Just listern to that capitalist moron? and his ranting. He is in effect saying that quality health is commodity that can be profited from. Our health and our lives are inseperable. What happens to the preamble of constitution that granted the right to live? Quality health is a right, that explains the reason hospitals are not allowed to deny care to people because they can't pay. Even enermy combatants in battle field are given health care by the capturing army, let alone citizens
Your right to live isn't your right to take MY MONEY. My money is my own ability to sustain my own life, to buy my own healthcare, and to buy the things that make life worth living. If I make billions of dollars creating and selling to you the services you need to flourish, you've no right to then demand my hard earned money. You have the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to be happy at my expense. The man who doesn't recognize property rights is a savage.
Health care is not a right...but, it is an expression of a societies wish for compassion common good to try all it can to provide health care (and food, shelter - all qualities of basic sustenance). And also the realm of making for a strong citizenry (such as schools, athletics etc) can also be considered.
This does not have to appose capitalism, but work with it. It is complicated, but, why should the organization of a society be as simple as a free market suggests?
You either have unregulated capitalism or you have socialism (a mix of government planning and free enterprise). Men may interact by one of two principles, they may exchange value for value (free trade) or they may exchange violence for value. Its your whips or our minds. Every oppressive socialist regime causes a stagnation of free thought in the long run. The unintuitive reason for this is that you can't think under compulsion, it doesn't work.
How dare insurance companies help those than need insurance eh? (In case yea can't tell that is sarcasm) The basic principle of insurance is to indemnify the misfortune of the few by pooling the contributions of many. It is a give and take system, lets see how much you wine about higher premiums when this law hits you close to home and saves you or someone you care about.
I will accept this argument when the FDA, AMA, and DEA stop controlling the availability of treatment and drugs.The AMA also limits the availability of medical training and the number of people allowed to become doctors each year.
You can't have a selectively free market. deregulating insurance without deregulating drugs and the supply of medical care in relation to the demand, is useless.
(See "Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market") by Dr. Thomas Szasz
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's incredible to me the lengths that ARI will go to these days to make end runs around the actual bread and butter issues on which Ayn Rand based her philosophy. Such as coercion. Such as privacy. They're completely compromised. "Forced welfare transfer" my ass. I'm sorry, but this level of intellectual dishonesty makes me angry.
Don't you think that you're, perhaps, throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Are you disagreeing with Mr. Bowden, in principle, that free markets are bad? Of course there are all kinds of private sector villians cashing on today's mixed economy, but trashing them just plays into the socialist's hands. Besides, they're not the root of the problem.
And neither are your idiotic rants about eugenics and conspiracies.
I can only conclude that the speaker is deliberately evading the fact that insurance companies, as they exist in THIS WORLD and not in a laissez-faire society, are part of an end-to-end statist healthcare system - one in which DNA and bodily secretions are now being routinely collected and collated by health departments, police, and employer as a condition of birth, egress, or employment.
The new American law, S. 1858, is one of the more pernicious examples, laying the groundwork for a national DNA registry with massive potential for abuse under the guise of 'newborn screening'. Is this consistent with the principles of a free society?
If I'm wrong, then this represents a SUBSTANTIAL market opportunity for those insurance companies that choose to offer less invasive business plans. If I'm right, then what we are seeing in the return of a soft eugenics policy. Remember, it's not that long ago that Western governments were sterilizing 'undesirables'.
"...essentially fascist...". Exactly. I would thank you for saying so, were it not for the fact that I fully expect ARI to have the integrity to say so as a matter of course.
Another contribution is due, from me, to ARI. I'm paying bills tomorrow, if all goes according to plan. I would encourage others to contribute to ARI likewise (it is a deductible, charitable donation, after all).
I thought fascism was defined as business in bed with government, or where business runs the government. I don't see the connection, unless our definitions are different.
For government to run business they have to be in bed with the businesses. You can't maintain a kingdom without barons and lords just the same way you can't run a socialism without an upper class to act as a managerial class. Immoral businessmen want socialism so that they don't have to compete with moral businessmen. They want government handouts. Whom do you think the government consults before enacting regulations?
It seem like insurance is a bet againt youself. However check with Keven Rutherford on XM radio 171 the trucker business channel they were talking about what you were and are addressing pre existing issuses and excepting people with those kind of problems at a affordable rate.
Just listern to that capitalist moron? and his ranting. He is in effect saying that quality health is commodity that can be profited from. Our health and our lives are inseperable. What happens to the preamble of constitution that granted the right to live? Quality health is a right, that explains the reason hospitals are not allowed to deny care to people because they can't pay. Even enermy combatants in battle field are given health care by the capturing army, let alone citizens
abdulsidibe 2 years ago
Your right to live isn't your right to take MY MONEY. My money is my own ability to sustain my own life, to buy my own healthcare, and to buy the things that make life worth living. If I make billions of dollars creating and selling to you the services you need to flourish, you've no right to then demand my hard earned money. You have the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to be happy at my expense. The man who doesn't recognize property rights is a savage.
clemonsx90 2 years ago
Comment removed
clue1489 2 years ago
Health care is not a right...but, it is an expression of a societies wish for compassion common good to try all it can to provide health care (and food, shelter - all qualities of basic sustenance). And also the realm of making for a strong citizenry (such as schools, athletics etc) can also be considered.
