Don't the US (like ever other country) have a "socialised" army and police force? Why aren't Americans calling from the abolition of government run police forces and replacing them with private security firms? Surely if the pursuit of profit makes everything better why not?
In fact why do the US have taxes at all, or a government for that matter (they are socialist evils of course), why not just go the whole hog and have a true 'every man for himself' culture.
@scienceatheism I feel embarresed by your comment, if you are going to use the username "scienceatheism" then please try not to say obviously idiotic things....this isnt opinion
"I would say the police station is very political seeing that we have to vote in a sheriff" - I agree here but thats no more political than choosing a Manager in a company, how would you expect this to happen?
"We have more people then europe does" - ????
I encourage you to use the internet for information
Its weird that he would call Health Care Private Corporations soulless bastards who thrive off of human pain when hospitals also thrive off of human pain. They are a business, and they are in a business of human suffering if people dont get hurt or sick hospitals close. Just a thought.
@scienceatheism Hospitals in America close... but Hospitals that arent run like business' and are instead run like *gasp* Hospitals dont.
The reason a Doctor gets into the business is to be a Doctor! A person is sick? Figure out whats wrong and help them, thats all they should worry about... not if they are insured like a fucking television! Putting a price tag on a human life is ILLEGAL!
So if a hospital has a lot of doctors, a lot of nurses and barely any patients would you think those hospitals would stay open because gosh they really do care about the people. Doctors care? Really? so their salaries tell you nothing about where their priorities lie? Family doctors 100,000 a year now that I can see as a reasonable salary, Doctors in big hospitals can go as up to 500,000 a year. I dont know about you but that doesnt scream I care about the patients. that screams NEW BENZ!!!
@scienceatheism In a climate like the America Healthcare scene, yeah... you get greed. What everyone else is saying is change that, private doctors can still go to work for insurers but with a government alternative you get competition and Doctors who give a fuck.
And a hospital without patients? Ever? That seems unlikely, in case you havent noticed but... people get sick, get injured, get old and get pregnant. No shortage of patients.
Ever heard of small towns in our nation? some hospitals in america close down. Some merg together, Im sure you heard of this to much money being spent not enough money coming in. Pharmacutical companies becoming a hassle, those damn machines cost a fuck ton of money. You have to keep with the time and health standards otherwise you are fucked. No one likes to go to a 3rd world hospital in a supposedly civilized nation...cont..
@scienceatheism Our nation? I am guessing by your general buzz words you are American, in which case I refer you to the first 4 words in my first reply to you: "Hospitals in America close..."
I already said that from the very beginning, I already said that the American healthcare system is broken!
And is the post office too "political"? The police? The fire stations? Are all of these government run groups too political? NO! Do it like the Europeans do, its already been proven to work.
cont.. I dont really trust anything government. Yeah the competition is good and It does sound like a great Idea but everything becomes to political in a government ran anything really. I do have to say that one of the best programs in our nation is the veteran health program. My dad is retired navy and as much as I hate the federal government running anything I do have to say that they treat my dad very well.
I would say they are. I would say the police station is very political seeing that we have to vote in a sheriff, and we vote in a mayor and that mayor chooses the commissionar. Which is poltical man. Fire Department most where I live are actually volunteers that not political. There is a difference between Europe and America, We have more people then europe does. but anway I would say that system you want would only work in big states but in small south dakota not so much.
@scienceatheism America has more people than Europe? Alright, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Europes population is around 852 million, Americas population is about 310 million... basic mathematics should be applied here.
Again, that doesnt make the police a political organization... someone being appointed by a mayor is no more political than the position I already stated being that the police are a state run organization, its association with the state is already tied in.
Bill - I love your show but you’re wrong about this. Someone always profits during a trade. If someone receives free medical care – they profit! You just don’t want the doctors or those guys in the nice suits to profit.
@neway20045 false ditchonomy. we can provide health care for all and still have doctors making a profit. take the cheating each other part out and there is enough for everyone.
So I suppose health care should be run by all volunteers? And doctors will train for almost a decade to get paid nothing? Of course, Bill Maher is coming at this from an angle he knows about well - doing things for free, because I'm sure he does not charge people for the best medicine, i.e. laughter.
At least in dealing the private market there is some recourse if you get totally screwed over... With government, there is no one to sue, no one to complain to... You get what they give you, no exceptions for you serf/slave…(except for the politically connected)
The aim of profit forces organizations to cut costs and best utilize resources- and without profit you get ineffecieny. That's why in most countrie's you see corportizatiion of public sector- because without it you bleed money and are not as efficient as can be.
My healthinsurance is an non-profit healthcare. If they have money over they will give it back to the people who have insurance with them. Last year this was 10 euro's not much ... but non profit.
People who can afford to pay for private health insurance should have to pay for their own insurance. Why does everything have to be free? Why does birth control have to be totally free without a co-payment? If you can afford to make a co-payment, which most people certainly can, you should have to pay it.
If Bill Maher would simply quit describing himself as a libertarian, I wouldn't be as annoyed by him. Ron Paul is a libertarian; Bill Maher is a libertine.
Maher has made the typical mistake of arguing that healthcare should not be for-profit because it's a necessity. Let's think about that for a second. Food is a necessity; food is for-profit. Housing is a necessity; housing is for-profit. Clothing is a necessity; clothing is for-profit. The incentive to make a profit is actually what drives people to put out a good product. Now, while I certainly support the government helping out people who can't afford healthcare,
Except with non-universal health care, many people don't get covered even if they have it. With buying food or houses, nobody denies the person access to certain foods or houses, they get it so long as they pay for it. Unlike our system that exploits loopholes, overcharges, and most of the time doesn't even cover the full cost (unlike universal health care).
What I support is de facto universal healthcare, which would be health insurance for everyone who wants it. I do believe in reform to make things more fair, but ultimately I don't agree with single-payer. I do support a public otpion, though, for anyone who wants it, but people who are satisfied with their private insurance shouldn't have to switch.
What if their private coverage covers more things than a hypothetical single-payer would cover? It's very possible that a person is satisfied with his/her private insurance and doesn't want to be forced into a government insurance plan.
