What a dip shit. America and Israel are the top two countries in terms of medical patents and the US has number one for years. Never let FACTS get in the way of your DOGMA!
Haha we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba, somewhere around Hungary and Slovakia. Medical research comes from government funding then is handed to private corporate oligopolies, The USA has the highest medical costs of the OECD and a huge burden on the budget because it is a private market system. The intense divide between rich and poor regarding results in health care is the shame of a people. Thanks Freidman, you sick man.
@LibertyDownUnder It's the main problem with alot of people especially my generation (i was born in 1991). when you where born into all of the things you did not have to earn. My family taught me work ethic, How to be responsible how to take care of yourself .etc
Many of the people my age however know no such of a thing and expect wealth redistribution to reward them for the fish they already ate.
@LibertyDownUnder And it's funny to because you never hear the modern day liberals say the word liberty or talk about the constitution and history, Since they do not know history they do not know that their ideals where practiced and preached in the past but miserably failed. They only want something for themselves at someone elses expense.
@tehatemachine, Liberals do occasionaly find the constitution. Like when it's about the right of Muslims to build a mosque in NY, or the protestors in OWS.
@tehatemachine pretty sure liberal values in canada and western europe have created a higher standard of living, higher literacy and higher health rates than the united states. Fact is privatization simply helps class distinction and create a 2 if not 3 tier system in education and healthcare.
@DWhiteEspana If you look at the definition of what liberal means. It's not a bad word at all. However modern day liberals Do not follow what that word means, They want to give as long as they take away from someone else by force. California is a highly liberal state and it is one of the least free states to conduct business in the U.S. That's why we are in a load of debt. Because liberals vote for ridiculous policies while not looking at the full cost.
@DWhiteEspana Wherever you have more government controlling certain areas, You definatly have more racism. There must be certain roles within society and you cannot get rid of poverty (especially with government). But competitive privatization reduces that gap and sustains the middle class.
Wonderful videos....one critique: please shorten the intro and lower the volume on the intro music. It is incongruous with the content video and disconcerting. Thanks.
@oihhow Yes, but the point is...give people a minimum level of currency when in need and allow them (basically force them) to choose where to spend it, instead of, say, subsidizing every avenue of their life, such as food, clothes, cell phone bills, etc, etc, etc.
@BARCACROSSESTHEALPS there is no forcing here. You are given a sum of money to reach minimum income so you can have the free choice to choose how to spend it, such as for food, clothes, insurance etc... Versus the government telling you, in this case forcing you, to use healthcare they provide. Its the concept of free choice
I love this guy-- always that big friendly smile, as he talks perfect sense.
I don't agree with all of his points since he sides too often with the state to make complete sense, but for the time he was definitely the champion of free-markets against the demon of statism.
He's so right. There's a synthetic cholesterol (Apolipoprotein A1 Milano) that was developed based on DNA from a town in Italy, who's residents have no history of heart disease, though they smoke and drink. In five weekly iv treatments, it clears plaque from coronary arteries. It's like Drain-o for the arteries though it's a simple cholesterol, so there's no side effects. The company who was developing it, was bought out by Pfizer, who's flagship drug was Lipitor. They shelved APO Milano.
The real problem is that the Constitution delegates NO federal AUTHORITY to regulate drugs... but it doesn't delegate the power to regulate any state's entire PEOPLE either, so that's a wash.
Shit-heads just say "oh, the civil war settled that."
Yeah then the Third Reich "settled" Hitler's claim to Poland.
@SovereignStatesman - Well, I get the FDA preventing bad drugs from entering the market. That's fine. The problem, in my opinion, is they're allowing bad drugs but preventing good ones.
One way of knowing you'll get good healthcare is through private certification. In the field of computer Power Supplies you see "80 Plus" certification labels on many PSUs. Any consumer who purchases these products most likely check for this certification as they don't want to take the risk of having their PC parts being ruined.
@DoctorCapitalist To help with private certification, we can rely on what is the proper role of government to enforce weights and measures. 80 Plus must equal 80 Plus, or it is fraud and a crime.
@stevemcgee99 I agree, although I consider myself a more extreme libertarian and call for an end on a monopoly on justice and defence. An invasive defender is a bit of an oxymoron lol
@DoctorCapitalist The only difference is, the quality of health services are not based just upon the quality of a product, in the same regard as a burger at McDonald's. If the burger quality is below your expectations you can go somewhere else. However, you are dealing with human lives here, so the stakes are higher. If you don't do a good job, people die, and if you do a good job, the profits are lower because you use more of medical products to do a god job. It's asinine.
@Faerlon123 That's why there needs to be less barriers to entry to allow competition.
Socialized health care in the UK is terrible. Since there are no price/profit signals, this inevitably leads to shortages since allocating resources becomes extremely troublesome due to the lack of these vital signals which change the structure of production to generally what society desires most.
@Faerlon123 Socialized healthcare is a lot better than the US's current health care system (which is the American Medical Association being a coercive monopoly which artificially increases prices.
Interesting article on it: mises(dot)org/daily/5066
@DoctorCapitalist The only reason I don't like the idea of privatized medicine is that, I , like most people, know that capitalism as a socio-economy, is not interested in what's good for people. The only real positivity in capitalism is what Marx called surplus value, or profit if you will. People play the game for the SAKE of profit, and not for the sake of helping others. It's a scary detachment from morality in my opinion. Healthcare in my country(Norway) works fine.
@DoctorCapitalist That depends on how you would WANT to deal with it. Most people in my country have no problem paying slightly higher taxes and whatnot, to have this system, but most Americans see that as an encroachment on their economic freedom. My personal opinion is that, when we live in a society with millions of people, we should at least want our neighbour's best interest in mind. Capitalism is about profit, not solidarity. Which is why I object. Just my opinion tho.
@DoctorCapitalist On a sidenote tho, you said : "Since there are no price/profit signals, this inevitably leads to shortages since allocating resources becomes extremely troublesome due to the lack of these vital signals which change the structure of production to generally what society desires most."
If I understand you correct, this means that, if you don't have a capital competition, people won't care. That is the problem I'm talking about, without profit, nothing matters.
@Faerlon123 Also if society generally wants to provide healthcare to the poor, then why don't they just do it voluntarily?
If the majority are willing to vote in a government which sticks a gun in their neck forcing them to pay for healthcare for everyone, surely they would provide healthcare to the poor voluntarily?
By saying "Without being forced, the poor wouldn't be helped" you are saying that the majority are against helping the poor but are for someone forcing them to help the poor.
@DoctorCapitalist Well, I can mirror the same thing to you. I don't think the government,as it were, is forcing me at gunpoint. Yes, taxes are obligatory, but contrary to America, our government actually fear the people. So if we actually want to change things we could, and they know this perfectly well. You have to understand that, it's not about being forced, it's about not having to RELY upon charities and religious people to care for the poor. Even if people want to do it.
@DoctorCapitalist But I do know that the US, has a really corrupt form of crony capitalism. A purely laissez-faire system probably works much better than what you have now. But I still don't think free market is the solution to social issues. Some people are worse off in this world, and at least in my country we are taught at a very young age that solidarity and to take care of those least fortunate is an obligation. Being "forced" to care for others isn't wrong in my opinion.
@Faerlon123 So basically you're an authoritarian who likes using violence to achieve his values instead of letting people reach their own values with their labour.
@DoctorCapitalist No, I'm not. I'm not a violent person at all. The government is supposed to be a reflection of the people, and I daresay it does more in my country than in the US.
@DoctorCapitalist I don't understand why the competition part is nessescary. And yes I understand how monopoly on certain goods and services can lead to bad things, I know that. But the topic here isn't just "certain goods and services", the topic here is life and death of the individual who you so proudly represent. I agree that most things should be privatized, but like I said,letting rich people corporate board members control it is beyond what I can agree with.
@Faerlon123 The government is not representative of "the people" (in a singular platonic sense). The government is a monopoly on the initiation of violence and theft over a geographical area.
@DoctorCapitalist In a democracy, in the true meaning of the word, the appointed government should act as a representative for the people. I don't want to live in anarchy. True Ayn Rand objectivists seem to think that capitalism is the solution to all problems, which it is not. Just like communists thought communism was the solution to all problems. Laissez-faire capitalism, is as big as a pipe-dream as communism was. That is the blunt truth.
@Faerlon123 Since state services are paid for through taxation (that is, money extracted from people with the violent threat of being thrown in a cage with Bubba, who is awfully muscular and horny) this makes it difficult for competition to open up since state services are "free", which is why it can be hard to imagine certain services being funded without the state.
If you're goal is to have a system which represents "the people" then why have individual will respected?
@Faerlon123 By having everyone respect individual will, you get the most equal fair representation of the population. This is agorism. There is nothing stopping people from joining certain societies (they could enter a contract with others if they wished to enter a socialist society, but they could not force others into it and take over factories against the factory provider's will).
The government is not society. Society (not just majority) evolves horizontally, not from top down.
@DoctorCapitalist There is seriously something detached about the mind-set, when you consider taxation a sin equivalent with paying Hitler money for killing people. In my country, we know perfectly well where the money goes, and if you ever come and visit our country, you'll notice it's nothing like what your right-wing lunatic propagandist politicians have told you since the 60s. There are major problems in my country, but there is a reason my country always tops HDI.
@Faerlon123 Libertarianism is not so much about promoting free markets (although free markets are usually supported for consequential reasons) but rather to promote freedom of individuals to decide what they can do with their own body and the products produced by their bodies.
This means that there is nothing preventing people from entering friendly societies where people agree to do the socialist way of things, or anything like that.
