Generally speaking, the “reactionary right” is the right wing faction that specializes in being ‘anti-SJW’ and non-PC. This faction has harbored the online ‘skeptic’ community, which focuses on free speech, racial and gender issues, and immigration. Their presence is predominant on YouTube.

Leading voices of the reactionary right include figures such as Dave Rubin, Sargon of Akkad, Ben Shapiro et. al. One of the central criticisms of ‘SJWs’ that the reactionary right has is regarding trangenderism.

Ben Shapiro. Source: Seraphic press.

But perhaps the most important figure of the reactionary right is Ben Shapiro. He is one of the most outspoken critics of what he calls the transgender “mental illness”. He has ‘debated’ countless liberal college SJWs, with these videos often plastered on YouTube with  clickbait titles.

Shapiro has claimed, with the utmost conviction, that not being part of an arbitrary binary gender system is a mental illness. In his view, the entire movement needs to be confronted as such. He frequently cites ‘the science’ (coming from a theist and global warming skeptic) as his main supporting evidence. Yet, a quick look at the science proves him wrong.

For starters, it is not true that transgenderism is a mental illness. The most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, does not consider transgender identity a mental illness.  An older edition of the DSM did consider transgender identity a mental illness, and  it was referred to as ‘gender identity disorder’. The recent shift results from an increase in scientific knowledge, a process that is completely natural to science. However, the new DSM does identify ‘gender dysphoria’. Gender dysphoria is a feeling of anxiety and restlessness resulting from realizing your body does not reflect your true gender. This is not the same as a mental illness. According to the American Psychiatric Association: ” It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.”

That’s not the only front where Shapiro is wrong. An article in the Scientific American suggested that research is growing in favor of a biological basis for transgender identity. This is consistent with a recent study, which conducted a literature review on the subject of transgenderism and concluded that “current data suggests a biological etiology for transgender identity.” 

Transgender symbol. Source: Fotolip.

Gender dysphoria exists because of a societal structure that makes it taboo (or considers it a mental illness) for anyone to live outside rigid gender roles. As such, it is crucial to make the distinction between sex and gender, and to accept that gender roles are not as universal as traditionalists think them to be. Individuals like Ben Shapiro should reflect on the fact that their rhetoric is a contributing factor to the shockingly high transgender suicide rate.

For the sake of argument, let’s say I concede that there is no biological basis for transgender identity, and that cross-cultural studies supported the idea that gender roles are naturally rigid. I would still argue that there are inconsistencies in Shapiro’s value system. As previously mentioned, when he argues against transgendrism, he frequently cites ‘the science’. According to this tendency, you’d assume that his beliefs and values are as scientific as possible. Yet, he’s a devout theist and remains skeptical, or in denial of, anthropogenic climate change. A man of science, at the very least, would certainly question his faith, and be more accepting of the climate reality.

But this isn’t to engage in ad hominem, it’s actually an important point. What science can Ben show me, that supports his religious views? Specifically, science that provides sound, empirical evidence in support of virtually any of the main religions in the US and around the world? Another example. Take human rights. We all believe in human rights. But again, show me something scientifically tangible that provides sound, empirical evidence in support of human rights?

just so we remember science is cool…Source: Joeswam wordpress.

Human rights and religion are similar in a certain respect, in that you can’t necessarily find the science to support them. In other words, there’s actually nothing scientifically tangible that ‘proves’ either. Yet, our society values them. For the most part, we respect, and value religions. And human rights are recognized by almost every country on Earth.

So if Ben claims that ‘there is no science’ in support of transgenderism, why can’t society still value, and at the very least, provide a space for equal protection and opportunity for transgender folks under the law? Instead, you’ll see that, for example, efforts to teach new information regarding gender studies are opposed by the reactionary right at every opportunity. Or, more recently, the military ban on transgender personnel in the US military. The list truly goes on and on.