Instead of letting the government have a monopoly on health insurance, why not let them compete with private insurance companies? If you want a public option, you can have it.
No motive for profit actually means no incentive to have a good product. You've been brainwashed into thinking that capitalism is bad, but actually it's good. The motive to make a product is one hell of an incentive because, if you put out a shitty product, you won't make a product. The government should have to compete. If everyone decides that the public option is better, then everybody will go on the public option, so what are you worried about?
@Edgehead10075 for profitcan meen that but it can also meenthe bare minimun that people will take and still buy your product but i do like your idea because to compete with the government they would have be more reasnable with prices and cant deny people for bullshit reasons so its a win win sutuation no matter who you choose
@Edgehead10075 But, with a profit motive, there is incentive for a bad product; one that cuts corners, for example. How so? By limiting liability, increased deductibles, higher co-pays, carve out everything to a bare minimum and leaving only major, catastrophic coverage for emergency services. Everything else then becomes too expensive. Need proof? Look at insurance rates before health care reform was enacted. They were skyrocketing up to 70 in premium costs in some states.
I think that the profit motive (and competition) are also incentive to put out a good product. I also support a public option, which would keep the private insurance companies in check. I think that many politicians are worried that the public option will put private insurance companies out of business, which is why they voted against a public option. I'm not afraid of that, though.
@Edgehead10075 With many types of products I'd be inclined to agree, but not health care because profits are earned by denying it. What happens is very similar to the result we now see in the market - policies are expensive, with carved out benefits, higher deductibles, additional riders and supplemental policies expense, poor provider coverage, higher out of pocket maximums but lower lifetime maximums. These are the result of a robust marketplace with lots of competition and a strong lobby.
That's true, but competition should also provide the incentive to provide a good product. I mean, if a health insurance company denies to cover things, the people would punish that company by leaving it for another one.
@SFGadFly The market isn't going away and I'll agree on a need for a public option to stabilize the market. It gives the govt some power to negotiate reasonable/customary rates, capitation v. fee-for-service, provider access, DME and RX costs. Congress was shameless for catering to the whims of their campaign donors instead of the public they serve, and it must change or we must change them and the way campaigns are financed.
private hmo's would still be an option. they are an option in most countries with socialized health care. they are more expensive of course, but a private insurance should have better "quality" service. so now private insurance companies can compete with each other on the actual service and coverage, and not on premiums and deductibles. it can work on so many ways.
I'm always amazed at how stupid some Americans are. We have socialized medicine int he UK. We love it. No one would dare dismantle it and we use the American system as a comparison. Do they think Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were socialist dictators? Yet they helped set up the NHS (in WC case) and although Thatcher didn't like it, she certainly wouldn't dare to drag in American system. Georgraphy and History are subjects to be studied, it's help these "tea party"/Republicans.
@bakersteven3 congrats on being a slave to the government and waiting for things that are "non-emergency" related. It is well know that in societys with socialized medicine, the welathy are treated much better than the populuce as a whole. If the US didnt have medicare and medicade, prices would be much much lower. The introduction of a 3rd payer of medicine has destroyed US medical care, just as socialized medicine has yours.
@polevaultrockstr Oh dear, greta post but the fatcs totally disagree with you. Look up the OECD reports of health care. Considering the USA has 46 million without any coverage your post is proved wrong. Whne the Harvard report stated that "over 70%" of Americans bankruptcy are caused by MEDICAL BILLS, it again proves you are wrong. You haven't a clue about the NHS system, or the french system or any others, so until you've compared don't just assume the lies you've been given by the corporates!
I agree with what you say, however Thatcher did encourage much more private medicine, as well as the fatally flowed PFI (Private Finance Initiative). There are complaints about the NHS in the UK, but that's the nature of the beast, complaints get more airing than bouquets in our negatively slanted media. It's there when we need it, and no private medicine touches A&E as far as I know.
ammarios, the fact is that we don't need to get rid of the for-profit system to have universal healthcare. Universal healthcare doesn't have to be a single-payer government monopoly, like in Canada. I support having a public option that competes with private insurance.
As a Canadian left-wing Social-democrat/Democratic-socialist/Civil(social)-libertarian who is an active member of the NDP (Canada's second-largest party in the current parliament AND it happens to be our social-democratic party), I don't think Canada is socialist ENOUGH, so if the right-wingers see us as Socialist, then I'm a proud socialist AND they're dumber and more ignorant and deluded than one first would've thought !
@lasseplatburk I mean hey, they ACTUALLY think that the U.S Democrats are "the left" (as they call them), which is the most hilarious&laughable thing I've ever heard..they are so far to the right that even the U.S Dems, who by Canadian/global standards are actually right-of-centre, are called "left-wing" by comparison ...
Whenever I used to hear right-wingers talk about "the left" I couldn't imagine who they were talking about..imagine how hard I laughed when I realized they meant the Dems lol
@ammarios Same in Sweden: Swedish Conservatives = Democrats. I mean, there were a couple of Republicans who got to read the policy of the Sweden-Democrats, our most conservative, nationalist party, and they said: Damn Communists!
@iwustudent101 Thank you.I second that.Everyone wants to talk about how the free market has failed.I'm so glad that someone out there gets that what we have is not a free market system.
A free market is by definition unaccountable, because to intervene for the purposes of law is to regulate it. Healthcare as a private industry exists to deny coverage, because supplying coverage lowers profitability. Talk about a poor setup, the capitalist solution is to let the market find the best way to NOT cover people with insurance.
>>corporatist stystem
Unregulated businesses were legally able to meddle in politics, hence this.
>>Universal healthcare does not mean access to care
Of course it does. That is why all those nations in Europe and Canada are happy with it. It works better than our insurance providers, because the state has no interest in denying you health coverage. Insurance companies have an interest in denying you coverage, because they are a for-profit entity.
>>making it accountable to no one
That is free market. Government agencies are accountable to law, oversight bureaus, and voters.
