Yeah fuck everyone.I hate how govts try to control where my money goes. I dont care about the better good of society and people. I just want what i want, consume and destroy as i see fit. Fuck socialist government who want to look after the betterment of humans as a group. If someone is sick or dieing and cant afford to pay for it they deserve to suffer because they are scum. It is darwinian principle. YEAH THIS GUY ROCKS!
Darwinism rules! Survival of the fittest dude. Who needs a post office when we have two arms, two legs and a car. Lets deliver our own mail. Hell, we don't even need postage stamps anymore. It is such a waste of taxpayer's money.
Even better yet, lets abolish all laws. We are a country to ourselves. WE don't need bureacrats in Washington telling us how to live our lives. It is such a waste.
Did the millions of Russians that starved to death under Lenin and Stalin have 'the right' to not starve to death? Probably; but because they believed in that right, they starved to death.
Peikoff's voice has no volume adjustment, just an on/off position, with the volume full blast. The upside is, he always sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
45,000 Americans die every year from lack of health care insurance. This means BILLIONS, if not trillions, is lost productivity. Too bad right wingers don't see it that way.
17,000 children die every year from lack of health care insurance. This makes right wing baby killers quite happy.
@nero8289 - seocnd post - first one did not appear for some reason:
Do a Google for Harvard's study on 45,000 Americans dying from lack of health care.
Johns Hopkins Univ conducted its own research into 17,000 childrens death every year from lack of health care. This school is the Northeast's most CONSERVATIVE school.
a public option does not limit choice. it simply takes private insurance out of the equation in a particular instance to create a large pool of cheaper insurance. its just nonprofit insurance. which already exists by the way. only this would be run by the government. big deal. wheres the harm in that? if you got the dough than you could still choose a better option for yourself.
@666or999 if you have private insurance through your company or pay for it your self, you don't have to go with the public option. no you don't have to pay twice. lol
@AhYaOk Because the government operates things so much worse than the private sector. For example, most western democracies do not want monopolies, they want competition. When you take health care into the hands of the government you are monopolising it. Competition ceases and therefore prices are high. People claim it is free, but it is not, it is taxed, and god dam it costs a hell of a lot of money. The private sector is so much more efficient, it has to be, the government doesnt
@Tracywithafacey i'm talking about nonprofit insurance. why would the government be bad at running it? they are just as accountable for performance as the private sector. its a very general statement you're making there. do you want the private sector to regulate itself when it comes to food, drugs, labor laws? what does this have to do with the free market? insurance companies hinder the medical market in this case.
@AhYaOk I guess my answer is that i would much rather see private business working on a profit basis, competitive companies working against each other. And the government would be bad at providing it because the NHS is a non profit health system, and i really do not believe it has worked well at all. High costs, out of date drugs, waiting times etc. But this is just my take and im sure you have your own :) And your answer would be yes i would want the private sector to regulate itself
@Tracywithafacey you are talking about a free market being good because of efficiency and to drive prices down. yes, i know economics. but thats not exactly what we're talking about. the problem is that the prices doctors charge is not determined by the free market. as you know, insurance companies are a middle man. and to make it worse, it is not looking out for your best interest, obviously. this existing system creates higher prices than would otherwise exist.
@AhYaOk Ahhh i see what you are saying, my bad. And i have to say i am sort of agreed with you on the insurance issue. There is a great video by jon stossel about how inefficient insurance is in health, in terms of prices etc. He compares it to if you were to have insurance for food, you would just buy everything, all the expensive stuff, and insurers would have to keep increasing prices. I am quite undecided on health insurance, it isnt something i have looked into at great length
Let's see if I understand this correctly ... some doctors in America feel the way in which they practice medicine is too heavily regulated. Therefore, health insurance should not be maintained by the government, but by private companies?
This point would be relevant if medical malpractice laws were in any way directly tied to the patients' health insurance. Furthermore, why is the conclusion drawn from this video that those unable to afford health care should be denied it?
His point, which you apparently missed, is that the high cost of health care in America is wrongfully attributed to private insurance and greedy doctors.
I just don't understand you Americans. Almost every single developed country on the planet has socialized healthcare, evidently, it does not become corrupt, inefficient or burdensome in fact quite the contrary. I can't see any valid, logical objection to it. It quite obviously works so what's the issue here?
Mark, the health industry wants you to live a long, long life. The longer you live, the more money you pay. Their job is keeping you healthy, if they suck at that job you die and they no longer get to take your money in exchange for health service. It's simple. Those evil people want you to live.
Those European healthcare programs were allowed to "succeed" because those countries did not have to bear the cost of defending themselves during the Cold War. Let's pull out all of our defenses from Europe and let them bear the cost of their own defense. Let's see what happens to their perfect system afterwards.
The cold war was the most ridiculous part of history this century. Two countries who just couldnt compromise wasted billions and billions and almost destroyed the fucking planet.
Your healthcare is nothing to do with it. Your healthcare is poor because it is privatised and the people have little say in its delivery.
Essential services always need to be in democratic hands. This includes utilities, and essential services scuh as health, education, police
Typical psycho rihgt-wing propaganda, you have no right to health care or even to be alive. Gee I bet the insurance industry just loves this crap.
Funny how those countries who have national health care also view it as a right and to top it off they have better health care, which ranks them better in virtually every category of health status and the US is the worst of all industrial countries.
This video is an argument to be the worst we can be and sadly fools listen.
Is healthcare free? no. Then it is not a right. To claim that healthcare is a "right" is to claim that you have a right to STEAL it from whom it actually belongs. To claim that healthcare is a "right" is to condone THEFT. To claim that healthcare is a "right" is absolutely EVIL.
Countries with national health care can only provide care by using the government to STEAL the property of others. Therefore the entire concept of national health care is fundamentally evil.
You're so brainwashed you don't even understand the truth when you hear it. National health care is STEALING; it is fundamentally and irredeemably evil.
Like I said, that is about the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
Actually looks like you have cornered the market on being brainwashed by the right-wing think tanks that are bought and paid for by industry who try to get the feeble minded to think serving them is freedom.
I would say your slavish dedication to the needless suffering and deaths of others is "fundamentally and irredeemably evil."
It is the government apologists who are the slaves of industry. Freedom is an imperative. Healthcare must be private. Government healthcare is absolutely EVIL.
I have to interject here to clarify terms. Defense is not Socialism, nor are roads. The DoD is manned solely by volunteers, and satisfies one of the 3 roles a legitimate government has, protecting its citizens from foreign aggressors. Roads are allowed by the Constitution as they serve the general welfare. I would personally argue that one, but it does have some political legitimacy.
It's calledd being free to choose. The argument is flawed because the very essence of survival implies labor or work to be alive. However, it is not slavery if you have the ability to choose where you want to sell your labor. If you don;t like it, you can leave.
Socialism, STEALING the wealth from those who produce it is contributing to immorality, social degeneration, and corruption. Socialism contributes nothing positive. Socialism only STEALS from capitalists who could do it better.
Biblical law condemns socialism. Socialism is evil. Capitalism is mandated by Christian teaching. Capitalism is moral; socialism is immoral.
The Christians VOLUNTARILY had "all things in common". They did NOT petition the government to STEAL from those who did not voluntarily enter into such arrangements.
Voluntary commune arrangements are moral.
State-sponsored socialism (enforced by threats of violence against its citizens) are immoral.
What your missing is that the immoral principles of government enforced socialism is the same as those underpinning voluntary altruism. If you sacrifice yourself to others in any context you are immoral.You dont need a gun to your head for it to be immoral.
If you CHOOSE to sacrifice for someone, it demonstrates the sufficiency of the private capitalist system to care for the needy. If we neglect to provide for others VOLUNTARILY, the socialists will use that as an excuse to impose coercive redistribution. Are we doing enough to donate our surplus to the causes we believe in, so that government won't feel entitled to steal from us and redistribute to their causes, their contributors, their bureaucrats, their lobbyists?
"If you choose to sacrifice for someone" it is immoral. Your argument translates to: "Lets hurry up and give away our earned value before the government takes it from us!". This only "demonstrates" your lack of understanding of the moral basis of capitalism,which is egoism. There is no rational "excuse" for altriusm or force of any kind. Read The Virtue Of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
I remember from The Virtue of Selfishness that "sacrifice" has a more negative connotation than our colloquial usage of the word. We "sacrifice" for our family, but Ayn Rand would reject that term. And Orwell said the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.
The means of supporting life through rational egoism are frustrated by a parasitic government and a crybaby electorate that wants to live off others. How can capitalism demonstrate its superiority?
I accept that you challenge me to construct a consistent intellectual foundation for capitalism. (more often I have to defend capitalism against socialists and modern "liberals"). Likewise I must challenge you to put your intellectual defense of capitalism into practice. As long as there are disparities between the successful and the impoverished, socialists and "liberals" will use this as evidence that government must become more aggressive. How can we show that capitalism IS solving problems?
" How can we show that capitalism IS solving problems? " .."How can capitalism demonstrate its superiority?"
First we define our terms! Then we explain the morality of self interest. By doing this we demonstrate that "sacrifice" is when a higher value is traded for a lesser on, and that we live under a mixed economy not laissez faire!
How do we turn our immoral mixed economy into a laissez faire economy. It takes more than intellectual debates and electoral campaigns. It takes economic action to solve social problems. Socialism breeds from discontent. Let's solve social problems in action, not just in theory.
"Socialism breeds from discontent. Let's solve social problems in action, not just in theory. "
Actions are effects of the principles one holds. Immoral actions come from immoral principles. The needed action must be preceeded by the needed principle motivation. As long as folks dont really understand what capitalism and sacrifice is they will continue to equivocate.
