Just how stupid are Americans? Stupid enough to trust this woman?. She is CEO of an "institute" PRI that defends the interests of huge capitalist conglomerates and which is funded by horrors such as Koch industries--chemicals, petrochemicals, a company with a string of convictions in federal courts for illegal and secret mass dumps of nasties into rivers and the air as long as your arm. Its "freedom" for people like that that she is defending, not you. Now she fights for Big Pharma. Beware
Sally Pipes is great a 'stories' very bad had hard numbers or providing the whole story.
Rituxan is available in all 10 provinces and paid for by the provincial payer. What she refers to here is that, at the time, it wasn't covered by Ontario for everyone but private payers paid for it for and was available privately. She provides misleading information to further her agenda. In other words...LIES!!!!
@farblonjet No the current system is not good. They need to outlaw the HMOs and get Single Payer but this crackpot who is in the pay of Insurance Companys and Drug Companys is getting away with spewing lies about Canada's health care system.
I'm not saying car insurers morally punish DUI, but that it is immoral to punish illness. Yes, I OBVIOUSLY think single-payer is a better & more ethical system, it's odd that you repeatedly ask. The alternative is only risk pooling insofar as insurers assess risk inaccurately. Where such a system worked perfectly, premiums would simply be medical fees, no risk pooling. The PRI is a rightwing propaganda machine funded by corporations including insurers and pharmaceutical companies.
Moral hazard - DUI ought to be punished, illness ought not. No nation's healthcare ranking would improve if no one received healthcare, as scores would plummet in all other indicators e.g infant morality, life expectancy and preventable mortality. US healthcare also scores poorly in these standard measures in any study not sponsored by US insurers. As Americans increasingly can't or daren't go to the doctor, accessibility isn't a separate or separable issue.
@Muwt Life expectancy is not a measure of healthcare. Infant mortality in the United States is incomparable with the rest of the world because they have much different ways of measuring outcomes. Preventable mortality is a matter of personal choice (e.g. tobacco smoking, obesity, alcohol) and not determined by the quality of a healthcare system. It's the people who already want the govt running things that cite false comparisons like these.
@Muwt It not being "morally wrong" to become sick doesn't mean anything. If you're more likely to need compensation, then either you pay more or everybody else has to. Which do you think it should be? Either way, morality is not part of the equation.
@5jv5 On the contrary, the idea that it's not morally wrong to become sick is perfectly clear - as is the corollary that health insurance ought not to punish illness as car insurance punishes DUI. And without risk pooling, insurance becomes a just a complex means of paying for a service via a parasitic intermediary. Which is basically why it costs twice as much in the US as everywhere else, and why insurers would rather pay this woman to lie than doctors to treat the sick.
@Muwt Car insurance companies don't "punish" drunk drivers on a moral basis, they raise their rates because they're statistically more likely to require reimbursement. Just like males, the elderly, and diabetes patients. The funds have to come from somewhere. You didn't answer the question: Should everybody else have to pay for the increased costs ensued when these people are provided with insurance, or should they cover it?
@Muwt Insurance wherein people who bear certain factors that increase their likelihood of requiring reimbursement are required to pay a higher premium than those who don't is still a function of risk pooling. It does not cost twice as much in the US as elsewhere, and the claim that insurers paid Sally Pipes to lie is an unsubstantiated claim.
OK then, 50 odd million who can't afford it. In a wealthy developed nation, that is a crap system in ways that have nothing to do with the quality of care the rich can afford. And it's precisely "red tape and bureaucratic premiums" that is a big part of the problem. I was astonished at the hoops they you make jump through over there. Here, I just turn up at clinic for just as good healthcare, no questions, without the overhead of middlemen who must make a profit.
@Muwt Again, there aren't 50 million who can't afford it. The number I think you're referring to is just that some odd 46 million Americans don't have health insurance. Just because they don't have it doesn't mean they can't afford it, which doesn't translate well into single-payer where people are forced to pay for it whether they want it or not (which is why the number of people uninsured is incomparable). There's a middleman in both systems, and both of them are well-paid.
@4gl2u Over 50 million Americans were uninsured in 2009 (US Census Bureau), with millions more "underinsured" - of whom nearly 100,000 die anually of treatable causes (Harvard Medical School). I'll leave the argument that they don't want insurance to stand on its merits.
@Muwt Yes, I'm sure from the standpoint of a society that FORCES people to buy health insurance it's easily believed that there's just no way somebody would CHOOSE to NOT buy health insurance. I mean, if where I come from people are forced to buy it, then how absurd would it be that in America people have that option? Besides, being uninsured isn't even a problem, in fact I think the 250 million people who ARE insured is part of the problem with America's healthcare (& govt isn't the solution).
Nope, Harvard Medical School determined that 31% of US healthcare dollars - more than $1,000 per person per year - went on healthcare administrative costs, NEARLY DOUBLE the administrative overhead in, for example, Canada.
The WHO ranked US healthcare 37th in "overall performance" - not "equality of care" as you claimed - despite being by far the most costly, per capita (including the uninsured!) and per procedure. The Commonwealth Fund ranked it last among similar countries.
@Muwt First, the percent of money that goes to admin overhead doesn't contradict what I said. Second, don't just allude to a study without giving me either the title & date or a link. The WHO index was done more than a decade ago and was anything but objective, in fact it was dependent on a number of logically flawed assumptions and ideological bias. & I know what you're thinking: a govt agency that wants the govt to control more of the economy than it does now?? Who'd have thought?
@Muwt One of the main factors that the WHO index took into account when judging nations' healthcare systems was equality of health, was a ridiculous thing to include in such an index because it has nothing to do with the quality of care, or the quality of distribution at all. If we had a class system like exists in the US where quality of care ranges depending on what is paid, then we could INCREASE our rank on that list by eliminating high-end care. It'd be like if in your hypothetical about...
... Prince Charles becoming the main beneficiary of all UK healthcare spending became true, in which case the UK would rank very poorly on that index. Then, if we decided that NO ONE should receive healthcare at all, the UK's rank would increase because now there's a higher "equality of care" because nobody is receiving healthcare as opposed to just one person. This is why even Saudi Arabia came higher than the US, and Cuba was close behind.
She is a notorious corporate shill, paid to scare Americans.
You're FAR, FAR, *FAR* more likely to be denied treatment by private insurers than under UHC. It's a big, national-news-worthy deal under UHC, and always for clinical reasons (eg very expensive drug of dubious efficacy). US private health insurers routinely deny treatment for financial reasons, basically on the grounds that insurees are sick.
@Muwt Another liberal Briton takes pride in not knowing what he's talking about. Insurance companies deny coverage to certain people as to defend themselves from those who are genuinely committing fraud. If they dropped you simply because you were sick, they'd get sued, as often happens when they decline coverage in error. Usually it's an issue of reasonable suspicion. You know, things that would warrant an investigation, like someone buying fire insurance a day before their house burns down.
@Muwt Oh, and all of your fill-in-the-blank accusations about her being a corporate shill are as relevant as it'd be for me to call you a government shill. It contributes nothing to the topic and just makes you look weak. Liberty over security.
@4gl2u I've lived and worked in the US and am still in touch with plenty of US friends. Unless my experience was/is somehow exceptional, what you say just doesn't seem representative. I've also lived and worked in Canada and am a UK citizen, so I KNOW what this woman's saying is unrepresentative at best - and mostly plain untrue.
@Muwt If you think they can drop people just because they want to save money you're either lying, have been lied to, or don't know how the legal system works. If you even a contractual obligation to reimburse somebody in case of a specified incident, you aren't legally capable of just saying "Sorry, I don't feel like it" when said incident occurs. These cases about people dying because all of those "greedy, uncaring" American insurance companies are profit-driven, are all completely fictional.
@Muwt What did she say about care in the UK that you think is incorrect? Here's how it works in Britain: everybody is forced to fund the system via taxation, and then the system that they were forced to fund provides worse service than is available in America after you wait longer than you'd have to in America. The average wait times in Canada are even longer. Certain maritime provinces have an average wait time for surgery of over 18 weeks. That's unheard of in the United States.
@4gl2u Such wait times are not unheard of in the US, and would only be for non-urgent conditions in the UK. Present with something urgent enough, and they operate same day. As there are nearly as many US citizens who can't afford or can't get health insurance as the entire UK population, wait times for non-urgent surgery is hardly the issue. Elsewhere, I've read her absurd claims about NHS healthcare denial. You are WAY more likely to be denied treatment by US insurers.
@Muwt Healthcare insurers do this because insurance is a risk pool; everybody pays into it, and the people who don't get sick cover the costs of those who do. If they allow people who are more likely to become sick into the pool, then the costs either go up for everybody, or those certain people have to pay more to cover their increased likelihood of needing something out of the pool. That's just common sense, and I see no reason to do it any other way.
@4gl2u Also, her describing US healthcare as "the world's finest" is de facto lying about healthcare in most of the develped world, which gives most people access to at least as good healthcare at significantly lower cost.
@Muwt It wasn't a lie. In terms of the quality of care provided, the US is the best in the world. The reason for this is because healthcare providers compete for patients, which is a key element missing from state-run healthcare systems that leads to declining quality and rising costs as time goes on. The costs of providing healthcare in other countries is not actually lower. Essentially the govt forces people who can afford healthcare to pay for those who can't. It's a terrible system.
@4gl2u And - I repeat - I've lived over there and am still in touch with plenty of US friends, so I can equally claim that you're lying or have been lied to. It's not a matter of insurers summarily "dropping you" - although they'll do that if prolonged litigation is cheaper - but of your becoming less insurable as you become sicker. Which amounts to the same thing.
