@Virgil0211 Poor poor Virgil. Expects to win through personal attacks and proof by spamming links instead of saying which links go to which argument. Actually respond rather than giving empty "They've been rebutted" arguments.
@Virgil0211 Poor poor Virgil. Expects to win through personal attacks and proof by spamming links instead of saying which links go to which argument. Actually respond rather than giving empty "They've been rebutted" arguments.
@Nightmare060 You've already been beaten, and shown that you can't comprehend the arguments against you. This is just a warning to anyone dumb enough to swallow your drivel. A way to inoculate them from your stupidity.
@Virgil0211 No matter how many times you say "You loose moron!" or something to that effect, unless you make actual arguments you are doing nothing than throwing fallacies. I've asked repeatedly which threads address which points and where, but you have said nothing. Clearly you are just trying to push your constant appeals to ridicule and proof by verbosity.
@Nightmare060 As I said before, I and others have already addressed your points. This is for your viewers, not for you. It's funny, though, how your conceit prohibits you from viewing it as being anything but an attack on you.
@Virgil0211 The only viewers you will convince are people who are already bias towards your ideal. Just like how creationists will flock to their role models. And since you have given no reference as to which arguments are which and expect people to sift through pages of comments to identify vague responses, all your giving in the end are red herrings.
@Nightmare060 'The only viewers I will convince are people who are already biased towards my ideals. Just like how creationists will flock to their role models.'
FTFY
You mean a bit like how you provide no evidence to your counter-arguments except links to people who agree with you and wikipedia without specifying sections? At least with my stuff, all you have to do is use the 'find' function for your name.
@Nightmare060 "Poor poor Virgil. Expects to win through personal attacks and proof by spamming links instead of saying which links go to which argument. "
@Virgil0211 Can you tell me which pages supposedly argue against which argument? Because without a basis to know what I'm supposedly looking for, I'm just waisting time searching for a needle in a haystack.
You were already beaten on these points in Shane's videos on the subject. Simply re-stating your beaten arguments here doesn't make them any more valid. If you're tired of debating Shanedk and myself, why don't you look up fletchforfreedom? You're obviously looking for another beating.
@Virgil0211 "You're obviously looking for another beating." I stopped arguing on those videos due to a lack of research and the fact that I can't respond to five people at once! Getting a new e-mail alert for a reply every 5 seconds isn't exactly the easiest position to debate. Perhaps if you could try addressing my arguments now that they are sourced and clarified rather than just proclaiming yourself the winner?
@Nightmare060 Perhaps if you had adequate sources. You don't have a single statistic collection or peer reviewed article in your source list. The closest you've gotten is that Huffington Post article, which is still a collection of anecdotes instead of actual, and more reliable, statistics. This was explained to you on the other video where you attempted to use a TV show as evidence, and couldn't seem to understand why an anecdote was unreliable compared to real data. (cont.)
@Nightmare060 Considering that you haven't provided any new sources or arguments, why should we do this over again? You haven't learned anything from our last encounter. All you've done is found a bunch of other people who agree with you and called on their anecdotes for support. That's not research, or educating yourself on the issues. You've learned nothing. To save time, I'm going to post the links to the comments of each video where you were beaten. People will see you for what you are.
@Virgil0211 Alright then, ignoring all the examples of people with per-existing conditions getting denied insurance and the fact that I've stated I don't think that people should be out of pocket or have terms and conditions what will and will not be covered to begin with to begin with when it comes to healthcare (and that the NHS does effectively provide free to the point of use healthcare for everyone), what statistics are you exactly looking for?
@Nightmare060 You misunderstand me. You need to use reliable data to support your assertions, whatever they may be. If you claim that fewer regulations would lead to more problems, you need to use sources. Define 'problems', 'regulations', etc. Your arguments reek of a desperate post hoc justification.
And you've been given plenty of examples, as the comment thread I posted shows. Like I said, we've been through this before. I'd rather not waste my time repeating the same dance.
@Virgil0211 OK, I'll define my problems for you; The biggest problem I see is that with a free market, your access to healthcare would be based on your ability to pay rather than what you need. If people can't pay or have a pre-existing condition, they loose out. This problem does not exist in a UHC system, since when a system is paid through taxes everything is free to the point of use.
@Virgil0211 This was addressed, to the best of my knowledge, by suggesting that charity will cover those that don't get covered. And what I am saying is that with a charity, it is dependent ENTIRELY on the generosity of other people and is not guaranteed to reach every other person. Taxes do ensure this and people aren't left out of pocket. And again, healthcare should be free to the point of use since it is a human right and not a privilege.
@Virgil0211 When I talk about "Regulations", I am talking about enforced rules to make sure that people are getting treated fairly. With no consequences for ones actions, there will always be people who will do bad things. That is a fact of life. You say regulations make things worse; How is stopping a company from denying people with pre-existing conditions, who often need it most, a bad thing? Basically I trust the government to keep healthcare accessible than I do private companies.
@Virgil0211 From what I've read, the free market system expects people to regulate themselves due to a supply and demand system, right? Well this often relies on there being enough options in the area and that the people know they are being cheated. Look at pseudo-science cures such as homeopathy. People often flock to them because of the placebo effect. I trust people who actually make sure people are being treated fairly and know what they're talking about over an invisible hand.
@Virgil0211 Where? I don't have time to go through all the different pages of ShaneDK's video to find the particular comments that address it many months ago. Again, provide a counter-argument rather than saying "go look it up". And if you bring up the issues of waiting lists again, I will gladly point out that it is a need before greed basis so people with the most urgent needs get treated first. Emergency cases being the priority ;).
@Nightmare060 I posted the comments thread to the page.
This was addressed.
Your ignorance of economics is not a supplement for an argument. You may get father if you do actual research instead of starting from a presupposed moral conclusion. It's much like when a creationist cries that evolution says they descended from monkeys and aren't unique individuals, or that it means that people have no reason to behave morally.
@Virgil0211 Keep telling me that my stance is religious rather than saying what actual statistics you want. Keep avoiding arguments and telling me to "look it up" in a vast sea of comments which I have no reasonable time to spend fishing for comments. Keep making straw-man arguments instead of arguing against what I'm actually saying. It only makes me loose interest in your arguments more.
@Virgil0211 (cont) Give me exact words to search for and I will look further into it to find what you are looking for. Help me to improve my research skills and you shall get a more definitive answer your looking for! Although from my base understanding, the free market is essentially social darwinism where you have to rely on the generosity of other people (which can EASILY be corrupted, salvation army anyone?) for people on the bottom to get what should be a human right and not a privilege.
@Virgil0211 I've read the first few comments which seem to deal with my points about charity and using money as a basis for what healthcare a person receives. What I feel ShaneDK is ignoring is that there are also many GREEDY people in the world too. And charity again, can be easily exploited. With charity, as fantastic as it is when people are generous, it is not a guaranteed way for everyone in the country to get the access to healthcare they need. With UHC, they do.
@Nightmare060 Your points actually were addressed. You just ignored them. Like I said, I don't feel that I should repeat the same dance when you've obviously learned nothing, nor become more open to a discussion. I just posted this here for the benefit of anyone who may watch this video and think you've got some insight or something, so that they can see your behavior for what it is.
But hey, thanks for bumping it to the front page by commenting on it. =P
@Virgil0211 Perhaps you could just re-iterate the counter points so that I can address them now rather than just saying "That's been answered" without saying what those answers are. ShandeDK has misrepresented the NHS and it's waiting times before, and I have already linked videos which suggest why taxation does NOT equate to theft. I see UHC as a much more fair and moral system.
@Nightmare060 I've posted the comment thread where most of this occurred. That should be enough. As I said, this isn't for your benefit, but for the benefit of anyone you may try to swindle. You have already demonstrated an inability to consider counter-arguments, considering that you instead looked for others to support you rather than come up with a counter-argument to the taxation-as-theft criticism.
Creationists see Christianity as more fair & moral, too. Nice company you keep.
@Virgil0211 Now your just going into projection mode. Instead of throwing personal attacks you could actually argue against my points. I have linked to videos that suggest why taxation is NOT theft and shown how it is a fair system by giving information about how the NHS actually works. Why do you feel it is more moral to rely on peoples ability to pay and hoping that people are generous enough to give to charity rather than a system that grantees total coverage?
