I love John Stossel, he's like a economics for dummies reporter. I wish he stayed with abc because he might have been able to convince some liberals that free markets are good while most people watching fox already think that.
honestly, if you think stossel moved to more acclimated waters you are mistaken. oreilly, hannity, and beck all disagree with him about as much as any progressive would. besides napolitano, i cannot think of anyone he is in alignment with on fox or fbn.
John should have said "Because your a stupid, closed-minded liberal network, I hope you and ABC News go play in traffic. I am going to a Fair and Balanced network that encourages free thought and lets the audience decide what to think instead of ABC News reporters, you liberal fascist."
@conservative608...yeah, FOX network, fair and balanced network. FOX news is equal to ABC in extremes...except that FOX is extremely conservative, not libertarian
@conservative608 Ugggh, yeah, a network filled with fucking propaganda spewing turdfucking ignorant sheep fondling dick sucking splooge tasting pricks like Bill O Reilly and Glenn Beck.
@conservative608 "John should have said 'Because your a stupid, closed-minded liberal network, I hope you and ABC News go play in traffic. I am going to a Fair and Balanced network that encourages free thought and lets the audience decide what to think instead of ABC News reporters, you liberal fascist.'"
I think the main reason why Fox out bid ABC is because Fox thought it would be good to have someone from the liberal media to actually be on a conservative channel. It gives Fox News a better reason to trust the. John Stossel is known for controversialy, exposed reporting. This is what Fox needs.
Sad. I think his voice would have been heard by more people on 20/20 I have nothing against fox but there are too many other folk like John on that channel. Oh well it has been a good ride.
You love to mention the handful of Canadians who think their condition is worse than their own physicians say it is (and that' the only reason Canadians go to the US) and go to the US foir treatment, and you consustanct ly ignore the 1.5 million Americans who come to Canada for treatment they are refused or can't afford in the US.
Not surprisingly that the UK (London) was the learning center for Karl Marx. His father was a Lawyer. Marx survived by living off of the earnings (somewhat lavishly) of others. His friend and co-conspirator, Friedrich Engels supported them both from a family legacy. Marxists have an ingrained habit of living off the productivity of others, while vigorously promoting that habit. If alive today, Marx and Engel would have been subject to public exposure..... by John Stossel.
The UK finally realized that TORT Reform must take place.. before any meaningful change would result in their inherent 'Graveyard Spiral' of the Socialists dystopian view of the world. The UK is now leveling their flight. A gain in altitude may even possibly be in the future. The socialists still hold the controls. Only Free Enterprise will advance the throttles from Idle. Liberty is a forgotten word in the UK. Subservience is ingrained from childhood. Any Freedom is viewed as distasteful.
The USA has a problem unique in the world. It is a totalitarian system Managed by, Dictated by, and Profited by..Lawyers. NO other nation has such a system, now from the TOP down in this administration including the vast majority of Congress. The overall effect is a 'Value Added Tax' on every service and product. The Insurance industry alone is a parasitic necessity due to Lawyers. Lawyers fund candidates favorable to their Business. Effective Tort Reform will never take place in such a system.
Whenever anyone attracts way too much derogatory recognition, such as in these comments, You know they are actually starting to inflict damage to the Real Evils in the world. Now that John is moving, he will be given Freedom and the Liberty to present his opinion. His Opinion is just as important as the endless opinions of... 'The Ministry of Truth' ...so commonly accepted by the gullible masses. Many of the opposition have an Agenda to 'attack', just as they have been religiously trained..
murphy, you live in canada. and since its care is so much better, then why are you here complaining about the United States' care? You already have the best care in the world, thanks for looking out of us
"War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", "Ignorance is Strength"... Oceania MINISTRY of TRUTH.. 'Newspeak' in Orwell's 1984
Predict first..if wrong, re-write to fit actual outcome...Works for the AP, must be good for the world.. LOL. Good thing people like John don't Buy it.. :>)
Bow down all Believers. The Reuters controlled AP is speaking. MSM is the Ultimate Source. NEVER Question the ULTIMATE. Never allow ANY difference of Opinion. Oh "Allegory of the Cave" worshipers, stay Subservient to the ONLY Real Peer Reviewed, Consensus Censored Politically Correct News. NEVER, NEVER Allow a Difference of Opinion on ANYTHING. You Got That? Break's over..Now Back on Your Knees 'BELIEVERS'.... LOL :>)
False Noise and American propaganda think they are the unlimate source, which of course they're not. The supplicants at the altar of American propaganda are the believers in the false religion. Americans would be well served to look outside the US for a true vison of the world, including the United States. The American propaganda of "superiority" is wrongly placed and false.
'Ministry of Information' What's True is in actuality False. 'What's False is actually True' That's the code of The Associated Press and it's MSM affiliates.. At least the viewers on FOX are more Intelligent.
Your right Knightmessenger, thanks to 100 years of collectivist inventions like the FED, The New Deal, and "Great Society" policies, and the public school system, Americans have sadly become dependent on the plantation mentality of Big Brother Gov'ment...
I love Stossel. he was the only reason I watched 20/20. When I knew he was doing a story-I made sure to tune in because I knew it would be great. But the day he took on the NEA in "Stupid in America" I knew his days at ABC were numbered. I was actually surprised how long he made it after that. No matter what channel he is on, I will continue to watch him b/c he speaks truth and the world is running low on that today.
Fox News will pretend to embrace liberty, free markets and freedom until the neocons get back in power. Then they'll be back to justifying the Patriot Act/Indefinite Detention, etc. etc.
Amy: I disagree. I think many people, including FOX will be forever changed by the things happening today. I think more of us are realizing that by letting the previous administration skate by-that we have brought a lot of these problems upon ourselves. I am ashamed to admit that I trusted Bush and now a lot of his policies have come back to bite us in the bottom. I will never EVER be that naive again. Sometimes you have to learn from your mistakes. I think FOX is realizing that.
I am guessing you know Libertarians are very much against the Patriot Act/Indefinite Detention, etc. Maybe this is the start of a Libertarian coup of Fox News.
I believe you are right when you say libertarians would be against the patriot act. But as logical as a guy as Stossel is, I think he would support it.
Sorry, but pretty much no libertarian is for patriot act. Stossel cannot and will not support it BECAUSE he is logical and tries to be logically consistent.
Libertarian coup? I doubt it. It is just a very smart business move on behave of Fox news. They are picking up a proven symbol that has his views out there and he will pick up probably 2 to 3 times the viewers he used to pick up depending on how his show is marketed etc...
proove what? That both of them wanted and were completely okay with road socialism? Or with govt controlled centralized monetary establishment? I don't have to... it is just too obvious if you are at all familiar with their work!
That is like saying prove to me that English speaking people know English words.
Youtube is prohibiting me from putting up the link. But google "milton friedman road socialist walter block" and pretty sure you will find more than one references of friedman admitting to being a road socialist.
As for both Sowell and Friedman, both belong/adopted the monetary school of economics (Chicago), that depends on a centralized monopoly over creation of money/currency.
true on the "road socialists", to quote walter block, but Friedman did change his view on the Fed later in his life and decided, correctly, that the fed should be eliminated.
Yes, he did want to replace the FED with a 3% constant increase in money supply. If you read carefully what he left intact - it was still the monopoly over money creation. That still makes him a monetary commie.
