It already is. It has harmed my business. I sell medical equipment. A lot of hospitals and nursing homes are reluctant to spend, because they see the socialist clusterfuck that is coming. This marxist clown needs to go. A sworn enemy to America wouldn't do anything different to our economy than this mumbling fool in DC that can't speak to 6 year olds without a teleprompter, is doing.
When innovation laws are a monopoly languages and rituals, there is only manipulation, no economy, no resource development, and no humanity and no real understanding among population.
Obamacare was signed on March 2010 with 59% of the people disapproving according to a CNN poll. The CBO scored Obamacare on six years of coverage for 10 years of taxes, which is how the CBO showed the bill to be deficit neutral . It’s unconstitutional mandating all citizens to purchase health care. Even Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in it.” watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To It’s also meant to take over industry watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
the current system creates an underclass of people who die unnecessarily because they cannot afford the healthcare they need! wherever profit is the primary motive there will always be the temptation to cut corners! so much for the hypocratic oath!!!!
I'm sure all the people who either don't qualify for healthcare or cannot afford it would love to get hold of these cutting edge medicines! the only thing the profit motivation motivates the pharmaceutical companies to do is make even more profit! most so called new drugs are variations on existing ones! I'm sure American has the best healthcare (provided you are upper middle class) its great having to sell the house to pay for cancer care isn't it!!!??!!
Do even americans have a basic understanding of human anatomy physiology? You have a bunch of hilly billy cowboys in your government all they have to do is say god and they get elected and then you wonder why is your country not doing good!
Dr. Donald Berwick, the man who will run your health care: "I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do. ... About 8% of GDP is plenty for 'best known' care. ... A progressive policy regime will control and rationalize financing—control supply."
This is a classic case of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." The moochers known as Orren Boyle (Every other country) are the one's that tout how they can provide things like, in this case, health care. The only reason these countries aren't forced out is because there is a Hank Reardan (U.S.) who's innovating and running on profit to thrive as the most successful one. I'd like to see how high and mighty Europe would be if we took away everything made by US and have them innovate something for a change
Good thing for the private sector. I mean after all we all know that there have been no medical breakthroughs in the history of man kind until only recently and only under a private medical system. *cough* SARCASM *cough*
Free market healthcare is the best. Following profit induces companies to save, invest and expand to maintain high efficacy for the American people: the less involved government is the more will companies' growth outpace concomitant growth in customer numbers.
Without profit you have the 'tragedy of the commons' and resource is squandered as govt imposes per annum 100% spending thus preventing capital accumulation and managed investment because savings patterns are literally FORCED!
megarational ....don't just throw a bunch of polling number out and leave the important information out like where the poll was taken and what questions where asked and the date they were taken???? It amazes me the number one argument about private health insurance is profit!? Why is it ok for Actors and pro Athletes to make millions playing a game or staring in a 2 hour movie, but it is wrong to make money providing health care and new medication??
This video overlooks some things. Insulin (the medicine which keeps juvenile diabetics alive) was invented by a Canadian doctor who chose not to patent the technology because it was morally wrong to profit from suffering children.
This video makes the mistake of assuming that financial incentive is the only motivator which can lead to advancements. Many doctors and scientists are motivated by an imperative to help others, not money.
What is the source of these figures? By socialised medicine are you talking about the entire Canadian medical system or the price controls of PharmaCare?
It's easy to say "needlessly" when it's not your money that your investing on developing drugs. Where less than half of attempts result in a safe and effective drug and each attempt can cost up to a billion dollars.
Try getting people to dedicate their years of study and experimentation to come up with such drugs for free. The world would be a better place if everyone was like that. But people aren't, deal with it. Simply paying others 4 a valuable service isn't going 2 end d world.
"It's easy to say "needlessly" when it's not your money that your investing on developing drugs."
It is my money. I am Canadian, so my tax dollars fund both the research which goes into medical treatments, and the costs incurred by any citizens who need them. Much of America's medical research is federally funded as well.
"Much of America's medical research is federally funded as well."
That is a travesty that must b corrected. But sources pls.
"It is my money. I am Canadian, so my tax dollars fund both the research which goes into medical treatments"
Very good, then allow d Canada 2 give away the results of its research, for what's its worth, for free (if that's what you really want). But some of ur countrymen may disagree
But let those who voluntarily risk THEIR money decide wat dat risk is worth.
"Wikipedia: Research Funding. "[US] Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36%..."
Are the results open to all? Is it open to those who would want to use the results to make life-saving drugs for free? If so, how does big pharma make the world worse off than as it is as opposed to some utopian pipe dream?
"Canada does give away the results of all its federally funded research."
Are the results open to all? Yes. US funded research scientists are required to publish every and all findings, at which point even you and I can read them and do with as we please.
"some utopian pipe dream"
Public health care is no pipe dream. Its a reality I'm lucky enough to enjoy.
"Yes. US funded research scientists are required to publish every and all findings"
Very good, then there is no problem.
"Public health care is no pipe dream. Its a reality I'm lucky enough to enjoy."
Which still relies on private firms to develop most of its drugs and techniques. I wasn't referring to public health care, I was referring to the idea of government run pharmaceutical firms.
"I was referring to the idea of government run pharmaceutical firms. "
I have not been refering to government run pharmaceutical firms. I have been refering to government regulation of the costs of pharmaceuticals, and government coverage of those pharmaceuticals for its citizens. There's a big difference.
"I have not been refering to government run pharmaceutical firms. I have been refering to government regulation of the costs of pharmaceuticals... There's a big difference."
Truly? Well pharmaceuticals are currently regulated by the FDA, taxed by gov't, and work under laws that define its liabilities. It already is regulated.
You don't see a difference between this and the gov't deciding what their risks are worth plus said liabilities?
Secondly, how do you know your getting your money's worth in innovation? Most of the generic companies in my country want to copy American drugs.
Thirdly, how do you know a patient suffering from one disease is getting his money's worth if research is going into another disease? A breast cancer patient wants her money to go into breast cancer research and a prostate cancer patient wants his money to go into prostate cancer research. How do you reconcile their conflicting desires?
The allocations of Canadian medical funds is handled by our elected officials, who do their best to use it for the most good.
"Wouldn't it be better if they just put THEIR money to entities that will use for THEIR interests?"
Drug companies which operate entirely on your capitalist system spend enormous resources developing frivolous treatments for male-pattern-balding and wrinkles instead of curing rare deadly diseases simply because there's profit in one than the other. Not good.
It may b frivolous but is d alternative of having a 3rd party forcing u 2 spend ur hard-earned cash on a 2nd party better? Again how is d 3rd party held accountable?
That's a highly loaded term. What is "good"? Going back to the breast and prostate cancer thing. How do we weigh the value of one life for another? How can we force another to sacrifice their well-being for another? It maybe noble to be selfless but to force someone to be so is utterly disgusting.
What if the majority race of a society it would be "most good" to eliminate a minority race from the earth and elected officials to do so would it still be "good"?
Deciding how to allocate medical funding is certainly a difficult task, but I'm going to maintain that a committee of ethically minded elected officials can do a better job than profit motivated businessmen.
For example baldness curing drugs is a $1 billion per year US industry because 1/4 of the population will experience it. Mastocytosis is a deadly incurable disease which affects 1 in a million children. Which is more important to cure? Which will result in the most profit?
"but I'm going to maintain that a committee of ethically minded elected officials can do a better job than profit motivated businessmen."
