I interpret it as pointing out some absurdities that will cause anger without offering legitimate solutions. Something like, "Surgery to help those with debilitating conditions is more valuable to society than surgery for vanity, but in our society it's flipped. That's messed up! Do you want to live in a society messed up like that? We shouldn't do that!"
Yeah he's right, but I think he intentionally omits his proposed solution because he first wants everyone to acknowledge the problem--whereas if he presented a solution of socialized medicine at the same time, many who would agree with the earlier statement would then totally miss the earlier point. It's kind of an interesting strategy but largely unnecessary because I bet essentially every citizen thinks education, healthcare, and corporate lobbying are areas that need reform--people just massively disagree about what the reform should be.
I get some the points this guy is trying to make, but some of them are just not good arguments. Two points in particular:
No shit, a doctor doing charity work makes less than a doctor working in an industry with elective surgeries for wealthy people. What is he arguing for? All doctors should be paid the same irregardless of what speciality or customer they approach? Many doctors actually do a mix of both charity and profit work, often these good doctors that do work at discounted rates or allow patients to trade other services for medical work do make significantly less than their counterparts. No surprise here.
Same argument as above. A public defender paid by the tax payers doesn't make as much as a lawyer for a multi-billion dollar corporation that relies on lawyers to help them save literally billions of dollars in both defensive and offensive lawsuits. SUCH INJUSTICE BOTH TYPES OF LAWYERS DON'T MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT? No.