The fact is it is about choices and many people want to bring the government in to help people who consistently choose poorly. The government's job is to help educate people so they can make the best choices. Some people will always need help, but they're a small number.
It is a VERY simple concept, the amount & availability of all real goods is very finite while demands are infinite. Thus all demands must be constrained to the availability of quantity supplied. And the PREFERRED good thus must be prioritized. So if u choose to sleep for that hour, that means u value the sleep during that hour MORE than studying spanish, making buisiness plans or increasing ur worth. u make ur own choice, u bear ur own consequence
You may choose either to sleep all 24 hours, go for a jog half the day, go on facebook, or go to work. It is your choice - that is unless someone else is coercing u (ie the govt). If u choose to sleep, u forgo the next 'best' choice available to u at that time. So if u sleep for an hour, that hour can NOT be used to say, learn Spanish. or it can not be used to work on ur business plans. etc
This is called an opportunity cost- the direct result of scarcity & prioritizing.
uh no there's not. it is called choice. All real goods are SCARCE. Scarce as in the quantity supplied of all goods can not meet all demands. Everyone has an infinite amount of wants & demands. Thus choices must be made & values decided upon & prioritized! For example, there are ONLY 24 hours a day. no more, no less.
I wonder how many of those 50 million uninsured take a vacation once a year, have more cars than they need, have a nicer car than they need, a bigger house than they need, cable, a home filled with electronic gadgets. it is outrageous to me that people will claim others should pay for one of their necessities while they enjoy luxuries. I am not heartless, some people get screwed by life. But the left frames the argument as if 50 million people are getting screwed. nonsense.
I think you overgeneralize the insured and uninsured. There are some who do everything right, yet still cannot afford health insurance. I think the problem is down to not whether you are insured or not, its a matter of principle. There are several people who have insurance that is supposed to help them get the treatment they need, and even if they pay the premiums their claims are denied.
I just broke my leg so I hope my insurance company won't drop me. I paid into it.
Good video. Many people out there may not understand the opportunity cost at stake when they pay their cable bill, cell phone bill, beer, etc. The United States has the best health care on the planet in terms of treatments, procedures, etc. available.
@erickthegreat98 Those things have a cost though, and people called statisticians, among others, figure out how much you have to pay based on your health and habits effecting your health. We as a people are fast finding out that government cannot beat it unless they're always in the red and increasing our taxes and printing more money to fund it. Thus driving private insurance, which will always be better, out of business. This should be common sense.
Drug makers stocks are higher thanks to the passing of the bill. The bill gets $409.2 billion in morel taxes by 2019, as per congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Imposes $69 billion more in penalties for individuals and businesses who dont meet mandates to buy insurance. Higher medicare taxes on individuals on investment income including interest on 401K. 15% Tax rate on dividends rise to 20% Medicare tax from 1.45 to 2.35%. Taxes on cadillac plan taken off for Pelosi and friends sake
Worth seeing again. Too bad if I link this where any of my friends in the states would see it, I'd be run through the trash. Why can't Obama repeal drug laws or get some gay marriage action going on so I can celebrate with my otherwise lovely liberal friends?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1. REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL. Two massive tax cuts for the VERY RICH under Bush which were NOT paid for. 2. They ran up EIGHT TRILLION OF DEBT! When Clinton left office we had a surplus (ZERO DEBT). 3. They spend A TRILLION on the Iraq war TO DATE. 4. They DON'T want to give healthcare to the citizens in the RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD under a plan that IS PAID FOR. 5. Republicans ALSO used reconcilation! 6. They perpetuate FEAR MONGERING AND SCARE TACTICS. THEY ARE EVIL AND DISGUST ME!
@ersatx210 you make the big mistake of thinking of Bush as a Republican. He's a neocon, more inline with the democratic party than a true Republican. McCain and Cheny are no different. Read the Republican platform and then look at the voting records of Bush and McCain. They are not Republicans. And we are not the richest country in the world; we are the most in debted country. We owe over 13 trillion dollars--soon 15 trillion. You should do more research before speaking.
@Hitamaru Wrong again. It's government intervention that caused the problems. The free market works - with flaws - but it works. Far better than anything any government has ever come up with.
and you should have a new car every 3 years and a house. i mean that is basic shelter and transportation and we "deserve" it. you are such a tool. you want health ins and alcohol go work for it
I always try making this point in my arguments, but the left ALWAYS denies it or even endorses it saying 'we could have both! AND it would be economical!'
If we got rid of the Federal Reserve and the scoundrels that own it and have the government create and issue our currency again, our great industrious nation would be debt free once again and we could afford health care as well as many other services expected from the citizens tax dollar. As it stands today we have given money creation over to a private cabal of banksters putting our country into a spiralling debt.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Not as good as you unfortuneately Mr. Puppet.. I bet that you believe that they will find all those weapons of mass destruction that Bush swore were there buried in the Iraqi desert if only those lazy, drunken Marines would only DIG harder!
Why is it that scoialist can't see a difference between libertarians and fascists? They are the opposite of each other, while socialism is really just another brand.
It's like A korean person telling me Japanese people and Americans look the same, it's absurd.
Fascism is like the the little brother of communism, but the big brother of socialism. fascism: Where the state owns the factories, the vendors, and the prices, but you can keep your junk (personal possessions)
wow, the U.S. marine corps are professional soldiers who execute their jobs in a quick, professional manner. I would like one of these "lazy, drunken marines" that I know to show up at your house and show you how lazy and drunk he is. Also: I find that ironic since you live in Italy, where anyone can drink as much as they want.
there is no valid argument why my hardearned paychecks should go to POSs like this. none. help those who get declined coverage but let those other motherfuckers rot. if they don't want to work for it then fuckem, one less leech to bleed the system...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
FUCK YOU Conservative Cocksuckers! How dare you imply that ALL people who don't have benefits are drunkards. The implicit RACISM is obvious. I am sure you cocksuckers all against abortion-defending the rights of the unborn-poor fetuses that are slain-Oh! Boo-Hoo . In the words of the late & great George Carlin, it's LIVE people you don't give a FUCK about! Hypocrites.
What an ignorant statement. Reason tv is a Libertarian organization. Here is a quote from the Libertarian party platform, "As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others." More racism right? Of course, I get it. Don't like what you hear, but can't refute it? Shout racism. Your posts contain no valid points. Your turn, talk some more trash.
This "NO TAXES" crap is almost worse than this video. Google "What countries pay the highest taxes". You might be surprised with what you find. A little more research might bring more interesting facts. NOW We live in the greatest...We have more opportunity than....We are safer than.... Well, NOTHING IS FREE. These benefits pale in comparison to the cost, even after an increase. I don't mind paying my dues for this opportunity, especially if we can better help the sick.But maybe I'm grateful.
All this video illustrates is the fact many (not all) of the uninsured in this country are CHOOSING to spend their dollars elsewhere on cable TV, cell phones, clothes, etc.
People take those kinds of gambles daily. It's called irresponsibility. And they are free to do that.
Advocates for socialized health care assume that permanent government expansion (my tax dollars) is required to cover the willfully uninsured.
*Please note-- my post is NOT directed to those who have been denied coverage.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever seen. Sure dude "People are only uninsured because they're spending their money on clothes and beer" Are you Fking kidding me?!?
Why don't you get off your high horse and try this video in the unemployment line, or a cancer research hospital, or anywhere but late night at a party.
I hope you never have a health problem that your insurance company denys, but then again, I have a heart. Maybe that's the difference between you and I.
Just tax the fucking health care like the rest of the countries......i lived in australia and i paid 24% that included health care, and about $20 a month for private health care on top of that. The free market doesnt work for health care. Why not piss away public schools as well? I consider myself a libertarian but the goverment should provide health care. America is fucked, you are one slip away from a life of hardship. Basic social security should be there. FUck paying for wars
I remember reading an article a long time ago that revealed the Cable TV industry lobbying for expansion of the Agriculture Department's Food Stamp program. The Cable TV industry realized that if more people received food assistance, then that was like a de facto subsidy for their industry.
no matter what, if i didn't already have healthcare, i wouldn't get it. I'm a relatively healthy person. I think I go to the doctor once a year. So even if I had to spend 500$ at the doctor's office, it would probably be cheaper than what senator baucus is proposing for individuals. I don't think that as a person who is very health-conscious that I should have to carry the weight of unhealthy people on my back.
Lame argument. Getting drunk is irresponcible and shouldn't be supported. Now if it was between health insurance and getting an education... Well that's another story. Edification and self improvement is the cornerstore of my ethical egoist philosophy. If government has better priorities than the people, by all means let government make their choices for them.
why? Because the govt forced car makers to put seat belts and airbags in cars, it could have possibly created a mindset that states "if i get in a wreck, i will be fine". it doesn't create a safer world. letting the govt choose for people is not always the best decision
yeah, the WHO is a totally unbiased source. I'm sure they don't have any political agenda. I'm sure they have no possible reason to lie about health care in other countries. I bet they don't have any socialists that work for them. If any of you think that we are truly number 37 in the world as far as health care goes then WHY IN THE HELL does anyone who's anyone come HERE for care? Why do heads of state go to Mayo Clinic? or Johns Hopkins? Don't be stupid
You realize that was in efficiency, correct? And the WHO has absolutely no reason to lie. But, you are like most conservatives, you hate statistics, until they back your point, then you ride them to no end.