There’s also a prevalent idea among the reactionary right, that someone identifying as a gender other than male or female is akin to being held hostage by them. From a practical perspective, it makes no sense to believe that a group with limited social power, is affecting you personally by wanting to identify as something other than the binary gender paradigm. Transgender and gender nonconforming people shouldn’t have to wait for the blessing of the reactionary right before they can identify with different pronouns, or however they wish. Transgender people, have a high suicide rate, are more likely to be discriminated against in the workplace and throughout their social lives, more likely to experience homelessness and are among the lowest status in the economic ladder. Yet, the reactionary right will claim victim hood in the whole thing simply because a transgender person asks to be called by a different pronoun, or use the bathroom that matches their true gender.

The reactionary right is just that, a reactionary movement devoid of critical thinking and analysis, that espouses borderline harassment and bigotry toward those they are ‘reacting’ to. In the war of ideas, I don’t expect the reactionary right to offer anything very insightful other than flashy, clickbait YouTube videos.

Healthcare is one of those issues where conservatives have trouble distinguishing between progressives and hardcore communists. This is ironic, considering that conservatives in other Western countries are baffled that US conservatives are against single payer (skip to 42:40). To be fair, a growing number of US conservatives are starting to make the case for single payer as well.

The reason why any conservative should consider single payer is because it is more efficient, cheaper, and maintains and/or exceeds US quality of care.

Before going any further, I should formally define single payer. According to Merriam-Webster, single payer is:

a system in which health-care providers are paid for their services by the government rather than by private insurers.

Now, let’s sort through the arguments in support of such an organization.

EFFICIENCY

By ‘efficiency’ I mean that under a single-payer model, there is less bureaucracy and complexity. This may seem counter-intuitive, after all, single payer is government bureaucracy, is it not? Not quite.

There are two general types of universal healthcare: government-run, and nationalized insurance. Government-run healthcare is the British model, where the government actually owns the hospitals, and medical staff are government employees. According to Wikipedia, under the British system (called the National Health Service, or NHS):

Nearly all hospital doctors and nurses in England are employed by the NHS and work in NHS-run hospitals, with teams of more junior hospital doctors (most of whom are in training) being led by consultants, each of whom is trained to provide expert advice and treatment within a specific speciality.

Nationalized health insurance is a bit different. Under the nationalized insurance version of single payer, which is the Canadian model, taxes are pooled into a national insurance fund, and citizens get their care delivered by private practice. The PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program) provides the following summation of this type of healthcare system:

Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.

One of the central issues with a free market healthcare arrangement is that there are thousands of health insurance plans, each with their own rules, enrollment, paperwork, premiums etc. It is inherently a fragmented system. The reason why single payer is less bureaucratic than market-based healthcare is because there is a centralized insurance plan, which drastically simplifies administrative costs. In other words, it creates a single standard for determining where the money needs to go.

The Institute for New Economic Thinking, has this to add about the free market inefficiencies in healthcare:

This inefficiency is compounded by a problem of asymmetric information built into the structure of the American health care system. The average consumer of health care has limited information on the quality of a given insurance plan, and shopping between plans—and accurately assessing the difference in quality between each—is difficult.

The result of these problems, say some economists, is a fundamental failure in the market for health care, which is distributed unevenly and uneconomically among consumers.

COST

One study  conducted by BMC health services research concludes that “A simplified financing system in the U.S. could result in cost savings exceeding $350 billion annually, nearly 15% of health care spending.”

Such incredibly high costs of our healthcare arrangement are an outlier compared to other rich nations. According to the Commonwealth fund, the US:

Health care consumed 17.1 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013, about 50 percent more than any other country. Despite being the only country in the study without universal health care coverage, government spending on health care in the U.S.—mainly for Medicare and Medicaid—was high as well, at $4,197 per person in 2013. By comparison, the U.K., where all residents are covered by the National Health Service, spent $2,802 per person.

