In other words, curiousgeorge, it's called "socialism". I don't care what other countries have. I've been to many of them, and I'd rather have what I have here in the US right now, and not what the socialists want us to have.
"Fuck face"? Yeah .. I go down on girls. Got a problem with that?
Well, if government didn't mandate that there wouldn't be no emergency insurance, then it wouldn't be so expensive in the first place. I had more than enough money to buy insurance, but never bought any because I didn't see the need.
Why do people need insurance to cover small costs like checkups and stuff like that? They don't. That is like saying that car insurance should include oil changes, tire rotations, alignments, etc. rather than just cover accident expenses.
Besides ignoring the people who survive that same Health Care cartel by not using it.
Drugs kill.
In the US at a tune of 100,000+ every year according to the AMA. But that's *only* properly prescribed drugs that are administered properly at recommended dosages.
Looks like the insured are losing at an even greater rate than the uninsured just on availability of prescription meds.
This man is contradictory just like the government policy he is trying to sell. Give the people the choice to vote with their own money, which doctors or hospitals they want to go to, don't take that money through taxes or create it by printing it (inflation) and just give it to a "public" system. The contradiction comes when the people in government have the "freedom" to create gov't healthcare but remove the rights of individuals to hold their own healthcare dollars from going into the system.
Yes. There is nothing immoral about people with money using their money, assuming they have earned it without theft and in agreeable trade. The ones who haven't earned the right don't have that right. To give those that haven't earned the vote the "right" to health care sounds nice, but it is immoral and wrong because it takes away from those that have. Govt's always preached, free this and free that, but always hide how it will be achieved. Usually through taxation or inflation.
The real problems of health care are not being addressed at all. The cost of health care is drastically increased due to excessive government regulation and interference and the terrible cost of malpractice insurance. Too many people, egged on by lawyers, treat health issues and recovery like a shot at the lottery. Get government OUT of health care. Put strict limits on malpractice suits, on lawyer fees for malpratice suits and make actual malpractice be proven, not settled.
Look - There is no money (margins) made off of wellness - only expensive fixes - ever wonder why we wait until the last minute to come up with a mricalce cure - lots of money there- Geez, if there was money to be made - Pharma and insurance companies would be doing that now.
Are you serious? You think that if a pharmaceutical company had the cure for cancer that they would suppress the cure? Why? So they could continue selling the treatment drugs?
If you have that little understanding of how free markets work, then maybe you should not post or comment on anymore videos.
Why would you support a Bill that props up the current Health Care regime?
Health Care provision needs to be reformed. Who pays for it is of no substantial value until the actual provision of care is focused on promoting health. With more than 100,000 brought to death's door every year with the *proper administration of properly prescribed drugs* one would think there are more important values to consider before "who pays for it" comes into play.
Why ca't you solve both problems simultaniously? The argument that we should focus on one thing and ignore another is foolish. If we don't curtail health care spending we'll be spending over 20% of our GDP on health care in 10 years. That's unaffordable. This problem needs to be solved in tandem with other problems.
What is foolish is paying for services that not only are not in one's best interest but actively oppose one's interests. The current discussion on Health Care is one of who sets prices and who subsequently pays those prices. Since the Care in question has little to no value for me I could care less about that particular price point. The discussion itself however manages to distract from the more important question of real reform in Health Care provision.
His "rebuttal" consisted entirely of quoting statistics of which we're all aware and do not even paint a complete picture of our current situation. Furthermore, he gave no recommendations or criticisms based on his personal experiences as a doctor.
