*blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by NetRunner.

It's hard to find anyone more on-target than Lewis Black...and he's funny as hell to boot. Two thumbs up!

Not much of 'destroying' going on here, really - his best argument against GOP BS was the uselessness of personal anecdotes, which is spot-on, of course, but there was just too much of random unrelated humor for me. Thought it was one of his worse appearances

i hope folks aren't so incredibly stupid as to believe that GOP BS. Look around you! Every other industrialized nation has a _working_ healthcare for all their people except the US. Some are better (i.e. the german one as of today but that'll change soon), some could need improvement (i.e. the irish one). But still: They are there, they work. I really wish for US americans that they'll too get a decent healthcare.

>> ^conan:
i hope folks aren't so incredibly stupid as to believe that GOP BS. Look around you! Every other industrialized nation has a _working_ healthcare for all their people except the US. Some are better (i.e. the german one as of today but that'll change soon), some could need improvement (i.e. the irish one). But still: They are there, they work. I really wish for US americans that they'll too get a decent healthcare.


I'm a US American, and I have a decent healthcare. Also I pay for it. I don't particularly like the idea of paying for the health care of others. Which is how the people "around me" seem to be doing it.

Also, I am already paying for the healthcare of both those too poor to afford healthcare (medicaid) and too old to afford their treatment. (medicare). Also I am paying for the continued welfare of the elderly (social security). I also pay for the healthcare of the members of the national military(unspecified income tax). Interestingly enough I plan to pay for my own health care and my own retirement.

Does my self reliance come across as being totally uncaring?

>> ^sillybapx:
Also I am paying for the continued welfare of the elderly (social security).


Technically, Social Security is supposed to be paid for by the people who worked before you. You're social security taxes should be paying for your own social security when you retire. Don't blame the general public for that one.

However, you're pretty accurate with the rest of your rant.

And yet, sillybapx, you Americans are still paying more for your healthcare than anyone else. If you're fine with that, then I guess that's your problem.

That's called a wellfare state. Please don't be so egocentric and go on "i'll only pay and care for myself". In my opinion only folks that haven't seen bad times can think like this. Of course you pay for someone else's healthcare. What's the alternative?

What about the kid having cancer and in need of hundreds of thousands of dollars for healthcare? if you (and many many other people) don't pay for that what should happen? Let the kid die? Because he or she hadn't had the chance of earning money and to save some of it? You cannot blame all of those being in need of treatment for not being able to afford it themselves.

In Germany the healthcare is automatically deducted from income, the more you earn, the more you pay up until to a certain max level. I pay that level, i'm somewhat young, fit and haven't required expensive treatment yet. Of course i could go around and say "all that money, wasted. What if i'll never get seriously sick? What if i just die before ever requiring any of that money? wasted! i could have bought XZY of that!". And to be completely honest, sometimes things like this cross my mind, especially when i think of people forcefully and intentionally ruining their health (obesity, alcohol, smoking etc.). But again: What is the alternative? Someone has to treat those in need, and therefore money is required. If i would end up in a car accident tomorrow and suffer from a permanent paralyzation, the healthcare system would pay for my treatment, pay for the renovation of my home, pay for my loss in income, pay for my kids, pay for the physical training, for the nurses stopping by every day etc.

Where do you think that money comes from? I haven't paid millions of Euro into that system, it isn't my money. It's the money of lots of other contributors into that system. That's exactly how insurances work. Only that private insurances keep out those with a high chance of becoming one of those cases where the insurance has to pay. That's why we need a state insurance. Not all of us are rich and healthy and able to care for their own treatment. This is not Darwin, you don't go around and let people die just because you don't like "paying for the health care of others" as you state it.

You shouldn't focus on the "smaller" cases where your money pays for some flu pills of your neighbour. You should think about HIV, paralyzation, cancer etc. No matter how you look at it, it's either letting people die out of selfishness (and therefore losing all of a society's humanity by the way) or everyone pays a certain amount, dependant on what he or she can afford.

And never forget: Tomorrow it could be you who's in need of utterly expensive treatment and i'm pretty sure you would be very, very happy if doctors not just sent you away but treat you properly. Always think of who's paying for that: We all are.

conan,
well said.
and just a note:
100% of income tax in america goes to pay the interest on the money our government borrowed from the federal reserve.
revenue from a local to national level is generated for government by the long list of "other" taxations.i.e sales tax,property tax etc etc.

I invite anyone who thinks the government can do anything more efficiently and cost effectively than the free market stop by the Citizens Against Government Waste website.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer

Better yet, pick your favorite government agency or program and google it for government waste and ineptitude.

