Socialized Medicine, 1 of 3

[AmaruRuna]

The ones who don't want to have "socialised" medicine are BIG PHARMA and the mafias who control the medical system, and Americans to eat junk food and rubbish, drinking sodas, and make them fat and obese to profiteer with their health and well being; no wonder why yanks are addicted to prescription drugs and junk food, and the costs are high due to the demand.

Single payer health care, will destroy the SICKNESS INDUSTRY an immoral industry that profiteers with people's suffering.

[AmaruRuna]

Your assumption are wrong because you have NEVER lived in such countries with single payer health care;

The US is the ONLY country where the insurance companies have the right to stop insuring sick people and charge high premiums for ill people; while in Australia or Japan all premiums are charged EQUALLY without any discrimination, People are not cars or houses to be treated the same

Please all your BS of slavery, freedom go and convince the naive and the stupid; the Market is NOT INFALLIBLE

[lctrout]

Are you seriously trying to make an argument against single payer health insurance by reading aloud about healthcare attempts in a "work camp" in the middle of nowhere in pre 1930's Russia? Dude....DUDE!!???

[SonichuFan4Ever]

There are many Americans who are unable to afford healthcare at all, so your point is rather moot. Does this mean we should deprive the poor of healthcare just so that the rich don't have to wait?

[lanilani06]

I recommend the actual health care system as I experienced in Canada, even though I was a foreigner there. I bet British is very similar to the Canadian. My supervisor had a triple bypass in his late sixties, did not have to wait for it as the American (One should say, USA-ian) propaganda keeps saying, and did not pay for it out of pocket.

[LinuxNavigator]

In Europe we have socialized medicine, in the united sates you got socialized business by bailout failing businesses. I think your system is worst.

[toddghall]

1. We don't have socialized health care yet. We should, but we don't. It's a public option. Look it up.

2. You are comparing to a country in a period of time between 2 world wars in which Russia was affected 100 times if not 1000 times more than the US.

If you want to compare socialized medicine, at least use one of the current examples from the numerous other countries that have already intelligently taken this path.

[AngryComentGuy]

Socialized health care = dollar store health care

[carveawoodeneye]

socialized anything epic fail!!

[mikerpiker]

hahahaha I see you're a "specialist in curricular form and content for primary education." That's a pretty fancy name for elementary school teacher.

[fd3boost]

M Piker, Your a moron.

Regards.

[giggletronics]

You're*

Are you serious? Holy shit.

[mikerpiker]

How about I post a video describing health care in Somalia to discredit your objectisit health care proposal. No, I wouldn't do that because it'd be ridiculously disingenuous.

You stand in front of your book collection attempting to appear educated, but your exaggerations make you sound more like Glen Beck than someone who has thought about these things carefully.

So are you in the first or second year of a poli-sci degree? I'm guessing first. Most people are over Rand by year two.

[carveawoodeneye]

why are Most people over Rand by year two? i trying to find flaws with objectivism haven as of yet but if i don't keep looking it starts to seem like religion!!

[hopkins4545]

Of course you're against it. You're digging Ayn Rand. You care about yourself, that's it.

[lrvives]

CropperB: Watched several of your videos. All very well documented, deep, intellectual discussions. Thanks for increasing the average IQ of the internet.

[905rocks]

in canada there are only slightly longer lines

only the rich cum down

[90daymen]

by the way totally agree with you on the military spending point you made earlier. we spread our resources to thin and constantly involve ourselves in matters that we have no business(other than big business) being a part of. although that is one of the only responsibilities given to the federal government in our country's constitution. it is also important to have a strong defense, not to be confused with offense.

[t00117598]

so its better to let people die?

[90daymen]

simple question, simple answer, no. a more lengthy answer; no, private charity can help to prevent people from dying.

[t00117598]

but wouldn't it be better to have both private and public hospitals so everyone could be covered but those who wanted to pay for private could.

[90daymen]

sounds great, but have the public hospitals funded by charity. our government has no right to force some to pay for others health care. i truly believe there are enough good people in our country to donate the funds for a good majority of medical costs for those that truly can not afford it. when you force some to pay the cost of healthcare for whoever wants it free, you kill the incentive for people to work for their health care. do i believe we should let people die?..no. charity could prosper

[mynameisalanjohn]

"our government has no right to force some to pay for others health care"

actually that is one of the few things we should be paying our taxes for. look at how much of our taxes go in to the military (yours more than ours). i would gladly pay tax for health care, having it run on charity would make it way too unstable and the hospitals focus would not be fully focused on the patients. we are talking about peoples lives here.