What do you have in mind as prob. solving actions toward capitalism?
Funny how all the big banks had no trouble asking for altruistic aid from the federal government. Privatize the profits..socialize the risk...with the suckers (oops..I meant taxpayers) picking up the tab.
what a tired, pathetic argument: equating things already built by tax money (by private firms) with new and more intrusive government theft and redistribution.
Fascism is an outgrowth of socialism, not capitalism. Clearly your ignorance of political philosophy is as great as your ignorance of economics and morality.
Anyone who "embraces" socialist ideals is a FOOL! Equality of opportunity comes from capitalism, not socialism. Healthcare and education are best provided by capitalism.
no such thing as a wage slave in a free society. and fees, debts, and repayments do not equal slavery, thats ridiculous.
sky scrapers, amenities, and services ARE wealth. thats what wealth is. science and education lead to individuals creating wealth, if they have the freedom to do so.
but thank you for proving my point; that wealth is created and expanded over time, you just admitted so, and thus contradicted your earlier statement.
not everyone happily accepts those things. get your story straight. slavery is impossible in capitalism.
about wealth being created: did they have skyscrapers in 5000 bc? did they have all the amenities we have in the past? thats wealth being created. skyscrapers are no illusion.
Socialism (stealing from productive citizens) is "unjust gain" for corrupt politicians that "hasteth to be rich". Capitalism is the responsible way to align service with compensation. Socialism is theft, greed, covetousness, and corruption.
If you want to be a slave to an evil government, do not impose your lunacy on others.
Healthcare is too important to let government intrude into healthcare. Socialist healthcare is always a net loss. Nothing will ever justify government intrusion into healthcare. NOTHING.
Private healthcare is always better than government healthcare. NOTHING will ever justify letting government intrude into healthcare.
It is hilariously hypocritical for socialists to accuse anyone of being greedy. It is socialists that steal from people who earn. It is capitalists who are persecuted by greedy socialists who arrogantly think they have a right to what is not theirs and what they did not produce.
"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (2 Thes 3:10)
Mt 19:21and Luke 16:26 We are called to VOLUNTARILY divest our riches and give alms. Nothing in that ever condones, let alone demands, that we allow government to step in and forcibly steal our resources away from us, pocket its share, and give kickbacks from the stolen plunder. Socialism is STEALING. It is capitalism that enables charity. Socialism STEALS from honest people the means with which to be charitable (and pockets part of what it steals). So that socialism is always a net loss.
Individuals working for profit benefit mankind. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest." (Adam Smith) Capitalism benefits man specifically by allowing man to profit by serving man.
We do not need government to nationalize bakers, butchers, or brewers. And we certainly do not need government to nationalize healthcare. Healthcare is too important to ever let government intrude.
an unsafe vaccine that the tyrannical government is proposing to impose on us is nothing to be proud of. Government medicine is tyranny. There is nothing that will EVER make government medicine acceptable. NOTHING.
It is opportunity. If there was more capitalism, there would be more opportunity. But because there is too much socialism, there is little opportunity besides farming.
Fannie Mae got away with crooked accounting because the Democrats refused to investigate the obvious signs of cooked books. It was socialism that protected Fannie and AIG and Madoff. These swindles were coddled by the regulators. It was not a lack of oversight. It was because the oversight was handled by corrupt socialists, protecting their favored cronies.
How was Bernie Madoff able to con so many? Suspicions were reported to regulators years before the scandal was unwound and nothing happened. Corrupt regulators allowed his scheme to continue. It was because we had one central regulatory authority, rather than a decentralized accountability system, that people assumed he was kosher. If the government did not assume all regulatory power and authority, people would have learned to be responsible for themselves. They trusted the govt; they shouldn't
And the children in Malawi are better off for having work and a source of income. Obviously, the pay was worthwhile, or else they would not have accepted the job. This is NOT "slave labor"; this is an opportunity for the poor Malawians; this is how they can earn a living and accumulate savings. Work is the foundation of prosperity.
The government is greedy; it steals what does not belong to them. Individuals have their wealth stolen from them by the government. The greed of the government FAR exceeds any "greed" of the private sector.
Education, roads, embassies, defense: all can be provided by the private sector. And the only reason it is not is because the government STEALS from the private sector and arrogantly spends what it steals.
Living standards are rising in China because of capitalism.
The government should be bound to doing ONLY what is specifically authorized in the Constitution. In other words, the majority of what the government does is unauthorized and therefore immoral. Most of what government fraudulently claims must be done by government would best be done by voluntary consent by private agents, not under coercion by government thugs.
You keep speaking of government as some evil entity. Dont you get that we vote for them. We can only have a say in a country of millions is to elect people to represent our interests.
In practise it is difficult I admit, and sometimes they work for themselves but we need someone to keep in check things such as the police, army, businesses. We need laws to protect us from these entities (such as consumer rights, workers rights etc) or they will do what they want.
Government "provides" NOTHING. Government ONLY STEALS.
The private sector provides everything; the government provides nothing.
And more can be provided if the greedy, parasitic government would not STEAL from the citizens... and then claim that giving back what it has stolen should be considered "providing".
Wealth is consistently produced by the private sector -- if the greedy government doesn't steal from the private sector the means to create wealth. "the poverty line" continually improves as a measure of standard of living. Those who live below "the poverty line" in the US have a home or apartment, cable TV, modern appliances, a car, and central air. The inflated number of people living under the "poverty line" only seems large because we keep moving the goalposts of what is considered "poverty"
this is not a zero sum game. wealth does not require poverty. we are not all competing over a set amount of wealth. wealth is constantly expanded from production and creation.
Socialism is NOT "looking after people"; it is STEALING from people and "looking after" corrupt bureaucrats and politicians who use the money they steal from people to run vote-buying schemes (healthcare is merely one excuse the corrupt thugs use to justify their theft). Socialized medicine is always a net loss to society. There is no reason at all to justify socialized medicine. There is no reason to submit to socialized tyranny.
We can work for privatizing roads, water delivery, military, police, and fire later. First we stop the abomination and tyranny that is socialized medicine.
US pays for the healthcare of America and the rest of the world. Too many nations ration healthcare and leave their "citizens" no choice to go to America for adequate healthcare. Any nation with government controlled healthcare is EVIL.
so, "equality" produced by government tyranny is somehow justified?? Equality without liberty is nothing more than TYRANNY. There is NOTHING that would ever make government control over medicine justified.
no, what it really means is that everyone is equally TYRANNIZED by the government control-freaks. Government intrusion into healthcare is unacceptable, no matter what the excuse.
Yes, that's what democracy is supposed to be for and that's why we don't advocate democracy. Your life shouldn't be up to a vote. Freedom means limited gov't. A gov't limited to protection of individual rights. Democracy is just another form of statism.
In society we obviouslty have organised groups, be it businesses, law enforcement, media etc... these are institutions with power.
The only way we can make sure these groups of power are chekced in check is via laws protecting freedom. These l;aws must be codified by somebody. This is the governments role.
We elect them to do it on our behalf. I cannot teach my kids education, so I need someone to implement it for me.. this is the role of the state.
no, the only way to challenge the institutions of power is to have fewer laws and regulations written by their lobbyists. Constitutionally LIMITED government is necessary to preserve freedom.
Healthcare is not rationed because if you want more, get your credit card out and pay for it.
Its free up to a point... but if you want the spa treatment and nurses giving you massages, you will have to pay.
The NHS will provide a universal and comprehensive service with equal access for all, free at the point of use, based on clinical need, not ability to pay.
This is the fairest way of providing heralthcare and us Brits are proud of it. I feel sorry for people without this service
Any health system founded upon the government STEALING from the people to run a corrupt vote-buying scheme with other people's money is evil. Only private healthcare is moral; government control of medicine is tyranny.
well think we need to agree to disagree but my side of the argument is backed by the facts.
Americans lose 3 years of their life (on average) because of your system. I just hope you dont end up losing your insurance (such as because you got made redundant) and than find out you have a long term condition such as cancer... Than you might change your opinion when you are left to die
Losing freedom is more dangerous than losing insurance. Private healthcare is the ONLY moral choice. Government healthcare is tyranny. Nothing would ever make submitting to government control over medicine justified.
when you are paying half of your entire nations economy on healthcare bills, you may again change your mind.
Luckliy I live in the UK.. Im a US citizen and have considered moving, but I have a condition so am afraid that I wont be able to pay for my healthcare. I suppose I could just fly to the UK if I get sick
If you're dumb enough to approve of NHS then I'm glad you don't live in the US. We don't need your lunacy contaminating our electorate. Stay in your socialized cesspool and suffer your own poor choices.
well our 'cess pool' of a healthcare system only costs us 8% of economy, and manages to insure EVERYONE. We live longer, lower heart disease, lower obesity, lower infant mortality.
Your seemingly excellent system costs u 16% of your wealth, and is not universal.. embarrasing
for the government to condemn its people to an inferior "universal" healthcare system is tyrannical.
The US system is superior to all government "universal" schemes. NOTHING will EVER make submitting to "universal" tyranny acceptable. NOTHING. Private healthcare is ALWAYS better. ALWAYS.
Just enjoy being a government slave. Your slavishness to government is truly embarrassing.
USA cares for its own citizens and the rest of the world (the victims of socialist "universal" schemes). US' health system bails out the socialist blunders of the rest of the world.
And the only way healthcare bills will EVER get that high is if the government becomes more intrusive in the market. It is government distortion of the market that causes the prices to rise.
not true because we have had government 'intrusion' since 1947 and insure everybody for 8% of our GDP
In the States u spend 16% of GDP, and is expected to rise to 20% by 2017 if trends continue.