And what does it matter what the world's most wealthiest people go? How does that solve the issue of 40+ million Americans who have no insurance? Keep in mind "going to the ER" is what drives prices up.
It's funny, because tens of thousands of people die and many more go bankrupt due to lack of health insurance!
Also, what the fuck is up with all the racial imagery used in the video? The King Cobra, the Gorilla supplement, and the black guy in jeans, while not necessarily significant by themselves, are clearly and inexplicably conflated and focused upon as the representative symbols of these people who are "too lazy" to get health insurance. I expect this from the teabaggers, but not Reason.
What the hell does a nutrition supplement and a beer bottle have to do with race??? Seriously! Do you see race in literally every single product in a supermarket? Are there "white" cereals and "black" cereals to you? You must be mentally deranged or something!
What you're not accepting is nearly half a century of economic study on the insurance sector, beginning with Ken Arrow's 1960s analysis of adverse selection.
The reason why pizza doesn't work that way, using your example, is because the expectation of the purchaser of a pizza will be tested (they'll eat it) and can make a decision on future pizza purchases based on that outcome. Not satisfied? Get pizza somewhere else.
Get cancer and your insurance company drops you? You're screwed,
I often enjoy reading Reason magazine. This video lowers my opinion of the magazine. 'I don't want universal healthcare because my taxes will go to feckless black people' should be beneath you.
This is fucking twisted. Having any small amount of disposable income means not having health care is YOUR FAULT?
As an uninsured working person who neither drinks nor buys expensive clothes nor dietary suppliments nor much of anything else, Reason Magazine can suck my fucking hairy balls.
If only I hadn't shelled out $200 bucks for my pair of designer jeans, I could have the $1000 a month it would cost me to have health insurance from a for-profit corporation in the individual insurance market. Which they would have dropped as soon as I got sick.
Right.
Honestly, I expect little else from a front group for Koch, Bradley, and Scaife.
"I could have the $1000 a month it would cost me to have health insurance from a for-profit corporation in the individual insurance market"
How do figure profit drives prices and quality in one direction for health insurance and in the other direction for food, shelter and clothing (including designer jeans) ?
Because insurance is an entirely different economic game than consumer goods, both for systemic reasons and the byzantine and ineffective way its regulated in the United States (i.e. at the state level).
For one, you don't have the problems of adverse selection in consumer goods that you do in insurance. Especially health insurance. When the profit motive is entirely built upon limiting information on a transaction it becomes much more difficult to make rational purchasing decisions.
I don't accept your semantics. What consumer good cannot be described in this way? Is the entire profit motive in the pizza industry built upon concealing which ingredients are used from this perspective? Is the fact that some states regulatory schemes are so restrictive that citizens have only access to 2 or 3 insurance firms an argument to nationalize the system or to break it up?
How can you say insurance is an entirely different economic game when ever other 1st world country who has the government involved in healthcare keeps their costs lower than ours while keeping life expectancy rates higher?
PartVIII do your stats on public health care vs life expectancy factor in mortality from all sources or just ones related to health care? That stat ranking is a myth.
Secondly, given the extremely regulated and bloated bureaucracy that is your HMO system how can you claim govt is not involved?
Gotta love libertarian logic. Every country in the world collects taxes, therefore the whole world is communist. Having to pay indiviadually and out of pocket for every single service, from health to police to weather forecasts (whose private owners sure will behave virtuously and not gouge you at all) will be way cheaper than having the polity manage them. Pop quiz: how many Interstate Highway systems have popped out around the world thanks to private enterprise?
You ARE paying out of your pocket for every single service provided by government. It's called tax. When businesses are taxed, you pay for it through higher prices because no business pays the real cost of taxes, it is always passed on to the consumer, or the business folds and jobs are lost as well as the products and services that business was providing. Government managing of services is simply a middle man. Government has never been able to provide cheaper service, it only creates shortages.
What economic value does a health insurance company put into the system? They are also glorified middlemen in a transaction between a consumer and the person supplying health services, after all. And I would certainly consider the rationing of millions out of the market as a shortage.
They don't even apportion risk properly, which is what insurance is supposed to do in the first place.
Insurance companies provide value. You don't like their risk apportioning? Start your own insurance business. Insurance is not an entirely different economic game than consumer goods, it is a consumer good. The only thing rationing millions out of insurance is government regulations and controls in the health industry in the USA.
Your entire post shows how ignorant you are about the subject of economics. Really quite laughable, why don't you say that to some economic professors, see their reaction.
Healthcare is not like any other good. If we were to go by a purely capitalistic system, then it makes no sense for insurance companies to take on 75%+ of the population, due to health risks.
So, as much as libertarians fill your head with wet-dreams about the free-market, just keep in mind they are (always) wrong.
Take a intro to econ class pal, get a grip. Medical care is precisely like a vast array of other services, only the actual cost is hidden from the consumer by out current government mandated HMO system... we need to get rid of that horrid intervention in order to have any meaningful and effective reform.
You are hopelessly ignorant. Yes, there is an issue with cost control, but the care is undeniably great. 95% of seniors on Medicare are happy with it.
But I forget, you version of America is a libertarian wet-dream. Tell me, do you think we should get rid of other socialist programs such as police and fire departments, and just let the private sector take over?
The only meaningful reform will happen when we start holding insurance companies accountable.
What're you talking about? The police and fire departments exist to defend the individual's private property rights, they are not socialistic, in that they do not control or direct the means of production, but rather, protect the private direction and control of them. Get your facts right before you push your Zwangswirtschaft upon us here.
Police and Fire departments are entirely funded through taxes. I'm actually also drawing a blank on any fire or police departments not part of a union. I'm sure some exist, but a majority of those workers are unionized. The fact that you don't even understand a simple concept such as the fact that police and fire departments are socialist really makes me question your ability to comprehend.
And putting out a fire is not "defending property rights."
Of course they are funded by taxes. The government EXISTS to defend the life, liberty and property of the citizenry! Of course putting out a fire is protecting the private property of the citizenry, read something, sometime.
Socialism is government control and direction of the means of production, the police and fire departments exist to protect the private ownership of the means of production.
Unions create unemployment, and act to create malinvestment and distortion in the economy...
No, and this is the last time I'm going to say it:
Your definition is not correct. How does arresting someone for possessing cocaine protect the means of production? How does a fire fighter getting an animal unstuck protect people? Also, the constitution states the government is allowed to promote "the welfare" of the citizenry.
I'm done with you. There is no hope for you if you somehow think police and fire departments aren't socialist concepts.
Someone arrested for possessing cocaine is not necessarily arrested for violating the property rights of others, and it is this fact that demonstrates that victimless crimes should generally not be illegal, as they are not violations of the individual's inherent right to life, liberty, or property.
The firefighter is preserving the individual's private property right in their animal. The Constitution? You want to go there? You're wrong there too..
The U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to ONLY carry into execution the few, clearly enumerated powers listed in Article I... "The general welfare" cited in the U.S. Constitution does not mean "welfare" as we today mean. It merely means that each individual is free to develop their talents without government interference.
Socialism is government control of the means of production, police do not control the means of production, and neither do fire departments. Sorry.
HA HA HA! Climb off that high horse of yours, commenting cowboy; 70% of ALL firefighters in the USA are VOLUNTEER!
That's right; they are not union, and not paid for by taxes! Now how smart are you, talking about the "simple concept" of how emergency services are socialized!
So everyone is to stupid to know that Obama is talking out of his fucking ass?
He promised a lot in the election and he has yet to do ANYTHING half decent. he's a disaster, and now your going to support this? is it OUR fault people buy $200 of jeans instead of health care? is it OUR fault that they JUST HAD TO HAVE that $200,000 car?
NO, its NOT our fault! let them go without health care, the dumb fucks deserve to learn a god damn lesson.
Do you generate your own memes, or do you just repeat the ones you read on your favorite blogs?
Maybe you got your information about fire departments from Gangs of New York. Ever try reading a economic journal?
Roger Ahlbrandt Jr and Fred S McChesney are just two public choice economists who make the case that fire departments need not be provided by the government. And Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase makes a general case against public good provision by the government.
Instead of bringing your own arguments based on facts and solid reasoning, you bring someone else's opinion sold as facts. (and making sure you spell their title in order to make your point stronger)
"Because *put-your-favorite-name-here* said *put-your-favorite-quote-here* and he's graduated from *put-your-favorite-school-here* then it must be true"
This is not called reasoning, it's called parroting.
Thanks for the advice. I have some advice for you, too.
Next time you attempt a reductio ad absurdum, make sure you actually arrive at a fallacy.
Municipal fire departments didn't displace private and volunteer departments for reasons of efficacy. This development was an outgrowth of post Civil War Boss Tweed style patrongage machine politics.
There are still subscription based fire fighting services in several states, including AZ, OR, MT, TN & GA. By all accounts, they work well.
Right now, European citizens have a card that allows them to go to ANY hospital, no question asked, within the EU, for a nominal fee, and in most cases, free.