@Faerlon123 Basically, libertarianism is opposed to democracy because democracy is mob rule. It is the majority imposing their will, their interests and value systems onto the minority, often using violence to force those to submit the product of their own labour to them. Democracy is not so much to do with representing "the people", but rather the majority. It is the idea that a majority can consent on behalf of any given individual.
@Faerlon123 Sorry for being preachy, but I'm just trying to show you the libertarian perspective (or rather, the voluntaryist perspective which is more extreme libertarianism).
@DoctorCapitalist It's not a problem, I love debating people on different subjects. But overall, I agree that individualism and free markets should be sought after to a degree. My country ranks among the highest in the world for economic freedom and individual freedom, even if we have *gasp* high taxes and socialized healthcare. If America wants it, sure they should have it, I'm just giving my perspective. It's not always that black and white as it's depicted.
@Faerlon123 To be clear, I support free markets and I support socialist type communes as a kind of social security. In fact, I support anything as long as it is voluntary,
My problem is with democracy and the catchphrase "the people" when it should be called for what it is: Mob rule. The word Democracy has this kind of emotional feel which hinders people from calling it for what it is even though it's blindly obvious.
@DoctorCapitalist Well, there might be a time when democracy will be substituted by something better, and that might be what you are seeking for. But democracy as a system has worked in favor for most nations in the developed world for at least 200 years. I understand what you mean by mobrule, but consider what we had before(a feudal aristocracy)so it has been the best option so far. But I agree, things should be voluntary. As a whole.
@98wongjf: Yes, you are right. But Milton Freedman has read Hayek's works and he admires Hayek, although not for his economic theory, but for his ideals. Chicago school and Austrian school are, in principal and ideals, similar if not the same. Their methodology is vastly different, though.
@dmg46664 The problem is how do we measure quality, and who gets to determine those measures? Payors? Providers? Patients? Another problem is data collection. Patients will likely have more than one insurance carrier in their lifetime. Aggregating encounter data from multiple sources is not very practical the way the current system is setup…and I am doubtful that EHR/EMR will be the answer (though it will help).
Not sure if i understand his position on physician licensure. Doctors who practice in large health groups and hospitals still perform massive malpractice and negligence.
@TheMedicalConsultant Sure, what Milton is arguing is that licensure does more damage than good. In it's absence more emphasis would be placed on a Doctor's credentials and track record... like an person's Ebay track-record when buying goods. Large health groups would still select members in the same way (except some biogenetic scientists would probably practise as Doctors) so it's absence wouldn't hurt any but would enable costs to come down.
@IronChef3 Yes he is. Friedman is a more pragmatic libertarian than say Rothbard. Look up his "negative income tax". He testified against it though, because his suggestion was for it to REPLACE the current welfare system, not be added on top of it. Friedman wasn't interested in advocating for the perfect system immediately, but moving in that direction. The negative income tax would abolish the welfare departments b/c it's done only by the IRS. The main benefit is that it doesnt discourage work
@IronChef3 I think you don't understand the word welfare. The end of the State IS the welfare of its citizens. And welfare is the end and goal of all societal structures. I guess you consider that welfare is government handouts; which is not. If there is no progression of social welfare; then there is no reason for state and government to exist.
Social welfare can take many forms, one of which is government handouts, whether you agree or disagree with them (personally, I agree with them and am more than willing to pay more than my fair share for those who cannot). The context in which Friedman meant "welfare" here was obviously government handouts in order "to assure a minimum level of income".
I like Friedman's idea of a Negative Income Tax but I just don't know how effectively it can be implemented. It really does make perfect sense when he describes it but I can't really find much information on it outside of wikipedia which is hardly the source I want backing up my position on it. Suggestions?
Honestly, the only people that CAN regulate IE have the knowledge in order to decide if another is doing the right thing, are people with the same experience/education. I know this in engineering. Drugs would not go straight to market, they would still be tested and their results would be published and peer reviewed before a doctor would consider starting to use it.
@axelasdf That's what the NICE and IPAB are for. You should research the Swiss and Dutch healthcare systems. They let private insurers, hospitals, and doctors, provide care and coverage, but the government controls costs, mandates universal coverage, and bans discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Now tell me it can't be done...it's already being done, and much more effectively.
Sure it can be done. You only need a worse system. Government fixing the prices? Suppose the actual value is lower-Then it makes the service/product cost more for the consumer. Suppose the actual value is higher - The company stops doing it because they can't make a profit. The product becomes unavailable. It doesn't actually work out that well. It always makes it worse.
Honestly, the only people that CAN regulate IE have the knowledge in order to decide if another is doing the right thing, are people with the same experience/education. I know this in engineering. Drugs would not go straight to market, they would still be tested and their results would be published and peer reviewed before a doctor would consider starting to use it.
@beretboy22 The market regulates the Drug industry, if VIOX is killing people then the makers would be sued and the drug taken off the shelf... oh wait a minute it was regulated and approved by the FDA and did kill people and the people sued the drug manufacturer and it is no longer being sold.Drug companies don't do well by killing their customers. I could go on and on about the regulation of the drug industry, unless of course you are talking about pot and cocaine.
@quinnrasta Saying the market regulates the Drug Industry is like saying that Methamphetamine is regulated because it kills people sometimes. You act as if there is a lot of competition among drug companies; there isn't. In a market where they're aren't many alternatives, do you really want to wait until people die? And no, the FDA is not perfect, but neither is the market.
@beretboy22 Millions of doctors and hospitals making the choice is much better than a few hundred FDA bureaucrats making a decision on their behalf. Next question.
@quinnrasta The market is a lot better than the FDA and if it were not for all the FDA regulations many more drugs come on the market and stay on the market. What happens is you get a drug company bribing a regulator to discontinue a drug to promote their drug. The free market would dictate the best drug for the best price, rather than the FDA picking which campaign donor contributed the most money. The market would create a lot more competition and bring life saving drugs to market faster.
@mikerowphone Those deaths are correlated to, not caused by lack of health insurance. Only if those people were turned away from essential care because of lack of insurance could it be considered under causation.
@mikerowphone People don't die in America because of lack of health insurance. If you go to any emergency room YOU WILL BE TREATED. ANY EMERGENCY ROOM. Do you think if the government stole less of people's money they would have the available funds to help treat each other's diseases? Just watch a few episodes of Stossel and you'll hopefully understand.
@mikerowphone No he's not trying to make a valid point nor are you. The definition of "bar exam" is not "something that ensures a lawyer is useful" it's "something you have to pass to sell certain legal services". Nothing about passing a bar exam ensures that your lawyer is competent to defend you against criminal charges, tort claims or anything else. Bar exam simplhy test for an arbitrary level of general legal knowledge not what is neccesary for any particular legal task.
@mikerowphone No, I don't care about what academic credentials a lawyer has or if he has any. What I care about is that he provides needed services. The bar exam does nothing to ensure this, as witness the massive number of low-paid or entirely unemployed lawyers that miamirider noted. The bar exam does not ensure a lawyer is fit to represent somebody in that state's jurisdiction, it ensure that the lawyer an pass a bar exam. It doesn't show he is worth hiring for any particular legal task.
@mba2ceo What about private charities? You, me and billions of others care about the poor. We do not need to force others to pay the bills of the poor. Instead, we should work together donating to private charities that help the poor. I think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would help out as well. ;)
: the maintaining and restoration of health by the treatment and prevention of disease especially by trained and licensed professionals." I don't see what you mean.
@OhmgrownCron It would make it far cheaper for the poor person, be much more profitable for the doctor and use a lot less of our tax dollars that go to medicare/medicaid fraud. When the government plays middleman its a lose,lose,lose situation, it is a loss for the consumer, doctor and tax payer
@quinnrasta sadly it is, it shouldn't be, but sadly Government are humans, and some humans get up to mischief and vested interests can reign supreme. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
@BaldwynmayhemThis is why you are seeing such a turnout against government controlled health care.The lobbyists have a stranglehold on washington.Mandates on states require all kinds of things, such as pregnancy care in NJ, this includes a 50 yr old single man.There are a total of 2133 state healthcare mandates in the country,a lot of them are ridiculous.It would be better if we could select what we want covered with out being forced to buy it by the state.Crony capitalism enforced by the state
@quinnrasta good, get Ron Paul in over there or tbh, otherwise it will be the end of the western world as we know it. The US sadly has been used because of the very economic freedoms it once had, and now is being drained of cash on numerous fronts and used as the modern day UK Redcoat army I'm afraid, the sad thing is, your conservatives have turned from Libertarians to UK Tories, sold out shills i'm afraid, who own the stocks that profit from the warmongering more than likely.
@Baldwynmayhem I like Ron Paul on may fronts, except foreign policy. I do like his restraint when it comes to military engagements, I am afraid that he might be a little to restrained. His views on Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon scare me. Should Iran develop the weapon and use it, you will see all out nuclear warfare in the middle east. From Iran to Israel, Israel back to Iran, Pakistan will get involved which brings in India etc. "Trade with many, allies with none" Thomas Jefferson
@quinnrasta Quin, I certainly can understand why you would think this way, but realize, this is how the British think my friend, this is why you fought the "war of independence", the US by and large punch drunk on their status, instead of being humble purveyor's of Liberty as you once were. I am from Australia, a Westminster system country, believe me, you wont have a leg to stand on "protest wise" if you allow the destruction of your constitution and continue to do the things Ron talks about
@BaldwynmayhemThis is why you are seeing such a turnout against government controlled health care.The lobbyists have a stranglehold on washington.Mandates on states require all kinds of things, such as pregnancy care in NJ, this includes a 50 yr old single man.There are a total of 2133 state healthcare mandates in the country,a lot of them are ridiculous.It would be better if we could select what we want covered with out being forced to buy it by the state.Crony capitalism enforced by the state
@OhmgrownCron Negative income tax is a simple tax & benefit system that combines a minimum payment with a flat tax.So if you earn (e.g.) $20k you may pay $10k in tax BUT also you receive $8k as minimum payment,so you end up with $8k + $20 - $10k = $18k.What Friedman is saying is that the minimum payment (the $8k above) should include enough money for someone with no income to be able to purchase their own healthcare insurance.No need for government to provide a program,just provide the money.
