japan, where there's UHC and health care price control, and yet; there is effective health care, healthier people, people visit their doctors around 10-15 times a year, and the cost of it is cheap.
No one is free-loading if they can't afford health care. If that person have the means to receive health care and yet, want it free, then it's freeloading. What an inmature and inhumane way to look at it!
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@Rodriguez8611 Military defense is given out fairly, but it is not given out "equally". Obviously a rich person owns more of the nation than a poor person and as a result if a military is given the task to defend a nation of one rich person and one poor person obviously the rich person is gaining more benefits from national defense than the poor person. Yes, the benefits of the military are given out fairly but it nonsensical to say they are given out "equally".
DaveDoggOwns 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns ......your will, but let me remind you that that doesn't even happens in animals.
I never said that a free market isn't capable at provinding health care, the thing is that it fails at providing health care to those who can't afford it. In other words, in laissez-faire, hc is a commodity, it's a business, and if you can't pay, you die. Nice!, 'I'm so strong for letting another human die.'
I said that military defense is given to eerybody equally because......
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns ......you said that the cost is proportional, remember?. What I meant is that, it doesn't matter if you're rich and therefore you have more to protect, and since I'm poor, I have less to lose; the military won't defend your side of the bed more than mines, it will defend the our common space equally, yet you paid more.
Yes, the rich will have to pay more...... what a burden!. Those who can't afford health care or food are SOOO lucky!. I wish I was poor man, wouldn't you?
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
@DaveDoggOwns ......can't afford it, with certain limitations of course, it's not about all or nothing. What's wrong about that?
Rodriguez8611 11 months ago
0:46, that is one of the dumbest emails I've ever seen. The reason there are no for-profit fire departments is because of state taxation. If you are being forced to pay for one fire department why waste money on another?
And this logic can be used to rationalize COMPLETE government control of the economy. Car companies could hire some men to start breaking people's car windows and then expect people to pay money for new cars!! Absurdity, absurdity, absurdity!!
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
I agree with all you folks' sayings about Cannon's being brain-dead and his love of privatize the health care industry. He is clueless and sarcastic and a problem magnifier rather a solution provider. Wait until he or his love ones are terminally ill, then he'll see how the greedy private health insurers deny the benefits.
Bottom line: Simplicity is not the solution to solve the health care crisis. There would need to be many supplemental solutions to eradicate bad policies and greed.
unebonnevie 2 years ago
I would urge you to go to Cato's website and actually check out some of Michael's stuff. He shows what the problems are and simple solutions to fix it. You can't really get too much info from these short TV news segments (or these 500 character boxes for that matter).
dachickenman 2 years ago
I agree, on the last point that the guest made... He just gave you the diagnosis of what's wrong with Healthcare, and didn't get a chance to describe the "cure". But she did have a good "simplistic nonsense slogan".
1978RDC21 2 years ago
with all the contagious and dangerous diseases around today...I cant believe that these greedy crooks would rather have the public spreading disease than to allow us the OPTION to nationalized healthcare...
NOT EVERY PERSON has to choose it...but we should have the right to that option.
barbcinque 2 years ago
sooo...once again
rich corporations get rich through usury, cutting our wages, cutting benefits and when we're in trouble we have no rights but when theyre in trouble they use our tax money to pay for their bailouts..
WHY NOT LET MY TAX MONEY PAY FOR MY HEALTHCARE INSTEAD OF BAILOUTS
barbcinque 2 years ago
Why does your money need to go through the government to pay for your care? Why can't you just pay for it yourself?
dachickenman 2 years ago
The question then becomes: what if you don't have the money to afford to pay for it yourself? I believe in free market medicine, but if someone has a contagious disease and can't afford treatment and just goes about roaming the streets, what are we to do? Shoot him? Their is a role for government when 3rd parties are involved. I don't believe the federal government should fill that roll, but local gov't has to do something.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
Either three things will happen in the midst of a government.
1)Everyone will vote to tax themselves in order to pay for this person who cannot afford medical care.
2)They will give charity to this person.
3)They will niether give to charity nor will they vote for statist intervention.
If people are willing to do 1) why not 2)? Why even go through the statist bureacracy? More houses were created in New Orleans through private charity than through the government which spent more money.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Maybe a possible objection would be "but poor people want progressive taxation! They don't want to tax themselves."
