suicide's not from health issues?? are you kidding mee?? why are people most likely to kill themselves? depression! anxietys and such! do you not consider those health issues? if not then you unsympathetic people sicken me.
its a well known fact that the states does not have better outcomes of healthcare, canada spends less, yet we have better health care, and longer life expectancies
He already explains that life-expectancy does not equal quality of health care.
Clearly you didn't see it. Most people who are born healthy, will stay that way for life, so other countries abort at first complication, and sterilize through hysterectomy-- i.e.they "throw out the bad buns and break the defective ovens."
It's very EASY to ensure health by treating people like breeding cattle, rather than human individuals with the right to live--born or unborn!
I don't think it's right to say the U.S healthcare system 'trumps' every other countries healthcare system displayed on the tables, shown in your video, simply because there're more by-pass surguries conducted in the U.S. There're many fundimental factors that you seem forgotten: The general fittness of the populace, and the how large the population is. It's sill to imply the U.S has a better system then Australia because Australia has a population about 15x smaller.
@RadarGuidedVermin I'm not even trying to start an argument here. I'm honestly trying to understand better because given the same data, I would not have come to the same conclusion as the creator of this video. I just wanted to know if there was a finding in the study that went with his conclusion.
@RadarGuidedVermin I was more using hyperbole by saying "I never watch it," meaning I don't watch it often. If I did actually say, "I never watched it," then, that was an accident because I have watched Fox News. However, I'm really not trying to start an argument and don't understand why you are trying to start one by comment on something I posted on a different video. Also, I'm sorry if I seemed snarky or something in my other post and that offended you.
I'm confused by your argument that because there are fewer procedures performed in those other countries, that means people are simply going untreated. Does it say that somewhere in the study? Just because there are fewer procedures performed doesn't mean that there is a cache of untreated people out there. There could simply be more cases in the US, especially if in other countries citizens are receiving more preventative care. I could be wrong. I just want to know where you are coming from.
@Dormirai I just read one of your posts where you went on to criticize FOX News right after you admitted that you "never watched" FOX News." I was impressed by how expertly you were able to undermine your own argument in one sentence.
Fartquis, insurance profit margin is less than 2%. Insurance companies follow fee schedule that's created by Medicare. Govt already sets the prices for all costs. There is no magic that "Democrats" will do to lower the cost. I develop software that manages these fee payouts. Insurance companies are matching Medicare/government fee schedule. Medicare prices = insurance prices. Fartquys, please know something instead of blathering your know-nothings.
The fact that insurance companies are deathly afraid of universal healthcare is all you need to know to see who's telling the truth.
You can blather on for hours trying to say universal healthcare is bad, but that is all negated by the fact that the insurance companies know as well as the Democrats do, that it's going to force them to lower their prices.
saying the reason NZ doesnt produce new and novel life saving drugs is only because of price controls is completely false. NZ has a very limited research. You should compare USA output of new drugs to other research powerhouses like Korea, Japan, Germany and France. Drug creating in the modern era costs mega millions and huge input from government funds such as universities and the granting process.
Of the top 10 pharma's, in regards to revenue and R&D, the US has 4... one of which was technically a subsidiary of a German based company.
It's (kind of) a "distortion" to say that having no price control is the "incentive" that, for instance, Merck had to make Vioxx, and then push it even after many independent studies said not to.
You contradict your argument at 2:40, because the article explicitly says, "Our results also fail to reveal..."
You've got to be joking. Aren't you that guy who said CO2 doesn't kill you if you breathe it and that global warming is a farce because the EPA said CO2 can be dangerous to humans?
Everything you say in this video is a lie, or rather, distortion. Like "life saving drugs" and "crushes those other coutries." Yeah, viagra, flomax, and vioxx come from the US, save lives, and don't kill people. And the US has more heart transplants than countries with 2 million people. Crushed.
@bpa619 You're so typical, CO2 is what you exhale every minute of every day! Just because when you stare at the sun you go blind, should the government take some more tax dollars from the working class and give everyone sunglasses? If CO2 is so harmful (well, unless your any kind of plant life), why don't you jump off a cliff and do the planet a favor, or maybe just try to hold your breath forever.
Comparing the US to NZ for output of innovative medicine is unfair: their population is equivalent to just Alabama - the size of the US swamps them. A fairer comparison would be Germany but still would fall far short. Also, high rates of suicide IS indicative of poor mental HEALTH outcomes. There is no reason to not include mental health as part of healthcare. It is a much underfunded and neglected sector and improvements would surely improve the suicide rate.
Hes not comparing the two countries. He is just saying that since New Zealand cannot afford to spend as much money on their healthcare system there is no motivation to create the amount of drugs that we in the UInited States do because New Zealand like every other country in the world besides the US, sets a price control on how much money they can spend on their healthcare system. When you put a cap on how much money you spend, you can only afford to cover peoples costs, not create drugs
what are you talking about? the "new buracracy" would allow individuals and small businesses to band together and buy as a group. is it more expensive if you buy a gallon of milk or two half gallons? same concept. i just can't believe that people are too uneducated to see the fallacy of it all for themselves.
Ur a fucking retard suicide is measureing the mental stability of people. Do you know how much money is spent on drugs aimed at stopping suicide. If u think suicide is not measureable outcome then u must think mental diseases doesnt exist. Just another example of how u make outragous claims with no facts. Only ur personal knowledge.
does anyone notice that most the people commenting are just liberal butt hurt people. but the rating still show people agree with him? or at least like his videos?
Hey wait a minute Nancy say's it's ok now health care can wait something about jobs. I thought It was a big rush but now not so much? If it's not a big deal now maybe they (the liberals)could share a little about what's in the bill, what do ya say Nancy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@6:00 Life expectancy IS a mesure of health care quality, its an average of life span. People live longer because they are able to get preventitive medicine. The US also has the lowest percentage of people able to get preventitive care, which dramaticly lowers the over all life expectancy. soo the fact that the US has one of the lowest life expectanies of any 1st world nation either means we have a lot of people that off themselves, or preventitive care helps you live longer... take your pick.
@KusuriRX This is majorly incorrect as a general statement.
We COULD compare life expectancy of people who are diagnosed with certain types of cancers, and see how long they last in each system, PROVIDED that we also account for how quickly each system is able to detect and diagnose and treat each patient.
However, outside conditions, like drug usage, air quality, accidents, birthrate, etc, will affect the average life expectancy, which is why the avg. life expectancy should NOT be compared.
@theflyingjbird okay soo lets choose any european country, 90% of them are far more polluted than the US, have worse Water and air conditions than the US, but their life expectancy is longer. Does that many any sense?
2) Obesity is a huge contributor to health problems. The US has the second-highest obesity rate.
3) There are links between continuing to work after retirement age, and longer life expectancies. Countries such as Japan have a significantly higher percentage of working elderly than do the US. (Japan has the highest life expectancy for people over age 65).
hey you wanted to bring environmental factors into it, what about china who also has a longer life expectancy and through a lot of the major cities you can not go outside with out a mask its soo polluted. Like anything else obesity could be prevented with routine medical care, and education. Many studies show the sicker you are the more and worse you tend to eat (in the US) to feel "better". soo i see your obesity and still raise you industrial pollution.
You said that life expectancy is a measure of healthcare.
I just pointed out several reasons why it's not. You have yet to answer any of them. The fact is, and remains, that health care has an *effect* on a person's life span - but it does not DICTATE the person's lifespan. Because there are so many factors influencing the average lifespan, it is completely wrong to claim that there is a direct correlation between health care and life expectancy alone
i am helping to prove the point i said, there is a direct correlation to it, in the worst living conditions, people live longer than us. Now if we take a cross section and do basic troubleshooting what is different there than here? hmm seems that they receive preventative care more often. I never said it DICTATED it, I said it helped it, and we would live longer with it than with out it. But hey if you want to keep it as it is and get a 32% rate hike because your insurance company felt like it.
Except that you're very, very wrong. Europe doesn't have worse pollution than we do, and China, which DOES have worst pollution, happens to have a *lower* life span.
Scientifically, the only way to compare the effects of health care on the average life span is to control for other factors which also affect lifespan.
Simply comparing the average lifespan of different countries does not do anything to determine the effectiveness of a single factor, unless you *control* for the other factors
hmm seems like you've been to europe a lot eh, east europe has worse pollution than the US can dream of... the US is sparkling and pristine compared to east europe. there are many many many links to getting preventative care and living longer. Ask a doctor some time, will i live longer if i just get treated when im sick, or will i live longer if i actually come and see you for all my preventative care visits. guess what he is going to advise you do? but meh what does he know, hes only a doctor.
