Socialism ISN'T communism.. In the UK - FREE national health service costs 7% gdp compared to 17% going to PRIVATE medical firms in the U.S.? Can you spot the anomaly in that equation.? private medical = fairness?
Uk Politics lies about "loving" the NHS & instead chip away at it - they'd rather corporate chums on the boards of private medical stepped in. But most of UK LOVE the NHS and it employs a LOT of people.
People in poverty die and suffer in the U.S. What's so great about that?
@pasajesancarlos they dont get a choice in Europe. whenever one of my friends parents, who go to Europe for work, gets pregnant they choice to go over to America. WHY? because the healthcare in Europe doesnt work.
I pay out of pocket. When my wife or I or my kid go to Drs, we pay ourselves and get on top of queue because of that, that's a nice perk for paying yourself.
If Cenk is so concerned about CEO salaries and profits why doesn't he ever complain about the mandate that will force the poor and unemployed to purchase health care insurance?
well you do realize that for the poor Health Care will be heavily subsidzed and that having HC to cover your basic always should be a priority. If ppl receive treatment without HC you know who pays the bill ? right you ! the taxpayer
Hillary Clinton is right when she said insurance companies are destroying the health care system. Insurance companies charge premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and then you only get 50-80% coverage at best. They drop seniors from their coverage and deny children coverage with pre-existing conditions and these insurance companies think they're providing a service to society. This is criminal.
@mrchiefofsinners I hate to break to to you, but the "evil" insurance companies only make single-digit profit margins, which is nothing compared to any other industry. With such stats, they could well qualify for "non-profit" status, because to be a non-profit all you have to do is reserve 10-12% of your profits for your "cause"--ie, health care. Reminds me of a guy I know who said he wanted to make a lot of money... by starting a "non-profit".
@thereinliestherib This is the western economic failure. 10-12% leaves companies that actually make a physical exportable product for dust.
9.3 Billion profit a quarter?! For simply collecting, and reimbursing money for treatment?! The US Auto sector made 23B loss in (2008) only made profit (2001,2002 total 15B)
I wonder what the likes of Henry ford would say if you told them 70yrs down the line you could make more money receiving money and paying it out than actually making something.
The best part is watching fat, bloated opinionheads flap about health care reform, and how unquestionably moral socialism is because they said so, when the majority of our health costs now and even moreso in the next few decades are because of obesity and weight problems. Hilarious. And the health care "reform" bill gets signed by Obama, a smoker and drinker. Looks like November 2nd was the last laugh guys! Ouch!
@thereinliestherib Yeah, with reformists in Congress like Rep Andy Harris (R-MD - Tea Party elected candidate), things are bound to change...
Except - wait a minute - Rep Harris is already demanding to know why he has to wait a whole month after he's sworn in before his taxpayer-funded gov't healthcare kicks in!
@thereinliestherib Try hypocritical...because he campaigned AGAINST gov't healthcare. If he had a stitch of integrity he'd pay for his own healthcare instead of expecting taxpayers to pay for him. He certainly earns enough to do so.
Which outright means you didn't even bother to research your claims of "hypocrisy," because he said as much himself. The matter was over not being told of the lapse, and why it should have occurred in the first place when any private sector position benefits would have--go figure--operated efficiently from day one.
@thereinliestherib You clearly don't have much experience in the work force. I've been employed since the early 80s at various corporations big and small, and not one of them covered from day one. You have to enroll and typically there's a few months' wait.
Harris is an anesthesiologist. That implies some intellect. Perhaps if he were more interested in facts rather than assuming, he wouldn't have been surprised. Even a schmuck can ask, call or look the info up online.
@ismeme I understand that, it's the 'ole three month ride to benefits for us workaday Sallies. However, professionals are hired on contracts wherein it is completely normal to expect benefits from day one, because benefits are a part of that contract. Underlings like us have to prove we're gonna stick around before we're entitled to any crumbs.
@genie0390 Spoken like a true insurance agent hehehehe.. Anyone who supports their cause will try to find any excuse to make it morally right... Hope you guys rot in hell...
@DarthMakaveliSithMC Ok you clearly are retarded. I am 100% positive that you like to do things that totally pointless. For instance since this applies to most people I assume you enjoy sex without the intent of reproduction. And that is far more dangerous then just typing "first" on youtube videos. So get off your high horse if you are going to try to cut off its legs while sitting on it.
Health care profits after Obama's health "reform" mandate bill? Do you stupid lefties really not see the connection between the two? Between health co. contribution to dem's in '09, and a "reform" bill that overcharges the responsibly healthy in a country with a 70% obesity/overweight rate? Hmmm... you people really don't get it. The HCR bill was the industry's bill, plain and simple.
try to get insurance for my mom and dad. It will cost $170 per week. Pray that my parents can live long enough for Obama's health care plan comes to play. (or was that just all talk?)
@gammatnt Your parents can't afford insurance because the country is a bunch of obese smokers and addicts whose only reflex is to blame the other instead of looking at the real problem. If it weren't for forced coverage for people who have made insanely stupid health choices, your parents rates would plummet. Thanks.
@thereinliestherib thanks for the reply, that insurance rate was from my mom's job. They got to cover who ever apply, (no health check require). But that 40% increase in profit on people well being makes me sick. But that is price we pay for living in a Capitalist country.
@gammatnt "But that is price we pay for living in a Capitalist country." Quite the contrary. An evil "capitalist" free market would allow you to buy across state lines, only necessary coverage, and you would be able to buy according to your personal risk. Fact is, democrats and the industry have gerrymandered coverage in order to force you and your parents to subsidize fat, addicted smokers as well as unions and health co's. That people think the dem's are the white hats is just hilarious.
@thereinliestherib What's that I hear? A little Social Darwinism? I'd love to know where you libertarian models of American virtue draw the line on what qualifies as "an inferior human". Does it include the disabled, the elderly, the homeless, children living in poverty, those born with a congenital disease or mental defect? How about people who drink socially or engage in dangerous sports?
Who's to decide what an "insanely stupid health choice" is?
@ismeme "Who's to decide what an "insanely stupid health choice" is?" Cost statistics, actually, because 70% of our health costs come not from accidental or chance ailments, but from "preventable ailments" that are the direct consequence of stupid behavior (heart disease, diabetes, smoking-related cancers, etc). So yeah, get effed, loser. The contra-positive is that those who are healthy and don't consume health care are very profitable, hence the insurance mandate.
@thereinliestherib So your view is healthcare should be doled out based on cost statistics that support Social Darwinism, i.e. "bad choices" = no healthcare. Thanks for that. But you didn't answer the rest of my question. Where do you draw the line on what an "insanely stupid health choice" is? Is a child who falls off his new 2-wheeler and breaks his arm guilty of being "inferior"? Or is it his parents? Are you going to start legislating "good parenting" and "morality"?
@ismeme Nope, bad choices = you pay more. Those who contribute more to overall costs--out of pure choice, minding ignorant snobs like yourself--should have to pay more, instead of wringing the change out of the pockets of those who are healthy and may well be otherwise too poor to afford insurance themselves. Your argument ignores the fact that unhealthy idiots are the primary cause of rising health costs in this country, and therefore the uninsured also. It's called "opportunity cost".
@thereinliestherib Right. IOW let's give insurers the responsibility to decide who qualifies as an "unhealthy idiot", even though as for-profit agencies they have no interest in paying out on care and will find every way to avoid doing so by blaming the victim.
Gee, that sounds exactly like the system we have now.
@ismeme No, the unhealthy idiots are the ones defending unhealthy behavior like its a civic virtue. I can't believe people like yourself defend this as some progressive wet dream, when a favorite game of mine, in say Costco, is "find the healthy guy in the crowd of 1,000". Still haven't won my own game... but I guess you believe quadruple-X clothing is the hallmark of a healthy liberal democracy, working man be damned.
@thereinliestherib By your own comments, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time judging everything from the health habits to the opinions of total strangers. Maybe by the time you reach my age you'll have learned people and their lives are too complex to continue using your crude labeling system on them. Maybe you'll even learn to respect others as individuals. But seeing as you're already 28 and don't know better, I doubt it.
@ismeme Ah, personal attacks, the tacit admission that you clearly don't have any objective rebuttal, but must revert to attacking someone based on information... from an anonymous youtube page?
@ismeme It's also worth mentioning that health insurance is one of the only insurance markets that is not regulated by factoring in the inherent risk of the insuree. So basically what we have--and what the health bill only perpetuates by avoiding risk-assessment at all costs--is another economic bubble ready to burst a few years down the line, when HC is already such a huge sector of GDP. Grand! And I wonder where you'll be then? Toasting cokes and smokes over a bucket of KFC, perhaps???
@thereinliestherib No, thanks to corporate tools like you and the asshats in Congress who passed this crap bill, I'll probably be nursing my husband, who has potential prostate cancer right now. We aren't sure. We could only afford one biopsy.
@ismeme I feel for your husband, I truly do. That's not a joke. But the fact you continuously ignore is that the primary cause of health costs in this country is unhealthy behavior, which then becomes the opportunity cost of providing only necessary care to those who truly need it. If instead of forcing the healthy to subsidize fatass addicts, HC would be way more affordable than it is now. Really, go crowd watch a MacDonald's and tell me again where our health costs originate.
@CmdrTobs I never said the system as a whole didn't have systemic problems of its own, I just wish someone would at east buy me dinner before effin my ass for thousands every year just so fat, diabetic smokers get in my same insurance pool. No one can look at our health statistics beside our health costs and tell me it's all just "the industry" without blushing. I once hated fat people only because they were lazy and dramatic--now I must because their stealing from me, with govt support.
Yeah there's a difference between making a profit in a capitalist economy and increasing your profits by 41% when you're in a sector that isn't a "people spend what people want to spend"-type of sector.
So to any conservative reading this, I say, would you be happy if a private school that was funded by the government increased its profits by 41% in a year? Where do you think those profits would come from? A genius new curriculum? Or overbilling, underfunding, and robbing the govts money?
@MyTemporaryAccount88 Who's making 41% and if they do what business is it of yours. Why do Liberals think they should have a say in what business or private people make. The problem in this Country is not Healthcare, it's Jobs, jobs jobs. That's why you took that beatdown on Nov 2nd and you never learn.
@chaumont20 If I had been Obama, I would've been all about jobs. Green jobs. Helping America lead in an industry of the future, while creating good jobs that won't get offshored.
Obama took a beating because he's a shitty politician. He didn't give his base the key things, didn't tell them about the things he passed they'd like, and watered down the big things.
My original point: Insurance is an industry were profits can't soar quickly unless you're simply "taking more in profit", raising cost
@bobbytiger ... it won't work until you tighten the thumb screw on the healthcare insurance companies ... the only way this will be a success for the american people is if they gouvernment finally starts working for the people and not for the big cooperations ... if they take control on what the health insurance co-operations can do and what NOT (i. e. screwing the american people).
