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.
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.”
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?
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.
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:
“What we say to them is that single payer costs less,” he said. “It costs less for the company in basic care, and it will take away from the company the requirement that they are responsible for providing medical care for employees.”
Removing that burden from U.S. businesses, he said, would make them more competitive in the global marketplace.
Single payer is even finding its way into the minds of some of the most powerful people in the US. “If the government wants to pay all the bills, and employers want to stop offering coverage, and we can be there in a public private partnership to do the work we do today with Medicare, and with Medicaid at every state level, we run the Medicaid programs for them…” says Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, “then let’s have that conversation.” Aetna, for readers who don’t know, is a Fortune 100 managed health care company. It is one of the largest health insurers in the US.
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.
“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.”
Acknowledging that Canada has single-payer is a good start. Although you could’ve also mentioned basically every other rich country.
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.
Does a private healthcare system work in the United States? Well, we already know the answer.
Btw, lol @ the title
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.”
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.”
I’m impressed! 1 minute in and a PragerU video hasn’t made sweeping generalizations, straw man arguments and ad-hominem.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Spending money is clearly what was needed in this case, along with drastically increased transparency and accountability.
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.
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.
Oh, and the VA has set up a new system of feedback and transparency that has no counterpart in the private sector.
Also, what should’ve happened right after the scandal:
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.”
Veterans Groups oppose Pete’s idea because it would take billions away from the VA and cause a total collapse of the system.
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.
“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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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?”
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!”
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.
In this second post of smacking down PragerU arguments, I’m going to go through their video titled ‘Why the Right is Right’ featuring Greg Gutfeld, author of ‘How To Be Right: the Art of Being Persuasively Correct’.
0:19-0:26
“So here is the simple answer as to why you are right [conservatives], it is a more practical, generous, and compassionate way to live. Let me explain.”
Oh, this is gonna be good *grabs popcorn*
0:34-0:59
“The right tends to be risk-averse, more concerned about external threats like tyranny and terror. Conservatives, get this, tend to be conservative. They’re less likely to play with fire in just about every sense: financially, artistically, sexually. They’re cautious about changing traditions, sometimes, to a fault. Which is why they cling to that crazy Constitution they like so much, and to their guns, and to their religion.”
I’ll refrain from commenting on this yet, but pay special attention to the part that’s italicized, I’ll come back to it later on.
1:00-1:17
“Conservatives also focus on what we can fix and accept what we cannot, which is one of the many reasons we’re not obsessed with global warming. With radical Islam we know what the threat is, and that it’s a lot worse than a few missing polar bears. I know that makes me sound mean, sorry polar bears.”
Greg claims that conservatives don’t care about climate change because they accept that they can’t change it. First of all, this claim is highly misleading. According to a pew poll, only 15% of conservative Republicansbelieve that humans are fueling climate change. Since a vast number conservatives still do not accept the scientific consensus on climate change, it’s dishonest to assume that if they did accept and understand the science, that they would be indifferent to it.
Second of all, it is incredibly myopic and lazy to suggest that people should not do anything about climate change because we “can’t fix it.” There are a laundry list of ways in which individuals and policymakers can mitigate and slowly reverse the effects of climate change. If conservatives were this short-sighted on anything else, say on reversing ‘big government’, they’d be completely useless. Every conservative should reject this false claim, because he’s not giving you any credit.
Thirdly, yes – terrorism is one of our foremost national security issues. However, can we please be realistic here and put things into perspective? Statistically speaking, Americans have much greater odds dying in a car accident, chocking on food, being killed by a police officer, or even bicycling than from dying in a terrorist attack; in other words, the odds are very low. But if you’re concerned about terrorism, your concern of climate change should go hand in hand. The reason why is because the effects of climate change are expected to bring about food insecurity, water insecurity and extreme weather conditions, particularly droughts in already unstable regions in the Middle East, which the military has identified as a “threat multiplier”, meaning that there will be growing social instability. This will result in a number of ‘climate refugees’, which can provide a cover for extremist groups to further pour over into other countries by disguising themselves as refugees.
