The man who made this video is utterly retarded. He doesnt know the first thing about this subject. Even the expression "socialised" health care is just part of the compendium of misinformation put out before the 2008 election. And of course it draws your eye away from the millions and millions of Americans who simply do not have access to healthcare because of money. America is in many ways a backward society. Talk to a Norwegian, a dutch woman, a Welshman, a Dane..theyll tell you
I somehow feel that the US has missed the point in a public healthcare system the idea of it is you all pay taxes into the system which is then used to subsidise medicine, pay for hospital trips, doctor's appointments and so on, the idea of it is not to make money but to treat sick people and save lives, it is NEVER about money.
why do you start with talking about health care and then draw comparisons to cars? why not talk about getting major medical procedures like heart operations, cancer treatment or your typical visit to the doctor for blood work. It does not sound so frivolous when you stick to the medical care issue instead of your ridiculous car analogy. You most likely get your insurance from your job that pays for about two thirds the cost for tax breaks and other laws passed after wwII so your a hypocrite!
Hi Toto. Just watched Sicko; every time I see it I think of you & your ill thought out ideas about universal healthcare. Just thought I'd drop by to let you know my babes are thriving under our universal healthcare system that you think is so shite. Thought you might also like to know that my taxes paid for a local kid in our area to be revived recently when he stopped breathing. AND nobody has complained about the cost. Strangely, they were all just relieved he was ok. Odd thing, caring! :-)
By law, Ambulance men check your heart regardless of what is in your wallet. If you are unconscious, they will check your wallet to see if you have any special medical needs and find out who to notify of your condition.
Even if you tell them you are not able to pay they will still give you service.
With "Obama Care" the government will have little interest in wallets, They will already be making direct withdraws from privat bank accounts.
That's false. No health insurance doesn't mean no healthcare, just like a government queue does not mean access to healthcare. Hospitals by law have to take anybody who goes into the ER.
Insurance and pharma companies love Obama's plan, because it will give them a pot of gold. They're spending 150 million in ads to help Obama. Totovader explained why in his video. In this longterm, politicians will blame greed for the result of the subsidy.
ALL matter is mearly energy condensed to a slow vibration, experincing its self subjectively... there is no such thing as death, life is just a dream and you are the imagination of yourselfs
@JHBowden79 I have a massive lump in my abdomen and have visited the E.R. seven times in the last nine months or so. The E.R. merely makes sure I'm not going to die on their watch, then kick me out because I can't pay.
This has destroyed my credit, my health, and reduced my life expectancy drastically.
I still can't get the lump identified, and it causes me problems you don't want to hear.
My problems are so severe I can't even do things I love doing most of the time.
@bigbother1 lol I bet you think it's really free or that its not being paid for with borrowed money. Socialism is failing in europe. Sadly most won't realize this til there's nothing left
ALL matter is mearly energy condensed to a slow vibration, experincing itself subjectively... there is no such thing as death, life is just a dream and you are the imagination of yourselves
You have misunderstood how the system works. Taking Norway as an example, where I come from.
If someone has a problem with public transportation, due to some kind of a handicap. They do not receive any cool car or anything, but a simple car made for handicapped people.
Norway is currently trying to lower the price for public transportation, so that less people will use cars.
Study how the system works, in countries it DOES work. How come Norway is not yet bankrupted?xD
This guy is not wrong because he is a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.
He's wrong because he is young.
The truth is that the older you are the more funerals you have been to, the more accidents you have seen, the more friends you have buried and the more social injustices you have witnessed.
The older you are the greater the chances that you have watch a parent or a loved one suffer and watched them wither away right in front of your eyes.
"in addition to being immoral" Immoral to want to see people free from pain and disease????
"unnatural supply and demand" Do you mean the need for a supply of sick people???
"Which are the hallmarks of a free and successful market" Do you mean we will need a constant supply of sick people to keep the health care market viable for profit?????
How about the 100 billion in subsidies we give the pharmaceutical companies????
Welcome to America!!
The only place where no one would ever consider how much it would cost to save their child's life in the E.R. and would never want to see their child in needless pain.............
But don't think their neighbors child deserves the same considderation...
money, money, money. that's all people think about. there are plenty of sick and needy children who NEED free health care. why is tax money even involved in the conversation. we are talking about human LIFE. we spend billions on war EVERY SINGLE DAY and we cant afford free coverage for the sick or dying? go F yourself you greedy bastards. not only should we give free health care, it should be one of our inaliable rights as people.
I abosulety agree. What is ridiculous about this video is that the maker of it does not address real facts, he only creates a stupid analogy of cars, proving that his ideas have no merit in the physical world and only in the idealized world of fiction. If the maker of this video were serious he would put his ideas to the test against real socialized health care systems and see if his propositions are correct. The fact that he can't makes him look very fraudulent. Simple people, I tell ya.
This is ridiculous. This guy has no idea what he is talking about. A) The subsidized car analogy has no bearing whatsoever on subsidized medicine. I live in Canada, and I promise you, people don't get sick just to take advantage of free healthcare. B) Even his car subsidy analysis is flawed. The government would be able to regulate it right away, ie: you get 20,000 towards a car, once. Simple, to the point, no problems. I'm guessing he's a first year struggling economics student.
The subsidized care analogy most certainly does have a lot to do with socialized medicine. It's called an analogy.
According to the Fraser Institute Canada's waiting times continue to increase even with massive amounts spent on it.
People don't get sick on purpose, but if you give something away for free, they will take it. Why do you think all these states that dabbled in UHC here are way over budget?
I'd have to say you've never taken an economics class.
I agree, healthcare is so different from the automotive market that just trying to make an analogy, even for explanatory purposes,is nonsense...and the whole video is based on that.
Then you should canada and keep your opinions abooot your wonderful socialism to yourself. And contrary to what you think sitting in your trailor in bumfuck BC eating moose burgers what he says is factually correct. Do you guys have economics courses up there or do the extreme temperatures freeze common sense
Not everybody needs a car but everyone needs healthcare or mandatory health insurance. Even fit and healthy people need this incase they have an accident. Otherwise it's like gambling. If America don't go for public healtcare then they should at least subsidize the very old and young by the government so they don't pay too much.
"If America don't go for public healtcare then they should at least subsidize the very old." What the hades do you think Medicare is? I checked your profile and you're in the UK. You just made me laugh. I suggest you learn a bit about health care in America before talking about it.
Cars are a luxury while in the presence of descent public transport such as subways/busses.
The same cannot be said for healthcare.
Remember, an economy not only needs easy access for workers to get to their jobs but also requires them to be healthy in order to increase productivity.
You can't really compare health care and the automobile industry.
I live in a country where necessary health care (not including cosmetic/unneeded procedures) is practically free and guess what... it works just fine.
"You can't really compare health care and the automobile industry."
Yes you can, it's an analogy. He's comparing the "right" to health care with the "right" to a car and comparing what would happen once the gov't created an artificial demand for X.
We can see this with ethanol sudsidies as well. They've manipulated the market and created a demand for ethanol when it would never get funded by the private sector. I don't think you get the gist of the video.
I also find it funny that you're suddenly "busy", yet you have plenty of time to challenge Totovader and spam message boards. Let me know when you're not so "busy."
totovader, won't you respond to my comments? you seemed to be pretty hot on responding to gta55gjs's comments, I'd be interesting in debating the issue with you.
Don't you miss a vital point in this video? People want cars, but people don't want to get sick. If you get sick you get sick regardless of the cost of beeing sick. It's not like people descide to get more cancer cause the medisines are free.
Besides, other services like police, firefighters and the army is sosialised. Police are paid for by tax, not by the persons beeing robbed. Your argument could be extended to saying that since police services are "free" people committ more crime ;)
Geirg: I could turn your argument around on you. "other services like police, firefighters and the army is sosialised."
Like health care, those who actually do pay taxes will foot the bill. Since the top 50% of income tax filers pay 97% of all income taxes collected (and thus are the ones funding the bulk of police services) then the police should protect them more often than poor people right?
In addition, the gov't is charged to defend the citizenry.
You could turn my argument around, but for that to be effective I would have to mean that those that pay should get more then those that don't.
When it comes to services like the police, firefighting and the army I firmly belive that every citizen should get the same protection no matter how much tax he paid. Anyone seriously mean that poor people should burn cause they can't pay for firefighters?
I just extend the protecion offred by the above services to health.
Yeah, and universal health care (single-payer) has been such a success in Canada. My artgument is effective, there is no "right" to health care. IF there is, the next time we have a nurses shortage we'll grab you off the strett to start emptying bedpans.
The gov't is called to ensure the common defense, but no mention of health care as a right.
You still haven't addressed the gist of the video above if health care becomes a "right." You'll end up with services being rationed. As in Canada
If you want to be philosofical about it then the consept of rights are a human consept inforced by those with the might to do so. In a democracy we are the mighty ones (at least in theory) and thus can define whatever rights we want.
As for health care getting to a point where the supply is less then the demand, and thus must be rationed. I'm assuming that people don't want to get sick and that price of health care don't affect the rate people get sick in.Demand won't increase because its 'free'
"Demand won't increase because its 'free" Are you kidding? The individual mandate in Mass. has come in way over budget because people are tripping over themselves to get under the gov't-funded program. In addition, Hawaii just dropped (after only 7 months) universal health coverage for children because people stopped paying for it themselves and it was a budget-buster.
Conn. and Wisc. dropped UHC plans because they were projected to be larger than the state budget.
No joke. Price of treatment don't affect a persons chance of getting a illness. Noone is going to activly get cancer cause treatment is free. Given that people want to not be sick then people won't be more sick then today. However, today we have people that don't get treatment cause they can't afford it. So, demand won't be higher then today, but supply will need to rise to meet the demand that exist today.
