Jacob Spinney why did you remove the top comments? Is it because they disagreed with/disproved your video?
FACTS:
France spends 11.8% of GDP on healthcare, the Netherlands 12%, Germany 11.6% and the USA 17.4%. The UK spend 9.8% on the NHS which provides free universal healthcare to all and is judged the best and most efficient in the world.
Source: The Guardian, 17th Feb 2012, Andy Burnham, Shadow Minister for Heath and previous Minister for Health.
Well, look at veterinary, in most countries they are private clinics and they work much better than any socialised medicine. Cause they are capitalised
Socialism in the hands of our gov that long ago forgot that they are our employees,and decided to be our bosses incompetently managing the people according to their own needs ,not the peoples will not work. If you redefine socialism and change the structure to where it can't be corrupted by minority and use it only for agree'd common needs would work very well.
Basic essentials need strong safe guards from the free market and capitalism.
@tuxedoclam I don't think that having a public health care system is necessarily perfect, and certainly there are problems. But look at the outcomes. Life expectancy in the USA is lower than Australia, and has been the case even for periods in recent history where the average income is higher than Australia (obviously now that isn't the case, but it has held true even in the eighties, nineties etc). If an unemployed person gets sick tomorrow in Adelaide, they can go to the doctor ASAP. Detroit?
@happyhappynuts The living standard in any country doesn't necessarily say anything to the quality of health care. For example, if someone is struck by a car, and they're dead before an ambulance arrives at the scene, what can be said about healthcare?
More accurate reasons for why life expectancy is lower in the US than elsewhere is because of lifestyle choices, genetic diversity (Africans, for example, are genetically more prone to certain conditions), and so on.
@tuxedoclam the thing is the USA was sold a dud. You keep telling us how bad socialized medicine is without having experienced. The first point you need to understand is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT. In Australia, you have the option of using the public system OR the private system. And the availability of the public system thereby requires private operators to be more innovative. If I want to though, I can go to the rotor completely free, and usually with no more than an hour wait (or I could
@happyhappynuts I have an aunt who's husband was in the US military. While he was stationed in Germany, she experienced the German healthcare system for several years, including having her first son born there.
According to her account, German socialized healthcare is highly inefficient, providers give the same attention to someone with a serious illness to someone with a case of the sniffles, and so on and so forth.
@happyhappynuts You're right, you don't have to use it, but the detrimental effects of socialized healthcare extend far beyond this alone.
For example, the fact that there is a free option to begin with, regardless of how relatively inefficient it may be, makes it impossible for lower end private healthcare providers to compete. Thus, due to socialized healthcare, private healthcare becomes a luxury that only the relatively affluent can afford. (cont)
@happyhappynuts (cont) It's the same reason why private schools are so expensive here in the US; If a private market player were to provide to the market a private school that was comparable in quality and price to a government-run public school, no sane person would have any reason to choose the private school over the free, public school. Thus, competition is destroyed and quality goods are outpriced due to the simple existence of a public option in the first place.
My friend waited 6 hours to have doctors look at his broken arm. Yes, the goddamn medical cost per capita is lower. But the quality of service you are getting is fucked up. I volunteered in the emergency room and I saw people start shivering from kidney stone pain after waiting 2 hours. I do believe that because of our aging population and because we have the social responsibility, we need to have universal health care. But don't talk as if it is a great system.
I live in a country that allows both and it's the reason I'm alive,successful and healthy. I lived in the US and a good friend of mine had her savings, house and livelihood taken away when she became ill. The US system has still not provided her healthcare, and so to top it off she's even SICKER. She ended up writing to friends around the world for financial help, just to stay afloat. Sick
But seriously keep demonizing an attempt to guarentee healthcare to all.Just don't claim to be rational
@Neanderthalcouzin Obviously health care in the US nowadays is a total mess. I live in Spain and everybody here HATES social health care. Why? There's far too many bureocracy, long queues, incompetent physicians, bad mood gov. employees, etc. Quality is low and our taxes are high as hell. When things get serious (a bit more than a cold) we go to private hospitals and pay the bill, but we still have to pay the f'kin' social security every month! FREE MARKET AND GOV OUT OF MY LIFE, PLEASE!
@skip2mylou1988 No system is perfect, and frankly it comes back to an outmoded monetary system when you trace back the real problems. However the US system is a disaster, and having a solely for-profit healthcare system is both irrational and inhumane. As soon as a major epidemic hits, youll see this free-market ideology for medicine and population health for what it is--bollox.
@Neanderthalcouzin No matter which system you're in, the providers of healthcare will always be 'for profit;' the physicians, administrators, nurses, etc., will always be striving for their own personal gain. The only difference is, rather than allowing the price mechanism to work, a socialized system allows them to reduce the quality of their work with little to no repercussions.
@TuxedoClam Your statement is wrong on multiple levels. Firstly, you have a founding assumption that everyone is working solely 'for profit', which is not the case at all. Many doctors and nurses have whats called a utility function, and a range of preferences, and stating that its only profit is empirically false, as well as qualitative (conduct interviews with healthcare professionals before you make such sweeping generalizations). Your conclusion is problematic as well...cntn...
@Neanderthalcouzin Your first statement is a blatant Strawman. I never said that healthcare providers work 'solely' for personal profit; however, to deny that this is the primary motivator, as it is in most professions, is ignorant.
Second of all, both of my parents are qualified physicians, and in their words, the reason they spent several years of their lives studying medicine was in order to secure a high income.
@TuxedoClam ...and it shows a lack of investigation into studies on human motivation, as well as the operations of various hospitals under national programs. For instance you stated the only difference is they can reduce quality without repercussions: you obviously aren't aware of financial incentive schemes based on patient health, and this is under a 'socialized' NHS. That's a price mechanism too btw, guided under national healthcare policy...cntn
@Neanderthalcouzin Also, from what I've read, NHS schemes such as 'pounds for pounds' influences the behavior and lifestyles of the patients; this has nothing to do with the quality of care from providers such as doctors and nurses. Even if it did, they still have not evaluated the clinical or cost-effectiveness of this incentive plan.
With your statement in regards to motivations, you also seem to be assuming that the healthcare profession (cont)
@Neanderthalcouzin (cont) is primarily comprised of 'high-cognitive and high creative' personnel. According to the WHO, less than a third (9.2 million) of all healthcare workers worldwide are physicians, whereas the rest are nurses, midwives, pharmacists, along with a small number of dental professionals, community health workers, and so on. Since the performance of these individuals influences the quality of care, and since they aren't incentivized to work (cont)
@TuxedoClam You've reiterated your early points that I reject. The price-based incentives for patient health was about pay bonuses to practitioners, not the patient. And the patient gets access, because its premise is access, not profit. Thats extremely important. You stated again that work quality falls without repercussions, this is simply not true at all. Quality can absolutely be maintained, and care given to poor families as well as rich, and you seem to be missing this crucial factor.
@TuxedoClam Malpractice attorneys? We are talking about the healthcare system, not the legal system. Advertisers is really a joke to mention, when medically it comes down to the accurate representation of scientific information, not advertising coercion, and this has nothing to do with either of our points. You also mentioned how you have seen quality fall in healthcare systems on a regular basis. Do you actually work in healthcare, and if so which one?
@Neanderthalcouzin Regarding malpractice attorneys and advertisers, this occurred to me as well. I only included them for the sake of being complete, because, yes, their jobs have little to no impact on healthcare itself.
@Neanderthalcouzin any harder in a non-competitive healthcare system, their work will fall in quality, as I have seen firsthand on a regular basis.
In addition to these are malpractice attorneys, as well as professionals who's jobs aren't necessarily relevant to the quality of care, such as advertisers.
So, no, I don't think I'm incorrect on any front at all.
@TuxedoClam You need to get more up to date as well an scientific research from behavioral economics and psychology on intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. Money is not the prime motivator in high-cognitive and high creative input tasks and can in fact be a detriment to motivation. I suggest Drive by Dan Pink.
So I think you're incorrect on all fronts: motivation of healthcare practitioners, the false dichotomy of money and national healthcare, and the idea that 'bad' healthcare is the result.
@skip2mylou1988 that makes no sense. its your governments fault not the health care. would you rather pay twice as much for private and have those who cant afford it just die?
@ANIOLATORV It doesn't have to be that way. If you study the situation, you'll find that medicine can be a lot cheaper, and competition will make prices go down. And frankly, I'd rather prefer to choose my doctors and receive medical care at my illness pace, instead of depending on government's schedule. My life is more important than my money, I wouldn't mind to spend money on it when it's necessary or buy a family insurance. It can be cheap. I thought the same as you years ago.
@skip2mylou1988 it cant be cheap when you have a corperatiost government. capitalism looks ok but theres no longer any competition. they help eachother now and most companies are allies
This is stupid. The reason your health care bill was shit was because there was no public option to induce competition. Lame nuts. Socialized medicine still works the best. Thank god I don't live in your poverty stricken 3rd world.