@bobbytiger ... Healthcare should be subcedeict 50% Employer 50% Employee, of course this will taken off via income tax every months or every 2 weeks. This model works fine in Germany and people don't have to worry they get screwed by the Healthcare Cooperations, because the german gouvernment has tough controls for those healthcare cooperations.
There is no such thing as "health care" in America You fat fucks got exactly what you deserve because you know only what the TV tells you or what Youtube tells you America you are fat stupid lazy over stimulated and under informed You are THE joke of this planet and you are about to end up in another war that you're too damned dumb to see coming
This you fat faced fucks is coming from a fellow American, and 90% of you deserve your fate.
To the few good people left here not aimed at you.
This why I don't understand why people feel like that have defend insurance companies,Banks and credit card companies. Rather you dem or rep I don't like payingb more for anything. I pay $600 a month in health insurance I only get sick once year. So they get money all year for doing nothing.
In other countries the gouvernment have control over the Healthinsurance Companies for the benefits of the PEOPLE and not the other way around ... something you will never have, because you don't stand up for it.
it's funny to see that americans still haven't learned a thing ... or nothing at all ... voting against their own interests, that's pretty smart ... NOT. HealthCare Industry make the big bugs and what do you get in return ... NOTHING ... or are you trying to tell me what you have there is real healthcare ...? IN any other country I get a 100times better healthcare than in the USA and that is a fact.
@NobbyBear08 So why do so many of you Canucks come to the US for Health Care ? Don't lie and say they don't, it is a well known fact that many Canadians do. It is also a well known fact that the Canuck Government is talking Austerity measures like cutting back further on Canuckvilles Health Care !
@hobo59 ... you know what, keep yourself locked up in a dark room and pay high premiums, blow your hard earned money up those healthinsurance co-op's asses ... and be happy ... at least we don't go bankrupt over paying for healthinsurance ... at least we get what we pay for ... at least our gouvernment has still control over those Health Insurance Companies ... at least our gouvernment is not CORRUPT like yours ...
@NobbyBear08 At least we don't wait years just to get a regular Dr. At least we don't have to get approved for operations we want and need. At least we don't have senior citizens turned down for operations just because of their age ! And BTW Read a fucking Newspaper idiot. Your own Government is talking Austerity measure because your Socialized Health Care is BANKRUPTING your country. So go ahead and keep sucking on that Government Tit until it runs dry !
@hobo59 ... you don't have to wait for anything, right whatevva. Waiting years for a regular doctor, who told you that, lol ... are you on crack or meth, I never waited to see a Doctormore than 20 minutes. I don't need approvel to get a surgery or therapy. Besides that, I am german and not Canadian, I just live here. I had a hipreplacement in 2001 and I didn't pay a dime for the surgery nor for the rehab, thanks to the socialized Healthcare in Germany --->
@hobo59 ... this was all paid because employer and employee pay each 50% into the socialized healthcare, our healthcare insurance co-operations underlay tough regulations by the gouvernment, a gouvernment that for most part works and cares for their people. Your gouvernment doesn't, it only cares about money, that's the center of the univers for them. Talking about going Bankrupt, well the USA is way past that point of going bankrupt already, you will never get out of that anymore. --->
@hobo59 ... Your gouvernment is more than dry already, no wait, you have this smart head of the Fed Bernanki who keeps printing money lol. You can keep arguing with me, I don't really care. I know one thing for sure, whenever there is an election, the American people keep voting against their own interests. It puzzels me, on TV shows like Extrem Home Makeover you see a togetherness you don't see anywhere else, where people help each other. --->
@hobo59 ... and on election day again you keep voting against your own interest but for the interests of the parties (Republican, Democrats, Tea Party). They don't give a fuck about you, why should you? You are depending on those parties to much, can't you make up your own mind? As long as money is in power, things will never change for the good of the american people, NEVER. You hope the co-ops have a heart and their wealth trickles down on you, that will never happen ...
@NobbyBear08 You obviously have a childs understanding of American Politics. It is best if you just stick to your own inept, non integrated boondogle Gooberment ! Try not to let the NeoNazi's take it over again will ya. We'd hate to have to kick your asses,,,,,,,, AGAIN !
@hobo59 ... we won't let that ever happen again ... because we learned from the mistakes in the past, a gift that the american people have totally forgotten ... you see it in every election ... one year Republicans than it's Democrates, than it is republicans again and than it's Democrates again and so on, same old story same old shit and still nothing has been learned from the past. Education Zero
@hobo59 Anyway, we are getting of the subject here ... so you think it is perfectly fine that big health insurance cooperations make big money (profits) off of you in times like this, before the welldoing of the american people while they are still suffering ... that very american!
@NobbyBear08 Nope, just the Opposite actually. I voted for Barry Sotero because He promised a Government Health Care option. In Other words an expansion of the already existing Medicare Program that would cover more than just the elderly, but also the young under 25 and The Poor. But He cut a backroom Deal and sold us out to those Health Insurance Companies. Now they get rich because we are forced to Buy their private Insurance. Barry is traitor who should be Impeached ! Jerk Supported Barry !
WTF is Jerk trying to spin here. The Obama Administration Forces Companies to buy into the private Insurance Industry after making back room deals so that they threw the Public option out and Jerk is like Surprised ? Durrrr ! Of course they are going to get even richer starting in January when all Jerks kiddie converts to socialism follow him into paying for us old folks health care. But hey I'm not complaining, you kids keep listening to Jerk ! I need you to pay for my retirement too ! LMAO
@hobo59 ... yes and you keep listen to the Glenn Becks, Rush Limboughs, FOX's, Republicans, Democrats and Tea Parties and be happy ... another one who has no clue how things really work in a real society ... Socialism, do you even know what that means or what it is ... mostlikely you have not a damn clue like so many americans, no wonder kepp listening to the above.
@NobbyBear08 Another Canuck who thinks he knows a damn thing about "The World" Hahahahaha You Blue Noses Crack me up. You live off the U.S. and you think that makes you just as smart ! LOL You're just a bunch of Leaches. First off your own country and then off ours. Go fuck a Moose ! LMAO
@hobo59 ... Canada lives off the USA ... hahahahahahahahaha, right ... you wish, we clean up after ever War you start you damn motherfuckers, because you can't finish what you started yourself and than you backstab us, because we need to take a break ... RedEye, do I have to say more ... Go jerk off on your damn Flag and be a dumb American ... Uuuuuhhhhh we are so American ... Go fuck yourself, you are the JOKE of the WORLD.
@hobo59 ... America goes down ... the next recession will come soon, because you still haven't learned anything. You Americans are just jealouse because we do alot better economiclly then you LOL ... that's why Canadians are so much hated ... If I was Harper I would quite on the USA and do all my buisness with Europe ... see who is depending on whom ...
Cenk, 'We' can't make decisions. Only 'individuals' can make decisions. Every individual should be free to choose the level of healthcare insurance THEY desire, not whichever level YOU desire. We each have property rights in our own bodies, and our health is no ones business but ours. Insurance companies have every right to offer insurance at whatever price they want, and if you think its too much, then you don't buy it. Get rid of Government invasion into insurance, and premiums will plummet
Hey Cenk, why don't you ever talk about the INSANE amount of tax-payer money that is being given to central banks overseas by the Federal Reserve.
Half a TRILLION! or how about the OUTRAGEOUS defense spending which costs tax-payers TRILLIONS of more dollar & the devaluation of our dollar because the Federal reserve continues to print money (Q.E #2) which will bring us into hyper-inflation...
600 bucks for a piece of bread, get ready America!
a system without profits would be difficult to maintain though. how do you find a balance between low premiums and not denying coverage? i like it im just not sure how itd work
If you work for the government, you get the best private health care in the world.
Public employee unions have a monopoly on health insurance.
If the public works half of the year for government because half of your wages go to taxes, you should get at least half of the same health plan public employee union members get.
Public employee unions are bankrupting the country and public employee retirement systems are ripping everybody off.
Yet another benefit of govt. owned and run nationilised health care is that these profits are made by the govt. (ie: the people), then re-invested in better hospitals etc. and in keeping the medicare levy at a very affordable 1.5% of personal income...
@5lkk In terms of more information, I would highly suggest reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Beautifully written, easy to understand, and you can download it for free from the web.
But to your point, prior to O-Care, the Government was already massively violating the health care industry. The very existence of FDA is but one great example of how its in fact the Government, not the consumer, that decides which corporations are permitted to provide medicine and which are not
@elfornse Yeah because I trust corporations to do the right thing...NOT. I used to work for a sales division for a corporation and we were told in not so many words(i.e. pink slip) do what it takes to get money out of the rubes. I must say at first I felt guilty deceiving customers but when you got bills to pay and those customers arnent paying your bills it makes it easier. So i know corporations first hand are inherently evil
@CardinalRaker It depends on what you mean by doing 'what it takes'. If you and the company were engaged in fraud, than you and the company should be held criminally liable. If your customers didn't pay for what you supplied them, then they should be held criminally liable. To the extent that any fraud/theft has not been prosecuted, this highlights a deficiency in the legal system. And given the legal system is another coercive monopoly run by Government, this deficiency is hardly surprising.
It's unfair to judge the companies' profits. An insurance company like AXA has about 50 billion dollars invested in the company, and that's not taking into consideration salaries, expenses, etc. If someone invests 50 billion, they better get a return on it, you know? Let's talk percentages, that's a different story... but actual amounts of profit, that's just using stats to your advantage. Just keeping it real... let's judge on practice, not on profit.
@mukhi Compnaies ARE judged by their bottom line, there's no way around it. Putting on a front like your so hurt by the so called "Obama care", then making billions in profits? I'm playing the world's smallest violin right now for the insurance companies.
@mukhi - Practice, not profit, eh? William McGuire of UnitedHeath. $110 million salary - golden parachute in excess of one billion (yes, with a "b") dollars. Nearly 1/3 of every dollar that goes into private insurance vanishes. Keep in mind that that "profit" numbers are the very small tip of the iceberg. That's after deducting obscene executive salaries, stock options (which are like printing tax-deductible cash), perk packages for account managers who deny the most claims... and lives lost.
You can't call them insurance, they are National Health Providers that are privately held, because they pay for EVERY DOCTOR VISIT.
Turn the clock back, turn insurance into INSURANCE, get rid of NHS, get rid of employers having to cover employees with insurance packages and watch insurance rates DROP.
Because insurance would only cover after a large deductible (like $1000) and other doctor visits must be paid out of pocket. All prices would fall.
@romanmir01 Before Nixon fucked it up, out of pocket doctor visits were $5.
Insurance would cover a family of 4 for $25/year, $500 deductible and up to $50,000/year, which was enough to cover the most expensive year of cancer treatment 2.5 times (it was $20,000)
Medical profession prices would go DOWN because people would be paying out of pocket, so prices would adjust to what people can pay rather to what gov't or insurance/NHS can pay.
@romanmir01 Prices of medications would go down as well, because insurance wouldn't cover them up to $1000 /deductible (for example, or whatever the plan would be).
The point is that gov't intervention into insurance turned it into something that is NOT insurance AND medical costs skyrocketed because the prices adjusted to what gov't/insurance/employer could pay but not what people would pay.
