Can anyone answer this question that I was asked today. What does a person do if they have been paying into private healthcare insurance their whole lives, something happens to them and they need treatment, then the insurance company goes bust. Now they have no money and no insurance and if there is no government healthcare available what do they do?
This is cherry picked bullshit. It only costs more over the short term but if you average the costs over a decade it costs less.
And if we just did the right thing and got Single Payer it would cost 33% less and everyone would be covered. But you Ayn Rand crackheads just don't get that.
@MsZeitgeist85 Yes, do the right thing and have a Free Market healthcare system without government! After all, who doesn't want a healthcare system with year-long waiting lists, lower quality care, and guys in suits sitting behind a desk deciding whether or not I get surgery, who wouldn't want to be apart of that.
@MsZeitgeist85 How do you figure? When you allow competition and not Monopolies at the hands of Bureaucrats you get lower quality care. When companies are allowed to compete you get high quality care witha declining price-tag. A Free Market is best.
@CyberTechWolf Because for profit HMOs " Compete " by denying coverage to people that need it. 1/3 of every dollard that insurance companys spend do not go to helping people. In the US thousands of people die each year because HMOs do not want to give them coverage because the cost too much. In the UK and Canada where all payers are non profit everyone is covered for at least 40% less money.
@MsZeitgeist85 Less? How do you figure, they pay higher income taxes, thats what pays for it. Also if you watch the video that this is in response to you'll hear what I'm trying to say. Denying coverage wasn't a problem before the government got involved. The UK and Canada also pamore on certain drugs and have lower qaulity care than we do and year long waiting lists for certain treatments. Look at cosmetic surgery, no government involment, higher qaulity, declining price.
@CyberTechWolf I saw that Jacob is making a total assinine argument. He is just saying tha tmaking HMOs pay for people with a preesixting condition is wrong because it would be like making a inusrance company pay for a car after you crash it. Humans are not cars you can't do that just like you can't get health insurance for dead people. His argument for having private charity cover the high risk people is laughable. Are they going to cover the millions of high risk people? NO
@MsZeitgeist85 It's called Charity for a reason, did you know that Welfare programs and Entitlement programs only give out about 10% of their money, Uncle Sam likes to help himself to it and spend it like it was his own. Private Charity donates about 80-90% of their donations. Let's see, whats better, 10% of money that was stolen from people's paychecks, or 80-90% of money people donated.
@CyberTechWolf That is not relevant here. Did you know that there is not 1 single country on the planet that allows for profit insurance for primary care? The reason is because the only way this system can function is to deny people care. In other words the kill people for profit by denying them care.
This system is prohibited by law in ever other developed nation as they should be. If you did what Stephen Hemsley does in Canada you would go to jail.
@CyberTechWolf What you said about entitlements is just not true. Medicare operates at 2% overhead. While you are lucky if you can find a for profit HMO to with and administrative cost at 25%.
@MsZeitgeist85 I meant social security specifically. Jacob makes a lot of good videos, I suggest you check them out. Anyways he was right when he mentioned supply and demand. If a service is offered for "free" then demand skyrockets and supply has to be rationed to keep up with demand, resulting is lower qaulity care. Besides, are you really going to defend a system where bureaucrats decide whether or not I recieve treatment?
@CyberTechWolf SS is diffrent. I have seen his videos and his logic is flawed. In the UK they spend $3600 per person which amounts to $180 billion a year. Knobody is saying someting that costs that much is free. However the USA spends $6000 per person and the NHS outpreforms our health care system in every area. Bureaucrats deciding things is not what happens there. In the NHS if the doctor says you need a procedure you get it.
@MsZeitgeist85 I never said they have nureaucrats, but we will. Individual mandates are wrong to. But if you read some incerments of the bill you will see that there is a part if I recall that says something along the lines of "the government's opinion will matter more than your doctor's" now thats probobly not exactly what it said but you get the idea. The care is reduced, and what about year-long waiting lists?
