Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "America Is Not Europe" video.

That just sounds like it's a family problem. I'm European and at the ripe age of 23 I once had to convince my father to let me take a bicycle from the shed so I could go on a date. And at school we were the first generation to have internet connected computers at the school library. We definitely were the reason why they had to restrict access.
4
@einereinar Is it outrageous? After years of accusing someone of collusion with Russia, trying to pin that person for collusion with Ukraine is a hard sell. After WW2, the Japanese constitution was also styled in a way that would prevent Imperial Japan from rearing its ugly head. As a result, even the pandemic restrictions could not really be enforced and relied mostly on the citizens cooperating voluntarily. Germany doesn't seem to have such kid gloves.
3
@willofdodge1 Okay. How are you going to deal with all the people who also want to see their higher education changed and not just med school? How are you going to pay for the debt forgiveness program? How do you deal with the people who already paid a large sum of their debt, but will have to face the perspective of their salaries being lowered due to competition of newer generation doctors who graduated in less time for cheaper? "The 8 largest health company made 850 billion in revenue" - Are they health companies or insurance companies? "That means removing insurance could possibly save 850 billion a year" - That's not how it works. Do you even understand what revenue is? Revenue is the total sum received without considering your overhead. Meaning that a bunch of that revenue was actually eventually paid to other companies providing the materials and services, etc. Did you mean "profit"? "just copy NHS" - You have to copy the rest of the country too. That's what DJ Moon tried to explain. Copying the NHS would mean massive costs in the US, because they're not the UK. You can't just copy things from other countries. "Also anyone who hates on other people getting out of student debt, that's wrong" - Are you a literal child? How is that in any way related to the point? "Just bc we suffered doesn't mean future generations need to suffer" - You're seriously delusional. A 28 year old competing with a 25 year old is not "future generations". They might even belong to the same exact generation. You're not only massively oversimplifying the issue, you're also pretending that people can just "get over" their career prospects being swept from under them. You try and rationalize it by attacking everyone who critiques your argument and claiming they're pro-debt, when they're simply trying to explain to you that every time you change something there is a cost and someone is paying for you. You close your eyes and pretend people can just hold hands and sing kumbaya after you screw with people's lives.
2
@sandshark2 "So a billionaire can save their income in stocks" - That means paying taxes. Both on the income side, and on the purchase of the stocks. Stocks aren't a shell game for money. "thanks to the sheer amount of money they use in stocks, it doesnt all crash. And no taxes needing paid." - But they did pay. There's the income tax, and the sales tax on stocks. You can't hide income from the IRS with stocks, that's what Newtonia is trying to tell you and you keep missing the point.
1
But this addresses that criticism. If you come to America and say "Europe does it better" you're still not pointing out the actual flaws in the system, or providing the full context in how the solutions will piss off a ton of people.
1
@scottgreeff7043 "when told of the solutions" - There's no "solutions", or at least implementable ones. The only thing people are told of are the pie in the sky goals. Not the actual practical consequences. "they been lead to believe that anything that improves their lives is socialism" - One could easily state the same about your opinions. You want to take a sledgehammer and rework how the entire system works to bruteforce your solutions and think you're not coming off as the aggressor. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Saying it's going to improve someone's life doesn't mean it will. "socialism is the same as communism and is bad" - What an odd take. From the perspective of the average person there's no difference between socialism or communism, the only difference is the existence or absence of the state. If I don't like communism, I sure as hell will not like socialism. Because that's actually enforced by the state, while under communism I could do whatever I wanted. "when the comparisons between america and europe are made they are pointing out the flaws" - Yes, but you conveniently do not address the opposing viewpoint. Have you considered that the flaws are made up in other ways? Such as 1:48 where consumption and indirect tax make up a large percentage of pretax income for people on the lower tax brackets. You want to give an earful to Americans about the flaws in their system, but you're not willing to show how they'll foot the bill for the alternative.