Its not socialist health care. Even the conservatives in the UK support the NHS which is far, far more extensive than "obamacare"
It is about principle, I and thankfully the vast majority of Brits agree that health care is a right. I can't imagine having to pay impossibly high insurance bills because of my genetics or being unable to pay for life saving treatment for something I had no control over.
Ask yourself, where would you rather be a factory worker just graduated from high school that is assaulted after work / in a car crash on your first day and needs to go to hospital:
a) USA - no coverage cause you ain't got the money for healthcare
b) Australia - you are automatically covered by Medicare system
c) Britain - covered by NHS.
You rightwing nut jobs need to visit poor families and ask them. The facts are capitalism makes great cars, computers, food - but lousy healthcare.
@happyhappynuts I live in Australia and trust me it is not as rosy as you may think. If you are covered under the public system you might have to wait up to a year just to receive the most basic of elective surgery. I know of a women who waited for more then 8 months for a knee construction. This is the reason why more then a majority of people are covered by the private system. Australia also spends a much smaller percentage of GDP on healthcare then America does.
@happyhappynuts You realize that Jacob Spinney is neither left nor right, don't you? He's a voluntarist.
And, yes, I would rather live in a country where I was able to simply buy health insurance than a country who's healthcare system is run by an inefficient monopoly with year long waiting lists and where healthcare workers are incentivized to reduce their quality of work due to a lack of competition and in order to illegitimately demand more funds from the government.
@marcosrubio92 I agree, but I did not state the US has completely freemarket health care, I said it is "mainly private" as in the majorative. Consider my sources checked.
So the reason a socialist wants socialist health care is because he then more people want socialist health care. You made no sense with that... Why would someone not mention the practical uses of socialist healthcare in a debate like this? And why would the capitalist say so many hard words without an explanation to them? Why does the socialist have a commy symbol on his t-shirt? And where the hell are your sources?
@plzhealme FACT: Medical Degrees from the USA and UK are internationally recognised standards. Tony Blair and President Clinton jointly announced the completion of the human genome project in 2000, a pinacle in human achievement akin to the moon landing. The UK has the second largest pharmaceutical and medical industry in the world. Whilst UK is not #1 in all fields of medicine, it is in some, and in the top two in most. I stand by my statement, the NHS is "technically advanced".
@erichargrave12 Do you know which countries spend the least on healthcare as a percentage of GDP? Countries where there is no healthcare at all.
Do you see the problem? You're neglecting to look at the efficacy/quality of the service provided, and ignoring the rest of the picture. That's cherry picking.
@TuxedoClam I would argue that "Countries with no healthcare at all", actually spend the highest amounts on healthcare, as a proportion of their income. My reasoning for this is that a large proportion of their income is foreign aid, and most of this would have been donated to aid health. I would also argue that an infirm or unhealthy population are less productive and more costly, which leads to a poorer economy. Many studies show the social and economic benefits of public health
@erichargrave12 - Fact: There is no such thing as a free lunch; what makes a public healthcare system different from a market one is that you are stuck with a single provider (the government) and you will be imprisoned if you insist on taking your money elsewhere.
CAT scans, artificial organs, and other major advances arrived in the US first, so the UK cannot claim to have more advanced care.
The UK SPENDS LESS on citizens by giving less SERVICE - which does not make it more efficient overall.
@StateExempt FACT: Medical Degrees from the USA and UK are internationally recognised standards. Tony Blair and President Clinton jointly announced the completion of the human genome project in 2000, a pinacle in human achievement akin to the moon landing. The UK has the second largest pharmaceutical and medical industry in the world. Whilst UK is not #1 in all fields of medicine, it is in some, and in the top two in most. I stand by my statement, the NHS is "technically advanced"
@StateExempt Shame on you for spreading fear and lies - you will NOT be sent to prison for not choosing to use the NHS in the UK. What Bullshit..
The UK spends less on healthcare because the NHS is more EFFICIENT than US private insurance.
Third, the NHS offers a complete "cradle to grave" service, meaning everything pos is covered, for your whole life. You even receieve care from the best consultants/surgeon doctors in the UK as private doctors also have to work in the NHS.
The first commercial cat-scan was invented in the UK. First scan done in Wimbledon.
Wrong again on a single provider: plenty of countries have BOTH privatized options and national access.
The 'less service' argument is totally non-sensical: Firstly only one of them is an organized, holistic interconnected healthcare SYSTEM, it is a misnomer to even call something non-unified a system. Take an example that refutes you: free prescriptions in the UK and capped in England.cntnd
@StateExempt Such a policy is a direct example of service, not the denial of service. Guaranteed healthcare is exactly that. In the US, if you can front up the cash youre fucked. I have actually lived in both exclusively national, exclusively private, and mixed healthcare systems countries. The US is appalling. I could not care less whether a CAT scan was available in the US first (which I in fact showed you it was NOT), its no good if a profit-driven system restricts access to millions.
@Neanderthalcouzin - You provided no evidence that CAT scans or MRIs arrived in Canada as soon. Forcing someone to pay towards a single provider even if they wish to use the money elsewhere is appalling.
@StateExempt That's a misleading, equivocating response. You said CAT scans were in the US first, just wrong. You were wrong.
That's an odd use of the word appalling. The healthcare situation in the US is appalling, not national healthcare that intends to provide access rather than deny it, especially to those who cannot afford. And thats the point. I have lived these different systems. The one that is 'appalling' is the US.
National Healthcare is built on the philosophy of "Make someone else pay for it." It has no need to deliver because no one can opt for a better provider. And I agree that there are some appalling regulations in the US that subsidize unhealthy individuals at the expense of those who go out of their way to take care of themselves.
"CAT scans, artificial organs, and other major advances arrived in the US first,so the UK cannot claim to have more advanced care"
You were not stating they arrived in the US before Canada, furthermore you implicated the UK,which I pointed out to you defeats your points as they arrived there by definition first.
"National Healthcare is built in the philosophy of 'make someone else pay for it'".No it isn't.That's not even a philosophy cntnd
@StateExempt The philosophy was about moving power from the marketplace to the polling station, as in democracy, and removing the barriers to access that could previously only be removed by a fat wallet. The 1948 NHS original pamphlet on the matter explains the philosophy clear as a bell: it was about equalizing class and financial divides to provide access to all: man, woman and child regardless of background or private financial abilities, of which many were lacking. cntnd.
@StateExempt So you can be ignorant of the history and philosophy of these matters, but don't perpetuate your ignorance as truth. 'No need to deliver cos no-one can opt for a better provider'. Utterly false again. There are countries with national healthcare that provide private options--you simply make false points because you don't know. The fact that you think subsidizing treatments and care to individuals who cannot afford it is 'appaling', well we will never see eye to eye on that.
@StateExempt As a final point, what you fail to see is that both national and private care operate under the same principle of a multitude contributing a comparatively smaller amount of money to the common pot, which is then drawn from in time of need. It's a Public Goods Game if you know about game theory.
Those with private insurance are having someone else pay too: the hundreds of thousands it costs for bone marrow transplants, chemo, etc, etc, is never paid by the individual, it is
...drawn from the pooled resources of others. So you are NOT paying for yourself under ANY system. And under EVERY system you pay for others, and vice versa.
NHS like other national health systems is not a charity or a hand out, it's a collective effort. Without it, if you cannot pull the cash out of your back pocket, you're fucked. And don't tell me someone who can't afford extortionate healthcare is just not working, cos that is provably complete bullshit.
@Crox300 And in Guatemala the health care was state run, right? Please, remind me how many US Americans died last year because of wrong medical insurance?
Someone's gotta pay for the supplies, the hospital construction and maintenance, the specialized labor, etc. In the socialist model, it's everybody who pays taxes. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion.
@vitaminsandstds Actuallyb you will pey very little tax. ALL profit from business goes right to the government so lets say you buy carton of milk from a store, youll then be giving about 2$ straight to the governmnet. There will still be brands etc but very little advertisemnt
@vitaminsandstds Entrepeneurs and business owners will be given a middle class salery and their companies profits will go to the governemnt. There will still be people richer than others but it will all be middle class and will avoid both extremes
@ANIOLATORV Are you suffering a mild case of mental retardation. A system such as yours would only lead to lower quality in health care and lower living standards for everyone. Such a nation would also be oppressive, lack civil liberty and be internationally noncompetitive. Anyone with only a small amount of knowledge in the subjects of history, economics and philosophy would understand this.