@MsZeitgeist85 I watched the video, and all I heard was, this and that is great and does better, but provides not actual facts and fails to cite his sources for his statistics. Also Jacob made a response video:
@CyberTechWolf Jacob made a respons which is a strawman argument where he says Health Care is essential and must be non profit. Food is essential therefore the goverment should run all aspects of food production which is nonsense and nowhere near the point billburns made.
His point was that for profit health insurance for primary care is not workable. Not 1 single country uses it this is because we spend more than any other country and our system ranks dead last of developed nations.
@MsZeitgeist85 We also spend a shit ton of money on social programs. So Jacob's arguement is a strawman but billburn's isn't? I didn't see him site one source to these supposed surveys. Jacob was also making the point that social studies like that are impossible because there are too many uncontrolled variables. How much social healthcare do you recieve? Cause I can tell you most of the people who says it's "great" probobly never have to use it....
@CyberTechWolf They are not Socialist Countries. I have no Idea what system North Korea uses but I know South Korea is working on a Single Payer model. When you say Socialist countries I think of the Scandanavian countries that have some of the best health care and education in the world.
@MsZeitgeist85 Those aren't socialist countries, thats just Big Government Capitalism, a form of Mercantalism. As for education, I watched a documentey called "The College Conspiracy" made by InflationUS, although a more appropriate title would be "Why College is a Scam". Before the government started subsidizing College, it was far more affordable because the market was left to carve out the business. But Regulations like the 90/10 Rule and the Fed's low intrest rates create bubbles.
@CyberTechWolf Then we should be moving in the direction of Finland which in over all education ranks 3rd in the world. In that country teachers make as much as doctors. Finland has one of the best health care systems in the world
The point on health care is that if you were going to allow a insurance company to take 1/3 of every dollar spent such as in a Free Market then what is the point of having HMOs in the first place?
@MsZeitgeist85 What you mean to say is, "from what I've heard they have the best healthcare in the world". Unless you yourself have personally been treated there don't say that. But related to Obamacare, it's different than what those countries offer. They arenn't run by bureaucrats like we will. They won't have an IRS that can dive into your bak account freely, They don't have 111 bureaucries. This video is spot on.
@CyberTechWolf In addition to us having a slash in the quality of care and year-long waiting lists. When fighting caner or another infectious disease, your on your disease's time table, not a bureaucrat's.
@CyberTechWolf They do not slash quality of care and there are no wait times for urgent care. The cancer survival rate argument is also bullshit because they are comparing everyone in Canada with the few who actually get treatment here. There are hundreds of thousands in the US that forgo cancer treatment because of cost. What is their cancer survival rate?
@MsZeitgeist85 Supply and Demand remember. If I buy a cake for 15$ then I get the whole cake. If cake is being given away for free then I only recieve a fraction.
@CyberTechWolf Actually I am 100% aginst the part of Romeny Care or Obama Care where the tax payer wants to subsidize HMOs.
I want to outlaw all for profit HMOs like what every other country has done and replace them with a Single Payer Medicare for all system where the payer collectivley bargins with the providers and companys.
The Obama Care bill that passed was some 1500 pages. When Canada passed their system decades ago it was 6 pages. Single Payer = Less Bureaucracy
@MsZeitgeist85 The bill was actually 2,700 pages, and that is Canada. It's unconstituional here. Providing healthcare is not a government responsialbility. Don't like it? Amend it then. Besides, we all know why Obama only gave congress 20 minutes to read 2700 pages. Obviously if we got a chance to read all of it it might not have passed.
@CyberTechWolf If the goverment is not responsable for prividing health care then why do we have the VA, Tricare, Medicaid, and Medicare...Are those unconstitutional?
I am just going by what is tried and tested and has been proven to provide Universal Care for 40% less than what we spend right now. It works in Canada and it will work here.
@MsZeitgeist85 Stop saying "it works". Unless you have directly recieved care in Canada all you can really say is "I've heard it's better". I should be doing that too, so I'm sorry that's my bad. And yes, those entitlement prograns are unconstitutional. Anything the Federal Government doesn't have is left up to the states. If we wanted to have Romneycare models on a state level then that is fine. But stop forcing me into a one size fits all plan.
