What's wrong with American healthcare is that millions of people are denied coverage (therefore insurances decide who gets treatment/lives and who doesn't/dies) while the government spends more on healthcare than any other Western nation. Also, insurances decide who gets treatment and who doesn't. do obviously there are no advantages and lots of down sides to the American healthcare system compared to that of European countries.
While European government run healthcare isn't mandated by insurance companies, the healthcare outcomes are far better in the US than they are in many European countries, or even in Canda. So while it's true that the overly subsedies corporatism healthcare in the US has downsides, to say that it has no upsides, when it fares better than many European countries, is odious.
@alennna Sorry, but there is no educated argument against government healthcare. It's cheaper than private health insurance (for the people as well as the government), and no one gets denied coverage. Both Germany and Denmark spend much less of their annual budget on healthcare, and people can still buy private insurance if they want "VIP treatment" at hospitals (eg. if they don't want to share a room with someone else if they need to remain at the hospital for a certain period after an OP).
You're completely right about doctors having unwarranted privilege to patients in the states. Pregnant women are treated like they're insane if they want a midwife instead of a hospital birth, but we have the 2nd worst rate of mother and infant mortality in the industrial world. Hospitals are dangerous places for healthy moms and babies. The Business of Being Born is a must-watch for expecting mothers.
Where do you get these statistics, Stefan? How do you start your search for these statistics? Do you just ask yourself something like, "Hmm, I wonder what percentage of hospitals were privately owned in the past..." and then seek out to answer your question?
07:08 We already have socialized health care. The US Gov is already the largest supplier of health insurance in the United States, Medicare, Medicaid, Health coverage for the military and their families. Health care for federal employees and their families, and the list goes on.
For the Gov to cover the rest of the people would only be a drop in the already almost full bucket. People just don't understand what Socialism is. It IS here already.
my God, this is a great video. Thank you very much for teaching me, Stefbot. I would have never been able to gather all this wealth of information by myself. I will definitely pass it on.
sorry but i have not got far into this vid b4 i feel to stop watching. as a European citizen,public health service is AMAZING, stop people dying for a start,making life healthier for the poor who otherwise wouldn't afford healthcare, thus making life healthier for the rich aswell. i have lived nearly 26 years with free public healthcare and would not swap it for anything. People against it need to stop being snobs and see the bigger situation, free health care,help poor people;help everyone!!!!
I do not care if you receive quality health care in Europe because government can provide quality equal to that provided by the free market but ten times the cost. So the quality of your health care just means that other parts of the economy are compromised. Moreover, keynesian economics and fiat money permits the accumulation of large debts that gives socialism the illusion of working. But it will be a disaster in the future. Its not even about 'what works' its about moral principles.
I am familiar with much of the info but it is put together well for facts few KNOW but need to know to change the racketeering AMA,or ABA or several other "licensing groups"...lowering the quality of care several times over in 100 yrs...people need to stop believing the lies.
Im just playing devil's advocate here, but while you say many people may have died in US compared to Europe as a result of differing standards or beauracratic red tape, isnt it plausible that many people have been harmed in other parts of the world with loose standards which allowed untested drugs to go on the market created by charletans and crakpots?
All products have risk factors including drugs. And that means that a number of people are killed each year by using drugs. If a new drug is harmful then news will spread and business is in trouble. Government regulation only stifles innovation that could lower the risk factor of drugs(hence, saving lives). Government does not need to regulate. You are not guilty until you have committed a crime.
Im only about 12 minutes in and i see a theme of government bashing, which is fine, as much of the criticism is likely just, Im just hoping that he doesnt suggest that the answer is just private, for-profit, and free market alternatives, because to suggest that such entities are not subest to the same or worse aspects of human nature is absurd.
@munen3434 Do you think he just made up all these numbers out of thin air. Who's the moron for spouting off and not looking in the description box for links.
You said that in Canada that it is illegal to rate the doctors. I checked the links but it doesn't seem to be there. What are you using to support this?
I just checked wikipedia and the AMA Homepage, and it appears the AMA is a private sector organization with no government involvement. What are your thoughts on this? Am I wrong, and if so, how?
I believe the Joint Commission, who is "virtually a monopoly, enjoying unique statutory protection in the USA and collecting $113 million in annual revenue, mainly from the fees it charges US hospitals for evaluating their compliance with federal regulations." (straight off wikipedia)
@cdal233 In a nutshell: states have varying degrees of laws limiting the practice of healthcare to those with an M.D. (medical doctor) license. This usually includes all prescriptions, and many simple procedures such as performing acupuncture, casting broken bones, & more, all things that need much less training. The AMA has a CPT (current procedure terminology) system that the gov't requires everyone use for medicare/medicaid claims... a monopoly on med. procedures.
@cdal233 The AMA, out of self interest, likely demands the most expensive procedures possible. Finally the FDA has a monopoly over what is considered a drug (anything that claims to cure, prevent, or treat a disease) and since it's loaded with special interest groups only big, fat prescription drug companies ever get approved (and its so costly that small-timers never could anyways).
Take that all with a grain of salt since I don't have references, but I'm sure you can follow it up yourself.
The wait in the USA to see a specialist is as long as Sweden, or worse. My wife waited 8 months to see a neurologist, he did a few tests, and swore at her after the tests were inconclusive, because he could not continue and receive a huge grant for the study of the rare disease (SPS) at the Univ. Of Rochester. She still has no answers, and the charges were $16,423.00 for a 1/2 hour test. If she could have seen the doctor in a timely manner, he could have seen the blood platelet counts...1000's
You must have been locked into a bad medical plan. The US has an abundance of specialists, and it is easy to get quicker appointments. In a totally socialized system everyone is locked into one giant program with no alternatives.
I haven't seen the data on Sweden; perhaps that very small country matches the US in waiting times, unknown without seeing comparisons. But it's better to compare a big system like Canada: see Part 2 in this series.
I think there is a lot of confirmation bias going on here. Im not sure what my perspective is on health care which is why im checking out this site. I like Stefbot and think he's a smart and well spoken guy, and im trying to keep my mind open. Ohh, my girlfriend just saw a neurologist and she called and made the appointment 3 days before the visit. SO, perhaps it varies from plan to plan and in different locations. Oh, we are in US.
I like some of your points, but some of your research and logic are specious. Quoting facts and statistics from 1964-1989 on beds and costs... you might as well quote the health statistics from Brazil from the 18th century. 20 years have passed since, that is a world of time.
While the AMA has what you classify as a monopoly, I qualify as a safeguard. While it protects its own interests, medical care is the one place where substandard or cut rate labor is a huge negative. One of the reasons
that there has been a decrease in deaths at birth was the removal of untrained midwives. Midwives brought extra germs, under tested methods, and their standardization was one of the best things to ever happen to expecting mothers.
The AMA needs better standards and there needs to be a higher availability of more doctors, something that an influx of substandard doctors would not help.
The individual medical consumer should decide who is and who is not "substandard," not a guild with a conflict of interest. Only open competition can discover what truly works (satisfies consumer demand) and what doesn't work. The guild can make all the recommendations it wants but it can't aggressively force its opinions upon the individual.
The CMA did the same thing in 1990 - too many doctors!
So the state cut enrolment in Med school and restricted foreign doctor's practicing. Result, is in Ontario and Canada in General, we don't have enough doctor's
All because of even well-intentioned state interference.
Meanwhile the portfolio at CMAH, the CMA's financial services wing and Equity trading company has grown into quite a laucrative venture
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I know I don't look very cool and anarchist saying this but semi-government-run healthcare works out pretty well for the rest of the world; it's cheaper and the people are healthier.
