I absolutely agree with you. Why can't people realise that there can be a middle ground, that there there can be something in between a Darwinian every-man-for-himself state and a welfare state. And they work well, like Sweden.
France spends 11.8% of GDP on healthcare, the Netherlands 12%, Germany 11.6% and the USA 17.4%.
The UK spend 9.8% on the NHS which provides free universal healthcare and is judged the best and most efficient in the world. Socialised medicine beats private health insurance .
Source: The Guardian, 17th Feb 2012, Andy Burnham, Shadow Minister for Heath and previous Minister for Health.
Come to the US and start a business. Most people in the US truly behave like sheep. You could make a killing ripping the US bozo the clown aka US citizen off. But you better have a cool pile of cash or you have a 90% failure rate on your business. The US is ran by the corporations. I know, I'm born and raised 100% American from Idaho. The corporation who's only interest is to turn a buck is more trusted than any other organization by most Americans. Too much reality tv, team tag, and nascar.
Based on what I could see from the video thumbnail that this guy was overweight and ugly, I assumed that he was a left wing statist even before watching the video or reading the title. My assumption was absolutely correct. Stereotypes live on.
This guy is an idiot. He doesn't understand a single point Jacob is making. I mean Jacob never said their isn't a middle ground He says (Truthfully) that middle ground doesn't work well, and that has been proven. I mean look at the economy.
@drshlotzkin Tahe it from someone living under a socialist healthcare system, and who have never been to the hospital, and pay 51 % taxes. I would rather live under this system than a privatized healthcare system.
@jeffiek Simple, we have a social contract that stipulates that in order to live in the society, you contribute to it. That way we lift each other above what we could manage as individuals.
Your force arguments are in my opinion nothing but you saying that you should dictate to the people willing to work together to improve society, that they cannot do that because you want to be selfish.
@1stCainite "we have a social contract that stipulates that in order to live in the society, you contribute to it"??? where is this? in our constitution? our bill of rights? dont worry i already know the answer.. it doesnt exist. America is a country that is supposed to be free from social contracts. in America i have the freedom to strive to succeed or do nothing and fail. and you should have the freedom to not support me if you dont wish.
@jeffiek I could turn your final argument around and ask if, if you were in your house, and had your family locked in, unable to leave, and they were starving, should no one be allowed to come by and demand you share your food?
@jaybb789 No, it does not. No, I'm not, people that use hospitals are. You never know, jaybb. We might get sick of you leftists trying to tell us what to do and trying to micromanage our lives for your own benefit, that we might take the country over, ever think about that one? ;)
Seriously though, Nancy, we've already heard all of your talking points. Next please.
Yes exactly, let them starve, or let them crawl back to their family to get a hand out, no reason at all you should be able to use the force of government to dip into other peoples pockets to help leeches whose own family won't even take care of them when they fall on bad times. If their own family won't even save them, why should the country be forced to? Hmmm? Most liberals never have a response for the, I'd be curious to hear your opinion.
wow your a complete moron! health care is never free less you think that magical health care Faries that shit gold bricks exist and they magically pay for all the hospitals doctors nurses therapists etc. the US is already burdened with a mountain of debt and the fact is that not one government program has come in on budget and on average cost 10 times their projected cost! which would put the US's debt to GDP around where Greece's is! over 100%
@ABGAN100 i agree that socialized health care is not practical in america but i think still the term "free healthcare" is suitable if you can pay your taxes
@ABGAN100 That is not true. Most all of us pay federal income tax, not all of us get refunds if that's what you're referring to. 50% of people get refunds, sure, that doesn't mean they do not pay in throughout the year, just means they paid too much, or have certain credits or deductions that apply to them.
@bweazel if they are not getting refunds its their own fault for not filing a 1040 and they represent a very small group of illiterate people. and those who do file are often receiving refunds in amounts greater than what the put in! and that dose not even include all the people receiving food stamps! or other forms of assistance, which has put them in a position of not only not contributing to the tax revenue but acting as a net drain on the tax revenue.
@ABGAN100 No they are not, again, you do not understand the system. People pay federal income tax throughout the year, it is no where close to 50% of those people getting their entire federal income tax returned to them. What you are saying is that 50% of Americans receive refunds from the IRS in the amount of 7,000+ dollars (filing as single). No.... they do not. This amount gets even larger the further up the bracket you go.
@ABGAN100 I agree that people on welfare are complete drains on this economy, but they are by no means 50% of the country, hell, they're barely 5% of the country. The mass majority of people in this country pay more in to federal taxes than they ever get back. That is a fact, bro. Do not argue with me, I do this stuff for a living.
@ABGAN100 And that's just the federal income tax I'm talking about. If you want to get into the payroll taxes, that account for 7.65% of your wages each year, and the 7.65% that your employer matches, no one ever sees any of that money back.
Although I am not making an ideological stance here, I hope you realize that you are indeed putting a price on human life by endorsing "universal" healthcare for citizens of your own country, and not those abroad. This may seem inane to you, but hey, its true. Welfare-nationalism is still nationalism.
put a price tag on some one's health? Yes, that is how the market works. How much would you spend on personal bodyguards for every man, woman and child? Can't put a price on somebodies health you know, it's immoral. How about food, clothing, housing, money into projects to prevent people from living a certain way, can't put a price on that. Of course we can you idiot, STUFF. COSTS. MONEY. Fucking deal with it.
@SubversivePlot So you're saying that private individuals would choose to let each other starve on the streets. But for some reason, they would vote in a law that would force themselves to pay for a safety net?
Nice "pwnage" video you illiterate, innumerate, horizontally challenged fucking imbecile. You have successfully rejected a legitimate idea because you are unable to think outside the fucking paradigm you grew up with.
@oldstyleliberal Nope he simply has a system that works and continues to work providing good services that ALL people can afford. He rejects your idea because it is well crap. As does 99.6% of the population. Unlike the USA all the western world has some form of universal heathcare and the system works fantastically well. Where as the USA's is fucked. So people will not change.
@franks2732 I never said the US system was good. I'm simply saying that the government intervention, as gov't intervention does in all sectors of the economy, creates inefficiency and lack of incentive which increases cost and decreases availability. Sure they can give SOME to all. But heathcare is about quality and technology. Getting "healthcare" can differ from 1700s leachings to modern stem cell therapy.
@oldstyleliberal Firstly that is untrue, government intervention does not "creates inefficiency and lack of incentive which increases cost and decreases availability" That is simply untrue. Economically health care is cheaper in nearly all western countries that have universal heath care and the quality of care surpasses the private user system. You are implying by your ideological beliefs alone that government is bad by default. That is not the case
@franks2732 I attempted to make the distinction between the differing degrees of receiving healthcare... but clearly this, as well as my distaste for the current american system, has evaded you. I'm not going to feed the trolls. Good night buddy.
@oldstyleliberal You attempted to define "heathcare through your own prism, you made unsubstantiated claims, and regardless of your feeling's about America's present healthcare system it is what you believe is the best way forward. Sadly for you all evidence supports universal heathcare as being the best method of delivering quality heathcare to all. It is done far cheaper and better by the public system. I am not trolling you. I disagree with you if you cannot handle that it's not my problem
@franks2732 Where did he type that he thought America's healthcare system was the best? You don't even try to find out your opponent's position, you create it for them. Also, I didn't see him define "healthcare" anywhere. Also, nothing in the US really resembles the free-market advocates like Jacob Spinney are advocating; it's corporatist, not capitalist.
@1000g2g3g4g800999 you have only entered this debate, they certainly have defined healthcare according to their own definition. And I have not in this debate said they believed the American system is to their liking only that they (my opponents) position is what they believe would be the best in the future "regardless of your feeling's about America's present healthcare system it is what you believe is the best way forward". I base my beliefs in reality with evidence, they base it on a moral
@franks2732 He gave two examples of things that could be considered healthcare, and said what he felt it was about; that's not defining. Best, best way forward, sorry, minor distinction, but he didn't even imply the US's current system was the best way forward. He typed nothing about government being bad, simply that government intervention in the economy caused inefficiency. You claim your beliefs are based on "reality with evidence", I want proof that forced public funding lowers prices.
@1000g2g3g4g800999 Go to Australia its a fact, go to the UK, france, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand etc, etc, Dam straight it does. Our healthcare systems are all cheaper than the USA's and might I add the quality of service is much higher. Oh and that other point, no one dies because they cannot afford a doctor where as in the USA they do die.
@franks2732 Okay, so you are implying that all factor concerning healthcare in those regions are constant with those of someplace where it isn't force-funded, except for the matter of the healthcare in the location where it isn't force-funded not being force-funded. The quality of service is higher? On what standard? You're being a little vague there.
