IDK if this will help any, but I'm pretty sure that, after I watch 'Part 2" of your video, I'm going to send this to my local Congressman (I doubt I'll find it, but I want to make sure it's "respectable" and there's no sarcasm... Again, I doubt you're rude in either video). I have two major chronic illnesses that will eventually claim my life, and literally cannot survive without health insurance. I have struggled with medical bills for the past seven years, and love your idea! THANK YOU!
@waterhead001 Exactly! So far, not a single person has been able to answer the question throughout the video. And yet, I'M the one who's ridiculous; I'M the one who's unreasonable; I'M the one who's a religious dogmatist about it.
@shanedk I guess because they think they are getting something for free. I have heard people say that the Cubans have a great health care system. I don't believe that. Maybe you can make a video about that. It's funny to me they always say that "if you have a better plan, come up with one." You did and they wont even consider it.
You talk about there being more lives lost from delays than dangerous drugs, does this mean you have casualty projections of if every drug and foodstuff the FDA tested which was found to be dangerous was sold on the open market? Because that's what your phrasing is implying and I don't believe that to be true.
@ReactionVideoDotAvi The sources are in the video info. Why don't you check them out instead of making up bullshit excuses for not challenging your dogma?
Have you seen the latest post form politifact about healthcare before 1965 being the golden age? They basically said people were saddled with debt even back then, although admittedly not denied care.
and what about the claim that medicare has just a 2% administrative costs compared to the private 11% costs of medicare supplemental insurance.
@donttreadonmyass It's bullshit. First, they ignore the costs of tax collection and other administrative costs before the money even gets to medicare. Second, they're including the amount insurance companies make in profit (and reinvest) towards the "administrative costs."
@shanedk Now that I think about it I think it refers to 9 cents being the largest amount you can spend without spending a dime. All that for a lame pun.
Another question for you: Are there any current candidates for president that would support your plan? Basically, what I'm saying is if this is the same kind of plan put forth by some of the Republican candidates. I don't profess to be an expert at all on this subject, so I'm just asking. I'm always wary of any plan that seems to good to be true. Somehow the most vulnerable always get the shaft from any of these privatized ideas
@justjulie37 Some of them are supported by Ron Paul. Perhaps all, but I'm not to sure about every single one of them. Lee Wrights I'm sure is behind them.
@justjulie37 As a person of the health insurance industry, I can tell you that covering preexisting conditions defeats the entire purpose of insurance. It would be like trying to get life insurance on someone who's already died. It takes away the incentive to invest in the pool while you are healthy so that people can wait until the disaster happens and then get health insurance so that they can get money out of the pool that they have never invested in.
@ManOfDeath567 While that's true in the current, heavily regulated and corporatized system, it wasn't the case back in the '50s and early '60s when health care was much closer to a free market, and was therefore so cheap it didn't matter.
@shanedk I have always found it fascinating how liberals complain that health insurance companies won't treat people with pre-existing conditions, yet turn around and complain about certain banking services, such as pay-day loans, which are specifically targeted at people with bad credit.
If banks can make money of people with bad credit, why can't health insurance make money of people with bad health? And the answer has everything to do with artificial shortages in healthcare.
@ManOfDeath567 Ok, so what you're saying then is people with pre-existing conditions should just go screw themselves? I don't give a shit if it defeats the purpose or not, no one should have to be terrified to go bankrupt because they have a health condition. The health insurance industry is a bunch of greedy crooks
@justjulie37 At no point did I say that people with pre-existing conditions should go screw themselves. What you don't realize is that no health insurance does not mean no healthcare. Here's an idea: If companies covered pre-existing conditions, they'd go bankrupt, then they cannot cover their subscribers anymore. How's that for helping people pay for healthcare?
@ManOfDeath567 Nope. You wouldn't give life insurance to somebody who already died. That's why the free market model DOESN'T WORK for health care! Medical treatment is not distributed by supply and demand it's prescribed by experts based on needs. The rest of the developed world gets this why can't we?
@sinistar99 Maybe because it's because socialized healthcare has failed everywhere it's tried. Just because people have it does not mean it works. We have public education. Look what a disaster that is.
Out law health insurance, medicare, medicade, and if you can not pay for health care you are fucked period, people die everyday, if you do this the cost of medicine would be 10% of what it cost now. because doctors would work for less, medicine in the us is a cartel. until you realize a nurse is nothing special and should not make more than20k, we don't have a free market. At all. medicin is a cartel so is energy.
Trying to find comparison cost of medicine before federal regulations and after....Trying to tack down just how big a Percentage of our healthcare goes to BIG bro.
How much does the federal Government charge to regulate healthcare?...Like Medicine costs...How much would medicine cost if there was absolutely no federal government involved?...Trying to figure out how best to word the question because apparently Google didn't understand...I read several articles in the past but can't find them.
@someguy6978 I did see a statistic where pharmaceutical companies often have to undergo almost $1 billion in costs just to get past all the FDA requirements. I think that was from Mary Ruwart. You might check her out; she worked in the industry for 20 years as a biochemist.
Good ideas for keeping insurance costs down. Is there a safety net for the unemployed, disabled, or elderly? That wouldn't cost much because it's only a few percent of the population. So "mandatory" cover (by law) for the employed (by implementing your improvements), and a government safety net for the unemployed. Then you'd have "universal health care" for only a very small increase in tax payer expenditure. Private insurance cover for those who can pay, and the government picks up the rest?
Clinton ordered such things? BS for two reasons. Such actions would be clearly unconstitutional and would be struck down, and considering corporate attitudes, that is quite likely. Secondly, even if that was true, I am pretty sure people like inner-city residents won't gobble them up and heck, sell insurance on them.
Well, since this was done for that whedonfreak dude, I just checked out iseeallforme's profile.
Check this bit out: "As much as I am a leftist, I ain't no authoritarian as most libertarians would perceive. They aren't afraid to use the banhammer, and neither am I." Yet he has the nerve to call what you did "censoring". Yet another statist hypocrite.
@iseeallforme It is NOT IN ANY WAY CENSORSHIP, but that's what the LIARS like the creationists and the moon hoaxers claim to distract from their heinous behavior.
For your information, it was Pennsylvania Governor Robert E. Pattison who called in the state militia to bust up the strike. NOT private security guards. Tell this LIE again AND YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
That and/or reminded me of that quote about creationists, "they're like pigeons who shit on the chessboard and fly back to the flock to claim victory." That'd be him and the other state cultists.
Probably. I can't remember. I heard it from that video from ThetaOmega regarding the debating of creationists. I figured he wasn't the one who came up with it. I didn't know who did.
Oh really? But the law states that bad loans are optional, so that is non sequitur. I'd also love to see how Clinton's action has anything to do with unwise loans.
@iseeallforme "But the law states that bad loans are optional"
The law can STATE whatever it wants. The SUPREME LAW states lots of things that your cult leaders routinely ignore.
Clinton THREATENED FORCE AGAINST THE BANKS if they didn't make those kinds of loans. And the ONLY way they could comply was to relax lending standards, which they did with the PROMISE that Fannie & Freddie--GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS--would shield them from the losses.