[90daymen]

because you think that is one of the few things we should be paying taxes for, does not make it right. do you believe in the constitution of the united states? your fear of private charity hospitals is exactly what happens with government run health care. do you know of anywhere that socialized medicine works? and i did not say have it run by charity. i stated that we should have private hospitals and charitable health care to those who cannot afford it. government intervention drives up cost.

[t00117598]

socialised medicine works in my country and in the uk. i agree with mynameisalanjohn if you you have socialised education, socialised police and socialised firefighters then whats wrong with socialised medicine?

[90daymen]

works in the uk does it? "The NHS is saying to [patients], 'Tough luck, there's nothing we can give you'. But that is not the case. If you lived in North America you would get these drugs, but not in Scotland." - Dr Paul Nathan, consultant oncologist. that was quoted from "The Scotsman." government intervention drives up cost and deteriorates quality. same goes for education. there is a better system in most of europe, it's not completely socialized. and look at who has the dumber kids.

[t00117598]

well you can't tell me your system is working all that well either, neither system works on its own. there needs to be a compromise between the two. with education, i don't know. our system is completley socialised and its at a pretty good standard.

[90daymen]

you're right, our system isn't working all that well, and it's not totally privatized. our governement is heavily involved in our health care system. and yes a private system can work on it's own. the government only needs to be a part in protecting citizens from fraud and malpractice. you're education system is completely socialized? maybe its free to all students, but do you get to choose where you go to school? we don't. unless you have the money for a private school.

[90daymen]

you probably at least have a choice in what school you send your children to. am i right? choice creates competition amongst the schools, causing a higher standard and quality of education. if schools don't have to worry about losing business because it is guaranteed by the government, they will not strive to excel in their quality of education which lowers the standard. government funded schools will only strive to meet the minimum, government established standards.

[mellowtribe]

why do your rich people come to us in America if your system is better? whats your tax rate ? 70%? does the government wipe your butt too?

[t00117598]

our rich people do not go to america, the tax rate on what we earn ranges from 21 to 42% depending on how much you make and no the government does not wipe my butt.

[90daymen]

just think if you completely took the government out of both. you create competition, raising the quality of care while driving down cost. and then you have choices on how you are treated or how your child is educated. and without all the taxes and ineffecient spending of, there is money to give to charity to help those who cannot afford healthcare or education. you can also provide some with healthcare and education vouchers for those in need.

[905rocks]

in canada every one get what they need

[90daymen]

since you give such a simplistic reply, I will give you one as well. if "in canada every one get what they need," then why doesn't everyone move there?

now a couple questions for you. do you think it is a good idea that everyone gets what they need even if they are not willing to work for it? You can get virtually everything you need from the gov't here in America too, you just have to go get it from the right gov't program. Question 2-Why should everything you "need' just be given to you?

[90daymen]

i just realized you probably are not from the u.s. so perhaps you don't believe in our constitution. let me put it this way. if we are walking down the street and see a man in need, is it ok for me to give that man $20 and suggest that you do the same? of course. is it ok for me to give that man $20 and then point a gun at you and tell you to give him $20 too or i will use force? i don't think so. that is what you are doing when the government takes control of health care. what do you think?

[mynameisalanjohn]

if we are walking down the street and see a uneducated child, is it ok for me to give that child a book and suggest that you do the same? of course. is it ok for me to give that child and then point a gun at you and tell you to give him the same or i will use force? that's socialised education which your country has. what about if a man was on fire or somebody was getting robbed? is it okay to force people to help then, by your logic no it is not.

[90daymen]

you're right, by my logic/beliefs it is not ok. i do not believe in forcing people to help others. i believe it is up to individuals to decide on their own to do what is right. if they do not do what is right, they have to live with it. it is punishment they bring on themselves.

and out of curiosity, i don't know how my previous comment had anything to do with socialized education which yes, unfortunately, my country has.

[KECluvme]

how is socalised education bad? shouldent all children be educated? or do you think that only the children of those who are wealthy and can afford to pay for a privetly owned school deserve an education. would your parents have been able to dish out the 10,000+ to get you a privet education? my parents could but im lucky. not everyone is lucky and unfortunately not all people who work hard succeed. and even if their parents were lazy bums does that mean the child suffers?