@1000g2g3g4g800999 I am not implying anything. It is simply a fact that it is cheaper and the service delivered is better. There is nothing subjective about it at all. Secondly why not produce the evidence to support your position?And I am getting quite a giggle at watching you using sound bites to support your position. If you believe that "universal healthcare" is wrong and does not deliver on it's objective of providing healthcare for all state it. Provide your proof and alternate vision
@franks2732 I haven't defended or advocated any position, and I fail to see how asking questions in TEXT, qualifies as using "sound bites". I have asked you to defend yours, and so far, you have asserted that good and bad are objective. That just isn't true. I don't need to bring any proof, you claimed that UHC was "better" (entirely subjective), the burden of evidence is on you. "It's a fact that Coke is better than Pepsi!" That's what you're doing.
@1000g2g3g4g800999 Well please state your POV for the record or do you no wish to have one? or would you Rather waste your time debating the use of language in the formulation of debate itself. Comments on YT as in any other public forum are not subject to formal rules of debate. If you wish to argue against my position fair enough. And yes of course you do not need to bring proof to "either support" or "refute". But one needs not accept your views as well. I am not subject to your morality
@franks2732 I didn't come here to argue for a point of view, or against your position, I noticed you made a few assumptions about what he typed, and claimed that your proposed system was simply "better." I wanted to know what you meant by "better." After seeing that you said his view was based on morals I ask you to defend it to see how far we'd go back until you used some kind of moral justification, since that would have to happen eventually. Who even says I disagree with your system?
@1000g2g3g4g800999 LMFAO, so how do you define better? For example is the fact that something is cheaper and provides far more services effectively? Would that prove that it is better? I define my views based on evidence. I think the evidence is overwhelming. if you think my argument is not sound because i cannot define a word well and good. if you agree with my position but are arguing that I have not explained my position correctly well and good. I will let others define their view of better
@franks2732 Cheaper? Okay, that's pretty clearly defined, and I bet most would agree that makes something better, but it is still based morality that it would make it better. Effectiveness? Well at what? On my earlier post on you assuming all other factors constant, if you weren't you couldn't point to the "one" variable as causing the different effects. If you try to argue cost, people will ask for sources, and if you don't show how the system satisfies their morals, why would they support it?
@franks2732 Nope? That's it? So, why is something being cheaper better then, I don't want to see a definition of cheaper, or "because you have more money for other things," you will need to say somewhere that this is a good thing. In the end you have to use morality to justify your support of a system. You thinking something being cheaper is good is a moral preference.
@oldstyleliberal On average,the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.Poverty rates are much lower there,and national income per working-age population is on average higher.Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups,slightly higher in the Nordic countries.The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group with larger surpluses as a share of GDP source:(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
@zsylvana So at times the Nordic countries have higher unemployment, does that mean they are thrown onto the streets and left to fend for themselves after 3 months or 6 months dependent on meeting the near impossible "unemployment requirement of the USA". Or because they paid their taxes does the government give them enough to live on and provide accommodation discounts, heathcare etc etc. it must be so bad to live in Sweden with all them empty prisons LMFAO
@franks2732 Yes Frank!We still belong to civilised world like Austrialia.We have such that want drive us back to stoneage here to of course,But like Austraila etc we have long tradition of Labor movement.80 % belongs to Unions!We still put up picket-lines if it´s needed Frank!In US they have Tea-Baggers revolting against i don´t really what.Federale reserve,Health-Care etc,in Europe people revolt on the Streets against IMF and cutting in public sector.Working class here knows who is their enemy!
@zsylvana What gets to me is why is it if it is so wrong do countries who have these evil freedom hating policies have the people rebelling against the evil government. I mean they seem to pick on those freedumb loving corporations who protect everyones self interest. How could any society wish to put into place laws which bring about equity across the whole social spectrum. Because we all know the government giving people stuff from the taxes they pay is stealing. tbc
@zsylvana Personally I think it is an evil socialist plot sponsored by that Obama with his Arab Buddies in Sudan because he is a secret "socialist' who has links with evil things like "government sponsored educational facilities" Dam them Universities to hell, Dam them evil socialist "Public Libraries" and Roads! Long live the Ron Paul freedumb express tollway at $1.93 one way which is owned by a big fat white guy who can tell anyone to fuck off, which is his god given right. You socialists grrr
@franks2732 Yes of course Frank.Our buddy Glenn Beck,is back from Spain, and he says US is runned by Maoists,that plan to start Economic Holocaust!Of course he is right.He is educated in Acient Kalifat and other deep things!And of course we must close down libraries,roads if we gonin to catch up with Somalia!So dumb we been so long!But we seen the light.Maybee we could take a course at Mises Institute?Learn Logic and Economic 101?It will do us good Frank!Meet nice persons.in Alabama etc!
@oldstyleliberal The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by shunning public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a ramshackle system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.source(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
@oldstyleliberal Scandinavian countries have shown that there is an alternative way to cope with globalization. These countries are highly integrated into the global economy; but they are highly successful economies that still provide strong social protections and make high levels of investments in people. They have been successful in part because of these policies, not in spite of them.
@oldstyleliberal The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways.Most important,they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education.All of them,especially Sweden and Finland,have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness.Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D,the highest ratio in the world today.source(International Affairs August 14,2009)
I listened to your video from start to finish and to be honest I think you don't understand Jacob's argument. I used to be a centre-left Brit but listen to what people like Jacob have to say and you might learn something. You can make a start by trying to understand that libertarians desire pretty similar outcomes: e.g good quality healthcare for all.
Funny, NHS is inferior? The people in the U.K have a much higher life expectancy than the U.S. The U.S is ranked number 38 I believe out of any country in the world, only countries with Socialized Health Care come out on top. You already pay for others health care costs, through paying your health insurance, and through taxes. Yes, people get socialized health care in this country through State. You pay double for Health Care in the U.S.
@grendel1013 Aah classic mistake, the US is not a free market healthcare system, it is still heavily regulated by the government and subsidized too. In a free market competition would be left unregulated, forcing a companies to offer the lowest price and the best service.
For instance with an NHS, if they start overcharging me or give bad service, can I take my business elsewhere? No, because they have eliminated the competition already.
Without regulation on Health Care, Health Care providers will continue to charge what ever they want, and deny any one services they need. Profit over people is the way it works here, I know, my wife is a Victim of the U.S health care system.
@grendel1013 Again, this is not a free market system. Watch the video that this video is responding to, unlike the guy here, Jacob knows what he's talking about.
@grendel1013 "I know, my wife is a Victim of the U.S health care system."
In fact, *everyone* in the USA is a victim of the US health care system - whether or not they can afford health insurance. You only have to see that health care in the US costs far more than any other country to see that something is seriously wrong with the system.
@JakkaLakkaDingDing "For instance with an NHS, if they start overcharging me or give bad service, can I take my business elsewhere? No, because they have eliminated the competition already."
Well, you can either pay $7000 per person for US healthcare, or $3000 per person for the NHS. I recently had an RRP operation in Britain: cost to NHS $7500; cost in the US $30,000. And in the UK you are perfectly free to buy health insurance from BUPA, PPP, etc.
@mandolinic You're right, America's healthcare is inferior to the NHS, because it is a CORPORATE system and NOT a FREE MARKET system, America's healthcare is regulated and subsidized, causing prices to sky rocket.
I am free to buy insurance from bupa and so on but does that stop me from paying taxes? No. This is why most people use NHS, as they are already having their money stolen to pay for it, therefore they feel the need to make use of the situation.
My government "steals" as much money from me, as your government steals from you ;-) But at the same time, you have to pay many more thousands of dollars for health insurance. Even if your health care was a true free market, you'd still pay the same in taxes as you do now, and you'd still have find a further amount for insurance.
Call me a socialist/communist if you like, but I get a far far better deal than you do.
So we have to pay the same taxes, yet in a free market I would have to pay for your healthcare anyway?
Just to clarify a few things, Free market = No taxes, economy regulated by competition.
"you have to pay many more thousands of dollars for health insurance" - I live in Britain
"but I get a far far better deal than you do." - Really? A no competition mandatory service? Like I said to the other guy, watch the video that this is responding to.
@JakkaLakkaDingDing "This is why most people use NHS, as they are already having their money stolen to pay for it"
Which ignores one basic fact: Britain is a democracy. The people of Britain have voted time and time again in support of the NHS. We have chosen to pay for healthcare via our tax system. Don't believe me? Start a political party with abolition of the NHS as your prime policy and pay as each of your candidates loses their deposit in the next elections.
That would be a good point but sadly I'm against a system whereby a forced collective is barbarically ruled by whatever the majority thinks is right.
And besides people think the only other alternative is what America has, every time someone says to abolish the NHS a socialist will shout out "But look at America's healthcare", Which isn't a free market anyway. If you can't acknowledge that America is not a free market then I really can't do much about it.
