It is totally disingenuous, or perhaps merely ignorant, to cite the failure of government programs in support of an alternative that has itself been shown a failure. One might as well say, the free market approach to medicine sucks, but so does government oversight, so that makes it OK. He conveniently avoids any notion of the facts that we once had unregulated medicine, which resulted in abuses that eventually prompted oversights-- Friedman would apparently prefer to go back to the caveman d
Where is the Milton Friedman of the 21st century?! This man is pure genius. To be able to break down such complex ideas into ones that everyday people can understand is beyond genius. I can listen to him all day and not be bored. His ideas are more relevant today than ever before!
Lol, the brilliant Milton Friedman makes such idiotic statements here about issues that he is so clearly clueless about. It is almost pathetic to watch.
Wow!...he is talking in the 1970s! Unreal...whatta concept. Our current system is unsustainable. list is STILL the same...govt failure. Welfare, Housing, Education, Healthcare. ALL well meaning/good intensions. but manipulated bloated,skewed and corrupted. Why?...because it is not THEIR money. It is "other peoples" money. wihout "self-interest" at stake...there is little to no interest in effective and prudent controls. Entitlements must GO!
@mba2ceo Lol you're a dunce. The point of what he wants to do is lower the cost of health care for individuals, not to "let poor people die". Plus this guy grew up poor himself and worked at minimum wage, he's not some rich trust fund child.
Well, that's interesting. I also from Sweden and am also rather familiar with the laws of this country. For you to equate any aspect of USA as being more socialist than Sweden is quite frankly a load of bollocks. And taxes? are you kidding me? PAH go and live there if you think it's so wonderful, mate! you can watch all the FOX news till your hearts content....JÄVLA FITTJÄVEL!!!
@DinnerConversation FIrstly, your country still is. If it wasn't, then Obama would have no problems raising the taxes necessary for the recovery package. AND furthermore, you would have a proper state-funded healthcare system which covers all instead of the watered-down rubbish that you've got now.
As for the terrorist comment, I was really referring to the side effects of unfettered capitalism. The side effects of unregulated markets will likely lead to runaway global warming = mass dest.
It's not that Milton Friedman's ideas can't work, radical as they are, it's just that the "free market" is a myth. Because, in a free market, everyone has the right to get what they want and when they want, and that's the most undesirable thing--not to government--but to INDUSTRY. Every industry that's still around to this very day makes it their business to control the markets USING government to do so, allowing them to maintain their unjust monopolies forever.
Idk why the fuck you'd even need a license to practice medicine. I figured a degree stating you've completed 4 years of pre-med and 4 years of medical school with the school's reputation on the line would be good enough.
In response to some posts below about how much taxes Canadians pay, I have always heard we pay about 50% of our income in taxes here too when you add them all up. We just don't get as much as the other countries get for their 50% because they spend our money being the police force for the world. I say let them handle their own defense, so we can take care of our own.
In response to some posts below about how much taxes Canadians pay, I have always heard we pay about 50% of our income in taxes here too when you add them all up. We just don't get as much as the other countries get for their 50% because they spend our money being the police force for the world. I say let them handle their own defense, so we can take care of our own.
If you live in Pittsburgh or Western PA in general, this is exactly what is happening with UPMC. This conglomerate has taken over every hospital within 100 miles leaving two to slowly go bankrupt.
Ignorance is so fucking bliss. Canada gave a baby no chance to live so they moved him (baby Joseph-google it losers!!) to America where he got the treatment he needed and then was returned to his shit country.
Why do people think government's health programs will be any different then going to the post office, HUD programs that are a disaster, the V.A., and everything else? Also, nobody's ever explained to me how health care is a right. Please do. Charities like the Catholic church, several Jewish organizations, Red Cross, and many other use to take care of the poor for no cost to the tax payer. It's a lie, like everything progressives say, that people died on the streets without government medicine.
Much to my surprise I agree somewhat with Friedman.
The problem is: Governments have been more than happy to follow the economic liberalization policies Friedman proposed (with a little help from friendly business-people), but have been loathe to adopt the policy of liberalization of economic activity proposed here.