@TheMa11lman I study philosohy and economics you idiot! You fail to explain how it would cause the economy to go down and how would it ever be oppressive? your given the freedom to choose anything you want as long as its good. IT would be illegal to be an idiot in a sense have a look at Cuba. Before America started the blockade Cuba had one of teh best economies in the world and that 100% nationalized. Another example is Russia, while communist they were the worlds leader in science
@ANIOLATORV You do not honestly believe that Cuba had a one of the best economies in the world before the blockade. I will admit it made it worse but Cuba was already in a fair bit of economic strife. I would say that at nearly every point in its existence the USSR was far behind the USA when it came to science. I would also point out that the Soviets were so great that they could hardly even feed there own people by the end of there rule.
@TheMa11lman The soviets were the FIRST to put man into space and built the FIRST satellite! not only that Cuba WAS an amazing economic power house unless all the history book and official statistics are false and some guy on YouTube knows better than them
@ANIOLATORV To imply causation between two unrelated factors such as innovation and the market system is post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Even if it wasn't, the number of patents granted would be a far more effective measure for determining the ingenuity of the people in any market system.
Besides this, to disregard American firsts in the space race, as well as to disregard that other things, such as for example, the internet, were western advancements, is cherry picking.
@ANIOLATORV in China its not, in Britain under a Conservative coalition it still (just about) is, although the NHS was a product of the 'socialist' Labour government of 1945 it has continued under successive Conservative governments too, trying being poor and ill in China though, not so good
European countries have higher satisfaction rate. Also, they are rated higher by the World Health Organization. Most of them have universal healthcare.
@MrJigssaw1989 ahahahaha. you make me laugh my ass off. Christianity is just like that pagan religions that worshiped the sun and the moon but with jesus instead.
To everyone supporting socialazed health care - do you think you somehow have the right to use violence against peaceful people to make them pay your healtcare bills ?
@MrJigssaw1989 Uhmmm in a normal world - not in America land - healthcare is not "private" and therefore not influenced by such things as 'demand' or 'supply'.
Privatizing healthcare is like privatizing the electric grid and then wondering why the fuck you need to pay 100 $ / Kw just to light up your house.
Private bussiness care only about profit - they don't care about you, no matter the field: health, commerce, public transport, electricity.
@cr4yv3n But lets expand a litle on that profit motive. Let me ask you how do you make the most money in the long term ? By ripping off your customers ? By providing them shitty overpriced products ? I dont think so every one would stop buying your products and you would go´out of bussiness. The only way that you can make profit long term is by providing customers service that they want better and cheaper than everyone else. I get better served in a restaurant then at DMV, where do you?
@cr4yv3n And if you think that simply not being private means that it is somehow free and nobody is paying for it you are naive. You pay for it with higher taxes and what you get is one size fits all solution that you are forced to pay for. And the worst thing with socialazed medicine is that it gets to be a motive for suppresion of freedom and nannystatism- ban smoking, fat foods, drugs and so on. In free market you would simply pay a higher rate and that would discourage you.
@MrJigssaw1989 "socialazed medicine [...] gets to be a motive for suppresion of freedom and nannystatism- ban smoking, fat foods, drugs and so on. In free market you would simply pay a higher rate and that would discourage you."
Ok first of all this "omg state run institutions that provide BASIC WELLBEING is evil and we might aswel wear a comunist flag and it denies freedom ( freedom to live like a rat in a box maybe )" Is just bullshit red scare propaganda - wake up!
@MrJigssaw1989 Second of all, it WORKS right NOW all over the "normal" world.
In fact USA is the only country as far as i know with a privatized healthcare system and its citizens are one of the most unhappiest in that area in the world.
How is that better than state run BASIC services?
These key institutions never go private - private = profit uber alles. And in the field of medicine, caring for a patient comes first.
@cr4yv3n wrote "in the field of medicine, caring for a patient comes first. PROFIT comes never."
True on point A. Ignorant naivete on point B. I'm not going through years of difficult graduate level medical sciences education, and taking on tens of thousands of dollars of debt, so that I can end up with a shitty low paying job.
Profit ALWAYS matters, whether you like it or not. Do YOU work for free?
@cr4yv3n My "working for free" comment was to prove a point. You profit from your knowledge and labor through tax-funded income. Would you do what you do if you made no income whatsoever? Of course not. That was my point.
I agree our system is in ruin, but I disagree that it is capitalism in the proper sense, because it's actually a poorly blended system that prevents the force of free-market competition to drive prices down.
@cr4yv3n Do doctors and nurses in your country work for the same wages as uneducated laborers? If you answer, "no", then you must admit that profit does matter. All people are not equal, nor is the value of the work they do and the skills that they bring. Because of this, compensation is not equal. I say not to defend crony-capitalism, which is what America suffers from, but to defend free-market voluntary exchange, which is a hypothetical dream stamped out by economic ignorance.
Yes they get paid more. But if they were a private bussiness they could ask how much they would want as their services are indispensable.
If you want proof why giving indispensable resource sources or indispensable services institutions to private contractors is bad - check the south America disaster when they tried to privatize a country's water network.
The company there immediatly started charging money, a lot of money.
@cr4yv3n You also misunderstand the word "tax". Private companies cannot tax. Only govt's., with the monopoly power of coercion under threat of imprisonment, can tax. If a company or industry in America charges too high a price and gets away with it, it is because the govt has restricted the industry in a way that prevents competition. Competition is the hallmark of capitalism. Without it, it is no longer properly called capitalism, and profits become grossly distorted, as we see.
@cr4yv3n Europeans misunderstand capitalism, and attack it unjustly, just as Americans misunderstand socialism, and attack it in ways that are incorrect.
It is my belief, that if we could ever get the grossly distorting influence of govt and politics out of our way, we would see free market capitalist institutions and services operating side-by-side with non-profit charity services. And the constant threat of competition would begin to drive prices down.
@rmcdaniel423 Well it is true that state controlled institutions are funded by state tax. But government will not relenquish total control - even in the US and even in the former USSR.
All-in-all i don't think full capitalism would be a world in which i'd want to live. True capitalism = survival of the fittest and fuck the rest. It's a pretty savage environment.
True that the constant threat of competition will drive prices down but this is one side of the coin.
@cr4yv3n I'm sorry, I have to reenter the conversation. You are wrong to say the customer always loses. This is only true when competition is hindered by regulation or other forces. In the case of S. America, did "the company" have a monopoly on the control of water? If so, that's not a free market, and thus not a fair analogy. In order for the fit to survive, they must offer what customers want, or fail. Done in a FREE market, it is win-win. Only the greedy get fucked.
@cr4yv3n One final remark, then I will offer you the last word. I personally see the utilitarian value in a single payer system for health care, despite being a free-market anarchist/libertarian philosophically. Intellectually, this is a dichotomy that I struggle with often. My only issue with govt-provided services has to do with the coercive nature in which funding is obtained, and in which participation is mandated. Sadly, our society is not ready to give up coercion of others.
I have little to say on this, except that look around the world America. What you call "Socialised medicine" we call universal healthcare. So many of us have much cheaper systems where we are all entitled to healthcare regardless of personal wealth and it doesn't break our bank. Stop with the Ideological warfare and start looking after your own people, it's about personal respect of human life.
As an American, I have learned to no longer apologize for the stupidity of my countrymen. Instead I put out a disclaimer that not all Americans are this naive and moronic.
"Socialism" in America is like middle of the spectrum nearly EVERYWHERE ELSE.
America had a wonderful balanced system years back, but today, thanks to bull shit spit out by the right, we're just throwing a sucker Hail Mary to the rich instead of investing in EVERYONE.
It just goes to show you don't actually care about your country, just parts, and would rather suck a rich mans dick than help your fellow victimized neighbors.
This is why everyone hates you but still watches. You're a train-wreck.
@irishgodfatherchris@irishgodfatherchris I don't have the time to go into Australian central banking, but I do know Australia is much less Socialist than the US. Australia ranks #3 behind Hong Kong and Singapore on an index of economic freedom. The US is #10. Even Canada ranks higher than the US. Social programs can be sustained at least for a while. The more free market the country is, and the smaller and fewer the social programs are, the longer they can last.
If the US did not have the most expensive healthcare system in the entire world, spending around 15% of its GDP on healthcare, and if the predominantly public healthcare system in the UK didn't cost about half that, then you'd have a good point. But it does, so you don't.
When you're in your 20-30s, single with a Job that has health care= No problems! if you have kids and no health care, ya gotta problem. No job=BIG problem. 40-50s no matter what, health care becomes an issue. You have a job & health care, but now diagnosed with stage 4 cancer=BIG problem. No Job= INSURMOUNTABLE problem. 60-70s retired middle class, w/ any health care (Including Medicaid) any sickness= INSURMOUNTABLE problem. No health care at all= Grave. When you're young it's not an issue...yet
@johndoylejd ah name calling, is that what conservatives always fall down to? (i assume you are conservative right wing because you called me stupid lefty) USSR was socialism its name only, socialism like european is not the same thing like stalinist socialism ie soviet communism
Yep it's great in the UK, we aren't dying in the waiting rooms as I've heard it been reported in the USA. Think of the word "social" yeah? It's not socialism to have health care, you can have capitalism and not be a dick to people's health.
yep thats true. In Australia we have social Healthcare within our system and its great, and most people in Australia WANTS more and better social healthcare.