[90daymen]

i never said i didn' t believe in publicly funded schools. i believe we should work together to ensure every willing child receives an education. however, i don't like the education system currently at work in this country, but i don't believe it has to be completely privatized. i think education should be local and state gov't responsibilities, mostly local.

[Minionuup]

"how is socalised (socialized) education bad? shouldent (shouldn't)all children be educated? "

Sure but by who?

[newusername01]

YOU: what if your kidney was failing?

ME: It's the 1930's your stuffed regardless where you are.

YOU: You have a right to life

ME: that is except if that person is dieing and has no money

YOU: A DR now has a set of chains now.

ME: I've worked in a public hospital and i've never has a chain around my neck.

[guekun]

It's a pain in the ass to hear you man. So fucking stupid crap coming out of your mouth. Do you realize that health care was, in the 30's, pretty much the same everywhere and that means in Russia or Europe or USA. You also have to think that the actual health care system in USA is the result of the actions of right-wing hypocrit politicians from the 1970's. Anyway hope you die from a cancer, wishing you do not have any good health cover asshole!

[OthewolfislooseO]

I am from the UK. I am proud to say we have the longest standing health service in the world - the NHS.

Socialised medicine doesn't work? Well, the US already has a socialised Education, Emergency services etc.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but no-one would argue that the Fire and Rescue service should be privatised...

Most people against socialised services are right-wing, white and terrified of logical progression.

[redduckinpond]

My grandfather had many health issues while living in the soviet union... all of which were addressed in a timely manner.

When he came to Israel (private health-care) he was diagnosed with hepatitis C acquired in bad surgery in Belarus. They also looked at him as a frozen mummy, as the soviet's techniques were utterly primitive.

[snoopyflick]

But if the government pays, then the companies don't need to make a profit, meaning the cost will be cheaper. Further more if the consumers don't need to pay for health care, the funds will go somewhere else and stimulate and grow the economy. (Please note this is sarcasm, but I must give credit, where credit is due, so here's to Paul Krugman, a "Nobel Prize" winner, and just plain bush basher{who also sucks} for saying these ingenious ideas, and for being a leftist puppet, not an economist.)

[ROKHOWND]

Such ignorance from a man who is "educated"?

The best medical care in America is only given

to those who can afford it.

More people go bankrupt in America due to unpaid medical bills than any other western

nation.

Canada's system is not perfect,but you won't

lose your home or life savings due to illness.

40 million Americans have no medical plan,and Cropper thinks that's OK.

A pseudo intellect short on common sense.

[thexjib]

I really liked this video... You make a very compelling case and I agree with you.

[bukkake2007]

Canada is not the only country. In England, Japan, My country, Australia, Sweeden. And all these countries have longer life expectancys.

[fablence]

I don't think this Cropper guy has any idea of what he is talking about, or how Canada's health care system functions. I would be horrified if our health care was privatized so that the rich can get better care and the rest of us can get worse care. In general, USA style capitalism seems to be freedom, liberty and power for the wealthy and slavery for everyone else. Furthermore, his rant about dentistry is irrelevant since it is not free in Canada, we pay out the ass for it like Americans.

[snoopyflick]

Wow, that's about the shittiest reply I've ever heard. Regulations, a third party system, and the government who will pay anything drives the cost up in health care. Yes the rich might be able to get better care, though this ignores the question, can the poor get good enough care in a private and free market system. This would be a yes, if we even had close to it, instead of a mostly socialist system today, where half of it is purchased by the gov't.

[Bigturns33]

America has low life expectancy because most of them eat like shit or they eat sterioid laden food and other things. Most other countrys do not have "FAST FOOD"

[Bigturns33]

not to mention that life expectancy in all modern country's are about the same.

[SonichuFan4Ever]

@bukkake2007 Um first of all, America's life expectancy is well above the Worldwide life expectancy.

[AmaruRuna]

@bukkake2007

I am agree, I have lived in both countries, Australia and Japan, and by no way any argument anti "socialized" medicine, can convince me that the system is bad. I had an expensive and risky surgery and in Australia I did not have to pay anything when I was an student; but in the US I will be broke

Denying Health Care for everyone is a moral crime

In US even medicine goes to the market and of course medicine is a captive high demand market, so remember the law of supply and demand

[nosavage25]

@AmaruRuna does everyone in a country with socialized medicine think we just take people out to the back of the hospital and shoot them if they don't have insurance or it'll be too expensive to care for them? or that we have an organized gestapo that goes around taking money from people who don't pay their medical bills? i'd rather have medical care in america any day, with or without insurance, no matter the cost. you get what you pay for.

