I'm glad you mentioned Canada, albeit briefly. Being government subsidized it is very expensive, though I have no numbers to determine how expensive comparatively to other countries.
Hmmm.... so if the government could do this without any cost to them, why aren't they doing it already? Lobbying probably, right?
I must only add that i don't know much about american healthcare, but i've seen that movie "sicko" and it really didn't look good :)
We got universal health care here with the possibility of people getting supplemental insurance. Seems to work out pretty fine, nobody's going bankrupt because they weren't insured or things like that.
@shanedk Damn, how did you know about the waiting lists? :) You're good! Wouldn't say there's a big debt though, except for national debt but that seems to be high everywhere thesedays... Thanks i'll look up John Stossel too, i know Moore supposedly blew a few things out of proportions but it was scary. Oh and i know they don't really care about the people, no worries :P
@Anonymous247n "Wouldn't say there's a big debt though, except for national debt but that seems to be high everywhere thesedays... "
So what your saying is Shane was wrong except that he was right in every detail?
"i know Moore supposedly blew a few things out of proportions but it was scary"
I know Hitler blew a lot of things out of proportion about the Jews, but it was scary. Same logic as yours. Using a source that you claim you knew was lying is dishonest.
@johnrainrules Well i've found that show "Sick in America- Whose Body is it Anyway" and i'll watch it soon. Guess with journalists and investigators it's just whose word you're going to take... Moore had some personal stories too, can't be that they were all faked. That's what scared me about the american health insurance system.
If by saying debt Shane meant national debt, then i agree with him completely.
@Anonymous247n "Well i've found that show "Sick in America- Whose Body is it Anyway" and i'll watch it soon."
That's a good one, but he had a segment the week before that (this was on 20/20) where he confronts Moore directly, so that'd be a good one to watch, too.
"Personal stories" are also known as "anecdotes," and you can use them to make ANY system appear like the best or the worst in the world.
Yeah... good point, personal stories aren't the most reliable source. But one can always investigate, and there are probably many people out there with positive or negative stories to tell about their governments, and their healthcare systems.
And yes, i've already watched that interview on 20/20, will watch that documentary soon too. See, that's why we ask questions, people like you usually have pretty good answers!
@Anonymous247n "Guess with journalists and investigators it's just whose word you're going to take.."
That's why I like source materials and people I've verified. One of the worst things you can do is take arguments from sources that are B.S. even if you agree with their conclusions. That goes for anything. I'm a Libertarian, but if another Libertarian uses a bunch of birther, truther, or moon hoaxer nonsense I don't use them as a source even if we both agree on a small gov't.
@johnrainrules Good good, wish people would treat me with more respect too, eventhough i support the venus project - doesn't mean i have to agree 100% with them either :P
Anyway, people can always investigate the claims of the journalists, and i agree, it's good that someone took a closer look at Moore too, even if his intentions are good.
@Anonymous247n "it's good that someone took a closer look at Moore too, even if his intentions are good."
His intentions aren't good. He's a propagandist willing to make absurd claims in order to get attention and make a quick buck. In this respect he is no different from Kent Hovind, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, or Alex Jones.
@johnrainrules LoL i in no way believe alex jones tells many true stories but he can't be that good of an actor, i think he genuinely means well :) Just like moore, and maybe even hovind... but yeah, you never know :P
@johnrainrules I don't agree here. It's just that they choose the wrong means to reach an end, a goal that may be good. The means don't justify the ends though, even if the people meant well in the first place.
@shanedk Well there always is the possibility that they thought they were saying the truth, just didn't verify their claims enough. Seems like something alex jones would do, but he seems like a honestly concerned guy.
@Anonymous247n Such a person would correct themselves when the facts are pointed out to them, and CERTAINLY not continue to make the same claim afterward.
@shanedk Point well made, if one makes mistakes and is proven wrong they should admit it. I really can't wait to watch that short documentary, it's exam time though so i'll get to it eventually.
@Anonymous247n Its more than the wrong means. When people lie like that they are saying that their audience isn't smart enough to make their own decisions and need to be manipulated into doing the right thing. In this case that person was you.
@johnrainrules True, lying or overexaggerating to make one's points probably means just that! You must take into account though that... sadly, the great majority of the "broad audience" probably isn't smart enough. Just look at what republican candidates are the most popular right now and you'll know what i mean. But it is dishonest and wrong, one must be as factual as possible.
@johnrainrules No, i'm just not american and don't know your system at all so i have to depend on sources i have ;) And if you'll give me just a little more time i'll watch that other documentary that shane recommended to me and i'll get back to you then, deal? :P
Allowing people other than the AMA to license doctors would produce the same result as privatising university accreditation, the creation of university-mills, with the equivalent being doctor-mills, just like where "Doctor" Kent Hovind went for his degree. I'd hate to be operated on by someone who got a shoddy medical education from a shack in Nevada then a license to perform surgery from an equivalent shack.
@ReactionVideoDotAvi "I'd hate to be operated on by someone who got a shoddy medical education from a shack in Nevada then a license to perform surgery from an equivalent shack."
You REALLY wouldn't ask your doctor where he got his degree? Every doctor I've been to has his diploma hanging on the wall.
@shanedk I've been in a situation where I was in an accident and unconscious until I'd already been operated on, if I had feelings at the time, I'd be glad that the nearest hospital to the ambulance (where you are required to be taken) could only hire people who were definitely capable of doing so safely. The politicians don't chose the criteria for who is capable, the most competent doctors over the years do, and being recognised as a government body ensured strict compliance to them.
@ReactionVideoDotAvi "The politicians don't chose the criteria for who is capable, the most competent doctors over the years do,"
No, the doctors with the most political connections do. Research the history: 100 years ago the licensing was going to either the allopaths or the homeopaths, and it was really a matter of luck that it went to the allopaths. It could just as easily have gone the other way--and could you imagine if it had?
@ReactionVideoDotAvi No, this is just more Cult of the Omnipotent State nonsense: only government can license physicians, only government can pick good hospitals...no other group can do it, no other group can set standards and make certifications, only the holy psychic supernatural saints of government! (And we'll just ignore all the other cases where private organizations have done exactly that.)
@shanedk I named an example of how privatising accreditation failed as it has with education, would you care to name a case where it's been successful instead of being so mocking? This is the first issue I've disagreed with you on, I've been civil and this is just not what I was expecting.
@shanedk The building code for electrical service is the NEC, the National Electric Code. It is a federal program. UL was the one and only safety lab certified under the NEC for over 70 years, until MetLAB sued the US government to let them do the same stuff as UL. Find a MetLAB seal on your electrical devices.
You stated that the FDA should be privatized and run as the UL is run. You then state that the AMA monopoly is bad. UL has a monopoly. Your arguments are not consistent.
@discoverybg31 The NEC NEVER EVER EVER had authority over every single electrical device on the market. The ONLY thing they EVER covered was wiring for certain types of buildings. YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP. You came up with irrelevant garbage and pretended it's relevant.
You're pwned and you know it. Stop making up shit.
@discoverybg31 I'm sorry, I'm not just going to let this go at that: you went from UL having a "monopoly on testing for electrical safety" to just having a monopoly on electrical wiring in buildings for awhile. There is NO FUCKING WAY you could have looked that up, and read about Metlab's lawsuit on it, without knowing that this ONLY applied to electrical wiring, NOT a "monopoly on testing for electrical safety."
@discoverybg31 And, of course, when I actually look it up you got almost EVERY detail WRONG. It WASN'T the NEC, it was OSHA, and it WASN'T a monoply on UL; they recognized both UL and FMRC. The lawsuit was to remove all references to these TWO organizations and allow any comparable standards organization to apply. But an organization STILL has to be an OSHA-recognized NRTL to apply; they've just expanded the list of what's allowed.