1:19-1:30
“Liberals, the research tells us, are generally more outgoing, more likely to try new stuff – and they’re open to new ideas, though not school choice, or flat taxes or a market-based healthcare reform…”
Liberals outside of Washington are not close-minded about school choice. In fact, a poll conducted earlier this year indicated that school choice has support among 55% of Democrats. So, more than half of Democrats support school choice, and I suspect that it would be much higher if Democrats were more informed about the issue. In virtually all other Western countries like Sweden, parents can choose any school for their children, it’s paid for via public funds.
Liberals are against flat tax because of one tiny little problem: it is a regressive tax system that shifts the tax burden onto the middle and lower class while giving immense tax breaks to the upper class. Considering the negative impacts, and the time period of unprecedented wealth inequality we live in, the last thing we should be advocating for is to widen that divide.
A market-based healthcare system is a great idea, as long as you love extremely wasteful, unnecessary bureaucracy and really high drug prices. Plus, I know that conservatives are really open-minded about single-payer *sarcasm detected*
1:42-1:55
“In short liberals, are pretty liberal. They feel free to take risks that the risk averse usually end up paying for, over and over. Which explains the necessity for conservatism, we are, the clean-up crew.”
Wow, somebody is entering hardcore self-righteous territory right now. I can’t really debate this because it’s bordering on ad-hominem, but let’s see how far he takes it.
1:56-2:21
“Liberals may seem to have more fun – and many do – but according to polls, they aren’t as happy as conservatives. And with all the fun they’re having, I’ve never quite figured out why the angriest people I’ve encountered in my life have been liberals. Maybe it’s because short-term fun doesn’t translate into long-term happiness. Marriage, families and religion do that – and those are the things conservatives most value. Liberals tend to live for now, conservatives for later.”
Sooo liberals know how to party, and conservatives don’t?
“Liberals are the angriest people” Idk man, if you’re going around telling people that those who simply disagree with you are basically unhappy children – you’re not exactly going to make a lot of liberal friends lmao.
Polls have also shown that liberals have higher IQs than conservatives, but I’m not going to be a dick about it and actually use it to make generalizations or stereotypes about conservatives. It’s a cheap shot, its ad-hominem, and quite frankly if you’re trying to have a political debate, or make honest political videos – its bullshit.
Liberals live for now, conservatives for later? I guess, liberals, who are usually more concerned about climate change, who are more likely to change their diets and adjust their lifestyle in the long-term to individually play their part in combating the long-term effects of climate change, are suddenly the ones who are short-sighted.
2:22-2:49
“A risk-adverse conservative is more likely to save money, he is more likely to protect his investments, he is more likely to protect property, advocate for rule of law and preservation of individual protections, and he offers no excuses for looting – instead he empathizes with the Asian, Arab, and Black small businessman whose convenience store, laundry or restaurant goes up in flames during the riot that liberals reflexively endorse as an ‘understandable response to injustice.'”
The hypocrisy here is real – aren’t conservatives always the gun-toting Americans who say that we should have an armed conflict against a ‘tyrannical government’? That doesn’t sound like strict rule of law. No, it sounds like Greg is just using convenient political language to cover the fact that he doesn’t understand, and doesn’t identify with the deep sense of injustice and even tyranny that some minorities have felt stacked against them in the policing and criminal justice systems.
Furthermore, I’m sure that the statement liberals made about an “understandable response to injustice” is taken out of its full context. Basically every liberal I know (myself included), is for nonviolent resistance. But in a lot of cases of rioting and looting events, its not that we excuse it – it’s that we get where they’re coming from, what’s setting them off. Greg actually points this out very well – instead of trying to understand, so that the right approach can be taken to finding solutions and preventing future events like these, conservatives prefer to embrace rigid, black and white thinking which, ironically, is extremely short-sighted.