@CyberTechWolf PART 1 This is the argument for Free Market in health care. In the 70s and 80s people were trying to get SIngle Payer here and because even then it cost less and covered everyone. The argument was that the providers not payer was culprit. Milton Friedman argued that this system would work if only the AMA would get out of the way and quit driving up cost. The AMA is like a union for doctors and there is some truth to this because they killed all attempts to create SIngle Payer
@MsZeitgeist85 ....Look at history. Let's start with Social Security, there wern't old people collapsing in the streets before it was signed into law. In fact, there was near zero public demand for it. We were fine nefore the government started subsidizing HC, also, I'm curious as to how our Swiss system was when they had the Free Market.
@CyberTechWolf PART 2 The AMA fought attempts to create a SInlge Payer system because it would mean that they would make a little less than what they make now. At that time Switzerland was the only other country that had for profit insurance and there was no AMA in Switzerland making doctors more expensive by 1994 doctors there made much less that what they make here.
So there is the test lab confirming a Free Market is unworkable for primary care.
@MsZeitgeist85 Uh...when the government started subsadizing healthcare the title "Free Market" had disappeared. As for the AMA from what I leanred today the government made then a monoply for issuing liscences. I think it would be good to have competition. Competition improves products and usually drops prices. That's all I have to say Goodnight.
@CyberTechWolf I never said the Gov is consistant. This is just one time they went in favor of HMOs expanding their reach.
The competition talking point doesn't work for HMOs because that argument is " Let HMOs sell acrost state lines" Which would make things worse because those state regulations that say they must cover things like lung cancer and other things are the only things that keep them from denying more people coverage.
@MsZeitgeist85 Competition doesn't work? Look if you remember what Jacob said in his video about the subject, look let me spell it out. When a 3rd party like the government covers most/all expenses there is no insentive to look for the lowest price. Normally, Doctor A charges $500 for say, Cataract Surgery while Doctor B charges $2,500. People will go to Doctor A forcing Doctor B to drop his prices in order to keep up....
@MsZeitgeist85 ...But if there is no incetive to look for a lower price and people will likely go for the more expensive stuff because they aren't directly paying for it, therefore in this situation Doctor A would be forced to raise prices in order to keep up with Doctor B. I thank a fellow Youtuber for helping me word this arguement. Competition leads to lower prices and higher qaulity, look at the electronics market.
@CyberTechWolf I know that Cuba uses a NHS model but they are not a fair representation because of their very limited resoruces because they have been handcuffed with an embargo. Overall Cuba comes in behind the USA but a few areas they are better. They live longer and have a lower infant moratlity rate than the USA. Cuba recently invented a vaccine for lung cancer. Cuba would be behind the US overall but they do very well with what limited resources they have.
@MsZeitgeist85 Of course, after all, I i break my wrist then I can get the treatment I'm entitled to of having Agave leaves rubbed on it to sooth the pain. If it's so great move there and come back, then tell me how "great" it is. As for the embargo stuff, that's just with the US as far as I know. I know people from other countries are free to travel there.
@CyberTechWolf The US has been limiting Cuba's raw material exports to other countries which has crippled them economically .The Pentagon spends more $ tracking weather metals imported to other coutnries have any Cuban Nickle in them than they spend on tracking terrorist money.
If Cuba is not allowed to devolope economically there resorces for there NHS will be very limited because it depents on tax $
@CyberTechWolf THe Free Market model as it is defined where the Payer system has no restrictions and does not collectivley bargin with the providers and companys was only used in Switzerland and in 1994 they reformed their system and went away from the Free Market model to a Bizmark Model for health care.
Switzerland is the test lab confriming that the Free Market model is unworkable.
@thalonelygirl.Checkout LibertyPen, on Youtube for more great videos. They are many great short videos from there, and its well worth your time,especially if you are into the Libertarian Philosophy. Take care.
Can anyone answer this question that I was asked today. What does a person do if they have been paying into private healthcare insurance their whole lives, something happens to them and they need treatment, then the insurance company goes bust. Now they have no money and no insurance and if there is no government healthcare available what do they do?