Actually, yes, I have been to Europe. The air is generally much cleaner there, especially in mid-to-western Europe, because a huge percentage of Europe's energy is nuclear power. We're coal-powered, and more polluted.
Once again, I don't dispute that health care has an EFFECT - but it isn't the ONLY thing that effects the average life expectancy. Because of this, you cannot simply compare life expectancies of different countries and expect it to be the same as comparing health care systems.
seriously, are you doing ANY research? I mean, 90% of your argumentation is frivolous.
In any comparison of statistics, you HAVE to control for outside factors (like working after retirement, smoking habits, pollution, etc) - if you don't, the comparison is meaningless.
Talk to any person who has a job analyzing statistics; most of them will tell you something to that effect.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sorry man you just do not understand Health Care in Canada. The facts are none but the very rich would prefer a US style insurance system. Yes, Canadians will complain about taxes(Because people love to complain)but they'd never trade it at the end of the day.
If the US public really knew what they could get for their money they would not object to higher taxes vs. paying for insurance that tries to screw you over when you need it. You're a rich lawyer so insurance is no big deal 4 u, yet!
@garrickmusic Dunno who you're talking to, but it's my understanding that Lee Doren is NOT a lawyer.
And being the son of a doctor, I can unequivocally state that we would not prefer to have a universal health system, and that many doctors are against the idea of a universal health system.
Don't lecture them on costs vs prices. Liberals don't know anything about economics which is why they don't see a problem giving shit away through government intervention.
@bearhuntaa One of the most successful businessmen who is highly respected for his success and his honesty is a...liberal. Warren Buffett.I understand your tendancy for hyperbole but I know a LOT of successful businessmen who are liberal. I also knew the GOP sugar daddy of a few years ago and he was extremely successful at...crime. Ken Lay financed George BUSH's campaign in 2000 and he is the greatest (of it is worst) corporate criminal in the history of mankind.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(Referring to 4:05) The fact is that high rates of angioplasties and bypasses are not indicative of good health care - they are indicative of high rates of heart disease, which, last time I checked, was bad.
Perhaps you should rename your entire channel "HowTheWorldWorks Deliberately Distorts Basic Logic and Reasoning".
@cjdrover Your point is only valid if you assume that there is a higher rate of heart disease.
The higher rate of angioplasties and bypasses could ALSO be an indicator of better detection and prevention by US health care.
Last time I checked, a possibility is only that - a possibility. So before you go around insulting people who actually do some research, you should do some of your own, so that you don't have people posting on your comments pointing out how biased your responses are.
I did not say anything insulting in my comment, despite your claims to the contrary.
You are correct in observing that a more meaningful indicator might be a comparison of heart disease rate, corrective surgeries, and mortality rate for each country, but my point is that this video didn't do that either. The claims he makes about the US "crushing" and "trumping" other countries are meaningless. This is why I suggested the distortion of basic logic - the presenter doesn't connect the dots.
Despite the title of this video, nowhere in it do you show me distorting any facts, deliberately or otherwise. You can see a detailed description of the mistakes you made in this video on a webpage I created for that purpose at
tinyurl(.)com/HTWWMR6
Don't forget to remove the parentheses when pasting that address into your browser.
I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding and
Keep at it LV!!!! :) the public option doesn't create a new beauacracy. It creates an option! It's not like community colleges keep you from going to Harvard...
Last point on the infant mortality (IM) thing: you claim that in other countries, prenatal deformity never results in a birth, and even when it does, those countries don't count that in their IM rate.
I for one would like to see a reference on that - what is your source for saying that other countries calculate IM differently than we do? If other countries DID use different methods to get their numbers, every IM study would have to notate that on their tables and in their text.
To say that life expectancy isn't a measure of a health care system just shows that you don't understand statistics.
Unplanned events, such as hurricanes, murders, earthquakes, drug overdoses, plane crashes.... anything that kills a human being goes into the figure.
Life expectancy is a general barometer of an entire country's situation, and while a nation's health system isn't the ONLY factor, health care is definitely part of that picture.
GDP is a measure of economic activity WITHIN a country's borders. US pharmaceutical exports do not contribute to US GDP.
The US has price controls as well in the sense that the government, insurance companies and GPO's negotiate and determine reimbursement rates based on factors such as WAC (wholesale acquisition cost) and AWP (average wholesaler price).
Lastly, the US has drug shortages and supply problems all the time. Go to FDA's site, or ashp . org to see current critical shortage info.
When liberalssay "70% of Americans want government run healthcare" you know it is a lie. realclearpolitics(.)com has an average of all polls and support for it is about half of 70%....kind of like the costs of the healthcare and things like Cap and Tradeare being sold by saying they will only cost half as must as they actually will cost and lose twice as many jobs.
Keep in mind that the WHO does not have the resources to conduct its own independent study. They rely on what the governments tell them. And a. There's a good chance that the european governments were lying b. Every country has different standards relating to life expectancy etc, which means that a good result in Europe might be a very average result in the US.
You are now just being insulting. Ever heard of GSK, one of the largest and most famous phama companies that is, oh, in fact British. There are so many other examples, but you have insulted so many others I can already see people arguing as well.
If it is true that the US makes all the "life saving drugs" for the rest of the world (which it is not, as other posters have commented), then the GDP would be massively INCREASED by selling these drugs to other countries so the proportion of GDP spent on medical costs in the US would actually be DECREASED by selling these drugs to the rest of the world.
Price controls do not impact diagnosis rates. Price controls impact drug prices, not the cost of doing simple and cheap screenings for things like breast cancer and pregnancy complications. If our health system endorsed preemptive screenings, the pharma companies wouldn't profit, so our health care system doesn't push hard for preemptive care.
Of course, well-meaning doctors do take care of their patients, but as a whole, the system is for profit, and that is simply amoral in principle.
I hate to keep going, but Lee continues to distort what's going on here.
Suicide rates are in fact a measurement of our health care because mental health is part of the system as well. Our mental care, when given the correct respect, can save lives and is a good measurement of the system. Is it the best? Of course not, but you shouldn't be writing it off either.
Lee, you are not an expert about health care, and any doctor or physician would laugh for you to say life expectancy is irrelevant
Furthermore, Lee misleads the audience by implying that procedures alone are a measurement of the quality of health care.
Idealistically, our health care would be best if we didn't have to have those procedures done. In fact, the rate of cancer, infant mortality, and other indicators of a nation's health care system demonstrate that we are not getting what we're paying for.
Lee is attempting to turn the attention away from pharma companies and those who stand to profit from our system.
Once again though, Lee misleads the viewer by asserting that LiberalViewer's quote didn't apply to the study.
Lee is incorrect because while independent surveys were used to draw that conclusion, the conclusion was in fact drawn by the study. This is an example of the people conducting the study using outside and independent information to draw an unbiased conclusion.
He didn't imply the statement was true, but commented that if it were, that would be even worse than just the spending issue.
Not even half of the top fifty pharmaceutical companies are located in the US, and that doesn't even speak to where those drugs are produced. Keep in mind that many labor intensive manufacturing jobs are shipped overseas.
Lee clearly misses the concept of cost reducing that the public option offers. By using the large user base of the public option as leverage, the government can negotiate for cheaper drugs (common economic theory).
What in the world is Lee trying to accomplish here?
OMG you are so full of shit. If you think Drugs are only made here in America you are a ignorant fool. We do not supply the world with drugs you dumbass, Germany, France China, England, Japan, they all develop and manufacture drugs. This man is full of shit. The difference is The Gov. in those other country do have price controls and demand that they dont get fucked by the Drug companys, where as we let the "free market" or as I like to call it the "fuck the American people market" run the show
That's funny, I could have sworn there were special interest laws and bills supported by BOTH Bush AND Obama that allowed the pharmaceutical companies charge whatever the hell they want, thus giving them immunity FROM the free market.
Since you don't produce anything you don't have any idea that research and developement approval etc of pharmaceuticals is very costly and governs what is charged at the end use.
(1) Suicide is a function of psychological care; it does reflect on the health care system. For instance, the Virginia Tech shooter had participated in Virginia's psych system, but it cut him loose (obviously, in that case there was more than suicide).
(2) Why does the USA have to pay to research all the pharmaceuticals? If we cut back on our research, the other countries will have to fill the void.
(3) I didnt find your argument about transplants to be convincing; which study did you use?
