>> ^quantumushroom:
Why stop with "free" health care? Doesn't everyone deserves a free home, food and automobile (plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
This communism sh t has been tried. Doesn't work. People want private property and individual rights, and the profit motive is what makes the system work for saint and sinner alike.
Medicare fraud already costs the US 60 billion a year and no one's doing a goddamned thing about it.
Government has no interest or incentive to keep costs down. It can't be fired in a timely manner and the bureaucrats can't ever be fired, they're not going to give a rat's ass when they're the only game in town (the Govopoly).
Maybe someone should crack a history book instead of heeding the "wisdom" of Leibowitz's jerkoff joke-writing team when it comes to mattes of literal life and death.


Your post suggests that the American system is working. I'd say give it 30, 40 years, and the problems you had to face in '09 will look like happy times, compared to allowing business as usual to complete it's vicious cycle, and topple the American regime. Your rhetoric will be reminiscent of grampa and his wild, rambling stories about the good old days, as the world collectively wheels you and your insane ideology to the nut house. or, sorry man, naturally, you're 100% fucking right all the time. what was I thinking to even speak at you in your tower of logic.

>> ^BansheeX:

And we have to remember also that any service in which the customer is spending someone else's money and not their own is going to be of higher cost and far more susceptible to fraud. Trust me, I have witness many older family members get unnecessary procedures and equipment sent to our house that is never used on the medicare bill. And Grandma didn't care because she paid virtually nothing out of her own pocket. Thus the high cost of these procedures is precisely because doctors can just charge the public whatever the hell they want since their patient has no premiums or deductible to pay. Without the fear of loss, the patient won't say no, and if the patient won't say no, then there's nothing holding doctors to a lower price.


aaaha! ALOT of the procedures i do are mostly unnecesary. i have to do them because the dr order them. actually, i think a public option is the answer to this. federal regulation and imposed budget constraints could presumably, if done right, squeeze the vast majority of waste and fraud out of the system. the private sector is never good at squeezing out waste and fraud, its only good at making it.

>> ^spoco2:

Yeah... there's an efficient damn government at work.
Anyone who is against a free public health system is either so f cking rich they don't care how much it costs, or in the medical business themselves and is making obscene amounts of money from everyone else.


*ahem*

im in the medical business. im for a public option. i make a modest living.


however i am stunned at my peers. many many of them dont want "health care reform". amazing. considering how much we all bitch about the waste and inequities in our current system. but... oh yeah wait.. i live in texas.

>> ^spoco2:
All I'm saying is that I'm FRIGGEN glad I don't live in the states thanks to your healthcare.(...) That's disgusting, and I am STUNNED that anyone would argue to keep your system the way it is... STUNNED.

I'm very sorry to hear about your son's medical costs being so expensive. I'm sure they cost a fortune where you live too, and I think it's very fortunate that you're not the one stuck with the bill.

Remember, the US is a terrible example of private healthcare, it's already socialized in many ways. You shouldn't rush to assume that's what private healthcare ultimately looks like in terms of costs and insurance. Your indignance is misplaced.

You do realize that those taxes should be spent to make life better for everyone in the country yeah?

Yeah, it is actually because I care about making life better and because I think socialized healthcare is a costly delusion that I consider this a worthy discussion.

You do realize how much of your taxes have been spent on your puffed up bullshit military don't you?

Agreed 100%, terrible use of money.

Anyone who is against a free public health system is either so f*cking rich they don't care how much it costs, or in the medical business themselves and is making obscene amounts of money from everyone else.

That's nonsense, I'm not rich and not a doctor.

>> ^curiousity:
You left out the brainwashed people...

You guys should try having a more open and critical mind, there are people out there who think different about politics, don't take the easy way out.

>> ^spoco2:
I don't see in any way why everyone putting in a bit so that anyone who needs healthcare can get it is a bad thing?

Me neither. The keywords are "government-run" and "forcing people". I'm fine with the rest.

Works here, works in Canada, works in many, many countries.

It might work, but have you considered that it also pushes costs up since there's no price competition? It poorly allocates resources because it's run by bureaucrats and politicians?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Why stop with "free" health care? Doesn't everyone deserves a free home, food and automobile (plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
This communism sh t has been tried. Doesn't work. People want private property and individual rights, and the profit motive is what makes the system work for saint and sinner alike.
Medicare fraud already costs the US 60 billion a year and no one's doing a goddamned thing about it.
Government has no interest or incentive to keep costs down. It can't be fired in a timely manner and the bureaucrats can't ever be fired, they're not going to give a rat's ass when they're the only game in town (the Govopoly).
Maybe someone should crack a history book instead of heeding the "wisdom" of Leibowitz's jerkoff joke-writing team when it comes to mattes of literal life and death.