I agree. That's why you should
1)Keep the free market
but
2)Get rid of capitalism so there is no radical economic inequality to rationalize progressive taxation.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Keep the free market but get rid of capitalism? What exactly do you think the difference between "free market" and "capitalism" is?
dachickenman 2 years ago
The "free market" refers to free trade, no barriers to entry, freedom of association, self-ownership, individual sovereignity, etc and doesn't have a specific position of property rights while "capitalism" refers to private ownership of the means of production in the contex of a free market.
Free market is the umbrella term awhile capitalism is the specific.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
That doesn't make any sense to me. How can you have free trade when you don't have property rights? Pleas explain to me how you can have a free market without capitalism.
dachickenman 2 years ago
I do believe in property rights. Just not capitalist property rights. I prefer the mutualist system of property rights where workers own the means of production in the contex of a free market. Sometimes there will be private ownership but that private owner would be a worker.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
I don't see how that couldn't happen in a laissez-faire context. If workers want to collectivize and buy means of production, why can't they do that?
dachickenman 2 years ago
You mean you don't see why it can't happen now. There are a couple of reasons.
1)Buying the capital respects the capitalist's claim to property. Socialists believe their claims are illegitamite so why would they buy the property when they can just take it?
2)Workers lack resources and collateral.
3)Most people haven't even come to the grips with the idea of worker ownership of capital in the contex of a free market. They always think of Stalin when that idea is brought up.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
No, I mean exactly what I said. If "workers" can provide a product or service better than anyone else, then they will own the means of production in the context of a free market. It is not a free market if I am not allowed to own what I want because I am an individual. Your argument is self-contradictory. You can't have a free market and yet not have individual property rights. And you really need to define "worker."
dachickenman 2 years ago
I allready gave you three reasons why worker-cops are not and cannot compete with capitalist workplaces. I'm not going to repeat myself.
Even in a free market there are certain things an individual cannot do. Such as initiating force. All property involves the actual or threatened initiation of force and because of this it is very hard to argue that capitalism is more moral than socialism.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
What do you mean "property involves the actual or threatened initiation of force"? In a capitalist system, exchanges are made voluntarily, not by gov't fiat. You want to argue that it's not more moral that property is freely exchanged than stolen from you by gov't?
dachickenman 2 years ago
Defending propert is an initiation of force because defending property is not an act of self-defense. Taking this into account which property system is more moral then.
1)Capitalism: where people can assume exploitive middleman positions of authority and where there is radical class differences?
2)Mutualism(market socialism) where people get the advantages of the free market AND the increase in overall self-determination from workers owning the means of production.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
defending property is not an act of self defense? what a foolish statement. what if your property is needed to sustain your life?
hiodr 2 years ago
Yeah, defending property is self-defense IF your property is needed to sustain your life. Otherwise, the mere enforcement of property rights is not self-defense.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
A worker is the opposite of a capitalist. A capitalist takes advantage of a property right to make a living off workers who cannot support themselves because they lack resources, land, and/or capital.
I want a free market of worker co-operatives. Free market capitalism though efficient it may be contains exploitive middlemen.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
That is a Marxist theoretical world. Most people who are wealthy were not born that way and most people who are poor will not remain that way for their whole lives. All that is required to be successful in capitalism is to take in more money than you spend. Not all industries are capital intensive. I'm not sure why you assume that an individual would have more resources than a group of individuals and that for an individual to make money he would have to exploit workers.
dachickenman 2 years ago
1)I'm not a Marxist. Marx was wrong about a lot of things,
2)Most people who are wealthy are wealthy because they came from more privilieged homes and most people who are poor are poor because they have an unprivilieged past. That's the cold hard fact of reality but that's not why I'm argueing against capitalism. I'm argueing against capitalism becuase some people are exploitive middlemen, not necessarily because there is inequality.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
The principle is that everyone pools their money together through the government instead of a private for profit company so that when someone needs treatment it gets paid out of that pool.
Medical bills can become very expensive very quickly.