This is normal for a gov't - they raise prices, they never allow prices to fall.
@romanmir01 - you know, you can pull that shit on the kids, but some of us old farts have memories, too.
.
"Before Nixon fucked it up" - gasoline was about $0.32/gal. Postage stamps were $0.06, Hershey bars were a nickel, and my parents were living in a fairly nice house that they paid $18k for. There were also no C/T scans, no MRI, no advanced enzyme tests, and cancer "treatment" sucked, relatively speaking.
@47f0 It worth factoring in the debasement of the currency being carried out by the Government enacted and protected Federal Reserve. When the Fed counterfeits money, it means money is less scarce and thus worth less and less. The US dollar has lost over 96% of its value since the Fed began counterfeiting in 1913 which explains why prices have gone up over the years instead of down.
@romanmir01 Insurance plans do not pay for every doctor visit, where did you get that idea? Most plans that's extra, if available at all, and there's a co-pay. What we have is anything but a NHS. We have a monopoly of private insurers controlling who gets medical treatment based on income and how it will affect their PROFIT MARGIN. Your idea would never reduce costs...It would only exclude more Americans.
We need to stop letting an industry that has nothing to do with care control our care.
@ismeme Well of-course there is a co-pay, etc. But insurance should be only used for extreme cases and most things must be paid out of pocket. There is a long history of this, since health insurance actually was invented in 1850. Insurance only needs to be used to cover cases, that are too expensive, all other doctor trips must be paid out of pocket
That's how most people did it before 1950s and especially before Nixon. The prices skyrocketed. Doctor visits used to cost $5 before him
@ismeme That's most certainly NOT the system US has now. People do view insurance as a way to pay for most of their health coverage needs. If it's not 100% of visits, even with co-pay, then it's definitely in high seventies/eighties. The point is that insurance is not providing traditional insurance, which involves the pooling of risk, because the vast majority of purchasers actually do face the harms that they are "insuring" against.
@ismeme It's not just insurance. It hasn't been insurance since gov't got involved, created Medicare, and most importantly since Nixon came in and decided to make 100% of people have insurance (and he failed miserably, there were about 10% of uninsured people before him and a little bit more, something like 12-15% uninsured after him) because insurance has disappeared and became this new idea and costs skyrocketed.
Do you understand that gov't caused medical costs to skyrocket?
So if insurance is not NHS in your words, then WHY DO YOU NEED IT?
You are saying: "We need to stop letting an industry .... control our care".
So why are you saying that insurance is NOT NHS if you expect it to cover all of your costs? If you DIDN'T expect it to pay for most everything you visit a doctor for, then why would you NEED health insurance?
Pay out of pocket. You can't - prices are too high, were made too high by gov't intervention and destruction of a working system
@romanmir01 I lived in the UK and NHS is what it's called there. Our system is not by any means NHS. It's a privatized scheme that works for no one except the health insurance industry and the constantly decreasing number who are lucky enough to afford it. If I pay into insurance I expect it to cover what it claims it will cover. It often does not as insurance companies are FOR PROFIT corporations. Their end result and mine are at odds.
@ismeme I lived in USSR, Israel, US, Canada, Germany and Switzerland, so I have taken a good long look at these over the many years.
UK will fall as US will fall, most of Europe will fall. This will happen because social obligations cannot be met due to decreased productivity and loss of jobs.
Jobs are lost and productivity is gone because these countries are not competitive due to their very high expectations of working little and getting so much for working little.
@romanmir01 Your reasoning for why some of these countries' social programs are failing is wrong. For example, the UK NHS is failing is because of chronic underfunding due to partial privatization and too much de-centralization, creating little fiefdoms full of bureaucrats who get paid wild salaries for doing nothing but administration. And most countries are having trouble right now due to the global economic crisis - jobs lost, lower revenues.
No, it's due not to 'partial privatization', but it's due to partial nationalization.
Look at time before gov't started collecting income taxes and printing money in USA. That time, between 1800 and 1913 was extremely productive. All costs went down, quality of life went up insanely quickly, people were mostly farmers near 1800, they became urban dwellers, with indoor plumbing, 3 time/day food that was cheap and plentiful and safe due to new free market ideas like refrigeration.
@romanmir01 No, the UK system was completely nationalized until the 70s and ran well until then. My husband is British, I think he should know.
You're embellishing that period of US history. Corporations had the upper hand after the Civil War. The government's laissez-faire hands-off approach meant factories could pay a pittance and even employ children in dangerous jobs. Child labor was a big problem, as were the slums created by underpaid workers. This didn't change until the Labor movement.
@ismeme First of all I am not even arguing against PRIVATE unions. I am arguing against all gov't intervention into economy.
Secondly, without capitalism and industrialization there wouldn't be any wealth in the system to allow children out of working on the farm fields from 'tender age' of 5
Capitalism allowed people to stop being farmers, gave them an opportunity to be anything else, including engineers and scientists and even artists
UK has spent all of its money and lives on borrowed time
There hasn't been such thing in the world as 'unregulated capitalism since early 19 hundreds. It's just a false idea that anything at all has been 'unregulated'.
Everything is regulated. There are more regulations in US right now in terms of business than in China OR Germany. Much more.
Everything is regulated. Unfortunately everything is regulated.
FDIC was created by gov't in USA, then US gov't also came up with Glass Steagal to counter the ill effects of FDIC moral hazard
What are you talking about? The german economy is one of the most regulated ever. There are regulations for everything and you just have to look at the overwhelming amount of literature, that deals with those regulations. Don't come telling me otherwise, I live there and have to deal with it every day.
@fischkopp1234 You have to compare the regulations in Germany to the regulations in USA. Today in USA there are much more regulations to start a business than in Germany. There are also many more moral hazards that are gov't imposed. Sure, Germany has labor laws, and this is going to be their downfall eventually, the production will leave and will move out to China.
Already now Germany sees much fewer engineering jobs than before.
However Germany has much fewer regulations than USA
In Germany there is no need to do what has to be done in USA. In USA you have to get a business license, a vendor license and dba certifications.
In Germany you do need to open a business, so that's one problem, but you don't need to be actually certified to sell food. But you have to follow the standards of food handling.
If you violate the standards and somebody makes a case out of it, you'll pay fines and maybe lose your business license
Once again you're wrong. Every person, who sells food in Germany and all people that person employs (even people who work at a gas station, that sells candy) need a certification. If you violate the standars of food handling, you can be banned from any job that involves food handling in the worst case.
And in Germany the demand for Engineers is increasing by the day, that's a fact.
@fischkopp1234 You think demand for Engineers is increasing in Germany? Yeah, right. Germany now is producing fewer engineers than ever. Also you have no idea what you are talking about, when you talk about food vendor permits.
Tiny url: 3xkph48 - that's German business portal.
Excerpt:
vendors of food products do not need a special registration or permission to do business ....
Your URL leads to a federal site. You have no idea how things work at state level. If you want to do business in the food market, you need to get permission by attending a course about food safety and diseases and you need a health certificate. Without all of that you and your employees are not allowed to work in the food sector. No matter how many superficial websites you quote, that's the way it is. And while you're right, that the number of engineering students may dwindle, ...
...the number of needed engineers is rising, which leads to more foreign engineers coming in. Faculties at Universities are even enouraging students to switch subjects.
Btw., claiming that the US is heavily regulated by using the food sector as an example is misleading. TYT will vehemently disagree on almost every other field of business (banks, mining, drilling, construction…).
Aren’t you a bit overly talkative? Why don’t you write a book and let Cenk rip it apart.
@fischkopp1234 Cenk has no idea about anything concerning economics, he is wrong on pretty much every economics related issue. He couldn't do anything to Peter Schiff, he was thoroughly beaten up by the guy, it's one of the interviews on this site. It was an embarrassment for Cenk, who treated Schiff as if he was some usual Republican.
Now, if Germany sees more foreign labor (which also means cheaper labor) it's similar to outsourcing work to other countries, but still is better than
@fischkopp1234 still that's better than to see production facilities close their doors.
As to food regulations - citation please. I am in Baden Baden right now, the vendors here I talked to at a Lebanese store did say that they have to follow procedures, those procedures do include actually testing their vendors for disease, but the 'health certificate' is not gov't related! It's a document proving that nobody who works in the store is sick with some disease
@fischkopp1234 So the real free market (crazily enough) is in Asia and soon coming in South America.
That's where the rules and regulations are really very few and anybody can start a business, and that's what economy cares about: your ability to produce.
Anybody can be a consumer, the dumbest of the dumb can consume, no problem.
The question is: who is producing? That's the real economy - production. Consumption is just a consequence of production, and the West is losing the sight of this
@romanmir01 There's a huge difference between something being regulated, i.e. there's a law on the books about it, and that regulation being enforced, as we learned under Bush Jr.
From the 19th into early 20th centuries, banking regulations extended only to national institutions and federal labor laws were non-existent.
Further, deregulation/lack of enforcement has happened repeatedly. It always leads to a short boom followed by a bust, beginning w/t Great Depression.
I am saying all gov't regulations are a terrible idea by the principle of the market. Market does not bode well at all with external entities telling it how to price things, how much to pay for labor, how much should anything cost.
Market suffers from gov't intervention. Prices only go up with gov't intervention. Innovation suffers with gov't intervention. Economy eventually fails, as gov't takes on the role of big brother, runs into deficit and kills currency by inflation
@ismeme There were no regulations of banks in 19 century. 20 century bloomed with regulations and laws. There shouldn't have been any regulations and laws about doing business at all, that's what killed the economy.
All laws regarding labor price fixing are the worst idea for everything, from unemployment to ability to work the way you prefer, to losing jobs to more flexible markets.
@romanmir01 "There were no regulations of banks in 19 century."
Do some reading, please. The National Bank Act was passed by Congress in 1863-64. It offered federal charters to banks that had enough capital and agreed to submit to strict regulation. States also regulated their banks to varying degrees.
The causes of the Great Depression were multiple and complex. Blaming it on the expansion of the money supply is the Austrian School view. It doesn't answer everything.
In 1920 there was a recession caused by gov't printing money, it lasted for a year. You know why it only lasted for a year? Because gov't cut over 70% of spending and let the free market to restructure and take care of it.
That was the last time gov't did something right.
In 1929 gov't printed more money and caused the asset bubble that burst and became the Great Depression, which was caused by gov't printing even more money and spending and borrowing and projects.
@romanmir01 You seem to be of the belief that things were hunky-dory following the "free market" fix of the 1920 recession. That is not the case.
For example, from 1930-33, at the height of the GD, the annual business failure rate was 127/10K. During the "prosperous" period from 1925-29 it was 104/10K. Contrast that with an annual business failure rate of 40-50/10K in the 1950s.
There were many signs that the economy was turning downward before Hoover even took office, much less intervened.
@romanmir01 Your desire to see an end to all regulation is not one shared by most Americans, who value the power of the gov't to enforce a supply of clean drinking water, safe food and pharmaceuticals, and restrict the abuse of our financial system, among other things. Are all regulations good? No. But I don't know any reasonable person who'd prefer to rely on the dubious power of boycott and litigation against the abuses of unfettered corporate greed.