You are trying to imply that Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to give bad loans, right? Absolute BS. CRA's content clearly states that bad loans are optional. Nirvana fallacy is also an non-sequitur: it still does not justify inside-dealings and a lack of transparency in corporations' side.
6:55 Uh, with my several trips down to the States, going into drug stores- No, most generics are equally expensive, or moreso.
7:05 No, actually, no we don't. I live in Canada, and I have my whole life. I've asked everyone I know about this. Literally no one has, or know anyone that has, gone to the US for healthcare. Quit perpetuating this myth.
@shanedk "Canadian use of US healthcare" on Google shows that: 1) Canada has longer life expectancies, spends less of it's GDP on healthcare, and, 2) "As noted above, 0.5 percent of respondents indicated that they had received health care in the United States in the prior year, but only 0.11 percent (20 of 18,000 respondents) said that they had gone there for the purpose of obtaining any type of health care, whether or not covered by the public plans."
@bobmuffins No, you trying to write off 38,000 suffering and POTENTIALLY DYING people just to support your bogus pet political program is the behavior of a cult member.
For CRYING OUT FUCKING LOUD, why do you think the video is CALLED "How to FIX health care"???
You fucking dogmatists ALWAYS do this: you can't debate my REAL points, so you pull out the bullshit false dichotomy--just like the fucking creationists!!!
Go away, cultist. Come back when you grow a brain and want to discuss this properly.
2) Insulting your opponents won't win a debate. I never said I think the Canadian system is perfect. However, it's a fuck of a lot better than your hypothetical system.
@bobmuffins 1) Honest people get mad when people lie. If you were actually honest you'd know that.
2) You keep comparing it to the CURRENT system, which I DON'T support, and what you, in your paranoia, IMAGINE what my system would be like--ignoring the ACTUAL history of when these things were actually in place!
@bobmuffins This was almost completely the system of health care in the United States from post-WWII until the government started "fixing" it in the 1960s. For a single day's wages, even the poor could join a mutual aid society and have medical expenses (and many other things) covered for their entire household. Insurance was cheap and we had INcreasing coverage instead of DEcreasing. Doctors were plentiful and even made house calls. Drugs were safe, but still came to market quickly. On and on.
@shanedk For proof that more doctors are returning to Canada than leaving see Epoch Times November 8, 2007 Trend of Doctors returning to Canada continues.
Also to finnaly put the myth of Canadians comming here for care Google: Phantoms in the Snow.
He did. "And your attempts to write off the MILLIONS suffering the American system aren't?!" -- the comment you left before the one where Shane got pissed off.
@Virgil0211 "Prescription drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world." Oh. And, no, a survey showed about .11% of respondents used the US for healthcare. Not 11%. .11%. POINT ELEVEN. That is in NO way "many".
1:20 Uh, no. Doctors visits can prevent health issues before they become an emergency. Oil changes are something you accept to having to do by owning a car.
@bobmuffins 4:15: Technically, you're being dishonest. No-one is saying that privatization will instantly make it more efficient. What is being said is that privatizing it will remove its guarantee of funding, which would give it greater incentive to perform as its funding would then be tied to it, so long as its monopoly was removed so it would have to compete among other organizations. These things would make it more efficient. Nothing magic about privatization.
5) Privatizing ABSOLUTELY makes it more efficient. Why is UL so efficient? And all of the other similar private standards and certification organizations?
3) Because it points out why Europe's got such an edge in healthcare: the government there focuses on preventative care.
5) Privatizing does not make things automatically more efficient. Why for one are insurance companies inefficient? Because they have an incentive to be inefficient and to make sure claim processes are as difficult as possible. Privatizing is not an magical action. Sure, sometimes overregulation is a problem, but that does not mean the opposite spectrum is the best.
@iseeallforme 3) Yeah, it has such an edge they have to undergo rationing...
5) Because insurance companies are highly corporatized, as I said in the video. Whenever some yahoo wants to try and prove that private enterprise is inefficient, they pick either a highly corporatized or highly regulated industry. Why is that?
As a non-libertarian, I shall give it some output: #1 was spot on and I have thoroughly enjoyed that segment. #2 was somewhat good, although I'd say that FDA, despite its flaws, does a decent job (after all, FDA was created to prevent fraud common in systems filled with potential imbalance of knowledge). As much as I despise libertarianism, I commend you for hitting the spots, specifically corporate greed and how government policies were abused to serve their whims.
@iseeallforme Although I will not hesistate to say that deregulation will actually cause more problems, specifically give more room for companies to breed asymmetric access to information, something that Adam Smith point out as a problem.
@Virgil0211 Alright. To sum it up, I basically praised his attack on corporatism, but pointed out that corporations are just as eager to abuse power as any organization in power, henceforth regulations are required to keep corporations from abusing power (capitalism of the old peddled out quacks, henceforth FDA for one), which is a point: He got the problem. I just think his recommendation on some area isn't the best one.
@iseeallforme "corporations are just as eager to abuse power as any organization in power, henceforth regulations are required to keep corporations from abusing power"
Since they can only have the power to abuse in the first place because of government cronyism, why not just take that power from the government? When has ANY regulation done anything more than allow big corporations to profit at the expense of smaller competition and startups?
@shanedk ah. I'm pretty sure the corporations who engaged in the subprime dealings did not want government on their arses to look upon their corrupt practicies, and I would also point out to laws such as ARRA which provide loans to small businesses. I ask you a question of my own: when has corporations sought to provide a symmetric distribution of information, especially when they are at an advantage?
@shanedk BS. I'm pretty sure Gilded Age corporations didn't have the "all-powerful" government to rely on. It only takes a simple bit of history to crush the assumption: "Government is always evil and corporations are always good" so prevalent in right-libertarians. I also ask you this: How will unregulated markets protect small competition? It doesn't. Big corporations can and will dump products to eliminate small competiton which cannot handle it (one reason for the tension in Antebellum)
@iseeallforme Yes, and during that time, the economic conditions of the poor and working families improved at a MUCH greater rate than they have before or since, or in any other part of the world. And small, individual, and family-owned businesses FLOURISHED.
Big corporations can ONLY do what you say with government support.
@shanedk Indeed, Gilded Age did see a growth in small businesses and real wages. But keep in mind that it was after the Panic of 1873, and similarly Reaganomics saw success because it came right after the recession of 1973. This also does not justify how big businesses pursuing monopolies, which inherently allows for inefficiency and price gouging.
@iseeallforme Oh, and I forgot to answer the second question. Big corporations will establish such support structure if it is absent: East India Company did this. Carnegie himself used a private army to quell a strike. If there is no government, corporations will assume such roles. And I'd also love to point out that small businesses usually were out of the realms where monopolies were king, and what about the shady practices and speculations inevitable in a deregulated environment?
@iseeallforme "But keep in mind that it was after the Panic of 1873"
That rate of growth was seen THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CENTURY. Basically until the Progressive Era, where things started slacking off.
