The Case For National Healthcare

Richard Spencer
the authorRichard Spencer
Richard Spencer is American Editor of; he's President of The National Policy Institute and founder of


  • Lord, I can’t believe I watched a half an hour of this! It’s easy to see why I did, though. Spencer’s drops in the racism and classism, little by little. And he also does a decent job of explaining the ACA’s origins, the ways in which it’s different other forms of insurance, and the erosion of its greatest obstacle to open and widespread acceptance – namely the wipe-out of vulture capitalism. This video would probably have gained a mainstream audience, were it not for its 5 minutes of useless and offensive bigotry.

    Unfortunately, Spencer’s prejudices weren’t withheld from this vlog. It’s not hard to wreck a vlog, and his 5 minutes of “alt-facts” were enough to keep it out of the *real* news. Folks are no longer warming up to that kind of hypocrisy. They wouldn’t hesitate to mention that many of Spencer’s supporters can’t build their own IOS apps. Or that Spencer himself is using “immigrant labor” on this crappy little website. A mainstream audience would wonder if *he’s* building his own IOS apps. Also, all of those immigrants aren’t “obese”. In fact, many of those “illegals” are breaking their backs on America’s farms, growing the food that is “bigly” consumed by Spencer and his super-sized minions. Spencer’s “case” for national health care was an ice cream sundae with sh*t sprinkles!

  • we could boost supply of healthcare by funding medical school in the third world and importing a lot of their grads….combine that with forced computerization of records and government dissemination of price data on the internet…that would go a long way…

    best thing about national healthcare is that it would simplify our lives greatly

  • I’m sympathetic to the idea that since the middle and lower classes want this anyway, the Right might find it strategically wise to align with that drive and promote universal healthcare​. But I think we all know that just like every single other bloated program in this mess of a country, universal healthcare will be an absolute disaster.

  • After pro-whites are in power and we’ve put a stop to white genocide we can worry about trivialities like national health care.

  • Looks like President Trump is ready to pull the plug on O’RyanCare, if Paul Ryan doesn’t have the votes.

  • Richard, this is just absurd. We haven’t gone past the laws of supply and demand; scarcity is and always will be a feature of reality.

    Socialized medicine leads to artificial shortages of medical services because the supply of medical services is controlled by state budget committees. If the budget keeps climbing, the budget will be slashed.

    The people who control the budget for medical services are politicians and they want to stay in power. If they raise taxes to support budgetary increases for medical services, voters will be angry and vote them out of office.

    Compare UK NHS wards to American hospitals; there is no comparison. American hospitals have bigger staffs, more medical equipment and shorter wait times for surgeries.

    • Americans live only two years longer than Mexicans but spend over $600,000 more per lifetime on medicine and health care. The reality of medicine/healthcare is that it’s fabulously expensive and basically doesn’t work, at least in terms of extending life.

      The starting point for this discussion is how to drive down costs. We need to stop wasting over half a million dollars per citizen. Where I think Richard is wrong is the idea that a public system in America would help drive down costs. It would just be a similar set of rackets as we have now.

      • Most of the health care costs come from prescription drugs and end of life care. The ACA’s model of putatively improving health, even if it works lights-out, does not reduce the cost of end-of-life care. People still die, only with better health they die when they are older. So in fact, the ACA’s healthier lifestyle model, to the extent it works to extend life, increases the cost of care because when people live longer they need more care while living, and then they still incur the high cost of end-of-life care. Also, the extended life expectancy does not result in more years of productivity, at least not yet and probably not materially for at least the next 100 years. If we have a single-payer system or a public option, it should not cover end-of-life care (and maybe not all prescription drugs — a different topic) I know that sounds cold, but the red pill tells us everyone dies. The hard part is figuring out the difference between end-of-life care and life-saving care near the end of
        one’s life.

  • The Satsuma Rebellion didn’t work out so well for the Satsuma, but your point is well-taken. Let Trump be himself and let’s join the rest of the West in single payer healthcare. That should help Whites focus more on their own issues and stop with this “We are the world, we are the children” crap.
    Richard, your writings are so unifying within the Alt Right when you write on government policy and so divisive when you write on social issues, I wish you would dedicate yourself more to the former.

Leave a Reply