@sverdlovX then those countries should stop doing ALL of their medical RandD in the US, and come up with their own advancement with their own tax dollars instead of US investors.
@sverdlovX We are laughing at you, bitch. The U.S. has five articles on Wikipedia listing inventions made in the U.S. Every other country has one article. It's like a burger flipper laughing at a theoretical physicist, LOL.
@sverdlovX Why laugh? If the US Dollar fails, the world fails, basically you should be on your knees praying that our politicians don't fuck it up. Our politicians are your politicians basically.
Yah sure, a bill that forces people to buy health insurance from capitalist companies is socialist. That totally makes sense in the same way that giving billions of dollars to banks is now considered socialist.
Conservatives basically think government they don't support equals socialism. They have no real theoretical understanding of it and use it as a boogeyman to make people fear liberalism. No understanding of history at all.
@npe1 I think that because I understand the primary causes of the business cycle. I have never heard of the "greedy" business cycle before. Probably because it is an easy scape goat for people who don't really understand economics. Of course I am concerned for people. I am concerned that everyone is going to be poor once the shit hits the fan.
I get a kick out of all these foreigners that bust on Americas once non socialist health care. Research online the number of patients Hershey Medical Center in PA receives in 1 year that are foreigners looking for some of the worlds most advanced treatment that capitalism has produced. America may aswell fall into socialism because we no longer have the majority of people with the drive and determination to be anything else, just gimmy gimmy gimmy!
@cbl2988 you are starting to piss me off commenting on all these things like your the knowledge king. There is no waiting arround in england we believe that we should help each other not be selfish dicks like you.
Dont talk about economics like you know whats happening the only reason america hasnt crashed and burned is because it exploits all countries.
I can tell your are a republican probably christian, you people are responsible for how fucked the world is today . bush voting fag
Which US government controlled faggot made this video?????
i live in the UK where ANYONE and EVERYONE gets free healthcare why the fuck would americans want such an animalistic and barbaric society where people dont even help each other. just so some can pocket the difference.
What if you got CANCER HUH??????? you got 100k for cheamo? DIDNTTHINK SO
@levishelley55 Did you seriously miss the part where he explained why chemo costs "100k" in the first place? And guess what, the UK is in deep shit right now because they can't afford their entitlements. You also forget to mention the extremely long waits in the UK due to rationed care. France is much more market based and even they are suffering from not being able to pay for it for much longer, so now even they are having to ration. Europe is falling apart BECAUSE of shit like this.
Good job buddy, you proved your own fail when you put on a t-shirt with a communist logo and call yourself a socialist.
Another ignorant socialist scared american i see?
DrunkitheDane 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jacob Spinney why did you remove the top comments? Is it because they disagreed with/disproved your video?
FACTS:
France spends 11.8% of GDP on healthcare, the Netherlands 12%, Germany 11.6% and the USA 17.4%. The UK spend 9.8% on the NHS which provides free universal healthcare to all and is judged the best and most efficient in the world.
Source: The Guardian, 17th Feb 2012, Andy Burnham, Shadow Minister for Heath and previous Minister for Health.
erichargrave12 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fact: The UK has 100% free health care coverage at the point of need, is the most advanced technically and it only costs 9.8% of UK GDP per annum.
The USA does not have health care for all its citizens and is mainly private. It costs 17.4% of US GDP per annum. Socialised medicine wins.
Source: The Guardian, Fri 17th Feb 2012
erichargrave12 5 days ago
Comment removed
erichargrave12 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Guess which countries in 1900 had smallest infant mortality in the world..
IT was USA and Britain with 100% private health care !!!
Crox300 1 week ago
IS THERE ANY AUSSIES HERE WHO HAVE NOTICED THE DISTINCT LACK OF FOCUS ON THE NBN IN OUR AUSTRALIAN MEDIA? I MEAN GEEZ!
34lbs 1 week ago
Well, look at veterinary, in most countries they are private clinics and they work much better than any socialised medicine. Cause they are capitalised
3DSFuture 1 week ago
Comment removed
erichargrave12 1 week ago
Comment removed
erichargrave12 1 week ago
Socialism in the hands of our gov that long ago forgot that they are our employees,and decided to be our bosses incompetently managing the people according to their own needs ,not the peoples will not work. If you redefine socialism and change the structure to where it can't be corrupted by minority and use it only for agree'd common needs would work very well.
Basic essentials need strong safe guards from the free market and capitalism.
KuDeGrasBonVoyage 1 week ago
@tuxedoclam I don't think that having a public health care system is necessarily perfect, and certainly there are problems. But look at the outcomes. Life expectancy in the USA is lower than Australia, and has been the case even for periods in recent history where the average income is higher than Australia (obviously now that isn't the case, but it has held true even in the eighties, nineties etc). If an unemployed person gets sick tomorrow in Adelaide, they can go to the doctor ASAP. Detroit?
happyhappynuts 1 week ago
@happyhappynuts The living standard in any country doesn't necessarily say anything to the quality of health care. For example, if someone is struck by a car, and they're dead before an ambulance arrives at the scene, what can be said about healthcare?
More accurate reasons for why life expectancy is lower in the US than elsewhere is because of lifestyle choices, genetic diversity (Africans, for example, are genetically more prone to certain conditions), and so on.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
bloody iDevices .... Rotor = doctor
happyhappynuts 1 week ago
@tuxedoclam the thing is the USA was sold a dud. You keep telling us how bad socialized medicine is without having experienced. The first point you need to understand is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT. In Australia, you have the option of using the public system OR the private system. And the availability of the public system thereby requires private operators to be more innovative. If I want to though, I can go to the rotor completely free, and usually with no more than an hour wait (or I could
happyhappynuts 1 week ago
@happyhappynuts I have an aunt who's husband was in the US military. While he was stationed in Germany, she experienced the German healthcare system for several years, including having her first son born there.
According to her account, German socialized healthcare is highly inefficient, providers give the same attention to someone with a serious illness to someone with a case of the sniffles, and so on and so forth.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@happyhappynuts You're right, you don't have to use it, but the detrimental effects of socialized healthcare extend far beyond this alone.
For example, the fact that there is a free option to begin with, regardless of how relatively inefficient it may be, makes it impossible for lower end private healthcare providers to compete. Thus, due to socialized healthcare, private healthcare becomes a luxury that only the relatively affluent can afford. (cont)
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@happyhappynuts (cont) It's the same reason why private schools are so expensive here in the US; If a private market player were to provide to the market a private school that was comparable in quality and price to a government-run public school, no sane person would have any reason to choose the private school over the free, public school. Thus, competition is destroyed and quality goods are outpriced due to the simple existence of a public option in the first place.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@tuxedoClam it doesn't matter what Jacob is, he is theoretically right and fundamentally wrong.
happyhappynuts 1 week ago
My friend waited 6 hours to have doctors look at his broken arm. Yes, the goddamn medical cost per capita is lower. But the quality of service you are getting is fucked up. I volunteered in the emergency room and I saw people start shivering from kidney stone pain after waiting 2 hours. I do believe that because of our aging population and because we have the social responsibility, we need to have universal health care. But don't talk as if it is a great system.
plzhealme 2 weeks ago
@erichargrave12 awsome
Tatne 2 weeks ago
I live in a country that allows both and it's the reason I'm alive,successful and healthy. I lived in the US and a good friend of mine had her savings, house and livelihood taken away when she became ill. The US system has still not provided her healthcare, and so to top it off she's even SICKER. She ended up writing to friends around the world for financial help, just to stay afloat. Sick
But seriously keep demonizing an attempt to guarentee healthcare to all.Just don't claim to be rational
Neanderthalcouzin 2 weeks ago
@Neanderthalcouzin Obviously health care in the US nowadays is a total mess. I live in Spain and everybody here HATES social health care. Why? There's far too many bureocracy, long queues, incompetent physicians, bad mood gov. employees, etc. Quality is low and our taxes are high as hell. When things get serious (a bit more than a cold) we go to private hospitals and pay the bill, but we still have to pay the f'kin' social security every month! FREE MARKET AND GOV OUT OF MY LIFE, PLEASE!
skip2mylou1988 2 weeks ago
@skip2mylou1988 No system is perfect, and frankly it comes back to an outmoded monetary system when you trace back the real problems. However the US system is a disaster, and having a solely for-profit healthcare system is both irrational and inhumane. As soon as a major epidemic hits, youll see this free-market ideology for medicine and population health for what it is--bollox.