[AmaruRuna]

@nosavage25

You have NEVER EVER come here to Japan and NEVER experience so when you will get attended in other countries such as in Asia or Europe and Australia-NZ, and see how it benefit YOUR pocket, you will change your mind.

If you are a billionaire, good for you, you can afford that luxury of paying a exorbitant amount for a teeth, but I am NOT and most Americans are neither.

Medical care in Australia and Japan are of high quality, in Japan they use the latest technology

[kindkayne]

i like your commentary... i'd prefer you cut out the bedtime story at the beginning and get to the point but well done nontheless

[Brutus0723]

The United States needs Socialized Medicine.

[laetrille]

Socialized medicine would just a monopoly for the government and pharmaceutical industries and Alternative medecine would have no chance of survival.

[parispeter2]

Socialized medicine is civilized medicine.

[laetrille]

More like monopoly medecine.

[parispeter2]

Which is only a problem is the monopoly is used to further special interests, and not if it is used to further the well-being of all, as it is in many countries which have a national health system. As things stand in the US, non-monopolistic medicine benefits special interests and not the public.

[eujct]

Is it not widely agreed that Cuba has the best healthcare system in the world? Is that not a socialist country?

[justsmit]

I've enjoyed your videos about patents, but I disagree with you in this one.

Calling it socialized medicine in Canada is inaccurate IMO. The insurance is provided by the government, but the services are ran by *private* organizations (most non-profit, some not) with the practices paid out of the doctors' or organizations' own pockets.

It really doesn't suffer problems that are anything like what the Reds experienced.

[Jimuardo]

Well said, justmit.

[bearsagainstevil]

look saying they had socialised medicine in russia and it was crap therefore socialised medicine generally will be crap .

They had a police force in russia too that doesnt mean that all police forces are crap, or that the idea itself is bad .

most industrial countrys have socialised medicine

[nosavage25]

An argument based on the popularity of socialized medicine is a logical fallacy if you don't also provide evidence that it is beneficial in those countries. Most industrialized countries have Welfare, but that doesn't mean it's good.

[AmaruRuna]

@nosavage25

Unfortunately IT IS GOOD !!

I lived in Australia and now in Japan, and I have access for a cheap and good medical care, I don't give a crap about your BS arguments and better systems, my pocket says ALL. The system DOES NOT AFFECT MY COST and budget and is affortable to me; so please keep for yourself your idiotic arguments of freedom, that slavery system because being in DEBT with the hospital or doctor is the real slavery; the rest is just plain BS !!!

[nosavage25]

@AmaruRuna so since someone else foots the bill it's fine? and now freedom is idiotic? i'm so glad we didn't have retards like you when our constitution was being written because we'd be in the same place Europe is now, having monetized our debt in order to keep a system that doesn't work limping along for a few more years. It won't matter, the Repubicans are now in power and this shit health care bill is going to be repealed. not everyone in the world is a lazy fucking bum like you.

[AmaruRuna]

@nosavage25

MY POCKET AND WALLET HAS SPOKEN, your private system SUCKS !!!

I have been in hospital in Australia and I had payed NOT a single cent for a highly successful operation.

I am now in Japan, and I had taken two wisdom teeth, with only a total cost of 20 000 YEN (about 25 dollars)

What freedom you talking about? freedom for insurance companies to rip you off of your finances, freedom for Bg Pharma and the medical lobby to profiteer with the suffering of millions? That is the freedom

[AmaruRuna]

@nosavage25

In Australia and Japan, I payed a lot for the insurance, . I am happy to pay that amount because IT WAS MONEY WELL SPEND, and not robbed by medical insurance mafias that charge high premiums and cover little or nothing. THAT IS ROBBERY !!!

Japanese and Aussies are harder workers much better than YOU but no leader, dear to take their collective health care. Not even the hard right

If the GOP repeled good, so more money and FREEDOM for the medical, insurance and pharma MAFIAS

[Donutmangreen]

Just because Medical Care sucked in the Soviet Union does not mean that it would automaticaly suck here...thats pretty narrowminded

[UnhealthySalad]

Just because central planning has failed everywhere it's been tried does not mean it would automatically fail anywhere else... that's pretty narrowminded.

