Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio interviews Dr Brett Skinner about his new book on the failures of Canadian health policy.
To download a free PDF of the book, or order it, please visit http://www.fdrurl.com/skinner
Dr Skinner is the Director of Bio-Pharma, Health and Insurance policy at the Fraser Institute. He has a Ph.D. from the University of Western Ontario (London) where he has taught courses in both the Faculty of Health Sciences and the Department of Political Science. He earned a BA (Hon.) from the University of Windsor (Ontario) and an MA through joint studies at the University of Windsor and Wayne State University (Michigan).
Duration : 0:32:58
[youtube kXOAK-eVnjU]
2 – 6 weeks to see …
2 – 6 weeks to see a specialist unless it’s urgent. ER wait times are out of hand, in some rare cases people dying while in the waiting room. The wait times are mostly due to people using the ER as a primary care physician. That’s one of the many reasons why we need reform in the US.
It’s a trap!
But … 
But really, no, I don’t have any advertisers, don’t take any funding, the show relies entirely on voluntary donations from anonymous people…
It’s a trap!
I am a Canadian – …
I am a Canadian – the wait times are horrible, but you will get treated (eventually). People do waste the hospitals time by going for nonsense things – broken toe, sore neck – you name it.
do Americans not have to wait for the ER? for specialists?
I feel like maybe Americans who have insurance don’t ever have to wait in line – at least that how it sounds
One, that period of …
One, that period of time did not have the technology that we have right now. The New Deal didn’t change much of our health care system, WW2 did.
“Regulation” is …
“Regulation” is your religion and no “regulation” isn’t an issue of more or less. It’s what it’s about. We need more market regulatory agencies like the UL. The other ones are run by rent seekers; they also have bad regulations that harm the economy and waste resources. Btw, you “progressives” should talk about what kind of regulation you want and if you don’t, I would suggest you guys shut up.
Stef,do you ever …
Stef,do you ever give misinformation? I bet you say no.
I wonder how you …
I wonder how you could have a “3rd” party in a question with only two answers…
Great video, you …
Great video, you need to do more of these.
so, essentially
…
so, essentially
most people dont need health care, so theyre happy with it and get teh “omg canada health care is so awesome we love u heres my money”
and people who need it get over, but since its a minority no one listens to them
so the government wins, by preying on minorities.
right?
lol at stef wearing …
lol at stef wearing a suit.
National Health …
National Health Care–So much more than just a finger in the ass.
If you’re talking …
If you’re talking about pre-New Deal America I can list of tons of health statistics to refute that claim that more people were cover and got better quality health care but I’d rather you look them up for yourself.
“government as a …
“government as a coercive monopoly lacks the incentives to provide affordable and quality service” That isn’t necessary true but is to a degree. That’s why special interest groups/money and the lobby needs to be taken out of government. This way government can’t be bought and then the incentive becomes the vote to keep their jobs although that might be drunken wishful thinking. By the way Medicare has 2% over head private insurance has 20-25% so your thinking isn’t all that accurate.
hole 5 continued: …
hole 5 continued: to find an example of free market health care, you need only research the past before the government stepped in. When quality health care was affordable and people didn’t need insurance to cover routine check ups, before endless regulations, before government mandated HMOs, before restrictive licensing, the distortions medicare and medicaid, etc. And private charity covered emergency situations for the poor rather sufficiently as well.
Practically always. …
Practically always. Sorry I haven’t the room and time to speak clearly enough to avoid the nitpicking of a dumb drunkard. But government as a coercive monopoly lacks the incentives to provide affordable and quality service. I speak of the merits of the free market because I’ve done the extensive research. Youtube isn’t posting half my comments and its me off, so I’m bailing.
“Governments ALWAYS …
“Governments ALWAYS act irrationally?” People who speak in absolute truths about things they don’t agree with or like are steeped in ideology and no matter what the facts are they’ll never divert from that ideology. What I stated there if there isn’t any valid data on it you can’t speak to the free market as absolute truth. I’m also stating that if it’s such a great idea at least 1 of the 195 countries on this planet would have implemented the idea somewhere in their history but they haven’t.
@ hole 5: Yes most …
@ hole 5: Yes most governments and the special interests they represent have put their stupid hands in to the health and insurance markets extensively. This does not mean their interference was warranted. Governments always act irrationally and respond to bogus rhetoric and special interest forces. To imply the opposite and use that claim as proof is laughable. Power corrupts, and politicians are too dumb to see through the inaccurate rhetoric they are fed supporting such policies.
I never stated that …
I never stated that economic laws can’t provide a solid guise as to what the market can and will do, I simply stated that when you compare them to a physics models isn’t even effin’ close. Also government interference doesn’t always disrupt the market but again the economic debate is beyond the scope of the healthcare debate even tough to a degree they’re intertwined.
who stated anything …
who stated anything about a socialist government? By the way regulations are great for keeping all systems in check, thus the need for more economic regulations even though this topic is beyond the scope of the health care debate.
continued: that …
continued: that does not disrupt the fact that we can identify general and inescapable economic laws such as scarcity, supply/demand, subjective valuation of goods, and various economic forces such as the role of time preference in spending/investing. All of which when explored give us a great view of what makes an economy tick, to where we can predict when government interferences will screw things up. In that statement you exposed your complete ignorance on the subject.
@ “hole 1″: the …
@ “hole 1″: the market cannot be predicted because the market is just an abstract word that represents millions of people acting in their own interests through exchange. Your right we can’t predict what millions of consumers and producers will do every second simply because it is impossible to collect that much information. This is the same calculation problem that pesters and dooms every socialist government to failure or mediocrity.
Hole 4: General …
Hole 4: General fear for the economy with government run insurance.
I have a list of 27 countries many of them having better fundamentals within their economies than we have.
Hole 5: Free market cures all.
I asked you to show me a case with any country with “true” free market principles in their health care system or any other part of their system and you failed to do so simple because they don’t exist and they don’t exist for a reason, they don’t work.
Hole 1 : You stated …
Hole 1 : You stated that the laws of the economy are like laws in physics and that they didn’t change. I debunked that by showing that laws of physics can make accurate predictions when obviously the market can’t be predicted to the degree physics can.
Hole 2: market equilibrium. You can’t have it due to dynamism , it’s a free market utopia, just isn’t possible and there is no data to support that it is.
Hole 3: fire, flood, car ins don’t deny.
Katrina, State Farm & FL, Punta Gorda, etc.
Sticks and stones, …
Sticks and stones, bud. You’ve already revealed to have “holes” in your speech considering you haven’t said what holes are in my logic, yet you have repeated that comment multiple times now. Not once have you actually given any real evidence to back up your position nor dismantle mine, and I don’t deem it necessary for me to continue this discussion.
Have a fun hangover in the morning, bud.
no market can have …
no market can have equilibrium because of dynamism this includes “free markets”. I’m drunk and yet you’ve not said one thing that has yet had a valid point that didn’t have holes in it’s logic large enough to drive trucks through. That’s sad because I’ve been talked into some pretty dumb situations when I’m drunk… this is not looking for you.