Big businesses ONLY have monopolies with governments. You CANNOT price gouge in a free market because prices are set at market equilibrium. BASIC economics. You're mindlessly regurgitating the propaganda of your cult leaders. Go learn the BASICS.
@shanedk sock puppets don't openly make videos with them on it, it's a back up channel. Or do you mean that one channel blocked, the back up not welcome. If so I understand that. I can't imagine why anyone woud block him though, he's a nice guy.
@boobootoob ANY second channel by the same person is a sockpuppet.
If he's a nice guy, then why did he incessantly troll this discussion for DAYS without even answering simple questions, INSISTING he had answered them when he hadn't, and LYING about what I said?
Well, it does say on his profile that he's a Christian as well. So given his displayed idiocy here, it wouldn't surprise me if he is also a creationist as well.
@vspqbd On his other one he says, "Disagree with me if you insist but insults and childish behavior necessitates deleted comments and blocking. I have no patience for stupidity." So, hypocrite much?
@shanedk NO they are doing better than we are despite having less doctors. Recently form 2009 to now doctors have been going from the US to Canada and they have been graduating more doctors than we have. The average primary care physician graduates 145 grand in debt the average Canadian GP graduates with roughly half that much.
@shanedk Allowing insurance companys to sell accrost state lines = tearing down the only thing that keeps them from denying coverage for certian conditions.
Allowing insurance companys to do this will make things much worse which is why the should be outlawed .
Hey, Shane.I recall a post here from whedonfreak976 (IIRC) using a correlation causation fallacy about the 50s high tax rates and better economic situation versus the future lower tax rates and lower economic situation. First off, he failed to take into account the average tax rate (which was MUCH lower in the 50s than in the 80s), second off, he's leaving out historical context.
Because much of the world was rebuilding after the war, it left the USA as the only game in town (so to speak).
By the power of Bastiat however, it should be blatant that, if the tax rate was genuinely lower back then (e.g. 0% with a few excise taxes, no central bank, etc) and if those other countries were not in rubble (thus giving us more people to trade with, allowing us to produce even greater wealth) we'd be far better off today than we ended up.
Fine video. Limits the dead weight lose inherent in taxation. Dead weight lose that would be combined with the overwhelming inflation of costs associated with government intervention.
@shanedk than why did not mention it? yes you did. getting your medicine across the border well now explain to me how that is not crossing over. i have heard this bull crap argument before and it is the same, back pedal back pedal right?
@whedonfreak976 No dumb ass, what Shane actually said in the video you didn't watch but are commenting on is that you should legally be able to buy your insurance from a carrier in another state. Just like you can have books shipped to you from another state, or baked goods, or cable tv. For some reason you cannot legally get insurance that way, driving up the cost for no good reason.
@johnrainrules really, and how would someone get that medicine? and what if it was not shipped in time for a very important med someone needed and what about the shipping, that will just add to the cost, not lower it.
@whedonfreak976 They would take their out of state insurance plan to their local pharmacy and get their drugs the exact same time they would have any way. Also if your assertion were true books at Amazon would cost more than your local book seller, but they don't.
@johnrainrules no 1 i think we are talking about a different beast than books with medicine, no 2 i found a place that showed what a lot of the rich pay, i was a little off
A couple of years ago, Warren Buffet pointed out that his marginal tax rate was lower than his secretary's. From the link below, "Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%"
@whedonfreak976 No you're actually talking about a "different beast" actual medicine from out of state, whereas Shane mentioned buying your insurance coverage from out of state, meaning you were using a logical fallacy called a straw man argument either lying on purpose or just being too stupid to understand simple sentences in your own language. This isn't surprising given your obvious deficiencies in your writing skills.
Also nice using an anecdote, another logical fallacy.
@johnrainrules again, how would that keep down the cost? and here you guys go with calling people stupid, is that all you got it just shows how wrong you are, and you know it.
@whedonfreak976 The same way it keeps costs down for everything else. Also how does making it illegal for insurance companies to compete across state lines keep costs down? Especially since everything from telephone service to car insurance was lowered when competition across state lines was legalized.
well i think it is better to have a UHC program for better competition, i know people mean well with the over the boarder medicine but. how would it help lower cost, when it does not address the main concern and that is the private insurance companies charging what they want. making it border like cross would just make the private sector more greedy. more people fighting for their medicine, when it would make much more sense to just have a single payer option to keep cost down across the board.
@shanedk again i hate the way people label things. that is a term, for medicare for all, medicare works. no one is talking about driving the others out of business but if you had medicare for all, it would make the private insurers bring down their price, to compete, is that good enough?
@shanedk again, that is a straw man, you liberturds are good at them. a single payer is just a name for medicare, i wish that is what they would have called it and people like you would not be getting confused by it.
@whedonfreak976 We already have medicare. It's done more to drive UP the cost of health care than anything--and it's the single biggest source of future obligations that government has. Tens of trillions of dollars!
@shanedk no, that is a damn lie, my mom has medicare and without it, she would not be able to live and medicare is cheap and does not drive up cost like private insurance does.
@whedonfreak976 Anecdote, Broken Window Fallacy, and Correlation/Causation Fallacy. Government broke her legs, then handed her a crutch, and now you're saying, "See? Without government, she couldn't walk!"
@shanedk Again you are wrong on this because Medicare has been on a pay freeze since 1996 and Medicare doesn't have the cost controll that the SIngle Payer System in Canada does. In Fact Medicare in the USA does the opposite with Meidcare Part D was passed where drug companys can charge whatever they want.
@shanedk Are you talking about Medicare as it is today because there is a very simple explination for this. Your side has been drilling holes in it for years.
@MsZeitgeist85 Well thank you for proving that you're nothing but a fucking dogmatist. "My side" has NEVER EVER been given ANY sort of power over Medicare.
@shanedk You still didn't answer my question. If we pay a insurance company for health care coverage and they take 1/4 out for themselves and because of this people are dying because they can't get the help that they need then why have insurance companys in the first place?
Sure. But what this has to do with anything is beyond me.
Do *you* admit that medicare, as the single biggest unfunded liability (as indicated on my source) is a stupid idea? As my source doesn't indicate any one part of it.
@vspqbd Because Part D was the Republicans plan to allow drug companys to charge whatever they wanted to Medicare. Medicare was fine untill the Cons started poking holes in it for insurance companys and drug companys.
So if Shane is not going to answer my question about insurance companys will you?
@vspqbd 1. Meidcare was fine untill Medicare Part C and D and Medicare Advantage (Like AARP) came along although the seeds were sown for this along time ago.
2. My question was if you pay a HMO a fee for health insurance and they take 1/4 out for themselves and because of this people are dying because it costs them too much to cover them then why have insurance companys at all?
1. And repeating the assertion doesn't make it true. Try again.
2. No, because it throws the baby out with the bath water. HMOs need not be the only type of insurance company, since, as Shane has informed you many times, they are a creation of government, not of the free market, the way the mutual aid societies were.
You didn't read my post. I am aware of that and in fact admitted that. You just admitted to being a liar who did throw the baby out with the bath water.
@vspqbd gitting rid of for profit insurance companys is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater it is just saying that a banker shouldn't get between me and my doctor. How confused can you be?
