Is this the hope and change. This is theft of poor people since the payroll tax. People stop acting like sheep and become wolves vote the democrats out in 2010, ALL OF THEM! I warned that obuma was a used car salesman. My black friends are finally waking up but still alot sees him like Moses. Even the white liberals are calling obuma a piece of shit. Thats good news because he will lose in 2012. The white liberals votes made him win not black votes. Thats why he ignores black people.
@jackthenigger i agree, but the republicans are 10 times worse! so lets vote the corporate democrats out, and vote in real liberals who might actually do something.
Dean said it...and it appears no one commenting on this video heard it. he said it turns Medicare over to the insurance industry...MEDICARE that's what this bill opens the door too. Privatizing Medicare. Anyone who is interested go to the SS site and read the latest Public Report and you will see just the kind of trouble Medicare is in.
@mm89f You are absolutely correct! I am not for government run health care, but if it is coming, I would like to see the public option injected into the bill! I don't want to be taxed to pay the premiums for all those uninsured because the insurance companies will be able to set the rates without the public option. Without it the premiums can skyrocket!!
PATRIOT Howard Dean, MD, practiced medicine throughout his terms as VT Rep, 1982, & Lt. Gov (1986)~became Gov 1991~was elected to FIVE 2-yr terms 1991-03~was 2nd longest Gov of VT~served as Chair of Nat'l Govs 1994-95; & as Gov, pd off much of VT public debt~balanced budget 11 times~TWICE lowered Income Tax~~oversaw expanding Dr. Dinosaur to ensure health care for VT kids/expectant moms! He is a PATRIOT unlike the POTUS.
I totally agree. In fact, all of North America is f'ed up. Canadians are Mexicans need to put in their rightful place as the slave laborers of other continents. Seriously, I think their average IQ is 60 - comparable to a monkey.
Crazy Joe is just intigating this thang - Gov Dean is right - The Dems whimped out and let the repub control the debate - fuck the Dems run the House and the Senate and still cant get a bill passed - they are weak!
Ummm actually the Republicans are completly against this shit bill and are trying to stop it. I love how you guys still try to blame this on the republicans, they have no control over the bill, the Dems are the ones that can't agree and unite on one issue. The republicans have no control whether the bill goes or stays, that's in the Dems hands and 70% of Americans are against this bill and Obama and that number is growing everyday this administration keeps this circus going.
At the very least, Dean should be a close adviser of Obama, if not a cabinet member (although it would have been preferable if he had been elected in 2004...). Everything he said made sense and seems really sad, but true: politicians yet again doing a shitty job of representing the needs of average Americans
I get where he is coming from - it seems a travesty for the big health care and insurance industry to profit from this bill. Of coursde, they've spent nearly 1/2 BILLION diollars fighting health reform.
It amazes me how greedy they are and how stupid the public is to buy their bullshit ads and fearmongering.
No, they went after him when he declared on TV that he would go after and break up the media monopolies. The "scream" was the excuse they found to take him down.
And I would support Dean for president in 2012. I wish he were interested.
In our last election, my concern about Obama was always the amount of money being given to him by the drug companies and the insurance industry. Howard Dean is absolutely right and this bill is ultimately, a direct result of a corrupt election's process in which FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEBATE IS BEING CENSORED BY A PRIVATE CORPORATION. The public has clearly been denied due process by private interests.
Christ, I hope you're wrong about this - but knowing Mr. Joe Sixpack and Ms. Sally Soccermom as I do, I have a grey feeling your prediction may be right...
The upside is that she may very well finish the job of destroying the Amerikan Empire - then Texas and the South and Deseret and Vermont and Cascadia can finally go their own ways, and the people of this continent will be free to create their own social-democratic havens or theocratic-kapitalist hells as the see fit...
Bend over, Americans, and brace yourself as you are raped by:
The Pentagon/Military Industrial Complex
Wall Street
The Health Insurance Cartel
Big Pharma
No welfare for you, ordinary Americans, because the money is needed to run the massive corporate welfare system to enrich incompetent and corrupt corporations.
However, being as we have been completely taken over by transnational korporate scum who are destroying this nation in the name of profits with the WTO and the World Bank and the military-industrial complex holding a knife to our collective throats, Progressives and Libertarians are actually finding some common ground.
True...and this is my problem with Libertarians. They believe in NO corporate regulation whatsoever and that free market principles will always make things right.
Now, if you can believe that the humans who run those corporations will always act in the best interests of society, this is a valid position.
Of course, the history of the last 30 years shows us that corporations act on nothing but their own self-interest - and on this, Ron Paul is either blind or stupid.
Here's my thinking: in the best of all possible worlds, yes, we'd have Kucinich and Nader.
However, there are only around 65 million Progressives, but at least as many Libertarians.
What we agree on: no more Empire, no more Federal Reserve, no more taking away individual liberties.. Those are the main roots of the cancer that is killing all of us.
Once those are dealt with, we can start arguing about corporate personhood and how to administer the Commons.
no man. Ron Paul. Ron Paul and maybe we could somehow get Jim Traficant to run. although he is probably disqualified. however, a real bipartisan ticket would be Ron Paul / Jim Traficant 2012.
if you haven't heard of Jim Traficant, just simply do a youtube search for the video: Jim Traficant Hannity. this is an interview of Traficant by Hannity.
Americans, by nature, work hard to get the best possible product despite any odds placed before them. We expect our representatives to do the same and with the current version of this bill, this isn't even close to meeting that objective.
Congress, get your sh*t together and do the right thing. I'ts easy and simple, once you know how...
61% of American's are AGAINST this BS, why it even still alive? Can't wait till 2010 so we can put this on the national ballot and do away with this disaster! There is already petitions going around to put it on the next ballot, Be sure to sign up and let congress know they can find a new job next election!!
And some of the preexisting 'conditions,' such as mental retardation, are dealt with through things like public school programs with specialists in the school to help them out. Or other disability programs and such. I think the amount of people who NEED insurance badly due to preexisting vs. those who just make stupid choices is a little overstated. No one ever asks WHY so many people need insurance "right away" with HC reform. They make it sound like EVERYONE needs care this minute.
@Whoo689 - In terms of such things as mental disorders, there's only so much that "programs" can do to help people who have serious medical conditions.
Medication and professional treatment can mean the difference between leading a somewhat normal life and a life in which they are barely able to function among other people.
We don't think everyone needs the health insurance reform. But there is a large group of people that do. And health insurance, sadly, can decide between life and death.
One of things in this healthcare debate that's sorely lacking attention is the importance of being healthy and making good choices. I mean, just how many of the people hospitalized each year or who "need insurance" are in that state b/c of their own unhealthy choices? I think a lot more than we think, so all this focus on insuring everyone may be misplaced. I doubt more than the expected 10 or 20 million people need regular medical treatment b/c of preexisting conditions they had no control.
@Whoo689 - Let's say that we give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your figure that maybe 10 to 20 million people need regular medical treatment because of preexisting conditions is accurate.
That's still 10 to 20 MILLION people.
If you believe people shouldn't get help for things that may have been in their control, we can put the blame on nearly anyone that has an accident for example. Shouldn't have been walking on that road. Shouldn't have been driving. Shouldn't this or that.
There will be doom unless the bill is passed. As long as the senator from Louisiana is still getting 100 million for her vote, that's the important thing. Drink some Kool-aid and pass the bill.
Interesting you say that, considering that the US arrests more people, has a larger and more aggressive military and generally acts sooo very 1930s Germany.
I'm not going to buy private insurance because they 9 times out of 10 won't cover any conditions. I'll end up having more money if I don't buy into the greedy insurance companies. Screw Corporatism.
Not that I'm trying to defend these bills, but they will (using a non-partisan panel) define what constitutes health insurance and what constitutes a basic/minimum plan vs. a premium plan. Everybody will have to have a basic/minimum plan, but it will be there choice if they want more than that.
It would be useless to force people to buy health insurance while allowing some plans to call themselves health insurance while only charging $25 per month because it only coveres hang nails.
Politicans should not decide or control what constitutes a legitmate insurance, that is what the customer is for and papers like consumer digest.
It is useless to control and mandate insurance at any level, in fact, insurance by its very design is actually stupid. If we assume a company has perfect intertempolar information you will always lose on insurance.
People should save their own money, that is actually better, and the health care industry would have to change after consumer voting.
