Upgrade your browser!

Skip to Content

Anthony Weiner Arguing for Health Care

Anthony Weiner Leaves Joe Scarborough Momentarily Speechless When Arguing for Health Care Reform

  • Views: 3007
  • All Ages
  • All Ages

Related Media

  • Video:Worked For Me
  • Worked For Me
  • This one's for the downtrodden and brokenhearted.
  • Votes 3.46/5 - Views 86 - Comments 1
  • Video:Pro$titution
  • Pro$titution
  • youtube's xxxThePeachxxx makes some excellent points on. . .
  • Votes 4.32/5 - Views 3434 - Comments 36
  • Video:Health Plan
  • Health Plan
  • A wealthy hospital benefactor was being shown around th. . .
  • Votes 4.18/5 - Views 99 - Comments 0

View All

Your Macromedia's Flash Player
may be out of date


Click here to upgrade your flash player.

You may also get this message if you have disabled your javascript. You must enable it to view videos.



Trouble playing the video? Click here to download the original.

Rate This Video:
Rate it 0.5 Rate it 1.0 Rate it 1.5 Rate it 2.0 Rate it 2.5 Rate it 3.0 Rate it 3.5 Rate it 4.0 Rate it 4.5 Rate it 5.0

4.21 out of 5 based on 80 votes

Rating Results:
Earn XP by sharing this video!
learn more

Video URL:

Embedded Link:

Send This Video To A Cell Phone! Digg

4 Comments

Current View: 15 / Show all Comments

nerdicus : LVL 34: VP 4.2: said:

nerdicus

4 votes NegativePositive

94 days 16 hours ago...

That was a travesty of news coverage. He simply refused to answer the question that is the key issue to the healthcare issue: What does the insurance companies bring to the table? Answer: Noise, complications, profit over people, and an establishment that fights change even when change is what is needed.

Profit over people in an industry that is responsible for looking after people is retarded. Straight up. News guy knew it, hence his refusal to answer the question. All he could do was try to turn it into a veiled suggestion that it is communist and it is attempting to let the Government "Take over the industry", hey, guess what, in nearly all countries that have universal health care, they all have healthier people. More over, those people are happier and better off for it.

Unless it is a country that is developing and does not have the infrastructure to support universal health care(This is most certainly not the case for the US)

exploder : LVL 49: VP 5: said:

exploder

6 votes NegativePositive

94 days 11 hours ago...

^ It`s a conflict of interest.

I can`t figure out where the constitution says that the people can`t decide to make any particular service into a public service. If there were such a prohibition, why would it not apply to fire fighting, police, etc..

Socialized health care is insurance AT COST with no profit motive to be skimmed off the top. It works because people don`t over-use it significantly, they don`t want to go to doctors or spend time in hospitals, unless they really have too. Like fire departments. Unlike free food or beer.

The really weird argument we always hear is "why should I pay for someone else?".

Those same people are PAYING MORE FOR JUST THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE, than it would cost them to pay an equal share of everybody`s universal health care.

The other MAJOR confusion is that socializing the payment system IS NOT socializing the services. The insurance industry does not develop or innovate health care. They ONLY develop and innovate their own profits, 30%, hundreds of billion$ a year, ON TOP OF THE REAL COST. It`s pharma, tech, practitioners, hospitals, and other parts of the industry that push us forwards, NOT INSURANCE. As long as they all get paid, we all still benefit. If you cut out the insurance profits, there is more to cover the un/under insured, AND more to innovate.

I live in BC, Canada. We have socialized auto insurance, called ICBC. It`s a "crown corporation" (from the queen), that runs a small surplus, BUT MAKES NO PROFIT. They re-invest the surplus into driving safety programs. We enjoy some of the cheapest auto insurance rates in North America as a result, paying about 2/3 the average cost. We have excellent coverage, and nobody get rich on our backs. Without the constant pressure to maximize profits, ICBC spends our money paying the real costs, and working out how to reduce costs, mostly by increasing road safety, etc.. It`s cheap and fair and has a positive influence. It`s what you get when you take a public problem, and solve it for the public good. Nasty government eh?

Nefio : LVL 20: VP 2.9: said:

Nefio

0 votes NegativePositive

94 days 10 hours ago...

I don`t pretend to be an expert in any sense but this is the counter argument as it has been explained to me:

First what insurance does to the health care industry is attempts to let it self regulate. This supposedly has 2 beneficial effects. First is that costs should go down, because the ICs simply wont cover radical expenses, and more importantly it allows for profits in the health sector, attracting better doctors through better wages.

The reason that socialized health care supposedly can`t do this is because if the government takes over it can`t fail. Even if the program is wasteful and not working they simply throw more money at it. It`s like comparing FedEx to USPS, or so the argument goes. Further, because the government is footing the bill it will regulate prices to help prevent gouging. Well as soon as they start regulating those prices the regulations affect the pay of the doctors, doctors getting paid less will reduce the quality of people looking to move into the field.

The premise boils down to the idea that ICs and Health care are somehow antagonistic, and keep each other in check. And the other idea is simply that anything the gov. tries to do, they do horribly. You can`t fight city hall, even in business. Insurance companies wont be able to compete, and a market with no competition stagnates, becoming inefficient and highly bureaucratic.

Then you throw in propaganda about illegals, death panels, and euthanasia, and people become all too frightened to deviate from the status quot.

I lean in favor of a more socialized package, I`m just answering the question the way its been answered for me when i`ve brought it up. It really all boils down to assuming that the government is inept though, thats the real counter argument.

funberg : LVL 48: VP 5: said:

funberg

4 votes NegativePositive

94 days 5 hours ago...

Of course he acts like he`s not being given a chance to answer the question on the fourth time over four minutes and then goes to a commercial. "I want to answer... but first a message from, United Health Care."

Post a Comment:

Avatar


The Spikedhumor Drawing!Drawing Coming Soon!
Prize
Entry Dates: 9/8/2007-9/14/2009