I would much rather be here than any other country. I know it's expensive as hell here, but alot of that has to do with the sue happy culture that America has turned into. There are too many variables as to why our costs are so huge.
I have to say though, this was a really good video, normally you and liberalviewer just sound like two little kids fighting, but this one was solid as hell man.
And remember, the so called mainstream media who at one time long ago used to be somewhat responsible for getting out these analysis are dead quiet on it.
And most of us know why that is, it is because they are completely over run with liberals that will not report the truth in the main stream.
I would say that's a decent point, but apparently LiberalViewer's channel is more popular than I thought. I'd never heard of him before, and if HTWW didn't mention him, I probably wouldn't have EVER heard of him.
But LV gets plenty more than 12 views. You can't find a video on his channel that's been up for longer than 24hrs that has less than 10,000 views.
And besides, a lot of the things he says are the same as plenty of other leftists, so these HTWW vids are useful in that way.
bastard liberals - After the horrific shootings of American soldiers by a muslim soldier who had possible ties to radical muslim leader.
Obama said, "Let's not jump to conclusions" Do you need to be hit in the head with a rubber bat???
Oh, let's first not offend the killer. Might hurt his feelings.
Enough is enough with this spinless liberal political correctness and being afraid of offending those who hate us. This administration is despicable and unpatriotic.
Lee, your spending too much brainpower researching this drone's hogwash: stick with the government's gross incompatancy to fiscally manage anything. A man in your position has alot of work ahead of him.
"the government's gross incompatancy to fiscally manage anything" and the private sector does? have you been paying attention to recent history and history where the government is always saving private interests AND propping them up?
Isn't it amazing when we cut off the market from being able to do its thing we get a worse outcome, speaking about organ transplant. Think about how far ahead America could be in that category if they simply allowed a market for buying and selling organs to exist.
Wow, who would've expected that whenever you have the govt. regulating the shit out of a specific aspect of something, it tanks hard. More fuel for my free market fires haha.
Read the rest of the stats Lee shows, only top on 3 statistics. Not exactly outstanding or anything. Also taking his opinion as fact is a little absurd. Maybe Lee could link a peer-review paper to support his opinion
Wouldn't higher rates of coronary bypasses and angioplasty indicate the United States has a higher incidence of people who need those procedures (i.e. people with generally inferior cardiovascular health)?
Although I concur with your conclusion, Your model of the spending/pharma relationship is incorrect. In countries with fixed budgets pharmacoms compete for their slice of cake, you might think that would drive prices down it actually has the opposite effect because of the heterogeneous nature of the drugs market. To over simplify, selling cheap drugs at a premium prices for increased trading efficiency.
Another thing that burns me is when the left makes fun of old people protesting the democrats crappy bills. "Don't touch my medicare" the hosts and pundits laugh ignoring the FACT why they say this...the media is so far up Obama's ass they rarely touch on the $500+ billion dollar cuts they plan to take out of Medicare. So instead of acknowledging why the older folks say "hands off my medicare" they say "See the love socialized medicine and they are just confused". Dishonest as hell.
Lee you have also done quote cutting in this video. The report says that in their study the "... results also fail to reveal what the extra spending has bought..." So liberal viewer is right on that one point except your right about his quote cutting. Except for that one point spot on and keep up the good work.
What? What? No drugs and medical innovation from Europe??!! Did you ever head of Medicon Valley, Denmark, EUROPE? More drugs and more medical technology comes from us "evil socialist europeans" then from usa! And it's not the only one, there are so many others in France, Switzerland, Germany. You are the one distorting the facts!
Shortages? What are you talking about? I never went to a pharmacy and couldn't get my prescription, not even when I lived in Romania.
Yeah I slipped there. I meant organs. Does the price of organs change the demand? Or organs offered? If you do not let the market decide the price you would assume the price of organs would be less and there would be other criteria that decide who is the recipient.
I still don't see how that would lower the available organs for transplants.
ummm... wow.... you really need to take an economy class. If coke is $400 per can then the demand for that product goes down. If coke goes down to $0.01 then demand goes way up. Just like gas prices. We all still need gas but when prices go up people don't go on vacation as much and demand goes down.
I repeat, I slipped there, I meant organs. The demand of organs won't go down or up because of the price. As far as I know you don't get money for donating donors, so the amount of organs donated will also not decrease. If you need an organ, you need it, no matter what the price is.
So how does price affect demand or supply in case of organs?
Oh that's easy. How can you even ask such a question. You are much more likely to donate a part of your liver or a kidney if you're getting paid for it. And you're family is more likely to donate your organs if it will pay for your funeral.
Except you don't get paid for donating. I don't know about the US but at not in all the European countries I know. Countries with a better rating. So that doesn't make much sense to back Lee's statement up following your logic.
Lee, this was brilliant. Allen is not an economist, he's an opinion mill. Opinions are great as long as they accurately explain facts. But his opinions are not based on, nor do they explain, the facts of world medical care. He thinks that opinions exist to TRUMP facts, not to logically explain them.
I'm still waiting for someone who is not an economic illiterate to explain to me how the health care bill could actually fix the problems it's supposed to address. I've been waiting for quite some time so far.
It is completely deplorable that the American education system and American attitude and lifestyle have resulted in a population that honestly thinks centrally planned gov't can provide better quality of service at lower costs than the free market.
I find it absolutely horrifying that most people don't realize this recession AND skyrocketing health care rates are directly BECAUSE of current tax codes and government regulation. People don't even know how we are currently distorting free market!
Talk about ignorance; New Zealand doesn't put price controls on it - the health department purchase drugs on behalf of New Zealand by negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies, not all drugs as a result are subsidised because there is a restriction placed in dollar terms on how many drugs are subsidised at anyone time. If you want a drug that isn't subsidised then by all means - you can purchase it yourself at full price. Before you open your mouth - get the facts.
if we could get rid of the 10% of personalites that most closley represent lib vibview we would the coutnry would be so much better. lib view is the kind of guy who bends people over then smiles and ask to be thanked
I think you just scraped the surface of this. Other nations have different definitions of infant mortality. Many babies in countries "ahead" of the US would either be aborted or die before birth due to complications. In America, many of the same type of high-risk pregnancies are carried to term because of the religious beliefs of many Americans and many babies who wouldn't survive childbirth elsewhere do here due to our technological superiority.
Another key factor in life expectancy is racial and ethnic demographics.
The U.S. has a far larger minority population than alot of the countries ahead of them on that list. These minorities, on average, have a shorter life span than that of caucasions. This disorts the life expectancy data and really makes it, as you say, comparing apples to oranges.
1. Price controls theory is not strictly true. Many systems enter deficits, meaning they have overspent (not suddenly cut off!).
2. Aus(I assume Australia) beat the US in MOST indicators you highlighted in cancer, so that (albiet it is only one mentioned study) does not support your own argument of the US trumpting everyone.
3. What is your proof about price controls except one or two UK cases where medicines were not subsided? Most probs r waiting periods, not prices.
in any case, it does appear that Liberalviewer has outofcontexted many things, not that I'm surprised in the slightest since that's a common tactic liberals tend to employ, along with selective memory (such as forgetting the hatred and vile they employed against Bush)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You're such a liar, Lee. Talk about distorting facts. How about the fact that nearly 50% of Big Pharma's expenditures are on advertising, not R&D. In fact R&D costs make up about 5% of their budgets. The bulk of R&D like in high-tech and other sectors is completely subsidized by the state. Take a look at Taxol, developed at the taxpayer cost of about 30 million and then handed over to Bristol Myers. Plenty of other examples too. Are you capable of rational thought? Learn your facts, kid.
Actually R&D takes up 18.7% of total domestic sales and 16.4% of total sales. The total amount of funding by the NIH is around 50%. Maybe you should learn your facts.
I don't think a gov option or nfp insurance (which I support) is going to help bring HC costs under control. What we need is to pay our own basic hc needs and more competition and free market principles. Look at plastic surgery, lasics (eye surgery misspelled), dentistry etc... Areas of medicine where gov and 3rd party payer systems aren't used, quality goes up, cost comes down. WHAT A SHOCKER, eh?
insanity I noticed the same thing. liberal viewer has a very creepy voice. His voice alone would keep from listening to him. Not to mention the way he lies all the time.