Given that people get sick at the same rate no matter the cost of treatment then demand will not rise even if its free. However, today you got people that don't get treatment cause they can't afford it. So the demand is not beeing met. UHC will cost more then today because it needs to rise supply to meet the existing demand.
Increase in demand would only happen if people got sick _because_ treatment is free. I'm assuming people don't want to be sick, no matter the cost of treatment.
The Rand Institute did a study of families who pay for their own health care and those who get it for free. There was virtually no difference in the quality of care. The big difference in the end was the family that had its health care paid for racked up a much higher bill.
Sure the total bill will be higher with free health care, but thats cause atm we have people that don't get treatment. People that choose to not get treatment due to cost will choose to get treatment when its free.
Today there is a demand for cheap health care that is not beeing met. With UHC that demand will be, but we won't get more demand then today for the reasons I've stated so far.
"A large bill divided by 300M is small" Where are you getting this 300 million figure? You're still not addressing the main crux of the vid above. In due time there will be rationing.
So, you need to address the crux of the vid with someone other than "people don't choose ot get sick." That doesn't address the fact that all these UHC plans are well over budget and if health care is a right the system will eventually go bankrupt.
Looked at the Medicare spending projections lately?
300M is aprox the number of US citizens if I'm not mistaken.
Rationing comes when there is a demand greater then the supply and demand must be met. If demand keeps increasing then the supply must also increase to prevent rationing. Makes sense. However, I disagree with you that demand for health care will keep increasing. I say it will level off, due to the simple fact that people don't want to be sick.
But since you don't like that argument I'll come with a new one in the next post :)
Rationing will not be a problem with UHC. If, as you claim, there will not be enough supply to meet the demand there is nothing to stop anyone going to private HC if they have the money for it. So, the people that can afford it go private, and the rest get rationed HC. That is a improvement over todays system where those who can afford it go private and those who can't go without.
Can you name any nation with a UHC system that has gone banckrupt?
Canada's single-payer system is on the brink. For example, I forget the exact date, but going with current projections, Alberta's healh care spending will consume its entire budget.
Canada's spending on health care has skyrocketed in the last 10 years, yet waiting times continue to increase. There are more MRI machines in Pittsburgh than there is in all of Canada.
You continue to refer to those "going without health care," but as I told another poster, that figure is bogus.
yeah, this geirg moron must not watch the news or read a paper either, its not just canada, but great britian and several other countries are falling under their wieght of social programs. What the hell is wrong with people who just want the government to GIVE them everything, my god is just pisses me off.
several people have already named several that are going under with UHC, including canada, and any country in europe including great britain. Can you name any country that isnt being crushed by the wieght of thier UHC program. Of course not, idiots and facts dont go hand in hand
Clintusmaximus-- Canada and Europe spend about half of what we do on health care, so yes, there are many countries that are not being crushed by the weight of their UHC program. Our non-universal system costs twice as much.
You say that "socialised" helthcare is doomed to fail. Well its been going since 1948 and doesnt show any signs of slowing. I for one am proud of my countries achievement. ever heard of a CAT scan? they were developed within the NHS along with many other groundbreaking treatments. This is our moon shot, and it has saved more lives than yours, which after all is what counts, isn't it?
In addition POV, you're more likely to get a transplant here in the USA than the UK and more likely to survive for one year after it.
What I find funny is that you still haven't addressed the crux of the video above (such as the part where services start to be rationed because it's breaking the budget) and instead you've thrown out red herrings.
At the end of the day it is a question of priorities. You americans prioritise spending on the armed forces and prisons while class sizes in school reach 40 and 50 million go without healthcare. Thats your perogative. European nations are generally content with having average sized armies, being taxed slightly more and having effective services. You put a man on the moon, we developed universal healthcare (NHS is the third biggest employer in the world).
POV, your mantra that there are 50 million Americans without health care is not only off-topic (our system is unfortunately half-socialized already) but it is false because it includes
1) Illegal aliens
2) People who qualify for SCHIP or Medicaid and fail to enroll
3) People who switched jobs and had a probationary period
4) Young people who opt-out because they are healthy
Why are you bragging about having a massive taxpayer-funded bureacracy? Wouldn't a stronger private sector save $?
You might think so, but according to OECD figures UK spending on healthcare in 2003 was aproximately half of US spending. UK spending was also high historically speaking at that time.
Despite all the cash you give to HMO's etc. life expectancy in the US is still lower than in the UK, a country that is often called "the sick man of Europe".
As for the 4 groups you mention, 3 of them are americans, and are therefore americans without insurance. It beggars belief that you find it acceptable that switching jobs should leave someone temporarily uninsured!
By using the word "mantra" you attempt to make me sound like some kind of kook. Actually the idea that universal healthcare is some kind of evil is a particularly american attitude. Most of the world has some form of socialised healthcare (africa apart). In developing countries this is often poor quality, but there are almost always parallel private systems in place.
(The last 3 replies were aimed at professorenigma)
"Actually the idea that universal healthcare is some kind of evil is a particularly american attitude. Most of the world has some form of socialised healthcare (africa apart)."
"As for the 4 groups you mention, 3 of them are americans." You totally miss the point. Most of the people who are americans already qualify for other entitlements such as: Medicaid and SCHIP, but fail to enroll.
"you find it acceptable that switching jobs should leave someone temporarily uninsured." I guess you've never run a business? If we allowed purchasing of private insurance plans across state lines that are void of costly mandates then you could carry that package from job-to-job.
As I laid out at freewebs..com/professor_enigma/universalhealthcare..htm one of the main reasons health care has become more expensive in the U.S. is because the gov't controls more health care dollars and mandates have risen. This is all backed up by figures, not generalized rag.
Your lower life expectancy argument is derived from a flawed WHO report which didn't take into account lifestyles (smoking, eating burgers) and the immigrant melting pot.
You seem to think that social medicine is always slow and substandard. This is simply not the case. Your government runs your armed forces. Are they substandard?
NHS waiting lists have been long in the past, after 15 years of chronic underinvestment by thatcherite government. However these days in most cases treatment is rapid. There is a guarantee that you will be seen by a specialist within two weeks for cancer. In practice it is usually much less.
Rationing: This does exist within the NHS, especially for new drug treatments, however most patients will never experience this. If they do they can buy the drugs privately (although this is very contraversial atm). Triage has always been part of medicine, not that that makes it any more pleasant.
Under the current US system new and expensive treatments are often refused by insurers because they are "experimental".
Choice: NHS patients have wide choices. They can opt to see any doctor they like or attend any hospital assuming the doctor will accept them. They can also opt to go private.
Note that the current US system does not offer this level of choice as insurers have arrangements with specific providers and they can refuse to fund treatment from others.
Secondly, although is is possible to have social healthcare programmes where the government does not directly provide treatment (e.g. medicare) these systems run into the price escalation problems you describe. When the government does provide care directly as in the NHS, competition is a different beast entirely as competing with the NHS ensures that private providers had better offer a better than standard service at an affordable cost because the patient can always go back to the NHS
Cars are not like medicine. medical treatment is not undertaken lightly as it is usually unpleasant (cosmetic treatments aside - they are not provided in social health except in extremis). Making medical treatment "free" does not increase demand - In fact nations with social healthcare programmes tend to have lower disease rates and longer life expectancy due to the greater emphasis on preventative healthcare.
The person cannot pay or work due to being too ill. 5-7 days later, the person is well again, but has missed out a few days of work due to illness, which costs his company money, etc.
Now, under my countrys healthcare system, the person does not have to worry about cost, etc. They simply go to a Doctor, the Doctor subscribes them medication and in 2-3 days, the person is better and off to work.
What you don't understand is that the person had to wait in line for 4 weeks, got substandard care, and still had to pay for it in terms of losing out on work, and making everyone else pay for it.
In no way did you even address the video in your last 4 rambling posts. All you're doing is telling me what I already know- not addressing the facts presented in the video. If you can't do that- then move on.
Secondly, let me start with an example. Lets say that a person makes $10,000 to $20,000 a year. This person has to pay taxes, cost of living, mortgage, etc. This means that the person does not have much money left. Suddenly, the person falls ill one day with an illness. So, the person goes to a Doctor and asks for treatment. The Doctor says that the treatment will cost a few thousand dollars.
Firstly, this created jobs, which meant that the Government could give money to consumers in a productive manner. This had a positive knock on effect on the rest of the economy.
This also allowed for more hospitals, etc to be built which was a further positive influence to the economy.
Creating jobs where there isn't a need for one is not a good thing: that just means its a racket in which the government takes a cut. Taking money from people and calling it an economy isn't good. It's immoral, and it's not healthy.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Socialized medicine is not simply government ONLY healthcare. But if it makes you feel any better, that's exactly the conclusion of any socialized system, as the video points out.
There's nothing bureaucratic in this system, and inefficiency,as always,is caused by people who don't take their job seriously more than by the system itself.I know many people who work in the biomedical segment,and I assure you that competition is very strong,and that's due to the fact that companies have to win tenders in order to supply a certain hospital,and every hospital is managed like a company itself.Socialism has NOTHING to do with this.Your example with cars is just not pertinent.
What influences people to "take their job seriously"? How about competitive pay- how about people who go into the profession because it's what they want to do? A free market system influences that, and yes it's part of the system. Having a socialist system on top of that destroys competition- not influences it. Forced competition is just bidding, not free market. THAT IS SOCIALISM whether you like it or not.
I'm a strong supporter of free market, but free market,by definition,implies that "you get what you paid for" in terms of quality, which is great for everything,but not for healthcare, that should have a trasversal fruibility,at least in theory,but we are discussing on ideal terms,because in reality,even a totally free market doesn't exist ( lobbies,monopolies,etc...). What is your idea of free market applied to the health system of a nation? Something similar to USA or something different ?