You therefore spend around 1/5 of entire economy just on healthcare.. the USA has the most privavtised health system, AND by far the most expensive. I thought competition would drive down costs?
clearly not.. market principles dont work in every industrty, health being one of them
If my 'product' is healthcare, that means I want people to use my product as often as possible. Meaning I will want my customers to be sick, so I can treat them and charge for it. Therefore a private system focuses on expensive and technological means of curing disease,when it is much easier and cheaper to PREVENT the disease in the first place.. So in the UK a public system wants to drive down cost all the time, by making us as healthy aspossible.. they want to see us LESS not MORE
I am not a socialist, I am a capitalist (just to be clear) but certain products and services cannot benefit by market principles.
A private system does not benefit by healthy customers THEREFORE it will never be in the interests of health, but profit.
There is only one way to administer 'healthcare' and that is the correct way...thetrefore competition doesnt work in this industry. We may compete for efficency, but the fundamental product being sold (healthcare) cannot undergo competition
It is a moral question also. Healthcare is the number one reason for bankrupcy in the states. Also around 50-100'000 people die every year because they are uninsured.
9/11 killed 3000, but your sytem does a 9/11 every few days. Innocent people are dying simply due to a ideological position by conservatives, that the evidence simply shows is not correct. Competition works between coca-cola and pepsi as the products are distinct... healthcare is not a 'product' in that sense
The reason for medical bankruptcy is the loss of income. Which is why paying for superior American healthcare sooner is vastly better than waiting and waiting and waiting for "free" health"care" in socialist plans. American healthcare is vastly superior because of the competition that other countries TYRANNICAL destroy.
Healthcare is not free in the UK.. we all pay for it based on ability to payand notclinical need. it is not a charity.. It is run by the public (so I run my own healthcare) in thew only practical way possible and thats via my elected representative, whom I can lobby if Im not happy.
American healthcare is very innovative, and expensive,, but you cant do the basics of health and to mkae your people healthy.
We have a more basic approach of prevention of disease, which seems to work v well
Government healthcare is run by government elites, NOT by the "public". Government imposes its FORCE upon the people. Government exists at the expense of the people.
Government intrusion into healthcare is immoral. Only private healthcare is moral.
The US cares for not only Americans but the victims of socialized medicine all over the world. The US provides the healthcare your evil government denies its own citizens. Your citizens would be much more sickly without the bailout you receive from the US healthcare system.
Do you honestly think this is why the US gov spends so much on healthcare, to pay for foreign citizens? Now you are just talking silly. You have to be a US citizen to recieve medicare, medicaid.
The reason it is so expensive (as I keep repeating) is because you have allowed the market to rin the system with no democratic control.
It will bankrupt you eventually. Fortunately your government has taken steps to stop this.
Imagine if it was left to its own devices? Costs would continue ris
The market is the ONLY part of the healthcare system that works. The market is responsible for everything that is good about healthcare and the government is at fault for everything that is wrong. The government needs to get out of healthcare entirely.
The only thing gov do in US healthcare is put in money,
The failures are because they have literally zero say on health implimentation.
I dont get how you guys allow this to happen. You have zero say on your own healths, your most fundamental basic need. Fine, if you dont want federal government to run it, get state gov to run it..
Do those in Britain have any say about their healthcare? Certainly not! The treatments that you can have are decided by NICE, and if that means you die, you die.
Why would I want a different company: because it is cheaper, because they sort my rubbish for me, because they collect more frequently.
Compare that to gas or electricity, for instance, where there are only two factors: price and reliability, and the second is to do with the grid anyway.
Who provides the grid? No company could pay for the infrastructure to provide everyone with power. It would take hundreds of years to get a return on their investment.
NICE is controlled by the government, who we vote for to act in our interests. NICe is a democratic organisation not some evil clandestine bunch out to kill us.
Your british and you want the NHS to go private? Are you insane?
Please tell me how anybody will benefit from this?
Who provides the grid: the taxpayer. Wouldn't it be better for the taxpayer to pay for it directly? The cost is there, just it is hidden in PFI debt that we cannot measure or contain.
We may vote for the government, but that doesn't mean we have total personal choice. There are 2 parties that could get into power, so two options. That doesn't represent the wealth of different possibilities. I don't even need to mention that the only issue that really matters in elections is the economy
We both know the US system is markedly more expensive.
And yes Americans eat too much. The health industry can address this with regulat checkups where patients are urged to change diet, the industry can provide information in eating healthy etc.. but in a private system they will never do this.. healthier people makes them less money
Whose choice and whose responsibility is a diet choice? The persons. Everyone knows that eating burgers and chips and batter is bad for you, but people choose to eat it nevertheless. Urging somebody to change is not going to make any difference.
Also, if it is that, and isn't just cultural difference, why are Scottish people overweight and English not?
I am British, I do want the NHS to be phased out into private care, I am not insane.
America provides an on average marginally better service, at an on average marginally lower cost to the majority of citizens through its private system. That is in spite of the lobbies, in spite of the licensing laws that cause artificial scarcity, in spite of healthcare not being allowed to be sold across state lines, in spite of tariffs on drug imports, in spite of the FDA bureaucracy.
If it can achieve something like that, even though the people who pay for it are already taxed for Medicare and Medicaid (which are even worse that the NHS, I might add) to the same extend as we are for the NHS, just image what could be achieved with reform in the direction of freedom, if we used the same free markets that have been proven to work for every other consumer good, be it essential or just pleasant, for our healthcare, it can surely achieve so much more again.
Socialized medicine tries to keep cost down by capping the price of drugs, and with 3 different things going into the price, (Cost to make the pill, profits, and extra for Research & Development)
Which gets cut first? R&D. The US has tariffs, because Americans have to pay the full price, of tomorrows medicine, for the entire world
Socialism has found a willing host, and I don't know how to fix it, but I want new medicine, so.....
@LordVigeous666999 Nope, the tariffs do nothing for Research and Development. Robust protection of patents is the only thing that can possibly help American industries engaging in research. Reducing the competition from companies at home or abroad can only reduce the incentives for development, because the industry is protected.
But, what was the last treatment developed in Europe? Canada? When was the last medical device developed there?
The US develops, just this side of ALL the new medicine, ALL the new treatments, ALL the new devices
We're the only ones, sad to say. With some rare, and far between exceptions. The US pays for the future medicine, and if Americans can get around paying the R&D, well, then it stops
@LordVigeous666999 American companies pay for a large part of the world drug industry's research and development, but it also gets the profits from that. Ultimately, it is the customers who pay, from all over the world through the bills for the medicine.
The tariffs simply mean that American consumers pay more money for drugs developed in Europe than they otherwise would, and that European drug companies develop less than they otherwise would
Also, 3 of the 5 largest drug companies are European: Roche and Novartis are Swiss, and GlaxoSmithKline is British.
Roche submitted, on the 7th July this year, an application to the FDA for the drug they developed for treating recurrent breast cancer, trastuzumab-DM1.
Novartis had the new drug Tasigna approved by the FDA just 12 days ago, which advances on the previous drug Glivec in reducing the spread of leukemia
GSK recently developed a new vaccine for the H1N1 flu too
So, do you know how those caps on drugs play out in this? Cause I just figured R&D would get axed first, and they would shift the cost to Americans to make up the short fall
I still think thats true myself, but, you seem to know a decent amount about this, and I'm eager to learn
@LordVigeous666999 The effect is the same as any tax: it reduces the amount of business done. Fewer people can afford the drugs, so less money goes to the manufacturers, so the do spend less on R&D because of that.
Nobody makes up the shortfall. What happens is that there is less R&D done. Even American companies do less R&D because of it- they have less competition so less need to compete.
It is all-round a terrible idea to put tariffs on trade.
If pill A costs $30, and this covers the cost to make the pill, plus profit margin, plus R&D
But I can import the same pill from Europe at $25, thats the same, only without R&D. I buy that one, only, I get around the R&D cost, so, it stops. If you have a tariff that adds that $5, then they are the same, and I buy American, where the money goes to R&D
Assuming, they are cheaper in europe because there are caps that cut the off the R&D
I was hoping, with being in europe, the UK is it? You guys have some form of socialized medicine, more than the US anyway. Do they put caps on the price of drugs and the like?
@LordVigeous666999 Why is it cheaper from Europe? The base assumption you seem to make is that European companies all just make generic drugs developed originally in America, which isn't true.
Drugs aren't made cheaper by placing price caps, they are just made unprofitable, and so aren't made at all. Government involvement in healthcare generally raises the prices of drugs, not the reverse. In the UK, the situation is that the NHS is nearly a monopoly buyer, but that doesn't push down prices
I'm not saying, just R&D gets knocked off and they're cheaper, some are not profitable, and they aren't sold in europe. Some of them, can get just under the price cap, but in order to do so, you have to bump off R&D
And some of them are made unprofitable, UNLESS you can shift the price. When you raise corp taxes, maybe it makes the company unprofitable, UNLESS you shift the cost to the consumer, and they are willing to pay it
in this case, it would not be shifted from the companies balance sheet, to higher prices for consumers
but rather, shifted from euopean and cannadian consumers, to american consumers. Assuming americans are willing to pay more for medicine
And assuming you have price caps, again I ask the question, yes or no?
Ultimately, I am trying to figure out why we pay higher prices for drugs in american, than in cannada and europe. My explanation fits. I don't know if its true, I'm trying cess that out
@LordVigeous666999 The UK does not have binding price caps as far as I am aware, however there is the voluntary "Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme". I am less sure about other countries, but I believe France does employ a price cap.
