This was great, thank you!

The alleged 3% administrative cost of Medicare is a myth.

Most of the administrative duties are shoved off on doctor's offices for which they receive no compensation, only the paltry 'reimbursement' which barely covers the cost of providing the care.

I say this as one who is in favor of a publicly supported 'safety net' for those unable to get health insurance coverage but wanting to keep the discussion honest on both sides.

We could debate which system is "more efficient", but nothing will change the fact that conservatives support killing, and oppose healing.

Where is your pro-life platform now, assholes?

Evil selfish bastards, every one.

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

^I feel what you're feeling Max.

He really brought it home at the end of this video. *promote.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 10:01am PDT - promote requested by dag.

hahah excelent video, exactly why republicans are wrong

Tags for this video have been changed from 'young turks caller owned question healthcare reform' to 'young turks, tyt, sam seder, health, healthcare reform, tax, taxation' - edited by SlipperyPete

Good *talks man, good talks.

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by Stingray.

Where's the ownage?

Because we live in society, we pay for the stuff our elected leaders choose to spend money on. So?

The caller is questioning whether he should be morally responsible for other's healthcare, which he isn't, even though, currently, he is paying for it already.

Just stating what things are doesn't justify them.

Public healthcare more resource efficient than truly private healthcare? Crazy talk.

>> ^gtjwkq:
Where's the ownage?
Because we live in society, we pay for the stuff our elected leaders choose to spend money on. So?
The caller is questioning whether he should be morally responsible for other's healthcare, which he isn't, even though, currently, he is paying for it already.
Just stating what things are doesn't justify them.

However, he's not just stating the way things are. He's also pointing out that the caller has a positive moral obligation to pay taxes for healthcare, etc., given the numerous benefits he's received from society. Study after study has shown that the biggest factors affecting long-term financial and social success are things we don't have any control over--our parents' circumstances and income most primarily. Hard work--at least, a minimum amount of work--may be a necessary element, but it's not even close to the only element. There are lots and lots of people who work very hard but don't make much money.

It's not inappropriate at all for society to ask for a margin of that benefit back in order to help some of the people who lack those advantages.

Public healthcare more resource efficient than truly private healthcare? Crazy talk.

But true. The VA, for instance has the lowest cost per patient, but has been consistently classed as the best health care in the country for general care.

The limits of representative democracy has nothing to do with what they were talking about, the Iraq war comparison simply doesn't make sense. The caller's obviously against the bill, the analogy to that would be those opposed to the war before it commenced. Both entirely legitimate.

He would have been better off stressing the point more that funding preventive care, as opposed to treating people when they're on the verge of death in ER is simply more cost effective. That frankly any system would be better than the one now. Making broad ideological arguments never works though.

The thing is though, beyond providing better coverage, something that I by the way would fully support, there is no logical reason why the mere presence of a public option would truly fix escalating costs.

If it was plausible within the current state of the health care industry to profitably provide high levels of coverage, thus lower administration costs and support the sick with the predominantly healthy masses then it would already be happening. The health insurers do not want the prospect of a public competitor who could quite plausibly undercut them while not having to turn a profit due to being funded publicly.

Until at least some of the following happen: the incentive to overprovide is removed, tort reform happens preventing frivolous lawsuits, large unions lose their access to vastly better health care plans and tax benefits over small businesses and the self employed, or health initiatives significantly reduce the burden of obesity, smoking and other self inflicted ailments, costs/capita will remain high.

First things first -- Medicare is more efficient. The rate of cost inflation for Medicare and Medicaid have been slower than the inflation costs of private insurance.

As for the "moral" question, why indeed should I care about anyone else? I mean, if my neighbor's house catches fire, surely there's no chance mine will catch too.

Surely if my neighbor loses his job, and then loses his home, my property's value won't decline.

Surely if my neighbor catches a communicable, dangerous disease like swine flu, I'm sure I'll never catch it from him.

Even people to which selfishness is a virtue should realize we're all invested in each other's fates.

Plus, are conservatives utterly convinced that they can't lose their job, or lose their insurance, and that even if they do that they're immune to serious illness?