Freedomnotforced 3 months ago
This is cherry picked bullshit. It only costs more over the short term but if you average the costs over a decade it costs less.
And if we just did the right thing and got Single Payer it would cost 33% less and everyone would be covered. But you Ayn Rand crackheads just don't get that.
MsZeitgeist85 8 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Yes, do the right thing and have a Free Market healthcare system without government! After all, who doesn't want a healthcare system with year-long waiting lists, lower quality care, and guys in suits sitting behind a desk deciding whether or not I get surgery, who wouldn't want to be apart of that.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 ....Sorry, the Free Market is what I want to see. What I was talking about sarcastically I meant Obamacare.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Why? a Free Market system for Primary Care is unworkable.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 How do you figure? When you allow competition and not Monopolies at the hands of Bureaucrats you get lower quality care. When companies are allowed to compete you get high quality care witha declining price-tag. A Free Market is best.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Because for profit HMOs " Compete " by denying coverage to people that need it. 1/3 of every dollard that insurance companys spend do not go to helping people. In the US thousands of people die each year because HMOs do not want to give them coverage because the cost too much. In the UK and Canada where all payers are non profit everyone is covered for at least 40% less money.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Less? How do you figure, they pay higher income taxes, thats what pays for it. Also if you watch the video that this is in response to you'll hear what I'm trying to say. Denying coverage wasn't a problem before the government got involved. The UK and Canada also pamore on certain drugs and have lower qaulity care than we do and year long waiting lists for certain treatments. Look at cosmetic surgery, no government involment, higher qaulity, declining price.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 ......Just in addition to what I was saying, watch this video:
/watch?v=OK8tJrlBfZA
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf I saw that Jacob is making a total assinine argument. He is just saying tha tmaking HMOs pay for people with a preesixting condition is wrong because it would be like making a inusrance company pay for a car after you crash it. Humans are not cars you can't do that just like you can't get health insurance for dead people. His argument for having private charity cover the high risk people is laughable. Are they going to cover the millions of high risk people? NO
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 It's called Charity for a reason, did you know that Welfare programs and Entitlement programs only give out about 10% of their money, Uncle Sam likes to help himself to it and spend it like it was his own. Private Charity donates about 80-90% of their donations. Let's see, whats better, 10% of money that was stolen from people's paychecks, or 80-90% of money people donated.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf That is not relevant here. Did you know that there is not 1 single country on the planet that allows for profit insurance for primary care? The reason is because the only way this system can function is to deny people care. In other words the kill people for profit by denying them care.
This system is prohibited by law in ever other developed nation as they should be. If you did what Stephen Hemsley does in Canada you would go to jail.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf What you said about entitlements is just not true. Medicare operates at 2% overhead. While you are lucky if you can find a for profit HMO to with and administrative cost at 25%.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 I meant social security specifically. Jacob makes a lot of good videos, I suggest you check them out. Anyways he was right when he mentioned supply and demand. If a service is offered for "free" then demand skyrockets and supply has to be rationed to keep up with demand, resulting is lower qaulity care. Besides, are you really going to defend a system where bureaucrats decide whether or not I recieve treatment?
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf SS is diffrent. I have seen his videos and his logic is flawed. In the UK they spend $3600 per person which amounts to $180 billion a year. Knobody is saying someting that costs that much is free. However the USA spends $6000 per person and the NHS outpreforms our health care system in every area. Bureaucrats deciding things is not what happens there. In the NHS if the doctor says you need a procedure you get it.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 I never said they have nureaucrats, but we will. Individual mandates are wrong to. But if you read some incerments of the bill you will see that there is a part if I recall that says something along the lines of "the government's opinion will matter more than your doctor's" now thats probobly not exactly what it said but you get the idea. The care is reduced, and what about year-long waiting lists?