The reason Americans pay higher prices is because of barriers to entry to the American market. Prices are not artificially low in Europe because it is impossible to make a price "artificially low" for a government to purchase.
@Anteater1234567 you support your argument to keep the NHS by saying that the american system continues to be better, despite the regulation placed upon it.
The market is not running the system 50% is already government paid Medicare. The rest is massively regulated. THAT is why it is so expensive. The free market did not cause this, that's bullshit.
no... the government pays for 50% but has zero say in tis implimentation. It is a private system. It is owned by private companies whom make profits.
UK healthcare is jnot interested in profit and sole aim to make people healthier... A private systems sole aim is to make money. Being healthy does not make your local hospital rich, as u would never use their service
Im actually bored of stating the obvious with these americans. You wait until you swallow 33% of GDP on health, than youll c
the fgovernment pays this because it would be totally evil to just let old, disabled, and people into emergency rooms left to die... the gov is picking up the pieces this horrible system causes.
My mum went to america when younger and had a miscarriage. She was charged 3000 dollars for this.. I guess my venom towards your system comes from incidents like this.
I cant imagine what it owuld b like to find out u have cancer, but be simply left to die just because you was too poor to pay
The reason it is so expensive has nothing to do with the fact that there is a market, it has everything to do with the fact that it is run by the government. Nothing run by the government works particularly well.
Some Americans pay a lot of money for healthcare because they can afford to. They pay a lot for healthcare so that they can get better healthcare. But also, the normal American pays very little for private healthcare, in comparison to Britain, and still gets a very good service.
The government tuns the military and the police, fire service, rubbish collection, builds roads, maintains them, runs child services, regulates drugs, etc etc.... Im relatively happy with all these services.
I cant possibly see how a private company would do better.. Your blinded by ideology to the actual facts. SOme things should be private, some public.
Mixed economies are pragmatic, sensibel and they work.
Can I point out that our mixed economy has just failed?
The police I agree cannot be privately run. Nor can the judicial system or defence.
However, beyond that, everything can be privately run and will work that way. Look, for instance, at drug regulation. Why do we even need it. Portugal has deregulated drugs and see the adverse affects (most notably drug related crime) go away.
your health costs 16% GDP, and insures 4/5th population.
UK halth costs 8% GDP. Insures 100%. We live longer and are ranked higher on most services in health. Its not perfect, ive never said it was... but its more effective, and cheaper.
According to your ideology it should be more expensive because the NHS is 100% government controlled, gov funded... im confused?
Length of life: that might be more to do with the twin American hobbies of eating too much and shooting each other, among other things. Healthcare services aren't the only thing that determines your life expectancy.
Instead, look at:
Waiting times (12 months for Hip or Knee replacement- 12 months out of work, in agony)
Levels of inoculation against common illnesses.
5 year survival rates for stroke, heart disease and cancer, the biggest killers in the west.
Look at roads- in Britain, the are covered in potholes as the Labour government withholds funding from Conservative councils. This couldn't happen if they were privately owned. They are routinely dug up to attend to pipes, and this process is lengthened because only a few hours' work is done every day. If they are privately owned, paid for by a direct income stream, there is somebody who cares about making sure that the road is running, rather than a bureaucrat to whom it is irrelevant.
Labour holds fundingd from conservative councils? This is simply not happening my friend. Councils can change their tax policy as they like. True councils get money from central government, and id imagine more inner city boroughs would get more than rural, so perhaps labour councils do get more funding, but thats not because of partisanship, thats due to need. Believe it or not some polititicans do care about society, hence why they take fairly low pay
Councils get money from central government, and the labour government has reduced the proportion of funding going to conservative councils. Try to justify it has you may, labour wants to improve its own chances.
What is society, anyway? It is some construct to which we are held to have some debt to. What is need? It is that which results from lack of ability and effort.
Yeah fuck everyone.I hate how govts try to control where my money goes. I dont care about the better good of society and people. I just want what i want, consume and destroy as i see fit. Fuck socialist government who want to look after the betterment of humans as a group. If someone is sick or dieing and cant afford to pay for it they deserve to suffer because they are scum. It is darwinian principle. YEAH THIS GUY ROCKS!
damnedcarrot 7 months ago
@damnedcarrot
WEll than lets abolish all Gov and public services.
Libraries will close and we will turn them into book stores. No more free rides.
If you n eed police protection, you must purchase Crime Prevention insurance so you can pay the police dept to protect us.
As for roads repairs, we must fill in the pot holes ourselves.
If your house burns down, get out a garden hose and try to put it out yourself.
You are right on the money friend. Lets abolish all public services.
pluto4847 3 days ago
@pluto4847
Oh I forgot to mention one thing. No more free parks anymore. Who needs public parks when we can buy our own property and cook BBQ's?
pluto4847 3 days ago
@damnedcarrot
Darwinism rules! Survival of the fittest dude. Who needs a post office when we have two arms, two legs and a car. Lets deliver our own mail. Hell, we don't even need postage stamps anymore. It is such a waste of taxpayer's money.
Even better yet, lets abolish all laws. We are a country to ourselves. WE don't need bureacrats in Washington telling us how to live our lives. It is such a waste.
pluto4847 3 days ago
@damnedcarrot
Fuck everyone. That's the right way to go.
The State and Federal income tax must go.
Fuck social security when we have the capability to save our own money.
When we are 65 we don't need free bus transportation. Fuck that dude! Old man henry must either walk or stay at home.
Fuck medicare, it is such a waste.
And I say fuck all doctors. Lets just go to the General Nutrition center which will more than enough provide for our healthcare needs.
pluto4847 3 days ago
@damnedcarrot
Yeah, I'm with you dude. You know if a woman is a victim of a crime, why the fuck should we care?. Its not our problem, is it?
Its bad enough we have to work for a living than to babysit incompetent people who can't take care of themselves.
Mmmm, did you hear about the guy who developed cancer, and lost his employment health benefits because he was dying?
mmm How sad, but oh well, not our problem dude, life goes on. More fish anyone?
pluto4847 3 days ago
@damnedcarrot
If you are not strong enough to survive on your own, you don't deserve freedom.
pluto4847 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did the millions of Russians that starved to death under Lenin and Stalin have 'the right' to not starve to death? Probably; but because they believed in that right, they starved to death.
guyjohn59 8 months ago
Peikoff's voice has no volume adjustment, just an on/off position, with the volume full blast. The upside is, he always sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
nathanreinhardt 9 months ago
neoliberalism
unclebanana 11 months ago
45,000 Americans die every year from lack of health care insurance. This means BILLIONS, if not trillions, is lost productivity. Too bad right wingers don't see it that way.
17,000 children die every year from lack of health care insurance. This makes right wing baby killers quite happy.
1400deadwood 1 year ago
@1400deadwood Show you facts.
nero8289 11 months ago
@nero8289 - seocnd post - first one did not appear for some reason:
Do a Google for Harvard's study on 45,000 Americans dying from lack of health care.
Johns Hopkins Univ conducted its own research into 17,000 childrens death every year from lack of health care. This school is the Northeast's most CONSERVATIVE school.
1400deadwood 11 months ago
a public option does not limit choice. it simply takes private insurance out of the equation in a particular instance to create a large pool of cheaper insurance. its just nonprofit insurance. which already exists by the way. only this would be run by the government. big deal. wheres the harm in that? if you got the dough than you could still choose a better option for yourself.
AhYaOk 1 year ago
@AhYaOk If 'choose a better option for yourself' you'll be paying for healthcare twice
666or999 1 year ago
@666or999 if you have private insurance through your company or pay for it your self, you don't have to go with the public option. no you don't have to pay twice. lol
AhYaOk 1 year ago
@AhYaOk no you wouldn't pay twice. its not required if you don't want it. if you don't want it then you don't get it.
AhYaOk 9 months ago
@AhYaOk Because the government operates things so much worse than the private sector. For example, most western democracies do not want monopolies, they want competition. When you take health care into the hands of the government you are monopolising it. Competition ceases and therefore prices are high. People claim it is free, but it is not, it is taxed, and god dam it costs a hell of a lot of money. The private sector is so much more efficient, it has to be, the government doesnt
Tracywithafacey 9 months ago
@Tracywithafacey i'm talking about nonprofit insurance. why would the government be bad at running it? they are just as accountable for performance as the private sector. its a very general statement you're making there. do you want the private sector to regulate itself when it comes to food, drugs, labor laws? what does this have to do with the free market? insurance companies hinder the medical market in this case.
AhYaOk 9 months ago
@AhYaOk I guess my answer is that i would much rather see private business working on a profit basis, competitive companies working against each other. And the government would be bad at providing it because the NHS is a non profit health system, and i really do not believe it has worked well at all. High costs, out of date drugs, waiting times etc. But this is just my take and im sure you have your own :) And your answer would be yes i would want the private sector to regulate itself
Tracywithafacey 9 months ago
@Tracywithafacey you are talking about a free market being good because of efficiency and to drive prices down. yes, i know economics. but thats not exactly what we're talking about. the problem is that the prices doctors charge is not determined by the free market. as you know, insurance companies are a middle man. and to make it worse, it is not looking out for your best interest, obviously. this existing system creates higher prices than would otherwise exist.
AhYaOk 9 months ago
@AhYaOk Ahhh i see what you are saying, my bad. And i have to say i am sort of agreed with you on the insurance issue. There is a great video by jon stossel about how inefficient insurance is in health, in terms of prices etc. He compares it to if you were to have insurance for food, you would just buy everything, all the expensive stuff, and insurers would have to keep increasing prices. I am quite undecided on health insurance, it isnt something i have looked into at great length
Tracywithafacey 9 months ago
Next step - Single provider. Then we can talk about being a civilized 1st world country.