A publication by the Peter G. Peterson foundation provides a nice visual comparison with other countries on average healthcare spending per person:

The Commonwealth fund has another chart which provides a comparative visualization of healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP:

Our healthcare system is costing taxpayers billions in terms of wasteful, bureaucratic spending. But it is not necessary, it is a political choice. As cited in the study above, switching to a single payer system could save the US at least $350 billion annually, which is more than enough to cover the rest of the uninsured in the country.

Another source of savings in a single payer system result from the ability of the government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. A study conducted by the National Institutes of Health found that if Medicare as it stands now were allowed to negotiate drug prices, there could be savings of $21.9 billion a year. In a nationwide single-payer arrangement, the savings would be much higher. the savings that are possible by expanding that ability in a medicare-for-all arrangement. It’s no surprise then, that compared to other countries with universal healthcare, we’re paying way more than we need to be.

Another consideration is to look at the fact that our current healthcare system is stifling business competition around the country.  It’s true that Obamacare has merely exacerbated this problem, by causing healthcare price hikes. But the solution should be to address this problem head on by getting government to pick up the tab, and easing the burden on businesses. These slides provide a strong business case for switching to single payer, namely the reduction in direct costs and reduced employer risk. Or, you could take it from Richard Master,  a Pennsylvania business owner.  He says that:

How would single payer be financed? Since single payer is funded via taxation, for individuals there would be a slight increase in taxes. But this would take the place of rising insurance premiums,  co-pays, deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. These savings elsewhere may result in net savings overall for most people, especially for the chronically ill.

QUALITY OF CARE

It makes sense to say that healthcare quality will determine health outcomes. This is why comparing the health outcomes  of different nations is a fair way to gauge quality of care. Every single country in this dataset  that has better health outcomes than the US has a form of single payer. These positive health outcomes point to a system of high quality and accessible healthcare.

Why is this not surprising?

Taking the profit motive out of healthcare means that health insurance companies aren’t making money off you being sick. The profit motive in healthcare creates a perverse incentive system where treatment medicine is preferred over preventative medicine because it’ll make more money. In single payer, the government seeks cost control methods. It is cheaper for government (in our case, local and state governments) to push for preventative medicine over treatment medicine, and this can be highly effective at cutting healthcare costs because if these efforts are successful, people will go to the doctor’s less. This is a main reason why healthcare quality is normally better under single payer systems. The following article discusses in depth, the processes and logic behind a single payer system and why it results in better health outcomes.

IS HEALTHCARE A RIGHT?

Senator Bernie Sanders (I) from Vermont, ran a campaign on a host of progressive issues, one of them being single payer for all Americans. He declared famously that “healthcare is a human right!” A defining moment of the Sanders campaign came when Fox News host Brett Baier pressed Senator Sanders at a townhall by asking him “Excuse me, where does that right come from, in your mind?” Sen. Sanders replied “Being a human being.”

The question revolves around a philosophical disposition, whether you believe that healthcare should be considered a right, or if it is a service available to those who can pay for it. Allow some thought into this.

There is also no particular reason to believe that voting is a natural right. In fact, voting is a civil right, not a natural one. Civil rights come from the way our society is structured, and where we derive our values from. Democracy forms the basis of voting, and our society is structured as a representative democracy. Without voting, we could not participate freely and fully in society according to the way its set up. That’s why voting is an important civil right. Similarly, healthcare is an issue where participation in society is ultimately limited if you don’t have access to it.

This is especially problematic if you consider that a number of social factors outside of people’s control can affect their health. Specifically, class differences come into play. Research has consistently shown that poor people are more likely to be sick, and one of the direct causes is a lack of access to high quality healthcare. But it’s not just the poor. Even the middle class is affected quite negatively by the exorbitant cost of medical care. The number one leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is unpaid medical bills. Why is this justified? Why should society be structured this way, when it is totally preventable?

Other countries have successfully implemented single payer programs, raised their life expectancy, and improved public health in general simply by changing a fundamental view of the world. Instead of treating healthcare as a commodity, other nations have figured out that they can include healthcare in their civil rights package and benefit their citizens. In short, I’d argue that healthcare is indeed a civil right, because we can, and should have it. But according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you might even go as far as to call it a human right.