@ismeme Most Americans, and indeed most people are not looking too much into the future when they make their decisions.
Most people can be pretty much considered economic morons, especially when it comes to looking at economy on larger scale, where it involves inflationary tendencies, monetary policy, loss of productivity, price controls, labor laws etc
People only want immediate results so they respond to sound bites.
@ismeme What you call a 'reasonable' person is no such thing. 'Reasonable' person to you is somebody who is not looking at long term ramifications of their current actions and their affect on larger economy and how it will relate to them personally and their offspring in the span of say 20-50 years.
Gov't is terrible at enforcing anything when it concerns private property as well. Why do you think the BP oil spill happened? That's because gov't is not a real owner and doesn't care.
@romanmir01 A reasonable person in this instance is one who knows that boycotting a business for, say, practicing racism in a town populated by racists isn't going to be effective and will likely get you, as the boycotter, targeted. A reasonable person is one who knows that if their child dies from eating contaminated food, their ability to sue the company successfully is doubtful unless they have endless supplies of money and many years to devote to litigation against powerful corp attorneys.
@ismeme Gov't doesn't care because it doesn't have a person in it who takes things personally, because it's not their private property.
Only private property can be truly looked after. Gov't doesn't have owners, so it doesn't matter to it that the ocean will be polluted, that's why it sets 10 Million dollars liability cap on an oil driller for cases such as BP
Sure, this became a PR nightmare for the gov't, so it pressed BP into paying more. But gov't shouldn't own any single one asset
@romanmir01 "Gov't doesn't care because it doesn't have a person in it who takes things personally, because it's not their private property."
We the People ARE the gov't. If it doesn't care as you suggest then it's because WE don't care enough to elect people who do. And there are myriad reasons for that, not the least of which is the highly propagandized society we now live in where opinion is passed off and accepted as fact.
@ismeme All gov't assets must be sold to private owners, who will deal with their neighbors and with others, who may be affected by any actions that are taken privately.
If I owned that piece of ocean where BP drilled, I would have never signed any contract with BP limiting their liability to some number, any number actually.
I would have required them to carry proper insurance and they would not have treated the safety rules, that they know how to follow in such an idiotic manner.
@romanmir01 The BP Gulf disaster was a direct result of regulation NOT being enforced by the flunkies assigned to the Minerals Management Service by Bush. Once again we have a situation where Americans elected people who have a well-known adversity to regulation, and did their best to undermine it in favor of political support from the corporations they were supposed to be watching. The bottom line is that we learned once again what happens without regulation: abuse and tragic consequence.
@ismeme As to safe food - the free market did million times more important steps to make your food safe than gov't ever could. Free market lead to inventions in food preparation, food storage, food transportation
Refrigeration, canning, pasteurization, etc., those are all private inventions that did much more to make food safe than gov't ever could
As to any gov't inspections, those only drive prices up due to necessity to buy licenses, yet food is often still contaminated, it's not 100%
@ismeme Nothing is 100% guaranteed. Gov't kills competition by requiring licenses and permits to be acquired.
I could run my own food inspection/certification agency that didn't have anything to do with gov't, if there was a market space for such a business, and I would have to be competitive and I would have to earn trust of my customers.
Gov't does not. It's a monopoly and all it does is it collects permit and license money, and food safety is same as it would have been without them
@romanmir01 "Gov't does not. It's a monopoly and all it does is it collects permit and license money, and food safety is same as it would have been without them"
How do you know? Please name a modern society such as ours where non-regulation of the food industry has been tried and proved to be as safe as regulation.
@ismeme So moral hazard of FDIC + Glass Steagal = some balance.
However once gov't introduces a moral hazard, clearly the business will try to get rid of the counter law against that moral hazard and enjoy the moral hazard created opportunity to the fullest.
Most of the world does NOT insure banks federally. It's a private matter. For example New Zealand and Germany do not insure and their banking systems didn't even budge. That's because their banks must earn trust of customers
@ismeme FDIC was created to fight a non-issue. During the Great Depression there were some bank runs, but so what, there were bank runs throughout the 19 century, maybe 5 times in different places but so what.
The bank runs only affect under 3% of deposits in total! FDIC though created a moral hazard for over 90% of banks in US! So this moral hazard is this:
gov't insures your deposit. But this means bank doesn't care about gambling with your deposits, it doesn't care to earn your trust
@romanmir01 And you may very well say "So what" to bank runs and failures, attempting to diminish the effect this had on ordinary Americans during the GD. But when you have an average of 600 banks failing each year, growing unemployment and underemployment, and half of all Americans living below a minimum subsistence level, the further insult of losing their life savings isn't likely to be something they'll shrug their shoulders at.
@ismeme FDIC also causes banks' customers not to care about finding out who are these banks people are lending their money to?
If there was no FDIC, banks wouldn't gamble with people's money! Banks would insure privately and private insurance would make banks play by rules of risk that is regulated privately.
Gov't could NEVER assess risk. Bernanke in 2006 said that there is no mortgage bubble. Now he says inflation is LOW! That's an example. Barney Frank said Freddie/Fannie are no problem
@romanmir01 Bernanke said there was no mortgage bubble because he belongs to a group of players in Washington who are entirely beholding to the private sector and laissez-faire economics. They stood back and let lenders & investors spread the belief that there was no end to the good times that were rolling in '06, even tho those same people were betting against the very mortgage-backed securities they sold, KNOWING they were next to worthless, in order to cash in when the market cratered.
@ismeme So FDIC causes people not to care who they give money to. Banks don't care about gambling with your money.
Then gov't takes interest rates down to 0% and gives FREE money to banks. Gov't also INSURES mortgages, no matter how bad they are! Now banks can gamble with SIVs that are mortgage funds insured by gov't. It's insane.
So the only thing now between banks and huge profits for managers is this: Glass Steagal. It's easy to get rid of it with all the free money the Fed is giving at 0%
@romanmir01 Your argument that FDIC causes people not to care who they give their money to and banks not to care about gambling the money is logical except for one small fact: these behaviors were in place BEFORE the FDIC existed. Indeed the FDIC was enacted to guarantee people's deposits against banks that speculated on the stock market - the reason so many of them failed. If FDIC protections weren't in place, many people would be losing their deposits this time around as well.
@romanmir01 "Gov't also INSURES mortgages, no matter how bad they are!"
That's a lie. Virtually none of the subprime mortgages behind the mortgage crisis were backed by the gov't. Most originated in the private sector and did not meet the government's minimum standards for backing, even after those requirements were loosened somewhat by Bush's American Dream Act 2003.
What F&F ARE guilty of is stupidly investing in the high-risk mortgage-backed securities created by private lenders.
My point is that gov't involvement into economy eventually destroys the economy, no matter how 'good' the intentions of gov't are, it doesn't matter. Any gov't intervention is not based on any market cues, on any market signals, they are all devised actually to go against the market.
The problem with going against the market by gov't force is that at the end, market will win and shift its production to places that do not have insane gov't regulations.
@ismeme It's not MOST countries that have the problem, it's very specifically the countries with most social obligations by gov't and expectations by population.
It's countries, that turned their citizens into an unproductive bunch, who expect others to pay and subsidize their high standard of living.
It's countries that saw jobs disappear because of their insane regulations and taxation and price and wage controls.
It's countries that spend and borrow and print money with no productive value
This has been flagged as spam show
Socialism ISN'T communism.. In the UK - FREE national health service costs 7% gdp compared to 17% going to PRIVATE medical firms in the U.S.? Can you spot the anomaly in that equation.? private medical = fairness?
Uk Politics lies about "loving" the NHS & instead chip away at it - they'd rather corporate chums on the boards of private medical stepped in. But most of UK LOVE the NHS and it employs a LOT of people.
People in poverty die and suffer in the U.S. What's so great about that?
telemetry9 1 month ago
nice information...! thanks for upload this video...!
TonikHealthInsurance 8 months ago
Our health is in the hands of insurance companies...We need a choice like in Europe.
pasajesancarlos 8 months ago
@pasajesancarlos they dont get a choice in Europe. whenever one of my friends parents, who go to Europe for work, gets pregnant they choice to go over to America. WHY? because the healthcare in Europe doesnt work.
saberur66 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Real dating site for Russian man and women online now gettop5.info
MeganLoomj 1 year ago
I pay out of pocket. When my wife or I or my kid go to Drs, we pay ourselves and get on top of queue because of that, that's a nice perk for paying yourself.
Catherine8940 1 year ago
If Cenk is so concerned about CEO salaries and profits why doesn't he ever complain about the mandate that will force the poor and unemployed to purchase health care insurance?
mrchiefofsinners 1 year ago
@mrchiefofsinners
well you do realize that for the poor Health Care will be heavily subsidzed and that having HC to cover your basic always should be a priority. If ppl receive treatment without HC you know who pays the bill ? right you ! the taxpayer
Fettemotte2 1 year ago
Hillary Clinton is right when she said insurance companies are destroying the health care system. Insurance companies charge premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and then you only get 50-80% coverage at best. They drop seniors from their coverage and deny children coverage with pre-existing conditions and these insurance companies think they're providing a service to society. This is criminal.
Health insurance companies should be non-profit.
mrchiefofsinners 1 year ago 11
@mrchiefofsinners I hate to break to to you, but the "evil" insurance companies only make single-digit profit margins, which is nothing compared to any other industry. With such stats, they could well qualify for "non-profit" status, because to be a non-profit all you have to do is reserve 10-12% of your profits for your "cause"--ie, health care. Reminds me of a guy I know who said he wanted to make a lot of money... by starting a "non-profit".
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib This is the western economic failure. 10-12% leaves companies that actually make a physical exportable product for dust.
9.3 Billion profit a quarter?! For simply collecting, and reimbursing money for treatment?! The US Auto sector made 23B loss in (2008) only made profit (2001,2002 total 15B)
I wonder what the likes of Henry ford would say if you told them 70yrs down the line you could make more money receiving money and paying it out than actually making something.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs they would either call the American public crazy or they would want out how to get their own scam like that working.
Bigbird5553 1 year ago
The best part is watching fat, bloated opinionheads flap about health care reform, and how unquestionably moral socialism is because they said so, when the majority of our health costs now and even moreso in the next few decades are because of obesity and weight problems. Hilarious. And the health care "reform" bill gets signed by Obama, a smoker and drinker. Looks like November 2nd was the last laugh guys! Ouch!
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib Yeah, with reformists in Congress like Rep Andy Harris (R-MD - Tea Party elected candidate), things are bound to change...
Except - wait a minute - Rep Harris is already demanding to know why he has to wait a whole month after he's sworn in before his taxpayer-funded gov't healthcare kicks in!
watch?v=9V588rGMId4
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme So? He is contractually entitled to expect such a good--why is that controversial?