@Muwt Okay, listen. You insure them. Yeah, let a bunch of elderly sick people pay you a premium each month, and whenever any of them require medical attention of any kind, you pay for it out of the money that they all paid you to begin with. You're going to have to charge them a lot more than you would younger, healthier citizens in order to cover the costs of paying for their care, but if they need healthcare more often then they should expect to be paying more in aggregate. Go on, do it.
@4gl2u Single payer is risk pooling. With perfect knowledge, private insurance premiums would perfectly match individual risk, defeating the purpose of risk pooling altogether.
And everyone elses' healthcare is cheaper per procedure, per drug and frequently with superior outcomes. That's according to The world Health Organisation and everyone who's studied it - except rightwing think tanks sponsored by insurers.
@Muwt Right, but private insurers don't have perfect knowledge of what's going to happen in the future. All they do is handle other people's risks. Car insurance companies charge higher premiums if you're more likely to be in an accident, but the purpose of car insurance hasn't been defeated. The World Health Organization has never produced the results you allude to unless you're thinking of a now ten year old index they made ranking countries by equality of care wherein the US came in 37th.
@4gl2u They don't have to have perfect knowledge for their scheme to be antithetical to risk pooling. Unless single-payer, premiums are either proportionate to any insuree's treatment cost, in which case there is no risk pooling, or disproportionate which is unfair. Furthering your analogy, it punishes people for illness as car insurance punishes dangerous drivers.
@Muwt They take certain factors into account when determining your fee. Just as male drivers pay car insurance companies more than female drivers, so elderly people pay health insurance companies more than younger people. Just as car insurance premiums rise when you're in a car accident or charged with a DUI, so health insurance premiums rise when you're diabetic or have asthma. If everyone paid the same, female drivers' premiums would go up whenever a male driver registered for car insurance.
@Muwt What moral hazard? People who have had a DUI are more likely to require reimbursement. Diabetes are more likely to require reimbursement. Find a common average and charge those people more. This isn't anything complicated.
@4gl2u Yes, and if Prince Charles were the sole recipient of all UK healthcare resources, we'd have the worlds best healthcare in that sense. But it would still be a lie to say ours was the best healthcare system, because we'd have 50 odd million without healthcare - like you have.
@Muwt There aren't 50 million people in the US without access to healthcare. The people who can afford it receive the best in the world. People who can't afford healthcare aren't entitled to it. Just because a few people can't afford something doesn't mean that we should drag the rest of society down with them with red tape and bureaucratic premiums until the care is of such poor quality that even the lowest class can afford it. That's small-scale communism by every meaning of the word.
according to WHO, the US is way down the list of health care for developed countries. Why do these people keep saying its the best in the world? Its not... unless you're wealthy.
@chatelaine19 The index you're referring to is ten year olds and wasn't even intended to measure the quality of care being delivered to the people. One of the key factors in determining a country's position on that list is equality of care, meaning that the closer France's best care is to France's worse care, the higher France will place on the list. It has little to do with healthcare outcomes, where France is nowhere NEAR being number one, nor were they anywhere close when that was published.
Ok, seriously, can someone explain to me why people in America are so against Universal Healthcare? I live in a country (Australia) with Universal Healthcare (two tiered private and public system), and I have no problem with it whatsoever. I hear my American friends talking about the US system, and it just astounds me. I can't help thinking 'Why on earth would anyone put up with that?' So help me out here, explain to me why the US shouldn't head towards Universal Healthcare?
@ceke72 If Obama proposed a Swiss System, I think most people would want it, which is private, but universal. And frankly, it is one of the best in the world. Not exactly to my classical liberal liking, but it is better than the third party payer system we have now.
@ceke72 I'm Aussie too. Our health care system is great. But only because we are a population of 22 million people and 8 states and territories. If the solution for America, a country of 300 million people and 50 states was simply to adopt our system, I am sure they would have already done it by now. But they won't because the two systems they already have that are publicly funded and free, Medicaid and Medicare are are heading for insolvency and will be bankrupt by 2019.
This law is horrible and unconstitutional! we must repeal it right away and then fix the problems with our current system. If I wanted free HC then I would move to a country that has it. This is America and the majority of Americans DO NOT want this! Guess what- We the PEOPLE rule AMERICA and we need to go back to this simple concept!!!!
Sally Pipes is NOT a Canadian. She is passing on horribly bad information on how healthcare works in Canada. She is speaking as a CEO of a Corporate "think tank" and not as a person who knows the Canadian healthcare system.
It infuriates me that the dems RAMMED health insurance reform down our throats and then won't even mention it in there reelection campaigns.
Back room deal, union kick backs, no CSPAN in the room, NO bi-partisan support, wasted a year not getting American's back to to work, $2,000,000,000+ trillion dollar price tag, divide the country, its more unpopular than ever, it's a 1099 nightmare for small business, 30+ house dems against it and rising, 20 states suing, cost going up...
@steviebdiesel First, Americans are the world's medical innovators. Second, more Americans have more medical choice & more speedy access to medical care under the old system than anywhere in the world.
The whole world will suffer when ObamaCare guts US medical R&D in order to focus US medicine on bureaucratic parceling of care. We will rue the day we chose bureaucratic rationing over patient & physician empowerment and speed of access that ordinary Americans have benefited from for so long.
I have a 4 point plan. 1) Torte reform to reduce defensive medicine, which costs billions each year. 2) Hold generic medication production to the same standards as the parent drugs instead of allowing a 45% wiggle room for bioavailabity, making it safer to use generic drugs. 3) Reduce mandates and allow shopping for insurance across state lines. 4) Encourage health savings accounts, balanced by high deductable "disaster insurance." People will be more selective if they see the money they spend.
Health care is a service, and should be treated as such. Get insurance companies out of the conversation all together when it comes to routine check-ups and non-emergency medical procedures. I don't understand how this is so hard to grasp. Health care can only be "fixed" when people start viewing it as another business and not as an entitlement.
@d0861 You're right, the two big issues with health insurance in the US is third party paying and employer subsidy...all at the behest of the federal government! The ONLY reason why countries such as Canada can have a functioning socialized system is due to debt on the government account, and they import the technology, innovation is expensive. If there are innovative companies, they get most of their revenue from the US.
The wealthy Banker Elite have private doctors they don't care about the greatest Health Care System in the world "AMERICA". They want the worlds population reduced and destroying the only free best healthcare system in the world definitely meets their agenda. Get ready for hard times American's these elite bankers will not stop until you are dead or they are.
First we all learned the USA has no respect nor gives any value, to the lives of those who are not as them: Afganistan, Irak, Vietnam, Corea, Nicaragua… long etc.
Now we learn it was not regarding those not as them, is they do not respect life, since they rather see their own people die, than take care of them.
They will drive a Porsche wile next door they have someone dying, in the name of freedom. Please keep that shit freedom in your limits, sad people.
@fitobcnfito If I'm successful enough to own a Porsche, why should I feel an obligation to take care of my sick neighbor? It's not my fault that he/she is sick. It's also not my fault that they aren't successful enough to take care of themselves. Nobody should have the right to take away what's mine because they think otherwise.
@d0861 Money is not yours, you just have it at this moment (this would be long argument, I'm not against capital, but there are limits), what we are talking about is basic needs, not luxury.
Health and LIFE is a need, a Posche or a pool are luxury, and are not real needs.
To have luxury wile your mates are in need of the most basic thing as helth, is inmoral.
@fitobcnfito If you look at the TOTAL taxes in Spain, our poor in the US receive more net income and benefits than in Spain. Not only consumption taxes are higher, income taxes are steeper, and gas taxes are much higher in Spain. It makes NO sense why the PM of Spain couldn't put deductibles on everyone's health account based on income, to stop the waits for care. If you are middle class, you SHOULD pay a portion of your surgery directly!
@Gyrode That is what they are talcking of doing in Spain, copaid helath for those who can afford it. Waiting lists are the real issue, not what this lady is saying at the video, you do get the best health in public hospitals (example: some diagnostic machines are way to expensive for a private hospital to purchase them, since it would not be rentable: state does purchase them, since benefit is not their goal)
I personaly have private insurance, so I pay for helthcare I do not use mself.
@Gyrode I'm no socialist, so I do not believe the state should take care of redistribution of all wealth.
I just support the state taking care of those perversions of the free market that are inhuman. To let someone die due to them not being able to afford health do to economics, is inhuman.
The hypocrisy I see in the USA is that State spends billions in Army to protect, while they let their citizens die... if protecting your life=health is not state duty, WTF are they doing with the marines
@fitobcnfito Most of the perversions of the free market are caused by legislation, not individuals in commerce. But yeah, of course, in the US, you cannot deny care in public hospitals and medical centers,and ALL hospitals are required to accept patients...but at any rate, the third party payer system and employer subsidy is the root cause of inflated prices in the US.
@Gyrode You might not have space to explain me your point, but I do not agree with it untill someone tells me wrong. I believe inflated prices are more due to insurance companies, not state intervention. State emploies have a fix salary, in Spain you have the option to work for private, or for the state. Doctors who want to get rich, do not work for the state, since they have a fix salary.
@fitobcnfito I am specifically talking about the US. In the US, employer plans are subsidized. I buy private insurance, and I miss out on the employer based tax benefits....it affects the perception of price, and how much insurance you buy. Of course, if you subsidize insurance for a certain portion of the population (about 63%), with no regard to income tests, prices rise, and the companies take advantage of it!
@Gyrode By this I do not mean the bad doctors work for the state and good ones for private companies. Is more a matter of ethics and willing to have a more stable and fix work (one of the bad things about this state intervention, is that goverment employes are for life, they can not be fired), that is bad and good, since I believe they should be trated as any other in that regard, but you do get many seeking that stability.
@fitobcnfito Anything given to a person, through trade or otherwise is his property, money and Porsche included. People are always going to be "in need." What's immoral, is forcibly taking what's mine to accommodate those people. If health is a need that must be managed by government, do you support dietary mandates as well?