The big current issue in this regard is copyrights and patents, arguably they are even more egregious.
But he is demonstrably wrong in deriding socialized healthcare.
Obamas charisma, his charm, his cute kids, his wife, and all his rhetoric does not change economics. 2+2 can not equal 5 no matter what smile you put on it and no matter how many demonstrations you show on how 2+2=5.
@MsZeitgeist85 single payer won't change the fact that every year, 50000 of the nations brightest apply for med school and every year only 15000 of them get places. we then wonder why healthcare costs go through the roof. there just aren't enough doctors and that is a shortage created by the AMA stanglehold. it's time to end the AMA monopoly!
@58robbo Actually in Canada things are much better for medical students because the average US Medical Student graduates 150K in the hole. The average Canadian Medical student graduates with roughly half that.
You should know that the AMA was actually one of the strongest forces that opposed Single Payer when Trueman was trying to get it in 1945 and 49. I know that the AMA also played a role in Medicare Part D that wastes billions every year.
@MsZeitgeist85 it really annoys me when people point to canada as a model for healthcare, when so many of their citizens come here for treatment! in fairness, vice versa! having said that, the US healthcare system is broken too. single payer is not the answer imo. getting rid of the AMA monopoly is a start. ending frivolous lawsuits step 2. if it still doesn't work, i'll be at the front of the single payer parade.
@58robbo 1. People don't realize that the Canadians that come to the US for care are payed by the Canadian System when they need urgent care. THe only Canadian's that pay our of pocket for care only do so for elective care, things that aren't covered in Canada.
@MsZeitgeist85 that is simply not true. i accept that healthcare in the US is broken, but it's broken in canada too. you have to examine how the prognosis changes for people on waiting lists, some of whom see their chances of survival severly dimished by those waiting lists. sent you an article or two
@58robbo 2. Medical lawsuits are only 2% of total costs in the US. In Canada there were only 1100 medical lawsuits in in 2004 vs hundreds of thousands in the USA. In Canada the patient is still covered if the doc screws up, because of this the patient is less likely to sue in the first place. So Single Payer would also solve this issue.
@MsZeitgeist85 medical lawsuits are 2% of costs but malpractice insurance doctors carry is much higher. in some cases doctors are pay upwards of $200000 per year. it is costly because there are loads of extortionate lawsuits where people sue in the hope of an out of court payoff. the difference is that in canada if you sue someone and lose, you will be liable for their legal fees. not here! as a result, people in canada only sue for serious malpractice where the victim has suffered loss.
@58robbo There may be some scam artists that are hoping to get a out of court settlement but you cannot deny our for profit insurance system is a failure. This is why for profit insurance for primary care is illegal in every other OECD nation. SIngle Payer makes the most sense because little would have to change for it. The other 2 models are Nationalized Care like the UK and The Bizmark Model that Germany and Japan use.
@MsZeitgeist85 some scam artists? the country is littered with them. it's not just a medical issue, it's everything. intuitively single payer definitely makes the most sense until you've worked in govt and then you realise just how doomed it is. what i do find amusing is how people don't seem to understand that when anything is free it becomes subject to serious abuse and over utilisation. to a point now in countries like greece where you have to bribe your way ahead on waiting listrs
@58robbo It is not doomed it has worked very well and it still does. Canada's system has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any nation in the G8. It was only untill recently that certian provences like British Columbia and Onterio were running a debt and those ones were the ones that. If it is broke then a provence is broke not the Single Payer System. Untill recently all the provences were running a surplus.
@58robbo These storys about waiting lists are less than 50% true there are no people in Canada that are waiting 2 years for urgent care. If peopel need urgent care they get it and if they can't they usually come to the US for care and it is covered by there Medicare system. Also this claim about cancer survival rates is not a valid argument because this does not count the people in the US that never get treatment in the first place, in Canada everyone gets treatment.
@statman29neb I am not talking about a free lunch I am talking about a working health care system. Something that every OECD nation has except the USA.
Friedman would be laughed off the stage if he said this in Canada today. The Free Market for primary care has never worked.
