Obama /U.S. Health Plan?

[13otany13ay]

I dont know what is wrong with the debate (I am not from the US), but I have made the experience in discussions with americans, that the concept of a legal civil duty to rescue f.i. is seen as something rather exotic. I understand the US-legal-system doesnt know such a duty for every citizen. For germans its common practice (cause its taught in compulsory first aid courses for the drivers license). Also, propaganda in the US since the 50ies may have taken its toll on the public mind.

[DannyPhantomBeast]

We ALREADY wait in line!

What a stupid argument.

[Gettinghitonattheban]

Well, in certain scenarios, I can see waiting in line problematic. Certain types of symptoms should be aloud to be bumped ahead of others despite your place in line. Or maybe have some sort of small care packages free in the waiting room besides water, hand sanitizers, and tissues.

[AntiSisyphus]

Any real solution has to begin with the destruction of the for profit corporate "health care" that the US currently has.

[TWITfromURANUS]

This seems all very strange to me --the fact that this is even an argument people are having. Call me an idealist, call me a communist, call me whatever you think justifies or excuses your position, but as far as I am concerned, until every single human being on earth has free health care, we cannot call ourselves a civilised species. Period.

[amabodie]

I hate to stick a spanner stright into the heart of a political hornits nest but I personally don't see the problem, for those who can afford it there will always be private health care. Is this a tax increase issue? Or do people just like to watch others suffer to feel better about themselves? Health - the ultimate status symbol.

[handianus]

It's starting to disgust me how the laissez-faire people, most often suggest COMPLETE annihilation of anything like government provided health-care (etc). (Just politics, I would hope.....)

Even if prices can be brought down extremely low, and charity then really could become enough for what's left to cover... There's reason to have a couple of bucks the government could shove in, if you got more than corrupt incompetent people in charge. 'Cause someone always get's screwed.

[handianus]

Not that prices could be brought down overnight either...

Now there I have no exact idea on the subject as what to do during the transition from current US ''tyranny/death'' to ''Ayn Rand''.

I only know that whatever you call the current US health-care system is far worse than some universal health-care. Or so I think. But that there's always much higher goals to aim for.

I guess it's easy to say that as long as it's not good enough, it's always the same crap.

[FeelFreeToArgue]

It is one of the many ways that not-rich people have been convinced that the interests of the rich (not waiting) are their interests. If you can't get to see a doctor unless you're about to die, you shouldn't care about waiting because it's not a relevant concern for you.

Everyone is, on a certain level, reading this the right way. Everyone getting a certain minimum level of care will almost certainly mean that some people will get less. The problem is people identifying w/ the wrong group.

[hyperseauton]

Kucinich voted against the reform based on the notion it "goes not far enough" as politicans like to say.

I feel like youtube user zzz33333 Zack at the moment: there are all these problems out here and we still have to explain ethics 001 to people.

[cardellacole2]

the morality of selfishness ,a sick person will justify anything ? one thing they cant hide is when there crippled inside

[aaronhemeon]

The best way to get people to even question whether every citizen ought to be able to see a doctor, is to hint that this sort of policy will put their job security at risk. Then people climb over each other to come up with justifications to keep healthcare privatized. Ever notice how when you really hurt yourself, nothing matters. When people read your biography, this is one of those issues that they will smile or shudder about, depending on where you stood -- just like slavery.

[hofisito]

"what sort of world would you want for your kids???" sounds like a nice reformulation of John Rawls! I'm gonna steal that... he he

[pboisei]

Can you PLEASE make a video on Kant's morality i think it's relevant to the health care debate.

[pboisei]

You have to wait in a line no matter what! Those who are the sickest are always treated first.

[ICharmaine]

@pboisei Unfortunately, the sickest don't always get treated first. Sometimes those w/o ins. who are much sicker than others are placed behind those others with healthcare insurance. I have personally experienced this when I had no ins, seen it first hand, working in the hospital, as well as read and studied the research on this subject. Those with more money oftentimes receive faster and better heathcare than those without. This is just one of the reasons we need a universal system adopted.

[mvflyhalf]

When did health become a commodity - something that could be bought and sold and insured? What about food, water, energy, land and space? Air?