@Nightmare060 I made no personal attacks. I simply compared similar arguments.
Your points were argued against in the comments section I posted. You just ignored them.
Appeal to common belief/practice is a logical fallacy. You've made no counter-arguments to the fact that taxation is force, and paying for someone else's healthcare is not a response to force.
You've posted no statistics, thus no reliable data.
Because doing so covers more people without resorting to theft.
@Virgil0211 "ou've made no counter-arguments to the fact that taxation is force, and paying for someone else's healthcare is not a response to force." Is the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family a criminal? This "Force" you keep going on about ensures that everyone gets covered because the system becomes free to the point of use! Do you even know what that means? It is not "theft" when you are pooling your own money and essentially helping people on the bottom anyway.
2. It's force if you jail people for not participating. This was explained to you.
3. Think of it this way. It may help. Every instance of taxation is theft. It is the taking of someone's possessions under threat of imprisonment. One could make the case for necessity in the case of police and military as responses to force. One runs into more problems when taxation is used to support things that aren't responses to force. (cont.)
@Virgil0211 Typical libertarian tactics. Just keep saying it's theft long enough and ignore what it actually does for people and your argument will magically be superior! Please, one last chance. address my points directly and tell me what kind of statistics your after (statistics saying what exactly) or do me a favor and STFU.
What said taxation is used for is what makes it unjustifiable theft. The application of the tax money was directly related to the argument against it. No-one is ignoring what it is used for.
You've argued that taxation is different from theft even though the two actions are the same. The onus is on you to prove that state theft is somehow different or morally acceptable.
They're your arguments. If you don't know what statistics you need... (cont.)
@Virgil0211 So taxation is not justifiably used to treat the sick and injured? Says alot about you. But I grow tired in going round in circles when you just keep saying "look it up" and "It IS theft/Slavery" as a counter-argument. Hopefully people will respond better to arguments actually made rather than insults and "Go look somewhere ells" arguments.
And as I said before, you need to establish that either a) taxation is not theft due to some unique quality of the state that exempts it from the same moral rules followed by others, or b) that theft is justified for your pet project when it isn't a response to aggression or force.
As I said before, I'm sure they're quite capable of looking up comment threads. I'll make sure I regularly post the link so that it stays up front.
@Virgil0211 Do you know what the term "Necessary evil" is? Yes, taxes are enforced by law, however it falls into a moral gray area. Is the price you pay for "Theft" sufficient enough to receive healthcare that is free to the point of use? Do you see it as more ethical to run the risk of bankruptcy if the insurance company decides not to pay for a particular medical procedure (or if you have a per-existing condition) than to have a wait list ranked by who needs care most?
@Virgil0211 Also keep in mind, I'm sure that in an emergency situation even a free market system would treat people immediately. The question then becomes how often they receive further care and how much it will cost a person. From my point of view, I'd rather have some waiting time to do beyond emergency operations/first aid and the like and never have to worry about money since it's all paid through taxes. Really, the benefits outweigh the risks.
@Nightmare060 And for the record, and has already been explained to you, there's nothing wrong with giving of your own money to help someone else. Taking a gun and threatening someone to get them to treat a sick/injured third party is theft no matter how you slice it. Anyone who does so must be willing to accept the consequences, including imprisonment, and decide if that result is worth the act. However, one cannot argue that it was somehow moral and that they shouldn't be punished.
@Nightmare060 ...then what the hell are you doing arguing the point? Haven't you ever taken a research methods class, or any higher level college courses that require you to write a paper? This should be obvious.
And, as I said before, this was already explained to you and addressed in the comment thread I posted before. Your ignorance is not my problem. This is for the benefit of any viewers this video might get, to inoculate them from this nonsense.
@Virgil0211 I have told him EXACTLY what I would accept as justification. I told him that if he can provide statistics showing overly high healthcare costs before the British government took over and that cost going down after they took control and remaining so to this day, then I would gladly admit the error of my ways. It's that easy!
@lordthawkeye While I do further research, can you provide me with an example of a modern country that has a free market system? Time and location should be enough to start with.
@Nightmare060 There are no countries today one could really call 100% free market. Governments don't like free markets because that means less money and power for them and that simply won't do.
Before you claim victory however...
Can you provide an example of a country in the 1800's who didn't have slavery? No? Well then obviously we can't let the slaves go cause it could never work!
Just making sure you're aware why "It's never been done before" is a legendarily retarded argument.
@lordthawkeye You actually have a point there. Yes, just the notion that it hasn't been done is no basis to say it won't work. HOWEVER, my problem is that you are putting a massive amount of trust in peoples generosity. You may very well believe that people will be fair and generous enough to give enough money to keep even the uninsured people covered, but to me this is a massive position of faith. I feel it's better to make sure people will never be out of pocket for healthcare (TBC
You want to give one elite group complete control over a vital market that people's very lives depend on and somehow I'M the one putting too much trust in people's generosity? You might want to rethink that one.
@lordthawkeye MORE Straw-men that you keep pumping out! Perhaps you should educate yourself on how the NHS actually works or even read some of my very recent comments explaining how it is free to the point of use. And just an FYI, while you still have to pay taxes to make sure everyone gets emergency services, you can still go to private insurance companies for none-lethal illnesses and the like if you can afford it.
@lordthawkeye (cont) to begin with. Yes, the waiting lists at their worst can be a problem. No system is perfect. Without pointing the finger at horror stories on either end (which we have both done), I would say "theft" to make something free to the point of use is a much smaller evil than becoming bankrupt just to pay for healthcare.
@Nightmare060 Except for the fact that your country is becoming bankrupt to pay for healthcare anyway so you haven't even actually solved that problem.
The reason why I don't think you care all that much about the sick is because you haven't done one ounce of research into WHY costs are so high. You just say "cuz capitalism is TEH EVIL" and break for lunch.
Your lack of effort into learning the truth is why I don't think for a second that you're in this out of virtue.
@lordthawkeye "Except for the fact that your country is becoming bankrupt to pay for healthcare anyway so you haven't even actually solved that problem." Regardless of if this is true or not, you have done NOTHING to address the points I'm actually arguing. Instead you try and push it to an area you know I'm not as knowledgeable on. My arguments is that it's unethical to put a price on peoples healthcare and so taxes make sure it's free to the point of use.
@Nightmare060 And, strangely enough, this was already addressed in the comments page I posted.
Like I said, this isn't for your benefit. Shane, VSPQD, LTH, and myself have already spent weeks trying to educate you. I even cracked open my old textbooks to try and give you a basic education. You ignored every single point that was presented to you. When you couldn't make the case for efficiency, actual coverage, etc, you fell back on morality. Just like a creationist.
@Nightmare060 As I said before, this isn't for your benefit. Your religious devotion to the NHS has already been established. This is for the benfit of any subscribers you may have, or anyone who comes across this video. It's to inoculate them against falling for your nonsense.
@Nightmare060 But as I said, this isn't for your benefit. This is to inoculate those you try to swindle. You're a bit like Kent Hovind, or Nephilimfree in this matter. You won't listen. The most that can be done is to inoculate those who may be foolish enough to swallow your hemlock. Every argument you've posted has been addressed before.
@Virgil0211 And you are just like the creationist pointing out how the "evolutionist" is false every time regardless of what they actually say. We can throw any personal attacks all day, but the fact is that MY system (the NHS) allows every person to get treated according to their own need, money no objective. In a free market system, you are basically hoping people will be generous enough and that the private companies will be kind enough to serve every person in the country fairly.
@Virgil0211 and one more thing; Can you point out where free-market systems actually exists so I have something to compare to that you will accept? Since every time I compare with, what to me is a largely private company run system, you say it's not good enough since it's not a free market.
@lordthawkeye *Facepalm* Let me say this to you ONE MORE TIME! America needs MORE regulations rather than LESS, because in a free market you would get MORE people being denied because they aren't profitable to ensure. An entirely privatized system would base care on how much you could pay, and the poor would get left in the dirt.
@Nightmare060 I said you where using Marxist rhetoric, go Google rhetoric.