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib Try hypocritical...because he campaigned AGAINST gov't healthcare. If he had a stitch of integrity he'd pay for his own healthcare instead of expecting taxpayers to pay for him. He certainly earns enough to do so.
ismeme 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ismeme "He certainly earns enough to do so."
Which outright means you didn't even bother to research your claims of "hypocrisy," because he said as much himself. The matter was over not being told of the lapse, and why it should have occurred in the first place when any private sector position benefits would have--go figure--operated efficiently from day one.
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib You clearly don't have much experience in the work force. I've been employed since the early 80s at various corporations big and small, and not one of them covered from day one. You have to enroll and typically there's a few months' wait.
Harris is an anesthesiologist. That implies some intellect. Perhaps if he were more interested in facts rather than assuming, he wouldn't have been surprised. Even a schmuck can ask, call or look the info up online.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme I understand that, it's the 'ole three month ride to benefits for us workaday Sallies. However, professionals are hired on contracts wherein it is completely normal to expect benefits from day one, because benefits are a part of that contract. Underlings like us have to prove we're gonna stick around before we're entitled to any crumbs.
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
This is the result of allowing the health insurance lobbyists to write their own health reform legislation
WOOPPHHEEEEE!!! DOOOO DOOO!!!!
The HMO's need to be RIP
metalreign81 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@genie0390 Spoken like a true insurance agent hehehehe.. Anyone who supports their cause will try to find any excuse to make it morally right... Hope you guys rot in hell...
TheLegendaryLinx 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheLegendaryLinx 1 year ago
WAKE UP "SLAVES!"
TommyTurntables1 1 year ago
it shouldn't cost an arm and a leg to get the other arm or leg fixed.....
dankbot420 1 year ago
They are making money hand over fist. Money in their hands and a fist up our ass.
MoJoSB 1 year ago
join AMERICANS FOR HEALTHCARE ON FACEBOOK
printzton1954 1 year ago
@DarthMakaveliSithMC Ok you clearly are retarded. I am 100% positive that you like to do things that totally pointless. For instance since this applies to most people I assume you enjoy sex without the intent of reproduction. And that is far more dangerous then just typing "first" on youtube videos. So get off your high horse if you are going to try to cut off its legs while sitting on it.
CaiusTheShadow 1 year ago
lol This is precisely why I'm moving to Paris as soon as I can (I chose Paris cause of a movie I saw).
ramone2185 1 year ago
@ramone2185 i chose Denmark.
Rockguitarist4 1 year ago
Health care profits after Obama's health "reform" mandate bill? Do you stupid lefties really not see the connection between the two? Between health co. contribution to dem's in '09, and a "reform" bill that overcharges the responsibly healthy in a country with a 70% obesity/overweight rate? Hmmm... you people really don't get it. The HCR bill was the industry's bill, plain and simple.
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
try to get insurance for my mom and dad. It will cost $170 per week. Pray that my parents can live long enough for Obama's health care plan comes to play. (or was that just all talk?)
gammatnt 1 year ago
@gammatnt Your parents can't afford insurance because the country is a bunch of obese smokers and addicts whose only reflex is to blame the other instead of looking at the real problem. If it weren't for forced coverage for people who have made insanely stupid health choices, your parents rates would plummet. Thanks.
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib thanks for the reply, that insurance rate was from my mom's job. They got to cover who ever apply, (no health check require). But that 40% increase in profit on people well being makes me sick. But that is price we pay for living in a Capitalist country.
gammatnt 1 year ago
@gammatnt "But that is price we pay for living in a Capitalist country." Quite the contrary. An evil "capitalist" free market would allow you to buy across state lines, only necessary coverage, and you would be able to buy according to your personal risk. Fact is, democrats and the industry have gerrymandered coverage in order to force you and your parents to subsidize fat, addicted smokers as well as unions and health co's. That people think the dem's are the white hats is just hilarious.
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib What's that I hear? A little Social Darwinism? I'd love to know where you libertarian models of American virtue draw the line on what qualifies as "an inferior human". Does it include the disabled, the elderly, the homeless, children living in poverty, those born with a congenital disease or mental defect? How about people who drink socially or engage in dangerous sports?
Who's to decide what an "insanely stupid health choice" is?
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme "Who's to decide what an "insanely stupid health choice" is?" Cost statistics, actually, because 70% of our health costs come not from accidental or chance ailments, but from "preventable ailments" that are the direct consequence of stupid behavior (heart disease, diabetes, smoking-related cancers, etc). So yeah, get effed, loser. The contra-positive is that those who are healthy and don't consume health care are very profitable, hence the insurance mandate.
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib So your view is healthcare should be doled out based on cost statistics that support Social Darwinism, i.e. "bad choices" = no healthcare. Thanks for that. But you didn't answer the rest of my question. Where do you draw the line on what an "insanely stupid health choice" is? Is a child who falls off his new 2-wheeler and breaks his arm guilty of being "inferior"? Or is it his parents? Are you going to start legislating "good parenting" and "morality"?
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Nope, bad choices = you pay more. Those who contribute more to overall costs--out of pure choice, minding ignorant snobs like yourself--should have to pay more, instead of wringing the change out of the pockets of those who are healthy and may well be otherwise too poor to afford insurance themselves. Your argument ignores the fact that unhealthy idiots are the primary cause of rising health costs in this country, and therefore the uninsured also. It's called "opportunity cost".
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib Right. IOW let's give insurers the responsibility to decide who qualifies as an "unhealthy idiot", even though as for-profit agencies they have no interest in paying out on care and will find every way to avoid doing so by blaming the victim.
Gee, that sounds exactly like the system we have now.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme No, the unhealthy idiots are the ones defending unhealthy behavior like its a civic virtue. I can't believe people like yourself defend this as some progressive wet dream, when a favorite game of mine, in say Costco, is "find the healthy guy in the crowd of 1,000". Still haven't won my own game... but I guess you believe quadruple-X clothing is the hallmark of a healthy liberal democracy, working man be damned.
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib By your own comments, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time judging everything from the health habits to the opinions of total strangers. Maybe by the time you reach my age you'll have learned people and their lives are too complex to continue using your crude labeling system on them. Maybe you'll even learn to respect others as individuals. But seeing as you're already 28 and don't know better, I doubt it.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Ah, personal attacks, the tacit admission that you clearly don't have any objective rebuttal, but must revert to attacking someone based on information... from an anonymous youtube page?
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@ismeme It's also worth mentioning that health insurance is one of the only insurance markets that is not regulated by factoring in the inherent risk of the insuree. So basically what we have--and what the health bill only perpetuates by avoiding risk-assessment at all costs--is another economic bubble ready to burst a few years down the line, when HC is already such a huge sector of GDP. Grand! And I wonder where you'll be then? Toasting cokes and smokes over a bucket of KFC, perhaps???
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib No, thanks to corporate tools like you and the asshats in Congress who passed this crap bill, I'll probably be nursing my husband, who has potential prostate cancer right now. We aren't sure. We could only afford one biopsy.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme I feel for your husband, I truly do. That's not a joke. But the fact you continuously ignore is that the primary cause of health costs in this country is unhealthy behavior, which then becomes the opportunity cost of providing only necessary care to those who truly need it. If instead of forcing the healthy to subsidize fatass addicts, HC would be way more affordable than it is now. Really, go crowd watch a MacDonald's and tell me again where our health costs originate.
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thereinliestherib Quite honestly, from the things you write, I doubt you have the capacity to feel for anyone but yourself.
ismeme 1 year ago
@thereinliestherib Poor health is a problem.
But the costs in America are high compared to MORE unhealthy countries (yes they are some regions)
So the difference? Too many emergency room patients in the US. Too many diagnostic scans (largely to prove a case for treatment to insurers.)
Strong IP rights for pharma, takes too long to get generic drugs.
____
H.C in general WorldWide are rising simply because we can treat new things in new ways. All these new ways are labour intensive.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs I never said the system as a whole didn't have systemic problems of its own, I just wish someone would at east buy me dinner before effin my ass for thousands every year just so fat, diabetic smokers get in my same insurance pool. No one can look at our health statistics beside our health costs and tell me it's all just "the industry" without blushing. I once hated fat people only because they were lazy and dramatic--now I must because their stealing from me, with govt support.
thereinliestherib 1 year ago
Yeah there's a difference between making a profit in a capitalist economy and increasing your profits by 41% when you're in a sector that isn't a "people spend what people want to spend"-type of sector.
So to any conservative reading this, I say, would you be happy if a private school that was funded by the government increased its profits by 41% in a year? Where do you think those profits would come from? A genius new curriculum? Or overbilling, underfunding, and robbing the govts money?
MyTemporaryAccount88 1 year ago
@MyTemporaryAccount88 Who's making 41% and if they do what business is it of yours. Why do Liberals think they should have a say in what business or private people make. The problem in this Country is not Healthcare, it's Jobs, jobs jobs. That's why you took that beatdown on Nov 2nd and you never learn.
chaumont20 1 year ago
@chaumont20 If I had been Obama, I would've been all about jobs. Green jobs. Helping America lead in an industry of the future, while creating good jobs that won't get offshored.
Obama took a beating because he's a shitty politician. He didn't give his base the key things, didn't tell them about the things he passed they'd like, and watered down the big things.
My original point: Insurance is an industry were profits can't soar quickly unless you're simply "taking more in profit", raising cost
MyTemporaryAccount88 1 year ago 6
I thought "President" Obamas Health Care "Reform" bill,
was going to take care of these types of problems.
I guess he was wrong.
bobbytiger 1 year ago
@bobbytiger ... it won't work until you tighten the thumb screw on the healthcare insurance companies ... the only way this will be a success for the american people is if they gouvernment finally starts working for the people and not for the big cooperations ... if they take control on what the health insurance co-operations can do and what NOT (i. e. screwing the american people).
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@bobbytiger ... Healthcare should be subcedeict 50% Employer 50% Employee, of course this will taken off via income tax every months or every 2 weeks. This model works fine in Germany and people don't have to worry they get screwed by the Healthcare Cooperations, because the german gouvernment has tough controls for those healthcare cooperations.
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@bobbytiger It doesn't start for a few more years, idiot. That's why rates have jumped - they're raping and pillaging until they can't anymore.
jawayetti 1 year ago
@jawayetti
You are correct.
bobbytiger 1 year ago
Classic Cenk, TYT style.
Well done.
Phyrexious 1 year ago 2
There is no such thing as "health care" in America You fat fucks got exactly what you deserve because you know only what the TV tells you or what Youtube tells you America you are fat stupid lazy over stimulated and under informed You are THE joke of this planet and you are about to end up in another war that you're too damned dumb to see coming
This you fat faced fucks is coming from a fellow American, and 90% of you deserve your fate.
To the few good people left here not aimed at you.
yourmomdidsayyourean 1 year ago
Well, of course they make so much money when they don't pay out on claims.
mmr11027 1 year ago
9 billion dollars means that could stop telling the lie that they hurting for cash and letting tea party people fight their fights for them.