Lifeislikeabeanstalk 1 year ago
Let's see if I understand this correctly ... some doctors in America feel the way in which they practice medicine is too heavily regulated. Therefore, health insurance should not be maintained by the government, but by private companies?
This point would be relevant if medical malpractice laws were in any way directly tied to the patients' health insurance. Furthermore, why is the conclusion drawn from this video that those unable to afford health care should be denied it?
Inhumane.
free2question 1 year ago
@free2question
His point, which you apparently missed, is that the high cost of health care in America is wrongfully attributed to private insurance and greedy doctors.
Thill029 1 year ago
@Thill029
Ah, I do agree with him on that point at least.
free2question 1 year ago
I just don't understand you Americans. Almost every single developed country on the planet has socialized healthcare, evidently, it does not become corrupt, inefficient or burdensome in fact quite the contrary. I can't see any valid, logical objection to it. It quite obviously works so what's the issue here?
hippotoast 1 year ago
Another position my 2nd cousin puts forth. ?????? Hart Peikoff
hartbeat00000 1 year ago
Is that Tom Hanks?
portrra 1 year ago
god bless you
Mr Peikoff
elieakaMrextreme 1 year ago
@elieakaMrextreme
lol he's an atheist
SadisticMonkey336 1 year ago
It is sad when people have respectable arguments but come off so belligerent.
lucentenor 1 year ago
Mark, the health industry wants you to live a long, long life. The longer you live, the more money you pay. Their job is keeping you healthy, if they suck at that job you die and they no longer get to take your money in exchange for health service. It's simple. Those evil people want you to live.
lucentenor 1 year ago
Health Care Is Not a Right IT'S NOT,WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT DONE FOR YOU,MUST I FEED YOU TO??????
Conservativepacheat 1 year ago
From the thumbnail, he looked like Jerry Seinfeld :o
lavarium 2 years ago
Get them Dr Peikoff they just dont get it or know whats really going on.
Bigturns33 2 years ago
This dude obviously does not smoke bongs.
I'd like to see Terrence McKenna debate Dr Leonard Peikoff.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
He does yell just a bit....
thin1966 2 years ago
Those European healthcare programs were allowed to "succeed" because those countries did not have to bear the cost of defending themselves during the Cold War. Let's pull out all of our defenses from Europe and let them bear the cost of their own defense. Let's see what happens to their perfect system afterwards.
pnf514 2 years ago
What are you talking about?
The cold war was the most ridiculous part of history this century. Two countries who just couldnt compromise wasted billions and billions and almost destroyed the fucking planet.
Your healthcare is nothing to do with it. Your healthcare is poor because it is privatised and the people have little say in its delivery.
Essential services always need to be in democratic hands. This includes utilities, and essential services scuh as health, education, police
markgg1 2 years ago
mr. peikoff.... just please stop YELLING ALL THE TIME!
fuck...
thomasstunts 2 years ago
Typical psycho rihgt-wing propaganda, you have no right to health care or even to be alive. Gee I bet the insurance industry just loves this crap.
Funny how those countries who have national health care also view it as a right and to top it off they have better health care, which ranks them better in virtually every category of health status and the US is the worst of all industrial countries.
This video is an argument to be the worst we can be and sadly fools listen.
Navywxman 2 years ago
Is healthcare free? no. Then it is not a right. To claim that healthcare is a "right" is to claim that you have a right to STEAL it from whom it actually belongs. To claim that healthcare is a "right" is to condone THEFT. To claim that healthcare is a "right" is absolutely EVIL.
herbs814 2 years ago 2
Countries with national health care can only provide care by using the government to STEAL the property of others. Therefore the entire concept of national health care is fundamentally evil.
herbs814 2 years ago
herbs - That is about the most stupid thing I ever heard.
Navywxman 2 years ago
You're so brainwashed you don't even understand the truth when you hear it. National health care is STEALING; it is fundamentally and irredeemably evil.
herbs814 2 years ago 2
Like I said, that is about the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
Actually looks like you have cornered the market on being brainwashed by the right-wing think tanks that are bought and paid for by industry who try to get the feeble minded to think serving them is freedom.
I would say your slavish dedication to the needless suffering and deaths of others is "fundamentally and irredeemably evil."
lmao@u, Good luck with that
Navywxman 2 years ago
Comment removed
herbs814 2 years ago
It is the government apologists who are the slaves of industry. Freedom is an imperative. Healthcare must be private. Government healthcare is absolutely EVIL.
herbs814 2 years ago
Well in europe we have given consent to our government to take our money in return for healthcare. I cant see how this is stealing?
I think being charged thousands because you was simply unlucky and got cancer is stealing.
Stop being so blinded by your ideology and look at this logically.
Your government provides education, army, police, trashmen, etc... Certain services where the product is essential should not be privatised.
Your healthcare costs double ours and we insure EVERYONE
markgg1 2 years ago
I have to interject here to clarify terms. Defense is not Socialism, nor are roads. The DoD is manned solely by volunteers, and satisfies one of the 3 roles a legitimate government has, protecting its citizens from foreign aggressors. Roads are allowed by the Constitution as they serve the general welfare. I would personally argue that one, but it does have some political legitimacy.
DaveInOkinawa 2 years ago
It's calledd being free to choose. The argument is flawed because the very essence of survival implies labor or work to be alive. However, it is not slavery if you have the ability to choose where you want to sell your labor. If you don;t like it, you can leave.
sakuraba13 2 years ago
You are correct, even if these market fundamentalists do not realize it.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
Socialism, STEALING the wealth from those who produce it is contributing to immorality, social degeneration, and corruption. Socialism contributes nothing positive. Socialism only STEALS from capitalists who could do it better.
Biblical law condemns socialism. Socialism is evil. Capitalism is mandated by Christian teaching. Capitalism is moral; socialism is immoral.
herbs814 2 years ago
"Biblical law condemns socialism. Socialism is evil. Capitalism is mandated by Christian teaching. Capitalism is moral; socialism is immoral. "
Whos Bible? The Christians had "all things in common" You are absolutely mistaken.
MnemoHistory 2 years ago
I should clarify with "The christian scriptures claim they had all things in common"...
MnemoHistory 2 years ago
The Christians VOLUNTARILY had "all things in common". They did NOT petition the government to STEAL from those who did not voluntarily enter into such arrangements.
Voluntary commune arrangements are moral.
State-sponsored socialism (enforced by threats of violence against its citizens) are immoral.
herbs814 2 years ago
What your missing is that the immoral principles of government enforced socialism is the same as those underpinning voluntary altruism. If you sacrifice yourself to others in any context you are immoral.You dont need a gun to your head for it to be immoral.
MnemoHistory 2 years ago
If you CHOOSE to sacrifice for someone, it demonstrates the sufficiency of the private capitalist system to care for the needy. If we neglect to provide for others VOLUNTARILY, the socialists will use that as an excuse to impose coercive redistribution. Are we doing enough to donate our surplus to the causes we believe in, so that government won't feel entitled to steal from us and redistribute to their causes, their contributors, their bureaucrats, their lobbyists?
herbs814 2 years ago
"If you choose to sacrifice for someone" it is immoral. Your argument translates to: "Lets hurry up and give away our earned value before the government takes it from us!". This only "demonstrates" your lack of understanding of the moral basis of capitalism,which is egoism. There is no rational "excuse" for altriusm or force of any kind. Read The Virtue Of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
MnemoHistory 2 years ago
I remember from The Virtue of Selfishness that "sacrifice" has a more negative connotation than our colloquial usage of the word. We "sacrifice" for our family, but Ayn Rand would reject that term. And Orwell said the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.
The means of supporting life through rational egoism are frustrated by a parasitic government and a crybaby electorate that wants to live off others. How can capitalism demonstrate its superiority?
herbs814 2 years ago
I accept that you challenge me to construct a consistent intellectual foundation for capitalism. (more often I have to defend capitalism against socialists and modern "liberals"). Likewise I must challenge you to put your intellectual defense of capitalism into practice. As long as there are disparities between the successful and the impoverished, socialists and "liberals" will use this as evidence that government must become more aggressive. How can we show that capitalism IS solving problems?
herbs814 2 years ago
" How can we show that capitalism IS solving problems? " .."How can capitalism demonstrate its superiority?"
First we define our terms! Then we explain the morality of self interest. By doing this we demonstrate that "sacrifice" is when a higher value is traded for a lesser on, and that we live under a mixed economy not laissez faire!
MnemoHistory 2 years ago
In short "We need a philosophical revolution"!
MnemoHistory 2 years ago
How do we turn our immoral mixed economy into a laissez faire economy. It takes more than intellectual debates and electoral campaigns. It takes economic action to solve social problems. Socialism breeds from discontent. Let's solve social problems in action, not just in theory.
herbs814 2 years ago
"Socialism breeds from discontent. Let's solve social problems in action, not just in theory. "
Actions are effects of the principles one holds. Immoral actions come from immoral principles. The needed action must be preceeded by the needed principle motivation. As long as folks dont really understand what capitalism and sacrifice is they will continue to equivocate.
What do you have in mind as prob. solving actions toward capitalism?
MnemoHistory 2 years ago
Funny how all the big banks had no trouble asking for altruistic aid from the federal government. Privatize the profits..socialize the risk...with the suckers (oops..I meant taxpayers) picking up the tab.
johnlouisville 2 years ago
what a tired, pathetic argument: equating things already built by tax money (by private firms) with new and more intrusive government theft and redistribution.