Since the programs began, the well-meaning but hopeless idiots in the bureaucracies have never been able to curtail Medicare and Medicaid fraud. WHY NOW do you think the incompetents will do better policing Obamacare?

I don't want to pay for the health care of others if they willfully chose to ignore healthy life choices. If you stuff your face full of Doritoes every day, I don't want to pay for whatever problems come about because of that. If you drink booze or smoke all the time, and you get screwed up cuz of that, I don't want to help you either.

But if you were hit by a car, born with some problem, or catch some disease you had no control over... then I like the idea of paying for your care.

Also, I would prefer to pay for the health care of poor people in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia, more than the people in say, my own country, the United States. So I'd rather not have national health care, but global health care, if I had to choose between the two. I also think that a national health care system will strengthen immigration restrictions in the US, which I think is a bad thing. I like the idea of an America full of opportunities for the poor people of the world. But if we have national health care, it's VERY likely that immigrants will have a harder time coming to America, because we'll see them as a drain on the health care system. (heck, one of the primary reasons we don't have national health care already is because of how many white conservatives view blacks/latinos/native americans as drains on their wallets already.)

so..selective anecdotal health care?
by using that logic health care can be denied due to peoples age.
its their own damn fault for getting old...
oh wait..health insurance already DOES that!
and QM,
stop using frivolous facts to smokescreen the point.
there is no perfect health insurance,and im sure there will be problems of :fraud,inefficiency and waste.
but what we have now is NOT a free market based system.
it IS wasteful and inefficient.
americans get far less for their buck than any other industrialized nation.
but hey man..if you wanna keep that shite you call a health insurance plan,thats your business.just hope nothing REALLY detrimental happens to you my friend,because once you become a liability,you are toast.

the only argument i have seen coming from the republicans is anecdotal.
this woman waited 6 mos.that woman died before she could get treated.canada and britain have horrible health care.
they do all this hoping you wont look at the numbers.
and the NUMBERS clearly state that:
a.americans pay an avg 5000 per family.
b.thats almost twice the amount compared to other industrialized nations.
c.american health care ranks 37.with higher infant mortality,lowered longevity and a far higher percentages of complications due to mix ups and poor quality treatment.
so...
lets review.
300 million citizens in the U.S.
appx 50 million uninsured.
paying twice the amount than the rest of the world to receive care that ranks 37.
the uninsured costs of health care is absorbed into the tax base(meaning your paying for them anyways).
we could insure everyone in the U.S for 200 million less than we are today(i also 150 million).so not only could we all save some scratch,but everyone would be able to get the basics in health care.
second argument i hear:
america has the best health care(we know this to be false),a much more accurate description would be:america has the best health care money can buy.
BINGO!
everything is for sale in america,and if you can afford that 1.2 million for an emergency kidney transplant then america is the place you wanna be.
but if you cant afford that QM,or anybody else who has bought into the health care industries multi-million dollar propaganda campaign,you are fighting for the wrong side.

If any Canadians want to see...

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/#clip195308

The issue with nationalized health care is the simple, inescapable fact that the federal government is INCAPABLE of improving the problems we face. It isn't selfish to impartially look at our government's track record of entitlement spending & coolly conclude that a federal program would fail miserably and therefore should not be attempted.

At the absolute best, the equation would be a wash where care, costs, & coverage are no better after federalization than they were before. But the CBO said Obama's plan would not result in any savings. If it isn't going to 'cover' more people, and isn't going to reduce costs in any appreciable way - then WHY should we turn that much power over to a government that has historically PROVEN that it cannot be trusted with it and 99 times out of 100 will make the problems even worse?

All you guys saying, "Well - everyone else is doing it!" are being silly. Neolibs like to say they're logical and fair, right? Then implement a SMALL pilot program in a select few areas. Compare the results on a cost to cost basis with other options. Slow down. Take your time. Test the options. The only reason for undue haste is the political desire to pass a BAD plan with as little debate, thought, and consideration as possible. That's the tactic of a vapid, pithless, intellectually bankrupt fool. Isn't that what you accused Bush of for so many years? But now it's OK because Obama said it? Pathetic.

Delayed care is denied care. 45 million are currently 'uninsured'? Yeah, under the federal plan I deem OVER 45 million would be denied regular care for their current medical needs on the auspice that Obama and his cronies think you don't 'need' that care. When you hear what Obama and his thugs are saying about how they'd 'regulate' who gets what medical care, it is downright Orwellian and scary. Regardless of who is in power, the federal government CANNOT and SHOULD NEVER be trusted with that kind of power. Do you want to wake up next election with a Dick Cheney run cabinet in charge of whether or not you get medical care? Wake up people! Federal health care is a terrible idea. The right solution is medical savings accounts or some other plan that takes the government OUT of the picture.

thats not a bad idea WP..taking things slowly.
i think we all would like a plan that works.
we may not agree on everything but i think we can agree that what we have now is not free market and it needs to be addressed.
it is a broken system.