In Japan, citizens and residents can go to any hospital in the entire-world and they still enjoy the benefit of their domestic insurance (they pay only 30% of the total cost)
HAHA! Like the real commie you are, you have no idea what you are talking about. US of A has free emergency healthcare. Just like it should be. You are just so filled over with lies lies and lies from the jealous, European socialistmedia that you just don't have a clue. Blablabla I'm so sick of this :'(
Oh yeah, saw your vid. Serious shit man, a guy treated for back pain got "dumped". Why? Cause it probably wasn't life threatening. But you know it actually doesn't matter, i don't care about homeless people, and i wont ever pretend that i do. Also; CNN has about the same confidence as our Swedish media here at home. So no, people don't die left and right in America, they probably wont either if Obama doesn't succeed on running the country bankrupt.. That's all ;)
By choosing cancer survival rates as the standard by which to condemn the current health care system in the US, you picked the worst possible example.
Cancer survival rates in the US are tops. Google it and see.
Faster diagnosis in the US means patients are treated sooner. Under the kind of socialized, "free" health care system found to the north and overseas, you're "free" to get in line and wait while the cancer eats you alive.
Every single centralized and single payer health care system in the Western World (including the UK, Canada, and Australia) relies on our FDA to tell them if a drug is safe. The USA contributes roughly 90% of ALL new pharmaceuticals in the world; all of those single payer systems generate almost no new drugs at all.
Strange coincidence huh? We have higher average cost of health care and we have to pay for the R&D for the entire planet and provide free services to all the socialists like our FDA
1) The fact the the US spends more $ on health care is not relevant to the debate. US expenditures on health care are highy correlated with income levels. We have higher average incomes than most other countries. Its no suprise we spend more on a lot of things, including healthcare.
2) According to a 2008 study in the UK medical journal Lancet, the US has higher across the board cancer survival rates than the european average.
Health care expenses are not discretionary budget.
A community that has a high income per capita ratio spends more on leisure items (restaurants, cars, travels, etc) not on hospitals and medicine!
Don't you think that the highest expenditure in the world is not related to the record income corporations did combined with the 50 millions dumped from insurance because they cannot pay?
"survival for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer was generally higher in North America, Australia, Japan, and northern, western, and southern Europe, and lower in Algeria, Brazil, and eastern Europe"
What you wrote:
"US has higher across the board cancer survival rates than the european average"
You linked a report and you mention something that is not there?
... in part because many of them have become health care tourists.
Guess where a plurality of these travellers go.
That's right.
And many of these poor souls are so far gone by the time they arrive, they just end up driving down our survival rates.
2) Think you can produce more anecdotal evidence to discredit US insurance corporations than I could to discredit socialized health care entities like the NHS? What would this prove?
In US people are stuck with a limited choice of doctors and hospitals, in Europe and Japan no.
And they don't go only to US, also to China and Taiwan where (controversially) organ transplant and experimental treatments are performed easier than in the US.
Don't you wanna go where the best hospital is? and if so, why your US health care company doesn't let you go there?
The US didn't produce steel at a loss for any economic benefit.
The rationale for producing steel at a loss is based on national defense and the need to have a ready source of raw materials for the production of industrial goods when the crisis of war shuts down free exchange of goods with beligerants.
Oh, and invoking the state of the housing market in support of your argument is a stroke of genius.
Well these are basic principles of how corporations and countries are run.
Not everything has to make profit in order to achieve the profitability of the main organization.
Take Google for example, they run YouTube, and tons of other services, and the by-product is better visibility of the Google brand which in turn generates more revenue.
These are basic economic principles, and you don't even need Latin to study those.
Basic principles say you have to make a profit. Not immediately, but eventually.
YouTube is eating up most of Google's outgoing bandwidth. It cannot afford to allow YouTube to operate at a loss indefinitely. At some point, YouTube will either have to make a profit, or Google will cut bait.
By some accounts, YouTube is already turning a profit.
YouTube, Gmail, Analytics, Chrome, Earth, Picasa, SketchUp, Talk, Gadgets, Docs, News, tens of millions poured into Firefox, ect.
You get the idea, they are all run at a loss and Google is making tons of money, because the byproduct of this is better visibility of the Google brand.
Crazy? no, Eric Schmidt knows this concept very well.
And by the way, we are talking about principles here.
Tired of pretending to know anything about logic? Moving on to economics?
I'm an econ major :)
Once it becomes more expensive to internalize a transaction cost rather than contract out on the market, a company will chose to buy the service from someone else rather than produce it themselves. By acquiring YouTube, Google may have taken its strategy of horizontal integration too far.
Unless YouTube starts turning a profit, Google may sell it and buy the service it provides on the market
>...if Obama doesn't succeed on running the country bankrupt.
If the rest of the world runs just fine with state-managed health care I don't see how America can do much worse than all European and Asian countries combined.
If Bush didn't get the country bankrupt with one billion per month useless war in Iraq, I don't think Obama will either.
And by the way, did I mention that the quality of life would get way better for those 50 millions Americans who would finally get insured?
You seem to have got some numbers wrong, sir. First of, they're not 50 millions, they're 46 millions, where 2/4 have enough money to not consider an insurance, and 1/4 is covered by the medicare and medicaid programs. That leaves 1/4 that is truly uninsured, so the numbers are not that radical.
Bush didn't put USA bankrupt, Carter and Clinton did, read about the "Community Reinvestment Act" and you'll soon understand what the subprime-mortgage crisis is and why it is. ...
Also, about the european and asian countries, can you name one that is as successful as the United States? Probably not. And let me make some things clear. I live in Sweden, a country where we have no private healthcare at all, our government and ideology is called "Social democracy". Our healthcare is still working, but it's going slow, with enourmous queues and not even enough respirators or personell to handle a potentional swine flu outbreak. But, that is not everything ...
Due to we are a Social Democracy we have also got "State Television" and "State Radio" to mention 2 disasters. This is just two modules of a whole system dedicated to endless indoctrination and brainwashing. Now i got no more time, i have to play Warsow.
Pardon me, but when you mentioned logic, I thought you might actually know something about formal, propositional logic. Alas, no.
FYI: Aside from modus poenens, the reductio is perhaps the most commonly employed technique. Without even knowing what it is, you attempted to use it. You just didn't do it right.
Since you aren't familiar with propositional logic, YOU don't know what a fallacy is.
For real.
You don't know your fallacies from your tautologies.
Assuming (!) the premise that health care is like a public good:
A = If some argue that public goods need not be provided by the government, then there is a valid case to be made for private provision of public goods
B = RA, FM and RC argue that public goods need not be provided by the government
C = Therefore, there is a valid case to be made that public goods need not be provided by the government.
You can't prove anything with facts and numbers... unless you pick the right ones and contextualize them properly. That means employing a conceptual framework, otherwise you won't know which facts and numbers out of an infinite sea of facts and numbers are relevent.
"When a Nobel price [sic] opens his mouth and starts talking without numbers and verifiable facts, to me its just an opinion"
Government monopolization of health care will reduce the amount provided and increase the price of what is provided. That is what all monopolies do: they sell their product at a price that exceeds both marginal and total average cost.
Declaring that free and equal access to a service is "a right" doesn't magically dispense with the matter of scarcity.
Moving in the direction of a market-based, price-driven approach to the provision of health care will do more to make health care available to the poor than legislating into existance a centrally-directed, bureacratic leviathan health care monopoly.
BTW. your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent. Please proof read before hitting the "post comment" button.
We already saw what the market-based, price-driven approach has done to US citizens.
47 millions uninsured because they cannot pay
and
Those who do pay are dumped in times of need
BTW, in a "centrally-directed, bureacratic leviathan health care monopoly" you can go also to a private doctor if you wish
And if in a emergency, a better state/private hospital is available somewhere else, the army will make one of it's plane available to transport that person
No, we haven't had a market based approach in a long time. Those with insurance are forced to subsidize those who don't. Medicare doesn't pay for the full cost of treatment, so those patients, too, have their treatment paid for by those who actually pay insurance premiums.
One of the main drivers of cost increases in the health care sector is the redistributionist government health care pyramid scheme.
If you want to improve health care, make those who use the service pay for it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is a shortsighted vision.
Even if medicare loses money, it doesn't matter.
The end results is better living for everyone and that will translate into a better country.
Take the fire company for example.
They are not worry about losing money every time they go out for a fire call, they go, period.
If your logic is applied there they would let the building burn down, with lost business, the community would lose real estate values because of burned down homes here and there.
@BrettDunbar its true, i dont even have free reign over half the things i buy anymore, my purchases come with a license agreement telling me what i CAN and CANNOT do with a product I BOUGHT with my own MONEY. the point of capitalism is supposed to be that if i buy something, i OWN it, it is mine to do with as i wish.
thats not to say i support the free market either since a truly free market is one that eventually collapses into monopoly,
You appear to believe that its a foregone conclusion that public goods can't be provided by the free market. This is an uninformed opinion, not a fact. There is a good deal of research that indicates the feasibility and desirability of private provision of public goods in general, fire protection services in particular.
That was the basis of my first remark. Based on the literature, I believe the matter is open for discussion.
Maybe if the President would quit screwing over the value of the dollar, everybody could afford health insurance anyway. But noooooo, we need to spend trillions of dollars to stimulate the nation? Oh well, America got what it deserves, a complete idiot to wreck the system. Maybe after a bad Republican and a bad Democrat, the nation will finally elect a decent Libertarian.
ok wait, can't everyone get health insurance anyway? i mean if you pay for it?
so really the debate is false. it's a question of cost right? RIGHT?
So what should really be debated then isn't health insurance, but the degrading and RAPE of the dollar. if the government didn't rape the dollar minimum wage workers could afford health insurance. OOOOOOoooooh gee no one ever point that one out? the entire debate is a farce. but as a Black man, i did like those jeans and those shoes
Health insurance cuts into my crack budget, and why the hell should I have to pay for my crack any damn way! This is America damn it, free crack for all!!!