My "pretty well" definition means as reliable and on demand as ordering a burger from McDonald's. I doubt government (semi) run health care fits that definition of "pretty well". And you probably know we need more reliability in regards to health care than..... burgers.
Excellent video! Government run health care will be a complete and total disaster. It's just another way for the government to have even more control of it's citizens.
Seems like the GOP's only real healthcare proposal is "let's scare the population to death so that we can hand Obama a crushing defeat." Do you honestly see many of them trying to help the many American families and small businesses facing ridiculous healthcare costs, much less the 40+ million uninsured Americans? Stop eating up their rhetoric, they're manipulating you successfully. Get some facts and perspective that aren't RNC talking points and THEN make up your OWN mind. PLEASE
So when the government stays out of a system, like in the early 1900's, you get trusts and monopolies that jack up prices on their own, with nobody to stop them. But when the government gets involved, they tend to serve their own interests by helping to form a disguised monopoly through "violence." Soooo....what do we do? Can human greed ever really be put aside to help each individual person as equally as possible??
Not totally can human greed be weeded out, no.. But the model they´ve presented is abit flawed. The government shouldn´t be involved more than necessary, to make sure laws and regulations are followed and that every citizen gets the healthcare that he or she needs. I live in Sweden, we don´t have the best healthcare in the world..but we don´t toss our old people out of cabs outside a free clinic either. Although cutbacks are starting to wreck the whole thing. :(
True monopolies can't exist unless aggression is used to shut out competition. True monopolies did not exist until Big Business lobbied the State to aggressively shut out such competition with licenses, inspection agencies, and even anti-trust (to break up competitors). There's no such thing as a free market monopoly.
Stef, you forgot to add in the "Long Haul" section at the end that people should prepare themselves to go to some other country that is more medically free. I think India might be an example of this. India supplies many of the doctors already.
About the initial cost of bringing a drug to market, it also keeps out drugs for diseases of the poor. If there's a disease that effects a million people in the length of the patent and these people can't afford to pay back $1,000 each then they're screwed. And of course people in Africa generally can't afford such costs so it squelches the development of cures for third world diseases.
Thank you for your pursuit of honesty,and virtue.you've made me want to read every philosopher.Maybe someday we could have a chat once my studies are up to snuff.I wonder if we are born with the truth and piece by piece it is taken away from us over time.
I'm sure I sound like many other people who comment on your site,but I will go on.I would like to thank you Stefbot for giving me this gigantic interest in the pursuit of truth and this want to learn everything about philosophy and to learn about the great and small philosophers. The trial of Socrates was amazingly done.I would like to thank you for your sincere portrayal Socrates,amazing!That is it.maybe someday I'll be able to have a conversation with you.I would enjoy it .
I got a good chuckle from both of those comments you made.
@09:34 You mention ponzi scheme. And after enlightening myself so to say. I would agree. I sometimes wonder how they work the numbers in fantasy land.
@20:42 "Violence is not the way to solve problems" My personal opinion is you have to get your hands dirty. Because sometimes words are not enough to get your message through thick skulls.
Absolutely superb video. Just like the NHS, Obama-care is just going to kill more people than it tries to 'help'. I actually avoid the NHS unless I have absolutely no choice at all. It's horrible, just horrible. Like the other poster, I actually got sick last time I went to an NHS hospital.
Just like computers and technology, in a market with less intervention and regulation (...ideally, none!), prices would decrease and quality would increase through competition, profit incentive and the hyper-efficiencies of the free-market. I think we can all agree the current system is utterly horrendous, at the least! Thanks for the comments.
I notice than one gets thumbs down when they in any way criticize the free market! Ha, i dont think stefbot, as a philosopher, would be wanting to push free-market dogmatism? Im a skeptic, and i admit my knowledge and understanding of these issues is in the early stages, but im smart enough to see some pretty typical biased reasoning in action. The herd mentality of humans has a way of cutting right through political ideologies.
The phrase 'Free market dogmatism' is the type of pejoratives and propaganda that the state relies on. 'Free market' is just the summary of individual wishes in a society and being for the free market means allowing for voluntary exchange of private property rights. Calling it dogmatic is a naive and brainwashed view.
I think you are looking at all the wrong statistics. The reason people nowadays are more in need of medical care is because they are getting older than their bodies are designed to get. Also, people in the US have started to live so unhealthy that it's a surprise that they haven't died out yet. The best medical care in the world is state-regulated (UK, France, etc.). In the netherlands prises sore when it became privaticed.
HAHAHAHA Are you joking? I know no less than three people (2 were cancer sufferers) who have gone to America to seek treatment. If treatment is too expensive, then it is denied entirely, but you don't get your NI payments back. Our hospitals are known to put beds in bathrooms and feature starving patients drinking from vases, I'm not even joking, we take food to relatives that have to be there. Prices sore privately, because they are kept down through denial and disguisting service.
UMmm the UK under the NHS has been an abomination. It has the Worst care in the west. There are major shortages, constant rationing, superbug infestation. There costs are very high because the costs are separated from the provision, making the costs invisible to the purchaser. UK did undergo tort reform though, USA has not.
Well first of all under a system of State provision costs will go up in real terms. That will result in the state having to ration care, therefore many people will be denied care, poor ,middle class. Removing gov from healthcare provision and payment will force prices down, but as long as government is entrenched into a market costs will go up. The only ones who will not be negatively impacted are teh super rich, as they have the money to pay twice for service . gov deserves blame here lindsay
The biggest costs the NHS faces are the throwing of money at the private firms building the hospitals and manufacturing the supplies at massive profits, and administering a massively wasteful 'internal market'.
The ones to blame here are middle class sociopaths who read a business studies textbook that presents an oversimplified 'free market or Stalinism, no other systems exist' view and erroneously believe that this gives them a great understanding of politics.
But no system is full market of total socialism. Stalinism was neo-merchanitilist where the state sold monopoly privilege to business interests like Kalashnikov and Sikorsky. And the USA it's becoming increasingly clear our models of healthcare supports a minority of interests that are protected via regulation. Also there is nothing wrong with profits as they are critical signals as to where capital must be allocated. The problem is when firms use the state to maximize profits and not the market
Umm the NHS has many serious problems and did they not have a monopoly on healthcare way before the introduction of private healhtcare institutions in UK ? Privates emerged as a result of the substandard care the NHS offers,
"Privates emerged as a result of the substandard care the NHS offers"
So a bunch of sociopath Tory/New Labour politicians consciously and deliberately ran the NHS into the ground to free up funds for warmongering and corporate welfare, and a bunch of selfish middle class types decided they'd bribe their way to queue-jumping.
That's not an argument to have people whose incomes don't meet the prices charged by pharmaceutical firms die of exposure.
The NHS was a monopoly. Regardless of the title of those who ran the institution ( politician, CEO) monopolies are subject to make serious errors as there are no market competitors. They can pursue wasteful polices because they are effectively shielded from a more efficient competitor. This is a perfect example of a tragedy of the commons, and poor and rich a like will over consume the asset due to costs transfer. Complicating this is cost is invisible as it's embedded in taxes.
"This is a perfect example of a tragedy of the commons, and poor and rich a like will over consume the asset due to costs transfer."
Critics of public health always seem to talk about an abundance of practising medical professionals as if it's a BAD thing. It isn't. In the event of a natural disaster or pandemic, the higher demand for medics will not be met with more doctors appearing. You need loads in place ready, making a healthcare system full of 'just in case' visits to free GPs an asset.