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf This is how things really happen in the NHS in the UK compaired with the US
atch?v=OK8tJrlBfZA
Billburns has made a few videos debunking Jacobspinnys claims.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 I watched the video, and all I heard was, this and that is great and does better, but provides not actual facts and fails to cite his sources for his statistics. Also Jacob made a response video:
/watch?v=l2YA9hNQrfY&feature=watch_response
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Jacob made a respons which is a strawman argument where he says Health Care is essential and must be non profit. Food is essential therefore the goverment should run all aspects of food production which is nonsense and nowhere near the point billburns made.
His point was that for profit health insurance for primary care is not workable. Not 1 single country uses it this is because we spend more than any other country and our system ranks dead last of developed nations.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 We also spend a shit ton of money on social programs. So Jacob's arguement is a strawman but billburn's isn't? I didn't see him site one source to these supposed surveys. Jacob was also making the point that social studies like that are impossible because there are too many uncontrolled variables. How much social healthcare do you recieve? Cause I can tell you most of the people who says it's "great" probobly never have to use it....
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 ...Also what's your opinion of the care in Cuba and North Korea, the REAL socialist countries.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf They are not Socialist Countries. I have no Idea what system North Korea uses but I know South Korea is working on a Single Payer model. When you say Socialist countries I think of the Scandanavian countries that have some of the best health care and education in the world.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Those aren't socialist countries, thats just Big Government Capitalism, a form of Mercantalism. As for education, I watched a documentey called "The College Conspiracy" made by InflationUS, although a more appropriate title would be "Why College is a Scam". Before the government started subsidizing College, it was far more affordable because the market was left to carve out the business. But Regulations like the 90/10 Rule and the Fed's low intrest rates create bubbles.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Then we should be moving in the direction of Finland which in over all education ranks 3rd in the world. In that country teachers make as much as doctors. Finland has one of the best health care systems in the world
The point on health care is that if you were going to allow a insurance company to take 1/3 of every dollar spent such as in a Free Market then what is the point of having HMOs in the first place?
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 What you mean to say is, "from what I've heard they have the best healthcare in the world". Unless you yourself have personally been treated there don't say that. But related to Obamacare, it's different than what those countries offer. They arenn't run by bureaucrats like we will. They won't have an IRS that can dive into your bak account freely, They don't have 111 bureaucries. This video is spot on.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf In addition to us having a slash in the quality of care and year-long waiting lists. When fighting caner or another infectious disease, your on your disease's time table, not a bureaucrat's.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf They do not slash quality of care and there are no wait times for urgent care. The cancer survival rate argument is also bullshit because they are comparing everyone in Canada with the few who actually get treatment here. There are hundreds of thousands in the US that forgo cancer treatment because of cost. What is their cancer survival rate?
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Supply and Demand remember. If I buy a cake for 15$ then I get the whole cake. If cake is being given away for free then I only recieve a fraction.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Actually I am 100% aginst the part of Romeny Care or Obama Care where the tax payer wants to subsidize HMOs.
I want to outlaw all for profit HMOs like what every other country has done and replace them with a Single Payer Medicare for all system where the payer collectivley bargins with the providers and companys.
The Obama Care bill that passed was some 1500 pages. When Canada passed their system decades ago it was 6 pages. Single Payer = Less Bureaucracy
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 The bill was actually 2,700 pages, and that is Canada. It's unconstituional here. Providing healthcare is not a government responsialbility. Don't like it? Amend it then. Besides, we all know why Obama only gave congress 20 minutes to read 2700 pages. Obviously if we got a chance to read all of it it might not have passed.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf If the goverment is not responsable for prividing health care then why do we have the VA, Tricare, Medicaid, and Medicare...Are those unconstitutional?