Friedman changing his mind is akin to Greenspan discovering a flaw in the free market.
idunno, i was just going off what Guido Hülsmann said, so you could be right on that. btw im not defending non free market views im a libertarian anarchist
I never said you were wrong or defending non-free market views. No harm no foul. I was amazed by Milton Friedman too. He was my Ayn Rand. (I don't think I will ever read her, as I have seen her defend regime change in Iran. Not that I am against regime change, just think that those who advocate such measures should finance and do them personally - physically as well. And she was nowhere willing to do any of that.)
I have heard Milton Friedman, he was good on everthing except what he specialized in - monetary theory. (and roads!)
As for Ayn Rand... sorry I grew past her. She was not market oriented when it came to protection and law (i.e she was a selective commie). Now I prefer Rothbard, Block, Long and Stringham.
libertarian means you believe in liberty and really to be a true libertarian you have to oppose all aspects of the state. So if you want to be a consistent libertarian you have to be an anarchist. i say libertarian anarchist because most people perceive libertarians as minarchists.
Well then just say you are an anarchist then. I dont conceive how privatized law can work. To be in more detail, I don't see how people can pay a person to protect them. First of all, who makes the rules? Does a child get a privatized law with him if he/she can't work and pay "the protectors". (Not all kids have parents to pay for their shit.)
There is plenty of literature written on the subjects your talking about you just have to look them up (the mises institute will have them). also to say that you cant conceive how thing will work in a free society so therefore the answer is the state is ridiculous. and one more point, to expect the state to remain small in size is a tall task that has never been achieved.
Ok but there has to be a set of rules defined by some indiviual that protects everyone. I think each person should be equally safe. I think a governemnt needs to create a more strict and concise constitution that keeps it from being too big.
... cause the governments laws are clear, concise, and fairly protect everyone *sarcasm*. I think everyone wants people to be safe and the way to do that is to not have govt monopoly over law. just read rothbards anatomy of the state it will change your mind(or at least it should) on the necessity of the state.
libertarians view government as a necessary evil. It is sometimes necessary but like missles, it should be something you try to avoid using as much as possible. Because it is still an evil, never a good.
I feel that too many Americans today are trigger happy with regard to government instead of using it as a last resort.
Anyone in favor of freedom and liberty would be in favor of health care reform, since the insurance company bureaucrats who run the US health care system remove the freedom and liberty and right to life from 45,000 Americans a year..
Because people who CLAIM to be for freedom and liberty are insanly against health reform, freedom and liberty and right to life are just code words for favoring insurance company profits over people and REAL freedom and liberty for ALL Americans.
a larger beurocracy in healthcare is not reform(in the sense of improvement) and it is NOT freedom for "ALL Americans". also, people like me who advocate freedom WANT healthcare reform. We just want less or no government involvement not more.
Funny that Canadians have a government funded, physician-run health care system and we live 3 years longer than you Americans with an insurance-run and insurance rationed for profit health care. The insurance company bureaucrats who make your medical decisions give you a far shorter lifespan than people have with universal health care. Canadians have FREEDOM from medical bankruptcy, FREEDOM from medical care denial, & FREEDOM from a shortened life span from US style insurance-run health care.
US Insurance-run health care has an exceptionally the bigger bureacracy than any government funded health care system. Canadian hospitals need one or two accountants receivable clerks for the single payer, government. US hospitals have a hundred accounts receivable clerks, for the many insurers. US insurance-run health care causes a thousand times more bureaucracy than Medicare or any government funded system. Insurance-run health care has by far the most bureaucracy.
US insurance-run health care is the one with all the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy in Canadian hea;th care, Medicare, and Medicaid is less than 10% that of the bureaucracy that insurance companies cause.
@return135 American insurance run and rationed health care has 50 to 100 times the bureaucracy of any government administred health care system. A Canadian hospital has one accounts receivable clerk, two at most. An equivalent Amercian hospital needs 100 accounts receivable clerks to get insurance companies from backing out of paying what they owe.
@return135 One or two clerks for a government administered payment system, 100 clerks for an insurance run payement system. Insurance run health care has 50 to100 times the bureaucracy of a government administered payment system.
People who claim to be for freedom are against health reform? Really? I've never met anyone like that.
Oh and there's nothing wrong with profit. It shows you're doing a good job and in a sustainable way...unless there are regulations that interfere with that process which create a regulatory framework that gives some companies the opportunity to make more profit by complying with regulations instead of actually helping people.
There are many who comment here who are for freedom and against health reform. There would be nothing wrong with profit in health care if all Amercians could have access to health care along with the profit. As it is now, profit and other overhead costs by health insurance companies rations health care and over 1,000,000 Americans are unable to access the health care system. Profit in health care would be fine if all of those people had access and no one went bankrupt from health bills.
17% have no access at all and 21% have minimal insurance that doesn't even cover a physicinas visit, let alone any treatmant. SO 15%+21%=38% with no access.
No, actually I think you're talking about people that don't have insurance or like you said, minimal insurance. The number of people that literally CAN'T get access is only about 4 or 6%. And having insurance regulations that force companies to cover non-life-threatening things is part of what has caused the cost to rise and means they can't cover things that are more costly. It's not like there's some bottomless pit of money out there.
Those who have no insurance is 17% of rthe population and those with minimal insurance (not enough to meet their medical needs) is 21%. That means 38% of Americans have no or severely limited access to US insurance-run health care.
If they're against reform, it wouldn't be because they believe the current system is good, but rather that they simply don't agree with the reforms that are being proposed.
Anyways, I think you're right that insurance is part of the problem...but it became that way because of government interventions in the first place.
Insurance is the problem but not because of government because insurance is a parasite on the people and the health care system. Insurance only takes and adds nothing to health care.
Insurance has come to prominence that it has because of government regulations. That's fine if you want to ignore that, I'm just describing the situation. And insurance developed for employers but not so much for individuals because of a maximum price control on wages during World War II, so employers began using insurance and other benefits to attract workers. This led to the insurance market never really developing to the extent it otherwise would have for individuals.
Insurance has come into perominance because medical insurance is a parasite on the people and the health care system, taking 41% out and adding nothing. You are a slave to parasitic insurance companies, and government is the only entity strong enough to break your enslavement.
"insurance has come into prominence because medical insurance is a parasite on the people and the health care system"
you realize that doesn't make sense, right? The way, in a free market, that a business comes to prominence is by helping people obtain what they want....because that's how you make profit. Without any regulation, that's what happens. However, insurance companies are often forced to cover non-life-threatening things and even some things that are technically uninsurable.
It makes absolute sense. Insurance companies heavily ration your health care to increase their bottom line. Single payer system give you far better health care than the insurance takeover of the health care system gives you. I've lived in both the US and Canada and Canadian single payer health care is far better than the insurance-run system in the US. Having used both, Canada's is far better for the average person.
Don't say "waiting lists" and don't say "rationing". No one in Canada knows anyone who has ever been on a waiting list, and US health care is rationed by insurance companies, and Canadian health care is not rationed in any way. In Canada medical decisions are made solely between patients and the physician they choose with no government or other outside interference.