I don't see the contradiction. Monopolies and lobbies are situations in which competition is absent,or very limited to a few companies that hold the majority of market shares,therefore the market is not 100% free anymore (what i'm saying is that it is not an ideal situation). It is clear to me that you are not defending US system, but you didn't answered the question. I don't see how a regulation-free market would help a health system
A "regulation-free" market helps the health system because of the reasons I have outlined in the video. In a free market there are no monopolies or lobbies because there is nothing to lobby for and the government is powerless to allow monopolies. This is your contradiction: you claim to be for 100% free market, but then turn around and proclaim that one certain sector needs to be the complete opposite.
I said I was for free market, not for 100% free market (check above), and yes I think healthcare has to be regulated in some way for many reasons, equality and ethics above all. I understand this discussion is getting on a merely dialectical plane. Thanks for your replies, your video is very interesting. Greetings from Italy !
You don't know what you're talking about. Public healthcare (or SOCIALIZED healthcare as US press like to call it in a scary anticommunist fashion) is NOT AN IDEA , it is a reality in every european country. And it works very well , that's a fact. I know it because I live in Italy. I don't have direct experience of your Healtcare system, so I won't criticise it, but if there's and IDEA that scares me, that's needing an insurance to be cured...
The problem is that people are willing to accept a crappy, inefficient, and bureaucratic system- they will even say it's "working very well" because they don't know any better- they think that as long as everyone is getting the same crappy care, it's a GOOD THING.
for anyone who doesn't understand what this video is trying to convey.there are people online living in countries who pratice socialized medicine.ask questions pro and con ask how it works and what kind of services you receieve.anyone in this country can go to an emergency room in most hospitals and receieve necessary treatment,whether you have money or not.they won't treat hang nails.i have insurance they won't pay for that.even with insurance there is still copay.
In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[100] saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[107] She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents[100][108] and urged speedy work on building the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[109]
Hi totoevader,thought of you the other day when I had a run in with my scooter health care system. Cut my foot on a public hol, the doc was closed so had to go to emergency.I was disgusted to wait a whole 2 hours. When I was provided a clean bed in my own room while I was given a local anaesthetic and 2 stitches using sterile equipment I was absolutely ashamed of what my country provided. Imagine such a disgraceful system. Imagine charging me nothing for this service. What an absolute disgrace!
Yeah, you're right. Those two kids of ours that were both over 5 wks prem and required specialist medical attention during and for approx 3 wks after birth make for a miserable world when that damn nasty healthcare system doesn't send me a bill. Damn I hate paying for these privelages with my taxes and still having enough left over to maintain a high living standard. And I think it added insult to injury when they provided lunch in the neonate intensive care unit for feeding Mums.Outrageous!;-)
And don't be fooled by the idea that YOU are paying for your healthcare- you AND EVERYONE ELSE is paying for your healthcare. The video you can't seem to understand- despite its simplicity- shows why that's a bad idea.
Yes, I pay, my neighbour pays, Joe Bloggs down the street pays and everybody gets access to healthcare from the richest to the poorest. And if you're really fussy about your healthcare you can get yourself private insurance and get a tax rebate. Although many countries outside the USA have similar systems, all that are better than the USA model, you must be right. It couldn't possibly work. Anyway, I was just mentioning that I thought about you the other day b/c I did. I smiled, too! :-)
Popular doesn't mean right- and it doesn't mean successful. Once again, you're doing nothing for your argument- in a free market you would still get stitches- and it's highly unlikely you would have to wait 2 hours, unless you wanted to. But it's also highly unlikely that someone who needs serious medical care would go without it- unlike in your "better" systems. To you, "better" just means everyone gets the same shitty care.
There has to be a better way outside of this in the box thinking you are demonstrating. Do you actually think that we should always strive to accumulate wealth. Have you ever watched a person die in front of you? It makes you really think outside of the box and realize there has to be more to life. I guess you could say I am for changing current systems because what is the point of thinking everything is about economics.. There are so many other variables in this life besides money.
If something is designed to specifically NOT acquire wealth- in other words: if you can't get paid for it, then how can it possibly be successful? Though that's not the point of the video- you're simply trying to appeal to emotion, so it's the best response I can give you. If you want to actually HELP PEOPLE- then you should PAY ATTENTION to the video. Creating a system which WILL NOT WORK just so you can pretend that you care is stupid.
great vid but you left out so many things such as the rich who are paying the taxes leave which takes away more than 70& of our tax dollars in the first place so its all placed on the little guy anyway you forgot to mention fred who dropped out of school does drugs and works part time at mcdonalds is being paid for by the hard worker and that corporate tax increaces have their effect on ALL other american industrys which leaves us buying from forign countrys funninling the rest of our money out
totovader, great explanation. Haven't viewed all your vids yet but would love to see one on oil companies and speculators. Maybe I'd understand that better than I do now. What you say really makes sense.
A single payer healthcare system is also a single BUYER healthcare system which has its advantages, as comptition is even MORE steap.
For example, I'm from Canada and we get our medical drugs up here for very cheaply and they're of US brand names, yet we have socialized healthcare.
This is because drug campainies have to produce them as cheaply as possible as the Canadian government is there only customer north of the boarder. So we pay much less then you do for the exact same products.
And thanks to you that cost gets passed down to us- if we were to try and regulate that cost any more, it would mean less revenue for the drug companies translating into less R&D- especially for expensive drugs.
Are you comparing CARS-HEALTH??? You have no idea about Human Rights. Everybody has the right to live. You think you have the right to live because you have money... but not everyone is as lucky as you.
In Europe, nobody dies for having no money enough. Here in Spain, you can access to very very expensive surgery for free if you need it. And doctors are well paid by the government. Universal Healthcare is just the better (and fair) system.
The right to live does not translate into a right to force others to care for you. The right to own money means that you can exchange that for goods and services in equal trade, not that you can force others to give you their money or enslave them to the will of the sick. GOOD doctors are NOT well paid- which is why they're leaving in droves. Socialized medicine is not a solution- it's a death sentence, but it just makes you feel better about NOT HAVING TO CARE.
I feel blessed for living in a country with socialized medicine. Good doctors are well paid, but you can keep on thinking you are in the best system in the world. If you lose all your money, or have an illness and you need a very expensive treatment, I bet you will change your mind ;)
On the contrary- if I needed a very expensive treatment I am "blessed" for living in a country that allows me the opportunity to seek that treatment through charity, insurance, or even paying for it myself. I don't think you understand: expensive treatments DO NOT EXIST in your country. Quality of care is significantly higher in the US- and that's where I would rather be.
Have you ever been to the US? What difference does it make as to whether I've been there or not?
The point is that when expensive treatment- or higher quality of care is needed- people come to the US. This is especially true for cancer treatment. Where would you rather be when you need a kidney transplant or chemotherapy? Look at the history of the Canadian system if you're confused.
I don't need to travel for a kidney trasplant, cause I live in the country with more experience in trasplant in Europe.
totovader, I'm just telling you I know how your system works and I know first-person how works mine. And I just RECOMMEND you american to change the system. I don't win anything writing this. I'm telling u that ur arguments are just inestable.
More experience in transplant? That's a new one- as if experience is all it takes: kidneys fall out of the sky. I don't know what you mean by "inestable"- but the video shows that your system simply DOES NOT work, and any form of it is doomed to follow the consequences of failure as most have.
Life expectancy is not an indicator of quality of health- it's an indicator of life expectancy. Far too many factors go into life expectancy (personal habits, accidents, suicide, etc) to be an indicator.
That doesn't mean more experience- and it certainly doesn't mean higher success. I'll keep saying socialized medicine doesn't work because it doesn't- facts, statistics, and reality show that to be the case.
I hope that I never ever use the political power of the State to force someone else to take care of me. I have NO PROBLEM with asking friends and family for help if I were ever to get in such a situation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
YOIG, your life-expectancy figures are utter horse manure. They DO NOT take into account lifestyles such as--too many burgers and cigarettes, which are NOT a reflection on how good a health care system is. It also DOES NOT take into account immigration factors and the U.S. is much more ethnically diverse than those other countries. I've read that poorly-contrived WHO report you're parroting and it has been debunked.
"too many burgers and cigarettes, which are NOT a reflection on how good a health care system is"--They are a reflection on the effectiveness of preventive medicine. The quality of a healthcare system is subjective, it will depend on what you value more. As with many Americans, you are caught up on technologically advanced medicine (transplants, CABG, Cancer treatment, the expensive stuff). If you only consider these US healthcare shines, if you take preventive med into account, not so much.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You seriously just made me squirt milk out my nose. There is no such thing as "preventative medicine" pertaining to those who smoke cigarettes. Huh? I don't see any specific stats from you, nor do I see you specifically attacking any of the premises in the video above. Better luck next time.
What's your point? Take a whole bunch of drugs "just in case" you get some form of cancer? You need some specifics.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In addition YOIG, if you read some literature that was not popularized, packaged and dumbed-down for the masses you might know that the U.S. (How much does Spain's model differ from the UK model) does in fact outperform the UK on several fronts.
One of those is transplants. In a nutshell, more heart and liver translplants are performed in the US and the survival rate here is much higher.
Government subsidies for important services are a terrible idea! We should also stop subsidizing our police and firefighters. Let's put an end to socialized safety!
No, clearly I'm wrong- we should do things that don't work with no care or concern about whether they are successful or not just so we can feel better about ourselves and not actually have to do anything. We should let the government- who is obviously very successful at it- care for people. Let's put an end to care altogether and just subsidize it.
