@Syncdev I love healthy debate, can I ask why make health insurance public? its insurance on health, you can't 'guide' a nation to live by there doctrine of health (plus this will allow major pharm. corps to have more market share (de facto) and gives less hope for new/alternative treatment options, unless you have capital anyway.
@jakobeckert I currently have public health insurance through my dad's medicare. About a year ago I had appendicitus, and if I hadn't had that insurance my family would be in about 35000 dollars in debt: all due to something totally out of my control. Although I'm not for national healthcare, I do think government subsidies to families for emergency health insurance is necessary.
@Syncdev I still see gov. involvement still will have negative side effects.However, could you see this as a state function, and not a nationalized one, the way the ppls of that state want to deal with this issue? I feel only if the maj. of a state pop. wants or dosen't want this it should be left to that state, not to the United states. Plausibly there can be a healthcare plan run by three willing states together, w/o a nationalized mandate on all states!
@jakobeckert Nowadays, state gov'ts and national gov't are both equally imcompetent, so I don't really see why leaving it to the states would make a different. The reason for seperate state governments is because different demographics (urban, rural, etc) result in differential results in the laws, But this is not a question of different success, this is a question of need. This isn't 1830's london, I think people deserve the bare basics of health care at the least.
@Syncdev hahha, I completely agree with your saying states are just as incompetent now-a-days, but why expand, the incompetence, so it is even less controllable by a populous (urban, or rural). But even with that, why give that national trust you wouldn't see fit for states to even care for?? And those basics you speak of are what exactly, theres always a line, and if you give one thing only, then you leave no alt's if thats the min service, it can only be cheap-shitty care, or over wasteful
Still look to the state of Illinois for example, you have a huge-city (very urban) and in the South of the state minor cities, but then rural land. The city takes over most of the states role as it governes because of population, and consumption of capital, So i see your argument, and its validity, but I argue, it needs even more localized legislation, meaning perhaps Cook county, or the city of Chicago itself create their own basics' its sees fit for its residents, so if it chooses.
@jakobeckert As an Illinois resident, I can confirm that that is the case. But you are getting away from my conversation point of healthcare. You need healthcare regardless of where you live so I dont think the locality of state governments is what is important. Healthcare is an anomoly where the free market fails. If I want a burger, I can go to mcdonalds, burger king, or skip it. If I have cancer, I can go to st anthony's, swedish american, or just die: so the market is skewed.
@Syncdev No this is what im getting too. The practices of healthcare change, and in America, like our schools, we are all pushed down the same 'ideal' path of what should be. In reality, cancer is cancer is cancer, but the methods of healing cancer, shall be left up to ind. doctors, and personal choice in treatment. The bigger you expand the bureaucracy of providing some/or basic care, then you end up with the Gov. signing up for huge pharmaceutical and drug companies....
@Syncdev PT2 So Im not getting away from the conversational point of healthcare, Im just breaking it down so regardless of where you live, Washington can't ever say this drug is better than another drug, or any drug at all. Healthcare isn't the anomaly, Medical care is. Medical care is where people will def, need a hand ($ wise) but healthcare needs to be practiced by individuals. And YES there is a distinction!
PT3 the example of McDs & BK, or nothing doesn't work!, because your talking about a need to eat, and the choice of eating (at which est.) (and hopefully not at those fast food places..lol, because then you will need med. care one day). So the choice to eat where is real, but there is no choice in getting cancer, which is a concern, but that requires medical care, and while health care could've aided in not getting cancer possibly, it is not where Gov. should get involved.
@jakobeckert That is exactly my point! People dont choose to get cancer, but they need it taken care of. That person needs healthcare. If you can give me a solution where the gov't doesn't get involved and everyone at least has access to healthcare, then I would concede. However, I think the govt needs to subsidize people so they can get healthcare from the market.
I'm a libertarian too, but I'm for the death penalty (only for murderers, child molesters, terrorists, and rapists), and I believe that countries have a right to protect their borders. Just like the individual has the right to lock their doors and know who's in their house, US citizens have a right to know the identities of the foreigners within our country, as well as what they intend to do here.
this video sucks make something with paulina! she is cooler than this video!
doctorspyprincess 8 months ago
man i love youtube
culvereric 11 months ago
You guys rock. Props!
AvasDevilsAdvocate 1 year ago
I agree iwth pretty all of it except privatizations of schools and health insurance
Syncdev 2 years ago
@Syncdev I love healthy debate, can I ask why make health insurance public? its insurance on health, you can't 'guide' a nation to live by there doctrine of health (plus this will allow major pharm. corps to have more market share (de facto) and gives less hope for new/alternative treatment options, unless you have capital anyway.
jakobeckert 9 months ago
@jakobeckert I currently have public health insurance through my dad's medicare. About a year ago I had appendicitus, and if I hadn't had that insurance my family would be in about 35000 dollars in debt: all due to something totally out of my control. Although I'm not for national healthcare, I do think government subsidies to families for emergency health insurance is necessary.