@d0861 There are basic needs for life that should not be let to the free market that is based in economics and not humanity.
As per your criteria, you should let many die if they are not strong... that is the jungle law, I personaly do not buy it, I belive we are better than Lions.
@fitobcnfito Well if you think that no person will voluntarily give what they have to help someone they value, then it looks like you are the one who thinks that we are no better than the animals. It is the taking, by force, of one's property to give to another that more closely resembles barbarism.
@d0861 I dont see anyone up to pay a homeless person health bills by free will.
I'm an Anarchist, so actually, what you say is my utopia, that people should do so by free will, we are jet to be so educated as to beheave as so. And the issue is that people do not value those who are not close realtives, and show no empathy for the rest: you rather have the neighbour die wile you keep your porsche, since you think that needy person has nothing to do with you: JFYI he does
@fitobcnfito What does the needy person that holds no value to me, as an individual, have to do with me? If they ask for help, I should be able to reasonably and objectively decide whether or not I want to help them, voluntarily. Anarchy would be the ideal. Unfortunately, people do not act morally, and therefore laws based on morality must be enforced by some form of state to protect the liberty of the individual.
@d0861 I’m assuming you are a libertarian, so we are not that far away at a philosophical level. Never the less, I’m an anarchist, so my difference is that I do not support/relay much on the free market and capitalism as you. You are mentioning in the same paragraph, someone not holding value to you, and laws being moral needed. Life itself has value, and therefore all humans are worth your help, so yes, it needs to be reinforced. That is the moral thing, share health care.
@fitobcnfito I would argue that it is not morally right to help someone in need, nor is it immoral to not help the needy- this is our main disagreement. It is, however, unquestionably immoral to forcibly take that which is not yours (even if it fulfills a perceived greater good). That is exactly the reason why laws are in place to prevent individuals from stealing from one another. Do they somehow gain legitimacy by banding together to steal (as in the form of government entitlement programs)?
@d0861 No right is ilimited, I place the right to live over the right to posses any good/money. Capitalism takes away many oportunities to those who are not born within a social status and with an education, so capitalism is not perfect, and needs goverment. The Hypocrit thing I see in all this, is that it seams like USA is OK with the sate taking care of their protection, as long as that means Army, but wen it means taking care o the life of it's own people.... go die in the name of free market
@fitobcnfito Nobody is suggesting that people should not have the right to live. Also, nobody is born with an education... People DO have a right to health care access- not free health care, because as I said earlier, it's a service.. I wasn't specifically talking about the state's role to protect the individual from foreign invaders (even though that is part of their job). I was more referring to their passing and enforcing laws that prohibit immoral behavior (intentionally harming someone).
@d0861 Education I meant access to so (In USA how much is to go to College?, is just for ritch, hear is for free:, I paid 450 US$ per year: European "socialists" ;-D).
Acccess to helath care if it means you need money, money you dont have access to, since you could not pay for your edcation, since you had no money to start rom, is the same, you do not have access to helath.
State only duty, is to protec, the rest, is interfering were they should not.
@fitobcnfito The topic of whether or not everyone can and, therefore, should go to college is a conversation for another day.. If the government is so hell-bent on "fixing" health-care then they should do so by trying to make it more affordable- encouraging small practices and reasonably priced private non-emergency clinics, not by expanding people's dependency on medical insurance and hospitals for their every ailment.
@d0861I do not enter that argument of HOW to apply it (probably many options, none perfect), but it is evident there is something very wrong with USA access to health, as it is set up. It's ridiculous the amount of money you pay for a doctor, and inmoral how so many do not have access to it.
It looks incongruent so much buzz about this spend, while you spend billions in an army that should not cost all those resources to protect you. Just pass some of the budget for killing into saving lives
@d0861 You dont need to increase any taxing, is just to spend in the real needs, and stop spending in nosense.
And you can afford by far healthcare.
How much do you found Israel so we all get to hate USA?... JFYI that is why you get terrorist atacks and reason why you enter new wars, and spend in more protecion, to protect you from your own policies.
@d0861 "It is, however, unquestionably immoral to forcibly take that which is not yours": on your words, Zionism is inmoral, pretending control over petrol in MidEast is inmoral. So WTF are you spending your taxes on?
Go home, take care of your people, and be wealthy and happy in peace with the rest. Who the F gave you permision to the the world wide police, noone thanks you for so, and that is the real cost you are assuming that does not let you take care of your people.
@fitobcnfito I don't agree, at all, with the U.S. foreign policy of interventionism and nation building. Believe me, if I could opt out of paying taxes to fund the IDF and illegal wars in the Middle East, I would. I'd also opt out on the countless entitlement programs that I will never use. Our goal should be peace, commerce and friendship with all nations.
@d0861 I do get the picture about your foreign policy ideas, and I wish libertarians had more a say than they do in today USA politics (for sure it will be best for all), not only for this issue, but also for your own (just imagine how much money you would be able to reinvest in what really matter for your people).
We have kinf of the same problem over in most places, democrat/republican (although our republicans would be socialist for you)... still, they are all the same, and do not represent
@d0861 do you know what is the littel english everyone knows in Europe, and world wide: "Yamkis go home!", I think there was a wise president in USA that once said that in order to be you, you should stop any foreign intervention.... I think he was correct.
That is yuor "killer", you do not have the money to control the world, and you plan on doing so with weapons.... keep it on, it does not work, is evident.
Spend the money in your people, give them helath, instead of killing others.
FORTUNATELY the new Republican House (& maybe senate) is going to follow the will of the people (polls & election results) and GUT obamacare. They don't have to repeal it, they can simply de-fund it and its gone.
That's why: VOTE REPUBLICAN on NOVEMBER 2nd!
I know, I know, I'm a racist-homophobe-Islamophobe-idiot. Let me beat you to the punch. Disagree with a dem & they just call you names.
It couldn't possibly be disagreeing because I have a well thought out position.
If the republicans take over, I'd be very unhappy and I think many others will as well. There'd be an instant back-lash and the country will be in completely worse shape than it is now.
WTF is she talking about? 'Going to Paris on a vacation', 'Spending $6 on a f*cking coffee'? I'd like to know who does those things and complains about how much they spend on healthcare, unless they are a business owner or self-employed. She is way out of touch.
Healthcare should be a right, as with anything there should be rules.
For the amount spent by the Gov't on healthcare, we should, far and away, have the best system in the world. We (the US) spends much, much more on healthcare than any other country.
Regardless of what system you have, not everyone will get all the health care they want or even necessarily the health care they need. Whether the state distributes it or you have to pay out of pocket or sign up for a plan, you won't always have access to everything. Regardless of who decides what care you get or don't get, that's rationing. I would rather have the government do the rationing 'cause if I can't pay or afford a plan, the government can provide care at a deficit, and an HMO can't.
Obamacare was rammed through congress with extortion and bribery and other corruption. Over 60% of Americans do not want it. It needs to be repealed, defunded or whatever makes it die.
I dislike a lot about the leftist policies in my home of Canada, but I feel that the healthcare system is one of the...least awful, let's say, of the bunch. It is really not as monolithic as Pipes suggests, and definitely in Ontario, where I live, it's more than satisfactory.
The opinion of one individual is meaningless. The "health care system" is a very big one with diverse users and diverse procedures. Secondly, health care costs are increasing dramatically for Provincial governments, leaving less for others.
@Chainedorlo: This is, as far as I recall, a forum for voicing the opinions of an individual. However 'meaningful' that opinion is kind of moot.
As for the rising costs of provincial healthcare, I scarcely see how private institutions would not suffer from the same constraints. The fact remains that despite the fact that users are concerned about costs, their opinions on the quality of service continues to be fairly positive.
I was only responding to your claim for support of a system when their is only one opinion on it based on some experiences. No, under a market, the most likely outcome is that quality would increase and price would decrease , if this "market" is told how to operate, then it's a facade, much like the U.S.
@Chainedorlo: First of all, I made it clear that I was stating an opinion about how satisfactory the system has been for me. I can't speak for anyone else, and I don't deign to. Secondly, re: the nature of the system, there is no denying that quality varies from province to province. Personally, I agree that Canada should have private practices, but I'm not enough of an expert on healthcare economics to make a decision for or against fully private healthcare.
@InfernalApocalypse Yeah, because they have socialized the debt of the "Health Canada" budget....that debt will come back in the form of a bill, and YOU will have to pay for it!
Insurance companies already ration care. I'd rather have a non-profit system with a lower operating costs, i.e., Medicare. If you want more care than that, pay for it yourself. The government's not stopping you.
@martyyu Medicare DOES NOT have lower operating costs when you include the debt. Socialism does not work. The problem in the US is employer subsidy and third party paying.
@Gyrode Please explain how a private insurer beholden to their investors would have lower operating costs than those government entities who otherwise unencumbered. Where are the data that contradict the nonpartisan CBO's assessment of Medicare? Medicare might have problems but operating costs are not among them. Socialism doesn't work? How do you like your socialized police and fire departments? Should we privatize those institutions?
@martyyu Classic socialism, or the government control of the factors of pruduction don't work. Other forms of socialization in fact hinder economic progress. But again, those programs you mentions are direct services paid by property taxes. It would be better if we could introduce competition, but that is not happening. Again, if you have third party paying and employer subsidy perversing an insurance market beholden to shareholders, yes, prices will rise.
@Gyrode We have private companies beholden to investors making food, appliances, and all our needs like technology...the system works. You are confusing the health insurance market as free. No, it is hindered by federal laws that encourage third party paying and employer subsidy. Normal doctor visits are not insurance worthy!
Sally Pipes was wrong - America's health care system was not the best in the world; it was terrible. Deductibles, co-pays, pre-existing conditions, rescission, and the world's highest premiums are not the hallmarks of a good system. The new plan (calling it "Obamacare" is ridiculous, since Obama bent over for every industry lobbyist that came his way - insurance, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, etc) will make the system worse, but socialism isn't the problem. Corruption is.