@MsZeitgeist85 Well I did the math for you babe.. a person making 45k pays about 39.4% in taxes AND a 5% vat tax, an 8% province tax, that's 52.4% that goes to the government... You say it is working?? Yeah right, less liberty to spend the money on what you want, and more to the federal government to spend it on what they want.
@MsZeitgeist85 MsZ I don't call having a 52% tax rate on someone making 45k a year WORKING.... There has to be a way to pay for it all and it is by over taxing like they are done in Canada. The population of Canada is 33.9 million people. The USA has 307 million people. That is nearly 10 times the amount of people. Our government hasn't ran any entitlement efficiently they are ALL broke medicaid, medicare, social security. I don't want them in charge of my health care.
@statman29neb So you would rather pay $1400 in insurance premiums and be 70% covered than pay an extra $300 in taxes and be fully covered? That makes no sense.
And no Medicare is not going broke it is being looted by drug companys thanks to Medicare Part D and Social Security will pay 100% untill 2037 and the easy way to make it solvent forever is to make people over 100K pay the same % that I pay.
@MsZeitgeist85 Where the hell are you getting that I would have to pay only 300.00 more in taxes? Because my tax rates are not 52% not even close to 52% I would have a lot less expendable income if this were implemented that would not be going into the economy rather it'd be going to the federal government. News flash Ms Z I know how to spend my money better than the federal government and I don't need them to help me with my health care. Liberalism ::spreading misery equally to everyone.
@statman29neb What don't you understand about the fact that HMOs in this country offer inferrior coverage for much less money? Our model of health care has been an abject failure.
@davijeph I didn't see a lol or a j/k anywhere in the post you made. Then again this is the internet so all forms of nonverbal communication are gone. I propose we have an E-Beer and settle this dispute.
@thebestsumoeva Being about as old as Friedman I'm not really into youtube speak but it was meant as a counter point to the previous comment from varran172. These things are really taken far to seriously. Friedman was a clever mathematician and statistician but his theories like those of Marks and Engels forget that Nations are not run by economists but by people and their can never be one overwhelming truth in any economic theory. It's all about the art of balance and compromise not perfection
I'm sorry Milton, but I do think it's a reactionary comment. I'm going to go ahead and read that book of his. I guess you cannot have an open field with licensing, but it seems to me like the free market is becoming an end in and of itself rather than a means to make our society better.
I don't think reactionary opinions hold any water. Noone wants a completely socialized state, so let's find a new, better way. Not pretend that we can fall back on utopian ideas because they sound elegant+simple
@Yony42 You want to mix capitalism (voluntary) with socialism (force)? I would only remind you that any compromise between food and poison results in poison.
@Yony42 The great failures you see today are the result of government operations in the market. Please do name a large failure you have scene and I'll be glad to analyze it.
What does licensing mean to the consumer? Essentially, it is a certificate of competency. That should not be controlled in a monopolistic way, to be sure. But we still want to insure competency. Well . . . isn't that the whole point of a diploma from an independently accredited school of medicine? THAT should be all the certification one needs. Let the consumer decide which diplomas are worthy.
@rmcdaniel423 its ironic because the "security" that people have when looking at a doctors license actually makes them less secure against incompetence because it not only creates a false sense of security but it diminishes the would be roll of private certification industries.
This gets to the heart of ethics; is it morally right to steal money from someone even if what you do with it will help someone else out? Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. And when you convince yourself that what you're doing, though wrong, is good and just, you can convince yourself to commit any atrocity, no matter how heinous, all because you believe in the ultimate good of your end. This is why the Ends do not justify the Means.
Neither the Democrats neither Republicans like this video. They are all the same. Both increase the size of government and push gov regulation of healthcare.
So if poor people die because they can't afford a doctor, it's their own fault, because in a free society, they brought their poverty upon themselves..?
In Australia I have the peace of mind that no matter how well I am doing financially, I will be able to get medical treatment, no questions asked.
Take away the dole / welfare, and we'd end up with people shooting each other in the street, like the USA.
And btw, if Friedman is right, then isn't the Government itself part of the 'free market', operated by individually focused people pursuing their own interests? Isn't it just the 'Greed is good' principle applied to a different type of monopoly?