Neanderthalcouzin 2 weeks ago
@Neanderthalcouzin No matter which system you're in, the providers of healthcare will always be 'for profit;' the physicians, administrators, nurses, etc., will always be striving for their own personal gain. The only difference is, rather than allowing the price mechanism to work, a socialized system allows them to reduce the quality of their work with little to no repercussions.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@TuxedoClam Your statement is wrong on multiple levels. Firstly, you have a founding assumption that everyone is working solely 'for profit', which is not the case at all. Many doctors and nurses have whats called a utility function, and a range of preferences, and stating that its only profit is empirically false, as well as qualitative (conduct interviews with healthcare professionals before you make such sweeping generalizations). Your conclusion is problematic as well...cntn...
Neanderthalcouzin 1 week ago
@Neanderthalcouzin Your first statement is a blatant Strawman. I never said that healthcare providers work 'solely' for personal profit; however, to deny that this is the primary motivator, as it is in most professions, is ignorant.
Second of all, both of my parents are qualified physicians, and in their words, the reason they spent several years of their lives studying medicine was in order to secure a high income.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@TuxedoClam ...and it shows a lack of investigation into studies on human motivation, as well as the operations of various hospitals under national programs. For instance you stated the only difference is they can reduce quality without repercussions: you obviously aren't aware of financial incentive schemes based on patient health, and this is under a 'socialized' NHS. That's a price mechanism too btw, guided under national healthcare policy...cntn
Neanderthalcouzin 1 week ago
@Neanderthalcouzin Also, from what I've read, NHS schemes such as 'pounds for pounds' influences the behavior and lifestyles of the patients; this has nothing to do with the quality of care from providers such as doctors and nurses. Even if it did, they still have not evaluated the clinical or cost-effectiveness of this incentive plan.
With your statement in regards to motivations, you also seem to be assuming that the healthcare profession (cont)
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@Neanderthalcouzin (cont) is primarily comprised of 'high-cognitive and high creative' personnel. According to the WHO, less than a third (9.2 million) of all healthcare workers worldwide are physicians, whereas the rest are nurses, midwives, pharmacists, along with a small number of dental professionals, community health workers, and so on. Since the performance of these individuals influences the quality of care, and since they aren't incentivized to work (cont)
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@TuxedoClam You've reiterated your early points that I reject. The price-based incentives for patient health was about pay bonuses to practitioners, not the patient. And the patient gets access, because its premise is access, not profit. Thats extremely important. You stated again that work quality falls without repercussions, this is simply not true at all. Quality can absolutely be maintained, and care given to poor families as well as rich, and you seem to be missing this crucial factor.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 week ago
@TuxedoClam Malpractice attorneys? We are talking about the healthcare system, not the legal system. Advertisers is really a joke to mention, when medically it comes down to the accurate representation of scientific information, not advertising coercion, and this has nothing to do with either of our points. You also mentioned how you have seen quality fall in healthcare systems on a regular basis. Do you actually work in healthcare, and if so which one?
Neanderthalcouzin 1 week ago
@Neanderthalcouzin Regarding malpractice attorneys and advertisers, this occurred to me as well. I only included them for the sake of being complete, because, yes, their jobs have little to no impact on healthcare itself.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@Neanderthalcouzin any harder in a non-competitive healthcare system, their work will fall in quality, as I have seen firsthand on a regular basis.
In addition to these are malpractice attorneys, as well as professionals who's jobs aren't necessarily relevant to the quality of care, such as advertisers.
So, no, I don't think I'm incorrect on any front at all.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@TuxedoClam You need to get more up to date as well an scientific research from behavioral economics and psychology on intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. Money is not the prime motivator in high-cognitive and high creative input tasks and can in fact be a detriment to motivation. I suggest Drive by Dan Pink.
So I think you're incorrect on all fronts: motivation of healthcare practitioners, the false dichotomy of money and national healthcare, and the idea that 'bad' healthcare is the result.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 week ago
@skip2mylou1988 that makes no sense. its your governments fault not the health care. would you rather pay twice as much for private and have those who cant afford it just die?
ANIOLATORV 1 week ago
@ANIOLATORV It doesn't have to be that way. If you study the situation, you'll find that medicine can be a lot cheaper, and competition will make prices go down. And frankly, I'd rather prefer to choose my doctors and receive medical care at my illness pace, instead of depending on government's schedule. My life is more important than my money, I wouldn't mind to spend money on it when it's necessary or buy a family insurance. It can be cheap. I thought the same as you years ago.
skip2mylou1988 1 week ago
@skip2mylou1988 it cant be cheap when you have a corperatiost government. capitalism looks ok but theres no longer any competition. they help eachother now and most companies are allies
ANIOLATORV 1 week ago
This is stupid. The reason your health care bill was shit was because there was no public option to induce competition. Lame nuts. Socialized medicine still works the best. Thank god I don't live in your poverty stricken 3rd world.
mrblob20 2 weeks ago
Go to Church You Fucking Tool!
duval639 2 weeks ago
Its not socialist health care. Even the conservatives in the UK support the NHS which is far, far more extensive than "obamacare"
It is about principle, I and thankfully the vast majority of Brits agree that health care is a right. I can't imagine having to pay impossibly high insurance bills because of my genetics or being unable to pay for life saving treatment for something I had no control over.
RandomNameName 3 weeks ago
Ask yourself, where would you rather be a factory worker just graduated from high school that is assaulted after work / in a car crash on your first day and needs to go to hospital:
a) USA - no coverage cause you ain't got the money for healthcare
b) Australia - you are automatically covered by Medicare system
c) Britain - covered by NHS.
You rightwing nut jobs need to visit poor families and ask them. The facts are capitalism makes great cars, computers, food - but lousy healthcare.
happyhappynuts 3 weeks ago
@happyhappynuts I live in Australia and trust me it is not as rosy as you may think. If you are covered under the public system you might have to wait up to a year just to receive the most basic of elective surgery. I know of a women who waited for more then 8 months for a knee construction. This is the reason why more then a majority of people are covered by the private system. Australia also spends a much smaller percentage of GDP on healthcare then America does.
TheMa11lman 3 weeks ago
@happyhappynuts You realize that Jacob Spinney is neither left nor right, don't you? He's a voluntarist.
And, yes, I would rather live in a country where I was able to simply buy health insurance than a country who's healthcare system is run by an inefficient monopoly with year long waiting lists and where healthcare workers are incentivized to reduce their quality of work due to a lack of competition and in order to illegitimately demand more funds from the government.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fact: The UK has 100% free health care coverage at the point of need, is the most advanced technically and it only costs 9.2% of UK GDP per annum.
The USA does not have health care for all its citizens and is mainly private. It costs 17.9% of US GDP per annum. Socialised medicine wins.
happyhappynuts 3 weeks ago
@erichargrave The USA healthcare system is by no means a free market, check your sources.
marcosrubio92 3 weeks ago
@marcosrubio92 I agree, but I did not state the US has completely freemarket health care, I said it is "mainly private" as in the majorative. Consider my sources checked.
erichargrave12 1 week ago
So the reason a socialist wants socialist health care is because he then more people want socialist health care. You made no sense with that... Why would someone not mention the practical uses of socialist healthcare in a debate like this? And why would the capitalist say so many hard words without an explanation to them? Why does the socialist have a commy symbol on his t-shirt? And where the hell are your sources?
anting004 3 weeks ago
@anting004 Trying to supply, but I keep getting "error" from youtube.
google search: "medicare spending 1966"
1st page, 3rd link
jeffiek 3 weeks ago
@anting004 the source is a government agency named cms
jeffiek 3 weeks ago
Fact: The UK has 100% free health care coverage at the point of need, is the most advanced technically and it only costs 9.2% of UK GDP per annum.
The USA does not have health care for all its citizens and is mainly private. It costs 17.9% of US GDP per annum. Socialised medicine wins.
erichargrave12 3 weeks ago 15
@erichargrave12 That is just not true. The advanced technically... I presume you meant to say technologically. That is just not true.
plzhealme 2 weeks ago
@plzhealme FACT: Medical Degrees from the USA and UK are internationally recognised standards. Tony Blair and President Clinton jointly announced the completion of the human genome project in 2000, a pinacle in human achievement akin to the moon landing. The UK has the second largest pharmaceutical and medical industry in the world. Whilst UK is not #1 in all fields of medicine, it is in some, and in the top two in most. I stand by my statement, the NHS is "technically advanced".
erichargrave12 1 week ago
@erichargrave12 Do you know which countries spend the least on healthcare as a percentage of GDP? Countries where there is no healthcare at all.
Do you see the problem? You're neglecting to look at the efficacy/quality of the service provided, and ignoring the rest of the picture. That's cherry picking.