Do we have a right to these things? A right to access or a right to have?

Where is the line between individual responsibility and a basic right? Does my pack-a-day house-mate deserve a lung transplant? Do individuals who eat poor diets (because they are poor) deserve medical treatment for illness caused by diet; didn't they choose to eat that way?

[mvflyhalf]

It seems like we are distracting ourselves by merely treating the symptoms of a deeply rooted problem because we do not understand the full complexity of whats involved in the health care equation. It is a vast interdisciplinary problem, surpassing the foresight of those with their hands on the chalk.

I don't think it's as simple as people not solving the problem because they don't like the solution. I think people are jumping to solutions before they understand whats on the whole chalkboard.

[mvflyhalf]

...and there is my useless response because I obviously can't even pretend to know whats going on let alone pose a solution.

[jogayot]

"i say we nuke them from the orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

[trick0171]

Agreed :)

[TheSeungjin]

i find most of your videos on various subjects really thought-provoking, professor. and i try to read most of comments, becoz they are deepening my thought. although from watching this one, im glad u r not a politician..

[celtic426]

great video, i agree with pretty much everything you said. i mean the US is the only country that makes money off sick people, and loads of it. also i think the US is the only western 1st world country without some kind of universal health care.

[Nebelung13]

I think the best example to illustrate the healthcare problem you americans are facing is the old adaggio

-Hell is full of good intentions.

Wanting to do good is not enough, if the outcome is just a disaster.

[maganz]

Why not try to refute the real arguments of your oponents instead of using fallacious arguments that the health plan will do something for the third world, or attacking what you preceive to be the bad motive of the oponents.

[Nebelung13]

I think you are losing track of the issue when you try to deal in a psychological perspective,what is purely a question of logic.

And Obama is just pursuing a fantasy.

"oooh they have to wait in line"

-I wonder what will that mean for transplant and cancer patients? time is of the essence for most seriosu diseases.

[Nebelung13]

look at the socialist paradises like England, you will see just how bad it could be for America, the prices are driven by the government, forcing them to sell medication at a much higher price,thus forcing people to relly on state help, or even the fact that the state interferance as managed to extensivly reduce english doctors in favour of hiring foreign doctors, because of the implicit costs associated ! thus reducing the number of doctors.

[Nebelung13]

Secondly the healthcare is in the precarious state it is because of government interferance and price control.

[Nebelung13]

I think the problem with many Americans is that they have no idea what a public healthcare system is about, because luckily they never had to be in one.

It means , less doctors, less nurses, higher prices, in turn that translates to more taxes, more crucial wating, and more dependecy on the state since prices get too high.

[Nebelung13]

"universal" is just political rethoric, because you will pay for it anyway, and more money will be wasted, because the state is essentially a money wasting machine, the state doesn't know how to properly allocate money or to properly apply it.

[jagmarz]

... as contrasted to a system where either

(a) hundreds of insurance companies each individually negotiate prices with small subsets of care providers, creating a morass of paperwork, and a set of plans that are unintelligible to even the most intelligent consumer, OR

(b) a few insurance companies collude to extract the maximum profit out of the consumer base.

Health care is NOT a free market, and blindly following that mantra leads to a few getting excellent care, but most none. Efficiency???

[Nebelung13]

Exactly, jsut look at the social democracies imposed healthcare sytem, the eldery and ill waiting in line for years on end for something as simple as eye cataract .

This is insane, and i know this because my country is under socialized healthcare.

our socialized healthcare is so bad we have to send patients abroad to get treatment ,because we simply lack doctors and the facilities to treat them.

[jagmarz]

I would think that folks waiting in line beats folks not getting into line because they couldn't afford it.

Personally, I am in the US and I have always been on an employer healthcare plan, but there has been a quite noticeable trend to drastically increasing health care costs paired with a drastically decreasing amount of coverage.

It's not not going to remain viable for long.

[jagmarz]

Now, I understand that there are quite valid concerns about innovation being enabled by the risks that highly-profitable companies are able to take, and this truly ought to be addressed.

I'm quite curious what will happen to drug prices worldwide should the formerly richly profitable US market ceases being able to subsidize the costs of development all by itself. I certainly expect that drug prices will have to rise around the world to compensate.