I didn't say an abundance of medical personal was bad i said separating payment from provision is bad. I also said that creating a commons ( everybody owns an asset) is bad as it leads to what Garet Hardin argued was a "Tragedy of teh Commons" where it is in my individual interest to consume some communal asset and because costs are socialized , that is some marginal cost of my consumption is transferred to others, i can consume marginally more because i will never realize full costs of my use.
"The NHS was a monopoly. Regardless of the title of those who ran the institution ( politician, CEO) monopolies are subject to make serious errors as there are no market competitors"
You're examining a not-for-profit public service with analytical tools designed to assess how for-profit firms behave.
And YouTube is not registering my 'post comment' clicks. How annoying >:(
It doesn't matter. The State as the CEO have very little to tell it it is being wasteful when it pursues certain policies. If a non-profit has to compete with another non-profit for capital from donors they must offer value to donors to survive. A monopoly is shielded from economic reality because not only is there no competitor to steal revenue from it, but there is no Exit for consumers if the monopoly becomes exploitative or wasteful. Profit can never be ignored, resources r scarce
Oh, for feck's sake. If the free market were any good, right, YouTube would respond to the market pressure to make a comments system that wasn't rendered completely unfit for purpose by a hairtrigger spamguard that randomly loses posts after confirming they have been. That's almost ten posts it's eaten now, I give up DX
I do enjoy debating with market proponents that aren't wilfully ignorant McCarthyites, but this chaotic text entry system makes cohesive argument all but impossible. Peace x
I usually copy paste before i post, and often paste into a word file. Yes i find the conversion interesting and have been studying Marxian economics. Fundamentally i come down on the side of economic subjectivism( if there is such a phrase) I don't really have a problem with individuals organizing into communes and engaging in protectionism and trying to make socialism work, but i would prefer to live in a propertarianist society.
I think the best system is one that is the most voluntary.
And no matter how much free market proponents intellectually masturbate over models of how free markets would work if populated entirely by 'proper' capitalists as opposed to corrupt nepotists, it won't change the fact that EVERY market-based system has displayed a consistent tendency to see greater and greater government intervention to the advantage of rich and powerful private interests.
But is that really the fault of freedom or of regulation. If i'm a business man and my objective is to enhance my profit margins, i may try to produce a good product but another option is to capture regulators or politicians (rent seeking) to shield me from the market ( competition, innovation). Any argument that attacks markets but ignores the externalities of the political side is not even marginally usefull. The real economy is a political one where agents seek profits using the State.
"But is that really the fault of freedom or of regulation"
It's a system-wide failure that can't be avoided in social orders based on individuals trading private property. Enforcing Keynesian or Social Democratic regulations onto inherently broken market/mixed economies is like giving a flu patient a damp facemask.
It seems then that the economy which is a political economy now might be served from complete separation of market and State. Perhaps the Austro-libertarians where always right.
"it won't change the fact that EVERY market-based system has displayed a consistent tendency to see greater and greater government intervention to the advantage of rich and powerful private interests." If this is your conclusion, why would you support more intervention ?
Yes but the problem also lies in a gov taht is willing to yield to business interests. Just as private interests are driven by greed there can be no behavioral bifurcation, public servants are subject the to same behavioral paradigms. centruries of Mercantilism and intervention have failed, i don't see how intervention is not itself exacerbating wealth disparities. Perhaps the rich would in a more honest position without access to teh state to enrich themselves?
"Perhaps the rich would in a more honest position without access to teh state to enrich themselves?" "The problem is when firms use the state to maximize profits and not the market"
But there won't ever be private business without a state, since private property is an institution that requires constant enforcement and the ruling business owners have clearly chosen statism as their preferred social model, and the motive and opportunity for corruption will always be there
Well certainly there needs to be some sort of institution that protects private property and an institution that arbitrates disputes in order for markets to be optimal method of transaction. However it remains to be seen that those very same institution must have regulatory(which as we seem to both agree has been leading to these problems), redistrubutatory. I don't believe the terms public and private are of any use due to the nebulous relationships they have with each other.
"we seem to both agree (regulation) has been leading to these problems"
No, we don't. Having a system based on private ownership of nature's wealth and the means of producing wealth is what leads to these problems, as the "institution that protects private property and arbitrates disputes" always ends up taking the side of those with the most property.
I do hope this doesn't foreshadow a tirade of Red Scare drivel about Stalin calling himself a Communist meaning that every Communist is a Stalinist? I have met intellectually honest free market proponents, and they are few and far between...
Stalin was a Neo-Merchantilist, an autocrat that sold monopoly privilege to a select few firms that desired monopoly privilege. I'm assuming your a lowercase c communist or an anarcho-syndicalist. decentralized socialism, no government, labor communes own the means of production in small isolated sectors?
I'm a Marxist, as in I would like to see that sort of social order with a federal system with limited power uniting these small sectors, and see the anarchist approach of having a phobia of admitting that your militia is a state after it has established a regional monopoly on coercive force after winning a civil war as an irrational and counter-productive dead-end.
Then that fundamentally grants rights of property over the dominion of sectors to the State in general (i don't' see how this eliminates private property rights, if anything it isolates them to a select few). How would you avoid corruption at that state level when small sectors seek to transfer costs to other sectors by use of the state?
The issue of corrupt representatives has been dealt with extensively by Marxist writers; in short - don't pay them more than anyone else, keep their books open, have them subject to immediate recall.
I'm defining a State as an armed body with a monopoly on coercive force, a definition which includes an armed population. If you're assuming 'State' means 'Executive telling everybody what to do', throw away that assumption.
i'm not sure i totally understand the structure of what your proposing but the USA has mechanisms to purge corrupt politicians and at times we see scandals that result in the almost immediate expulsion of a bureaucrat. The problem more immediately lies with voter knowledge which is rather poor in mass democracies and enables political rent seeking.
Also if the state has no authority or limited authority "'Executive telling everybody what to do', throw away that assumption. " Then why wouldn't certain labor sectors just spontaneously move back to a system of private property if it yields excess efficiency ? I'm assuming choice in product consumption is still permitted which will yield the failure of certain firms and the enrichment of others.
"But there won't ever be private business without a state"
That's like saying the Fox will try to keep the hen house intact. The state is diametricly opposed to a private free market. All you need to enforce private property is an intersubjective consensus and a willingness/ability to apply that intersubjective consensus. See confederalsocialist's video on the "Wild, Wild, West" or Anarchist Ireland.
I don't know the GNP numbers (regarding healthcare), but it should be noted that welfare to the military industrial complex artificially inflates the GNP.
It seems that there is much more state control over health care in Canada, but the health care and drug costs are much lower than in the US. Why is this?
That depends on what you mean by "lower costs". If you need a heart transplant in 6 months which will cost you $50,000 and the government can guarantee you one for free in 18 months then the "lower price" of state-run healthcare is actually an illusion.
There is no point in being guaranteed lower prices if you are inducing healthcare shortages upon the masses.
Infinite demand vs finite supply = mass shortages.
I don't understand you. Health care isn't a service provided by the government (in either case). It's just regulated and paid through the government to varying degrees.
That's because the American healthcare system is a mixed economic system that naturally results in sky rocketing costs. Did you even watch Stef's video?
State-run medicine would actually be an improvement over the current system of laws in the short run....but is that really the best way?
Because they point the gun in both directions. Price control by setting the prices they will pay drug companies. Dictating what doctors can charge. And dictating a monopoly for themselves on consumers.
The Only use I can see for a License is to increase one's possible credibility. You should be able to practice anything without a license.
