Look at swedens health care system. Its free, its for everybody and it is very very good. I guess thats because we feel that it is absurd to even consider health care a privilege; the fact that its a right goes deep down in our society. And sweden has, compared to other European countries, gone throught the economy crisis with ease. Socialism does work; we are an extreme good example. Sweden is much smaller than USA, but it is far from impossible to start with small changes in some states.
Today Youtube has a "talk to the President" sort of commenting going on today on the main page and I was very happy to see this used as a reference to a comment. :D
Yeah socialized medicine is great, good for everyday, here in Britain i think it's fantastic. The thing about Britain is we don't have national debt 7x our revenue and an economy that only avoided a crisis by pumping trillions of dollars that you don't have in to the economy. Now is not the time for increased government entitlements that you can't afford. Coming from Europe i think a nationalized health service is great, but unlike u guys most of our countries can afford it. sorry democrats
@3ssay All I said was that National Healthcare has been implemented and succeeded in desperate times before. I never said that desperate times were outright required and even then it doesn't have to be as a result of war.
I liked the video, completely agreeing with the socialism comment. Gov run programs are inherently more efficient than the pig. I know hard to believe right? 19% admin costs for private insurers to reject claims make the pig fat, lazy and completely unhealthy for us.
As a Canadian who has watched friends in the USA be bankrupted over things like gallbladder surgery . Something that I would get done for free in Canada. I find the USA to be pretty despicable.
I'm a Canadian and the way Americans treat their sick disgusts me.
@FangsUpCobraFans Because a lot of hospitals exploit patients with good insurance to make money off said insurance through extra unnecessary procedures. Also, lazy doctors or interns will order many expensive and painful tests instead of putting in a little extra mental effort to figure out what is wrong with a patient.
(Not all doctors and hospitals, of course, but some, and it's a huge problem.)
@annaslater11 But what laws could be passed that would limit the unnecessary procedures and not the necessary ones? I would rather we have too much than too little.
@FangsUpCobraFans I understand the worry and share it to a certain extent, but if the insurance agencies are smaller and closer to the patients (and less worried about money hopefully) then they will control these things.
@FangsUpCobraFans In a perfect world they won't be... obviously we don't live in a perfect world, but more likely there will be some sort of monitoring system that will keep it in check.
"We must pass the Bill so we can read it!" Nancy Pelosi The USA is a Constitutional Republic. Can you show me where in the Constitution the government has the authority to force the people to buy insurance? Pay tax on income? Make laws against free speech? Take personal property without a trial? Make laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms? Right to peaceably assemble? Right to privacy?
For anyone in the MEDICAL PROFESSION to lie cheat or steal from their patients, or fraudulently prescribe/over-medicate, practice surgery or any other non-realistic application of medical treatment to ANY HUMAN BEING...is not only mal-practice but is also comparable to any crime dubbed "HEINOUS"
Sorry to have to say this, but those guilty of such evil, will soon realize, its only a matter of time before PAY BACK! as the laws of the universe dictate
I really think that you Americans should have socialized medicine. We have health insurances in Sweden, but if anyone gets hurt or sick, they are getting treatment. The same treatment as anyone else who have an insurance. The insurance gets you money if you get sick (not a cold or something like that, really serious things that you need a doctor to cure) AND treatment, uninsuranced only gives you treatment. We pay a health care tax to the government, but if you stopped making pennies you would..
@Narglesonamistletoe save SOOO much money. Pennies cost 2 cents to make. And nickels cost 7 cents. If you eliminated the penny and the nickel, people wouldn't have to pay money to make something so incredibly useless, and then could afford to pay health care taxes which would give everyone a good treatment. Americans pay billions of dollars to make something that not many places would accept. Once I tried to buy a magazine with pennies. The seller only said: "Get some real money".
@Narglesonamistletoe You need to have a way to break down a dollar, if we didn't, then we'd just boost everything up so that dollars can take the place of pennies and that would be the same situation. The only way to eliminate change and still be able to break down a dollar, since we HAVE to have a minimum, is to establish credit so change can exist solely on a card, which would need an entirely new department to manage. There are no magic quick fixes. It all takes work and costs a ton.
@JakeV5 It doesn't matter if prices have to be rounded up, though, because for all the products that cost the extra change, the businesses of consumers will experience the same benefit, thus being able to pay their employees the money to compensate for products that cost more.
You are a complete idiot. Young men and women dying to protect our country is honorable, they are putting their lives on the line so 'gentlemen' like yourself can run their mouths.
Your idea again is to have sick people not receive medical attention, leading to potential death, because it may cost other members of the community. If you had to chose between someone dying and debt, you would chose their death. You are a despicable person who sees the world in green, red and black.
@UnionPerfectMore Remember what you said, you stated this country does not have any concept of things for the greater good. My point was to show you how this country was built on that very concept.
As for my plan, you still have it wrong. I am providing care to all. Your plan is to provide excessive care to all for say about 20 years and then you will provide care to none. Your plan is the only one that will not give care to everyone. Get it straight.
@814tc Again with the 'Your Plan' accusation. I have not put forth a plan, this video has laid out John Green's thoughts of the healthcare bill. I happen to think that even as bad as the healthcare bill came out, it is still better than your plan.
You put forth a plan. I did not.
Did you catch that. I don't think that this healthcare bill great. But we both agree that what was happening was not working.
Or did you come up with a plan because you thought everything was great?
@UnionPerfectMore So now you say you have no plan, that's perfect! You would fit nicely into every other politician. You have said that you would provide unlimited care to all as you criticized unwittingly that mine did not, that is a plan. Just because you cannot own up to the moronic nature of that plan, doesn't mean you did not put it forth.
Never claimed to have a plan to solve healthcare in this country.
Not a politician.
Never said I would provide unlimited care, I said humans would not stand by and watch fellow humans die because they did not have money while services were readily available. This is not a plan, this is stating human decency which your plan neglects to include. It is simply a critique of your lame, "the only way to fix healthcare, is to change the way people feel about others dieing needlessly" plan.
@UnionPerfectMore Then you are wrong. The healthcare bill is not better than the plan I provided as it does not encourage cost reduction, it does not increase provider accountability and it does not increase patient accountability. All three are necessary to fix the system. I made very clear throughout my posts that both D's and R's have this wrong, something had to be done, but the passed healthcare legislation is worse than what we had.
@UnionPerfectMore They removed your post. You must have been somewhat nasty. No place for that in an intelligent debate, but perhaps that is where you are at a disadvantage.
Companies are not able to collect taxes, the government is.
Companies are able to charge extra insurance.
See the difference.
Again, because you are dense..
I think taxing junk food, tobacco, alcohol is not a bad idea. This means that i think your first idea extra insurance sucks, but your second idea of taxing things that could kill you, is better.
@UnionPerfectMore Who said anything about private companies, we are talking about a solution with a government provided healthcare. So you reinforced my point that the government can collect the money for the extra health care costs via "sin" taxes. The only thing my plan says is that we need to collect more from those who are not taking personal responsibility. (Taxes or a type of catestrophic insurance policy results in the same costs to these individuals but still feeds my plan perfectly.)
How is a gov run healthcare not the socialized medicine you have been ranting so fearfully of!!!!! That why I assume you mean private companies would be running healthcare. Could you make up your mind.
And because you are SOOOOOOOOOOO dense
I said I liked your idea of taxing hazardous products. For the THIRD time. Are you too pompous to get that?
@UnionPerfectMore I have been very clear if you would care to read. But that is challenging for someone in your IQ bracket. You are at least correct that you "assumed" but again, don't rely on your intelligence as you are extremely lacking.
I also like my idea of covering costs for the extra insurance needed for obesity, smoking, alcoholism, etc. The problem is you seem to be too stupid to understand that the money is paying for the extra insurance which is what I proposed from the start.
@UnionPerfectMore If you were too stupid to understand the plan, then you should not have commented. I am not anti-govt healthcare (you still think you have me pegged as a R), but I do not agree with govt healthcare as passed and not as proposed.
To be clear, you have not spent time explaining failings, rather you have completely explained your inability to comprehend. I do get it, you do not understand even the most basic concepts.
@UnionPerfectMore It is same idea, just different ways to collect the money. Either way you are collecting from those who are costing the heatlhcare system more. The fact you cannot see that might mean I have given you too much credit for your intelligence in the past.
@UnionPerfectMore It is the same idea, just different ways to collect the money. Either way you are collecting from those who are costing the heatlhcare system more. The fact you cannot see that might mean I have given you too much credit for your intelligence in the past.
So you are left with obese folks, step on the scale if you dare. This is why your plan sucks. It took a lot words to express the many reasons you are wrong, and your insults just help emotion bubble to the top.