"no one in Canada knows anyone who has ever been on a waiting list"
well seeing as there ARE people on wait, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Stefan Molyneux (username "stefbot") is from Canada and posted a vid a while back with number from the Canadian government itself about how many people wait.
Maybe he's the one person in Canada on a waiting list of 60 days or so for totally elective surgery. Noone in Canada other than him, I guess, knows of anyone on a waiting list. There are even few right wingnut Canadians. For all intenets and purposes, no Canadian kniws anyone on a waiting list.
No, he went through the numbers in the vid if I recall correctly and posted references. People that need to see specialists often need to wait...and it turns out that there are quite a few people that need to see specialists.
As for "elective" there are some things that are called elective that are actually needed to save people's lives. I'm not saying it's the norm, but it does happen.
And it happens a thousand times more in the American insurance-run shystem where the insurance company bureaucrat who makes the medical decsions for Americans denies them life saving treatment. A friend in Florida was denied treatment for breast cancer after waiting three months for the insurance company bureaucrat who makes her medical decisions to make up their mind.
In the US, you have an insurance company bureaucrat between you and your physician and it's the insurance company bureaucrat who makes the medical decision... and he decides whether to ration your health care or deny you care..
Yup....and it came to prominence because of government intervention in the first place. You can ignore the facts of reality, but that doesn't change it. A maximum price control on wages during World War II was the start of it all because insurance started being used to attract workers since employers couldn't increase their wages.
The current system give third world health care to most middle and lower class Americans,whereas ALL Canadians have access to high quality health care with far better outcomes than most Americans can expect.
All Canadians get far better health care than the average American has. 1.5 million Americans come to Canada for treatment each year. The inferior, third world health care system has been proven over and over again to exist in the United States. Canadians have excellent, high quality health care, far better quality than the average American has.
@sming01 The current Amercian system gives Americans Third World health care. 100% of Canadians have access to world class health care, which they would not have if they were Americans living in the United States..
@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
@sming01@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
@sming01@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
@sming01@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
@sming01@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
@ajgolfer1 No one is a slave to the NHS or Canadian health care. Britons and Canadians have far better health care than Amercians have. Canadians abd Btritaons get $1 worth of health care for every $1 they pay. Americans get $0.59 of health care for every $1 they pay in premiums. In Canada and Britain, only physicians and patients make medical decisions.
@murphyj87 Canada and Britain get $1 worth of health care for every $1 of tax money going to the health care program? I highly doubt that the Canadian or British governments have suddenly started spending efficiently. Even if socialized health care was the most efficient system going (which it is not) it is run by governments and if we know anything about governments it is that governments are inefficient with their spending.
@VeryGreatMan That is amercian propaganda. Canaduans have health afder that is twice as good as American insrance run health care at half the price. American insurance run health care has 5 times the overhead of a government system. American insurance run health care has 50 to 100 times the bureaucracy of a Government system. American insurance run health care costs 2 to 3 times as much as a Government system
@VeryGreatMan Canada does not have socialized medicine. Canada has a single payer system, which is the exact opposite of, and diameterically opposed to, socialized medicine. Like most uneducated, uninformed Americans, you don't know the difference between socialized mediciane and a single payer system, but they are OPPOSITES.
@murphyj87 You are misinformed. In Canada the provinces actually run the health care system, they don't just pay for it. It's similar to the way public education is handled in America.
@VeryGreatMan I suggest replacing having insurance company bureaucrats making medical decisions with having physicians making medical decisions, as occurs in a government administerd system. Canadians live 3 years longer than Americans because Amercians have insurance compnay bureaucrats making their medical decisions, while Canadians have physicians making our medical decisions. Actually, Canadian MEN live 3 years longer than American MEN. Canadian WOMEN live 4 years longer than American WOMEN
@ajgolfer1 In the United States, insuramce coimpany bureaucrats, not physicians, make your medical decisions based on what's best for the insurance company's bottom line and totally ignoring your health and well-being. Canadians and Britons have the freedom to have their physicians, and their physicians alone, make their medicial decisons. Americans are corporate slaves to the insurance company bureaucrats who make their medical decisons made solely on profit.
@murphyj87 So you suggest replacing insurance company bureaucrats who have to compete with other insurance company bureaucrats with government bureaucrats who by law are able to stick a gun in your face and demand payment? Really?
Actually, the current system generally gives high quality care to all people in the US....it's just that it costs a lot. Nobody has complained about quality in the US. All the complaints are about lack of access for some due to cost. Reform should be centered around cost containment. Universal health care will not address cost containment unless there is simply a cap on the number of dollars spent....basically a price control, and price controls don't work.
38% of Americans have either no, or severely limited access to the US insurance-run health care system. This is why 45,000 Americans die each year because of lack of access to health care. These people would be alive of they were Canadians in Canada. Single payer is the most cost efficient system. That's why Americans with insurance-run health care pay twice as much as any industrialized nation.
out of the Americans that HAVE no health insurance or limited access, very few CAN'T get it. Many are eligible but simply don't seek it. You're ignoring that. Again, only about 6% of Americans literally can't get access. This is agreed on by economists on both sides of the issue(those in favor of universal health care and those against). It's simply the most accurate description of the situation.
The treatment in emergency rooms that the 38% without adequate access to health care is, in fact, a band aid. You don't get dyalisis in an emergency room. You don't have a bypass in an emergency room. Any real treatment is denied to that 38% of those American citizens. They have third world health care, just as they would in Haiti right now. 38% don't have any REAL access, other than band aid emergency room treatment.
Yup, i never said people should rely on emergency rooms. Not third world treatment, it's actually pretty good, but it's just not enough to cover everything. However....you're still ignoring the fact that only about 4-6% of Americans CAN'T get healthcare. Many people that don't have coverage are elligible but choose not to pay for coverage because they'd rather spend the money on OTHER things. Who are we to FORCE them with violence to do otherwise?
38% of Americans can't get health are they need. 17% have no access at all, and 21% are vastly underinsured, and can't get the treatment they need. 17%+21%=38% of Americans who can't get the medical care they need.
Only about 6% of Americans truly can't get access. Mostly people with cancer(and that isn't to say that all cancer patients lack access) or rare diseases if I recall correctly
"17% have no access at all"
so? Much of them DON'T WANT it. Who are we to put a gun to their heads and force them to get it?
Market-Based Failure — Second Opinion on US Health Care Costs: Robert Kuttner
US health care expenditures rose 6.7% in 2006, the government recently reported. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health care expenditures exceeded $2.1 trillion, or more than $7,000 for every American man, woman, and child.1 Medicare costs jumped a record 18.7%, driven by the new privatized drug benefit. Total health care spending, is projected to reach 20% of GDP in just 7 years.
Of all the countries surveyed in a recent poll, Americans were the least likely to report relative satisfaction with their health care. Here are ten major ways our system is failing us.
The "U.S. medical system is headed for multiple organ failure," John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and the author of "Overdosed America," writes in a Los Angeles Times opinion piece. "The spiraling cost of health care is well known: $7,100 per person this year, projected to increase to $12,000 in 2015 and compounding at more than double the rate of inflation,
I agree that our health care system is broken and is suffering from spiraling cost increases. You're simply wrong in saying the state is the solution. The state broke the system. I don't see how giving them more power will solve it. They've subsidized insurance companies, which increases costs, and have also regulated them, which also increases costs. You need to know some economics to really have a good concept of cause-and-effect.
