Upgrade your browser!

Skip to Content

Videos / Random Videos /

Healthcare Companies Say 'Die Quickly'

Congressman Grayson Goes Head-To-Head With MSM Big Insurance Water Carriers

  • Views: 903
  • Teen
  • Teen
  • Language

Related Media

View All


Trouble playing the media? Click here to manually download it.

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

2.62 out of 5 based on 114 votes

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

Video URL:

Embedded Link:

Send This Video To A Cell Phone! Digg

15 Comments

Current View: 15 / Show all Comments

Flynn_2006 : LVL 47: VP 5: said:

Flynn_2006

-3 votes NegativePositive

51 days 20 hours ago...

The notion that government can solve problems literally made me want to vomit.

fireburner12 : LVL 37: VP 4.5: said:

fireburner12

0 votes NegativePositive

51 days 16 hours ago...

Anyone from the UK care to comment? They have a government run system, seems to be working better for them then our insurance scam system over here.

Nose Nuggets : LVL 15: VP 2.4: said:

Nose Nuggets

-2 votes NegativePositive

51 days 15 hours ago...

^
depends on who you talk to. Asking an individual to comment on a system that covers millions of people is a disingenuous way to evaluate the effectiveness of a system.


But trying to compare those systems to what we want to do here is very hard. We are in a unique situation. we have 300 million people and so much debt it is impossible to pay it off. let me repeat that; we have NO way to make good on our international debts. Unless, you count printing the money out of thin air and causing massive inflation.

The other terrible downside to our situation is we have a government that is incapable of accomplishing such a task. There isnt a single federally run service in my country that does what it was created to do within the budget its been allotted. We cant even deliver mail at a profit. When we took control of Amtrak in the 70`s we where told the government would run it for 3 years and then sell it for a profit, as a sustainable company. well, its been almost 40 years and we still own it, and it still does not make a profit.

Now, im not against people having more health care options for less money. who would? im against the notion that our government is capable of delivering it. The idea that we could provide government run health care for 40 million people without increasing the money we spend on health care as a nation is absurd and laughable.

now, constitutionality aside; if we where running surpluses every year. if the dollar wasn`t worth four cents compared to what it was in 1913. if we didnt have some of the worst schools, and over budget departments, and an all around bloated and unsustainable government; i would be far more open to this idea. but we aren`t. as sad as it is to say, adding an unsustainable government health option to our repituor at this point is one of the stupidest things we could do. we need to stop this empire building and put down our `policemen of the world` badge and get back to sound money first. Then we can think about making more outrageously expensive welfare programs. because the 3 welfare programs we have (medicare, Medicaid, social security) are all broke. why will this be different? it wont, but people are far more attached the emotional aspect then the logical aspect.

FYAD : LVL 35: VP 4.3: said:

FYAD

-1 votes NegativePositive

51 days 14 hours ago...

^The notion that government can solve problems literally made me want to vomit.

What? You`re sick of public policy? You`re sick of suggesting that groups of people can solve problems together? You need to do way more than a one liner in a conversation about health care. The issue is far, far bigger than a one-off cheapshot.

And what is the alternative? No government at all? The people who say that they`d do fine with no government beyond national security and international relations are the same people who believe that they`d be able to thrive during a zombie apocolypse. Sure, maybe one or two of you might be alright... but the rest? Cannon fodder.

I`ll gladly take my Canadian wait times (never had to wait more than 5 hours for ANY healthcare I needed) against your American medical system of "do you have the money to find out if you have cancer early enough to treat it?" ANYTIME.

When my friend broke his leg playing rugby, I went with him to the emergency room.

Five minutes for paperwork, ten minutes in total later he had his X-rays done.

Fifteen minutes after we got in the building, he was laying slightly sedated in a hospital bed as the doctor reviewed the x-ray.

Thirty minutes after he got in the hospital doors, he was told he needed surgery to attach a plate to the bones into his foot so that they could be held immobile to heal. The next morning he had his surgery, and was in a cast.

Maybe you insured Americans can do it faster by a half a day - maybe. But you sure as hell pay through every orifice for it. And God forbid you get so sick as to need continual care without the benefit of insurance.

Up here, when an old friend of mine was dying of lung cancer, he *refused* the measures the doctors were willing to go to in order to prolong his life, but they would have poured resources into his treatment that I am willing to bet would have been far, far, far out of his reach in America.

He was a life long smoker. I`m willing to bet that insurance agencies won`t cover a smoker against lung cancer - they are in the business of estimating risk, not helping people.

The only thing that will change some of the minds in America, sadly, is having their lives touched by unnecessary death or bankruptcy to prevent death.