But that would reflect a fairer distribution.

[Nebelung13]

People cant get into lines now, because essentalially the ill made gstate reformations ahve turned healthcare into a corporatized hybrid system...were its neither free or public, its simply in the hands of a few state supported capital groups.

Corporativism is not a product of free market, but of government interferance.

[Nebelung13]

Subsidezing any human action doesn't make it affordable only more expensive.

Its direct interferance with the market, when that happens, shite hits the fan because, people compete and inovate , which in turns leads to lower prices and augmenting enficiency. Thats why US was so sucessful prior to the implementation of federal reserve and all that kensian blabber

[Nebelung13]

, men like Ford and Rockefeller made it big because the market allowed them to compete and in turn they made better products and enhanced their workers labour conditions and salaries, everybody won.

[jagmarz]

I think there's a clear difference between luxury products, or even products which enhance the economy, vs health care. The demand for health care is quite inflexible -- after all, how much would you pay to save your life? -- and thus there's not really a free market.

[Nebelung13]

There is no free market because we don't let it be free.

You can't have a system that constantly develops and improves if you don't let it compete. Without competition there is no drive to improve your products/services.

market is like nature, not perfect but self-improving and self-suficient, ever since man interfered with nature disaster hapened. And thats why we are in such desperate need to conserve what little nature we have left.

[jagmarz]

A free market is not simply freedom from government regulation. A free market must have both freedom of supply and freedom of demand. This generally works quite well in such areas as consumer electronics. However, in cases where there is NO freedom of demand (such as is usually the case for ER visits), there can be no free market.

Similarly, providers can collude to constrict freedom of supply, as is the case currently in the US where insurance providers are exempt from antitrust laws.

[Nebelung13]

Look up the definition of free market.

"constrict freedom of supply"

-Hows that even possible? freedom constricting action? Semantically that doesn't even make sense.

antitrust law? Cartels and corporations are product of state intervetion not of a free market.

[jagmarz]

A constricted supply is when there is a limited resource that multiple customers might want to buy. Supply and demand. As supply goes down, price goes up.

Thus it is usually quite profitable to be the lone source for a resource (as Rockefeller nearly accomplished), or to collude with other suppliers (as OPEC does).

Corporations, yes, are chartered by governments, but only a vehicles to limit personal liability and thus encourage risk-taking.

[jagmarz]

Sony didn't win the war (in the US, anyway) over high-definition DVD format by virtue of the relative quality of Blu-Ray vs Toshiba's HD-DVD. Rather it won because it also controlled a large fraction of movie rights and use this to create market pressure against HD-DVD. Perfectly legal, but NOT ANYTHING CLOSE TO A FREE MARKET.

It is in corporations interest to "corner" markets, and they constantly strive to do so, since it's quite profitable to control a cornered market!!!

[Nebelung13]

Rockefeller accomplished that when they maanged to be part of the federal reserve and those very intimate inner circles of interest and power.

So the government and the state pat Rockefeller on the back and Rockefeller in turn pat on their back, this is just profound level of corruption sanctioned by law and the instituted powers.

"personal liability and thus encourage risk-taking"

-In sum to reap more profits while unethically having a upper hand on the market, thus destroying the free market.

[jagmarz]

I'm ... not an expert on Rockefeller. But my understanding is that, in their era, entire industries were dominated by ONE "corporation". Rockefeller, oil; Vanderbilt, railroads; Carnegie, steel; Morgan, banks. Highly unethical means were used to preserve their status.

This was the time when the government was expected to get out of the way of entrepreneurs and their companies. Certainly, they were also influential in government, but that's ALWAYS going to be the case for the wealthy.

[Nebelung13]

Rockefeller had to compete with other companies. Corporations don't magically appear and neither do companies. But then Rockefeller got interested in having things the easy way, since the state was keen on his money, he eventually got influential and so state and industry married.

"Highly unethical means were used to preserve their status."

-And who granted them such priveligies? Free market didn't , because you can't have priviligies ina setting were competion is the tonic.

[Nebelung13]

They are influential to government, because people still believe the state is the best solution to run our lives.