@JakkaLakkaDingDing Your views on a forced collective are really funny. You should go into comedy. In the meantime, next time your house is burning down don't call the fire service, because there really should be free market alternative.
I DO agree with you that the US healthcare system is not a free market; I also think that a collective health care system like the NHS would never be acceptable in the US. Guess we're not that far apart ;-)
No hi does not hate poor ppl. Socialsim has not removed the poor from the society, it just enabled politicians to steal from the middleclass and give it to them selvs, selling it as welfare. Poor ppl would be better off without the welfare as welfare in the end transfers wealth from middleclass to the rich, not to the poor.
How the heck did you get almost 50% downthumb for this?
If universal HC took more money in than it generated, it'd be worth raising taxes (upto a point) to pay for it - so our HC is secure. Universal HC seems to stimulate the economy and decrease costs but even if it didn't, it'd be worth supporting for the majority of people who aren't on the best medical plan.
Maybe I'm defending the UK status quo? It seems to have all the facts on its side, and be more supported by own ppl than US system
Forget spinney's ideology, this seems to be how things are in the US, and since people will support the status quo no matter what it seems - believing any BS people use to defend it. NHS is Insurance and isn't free - but is much cheaper than the US because everyone chips into the same pool. Employer based HC ties people to their workplace like serfdom - no competition. Local monopolies on these HC insurers. They don't even do their job and pay out! Plus they scrape the fat off the top!
the united states is, really, the only major industrialized country that doesn't have socialized health care. we have a few socialized options, but it's primarily a privatized system. over half of the people who file for bankruptcy here, are forced to do so because of a medical emergency. over half of THOSE people actually did have insurance. i'm very confused as to why this is okay with people. i'm also confused as to why people think we can't do it, even though every one else has.
Massive corporations cannot exist without the guns of the state to lobby for favorable legislation. The state has created massive barriers to entry, giving the medical industry a cartel on services. Competition is what will lower prices and raise quality at the same time, not giving the state a bigger monopoly.
"Yes he is actualy against welfare, hey he must really hate poor people if he wants them to starve. "
Way to make a blatant strawman you fat dickhead. I like how all these stupid left wing morons try and use emotional manipulation rather than logic, because if they used logic they'd know how destructive welfare is.
Even Vladmir Lenin stated:
"He who does not work also shall not eat"
Fuck the unproductive, if you can't be useful to society, you deserve no sympathy.
Welfare takes peoples productivity result away coercively. By doing that, people will not have as much incentive (or money) as they would to generate more wealth by creating jobs, reducing poverty.
If government didn't regulate everything in the first place, poverty would be at much lower level.
I thought statists and authoritarians in general liked being told even what to eat or drink, now I know it.
The power to hand of those whom have a perception of society and state as a whole, and not in the hands of imbecile selfish assholes. Totalitarianism for the win!
Think of it this way: If the government had decided it should be the only designer + supplier of desktop computers years ago, what would you say to its citizens tpday who claimed it should instead be run by the free market?
Would you say "Unbelievable. How could the poor afford a $100,000 machine plus tube maintenance crew?"
Before you claim its an invalid prediction, name *one* service or industry the government has ever run more efficiently or cheaply than a free market.
Way to prove that you have the maturity (and intelligence) of an eight-year-old.
I pointed out your shitty debating tactics and you reply with this? All I can say is keep it up, it's a good way to destroy any credibility you may still have.
EERRRRRR yes you do advocate that, you would remove the welfare safety net, which is there to STOP people from starving to death. And you would remove (or in your countries case prevent) free health care for everybody, which is especially beneficial for the poor. So yes you are a Victorian.
HOW????? You said in your other video that you would REMOVE the welfare state and rely on charities, which wouldnt work because they cant deal with the huge amounts of people, THAT WOULD LEAD TO PEOPLE STARVING, GET IT YET???
@reckingmachine Don't you see this trick you're pulling? I advocate for voluntary solutions that would take the place of coercive solutions. We disagree on whether these voluntary solutions would work. So you simply go with your opinion that they won't work and accuse me of wanting poor people to die on the streets. WHAT NONSENSE!
@reckingmachine Let's use this logic in reverse. I think public healthcare will cause a freeze in medical innovation and year-long waiting lines for people needing procedures to get done yesterday. You disagree with that assessment? DOESN"T MATTER! YOU WANT CANCER TO NEVER BE CURED AND PEOPLE TO DIE IN WAITING LINES!!!! . . . . Do you see now how dishonest this tactic is?
What???? You said you would REMOVE the welfare system and would RELY on charities, charities as they stand now CANNOT DEAL with this amount of people. A charity cannot provide food on the table and pay for housing bills for an indefinite amount of time for potentially millions of people until those persons find a job.
You by removing that safety net doom those fuckers to either starve or turn to crime, more often then not drug related crimes whether it is to steal or to sell them. Are you naive enough to think that if you removed the welfare safety net that people would not starve or become desperate and do those things??? Read a history book.
@reckingmachine You, by imposing socialized healthcare, doom people with cancer to die in an early grave and people needing life-saving surgery to die in waiting lines. We can play this game all day long. I hope eventually you'll figure out the mischaracterization you're using.
@JacobSpinney No it doesn't. It allows them to get preventative treatment early because they can get treated sooner rather than wait until it becomes an ER situation.You are an idiot. Blinded by your own greed. Draw an inelastic demand curve with supply curve and see what happens when you shift them with out using the same slopes. Market economy suddenly breaks down. Like monopolies, a fallacy of the market economy prevents competition.Here no matter the amount of competition prices are fixed.
@jeffiek Yes greed has blinded you. Essentially money changers are leaches from the system that are working to circumvent that work that we commoners do. Most insurance and banking is a leach industry. They cry that profit is needed to make these industries even though these institutions came about before they were allowed to make a profit.Certain items work better socially like insurance and money printing.
@reckingmachine So we can get 51% of the population to vote to take money from 100% of the population and devote it toward these tasks. But we cannot get 51% of the population to donate their own money toward these tasks?
@reckingmachine Then that makes my argument even more convincing! If 75% of the population vote to create a tax that goes toward helping people. Then why would that 75% of the population not donate toward helping people if that tax were not in place?
Reckingmachine, you upload a video in which you made an utter fool of yourself and then tell people not to comment on it when they simply are try to show you the fallacies of the straw men you use.
@reckingmachine what incentive would there be for a person to get a job if they have food on the table and paid housing bills. What you propose will create an overwelming reliance on the government. reliance = power. Do you think that politions wouldn't take advantage of that? They could force anyone on puplic welfare to do anything. Thank God America isn't at that point, and we don't need take any more steps closer...
@reckingmachine what incentive would there be for a person to get a job if they have food on the table and paid housing bills. What you propose will create an overwelming reliance on the government. reliance = power. Do you think that polititions wouldn't take advantage of that? They could force anyone on puplic welfare to do anything. Thank God America isn't at that point, and we don't need take any more steps closer...
sorry but I dont feel like paying for your health when the obesity gets to you just like I dont expect you to pay for my health when the weed gets to me. In a free market there is this thing called COMPETITION, I'm sure you never heard of it, anyways it drives prices down so that we could both afford to take care of ourselves and not have to point guns at people and steal their money to cover our costs because thats what obamacare is. You gotta pay for it somehow
Hold on?!?!?! is there a suttle fat joke in there some where?????
O wait your hiding behind the internets because your a flange.
Yeah yeah yeah compition is great its just a shame that poor pepel cant afford insurance so there left to rot. so yeah if you can afford insurance great, if not, fuck you.
@JahLoveOnline The problem is that too many people feel like gov run health care is free. For some, it is free, but for most it isn't.
The only really good thing I can think of about this new bill is that the gov won't allow doctors to prescribe antibiotics for viruses, something that is making antibiotics less and less effective.
People should go open a history book and see what corporations are like, they should look up the East India Company for example, they should also learn that THERE IS NO FREE MARKET ANYMORE. Government regulations have eliminated the free market, which is good, before regulation there was slavery, child labour, 80+ hour work weeks, no benefits, next to no pay, employers beating and executing employee's, etc. Do people actually think a corporation looks out for their interests and not their money?
You are one stupid mother fucker. Slavery was a product of the GOVERNMENT, not the market. A company can't make you a slave, that can ONLY be done by a government.
Lol. Go back before the bourgeois and this is true but out of context. I don't think either of us support feudalism or monarchy. Governments end slavery. Go look up the East India Company, THAT is what the free market brings. Regulation is necessary even in capitalism.
A GOV granted monopoly, nuff said. Slavery goes back thousands of years to pre-old testament days. Only a gov can enforce slavery. Without gov coercion you can simply run a way and find a group of people willing to protect you, and that is only if the master bothers chasing.