In Australia, the waiting lists for medical treatment are a perrenial problem and such rationing of care invariably yields lethal results (and, as it happens, the banning of gun ownership resulted in a rise in gun deaths, but that's another issue) while people are NOT dying in the streets from lack of care in the US and we have the finest actual health care in the world.
And no govt is, by definition, not part of the free market nor is monopoly a condition that typically occurs in it.
@FletchforFreedom yes, because in the US people don't die in the streets from lack of care, they die in their own homes because they can't afford it. Thank fuck I live in Britain; NHS isn't great, but it's done me and those around me the job. I'd never live in America, unless they got rid of private health care; err actually, even then I wouldn't live in america, you've got more problems then us. Why did half your country vote for Bush? Oh of course, it's america after all, how stupid of me.
Yes, how stupid of you. No, people are not dying in the US from lack of care ANYWHERE. The CDC puts that figure at less than 3,000 per year out of 300 million. Compare that to the number of people who die due to care rationing in Britain (not to mention the far higher survival rates for serious disease in the US) and I thank God I live in the US where the care quality (including access) is far superior.
You live in a different Australia than I do then. You may have "peace of mind" that you will get treatment, but it won't be up to the standard as is available in the US. They ration care here, but you seem to like that.
@Andybaby actually, most of the gun violence in the usa is centered around people living on some form of welfare in the US. it also makes it more profitable for families on welfare to remain on welfare rather than get a low paying job. friedman has a lot of videos that deal with all these things if you look them up. including the idea of government being part of the free market. in a way he agreed with that
Or YOU can help them, instead of making the government steal other's people money to do the job that you can do it with your own money.. Atleast, thats what you would do if you cared so much about poor people... Dont you think?..
@Andybaby In a free society, there would be people willing and able to help the poor voluntarily because they can afford to. That is far better than forcably taking money from some in the name of benevolence. Two wrongs do not make a right.
We as conservatives stand against the socialized government controlled vaccine program that currently exists in the United States.
We want to privatize this institution. Americans should have the freedom to take responsibility for themselves, stop looking for hand outs, and shop the free market for a best H1N1 vaccine.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The more I read about American Health Care, the more I am grateful for our wonderful "socialised" Health Care in Britian. Goodness, you managed to land men on the moon and return them safely to earth, invent computers, satnavs and so much else, yet you seem incapable to creating a decent universal health care system? (Just as a matter of fact, it would cost about 1/3 of what you pay now overall to do this).
First of all, be definition, we do have socialized health care. Second of all, we only pay less then a few dollars at check up, much less then Britian or France or Cuba or Canada. Third, government already controls 50% of our health care. Forth. The solution you propose, is the lesser of two evils. People will still die, due to government controlling what the people get. What about pre 70/60s? Where we had free market health care? And no Government in it? Insurance cost 15 dollars a YEAR.
Peter Schiff's father sold health insurance back in the 60's, and it was 15 dollars a year I believe. I think I could find it on youtube. When I find it, I'll post the link.
Yeah, I got it. You are afraid of freedom. You need government to act as your conservative. Great system for those striving to live as dependent children. America is not a good match for those of your attitude.
Not everyone looks to live as thief, taking the rightful property of another for use on themselves. Doubt that someone who can't express a thought without using the F word should call a Nobel Laureate economist a moron. YOU are the real McCoy. pathetic.
He is correct. The control and licensure with its strict standards have pushed many potential doctors into other fields. I was one of them. I just could not put the time and long time to become a doctor yet everyone tells me I should have been one and this is why there is a 1 to 415 ratio in this crounty and costs are going up.
No, it isn't. It's not doctors' fees that are increasing costs. If any of you kids actually paid the bills, or looked at them for that matter, you'd see that increases in the doctors' fees have barely kept up with the rate of inflation.
Well I do agree with you. But I am not a kid. I have a master's degree and am 43 years of age with 2 children and a husband. I run a small business. Econ 101 state that of a shortage of any goods and service creates a shortage therefore increasing costs of that service.