44 million people uninsured. That`s what, one in five?

Not odds I`d want to play with my life.

You will never create perfection. But there is, without question, a hell of a lot better that you could do for yourselves.

Your lives though, I guess.

FYAD : LVL 35: VP 4.3: said:

FYAD

0 votes NegativePositive

51 days 14 hours ago...

^we need to stop this empire building and put down our `policemen of the world` badge and get back to sound money first.

I wholeheartedly agree. Canada as well needs to fix our own backyards LONG before we try to `peacekeep` in countries that have no interest in peace in any meaningful way.

But one does not have to come at the expense of the other.

Yes, our government(s) have poured far, far, far, far, far too much national blood and national treasure into stupid pursuits. Troops in Germany need to come home. Troops in Korea need to come home. Especially troops in Iraq need to come home. More, and while it may be the `good war` right now, troops in Afghanistan need to come home.

Those `wars` were unwinnable from the start as those who authorized them had no clear definition of victory, no clear understanding of an exit strategy, and no committment to the actual volume of people needed in theatre to completely change the society they invaded. I include Canadian efforts in that as well, I`m not Ameribashing here.

The amount of blood and time that will be required to propel the backward nations of the world into the current century with the rest of the first world is a massive price for really very little benefit to those paying the money and those shedding the blood. Let those countries get there, or tear each other apart, on their own dime. Only intervene when they attempt to reach beyond their own mire and attempt to influence those in a civilized world with violence.

There is a place in the world for fiscal conservatism, and liberal social policy. Social Security is only significantly broken because of a population age imbalance. Far, far more old people than young people are draining faster than can be replenished. When it was created, that imbalance wasn`t a factor. It needs overhaul, as does the Canadian version. But taking care of the elderly in a society does not need an ideological change, does it? Elders adrift on ice sheets is not in our plan for tomorrow`s world, is it? `Retirement` at 65 taking on a new contextual understanding? Clearly not.

There is *definitely* a place for a much more isolationist international/foreign policy. That we can agree on at least.

Flynn_2006 : LVL 47: VP 5: said:

Flynn_2006

-5 votes NegativePositive

51 days 13 hours ago...

What is the alternative?

Deregulation and no more barrier to entry.

exploder : LVL 50: VP 5: said:

exploder

1 votes NegativePositive

51 days 12 hours ago...

^ hehe deregulation. That worked real well for the banking industry.

NOTHING is going to work until the MAFIA multi billionaires who are really calling the shots, get shot.

Actually, just cap their wages, let them work for a living instead of spending every once of their effort figuring out the next big scam. They will only stop when we REFUSE to let them keep the spoils.

I assure you, if that was done, ANY kind of healthcare would work just fine. Same goes for everything else. Common sense is easy to implement, everything is easy enough and practical to solve, when you`re not fighting against big money divide and conquer.

All these decisions are being made by rich fucks who don`t give a shit about us. They are making the wrong decisions for any but their interest, and they are 1% of us. Cap their wages and it`s all a non issue.

Eat the rich.

Nose Nuggets : LVL 15: VP 2.4: said:

Nose Nuggets

3 votes NegativePositive

51 days 11 hours ago...

but capping wages is precisely contrary to what the citizens of this country stands for, which is freedom and liberty.

there are better ways of fixing this country then having the government tell people how much money they can make. its such a communist and ridiculous notion i have a hard time keeping a straight face when i read it.

besides, all it would do is send the execs to different countries, and they would simply claim a certain % of profits. yeah, who ever is actually left employed in the country would have a wage cap but all the guys running the show would still be making what ever they could. or they would find other loop holes to get it out through stock, stock options, write offs, expenses, etc.

and it wasn`t deregulation of the banking industry that got us here. just like the free market isent what fucked up our health care. it was artificially low interest rates set by the fed, making money for hedge funds and investment companies insanely cheep that got everyone on the gambling band wagon. oh, and the government regulations that essentially forced banks to lend money to low income individual (Clinton) and fact that the government (through freddie and fannie) was GUARANTEEING home loans. why WOULDN`T you lend money to people you knew couldent afford it if the government is guaranteeing the loan?

dont believe the hype.

Flynn_2006 : LVL 47: VP 5: said:

Flynn_2006

0 votes NegativePositive

51 days 10 hours ago...

It`s not just the rich, the lobbying is done from all sides. Raise barrier to entry is precisely for the purpose of not wanting to compete fairly thus abolish the free market. Exploder, you so called the rich, are the ones that want tons of regulations. Why? Regulations grant license to destroy new comers to the market. Getting rid of the competition made them more powerful. If government deregulate, the so called "the rich" will be at the mercy of population and serious competitors.