@discoverybg31 Aha, and here's the original wording (emphasis mine): "...accepted or certified, or listed, or labeled or otherwise determined to be safe, by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL), SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and Factory Mutual Corporation." So there was NEVER a monopoly in the first place.
Do you want to explain why you're not a pathetic LIAR?
@discoverybg31 It also contradicts what Met says on their own website: "Originally, the company focused on testing high voltage electrical transmission and distribution systems.
In the 1970's, MET was among the first laboratories to perform EMI and telecommunications testing to the emerging FCC regulations.
In 1989, MET became the first Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) in the United States for testing and certifying products to UL safety standards.
"In 1992, MET changed its focus exclusively to testing and certification of electrical products - whether in the laboratory or at customer locations. Consequently, the name changed to the present MET Laboratories."
Did you know, the government gave Underwriter's Laboratory a monopoly on testing for electrical safety? It wasn't until the last 10 years or less that ANY other lab was recognized to do the safety testing the would meet the building code.
So, you're own argument is refuted by one of your OTHER arguments.
@discoverybg31 First of all, building codes are handled on a LOCAL level here, so there never was one nationwide monopoly on UL. Second, that wasn't until several DECADES after they formed. Third, government's do this all the time.
What you think this could possibly refute is beyond me.
What? You want us to implement a free and competitive market? You mean that thing that is mathematically and experimentally proven to optimize scarce resource allocation for the maximal utility of everyone involved? F-that. I like paying obscene amounts of money for mediocre health. Government oversight makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
When you where talking about your 5th point of Expand Health Savings Account. Did you look at Singapore's Medifund, which provides a safety net for those not able to otherwise afford healthcare? If not, could you give me a real world example of Expanded Health Savings Account? Thank you for your video.
I will go on record as saying Canada's system is better then our current one. Just so I don't get any Canadians raging at me. But really you are right Shane, there is no reason not to try this. I wish us libertarians could have our own little place to try out are free market idea. Some kind of island or make a country out of a cruise ship. I guess for now Hong Kong is the most free market we got.
I enjoyed this video, but I cannot say I'm completely convinced; however, I consider most of my views as tentative. I strongly care about the facts in these types of issues, but sometimes it is so difficult to figure out what is really going to work and what isn't because you have people who you assume are truthful coming at it from all different angles-- all of which state other approaches are wrong. The older I get, the more of a mess the world seems to be. It's overwhelming at times.
@mjvoce Thanks, and I get where you're coming from. But I think the big point is still: are there ANY good, rational, logical reasons for not at least trying this first?
You make it sound so easy, and I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be. Those with pre-existing conditions would still be fucked. As far as health savings accounts, i don't know how that would work. Do you know how long it would take to save up to pay for that fucking hospital bill for surgery. I'm still paying off a 10,0000 dollar bill for surgery i had years ago. I think you are over simplifying the whole issue.
@justjulie37 Why don't you WATCH the video? You're talking about HSAs as they exist NOW--NOT as they would exist after the proposal I mentioned, which would mean the money in the HSAs would cover your insurance premiums and your deductibles. You wouldn't HAVE to use it to pay for the entire procedure!
@shanedk First of all, you don't have to be rude about it. Not everyone can understand everything about your proposal. Secondly, How could you guarantee that these companies would cover everyone? meaning, that even if people had all these choices, what makes you think any company would want to cover someone with pre-existing conditions? Maybe I am not understanding everything that you are proposing, but I'm not confident that we can trust anyone to cover those most vulnerable
@justjulie37 For the same reason they covered it before: If they didn't, a competitor would. And if there were ANY profitable way for them to cover them today, they would.
@shanedk Sorry, I'm just not buying that. They have no reason to do so. You must have a lot more faith in the private sector than I do. I just put a link on your channel about an article I read this morning that sounds a lot like what you are proposing, and it just doesn't cover all the bases. Not sure if you can find the article though, it wouldn't let me put a link you could click on, so hopefully you can find it. As for Ron Paul supporting it, that definitely doesn't give me much confidence.
"what makes you think any company would want to cover someone with pre-existing conditions?"
Covering a pre-existing condition is like asking an auto-insurance company to buy you a new car after having smashed it into a tree, but then not bothering to pay any premiums. The whole point of "insurance" is risk pooling, not handouts.
@bobmuffins 1) Then you should REALLY be against UHC, because they have the costs AND rationing!
2) Well, then let's just shut down EVERY SINGLE PERSON DOING ACTUAL SCIENCE...Let's shut down EVERY clinical drug trial, EVERY test of a new medical device...geez...
My only concern with allowing more than one corporation giving out liceanses is that less qualified people may get through in greater numbers, not to say that it doesn't happen currently.
@shanedk Also wouldn't that mean the market will then get to decide how qualified doctors need to be rather than the government, which always at least has information problems making it very inefficient to determine?
@sharperguy There is no "the market." "The market" is us.
Look at how "the market" has decided--through companies such as UL--how to make sure the electronic products we buy are safe. That began before and without any government intervention whatsoever. To think that the government--which is merely a group of people--can do anything the rest of us can't is to submit to the Cult of the Omnipotent State.
@shanedk Sorry I worded that ambiguously. I meant that the Government has information problems and hence the market would be able to more efficiently decide how qualified doctors would need to be, hence allowing more diversity and better price/quality.
Yes, no one has perfect information, but the more centralization you have, the less perfect your information is. Diversity is absolutely the solution here.
Inter State Health Insurance Purchasing , Out Law Frivious Mal Practice Lawsuits . Why Would They Not Do This , Because Paliticians Are Lawyers , Insurance Agents and CROOKS . It Is Called , JOB SECURITY
Human stupidity. Encouragement and expansion of demonstrably worthless or harmful medical "alternatives" for being cheap and easy profit making. While a UL sort of agency would be nice and would support better health care, I can also see so many snake oil salesmen taking advantage too, least til it settles and get's its pace.
Though in that same vein, I think that sort of evolutionary selection may be a good reason to encourage this plan as well.
@dragonmatt5 The reason that's happening is that they're exempt from the onerous regulations that real medicine has to go through. Without the regulatory burden adding upwards of 10 years and $1 billion or more, they have to be expensive and people have to jump through hoops to get them.
"I think it would be much easier to regulate scams and fraud then it is to regulate the entire system from price control to staff management. No system is perfect."
i agree. that's why we have democracy; so that citizens can (hopefully) act as a watchdog for the government.
i appreciate the civility in your reply, in contrast to many who engage in online discussions about economics.
i find your statement "profit in a free market system goes to those who do it right." to be somewhat naive, as it ignores the incentive for companies to exploit people in pursuit of profit.
although i'm not in favor of state socialism (as Shane insinuated) it seems necessary to impose some regulations on insurance companies in order to discourage fraud.
@yuriatayde Actually, I interpreted your comment that way at first as well, and I haven't been simultaneously arguing with about 4 other people on as many videos and topics.
@yuriatayde Another fucking LYING dogmatist. NO, that statement is ABSOLUTELY NOT CORRECT. and anyone even vaguely familiar with Econ 101 knows it--because those insurance companies will have to COMPETE ON PRICE as well as quality of service, something that has been robbed from the consumer by GovCo.
It's YOUR PRECIOUS GOVERNMENT that causes the big profits to go to them, and you dishonestly try and project that onto the free market--using nothing more than platitudes. Pathetic.
1) At first I didn't get what I figured was a superman reference (the 'yellow sun' thing). I do know now that I asked Lord T Hawkeye a question that ended up answering it. :)
2) Something else that would also help the USA's health care system that wasn't mentioned here would be the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid.