But hey, if you want to prove that Socialized Healthcare is the better, no problem.
Just show how either costs or other things were ultra high in the UHC countries before they introduced Socialized Medicine, and how they went way way done afterwards. Official figures please.
@vspqbd Cost before and after is not relevent what is relevent is how good it works with the costs. Canada was the same as use before they created their system today they cover everyone and have better results and spend 10.4% of GDP. We don't cover everyone and have worse results and spend 17% of GDP.
@shanedk BIG SWING AND A MISS.....At least 85% of Canadians are satisfied with their system and those Canadians that come here for life saving procedures are payed for by their own Single Payer System. Only elective care is payed for out of pocket.
And you are still justifying a system where 1/4 of the money spent goes to things that have nothing to do with health care. You are the one that needs a Econ class.
@MsZeitgeist85 "those Canadians that come here for life saving procedures are payed for by their own Single Payer System."
WRONG.
"Only elective care is payed for out of pocket."
WRONG again. They just CLASSIFY these life-saving procedures as "elective."
"And you are still justifying a system"
YOU ARE A LIAR!!! We have told you SEVERAL TIMES that we DO NOT SUPPORT THE CURRENT US SYSTEM!!! For crying out fucking loud, the video is CALLED HOW TO FIX HEALTH CARE!!!
@shanedk If you support for profit health insurance for primary care. YOU SUPPORT THE CURRENT SYSTEM!!!
I already showed you how your "Free Market" fantasy crashed and burned when it was put to the test in Switzerland. Thats why no other country uses it.
And you think that things will cost more with an non profit goverment payer that takes 3% out of every dollar compared with a for profit insurance company that takes 25% or more.
What planet are you living on. You are a fucking kook.
i tried. your voice is intolerable. lmao.
ibtarnine 5 days ago
IDK if this will help any, but I'm pretty sure that, after I watch 'Part 2" of your video, I'm going to send this to my local Congressman (I doubt I'll find it, but I want to make sure it's "respectable" and there's no sarcasm... Again, I doubt you're rude in either video). I have two major chronic illnesses that will eventually claim my life, and literally cannot survive without health insurance. I have struggled with medical bills for the past seven years, and love your idea! THANK YOU!
eajoseph217 6 days ago
@eajoseph217 You're most welcome!
shanedk 6 days ago
More choices for people=lower prices for health care and ulimately better care also. Why not try your plan? People would actually save money also.
waterhead001 1 week ago
@waterhead001 Exactly! So far, not a single person has been able to answer the question throughout the video. And yet, I'M the one who's ridiculous; I'M the one who's unreasonable; I'M the one who's a religious dogmatist about it.
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk I guess because they think they are getting something for free. I have heard people say that the Cubans have a great health care system. I don't believe that. Maybe you can make a video about that. It's funny to me they always say that "if you have a better plan, come up with one." You did and they wont even consider it.
waterhead001 6 days ago
More like "WHEN, WHEN, WHEN?"
robert1268 1 week ago
You talk about there being more lives lost from delays than dangerous drugs, does this mean you have casualty projections of if every drug and foodstuff the FDA tested which was found to be dangerous was sold on the open market? Because that's what your phrasing is implying and I don't believe that to be true.
ReactionVideoDotAvi 1 week ago
@ReactionVideoDotAvi The sources are in the video info. Why don't you check them out instead of making up bullshit excuses for not challenging your dogma?
shanedk 1 week ago
Have you seen the latest post form politifact about healthcare before 1965 being the golden age? They basically said people were saddled with debt even back then, although admittedly not denied care.
and what about the claim that medicare has just a 2% administrative costs compared to the private 11% costs of medicare supplemental insurance.
/krugmanDOTblogsDOTnytimes(.)com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/
donttreadonmyass 1 week ago
@donttreadonmyass It's bullshit. First, they ignore the costs of tax collection and other administrative costs before the money even gets to medicare. Second, they're including the amount insurance companies make in profit (and reinvest) towards the "administrative costs."
shanedk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what is da easier way to mak money what kind of car do you have
lilkeonmoore12 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i just was joking
lilkeonmoore12 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nigga you not the crazies man falled in love
lilkeonmoore12 1 month ago
I love your channel! Thank you
RakishTilt 1 month ago
How to fix it you ask? Well, Its simple really: Kill all the sick people! Then a healthcare system will be pointless!
WonderfulDenmark 1 month ago
I'm interested in hearing how your 9 cents plan is going to pay for everyone's healthcare.
RealityChecker77 1 month ago 2
@RealityChecker77 WTF are you talking about?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
I'm sorry. I was just joking. I didn't think anyone would take my comment seriously.
RealityChecker77 1 month ago
@RealityChecker77 lolol. i thought you were serious
happymealmobster 1 week ago
@RealityChecker77 Isn't the 9 cents nonsense Herman Cains campaign slogan? How you can confuse Shane with Herman Cain is beyond me.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules And even then it's 9 PERcent!
Talk about major fail...
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Now that I think about it I think it refers to 9 cents being the largest amount you can spend without spending a dime. All that for a lame pun.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
Another question for you: Are there any current candidates for president that would support your plan? Basically, what I'm saying is if this is the same kind of plan put forth by some of the Republican candidates. I don't profess to be an expert at all on this subject, so I'm just asking. I'm always wary of any plan that seems to good to be true. Somehow the most vulnerable always get the shaft from any of these privatized ideas
justjulie37 4 months ago
@justjulie37 Some of them are supported by Ron Paul. Perhaps all, but I'm not to sure about every single one of them. Lee Wrights I'm sure is behind them.
shanedk 4 months ago
Frankly, my only concern is how this will affect those with pre-existing conditions. (like me)
justjulie37 4 months ago
@justjulie37 That wasn't an issue before government started meddling.
shanedk 4 months ago
@justjulie37 As a person of the health insurance industry, I can tell you that covering preexisting conditions defeats the entire purpose of insurance. It would be like trying to get life insurance on someone who's already died. It takes away the incentive to invest in the pool while you are healthy so that people can wait until the disaster happens and then get health insurance so that they can get money out of the pool that they have never invested in.
ManOfDeath567 2 months ago
@ManOfDeath567 While that's true in the current, heavily regulated and corporatized system, it wasn't the case back in the '50s and early '60s when health care was much closer to a free market, and was therefore so cheap it didn't matter.
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk I have always found it fascinating how liberals complain that health insurance companies won't treat people with pre-existing conditions, yet turn around and complain about certain banking services, such as pay-day loans, which are specifically targeted at people with bad credit.
If banks can make money of people with bad credit, why can't health insurance make money of people with bad health? And the answer has everything to do with artificial shortages in healthcare.
interstate317 2 months ago
@ManOfDeath567 Ok, so what you're saying then is people with pre-existing conditions should just go screw themselves? I don't give a shit if it defeats the purpose or not, no one should have to be terrified to go bankrupt because they have a health condition. The health insurance industry is a bunch of greedy crooks
justjulie37 2 months ago
@justjulie37 At no point did I say that people with pre-existing conditions should go screw themselves. What you don't realize is that no health insurance does not mean no healthcare. Here's an idea: If companies covered pre-existing conditions, they'd go bankrupt, then they cannot cover their subscribers anymore. How's that for helping people pay for healthcare?