@UnionPerfectMore Unfortunately, you do not understand healthcare. You are not alone, D's & R's do not understand healthcare either. Just because you cannot see what the future would hold under either the D or R plan, that does not mean that future is incorrect. Your plan is to have people have full coverage for the next 20 years and then give no one coverage after that. That is your future - give no care to anyone. That is actually worse than what we have now.
If your plan were law no one would tell their doctor or any health care provider that they smoke or drink, the medical field would experience a crush of cases of lung and throat cancer in non smoking victims (second hand smoke maybe?). Your plan would get drunk drivers in accidents or other instances when a Blood Alcohol Content could be measured, but try not to have our legal system invade privacy by sharing that with healthcare corporations.
@UnionPerfectMore Okay, this post was just to be funny right? You have no logic, no basis and a very poor sense of humor. I think you have been at this too long.
Your solutions 2 and 3 I believe are in the current legislation, or at least an earlier iteration of it. Your 4th solution is your feeble attempt to change humanity, to make it acceptable for us to watch our fellow citizens die ‘for the greater good,’ by the way, that is socialism that word that frightens you so. Give me a break.
@UnionPerfectMore Do you have respect for veterans who died in WWI/WWII? I ask because they died for the greater good, our freedom. In fact, our entire country was built on the premise - individuals were willing to die for the greater good. You would cast aside the very core of this nation. Our society is soft, expecting everything to be handed to us. Our great grand parents would shudder to think of what people expect should be given to them. Nothing has to be earned anymore.
Reviewing your comments, yes all of them even your plan and the video, I see you have 5 point solution 2 of which are exactly what I said they were, a way to let poor people die and that is not going to happen in a civilized nation. Your ‘solutions’ 1 and 5 just don’t work because you assume people can pay when they may not be able to or that they have family that can, your biggest flaw is your ‘solutions’ failure to deal with, in a humane manner, those that can’t afford extra.
@UnionPerfectMore You fail to see choice and therefore fail to see the big picture. The only way to distribute a limited amount of resources for an indefinite period of time is to have some system to not pay for everything. I chose to draw the line at personal responsibility. Perhaps instead of extra insurance payments, you just tax the heck out of soda, candies, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. and use this money to pay for the extra care. Either way, it still fits my solution.
Again insults first no proof later. I never said that the healthcare bill will solve all our problems. I did say your plan sucks. The people of this country, you aside, would not stand by and watch their fellow Americans die waiting for medical care. This is the major failure of your system, and is worse than so called Death Panels because your plan is show me the money or die.
@UnionPerfectMore Then you have failed to understand the plan and fail to understand the other proposed plans. The preferred D plan would eventually run out of money which means care for everyone the first 10-20 years and then care for no one after 20 years. The preferred R plan would become care for the rich only as insurance continues to skyrocket and people are forced to pay more out of pocket. My plan is a balance - care for all with focus on responsiblity (self and health providers).
The absence of John making a point doesn’t make it a mistake, the title is “Health Care Overhaul (Summarized Via Massive Pig), not Health Care Overhaul The Complete Discussion. Besides that, your statement if flat out wrong, all healthcare in this country is subsidized, so while the gov. does not pay a bill for the cost of the procedure it certainly funds hospitals in some way.
@UnionPerfectMore John actually does make the point by stating government "negotiates" the prices they pay. This is not true, governments set the prices - no negotiation involved. Because he fails to see this, he naturally fails to realize what happens when a company's cost are not covered - they can either close business or they can find cheaper methods. Some will choose one path some will choose the other.
John does not advocate for a purely socialist system, in fact few Americans would. In your example above the choice would be for both save the premature child and vaccinate the children. Back to that ‘right’ thing, as a society we can’t watch someone die.
@UnionPerfectMore He really does advocate for a purely social system. As he points out, the government would set lower costs that no insurance could set. This will drive those insurance companies out of business. What you will see pop up though is some boutique healthcare organizations that are designed for the rich (this happened in Hong Kong's healthcare system which I reviewed and visited a few years ago). These are pay for service (no insurance, so only rich.)
Scheduling is absolutely a way to limit care. Your example makes it seem as though you agree with this ‘mistake,’ doing a hip replacement only to have the patient die shortly thereafter is wasteful, you even said it was uncalled for. If you could tell me your source for the 80 yo waiting one year i would like to see it. I believe in The U.S. Healthcare System in International Context: an example of twice as long wait time 6-8 weeks instead of 3-4 weeks was given.
@UnionPerfectMore The source was at a Canadian Healthcare Conference. The speaker was Canadian but I do not recall the healthcare title he held. The real difficulty in U.S. society is to convince people that sometimes a person should not receive care. Yes. I feel that we need to make that decision more often than we do now (which is never).
The “right” to healthcare” I believe humans should have the right to be cared for, if someone is dying we as a society can’t stand by and watch them die. That is what John meant by ‘right’ and he even said it could bankrupt you. This isn’t a mistake in the video, it sounds like the mistake you point out is with the public belief of perfect health.
@UnionPerfectMore Absolutely! The public in general believes the right equates to perfect health. If we cannot change that, then any healthcare system in our country will fail. (I am glad we have a solid agreement as I have appreciated our conversation on these items.)
True the Gov sets reimbursements, often lower than what a Doctor would charge. However Insurance companies do exactly the same thing. Lower than ‘cost’ is relative to where services are received, if doctors were actually losing money by seeing these Medi patients they can stop being a provider.
@UnionPerfectMore I do want to be polite in this, but your response shows you have not worked in healthcare. Government payments do not cover the cost of many procedures (I cannot say all but most). That means it doesn't cover what the hospital pays physicians, pays benefits, pays for supplies, etc. Hospitals by law cannot turn away medicare patients unless they prove they already serve a high enough percent of the medicare population.
I looked into this claim, while it is true that plastic surgery and other elective procedures are included in 16% of GDP going to healthcare, I only found a Forbes Mag article that even brought it up. So to call the ‘vain’ procedures significant is pure postulation, but may deserve a deeper look.
@LovableKarlMarx you realize Obama is liberal correct? and so are the majority of the new healthcare's supporters as well right? what resistance? liberals have power in the house, not conservatives. so what resistance are you talking about? i think youre a fucking idiot that gets too excited on stupid hype. go be a revolutionist in mexico and get shot please
@UnionPerfectMore based on what @814tc proposed and the debate that the two of you are having, I would have to AGREE with 814tc. You failed to see his point and have avoided certain questions yet u were able to ask questions that were out of context.
The money that the govt is using to pay Social Security to retirees is our CURRENT money taken from the taxes that WE are paying. The same applies to healthcare. We are currently paying for people who does not have insurance and most of them abuse
How does Health Care FAIRNESS and The public option would "cut down on the number of procedures used" go together ??!!? The US has the best Health Care System because of the procedures. And your telling me we should be happy about less CATHS, EGDs, ERCPs, Colonoscopy's, HIDA scans, Hip replacements, spinal fusions etc?
@FangsUpCobraFans since when are americans selfless? you mean when are we selfish? do you know how many aid campaigns around the world America is funding or running, or americans are leading?
@814tc I don't believe that the current law is socialized medicine how even the Democrats would want it. Do you forget that Rs in Congress didn't let anything but the most watered down version of the bill get to a vote. I seem to remember a Healthcare Summit where Republicans could only say scrap it, after how many months, at least you have an idea, put it forward debate it, figure something out. At least you admit that whats been happening ain't working.
@UnionPerfectMore You cannot avoid that the video here is a democrats view. I am not however a republican in the heatlhcare debate. A purely capitalist market does not work for healthcare either. As you can see (if you would read) my entire solution has elements of both - personal responsibility, hospital responsibility, care for all (with certain caps), and overall a sustainable system. Nothing either party has presented is sustainable.
@814tc Democrats view presented to idiots who scream "this is socialized medicine!" Glad you agree purely capitalist market wouldn't work. New game, name a purely capitalist market? Healthcare? No. Farming? No. Auto industry? No. Banking? No. Give me a break capitalism only works because the guys at the top get an advantage over those that work for them.
Not going to read you whole inflammatory, let the people die, solution.
@UnionPerfectMore So you do not want to have an intelligent debate of how to improve healthcare. Perhaps I was asking too much. You acknowledge you have not read the whole solution I proposed, You also seem to be ranting the same things and not responding to my comments. Your proposed system is let those who need healthcare now get it through participation in the government plan and let those of the next generation not receive healthcare. (That's how social security is going to work.)
@UnionPerfectMore One more thing, I don't like that what I have proposed has to be the fix, but it does. We have left the system go to long without answering questions (just like social security). We need to make tough choice (extremely tough), but weak-spined individuals like you who think the world is filled with rainbows will never be able to make decisions required. Some of what I propose actually harms me and family members I have but it still must be done.
@814tc Just because you think you have liberals pegged, doesn't mean we are all Hippies. Turning people away because they don't have money is just cruel. My spine strength comes from my generosity. I would happily give a little more to "promote the general welfare" of my fellow citizens. How about you grow a spine and give a little of your money to those family members you want to turn to the curb.