Thank god. One voice of reason in the midst of this big happy socialist circle-jerk. Maybe it's just me, but I thought Locke was on to something when he declared no one is entitled to the labor and effort of another. Selfish concept? You bet. You socialists rail against selfishness. It's immoral to hoard what you earn for yourself, you say. What is it, then, when you extort the unearned from another to provide for yourself or pay for the luxury of your own pity?

You want lower health care costs while preserving rights to private property? Create a more consumer driven market by allowing insurance companies to operate inter-state. Detach coverage from employers and force insurance companies to compete for business on an individual basis. Consider switching the paradigm of physician compensation from 'fee-for-service' to 'fee-for-care' to check queer incentives to over-prescribe and chase wild geese with the patient or insurer's money. Or maybe steer away from the insurer model and encourage people to allocate funds into personal tax-exempt health savings accounts and only insure against catastrophic events. Lack of disincentive to over-use is one of the primary pitfalls of the insurance model, and the problem stands to be exacerbated ten-fold when the government starts providing all this 'free' health-care without requiring a copay.

And for god's sake crack down on frivolous malpractice litigation.

>> ^vairetube:
It's curious how opponents claim the government is too incompetent to run any program, yet fail to remeber they're the same people claiming the govt runs the "best" military in the world.

I don't know who said that, but you do realize that the military can't be run by private citizens and has to be done by govt because it requires the use of force? Apples & oranges. Besides, that statement is not comparing private versus public, so I don't get the "curious" there.

It's curious how you find Keywords like "Sell", Socialized", and "Recession", more important than the actual relevant issues, if you want to talk about what is "curious" here.

The US is deeply in debt, mostly thanks to govt, and socialized healthcare has an enormous cost. Maybe we should be talking about healthcare when we actually have money to pay for it?

Most curious, indeed. Not only is taking care of the weakest link beneficial to the collective (not killing it, in our case), it is the right thing to do regardless of religion. Sickening displays of selfishness and fear in this country.

I wouldn't attribute that to selfishness or fear, but to an understanding of long term consequences. Taking care of the weak seems very honorable to me. However, forcing people to financially support a govt-run institution to provide for the weak is just a terrible idea.

>> ^spoco2:
Anyone who is against a free public health system is either so f cking rich they don't care how much it costs, or in the medical business themselves and is making obscene amounts of money from everyone else.


You left out the brainwashed people...

Your video, Bill Kristol Admits That The Public Health Option Is Better, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Well one of the arguments that conservatives use consistently is that they dont trust the government to run their healthcare. Stewart was arguing that the program being run by the government was in fact a good, well constructed program. Now what we need to do is create a similar program that is less costly.

Orrrr we could just stop fighting wars we dont belong in and save money for healthcare that way.
I keep hearing about the 1 trillion dollar price tag on a new health care plan, but the Iraq War to date has cost the US $860 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01glanz.html?pagewanted=all
Not to sound like a hippy douche but we need to get patriotic about something BESIDES war.

In reply to this comment by rebuilder:
Oh FFS. I think public healthcare is a fine idea, but this clip is just a load of bull. Kristol is saying that U.S. soldiers get expensive, quality medical services paid by the state that, if offered to everyone, would be too costly, but the soldiers have earned it. Stewart ignores the cost issue and uses this as proof the state should, in fact, provide a similar level of care to everyone.

Whether or not the state can provide good healthcare services at a high cost is not the issue. The question is whether the state can provide it at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. I think yes, but I can still see there is no good argument being made here for that point of view.

I'm surprised they didn't mix in Bill Kristol calling for the invasion of Somalia in order to quell the pirate threat.

I can always count on him to say the most batshit insane things when it comes to use of force.

DocM, what constitutes a liberal slant, and how do we identify it in an objective fashion?

For that matter, when the NYT had Bill Kristol writing a column, did that raise the New York Times' credibility to you?

Alan Keyes and Bill Kristol... lovers.

>> ^dag:
You really get the feeling that Kristol doesn't believe half of the shit that comes out of his mouth.


Half?

I wouldn't be so generous.

His smirk and knowing look is a dead giveaway that he knows he's talking shit. He almost wants to be called out on it.

Maybe he's waiting for someone to finally give him some love, and tell him it's OK to step away from the dark side. We'll forgive you little Billy.

>> ^doremifa:
C'mon. Daily Show? I watch that every day.


So do I. In clip version on videosift.

Bill Kristol gives me the creeps more than any other neocon. Seriously, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, they are not half as creepy. Its something with his smile, it shows waaaaay too many teethes, and I imagine he keeps them sharp like little razors.