FREE Healthcare for Everyone? AI debates

[@JonOleksiuk]

Where you from? 🇺🇸 🇮🇳 🇨🇦 🇵🇰 🇯🇵 🇬🇧 🇮🇷 🇮🇱 🇵🇭 🏴‍☠... Do you like the healthcare in your country? Also, quick favour! Please like the video, leave a comment and subscribe-it helps a ton. Thanks for your support! 🙌✨

[@nekonesto3125]

Germany, our healthcare is amazing

[@RandomWandrer]

It's simple. A country has much more buying power than an individual citizen. That's why the same medicine in the EU costs a fraction of its price in the USA. Taxing people and letting the country do the purchasing for the collective is smart.

[@ConfidentialDreamer]

could you do one on the Nietzschean philosophy vs Christianity

[@matirojasc]

Chilean here 🇨🇱. We have both private and public healthcare. The public system is mostly free, but the problem with it is that there's always a waiting list for major procedures, so people from the lower and middle class has to wait a lot. In 2024 there was 3 million people in waiting list, which is about 15% of the population of the country.

[@GolDRoger-fx2fp]

In my country it sucks that's why many of my fellowmen relied to charities and NGO's help..

[@GalaxyChoke]

12:34 "That sounds idealistic" GIRLIEPOP THE ENTIRE LAST ROUND AGO, YOU WERE THE MOST IDEALISTIC SOUNDING ONE THERE!! GOD DAMN

[@brennenhrebeniuk9661]

These Ai debates are awesome! Please continue making them! We need this type of content in schools giving kids both sides!

[@Macloob]

this has to be the most devious thumbnail on this channel💀

[@JonOleksiuk]

i do A/B/C thumbnail testing... which one did you see?

[@dogamongstmen]

@@JonOleksiuk The freaky one.

[@broark88]

Every debate between freedom and government comes down to one person having to explain how society actually works, including peeling back the layers of existing policy to examine their very real effects, while the other thinks he's winning because his idealized government solution sounds better. Both systems are unpredictable because both systems are made of people making choices. The difference is that markets direct incentives to generally good effect and adjust dynamically, whereas government constantly needs reform.

[@filiptang113]

Not really, the idea that companies are champions of innovations is big a simplification of what actually happens. How it as actually works is that governments makes the foundation of a project and then companies makes that project economical. Idealizing companies intentions without any critical thinking is just as dangerous as idealizing governments intentions without any critical thinking.

[@broark88]

@filiptang113 Then you've missed my point. We don't have to idealize private enterprise; all you have to assume is that people want to profit, a logical truism. Then the norms by which societies and thus market economies emerge channel that base incentive into something useful to others, including innovations, because a private company will actually cease to exist without continued public support. We have no similar reason to expect government to do anything they're 'supposed' to do. We can reasonably expect them to entertain lobbyists, take bribes in one form or another, make policy accordingly, and turn the Treasury into a tragedy of the commons; but provide a quality service to people who are forced to pay for it regardless? Why bother? And so they don't. It runs on inculcated hope and the misplaced optimism of ideologues.

[@zigoter2185]

Reform changes nothing. The government is inherently inherently inefficient no matter how its set up.

[@zigoter2185]

​@@filiptang113companies can have any intentions. Its not intentions that matter, its incentives. And individual firms do not control the incentive structure. They are always set by the conditions of the market itself.

[@Menephalas]

Laser eye surgery is an example of a completely private healthcare that has lowered prices from competition and an open-market, while chemotherapy and cancer treatment which received massive amounts of government grants and research rise at a higher rates then inflation. For most people who need care but can't because their priced out, the solution lies not with subsidizing large 100+ bed hospitals in lies in making smaller and more efficient health clinics similar to that of dentists so that there is more competition and more availability.

[@X100xd]

The companies who got the grant probably inflated the price.

[@DavidBeckett-wl1id]

At least 2 other countries have made breakthroughs in curing cancer and somehow we're not one of them. Makes me wonder why that is.