@UnionPerfectMore I am also very surprised that you seem to be fine with the next generation not getting healthcare for the sake of yourself. That is extremely selfish on your part. The one thing I am not is selfish when it comes to these government programs. (You would love to see how I would solve social security, a lot of tough decisions there too. Again, you wouldn't have the spine to make them, you would just let the system die a slow death.)
@UnionPerfectMore The key is neither party - democrat or republicans have the solution. Neither party understands healthcare and the cost drivers of healthcare. Both parties would have you believe bandaid solutions will work. Both parties are wrong! A wise person once said when you have a great problem, you cannot apporach it with the same thinking that caused the problem in the first place. The political parties and you are doing just that. What a pity you don't see the big picture.
@814tc I embrace personal responsibility, however I don't believe we can require everyone to embrace it. I'm going to assume you have never known a working poor person before because you blow off my question and continue to assume that anyone should be able to pay a little more. Math for u $9*40*4=$1440/mo. Have you thought about living on that? how much extra is your extra? I get your free market point, it might work if Min Wage was doubled.
@UnionPerfectMore You absolutely contradicted yourself, that is an indication of how strong your argument is. Also, it seems fitting I ignore your question seeing you are ignoring 80% of my solution (i.e. your focusing on one item). The fact that I grew up and still have a fair amount of family who would classify as working poor doesn't validate or invalidate my proposal. How about you, do you have nearly 20 years of healthcare experience in the U.S. and around the world?
@814tc Contradicted? A debate is when ideas are brought to the table and discussed. Saying lets start over is counter productive = less than worthless.
You would let a fair amount of your family perish on hospital steps because they couldn't pay for extra services. I'm sure a "fair amount" of them are obese, smoke or drink.
And Doogie Howser, if you were in the Med field at 18 i would be impressed. Sorry I had another decade of school to go through.
@814tc I am impressed that you openly admit you want poor obese people to die. Lets think about the 'options' you give, 2 of 3 involve having plenty of money to pay for healthcare, and the third... how do you regulate one's attempt at weight loss? Do you propose fat police, or smoking police, or drinking police for that matter? Or you penalize those that don't trim down, quit smoking or drinking with jail time if they can't pay. Have you met a working poor person before??
@UnionPerfectMore You fail to see the point. The socialized medicine promoted by the video (and the Democrats) is actually a worse option that what I propose. What you and so many seem to prefer is to go into the social program blind, thinking there will always be resources. Not true - look at social security. In your system, the first one needing care would get things paid for but those needing care later (say my kids or your kids) would not receive care. Not too fair of a system.
@UnionPerfectMore My path promotes personal responsibility for two purposes. First, instead of denying care to my kids or you kids who may have done nothing wrong to their bodies, we provide a consistent level of care to everyone with extra care needed due to smoking, obesity, etc. needing to be covered by the patient. Its not denying anyone care, just denying extra care unless they can pay. Second, it promotes patient responsibility. Do you not embrace personal responsibility?
@814tc let me get this right, you want obese people to pay for extra insurance so that if they don't hospitals can TURN THEM AWAY and let them die "for the greater good." man that's really messed up. At least you made it clear that your solution is that poor fat people should die, how very ethical of you.
@UnionPerfectMore Yes, if they do not take advantage of the options like buying the extra insurance, trimming down or paying for the service themselves. The key is they do have options. One thing you and plenty of others fail to see is that the current capital-market system and the proposed socialized system each embrace this concept in their own ways. I have just made it one that incents people.
Solution - Fifth you must provide options that if someone wants to privately pay for service for a dying loved one or for care if they are obese and did not obtain the extra insurance, etc. This means a specialized private set of healthcare institutions that cater to this group. This private set would also potentially provide upscale services (private rooms, etc.) for those who can afford and do not want to use the public option.
Solution - Fourth you must change the public perception that healthcare requires everything to be 100% perfect and that sometimes (for the greater good), it is the right thing to let someone die. This will be the hardest but most essential part of the solution.
Solution - Third you eliminate reimbursement for non-quality procedures. If a doctor performs a procedure that does not work or must be redone, they do not get reimbursed. This increases the doctors responsibility in advising a patient whether a procedure should be done or not and it increases their focus on quality.
@814tc The reason that it is so expensive is because of the pharmaceuticals industry. :P They make things for a few cents that cost a hundred dollars. So says people that work in that industry at least. One cheaper way to perform procedures is to be like france and not have to do procedures because everyone gets checked up and bigger health problems get caught earlier saving them money. : P
@tjbena86 Pharmaceuticals is an interesting side to the healthcare cost. First, they pander on T.V. to get people to think they need a pill to resolve a problem that they did not even know they had - ever heard of restless leg syndrome, what a joke! You don't acknowledge in your comment the millions of dollars that a pharmaceutical company loses when a drug fails the FDA (some losses approach a billion dollars on one failed drug.) The drugs that do pass, must profit to make up for that loss.
Solution - the true solution has several parts. First you require patient responsibility by requiring them to get private insurance to cover added healthcare costs for obesity, smoking, drinking and other ailments. You refuse to cover their costs and hospitals can decline service if they cannot pay.
@814tc One argument, and the most convincing argument no conservatives make is that other nations have culturally more healthy habits than the U.S. that is more form-fitting to socialized healthcare. People in the Netherlands bike everywhere.
@tjbena86 Absolutely right. The plan I suggest improves the focus on the personal responsbility in health. Social medicine does not create personal responsiblity, the country's values and tradition and road systems create the healthier life styles then we have in the U.S. Don't make the mistake of thinking social medicine = better personal choices. In our country of excess, it would actually do the opposite.
Mistake Six - Because John failed to recognize government does not reimburse hospitals for costs of procedures, he also failed to realize that there are two responses possible from those hospitals who cannot cover costs - get more efficient and find cheaper yet still quality ways to do procedures (a good thing) or close their doors (a bad thing especially in rural areas). Reducation in healthcare institutions will happen and then see how long scheduling takes.
Mistake Five - John does not acknowledge that socialism has a main purpose; do the greatest good for the greatest number. So while we could spend $100,000 saving a premature baby and save the babies life (one that will be filled with constant medication, hospitalizations, etc. that will extend the babies life perhaps to 5 or 6 years of age), the socialized way of medicine is to say that $100,000 is better spent immunizing 10,000 other children. A choice does have to be made in socialization.
Mistake Four - I agree with John that there are no death panels; however, scheduling is the way other countries succeed in limiting care. If an 80 year old needs hip replacement surgery, that person might not be scheduled for a year or more to have the procedure. This delayed scheduling takes advantage of the possibility the 80 year old dies before they conduct a costly and often uncalled for procedure.
Mistake Three - John fails to point out how citizens in the U.S. take the "right" of healthcare. Many take the right to mean that they can do anything with their bodies (obesity, smoking, etc.) and still expect care. Not only do they expect care, but they expect everything to be 100% fine. Trying to get everyone to 100% fine is what has caused our healthcare costs to skyrocket.
Mistake Two - Government (Medicare and Medicaid) actually do not pay enough to hospitals to cover costs. They pay less than cost and there is no "negotiation" as many would have you believe. This is what freaks out private insurance companies as well as hospitals.
Mistake One - Part of the GDP spending on healthcare includes plastic surgery and other elective procedures. While the healthcare spending is still out of line, it is not as dramatic as John would have you believe. The U.S. is a very vain nation and the amount spent on these types of procedures is significant.
@EmeraldElement Thank you for your comments. Having someone else decide our healthcare is not freedom and it is not ethical. When government regulates, the price increases, mistakes increase, and quality decreases. This has happened with credit cards, oil, education, and even nuclear reactors. It is true for our doctors and nurses as well- they do too much on too little sleep. Health care is a much too important job to be assigned to anything except the unregulated free market.
@NinkaPanda 80% of healthcare expenses are entirely preventable through diet and exercise. Agreeing to limit lawsuits and paying without the hassle of insurance would decrease your healthcare expenses another 10%. Want to pay 10% of the cost we now pay for healthcare? Get government out of the mess, entirely. You will see charities increase immensely.
@NinkaPanda You hit upon the answer when you mentioned that our life expectancy is low. This is because our obesity rate is high. All countries that have government healthcare must decide who gets this scarce resource. They deny many, many services and medications that are available in the US. The UK denies the same level of care to the elderly, the very young (never given a chance), the heavy, and the substance addicted. America treats all.
0:58 "One. The United States spends way too much of its GDP on healthcare." Wrong. You are stating that your opinion is something everyone agrees on. We have the best healthcare in the world, so it's going to be expensive. People come HERE when their government-controlled hospitals provide "free" service..after a 6-month waiting period, to get an operation they need. Kool-aid drinkers see 'healthcare is a right' and think 'sounds good!' They don't realize that govt control destroys quality.
