How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can Save Health Care. Yaron Brook

Yaron Brook, PhD, President of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights and author of the new book Free Market Revolution, speaks to physicians about how capitalism is the only moral solution that will maximize patients' access to high-quality medical care at affordable prices.

[Mofi]

How can this brilliant speech only get 327 likes in 8 years? Mankind can't be this bad.

[JerryThorpeStory]

Everything King Midas touched turned into gold.
Everything government touches turns into shit.

[JCV]

Yaron is amazing! I love the way he makes clear and sound arguments for capitalism from a logical and moral perspective.

[LucisFerre]

Seglali, healthcare cannot be a "right", because having a right to X means that no one can rightfully deny you X for any reason. If the indigent cannot or will not pay for healthcare, & you have a "right" to healthcare, then caregivers are SLAVES. That is, they must work for free. There is no such thing as a right to violate rights of others. That undermines the entire concept of rights. There can be no right to enslave, either doctors or taxpayers. I'll help you voluntarily, but not with a gov gun to my temple. Gov has a monopoly on the legal initiation of force (people with guns and cages). 

[doctorx]

Everybody who says he's wrong should give some links and references. Otherwise I call BS.

[raymondrust]

Both this guy & Peter Zeihian are my favorite commentators

[AussieGriffin]

Australia's got BOTH public and private systems and you know what? That works for us. Unlike the USA, we don't fear going to a middle-of-the-road clinic to get our aches, pains and minor mishaps looked at. We do have to pay for medications and the pharmacy's that sell them are private. The generic medications sold don't send the drug companies broke because for the first few years the new medications are all theirs when the most people are first advised to take them. Our blended system works and while we still have issues with hospital waiting lists and states cooking the books on their efficiencies it's better than some countries.
A.G.

[drytool]

I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding selfishness

[wescolumbus]

As soon as I argued with my spouse about the meaning of words, I was told that there is a difference between dictionary meaning, usage and divided usage of words. That reduced but hasn't always prevented some reservations or irritation which I (and many people have) about usage. Which is probably the basis for the insightful dictum "Life and death are at the hand of the tongue (language)." 

Obviously, "all men are created equal" doesn't mean they are the same, or identical. Of course, only recently "all men" has come to mean all human beings. And while studies show that misogyny is a win-lose socio-economic boomerang, millions will still argue that women are inferior. Similarly, social equality has never meant to be a mathematical equation, or suggest identical and indistinguishable traits of the equal parties in question. Egalitarianism and equity may be the better words. But the problem, of course, is that Social Equality, and Equity have been twisted and have come to refer to outcomes, not to unprejudiced, supremacist treatment under the law, and in terms of opportunity, nor to reverse discrimination. 

Word usage spinning + indoctrination is manipulative and unacceptable. The Q is not who's twisting the words, but who is benefiting from such word twisting and who is being misled and harmed into a win-lose transaction. Unfortunately, word usage can be crazy and is highly susceptible to herd-obedience. It's a problem that needs to be tackled in a thoughtful realistic way. Win-win is easily convincing. Selfishness, for instance, may be more accessible when expressed as self-love, esteem, appreciation. Unless you read "The Virtue of Selfishness, " used alone, it creates cognitive and emotional dissonance, objection and, therefore, it's a hard sell.

[johnrolle]

Is Barry Kripke of the Big Bang Theory an objectivist? Great show!

[Jazzper]

Are there some great books that are objective on Health Care?

[tchapman]

Canada denies certain surgical treatments based upon age & cost (i.e., CABG). Too bad. Yet these are the shining examples touted as to why the US needs gov't-run healthcare. PUH-LEASE! Now, if you're never sick & don't have any family history of disease, then gov't-run healthcare isn't necessarily a bad thing only because YOU DON'T NEED TO USE IT. If you do, however, it quickly turns into a nightmare. The only way any gov't-run health system can work is by denying/restricting care - PERIOD.

[tchapman]

Is the healthcare system in the US (pre-Obamacare) perfect? Not necessarily...there's always room to improve. Yet, despite it's imperfections, it was still the best healthcare system in the ENTIRE WORLD! But, they would say, healthcare in the US is based on profit! People & their health shouldn't be tied to a dollar-figure! Yet it is even in countries w/gov't-run health systems. UK denies hydrocortizone injections (the cheapest, first-line treatment for orthopedic issues) because of cost.

[masha]

Do you have a practical example of how it actually can be done? I fail to see how any single, non-organized family can refuse to send their children to school AND demand their money back. We need real solutions. Yours - sounds great and I don't see how it can be done.

[LucisFerre]

I know it's low-brow to comment on the way someone talks, but I get a kick out of Yaron when he says "who-ific" as he did in his last comment of the video. ;-)

[sejlali]

I'm British and despite its flaws I can say the NHS has served me and my family proud. I'm sure the American private healthcare system

[tchapman]

The Obamacare supporters then would say that gov't run healthcare works in Canada, Europe & in many other countries throughout the world... I told them NO IT DOESN'T! Cancer survival rates are atrocious in all of those examples. IF their systems are so great, why do people come to the US each & every day of the year for medical treatment/care? Why does the US lead the world in cancer survival rates? Why do the the rest deny certain treatments/procedures simply due to cost? How is this better?

[tonycatman]

He is wrong about the quality of education too.

The UK, like most countries, offers both paid-for and government education.

My friends went private (in fact, won scholarships). I went to government schools.

Most teachers are lefties, and look down on teachers who 'sell-out' to private educators. So there's really not much difference in the quality of teachers.

My schools were fucking shit. So were theirs.

They had wealthier friends, a swimming pool, and they didn't have the criminals that infested my school, and we had a higher suicide rate among teachers.

But they still hated their schools, and didn't have better success after school, or better grades.

[drnikkobriteramos]

More dogma than specific policy. More projection of your moral biases on the other for hypothetical purposes than understanding of the variance in individuals and the unique sacrifices inherent in each occupation.

[tonycatman]

Healthcare. Factually wrong about the UK.
I used to work in a company which offered a private healthcare plan. So we had the choice between private and NHS.

For the most part, we saw the same doctor at the same hospital either way. Sometimes the same doctor worked both at a clinic, and at the NHS. If surgery was required, you got the same doctor using the same equipment.

On the rare occasion that someone ended up as an in-patient, people got a private room instead of a ward, and the in-patient experience was generally more pleasant with private care.

Conversely, using the NHS required fewer forms, and no uncertainty about whether the bill would get paid. So a number of people with insurance went to the NHS for simplicity.

Sample size : 5 years, 700 people.