As far as licensure is concerned, Friedman is right: a licensed physician is not necessarily a competent physician, even with continuing credits to keep physicians up to date and phase out ineffective practices. Of course, American medicine is now loaded with quackery on account of industrial complexes that keep people sick and the medical industry filthy rich.
Milton Friedman would be pleased to hear what Ron Paul is saying these days about these essential topics. Licensure is ridiculous, just as college degrees are ridiculous. If you have a degree in chemistry, who knows, you could have cheated your way through school to get it. But you can still get a job based on that degree. We don't need a system to tell us who is quality and who is crap......
@tpstrat14 On the surface, they will agree with a lot of things but their core fundamental are different. Friedman is a Chicago School economists and he disagreed with Austrian economics which is what Ron Paul's advocating. They have vastly different views of why the Depression happened and Friedman have openly says that the Austrian economists' explaination on what caused the Depression is incorrect.
@roddack No sir. Milton Friedman was for abolishing the Federal Reserve too. Youtube: "Milton Friedman - Abolish the FED! " and you'll see a video where he says his first preference would be to "abolish the Federal Reserve."
@tpstrat14 did you even watch the entire video??? Milton clearly said that licensure is KEY. The issue is that licensees are becoming far too many because the policy from the 1930s to control the number of physicians changed. Now there are too many practictioners with licenses and the quality of service is decreasing. Still licensure is KEY. You abolish this and you don't have any way to guarantee who should practice and who shouldn't.
@majinbuxl If I did watch it, I don't remember it and I'm not going to watch it again. At any rate, I disagree with licensure from any government regulated program/bureaucracy . Why should the government have control over this. It is self-evident that we need a system to be able to see which doctors are good and which aren't, but why is it that the people beg the government to do it? Why can't they do it themselves? People like being slaves to each other I guess is the answer..
@tpstrat14 are you stupid? College Degrees are ridiculous? You cant show me one chemist who got their job only for their degree. It is their knowledge they gained by obtaining that degree that allows them to be qualified. Now I will agree there are better chemist than others just as there are better athletes than others. What separates the good form the bad is the amount of money they get paid. This is what separates quality from crap.
@Theozzie11 No, I'm not stupid. College degrees are mostly a sham. Sure, you can learn something here and there, but why shouldn't someone be able to learn the same skills on their own and get a job that way? That is no longer possible and THAT is why degrees are a sham.
@Theozzie11 I have a degree; and I also think college degrees and licensures are a sham and a scam. The state should put (maybe) universal examinations that if you pass you are qualified. But this whole college accreditation is unnecessary. Since most of the people running this country are Ivy Leaguers from the top 10, I don’t think they are very good at educating competent people. Won’t you agree?
@MarcLira66 A degree proves that you have gained knowledge from a reliable source...It also shows a type of discipline that many people do not have....I never said you couldn't be successful without a degree....Now if your saying the scam is the amount of money one has to pay to get that education, I would agree, but in no way can a person graduate from college and be worse off....I agree the government shouldn't tell me which is the best way to become educated
@Theozzie11 Well we can agree the price is excessive and that Universities have at least a local monopoly in an area. Knowledge is free; you really don’t go need to go to college, anymore. A profit based scheme in education incentivizes the universities to retain mediocre students, make them think they are learning and graduate them. The current grant/loan system doesn’t work, it only exacerbates that problem. But I want the Fed DoE to be closed; they are making things worse.
@Theozzie11 I think you misunderstood the part of going to college. We live in the digital information age; you no longer need to be physically in a college classroom to get a higher education. This can drive the cost of college down enormously. But most institutions like the monopoly, so they oppose accreditation of distance learning colleges.
@MarcLira66 I agree we live in a digital age..I personally think people should work from home to reduce traffic,oil consumption, accidents and so on but that a different argument..you dont just learn material in college. working with groups, networking, competition, social skills, communication skills..can you learn these online?..College is a must for any society..Ron Paul thinks eliminating financial aid would lower the cost of college..I think the alumni should pay for college
@Theozzie11 State sanctioned accreditations or private groups holding a monopoly in accreditations, is not good for the market. Nevertheless those things are beyond the scope of the curricula of colleges, those are learned through normal social interaction that you should have experience vastly by the time you are in college. Today most examinations for licensure or college entry are given securely trough distance centers, like Prometric for example.
@Theozzie11 Anyhow that is how free markets should work right? If the employers find that “distance education graduates” lacking certain skill or find them inadequate, then they will no longer be hired. Maybe college attended and "distance learners" will have the same success. Or maybe they will be better, since it takes more discipline and responsibility. Making a priori assumptions of the outcome based on suppositions of what a college experience should be is inadequate.
@MarcLira66 Higher education is not generally about "finding employment". Ideally, academia should be about taking on the current debate where it has been left and adding to the body of knowledge. Otherwise, why not just use Open MIT to get free education if you're merely trying to learn something to get a job.
@testmark1 Higher education is not about finding employment!? Clearly you don’t have have a research or “practical/first professional level” degree (MD, PharmD, DscM, Sc. PhD). People that don’t have top level education don’t get it either, and overestimate the value of college campus education (i.e. the social experience of college). Here you have Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate telling people. Go to a good progressive research university and hear what the professors think.
@MarcLira66 This is not generally possible with graduate degrees and you underestimate the social relations between students and also between student and faculty.
@testmark1 In that you are wrong. You say that because you don’t have a top tier degree neither are an educator. Go to a University, ask the professors. All degrees can be taught by distance; most of the standardized college admission, later licensure examination are given trough exam centers as Prometric. Visit the Kaplan University and hear some of the greatest and qualified professors in business, law, nursing and even medicine. Telling, how colleges have dropped the ball.
@MarcLira66 Graduate school is not really taught by lectures. They are seminar based. It's very difficult to do advanced study remotely and still be able to engage in a discussion. Everyone would need to be online at the same time. The schools are already built. As far as "qualified professors go" obviously it's true that a lecture can be delivered online. It's already happening now.
@testmark1 You are telling me how graduate school is? Not all are seminar based. Some are lectures, like anatomy, pharmacy, biology, mathematics; others are seminars: like scientific method, research, bioethics. I am from applied sciences (DscM/PhD), not liberal arts, so I can't say anything about those. In graduate school anyhow you do most of the work yourself. You only go to your counselor once in a while.
The point is that it should be up to the CUSTOMER.
In Free to Choose, Milty points out that licensing is more for PROTECTIONISM than protection; and he's right: if professionals are so sure of their superior skills over the competition, they shouldn't need a state-accorded monopoly via government driving it off at gunpoint to protect the stupid, they'll just go to faith-healers, chiropractors and other LEGAL witch-doctors anyway.
So can music-- and professionals are in the same boat as professional MUSICIANS when it comes to losing their meal-ticket LOL
Once everyone in the world gets high-speed internet, they "elite bearers of the beast-mark" will be running to the state for MORE licensing regulations ROTFLMAO
@MarcLira66 No professor thinks that a PhD seminar can be conducted through listening to a lecture. How would you present to other students live and answer their questions? I guess some sort of Skype would work.
In any case it doesn't matter. Professional Schools are not the Liberal Arts. They serve different purposes. It's the Liberal Arts that does not directly lead to a job.
Not only that-- do you REALLY care what grade your doctor got in MUSIC APPRECIATION?
But things like that could make a huge difference in one's professional record.
For example I took the hardest courses I could find in order to get a good education in a private college, while others took EASY ones in a STATE college to get a higher GPA.
So they ended up with big reputations and high prestige, but believe in man-made global warming as they get locked in their own bathrooms (FACT)!
we have navy corpsmen and sf medics providing great health care to the poor and indigent in the near east... why not here in our inner cities? in appalachia? oh... that's right those regulations.
2nd guy gave a good question. Most of the time the questions are turkey shoots for Friedman but you could tell by how Friedman reacted that the man posed a good question to Friedman. He then proceeded to hit it out of the park...lol
Pffft, Friedman advocated a negative income tax, what a socialist scumbag. If you can't afford healthcare, go fuck yourself, why should i subsidize you.
@Koba1t The last thing Milton Friedman could be considered is a socialist (excluding communist of course). He was a supporter of free markets and the amazing progress which they are known to create. Friedman also advocated that government intervention drove up costs by inducing limitations on businesses and creating an increasing number of mandates which made business increasingly complicated.
Read one of Milton Friedman's many books, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care."
@Koba1t Easy answer is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Suppose for a moment you had some kind of disaster in life and ended up with nothing.No money, no job.Then assume that despite your best efforts,you are unable for a month or two to get another job.How would you live? Now I suppose the ultimate laissez-faire answer is charities-if people feel strongly about providing for the poor then they will donate their untaxed money freely.
it is not only that companies cant compete for customers but the regulatory burden imposed by the government that raises costs and perpetuates inefficiency
there is also nowhere in the united states where there is "little or no regulation" and we are not talking about "health coverage" we are talking about health care
the best way to get health care is to go directly to a health care provider of your choice and pay for the service;it is in the best interest of the provider to be cost effective
@MsZeitgeist85 curious; your response is uttered by statists in every field/industry and if each of you had your way we would be a 3rd world totalitarian cesspool
free markets dont work here in (insert industry here); we need government intervention instead
@2dum2getsocialism The argument being made is that we don't have a true "Free Market" because insurance companys can't sell insurance accrost state lines. If you did this it would mean less people would be covered because each state regulates this and makes requirements of what they have to cover. Look at the states in the south that have little or no regulation they have the worst health coverage.