@sharrynuk Hey dipshit, that is not the "healthcare system" that is the insurance system, before government stuck it's mitts in and pushed employers to be the providers of insurance, you did not need insurance to afford healthcare. My birth in 1975 without insurance costed all of $75 out of pocket.
@sharrynuk You must understand that the problems in the US deal with employer subsidies and third party paying, not what you describe. Now, also, just because you are for free enterprise, doesn't mean you support the insurance industry's narrow, short term interest. Socialism is the problem, in a nutshell, because socialism provides disincentives for production....if you where right, then NONE of these national plans should have debt.
@vesman81 lol true. im just saying we should improve upon our health care system, not completely change it. our health care system really isn't broken. and more than that, gov health care won't help the ppl that are already getting fucked, it's just gonna screw over the middle class.
@tracycolorado how many American's come to Canada for cheap drugs? It's a two way street. All i can say is that in my life, my wife's life, my mom and dad and my brothers and sister... all have had good experiences with health care. The most i hear people complain about is the cost of parking.
I've had ekg's mri's and heart tests, none of which I had to wait very long for, 3 weeks at the most.
why should i not have faith in it? it never failed me or anyone i know.
Yes, they have to pass the bill "to know what's in it", because it's SOOO hard to read a fucking bill on your free time. Of course, with the ridiculous legalese and complex language in Congressional bills, I can kind of understand why someone would dread going through 2700 pages of that bullshit. However, why can't we enact a law that says that ALL bills must be written in plain English? And no bill will be over 50 or 100 pages. Surely you can get your message across just fine with 50-100.
@whoo689 Isn't or wasn't there a bill on the floor (or at least proposed by groups like Downsize DC) called the Write the Bills Act that would do JUST THAT?
did everyone forget that the states... most states had/has some form of health care for people who can't afford it.. this is not the role of the Federal Government... stop drinking the Fed kool-aid.... and WTF, people aren't denied health care... stop drinking the kool-aid.. funny little sheep
@jackdav34 We have the best health care system in the world, we are an engine for medical innovation, but we have the worst insurance setup, with third party paying, and employer subsidy, encouraged by Federal policy....and this HAS NOT changed with the new health bill.
@Gyrode I never defended the health care bill. I merely said it is demonstrably false that we have the best health care system. Compare our health outcomes to, say, France and we look bad—despite spending much more than anyone else on h.c. T.R. Reid has agreat book and DVD on this subject (forget title).
@jackdav34 But we do. The health insurance setup is what creates all the inflated spending, due to third party paying and employer subsidy. The relatively free product markets aren't at fault, its the perversely regulated insurance market. In fact, we subsidize other countries. Like in Canada, drug prices are set by fiat, so a Swiss company like Roche gets most of their revenue, not from price controlled Europe, but US!
Of course is a right: the only duty of a state is to protect its citizens, if protecting their lives is not so, WTF is it?… if you are sick and cannot afford a hospital, you die.
Or is it that protection means sending armies abroad wile your people die home O.O!
This is obscene and hypocrite lies, nothing more: disgusting.
Let’s place an example: security is as health (you protect the lives of your citizens).
As per your logic, you are slavering all US army members since Marines are not a private corporation, and as if they were not free to go to a security agency as many do, and work as freelance warriors.
Explain that "slavery fact", is no sense and a lie
@kamikazee55 So, if you do not want state to interfere in security, neither health, nor taxing, as you are augmenting that means slavery for whom you tax... anarchy is your only sincere solution.
Guess not, since you as this lady are selfish hypocrites, since Anarchy is based in empathy and sharing, and if so, the people who need, would take away your exceeding to cover their need, and then you would ask a state to protect your private property, slaverng under your convenience only ;-D
@fitobcnfito Actually no. I am no anarchist. There should be no taxation. It should all be by voluntary pay. If you want police services, then you will donate. If you do not pay, then you will not receive the benefits. Quite a simple system.
And there is nothing wrong with selfishness. The standard you set of 'need' is a standard of slavery. Men do not exist for the sake of other men. They exist as ends in themselves.
@kamikazee55 You are an anarchist amigo, voluntary taxpaying is free will and not government (without resources, government cannot do anything, and you are saying that collecting this resources is slavery and wrong).
You are against government in all your argumentations, and show 0 empathy for your equals, as you see "nothing wrong with selfishness".
JFYI: there is much wrong about being selfish, you are sad, to love is to share and to be yourself you need so, or be a miserable outsider.
@fitobcnfito I am not an anarchist. I believe that the government can use force. Only against those who have initiated force though. And voluntarily paying for government benefits is not anarchy.
Selfishness is bad? And why is that? Men do not exist as tools to be used by others. They exist for their own sake. You are the disease of this world. I owe absolutely fucking nothing to you or anyone else.
@kamikazee55 I am an anarchist myself, so that is not the issue or my argument, nothing wrong with it.
Is the selfish part, the lies, and being a hypocrite, that I find obscene and disgusting.
This lady in the video is just telling a bunch of lies. I have Social Healthcare, and is nothing as she is saying, and she knows so, so she is a hypocrite.
@fitobcnfito And don't fucking call me a hypocrite without backing it up. Where have I lied? You stupid fucking idiot.
You are truly disgusting. Don't come on here acting as if you know anything.
The lady is not telling a bunch of lies. Everything that the government runs is a complete mess. Above that though, it is immoral. It is slavery. It forces people to be charitable by enslaving them. I do not exist and produce for others, but for myself.
@kamikazee55 Immoral is to let your equals die if they cannot afford a hospital, and that is being selfish.
If being selfish in this matter is OK with you, and you are going to argue this, is not immorality, is not only you are a hypocrite, is that you are evil.
Take a valium, and get a soul and a hart.
The lady LIES, social health care doesn’t ever mean you won’t be able to get a medical treatment of your will what so ever. Private hospitals will still exist.
@fitobcnfito No it is not. They are not my equals. I do not exist to be sacrificed for them. If I choose to help the guy that can't afford a hospital, then that is fine, but to force me to is to enslave me to him.
Secondly, LEARN WTF HYPOCRITE MEANS YOU GOD DAMNED IDIOT.
And greed is not a bad thing. Greed is wanting more. Would you consider wanting more a bad thing? You may say that only a certain amount of greed is okay, but then it becomes trivial, not based on principle.
Thanks for enlightening us about this.
felpaluche 2 months ago
Just how stupid are Americans? Stupid enough to trust this woman?. She is CEO of an "institute" PRI that defends the interests of huge capitalist conglomerates and which is funded by horrors such as Koch industries--chemicals, petrochemicals, a company with a string of convictions in federal courts for illegal and secret mass dumps of nasties into rivers and the air as long as your arm. Its "freedom" for people like that that she is defending, not you. Now she fights for Big Pharma. Beware
CobinRain 7 months ago 2
@CobinRain You forget to include the Jews in that list. How could you forget? :)
OmegaRage 3 weeks ago
Sally Pipes is great a 'stories' very bad had hard numbers or providing the whole story.
Rituxan is available in all 10 provinces and paid for by the provincial payer. What she refers to here is that, at the time, it wasn't covered by Ontario for everyone but private payers paid for it for and was available privately. She provides misleading information to further her agenda. In other words...LIES!!!!
MadHabber93 7 months ago
Funny this will notlet me share this video WHY?
2u4ria 7 months ago
@farblonjet No the current system is not good. They need to outlaw the HMOs and get Single Payer but this crackpot who is in the pay of Insurance Companys and Drug Companys is getting away with spewing lies about Canada's health care system.
MsZeitgeist85 10 months ago
Medicare needs to be vaucherized?
This woman is a crackpot.
MsZeitgeist85 10 months ago
Comment removed
Fatrunner92 1 year ago
I'm not saying car insurers morally punish DUI, but that it is immoral to punish illness. Yes, I OBVIOUSLY think single-payer is a better & more ethical system, it's odd that you repeatedly ask. The alternative is only risk pooling insofar as insurers assess risk inaccurately. Where such a system worked perfectly, premiums would simply be medical fees, no risk pooling. The PRI is a rightwing propaganda machine funded by corporations including insurers and pharmaceutical companies.
Muwt 1 year ago
Moral hazard - DUI ought to be punished, illness ought not. No nation's healthcare ranking would improve if no one received healthcare, as scores would plummet in all other indicators e.g infant morality, life expectancy and preventable mortality. US healthcare also scores poorly in these standard measures in any study not sponsored by US insurers. As Americans increasingly can't or daren't go to the doctor, accessibility isn't a separate or separable issue.
Muwt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Muwt Life expectancy is not a measure of healthcare. Infant mortality in the United States is incomparable with the rest of the world because they have much different ways of measuring outcomes. Preventable mortality is a matter of personal choice (e.g. tobacco smoking, obesity, alcohol) and not determined by the quality of a healthcare system. It's the people who already want the govt running things that cite false comparisons like these.
Cato on healthcare Myths: tinyurl . com / ck9lz2
5jv5 1 year ago
@Muwt It not being "morally wrong" to become sick doesn't mean anything. If you're more likely to need compensation, then either you pay more or everybody else has to. Which do you think it should be? Either way, morality is not part of the equation.
5jv5 1 year ago
@5jv5 On the contrary, the idea that it's not morally wrong to become sick is perfectly clear - as is the corollary that health insurance ought not to punish illness as car insurance punishes DUI. And without risk pooling, insurance becomes a just a complex means of paying for a service via a parasitic intermediary. Which is basically why it costs twice as much in the US as everywhere else, and why insurers would rather pay this woman to lie than doctors to treat the sick.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Car insurance companies don't "punish" drunk drivers on a moral basis, they raise their rates because they're statistically more likely to require reimbursement. Just like males, the elderly, and diabetes patients. The funds have to come from somewhere. You didn't answer the question: Should everybody else have to pay for the increased costs ensued when these people are provided with insurance, or should they cover it?
