The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by BSR.

Sure, everything is all cute and funny, then you find your cat's lungs stuck in your vacuum filter. That's really hard to clean out, what with your girlfriend shrieking at you and threatening to call the SPCA and the cops. Then PETA sends out its topless death squad to hunt you down and while you're staring at their tits, they beat you to within an inch of your life with vegan pepperoni loaves. Then you find out that due to your upcoming animal-cruelty charges, your HMO has dropped you and you now face $100,000+ in hospital fees. All because your cat is funny.

...or so I've heard.

This sort of protection is becoming common practice. Watch the Hot Coffee movie.

>> ^http://hotcoffeethemovie.com:

.........Mandatory binding arbitration clauses have become standard in credit card and real estate contracts, applications for bank loans and leasing cars, employment contracts and even some HMO policies. In some states, they may apply broadly to insurance contracts. If you’ve bought a car, had a credit card, purchased a computer, used a cell phone, invested in stocks, had insurance, saw a doctor or worked for a large corporation during the last decade, chances are you unwittingly forfeited your constitutional right to access the courts by “agreeing to” mandatory binding arbitration, even though you may not have even realized it.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Gee - a video where some guy with an axe to grind portrays himself as an innocent victim and paints the other guy as Satan's toilet paper. This is a unique, never before seen thing on Videosift... :eyeroll:
Unlike many, I have a longer historical perspective. Back before Ted Kennedy ruined the American Health Care system with his forced HMO legislation, the U.S. had a truly 'private' system. Hospitals, doctors, and all related services were private, or funded by charitable donations like churches. There was a 'public' arm as well. If a person couldn't pay, they were sent to the COUNTY clinic. County clinics were much cheaper. Doctors & nurses at the county clinics were either still in residency, or were still in the educational process (college). The poor and needy could go to the local county clinic and get good service for a cut-rate price.
Everyone else negotiated with the doctor or hospital at a 1 to 1 level. Prices were affordable, because hospitals would not charge insane prices at the risk of having their customers go to some other doctor. Competition kept things honest. Insurance still existed, but it was CATASTROPHIC CARE insurance which only kicked in for major medical needs like surgeries and so forth. Because of this, insurance was very very cheap.
The solution is not a fake 'public' system like Canada where the government has its death panel to regulate what is covered and what isn't. The solution is not faux socialism that hides the costs, pretending they are 'free', by cramming it into ever-increasing taxation. The solution is total 100% privitization and the abolition of Ted Kennedy's moronic HMO monstrosity that screwed up the system in the first place.


Wow, you know, once in a great, great while, you make sense, and come off as someone who actually investigates things and comes up with their own view and opinion. Then invariably, as in your last paragraph, you end up talking out your ass.

Gee - a video where some guy with an axe to grind portrays himself as an innocent victim and paints the other guy as Satan's toilet paper. This is a unique, never before seen thing on Videosift... :eyeroll:

Unlike many, I have a longer historical perspective. Back before Ted Kennedy ruined the American Health Care system with his forced HMO legislation, the U.S. had a truly 'private' system. Hospitals, doctors, and all related services were private, or funded by charitable donations like churches. There was a 'public' arm as well. If a person couldn't pay, they were sent to the COUNTY clinic. County clinics were much cheaper. Doctors & nurses at the county clinics were either still in residency, or were still in the educational process (college). The poor and needy could go to the local county clinic and get good service for a cut-rate price.

Everyone else negotiated with the doctor or hospital at a 1 to 1 level. Prices were affordable, because hospitals would not charge insane prices at the risk of having their customers go to some other doctor. Competition kept things honest. Insurance still existed, but it was CATASTROPHIC CARE insurance which only kicked in for major medical needs like surgeries and so forth. Because of this, insurance was very very cheap.

The solution is not a fake 'public' system like Canada where the government has its death panel to regulate what is covered and what isn't. The solution is not faux socialism that hides the costs, pretending they are 'free', by cramming it into ever-increasing taxation. The solution is total 100% privitization and the abolition of Ted Kennedy's moronic HMO monstrosity that screwed up the system in the first place.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Good points - but I'm saying there is a collective feeling of vindication and "rightness" to capitalism now - it is unfettered and unchecked - without any competing system on a world stage.

Before communism's fall - there was a pressure on Western governments to prove that they could do a better job at the issues that Communist countries boasted of - a safety net for the poor, social services and massive projects like the space program.