ADDRESSING ARGUMENTS AGAINST SINGLE PAYER

One of the problems for the right wing on this issue is that their judgment is almost always clouded by layers of misinformation and ideology, which prevents them from objectively weighing the pros and cons of single payer. There are a laundry list of misconceptions about the system, like the argument that universal healthcare automatically means “socialized medicine”, or that Canadians are pouring over the border in droves to get their healthcare over here. These should all be addressed honestly.

1. “Single payer is socialized medicine!”

-Depends which model you follow. The British model is certainly socialized medicine. The Canadian model, however, is nationalized insurance.  There IS a difference, and it is pretty important to stress this, because if conservatives don’t understand the difference then progressives will lose them. Britain = government-run healthcare, Canada = national insurance fund with private delivery of care.

2. “Canadians are pouring across the border!”

-Based off what? Where is this information coming from? The best research article done on the matter single-handedly disproved that notion. That’s not to say that some aren’t coming to the US, but typically these are for elective surgeries and not for people who have an immediate medical concern.

3. “Canadian doctors barely make enough money!”

-They make a bit less than US doctors, yes. However, it is a blatant lie that they do not “make enough” money. They are making 6 figures. Here is one part of a study that discusses physician incomes in Canada (sadly, you can’t access the full research article because of a pay wall.) Also, there’s this:

4. “Wait times under single payer are notorious!”

-This is a mixed bag. Data shows that UK and Swiss citizens wait less than US citizens for specialist appointments. They both have single payer (different versions of it though). Meanwhile Canada is seen to have higher wait times. These wait times are avoidable under single payer, as an increase in funding can address shortfalls. Citizens decide if and when they want to increase their funding for the healthcare system. Even so, compare satisfaction with the healthcare system between British and Americans, and the difference is obvious.

5. “You’re not entitled to somebody else’s labor!”

-Then that means you’d be against the 6th amendment, EMTALA Act, public education, police services, firefighting services etc. Most conservatives don’t realize this.

6. “There’s rationing in single payer!”

-Yes, due to cost control, people living under single payer may have to ration, resulting in the noted wait time difference. As I addressed already, this is not something that can’t be fixed, there just needs to be an increase in funding, slashing of wasteful spending, or both. Now, in the case of the US, we also ration our care. And the difference is that it is inherent to the system. According to a Health Affairs study:

US adults were the most negative about affordability (Exhibit 2). They were significantly less likely than adults in all other countries to have confidence in their ability to afford care. They were also significantly more likely than adults in other countries to have gone without care because of cost, to have spent $1,000 or more out of pocket on medical care, and to have had serious problems paying medical bills during the previous year.

In other words, due to the cost barrier, American healthcare is rationed en masse. There’s no telling exactly how many people are affected by this exactly, but one study estimated up to 45,000 deaths in the US every year due to lack of healthcare. Note: this was before the ACA. Criticizing the rationing under single payer is fair game, but don’t turn a blind eye to trouble at home.

CLOSING REMARKS

One thing you can’t do is deny the strength of single payer systems. They do have their flaws, but they are serious competitors to the market model of healthcare, and in all cases, exceed the market model of healthcare in several crucial areas.

We already have a market based system, and many Americans are not satisfied with it, whether we look at pre-ACA or post-ACA. We know what it’s like. If it was so great, it would be immediately obvious, and no other industrialized nation would embrace a single payer system that is clearly inferior. Yet, that’s not the case. Maybe it’s time for America to join the rest of the rich countries, or maybe it’s not. Either way, one thing is for sure, it’s time for Americans, especially conservatives, to honestly hear out the case for Medicare-for-all.

In this post, I’m going to be smacking down PragerU’s “Single-Payer Healthcare: America Already Has It” video that features Pete Hegseth, former Executive Director of Vets for Freedom.

0:02-0:10

“Would a government-run, Canadian style healthcare system work in the United States? A nation with 320 million people? Well, we already know the answer.”