Healthcare is not a right period. Nor a privelege. You don't get healthcare for being good. You get healthcare by paying for operations outright or smaller payments for a service called 'health insurance'. It's like car insurance, except you aren't required to own a car. If you want to drive on public roads you must maintain car insurance (or provide proof you could pay for damage). This protects OTHER people's property. Notice that comprehensive coverage is NOT required.
Requiring everyone to purchase health coverage or pay a fee is just wrong. Imagine if the government tried to require everyone in the country to own a car? (or any other good) Also imagine they sold a cheap, crappy car which slowly bankrupted every other car company because the government car was subsidized. Soon everyone has the same crappy car, which only uses government parts, etc. Freedom is lost. Government has destroyed a private industy. And taxpayers pay the bill.
@EmeraldElement I am really surprised by your comment because you are a citizen of USA and you should know that the health care program in America is not catered to everyone.
Yes, people do have insurance. BUT diseases that need multiple procedures can easily put the average citizen into debt. Also not everyone is able to obtain health insurance, because insurance companies find them as a liability.
You stated as if a free service after a 6 month period is a positive situation? If you have tumor that needs an emergency operation, do you know how debilitating that is?
America does have the best quality of care, BUT it is not being used by the people who need it.
I can understand that you might of had a wonderful experience with the American health care system. However you are in the minority. Also America has one of the lowest life expectancy for a developed nation.
The only ethical way to solve the problem is to privatize and deregulate healthcare. If people paid for the costs of their healthcare decisions, they would live longer and healthier lives. Feeding the pig doesn't solve the problem.
It's ridiculous to think that healthcare is a right because unlike property and liberty, healthcare is infinitely expensive. It is merely a matter of where you draw the line. Therefore,
The common sense approach to fixing the healthcare problem is to get to the root of why it's become so expensive in the first place. Every fix that I've read does nothing to control the costs of healthcare, it's all addressing the cost of insurance. Nobody wants to deal with bringing costs down, they just want to focus on getting everyone covered.
Getting the government, who doesn't do a single thing better than the private sector, into healthcare would be a huge mistake.
@TheFreebourne here's why fee for service does not work, say you have brain cancer and the doctors can't figure out what is wrong with you. After many tests, labs, MRIs, CT scans they figure it out. You owe $30,000- $50,000. A surgery could very well save you're life but will cost you another $100,000, now you can chose life or death, but fee for service will dictate death for the vast majority of people in this country. Do you see the flaw in fee for service?
Wow! this was a really well thought out depiction of the American Health system. Thank you for putting it in language that most anyone should be able to understand.
The government does a poor job at everything they do. The post office is bankrupt. Social security will be soon. I hear UPS is doing okay. Why do you think the government would create a better system then the private industry? They never have before.
1.Put your hand on your chest. 2.Say who you love 4 times 3.Put your finger on your nose. 4.Say his age 4 times. 5.Copy and paste this to 4 other videos. 6.Tomorrow he will ask you out, say he loves you, or kiss you on the chee
You've made a classic mistake. You assume the government is inherently trustworthy.
Once the bill is enacted, big pharma and health care corps will lobby Congress to funnel money towards their bottom line thus driving up costs. Look at corn subsidies and ADM. Who does that really benefit? Not us! Meanwhile anyone who can't afford the new mandatory public option will get a huge tax penalty and no health care.
You're forgetting the effect of politics on the new public option. Big Pharma, and health care corporations will lobby congress to benefit them. End result: The pig gis a government pig, and is now entitled to larger and larger amounts of feed. All thanks to Uncle Sam. The out of pocket costs are much higher than what the voters assume, and people end up with no health care and a huge tax penalty.
@bostononemanarmy I definitely know that you would not be able to afford the health care, if your insurer denied you that surgery for a malignant tumor you desperately need. Since they stated it was "a experimental procedure".
So you are correct, health care is a right because you choose to be poor or rich. Which determines whether you can afford health care in the first place.
@aw4991 "dumbass"? Do you even know what socialism is?: "an economic system based on state ownership of capital"
Hence, if you're paying the government to run an organization (such as law enforcement, or education) so that the general populace gets that service for 'free' (technically) then that is considered socialism. It's not a bad thing, no matter how much some media characters may try to make it seem
@wolfkidex ok yes technically paying taxes for those services is considered socialist. but hes saying what obama is trying to do is pretty much the same as what we already have in place, and its not. that is why i called him a dumbass.
@aw4991 The video says nothing about Obama's health care reform. Do you even understand what the health care reform is going change? It is basically going to change nothing.
All it means is that people insured are covered by their insurance without the worry of pre-existing conditions. Also those who are not insured, the government will help them to obtain health insurance.
The music is slightly too loud in this :S
123easyway 2 weeks ago
Look at swedens health care system. Its free, its for everybody and it is very very good. I guess thats because we feel that it is absurd to even consider health care a privilege; the fact that its a right goes deep down in our society. And sweden has, compared to other European countries, gone throught the economy crisis with ease. Socialism does work; we are an extreme good example. Sweden is much smaller than USA, but it is far from impossible to start with small changes in some states.
SatellitePlane 3 weeks ago
Today Youtube has a "talk to the President" sort of commenting going on today on the main page and I was very happy to see this used as a reference to a comment. :D
ariearenonagela 1 month ago
THE solution, its simple WE KILL THE FAT BOAR!!!
Madpolis7 3 months ago
Nice typography :)
TheLillyhardwood 4 months ago 2
wow O_O
ninjasaur77 5 months ago
That video piece can be wrapped up in two word...
...sophomoric bullshit.
nordfjellBrandt 7 months ago in playlist spot
@nordfjellBrandt Enlighten me, please.
sileb13 2 months ago
Yeah socialized medicine is great, good for everyday, here in Britain i think it's fantastic. The thing about Britain is we don't have national debt 7x our revenue and an economy that only avoided a crisis by pumping trillions of dollars that you don't have in to the economy. Now is not the time for increased government entitlements that you can't afford. Coming from Europe i think a nationalized health service is great, but unlike u guys most of our countries can afford it. sorry democrats
toberses11 9 months ago
@toberses11 Yes but keep in mind that the NHS was introduced at the end of WW2 in a time of national emergency.
swordhunter12 8 months ago
@swordhunter12 Wonderful to know that all that the US requires to finally get socialized healthcare is another 911.
3ssay 8 months ago
@3ssay All I said was that National Healthcare has been implemented and succeeded in desperate times before. I never said that desperate times were outright required and even then it doesn't have to be as a result of war.
swordhunter12 8 months ago
Comment removed
redbeers 10 months ago
I liked the video, completely agreeing with the socialism comment. Gov run programs are inherently more efficient than the pig. I know hard to believe right? 19% admin costs for private insurers to reject claims make the pig fat, lazy and completely unhealthy for us.
redbeers 10 months ago
As a Canadian who has watched friends in the USA be bankrupted over things like gallbladder surgery . Something that I would get done for free in Canada. I find the USA to be pretty despicable.
I'm a Canadian and the way Americans treat their sick disgusts me.
Tehscottinator 1 year ago
What worries me is when he says the government will reduce the procedures? Why?
FangsUpCobraFans 1 year ago
@FangsUpCobraFans Because a lot of hospitals exploit patients with good insurance to make money off said insurance through extra unnecessary procedures. Also, lazy doctors or interns will order many expensive and painful tests instead of putting in a little extra mental effort to figure out what is wrong with a patient.
(Not all doctors and hospitals, of course, but some, and it's a huge problem.)
annaslater11 1 year ago
@annaslater11 But what laws could be passed that would limit the unnecessary procedures and not the necessary ones? I would rather we have too much than too little.
FangsUpCobraFans 1 year ago
@FangsUpCobraFans I understand the worry and share it to a certain extent, but if the insurance agencies are smaller and closer to the patients (and less worried about money hopefully) then they will control these things.
annaslater11 11 months ago
@annaslater11 Yeah, as if they won't be worried about money...
FangsUpCobraFans 11 months ago
@FangsUpCobraFans In a perfect world they won't be... obviously we don't live in a perfect world, but more likely there will be some sort of monitoring system that will keep it in check.
annaslater11 11 months ago
"We must pass the Bill so we can read it!" Nancy Pelosi The USA is a Constitutional Republic. Can you show me where in the Constitution the government has the authority to force the people to buy insurance? Pay tax on income? Make laws against free speech? Take personal property without a trial? Make laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms? Right to peaceably assemble? Right to privacy?
DMarksmanLima21 1 year ago
Amen brother
Bravebannana 1 year ago
I love this so much, especially the ending. It's a great call to action of why we need to improve our health care system.