For the past 20 years though, those kinds of programs have been slashed, privatised or done away with- it's no mistake that the last redoubt of communism - the tiny, poor country of Cuba, has better health care for its citizens than the US - with all its HMOs and private hospitals.

Here's the claim that I'm going make: if the Soviet Union was still around - We would have a better healthcare system in the US.

>> ^jonny:
The problems of the "last 20 years" that you're talking about were in fact problems long before the 1990s, and thus not a consequence of the fall of the Soviet Republics. The recent excesses of capitalism are nothing new - they've been happening since it was first created and in fact long before that. The basic problem is much broader than capitalism or communism or any other "ism" you care to name. The basic problem is concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. But that problem is not unique to any particular economic or political model. It's a fact of human nature. Communism was probably the best ideology to handle that, but every communist country that ever existed was stuck in the "revolutionary" mind set - The Revolution must continue until everyone is on board, and until then we'll keep complete control in, uh, the hand of a few, uh, party members that understand the, uh, revolution.
Good luck breeding human nature out of humans. Haven't you seen the same concentration of power and "wealth" here in your own social experiment? Same old story. You can build as many roads and access ramps as you want, but there will always be gate keepers and toll collectors.

That's the point, racists don't respect people's freedom. Freedom is not just from sanction from the government. As I implied above, much of life resolves around private institutions: banks, HMOs, hospitals, HOAs, grocery stores, hotels, distribution companies, etc. All of this is aside from affirmative action (where did that come from?).

I guess I can see how a white person, living in a society where the majority of the population is white, and the majority of the above institutions are controlled by white people, would think that private-sector racism would have no effect on freedom. It's really the non-whites subject to private sector sanction that would suffer losses of freedom. That's not what America is supposed to be. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Your still missing the core argument. Ultimately, AA laws are trying to enforce a meritocracy. That the best person gets the job regardless of creed, color or sex. This is an arbitrary moral position, and one that I personally share. Though, ss a business owner I should be able to hire or serve whomever I want for whatever reason, their are after all mine. If you are enforcing a meritocracy, and want to hire your friend even though there is a more qualified person for the job you violate this basic understanding. While some people with only money on their mind would see this as a foolish decision on my part, it is mine to make; that is what freedom means.
As for using the police to enforce your morality, they are more realistically enforcing your right over your property; in as much as you would also call the police for someone trespassing. Plus, you are argument in reverse here, IE, since they are regulated they should be regulated. Moreover, if you are saying that by using public utility that you are bound by AA laws, then you are also banned in your home or anywhere and thus installing your moral tyranny over (this ugly) freedom).
Freedom is ugly, the evils it bring are clear and visible. It is human nature to see something evil and thing "hey, we should pass a law about that". But the maintainability of a free society requires a self denying mechanistic of the strictest kind. In reality, public pressure and socialite change are more effective means. Look at the drug war for clear evidence that laws don't work like they intend. People are motivated by their personal desires ever more slightly than the laws that govern them.
Racism is nasty, just like abortion is nasty. But they are freedoms we must endure as to remain true to the heart of freedom. Why should a racist respect any one else's freedoms if we don't respect his?

I guess it goes to the type of society you want to have.

I don't like the idea of banks, HMOs, real estate agents, home owners associations, and other private sector entities being able to create an apartheid society via exclusion of certain racial and ethnic groups.

What you say sounds somewhat good on paper, but where has it actually worked in real life? America has been down that road before; I for one, don't want to go back.>> ^blankfist:

Wow, we must be getting close to election time again, because the anti-popular-Republican smears are out in full force. Go partisanship!
I believe people should have the right to discriminate in the private sector. Why not? Isn't that part of freedom? I don't personally condone racism, but I wouldn't want to police it either.
People can be racist and discriminatory all they want as long as they don't inflict violence on someone. That's the point about that old-timey racism I think some of you are leaving out; the part where people were killed and made into slaves because of their skin color. There's a huge distinction between that and some bigot with a small business.
To me, this is a nonissue. And for the record I don't support Rand Paul.

For those who don't know, Dennis is sick and broke and might not recover from prostate cancer (because, apparently, even being a great actor doesn't preclude the fact that HMOs have made it illegal to cure cancer in the U.S.A.).

Who do you consider a great speaker?