My posistion has always been that you have to allow care providers to charge what they deem fit as incentive to do a better job. When I was diagnosised with cancer, I came to the US for care. I believe the result of that choice was my survival. I paid for this care, out of pocket, of my own free will, because I believed living was more important than the money I spent.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
also, about the population surveys - so it doesn't matter what people think about their healthcare? their opinion about the service is irrelevant to you?
yeah, bad analogy - temperature is a natural phaenomenon, and can be modified indoors, but not outdoors - it is rigid. costs are artificially created symbols for worth - in the case of health insurance they are bloated up, and can be lowered down by competition (in this case, of a government run public option).
You are confusing prices with costs. The price of insurance may or may not be artificially bloated. You cannot bloat the cost. For instance, if it takes 45 minutes to cook chicken in an oven, that is 45 minutes of COST. That is real time, real money. If I own a company and pay my cook $10.00/hr, I just spent $7.50 on him to cook the chicken alone. That is COST. Unless I find a different way of cooking the chicken, that cost CANNOT go down. Price is what I charge the customer.
i wasn't confusing costs with prices - costs are equally adaptable to corruptive methods as prices are.
costs can be bloated by numerous tactics - buying equipment for production that is overpriced, so production cost goes up, using unreasonably expensive materials when cheaper and equally effective are available - cost bloating is directly connected with corruption (i know what i'm talking about, corruption is a status quo in my country). i hope this makes my point clearer.
No. Costs cannot be manipulated in the same way as price. When a company pays MORE than the cost for their equipment, material or labor, it is because WHO they are buying from from is charging a larger PRICE. When the buyers of such companies knowingly participate in price gouging of their own company, they are participating in fraud. Those materials are bought for a PRICE not for their COST. All buyers know this. They know their supplier is profiting on the sale.
you really don't understand my point - the prices of materials have a lot to do with production costs. also, more expensive machinery, more man-power etc. all of these factors can boost costs.
"When the buyers of such companies knowingly participate in price gouging of their own company, they are participating in fraud"
And that has to do with PRICE manipulation, not COST manipulation. That has to do with PRICES as you just even stated. So no, you cannot manipulate costs out of thin air. What you are confusing are the costs of the middle man in an operation. If his costs go up because his supplier charges a higher PRICE, then he has the choice of finding a different supplier. That supplier has a right to a profit, just as you do every time you cash your paycheck.
i'm not saying that costs are manipulated out of thin air, i explained it in reasonably simple terms.
"What you are confusing are the costs of the middle man in an operation. If his costs go up because his supplier charges a higher PRICE, then he has the choice of finding a different supplier."
this normally true, but as it is, sometimes the buyer and the supplier are the same person.
The prices the supplier charges are post production to the supplier, but not the manufacturer. If a machine used to produce a certain type of drug is overpriced, it is overpriced to the drug manufacturer from the machine builder. In any case, we are still talking about PRICE here. You cannot change costs, except to change production techniques, shop around for different suppliers, and/or cut wages. You can't just create "cost" controls and expect the machine to magically cost less.
i never mentioned "cost" control and it was never discussed.
"You cannot change costs, except to change production techniques, shop around for different suppliers, and/or cut wages."
this is an apparent contradiction - you specifically note that costs cannot be shanged, and then you cite ways to do that. and i was arguing that exact point.
i still don't see where we disagree. you keep mentioning prices while this whole discussion has nothing to do with them.
got his ass owned
TheAnGryPOolMaN 2 months ago
suicide's not from health issues?? are you kidding mee?? why are people most likely to kill themselves? depression! anxietys and such! do you not consider those health issues? if not then you unsympathetic people sicken me.
185tiff 2 months ago
its a well known fact that the states does not have better outcomes of healthcare, canada spends less, yet we have better health care, and longer life expectancies
185tiff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@185tiff
He already explains that life-expectancy does not equal quality of health care.
Clearly you didn't see it. Most people who are born healthy, will stay that way for life, so other countries abort at first complication, and sterilize through hysterectomy-- i.e.they "throw out the bad buns and break the defective ovens."
It's very EASY to ensure health by treating people like breeding cattle, rather than human individuals with the right to live--born or unborn!
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
I don't think it's right to say the U.S healthcare system 'trumps' every other countries healthcare system displayed on the tables, shown in your video, simply because there're more by-pass surguries conducted in the U.S. There're many fundimental factors that you seem forgotten: The general fittness of the populace, and the how large the population is. It's sill to imply the U.S has a better system then Australia because Australia has a population about 15x smaller.
KAAAching1 2 months ago
@RadarGuidedVermin I'm not even trying to start an argument here. I'm honestly trying to understand better because given the same data, I would not have come to the same conclusion as the creator of this video. I just wanted to know if there was a finding in the study that went with his conclusion.
Dormirai 7 months ago
@RadarGuidedVermin I was more using hyperbole by saying "I never watch it," meaning I don't watch it often. If I did actually say, "I never watched it," then, that was an accident because I have watched Fox News. However, I'm really not trying to start an argument and don't understand why you are trying to start one by comment on something I posted on a different video. Also, I'm sorry if I seemed snarky or something in my other post and that offended you.
Dormirai 7 months ago
I'm confused by your argument that because there are fewer procedures performed in those other countries, that means people are simply going untreated. Does it say that somewhere in the study? Just because there are fewer procedures performed doesn't mean that there is a cache of untreated people out there. There could simply be more cases in the US, especially if in other countries citizens are receiving more preventative care. I could be wrong. I just want to know where you are coming from.
Dormirai 7 months ago
@Dormirai I just read one of your posts where you went on to criticize FOX News right after you admitted that you "never watched" FOX News." I was impressed by how expertly you were able to undermine your own argument in one sentence.
RadarGuidedVermin 7 months ago
Again, well done. You'd destroy LV in a debate but he'd never agree to it. He seems to barely be able to read his script.
MrPrincetrumpet 10 months ago
Costs do not equal prices is your argument?
There is price control via Medicare.
greenarcher180 11 months ago
Fartquis, insurance profit margin is less than 2%. Insurance companies follow fee schedule that's created by Medicare. Govt already sets the prices for all costs. There is no magic that "Democrats" will do to lower the cost. I develop software that manages these fee payouts. Insurance companies are matching Medicare/government fee schedule. Medicare prices = insurance prices. Fartquys, please know something instead of blathering your know-nothings.
xg3000 1 year ago
The fact that insurance companies are deathly afraid of universal healthcare is all you need to know to see who's telling the truth.
You can blather on for hours trying to say universal healthcare is bad, but that is all negated by the fact that the insurance companies know as well as the Democrats do, that it's going to force them to lower their prices.
Thanks for playing.
fearguis 1 year ago
saying the reason NZ doesnt produce new and novel life saving drugs is only because of price controls is completely false. NZ has a very limited research. You should compare USA output of new drugs to other research powerhouses like Korea, Japan, Germany and France. Drug creating in the modern era costs mega millions and huge input from government funds such as universities and the granting process.
bdhcarbon 1 year ago 4
@bdhcarbon lol, I think there are more sheep than people in NZ.
ndjarnag 1 year ago
The assumptions you make are every bit as bad as you project on LiberalViewer.
critster 1 year ago 2
Liberal viewer is irratating. From the little kids voice to his monotone boring voice
mueygringo 1 year ago
Wow, great work Lee!
SuperSneakySteve 1 year ago
Of the top 10 pharma's, in regards to revenue and R&D, the US has 4... one of which was technically a subsidiary of a German based company.
It's (kind of) a "distortion" to say that having no price control is the "incentive" that, for instance, Merck had to make Vioxx, and then push it even after many independent studies said not to.
You contradict your argument at 2:40, because the article explicitly says, "Our results also fail to reveal..."
Please cite your/a source for 6:20 and 6:31.
bpa619 1 year ago 4
You've got to be joking. Aren't you that guy who said CO2 doesn't kill you if you breathe it and that global warming is a farce because the EPA said CO2 can be dangerous to humans?
Everything you say in this video is a lie, or rather, distortion. Like "life saving drugs" and "crushes those other coutries." Yeah, viagra, flomax, and vioxx come from the US, save lives, and don't kill people. And the US has more heart transplants than countries with 2 million people. Crushed.
Big joke.
bpa619 1 year ago
@bpa619 You're so typical, CO2 is what you exhale every minute of every day! Just because when you stare at the sun you go blind, should the government take some more tax dollars from the working class and give everyone sunglasses? If CO2 is so harmful (well, unless your any kind of plant life), why don't you jump off a cliff and do the planet a favor, or maybe just try to hold your breath forever.
jeffms2 1 year ago
... there's a reason you exhale it though. Right?