MrHeavyGunner 1 year ago
This why I don't understand why people feel like that have defend insurance companies,Banks and credit card companies. Rather you dem or rep I don't like payingb more for anything. I pay $600 a month in health insurance I only get sick once year. So they get money all year for doing nothing.
MrHeavyGunner 1 year ago
In other countries the gouvernment have control over the Healthinsurance Companies for the benefits of the PEOPLE and not the other way around ... something you will never have, because you don't stand up for it.
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
it's funny to see that americans still haven't learned a thing ... or nothing at all ... voting against their own interests, that's pretty smart ... NOT. HealthCare Industry make the big bugs and what do you get in return ... NOTHING ... or are you trying to tell me what you have there is real healthcare ...? IN any other country I get a 100times better healthcare than in the USA and that is a fact.
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@NobbyBear08 So why do so many of you Canucks come to the US for Health Care ? Don't lie and say they don't, it is a well known fact that many Canadians do. It is also a well known fact that the Canuck Government is talking Austerity measures like cutting back further on Canuckvilles Health Care !
hobo59 1 year ago
@hobo59 ... you know what, keep yourself locked up in a dark room and pay high premiums, blow your hard earned money up those healthinsurance co-op's asses ... and be happy ... at least we don't go bankrupt over paying for healthinsurance ... at least we get what we pay for ... at least our gouvernment has still control over those Health Insurance Companies ... at least our gouvernment is not CORRUPT like yours ...
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@NobbyBear08 At least we don't wait years just to get a regular Dr. At least we don't have to get approved for operations we want and need. At least we don't have senior citizens turned down for operations just because of their age ! And BTW Read a fucking Newspaper idiot. Your own Government is talking Austerity measure because your Socialized Health Care is BANKRUPTING your country. So go ahead and keep sucking on that Government Tit until it runs dry !
hobo59 1 year ago
@hobo59 ... you don't have to wait for anything, right whatevva. Waiting years for a regular doctor, who told you that, lol ... are you on crack or meth, I never waited to see a Doctormore than 20 minutes. I don't need approvel to get a surgery or therapy. Besides that, I am german and not Canadian, I just live here. I had a hipreplacement in 2001 and I didn't pay a dime for the surgery nor for the rehab, thanks to the socialized Healthcare in Germany --->
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@hobo59 ... this was all paid because employer and employee pay each 50% into the socialized healthcare, our healthcare insurance co-operations underlay tough regulations by the gouvernment, a gouvernment that for most part works and cares for their people. Your gouvernment doesn't, it only cares about money, that's the center of the univers for them. Talking about going Bankrupt, well the USA is way past that point of going bankrupt already, you will never get out of that anymore. --->
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@hobo59 ... Your gouvernment is more than dry already, no wait, you have this smart head of the Fed Bernanki who keeps printing money lol. You can keep arguing with me, I don't really care. I know one thing for sure, whenever there is an election, the American people keep voting against their own interests. It puzzels me, on TV shows like Extrem Home Makeover you see a togetherness you don't see anywhere else, where people help each other. --->
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@hobo59 ... and on election day again you keep voting against your own interest but for the interests of the parties (Republican, Democrats, Tea Party). They don't give a fuck about you, why should you? You are depending on those parties to much, can't you make up your own mind? As long as money is in power, things will never change for the good of the american people, NEVER. You hope the co-ops have a heart and their wealth trickles down on you, that will never happen ...
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@NobbyBear08 You obviously have a childs understanding of American Politics. It is best if you just stick to your own inept, non integrated boondogle Gooberment ! Try not to let the NeoNazi's take it over again will ya. We'd hate to have to kick your asses,,,,,,,, AGAIN !
hobo59 1 year ago
@hobo59 ... we won't let that ever happen again ... because we learned from the mistakes in the past, a gift that the american people have totally forgotten ... you see it in every election ... one year Republicans than it's Democrates, than it is republicans again and than it's Democrates again and so on, same old story same old shit and still nothing has been learned from the past. Education Zero
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@hobo59 Anyway, we are getting of the subject here ... so you think it is perfectly fine that big health insurance cooperations make big money (profits) off of you in times like this, before the welldoing of the american people while they are still suffering ... that very american!
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@NobbyBear08 Nope, just the Opposite actually. I voted for Barry Sotero because He promised a Government Health Care option. In Other words an expansion of the already existing Medicare Program that would cover more than just the elderly, but also the young under 25 and The Poor. But He cut a backroom Deal and sold us out to those Health Insurance Companies. Now they get rich because we are forced to Buy their private Insurance. Barry is traitor who should be Impeached ! Jerk Supported Barry !
hobo59 1 year ago
WTF is Jerk trying to spin here. The Obama Administration Forces Companies to buy into the private Insurance Industry after making back room deals so that they threw the Public option out and Jerk is like Surprised ? Durrrr ! Of course they are going to get even richer starting in January when all Jerks kiddie converts to socialism follow him into paying for us old folks health care. But hey I'm not complaining, you kids keep listening to Jerk ! I need you to pay for my retirement too ! LMAO
hobo59 1 year ago
@hobo59 ... yes and you keep listen to the Glenn Becks, Rush Limboughs, FOX's, Republicans, Democrats and Tea Parties and be happy ... another one who has no clue how things really work in a real society ... Socialism, do you even know what that means or what it is ... mostlikely you have not a damn clue like so many americans, no wonder kepp listening to the above.
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@NobbyBear08 Another Canuck who thinks he knows a damn thing about "The World" Hahahahaha You Blue Noses Crack me up. You live off the U.S. and you think that makes you just as smart ! LOL You're just a bunch of Leaches. First off your own country and then off ours. Go fuck a Moose ! LMAO
hobo59 1 year ago
@hobo59 ... Canada lives off the USA ... hahahahahahahahaha, right ... you wish, we clean up after ever War you start you damn motherfuckers, because you can't finish what you started yourself and than you backstab us, because we need to take a break ... RedEye, do I have to say more ... Go jerk off on your damn Flag and be a dumb American ... Uuuuuhhhhh we are so American ... Go fuck yourself, you are the JOKE of the WORLD.
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
@hobo59 ... America goes down ... the next recession will come soon, because you still haven't learned anything. You Americans are just jealouse because we do alot better economiclly then you LOL ... that's why Canadians are so much hated ... If I was Harper I would quite on the USA and do all my buisness with Europe ... see who is depending on whom ...
NobbyBear08 1 year ago
Cenk, 'We' can't make decisions. Only 'individuals' can make decisions. Every individual should be free to choose the level of healthcare insurance THEY desire, not whichever level YOU desire. We each have property rights in our own bodies, and our health is no ones business but ours. Insurance companies have every right to offer insurance at whatever price they want, and if you think its too much, then you don't buy it. Get rid of Government invasion into insurance, and premiums will plummet
elfornse 1 year ago
@elfornse You comment is both factually and historically incorrect. But props to the regurgitation of the Glenn Beck talking points.
DoctorMeh 1 year ago
Hey Cenk, why don't you ever talk about the INSANE amount of tax-payer money that is being given to central banks overseas by the Federal Reserve.
Half a TRILLION! or how about the OUTRAGEOUS defense spending which costs tax-payers TRILLIONS of more dollar & the devaluation of our dollar because the Federal reserve continues to print money (Q.E #2) which will bring us into hyper-inflation...
600 bucks for a piece of bread, get ready America!
North2016 1 year ago
:46. Some guy goes "uhm hmm"? That's pretty silly.
MirraSyren 1 year ago
a system without profits would be difficult to maintain though. how do you find a balance between low premiums and not denying coverage? i like it im just not sure how itd work
hannahmobrien 1 year ago
If you work for the government, you get the best private health care in the world.
Public employee unions have a monopoly on health insurance.
If the public works half of the year for government because half of your wages go to taxes, you should get at least half of the same health plan public employee union members get.
Public employee unions are bankrupting the country and public employee retirement systems are ripping everybody off.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Yet another benefit of govt. owned and run nationilised health care is that these profits are made by the govt. (ie: the people), then re-invested in better hospitals etc. and in keeping the medicare levy at a very affordable 1.5% of personal income...
crocfme 1 year ago
@5lkk In terms of more information, I would highly suggest reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Beautifully written, easy to understand, and you can download it for free from the web.
But to your point, prior to O-Care, the Government was already massively violating the health care industry. The very existence of FDA is but one great example of how its in fact the Government, not the consumer, that decides which corporations are permitted to provide medicine and which are not
elfornse 1 year ago
@elfornse Yeah because I trust corporations to do the right thing...NOT. I used to work for a sales division for a corporation and we were told in not so many words(i.e. pink slip) do what it takes to get money out of the rubes. I must say at first I felt guilty deceiving customers but when you got bills to pay and those customers arnent paying your bills it makes it easier. So i know corporations first hand are inherently evil
CardinalRaker 1 year ago
@CardinalRaker It depends on what you mean by doing 'what it takes'. If you and the company were engaged in fraud, than you and the company should be held criminally liable. If your customers didn't pay for what you supplied them, then they should be held criminally liable. To the extent that any fraud/theft has not been prosecuted, this highlights a deficiency in the legal system. And given the legal system is another coercive monopoly run by Government, this deficiency is hardly surprising.
elfornse 1 year ago
It's unfair to judge the companies' profits. An insurance company like AXA has about 50 billion dollars invested in the company, and that's not taking into consideration salaries, expenses, etc. If someone invests 50 billion, they better get a return on it, you know? Let's talk percentages, that's a different story... but actual amounts of profit, that's just using stats to your advantage. Just keeping it real... let's judge on practice, not on profit.
mukhi 1 year ago
@mukhi Compnaies ARE judged by their bottom line, there's no way around it. Putting on a front like your so hurt by the so called "Obama care", then making billions in profits? I'm playing the world's smallest violin right now for the insurance companies.
IsDaMicOn78 1 year ago
@mukhi - Practice, not profit, eh? William McGuire of UnitedHeath. $110 million salary - golden parachute in excess of one billion (yes, with a "b") dollars. Nearly 1/3 of every dollar that goes into private insurance vanishes. Keep in mind that that "profit" numbers are the very small tip of the iceberg. That's after deducting obscene executive salaries, stock options (which are like printing tax-deductible cash), perk packages for account managers who deny the most claims... and lives lost.
47f0 1 year ago
Go Cenk! Great work man
UnkleSi 1 year ago
Nixon turned US insurance companies into NHS.
You can't call them insurance, they are National Health Providers that are privately held, because they pay for EVERY DOCTOR VISIT.
Turn the clock back, turn insurance into INSURANCE, get rid of NHS, get rid of employers having to cover employees with insurance packages and watch insurance rates DROP.
Because insurance would only cover after a large deductible (like $1000) and other doctor visits must be paid out of pocket. All prices would fall.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Before Nixon fucked it up, out of pocket doctor visits were $5.
Insurance would cover a family of 4 for $25/year, $500 deductible and up to $50,000/year, which was enough to cover the most expensive year of cancer treatment 2.5 times (it was $20,000)
Medical profession prices would go DOWN because people would be paying out of pocket, so prices would adjust to what people can pay rather to what gov't or insurance/NHS can pay.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Prices of medications would go down as well, because insurance wouldn't cover them up to $1000 /deductible (for example, or whatever the plan would be).