@stealthswimmer Why then are costs in Canada, with a single poayer government funded, physician run health care system only half as much as they are in the Us with an insurance run and insurane rationerd health care system. A liver transplant costs $450,000 in the US. In Canada, with a government funded system, the same liver transplant costs $200,000.
@stealthswimmer It is the insurance takeover of US health care that accounts for the US paying twice as much for worse health care than any other industrialized nation does.
Yes, but that begs the question - how did insurance take over in the first place? The answer is because of government policies that favored them, not out of any natural market process. The solution isn't to give the state even more power. The first time they practically gave the health care industry to insurance companies. Now they want even more power and claim they won't mess up this time.
@stealthswimmer The insurance takeover of US health care took place because of insufficient government regulation of the in suracne industry and the American people were enslaved by insurance companies during the Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan, and bot Bush administrations. Americans are slaves to insurance companies because Republicans want to enslave you and take away your rights and freedoms, while Canadians have in abundently more rights and freedoms than Americans have.
No, actually giving insurance special favor was PART of the regulation. It had nothing to do with insufficient regulation. And the two places that regulation is extremely prominent - health care and education - are the places that cost has been going up the fastest...indeed, faster than the rate of inflation.
@stealthswimmer Health costs in the US are astronomically high because of the insurance takeover of health care. The massive greed, massive overhead, and massive bureaucracy of insurance run and insurance rationed hea;th care is responsible for US health care costing twice as much as in any other industrialized nation. A liver transplant costs $450,000 in the US. The same liver transplant costs an Amercian $200,000 in Canada...a $250,000 saving.
@stealthswimmer You mean the costs than it costs you Americans $7800 each year for every man, woman, and child in the US, while it costs our health care system $3800 a year for every man, woman, and child in Canada? In other words you Amercians pay 2.05 times as much for health care that's half as good as ours.
The cost is not the price. Even if you include it, the cost would be more than just what is paid in dollars. There is opportunity cost, again you refuse to let economics and truth get in the way of your seeing things in a certain light.
How is our health care system half as good? That's subjective. You can have objective measures of what each system achieves though. And yes in the US, people pay money in order to get health care. You know what that means? It means they are willing to pay.
@stealthswimmer No, we pay health costs at cost price. You pay the PRICE, at the the FOR PROFIT PRICE, which is 2.05 times the cost price which we pay.
we pay even more than the "for profit price" because of regulations. It's pretty clear you don't know the role of profit. It gives the incentive for more people to engage in the profitable activity, bringing an increased supply of the good or service, thus lowering the price, and thus making it more affordable, which increases access. If theres no profit, there is a dampening effect on the increase of supply, exacerbating the scarcity of the good or service.
@stealthswimmer Americans pay twice as much for health care because insurance companies give you 59 cents worth of health care for every dollar you pay in premiums & prescription drugs cost 2.5
I love John Stossel, he's like a economics for dummies reporter. I wish he stayed with abc because he might have been able to convince some liberals that free markets are good while most people watching fox already think that.
ca1cifer 2 months ago
Of course he left ABC, he wasn't aloud to speak his mind!
WingThaiJ 9 months ago 2
Well, not nearly as much as Fox of course
WingThaiJ 9 months ago
honestly, if you think stossel moved to more acclimated waters you are mistaken. oreilly, hannity, and beck all disagree with him about as much as any progressive would. besides napolitano, i cannot think of anyone he is in alignment with on fox or fbn.
ThePythagoran 1 year ago
@ThePythagoran Haha a libertarian shuts up moron liberals and buffoonish conservatives.
ak47523 11 months ago
The Zionist Jew executives of the shamestream media could no longer stand this REAL American journalist exposing their globalist agenda
phantomlord54 1 year ago
@phantomlord54 ironically he joined a network which people claim is also under the globalist agenda. :)
larsiemannen 6 months ago
Stossel reports the truth. Period.
The truth may hurt, but no one has ever proved him wrong that I've seen.
rubbersole79 1 year ago 15
Yeh, Stossel is absolutely amazing. Brilliant. I love watching his show on fox business.
Stossel is the opposite to the lefts Michael Moore.
TylerDVM 1 year ago 14
@TylerDVM I think if you got them together, you'd see Michael Moore and John Stossel have more in common than they dont
erik4727 2 months ago
John should have said "Because your a stupid, closed-minded liberal network, I hope you and ABC News go play in traffic. I am going to a Fair and Balanced network that encourages free thought and lets the audience decide what to think instead of ABC News reporters, you liberal fascist."
conservative608 1 year ago
@conservative608...yeah, FOX network, fair and balanced network. FOX news is equal to ABC in extremes...except that FOX is extremely conservative, not libertarian
heroe2006 1 year ago
@conservative608 Ugggh, yeah, a network filled with fucking propaganda spewing turdfucking ignorant sheep fondling dick sucking splooge tasting pricks like Bill O Reilly and Glenn Beck.
Depravedmaniac666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@conservative608 "John should have said 'Because your a stupid, closed-minded liberal network, I hope you and ABC News go play in traffic. I am going to a Fair and Balanced network that encourages free thought and lets the audience decide what to think instead of ABC News reporters, you liberal fascist.'"
Wait, I thought he went to FOX News?
skankuser 1 year ago
Good luck John Stossel! You're my hero! ABC wasn't good enough for you!
indyj16 1 year ago
This guy is a legend!
lwglwglwg 1 year ago 2
He complains (rightfully) about the media acting stupid or exaggerating things for ratings, then he joins Fox News?
Anyone know where I can catch his new show?
FatherTime89 1 year ago
Fox Business Thursdays at 8
lazoash 1 year ago
John Stosel = Libertarian
... not liberal.
MrRyanoceros 1 year ago
I think the main reason why Fox out bid ABC is because Fox thought it would be good to have someone from the liberal media to actually be on a conservative channel. It gives Fox News a better reason to trust the. John Stossel is known for controversialy, exposed reporting. This is what Fox needs.
themou2008 1 year ago
@themou2008 He moved because ABC caught himlying too mant time in his 20/20 pieces.
murphyj87 1 year ago
Sad. I think his voice would have been heard by more people on 20/20 I have nothing against fox but there are too many other folk like John on that channel. Oh well it has been a good ride.
DavidUmstattd 1 year ago
His contract with ABC ran out, and Fox outbid them. What's the mystery?