StLo7, now, THAT is a "talking pt." Is he talking ANY specifics? NO. Google "Dephi Method;" always w/mfg.'ed 'macro'reality, appeal2emotions. This UR idea of a rebuttal? Previous Dr cites KNOWN FACT of gvt limiting #of MedStudents, current ER policy,etc, & why that reality is the way it is. I'd say U need2refamiliarize URself w/deductive reasoning. U think he refuted previous Dr, because U WANT2believe, like high on "hopium." Granted, U should verify their claims2being Drs, IF UR a REAL jrnlst.
g-o-o-g-l-e, it. intellectual indolence does not negate reality, a priori. Want to prove your journalistic mettle? Or, be stuck in the blogosphere?" Nobody is gonna spoon-feed you. my dear lad; it is the age of the internet. If you're curious as to ONE of the female "doctor's" claims, I guess to be fair, you'd have to check BOTH of the doctors' claims. Prior to that, whether they're really even doctors to begin w/. Or, they're either an astroturfed GOP plant, or a "HealthCare NOW" Dem plant, no?
This Doctor is clearly getting a kickback from Medicare or Medicaid. He couldn't be more wrong. Same old typical talking points that are wrong: it is 47 million American citizens uninured? Wrong! Here are the correct numbers: 20 million + are illegal aliens, 10 -1 15 million make over $75,000 or more and opt out or don't want it, and the rest are the uninsured. And our country's Life expectancy rate, just increased. The guy is a complete Socialist nut job!
Has this guy even read the proposed legislation?? Why do you think health care is so expensive in the first place??? here's a hint it starts with a "G" and ends with a "overnment". No one has a "right" to healthcare because if health care were a right then it would take rights away from other individuals, mainly those providing it.
Gee, well why does ACTUALLY reading HR3200 important? Well, that's just the problem now, isn't it? SOME of us ACTUALLY want to discuss policy; hate to belabor the obvious, but it's IRRELEVANT what one FEELS OUGHT to happen, vs. what's ACTUALLY in the bill, vs. HOW it is ACTUALLY gonna be carried out in real life. I HAVE read the 1017 page BAILOUT plan written for and by the BigPharma which the soldout CONgress are feigning as if they're "fighting AGAINST" it. Have U read it? Conyers hasn't.
It's just the truth. these days 'wants' and 'needs' seem to be considered 'rights'. Just be cause I 'want' or 'need' a car doesn't mean I have a 'right' to one. its the same with health care. I have health care because I worked hard to be able to pay for it myself with my own money because I felt it had value. I didn't have a "right" to health care but I did have a right to decided whether it was worth my time to earn the money to pay for it.
Yeah, I want "more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
No, NOBODY has "a right to health care". It is not a right, it is a good/service just like the work a mechanic does on your car. The care that a physician provides is his labor, do you have a right to the labor of another person without their consent? That's called SLAVERY.
Can you show me where in the Constitution it gives us the "right to health care"?
And for that matter, the constitution doesn't give us any rights at all. It delegates some powers to the federal government. Our rights didn't suddenly spring into existence when the constitution was ratified.
No offense but the bill of rights and the constitution are there to limit the government from intruding in our lives. The founding fathers wrote those documents because of the system of government they left - which was similar to where our country is going now. The only role of our government is to protect the people and to serve the peoples wishes within the boundaries of the constitution.
GENERAL Welfare. That means something that would benefit everyone equally, not taking from one group (in this instance those deemed "rich") to raise the standard of living of another group (the "poor").
How does it improve my welfare to have my money forcefully taken from me? That is depriving me of my right to life and liberty.
Also, be aware that what is guaranteed by the Constitution is the PURSUIT of happiness.
Why does simply being a part of society have a cost? How does that automatically make you indebted to the rest of "society"? I'm saying that nobody should be forced to give up anything they own, such as the fruits of their labor, to benefit anyone else. If people voluntarily contribute that's great but use of force and coercion through Government is very wrong.
I'm not advocating "crapping all over everyone else", simply that you have no right to take what belongs to someone else.
If you believe what you are saying, you'll send me your money and be happy about it. If you want to put your money where your mouth is write me and I'll give you my address.
There's nothing wrong with charity, I agree with you there. It would be nice if everyone could do good for others. But there is something wrong with people in powerful positions robbing others for their own ends.