I didn't attack you what so ever... I typed up about 10 repliess and decided that it wasn't worth trying to explain. I also didn't explicitly say you where wrong, just they you should learn economics before you act like you know something.
If you want a rebuttal then here it is, If people are to have a right no not have to go into debt for health care, then why don't I have a right to not pay taxes?
@MirageScience Because otherwise there wouldn't be enough money going into the system to cover such essential services such as healthcare. Even in countries like Japan, taxes are there so that those at the bottom can still afford to get treated. I'd say loosing a small percentage of your earnings above a certain income is MUCH better than running the risk of bankrupcy for health-care
@Nightmare060 I don't see how I'm responsible for their health, and I defiantly don't see how I'm responsible if they aren't even responsible. I own myself, and my ability to produce and a claim on my agreed to income is a claim on my abilities and therefore myself. If that isn't theft or slavery i don't know what is.
@MirageScience So what? The people who can't afford healthcare should be left to die? Charity won't be nearly enough to cover that chunk of the population. Taxes grantee that the money goes to those who need it. The every man for himself philosophy is basically social darwinism.
@Nightmare060 So some how forcing people to pay for other peoples problems makes them pay more? mind telling me how you know this too? Where are your indicators, your evidence? If people get the money that they don't have to pay in taxes whats to say they they don't eventually give more to poor people. sure seems to me that they would have to pay the bureaucrats to shuffle the money for them.
@MirageScience "Where are your indicators, your evidence?" YOU are making the claim that it doesn't, so YOU provide sources to suggest it isn't. Otherwise your just making conspiracy theories. I live in the UK which has the NHS, and entirely tax funded system. Everyone gets healthcare on a need before greed basis. Maybe you should do your research before barging into the comments section making unfounded allegations against a system you know nothing about.
and how can you say its better for someone to not go into bankruptcy and for someone else to pay for it in any case? How can you tell that who ever it may be hat you are taking the money away from will not put it to better use?
@MirageScience Why would my money not be put to better use than giving people money for healthcare that they need to survive? Is becoming homeless for paying to survive fair to you?
@Nightmare060 how do you know that the businessman is not going to use the money to increase his profits then increase his donations to charity? Please tell me how you became a money management god without understanding economics.
@MirageScience I base it off knowladge on what kind of money a charity would pull in. Look at the kind of money that was raised for MSF through people here on youtube. Then look at the costs of healthcare for a single person. Then think about how many people get denied health insurance due to things like a preexisting condition. That and charities can be exploited. Salvation army anyone? Taxes ensure that the NHS is free to the point of use.
@Nightmare060 first nothing payed by taxes is free, if anything it costs more to pay for government workers. Second you cant use statistics of how much people donate now, under a tax system to tell how much they will donate without a tax system. I'm pretty sure that people used to be able to take care of their families, want to geese why they don't do it so well now? Maybe if you do really want to look at the charity statistics, you should also look at every which way the government gets money.
@MirageScience Who are you to say that enough people would certainly use the extra money they save from lack of taxes to go to charity? Taxes grantee that certain services are FREE TO THE POINT OF USE. Perhaps you should look up what that actually mean before you start ranting about how it's "not free". It means you will never have any charges upfront that will leave people out of pocket. And thus the treatment you get has nothing to do with money, it's based on what you need.
@Nightmare060 income tax, corporate tax (which is passed on to the individual), sales tax, gift tax, property tax, and don't forget the biggest one as of today, Inflation.
It comes down to a philosphical discussion about the role of government. If you think people should be forced to pay for someone else's medical conditions, whether they are preexisting conditions or not, congratulations, you have a different set of values than the average libertarian.
You also made the mistake of calling the United States healthcare system a free market. Just saying.
@theVAGINAntichrist "If you think people should be forced to pay for someone else's medical conditions, whether they are preexisting conditions or not" Here's the thing; It comes down what is effective in getting the most people fairly covered. I think being out of pocket for a vital service such as healthcare is unethical. And I don't see the big deal in being "Forced" to earn a tiny bit less to get free to the point of use healthcare for all conditions. And it's the same for everyone.
@theVAGINAntichrist "You also made the mistake of calling the United States healthcare system a free market. Just saying." OK, this has come up before so let me be clear; The US healthcare system is NOT a free market, but it is very largely run by private insurance companies who fund for peoples healthcare if you pay them out of pocket. But considering the amount of terms and conditions they will often use to get around this I feel that left to their own devices they would be LESS fair, not more
@theVAGINAntichrist *facepalm* Genetic Fallacy. How they originated is irrelevant, especially since you haven't addressed the point about how they deny people with per-existing conditions coverage and have on numerous occasions made excuses so not to cover people who actually need it. Examples of which are sourced in the description of this video.
@Nightmare060 You claim to be against free market health insurance. You use the examples of non free market health insurance companies to explain why. You are the one making the logical fallacy.
Again, it's just a philosophical issue. You want people to have health coverage. So? Start a charity. Donate to charity. Convince people to donate to charity. Or you can take the fascist route and steal money from people to pay for health costs for people they don't know or care about.
@theVAGINAntichrist "You use the examples of non free market health insurance companies to explain why." This shows me you don't understand my argument. You see, the reason I oppose free market healthcare is because a free market implies that there would be no regulations or restrictions imposed by the government. But if they already cheat WITH regulations, why will they be expected not to cheat without them? We either need MORE and BETTER regulations to control them, not LESS.
@theVAGINAntichrist "Convince people to donate to charity. Or you can take the fascist route and steal money from people to pay for health costs for people they don't know or care about." Didn't I address the charity point in my video? Charities are wonderful, but they can't generate NEARLY the amount of money needed for use by the entire country that taxes do. Using weasel words like "Fascist" and "Stealing" aren't helping your argument. I've already explained how it isn't stealing and works.
@Nightmare060 You've convinced YOURSELF that it isn't stealing. What you call "weasel words" are just words that make you upset because they threaten your worldview. You are forcing people, with threat of violence, to give money to what you deem good for society. You are evil, even though your intentions may be good.
@theVAGINAntichrist Good to see the old liberatarian arguments coming up again! Can't refute their arguments? Call them names instead! Think of it this way, which is worse; "Stealing" a small portion of a persons income to give free to the point of use healthcare where everyone will get treated, or private buisnesses that are paid for out of pocket and frequently try and find ways to AVOID paying for your healthcare, forcing you to pay thousands of dollars for treatment?
@theVAGINAntichrist P.S; I recommend you start looking up on logical fallacies instead. Because suggesting I'm bias for calling out logical fallacies instead of accepting your argument is exactly how a conservative christian argued when I pointed out how his arguments against gay marriage were flawed ;)
@theVAGINAntichrist And another straw man argument! Your definition of theft was addressed in DlandonCole's video. But I shall spell it out to you one more time; The only "Threats" you receive are the equivalent of other threats you would receive from any other laws. As you keep ignoring, charities have insufficient funds to pay for an ENTIRE COUNTRIES healthcare. The only way to reasonably pay for essential services without people paying out of pocket is through taxes.
@theVAGINAntichrist (cont) and furthermore, taxes are not theft because you are essentially paying the government to pool your money and get access to something that is essential for every human being on the planet that everyone would be paying insurance for anyway. Unless you are mega rich, you probably can't afford to pay thousands of dollars upfront for healthcare. And so the government has PROVEN that nationalized healthcare payed through taxes are much more fair than companies ever will be.
I don't pander to the super rich. To become super rich in our society, you must plunder and steal. I am a free marketer. I'm not a libertarian, however (mainly because I don't know what people mean by it).
@SomethingSea1 The reason that definition is faulty is because you don't get any benefit out of it. Is the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family still in the wrong? And if not, how is the state "Stealing" money through taxes to pay for healthcare accessible to everyone?
"Is the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family still in the wrong?"
Yes. And he's stealing because, I'm betting, he's living in an empire State that has systematically taken his effort/value/money away such that he can't do anything else but steal bread.
""Stealing" money through taxes to pay for healthcare accessible to everyone?"
See my response to 7:31. If it's so fair, it shouldn't need to be involuntary.
"That if private businesses are to be in control..."
