This is a recording of Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, speaking at the University of California, Berkley on September 26th, 2007. He explains what national healthcare (like Obamacare) will mean for the country.
Bottom line: The bastard insiders know that the young will get screwed by Obamacare, that life expectancy will go down under Obamacare and that medical innovation will suffocate.
Holy Shit! It isn't so much the fact that he's being honest about it, it's more the fact that the audience is applauding, that's what sickens me. These people truly *are* evil.
ReplyDelete"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic"...they are applauding statistics that satisfies their sick socialistic mind set. When will it ever end?... see ya on the collective farm in 30 years where we can all dine on dirt and celebrate this giant leap forward.
DeleteRobert,
ReplyDeleteWere the serfs aware of guys like Malthus in his day? Or were they oblivious to the way they were spoken about among the elite?
Well, not all old people, of course. Only the unimportant ones. This is more or less how it works in every country that has nationalized health care.
ReplyDeleteThe conventional wisdom is that 80% of what is spent on health care is spent in the last 6 months of life. The surest way of determining the last 6 months of life is to wait 6 months before treating. This is why it takes so long to see a doctor in so many countries.
Government is quick to point out that the conventional wisdom is false. This is correct, especially for them. Government programs only spend about 30-40% of their budgets on people in the last months of life. But, as they are not quick to point out, Medicare only covers a small portion of expenses for most of these people. Even so, 70% of Medicare is spent on 10% of recipients.
In 1900, before the government started debasing the money, it cost $1 to see a doctor. In the 1950s, before the government started interfering with health care, I believe my parents spent $5 to see a doctor (and the doctor came to us).
Making a private concern a matter of public politics in any area is never a good idea.
So the young pay more to help the old. Presumably those young people will become old and get that subsidy back. Presumably those young people have parents (=old) they care about.
ReplyDeleteSo the *national* system won't give everyone unaffordable healthcare to prolong life for a extra six months but if you have the money there's nothing stopping you paying for it yourself - c.f. private healthcare system in rest of developed world - but you will at least get healthcare.
So the national system will have greater bargaining power than the current broken system, this will mean cheaper drugs and possibly less innovation. That's the compromise you make for a healthier everyone than a healthier few.
All that said, I agree the tone of this meeting was pretty disgusting, reminded me of the FOX news debates where the audience cheer the idea of letting an uninsured person die. Not helpful.
Excellent apologist summary...now think of a system that doesn't do these things. Check out Consumer Driven Health Care.
DeleteI too was reminded of the Presidential debate when some members of the audience cheered. I still maintain they were liberal plants and this audio gives me more credence. Fox viewers only cheer brown skinned people dying I think
Delete"So the young pay more to help the old. Presumably those young people will become old and get that subsidy back."
ReplyDeletePresumably everyone in a pyramid scheme will get their money back plus profits too.
"So the *national* system won't give everyone unaffordable healthcare to prolong life for a extra six months"
Yes, the insurance companies will get to book those savings as profit and then blame the government for why American life expectancy collapses to age 60.
"but if you have the money there's nothing stopping you paying for it yourself"
Clever, the illusion of choice, but what you're not making clear is that these people would still be forced to pay for goods and services that they don't demand or want to have anything to do with. Where I'm from that's called slavery.
"but you will at least get healthcare."
You're framing a false dichotomy of choice. There're more options than the present broken system or Obamacare- but I guess proponents of a pseudo-socialist alternative will need to play one crappy choice off an even crappier choice to make any headway in an argument.
"So the national system will have greater bargaining power than the current broken system"
"Greater bargaining power" is a euphemism for bureaucracies and governmental fiefdoms getting more power and everybody else taking a hike. How come individual consumer bargaining power is immense when it comes to cell phones and shoes? How is it that people can see and reap the benefits of the market process in the most banal facets of life, but turn on and disavow the market process in a few esoteric cases? So bizarre.
"this will mean cheaper drugs and possibly less innovation."
No, it will mean less drugs (setting minimum prices will cause shortages) which will actually mean more expensive drugs (as it becomes highly profitable to hawk them on the black market) which will mean the private sector gives up trying to stay profitable and government ends up taking over the whole damn circus. Now you can have your healthcare system that's just like the Post Office, but don't worry, that's all years away. Enjoy the present fascist system while it still lasts, boy will you miss it.
"That's the compromise you make for a healthier everyone than a healthier few."
This is a compromise you make for a more powerful governmental elite with a few cronies reaping the lucre while everyone else is not only charged for this state of affairs, but have to turn to black markets and skulduggery to get by. Bravo, Amerika.
We had to have the prescription drug program because the elderly couldn't afford all those drugs. We had to have medicare because the elderly couldn't afford health insurance. But now that we've got socialized medicine (the real point of all this propaganda), we're going to let the elderly die because we can't afford to either! Of course, Reich is right in what he points out but utterly wrong in what he advocates. Why have we bothered with these programs in the first place. The next step is that we will let the poor die because we can't afford medicaid. Liberals are such caring people.
ReplyDeleteI've got this tidy little theory, oversimplified probably...but I feel accurately explains the basic problem with most of the Left today:
DeleteThe have a complete lack of understanding surrounding the concept of scarcity.
My belief is that if they truly understood it you might get some converts. (those remaining probably do understand scarcity, but are inherently immoral instead of naive)
For the record, Robert Reich now is the "Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy" at the University of California at Berkeley:
ReplyDeletehttp://robertreich.org/post/26086712733
Rather twisted if you look at it. Makes you wonder how those people up there really see the rising prices of commodities and healthcare.
ReplyDelete