Fascism is an outgrowth of socialism, not capitalism. Clearly your ignorance of political philosophy is as great as your ignorance of economics and morality.
Anyone who "embraces" socialist ideals is a FOOL! Equality of opportunity comes from capitalism, not socialism. Healthcare and education are best provided by capitalism.
herbs814 2 years ago
i wouldnt call anyone who embraces socialism a fool. just a little naive and overly optimistic.
timgeerdes 2 years ago
you are all over the place. you cant link more than one thought together and im not going to waste anymore time on you.
haha innovation and productivity of what? wealth?
but socialist states have never been known for their innovations or creations or inventions, have they? you need to think about why that is.
senorfarqueso 2 years ago
no such thing as a wage slave in a free society. and fees, debts, and repayments do not equal slavery, thats ridiculous.
sky scrapers, amenities, and services ARE wealth. thats what wealth is. science and education lead to individuals creating wealth, if they have the freedom to do so.
but thank you for proving my point; that wealth is created and expanded over time, you just admitted so, and thus contradicted your earlier statement.
senorfarqueso 2 years ago
not everyone happily accepts those things. get your story straight. slavery is impossible in capitalism.
about wealth being created: did they have skyscrapers in 5000 bc? did they have all the amenities we have in the past? thats wealth being created. skyscrapers are no illusion.
senorfarqueso 2 years ago
Socialism (stealing from productive citizens) is "unjust gain" for corrupt politicians that "hasteth to be rich". Capitalism is the responsible way to align service with compensation. Socialism is theft, greed, covetousness, and corruption.
herbs814 2 years ago
If you want to be a slave to an evil government, do not impose your lunacy on others.
Healthcare is too important to let government intrude into healthcare. Socialist healthcare is always a net loss. Nothing will ever justify government intrusion into healthcare. NOTHING.
Private healthcare is always better than government healthcare. NOTHING will ever justify letting government intrude into healthcare.
Socialism is slavery. Capitalism is freedom.
Socialism is evil. Capitalism is moral.
herbs814 2 years ago
It is hilariously hypocritical for socialists to accuse anyone of being greedy. It is socialists that steal from people who earn. It is capitalists who are persecuted by greedy socialists who arrogantly think they have a right to what is not theirs and what they did not produce.
"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (2 Thes 3:10)
herbs814 2 years ago
Mt 19:21and Luke 16:26 We are called to VOLUNTARILY divest our riches and give alms. Nothing in that ever condones, let alone demands, that we allow government to step in and forcibly steal our resources away from us, pocket its share, and give kickbacks from the stolen plunder. Socialism is STEALING. It is capitalism that enables charity. Socialism STEALS from honest people the means with which to be charitable (and pockets part of what it steals). So that socialism is always a net loss.
herbs814 2 years ago
Individuals working for profit benefit mankind. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest." (Adam Smith) Capitalism benefits man specifically by allowing man to profit by serving man.
We do not need government to nationalize bakers, butchers, or brewers. And we certainly do not need government to nationalize healthcare. Healthcare is too important to ever let government intrude.
herbs814 2 years ago
an unsafe vaccine that the tyrannical government is proposing to impose on us is nothing to be proud of. Government medicine is tyranny. There is nothing that will EVER make government medicine acceptable. NOTHING.
herbs814 2 years ago
It is opportunity. If there was more capitalism, there would be more opportunity. But because there is too much socialism, there is little opportunity besides farming.
herbs814 2 years ago
Fannie Mae got away with crooked accounting because the Democrats refused to investigate the obvious signs of cooked books. It was socialism that protected Fannie and AIG and Madoff. These swindles were coddled by the regulators. It was not a lack of oversight. It was because the oversight was handled by corrupt socialists, protecting their favored cronies.
herbs814 2 years ago
if these statistics are even reliable, it would be despite the tyranny of socialized medicine, not because of it.
herbs814 2 years ago
How was Bernie Madoff able to con so many? Suspicions were reported to regulators years before the scandal was unwound and nothing happened. Corrupt regulators allowed his scheme to continue. It was because we had one central regulatory authority, rather than a decentralized accountability system, that people assumed he was kosher. If the government did not assume all regulatory power and authority, people would have learned to be responsible for themselves. They trusted the govt; they shouldn't
herbs814 2 years ago
And the children in Malawi are better off for having work and a source of income. Obviously, the pay was worthwhile, or else they would not have accepted the job. This is NOT "slave labor"; this is an opportunity for the poor Malawians; this is how they can earn a living and accumulate savings. Work is the foundation of prosperity.
herbs814 2 years ago
The government is greedy; it steals what does not belong to them. Individuals have their wealth stolen from them by the government. The greed of the government FAR exceeds any "greed" of the private sector.
Education, roads, embassies, defense: all can be provided by the private sector. And the only reason it is not is because the government STEALS from the private sector and arrogantly spends what it steals.
Living standards are rising in China because of capitalism.
herbs814 2 years ago
We vote for the government. They have ourt consent to take our taxes and spend them on our services.
A country with no government at all would be a scary place to live in(Somalia)
markgg1 2 years ago
The government should be bound to doing ONLY what is specifically authorized in the Constitution. In other words, the majority of what the government does is unauthorized and therefore immoral. Most of what government fraudulently claims must be done by government would best be done by voluntary consent by private agents, not under coercion by government thugs.
herbs814 2 years ago
You keep speaking of government as some evil entity. Dont you get that we vote for them. We can only have a say in a country of millions is to elect people to represent our interests.
In practise it is difficult I admit, and sometimes they work for themselves but we need someone to keep in check things such as the police, army, businesses. We need laws to protect us from these entities (such as consumer rights, workers rights etc) or they will do what they want.
markgg1 2 years ago
Government "provides" NOTHING. Government ONLY STEALS.
The private sector provides everything; the government provides nothing.
And more can be provided if the greedy, parasitic government would not STEAL from the citizens... and then claim that giving back what it has stolen should be considered "providing".
herbs814 2 years ago
Wealth is consistently produced by the private sector -- if the greedy government doesn't steal from the private sector the means to create wealth. "the poverty line" continually improves as a measure of standard of living. Those who live below "the poverty line" in the US have a home or apartment, cable TV, modern appliances, a car, and central air. The inflated number of people living under the "poverty line" only seems large because we keep moving the goalposts of what is considered "poverty"
herbs814 2 years ago
this is not a zero sum game. wealth does not require poverty. we are not all competing over a set amount of wealth. wealth is constantly expanded from production and creation.
senorfarqueso 2 years ago
we do pay for the roads we drive on and the army and everything else you said through taxes.
senorfarqueso 2 years ago
Socialism is NOT "looking after people"; it is STEALING from people and "looking after" corrupt bureaucrats and politicians who use the money they steal from people to run vote-buying schemes (healthcare is merely one excuse the corrupt thugs use to justify their theft). Socialized medicine is always a net loss to society. There is no reason at all to justify socialized medicine. There is no reason to submit to socialized tyranny.
herbs814 2 years ago
The only moral health system is private health care. Government intrusion into healthcare is tyranny.
herbs814 2 years ago
We can work for privatizing roads, water delivery, military, police, and fire later. First we stop the abomination and tyranny that is socialized medicine.
herbs814 2 years ago
But what if all the water companise went out of business?
How on earth will we drink water?
markgg1 2 years ago
then other people would competently provide the same service.
herbs814 2 years ago
The facts are this
We spend 8% of GDP on health. We insure everyone. We live longer, therefore our healthcare is better.
You spend 18% of GDP on healthcare. around 1/5 population without insurance (something I cannot comprehend!)
the biggest irony is that your government spends MORE than mine on healthcare (UK)
and on top of that, you have to pay yourself.
Basically you are paying twice for healthcare. we pay once, and everyone pays the same no matter how sick you are.
markgg1 2 years ago
US pays for the healthcare of America and the rest of the world. Too many nations ration healthcare and leave their "citizens" no choice to go to America for adequate healthcare. Any nation with government controlled healthcare is EVIL.
herbs814 2 years ago
Again your ideology doesnt allow you to see the facts.
I say its more evil to allow people to die purely because they are poor.
And we also have private healthcare in the UK if you want it, we allow the choice. We even allow people to choose their GP and hospital.
The succesful hospital getsmore public cash, the bad ones get closed.
We have put the market into the system, BUT we have democratic control over it. The people of the UK own the hospitals... not a money motivated group
markgg1 2 years ago
so, "equality" produced by government tyranny is somehow justified?? Equality without liberty is nothing more than TYRANNY. There is NOTHING that would ever make government control over medicine justified.
herbs814 2 years ago
when we say equality, we mean HEALTH equality. Meaning everyone gets good healthcare not just a rich elite.
Democracy is supposed to be the greatest good for the greatest number
markgg1 2 years ago
no, what it really means is that everyone is equally TYRANNIZED by the government control-freaks. Government intrusion into healthcare is unacceptable, no matter what the excuse.
herbs814 2 years ago
Yes, that's what democracy is supposed to be for and that's why we don't advocate democracy. Your life shouldn't be up to a vote. Freedom means limited gov't. A gov't limited to protection of individual rights. Democracy is just another form of statism.
rational1776 2 years ago
In society we obviouslty have organised groups, be it businesses, law enforcement, media etc... these are institutions with power.
The only way we can make sure these groups of power are chekced in check is via laws protecting freedom. These l;aws must be codified by somebody. This is the governments role.
