Here is a detailed description of the
many errors in the above HowTheWorldWorks video on YouTube:
Despite the title of this video, you again, fail to show that I
"distorted" any fact, never mind that I "deliberately
distorted" anything and, again, your video is factually and logically
flawed. Your problems begin when, in this video, you attempt to rebut my video from last August
in which I pointed out how Fox News blurred the distinctions between:
A GOVERNMENT RUN
HEALTH SYSTEM, in which all hospitals are government owned and all doctors are
government employees,
A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM, in which all health
care is paid for by government but hospitals and doctors may remain private,
and
A PUBLIC OPTION, in which the
government would fund just one of many insurance plans competing in the
marketplace.
Instead of rebutting anything I said in my video, however, you show
your own lack of understanding of these concepts, beginning right at 0:35 when
you claim that H.R. 3200 had "single payer aspects" because there
were "subsidies" in the bill. Of course, the defining characteristic
of a "single payer" system, is that there is ONLY ONE entity paying
health care bills (the government), instead of MULTIPLE entities paying health
care bills, like the government (which gives subsidies NOW), private insurance
companies, individuals, etc. Saying a system has "single payer
aspects" is like calling something "somewhat unique," the label
is self contradictory because, again, in a "single payer" system
THERE IS ONLY ONE PAYER.
Next, at 0:47, after I contrast the public option in H.R. 3200 with
government run and single payer systems by saying H.R 3200 "doesn't
include government run health care and doesn't even include a government take
over of the insurance industry, sometimes called a single payer system, but, instead
only includes a public option in which the government would fund just one of
many insurance plans competing in the marketplace," you claim to rebut
this statement by quoting just the phrase "only includes a public
option" and then saying there are subsidies in the bill. But, I never
claimed there were no subsidies in the bill (and, again, there are subsidies in
our current health care system), but, instead, I only contrasted the public
option in H.R 3200 with a single payer and a government run health system. Your
reference to "subsidies" does not rebut anything in my comparison.
Similarly, at 1:31, when you point out that Barack Obama has advocated
for a single payer system in the past (which he did, years ago), it does not
rebut what I said about "President Obama's truthful statement that he is
not advocating for government run health care" because, not only is single
payer not government run health care, but Obama is not now advocating for a
single payer system and a single payer system is not in either the House or the
Senate bill, nor was it in H.R. 3200 when I made my video. Again, the error
here is yours in your lack of understanding of the distinctions between:
A GOVERNMENT RUN
HEALTH SYSTEM, in which all hospitals are government owned and all doctors are
government employees,
A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM, in which all health
care is paid for by government but hospitals and doctors may remain private,
and
A PUBLIC OPTION, in which the
government would fund just one of many insurance plans competing in the marketplace.
In addition to continuing to misunderstand these concepts, beginning
at 1:34, you give your opinion that a single payer system "invariably
requires the government to get involved and get between you and your doctor
because its always concerned about cutting cots and it never has enough money
to fund anything," but you fail to say why the government's role as a
non-profit single payer would not be better than that same role played by
private for profit insurers nor do you provide any evidence to back up your
opinion which is contradicted by the example of all the other industrialized
countries which all have more government involvement in providing universal
coverage than the U.S. and, as a result, these other countries provide health
care of comparable quality at a much lower cost. See, for example, the evidence
in my video "Zombie
Public Option Puts Stake In Heart of Health Care
Costs?"
Next, at
Then, at 3:14, you attempt to rebut my recognition of "the
contribution that Fox News itself makes to this information gap from which so
many Republicans suffer" by claiming "it's the exact opposite,"
but the only evidence you show are a bunch of clips NOT from Fox News that you
claim is somehow evidence of Fox News being informative. These clips show that
some Democrats favor a single payer system and hope that a successful public
option will create the popular support necessary for additional legislation
enacting a single payer system, but the clips do not support your blurring the
distinctions between:
A GOVERNMENT RUN
HEALTH SYSTEM, in which all hospitals are government owned and all doctors are
government employees,
A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM, in which all health
care is paid for by government but hospitals and doctors may remain private,
and
A PUBLIC OPTION, in which the
government would fund just one of many insurance plans competing in the
marketplace.
Yet, at 3:23, after showing a clip of Barney Frank saying "a good
public option COULD lead to single payer" you turn "COULD" into
"MUST" (as you did with John Holdren) and make the unsupported claim
that "the public option will objectively lead to single payer because the
Democrats tell us that is its very purpose."
Next, at 4:07, you say that "around 30% of Fox's audience are
Democrats and more Democrats watch Fox News than CNN or MSBNC combined"
but you not only misuse the disjunctive, but you provide no source for your
claim (no "links in the sidebar") and you do not explain how your
claim, if true, contradicts anything Rachel Maddow said and, more to the
supposed point of your video, you never show how your claim means I
"distorted" any "fact," "deliberately" or
otherwise.
Instead, at 4:23, in response to my true statement that "having
Fox News as your main source of information is associated with a huge
information gap when it comes to health care reform as shown by the results of
a recent NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll" you say that "there is no
evidence of that claim whatsoever, in fact, just the opposite," but you
never show any evidence of "the opposite" and you never address the
ample evidence I cited in that "recent NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll"
which is at http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf
In addition, your claim is contradicted by many other such scientific
surveys. See, e.g., http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php
So, when you said there was "no evidence" that was factually
FALSE.
Will you correct YOUR error?
Also, at 4:23 you attempt to rebut Rachel Maddow's premise that some Republicans
wrongly believe that health reform will lead to a government takeover of health
care, but you first use a clip SUPPORTING Maddow's premise in which Sen. Russ
Feingold explicitly says about single payer at 4:53 that he doesn't see "ANY possibility
that will come out of this Congress." So, again, that clip and the ones
following it show that some Democrats favor a single payer system and hope that
a successful public option will create the popular support necessary for
additional legislation enacting a single payer system, but those clips do not
support your blurring of the distinctions between:
A GOVERNMENT RUN
HEALTH SYSTEM, in which all hospitals are government owned and all doctors are
government employees,
A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM, in which all health
care is paid for by government but hospitals and doctors may remain private,
and
A PUBLIC OPTION, in which the
government would fund just one of many insurance plans competing in the
marketplace.
You also repeat your claim at 5:58 that a bunch of clips NOT from Fox
News are somehow evidence of Fox News being more informative than CNN and MSNBC
which you then repeat again for your illogical conclusion at 6:55
So, again, nowhere in this video do you show that I
"distorted" any fact, never mind that I "deliberately
distorted" anything and, again, your video is factually and logically
flawed.
I hope that helps clear up you misunderstanding and
thanks for the video :-)