00GreyEyedGirl00 1 year ago
My goodness. John Green explains this better than my Human Geography teacher.
itssupercelia 1 year ago 41
For anyone in the MEDICAL PROFESSION to lie cheat or steal from their patients, or fraudulently prescribe/over-medicate, practice surgery or any other non-realistic application of medical treatment to ANY HUMAN BEING...is not only mal-practice but is also comparable to any crime dubbed "HEINOUS"
Sorry to have to say this, but those guilty of such evil, will soon realize, its only a matter of time before PAY BACK! as the laws of the universe dictate
IT ALL COMES BACK AROUND! ETERNAL HELL FIRE!
Acecool444 1 year ago
This would have been so much better, if you JUST TONED DOWN THAT DRUMBEAT.
MrTheBenBen 1 year ago
I really think that you Americans should have socialized medicine. We have health insurances in Sweden, but if anyone gets hurt or sick, they are getting treatment. The same treatment as anyone else who have an insurance. The insurance gets you money if you get sick (not a cold or something like that, really serious things that you need a doctor to cure) AND treatment, uninsuranced only gives you treatment. We pay a health care tax to the government, but if you stopped making pennies you would..
Narglesonamistletoe 1 year ago 2
@Narglesonamistletoe save SOOO much money. Pennies cost 2 cents to make. And nickels cost 7 cents. If you eliminated the penny and the nickel, people wouldn't have to pay money to make something so incredibly useless, and then could afford to pay health care taxes which would give everyone a good treatment. Americans pay billions of dollars to make something that not many places would accept. Once I tried to buy a magazine with pennies. The seller only said: "Get some real money".
Narglesonamistletoe 1 year ago 19
@Narglesonamistletoe You need to have a way to break down a dollar, if we didn't, then we'd just boost everything up so that dollars can take the place of pennies and that would be the same situation. The only way to eliminate change and still be able to break down a dollar, since we HAVE to have a minimum, is to establish credit so change can exist solely on a card, which would need an entirely new department to manage. There are no magic quick fixes. It all takes work and costs a ton.
JakeV5 8 months ago
@JakeV5 It doesn't matter if prices have to be rounded up, though, because for all the products that cost the extra change, the businesses of consumers will experience the same benefit, thus being able to pay their employees the money to compensate for products that cost more.
LlamaDuckKing 7 months ago
@814tc
You are a complete idiot. Young men and women dying to protect our country is honorable, they are putting their lives on the line so 'gentlemen' like yourself can run their mouths.
Your idea again is to have sick people not receive medical attention, leading to potential death, because it may cost other members of the community. If you had to chose between someone dying and debt, you would chose their death. You are a despicable person who sees the world in green, red and black.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore Remember what you said, you stated this country does not have any concept of things for the greater good. My point was to show you how this country was built on that very concept.
As for my plan, you still have it wrong. I am providing care to all. Your plan is to provide excessive care to all for say about 20 years and then you will provide care to none. Your plan is the only one that will not give care to everyone. Get it straight.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc Again with the 'Your Plan' accusation. I have not put forth a plan, this video has laid out John Green's thoughts of the healthcare bill. I happen to think that even as bad as the healthcare bill came out, it is still better than your plan.
You put forth a plan. I did not.
Did you catch that. I don't think that this healthcare bill great. But we both agree that what was happening was not working.
Or did you come up with a plan because you thought everything was great?
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore So now you say you have no plan, that's perfect! You would fit nicely into every other politician. You have said that you would provide unlimited care to all as you criticized unwittingly that mine did not, that is a plan. Just because you cannot own up to the moronic nature of that plan, doesn't mean you did not put it forth.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc
Never claimed to have a plan to solve healthcare in this country.
Not a politician.
Never said I would provide unlimited care, I said humans would not stand by and watch fellow humans die because they did not have money while services were readily available. This is not a plan, this is stating human decency which your plan neglects to include. It is simply a critique of your lame, "the only way to fix healthcare, is to change the way people feel about others dieing needlessly" plan.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore Then you are wrong. The healthcare bill is not better than the plan I provided as it does not encourage cost reduction, it does not increase provider accountability and it does not increase patient accountability. All three are necessary to fix the system. I made very clear throughout my posts that both D's and R's have this wrong, something had to be done, but the passed healthcare legislation is worse than what we had.
814tc 1 year ago
Comment removed
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore They removed your post. You must have been somewhat nasty. No place for that in an intelligent debate, but perhaps that is where you are at a disadvantage.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc I removed my post.
Again, because you are dense...
Taxing products does not equal extra insurance.
Companies are not able to collect taxes, the government is.
Companies are able to charge extra insurance.
See the difference.
Again, because you are dense..
I think taxing junk food, tobacco, alcohol is not a bad idea. This means that i think your first idea extra insurance sucks, but your second idea of taxing things that could kill you, is better.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore Who said anything about private companies, we are talking about a solution with a government provided healthcare. So you reinforced my point that the government can collect the money for the extra health care costs via "sin" taxes. The only thing my plan says is that we need to collect more from those who are not taking personal responsibility. (Taxes or a type of catestrophic insurance policy results in the same costs to these individuals but still feeds my plan perfectly.)
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc
How is a gov run healthcare not the socialized medicine you have been ranting so fearfully of!!!!! That why I assume you mean private companies would be running healthcare. Could you make up your mind.
And because you are SOOOOOOOOOOO dense
I said I liked your idea of taxing hazardous products. For the THIRD time. Are you too pompous to get that?
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore I have been very clear if you would care to read. But that is challenging for someone in your IQ bracket. You are at least correct that you "assumed" but again, don't rely on your intelligence as you are extremely lacking.
I also like my idea of covering costs for the extra insurance needed for obesity, smoking, alcoholism, etc. The problem is you seem to be too stupid to understand that the money is paying for the extra insurance which is what I proposed from the start.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc
I talked to this brick wall for too long I guess I am stupid.
You are anti gov healthcare, pro gov tax to pay(who?) for extra insurance, and want Americans to tolerate the unnecessary death of our fellow people.
I understand you POV. I have wasted my energy explaining to you its failings.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore If you were too stupid to understand the plan, then you should not have commented. I am not anti-govt healthcare (you still think you have me pegged as a R), but I do not agree with govt healthcare as passed and not as proposed.
To be clear, you have not spent time explaining failings, rather you have completely explained your inability to comprehend. I do get it, you do not understand even the most basic concepts.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc
Just to be clear your plan sucks. Taxing hazardous products is not the same as your worthless idea of " extra insurance".
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore It is same idea, just different ways to collect the money. Either way you are collecting from those who are costing the heatlhcare system more. The fact you cannot see that might mean I have given you too much credit for your intelligence in the past.
814tc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UnionPerfectMore It is the same idea, just different ways to collect the money. Either way you are collecting from those who are costing the heatlhcare system more. The fact you cannot see that might mean I have given you too much credit for your intelligence in the past.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc
So you are left with obese folks, step on the scale if you dare. This is why your plan sucks. It took a lot words to express the many reasons you are wrong, and your insults just help emotion bubble to the top.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore Unfortunately, you do not understand healthcare. You are not alone, D's & R's do not understand healthcare either. Just because you cannot see what the future would hold under either the D or R plan, that does not mean that future is incorrect. Your plan is to have people have full coverage for the next 20 years and then give no one coverage after that. That is your future - give no care to anyone. That is actually worse than what we have now.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc
If your plan were law no one would tell their doctor or any health care provider that they smoke or drink, the medical field would experience a crush of cases of lung and throat cancer in non smoking victims (second hand smoke maybe?). Your plan would get drunk drivers in accidents or other instances when a Blood Alcohol Content could be measured, but try not to have our legal system invade privacy by sharing that with healthcare corporations.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore Okay, this post was just to be funny right? You have no logic, no basis and a very poor sense of humor. I think you have been at this too long.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc
Your solutions 2 and 3 I believe are in the current legislation, or at least an earlier iteration of it. Your 4th solution is your feeble attempt to change humanity, to make it acceptable for us to watch our fellow citizens die ‘for the greater good,’ by the way, that is socialism that word that frightens you so. Give me a break.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore Do you have respect for veterans who died in WWI/WWII? I ask because they died for the greater good, our freedom. In fact, our entire country was built on the premise - individuals were willing to die for the greater good. You would cast aside the very core of this nation. Our society is soft, expecting everything to be handed to us. Our great grand parents would shudder to think of what people expect should be given to them. Nothing has to be earned anymore.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc
Reviewing your comments, yes all of them even your plan and the video, I see you have 5 point solution 2 of which are exactly what I said they were, a way to let poor people die and that is not going to happen in a civilized nation. Your ‘solutions’ 1 and 5 just don’t work because you assume people can pay when they may not be able to or that they have family that can, your biggest flaw is your ‘solutions’ failure to deal with, in a humane manner, those that can’t afford extra.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore You fail to see choice and therefore fail to see the big picture. The only way to distribute a limited amount of resources for an indefinite period of time is to have some system to not pay for everything. I chose to draw the line at personal responsibility. Perhaps instead of extra insurance payments, you just tax the heck out of soda, candies, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. and use this money to pay for the extra care. Either way, it still fits my solution.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc
Again insults first no proof later. I never said that the healthcare bill will solve all our problems. I did say your plan sucks. The people of this country, you aside, would not stand by and watch their fellow Americans die waiting for medical care. This is the major failure of your system, and is worse than so called Death Panels because your plan is show me the money or die.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore Then you have failed to understand the plan and fail to understand the other proposed plans. The preferred D plan would eventually run out of money which means care for everyone the first 10-20 years and then care for no one after 20 years. The preferred R plan would become care for the rich only as insurance continues to skyrocket and people are forced to pay more out of pocket. My plan is a balance - care for all with focus on responsiblity (self and health providers).
