Anthony Weiner Kicks Ass

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kpY1dxGkzg

btw, public universal healthcare is STILL way over 60%, so if it does'nt path it just says something about Americas "democracy".

[danyboy27]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kpY1dxGkzg

btw, public universal healthcare is STILL way over 60%, so if it does'nt path it just says something about Americas "democracy".

its verry rare that i say that about an american politician but damn!
this guy is answome

[Robert]

You're oversimplifying and exaggerating. About 54% approve of the basic outlines of "the current plan", i.e.


On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action. The measure would institute new individual and employer insurance mandates and create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Its costs would be paid in part through new taxes on high-income earners.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071902176.html

I can't believe any anarchist is comfortable with that word "mandates."

Just out of curiosity, Gack, how do you feel about the state simultaneously curtailing your freedom to smoke cigarettes and consume sugar as part of "the plan." They're already taxing the hell out of poor smokers and the sugar consumption tax can't be too far behind since they are going to start guaranteeing your health care. And you know that about 30% of us are obese, right? Not just "a little flabby," but obese? You think universal health care can do anything about that principal, self-inflicted health problem?

[RGacky3]

You're oversimplifying and exaggerating. About 54% approve of the basic outlines of "the current plan", i.e.

I'm not talking about the "current plan" I'm talking about universal healthcare, and I'm talking about single payer, thats what I would want, and thats what the majority support.


I can't believe any anarchist is comfortable with that word "mandates."

I am not comfortable with mandates at all, but thats a small small part of the plan, and guess what, its much better than having the health insurance companies in control.

Look at the alternative of government payed healthcare, right now, its corporate controled financing, and look how thats done.


They're already taxing the hell out of poor smokers and the sugar consumption tax can't be too far behind since they are going to start guaranteeing your health care. And you know that about 30% of us are obese, right? Not just "a little flabby," but obese? You think universal health care can do anything about that principal, self-inflicted health problem?

I disagree with nanny state policy, but that is of little concern in comparison to the damage of corporate control of the the health care system, rather than democratic control, the fact that a few nanny state laws would make you willing to leave the healthcare system on the corporate tyrants hands is insane.

I don't think universal health care will fix obesity, no one is claiming that, it won't end violence in the middle east either, but it will do what its supposed to do, lower the cost of healthcare and give it democratic control (or more democratic control).

[Robert]

Look at the alternative of government payed healthcare, right now, its corporate controled financing, and look how thats done.

I'll meet you half way on that one, as I like neither system. What I would like to see is government assistance to medical school students on the front end so that we have more MD's in clinical practice who don't owe $200 grand when they graduate and so they can then start agreeing to treat people, with or without insurance at all, for preventative care. They would bill the patient directly a reasonable fee. Obviously some won't pay, but that's true in any biz. I think most would pay if for no other reason than to stay on good terms with the MD of their choice.

For catastrophic problems like heart attacks requiring bypasses, I think people should either buy a catastrophic coverage policy with, say, a $2,500 deductible. As for the poor, I wonder if you realize how many poor people get free care right now through medicare and the state, corporations controlling nothing. In my home county, 60-70 babies are born in the (free) county hospital every day. Dialysis, ICU, chemotherapy, you name it.

[RGacky3]

I'll meet you half way on that one, as I like neither system. What I would like to see is government assistance to medical school students on the front end so that we have more MD's in clinical practice who don't owe $200 grand when they graduate and so they can then start agreeing to treat people, with or without insurance at all, for preventative care. They would bill the patient directly a reasonable fee. Obviously some won't pay, but that's true in any biz. I think most would pay if for no other reason than to stay on good terms with the MD of their choice.

That does'nt solve the problem, much of the cost is for drugs, also, it would probable end up ruining the system, because of the problem of competition, that would end up driving the insurance companies out of buisiness anyway, and probably destroy a lot of the industry. Who's paying the bills for the hospital? Whos paying the drugs? How about the saleries of the doctors? Thats a horrible solution. All that would end up being is government payed for health care anyway, it would just be subsidized.


For catastrophic problems like heart attacks requiring bypasses, I think people should either buy a catastrophic coverage policy with, say, a $2,500 deductible. As for the poor, I wonder if you realize how many poor people get free care right now through medicare and the state, corporations controlling nothing. In my home county, 60-70 babies are born in the (free) county hospital every day. Dialysis, ICU, chemotherapy, you name it.

Medicare is only for people age 65 and up, I would want medicare for everyone.

Heres the thing, you still hav'nt said WHY single payer universal healthcare is bad? Why don't you like?

And why don't you like the public option either?

[Havet]

6kpY1dxGkzg

btw, public universal healthcare is STILL way over 60%, so if it does'nt path it just says something about Americas "democracy".

Interesting video, although I of course disagree when he says the current system is a result of a free market.

I'm also not too sure about the public option, even though I don't agree also with the current scenario. All i had to say has been said (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-libertarian-approach-t115079/index.html?t=115079).

[Robert]

Medicare is only for people age 65 and up, I would want medicare for everyone.

Heres the thing, you still hav'nt said WHY single payer universal healthcare is bad? Why don't you like?

And why don't you like the public option either? When I wrote "medicare," I meant "Medicaid."