ManOfDeath567 2 months ago
@justjulie37 Wanna prove yourself? Start your own hospital or your own health insurance business and I guarantee you you won't last more than a year.
Like I said before, would you try to get life insurance for someone who already died? Or get car insurance after you've had an accident?
ManOfDeath567 2 months ago
@ManOfDeath567 Nope. You wouldn't give life insurance to somebody who already died. That's why the free market model DOESN'T WORK for health care! Medical treatment is not distributed by supply and demand it's prescribed by experts based on needs. The rest of the developed world gets this why can't we?
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 Maybe because it's because socialized healthcare has failed everywhere it's tried. Just because people have it does not mean it works. We have public education. Look what a disaster that is.
ManOfDeath567 1 month ago
@justjulie37 "The health insurance industry is a bunch of greedy crooks" Wow way to generalize people like me
ManOfDeath567 2 months ago
Out law health insurance, medicare, medicade, and if you can not pay for health care you are fucked period, people die everyday, if you do this the cost of medicine would be 10% of what it cost now. because doctors would work for less, medicine in the us is a cartel. until you realize a nurse is nothing special and should not make more than20k, we don't have a free market. At all. medicin is a cartel so is energy.
mauriceraffoul 5 months ago
Trying to find comparison cost of medicine before federal regulations and after....Trying to tack down just how big a Percentage of our healthcare goes to BIG bro.
How much does the federal Government charge to regulate healthcare?...Like Medicine costs...How much would medicine cost if there was absolutely no federal government involved?...Trying to figure out how best to word the question because apparently Google didn't understand...I read several articles in the past but can't find them.
someguy6978 6 months ago
@someguy6978 I did see a statistic where pharmaceutical companies often have to undergo almost $1 billion in costs just to get past all the FDA requirements. I think that was from Mary Ruwart. You might check her out; she worked in the industry for 20 years as a biochemist.
shanedk 6 months ago
Good ideas for keeping insurance costs down. Is there a safety net for the unemployed, disabled, or elderly? That wouldn't cost much because it's only a few percent of the population. So "mandatory" cover (by law) for the employed (by implementing your improvements), and a government safety net for the unemployed. Then you'd have "universal health care" for only a very small increase in tax payer expenditure. Private insurance cover for those who can pay, and the government picks up the rest?
GONZO66656 6 months ago
iseeallforme has been blocked for repeated libel.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Clinton ordered such things? BS for two reasons. Such actions would be clearly unconstitutional and would be struck down, and considering corporate attitudes, that is quite likely. Secondly, even if that was true, I am pretty sure people like inner-city residents won't gobble them up and heck, sell insurance on them.
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme "Such actions would be clearly unconstitutional and would be struck down"
You mean like 90% of what our government does? Yep, cultist...
"I am pretty sure people like inner-city residents won't gobble them up and heck"
Econ 101: lower the price and more people buy. Simple as that.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Well, since this was done for that whedonfreak dude, I just checked out iseeallforme's profile.
Check this bit out: "As much as I am a leftist, I ain't no authoritarian as most libertarians would perceive. They aren't afraid to use the banhammer, and neither am I." Yet he has the nerve to call what you did "censoring". Yet another statist hypocrite.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@iseeallforme It is NOT IN ANY WAY CENSORSHIP, but that's what the LIARS like the creationists and the moon hoaxers claim to distract from their heinous behavior.
For your information, it was Pennsylvania Governor Robert E. Pattison who called in the state militia to bust up the strike. NOT private security guards. Tell this LIE again AND YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
shanedk 6 months ago
@iseeallforme
Because private property rights are irrelevant, yes? :P
vspqbd 6 months ago
@iseeallforme SECOND warning. Your libelous post was removed.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
I saw it too. I won't repeat it other than to say it displayed a martyr complex common in state cultists and moon hoaxtards.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@shanedk
That and/or reminded me of that quote about creationists, "they're like pigeons who shit on the chessboard and fly back to the flock to claim victory." That'd be him and the other state cultists.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd Wasn't that a Dawkins quote?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Probably. I can't remember. I heard it from that video from ThetaOmega regarding the debating of creationists. I figured he wasn't the one who came up with it. I didn't know who did.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@shanedk
According to Quotiki ( quotiki(DOT)com/quotes/16356 ), it was actually from Scott D. Weitzenhoffer.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd OK. Maybe I just heard Dawkins repeat it somewhere.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Oh really? But the law states that bad loans are optional, so that is non sequitur. I'd also love to see how Clinton's action has anything to do with unwise loans.
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme "But the law states that bad loans are optional"
The law can STATE whatever it wants. The SUPREME LAW states lots of things that your cult leaders routinely ignore.
Clinton THREATENED FORCE AGAINST THE BANKS if they didn't make those kinds of loans. And the ONLY way they could comply was to relax lending standards, which they did with the PROMISE that Fannie & Freddie--GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS--would shield them from the losses.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
You are trying to imply that Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to give bad loans, right? Absolute BS. CRA's content clearly states that bad loans are optional. Nirvana fallacy is also an non-sequitur: it still does not justify inside-dealings and a lack of transparency in corporations' side.
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme Clinton THREATENED TO SUE BANKS THAT DIDN'T DO IT. Like the creationists, you ignore FACTS.
shanedk 6 months ago
6:55 Uh, with my several trips down to the States, going into drug stores- No, most generics are equally expensive, or moreso.
7:05 No, actually, no we don't. I live in Canada, and I have my whole life. I've asked everyone I know about this. Literally no one has, or know anyone that has, gone to the US for healthcare. Quit perpetuating this myth.
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins Bullshit anecdote. Worthless, ESPECIALLY in the face of all the statistics saying otherwise.
And the claim that no one has gone to the US for health care is just an outright LIE. Many of them have come out and spoken out on this issue.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk "Canadian use of US healthcare" on Google shows that: 1) Canada has longer life expectancies, spends less of it's GDP on healthcare, and, 2) "As noted above, 0.5 percent of respondents indicated that they had received health care in the United States in the prior year, but only 0.11 percent (20 of 18,000 respondents) said that they had gone there for the purpose of obtaining any type of health care, whether or not covered by the public plans."
Oh. .11%. Huge number!
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins .11% is almost 38,000 Canadians! THAT is the size of the body pile you want to support your cult leaders.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Right, implying the Canadian government is a cult?
You're insane, and there's barely a debate here if you're going to be that fucking retarded.
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins No, the concept of the government being omnipotent is a cult. And your behavior has ALL the markings of a dogmatic cult member.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Looking up studies to provide evidence for my point, which I believe to be a much better system, is the behavior of a cult member?
Please, explain.
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins No, you trying to write off 38,000 suffering and POTENTIALLY DYING people just to support your bogus pet political program is the behavior of a cult member.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk And your attempts to write off the MILLIONS suffering the American system aren't?!