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc Mistake Six
The absence of John making a point doesn’t make it a mistake, the title is “Health Care Overhaul (Summarized Via Massive Pig), not Health Care Overhaul The Complete Discussion. Besides that, your statement if flat out wrong, all healthcare in this country is subsidized, so while the gov. does not pay a bill for the cost of the procedure it certainly funds hospitals in some way.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore John actually does make the point by stating government "negotiates" the prices they pay. This is not true, governments set the prices - no negotiation involved. Because he fails to see this, he naturally fails to realize what happens when a company's cost are not covered - they can either close business or they can find cheaper methods. Some will choose one path some will choose the other.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc Mistake Five
John does not advocate for a purely socialist system, in fact few Americans would. In your example above the choice would be for both save the premature child and vaccinate the children. Back to that ‘right’ thing, as a society we can’t watch someone die.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore He really does advocate for a purely social system. As he points out, the government would set lower costs that no insurance could set. This will drive those insurance companies out of business. What you will see pop up though is some boutique healthcare organizations that are designed for the rich (this happened in Hong Kong's healthcare system which I reviewed and visited a few years ago). These are pay for service (no insurance, so only rich.)
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc Mistake Four
Scheduling is absolutely a way to limit care. Your example makes it seem as though you agree with this ‘mistake,’ doing a hip replacement only to have the patient die shortly thereafter is wasteful, you even said it was uncalled for. If you could tell me your source for the 80 yo waiting one year i would like to see it. I believe in The U.S. Healthcare System in International Context: an example of twice as long wait time 6-8 weeks instead of 3-4 weeks was given.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore The source was at a Canadian Healthcare Conference. The speaker was Canadian but I do not recall the healthcare title he held. The real difficulty in U.S. society is to convince people that sometimes a person should not receive care. Yes. I feel that we need to make that decision more often than we do now (which is never).
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc Mistake Three
The “right” to healthcare” I believe humans should have the right to be cared for, if someone is dying we as a society can’t stand by and watch them die. That is what John meant by ‘right’ and he even said it could bankrupt you. This isn’t a mistake in the video, it sounds like the mistake you point out is with the public belief of perfect health.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore Absolutely! The public in general believes the right equates to perfect health. If we cannot change that, then any healthcare system in our country will fail. (I am glad we have a solid agreement as I have appreciated our conversation on these items.)
814tc 1 year ago
@814tcMistake Two
True the Gov sets reimbursements, often lower than what a Doctor would charge. However Insurance companies do exactly the same thing. Lower than ‘cost’ is relative to where services are received, if doctors were actually losing money by seeing these Medi patients they can stop being a provider.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore I do want to be polite in this, but your response shows you have not worked in healthcare. Government payments do not cover the cost of many procedures (I cannot say all but most). That means it doesn't cover what the hospital pays physicians, pays benefits, pays for supplies, etc. Hospitals by law cannot turn away medicare patients unless they prove they already serve a high enough percent of the medicare population.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc Mistake One
I looked into this claim, while it is true that plastic surgery and other elective procedures are included in 16% of GDP going to healthcare, I only found a Forbes Mag article that even brought it up. So to call the ‘vain’ procedures significant is pure postulation, but may deserve a deeper look.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
Absolute genius. Take that conservatives! Long live the resistance!
LovableKarlMarx 1 year ago
@LovableKarlMarx you realize Obama is liberal correct? and so are the majority of the new healthcare's supporters as well right? what resistance? liberals have power in the house, not conservatives. so what resistance are you talking about? i think youre a fucking idiot that gets too excited on stupid hype. go be a revolutionist in mexico and get shot please
aw4991 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore based on what @814tc proposed and the debate that the two of you are having, I would have to AGREE with 814tc. You failed to see his point and have avoided certain questions yet u were able to ask questions that were out of context.
The money that the govt is using to pay Social Security to retirees is our CURRENT money taken from the taxes that WE are paying. The same applies to healthcare. We are currently paying for people who does not have insurance and most of them abuse
guresheru 1 year ago
How does Health Care FAIRNESS and The public option would "cut down on the number of procedures used" go together ??!!? The US has the best Health Care System because of the procedures. And your telling me we should be happy about less CATHS, EGDs, ERCPs, Colonoscopy's, HIDA scans, Hip replacements, spinal fusions etc?
ddbrosnahan 1 year ago
It makes so much sense.... But I still disagree.... Oh wait, cause The system works great for me right now. Since when are Americans selfless?
FangsUpCobraFans 1 year ago
@FangsUpCobraFans since when are americans selfless? you mean when are we selfish? do you know how many aid campaigns around the world America is funding or running, or americans are leading?
aw4991 1 year ago
Thanks, effyeahnerdfighters. This is genius.
kikoblake1 1 year ago
THIS IS THE GREATEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN.
squashmedead 1 year ago
@814tc I don't believe that the current law is socialized medicine how even the Democrats would want it. Do you forget that Rs in Congress didn't let anything but the most watered down version of the bill get to a vote. I seem to remember a Healthcare Summit where Republicans could only say scrap it, after how many months, at least you have an idea, put it forward debate it, figure something out. At least you admit that whats been happening ain't working.
The party of NO is less than worthless
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore You cannot avoid that the video here is a democrats view. I am not however a republican in the heatlhcare debate. A purely capitalist market does not work for healthcare either. As you can see (if you would read) my entire solution has elements of both - personal responsibility, hospital responsibility, care for all (with certain caps), and overall a sustainable system. Nothing either party has presented is sustainable.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc Democrats view presented to idiots who scream "this is socialized medicine!" Glad you agree purely capitalist market wouldn't work. New game, name a purely capitalist market? Healthcare? No. Farming? No. Auto industry? No. Banking? No. Give me a break capitalism only works because the guys at the top get an advantage over those that work for them.
Not going to read you whole inflammatory, let the people die, solution.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore So you do not want to have an intelligent debate of how to improve healthcare. Perhaps I was asking too much. You acknowledge you have not read the whole solution I proposed, You also seem to be ranting the same things and not responding to my comments. Your proposed system is let those who need healthcare now get it through participation in the government plan and let those of the next generation not receive healthcare. (That's how social security is going to work.)
814tc 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore One more thing, I don't like that what I have proposed has to be the fix, but it does. We have left the system go to long without answering questions (just like social security). We need to make tough choice (extremely tough), but weak-spined individuals like you who think the world is filled with rainbows will never be able to make decisions required. Some of what I propose actually harms me and family members I have but it still must be done.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc Just because you think you have liberals pegged, doesn't mean we are all Hippies. Turning people away because they don't have money is just cruel. My spine strength comes from my generosity. I would happily give a little more to "promote the general welfare" of my fellow citizens. How about you grow a spine and give a little of your money to those family members you want to turn to the curb.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore I am also very surprised that you seem to be fine with the next generation not getting healthcare for the sake of yourself. That is extremely selfish on your part. The one thing I am not is selfish when it comes to these government programs. (You would love to see how I would solve social security, a lot of tough decisions there too. Again, you wouldn't have the spine to make them, you would just let the system die a slow death.)
814tc 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore The key is neither party - democrat or republicans have the solution. Neither party understands healthcare and the cost drivers of healthcare. Both parties would have you believe bandaid solutions will work. Both parties are wrong! A wise person once said when you have a great problem, you cannot apporach it with the same thinking that caused the problem in the first place. The political parties and you are doing just that. What a pity you don't see the big picture.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc I embrace personal responsibility, however I don't believe we can require everyone to embrace it. I'm going to assume you have never known a working poor person before because you blow off my question and continue to assume that anyone should be able to pay a little more. Math for u $9*40*4=$1440/mo. Have you thought about living on that? how much extra is your extra? I get your free market point, it might work if Min Wage was doubled.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore You absolutely contradicted yourself, that is an indication of how strong your argument is. Also, it seems fitting I ignore your question seeing you are ignoring 80% of my solution (i.e. your focusing on one item). The fact that I grew up and still have a fair amount of family who would classify as working poor doesn't validate or invalidate my proposal. How about you, do you have nearly 20 years of healthcare experience in the U.S. and around the world?