We elect them to do it on our behalf. I cannot teach my kids education, so I need someone to implement it for me.. this is the role of the state.
markgg1 2 years ago
no, the only way to challenge the institutions of power is to have fewer laws and regulations written by their lobbyists. Constitutionally LIMITED government is necessary to preserve freedom.
herbs814 2 years ago
Healthcare is not rationed because if you want more, get your credit card out and pay for it.
Its free up to a point... but if you want the spa treatment and nurses giving you massages, you will have to pay.
The NHS will provide a universal and comprehensive service with equal access for all, free at the point of use, based on clinical need, not ability to pay.
This is the fairest way of providing heralthcare and us Brits are proud of it. I feel sorry for people without this service
markgg1 2 years ago
Any health system founded upon the government STEALING from the people to run a corrupt vote-buying scheme with other people's money is evil. Only private healthcare is moral; government control of medicine is tyranny.
herbs814 2 years ago
well think we need to agree to disagree but my side of the argument is backed by the facts.
Americans lose 3 years of their life (on average) because of your system. I just hope you dont end up losing your insurance (such as because you got made redundant) and than find out you have a long term condition such as cancer... Than you might change your opinion when you are left to die
markgg1 2 years ago
Losing freedom is more dangerous than losing insurance. Private healthcare is the ONLY moral choice. Government healthcare is tyranny. Nothing would ever make submitting to government control over medicine justified.
herbs814 2 years ago
when you are paying half of your entire nations economy on healthcare bills, you may again change your mind.
Luckliy I live in the UK.. Im a US citizen and have considered moving, but I have a condition so am afraid that I wont be able to pay for my healthcare. I suppose I could just fly to the UK if I get sick
long live the NHS
markgg1 2 years ago
If you're dumb enough to approve of NHS then I'm glad you don't live in the US. We don't need your lunacy contaminating our electorate. Stay in your socialized cesspool and suffer your own poor choices.
herbs814 2 years ago
well our 'cess pool' of a healthcare system only costs us 8% of economy, and manages to insure EVERYONE. We live longer, lower heart disease, lower obesity, lower infant mortality.
Your seemingly excellent system costs u 16% of your wealth, and is not universal.. embarrasing
markgg1 2 years ago
for the government to condemn its people to an inferior "universal" healthcare system is tyrannical.
The US system is superior to all government "universal" schemes. NOTHING will EVER make submitting to "universal" tyranny acceptable. NOTHING. Private healthcare is ALWAYS better. ALWAYS.
Just enjoy being a government slave. Your slavishness to government is truly embarrassing.
herbs814 2 years ago
Comment removed
herbs814 2 years ago
USA cares for its own citizens and the rest of the world (the victims of socialist "universal" schemes). US' health system bails out the socialist blunders of the rest of the world.
herbs814 2 years ago
NHS will ALWAYS be evil.
And the only way healthcare bills will EVER get that high is if the government becomes more intrusive in the market. It is government distortion of the market that causes the prices to rise.
herbs814 2 years ago
not true because we have had government 'intrusion' since 1947 and insure everybody for 8% of our GDP
In the States u spend 16% of GDP, and is expected to rise to 20% by 2017 if trends continue.
You therefore spend around 1/5 of entire economy just on healthcare.. the USA has the most privavtised health system, AND by far the most expensive. I thought competition would drive down costs?
clearly not.. market principles dont work in every industrty, health being one of them
markgg1 2 years ago
If my 'product' is healthcare, that means I want people to use my product as often as possible. Meaning I will want my customers to be sick, so I can treat them and charge for it. Therefore a private system focuses on expensive and technological means of curing disease,when it is much easier and cheaper to PREVENT the disease in the first place.. So in the UK a public system wants to drive down cost all the time, by making us as healthy aspossible.. they want to see us LESS not MORE
markgg1 2 years ago
I am not a socialist, I am a capitalist (just to be clear) but certain products and services cannot benefit by market principles.
A private system does not benefit by healthy customers THEREFORE it will never be in the interests of health, but profit.
There is only one way to administer 'healthcare' and that is the correct way...thetrefore competition doesnt work in this industry. We may compete for efficency, but the fundamental product being sold (healthcare) cannot undergo competition
markgg1 2 years ago
to continue..
It is a moral question also. Healthcare is the number one reason for bankrupcy in the states. Also around 50-100'000 people die every year because they are uninsured.
9/11 killed 3000, but your sytem does a 9/11 every few days. Innocent people are dying simply due to a ideological position by conservatives, that the evidence simply shows is not correct. Competition works between coca-cola and pepsi as the products are distinct... healthcare is not a 'product' in that sense
markgg1 2 years ago
The reason for medical bankruptcy is the loss of income. Which is why paying for superior American healthcare sooner is vastly better than waiting and waiting and waiting for "free" health"care" in socialist plans. American healthcare is vastly superior because of the competition that other countries TYRANNICAL destroy.
herbs814 2 years ago
Healthcare is not free in the UK.. we all pay for it based on ability to payand notclinical need. it is not a charity.. It is run by the public (so I run my own healthcare) in thew only practical way possible and thats via my elected representative, whom I can lobby if Im not happy.
American healthcare is very innovative, and expensive,, but you cant do the basics of health and to mkae your people healthy.
We have a more basic approach of prevention of disease, which seems to work v well
markgg1 2 years ago
Government healthcare is run by government elites, NOT by the "public". Government imposes its FORCE upon the people. Government exists at the expense of the people.
Government intrusion into healthcare is immoral. Only private healthcare is moral.
herbs814 2 years ago
haha lol
just done some more readin around this
your government spends MORE than mine on healthcare, even taking into account population...
Looks like you got a socialized healthcare system already bud..
you just got to pay twice for it, once via tax, the other through insurance.
markgg1 2 years ago
The US cares for not only Americans but the victims of socialized medicine all over the world. The US provides the healthcare your evil government denies its own citizens. Your citizens would be much more sickly without the bailout you receive from the US healthcare system.
herbs814 2 years ago
what on earth are you talking about?
markgg1 2 years ago
Do you honestly think this is why the US gov spends so much on healthcare, to pay for foreign citizens? Now you are just talking silly. You have to be a US citizen to recieve medicare, medicaid.
The reason it is so expensive (as I keep repeating) is because you have allowed the market to rin the system with no democratic control.
It will bankrupt you eventually. Fortunately your government has taken steps to stop this.
Imagine if it was left to its own devices? Costs would continue ris
markgg1 2 years ago
The market is the ONLY part of the healthcare system that works. The market is responsible for everything that is good about healthcare and the government is at fault for everything that is wrong. The government needs to get out of healthcare entirely.
herbs814 2 years ago
The only thing gov do in US healthcare is put in money,
The failures are because they have literally zero say on health implimentation.
I dont get how you guys allow this to happen. You have zero say on your own healths, your most fundamental basic need. Fine, if you dont want federal government to run it, get state gov to run it..
but someone you vote for needs to run it!
markgg1 2 years ago
Do those in Britain have any say about their healthcare? Certainly not! The treatments that you can have are decided by NICE, and if that means you die, you die.
Why would I want a different company: because it is cheaper, because they sort my rubbish for me, because they collect more frequently.
Compare that to gas or electricity, for instance, where there are only two factors: price and reliability, and the second is to do with the grid anyway.
Anteater1234567 2 years ago
Who provides the grid? No company could pay for the infrastructure to provide everyone with power. It would take hundreds of years to get a return on their investment.
NICE is controlled by the government, who we vote for to act in our interests. NICe is a democratic organisation not some evil clandestine bunch out to kill us.
Your british and you want the NHS to go private? Are you insane?
Please tell me how anybody will benefit from this?
markgg1 2 years ago
Who provides the grid: the taxpayer. Wouldn't it be better for the taxpayer to pay for it directly? The cost is there, just it is hidden in PFI debt that we cannot measure or contain.
We may vote for the government, but that doesn't mean we have total personal choice. There are 2 parties that could get into power, so two options. That doesn't represent the wealth of different possibilities. I don't even need to mention that the only issue that really matters in elections is the economy
Anteater1234567 2 years ago
We both know the US system is markedly more expensive.
And yes Americans eat too much. The health industry can address this with regulat checkups where patients are urged to change diet, the industry can provide information in eating healthy etc.. but in a private system they will never do this.. healthier people makes them less money
markgg1 2 years ago
You don't care to argue against the fact that the US system costs more:
a) Because people who can want to pay more.
b) Because their government bureaucracies are even worse.?
Anteater1234567 2 years ago
Whose choice and whose responsibility is a diet choice? The persons. Everyone knows that eating burgers and chips and batter is bad for you, but people choose to eat it nevertheless. Urging somebody to change is not going to make any difference.
Also, if it is that, and isn't just cultural difference, why are Scottish people overweight and English not?
Anteater1234567 2 years ago
Everytime you say regulation, add cost to the equation.
Hokibukisa 2 years ago 6
@Hokibukisa
Also, add safety.
AaronTAB 1 year ago
@AaronTAB Perceived safety.
Hokibukisa 1 year ago
I am British, I do want the NHS to be phased out into private care, I am not insane.
America provides an on average marginally better service, at an on average marginally lower cost to the majority of citizens through its private system. That is in spite of the lobbies, in spite of the licensing laws that cause artificial scarcity, in spite of healthcare not being allowed to be sold across state lines, in spite of tariffs on drug imports, in spite of the FDA bureaucracy.
Anteater1234567 2 years ago 13
If it can achieve something like that, even though the people who pay for it are already taxed for Medicare and Medicaid (which are even worse that the NHS, I might add) to the same extend as we are for the NHS, just image what could be achieved with reform in the direction of freedom, if we used the same free markets that have been proven to work for every other consumer good, be it essential or just pleasant, for our healthcare, it can surely achieve so much more again.