2:50-3:03
“Of course, conservatives aren’t risk-adverse in everything, but they take risks with their own lives, not with the society. Conservatives risk it all to build businesses, that risk, however, is rooted in a fact-based belief – not faith – in the free market.”
Huh. That’s a different tone than: “They’re less likely to play with fire in just about every sense: financially, artistically, sexually.” An obvious contradiction, he tries shrugging it off, but it’s difficult to excuse since he built his entire premise on this idea of conservatives being risk-adverse. And as we all know, starting a business is a massive financial risk. By his logic, aren’t liberals naturally the greater entrepreneurs?
He claims that conservatives take risks with their own lives and not with society – uh, seriously? Maybe he hasn’t thought this through. He claims they don’t take societal risks, and then proceeds to talk about starting businesses… but starting a business is anything but a simple personal risk; your placing risk on your family, the people you’re working with, their families, taxpayers (if you received government money), the market, consumers – it is literally one of the most plain examples of societal risk. The risk of failure might be high or low, but the chance of it happening at all is a relevant and significant societal risk.
See if you don’t see the problem with Greg’s logic. ->says conservatives take risks with their own lives and not society. -> Disregards climate change. Hmm. Also conservative positions: pro-deregulation (see 2008), anti-social programs (cuts to medicare, medicaid, social security), anti-common-sense gun regulations (universal background checks, gun registry, ban purchases for people on no-fly list) etc. But conservatives never risk society.
He stresses this point, but it’s glaringly wrong. The ‘fact-based belief’ in the free market is a bit like belief in religion: it IS faith. That’s because, and I’ve said this before, there is no real-world example of a free market. The free market has never existed in the U.S., or anywhere for that matter. Free market =/= capitalism.
3:14-3:31
“Over time, it’s conservative risk-tasking which creates a civilization, by building families, businesses and nations – all of which creates wealth, wealth which can then be used to help those in need. You need money to make money, but you also need money to give money. Conservatism takes but liberalism takes.”
Ctfuuu :’D
Ok so I have to say that I was wrong earlier when I said that he was being self-righteous, this shit is arrogant and self-righteous ASF!!
But this quote actually speaks volumes. Think about it, if you actually believed this profoundly biased and dishonest view, why would you be inclined to ever consider anything that liberals have to say? Why would you ever consider that you were ever wrong? You wouldn’t! And it is that fundamental arrogance that is fueling the awful political climate we currently find ourselves in. Get a grip!
3:31-3:43
“So for example, for liberals to get their minimum wage hike, first we need conservatives to build businesses, to think like businessmen, to sacrifice their own salaries, in order to pay others – to sleep on floors if necessary – in order to break-even.”
Smugness continues
Btw, being smug =/= substantive argument, so there’s nothing to refute here.
3:45-4:11
“And then, when they make a profit, and things are going great, when the calm sets in, liberalism can appear and say: ‘how dare you not pay these people a living wage’. Once the tables are full of diners, and bills are being paid, and you’re thinking about opening a second joint – liberalism arrives to demand its cut. Think of it as a protection racket, think of it as the Gambino family, except without the loyalty, family, job prospects, and track suits.”
Hahahahaha
Yes, how dare those darned liberals believe that if you’re working a full-time job you shouldn’t have to ask the government for help to keep you from living in the streets! Oh the horror!! Just terrible
Greg’s example here seems to be focused exclusively on small-business owners, because no one believes for a second that McDonald’s or Burger King can’t afford to pay their workers a higher minimum wage. But what Greg didn’t tell you – get ready for the smackdown right here- is that a growing number of entrepreneurs and prospective small-business owners support raising the federal minimum wage. In fact, 47% support increasing it, and only 40% oppose it. More support raising it.
