Give'em hell, Al!

I'm struck by the look of amused dismissal she gives throughout this, as if she finds it funny that Franken thinks medical bankruptcies are an issue worth talking about.

This guy, reminds me of Lewis Black.

Lets get Lewis into Congress, and put him Next to Franken.

The whole thing would crumble down with rational righteousness!

I think he looks like Lewis Black but sounds like The Joker. Sans murder sprees (I think).

Because he's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him!

>> ^manfromx:
I think he looks like Lewis Black but sounds like The Joker. Sans murder sprees (I think).


Well, he's certainly murdering some people in there now..

Wow, epic scorn look on that lady. That's enough to melt the genitals off anyone.

The guy laughing in the background on the Germany question = priceless.

*promote this RIGHT UP.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 6:39pm PDT - promote requested by Krupo.

A word on the cancer survival rate: they're probably talking about "Coleman MP, et al.: Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study" published in '08.

That study compared data from national cancer registries from '90 to '99. As far as I know, the high score of the US is attributed to earlier detection based on better screenings. Naturally, this leads to a higher survival rate, if you only take into account the five years after the diagnosis, because the cancer will be at an earlier stage. It says very little about the actual treatment efficiency. For instance, the high score of the Scandinavian countries is partially based on the earlier introduction of nationwide mammogram screenings which by now have been introduced in just about every other country on the list.

That said, there's a noteworthy difference between black and white patients in the US: the five year survival rate of blacks is 7-14% lower. And in the UK, it drops significantly from north to south, with a difference of 5-11% on different forms of cancer. Not to mention that their data base from Germany was taken from the Saarland, which is the smallest state (population just over 1 million).

My point? That study is an interesting read, but it's rather pointless.

I'm impressed by how quickly he derailed her attempted straw man fallacy.

*money

Adding video to channels (Money) - requested by MrFisk.

The way he delivers the information is just devastatingly simple. There's just no way it could be any more simple than that. That is how you win the argument about health care.

The woman he's lecturing looks like Dustin Hoffman in drag.

Do they intentionally place a hottie behind him every single time? And no, I don't mean the gentleman on the right.

I just love a democrat finally being in a position to say "Thank you" and the other party just has to shut the fuck up...

After years of listening to O'Reilly and co., it's refreshing...

I am certain I would take Franken more seriously if every time he talked I wasn't distracted by the background.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Wow, the tension in the pauses was very high. Great stuff.

Al Franken in 2012!!

I'd say I'm upvoting for the audio content, but the woman behind Franken...

That woman lost her smugness pretty quickly when the truth train slapped her silly!!!

THE BEAR FROM MINNESOTA!!! RAWR!

When the hell did Minnesota become the bastion of bullshit-detecting, no-nonsense free thinkers? (Not knocking Minnesota mind you...)

If I ever hear of a Ventura/Franken ticket, I think I would nut right then and there.

Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.

Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?

>> ^Quboid:
Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?


I can assure you, that your disclaimer was correct, and the last sentence was also correct.. I think part of the problem in this American healthcare debate, is that politicians are talking about other countries like they know what's going on there, but they actually don't.. They are just pulling numbers, and missing the essence. Which is: people in western Europe have to be medically insured, if you are unable to pay for it, it will be paid by tax payers' money, because (wether you like it or not) some people can't really help being broke and some people actually need support and are not left on their own.. That's a not socialism, that's just social.

>> ^Payback:
I am certain I would take Franken more seriously if every time he talked I wasn't distracted by the background.


It is a requirement to have a hot woman sit behind Al Franken. If a hot lady is not available to sit behind Al Franken, Al Franken will NOT show up to senate meetings.

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^Payback:
I am certain I would take Franken more seriously if every time he talked I wasn't distracted by the background.

It is a requirement to have a hot woman sit behind Al Franken. If a hot lady is not available to sit behind Al Franken, Al Franken will NOT show up to senate meetings.


Dear GOD we found his Weakness!