WTF I didn't say it! ROFL the EPA did. Jeez.
Yes taxes. Wha.h osm-3. Great grief, awesome comment.
bpa619 1 year ago
Have you seen Apollo 13?
bpa619 1 year ago
Comparing the US to NZ for output of innovative medicine is unfair: their population is equivalent to just Alabama - the size of the US swamps them. A fairer comparison would be Germany but still would fall far short. Also, high rates of suicide IS indicative of poor mental HEALTH outcomes. There is no reason to not include mental health as part of healthcare. It is a much underfunded and neglected sector and improvements would surely improve the suicide rate.
3122tan 1 year ago
Hes not comparing the two countries. He is just saying that since New Zealand cannot afford to spend as much money on their healthcare system there is no motivation to create the amount of drugs that we in the UInited States do because New Zealand like every other country in the world besides the US, sets a price control on how much money they can spend on their healthcare system. When you put a cap on how much money you spend, you can only afford to cover peoples costs, not create drugs
taylort123 1 year ago
liberals are kooks.
savemyplaylist 1 year ago
Maybe cause you are such a pompous know it all theocon turd?
jakefree24 1 year ago
what are you talking about? the "new buracracy" would allow individuals and small businesses to band together and buy as a group. is it more expensive if you buy a gallon of milk or two half gallons? same concept. i just can't believe that people are too uneducated to see the fallacy of it all for themselves.
rysw19 1 year ago
LV's video is seriously outdated
there is no public option
that was just for show
your going to be forced to buy private insurance
GovernmentSham912 2 years ago
Ur a fucking retard suicide is measureing the mental stability of people. Do you know how much money is spent on drugs aimed at stopping suicide. If u think suicide is not measureable outcome then u must think mental diseases doesnt exist. Just another example of how u make outragous claims with no facts. Only ur personal knowledge.
f0rumrr 2 years ago
Please do not interject logic in the debate. Liberals are not equipt to handle that type of discussion.
treijackson 2 years ago 3
does anyone notice that most the people commenting are just liberal butt hurt people. but the rating still show people agree with him? or at least like his videos?
gibblets17 2 years ago 21
@gibblets17 exactly, liberalviewer has all his kooks flood this channel. It's truly pathetic.
savemyplaylist 1 year ago
Hey wait a minute Nancy say's it's ok now health care can wait something about jobs. I thought It was a big rush but now not so much? If it's not a big deal now maybe they (the liberals)could share a little about what's in the bill, what do ya say Nancy.
greptor 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@6:00 Life expectancy IS a mesure of health care quality, its an average of life span. People live longer because they are able to get preventitive medicine. The US also has the lowest percentage of people able to get preventitive care, which dramaticly lowers the over all life expectancy. soo the fact that the US has one of the lowest life expectanies of any 1st world nation either means we have a lot of people that off themselves, or preventitive care helps you live longer... take your pick.
KusuriRX 2 years ago
@KusuriRX This is majorly incorrect as a general statement.
We COULD compare life expectancy of people who are diagnosed with certain types of cancers, and see how long they last in each system, PROVIDED that we also account for how quickly each system is able to detect and diagnose and treat each patient.
However, outside conditions, like drug usage, air quality, accidents, birthrate, etc, will affect the average life expectancy, which is why the avg. life expectancy should NOT be compared.
theflyingjbird 2 years ago
@theflyingjbird okay soo lets choose any european country, 90% of them are far more polluted than the US, have worse Water and air conditions than the US, but their life expectancy is longer. Does that many any sense?
KusuriRX 2 years ago
1) correlation does not prove causation
2) Obesity is a huge contributor to health problems. The US has the second-highest obesity rate.
3) There are links between continuing to work after retirement age, and longer life expectancies. Countries such as Japan have a significantly higher percentage of working elderly than do the US. (Japan has the highest life expectancy for people over age 65).
theflyingjbird 2 years ago
hey you wanted to bring environmental factors into it, what about china who also has a longer life expectancy and through a lot of the major cities you can not go outside with out a mask its soo polluted. Like anything else obesity could be prevented with routine medical care, and education. Many studies show the sicker you are the more and worse you tend to eat (in the US) to feel "better". soo i see your obesity and still raise you industrial pollution.
KusuriRX 2 years ago
....
Actually no, China has a shorter life expectancy than the US.
And no, obesity is best taken care of by a change in lifestyle habits.
Did I mention that you need to research your claims? I wasn't kidding.
US life expectancy - 78.
China - 73.
you don't even need to search very hard for that one. I'm really close to calling you an all-out idiot. Do your research.
theflyingjbird 2 years ago
yes obesity can be done by life style changes, which could be assisted by education but fine more polluted countries then
United Kingdom 79.01 years also has an obesity issue all the water ways are soo polluted that if you swim in them it can kill you
belgium 79.22 that region has travel advisories due to industrial air pollution advising non residents to wear masks
and of cant forget the whole average for the EU 78.67... but yeah easy access to healthcare means nothing.
KusuriRX 2 years ago
...yeah, you're not helping yourself here.
You said that life expectancy is a measure of healthcare.
I just pointed out several reasons why it's not. You have yet to answer any of them. The fact is, and remains, that health care has an *effect* on a person's life span - but it does not DICTATE the person's lifespan. Because there are so many factors influencing the average lifespan, it is completely wrong to claim that there is a direct correlation between health care and life expectancy alone
theflyingjbird 2 years ago
i am helping to prove the point i said, there is a direct correlation to it, in the worst living conditions, people live longer than us. Now if we take a cross section and do basic troubleshooting what is different there than here? hmm seems that they receive preventative care more often. I never said it DICTATED it, I said it helped it, and we would live longer with it than with out it. But hey if you want to keep it as it is and get a 32% rate hike because your insurance company felt like it.
KusuriRX 2 years ago
Except that you're very, very wrong. Europe doesn't have worse pollution than we do, and China, which DOES have worst pollution, happens to have a *lower* life span.
Scientifically, the only way to compare the effects of health care on the average life span is to control for other factors which also affect lifespan.
Simply comparing the average lifespan of different countries does not do anything to determine the effectiveness of a single factor, unless you *control* for the other factors
theflyingjbird 2 years ago
hmm seems like you've been to europe a lot eh, east europe has worse pollution than the US can dream of... the US is sparkling and pristine compared to east europe. there are many many many links to getting preventative care and living longer. Ask a doctor some time, will i live longer if i just get treated when im sick, or will i live longer if i actually come and see you for all my preventative care visits. guess what he is going to advise you do? but meh what does he know, hes only a doctor.
KusuriRX 2 years ago
Actually, yes, I have been to Europe. The air is generally much cleaner there, especially in mid-to-western Europe, because a huge percentage of Europe's energy is nuclear power. We're coal-powered, and more polluted.
Once again, I don't dispute that health care has an EFFECT - but it isn't the ONLY thing that effects the average life expectancy. Because of this, you cannot simply compare life expectancies of different countries and expect it to be the same as comparing health care systems.
theflyingjbird 2 years ago
seriously, are you doing ANY research? I mean, 90% of your argumentation is frivolous.
In any comparison of statistics, you HAVE to control for outside factors (like working after retirement, smoking habits, pollution, etc) - if you don't, the comparison is meaningless.
Talk to any person who has a job analyzing statistics; most of them will tell you something to that effect.
theflyingjbird 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry man you just do not understand Health Care in Canada. The facts are none but the very rich would prefer a US style insurance system. Yes, Canadians will complain about taxes(Because people love to complain)but they'd never trade it at the end of the day.
If the US public really knew what they could get for their money they would not object to higher taxes vs. paying for insurance that tries to screw you over when you need it. You're a rich lawyer so insurance is no big deal 4 u, yet!
garrickmusic 2 years ago
@garrickmusic Dunno who you're talking to, but it's my understanding that Lee Doren is NOT a lawyer.
And being the son of a doctor, I can unequivocally state that we would not prefer to have a universal health system, and that many doctors are against the idea of a universal health system.
theflyingjbird 2 years ago
Don't lecture them on costs vs prices. Liberals don't know anything about economics which is why they don't see a problem giving shit away through government intervention.
bearhuntaa 2 years ago 30
@bearhuntaa One of the most successful businessmen who is highly respected for his success and his honesty is a...liberal. Warren Buffett.I understand your tendancy for hyperbole but I know a LOT of successful businessmen who are liberal. I also knew the GOP sugar daddy of a few years ago and he was extremely successful at...crime. Ken Lay financed George BUSH's campaign in 2000 and he is the greatest (of it is worst) corporate criminal in the history of mankind.
exenrontexas 1 year ago 2
@bearhuntaa And do you wonder why educated liberals think that conservatives are uneducated twats.