Socialized healthcare wins? I don't think so.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@TuxedoClam I would argue that "Countries with no healthcare at all", actually spend the highest amounts on healthcare, as a proportion of their income. My reasoning for this is that a large proportion of their income is foreign aid, and most of this would have been donated to aid health. I would also argue that an infirm or unhealthy population are less productive and more costly, which leads to a poorer economy. Many studies show the social and economic benefits of public health
erichargrave12 1 week ago
@erichargrave12 Right, I'm slightly right of centre, but believe in some socialist principles, e.g. the British NHS. Hence, you are my new hero.
Lilwidge93 1 week ago 2
@erichargrave12 Hahahaha USA does have free health care? NO!!!
U are idiot.
3DSFuture 1 week ago
@erichargrave12 - Fact: There is no such thing as a free lunch; what makes a public healthcare system different from a market one is that you are stuck with a single provider (the government) and you will be imprisoned if you insist on taking your money elsewhere.
CAT scans, artificial organs, and other major advances arrived in the US first, so the UK cannot claim to have more advanced care.
The UK SPENDS LESS on citizens by giving less SERVICE - which does not make it more efficient overall.
StateExempt 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt FACT: Medical Degrees from the USA and UK are internationally recognised standards. Tony Blair and President Clinton jointly announced the completion of the human genome project in 2000, a pinacle in human achievement akin to the moon landing. The UK has the second largest pharmaceutical and medical industry in the world. Whilst UK is not #1 in all fields of medicine, it is in some, and in the top two in most. I stand by my statement, the NHS is "technically advanced"
erichargrave12 1 week ago
Comment removed
erichargrave12 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt Shame on you for spreading fear and lies - you will NOT be sent to prison for not choosing to use the NHS in the UK. What Bullshit..
The UK spends less on healthcare because the NHS is more EFFICIENT than US private insurance.
Third, the NHS offers a complete "cradle to grave" service, meaning everything pos is covered, for your whole life. You even receieve care from the best consultants/surgeon doctors in the UK as private doctors also have to work in the NHS.
erichargrave12 1 week ago
@StateExempt Wrong.
The first commercial cat-scan was invented in the UK. First scan done in Wimbledon.
Wrong again on a single provider: plenty of countries have BOTH privatized options and national access.
The 'less service' argument is totally non-sensical: Firstly only one of them is an organized, holistic interconnected healthcare SYSTEM, it is a misnomer to even call something non-unified a system. Take an example that refutes you: free prescriptions in the UK and capped in England.cntnd
Neanderthalcouzin 1 week ago
@StateExempt Such a policy is a direct example of service, not the denial of service. Guaranteed healthcare is exactly that. In the US, if you can front up the cash youre fucked. I have actually lived in both exclusively national, exclusively private, and mixed healthcare systems countries. The US is appalling. I could not care less whether a CAT scan was available in the US first (which I in fact showed you it was NOT), its no good if a profit-driven system restricts access to millions.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 week ago
@Neanderthalcouzin spell correction if you *can't* front up the cash in the US, you're fucked.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 week ago
@Neanderthalcouzin - You provided no evidence that CAT scans or MRIs arrived in Canada as soon. Forcing someone to pay towards a single provider even if they wish to use the money elsewhere is appalling.
StateExempt 5 days ago
@StateExempt That's a misleading, equivocating response. You said CAT scans were in the US first, just wrong. You were wrong.
That's an odd use of the word appalling. The healthcare situation in the US is appalling, not national healthcare that intends to provide access rather than deny it, especially to those who cannot afford. And thats the point. I have lived these different systems. The one that is 'appalling' is the US.
Neanderthalcouzin 5 days ago
@Neanderthalcouzin - I said they arrived in the US before Canada.
National Healthcare is built on the philosophy of "Make someone else pay for it." It has no need to deliver because no one can opt for a better provider. And I agree that there are some appalling regulations in the US that subsidize unhealthy individuals at the expense of those who go out of their way to take care of themselves.
StateExempt 4 days ago
@StateExempt Here is the quote from your comment:
"CAT scans, artificial organs, and other major advances arrived in the US first,so the UK cannot claim to have more advanced care"
You were not stating they arrived in the US before Canada, furthermore you implicated the UK,which I pointed out to you defeats your points as they arrived there by definition first.
"National Healthcare is built in the philosophy of 'make someone else pay for it'".No it isn't.That's not even a philosophy cntnd
Neanderthalcouzin 3 days ago
@StateExempt The philosophy was about moving power from the marketplace to the polling station, as in democracy, and removing the barriers to access that could previously only be removed by a fat wallet. The 1948 NHS original pamphlet on the matter explains the philosophy clear as a bell: it was about equalizing class and financial divides to provide access to all: man, woman and child regardless of background or private financial abilities, of which many were lacking. cntnd.
Neanderthalcouzin 3 days ago
@StateExempt So you can be ignorant of the history and philosophy of these matters, but don't perpetuate your ignorance as truth. 'No need to deliver cos no-one can opt for a better provider'. Utterly false again. There are countries with national healthcare that provide private options--you simply make false points because you don't know. The fact that you think subsidizing treatments and care to individuals who cannot afford it is 'appaling', well we will never see eye to eye on that.
Neanderthalcouzin 3 days ago
@StateExempt As a final point, what you fail to see is that both national and private care operate under the same principle of a multitude contributing a comparatively smaller amount of money to the common pot, which is then drawn from in time of need. It's a Public Goods Game if you know about game theory.
Those with private insurance are having someone else pay too: the hundreds of thousands it costs for bone marrow transplants, chemo, etc, etc, is never paid by the individual, it is
Neanderthalcouzin 3 days ago
...drawn from the pooled resources of others. So you are NOT paying for yourself under ANY system. And under EVERY system you pay for others, and vice versa.
NHS like other national health systems is not a charity or a hand out, it's a collective effort. Without it, if you cannot pull the cash out of your back pocket, you're fucked. And don't tell me someone who can't afford extortionate healthcare is just not working, cos that is provably complete bullshit.
Neanderthalcouzin 3 days ago
@erichargrave12 Guess which countries in 1900 had smallest infant mortality in the world..
IT was USA and Britain with 100% private health care !!!
Crox300 1 week ago
@Crox300 And in Guatemala the health care was state run, right? Please, remind me how many US Americans died last year because of wrong medical insurance?
fiorAvanti1917 1 week ago
@fiorAvanti1917 Guatamela is country of third world, capitalism is for high development countries, which had capitalism from 19 century
Crox300 1 week ago
@Crox300 How simply. So don't wonder that third word countries don't want to be capitalist. Socialism is the best way for them to be developed.
fiorAvanti1917 6 days ago
@fiorAvanti1917 You are stupid socialist, but you're right, socialism is better to develop country like Guatamela bot not better for it civilians
Crox300 6 days ago
@Crox300 That's why these civilians must escape back to US unless Guatemalan catch them.
fiorAvanti1917 6 days ago
@erichargrave12 can you please name me the source of those stats?(:
sillabesterrapper 1 week ago
This made no sense at all, i am a real socialist and in a real socialist country health care is free
ANIOLATORV 4 weeks ago
@ANIOLATORV
Someone's gotta pay for the supplies, the hospital construction and maintenance, the specialized labor, etc. In the socialist model, it's everybody who pays taxes. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion.
Lrn2tanstaafl
vitaminsandstds 3 weeks ago
@vitaminsandstds Actuallyb you will pey very little tax. ALL profit from business goes right to the government so lets say you buy carton of milk from a store, youll then be giving about 2$ straight to the governmnet. There will still be brands etc but very little advertisemnt
ANIOLATORV 3 weeks ago
@ANIOLATORV
How do you define profit, does the government place wages on entrepreneurs, or how does that work?
vitaminsandstds 3 weeks ago
@vitaminsandstds Entrepeneurs and business owners will be given a middle class salery and their companies profits will go to the governemnt. There will still be people richer than others but it will all be middle class and will avoid both extremes
ANIOLATORV 3 weeks ago
@ANIOLATORV Are you suffering a mild case of mental retardation. A system such as yours would only lead to lower quality in health care and lower living standards for everyone. Such a nation would also be oppressive, lack civil liberty and be internationally noncompetitive. Anyone with only a small amount of knowledge in the subjects of history, economics and philosophy would understand this.
TheMa11lman 3 weeks ago
@TheMa11lman I study philosohy and economics you idiot! You fail to explain how it would cause the economy to go down and how would it ever be oppressive? your given the freedom to choose anything you want as long as its good. IT would be illegal to be an idiot in a sense have a look at Cuba. Before America started the blockade Cuba had one of teh best economies in the world and that 100% nationalized. Another example is Russia, while communist they were the worlds leader in science
ANIOLATORV 3 weeks ago
@ANIOLATORV You do not honestly believe that Cuba had a one of the best economies in the world before the blockade. I will admit it made it worse but Cuba was already in a fair bit of economic strife. I would say that at nearly every point in its existence the USSR was far behind the USA when it came to science. I would also point out that the Soviets were so great that they could hardly even feed there own people by the end of there rule.