This is a model that doesn't exist in any country because it has been tried and it failed.
@daobagua This is the only country where 30% of the money spent on health insurance doesn't go to actually covering people. That means we have the worst health coverage.
@MsZeitgeist85 I was refering to your coverage through different states. You said that southern states have the worst coverage. But if you rank this based on the amount of people who have insurance, then you might be missing the point. If health care coverage is mandated, then it is likely that their will be a wider range of coverage then if people are free to choose for themself. But then you have all the problems of elevated costs (like your experiencing now). Cheers.
@daobagua The point that you are missing is that if people are "free to choose" then it only means they are free to choose to buy a defective product because all the money in the world and for profit health insurance for primary care will never work. That is why no other country uses it.
@MsZeitgeist85 And yet nowhere was free market for-profit healthcare destroyed because it was deficient. Everywhere the free market was destroyed on behalf of privileged groups to the detriment of the patient. Yet as usual the free market is blamed for the results of government decisions. It is taken as proof that the free market is deficient that no country uses it, yet that is no more proof of deficiency than that no country used democracy in 100 BC.
@newperve His definition of health care in a free market is the out of pocket model that we had before WW2. This is a model that doesn't exist outside of 3rd world countrys. We have the worst health care system of all developed nations and all the other countrys that are ahead of the US have a highly regulated system. Even the Bismark model that Germany and Japan use are highly regulated.
@MsZeitgeist85 Why lie? He directly condemns medical licensing in the video which dates from well before WWII. So why claim something anyone with any knowledge at all who sees the video knows is untrue? Why does the fact that a system doesn't exist condemn it? As I stated the free market in health care was NOWHERE destroyed because it was deficient. In fact the AMA destroyed things like lodge doctors for friendly societies because they worked well.
@newperve Friedman wrote about this in 65 talking about the AMA who kept America from getting Single Payer many times. THere is alot of truth to what Friedman said about the AMA keeping doctors in short supply but when people say "we need to let the Free Market work" they are talking about letting insurance companys sell accrost state lines which would make things much worse.
@MsZeitgeist86 So are you admitting that you lied when you said he was talking about a system we had before WWII? You are strong on assertions but so far you haven't offered any evidence that the free market failed, ever. Nor have you given us any reason to believe a company that sells insurance worth buying in Texas is going to sell shit insurance in New York.
@newperve NO because the AMA wasn't doing that back then. And knobody here has refuted my claims on for profit HMOs. THe states that have the least regulations have the worst health coverage. The problem is not enough HMOs the problem is for profit HMOs in the first place. It is a failed system and that is why no other country uses it.
@MsZeitgeist85 Fuck off liar they were doing it well before then. Your claim that the system failed references the situation DECADES after it was abandoned. As for HMOs they are an entirely govenrment creation. You haven't shown that interstate competion would make things worse, which is to be expected because less restrictions on competion usuallly make things better. As for your claim that the states with "least regulation" are worst so what? They all have enormous amounts of it.
@newperve No they weren't doing well before. Bismark created the first universal system in 1873 and TR proposed having Nationalized Care in 1913. HMOs were allowed to get bigger because of the the goverment. This was what Keiser and Nixon wanted.Things were not well back when things were out of pocket that is why other countrys created their own non profit system.
@MsZeitgeist85 I didn't say they were well before then. I said that there was medical licensing well before then (WWII). HMOs exist because of the government legislation, they didn't just get bigger because of it. You say things weren't well before the government took over, compared to what? Poor people could get health insurance at affordable rates through friendly societies. They can't now.
@newperve As for selling accrost state likes you are clueless on this. If an insurace company wants to sell someone insurance in New York they have to cover lung cancer that is why there are only a handfull of HMOs that sell insurance there because many don't want to cover this. If you allowed HMOs to sell acrost state lines you would allow them to deny for more and more things. Thats why New York is in the top 5 states for health care while Texas that allows all HMOs ranks last.
@MsZeitgeist85 The company being allowed to deny coverage of certain conditions is a GOOD thing. Why should I have to pay for lung cancer insurance when I'm never getting lung cancer? All you're doing is subsidising smokers through my premiums which means healthy people are less likely to get insurance, look up "death spiral" for an idea of the result. Who rates NY better than Texas, I bet it's not the consumers. I only seem clueless to you because I disagree with your ignorance.
@newperve Not all lung cancer victoms are smokers. If you turly believe that HMOs sould be allowed to deny coverage then you don't even understand how to make out health care system work because they are the main problem. They are the reason we have the worst health care system af all developed nations.
physicians need to be licensed and somebody that was licensed 30 years ago would still be competent because doctors are obligated to take certain credits to keep up with advancements.This guy is wrong.
@miamirider12 Why do they need to be licensed? How does it help? It doesn't ensure quality, there are plenty of bad doctors around and for years the AMA protected them. Even if you did oblige doctors to keep training the AMA would decide what training they needed to take. Nobody could become or stay a brain surgeon without knowing obstectrics for instance. All licensing is is a supply restriction scheme. That's all it's ever been.
What a dip shit. America and Israel are the top two countries in terms of medical patents and the US has number one for years. Never let FACTS get in the way of your DOGMA!
bbnatedogg 41 minutes ago
Haha we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba, somewhere around Hungary and Slovakia. Medical research comes from government funding then is handed to private corporate oligopolies, The USA has the highest medical costs of the OECD and a huge burden on the budget because it is a private market system. The intense divide between rich and poor regarding results in health care is the shame of a people. Thanks Freidman, you sick man.
konnichiwa53 1 day ago
We can just bring back Bleeding. ''you look pale, we must let of the blood'' [oops, forgot, the courts already do that! lol]
bastardchildofmary 6 days ago
He wouldn't applause at the end of a talk like that today.
Society is still going backwards despite all his efforts.
LibertyDownUnder 1 week ago
@LibertyDownUnder It's the main problem with alot of people especially my generation (i was born in 1991). when you where born into all of the things you did not have to earn. My family taught me work ethic, How to be responsible how to take care of yourself .etc
Many of the people my age however know no such of a thing and expect wealth redistribution to reward them for the fish they already ate.
tehatemachine 4 days ago
@LibertyDownUnder And it's funny to because you never hear the modern day liberals say the word liberty or talk about the constitution and history, Since they do not know history they do not know that their ideals where practiced and preached in the past but miserably failed. They only want something for themselves at someone elses expense.
tehatemachine 4 days ago
@tehatemachine, Liberals do occasionaly find the constitution. Like when it's about the right of Muslims to build a mosque in NY, or the protestors in OWS.
LibertyDownUnder 4 days ago 2
@LibertyDownUnder A faggot says what?
bbnatedogg 45 minutes ago
@tehatemachine pretty sure liberal values in canada and western europe have created a higher standard of living, higher literacy and higher health rates than the united states. Fact is privatization simply helps class distinction and create a 2 if not 3 tier system in education and healthcare.
DWhiteEspana 3 days ago
@DWhiteEspana If you look at the definition of what liberal means. It's not a bad word at all. However modern day liberals Do not follow what that word means, They want to give as long as they take away from someone else by force. California is a highly liberal state and it is one of the least free states to conduct business in the U.S. That's why we are in a load of debt. Because liberals vote for ridiculous policies while not looking at the full cost.
tehatemachine 3 days ago
@DWhiteEspana Wherever you have more government controlling certain areas, You definatly have more racism. There must be certain roles within society and you cannot get rid of poverty (especially with government). But competitive privatization reduces that gap and sustains the middle class.
tehatemachine 3 days ago
Friedmans as good of a public speaker as he is an economist. Like look at that smile. Its impossible to disagree with him.
treysparker 1 week ago
Milton Friedman is terribly charming.
orange11emilie 2 weeks ago 4
Gotta love this guy
MrDevong 4 weeks ago
...very interesting. Sounds more theoretical rather than practical, however. Still, this is thought provoking.
BARCACROSSESTHEALPS 1 month ago
Wonderful videos....one critique: please shorten the intro and lower the volume on the intro music. It is incongruous with the content video and disconcerting. Thanks.
BARCACROSSESTHEALPS 1 month ago
Isn't a negative income tax still a form of welfare?
oihhow 1 month ago
@oihhow Yes, but the point is...give people a minimum level of currency when in need and allow them (basically force them) to choose where to spend it, instead of, say, subsidizing every avenue of their life, such as food, clothes, cell phone bills, etc, etc, etc.
BARCACROSSESTHEALPS 1 month ago
@BARCACROSSESTHEALPS there is no forcing here. You are given a sum of money to reach minimum income so you can have the free choice to choose how to spend it, such as for food, clothes, insurance etc... Versus the government telling you, in this case forcing you, to use healthcare they provide. Its the concept of free choice
z3r006 1 month ago
@z3r006 Well, yes, I used the word "force" conversationally, if not clumsily.
BARCACROSSESTHEALPS 1 month ago
Ok, I gotta say it: FERRENGI WITH GLASSES!
ROTFLMAO
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
I love this guy-- always that big friendly smile, as he talks perfect sense.