[Apmhflick]

Einstein said, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

[Jimisonjons]

Einstein was a socialist.

[Apmhflick]

Well, I disagree with his political positions then, but still stand by his quote.

[brockomundo]

Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. And insanity would be the complete absence of expectations, either about mental or physical reality.

[DamonBoykiw]

CROP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! woooohooo

[payrera]

this is really stupid. no, soviet communism inst the only alternative. this is vulgar american right wing. socialism works fine in some ways, if you cannot admit that, then youre just stupid. american healthcare has both a moral problem (denying poor people care) and an efficency problem.

[metaltermite]

The Cult of Ayn Rand strikes again.

[goodmusic21]

I live in USA,when my husband go to the doctor they do not want to know more about him because no H.insurance. he has Psoriasis. his medicine cost 500.00 Here.we are buying the same at 122.00 from Canada. this is the United States of America.

[BlackProteus]

Dude, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm in Canada. There's no "shortage" of health care. And I've never met ANYONE who has travelled to the USA for care. It's rare. There are a few horror stories you can call up, but that's poor logic. Anomalies aren't an argument against a system that serves good health care for millions with world class medical science.

[thacosmicjester]

so there is no middle ground between a communist dictatorship and capitalism?

[CropperLyceum]

"so there is no middle ground between a communist dictatorship and capitalism?"

Sure there is - a mixed economy. like the one Americans live in today. But the problem is that such a "middle ground" is unstable. The society must, in principle, move in one direction or the other, even if it takes centuries.

[Jimuardo]

CropperLyceum, what "principle" is that? I think you just made it up. Centuries ago communism didn't even exist, and capitalism had just started, so I'd really love to know what planet you are getting your data from.

[Billyothon]

My politics are what they call "right wing", but I support some form of socialized medicine. I was suckered into attending Michael Moore's movie Sicko. The problems that Moore found with free-market medical system are the same I encountered as a medical social worker. Moore's movie told the truth about medicine and med insurance companies. I don't know anything about systems in other nations, but socialized medicine, is coming to a med ctr near you.

[JHBowden]

Billy--

Moore simply offers emotional platitudes without any evidence or logic. The UK's NHS, for example, currently has a waiting list 850,000 long to get an operation. What's driving up costs for US healthcare is the government involvement-- medicare and medicaid drive demand without limit, and the taxes on individually purchased care while none through the employer for instance creates an *incentive* to get healthcare through a third party.

[Billyothon]

What you say may well be true; my experience is at the patient end of the health care system. I did social work at Good Samaritan Hosp. in Los Angeles for a year. We were told by the RN supervisor, "be planning to get these people out of here, before they come in the front door". I don't like that. I work in state prison now... a much more humane environment (relatively speaking).

[Blewyn]

Yeah that gives you an idea of the capacity of the NHS. How many of those operations are for conditions that simply wouldn't be covered in the US, or for individuals who typically wouldn't have insurance in the US ?

Funny how you free market chumps always want public control over the services and utilities that suit YOUR purposes, but you don't want to see a dime go to anyone else....

[JHBowden]

"How many of those operations are for conditions that simply wouldn't be covered in the US"

I would end up footing their bill through taxes. It is US Law that anyone who goes to the hospital must be treated, whether they can pay or not.

[JHBowden]

"Funny how you free market chumps always want public control over the services and utilities that suit YOUR purposes"

My preference is to still to the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers, not Karl Marx. That mean while I would love to see the federal government subsidize classical music for everyone, my wants are irrelevant, since that is not the function of government.

[Blewyn]

The function of government it whatever the electorate says it is....and if the electorate votes for classical music, then classical music it is. That's democracy.

[JHBowden]

"That's democracy."

Fortunately, we have a Constitution. Note that if we were a pure democracy, we would chose representatives by random, not by election.

[JHBowden]

For example, the left thinks judges should decide issues like abortion at the federal level. They claim the right would like to do the same. In reality, the right does not see this as a federal prerogative, but a state issue. The right prefers Constitutionalist judges, not activist judges, not even activists for their own views. So I'm a democrat in that *people* should decide these matters, not judges. If the people want gay marriage, then I must live with it.