Syncdev 9 months ago
@Syncdev I still see gov. involvement still will have negative side effects.However, could you see this as a state function, and not a nationalized one, the way the ppls of that state want to deal with this issue? I feel only if the maj. of a state pop. wants or dosen't want this it should be left to that state, not to the United states. Plausibly there can be a healthcare plan run by three willing states together, w/o a nationalized mandate on all states!
jakobeckert 9 months ago
@jakobeckert Nowadays, state gov'ts and national gov't are both equally imcompetent, so I don't really see why leaving it to the states would make a different. The reason for seperate state governments is because different demographics (urban, rural, etc) result in differential results in the laws, But this is not a question of different success, this is a question of need. This isn't 1830's london, I think people deserve the bare basics of health care at the least.
Syncdev 9 months ago
@Syncdev hahha, I completely agree with your saying states are just as incompetent now-a-days, but why expand, the incompetence, so it is even less controllable by a populous (urban, or rural). But even with that, why give that national trust you wouldn't see fit for states to even care for?? And those basics you speak of are what exactly, theres always a line, and if you give one thing only, then you leave no alt's if thats the min service, it can only be cheap-shitty care, or over wasteful
jakobeckert 9 months ago
Still look to the state of Illinois for example, you have a huge-city (very urban) and in the South of the state minor cities, but then rural land. The city takes over most of the states role as it governes because of population, and consumption of capital, So i see your argument, and its validity, but I argue, it needs even more localized legislation, meaning perhaps Cook county, or the city of Chicago itself create their own basics' its sees fit for its residents, so if it chooses.
jakobeckert 9 months ago
@jakobeckert As an Illinois resident, I can confirm that that is the case. But you are getting away from my conversation point of healthcare. You need healthcare regardless of where you live so I dont think the locality of state governments is what is important. Healthcare is an anomoly where the free market fails. If I want a burger, I can go to mcdonalds, burger king, or skip it. If I have cancer, I can go to st anthony's, swedish american, or just die: so the market is skewed.
Syncdev 9 months ago
@Syncdev No this is what im getting too. The practices of healthcare change, and in America, like our schools, we are all pushed down the same 'ideal' path of what should be. In reality, cancer is cancer is cancer, but the methods of healing cancer, shall be left up to ind. doctors, and personal choice in treatment. The bigger you expand the bureaucracy of providing some/or basic care, then you end up with the Gov. signing up for huge pharmaceutical and drug companies....
jakobeckert 9 months ago
@Syncdev PT2 So Im not getting away from the conversational point of healthcare, Im just breaking it down so regardless of where you live, Washington can't ever say this drug is better than another drug, or any drug at all. Healthcare isn't the anomaly, Medical care is. Medical care is where people will def, need a hand ($ wise) but healthcare needs to be practiced by individuals. And YES there is a distinction!
jakobeckert 9 months ago
PT3 the example of McDs & BK, or nothing doesn't work!, because your talking about a need to eat, and the choice of eating (at which est.) (and hopefully not at those fast food places..lol, because then you will need med. care one day). So the choice to eat where is real, but there is no choice in getting cancer, which is a concern, but that requires medical care, and while health care could've aided in not getting cancer possibly, it is not where Gov. should get involved.
jakobeckert 9 months ago
@jakobeckert That is exactly my point! People dont choose to get cancer, but they need it taken care of. That person needs healthcare. If you can give me a solution where the gov't doesn't get involved and everyone at least has access to healthcare, then I would concede. However, I think the govt needs to subsidize people so they can get healthcare from the market.
Syncdev 9 months ago
i agree with every thing exept the iraq and the borders
TheAlaskan42 2 years ago
I'm a libertarian too, but I'm for the death penalty (only for murderers, child molesters, terrorists, and rapists), and I believe that countries have a right to protect their borders. Just like the individual has the right to lock their doors and know who's in their house, US citizens have a right to know the identities of the foreigners within our country, as well as what they intend to do here.
blue4arekkusu 2 years ago
You best check you're definition of terrorist brother, as we might on it soon.
cualcoatl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
love it!
Check out our stuff, if you get a chance, libertarian punk rock / industrial.
Thanks!
Right Arm of Wyoming.
rightarmofwyoming 2 years ago
Government class? Is that high school or college?
atrickpay11 2 years ago
I'd really like to check this out. Is there a link where can I find this on the net somewhere other than youtube?
ENTROPHE 2 years ago
great
karlharleman 3 years ago
Very good :)
Educational too.lol.
Allykins4801 3 years ago
you're white.
xbananasinpajamas 3 years ago
Awesomely Libertarian!
LadyGaura 3 years ago
awsome i agree with everything here except on abortion and the borders.
greenghost2008 3 years ago
Ha u guys r soo cool n cute lol me n ma m8s enjoyed watching dis lol
McMoseley 3 years ago
haha, amazing
prettyinpinko21 4 years ago
educational... haha
aventurer15 4 years ago 3