There is no difference in between a state and a mafia, its the same principles. they think they have what it takes to make our lives better, i nsum the essence of the state defies the free market.

[Nebelung13]

We live in a world run by money, so either way you'll be paying for it. So yes our lives have a price tag unfortunatly. The thing is a free market healthcare provides a more flexible approach, and affordability, right now as the US healthcare is, its not the poor that are suffering but the middle class.

[jagmarz]

Right. And why is that?  Because, by and large, the middle class is exploited by insurance companies, who KNOW they have a captive market (since most of us in the MC cannot qualify for subsidized care, or pay on our own). Most states have one, or at most two, dominant health care providers.

[Nebelung13]

Thats called corporativism, corporations arise because of state influence and support. When basically the state promotes one entity above all others.

Take the example of the bail out bill....it was exactly the government supported banks that got the bail out, this is clear example of a state seting up a banking cartel.

[Nebelung13]

most of those banks rose to the position of great influence by sheer work and fierce competion, but what then state started to help them mantain such position not by virtue of competition but by eliminating competion.

This can be extrapolated to the current affair of healthcare.

[jagmarz]

I think it's quite naive to blame corporatism squarely on governments and thus demand that governments just butt out.

Corporations AREN'T going to just go away if the governments stop regulating them. Instead, they'll do wise things such as diversifying to play in multiple markets and spread the risk. But this is not necessarily a good thing for consumers.

The free market is IDEAL for a bazaar setting, where there are multiple buyers and sellers and an open environment.

We don't have that.

[Nebelung13]

You are misquoting me and in the process you are constructing a strawman

Regulation is not corporation, corporation is when state supports and priveliges certain companies.

Market regulation creates a different problem that is connected in a wider perspective to corporativism.Market regulation shoots up prices forcing people to rely on the state because they can no longer afford them.

[Nebelung13]

Free market only good for bazaars? thats intelectualized horse crap....micro economics or macro economics all run on the same principles. Just because they different in size doesn't make them different in essence, you can 'tchange the essence of human interaction to suit your taste and ideology.

[jagmarz]

This conversation has wandered quite wildly, and I'm also distracted by other things I'm working on. If I misconstrued what you said, I'm certainly sorry.

But you're also misconstruing me with this latest post. I never said ONLY good for bazaars, I merely stated it's conceived in and best under those conditions.

Modern markets exhibit varying degrees of freedom of supply and demand, and various behind-the-scenes collaborations or collusions.

(continued)

[jagmarz]

The primary distinction is of scale and practicality. It's just ridiculous to expect that a single person, as a consumer has the same purchasing power whether the supplier is a flea market vendor or Sony.

[Nebelung13]

You can't change the setting without changing the dimension of the subject.

So in this case person si to flea market as a company or a small busyness owner is to sony.

Example:Like the army, a Seargent is to a squad, what a general is to an army Division, shite will hit the fan if either the seargent or the general decide to dictate how the other should comit to his role.

[Nebelung13]

Ok, i admit i might have been a bit carried away.

But inevitably you'll see that the most curtailed and controlled markets are the countries were the social and economic state is at the brink of disaster.

One word comes to mind, Cuba.

[jagmarz]

And I absolutely agree that the free market IS the idea. It IS the engine that fuels innovation and progress.

Furthermore it is the proper role of government to provide the stable platform upon which the free market performs best. This sometimes involves sticking government fingers into awkward places, and this should always be done judiciously. I'm not happy with the government bailing out the banks, but then I think it WAS part of that proper role of ensuring stability.

[northpal2]

Corporations need the state to maintain the superior edge upon the individual. They do not and never have operated successfully in a truly free market. Just read the 14th amendment and you begin to see their meddling hands.

Free market is the only way to superior product at least cost, it reduces a protected profit margin along with the corruption. That alone is incompatible with gov.

Canada cited as an example of how health care can be managed is due to lack of their transparency.

[jagmarz]

Please help me out here. Where in the fourteenth amendment do you see the hands of corporations?

And it'd probably be a good idea to also define exactly what you mean by a corporation? Technically, even an individual can be a corporation; or do you mean companies that issue stock, or partnerships, or ... ?

[northpal2]

14th Amendment Section 1. has given protection for corporations as a "natural person".