All (or nearly all) businesses are corporations. A corporations is a legal entity designated by the State. All or nearly all businesses are legal entities of the State.
@SomethingSea1 The way I understand it, currently the corporations are being worked in the fashion where they are being bailed out by the state. I think that the answer is not to remove the state all together as a factor, but rather the government put their food down and treat the private companies like a naughty child and enforce rules properly.
Gov't does just the opposite. What you're seeing today is the result of "gov't regulation".
I'm not against regulations/enforcement. Gov't is not only a poor way to enforce, but a bad way to; it will result in the opposite in what is assumed will happen.
@SomethingSea1 Such as? LESS regulation will result in more disasters like the recent BP oilspill because there is nothing to stop them cutting costs on what they don't think is cost effective. It's possible to have bad regulation, but to suggest that the state cannot do any good regulation is a massive generalization.
@SomethingSea1 Well this is the way I understand it; Corporations are where private businesses are like spoiled children. The state is babying them and bailing them out when things go wrong, so they keep doing wrong. If instead the state stopped spoiling them and instead enforced proper regulations, then there will be less such disasters. I would think working for the people and the vote would be a big incentive enough.
"I would think working for the people and the vote would be a big incentive enough."
Well... a guess you have a more optimistic view about things. I see sociopaths trying to find any way that they can to get everyone's money and dominate everyone. If you get rid of the mechanisms (The State) that enable this, you get rid of the sociopaths being able to get power. If nothing else, it greatly reduces their ability.
Of course not (that's why the "regulation" of today is full of fail -- the State is regulating corporations, which are themselves part of the State). A solution that comes to mind is that of the business of regulating companies -- that is, making that into a business. Why wouldn't it become corrupt? Because if it does a shitty job of evaluation, people will eventually find that out, and not recommend it. This can also apply at a "grass roots" level. Just some speculation.
@SomethingSea1 There is a problem with this idea; It relies on the damage being obvious. Do any current insurance companies insure people with per-existing conditions? If there was no option that do, why is it fair for those with per-existing conditions have to pay thousands of dollars to afford healthcare? Plus you only have to look at pseudo-science like homeopathy to show that people are not always as knowledgeable on how such treatments work. The placebo effect is a very powerful tool.
"There is a problem with this idea; It relies on the damage being obvious."
That's a good response, and this is an area I haven't studied in depth. You could check out other anti-statists such as fringeelements, JacobSpinney, and so forth.
"Do any current insurance companies insure people with per-existing conditions?"
That would be a bad idea to do. However, there is a demand for it, so I would guess a company would sprout up to supply.
"If there was no option that do, why is it fair for those with per-existing conditions have to pay thousands of dollars to afford healthcare?"
Yes. They are a risk. There have been many possibilities and solutions to this problem offered by other anti-statists/anarchists. I tend to not care about this issue much. Obviously, no one cares about those without health insurance. Therefore, no one will do anything about it.
"Plus you only have to look at pseudo-science like homeopathy to show that people are not always as knowledgeable on how such treatments work. The placebo effect is a very powerful tool."
Homeopathy is not dangerous necessarily. Often, it's just a waste of money. People can waste their money all they want.
"When profit is a motive, they will try to find loopholes"
And if there isn't a State around to enforce this insanity, likely you wouldn't see a great deal of it, is my guess, alongside with things like reputation stats.
Unless of course you meant a Statist system that has the free market on top of it. Then I agree. That's headed for failure.
@SomethingSea1 What I'm talking about is where there ISN'T a state to enforce any rules about fairness, then companies will word their own rules so that there are loopholes to do whatever is most profitable. Already before Obamacare has been fully enforced, insurance companies are still denying people with per-existing conditions to save money.
So, a business starts up with no connection to the State is the premise? 'Cause, you can't get around a loophole that doesn't exist.
So, in that case no State, if the business enacts rules that customers don't like, how will the business survive a lack of customers? (Rep goes down and people stop shopping there, business goes bankrupt).
@SomethingSea1 Haha well we seem to be up at the same time. I hate it when people are being exploited, and I know from experience that state run healthcare does and can work. But also, I think that systems like Japan where they have state alternatives but also strong regulations to keep companies in check can and does also work. I see both as better alternatives than allowing the private companies to run free unrestrained.
"I hate it when people are being exploited, and I know from experience that state run healthcare does and can work."
I don't like people being exploited either, though I also include "against their will". I see The State as one of the, if not the main, perpetrator of this.
"private companies to run free unrestrained."
Again, I'm not advocating private companies. Why? "Private company" is keyword for "corporation".
@SomethingSea1 The problem is in a completely unregulated free market, those with the most power and money can buy out smaller businesses. When the customers don't have a choice but to take what they can afford and all the companies have nothing to stop them exploiting their customers, there will never be any options to choose otherwise.
"The problem is in a completely unregulated free market, those with the most power and money can buy out smaller businesses."
The problem with this logic is that buying out smaller businesses will send out a signal that it is valuable to do so; accordingly, each time one is bought up, the next one will be more expensive. Supply and demand. The business that buys all other businesses out will then collapse under a new-start up business that has record-low prices in comparison.
@SomethingSea1 But wait, if they buy out and merge with a smaller company, doesn't that increase their workforce, expand their reach, expand their business and make more money?
"But wait, if they buy out and merge with a smaller company, doesn't that increase their workforce, expand their reach, expand their business and make more money?"
Yes. You're talking about choice-elimination, right? Monopoly?
"there will never be any options to choose otherwise."
It is expensive to merge, and sometimes it is quite profitable. It goes both ways. However, a monopoly pretty much can't form from this method. There will likely always be at least one more choice.
I honestly don't see how people can't be for national healthcare. Seems like the only way people could be against it is if they never had any real illnesses to deal with in the first place.
@FallopianFedora It's mostly greedy white males who already have money to burn, and so don't want to have their money "Forced" to be taken away from them to help those at the bottom.
@Nightmare060 'It's mostly greedy white males who already have money to burn, and so don't want to have their money "Forced" to be taken away from them to help those at the bottom.'
And that, boys and girls, is a perfect demonstration of how this pathetic soul got where he is today. His religion requires him to demonize anyone richer than himself, anyone who may have money that he thinks could be put to better use. He wants to punish people for being productive.
Ah. The links have been pushed back. Time to repost them.
Everything Nightmare060 has argued here has been directly debunked before.
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=2
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=3
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=5
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=7
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=8
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=9
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=10
Poor, poor nightmare. Too dumb to tell when he's recycling the same argument.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Poor poor Virgil. Expects to win through personal attacks and proof by spamming links instead of saying which links go to which argument. Actually respond rather than giving empty "They've been rebutted" arguments.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Poor poor Virgil. Expects to win through personal attacks and proof by spamming links instead of saying which links go to which argument. Actually respond rather than giving empty "They've been rebutted" arguments.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 You've already been beaten, and shown that you can't comprehend the arguments against you. This is just a warning to anyone dumb enough to swallow your drivel. A way to inoculate them from your stupidity.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 No matter how many times you say "You loose moron!" or something to that effect, unless you make actual arguments you are doing nothing than throwing fallacies. I've asked repeatedly which threads address which points and where, but you have said nothing. Clearly you are just trying to push your constant appeals to ridicule and proof by verbosity.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 As I said before, I and others have already addressed your points. This is for your viewers, not for you. It's funny, though, how your conceit prohibits you from viewing it as being anything but an attack on you.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 The only viewers you will convince are people who are already bias towards your ideal. Just like how creationists will flock to their role models. And since you have given no reference as to which arguments are which and expect people to sift through pages of comments to identify vague responses, all your giving in the end are red herrings.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nightmare060 'The only viewers I will convince are people who are already biased towards my ideals. Just like how creationists will flock to their role models.'
FTFY
You mean a bit like how you provide no evidence to your counter-arguments except links to people who agree with you and wikipedia without specifying sections? At least with my stuff, all you have to do is use the 'find' function for your name.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nightmare060 "Poor poor Virgil. Expects to win through personal attacks and proof by spamming links instead of saying which links go to which argument. "
That's what these people do.