I'd like to see the response this would get if submitted for a public health course. Make your point by using a charged term "socialized medicine" then make some nonsensical comparison to an imaginary car subsidy program. I guess we are all entitled to our opinions, as unfounded and ignorant as they may be.
excellent analogy! People don't realize how bad our healthcare system would be if we continued down the socialized medicine path. Take a look at the VA hospitals....take a look at canada, england, and much of europe. The people there frequently say, "oh, it's wonderful, i don't know how you can survive without it." In reality, they don't know any better. Our system is FAR superior to anyone elses. Say the French President has a life threatening illness..where is he going to go for care?USA
what the hell dude? hahaa! this guys stupidity makes me laugh. holy shit! then he probably wonders why no one likes him EVER. dont worry baby girl. socialized medicine will never fly. theres way too much money and stocks invested in private health care. media teamed up with REATARDS like you will never let it happened. theres just way too much profit in peoples troubles. do you honestly think big time CEOS CARE about you?
as we sink deeper and deeper. i KNOW your wrong too bad you cant see that
If you're going to call someone stupid or retarded, you should probably at least spell it right.
You've completely lost it. This isn't even on topic anymore, you're just looking to avoid the issue by playing stupid games. I thought you were leaving, anyway- why don't you do that now.
WHAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!! you just tripped AGAIN. DEERRRRRRR!!!! this shows how delirious you really are. first off attacking someones mispelling on youtube, is like pulling hair in a real man fight, good god dude.
second if you ACUTALLY LOOK, ONCE IN YOUR LIFE! you will see that i spelled STUPIDITY and RETARDS (like you) PERFECTLY. lol you have proved to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that you not only did not read all my statements and still replied fully to them, but you ARE in fact RETARDED!
AGAIN publicgood: you said... "Market failures mean that unfettered competition is not able to keep prices low in health care." Please provide examples of "market failures" in this context. What you said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and I want to watch you try and explain it.
What this video is about is what health economists refer to as ex post facto moral hazard. If someone else is paying for the care, you demand more of it than you otherwise would. That is an example of a market failure.
That makes no sense at all- and it is not an example of a market failure. First of all, we are talking about free markets- so "someone else paying" doesn't even apply. Seconds, that doesn't even coincide with your original statement: "Market failures MEAN that unfettered competition is not able to keep prices low..." Here you're talking about something completely different. Furthermore, "ex post facto moral hazard" is not an economic principle.
In a free market, people will buy insurance. Insurance will pay for their medical care. When an insurance company pays for their medical care, they will demand more medical care than they would if they didn't have insurance. This drives up the price and cost of medical care.
I'm saying third-party payment causes inefficient provision of health care, which is a failure of free markets. In fact, that's what you argue in this video-- that when someone else is paying, you want too much of it.
Have you honestly never heard of market failure? Why do you keep putting it in quotes? It would help this discussion if you took some economics.
"Inefficient provision of health care"? Are you mad? You're trying to save face by claiming that insurance is inefficient. Well IF IT WAS then it WOULDN'T BRING A PROFIT. Good lord- it's like sometimes you are so desperate to try and cover your tracks that you don't even THINK.
Ugh. I guess you've never heard of externalities either? What about a company that pollutes a lot and makes a small profit. That's an example of market failure you should be able to understand.
Can you provide me with an answer that MAKES SENSE WITH YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT instead of just desperately trying to find a definition for a phrase you clearly did not understand when you used it?
I already told you, but you don't understand. When a third party pays for your health care, you demand more of it than you otherwise would. This is inefficient and leads to too much care, and prices that are too high. It doesn't matter if government is paying for it, or if an insurance company in the free market is paying for it. Both have ways to try to control this problem, like not giving you any damn care you ask for.
No, what you're saying isn't even consistent with your original claim. Again, you said "Market failures mean that unfettered competition is not able to keep prices low in health care." With the nonsense you're trying to pass off, you're claiming that HEALTH INSURANCE will be UNABLE to keep costs low in health care because HEALTH INSURANCE is a market failure.
If you took economics, you need to go get a refund. If you don't know what that is- look it up.
AGAIN, you said "Market failures mean that unfettered competition is not able to keep prices low in health care."
Can you explain how your ambiguous and undefinable concept of market failure here is at all related to pollution? That's not an example of market failure at all- but I'm not going to let you toss out red herrings to avoid the original question.
You were implying that insurance companies were efficient because they made a profit. I showed you an example, polluting factories, that might make a profit, but are inefficient because they impose externalities (pollution).
this guy is a total idiot
dubyamoney 1 month ago
The man who made this video is utterly retarded. He doesnt know the first thing about this subject. Even the expression "socialised" health care is just part of the compendium of misinformation put out before the 2008 election. And of course it draws your eye away from the millions and millions of Americans who simply do not have access to healthcare because of money. America is in many ways a backward society. Talk to a Norwegian, a dutch woman, a Welshman, a Dane..theyll tell you
CobinRain 1 month ago
I somehow feel that the US has missed the point in a public healthcare system the idea of it is you all pay taxes into the system which is then used to subsidise medicine, pay for hospital trips, doctor's appointments and so on, the idea of it is not to make money but to treat sick people and save lives, it is NEVER about money.
irishgodfatherchris 3 months ago
why do you start with talking about health care and then draw comparisons to cars? why not talk about getting major medical procedures like heart operations, cancer treatment or your typical visit to the doctor for blood work. It does not sound so frivolous when you stick to the medical care issue instead of your ridiculous car analogy. You most likely get your insurance from your job that pays for about two thirds the cost for tax breaks and other laws passed after wwII so your a hypocrite!
juxtn 3 months ago
ffs have you even studied the systems? this is borderline retarded...
Darusdei 1 year ago
Al should have bought a Gold 225 Electra.
rigoletto68 2 years ago
Hi Toto. Just watched Sicko; every time I see it I think of you & your ill thought out ideas about universal healthcare. Just thought I'd drop by to let you know my babes are thriving under our universal healthcare system that you think is so shite. Thought you might also like to know that my taxes paid for a local kid in our area to be revived recently when he stopped breathing. AND nobody has complained about the cost. Strangely, they were all just relieved he was ok. Odd thing, caring! :-)
sodaphine 2 years ago
What a pity this is a complete strawman. Subsidy systems are not the zero-sum game that this video attempts to make it out to be.
GreNME 2 years ago 3
sounds correct to me.....I love free stuff. its too bad "Obamacare" is not free.
toadpadgreen 2 years ago
Americas healthcare in a sentence
No Job NO Healthcare. No Money No Healthcare,
Ambalance men check your wallet before they check your heart beat? lol
UK HEALTHCARE (NHS ) free for all no matter if your rich or poor, job or no job?
THE INSURANCE COMPANYS HATE The NHS,,,,, no money in it for them....
you pick????
bigbother1 2 years ago 3
By law, Ambulance men check your heart regardless of what is in your wallet. If you are unconscious, they will check your wallet to see if you have any special medical needs and find out who to notify of your condition.
Even if you tell them you are not able to pay they will still give you service.
With "Obama Care" the government will have little interest in wallets, They will already be making direct withdraws from privat bank accounts.
socialized medicine for a socialized nation.
toadpadgreen 2 years ago
look i understand what your saying I GET IT NOT TO WORRIE
the way it works in teh UK is like this.
We pay national insurance( NI ), it cost several pounds out of your pay check.
That pays for teh NHS, and anyone who wants to use it regardless of if you have a job or not?
You could say the majority pay for the minority who dont have a job also..
Yes some people have waited to be seen.
But thats really a small number
DID you know even really rich people use the Nhs just goes to show??
bigbother1 2 years ago 3
yes but imagine teh debt they have to pay after? lol
most hoped you never safed there lifes after seeing the health debt they have after lol
bigbother1 2 years ago
"No Job NO Healthcare. No Money No Healthcare,"
That's false. No health insurance doesn't mean no healthcare, just like a government queue does not mean access to healthcare. Hospitals by law have to take anybody who goes into the ER.
Insurance and pharma companies love Obama's plan, because it will give them a pot of gold. They're spending 150 million in ads to help Obama. Totovader explained why in his video. In this longterm, politicians will blame greed for the result of the subsidy.
JHBowden79 2 years ago
ALL matter is mearly energy condensed to a slow vibration, experincing its self subjectively... there is no such thing as death, life is just a dream and you are the imagination of yourselfs
bigbother1 2 years ago
@JHBowden79 I have a massive lump in my abdomen and have visited the E.R. seven times in the last nine months or so. The E.R. merely makes sure I'm not going to die on their watch, then kick me out because I can't pay.
This has destroyed my credit, my health, and reduced my life expectancy drastically.
I still can't get the lump identified, and it causes me problems you don't want to hear.
My problems are so severe I can't even do things I love doing most of the time.
That is U.S. health care.
looncraz 1 year ago
@bigbother1 lol I bet you think it's really free or that its not being paid for with borrowed money. Socialism is failing in europe. Sadly most won't realize this til there's nothing left
ltkhokie1 1 year ago
@ltkhokie1
nothing is free in this world my darling
when we use the term free, what we mean is its not back breaking
thats why the NHS uses a term called " free at the point of delivery "
NOW STOP ASuming you think, you know what others think
bigbother1 1 year ago
@bigbother1 what? Please give a coherent argument to what I was saying next time.
ltkhokie1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ltkhokie1
ALL matter is mearly energy condensed to a slow vibration, experincing itself subjectively... there is no such thing as death, life is just a dream and you are the imagination of yourselves
bigbother1 1 year ago
You have misunderstood how the system works. Taking Norway as an example, where I come from.
