You miss the point that in this segment Stossel is not so much trying to argue against government healthcare but rather against the notion that american health has supposedly been declining.
He does nudge his libertarian views but mostly he is just observing the continuous upward trend in public health.
What is the government is taking over? The funding of healthcare, not its delivery. Private doctors deliver it, but public bureacrats decide if it's delivered.
It will remain private in name only. Follow the money.
The proposed health care reforms do NOT replace PRIVATE health insurance companies with a government owned health insurance plan.
Under the current proposal, PRIVATE health insurance companies will continue to do the same terrible, profit-motivated job of interferring with your health care delivery and avoiding payment that they have always done.
The only difference is that tax dollars will subsidize their profits by paying part of the premiums.
The gov't subsidies r 4 those who HAVE NOT EARNED THEM. Most recipients did earn them. U R consolidating two diametrically opposed groups.
As for the fact that ins co's are thieves, the solution is not gov't interference, it is law enforcement. We don't have to overhaul the engine to fix a flat tire.
If u think ins cos r opposed to this, u should know that this bill forces every citizen to purchase private health ins. Seems to me this is the reason AARP is a huge supporter of this bill.
I uncatagorically oppose the proposed health care legislation. If you watched my videos on the subject, you would know that.
The subsidies proposed are first and formost for the insurance companies who could not sell to low income families if the government did pay some of the bill.
IF the bill passes, the portions of the bill that compel individuals to purchase PRIVATE insurance will NOT and should NOT survive the first Supreme Court challenge. JMO.
Government subsidies, as I understand them, are always for those who have not EARNED them. If they could be EARNED there would be know need for the subsidies.
To even say people have "earned" Medicare is a bit messy, since all it takes is living until 65 years of age.
As far as the bill goes, it seems to be more regulatory reform of the health insurance industry rather than reform of the health care industry, although there are exceptions. As with any regulatory reform, one (though not the only) key question in my mind is "Will the regulations be enforced?" In this case, I rather doubt it.
I'm wondering if you have to EARN police protection? fire protection? public education? road maintenance? and othe things that we consider to be entitlements and obligations of the government to serve the people?
Maybe poor kids shouldn't be allowed to go to school? And the fire department should check their list before they bring the trucks out to your house fire?
Should police and fire respond to churches? They don't pay taxes!
No argument here. My comment regarding that one need not "earn" Medicare to receive it was more stated matter-of-factly than as criticism.
You're right though; the fact of the matter is that many services funded at least in part by taxes are able to be utilized by those who do not pay taxes. The way I see it, the crux of this entire debate is whether or not health care should be, at least to some extent and form, added to this list of services. Obviously it would still be a private industry.
Re: healthcare will still be in private industry. Yes and no.
The performance of the medical services will remain under private hands, but its funding will not. Medicare is provided by private doctors, but funded by taxes.
So if bureaucrats decide a service will be paid, it does not matter if it's done by private doctors; the service will not be given. Therefore, the system is public, not private.
And that is what I fear. I would favor public service only as a safety net.
We do earn police protection and every other service; we earn them by paying taxes. The question is how much power do we want to entrust to the gov't? I'd answer, "a necessary minimum." The more power given, the greater the mistakes.
Services should be held in private hands as much as reasonable. They must be socialzed only as necessary, and there lies the debate.
The answer is what are the ppl willing to subsidize, and as far as healthcare goes, the ppl are unwilling.
UR missing a huge fact. The elderly paid into the Medicare system their whole lives. They earned it. The government is not paying for their healthcare, it is returning the money that was paid into the system; something a 25 year old hasn't done.
I don't think you understand how Medicare is funded. Nobody has a Medicare account that they pay into or Medicare insurance that they pay premiums on. Medicare is funded on an annual basis.
The original enrollees in Medicare did NOT pay into Medicare for 25 years, their healthcare was paid for by those paying in that year. The same is true of current enrollees.
If you are on Medicare, younger people are paying for your medical care. If they stop paying, you stop getting medical care.
The first batch of medicare recipients did not pay into the system, but today's 65 yr olds did pay their whole lives. They earned it.
