A Dissenting Opinion on Nationalizing American Health Care

[Jessymandias]

what if a public option was created. One that was overseen by the government, and funded through what people voluntairly put into it. {SOME tax dollars would go into it's funding--Nature of the Beast--but the VAST majority of the funds for this Option would come from people who opt into using it as insurance.}

What if I want to put MY hard earned money into a government run program? Should I be allowed to do so, or should I be FORCED to either buy private health care or no care at all?

[MikeLibertarian]

Opt-in sounds fair to me. However, I don't think the government has a record of efficiency to manage such a venture, and I doubt that the organization which gets to makes the rules for the industry can also be trusted to play fair as a compedator

[arachnophile01]

I'm not keen on health care but i will say this; the dawkins thing was a quote mine, it was talking about a homeopathic hospital. homeopathy is bollucks, I don't know anything about economics though

[JonKevinCherry]

I agree that the use of force to enroll Americans into a state run or even supported health system is immoral and tyrannical. The liberal arrogance of requiring my taxes to fund their ideas is staggering. Also why do the most ardent statist socialists deny with every breath that they are , in fact, socialists from Obama on down? Ifd the system is good accept the label.

[HomoCyborgZombie]

1:47

There aren't wooden floors at the hospital I volunteer at. I'd say quote mine, but it's actually a country mine :P

I agree with you though even though I don't agree with your videos idea. I would if you could extrapolate the way somebody could not have their tax dollars put towards certain positions. Or was that not your point? I tend to get lost in these things.

[lookit87]

Okay so what you're saying is that because people will have to pay taxes, regardless of their inclusion in the NH system, they will be forced to have the public option, right? They'll be taxed so much that they will have no money for their private health insurance. What are these state regulations? Do you know of one in particular?

[boxant]

Great vid.

It is good to see fellow Atheist Libertarians. It seems many Atheists are Socialists (or at least very left leaning).

[kevinanity]

I think if the free market system is going to win in the healthcare debate, then it needs to win the compassion debate. In other words, we advocates of the free market need to make the argument that the free market will provide better results when it comes to accessibility, affordability and quality of healthcare. And we have to persuade people that the current problems in the system are not market failures. Just some thoughts for what they're worth.

[kevinanity]

By the way, I have now watched the videos you linked to, and they are a great primer for making just the case I suggested. Anyone who thinks this is a debate between compassion as socialized medicine and greed as free market medicine should have a look at these.

[MikeLibertarian]

Yea, it was a mistake for me to plead for "Self-Determination" first, but Spikesmith just made a video and I think his idea is a better expression of what I'm going for; the government is "Capitalist" (meaning it stays out of the way) and the 'culture' is "socialist" (meaning everyone is generous and works together without the use of government force).

[pete975]

US tax is higher and yet it still cannot provide for a nationalized healthcare system and that does come as a shock to UK people. Rather than giving up freedom it seen as a practical solution to many problem including the unwillingness of private insurance to insure patients at most need of expensive treatment

What is your idea for dealing the problems of healthcare in your country?

Can and should the cartel of pharmaceutical companies be dealt with?

[Micsega]

fuk uz uz wok 4 themz satin wurpishing insufding compalincs whoz hatez gowd u eivl athizt go fuk urself az iz hupez u diez az goz 2 hel fuk u

[rockerwere]

Insurance companies rob you of your wealth more then taxes do. Insurance companies decide who lives and dies in America.

I wouldn't give up my NHS for anything, I would rather pay taxes then pay insurance, I would rather pay a tiny percentage of money each month then pay a bill, when people can't pay their health bills American hospitals lose money.

If it wasn't for socialized medicine I would not be sitting here right now, Steven Hawking hailed Brit NHS... It isn't perfect, but it is better.

[MikeLibertarian]

I would rather pay out of pocket,

but Insurance companies have a government protected monopoly in each State here in the US. Despite what Europeans seem to think, we don't have a free market system either. The Free Market hasn't failed, it was fine prior to 1920 and the founding of the AMA, and things really went down hill, or rather prices started skyrocketing, in the 1960s with the FDA.

[Eopyk]

Yes you have the most free market system there is and it aint working. Again we come back with the I thinking form your side. I called you a fundie maybe I should not have but the reason is that I get upsete when people chooce money over peoples health. And I ask would you want the privatize the police or the fire department? Would you? Prizes will allways go up and down in a market systems it is part of the game you can't have health part of silly a game that you cars in sorry.

All love

[Eopyk]

Failed argument. Your saying they steal what you have earnd and take it in gun point... so acording to you some who is ill and needs is someone you would not want to help in the first place?

[MikeLibertarian]

I never said I was Ebineezer Scrouge, but will I say that putting on tights doesn't make you Robin Hood.

