Firefighters aren't fire insurance. There actually is a thing called fire insurance. Maybe we should socialize, universalize or whatever you want to call it fire insurance. *fear politicking with loose logic. I want the corporations out of health care, too. But, this is silly.

Adding video to channels (Fear) - requested by blankfist.

The graphics say "Actually Fire-Fighting insurance". ^ ^ ^

>> ^blankfist:
Firefighters aren't fire insurance. There actually is a thing called fire insurance. Maybe we should socialize, universalize or whatever you want to call it fire insurance. fear politicking with loose logic. I want the corporations out of health care, too. But, this is silly.


Your description of the fear channel is:

A place for videos exhibiting examples of fear, the use of fear to control and oppress, fear of differences, terrorized people and animals, paranoia, distrust, fear of death, and phobias.

If you don't want it in the fear channel, I don't care. If you'd take a moment to look at my personal videos, you'll see videos of this particular ilk and one's being persuasive by using fear are also placed within the fear channel.

This is still fear politicking whether you agree with the message or not. Even I can be honest with fear politicking when I'm for the message. But, then again, I don't get caught up in the blind following of the winning two partisan teams.

You are absolutely caught up in following one of two partisan teams, and pushing for them to win. Just because you see the two teams' names as statist and libertarian doesn't make that any less so.

I think it takes a level of chutzpa to declare that any mention of existing problems with the health care system we have today, even when done at arms length with a cartoon about an allegorical situation with fire fighting, is use of some sort of scare tactic.

You're saying in effect that the arguments for government run, socialized, universal health care all boil down to fear tactics. And you're calling yourself somehow above partisanship?

That's exceptionally partisan, whether you want to admit it or not.

What are you talking about? Statist and libertarian are the two parties? Are you mad? Republicans are not libertarians. Is this more of your revisionism? Disgusting rhetoric.

And, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine political advertisements and news commonly use fear to persuade audiences. Did you not see stick figures with blood shooting from their legs? Is this not a video that is stating, "if you stick with greedy corporations, you won't be covered and may die!"

No, you're right, certainly not fear politicking. My bad. Common sense has no place when partisan politics is being slung around like a monkey's feces.

You don't care for the "fear" channel, then what about the *lies channel?

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by blankfist.

You two, get a room

CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

In all seriousness though, the area close to where I live was considering privatizing the fire departments and yes, it would have been cheaper but it wasn't clear if people would have recieved the same service.

That's what this is mostly about, people dont care how this stuff get's paid for, they just want their house put out when it's on fire. Now within reason they want it as cheap as possible, and that's where the government comes in. Your government can be your go-to guy who watches all the transactions taking place in a gov run system. They make sure (ideally) that your tax dollars dont go to waste.

It's the same thing with health insurance, if we had a public system the people running it wouldn't be eating on gold rimmed plates while flying on private jets. And those savings would be passed along to the consumer. In turn, the private insurance companies would have to deal with a competitor with much lower overheads.

*fear *lies

Adding video to channels (Fear, Lies) - requested by blankfist.

I think I also saw some bloody legs! *horrorshow!

Adding video to channels (Horrorshow) - requested by blankfist.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Following all of the same logic, should we have socialized car insurance?

I think there's a lot of pie-in-the-sky talk about this. Optimally, the way he presents it is a better way for health insurance to work, in my opinion. But is the "public options" really that? Or is it just a band-aid on the broken leg that is the American health insurance as it is today?

*nochannel *Politics *Animation *Money *talks

I don't see any reason for the fear, horrowshow or lies on this. The animations quickly convey the message that the people have been injured in some way, they are hardly the "socialize or die" message, you want them to be, bf.

This video has been removed from all channels (Horrorshow, Lies, Politics, Animation, Fear, Money) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by gwiz665. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Animation, Money, Politics, Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

>> ^brain:
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Following all of the same logic, should we have socialized car insurance?


No!

Actually, there are areas of the country that have "volunteer" fire departments, but you have pay for them. And if you don't pay, they let your house burn down.

See also: libertarianism; bat-shit insane.

>> ^peggedbea:
>> ^brain:
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Following all of the same logic, should we have socialized car insurance?

No!

We should. Private car insurance gives scenarios like this (in Quebec at least): when you have an accident, your insurance company pays for the damage you have done to the other car, not your own. So far so good. However, if you bump into a passerby, the SAAQ (public government insurance) pays for personal "damages" which are in addition to healthcare costs already covered by the public healtcare system. It pays them both to you if you were injured in the collision and to the passerby. OK. But the weird thing is, that if your car is damaged by your hitting the passerby, HIS CAR INSURANCE will have to pay for the repairs on your car, because the SAAQ only ever covers personal injuries : property damage is covered by (mandatory if you own a car) private insurance! This is in spite of the fact that he was on foot and notwithstanding which party is responsible for the accident : you could have been drunk driving and it wouldn't make a difference. If the passerby doesn't have property insurance (i.e. if he doesn't own a car or doesn't own a house with blanket property insurance, etc.), he pays out of his own pocket. This has been tested in court (with a drunk driver claiming thousands of dollars of damages to the family of his dead victim) and found perfectly logical and true to the letter of the law on property insurance policies. If the SAAQ covered both personal injuries and property damage on cars this scenario couldn't happen.