In this illustration, Greg attempts to demonize an increase of the minimum wage and the liberals associated with it, but his illustration shows a basic economic error. Consumers are absolutely crucial to creating jobs and growing the economy. More money in the hands of low-wage workers, who are getting by paycheck to paycheck, translates to more in-pocket money for going out and spending freely with. Business activity therefore benefits greatly from consumers having more money to spend, which is reason number one why raising the minimum wage is good economics, not an attack on small businesses.
4:11-4:26
“Conservatism doesn’t compete with liberalism, it sustains it. Without conservatism, there is no liberalism. And so when a liberal asks you “why are you a conservative? simply say: so that you, can be a liberal””.
Yes conservatives, this advice is A1, you should actively seek to come off as a self-righteous prick in political discussion! That’ll show ’em 😀
In conclusion, Greg Gutfeld has single-handedly proven to us all that just because you wrote a book about being right, you can still be fucking wrong about a lot of things. I give this video a solid bullshit rating.
In this post, we’ll focus on PragerU’s ‘why you love capitalism’ video and go through it, refuting its central arguments.
Disclaimer: Due to the fact that a lot of millennials view socialism favorably, I feel compelled to say that I personally don’t support socialism, so that’s not where I’m coming from in this rebuttal!
0:00-0:10
“You love capitalism. Really, you do. And you can’t stand big government. Really, you can’t.”
Hahahahaha
Ok, so right off the bat I have a comment here. It’s not the message that I find funny, it’s just the way this guy talks! The expression on his face seems really uncomfortable, like he’s forcing his way into a semi-grin while holding back tears from the stick up his ass. And that monotone in his voice is going to make the video that much harder to watch. So cringe.
Camera-shy?
Next (on to substance)
0:11-0:43
“Don’t believe me? Then I’ll just have to prove it to you. Do you use an iPhone, Android, Macbook, PC, Read on a kindle, Watch TV and movies on Netflix, videos on YouTube, shop on Amazon, listen to Spotify, search on Google, send money on Venmo, grab a ride with Uber, drive with Waze, book a room with Airbnb, are you on Facebook, or Instagram, or Snapchat? You probably use many if not all of these things.”
Is it bad he just described the livelihood of 95% of millennials?
0:49-0:58
“Where do you think they came from? From entrepreneurs with great ideas and the freedom to test them in the marketplace. That is what is known as: capitalism.”
Literally all of the services mentioned rely on one crucial element: the internet.
Technically, the internet was invented by a project funded by the U.S. Department of Defense in the 1960s…however, the internet in the form we use it today was invented by a CERN employee, Tim Berners-Lee in the early 1990s. And again, CERN is a fully state-funded organization.
Also, Sir Tim refused to capitalize on his genius breakthrough, he explicitly did it for the sole purpose of creating a “universal space” and wanted it to be free and accessible to all. For Jared to suggest that things we all benefit from only come from having a profit motive is intellectually dishonest.
Oh, btw, the guy with the stick up his ass’s name is Jared
5. There is not a magical process where an idea just leaps into the marketplace for free testing.
6. Entrepreneurs take a massive risk when they work to get their products/services into the marketplace. Usually, as especially is the case with Google, or Apple, lots of R&D (research and development) has to be done in order to create a viable product or service that can be tested in the marketplace.
7. Chances are that most entrepreneurs aren’t multi-millionaires so they can’t fund their own R&D. Entrepreneurs normally turn to two things: investors and the government.
8. In the two major cases presented by Jared, Google and Apple, heavy government funding aided with their R&D. In reality though, government funding helped almost all of those companies he listed!
9. It is important to highlight the crucial role that government has in helping entrepreneurs get to the point where they can test their ideas in the marketplace.
1:02-1:28
“Now consider some other things you probably use. Have you been to the DMV? Gone through airport security? mailed a package at the post office, called the IRS customer service line, called any government office for that matter? What’s different? Why is going to the Apple store so fun, but going to the DMV so painful? because one has nothing to do with government, and one is the government. One needs customers to survive and grow; one doesn’t”
This is laughable. Jared’s point is that anything government related is bureaucratic and has awful customer service. Private companies have no customer service issues?
