That is a world class ass-whuppin'

I wish I lived in New York so I could vote for this guy.

*nochannel *wtf *politics *news *fail

This video has been removed from all channels (Wtf, Politics, Comedy, News, Fail) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by JiggaJonson. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Fail, News, Politics, Wtf) - requested by JiggaJonson.

ahem also *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

I heart Weiner.

This congressman is a deluded imbecile, I wanna' bash the anchorman's head for buying into his overhead bullshit and not doing his homework. Medicare's overhead is smaller in overall *percentage* terms because it wastes a lot more money, that makes the overhead costs smaller in comparison to the total costs which are enormous: They are servicing the elderly!

Not to mention what is wasted on high levels of fraud and abuse, that's not being counted as overhead for Medicare's numbers. Private insurers, on the other hand, waste money fighting against fraud and abuse, and that counts as overhead! Private insurances also have to pay state health insurance taxes of 2-4%, which, you guessed it, counts as overhead, and Medicare doesn't.

It's all bureaucrats fooling around with statistical hedonics. If you compare on a per-person basis, Medicare wastes 25% on overhead, dramatically less efficient than private insurance.

You moron, you were probably the guy speaking into Bill O's ear piece for this brilliant statement...jump to 3:03

http://www.videosift.com/video/Liberal-Viewer-Bill-O-Reilly-Slam-on-Amsterdam-Factless

Nice try Bill O'reilly stats...

I thought it was funny when the Fox guy started shouting that "SOCIALISED MEDICINE IS POLITICISING HEALTHCARE!"

that's the last time you'll see him on that particular television channel.

First time I ever heard a Yankee sound more enlightened than a Limie.

Man. I'm sorry that we exported this mentally inept anchor to you guys.

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

That was awesome, Weiner is a sharp, sharp guy - and a fighter.

yea being able to keep your composure in the face of the fauxnews twits shouting you down must be really difficult, gg Weiner.

>> ^Gallowflak:
Man. I'm sorry that we exported this mentally inept anchor to you guys.


It's ok dude, Britain also supplied Craig Ferguson.

I never said statistics don't matter, social liberals have to realize that there is such a thing as "statistical sleight of hand", you shouldn't immediately trust numbers coming from the mouth of a politician or the bureaucrats he's quoting. The low Medicare overhead myth is a clear example of that:

- The overhead percentage is the administrative cost compared to total costs, so a lower overhead doesn't mean less costs, it means less compared to the total costs. When Medicare's costs are out of control, overhead will shrink making Medicare look good to anyone dumb enough to only look at that particular statistic and conjure the image of Medicare as a model of efficiency.

- Medicare serves the elderly, they have higher expenditures because they need greater levels of medical care, thus making overhead costs smaller compared to greater total costs in percentage terms.

- Medicare has very high levels of fraud and abuse, something like $70 billion every year! They don't waste any money trying to stop it, because they don't care if needless procedures are being done or if people are stealing money, it's not their money! Private insurers, on the other hand, actively waste money to fight fraud and abuse, which adds to the overhead and reduces total costs, increasing the overhead percentage in relation to these smaller costs!

- Private insurers pay state health insurance premium taxes and all sorts of business taxes, Medicare doesn't.


P.S.: I'd like to ask all social liberals with downvoting power not to downvote this post purely based on the fact that I'm not sucking up to congressman Small Weiner.

P.P.S.: Peroxide, please spare me your misdirected hatred of Bill O'Reilly, I couldn't care less what the hell he said about Amsterdam, reply when you have something pertinent to say.

>> ^gtjwkq:
P.S.: I'd like to ask all social liberals with downvoting power not to downvote this post purely based on the fact that I'm not sucking up to congressman Small Weiner.


OK, how about I downvote your post based purely on your immature name-calling in that very sentence?

Once FOX new is right on the money. Weiner defending that Medicare is such a great program and neglects the fact that is is so bankrupt.

@EDD

How about reading the entire post or arguing any of the points before immaturely powertripping on someone for not worshipping your little hero?

^ I won't argue US health care, because I don't think I know enough about the subject, which I trust is understandable, me not being a US citizen, and not having enough spare time to catch up on it, at least not at the moment. Are you really so sure you're not guilty of the same? AFAIK, you lived in Brazil (not that it means you might not be a US citizen).

Besides, arguing that I didn't respond to your claims about health care is a poor attempt to divert attention from your name-calling. Furthermore, making accusations and assumptions about other people's agendas with little reason other than them making note of an ill-advised debating practice on your part is what makes YOU guilty of rash judgment, not me.

