Universal Healthcare Debate 7: Michael Cannon (7/12)

[MsZeitgeist85]

This Crackpot doesn't even know that the private insurance in other countrys are not he same as the for profit models here which are illegal in other countrys.

There is no such thing as a free market in health care.

[macroman52]

He and Krugman should slug it out - they both should know what they are talking about.

[indoctus41]

Cannon's logic: Gov't can't control costs because the industry won't let them. Was that a slip or is he just being honest? You mean those who really make the decisions sit in the board rooms of the giant corps and the gov't is powerless against them? Wow. Guess that's the end of democracy in the US.

[syghur]

@wvguy8258 That's due to your ignorance of libertarian values. Or the economic philosophies that fuel the values.

[SuperGuitarman69]

@wvguy8258 I am conservative. But Libertarians WILL be the second party. The democrats are done, cooked, over. They can't debate with American values. Libertarians and Conservatives and Some but very few Blue Dog dem's have the right approach. Obama has ruined it for Democrats and drove many independants to Libertarianism. That's a good thing. Many things the Libertarians believe are very very strong.

[johndoe77774444]

Medicare penalizes electronic record keeping?! Im a pharmacist and can honestly say I"ve never heard of such a thing.

[phrankin]

he is saying universal coverage will bring more people into a broken system, of course it will! what is the alternative, not healing them at all!

[xcookiemonster88]

Search for Albert Einstein and Socialism.

[savemyplaylist]

Yeah and he didn't believe in quantum physics which he ended up being incorrect about. Humans make mistakes.

[allgoo19]

vorbeig: "1. I didn't say that.."

1)You don't call it a waiting time. It's called schedule. Of course some treatments are time crucial than others.

2)Doctors decide which and whose treatment is priority by public insurance. Now it's decided by insurance companies which one hurts their wallet most.

3)Of course there's always waiting time called schedule. It's no different than privates.

4)Don't twist the way I said.

5)It's about failure of communism. Health care is working at other places

[mangravy2000]

We need another debate with the people against giving alternative solutions. All people talk about its Canada and England. Well lets have a show called "Pick a country Pick a plan".

[treid100182]

Its funny, the profit puppets are freakin out! This guy delivers a terrible speech using ersatz statistics.

[allgoo19]

None of the anti-national health care speakers are from medical fields?

Is this a co-incident?

[vorbeigehende]

Ron/Rand Paul are good counterexamples

[allgoo19]

vorbeigehende: "Ron/Rand Paul are .."

2/3 of doctors and nurses support health care reform and they don't get paid by the lobbyists. One example doesn't tell a whole story

Ron Paul is a part physician, a part politician, he gets paid by the lobbyists.

Use commonsense.

[vorbeigehende]

doctors are special interest group / lobbyists

[allgoo19]

vorbeigehende: "doctors arespecial.."

They are separated from insurance industry. They may represent medical industry but not for the insurance industry.

Actually their interests more often contradict than meet.

Individual doctors nor AMA are not lobbyists for insurance industry.

[vorbeigehende]

I didn't say that they represent the insurance industry. Moreover, doctors and insurance industry are antagonist.

That is the reason why they will prefer

state run health care.

[allgoo19]

vorbeigehende: "I didn't say that they represent.."

So?

What point are you trying to make? Is Ron Paul should be seen as a doctor rather than a politician bought by a lobbyist? Isn't that your original point?

By the way, 2 of 3 speakers against health care reform are representative from lobbying firm which is funded 100% by the industry. Another is a conservative pundit partly paid by the industry.

[vorbeigehende]

your point was:

firstly,

politicians are in favour of private insurance model because they ALL are lobbyists of insurance industry,

get money from them and don't protect the interest of the public

and secondly,

"2/3 of doctors and nurses support health care reform and they don't get paid by the lobbyists"

The point I'm trying to make is that although doctors aren't paid by insurance companies, they have and protect their own interest and not the interest of the public.

[allgoo19]

vorbeigehende: "Your point was.."