R0YB0T 2 years ago
And they become even more expensive when people are using third party payments. That's why there are big problems in American medicine. If people pool their money together under a gov't system, there is no incentive to save or conserve. Back when most medical expenses were paid out of pocket, people were more conservative with their medical decisions. Now that most insurance is provided through employers, people tend to use care that has a diminishing rate of return.
dachickenman 2 years ago
huge and expanded profits for the health insurance companies and the drug companies while continuing this pay-or-die system that has plagued this country for decades, a system that takes 20,000 lives a year, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. Thats about fifty to sixty people who die every day. OR nationalized healthcare where the CEO and his greed are cut out of the equation.
barbcinque 2 years ago
As a health care professional, I'll say this. Just because Dr. Hoangmai is a physician, doesnt mean she knows anything about policy. Many of my peers know very little about the complexities of our health care system or how to reform it. They know what they need to know to do their jobs. They are not all-knowing beings that know every single aspect of our system. Only those who actively research the topic of health care reform really know whats going on, both from their careers & research.
printo69 2 years ago
The audacity of those who take personal responsibility & pay for their own health care, cars, food, housing, clothing, etc!
Rights are something that you are born with that cannot be taken away from you, not something that can be given to you at the expense of others. That is called an entitlement. Entitlements are not rights.
printo69 2 years ago 11
De-constructing the Cato Institute:
1) Privatize everything to benefit the rich and screw everyone else.
2) Lie to get it done.
Notice the absolute rhetoric of this guy, talking over the woman from Physician's Alliance.
The bottom line of Cato..."I'm not responsible for anyone else so don't tax me for anything."
It boils down to the Libertarian credo "everyone is responsible for themselves so let the elderly, sick and poor fend for themselves."
rsaswest 2 years ago
Some 10 million of the 47 million are not US citizens.
More at
watch?v=uKCWbq18bNk
AlanCom1 2 years ago
Is Health Care a Right or Privilege?
Neither. Health care is a service and is subject to supply and demand like everything else.
EthanMontgomery30 2 years ago
How ironic, doesn't this guy feel completel dumb and uneducated. He is a nobody and has no buisness in healthcare and speak to an actual physician who is for universal healthcare...A medical Doctor,tells why universal health care would be better...and this dude,with no knoweldge,no medical education,no experience how the insurance companies scam people,dares to talk about this...pathetic. I am a Nurse and trust me,the worst thing in our nation is the private insurance companies.
muratshawn 2 years ago
I wouldnt say Michael Cannon is completely uneducated on the topic. In fact, he is probably more so qualified to speak on the topic being as he researches it for a living. He is the director of health care studies for the Cato Institute. His job is to research & analyze the costs of health care & what can be done to reform it. He worked in a Senate policy committee studying HC. He has written several books & articles on the subject & has made numerous radio & TV cameos to discuss it.
printo69 2 years ago
Are these uneducated americans speaking here,have any logical braincells. Every single fucking time,I hear a negative comment how universal healthcare is bad and it would ruin it.H
muratshawn 2 years ago
How come...every single european country and other nations in asia,who have it do better and would never ever change it....and we are the only nation who waste billions each year on a war,to kill humans....if we have money to kill people...shouldnt we have the money to care for people...especially within in your own country? or do we the US just say in a book,we are a United nation and believe in God? pathetic
muratshawn 2 years ago
nothing is free, end of story.
ntn1987 2 years ago
See how the Cannon use the straw man fallacy? This is what right-wing tink tanks do. Does he think British doctors do not get paid?
nycistanbul 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
type " CHOP reform " in a search and see corruption in the worlds best children's hospital.
santacruzer7 2 years ago
This is a Wiki quote on a Commonwealth Fund study titled: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An international update on the comparative performance of American health care:
"In a study of the health care systems in six countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, NZ and the US), the British health care system was ranked in first place for quality of care. It also gained first rank position for equity and efficiency and a top place ranking for performance overall."
So much for socialised medicine!
MonkeyNews 2 years ago
Oh, and Cannon also ignored, or is ignorant of, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which regards health care to be a right.
MonkeyNews 2 years ago
Next Cannon claims that when considered a right, health care will become expensive, inefficient and of poor quality. Utter nonsense of course! None of his statements are based on the empirical evidence, which demonstrates that it is possible to have a free universal health care system which is cheap, efficient, is of good quality and most importantly, covers everyone. Just look at all of Europe, Japan, and Canada, all of which are vastly superior to the US system on all of these points.