TugsN 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(Referring to 4:05) The fact is that high rates of angioplasties and bypasses are not indicative of good health care - they are indicative of high rates of heart disease, which, last time I checked, was bad.
Perhaps you should rename your entire channel "HowTheWorldWorks Deliberately Distorts Basic Logic and Reasoning".
cjdrover 2 years ago
@cjdrover Your point is only valid if you assume that there is a higher rate of heart disease.
The higher rate of angioplasties and bypasses could ALSO be an indicator of better detection and prevention by US health care.
Last time I checked, a possibility is only that - a possibility. So before you go around insulting people who actually do some research, you should do some of your own, so that you don't have people posting on your comments pointing out how biased your responses are.
theflyingjbird 2 years ago
I did not say anything insulting in my comment, despite your claims to the contrary.
You are correct in observing that a more meaningful indicator might be a comparison of heart disease rate, corrective surgeries, and mortality rate for each country, but my point is that this video didn't do that either. The claims he makes about the US "crushing" and "trumping" other countries are meaningless. This is why I suggested the distortion of basic logic - the presenter doesn't connect the dots.
cjdrover 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lee,
Despite the title of this video, nowhere in it do you show me distorting any facts, deliberately or otherwise. You can see a detailed description of the mistakes you made in this video on a webpage I created for that purpose at
tinyurl(.)com/HTWWMR6
Don't forget to remove the parentheses when pasting that address into your browser.
I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding and
thanks for the video :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago 25
Keep at it LV!!!! :) the public option doesn't create a new beauacracy. It creates an option! It's not like community colleges keep you from going to Harvard...
PhillyWargamer 2 years ago
LV is a good example of a youtuber who takes the trouble to back up his claims, not just during the video, but afterwards as he does here.
I eagerly await HTWW's reply.
Keep trying, Lee - you'll get there eventually.
I'd also appreciate responses to my comments from a month ago, but I guess you have other videos to "debunk" without solid factchecking and research.
bushonomics 2 years ago
Last point on the infant mortality (IM) thing: you claim that in other countries, prenatal deformity never results in a birth, and even when it does, those countries don't count that in their IM rate.
I for one would like to see a reference on that - what is your source for saying that other countries calculate IM differently than we do? If other countries DID use different methods to get their numbers, every IM study would have to notate that on their tables and in their text.
bushonomics 2 years ago
To say that life expectancy isn't a measure of a health care system just shows that you don't understand statistics.
Unplanned events, such as hurricanes, murders, earthquakes, drug overdoses, plane crashes.... anything that kills a human being goes into the figure.
Life expectancy is a general barometer of an entire country's situation, and while a nation's health system isn't the ONLY factor, health care is definitely part of that picture.
bushonomics 2 years ago
GDP is a measure of economic activity WITHIN a country's borders. US pharmaceutical exports do not contribute to US GDP.
The US has price controls as well in the sense that the government, insurance companies and GPO's negotiate and determine reimbursement rates based on factors such as WAC (wholesale acquisition cost) and AWP (average wholesaler price).
Lastly, the US has drug shortages and supply problems all the time. Go to FDA's site, or ashp . org to see current critical shortage info.
bushonomics 2 years ago
When liberalssay "70% of Americans want government run healthcare" you know it is a lie. realclearpolitics(.)com has an average of all polls and support for it is about half of 70%....kind of like the costs of the healthcare and things like Cap and Tradeare being sold by saying they will only cost half as must as they actually will cost and lose twice as many jobs.
tubaboy71 2 years ago 2
Keep in mind that the WHO does not have the resources to conduct its own independent study. They rely on what the governments tell them. And a. There's a good chance that the european governments were lying b. Every country has different standards relating to life expectancy etc, which means that a good result in Europe might be a very average result in the US.
pharaoh337 2 years ago
You are now just being insulting. Ever heard of GSK, one of the largest and most famous phama companies that is, oh, in fact British. There are so many other examples, but you have insulted so many others I can already see people arguing as well.
dunsedog 2 years ago
I don't think you understand what GDP is dude.
If it is true that the US makes all the "life saving drugs" for the rest of the world (which it is not, as other posters have commented), then the GDP would be massively INCREASED by selling these drugs to other countries so the proportion of GDP spent on medical costs in the US would actually be DECREASED by selling these drugs to the rest of the world.
jdoucheisfly 2 years ago
Price controls do not impact diagnosis rates. Price controls impact drug prices, not the cost of doing simple and cheap screenings for things like breast cancer and pregnancy complications. If our health system endorsed preemptive screenings, the pharma companies wouldn't profit, so our health care system doesn't push hard for preemptive care.
Of course, well-meaning doctors do take care of their patients, but as a whole, the system is for profit, and that is simply amoral in principle.
snoman99991 2 years ago
I hate to keep going, but Lee continues to distort what's going on here.
Suicide rates are in fact a measurement of our health care because mental health is part of the system as well. Our mental care, when given the correct respect, can save lives and is a good measurement of the system. Is it the best? Of course not, but you shouldn't be writing it off either.
Lee, you are not an expert about health care, and any doctor or physician would laugh for you to say life expectancy is irrelevant
snoman99991 2 years ago
Furthermore, Lee misleads the audience by implying that procedures alone are a measurement of the quality of health care.
Idealistically, our health care would be best if we didn't have to have those procedures done. In fact, the rate of cancer, infant mortality, and other indicators of a nation's health care system demonstrate that we are not getting what we're paying for.
Lee is attempting to turn the attention away from pharma companies and those who stand to profit from our system.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Once again though, Lee misleads the viewer by asserting that LiberalViewer's quote didn't apply to the study.
Lee is incorrect because while independent surveys were used to draw that conclusion, the conclusion was in fact drawn by the study. This is an example of the people conducting the study using outside and independent information to draw an unbiased conclusion.
He didn't imply the statement was true, but commented that if it were, that would be even worse than just the spending issue.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Not even half of the top fifty pharmaceutical companies are located in the US, and that doesn't even speak to where those drugs are produced. Keep in mind that many labor intensive manufacturing jobs are shipped overseas.
Lee clearly misses the concept of cost reducing that the public option offers. By using the large user base of the public option as leverage, the government can negotiate for cheaper drugs (common economic theory).
What in the world is Lee trying to accomplish here?
snoman99991 2 years ago
OMG you are so full of shit. If you think Drugs are only made here in America you are a ignorant fool. We do not supply the world with drugs you dumbass, Germany, France China, England, Japan, they all develop and manufacture drugs. This man is full of shit. The difference is The Gov. in those other country do have price controls and demand that they dont get fucked by the Drug companys, where as we let the "free market" or as I like to call it the "fuck the American people market" run the show
specialjr11 2 years ago
That's funny, I could have sworn there were special interest laws and bills supported by BOTH Bush AND Obama that allowed the pharmaceutical companies charge whatever the hell they want, thus giving them immunity FROM the free market.
hanzo138 2 years ago
Since you don't produce anything you don't have any idea that research and developement approval etc of pharmaceuticals is very costly and governs what is charged at the end use.
bush1tman 2 years ago
specialjr11 What do you do for a living?
bush1tman 2 years ago
(1) Suicide is a function of psychological care; it does reflect on the health care system. For instance, the Virginia Tech shooter had participated in Virginia's psych system, but it cut him loose (obviously, in that case there was more than suicide).
(2) Why does the USA have to pay to research all the pharmaceuticals? If we cut back on our research, the other countries will have to fill the void.
(3) I didnt find your argument about transplants to be convincing; which study did you use?
hijinxcavalry 2 years ago
I would much rather be here than any other country. I know it's expensive as hell here, but alot of that has to do with the sue happy culture that America has turned into. There are too many variables as to why our costs are so huge.
I have to say though, this was a really good video, normally you and liberalviewer just sound like two little kids fighting, but this one was solid as hell man.
AvatarOfAvatar 2 years ago 2
Good to see this video back on. People who false flag are nothing but anti-free speech dolts.
xtreme1002003 2 years ago 2
By far My favorite of the series!
5spoonfest5 2 years ago
And remember, the so called mainstream media who at one time long ago used to be somewhat responsible for getting out these analysis are dead quiet on it.
And most of us know why that is, it is because they are completely over run with liberals that will not report the truth in the main stream.
kmg501 2 years ago
LOL good this needed to be put back up.