Why you think doctors and nurses support the health care reform then? What you think their interests are?

[vorbeigehende]

insurance companies have a vast interest in bringing the cost down.

(the less it costs the more they can leave to themselves)

They are trying to hold the doctors accountable (it's their money!)

The government doesn't have this incentive. A bureaucrat always have the same fixed salary. It's not their money.

[vorbeigehende]

now about doctors

we can divide them in two categories

greedy and humane.

The first category doesn't like insurance

companies because of their cost control (you can charge too high prices)

The second category wants to help everyone. Art Kellermann is a good example. But someone needs to pay for it.

And if you don't have a wachtdog the costs will explode / or (that's pretty much the same) you will have rationing.

[vorbeigehende]

The choice between market/rationing

is a preference issue. It's NOT debatable

[allgoo19]

vorbeighende: "insurance companies have.."

"Interest in bringing down the cost", is this a joke? Cost down by denying the treatment for sure.

Google by "united healthcare profits doubled"

"Premiums Increase 119 Percent from 1999-2008"

"sickforprofit stephen hemsley"

And you say they cut the cost down?

Where's your proof?

[vorbeigehende]

I didn't say that they are bringing the cost down. I said that they "have a vast interest in bringing the cost down"

My point there was that under government

run HC the costs will inevitably go up.

(because of the moral hazard)

[vorbeigehende]

Now about the current situation.

My point about insurance companies is still valid. There are two more factors

which have a great impact on costs.

The first one is regulation

watch?v=afuekTcSFfM

watch?v=d8hAZUi4BgI

You MUST PAY for thing which you don't need.

The second one is competition.

The same thing -> licensing.

With no competition it's very natural for insurance companies to charge high prices

[allgoo19]

vorbeigehende: " Now about the current situation.."

Is this a comment for me to reply? I guess it is.

Both videos are sponsored advertisement.

"no competition .. companies to charge high prices." True.

Google by, "Health insurance price fixing" It's a monopoly to increase the profit, where government operation is not a monopoly for more profit.

[allgoo19]

vorbeigehende: "I didn't say that they are.."

What kind of *cost down by insurance company* you are talking about? Example?

Cutting the cost down by denying the treatment is ok with you? They even hire specialists to do that and they get bonus if they find a way to deny it.

That won't happen if the government takes over, it's not a profit seeking business. Paying for the treatment is part of the agreement on the policy, unfortunately it's not with private insurance company.

[vorbeigehende]

1. "Both videos are sponsored advertisement." It's despicable.

Both videos state FACTS. if you can deny them do it.

2. The government is not a profit seekeing

business. Of course! That's the point!

The bureaucrats don't care at all what the costs are. And the lobby of health industry will flourish.

[vorbeigehende]

3. But the politicians will never rise prices it's so unpopular. And what you eventually will have is rationing. Long lines. Of course no one will be denied. But for many diseases to wait means to die.

4. Now about price fixing. If you artificially

narrow the market you will have monopolies.

5. Denying treatment. No it's wrong.

But here you can at least can use courts

or try to make a bad publicity for the company. And what can you do in state run monapoly with rationing?

[allgoo19]

vorbeigehende: "3. But the politicians.."

Google by, "Health insurance price fixing",

"Health insurance monopoly",

"UnitedHealth pre existing scam".

You have no idea, how bad the insurance industry as a whole is behaving. It's not something that Fox news airs all the time but you have to search and you'll find it.

All this for 3/4 of a $billion to the CEO?

[allgoo19]

vorbeigehende: "1. "Both videos are.."

Look at the motivations. Only people get benefits by defeating the reform are ones in insurance industry. It's also their goal to hide the facts that they are working behind it. Of course it's hard to prove.

You don't deny that insurance companies spend $millions to defeat it, do you?

When you are dealing with the privates, you are dealing with the profit as part of the cost which public run plan can eliminate.

Why pay unnecessary?

[vorbeigehende]

1. There are many people who are opposed to reform who aren't paid by insurance companies. Those people don't like government to run their lives.