The point is that gov't intervention into insurance turned it into something that is NOT insurance AND medical costs skyrocketed because the prices adjusted to what gov't/insurance/employer could pay but not what people would pay.
This is normal for a gov't - they raise prices, they never allow prices to fall.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 - you know, you can pull that shit on the kids, but some of us old farts have memories, too.
.
"Before Nixon fucked it up" - gasoline was about $0.32/gal. Postage stamps were $0.06, Hershey bars were a nickel, and my parents were living in a fairly nice house that they paid $18k for. There were also no C/T scans, no MRI, no advanced enzyme tests, and cancer "treatment" sucked, relatively speaking.
.
But hey - good luck returning to your childhood.
47f0 1 year ago
@47f0 You are correct. Nixon fixed prices on food, he got USD off the gold standard in 1972, he printed money, he borrowed, he created huge spending.
ALL costs went up because of his 'work'.
MRI wasn't there. But you know what wasn't there either? iPhone.
Do you know how much the hardware that is used in iPhone would have cost you in 1980?
It would be more than biggest mainframes, it would be more than some space ships.
Now look at it - Free Market (or some of free market) at work. MRI? Ha
romanmir01 1 year ago
@47f0 It worth factoring in the debasement of the currency being carried out by the Government enacted and protected Federal Reserve. When the Fed counterfeits money, it means money is less scarce and thus worth less and less. The US dollar has lost over 96% of its value since the Fed began counterfeiting in 1913 which explains why prices have gone up over the years instead of down.
elfornse 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Insurance plans do not pay for every doctor visit, where did you get that idea? Most plans that's extra, if available at all, and there's a co-pay. What we have is anything but a NHS. We have a monopoly of private insurers controlling who gets medical treatment based on income and how it will affect their PROFIT MARGIN. Your idea would never reduce costs...It would only exclude more Americans.
We need to stop letting an industry that has nothing to do with care control our care.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Well of-course there is a co-pay, etc. But insurance should be only used for extreme cases and most things must be paid out of pocket. There is a long history of this, since health insurance actually was invented in 1850. Insurance only needs to be used to cover cases, that are too expensive, all other doctor trips must be paid out of pocket
That's how most people did it before 1950s and especially before Nixon. The prices skyrocketed. Doctor visits used to cost $5 before him
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 "Well of-course there is a co-pay"
You said insurance pays for "EVERY DOCTOR VISIT". They do not. Maybe your plan does w/a co-pay, but many do not include doctor visits.
"Insurance only needs to be used to cover cases, that are too expensive, all other doctor trips must be paid out of pocket"
That's the system we have now and there are plenty of Americans who suffer AND die because someone else has decided what they can afford.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme That's most certainly NOT the system US has now. People do view insurance as a way to pay for most of their health coverage needs. If it's not 100% of visits, even with co-pay, then it's definitely in high seventies/eighties. The point is that insurance is not providing traditional insurance, which involves the pooling of risk, because the vast majority of purchasers actually do face the harms that they are "insuring" against.
continued
romanmir01 1 year ago
@ismeme
insurers are something of a low-risk money manager, who pocket the interest on what are really long-term healthcare savings accounts.
So it's not INSURANCE you are paying for, that ship has sailed with Nixon.
You are paying into a 'health savings account' and you are expecting to see it cover most of your costs, not EXTRAORDINARY situations.
You are even saying: "We need to stop letting an industry .... control our care".
why are they controlling anything if it's just insurans?
romanmir01 1 year ago
@ismeme It's not just insurance. It hasn't been insurance since gov't got involved, created Medicare, and most importantly since Nixon came in and decided to make 100% of people have insurance (and he failed miserably, there were about 10% of uninsured people before him and a little bit more, something like 12-15% uninsured after him) because insurance has disappeared and became this new idea and costs skyrocketed.
Do you understand that gov't caused medical costs to skyrocket?
romanmir01 1 year ago
@ismeme
So if insurance is not NHS in your words, then WHY DO YOU NEED IT?
You are saying: "We need to stop letting an industry .... control our care".
So why are you saying that insurance is NOT NHS if you expect it to cover all of your costs? If you DIDN'T expect it to pay for most everything you visit a doctor for, then why would you NEED health insurance?
Pay out of pocket. You can't - prices are too high, were made too high by gov't intervention and destruction of a working system
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 I lived in the UK and NHS is what it's called there. Our system is not by any means NHS. It's a privatized scheme that works for no one except the health insurance industry and the constantly decreasing number who are lucky enough to afford it. If I pay into insurance I expect it to cover what it claims it will cover. It often does not as insurance companies are FOR PROFIT corporations. Their end result and mine are at odds.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme I lived in USSR, Israel, US, Canada, Germany and Switzerland, so I have taken a good long look at these over the many years.
UK will fall as US will fall, most of Europe will fall. This will happen because social obligations cannot be met due to decreased productivity and loss of jobs.
Jobs are lost and productivity is gone because these countries are not competitive due to their very high expectations of working little and getting so much for working little.
continued
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Your reasoning for why some of these countries' social programs are failing is wrong. For example, the UK NHS is failing is because of chronic underfunding due to partial privatization and too much de-centralization, creating little fiefdoms full of bureaucrats who get paid wild salaries for doing nothing but administration. And most countries are having trouble right now due to the global economic crisis - jobs lost, lower revenues.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme
No, it's due not to 'partial privatization', but it's due to partial nationalization.
Look at time before gov't started collecting income taxes and printing money in USA. That time, between 1800 and 1913 was extremely productive. All costs went down, quality of life went up insanely quickly, people were mostly farmers near 1800, they became urban dwellers, with indoor plumbing, 3 time/day food that was cheap and plentiful and safe due to new free market ideas like refrigeration.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 No, the UK system was completely nationalized until the 70s and ran well until then. My husband is British, I think he should know.
You're embellishing that period of US history. Corporations had the upper hand after the Civil War. The government's laissez-faire hands-off approach meant factories could pay a pittance and even employ children in dangerous jobs. Child labor was a big problem, as were the slums created by underpaid workers. This didn't change until the Labor movement.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme First of all I am not even arguing against PRIVATE unions. I am arguing against all gov't intervention into economy.
Secondly, without capitalism and industrialization there wouldn't be any wealth in the system to allow children out of working on the farm fields from 'tender age' of 5
Capitalism allowed people to stop being farmers, gave them an opportunity to be anything else, including engineers and scientists and even artists
UK has spent all of its money and lives on borrowed time
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 And I'm not arguing against capitalism. I'm arguing against unregulated capitalism. We're living the results of that now. So is the UK.
ismeme 1 year ago 2
@ismeme
No, I am arguing against gov't in principle doing anything at all that affects economy in any way at all except these:
1. Minimum military to protect freedoms and liberties.
2. Justice system to judge based on contract and criminal law
3. Possibly cops/prisons.
--
that's all.
I am against all regulations completely, but you are incorrect. What you are reliving right now is not 'unregulated capitalism'.
Not even close, not true for a microsecond.
continued.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@ismeme
There hasn't been such thing in the world as 'unregulated capitalism since early 19 hundreds. It's just a false idea that anything at all has been 'unregulated'.
Everything is regulated. There are more regulations in US right now in terms of business than in China OR Germany. Much more.
Everything is regulated. Unfortunately everything is regulated.
FDIC was created by gov't in USA, then US gov't also came up with Glass Steagal to counter the ill effects of FDIC moral hazard
contd
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01
What are you talking about? The german economy is one of the most regulated ever. There are regulations for everything and you just have to look at the overwhelming amount of literature, that deals with those regulations. Don't come telling me otherwise, I live there and have to deal with it every day.
fischkopp1234 1 year ago 2
@fischkopp1234 You have to compare the regulations in Germany to the regulations in USA. Today in USA there are much more regulations to start a business than in Germany. There are also many more moral hazards that are gov't imposed. Sure, Germany has labor laws, and this is going to be their downfall eventually, the production will leave and will move out to China.
Already now Germany sees much fewer engineering jobs than before.
However Germany has much fewer regulations than USA
continued
romanmir01 1 year ago
@fischkopp1234 Simplest example again: food vendor.
In Germany there is no need to do what has to be done in USA. In USA you have to get a business license, a vendor license and dba certifications.
In Germany you do need to open a business, so that's one problem, but you don't need to be actually certified to sell food. But you have to follow the standards of food handling.
If you violate the standards and somebody makes a case out of it, you'll pay fines and maybe lose your business license
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01
Once again you're wrong. Every person, who sells food in Germany and all people that person employs (even people who work at a gas station, that sells candy) need a certification. If you violate the standars of food handling, you can be banned from any job that involves food handling in the worst case.
And in Germany the demand for Engineers is increasing by the day, that's a fact.
Other than that, you're right.
fischkopp1234 1 year ago
@fischkopp1234 You think demand for Engineers is increasing in Germany? Yeah, right. Germany now is producing fewer engineers than ever. Also you have no idea what you are talking about, when you talk about food vendor permits.
Tiny url: 3xkph48 - that's German business portal.
Excerpt:
vendors of food products do not need a special registration or permission to do business ....
you can read it for yourself.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01
Your URL leads to a federal site. You have no idea how things work at state level. If you want to do business in the food market, you need to get permission by attending a course about food safety and diseases and you need a health certificate. Without all of that you and your employees are not allowed to work in the food sector. No matter how many superficial websites you quote, that's the way it is. And while you're right, that the number of engineering students may dwindle, ...
fischkopp1234 1 year ago
...the number of needed engineers is rising, which leads to more foreign engineers coming in. Faculties at Universities are even enouraging students to switch subjects.
Btw., claiming that the US is heavily regulated by using the food sector as an example is misleading. TYT will vehemently disagree on almost every other field of business (banks, mining, drilling, construction…).
Aren’t you a bit overly talkative? Why don’t you write a book and let Cenk rip it apart.
fischkopp1234 1 year ago 2
@fischkopp1234 Cenk has no idea about anything concerning economics, he is wrong on pretty much every economics related issue. He couldn't do anything to Peter Schiff, he was thoroughly beaten up by the guy, it's one of the interviews on this site. It was an embarrassment for Cenk, who treated Schiff as if he was some usual Republican.
Now, if Germany sees more foreign labor (which also means cheaper labor) it's similar to outsourcing work to other countries, but still is better than
romanmir01 1 year ago
@fischkopp1234 still that's better than to see production facilities close their doors.
As to food regulations - citation please. I am in Baden Baden right now, the vendors here I talked to at a Lebanese store did say that they have to follow procedures, those procedures do include actually testing their vendors for disease, but the 'health certificate' is not gov't related! It's a document proving that nobody who works in the store is sick with some disease
As to me being talkative- so what?
romanmir01 1 year ago
@fischkopp1234 So the point is how difficult it is to start a business. In Germany it is now less problematic than in USA.
However Germany is also very conscious about its status in EU and it is mostly against printing and debasing its currency.