TheMa11lman 2 weeks ago
@TheMa11lman The soviets were the FIRST to put man into space and built the FIRST satellite! not only that Cuba WAS an amazing economic power house unless all the history book and official statistics are false and some guy on YouTube knows better than them
ANIOLATORV 2 weeks ago
@TheMa11lman
erm yes it was. Look at the living standard and economy in cuba before the blockade. Even ask some cubanians if u want, they will tell u the same.
Its called facts idiot. Get urself a better education please.
TheFreeFlow 2 weeks ago
@ANIOLATORV To imply causation between two unrelated factors such as innovation and the market system is post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Even if it wasn't, the number of patents granted would be a far more effective measure for determining the ingenuity of the people in any market system.
Besides this, to disregard American firsts in the space race, as well as to disregard that other things, such as for example, the internet, were western advancements, is cherry picking.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
@ANIOLATORV in China its not, in Britain under a Conservative coalition it still (just about) is, although the NHS was a product of the 'socialist' Labour government of 1945 it has continued under successive Conservative governments too, trying being poor and ill in China though, not so good
baroqueencounters 2 weeks ago
This video is 100% accurate. Well played.
stebecool 4 weeks ago
European countries have higher satisfaction rate. Also, they are rated higher by the World Health Organization. Most of them have universal healthcare.
Awesomeduud 4 weeks ago
lies, damn lies, and statistics. your numbers mean nothing if they aren't backed by principle.
Deltrix4762 1 month ago
@Deltrix4762 I would sugest yout to open your bible and read Matthew 21:28.
What matters is actual product of your action not your motives,principles or promises.
MrJigssaw1989 1 month ago
@MrJigssaw1989 ahahahaha. you make me laugh my ass off. Christianity is just like that pagan religions that worshiped the sun and the moon but with jesus instead.
Deltrix4762 4 weeks ago
You know fuck all. Since when was the symbol of socialism a hammer and sickle? And free public healthcare in the UK has been fine 60 years.
TheFlyingPineapple 1 month ago
To everyone supporting socialazed health care - do you think you somehow have the right to use violence against peaceful people to make them pay your healtcare bills ?
MrJigssaw1989 1 month ago
@MrJigssaw1989 Uhmmm in a normal world - not in America land - healthcare is not "private" and therefore not influenced by such things as 'demand' or 'supply'.
Privatizing healthcare is like privatizing the electric grid and then wondering why the fuck you need to pay 100 $ / Kw just to light up your house.
Private bussiness care only about profit - they don't care about you, no matter the field: health, commerce, public transport, electricity.
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
@cr4yv3n But lets expand a litle on that profit motive. Let me ask you how do you make the most money in the long term ? By ripping off your customers ? By providing them shitty overpriced products ? I dont think so every one would stop buying your products and you would go´out of bussiness. The only way that you can make profit long term is by providing customers service that they want better and cheaper than everyone else. I get better served in a restaurant then at DMV, where do you?
MrJigssaw1989 1 month ago
@MrJigssaw1989 What does that have to do with indispensable services that should not be "profitable" ?
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
@MrJigssaw1989 Last i checked the doctor is supposed to TREAT you, not SELL you a product <.<
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
@cr4yv3n And if you think that simply not being private means that it is somehow free and nobody is paying for it you are naive. You pay for it with higher taxes and what you get is one size fits all solution that you are forced to pay for. And the worst thing with socialazed medicine is that it gets to be a motive for suppresion of freedom and nannystatism- ban smoking, fat foods, drugs and so on. In free market you would simply pay a higher rate and that would discourage you.
MrJigssaw1989 1 month ago
@MrJigssaw1989 "socialazed medicine [...] gets to be a motive for suppresion of freedom and nannystatism- ban smoking, fat foods, drugs and so on. In free market you would simply pay a higher rate and that would discourage you."
Ok first of all this "omg state run institutions that provide BASIC WELLBEING is evil and we might aswel wear a comunist flag and it denies freedom ( freedom to live like a rat in a box maybe )" Is just bullshit red scare propaganda - wake up!
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
@MrJigssaw1989 Second of all, it WORKS right NOW all over the "normal" world.
In fact USA is the only country as far as i know with a privatized healthcare system and its citizens are one of the most unhappiest in that area in the world.
How is that better than state run BASIC services?
These key institutions never go private - private = profit uber alles. And in the field of medicine, caring for a patient comes first.
PROFIT comes never.
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
@cr4yv3n wrote "in the field of medicine, caring for a patient comes first. PROFIT comes never."
True on point A. Ignorant naivete on point B. I'm not going through years of difficult graduate level medical sciences education, and taking on tens of thousands of dollars of debt, so that I can end up with a shitty low paying job.
Profit ALWAYS matters, whether you like it or not. Do YOU work for free?
rmcdaniel423 4 weeks ago
@rmcdaniel423 Then you are not doctor material.
And since you must ask it is not "working for free" - you get paid by the state through taxes - the system works in Europe.
There is no "profit" incentive like in the US where you are taxed by private companies until you bleed money. Ignorance?
Hah, as you say buddy but it works for us - while your capitalist healthcare system is a ruin.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n My "working for free" comment was to prove a point. You profit from your knowledge and labor through tax-funded income. Would you do what you do if you made no income whatsoever? Of course not. That was my point.
I agree our system is in ruin, but I disagree that it is capitalism in the proper sense, because it's actually a poorly blended system that prevents the force of free-market competition to drive prices down.
rmcdaniel423 4 weeks ago
@rmcdaniel423 Besides, you know what?
I don't have to argue with you really. Reality so far PROVED that i am right and you are wrong.
Compare Europe healthcare with USA's healthcare.
Game over.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n Do doctors and nurses in your country work for the same wages as uneducated laborers? If you answer, "no", then you must admit that profit does matter. All people are not equal, nor is the value of the work they do and the skills that they bring. Because of this, compensation is not equal. I say not to defend crony-capitalism, which is what America suffers from, but to defend free-market voluntary exchange, which is a hypothetical dream stamped out by economic ignorance.
rmcdaniel423 4 weeks ago
@rmcdaniel423 You misunderstand profit then.
Yes they get paid more. But if they were a private bussiness they could ask how much they would want as their services are indispensable.
If you want proof why giving indispensable resource sources or indispensable services institutions to private contractors is bad - check the south America disaster when they tried to privatize a country's water network.
The company there immediatly started charging money, a lot of money.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n You also misunderstand the word "tax". Private companies cannot tax. Only govt's., with the monopoly power of coercion under threat of imprisonment, can tax. If a company or industry in America charges too high a price and gets away with it, it is because the govt has restricted the industry in a way that prevents competition. Competition is the hallmark of capitalism. Without it, it is no longer properly called capitalism, and profits become grossly distorted, as we see.
rmcdaniel423 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n Europeans misunderstand capitalism, and attack it unjustly, just as Americans misunderstand socialism, and attack it in ways that are incorrect.
It is my belief, that if we could ever get the grossly distorting influence of govt and politics out of our way, we would see free market capitalist institutions and services operating side-by-side with non-profit charity services. And the constant threat of competition would begin to drive prices down.
rmcdaniel423 4 weeks ago
@rmcdaniel423 Well it is true that state controlled institutions are funded by state tax. But government will not relenquish total control - even in the US and even in the former USSR.
All-in-all i don't think full capitalism would be a world in which i'd want to live. True capitalism = survival of the fittest and fuck the rest. It's a pretty savage environment.
True that the constant threat of competition will drive prices down but this is one side of the coin.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@rmcdaniel423 The other side is , WHERE does this "cost deduction" come from?
Lower wages , inadequate social security payments etc
A firm will never lose profit - it would fail to justify its existence if it did. The customer/ employee always loses.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n I'm sorry, I have to reenter the conversation. You are wrong to say the customer always loses. This is only true when competition is hindered by regulation or other forces. In the case of S. America, did "the company" have a monopoly on the control of water? If so, that's not a free market, and thus not a fair analogy. In order for the fit to survive, they must offer what customers want, or fail. Done in a FREE market, it is win-win. Only the greedy get fucked.
rmcdaniel423 4 weeks ago
@cr4yv3n One final remark, then I will offer you the last word. I personally see the utilitarian value in a single payer system for health care, despite being a free-market anarchist/libertarian philosophically. Intellectually, this is a dichotomy that I struggle with often. My only issue with govt-provided services has to do with the coercive nature in which funding is obtained, and in which participation is mandated. Sadly, our society is not ready to give up coercion of others.
rmcdaniel423 4 weeks ago
@rmcdaniel423 I care little for the last words really but to reply you about the coercive status of say healthcare taxes.