Great speakers? Ronald Reagan, JFK, MLKJ. I'd even go so far as to say Bill Clinton was a good public speaker. Obama is an 'adequate' speaker. He does a workman job. He isn't a BAD public speaker, but he's definitely no maven like some people keep saying.

I picked out the man-child's speech register after hearing him only once. Listen to him. Obama has a clearly predictable and generally boring cadance - almost like a 'tide'. He ... PAUSES ... and then he ... CONTINUES to speak for a second before he ... PAUSES again and keeps on rolling and ... ROLLING until he ... STOPS again and ... FINISHES! You can almost set your watch by this little routine of his.

This is an artifact not of rhetorical prowess. It is an artifact of his dependance on his teleprompter. He is pausing and giving the prompter time to scroll up what he's saying next. Then he rushes though a few words to 'catch up' and then he ... PAUSES again, hitting emphasis on whatever word where he picks up his speech on. Not only is he totally dependant on his teleprompter, but he isn't even really very good at using it. Other speakers can use a teleprompter and sound natural. Obama sounds like he's fighting with it.

And don't get me started on his stupid head swing. Watching his head swap from teleprompter screen to teleprompter screen in a speech is like watching a game of tennis. Or maybe it is more like watching a lighthouse. Anyway - the guy just isn't very natural when he's moving his head. Bleh. The point with a teleprompter is to make it look like you AREN'T using it. Obama's method draws attention to his mechanical delivery. He gets the words out fine. He just looks and sounds forced and stilted doing it.

Simply put, the free market system for health worked fine in America until the 60's

BINGO! Nice to finally meet someone with historical perspective. Too many Americans are too young and ignorant of history and fact. Alas it takes a Canadian to point out the bleeding obvious to some of our youth. American health care was screwed up by GOVERNMENT. Ted Kennedy specifically was the one who passed his stupid HMO law which (basically) CREATED the insurance industry in America as we know it today. Up until that point, consumers dealt with doctors directly out of their own pockets. And guess what? When you take middle-men out of the picture, capitalism works just fine. Health care was affordable. Plans existed for catastrophic care, and they were easily affordable by almost everyone. The only thing HMO's accomplished was totally screwing up the relationship between providers and buyers. The solution to America's HC issue is not more government. The solution is LESS.

Torturing innocent people to death is an exaggeration? As in, we didn't do it?

I can find no credible source documenting the U.S. military 'torturing people to death'. Rhetoric such as 'murdering innocent people', 'going to war over false pretenses', 'sycophantic neocon ideas', 'purposefully plunging the economy'... These are the biased terms of left wing blogs. Speaking out against the Iraq War, or Bush, or whatever doesn't make you a kook. The WAY you speak out against them is what makes a kook like Olbermann.

That's why I propose we just waterboard conservatives until they confess to secretly being concerned about the well being of people who aren't themselves.

A fruitless endeavor, because conservatives are by natural proclivity concerned about others. They'd 'admit' it with a smile, and prove it with actions. The liberal approach to addressing the needs of others is to hand out a stringy, stinky government fish once a month. The conservative approach to helping the needy is to encourage them to create a fishing concern so they can make millions of dollars selling fish after they feed themselves like kings.

You are obviously OBVIOUSLY biased towards the other side of the isle

I am a strict fiscal conservative with strong constitutional constructionist leanings and a decidedly libertarian philosophy. Freedom is where I plant my flag. You can know in advance very clearly where I stand on any issue based on my guiding political philosophies of limited government power, and increased human freedom. I am not guided by 'party' politics. I'm guided by over-arching principles. Show me a liberal who fights for the consitution as it was written, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom and I vote for them. But since the progressive liberal movement is decidedly anti-choice, anti-freedom, anti-fiscal responsibility, and anti-consitution they frequently get the stinkeye.

We need better health care. At least in the hands of the government it can be held somewhat accountable.

It is comments like this that cause me to - as you put it - 'shout'. If you really believe what you just said then I don't know what to say. You have the evidence of DECADES of solid, inarguable proof that the government being in charge of medical issues is never held accountable for tremendous waste, mismanagement, and outright misappropriation & graft. How anyone can look at programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and still think that putting government in charge of such matters is a good idea is beyond me. The proper solution is more freedom - not less. Medical care has been a government mis-managed fiasco in the US ever since Ted Kennedy's stupid HMO bill screwed up the relationship between buyers and providers.

Rush: "...the government creating HMOs, thank you Ted Kennedy.."

Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the horrific bureaucracy that the average American has little to no choice to navigate if they want health care coverage through their employer (which due to the forcing of HMOs on workers virtually eliminated the market for affordable individual insurance).

Republicans, however, deserve the majority of the blame since it was Nixon's influence on the 1973 act that turned health care into an industry that placed profit above all other considerations.

By bringing down prices. Insurance is for catastrophic needs, not standard care. If you remove standard care from the picture and boil 'insurance' down to catastrophic needs then it becomes easily affordable by anyone except for the most extreme, hard-luck, down-and-out exceptions. The needs of that tiny percentage can be handled easily without a massive, national, one-size-fits-all monstrosity. Such needs can be managed entirely with private charities, community care, or state/municipal programs.

The costs for standard care will rapidly decrease to proper market levels once the mentality of 'insurance covered' is removed. People will pay for what they need and negotiate directly with providers. Costs will lower to what the market can support - not what 'corporations' dictate. It happens every time like clockwork.

You express remarkable faith in the free market there. How are you so sure what would happen if we let the market have free reign? The economy is a highly complex system, and even professional economists have difficulty understanding it. But some guy from the internet really knows how it all works then? I for one am not willing to gamble with people's lives and health on the basis of unproven free market theory.

you seem to be embracing the "moral hazard" theory of health insurance, according to which health care costs are driven up because people with insurance purchase more health care than they otherwise would have. This theory is not universally accepted in the economics profession.

“Moral hazard is overblown,” the Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt says. “You always hear that the demand for health care is unlimited. This is just not true. People who are very well insured, who are very rich, do you see them check into the hospital because it’s free? Do people really like to go to the doctor? Do they check into the hospital instead of playing golf?”


I recommend reading this: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact

Yes - but the equation has been altered by a government mandated series of insurance programs that meddle with the marketplace. HMOs only exist because of government edict. Insurance programs then had to start covering "standard" health care instead of just catastrophic care. In order to make that possible, they had to start developing new programs & rate systems that were financially (A) feasible and (B) profitable. Other GOVERNMENT laws prevented competition across state lines, and a bunch of other crap that turned 'insurance' into a hodgepodge of arcane, impenetrable 'covers everything' baloney as opposed to a simple "catastrophic care" transaction.

Um, at no point did you explain here how the market would help people with pre-existing conditions. Probably because it wouldn't. I'll grant you that our current system is probably less efficient than a free market one would be. However it doesn't follow from that that the free market is the solution to everything.

The point is that with freedom, almost everyone will be able to afford catastrophic care - and the needs of the remainder will be well within the grasp of private, municipal, & state means.

You mean you personally think that everyone will be able to afford catastrophic care, but you don't know. My point is that the freedom for rich people to buy yachts is not as important as people's basic health and well-being. So lets tax the yachts and make sure that everyone's needs are taken care of, like they should be in any civilized society.

How could the market possibly help people with pre-existing conditions?

By bringing down prices. Insurance is for catastrophic needs, not standard care. If you remove standard care from the picture and boil 'insurance' down to catastrophic needs then it becomes easily affordable by anyone except for the most extreme, hard-luck, down-and-out exceptions. The needs of that tiny percentage can be handled easily without a massive, national, one-size-fits-all monstrosity. Such needs can be managed entirely with private charities, community care, or state/municipal programs.

The costs for standard care will rapidly decrease to proper market levels once the mentality of 'insurance covered' is removed. People will pay for what they need and negotiate directly with providers. Costs will lower to what the market can support - not what 'corporations' dictate. It happens every time like clockwork.

The whole idea of insurance is to insure against something that hasn't happened yet.

Yes - but the equation has been altered by a government mandated series of insurance programs that meddle with the marketplace. HMOs only exist because of government edict. Insurance programs then had to start covering "standard" health care instead of just catastrophic care. In order to make that possible, they had to start developing new programs & rate systems that were financially (A) feasible and (B) profitable. Other GOVERNMENT laws prevented competition across state lines, and a bunch of other crap that turned 'insurance' into a hodgepodge of arcane, impenetrable 'covers everything' baloney as opposed to a simple "catastrophic care" transaction.

And what good is this "freedom" of yours if you're dead because you couldn't afford quality health care?

The point is that with freedom, almost everyone will be able to afford catastrophic care - and the needs of the remainder will be well within the grasp of private, municipal, & state means.