1. Acknowledging that Canada has single-payer is a good start. Although you could’ve also mentioned basically every other rich country.
2. I find the placement of “320 million people” tactical. For a single-payer healthcare system, why would it matter that there’s more people in the United States than Canada? Obviously, a bigger population would mean more tax revenue, which means funding for healthcare (and therefore quality) is able to keep up with the population.
3. Does a private healthcare system work in the United States? Well, we already know the answer.
4. Btw, lol @ the title
5. Single-payer =/= government-run healthcare. Single-payer is a healthcare system in which healthcare costs are covered for all residents regardless of income, occupation or health status. Government-run healthcare, like the Military Health System, or Veterans Affairs, does not meet these requirements. You can say that the VA or MHS is similar to single-payer, but there are some crucial differences. I will talk about it more later on in the post.

0:11-0:36

“Just ask America’s veterans. They’ve had government-run healthcare for decades. The U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, known as the VA, runs the largest hospital and healthcare system in America. The VA employs nearly 340,000 people. Twice the size of the Marine Corps. And it has a $180 billion annual budget, making it the 2nd largest department in the federal gov’t.”

1. Yes, why don’t we ask the vets?
2.  We should really ask them.
3. I double-checked the numbers here, they’re all good. +1 for PragerU (up from -1000000)

0:42-1:05

“The VA is a true single-payer healthcare system. It runs over 150 hospitals, and 1400 community based clinics across all 50 states. The doctors, nurses, administrators – everyone who works for the VA is a government employee. The system actively serves some 7 million patients. 1/3 of the 21 million veterans alive in the US.”

1. I’m impressed! 1 minute in and a PragerU video hasn’t made sweeping generalizations, straw man arguments and ad-hominem.
2. 
3. But, Pete Hegseth is wrong. The VA is inherently limited precisely because it’s NOT a true single-payer healthcare system. Allow me to explain. In a single-payer healthcare system, everyone qualifies for health services. Be it rich, poor, white, black – all citizens. Although the VA definitely has the gist of single-payer, it is anything but a national health program. Most of the wait time associated with the VA (which Pete will get into  here in a little bit) is the government determining whether someone is even eligible for VA services. That is not single-payer. Furthermore, he cites the fact that there’s 21 million vets alive (I’ve also seen 22 million) but fails to mention that millions of vets do not qualify for the VA. That is not single-payer. Lastly, the VA has to deal with private health insurance providers such as Health Net, so it is intertwined with our fragmented healthcare system – which limits it from operating as a true single-payer system like Canada’s. That is not…oy vey, you get the drift.

1:08-1:29

“Sounds impressive, right? But for the past few decades, and especially for veterans in the war of Vietnam, as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where I served, the VA has been an abysmal failure. Inefficient, bureaucratic and sometimes, deadly. Among veterans, horror stories about the VA abound.”

1. RIP PragerU’s whole minute of honesty :'(
2. “Abysmal failure” -> wrong.
3. “Inefficient” -> also wrong.
4. “Bureaucratic” -> wrong and wrong.
5. The “bureaucratic” argument is what always astonishes me the most. In any form of single-payer, administrative overhead (AKA bureaucracy) is drastically reduced because you eliminate the thousands of insurance plans, each with different enrollment, paperwork, rules, regulations, marketing etc. Example. Right now in the U.S., for every dollar spent on healthcare, about 31% of it is going to administrative bureaucracy. Contrast that to 1 or 2% in Canada. If we adopted Canadian levels of overhead, which we very well could do by switching to single-payer, we would save $375 billion annually. Those savings are more than enough to cover all Americans and upgrade healthcare for those who are under-insured. That makes single-payer systems inherently more efficient than bureaucratic, private healthcare.

1:30-1:49

“These stories were tragically brought to light in 2014, when whistleblowers in Phoenix reported that 1700 veterans there had waited an average of 115 days just to receive an initial appointment. According to the VA’s official policy: that should of been no more than 14 days.”