I don't agree with all of his points since he sides too often with the state to make complete sense, but for the time he was definitely the champion of free-markets against the demon of statism.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
He's so right. There's a synthetic cholesterol (Apolipoprotein A1 Milano) that was developed based on DNA from a town in Italy, who's residents have no history of heart disease, though they smoke and drink. In five weekly iv treatments, it clears plaque from coronary arteries. It's like Drain-o for the arteries though it's a simple cholesterol, so there's no side effects. The company who was developing it, was bought out by Pfizer, who's flagship drug was Lipitor. They shelved APO Milano.
NAGGERNUTZ 1 month ago
@NAGGERNUTZ
The real problem is that the Constitution delegates NO federal AUTHORITY to regulate drugs... but it doesn't delegate the power to regulate any state's entire PEOPLE either, so that's a wash.
Shit-heads just say "oh, the civil war settled that."
Yeah then the Third Reich "settled" Hitler's claim to Poland.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman - Well, I get the FDA preventing bad drugs from entering the market. That's fine. The problem, in my opinion, is they're allowing bad drugs but preventing good ones.
NAGGERNUTZ 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NAGGERNUTZ "Well, I get the FDA preventing bad drugs from entering the market. That's fine."
Oh really? Care to quote to me which part of the Constitution AUTHORIZES that?
Because if you can't, then you just wiped your ASS with it.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
The Chicago school ideology went down, just with the bubble in 08
Timmy1107 2 months ago
One way of knowing you'll get good healthcare is through private certification. In the field of computer Power Supplies you see "80 Plus" certification labels on many PSUs. Any consumer who purchases these products most likely check for this certification as they don't want to take the risk of having their PC parts being ruined.
DoctorCapitalist 2 months ago 8
@DoctorCapitalist To help with private certification, we can rely on what is the proper role of government to enforce weights and measures. 80 Plus must equal 80 Plus, or it is fraud and a crime.
stevemcgee99 1 week ago in playlist Milton Friedman - Understanding Economics
@stevemcgee99 I agree, although I consider myself a more extreme libertarian and call for an end on a monopoly on justice and defence. An invasive defender is a bit of an oxymoron lol
DoctorCapitalist 1 week ago
@DoctorCapitalist lol can't disagree. Could be proper role of private police and Tuath judges.
stevemcgee99 1 week ago
@DoctorCapitalist The only difference is, the quality of health services are not based just upon the quality of a product, in the same regard as a burger at McDonald's. If the burger quality is below your expectations you can go somewhere else. However, you are dealing with human lives here, so the stakes are higher. If you don't do a good job, people die, and if you do a good job, the profits are lower because you use more of medical products to do a god job. It's asinine.
Faerlon123 3 days ago
@Faerlon123 That's why there needs to be less barriers to entry to allow competition.
Socialized health care in the UK is terrible. Since there are no price/profit signals, this inevitably leads to shortages since allocating resources becomes extremely troublesome due to the lack of these vital signals which change the structure of production to generally what society desires most.
DoctorCapitalist 2 days ago
@Faerlon123 Socialized healthcare is a lot better than the US's current health care system (which is the American Medical Association being a coercive monopoly which artificially increases prices.
Interesting article on it: mises(dot)org/daily/5066
DoctorCapitalist 2 days ago
@DoctorCapitalist The only reason I don't like the idea of privatized medicine is that, I , like most people, know that capitalism as a socio-economy, is not interested in what's good for people. The only real positivity in capitalism is what Marx called surplus value, or profit if you will. People play the game for the SAKE of profit, and not for the sake of helping others. It's a scary detachment from morality in my opinion. Healthcare in my country(Norway) works fine.
Faerlon123 2 days ago
@Faerlon123 How do you propose dealing with the economic calculation problem in a socialist economy?
DoctorCapitalist 1 day ago
@DoctorCapitalist That depends on how you would WANT to deal with it. Most people in my country have no problem paying slightly higher taxes and whatnot, to have this system, but most Americans see that as an encroachment on their economic freedom. My personal opinion is that, when we live in a society with millions of people, we should at least want our neighbour's best interest in mind. Capitalism is about profit, not solidarity. Which is why I object. Just my opinion tho.
Faerlon123 1 day ago
@DoctorCapitalist On a sidenote tho, you said : "Since there are no price/profit signals, this inevitably leads to shortages since allocating resources becomes extremely troublesome due to the lack of these vital signals which change the structure of production to generally what society desires most."
If I understand you correct, this means that, if you don't have a capital competition, people won't care. That is the problem I'm talking about, without profit, nothing matters.
Faerlon123 1 day ago
@Faerlon123 I don't think you understand what the economic calculation problem is...
DoctorCapitalist 1 day ago
@Faerlon123 Also if society generally wants to provide healthcare to the poor, then why don't they just do it voluntarily?
If the majority are willing to vote in a government which sticks a gun in their neck forcing them to pay for healthcare for everyone, surely they would provide healthcare to the poor voluntarily?
By saying "Without being forced, the poor wouldn't be helped" you are saying that the majority are against helping the poor but are for someone forcing them to help the poor.
DoctorCapitalist 1 day ago
@DoctorCapitalist Well, I can mirror the same thing to you. I don't think the government,as it were, is forcing me at gunpoint. Yes, taxes are obligatory, but contrary to America, our government actually fear the people. So if we actually want to change things we could, and they know this perfectly well. You have to understand that, it's not about being forced, it's about not having to RELY upon charities and religious people to care for the poor. Even if people want to do it.
Faerlon123 21 hours ago
@DoctorCapitalist But I do know that the US, has a really corrupt form of crony capitalism. A purely laissez-faire system probably works much better than what you have now. But I still don't think free market is the solution to social issues. Some people are worse off in this world, and at least in my country we are taught at a very young age that solidarity and to take care of those least fortunate is an obligation. Being "forced" to care for others isn't wrong in my opinion.
Faerlon123 21 hours ago
@Faerlon123 So basically you're an authoritarian who likes using violence to achieve his values instead of letting people reach their own values with their labour.
Congrats.
DoctorCapitalist 17 hours ago
@DoctorCapitalist No, I'm not. I'm not a violent person at all. The government is supposed to be a reflection of the people, and I daresay it does more in my country than in the US.
Faerlon123 16 hours ago
@Faerlon123 Why not let for competing government agencies? Don't you see how a monopoly on certain goods and services can only lead to bad things?
Why not agorism?
DoctorCapitalist 17 hours ago
@DoctorCapitalist I don't understand why the competition part is nessescary. And yes I understand how monopoly on certain goods and services can lead to bad things, I know that. But the topic here isn't just "certain goods and services", the topic here is life and death of the individual who you so proudly represent. I agree that most things should be privatized, but like I said,letting rich people corporate board members control it is beyond what I can agree with.
Faerlon123 16 hours ago
@Faerlon123 The government is not representative of "the people" (in a singular platonic sense). The government is a monopoly on the initiation of violence and theft over a geographical area.
DoctorCapitalist 15 hours ago
@DoctorCapitalist In a democracy, in the true meaning of the word, the appointed government should act as a representative for the people. I don't want to live in anarchy. True Ayn Rand objectivists seem to think that capitalism is the solution to all problems, which it is not. Just like communists thought communism was the solution to all problems. Laissez-faire capitalism, is as big as a pipe-dream as communism was. That is the blunt truth.
Faerlon123 15 hours ago
@Faerlon123 Since state services are paid for through taxation (that is, money extracted from people with the violent threat of being thrown in a cage with Bubba, who is awfully muscular and horny) this makes it difficult for competition to open up since state services are "free", which is why it can be hard to imagine certain services being funded without the state.
If you're goal is to have a system which represents "the people" then why have individual will respected?
DoctorCapitalist 15 hours ago
@Faerlon123 By having everyone respect individual will, you get the most equal fair representation of the population. This is agorism. There is nothing stopping people from joining certain societies (they could enter a contract with others if they wished to enter a socialist society, but they could not force others into it and take over factories against the factory provider's will).
The government is not society. Society (not just majority) evolves horizontally, not from top down.
DoctorCapitalist 15 hours ago
@DoctorCapitalist There is seriously something detached about the mind-set, when you consider taxation a sin equivalent with paying Hitler money for killing people. In my country, we know perfectly well where the money goes, and if you ever come and visit our country, you'll notice it's nothing like what your right-wing lunatic propagandist politicians have told you since the 60s. There are major problems in my country, but there is a reason my country always tops HDI.
Faerlon123 15 hours ago
@Faerlon123 Libertarianism is not so much about promoting free markets (although free markets are usually supported for consequential reasons) but rather to promote freedom of individuals to decide what they can do with their own body and the products produced by their bodies.
This means that there is nothing preventing people from entering friendly societies where people agree to do the socialist way of things, or anything like that.
DoctorCapitalist 15 hours ago
@Faerlon123 Basically, libertarianism is opposed to democracy because democracy is mob rule. It is the majority imposing their will, their interests and value systems onto the minority, often using violence to force those to submit the product of their own labour to them. Democracy is not so much to do with representing "the people", but rather the majority. It is the idea that a majority can consent on behalf of any given individual.
DoctorCapitalist 15 hours ago
@Faerlon123 Sorry for being preachy, but I'm just trying to show you the libertarian perspective (or rather, the voluntaryist perspective which is more extreme libertarianism).
DoctorCapitalist 15 hours ago
@DoctorCapitalist It's not a problem, I love debating people on different subjects. But overall, I agree that individualism and free markets should be sought after to a degree. My country ranks among the highest in the world for economic freedom and individual freedom, even if we have *gasp* high taxes and socialized healthcare. If America wants it, sure they should have it, I'm just giving my perspective. It's not always that black and white as it's depicted.