>> ^Quboid:
Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?


i don't think they are referring to patient's bankruptcies.

The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.

For example, Mr. Franken is probably not including Canada in his list of 'zero bankruptcies'...

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf

He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".

If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?

I'm fairly sure they're talking about people going bankrupt because they had to pay an arm and a leg to get medical treatment.

>> ^Quboid:
Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?

It's so simple. Why bother nit picking? Insurance company profits are inversely proportional the the quality of the coverage they provide. It's not like there's any competition. They have a captive market, and they exploit it...wouldn't you?

I want to know what anyone has to gain by siding with corporations, unless you are a shareholder or congressperson...

>> ^Payback:
I am certain I would take Franken more seriously if every time he talked I wasn't distracted by the background.

dude, I'd like to invite her to my caucus

Insurance company profits are inversely proportional the the quality of the coverage they provide. It's not like there's any competition.

This is somewhat correct. Keep in mind that the insurance industry as we know it only exists because of government. They are an artificial industry. We'd all be better off if 'full medical' insurance was abolished and people just purchased their own catastrophic insurance. All other medical needs can be handled by private free market transactions between the patient and the provider, or by state/city programs.

Insurance is a nasty, unnecessary middle-man that the government forced the public to start dealing with. Thanks so bloody much Mr. Ted Kennedy. Way to screw up the market. And thanks so bloody much Mr. Obama for wanting to quadruple down on a methodology that has been nothing but a failure from its inception.

I want to know what anyone has to gain by siding with corporations, unless you are a shareholder or congressperson...

Every person who uses a good or service provided by a company has a vested interest in that company's success. To assume that "only" shareholders or special interest groups benefit from corporate successes is a rather inaccurate perspective. Employees benefit by having jobs. Customers benefit by obtaining better service & output. Communities benefit by investments and increased revenue. States benefit by taxes.

A more proper question is, "What I want to know is what anyone has to gain by siding with massive government programs unless you are a politician."

>> ^ShakeyMcBones:
The woman he's lecturing looks like Dustin Hoffman in drag.


You mean this?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.

All untrue, except possibly for the last sentence. Note that the Fraser Institute's study (and BTW, Fraser is a Canadian version of CATO), doesn't look at medical bankruptcy at all. It basically just looks at the per capita bankruptcy rate of Canada and the US, finds them similar, and declares Canada's program as being no help in general bankruptcy.

It doesn't define "medical bankruptcy" at all, nor does it attempt to breakdown the causes of bankruptcy in any way.

The latest study from the American Journal of Medicine on this topic, at least attempts to do all of those things.

He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".

Liar liar, pants on fire. That's not what was said, dingus.

If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?

Ahh, I see. So you make up your own standard of "medical bankruptcy" that doesn't match that of any reasonable person, and declare Franken a moron or liar.

"Medical bankruptcy" is shorthand for "bankruptcy caused by medical costs." There's a huge amount of wiggle room about how much medical cost means that it "caused" the bankruptcy, but it's pretty straightforward to say that if no one pays out of pocket for medical treatment, it won't make them go bankrupt.

If someone is sick, gets free care, and then goes bankrupt, they didn't go bankrupt from medical costs.

Unfortunately, we're not even talking about setting up some sort of universal, no out of pocket system for the US. What we're talking about mostly is mandated insurance, which should make it easier for families to budget their health care costs. Most of why they cause bankruptcy here is that no one plans to have major medical problems, nor do they plan on having their coverage rescinded by their insurance company, nor do they plan on getting laid off and losing their benefits.

The whole point of the health care reform is to attempt to address those issues.

"Yeeaaahh, well the answer is zero."

Upvote.

at 2:07 =

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
When the hell did Minnesota become the bastion of bullshit-detecting, no-nonsense free thinkers? (Not knocking Minnesota mind you...)
If I ever hear of a Ventura/Franken ticket, I think I would nut right then and there.