1. It's alright for govt to make laws about what constitutes a product or service in the interests of market transparancy. Govt. forbids you to put shit in a jar and label it peanut butter. Libertarians might prefer a free-market solution to that scenario, but I don't.
2. I agree govt. shouldn't mandate people to buy private insurance. They're only doing this because they're too cowardly to bring in public health insurance paid for through taxes, which is the sensible way to do it, IMHO.
1. Yes, fraud, but not quality or the extent a health care insurance should cover certain things, that is consumer responsibility.
To that it is merely the government authority to enforce the contract.
2. They shouldn't bring in public health insurance, that is an even bigger disaster, and I know what I'm talking about because I've lived in Sweden for all my life.
Look in history for the answer, in the earlt 20th century health care was the best int he world in all aspects, free markets work.
I too know what I'm talking about because I've lived in both the U.S. and Canada. The Canadian system, despite it's faults, is far supperior to what passes for U.S. health care. U.S. health care is a disaster for all but the top 10% of the population, who are the ones behind maintaining the private system. The private system is tantamount to a per capita flat surcharge, since premiums are the same regardless of income.
Please exmplain your statement about the early 20th century.
I would suggest the Canadian system is far worse. Anyway:
In the early 20th century there was practially no government involement in health care whatsoever and everyone had access to the best health care in the world. At the same time in that time period the cost for medical procedures were getting cheaper and cheaper and the health care expenditure were constituing far less of GDP as a percentage than it is today.
The free market system deals with this better than social planning ever will.
Since you just admitted you've lived in Sweden all your life I have no idea where you'd get your ideas about either the Canadian OR the U.S. health care system, or why you'd feel qualified to say which is better.
But then again, if you think everyone had access to the best health care in the early part of the 20th century, you're obviously living in some kind of fantasy world anyway, so there's not much point in discussing this with you.
Personal experience only goes so far, as to acutal quality and access to care that goes further.
They did have so, at that time in history, since then however we have seen some advancements in the field, but none suggesting it should be more expensive.
Sure, you can dismiss me like that, but the fact remains that the free market health care system worked perfectly, while the government mandated one has mixed results and mixed flaws depending on implementation.
I want to note that history sometimes doesn't quite reflect reality. You basically state the idea that everyone had access to THE BEST care and quality in the early 20th century as a matter of fact, when in fact this couldn't have possibly been the case in what you view as a perfect free market health care system. There will always be some more expensive procedures that are better and some people can't afford. By definition, it is impossible for everyone to have the best.
Certainly I agree, I suggest that history and "empricial" research in the field of economics is merely anecdotes, what matters is its' rational soundness. Which basically is the suggestion that the neoclassical school is nonsense
People had access to different qualities of care, but respectively better than anywhere else in the world. People should have access to different quality of care,not everyone can affod the same things. This is good for everyone in the long run because of market forces
Perhaps you meant the United States' health care was better than the rest of the world in general, which is a possibly valid point. However, that says nothing about differences within the same system.
I'm sure you've also considered the possibility that problems remained under the radar due to either social or technological limitations right?
Also: United States patriotism was very high during the early 20th century - everyone just endured things for the "good of the country."
Certainly it was, but also in terms of who could afford it and wh owas covered, the US was better of then than today.
Now of course I'm not suggesting the quality of care was better, there has been vast advancements in the field, but I should note there that there would have been more advancement if there was less government involvement. Advances were faster then than today.
Patriotism is an absurd explenation to explain market forces, because the same quality is true about late 19th century.
I wasn't attempting to explain market forces using Patriotism but I can see how it could be misunderstood. It's the actual media coverage/focus of recorded history on other things than the health care issues that I was trying to point out. (Youtube's character limit fails)
First, medical advancements being faster then than today is not a fact that I believe is true. Even if it were, it can be explained simply because there were more large health care issues to tackle back then.
It is true however that advancements were made to a greater extent then than now, no matter what you believe. I sure in a hundred years they will say "there were more large health care issues to tackle back then".
The best part about the system back then was the stress on volountarism, to help people trough volountary means, it worked, which you can't really say about things like Medicare and Medicaid which has created terrible market incentives.
I won't argue with volunteerism. However, doctors are still doing pro bono work and are encouraged to do so, despite the fact they are swamped and there is a shortage of doctors.
However, this misses the mark. You'd have to be insane to think that Insurance Companies can be asked to volunteer to cover people who they think are going to reduce their overall profits. :/
Volunteerism: Good. But it can't work forever - in your free market system, people are driven by personal incentives.
Then why not take volounteerism to it's logical extreme? Market extremism? OKay nevermind that, that is a whole other discussions.
There is a shortage of doctors because of licensing. There is government mandate on private licensing, and the Medical Association do what is in the interest of their members - to keep the supply of doctors down.
Insurance companies is a way to finance disasters, not to pay for care, that is premier problem in the current system.
The shortage of doctors isn't just because of licensing. Others simply don't practice medicine due to malpractice claims, the insane competition there is to get the education necessary to become one, etc. I don't believe your assessment that the Medical Association is doing what it can to keep the supply of doctors down. But what I can say to that is that they wouldn't have to if the costs of being a doctor weren't so high.
History disagrees, it worked much better than the entitelement system.
Actaully, the shortages of doctors is entirely because of the licensing issue. They have bene pushing more restrictions and laws since they first got the grips on the license in the first place. Now such ridiculous things as merely the "turn and cough"-diagnosis's needs to be done by people with 8 years of medical school, it's retarded frankly.
Looks like I have to refute one more thing. If Volunteerism was sustainable and the total fix to everything, and it WAS in place before, why the sudden change? My answer is the corruption of individual incentives. Otherwise we'd be living and would always live in utopia.
We can look at China for a great example of how Volunteerism doesn't work. Social pressures can cause millions of people to lose their lives just because they want to save face and meet unattainable goals.
It isn't entirely because of the licensing issue. The amount of people let into medical school is simply not enough to provide for enough doctors even if they all graduated and became doctors.
Also on the internet, you can see how far you get using a web-based diagnosis system that asks you to make your own diagnosis using their system of frequently asked questions. I tried it before. It doesn't work that well.
The 8 years of experience in a medical school + interning combined is valuable.
Who do you think decides how long the education should be, and who do you think decides how many spot should be open?
The internet is certainly not the solution, the solution is to have compeiting licenses, and different levels of doctors. You could have a doctors that is cheaper that has less of an education and can spot more simple things.
Think of it as mechanics. Because that is what doctors are to us. It makes little sense to have every mechanics be a rocket scientist.
Obviously over the course of time and as more and more medical advances are made, there is a much more difficult battle to advance medicine further.
I may agree that a change in overall structure may cause people to lose incentive to invent new drugs or work hard to come up with new advances. But we aren't talking about any of that.
The issue is payment for those services. Not the services themselves. This isn't a total revamp of the system. It's insurance reform.
To suggest there should be a difficulty to advance medicine "further" could be made any time in history. I think it is absurd, there is no natural barrier for knowledge.
History however tells us what happens when you try to help the system, it only gets worse. Just abolish this government mandaged structure and let the free market take over, it will sort itself out as it should then, and the US will go back, in time, to having the best care in the world for everyone.
@Visfen - I'm curious about what you think the reason is for the change from what you see as a great system in the early 20th century to today. We haven't nationized healthcare yet. So how can you blame socialized healthcare for it? There are other factors. But I'd be happy to see what you have to say about what backs up your beliefs.
Because of increments of governmetn involvement it has gotten more and more expensive.
If you understand how economics works you can trace the trend and the reasons why, and also where the problems will occur. The system today is one step from complete socialization, already half there.
If the question is whether I prefer the US system or the nationalized system I would say the US one, but that is because I will earn better.
Everyone however would benefit from a free system.
@Visfen - What government involvement are you talking about? Regulating fraud in the insurance industry? Helping pay for diagnoses? Regulating good and bad medicines?
Those are the only things I can think of that may increase prices. Yet, every single one of those policies was meant to and does a necessary service. You really believe it would be better not to regulate drugs, keep insurers honest, and help with diagnosing illnesses?
Fraud should definetly be regulated. Such things as hepling pay for costs and regulating "good and bad medicines" have done tremendous harm to the system.
The first removes the cost element of medical advancement and make sure only the upper tier will see development of cheaper medicine.