So if they are denied treatment because younger ppl r going to access it, then they should be refunded the money the paid adjusted for inflation. They are owed a service. As I said, they paid into the system, something that a 25 yr old has not done.
"The first batch of medicare recipients did not pay into the system, but today's 65 yr olds did pay their whole lives. They earned it."
Not necessarily. For argument's sake, let's say I turn 65 tomorrow and the only employment history I've had is working two months part-time at McDonalds. I'd STILL get Medicare benefits simply because I'd be 65 years of age. There is NO OTHER qualifier in order to receive Medicare benefits.
If I believed in a god and all those mystical realms, I'd say these assholes have no soul and will burn in hell for the lies and misinformation they spread.
I owe my life (twice) to the UK's NHS. And It didn't cost a penny at the point of need. It isn't 'free' as such, I pay NI (National Insurance) contributions of 10% after the first £100 per week earned. So a guy on £300pw would pay £20pw (the employer pays an additional sum to this). This is for Health care, unemployment benefits and State pension. If you're unemployed these NI Contributions are paid by the government. Because everyone has to pay in, it makes it far cheaper to finance. I'm not
suggesting th US follow this exact model, but cummon guys you have to do something. You're still the greatest, most powerful nation on Earth! Look after the people who keep it great.
Last week my wife earned $425.60 (£283.13). She paid $43.64 (£29.03) for Social Security, Medicare and Union Health Insurance. If she retires, she will NOT be able to subsist on Social Security. If she has a health problem, she will have to pay massive out of pocket expenses before insurance pays anything. If she looses her job, she looses her insurance.
In the UK she would have paid $27.52 (£18.31) for a rational pension, FULL medical coverage and unemployement coverage.
I don't know what income tax is like in the States. There is a basic tax rate of 22% here on earnings over appx £100pw. So the total for your wife would be about £58.57 in tax and NI. I think that's a bit steep, but it's horses for courses I suppose.
I think the proof that people are satisfied with the NHS is the fact that although private medical insurance is available here 90% of the population don't take it up. Most of the remaining 10% have it as a job perk in addition to NHS cover.
You know I thought I couldn't find anyone more despicable then Shawn Hanity, or Huckabee, or even Limabaugh. John Stossel ties it with maybe Alex Jones.
Stossel has been wrong so many times, example when he did a show on how "Outsourcing was good for America" a few years back. Well now we know better. Yet eventhough he has been so wrong that put this asswipe on tv.
Well I'm glad I cut off my cable tv. I would hate paying to see this nausiating asshole John stossel.
Unreal even for FoxNews. It's both amusing and sad to see McCaughey defeat her own argument over and over and over again, particular with regards to the elderly and their quality of health.
"and then we have money left over to spend on health and recreation"
Classic!
It still shocks and bothers me to know that these people really exist in the world and what they're saying is actually taken seriously by large numbers of people. It just leaves me with a sort of helpless numb feeling.
The graph displayed at the end was BESIDES THE POINT in so many ways when it discards all other potential factors it makes my ears catch fire.
You miss the point that in this segment Stossel is not so much trying to argue against government healthcare but rather against the notion that american health has supposedly been declining.
He does nudge his libertarian views but mostly he is just observing the continuous upward trend in public health.
ndes0532 1 year ago
I'm not in favor of the heatlhcare bill, but arguments as bad as these make me feel like I'm on the wrong side.
iamgabrielf 2 years ago
@iamgabrielf
If I am reading your comment correctly, I think you are beginning to understand why I made this video.
There are two political leaders who oppose this view to different and correct reasons, IMO.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
Paul because is an honest and prinicipled advocate of free markets and individual liberty.
Kucinich because he wants reforms that actually help people instead of just profiting big corporations at the expense of the people.
zthustra 2 years ago
The bad arguments I referred were of this video, not our dicussion.
It's been a good conversation. It's helped me refine my argument. I thank you.
iamgabrielf 2 years ago
What is the government is taking over? The funding of healthcare, not its delivery. Private doctors deliver it, but public bureacrats decide if it's delivered.