If you have free market yes you can have

bad practices, denial of treatment, unfair prices. But at least there is something you can do (courts, mass media). First of all you can choose and must bear responsibility for your choice. Some people don't like it. Some people are afraid of making bad choices. But this is the essence of freedom.

[vorbeigehende]

2. The basic concept on which we disagree is "government knows best"

just google "Cirila Baltazar Cruz" and tell what you fell. And people from Canada don't even try to dny the rationing.

3. Your point about cost " Why pay unnecessary?" If you have a government run health care you will have bureaucracy.

This bureaucracy will slowly but surely grow. At the end of the day you will be paying for bureaucracs rather than for doctors and drugs

[allgoo19]

vorbeigehende: "2. The basic concept.."

I have heard of "Canadian system is so bad, people come to US by bunch to get treatment." many times. I asked them where they get the information and so far nobody has answered. Can you tell me the source? Rationing is already being done by privates, even worse.

I came from Japan and the health care system is working and I never had to wait more than 5 minutes when I was there. Do you have your own experience that government run insurance doesn't work?

[allgoo19]

voebeigehende: "1. There are many.."

There are many con-fed white men who didn't own slaves but convinced that they should fight for the people who own the salve. Are all the people smart? Of course not!!

What makes you think the government trying to fight the corporate profit is always worse than the corporate which keeps monopoly, price fixed by lobbying?

Government is people, people is the government, we can replace them if we don't like they way they do. We can't with privates.

[vorbeigehende]

1. I didn't say that Canadian system is bad. God/bad is opinion judgement.

Wikipedia states

In the United States, access to health care is primarily determined by whether a person has access to funding to pay for treatment and by the availability of services in the area and by willingness of the provider to deliver service at the price set by the insurer. In Canada the wait time is set according the availability of services in the area and by the relative need of the person needing treatment.

[vorbeigehende]

2. The main point in this quote is "by the relative need". Who will decide whether

you need is big enough?

3. Even Michael Rachlis in this debate doesn't deny that Canada has waiting lines.

4. Your last two sentences are simply contradictory. First you write that government can't handle the lobbying.

Than you somehow assume that government can run health care.

5. Yes, I was born in Soviet Union and have my own experience. Lines, little gifts

to be treated gentle, almighty bureaucracy.

[allgoo19]

vorbei: "1. I didn't say that.."

You forgot to answer this.

"What makes you think the government trying to fight the corporate profit is always worse than the corporate which keeps monopoly, price fixed by lobbying?"

USSR wasn't even people's government(I don't think current Russia either). It works differently here.

Where it says "Government can't handle the lobbying"? It beat others in the past, like tobacco industry.

[vorbeigehende]

1. Because Government is an ULTIMATE monopoly. And as every monopoly unefficient. That's the first, pure economic argumentation. The second one is that I don't like when someone spends my money presumably for my own good.

Just tell me, has government ever done a good job at running something? I mean sustainable things, of course.

2. You said, "corporate which keeps monopoly, price fixed by lobbying?"

As understand it, you admit the failure of the state to handle lobbying.

[allgoo19]

vorbei: "1. Because Government is.."

1)Do you have any idea why monopoly is bad?

2)You do a lot of word twisting, don't you? I'd give a benefit of a doubt it comes from your problem with the language. I would call it negligence by the government but failure, no. You can call it a failure when it's to late to do anything.

By the way, you know that NHC is working at many other countries (may not includes Russia)? They cover everybody and not spending as much?

[vorbeigehende]

1. No (fear of ) competition therefore price fixing and low quality. Have you had a basic microeconomics?

2. "You can call it a failure when it's to late to do anything". With such a reasoning any discussion is meaningless. It's like you're getting a medical treatment and every day you feel yourself worse, but you say it's OK, i'm not death yet.

Ok, what situation would you call failure?

[allgoo19]

vorbei: "1. No (fear of) competition.."