[@Chubby1G_TV]

why do you think the orange Dr. Public won?

[@expensivepink7]

I love these so much as someone interested in true sides of these issues and struggles to engage with people without fallacies and anger

[@expensivepink7]

And I’m from USA. I know something needs to change but I have concerns with only government options available

[@jameswhittom22]

My fear of a universal system is a one solution fits all issue, where either from corruption or cost there is only one approved treatment and alternatives are not allowed, and I HATE (caps doesn't do it justice) taxes.

[@jameswhittom22]

Also with as much corruption as we have, medical will end up like the defense where lobbyists have gotten the cost of everything to be 1000% more than it should be. We will also have zero accountable like every other agency, and even when they fail audits time after time nothing would change.

[@expensivepink7]

@ that would be awful. I understand. Something needs to change with our current system, of course, but I have concerns if ONLY government health care is available, too.

[@broark88]

Coverage mandates, subsidies, industry protectionism and perverse incentives make it impossible to rationally allocate health risk in the US, as all other kinds of insurance do, leading to higher premiums and denial rates. Health insurance has become a racket in the United States because it is not allowed to be insurance. Properly insurable events are often conflated with things that aren't, meaning more and more health related payments are handled by less cost-sensitive payers, allowing providers to bid up prices on more and more services across the healthcare sector and premiums rise in turn. Subsidies like ACA, Medicaid, and Medicare only accelerate the effect. The fact that so much of the problem is caused by federal policies and programs means it will never be resolved until the federal government gets completely out of healthcare - yes, completely - leaving it to the states. Each state can have whatever kind of policies or programs they want; they can screw up their own healthcare industries or do it as well as they please, to let jurisdictional competition sort it out. My guess is we'd eventually figure out what health INSURANCE is supposed to look like. The only role the federal government does have is on questions like, if Massachusetts had a single payer system, what should be the rules on accepting out of state insurance or compensation from another state's public program. One thing I'd recommend, though, is for each state to require those health service providers who take payments from third parties (insurers, government) to publish a complete price list of all coded services they bill and to charge the published price whether to third parties or patients directly. I'm not talking about price controls, because prices are signals and altering signals achieves nothing at best; it's incentive control through clear pre-service pricing. It would mean insurers would have a better idea how costly a particular risk profile might be and which providers are more competitive. Even for services patients wouldn't usually shop for, like emergency care, the knowledge that a certain hospital has lower prices on ER care or ambulance service could mean people who live in the area have lower premiums; among many other mechanisms for bidding premiums and service costs down, while quality sustains or improves, to a sustainable equilibrium likely to get better over time as we expect of any other industry.

[@ManMan-bf4je]

last time I was this early United Health Care actually provided coverage

[@AnimationWizard]

Need that veganism debate

[@Pandaefication]

Yes!!!

[@nhpkm1]

Poor job moderatoring the debate to say on topic. The main topic of " does government have a duty to provide healthcare" wasn't addressed. Round 1 : "Coercion of healthcare" is a straw man build off misunderstanding of terms. As far as I know no medical treatment is coerced widely. Quarantine and restrictions of movement for unvaccinated is not handled by doctors or any other healthcare staff, but by police as it's not a medical treatment and not part healthcare ( at the personal level) Topic 2 : "corruption at centralized healthcare" again this is a different topic of are big structures of power more good or bad. Nothing to do with healthcare exclusively. Topic 3 + 4 " private vs public spending" with out the main question of is healthcare worth it, it's just grinding water of capitalism vs communism. In my opinion there are multiple goals of life and most of them have to do with reducing suffering and increasing longevity. Both of those goals are hard to measure and the stand-ins take very long to measure. Private stuff struggle with long-term considerations, will governments accelerate at it ( comparatively ). So it's a non brainer I think government should provide most* of the healthcare .