More to the point, the General Welfare merely limits powers enumerated to uses which benefit the entire union - it is not a grant of power in itself. Read Madison's explanations on the General Welfare clause:
Nope, anything that requires one individual to *give* a commodity or service to another cannot be a right. If it were a right it wouldn't be a commodity or service.
wtf are you talking about if not a commodity service?
You're absolutely right. Police officers should not be compelled to protect you. Firemen should not be compelled to douse your home. Utilities should not be compelled to provide affordable gas, oil, water and electricity.
Police and Fireman are hired by local governments. Doctors are licensed by State governments. Most Doctors with private practice would like to remain in such a practice. Folks like stlo7 apparently would like them to be coerced by government into providing care to any and all comers at prices set out by the government instead of being negotiated fairly in a market.
As for your inability to comprehend the things you read....sorry, you're on your own there.
Did Adam and Eve have healthcare? Or did they just have a right to life, liberty and property?
If healthcare were a "right", there would be a God-provided doctor in every household, and in every tree for every bird, and in every field for every creature.
Me having a right to life, liberty, and property does not take any of your rights away.
Me having a right to healthcare takes away your right to property (through taxation).
Does that make sense? Or do you need further clarification?
The violence of our minorities has an affect on our mortality rates. In addition, our birth survival rates look worse because we count every pregnancy instead of counting those that survive the first trimester, as other countries do. The increasing cost of medicine has delivered tremendous advances, while the increase in education costs has delivered poorer and poorer results.
An uneducated man trying to speak to an uneducated crowd -
billoakesattablthree 2 years ago
In other words, curiousgeorge, it's called "socialism". I don't care what other countries have. I've been to many of them, and I'd rather have what I have here in the US right now, and not what the socialists want us to have.
"Fuck face"? Yeah .. I go down on girls. Got a problem with that?
Robert697 2 years ago
Well, if government didn't mandate that there wouldn't be no emergency insurance, then it wouldn't be so expensive in the first place. I had more than enough money to buy insurance, but never bought any because I didn't see the need.
Why do people need insurance to cover small costs like checkups and stuff like that? They don't. That is like saying that car insurance should include oil changes, tire rotations, alignments, etc. rather than just cover accident expenses.
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
This guy doesn't rebut anything, if anything, she proves her point.
He is for more government, and more insurance bureaucracy. Higher costs, and more bullshit in the medical line.
IndigoVagrant 2 years ago
He tries to rebut the lady doctor but misses her points entirely. He can only spout off the socialist party line.
Staffotex 2 years ago
After some simple analysis this so called rebuttal seemed to support the argument given by the previous speaker.
So what was the point in calling it a rebuttal?
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
22,000 people die every year because they're uninsured or under-insured. And that's an argument against health care reform?
glocksout 2 years ago
And your point is?
Besides ignoring the people who survive that same Health Care cartel by not using it.
Drugs kill.
In the US at a tune of 100,000+ every year according to the AMA. But that's *only* properly prescribed drugs that are administered properly at recommended dosages.
Looks like the insured are losing at an even greater rate than the uninsured just on availability of prescription meds.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
He comes running out of the woods. haha
So this guy "easily rebuts" the previous doctor by spouting off a bunch of statistics? I don't think so.
TrippingTheTube 2 years ago
Statistics prove points.
1717now 2 years ago
This man is contradictory just like the government policy he is trying to sell. Give the people the choice to vote with their own money, which doctors or hospitals they want to go to, don't take that money through taxes or create it by printing it (inflation) and just give it to a "public" system. The contradiction comes when the people in government have the "freedom" to create gov't healthcare but remove the rights of individuals to hold their own healthcare dollars from going into the system.
johngaltexpres 2 years ago
So what you're saying is only people with money get to vote?
glocksout 2 years ago
Come on out of the cloud.