5jv5 1 year ago
@Muwt Insurance wherein people who bear certain factors that increase their likelihood of requiring reimbursement are required to pay a higher premium than those who don't is still a function of risk pooling. It does not cost twice as much in the US as elsewhere, and the claim that insurers paid Sally Pipes to lie is an unsubstantiated claim.
5jv5 1 year ago
OK then, 50 odd million who can't afford it. In a wealthy developed nation, that is a crap system in ways that have nothing to do with the quality of care the rich can afford. And it's precisely "red tape and bureaucratic premiums" that is a big part of the problem. I was astonished at the hoops they you make jump through over there. Here, I just turn up at clinic for just as good healthcare, no questions, without the overhead of middlemen who must make a profit.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Again, there aren't 50 million who can't afford it. The number I think you're referring to is just that some odd 46 million Americans don't have health insurance. Just because they don't have it doesn't mean they can't afford it, which doesn't translate well into single-payer where people are forced to pay for it whether they want it or not (which is why the number of people uninsured is incomparable). There's a middleman in both systems, and both of them are well-paid.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u Over 50 million Americans were uninsured in 2009 (US Census Bureau), with millions more "underinsured" - of whom nearly 100,000 die anually of treatable causes (Harvard Medical School). I'll leave the argument that they don't want insurance to stand on its merits.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Yes, I'm sure from the standpoint of a society that FORCES people to buy health insurance it's easily believed that there's just no way somebody would CHOOSE to NOT buy health insurance. I mean, if where I come from people are forced to buy it, then how absurd would it be that in America people have that option? Besides, being uninsured isn't even a problem, in fact I think the 250 million people who ARE insured is part of the problem with America's healthcare (& govt isn't the solution).
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
Nope, Harvard Medical School determined that 31% of US healthcare dollars - more than $1,000 per person per year - went on healthcare administrative costs, NEARLY DOUBLE the administrative overhead in, for example, Canada.
The WHO ranked US healthcare 37th in "overall performance" - not "equality of care" as you claimed - despite being by far the most costly, per capita (including the uninsured!) and per procedure. The Commonwealth Fund ranked it last among similar countries.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt First, the percent of money that goes to admin overhead doesn't contradict what I said. Second, don't just allude to a study without giving me either the title & date or a link. The WHO index was done more than a decade ago and was anything but objective, in fact it was dependent on a number of logically flawed assumptions and ideological bias. & I know what you're thinking: a govt agency that wants the govt to control more of the economy than it does now?? Who'd have thought?
4gl2u 1 year ago
@Muwt One of the main factors that the WHO index took into account when judging nations' healthcare systems was equality of health, was a ridiculous thing to include in such an index because it has nothing to do with the quality of care, or the quality of distribution at all. If we had a class system like exists in the US where quality of care ranges depending on what is paid, then we could INCREASE our rank on that list by eliminating high-end care. It'd be like if in your hypothetical about...
4gl2u 1 year ago
... Prince Charles becoming the main beneficiary of all UK healthcare spending became true, in which case the UK would rank very poorly on that index. Then, if we decided that NO ONE should receive healthcare at all, the UK's rank would increase because now there's a higher "equality of care" because nobody is receiving healthcare as opposed to just one person. This is why even Saudi Arabia came higher than the US, and Cuba was close behind.
CATO's in-depth analysis: tinyurl . com / nrpa6r
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u So when this woman says "world's best healthcare system," she is simply peddling a lie the insurers want you to believe.
Muwt 1 year ago
She is a notorious corporate shill, paid to scare Americans.
You're FAR, FAR, *FAR* more likely to be denied treatment by private insurers than under UHC. It's a big, national-news-worthy deal under UHC, and always for clinical reasons (eg very expensive drug of dubious efficacy). US private health insurers routinely deny treatment for financial reasons, basically on the grounds that insurees are sick.
Wake up, these people are laughing at you.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Another liberal Briton takes pride in not knowing what he's talking about. Insurance companies deny coverage to certain people as to defend themselves from those who are genuinely committing fraud. If they dropped you simply because you were sick, they'd get sued, as often happens when they decline coverage in error. Usually it's an issue of reasonable suspicion. You know, things that would warrant an investigation, like someone buying fire insurance a day before their house burns down.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@Muwt Oh, and all of your fill-in-the-blank accusations about her being a corporate shill are as relevant as it'd be for me to call you a government shill. It contributes nothing to the topic and just makes you look weak. Liberty over security.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u I've lived and worked in the US and am still in touch with plenty of US friends. Unless my experience was/is somehow exceptional, what you say just doesn't seem representative. I've also lived and worked in Canada and am a UK citizen, so I KNOW what this woman's saying is unrepresentative at best - and mostly plain untrue.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt If you think they can drop people just because they want to save money you're either lying, have been lied to, or don't know how the legal system works. If you even a contractual obligation to reimburse somebody in case of a specified incident, you aren't legally capable of just saying "Sorry, I don't feel like it" when said incident occurs. These cases about people dying because all of those "greedy, uncaring" American insurance companies are profit-driven, are all completely fictional.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@Muwt What did she say about care in the UK that you think is incorrect? Here's how it works in Britain: everybody is forced to fund the system via taxation, and then the system that they were forced to fund provides worse service than is available in America after you wait longer than you'd have to in America. The average wait times in Canada are even longer. Certain maritime provinces have an average wait time for surgery of over 18 weeks. That's unheard of in the United States.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u Such wait times are not unheard of in the US, and would only be for non-urgent conditions in the UK. Present with something urgent enough, and they operate same day. As there are nearly as many US citizens who can't afford or can't get health insurance as the entire UK population, wait times for non-urgent surgery is hardly the issue. Elsewhere, I've read her absurd claims about NHS healthcare denial. You are WAY more likely to be denied treatment by US insurers.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Healthcare insurers do this because insurance is a risk pool; everybody pays into it, and the people who don't get sick cover the costs of those who do. If they allow people who are more likely to become sick into the pool, then the costs either go up for everybody, or those certain people have to pay more to cover their increased likelihood of needing something out of the pool. That's just common sense, and I see no reason to do it any other way.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u Also, her describing US healthcare as "the world's finest" is de facto lying about healthcare in most of the develped world, which gives most people access to at least as good healthcare at significantly lower cost.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt It wasn't a lie. In terms of the quality of care provided, the US is the best in the world. The reason for this is because healthcare providers compete for patients, which is a key element missing from state-run healthcare systems that leads to declining quality and rising costs as time goes on. The costs of providing healthcare in other countries is not actually lower. Essentially the govt forces people who can afford healthcare to pay for those who can't. It's a terrible system.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u And - I repeat - I've lived over there and am still in touch with plenty of US friends, so I can equally claim that you're lying or have been lied to. It's not a matter of insurers summarily "dropping you" - although they'll do that if prolonged litigation is cheaper - but of your becoming less insurable as you become sicker. Which amounts to the same thing.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Okay, listen. You insure them. Yeah, let a bunch of elderly sick people pay you a premium each month, and whenever any of them require medical attention of any kind, you pay for it out of the money that they all paid you to begin with. You're going to have to charge them a lot more than you would younger, healthier citizens in order to cover the costs of paying for their care, but if they need healthcare more often then they should expect to be paying more in aggregate. Go on, do it.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u Single payer is risk pooling. With perfect knowledge, private insurance premiums would perfectly match individual risk, defeating the purpose of risk pooling altogether.
And everyone elses' healthcare is cheaper per procedure, per drug and frequently with superior outcomes. That's according to The world Health Organisation and everyone who's studied it - except rightwing think tanks sponsored by insurers.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Right, but private insurers don't have perfect knowledge of what's going to happen in the future. All they do is handle other people's risks. Car insurance companies charge higher premiums if you're more likely to be in an accident, but the purpose of car insurance hasn't been defeated. The World Health Organization has never produced the results you allude to unless you're thinking of a now ten year old index they made ranking countries by equality of care wherein the US came in 37th.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u They don't have to have perfect knowledge for their scheme to be antithetical to risk pooling. Unless single-payer, premiums are either proportionate to any insuree's treatment cost, in which case there is no risk pooling, or disproportionate which is unfair. Furthering your analogy, it punishes people for illness as car insurance punishes dangerous drivers.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt They take certain factors into account when determining your fee. Just as male drivers pay car insurance companies more than female drivers, so elderly people pay health insurance companies more than younger people. Just as car insurance premiums rise when you're in a car accident or charged with a DUI, so health insurance premiums rise when you're diabetic or have asthma. If everyone paid the same, female drivers' premiums would go up whenever a male driver registered for car insurance.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u The difference being that the moral hazard of DUI and diabetes are opposite, yet your insurers punish for illness.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt What moral hazard? People who have had a DUI are more likely to require reimbursement. Diabetes are more likely to require reimbursement. Find a common average and charge those people more. This isn't anything complicated.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u Yes, and if Prince Charles were the sole recipient of all UK healthcare resources, we'd have the worlds best healthcare in that sense. But it would still be a lie to say ours was the best healthcare system, because we'd have 50 odd million without healthcare - like you have.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt There aren't 50 million people in the US without access to healthcare. The people who can afford it receive the best in the world. People who can't afford healthcare aren't entitled to it. Just because a few people can't afford something doesn't mean that we should drag the rest of society down with them with red tape and bureaucratic premiums until the care is of such poor quality that even the lowest class can afford it. That's small-scale communism by every meaning of the word.
4gl2u 1 year ago
Another rich person that's pissed off that their taxes are going up because god-forbid less well off people need health insurance too.