FSAthe1st 7 months ago
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=2
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=3
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=5
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=7
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=8
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=9
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=10
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Can you tell me which pages supposedly argue against which argument? Because without a basis to know what I'm supposedly looking for, I'm just waisting time searching for a needle in a haystack.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
Poor nightmare060.
You were already beaten on these points in Shane's videos on the subject. Simply re-stating your beaten arguments here doesn't make them any more valid. If you're tired of debating Shanedk and myself, why don't you look up fletchforfreedom? You're obviously looking for another beating.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 "You're obviously looking for another beating." I stopped arguing on those videos due to a lack of research and the fact that I can't respond to five people at once! Getting a new e-mail alert for a reply every 5 seconds isn't exactly the easiest position to debate. Perhaps if you could try addressing my arguments now that they are sourced and clarified rather than just proclaiming yourself the winner?
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 Perhaps if you had adequate sources. You don't have a single statistic collection or peer reviewed article in your source list. The closest you've gotten is that Huffington Post article, which is still a collection of anecdotes instead of actual, and more reliable, statistics. This was explained to you on the other video where you attempted to use a TV show as evidence, and couldn't seem to understand why an anecdote was unreliable compared to real data. (cont.)
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 Considering that you haven't provided any new sources or arguments, why should we do this over again? You haven't learned anything from our last encounter. All you've done is found a bunch of other people who agree with you and called on their anecdotes for support. That's not research, or educating yourself on the issues. You've learned nothing. To save time, I'm going to post the links to the comments of each video where you were beaten. People will see you for what you are.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Alright then, ignoring all the examples of people with per-existing conditions getting denied insurance and the fact that I've stated I don't think that people should be out of pocket or have terms and conditions what will and will not be covered to begin with to begin with when it comes to healthcare (and that the NHS does effectively provide free to the point of use healthcare for everyone), what statistics are you exactly looking for?
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 You misunderstand me. You need to use reliable data to support your assertions, whatever they may be. If you claim that fewer regulations would lead to more problems, you need to use sources. Define 'problems', 'regulations', etc. Your arguments reek of a desperate post hoc justification.
And you've been given plenty of examples, as the comment thread I posted shows. Like I said, we've been through this before. I'd rather not waste my time repeating the same dance.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 OK, I'll define my problems for you; The biggest problem I see is that with a free market, your access to healthcare would be based on your ability to pay rather than what you need. If people can't pay or have a pre-existing condition, they loose out. This problem does not exist in a UHC system, since when a system is paid through taxes everything is free to the point of use.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 This was already addressed.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 This was addressed, to the best of my knowledge, by suggesting that charity will cover those that don't get covered. And what I am saying is that with a charity, it is dependent ENTIRELY on the generosity of other people and is not guaranteed to reach every other person. Taxes do ensure this and people aren't left out of pocket. And again, healthcare should be free to the point of use since it is a human right and not a privilege.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 This was already addressed.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 When I talk about "Regulations", I am talking about enforced rules to make sure that people are getting treated fairly. With no consequences for ones actions, there will always be people who will do bad things. That is a fact of life. You say regulations make things worse; How is stopping a company from denying people with pre-existing conditions, who often need it most, a bad thing? Basically I trust the government to keep healthcare accessible than I do private companies.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 This was already addressed.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 From what I've read, the free market system expects people to regulate themselves due to a supply and demand system, right? Well this often relies on there being enough options in the area and that the people know they are being cheated. Look at pseudo-science cures such as homeopathy. People often flock to them because of the placebo effect. I trust people who actually make sure people are being treated fairly and know what they're talking about over an invisible hand.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 This has already been addressed.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Where? I don't have time to go through all the different pages of ShaneDK's video to find the particular comments that address it many months ago. Again, provide a counter-argument rather than saying "go look it up". And if you bring up the issues of waiting lists again, I will gladly point out that it is a need before greed basis so people with the most urgent needs get treated first. Emergency cases being the priority ;).
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 I posted the comments thread to the page.
This was addressed.
Your ignorance of economics is not a supplement for an argument. You may get father if you do actual research instead of starting from a presupposed moral conclusion. It's much like when a creationist cries that evolution says they descended from monkeys and aren't unique individuals, or that it means that people have no reason to behave morally.
Your stance is religious. Nothing more.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Keep telling me that my stance is religious rather than saying what actual statistics you want. Keep avoiding arguments and telling me to "look it up" in a vast sea of comments which I have no reasonable time to spend fishing for comments. Keep making straw-man arguments instead of arguing against what I'm actually saying. It only makes me loose interest in your arguments more.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 You're the one making the arguments. You're the one who needs to find the statistics.
All you would have to do is go to the URL and use the 'find' function for your own username. Next lame excuse?
No-one has straw-manned you. Your arguments just aren't very good, and quite open to rebuttal.
Again, this is for the benefit of anyone who sees this video, not you. If you were open to discussion, this video wouldn't exist.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 (cont) Give me exact words to search for and I will look further into it to find what you are looking for. Help me to improve my research skills and you shall get a more definitive answer your looking for! Although from my base understanding, the free market is essentially social darwinism where you have to rely on the generosity of other people (which can EASILY be corrupted, salvation army anyone?) for people on the bottom to get what should be a human right and not a privilege.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
all_comments?v=cpeoZsCobrM&page=2
Add that in after the dot com part of the youtube url. I'll post the others when I find them.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 I've read the first few comments which seem to deal with my points about charity and using money as a basis for what healthcare a person receives. What I feel ShaneDK is ignoring is that there are also many GREEDY people in the world too. And charity again, can be easily exploited. With charity, as fantastic as it is when people are generous, it is not a guaranteed way for everyone in the country to get the access to healthcare they need. With UHC, they do.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 Your points actually were addressed. You just ignored them. Like I said, I don't feel that I should repeat the same dance when you've obviously learned nothing, nor become more open to a discussion. I just posted this here for the benefit of anyone who may watch this video and think you've got some insight or something, so that they can see your behavior for what it is.
But hey, thanks for bumping it to the front page by commenting on it. =P
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Perhaps you could just re-iterate the counter points so that I can address them now rather than just saying "That's been answered" without saying what those answers are. ShandeDK has misrepresented the NHS and it's waiting times before, and I have already linked videos which suggest why taxation does NOT equate to theft. I see UHC as a much more fair and moral system.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 I've posted the comment thread where most of this occurred. That should be enough. As I said, this isn't for your benefit, but for the benefit of anyone you may try to swindle. You have already demonstrated an inability to consider counter-arguments, considering that you instead looked for others to support you rather than come up with a counter-argument to the taxation-as-theft criticism.
Creationists see Christianity as more fair & moral, too. Nice company you keep.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Now your just going into projection mode. Instead of throwing personal attacks you could actually argue against my points. I have linked to videos that suggest why taxation is NOT theft and shown how it is a fair system by giving information about how the NHS actually works. Why do you feel it is more moral to rely on peoples ability to pay and hoping that people are generous enough to give to charity rather than a system that grantees total coverage?
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 I made no personal attacks. I simply compared similar arguments.
Your points were argued against in the comments section I posted. You just ignored them.
Appeal to common belief/practice is a logical fallacy. You've made no counter-arguments to the fact that taxation is force, and paying for someone else's healthcare is not a response to force.
You've posted no statistics, thus no reliable data.
Because doing so covers more people without resorting to theft.
(cont.)
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 "ou've made no counter-arguments to the fact that taxation is force, and paying for someone else's healthcare is not a response to force." Is the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family a criminal? This "Force" you keep going on about ensures that everyone gets covered because the system becomes free to the point of use! Do you even know what that means? It is not "theft" when you are pooling your own money and essentially helping people on the bottom anyway.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 This was already addressed.
1. Yes.
2. It's force if you jail people for not participating. This was explained to you.
3. Think of it this way. It may help. Every instance of taxation is theft. It is the taking of someone's possessions under threat of imprisonment. One could make the case for necessity in the case of police and military as responses to force. One runs into more problems when taxation is used to support things that aren't responses to force. (cont.)
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Typical libertarian tactics. Just keep saying it's theft long enough and ignore what it actually does for people and your argument will magically be superior! Please, one last chance. address my points directly and tell me what kind of statistics your after (statistics saying what exactly) or do me a favor and STFU.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 Now that's a straw-man.