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins I..DON'T...SUPPORT...THE...CURRENT...SYSTEM...YOU...FUCKING...LIAR!!!
For CRYING OUT FUCKING LOUD, why do you think the video is CALLED "How to FIX health care"???
You fucking dogmatists ALWAYS do this: you can't debate my REAL points, so you pull out the bullshit false dichotomy--just like the fucking creationists!!!
Go away, cultist. Come back when you grow a brain and want to discuss this properly.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk 1) u mad
2) Insulting your opponents won't win a debate. I never said I think the Canadian system is perfect. However, it's a fuck of a lot better than your hypothetical system.
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins 1) Honest people get mad when people lie. If you were actually honest you'd know that.
2) You keep comparing it to the CURRENT system, which I DON'T support, and what you, in your paranoia, IMAGINE what my system would be like--ignoring the ACTUAL history of when these things were actually in place!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Nice, nice, insulting your opponent. You're great at debating.
Quit doing that.
Next, perhaps you have to read. " However, it's a fuck of a lot better than your hypothetical system."
"HYPOTHETICAL SYSTEM". Not "CURRENT" system. "HYPOTHETICAL".
Reading helps.
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins HISTORICALLY-PROVEN system. Keep forgetting that part, don't you?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
I double checked, that was the comment you were replying to. He's backpedaling to try and save face.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd So what else is new?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Just trying to help keep you in the loop.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@shanedk What's historically proven about your hypothetical system? What civilization has used your hypothetical system and gotten anywhere?
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins This was almost completely the system of health care in the United States from post-WWII until the government started "fixing" it in the 1960s. For a single day's wages, even the poor could join a mutual aid society and have medical expenses (and many other things) covered for their entire household. Insurance was cheap and we had INcreasing coverage instead of DEcreasing. Doctors were plentiful and even made house calls. Drugs were safe, but still came to market quickly. On and on.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk For proof that more doctors are returning to Canada than leaving see Epoch Times November 8, 2007 Trend of Doctors returning to Canada continues.
Also to finnaly put the myth of Canadians comming here for care Google: Phantoms in the Snow.
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@bobmuffins
"Next, perhaps you have to read...."
He did. "And your attempts to write off the MILLIONS suffering the American system aren't?!" -- the comment you left before the one where Shane got pissed off.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@bobmuffins Statistically, the generics are less expensive. Your personal experiences are irrelevant in the face of this data.
Statistically, there are many coming to the United States for healthcare. Again, your personal experiences are irrelevant in the face of real data.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "Prescription drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world." Oh. And, no, a survey showed about .11% of respondents used the US for healthcare. Not 11%. .11%. POINT ELEVEN. That is in NO way "many".
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins 38,000 isn't "many" to you. Gotcha.
shanedk 6 months ago
0:30 Tell that to the guy who robbed a bank for $1 for the sole purpose of going to jail to get government-provided healthcare.
0:40 Semantics is fun.
1:20 Uh, no. Doctors visits can prevent health issues before they become an emergency. Oil changes are something you accept to having to do by owning a car.
2:00 Well, I can agree here.
4:15 UH, NO. NO, NO, NO. Making the FDA more efficient, sure. That would be good. Privatizing it doesn't instantly make it more efficient.
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins 4:15: Technically, you're being dishonest. No-one is saying that privatization will instantly make it more efficient. What is being said is that privatizing it will remove its guarantee of funding, which would give it greater incentive to perform as its funding would then be tied to it, so long as its monopoly was removed so it would have to compete among other organizations. These things would make it more efficient. Nothing magic about privatization.
Virgil0211 6 months ago 2
@bobmuffins 1) Bullshit unsibstantiated anecdote.
2) Bullshit handwaving and avoiding the point.
3) And that's relevant, how?
4) Good.
5) Privatizing ABSOLUTELY makes it more efficient. Why is UL so efficient? And all of the other similar private standards and certification organizations?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
3) Because it points out why Europe's got such an edge in healthcare: the government there focuses on preventative care.
5) Privatizing does not make things automatically more efficient. Why for one are insurance companies inefficient? Because they have an incentive to be inefficient and to make sure claim processes are as difficult as possible. Privatizing is not an magical action. Sure, sometimes overregulation is a problem, but that does not mean the opposite spectrum is the best.
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme 3) Yeah, it has such an edge they have to undergo rationing...
5) Because insurance companies are highly corporatized, as I said in the video. Whenever some yahoo wants to try and prove that private enterprise is inefficient, they pick either a highly corporatized or highly regulated industry. Why is that?
shanedk 6 months ago
@bobmuffins And can you answer the question running throughout the video or not?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
I notice you've brought up the "question running throughout the video" a lot recently.
Just to double check, the question was "Even if you don't agree with these ideas, what harm is there in at least trying these out?"?
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd Yes, give me ONE good reason for not at least trying these before we go monkeying around with anything else.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk What's the question running through the video? "Can we just try my idea out anyways?"
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins
In part two of this video: /watch?v=qGdH1pRGlVI (it DID say to watch both parts before commenting), starting at 4:00
vspqbd 6 months ago
@bobmuffins Can you answer it or not?
And WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEO--the ideas have ALREADY BEEN TRIED and THEY WORKED!
DEAL with it.
shanedk 6 months ago
@mikethehammertackett
Wow, I'm surprised Shane didn't delete this and the other comment where the Clinton Administration was mentioned.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd Why should I? It didn't violate any rules.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
I said because his other posts were removed, and he was a sockpuppet.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd Ah, good point. Didn't think about that.
shanedk 6 months ago
As a non-libertarian, I shall give it some output: #1 was spot on and I have thoroughly enjoyed that segment. #2 was somewhat good, although I'd say that FDA, despite its flaws, does a decent job (after all, FDA was created to prevent fraud common in systems filled with potential imbalance of knowledge). As much as I despise libertarianism, I commend you for hitting the spots, specifically corporate greed and how government policies were abused to serve their whims.
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme Although I will not hesistate to say that deregulation will actually cause more problems, specifically give more room for companies to breed asymmetric access to information, something that Adam Smith point out as a problem.
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme Mind connecting the dots from points A to C? I mean, it's hard to discuss something like this when the points are kept this nebulous.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Alright. To sum it up, I basically praised his attack on corporatism, but pointed out that corporations are just as eager to abuse power as any organization in power, henceforth regulations are required to keep corporations from abusing power (capitalism of the old peddled out quacks, henceforth FDA for one), which is a point: He got the problem. I just think his recommendation on some area isn't the best one.
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme "corporations are just as eager to abuse power as any organization in power, henceforth regulations are required to keep corporations from abusing power"
Since they can only have the power to abuse in the first place because of government cronyism, why not just take that power from the government? When has ANY regulation done anything more than allow big corporations to profit at the expense of smaller competition and startups?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk ah. I'm pretty sure the corporations who engaged in the subprime dealings did not want government on their arses to look upon their corrupt practicies, and I would also point out to laws such as ARRA which provide loans to small businesses. I ask you a question of my own: when has corporations sought to provide a symmetric distribution of information, especially when they are at an advantage?