Hey, maybe Jared hasn’t gotten the memo, but private companies get customer service messed up all the time. Bad customer service is more often than not associated with private companies.
customer service
Have you ever dealt with insurance company customer service lines? Especially for health insurance? They are notoriously awful, which by the way, is the result of a fragmented, bureaucratic for-profit healthcare system. But that’s a debate for another time.
I’m not trying to say that there is no bad customer service in the government. Of course there is. My point is that bad customer service isn’t just a government problem. It goes both ways. But clearly, Jared’s agenda isn’t to be objective, it’s ideologically driven; he just wants to make government look bad.
Jared in a nutshell
7. Have I been to the DMV? Yes, it sucks. No disagreement there. But don’t you agree that this is a moot argument? Think about it; nobody else has the authority to issue licenses and things of that sort. That is the job of government. So why is Jared stuck on this? Nobody can skip out on getting their license unless they want to risk hefty fines and jail time, so of course DMV’s are always packed – everyone has to go! Whether it is government or a private company – nobody is really equipped to make this ‘painless’, it’s just a reality we have to do deal with. On the bright side, we can expect that as more things are done online, that physically going to the DMV will become obsolete – saving everyone time and pain.
8. Also I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had issues with the post office. I’ve had to go plenty of times, it’s always been quick and easy. According to research, the post office ranks among the “better” companies for customer satisfaction.
9. I wonder what he thinks about UPS? I usually ship with UPS. Customer satisfaction so far in 2017 for UPS is 81% positive, compared to FedEx which is 82% positive this year. The industry average for consumer shipping this year is 81% positive. So, UPS is right on the money and FedEx is 1% above average. Historically, UPS and FedEx are neck-in-neck, with UPS performing well above the industry average at times.
10. In fact, if I am honest, the best customer service line I’ve ever experienced was from MilitaryOneSource, a Dept. of Defense program that helps military and military families with every aspect of military life. You can check them out on their website. I would say call them for yourself and see, but if you are not in the military or a dependent, I think it would be disrespectful to urge you to do it simply to prove a point, because it is specifically a service for those involved in military life. However, if you are in the military or have a family member in the military, I would recommend calling them with an inquiry, and sharing your note of the excellent service.
11. Also, it’s not true that Apple has “nothing to do with government”, but that was addressed already.
1:34-1:40
“But if you thought about it for a few moments, you’d realize you don’t want the government involved in just about anything private business can do.”
This argument is the fallacy of alleged certainty, and the reason it is so is because Jared assumes he knows the conclusion of your thinking. You would probably agree with him if you don’t question the video, because every second leading up to this point he has done nothing but stack the deck.
On the contrary, with evidence, one might actually argue that more people would want government involvement in things that private businesses would do instead. For example, single-payer healthcare. Citing the successes and benefits in other industrialized nations, one can argue with evidence and solid support that private businesses should not be in control of healthcare.
1:42-1:50
“That’s because profit-motivated individuals have to work to satisfy their customers – you. Government agencies don’t have to please anyone.”
This is true in theory, but again, I’ve proven that the profit-motive doesn’t eliminate bad customer service, and especially in the case of healthcare, it actually encourages it!
Generally speaking, government agencies are held accountable to the public, it’s not true that they “don’t have to please anyone.” I’ve given examples already but I’ll give more. Veterans Affairs needs to satisfy the needs of Veterans, the NOAA needs to satisfy the needs of the public who are looking for weather information, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission needs to satisfy the needs of public safety, etc.
2:04-2:11
“Just a few years ago, if somebody needed a private driver in a few minutes that would take you where you needed to go was truly a service available only to the wealthiest people…”
Uh…my guy, have you never heard of a cab?