If someone has a problem with public transportation, due to some kind of a handicap. They do not receive any cool car or anything, but a simple car made for handicapped people.
Norway is currently trying to lower the price for public transportation, so that less people will use cars.
Study how the system works, in countries it DOES work. How come Norway is not yet bankrupted?xD
christerbostroem 2 years ago 2
This guy is not wrong because he is a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.
He's wrong because he is young.
The truth is that the older you are the more funerals you have been to, the more accidents you have seen, the more friends you have buried and the more social injustices you have witnessed.
The older you are the greater the chances that you have watch a parent or a loved one suffer and watched them wither away right in front of your eyes.
Age will surely change his outlook.
MrYoubrian 2 years ago 2
WOW!!!
Did you here what he said????
"Gov't subsidies do not work." Like Medicare???
"in addition to being immoral" Immoral to want to see people free from pain and disease????
"unnatural supply and demand" Do you mean the need for a supply of sick people???
"Which are the hallmarks of a free and successful market" Do you mean we will need a constant supply of sick people to keep the health care market viable for profit?????
MrYoubrian 2 years ago
How about the 100 billion in subsidies we give the pharmaceutical companies????
Welcome to America!!
The only place where no one would ever consider how much it would cost to save their child's life in the E.R. and would never want to see their child in needless pain.............
But don't think their neighbors child deserves the same considderation...
MrYoubrian 2 years ago
money, money, money. that's all people think about. there are plenty of sick and needy children who NEED free health care. why is tax money even involved in the conversation. we are talking about human LIFE. we spend billions on war EVERY SINGLE DAY and we cant afford free coverage for the sick or dying? go F yourself you greedy bastards. not only should we give free health care, it should be one of our inaliable rights as people.
rosspreston33 2 years ago
This argument completely falls apart when you look at Vets health care. I don't see young people joining the military for health care..do you?
Boomer1949 2 years ago
the cures for all disease exist.. but not in this system..not for you.
finefilth 2 years ago
And how, exactly, does that apply to health care?
I've noticed that competition hasn't lowered the prices for health care down here - quite the reverse in fact!
FibonacciPrower 2 years ago
Lol this is the definate proof that oversimplifying creates comedy.
At first I thought this was a serious movie, but the logic is so ridiculous, funny stuff.
Seriously, funny to see how reailty proved you wrong
Rrinman 3 years ago 2
I abosulety agree. What is ridiculous about this video is that the maker of it does not address real facts, he only creates a stupid analogy of cars, proving that his ideas have no merit in the physical world and only in the idealized world of fiction. If the maker of this video were serious he would put his ideas to the test against real socialized health care systems and see if his propositions are correct. The fact that he can't makes him look very fraudulent. Simple people, I tell ya.
danroduw06 2 years ago 2
You think the Ford Escort was a horrible car? You obviously never saw the Escort RS Cosworth then. They still fetch £14,000 ($19,000) today.
EJK1986 3 years ago
This is ridiculous. This guy has no idea what he is talking about. A) The subsidized car analogy has no bearing whatsoever on subsidized medicine. I live in Canada, and I promise you, people don't get sick just to take advantage of free healthcare. B) Even his car subsidy analysis is flawed. The government would be able to regulate it right away, ie: you get 20,000 towards a car, once. Simple, to the point, no problems. I'm guessing he's a first year struggling economics student.
radfx 3 years ago 3
The subsidized care analogy most certainly does have a lot to do with socialized medicine. It's called an analogy.
According to the Fraser Institute Canada's waiting times continue to increase even with massive amounts spent on it.
People don't get sick on purpose, but if you give something away for free, they will take it. Why do you think all these states that dabbled in UHC here are way over budget?
I'd have to say you've never taken an economics class.
professorenigma 3 years ago
I agree.
SoberInsanity 3 years ago
You are correct professor.
MAustinP 3 years ago
I agree, so many opinions, so many stupid pot smoking canadians
clintusmaximus 3 years ago
I agree, healthcare is so different from the automotive market that just trying to make an analogy, even for explanatory purposes,is nonsense...and the whole video is based on that.
kiodath 3 years ago 2
I completely agree.
danroduw06 2 years ago
Then you should canada and keep your opinions abooot your wonderful socialism to yourself. And contrary to what you think sitting in your trailor in bumfuck BC eating moose burgers what he says is factually correct. Do you guys have economics courses up there or do the extreme temperatures freeze common sense
clintusmaximus 3 years ago
Not everybody needs a car but everyone needs healthcare or mandatory health insurance. Even fit and healthy people need this incase they have an accident. Otherwise it's like gambling. If America don't go for public healtcare then they should at least subsidize the very old and young by the government so they don't pay too much.
lemdixon01 3 years ago
"If America don't go for public healtcare then they should at least subsidize the very old." What the hades do you think Medicare is? I checked your profile and you're in the UK. You just made me laugh. I suggest you learn a bit about health care in America before talking about it.
professorenigma 3 years ago
I know what Medicare is.
lemdixon01 3 years ago
Then why did you say "If America don't go for public healtcare then they should at least subsidize the very old"?
professorenigma 3 years ago
Cars are a luxury while in the presence of descent public transport such as subways/busses.
The same cannot be said for healthcare.
Remember, an economy not only needs easy access for workers to get to their jobs but also requires them to be healthy in order to increase productivity.
dreamdewil 3 years ago
This video fails, unfortunately.
You can't really compare health care and the automobile industry.
I live in a country where necessary health care (not including cosmetic/unneeded procedures) is practically free and guess what... it works just fine.
dreamdewil 3 years ago
"You can't really compare health care and the automobile industry."
Yes you can, it's an analogy. He's comparing the "right" to health care with the "right" to a car and comparing what would happen once the gov't created an artificial demand for X.
We can see this with ethanol sudsidies as well. They've manipulated the market and created a demand for ethanol when it would never get funded by the private sector. I don't think you get the gist of the video.
professorenigma 3 years ago
No actually, I have a busy life. I had the good grace to give the OP a week. I've been reading your site, theres a lot of garbage to sift through.
povmcdov 3 years ago
So, no response to my messages below? Next time try replying directly to my message.
professorenigma 3 years ago
I also find it funny that you're suddenly "busy", yet you have plenty of time to challenge Totovader and spam message boards. Let me know when you're not so "busy."
professorenigma 3 years ago
Oh yeah, E-type every time. its not a difficult choice!
povmcdov 3 years ago
Did you give up already POV?
professorenigma 3 years ago
totovader, won't you respond to my comments? you seemed to be pretty hot on responding to gta55gjs's comments, I'd be interesting in debating the issue with you.
povmcdov 3 years ago
Don't you miss a vital point in this video? People want cars, but people don't want to get sick. If you get sick you get sick regardless of the cost of beeing sick. It's not like people descide to get more cancer cause the medisines are free.
Besides, other services like police, firefighters and the army is sosialised. Police are paid for by tax, not by the persons beeing robbed. Your argument could be extended to saying that since police services are "free" people committ more crime ;)
geirg 3 years ago
Geirg: I could turn your argument around on you. "other services like police, firefighters and the army is sosialised."
Like health care, those who actually do pay taxes will foot the bill. Since the top 50% of income tax filers pay 97% of all income taxes collected (and thus are the ones funding the bulk of police services) then the police should protect them more often than poor people right?
In addition, the gov't is charged to defend the citizenry.
professorenigma 3 years ago
You could turn my argument around, but for that to be effective I would have to mean that those that pay should get more then those that don't.
When it comes to services like the police, firefighting and the army I firmly belive that every citizen should get the same protection no matter how much tax he paid. Anyone seriously mean that poor people should burn cause they can't pay for firefighters?
I just extend the protecion offred by the above services to health.
geirg 3 years ago
Yeah, and universal health care (single-payer) has been such a success in Canada. My artgument is effective, there is no "right" to health care. IF there is, the next time we have a nurses shortage we'll grab you off the strett to start emptying bedpans.
The gov't is called to ensure the common defense, but no mention of health care as a right.
You still haven't addressed the gist of the video above if health care becomes a "right." You'll end up with services being rationed. As in Canada
professorenigma 3 years ago
If you want to be philosofical about it then the consept of rights are a human consept inforced by those with the might to do so. In a democracy we are the mighty ones (at least in theory) and thus can define whatever rights we want.
As for health care getting to a point where the supply is less then the demand, and thus must be rationed. I'm assuming that people don't want to get sick and that price of health care don't affect the rate people get sick in.Demand won't increase because its 'free'
geirg 3 years ago
"Demand won't increase because its 'free" Are you kidding? The individual mandate in Mass. has come in way over budget because people are tripping over themselves to get under the gov't-funded program. In addition, Hawaii just dropped (after only 7 months) universal health coverage for children because people stopped paying for it themselves and it was a budget-buster.
Conn. and Wisc. dropped UHC plans because they were projected to be larger than the state budget.
professorenigma 3 years ago
No joke. Price of treatment don't affect a persons chance of getting a illness. Noone is going to activly get cancer cause treatment is free. Given that people want to not be sick then people won't be more sick then today. However, today we have people that don't get treatment cause they can't afford it. So, demand won't be higher then today, but supply will need to rise to meet the demand that exist today.
geirg 3 years ago
Nothing you said in this statement addresses your fallacious remark "Demand won't increase because its 'free." That my friend is patently false.
professorenigma 3 years ago
Given that people get sick at the same rate no matter the cost of treatment then demand will not rise even if its free. However, today you got people that don't get treatment cause they can't afford it. So the demand is not beeing met. UHC will cost more then today because it needs to rise supply to meet the existing demand.