[snuffydoug]

Being a Medical Social Worker, you obviously have more insight then me with regards to health care politics. Saying that however, Michael Moore's Sicko, was not an objective look at the state of Healthcare in the western world.

[Billyothon]

Perhaps; however, his portrayal of the insurance companies involvement was accurate... based on my experience.

[Elhan2005]

Yes, but something to remember is just because a company is nominally private does not exclude it from being part of the State - governments have always had the penchant to outsource services they provide (and indirectly control them.)

[snuffydoug]

Maybe so, but his portrayal of the Cuban Health System and NHS of the Britain, was horribly skewed.

[Elhan2005]

What "free market" medical system? There's no such thing as the US.

[Billyothon]

You know, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, Cigna.... "medicine" for a profit.

[JHBowden]

billy--

Government underwrites almost 50% of the healthcare costs in the United States. Don't you even *suspect* that this may be driving up costs for everyone else? Imagine what the government paying for 50% of America's automobiles, for example, would do their price. Government foots the bill, demand goes through the roof, price dramatically increases, and caring politicians blame business for the moronic policy *government* created.

[Jimuardo]

JHBowden, there is a problem with your theory that says when government pays for health care, the price goes up. And that is the fact that in countries where government pays a bigger share, total costs are lower. The facts don't jive with your theory, probably because your theory is wrong; demand for health care is based more on need than on price.

[JHBowden]

"probably because your theory is wrong"

Nope. Socialist healthcare almost always cuts costs through limiting care by regulation, and rationing through waiting lists. And even then, their budgets still explode.

Healthcare is a normal good, so it is natural for the cost to rise as people have more wealth. However, I want the system that helps the sick minority the best, not the healthy majority as in DemSoc.

[Jimuardo]

JHB, no country, no matter what kind of health care system it has, spends more on health than the United States. So what countries were you thinking of when you said "their budgets explode"? It seems like it's our budget that has exploded.

[JHBowden]

Jimuardo--

I'll spoonfeed you. In the USA, government underwrites almost 50% of the total health bill, without imposing rationing.

Other countries, because of their entitlements, have to tax their citizens significantly higher, and they *still* have high levels of debt. Their populations are getting older, so the current policy obviously isn't sustainable.

[Jimuardo]

Bowden, if you include tax breaks to employers, gov't in the US actually pays for about 60% of health care. Add it all up, and we pay more in taxes for health care than Europeans. On top of that, we pay for a large proportion of care privately.

Would you rather pay twice as much for something just to not have to call it a tax?

[JHBowden]

Jimuardo--

The government is directly responsible in the US for the rising premiums.

In contrast, look at something privately financed, like LASIK surgery. No govt intervention, and the cost in real terms consistently falls. The market works like this with anything else from microwaves to digi cameras. Govt subsidies make costs explode-- look at what is happening to college tuition to take another paradigm example.

[JHBowden]

Jimuardo--

The US govt is directly responsible for the rising healthcare premiums in this country.

Consider LASIK surgery, where the govt isn't involved. Like microwaves to digi cameras, the prices has been consistently falling. In markets, people *compete* for market share by raising quality and lowering price.

Govt subsidies work on the opposite principle. Rising school tuition is another paradigm example. And it isn't a coincidence when you think through the principles involved.

[JHBowden]

Sorry about the double post... I wasn't sure if the initial one posted!

[Jimuardo]

Bowden, I actually agree with you that markets are good for most services, including iPods and boob jobs. But it's hard to shop around for a good, cheap cardiac hospital when your clutching your chest. Heck, it's hard to get cost and quality info even if you aren't.

Problems of incomplete information distort health markets, leading to market failure, and justifying government intervention. Not to mention that lack of a digicam will never kill you.

[JHBowden]

"Not to mention that lack of a digicam will never kill you."

Shortages, waiting lists, being priced out of the health care market -- all consequences of government intervention -- can.

Johnebii has a good example of how capitalism improved healthcare in the specific case of his wife here: v=fO7GY35-oMg I highly recommed it.

[newusername01]

@JHBowden "Socialist healthcare almost always cuts costs through limiting care by regulation, and rationing through waiting lists."

-And privatized healthcare cut cost though greed and the fact a privet company needs to make a profit.

[MMaNutz8451]

who cares?