It is funny watching the liberal idiots whine.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I figured they were drinking LiberalViewer's kool-aid, I was just too lazy to prove it.
Christianrocker1990 2 years ago
5 stars, again! In case it didn't register before.
bsharker 2 years ago
w00t unflagged!!!
ipwnallnubscuzirock 2 years ago 6
so why was this vid taken down in the 1st place?
friction00815 2 years ago 2
@friction00815
Someone false flagged it.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago 3
I take it false flagging implies censorship, yes?
how many people who don't like you does it take to flag a vid or does it only take 1?
I don't like how these liberals operate, they are sneaky people
friction00815 2 years ago 7
Dang, I got suspended that way once.
TheBeardOfPower 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
So many people wasting so much good time commenting on this douche's mind numbingly retarded videos... There now I did it!
DonVoghano 2 years ago
thanks for spending so much time correcting videos that 12 ppl watch
zzbacardizz 2 years ago
I would say that's a decent point, but apparently LiberalViewer's channel is more popular than I thought. I'd never heard of him before, and if HTWW didn't mention him, I probably wouldn't have EVER heard of him.
But LV gets plenty more than 12 views. You can't find a video on his channel that's been up for longer than 24hrs that has less than 10,000 views.
And besides, a lot of the things he says are the same as plenty of other leftists, so these HTWW vids are useful in that way.
WideWorldOfWisdom 2 years ago
yes, unless you are a man then no.
fafnir44 2 years ago
Sweet ... nice videos !!!
ILIADsOdyssey 2 years ago
bastard liberals - After the horrific shootings of American soldiers by a muslim soldier who had possible ties to radical muslim leader.
Obama said, "Let's not jump to conclusions" Do you need to be hit in the head with a rubber bat???
Oh, let's first not offend the killer. Might hurt his feelings.
Enough is enough with this spinless liberal political correctness and being afraid of offending those who hate us. This administration is despicable and unpatriotic.
johnpoco 2 years ago 4
If you jump to conclusions he doesn't get a fair trial. If he doesn't get a fair trial, he can appeal and possibly win on appeal.
Would you rather he have a fair trial so he can be convicted or executed, or would you rather have him get off with a reduced sentence?
iamsosquid 2 years ago
dose he not have an original video
realhxq 2 years ago
Lee, your spending too much brainpower researching this drone's hogwash: stick with the government's gross incompatancy to fiscally manage anything. A man in your position has alot of work ahead of him.
Rugghead98 2 years ago
"the government's gross incompatancy to fiscally manage anything" and the private sector does? have you been paying attention to recent history and history where the government is always saving private interests AND propping them up?
shmenetto 2 years ago
Isn't it amazing when we cut off the market from being able to do its thing we get a worse outcome, speaking about organ transplant. Think about how far ahead America could be in that category if they simply allowed a market for buying and selling organs to exist.
Wow, who would've expected that whenever you have the govt. regulating the shit out of a specific aspect of something, it tanks hard. More fuel for my free market fires haha.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Read the rest of the stats Lee shows, only top on 3 statistics. Not exactly outstanding or anything. Also taking his opinion as fact is a little absurd. Maybe Lee could link a peer-review paper to support his opinion
dunsedog 2 years ago
Liberal Viewer sounds like Microsoft Sam. LOL
ZombieX13 2 years ago
LiberalViewer is a lawyer, no surprise at all he uses deceipt to get people to watch/believe his B.S.
TeHGoodReverend 2 years ago
Great work, Lee!
BillPigg 2 years ago
Wouldn't higher rates of coronary bypasses and angioplasty indicate the United States has a higher incidence of people who need those procedures (i.e. people with generally inferior cardiovascular health)?
number154 2 years ago
liberal viewer is from california...enough said!
PatricksTime 2 years ago
If libtard vewer had even haf a nut hed no when to cut off the BS poster's like Lee dos! Libtard vewer has libtard posters!!!!
nicogum 2 years ago
I think abortions should be counted in the life expectancy average.
cataphracts123 2 years ago
The only place where it is legal to sell your organs is, surprisingly enough, Iran.
They're also the only place without a transplant waiting list.
DoomHippie 2 years ago
Although I concur with your conclusion, Your model of the spending/pharma relationship is incorrect. In countries with fixed budgets pharmacoms compete for their slice of cake, you might think that would drive prices down it actually has the opposite effect because of the heterogeneous nature of the drugs market. To over simplify, selling cheap drugs at a premium prices for increased trading efficiency.
KnockoffNigeI 2 years ago
Another thing that burns me is when the left makes fun of old people protesting the democrats crappy bills. "Don't touch my medicare" the hosts and pundits laugh ignoring the FACT why they say this...the media is so far up Obama's ass they rarely touch on the $500+ billion dollar cuts they plan to take out of Medicare. So instead of acknowledging why the older folks say "hands off my medicare" they say "See the love socialized medicine and they are just confused". Dishonest as hell.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
democrat and truthfulness are mutually exclusive obviously.
cafelattefuture 2 years ago
Lee you have also done quote cutting in this video. The report says that in their study the "... results also fail to reveal what the extra spending has bought..." So liberal viewer is right on that one point except your right about his quote cutting. Except for that one point spot on and keep up the good work.
razieltov 2 years ago
What? What? No drugs and medical innovation from Europe??!! Did you ever head of Medicon Valley, Denmark, EUROPE? More drugs and more medical technology comes from us "evil socialist europeans" then from usa! And it's not the only one, there are so many others in France, Switzerland, Germany. You are the one distorting the facts!
Shortages? What are you talking about? I never went to a pharmacy and couldn't get my prescription, not even when I lived in Romania.
ohmyfsm 2 years ago 3
Great video. Moving on to part 6.
BryanShotYou 2 years ago
Market price = shortages? You have to explain that to me. The price of something still doesn't change the demand or the amount offered.
TimesEyes 2 years ago
Really, then I want to sell you a can ok coke for $400.00 dollers that wont chnage the demand for the product will it?
Greg78X 2 years ago
Yeah I slipped there. I meant organs. Does the price of organs change the demand? Or organs offered? If you do not let the market decide the price you would assume the price of organs would be less and there would be other criteria that decide who is the recipient.
I still don't see how that would lower the available organs for transplants.
TimesEyes 2 years ago
I am not an organ donor, I'd hate to save the life of one liberal/progressive/democrat. So I will never become an organ donor, ever.
cafelattefuture 2 years ago
ummm... wow.... you really need to take an economy class. If coke is $400 per can then the demand for that product goes down. If coke goes down to $0.01 then demand goes way up. Just like gas prices. We all still need gas but when prices go up people don't go on vacation as much and demand goes down.
razieltov 2 years ago
I repeat, I slipped there, I meant organs. The demand of organs won't go down or up because of the price. As far as I know you don't get money for donating donors, so the amount of organs donated will also not decrease. If you need an organ, you need it, no matter what the price is.
So how does price affect demand or supply in case of organs?
TimesEyes 2 years ago
Oh that's easy. How can you even ask such a question. You are much more likely to donate a part of your liver or a kidney if you're getting paid for it. And you're family is more likely to donate your organs if it will pay for your funeral.
razieltov 2 years ago
Except you don't get paid for donating. I don't know about the US but at not in all the European countries I know. Countries with a better rating. So that doesn't make much sense to back Lee's statement up following your logic.
TimesEyes 2 years ago
Looks like the semi socialist countries just mooch off our inovation.
WSFG123 2 years ago
Lee, this was brilliant. Allen is not an economist, he's an opinion mill. Opinions are great as long as they accurately explain facts. But his opinions are not based on, nor do they explain, the facts of world medical care. He thinks that opinions exist to TRUMP facts, not to logically explain them.
littlebier8 2 years ago
Great analogy at the beginning.
HymerSchmidt 2 years ago
I'm still waiting for someone who is not an economic illiterate to explain to me how the health care bill could actually fix the problems it's supposed to address. I've been waiting for quite some time so far.
elsquibbs 2 years ago 3
It is completely deplorable that the American education system and American attitude and lifestyle have resulted in a population that honestly thinks centrally planned gov't can provide better quality of service at lower costs than the free market.