This way only licenses that actually protected anyone would really exist, and people would know to look for someone that has one in whatever feild they need services in.
i do not fear the gun it is the bullet i fear .. if the state is the gun what is the bullet money ...that is what most fear to loose don't they ?then when they loose it the violence appears. a bullet is just a bullet a gun is just a gun together they make the violence don't they ?
The state is the gun and the bullet, but metaphor aside the state is violence. If you really think that money is the problem you should read Atlas Shrugged, or think a little more about what money really is. I will give you a clue... The means of exchange.
oh i know it is a means of exchange .but it is not used that way at all .with all the leverage ( interest and fear ) used to keep people hooked on it and spending it it is not a means of exchange . if the system could find a way that people could not hoard it to use as a bullet in a gun. what money is and what it should be are two different things
i am sorry to have to explain further, but i feel it necessary. The usefulness of money is not evil, and the implied interaction that money is to be used for i would say is the opposite of evil. When a person buys something they are essentially stating that the value of the item is worth more to them than the money. there is no evil in this voluntary exchange. when people make this exchange i believe it brings people together.
Some people may use their wealth to exploit but i dont believe that problem should be blamed on a means of wealth. It should be blamed on a lack of moral understanding by that individual.
ok so money works well look at the stuff going on inthe world ..i agree it is not the money it is the enviroment that is sets up . money itself is not evil how it is used is .
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
See, while I can't argue your points, my mind keeps saying U.S.A health care industry is closer to free market than Canada health care. Canada > U.S.A Health care, Thu Socialism > Anarchy. Could u explain what I'm doing wrong here? Seems violence reduces overall suffering.
yea, u'r right, my bad, questions are good, but i mean after watching this video u shouldn't have said stupid stuff like that (it makes u seem like a crazy statist)
Newexperiment: I would consider the effects of government involvement in the American medical system as well as the enormous costs that the American semi-free market is carrying for the rest of the world where the free market is curtailed to such an extent that research has slowed or even ended. That's where I would begin my research anyways :) Good luck!
nice information...! thanks for upload this video...!
TonikHealthInsurance 6 months ago
What's wrong with American healthcare is that millions of people are denied coverage (therefore insurances decide who gets treatment/lives and who doesn't/dies) while the government spends more on healthcare than any other Western nation. Also, insurances decide who gets treatment and who doesn't. do obviously there are no advantages and lots of down sides to the American healthcare system compared to that of European countries.
ThaIllestBro 10 months ago
@ThaIllestBro
While European government run healthcare isn't mandated by insurance companies, the healthcare outcomes are far better in the US than they are in many European countries, or even in Canda. So while it's true that the overly subsedies corporatism healthcare in the US has downsides, to say that it has no upsides, when it fares better than many European countries, is odious.
regelemihai 8 months ago
Comment removed
alennna 1 year ago
@alennna thank you
stefbot 1 year ago
Comment removed
alennna 1 year ago
@alennna
All the world has universal health care.
Is the American health insurance is like Car insurance?
Life insurance and all the other insurances?
And you pay it every month and how much?
Or what it's like?
q1111w 1 year ago
@alennna Sorry, but there is no educated argument against government healthcare. It's cheaper than private health insurance (for the people as well as the government), and no one gets denied coverage. Both Germany and Denmark spend much less of their annual budget on healthcare, and people can still buy private insurance if they want "VIP treatment" at hospitals (eg. if they don't want to share a room with someone else if they need to remain at the hospital for a certain period after an OP).
ThaIllestBro 10 months ago
You're completely right about doctors having unwarranted privilege to patients in the states. Pregnant women are treated like they're insane if they want a midwife instead of a hospital birth, but we have the 2nd worst rate of mother and infant mortality in the industrial world. Hospitals are dangerous places for healthy moms and babies. The Business of Being Born is a must-watch for expecting mothers.
AshleyKScott 1 year ago
Please - where do you get your information and statistics?
SashaPayne 1 year ago
Actually, last time I checked it was $107 trillion for both Medicare and Social Security (according to the mises institute).
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Or as Shanedk said, simply get rid of the state granted monopoly held by the AMA.
Allow competition.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Why? Too much federal involvement and inflation, inflation, inflation since the 1970s
xaviqaz 1 year ago
Brilliant as always.
TheJacolyte 1 year ago
Off topic, but...
Where do you get these statistics, Stefan? How do you start your search for these statistics? Do you just ask yourself something like, "Hmm, I wonder what percentage of hospitals were privately owned in the past..." and then seek out to answer your question?
TheJacolyte 1 year ago
07:08 We already have socialized health care. The US Gov is already the largest supplier of health insurance in the United States, Medicare, Medicaid, Health coverage for the military and their families. Health care for federal employees and their families, and the list goes on.
For the Gov to cover the rest of the people would only be a drop in the already almost full bucket. People just don't understand what Socialism is. It IS here already.
mrsevans1000 1 year ago
OPT OUT of blomacare..
NOBODY WANTS IT..
Its Poison.!!
The sleeping GIANT has INSOMNIA....
RESCIND it if it squeaks thru...& cram it...
hadenufnow 1 year ago
my God, this is a great video. Thank you very much for teaching me, Stefbot. I would have never been able to gather all this wealth of information by myself. I will definitely pass it on.
alennna 2 years ago 3
AMAZING!
augiept 2 years ago
you Excellent i really like your blogs
elieakaMrextreme 2 years ago
REPEAL the TAX & JAIL mandate bill nobody ever wanted..
& Send it back to "real" senatore next time for a do-over..
Happy New Year!
hadenufnow 2 years ago
Kill the 3000 pg HC TAX & JAIL Trojan Horse Mandate Bill nobody wants...
Kill the freakin bill.
Vote out the freaks..
hadenufnow 2 years ago 2
sorry but i have not got far into this vid b4 i feel to stop watching. as a European citizen,public health service is AMAZING, stop people dying for a start,making life healthier for the poor who otherwise wouldn't afford healthcare, thus making life healthier for the rich aswell. i have lived nearly 26 years with free public healthcare and would not swap it for anything. People against it need to stop being snobs and see the bigger situation, free health care,help poor people;help everyone!!!!
Jesuslovespete 2 years ago
I do not care if you receive quality health care in Europe because government can provide quality equal to that provided by the free market but ten times the cost. So the quality of your health care just means that other parts of the economy are compromised. Moreover, keynesian economics and fiat money permits the accumulation of large debts that gives socialism the illusion of working. But it will be a disaster in the future. Its not even about 'what works' its about moral principles.
truevoice08 2 years ago 3
Great video I'm linking it now in a forum to explain most of the problems with USA healthcare.
PapaDeltaRomeo 2 years ago 7
I am as well!!!!
I am familiar with much of the info but it is put together well for facts few KNOW but need to know to change the racketeering AMA,or ABA or several other "licensing groups"...lowering the quality of care several times over in 100 yrs...people need to stop believing the lies.
Giverney13 2 years ago
Im just playing devil's advocate here, but while you say many people may have died in US compared to Europe as a result of differing standards or beauracratic red tape, isnt it plausible that many people have been harmed in other parts of the world with loose standards which allowed untested drugs to go on the market created by charletans and crakpots?
1974freud 2 years ago
All products have risk factors including drugs. And that means that a number of people are killed each year by using drugs. If a new drug is harmful then news will spread and business is in trouble. Government regulation only stifles innovation that could lower the risk factor of drugs(hence, saving lives). Government does not need to regulate. You are not guilty until you have committed a crime.
truevoice08 2 years ago
Im only about 12 minutes in and i see a theme of government bashing, which is fine, as much of the criticism is likely just, Im just hoping that he doesnt suggest that the answer is just private, for-profit, and free market alternatives, because to suggest that such entities are not subest to the same or worse aspects of human nature is absurd.