Despite the fact that you still have no idea how they do it, nor do you have a barometer like profits to gauge their performance. Profits can only exist iff people are willing to pay for products above what they cost. People are willing to pay iff they are made better off by products. How do we know your costs < value? You THINK they do a better job
There is no yardstick, no objective data to use. Nothing but your gut feeling.
"For example baldness curing drugs is a $1 billion per year US industry because 1/4 of the population will experience it. Mastocytosis is a deadly incurable disease which affects 1 in a million children."
Again no one is stopping you or government to develop a cure. And there is no reason to have FORCE someone to do so. In fact its downright UNETHICAL to do so.
I'm also willing to bet that big pharma employs some highly specialized scientists to develop their drugs. And by specialized, I mean isn't-likely-to-get-paid-nearl y-as-much-in-any-other-field. People aren't going to risk dedicating their lives to such a demanding and specialized career unless the payoff is big enough.
Payoff can mean either money or big fuzzy warm feeling inside. The individual decides if it's worth it.
@libertarianPinoy: "People aren't going to risk dedicating their lives to such a demanding and specialized career unless the payoff is big enough."
Yes they do. To quote from the Canadian Engineering code of ethics:
"While professionals should be fairly remunerated for their services, they are expected to put service above gain, excellence above quantity, rewards of self expression
above any pecuniary incentive, and a code of honour above
"Yes they do. To quote from the Canadian Engineering code of ethics:"
U've got to to b kidding. U think raising ur right hand & reciting a code of ethics is a test of character? Have u heard of lying? Or naivety? Until these people r truly put in high pressure/stress situations in the REAL world and perform, I'm not believing a word they say.
If this was true govt corruption could be solved by making em take an oath. HA!
PS I said payoff can mean fuzzy feeling ie self-fulfillment.
@BrettDunbar well according to the graph they had 2,000 medical innovations from 1997-2007. So if that is reduced by 88% that would mean they could have had 17,000, just as many as the USA but with 1/9 the population. hmmmm...
Great video, on a topic rarely covered as part of the health care debate....it would be a tragedy for the world if the US decides to pursue a single payer system, because it would stop medical innovation
"Isn't Capitalism a system of voluntary mutual exchange where BOTH parties profit? "
If you're life depends on some medication such as insulin, would you consider buying it "voluntary". The reason why there is a debate over medication price controls is because in most cases purchasing medication is not voluntary.
If you're life depends on some medication such as insulin, would you consider buying it "voluntary".
And does forcing someone to make the drug at a price below what they think is worth their time seem voluntary? Is it ok to force someone to sell at a price YOU think is justified even if THEY think it's not?
@JessicaBelle81 the simple answer to that is no, and I'v never came across someone who claimed it was. The capitalist system is built on competition where some lose and others win but through the competition the winners progress, However capitalism reaches a point when companies are 'too big to fail' at this point there is no longer any competition only olygarchs. People like everything else are expendable, only capital matters. Greed is good! Or so they say
@JessicaBelle81 the simple answer to that is no, and I'v never came across someone who claimed it was. The capitalist system is built on competition where some lose and others win but through the competition the winners progress, However capitalism reaches a point when companies are 'too big to fail' at this point there is no longer any competition only olygarchs. People like everything else are expendable, only capital matters. Greed is good! Or so they say.
That's what Europe and drug companies do. They jack up the price here so that their European clientele do not have to spend as much money. that is why prescription drugs are more expensive
I'm puzzled as to the relevance of this piece. The issue with government healthcare has been about availability of coverage and care to all people, not merely price control of the drugs and items you have to buy.
Secondly, the idea of cheap drugs in Canada being connected to profit in the US is patently false. It's cheap because Canada can simply manufacture w/o spending cash on the research since the lag time from development to release of a drug renders the patents rather pointless.
The place where the real evils of the profit motive arise has more to do with health insurance companies than drug companies. Yeah, the big pharma do a bunch of evil things from time to time, but you can also argue that it signals desperation at times.
The problems with insurance lie in all the restrictions, the denials of coverage, the fact that individuals generally cannot be covered on their own dime, etc. Pharma lobbyists and Insurance lobbyists are committing different evils entirely.
The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.
To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion—fear, revulsion, anger, disgust.
Google: Was Democrats healthcare strategy written in federal prison?
Pure Alinski tactic. BTW, he praises Alinski in his book. His book was blurbed by David Axelrod.
Creamer a convicted felon was at the white house dinner party. Everyone focused on the party crashers. No one gave a damn about the convict in attendence influencing our healthcare bill.
Rasmussen Dec 3. 62% Oppose Single-Payer Health Care System 55% of voters say a single payer health care system would lower the overall quality of health care.
66% of U.S. voters believe free market competition between private insurance companies will do more than government regulation to reduce the cost of health care
meg.. Woopie!!, it still has 111 new bureaurcracies, scrutiny of your IRS return to determine eligibility, fines, jail, a health commissioner to help guide your doctor's choice of treatment, $500 billion medicare cuts. What a nightmare, and a massive hairball!
megairrational is a socialist who is currently sponging off the Canadians, but wants to come home & sponge off Americans instead, to be near his family.
This is why he's got all this pro-natl socialist healthcare crap he's copying & pasting almost 24/7.
He was figured out under another video. Apparently now he's pushing socialism under this one.
You can't come up with any sane comments on health care reform, & your lies aren't flying, so your resort to still more lies about those who call you on your bullshit.
I've posted facts. The reasons why we can't afford insurance. You won't touch that. You even admitted you don't care why we can't afford it. You admitted you want socialism.
You admitted you don't care if Americans lose their liberty.
You admitted you don't care if the natl govt breaks the law & exceeds its limitations.
You refuse to look at any facts. You only want to push socialism.
Actually, when I called you a liar and a bullshitter it wasn't an emotional thing, it was a dispassionate assessment based on the "over the top" absurdity of your comments.
One reason is the hodge podge of players in the U.S. health care system leads to enormous administrative waste. One estimate is that 1/3 of h.c. $ in the U.S. goes to unnecessary administrative costs. The "administrative" costs for insurance co.'s for eg. include advertising departments, media campaigns, multimillion $ executive salaries, corporate jets, & billions of $ spent in campaign contributions & lobbying.
The U.S. will always have corporatism until you remove the domination of money over the election process. Want good gov''t? Have publicly funded elections & a viable 3'd party; prohibit campaign contributions from unions & corporations; curb massive media propaganda saturation by deep pocket special interests; & make the lobbying efforts publicized & transparent. Also figure out some way to address the problem of local politicians being elected solely on the basis of "bringing back the pork",
You have a complex way around a simple solution. Freedom of Speech.
That is a right of man, not a right of man's creation. Corps, unions, etc that lobby & express their "speech" through a printed medium, currency, have been illegally given Freedom of Speech. The rights of man have been denied & limited to $2000 or less. And people wonder why the govt represents big money, & not the People.
This illustrates the corruption of the system. And you want to throw healthcare into these goons' hands?
Rights are whatever the nation decides to treat as a right, and the choices say a lot about the character of the nation. It doesn't speak well of any civilized nation not to treat access to basic health care, regardless of income, as a "right".
Again you bring up freedom of speech. Obviously you don't understand the rights of man. Nor do you understand giving an entity, like a corporation, the rights of man.
It was legislation that gave the corporation the status of an individual, in order to limit individual liability & permit greater capital accumulation.
And it has had some unintended & harmful consequences.
If we'd get off this self-destructive road of the "isms" that destroy the prosperity of the People & return to our foundational principles, which history shows from 1790's to 1910's, we had the greatest economic expansion & prosperity in the history of the world. The value of money increased by 42%. Since we adopted socialist ideals, the value of money has decreased by 96%. Had they kept the foundational policies, affording healthcare would not be a problem.
meg..We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.