This does not have to appose capitalism, but work with it. It is complicated, but, why should the organization of a society be as simple as a free market suggests?
knowyourwhites 3 years ago
You either have unregulated capitalism or you have socialism (a mix of government planning and free enterprise). Men may interact by one of two principles, they may exchange value for value (free trade) or they may exchange violence for value. Its your whips or our minds. Every oppressive socialist regime causes a stagnation of free thought in the long run. The unintuitive reason for this is that you can't think under compulsion, it doesn't work.
clemonsx90 2 years ago
How dare insurance companies help those than need insurance eh? (In case yea can't tell that is sarcasm) The basic principle of insurance is to indemnify the misfortune of the few by pooling the contributions of many. It is a give and take system, lets see how much you wine about higher premiums when this law hits you close to home and saves you or someone you care about.
mtaj1981 3 years ago
I will accept this argument when the FDA, AMA, and DEA stop controlling the availability of treatment and drugs.The AMA also limits the availability of medical training and the number of people allowed to become doctors each year.
You can't have a selectively free market. deregulating insurance without deregulating drugs and the supply of medical care in relation to the demand, is useless.
(See "Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market") by Dr. Thomas Szasz
freneticd 3 years ago
great video! If only more Americans understood the key words in this video: "Healthcare is NOT a RIGHT"... So many Americans think that it is.
freericecars 3 years ago 2
you are correct in all but one sense, and that is your use of the mildly orwellian term "healthcare".
since when did medicine start being called "healthcare"?
the word carries the nasty innuendo that if you oppose socialised medicine, you are against health, and against care.
richardcadbury 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's incredible to me the lengths that ARI will go to these days to make end runs around the actual bread and butter issues on which Ayn Rand based her philosophy. Such as coercion. Such as privacy. They're completely compromised. "Forced welfare transfer" my ass. I'm sorry, but this level of intellectual dishonesty makes me angry.
tehowe 3 years ago
tehowe,
Don't you think that you're, perhaps, throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Are you disagreeing with Mr. Bowden, in principle, that free markets are bad? Of course there are all kinds of private sector villians cashing on today's mixed economy, but trashing them just plays into the socialist's hands. Besides, they're not the root of the problem.
And neither are your idiotic rants about eugenics and conspiracies.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago 3
I can only conclude that the speaker is deliberately evading the fact that insurance companies, as they exist in THIS WORLD and not in a laissez-faire society, are part of an end-to-end statist healthcare system - one in which DNA and bodily secretions are now being routinely collected and collated by health departments, police, and employer as a condition of birth, egress, or employment.
tehowe 3 years ago
The new American law, S. 1858, is one of the more pernicious examples, laying the groundwork for a national DNA registry with massive potential for abuse under the guise of 'newborn screening'. Is this consistent with the principles of a free society?
tehowe 3 years ago
If I'm wrong, then this represents a SUBSTANTIAL market opportunity for those insurance companies that choose to offer less invasive business plans. If I'm right, then what we are seeing in the return of a soft eugenics policy. Remember, it's not that long ago that Western governments were sterilizing 'undesirables'.
Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
tehowe 3 years ago
"...essentially fascist...". Exactly. I would thank you for saying so, were it not for the fact that I fully expect ARI to have the integrity to say so as a matter of course.
Another contribution is due, from me, to ARI. I'm paying bills tomorrow, if all goes according to plan. I would encourage others to contribute to ARI likewise (it is a deductible, charitable donation, after all).
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago 2
I thought fascism was defined as business in bed with government, or where business runs the government. I don't see the connection, unless our definitions are different.
AndyMH182 3 years ago
Yes, AndyMH182, your definition of fascism is incorrect.
freericecars 3 years ago
Yes Andy is describing "Corporatism," described by Mussolini himself as a necessary precondition
for the establishment of a fascist state.
freneticd 3 years ago
For government to run business they have to be in bed with the businesses. You can't maintain a kingdom without barons and lords just the same way you can't run a socialism without an upper class to act as a managerial class. Immoral businessmen want socialism so that they don't have to compete with moral businessmen. They want government handouts. Whom do you think the government consults before enacting regulations?
clemonsx90 2 years ago
That's bush.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
It seem like insurance is a bet againt youself. However check with Keven Rutherford on XM radio 171 the trucker business channel they were talking about what you were and are addressing pre existing issuses and excepting people with those kind of problems at a affordable rate.
texascanyon 3 years ago
When you socialize anything you bring down everyone.
AndyMH182 3 years ago 4
Now the healthy will be shouldering the insurance load for the infirm. Wonderful.
petrsakharov 3 years ago 6
Gattaca.
EndTheism 3 years ago 4