Well they are not coercive at all, you pay them if you want.
However if you don't pay them and need medical attention you pay almsot double or triple at a private clinic.
Those who pay the tax gets assured free ( well "free" minus the tax anyway ) medical care. Consider it an insurance of some sort.
I agree FORCING people to a system is not the right way.
cr4yv3n 4 weeks ago
soooo if america can spend billions on killing farmers they cant spend a fraction of that lookign after there own people.....MAKES SENCE!
wait......
TheGonzaPoker 1 month ago
The United States. But for how much longer?
nippyhippy123 1 month ago
how does a silver spoon taste?
Jason1975ism 1 month ago
I hope you will still support corporatism/capitalism/hiddenslavery, when you get poor and cant afford flu medicine... Capitalist douchebag.
Docs4 1 month ago
I have little to say on this, except that look around the world America. What you call "Socialised medicine" we call universal healthcare. So many of us have much cheaper systems where we are all entitled to healthcare regardless of personal wealth and it doesn't break our bank. Stop with the Ideological warfare and start looking after your own people, it's about personal respect of human life.
tyrthedisipliner 1 month ago
As an American, I have learned to no longer apologize for the stupidity of my countrymen. Instead I put out a disclaimer that not all Americans are this naive and moronic.
cosmicforums 1 month ago
Comment removed
2411Hellokitty 1 month ago
"Socialism" in America is like middle of the spectrum nearly EVERYWHERE ELSE.
America had a wonderful balanced system years back, but today, thanks to bull shit spit out by the right, we're just throwing a sucker Hail Mary to the rich instead of investing in EVERYONE.
It just goes to show you don't actually care about your country, just parts, and would rather suck a rich mans dick than help your fellow victimized neighbors.
This is why everyone hates you but still watches. You're a train-wreck.
OtakuRebel 1 month ago
If people fully understood private care they would not not support it.
Capitanvolume 1 month ago
@irishgodfatherchris To be honest, I would love to be in Australia if I were an entrepreneur wanting to start and grow a business.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@irishgodfatherchris @irishgodfatherchris I don't have the time to go into Australian central banking, but I do know Australia is much less Socialist than the US. Australia ranks #3 behind Hong Kong and Singapore on an index of economic freedom. The US is #10. Even Canada ranks higher than the US. Social programs can be sustained at least for a while. The more free market the country is, and the smaller and fewer the social programs are, the longer they can last.
cbl2988 1 month ago
Simple facts:
US healthcare cost 16% GDP (8% from government, 8% from individuals.
1/5 uninsured, 3 years lower life expectancy.
UK healthcare: 8%GDP (8% from government, 0% from individuals)
100% coverage, 3 years increased life expectancy, and better overall health. No bills at all.
The costs have risen faster in the USA than any other country.
I don't need to come down on any side, as the numbers do it for me.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
I can't hear the capitalist guy over my minimum wage and union
CaptainToast09 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If the US did not have the most expensive healthcare system in the entire world, spending around 15% of its GDP on healthcare, and if the predominantly public healthcare system in the UK didn't cost about half that, then you'd have a good point. But it does, so you don't.
MannequinnRepublick 1 month ago
Comment removed
MannequinnRepublick 1 month ago
When you're in your 20-30s, single with a Job that has health care= No problems! if you have kids and no health care, ya gotta problem. No job=BIG problem. 40-50s no matter what, health care becomes an issue. You have a job & health care, but now diagnosed with stage 4 cancer=BIG problem. No Job= INSURMOUNTABLE problem. 60-70s retired middle class, w/ any health care (Including Medicaid) any sickness= INSURMOUNTABLE problem. No health care at all= Grave. When you're young it's not an issue...yet
coyoteself 1 month ago
im pretty sure your legally retarded
TheDabamer4 1 month ago
Hope you have money if you get ill.
Serdo 1 month ago
thats communism symbol stupid american
gan0nsl4y3r 1 month ago
@gan0nsl4y3r It's the same thing you stupid lefty...... USSR (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics)... You Fail!!
johndoylejd 1 month ago
@johndoylejd ah name calling, is that what conservatives always fall down to? (i assume you are conservative right wing because you called me stupid lefty) USSR was socialism its name only, socialism like european is not the same thing like stalinist socialism ie soviet communism
gan0nsl4y3r 1 month ago
Yep it's great in the UK, we aren't dying in the waiting rooms as I've heard it been reported in the USA. Think of the word "social" yeah? It's not socialism to have health care, you can have capitalism and not be a dick to people's health.
jayphys85 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jayphys85
"Yep it's great in the UK, we aren't dying in the waiting rooms as I've heard it been reported in the USA."
So you take propaganda as fact?
itachi705 1 month ago
you know all the other countries are laughing at you right?
sverdlovX 1 month ago 23
@sverdlovX
yep thats true. In Australia we have social Healthcare within our system and its great, and most people in Australia WANTS more and better social healthcare.
kal9990 1 month ago
@sverdlovX He's a Libertarian. He doesn't know that other countries even exist.
PT109Boat 1 month ago
@sverdlovX then those countries should stop doing ALL of their medical RandD in the US, and come up with their own advancement with their own tax dollars instead of US investors.
ajgolfer1 1 month ago
@ajgolfer1 Except they don't do all their medical R&D in America, do they cupcake. Methinks you just pulled that fact out of your ass.
BlankVellum 1 month ago
@sverdlovX We are laughing at you, bitch. The U.S. has five articles on Wikipedia listing inventions made in the U.S. Every other country has one article. It's like a burger flipper laughing at a theoretical physicist, LOL.
itachi705 1 month ago
@sverdlovX
You know all the other countries are going to fall when the US does right?
ProDCloud 1 month ago
@sverdlovX Why laugh? If the US Dollar fails, the world fails, basically you should be on your knees praying that our politicians don't fuck it up. Our politicians are your politicians basically.
GOllumboy101 1 month ago
Health Care Funded By Private Insurance Companies: Because we all learned in elementary school that buying retail beats buying wholesale. Right?
termsofusepolice 1 month ago
@irishgodfatherchris Trust me, I am just as critical of the US as I am of Europe.
cbl2988 1 month ago
Yah sure, a bill that forces people to buy health insurance from capitalist companies is socialist. That totally makes sense in the same way that giving billions of dollars to banks is now considered socialist.
Conservatives basically think government they don't support equals socialism. They have no real theoretical understanding of it and use it as a boogeyman to make people fear liberalism. No understanding of history at all.
CoatsandLinen 1 month ago
@CoatsandLinen
Well, they are conservative.
Mathenaut 1 month ago
All I am hearing is, "you selfish capitalists are so greedy! Now give your money! Gimme, gimme, gimme!"
cbl2988 1 month ago
@npe1 I think that because I understand the primary causes of the business cycle. I have never heard of the "greedy" business cycle before. Probably because it is an easy scape goat for people who don't really understand economics. Of course I am concerned for people. I am concerned that everyone is going to be poor once the shit hits the fan.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@levishelley55 I love your theoretical exposition. Very enlightening. No wonder we are all in the shitter.
cbl2988 1 month ago
ANDTHAT THING IT SAYS ABOUT BARRIERS TO ENTRY BULLSHIT
levishelley55 1 month ago
THIS IS PROPAGANDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
levishelley55 1 month ago
I get a kick out of all these foreigners that bust on Americas once non socialist health care. Research online the number of patients Hershey Medical Center in PA receives in 1 year that are foreigners looking for some of the worlds most advanced treatment that capitalism has produced. America may aswell fall into socialism because we no longer have the majority of people with the drive and determination to be anything else, just gimmy gimmy gimmy!
myNifty350 1 month ago
Pretty soon, no one will be able to pay for healthcare! Good job, Socialism and Keynesian economics!
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 you are starting to piss me off commenting on all these things like your the knowledge king. There is no waiting arround in england we believe that we should help each other not be selfish dicks like you.
Dont talk about economics like you know whats happening the only reason america hasnt crashed and burned is because it exploits all countries.
I can tell your are a republican probably christian, you people are responsible for how fucked the world is today . bush voting fag
levishelley55 1 month ago
Which US government controlled faggot made this video?????
i live in the UK where ANYONE and EVERYONE gets free healthcare why the fuck would americans want such an animalistic and barbaric society where people dont even help each other. just so some can pocket the difference.
What if you got CANCER HUH??????? you got 100k for cheamo? DIDNTTHINK SO
levishelley55 1 month ago 7
@levishelley55 Did you seriously miss the part where he explained why chemo costs "100k" in the first place? And guess what, the UK is in deep shit right now because they can't afford their entitlements. You also forget to mention the extremely long waits in the UK due to rationed care. France is much more market based and even they are suffering from not being able to pay for it for much longer, so now even they are having to ration. Europe is falling apart BECAUSE of shit like this.
cbl2988 1 month ago