The later can be dealt with by free certificates, and free choices, what's the point of stopping a drug for market if the patients are dying? Let them take the risk if the want.
The suggested "necessary service" is an absurd argument to make, espsecially when it comes to covering the poor. Because that will create incentives which will make it a "necessary serivce" to cover even more and more people.
But you're skipping a big part of regulation, that is the employer health care tax benefits and the regulation in states of what consitutes an insurance as well as the interstate block on getting a policy.
And there is plenty more, the industry is over-regulated as it is.
Good, you brought up an actual regulation. Employer tax benefits for providing health insurance for their employees?
I agree about the interstate block on getting policies. If there was more open competition instead of these state-wide monopolies (Which the insurance companies WANTED by the way) then it would be a better system.
But that alone wouldn't fix the industry. Deregulation is not always the answer.
There are such things as necessary services in the United States. Here are a few:
I can brin up antoher one, the FDA's stricter rules in the 1970s, which if you look at the actual implication of it and compare the thirty years before and after, you could suggest has killed or shortened the lives of about 27 million americans.
Before the regulation drugs got to market twice as fast with minimal difference in safety. Assuming the drugs would be as beneficial, the law has done tremendous harm.
Check out Dr. Mary Ruwart work on this for references.
You assume that all those drugs would be beneficial. They aren't. And this is an area where a consumer wouldn't be able to make an educated choice unless you propose that they they all went to medical school, which would make NO sense.
You really want to talk about our drug regulation? Ours is horribly lax compared to European nations, who have banned a number of drugs that we still use to our detriment here in the United States. Drop the regulation issue. It doesn't bolster your case.
Sure he could make that choice, because there would be other organizations that checked what the risks were and the customer could chose to take them or not.
Or he could just ask his doctor.
And considering they are being researched with such high entry costs, those drugs are probably more benenfical than earlier discoveries.
Actually European nations have laxer standards than the US. It is easier to get drugs on market here.
Some drugs are also just remakes of the same thing. Again, a reason why it isn't best to have everything left up to the private sector without any regulation. Incentives exist for people to cheat the system and do away with the high costs of research. Rebranding or repackaging the same thing with a slight modification yields the best profits. Really innovative research costs too much to be profitable.
But again, that's just the drug industry. The focus in the U.S. is on the insurance aspect.
Everything is best to leave to the private sector.
Rebranding or repackageing the same thing works just fine, if you sell it cheaper than competitors. But the FDA has nothing to do with anything like that, that is another problem, which is based in the ridiculous monopoly given by intellectual property laws. That should be away with as well.
Innovative research would cost less if costs for market entry weren't as high.
The insurance industry is a mess, lets' go back to consumer power.
You seem to be pushing an extremely libertarian or conservative stance in which everything is best as a private industry, including regulation of money, regulation of utilities, policing factors (and to answer your response in the other comment, organized crime can exist without it being illegal - look at some governments in corrupt countries) etc.
My question for you on this comment is whether you think it would be best not to have intellectual property law at all.
Well I'm a market extremist, an anarcho capitalist, or whatever you like to call it. So my views are somewhat unheard of in the political arena of chosing which idiots to dicatate the terms of your life, but your children and grand children will be more likely to understand me.
(How can something be organized crime if it is legal, sound like an oxymoron :-))
Intellectual property laws should be done with, there is no reason for them whatsoever. You can't own the intellectual realm.
Without intellectual property law, new innovation is not encouraged since someone else could simply steal your idea. If you believe in the free market economy and what constitutes as incentives, you'd recognize this fact. But here, you consider regulation as too strict. I consider it as too lax.
Overall, I think we both agree that the system is broken. The fact is that we need to change incentives for things to work. We can't worship money forever. But that isn't going to happen any time soon.
Yet, I just don't see how an idealistic and lovely idea would work in reality. Individual incentives are powerful. But to me, that power can be used by powerful people in bad ways. Without regulation and incentive not to do the wrong thing, people can and will take the shortcut that helps themselves but not necessarily the group as a whole. It's a basic game theory concept that I don't think we can avoid.
To me, I think it already is used by powerful people in bad ways. Like wars, which is something only states can do, have killed more people in the 20th century than any kind of or all kinds of crime has done in history.
We already have incentives to do the right thing, because we trade in a market with other people, why would you trade with an inconsiderate jerk? You wouldn't. So you have to help the market, ergo the group
I love game theory :) It's basically my world view taken to the extreme
I think you believe we have a tendency to value the social aspect as an incentive already, and I would beg to differ - and maybe that's where our problem lies. I don't think everyone plays the same game or follows the same rules. People will deal with "inconsiderate jerks" if they think the incentives outweigh the consequences or possible issues. And they weigh their own benefit as more than the group. But I guess we have to agree to disagree there, as there is no way to change our minds.
I belive that that that self interst in a free, volountary, market, is benefical to all.
Yes, they will deal with those jerk, if the benfits are high enough. I don't see a problem with that.
The individual are more important than the group, because that is what the group is made out of. But because of how a free market works in order to benefit yourself you must serve others.
I think we have to agree to disagree, at least we agree the consumer should have the power! :)
Sure they are, because you get a monopoly for as long as it takes for someone else to retool a factory and to figure out what you've done, and when they do they might be able to do even more advancements.
Communialism (the free an open exchange of science) is a corner stone of science.
What we would see are more incremental advancements in medicine and less "jumps", which is actually to the benefit of the customer, ie. the patient.
Again, read the research by the doctor I posted earlier.
I want to be clear that I like the idea of the consumer having all the power. I like the idea of volunteerism being the fix to all this. Abolishing tariffs and embargoes would also be on my list of things we should do, but not for us - for the rest of the world.
Let's say that the police service wasn't a necessary service, and is a service you pay for instead. You "buy" protection. You are told what to do and laws are enforced by those who have money. Voila, we have a mafia-type system in which organized crime runs rampant, and this is a situation we can see in many countries as well, where the rich dominate and extort from the poor.
Similarly, without a public education system, few of America's poor would have access to any education at all.
I think that would be a great system, if we had market forces in the safety industry we would get cheaper cost, better quality and get better results overall. Laws would be enforced by what is deemed beneficial and not what a politican says, I would love that.
How could organized crime run rampant, it is dependent upon being illegal for it to function?
If you want to check out such a system research anarchian theory and mutualism and anarcho capitalism.
The government can't help. Because they don't have any money. :) Their in the business of destruction, force and violence, and that is what they bring with them when they try to help.
Heck, to expand this discussion to a little side point, the idea of all these programs was to eliminate themsleves, yet they have all had to expand.
It's because a customer with limitless pockets will always pay, one way to fix all this is government ration, and that is worse than letting prices ration take place
As for your comment about how you would earn better - I think that really just shows where your motivation lies, and where the insurance industry here lies. And that is the fundamental issue with the system. And that problem is the insurance aspect.
People in insurance don't really care about giving them care. It benefits them to actually keep their own customers from getting care.
Some things are better done by the government. Some are better done by private industry.
My motivation is to benefit all, but if I can't have that I will benefit myself rather than the poor. As any rational human being would do.
I have big problems with the insurance companies, I have problems with an insurance, I think it's stupid, you're accepting a payment system that will always make you the loser. If you win, you still lose, because then they will have taken (if they do it right) more money than if I would have saved.
Nothing is better done by the government. Except violence.
If you really felt that way, you would donate everything you own except your basic necessities to families who are poor in Africa who really are starving.
But I agree with your point. A rational human being looks out for their self-interest, and finds excuses not to look out for others. That's the whole problem! Insurance providers and corporations are looking to make money and help themselves. Not help others.
We both hate the insurance companies, it seems. I think we differ in terms of
No, because I don't think that is the best way to help anyone. I think the best way to help Africa is to work with the free trade organizations to make sure they can "learn how to fish" instead of giving them fish. And also to invest in project in their countries.
But to a greater extent I really don't care. Neither do you.
The problem is not human behaviour, the problem is a system that divers the insivible hand from helping others. The best system is one where hepling others helps yourself.
whether or not the government can make it better, or whether or not people would still want to or be willing to pay for such a service.
From a pessimistic view (not everyone can be covered, and some people will always have less coverage) I understand your reasoning.