Well, it's a good thing that you did pursue higher education. I fear that many of our youth aren't getting the education they need in the lower grades to make college an option.
I still think MDs should be strictly regulated, theirs is too risky a business.
Have you looked into other medical fields, like technician, therapy, nursing home ownership, nursing, pharmacy, or working as a promoter for medical groups?
Just because I did not become a doctor does not mean I did not want a doctorate or master's But because I had a child at the age of 24 I decided medicine was not possible. My son does want to go to medical school and realizes the rigors of it. I believe a lot of great potential doctors leave before they get started. The standards are too high and it detours potentially excellent doctors. Not all great doctors have high grades or have his MCAT scores.
I can relate on your choice between raising the kid and having a demanding career.
The ACT scores are just used for entry. People put too much pressure on kids over those and the SATs. The pressure hurts more than it helps.
I'm not willing to lower my standards, sorry, but that seems too risky.
I would like to see free college for the first year, and free for everyone pulling a 2.0 or higher after that. There are brilliant kids that can't afford college, and student loans are a scam.
So how are we supposed to pay for that? Good lord another progressive who thinks everyone should get a free ride. You you really need to look at successful people. The number one empetus to their success was they have to work for it. There is no free ride.
On the contrary, one has to work for the money. There are very brilliant poor people out there, and as you well know, tuition, books, and board are very expensive.
It would be like a scholarship program based on both need and academic achievement. Bad grades = no $.
And please don't attempt to say there are no free rides in college until you've scrutinized the athletic programs and how they're run.
I'd rather pay for more doctors than more thug/druggie pro athletes.
Procedures like LASIK and cosmetic surgery go down in price not because they are not covered by most insurance, but because they are elective procedures where a regulated market exists. Consumers have the time and incentive to look for the best practitioner (amongst licensed ones) at the best cost.
Most medicine does not fit this model. And part of the model is the ability to know that _any_ of your choices are safe.
Lasik an cosmetic surgery are coming down precisely because people care about the cost. However, when someone else pays, everyone becomes a big spender. That is what that idiot Obama is pimping.
Friedman's problem is that he believes in the magic "invisible hand of the marketplace."
Markets work like evolution. In the long run, things get better, but in the short run, people get hurt.
How many patients would an unlicensed doctor have to harm before being abandoned by all customers? Then he could go elsewhere.
Govt programs that work: Social Security has kept old people from dying in abject poverty. Medicare. Public boards control utility prices. Rural electrification. Many more.
Oh, I get it. A government program that works is one that gives us goodies and passes the costs to the next generation. No mention of the $36 unfunded liability in your praise for government.
Social Security. Are you kidding? Social Security robs kids freaking children getting their first job. Kids making minimum wage and gives the money to old people. Old people who were robbed themselves and denied the freedom to spend that money as they pleased. You are sick. Medicare. Ditto. Price controls! Yeah. Sending people the wrong signals on purpose and causing chaos. Wonderful. Electrification. As if a private company couldn't do that (or anything else.) Give up your dream of being Stalin
Social Security would be fine had we not been borrowing from it for years. It was set up as a separate fund. In the '70s, it was so overstuffed that they wanted to raid it, so they commingled it with the general fund under the Nixon administration. The problem we have now is paying back the debt to the fund.
Ask anyone on Medicare how they feel about it.
And if you don't feel like looking up rural e'n, and how the "market" did w/o utility price controls, I don't have the space to teach you.
You don't need space. Give me a source. It won't change my mind about price controls because it won't change the immorality of it but I'd love to learn something new. As far as people's feelings about Medicare I could really give a damn. Truth and morality are NOT determined by a poll. Public education has turned each new generation into State loving drones. Anyone who gives me thumbs down is a useful idiot.
Do you know that in a public, single payer system, as in our NHS in the UK, we have to pay for healthcare that is selected by bureaucrats serving the apparently homogeneous patient of 'the nation' and because it is free at the point of service thus avoiding the evils of a free, responsible and responsive (to the consumer) market in healthcare we get the privilege of waiting in queues after paying in each year. Like if you DIDN'T pay in a private system! So what's the benefit? There isn't one!