Increase in demand would only happen if people got sick _because_ treatment is free. I'm assuming people don't want to be sick, no matter the cost of treatment.
geirg 3 years ago
The Rand Institute did a study of families who pay for their own health care and those who get it for free. There was virtually no difference in the quality of care. The big difference in the end was the family that had its health care paid for racked up a much higher bill.
professorenigma 3 years ago
You want a free car? Sure :)
You want free cancer? No way :(
Sure the total bill will be higher with free health care, but thats cause atm we have people that don't get treatment. People that choose to not get treatment due to cost will choose to get treatment when its free.
Today there is a demand for cheap health care that is not beeing met. With UHC that demand will be, but we won't get more demand then today for the reasons I've stated so far.
Sidenote: a large bill divided by 300M is small
geirg 3 years ago
"A large bill divided by 300M is small" Where are you getting this 300 million figure? You're still not addressing the main crux of the vid above. In due time there will be rationing.
So, you need to address the crux of the vid with someone other than "people don't choose ot get sick." That doesn't address the fact that all these UHC plans are well over budget and if health care is a right the system will eventually go bankrupt.
Looked at the Medicare spending projections lately?
professorenigma 3 years ago
300M is aprox the number of US citizens if I'm not mistaken.
Rationing comes when there is a demand greater then the supply and demand must be met. If demand keeps increasing then the supply must also increase to prevent rationing. Makes sense. However, I disagree with you that demand for health care will keep increasing. I say it will level off, due to the simple fact that people don't want to be sick.
But since you don't like that argument I'll come with a new one in the next post :)
geirg 3 years ago
Rationing will not be a problem with UHC. If, as you claim, there will not be enough supply to meet the demand there is nothing to stop anyone going to private HC if they have the money for it. So, the people that can afford it go private, and the rest get rationed HC. That is a improvement over todays system where those who can afford it go private and those who can't go without.
Can you name any nation with a UHC system that has gone banckrupt?
geirg 3 years ago
Canada's single-payer system is on the brink. For example, I forget the exact date, but going with current projections, Alberta's healh care spending will consume its entire budget.
Canada's spending on health care has skyrocketed in the last 10 years, yet waiting times continue to increase. There are more MRI machines in Pittsburgh than there is in all of Canada.
You continue to refer to those "going without health care," but as I told another poster, that figure is bogus.
professorenigma 3 years ago
yeah, this geirg moron must not watch the news or read a paper either, its not just canada, but great britian and several other countries are falling under their wieght of social programs. What the hell is wrong with people who just want the government to GIVE them everything, my god is just pisses me off.
clintusmaximus 3 years ago
several people have already named several that are going under with UHC, including canada, and any country in europe including great britain. Can you name any country that isnt being crushed by the wieght of thier UHC program. Of course not, idiots and facts dont go hand in hand
clintusmaximus 3 years ago
Clintusmaximus-- Canada and Europe spend about half of what we do on health care, so yes, there are many countries that are not being crushed by the weight of their UHC program. Our non-universal system costs twice as much.
publicgood 3 years ago
You say that "socialised" helthcare is doomed to fail. Well its been going since 1948 and doesnt show any signs of slowing. I for one am proud of my countries achievement. ever heard of a CAT scan? they were developed within the NHS along with many other groundbreaking treatments. This is our moon shot, and it has saved more lives than yours, which after all is what counts, isn't it?
povmcdov 3 years ago
In addition POV, you're more likely to get a transplant here in the USA than the UK and more likely to survive for one year after it.
What I find funny is that you still haven't addressed the crux of the video above (such as the part where services start to be rationed because it's breaking the budget) and instead you've thrown out red herrings.
professorenigma 3 years ago
At the end of the day it is a question of priorities. You americans prioritise spending on the armed forces and prisons while class sizes in school reach 40 and 50 million go without healthcare. Thats your perogative. European nations are generally content with having average sized armies, being taxed slightly more and having effective services. You put a man on the moon, we developed universal healthcare (NHS is the third biggest employer in the world).
povmcdov 3 years ago
POV, your mantra that there are 50 million Americans without health care is not only off-topic (our system is unfortunately half-socialized already) but it is false because it includes
1) Illegal aliens
2) People who qualify for SCHIP or Medicaid and fail to enroll
3) People who switched jobs and had a probationary period
4) Young people who opt-out because they are healthy
Why are you bragging about having a massive taxpayer-funded bureacracy? Wouldn't a stronger private sector save $?
professorenigma 3 years ago
You might think so, but according to OECD figures UK spending on healthcare in 2003 was aproximately half of US spending. UK spending was also high historically speaking at that time.
Despite all the cash you give to HMO's etc. life expectancy in the US is still lower than in the UK, a country that is often called "the sick man of Europe".
povmcdov 3 years ago
As for the 4 groups you mention, 3 of them are americans, and are therefore americans without insurance. It beggars belief that you find it acceptable that switching jobs should leave someone temporarily uninsured!
povmcdov 3 years ago
By using the word "mantra" you attempt to make me sound like some kind of kook. Actually the idea that universal healthcare is some kind of evil is a particularly american attitude. Most of the world has some form of socialised healthcare (africa apart). In developing countries this is often poor quality, but there are almost always parallel private systems in place.
(The last 3 replies were aimed at professorenigma)
povmcdov 3 years ago
"Actually the idea that universal healthcare is some kind of evil is a particularly american attitude. Most of the world has some form of socialised healthcare (africa apart)."
That's an ad populum appeal, not admissible.
professorenigma 3 years ago
"As for the 4 groups you mention, 3 of them are americans." You totally miss the point. Most of the people who are americans already qualify for other entitlements such as: Medicaid and SCHIP, but fail to enroll.
"you find it acceptable that switching jobs should leave someone temporarily uninsured." I guess you've never run a business? If we allowed purchasing of private insurance plans across state lines that are void of costly mandates then you could carry that package from job-to-job.
professorenigma 3 years ago
As I laid out at freewebs..com/professor_enigma/universalhealthcare..htm one of the main reasons health care has become more expensive in the U.S. is because the gov't controls more health care dollars and mandates have risen. This is all backed up by figures, not generalized rag.
Your lower life expectancy argument is derived from a flawed WHO report which didn't take into account lifestyles (smoking, eating burgers) and the immigrant melting pot.
professorenigma 3 years ago
You seem to think that social medicine is always slow and substandard. This is simply not the case. Your government runs your armed forces. Are they substandard?
NHS waiting lists have been long in the past, after 15 years of chronic underinvestment by thatcherite government. However these days in most cases treatment is rapid. There is a guarantee that you will be seen by a specialist within two weeks for cancer. In practice it is usually much less.
povmcdov 3 years ago
Rationing: This does exist within the NHS, especially for new drug treatments, however most patients will never experience this. If they do they can buy the drugs privately (although this is very contraversial atm). Triage has always been part of medicine, not that that makes it any more pleasant.
Under the current US system new and expensive treatments are often refused by insurers because they are "experimental".
povmcdov 3 years ago
Choice: NHS patients have wide choices. They can opt to see any doctor they like or attend any hospital assuming the doctor will accept them. They can also opt to go private.
Note that the current US system does not offer this level of choice as insurers have arrangements with specific providers and they can refuse to fund treatment from others.
povmcdov 3 years ago
Secondly, although is is possible to have social healthcare programmes where the government does not directly provide treatment (e.g. medicare) these systems run into the price escalation problems you describe. When the government does provide care directly as in the NHS, competition is a different beast entirely as competing with the NHS ensures that private providers had better offer a better than standard service at an affordable cost because the patient can always go back to the NHS
povmcdov 3 years ago
I'll address your points then.
Cars are not like medicine. medical treatment is not undertaken lightly as it is usually unpleasant (cosmetic treatments aside - they are not provided in social health except in extremis). Making medical treatment "free" does not increase demand - In fact nations with social healthcare programmes tend to have lower disease rates and longer life expectancy due to the greater emphasis on preventative healthcare.
povmcdov 3 years ago
The person cannot pay or work due to being too ill. 5-7 days later, the person is well again, but has missed out a few days of work due to illness, which costs his company money, etc.
Now, under my countrys healthcare system, the person does not have to worry about cost, etc. They simply go to a Doctor, the Doctor subscribes them medication and in 2-3 days, the person is better and off to work.
Now, do you understand?
Gta5ccjs 3 years ago
What you don't understand is that the person had to wait in line for 4 weeks, got substandard care, and still had to pay for it in terms of losing out on work, and making everyone else pay for it.
In no way did you even address the video in your last 4 rambling posts. All you're doing is telling me what I already know- not addressing the facts presented in the video. If you can't do that- then move on.
totovader 3 years ago
@totovader your comparing the manufacturing of cars to medicine. peoples health should never be reliant on profit making companies.
rozza12320 6 months ago
Secondly, let me start with an example. Lets say that a person makes $10,000 to $20,000 a year. This person has to pay taxes, cost of living, mortgage, etc. This means that the person does not have much money left. Suddenly, the person falls ill one day with an illness. So, the person goes to a Doctor and asks for treatment. The Doctor says that the treatment will cost a few thousand dollars.
Gta5ccjs 3 years ago
In your example a person has to pay taxes... in neither of our countries is this true.
totovader 3 years ago
Firstly, this created jobs, which meant that the Government could give money to consumers in a productive manner. This had a positive knock on effect on the rest of the economy.
This also allowed for more hospitals, etc to be built which was a further positive influence to the economy.
Gta5ccjs 3 years ago
Creating jobs where there isn't a need for one is not a good thing: that just means its a racket in which the government takes a cut. Taking money from people and calling it an economy isn't good. It's immoral, and it's not healthy.
totovader 3 years ago
totovader, what the HELL are you on about?
Socialized Medicine is not where the Government turns to Private healthcare businesses and tells them what to do.
The Government RUNS the healthcare system ITSELF.