Ask yourself why does one individual have the clout, resources, what have you to care for themselves and another does not.
Markets work. Coercion leads to conflict.
Do you really want a world ruled by resolution of conflict?
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
Your argument makes zero sense. "Do you really want a world ruled by resolution of conflict?" What does that even mean?
glocksout 2 years ago
Yes. There is nothing immoral about people with money using their money, assuming they have earned it without theft and in agreeable trade. The ones who haven't earned the right don't have that right. To give those that haven't earned the vote the "right" to health care sounds nice, but it is immoral and wrong because it takes away from those that have. Govt's always preached, free this and free that, but always hide how it will be achieved. Usually through taxation or inflation.
johngaltexpres 2 years ago
lol. So generic talking points from a doctor are supposed to be more effective?
LibertyOrBust 2 years ago
That's exactly what they were. Generic.
TrippingTheTube 2 years ago
The real problems of health care are not being addressed at all. The cost of health care is drastically increased due to excessive government regulation and interference and the terrible cost of malpractice insurance. Too many people, egged on by lawyers, treat health issues and recovery like a shot at the lottery. Get government OUT of health care. Put strict limits on malpractice suits, on lawyer fees for malpratice suits and make actual malpractice be proven, not settled.
nwind1 2 years ago 3
Look - There is no money (margins) made off of wellness - only expensive fixes - ever wonder why we wait until the last minute to come up with a mricalce cure - lots of money there- Geez, if there was money to be made - Pharma and insurance companies would be doing that now.
stlo7 2 years ago
Are you serious? You think that if a pharmaceutical company had the cure for cancer that they would suppress the cure? Why? So they could continue selling the treatment drugs?
If you have that little understanding of how free markets work, then maybe you should not post or comment on anymore videos.
jjrglobal 2 years ago
Got that right. No margin in promoting wellness.
Why would you support a Bill that props up the current Health Care regime?
Health Care provision needs to be reformed. Who pays for it is of no substantial value until the actual provision of care is focused on promoting health. With more than 100,000 brought to death's door every year with the *proper administration of properly prescribed drugs* one would think there are more important values to consider before "who pays for it" comes into play.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
Why ca't you solve both problems simultaniously? The argument that we should focus on one thing and ignore another is foolish. If we don't curtail health care spending we'll be spending over 20% of our GDP on health care in 10 years. That's unaffordable. This problem needs to be solved in tandem with other problems.
glocksout 2 years ago
What is foolish is paying for services that not only are not in one's best interest but actively oppose one's interests. The current discussion on Health Care is one of who sets prices and who subsequently pays those prices. Since the Care in question has little to no value for me I could care less about that particular price point. The discussion itself however manages to distract from the more important question of real reform in Health Care provision.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
His "rebuttal" consisted entirely of quoting statistics of which we're all aware and do not even paint a complete picture of our current situation. Furthermore, he gave no recommendations or criticisms based on his personal experiences as a doctor.
Complete waste of my time.
MalikKillian 2 years ago
Funny - I guess you have no use for stats do you?
Stats over emotion or ignorance is preferred.
stlo7 2 years ago
Ignorance is quoting someone else, line for line, and having nothing original or personal to add.
MalikKillian 2 years ago
StLo7, now, THAT is a "talking pt." Is he talking ANY specifics? NO. Google "Dephi Method;" always w/mfg.'ed 'macro'reality, appeal2emotions. This UR idea of a rebuttal? Previous Dr cites KNOWN FACT of gvt limiting #of MedStudents, current ER policy,etc, & why that reality is the way it is. I'd say U need2refamiliarize URself w/deductive reasoning. U think he refuted previous Dr, because U WANT2believe, like high on "hopium." Granted, U should verify their claims2being Drs, IF UR a REAL jrnlst.