MonkeyNews 2 years ago
Michael Cannon... what a complete moron! He either doesn't know what he is talking about or he is being incredibly dishonest.
First there's the ridiculous strawman argument that when something is a right the providers do not get paid. This is refuted by the existence of fire and police services, neither of which require payment before they attend the fire/crime scene, yet still manage to get paid.
For clarify: NO ONE is claiming that medical providers must work for free!
MonkeyNews 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Obama says he will sign his family up for Health rationing, and makes congress join it too, then I will support it. But the truth is, you and I are getting forced this 2nd rate plan by those socialists because they consider us 2nd class citizens. That is why congress has put language into the plans that specifically exempt them from being forced to participate.
Paulsur 2 years ago
Her last statement is absurd. You "fix it" by getting the fuck out of the way. You "Fix it" by removing government force from the equation.
EsotericThrone 2 years ago
lol yea.. lets not look at history to learn lessons on how to move forward. lets just go ahead and forget about the fact that government has never increased the quality or reduced the price of anything in human history. yes, doing so would be much too simplistic.
that is a woman who is lost in her own mind.
Weeth 2 years ago
I think there is an aswer to this, lets help our selves, instead of paying an insurance company lets pay our welfare service, instead of paying the Money Machine of the insurance company who does not want to pay for services later, it is offset by our taxes in the end...example, if I put in 300 a month, that is 3600 a year, times the amount of working people in the U.S, that is a start to cover our healthcare...Now if you can not work you better have a damn good reason to do not pay it though
briggs9187 2 years ago
If health care is a right then why isn't food? Food is infinitely more important to every single person's survival than health care. If you don't eat I don't care how much free health care you get... YOU IS GONNA DIE. Yet I don't hear many people suggesting everyone should get food for free.
thomasw78 2 years ago
I think since I don't directly pay the police, they must work for free. Oy Vey! This just shows that Libertarians are this generations answer to campus Communists: elegant, yet worthless, solutions that appeal to simpletons!
TheThinkingManCan 2 years ago
Communists want to control you. Libertarians want to contol themselves.
If you live in a city or county and pay property taxes as the property owner (or pay rent that helps pay that property tax) then you are paying for your police and fire department. You are probably payiny for your teachers too. But thats a good thing. You have much more control when it is local. However, when the Federal Gov. claims their "right" to take your money and redistribute it as they see fit, thats extortion.
HarrisonCountyStudio 2 years ago
I would take your slant on the libertarians much more seriously if they:
1) made 1/20 stink they one they make about healthcare against the most bloated, insidious federal bureaucracy of all: the Pentagon
2)they really represented a citizens movement and not just the Koch family.
I stand by elegant comment. The are no simple answers or magic pills. It always makes sense to be wary of anyone who pretends otherwise, be they communist or libertarian.
TheThinkingManCan 2 years ago
How can guys like Michael Moore say health care should be "free"? Nothing is free. The money has to come from somewhere. And where will it come from?
voskresene 2 years ago
If healthcare is a right, there should be state-issued firearms for every eligible citizen (right to bear arms IS in the Constitution). Obviously that's ridiculous because we have a right to a self-directed action, not a good or service from another.
cdm1972 2 years ago 2
He was a bit too aggressive. I agree with him, but focusing too much on winning an argument can turn people off to your message.
ichbindaswalross 2 years ago
sorry but there is no right to health care
cocobear33 2 years ago 4
If you want an example of healthcare working well, look at Dr. Ron Paul (when he's practicing and not in congress). He doesn't accept Medicare or Medicaid. Instead, he offers his services at a discount or for free to those who couldn't otherwise afford it, and it works. That used to be the understood standard for hospitals and doctors before the government got involved.
And she pulled a Jim Taggart when she (essentially) said we should look at how to fix the problem and not what caused it.
sixfootoneder 2 years ago 2
by definition, the exercise of a right cannot mandate the action of another individual; rights are only things within one's own power. If someone can prevent an action by doing nothing, the action is not a right. The only way to fix healthcare is to make it mutually beneficial to those who provide the service (allowing them to make money) and those who pay for the service. As long as any of the people paying for healthcare are not the recipients of it, the problems will remain.
sixfootoneder 2 years ago 3