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc Contradicted? A debate is when ideas are brought to the table and discussed. Saying lets start over is counter productive = less than worthless.
You would let a fair amount of your family perish on hospital steps because they couldn't pay for extra services. I'm sure a "fair amount" of them are obese, smoke or drink.
And Doogie Howser, if you were in the Med field at 18 i would be impressed. Sorry I had another decade of school to go through.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
Holy!!! This was fun and awesome to watch, the voice was nice the animation GREAT and the music adds a nice and fun touch!
Sweny60 1 year ago
@814tc I am impressed that you openly admit you want poor obese people to die. Lets think about the 'options' you give, 2 of 3 involve having plenty of money to pay for healthcare, and the third... how do you regulate one's attempt at weight loss? Do you propose fat police, or smoking police, or drinking police for that matter? Or you penalize those that don't trim down, quit smoking or drinking with jail time if they can't pay. Have you met a working poor person before??
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore You fail to see the point. The socialized medicine promoted by the video (and the Democrats) is actually a worse option that what I propose. What you and so many seem to prefer is to go into the social program blind, thinking there will always be resources. Not true - look at social security. In your system, the first one needing care would get things paid for but those needing care later (say my kids or your kids) would not receive care. Not too fair of a system.
814tc 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore My path promotes personal responsibility for two purposes. First, instead of denying care to my kids or you kids who may have done nothing wrong to their bodies, we provide a consistent level of care to everyone with extra care needed due to smoking, obesity, etc. needing to be covered by the patient. Its not denying anyone care, just denying extra care unless they can pay. Second, it promotes patient responsibility. Do you not embrace personal responsibility?
814tc 1 year ago
really good vid, well thought through and very well animated.
I'm happy that i don't really have to worry about the health system here, as i currently live in europe. who knows what's in 10 years though.....
moondance169 1 year ago
hehe :o I like it but I dont get it :o
lollalot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
search & subscribe elzie bibbs
ElzieBibbs 1 year ago
Oh Yea Jesus Cares
TheSeventheagle 1 year ago
@814tc let me get this right, you want obese people to pay for extra insurance so that if they don't hospitals can TURN THEM AWAY and let them die "for the greater good." man that's really messed up. At least you made it clear that your solution is that poor fat people should die, how very ethical of you.
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
@UnionPerfectMore Yes, if they do not take advantage of the options like buying the extra insurance, trimming down or paying for the service themselves. The key is they do have options. One thing you and plenty of others fail to see is that the current capital-market system and the proposed socialized system each embrace this concept in their own ways. I have just made it one that incents people.
814tc 1 year ago
Holy shit, Can you say that again...but slower? xD
LorrieMay 1 year ago
@themightchickens - You did.
814tc 1 year ago
Solution - Fifth you must provide options that if someone wants to privately pay for service for a dying loved one or for care if they are obese and did not obtain the extra insurance, etc. This means a specialized private set of healthcare institutions that cater to this group. This private set would also potentially provide upscale services (private rooms, etc.) for those who can afford and do not want to use the public option.
814tc 1 year ago
Solution - Fourth you must change the public perception that healthcare requires everything to be 100% perfect and that sometimes (for the greater good), it is the right thing to let someone die. This will be the hardest but most essential part of the solution.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc My good sir, nobody gives a fuck. Nobody will ever read all your comments.
themightychickens 1 year ago
Solution - Third you eliminate reimbursement for non-quality procedures. If a doctor performs a procedure that does not work or must be redone, they do not get reimbursed. This increases the doctors responsibility in advising a patient whether a procedure should be done or not and it increases their focus on quality.
814tc 1 year ago
Solution - Second you focus healthcare on cheaper ways to perform procedures. Perhaps reducing reimbursement is part of this.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc The reason that it is so expensive is because of the pharmaceuticals industry. :P They make things for a few cents that cost a hundred dollars. So says people that work in that industry at least. One cheaper way to perform procedures is to be like france and not have to do procedures because everyone gets checked up and bigger health problems get caught earlier saving them money. : P
tjbena86 1 year ago
@tjbena86 Pharmaceuticals is an interesting side to the healthcare cost. First, they pander on T.V. to get people to think they need a pill to resolve a problem that they did not even know they had - ever heard of restless leg syndrome, what a joke! You don't acknowledge in your comment the millions of dollars that a pharmaceutical company loses when a drug fails the FDA (some losses approach a billion dollars on one failed drug.) The drugs that do pass, must profit to make up for that loss.
814tc 1 year ago
Solution - the true solution has several parts. First you require patient responsibility by requiring them to get private insurance to cover added healthcare costs for obesity, smoking, drinking and other ailments. You refuse to cover their costs and hospitals can decline service if they cannot pay.
814tc 1 year ago
@814tc One argument, and the most convincing argument no conservatives make is that other nations have culturally more healthy habits than the U.S. that is more form-fitting to socialized healthcare. People in the Netherlands bike everywhere.
tjbena86 1 year ago
@tjbena86 Absolutely right. The plan I suggest improves the focus on the personal responsbility in health. Social medicine does not create personal responsiblity, the country's values and tradition and road systems create the healthier life styles then we have in the U.S. Don't make the mistake of thinking social medicine = better personal choices. In our country of excess, it would actually do the opposite.
814tc 1 year ago
Mistake Six - Because John failed to recognize government does not reimburse hospitals for costs of procedures, he also failed to realize that there are two responses possible from those hospitals who cannot cover costs - get more efficient and find cheaper yet still quality ways to do procedures (a good thing) or close their doors (a bad thing especially in rural areas). Reducation in healthcare institutions will happen and then see how long scheduling takes.
814tc 1 year ago
Mistake Five - John does not acknowledge that socialism has a main purpose; do the greatest good for the greatest number. So while we could spend $100,000 saving a premature baby and save the babies life (one that will be filled with constant medication, hospitalizations, etc. that will extend the babies life perhaps to 5 or 6 years of age), the socialized way of medicine is to say that $100,000 is better spent immunizing 10,000 other children. A choice does have to be made in socialization.
814tc 1 year ago
Mistake Four - I agree with John that there are no death panels; however, scheduling is the way other countries succeed in limiting care. If an 80 year old needs hip replacement surgery, that person might not be scheduled for a year or more to have the procedure. This delayed scheduling takes advantage of the possibility the 80 year old dies before they conduct a costly and often uncalled for procedure.
814tc 1 year ago
Mistake Three - John fails to point out how citizens in the U.S. take the "right" of healthcare. Many take the right to mean that they can do anything with their bodies (obesity, smoking, etc.) and still expect care. Not only do they expect care, but they expect everything to be 100% fine. Trying to get everyone to 100% fine is what has caused our healthcare costs to skyrocket.
814tc 1 year ago
Mistake Two - Government (Medicare and Medicaid) actually do not pay enough to hospitals to cover costs. They pay less than cost and there is no "negotiation" as many would have you believe. This is what freaks out private insurance companies as well as hospitals.
814tc 1 year ago
Mistake One - Part of the GDP spending on healthcare includes plastic surgery and other elective procedures. While the healthcare spending is still out of line, it is not as dramatic as John would have you believe. The U.S. is a very vain nation and the amount spent on these types of procedures is significant.
814tc 1 year ago
The video does have a number of misconceptions in it. I will list in separate posts.
814tc 1 year ago
Very well done video!
JaneAlex09 1 year ago
This is a well done video. It summarizes the Democrats view of healthcare perfectly.
814tc 1 year ago
@EmeraldElement Thank you for your comments. Having someone else decide our healthcare is not freedom and it is not ethical. When government regulates, the price increases, mistakes increase, and quality decreases. This has happened with credit cards, oil, education, and even nuclear reactors. It is true for our doctors and nurses as well- they do too much on too little sleep. Health care is a much too important job to be assigned to anything except the unregulated free market.
runr100 1 year ago
@NinkaPanda 80% of healthcare expenses are entirely preventable through diet and exercise. Agreeing to limit lawsuits and paying without the hassle of insurance would decrease your healthcare expenses another 10%. Want to pay 10% of the cost we now pay for healthcare? Get government out of the mess, entirely. You will see charities increase immensely.
runr100 1 year ago
@NinkaPanda You hit upon the answer when you mentioned that our life expectancy is low. This is because our obesity rate is high. All countries that have government healthcare must decide who gets this scarce resource. They deny many, many services and medications that are available in the US. The UK denies the same level of care to the elderly, the very young (never given a chance), the heavy, and the substance addicted. America treats all.
runr100 1 year ago
excellent video
blockid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sᴏṙṙy ƒοr beⅰnɡ ᴏfƒ tορіc, ხut I'ⅿ ṭṙyіnց to ɡеṭ ṙeᴠenge ᴏn mỵ bіṭϲh ᴏf aո eх ցіṙɭfṙіenⅾ, iƒ yᴏu ԝаnոa ѕее ȟеṙ ѕех taрe I ցοṭ a lⅰnǩ ᴏn ⅿy ρṙofⅰɭе. pаѕsᴡᴏṙⅾ іs 123 . ṭհаnǩѕ
xxxddxxxxxdxxdxdxddx 1 year ago
0:58 "One. The United States spends way too much of its GDP on healthcare." Wrong. You are stating that your opinion is something everyone agrees on. We have the best healthcare in the world, so it's going to be expensive. People come HERE when their government-controlled hospitals provide "free" service..after a 6-month waiting period, to get an operation they need. Kool-aid drinkers see 'healthcare is a right' and think 'sounds good!' They don't realize that govt control destroys quality.