1) Wrong. Government operation can't make profit. If they raise the price, they have to get approval from the government. Quality of the service will be monitored by the government unlike in USSR. What your microeconomic has got to do with this? When private gets the monopoly, price goes up for more profit. That's the utmost goal.

2) When one keeps trying but unable to achieve the goal is not a failure but when one gives up, that's failure.

[allgoo19]

vorbei: "1. No (fear of) competition.."

By the way, there are awful many countries run their health care by the government plan. They are doing what you call "Monopoly". Then why US spends (twice)more money (per GDP) than those countries? Even worse, it's estimated to increase the gap in the future?

[vorbeigehende]

"by the way": You can't compare market costs and government regulated costs. They're simply economic incomparable. For instance, in Soviet Union meat was cheaper that in America. But who cares, you couldn't find meat in SU anyway.

Rationing makes the difference. In this way you can very easy cut the cost of US HC by half: just deny half of treatments every day by rationing ("you must come later") and tax everyone to pay for it.

[vorbeigehende]

1. "What your microeconomic" Because incentives MATTER. Why should bureaucrats do a good job? They always have they same salary, so why should they bother?

2. "The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein. If the goal is unachievable in this way, how many times do you need to try to give up?

[allgoo19]

Vorbei: "1. What your microeconomic.."

1) Bureaucrats can be monitored then voted out, unlike USSR. Bureaucrats don't demand 3/4 of a $billion to run the operation which is a total waste.

2) You just described the situation in US. How many times?

Here's the facts, people go bankrupt because of medical bills, the next could be you. The national medical spending is sky rocketing, one day sooner or later, whole country goes bankrupt.

As many times before that happens.

[allgoo19]

vorbei:

You forgot to answer this. I have been the only one answering your questions. Now it's your turn.

"By the way, there are awful many countries run their health care by the government plan. They are doing what you call "Monopoly". Then why US spends (twice)more money? (per GDP) than those countries? Even worse, it's estimated to increase the gap in the future?"

[xcookiemonster88]

Albert Einstein like Socialism.

[vorbeigehende]

Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot liked Socialism.

[bobdole57]

Albert Einstein was a physicist

[allgoo19]

vorbei: "You cn't compare market costs.."

Of course, a few things were cheaper in USSR because everything else including wages.

Did I tell you I lived in Japan where the things cost most expensive in the world? Medical cost was very cheap and no waiting to see the doctors and had choice which doctors to go to.

Rationing is already taking place in US by the privates far more than the government can ever do, for their profit.

Can't you see it's not free market?

[vorbeigehende]

1. I did answer the question about cost. Read some book about micro (even Krugman will do)

2. The question I really want to answer is about Japan. incredible land. I have no doubts that their HC is very good. But don't you think that it has pretty much to do with japanese mindset? Japanese have very different values than Americans.

[vorbeigehende]

3. about free markets (and Japan).

Free markets have made Japan second biggest world economy. For a country with no natural resources whatsoever it's quite an achievement. The socialist

ideas have caused so called lost decade

and government debt about 170.40% of GDP.

4. Please, don't use Japan as an example which you can apply to US.  Because EVERY JAPANESE KNOWS:

JAPAN IS UNIQUE. ;-)

[allgoo19]

Vorbei: "1. I did answer the.."

1)No, you haven't. If you answered it, it won't be hard to answer again.

4)Japan is not unique, but US is. US is the only major country not having NHC, people go bakrupt because of medical bill. What makes it unique is that it allows far more lobbying than other countries, result in monopoly, price fixing etc. If you haven't checked the link I posted, I'll post it again. You don't pick and chose the info you want.

[vorbeigehende]

1) OK.

"You can't compare market costs and government regulated costs. They're simply economic incomparable. For instance, in Soviet Union meat was cheaper that in America. But who cares, you couldn't find meat in SU anyway.

Rationing makes the difference.

In this way you can very easy cut the cost of US HC by half: just deny half of treatments every day by rationing ("you must come later") and tax everyone to pay for it."