I see the same injustices in the world as you do, but I really believe that most of them are caused by governments.
@christo930 Listen up, a government is many things, but the main difference between corporation and government is that you can CHOOSE your government. A government can look out for you if you make it, corporations only want profit and to satisfy their share holders, which means more profit. Look at any corporation back before government regulation. If you hate your government then vote for a different guy or protest. Also, there's a difference between governments before corporation and after.
@MyCrownOfWorms Even in the most successful "democracies" in the world, you really don't get to chose your gov. Your gov was chosen on your behalf by the very same people who run the corporations. The more control you give the gov, the more control the corporations usurp by capturing the gov which is EXACTLY what has happened in the US. The rich and powerful put a few talking heads up of their choosing who we then vote for. You have FAR more choice with corporations than with gov.
Depends on your definition of democracy. Yes I'd agree that in a representative "democracy" choice is hardly truly the peoples via voting. That's where revolt comes in, revolution brings change. In corporation all you do is work, if you are subservient you CAN, MAYBE get promoted, leaving the masses behind to work for nothing.
So you believe it's possible to revolt against the gov with coercive power and cause real change, but not corporations?
The free market isn't just about big corporations, it's also about your personal property, your ability to start your own business etc. It's the gov that is protecting the big corporations right now.
@christo930 That being that a government before corporation controlled the wealth and profit, and usually back then there was feudalism and therefore an authoritarian government. But, even then revolution changed government. If you revolt against a corporation, it falls and a new one takes its place. Sure, governments can do bad, but most good comes from them, all regulation that prevents you working when you're a kid, that makes it so you can't be beaten legally at work or anywhere really, etc.
@MyCrownOfWorms Slavery disappeared because the free market eliminated the need for them and made them impractical. As industry became more and more mechanized slavery became more and more impractical. A corp can't throw you in prison, doesn't control the police and military, can't pass laws. Look at the war on drugs. Anyone with any sense know it's a total failure, but because the dea, police and prisons employ so many people and have power in the gov, we are still throwing sick people in jail.
Slaves existed VASTLY in the times when true free markets existed. Cheap labour means you can maximize profit which is good for those who control capital. Look at the early days of industry and the bourgeois, children working 80+ every week for minimal amounts of money, not nearly enough to even live off of. Corporations DID control prisons, LOOK UP THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. They had prisons, laws, slaves, armies, fleets, etc.
@MyCrownOfWorms You keep forgetting that these companies got their power from the gov and they COULD NOT have done these things without the gov.
The free market very quickly mechanized and that is exactly when slavery was being recognized for the abomination it was. The agriculture still needed huge amounts of unskilled field labor and that is why the south wanted to keep them, but in the north and other industrialized nations, slavery was no longer needed.
Governments are what saves corporations from better, cheaper competition with your so beloved regulations.
You forget it's regulations that made health care so expensive in the first place, or lawyers, or whatever corporative interests the Government gives power to.
Families let kids work because they're poor. So, regulations prohibiting kids working is not going to the point, that is bad economic policies.
'An insurance company for people. I find that bizarre. When someone says insurance company, I think of cars. I think it's disgusting that you would equate car insurance with human insurance.'
Well, that's exactly what's happening. This bill is NOT universal healthcare; it is forcing people to get 'people' insurance, just like most states in the US force us to get car insurance.
Seen the Jacob Spinney video. It doesn't look like he's done much in the way of research.
If I'm not mistaken, medicare actually makes a profit. And I don't know how this bill can possibly be labelled socialist. It's much nearer to being a gift for the Insurance companies.
@pi3p142 You are mistaken. Check out the annual report from the Medicare trustees. You can also just google "medicare and/or social security unfunded liability" for some interesting reading. I wish the debate in the US on health care would have split the bankruptcy of the current gov't run saftey nets from the moral or humanitarian issue of providing health care so perhaps we could have a sensible debate.
@pi3p142 Even Obama said yesterday that this reform "extends the life of Medicare by 10 years" .... in other words, it may have achieved some of the goals of expanding access to health insurance, but it has solved none of the financial problems around health care. So more reforms to come.... oh joy.
I absolutely agree with you. Why can't people realise that there can be a middle ground, that there there can be something in between a Darwinian every-man-for-himself state and a welfare state. And they work well, like Sweden.
BOGnz 9 hours ago
Insurance companies put prices on people's health as an industry standard. It may not be an appealing idea, but thats the reality.
neilorourke71 1 week ago
FACTS about healthcare:
France spends 11.8% of GDP on healthcare, the Netherlands 12%, Germany 11.6% and the USA 17.4%.
The UK spend 9.8% on the NHS which provides free universal healthcare and is judged the best and most efficient in the world. Socialised medicine beats private health insurance .
Source: The Guardian, 17th Feb 2012, Andy Burnham, Shadow Minister for Heath and previous Minister for Health.
erichargrave12 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
Come to the US and start a business. Most people in the US truly behave like sheep. You could make a killing ripping the US bozo the clown aka US citizen off. But you better have a cool pile of cash or you have a 90% failure rate on your business. The US is ran by the corporations. I know, I'm born and raised 100% American from Idaho. The corporation who's only interest is to turn a buck is more trusted than any other organization by most Americans. Too much reality tv, team tag, and nascar.
jmitterii2 1 month ago
Based on what I could see from the video thumbnail that this guy was overweight and ugly, I assumed that he was a left wing statist even before watching the video or reading the title. My assumption was absolutely correct. Stereotypes live on.
stebecool 1 month ago
GOOD POINT DUMB FUCKING YANKS
levishelley55 1 month ago
reckingmachine you didn't understand his video. By taking the state out of health care you would make it more affordable to more people.
sweatytoothmadman 1 month ago
The more Europeans ,I hear speak the better I understand why the European demographic is what it is....
ClarksonsinUSA 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
oi cunt u ain notin but a nwo pawn ya cunt
stinnetbennet 1 month ago
This guy is an idiot. He doesn't understand a single point Jacob is making. I mean Jacob never said their isn't a middle ground He says (Truthfully) that middle ground doesn't work well, and that has been proven. I mean look at the economy.
pcgamernum1 3 months ago 2
you're clearly a starving ginger with a accent
21russom 3 months ago
Of course you wouldn’t, you're NOT PAYING FOR IT! You disgusting piece of shit.
drshlotzkin 4 months ago
@drshlotzkin Tahe it from someone living under a socialist healthcare system, and who have never been to the hospital, and pay 51 % taxes. I would rather live under this system than a privatized healthcare system.
1stCainite 3 months ago
@1stCainite "I would rather"
This is NOT THE QUESTION. You can "rather" anything you want. You're welcome to it.
The question is: Where the fuck do you get the right to FORCE ( yes, violently, under threat of jail ) people to agree with you?
Is that how you treat your spouse, children, and friends?
jeffiek 1 month ago
@jeffiek Simple, we have a social contract that stipulates that in order to live in the society, you contribute to it. That way we lift each other above what we could manage as individuals.
Your force arguments are in my opinion nothing but you saying that you should dictate to the people willing to work together to improve society, that they cannot do that because you want to be selfish.
1stCainite 1 month ago
@1stCainite "we have a social contract"
Says YOU. Show me a copy. Show me my name on it.
"saying that you should dictate to the people"
What unmitigated gall. I am not dictating to anyone. You can do whatever you want. YOU ARE DICTATING to others and backing it up with weapons.
"you want to be selfish."
We've already dealt with that. YOU are the one that wants what other people work for. Get off your lazy ass and work for what you want.
jeffiek 1 month ago
@1stCainite "we have a social contract that stipulates that in order to live in the society, you contribute to it"??? where is this? in our constitution? our bill of rights? dont worry i already know the answer.. it doesnt exist. America is a country that is supposed to be free from social contracts. in America i have the freedom to strive to succeed or do nothing and fail. and you should have the freedom to not support me if you dont wish.
sandman3697 2 weeks ago
@jeffiek I could turn your final argument around and ask if, if you were in your house, and had your family locked in, unable to leave, and they were starving, should no one be allowed to come by and demand you share your food?
1stCainite 1 month ago
@1stCainite "I could turn your final argument around ..."