USA is all about debasing their currency. So it's a terrible idea to start business in USA, which is inflating its currency away and also losing jobs.
Germany is not a very good example of free market, I grant you that, but USA now is actually worse.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@fischkopp1234 So the real free market (crazily enough) is in Asia and soon coming in South America.
That's where the rules and regulations are really very few and anybody can start a business, and that's what economy cares about: your ability to produce.
Anybody can be a consumer, the dumbest of the dumb can consume, no problem.
The question is: who is producing? That's the real economy - production. Consumption is just a consequence of production, and the West is losing the sight of this
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 There's a huge difference between something being regulated, i.e. there's a law on the books about it, and that regulation being enforced, as we learned under Bush Jr.
From the 19th into early 20th centuries, banking regulations extended only to national institutions and federal labor laws were non-existent.
Further, deregulation/lack of enforcement has happened repeatedly. It always leads to a short boom followed by a bust, beginning w/t Great Depression.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme
I am saying all gov't regulations are a terrible idea by the principle of the market. Market does not bode well at all with external entities telling it how to price things, how much to pay for labor, how much should anything cost.
Market suffers from gov't intervention. Prices only go up with gov't intervention. Innovation suffers with gov't intervention. Economy eventually fails, as gov't takes on the role of big brother, runs into deficit and kills currency by inflation
continued
romanmir01 1 year ago
@ismeme There were no regulations of banks in 19 century. 20 century bloomed with regulations and laws. There shouldn't have been any regulations and laws about doing business at all, that's what killed the economy.
All laws regarding labor price fixing are the worst idea for everything, from unemployment to ability to work the way you prefer, to losing jobs to more flexible markets.
Great Depression was gov't caused.
Continued
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 "There were no regulations of banks in 19 century."
Do some reading, please. The National Bank Act was passed by Congress in 1863-64. It offered federal charters to banks that had enough capital and agreed to submit to strict regulation. States also regulated their banks to varying degrees.
The causes of the Great Depression were multiple and complex. Blaming it on the expansion of the money supply is the Austrian School view. It doesn't answer everything.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme
In 1920 there was a recession caused by gov't printing money, it lasted for a year. You know why it only lasted for a year? Because gov't cut over 70% of spending and let the free market to restructure and take care of it.
That was the last time gov't did something right.
In 1929 gov't printed more money and caused the asset bubble that burst and became the Great Depression, which was caused by gov't printing even more money and spending and borrowing and projects.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 You seem to be of the belief that things were hunky-dory following the "free market" fix of the 1920 recession. That is not the case.
For example, from 1930-33, at the height of the GD, the annual business failure rate was 127/10K. During the "prosperous" period from 1925-29 it was 104/10K. Contrast that with an annual business failure rate of 40-50/10K in the 1950s.
There were many signs that the economy was turning downward before Hoover even took office, much less intervened.
ismeme 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Your desire to see an end to all regulation is not one shared by most Americans, who value the power of the gov't to enforce a supply of clean drinking water, safe food and pharmaceuticals, and restrict the abuse of our financial system, among other things. Are all regulations good? No. But I don't know any reasonable person who'd prefer to rely on the dubious power of boycott and litigation against the abuses of unfettered corporate greed.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Most Americans, and indeed most people are not looking too much into the future when they make their decisions.
Most people can be pretty much considered economic morons, especially when it comes to looking at economy on larger scale, where it involves inflationary tendencies, monetary policy, loss of productivity, price controls, labor laws etc
People only want immediate results so they respond to sound bites.
continued
romanmir01 1 year ago
@ismeme What you call a 'reasonable' person is no such thing. 'Reasonable' person to you is somebody who is not looking at long term ramifications of their current actions and their affect on larger economy and how it will relate to them personally and their offspring in the span of say 20-50 years.
Gov't is terrible at enforcing anything when it concerns private property as well. Why do you think the BP oil spill happened? That's because gov't is not a real owner and doesn't care.
Continued
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 A reasonable person in this instance is one who knows that boycotting a business for, say, practicing racism in a town populated by racists isn't going to be effective and will likely get you, as the boycotter, targeted. A reasonable person is one who knows that if their child dies from eating contaminated food, their ability to sue the company successfully is doubtful unless they have endless supplies of money and many years to devote to litigation against powerful corp attorneys.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Gov't doesn't care because it doesn't have a person in it who takes things personally, because it's not their private property.
Only private property can be truly looked after. Gov't doesn't have owners, so it doesn't matter to it that the ocean will be polluted, that's why it sets 10 Million dollars liability cap on an oil driller for cases such as BP
Sure, this became a PR nightmare for the gov't, so it pressed BP into paying more. But gov't shouldn't own any single one asset
cont'd
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 "Gov't doesn't care because it doesn't have a person in it who takes things personally, because it's not their private property."
We the People ARE the gov't. If it doesn't care as you suggest then it's because WE don't care enough to elect people who do. And there are myriad reasons for that, not the least of which is the highly propagandized society we now live in where opinion is passed off and accepted as fact.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme All gov't assets must be sold to private owners, who will deal with their neighbors and with others, who may be affected by any actions that are taken privately.
If I owned that piece of ocean where BP drilled, I would have never signed any contract with BP limiting their liability to some number, any number actually.
I would have required them to carry proper insurance and they would not have treated the safety rules, that they know how to follow in such an idiotic manner.
continued
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 The BP Gulf disaster was a direct result of regulation NOT being enforced by the flunkies assigned to the Minerals Management Service by Bush. Once again we have a situation where Americans elected people who have a well-known adversity to regulation, and did their best to undermine it in favor of political support from the corporations they were supposed to be watching. The bottom line is that we learned once again what happens without regulation: abuse and tragic consequence.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme
BP got a safety award from the Obama flunkies just prior to the accident.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill Which only further supports my belief that Austrian School laissez-faire Dems like Obama are corporate tools just like the GOP.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme As to safe food - the free market did million times more important steps to make your food safe than gov't ever could. Free market lead to inventions in food preparation, food storage, food transportation
Refrigeration, canning, pasteurization, etc., those are all private inventions that did much more to make food safe than gov't ever could
As to any gov't inspections, those only drive prices up due to necessity to buy licenses, yet food is often still contaminated, it's not 100%
ctd
romanmir01 1 year ago
@ismeme Nothing is 100% guaranteed. Gov't kills competition by requiring licenses and permits to be acquired.
I could run my own food inspection/certification agency that didn't have anything to do with gov't, if there was a market space for such a business, and I would have to be competitive and I would have to earn trust of my customers.
Gov't does not. It's a monopoly and all it does is it collects permit and license money, and food safety is same as it would have been without them
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 "Gov't does not. It's a monopoly and all it does is it collects permit and license money, and food safety is same as it would have been without them"
How do you know? Please name a modern society such as ours where non-regulation of the food industry has been tried and proved to be as safe as regulation.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme So moral hazard of FDIC + Glass Steagal = some balance.
However once gov't introduces a moral hazard, clearly the business will try to get rid of the counter law against that moral hazard and enjoy the moral hazard created opportunity to the fullest.
Most of the world does NOT insure banks federally. It's a private matter. For example New Zealand and Germany do not insure and their banking systems didn't even budge. That's because their banks must earn trust of customers
continued
romanmir01 1 year ago
@ismeme FDIC was created to fight a non-issue. During the Great Depression there were some bank runs, but so what, there were bank runs throughout the 19 century, maybe 5 times in different places but so what.
The bank runs only affect under 3% of deposits in total! FDIC though created a moral hazard for over 90% of banks in US! So this moral hazard is this:
gov't insures your deposit. But this means bank doesn't care about gambling with your deposits, it doesn't care to earn your trust
contd
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 And you may very well say "So what" to bank runs and failures, attempting to diminish the effect this had on ordinary Americans during the GD. But when you have an average of 600 banks failing each year, growing unemployment and underemployment, and half of all Americans living below a minimum subsistence level, the further insult of losing their life savings isn't likely to be something they'll shrug their shoulders at.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme FDIC also causes banks' customers not to care about finding out who are these banks people are lending their money to?
If there was no FDIC, banks wouldn't gamble with people's money! Banks would insure privately and private insurance would make banks play by rules of risk that is regulated privately.
Gov't could NEVER assess risk. Bernanke in 2006 said that there is no mortgage bubble. Now he says inflation is LOW! That's an example. Barney Frank said Freddie/Fannie are no problem
ct
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Bernanke said there was no mortgage bubble because he belongs to a group of players in Washington who are entirely beholding to the private sector and laissez-faire economics. They stood back and let lenders & investors spread the belief that there was no end to the good times that were rolling in '06, even tho those same people were betting against the very mortgage-backed securities they sold, KNOWING they were next to worthless, in order to cash in when the market cratered.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme So FDIC causes people not to care who they give money to. Banks don't care about gambling with your money.
Then gov't takes interest rates down to 0% and gives FREE money to banks. Gov't also INSURES mortgages, no matter how bad they are! Now banks can gamble with SIVs that are mortgage funds insured by gov't. It's insane.
So the only thing now between banks and huge profits for managers is this: Glass Steagal. It's easy to get rid of it with all the free money the Fed is giving at 0%
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Your argument that FDIC causes people not to care who they give their money to and banks not to care about gambling the money is logical except for one small fact: these behaviors were in place BEFORE the FDIC existed. Indeed the FDIC was enacted to guarantee people's deposits against banks that speculated on the stock market - the reason so many of them failed. If FDIC protections weren't in place, many people would be losing their deposits this time around as well.
ismeme 1 year ago
@romanmir01 "Gov't also INSURES mortgages, no matter how bad they are!"
That's a lie. Virtually none of the subprime mortgages behind the mortgage crisis were backed by the gov't. Most originated in the private sector and did not meet the government's minimum standards for backing, even after those requirements were loosened somewhat by Bush's American Dream Act 2003.
What F&F ARE guilty of is stupidly investing in the high-risk mortgage-backed securities created by private lenders.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme
My point is that gov't involvement into economy eventually destroys the economy, no matter how 'good' the intentions of gov't are, it doesn't matter. Any gov't intervention is not based on any market cues, on any market signals, they are all devised actually to go against the market.
The problem with going against the market by gov't force is that at the end, market will win and shift its production to places that do not have insane gov't regulations.
Market is like weather
cont'd
romanmir01 1 year ago
@ismeme Nobody can control the weather without destroying the climate in total.
Same with market: you can't control the weather on the market today, without completely destroying the market in the long run.
--
Again, there hasn't been unregulated capitalism since about 1913.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@ismeme It's not MOST countries that have the problem, it's very specifically the countries with most social obligations by gov't and expectations by population.
It's countries, that turned their citizens into an unproductive bunch, who expect others to pay and subsidize their high standard of living.
It's countries that saw jobs disappear because of their insane regulations and taxation and price and wage controls.
It's countries that spend and borrow and print money with no productive value
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 I'd like you to name all the countries with economic woes, that you think "turned their citizens into an unproductive bunch".
ismeme 1 year ago