HAHAHA that is hillarious. And you're right, too. The money I save by not buying healthcare, I totally spend on rent and food and other things that are necessary. Like shoes. jk jk jk no really I am poor but I don't want universal healthcare, that stuff is bullshit.
Dear friend, We are the biggest wholesale company on electronic product in China. We can offer you the best price and afterservice.there are many kinds of electronic products in our store, such as TV, Notebooks, GPS,iphone,Mp3, Mp4 and so on.When you havetime, please visit our website and contact us. we will try our best to help you .
Our belief: credit is the first, customers are our god.
Our website is:__lucksey{.}COM__
Please enter the site format! Be able to look at site!
Dear friend, We are the biggest wholesale company on electronic product in China. We can offer you the best price and afterservice.there are many kinds of electronic products in our store, such as TV, Notebooks, GPS,iphone,Mp3, Mp4 and so on.When you havetime, please visit our website and contact us. we will try our best to help you .
Our belief: credit is the first, customers are our god.
Our website is:__lucksey{.}COM__
Please enter the site format! Be able to look at site!
Dear friend, We are the biggest wholesale company on electronic product in China. We can offer you the best price and afterservice.there are many kinds of electronic products in our store, such as TV, Notebooks, GPS,iphone,Mp3, Mp4 and so on.When you havetime, please visit our website and contact us. we will try our best to help you .
Our belief: credit is the first, customers are our god.
Our website is:__lucksey{.}COM__
Please enter the site format! Be able to look at site!
So if I have a minimum wage job and 2 kids to look after I don`t deserve health care because some dude supposedly prefers to spend his money on protein powder?
Why did you have 2 kids on a min. wage salary? Where's your family to help you out? Why should someone else have to pay for your health insurance? If it's so expensive, why are you asking people that already have to pay for their own, to pay for yours also?
Oh my God! What a topic title!
felpaluche 1 month ago
The fact is it is about choices and many people want to bring the government in to help people who consistently choose poorly. The government's job is to help educate people so they can make the best choices. Some people will always need help, but they're a small number.
NJburbsSeeker 9 months ago
It is a VERY simple concept, the amount & availability of all real goods is very finite while demands are infinite. Thus all demands must be constrained to the availability of quantity supplied. And the PREFERRED good thus must be prioritized. So if u choose to sleep for that hour, that means u value the sleep during that hour MORE than studying spanish, making buisiness plans or increasing ur worth. u make ur own choice, u bear ur own consequence
swu880 9 months ago
You may choose either to sleep all 24 hours, go for a jog half the day, go on facebook, or go to work. It is your choice - that is unless someone else is coercing u (ie the govt). If u choose to sleep, u forgo the next 'best' choice available to u at that time. So if u sleep for an hour, that hour can NOT be used to say, learn Spanish. or it can not be used to work on ur business plans. etc
This is called an opportunity cost- the direct result of scarcity & prioritizing.
swu880 9 months ago
No one should have to choose between buying food and paying income tax.
PissedFechtmeister 9 months ago
there were so many fallacies in this
joshyabs 9 months ago
@joshyabs
uh no there's not. it is called choice. All real goods are SCARCE. Scarce as in the quantity supplied of all goods can not meet all demands. Everyone has an infinite amount of wants & demands. Thus choices must be made & values decided upon & prioritized! For example, there are ONLY 24 hours a day. no more, no less.
swu880 9 months ago
I wonder how many of those 50 million uninsured take a vacation once a year, have more cars than they need, have a nicer car than they need, a bigger house than they need, cable, a home filled with electronic gadgets. it is outrageous to me that people will claim others should pay for one of their necessities while they enjoy luxuries. I am not heartless, some people get screwed by life. But the left frames the argument as if 50 million people are getting screwed. nonsense.
rrp1973 1 year ago
@rrp1973
I think you overgeneralize the insured and uninsured. There are some who do everything right, yet still cannot afford health insurance. I think the problem is down to not whether you are insured or not, its a matter of principle. There are several people who have insurance that is supposed to help them get the treatment they need, and even if they pay the premiums their claims are denied.
I just broke my leg so I hope my insurance company won't drop me. I paid into it.
pluto4847 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is an issue that GOP currently screwed up.
Never Forget what the GOP did to those "Gave Their All."
9/11 responders bill defeated by Senate GOP filibuster
Copy and paste the above into your search engine.
drysonbennington 1 year ago
Comment removed
erickthegreat98 1 year ago
Good video. Many people out there may not understand the opportunity cost at stake when they pay their cable bill, cell phone bill, beer, etc. The United States has the best health care on the planet in terms of treatments, procedures, etc. available.
erickthegreat98 1 year ago
@erickthegreat98 Those things have a cost though, and people called statisticians, among others, figure out how much you have to pay based on your health and habits effecting your health. We as a people are fast finding out that government cannot beat it unless they're always in the red and increasing our taxes and printing more money to fund it. Thus driving private insurance, which will always be better, out of business. This should be common sense.
erickthegreat98 1 year ago
midget at :022 in tophat.
Hitamaru 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Drug makers stocks are higher thanks to the passing of the bill. The bill gets $409.2 billion in morel taxes by 2019, as per congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Imposes $69 billion more in penalties for individuals and businesses who dont meet mandates to buy insurance. Higher medicare taxes on individuals on investment income including interest on 401K. 15% Tax rate on dividends rise to 20% Medicare tax from 1.45 to 2.35%. Taxes on cadillac plan taken off for Pelosi and friends sake
gmail123forever 1 year ago
Worth seeing again. Too bad if I link this where any of my friends in the states would see it, I'd be run through the trash. Why can't Obama repeal drug laws or get some gay marriage action going on so I can celebrate with my otherwise lovely liberal friends?
megsies 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1. REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL. Two massive tax cuts for the VERY RICH under Bush which were NOT paid for. 2. They ran up EIGHT TRILLION OF DEBT! When Clinton left office we had a surplus (ZERO DEBT). 3. They spend A TRILLION on the Iraq war TO DATE. 4. They DON'T want to give healthcare to the citizens in the RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD under a plan that IS PAID FOR. 5. Republicans ALSO used reconcilation! 6. They perpetuate FEAR MONGERING AND SCARE TACTICS. THEY ARE EVIL AND DISGUST ME!
ersatx210 1 year ago
@ersatx210 you make the big mistake of thinking of Bush as a Republican. He's a neocon, more inline with the democratic party than a true Republican. McCain and Cheny are no different. Read the Republican platform and then look at the voting records of Bush and McCain. They are not Republicans. And we are not the richest country in the world; we are the most in debted country. We owe over 13 trillion dollars--soon 15 trillion. You should do more research before speaking.
NewKreature517 1 year ago
I'm a Republican--so I must be evil. Hope you aren't stereotyping, acting bigoted, or being prejudiced. That would violate core Democratic principals.
PS The 8 trillion was the cumulative national debt since the inception of the Country. Obama has well advanced that figure. Learn to read!
PariahAvenger 1 year ago 3
if you don't make over 100,000 there is no point in being a republican...
Hitamaru 1 year ago
@Hitamaru If you work for a living there is no point in being either a Democrat or Liberal.
BillFrancoGuitarist 1 year ago 2
@BillFrancoGuitarist ... what? nope... Free Market doesn't work.
Hitamaru 1 year ago
@Hitamaru Wrong again. It's government intervention that caused the problems. The free market works - with flaws - but it works. Far better than anything any government has ever come up with.
ZenGugs 1 year ago 3
you should have health insurance and be able to afford alcohol
SpassMacher2000 2 years ago
and you should have a new car every 3 years and a house. i mean that is basic shelter and transportation and we "deserve" it. you are such a tool. you want health ins and alcohol go work for it
umrmecheman 2 years ago 2
that greaseball bastard with the dreds needs a good swift kick in the ass
grasscat1977 2 years ago 5
I always try making this point in my arguments, but the left ALWAYS denies it or even endorses it saying 'we could have both! AND it would be economical!'
Christoppher1994 2 years ago
If we got rid of the Federal Reserve and the scoundrels that own it and have the government create and issue our currency again, our great industrious nation would be debt free once again and we could afford health care as well as many other services expected from the citizens tax dollar. As it stands today we have given money creation over to a private cabal of banksters putting our country into a spiralling debt.
please google and watch:
America freedom to fascism
Fall of the Republic
seanrsk 2 years ago
screw health insurance, I'm afraid of docotrs anyways.
stitchedplate4 2 years ago 2
vastedda99
"The IMPLICIT racism is OBVIOUS"
Uh huh.
j95lee 2 years ago
lol sweet
wanderings0ul 2 years ago
Five motherfucking stars!!!
LIBshark 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Not as good as you unfortuneately Mr. Puppet.. I bet that you believe that they will find all those weapons of mass destruction that Bush swore were there buried in the Iraqi desert if only those lazy, drunken Marines would only DIG harder!
vastedda99 2 years ago
Why is it that scoialist can't see a difference between libertarians and fascists? They are the opposite of each other, while socialism is really just another brand.
It's like A korean person telling me Japanese people and Americans look the same, it's absurd.