EDD, you're right and I was wrong. Sorry for the name calling. Thanks again for educating me. I'd like to repost my original posts without the name calling.

http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/is_medicare_bankrupt

I think this was a good debate. The Fox guy was even likable, even though he was fighting for the wrong side, and Weiner was sharp and quick in his retorts, which was refreshing to most people who are just pummled by this interview style. It worked well here.

>> ^gtjwkq:
This congressman is a deluded imbecile, I wanna' bash the anchorman's head for buying into his overhead bullshit and not doing his homework. Medicare's overhead is smaller in overall percentage terms because it wastes a lot more money, that makes the overhead costs smaller in comparison to the total costs which are enormous: They are servicing the elderly!
Not to mention what is wasted on high levels of fraud and abuse, that's not being counted as overhead for Medicare's numbers. Private insurers, on the other hand, waste money fighting against fraud and abuse, and that counts as overhead! Private insurances also have to pay state health insurance taxes of 2-4%, which, you guessed it, counts as overhead, and Medicare doesn't.
It's all bureaucrats fooling around with statistical hedonics. If you compare on a per-person basis, Medicare wastes 25% on overhead, dramatically less efficient than private insurance.

This congressman is either being deluded by fake numbers or being plain dishonest (not very unlikely for a politician), I wanna' bash the anchorman's head for buying into his overhead bullshit and not doing his homework. Medicare's overhead is smaller in overall *percentage* terms because it wastes a lot more money, that makes the overhead costs smaller in comparison to the total costs which are enormous: They are servicing the elderly!

Not to mention what is wasted on high levels of fraud and abuse, that's not being counted as overhead for Medicare's numbers. Private insurers, on the other hand, waste money fighting against fraud and abuse, and that counts as overhead! Private insurances also have to pay state health insurance taxes of 2-4%, which, you guessed it, counts as overhead, and Medicare doesn't.

It's all bureaucrats fooling around with statistical hedonics. If you compare on a per-person basis, Medicare wastes 25% on overhead, dramatically less efficient than private insurance.

I never said statistics don't matter, social liberals have to realize that there is such a thing as "statistical sleight of hand", you shouldn't immediately trust numbers coming from the mouth of a politician or the bureaucrats he's quoting. The low Medicare overhead myth is a clear example of that:

- The overhead percentage is the administrative cost compared to total costs, so a lower overhead doesn't mean less costs, it means less compared to the total costs. When Medicare's costs are out of control, overhead will shrink making Medicare look good to anyone dumb enough to only look at that particular statistic and conjure the image of Medicare as a model of efficiency.

- Medicare serves the elderly, they have higher expenditures because they need greater levels of medical care, thus making overhead costs smaller compared to greater total costs in percentage terms.

- Medicare has very high levels of fraud and abuse, something like $70 billion every year! They don't waste any money trying to stop it, because they don't care if needless procedures are being done or if people are stealing money, it's not their money! Private insurers, on the other hand, actively waste money to fight fraud and abuse, which adds to the overhead and reduces total costs, increasing the overhead percentage in relation to these smaller costs!

- Private insurers pay state health insurance premium taxes and all sorts of business taxes, Medicare doesn't.


P.S.: Peroxide, please spare me your misdirected hatred of Bill O'Reilly, I couldn't care less what the hell he said about Amsterdam, reply when you have something pertinent to say.

I don't even fucking care anymore. Thank you media for twisting and fucking with the truth so much that I don't give a fuck.

Thats what listening to Deadmau5 does to you.



P.S. The point was about statistics, also, sorry for calling you names Qui-Gon Jinn.

I find it humorous that people are talking about the "waste" of medicare.

Medicare wastes a lot of money, sure. I wouldn't agree with the 25% ratio that is being parroted here. The point that is fundamentally missed is that if you compared Medicare "waste" to any other private insurance company's "waste" and incorporate in "overhead" (read as: any money that does not pay for a medical cost or service at an equitable rate) and you will easily see which service is more efficient. That is the fundamental point that Weiner has made.

There are no claims for perfection here. There is simply a claim that if you put PrivateInsuranceCo#27 and Medicare side by side and compared costs, Medicare would be better.

The important numbers are simply this: Money in to money out. How much money is actually going into an insurance company (including Medicare) vs. how much money is being used to pay for medical services? You bet your ass if you look at a private insurance company you're going to see a huge insulting ratio of costs that have nothing to do with helping me or you.