EmeraldElement 1 year ago
Healthcare is not a right period. Nor a privelege. You don't get healthcare for being good. You get healthcare by paying for operations outright or smaller payments for a service called 'health insurance'. It's like car insurance, except you aren't required to own a car. If you want to drive on public roads you must maintain car insurance (or provide proof you could pay for damage). This protects OTHER people's property. Notice that comprehensive coverage is NOT required.
EmeraldElement 1 year ago
Requiring everyone to purchase health coverage or pay a fee is just wrong. Imagine if the government tried to require everyone in the country to own a car? (or any other good) Also imagine they sold a cheap, crappy car which slowly bankrupted every other car company because the government car was subsidized. Soon everyone has the same crappy car, which only uses government parts, etc. Freedom is lost. Government has destroyed a private industy. And taxpayers pay the bill.
EmeraldElement 1 year ago
@EmeraldElement I am really surprised by your comment because you are a citizen of USA and you should know that the health care program in America is not catered to everyone.
Yes, people do have insurance. BUT diseases that need multiple procedures can easily put the average citizen into debt. Also not everyone is able to obtain health insurance, because insurance companies find them as a liability.
NinkaPanda 1 year ago
Comment removed
NinkaPanda 1 year ago
You stated as if a free service after a 6 month period is a positive situation? If you have tumor that needs an emergency operation, do you know how debilitating that is?
America does have the best quality of care, BUT it is not being used by the people who need it.
I can understand that you might of had a wonderful experience with the American health care system. However you are in the minority. Also America has one of the lowest life expectancy for a developed nation.
NinkaPanda 1 year ago
Insightful
Burninginhell8 1 year ago
fuckin annoying beat in the background
sammmmmy195 1 year ago
WOW thats a cool video
EmilFrom 1 year ago
A comparison to indoor plumbing isn't half bad.
HumanRights4Everyone 1 year ago
The only ethical way to solve the problem is to privatize and deregulate healthcare. If people paid for the costs of their healthcare decisions, they would live longer and healthier lives. Feeding the pig doesn't solve the problem.
runr100 1 year ago
@runr100 That would make the situation worse? The whole point of the video was to express that people do not have access to health care due to costs.
NinkaPanda 1 year ago
It's ridiculous to think that healthcare is a right because unlike property and liberty, healthcare is infinitely expensive. It is merely a matter of where you draw the line. Therefore,
runr100 1 year ago
I <3 you! Great vid!
smlbagel 1 year ago
This is interesting. Thanks for sharing!
video1688 1 year ago
Interesting
henrybob0823 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sᴏṙṙỵ fᴏr ხeⅰոց ᴏfḟ tᴏріᴄ, ᑲuṭ I'm ṭrỵing ṭo get ṙеveոge οn ⅿỵ ხіtсհ ᴏf аո eҳ ցⅰṙɭƒṙieոⅾ, іḟ ỵοս ᴡaոna ѕеe ȟer seҳ ṭaрe I ցοṭ а ɭіոǩ οn ⅿỵ рṙoḟilе. ρаsѕԝᴏṙⅾ is 123 . ṭհanḱѕ
dxxxxdddxxdddxxxxxdx 1 year ago
The common sense approach to fixing the healthcare problem is to get to the root of why it's become so expensive in the first place. Every fix that I've read does nothing to control the costs of healthcare, it's all addressing the cost of insurance. Nobody wants to deal with bringing costs down, they just want to focus on getting everyone covered.
Getting the government, who doesn't do a single thing better than the private sector, into healthcare would be a huge mistake.
BlipDesign 1 year ago
@TheFreebourne here's why fee for service does not work, say you have brain cancer and the doctors can't figure out what is wrong with you. After many tests, labs, MRIs, CT scans they figure it out. You owe $30,000- $50,000. A surgery could very well save you're life but will cost you another $100,000, now you can chose life or death, but fee for service will dictate death for the vast majority of people in this country. Do you see the flaw in fee for service?
UnionPerfectMore 1 year ago
Wow! this was a really well thought out depiction of the American Health system. Thank you for putting it in language that most anyone should be able to understand.
bennek555 1 year ago
@bennek555 You’re welcome! And thank you for the support!
ThoughtBubbler 1 year ago
The government does a poor job at everything they do. The post office is bankrupt. Social security will be soon. I hear UPS is doing okay. Why do you think the government would create a better system then the private industry? They never have before.
russellladd 1 year ago
I agree with universal healthcare, but not with Obamacare bill. He's not doing it right.
rolingpingu 1 year ago
"greed will imprison us all"
I wish America to be less 'greedy'.
The ideology of interest from borrowing (which is sin in some religions) has now taken a toll.
I mean we are paying debt with debt now...
And what's wrong with socialism?
Democratic countries are some what socialists.
If America wants true change, change ideologies and it's perceptions are necessary.
And of course, take action, now.
qone89 1 year ago
1.Put your hand on your chest. 2.Say who you love 4 times 3.Put your finger on your nose. 4.Say his age 4 times. 5.Copy and paste this to 4 other videos. 6.Tomorrow he will ask you out, say he loves you, or kiss you on the chee
Rottweilersrox12 1 year ago
Mistake for the wind
Tcatca0080 1 year ago
You've made a classic mistake. You assume the government is inherently trustworthy.
Once the bill is enacted, big pharma and health care corps will lobby Congress to funnel money towards their bottom line thus driving up costs. Look at corn subsidies and ADM. Who does that really benefit? Not us! Meanwhile anyone who can't afford the new mandatory public option will get a huge tax penalty and no health care.
Is this the best we can do?
killroy71 1 year ago 2
You're forgetting the effect of politics on the new public option. Big Pharma, and health care corporations will lobby congress to benefit them. End result: The pig gis a government pig, and is now entitled to larger and larger amounts of feed. All thanks to Uncle Sam. The out of pocket costs are much higher than what the voters assume, and people end up with no health care and a huge tax penalty.
A classic liberal mistake.
killroy71 1 year ago
Three words. Fee for Service.
TheFreebourne 1 year ago
AWESOME
playdrumsmofuxa 1 year ago
OBAMAA!!!!
goldboyjr 1 year ago
This has just explained to a 13 year old girl the healthcare bill XD
narutofox180 1 year ago
Here in America we have the right to do what we want with our lives.
Hence, health care is a right. We can choose to have health care or not.
But now the government wants to force us to pay for something we may not necessarily want.
That is one of the underlying problems.
bostononemanarmy 1 year ago
@bostononemanarmy I definitely know that you would not be able to afford the health care, if your insurer denied you that surgery for a malignant tumor you desperately need. Since they stated it was "a experimental procedure".
So you are correct, health care is a right because you choose to be poor or rich. Which determines whether you can afford health care in the first place.
NinkaPanda 1 year ago
youtube.com/watch?v=qaWUr6Xv0Vk <-- Watch it! I laughed over 10 minutes!
impzy1 1 year ago
That's not the kind of socialism were talking about dumbass, I'm not even sure paying taxes for schools and military is considered socialism anyway.
aw4991 1 year ago
@aw4991 "dumbass"? Do you even know what socialism is?: "an economic system based on state ownership of capital"
Hence, if you're paying the government to run an organization (such as law enforcement, or education) so that the general populace gets that service for 'free' (technically) then that is considered socialism. It's not a bad thing, no matter how much some media characters may try to make it seem
wolfkidex 1 year ago
@wolfkidex ok yes technically paying taxes for those services is considered socialist. but hes saying what obama is trying to do is pretty much the same as what we already have in place, and its not. that is why i called him a dumbass.
aw4991 1 year ago
@aw4991 The video says nothing about Obama's health care reform. Do you even understand what the health care reform is going change? It is basically going to change nothing.
All it means is that people insured are covered by their insurance without the worry of pre-existing conditions. Also those who are not insured, the government will help them to obtain health insurance.
NinkaPanda 1 year ago