Nope. In the free market days of the 19th century, patent medicines made all sorts of wild claims, and it was legal to do so. They could not be sued. It was a VERY profitable industry.
>>Companies that develop a good reputation for good products would attract the most customers and therefore the most profits.
Hence placebos. They are the most profitable product, because they require no expensive testing for safety, and consumers supply the effect.
>>States take advice of AMA and place onerous licensing requirements.
That's a good thing.
>>If a company sells a harmful product, the injured individuals can sue the company for damages.
Only if the state intervenes by regulating the market, creating agencies like the FDA, etc. Otherwise you cannot sue the company, because there are no laws against this kind of fraud in a free market.
If healthcare were universal (socialized) it would be available to everyone, it would cover everyone. What insurance plans in America are that efficient? Anyone who isn't wealthy has an insurance plan that is full of caveats for when you will NOT be covered, or is full of penalties for USING the service which means that many Americans do not even go to their doctors and stay sick. THIS is what capitalism does to healthcare. The companies then convince you that you need them...
The FDA exists on our behalves because in a free market, companies cannot be trusted to ensure the safety of their products... it isn't profitable to do so. It is most profitable to lie about the benefits and rely on the placebo effect. We still have that now for cases of fraud not covered by the FDA and related entities, just look at internet scams.
Medicare and Medicaid exist to provide healthcare for those who cannot afford it. In a free market they wouldn't be covered.
HMOs and PPOs are private, not public. AMA is private, not government.
Mandates and regulations exist because a for-profit venture is not concerned with health. It is concerned with making money as efficiently as possible. That is what a free market is, by the way, an environment which encourages businesses to be as greedy as possible, with no legal accountability when they hurt people. When we had that, businesses found it most profitable to sell placebos as cures.
>>Why shouldn't government provide food, since making a profit off of people's hunger is surely despicable?
They do. It's called food stamps.
>>The healthcare companies can screw us over because of the awful mess that government has made of the system.
Which is principally due to wealthy insurance companies funding political campaigns, lobbying, and telling Americans what to think about Universal Healthcare "It's evil Socialism!"
>>If not making a profit would be good for healthcare, then why would it not be good for every industry?
Some industries are not involved in life and death decisions that affect millions of people. The worst decisions they make affect pollution or jobs, and those things can be easily regulated without taking over the company. Others, like healthcare and medicine literally make profit at the expense of people's health. This is abominable, I think.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
“Liberal” hypocrisy. The leftist redistributors are OK with themselves making millions on deceiving the public. But doctors should be poor, as those in the socialist dictatorships, who have to take bribes in food in order to feed their families. As a result: no bribe, no REAL healthcare, even if in simplest cases. Healthcare requires investments – that is why it should be for profit. In turn, if “law firms” get non-profit, nobody suffers but DNC budgets.
@2parse Your comment bears little resemblance to anything looking like sense. First off, whose thinking are you referring to as sloppy? Secondly, you have an ability to understand what others are thinking? Wow, a psychic, well done. Propaganda video and nothing more. Trying to equate economic freedom with wanting to fuck your cousin. That is low.
I am from germany an we have universal healthcare. Everyone can go to a doctor whenever he/she wants. no mather poor or rich erverybody has insurance. and gues what.....our doctors make a lot of money nobody has to "take bribes to feed their children" so before you say anything about "socialist dictatorships" (which by the way is the most stupid thing i've ever heard) inform yourself...
@knigochey "redistributers" or "redistribution of wealth". Meaningless terms Fox news uses to convince it's unthinking viewership that ANY money NOT going to the rich is bad for America.
@knigochey "redistributers" or "redistribution of wealth". Meaningless terms Fox news uses to convince it's unthinking viewership that ANY money NOT going to the rich is bad for America.
man oh man.......I DO enjoy the pure ignorance that the right fringe "sheeple" make readily available for all to see, and in such a consistent manor. A lot of the time, it's frustrating.....Then you have days like this, where it is simply amusing....oooor HUMOROUS....yes, humorous.
Kind of funny coming from a comedian who has made millions in profits from his show that uses the very advertising to pay him that he's joking about... hahaha...
Not everything needs to make a profit... that's right you leftist cowards. HOwever, only in free system do you have a choice over whether you want to keep profit, make a profit, or give it all away. There is no charity without choice. Forced charity isn't charity. It's the pillaging of wealth at the end of a gun. Bill Maher doesn't give a crap about your prosperity or the lack thereof. He only cares if you fit his view of the world. If not, you're trash. He's a bigot of the worst kind.
this is comedy... We the people are slowly finding those who wish to move into a socialist nation and are outing them. Just because you make people laugh, doesn't mean he knows what the fuck he is talking about...
This video is mistitled. It should be "Why Not Everything Needs to Make a Profit." The current title means something completely different: that nothing needs to make a profit.
@thehoogard This is youtube. I'm not running for office here. Some random youtuber wants to debate me? Why? your just wasting your time. I said my bit and you wouldn't even listen to that. Why would I bother with you? Piss off. :D
No, it was you who wouldn't listen to what I had to said.
Now can you see the pointlessness of arguing in this way? It's silly. Either you adopt a meaningful way of discussing things, and I don't mean a formal debate, or you can just as well shut up.
As I said, when you're willing to leave the child level of this discussion behind, let me know. Until then, please refrain from trying to make any points at all. It only makes you look silly.
@thehoogard I really don't give damn how silly I look because this is Youtube. Anyway, some days I'd rather be silly than get in a long argument with some dick I will never meet about a subject that he will never budge his position on. Now please stop communication with me, I was never interested in talking to you and I still am not. :D If you want to get the last word, as you people often do, I will allow it. But don't expect me to comment back Okay? Seeya!
Now who's really being the dick here? Go look in the mirror. This discussion has been on a downward spiral from the start and you're to a large exent to blame for it. If you don't want to discuss on youtube, and you don't want any replies, I have a quick and easy solution for you; DON'T COMMENT. It works surprisingly well. I'm not interrested in the last word, I wan't an ongoing discussion but alas, you seem incapabable of it.
ya great idea, Bill. Let's allow 16% of our economy become unprofitable. what a buffoon. It's ultra partisan shitheads like that that poison the minds of America's youth to fall in line with one agenda or another. The right has theirs too. This country wasn't founded on the idea that government is the answer to all of our problems and that one superstar politcian can be our messiah. We are totally going down the wrong track in this country towards an American Monarchy and it's a shame.