But you see, I don't take it that far. Sure, we can't cover everyone with the best coverage. But we CAN provide for basic services while giving those with money the option of paying for the premium services from private companies
I understands your reasoning as well, but the problem with it is that the market incentives created by it will eventually result in everyone having to be covered or the entire system having to be dissolved - that is where we are today. Where medicare and medicaid has led to years of no cost competition whatsoever and the cost of medicine going up fast. Now it's a choice in having a free system to save the children or a govenrment system to save the old (Republicans don't understand this)
Howard Dean is Sarah Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCH and PUSSY! Palin is a SUPERIOR politician and statesman than Dean could ever be. She is also MORE MAN than he is for Dean wears the skirt in his family while his wife wears the pants!
Basically what we have now, with the gutted public options, is a bill that will force us all to pay for expensive "care" from a private company- BY LAW. The only thing the current bill will do, without the public option, is create a whole new class of millions of criminals. That's it.
Screw the fascist repukelickins. A majority of real Americans want health care reform and a public option. The neonazi party spent 4 years threatening to "go nuclear" if the democrats didn't bend over for everything the dubya administration wanted. It's time for the democrats to stand up and shove 1 fucking thing down the throats of republicans. Yes; screw them! I don't give a flying fuck what the wealthy vocal minority wants.
@bamboo4tameshigiri I want healthcare reform. But bankrupting insurance companies sending hundreds and thousands out of work, and replacing it with a government beurocracy isn't going to slove the problem.
The US ranks almost 40th in overall standards of care among nations and #1 in cost . I couldn't give less of a fuck about insurance companies. It wouldn't be possible to make me care less.
40th? Using what standard? Does the fact that you are twice as likely to survive cancer in the USA as in europe mean anything to this scale of yours???
The standard of the World Health Organization. It's a fact and the only people who get better medical results in this country are rich people with Cadillac plans. Millions of people bankrupt themselves for health care in this country EVERY YEAR. That simply does not happen in the rest of the civilized world.
That is a complete lie. The type of insurance has no impact on the results of the medical care. Are you saying doctors let people die??? If so name these doctors. Name the hospitals.
Patient abandonment and under treatment is rampant in this country. Pretending like you don't know that is, frankly, sickening. "Fuck you" is all I really have to say to you at this point.
No you're not. Those fudged figures, shamelessly flogged by David Gratzer, are from an apple to orange comparison, where the European cancers were not sorted according to stage.
In a comparison of 19 developed countries, the U.S. ranks dead last in preventable deaths (ie-pneumonia, diabetes etc.)
Government bureaucracies are always worse. You chart simply re-enforced that point. Less people to do the same job with more paperwork. Which actualy would secure my job but thats hardly the point.
Nobody here is advocating a British/French system of government doctors.
Also, are you honestly saying that insurance companies which will litigate, and delay and find excuses to avoid payment are easier than something which almost always pays quick and promptly?
Facts are, Medicare reimburses faster, with less hassle.
Is this the hope and change. This is theft of poor people since the payroll tax. People stop acting like sheep and become wolves vote the democrats out in 2010, ALL OF THEM! I warned that obuma was a used car salesman. My black friends are finally waking up but still alot sees him like Moses. Even the white liberals are calling obuma a piece of shit. Thats good news because he will lose in 2012. The white liberals votes made him win not black votes. Thats why he ignores black people.
jackthenigger 1 year ago
@jackthenigger i agree, but the republicans are 10 times worse! so lets vote the corporate democrats out, and vote in real liberals who might actually do something.
crayyawn 1 year ago
why doesn't obama see this?
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
I love Dr. Dean. I'm sad now cause I find myself cheering for Republicans just so the bill will die.
Muradj2002 2 years ago
Dean said it...and it appears no one commenting on this video heard it. he said it turns Medicare over to the insurance industry...MEDICARE that's what this bill opens the door too. Privatizing Medicare. Anyone who is interested go to the SS site and read the latest Public Report and you will see just the kind of trouble Medicare is in.
Boomer1949 2 years ago
WOW. Even Howard Dean, and extreme leftist is, scared to death. We must be really in trouble.
thementalpatient2005 2 years ago
If people seriously think Howard Dean is an extreme leftist, we really are in trouble.
PerryLogan 2 years ago 2
No kidding! He's a moderate Democrat and he's only arguing for the public option.
But the Democratic Party loves to fuck with the left wing of it's party while letting the right-wing section the entire party.
The recent Obama poll showed that 12% of the party doesn't think he's going far enough to the liberal left.
WhatCrass 2 years ago
You understand he's talking about a public option not being in the bill?
mm89f 2 years ago
@mm89f You are absolutely correct! I am not for government run health care, but if it is coming, I would like to see the public option injected into the bill! I don't want to be taxed to pay the premiums for all those uninsured because the insurance companies will be able to set the rates without the public option. Without it the premiums can skyrocket!!
coleyman1 1 year ago
Left and Right must come together to fight this dictatorship of corruption and bribery in Washington.
What's it gonna take? Suggestions?
Dagney77 2 years ago
PATRIOT Howard Dean, MD, practiced medicine throughout his terms as VT Rep, 1982, & Lt. Gov (1986)~became Gov 1991~was elected to FIVE 2-yr terms 1991-03~was 2nd longest Gov of VT~served as Chair of Nat'l Govs 1994-95; & as Gov, pd off much of VT public debt~balanced budget 11 times~TWICE lowered Income Tax~~oversaw expanding Dr. Dinosaur to ensure health care for VT kids/expectant moms! He is a PATRIOT unlike the POTUS.
ggammel 2 years ago
America is a JOKE... because Americans are CLOWNS!
TheManSand322 2 years ago
People, including you and the rest of the world, seem pretty fascinated by our stupidity.
themarycity 2 years ago
I totally agree. In fact, all of North America is f'ed up. Canadians are Mexicans need to put in their rightful place as the slave laborers of other continents. Seriously, I think their average IQ is 60 - comparable to a monkey.
rumrum88 2 years ago
Crazy Joe is just intigating this thang - Gov Dean is right - The Dems whimped out and let the repub control the debate - fuck the Dems run the House and the Senate and still cant get a bill passed - they are weak!
Shiftyeyes516 2 years ago
Ummm actually the Republicans are completly against this shit bill and are trying to stop it. I love how you guys still try to blame this on the republicans, they have no control over the bill, the Dems are the ones that can't agree and unite on one issue. The republicans have no control whether the bill goes or stays, that's in the Dems hands and 70% of Americans are against this bill and Obama and that number is growing everyday this administration keeps this circus going.
VOSSFORLIFE 2 years ago
In other news, the Repubs have broken the Senate filibuster record to stop the bill.
PerryLogan 2 years ago
Good points, Dr. Dean. This is a pro health insurance bill and it is harmful.
JayPhilosopher 2 years ago 5
Obama is stabbing us in the back. This is not what we voted for.
Dagney77 2 years ago 2
At the very least, Dean should be a close adviser of Obama, if not a cabinet member (although it would have been preferable if he had been elected in 2004...). Everything he said made sense and seems really sad, but true: politicians yet again doing a shitty job of representing the needs of average Americans
bernlin2000 2 years ago
I get where he is coming from - it seems a travesty for the big health care and insurance industry to profit from this bill. Of coursde, they've spent nearly 1/2 BILLION diollars fighting health reform.
It amazes me how greedy they are and how stupid the public is to buy their bullshit ads and fearmongering.
DixieDale 2 years ago
It was a rhetorical question.
BrerRabbitBDA 2 years ago
@BrerRabbitBDA You never know on Youtube.... ;)
wnnw98 2 years ago
Why isnt this guy our President?
BrerRabbitBDA 2 years ago
@BrerRabbitBDA Because the media totally killed him after he got excited at a campaign rally. If the media destroys you then you have no chance.
wnnw98 2 years ago
No, they went after him when he declared on TV that he would go after and break up the media monopolies. The "scream" was the excuse they found to take him down.
And I would support Dean for president in 2012. I wish he were interested.
chadlupkes 2 years ago
In our last election, my concern about Obama was always the amount of money being given to him by the drug companies and the insurance industry. Howard Dean is absolutely right and this bill is ultimately, a direct result of a corrupt election's process in which FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEBATE IS BEING CENSORED BY A PRIVATE CORPORATION. The public has clearly been denied due process by private interests.