Of course, as big a clusterfuck as those two are, it would probably take a least a whole 'nother video to get into the detail needed.
@sum1unxpected huh? Insurance companies don't make money off of your illness. They make money when your healthy! And why would government given monopolies to insurance companies be better then competing companies?
@19TEC85 He's a political dogmatist, a worshipper of the Cult of the Omnipotent State. To him, competition is big evil corporations fighting over you with you stuck helplessly in the middle, a poor innocent victim needing the Holy Government to ride in on a white horse and save you.
In reality, of course, competition means that YOU are in control, and the insurance companies have to work to make you happy and give you what you want.
"In reality, of course, competition means that YOU are in control, and the insurance companies have to work to make you happy and give you what you want."
@sum1unxpected Otherwise, they don't get paid. There is nothing about healthcare and insurance markets that makes them in any way different from other market. The only way you could believe otherwise would be if you felt that anybody who pursued a profit was inherently evil and desired to do you harm, which is delusional on top of being just plain wrong.
markets are great, as long as they have regulatory mechanisms. otherwise companies are forced to exploit people in order to stay competitive. that's how markets work.
if you're an honest businessman who's competing with another business that exploits people for profit with impunity, you're going to end up having to exploit people just to stay competitive.
@sum1unxpected The Cult of the Omnipotent State refers to the assertion that government--which ultimately is just a group of people--can accomplish things that no other group of people can, meaning they suddenly possess supernatural abilities.
"if you're an honest businessman who's competing with another business that exploits people for profit with impunity, you're going to end up having to exploit people just to stay competitive."
No, IDIOT, because I'll have a much more talented pool of people to choose from--who don't WANT to be exploited and can demand better.
"No, IDIOT, because I'll have a much more talented pool of people to choose from--who don't WANT to be exploited and can demand better."
you're assuming that there is perfect information available for you to make the most rational economic choice at any given instant (like a game of chess). market are never that transparent, end even of they were, individuals simply don't have enough time to investigate every single company they buy things from.
@sum1unxpected "you're assuming that there is perfect information available"
I REALLY feel like smacking every economic retard that says this. Look up Wisdom of Crowds. You do NOT need "perfect information." You only need to NOT fuck around with what people want to do.
"You do NOT need "perfect information." You only need to NOT fuck around with what people want to do."
you're arguing against the premise that perfect information is necessary to prevent fraud and exploitation in an unregulated free market by assuming your conclusion "You only need to NOT fuck around with what people want to do."
@zamfir1970 That's because it costs much more to insure sick people. They don't make more money simply because you become more sick, that's expensive. They would make much more if you pay the premium and never get sick. So, still, the same problem remains. Health care costs are too high because of the anti-free market system we're forced into.
"huh? Insurance companies don't make money off of your illness. They make money when your healthy!"
yes, they make money when you're healthy as long as they can weasel out of denying you coverage when you get sick. the more they deny coverage, the more money they make.
it's cheaper for an insurance company to kill grandma than it is to treat her leukemia.
@sum1unxpected Same with the government. You ever wonder why the survival rate for diseases like cancer and heart disease is higher in America than in places like the UK? Why do people die on waiting lists in Canada waiting for simple heart procedures?
Competition is what keeps this from happening. More competition, less corruption. In America, competition is greatly reduced. In UHC countries, it's almost entirely eliminated.
i wouldn't get ahead of yourself. survival rates for cancer are just as good in Canada as they are in the US; and Canadians spend about half as much on health care as Americans due to socialized medicine.
also, there is a fundamental difference between buying health insurance and other free market enterprises. when you're buying health insurance, you're essentially buying the promise that the company will help you when you need it, and their incentive is to break that promise.
@sum1unxpected "when you're buying health insurance, you're essentially buying the promise that the company will help you when you need it, and their incentive is to break that promise."
How is that any different from car insurance, or a stock annuity, or any club membership?
"How is that any different from car insurance, or a stock annuity, or any club membership?"
a. a car isn't a family member. b. not everyone needs auto insurance. c. auto insurance is fucked up.
i think health-care should be run more like tap water than like auto insurance, because everyone needs it. and you can always buy bottled water if you think it's better.
@sum1unxpected "the fact that people will spend practically any amount of money to save the life of a family member and not their car is highly relevant."
No, it's not, because with insurance, THEY'RE NOT THE ONES PAYING FOR IT!!! Idiot.
"not everyone needs health insurance?" NeedED, you misquoting liar. And it was PRIMARILY the poor that used other options. Your precious GovCo "regulating" insurance TOOK THOSE OPTIONS AWAY FROM THE POOR.
@vspqbd What are you talking about? Without the wonderful saints in government mandating auto insurance, the guy who hit us might have been uninsured!
@sum1unxpected "when your buying health insurance, you're essentially buying the promise that the company will help you when you need it, and their incentive is to break that promise"
Good thing that never happens in the political sector.
@sum1unxpected Well, what kind of stupid fucking moronic argument is that from your pathetic dogmatist mind??? How many times have YOU died from this vicious free market? ALSO NONE!!!
Yet I can point you to THOUSANDS that died in pointless wars, MILLIONS who have died from being denied life-saving products, and that's just the beginning! It's not even getting into policies like the War on Drugs!
You're just a cultist in denial. That's all you are.
you still seem to think that i'm against markets. when i've already said that i'm not. need regulating mechanisms, just like the government, just like any human institution.
by the way, i'm also against the war on drugs, and the wars in the middle-east just as much as you are; but you didn't bother to ask me.
i'd also appreciate it if you didn't throw petty insults at me. it doesn't help anyone, and it makes you seem less credible.
@sum1unxpected YOU made the claim that you don't die when politicians make mistakes--or, at least, you're less likely to. That is LAUGHABLY wrong, and you deserved every single insult you got.
@sum1unxpected Unless you're in the Army. Also it wasn't that long ago that a bunch of veterans got Hepatitis from improperly cleaned equipment during colonoscopies.
@shanedk Them too. Of course a lot of them were probably at least registered for the draft. Then there are all the people that die in accidents on government roads.
@sum1unxpected Insurance companies don't kill grandma. Rising costs in health care do. In order to fix the problem you have to address the real problem which is rising costs due to too much manipulations, subsidization, employer based insurance, costly regulations, the AMA, and lack of market competition in health insurance due to govt created monopolies. But please explain to me how competition in insurance would be harmful to health care consumers? Monopolies are much worse.
@sum1unxpected Your precious government is a monopoly, and EVERY SINGLE part of the economy you want run by the government makes it a monopoly. Your precious GovCo got rid of every kind of health care funding other than insurance, put SEVERE limits on them to prevent competition, and now you want it to do even more. You want health care run like the DMV.
you start out with 20 billion dollars. if fifteen billion of that goes to the CEOs and stock holders of insurance companies and private health care providers, how much of it goes into treating sick people?
**jeopardy music**
"and we know what the public option is, probably a LOT better than you do"
@sum1unxpected If we were to assume that we don't understand the mechanism by which birds achieve flight, we could assume that some creatures are subject to gravity while others are not. Therefore, we can conclude that gravity is selective.
I know it's odd, but I'm using hyperbole to demonstrate a point.
@sum1unxpected Doesn't change the fact that the hyperbole is the ONLY way your argument might work, with the reality completely contradicting your example.
@sum1unxpected Because of high costs of health care, insurance companies profits are not as big as you may think. Putting a public option can easily put what is left of private insurers out of business because they can't compete with govt(which does not operate with supply/demand and is funded by force). What can happen is what has happened in education. Only rich and upper class will have private insurance and everyone else has to choose the public option. Basically leaving us with a monopoly.