We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.
Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance
You dipshit. Comparing campaign funding by deep pocket special interests with "freedom of speech" is ludicurous. Of course you are no stranger to making such absurd rationalizations.
Free enterprise had children working long days in factories under unsafe conditions.
Absolute & unfettered free enterprise is a "cure all" only in the fanatical minds of ideological zealots (like you). ideological zealots force facts and realities into the round hole of their ideology,
@megarational: before capitalism, people were starving and lived in huts (with few notable exceptions). Read Malthus for more details.
Under capitalism, those who resent doing manual labor can save and start their own business. The same can not be said of life under communism or feudalism.
here your lack of information is showing. And I gave you the source. In Malthus' book: Essay on the Principles of Population you can read that people worked 15 hours a day, carrying heavy loads, always starved, with no access to fancy food or medicine. They didn't even invent the wheel of use metals. Always starved and potentially killed/raped by an opposing tribe.
Well, I guess they now have the choice but do not exercise it. Hmmm, wonder why.
Hmm, wonder why you quote a book with a central theme about the result of overpopulation,& try to apply it to nomadic American Indians who were hunters, at first on foot & later on horseback.
My comment stands, do you think they were any more unhappy than people in today;s rat race?
But hey, don't touch any of the reasons WHY we can't afford insurance.
(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)
Just give the national govt more power, let them exceed their 17 enumerated powers some more. Let the People lose some more liberty. Create yet another program of socialism. With over 100 new bureaucracies. We don't have enough of those, right? We have too much liberty, right? The only chain on the natl govt that was designed to prevent tyranny should be ignored, right?
The compassion argument doesn't fly anymore. Everyone knows by now that the national socialist healthcare bill is all about control, & has absolutely nothing to do with compassion.
@megarational Is this what you mean by liberal compassion? 30,000 farmworkers standing in food lines because the water was shut off because of a 2 in long fish. If Pelosi can deny water to farmers, she can deny healthcare to any citizen or group that she deems expendable. I am sure that her winery has plenty of water. It is far more important to grow wine grapes than vegetables, fruits and nuts. The people who feed the world are themselves in food lines thanks to libs. Compassionate?
Worldtravel..I encourage you to look into this further. CA gov has been trying to get the water turned back on but it is up to the secretary of the Interior and Congress. Pelosi has blocked legislation 7 times. Feinstein urged a no vote on senate bills. These people have been w/o water for almost a yr. The central valley is a dust bowl, and it takes yrs to grow almond and fruit trees, and to get soil conditioned, etc.
Yes, if you're not democrat, then you must be a Republican. Who are these "libertarians", and what are they doing on youtube with this "reasontv"?
Those giant greedy drug companies invest billions to create drugs that can save lives. If they can't make money, then there's no incentive to innovate.
Those giant drug companies dont invest to create entirely new drug. They tweak existing drugs just a little to get a new patents.
Naturally it would require billions of profit to cover the class action lawsuits and payment of fine over undisclosed side-effects of drugs like Zyprexa, Paxil, Lipitor, Vioxx etc etc.
Side effects are inevitable. Drugs also happen to save lives. Chinese herbal medicines and meditations, while comparatively inexpensive...... don't really work.
Oh, I'm well aware of lawsuits, and not a few of them are frivilous. But Americans hate tort reform, and there's no "loser pays" rule like in other countries, so drug companies have to factor in the cost of litigations by opportunistic lawyers.
That is totally none sense. Most of groundbreaking drugs have come from labs at universities not labs of big pharma.
Only groundbreaking thing big pharma has done is create a groundbreaking marketing campaign for drugs which still has unknown side effects because it is brought to the market too early in development.
Yeah, yeah, you hate big pharma, I get it. The cancer stricken person in this video was apparently saved by a drug created by big pharma.
I don't work for pharmaceutical companies. Of course some of them are greedy. I just don't hate them by default because of the high cost of drugs, even though FDA and other regulations and frivilous lawsuits add to the cost.
You have a very strange argument. You are defending the enormous profits by which they bought former Congressman like Billy Tauzin and as soon as people like him crafted pharma friendly laws in Congress he was offered multimillion dollar job at big pharma's lobby group called Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).
Now you are getting upset at regulations and laws shaped by the same big pharma ?
Since I've worked my entire adult life and am still working full time I'm a contributor to the system, but of course you are free to spread your lies and that seems to be your primary tactic.
- "the national socialist h.c. bill is all about control, & has absolutely nothing to do with compassion."
- "the fine is up to $250,000, and the prison term is up to five years" insinuating that was the fine & jail time just for not buying h.c. insur., as opposed to max. penalties for willful or fraudulent evasion of the tax.
- "Income tax is unconstitutional". the 16th amendment allows the Congress to levy an income tax..
That's just some lies, doesn't even get into your B.S.
Well, it's national. And it's socialist. It assumes control of 1/6th of the economy. Takes all medical decisions away from dr/patient & gives to regulations of 100's of govt bureaurocracies. That's the epitome of statist control.
People do not have incomes. People have product of their labor. Only corporations have income. You may want to review some of America's laws, & some of our court cases, & see how we came up with creating corporate fictions for individuals, & giving personhood to corporations. Legal definition of net income is a PROFIT. Profit applies only to business.
You're talking about the FDA. That's not one of the 17 enumerated powers. The natl govt does not have the authority.
Another example of illegal, criminal govt usurping the authority of the Constitution, & ignoring the rights of man.
The reason why the state has control over food & why they're trying to take over healthcare is in 1936 SCOTUS, via Butler, reinterpreted the commerce clause from narrow to broad. The action itself was unConstitutional, as it re-defined intent, & expost facto.
Depends on which poll you're looking at, & what their agenda is.
I've seen some that show 94% of America is against the public option. As much as I'd like to believe those, I know there are indeed socialists in this country, & I'm sure they number more than 6%.
Rasmussens recent poll: 57% support a public option.
Oct. 20 Washington Post: 57 % of all Americans now favor a public insur. option option, 40 % oppose it. Support has risen since mid-Aug., when a bare majority of 52%, said they favored it.
Oct 19 ABC News: 57%t support one of the plan's most contentious elements, a government-sponsored insurance option, and that soars to 76% if it's limited to those who can't get affordable private insurance.
A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June
A USA Today/Gallup poll released last mo.: 50% backed a public option & 46 % opposed it, while a CNN poll found 61% percent supported an insurance option administered by the government and 38% opposed.
Your answer as usual was evasive garbage. Can you cite which mythical polls showed 94% against the public option? Or is it just more of your bullshit.
You said "I've seen some polls that show 94%..against the public option." I cited 5 polls showing majority support for the public option. & challenged you to cite the polls that back up your lie. As expected you couldn't. The best you could do is misrepresent one poll, & use results for a single payer system, not results for the public option. You deceptive jackass. You don't even have a shred of credibility left. I'm still waiting for your polls that show 94% against the public option. Well?
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
Impeach OBAMA! Go to my channel, subscribe and find out why you should sign the petition. Please save Our country and stop the game playing all the lying!
Today the senate voted on an ammendment to prevent the preventive task force from restricting mammograms for women under 50. Are they going to have to do this with every single medical procedure? How about an ammendment to prevent the preventive taskforce from preventing any of my healthcare?
IMO, your "farmers and bandits" example is a poor example.
Ask yourself: who are we protecting from whom?
One company may develop a new product, another company sees that the new product is good (after 3 months? 6 months? one year?) and starts to mass produce it too.