1974freud 2 years ago
It is refreshing how these videos actually provoke thought and one walks away (or gets up from their seat) with something learned. Thank you.
C0MMANDER38 2 years ago
Thank you for all your dedication and hard work Stefan. Your message is an inspiration. Striking at the root as always*
bryanteague 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is full of crap! he rambles on and on never once tring to back his claims just expects us to take what he says as fact.
he is a liar and a moron
munen3434 2 years ago
the references are to the right.
stefbot 2 years ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@stefbot ""the references are to the right.""
No, they're not.
It's just a link to your website. Some reference...
AntiBullshitMan 1 year ago
munen3434...did you mean to use the word "trying", or did your really mean "tring". If so, what is a "tring"?...you moron.
bnsfslave 2 years ago
why don't you check his references link in "more info"??
dmcbride1978 2 years ago
Links in the description moron.
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
@munen3434 Do you think he just made up all these numbers out of thin air. Who's the moron for spouting off and not looking in the description box for links.
nocturnalc 11 months ago
You said that in Canada that it is illegal to rate the doctors. I checked the links but it doesn't seem to be there. What are you using to support this?
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
He's arguing against insurance companies, right?
weareallnow 2 years ago
great work, thanks. i'd like to subtitle it in french but these things take ages.
jaar2001 2 years ago
to much bullshit. :)
anerson16 2 years ago
I just checked wikipedia and the AMA Homepage, and it appears the AMA is a private sector organization with no government involvement. What are your thoughts on this? Am I wrong, and if so, how?
cdal233 2 years ago
Who enforces their monopoly?
stefbot 2 years ago 7
I believe the Joint Commission, who is "virtually a monopoly, enjoying unique statutory protection in the USA and collecting $113 million in annual revenue, mainly from the fees it charges US hospitals for evaluating their compliance with federal regulations." (straight off wikipedia)
cdal233 2 years ago 2
@cdal233 In a nutshell: states have varying degrees of laws limiting the practice of healthcare to those with an M.D. (medical doctor) license. This usually includes all prescriptions, and many simple procedures such as performing acupuncture, casting broken bones, & more, all things that need much less training. The AMA has a CPT (current procedure terminology) system that the gov't requires everyone use for medicare/medicaid claims... a monopoly on med. procedures.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 year ago
@cdal233 The AMA, out of self interest, likely demands the most expensive procedures possible. Finally the FDA has a monopoly over what is considered a drug (anything that claims to cure, prevent, or treat a disease) and since it's loaded with special interest groups only big, fat prescription drug companies ever get approved (and its so costly that small-timers never could anyways).
Take that all with a grain of salt since I don't have references, but I'm sure you can follow it up yourself.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 year ago
General doctors don't bathe in a gold bathtub full of money. Specialized doctors do.
krlsurquixa 2 years ago
yup
fps0chris 2 years ago
The wait in the USA to see a specialist is as long as Sweden, or worse. My wife waited 8 months to see a neurologist, he did a few tests, and swore at her after the tests were inconclusive, because he could not continue and receive a huge grant for the study of the rare disease (SPS) at the Univ. Of Rochester. She still has no answers, and the charges were $16,423.00 for a 1/2 hour test. If she could have seen the doctor in a timely manner, he could have seen the blood platelet counts...1000's
rockabillydj 2 years ago
You must have been locked into a bad medical plan. The US has an abundance of specialists, and it is easy to get quicker appointments. In a totally socialized system everyone is locked into one giant program with no alternatives.
I haven't seen the data on Sweden; perhaps that very small country matches the US in waiting times, unknown without seeing comparisons. But it's better to compare a big system like Canada: see Part 2 in this series.
leafwatch 2 years ago
I think there is a lot of confirmation bias going on here. Im not sure what my perspective is on health care which is why im checking out this site. I like Stefbot and think he's a smart and well spoken guy, and im trying to keep my mind open. Ohh, my girlfriend just saw a neurologist and she called and made the appointment 3 days before the visit. SO, perhaps it varies from plan to plan and in different locations. Oh, we are in US.
1974freud 2 years ago
I like some of your points, but some of your research and logic are specious. Quoting facts and statistics from 1964-1989 on beds and costs... you might as well quote the health statistics from Brazil from the 18th century. 20 years have passed since, that is a world of time.
While the AMA has what you classify as a monopoly, I qualify as a safeguard. While it protects its own interests, medical care is the one place where substandard or cut rate labor is a huge negative. One of the reasons
IndianaDave 2 years ago
that there has been a decrease in deaths at birth was the removal of untrained midwives. Midwives brought extra germs, under tested methods, and their standardization was one of the best things to ever happen to expecting mothers.
The AMA needs better standards and there needs to be a higher availability of more doctors, something that an influx of substandard doctors would not help.
Fix the AMA, don't do a trust bust.
IndianaDave 2 years ago
better state standards runs contradictory to higher numbers of doctors.
why don't you let the hospitals decide what kind of standards are necessary for a doctor
npceditor 2 years ago
The individual medical consumer should decide who is and who is not "substandard," not a guild with a conflict of interest. Only open competition can discover what truly works (satisfies consumer demand) and what doesn't work. The guild can make all the recommendations it wants but it can't aggressively force its opinions upon the individual.
OldCottage2 2 years ago 2
I don't need/want the AMA to make these decisions for me. I would be much happier with a voluntary recommendation from Good Housekeeping.
curecorruption 2 years ago
The CMA did the same thing in 1990 - too many doctors!
So the state cut enrolment in Med school and restricted foreign doctor's practicing. Result, is in Ontario and Canada in General, we don't have enough doctor's
All because of even well-intentioned state interference.
Meanwhile the portfolio at CMAH, the CMA's financial services wing and Equity trading company has grown into quite a laucrative venture
This is professional corporate welfare.
johnycannuk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I know I don't look very cool and anarchist saying this but semi-government-run healthcare works out pretty well for the rest of the world; it's cheaper and the people are healthier.
So, uh, what'm I missing?
LFZ15 2 years ago
People with small amounts of cancer live pretty well too.
grog3514 2 years ago 2
My "pretty well" definition means as reliable and on demand as ordering a burger from McDonald's. I doubt government (semi) run health care fits that definition of "pretty well". And you probably know we need more reliability in regards to health care than..... burgers.
StrafingMoose 2 years ago
The wait time for health care here in Sweden is 5 months.
5 months.
It's not "universal healthcare" if nobody can ever get it.
Mastikator 2 years ago 2
Um, logic and evidence.
glopur0 2 years ago 2
Excellent video! Government run health care will be a complete and total disaster. It's just another way for the government to have even more control of it's citizens.
SCLARK2112 2 years ago 3
This is the best video I have seen on the subject. Thank you for posting! RJ
TripperLV 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Seems like the GOP's only real healthcare proposal is "let's scare the population to death so that we can hand Obama a crushing defeat." Do you honestly see many of them trying to help the many American families and small businesses facing ridiculous healthcare costs, much less the 40+ million uninsured Americans? Stop eating up their rhetoric, they're manipulating you successfully. Get some facts and perspective that aren't RNC talking points and THEN make up your OWN mind. PLEASE
pitis2flie 2 years ago
So when the government stays out of a system, like in the early 1900's, you get trusts and monopolies that jack up prices on their own, with nobody to stop them. But when the government gets involved, they tend to serve their own interests by helping to form a disguised monopoly through "violence." Soooo....what do we do? Can human greed ever really be put aside to help each individual person as equally as possible??