Meh. I don't think health care really is a difficult topic to debate, although I have been having trouble with communicating my ideas to some individuals. For some reason whenever I debate someone it always ends up being a "Yes it does" "no it doesn't" "but yes it does" kind of debate. Is it just me or is this like every youtube debate that everyone has encountered?
Another outstanding video on this subject: /watch?v=eIba6_7Lw1s ("The US Doesn't Have a Free Market in Health Care (or Anything for that Matter)" by RaymondDundas)
Your video just made my day. Unfortunately, I'm doubtful that any real healthcare reform bills will be passed any time soon. The Republicans and Democrats are too busy fighting each other to focus on fixing problems their predecessors had created.
ShaneDK has been so publicly pwned on this topic. just look in related vids. He, like Glenn Beck, throws the word "socialist" around without even knowing what the definition is or what it means. He has been challenged to explain and has never responded. When someone brings up a typical point of the criminal practice of healthcare in america, he blames the government without explaining why. Yes Shane, you naive basement dweller...the corporations are innocent and free from blame. sure, cupcake..
@samcookes i agree completely. He thinks by shouting stuff that makes him right, also by blowing things incredibly out of proportion. For instance, right off the bat he thinks taxes are a crime. so any system that operates from taxes is a "ponze scheme" or a "racket" or a "criminal enterprise". But killing people by denying healthcoverage so you can maximize profits is just totally absolutely cool in his book.
@louiscaponecchia "For instance, right off the bat he thinks taxes are a crime. so any system that operates from taxes is a "ponze scheme""
Another of your COMPLETE LIES. You know perfectly well--because you COMMENTED ON THE VIDEO--that I showed in detail how Social Security works exactly like a Ponzi scam.
And people wonder why I call people like you dogmatists!
@shanedk well, i was referring more to your anti-healthcare videos. your social security video is a total lie though, and it is just your perception of how it works.
I'm glad you mentioned Canada, albeit briefly. Being government subsidized it is very expensive, though I have no numbers to determine how expensive comparatively to other countries.
piecharthosen 6 days ago
zEropoint68 has been blocked for Rule 5 AND 6 violations.
shanedk 1 week ago
Meaningful choices? What country do you think you're living in?
Arikiel 1 week ago
Hmmm.... so if the government could do this without any cost to them, why aren't they doing it already? Lobbying probably, right?
I must only add that i don't know much about american healthcare, but i've seen that movie "sicko" and it really didn't look good :)
We got universal health care here with the possibility of people getting supplemental insurance. Seems to work out pretty fine, nobody's going bankrupt because they weren't insured or things like that.
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n "so if the government could do this without any cost to them, why aren't they doing it already?"
Because THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU. Sorry to break it to you, but they don't. They care about power and money.
And "Sicko" was a pack of lies. Search here on YouTube for John Stossel confronting Michael Moore about it.
"Seems to work out pretty fine"
Except for all the debt and the hideous waiting lists...
shanedk 1 week ago 3
@shanedk Damn, how did you know about the waiting lists? :) You're good! Wouldn't say there's a big debt though, except for national debt but that seems to be high everywhere thesedays... Thanks i'll look up John Stossel too, i know Moore supposedly blew a few things out of proportions but it was scary. Oh and i know they don't really care about the people, no worries :P
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n "Wouldn't say there's a big debt though, except for national debt but that seems to be high everywhere thesedays... "
So what your saying is Shane was wrong except that he was right in every detail?
"i know Moore supposedly blew a few things out of proportions but it was scary"
I know Hitler blew a lot of things out of proportion about the Jews, but it was scary. Same logic as yours. Using a source that you claim you knew was lying is dishonest.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@johnrainrules Well i've found that show "Sick in America- Whose Body is it Anyway" and i'll watch it soon. Guess with journalists and investigators it's just whose word you're going to take... Moore had some personal stories too, can't be that they were all faked. That's what scared me about the american health insurance system.
If by saying debt Shane meant national debt, then i agree with him completely.
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n "Well i've found that show "Sick in America- Whose Body is it Anyway" and i'll watch it soon."
That's a good one, but he had a segment the week before that (this was on 20/20) where he confronts Moore directly, so that'd be a good one to watch, too.
"Personal stories" are also known as "anecdotes," and you can use them to make ANY system appear like the best or the worst in the world.
And yes, I meant national debt.
shanedk 1 week ago
Yeah... good point, personal stories aren't the most reliable source. But one can always investigate, and there are probably many people out there with positive or negative stories to tell about their governments, and their healthcare systems.
And yes, i've already watched that interview on 20/20, will watch that documentary soon too. See, that's why we ask questions, people like you usually have pretty good answers!
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n "Guess with journalists and investigators it's just whose word you're going to take.."
That's why I like source materials and people I've verified. One of the worst things you can do is take arguments from sources that are B.S. even if you agree with their conclusions. That goes for anything. I'm a Libertarian, but if another Libertarian uses a bunch of birther, truther, or moon hoaxer nonsense I don't use them as a source even if we both agree on a small gov't.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@johnrainrules Good good, wish people would treat me with more respect too, eventhough i support the venus project - doesn't mean i have to agree 100% with them either :P
Anyway, people can always investigate the claims of the journalists, and i agree, it's good that someone took a closer look at Moore too, even if his intentions are good.
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n "it's good that someone took a closer look at Moore too, even if his intentions are good."
His intentions aren't good. He's a propagandist willing to make absurd claims in order to get attention and make a quick buck. In this respect he is no different from Kent Hovind, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, or Alex Jones.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@johnrainrules LoL i in no way believe alex jones tells many true stories but he can't be that good of an actor, i think he genuinely means well :) Just like moore, and maybe even hovind... but yeah, you never know :P
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n When people are willing to lie to make their point it is a safe bet they don't mean well.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@johnrainrules I don't agree here. It's just that they choose the wrong means to reach an end, a goal that may be good. The means don't justify the ends though, even if the people meant well in the first place.
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n If they really felt they were right, then why would they resort to lying?
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk Well there always is the possibility that they thought they were saying the truth, just didn't verify their claims enough. Seems like something alex jones would do, but he seems like a honestly concerned guy.
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n Such a person would correct themselves when the facts are pointed out to them, and CERTAINLY not continue to make the same claim afterward.
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk Point well made, if one makes mistakes and is proven wrong they should admit it. I really can't wait to watch that short documentary, it's exam time though so i'll get to it eventually.
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n Its more than the wrong means. When people lie like that they are saying that their audience isn't smart enough to make their own decisions and need to be manipulated into doing the right thing. In this case that person was you.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@johnrainrules Well there always is the possibility that whatever person said something, thought they were saying the truth. Or were misunderstood.
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n "Well there always is the possibility that whatever person said something, thought they were saying the truth."
But you already said ""i know Moore supposedly blew a few things out of proportions but it was scary"
Blowing things out of proportion means they knew they were being untruthful.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@johnrainrules Heck, even Moore's own sources show it!
shanedk 1 week ago
@johnrainrules True, lying or overexaggerating to make one's points probably means just that! You must take into account though that... sadly, the great majority of the "broad audience" probably isn't smart enough. Just look at what republican candidates are the most popular right now and you'll know what i mean. But it is dishonest and wrong, one must be as factual as possible.
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n "You must take into account though that... sadly, the great majority of the "broad audience" probably isn't smart enough."
Since you used his work as a source does that apply to you?