Of course you can modify the laws to cover this scenario, but more laws equals more potential loopholes and generally testify to how rotten a system has become. It also empowers the judiciary and unduly enrich the lawyers. The moral is : the SAAQ should cover property insurance insurance on cars since it is mandatory. The same logic should be applied to all types of insurance found to be mandatory. I do not like top-down representative governments, but between them and the mini-tyrannies called corporations, I prefer the former.

>> ^peggedbea:
>> ^brain:
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Following all of the same logic, should we have socialized car insurance?


Actually... yes, in any state that has a law requiring auto insurance there should be a government run option. To require something by law that is ran by for-profit companies is just inviting abuse, even with regulations. Though I suppose this could possibly be fixed by making a regulation requiring the insurer be non-profit.

Yes, and we should have a government option for all forms of insurance. Our government should also offer public options for all current privately created goods and services. Free electric automobiles and food for all taxpayers. It's the minimum any government should offer their citizens. Sigh.

Meh... you know what? F*ck it. Maybe we should get socialized/whatever government healthcare. Socialize as many things as Obama wants.

Austrian economists are predicting that the US economy is on the verge of another major collapse/depression anyway, I wouldn't want to see free markets anywhere near this colossal mess.

Otherwise, they'll get the blame for it, as usual.

>> ^brain:
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Following all of the same logic, should we have socialized car insurance?


the difference is that not everyone has or should have a car. Cars are optional, so insurance is optional. Health care covers your body, which is not optional.

However, I also agree that any state that has mandatory car insurance is creating a scam, so that sucks and should be fixed.

One issue I would love to see universal health care opponents address is why all the major for-profit health insurance providers are not welcoming the proposed legislation with open arms. I'm not being facetious here at all: why are these health insurers - who so adamantly declare that a government-based system would be wasteful, inefficient, have "Death Panels," and so on - be afraid of the OPTION for people to get insurance from the government instead? The legislation does not say "we hereby abolish for-profit health care" - people who love their existing plan get to continue using it, and those that don't already have health care can sign on with the government if they want.

You'd think that if health care were so utterly and completely confident about the quality, cost, and efficiency of the service they provide, this is their one major chance to prove how much better they are. Let the consumers see for themselves. Let a poor schmuck who switches to the public option have a bad experience with "The Man" and then come crawling back to the private companies, begging to be let back in.

But they don't. They don't welcome that confrontation at all. Because they damn well know they would lose that battle without incredible, sweeping, self-imposed reforms to their own system. So they fight the legislation hard.

If health care companies turned around tomorrow and said, "You know what, you guys are right, a public option IS a great idea, and we're going to change our own policies, practices, and prices to reflect our sincere intent to compete with the proposed public system" - that has the potential to be so much more politically damaging than the current fearmongering and blind contrarian dismissals.

^ Because government is unfair competition. People being forced to pay for government healthcare would have less money and incentive to pay for private healthcare.

Government is not really an "option" when it's funded by taxes. You can only choose not to use it, but you can't choose whether or not to pay for it.

^ The way it's been structured is that it won't be funded by taxes. It will have to live or die by the collection of premiums, just like any other insurer.

Since when is government unfair competition? I can't think of an example of a government-run institution that is "unfair" in any sense to its free market competitors. Consider the United States Postal Service. It's a pretty good deal - you drop a letter in your mailbox with necessary postage and it gets picked up and delivered with an extremely high probability of success. For packages you may have to drive a few minutes to the nearest post office instead (for weighing and labels and so forth), but it is still marginally convenient. The letter/package then arrives a few days later (or longer depending on where you are sending to) at the addressed destination.

Now, there are companies such as FedEx and UPS that ultimately decided to enter the free market/capitalist system of the United States (which is completely within their Constitutional rights and freedoms) with the intent of creating a competing service to that of the USPS. The private sector now provides a valuable service to businesses as well as individuals who have specialized mailing needs, whether that be same day/overnight priorities for time-critical deliveries, extended hours/customized pickup times beyond hours the USPS is bound to (by law), or perhaps other special services (such as prepaid-labels or advanced package tracking) that the USPS simply does not have.