Hurlman418 1 year ago
You would have thought ABC would care more about their ratings and be willing to invest to protect their ratings?
joe035 1 year ago
Stossel is better off on Fox, where they won't censor his reporting. He's the only reason I ever watched 20/20.
xiaogoudelaohu 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Isn't this guy Geraldo?
at1212b 2 years ago
yes, it's geraldo... lmao
sming01 2 years ago
Is Ted Turner half retard?
enomarekim 2 years ago
You love to mention the handful of Canadians who think their condition is worse than their own physicians say it is (and that' the only reason Canadians go to the US) and go to the US foir treatment, and you consustanct ly ignore the 1.5 million Americans who come to Canada for treatment they are refused or can't afford in the US.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Not surprisingly that the UK (London) was the learning center for Karl Marx. His father was a Lawyer. Marx survived by living off of the earnings (somewhat lavishly) of others. His friend and co-conspirator, Friedrich Engels supported them both from a family legacy. Marxists have an ingrained habit of living off the productivity of others, while vigorously promoting that habit. If alive today, Marx and Engel would have been subject to public exposure..... by John Stossel.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
The UK finally realized that TORT Reform must take place.. before any meaningful change would result in their inherent 'Graveyard Spiral' of the Socialists dystopian view of the world. The UK is now leveling their flight. A gain in altitude may even possibly be in the future. The socialists still hold the controls. Only Free Enterprise will advance the throttles from Idle. Liberty is a forgotten word in the UK. Subservience is ingrained from childhood. Any Freedom is viewed as distasteful.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
The USA has a problem unique in the world. It is a totalitarian system Managed by, Dictated by, and Profited by..Lawyers. NO other nation has such a system, now from the TOP down in this administration including the vast majority of Congress. The overall effect is a 'Value Added Tax' on every service and product. The Insurance industry alone is a parasitic necessity due to Lawyers. Lawyers fund candidates favorable to their Business. Effective Tort Reform will never take place in such a system.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
Whenever anyone attracts way too much derogatory recognition, such as in these comments, You know they are actually starting to inflict damage to the Real Evils in the world. Now that John is moving, he will be given Freedom and the Liberty to present his opinion. His Opinion is just as important as the endless opinions of... 'The Ministry of Truth' ...so commonly accepted by the gullible masses. Many of the opposition have an Agenda to 'attack', just as they have been religiously trained..
Blogengezer 2 years ago
murphy, you live in canada. and since its care is so much better, then why are you here complaining about the United States' care? You already have the best care in the world, thanks for looking out of us
sming01 2 years ago
"War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", "Ignorance is Strength"... Oceania MINISTRY of TRUTH.. 'Newspeak' in Orwell's 1984
Predict first..if wrong, re-write to fit actual outcome...Works for the AP, must be good for the world.. LOL. Good thing people like John don't Buy it.. :>)
Blogengezer 2 years ago
John Stossel is a proven liar, so what John Stossle doesn't buy is commitment to the truth.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Bow down all Believers. The Reuters controlled AP is speaking. MSM is the Ultimate Source. NEVER Question the ULTIMATE. Never allow ANY difference of Opinion. Oh "Allegory of the Cave" worshipers, stay Subservient to the ONLY Real Peer Reviewed, Consensus Censored Politically Correct News. NEVER, NEVER Allow a Difference of Opinion on ANYTHING. You Got That? Break's over..Now Back on Your Knees 'BELIEVERS'.... LOL :>)
Blogengezer 2 years ago
False Noise and American propaganda think they are the unlimate source, which of course they're not. The supplicants at the altar of American propaganda are the believers in the false religion. Americans would be well served to look outside the US for a true vison of the world, including the United States. The American propaganda of "superiority" is wrongly placed and false.
murphyj87 2 years ago
'Ministry of Information' What's True is in actuality False. 'What's False is actually True' That's the code of The Associated Press and it's MSM affiliates.. At least the viewers on FOX are more Intelligent.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
False News is the only media outlet to whom False is true and true is false. False News viewers are totally misled and have no idea what is going on.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Your right Knightmessenger, thanks to 100 years of collectivist inventions like the FED, The New Deal, and "Great Society" policies, and the public school system, Americans have sadly become dependent on the plantation mentality of Big Brother Gov'ment...
xXU2BerXx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
At one time I predicted that this 80s looking Hall and Oates wannabe douche would gravitate to his natural habitat at Faux News.
FranklyMisterShankly 2 years ago
I love John Stossel. He is great. Open your mind and maybe you can figure that out too.
trippin4091 2 years ago
John Stossel is a proven liar and a puppet to big business, especially health insurance companies.
murphyj87 2 years ago
@FranklyMisterShankly is that because you knew that would find it increasingly more difficult to expose the truth about things, namely Obamacare?
radconserv86 2 years ago
I love watching Stossel, he's such a breath of fresh air.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It´s funny how he started his career fighting corporate abuse and now he´s moved on to praise those same corporations.
badseed136 2 years ago
Stossel's the man
danmannz 2 years ago
Anyone know where I can find the John Stossel Barbra Walters video???
?
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
Well. Its official. I have no reason to watch ABC anymore. And good riddance.
Stossel was probably sick of their bullshit.
girzwald3 2 years ago
I love this guy - he's so mellow!!
They should put him on the Special Report Panel!!!
finny6 2 years ago
A mellow liar... how pathetic.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Can't wait for Stossel's new show!
boxant 2 years ago
I love Stossel. he was the only reason I watched 20/20. When I knew he was doing a story-I made sure to tune in because I knew it would be great. But the day he took on the NEA in "Stupid in America" I knew his days at ABC were numbered. I was actually surprised how long he made it after that. No matter what channel he is on, I will continue to watch him b/c he speaks truth and the world is running low on that today.
GenevaPilgrim 2 years ago
Really looking forwrd to Stossel's new show!!!!!
CaffeinatedRX8 2 years ago
Fox News will pretend to embrace liberty, free markets and freedom until the neocons get back in power. Then they'll be back to justifying the Patriot Act/Indefinite Detention, etc. etc.
Amy31415 2 years ago 4
quite possibly.. but only if their customers allow them too,
psw003 2 years ago
Amy: I disagree. I think many people, including FOX will be forever changed by the things happening today. I think more of us are realizing that by letting the previous administration skate by-that we have brought a lot of these problems upon ourselves. I am ashamed to admit that I trusted Bush and now a lot of his policies have come back to bite us in the bottom. I will never EVER be that naive again. Sometimes you have to learn from your mistakes. I think FOX is realizing that.
GenevaPilgrim 2 years ago
I am guessing you know Libertarians are very much against the Patriot Act/Indefinite Detention, etc. Maybe this is the start of a Libertarian coup of Fox News.
doc7474 2 years ago
Oh yeah, I consider myself a libertarian. My fear is that this is the start of the opposite: Fox News "owning" and containing the libertarian message.
After all, there's not nearly as much money to be made if there's no war.
Amy31415 2 years ago
I believe you are right when you say libertarians would be against the patriot act. But as logical as a guy as Stossel is, I think he would support it.
shatwood 2 years ago
Sorry, but pretty much no libertarian is for patriot act. Stossel cannot and will not support it BECAUSE he is logical and tries to be logically consistent.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Libertarian coup? I doubt it. It is just a very smart business move on behave of Fox news. They are picking up a proven symbol that has his views out there and he will pick up probably 2 to 3 times the viewers he used to pick up depending on how his show is marketed etc...
ich1banGT1 2 years ago
My favorite libertarians:
1) Thomas Sowell
2) Walter E. Williams
3) John Stossel
UTubekookdetector 2 years ago 2
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it
- Sowell
One of my favorite quotes!!!
CaffeinatedRX8 2 years ago 2
Me too!! You forgot milton friedman!!
Cyrus992 2 years ago
Friedman and Sowell are road socialists and monetary commies.
utubehayter 2 years ago
utubehayter:
Proove it!!!
Cyrus992 2 years ago
proove what? That both of them wanted and were completely okay with road socialism? Or with govt controlled centralized monetary establishment? I don't have to... it is just too obvious if you are at all familiar with their work!