Anteater1234567 2 years ago
utter rubbish
creaton1976 1 year ago
I agree, but don't knock the tariffs
Socialized medicine tries to keep cost down by capping the price of drugs, and with 3 different things going into the price, (Cost to make the pill, profits, and extra for Research & Development)
Which gets cut first? R&D. The US has tariffs, because Americans have to pay the full price, of tomorrows medicine, for the entire world
Socialism has found a willing host, and I don't know how to fix it, but I want new medicine, so.....
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Nope, the tariffs do nothing for Research and Development. Robust protection of patents is the only thing that can possibly help American industries engaging in research. Reducing the competition from companies at home or abroad can only reduce the incentives for development, because the industry is protected.
Anteater1234567 1 year ago
Yeah, and normally that would be true
But, what was the last treatment developed in Europe? Canada? When was the last medical device developed there?
The US develops, just this side of ALL the new medicine, ALL the new treatments, ALL the new devices
We're the only ones, sad to say. With some rare, and far between exceptions. The US pays for the future medicine, and if Americans can get around paying the R&D, well, then it stops
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 American companies pay for a large part of the world drug industry's research and development, but it also gets the profits from that. Ultimately, it is the customers who pay, from all over the world through the bills for the medicine.
The tariffs simply mean that American consumers pay more money for drugs developed in Europe than they otherwise would, and that European drug companies develop less than they otherwise would
Anteater1234567 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Also, 3 of the 5 largest drug companies are European: Roche and Novartis are Swiss, and GlaxoSmithKline is British.
Roche submitted, on the 7th July this year, an application to the FDA for the drug they developed for treating recurrent breast cancer, trastuzumab-DM1.
Novartis had the new drug Tasigna approved by the FDA just 12 days ago, which advances on the previous drug Glivec in reducing the spread of leukemia
GSK recently developed a new vaccine for the H1N1 flu too
Anteater1234567 1 year ago
Sweet, I did not know this, thanks
So, do you know how those caps on drugs play out in this? Cause I just figured R&D would get axed first, and they would shift the cost to Americans to make up the short fall
I still think thats true myself, but, you seem to know a decent amount about this, and I'm eager to learn
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 The effect is the same as any tax: it reduces the amount of business done. Fewer people can afford the drugs, so less money goes to the manufacturers, so the do spend less on R&D because of that.
Nobody makes up the shortfall. What happens is that there is less R&D done. Even American companies do less R&D because of it- they have less competition so less need to compete.
It is all-round a terrible idea to put tariffs on trade.
Anteater1234567 1 year ago
I don't know about that
If pill A costs $30, and this covers the cost to make the pill, plus profit margin, plus R&D
But I can import the same pill from Europe at $25, thats the same, only without R&D. I buy that one, only, I get around the R&D cost, so, it stops. If you have a tariff that adds that $5, then they are the same, and I buy American, where the money goes to R&D
Assuming, they are cheaper in europe because there are caps that cut the off the R&D
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Which I don't know about for certain.
I was hoping, with being in europe, the UK is it? You guys have some form of socialized medicine, more than the US anyway. Do they put caps on the price of drugs and the like?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Why is it cheaper from Europe? The base assumption you seem to make is that European companies all just make generic drugs developed originally in America, which isn't true.
Drugs aren't made cheaper by placing price caps, they are just made unprofitable, and so aren't made at all. Government involvement in healthcare generally raises the prices of drugs, not the reverse. In the UK, the situation is that the NHS is nearly a monopoly buyer, but that doesn't push down prices
Anteater1234567 1 year ago
do you have price caps on drugs or not?
I'm not saying, just R&D gets knocked off and they're cheaper, some are not profitable, and they aren't sold in europe. Some of them, can get just under the price cap, but in order to do so, you have to bump off R&D
And some of them are made unprofitable, UNLESS you can shift the price. When you raise corp taxes, maybe it makes the company unprofitable, UNLESS you shift the cost to the consumer, and they are willing to pay it
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
in this case, it would not be shifted from the companies balance sheet, to higher prices for consumers
but rather, shifted from euopean and cannadian consumers, to american consumers. Assuming americans are willing to pay more for medicine
And assuming you have price caps, again I ask the question, yes or no?
Ultimately, I am trying to figure out why we pay higher prices for drugs in american, than in cannada and europe. My explanation fits. I don't know if its true, I'm trying cess that out
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 The UK does not have binding price caps as far as I am aware, however there is the voluntary "Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme". I am less sure about other countries, but I believe France does employ a price cap.
The reason Americans pay higher prices is because of barriers to entry to the American market. Prices are not artificially low in Europe because it is impossible to make a price "artificially low" for a government to purchase.
Anteater1234567 1 year ago
@Anteater1234567 You might not be insane, but you sound like you've been dipping into the drug cabinet....
eaodak 1 year ago
@Anteater1234567 you support your argument to keep the NHS by saying that the american system continues to be better, despite the regulation placed upon it.
GeorgefromLeeds 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anteater1234567 Wrong . You are insane.
MsZeitgeist85 2 months ago
The market is not running the system 50% is already government paid Medicare. The rest is massively regulated. THAT is why it is so expensive. The free market did not cause this, that's bullshit.
fluff125 2 years ago
no... the government pays for 50% but has zero say in tis implimentation. It is a private system. It is owned by private companies whom make profits.
UK healthcare is jnot interested in profit and sole aim to make people healthier... A private systems sole aim is to make money. Being healthy does not make your local hospital rich, as u would never use their service
Im actually bored of stating the obvious with these americans. You wait until you swallow 33% of GDP on health, than youll c
markgg1 2 years ago
the fgovernment pays this because it would be totally evil to just let old, disabled, and people into emergency rooms left to die... the gov is picking up the pieces this horrible system causes.
My mum went to america when younger and had a miscarriage. She was charged 3000 dollars for this.. I guess my venom towards your system comes from incidents like this.
I cant imagine what it owuld b like to find out u have cancer, but be simply left to die just because you was too poor to pay
markgg1 2 years ago
The reason it is so expensive has nothing to do with the fact that there is a market, it has everything to do with the fact that it is run by the government. Nothing run by the government works particularly well.
Some Americans pay a lot of money for healthcare because they can afford to. They pay a lot for healthcare so that they can get better healthcare. But also, the normal American pays very little for private healthcare, in comparison to Britain, and still gets a very good service.
Anteater1234567 2 years ago
The government tuns the military and the police, fire service, rubbish collection, builds roads, maintains them, runs child services, regulates drugs, etc etc.... Im relatively happy with all these services.
I cant possibly see how a private company would do better.. Your blinded by ideology to the actual facts. SOme things should be private, some public.
Mixed economies are pragmatic, sensibel and they work.
markgg1 2 years ago
Can I point out that our mixed economy has just failed?
The police I agree cannot be privately run. Nor can the judicial system or defence.
However, beyond that, everything can be privately run and will work that way. Look, for instance, at drug regulation. Why do we even need it. Portugal has deregulated drugs and see the adverse affects (most notably drug related crime) go away.
Anteater1234567 2 years ago
the fact is this
your health costs 16% GDP, and insures 4/5th population.
UK halth costs 8% GDP. Insures 100%. We live longer and are ranked higher on most services in health. Its not perfect, ive never said it was... but its more effective, and cheaper.
According to your ideology it should be more expensive because the NHS is 100% government controlled, gov funded... im confused?
Yours is the most private AND the most expensive?
say illegal mexicans and im cutting my wrists
markgg1 2 years ago
(hey at least I wont need to worry bout my insurance premium when im getting stiched up)
markgg1 2 years ago
The cost of healthcare in America:
50% is from the government
25% is from the top 5% of spenders
25% is spent by the rest of Americans
So 5% of Americans are rich and choose better healthcare
15% are uninsured
25% are covered by government
55% are insured by the private sector, but aren't the very rich. They are the main taxpayers too.
For those 55%, the cost comes to 4% of GDP. At that rate, you spend 7.3% GDP for the whole population.
Anteater1234567 2 years ago
Length of life: that might be more to do with the twin American hobbies of eating too much and shooting each other, among other things. Healthcare services aren't the only thing that determines your life expectancy.
Instead, look at:
Waiting times (12 months for Hip or Knee replacement- 12 months out of work, in agony)
Levels of inoculation against common illnesses.
5 year survival rates for stroke, heart disease and cancer, the biggest killers in the west.
Anteater1234567 2 years ago
Look at roads- in Britain, the are covered in potholes as the Labour government withholds funding from Conservative councils. This couldn't happen if they were privately owned. They are routinely dug up to attend to pipes, and this process is lengthened because only a few hours' work is done every day. If they are privately owned, paid for by a direct income stream, there is somebody who cares about making sure that the road is running, rather than a bureaucrat to whom it is irrelevant.
Anteater1234567 2 years ago
lol
Labour holds fundingd from conservative councils? This is simply not happening my friend. Councils can change their tax policy as they like. True councils get money from central government, and id imagine more inner city boroughs would get more than rural, so perhaps labour councils do get more funding, but thats not because of partisanship, thats due to need. Believe it or not some polititicans do care about society, hence why they take fairly low pay
Have you even been to Britain?
markgg1 2 years ago
Councils get money from central government, and the labour government has reduced the proportion of funding going to conservative councils. Try to justify it has you may, labour wants to improve its own chances.
What is society, anyway? It is some construct to which we are held to have some debt to. What is need? It is that which results from lack of ability and effort.
I live and have always lived in Britain.
Anteater1234567 2 years ago