Faerlon123 15 hours ago
@Faerlon123 To be clear, I support free markets and I support socialist type communes as a kind of social security. In fact, I support anything as long as it is voluntary,
My problem is with democracy and the catchphrase "the people" when it should be called for what it is: Mob rule. The word Democracy has this kind of emotional feel which hinders people from calling it for what it is even though it's blindly obvious.
DoctorCapitalist 15 hours ago
@DoctorCapitalist Well, there might be a time when democracy will be substituted by something better, and that might be what you are seeking for. But democracy as a system has worked in favor for most nations in the developed world for at least 200 years. I understand what you mean by mobrule, but consider what we had before(a feudal aristocracy)so it has been the best option so far. But I agree, things should be voluntary. As a whole.
Faerlon123 14 hours ago
@Faerlon123 Why not agorism? Why not let people choose the services they use and desire?
DoctorCapitalist 1 day ago
when did these speeches take place? And why were his ideas not attempted? Sorry, I was probably not alive.
baihbalm 2 months ago
@98wongjf: Yes, you are right. But Milton Freedman has read Hayek's works and he admires Hayek, although not for his economic theory, but for his ideals. Chicago school and Austrian school are, in principal and ideals, similar if not the same. Their methodology is vastly different, though.
Greedyspectator 3 months ago
@dmg46664 The problem is how do we measure quality, and who gets to determine those measures? Payors? Providers? Patients? Another problem is data collection. Patients will likely have more than one insurance carrier in their lifetime. Aggregating encounter data from multiple sources is not very practical the way the current system is setup…and I am doubtful that EHR/EMR will be the answer (though it will help).
TheMedicalConsultant 3 months ago
Comment removed
prunar 3 months ago
Not sure if i understand his position on physician licensure. Doctors who practice in large health groups and hospitals still perform massive malpractice and negligence.
TheMedicalConsultant 3 months ago
@TheMedicalConsultant Sure, what Milton is arguing is that licensure does more damage than good. In it's absence more emphasis would be placed on a Doctor's credentials and track record... like an person's Ebay track-record when buying goods. Large health groups would still select members in the same way (except some biogenetic scientists would probably practise as Doctors) so it's absence wouldn't hurt any but would enable costs to come down.
dmg46664 3 months ago
Sounds a lot like uncle Milt is advocating social welfare there at the end.
IronChef3 4 months ago
@IronChef3 Yes he is. Friedman is a more pragmatic libertarian than say Rothbard. Look up his "negative income tax". He testified against it though, because his suggestion was for it to REPLACE the current welfare system, not be added on top of it. Friedman wasn't interested in advocating for the perfect system immediately, but moving in that direction. The negative income tax would abolish the welfare departments b/c it's done only by the IRS. The main benefit is that it doesnt discourage work
dmg46664 3 months ago
@IronChef3 I think you don't understand the word welfare. The end of the State IS the welfare of its citizens. And welfare is the end and goal of all societal structures. I guess you consider that welfare is government handouts; which is not. If there is no progression of social welfare; then there is no reason for state and government to exist.
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@MarcLira66
Social welfare can take many forms, one of which is government handouts, whether you agree or disagree with them (personally, I agree with them and am more than willing to pay more than my fair share for those who cannot). The context in which Friedman meant "welfare" here was obviously government handouts in order "to assure a minimum level of income".
IronChef3 1 month ago
I like Friedman's idea of a Negative Income Tax but I just don't know how effectively it can be implemented. It really does make perfect sense when he describes it but I can't really find much information on it outside of wikipedia which is hardly the source I want backing up my position on it. Suggestions?
JesusMakeUpMyDyinBed 4 months ago
You can apply the same argument of licensure to the ABA and the law industry.
johfloyd 4 months ago
The Drug industry should be regulated. It won't regulate itself...PERIOD.
beretboy22 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beretboy22
Yes it will.
videomakerman1232 4 months ago
@beretboy22
Honestly, the only people that CAN regulate IE have the knowledge in order to decide if another is doing the right thing, are people with the same experience/education. I know this in engineering. Drugs would not go straight to market, they would still be tested and their results would be published and peer reviewed before a doctor would consider starting to use it.
axelasdf 4 months ago
@axelasdf That's what the NICE and IPAB are for. You should research the Swiss and Dutch healthcare systems. They let private insurers, hospitals, and doctors, provide care and coverage, but the government controls costs, mandates universal coverage, and bans discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Now tell me it can't be done...it's already being done, and much more effectively.
beretboy22 4 months ago
@beretboy22
Sure it can be done. You only need a worse system. Government fixing the prices? Suppose the actual value is lower-Then it makes the service/product cost more for the consumer. Suppose the actual value is higher - The company stops doing it because they can't make a profit. The product becomes unavailable. It doesn't actually work out that well. It always makes it worse.
axelasdf 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beretboy22
Honestly, the only people that CAN regulate IE have the knowledge in order to decide if another is doing the right thing, are people with the same experience/education. I know this in engineering. Drugs would not go straight to market, they would still be tested and their results would be published and peer reviewed before a doctor would consider starting to use it.
axelasdf 4 months ago
@beretboy22 define regulation
xiao917 4 months ago
@xiao917 an order issued by a government department or agency that has the force of law
235RB 4 months ago
@xiao917 Regulations. You just might be breaking one and not even know it.
nannyberries 4 months ago 25
@beretboy22 The market regulates the Drug industry, if VIOX is killing people then the makers would be sued and the drug taken off the shelf... oh wait a minute it was regulated and approved by the FDA and did kill people and the people sued the drug manufacturer and it is no longer being sold.Drug companies don't do well by killing their customers. I could go on and on about the regulation of the drug industry, unless of course you are talking about pot and cocaine.
quinnrasta 4 months ago
@quinnrasta Saying the market regulates the Drug Industry is like saying that Methamphetamine is regulated because it kills people sometimes. You act as if there is a lot of competition among drug companies; there isn't. In a market where they're aren't many alternatives, do you really want to wait until people die? And no, the FDA is not perfect, but neither is the market.
beretboy22 4 months ago
@beretboy22 Millions of doctors and hospitals making the choice is much better than a few hundred FDA bureaucrats making a decision on their behalf. Next question.
tjohn1986 4 months ago
@quinnrasta The market is a lot better than the FDA and if it were not for all the FDA regulations many more drugs come on the market and stay on the market. What happens is you get a drug company bribing a regulator to discontinue a drug to promote their drug. The free market would dictate the best drug for the best price, rather than the FDA picking which campaign donor contributed the most money. The market would create a lot more competition and bring life saving drugs to market faster.
quinnrasta 4 months ago
@mikerowphone Those deaths are correlated to, not caused by lack of health insurance. Only if those people were turned away from essential care because of lack of insurance could it be considered under causation.
Thatmakessense356 4 months ago
@mikerowphone People don't die in America because of lack of health insurance. If you go to any emergency room YOU WILL BE TREATED. ANY EMERGENCY ROOM. Do you think if the government stole less of people's money they would have the available funds to help treat each other's diseases? Just watch a few episodes of Stossel and you'll hopefully understand.
Thatmakessense356 4 months ago
@mikerowphone No he's not trying to make a valid point nor are you. The definition of "bar exam" is not "something that ensures a lawyer is useful" it's "something you have to pass to sell certain legal services". Nothing about passing a bar exam ensures that your lawyer is competent to defend you against criminal charges, tort claims or anything else. Bar exam simplhy test for an arbitrary level of general legal knowledge not what is neccesary for any particular legal task.
newperve 4 months ago
@mikerowphone No, I don't care about what academic credentials a lawyer has or if he has any. What I care about is that he provides needed services. The bar exam does nothing to ensure this, as witness the massive number of low-paid or entirely unemployed lawyers that miamirider noted. The bar exam does not ensure a lawyer is fit to represent somebody in that state's jurisdiction, it ensure that the lawyer an pass a bar exam. It doesn't show he is worth hiring for any particular legal task.
newperve 4 months ago
he said give ppl welfare so they can buy overpriced private healthcare. no price controls!! what a joke! single payer system ftw
BOZ11 5 months ago
haha, NOW you have to have a license to be an architect.
frattaro 5 months ago
Health Care in a Free Market = those that cannot afford it can suffer and die. Those who are not rich can be impoverished.
mba2ceo 5 months ago
@mba2ceo What about private charities? You, me and billions of others care about the poor. We do not need to force others to pay the bills of the poor. Instead, we should work together donating to private charities that help the poor. I think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would help out as well. ;)
Thatmakessense356 5 months ago
@Thatmakessense356 if that was true we would NOT need healthcare.
mba2ceo 5 months ago
@mba2ceo "Definition of HEALTHCARE
: the maintaining and restoration of health by the treatment and prevention of disease especially by trained and licensed professionals." I don't see what you mean.
Thatmakessense356 5 months ago
NVM!!! I totally understand it now, I was kinda distracted last time I was watching it... And it's the exact same thing I would do.
OhmgrownCron 5 months ago
@OhmgrownCron It would make it far cheaper for the poor person, be much more profitable for the doctor and use a lot less of our tax dollars that go to medicare/medicaid fraud. When the government plays middleman its a lose,lose,lose situation, it is a loss for the consumer, doctor and tax payer
quinnrasta 5 months ago
@quinnrasta sadly it is, it shouldn't be, but sadly Government are humans, and some humans get up to mischief and vested interests can reign supreme. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
Baldwynmayhem 5 months ago
@BaldwynmayhemThis is why you are seeing such a turnout against government controlled health care.The lobbyists have a stranglehold on washington.Mandates on states require all kinds of things, such as pregnancy care in NJ, this includes a 50 yr old single man.There are a total of 2133 state healthcare mandates in the country,a lot of them are ridiculous.It would be better if we could select what we want covered with out being forced to buy it by the state.Crony capitalism enforced by the state
quinnrasta 5 months ago
Comment removed
Baldwynmayhem 5 months ago
@quinnrasta good, get Ron Paul in over there or tbh, otherwise it will be the end of the western world as we know it. The US sadly has been used because of the very economic freedoms it once had, and now is being drained of cash on numerous fronts and used as the modern day UK Redcoat army I'm afraid, the sad thing is, your conservatives have turned from Libertarians to UK Tories, sold out shills i'm afraid, who own the stocks that profit from the warmongering more than likely.