Visfen 2 years ago
Fascism is like the the little brother of communism, but the big brother of socialism. fascism: Where the state owns the factories, the vendors, and the prices, but you can keep your junk (personal possessions)
Christoppher1994 2 years ago
wow, the U.S. marine corps are professional soldiers who execute their jobs in a quick, professional manner. I would like one of these "lazy, drunken marines" that I know to show up at your house and show you how lazy and drunk he is. Also: I find that ironic since you live in Italy, where anyone can drink as much as they want.
Christoppher1994 2 years ago
there is no valid argument why my hardearned paychecks should go to POSs like this. none. help those who get declined coverage but let those other motherfuckers rot. if they don't want to work for it then fuckem, one less leech to bleed the system...
ninjaxams 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is bullshit!
adanmrocha 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FUCK YOU Conservative Cocksuckers! How dare you imply that ALL people who don't have benefits are drunkards. The implicit RACISM is obvious. I am sure you cocksuckers all against abortion-defending the rights of the unborn-poor fetuses that are slain-Oh! Boo-Hoo . In the words of the late & great George Carlin, it's LIVE people you don't give a FUCK about! Hypocrites.
vastedda99 2 years ago
Implicit racism? you've been trained well
magichandpuppet 2 years ago 4
vastedda99
What an ignorant statement. Reason tv is a Libertarian organization. Here is a quote from the Libertarian party platform, "As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others." More racism right? Of course, I get it. Don't like what you hear, but can't refute it? Shout racism. Your posts contain no valid points. Your turn, talk some more trash.
emspeed1 2 years ago 16
wow,
you really do not understand the concept of satire, do you?
LIBshark 2 years ago
Whine about it.
We're libertarians dumbass.
I'm gay.
BrettDunbar 1 year ago
It's F***ing redickyouloss.
ab1tchslap 2 years ago
This "NO TAXES" crap is almost worse than this video. Google "What countries pay the highest taxes". You might be surprised with what you find. A little more research might bring more interesting facts. NOW We live in the greatest...We have more opportunity than....We are safer than.... Well, NOTHING IS FREE. These benefits pale in comparison to the cost, even after an increase. I don't mind paying my dues for this opportunity, especially if we can better help the sick.But maybe I'm grateful.
everythingeco 2 years ago
classical progressive: Because of stereotyping, I believe no one gives to charities, so let's have the govt do it for us!. Right....
Christoppher1994 2 years ago 5
All this video illustrates is the fact many (not all) of the uninsured in this country are CHOOSING to spend their dollars elsewhere on cable TV, cell phones, clothes, etc.
People take those kinds of gambles daily. It's called irresponsibility. And they are free to do that.
Advocates for socialized health care assume that permanent government expansion (my tax dollars) is required to cover the willfully uninsured.
*Please note-- my post is NOT directed to those who have been denied coverage.
idlepink17 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever seen. Sure dude "People are only uninsured because they're spending their money on clothes and beer" Are you Fking kidding me?!?
Why don't you get off your high horse and try this video in the unemployment line, or a cancer research hospital, or anywhere but late night at a party.
I hope you never have a health problem that your insurance company denys, but then again, I have a heart. Maybe that's the difference between you and I.
piss off
everythingeco 2 years ago
You have a heart. How sweet.
I've work in soup lines for the homeless, I loan money to friends I know probably won't pay me back because of their hardships.
You demand the government holds a gun to every one's head, takes their money, and uses 10% of it on what they say they will and pocket the difference.
There's a difference in our hearts.
So you can piss off. =P
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago 23
Just tax the fucking health care like the rest of the countries......i lived in australia and i paid 24% that included health care, and about $20 a month for private health care on top of that. The free market doesnt work for health care. Why not piss away public schools as well? I consider myself a libertarian but the goverment should provide health care. America is fucked, you are one slip away from a life of hardship. Basic social security should be there. FUck paying for wars
ryno99 2 years ago
funny, i never met an australian I didn't like until now
hoserPhalanx 2 years ago 5
I remember reading an article a long time ago that revealed the Cable TV industry lobbying for expansion of the Agriculture Department's Food Stamp program. The Cable TV industry realized that if more people received food assistance, then that was like a de facto subsidy for their industry.
Shephild 2 years ago
no matter what, if i didn't already have healthcare, i wouldn't get it. I'm a relatively healthy person. I think I go to the doctor once a year. So even if I had to spend 500$ at the doctor's office, it would probably be cheaper than what senator baucus is proposing for individuals. I don't think that as a person who is very health-conscious that I should have to carry the weight of unhealthy people on my back.
upontherooftops 2 years ago
Lame argument. Getting drunk is irresponcible and shouldn't be supported. Now if it was between health insurance and getting an education... Well that's another story. Edification and self improvement is the cornerstore of my ethical egoist philosophy. If government has better priorities than the people, by all means let government make their choices for them.
veridia 2 years ago
why? Because the govt forced car makers to put seat belts and airbags in cars, it could have possibly created a mindset that states "if i get in a wreck, i will be fine". it doesn't create a safer world. letting the govt choose for people is not always the best decision
Christoppher1994 2 years ago
"most wealthiest"???? I would rather spend the money teaching Americans their native language and how to properly use it.
intolerantfox 2 years ago
So the fact that I used a redundant phrase shows I have no grasp on the english language?
By the by, it is improper to use more than one question mark. That should be an obvious mistake, but it appears you missed that.
ImperativeNation 2 years ago
They want the state to take care of their every need, and they want you to pay for it.
s4rcorvette 2 years ago
yeah, the WHO is a totally unbiased source. I'm sure they don't have any political agenda. I'm sure they have no possible reason to lie about health care in other countries. I bet they don't have any socialists that work for them. If any of you think that we are truly number 37 in the world as far as health care goes then WHY IN THE HELL does anyone who's anyone come HERE for care? Why do heads of state go to Mayo Clinic? or Johns Hopkins? Don't be stupid
intolerantfox 2 years ago
You realize that was in efficiency, correct? And the WHO has absolutely no reason to lie. But, you are like most conservatives, you hate statistics, until they back your point, then you ride them to no end.
And what does it matter what the world's most wealthiest people go? How does that solve the issue of 40+ million Americans who have no insurance? Keep in mind "going to the ER" is what drives prices up.
ImperativeNation 2 years ago
Comment removed
peppeddu 2 years ago
It's funny, because tens of thousands of people die and many more go bankrupt due to lack of health insurance!
Also, what the fuck is up with all the racial imagery used in the video? The King Cobra, the Gorilla supplement, and the black guy in jeans, while not necessarily significant by themselves, are clearly and inexplicably conflated and focused upon as the representative symbols of these people who are "too lazy" to get health insurance. I expect this from the teabaggers, but not Reason.
BrendanM4458 2 years ago
What the hell does a nutrition supplement and a beer bottle have to do with race??? Seriously! Do you see race in literally every single product in a supermarket? Are there "white" cereals and "black" cereals to you? You must be mentally deranged or something!
BiggsReport 2 years ago
awesome video
BiggieB99 2 years ago
@rbairos1
What you're not accepting is nearly half a century of economic study on the insurance sector, beginning with Ken Arrow's 1960s analysis of adverse selection.
The reason why pizza doesn't work that way, using your example, is because the expectation of the purchaser of a pizza will be tested (they'll eat it) and can make a decision on future pizza purchases based on that outcome. Not satisfied? Get pizza somewhere else.
Get cancer and your insurance company drops you? You're screwed,
Slybac 2 years ago
lmao, good vid
vinnyraf 2 years ago
Comment removed
kouzgondeh 2 years ago
Haha this is epic :D
valliko 2 years ago
I often enjoy reading Reason magazine. This video lowers my opinion of the magazine. 'I don't want universal healthcare because my taxes will go to feckless black people' should be beneath you.
alexhiggins80 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about? There's nothing even remotely racist about this video.
Nautilus3333 2 years ago
It looks like you're kind of dumb. Maybe with a better health care system, you could get that taken care of.
happydeathman 2 years ago
This is fucking twisted. Having any small amount of disposable income means not having health care is YOUR FAULT?
As an uninsured working person who neither drinks nor buys expensive clothes nor dietary suppliments nor much of anything else, Reason Magazine can suck my fucking hairy balls.
svladjelly 2 years ago 3
Yeah, because everyone in the US that doesn't have health care is really just someone beneath your station, aren't they Reason?
This was really offensive.
jodypschaeffer 2 years ago
"Yeah, because everyone in the US that doesn't have health care is really just someone beneath your station, aren't they Reason?"
Well just that ones that expect others to pay for their high priority needs while they spend their own cash on frivolous ones..
rbairos1 2 years ago
If only I hadn't shelled out $200 bucks for my pair of designer jeans, I could have the $1000 a month it would cost me to have health insurance from a for-profit corporation in the individual insurance market. Which they would have dropped as soon as I got sick.
Right.
Honestly, I expect little else from a front group for Koch, Bradley, and Scaife.
Slybac 2 years ago
"I could have the $1000 a month it would cost me to have health insurance from a for-profit corporation in the individual insurance market"
How do figure profit drives prices and quality in one direction for health insurance and in the other direction for food, shelter and clothing (including designer jeans) ?
rbairos1 2 years ago
Because insurance is an entirely different economic game than consumer goods, both for systemic reasons and the byzantine and ineffective way its regulated in the United States (i.e. at the state level).
For one, you don't have the problems of adverse selection in consumer goods that you do in insurance. Especially health insurance. When the profit motive is entirely built upon limiting information on a transaction it becomes much more difficult to make rational purchasing decisions.