Nefio : LVL 24: VP 3.3: said:

Nefio

0 votes NegativePositive

51 days 5 hours ago...

Management within the government may be somewhat poor, but its not as bad as people think. One of the main issues is that government programs are set up to fail. If its something that would actually turn a profit its left to business to run and profit off of it. If it`s an absolutely necessary service that will yield no profits, or can`t be sabotaged for the sake of profits, then it`s left to the government.

Old people need insurance, desperately need health care, but can`t be profited off of by insurance companies, so they are left to government. But only after they have spent their golden years paying more into insurance then they will likely ever get back.

exploder : LVL 50: VP 5: said:

exploder

-1 votes NegativePositive

50 days 23 hours ago...

^ Nose, "its such a communist and ridiculous notion"

Yet another fundamentalist libertarian kneejerk response.

A maximum wage cap is not "communist" in any way. It`s a simple recognition that the wholesale theft is out of control, and needs to be stopped. I am trying to point out that free markets and limited governments self destruct when they don`t have sane limits on their behavior. Murder doesn`t fly, and neither does wholesale theft and the corruption it causes. We have a law against one (it`s obvious when people get dead), but not the other (which is decidedly complicated).

This is where your libertarian thinking breaks down, you won`t admit the OBVIOUS FACT that 1% are robbing everyone else blind. And ripping EVERYTHING to shreds in the process, including any semblance of a civilized society. You whine about liberty, but fail to notice how much liberty 99% of us are losing, because 1% are abusing it. It`s obscene greed that has driven the endemic corruption that now rules ALL SIDES, and it`s that greed that must be stopped.

I got you to admit that it`s both business and government that are fucked, and that we can`t have either one perfectly honest. Now take it the next step. If both sides want to break the rules and steal and rig the game, then don`t let them keep the spoils.

The libertarian ideal depends on the IMPOSSIBLE condition of having a pure and perfect government that works properly. Give it up. It`s an ironic expectation coming from someone who doesn`t trust government. And it`s an unrealistic expectation in the face of history. Admit that there are crooks on all sides, and that you can`t catch and stop every crime.

What`s left is to prevent the damage caused by these imperfect systems. The crime is theft, we can`t usually catch them, but it`s insane to let the thieves keep what they steal, and then bow to them and make them our kings.

What you get is the OPPOSITE of a libertarian outcome.

Eat the rich.

Flynn_2006 : LVL 47: VP 5: said:

Flynn_2006

0 votes NegativePositive

50 days 20 hours ago...

^ you don`t know what libertarianism is.

Nose Nuggets : LVL 15: VP 2.4: said:

Nose Nuggets

0 votes NegativePositive

50 days 18 hours ago...

the one thing it most certainly is not, is a knee jerk reaction. It is, however, very fundamental, and very libertarian. on that note, its amazing to me that everyone does not consider themselves libertarian. whos not for ultimate liberty? anyway, on to the rest of the post.

wages or `higher then average income` is not synonymous with theft or something counter productive to the citizenry as a whole. if people can make a lot of money legally then more power to them. it means they are providing a product or service at a value that the people want. now, if they are making vast sums of money because government regulation has essentially granted that company a monopoly on the market, that is wrong. but money/rich does not equal evil every time without question. which, if i may say so, is something you have a serious issue with.

all these obvious facts that i should be aware of are missing a key element; the enabler. i have said it again and again, its not greedy execs its the corrupt politicians that have allowed this to happen. people will always be greedy. the key is stand steadfast to rule of law. but the people making the laws are the ones that are bought and paid for. never mind the execs, they are, for the most part, and irrelevant function of the equation. the greedy and profit seeking will always exist. always. you cant legislate morality on any level.

if you think i whine about liberty and dont see how much of it we have lost, you aren`t reading my posts clearly.

the libertarian ideal relies on one thing, which is a citizenry that is willing to take action to preserve their liberty. as it stands now, there are many forces conspiring to rob the citizens of this country of their will to do just that.

you are right though, it will never be 100% perfect. but that`s fine. close to perfect is entirely reasonable. and if bearing the burden of the occasional corrupt official, or bent congressman is the price i pay to retain freedom, and liberty, and the ability to act and keep my government within the confines of the constitution; i pay it gladly.

exploder : LVL 50: VP 5: said:

exploder

0 votes NegativePositive

50 days 10 hours ago...

^ Nose,

"but the people making the laws are the ones that are bought and paid for."

- So if I buy ten pounds of pot, the seller is guilty but I`m not?

"... its not greedy execs its the corrupt politicians that have allowed this to happen ... never mind the execs, they are, for the most part, and irrelevant function of the equation."