The inventor always has the edge, since he can make first strikes on a fresh market. There is no reason why government shall subsidize this even further, and keep other great minds from improving the new product further.
It already is. It has harmed my business. I sell medical equipment. A lot of hospitals and nursing homes are reluctant to spend, because they see the socialist clusterfuck that is coming. This marxist clown needs to go. A sworn enemy to America wouldn't do anything different to our economy than this mumbling fool in DC that can't speak to 6 year olds without a teleprompter, is doing.
Stickmodee 1 month ago
I hope not.
felpaluche 1 month ago
This video does one thing: Shows why profit SHOULDN'T be a motivating force when it comes to health care or even science period.
mecher3k 6 months ago
Comment removed
mecher3k 6 months ago
When innovation laws are a monopoly languages and rituals, there is only manipulation, no economy, no resource development, and no humanity and no real understanding among population.
beancube2010 9 months ago
It's Time to TAX the RICH make USA no.1
stringlov 10 months ago
@stringlov The top 1% of wage earners in the US pay 40% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. Get a job, dumbass.
Stickmodee 1 month ago
These people make me sick.
IHeartDenver 10 months ago
Obamacare was signed on March 2010 with 59% of the people disapproving according to a CNN poll. The CBO scored Obamacare on six years of coverage for 10 years of taxes, which is how the CBO showed the bill to be deficit neutral . It’s unconstitutional mandating all citizens to purchase health care. Even Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in it.” watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To It’s also meant to take over industry watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
Allen West 2012
ThunderheadNebula 11 months ago
just look at third world countries and see what the profit motive does when there arent restrictions. no min wage=sweat shops.
for health care it is the same principle.
mathdude28 11 months ago
the current system creates an underclass of people who die unnecessarily because they cannot afford the healthcare they need! wherever profit is the primary motive there will always be the temptation to cut corners! so much for the hypocratic oath!!!!
katakisLives 1 year ago
I'm sure all the people who either don't qualify for healthcare or cannot afford it would love to get hold of these cutting edge medicines! the only thing the profit motivation motivates the pharmaceutical companies to do is make even more profit! most so called new drugs are variations on existing ones! I'm sure American has the best healthcare (provided you are upper middle class) its great having to sell the house to pay for cancer care isn't it!!!??!!
katakisLives 1 year ago
Drug Discoveries Divided by Population:
USA 17,000/308 mil = 55.2 drug discoveries/million people
Japan 7,000/128 mil = 54.7
Germany 4,000/ 82 mil = 48.8
UK 4,000/ 62 mil = 64.5
Canada 2,000/ 34 mil = 58.8
USA 308 million pop (17,000dd): UK+Germany+Japan+Canada 306 million pop (17,000 dd)
you were saying?
interstate317 1 year ago
I love how liberals think they know what they're talking about when it comes to economics.
Rule #1 of Liberal Economic Debate: Throw around the words "Corporate" "fat cats" "exploit" and "the working man"
Rule #2: Parrot what the nice man on TV told you
Rule #3: Deny all facts and reasonable arguments presented to you
DosuZakuKin 1 year ago
Do even americans have a basic understanding of human anatomy physiology? You have a bunch of hilly billy cowboys in your government all they have to do is say god and they get elected and then you wonder why is your country not doing good!
FreeeeS 1 year ago
@FreeeeS from senator and congressmen to the basic government official and worker all are intelletcualy handicaped motherfuckers
FreeeeS 1 year ago
lol in an anti intellectual pseudo-scientific superstitious dogmatic ignorant arrogant society like US what innovation are we talking about?
FreeeeS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Donald Berwick, the man who will run your health care: "I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do. ... About 8% of GDP is plenty for 'best known' care. ... A progressive policy regime will control and rationalize financing—control supply."
modifiedcontent 1 year ago
This is a classic case of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." The moochers known as Orren Boyle (Every other country) are the one's that tout how they can provide things like, in this case, health care. The only reason these countries aren't forced out is because there is a Hank Reardan (U.S.) who's innovating and running on profit to thrive as the most successful one. I'd like to see how high and mighty Europe would be if we took away everything made by US and have them innovate something for a change
S0meCommonSense 1 year ago
Good thing for the private sector. I mean after all we all know that there have been no medical breakthroughs in the history of man kind until only recently and only under a private medical system. *cough* SARCASM *cough*
MrFlojomofo 1 year ago
Did you watch the video?
d0861 1 year ago
Free market healthcare is the best. Following profit induces companies to save, invest and expand to maintain high efficacy for the American people: the less involved government is the more will companies' growth outpace concomitant growth in customer numbers.
Without profit you have the 'tragedy of the commons' and resource is squandered as govt imposes per annum 100% spending thus preventing capital accumulation and managed investment because savings patterns are literally FORCED!
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
"It's disgusting. There should be no profit in healthcare."
Free market capitalism doesn't stop you or anyone from developing innovative drugs for free.
AAAARRRRGH!
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
we need Canadian Socialized Medicine
JBBlitz 1 year ago
the problem with odumbacare is it will cover all Americans
ajack50 1 year ago
megarational ....don't just throw a bunch of polling number out and leave the important information out like where the poll was taken and what questions where asked and the date they were taken???? It amazes me the number one argument about private health insurance is profit!? Why is it ok for Actors and pro Athletes to make millions playing a game or staring in a 2 hour movie, but it is wrong to make money providing health care and new medication??
fasttyper888 1 year ago
This video overlooks some things. Insulin (the medicine which keeps juvenile diabetics alive) was invented by a Canadian doctor who chose not to patent the technology because it was morally wrong to profit from suffering children.
This video makes the mistake of assuming that financial incentive is the only motivator which can lead to advancements. Many doctors and scientists are motivated by an imperative to help others, not money.
Aerosteon 2 years ago
This was a rare case. Do you realize that canada lost 88% in medical advancements when they implemented socialized medicine.
Do you realize how many lives we could of saved?
BrettDunbar 1 year ago
What is the source of these figures? By socialised medicine are you talking about the entire Canadian medical system or the price controls of PharmaCare?
Aerosteon 1 year ago
Sorry just saw your comment. My response:
Free market capitalism doesn't stop you or anyone from developing or funding innovative drugs for free.
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
Of course not, but it does needlessly stop many people from accessing drugs that will improve their quality of life.
Aerosteon 1 year ago
@Aerosteon:
It's easy to say "needlessly" when it's not your money that your investing on developing drugs. Where less than half of attempts result in a safe and effective drug and each attempt can cost up to a billion dollars.
Try getting people to dedicate their years of study and experimentation to come up with such drugs for free. The world would be a better place if everyone was like that. But people aren't, deal with it. Simply paying others 4 a valuable service isn't going 2 end d world.
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
@libertarianPinoy
"It's easy to say "needlessly" when it's not your money that your investing on developing drugs."
It is my money. I am Canadian, so my tax dollars fund both the research which goes into medical treatments, and the costs incurred by any citizens who need them. Much of America's medical research is federally funded as well.
Aerosteon 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
"Much of America's medical research is federally funded as well."
That is a travesty that must b corrected. But sources pls.
"It is my money. I am Canadian, so my tax dollars fund both the research which goes into medical treatments"
Very good, then allow d Canada 2 give away the results of its research, for what's its worth, for free (if that's what you really want). But some of ur countrymen may disagree
But let those who voluntarily risk THEIR money decide wat dat risk is worth.
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
@libertarianPinoy
"sources pls."
Wikipedia: Research Funding. "[US] Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36%..."