The proponents of privatized health care are all in favor of the free market capitalist system, and find no lack of ways to extoll capitalism's virtues and remind people that the free market ultimately is self-policing and provides for the needs of all people, a la textbook Adam Smith.

To reiterate the point - if privatized health care is such a firm believer in their own infallibility and the power of laissez-faire economics (and how it ultimately provides the consumer with the best possible health care through open competition and supply & demand), why would they be opposed to another player entering that arena regardless of whether it is government- or private-run? Again - if they provide a better service than the government does, why should they be afraid of a mass exodus to the public option? The government SURELY will provide an inferior level of health care, so they have nothing to be afraid of!

Any health care provider that is not saying "Bring it on" is one that knows they are screwing their customers up the wazoo.

Think about what would happen if the public option failed miserably. Let's say the legislation passes and Obama's plan is put into effect. If anyone who joins that plan gets treated like cattle in a slaughterhouse, is denied health care due to so-called "rationing," or a "death panel" euthanizes their grandma in front of them - that is what will frighten consumers into going back to ol' reliable privatized health care. And the government option will inevitably collapse and Obama will look like a worse president than Bush, all while reaffirming the strength and sensibility of a free market health care system. Capitalism 1, "Socialism" 0.

Let them duke it out, and to the victor go the spoils. QED.

>> ^gtjwkq:
^ Because government is unfair competition. People being forced to pay for government healthcare would have less money and incentive to pay for private healthcare.
Government is not really an "option" when it's funded by taxes. You can only choose not to use it, but you can't choose whether or not to pay for it.

^ A private company has to provide quality service to convince people to choose to give money to it. They also have to keep costs down so they get the most out of that money. They seek a balance between quality and costs to be productive (not waste money).

A public company has no incentive to worry about increasing quality or lowering costs, because government hands it all the money it needs. Even if they are forced to provide quality service, they don't care about the quality/costs balance, so they run up the costs, because they're not worried about being productive.

Even if a public company provides higher quality services than its private competitors, they pass the higher costs to the taxpayer (which includes their consumers and their competitors).

So if you're a private company, your public competitor is taking away your market share by providing services you and your consumers are indirectly paying for.

Government intervention into any market historically imply either an increase in cost, a reduction in quality, or usually both. The cost increases affect their private competitors, because they have to deal with the increased prices of those who deal with their public competitor.

How is that not unfair competition? How is that not unfair to society?

>> ^NetRunner:
^ The way it's been structured is that it won't be funded by taxes. It will have to live or die by the collection of premiums, just like any other insurer.

*sigh*

It's subsidized by taxpayer money.

[Citation Needed]

>> ^gtjwkq:
Government intervention into any market historically imply either an increase in cost, a reduction in quality, or usually both. The cost increases affect their private competitors, because they have to deal with the increased prices of those who deal with their public competitor.
How is that not unfair competition? How is that not unfair to society?.

^ Because they're not profit driven, I just explained that in my post. Please use your brain.

When I ask for a citation I mean to please state evidence (i.e. statistics, facts, quotes from experts that have thoroughly analyzed the subject) that back up your statement, "Government intervention into any market historically imply either an increase in cost, a reduction in quality, or usually both."

You are making a claim about history, now please present evidence that your comment is historically accurate.

It has nothing to do with what you said or how you explained your opinion/logic, it has to do with whether or not what you said is factually true and can be substantiated with outside sources (rather than your own beliefs). You provided no examples nor evidence that what you said historically has occurred.

I don't see how my request is unreasonable and your suggestion to "please use your brain" is exactly what I'm doing. I'm asking for factual evidence to back up your claim, as my brain cannot accept unverifiable premises/arguments.

>> ^gtjwkq:
^ Because they're not profit driven, I just explained that in my post. Please use your brain.

^ Thanks for taking the time to explain and enlighten me. You're definitely right, citation is needed.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, August 27th, 2009 11:16pm PDT - promote requested by Norsuelefantti.

So what you're saying is... the federal government is going to run my local fire department? AWESOME! That'll be so much better than it is now.

The thing that really bums me out about all this talk is that it looks like the only people that end up being doctors in the future will be people that actually want to help those in need, and not make a ton of cash. Unfortunately, there aren't that many people out there that aren't in it for the money.

I love reading these arguments about healthcare on VS.

For the most part VideoSift is pretty openminded, and usually has a liberal bias, but when it comes to healthcare there are still scores of people who refuse to step out of their partisan bubble and look at the facts.

I blame McCarthyism. Americans, at least from a non-American point of view, seem to be terrified of their own government. Anytime anyone ever mentions the government actually providing a service or helping out people start screaming "communism" or "socialism" and start freaking out as if the candidate for the USSR just won the presidential election.

Fucking grow up!