That is like saying prove to me that English speaking people know English words.
utubehayter 2 years ago
utubehayter:
Show me a video that prooves your point!!!
Cyrus992 2 years ago
Youtube is prohibiting me from putting up the link. But google "milton friedman road socialist walter block" and pretty sure you will find more than one references of friedman admitting to being a road socialist.
As for both Sowell and Friedman, both belong/adopted the monetary school of economics (Chicago), that depends on a centralized monopoly over creation of money/currency.
utubehayter 2 years ago
true on the "road socialists", to quote walter block, but Friedman did change his view on the Fed later in his life and decided, correctly, that the fed should be eliminated.
return135 2 years ago
Yes, he did want to replace the FED with a 3% constant increase in money supply. If you read carefully what he left intact - it was still the monopoly over money creation. That still makes him a monetary commie.
Friedman changing his mind is akin to Greenspan discovering a flaw in the free market.
utubehayter 2 years ago
idunno, i was just going off what Guido Hülsmann said, so you could be right on that. btw im not defending non free market views im a libertarian anarchist
return135 2 years ago
I never said you were wrong or defending non-free market views. No harm no foul. I was amazed by Milton Friedman too. He was my Ayn Rand. (I don't think I will ever read her, as I have seen her defend regime change in Iran. Not that I am against regime change, just think that those who advocate such measures should finance and do them personally - physically as well. And she was nowhere willing to do any of that.)
utubehayter 2 years ago
I'm not an objectivist but I have to highly recommend that you read Ayn Rand's books.
You'll enjoy them, but yeah Milton Friedman was an intellectual giant well out of her league.
They'll make you pretty dogmatic about market principles.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
I have heard Milton Friedman, he was good on everthing except what he specialized in - monetary theory. (and roads!)
As for Ayn Rand... sorry I grew past her. She was not market oriented when it came to protection and law (i.e she was a selective commie). Now I prefer Rothbard, Block, Long and Stringham.
utubehayter 2 years ago
libertarian and archist are two different things so it is like saying I'm a conservative democrat.
redraiders2K9 2 years ago
libertarian means you believe in liberty and really to be a true libertarian you have to oppose all aspects of the state. So if you want to be a consistent libertarian you have to be an anarchist. i say libertarian anarchist because most people perceive libertarians as minarchists.
return135 2 years ago
Well then just say you are an anarchist then. I dont conceive how privatized law can work. To be in more detail, I don't see how people can pay a person to protect them. First of all, who makes the rules? Does a child get a privatized law with him if he/she can't work and pay "the protectors". (Not all kids have parents to pay for their shit.)
redraiders2K9 2 years ago
There is plenty of literature written on the subjects your talking about you just have to look them up (the mises institute will have them). also to say that you cant conceive how thing will work in a free society so therefore the answer is the state is ridiculous. and one more point, to expect the state to remain small in size is a tall task that has never been achieved.
return135 2 years ago
Ok but there has to be a set of rules defined by some indiviual that protects everyone. I think each person should be equally safe. I think a governemnt needs to create a more strict and concise constitution that keeps it from being too big.
redraiders2K9 2 years ago
... cause the governments laws are clear, concise, and fairly protect everyone *sarcasm*. I think everyone wants people to be safe and the way to do that is to not have govt monopoly over law. just read rothbards anatomy of the state it will change your mind(or at least it should) on the necessity of the state.
return135 2 years ago
libertarians view government as a necessary evil. It is sometimes necessary but like missles, it should be something you try to avoid using as much as possible. Because it is still an evil, never a good.
I feel that too many Americans today are trigger happy with regard to government instead of using it as a last resort.
Knightmessenger 2 years ago
I agree the state is evil and should be abolished.
return135 2 years ago
you got it! Limited Government is Necessary Evil (let alone out-of-control-big government)!.
AmRonPaulian 2 years ago
No, libs does not view gov´t as a necessary evil, more like inconvenient and ineffective.
siggensax 2 years ago
Anyone in favor of freedom and liberty would be in favor of health care reform, since the insurance company bureaucrats who run the US health care system remove the freedom and liberty and right to life from 45,000 Americans a year..
murphyj87 2 years ago
Because people who CLAIM to be for freedom and liberty are insanly against health reform, freedom and liberty and right to life are just code words for favoring insurance company profits over people and REAL freedom and liberty for ALL Americans.
murphyj87 2 years ago
a larger beurocracy in healthcare is not reform(in the sense of improvement) and it is NOT freedom for "ALL Americans". also, people like me who advocate freedom WANT healthcare reform. We just want less or no government involvement not more.
return135 2 years ago
Funny that Canadians have a government funded, physician-run health care system and we live 3 years longer than you Americans with an insurance-run and insurance rationed for profit health care. The insurance company bureaucrats who make your medical decisions give you a far shorter lifespan than people have with universal health care. Canadians have FREEDOM from medical bankruptcy, FREEDOM from medical care denial, & FREEDOM from a shortened life span from US style insurance-run health care.
murphyj87 2 years ago
US Insurance-run health care has an exceptionally the bigger bureacracy than any government funded health care system. Canadian hospitals need one or two accountants receivable clerks for the single payer, government. US hospitals have a hundred accounts receivable clerks, for the many insurers. US insurance-run health care causes a thousand times more bureaucracy than Medicare or any government funded system. Insurance-run health care has by far the most bureaucracy.
murphyj87 2 years ago
US insurance-run health care is the one with all the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy in Canadian hea;th care, Medicare, and Medicaid is less than 10% that of the bureaucracy that insurance companies cause.
murphyj87 2 years ago
@return135 American insurance run and rationed health care has 50 to 100 times the bureaucracy of any government administred health care system. A Canadian hospital has one accounts receivable clerk, two at most. An equivalent Amercian hospital needs 100 accounts receivable clerks to get insurance companies from backing out of paying what they owe.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@return135 One or two clerks for a government administered payment system, 100 clerks for an insurance run payement system. Insurance run health care has 50 to100 times the bureaucracy of a government administered payment system.
murphyj87 1 year ago
People who claim to be for freedom are against health reform? Really? I've never met anyone like that.
Oh and there's nothing wrong with profit. It shows you're doing a good job and in a sustainable way...unless there are regulations that interfere with that process which create a regulatory framework that gives some companies the opportunity to make more profit by complying with regulations instead of actually helping people.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
There are many who comment here who are for freedom and against health reform. There would be nothing wrong with profit in health care if all Amercians could have access to health care along with the profit. As it is now, profit and other overhead costs by health insurance companies rations health care and over 1,000,000 Americans are unable to access the health care system. Profit in health care would be fine if all of those people had access and no one went bankrupt from health bills.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Missed zeros. It's 100,000,000 Americans who can't access health care in the US.
murphyj87 2 years ago
uh, no it's actually something like 4 or 6% of people who really can't get access. 4 or 6% of 300 million is not 100 million...