[vorbeigehende]

2) OK. Now we have probably the only one question of principle. Some people

don't want to have the universal health care. Should they anyway be forced to pay for UHC through their taxes?

[vorbeigehende]

please read this (delete the spaces)

theatlantic. com / doc / 200909 / health-care / 1

[allgoo19]

vorbei: "OK, You can't compare.."

Your answer isn't even an answer. It was one size fits all, basically saying, "I don't want to answer that." Of course, you can compare. Just make both available and have people choose one. That's what Obama is trying to do, right?

And how can I make you understand that rationing is already happening by the privates, it's called treatment denial? You think it's not happening? Answer me.

[vorbeigehende]

"Answer me."

Of course, it happens. I don't deny it.

But I don't understand what has it to do with health care reform. You have a contract with your Insurance. If the company violates it, you'll go to courts.

Now answer my question.

Some people don't want to have the universal health care. Should they anyway be forced to pay for UHC through their taxes?

[allgoo19]

vorbei: "Of course, it happens..."

You still not answering my original question. "You can't compare " is not an answer.

"there are awful many countries run their health care by the government plan. They are doing what you call "Monopoly". Then why US spends (twice)more money."

Currently rationing is forced by the privates far more often than Gov. backed plans. It doesn't explain why other countries spend less.

Try it again.

You answer this first, then I'll answer your question.

[vorbeigehende]

1. Why should I explain to you the basic Microeconomics I if you don't want to study it yourself? Take some good book on economics and work it out

(incentives, total utility, market price, government set prices, rationing, monopolies, taxation and regulation)

My favourite is Stiglitz/Walsh, but any will

do.

2. Your argumentation about "awful many"

isn't convincing. See how many of those developed countries are deep in debt.

[vorbeigehende]

3. One more issue is ethnical homogeneity (Japan,France, Germany)

and historical features (bureaucracy in Germany, Japan)

4. And finally, I DON'T oppose government assisted health care. I'm against government run health care,

especially Obamacare. Just because it's economically stupid and doesn't solve anything.

5. The system that makes sense to me is that of Singapore. Just google "Singapore health care"

[allgoo19]

vorbeigehende:

Currently rationing is forced by the privates far more often than Gov. backed plans. It doesn't explain why other countries spend less.

Try it again.

You answer this first, then I'll answer your question.

No answer yet?

I have another question for you. Why privates pay bonus to those reps deny the treatment?

[avatargrl11]

"Why?"... well, many reasons. The US spends the most on medical research (other countries just piggy back on what we discover / develop), the US has the most cutting-edge hospitals delivering the best medical care in the world.... these things are not cheap. As far as rationing in the US... not really. I have NEVER had to wait to get care. I do not have to be on a list for over 2 years to be 'assigned' a primary physician. To give more power to govt is stupidity.

[allgoo19]

avatargrl11: ""Why?" ...well,....US spends more on..."

Show me a real numbers? Of course, US shoul bespending more than others because of biger economy. Tell me numbers adjusted for GDP, then we'll talk about it. By the way insurance companies don't spend a dime on research.

"rationing in the US.."

Waiting is not rationing. Cutting you off the treatment is. For the privates, it's nothing more than their profit, and the reps. gets paid for it.

[fuggsakes]

I live in canada and we dont get new equipment unless donations are recieved from people to get them...the government has decided on the peoples behalf that they dont need new machines

GDP? dont even start.....univ healthcare countries spend less because they decide what they WANT to spend not what NEEDS to be spent

Waiting IS rationing, its the easiest way for govt to get away with it, heathcare postponed is healthcare denied

[allgoo19]

fyggsakes: "I live in canada and ..."

I lived in Japan for 20 yrs, never had to wait for more than 5 minutes. It's strange that we didn't have the same problem as what you are saying. I have heard about many other Canadian saying they are also happy with it.

I have never seen a big mess like we have in US now.

Come to US and get sick, you'll want to go bak to Canada no matter how bad it is there. Luckily, I only had minor one, even then, I got a little taste of it.