Lets take an example, from my country, Great Britain.
After the war, Britain was in a mess. We had mass unemployment and were almost broke, on the way to collapse.
The Government decided, in 1947, to set up a socialized healthcare system. This was done for many reasons.
Gta5ccjs 3 years ago
Sorry, but you're wrong. Socialized medicine is not simply government ONLY healthcare. But if it makes you feel any better, that's exactly the conclusion of any socialized system, as the video points out.
totovader 3 years ago
There's nothing bureaucratic in this system, and inefficiency,as always,is caused by people who don't take their job seriously more than by the system itself.I know many people who work in the biomedical segment,and I assure you that competition is very strong,and that's due to the fact that companies have to win tenders in order to supply a certain hospital,and every hospital is managed like a company itself.Socialism has NOTHING to do with this.Your example with cars is just not pertinent.
kiodath 3 years ago
What influences people to "take their job seriously"? How about competitive pay- how about people who go into the profession because it's what they want to do? A free market system influences that, and yes it's part of the system. Having a socialist system on top of that destroys competition- not influences it. Forced competition is just bidding, not free market. THAT IS SOCIALISM whether you like it or not.
totovader 3 years ago
I'm a strong supporter of free market, but free market,by definition,implies that "you get what you paid for" in terms of quality, which is great for everything,but not for healthcare, that should have a trasversal fruibility,at least in theory,but we are discussing on ideal terms,because in reality,even a totally free market doesn't exist ( lobbies,monopolies,etc...). What is your idea of free market applied to the health system of a nation? Something similar to USA or something different ?
kiodath 3 years ago
You're contradicting yourself. What does a lobby or a monopoly have to do with a free market?
I am not a supporter of the US system- that much should be painfully clear from the video.
totovader 3 years ago
I don't see the contradiction. Monopolies and lobbies are situations in which competition is absent,or very limited to a few companies that hold the majority of market shares,therefore the market is not 100% free anymore (what i'm saying is that it is not an ideal situation). It is clear to me that you are not defending US system, but you didn't answered the question. I don't see how a regulation-free market would help a health system
kiodath 3 years ago
A "regulation-free" market helps the health system because of the reasons I have outlined in the video. In a free market there are no monopolies or lobbies because there is nothing to lobby for and the government is powerless to allow monopolies. This is your contradiction: you claim to be for 100% free market, but then turn around and proclaim that one certain sector needs to be the complete opposite.
totovader 3 years ago
I said I was for free market, not for 100% free market (check above), and yes I think healthcare has to be regulated in some way for many reasons, equality and ethics above all. I understand this discussion is getting on a merely dialectical plane. Thanks for your replies, your video is very interesting. Greetings from Italy !
kiodath 3 years ago
You don't know what you're talking about. Public healthcare (or SOCIALIZED healthcare as US press like to call it in a scary anticommunist fashion) is NOT AN IDEA , it is a reality in every european country. And it works very well , that's a fact. I know it because I live in Italy. I don't have direct experience of your Healtcare system, so I won't criticise it, but if there's and IDEA that scares me, that's needing an insurance to be cured...
kiodath 3 years ago
The problem is that people are willing to accept a crappy, inefficient, and bureaucratic system- they will even say it's "working very well" because they don't know any better- they think that as long as everyone is getting the same crappy care, it's a GOOD THING.
totovader 3 years ago
for anyone who doesn't understand what this video is trying to convey.there are people online living in countries who pratice socialized medicine.ask questions pro and con ask how it works and what kind of services you receieve.anyone in this country can go to an emergency room in most hospitals and receieve necessary treatment,whether you have money or not.they won't treat hang nails.i have insurance they won't pay for that.even with insurance there is still copay.
wilmaohman 3 years ago
In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[100] saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[107] She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents[100][108] and urged speedy work on building the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[109]
Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-09-08.:
kahI777 3 years ago
:-)
sodaphine 3 years ago
Hi totoevader,thought of you the other day when I had a run in with my scooter health care system. Cut my foot on a public hol, the doc was closed so had to go to emergency.I was disgusted to wait a whole 2 hours. When I was provided a clean bed in my own room while I was given a local anaesthetic and 2 stitches using sterile equipment I was absolutely ashamed of what my country provided. Imagine such a disgraceful system. Imagine charging me nothing for this service. What an absolute disgrace!
sodaphine 3 years ago
Imagine a world where all healthcare consisted of was treating people for cuts...
totovader 3 years ago
Yeah, you're right. Those two kids of ours that were both over 5 wks prem and required specialist medical attention during and for approx 3 wks after birth make for a miserable world when that damn nasty healthcare system doesn't send me a bill. Damn I hate paying for these privelages with my taxes and still having enough left over to maintain a high living standard. And I think it added insult to injury when they provided lunch in the neonate intensive care unit for feeding Mums.Outrageous!;-)
sodaphine 3 years ago 2
Like I said...
And don't be fooled by the idea that YOU are paying for your healthcare- you AND EVERYONE ELSE is paying for your healthcare. The video you can't seem to understand- despite its simplicity- shows why that's a bad idea.
totovader 3 years ago
Yes, I pay, my neighbour pays, Joe Bloggs down the street pays and everybody gets access to healthcare from the richest to the poorest. And if you're really fussy about your healthcare you can get yourself private insurance and get a tax rebate. Although many countries outside the USA have similar systems, all that are better than the USA model, you must be right. It couldn't possibly work. Anyway, I was just mentioning that I thought about you the other day b/c I did. I smiled, too! :-)
sodaphine 3 years ago
Popular doesn't mean right- and it doesn't mean successful. Once again, you're doing nothing for your argument- in a free market you would still get stitches- and it's highly unlikely you would have to wait 2 hours, unless you wanted to. But it's also highly unlikely that someone who needs serious medical care would go without it- unlike in your "better" systems. To you, "better" just means everyone gets the same shitty care.
totovader 3 years ago
There has to be a better way outside of this in the box thinking you are demonstrating. Do you actually think that we should always strive to accumulate wealth. Have you ever watched a person die in front of you? It makes you really think outside of the box and realize there has to be more to life. I guess you could say I am for changing current systems because what is the point of thinking everything is about economics.. There are so many other variables in this life besides money.
wobblebrain 3 years ago
If something is designed to specifically NOT acquire wealth- in other words: if you can't get paid for it, then how can it possibly be successful? Though that's not the point of the video- you're simply trying to appeal to emotion, so it's the best response I can give you. If you want to actually HELP PEOPLE- then you should PAY ATTENTION to the video. Creating a system which WILL NOT WORK just so you can pretend that you care is stupid.
totovader 3 years ago
this is what happened to vaccines. there used to be lots of vaccine companies and now there are only a handful after government stepped in.
kgwickings 3 years ago
very good description.. you can see how rationing of health care could happen.
kgwickings 3 years ago
look at the country Denmark, it works fine here =)
KaptajnKaffe 3 years ago
great vid but you left out so many things such as the rich who are paying the taxes leave which takes away more than 70& of our tax dollars in the first place so its all placed on the little guy anyway you forgot to mention fred who dropped out of school does drugs and works part time at mcdonalds is being paid for by the hard worker and that corporate tax increaces have their effect on ALL other american industrys which leaves us buying from forign countrys funninling the rest of our money out
sayanythingkicksass 3 years ago
Good video, socialism is a disease.
KarrensMan69 3 years ago
totovader, great explanation. Haven't viewed all your vids yet but would love to see one on oil companies and speculators. Maybe I'd understand that better than I do now. What you say really makes sense.
sleonardelli 3 years ago
A single payer healthcare system is also a single BUYER healthcare system which has its advantages, as comptition is even MORE steap.
For example, I'm from Canada and we get our medical drugs up here for very cheaply and they're of US brand names, yet we have socialized healthcare.
This is because drug campainies have to produce them as cheaply as possible as the Canadian government is there only customer north of the boarder. So we pay much less then you do for the exact same products.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
And thanks to you that cost gets passed down to us- if we were to try and regulate that cost any more, it would mean less revenue for the drug companies translating into less R&D- especially for expensive drugs.
How is that a good thing?
totovader 3 years ago
Please do me a favor please watch sicko from micheal moore!! this video is bullshit pure bullshit!!!
stonecd 3 years ago
Please do me a favor and come up with a rebuttal better than this!
totovader 3 years ago
Are you comparing CARS-HEALTH??? You have no idea about Human Rights. Everybody has the right to live. You think you have the right to live because you have money... but not everyone is as lucky as you.
In Europe, nobody dies for having no money enough. Here in Spain, you can access to very very expensive surgery for free if you need it. And doctors are well paid by the government. Universal Healthcare is just the better (and fair) system.
yoigovoces 3 years ago
The right to live does not translate into a right to force others to care for you. The right to own money means that you can exchange that for goods and services in equal trade, not that you can force others to give you their money or enslave them to the will of the sick. GOOD doctors are NOT well paid- which is why they're leaving in droves. Socialized medicine is not a solution- it's a death sentence, but it just makes you feel better about NOT HAVING TO CARE.
totovader 3 years ago
I feel blessed for living in a country with socialized medicine. Good doctors are well paid, but you can keep on thinking you are in the best system in the world. If you lose all your money, or have an illness and you need a very expensive treatment, I bet you will change your mind ;)
yoigovoces 3 years ago
On the contrary- if I needed a very expensive treatment I am "blessed" for living in a country that allows me the opportunity to seek that treatment through charity, insurance, or even paying for it myself. I don't think you understand: expensive treatments DO NOT EXIST in your country. Quality of care is significantly higher in the US- and that's where I would rather be.
totovader 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yes of course... in my country do not exist expensive treatments...
have you ever been in Spain? can you situate Spain in a map?
yoigovoces 3 years ago
Have you ever been to the US? What difference does it make as to whether I've been there or not?