Canada does give away the results of all its federally funded research. The results are published for scientists all over the world.
Aerosteon 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
"Wikipedia: Research Funding. "[US] Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36%..."
Are the results open to all? Is it open to those who would want to use the results to make life-saving drugs for free? If so, how does big pharma make the world worse off than as it is as opposed to some utopian pipe dream?
"Canada does give away the results of all its federally funded research."
Never said otherwise
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
Are the results open to all? Yes. US funded research scientists are required to publish every and all findings, at which point even you and I can read them and do with as we please.
"some utopian pipe dream"
Public health care is no pipe dream. Its a reality I'm lucky enough to enjoy.
Aerosteon 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
"Yes. US funded research scientists are required to publish every and all findings"
Very good, then there is no problem.
"Public health care is no pipe dream. Its a reality I'm lucky enough to enjoy."
Which still relies on private firms to develop most of its drugs and techniques. I wasn't referring to public health care, I was referring to the idea of government run pharmaceutical firms.
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
"I was referring to the idea of government run pharmaceutical firms. "
I have not been refering to government run pharmaceutical firms. I have been refering to government regulation of the costs of pharmaceuticals, and government coverage of those pharmaceuticals for its citizens. There's a big difference.
Aerosteon 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
"I have not been refering to government run pharmaceutical firms. I have been refering to government regulation of the costs of pharmaceuticals... There's a big difference."
Truly? Well pharmaceuticals are currently regulated by the FDA, taxed by gov't, and work under laws that define its liabilities. It already is regulated.
You don't see a difference between this and the gov't deciding what their risks are worth plus said liabilities?
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
@Aerosteon Long live socialised healthcare long live the NHS!!!!!!!
katakisLives 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
Secondly, how do you know your getting your money's worth in innovation? Most of the generic companies in my country want to copy American drugs.
Thirdly, how do you know a patient suffering from one disease is getting his money's worth if research is going into another disease? A breast cancer patient wants her money to go into breast cancer research and a prostate cancer patient wants his money to go into prostate cancer research. How do you reconcile their conflicting desires?
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
Wouldn't it be better if they just put THEIR money to entities that will use for THEIR interests? As THEY see fit?
I would be disheartened to find someone less able to care for themselves because SOMEONE else decided THEIR money should go to another disease.
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
The allocations of Canadian medical funds is handled by our elected officials, who do their best to use it for the most good.
"Wouldn't it be better if they just put THEIR money to entities that will use for THEIR interests?"
Drug companies which operate entirely on your capitalist system spend enormous resources developing frivolous treatments for male-pattern-balding and wrinkles instead of curing rare deadly diseases simply because there's profit in one than the other. Not good.
Aerosteon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aerosteon
"The allocations of Canadian medical funds is handled by our elected officials, who do their best to use it for the most good."
So dey know, but dat doesn't mean u do. How do u hold dem 2 account?
"Drug companies... spend enormous resources developing frivolous treatments..."
It may b frivolous but is d alternative of having a 3rd party forcing u 2 spend ur hard-earned cash on a 2nd party better? Again how is d 3rd party held accountable?
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
"the most good."
That's a highly loaded term. What is "good"? Going back to the breast and prostate cancer thing. How do we weigh the value of one life for another? How can we force another to sacrifice their well-being for another? It maybe noble to be selfless but to force someone to be so is utterly disgusting.
What if the majority race of a society it would be "most good" to eliminate a minority race from the earth and elected officials to do so would it still be "good"?
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
Deciding how to allocate medical funding is certainly a difficult task, but I'm going to maintain that a committee of ethically minded elected officials can do a better job than profit motivated businessmen.
For example baldness curing drugs is a $1 billion per year US industry because 1/4 of the population will experience it. Mastocytosis is a deadly incurable disease which affects 1 in a million children. Which is more important to cure? Which will result in the most profit?
Aerosteon 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
"but I'm going to maintain that a committee of ethically minded elected officials can do a better job than profit motivated businessmen."
Despite the fact that you still have no idea how they do it, nor do you have a barometer like profits to gauge their performance. Profits can only exist iff people are willing to pay for products above what they cost. People are willing to pay iff they are made better off by products. How do we know your costs < value? You THINK they do a better job
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
There is no yardstick, no objective data to use. Nothing but your gut feeling.
"For example baldness curing drugs is a $1 billion per year US industry because 1/4 of the population will experience it. Mastocytosis is a deadly incurable disease which affects 1 in a million children."
Again no one is stopping you or government to develop a cure. And there is no reason to have FORCE someone to do so. In fact its downright UNETHICAL to do so.
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"that a committee of ethically minded elected officials can do a better job than profit motivated businessmen."
In addition, democratically elected officials aren't necessarily ethically minded nor does democracy guarantee they will be. Source: my country
What makes you say they are ethically minded? What are your criterion?
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
Comment removed
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
I'm also willing to bet that big pharma employs some highly specialized scientists to develop their drugs. And by specialized, I mean isn't-likely-to-get-paid-nearl y-as-much-in-any-other-field. People aren't going to risk dedicating their lives to such a demanding and specialized career unless the payoff is big enough.
Payoff can mean either money or big fuzzy warm feeling inside. The individual decides if it's worth it.
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
@libertarianPinoy: "People aren't going to risk dedicating their lives to such a demanding and specialized career unless the payoff is big enough."
Yes they do. To quote from the Canadian Engineering code of ethics:
"While professionals should be fairly remunerated for their services, they are expected to put service above gain, excellence above quantity, rewards of self expression
above any pecuniary incentive, and a code of honour above
competitive spirit."
Aerosteon 1 year ago
@Aerosteon
"Yes they do. To quote from the Canadian Engineering code of ethics:"
U've got to to b kidding. U think raising ur right hand & reciting a code of ethics is a test of character? Have u heard of lying? Or naivety? Until these people r truly put in high pressure/stress situations in the REAL world and perform, I'm not believing a word they say.
If this was true govt corruption could be solved by making em take an oath. HA!
PS I said payoff can mean fuzzy feeling ie self-fulfillment.
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
@BrettDunbar well according to the graph they had 2,000 medical innovations from 1997-2007. So if that is reduced by 88% that would mean they could have had 17,000, just as many as the USA but with 1/9 the population. hmmmm...
why do I doubt this?
interstate317 1 year ago
Great video, on a topic rarely covered as part of the health care debate....it would be a tragedy for the world if the US decides to pursue a single payer system, because it would stop medical innovation
zingarellius 2 years ago
Isn't Capitalism a system of voluntary mutual exchange where BOTH parties profit?
JessicaBelle81 2 years ago 16
This has been flagged as spam show
@JessicaBelle81
"Isn't Capitalism a system of voluntary mutual exchange where BOTH parties profit? "
If you're life depends on some medication such as insulin, would you consider buying it "voluntary". The reason why there is a debate over medication price controls is because in most cases purchasing medication is not voluntary.
Aerosteon 1 year ago
Comment removed
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aerosteon
If you're life depends on some medication such as insulin, would you consider buying it "voluntary".
And does forcing someone to make the drug at a price below what they think is worth their time seem voluntary? Is it ok to force someone to sell at a price YOU think is justified even if THEY think it's not?
libertarianPinoy 1 year ago
@JessicaBelle81
Depends at how good the seller is at false advertising, but that shouldn't last long.