Larrymcphereson 2 years ago
Dean / Sanders 2012
pegelatrin 2 years ago 4
Again, in an ideal world in which the media wasn't controlled by a bunch of trans-national fascist fucks...yes.
BardCoennius 2 years ago
srah palin is going to be president in 2012 as much as i hate it
the reason being is she's celebrity
personage2007 2 years ago
Christ, I hope you're wrong about this - but knowing Mr. Joe Sixpack and Ms. Sally Soccermom as I do, I have a grey feeling your prediction may be right...
The upside is that she may very well finish the job of destroying the Amerikan Empire - then Texas and the South and Deseret and Vermont and Cascadia can finally go their own ways, and the people of this continent will be free to create their own social-democratic havens or theocratic-kapitalist hells as the see fit...
BardCoennius 2 years ago
Bend over, Americans, and brace yourself as you are raped by:
The Pentagon/Military Industrial Complex
Wall Street
The Health Insurance Cartel
Big Pharma
No welfare for you, ordinary Americans, because the money is needed to run the massive corporate welfare system to enrich incompetent and corrupt corporations.
Relugus 2 years ago
no, the money is needed for Israel and the wars fought for it, such as Iraq and eventually Iran.
rooper666hell 2 years ago
Israel is awesome. they dont start wars so you have to attribute america's wars for them
..and the muslims have to create conspriacy theories heh
personage2007 2 years ago
"they dont start wars so you have to attribute america's wars for them"
LOL
this is hilarious, please say you're joking.
themange59 2 years ago
America fights wars for the UN more than Israel.
personage2007 2 years ago
thank u for coming back howard!
gan0nsl4y3r 2 years ago
oh man, i hope he's wrong, but i'm afraid he's right.
novazembla 2 years ago 3
Dean can do this because he isn't holding an elected position. How nice it is to hear this.
Slash417 2 years ago
Go Dean!!! You are a true patriot.
atripa645 2 years ago
Kucinich-Paul in 2012
BardCoennius 2 years ago 3
huh? the two have completely opposite ideologies.
sirdaveysockrocker 2 years ago
In many ways, yes.
However, being as we have been completely taken over by transnational korporate scum who are destroying this nation in the name of profits with the WTO and the World Bank and the military-industrial complex holding a knife to our collective throats, Progressives and Libertarians are actually finding some common ground.
BardCoennius 2 years ago 3
true but when it comes to regulation reform, or health care, they wont come near each other policy wise.
sirdaveysockrocker 2 years ago
True...and this is my problem with Libertarians. They believe in NO corporate regulation whatsoever and that free market principles will always make things right.
Now, if you can believe that the humans who run those corporations will always act in the best interests of society, this is a valid position.
Of course, the history of the last 30 years shows us that corporations act on nothing but their own self-interest - and on this, Ron Paul is either blind or stupid.
BardCoennius 2 years ago 2
@BardCoennius
everyone acts in their own self-interest. noone's ever tried having corperations with no regulations.
burnhippiesforfuel 1 year ago
@BardCoennius , I can live with that!
RangRing68 2 years ago
Here's my thinking: in the best of all possible worlds, yes, we'd have Kucinich and Nader.
However, there are only around 65 million Progressives, but at least as many Libertarians.
What we agree on: no more Empire, no more Federal Reserve, no more taking away individual liberties.. Those are the main roots of the cancer that is killing all of us.
Once those are dealt with, we can start arguing about corporate personhood and how to administer the Commons.
BardCoennius 2 years ago
no man. Ron Paul. Ron Paul and maybe we could somehow get Jim Traficant to run. although he is probably disqualified. however, a real bipartisan ticket would be Ron Paul / Jim Traficant 2012.
rooper666hell 2 years ago
Never heard of Traficant.
BardCoennius 2 years ago
if you haven't heard of Jim Traficant, just simply do a youtube search for the video: Jim Traficant Hannity. this is an interview of Traficant by Hannity.
rooper666hell 2 years ago
thank god someone took a stand on this
candiceevans1 2 years ago 3
the 2010 election is now just 290 days away.
bb44332211 2 years ago
@bb44332211 , feels like 290 years!
RangRing68 2 years ago
no more foreign aid for israel until every single american has healthcare and employment. america first
rooper666hell 2 years ago 2
gore/dean 2012 running with the progressive party. REAL change we can believe in!
sirdaveysockrocker 2 years ago
Kucinich/Nader 2012.
Gore and Dean are as progressive as rocks.
Apsu88 2 years ago
In the best of all possible worlds...
BardCoennius 2 years ago
Obama has a bit more than 2 years to show why people should vote for him again, because this first year is full of fail.
bleunt 2 years ago
Americans, by nature, work hard to get the best possible product despite any odds placed before them. We expect our representatives to do the same and with the current version of this bill, this isn't even close to meeting that objective.
Congress, get your sh*t together and do the right thing. I'ts easy and simple, once you know how...
wildpeachatl737 2 years ago
61% of American's are AGAINST this BS, why it even still alive? Can't wait till 2010 so we can put this on the national ballot and do away with this disaster! There is already petitions going around to put it on the next ballot, Be sure to sign up and let congress know they can find a new job next election!!
combatvetdoc 2 years ago
And some of the preexisting 'conditions,' such as mental retardation, are dealt with through things like public school programs with specialists in the school to help them out. Or other disability programs and such. I think the amount of people who NEED insurance badly due to preexisting vs. those who just make stupid choices is a little overstated. No one ever asks WHY so many people need insurance "right away" with HC reform. They make it sound like EVERYONE needs care this minute.
whoo689 2 years ago
@Whoo689 - In terms of such things as mental disorders, there's only so much that "programs" can do to help people who have serious medical conditions.
Medication and professional treatment can mean the difference between leading a somewhat normal life and a life in which they are barely able to function among other people.
We don't think everyone needs the health insurance reform. But there is a large group of people that do. And health insurance, sadly, can decide between life and death.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
One of things in this healthcare debate that's sorely lacking attention is the importance of being healthy and making good choices. I mean, just how many of the people hospitalized each year or who "need insurance" are in that state b/c of their own unhealthy choices? I think a lot more than we think, so all this focus on insuring everyone may be misplaced. I doubt more than the expected 10 or 20 million people need regular medical treatment b/c of preexisting conditions they had no control.
whoo689 2 years ago
@Whoo689 - Let's say that we give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your figure that maybe 10 to 20 million people need regular medical treatment because of preexisting conditions is accurate.
That's still 10 to 20 MILLION people.
If you believe people shouldn't get help for things that may have been in their control, we can put the blame on nearly anyone that has an accident for example. Shouldn't have been walking on that road. Shouldn't have been driving. Shouldn't this or that.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
If anyone hates Dean over this they should either kill themselves or register themselves into the Republican Party.
Joe402 2 years ago 3
The 2010 election is now just 290 days away.
bb44332211 2 years ago
There will be doom unless the bill is passed. As long as the senator from Louisiana is still getting 100 million for her vote, that's the important thing. Drink some Kool-aid and pass the bill.
xxramblingsxx 2 years ago
Answer: not many.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
Single Payer or Nothing
TheWayISeeIt1982 2 years ago 2
bill the kill
inmyforties 2 years ago
Blaming the wealthy for everything is SSOOOOO 1917 Russia.
bobjon38 2 years ago
Interesting you say that, considering that the US arrests more people, has a larger and more aggressive military and generally acts sooo very 1930s Germany.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri LOL who told you that? Stalin alone killed 20 million plus of his own people BEFORE WWII.
Read a book.
bobjon38 2 years ago
not to mention the winter war with finland and what Stalin did in East Prussia, which Russia still occupies.
bobjon38 2 years ago
what the fuck happened to the public option?
Tinils 2 years ago
Mmm, now I don't know what to think. (FYI I'm from Belgium)
I'm all for healthcare, and I hope you get it soon. But when I hear this guy, then not to soon.
here a few countries with better healtcate than USA:
France, Malta, Singapore, Oman, Japan, Belgium, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Chile, Dominica, Costa Rica and many more.
5heikYerbouty 2 years ago
I'm liking Howard Dean more and more.
swankymsp 2 years ago 2
Joe Scarbrough is so annoying. Stop interrupting people.
JobDDT 2 years ago
I'm not going to buy private insurance because they 9 times out of 10 won't cover any conditions. I'll end up having more money if I don't buy into the greedy insurance companies. Screw Corporatism.
bionicarcher 2 years ago 2
I agree with you.