[@jameswhittom22]

The topic itself has to much to easily cover. While a universal health care seems nice, it would end up just like the defense where they fail audits with zero accountable and the cost of everything is 1000× increased because of government corruption. And just like the defense budget it is stolen directly from our wages without consent.

[@lonestarrk9308]

@@nhpkm1 I was with you up until the very end.

[@nhpkm1]

@lonestarrk9308 what part do you disagree with? Round 3+4 summary, entire personal opinion, life goals, life goal justifying spending, private stuff struggling with long-term considerations?

[@tornadoer]

I love these videos and how they provide valid insights on both sides without lies or fallacies or excessive emotion. Keep it up!

[@nigellee9541]

Does AI understand corruption, abusing power, misconduct, lying, self interest, manipulation etc when it’s used trying to debate human issues? Or the AI just understands yes or no logic circuit for a supposed maximum outcome

[@Chubby1G_TV]

Defenitly moving towards the first one pretty soon now with deepstake

[@nigellee9541]

@@Chubby1G_TV pffft, pass the turning test first, then maybe it can be anywhere near actually understanding a human

[@Chubby1G_TV]

@ turning test? what do you mean by that? I do some coding and telling it to take into about the possibility of something like corruption, abusing power, misconduct, lying, self-interest etc., and what you said is pretty simple lines of code to take and input the equations using data that is already available on the internet is easy. Even something like human emotion is somewhat possible with a wider range of variables/answers in equations. Even when not 100% on human emotion variables it can come pretty close.

[@nigellee9541]

@@Chubby1G_TV well, the only thing is all of that isn’t determined by simple lines of code in a person or persons’ decision making process, or how that decision would translate into behaviors and perceived by others. Also are you sure these data online isn’t flawed due to the same before mentioned reasons? Perhaps you know too much about coding, not enough about human nature.

[@Robertyahuah]

Dawg I loveeee these videos, more ai debates please

[@JonOleksiuk]

working on it! i always use the latest available models so that requires a bunch of technical work which slows the process. Thanks for the note, Robert, and consider subscribing not to miss what's next:)

[@Robertyahuah]

@ no problem thanks for the reply. I would love to see a video arguing about Yahweh being a pantheon (pagan) or eternal God. Also are modern day Israelis the descendants from ancient Hebrew/israelites? Hot topics that I want new perspectives on. Thanks again

[@Smp_lifting]

As a Canadian, HELL FUCKING NO, "free" health care is horrible.

[@Runza_Rex]

but at least it's better than nothing, what about having free health care, but allowing for private companies?

[@Smp_lifting]

@Runza_Rex our government oppose it.

[@Runza_Rex]

@ ok, but I think that would be the ideal system.

[@Smp_lifting]

@@Runza_Rex disagree. Id prefer a free system for genetic and traumatic condition. But private for lifestyle.induced condition. Thats a very hard line to draw granted. But I dont want to pay for the third stent of an morbidly obese individual or the lung cancer treatment of the 2-pack a day smoker... It feels unfair to subsidies their retarded decisions. At the same time I dont want the guy who broke a leg in a car crash to come out with a bill...

[@AH-mj1rd]

Free health care in Canada is horrible because of government corruption. And flooding the system with immigrants. If you vote for proper government, the system works

[@Brugh123]

Aside from the death penalty video, the female AI is always based

[@saviofialho143]

I'm not a socialist, socialism is a disgrace, but free healthcare is very important for a healthy community. Being afraid of going to the hospital because you don't want endless bills is bizarre. Public health is necessary. If the rich need to pay, then let them pay. Don't want to open it up to foreigners? That's fine. But the country itself should offer basic treatments free of charge to the population. The United States spends a ton of money on the military, but doesn't have the money to cover basic free healthcare? For the love of God

[@PROVOCATEURSK]

Socialism wants for people to have enough. Why can´t Musk´s billions be redistributed to the workers? He can live on a mil a year.

[@rodster811]

​@@PROVOCATEURSK Stealing someone else's money isn't the solution you think it is.