Oh I wonder if her health insurance paid for that face lift?
rs09985 1 year ago
@rs09985 Health insurance doesn't pay for face lifts, and vilifying anyone wealthier than you is an ignorant non-argument.
4gl2u 1 year ago
according to WHO, the US is way down the list of health care for developed countries. Why do these people keep saying its the best in the world? Its not... unless you're wealthy.
chatelaine19 1 year ago
@chatelaine19 The index you're referring to is ten year olds and wasn't even intended to measure the quality of care being delivered to the people. One of the key factors in determining a country's position on that list is equality of care, meaning that the closer France's best care is to France's worse care, the higher France will place on the list. It has little to do with healthcare outcomes, where France is nowhere NEAR being number one, nor were they anywhere close when that was published.
4gl2u 1 year ago
watch?v=SFEnbRt-4FE
American student from Alaska and her mesh with the British health system....
hauskalainen 1 year ago
Ok, seriously, can someone explain to me why people in America are so against Universal Healthcare? I live in a country (Australia) with Universal Healthcare (two tiered private and public system), and I have no problem with it whatsoever. I hear my American friends talking about the US system, and it just astounds me. I can't help thinking 'Why on earth would anyone put up with that?' So help me out here, explain to me why the US shouldn't head towards Universal Healthcare?
ceke72 1 year ago
@ceke72 If Obama proposed a Swiss System, I think most people would want it, which is private, but universal. And frankly, it is one of the best in the world. Not exactly to my classical liberal liking, but it is better than the third party payer system we have now.
Gyrode 1 year ago
@Gyrode See my reply to that point below.
OmegaRage 1 year ago
@ceke72 I'm Aussie too. Our health care system is great. But only because we are a population of 22 million people and 8 states and territories. If the solution for America, a country of 300 million people and 50 states was simply to adopt our system, I am sure they would have already done it by now. But they won't because the two systems they already have that are publicly funded and free, Medicaid and Medicare are are heading for insolvency and will be bankrupt by 2019.
OmegaRage 1 year ago
This law is horrible and unconstitutional! we must repeal it right away and then fix the problems with our current system. If I wanted free HC then I would move to a country that has it. This is America and the majority of Americans DO NOT want this! Guess what- We the PEOPLE rule AMERICA and we need to go back to this simple concept!!!!
Stopandthinkforamin 1 year ago
Sally Pipes is NOT a Canadian. She is passing on horribly bad information on how healthcare works in Canada. She is speaking as a CEO of a Corporate "think tank" and not as a person who knows the Canadian healthcare system.
ThisBoyTV 1 year ago
Don't repeal and replace. Repeal repeal repeal!!!
Joemantler 1 year ago
It infuriates me that the dems RAMMED health insurance reform down our throats and then won't even mention it in there reelection campaigns.
Back room deal, union kick backs, no CSPAN in the room, NO bi-partisan support, wasted a year not getting American's back to to work, $2,000,000,000+ trillion dollar price tag, divide the country, its more unpopular than ever, it's a 1099 nightmare for small business, 30+ house dems against it and rising, 20 states suing, cost going up...
jumpwedge 1 year ago
I don't understand why American ppl are so dead-set against public health care. I live in Canada & free health care isn't such a bad thing.
I don't remember hearing too many of these 'fiscal conservatives' saying anything when their govt decided to spend trillions on unnecessary wars.
steviebdiesel 1 year ago
@steviebdiesel First, Americans are the world's medical innovators. Second, more Americans have more medical choice & more speedy access to medical care under the old system than anywhere in the world.
The whole world will suffer when ObamaCare guts US medical R&D in order to focus US medicine on bureaucratic parceling of care. We will rue the day we chose bureaucratic rationing over patient & physician empowerment and speed of access that ordinary Americans have benefited from for so long.
eliezerberry 1 year ago
I have a 4 point plan. 1) Torte reform to reduce defensive medicine, which costs billions each year. 2) Hold generic medication production to the same standards as the parent drugs instead of allowing a 45% wiggle room for bioavailabity, making it safer to use generic drugs. 3) Reduce mandates and allow shopping for insurance across state lines. 4) Encourage health savings accounts, balanced by high deductable "disaster insurance." People will be more selective if they see the money they spend.
norabst 1 year ago
This is literally turning into the best channel on youtube. Awesome work Reason!
pinegrove33 1 year ago
Health care is a service, and should be treated as such. Get insurance companies out of the conversation all together when it comes to routine check-ups and non-emergency medical procedures. I don't understand how this is so hard to grasp. Health care can only be "fixed" when people start viewing it as another business and not as an entitlement.
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861 You're right, the two big issues with health insurance in the US is third party paying and employer subsidy...all at the behest of the federal government! The ONLY reason why countries such as Canada can have a functioning socialized system is due to debt on the government account, and they import the technology, innovation is expensive. If there are innovative companies, they get most of their revenue from the US.
Gyrode 1 year ago
The wealthy Banker Elite have private doctors they don't care about the greatest Health Care System in the world "AMERICA". They want the worlds population reduced and destroying the only free best healthcare system in the world definitely meets their agenda. Get ready for hard times American's these elite bankers will not stop until you are dead or they are.
ParaBlood 1 year ago
It is still unpopular by a spread of some 13 points. We can de-fund it!
Wormtail81 1 year ago 8
She said: "It will take a lot of will power and very strong leader"
Sounds like we're screwed.
nick10463 1 year ago
First we all learned the USA has no respect nor gives any value, to the lives of those who are not as them: Afganistan, Irak, Vietnam, Corea, Nicaragua… long etc.
Now we learn it was not regarding those not as them, is they do not respect life, since they rather see their own people die, than take care of them.
They will drive a Porsche wile next door they have someone dying, in the name of freedom. Please keep that shit freedom in your limits, sad people.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito If I'm successful enough to own a Porsche, why should I feel an obligation to take care of my sick neighbor? It's not my fault that he/she is sick. It's also not my fault that they aren't successful enough to take care of themselves. Nobody should have the right to take away what's mine because they think otherwise.
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861 Money is not yours, you just have it at this moment (this would be long argument, I'm not against capital, but there are limits), what we are talking about is basic needs, not luxury.
Health and LIFE is a need, a Posche or a pool are luxury, and are not real needs.
To have luxury wile your mates are in need of the most basic thing as helth, is inmoral.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito If you look at the TOTAL taxes in Spain, our poor in the US receive more net income and benefits than in Spain. Not only consumption taxes are higher, income taxes are steeper, and gas taxes are much higher in Spain. It makes NO sense why the PM of Spain couldn't put deductibles on everyone's health account based on income, to stop the waits for care. If you are middle class, you SHOULD pay a portion of your surgery directly!
Gyrode 1 year ago
@Gyrode That is what they are talcking of doing in Spain, copaid helath for those who can afford it. Waiting lists are the real issue, not what this lady is saying at the video, you do get the best health in public hospitals (example: some diagnostic machines are way to expensive for a private hospital to purchase them, since it would not be rentable: state does purchase them, since benefit is not their goal)
I personaly have private insurance, so I pay for helthcare I do not use mself.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito Good then, because third party paying is such price inflator.
Gyrode 1 year ago
@Gyrode I'm no socialist, so I do not believe the state should take care of redistribution of all wealth.
I just support the state taking care of those perversions of the free market that are inhuman. To let someone die due to them not being able to afford health do to economics, is inhuman.
The hypocrisy I see in the USA is that State spends billions in Army to protect, while they let their citizens die... if protecting your life=health is not state duty, WTF are they doing with the marines
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito Most of the perversions of the free market are caused by legislation, not individuals in commerce. But yeah, of course, in the US, you cannot deny care in public hospitals and medical centers,and ALL hospitals are required to accept patients...but at any rate, the third party payer system and employer subsidy is the root cause of inflated prices in the US.
Gyrode 1 year ago
@Gyrode You might not have space to explain me your point, but I do not agree with it untill someone tells me wrong. I believe inflated prices are more due to insurance companies, not state intervention. State emploies have a fix salary, in Spain you have the option to work for private, or for the state. Doctors who want to get rich, do not work for the state, since they have a fix salary.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito I am specifically talking about the US. In the US, employer plans are subsidized. I buy private insurance, and I miss out on the employer based tax benefits....it affects the perception of price, and how much insurance you buy. Of course, if you subsidize insurance for a certain portion of the population (about 63%), with no regard to income tests, prices rise, and the companies take advantage of it!
Gyrode 1 year ago
@Gyrode By this I do not mean the bad doctors work for the state and good ones for private companies. Is more a matter of ethics and willing to have a more stable and fix work (one of the bad things about this state intervention, is that goverment employes are for life, they can not be fired), that is bad and good, since I believe they should be trated as any other in that regard, but you do get many seeking that stability.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito When I say steeper, I mean the higher brackets happen at relatively lower incomes.
Gyrode 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito Anything given to a person, through trade or otherwise is his property, money and Porsche included. People are always going to be "in need." What's immoral, is forcibly taking what's mine to accommodate those people. If health is a need that must be managed by government, do you support dietary mandates as well?
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861 There are basic needs for life that should not be let to the free market that is based in economics and not humanity.
As per your criteria, you should let many die if they are not strong... that is the jungle law, I personaly do not buy it, I belive we are better than Lions.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito Well if you think that no person will voluntarily give what they have to help someone they value, then it looks like you are the one who thinks that we are no better than the animals. It is the taking, by force, of one's property to give to another that more closely resembles barbarism.
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861 I dont see anyone up to pay a homeless person health bills by free will.