TombaFanatic 1 year ago
@JessicaBelle81 the simple answer to that is no, and I'v never came across someone who claimed it was. The capitalist system is built on competition where some lose and others win but through the competition the winners progress, However capitalism reaches a point when companies are 'too big to fail' at this point there is no longer any competition only olygarchs. People like everything else are expendable, only capital matters. Greed is good! Or so they say
Brzuszek12 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JessicaBelle81 the simple answer to that is no, and I'v never came across someone who claimed it was. The capitalist system is built on competition where some lose and others win but through the competition the winners progress, However capitalism reaches a point when companies are 'too big to fail' at this point there is no longer any competition only olygarchs. People like everything else are expendable, only capital matters. Greed is good! Or so they say.
Brzuszek12 9 months ago
@JessicaBelle81 No! When you can't predict what you'll receive that is no mutual exchange, it is a rip off.
beancube2010 9 months ago
That's what Europe and drug companies do. They jack up the price here so that their European clientele do not have to spend as much money. that is why prescription drugs are more expensive
Christoppher1994 2 years ago
This is what happens when you have a free-enterprise economy. The price of economic freedom is steep.
StrikeMediaProd 2 years ago
What happens?
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
I'm puzzled as to the relevance of this piece. The issue with government healthcare has been about availability of coverage and care to all people, not merely price control of the drugs and items you have to buy.
Secondly, the idea of cheap drugs in Canada being connected to profit in the US is patently false. It's cheap because Canada can simply manufacture w/o spending cash on the research since the lag time from development to release of a drug renders the patents rather pointless.
ShootMyMonkey 2 years ago
The place where the real evils of the profit motive arise has more to do with health insurance companies than drug companies. Yeah, the big pharma do a bunch of evil things from time to time, but you can also argue that it signals desperation at times.
The problems with insurance lie in all the restrictions, the denials of coverage, the fact that individuals generally cannot be covered on their own dime, etc. Pharma lobbyists and Insurance lobbyists are committing different evils entirely.
ShootMyMonkey 2 years ago
Cost controls stifle innovation.
False.
The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.
mad8london247 2 years ago
Creamer also advocates the following:
To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion—fear, revulsion, anger, disgust.
Google: Was Democrats healthcare strategy written in federal prison?
Pure Alinski tactic. BTW, he praises Alinski in his book. His book was blurbed by David Axelrod.
Creamer a convicted felon was at the white house dinner party. Everyone focused on the party crashers. No one gave a damn about the convict in attendence influencing our healthcare bill.
keephealthcareprivat 2 years ago
@keephealthcareprivat
Is this along the lines of Soviet tanks rolling down European streets?
As a Londoner, never realised it was that bad in my country.
mad8london247 2 years ago
Rasmussen Dec 3. 62% Oppose Single-Payer Health Care System 55% of voters say a single payer health care system would lower the overall quality of health care.
keephealthcareprivat 2 years ago
So what?
Americans are not so fortunate as to have a single payer system as part of either h.c. reform bill.
megarational 2 years ago
66% of U.S. voters believe free market competition between private insurance companies will do more than government regulation to reduce the cost of health care
Rasmussen Dec 3,2009 poll
keephealthcareprivat 2 years ago
The h.c. bills "exchange" is cross state free market competition between private insurance companies.
megarational 2 years ago
meg.. Woopie!!, it still has 111 new bureaurcracies, scrutiny of your IRS return to determine eligibility, fines, jail, a health commissioner to help guide your doctor's choice of treatment, $500 billion medicare cuts. What a nightmare, and a massive hairball!
keephealthcareprivat 2 years ago
As of now, how many hundred duplicated bureaucracies are there in terms of private insurance companies?
megarational 2 years ago
A little over a year ago, I saw some polls that showed John McSame was beating Obama by 10-15%. So I take polls with a big grain of salt.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Any other facts I stated that you didn't understand, and therefore labeled as lies?
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Federal income tax is unConstitutional.
What about the reasons why we can't afford?
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
What about the reasons why we can't afford insurance, megairrational?
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
megairrational is a socialist who is currently sponging off the Canadians, but wants to come home & sponge off Americans instead, to be near his family.
This is why he's got all this pro-natl socialist healthcare crap he's copying & pasting almost 24/7.
He was figured out under another video. Apparently now he's pushing socialism under this one.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Actually, I paid for my health care & that of others by more than 40 years of tax deductions. I don't whine about it like you do.
And the amount Canadians pay in taxes for health care coverage is a lot less than you fools pay in private health care premiums.
megarational 2 years ago
Good. If you love it so much, stay there so they can keep supporting you.
We don't want your socialism here.
We know what it leads to.
European Union countries lost their sovereignty last Tuesday. Anyone notice that? Socialism worked great for them, eh?
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
I'm an American, with dual citizenship. I'll go wherever I please.
megarational 2 years ago
Then why are you in Canada instead of here with your family?
Oh yeah, that's right...because you can sponge there, and you can't sponge here unless we get natl socialist healthcare.
Back to your agenda.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
What's it to you?
You can't come up with any sane comments on health care reform, & your lies aren't flying, so your resort to still more lies about those who call you on your bullshit.
megarational 2 years ago
Lies? Bullshit?
Oooooo. Calm down megairrational.
You're foaming at the mouth a bit now.
I've posted facts. The reasons why we can't afford insurance. You won't touch that. You even admitted you don't care why we can't afford it. You admitted you want socialism.
You admitted you don't care if Americans lose their liberty.
You admitted you don't care if the natl govt breaks the law & exceeds its limitations.
You refuse to look at any facts. You only want to push socialism.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
It's not Americans I don't care about. It' just the ignorant ones like you I don't care about.
megarational 2 years ago
Actually, when I called you a liar and a bullshitter it wasn't an emotional thing, it was a dispassionate assessment based on the "over the top" absurdity of your comments.
megarational 2 years ago
& by the way, I'm still paying because I'm still working full time.
megarational 2 years ago
I notice you don't want to touch the reasons why we can't afford insurance.
Don't want to go there, do you?
Of course not.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
One reason is the hodge podge of players in the U.S. health care system leads to enormous administrative waste. One estimate is that 1/3 of h.c. $ in the U.S. goes to unnecessary administrative costs. The "administrative" costs for insurance co.'s for eg. include advertising departments, media campaigns, multimillion $ executive salaries, corporate jets, & billions of $ spent in campaign contributions & lobbying.
megarational 2 years ago
You're talking about problems with corporatism.
We need to deal with some issues about corporatism.
What did Mussolini say? Oh yeah, corporatism IS fascism.
I mentioned big ins lobby laws earlier.
Free enterprise system works. Corporatism is the govt showing favoritism to corporations. Hmmm. More govt involvement screws things up.
Thank you. Made my point.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
The U.S. will always have corporatism until you remove the domination of money over the election process. Want good gov''t? Have publicly funded elections & a viable 3'd party; prohibit campaign contributions from unions & corporations; curb massive media propaganda saturation by deep pocket special interests; & make the lobbying efforts publicized & transparent. Also figure out some way to address the problem of local politicians being elected solely on the basis of "bringing back the pork",
megarational 2 years ago
You have a complex way around a simple solution. Freedom of Speech.
That is a right of man, not a right of man's creation. Corps, unions, etc that lobby & express their "speech" through a printed medium, currency, have been illegally given Freedom of Speech. The rights of man have been denied & limited to $2000 or less. And people wonder why the govt represents big money, & not the People.
This illustrates the corruption of the system. And you want to throw healthcare into these goons' hands?
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Rights are whatever the nation decides to treat as a right, and the choices say a lot about the character of the nation. It doesn't speak well of any civilized nation not to treat access to basic health care, regardless of income, as a "right".
megarational 2 years ago
You assume that the state is the Author of the rights of man.