The movie Fargo was simply a decoy film; we WANTED you to think we were all idiots. The best part? Fargo is in North Dakota. Ha! Eh

After reading yet, ANOTHER, bias reply from Winston, I was about to start creating my own reply. But, Netrunner beat me to it. Which is fine. I do get alittle amused, that Winston does try to shift, turn, and yes, even spin events that looks horrible and distastous, in to republican/conservative win.

But to do this on the concept of Health Care, given the sorry state of bankruptcies within the US, is not just political manuveuring; Its just immoral, unethical, and unwise. Winston, does not understand pain and suffering. Nor does he understand sacrifice. But, given my knowledge of life, I KNOW, he will have to face up to reality sooner or later in his life time. And then, he'll just be a hypocrit.

...Doesn't look at medical bankruptcy at all. It basically just looks at the per capita bankruptcy rate of Canada and the US, finds them similar, and declares Canada's program as being no help in general bankruptcy.

In every country on Earth there are thousands of bankruptcies. Other nations do not offically list 'medical expenses' in a legal docment as the cause of their bankruptcy because of nationalization. However, those charges (which still exist) are in the taxes that went to supporting aforementioned medical systems and contributed to the person's bankruptcy. Person "X" still had medical expenses and had to pay all his life. What Franken does is confine his definition to ONLY include persons who filed for chapter 7 or chapter 13 (a specific legal action) with medical expenses as a factor. Well, that 'factor' contributed to the bankruptcies of persons in Germany too - but didn't get listed in an official legal document. It's nothing but semantic humbuggery.

Fewer U.S. citizens are going bankrupt than Canada (proven). That probably extends to Germay, France & Switzerland as well, but maybe not. Regardless, it is sophistry to claim make propogandistic emotional pleas for 'no one should go medically bankrupt' and claim it doesn't happen in other countries. Bull. It happens all the time. It just isn't listed in the documents because it got smooshed into the tax code.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

It's exactly what Democrats said. You just don't like it. Cowboy up, pardner, and stop running away from what your guys are saying. Democrats have openly stated they are going to have no choice but to ration health care based solely on economic motivations. Their legislation is being crafted to relect that. By design, their plan will treat old people as nothing but expenses to be written off the books ASAP, and young people as cash-cows who get no treatment but have to pay taxes to support the program. Those are their words. This is medical care as envisioned by liberal democrats...

But that means you--particularly you young healthy people--you're going to have to pay more. "If you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and drugs for the last couple of years of your life. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market.

If someone is sick, gets free care, and then goes bankrupt, they didn't go bankrupt from medical costs.

There is no such thing as 'free' care'. This is a neolib myth that only exists in the realm of pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. Socialized medicine is - in fact - very very expensive for all citizens. As I stated above, just because their bankruptcy costs were hidden away as 'taxes' instead of defined as 'medical costs' going to a medical provider doesn't mean they didn't go medically bankrupt. It is legalese. It is buearucratic legerdemain.

The whole point of the health care reform is to attempt to address those issues.

No - the whole point of the Democrat vision of health care is so they can go to dinner parties and not have to get crap from other liberals about America not having a 'European' medical system. There are tons of better solutions than the specific policies of liberal democrats. They just don't want to try them. They don't even want to study them.

Its just immoral, unethical, and unwise. Winston, does not understand pain and suffering. Nor does he understand sacrifice. But, given my knowledge of life, I KNOW, he will have to face up to reality sooner or later in his life time. And then, he'll just be a hypocrit.

Standard neolib ad hominem bilge. I served as a volunteer unpaid missionary. I donate a large percentage of my personal income to charities. I volunteer in the community to help people get jobs, find work, and train. I visit the sick & widows in my community frequently. And just because I disagree with a top-down socialist so-called 'solution' to a problem I therefore don't understand sacrifice? All your words prove is that you don't know jack about me, and that you are a very small-minded, simplistic, judgemental buffoon.

^ Vapid, empty rhetoric.

>> ^KnivesOut:
^ Vapid, empty rhetoric.