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme Government was what ENABLED those practices! Government practically FORCED them to give subprime loans to low income borrowers!
And you HONESTLY think giving loans to small businesses after disproportionately stealing their wealth is a GOOD thing?
There's no such thing as a "symmetric distribution of information." Nirvana Fallacy.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk BS. I'm pretty sure Gilded Age corporations didn't have the "all-powerful" government to rely on. It only takes a simple bit of history to crush the assumption: "Government is always evil and corporations are always good" so prevalent in right-libertarians. I also ask you this: How will unregulated markets protect small competition? It doesn't. Big corporations can and will dump products to eliminate small competiton which cannot handle it (one reason for the tension in Antebellum)
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme Yes, and during that time, the economic conditions of the poor and working families improved at a MUCH greater rate than they have before or since, or in any other part of the world. And small, individual, and family-owned businesses FLOURISHED.
Big corporations can ONLY do what you say with government support.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Indeed, Gilded Age did see a growth in small businesses and real wages. But keep in mind that it was after the Panic of 1873, and similarly Reaganomics saw success because it came right after the recession of 1973. This also does not justify how big businesses pursuing monopolies, which inherently allows for inefficiency and price gouging.
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme Oh, and I forgot to answer the second question. Big corporations will establish such support structure if it is absent: East India Company did this. Carnegie himself used a private army to quell a strike. If there is no government, corporations will assume such roles. And I'd also love to point out that small businesses usually were out of the realms where monopolies were king, and what about the shady practices and speculations inevitable in a deregulated environment?
iseeallforme 6 months ago
@iseeallforme EAST INDIA HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE YOU IGNORAMUS!!!
"Carnegie himself used a private army to quell a strike."
Wrong, LIAR--he used the NATIONAL GUARD! Your precious cult-leaders were STRIKE-BUSTERS!!! Oh, and you just violated Rule #5. First warning.
Go cry Chicken Little somewhere else. We've all discussed this too much here to fall for the same old unsupported assertions and platitudes.
shanedk 6 months ago
@iseeallforme "But keep in mind that it was after the Panic of 1873"
That rate of growth was seen THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CENTURY. Basically until the Progressive Era, where things started slacking off.
Big businesses ONLY have monopolies with governments. You CANNOT price gouge in a free market because prices are set at market equilibrium. BASIC economics. You're mindlessly regurgitating the propaganda of your cult leaders. Go learn the BASICS.
shanedk 6 months ago
mikethehammertackett is blocked for being a sockpuppet of whedonfreak976.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk sock puppets don't openly make videos with them on it, it's a back up channel. Or do you mean that one channel blocked, the back up not welcome. If so I understand that. I can't imagine why anyone woud block him though, he's a nice guy.
boobootoob 6 months ago
@boobootoob ANY second channel by the same person is a sockpuppet.
If he's a nice guy, then why did he incessantly troll this discussion for DAYS without even answering simple questions, INSISTING he had answered them when he hadn't, and LYING about what I said?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
He also made a video about you as well. Figures he'd get all butthurt about losing the debate and just being a trolltard douche.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd Typical. He takes his rightful place with the worst of the creationists and moon hoaxers.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Well, it does say on his profile that he's a Christian as well. So given his displayed idiocy here, it wouldn't surprise me if he is also a creationist as well.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd On his other one he says, "Disagree with me if you insist but insults and childish behavior necessitates deleted comments and blocking. I have no patience for stupidity." So, hypocrite much?
shanedk 6 months ago
@vspqbd Oh look, it says that on his whedon one as well...verbatim!
TOTAL hypocrite.
shanedk 6 months ago
@mikethehammertackett Do you have any reference to any section of the Federal Register?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@shanedk NO they are doing better than we are despite having less doctors. Recently form 2009 to now doctors have been going from the US to Canada and they have been graduating more doctors than we have. The average primary care physician graduates 145 grand in debt the average Canadian GP graduates with roughly half that much.
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 DEFINITELY need a source on that, since everything else shows Canadian doctors coming here.
Or are they just going up there for cheaper schooling, and then returning here?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Allowing insurance companys to sell accrost state lines = tearing down the only thing that keeps them from denying coverage for certian conditions.
Allowing insurance companys to do this will make things much worse which is why the should be outlawed .
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 How the HELL do you reach that insane conclusion?
You're just fear-mongering because you're desperate.
shanedk 6 months ago
Hey, Shane.I recall a post here from whedonfreak976 (IIRC) using a correlation causation fallacy about the 50s high tax rates and better economic situation versus the future lower tax rates and lower economic situation. First off, he failed to take into account the average tax rate (which was MUCH lower in the 50s than in the 80s), second off, he's leaving out historical context.
Because much of the world was rebuilding after the war, it left the USA as the only game in town (so to speak).
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd
By the power of Bastiat however, it should be blatant that, if the tax rate was genuinely lower back then (e.g. 0% with a few excise taxes, no central bank, etc) and if those other countries were not in rubble (thus giving us more people to trade with, allowing us to produce even greater wealth) we'd be far better off today than we ended up.
vspqbd 6 months ago
oops sorry wrong sean it was another younger one. my bad.
whedonfreak976 6 months ago
Fine video. Limits the dead weight lose inherent in taxation. Dead weight lose that would be combined with the overwhelming inflation of costs associated with government intervention.
yourblackbull 6 months ago
@shanedk You know what. I think my brother whedon handled it just fine :D
FangoFan68 6 months ago
@shanedk than why did not mention it? yes you did. getting your medicine across the border well now explain to me how that is not crossing over. i have heard this bull crap argument before and it is the same, back pedal back pedal right?
whedonfreak976 6 months ago
@whedonfreak976 No dumb ass, what Shane actually said in the video you didn't watch but are commenting on is that you should legally be able to buy your insurance from a carrier in another state. Just like you can have books shipped to you from another state, or baked goods, or cable tv. For some reason you cannot legally get insurance that way, driving up the cost for no good reason.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules really, and how would someone get that medicine? and what if it was not shipped in time for a very important med someone needed and what about the shipping, that will just add to the cost, not lower it.
whedonfreak976 6 months ago
@whedonfreak976 They would take their out of state insurance plan to their local pharmacy and get their drugs the exact same time they would have any way. Also if your assertion were true books at Amazon would cost more than your local book seller, but they don't.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules no 1 i think we are talking about a different beast than books with medicine, no 2 i found a place that showed what a lot of the rich pay, i was a little off
A couple of years ago, Warren Buffet pointed out that his marginal tax rate was lower than his secretary's. From the link below, "Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%"
whedonfreak976 6 months ago
@whedonfreak976 No you're actually talking about a "different beast" actual medicine from out of state, whereas Shane mentioned buying your insurance coverage from out of state, meaning you were using a logical fallacy called a straw man argument either lying on purpose or just being too stupid to understand simple sentences in your own language. This isn't surprising given your obvious deficiencies in your writing skills.