The point is that when expensive treatment- or higher quality of care is needed- people come to the US. This is especially true for cancer treatment. Where would you rather be when you need a kidney transplant or chemotherapy? Look at the history of the Canadian system if you're confused.
totovader 3 years ago
I don't need to travel for a kidney trasplant, cause I live in the country with more experience in trasplant in Europe.
totovader, I'm just telling you I know how your system works and I know first-person how works mine. And I just RECOMMEND you american to change the system. I don't win anything writing this. I'm telling u that ur arguments are just inestable.
Rank by life expectancy in the world:
Japan: 3rd (Univ. healthcare)
France: 11th (")
Spain: 19th (")
USA: 45th (privatized)
yoigovoces 3 years ago
More experience in transplant? That's a new one- as if experience is all it takes: kidneys fall out of the sky. I don't know what you mean by "inestable"- but the video shows that your system simply DOES NOT work, and any form of it is doomed to follow the consequences of failure as most have.
Life expectancy is not an indicator of quality of health- it's an indicator of life expectancy. Far too many factors go into life expectancy (personal habits, accidents, suicide, etc) to be an indicator.
totovader 3 years ago
Yes, more experience. Spain is the country where most trasplants are made because is the country where more organs are donated.
You can keep on saying socialized medicine does not work, but stadistics and data are there waiting for you to be readed.
Good luck if you're ill and you can't pay.
yoigovoces 3 years ago
That doesn't mean more experience- and it certainly doesn't mean higher success. I'll keep saying socialized medicine doesn't work because it doesn't- facts, statistics, and reality show that to be the case.
I hope that I never ever use the political power of the State to force someone else to take care of me. I have NO PROBLEM with asking friends and family for help if I were ever to get in such a situation.
totovader 3 years ago
America system is faaaar better than Europe system. That's what you wanted to ear?
Only in USA a good trasplant can be made and in USA nobody dies for having no money.
yoigovoces 3 years ago
Did you even watch the video?
totovader 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YOIG, your life-expectancy figures are utter horse manure. They DO NOT take into account lifestyles such as--too many burgers and cigarettes, which are NOT a reflection on how good a health care system is. It also DOES NOT take into account immigration factors and the U.S. is much more ethnically diverse than those other countries. I've read that poorly-contrived WHO report you're parroting and it has been debunked.
nationalcenter..org/2007/02/link-table-1-deaths-due-to-chronic..html
professorenigma 3 years ago
"too many burgers and cigarettes, which are NOT a reflection on how good a health care system is"--They are a reflection on the effectiveness of preventive medicine. The quality of a healthcare system is subjective, it will depend on what you value more. As with many Americans, you are caught up on technologically advanced medicine (transplants, CABG, Cancer treatment, the expensive stuff). If you only consider these US healthcare shines, if you take preventive med into account, not so much.
sweetlysad 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You seriously just made me squirt milk out my nose. There is no such thing as "preventative medicine" pertaining to those who smoke cigarettes. Huh? I don't see any specific stats from you, nor do I see you specifically attacking any of the premises in the video above. Better luck next time.
What's your point? Take a whole bunch of drugs "just in case" you get some form of cancer? You need some specifics.
professorenigma 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In addition YOIG, if you read some literature that was not popularized, packaged and dumbed-down for the masses you might know that the U.S. (How much does Spain's model differ from the UK model) does in fact outperform the UK on several fronts.
One of those is transplants. In a nutshell, more heart and liver translplants are performed in the US and the survival rate here is much higher.
online..wsj..com/article/SB120001235968882563..html
professorenigma 3 years ago
Wow, you're absolutely right.
Government subsidies for important services are a terrible idea! We should also stop subsidizing our police and firefighters. Let's put an end to socialized safety!
ditbcomics 3 years ago
No, clearly I'm wrong- we should do things that don't work with no care or concern about whether they are successful or not just so we can feel better about ourselves and not actually have to do anything. We should let the government- who is obviously very successful at it- care for people. Let's put an end to care altogether and just subsidize it.
totovader 3 years ago
I'd like to see the response this would get if submitted for a public health course. Make your point by using a charged term "socialized medicine" then make some nonsensical comparison to an imaginary car subsidy program. I guess we are all entitled to our opinions, as unfounded and ignorant as they may be.
sweetlysad 3 years ago 3
Yes, you're entitled to your opinion...
totovader 3 years ago
excellent analogy! People don't realize how bad our healthcare system would be if we continued down the socialized medicine path. Take a look at the VA hospitals....take a look at canada, england, and much of europe. The people there frequently say, "oh, it's wonderful, i don't know how you can survive without it." In reality, they don't know any better. Our system is FAR superior to anyone elses. Say the French President has a life threatening illness..where is he going to go for care?USA
tTank77 3 years ago
Hahaha, you made my day. That's the funniest thing I've heard all day...granted, i haven't watched fox today, but that was pretty good.
VelvetLizard 3 years ago 2
what the hell dude? hahaa! this guys stupidity makes me laugh. holy shit! then he probably wonders why no one likes him EVER. dont worry baby girl. socialized medicine will never fly. theres way too much money and stocks invested in private health care. media teamed up with REATARDS like you will never let it happened. theres just way too much profit in peoples troubles. do you honestly think big time CEOS CARE about you?
as we sink deeper and deeper. i KNOW your wrong too bad you cant see that
fupasack2 3 years ago
If you're going to call someone stupid or retarded, you should probably at least spell it right.
You've completely lost it. This isn't even on topic anymore, you're just looking to avoid the issue by playing stupid games. I thought you were leaving, anyway- why don't you do that now.
totovader 3 years ago
WHAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!! you just tripped AGAIN. DEERRRRRRR!!!! this shows how delirious you really are. first off attacking someones mispelling on youtube, is like pulling hair in a real man fight, good god dude.
second if you ACUTALLY LOOK, ONCE IN YOUR LIFE! you will see that i spelled STUPIDITY and RETARDS (like you) PERFECTLY. lol you have proved to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that you not only did not read all my statements and still replied fully to them, but you ARE in fact RETARDED!
fupasack2 3 years ago
Really, you think that the way to spell retards is- and I'm quoting you, here: "REATARDS"
That's how you spell it? Are you sure? You might want to double check before you go beating your chest and calling me names again...
Move on. You have no purpose here but to troll the comments section and waste space. I will not warn you again.
totovader 3 years ago
AGAIN publicgood: you said... "Market failures mean that unfettered competition is not able to keep prices low in health care." Please provide examples of "market failures" in this context. What you said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and I want to watch you try and explain it.
totovader 3 years ago
What this video is about is what health economists refer to as ex post facto moral hazard. If someone else is paying for the care, you demand more of it than you otherwise would. That is an example of a market failure.
publicgood 3 years ago
That makes no sense at all- and it is not an example of a market failure. First of all, we are talking about free markets- so "someone else paying" doesn't even apply. Seconds, that doesn't even coincide with your original statement: "Market failures MEAN that unfettered competition is not able to keep prices low..." Here you're talking about something completely different. Furthermore, "ex post facto moral hazard" is not an economic principle.
totovader 3 years ago
In a free market, people will buy insurance. Insurance will pay for their medical care. When an insurance company pays for their medical care, they will demand more medical care than they would if they didn't have insurance. This drives up the price and cost of medical care.
publicgood 3 years ago
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about UNLESS you're trying to say that INSURANCE is a "market failure".
Seriously, answer my question or retract your original statement.
totovader 3 years ago
I'm saying third-party payment causes inefficient provision of health care, which is a failure of free markets. In fact, that's what you argue in this video-- that when someone else is paying, you want too much of it.
Have you honestly never heard of market failure? Why do you keep putting it in quotes? It would help this discussion if you took some economics.
publicgood 3 years ago
"Inefficient provision of health care"? Are you mad? You're trying to save face by claiming that insurance is inefficient. Well IF IT WAS then it WOULDN'T BRING A PROFIT. Good lord- it's like sometimes you are so desperate to try and cover your tracks that you don't even THINK.
totovader 3 years ago
Ugh. I guess you've never heard of externalities either? What about a company that pollutes a lot and makes a small profit. That's an example of market failure you should be able to understand.
publicgood 3 years ago
Ugh, I guess you're still googling.
Can you provide me with an answer that MAKES SENSE WITH YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT instead of just desperately trying to find a definition for a phrase you clearly did not understand when you used it?
totovader 3 years ago
I already told you, but you don't understand. When a third party pays for your health care, you demand more of it than you otherwise would. This is inefficient and leads to too much care, and prices that are too high. It doesn't matter if government is paying for it, or if an insurance company in the free market is paying for it. Both have ways to try to control this problem, like not giving you any damn care you ask for.
publicgood 3 years ago
No, what you're saying isn't even consistent with your original claim. Again, you said "Market failures mean that unfettered competition is not able to keep prices low in health care." With the nonsense you're trying to pass off, you're claiming that HEALTH INSURANCE will be UNABLE to keep costs low in health care because HEALTH INSURANCE is a market failure.
If you took economics, you need to go get a refund. If you don't know what that is- look it up.
totovader 3 years ago
AGAIN, you said "Market failures mean that unfettered competition is not able to keep prices low in health care."
Can you explain how your ambiguous and undefinable concept of market failure here is at all related to pollution? That's not an example of market failure at all- but I'm not going to let you toss out red herrings to avoid the original question.
totovader 3 years ago
You were implying that insurance companies were efficient because they made a profit. I showed you an example, polluting factories, that might make a profit, but are inefficient because they impose externalities (pollution).
publicgood 3 years ago