8Jun/1117
Health Care Reform: The Hank Factor

In which John, who is kind of a fiscal conservative, uses the example of Hank to show how the current American health care system disincentivizes economic growth and entrepreneurship and argues that a public insurance option (even like the hodgepodge one in Montana) does not result in public bankruptcy but a more efficient and productive economy. Our community lives at www.nerdfighters.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

June 8th, 2011 - 01:07
@beckmansgrandpa this guy knows a hell of a lot more than you judging by your grammar.
June 8th, 2011 - 01:09
@WaterChick70 yes the only problem is that alot of companies lay you off if you are sick for more than what would require you to be a “full time worker”
June 8th, 2011 - 01:34
amazing, I am not rich poor old or young, don’t work for a big company (self employed) and have ALWAYS had good health insurance. So you my friend are ignorant. Most people work for small business and most have health care
June 8th, 2011 - 01:43
It’s video’s like these that make me glad, that I live in Europe.
June 8th, 2011 - 02:26
Reasons I love John and his videos:
*Intellectual
*Puffy hair
*Cool graphic tees
DRACO AND THE MALFOYS!!
June 8th, 2011 - 02:49
@BlackLabelEric I’m defending my rights, not venturing some ideological plan. Claims about the cost efficacy of preventative medicine are purely theoretical, and rarely supported by any statistical data. IOW, its just another way for the industry to require more coverage and more cost to the consumer. All I want is more awareness of the reality of poor personal health and its direct effect on others health costs–the economic collectivism inherent in our HC scheme obscures reality.
June 8th, 2011 - 03:46
@thereinliestherib
What alternative position you’re actually supporting is highly unclear; you’ve completely missed the boat on what preventative care is meant to be about (things like cancer checks, blood tests, blood pressure and weight) if you’re against that sort of thing but want a healthy populace then what do you propose?
Do you assume people are going to look after their own health with no assistance?
That’s the current plan, and with 16% of GDP spent on health it’s not working.
June 8th, 2011 - 03:50
@BlackLabelEric A root problem lies with the theoretical perspective taken by empirical, epidemiological studies. In the Rx view, we are all presumed to be ill; the only phenomena within its scope of inquiry is illness, which pre-empts their ability to even see or define “good” health despite its enormous influence. This is why we tend only to treat the effects of illness, rather than illness itself; an illness that for most Americans is simply poor health and crappy choices.
June 8th, 2011 - 03:55
@BlackLabelEric You’re assuming mathematical advantages that aren’t even readily provable. Like I said, the ONLY proven form of “preventative medicine” is good diet and regular exercise. If these were required, then yes, I would support what you’re saying, because the costs of the unhealthy FAR outweigh the costs of rare, congenital illnesses. I don’t see any Rx’s lobbying for what would effectively reduce their marketshare, do you???
June 8th, 2011 - 04:48
Draco and the Malfoys!!!!!!
June 8th, 2011 - 05:02
@thereinliestherib
You’re assuming that cutting expenditure is the only goal in health care if you’re legitimately arguing against things like prostate exams and pap smears. May as well not have cancer treatment at all if we’re going to do away with early detection mechanisms given how ineffective late stage cancer treatment is.
It’s also very short sighted, if people get serious illnesses detected early they can go back to work after and keep paying taxes, which will easily cover the costs.
June 8th, 2011 - 05:44
@BlackLabelEric You’re citing an unrepresentative example in order to make an overall claim about the efficacy of “preventative medicine” in reduction of costs. Needless exams are a significant administrative source of unnecessary HC costs, and all you’re really suggesting is that we should have more exams. Like I said, I don’t see or hear any talk of good, responsible health being preventative medicine, even though it is the only really successful form of it.
June 8th, 2011 - 06:40
I think a little part of me died on the inside when John said Hank might get cancer.
June 8th, 2011 - 07:39
You make fun of Hank for playing with My Little Ponies when he was little, yet you have one today?
June 8th, 2011 - 08:13
@thereinliestherib
You assume a lot about something you don’t understand, preventative care is things like screening for cancer, blood tests to show mineral deficiencies and a bunch of other activities that allow for diseases to be dealt with before they become a big problem – emergency surgery is usually far more expensive than elective.
With a lot of illnesses you can appear healthy and be getting more sick.
Also I don’t see why you bring up what trade groups lobby for, it’s irrelevant.
June 8th, 2011 - 08:48
@BlackLabelEric Preventative care is BS. Its just code for doctors being able to make double their money by finding more problems and requiring more coverage. Its no different than trial lawyers who argue that the amount and overall economic costs of lawsuits will somehow decrease if we just loosen up the requirements for filing lawsuits. Once again, the only real, proven “preventative care” out there is good, responsible health, and I don’t see any trade groups lobbying for that–do you???
June 8th, 2011 - 09:22
@thereinliestherib Y
ou share the risk by a universal healthcare system or you share it by paying more than the procedures actually cost because the providers never see their payment due to deceased estates, bankruptcies, etc.
The risk is getting shared so long as emergency rooms treat people without proof they can afford to pay, emergency room care is way more expensive than if the problems leading to it are treated. Of course without insurance people won’t seek preventative care due to $.