@garethrogue heres the point to be made and hes not the only one making it, the idea is that somethings like the railways, the mail, healcare should focus on just WORKING, not to complete extremes , bt these services shold be more importantly functioning, if they in some way can be profitable, thats a bonus.. but its getting tiring to se services like these either being quite expensive. or notworking, as these places will try to be profitable,
@elgostine In a lot of countries ISPs have become incredibly greedy and choose not to build a bigger network to sustain increasing traffic but instead charge higher prices and introduce new usage caps.
Sure ISPs deserve profits but the internet is a lot like the postal and train services, it's essential and it should not be squeezed for extra profit.
Its not right when eastern European countries are achieving 50-60Mbps for less than what a lot of developed countries pay for 10-20Mbps.
@garethrogue where do the profits of this 16% come from? Outer space??? No. Right out of the pockets of every citizen. In my opinion there is nothing disasterous about people keeping some of their money in their own pocket, rather than funding the billionaires who do NOTHING for those ultimately paying their salary.
It's like the old Jesters of medieval Europe, who could say what the kings needed to hear, even if it offended them, because they were "just jesters" and not harmful.
@101LegendKiller It's a phenomenon that goes back a long way. In King Lear, it was 'The Fool' who was always whispering truth in the king's ear. Comedians get to say what other people can't, and since their criticisms and social commentary are told in a humorous tone, they're less likely to be hung for it.
@101LegendKiller Because the powerful don't mind it. Speaking the truth and making it funny makes people feel like they're in control, that they're smarter than this or that rich and powerful person. It's a modern court jester, taking the pressure off.
That is always the case when dictatorship abounds. Look to old european tales where the jester has to remind the king in a decent manner of what is to be done as he is the only one that doesn't get his head lopped off for being disrespectful to the king - cause jesters are always dorks.
Don't the US (like ever other country) have a "socialised" army and police force? Why aren't Americans calling from the abolition of government run police forces and replacing them with private security firms? Surely if the pursuit of profit makes everything better why not?
In fact why do the US have taxes at all, or a government for that matter (they are socialist evils of course), why not just go the whole hog and have a true 'every man for himself' culture.
estebanrey 1 week ago
new rules is the best segment on any TV show around. I'm not gonna given Bill all the credit here, he must have some awesome writers.
thegov08 3 months ago
@scienceatheism I feel embarresed by your comment, if you are going to use the username "scienceatheism" then please try not to say obviously idiotic things....this isnt opinion
"I would say the police station is very political seeing that we have to vote in a sheriff" - I agree here but thats no more political than choosing a Manager in a company, how would you expect this to happen?
"We have more people then europe does" - ????
I encourage you to use the internet for information
shandcunt 5 months ago
Its weird that he would call Health Care Private Corporations soulless bastards who thrive off of human pain when hospitals also thrive off of human pain. They are a business, and they are in a business of human suffering if people dont get hurt or sick hospitals close. Just a thought.
scienceatheism 5 months ago
@scienceatheism Hospitals in America close... but Hospitals that arent run like business' and are instead run like *gasp* Hospitals dont.
The reason a Doctor gets into the business is to be a Doctor! A person is sick? Figure out whats wrong and help them, thats all they should worry about... not if they are insured like a fucking television! Putting a price tag on a human life is ILLEGAL!
CraigMetalHead 5 months ago
So if a hospital has a lot of doctors, a lot of nurses and barely any patients would you think those hospitals would stay open because gosh they really do care about the people. Doctors care? Really? so their salaries tell you nothing about where their priorities lie? Family doctors 100,000 a year now that I can see as a reasonable salary, Doctors in big hospitals can go as up to 500,000 a year. I dont know about you but that doesnt scream I care about the patients. that screams NEW BENZ!!!
scienceatheism 5 months ago
@scienceatheism In a climate like the America Healthcare scene, yeah... you get greed. What everyone else is saying is change that, private doctors can still go to work for insurers but with a government alternative you get competition and Doctors who give a fuck.
And a hospital without patients? Ever? That seems unlikely, in case you havent noticed but... people get sick, get injured, get old and get pregnant. No shortage of patients.
CraigMetalHead 5 months ago
Ever heard of small towns in our nation? some hospitals in america close down. Some merg together, Im sure you heard of this to much money being spent not enough money coming in. Pharmacutical companies becoming a hassle, those damn machines cost a fuck ton of money. You have to keep with the time and health standards otherwise you are fucked. No one likes to go to a 3rd world hospital in a supposedly civilized nation...cont..
scienceatheism 5 months ago
@scienceatheism Our nation? I am guessing by your general buzz words you are American, in which case I refer you to the first 4 words in my first reply to you: "Hospitals in America close..."
I already said that from the very beginning, I already said that the American healthcare system is broken!
And is the post office too "political"? The police? The fire stations? Are all of these government run groups too political? NO! Do it like the Europeans do, its already been proven to work.
CraigMetalHead 5 months ago
cont.. I dont really trust anything government. Yeah the competition is good and It does sound like a great Idea but everything becomes to political in a government ran anything really. I do have to say that one of the best programs in our nation is the veteran health program. My dad is retired navy and as much as I hate the federal government running anything I do have to say that they treat my dad very well.
scienceatheism 5 months ago
I would say they are. I would say the police station is very political seeing that we have to vote in a sheriff, and we vote in a mayor and that mayor chooses the commissionar. Which is poltical man. Fire Department most where I live are actually volunteers that not political. There is a difference between Europe and America, We have more people then europe does. but anway I would say that system you want would only work in big states but in small south dakota not so much.
scienceatheism 5 months ago
@scienceatheism America has more people than Europe? Alright, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Europes population is around 852 million, Americas population is about 310 million... basic mathematics should be applied here.