[@zigoter2185]

"I'm not a socialism, but socialism in healthcare is good, somehow"

[@RostislavMusic-u1q]

Could you do a video about Bitcoin versus fiat?

[@loganmiat]

Don't need AI to debunk an obvious negative-sum scam

[@RostislavMusic-u1q]

@@loganmiat elaborate please

[@loganmiat]

​Bitcoin or any other crypto tokens provide zero utility outside criminal enterprise, have zero fundamental value, and are negative-sum schemes that rely on the income of new money from greater fools. An AI wouldn't be able to argue in favour of it, you'd simply have two AIs agreeing how retarded the whole thing is.

[@otoxha]

Public is a great idea. When the government is great at running things.

[@Brugh123]

Can you make a video debating whether or not homosexuality is permissible in Christianity?

[@Josh-yu4rk]

Why I think this debate came so close to being a tie is because the best solution is not either/or. It is both. Although I empathize with the libertarian viewpoint regarding healthcare, the reality is that the free market is ill-equipped to control rising costs in the healthcare system for mainly one reason- when people are faced with a potentially life saving decision about their health, rarely ever is finding the best cost available top of mind unless it means they couldn’t afford to have the treatment at all. This isn’t like buying a hamburger. What I favor most is a system where individuals are allowed to choose between public and private healthcare. Public healthcare might as well be free, but often comes with many of the downsides mentioned in the video, and while privatized healthcare would cost more, there would be little incentive for people to opt into that if it doesn’t have something more to offer. Here in the US where privatized healthcare has gotten so completely out of control, there are too few incentives for insurers and healthcare providers to offer lower prices and better care to paying customers and it has instead become an exploitive system where only the top tier earners are sure to be covered in the event that their health declines. A public healthcare option would provide a necessary counterbalance to the free market of private healthcare and help create a more equitable system that lowers cost.

[@Hittawatches]

Please do birthright citizenship arguement in the us

[@emye35]

Can we please have a discussion on income tax vs external tax/tarriffs

[@Holy-Tiramisu]

As a european it's still wild to me that's it's even a debate in the US.

[@nikolasjestem1441]

How much time does it take u to create one video approximately?

[@JonOleksiuk]

Ha... oh man, good question. I was just thinking about that this week. Depending on the video it ranges between 12 and 30 hours per video.

One of the rare times the Blue Lady wasn't based.

[@EthanWalker-iy9rf]

The public healthcare argument was more an emotionally focused argument; it lacked basic understanding of economic systems such as incentives and the supply-demand system.

[@proof.120]

It is typical surface level thinking. No thought of the secondary effects.

[@zyleafpunch]

It's a human right to have health care same thing as education and public safety. These things are above money.

[@jameswhittom22]

Hybrid system with low tier issues like broken arm, ear infection, ect covered universally with a low tax or allowing people to buy Medicare at cost on the market. One issue not addressed is a universal system could also be subject to a one size fit all issue where alternative methods are not allowed either because of cost or corruption. Where you are not allowed any treatment other than X.

[@Fitins400]

Then the people react and the state responds, as an ongoing will to improve the system we all vote for

[@jameswhittom22]

​@Fitins400 like the defense spending?😂😂😂! 7 failed audits 0 accountability. Better luck winning the lottery, catching a leprechaun, or riding a unicorn than getting an improvement from a state response.

[@Fitins400]

@jameswhittom22 Personally, I think the defense budget should be slashed, and the circular pipeline between defense contractors and government subsidies be eliminated. But the united states govt is bought by corporate interest, a direct reflection of the failures of free market economies and the state working against the interests of the average American, but that's besides the point. The best implement against rampant corporate greed and corruption is state intervention at the behest of voters. Thats why you are right, a hybrid system is the natural conclusion but the example you gave of state corruption has nothing to do with the argument: That democratic state oversight theoretically can and should represent the will of the people and act as a bulwark against the myopia of profit motives which has consistently exploited workers and the environment for short term gain

[@jameswhittom22]

​@Fitins400 the corruption is very relevant when talking about government intervention. For example Elizabeth Warren made a great example of government protecting corporations from accountability during RFK confirmation hearing. A full universal system would make health care 1000× more expensive and we would be forced to pay that via wage theft. Even a hybrid system would be rip with abuse if we don't get rid of ridiculous restrictions like limits on how many students can get residency to become doctors, or even requiring a doctor for simple issues like an ear infection. While also adding new regulations that restrict lobbyists and ensure transparency.