1
@scottgreeff7043 Proven fact? You've never tried. You can't prove something without running the experiment. You have no way to prove that you can achieve the better healthcare and standards of living. "that is the viewpoint of americans as they have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda and completely wrong understanding on what those two things are" - No. This isn't propaganda, this is the literal definition. "you try try claim the higher tax is a flaw" - It is. If you're simply paying through other means, all you've done was shift money from column A to column B. "most that have the actual experience of living under that system will tell you that the tax is well worth it as the benefits far exceed the cost of the tax." - But they don't. The cost of the tax is precisely what the benefits cost. There's no infinite money trick. Your argument is inherently nonsensical. How can you claim that Europeans have the better house? Government has shitty negotiation ability. This happened in my country. The government got absolutely reamed by Big Pharma because they threatened not to pay as leverage. Well, if you don't pay, you don't give people the treatment. So the people protested. The government was forced to come crawling back to the negotiation table. Who had the leverage then? Insulin in the US is controlled by government legislation, which artificially keeps it high. Billionaires bribe the government in Europe too. Every year someone is investigated for it. Comparison to slavery is a fallacy. Stick to the argument. Now who's using the right wing propaganda definition of socialism? You.
1
@scottgreeff7043 It's not an objective comparison. It's not an attempt, it's reality.
1
@scottgreeff7043 The prices are not low. Governments pay out the ass to Big Pharma. You don't see the bill, but the government still dishes out 100k to treat one person.
1
@scottgreeff7043 I'm not denying anything. You're the one in denial by promising a plug and play solution. Exactly. Government protects the monopoly. So how is that a healthcare problem rather than a patent problem?
1
@scottgreeff7043 That's not what I said. You're not arguing for a better system, you're asking to copy paste an existing system and grafting it into another, and hope duct tape and spit holds it together. You want to sell a narrative in which a copy paste job will not lead to a complete mess. Spoiler alert, it always does. Want the US to be Europe? Make it Europe first. If you're not willing to go all the way you're not willing to go anywhere at all.
1
@scottgreeff7043 If a law literally says that only the monopolistic corporation can do something, they're protecting the monopoly. It's not a healthcare problem, it's a law problem. If a truck full of medication crashes in the middle of the highway, that's a supply chain issue, a transportation issue, etc. Not a healthcare issue. By that logic everything is a healthcare issue. Lack of tissue paper? Healthcare issue. No bedsheets? Healthcare issue. No disinfectant? Healthcare issue. Much higher? By how much?
1
@scottgreeff7043 "a healthcare issue as it affects healthcare" - Everything affects everything. The problem with your way of thinking is that you can just twist any event you want into becoming an issue you want to give attention too. "thats a law issue not a racism issue" - But the truck didn't crash because of healthcare. The law was passed because of racism. That's the difference. "most of the world uses not being better" - Most of the world? Is the US really in the bottom 85 out of 170 countries or whatever? Is that what you're claiming?
1
@scottgreeff7043 "and the government allowing them" - thanks for agreeing with me
1
@willofdodge1 Your comment is precisely what DJ Moon is addressing. You can't just "go to the NHS system", because that would require the US to be absorbed into the UK. Trying to replicate the NHS in the US will cost 15,000 bucks per person, even though it costs 5x less across the pond. That's exactly what DJ Moon is trying to say. You can't just do that.
1
@willofdodge1 Google the profit margins on insurance companies. It's 3-7%. They're just skimming off the top, the biggest crook is the one providing the service. "We are already spending 4500 per person in the US thru goverment" - And that's just a fraction of healthcare costs. Because the government rates are set by law and they're artificially low, the private sector makes up for the difference by charging more to whoever isn't using medicare/medicaid. "How else can we make healthcare affordable? Just bc we are diiferent doesn't mean we cant do something similiar" - That's the core of the issue. You can only do something similar... by becoming similar. This means having to change how medschool even works, possibly having to impose a debt forgiveness system to those who haven't paid back their loans yet, dealing with the wrath of those who did pay back their loans and are now pissed off that they're having to compete with the next generation, and flat out just having to deal with the established doctors who don't even remember the year they paid back their loans and are just used to a fat paycheck and don't want to give up their 1% lifestyle.
1
@willofdodge1 When you're promising better, cheaper and faster that's the hallmark of a scam. At least pick two. What others are doing in totally different countries isn't going to work in the US. You have to turn the US into a different country.
1
@willofdodge1 You're just recycling talking points that end up proving me right. Providing a fraction of the population with medicaid/medicare already costs more per capita than in other countries, and you think somehow expanding those programs will somehow cost less. The world won't end, but the American people will suffer from the economic slump.