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@johnrainrules No, i'm just not american and don't know your system at all so i have to depend on sources i have ;) And if you'll give me just a little more time i'll watch that other documentary that shane recommended to me and i'll get back to you then, deal? :P
Anonymous247n 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n My issue is with documentaries and other information sources that lie. As I stated earlier I don't care what their agenda is.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@Anonymous247n "Wouldn't say there's a big debt though"
I think the rioters disagree.
shanedk 1 week ago
I have a better idea. We kill all the sick people.
WonderfulDenmark 1 week ago
@WonderfulDenmark That seems to be the tactic of UHC...
shanedk 1 week ago
Allowing people other than the AMA to license doctors would produce the same result as privatising university accreditation, the creation of university-mills, with the equivalent being doctor-mills, just like where "Doctor" Kent Hovind went for his degree. I'd hate to be operated on by someone who got a shoddy medical education from a shack in Nevada then a license to perform surgery from an equivalent shack.
ReactionVideoDotAvi 1 week ago
@ReactionVideoDotAvi "I'd hate to be operated on by someone who got a shoddy medical education from a shack in Nevada then a license to perform surgery from an equivalent shack."
You REALLY wouldn't ask your doctor where he got his degree? Every doctor I've been to has his diploma hanging on the wall.
Why do you trust politicians so much?
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk I've been in a situation where I was in an accident and unconscious until I'd already been operated on, if I had feelings at the time, I'd be glad that the nearest hospital to the ambulance (where you are required to be taken) could only hire people who were definitely capable of doing so safely. The politicians don't chose the criteria for who is capable, the most competent doctors over the years do, and being recognised as a government body ensured strict compliance to them.
ReactionVideoDotAvi 1 week ago
@ReactionVideoDotAvi "The politicians don't chose the criteria for who is capable, the most competent doctors over the years do,"
No, the doctors with the most political connections do. Research the history: 100 years ago the licensing was going to either the allopaths or the homeopaths, and it was really a matter of luck that it went to the allopaths. It could just as easily have gone the other way--and could you imagine if it had?
shanedk 1 week ago
@ReactionVideoDotAvi No, this is just more Cult of the Omnipotent State nonsense: only government can license physicians, only government can pick good hospitals...no other group can do it, no other group can set standards and make certifications, only the holy psychic supernatural saints of government! (And we'll just ignore all the other cases where private organizations have done exactly that.)
Sing it with me now: Our gov is an awesome God...
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk I named an example of how privatising accreditation failed as it has with education, would you care to name a case where it's been successful instead of being so mocking? This is the first issue I've disagreed with you on, I've been civil and this is just not what I was expecting.
ReactionVideoDotAvi 1 week ago
@ReactionVideoDotAvi "I named an example of how privatising accreditation failed"
No, you didn't; you made what amounted to a paranoid assertion that contradicted history.
I mock ideas, not people. Everything else you said may have been good, but make a stupid argument and I mock it.
shanedk 1 week ago
@ReactionVideoDotAvi Oh, and I gave successful examples in the video.
shanedk 1 week ago
Nice one :)
dakshinamurti 1 month ago
@shanedk The building code for electrical service is the NEC, the National Electric Code. It is a federal program. UL was the one and only safety lab certified under the NEC for over 70 years, until MetLAB sued the US government to let them do the same stuff as UL. Find a MetLAB seal on your electrical devices.
You stated that the FDA should be privatized and run as the UL is run. You then state that the AMA monopoly is bad. UL has a monopoly. Your arguments are not consistent.
discoverybg31 1 month ago
@discoverybg31 The NEC NEVER EVER EVER had authority over every single electrical device on the market. The ONLY thing they EVER covered was wiring for certain types of buildings. YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP. You came up with irrelevant garbage and pretended it's relevant.
You're pwned and you know it. Stop making up shit.
shanedk 1 month ago
@discoverybg31 I'm sorry, I'm not just going to let this go at that: you went from UL having a "monopoly on testing for electrical safety" to just having a monopoly on electrical wiring in buildings for awhile. There is NO FUCKING WAY you could have looked that up, and read about Metlab's lawsuit on it, without knowing that this ONLY applied to electrical wiring, NOT a "monopoly on testing for electrical safety."
This is a CREATIONIST-LEVEL LIE.
shanedk 1 month ago
@discoverybg31 And, of course, when I actually look it up you got almost EVERY detail WRONG. It WASN'T the NEC, it was OSHA, and it WASN'T a monoply on UL; they recognized both UL and FMRC. The lawsuit was to remove all references to these TWO organizations and allow any comparable standards organization to apply. But an organization STILL has to be an OSHA-recognized NRTL to apply; they've just expanded the list of what's allowed.
You're pathetic.
shanedk 1 month ago
@discoverybg31 Aha, and here's the original wording (emphasis mine): "...accepted or certified, or listed, or labeled or otherwise determined to be safe, by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL), SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and Factory Mutual Corporation." So there was NEVER a monopoly in the first place.
Do you want to explain why you're not a pathetic LIAR?
shanedk 1 month ago
@discoverybg31 It also contradicts what Met says on their own website: "Originally, the company focused on testing high voltage electrical transmission and distribution systems.
In the 1970's, MET was among the first laboratories to perform EMI and telecommunications testing to the emerging FCC regulations.
In 1989, MET became the first Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) in the United States for testing and certifying products to UL safety standards.
(cont'd)
shanedk 1 month ago
"In 1992, MET changed its focus exclusively to testing and certification of electrical products - whether in the laboratory or at customer locations. Consequently, the name changed to the present MET Laboratories."
Pwned enough yet?
shanedk 1 month ago
Did you know, the government gave Underwriter's Laboratory a monopoly on testing for electrical safety? It wasn't until the last 10 years or less that ANY other lab was recognized to do the safety testing the would meet the building code.
So, you're own argument is refuted by one of your OTHER arguments.
discoverybg31 1 month ago
@discoverybg31 First of all, building codes are handled on a LOCAL level here, so there never was one nationwide monopoly on UL. Second, that wasn't until several DECADES after they formed. Third, government's do this all the time.
What you think this could possibly refute is beyond me.
shanedk 1 month ago
What? You want us to implement a free and competitive market? You mean that thing that is mathematically and experimentally proven to optimize scarce resource allocation for the maximal utility of everyone involved? F-that. I like paying obscene amounts of money for mediocre health. Government oversight makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
AntiCitizenX 1 month ago 7
When you where talking about your 5th point of Expand Health Savings Account. Did you look at Singapore's Medifund, which provides a safety net for those not able to otherwise afford healthcare? If not, could you give me a real world example of Expanded Health Savings Account? Thank you for your video.
longname25 1 month ago
Abolishing the Patent act would help a lot too, by reducing the cost of drugs and increasing competition.
erelpc 1 month ago
I will go on record as saying Canada's system is better then our current one. Just so I don't get any Canadians raging at me. But really you are right Shane, there is no reason not to try this. I wish us libertarians could have our own little place to try out are free market idea. Some kind of island or make a country out of a cruise ship. I guess for now Hong Kong is the most free market we got.
skeptictom818 3 months ago
I enjoyed this video, but I cannot say I'm completely convinced; however, I consider most of my views as tentative. I strongly care about the facts in these types of issues, but sometimes it is so difficult to figure out what is really going to work and what isn't because you have people who you assume are truthful coming at it from all different angles-- all of which state other approaches are wrong. The older I get, the more of a mess the world seems to be. It's overwhelming at times.
mjvoce 4 months ago
@mjvoce Thanks, and I get where you're coming from. But I think the big point is still: are there ANY good, rational, logical reasons for not at least trying this first?
shanedk 4 months ago
You make it sound so easy, and I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be. Those with pre-existing conditions would still be fucked. As far as health savings accounts, i don't know how that would work. Do you know how long it would take to save up to pay for that fucking hospital bill for surgery. I'm still paying off a 10,0000 dollar bill for surgery i had years ago. I think you are over simplifying the whole issue.
justjulie37 4 months ago
@justjulie37 Why don't you WATCH the video? You're talking about HSAs as they exist NOW--NOT as they would exist after the proposal I mentioned, which would mean the money in the HSAs would cover your insurance premiums and your deductibles. You wouldn't HAVE to use it to pay for the entire procedure!