[@Fitins400]

@jameswhittom22 Ofcourse corruption is a legitimate concern, no one is saying otherwise. But examples of corruption do not deal with the argument, that's just an example, the argument is still the argument. Would we have a better society by contributing to social programs via taxation and regulations against things like the corporate lobby which has effectively bought all of DC. And no, it wouldn't cost 1000x more that would be 4500 trillion dollars which is more than the global GDP. There is no evidence that it would cost more, but plenty of evidence that it would in fact, cost less. A 2020 study by the Lancet found that a Medicare for All system in the U.S. could reduce total healthcare spending by 13% (about $450 billion per year) while covering everyone. The study concluded that administrative savings, lower drug costs, and negotiated provider rates would make universal healthcare more efficient than the current system. (Source: The Lancet, "Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA," 2020) You know what has been demontrably not to the benefit the average american? What system is consistently exploited and full of corruption? Profit motives of the corporate model, which emphasizes monetary above all else i.e. the environment, child care or a healthy working class.

[@joshua3911]

I’ll always stick with private, medical malpractice wasn’t an issue brought up, or legality issues. Who gets sued? Is an interesting thought if medical care was to be federally. There is a good chance you couldn’t.

[@sam512]

Americans love to sue😂

[@Antitotalitarianrevolutionary]

No one should be forced to pay for the personal welfare of someone else, this is a form of slavery

[@DCkrotchrocket]

Was one of the chat bots trained to entirely ignore the existence of private equity?

[@jgalt5002]

Sure but is it not everyone’s responsibility to keep as fit and health as possible to lessen the load ?

[@astrophel7240]

I mean. Some people are born with disabilities, are in poverty (and thus can't afford healthy food or don't have time to exercise bc of work), or end up in car crashes or otherwise get hurt in accidents. It's very short sighted to assume it's just a "try harder to stay healthy" thing.

[@boutanutrn]

Your sense of responsibility cannot and will not save you from mental health issues.

[@jgalt5002]

@ yes outliers exist . But a apple is still cheaper than a bag of chips . Walking is possible for 95 percent of us for fitness . It should be part of a social contract that we all try to maintain the best health we can given our circumstances . Do you think this is what is happening currently ? Are you saying nobody has time to walk 20 mins a day if they work ?

[@astrophel7240]

@@jgalt5002 I'm not arguing that people shouldn't do what they can to be as healthy as possible. I'm just saying that a lot of people are unable to contribute to the same standards and they still deserve help.

[@jgalt5002]

@ again there are outliers I never stated every case But when I see videos of 300lb people show what they eat in a day and it’s all garbage no I shouldn’t pay for their care

[@gouravgopyadav]

According to me, healthcare & education should be highly subsidised in ethical sense to give equality of opportunity ( not outcome) but nothing should be free. Bevause actually nothing is free in the world.

[@PROVOCATEURSK]

The rich have to pay for it, duh.

[@Fitins400]

Its not free Its publicly funded, happy now?

[@gouravgopyadav]

@@Fitins400 Yep!

[@gouravgopyadav]

@@PROVOCATEURSK Actually, Tax can be labour or money. You have to understand the manipulation in the market & earning money through unethical means.