Tlw121890 2 years ago
Not totally can human greed be weeded out, no.. But the model they´ve presented is abit flawed. The government shouldn´t be involved more than necessary, to make sure laws and regulations are followed and that every citizen gets the healthcare that he or she needs. I live in Sweden, we don´t have the best healthcare in the world..but we don´t toss our old people out of cabs outside a free clinic either. Although cutbacks are starting to wreck the whole thing. :(
Jentzi1 2 years ago
True monopolies can't exist unless aggression is used to shut out competition. True monopolies did not exist until Big Business lobbied the State to aggressively shut out such competition with licenses, inspection agencies, and even anti-trust (to break up competitors). There's no such thing as a free market monopoly.
OldCottage2 2 years ago 2
As Steph has said before, government violence (or any violence) will get the opposite of the stated purpose every single time.
BabyHominid 2 years ago
Another WINNER from Stefan!!
jadam914 2 years ago 3
Another thing is encourage black market health care.
johnpdd 2 years ago 2
Stef, you forgot to add in the "Long Haul" section at the end that people should prepare themselves to go to some other country that is more medically free. I think India might be an example of this. India supplies many of the doctors already.
johnpdd 2 years ago
About the initial cost of bringing a drug to market, it also keeps out drugs for diseases of the poor. If there's a disease that effects a million people in the length of the patent and these people can't afford to pay back $1,000 each then they're screwed. And of course people in Africa generally can't afford such costs so it squelches the development of cures for third world diseases.
newperve 2 years ago 2
Thank you for your pursuit of honesty,and virtue.you've made me want to read every philosopher.Maybe someday we could have a chat once my studies are up to snuff.I wonder if we are born with the truth and piece by piece it is taken away from us over time.
RuBbErRoOmChAoS 2 years ago
I'm sure I sound like many other people who comment on your site,but I will go on.I would like to thank you Stefbot for giving me this gigantic interest in the pursuit of truth and this want to learn everything about philosophy and to learn about the great and small philosophers. The trial of Socrates was amazingly done.I would like to thank you for your sincere portrayal Socrates,amazing!That is it.maybe someday I'll be able to have a conversation with you.I would enjoy it .
RuBbErRoOmChAoS 2 years ago
@Video
@07:54
@08:39
"Fat Scottish locust"
I got a good chuckle from both of those comments you made.
@09:34 You mention ponzi scheme. And after enlightening myself so to say. I would agree. I sometimes wonder how they work the numbers in fantasy land.
@20:42 "Violence is not the way to solve problems" My personal opinion is you have to get your hands dirty. Because sometimes words are not enough to get your message through thick skulls.
@21:08 What do you think is coming?
MRSketch09 2 years ago
@MRSketch09
One more thing.. I only support fighting when it is all that's left that can be done..
MRSketch09 2 years ago
Absolutely superb video. Just like the NHS, Obama-care is just going to kill more people than it tries to 'help'. I actually avoid the NHS unless I have absolutely no choice at all. It's horrible, just horrible. Like the other poster, I actually got sick last time I went to an NHS hospital.
lukeev 2 years ago
Private health care is great if you can afford it, eh?
lindsay40k 2 years ago
It's not private, was the ENTIRE POINT OF THE VIDEO!
*Sigh...*
L1ber8ted 2 years ago 2
Just like computers and technology, in a market with less intervention and regulation (...ideally, none!), prices would decrease and quality would increase through competition, profit incentive and the hyper-efficiencies of the free-market. I think we can all agree the current system is utterly horrendous, at the least! Thanks for the comments.
lukeev 2 years ago
I notice than one gets thumbs down when they in any way criticize the free market! Ha, i dont think stefbot, as a philosopher, would be wanting to push free-market dogmatism? Im a skeptic, and i admit my knowledge and understanding of these issues is in the early stages, but im smart enough to see some pretty typical biased reasoning in action. The herd mentality of humans has a way of cutting right through political ideologies.
1974freud 2 years ago
The phrase 'Free market dogmatism' is the type of pejoratives and propaganda that the state relies on. 'Free market' is just the summary of individual wishes in a society and being for the free market means allowing for voluntary exchange of private property rights. Calling it dogmatic is a naive and brainwashed view.
truevoice08 2 years ago 3
My colleague just got the bill from child birth. Only the baby stayed in hospital for 1 night and one treatment. Bill close to 5000 euro.
modelmark 2 years ago
Thank you so much for making this.
allySCANDAL 2 years ago
outstanding video!
throwntomato 2 years ago 2
This was fantastic. Thank you so much Stef
Stargazer5781 2 years ago 2
I think you are looking at all the wrong statistics. The reason people nowadays are more in need of medical care is because they are getting older than their bodies are designed to get. Also, people in the US have started to live so unhealthy that it's a surprise that they haven't died out yet. The best medical care in the world is state-regulated (UK, France, etc.). In the netherlands prises sore when it became privaticed.
RoyvanKeulen 2 years ago
HAHAHAHA Are you joking? I know no less than three people (2 were cancer sufferers) who have gone to America to seek treatment. If treatment is too expensive, then it is denied entirely, but you don't get your NI payments back. Our hospitals are known to put beds in bathrooms and feature starving patients drinking from vases, I'm not even joking, we take food to relatives that have to be there. Prices sore privately, because they are kept down through denial and disguisting service.
DreadLaw2 2 years ago 2
The reason people are getting sicker is because they are being sprayed by chemtrails.
RachelBartlett 2 years ago
Trust me, as a Brit, the UK does NOT have "the best" medical care, or even medical care that's good at all. It's terrible in the NHS.
Jeffersonianatheart 2 years ago 4
UMmm the UK under the NHS has been an abomination. It has the Worst care in the west. There are major shortages, constant rationing, superbug infestation. There costs are very high because the costs are separated from the provision, making the costs invisible to the purchaser. UK did undergo tort reform though, USA has not.
rayyf69 2 years ago 2
Yes, it'd be far better if people on low incomes weren't allowed medicine.
lindsay40k 2 years ago
Well first of all under a system of State provision costs will go up in real terms. That will result in the state having to ration care, therefore many people will be denied care, poor ,middle class. Removing gov from healthcare provision and payment will force prices down, but as long as government is entrenched into a market costs will go up. The only ones who will not be negatively impacted are teh super rich, as they have the money to pay twice for service . gov deserves blame here lindsay
rayyf69 2 years ago
The biggest costs the NHS faces are the throwing of money at the private firms building the hospitals and manufacturing the supplies at massive profits, and administering a massively wasteful 'internal market'.
The ones to blame here are middle class sociopaths who read a business studies textbook that presents an oversimplified 'free market or Stalinism, no other systems exist' view and erroneously believe that this gives them a great understanding of politics.
lindsay40k 2 years ago
But no system is full market of total socialism. Stalinism was neo-merchanitilist where the state sold monopoly privilege to business interests like Kalashnikov and Sikorsky. And the USA it's becoming increasingly clear our models of healthcare supports a minority of interests that are protected via regulation. Also there is nothing wrong with profits as they are critical signals as to where capital must be allocated. The problem is when firms use the state to maximize profits and not the market
rayyf69 2 years ago
Umm the NHS has many serious problems and did they not have a monopoly on healthcare way before the introduction of private healhtcare institutions in UK ? Privates emerged as a result of the substandard care the NHS offers,
rayyf69 2 years ago
"Privates emerged as a result of the substandard care the NHS offers"
So a bunch of sociopath Tory/New Labour politicians consciously and deliberately ran the NHS into the ground to free up funds for warmongering and corporate welfare, and a bunch of selfish middle class types decided they'd bribe their way to queue-jumping.