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk First of all, you don't have to be rude about it. Not everyone can understand everything about your proposal. Secondly, How could you guarantee that these companies would cover everyone? meaning, that even if people had all these choices, what makes you think any company would want to cover someone with pre-existing conditions? Maybe I am not understanding everything that you are proposing, but I'm not confident that we can trust anyone to cover those most vulnerable
justjulie37 4 months ago
@justjulie37 For the same reason they covered it before: If they didn't, a competitor would. And if there were ANY profitable way for them to cover them today, they would.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk Sorry, I'm just not buying that. They have no reason to do so. You must have a lot more faith in the private sector than I do. I just put a link on your channel about an article I read this morning that sounds a lot like what you are proposing, and it just doesn't cover all the bases. Not sure if you can find the article though, it wouldn't let me put a link you could click on, so hopefully you can find it. As for Ron Paul supporting it, that definitely doesn't give me much confidence.
justjulie37 4 months ago
@justjulie37 It's not faith--it's HISTORICAL FACT!!! The ONLY reason they stopped was when government meddling made it too expensive to do so!
"As for Ron Paul supporting it, that definitely doesn't give me much confidence."
Thank you for showing yourself to be incredibly biased and dogmatic.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk I'm biased because I don't agree with you? Ok dude, whatever. I'm not going to argue with you. We will just have to agree to disagree then.
justjulie37 4 months ago
@justjulie37 No, you're biased because you evaluated a concept based solely on who agrees with it.
shanedk 4 months ago
Comment removed
AntiCitizenX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@justjulie37
"what makes you think any company would want to cover someone with pre-existing conditions?"
Covering a pre-existing condition is like asking an auto-insurance company to buy you a new car after having smashed it into a tree, but then not bothering to pay any premiums. The whole point of "insurance" is risk pooling, not handouts.
AntiCitizenX 1 month ago
3:10 "Hospitals would have to compete for your business" NO. NO. NONONONONO. NOHOHOHO.
Hospitals should not be a business anywhere in the world. A human life is worth more than almost any sane amount of money.
4:00 Health care isn't something you can just experiment with.
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins 1) Then you should REALLY be against UHC, because they have the costs AND rationing!
2) Well, then let's just shut down EVERY SINGLE PERSON DOING ACTUAL SCIENCE...Let's shut down EVERY clinical drug trial, EVERY test of a new medical device...geez...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk 1) There's a difference between UHC, basically a giant government-run insurance program, and "oh shit I'm in trouble but I can't afford it"
2) There's a difference between clinical trials and "Let's radically change the entire system, see what happens."
Do you have ANYTHING besides ridiculous analogies?
bobmuffins 6 months ago
@bobmuffins 1) False dichotomy which ONLY makes sense to dogmatists.
2) BLATANT strawman.
I'M not the one with the problem here.
shanedk 6 months ago
@bobmuffins Do you have ANYTHING besides worthless platitudes? And can you answer the question running throughout the video?
shanedk 6 months ago
My only concern with allowing more than one corporation giving out liceanses is that less qualified people may get through in greater numbers, not to say that it doesn't happen currently.
professornuclearbomb 8 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Actually, there'd be a lot less of that with multiple competing corporations.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Also wouldn't that mean the market will then get to decide how qualified doctors need to be rather than the government, which always at least has information problems making it very inefficient to determine?
sharperguy 7 months ago
@sharperguy There is no "the market." "The market" is us.
Look at how "the market" has decided--through companies such as UL--how to make sure the electronic products we buy are safe. That began before and without any government intervention whatsoever. To think that the government--which is merely a group of people--can do anything the rest of us can't is to submit to the Cult of the Omnipotent State.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Sorry I worded that ambiguously. I meant that the Government has information problems and hence the market would be able to more efficiently decide how qualified doctors would need to be, hence allowing more diversity and better price/quality.
sharperguy 7 months ago
@sharperguy Ah, I see.
Yes, no one has perfect information, but the more centralization you have, the less perfect your information is. Diversity is absolutely the solution here.
shanedk 7 months ago
Inter State Health Insurance Purchasing , Out Law Frivious Mal Practice Lawsuits . Why Would They Not Do This , Because Paliticians Are Lawyers , Insurance Agents and CROOKS . It Is Called , JOB SECURITY
tracycolorado 8 months ago
On good honest reason?
Human stupidity. Encouragement and expansion of demonstrably worthless or harmful medical "alternatives" for being cheap and easy profit making. While a UL sort of agency would be nice and would support better health care, I can also see so many snake oil salesmen taking advantage too, least til it settles and get's its pace.
Though in that same vein, I think that sort of evolutionary selection may be a good reason to encourage this plan as well.
dragonmatt5 9 months ago
@dragonmatt5 The reason that's happening is that they're exempt from the onerous regulations that real medicine has to go through. Without the regulatory burden adding upwards of 10 years and $1 billion or more, they have to be expensive and people have to jump through hoops to get them.
shanedk 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Isn't a libertarian commune a contradiction in terms?"
no, a commune is just a community of people living together. the Amish live in communes.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
do libertarians have any plans to star their own commune any time soon? i hope they do.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected Isn't a libertarian commune a contradiction in terms?
shanedk 9 months ago
I don't really know enough about this subject to really make a statement, except that it sure sounds like a good idea.
Applemangh 9 months ago
@yuriatayde
"I think it would be much easier to regulate scams and fraud then it is to regulate the entire system from price control to staff management. No system is perfect."
i agree. that's why we have democracy; so that citizens can (hopefully) act as a watchdog for the government.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@yuriatayde
i appreciate the civility in your reply, in contrast to many who engage in online discussions about economics.
i find your statement "profit in a free market system goes to those who do it right." to be somewhat naive, as it ignores the incentive for companies to exploit people in pursuit of profit.
although i'm not in favor of state socialism (as Shane insinuated) it seems necessary to impose some regulations on insurance companies in order to discourage fraud.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@yuriatayde Actually, I interpreted your comment that way at first as well, and I haven't been simultaneously arguing with about 4 other people on as many videos and topics.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@yuriatayde Another fucking LYING dogmatist. NO, that statement is ABSOLUTELY NOT CORRECT. and anyone even vaguely familiar with Econ 101 knows it--because those insurance companies will have to COMPETE ON PRICE as well as quality of service, something that has been robbed from the consumer by GovCo.
It's YOUR PRECIOUS GOVERNMENT that causes the big profits to go to them, and you dishonestly try and project that onto the free market--using nothing more than platitudes. Pathetic.
shanedk 9 months ago
1) At first I didn't get what I figured was a superman reference (the 'yellow sun' thing). I do know now that I asked Lord T Hawkeye a question that ended up answering it. :)
2) Something else that would also help the USA's health care system that wasn't mentioned here would be the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid.
Of course, as big a clusterfuck as those two are, it would probably take a least a whole 'nother video to get into the detail needed.
vspqbd 11 months ago
Comment removed
Nick4359 11 months ago
yeah, let's let insurance companies compete to see who can make the most money off your illness.
sum1unxpected 1 year ago
@sum1unxpected And THAT, my friends, is how you tell a political dogmatist. The Cult of the Omnipotent State is his god, and profit is his devil.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
projection...