According to our Declaration of Independence, man is not the Author.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Your Declaration of Independence is what your nation chose to treat as rights at that point in time.
megarational 2 years ago
The Declaration of Independence is still the law of the land.
It is the first foundational law.
It is called organic law.
And believe it or not, it supercedes the Constitution.
Still on the books in US Code.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
By the way, you have freedom of speech now, and where has it gotten you in terms of better government?
megarational 2 years ago
Again you bring up freedom of speech. Obviously you don't understand the rights of man. Nor do you understand giving an entity, like a corporation, the rights of man.
The article is not greater than the Author.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
It was legislation that gave the corporation the status of an individual, in order to limit individual liability & permit greater capital accumulation.
And it has had some unintended & harmful consequences.
megarational 2 years ago
You are correct that "giving corporate personhood" has had harmful consequences.
Was it truly "unintended"?
Again, we see the actions of corrupted individuals ignoring the rights of man.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
So are you saying that the "great" nation of America should not treat universal access to quality basic health care as a right?
megarational 2 years ago
They do have access.
If we'd get off this self-destructive road of the "isms" that destroy the prosperity of the People & return to our foundational principles, which history shows from 1790's to 1910's, we had the greatest economic expansion & prosperity in the history of the world. The value of money increased by 42%. Since we adopted socialist ideals, the value of money has decreased by 96%. Had they kept the foundational policies, affording healthcare would not be a problem.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
How about you return even further & give the country back to the Indians?
megarational 2 years ago
Treating it as a right was the first point of 10 in Robert Creamer's propaganda strategy to convince Americans to accept gov healthcare.
This convicted felon has just been exposed.
Google this: Was Democrats healthcare strategy written in federal prison?
keephealthcareprivat 2 years ago
meg..We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.
We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.
Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance
3 of Creamer's points
keephealthcareprivat 2 years ago
You dipshit. Comparing campaign funding by deep pocket special interests with "freedom of speech" is ludicurous. Of course you are no stranger to making such absurd rationalizations.
megarational 2 years ago
Free enterprise had children working long days in factories under unsafe conditions.
Absolute & unfettered free enterprise is a "cure all" only in the fanatical minds of ideological zealots (like you). ideological zealots force facts and realities into the round hole of their ideology,
megarational 2 years ago
No. Free enterprise did not do that.
Corrupt men did that.
Men who did not respect the rights of man.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Do you think that corrupt men won't ever again control a factory or business?
megarational 2 years ago
@megarational: before capitalism, people were starving and lived in huts (with few notable exceptions). Read Malthus for more details.
Under capitalism, those who resent doing manual labor can save and start their own business. The same can not be said of life under communism or feudalism.
AlanCom1 2 years ago
Before "capitalism" in the U.S. the Indians lived off the land. Were they more unhappy than the people living in today's rat race?
megarational 2 years ago
@megarational:
here your lack of information is showing. And I gave you the source. In Malthus' book: Essay on the Principles of Population you can read that people worked 15 hours a day, carrying heavy loads, always starved, with no access to fancy food or medicine. They didn't even invent the wheel of use metals. Always starved and potentially killed/raped by an opposing tribe.
Well, I guess they now have the choice but do not exercise it. Hmmm, wonder why.
AlanCom1 2 years ago
Hmm, wonder why you quote a book with a central theme about the result of overpopulation,& try to apply it to nomadic American Indians who were hunters, at first on foot & later on horseback.
My comment stands, do you think they were any more unhappy than people in today;s rat race?
megarational 2 years ago
If I do not want something, you think the national government should force me to buy it.
And you think that the national govt should exceed its 17 enumerated powers in the name of socialism.
Wow.
Enough said.
Stay in Canada.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Big insurance lobby laws that give them monopolies in individual states = no competition = high prices.
The Federal Reserve Bank, instituted in 1913 straight from the Communist Manifesto, creates inflation. This means your money is worth less & less.
Look up Ponzi scheme.
Illegal trade agreements outsourced our good jobs to China & India. (WTO, NAFTA, GATT).
We've give around SEVEN MILLION dollars a DAY to foreign countries.
Gee, wonder why we can't afford.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
But hey, don't touch any of the reasons WHY we can't afford insurance.
(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)
Just give the national govt more power, let them exceed their 17 enumerated powers some more. Let the People lose some more liberty. Create yet another program of socialism. With over 100 new bureaucracies. We don't have enough of those, right? We have too much liberty, right? The only chain on the natl govt that was designed to prevent tyranny should be ignored, right?
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Tell it to the families of those that have died because they didn't have health care insurance and therefor didn't have access to basic medical care.
Tell it to those working Americans who had h.c. insurance but still went bankrupt from h.c. costs.
And tell it to the thousands more of Americans who lose h.c. insurance every week.
megarational 2 years ago
Oh blah blah blah.
The compassion argument doesn't fly anymore. Everyone knows by now that the national socialist healthcare bill is all about control, & has absolutely nothing to do with compassion.
Try again.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Only if you believe the GOP & insurance industry propaganda.
megarational 2 years ago
Any compassion argument never flies with any Republican (unless it's compassion for the corporations & poor insurance company giants).
megarational 2 years ago
@megarational Is this what you mean by liberal compassion? 30,000 farmworkers standing in food lines because the water was shut off because of a 2 in long fish. If Pelosi can deny water to farmers, she can deny healthcare to any citizen or group that she deems expendable. I am sure that her winery has plenty of water. It is far more important to grow wine grapes than vegetables, fruits and nuts. The people who feed the world are themselves in food lines thanks to libs. Compassionate?
keephealthcareprivat 2 years ago
Is Nancy Pelosi the governor of California. As far as I know water supply and irrigation matters withing a state is decided by the state govt.
WorldTravelDude 2 years ago
Worldtravel..I encourage you to look into this further. CA gov has been trying to get the water turned back on but it is up to the secretary of the Interior and Congress. Pelosi has blocked legislation 7 times. Feinstein urged a no vote on senate bills. These people have been w/o water for almost a yr. The central valley is a dust bowl, and it takes yrs to grow almond and fruit trees, and to get soil conditioned, etc.
keephealthcareprivat 2 years ago
These teabaggers love single payer (Medicare) so much that they dont want anyone else to have it.
WorldTravelDude 2 years ago
@megarational
Yes, if you're not democrat, then you must be a Republican. Who are these "libertarians", and what are they doing on youtube with this "reasontv"?
Those giant greedy drug companies invest billions to create drugs that can save lives. If they can't make money, then there's no incentive to innovate.
j95lee 2 years ago
Those giant drug companies dont invest to create entirely new drug. They tweak existing drugs just a little to get a new patents.
Naturally it would require billions of profit to cover the class action lawsuits and payment of fine over undisclosed side-effects of drugs like Zyprexa, Paxil, Lipitor, Vioxx etc etc.
WorldTravelDude 2 years ago
@WorldTravelDude
Side effects are inevitable. Drugs also happen to save lives. Chinese herbal medicines and meditations, while comparatively inexpensive...... don't really work.
Oh, I'm well aware of lawsuits, and not a few of them are frivilous. But Americans hate tort reform, and there's no "loser pays" rule like in other countries, so drug companies have to factor in the cost of litigations by opportunistic lawyers.
j95lee 2 years ago
That is totally none sense. Most of groundbreaking drugs have come from labs at universities not labs of big pharma.
Only groundbreaking thing big pharma has done is create a groundbreaking marketing campaign for drugs which still has unknown side effects because it is brought to the market too early in development.