Also nice using an anecdote, another logical fallacy.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules again, how would that keep down the cost? and here you guys go with calling people stupid, is that all you got it just shows how wrong you are, and you know it.
whedonfreak976 6 months ago
@whedonfreak976 The same way it keeps costs down for everything else. Also how does making it illegal for insurance companies to compete across state lines keep costs down? Especially since everything from telephone service to car insurance was lowered when competition across state lines was legalized.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
well i think it is better to have a UHC program for better competition, i know people mean well with the over the boarder medicine but. how would it help lower cost, when it does not address the main concern and that is the private insurance companies charging what they want. making it border like cross would just make the private sector more greedy. more people fighting for their medicine, when it would make much more sense to just have a single payer option to keep cost down across the board.
whedonfreak976 6 months ago
@whedonfreak976 "well i think it is better to have a UHC program for better competition"
How do you have better competition by limiting the choices to ONE???
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk again i hate the way people label things. that is a term, for medicare for all, medicare works. no one is talking about driving the others out of business but if you had medicare for all, it would make the private insurers bring down their price, to compete, is that good enough?
whedonfreak976 6 months ago
@whedonfreak976 But you're talking about ONE payer paying ONE price. How the HELL do you get competition from that???
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk if there is a cheaper alternative it will make the private insurance companies drive down cost to compete, did you understand that?
whedonfreak976 6 months ago
@whedonfreak976 Yes, which is the basis of my insurance plan! But YOU are talking about ONE payer paying ONE price. WHERE'S THE COMPETITION???
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk again, that is a straw man, you liberturds are good at them. a single payer is just a name for medicare, i wish that is what they would have called it and people like you would not be getting confused by it.
whedonfreak976 6 months ago
@whedonfreak976 We already have medicare. It's done more to drive UP the cost of health care than anything--and it's the single biggest source of future obligations that government has. Tens of trillions of dollars!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk no, that is a damn lie, my mom has medicare and without it, she would not be able to live and medicare is cheap and does not drive up cost like private insurance does.
whedonfreak976 6 months ago
@whedonfreak976 Anecdote, Broken Window Fallacy, and Correlation/Causation Fallacy. Government broke her legs, then handed her a crutch, and now you're saying, "See? Without government, she couldn't walk!"
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Again you are wrong on this because Medicare has been on a pay freeze since 1996 and Medicare doesn't have the cost controll that the SIngle Payer System in Canada does. In Fact Medicare in the USA does the opposite with Meidcare Part D was passed where drug companys can charge whatever they want.
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Well, the GAO says you're wrong, and it's their job to know.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Wrong about what? Medicare Part D.
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Wrong about the unfunded liabilities of Medicare. They're greater than all other unfunded liabilities COMBINED.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Are you talking about Medicare as it is today because there is a very simple explination for this. Your side has been drilling holes in it for years.
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Well thank you for proving that you're nothing but a fucking dogmatist. "My side" has NEVER EVER been given ANY sort of power over Medicare.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk You still didn't answer my question. If we pay a insurance company for health care coverage and they take 1/4 out for themselves and because of this people are dying because they can't get the help that they need then why have insurance companys in the first place?
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85
As for Medicare, if you don't believe Shane about the unfunded liabilities, I'd recommend you check out this: usdebtclock(DOT)org
All the figures are sourced, btw.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd I know that there are things unfunded like Medicare Part D which I alredy mentioned. Something your side was responsable for.
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85
My side? Dude. I'm an anarchist. :P How were *we* responsible for anything in government? lol
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd So do you admit that Medicare Part D was a stupid idea?
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85
Sure. But what this has to do with anything is beyond me.
Do *you* admit that medicare, as the single biggest unfunded liability (as indicated on my source) is a stupid idea? As my source doesn't indicate any one part of it.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd Because Part D was the Republicans plan to allow drug companys to charge whatever they wanted to Medicare. Medicare was fine untill the Cons started poking holes in it for insurance companys and drug companys.
So if Shane is not going to answer my question about insurance companys will you?
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85
"Medicare was fine until the Cons started poking holes in it for insurance companies and drug companies."
[Citation Needed]
What was the question you asked Shane?
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd 1. Meidcare was fine untill Medicare Part C and D and Medicare Advantage (Like AARP) came along although the seeds were sown for this along time ago.
2. My question was if you pay a HMO a fee for health insurance and they take 1/4 out for themselves and because of this people are dying because it costs them too much to cover them then why have insurance companys at all?
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85
1. And repeating the assertion doesn't make it true. Try again.
2. No, because it throws the baby out with the bath water. HMOs need not be the only type of insurance company, since, as Shane has informed you many times, they are a creation of government, not of the free market, the way the mutual aid societies were.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd For profit health insurance was around before the HMO act. You are ether lying or you are stone cold ignorant.
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85
You didn't read my post. I am aware of that and in fact admitted that. You just admitted to being a liar who did throw the baby out with the bath water.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd gitting rid of for profit insurance companys is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater it is just saying that a banker shouldn't get between me and my doctor. How confused can you be?
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85
"Getting rid of..." Yes it is, hun. :P It worked fine before your glorious government came into the picture.
"How confused can you be?"
Psychological projection at its best.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85
But hey, if you want to prove that Socialized Healthcare is the better, no problem.
Just show how either costs or other things were ultra high in the UHC countries before they introduced Socialized Medicine, and how they went way way done afterwards. Official figures please.
I'll be waiting.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd Cost before and after is not relevent what is relevent is how good it works with the costs. Canada was the same as use before they created their system today they cover everyone and have better results and spend 10.4% of GDP. We don't cover everyone and have worse results and spend 17% of GDP.
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 "Cost before and after is not relevent"
[rolls eyes]
Yeah, just dismiss the thing that destroys your entire argument as irrelevant.
Are the Canadians who keep having to come to America for LIFE-SAVING PROCEDURES having better results?
And take an Econ 101 class to learn why the comparison with GDP is bogus.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk BIG SWING AND A MISS.....At least 85% of Canadians are satisfied with their system and those Canadians that come here for life saving procedures are payed for by their own Single Payer System. Only elective care is payed for out of pocket.
And you are still justifying a system where 1/4 of the money spent goes to things that have nothing to do with health care. You are the one that needs a Econ class.
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 "those Canadians that come here for life saving procedures are payed for by their own Single Payer System."
WRONG.
"Only elective care is payed for out of pocket."
WRONG again. They just CLASSIFY these life-saving procedures as "elective."
"And you are still justifying a system"
YOU ARE A LIAR!!! We have told you SEVERAL TIMES that we DO NOT SUPPORT THE CURRENT US SYSTEM!!! For crying out fucking loud, the video is CALLED HOW TO FIX HEALTH CARE!!!
Fucking dogmatist.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk If you support for profit health insurance for primary care. YOU SUPPORT THE CURRENT SYSTEM!!!
I already showed you how your "Free Market" fantasy crashed and burned when it was put to the test in Switzerland. Thats why no other country uses it.
And you think that things will cost more with an non profit goverment payer that takes 3% out of every dollar compared with a for profit insurance company that takes 25% or more.
What planet are you living on. You are a fucking kook.
MsZeitgeist85 6 months ago