Again, that doesnt make the police a political organization... someone being appointed by a mayor is no more political than the position I already stated being that the police are a state run organization, its association with the state is already tied in.
CraigMetalHead 5 months ago
Boy it would be so much better to watch Bill without that stupid audience of his. Lowest from of intelligence I have ever seen.
Sumoto999 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mkrulic517439 – let me ask you (and others here) a question - do you think you have a right to healthcare?
neway20045 5 months ago
Bill - I love your show but you’re wrong about this. Someone always profits during a trade. If someone receives free medical care – they profit! You just don’t want the doctors or those guys in the nice suits to profit.
neway20045 6 months ago
@neway20045 false ditchonomy. we can provide health care for all and still have doctors making a profit. take the cheating each other part out and there is enough for everyone.
mkrulic517439 5 months ago
So I suppose health care should be run by all volunteers? And doctors will train for almost a decade to get paid nothing? Of course, Bill Maher is coming at this from an angle he knows about well - doing things for free, because I'm sure he does not charge people for the best medicine, i.e. laughter.
phil8888 6 months ago
@phil8888 free or an ungodly wage. why are right wingers so easily led by false ditchotomies
mkrulic517439 5 months ago
What a Dick.
BEATDOWNBANKER 6 months ago
At least in dealing the private market there is some recourse if you get totally screwed over... With government, there is no one to sue, no one to complain to... You get what they give you, no exceptions for you serf/slave…(except for the politically connected)
drshlotzkin 6 months ago
The aim of profit forces organizations to cut costs and best utilize resources- and without profit you get ineffecieny. That's why in most countrie's you see corportizatiion of public sector- because without it you bleed money and are not as efficient as can be.
Andsormida01 6 months ago
My healthinsurance is an non-profit healthcare. If they have money over they will give it back to the people who have insurance with them. Last year this was 10 euro's not much ... but non profit.
Groeneland!
AngeliqueEU 6 months ago
We have non-profits called HMO's, though, and they suck. I do support a public option, though.
Edgehead10075 6 months ago
Aren't HMO's non-profit? HMO's SUCK. Is that the liberal argument for non-profit healthcare?
I'd like to see Bill Maher debate Ron Paul on this issue; Paul would clean his clock.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
People who can afford to pay for private health insurance should have to pay for their own insurance. Why does everything have to be free? Why does birth control have to be totally free without a co-payment? If you can afford to make a co-payment, which most people certainly can, you should have to pay it.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075 "Why does birth control have to be totally free without a co-payment?"
Birth control is very expensive in the USA I think ..... here you can have good birthcontrol for only 15 euro's a month.
It should not cost over lets say $20 a month.
AngeliqueEU 6 months ago
If Bill Maher would simply quit describing himself as a libertarian, I wouldn't be as annoyed by him. Ron Paul is a libertarian; Bill Maher is a libertine.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
Maher has made the typical mistake of arguing that healthcare should not be for-profit because it's a necessity. Let's think about that for a second. Food is a necessity; food is for-profit. Housing is a necessity; housing is for-profit. Clothing is a necessity; clothing is for-profit. The incentive to make a profit is actually what drives people to put out a good product. Now, while I certainly support the government helping out people who can't afford healthcare,
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
we shouldn't get rid of the for-profit system. Let private, for-profit insurance companies and hospitals compete.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075
Except with non-universal health care, many people don't get covered even if they have it. With buying food or houses, nobody denies the person access to certain foods or houses, they get it so long as they pay for it. Unlike our system that exploits loopholes, overcharges, and most of the time doesn't even cover the full cost (unlike universal health care).
lucariofan508 7 months ago
What I support is de facto universal healthcare, which would be health insurance for everyone who wants it. I do believe in reform to make things more fair, but ultimately I don't agree with single-payer. I do support a public otpion, though, for anyone who wants it, but people who are satisfied with their private insurance shouldn't have to switch.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075
Why would anyone not switch?
lucariofan508 7 months ago
What if their private coverage covers more things than a hypothetical single-payer would cover? It's very possible that a person is satisfied with his/her private insurance and doesn't want to be forced into a government insurance plan.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
Instead of letting the government have a monopoly on health insurance, why not let them compete with private insurance companies? If you want a public option, you can have it.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075
Who could compete? The government would always be better for the reasons I previously gave. Mainly because the government has no profit motive.
lucariofan508 7 months ago
No motive for profit actually means no incentive to have a good product. You've been brainwashed into thinking that capitalism is bad, but actually it's good. The motive to make a product is one hell of an incentive because, if you put out a shitty product, you won't make a product. The government should have to compete. If everyone decides that the public option is better, then everybody will go on the public option, so what are you worried about?
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075 for profitcan meen that but it can also meenthe bare minimun that people will take and still buy your product but i do like your idea because to compete with the government they would have be more reasnable with prices and cant deny people for bullshit reasons so its a win win sutuation no matter who you choose
TheWhiteOp 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075 But, with a profit motive, there is incentive for a bad product; one that cuts corners, for example. How so? By limiting liability, increased deductibles, higher co-pays, carve out everything to a bare minimum and leaving only major, catastrophic coverage for emergency services. Everything else then becomes too expensive. Need proof? Look at insurance rates before health care reform was enacted. They were skyrocketing up to 70 in premium costs in some states.
SFGadFly 6 months ago
I think that the profit motive (and competition) are also incentive to put out a good product. I also support a public option, which would keep the private insurance companies in check. I think that many politicians are worried that the public option will put private insurance companies out of business, which is why they voted against a public option. I'm not afraid of that, though.
I think that rates are still high, though.
Edgehead10075 6 months ago
@Edgehead10075 With many types of products I'd be inclined to agree, but not health care because profits are earned by denying it. What happens is very similar to the result we now see in the market - policies are expensive, with carved out benefits, higher deductibles, additional riders and supplemental policies expense, poor provider coverage, higher out of pocket maximums but lower lifetime maximums. These are the result of a robust marketplace with lots of competition and a strong lobby.