Slybac 2 years ago
I don't accept your semantics. What consumer good cannot be described in this way? Is the entire profit motive in the pizza industry built upon concealing which ingredients are used from this perspective? Is the fact that some states regulatory schemes are so restrictive that citizens have only access to 2 or 3 insurance firms an argument to nationalize the system or to break it up?
rbairos1 2 years ago
How can you say insurance is an entirely different economic game when ever other 1st world country who has the government involved in healthcare keeps their costs lower than ours while keeping life expectancy rates higher?
PartVIII 2 years ago
PartVIII do your stats on public health care vs life expectancy factor in mortality from all sources or just ones related to health care? That stat ranking is a myth.
Secondly, given the extremely regulated and bloated bureaucracy that is your HMO system how can you claim govt is not involved?
rbairos1 2 years ago
Hey, the people at REASON didn't have to choose between being drunken, selfish, lying idiots and posting on YouTube, so why shoud we?
Pretty disgusting, even for a gag video. Fuck you, Reason.
SteveAndIdiAmin 2 years ago 2
Gotta love libertarian logic. Every country in the world collects taxes, therefore the whole world is communist. Having to pay indiviadually and out of pocket for every single service, from health to police to weather forecasts (whose private owners sure will behave virtuously and not gouge you at all) will be way cheaper than having the polity manage them. Pop quiz: how many Interstate Highway systems have popped out around the world thanks to private enterprise?
fjardim14 2 years ago 3
"Pop quiz: how many Interstate Highway systems have popped out around the world thanks to private enterprise?"
None, they were too busy inventing the automobile industry, petroleum industries, and the hundred billion places worth driving to in the first place.
For the record, how did you envision a private enterprise able to build an interstate highway through government appropriated land in the first place?
rbairos1 2 years ago
You ARE paying out of your pocket for every single service provided by government. It's called tax. When businesses are taxed, you pay for it through higher prices because no business pays the real cost of taxes, it is always passed on to the consumer, or the business folds and jobs are lost as well as the products and services that business was providing. Government managing of services is simply a middle man. Government has never been able to provide cheaper service, it only creates shortages.
Mammonist 2 years ago 3
What economic value does a health insurance company put into the system? They are also glorified middlemen in a transaction between a consumer and the person supplying health services, after all. And I would certainly consider the rationing of millions out of the market as a shortage.
They don't even apportion risk properly, which is what insurance is supposed to do in the first place.
Slybac 2 years ago
Insurance companies provide value. You don't like their risk apportioning? Start your own insurance business. Insurance is not an entirely different economic game than consumer goods, it is a consumer good. The only thing rationing millions out of insurance is government regulations and controls in the health industry in the USA.
Mammonist 2 years ago
Your entire post shows how ignorant you are about the subject of economics. Really quite laughable, why don't you say that to some economic professors, see their reaction.
Healthcare is not like any other good. If we were to go by a purely capitalistic system, then it makes no sense for insurance companies to take on 75%+ of the population, due to health risks.
So, as much as libertarians fill your head with wet-dreams about the free-market, just keep in mind they are (always) wrong.
ImperativeNation 2 years ago
Take a intro to econ class pal, get a grip. Medical care is precisely like a vast array of other services, only the actual cost is hidden from the consumer by out current government mandated HMO system... we need to get rid of that horrid intervention in order to have any meaningful and effective reform.
Nautilus3333 2 years ago
You are hopelessly ignorant. Yes, there is an issue with cost control, but the care is undeniably great. 95% of seniors on Medicare are happy with it.
But I forget, you version of America is a libertarian wet-dream. Tell me, do you think we should get rid of other socialist programs such as police and fire departments, and just let the private sector take over?
The only meaningful reform will happen when we start holding insurance companies accountable.
ImperativeNation 2 years ago
What're you talking about? The police and fire departments exist to defend the individual's private property rights, they are not socialistic, in that they do not control or direct the means of production, but rather, protect the private direction and control of them. Get your facts right before you push your Zwangswirtschaft upon us here.
Nautilus3333 2 years ago
Wow, you really have no clue, do you?
Police and Fire departments are entirely funded through taxes. I'm actually also drawing a blank on any fire or police departments not part of a union. I'm sure some exist, but a majority of those workers are unionized. The fact that you don't even understand a simple concept such as the fact that police and fire departments are socialist really makes me question your ability to comprehend.
And putting out a fire is not "defending property rights."
ImperativeNation 2 years ago
Of course they are funded by taxes. The government EXISTS to defend the life, liberty and property of the citizenry! Of course putting out a fire is protecting the private property of the citizenry, read something, sometime.
Socialism is government control and direction of the means of production, the police and fire departments exist to protect the private ownership of the means of production.
Unions create unemployment, and act to create malinvestment and distortion in the economy...
Nautilus3333 2 years ago
No, and this is the last time I'm going to say it:
Your definition is not correct. How does arresting someone for possessing cocaine protect the means of production? How does a fire fighter getting an animal unstuck protect people? Also, the constitution states the government is allowed to promote "the welfare" of the citizenry.
I'm done with you. There is no hope for you if you somehow think police and fire departments aren't socialist concepts.
And look up the unionization of those jobs.
ImperativeNation 2 years ago
Unfortunately, you are yet again incorrect.
Someone arrested for possessing cocaine is not necessarily arrested for violating the property rights of others, and it is this fact that demonstrates that victimless crimes should generally not be illegal, as they are not violations of the individual's inherent right to life, liberty, or property.
The firefighter is preserving the individual's private property right in their animal. The Constitution? You want to go there? You're wrong there too..
Nautilus3333 2 years ago
The U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to ONLY carry into execution the few, clearly enumerated powers listed in Article I... "The general welfare" cited in the U.S. Constitution does not mean "welfare" as we today mean. It merely means that each individual is free to develop their talents without government interference.
Socialism is government control of the means of production, police do not control the means of production, and neither do fire departments. Sorry.
Nautilus3333 2 years ago
What definition of welfare are you using? I just checked on my dictionary. com widget, and the first thing that came up was this:
"the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group."
The first thing mentioned is health. Your definition appears to be made up.
What I find funny is you think the government can handle operating the world's greatest military, but it shouldn't handle anything else.
And no, socialism is not simply "government control of the means of production."
ImperativeNation 2 years ago
HA HA HA! Climb off that high horse of yours, commenting cowboy; 70% of ALL firefighters in the USA are VOLUNTEER!
That's right; they are not union, and not paid for by taxes! Now how smart are you, talking about the "simple concept" of how emergency services are socialized!
LOL!
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Stay Classy Reason/Drew Carey.
Hope your coverer doesn't decide stupid is a pre-existing condition.
zuzukachoo 2 years ago 3
So everyone is to stupid to know that Obama is talking out of his fucking ass?
He promised a lot in the election and he has yet to do ANYTHING half decent. he's a disaster, and now your going to support this? is it OUR fault people buy $200 of jeans instead of health care? is it OUR fault that they JUST HAD TO HAVE that $200,000 car?
NO, its NOT our fault! let them go without health care, the dumb fucks deserve to learn a god damn lesson.
Mihuzaki 2 years ago
Hell ya!
I know those guys!
Peace
llandshark 2 years ago
That's right, we need not to waste any taxpayer money on health insurance for those who waste their money on frivolous things.
But why stop there? let's privatize the fire departments, the post office, the police departments.
If you've got fire insurance, the truck will come to your home.
If you've got police insurance, the police will help you for free.
Better choose wisely, because if you call an out-of-network police department you are just out of luck.
peppeddu 2 years ago
Do you generate your own memes, or do you just repeat the ones you read on your favorite blogs?
Maybe you got your information about fire departments from Gangs of New York. Ever try reading a economic journal?
Roger Ahlbrandt Jr and Fred S McChesney are just two public choice economists who make the case that fire departments need not be provided by the government. And Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase makes a general case against public good provision by the government.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
Here we go again.
Instead of bringing your own arguments based on facts and solid reasoning, you bring someone else's opinion sold as facts. (and making sure you spell their title in order to make your point stronger)
"Because *put-your-favorite-name-here* said *put-your-favorite-quote-here* and he's graduated from *put-your-favorite-school-here* then it must be true"
This is not called reasoning, it's called parroting.
peppeddu 2 years ago
Thanks for the advice. I have some advice for you, too.
Next time you attempt a reductio ad absurdum, make sure you actually arrive at a fallacy.
Municipal fire departments didn't displace private and volunteer departments for reasons of efficacy. This development was an outgrowth of post Civil War Boss Tweed style patrongage machine politics.
There are still subscription based fire fighting services in several states, including AZ, OR, MT, TN & GA. By all accounts, they work well.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
Technique #2
This is probably taken straight from Bill O'Reilly's technique.
Throw in some uncommon/Latin words to make you look like you said something important.
Did you even understand what you wrote?
*You* arrived at "fallacy" (provides poor reasoning in support of your conclusion), and I've pointed it out.
Sure subscription based fire fighting services works well, that is, for the subscribers.
...
peppeddu 2 years ago
...
Right now, European citizens have a card that allows them to go to ANY hospital, no question asked, within the EU, for a nominal fee, and in most cases, free.
In Japan, citizens and residents can go to any hospital in the entire-world and they still enjoy the benefit of their domestic insurance (they pay only 30% of the total cost)
...
peppeddu 2 years ago
...
In US...