What is the point of getting an insurance to cover all expenses? That is retarded, that's like getting food insurance.
I want to save money for getting sick, and have an insurance for disasters, unfortunately, the later is outlawed.
Then the better deal is to just save the money, as you want to.
Visfen 2 years ago
Not that I'm trying to defend these bills, but they will (using a non-partisan panel) define what constitutes health insurance and what constitutes a basic/minimum plan vs. a premium plan. Everybody will have to have a basic/minimum plan, but it will be there choice if they want more than that.
It would be useless to force people to buy health insurance while allowing some plans to call themselves health insurance while only charging $25 per month because it only coveres hang nails.
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
Politicans should not decide or control what constitutes a legitmate insurance, that is what the customer is for and papers like consumer digest.
It is useless to control and mandate insurance at any level, in fact, insurance by its very design is actually stupid. If we assume a company has perfect intertempolar information you will always lose on insurance.
People should save their own money, that is actually better, and the health care industry would have to change after consumer voting.
Visfen 2 years ago
1. It's alright for govt to make laws about what constitutes a product or service in the interests of market transparancy. Govt. forbids you to put shit in a jar and label it peanut butter. Libertarians might prefer a free-market solution to that scenario, but I don't.
2. I agree govt. shouldn't mandate people to buy private insurance. They're only doing this because they're too cowardly to bring in public health insurance paid for through taxes, which is the sensible way to do it, IMHO.
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
1. Yes, fraud, but not quality or the extent a health care insurance should cover certain things, that is consumer responsibility.
To that it is merely the government authority to enforce the contract.
2. They shouldn't bring in public health insurance, that is an even bigger disaster, and I know what I'm talking about because I've lived in Sweden for all my life.
Look in history for the answer, in the earlt 20th century health care was the best int he world in all aspects, free markets work.
Visfen 2 years ago
I too know what I'm talking about because I've lived in both the U.S. and Canada. The Canadian system, despite it's faults, is far supperior to what passes for U.S. health care. U.S. health care is a disaster for all but the top 10% of the population, who are the ones behind maintaining the private system. The private system is tantamount to a per capita flat surcharge, since premiums are the same regardless of income.
Please exmplain your statement about the early 20th century.
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
I would suggest the Canadian system is far worse. Anyway:
In the early 20th century there was practially no government involement in health care whatsoever and everyone had access to the best health care in the world. At the same time in that time period the cost for medical procedures were getting cheaper and cheaper and the health care expenditure were constituing far less of GDP as a percentage than it is today.
The free market system deals with this better than social planning ever will.
Visfen 2 years ago
Since you just admitted you've lived in Sweden all your life I have no idea where you'd get your ideas about either the Canadian OR the U.S. health care system, or why you'd feel qualified to say which is better.
But then again, if you think everyone had access to the best health care in the early part of the 20th century, you're obviously living in some kind of fantasy world anyway, so there's not much point in discussing this with you.
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
Personal experience only goes so far, as to acutal quality and access to care that goes further.
They did have so, at that time in history, since then however we have seen some advancements in the field, but none suggesting it should be more expensive.
Sure, you can dismiss me like that, but the fact remains that the free market health care system worked perfectly, while the government mandated one has mixed results and mixed flaws depending on implementation.
Visfen 2 years ago
I want to note that history sometimes doesn't quite reflect reality. You basically state the idea that everyone had access to THE BEST care and quality in the early 20th century as a matter of fact, when in fact this couldn't have possibly been the case in what you view as a perfect free market health care system. There will always be some more expensive procedures that are better and some people can't afford. By definition, it is impossible for everyone to have the best.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Certainly I agree, I suggest that history and "empricial" research in the field of economics is merely anecdotes, what matters is its' rational soundness. Which basically is the suggestion that the neoclassical school is nonsense
People had access to different qualities of care, but respectively better than anywhere else in the world. People should have access to different quality of care,not everyone can affod the same things. This is good for everyone in the long run because of market forces
Visfen 2 years ago
Perhaps you meant the United States' health care was better than the rest of the world in general, which is a possibly valid point. However, that says nothing about differences within the same system.
I'm sure you've also considered the possibility that problems remained under the radar due to either social or technological limitations right?
Also: United States patriotism was very high during the early 20th century - everyone just endured things for the "good of the country."
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Certainly it was, but also in terms of who could afford it and wh owas covered, the US was better of then than today.
Now of course I'm not suggesting the quality of care was better, there has been vast advancements in the field, but I should note there that there would have been more advancement if there was less government involvement. Advances were faster then than today.
Patriotism is an absurd explenation to explain market forces, because the same quality is true about late 19th century.
Visfen 2 years ago
I wasn't attempting to explain market forces using Patriotism but I can see how it could be misunderstood. It's the actual media coverage/focus of recorded history on other things than the health care issues that I was trying to point out. (Youtube's character limit fails)
First, medical advancements being faster then than today is not a fact that I believe is true. Even if it were, it can be explained simply because there were more large health care issues to tackle back then.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
It is true however that advancements were made to a greater extent then than now, no matter what you believe. I sure in a hundred years they will say "there were more large health care issues to tackle back then".
The best part about the system back then was the stress on volountarism, to help people trough volountary means, it worked, which you can't really say about things like Medicare and Medicaid which has created terrible market incentives.
Visfen 2 years ago
I won't argue with volunteerism. However, doctors are still doing pro bono work and are encouraged to do so, despite the fact they are swamped and there is a shortage of doctors.
However, this misses the mark. You'd have to be insane to think that Insurance Companies can be asked to volunteer to cover people who they think are going to reduce their overall profits. :/
Volunteerism: Good. But it can't work forever - in your free market system, people are driven by personal incentives.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Then why not take volounteerism to it's logical extreme? Market extremism? OKay nevermind that, that is a whole other discussions.
There is a shortage of doctors because of licensing. There is government mandate on private licensing, and the Medical Association do what is in the interest of their members - to keep the supply of doctors down.
Insurance companies is a way to finance disasters, not to pay for care, that is premier problem in the current system.
Volounteerism did work! Better!
Visfen 2 years ago
Volunteerism isn't sustainable.
The shortage of doctors isn't just because of licensing. Others simply don't practice medicine due to malpractice claims, the insane competition there is to get the education necessary to become one, etc. I don't believe your assessment that the Medical Association is doing what it can to keep the supply of doctors down. But what I can say to that is that they wouldn't have to if the costs of being a doctor weren't so high.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
"Volunteerism isn't sustainable."
History disagrees, it worked much better than the entitelement system.
Actaully, the shortages of doctors is entirely because of the licensing issue. They have bene pushing more restrictions and laws since they first got the grips on the license in the first place. Now such ridiculous things as merely the "turn and cough"-diagnosis's needs to be done by people with 8 years of medical school, it's retarded frankly.
The numbers of spots are set by the MA.
Visfen 2 years ago
Looks like I have to refute one more thing. If Volunteerism was sustainable and the total fix to everything, and it WAS in place before, why the sudden change? My answer is the corruption of individual incentives. Otherwise we'd be living and would always live in utopia.
We can look at China for a great example of how Volunteerism doesn't work. Social pressures can cause millions of people to lose their lives just because they want to save face and meet unattainable goals.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Why the change? Because we don't live in an utopian society, and the government loves to get their hands on things.
Visfen 2 years ago
It isn't entirely because of the licensing issue. The amount of people let into medical school is simply not enough to provide for enough doctors even if they all graduated and became doctors.
Also on the internet, you can see how far you get using a web-based diagnosis system that asks you to make your own diagnosis using their system of frequently asked questions. I tried it before. It doesn't work that well.
The 8 years of experience in a medical school + interning combined is valuable.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Who do you think decides how long the education should be, and who do you think decides how many spot should be open?
The internet is certainly not the solution, the solution is to have compeiting licenses, and different levels of doctors. You could have a doctors that is cheaper that has less of an education and can spot more simple things.
Think of it as mechanics. Because that is what doctors are to us. It makes little sense to have every mechanics be a rocket scientist.
Visfen 2 years ago
Obviously over the course of time and as more and more medical advances are made, there is a much more difficult battle to advance medicine further.