I am just going by what is tried and tested and has been proven to provide Universal Care for 40% less than what we spend right now. It works in Canada and it will work here.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Stop saying "it works". Unless you have directly recieved care in Canada all you can really say is "I've heard it's better". I should be doing that too, so I'm sorry that's my bad. And yes, those entitlement prograns are unconstitutional. Anything the Federal Government doesn't have is left up to the states. If we wanted to have Romneycare models on a state level then that is fine. But stop forcing me into a one size fits all plan.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf PART 1 This is the argument for Free Market in health care. In the 70s and 80s people were trying to get SIngle Payer here and because even then it cost less and covered everyone. The argument was that the providers not payer was culprit. Milton Friedman argued that this system would work if only the AMA would get out of the way and quit driving up cost. The AMA is like a union for doctors and there is some truth to this because they killed all attempts to create SIngle Payer
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 ....Look at history. Let's start with Social Security, there wern't old people collapsing in the streets before it was signed into law. In fact, there was near zero public demand for it. We were fine nefore the government started subsidizing HC, also, I'm curious as to how our Swiss system was when they had the Free Market.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 One other thing about the bill, it gives free healthcare to illegal immigrants.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf PART 2 The AMA fought attempts to create a SInlge Payer system because it would mean that they would make a little less than what they make now. At that time Switzerland was the only other country that had for profit insurance and there was no AMA in Switzerland making doctors more expensive by 1994 doctors there made much less that what they make here.
So there is the test lab confirming a Free Market is unworkable for primary care.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Uh...when the government started subsadizing healthcare the title "Free Market" had disappeared. As for the AMA from what I leanred today the government made then a monoply for issuing liscences. I think it would be good to have competition. Competition improves products and usually drops prices. That's all I have to say Goodnight.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf I never said the Gov is consistant. This is just one time they went in favor of HMOs expanding their reach.
The competition talking point doesn't work for HMOs because that argument is " Let HMOs sell acrost state lines" Which would make things worse because those state regulations that say they must cover things like lung cancer and other things are the only things that keep them from denying more people coverage.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Competition doesn't work? Look if you remember what Jacob said in his video about the subject, look let me spell it out. When a 3rd party like the government covers most/all expenses there is no insentive to look for the lowest price. Normally, Doctor A charges $500 for say, Cataract Surgery while Doctor B charges $2,500. People will go to Doctor A forcing Doctor B to drop his prices in order to keep up....
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 ...But if there is no incetive to look for a lower price and people will likely go for the more expensive stuff because they aren't directly paying for it, therefore in this situation Doctor A would be forced to raise prices in order to keep up with Doctor B. I thank a fellow Youtuber for helping me word this arguement. Competition leads to lower prices and higher qaulity, look at the electronics market.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf I know that Cuba uses a NHS model but they are not a fair representation because of their very limited resoruces because they have been handcuffed with an embargo. Overall Cuba comes in behind the USA but a few areas they are better. They live longer and have a lower infant moratlity rate than the USA. Cuba recently invented a vaccine for lung cancer. Cuba would be behind the US overall but they do very well with what limited resources they have.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Of course, after all, I i break my wrist then I can get the treatment I'm entitled to of having Agave leaves rubbed on it to sooth the pain. If it's so great move there and come back, then tell me how "great" it is. As for the embargo stuff, that's just with the US as far as I know. I know people from other countries are free to travel there.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf The US has been limiting Cuba's raw material exports to other countries which has crippled them economically .The Pentagon spends more $ tracking weather metals imported to other coutnries have any Cuban Nickle in them than they spend on tracking terrorist money.
If Cuba is not allowed to devolope economically there resorces for there NHS will be very limited because it depents on tax $
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
@CyberTechWolf THe Free Market model as it is defined where the Payer system has no restrictions and does not collectivley bargin with the providers and companys was only used in Switzerland and in 1994 they reformed their system and went away from the Free Market model to a Bizmark Model for health care.
Switzerland is the test lab confriming that the Free Market model is unworkable.
MsZeitgeist85 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsZeitgeist85 In response to this specific comment, check out this:
/watch?v=4msVk_sdtdQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
What a bunch of right wing horseshit.
classicallady 8 months ago
Comment removed
MsZeitgeist85 8 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Second your comments here.
classicallady 8 months ago
Great video!
thalonelygirl 1 year ago
@thalonelygirl.Checkout LibertyPen, on Youtube for more great videos. They are many great short videos from there, and its well worth your time,especially if you are into the Libertarian Philosophy. Take care.
KevZen2000 1 year ago