2:20-2:28
“Until Uber came around, if it started to rain, say in Manhattan, and you wanted to grab a cab – good luck.”
Ok cool so he knows what a cab is 😛
By the way, I completely agree with him, Uber is pretty great
3:09
Airbnb is also pretty frickin great
3:24-3:43
“Government never could have done this. What motivation would it have? How would it even know we wanted services like Uber and Airbnb? We didn’t know it, until risk-taking entrepreneurs made it possible, thanks to capitalism, and no thanks to government, which more often than not just gets in the way.”
I 110% agree about the importance of entrepreneurs – my main problem is Jared’s magical thinking. How do entrepreneurs become successful? “Capitalism!” “The free market!” Well, the free market doesn’t exist, and government also accounts for a significant share of their success.
Government can be intrusive and disruptive, but the fact is that government has also been absolutely crucial to the development of capitalism in the U.S. and around the world. We owe much of what we know today to government.
And somewhere in the distance…
3:46-3:51
“The government’s knee-jerk reaction is to regulate and control everything it can regulate and control.”
Too broad of a generalization. You can certainly point to instances government has been overly regulatory and you can point to instances where government has rolled back regulations when it shouldn’t have (Glass-Steagall) or hasn’t done any regulations where it should have (i.e. carbon fee and dividends).
3:58-4:09
“Governments across the world are putting up barriers to slow down or shut down services like Uber and Airbnb. Rule-making may be the only area where the government shows creativity.”
It’s true, a lot of union members are pissed off by the customers that convenient services like Uber and Airbnb are taking away. Needless to say, I agree that government shouldn’t prevent competition here.
Also, I’m just curious, how is slowing or shutting down competition creative? In a lot of places, services like Uber are simply banned. That’s not really creative lol
4:10-4:14
“Economic growth has the best chance to occur in the absence of that rule-making.”
Depends what the rules are. Some laws unfairly benefit one corporation over another, which may help grow the economy – but stifles competition. Other rules may be pesky, but would help maintain fair competition, which would encourage economic growth as well. Although, what constitutes ‘fair’ is arbitrary and I won’t get into the details right now.
Either way, I’m not a fan of implying that economic growth is inherently good just for the sake of it. Economic growth normally doesn’t reflect the state of social problems, or environmental degradation – so if, for example, a law was passed that cut into the profits of the fossil fuel industry but greatly benefited and/or protected our environment, to me it’s self-evident that is a good thing even though it would affect economic growth.
4:17-4:33
“The internet, to use just one important example, was able to develop in a regulatory climate that embraced what he calls ‘permissionless innovation.’ This approach to regulation allows entrepreneurs to meet their customers’ needs, without first seeking government approval.”
Here’s one fundamental problem though: it was also developed in the absence of profit, which means that people were able to innovate regardless of financial incentive. Kind of the opposite of what you are advocating.
Permissionless innovation? LOL. I’m not sure where Jared would draw the line here. Maybe he means that a company trying to make flying cars shouldn’t have to seek government permission and licenses for the development and testing of a new flying car? I really don’t know, but I’m pretty sure that an entrepreneur who wants to create flying cars with rocket launchers attached to them for civilian use should not ‘innovate’ without government’s permission first.
4:36-4:42
“Almost everything you enjoy using is a product of capitalism, almost everything you can’t stand is a product of big government”
The outro to this video should read: “almost everything you enjoy using is a product of government aiding the development of capitalism through the support of entrepreneurs via state funding. Except for the internet, that shit was just the product of big government. Fuck.”
4:42-4:48
“So do you love capitalism? Of course you do, you practice it everyday.”
And I’m sure Jared carries the Wealth of Nations everywhere he goes and is a devout follower of his capitalist faith
In closing, capitalism is good, government is also good, and no matter how hard PragerU tries, they can not and will not separate the historical marriage between the two. I rate this video as misleading, although it’s not total bullshit and it makes good points.