1. The 2014 VA scandal was something that both sides agree was a failure and should have never happened. However, the problem was an organizational issue. Basically, lying became normalized behavior across various VA locations and as a result, some veterans suffered. But normalized deviance is an organizational issue that happens in public and private instances (see Washington Mutual). The difference is that in government-based failures, you’re going to hear about it because they’re publicly accountable and you know who to blame. In private failures, it’s harder to pinpoint private individuals who aren’t publicly accountable, so you don’t hear about it as much.
2. Secondly, as Pete pointed out, recent wars in the Middle East and in Vietnam created a lot more vets. From 2007 to 2013, demand for VA services increased 200%, while funding during the same period only increased by 16%. In other words, proper funding did not exist to efficiently deal with the massive increase in demand.

1:59-2:07

“Phoenix turned out to be the norm, not the exception. The VA’s inspector general found systemic problems across the country.”

1. It wasn’t the norm. It happened in several locations, that is true, but use the big picture here. Remember 500 hospitals and 1400 clinics? Only 5 clinics/hospitals were found to have had systemic problems.
2. About 1,000 veterans are estimated to have died as a result of long wait times, which is truly despicable, but the VA adequately treats millions of veterans every year. Furthermore, 1,000 deaths pales in comparison to the tens of thousands of deaths that result in the U.S. every year due to a lack of health insurance. 250,000 deaths also occur every year as a result of medical error, with “fragmented health insurance networks” playing a role in those deaths. I’d say those are some pretty serious systemic problems.
3. A private investigation of the VA conducted by the RAND corporation was released just last year, and government-run healthcare alarmists will be disappointed by the results.

2:47-2:56

“the Obama Administration’s own deputy chief of staff, Rob Nabors revealed that VA healthcare has a “corrosive culture”, with “significant, and systemic” failures.

1. Rob Nabors made those statements as a testament to the fact that the VA at the time had systemic problems, not that the concept itself is bad, which is what Pete seems to be suggesting. Rob Nabor also urged Obama that the VA needed additional staff, and that the VA needed transparency and more accountability.

2:56-3:16

“What was politicians’ response to this debacle? Spend more money – a lot more money. The VA’s budget has almost doubled since 2009. They’ve hired 100,000 new people within the past decade. Wait times have actually gone up. Yet not one administrator was fired for the waitlist scandal.”

1. Spending money is clearly what was needed in this case, along with drastically increased transparency and accountability.
2. Specifically, Congress passed the Veterans’ Access to Care through Choice, Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 which included with it a new ‘Veterans Choice’ program. The Veterans Choice program allows veterans who don’t live within 40 miles of a VA facility to go to a non-VA facility on the dime of the VA. It also allows veterans to seek non-VA services if wait times at the VA are too long. The idea is to improve veteran’s choice (nooo really?) and reduce wait times at VA facilities. But as Pete claims, wait times have gone up. Keep this in mind, I’ll get to back to it in a minute.
3. Administrators were fired. The Directors of the Pittsburgh , Dublin, Georgia, and central Alabama VA system, and Phoenix VA systems were all fired. Now, I completely agree that they should’ve been forced to pay back any administrative leave they were given by the VA and should’ve lost their jobs much sooner. Also, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs resigned due to the scandal.
4. Oh, and the VA has set up a new system of feedback and transparency that has no counterpart in the private sector.
5. Also, what should’ve happened right after the scandal:

6. 

   no really though.

3:24-3:49

“The real solution to the problem is not more government, more money and more bureaucracy, it’s more competition, accountability and transparency. Let the money follow the veteran. If veterans were given vouchers that they could use at any healthcare provider, private or government, they would control their own care. This, in turn, would force the VA to compete for their business, encouraging staff to treat patients as customers, not just as names on a waiting list.”