What said taxation is used for is what makes it unjustifiable theft. The application of the tax money was directly related to the argument against it. No-one is ignoring what it is used for.
You've argued that taxation is different from theft even though the two actions are the same. The onus is on you to prove that state theft is somehow different or morally acceptable.
They're your arguments. If you don't know what statistics you need... (cont.)
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 So taxation is not justifiably used to treat the sick and injured? Says alot about you. But I grow tired in going round in circles when you just keep saying "look it up" and "It IS theft/Slavery" as a counter-argument. Hopefully people will respond better to arguments actually made rather than insults and "Go look somewhere ells" arguments.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 appeal to ridicule.
And as I said before, you need to establish that either a) taxation is not theft due to some unique quality of the state that exempts it from the same moral rules followed by others, or b) that theft is justified for your pet project when it isn't a response to aggression or force.
As I said before, I'm sure they're quite capable of looking up comment threads. I'll make sure I regularly post the link so that it stays up front.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Do you know what the term "Necessary evil" is? Yes, taxes are enforced by law, however it falls into a moral gray area. Is the price you pay for "Theft" sufficient enough to receive healthcare that is free to the point of use? Do you see it as more ethical to run the risk of bankruptcy if the insurance company decides not to pay for a particular medical procedure (or if you have a per-existing condition) than to have a wait list ranked by who needs care most?
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 Also keep in mind, I'm sure that in an emergency situation even a free market system would treat people immediately. The question then becomes how often they receive further care and how much it will cost a person. From my point of view, I'd rather have some waiting time to do beyond emergency operations/first aid and the like and never have to worry about money since it's all paid through taxes. Really, the benefits outweigh the risks.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 And for the record, and has already been explained to you, there's nothing wrong with giving of your own money to help someone else. Taking a gun and threatening someone to get them to treat a sick/injured third party is theft no matter how you slice it. Anyone who does so must be willing to accept the consequences, including imprisonment, and decide if that result is worth the act. However, one cannot argue that it was somehow moral and that they shouldn't be punished.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 ...then what the hell are you doing arguing the point? Haven't you ever taken a research methods class, or any higher level college courses that require you to write a paper? This should be obvious.
And, as I said before, this was already explained to you and addressed in the comment thread I posted before. Your ignorance is not my problem. This is for the benefit of any viewers this video might get, to inoculate them from this nonsense.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 I have told him EXACTLY what I would accept as justification. I told him that if he can provide statistics showing overly high healthcare costs before the British government took over and that cost going down after they took control and remaining so to this day, then I would gladly admit the error of my ways. It's that easy!
Nightmare, I'm still waiting!
lordthawkeye 10 months ago
@lordthawkeye While I do further research, can you provide me with an example of a modern country that has a free market system? Time and location should be enough to start with.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 There are no countries today one could really call 100% free market. Governments don't like free markets because that means less money and power for them and that simply won't do.
Before you claim victory however...
Can you provide an example of a country in the 1800's who didn't have slavery? No? Well then obviously we can't let the slaves go cause it could never work!
Just making sure you're aware why "It's never been done before" is a legendarily retarded argument.
cont...
lordthawkeye 10 months ago
@lordthawkeye You actually have a point there. Yes, just the notion that it hasn't been done is no basis to say it won't work. HOWEVER, my problem is that you are putting a massive amount of trust in peoples generosity. You may very well believe that people will be fair and generous enough to give enough money to keep even the uninsured people covered, but to me this is a massive position of faith. I feel it's better to make sure people will never be out of pocket for healthcare (TBC
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 Ahem!
You want to give one elite group complete control over a vital market that people's very lives depend on and somehow I'M the one putting too much trust in people's generosity? You might want to rethink that one.
lordthawkeye 10 months ago
@lordthawkeye MORE Straw-men that you keep pumping out! Perhaps you should educate yourself on how the NHS actually works or even read some of my very recent comments explaining how it is free to the point of use. And just an FYI, while you still have to pay taxes to make sure everyone gets emergency services, you can still go to private insurance companies for none-lethal illnesses and the like if you can afford it.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lordthawkeye "You want to give one elite group complete control over a vital market that people's very lives depend"
It would be better to argue against someone's ACTUAL position rather than attack one that you just made up and claimed is one they support.
FSAthe1st 7 months ago
@lordthawkeye (cont) to begin with. Yes, the waiting lists at their worst can be a problem. No system is perfect. Without pointing the finger at horror stories on either end (which we have both done), I would say "theft" to make something free to the point of use is a much smaller evil than becoming bankrupt just to pay for healthcare.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 Except for the fact that your country is becoming bankrupt to pay for healthcare anyway so you haven't even actually solved that problem.
The reason why I don't think you care all that much about the sick is because you haven't done one ounce of research into WHY costs are so high. You just say "cuz capitalism is TEH EVIL" and break for lunch.
Your lack of effort into learning the truth is why I don't think for a second that you're in this out of virtue.
lordthawkeye 10 months ago
@lordthawkeye "Except for the fact that your country is becoming bankrupt to pay for healthcare anyway so you haven't even actually solved that problem." Regardless of if this is true or not, you have done NOTHING to address the points I'm actually arguing. Instead you try and push it to an area you know I'm not as knowledgeable on. My arguments is that it's unethical to put a price on peoples healthcare and so taxes make sure it's free to the point of use.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 And, strangely enough, this was already addressed in the comments page I posted.
Like I said, this isn't for your benefit. Shane, VSPQD, LTH, and myself have already spent weeks trying to educate you. I even cracked open my old textbooks to try and give you a basic education. You ignored every single point that was presented to you. When you couldn't make the case for efficiency, actual coverage, etc, you fell back on morality. Just like a creationist.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 As I said before, this isn't for your benefit. Your religious devotion to the NHS has already been established. This is for the benfit of any subscribers you may have, or anyone who comes across this video. It's to inoculate them against falling for your nonsense.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 But as I said, this isn't for your benefit. This is to inoculate those you try to swindle. You're a bit like Kent Hovind, or Nephilimfree in this matter. You won't listen. The most that can be done is to inoculate those who may be foolish enough to swallow your hemlock. Every argument you've posted has been addressed before.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 And you are just like the creationist pointing out how the "evolutionist" is false every time regardless of what they actually say. We can throw any personal attacks all day, but the fact is that MY system (the NHS) allows every person to get treated according to their own need, money no objective. In a free market system, you are basically hoping people will be generous enough and that the private companies will be kind enough to serve every person in the country fairly.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 'And you are just like the creationist pointing out how the "evolutionist" is false every time regardless of what they actually say.'
Funny how you couldn't come up with an actual comparison. Getting a bit desperate, aren't we?
This point was already addressed. For the zillionth time.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 *PRE-Existing. I always seem to make that typo -.-;
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 and one more thing; Can you point out where free-market systems actually exists so I have something to compare to that you will accept? Since every time I compare with, what to me is a largely private company run system, you say it's not good enough since it's not a free market.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
All your points and sources are utterly moot because nobody you are debating against is in support of America's healthcare system.
lordthawkeye 10 months ago
@lordthawkeye *Facepalm* Let me say this to you ONE MORE TIME! America needs MORE regulations rather than LESS, because in a free market you would get MORE people being denied because they aren't profitable to ensure. An entirely privatized system would base care on how much you could pay, and the poor would get left in the dirt.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 [citation needed]
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 You haven't even read the description have you?
Nightmare060 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nightmare060 And what are you basing this conclusion off of?
lordthawkeye 10 months ago
@lordthawkeye
And your comment asking what Nightmare060 based his conclusion off of was marked as spam for some reason.
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd Huh. I wonder why.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
like it or not, you are making economics claims about the subject.
MirageScience 10 months ago
oh fuck it I'm tired of replying to Marxist rhetoric, I will just thumbs down, and say go learn economics.
MirageScience 10 months ago
@MirageScience Weasel words? Check
Ad-homenim attack? Check
Red Herring? Check
Shifting the burden of proof rather than providing any actual rebuttals? Check
Same old libertarian replies. At least this time I've been accused of being a "Marxist" rather than a "statist", that's a new one.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 I said you where using Marxist rhetoric, go Google rhetoric.