I just don't understand why they're so dead set against a safety net, when they're as likely as anyone else to get cancer, or hit by a drunk driver.

the simple explanation for the efficiency part of the argument, is that government jobs have salary caps that are very modest compared to any private sector jobs.

for example, my friend just got his first raise (1 year in) at his civilian research job with the coast guard in Washington DC, and we have inspected the salary chart thoroughly. at the highest level civilian position (GS-15) you make 120k in your first year, and with maxxed out seniority (i forget how many years, but >20) you can earn a maximum of 153k.

considering the recent outrage at greedy high level execs for banks, auto manufacturers, etc, this should be a good talking point for supporters of this medicare bill.

This wasn't fair. There was no oppotunity for a mob to shout down what he was saying.

Normally I resent TYT, the guy I usually see is so arrogant, unnecessarily loud and always interrupts everyone. This guy in this video was actually quite clever, and very quick to form his clever analogies i might add, great job.

The host would have been wise to suggest that if the caller is already paying into _any_ form of health insurance currently he's probably at this very moment choosing to give a corporation money that could very well go to treat that 12-hamburger-per-day eating texan's heart attack. I don't see the caller's point from that standpoint, let alone the societal benefit standpoint. I'd love to have his $250k problem. My wife and I maybe make half that.

$250k? I can't even imagine making anywhere near that kind of money. Cry me a river.

What is the obsession cons have with the 250k income? They seems to formulate all their arguments based on that number, so I'm starting to suspect they're lying whenever they claim they make that amount.

I disagree with the Turks' "social contract" claim. In the USA, the land of individual liberty and responsibility, the contract would be closer to take care of yourself, pull your own weight and don't be a burden.

>> ^HadouKen24:

However, he's not just stating the way things are. He's also pointing out that the caller has a positive moral obligation to pay taxes for healthcare, etc., given the numerous benefits he's received from society.

>> ^NetRunner: ...

Same old "in society we help each other" argument. What you're missing is that helping each other in a society is supposed to be voluntary. When govt is doing the helping, it immediately becomes compulsory.

Why does the issue of voluntary x compulsory matters?

When people help each other voluntarily, those who help are not taken advantage of because help can be withdrawn. Help can adapt faster to new needs. Those who get help don't take it for granted, because they can't obligate others to help them.

When you make people help each other compulsorily, the potential for abuse is enormous, specially when govt is the middle man choosing who gets help from whom with other people's money. Help doesn't adapt fast enough because there is no interest in profit, no competition, and those who help can't deny help. So you end up not helping those who need help as efficiently, those who are helping get taken advantage of and the govt handling all this money helps itself in the process, hurting society.

For long we've been stuck in a cycle where government gets bigger -> it spends more of society's wealth -> people get poorer and something (like healthcare) become too costly or scarce -> government takes upon itself the job of providing it -> government gets bigger...

^ This ridiculous concept of 'voluntary' taxes is misguided for the simple reason that there are scores among scores of people who will NOT voluntarily pay the taxes because they don't have to... and then suddenly they'll find they need the services that they should have been paying for all along and yet still expect those services to exist.

Without having compulsory taxes it just doesn't work. Trying to suggest that it all goes more smoothly if it's a voluntary system is completely bogus and invented. To try and suggest enough people will voluntarily pay for the services to make them work is also false, as there are far too many people like the guy on this call who are very rich, well off, and yet think ONLY of themselves without any idea of the big picture. With NO idea of how paying for these services actually helps THEM more than they believe.

And, as I've mentioned on another thread here, things like public transport shouldn't work on a purely 'user pays' system. Why? Because it's more than just those who use that system that benefit. Everyone benefits from the reduction in traffic, pollution, noise, etc. etc. So many services benefit many more people than those they are directly servicing.

^ I wasn't talking about taxes, or proposing that taxes should be voluntary. I was referring to any private service people choose to pay for.

So, you accuse society of being selfish, while you claim to be an altruist because you think others should be forced to share? That's interesting.

You believe people don't pay for stuff they don't see a direct benefit from, because, unlike you, they're too short sighted. I wonder if you've ever heard of charity. The US alone donates something like +200 US$ billion in charity every year, most of that money being from individuals and not corporations.

That's small change compared to what government gets their grubby hands on every year. However, people would definitely have a lot more to donate if they weren't taxed so much, they'd also be more motivated to do charity if government wasn't doing "charity" itself. I mean, why donate for food, if government already taxes you for lousy food stamps?

*health

Adding video to channels (Health) - requested by brycewi19.