You are the idiot, useful or not. I loathe the state. Worse is the soul-sucking corporatocracy. When choosing between an illusion of democracy or all-out fascism, I say smash the state, but not before the conglomeration of unchecked corporate giants beholden to none. All they care about is profit, not who they hurt.
This man is a liar when he said America was moving towards collectivism. Nothing could be further from reality.
@DoctorMurky the funny thing is, the primary beneficiaries of social security and medicare, the elderly, are those most staunchly in favor discontinuing such policies whereas those who will be economically devestated by them, namely, the youth, are the most in favor of them. "Screw us, please, screw us over! We want to be a third world country! We want to live behind the iron curtain!!"
Pinochet and Friedman met serveral times, with Pinochet very eager to implement Friedman's economic policies once he took over through his coup. Pinochet/Friedman's economic policies led to serious economic depressions and serious effects on every-day workers like farmers, factory and shop workers, unions, etc. which in turn led to an uprising. In order to keep his reign, quell the uprising and "cure" what ailed Chile's economy like Friedman told him to, Pinochet tortured people. Many links.
So you are admitting that Friedman never told Pinochet to torture people. Nothing you said even suggests that Friedman told Pinochet to torture people. God damn you liberals. God damn you. Kill yourself. Get the gun. Get the gun. SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT. I hate you crackbrained liberal airheads. Please beat yourself to death moron.
Perhaps, if you could read, you could see the links right there. Friedman's policies lead down the road to torture. I'm hardly "crackbrained" or an "airhead'. Perhaps you should go read Shock Doctrine. Oh, and I was being slightly facetious in my initial comment, but again, there is a link there. Perhaps, again, if you could read, you could have seen both the slight facetiousness of my comment and the links that I pointed out.
What link? What would "Shock Doctrine" teach me about Milton Friedman? That he DIDN'T advocate torture. I have Milton Friedman's books. It's a lot easier to learn about someone by reading HIS books. And while we're on the subject, there's about a hundred economists (and non-economists) who are better than Friedman: Robert Prechter, Walter Block, Murray Rothbard, Robert Murphy, Thomas Woods. Sh!t. Even Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. But seriously. Stop being a lib or kill yourself.
The links that I showed in my comments above, which you obviously didn't read or didn't understand because you cannot seem to understand basic English. Neither shock doctrine nor I said he directly advocated torture, just that his policies led to it down the road. I even said I was being facetious with my initial comment. His policies, however, did DIRECTLY lead to economic crashes and meltdowns. The economists you mention might be better, but we're not commenting on a video about THEM.
When are we going to stop beating this dead horse. There is no such thing as a free market. Show me one example how deregulation has helped anyone but a few wealthy.
Thats easy! Trucking deregulation is one. Under regulation it was a 'good old boys' system. You had to know someone to get a job driving truck. There were 10 drivers for every job. After it was deregulated it became a "what you know' not 'who you know' so there were 10 jobs for every driver and truck driving schools sprung up everywhere (more jobs/opportunities). Under regulation a truck ran empty 42% of the time vs 7% empty under deregulation (a benefit to the ...(cont)
My father was a V.P. of a large trucking Co. during deregulation. During that time equipment safety went out the window. everyone who thought they could drive became a trucker. Rates crashed, drivers were forced to haul loads at below cost just to get a run home. Everyone who could scrape together a couple of trucks of any type and anyone to drive them, became a trucking company owner. Then the mergers started. In the end a few people got richer.
LOL OMG your a whiner! Yes as I said rates went down that is a good thing for society. Regulation was grotesquely ineffecient. Deregualtion created more oppotunities for more people and was a contributor to overall prosperity of the country. You of course aren't interested in whats best for the country your only interested in personal self interest to have something to whine and cry about. In the end a few people got richer? The big companies are publicly traded there is no individual owner.
1.) Your premise is false. "The steepest downward slope (in highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) occurred in the period 1934 -1949, an era when regulation of automobile safety features was nil and highway speed limits, where they existed at all, were high." - Murray, Charles "What it Means..." 2.) If everyone had a choice, they could have as much safety as they were willing to pay for. Our consumer discounts were paid for with OUR blood. That's the risk we took.