- That`s right Nose, move along children, nothing to see here.

You have this 90% ass backwards. Business is viciously pursuing our governments, witness the lobbying and PR industries and campaign financing. Business shoves huge wads of cash under their noses and badgers them endlessly from all sides until they fold. Business puts the pressure on. We can count on ANY human to succumb to such pressure, of course they sell out.

Every coin has two sides, and your attempt to deny one of them is pathetic and dangerous. But unlike a coin, this game actually has one side much bigger than the other, the one you are denying. Business has government so completely surrounded, at least 100 to 1, that failure is inevitable. We can`t have a perfect government, so some will always sell out, and gain a huge personal advantage. From then on political survival just becomes a race for bribe money. Until you eliminate the buyers, there will always be a seller. Economics 101.

You`re giving cover to a bunch of bad guys here, and playing right into their crooked game, in which you have a 99.9% chance of losing. I`ve got a big healthy streak of libertarian in me too, but I don`t treat ideas like gospel and demand the world is only 6000 years old. You`re about 50 years behind on the curve here, along with most of the right leaning American libertarians. The world has seen a lot of change in the last 50 years, including the effective consolidation of global corporatism and practically unchallenged rule by mafia (corporate oligarchy). IMHO you`ve been duped into believing in anarcho-capitalism as gospel, and you`re wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

exploder : LVL 50: VP 5: said:

exploder

0 votes NegativePositive

50 days 10 hours ago...

^Flynn_2006, YOU don`t know what libertarianism is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

That`s a fair intro. You and Nose are forgetting something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

Post a Comment:

Avatar

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

Recent Blog Posts

Gifs [11.21.09] / [11.22.09]

Gifs [11.20.09]

Couple Busted For Refusing To...

Pimp Calls Off Rabbi's Drug F...

Paedophile Scare Keeps Santa ...

Agents Seize 316,000 Bongs In...

Woman Leaves $40,000 At Shrin...

Baby Girl Named After Car

Hotlinks on Spiked

Motorola Verizon DROID review

15 Best Prison Movies

Worst DVD Bootleg Covers

The Top 10 Doomsday Prophecies

UFC 106: Ortiz vs. Griffin 2

Spiked Classics of 2008

Sam Harris Makes A Joke
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.3
  • 5
293222
truth-is-the-neme...
View Profile
Level: 40
Voting Power: 4.8

Usain Bolt Slow Motion Re...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.6
  • 5
2310017
mag1kr3zin
View Profile
Level: 38
Voting Power: 4.6

O`Reilly`s Homophobia
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.3
  • 5
293733
psychologyprofess...
View Profile
Level: 37
Voting Power: 4.5

Bobby Lee in Dragon Hunte...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.3
  • 5
188567
plopsi
View Profile
Level: 33
Voting Power: 4.2

The Atheist Experience
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.3
  • 5
464561
truth-is-the-neme...
View Profile
Level: 40
Voting Power: 4.8

Team Fortress 2 - Meet th...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.4
  • 5
175014
TheRepostPolice
View Profile
Level: 37
Voting Power: 4.5

Shawn Johnson`s Runner Up
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.7
  • 5
3216800
n0md4me
View Profile
Level: 37
Voting Power: 4.5

Drew Carey on DEA Raids ...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.5
  • 5
274800
delt_osvp
View Profile
Level: 48
Voting Power: 5

Vermilion pt. 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.0
  • 5
0677
baklavafiend
View Profile
Level: 42
Voting Power: 5

Spikedhumor's Weekly Pict...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.6
  • 5
107872
InsayneJayne
View Profile
Level: 65
Voting Power: 5

Bus Tossed Over By Storm

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.5
  • 5
253841
Wysefunction
View Profile
Level: 24
Voting Power: 3.3

George Carlin On The Chri...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.6
  • 5
174343
truth-is-the-neme...
View Profile
Level: 40
Voting Power: 4.8

Condomned
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.7
  • 5
169271
Drue
View Profile
Level: 36
Voting Power: 4.4

Kill Bill
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.5
  • 5
112641
ShapeSphere
View Profile
Level: 63
Voting Power: 5

Jackie Chan Interview for...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.7
  • 5
194018
ecko69x
View Profile
Level: 34
Voting Power: 4.2

Fractals - Mandelbrot Set
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.4
  • 5
233588
Skiba
View Profile
Level: 42
Voting Power: 5

Back To The Future (Metal...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.3
  • 5
193918
Drue
View Profile
Level: 36
Voting Power: 4.4

Richard Dawkins Reading H...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4.4
  • 5
564437
truth-is-the-neme...
View Profile
Level: 40
Voting Power: 4.8