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected Yes. You're projecting. Do you understand what's being said to you?
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected huh? Insurance companies don't make money off of your illness. They make money when your healthy! And why would government given monopolies to insurance companies be better then competing companies?
19TEC85 1 year ago
@19TEC85 He's a political dogmatist, a worshipper of the Cult of the Omnipotent State. To him, competition is big evil corporations fighting over you with you stuck helplessly in the middle, a poor innocent victim needing the Holy Government to ride in on a white horse and save you.
In reality, of course, competition means that YOU are in control, and the insurance companies have to work to make you happy and give you what you want.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"In reality, of course, competition means that YOU are in control, and the insurance companies have to work to make you happy and give you what you want."
LOL ^_^
cute
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected Otherwise, they don't get paid. There is nothing about healthcare and insurance markets that makes them in any way different from other market. The only way you could believe otherwise would be if you felt that anybody who pursued a profit was inherently evil and desired to do you harm, which is delusional on top of being just plain wrong.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@Virgil0211
markets are great, as long as they have regulatory mechanisms. otherwise companies are forced to exploit people in order to stay competitive. that's how markets work.
if you're an honest businessman who's competing with another business that exploits people for profit with impunity, you're going to end up having to exploit people just to stay competitive.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected "markets are great, as long as they have regulatory mechanisms."
And, of course, only your wonderful government can provide those mechanisms. All hail the Cult of the Omnipotent State!
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
who said anything about an omnipotent state? libertarianism isn't the only alternative to totalitarianism.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected The Cult of the Omnipotent State refers to the assertion that government--which ultimately is just a group of people--can accomplish things that no other group of people can, meaning they suddenly possess supernatural abilities.
shanedk 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected
"if you're an honest businessman who's competing with another business that exploits people for profit with impunity, you're going to end up having to exploit people just to stay competitive."
No, IDIOT, because I'll have a much more talented pool of people to choose from--who don't WANT to be exploited and can demand better.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
"No, IDIOT, because I'll have a much more talented pool of people to choose from--who don't WANT to be exploited and can demand better."
you're assuming that there is perfect information available for you to make the most rational economic choice at any given instant (like a game of chess). market are never that transparent, end even of they were, individuals simply don't have enough time to investigate every single company they buy things from.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected "you're assuming that there is perfect information available"
I REALLY feel like smacking every economic retard that says this. Look up Wisdom of Crowds. You do NOT need "perfect information." You only need to NOT fuck around with what people want to do.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
i know what the wisdom of crowds is.
"You do NOT need "perfect information." You only need to NOT fuck around with what people want to do."
you're arguing against the premise that perfect information is necessary to prevent fraud and exploitation in an unregulated free market by assuming your conclusion "You only need to NOT fuck around with what people want to do."
this is circular reasoning.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected "in an unregulated free market"
See? There you go again! It's either government regulation, or completely unregulated--in complete contradiction with the facts.
And no, it's NOT circular in ANY way. Your arguments get more and more desperate as time goes on.
shanedk 9 months ago
@19TEC85 Are you KIDDING? Insurance companies gouge the hell out of sick people.
zamfir1970 11 months ago
@zamfir1970 That's because it costs much more to insure sick people. They don't make more money simply because you become more sick, that's expensive. They would make much more if you pay the premium and never get sick. So, still, the same problem remains. Health care costs are too high because of the anti-free market system we're forced into.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "That's because it costs much more to insure sick people."
Only when corporatism artificially inflates the price.
shanedk 11 months ago
@zamfir1970 That wasn't the case before government started meddling. It's corporatism that does that.
shanedk 11 months ago
@19TEC85
"huh? Insurance companies don't make money off of your illness. They make money when your healthy!"
yes, they make money when you're healthy as long as they can weasel out of denying you coverage when you get sick. the more they deny coverage, the more money they make.
it's cheaper for an insurance company to kill grandma than it is to treat her leukemia.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected Same with the government. You ever wonder why the survival rate for diseases like cancer and heart disease is higher in America than in places like the UK? Why do people die on waiting lists in Canada waiting for simple heart procedures?
Competition is what keeps this from happening. More competition, less corruption. In America, competition is greatly reduced. In UHC countries, it's almost entirely eliminated.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@Virgil0211
i wouldn't get ahead of yourself. survival rates for cancer are just as good in Canada as they are in the US; and Canadians spend about half as much on health care as Americans due to socialized medicine.
also, there is a fundamental difference between buying health insurance and other free market enterprises. when you're buying health insurance, you're essentially buying the promise that the company will help you when you need it, and their incentive is to break that promise.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected "when you're buying health insurance, you're essentially buying the promise that the company will help you when you need it, and their incentive is to break that promise."
How is that any different from car insurance, or a stock annuity, or any club membership?
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
"How is that any different from car insurance, or a stock annuity, or any club membership?"
a. a car isn't a family member. b. not everyone needs auto insurance. c. auto insurance is fucked up.
i think health-care should be run more like tap water than like auto insurance, because everyone needs it. and you can always buy bottled water if you think it's better.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected "a. a car isn't a family member." Irrelevant emotional platitude.
"b. not everyone needs auto insurance." Not everyone needed health insurance, either, before your precious GovCo stepped in.
"c. auto insurance is fucked up." Wasn't for me. Totally saved my ass. Even when the drunk that hit me was uninsured.
shanedk 9 months ago 6
@shanedk
the fact that people will spend practically any amount of money to save the life of a family member and not their car is highly relevant.
not everyone needs health insurance? yeah, rich people don't, but everyone needs health-care and most Americans can't afford it without insurance.
and i'm glad that auto insurance worked out for you. a lot of people get ripped off.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected "the fact that people will spend practically any amount of money to save the life of a family member and not their car is highly relevant."
No, it's not, because with insurance, THEY'RE NOT THE ONES PAYING FOR IT!!! Idiot.
"not everyone needs health insurance?" NeedED, you misquoting liar. And it was PRIMARILY the poor that used other options. Your precious GovCo "regulating" insurance TOOK THOSE OPTIONS AWAY FROM THE POOR.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
"[insert thing about auto insurance here]"
It'd probably be less a pain if it wasn't state mandated, among other things.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd What are you talking about? Without the wonderful saints in government mandating auto insurance, the guy who hit us might have been uninsured!
Oh, wait...
shanedk 6 months ago
@sum1unxpected "when your buying health insurance, you're essentially buying the promise that the company will help you when you need it, and their incentive is to break that promise"
Good thing that never happens in the political sector.
johnrainrules 9 months ago
@johnrainrules "Good thing that never happens in the political sector."
yes, it happens quite frequently in the political sector. but when a politician breaks a promise, you usually don't die.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected WHAT???? When it's broken by a politician, you're MORE LIKELY to die! MUCH more likely!!!
You're either smoking something, or you're the absolute biggest dogmatist I've ever seen!
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
seriously?
how many times have your politicians broken promises? thousands. how many times have you died? hopefully none.
try asking for clarification more.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected Well, what kind of stupid fucking moronic argument is that from your pathetic dogmatist mind??? How many times have YOU died from this vicious free market? ALSO NONE!!!
Yet I can point you to THOUSANDS that died in pointless wars, MILLIONS who have died from being denied life-saving products, and that's just the beginning! It's not even getting into policies like the War on Drugs!