1. Veterans Groups oppose Pete’s idea because it would take billions away from the VA and cause a total collapse of the system.
2. A form of Pete’s idea already exists, and it’s called the Veteran’s Choice (VC) program, which I previously mentioned. If Pete’s idea worked, then he wouldn’t be pointing out that wait times seem to be going up. The reason why wait times are going up, even with the VC program, is due to the nature of private healthcare. Now that the VA will pay for services for non-VA facilities, there is a new middleman in the equation: private health insurance providers. Specifically, Health Net. Health Net has to receive authorization from the VA before veterans have the greenlight to use private services. Then once it is approved, Health Net pays for the service with VA money. The problem is that the transaction of money and information gets slowed down by the sludge of the bureaucratic nature of private health insurance providers. If we were to expand VC, then wait times would continually worsen.
3. Also, wait times in our private system are much longer than in Britain’s national health program. Like names on a list.
4. Then again, why do we even need healthcare??
5. 

3:53-4:04

“Veterans will remain at the mercy of politicians and bureaucrats, who continue to insist that the government can deliver quality and timely healthcare, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

1. The irony is almost beautiful, because conservatives continue to insist that the market can provide quality and timely healthcare, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

4:10-4:23

“14,000,000 people [veterans] don’t use the VA at all. And those that do use the VA still get 75% of the healthcare they use outside of the VA system, even though they have to pay more for it.”

1. In 2014, about 6.6 million people used the VA. With the number of patients increasing every year, it’s probably closer to 7 million right now. There are 21 million veterans. 21-7 is 14, which is probably where Pete gets his ‘14,000,000’ figure. Pete’s claim that 14,000,000 veterans don’t use the VA at all is highly misleading, because [again] he fails to mention many of those veterans may simply NOT BE eligible for VA care. There are no estimates that state how many veterans don’t use the VA because they aren’t eligible. But it is probably a lot. For a while, the VA had an income cap, meaning that if you made more than X amount of money you would not be eligible. That’s just one example of a potential limitation. There is also confusion among veterans whether the VA is only for veterans with service-related disabilities or not.  That could also prevent veterans from even checking with the VA to see if they’re eligible. The whole government-run healthcare alarmist rhetoric might have an effect too.
2. I couldn’t find the source for the ‘75%’ claim, but here’s what I did find. 80% of people enrolled in the VA are eligible for other public insurance coverage, like Medicare or Medicaid. These people tend to ‘diversify’, by getting their healthcare across multiple providers. It is hardly a damnation to the VA, as much as it is using your resources.
3. The VA has an 8-step priority system, P1 vets receive free prioritized, high quality care before everyone else. Needless to say, P1 vets are those most likely to be 100% reliant on the VA, which makes perfect sense, why would you go anywhere else? However, this is a prime reason why the VA is not really single-payer. Vets with lower priority are incentivized to get outside care because they are more likely to have to wait longer. But the fact that people who are P1 are most satisfied with the VA speaks volumes about the validity of single-payer healthcare, because, in a true single-payer system, everyone would be like the P1 vet. Everyone would receive high quality, efficient care as a right.

4:35-4:46

“So, could government-run Canadian style healthcare work in the United States? Given America’s experience with the government-run single-payer VA, why would we even want to try?”

1. More like: “given my twisting and turning of reality, I’ve probably convinced you to be scared enough of government-run healthcare to prevent you from even considering the idea!”
2. We would be wise to try it, considering most Americans agree our healthcare system sucks, and there is overwhelming evidence that countries with single-payer have better healthcare than us. Damn communists.

In closing, this was a huge topic to talk about, and I’m glad that PragerU recently made a video on it to give everyone the opportunity to see how much right wing lies about single-payer holds us back from achieving a better healthcare system. Even though generally speaking, the entire argument against single-payer is total BS, I want to give Pete credit for not being a complete dickhead like Greg Gutfeld. He refrained from the usual logical fallacies, and instead focused on making a strong argument with plenty of examples to support his case – a plus in my book. In short, Pete is a worthy opponent in the ring and he earns respect. With that being said, this video gets a new rating: not-so-stinky BS.