Only with the most vile distortions, innuendos, and lies.
jeffiek 1 month ago
@jaybb789 No, it does not. No, I'm not, people that use hospitals are. You never know, jaybb. We might get sick of you leftists trying to tell us what to do and trying to micromanage our lives for your own benefit, that we might take the country over, ever think about that one? ;)
Seriously though, Nancy, we've already heard all of your talking points. Next please.
bweazel 6 months ago
Yes exactly, let them starve, or let them crawl back to their family to get a hand out, no reason at all you should be able to use the force of government to dip into other peoples pockets to help leeches whose own family won't even take care of them when they fall on bad times. If their own family won't even save them, why should the country be forced to? Hmmm? Most liberals never have a response for the, I'd be curious to hear your opinion.
bweazel 6 months ago
wow your a complete moron! health care is never free less you think that magical health care Faries that shit gold bricks exist and they magically pay for all the hospitals doctors nurses therapists etc. the US is already burdened with a mountain of debt and the fact is that not one government program has come in on budget and on average cost 10 times their projected cost! which would put the US's debt to GDP around where Greece's is! over 100%
ABGAN100 8 months ago
@ABGAN100 i agree that socialized health care is not practical in america but i think still the term "free healthcare" is suitable if you can pay your taxes
BLUEGENE13 6 months ago
@BLUEGENE13 nearly 50% of the people in American pay not federal taxes,
ABGAN100 6 months ago
@ABGAN100 That is not true. Most all of us pay federal income tax, not all of us get refunds if that's what you're referring to. 50% of people get refunds, sure, that doesn't mean they do not pay in throughout the year, just means they paid too much, or have certain credits or deductions that apply to them.
bweazel 6 months ago
@bweazel if they are not getting refunds its their own fault for not filing a 1040 and they represent a very small group of illiterate people. and those who do file are often receiving refunds in amounts greater than what the put in! and that dose not even include all the people receiving food stamps! or other forms of assistance, which has put them in a position of not only not contributing to the tax revenue but acting as a net drain on the tax revenue.
ABGAN100 6 months ago
@ABGAN100 No they are not, again, you do not understand the system. People pay federal income tax throughout the year, it is no where close to 50% of those people getting their entire federal income tax returned to them. What you are saying is that 50% of Americans receive refunds from the IRS in the amount of 7,000+ dollars (filing as single). No.... they do not. This amount gets even larger the further up the bracket you go.
bweazel 6 months ago
@ABGAN100 I agree that people on welfare are complete drains on this economy, but they are by no means 50% of the country, hell, they're barely 5% of the country. The mass majority of people in this country pay more in to federal taxes than they ever get back. That is a fact, bro. Do not argue with me, I do this stuff for a living.
bweazel 6 months ago
@ABGAN100 And that's just the federal income tax I'm talking about. If you want to get into the payroll taxes, that account for 7.65% of your wages each year, and the 7.65% that your employer matches, no one ever sees any of that money back.
bweazel 6 months ago
@bweazel Its the payroll taxes that are destroying american business in america and why so many business are outsourcing,
ABGAN100 6 months ago
Although I am not making an ideological stance here, I hope you realize that you are indeed putting a price on human life by endorsing "universal" healthcare for citizens of your own country, and not those abroad. This may seem inane to you, but hey, its true. Welfare-nationalism is still nationalism.
briano8713 9 months ago
put a price tag on some one's health? Yes, that is how the market works. How much would you spend on personal bodyguards for every man, woman and child? Can't put a price on somebodies health you know, it's immoral. How about food, clothing, housing, money into projects to prevent people from living a certain way, can't put a price on that. Of course we can you idiot, STUFF. COSTS. MONEY. Fucking deal with it.
s0beit 10 months ago
You're lack of intelligence disturbed me.
ACOLLEGECONSERVATIVE 10 months ago
It actually says "help the sick, by ending public healthcare." Nice try.
ACOLLEGECONSERVATIVE 10 months ago
@SubversivePlot So you're saying that private individuals would choose to let each other starve on the streets. But for some reason, they would vote in a law that would force themselves to pay for a safety net?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
I say fuck em let have there shitty system.
stupid yanks
benitofinito 1 year ago
1:59
First semi-intelligent part of the video.
bathory714 1 year ago
Nice "pwnage" video you illiterate, innumerate, horizontally challenged fucking imbecile. You have successfully rejected a legitimate idea because you are unable to think outside the fucking paradigm you grew up with.
oldstyleliberal 1 year ago 2
@oldstyleliberal Nope he simply has a system that works and continues to work providing good services that ALL people can afford. He rejects your idea because it is well crap. As does 99.6% of the population. Unlike the USA all the western world has some form of universal heathcare and the system works fantastically well. Where as the USA's is fucked. So people will not change.
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 I never said the US system was good. I'm simply saying that the government intervention, as gov't intervention does in all sectors of the economy, creates inefficiency and lack of incentive which increases cost and decreases availability. Sure they can give SOME to all. But heathcare is about quality and technology. Getting "healthcare" can differ from 1700s leachings to modern stem cell therapy.
oldstyleliberal 1 year ago
@oldstyleliberal Firstly that is untrue, government intervention does not "creates inefficiency and lack of incentive which increases cost and decreases availability" That is simply untrue. Economically health care is cheaper in nearly all western countries that have universal heath care and the quality of care surpasses the private user system. You are implying by your ideological beliefs alone that government is bad by default. That is not the case
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 I attempted to make the distinction between the differing degrees of receiving healthcare... but clearly this, as well as my distaste for the current american system, has evaded you. I'm not going to feed the trolls. Good night buddy.
oldstyleliberal 1 year ago
@oldstyleliberal You attempted to define "heathcare through your own prism, you made unsubstantiated claims, and regardless of your feeling's about America's present healthcare system it is what you believe is the best way forward. Sadly for you all evidence supports universal heathcare as being the best method of delivering quality heathcare to all. It is done far cheaper and better by the public system. I am not trolling you. I disagree with you if you cannot handle that it's not my problem
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Hello Frank.I repeat what i wrote on your video.I think it´s needed.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@franks2732 Where did he type that he thought America's healthcare system was the best? You don't even try to find out your opponent's position, you create it for them. Also, I didn't see him define "healthcare" anywhere. Also, nothing in the US really resembles the free-market advocates like Jacob Spinney are advocating; it's corporatist, not capitalist.
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 you have only entered this debate, they certainly have defined healthcare according to their own definition. And I have not in this debate said they believed the American system is to their liking only that they (my opponents) position is what they believe would be the best in the future "regardless of your feeling's about America's present healthcare system it is what you believe is the best way forward". I base my beliefs in reality with evidence, they base it on a moral
franks2732 10 months ago
@franks2732 He gave two examples of things that could be considered healthcare, and said what he felt it was about; that's not defining. Best, best way forward, sorry, minor distinction, but he didn't even imply the US's current system was the best way forward. He typed nothing about government being bad, simply that government intervention in the economy caused inefficiency. You claim your beliefs are based on "reality with evidence", I want proof that forced public funding lowers prices.
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 Go to Australia its a fact, go to the UK, france, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand etc, etc, Dam straight it does. Our healthcare systems are all cheaper than the USA's and might I add the quality of service is much higher. Oh and that other point, no one dies because they cannot afford a doctor where as in the USA they do die.
franks2732 10 months ago
@franks2732 Okay, so you are implying that all factor concerning healthcare in those regions are constant with those of someplace where it isn't force-funded, except for the matter of the healthcare in the location where it isn't force-funded not being force-funded. The quality of service is higher? On what standard? You're being a little vague there.
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 I am not implying anything. It is simply a fact that it is cheaper and the service delivered is better. There is nothing subjective about it at all. Secondly why not produce the evidence to support your position?And I am getting quite a giggle at watching you using sound bites to support your position. If you believe that "universal healthcare" is wrong and does not deliver on it's objective of providing healthcare for all state it. Provide your proof and alternate vision
franks2732 10 months ago
@franks2732 I haven't defended or advocated any position, and I fail to see how asking questions in TEXT, qualifies as using "sound bites". I have asked you to defend yours, and so far, you have asserted that good and bad are objective. That just isn't true. I don't need to bring any proof, you claimed that UHC was "better" (entirely subjective), the burden of evidence is on you. "It's a fact that Coke is better than Pepsi!" That's what you're doing.
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 Well please state your POV for the record or do you no wish to have one? or would you Rather waste your time debating the use of language in the formulation of debate itself. Comments on YT as in any other public forum are not subject to formal rules of debate. If you wish to argue against my position fair enough. And yes of course you do not need to bring proof to "either support" or "refute". But one needs not accept your views as well. I am not subject to your morality
franks2732 10 months ago
@franks2732 I didn't come here to argue for a point of view, or against your position, I noticed you made a few assumptions about what he typed, and claimed that your proposed system was simply "better." I wanted to know what you meant by "better." After seeing that you said his view was based on morals I ask you to defend it to see how far we'd go back until you used some kind of moral justification, since that would have to happen eventually. Who even says I disagree with your system?