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
17% have no access at all and 21% have minimal insurance that doesn't even cover a physicinas visit, let alone any treatmant. SO 15%+21%=38% with no access.
murphyj87 2 years ago
No, actually I think you're talking about people that don't have insurance or like you said, minimal insurance. The number of people that literally CAN'T get access is only about 4 or 6%. And having insurance regulations that force companies to cover non-life-threatening things is part of what has caused the cost to rise and means they can't cover things that are more costly. It's not like there's some bottomless pit of money out there.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Those who have no insurance is 17% of rthe population and those with minimal insurance (not enough to meet their medical needs) is 21%. That means 38% of Americans have no or severely limited access to US insurance-run health care.
murphyj87 2 years ago
If they're against reform, it wouldn't be because they believe the current system is good, but rather that they simply don't agree with the reforms that are being proposed.
Anyways, I think you're right that insurance is part of the problem...but it became that way because of government interventions in the first place.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Insurance is the problem but not because of government because insurance is a parasite on the people and the health care system. Insurance only takes and adds nothing to health care.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Insurance has come to prominence that it has because of government regulations. That's fine if you want to ignore that, I'm just describing the situation. And insurance developed for employers but not so much for individuals because of a maximum price control on wages during World War II, so employers began using insurance and other benefits to attract workers. This led to the insurance market never really developing to the extent it otherwise would have for individuals.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Insurance has come into perominance because medical insurance is a parasite on the people and the health care system, taking 41% out and adding nothing. You are a slave to parasitic insurance companies, and government is the only entity strong enough to break your enslavement.
murphyj87 2 years ago
"insurance has come into prominence because medical insurance is a parasite on the people and the health care system"
you realize that doesn't make sense, right? The way, in a free market, that a business comes to prominence is by helping people obtain what they want....because that's how you make profit. Without any regulation, that's what happens. However, insurance companies are often forced to cover non-life-threatening things and even some things that are technically uninsurable.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
It makes absolute sense. Insurance companies heavily ration your health care to increase their bottom line. Single payer system give you far better health care than the insurance takeover of the health care system gives you. I've lived in both the US and Canada and Canadian single payer health care is far better than the insurance-run system in the US. Having used both, Canada's is far better for the average person.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Don't say "waiting lists" and don't say "rationing". No one in Canada knows anyone who has ever been on a waiting list, and US health care is rationed by insurance companies, and Canadian health care is not rationed in any way. In Canada medical decisions are made solely between patients and the physician they choose with no government or other outside interference.
murphyj87 2 years ago
"no one in Canada knows anyone who has ever been on a waiting list"
well seeing as there ARE people on wait, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Stefan Molyneux (username "stefbot") is from Canada and posted a vid a while back with number from the Canadian government itself about how many people wait.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Maybe he's the one person in Canada on a waiting list of 60 days or so for totally elective surgery. Noone in Canada other than him, I guess, knows of anyone on a waiting list. There are even few right wingnut Canadians. For all intenets and purposes, no Canadian kniws anyone on a waiting list.
murphyj87 2 years ago
No, he went through the numbers in the vid if I recall correctly and posted references. People that need to see specialists often need to wait...and it turns out that there are quite a few people that need to see specialists.
As for "elective" there are some things that are called elective that are actually needed to save people's lives. I'm not saying it's the norm, but it does happen.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
And it happens a thousand times more in the American insurance-run shystem where the insurance company bureaucrat who makes the medical decsions for Americans denies them life saving treatment. A friend in Florida was denied treatment for breast cancer after waiting three months for the insurance company bureaucrat who makes her medical decisions to make up their mind.
murphyj87 2 years ago
In the US, you have an insurance company bureaucrat between you and your physician and it's the insurance company bureaucrat who makes the medical decision... and he decides whether to ration your health care or deny you care..
murphyj87 2 years ago
Yup....and it came to prominence because of government intervention in the first place. You can ignore the facts of reality, but that doesn't change it. A maximum price control on wages during World War II was the start of it all because insurance started being used to attract workers since employers couldn't increase their wages.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
The current system give third world health care to most middle and lower class Americans,whereas ALL Canadians have access to high quality health care with far better outcomes than most Americans can expect.
murphyj87 2 years ago
correct. the current system in canada gives third world care
sming01 2 years ago
All Canadians get far better health care than the average American has. 1.5 million Americans come to Canada for treatment each year. The inferior, third world health care system has been proven over and over again to exist in the United States. Canadians have excellent, high quality health care, far better quality than the average American has.
murphyj87 2 years ago
@sming01 The current Amercian system gives Americans Third World health care. 100% of Canadians have access to world class health care, which they would not have if they were Americans living in the United States..
murphyj87 1 year ago
@murphyj87 oh great murphy's back. must have just gotten back from her communist parade
sming01 1 year ago
@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@sming01 @sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@sming01 @sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@sming01 @sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@sming01 @sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
murphyj87 1 year ago
Comment removed
murphyj87 1 year ago
Comment removed
murphyj87 1 year ago
Comment removed
murphyj87 1 year ago
Comment removed
murphyj87 1 year ago
Comment removed
murphyj87 1 year ago
Comment removed
murphyj87 1 year ago
Comment removed
murphyj87 1 year ago
Comment removed
murphyj87 1 year ago
Comment removed
murphyj87 1 year ago
@sming01 If you were informed or educated in any way, you would know how ridiculous that comment is. People who want health carfe for all citizens have nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". Your desire to be a slave to insurance companies, with an insurance company bureaucrat making your medical decisions as they always have, and your kissing the asses of the insurance industry shows how ridiculous and uninformed your thinking is as well.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@murphyj87 as opposed to being a slave to a NHS
ajgolfer1 1 year ago
@ajgolfer1 No one is a slave to the NHS or Canadian health care. Britons and Canadians have far better health care than Amercians have. Canadians abd Btritaons get $1 worth of health care for every $1 they pay. Americans get $0.59 of health care for every $1 they pay in premiums. In Canada and Britain, only physicians and patients make medical decisions.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@murphyj87 Canada and Britain get $1 worth of health care for every $1 of tax money going to the health care program? I highly doubt that the Canadian or British governments have suddenly started spending efficiently. Even if socialized health care was the most efficient system going (which it is not) it is run by governments and if we know anything about governments it is that governments are inefficient with their spending.
VeryGreatMan 1 year ago
@VeryGreatMan That is amercian propaganda. Canaduans have health afder that is twice as good as American insrance run health care at half the price. American insurance run health care has 5 times the overhead of a government system. American insurance run health care has 50 to 100 times the bureaucracy of a Government system. American insurance run health care costs 2 to 3 times as much as a Government system
murphyj87 1 year ago
@VeryGreatMan Canada does not have socialized medicine. Canada has a single payer system, which is the exact opposite of, and diameterically opposed to, socialized medicine. Like most uneducated, uninformed Americans, you don't know the difference between socialized mediciane and a single payer system, but they are OPPOSITES.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@murphyj87 You are misinformed. In Canada the provinces actually run the health care system, they don't just pay for it. It's similar to the way public education is handled in America.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@VeryGreatMan I suggest replacing having insurance company bureaucrats making medical decisions with having physicians making medical decisions, as occurs in a government administerd system. Canadians live 3 years longer than Americans because Amercians have insurance compnay bureaucrats making their medical decisions, while Canadians have physicians making our medical decisions. Actually, Canadian MEN live 3 years longer than American MEN. Canadian WOMEN live 4 years longer than American WOMEN
murphyj87 1 year ago
@ajgolfer1 In the United States, insuramce coimpany bureaucrats, not physicians, make your medical decisions based on what's best for the insurance company's bottom line and totally ignoring your health and well-being. Canadians and Britons have the freedom to have their physicians, and their physicians alone, make their medicial decisons. Americans are corporate slaves to the insurance company bureaucrats who make their medical decisons made solely on profit.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@murphyj87 So you suggest replacing insurance company bureaucrats who have to compete with other insurance company bureaucrats with government bureaucrats who by law are able to stick a gun in your face and demand payment? Really?