We need health care form Medical saving account do nothing the help the poor

The issue here is one of "how can we make health care more affordable"... Objectively, the US government has an abysmal record of providing 'affordable' services. Education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid - you name it. Pretty much every entitlement program the US government is involved in has ended up being horrendously expensive, wasteful to the nth degree, and second-rate in quality compared to private systems.

So - we have a federal government that has a proven track record of being incapable of reducing costs, prone to waste, and historically given to supplying cut-rate services. And there are people that think turning health care over to this entity is a GOOD idea? Since the 1970s, Medicare/Medicaid costs per patient from $344 to $8955 while private options went from $364 to $7199. What evidence is there that a federal system will reduce costs by one red cent? All evidence we have sugests that the costs will actually INCREASE.

The argument here is clearly an emotional one. Some people are under the mistaken impression that a federal system will provide 'more' care to more people. Such persons are gravely mistaken. More people will be 'covered' under this shell-game system perhaps if you go by a purely theoretical/emotional perspective. The reality will be that just as many (or MORE) people will NOT be getting medical care. Government actuarial tables will see to that. It does no one any good to be 'covered' in name, but denied the treatment you need because a government panel has determined your treatment is 'not in the common interest'.

So what the fuck are you doing here if you have all the answers? Anyway...

You're wrong. You're grouping in the fact that the government gets crippled by theives and liars. The government can do anything if it approaches things honestly by not allowing lies and ignorance within its ranks. That will only happen if we cut military spending and increase education spending and healthcare spending, so that people can have a real chance to get some real honest people elected.

We will always need to come together to accomplish tasks. We will always need to be organized.

We do not need million dollar jets and flat out lies. That's the problem, not "government". Elements specifically allowed to fester in the government. There is a cure for that... it involves something called Hard Work. Hard work that Obama is trying to facilitate.

Get back in QM's closet. You have no basis to make a claim of what the reality will be because you make false claims as to the problem. Go copy / paste some more numbers.

Don't claim to have all the answers. I am just saying that Obama's public option is not a good solution. Even IF his solution was valid (and all current evidence indicates it isn't) then it shouldn't be made law without a TON of testing. Why the rush to do it now now NOW? That's scaremongering.

Well, we all know why Obama is pushing so hard. His poll numbers are sinking like a rock and he wants to cram this into law before the August recess hits him like a ton of bricks. Obama knows that Congress is going to get a venom-filled earful on this issue over the break. Every poll proves that the people don't want to touch Obama's plan with a 10 foot pole. Congress is going to go into recess and be told by the people, "You vote for this and you're OUT pal!". Obama will lose tons of support, and his law is already on pretty shaky ground in the House and Senate. This is all about cramming his 'plan' through without review, without testing, and without consideration over the objections of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. What a jackass. This is all about Obama treating the United States like his own personal little doctrinal thesis on Saul Alinksy brand socialism.

That will only happen if we cut military spending and increase education spending and healthcare spending, so that people can have a real chance to get some real honest people elected.

So, you're saying that we don't have honest people in politics because we don't spend enough money on education and health care? Oooookaaaay...
Regardless, military spending is only about 30% of the federal budget. Over 60% of the federal budget is already spent on social entitlements. How much is 'enough'?

Hard work that Obama is trying to facilitate.

In what way is Obama's medical care plan 'facilitating hard work'?

Ummm.. if doing things against the will of the AMERICAN PEOPLE was against the law, I'm pretty sure the last president would be in jail right now.

You can't defend one president (which you did on numerous occasions WP) for going against the preponderance of evidence and the will of the people, and then condemn the next president for doing what you say is the same thing.

I disagree that it is the same thing of course, I honestly could care less about the various healthcare plans. I'm young and reasonably fit.

But what's so bad if they don't force anyone to do anything different, they just offer options to those who want to change or don't have other options.. they aren't doing away with private insurance, right?

At what point did I say Obama was 'against the law'? I said he is trying to make law that the American people don't want. Entirely different. And as far as Bush goes - look what happened to him when HE did something that was decidedly against the will of the American people. He ended up a lame duck, lost all his political capital, and had poll numbers in the 30s for almost his whole 2nd term.

And please show when I defended Bush. Well, I'll save you the time because you CAN'T because I didn't. In fact, I routinely criticized Bush's massive over-spending and reckless expansion of federal power. What I DIDN'T do is brainlessly criticize Bush using the standard neolib talking points.

they aren't doing away with private insurance, right?