You can fall sick right in front of a hospital and if you've got no insurance and no money you can die right there and no one would give a damn.
Try to sweet this one up with some Latin words if you can, the end result is still the same.
And if that that person is someone you care about, I am not sure how much you would still defend the private insurance business.
Is this what you call freedom?
peppeddu 2 years ago
HAHA! Like the real commie you are, you have no idea what you are talking about. US of A has free emergency healthcare. Just like it should be. You are just so filled over with lies lies and lies from the jealous, European socialistmedia that you just don't have a clue. Blablabla I'm so sick of this :'(
valliko 2 years ago
Wake up to reality.
watch?v=94KpSLBCenk
peppeddu 2 years ago
Oh yeah, saw your vid. Serious shit man, a guy treated for back pain got "dumped". Why? Cause it probably wasn't life threatening. But you know it actually doesn't matter, i don't care about homeless people, and i wont ever pretend that i do. Also; CNN has about the same confidence as our Swedish media here at home. So no, people don't die left and right in America, they probably wont either if Obama doesn't succeed on running the country bankrupt.. That's all ;)
valliko 2 years ago
That you don't care about your fellow human being is understood and I respect your opinion as such.
But consider that a corporation, by American law, has to seek profits.
And when the same corporation deals with health care you can bet that the well being of their "customers" is the least of their priorities.
Therefore when the patient needs them the most (say cancer, or whatever) they are dumped with paperwork, delays and denial until they die.
Welcome to the health care in America
peppeddu 2 years ago
By choosing cancer survival rates as the standard by which to condemn the current health care system in the US, you picked the worst possible example.
Cancer survival rates in the US are tops. Google it and see.
Faster diagnosis in the US means patients are treated sooner. Under the kind of socialized, "free" health care system found to the north and overseas, you're "free" to get in line and wait while the cancer eats you alive.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
No need to Google, just go to the official source, WHO
US has the highest expenditures in the world when it comes to health care
who. int/ nha/ use/ THE _ pc _ US$ _ 2006. png
And it ranks #37 in the overall efficiency in all WHO member states
who. int/ healthinfo/ paper30. pdf
(page18)
US also tops the Death from Cancer list
nationmaster. com / graph / hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer
Those commi are not doing so bad huh?
Or perhaps corporations in US are legally killing people?
peppeddu 2 years ago
Every single centralized and single payer health care system in the Western World (including the UK, Canada, and Australia) relies on our FDA to tell them if a drug is safe. The USA contributes roughly 90% of ALL new pharmaceuticals in the world; all of those single payer systems generate almost no new drugs at all.
Strange coincidence huh? We have higher average cost of health care and we have to pay for the R&D for the entire planet and provide free services to all the socialists like our FDA
BiggsReport 2 years ago
1) The fact the the US spends more $ on health care is not relevant to the debate. US expenditures on health care are highy correlated with income levels. We have higher average incomes than most other countries. Its no suprise we spend more on a lot of things, including healthcare.
2) According to a 2008 study in the UK medical journal Lancet, the US has higher across the board cancer survival rates than the european average.
ncbi / nlm / nih / gov / pubmed / 18639491
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
Are you for real?
Health care expenses are not discretionary budget.
A community that has a high income per capita ratio spends more on leisure items (restaurants, cars, travels, etc) not on hospitals and medicine!
Don't you think that the highest expenditure in the world is not related to the record income corporations did combined with the 50 millions dumped from insurance because they cannot pay?
peppeddu 2 years ago
>2) According to a 2008 study...
Quote from the report:
"survival for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer was generally higher in North America, Australia, Japan, and northern, western, and southern Europe, and lower in Algeria, Brazil, and eastern Europe"
What you wrote:
"US has higher across the board cancer survival rates than the european average"
You linked a report and you mention something that is not there?
peppeddu 2 years ago
1) The "commies" aren't doing too bad...
... in part because many of them have become health care tourists.
Guess where a plurality of these travellers go.
That's right.
And many of these poor souls are so far gone by the time they arrive, they just end up driving down our survival rates.
2) Think you can produce more anecdotal evidence to discredit US insurance corporations than I could to discredit socialized health care entities like the NHS? What would this prove?
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
1) The "commies" aren't doing too bad...
They are health care tourists because they can.
In US people are stuck with a limited choice of doctors and hospitals, in Europe and Japan no.
And they don't go only to US, also to China and Taiwan where (controversially) organ transplant and experimental treatments are performed easier than in the US.
Don't you wanna go where the best hospital is? and if so, why your US health care company doesn't let you go there?
peppeddu 2 years ago
2) Think you can produce more...
Corporation are obligated by law to generate revenue for it's shareholders.
That, by definition is incompatible with health care.
A country, just like a corporation, can run a business purposely on loss because the outcome will benefit the overall system.
Just like the US used to produce steel at loss, the housing market (and the overall economy) benefited from it.
Conceptually, health care should be the same and with Obama's plan it won't lose money either.
peppeddu 2 years ago
Yes, I do think I can produce more horror stories about the NHS than you can about US health care corps.
BTW... You probably didn't notice (most likely because you haven't looked up the term "anecdote" yet.,) but you're no longer trading in anecdotes.
And that's good. You can't prove anything with an anecdote.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
The US didn't produce steel at a loss for any economic benefit.
The rationale for producing steel at a loss is based on national defense and the need to have a ready source of raw materials for the production of industrial goods when the crisis of war shuts down free exchange of goods with beligerants.
Oh, and invoking the state of the housing market in support of your argument is a stroke of genius.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
Well these are basic principles of how corporations and countries are run.
Not everything has to make profit in order to achieve the profitability of the main organization.
Take Google for example, they run YouTube, and tons of other services, and the by-product is better visibility of the Google brand which in turn generates more revenue.
These are basic economic principles, and you don't even need Latin to study those.
peppeddu 2 years ago
Basic principles say you have to make a profit. Not immediately, but eventually.
YouTube is eating up most of Google's outgoing bandwidth. It cannot afford to allow YouTube to operate at a loss indefinitely. At some point, YouTube will either have to make a profit, or Google will cut bait.
By some accounts, YouTube is already turning a profit.
gigaom . com / 2009 / 06 / 16 / youtube - infrastructure - costs - vastly - overestimated - report /
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
YouTube, Gmail, Analytics, Chrome, Earth, Picasa, SketchUp, Talk, Gadgets, Docs, News, tens of millions poured into Firefox, ect.
You get the idea, they are all run at a loss and Google is making tons of money, because the byproduct of this is better visibility of the Google brand.
Crazy? no, Eric Schmidt knows this concept very well.
And by the way, we are talking about principles here.
"When the finger points to the moon,
the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb).
peppeddu 2 years ago
Schmidt says that "finding a way to make money from YouTube is the company's 'top priority'."
m . pocket - lint . com / news / 14370 / google - says - youtube - profit - priority
Repeat: Schmidt says operating YouTube at a loss is not a viable strategy.
Only an idiot would even think it.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
Sure it is.
In the perfect world, everything a company does is for profit.
In a less than ideal world, you just take the by-product of what you loss service is, and use it for profit.
Is this becoming an economic class or a discussion about health care?
Come on.
peppeddu 2 years ago
Tired of pretending to know anything about logic? Moving on to economics?
I'm an econ major :)
Once it becomes more expensive to internalize a transaction cost rather than contract out on the market, a company will chose to buy the service from someone else rather than produce it themselves. By acquiring YouTube, Google may have taken its strategy of horizontal integration too far.
Unless YouTube starts turning a profit, Google may sell it and buy the service it provides on the market
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
You are right and wrong at the same time.
Let me clarify.
What you've said is correct but you're applying to the wrong case scenario.
The by-product of the run-at-loss services is better visibility for the Google brand.
This, for Google is still good enough to keep the services running even though they are losing money.
In fact they are pouring millions of dollars into Firefox just to have the default search box pointed at Google
Not to mention Gmail, nearly 100% loss
Crazy? nope, very smart
peppeddu 2 years ago
Obama's plan will lose money, without a doubt. He basically plans to extend medicare to every resident in the US.
Medicare has been broke for many years.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
>...if Obama doesn't succeed on running the country bankrupt.
If the rest of the world runs just fine with state-managed health care I don't see how America can do much worse than all European and Asian countries combined.
If Bush didn't get the country bankrupt with one billion per month useless war in Iraq, I don't think Obama will either.
And by the way, did I mention that the quality of life would get way better for those 50 millions Americans who would finally get insured?
peppeddu 2 years ago
You seem to have got some numbers wrong, sir. First of, they're not 50 millions, they're 46 millions, where 2/4 have enough money to not consider an insurance, and 1/4 is covered by the medicare and medicaid programs. That leaves 1/4 that is truly uninsured, so the numbers are not that radical.
Bush didn't put USA bankrupt, Carter and Clinton did, read about the "Community Reinvestment Act" and you'll soon understand what the subprime-mortgage crisis is and why it is. ...
valliko 2 years ago
Also, about the european and asian countries, can you name one that is as successful as the United States? Probably not. And let me make some things clear. I live in Sweden, a country where we have no private healthcare at all, our government and ideology is called "Social democracy". Our healthcare is still working, but it's going slow, with enourmous queues and not even enough respirators or personell to handle a potentional swine flu outbreak. But, that is not everything ...
valliko 2 years ago
Due to we are a Social Democracy we have also got "State Television" and "State Radio" to mention 2 disasters. This is just two modules of a whole system dedicated to endless indoctrination and brainwashing. Now i got no more time, i have to play Warsow.
valliko 2 years ago
Pardon me, but when you mentioned logic, I thought you might actually know something about formal, propositional logic. Alas, no.