I didn't attack you what so ever... I typed up about 10 repliess and decided that it wasn't worth trying to explain. I also didn't explicitly say you where wrong, just they you should learn economics before you act like you know something.
If you want a rebuttal then here it is, If people are to have a right no not have to go into debt for health care, then why don't I have a right to not pay taxes?
MirageScience 10 months ago
@MirageScience Because otherwise there wouldn't be enough money going into the system to cover such essential services such as healthcare. Even in countries like Japan, taxes are there so that those at the bottom can still afford to get treated. I'd say loosing a small percentage of your earnings above a certain income is MUCH better than running the risk of bankrupcy for health-care
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 I don't see how I'm responsible for their health, and I defiantly don't see how I'm responsible if they aren't even responsible. I own myself, and my ability to produce and a claim on my agreed to income is a claim on my abilities and therefore myself. If that isn't theft or slavery i don't know what is.
MirageScience 10 months ago
@MirageScience So what? The people who can't afford healthcare should be left to die? Charity won't be nearly enough to cover that chunk of the population. Taxes grantee that the money goes to those who need it. The every man for himself philosophy is basically social darwinism.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 So some how forcing people to pay for other peoples problems makes them pay more? mind telling me how you know this too? Where are your indicators, your evidence? If people get the money that they don't have to pay in taxes whats to say they they don't eventually give more to poor people. sure seems to me that they would have to pay the bureaucrats to shuffle the money for them.
MirageScience 10 months ago
@MirageScience "Where are your indicators, your evidence?" YOU are making the claim that it doesn't, so YOU provide sources to suggest it isn't. Otherwise your just making conspiracy theories. I live in the UK which has the NHS, and entirely tax funded system. Everyone gets healthcare on a need before greed basis. Maybe you should do your research before barging into the comments section making unfounded allegations against a system you know nothing about.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
and how can you say its better for someone to not go into bankruptcy and for someone else to pay for it in any case? How can you tell that who ever it may be hat you are taking the money away from will not put it to better use?
MirageScience 10 months ago
@MirageScience Why would my money not be put to better use than giving people money for healthcare that they need to survive? Is becoming homeless for paying to survive fair to you?
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 how do you know that the businessman is not going to use the money to increase his profits then increase his donations to charity? Please tell me how you became a money management god without understanding economics.
MirageScience 10 months ago
@MirageScience I base it off knowladge on what kind of money a charity would pull in. Look at the kind of money that was raised for MSF through people here on youtube. Then look at the costs of healthcare for a single person. Then think about how many people get denied health insurance due to things like a preexisting condition. That and charities can be exploited. Salvation army anyone? Taxes ensure that the NHS is free to the point of use.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 first nothing payed by taxes is free, if anything it costs more to pay for government workers. Second you cant use statistics of how much people donate now, under a tax system to tell how much they will donate without a tax system. I'm pretty sure that people used to be able to take care of their families, want to geese why they don't do it so well now? Maybe if you do really want to look at the charity statistics, you should also look at every which way the government gets money.
MirageScience 10 months ago
@MirageScience Who are you to say that enough people would certainly use the extra money they save from lack of taxes to go to charity? Taxes grantee that certain services are FREE TO THE POINT OF USE. Perhaps you should look up what that actually mean before you start ranting about how it's "not free". It means you will never have any charges upfront that will leave people out of pocket. And thus the treatment you get has nothing to do with money, it's based on what you need.
Nightmare060 10 months ago
@Nightmare060 income tax, corporate tax (which is passed on to the individual), sales tax, gift tax, property tax, and don't forget the biggest one as of today, Inflation.
MirageScience 10 months ago
It comes down to a philosphical discussion about the role of government. If you think people should be forced to pay for someone else's medical conditions, whether they are preexisting conditions or not, congratulations, you have a different set of values than the average libertarian.
You also made the mistake of calling the United States healthcare system a free market. Just saying.
theVAGINAntichrist 11 months ago
@theVAGINAntichrist "If you think people should be forced to pay for someone else's medical conditions, whether they are preexisting conditions or not" Here's the thing; It comes down what is effective in getting the most people fairly covered. I think being out of pocket for a vital service such as healthcare is unethical. And I don't see the big deal in being "Forced" to earn a tiny bit less to get free to the point of use healthcare for all conditions. And it's the same for everyone.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@theVAGINAntichrist "You also made the mistake of calling the United States healthcare system a free market. Just saying." OK, this has come up before so let me be clear; The US healthcare system is NOT a free market, but it is very largely run by private insurance companies who fund for peoples healthcare if you pay them out of pocket. But considering the amount of terms and conditions they will often use to get around this I feel that left to their own devices they would be LESS fair, not more
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@Nightmare060 "very largely run by private insurance companies"
Yep, private companies that couldn't possibly exist without the government.
theVAGINAntichrist 11 months ago
@theVAGINAntichrist *facepalm* Genetic Fallacy. How they originated is irrelevant, especially since you haven't addressed the point about how they deny people with per-existing conditions coverage and have on numerous occasions made excuses so not to cover people who actually need it. Examples of which are sourced in the description of this video.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@Nightmare060 You claim to be against free market health insurance. You use the examples of non free market health insurance companies to explain why. You are the one making the logical fallacy.
Again, it's just a philosophical issue. You want people to have health coverage. So? Start a charity. Donate to charity. Convince people to donate to charity. Or you can take the fascist route and steal money from people to pay for health costs for people they don't know or care about.
theVAGINAntichrist 11 months ago
@theVAGINAntichrist "You use the examples of non free market health insurance companies to explain why." This shows me you don't understand my argument. You see, the reason I oppose free market healthcare is because a free market implies that there would be no regulations or restrictions imposed by the government. But if they already cheat WITH regulations, why will they be expected not to cheat without them? We either need MORE and BETTER regulations to control them, not LESS.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@theVAGINAntichrist "Convince people to donate to charity. Or you can take the fascist route and steal money from people to pay for health costs for people they don't know or care about." Didn't I address the charity point in my video? Charities are wonderful, but they can't generate NEARLY the amount of money needed for use by the entire country that taxes do. Using weasel words like "Fascist" and "Stealing" aren't helping your argument. I've already explained how it isn't stealing and works.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@Nightmare060 You've convinced YOURSELF that it isn't stealing. What you call "weasel words" are just words that make you upset because they threaten your worldview. You are forcing people, with threat of violence, to give money to what you deem good for society. You are evil, even though your intentions may be good.
theVAGINAntichrist 11 months ago
@theVAGINAntichrist Good to see the old liberatarian arguments coming up again! Can't refute their arguments? Call them names instead! Think of it this way, which is worse; "Stealing" a small portion of a persons income to give free to the point of use healthcare where everyone will get treated, or private buisnesses that are paid for out of pocket and frequently try and find ways to AVOID paying for your healthcare, forcing you to pay thousands of dollars for treatment?
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@theVAGINAntichrist P.S; I recommend you start looking up on logical fallacies instead. Because suggesting I'm bias for calling out logical fallacies instead of accepting your argument is exactly how a conservative christian argued when I pointed out how his arguments against gay marriage were flawed ;)
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@Nightmare060 "Threatening someone and demanding their money is not stealing!"
Stay classy, statists.
theVAGINAntichrist 11 months ago
@theVAGINAntichrist And another straw man argument! Your definition of theft was addressed in DlandonCole's video. But I shall spell it out to you one more time; The only "Threats" you receive are the equivalent of other threats you would receive from any other laws. As you keep ignoring, charities have insufficient funds to pay for an ENTIRE COUNTRIES healthcare. The only way to reasonably pay for essential services without people paying out of pocket is through taxes.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@theVAGINAntichrist (cont) and furthermore, taxes are not theft because you are essentially paying the government to pool your money and get access to something that is essential for every human being on the planet that everyone would be paying insurance for anyway. Unless you are mega rich, you probably can't afford to pay thousands of dollars upfront for healthcare. And so the government has PROVEN that nationalized healthcare payed through taxes are much more fair than companies ever will be.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
Good vid.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Ugh. I wish I hadn't said that. I was trying to be nice-nice because of the tone of the vid.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
7:12
The reason it is considered theft is that taxation is not a voluntary system.