I may agree that a change in overall structure may cause people to lose incentive to invent new drugs or work hard to come up with new advances. But we aren't talking about any of that.
The issue is payment for those services. Not the services themselves. This isn't a total revamp of the system. It's insurance reform.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
To suggest there should be a difficulty to advance medicine "further" could be made any time in history. I think it is absurd, there is no natural barrier for knowledge.
History however tells us what happens when you try to help the system, it only gets worse. Just abolish this government mandaged structure and let the free market take over, it will sort itself out as it should then, and the US will go back, in time, to having the best care in the world for everyone.
Visfen 2 years ago
@Visfen - I'm curious about what you think the reason is for the change from what you see as a great system in the early 20th century to today. We haven't nationized healthcare yet. So how can you blame socialized healthcare for it? There are other factors. But I'd be happy to see what you have to say about what backs up your beliefs.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Because of increments of governmetn involvement it has gotten more and more expensive.
If you understand how economics works you can trace the trend and the reasons why, and also where the problems will occur. The system today is one step from complete socialization, already half there.
If the question is whether I prefer the US system or the nationalized system I would say the US one, but that is because I will earn better.
Everyone however would benefit from a free system.
Visfen 2 years ago
@Visfen - What government involvement are you talking about? Regulating fraud in the insurance industry? Helping pay for diagnoses? Regulating good and bad medicines?
Those are the only things I can think of that may increase prices. Yet, every single one of those policies was meant to and does a necessary service. You really believe it would be better not to regulate drugs, keep insurers honest, and help with diagnosing illnesses?
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Fraud should definetly be regulated. Such things as hepling pay for costs and regulating "good and bad medicines" have done tremendous harm to the system.
The first removes the cost element of medical advancement and make sure only the upper tier will see development of cheaper medicine.
The later can be dealt with by free certificates, and free choices, what's the point of stopping a drug for market if the patients are dying? Let them take the risk if the want.
Visfen 2 years ago
The suggested "necessary service" is an absurd argument to make, espsecially when it comes to covering the poor. Because that will create incentives which will make it a "necessary serivce" to cover even more and more people.
But you're skipping a big part of regulation, that is the employer health care tax benefits and the regulation in states of what consitutes an insurance as well as the interstate block on getting a policy.
And there is plenty more, the industry is over-regulated as it is.
Visfen 2 years ago
Good, you brought up an actual regulation. Employer tax benefits for providing health insurance for their employees?
I agree about the interstate block on getting policies. If there was more open competition instead of these state-wide monopolies (Which the insurance companies WANTED by the way) then it would be a better system.
But that alone wouldn't fix the industry. Deregulation is not always the answer.
There are such things as necessary services in the United States. Here are a few:
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
I can brin up antoher one, the FDA's stricter rules in the 1970s, which if you look at the actual implication of it and compare the thirty years before and after, you could suggest has killed or shortened the lives of about 27 million americans.
Before the regulation drugs got to market twice as fast with minimal difference in safety. Assuming the drugs would be as beneficial, the law has done tremendous harm.
Check out Dr. Mary Ruwart work on this for references.
Visfen 2 years ago
You assume that all those drugs would be beneficial. They aren't. And this is an area where a consumer wouldn't be able to make an educated choice unless you propose that they they all went to medical school, which would make NO sense.
You really want to talk about our drug regulation? Ours is horribly lax compared to European nations, who have banned a number of drugs that we still use to our detriment here in the United States. Drop the regulation issue. It doesn't bolster your case.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Sure he could make that choice, because there would be other organizations that checked what the risks were and the customer could chose to take them or not.
Or he could just ask his doctor.
And considering they are being researched with such high entry costs, those drugs are probably more benenfical than earlier discoveries.
Actually European nations have laxer standards than the US. It is easier to get drugs on market here.
Visfen 2 years ago
Some drugs are also just remakes of the same thing. Again, a reason why it isn't best to have everything left up to the private sector without any regulation. Incentives exist for people to cheat the system and do away with the high costs of research. Rebranding or repackaging the same thing with a slight modification yields the best profits. Really innovative research costs too much to be profitable.
But again, that's just the drug industry. The focus in the U.S. is on the insurance aspect.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Everything is best to leave to the private sector.
Rebranding or repackageing the same thing works just fine, if you sell it cheaper than competitors. But the FDA has nothing to do with anything like that, that is another problem, which is based in the ridiculous monopoly given by intellectual property laws. That should be away with as well.
Innovative research would cost less if costs for market entry weren't as high.
The insurance industry is a mess, lets' go back to consumer power.
Visfen 2 years ago
You seem to be pushing an extremely libertarian or conservative stance in which everything is best as a private industry, including regulation of money, regulation of utilities, policing factors (and to answer your response in the other comment, organized crime can exist without it being illegal - look at some governments in corrupt countries) etc.
My question for you on this comment is whether you think it would be best not to have intellectual property law at all.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Well I'm a market extremist, an anarcho capitalist, or whatever you like to call it. So my views are somewhat unheard of in the political arena of chosing which idiots to dicatate the terms of your life, but your children and grand children will be more likely to understand me.
(How can something be organized crime if it is legal, sound like an oxymoron :-))
Intellectual property laws should be done with, there is no reason for them whatsoever. You can't own the intellectual realm.
Visfen 2 years ago
Without intellectual property law, new innovation is not encouraged since someone else could simply steal your idea. If you believe in the free market economy and what constitutes as incentives, you'd recognize this fact. But here, you consider regulation as too strict. I consider it as too lax.
Overall, I think we both agree that the system is broken. The fact is that we need to change incentives for things to work. We can't worship money forever. But that isn't going to happen any time soon.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Yet, I just don't see how an idealistic and lovely idea would work in reality. Individual incentives are powerful. But to me, that power can be used by powerful people in bad ways. Without regulation and incentive not to do the wrong thing, people can and will take the shortcut that helps themselves but not necessarily the group as a whole. It's a basic game theory concept that I don't think we can avoid.
Thanks for the discussion!
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
To me, I think it already is used by powerful people in bad ways. Like wars, which is something only states can do, have killed more people in the 20th century than any kind of or all kinds of crime has done in history.
We already have incentives to do the right thing, because we trade in a market with other people, why would you trade with an inconsiderate jerk? You wouldn't. So you have to help the market, ergo the group
I love game theory :) It's basically my world view taken to the extreme
Visfen 2 years ago
I think you believe we have a tendency to value the social aspect as an incentive already, and I would beg to differ - and maybe that's where our problem lies. I don't think everyone plays the same game or follows the same rules. People will deal with "inconsiderate jerks" if they think the incentives outweigh the consequences or possible issues. And they weigh their own benefit as more than the group. But I guess we have to agree to disagree there, as there is no way to change our minds.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
I belive that that that self interst in a free, volountary, market, is benefical to all.
Yes, they will deal with those jerk, if the benfits are high enough. I don't see a problem with that.
The individual are more important than the group, because that is what the group is made out of. But because of how a free market works in order to benefit yourself you must serve others.
I think we have to agree to disagree, at least we agree the consumer should have the power! :)
Visfen 2 years ago
Sure they are, because you get a monopoly for as long as it takes for someone else to retool a factory and to figure out what you've done, and when they do they might be able to do even more advancements.
Communialism (the free an open exchange of science) is a corner stone of science.
What we would see are more incremental advancements in medicine and less "jumps", which is actually to the benefit of the customer, ie. the patient.
Again, read the research by the doctor I posted earlier.
Visfen 2 years ago
I want to be clear that I like the idea of the consumer having all the power. I like the idea of volunteerism being the fix to all this. Abolishing tariffs and embargoes would also be on my list of things we should do, but not for us - for the rest of the world.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
Let's say that the police service wasn't a necessary service, and is a service you pay for instead. You "buy" protection. You are told what to do and laws are enforced by those who have money. Voila, we have a mafia-type system in which organized crime runs rampant, and this is a situation we can see in many countries as well, where the rich dominate and extort from the poor.
Similarly, without a public education system, few of America's poor would have access to any education at all.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
I think that would be a great system, if we had market forces in the safety industry we would get cheaper cost, better quality and get better results overall. Laws would be enforced by what is deemed beneficial and not what a politican says, I would love that.
How could organized crime run rampant, it is dependent upon being illegal for it to function?
If you want to check out such a system research anarchian theory and mutualism and anarcho capitalism.