1
@BeanCounterProductions The high barrier to entry is artificially kept high. Insurance companies don't charge whatever the hell they want. They're the ones coughing up the money. The providers charge whatever they want. Insurance companies negotiate with them to lower prices. If you look at the profit margins on insurance companies, they're reasonably thin. That's because the vast majority of the dough is going to overpaid doctors and a managerial class sitting in board rooms. Hybrid systems are never hybrid. A lot of European countries have those. You're still paying for the public system if you want the private option. To add insult to injury, often the private sector is being paid by the state to provide services. So you're paying for your healthcare, everyone else's healthcare, and in the end the money circled back to the private provider you chose anyway. What a mess. The massive markups are created by a) Big Pharma and b) the tremendous cost of running healthcare in the US. In the US becoming a doctor is more expensive and laborious/time consuming, it's also a much more sue-happy country. In other nations you don't see the huge profits in the pharma business because it's essentially kept out of sight and out of mind when the state pays and subsidies most things. So your little theory doesn't work unless you tell the AMA to frig off and kick universities in the balls. Doctors get knocked down a peg, they're now cheaper to train and employ at the cost of them being worse academics but probably not worse doctors. Probably. You also need to severely gut medical patents and - this is going to sound radical - promote more safety in medical trials by reducing the punitive aspect of lawsuits against Big Pharma. Right now it seems the winning tactic is to push expensive drugs to as many people as possible to cover the costs of lawsuits and payouts. We should reverse that. As a former liberal, I understand where you're coming from but you don't get everything for nothing. There's no magic "we can be more cost-effective" crap. Want to be cost effective? This means slashing spending. And nobody wants to be out of a chair when the music stops playing. Nobody wants to be the side that's going to get the money tap turned off.
1
@BeanCounterProductions That's a bad faith argument. You do realize that medical practices existed before large hospitals did, right? Do you require a MRI every time you go to the hospital? I specifically pointed to doctors being overpaid and a managerial class INSIDE THE HOSPITAL and you blamed it on insurance companies. Insurance companies skim off the top. Board rooms make the big bucks. Don't twist words in your favor, it just looks bad. It's levied against everything else. Public roads are a mess and totally mismanaged but that's beside the point, private roads are not a good comparison. A better comparison would be small ISPs versus big companies being paid to provide for rural areas. There's private operators of small ISPs which get fiber connections to towers and then use radio to cover the last leg in rural areas. Meanwhile large corporations get millions from the local governments to provide ADSL coverage for a higher cost than small ISPs do. Security guards do not have the power of law enforcement. Again, a bad comparison. "when there is market inefficiencies as a result of profit incentives" - Market inefficiency from requiring doctors to be overeducated? The market wants cheap doctors. "we can be more cost effective" - By removing hurdles from the market? Sure. But that's not your magic hybrid system at play. That's just removing hurdles and making things easier and thus less costly. "The US currently spends more per capita on healthcare than the UK does. The only explanations for this are either that the corporations we should be bringing in line are charging insane markups or that the countries with similar rates of lifestyle issues have their citizens magically more expensive to treat in the US." - It's not magic, it's simply expenses. The NHS essentially having doctors employed as public servants allows costs to be cut. This has the effect of public systems losing good doctors to private practice because they feel underpaid, or difficulties in assigning doctors to rural areas because most don't think the money is worth living in the middle of nowhere. Everything's a balancing act.
1
@disfordumboo4411 "there’s a lot of redundancy" - Okay. The point is that medical service providers are the ones overcharging, insurance simply skims off the top. People act like insurance are the biggest thieves, but won't dare criticize the actual medical sector for the stuff they pull. Redundancy or no redundancy, it's having insurance that typically lowers costs because they have deals with providers and negotiate rates. If you don't have insurance, the hospital will often charge you more than they would an insurance company. "not only would switching to universal healthcare cut down on those costs" - But it wouldn't. The costs are upstream. Switching system wouldn't do that. You have to eliminate the issue at the root. Otherwise it's all a moot point. "the fact that the services are paid for through taxes means we can make sure that the less money you make, the smaller the percent of your income is going towards healthcare" - But the less you make, the more you're affected by tax rate even if you are at a lower tax bracket. In fact it's easy for someone's income to go mostly towards taxes even if they pay a very low tax rate.
1