[AzraelsJudgement]

The insurance companies are the problem with always trying to get out of paying for shit or making you pay an arm and a leg for coverage. Idk the answer though.

[dudev]

This is a strawman argument - Equating social programs with Russian Communism. That's intellectually dishonest. Free health does not equal socialism. Do public roads equal socialism? Or free firefighting? What's the difference between allowing your house to burn and allowing you to die from no health care? Why don't you complain about Farm Aid as socialistic?

[Elhan2005]

It's not "free". It still must be paid for.

[dudev]

It must be paid for either way, unless you want hospitals to turn away sick people, because they have no insurance. Tax payers are already flipping the bill for the uninsured.

[Elhan2005]

I'd prefer people who consume services to pay for them.

[qtronman]

<i>Do public roads equal socialism? Or free firefighting? What's the difference between allowing your house to burn and allowing you to die from no health care? Why don't you complain about Farm Aid as socialistic?</i>

Bingo -- all of the above are examples of socialism applied to specific domains or sectors of the economy. Socialsim simply means government ownership and/or control/management of the economy--in part, or in whole.

[qtronman]

Hence the term <i>mixed economy</i> applied to present-day United States. It's "mixed" in the sense that it's partly private and partly government-controlled--such that even large portions of the private sector are government regulated and subsidized, the health care sector being a prime example.

[qtronman]

It's certainly not "intellectually dishonest" to call the current Canadian health care system--which I live under--socialistic or socialism in a given field. If you think it is, then what is your definition of socialism?

[qtronman]

<i>Merriam-Webster</i> online's fist defintion of socialism is:

"1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating <b>collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods</b>."

[dudev]

First, dictionaries don't define words, they give the common usage. Second, having social programs won't turn us all into communists. Personally, it makes me sick to see all that Farm Aid. A farm is a business. If it fails, it fails.

[qtronman]

You're diverting the issue RE: "dictionaries don't give..." So what the hell is the proper definition of socialism? That's how Marx defined it--that's how contemporary political science and theory textbooks define it. Do you propose an alternate definition? If so, let's hear it out.

[dudev]

One can call the health program itself socialized without defining the nation as socialist. Is Canada anything like communist Russia? That's the strawman. Taking the worst example of "socialism" gone wrong (Soviet Russia) and using it as a yard stick for today is intellectually dishonest.

[qtronman]

You're not thinking in principles here. It's difference between being partially sick, versus deftly sick. If Soviet Russia or Cuba or China was really sick (aka socialistic/communistic) than Canada or Sweden is partially sick (aka socialistic). Calling Canada completely healthy (aka privatized) evades the fact that it isn't!

[dudev]

But one government controlled sector doesn't make our society socialistic, or communistic. Does it? In the same video Mr Cropper speaks of communist Russia and present day Canada. Are they the same?

[qtronman]

You're right about that--but only to the extent that Canada's economy is privatized. The more government-run and controlled and regulated it becomes, the more apt the comparison to Russia. Certainly Canada is more socialistic to America, but America is catching up. And evading the fact that government-run health care is socialism certainly is doing much to contribute to that fact.

[dudev]

But tax payers already pay for people who have no insurance. The alternative is to chuck sick people into the streets. And that would be very like Stalin's philosophy.

[qtronman]

Not at all. Do you "own" the sick people? I certainly don't. To say that one would "chuck them on the streets" implies that they are somehow bound to you; that you have some implicit duty or unchosen responsibility to take care of them. That duty doesn't exist; it comes from a faulty ethical theory: altruism. Moreover, from a economic stand point, it's bunk: capitalism makes people wealthier, including the poorest people, to whatever extent it is applied in whatever sector of industry.

[dudev]

I agree with your economics. But if people start dying in the streets because hospitals won't treat the poor, our society will revert to chaos. And the poor will become communist like they did in the 1930's. Even Ancient Rome, an economic power house, offered free food, baths, and games to the poor. It was expected of you if you were rich to donate to public works. Otherwise the the poor would rise up and kill you.

[qtronman]

Dude, this is pure imagination. The poor aren't going to kill anyone because, the freer the economy, the more they will have for themselves. Look at the freest sectors of the economy. Take computers or IT or electronics. Are the poor revolting up against the rich because they lack PCs, Blackberry devices or color printers? I am poor for God's sake and I have all of those things! Capitalism reduces prices and increases quality.