I'm an Anarchist, so actually, what you say is my utopia, that people should do so by free will, we are jet to be so educated as to beheave as so. And the issue is that people do not value those who are not close realtives, and show no empathy for the rest: you rather have the neighbour die wile you keep your porsche, since you think that needy person has nothing to do with you: JFYI he does
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito What does the needy person that holds no value to me, as an individual, have to do with me? If they ask for help, I should be able to reasonably and objectively decide whether or not I want to help them, voluntarily. Anarchy would be the ideal. Unfortunately, people do not act morally, and therefore laws based on morality must be enforced by some form of state to protect the liberty of the individual.
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861 I’m assuming you are a libertarian, so we are not that far away at a philosophical level. Never the less, I’m an anarchist, so my difference is that I do not support/relay much on the free market and capitalism as you. You are mentioning in the same paragraph, someone not holding value to you, and laws being moral needed. Life itself has value, and therefore all humans are worth your help, so yes, it needs to be reinforced. That is the moral thing, share health care.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito I would argue that it is not morally right to help someone in need, nor is it immoral to not help the needy- this is our main disagreement. It is, however, unquestionably immoral to forcibly take that which is not yours (even if it fulfills a perceived greater good). That is exactly the reason why laws are in place to prevent individuals from stealing from one another. Do they somehow gain legitimacy by banding together to steal (as in the form of government entitlement programs)?
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861 No right is ilimited, I place the right to live over the right to posses any good/money. Capitalism takes away many oportunities to those who are not born within a social status and with an education, so capitalism is not perfect, and needs goverment. The Hypocrit thing I see in all this, is that it seams like USA is OK with the sate taking care of their protection, as long as that means Army, but wen it means taking care o the life of it's own people.... go die in the name of free market
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito Nobody is suggesting that people should not have the right to live. Also, nobody is born with an education... People DO have a right to health care access- not free health care, because as I said earlier, it's a service.. I wasn't specifically talking about the state's role to protect the individual from foreign invaders (even though that is part of their job). I was more referring to their passing and enforcing laws that prohibit immoral behavior (intentionally harming someone).
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861 Education I meant access to so (In USA how much is to go to College?, is just for ritch, hear is for free:, I paid 450 US$ per year: European "socialists" ;-D).
Acccess to helath care if it means you need money, money you dont have access to, since you could not pay for your edcation, since you had no money to start rom, is the same, you do not have access to helath.
State only duty, is to protec, the rest, is interfering were they should not.
Health for me is protecting your life.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito The topic of whether or not everyone can and, therefore, should go to college is a conversation for another day.. If the government is so hell-bent on "fixing" health-care then they should do so by trying to make it more affordable- encouraging small practices and reasonably priced private non-emergency clinics, not by expanding people's dependency on medical insurance and hospitals for their every ailment.
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861I do not enter that argument of HOW to apply it (probably many options, none perfect), but it is evident there is something very wrong with USA access to health, as it is set up. It's ridiculous the amount of money you pay for a doctor, and inmoral how so many do not have access to it.
It looks incongruent so much buzz about this spend, while you spend billions in an army that should not cost all those resources to protect you. Just pass some of the budget for killing into saving lives
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@d0861 You dont need to increase any taxing, is just to spend in the real needs, and stop spending in nosense.
And you can afford by far healthcare.
How much do you found Israel so we all get to hate USA?... JFYI that is why you get terrorist atacks and reason why you enter new wars, and spend in more protecion, to protect you from your own policies.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@d0861 "It is, however, unquestionably immoral to forcibly take that which is not yours": on your words, Zionism is inmoral, pretending control over petrol in MidEast is inmoral. So WTF are you spending your taxes on?
Go home, take care of your people, and be wealthy and happy in peace with the rest. Who the F gave you permision to the the world wide police, noone thanks you for so, and that is the real cost you are assuming that does not let you take care of your people.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito I don't agree, at all, with the U.S. foreign policy of interventionism and nation building. Believe me, if I could opt out of paying taxes to fund the IDF and illegal wars in the Middle East, I would. I'd also opt out on the countless entitlement programs that I will never use. Our goal should be peace, commerce and friendship with all nations.
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861 I do get the picture about your foreign policy ideas, and I wish libertarians had more a say than they do in today USA politics (for sure it will be best for all), not only for this issue, but also for your own (just imagine how much money you would be able to reinvest in what really matter for your people).
We have kinf of the same problem over in most places, democrat/republican (although our republicans would be socialist for you)... still, they are all the same, and do not represent
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@d0861 do you know what is the littel english everyone knows in Europe, and world wide: "Yamkis go home!", I think there was a wise president in USA that once said that in order to be you, you should stop any foreign intervention.... I think he was correct.
That is yuor "killer", you do not have the money to control the world, and you plan on doing so with weapons.... keep it on, it does not work, is evident.
Spend the money in your people, give them helath, instead of killing others.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
i live in canada and i have never had a problem with my healthcare
its good for the people who cant afford healthcare
jamariogoon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FORTUNATELY the new Republican House (& maybe senate) is going to follow the will of the people (polls & election results) and GUT obamacare. They don't have to repeal it, they can simply de-fund it and its gone.
That's why: VOTE REPUBLICAN on NOVEMBER 2nd!
I know, I know, I'm a racist-homophobe-Islamophobe-idiot. Let me beat you to the punch. Disagree with a dem & they just call you names.
It couldn't possibly be disagreeing because I have a well thought out position.
jumpwedge 1 year ago
Medicare is a system that works pretty well. We should have medicare for all. Get rid of insurance companies all together.
gero1369 1 year ago
@gero1369 Under its current budget, Medicare will be bankrupt in 6-8 years.
d0861 1 year ago
Do a websearch for,
How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis
Medical Insurance that Worked — Until Government "Fixed" It
by Roderick T. Long
Buffalo122333 1 year ago 5
Maybe that crazy Ron Paul guy can help
rubanban5 1 year ago
If the republicans take over, I'd be very unhappy and I think many others will as well. There'd be an instant back-lash and the country will be in completely worse shape than it is now.
gero1369 1 year ago
@gero1369 ...LOL, go get in line for your microchip you liberal beast worshipper.
erikthered9 1 year ago 2
WTF is she talking about? 'Going to Paris on a vacation', 'Spending $6 on a f*cking coffee'? I'd like to know who does those things and complains about how much they spend on healthcare, unless they are a business owner or self-employed. She is way out of touch.
Healthcare should be a right, as with anything there should be rules.
gero1369 1 year ago
@gero1369 "Healthcare should be a right, as with anything there should be rules."
You are a total fucking moron and you have no idea what a "right" is. Healthcare is no more a goddamn right than than food or shelter.
MagnusIan 1 year ago
For the amount spent by the Gov't on healthcare, we should, far and away, have the best system in the world. We (the US) spends much, much more on healthcare than any other country.
gero1369 1 year ago
The US is far from the best healthcare system in the world.
gero1369 1 year ago 3
Everyone in this video was ugly and I don't want to believe what they say.
vegasOasis 1 year ago
Regardless of what system you have, not everyone will get all the health care they want or even necessarily the health care they need. Whether the state distributes it or you have to pay out of pocket or sign up for a plan, you won't always have access to everything. Regardless of who decides what care you get or don't get, that's rationing. I would rather have the government do the rationing 'cause if I can't pay or afford a plan, the government can provide care at a deficit, and an HMO can't.
TheMessianicManic 1 year ago
we have a right to own guns, but that doesn't mean the government has to buy every American citizen a gun.
we have a right to free speech, but we still have to write it ourselves.
SuperAtheist 1 year ago 3
Obamacare was rammed through congress with extortion and bribery and other corruption. Over 60% of Americans do not want it. It needs to be repealed, defunded or whatever makes it die.
averagejoe040 1 year ago 7
Who goes to the hell goes to Indianapolis for a vacation? See, she is a wingnut. Ignore her.
poonhounds2 1 year ago
watch?v=TdcaLReCG3Y
watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw
cooperbry 1 year ago
>approximately six minutes
>8:07
El3ctricPenguin 1 year ago
I dislike a lot about the leftist policies in my home of Canada, but I feel that the healthcare system is one of the...least awful, let's say, of the bunch. It is really not as monolithic as Pipes suggests, and definitely in Ontario, where I live, it's more than satisfactory.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago 2
@InfernalApocalypse
The opinion of one individual is meaningless. The "health care system" is a very big one with diverse users and diverse procedures. Secondly, health care costs are increasing dramatically for Provincial governments, leaving less for others.
Chainedorlo 1 year ago
@Chainedorlo: This is, as far as I recall, a forum for voicing the opinions of an individual. However 'meaningful' that opinion is kind of moot.
As for the rising costs of provincial healthcare, I scarcely see how private institutions would not suffer from the same constraints. The fact remains that despite the fact that users are concerned about costs, their opinions on the quality of service continues to be fairly positive.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
@InfernalApocalypse
I was only responding to your claim for support of a system when their is only one opinion on it based on some experiences. No, under a market, the most likely outcome is that quality would increase and price would decrease , if this "market" is told how to operate, then it's a facade, much like the U.S.
Chainedorlo 1 year ago
@Chainedorlo: First of all, I made it clear that I was stating an opinion about how satisfactory the system has been for me. I can't speak for anyone else, and I don't deign to. Secondly, re: the nature of the system, there is no denying that quality varies from province to province. Personally, I agree that Canada should have private practices, but I'm not enough of an expert on healthcare economics to make a decision for or against fully private healthcare.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
@InfernalApocalypse I totally agree, sure its not perfect, but it never failed me.
vesman81 1 year ago
@InfernalApocalypse Yeah, because they have socialized the debt of the "Health Canada" budget....that debt will come back in the form of a bill, and YOU will have to pay for it!
Gyrode 1 year ago
@Gyrode: I was unaware that private practices do not charge money for the use of their services.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
@InfernalApocalypse Of course they do, all I am saying is every socialized system has debt, and only people can hold debt, ultimately.