The United States is the only industrialized nation without universal health care. The United States also spends more money on health care than any other while having among the lowest actual health. Doesn't that bother you people? Doesn't it bother you that every other industrialized nation is laughing at you for fighting about something they all hold dear and see as the obvious choice? No one ever says, "I wish my country had a health care system like America". Wonder why? Because everyone has better.

Stop running in fear of government programs and get yourselves some health care.

Hm - I'll just make a laundry list of his errors, or - if I was Wilson - I'd call them LIES!

1. The 'money goes in - goods & services come back out' claim is an idealized, theoretical presentation of what is in actuality a tangled, inefficient reality. Just because money has dissappeared into the federal black hole does not mean goods and services are coming back out.

2. The federal government does not and cannot provide all 'essential services'. Food, shelter, clothing, electricity, heating, communication, transportation, and many other essential services are routinely and cheaply provided by private companies. And these private offerings routinely outstrip public competitors in both price and quality.

3. 10 to 20% administrative costs for private insurance is actually pretty good when you consider that federal government has been documented to waste 75 cents on the dollar!

4. It is disingenous to portray insurance companies as nothing but slaves to shareholders who always seek to increase profits by denying coverage. Most people have no problems at all getting coverage for care through their insurance. Over 86% of the people are satisfied with their coverage just fine. Implying that insurance companies deny coverage for anything/everything just to line thier pockets is pure, complete bunk.

5. The #1 reason we need government health care is because it is 'non profit'? The government is 100% about profit. Every government agency is obsessed with increasing it's quarterly budget size, which in turn equates to more power and influence. They zealously protect themselves against efficiency because being efficient would mean they need less money and would get cut. Anyone who believes government is not interested in profit is a fool.

6. Government 'cares' for people is another total fallacy. Government cares about only two things... Getting re-elected and money.

7. Medicare claims this bogus "we only use 3 cents for every dollar for administration" as a red herring to distract from its crippling degree of fraud, waste, and corruption. When it is all totalled together, Medicare is documented to 'lose' at least 30 cents on the dollar. Some estimates have put it more like 70 cents (depends on who you ask). But regardless, the image that Medicare is a model of efficiency and responsibility compared to private companies is laugable at its face. I guess that's why the program is always teetering on the brink of failure and insolvency, eh?

8. Police, fire, and water are not 'universal federal socialized' programs. They are local, municipal, or state run programs. It is comparing basketballs to apples to say we need a national federal program because there are government programs that work OK on a state & local level.

9. His 'fire fighting' insurance comparison is idiotic on too many levels to discuss. Let's just say that my current fire insurance is both affordable AND will entirely replace my home if the public firefighters are too slow/lazy to show up.

In short - this guy is an idiot and his arguments are as pathetic as his grasp of simple economics.

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^NetRunner:
^ The way it's been structured is that it won't be funded by taxes. It will have to live or die by the collection of premiums, just like any other insurer.
sigh
It's subsidized by taxpayer money.

YOU LIE!

Or at least you're mistaken about the facts. The subsidy is another component of the bill, and it's subsidizing people. They may then take their subsized dollars (call 'em health care vouchers if you like), and spend them on a private insurance policy, or if they so choose, they may spend them on the public option.

The public option itself won't receive direct taxpayer funding.

The public option itself won't receive direct taxpayer funding.

So then why does every proposed bill in congress to date require 700+ billion in additional taxes? I hate arguments that ignore basic, fundamental logic and common sense and try to hide behind weasel-speak and (Wilson!) lies. "Public option won't receive direct taxpayer funding." Yeah - right. There may not be a pile of money labeled "Direct Taxpayer Funding For Public Health Insurance" but you and I both know quite well that the public funding of insurance is going to be subsidized by taxes.

This is why Wilson called Obama a liar. Obama also hides truth behind weasel-speak, mumbo-jumbo, and flat out BS.

CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF OBAMA LIES.

Today Obama CUT missle defense in Europe, essentially turning his back on Poland & the Czechs. Now - I don't have a problem with less money going to government. But how did Obama describe his CUTS in defense?

To put it simply, our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies. It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies.

In a word... BULL! He CUT the program, and his speech is all weasel-speak puffery about how it's stronger, bigger, and protects all our allies. How is it more comprehensive? What proven technology is it using? How does it stop long range missiles? HOW will it ensure protection for Poland & the Czechs? And neolibs everywhere are nodding their heads thinking this guy is intelligent, when all he's doing is slinging complete BS and hoping everyone is too stupid or bored to bother with such things as 'details', 'proof', and 'logic'.

That's why Wilson is right to call him a liar. And that's why it is completely true to say that Obama & neolibs are lying when they say that public health care 'option' won't use taxes. I mean - just how stupid does a person have to be to BELIEVE that load of hotspur?