RosenKrantz666 2 years ago
Link? Doctors being restricted by the government?
stlo7 2 years ago
g-o-o-g-l-e, it. intellectual indolence does not negate reality, a priori. Want to prove your journalistic mettle? Or, be stuck in the blogosphere?" Nobody is gonna spoon-feed you. my dear lad; it is the age of the internet. If you're curious as to ONE of the female "doctor's" claims, I guess to be fair, you'd have to check BOTH of the doctors' claims. Prior to that, whether they're really even doctors to begin w/. Or, they're either an astroturfed GOP plant, or a "HealthCare NOW" Dem plant, no?
RosenKrantz666 2 years ago
just because he understands medicine, does not mean he understands economics.
deahunt 2 years ago
This Doctor is clearly getting a kickback from Medicare or Medicaid. He couldn't be more wrong. Same old typical talking points that are wrong: it is 47 million American citizens uninured? Wrong! Here are the correct numbers: 20 million + are illegal aliens, 10 -1 15 million make over $75,000 or more and opt out or don't want it, and the rest are the uninsured. And our country's Life expectancy rate, just increased. The guy is a complete Socialist nut job!
digitalartisan26 2 years ago 2
WOW you can see that via youtube - impressive.
stlo7 2 years ago
Has this guy even read the proposed legislation?? Why do you think health care is so expensive in the first place??? here's a hint it starts with a "G" and ends with a "overnment". No one has a "right" to healthcare because if health care were a right then it would take rights away from other individuals, mainly those providing it.
TobiasMuse 2 years ago 4
WTF? No one has a right to health care? Geez a little harsh.
stlo7 2 years ago
Gee, well why does ACTUALLY reading HR3200 important? Well, that's just the problem now, isn't it? SOME of us ACTUALLY want to discuss policy; hate to belabor the obvious, but it's IRRELEVANT what one FEELS OUGHT to happen, vs. what's ACTUALLY in the bill, vs. HOW it is ACTUALLY gonna be carried out in real life. I HAVE read the 1017 page BAILOUT plan written for and by the BigPharma which the soldout CONgress are feigning as if they're "fighting AGAINST" it. Have U read it? Conyers hasn't.
RosenKrantz666 2 years ago
It's just the truth. these days 'wants' and 'needs' seem to be considered 'rights'. Just be cause I 'want' or 'need' a car doesn't mean I have a 'right' to one. its the same with health care. I have health care because I worked hard to be able to pay for it myself with my own money because I felt it had value. I didn't have a "right" to health care but I did have a right to decided whether it was worth my time to earn the money to pay for it.
TobiasMuse 2 years ago 3
Yeah, I want "more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
stlo7 2 years ago
No, NOBODY has "a right to health care". It is not a right, it is a good/service just like the work a mechanic does on your car. The care that a physician provides is his labor, do you have a right to the labor of another person without their consent? That's called SLAVERY.
Can you show me where in the Constitution it gives us the "right to health care"?
ZeLVaR 2 years ago 3
Bingo.
And for that matter, the constitution doesn't give us any rights at all. It delegates some powers to the federal government. Our rights didn't suddenly spring into existence when the constitution was ratified.
-jcr
NSResponder 2 years ago
No rights at all? Please -
There is the whole bill of rights but that must be part of somebody else's constitution not ours - .
stlo7 2 years ago
No offense but the bill of rights and the constitution are there to limit the government from intruding in our lives. The founding fathers wrote those documents because of the system of government they left - which was similar to where our country is going now. The only role of our government is to protect the people and to serve the peoples wishes within the boundaries of the constitution.
animateclay 2 years ago 2
Provide for the General Welfare... but you already chose to ignore that line....
Next thing you will tell me we have no right to life or liberty or pursuit of happiness.
Also Profit over people isnt' in the constitution either
try again..
stlo7 2 years ago
Maybe you should try again and here's why:
GENERAL Welfare. That means something that would benefit everyone equally, not taking from one group (in this instance those deemed "rich") to raise the standard of living of another group (the "poor").