As far as public education: :D hah
Visfen 2 years ago
The government can't help. Because they don't have any money. :) Their in the business of destruction, force and violence, and that is what they bring with them when they try to help.
Heck, to expand this discussion to a little side point, the idea of all these programs was to eliminate themsleves, yet they have all had to expand.
It's because a customer with limitless pockets will always pay, one way to fix all this is government ration, and that is worse than letting prices ration take place
Visfen 2 years ago
As for your comment about how you would earn better - I think that really just shows where your motivation lies, and where the insurance industry here lies. And that is the fundamental issue with the system. And that problem is the insurance aspect.
People in insurance don't really care about giving them care. It benefits them to actually keep their own customers from getting care.
Some things are better done by the government. Some are better done by private industry.
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
My motivation is to benefit all, but if I can't have that I will benefit myself rather than the poor. As any rational human being would do.
I have big problems with the insurance companies, I have problems with an insurance, I think it's stupid, you're accepting a payment system that will always make you the loser. If you win, you still lose, because then they will have taken (if they do it right) more money than if I would have saved.
Nothing is better done by the government. Except violence.
Visfen 2 years ago
If you really felt that way, you would donate everything you own except your basic necessities to families who are poor in Africa who really are starving.
But I agree with your point. A rational human being looks out for their self-interest, and finds excuses not to look out for others. That's the whole problem! Insurance providers and corporations are looking to make money and help themselves. Not help others.
We both hate the insurance companies, it seems. I think we differ in terms of
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
No, because I don't think that is the best way to help anyone. I think the best way to help Africa is to work with the free trade organizations to make sure they can "learn how to fish" instead of giving them fish. And also to invest in project in their countries.
But to a greater extent I really don't care. Neither do you.
The problem is not human behaviour, the problem is a system that divers the insivible hand from helping others. The best system is one where hepling others helps yourself.
Visfen 2 years ago
whether or not the government can make it better, or whether or not people would still want to or be willing to pay for such a service.
From a pessimistic view (not everyone can be covered, and some people will always have less coverage) I understand your reasoning.
But you see, I don't take it that far. Sure, we can't cover everyone with the best coverage. But we CAN provide for basic services while giving those with money the option of paying for the premium services from private companies
KalecLostsol 2 years ago
I understands your reasoning as well, but the problem with it is that the market incentives created by it will eventually result in everyone having to be covered or the entire system having to be dissolved - that is where we are today. Where medicare and medicaid has led to years of no cost competition whatsoever and the cost of medicine going up fast. Now it's a choice in having a free system to save the children or a govenrment system to save the old (Republicans don't understand this)
Visfen 2 years ago
@bionicarcher Private insurance will pay 99% of the time.
BTW the bill in the senate will cost you $1000 per year if you do nothing.
bobjon38 2 years ago
Dean, I agree. scrap it and start again.
bobjon38 2 years ago
my god we need a public option
evilpaul626 2 years ago 3
At this point I'm with Dean, kill the bill. We failed. Republicans & Joe Lieberman & the health insurance nazis won. Gotta try again or just move on.
TheRamenAvenger 2 years ago 10
Nothing>Bad bill
poop121 2 years ago 2
Regardless of you opinion on dean, he speaks very articulate.
newsweekrocks 2 years ago 2
Fanatastic argument from Howard Dean. Yeah!
mao12345 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Howard Dean is Sarah Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCH and PUSSY! Palin is a SUPERIOR politician and statesman than Dean could ever be. She is also MORE MAN than he is for Dean wears the skirt in his family while his wife wears the pants!
ecwaufisxtreme 2 years ago
ecwufisnazifuck. I hope you get vaginal cancer on your face.
goldensextant 2 years ago
Basically what we have now, with the gutted public options, is a bill that will force us all to pay for expensive "care" from a private company- BY LAW. The only thing the current bill will do, without the public option, is create a whole new class of millions of criminals. That's it.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago 2
Go tell them Dean!
zizo23 2 years ago 3
Howard Dean is right.!!!
sinterics 2 years ago 3
I give kudos to Dean for standing on his moral ground, I disagree with him, but I respect him greatly for standing for what he believes in.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
1:28
Joe Scarborough is a camera director now?
Fuck working with that man-child in the first place.
Howard dean is spot-on here.
FixedNewsChannel 2 years ago 2
Thats good you caught Joe there...lol
By the way Howard is right , Kill The Bill....
sjcpal 2 years ago 2
We need Democrats with balls. Lieberman should have been stripped of his Senate seniority months ago.
Ram a public option through reconciliation and move on.
Richardgwm 2 years ago 7
"Ram a public option through reconciliation and move on."
EXACTLY!
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago 3
@bamboo4tameshigiri Yeah and screw what the american people think right???
bobjon38 2 years ago
Screw the fascist repukelickins. A majority of real Americans want health care reform and a public option. The neonazi party spent 4 years threatening to "go nuclear" if the democrats didn't bend over for everything the dubya administration wanted. It's time for the democrats to stand up and shove 1 fucking thing down the throats of republicans. Yes; screw them! I don't give a flying fuck what the wealthy vocal minority wants.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri I want healthcare reform. But bankrupting insurance companies sending hundreds and thousands out of work, and replacing it with a government beurocracy isn't going to slove the problem.
bobjon38 2 years ago
The US ranks almost 40th in overall standards of care among nations and #1 in cost . I couldn't give less of a fuck about insurance companies. It wouldn't be possible to make me care less.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago 2
@bamboo4tameshigiri
40th? Using what standard? Does the fact that you are twice as likely to survive cancer in the USA as in europe mean anything to this scale of yours???
bobjon38 2 years ago
The standard of the World Health Organization. It's a fact and the only people who get better medical results in this country are rich people with Cadillac plans. Millions of people bankrupt themselves for health care in this country EVERY YEAR. That simply does not happen in the rest of the civilized world.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri
That is a complete lie. The type of insurance has no impact on the results of the medical care. Are you saying doctors let people die??? If so name these doctors. Name the hospitals.
Didn't think so.
bobjon38 2 years ago
Patient abandonment and under treatment is rampant in this country. Pretending like you don't know that is, frankly, sickening. "Fuck you" is all I really have to say to you at this point.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri
Another lie. In fact "patient abandonment and under treatment" is against federal law. Where are you getting this crap from???
And under treatment is cronic in the UK and just about every socialist medicine system.
Again, name names.
bobjon38 2 years ago
"twice as likely to survive cancer in the USA"
No you're not. Those fudged figures, shamelessly flogged by David Gratzer, are from an apple to orange comparison, where the European cancers were not sorted according to stage.
In a comparison of 19 developed countries, the U.S. ranks dead last in preventable deaths (ie-pneumonia, diabetes etc.)
reuters. com/article/idUSN0765165020080108
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
@bobjon38
So you're worried about bureaucracy?
greyfalcon. net/ overhead.png
greyflcn 2 years ago
@greyflcn That is one issue. Hardly the only one.
Single payer would also make millions unemployed.
bobjon38 2 years ago
@bobjon38
So you're worried about "If we get rid of bureaucracy of private insurance, then what about the jobs of all those bureaucrats?"
Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways.
greyflcn 2 years ago 2
@greyflcn
Government bureaucracies are always worse. You chart simply re-enforced that point. Less people to do the same job with more paperwork. Which actualy would secure my job but thats hardly the point.
bobjon38 2 years ago
@bobjon38
Well what's "better" then?
A 7% overhead or a 25% overhead?
greyfalcon. net/ overhead2
"Always" is a strange word, which tends to get people in trouble.
greyflcn 2 years ago
@greyflcn
I don't know, with 25% you can get service very quickly, not so much with 7% overhead.
bobjon38 2 years ago
@bobjon38
"Service"? We're talking financing. Not service.
Nobody here is advocating a British/French system of government doctors.
Also, are you honestly saying that insurance companies which will litigate, and delay and find excuses to avoid payment are easier than something which almost always pays quick and promptly?
Facts are, Medicare reimburses faster, with less hassle.
greyflcn 2 years ago 2
@greyflcn
Yes, amny here are advocating the british/french system.
I work in the industry, goverment insurances are the WORST payers. Medicare being the worst.
bobjon38 2 years ago
Correct, medi-cal is the worst.
I spend days coding for thier crap.
bobjon38 2 years ago