SFGadFly 6 months ago
That's true, but competition should also provide the incentive to provide a good product. I mean, if a health insurance company denies to cover things, the people would punish that company by leaving it for another one.
Edgehead10075 6 months ago
@SFGadFly The market isn't going away and I'll agree on a need for a public option to stabilize the market. It gives the govt some power to negotiate reasonable/customary rates, capitation v. fee-for-service, provider access, DME and RX costs. Congress was shameless for catering to the whims of their campaign donors instead of the public they serve, and it must change or we must change them and the way campaigns are financed.
SFGadFly 6 months ago
Respond to this video... And, that was 70 percent to state it.
SFGadFly 6 months ago
Let people decide if they want to go on a public option; it shouldn't be forced on them. Let the market work.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075
That doesn't answer my question.
lucariofan508 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, what would answer your question?
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
private hmo's would still be an option. they are an option in most countries with socialized health care. they are more expensive of course, but a private insurance should have better "quality" service. so now private insurance companies can compete with each other on the actual service and coverage, and not on premiums and deductibles. it can work on so many ways.
BeefPapa 6 months ago
Since when are cousins or sisters sexually-off-limits for the conservatives?
eggiex1 8 months ago
Lame insult, totally banal.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075 Lame insult? You mean like when the conservatives make fun of Obama's middle name?
eggiex1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You refer to insults like that because you have no argument.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
speak for yourself bill.If it has pulse I am trying to fuck it.
cassidy99ful 8 months ago
I'm always amazed at how stupid some Americans are. We have socialized medicine int he UK. We love it. No one would dare dismantle it and we use the American system as a comparison. Do they think Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were socialist dictators? Yet they helped set up the NHS (in WC case) and although Thatcher didn't like it, she certainly wouldn't dare to drag in American system. Georgraphy and History are subjects to be studied, it's help these "tea party"/Republicans.
bakersteven3 8 months ago 9
@bakersteven3 congrats on being a slave to the government and waiting for things that are "non-emergency" related. It is well know that in societys with socialized medicine, the welathy are treated much better than the populuce as a whole. If the US didnt have medicare and medicade, prices would be much much lower. The introduction of a 3rd payer of medicine has destroyed US medical care, just as socialized medicine has yours.
polevaultrockstr 4 months ago
@polevaultrockstr Oh dear, greta post but the fatcs totally disagree with you. Look up the OECD reports of health care. Considering the USA has 46 million without any coverage your post is proved wrong. Whne the Harvard report stated that "over 70%" of Americans bankruptcy are caused by MEDICAL BILLS, it again proves you are wrong. You haven't a clue about the NHS system, or the french system or any others, so until you've compared don't just assume the lies you've been given by the corporates!
bakersteven3 4 months ago 4
@bakersteven3
I agree with what you say, however Thatcher did encourage much more private medicine, as well as the fatally flowed PFI (Private Finance Initiative). There are complaints about the NHS in the UK, but that's the nature of the beast, complaints get more airing than bouquets in our negatively slanted media. It's there when we need it, and no private medicine touches A&E as far as I know.
The right-wingers can go to hell.
DeIville8 3 months ago
As usual, Bill, you hit the nail right on the head.
I couldn't be more thankful to the universe to be a Canadian living in Canada.
If the right-wingers see us as socialists, then I'm a proud Socialist.
ammarios 8 months ago 17
ammarios, the fact is that we don't need to get rid of the for-profit system to have universal healthcare. Universal healthcare doesn't have to be a single-payer government monopoly, like in Canada. I support having a public option that competes with private insurance.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@ammarios Socialism isn't even a bad thing, as they like to see it.
lasseplatburk 3 months ago 2
@lasseplatburk You're absolutely right.
I guess I forgot to add :
As a Canadian left-wing Social-democrat/Democratic-socialist/Civil(social)-libertarian who is an active member of the NDP (Canada's second-largest party in the current parliament AND it happens to be our social-democratic party), I don't think Canada is socialist ENOUGH, so if the right-wingers see us as Socialist, then I'm a proud socialist AND they're dumber and more ignorant and deluded than one first would've thought !
ammarios 3 months ago
@lasseplatburk I mean hey, they ACTUALLY think that the U.S Democrats are "the left" (as they call them), which is the most hilarious&laughable thing I've ever heard..they are so far to the right that even the U.S Dems, who by Canadian/global standards are actually right-of-centre, are called "left-wing" by comparison ...
Whenever I used to hear right-wingers talk about "the left" I couldn't imagine who they were talking about..imagine how hard I laughed when I realized they meant the Dems lol
ammarios 3 months ago
@ammarios Same in Sweden: Swedish Conservatives = Democrats. I mean, there were a couple of Republicans who got to read the policy of the Sweden-Democrats, our most conservative, nationalist party, and they said: Damn Communists!
lasseplatburk 3 months ago
Comment removed
lasseplatburk 3 months ago
@ammarios that's not saying I support them, I think they're too conservative, I'm also more to the left
lasseplatburk 3 months ago
He is trying to compare a for profit system to incest? That is low propaganda, Bill. Your metaphors are horrible.
DynamicUnreality 8 months ago
@iwustudent101 Thank you.I second that.Everyone wants to talk about how the free market has failed.I'm so glad that someone out there gets that what we have is not a free market system.
homoguy563 9 months ago
@iwustudent101
>>A freed market would see medical innovation
A free market is by definition unaccountable, because to intervene for the purposes of law is to regulate it. Healthcare as a private industry exists to deny coverage, because supplying coverage lowers profitability. Talk about a poor setup, the capitalist solution is to let the market find the best way to NOT cover people with insurance.
>>corporatist stystem
Unregulated businesses were legally able to meddle in politics, hence this.
kDest 9 months ago 2
@iwustudent101
>>Universal healthcare does not mean access to care
Of course it does. That is why all those nations in Europe and Canada are happy with it. It works better than our insurance providers, because the state has no interest in denying you health coverage. Insurance companies have an interest in denying you coverage, because they are a for-profit entity.