You're just a cultist in denial. That's all you are.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
you still seem to think that i'm against markets. when i've already said that i'm not. need regulating mechanisms, just like the government, just like any human institution.
by the way, i'm also against the war on drugs, and the wars in the middle-east just as much as you are; but you didn't bother to ask me.
i'd also appreciate it if you didn't throw petty insults at me. it doesn't help anyone, and it makes you seem less credible.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected "need regulating mechanisms"
Which means you're a dogmatist. It's a false dichotomy. The market can and does regulate itself, all day, every day.
shanedk 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected YOU made the claim that you don't die when politicians make mistakes--or, at least, you're less likely to. That is LAUGHABLY wrong, and you deserved every single insult you got.
shanedk 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected Unless you're in the Army. Also it wasn't that long ago that a bunch of veterans got Hepatitis from improperly cleaned equipment during colonoscopies.
johnrainrules 9 months ago
@johnrainrules "Unless you're in the Army."
Were the 4 MILLION people killed by FDA delays in the Army?
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Them too. Of course a lot of them were probably at least registered for the draft. Then there are all the people that die in accidents on government roads.
johnrainrules 9 months ago
@johnrainrules As opposed to the incredible lengths owners of private roads go to in order to prevent accidents.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
Now you've done it!
Now the statists whing, "but without government who will build the roads" will accuse you of being a Scientologist!
vspqbd 9 months ago
@shanedk *whining
vspqbd 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected Insurance companies don't kill grandma. Rising costs in health care do. In order to fix the problem you have to address the real problem which is rising costs due to too much manipulations, subsidization, employer based insurance, costly regulations, the AMA, and lack of market competition in health insurance due to govt created monopolies. But please explain to me how competition in insurance would be harmful to health care consumers? Monopolies are much worse.
19TEC85 9 months ago
@19TEC85 Socialists are amazing, huh? Monopolies are horrible--except when it's THEIR monopolies.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
who said anything about monopolies?
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected Your precious government is a monopoly, and EVERY SINGLE part of the economy you want run by the government makes it a monopoly. Your precious GovCo got rid of every kind of health care funding other than insurance, put SEVERE limits on them to prevent competition, and now you want it to do even more. You want health care run like the DMV.
shanedk 9 months ago
@19TEC85
"Insurance companies don't kill grandma. Rising costs in health care do."
yes, insurance companies raise health care costs in order to reap huge profits for their stock holders.
i'm all for competition in health care, that's why i think having a public option in health care makes more sense than running a government monopoly.
before replying to this comment, please research what a public-option is, so i don't have to refute your misconceptions of it.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected "yes, insurance companies raise health care costs in order to reap huge profits for their stock holders."
WHAT??? How does that even make ANY sense??? If they raise health care costs, they make LESS profits! BECAUSE THEIR COSTS ARE GREATER!!!
Geez, talk about a Basic Math Fail...
Oh, and we know what the public option is, probably a LOT better than you do.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
math fail?
you start out with 20 billion dollars. if fifteen billion of that goes to the CEOs and stock holders of insurance companies and private health care providers, how much of it goes into treating sick people?
**jeopardy music**
"and we know what the public option is, probably a LOT better than you do"
it doesn't seem like you do.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected "you start out with 20 billion dollars. if fifteen billion of that goes to the CEOs and stock holders of insurance companies"
It DOESN'T, LIAR. NO industry has a profit margin that high. Health insurance profits are less than 4%, even for the big players!
"it doesn't seem like you do."
No, your cultist mind just won't allow you to see it.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
i know, i was using hyperbole to illustrate a point.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected If we were to assume that we don't understand the mechanism by which birds achieve flight, we could assume that some creatures are subject to gravity while others are not. Therefore, we can conclude that gravity is selective.
I know it's odd, but I'm using hyperbole to demonstrate a point.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@Virgil0211
your hyperbole is based on an argument from ignorance. mine isn't.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected Doesn't change the fact that the hyperbole is the ONLY way your argument might work, with the reality completely contradicting your example.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@Virgil0211
"the hyperbole is the ONLY way your argument might work, with the reality completely contradicting your example."
it doesn't, because we don't live in an unregulated free market.
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected If you have to use hyperbole to illustrate a point, then you don't have a valid point.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
lol, a hyperbole is just a literary device, like an analogy, which is analogous to a simile ^_^
sum1unxpected 9 months ago
@sum1unxpected Because of high costs of health care, insurance companies profits are not as big as you may think. Putting a public option can easily put what is left of private insurers out of business because they can't compete with govt(which does not operate with supply/demand and is funded by force). What can happen is what has happened in education. Only rich and upper class will have private insurance and everyone else has to choose the public option. Basically leaving us with a monopoly.
19TEC85 9 months ago
Meh. I don't think health care really is a difficult topic to debate, although I have been having trouble with communicating my ideas to some individuals. For some reason whenever I debate someone it always ends up being a "Yes it does" "no it doesn't" "but yes it does" kind of debate. Is it just me or is this like every youtube debate that everyone has encountered?
Maybe I should just go back to trolling.
mike19371937 1 year ago
What are your thoughts on another conflict in the Korean peninsula?
Do you know that the Korean war never actually ended? It was only a cease-fire, for 57 years by now.
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1
Well, what do you think?
Are you giving me the silent treatment again?
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 Why even talk about the Korean peninsula? Its just more stupid international drama and dick waving.
mike19371937 1 year ago
Is it true that Obama wants to tax the top 2 % at 100 % income tax?
rebelq1 1 year ago
Comment removed
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 Not that I've heard of. I don't think even he'd be THAT stupid!
shanedk 1 year ago 5
Another outstanding video on this subject: /watch?v=eIba6_7Lw1s ("The US Doesn't Have a Free Market in Health Care (or Anything for that Matter)" by RaymondDundas)
vspqbd 1 year ago
Your video just made my day. Unfortunately, I'm doubtful that any real healthcare reform bills will be passed any time soon. The Republicans and Democrats are too busy fighting each other to focus on fixing problems their predecessors had created.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago
The last line of your video really says it all:
"Let's take our health care back from the profit-mongers--both in corporations AND in government."
vspqbd 1 year ago 13
ShaneDK has been so publicly pwned on this topic. just look in related vids. He, like Glenn Beck, throws the word "socialist" around without even knowing what the definition is or what it means. He has been challenged to explain and has never responded. When someone brings up a typical point of the criminal practice of healthcare in america, he blames the government without explaining why. Yes Shane, you naive basement dweller...the corporations are innocent and free from blame. sure, cupcake..
samcookes 1 year ago
@samcookes i agree completely. He thinks by shouting stuff that makes him right, also by blowing things incredibly out of proportion. For instance, right off the bat he thinks taxes are a crime. so any system that operates from taxes is a "ponze scheme" or a "racket" or a "criminal enterprise". But killing people by denying healthcoverage so you can maximize profits is just totally absolutely cool in his book.
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia "For instance, right off the bat he thinks taxes are a crime. so any system that operates from taxes is a "ponze scheme""
Another of your COMPLETE LIES. You know perfectly well--because you COMMENTED ON THE VIDEO--that I showed in detail how Social Security works exactly like a Ponzi scam.
And people wonder why I call people like you dogmatists!
shanedk 1 year ago 3
@shanedk well, i was referring more to your anti-healthcare videos. your social security video is a total lie though, and it is just your perception of how it works.
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia And yet, all you can do is make baseless accusations, without even TRYING to back them up.
Pathetic.
shanedk 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia
"I was referring more to your anti-healthcare videos"
Shane is anti Socialized Medicine, not "anti-healthcare".
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd whats the difference?
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia
Seriously?...
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Yes, he's serious. That's the dogmatist mindset--what it means to be a cultist. Haven't you learned that by now?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"Haven't you learned that by now?"
Of course I have.
I just figured he was a Poe.
I mean, what he said was the economic equivalent of saying that the Earth is flat with four corners.
vspqbd 1 year ago