Baldwynmayhem 5 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem I like Ron Paul on may fronts, except foreign policy. I do like his restraint when it comes to military engagements, I am afraid that he might be a little to restrained. His views on Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon scare me. Should Iran develop the weapon and use it, you will see all out nuclear warfare in the middle east. From Iran to Israel, Israel back to Iran, Pakistan will get involved which brings in India etc. "Trade with many, allies with none" Thomas Jefferson
quinnrasta 5 months ago
@quinnrasta Quin, I certainly can understand why you would think this way, but realize, this is how the British think my friend, this is why you fought the "war of independence", the US by and large punch drunk on their status, instead of being humble purveyor's of Liberty as you once were. I am from Australia, a Westminster system country, believe me, you wont have a leg to stand on "protest wise" if you allow the destruction of your constitution and continue to do the things Ron talks about
Baldwynmayhem 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BaldwynmayhemThis is why you are seeing such a turnout against government controlled health care.The lobbyists have a stranglehold on washington.Mandates on states require all kinds of things, such as pregnancy care in NJ, this includes a 50 yr old single man.There are a total of 2133 state healthcare mandates in the country,a lot of them are ridiculous.It would be better if we could select what we want covered with out being forced to buy it by the state.Crony capitalism enforced by the state
quinnrasta 5 months ago
I don't understand what Milton was talking about for that question to the women, could someone explain it to me?
OhmgrownCron 5 months ago
@OhmgrownCron Negative income tax is a simple tax & benefit system that combines a minimum payment with a flat tax.So if you earn (e.g.) $20k you may pay $10k in tax BUT also you receive $8k as minimum payment,so you end up with $8k + $20 - $10k = $18k.What Friedman is saying is that the minimum payment (the $8k above) should include enough money for someone with no income to be able to purchase their own healthcare insurance.No need for government to provide a program,just provide the money.
iansimcox 5 months ago
As far as licensure is concerned, Friedman is right: a licensed physician is not necessarily a competent physician, even with continuing credits to keep physicians up to date and phase out ineffective practices. Of course, American medicine is now loaded with quackery on account of industrial complexes that keep people sick and the medical industry filthy rich.
TaimaDjinn 6 months ago
Milton Friedman would be pleased to hear what Ron Paul is saying these days about these essential topics. Licensure is ridiculous, just as college degrees are ridiculous. If you have a degree in chemistry, who knows, you could have cheated your way through school to get it. But you can still get a job based on that degree. We don't need a system to tell us who is quality and who is crap......
tpstrat14 6 months ago 29
@tpstrat14 On the surface, they will agree with a lot of things but their core fundamental are different. Friedman is a Chicago School economists and he disagreed with Austrian economics which is what Ron Paul's advocating. They have vastly different views of why the Depression happened and Friedman have openly says that the Austrian economists' explaination on what caused the Depression is incorrect.
98wongjf 3 months ago
@tpstrat14 Except for Paul's stance on the Federal Reserve given that Friedman was part of the Chicago School of economic thought.
roddack 2 months ago
@roddack No sir. Milton Friedman was for abolishing the Federal Reserve too. Youtube: "Milton Friedman - Abolish the FED! " and you'll see a video where he says his first preference would be to "abolish the Federal Reserve."
TheResistanceV 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 did you even watch the entire video??? Milton clearly said that licensure is KEY. The issue is that licensees are becoming far too many because the policy from the 1930s to control the number of physicians changed. Now there are too many practictioners with licenses and the quality of service is decreasing. Still licensure is KEY. You abolish this and you don't have any way to guarantee who should practice and who shouldn't.
majinbuxl 2 months ago
@majinbuxl If I did watch it, I don't remember it and I'm not going to watch it again. At any rate, I disagree with licensure from any government regulated program/bureaucracy . Why should the government have control over this. It is self-evident that we need a system to be able to see which doctors are good and which aren't, but why is it that the people beg the government to do it? Why can't they do it themselves? People like being slaves to each other I guess is the answer..
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@majinbuxl I think you misunderstood him. You should read more about him and his ideas on degrees and licensure.
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@tpstrat14 are you stupid? College Degrees are ridiculous? You cant show me one chemist who got their job only for their degree. It is their knowledge they gained by obtaining that degree that allows them to be qualified. Now I will agree there are better chemist than others just as there are better athletes than others. What separates the good form the bad is the amount of money they get paid. This is what separates quality from crap.
Theozzie11 2 months ago
@Theozzie11 No, I'm not stupid. College degrees are mostly a sham. Sure, you can learn something here and there, but why shouldn't someone be able to learn the same skills on their own and get a job that way? That is no longer possible and THAT is why degrees are a sham.
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 said the guy who doesn't have a college degree........also im sry I called you stupid
Theozzie11 2 months ago
@Theozzie11 You didn't call me stupid. You asked if I was stupid. So I answered you. lol...
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@Theozzie11 I have a degree; and I also think college degrees and licensures are a sham and a scam. The state should put (maybe) universal examinations that if you pass you are qualified. But this whole college accreditation is unnecessary. Since most of the people running this country are Ivy Leaguers from the top 10, I don’t think they are very good at educating competent people. Won’t you agree?
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@MarcLira66 A degree proves that you have gained knowledge from a reliable source...It also shows a type of discipline that many people do not have....I never said you couldn't be successful without a degree....Now if your saying the scam is the amount of money one has to pay to get that education, I would agree, but in no way can a person graduate from college and be worse off....I agree the government shouldn't tell me which is the best way to become educated
Theozzie11 1 month ago
@Theozzie11 Well we can agree the price is excessive and that Universities have at least a local monopoly in an area. Knowledge is free; you really don’t go need to go to college, anymore. A profit based scheme in education incentivizes the universities to retain mediocre students, make them think they are learning and graduate them. The current grant/loan system doesn’t work, it only exacerbates that problem. But I want the Fed DoE to be closed; they are making things worse.
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@MarcLira66 Ron Paul 2012....good luck raising your children...mine will be attending college
Theozzie11 1 month ago
@Theozzie11 I think you misunderstood the part of going to college. We live in the digital information age; you no longer need to be physically in a college classroom to get a higher education. This can drive the cost of college down enormously. But most institutions like the monopoly, so they oppose accreditation of distance learning colleges.
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@MarcLira66 I agree we live in a digital age..I personally think people should work from home to reduce traffic,oil consumption, accidents and so on but that a different argument..you dont just learn material in college. working with groups, networking, competition, social skills, communication skills..can you learn these online?..College is a must for any society..Ron Paul thinks eliminating financial aid would lower the cost of college..I think the alumni should pay for college
Theozzie11 1 month ago
Comment removed
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@Theozzie11 State sanctioned accreditations or private groups holding a monopoly in accreditations, is not good for the market. Nevertheless those things are beyond the scope of the curricula of colleges, those are learned through normal social interaction that you should have experience vastly by the time you are in college. Today most examinations for licensure or college entry are given securely trough distance centers, like Prometric for example.
MarcLira66 1 month ago
Comment removed
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@Theozzie11 Anyhow that is how free markets should work right? If the employers find that “distance education graduates” lacking certain skill or find them inadequate, then they will no longer be hired. Maybe college attended and "distance learners" will have the same success. Or maybe they will be better, since it takes more discipline and responsibility. Making a priori assumptions of the outcome based on suppositions of what a college experience should be is inadequate.
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@MarcLira66 Higher education is not generally about "finding employment". Ideally, academia should be about taking on the current debate where it has been left and adding to the body of knowledge. Otherwise, why not just use Open MIT to get free education if you're merely trying to learn something to get a job.
testmark1 1 month ago
@testmark1 Higher education is not about finding employment!? Clearly you don’t have have a research or “practical/first professional level” degree (MD, PharmD, DscM, Sc. PhD). People that don’t have top level education don’t get it either, and overestimate the value of college campus education (i.e. the social experience of college). Here you have Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate telling people. Go to a good progressive research university and hear what the professors think.
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@MarcLira66 This is not generally possible with graduate degrees and you underestimate the social relations between students and also between student and faculty.
testmark1 1 month ago
@testmark1 In that you are wrong. You say that because you don’t have a top tier degree neither are an educator. Go to a University, ask the professors. All degrees can be taught by distance; most of the standardized college admission, later licensure examination are given trough exam centers as Prometric. Visit the Kaplan University and hear some of the greatest and qualified professors in business, law, nursing and even medicine. Telling, how colleges have dropped the ball.
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@MarcLira66 Graduate school is not really taught by lectures. They are seminar based. It's very difficult to do advanced study remotely and still be able to engage in a discussion. Everyone would need to be online at the same time. The schools are already built. As far as "qualified professors go" obviously it's true that a lecture can be delivered online. It's already happening now.
testmark1 1 month ago
@testmark1 You are telling me how graduate school is? Not all are seminar based. Some are lectures, like anatomy, pharmacy, biology, mathematics; others are seminars: like scientific method, research, bioethics. I am from applied sciences (DscM/PhD), not liberal arts, so I can't say anything about those. In graduate school anyhow you do most of the work yourself. You only go to your counselor once in a while.