[@Fitins400]

@@gouravgopyadav Me too 🙂👍

[@heres1for2day]

Look, we need 3 points to fix any health care system. 1) No insurance companies. 2) Governments can not make base income off of medical pattens. 3) Remove any regulation that isnt about negative fiscal of medical impact from the entire system We think state funded care is good, but that effectively makes the industry subject to the state. In the US market, the newest drugs have the most profit and usually is either very poorly explianed or lacks any transparency on the data. Collages and companies usually have pattens and are funded in oart by drug companies funneling the profits to the holders, some of whoch are governments that both create and cretail what is acceptable as a treatment. Its compounded even more the more interests can push for a profit. Age is a huge thing, and though medical mat be expensive, having enough funds in the bank is the first step to people feeling well enough to get treatment.

[@keithmofley8275]

20:20 "if governments budget appropriately".... Got to be the biggest jump in logic right there

[@JonOleksiuk]

lol

[@danielsw7011]

No free health care for EVERYONE. Example, specific case for cousin marrige that likely cause birth defect doesn't deserve to be supported. The child is innocent, but the parent should know better about what not to do. And it's making huge burden for that society. There's should be a limitation or some ppl may abused it.

[@HarryYese]

I thought the debate would be about who pays for health care, not about the autonomy of choice for using health care. That's an entirely different debate. I feel that this entire video pulls in a lot of arguments which are not relevant to the original statement that the debate is about. I find this video less informative than your others.

[@cardplayer21]

Universal to private healthcare is like government infrastructure construction vs private construction. What a private company can build in 3 years could take the government 10+ years at 10x the cost. Government is not efficient and the current HC systems cost is the result of government interference, not public markets.

[@nekonesto3125]

Short answer: yes, but people will for some reason call you a socialist.

[@Robespierre-lI]

Propaganda is sadly very effective on people with limited knowledge

[@rodster811]

Short answer: no but people will call you selfish for not wanting to pay for the healthcare of another that doesn't take care of themselves

[@davialex46]

@@rodster811but you are also helping people that did take care of their bodies and health. People get sick for all kinds of reasons, and allocating funds to help those in need wouldn’t effect me in the slightest.

[@rodster811]

@@davialex46 "allocating funds to help those in need wouldn’t effect me in the slightest." Then you should have the choice to do that. Not steal it from someone else that doesn't want to make that choice. Especially by an institution that is notorious for wasting money that isn't theirs.

[@FF-xw8gs]

​@@davialex46It's very cool that this wouldn't affect you, but that doesn't justify you using (or agreeing with) the State's aggression in coercively imposing that others do this, just because it wouldn't affect you. I don't know about you, but you're not everyone, and your specific life is not a reflection of the private lives of every person. But look how wonderful it is-you can voluntarily donate to institutions that help those in need. That’s a very noble and commendable act, and I believe you could gain social prestige for your actions. However, there’s nothing noble about agreeing that people should be robbed to satisfy your personal opinions. If you are so concerned about those in need, join an NGO, a church, or a foundation and organize voluntary donation campaigns. That is much better than delegating the State to rob innocent people for this purpose.

[@Bacon2000.]

The goverment getting involved in healthcare is what caused the prices to be so high

[@Redgooose]

Healthcares that's for profit will just undermine the security of the working class

[@lonestarrk9308]

Insurance is why the costs are so high. If healthcare was an open and free market, prices would drop significantly.

[@kydrauhl]

@@lonestarrk9308 Capitalism + Healthcare insurance = Taking advantage of mid-working class.

[@lonestarrk9308]

@@kydrauhl It’s the free market. If hospitals are forced to compete, they will reduce prices. They will have to. I will never support taxpayer funded healthcare because half of this country does not contribute.

[@fusionxtras]

​@@lonestarrk9308levying tarrifs to drop taxes is the the true way

[@ash_80]

How could this topic be a 35-min debate?? I'm always baffled how capitalism even wanna profit on the expense of your health, and people still defends it on this point, like are rich people envious that others get to have free healthcare and not just them or what?

[@zigoter2185]

Capitalism doesn't have wants. "Profit on health" is just a shiny way to say that one actually has to trade for something that other people produced, rather than getting it for free (by forcing someone to provide it). So don't try to take a moral highground.