That's not an argument to have people whose incomes don't meet the prices charged by pharmaceutical firms die of exposure.
lindsay40k 2 years ago
The NHS was a monopoly. Regardless of the title of those who ran the institution ( politician, CEO) monopolies are subject to make serious errors as there are no market competitors. They can pursue wasteful polices because they are effectively shielded from a more efficient competitor. This is a perfect example of a tragedy of the commons, and poor and rich a like will over consume the asset due to costs transfer. Complicating this is cost is invisible as it's embedded in taxes.
rayyf69 2 years ago
"This is a perfect example of a tragedy of the commons, and poor and rich a like will over consume the asset due to costs transfer."
Critics of public health always seem to talk about an abundance of practising medical professionals as if it's a BAD thing. It isn't. In the event of a natural disaster or pandemic, the higher demand for medics will not be met with more doctors appearing. You need loads in place ready, making a healthcare system full of 'just in case' visits to free GPs an asset.
lindsay40k 2 years ago
I didn't say an abundance of medical personal was bad i said separating payment from provision is bad. I also said that creating a commons ( everybody owns an asset) is bad as it leads to what Garet Hardin argued was a "Tragedy of teh Commons" where it is in my individual interest to consume some communal asset and because costs are socialized , that is some marginal cost of my consumption is transferred to others, i can consume marginally more because i will never realize full costs of my use.
rayyf69 2 years ago
"The NHS was a monopoly. Regardless of the title of those who ran the institution ( politician, CEO) monopolies are subject to make serious errors as there are no market competitors"
You're examining a not-for-profit public service with analytical tools designed to assess how for-profit firms behave.
And YouTube is not registering my 'post comment' clicks. How annoying >:(
lindsay40k 2 years ago
@lindsay40k
I think that is an 'anti spam measure' by youtube.
another words, if you watch through a video.. and its five minutes long (I don't know the exact time length you have) anyways it won't pop up.
Because the same thing has happened to me, and I have just gotten into the habit of 'refreshing' the page before posting a comment.
MRSketch09 2 years ago
It doesn't matter. The State as the CEO have very little to tell it it is being wasteful when it pursues certain policies. If a non-profit has to compete with another non-profit for capital from donors they must offer value to donors to survive. A monopoly is shielded from economic reality because not only is there no competitor to steal revenue from it, but there is no Exit for consumers if the monopoly becomes exploitative or wasteful. Profit can never be ignored, resources r scarce
rayyf69 2 years ago
Oh, for feck's sake. If the free market were any good, right, YouTube would respond to the market pressure to make a comments system that wasn't rendered completely unfit for purpose by a hairtrigger spamguard that randomly loses posts after confirming they have been. That's almost ten posts it's eaten now, I give up DX
I do enjoy debating with market proponents that aren't wilfully ignorant McCarthyites, but this chaotic text entry system makes cohesive argument all but impossible. Peace x
lindsay40k 2 years ago
I usually copy paste before i post, and often paste into a word file. Yes i find the conversion interesting and have been studying Marxian economics. Fundamentally i come down on the side of economic subjectivism( if there is such a phrase) I don't really have a problem with individuals organizing into communes and engaging in protectionism and trying to make socialism work, but i would prefer to live in a propertarianist society.
I think the best system is one that is the most voluntary.
rayyf69 2 years ago
And no matter how much free market proponents intellectually masturbate over models of how free markets would work if populated entirely by 'proper' capitalists as opposed to corrupt nepotists, it won't change the fact that EVERY market-based system has displayed a consistent tendency to see greater and greater government intervention to the advantage of rich and powerful private interests.
lindsay40k 2 years ago
But is that really the fault of freedom or of regulation. If i'm a business man and my objective is to enhance my profit margins, i may try to produce a good product but another option is to capture regulators or politicians (rent seeking) to shield me from the market ( competition, innovation). Any argument that attacks markets but ignores the externalities of the political side is not even marginally usefull. The real economy is a political one where agents seek profits using the State.
rayyf69 2 years ago
"But is that really the fault of freedom or of regulation"
It's a system-wide failure that can't be avoided in social orders based on individuals trading private property. Enforcing Keynesian or Social Democratic regulations onto inherently broken market/mixed economies is like giving a flu patient a damp facemask.
lindsay40k 2 years ago
It seems then that the economy which is a political economy now might be served from complete separation of market and State. Perhaps the Austro-libertarians where always right.
rayyf69 2 years ago
"it won't change the fact that EVERY market-based system has displayed a consistent tendency to see greater and greater government intervention to the advantage of rich and powerful private interests." If this is your conclusion, why would you support more intervention ?
rayyf69 2 years ago
"If this is your conclusion, why would you support more intervention?"
The problem lies in the rich and powerful interests. And not every market sceptic is a big government Keynesian.
lindsay40k 2 years ago
Yes but the problem also lies in a gov taht is willing to yield to business interests. Just as private interests are driven by greed there can be no behavioral bifurcation, public servants are subject the to same behavioral paradigms. centruries of Mercantilism and intervention have failed, i don't see how intervention is not itself exacerbating wealth disparities. Perhaps the rich would in a more honest position without access to teh state to enrich themselves?
rayyf69 2 years ago
"Perhaps the rich would in a more honest position without access to teh state to enrich themselves?" "The problem is when firms use the state to maximize profits and not the market"
But there won't ever be private business without a state, since private property is an institution that requires constant enforcement and the ruling business owners have clearly chosen statism as their preferred social model, and the motive and opportunity for corruption will always be there
lindsay40k 2 years ago
Well certainly there needs to be some sort of institution that protects private property and an institution that arbitrates disputes in order for markets to be optimal method of transaction. However it remains to be seen that those very same institution must have regulatory(which as we seem to both agree has been leading to these problems), redistrubutatory. I don't believe the terms public and private are of any use due to the nebulous relationships they have with each other.
rayyf69 2 years ago 2
"we seem to both agree (regulation) has been leading to these problems"
No, we don't. Having a system based on private ownership of nature's wealth and the means of producing wealth is what leads to these problems, as the "institution that protects private property and arbitrates disputes" always ends up taking the side of those with the most property.
lindsay40k 2 years ago
So your suggesting communism ? Communal ownership of all capital and land?
rayyf69 2 years ago 2
Yes, I am.
I do hope this doesn't foreshadow a tirade of Red Scare drivel about Stalin calling himself a Communist meaning that every Communist is a Stalinist? I have met intellectually honest free market proponents, and they are few and far between...
lindsay40k 2 years ago
Stalin was a Neo-Merchantilist, an autocrat that sold monopoly privilege to a select few firms that desired monopoly privilege. I'm assuming your a lowercase c communist or an anarcho-syndicalist. decentralized socialism, no government, labor communes own the means of production in small isolated sectors?
rayyf69 2 years ago
I'm a Marxist, as in I would like to see that sort of social order with a federal system with limited power uniting these small sectors, and see the anarchist approach of having a phobia of admitting that your militia is a state after it has established a regional monopoly on coercive force after winning a civil war as an irrational and counter-productive dead-end.
lindsay40k 2 years ago
Then that fundamentally grants rights of property over the dominion of sectors to the State in general (i don't' see how this eliminates private property rights, if anything it isolates them to a select few). How would you avoid corruption at that state level when small sectors seek to transfer costs to other sectors by use of the state?
rayyf69 2 years ago
The issue of corrupt representatives has been dealt with extensively by Marxist writers; in short - don't pay them more than anyone else, keep their books open, have them subject to immediate recall.