It will remain private in name only. Follow the money.
iamgabrielf 2 years ago
The proposed health care reforms do NOT replace PRIVATE health insurance companies with a government owned health insurance plan.
Under the current proposal, PRIVATE health insurance companies will continue to do the same terrible, profit-motivated job of interferring with your health care delivery and avoiding payment that they have always done.
The only difference is that tax dollars will subsidize their profits by paying part of the premiums.
I hope that gives you some comfort.
zthustra 2 years ago
The gov't subsidies r 4 those who HAVE NOT EARNED THEM. Most recipients did earn them. U R consolidating two diametrically opposed groups.
As for the fact that ins co's are thieves, the solution is not gov't interference, it is law enforcement. We don't have to overhaul the engine to fix a flat tire.
If u think ins cos r opposed to this, u should know that this bill forces every citizen to purchase private health ins. Seems to me this is the reason AARP is a huge supporter of this bill.
iamgabrielf 2 years ago
@iamgabrielf
I uncatagorically oppose the proposed health care legislation. If you watched my videos on the subject, you would know that.
The subsidies proposed are first and formost for the insurance companies who could not sell to low income families if the government did pay some of the bill.
IF the bill passes, the portions of the bill that compel individuals to purchase PRIVATE insurance will NOT and should NOT survive the first Supreme Court challenge. JMO.
zthustra 2 years ago
Government subsidies, as I understand them, are always for those who have not EARNED them. If they could be EARNED there would be know need for the subsidies.
zthustra 2 years ago
My wording was off. I meant to say that those who've earned Medicare paid into the system, and the subsidies were for those who hadn't.
I think we mostly agree on this bill, however.
iamgabrielf 2 years ago
To even say people have "earned" Medicare is a bit messy, since all it takes is living until 65 years of age.
As far as the bill goes, it seems to be more regulatory reform of the health insurance industry rather than reform of the health care industry, although there are exceptions. As with any regulatory reform, one (though not the only) key question in my mind is "Will the regulations be enforced?" In this case, I rather doubt it.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
I'm wondering if you have to EARN police protection? fire protection? public education? road maintenance? and othe things that we consider to be entitlements and obligations of the government to serve the people?
Maybe poor kids shouldn't be allowed to go to school? And the fire department should check their list before they bring the trucks out to your house fire?
Should police and fire respond to churches? They don't pay taxes!
zthustra 2 years ago
No argument here. My comment regarding that one need not "earn" Medicare to receive it was more stated matter-of-factly than as criticism.
You're right though; the fact of the matter is that many services funded at least in part by taxes are able to be utilized by those who do not pay taxes. The way I see it, the crux of this entire debate is whether or not health care should be, at least to some extent and form, added to this list of services. Obviously it would still be a private industry.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
Re: healthcare will still be in private industry. Yes and no.
The performance of the medical services will remain under private hands, but its funding will not. Medicare is provided by private doctors, but funded by taxes.
So if bureaucrats decide a service will be paid, it does not matter if it's done by private doctors; the service will not be given. Therefore, the system is public, not private.
And that is what I fear. I would favor public service only as a safety net.
iamgabrielf 2 years ago
We do earn police protection and every other service; we earn them by paying taxes. The question is how much power do we want to entrust to the gov't? I'd answer, "a necessary minimum." The more power given, the greater the mistakes.
Services should be held in private hands as much as reasonable. They must be socialzed only as necessary, and there lies the debate.
The answer is what are the ppl willing to subsidize, and as far as healthcare goes, the ppl are unwilling.
iamgabrielf 2 years ago
UR missing a huge fact. The elderly paid into the Medicare system their whole lives. They earned it. The government is not paying for their healthcare, it is returning the money that was paid into the system; something a 25 year old hasn't done.
iamgabrielf 2 years ago
I don't think you understand how Medicare is funded. Nobody has a Medicare account that they pay into or Medicare insurance that they pay premiums on. Medicare is funded on an annual basis.
The original enrollees in Medicare did NOT pay into Medicare for 25 years, their healthcare was paid for by those paying in that year. The same is true of current enrollees.