I know. I couldn't get past his second paragraph. He gets his facts straight out of his ass.

I'm very glad he was voted into office. Because he's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, I like him.

Well, I'm from Denmark, and we do actually have socialized healthcare. We pay though our noses in taxes, and in return we get free healthcare and free education which in turn gives the state healthy, productive taxpayers, making our businesses able to compete with other countries', despite having generally very high wages, making the high taxes bearable. Of course, it's hard to get VERY rich in Denmark, where you actually pay a larger percentile in taxes if your incomes exceeds a certain amount, but still, our middle class has a higher standard of living than most of the world. We have comparatively fewer billionaires and fewer people living in cardboard boxes than the US.

My point is, that Winstonfield is right, there's no such thing as free healthcare, but concerning medical treatment, whom would you rather trust your money: the state, who has a interest in keeping you healthy and paying your taxes to keep your country's economy afloat, or corporations who have an interest in your money and will just move elsewhere if everybody's bankrupt?

>> ^radx:
Do they intentionally place a hottie behind him every single time? And no, I don't mean the gentleman on the right.


If you go to the Congressional office buildings, you'll see these girls are a dime a dozen. Watch "Charlie Wilson's War" for elaboration - not exaggeration.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Standard neolib ad hominem bilge.

No, it's not. You really don't know what you're talking about.

There is no such thing as 'free' care'. This is a neolib myth that only exists in the realm of pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. Socialized medicine is - in fact - very very expensive for all citizens.

No, THIS is a myth in the land of pink unicorns, the US government TODAY spends MORE on healthcare then countries that have free healthcare google+ government spending on healthcare per capita by country<--pick any result you want, in every case, the US comes out on top of the spending on healthcare issue. How the fuck does this mean " Socialized medicine is - in fact - very very expensive for all citizens." Clearly, its not expensive AT ALL, In actual fact, it is, by all accounts cheaper than YOUR OWN FUCKING SYSTEM, and how the fuck does that contribute to bankruptcies?
The 40% of American bankruptcies that WASNT caused by medical bills also presumably paid taxes of which MORE money was spent on healthcare than in ALL socialized medicine countries. So in other words, by your logic then, 100% of all bankruptcies in America are atleast partially because of medical costs.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.
For example, Mr. Franken is probably not including Canada in his list of 'zero bankruptcies'...
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/pro
duct_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf
He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".
If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?


[Krupo shakes head]

This is pretty dismal.

It's not cherry-picking to pick a well-defined topic and discuss it.

It's an absolute disgrace to take a topic of discussion and turn it into something completely different. Redefining the scope without informing others of your intent is akin to bringin a laser gatling gun to a fencing match.

Have you even for a moment considered that perhaps Canada has bankruptcy laws which may be easier for people to gain access to than the US, making it easier for them to wipe their slate clean after misfortune?

The topic at hand is regarding people who have to pay their hospital and doctor for treatment, can't, and go bankrupt.

If you go bankrupt in your personal life that is not a medical bankruptcy, that's just an ordinary bankruptcy.

So please stop twisting terms around, and encouraging other people's "junk science" - go Wiki "Fraser Institute" to note how it is, if anything, a clearinghouse for "junk science."

They're deliberately working on misleading people with your so-called study, and your twisting of the facts.

I stand corrected. I have previously included in bankruptcy stats those people who file for bankruptcy solely because a health issue has caused a loss of income. To do so muddies the waters. A bankruptcy is medically related or caused (regardless of what filing documents say) if in a reasonable period prior to the bankruptcy (say 5 years) the bankrupt person's expenditures consist of normal living costs and catastrophic medical expenses totalling a significant percentage of the bankruptcy debts. In other words if you take medical expenses out of the mix and the result is no need for bankruptcy then its medically related. On this basis the medically related bankruptcy rate in countries with socialized medicine is effectively zero.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by blankfist.

Awarding geo321 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*length=02:26

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:26 - length declared by Norsuelefantti.