I'll say it again- I will lend help when asked, but forcing my hand at gunpoint as a first resort is not the way to endear me to your plight. Government Charity through taxation is not charity, it is False Virtue, no better than the legislation of morality advocated by the Christian Right-wing.

[MikeLibertarian]

If we agree that it is wrong to tell a woman what to do with her body, how now do you expect to tell me what to do with my money.

[Eopyk]

So acording to you people who can't aford most go around and beg people in the streets? Sorry what your showing idealogical dogmatic stupidity.. your only against not any rational level only idealogical. If it is based on need keep it out of the market. In order for society to prosper it needs people in good health.

[MikeLibertarian]

I'm not saying that people who can't afford it should just go beg in the streets. Nor have I ever said anything to defend the U.S. system as anything remotely near the ideal. The U.S. system needs reform, but considering that the major agitators of high costs are cause by previous government intervention, I seriously doubt that even more government control will provide the correct answer.

[Eopyk]

I come from Sweden and let me till here we pay less for our healthcare and still we get more of it. Markets and healthcare fail because of the same thing fire departments and markets fail they are based on need.. not on greed. The american system puts a brick wall on people and tells them that money is worth more then there life.. and oh goverments.. so scary it is there job to serve the people but for you they should ingore the people.. makes no sence.

[MikeLibertarian]

How does Sweden handle Malpractice cases?

In Australia the doctor has to right a full report to be published throughout the Aussie medical community, and I think pay a set damages fee to the family of the wrongfully deceased

In Japan there is a government board which determines what cases are serious enough to be followed, and they purposely only let a few through to keep prices down

In the U.S. a doctor can be sued at the drop of a hat for anything short of perfection for thousands...

[MikeLibertarian]

...in damages. It is why American doctors' Malpractice insurance is through the roof, and why their fees are so high; not because of the free market. Furthermore, I'm against insurance but even here there is no free market. My current insurance is "Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana," it is THE insurance company for Louisianians, no competitors and their business is protected by government intervention.

[Eopyk]

So USA that has one of the most capitalist inspired healthcare systems in the world and fails and you belive more ''free'' market systems will solve everything.. your woreshipping a system here .. that you see as flawless.. it is fundamentalism there is a reason why first world nations have shifted from private healthcare systems because they do no work.

Just like private fire departments do not soley work.

Do you want to privatice the police and the fire departments?

All love

[MikeLibertarian]

You accuse me of being a fundamentalist. Have I actually said that the free market was without flaw. If I'm not mistaken, you are the one praising a system here. You say there is a reason why most industrialized countries have socialism, well then I say there is a reason why most new medical advances come from the U.S. when they didn't before socialism

You see a problem and think that government force is the answer, I see that government force is the problem and you call me a fundamentalist.

[Eopyk]

That I do not really know in detail but i do know that it is not acceptable for the healtcare to deny healthcare of anyone there are organisations one can contact and one can also get it to court if you have been treated ill by the hostipitals or doctors etc there are laws that most be followed for anyonw working with healthcare.

[gingergreek]

If that's what you want Mike that's fine mate. I wouldn't change my NHS for nothing. free healthcare should be for all, Britain and Canada arent the only countries. Funny they never mention the Other Industrialised nations

How do the hospitals recoup their loses when the patient cannot pay? Surely that must be a strain on the health service in the US seeing as there are millions who cannot afford their bills right?

Plus if you are taxed for healthcare then you dont have to pay insurance.

[MagnusIan]

How can people forget that Medicaid is bankrupt? How can people forget that the US gov't has taken more than its fair share of OUR money and THEN dared to spend even MORE!!! The US Healthcare system is flawed, no doubt about it, but "more government" is NEVER the answer.

[lookit87]

So we replace government with businesses? That will solve the problem? Medicaid failed but did you find out why? You're basically telling me that a government funded health care system failed because it was a government funded healthcare system.

[JonKevinCherry]

YES,YES<YES!!!!

[lookit87]

I don't understand why anyone would morally disagree with it, if it doesn't work I would understand but then Libertarians are running on the Post Ad Hoc fallacy, healthcare in France is phenomenal, by the way. I would consider a person who is willfully apathetic of the status of the general welfare as being amoral but no immoral. Britain's NHS is shitty but that shouldn't induce absolutist attitudes in regards to NH. However you made great points, 5 stars.

[MikeLibertarian]

The problem with saying one or the other is phenomenal or a disaster is that there isn't statistics for important aspects of health care. Mostly pro and con anecdotes, while statistics like life expectancy show little disparity between the U.S. and socialized medicine in Canada and Europe. The U.S., Canada, France, Britain, Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark all have overall life expectancy in the late 70s and Japan's system is in the low 80s. Compare that with the world average in the mid 60s.