I'm defining a State as an armed body with a monopoly on coercive force, a definition which includes an armed population. If you're assuming 'State' means 'Executive telling everybody what to do', throw away that assumption.
lindsay40k 2 years ago
i'm not sure i totally understand the structure of what your proposing but the USA has mechanisms to purge corrupt politicians and at times we see scandals that result in the almost immediate expulsion of a bureaucrat. The problem more immediately lies with voter knowledge which is rather poor in mass democracies and enables political rent seeking.
rayyf69 2 years ago
Also if the state has no authority or limited authority "'Executive telling everybody what to do', throw away that assumption. " Then why wouldn't certain labor sectors just spontaneously move back to a system of private property if it yields excess efficiency ? I'm assuming choice in product consumption is still permitted which will yield the failure of certain firms and the enrichment of others.
rayyf69 2 years ago
you said 'FDR' lags, do you mean Roosevelt, or the FDA misspelled?
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago
""institution that protects private property and arbitrates disputes" always ends up taking the side of those with the most property. "
Not true. Always screwing the little guy would put that institution at a competitive disadvantage.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago 2
I accidentally "thumbs downed" your comment! Sorry for that; I meant to give thumbs up.
imyourgod2 2 years ago
"But there won't ever be private business without a state"
That's like saying the Fox will try to keep the hen house intact. The state is diametricly opposed to a private free market. All you need to enforce private property is an intersubjective consensus and a willingness/ability to apply that intersubjective consensus. See confederalsocialist's video on the "Wild, Wild, West" or Anarchist Ireland.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago 2
Excellent video, I'm very impressed.
cdal233 2 years ago 2
Thank you for breaking it down for me. The AMA is a real piece of work.
~Peace
Bassmarko 2 years ago 2
Very well researched.
priapus512 2 years ago 3
Good vid, but you put FDR lags, instead of FDA lags.
wispaintstyle 2 years ago
I don't know the GNP numbers (regarding healthcare), but it should be noted that welfare to the military industrial complex artificially inflates the GNP.
LilAlexInWonderland 2 years ago
Thank you
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
It seems that there is much more state control over health care in Canada, but the health care and drug costs are much lower than in the US. Why is this?
Stephen5000 2 years ago
That depends on what you mean by "lower costs". If you need a heart transplant in 6 months which will cost you $50,000 and the government can guarantee you one for free in 18 months then the "lower price" of state-run healthcare is actually an illusion.
There is no point in being guaranteed lower prices if you are inducing healthcare shortages upon the masses.
Infinite demand vs finite supply = mass shortages.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago 4
That's not what I meant. The full price, including that from tax money, is much less in Canada for the same or similar services.
Stephen5000 2 years ago
One gov't sux more than the other at delivering a service, phenomenal.
Moragauth 2 years ago 3
I don't understand you. Health care isn't a service provided by the government (in either case). It's just regulated and paid through the government to varying degrees.
Stephen5000 2 years ago
What's not to understand?
Moragauth 2 years ago
That's because the American healthcare system is a mixed economic system that naturally results in sky rocketing costs. Did you even watch Stef's video?
State-run medicine would actually be an improvement over the current system of laws in the short run....but is that really the best way?
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
That's hard to say, isn't it? There really isn't a free market system anywhere to compare to.
Stephen5000 2 years ago 2
Canada has rationed health care. Enjoy waiting three months for an MRI.
qkholster 2 years ago 5
Because they point the gun in both directions. Price control by setting the prices they will pay drug companies. Dictating what doctors can charge. And dictating a monopoly for themselves on consumers.
stratvic 2 years ago
Should someone be required to have a license to take a plunger to your toilet or practice interior decorating? No.
But you do, by law
Be careful where you put a throw pillow, you might get a fine
RogueSwordThesco 2 years ago 2
The Only use I can see for a License is to increase one's possible credibility. You should be able to practice anything without a license.
This way only licenses that actually protected anyone would really exist, and people would know to look for someone that has one in whatever feild they need services in.
RogueSwordThesco 2 years ago
On this day of our Lord ? I'm perplexed ..
RenegadeTimes 2 years ago
Great video
chriswroads 2 years ago 2
My 11th grade (1995) social study teacher would repeat the same line any time Social Security or Medicaid were brough up.
"My father thanks you."
deadman12078 2 years ago 2
Madoff was $50 billion, not 5. Nevertheless, that is dwarfed by $30 trillion +
rescuemay 2 years ago
i do not fear the gun it is the bullet i fear .. if the state is the gun what is the bullet money ...that is what most fear to loose don't they ?then when they loose it the violence appears. a bullet is just a bullet a gun is just a gun together they make the violence don't they ?
acesas 2 years ago
The state is the gun and the bullet, but metaphor aside the state is violence. If you really think that money is the problem you should read Atlas Shrugged, or think a little more about what money really is. I will give you a clue... The means of exchange.
LIN6LIN6 2 years ago 3
oh i know it is a means of exchange .but it is not used that way at all .with all the leverage ( interest and fear ) used to keep people hooked on it and spending it it is not a means of exchange . if the system could find a way that people could not hoard it to use as a bullet in a gun. what money is and what it should be are two different things
acesas 2 years ago
i am sorry to have to explain further, but i feel it necessary. The usefulness of money is not evil, and the implied interaction that money is to be used for i would say is the opposite of evil. When a person buys something they are essentially stating that the value of the item is worth more to them than the money. there is no evil in this voluntary exchange. when people make this exchange i believe it brings people together.
LIN6LIN6 2 years ago
(cont.)
Some people may use their wealth to exploit but i dont believe that problem should be blamed on a means of wealth. It should be blamed on a lack of moral understanding by that individual.
LIN6LIN6 2 years ago
Nice use of Ayn Rand. Money isnt the 'evil' in this system.
Tlw121890 2 years ago
Money transfers wealth, it isn't wealth. Most people don't realize this, it's a very old notion. It goes back to Aristotle.
Chainedorlo 2 years ago 5
ok so money works well look at the stuff going on inthe world ..i agree it is not the money it is the enviroment that is sets up . money itself is not evil how it is used is .
acesas 2 years ago
Why Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand wasn't an economist, but rather a philosophical novelist. And all her drones are special little snowflakes.
krlsurquixa 2 years ago
"theyre lying because their lips are moving" lol!
trevor920 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
See, while I can't argue your points, my mind keeps saying U.S.A health care industry is closer to free market than Canada health care. Canada > U.S.A Health care, Thu Socialism > Anarchy. Could u explain what I'm doing wrong here? Seems violence reduces overall suffering.
newexperiment 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
newexperiment... moron alert!
trevor920 2 years ago
Wow, nice standard for intelligence there trevor920. If only you had the same standard for kindness. Sorta more important no?
By the way, the moron is the one who gets a thrill from ad hominem responses to honest questions.
newexperiment 2 years ago 4
yea, u'r right, my bad, questions are good, but i mean after watching this video u shouldn't have said stupid stuff like that (it makes u seem like a crazy statist)
trevor920 2 years ago
Can't 'force' freedom. Why not have the 'choice' to pay or not.
blueprophet9 2 years ago 2
Newexperiment: I would consider the effects of government involvement in the American medical system as well as the enormous costs that the American semi-free market is carrying for the rest of the world where the free market is curtailed to such an extent that research has slowed or even ended. That's where I would begin my research anyways :) Good luck!
chris3443 2 years ago 2
Is fascism closer to the free market than socialism ?
PourLaLiberte1 2 years ago
Fascistic economic orders where socialist.
rayyf69 2 years ago 2
Fascism is essentially a specific form of socialism. National socialism.
lukeev 2 years ago
What make you think Canada > USA Health care?
Baabaloux 2 years ago 2
I'm poor. If I were rich I'd prefer U.S