How does it improve my welfare to have my money forcefully taken from me? That is depriving me of my right to life and liberty.
Also, be aware that what is guaranteed by the Constitution is the PURSUIT of happiness.
ZeLVaR 2 years ago 3
OH, "your" money - as if you are no part of our society and have no need ot contribute. that denies your right to life and liberty?
New flash buddy - you are part of a society. No man an island and all that.
btw - happiness doesn't mean crapping all over everyone else.
stlo7 2 years ago
Why does simply being a part of society have a cost? How does that automatically make you indebted to the rest of "society"? I'm saying that nobody should be forced to give up anything they own, such as the fruits of their labor, to benefit anyone else. If people voluntarily contribute that's great but use of force and coercion through Government is very wrong.
I'm not advocating "crapping all over everyone else", simply that you have no right to take what belongs to someone else.
ZeLVaR 2 years ago 3
If you believe what you are saying, you'll send me your money and be happy about it. If you want to put your money where your mouth is write me and I'll give you my address.
There's nothing wrong with charity, I agree with you there. It would be nice if everyone could do good for others. But there is something wrong with people in powerful positions robbing others for their own ends.
animateclay 2 years ago
More to the point, the General Welfare merely limits powers enumerated to uses which benefit the entire union - it is not a grant of power in itself. Read Madison's explanations on the General Welfare clause:
orat dot blogspot dot com
Scroll down to the third post, you'll see it.
Punchey 2 years ago
Welcome to the real world.
Hope your landing isn't too bumpy.
Nope, anything that requires one individual to *give* a commodity or service to another cannot be a right. If it were a right it wouldn't be a commodity or service.
wtf are you talking about if not a commodity service?
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
You're absolutely right. Police officers should not be compelled to protect you. Firemen should not be compelled to douse your home. Utilities should not be compelled to provide affordable gas, oil, water and electricity.
glocksout 2 years ago
Oh really?
Are you advocating that persons who have signed contracts to do *particularly described work* are not wrong when refusing to do so?
That is a very interesting fantasy.
Good luck spreading *that* meme.
The facetious meme I'm responding to entails folks being coerced into *being* the Police/Fireman/Doctor though not having contracted to do so.
I must admit yours is a compelling paradigm. All the occupations mentioned are basically gov regulated. Police/Fireman directly, Doctors by Law.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
English must not be your first language because I can't make out a damn thing you're saying.
Who is being coerced into being doctors? What the hell are you talking about?
glocksout 2 years ago
Police and Fireman are hired by local governments. Doctors are licensed by State governments. Most Doctors with private practice would like to remain in such a practice. Folks like stlo7 apparently would like them to be coerced by government into providing care to any and all comers at prices set out by the government instead of being negotiated fairly in a market.
As for your inability to comprehend the things you read....sorry, you're on your own there.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
Did Adam and Eve have healthcare? Or did they just have a right to life, liberty and property?
If healthcare were a "right", there would be a God-provided doctor in every household, and in every tree for every bird, and in every field for every creature.
Me having a right to life, liberty, and property does not take any of your rights away.
Me having a right to healthcare takes away your right to property (through taxation).
Does that make sense? Or do you need further clarification?
Robert697 2 years ago
Adam and Eve didn't have any property.
glocksout 2 years ago
correlation does not prove causation.
Ever thnk we spend alot on healthcare because we have fairly sedentary lifestyles and unhealthy eating appetites by and large?
I don't think this guy proves anything, he's simply saying the democratic talking points. Previous doctor was dead on.
jnort122 2 years ago 7
We spend more on health care in America and do not get our money's worth.
stlo7 2 years ago
The violence of our minorities has an affect on our mortality rates. In addition, our birth survival rates look worse because we count every pregnancy instead of counting those that survive the first trimester, as other countries do. The increasing cost of medicine has delivered tremendous advances, while the increase in education costs has delivered poorer and poorer results.
DrBukk 2 years ago