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 LMFAO, so how do you define better? For example is the fact that something is cheaper and provides far more services effectively? Would that prove that it is better? I define my views based on evidence. I think the evidence is overwhelming. if you think my argument is not sound because i cannot define a word well and good. if you agree with my position but are arguing that I have not explained my position correctly well and good. I will let others define their view of better
franks2732 10 months ago
@franks2732 Cheaper? Okay, that's pretty clearly defined, and I bet most would agree that makes something better, but it is still based morality that it would make it better. Effectiveness? Well at what? On my earlier post on you assuming all other factors constant, if you weren't you couldn't point to the "one" variable as causing the different effects. If you try to argue cost, people will ask for sources, and if you don't show how the system satisfies their morals, why would they support it?
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 nope
franks2732 10 months ago
@franks2732 Nope? That's it? So, why is something being cheaper better then, I don't want to see a definition of cheaper, or "because you have more money for other things," you will need to say somewhere that this is a good thing. In the end you have to use morality to justify your support of a system. You thinking something being cheaper is good is a moral preference.
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@oldstyleliberal On average,the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.Poverty rates are much lower there,and national income per working-age population is on average higher.Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups,slightly higher in the Nordic countries.The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group with larger surpluses as a share of GDP source:(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana So at times the Nordic countries have higher unemployment, does that mean they are thrown onto the streets and left to fend for themselves after 3 months or 6 months dependent on meeting the near impossible "unemployment requirement of the USA". Or because they paid their taxes does the government give them enough to live on and provide accommodation discounts, heathcare etc etc. it must be so bad to live in Sweden with all them empty prisons LMFAO
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Yes Frank!We still belong to civilised world like Austrialia.We have such that want drive us back to stoneage here to of course,But like Austraila etc we have long tradition of Labor movement.80 % belongs to Unions!We still put up picket-lines if it´s needed Frank!In US they have Tea-Baggers revolting against i don´t really what.Federale reserve,Health-Care etc,in Europe people revolt on the Streets against IMF and cutting in public sector.Working class here knows who is their enemy!
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana What gets to me is why is it if it is so wrong do countries who have these evil freedom hating policies have the people rebelling against the evil government. I mean they seem to pick on those freedumb loving corporations who protect everyones self interest. How could any society wish to put into place laws which bring about equity across the whole social spectrum. Because we all know the government giving people stuff from the taxes they pay is stealing. tbc
franks2732 1 year ago
@zsylvana Personally I think it is an evil socialist plot sponsored by that Obama with his Arab Buddies in Sudan because he is a secret "socialist' who has links with evil things like "government sponsored educational facilities" Dam them Universities to hell, Dam them evil socialist "Public Libraries" and Roads! Long live the Ron Paul freedumb express tollway at $1.93 one way which is owned by a big fat white guy who can tell anyone to fuck off, which is his god given right. You socialists grrr
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Yes of course Frank.Our buddy Glenn Beck,is back from Spain, and he says US is runned by Maoists,that plan to start Economic Holocaust!Of course he is right.He is educated in Acient Kalifat and other deep things!And of course we must close down libraries,roads if we gonin to catch up with Somalia!So dumb we been so long!But we seen the light.Maybee we could take a course at Mises Institute?Learn Logic and Economic 101?It will do us good Frank!Meet nice persons.in Alabama etc!
zsylvana 1 year ago
@oldstyleliberal The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by shunning public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a ramshackle system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.source(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oldstyleliberal Scandinavian countries have shown that there is an alternative way to cope with globalization. These countries are highly integrated into the global economy; but they are highly successful economies that still provide strong social protections and make high levels of investments in people. They have been successful in part because of these policies, not in spite of them.
source:(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
zsylvana 1 year ago
@oldstyleliberal The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways.Most important,they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education.All of them,especially Sweden and Finland,have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness.Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D,the highest ratio in the world today.source(International Affairs August 14,2009)
zsylvana 1 year ago
Hi Recking,
I listened to your video from start to finish and to be honest I think you don't understand Jacob's argument. I used to be a centre-left Brit but listen to what people like Jacob have to say and you might learn something. You can make a start by trying to understand that libertarians desire pretty similar outcomes: e.g good quality healthcare for all.
mangoswiss 1 year ago
"Help the sick by removing free health care."
Health Care isn't free, dumbass.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 year ago
You do know that the NHS is actually inferior to a free market privatised health system right? NHS isn't free either it's paid for by tax money.
Furthermore you're arguing that we should help sick people by stealing money from others. You're saying that two wrongs make a right.
You would also have to argue that everyone has a right to free healthcare, which cannot be backed up by any logical answers.
At least you made a good point past 1:56
JakkaLakkaDingDing 1 year ago
@JakkaLakkaDingDing
Funny, NHS is inferior? The people in the U.K have a much higher life expectancy than the U.S. The U.S is ranked number 38 I believe out of any country in the world, only countries with Socialized Health Care come out on top. You already pay for others health care costs, through paying your health insurance, and through taxes. Yes, people get socialized health care in this country through State. You pay double for Health Care in the U.S.
grendel1013 1 year ago
@grendel1013 Aah classic mistake, the US is not a free market healthcare system, it is still heavily regulated by the government and subsidized too. In a free market competition would be left unregulated, forcing a companies to offer the lowest price and the best service.
For instance with an NHS, if they start overcharging me or give bad service, can I take my business elsewhere? No, because they have eliminated the competition already.
JakkaLakkaDingDing 1 year ago
@JakkaLakkaDingDing
Without regulation on Health Care, Health Care providers will continue to charge what ever they want, and deny any one services they need. Profit over people is the way it works here, I know, my wife is a Victim of the U.S health care system.
grendel1013 1 year ago
@grendel1013 Again, this is not a free market system. Watch the video that this video is responding to, unlike the guy here, Jacob knows what he's talking about.
JakkaLakkaDingDing 1 year ago
@grendel1013 "I know, my wife is a Victim of the U.S health care system."
In fact, *everyone* in the USA is a victim of the US health care system - whether or not they can afford health insurance. You only have to see that health care in the US costs far more than any other country to see that something is seriously wrong with the system.
mandolinic 1 year ago
@JakkaLakkaDingDing "For instance with an NHS, if they start overcharging me or give bad service, can I take my business elsewhere? No, because they have eliminated the competition already."
Well, you can either pay $7000 per person for US healthcare, or $3000 per person for the NHS. I recently had an RRP operation in Britain: cost to NHS $7500; cost in the US $30,000. And in the UK you are perfectly free to buy health insurance from BUPA, PPP, etc.
mandolinic 1 year ago
@mandolinic You're right, America's healthcare is inferior to the NHS, because it is a CORPORATE system and NOT a FREE MARKET system, America's healthcare is regulated and subsidized, causing prices to sky rocket.
I am free to buy insurance from bupa and so on but does that stop me from paying taxes? No. This is why most people use NHS, as they are already having their money stolen to pay for it, therefore they feel the need to make use of the situation.
JakkaLakkaDingDing 1 year ago
@JakkaLakkaDingDing "having their money stolen to pay for it"
My government "steals" as much money from me, as your government steals from you ;-) But at the same time, you have to pay many more thousands of dollars for health insurance. Even if your health care was a true free market, you'd still pay the same in taxes as you do now, and you'd still have find a further amount for insurance.
Call me a socialist/communist if you like, but I get a far far better deal than you do.
mandolinic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mandolinic What?
So we have to pay the same taxes, yet in a free market I would have to pay for your healthcare anyway?
Just to clarify a few things, Free market = No taxes, economy regulated by competition.
"you have to pay many more thousands of dollars for health insurance" - I live in Britain
"but I get a far far better deal than you do." - Really? A no competition mandatory service? Like I said to the other guy, watch the video that this is responding to.
JakkaLakkaDingDing 1 year ago
@JakkaLakkaDingDing "This is why most people use NHS, as they are already having their money stolen to pay for it"
Which ignores one basic fact: Britain is a democracy. The people of Britain have voted time and time again in support of the NHS. We have chosen to pay for healthcare via our tax system. Don't believe me? Start a political party with abolition of the NHS as your prime policy and pay as each of your candidates loses their deposit in the next elections.
mandolinic 1 year ago
"Britain is a democracy"
That would be a good point but sadly I'm against a system whereby a forced collective is barbarically ruled by whatever the majority thinks is right.
And besides people think the only other alternative is what America has, every time someone says to abolish the NHS a socialist will shout out "But look at America's healthcare", Which isn't a free market anyway. If you can't acknowledge that America is not a free market then I really can't do much about it.
JakkaLakkaDingDing 1 year ago
@JakkaLakkaDingDing Your views on a forced collective are really funny. You should go into comedy. In the meantime, next time your house is burning down don't call the fire service, because there really should be free market alternative.