>>making it accountable to no one
That is free market. Government agencies are accountable to law, oversight bureaus, and voters.
kDest 9 months ago
>>Product rating companies would rate products and services (think consumer reports).
Except they didn't, or were drowned out by the "success" stories of placebo patent medicines.
>>Any govt-provided service means high costs
And it means a standard of quality not corrupted by profit-seeking.
>>Liberal hypocrisy
Please make arguments that matter.
>>doctors should be poor, as those in the socialist dictatorships
Socialism isn't a dictatorship. Try researching from authoritative sources, not blogs.
kDest 9 months ago
@iwustudent101
>>Same with fraud.
Nope. In the free market days of the 19th century, patent medicines made all sorts of wild claims, and it was legal to do so. They could not be sued. It was a VERY profitable industry.
>>Companies that develop a good reputation for good products would attract the most customers and therefore the most profits.
Hence placebos. They are the most profitable product, because they require no expensive testing for safety, and consumers supply the effect.
kDest 9 months ago
@iwustudent101
>>HMOs were created by Nixon in HMO Act of 1973.
They are private organizations.
>>States take advice of AMA and place onerous licensing requirements.
That's a good thing.
>>If a company sells a harmful product, the injured individuals can sue the company for damages.
Only if the state intervenes by regulating the market, creating agencies like the FDA, etc. Otherwise you cannot sue the company, because there are no laws against this kind of fraud in a free market.
kDest 9 months ago
@iwustudent101
If healthcare were universal (socialized) it would be available to everyone, it would cover everyone. What insurance plans in America are that efficient? Anyone who isn't wealthy has an insurance plan that is full of caveats for when you will NOT be covered, or is full of penalties for USING the service which means that many Americans do not even go to their doctors and stay sick. THIS is what capitalism does to healthcare. The companies then convince you that you need them...
kDest 9 months ago
@iwustudent101
The FDA exists on our behalves because in a free market, companies cannot be trusted to ensure the safety of their products... it isn't profitable to do so. It is most profitable to lie about the benefits and rely on the placebo effect. We still have that now for cases of fraud not covered by the FDA and related entities, just look at internet scams.
Medicare and Medicaid exist to provide healthcare for those who cannot afford it. In a free market they wouldn't be covered.
kDest 9 months ago
@iwustudent101
HMOs and PPOs are private, not public. AMA is private, not government.
Mandates and regulations exist because a for-profit venture is not concerned with health. It is concerned with making money as efficiently as possible. That is what a free market is, by the way, an environment which encourages businesses to be as greedy as possible, with no legal accountability when they hurt people. When we had that, businesses found it most profitable to sell placebos as cures.
kDest 9 months ago
@iwustudent101
>>Why shouldn't government provide food, since making a profit off of people's hunger is surely despicable?
They do. It's called food stamps.
>>The healthcare companies can screw us over because of the awful mess that government has made of the system.
Which is principally due to wealthy insurance companies funding political campaigns, lobbying, and telling Americans what to think about Universal Healthcare "It's evil Socialism!"
What you feel is from business propaganda.
kDest 9 months ago
@iwustudent101
>>If not making a profit would be good for healthcare, then why would it not be good for every industry?
Some industries are not involved in life and death decisions that affect millions of people. The worst decisions they make affect pollution or jobs, and those things can be easily regulated without taking over the company. Others, like healthcare and medicine literally make profit at the expense of people's health. This is abominable, I think.
kDest 9 months ago
I'm surprised he missed the comparison between profit making healthcare and profit making sex...
DissorderedArray 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
“Liberal” hypocrisy. The leftist redistributors are OK with themselves making millions on deceiving the public. But doctors should be poor, as those in the socialist dictatorships, who have to take bribes in food in order to feed their families. As a result: no bribe, no REAL healthcare, even if in simplest cases. Healthcare requires investments – that is why it should be for profit. In turn, if “law firms” get non-profit, nobody suffers but DNC budgets.
How about equal access to justice?
knigochey 9 months ago
@knigochey Sloppy thinking + an inability to understand what others are thinking = rants that bear little resemblance to reality
2parse 9 months ago 26
@2parse Your comment bears little resemblance to anything looking like sense. First off, whose thinking are you referring to as sloppy? Secondly, you have an ability to understand what others are thinking? Wow, a psychic, well done. Propaganda video and nothing more. Trying to equate economic freedom with wanting to fuck your cousin. That is low.
DynamicUnreality 8 months ago
@knigochey
I am from germany an we have universal healthcare. Everyone can go to a doctor whenever he/she wants. no mather poor or rich erverybody has insurance. and gues what.....our doctors make a lot of money nobody has to "take bribes to feed their children" so before you say anything about "socialist dictatorships" (which by the way is the most stupid thing i've ever heard) inform yourself...
MrStaninho12 6 months ago
@knigochey "redistributers" or "redistribution of wealth". Meaningless terms Fox news uses to convince it's unthinking viewership that ANY money NOT going to the rich is bad for America.
Mozart1220 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knigochey "redistributers" or "redistribution of wealth". Meaningless terms Fox news uses to convince it's unthinking viewership that ANY money NOT going to the rich is bad for America.
Mozart1220 5 months ago
Comment removed
scienceatheism 5 months ago
man oh man.......I DO enjoy the pure ignorance that the right fringe "sheeple" make readily available for all to see, and in such a consistent manor. A lot of the time, it's frustrating.....Then you have days like this, where it is simply amusing....oooor HUMOROUS....yes, humorous.
cliftymike 10 months ago
Kind of funny coming from a comedian who has made millions in profits from his show that uses the very advertising to pay him that he's joking about... hahaha...
crazymike44 10 months ago
@crazymike44
Kind of stupid comparing a comedian to health care...moron.
DBAL514 10 months ago
Not everything needs to make a profit... that's right you leftist cowards. HOwever, only in free system do you have a choice over whether you want to keep profit, make a profit, or give it all away. There is no charity without choice. Forced charity isn't charity. It's the pillaging of wealth at the end of a gun. Bill Maher doesn't give a crap about your prosperity or the lack thereof. He only cares if you fit his view of the world. If not, you're trash. He's a bigot of the worst kind.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
this is comedy... We the people are slowly finding those who wish to move into a socialist nation and are outing them. Just because you make people laugh, doesn't mean he knows what the fuck he is talking about...
jtizz711 1 year ago
Comedians don't need to make profit either.