I don't know that single payer is "bad." If your policy objectives are: 1) make sure absolutely everyone gets health care for everything; and 2) eliminate the insurance companies' control over health care, I can't argue that it won't address both. It will, though crudely. The concern is with unintended consequences, such as the probable resultant inability of doctors and patients to make private, unmonitored, arrangements for care paid for directly by the patient or his family. (Another round of chemo, a new unapproved drug, another surgery that the doctor fears the "single payer" won't approve, for example.)

I also worry about free riders and abusers. I am boring you at this point with my constant references to the obesity crisis in the USA. Obesity is a bigger problem than lack of access to medical care in my opinion. The number of diabetics in this country is likely to explode in the coming years, and I don't want taxpayers paying for their stupid insulin injections and limb amputations when what they primarily need to do is get off sugar and go exercise. It is cynical MADNESS for do-gooders like Anthony Weiner to demonize corporations, and (the also fat) Michael Moore to demonize the U.S. health care system and refuse to give Americans the tough live they need.

If you could find a way (you can't) to give the taxpayer a credit for not using health services, or demonstrably taking care of himself without some bureacrat counting his daily pushups and situps, it would be more "fair," but then it would also become intrusive. I would hope the civil libertarians would share this concern of mine. The government already tells me how many calories are in my slice of bread.

I don't mean to be insensitive to diabetics, but looking to the national government to solve individual health problems is dangerous on a number of levels. Are there any problems left that we do not expect government to "do something about"?

[RGacky3]

The concern is with unintended consequences, such as the probable resultant inability of doctors and patients to make private, unmonitored, arrangements for care paid for directly by the patient or his family. (Another round of chemo, a new unapproved drug, another surgery that the doctor fears the "single payer" won't approve, for example.)


Why would that be a problem? In countries with single payer healthcare there are also private hospitals that charge directly to the patient (but who actually have to keep costs lower than places like the United States because of the government competition, but still aparetnly make a profit since they are in buisiness).

ALso about single payer not approving, do you really think single payer would approve less, or less inteligently than the private insurance? Whos sole goal is profit?


I also worry about free riders and abusers. I am boring you at this point with my constant references to the obesity crisis in the USA. Obesity is a bigger problem than lack of access to medical care in my opinion.

Do you REALLY think that the number one incentive that people have to be healthy is cost conainment? Are you nuts? People want to be healthy because healthy is HEALTHY!!!

Obesity is not caused by free health care, just look at other countries :P. Obesity is caused by lack of excercise and poor diet (which in my opinion are also caused in part by Capitalism, i.e. public transportation is'nt an issue because there is less profit in it than private, which means less walking, also fast food being a big source of food, people working way too much to actually prepare real meals, so they turn to crap fast food, and so on).


If you could find a way (you can't) to give the taxpayer a credit for not using health services, or demonstrably taking care of himself without some bureacrat counting his daily pushups and situps, it would be more "fair," but then it would also become intrusive. I would hope the civil libertarians would share this concern of mine. The government already tells me how many calories are in my slice of bread.


Preventative care ... Of which there is more incentive to have than under private health care (private companies love unhealhty people). The fact is private health care of public health care won't fix obesity, education, less work hours, proper parenting, public, non profit, gyms (which I think should be started).


I don't mean to be insensitive to diabetics, but looking to the national government to solve individual health problems is dangerous on a number of levels. Are there any problems left that we do not expect government to "do something about"?

I agree, but this is health care payment, so why look to corporations for it, the fact is, public healthcare would actually lessen healthcare costs.

BTW, no ones making mandates for personal health, thats personal, we are only talking about paying for healthcare.

The fact is right now, single payer healthcare is the only option strong enough to give universal healthcare, most efficiently, and take away profit from healthcare, obesity is a different issue.

[Robert]

In countries with single payer healthcare there are also private hospitals that charge directly to the patient (but who actually have to keep costs lower than places like the United States because of the government competition, but still aparetnly make a profit since they are in buisiness).

I'm glad to hear that. I also hear that there are no private arrangements that can be made in Norway.


Do you REALLY think that the number one incentive that people have to be healthy is cost conainment? Are you nuts? People want to be healthy because healthy is HEALTHY!!!


No. you completely misunderstand my concern. I'm not explaining it again.


Obesity is caused by lack of excercise and poor diet (which in my opinion are also caused in part by Capitalism


I'm starting to wonder what bad things are not the fault of capitalism. Honestly.


BTW, no ones making mandates for personal health, thats personal, we are only talking about paying for healthcare.


Not now they aren't, and I frankly think they should as a correlative responsibility of the citizen. Don't you? Why does the government owe everything and the citizen nothing? Remember "ask not what your country can do for you ..."?

[RGacky3]

Not now they aren't, and I frankly think they should as a correlative responsibility of the citizen. Don't you? Why does the government owe everything and the citizen nothing? Remember "ask not what your country can do for you ..."?

That quote "ask no waht your country can do for you ..."? Is the most rediculous saying.

The country exists 100% for the benefit of the citizen, not the other way around at all.


No. you completely misunderstand my concern. I'm not explaining it again.

You said your worried about free riders and abusers, which convays the message that there are some people that will consiously not take care of their health because they know health care is free, which is kind of silly.

About your obesity thing, I don't see how that has to do with healthcare, if not what I mentioned above.


I'm starting to wonder what bad things are not the fault of capitalism. Honestly.

I did'nt mean to imply obesity is caused by capitalism I'm saying capitalism does'nt help at all, and it many times makes it worse.