[qtronman]

Wherever you have serious economic problems, if you look deeply enough, you'll see they were caused by government intervention.

[qtronman]

In Canada, where are the recurring economic problems? Public transit, education, health care, public roads. The media simply doesn't connect the dots. Name one sector of the economy that is virtually economically free and privatized that has serious problems. Name one. You can't do it.

[Elhan2005]

Besides, charity will be available in good amounts, and if dudey were right, the rich would voluntarily (it would be in their own interest) remedy such situations.

[qtronman]

The idea that the poor are going to eat the rich is a completely unfounded fear. First of all, under capitalism, the state's job would be to protect individual rights, including the rights of the rich, from any such barbarity.

[Elhan2005]

I agree, I was just demonstrating that even by his own reasoning voluntary solutions would arise.

[qtronman]

Under capitalism, where literally every sector of the economy is open to every able and willing participant at whatever price (no minimum wage) and level of ability, the only truly poor people will be those who don't want to work due to some moral vice or those unable to work, such as the mentally and physically defective. Charity would handle the latter, and hopefully the former will handle themselves or reality will wipe them out.

[Blewyn]

The proof is in the numbers - compare heath stats in the UK or France vs US. End of discussion. Privatised medicine results in treatment instead of cure and extortionate costs, not to mention the insurance racket.

[qtronman]

You don't know what you're talking about. The U.S. health care system is hardly privatized--50% of the industry is subsidized by government, not to mention the massive amounts of government control and regulation. Compare the system now in terms of government control and involvement (including the massive insurance regulations) to the system in the 1920s, say.

[Blewyn]

It's privately owned and run for profit : it is privatised. Subsidy by government does not mean socialised, it means the American public are paying for a privately-owned industry. Woould you like to compare the system's success rate against that of the 1920s ?

[dudev]

We had unrestricted capitalism in the 19th century in the US, and American cities were full of riots and violence stemming from labor disputes and poverty.

[qtronman]

Wrong. I'm affraid I'm wasting my time here.

[qtronman]

Rome was a slave pen.

[dudev]

Rome was not a slave pen. Most Roman workers were free, and had certain rights. Roman citizens could not be tortured, even if they were poor. Slaves could be treated any way their master chose.

[dudev]

The free market dream you are talking about, in which everybody can afford health care, is fantasy-land, pie-in-the-sky, nonsense. Reality is far more complex than an Ayn Rand novel or the pages of the Economist.

[qtronman]

Why?

[qtronman]

I repeat the request: provide one instance of a completely deregulated, completely privatized industry today that has resulted in shortages or extremely high prices. Pie in the sky? Absolutely not: it's very practical and down-to-earth.

[kev3d]

I think the U.S. does a little better than Bread a Circus these days. As it is, the U.S. medical system does not "properly" serve all segments of society, however private interests have promoted innovation. I think in many ways deregulation and limiting lawsuit awards would greatly lessen the cost of healthcare.

[qtronman]

Socialism is the system of mindless brutes.

[Elhan2005]

Its advocates certainly aren't brutes - they're far too timid for anything like that.

[qtronman]

Well, the originators and hard-core implementers of socialism are brutes. And if you've had any experience with the Canadian health care system (and, being a Canadian, I have), you know there are brutes working in and supporting the system here.

[MrCropper]

NOTICE:

In the near future, I will stop posting on "cropperb" and start posting on a new channel - MrCropper. Please visit and subscribe.

[PaulMcKeever]

MrC: I noticed that you uploaded this 3-parter on socialized health care to both accounts. Assuming that all of your Objectivism-related vids, from now on, will appear on MrCropper, I'll start adding your MrCropper links to the Objectivists group, instead of adding your cropperb links. How's that work for you?

[MrCropper]

" I'll start adding your MrCropper links to the Objectivists group, instead of adding your cropperb links. How's that work for you?"

Works fine. I'll only be double posting one or two more videos, then cropperb will become a historic depository, case closed.

[Aynology]

(8$ damn! All my I'll-conceived comments relegated to cropperb archives! Is it worth the effort or appreciated???...

...Oh all right, I'll have my secretary write you up a cheque first thing Monday! $8D

[Elhan2005]

Nice work.

[nine9s]

I bet it would generate huge traffic if you added "Michael Moore" and "Sicko" to the tags. The ratings would tank, of course... :)

[citizenkong]

Rand fans are wack!! you look healthy. so what do you care?