I DO agree with you that the US healthcare system is not a free market; I also think that a collective health care system like the NHS would never be acceptable in the US. Guess we're not that far apart ;-)
mandolinic 1 year ago
@mandolinic Absolutely fandabiedoobiedoozie :P
JakkaLakkaDingDing 1 year ago
No hi does not hate poor ppl. Socialsim has not removed the poor from the society, it just enabled politicians to steal from the middleclass and give it to them selvs, selling it as welfare. Poor ppl would be better off without the welfare as welfare in the end transfers wealth from middleclass to the rich, not to the poor.
Warzoooooo 1 year ago
How the heck did you get almost 50% downthumb for this?
If universal HC took more money in than it generated, it'd be worth raising taxes (upto a point) to pay for it - so our HC is secure. Universal HC seems to stimulate the economy and decrease costs but even if it didn't, it'd be worth supporting for the majority of people who aren't on the best medical plan.
Maybe I'm defending the UK status quo? It seems to have all the facts on its side, and be more supported by own ppl than US system
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption
"How the heck did you get almost 50% downthumb for this?"
Um, because he made an utter fool out of himself for being so blatantly wrong and you're a fucktard?
itachi705 1 year ago
Forget spinney's ideology, this seems to be how things are in the US, and since people will support the status quo no matter what it seems - believing any BS people use to defend it. NHS is Insurance and isn't free - but is much cheaper than the US because everyone chips into the same pool. Employer based HC ties people to their workplace like serfdom - no competition. Local monopolies on these HC insurers. They don't even do their job and pay out! Plus they scrape the fat off the top!
unassumption 1 year ago
the united states is, really, the only major industrialized country that doesn't have socialized health care. we have a few socialized options, but it's primarily a privatized system. over half of the people who file for bankruptcy here, are forced to do so because of a medical emergency. over half of THOSE people actually did have insurance. i'm very confused as to why this is okay with people. i'm also confused as to why people think we can't do it, even though every one else has.
itinkuno 1 year ago
Massive corporations cannot exist without the guns of the state to lobby for favorable legislation. The state has created massive barriers to entry, giving the medical industry a cartel on services. Competition is what will lower prices and raise quality at the same time, not giving the state a bigger monopoly.
BABABABA5555 1 year ago
"I'm not an intelligent person."
This would have been an accurate summary of your video .
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
So you think that using guns to make people pay for "poor" people is more humane, then letting people work for a living.
theoriginalanomaly 1 year ago
"Yes he is actualy against welfare, hey he must really hate poor people if he wants them to starve. "
Way to make a blatant strawman you fat dickhead. I like how all these stupid left wing morons try and use emotional manipulation rather than logic, because if they used logic they'd know how destructive welfare is.
Even Vladmir Lenin stated:
"He who does not work also shall not eat"
Fuck the unproductive, if you can't be useful to society, you deserve no sympathy.
unpardonablesin 1 year ago
@unpardonablesin
"Fuck the unproductive, if you can't be useful to society, you deserve no sympathy."
Exactly. Instead of paying to look after sick people, we should pay to have them incinerated.
Eron2828 1 year ago
Welfare takes peoples productivity result away coercively. By doing that, people will not have as much incentive (or money) as they would to generate more wealth by creating jobs, reducing poverty.
If government didn't regulate everything in the first place, poverty would be at much lower level.
I thought statists and authoritarians in general liked being told even what to eat or drink, now I know it.
darkr0astedblend 1 year ago
The power to hand of those whom have a perception of society and state as a whole, and not in the hands of imbecile selfish assholes. Totalitarianism for the win!
vls174 1 year ago
Totalitarianism and communism for the win!
vls174 1 year ago
Think of it this way: If the government had decided it should be the only designer + supplier of desktop computers years ago, what would you say to its citizens tpday who claimed it should instead be run by the free market?
Would you say "Unbelievable. How could the poor afford a $100,000 machine plus tube maintenance crew?"
Before you claim its an invalid prediction, name *one* service or industry the government has ever run more efficiently or cheaply than a free market.
Just one.
rbairos1 1 year ago
America is already, before this bill, spending 1.60 for every 1 in tax revenue.
You don't know anything about economics, do you? Gov involvement has driven the cost of HC so high.
christo930 1 year ago
...Says the guy who called me a 'twat' for researching HIS baseless assertions on Google.
Go fuck yourself, reckingmachine.
ICTN218 1 year ago
aarrrrrr someone sounds bitter, wants me to rub your belly???
reckingmachine 1 year ago
@reckingmachine
Way to prove that you have the maturity (and intelligence) of an eight-year-old.
I pointed out your shitty debating tactics and you reply with this? All I can say is keep it up, it's a good way to destroy any credibility you may still have.
*Awaits foolish, childish response*
ICTN218 1 year ago
What a giant proletarian.
flynn2008 1 year ago 2
reckingmachine you're a fucking dumbass go take some econ classes
yngbullwnohorns 1 year ago
So I advocate for people to be kicked on the street and starve to death? Did you even watch the video?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 17
EERRRRRR yes you do advocate that, you would remove the welfare safety net, which is there to STOP people from starving to death. And you would remove (or in your countries case prevent) free health care for everybody, which is especially beneficial for the poor. So yes you are a Victorian.
reckingmachine 1 year ago
@reckingmachine You're showing your true colors by demonstrating your willful ignorance or willful mischaracterization of my positions.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
HOW????? You said in your other video that you would REMOVE the welfare state and rely on charities, which wouldnt work because they cant deal with the huge amounts of people, THAT WOULD LEAD TO PEOPLE STARVING, GET IT YET???
reckingmachine 1 year ago
@reckingmachine Don't you see this trick you're pulling? I advocate for voluntary solutions that would take the place of coercive solutions. We disagree on whether these voluntary solutions would work. So you simply go with your opinion that they won't work and accuse me of wanting poor people to die on the streets. WHAT NONSENSE!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@reckingmachine Let's use this logic in reverse. I think public healthcare will cause a freeze in medical innovation and year-long waiting lines for people needing procedures to get done yesterday. You disagree with that assessment? DOESN"T MATTER! YOU WANT CANCER TO NEVER BE CURED AND PEOPLE TO DIE IN WAITING LINES!!!! . . . . Do you see now how dishonest this tactic is?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 3
What???? You said you would REMOVE the welfare system and would RELY on charities, charities as they stand now CANNOT DEAL with this amount of people. A charity cannot provide food on the table and pay for housing bills for an indefinite amount of time for potentially millions of people until those persons find a job.
reckingmachine 1 year ago
You by removing that safety net doom those fuckers to either starve or turn to crime, more often then not drug related crimes whether it is to steal or to sell them. Are you naive enough to think that if you removed the welfare safety net that people would not starve or become desperate and do those things??? Read a history book.
reckingmachine 1 year ago
@reckingmachine You, by imposing socialized healthcare, doom people with cancer to die in an early grave and people needing life-saving surgery to die in waiting lines. We can play this game all day long. I hope eventually you'll figure out the mischaracterization you're using.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 3
@JacobSpinney No it doesn't. It allows them to get preventative treatment early because they can get treated sooner rather than wait until it becomes an ER situation.You are an idiot. Blinded by your own greed. Draw an inelastic demand curve with supply curve and see what happens when you shift them with out using the same slopes. Market economy suddenly breaks down. Like monopolies, a fallacy of the market economy prevents competition.Here no matter the amount of competition prices are fixed.
jmitterii2 5 months ago
@jmitterii2 "Blinded by your own greed"
Hmmm. Greed, let's see. Jacob wants what he went to work for. YOU want what Jacob went to work for.
You both want the same thing. The difference is HE EARNED IT. You need a weapon to get it from him.
What do we commonly call people that take money they didn't earn by force?
Greedy thugs, a.k.a. YOU
jeffiek 1 month ago
@jeffiek Yes greed has blinded you. Essentially money changers are leaches from the system that are working to circumvent that work that we commoners do. Most insurance and banking is a leach industry. They cry that profit is needed to make these industries even though these institutions came about before they were allowed to make a profit.Certain items work better socially like insurance and money printing.
jmitterii2 1 month ago
@jmitterii2 Just as I expected.
A greedy thug blaming the victim.
You can easily tell who is the thug and who is the victim.
The thug has the weapons, the victim yells ouch.
Why don't you crawl back into the slime where you belong.
jeffiek 1 month ago
@reckingmachine You are subsidizing poverty, They still do those things while they claim dole.
totheman 1 year ago
@reckingmachine So we can get 51% of the population to vote to take money from 100% of the population and devote it toward these tasks. But we cannot get 51% of the population to donate their own money toward these tasks?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
Im pretty sure its more then 51 %
And no if people where given the chance they wouldnt pay taxes.