If you are on Medicare, younger people are paying for your medical care. If they stop paying, you stop getting medical care.
zthustra 2 years ago
The first batch of medicare recipients did not pay into the system, but today's 65 yr olds did pay their whole lives. They earned it.
So if they are denied treatment because younger ppl r going to access it, then they should be refunded the money the paid adjusted for inflation. They are owed a service. As I said, they paid into the system, something that a 25 yr old has not done.
iamgabrielf 2 years ago
"The first batch of medicare recipients did not pay into the system, but today's 65 yr olds did pay their whole lives. They earned it."
Not necessarily. For argument's sake, let's say I turn 65 tomorrow and the only employment history I've had is working two months part-time at McDonalds. I'd STILL get Medicare benefits simply because I'd be 65 years of age. There is NO OTHER qualifier in order to receive Medicare benefits.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
The solution is adjust it, not to destroy it.
iamgabrielf 2 years ago
Also, 25 year olds haven't paid into the system? It's not hard to get a job before 25, at which point you'd be paying into the system already.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
If I believed in a god and all those mystical realms, I'd say these assholes have no soul and will burn in hell for the lies and misinformation they spread.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
I owe my life (twice) to the UK's NHS. And It didn't cost a penny at the point of need. It isn't 'free' as such, I pay NI (National Insurance) contributions of 10% after the first £100 per week earned. So a guy on £300pw would pay £20pw (the employer pays an additional sum to this). This is for Health care, unemployment benefits and State pension. If you're unemployed these NI Contributions are paid by the government. Because everyone has to pay in, it makes it far cheaper to finance. I'm not
RuudVanDrijver 2 years ago
suggesting th US follow this exact model, but cummon guys you have to do something. You're still the greatest, most powerful nation on Earth! Look after the people who keep it great.
RuudVanDrijver 2 years ago
Last week my wife earned $425.60 (£283.13). She paid $43.64 (£29.03) for Social Security, Medicare and Union Health Insurance. If she retires, she will NOT be able to subsist on Social Security. If she has a health problem, she will have to pay massive out of pocket expenses before insurance pays anything. If she looses her job, she looses her insurance.
In the UK she would have paid $27.52 (£18.31) for a rational pension, FULL medical coverage and unemployement coverage.
zthustra 2 years ago
I don't know what income tax is like in the States. There is a basic tax rate of 22% here on earnings over appx £100pw. So the total for your wife would be about £58.57 in tax and NI. I think that's a bit steep, but it's horses for courses I suppose.
I think the proof that people are satisfied with the NHS is the fact that although private medical insurance is available here 90% of the population don't take it up. Most of the remaining 10% have it as a job perk in addition to NHS cover.
RuudVanDrijver 2 years ago
You know I thought I couldn't find anyone more despicable then Shawn Hanity, or Huckabee, or even Limabaugh. John Stossel ties it with maybe Alex Jones.
Stossel has been wrong so many times, example when he did a show on how "Outsourcing was good for America" a few years back. Well now we know better. Yet eventhough he has been so wrong that put this asswipe on tv.
Well I'm glad I cut off my cable tv. I would hate paying to see this nausiating asshole John stossel.
valhala56 2 years ago
Fair and balanced indeed.
1stCainite 2 years ago
Unreal even for FoxNews. It's both amusing and sad to see McCaughey defeat her own argument over and over and over again, particular with regards to the elderly and their quality of health.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
LOL
"and then we have money left over to spend on health and recreation"
Classic!
It still shocks and bothers me to know that these people really exist in the world and what they're saying is actually taken seriously by large numbers of people. It just leaves me with a sort of helpless numb feeling.
The graph displayed at the end was BESIDES THE POINT in so many ways when it discards all other potential factors it makes my ears catch fire.
I think I'll have a black coffee and calm down.
MrUnscientific 2 years ago
You can't convert the FoxNews viewers they are beyond saving.
funeralsong34 2 years ago
These so called journalists and reporters are nothing but propagandists for the moneyed interests that pay them. There is no press left in the USA.
klard 2 years ago
If you thought you got lengthy PMs in response to your arguments about the gold standard . . . Happy reading :)
kevinanity 2 years ago