I did some armchair research and basically determined that most of the waste of Medicare are from doctors or services requesting overpayments on services where they used to entertain higher premiums from private insurance companies through what I can only consider nefarious purposes. Forgive my presumption (and I totally admit it) but there are a ton of services where you blindly accept the costs. For example, the medical industry has a huge stranglehold on people for patented medicines and cost-driven medication... that's not competitive at all, it's almost monopolistic practice.

Upvote for a politician who knows the real definition of socialism. It's about time someone got a little Merriam-Webster on these liars' asses.

WAIT! Now I don't know what to think! I better tune in to Fox News so they can tell me what I'm supposed to think.

I really can't understand the whole discussion about public healthcare in US. What I don't get is how still you are talking about money, and not about health.
If i was american I'd be worried by the fact that the USA, the most powerful nation in the world, have one of the lowest life expentancy among the first world nations.
Here in Italy is a mess on too many things, but still my girlfriend that is affected from multiple sclerosis is getting a treatment that would cost us 2500 euros every month as private.
My father had to do a delicate hearth surgery, and decided to go private, using his private health insurance. They denied it because it was a genetic issue. He went public and now two years after the surgery he is alive and healthy.
I hope you all get a socialist healtcare system ASAP

why the fear off health care? are you afraid that people who earn less money than you will be equally well taken care off as you are? is that what bothers you so much?

"It's not Socialism. Govt doesn't control the means of production"

Case fucking closed.
Can we move on from using the S word all the fucking time now!

I loved this guy!

>> ^buzz:
"It's not Socialism. Govt doesn't control the means of production"
Case fucking closed.
Can we move on from using the S word all the fucking time now!
I loved this guy!


I saw an exchange on this forum when someone said Socialism and the other person countered with Racism. I think that's a fair exchange considering both are meaningless and irrelevant and both words got each side pretty angry.

In Britain, they used to have a ritual where a pack of hounds chased a Fox and tore it to shreds. Nice to see this Weiner guy continuing the tradition.

gtjwkq is once again just mindlessly parroting biased studies, getting the numbers wrong, and mixing the results of several bogus "studies" together, and delivering it with his usual heaping dose of rude condescension.

The "study" he wants you to read is this one from the Council for Affordable Health Insurance which describes itself as "a research and advocacy association of insurance carriers active in the individual, small group, HSA and senior markets" (emphasis mine).

It's pretty much the textbook definition of statistical sleight of hand, and more or less declares its own definition of "administrative" costs, which just happens to result in him needing to add costs to Medicare from outside its budget, and subtract things from the private insurance side (such as profit).

Even when he does this, his own biased numbers still show lower costs for Medicare, at which point he switches to the argument that private insurance is giving you a better value for your money, even with the extra administrative costs.

He does not address the liberal argument that the higher administrative costs aren't aimed so much at preventing real fraud, but in trying to uncover any legal pretense for refusing to cover treatment for people who file claims, nor the arguments that government run health insurance is getting some economies of scale by having some of its functions handled by other areas of government, such as policy making being done by Congress, or being able to "acquire capital" at the Government's low interest rates.

"Health care is socialized medicine."

That is where the right-wing always kicks our ass, because they know how to label things with deceptive words.

Insurance is not medicine, be it socialized, privatized or other.

Health insurers are just middle-men skimming money off the top.

There is no real value in anything that they do.

They can't set a broken leg. Can't administer chemo. Can't give a breast exam. Can't discover a cure for anything.

They can't even perform a prostate exam, though they'll make you feel as if they had.

All they do is take your money--a lot of it--and if you're lucky they'll give you most of it back when you need it.

In the mean time, they use your money for investments with the sole purpose of enriching themselves.

>> ^rougy:
"Health care is socialized medicine."
That is where the right-wing always kicks our ass, because they know how to label things with deceptive words.
Insurance is not medicine, be it socialized, privatized or other.
Health insurers are just middle-men skimming money off the top.
There is no real value in anything that they do.
They can't set a broken leg. Can't administer chemo. Can't give a breast exam. Can't discover a cure for anything.
They can't even perform a prostate exam, though they'll make you feel as if they had.
All they do is take your money--a lot of it--and if you're lucky they'll give you most of it back when you need it.
In the mean time, they use your money for investments with the sole purpose of enriching themselves.


just quoting this because this excellent post deserves it

How the mighty have fallen

*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 longde.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.