[MikeLibertarian]

Additionally, as Stefan Molyneaux explains in his video, the U.S. isn't exactly a "free market" system itself, but still free enough to inspire the need for a competative edge which leads to further medical advances. Europe used to be where most medical advances came from, but not since they Nationalized their health care.

[lookit87]

All I'm saying is that on moral grounds I consider NH as being, foremost, a charitable thing to do and although I don't trust the government all too much, I sure as hell don't trust Save The Children Fund (in other words, Give Poor Kids The Meaning Of Exploitation fund) to help the uncovered poverty stricken families or what have you

[lookit87]

I guess it works for some and not for others- that is the virtue of this exchange of anecdotal comparisons and statistical analysis but I must say I would rather not pay $100 for medicine that I need in order to breathe properly, especially while knowing that if I go to another country I can get it for a much cheaper price.

[MikeLibertarian]

I don't want to pay alot either, prices are lower in a competative market free of government intervention and it is government regulation which is the direct cause of some 80% of the price of drugs in the U.S., that is why U.S. drugs are cheaper bought from Canada.

And if we can pass reforms against out-of-control and frivilous malpractice lawsuits the doctors wont have to charge anywhere near as much as they do now because alot of their fee goes to pay their malpractice insurance.

[lookit87]

that is very true however I doubt that the median price established won't be vastly different, I mean people are basically being exploited into buying such expensive drugs I can't bargain when it comes to my health and I doubt a company would consider selling their drugs in a more appropriate price but then again I know little of economics so you win : )

[MikeLibertarian]

one monolithic Big Pharma wouldn't have incentive to lower their prices, but with less government regulation comes more drug companies can produce more drugs without the mountains of red tape to get a drug approved by the FDA. With more companies offering more options, prices will be lowered to remain competative.

[lookit87]

Competition, isn't that what the government is doing by providing a public health option?

[MikeLibertarian]

Let us say there are some kids playing a game on the playground. The oldest and strongest kid is not only competeing but he his also the one making up all the rules as time goes on. Is that competition?

It is the same way with government; the "stronger" compedator has the use of force which the others don't, and if that weren't enough they get to make all the rules. That's not competition, it's a government monopoly waiting to happen.

[lookit87]

But NH isn't about making up the rules though, last I checked it was just about providing an alternative health insurance option, and that does act as competition and nothing more.

[mxdirector]

your quite happy to defend our evolution, which states that we evolved successfully because we were social creatures. but you are not happy to extend that towards finance?

and where do you stop? do you only pay for the roads you use, the times you use the police. the cost of keeping track of all of this would greatly increase.

i will say, that there is not enough experimenting globally in terms of societies, we all operate pretty much under the same model. what you are suggesting wouldn't work

[MikeLibertarian]

so because we evolved as social creatures, a monopoly of force known as government has the right to rob me to pay for its' schemes. As I said, If asked for help I have little problem with providing it; my problem is with having no choice in the matter.

My position is not anti-social, it is anti-force. And furthermore, it would not be too expensive to keep track of payments to local toll roads and donations to privately run emergency services.

[mxdirector]

in some ways we are prisoners of the countries we are members of. the concept of freedom is laughable *insert sarcastic chuckle here*.

But seeing this is just the way things are (even if i disagree with that) you have to support the country and its members.

as a english man, am i pissed off the nhs is supporting healthcare, yes. but im happy to support the country.

I'm actually jobless right now, so im not supporting anything, but you get my point.

[mxdirector]

I would like to add something in regards to the healthcare debate.

people appear to use the imperfections of the british nhs as a argument.

the nhs in britian is far from perfect, but its a better more compassionate system then americas. something few would disagree with.

also, i do agree with your "anti force" idea completely. my point is that i just dont believe that would work.

[MikeLibertarian]

A similar argument could be made against pointing to the American system as an argument against a private healthcare system.

90% of U.S. hospitals are government run

48% of all healthcare spending in the U.S. is taxpayer money through the Medicare and MedicAid programs.

In fact, the U.S. is actually a semi-socialist system which heavily regulates in the "public interest", and the only people still not insured are those who elected not to be; the poor are already covered by MedicAid.

[Eopyk]

No the US system is one of the most market run healthcare systems in the world and it fails because healthcare is not based on greed but based on need.. just like police, fire departments etc I guess you want to privatice that as well. You comparing something like healthcare to the Iraqi war is insaine.. I am sorry one thing just leads to destruction and aint good for anyone healthcares objective is to help people and it is good for all.

All love

[mxdirector]

the point still remains that people are left behind, something that shouldnt happen in a ideal society. admittedly in in perfect society there would be no such thing as money so the point of public/pirvate would be mute.

as eopky said, healthcare should be based on need not greed(money).

i assume you have seen sicko. that film talks about the debt people face even after having insurance.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

I agree, but there is one problem not giving the government it demands... It is not jail time it is that our government loves running up debts.