I find it absolutely horrifying that most people don't realize this recession AND skyrocketing health care rates are directly BECAUSE of current tax codes and government regulation. People don't even know how we are currently distorting free market!
chuska8383 2 years ago 5
Talk about ignorance; New Zealand doesn't put price controls on it - the health department purchase drugs on behalf of New Zealand by negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies, not all drugs as a result are subsidised because there is a restriction placed in dollar terms on how many drugs are subsidised at anyone time. If you want a drug that isn't subsidised then by all means - you can purchase it yourself at full price. Before you open your mouth - get the facts.
kawaiigardiner 2 years ago
How dare you ask questions?
Why can't you just accept the facts as they're told to you?
That's the American way.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
GO BENGALS
matt90108 2 years ago
if we could get rid of the 10% of personalites that most closley represent lib vibview we would the coutnry would be so much better. lib view is the kind of guy who bends people over then smiles and ask to be thanked
ORVX 2 years ago
I think you just scraped the surface of this. Other nations have different definitions of infant mortality. Many babies in countries "ahead" of the US would either be aborted or die before birth due to complications. In America, many of the same type of high-risk pregnancies are carried to term because of the religious beliefs of many Americans and many babies who wouldn't survive childbirth elsewhere do here due to our technological superiority.
CTYankeeinTexas 2 years ago
Another key factor in life expectancy is racial and ethnic demographics.
The U.S. has a far larger minority population than alot of the countries ahead of them on that list. These minorities, on average, have a shorter life span than that of caucasions. This disorts the life expectancy data and really makes it, as you say, comparing apples to oranges.
sorrian 2 years ago
liberal viewer has absolutely been dismantled.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
Interesting vid, However:
1. Price controls theory is not strictly true. Many systems enter deficits, meaning they have overspent (not suddenly cut off!).
2. Aus(I assume Australia) beat the US in MOST indicators you highlighted in cancer, so that (albiet it is only one mentioned study) does not support your own argument of the US trumpting everyone.
3. What is your proof about price controls except one or two UK cases where medicines were not subsided? Most probs r waiting periods, not prices.
rulllar 2 years ago
in any case, it does appear that Liberalviewer has outofcontexted many things, not that I'm surprised in the slightest since that's a common tactic liberals tend to employ, along with selective memory (such as forgetting the hatred and vile they employed against Bush)
rulllar 2 years ago
Abject Nonsense has become my catchphrase.
Myscannersucks 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're such a liar, Lee. Talk about distorting facts. How about the fact that nearly 50% of Big Pharma's expenditures are on advertising, not R&D. In fact R&D costs make up about 5% of their budgets. The bulk of R&D like in high-tech and other sectors is completely subsidized by the state. Take a look at Taxol, developed at the taxpayer cost of about 30 million and then handed over to Bristol Myers. Plenty of other examples too. Are you capable of rational thought? Learn your facts, kid.
buddhagem 2 years ago
@buddhagem
The car companies in East Germany paid zero on advertising. That has nothing to do with anything.
Advertising is used to compete with other companies.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
Actually R&D takes up 18.7% of total domestic sales and 16.4% of total sales. The total amount of funding by the NIH is around 50%. Maybe you should learn your facts.
phrma [dot] org/files/2008%20Profile [dot] pdf
trayg95 2 years ago
I don't think a gov option or nfp insurance (which I support) is going to help bring HC costs under control. What we need is to pay our own basic hc needs and more competition and free market principles. Look at plastic surgery, lasics (eye surgery misspelled), dentistry etc... Areas of medicine where gov and 3rd party payer systems aren't used, quality goes up, cost comes down. WHAT A SHOCKER, eh?
christo930 2 years ago 2
i cant stand whatever voice liberal viewer is talking in. it just creeps me out.
insanity401 2 years ago 2
insanity I noticed the same thing. liberal viewer has a very creepy voice. His voice alone would keep from listening to him. Not to mention the way he lies all the time.
reevaluate2008 2 years ago
My posistion has always been that you have to allow care providers to charge what they deem fit as incentive to do a better job. When I was diagnosised with cancer, I came to the US for care. I believe the result of that choice was my survival. I paid for this care, out of pocket, of my own free will, because I believed living was more important than the money I spent.
TheAtomicSkull 2 years ago 4
Thank you very much for this
hanzo138 2 years ago 4
I second this comment.
schimdo 2 years ago
Haha. Keep owning Liberal Viewer. I'm loving it. Especially your debunking of his health care BS.
xtreme1002003 2 years ago 7
What? A liberal caught lying about healthcare?
shaokem 2 years ago 8
Right on, right on...keep it up my man
shndola 2 years ago 3
this "liberal viewer" is just trying to side track lee from doing his usual fantastic job. I could give a crap about liberal viewer.
ceylous3121 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
also, about the population surveys - so it doesn't matter what people think about their healthcare? their opinion about the service is irrelevant to you?
franzpolak 2 years ago
hey Lee
what type of health care reform do you support? do you support high deductible insurance and HSAs?
ch1kusoo 2 years ago
Thats our man, keeping liberals honest.
redbaron998 2 years ago
Mexican Health Care, one party rule for 70 years and Socialism.
Mexican Health Care, let's not be so politically correct.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
yeah, bad analogy - temperature is a natural phaenomenon, and can be modified indoors, but not outdoors - it is rigid. costs are artificially created symbols for worth - in the case of health insurance they are bloated up, and can be lowered down by competition (in this case, of a government run public option).
franzpolak 2 years ago
You are confusing prices with costs. The price of insurance may or may not be artificially bloated. You cannot bloat the cost. For instance, if it takes 45 minutes to cook chicken in an oven, that is 45 minutes of COST. That is real time, real money. If I own a company and pay my cook $10.00/hr, I just spent $7.50 on him to cook the chicken alone. That is COST. Unless I find a different way of cooking the chicken, that cost CANNOT go down. Price is what I charge the customer.
trayg95 2 years ago
i wasn't confusing costs with prices - costs are equally adaptable to corruptive methods as prices are.
costs can be bloated by numerous tactics - buying equipment for production that is overpriced, so production cost goes up, using unreasonably expensive materials when cheaper and equally effective are available - cost bloating is directly connected with corruption (i know what i'm talking about, corruption is a status quo in my country). i hope this makes my point clearer.
franzpolak 2 years ago
No. Costs cannot be manipulated in the same way as price. When a company pays MORE than the cost for their equipment, material or labor, it is because WHO they are buying from from is charging a larger PRICE. When the buyers of such companies knowingly participate in price gouging of their own company, they are participating in fraud. Those materials are bought for a PRICE not for their COST. All buyers know this. They know their supplier is profiting on the sale.
trayg95 2 years ago
you really don't understand my point - the prices of materials have a lot to do with production costs. also, more expensive machinery, more man-power etc. all of these factors can boost costs.
"When the buyers of such companies knowingly participate in price gouging of their own company, they are participating in fraud"
no shit, einstein.
franzpolak 2 years ago
And that has to do with PRICE manipulation, not COST manipulation. That has to do with PRICES as you just even stated. So no, you cannot manipulate costs out of thin air. What you are confusing are the costs of the middle man in an operation. If his costs go up because his supplier charges a higher PRICE, then he has the choice of finding a different supplier. That supplier has a right to a profit, just as you do every time you cash your paycheck.
trayg95 2 years ago
this is pointless. i'm trying to explain to you how costs are manipulated, and you're talking about prices.
franzpolak 2 years ago
no, prices are regulated post-production.
i'm not saying that costs are manipulated out of thin air, i explained it in reasonably simple terms.
"What you are confusing are the costs of the middle man in an operation. If his costs go up because his supplier charges a higher PRICE, then he has the choice of finding a different supplier."
this normally true, but as it is, sometimes the buyer and the supplier are the same person.
franzpolak 2 years ago
The prices the supplier charges are post production to the supplier, but not the manufacturer. If a machine used to produce a certain type of drug is overpriced, it is overpriced to the drug manufacturer from the machine builder. In any case, we are still talking about PRICE here. You cannot change costs, except to change production techniques, shop around for different suppliers, and/or cut wages. You can't just create "cost" controls and expect the machine to magically cost less.
trayg95 2 years ago
non-sequitur.
i never mentioned "cost" control and it was never discussed.
"You cannot change costs, except to change production techniques, shop around for different suppliers, and/or cut wages."
this is an apparent contradiction - you specifically note that costs cannot be shanged, and then you cite ways to do that. and i was arguing that exact point.
i still don't see where we disagree. you keep mentioning prices while this whole discussion has nothing to do with them.
franzpolak 2 years ago
I was not contradicting myself. I specifically used the word except. Do you understand the meaning of that word?
Also, you stated at the very beginning of this thread that costs 'artificially cr