Not overtly, but they are definitely 'doing away' with private insurance in a TACIT, backhanded way. The Lewin group did a study that estimated "The number of people with private health insurance would decline by about 119.1 million people (Figure 3). This is equal to about 70 percent of all people currently covered under private health insurance." Employers who currently offer health coverage as a benefit would dump the option en masse. Literally tens of millions will have to choose very quickly whether to go private or public. Since the public option doesn't have to show a profit, it's (initally) lower rates will cut the knees out from under private options. Private plans will have to essentially model their pricing on the public option.

In addition, there are several distrubing provisions in the bill that passed the house which make changing private plans very difficult or even impossible. The bill essentially 'freezes' private plans as they are, and they cannot be changed. Not being allowed to change the plans according to market needs is essentially a price control - and we know how well those work (see California utility fiasco).

So 'doing away' as it 'making illegal'? Not in name. But the gummint doesn't have to make something 'illegal' to get rid of it. Government has other, far less obvious ways to kill things it doesn't like in the business arena.

So, Winston, I take it:

Government doesn't care about the people. They only were elected. The only people you can trust to do what's right for you is someone who only cares about how much money they can get out of you.

Insurance companies care about the people. Being entirely focused on your profit margin means altruism! Everyone is happy when they have their money sucked away when they are healthy and they are positively orgasmic when they get denied due to "pre-existing conditions" and "acts of God" when something goes awry.


It's funny when people think private insurance is a good thing. Here in BC we have some of the worst drivers in the world (my own opinion) but still, we have more insurance claims than most other places on the planet. The government runs the auto insurance, ICBC is where you get insurance for your car, otherwise you don't drive. Private insurers can do additional insurance, but the main insurance must be through ICBC.

It's weird, I hear my $98CAN per month fully-insured plan is somewhat cheaper than other areas.
In my business, limousine rentals, our fleet insurance is something like $2000 per YEAR, where down in the states, some are paying as much as that per MONTH.

Yeah, people forced by fudiciary law to make a profit in any way they can are only interested in my well being.

Government doesn't care about you directly. Government is there for one reason - to perpetuate itself (re-election). They only 'care' about people insofar as they consider people to be population blocs that generate tax revenue and (occasionally) vote.

Private companies don't care about you directly either. They are there for one reason - to make a profit. They only 'care' about people insofar as they are engines that generate market share.

The THEORY is that both these entities (public/private) will ultimately behave themselves because they can't afford to antagonize the people that their 'market share' attitude so routinely dehumanizes. The real issue here is that government is FAR more insulated from the people than any private company. If you get a bum rap from a company you can sue them, or take your business to a different company, and (best) tell anyone/everyone what happened and cause lots of other people to not patronize the business.

But when you are oppressed by the GOVERNMENT you are far less able to hit them where it hurts. You can't stop paying taxes. You can't throw someone out of office except once every 4/6 years (and even THEN it isn't a given). Even if you do get ONE guy thrown out, there are hundreds or thousands of others still in that government who you have ZERO ability to influence (Senators from other states, cabinet members, appointees, judges).

Right now the polls show athat about 65% to over 70% of the people do NOT want Obamacare. If the Democrats just say, "screw you - you're getting Obamacare like it or not" then there is literally nothing that can be done about it. Even if the Dems lose the house/senate in the midterms it can't be undone. Even if Repubs take the House, PoTUS, and Senate in 2012 it is very unlikely they would repeal it. They'd just want to be the ones 'in charge' of it.

It is a FAR better choice to never let the government take over health care in the first place. They cannot be trusted with that kind of power, because they would never surrender it. American helath care is fine. People who need care get it. The problem is one of disproportionate costs. That problem can be handled far more effectively with a non-public solution that does not give over immense power to a goverment .

Health "crises" are just another way the fascists are trying to subjugate freedom.

Much like how the freest people on earth are now blamed for the weather and being dictated to how to use energy and what to drive, once this evil government get its filthy paws on the health care system you'll see the banning of tobacco and fast food overnight.

The rationing of health care might be based not on availability but on compliance with fascist health laws (e.g. the non-smoker gets heart surgery before the fat guy and the smoker). It's easy to picture these vermin banning guns as a 'health issue', and using the mental health system to lock up dissidents, just like they do in Red China.

Government is the problem. It is a necessary evil, and ultimately when you strip all the bullshit away behind every law is a man with a gun pointed at you. Government is force, not reason, not charity, not wisdom. Government creates nothing, it can only destroy, through the power of taxation.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.