Go away
reckingmachine 1 year ago
@reckingmachine Then that makes my argument even more convincing! If 75% of the population vote to create a tax that goes toward helping people. Then why would that 75% of the population not donate toward helping people if that tax were not in place?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 7
@reckingmachine
'Go away'
Reckingmachine, you upload a video in which you made an utter fool of yourself and then tell people not to comment on it when they simply are try to show you the fallacies of the straw men you use.
DystopianUtopia 1 year ago
@reckingmachine what incentive would there be for a person to get a job if they have food on the table and paid housing bills. What you propose will create an overwelming reliance on the government. reliance = power. Do you think that politions wouldn't take advantage of that? They could force anyone on puplic welfare to do anything. Thank God America isn't at that point, and we don't need take any more steps closer...
jaredthebest47 1 year ago
@reckingmachine what incentive would there be for a person to get a job if they have food on the table and paid housing bills. What you propose will create an overwelming reliance on the government. reliance = power. Do you think that polititions wouldn't take advantage of that? They could force anyone on puplic welfare to do anything. Thank God America isn't at that point, and we don't need take any more steps closer...
jaredthebest47 1 year ago
sorry but I dont feel like paying for your health when the obesity gets to you just like I dont expect you to pay for my health when the weed gets to me. In a free market there is this thing called COMPETITION, I'm sure you never heard of it, anyways it drives prices down so that we could both afford to take care of ourselves and not have to point guns at people and steal their money to cover our costs because thats what obamacare is. You gotta pay for it somehow
JahLoveOnline 1 year ago
Hold on?!?!?! is there a suttle fat joke in there some where?????
O wait your hiding behind the internets because your a flange.
Yeah yeah yeah compition is great its just a shame that poor pepel cant afford insurance so there left to rot. so yeah if you can afford insurance great, if not, fuck you.
reckingmachine 1 year ago
@reckingmachine, I have no clue what your trying to say there. Were you even responding to my comment?
JahLoveOnline 1 year ago
Maybe its because your stoned, or just palin stupid i dont know.
reckingmachine 1 year ago
@JahLoveOnline The problem is that too many people feel like gov run health care is free. For some, it is free, but for most it isn't.
The only really good thing I can think of about this new bill is that the gov won't allow doctors to prescribe antibiotics for viruses, something that is making antibiotics less and less effective.
christo930 1 year ago
People should go open a history book and see what corporations are like, they should look up the East India Company for example, they should also learn that THERE IS NO FREE MARKET ANYMORE. Government regulations have eliminated the free market, which is good, before regulation there was slavery, child labour, 80+ hour work weeks, no benefits, next to no pay, employers beating and executing employee's, etc. Do people actually think a corporation looks out for their interests and not their money?
MyCrownOfWorms 1 year ago
You are one stupid mother fucker. Slavery was a product of the GOVERNMENT, not the market. A company can't make you a slave, that can ONLY be done by a government.
christo930 1 year ago
Lol. Go back before the bourgeois and this is true but out of context. I don't think either of us support feudalism or monarchy. Governments end slavery. Go look up the East India Company, THAT is what the free market brings. Regulation is necessary even in capitalism.
MyCrownOfWorms 1 year ago
A GOV granted monopoly, nuff said. Slavery goes back thousands of years to pre-old testament days. Only a gov can enforce slavery. Without gov coercion you can simply run a way and find a group of people willing to protect you, and that is only if the master bothers chasing.
I see the same injustices in the world as you do, but I really believe that most of them are caused by governments.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930 Listen up, a government is many things, but the main difference between corporation and government is that you can CHOOSE your government. A government can look out for you if you make it, corporations only want profit and to satisfy their share holders, which means more profit. Look at any corporation back before government regulation. If you hate your government then vote for a different guy or protest. Also, there's a difference between governments before corporation and after.
MyCrownOfWorms 1 year ago
@MyCrownOfWorms Even in the most successful "democracies" in the world, you really don't get to chose your gov. Your gov was chosen on your behalf by the very same people who run the corporations. The more control you give the gov, the more control the corporations usurp by capturing the gov which is EXACTLY what has happened in the US. The rich and powerful put a few talking heads up of their choosing who we then vote for. You have FAR more choice with corporations than with gov.
christo930 1 year ago
Depends on your definition of democracy. Yes I'd agree that in a representative "democracy" choice is hardly truly the peoples via voting. That's where revolt comes in, revolution brings change. In corporation all you do is work, if you are subservient you CAN, MAYBE get promoted, leaving the masses behind to work for nothing.
MyCrownOfWorms 1 year ago
@MyCrownOfWorms
So you believe it's possible to revolt against the gov with coercive power and cause real change, but not corporations?
The free market isn't just about big corporations, it's also about your personal property, your ability to start your own business etc. It's the gov that is protecting the big corporations right now.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930 That being that a government before corporation controlled the wealth and profit, and usually back then there was feudalism and therefore an authoritarian government. But, even then revolution changed government. If you revolt against a corporation, it falls and a new one takes its place. Sure, governments can do bad, but most good comes from them, all regulation that prevents you working when you're a kid, that makes it so you can't be beaten legally at work or anywhere really, etc.
MyCrownOfWorms 1 year ago
@MyCrownOfWorms Slavery disappeared because the free market eliminated the need for them and made them impractical. As industry became more and more mechanized slavery became more and more impractical. A corp can't throw you in prison, doesn't control the police and military, can't pass laws. Look at the war on drugs. Anyone with any sense know it's a total failure, but because the dea, police and prisons employ so many people and have power in the gov, we are still throwing sick people in jail.
christo930 1 year ago
Slaves existed VASTLY in the times when true free markets existed. Cheap labour means you can maximize profit which is good for those who control capital. Look at the early days of industry and the bourgeois, children working 80+ every week for minimal amounts of money, not nearly enough to even live off of. Corporations DID control prisons, LOOK UP THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. They had prisons, laws, slaves, armies, fleets, etc.
MyCrownOfWorms 1 year ago
@MyCrownOfWorms You keep forgetting that these companies got their power from the gov and they COULD NOT have done these things without the gov.
The free market very quickly mechanized and that is exactly when slavery was being recognized for the abomination it was. The agriculture still needed huge amounts of unskilled field labor and that is why the south wanted to keep them, but in the north and other industrialized nations, slavery was no longer needed.
christo930 1 year ago
Governments are what saves corporations from better, cheaper competition with your so beloved regulations.
You forget it's regulations that made health care so expensive in the first place, or lawyers, or whatever corporative interests the Government gives power to.
Families let kids work because they're poor. So, regulations prohibiting kids working is not going to the point, that is bad economic policies.
darkr0astedblend 1 year ago
EXACLTY, I often refer to these kinds of "people" as Victorians, because that is exactly where the ideology belongs.
reckingmachine 1 year ago
'An insurance company for people. I find that bizarre. When someone says insurance company, I think of cars. I think it's disgusting that you would equate car insurance with human insurance.'
Well, that's exactly what's happening. This bill is NOT universal healthcare; it is forcing people to get 'people' insurance, just like most states in the US force us to get car insurance.
FishofMuu 1 year ago
Yep, and this paticualr bill is stupid, but it takes baby steps i suppose.
reckingmachine 1 year ago
faved. that is all. its 6am and i havnt been to bed. i have no words
: /
oojamaflipper 1 year ago
American conservative nut jobs and health care is a laugh.
In Australia we love our free health care and would never give it up .
It has been let down by the conservatives
by not supplying enough staff in doctors nurses but we still run our public system cheaper than they do.
And these dicks underneath me talking about economics.
America just sent the whole world into a crash and they think they are good at it.
australianews 1 year ago
Ugh, buy a book on economics before you open your mouth you stupid fuck.
spawk1993 1 year ago 15
Ugh, go to any nation with Healthcare not controlled by greedy fucking corporations before you start typing you stupid fuck.
MyCrownOfWorms 1 year ago
@reckingmachine, When you dont understand economics, dont talk about economic issues.
return135 1 year ago
Seen the Jacob Spinney video. It doesn't look like he's done much in the way of research.
If I'm not mistaken, medicare actually makes a profit. And I don't know how this bill can possibly be labelled socialist. It's much nearer to being a gift for the Insurance companies.
pi3p142 1 year ago
@pi3p142 You are mistaken. Check out the annual report from the Medicare trustees. You can also just google "medicare and/or social security unfunded liability" for some interesting reading. I wish the debate in the US on health care would have split the bankruptcy of the current gov't run saftey nets from the moral or humanitarian issue of providing health care so perhaps we could have a sensible debate.
LibertyOrBust 1 year ago
@pi3p142 Even Obama said yesterday that this reform "extends the life of Medicare by 10 years" .... in other words, it may have achieved some of the goals of expanding access to health insurance, but it has solved none of the financial problems around health care. So more reforms to come.... oh joy.
LibertyOrBust 1 year ago