[fuggsakes]

In Ontario they have a lottery, whether or not you get to see a doctor is based on LUCK, jesus how is that not rationing? I grew up in a military family having to move every few years and i havent had a family doctor in 10 YEARS, of course you can go to the clinic....and wait 2-3 hours behind 10 people with broken nails and shoelaces who just wanna make sure theyre ok cause hey its "free"

Except its anything but free cause you pay for abulances, meds and other fees

You sir are clueless

[CorporationsSuck]

I like this but it would be better if they had two "attorneys" one for UHC and one against question and cross-examine each of the speakers. I think it would be a better format.

[smp87]

Why is there an edit at 4:08?

[migkillertwo]

He's not offering a healthcare plan, he's offering a method of paying for insurance people choose. If you want a healthcare that covers "rogain", then you can get it.

[vidfreak56]

But truely innovations are probably best left to the free market (if we had one). I envision a system thats largely funded by the public, and covers mostly expensive procedures. The free market would be good for things such as keeping basic doctors visits, or specialist consultations cheap.  Subsidies would help children or the broke get HC if they need it (key word is need). Gov should be spending the money, not running the system, unless efficiency is considered, but i still dont trust it.

[vidfreak56]

He brings up a good point about UHC and how it wont necessarily make things better as most liberal advocates say. But its also a fallacy to say that a free market system will make these things go away aswell. Free markets are nice, and have a lot of nice qualities, but you can have medical errors in a free market. The problem in a free market is that the public lacks information to make an healthy decision about a business. And competition in HC isnt always there, so choices are limited.

[mellowtribe]

Also he did not mention that there are huge shortages in healthcare workers. So with UHC undoubtibly more people will be pumped into the system yet there will be even more patients for each healthcare worker who are already over loaded. You think healthcare is bad now? wait until its free.

[vidfreak56]

I agree. The real problem I see is cost control and quality of HC. Private insurance banks on healthy people. Public insurance would be no different. Some people would have to be healthy in order for others to be sick. That is if we dont want to sacrifice quality for quantity. Prevention would have to be a social and political priority. Doctor and nursing shortages (a problem) might be fixed (maybe) by opening up the international medical community. Thats all ready happening.

[DarkFire224]

This guy seems to lack so much information it's staggering. Such as the fact that if people are HEALTHY, they willw WORK MORE and put more into the economy. He is quite the one-sided douche.

[jvittetoe]

Yo, DarkFire22224, what information is he lacking? Enlighten us, please.

Also, nobody is denying that HEALTHY people could contribute more to the economy, but is your argument that UHC would achieve a more healthy population?

Does the Postal Service out perform UPS or FedEx. In fact the PS just stated that they can no longer afford to deliver mail 6 days a weak.

Are you claiming that FEMA did more to help the survivors or Katrina than the civilian population or local businesses and charities?

[randyguitarman13]

YES!

[mellowtribe]

Health does not come from a hospital or government intstitution for that matter. The hospital is there when you are in trouble. Healthcare is actually your responsibility. Eat well and exercise is proven to lower risks to your health substantially. But America is full of beached sperm whales and very unhealthy people who do not give a rip about what they do to themselves. So ask yourself this; should you be responsible for the health of another person who is puffing a cig on a Mcdiet?

[vidfreak56]

But really you are responsible for another persons health even now. Normal insurance companies use your insurance premiums (after investments, interest payouts, etc) to pay for another persons policy (excluding HC savings plans). This has always been true and is one reason why we are seeing lines right now. The problem is that there is no priority. I dont see this as being a problem. Sin taxes and private insurance would work here, as well as HC savings plans.

[mangravy2000]

So they just recenlty changed the food pyramid.  All those people listened to the medical professionals and got fat.

[cpiratebee]

This guy is smart but he comes off as a huge douche.

[TimeWarp66]

How so? He seems pretty respectful.

[cpiratebee]

Only in his opening and closing statement. But in the debate he is pretty douchie, but not as douchie as Paul Krugman. Krugman is the epitomy of douchebag.

[return135]

free market!