7:31
If it's a fair system that people would gladly buy into, why not have it be voluntary?
7:39
I don't pander to the super rich. To become super rich in our society, you must plunder and steal. I am a free marketer. I'm not a libertarian, however (mainly because I don't know what people mean by it).
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 The reason that definition is faulty is because you don't get any benefit out of it. Is the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family still in the wrong? And if not, how is the state "Stealing" money through taxes to pay for healthcare accessible to everyone?
Nightmare060 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nightmare060
"Is the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family still in the wrong?"
Yes. And he's stealing because, I'm betting, he's living in an empire State that has systematically taken his effort/value/money away such that he can't do anything else but steal bread.
""Stealing" money through taxes to pay for healthcare accessible to everyone?"
See my response to 7:31. If it's so fair, it shouldn't need to be involuntary.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
4:21
"That if private businesses are to be in control..."
All (or nearly all) businesses are corporations. A corporations is a legal entity designated by the State. All or nearly all businesses are legal entities of the State.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 The way I understand it, currently the corporations are being worked in the fashion where they are being bailed out by the state. I think that the answer is not to remove the state all together as a factor, but rather the government put their food down and treat the private companies like a naughty child and enforce rules properly.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@Nightmare060
"The way I understand it, currently the corporations are being worked in the fashion where they are being bailed out by the state."
Yep.
"I think that the answer is not to remove the state all together as a factor"
I think the answer is a gradual phase-out. Removing the State, especially right now, would be disastrous.
"but rather the gov[']t put their food down and treat the private companies like a naughty child and enforce rules properly."
Why would it?
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
3:54
Gov't does just the opposite. What you're seeing today is the result of "gov't regulation".
I'm not against regulations/enforcement. Gov't is not only a poor way to enforce, but a bad way to; it will result in the opposite in what is assumed will happen.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Such as? LESS regulation will result in more disasters like the recent BP oilspill because there is nothing to stop them cutting costs on what they don't think is cost effective. It's possible to have bad regulation, but to suggest that the state cannot do any good regulation is a massive generalization.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@Nightmare060
"Such as? LESS regulation will result in more disasters like the recent BP oilspill"
I thought you were talking about non-State situations? BP is a corp. Corp = State. Why would it regulate itself?
"but to suggest that the state cannot do any good regulation is a massive generalization."
Of course the State can do good regulation. There just isn't any incentive to.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Well this is the way I understand it; Corporations are where private businesses are like spoiled children. The state is babying them and bailing them out when things go wrong, so they keep doing wrong. If instead the state stopped spoiling them and instead enforced proper regulations, then there will be less such disasters. I would think working for the people and the vote would be a big incentive enough.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
Comment removed
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I would think working for the people and the vote would be a big incentive enough."
Well... a guess you have a more optimistic view about things. I see sociopaths trying to find any way that they can to get everyone's money and dominate everyone. If you get rid of the mechanisms (The State) that enable this, you get rid of the sociopaths being able to get power. If nothing else, it greatly reduces their ability.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
3:36
'If you remove enforcement, then why wouldn't you expect them to cheat?'
I agree. That's why I'm against gov't/State-sustained business.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 That doesn't make sense. Do you think that the companies would enforce themselves?
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@Nightmare060
Of course not (that's why the "regulation" of today is full of fail -- the State is regulating corporations, which are themselves part of the State). A solution that comes to mind is that of the business of regulating companies -- that is, making that into a business. Why wouldn't it become corrupt? Because if it does a shitty job of evaluation, people will eventually find that out, and not recommend it. This can also apply at a "grass roots" level. Just some speculation.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 There is a problem with this idea; It relies on the damage being obvious. Do any current insurance companies insure people with per-existing conditions? If there was no option that do, why is it fair for those with per-existing conditions have to pay thousands of dollars to afford healthcare? Plus you only have to look at pseudo-science like homeopathy to show that people are not always as knowledgeable on how such treatments work. The placebo effect is a very powerful tool.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nightmare060
"There is a problem with this idea; It relies on the damage being obvious."
That's a good response, and this is an area I haven't studied in depth. You could check out other anti-statists such as fringeelements, JacobSpinney, and so forth.
"Do any current insurance companies insure people with per-existing conditions?"
That would be a bad idea to do. However, there is a demand for it, so I would guess a company would sprout up to supply.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nightmare060
"If there was no option that do, why is it fair for those with per-existing conditions have to pay thousands of dollars to afford healthcare?"
Yes. They are a risk. There have been many possibilities and solutions to this problem offered by other anti-statists/anarchists. I tend to not care about this issue much. Obviously, no one cares about those without health insurance. Therefore, no one will do anything about it.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@Nightmare060
"Plus you only have to look at pseudo-science like homeopathy to show that people are not always as knowledgeable on how such treatments work. The placebo effect is a very powerful tool."
Homeopathy is not dangerous necessarily. Often, it's just a waste of money. People can waste their money all they want.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
1:39
"When profit is a motive, they will try to find loopholes"
And if there isn't a State around to enforce this insanity, likely you wouldn't see a great deal of it, is my guess, alongside with things like reputation stats.
Unless of course you meant a Statist system that has the free market on top of it. Then I agree. That's headed for failure.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 What I'm talking about is where there ISN'T a state to enforce any rules about fairness, then companies will word their own rules so that there are loopholes to do whatever is most profitable. Already before Obamacare has been fully enforced, insurance companies are still denying people with per-existing conditions to save money.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@Nightmare060
So, a business starts up with no connection to the State is the premise? 'Cause, you can't get around a loophole that doesn't exist.
So, in that case no State, if the business enacts rules that customers don't like, how will the business survive a lack of customers? (Rep goes down and people stop shopping there, business goes bankrupt).
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Woofta. You're a fast responder. I like.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Haha well we seem to be up at the same time. I hate it when people are being exploited, and I know from experience that state run healthcare does and can work. But also, I think that systems like Japan where they have state alternatives but also strong regulations to keep companies in check can and does also work. I see both as better alternatives than allowing the private companies to run free unrestrained.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nightmare060
"I hate it when people are being exploited, and I know from experience that state run healthcare does and can work."
I don't like people being exploited either, though I also include "against their will". I see The State as one of the, if not the main, perpetrator of this.
"private companies to run free unrestrained."
Again, I'm not advocating private companies. Why? "Private company" is keyword for "corporation".
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 The problem is in a completely unregulated free market, those with the most power and money can buy out smaller businesses. When the customers don't have a choice but to take what they can afford and all the companies have nothing to stop them exploiting their customers, there will never be any options to choose otherwise.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@Nightmare060
"The problem is in a completely unregulated free market, those with the most power and money can buy out smaller businesses."
The problem with this logic is that buying out smaller businesses will send out a signal that it is valuable to do so; accordingly, each time one is bought up, the next one will be more expensive. Supply and demand. The business that buys all other businesses out will then collapse under a new-start up business that has record-low prices in comparison.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 But wait, if they buy out and merge with a smaller company, doesn't that increase their workforce, expand their reach, expand their business and make more money?
Nightmare060 11 months ago
@Nightmare060
"But wait, if they buy out and merge with a smaller company, doesn't that increase their workforce, expand their reach, expand their business and make more money?"
Yes. You're talking about choice-elimination, right? Monopoly?
"there will never be any options to choose otherwise."
It is expensive to merge, and sometimes it is quite profitable. It goes both ways. However, a monopoly pretty much can't form from this method. There will likely always be at least one more choice.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
I honestly don't see how people can't be for national healthcare. Seems like the only way people could be against it is if they never had any real illnesses to deal with in the first place.
FallopianFedora 11 months ago
@FallopianFedora It's mostly greedy white males who already have money to burn, and so don't want to have their money "Forced" to be taken away from them to help those at the bottom.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nightmare060 'It's mostly greedy white males who already have money to burn, and so don't want to have their money "Forced" to be taken away from them to help those at the bottom.'
And that, boys and girls, is a perfect demonstration of how this pathetic soul got where he is today. His religion requires him to demonize anyone richer than himself, anyone who may have money that he thinks could be put to better use. He wants to punish people for being productive.
Just a crazy fanatic.
Virgil0211 10 months ago