[@Archie9239]

I used to be libertarian, but the public psychologist cured me.

[@Damy-t4v]

I read the title as "AI Diabetes" 😭

[@zyleafpunch]

I'm sorry, but the arguments for paid health care just sounds selfish and stupid.

[@zigoter2185]

You're not generous if you want to spend other people's money.

[@zyleafpunch]

@zigoter2185 It's not other people's if it is a benefit given to everybody, which includes themselves. You would be spending, potentially, with yourself and the people you care.

[@jobcovey8741]

On the contrary, I shouldn’t have to pay for your poor health choices. If you stuff yourself with butter and sugar without exercise most of your life and then have health issues later in life, that’s your fault. You made that decision. No one made it for you. As the AI said, doesn’t that encourage unhealthy lifestyles?

[@zyleafpunch]

@@jobcovey8741 This is not about a person's decision, it's about the human right to have health care, regardless of circumstances, by caring more about your money you would be affecting not only the obese, but the children with immune disorders, the blue collar laborer who broke their leg at work, the single mother who found out about her cancer, the sick, those who can't afford as well. When you value your money more than human well being it just goes show how fucked up and selfish todays society is, just like public safety and education, public health is a non negociable, nobody deserves to become broke after an ambulance ride to the hospital or a treatment to a snake bite. No, it'd be unreasonable to think anyone in their right mind, with proper education would purposefully worsen their health just because of granted health care.

[@zigoter2185]

@@zyleafpunch it is other people's. If universal healthcare is not a redistribution, then there is no point in it, as with the private system everyone will be able to get the same access for the same (or lower price). "Free healthcare" redistributes money from those with better health to those with worser health (think about second which incentives such system creates).

[@forestgood2476]

hear me out, we decide where our taxes go when we file. a list of options and when each one hits its budget goal the rest goes into an overflow pot to be reallocated after an annual popular vote decides

[@101spacecase]

Pretty weak from the Private side. Guess goes to show.

[@jf8138]

both sides just kept saying there is risk and risk and risk. Neither side actually did good.

[@boutanutrn]

"we taught libertarian talking points to an AI and it killed itself "

[@TrueTacticia]

A public option would have been perfect. People can get private insurance if they want, and insurance companies are competing with the government, which will also lower their prices.

[@DaRThVadAr314]

But you will have to pay incredibly higher taxes, and the lines will come much longer. Take the UK for example. The waiting time to get a prostate cancer treatment is a year and a half close to two years. The healthcare isn’t regarded as the best as many doctors aren’t getting paid their due and people seem to forget that if people push for lowering taxes, there won’t be as much funding into hospitals, therefore quality healthcare goes down. With a private system, there’s more competition between hospitals that would help develop more effective treatment for patients and you have lower taxes. The quality of the healthcare would always be of the highest regard and whatever happens for our taxes, won’t affect the quality of our healthcare. But I agree with the sentiment of many people who advocate for universal healthcare. Hospitals should be required to show me all the prices of all their procedure procedures that are available to me, regardless, if I have health insurance or not. And even health insurance is extremely corrupt, as insurance is simply the middleman between the hospital and the patient, squeezing money out of both of them.

[@TrueTacticia]

@@DaRThVadAr314 Hey friend, I get your concerns, but a public option would actually help. Yes, taxes would go up, but overall healthcare costs would go down. Right now, the average American family spends $22K a year on insurance. Under a public option, some of that shifts to taxes, but most people would still save money. Plus, you’d still have the choice to pay for private insurance if you want faster service. The UK is fully socialized with no private option, but countries like Germany and Switzerland have both public and private systems. That’s a more realistic comparison, and it helps avoid issues like long wait times, low doctor pay, and lack of competition. A public option keeps innovation and choice while making healthcare more affordable. Best of both worlds

[@DaRThVadAr314]