Fuckin rich people and their bullshit. Fuck off Bill Maher.
hash1212121212 1 year ago
This video is mistitled. It should be "Why Not Everything Needs to Make a Profit." The current title means something completely different: that nothing needs to make a profit.
ElTagno 1 year ago 2
You need food to live right? Are restaurateurs evil too? Bill, this is why you are just a comedian and not a politician or a philosopher.
HamsterFueledRocket 1 year ago
@HamsterFueledRocket
Did he say nothing is allowed to make profit? No he said that some things perhaps shouldn't.
thehoogard 1 year ago
@thehoogard I don't think you understood my point. Think harder you'll get it! I believe in you! :D
HamsterFueledRocket 1 year ago
@HamsterFueledRocket
And I don't think you understood my point. Maybe you should think harder as well?
... tell me when you are interrested in debating something on a more mature level than that...
thehoogard 1 year ago
@thehoogard This is youtube. I'm not running for office here. Some random youtuber wants to debate me? Why? your just wasting your time. I said my bit and you wouldn't even listen to that. Why would I bother with you? Piss off. :D
HamsterFueledRocket 1 year ago
@HamsterFueledRocket
No, it was you who wouldn't listen to what I had to said.
Now can you see the pointlessness of arguing in this way? It's silly. Either you adopt a meaningful way of discussing things, and I don't mean a formal debate, or you can just as well shut up.
thehoogard 1 year ago
@thehoogard
Bro, you just went full retard.
HamsterFueledRocket 1 year ago
@HamsterFueledRocket
As I said, when you're willing to leave the child level of this discussion behind, let me know. Until then, please refrain from trying to make any points at all. It only makes you look silly.
thehoogard 1 year ago
@thehoogard I really don't give damn how silly I look because this is Youtube. Anyway, some days I'd rather be silly than get in a long argument with some dick I will never meet about a subject that he will never budge his position on. Now please stop communication with me, I was never interested in talking to you and I still am not. :D If you want to get the last word, as you people often do, I will allow it. But don't expect me to comment back Okay? Seeya!
HamsterFueledRocket 1 year ago
@HamsterFueledRocket
Now who's really being the dick here? Go look in the mirror. This discussion has been on a downward spiral from the start and you're to a large exent to blame for it. If you don't want to discuss on youtube, and you don't want any replies, I have a quick and easy solution for you; DON'T COMMENT. It works surprisingly well. I'm not interrested in the last word, I wan't an ongoing discussion but alas, you seem incapabable of it.
thehoogard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Haha, the real world!
LiBlub1 1 year ago
ya great idea, Bill. Let's allow 16% of our economy become unprofitable. what a buffoon. It's ultra partisan shitheads like that that poison the minds of America's youth to fall in line with one agenda or another. The right has theirs too. This country wasn't founded on the idea that government is the answer to all of our problems and that one superstar politcian can be our messiah. We are totally going down the wrong track in this country towards an American Monarchy and it's a shame.
garethrogue 1 year ago
@garethrogue heres the point to be made and hes not the only one making it, the idea is that somethings like the railways, the mail, healcare should focus on just WORKING, not to complete extremes , bt these services shold be more importantly functioning, if they in some way can be profitable, thats a bonus.. but its getting tiring to se services like these either being quite expensive. or notworking, as these places will try to be profitable,
elgostine 1 year ago 12
@elgostine Add Broadband to that list. The way ISPs are doing things we'll have 10GB usage limit by 2020, we'll be glad to just surf the net.
Ashitaka255 10 months ago
@Ashitaka255 what do you mean by that exactly? im regards to profitability?
elgostine 10 months ago
@elgostine In a lot of countries ISPs have become incredibly greedy and choose not to build a bigger network to sustain increasing traffic but instead charge higher prices and introduce new usage caps.
Sure ISPs deserve profits but the internet is a lot like the postal and train services, it's essential and it should not be squeezed for extra profit.
Its not right when eastern European countries are achieving 50-60Mbps for less than what a lot of developed countries pay for 10-20Mbps.
Ashitaka255 10 months ago
@garethrogue where do the profits of this 16% come from? Outer space??? No. Right out of the pockets of every citizen. In my opinion there is nothing disasterous about people keeping some of their money in their own pocket, rather than funding the billionaires who do NOTHING for those ultimately paying their salary.
gnorty 1 year ago
the show is called "real time" not "real world".
metaltwinke 2 years ago
They arent, but if you're talking to idiots, you gotta make em laugh.
scarletletterman84 2 years ago
How comedians have to be ones to speak the truth?
101LegendKiller 2 years ago 39
It's like the old Jesters of medieval Europe, who could say what the kings needed to hear, even if it offended them, because they were "just jesters" and not harmful.
KillaHaakon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@101LegendKiller bill is an ignorant!!!!! he is funny but an ignorant
Coteincdr 1 year ago
@101LegendKiller It's a phenomenon that goes back a long way. In King Lear, it was 'The Fool' who was always whispering truth in the king's ear. Comedians get to say what other people can't, and since their criticisms and social commentary are told in a humorous tone, they're less likely to be hung for it.
shantih433 1 year ago
@101LegendKiller Because the powerful don't mind it. Speaking the truth and making it funny makes people feel like they're in control, that they're smarter than this or that rich and powerful person. It's a modern court jester, taking the pressure off.
newguy33X 8 months ago
@101LegendKiller Everyone else has been bought or has no balls
HAPrime 7 months ago
@101LegendKiller
That is always the case when dictatorship abounds. Look to old european tales where the jester has to remind the king in a decent manner of what is to be done as he is the only one that doesn't get his head lopped off for being disrespectful to the king - cause jesters are always dorks.
52111centrumcz 6 months ago
@101LegendKiller no constituancy
mkrulic517439 5 months ago