FYI: Aside from modus poenens, the reductio is perhaps the most commonly employed technique. Without even knowing what it is, you attempted to use it. You just didn't do it right.
Since you aren't familiar with propositional logic, YOU don't know what a fallacy is.
For real.
You don't know your fallacies from your tautologies.
That is why you fail.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
I beg to differ, what you did in your post was a circular reference, not a propositional logic.
A says C is good.
B says C is good because A says so.
Therefore we conclude C is good.
Don't confuse facts vs opinions otherwise you cannot use propositional logic.
"Roger Ahlbrandt Jr and Fred S McChesney are just two public choice economists who make the case that ..."
"Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase makes a general case against public good provision by the government."
Circular reference.
peppeddu 2 years ago
Assuming (!) the premise that health care is like a public good:
A = If some argue that public goods need not be provided by the government, then there is a valid case to be made for private provision of public goods
B = RA, FM and RC argue that public goods need not be provided by the government
C = Therefore, there is a valid case to be made that public goods need not be provided by the government.
Modus poenens:
If A, then B;
A;
Therefore B.
Nice try, Boolio.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
You still don't get it do you?
You cannot sell as fact someone else's opinion.
If the health care reform is not going to work, it must be demonstrated with numbers and facts, and anyone can draw his/her conclusion.
When a Nobel price opens up his mouth and starts talking without numbers, and verifiable facts, to me it is just an opinion.
You can spice it up with propositional logic or any other thought expression method you like.
The bottom line is still the same.
peppeddu 2 years ago
You can't prove anything with facts and numbers... unless you pick the right ones and contextualize them properly. That means employing a conceptual framework, otherwise you won't know which facts and numbers out of an infinite sea of facts and numbers are relevent.
"When a Nobel price [sic] opens his mouth and starts talking without numbers and verifiable facts, to me its just an opinion"
Failed 7th grade algebra, huh?
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
Making a U turn huh?
Your comment:
"And Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase makes a general case against public good provision by the government."
And now:
"When a Nobel price [sic] opens his mouth and starts talking without numbers and verifiable facts, to me its just an opinion"
So, which one is it?
peppeddu 2 years ago
I was quoting you, Einstein.
See the quotation marks?
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
Sorry, my mistake, in a hurry I didn't fully read your post.
Anyway, the state doesn't magically dispense anything.
Our Tax money guarantees a framework of basic services where every citizen can live in the pursuit of the American dream.
Health care services is a part of those basic services, the basic framework for every citizen to live and prosper.
When the dream becomes health care, the country is going backward, not forward.
peppeddu 2 years ago
Government monopolization of health care will reduce the amount provided and increase the price of what is provided. That is what all monopolies do: they sell their product at a price that exceeds both marginal and total average cost.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
In a monopoly, yes.
But no one is talking about monopoly here.
Even those crazy Europeans have the choice of private doctors if for some reasons they are not satisfied with the Government-provided health care.
Some doctors choose to work with the government health care system, some do not.
Your pick, your choice. And you're not gonna lose your house if you need surgery.
peppeddu 2 years ago
The framework is clear.
Health care is a right nor a privilege.
and
Rights applies to everyone.
With that in mind, a private corporation that MUST (by law) make a profit, goes against these principles.
In fact the whole thing started as a scam (see the Nixon tapes)
You don't need a Nobel price for that.
peppeddu 2 years ago
Declaring that free and equal access to a service is "a right" doesn't magically dispense with the matter of scarcity.
Moving in the direction of a market-based, price-driven approach to the provision of health care will do more to make health care available to the poor than legislating into existance a centrally-directed, bureacratic leviathan health care monopoly.
BTW. your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent. Please proof read before hitting the "post comment" button.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
We already saw what the market-based, price-driven approach has done to US citizens.
47 millions uninsured because they cannot pay
and
Those who do pay are dumped in times of need
BTW, in a "centrally-directed, bureacratic leviathan health care monopoly" you can go also to a private doctor if you wish
And if in a emergency, a better state/private hospital is available somewhere else, the army will make one of it's plane available to transport that person
Ask your insurance company about that
peppeddu 2 years ago
No, we haven't had a market based approach in a long time. Those with insurance are forced to subsidize those who don't. Medicare doesn't pay for the full cost of treatment, so those patients, too, have their treatment paid for by those who actually pay insurance premiums.
One of the main drivers of cost increases in the health care sector is the redistributionist government health care pyramid scheme.
If you want to improve health care, make those who use the service pay for it.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is a shortsighted vision.
Even if medicare loses money, it doesn't matter.
The end results is better living for everyone and that will translate into a better country.
Take the fire company for example.
They are not worry about losing money every time they go out for a fire call, they go, period.
If your logic is applied there they would let the building burn down, with lost business, the community would lose real estate values because of burned down homes here and there.
peppeddu 2 years ago
we don't have a free market in america. think again.
BrettDunbar 1 year ago
@BrettDunbar its true, i dont even have free reign over half the things i buy anymore, my purchases come with a license agreement telling me what i CAN and CANNOT do with a product I BOUGHT with my own MONEY. the point of capitalism is supposed to be that if i buy something, i OWN it, it is mine to do with as i wish.
thats not to say i support the free market either since a truly free market is one that eventually collapses into monopoly,
tuseroni 1 year ago
You're the only one here selling opinon as fact.
You appear to believe that its a foregone conclusion that public goods can't be provided by the free market. This is an uninformed opinion, not a fact. There is a good deal of research that indicates the feasibility and desirability of private provision of public goods in general, fire protection services in particular.
That was the basis of my first remark. Based on the literature, I believe the matter is open for discussion.
PrimeDirector 2 years ago
Maybe if the President would quit screwing over the value of the dollar, everybody could afford health insurance anyway. But noooooo, we need to spend trillions of dollars to stimulate the nation? Oh well, America got what it deserves, a complete idiot to wreck the system. Maybe after a bad Republican and a bad Democrat, the nation will finally elect a decent Libertarian.
charlieboy82 2 years ago
ok wait, can't everyone get health insurance anyway? i mean if you pay for it?
so really the debate is false. it's a question of cost right? RIGHT?
So what should really be debated then isn't health insurance, but the degrading and RAPE of the dollar. if the government didn't rape the dollar minimum wage workers could afford health insurance. OOOOOOoooooh gee no one ever point that one out? the entire debate is a farce. but as a Black man, i did like those jeans and those shoes
shakaama 2 years ago
delicious.......
cr1138 2 years ago
Nothing short of priceless.
GOPsithlord 2 years ago
Health insurance cuts into my crack budget, and why the hell should I have to pay for my crack any damn way! This is America damn it, free crack for all!!!
Mongrul 2 years ago
wott...you do crack?? lols
HeavingCookies 2 years ago
You ever drink Cobra? It's like gasoline.
jx14aby 2 years ago
i did onece...f..up
shokaola 2 years ago
HAHAHA that is hillarious. And you're right, too. The money I save by not buying healthcare, I totally spend on rent and food and other things that are necessary. Like shoes. jk jk jk no really I am poor but I don't want universal healthcare, that stuff is bullshit.
upontherooftops 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear friend, We are the biggest wholesale company on electronic product in China. We can offer you the best price and afterservice.there are many kinds of electronic products in our store, such as TV, Notebooks, GPS,iphone,Mp3, Mp4 and so on.When you havetime, please visit our website and contact us. we will try our best to help you .
Our belief: credit is the first, customers are our god.
Our website is:__lucksey{.}COM__
Please enter the site format! Be able to look at site!
lookyoum 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear friend, We are the biggest wholesale company on electronic product in China. We can offer you the best price and afterservice.there are many kinds of electronic products in our store, such as TV, Notebooks, GPS,iphone,Mp3, Mp4 and so on.When you havetime, please visit our website and contact us. we will try our best to help you .
Our belief: credit is the first, customers are our god.
Our website is:__lucksey{.}COM__
Please enter the site format! Be able to look at site!
youlookme1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear friend, We are the biggest wholesale company on electronic product in China. We can offer you the best price and afterservice.there are many kinds of electronic products in our store, such as TV, Notebooks, GPS,iphone,Mp3, Mp4 and so on.When you havetime, please visit our website and contact us. we will try our best to help you .
Our belief: credit is the first, customers are our god.
Our website is:__lucksey{.}COM__
Please enter the site format! Be able to look at site!
youlookme1 2 years ago
So if I have a minimum wage job and 2 kids to look after I don`t deserve health care because some dude supposedly prefers to spend his money on protein powder?
paolo27th 2 years ago
Why did you have 2 kids on a min. wage salary? Where's your family to help you out? Why should someone else have to pay for your health insurance? If it's so expensive, why are you asking people that already have to pay for their own, to pay for yours also?
SoHumorous 2 years ago
So if I`m on a min. wage I`m not allowed to have kids? Or are you saying I should be castrated for being poor?
paolo27th 2 years ago
Get a second job. Have your wife work. Drop cable TV or your ISP. Have your widowed mom come in to do daycare.
My brother and sister-in-law have good jobs but they had to lose cable TV, and my brother is a sports junkie. That's life.
somercet1 2 years ago