@ oh yes, but you just said people pay money to insurance. I’m thoroughly against health insurance and believe that health insurance is corrupt. You should only be paying to the hospital. Another thing is that if you make healthcare fully socialized, people will be forced to pay taxes to healthcare operations that they view as unethical, such as abortion, medically assisted death, or gender reassignment surgery. Everyone has a choice on how they should use their money and their resources. Public healthcare directly infringes on their choice. If we look at other countries with fully socialized healthcare, the quality of their healthcare is much less compared to private systems

[@pedrovictorbritocordeiro9168]

That's how it works in Brazil and in Germany and, while not perfect, it has the advantage of allowing the government to pay for costly procedures and rare diseases that the private sector would usually decline and bring to court (e.g. costly paliative care medicine or reconstructive surgery for cosmetic reasons post-mastectomy or things like that)

[@nickkop2003]

​@DaRThVadAr314 your point on paying for procedures viewed as "unethical" has nothing to do with the issue. It's likely these procedures would be excluded from the public option coverage in the U.S given it's a cultural flash point. Further, most of the best health care systems have components of public and private. South Korea is ranked highly in healthcare and is single payer. As said in the video, no system is perfect, but we can do better. Open your mind. Do more research. Your points are weak.

[@splat-boy5414]

Pineapple pizza debate please

[@david_medina_karate]

Private shouldn't mean inaccessible

[@teddybacon8144]

USA here, on Medicaid, best decision ever. 12/7 will stay poor for piece of mind.

[@nihalbhamrah4726]

Can you make a video about 3 ai where one is extreme left and extreme right and one in the middle with the best of both sides

[@pac-zp2gn]

I guess it depends on what you exactly mean by „extremely right“ and „extremely left“

[@nihalbhamrah4726]

@ even i dont know how to exactly explain this but you can just deepseek or chatgpt it and it will explain it to you

[@anujprasad9116]

The Australian model is very good something like a national insurance scheme

[@ritsh_]

Thumbnail diabolical

[@lolstar2569]

could u make one about each religion again but this time with santan dharm

[@Am_fis]

Before watching, if Sweden isn't mentioned, then the video suck. 😠

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Healthcare for everyone? Sounds good, until you get to its problems

[@Antitotalitarianrevolutionary]

We should eliminate public education too

[@jonathanherndon1012]

I think the government is too large. Providing Healthcare is unconstitutional

[@themantsang]

HUH unconstitutional? daheck? what part of the constitution tells you not to give healthcare XD

[@jonathanherndon1012]

@themantsang So does providing universal Healthcare include the upper classes?

[@andreimareilie9108]

@@jonathanherndon1012 Yes don't they also pay for it?

[@zigoter2185]

​@@themantsang the one that says for what the state is allowed to levy taxes.

[@Jeron-E]

Just get an socialist ethno-state, that will solve the problem and everyone will agree on free healthcare on their own kind

[@treavy1]

i think healthcare should be free for all and only paid for by the rich

[@lonestarrk9308]

I think healthcare should be taxpayer funded and only available to those that pay taxes.

[@fusionxtras]

​@@lonestarrk9308i think healthcare should be paid for by those outside the country profiting off the citizens

[@catcritical]

​​@@fusionxtrasI think healthcare should be paid for by the homeless.

[@Ark-me1jn]

I think healthcare should be paid for by the people with mental and physical disabilities.

[@CopycatkboxYoutube]

okay socialist

[@thepeopleunderthetrees6318]

If you value human life universal health care is the only moral approach

[@davidkodsy90]

💯

[@zigoter2185]

Universal healthcare has a massive death toll, no thank you.

[@chleba47927]

Universal heltacare is cheeper per person than individual. You can get a better deal, when everyone is represented as one. They missed that point.

[@jgalt5002]

And a better deal if we all make better lifestyle choice to reduce risks .

[@zigoter2185]

​@@jgalt5002universal healthcare does not incentives this. In fact, it does the opposite.

[@nihalbhamrah4726]

Can you make a video about 3 ai where one is extreme left and extreme right and one in the middle with the best of both sides