Gyrode 1 year ago
@Gyrode: Fair enough.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
Insurance companies already ration care. I'd rather have a non-profit system with a lower operating costs, i.e., Medicare. If you want more care than that, pay for it yourself. The government's not stopping you.
martyyu 1 year ago
@martyyu Medicare DOES NOT have lower operating costs when you include the debt. Socialism does not work. The problem in the US is employer subsidy and third party paying.
Gyrode 1 year ago
@Gyrode Please explain how a private insurer beholden to their investors would have lower operating costs than those government entities who otherwise unencumbered. Where are the data that contradict the nonpartisan CBO's assessment of Medicare? Medicare might have problems but operating costs are not among them. Socialism doesn't work? How do you like your socialized police and fire departments? Should we privatize those institutions?
martyyu 1 year ago
@martyyu Classic socialism, or the government control of the factors of pruduction don't work. Other forms of socialization in fact hinder economic progress. But again, those programs you mentions are direct services paid by property taxes. It would be better if we could introduce competition, but that is not happening. Again, if you have third party paying and employer subsidy perversing an insurance market beholden to shareholders, yes, prices will rise.
Gyrode 1 year ago
@Gyrode We have private companies beholden to investors making food, appliances, and all our needs like technology...the system works. You are confusing the health insurance market as free. No, it is hindered by federal laws that encourage third party paying and employer subsidy. Normal doctor visits are not insurance worthy!
Gyrode 1 year ago
Sally Pipes was wrong - America's health care system was not the best in the world; it was terrible. Deductibles, co-pays, pre-existing conditions, rescission, and the world's highest premiums are not the hallmarks of a good system. The new plan (calling it "Obamacare" is ridiculous, since Obama bent over for every industry lobbyist that came his way - insurance, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, etc) will make the system worse, but socialism isn't the problem. Corruption is.
sharrynuk 1 year ago
@sharrynuk Hey dipshit, that is not the "healthcare system" that is the insurance system, before government stuck it's mitts in and pushed employers to be the providers of insurance, you did not need insurance to afford healthcare. My birth in 1975 without insurance costed all of $75 out of pocket.
jkessler410 1 year ago
@sharrynuk You must understand that the problems in the US deal with employer subsidies and third party paying, not what you describe. Now, also, just because you are for free enterprise, doesn't mean you support the insurance industry's narrow, short term interest. Socialism is the problem, in a nutshell, because socialism provides disincentives for production....if you where right, then NONE of these national plans should have debt.
Gyrode 1 year ago
4:18
Change the word government to health insurance company. Notice any difference?
Yeah me neither...
vesman81 1 year ago
I'm Canadian and I never once had an issue with my health care. Not once ever.
vesman81 1 year ago
@vesman81
right, but some ppl really get fucked. and it's totally avoidable
johncrazy8s 1 year ago
@johncrazy8s Under what health care system will No One get fucked?
vesman81 1 year ago
@vesman81 lol true. im just saying we should improve upon our health care system, not completely change it. our health care system really isn't broken. and more than that, gov health care won't help the ppl that are already getting fucked, it's just gonna screw over the middle class.
johncrazy8s 1 year ago
@vesman81 IS that why your canadian politician came to the U.S.A. to have heart surgery ? Or is it he had soo much faith in your health care system ?
tracycolorado 1 year ago
@tracycolorado how many American's come to Canada for cheap drugs? It's a two way street. All i can say is that in my life, my wife's life, my mom and dad and my brothers and sister... all have had good experiences with health care. The most i hear people complain about is the cost of parking.
I've had ekg's mri's and heart tests, none of which I had to wait very long for, 3 weeks at the most.
why should i not have faith in it? it never failed me or anyone i know.
vesman81 1 year ago
Yes, they have to pass the bill "to know what's in it", because it's SOOO hard to read a fucking bill on your free time. Of course, with the ridiculous legalese and complex language in Congressional bills, I can kind of understand why someone would dread going through 2700 pages of that bullshit. However, why can't we enact a law that says that ALL bills must be written in plain English? And no bill will be over 50 or 100 pages. Surely you can get your message across just fine with 50-100.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Isn't or wasn't there a bill on the floor (or at least proposed by groups like Downsize DC) called the Write the Bills Act that would do JUST THAT?
whoo689 1 year ago
did everyone forget that the states... most states had/has some form of health care for people who can't afford it.. this is not the role of the Federal Government... stop drinking the Fed kool-aid.... and WTF, people aren't denied health care... stop drinking the kool-aid.. funny little sheep
dezldummi 1 year ago
What if the libertarians win the congress and the white house do you think we can shut down 2/3 of Washington.
cdltpx 1 year ago
We don't have the best health care system in the world. Unless she's talking about France or Germany, that statement is wrong.
jackdav34 1 year ago
@jackdav34 I'm pretty sure she said we have the best "health care", not the best 'health care system", which is a fact.
BillySmooth55 1 year ago
@jackdav34 We have the best health care system in the world, we are an engine for medical innovation, but we have the worst insurance setup, with third party paying, and employer subsidy, encouraged by Federal policy....and this HAS NOT changed with the new health bill.
Gyrode 1 year ago
@Gyrode I never defended the health care bill. I merely said it is demonstrably false that we have the best health care system. Compare our health outcomes to, say, France and we look bad—despite spending much more than anyone else on h.c. T.R. Reid has agreat book and DVD on this subject (forget title).
jackdav34 1 year ago
@jackdav34 But we do. The health insurance setup is what creates all the inflated spending, due to third party paying and employer subsidy. The relatively free product markets aren't at fault, its the perversely regulated insurance market. In fact, we subsidize other countries. Like in Canada, drug prices are set by fiat, so a Swiss company like Roche gets most of their revenue, not from price controlled Europe, but US!
Gyrode 1 year ago
Of course is a right: the only duty of a state is to protect its citizens, if protecting their lives is not so, WTF is it?… if you are sick and cannot afford a hospital, you die.
Or is it that protection means sending armies abroad wile your people die home O.O!
This is obscene and hypocrite lies, nothing more: disgusting.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
Obamacare is slavery. That is a fact.
You cannot have a right to someone else's labor.
kamikazee55 1 year ago 14
@kamikazee55 "Fact"???
This is not "a right over someone else's labour".
Let’s place an example: security is as health (you protect the lives of your citizens).
As per your logic, you are slavering all US army members since Marines are not a private corporation, and as if they were not free to go to a security agency as many do, and work as freelance warriors.
Explain that "slavery fact", is no sense and a lie
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito Saying that one has a right to healthcare says that one has a right to another mans labor.
1. You must steal it from one man to pay for it.
or
2. If you choose not to steal it from a 3rd party, then you must force the doctor to treat the patient.
Either way, slavery is the method.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito So yes, the fucked up power hungry U.S. army enslaves people.
To pay for it, money must be stolen. Stealing the product(money) of ones labor, is no different than stealing their labor. -Slavery-
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55 So, if you do not want state to interfere in security, neither health, nor taxing, as you are augmenting that means slavery for whom you tax... anarchy is your only sincere solution.
Guess not, since you as this lady are selfish hypocrites, since Anarchy is based in empathy and sharing, and if so, the people who need, would take away your exceeding to cover their need, and then you would ask a state to protect your private property, slaverng under your convenience only ;-D
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito Actually no. I am no anarchist. There should be no taxation. It should all be by voluntary pay. If you want police services, then you will donate. If you do not pay, then you will not receive the benefits. Quite a simple system.
And there is nothing wrong with selfishness. The standard you set of 'need' is a standard of slavery. Men do not exist for the sake of other men. They exist as ends in themselves.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55 You are an anarchist amigo, voluntary taxpaying is free will and not government (without resources, government cannot do anything, and you are saying that collecting this resources is slavery and wrong).
You are against government in all your argumentations, and show 0 empathy for your equals, as you see "nothing wrong with selfishness".
JFYI: there is much wrong about being selfish, you are sad, to love is to share and to be yourself you need so, or be a miserable outsider.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito I am not an anarchist. I believe that the government can use force. Only against those who have initiated force though. And voluntarily paying for government benefits is not anarchy.
Selfishness is bad? And why is that? Men do not exist as tools to be used by others. They exist for their own sake. You are the disease of this world. I owe absolutely fucking nothing to you or anyone else.
Anarchy is communism.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55 I am an anarchist myself, so that is not the issue or my argument, nothing wrong with it.
Is the selfish part, the lies, and being a hypocrite, that I find obscene and disgusting.
This lady in the video is just telling a bunch of lies. I have Social Healthcare, and is nothing as she is saying, and she knows so, so she is a hypocrite.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito And don't fucking call me a hypocrite without backing it up. Where have I lied? You stupid fucking idiot.
You are truly disgusting. Don't come on here acting as if you know anything.
The lady is not telling a bunch of lies. Everything that the government runs is a complete mess. Above that though, it is immoral. It is slavery. It forces people to be charitable by enslaving them. I do not exist and produce for others, but for myself.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55 Immoral is to let your equals die if they cannot afford a hospital, and that is being selfish.
If being selfish in this matter is OK with you, and you are going to argue this, is not immorality, is not only you are a hypocrite, is that you are evil.
Take a valium, and get a soul and a hart.
The lady LIES, social health care doesn’t ever mean you won’t be able to get a medical treatment of your will what so ever. Private hospitals will still exist.
The issue is GREED.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@fitobcnfito No it is not. They are not my equals. I do not exist to be sacrificed for them. If I choose to help the guy that can't afford a hospital, then that is fine, but to force me to is to enslave me to him.
Secondly, LEARN WTF HYPOCRITE MEANS YOU GOD DAMNED IDIOT.
And greed is not a bad thing. Greed is wanting more. Would you consider wanting more a bad thing? You may say that only a certain amount of greed is okay, but then it becomes trivial, not based on principle.
kamikazee55 1 year ago