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@MarcLira66
The point is that it should be up to the CUSTOMER.
In Free to Choose, Milty points out that licensing is more for PROTECTIONISM than protection; and he's right: if professionals are so sure of their superior skills over the competition, they shouldn't need a state-accorded monopoly via government driving it off at gunpoint to protect the stupid, they'll just go to faith-healers, chiropractors and other LEGAL witch-doctors anyway.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@testmark1
So can music-- and professionals are in the same boat as professional MUSICIANS when it comes to losing their meal-ticket LOL
Once everyone in the world gets high-speed internet, they "elite bearers of the beast-mark" will be running to the state for MORE licensing regulations ROTFLMAO
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@MarcLira66 No professor thinks that a PhD seminar can be conducted through listening to a lecture. How would you present to other students live and answer their questions? I guess some sort of Skype would work.
In any case it doesn't matter. Professional Schools are not the Liberal Arts. They serve different purposes. It's the Liberal Arts that does not directly lead to a job.
testmark1 1 month ago
@testmark1
Not only that-- do you REALLY care what grade your doctor got in MUSIC APPRECIATION?
But things like that could make a huge difference in one's professional record.
For example I took the hardest courses I could find in order to get a good education in a private college, while others took EASY ones in a STATE college to get a higher GPA.
So they ended up with big reputations and high prestige, but believe in man-made global warming as they get locked in their own bathrooms (FACT)!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
we have navy corpsmen and sf medics providing great health care to the poor and indigent in the near east... why not here in our inner cities? in appalachia? oh... that's right those regulations.
dmowings 6 months ago
2nd guy gave a good question. Most of the time the questions are turkey shoots for Friedman but you could tell by how Friedman reacted that the man posed a good question to Friedman. He then proceeded to hit it out of the park...lol
adulby 7 months ago
FDA has murdered 10s of 1,000s and csots to develop drugs, driven research into other countries
bootiack 7 months ago
newperve is a raging lunatic.
LadyBeaverhausen 7 months ago
It's so refreshing to hear someone say "Good answer".
Oggranak 7 months ago
Pffft, Friedman advocated a negative income tax, what a socialist scumbag. If you can't afford healthcare, go fuck yourself, why should i subsidize you.
Koba1t 7 months ago
@Koba1t he didn't advocate so much as he said it was possible.
AustereAustrian 7 months ago
@Koba1t The last thing Milton Friedman could be considered is a socialist (excluding communist of course). He was a supporter of free markets and the amazing progress which they are known to create. Friedman also advocated that government intervention drove up costs by inducing limitations on businesses and creating an increasing number of mandates which made business increasingly complicated.
Read one of Milton Friedman's many books, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care."
EmperorProzen 6 months ago
@Koba1t Easy answer is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Suppose for a moment you had some kind of disaster in life and ended up with nothing.No money, no job.Then assume that despite your best efforts,you are unable for a month or two to get another job.How would you live? Now I suppose the ultimate laissez-faire answer is charities-if people feel strongly about providing for the poor then they will donate their untaxed money freely.
iansimcox 5 months ago
it is not only that companies cant compete for customers but the regulatory burden imposed by the government that raises costs and perpetuates inefficiency
there is also nowhere in the united states where there is "little or no regulation" and we are not talking about "health coverage" we are talking about health care
the best way to get health care is to go directly to a health care provider of your choice and pay for the service;it is in the best interest of the provider to be cost effective
2dum2getsocialism 8 months ago
There is no such thing as a "Free Market" solution for health care and there never will be.
This has never worked for primary care.
MsZeitgeist85 8 months ago 2
@MsZeitgeist85 curious; your response is uttered by statists in every field/industry and if each of you had your way we would be a 3rd world totalitarian cesspool
free markets dont work here in (insert industry here); we need government intervention instead
2dum2getsocialism 8 months ago
@2dum2getsocialism The argument being made is that we don't have a true "Free Market" because insurance companys can't sell insurance accrost state lines. If you did this it would mean less people would be covered because each state regulates this and makes requirements of what they have to cover. Look at the states in the south that have little or no regulation they have the worst health coverage.
This is a model that doesn't exist in any country because it has been tried and it failed.
MsZeitgeist85 8 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 How do you define worst health coverage?
daobagua 8 months ago
@daobagua This is the only country where 30% of the money spent on health insurance doesn't go to actually covering people. That means we have the worst health coverage.
MsZeitgeist85 8 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 I was refering to your coverage through different states. You said that southern states have the worst coverage. But if you rank this based on the amount of people who have insurance, then you might be missing the point. If health care coverage is mandated, then it is likely that their will be a wider range of coverage then if people are free to choose for themself. But then you have all the problems of elevated costs (like your experiencing now). Cheers.
daobagua 8 months ago
@daobagua The point that you are missing is that if people are "free to choose" then it only means they are free to choose to buy a defective product because all the money in the world and for profit health insurance for primary care will never work. That is why no other country uses it.
MsZeitgeist85 8 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 And yet nowhere was free market for-profit healthcare destroyed because it was deficient. Everywhere the free market was destroyed on behalf of privileged groups to the detriment of the patient. Yet as usual the free market is blamed for the results of government decisions. It is taken as proof that the free market is deficient that no country uses it, yet that is no more proof of deficiency than that no country used democracy in 100 BC.
newperve 7 months ago
@newperve His definition of health care in a free market is the out of pocket model that we had before WW2. This is a model that doesn't exist outside of 3rd world countrys. We have the worst health care system of all developed nations and all the other countrys that are ahead of the US have a highly regulated system. Even the Bismark model that Germany and Japan use are highly regulated.
MsZeitgeist85 7 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Why lie? He directly condemns medical licensing in the video which dates from well before WWII. So why claim something anyone with any knowledge at all who sees the video knows is untrue? Why does the fact that a system doesn't exist condemn it? As I stated the free market in health care was NOWHERE destroyed because it was deficient. In fact the AMA destroyed things like lodge doctors for friendly societies because they worked well.
newperve 7 months ago
@newperve Friedman wrote about this in 65 talking about the AMA who kept America from getting Single Payer many times. THere is alot of truth to what Friedman said about the AMA keeping doctors in short supply but when people say "we need to let the Free Market work" they are talking about letting insurance companys sell accrost state lines which would make things much worse.
MsZeitgeist85 7 months ago
@MsZeitgeist86 So are you admitting that you lied when you said he was talking about a system we had before WWII? You are strong on assertions but so far you haven't offered any evidence that the free market failed, ever. Nor have you given us any reason to believe a company that sells insurance worth buying in Texas is going to sell shit insurance in New York.
newperve 7 months ago
@newperve NO because the AMA wasn't doing that back then. And knobody here has refuted my claims on for profit HMOs. THe states that have the least regulations have the worst health coverage. The problem is not enough HMOs the problem is for profit HMOs in the first place. It is a failed system and that is why no other country uses it.
MsZeitgeist85 7 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Fuck off liar they were doing it well before then. Your claim that the system failed references the situation DECADES after it was abandoned. As for HMOs they are an entirely govenrment creation. You haven't shown that interstate competion would make things worse, which is to be expected because less restrictions on competion usuallly make things better. As for your claim that the states with "least regulation" are worst so what? They all have enormous amounts of it.
newperve 7 months ago
@newperve No they weren't doing well before. Bismark created the first universal system in 1873 and TR proposed having Nationalized Care in 1913. HMOs were allowed to get bigger because of the the goverment. This was what Keiser and Nixon wanted.Things were not well back when things were out of pocket that is why other countrys created their own non profit system.
MsZeitgeist85 7 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 I didn't say they were well before then. I said that there was medical licensing well before then (WWII). HMOs exist because of the government legislation, they didn't just get bigger because of it. You say things weren't well before the government took over, compared to what? Poor people could get health insurance at affordable rates through friendly societies. They can't now.
newperve 7 months ago
@newperve As for selling accrost state likes you are clueless on this. If an insurace company wants to sell someone insurance in New York they have to cover lung cancer that is why there are only a handfull of HMOs that sell insurance there because many don't want to cover this. If you allowed HMOs to sell acrost state lines you would allow them to deny for more and more things. Thats why New York is in the top 5 states for health care while Texas that allows all HMOs ranks last.
MsZeitgeist85 7 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 The company being allowed to deny coverage of certain conditions is a GOOD thing. Why should I have to pay for lung cancer insurance when I'm never getting lung cancer? All you're doing is subsidising smokers through my premiums which means healthy people are less likely to get insurance, look up "death spiral" for an idea of the result. Who rates NY better than Texas, I bet it's not the consumers. I only seem clueless to you because I disagree with your ignorance.
newperve 7 months ago
@newperve Not all lung cancer victoms are smokers. If you turly believe that HMOs sould be allowed to deny coverage then you don't even understand how to make out health care system work because they are the main problem. They are the reason we have the worst health care system af all developed nations.
MsZeitgeist85 7 months ago
Comment removed
vakeraj 8 months ago
physicians need to be licensed and somebody that was licensed 30 years ago would still be competent because doctors are obligated to take certain credits to keep up with advancements.This guy is wrong.
miamirider12 8 months ago
@miamirider12 Why do they need to be licensed? How does it help? It doesn't ensure quality, there are plenty of bad doctors around and for years the AMA protected them. Even if you did oblige doctors to keep training the AMA would decide what training they needed to take. Nobody could become or stay a brain surgeon without knowing obstectrics for instance. All licensing is is a supply restriction scheme. That's all it's ever been.
newperve 7 months ago