VeryGreatMan 1 year ago
@VeryGreatMan Really. American insurance company bureaucrats ensure that Americans get inferior health care to what Canadians get.
murphyj87 1 year ago
Actually, the current system generally gives high quality care to all people in the US....it's just that it costs a lot. Nobody has complained about quality in the US. All the complaints are about lack of access for some due to cost. Reform should be centered around cost containment. Universal health care will not address cost containment unless there is simply a cap on the number of dollars spent....basically a price control, and price controls don't work.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
38% of Americans have either no, or severely limited access to the US insurance-run health care system. This is why 45,000 Americans die each year because of lack of access to health care. These people would be alive of they were Canadians in Canada. Single payer is the most cost efficient system. That's why Americans with insurance-run health care pay twice as much as any industrialized nation.
murphyj87 2 years ago
out of the Americans that HAVE no health insurance or limited access, very few CAN'T get it. Many are eligible but simply don't seek it. You're ignoring that. Again, only about 6% of Americans literally can't get access. This is agreed on by economists on both sides of the issue(those in favor of universal health care and those against). It's simply the most accurate description of the situation.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
The treatment in emergency rooms that the 38% without adequate access to health care is, in fact, a band aid. You don't get dyalisis in an emergency room. You don't have a bypass in an emergency room. Any real treatment is denied to that 38% of those American citizens. They have third world health care, just as they would in Haiti right now. 38% don't have any REAL access, other than band aid emergency room treatment.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Yup, i never said people should rely on emergency rooms. Not third world treatment, it's actually pretty good, but it's just not enough to cover everything. However....you're still ignoring the fact that only about 4-6% of Americans CAN'T get healthcare. Many people that don't have coverage are elligible but choose not to pay for coverage because they'd rather spend the money on OTHER things. Who are we to FORCE them with violence to do otherwise?
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
38% of Americans can't get health are they need. 17% have no access at all, and 21% are vastly underinsured, and can't get the treatment they need. 17%+21%=38% of Americans who can't get the medical care they need.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Only about 6% of Americans truly can't get access. Mostly people with cancer(and that isn't to say that all cancer patients lack access) or rare diseases if I recall correctly
"17% have no access at all"
so? Much of them DON'T WANT it. Who are we to put a gun to their heads and force them to get it?
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
What you say is not true. Americans are crying out for health care they can't get.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Alright, you can ignore the numbers....
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Market-Based Failure — Second Opinion on US Health Care Costs: Robert Kuttner
US health care expenditures rose 6.7% in 2006, the government recently reported. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health care expenditures exceeded $2.1 trillion, or more than $7,000 for every American man, woman, and child.1 Medicare costs jumped a record 18.7%, driven by the new privatized drug benefit. Total health care spending, is projected to reach 20% of GDP in just 7 years.
murphyj87 2 years ago
Ten Reasons Why American Health Care Is so Bad
Of all the countries surveyed in a recent poll, Americans were the least likely to report relative satisfaction with their health care. Here are ten major ways our system is failing us.
murphyj87 2 years ago
The "U.S. medical system is headed for multiple organ failure," John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and the author of "Overdosed America," writes in a Los Angeles Times opinion piece. "The spiraling cost of health care is well known: $7,100 per person this year, projected to increase to $12,000 in 2015 and compounding at more than double the rate of inflation,
murphyj87 2 years ago
I agree that our health care system is broken and is suffering from spiraling cost increases. You're simply wrong in saying the state is the solution. The state broke the system. I don't see how giving them more power will solve it. They've subsidized insurance companies, which increases costs, and have also regulated them, which also increases costs. You need to know some economics to really have a good concept of cause-and-effect.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer Why then are costs in Canada, with a single poayer government funded, physician run health care system only half as much as they are in the Us with an insurance run and insurane rationerd health care system. A liver transplant costs $450,000 in the US. In Canada, with a government funded system, the same liver transplant costs $200,000.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer It is the insurance takeover of US health care that accounts for the US paying twice as much for worse health care than any other industrialized nation does.
murphyj87 1 year ago
Yes, but that begs the question - how did insurance take over in the first place? The answer is because of government policies that favored them, not out of any natural market process. The solution isn't to give the state even more power. The first time they practically gave the health care industry to insurance companies. Now they want even more power and claim they won't mess up this time.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer The insurance takeover of US health care took place because of insufficient government regulation of the in suracne industry and the American people were enslaved by insurance companies during the Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan, and bot Bush administrations. Americans are slaves to insurance companies because Republicans want to enslave you and take away your rights and freedoms, while Canadians have in abundently more rights and freedoms than Americans have.
murphyj87 1 year ago
No, actually giving insurance special favor was PART of the regulation. It had nothing to do with insufficient regulation. And the two places that regulation is extremely prominent - health care and education - are the places that cost has been going up the fastest...indeed, faster than the rate of inflation.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer Health costs in the US are astronomically high because of the insurance takeover of health care. The massive greed, massive overhead, and massive bureaucracy of insurance run and insurance rationed hea;th care is responsible for US health care costing twice as much as in any other industrialized nation. A liver transplant costs $450,000 in the US. The same liver transplant costs an Amercian $200,000 in Canada...a $250,000 saving.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer A Canadian in Canada has no bills, no deductable, and no copay... and has that same liver transplant for no out of pocket cost
murphyj87 1 year ago
Soooo.....they don't pay taxes?
Furthermore, seems like you enjoy listing the benefits while ignoring the costs.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer You mean the costs than it costs you Americans $7800 each year for every man, woman, and child in the US, while it costs our health care system $3800 a year for every man, woman, and child in Canada? In other words you Amercians pay 2.05 times as much for health care that's half as good as ours.
murphyj87 1 year ago
The cost is not the price. Even if you include it, the cost would be more than just what is paid in dollars. There is opportunity cost, again you refuse to let economics and truth get in the way of your seeing things in a certain light.
How is our health care system half as good? That's subjective. You can have objective measures of what each system achieves though. And yes in the US, people pay money in order to get health care. You know what that means? It means they are willing to pay.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer No, we pay health costs at cost price. You pay the PRICE, at the the FOR PROFIT PRICE, which is 2.05 times the cost price which we pay.
murphyj87 1 year ago
@murphyj87
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@murphyj87
we pay even more than the "for profit price" because of regulations. It's pretty clear you don't know the role of profit. It gives the incentive for more people to engage in the profitable activity, bringing an increased supply of the good or service, thus lowering the price, and thus making it more affordable, which increases access. If theres no profit, there is a dampening effect on the increase of supply, exacerbating the scarcity of the good or service.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer Americans pay twice as much for health care because insurance companies give you 59 cents worth of health care for every dollar you pay in premiums & prescription drugs cost 2.5