WorldTravelDude 2 years ago
@WorldTravelDude
Yeah, yeah, you hate big pharma, I get it. The cancer stricken person in this video was apparently saved by a drug created by big pharma.
I don't work for pharmaceutical companies. Of course some of them are greedy. I just don't hate them by default because of the high cost of drugs, even though FDA and other regulations and frivilous lawsuits add to the cost.
j95lee 2 years ago
You have a very strange argument. You are defending the enormous profits by which they bought former Congressman like Billy Tauzin and as soon as people like him crafted pharma friendly laws in Congress he was offered multimillion dollar job at big pharma's lobby group called Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).
Now you are getting upset at regulations and laws shaped by the same big pharma ?
WorldTravelDude 2 years ago
The biggest determinant of the profitability of new inventions & technology is the patent laws.
And yes, the drug companies are greedy & have lobbied their way into profits larger than necessary for the amount of research they do.
megarational 2 years ago
look at my comment earlier in this thread re: one reason why h.c. insur. costs are so high in the U.S.
megarational 2 years ago
megairrational,
I made a post a week ago, and you just now replied to it.
Your reply is basically that healthcare insurance is unaffordable.
Gee, you know WHY?
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Who cares? I live in Canada & don't need to buy health care insurance.
megarational 2 years ago
Then keep sponging off the Canadians & stop pushing your socialist agenda here.
You want to ignore the reasons why we can't afford insurance. You just want to push socialism.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Canada has universal health care financing, & Canada is not a socialist nation.
You just can't seem to grasp that a much needed social program is not socialism.
megarational 2 years ago
Since I've worked my entire adult life and am still working full time I'm a contributor to the system, but of course you are free to spread your lies and that seems to be your primary tactic.
megarational 2 years ago
What lies, exactly?
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
eg.s:
- "the national socialist h.c. bill is all about control, & has absolutely nothing to do with compassion."
- "the fine is up to $250,000, and the prison term is up to five years" insinuating that was the fine & jail time just for not buying h.c. insur., as opposed to max. penalties for willful or fraudulent evasion of the tax.
- "Income tax is unconstitutional". the 16th amendment allows the Congress to levy an income tax..
That's just some lies, doesn't even get into your B.S.
megarational 2 years ago
Lol!
1) Natl socialist hc bill is all about control.
Well, it's national. And it's socialist. It assumes control of 1/6th of the economy. Takes all medical decisions away from dr/patient & gives to regulations of 100's of govt bureaurocracies. That's the epitome of statist control.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
2) "the fine is up to $250,000, and the prison term is up to five years"
That doesn't "insinuate" anything.
Reading comprehension problems?
This is exactly what's in the bill.
Try reading it.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
3) Income tax is unConstitutional.
People do not have incomes. People have product of their labor. Only corporations have income. You may want to review some of America's laws, & some of our court cases, & see how we came up with creating corporate fictions for individuals, & giving personhood to corporations. Legal definition of net income is a PROFIT. Profit applies only to business.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
So don't pay your income tax. I"m sure the courts will let you off because it's unconstitutional.
megarational 2 years ago
Do you say that because there is health & safety standards for food that the government has control over the food production in the U.S.?
If not then why would you say that gov't regulations setting minimum standards for h.c. insurance constitutes a "takeover of 1/16 of the economy"?
megarational 2 years ago
You're talking about the FDA. That's not one of the 17 enumerated powers. The natl govt does not have the authority.
Another example of illegal, criminal govt usurping the authority of the Constitution, & ignoring the rights of man.
The reason why the state has control over food & why they're trying to take over healthcare is in 1936 SCOTUS, via Butler, reinterpreted the commerce clause from narrow to broad. The action itself was unConstitutional, as it re-defined intent, & expost facto.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Is the "public option" a socialist agenda?
If so it doesn't need me to push it since the polls show that the majority of Americans support the public option.
megarational 2 years ago
Depends on which poll you're looking at, & what their agenda is.
I've seen some that show 94% of America is against the public option. As much as I'd like to believe those, I know there are indeed socialists in this country, & I'm sure they number more than 6%.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Rasmussens recent poll: 57% support a public option.
Oct. 20 Washington Post: 57 % of all Americans now favor a public insur. option option, 40 % oppose it. Support has risen since mid-Aug., when a bare majority of 52%, said they favored it.
Oct 19 ABC News: 57%t support one of the plan's most contentious elements, a government-sponsored insurance option, and that soars to 76% if it's limited to those who can't get affordable private insurance.
megarational 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June
A USA Today/Gallup poll released last mo.: 50% backed a public option & 46 % opposed it, while a CNN poll found 61% percent supported an insurance option administered by the government and 38% opposed.
megarational 2 years ago
Your answer as usual was evasive garbage. Can you cite which mythical polls showed 94% against the public option? Or is it just more of your bullshit.
megarational 2 years ago
megairrational,
Speaking of "mythical bullshit" as you put it, try visiting rasmussen reports (dot) com.
Their data is not what you're quoting.
62% oppose single payer hc system aka public option. That's December, not October.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Getting a little pissy, aren't you?
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
I've been explaining the American system to you very patiently, and giving you irrefutable facts.
You respond with foulness and name-calling.
Booofrthefirst 2 years ago
Is you claim about polls showing 94% of Americans are against the public option one of your "irrefutable facts"?
megarational 2 years ago
Evading the question aren't you?
You claimed you've seen polls showing 94% against the public option.
Still can;t cite those mythical polls?
megarational 2 years ago
Comment removed
megarational 2 years ago
You said "I've seen some polls that show 94%..against the public option." I cited 5 polls showing majority support for the public option. & challenged you to cite the polls that back up your lie. As expected you couldn't. The best you could do is misrepresent one poll, & use results for a single payer system, not results for the public option. You deceptive jackass. You don't even have a shred of credibility left. I'm still waiting for your polls that show 94% against the public option. Well?
megarational 2 years ago
Comment removed
megarational 2 years ago
I just now replied because I have a full time job, with substantial overtime.
megarational 2 years ago
THREE VERY TIMELY QUOTES
CRISIS IS THE RALLYING CRY OF THE TYRANT!!
-James Madison
Never let a crisis go to waste. -Rahm Emanuel.
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
James Madison
keephealthcareprivat 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Impeach OBAMA! Go to my channel, subscribe and find out why you should sign the petition. Please save Our country and stop the game playing all the lying!
daltongang79 2 years ago
Today the senate voted on an ammendment to prevent the preventive task force from restricting mammograms for women under 50. Are they going to have to do this with every single medical procedure? How about an ammendment to prevent the preventive taskforce from preventing any of my healthcare?
keephealthcareprivat 2 years ago
"And remember, the corporations deserve the same standard of treatment as any individual does. Fair is fair."
I didn't even understand this passage...
Wejer3 2 years ago
IMO, your "farmers and bandits" example is a poor example.
Ask yourself: who are we protecting from whom?
One company may develop a new product, another company sees that the new product is good (after 3 months? 6 months? one year?) and starts to mass produce it too.
The inventor always has the edge, since he can make first strikes on a fresh market. There is no reason why government shall subsidize this even further, and keep other great minds from improving the new product further.
Wejer3 2 years ago
What has the a public health option got to do with pharmaceutical companies making profits?
Are there plans to nationalize drug companies? LOL..
cristop5 2 years ago
get rid of FDA and drug patents
dpiddy022 2 years ago 2
@pdiddy022:
If we get rid of drug patents, means that we don't recognize intellectual property.
Why would anybody bother to create anything new.
If we were to nationalize everything, we would go the way of the soviets: famine and starvation everywhere.
AlanCom1 2 years ago