Anyone with a brain who's an expert can teach a subject if they know how to put it into simpler terms. You shouldn't need a 'degree' from some fancy college to be qualified to be a teacher. Or have to pass the silly bar exam to be a lawyer. Non-bar lawyers should just be required to notify clients or put on their ads "I did not pass or take the bar", and consumers make up their own minds.
I'm sick of the nanny state pretending it knows what's best. I know wut's best for me.
Absolutely that is the fundamental difference between a certification and a Licence. If I'm not certified then it may be in my benefit to get a voluntary certification, however licenceing is a Forced certificate which says you will not practise unless you are etc etc. As Force is the primary ingredient of collectivism you cannot expect the average socailist to see anything wrong with this.
The thing about licensing is that the STATE generally tells you what you have to do to get a license. I mean, how the hell would the state know the best way for a doctor to be prepared? If a doctor wants to get a license to make sure he's credible to his patients, great. But the state shouldn't have a monopoly on who can and can't be in certain professions just because they didn't pass some silly exam or whatever. Like this BS with "teaching degrees." I mean, how hard is it to teach, really
I mean, what if someone wanted to make a libertarian style for lawyers, competition to the American Bar Association? And if you ask me, this whole limiting lawyers to one state to practice law in, rather than letting them practice law wherever they feel like in the US, is absurd.
Competition breeds results, generally. Monopolies almost ALWAYS breed failure and corruption. They hold people back.
I believe in the 70s or 80s, a brilliant economist did a great study on how regulations intended to "protect consumers" oftentimes fail because the regulators and legislators simply don't know economics or understand people very well, like seatbelt laws. Sure, they help individuals stay safe in accidents, but as a whole, they have not reduced the number of deaths or the risky driving. Ralph Nader apparently isn't familiar with the term "moral hazard."
There was a simpler time in healthcare where American consumers and doctors had much more freedom, and there was a lot more competition. Not surprisingly, prices weren't nearly as bad then as they are now. But then the AMA got involved and broke up the fraternal lodges' 'control' on healthcare as well as intentionally limiting the supply of doctors so they're artificially paid too much.
Liberals were always terrified of debating Friedman. That Marxist shill Naomi Klein wouldn't debate him openly. And it's not that Friedman was without flaws but his ideas are well founded, timeless, and delivered with such clarity and conviction his opponents appear as tyrants for merely disagreeing.
As opposed to today, as you liberals claim is always being done?? There are THOUSANDS of silly mandates from the state and federal gov'ts, and yet things still suck. The free market in healthcare has been distorted! THAT is why prices haven't fallen like they should in a normal market, while surgery that isn't normally covered by insurance and heavily regulated like cosmetic or LASIK have fallen dramatically in price over the years.
And come on with the fearmongering about licensing.
As for licensing, any consumer can EASILY see their doctor's credentials on the wall at their practice. I mean, have you ever seen a trained doctor that DOESN'T do this? I'm sure some lawsuit-happy consumer or lawyer would sue them if they didn't. It's all about consumer choice. If you wanna go to licensed doctors only, be my guest. But if I want a lower price and quicker care, if he happens to be unlicensed but is considered highly by fellow consumers, I'll take it.
It is totally disingenuous, or perhaps merely ignorant, to cite the failure of government programs in support of an alternative that has itself been shown a failure. One might as well say, the free market approach to medicine sucks, but so does government oversight, so that makes it OK. He conveniently avoids any notion of the facts that we once had unregulated medicine, which resulted in abuses that eventually prompted oversights-- Friedman would apparently prefer to go back to the caveman d
Syncopator 2 weeks ago
Where is the Milton Friedman of the 21st century?! This man is pure genius. To be able to break down such complex ideas into ones that everyday people can understand is beyond genius. I can listen to him all day and not be bored. His ideas are more relevant today than ever before!
18chigirl 1 month ago 4
Lol, the brilliant Milton Friedman makes such idiotic statements here about issues that he is so clearly clueless about. It is almost pathetic to watch.
Dayoman10 3 months ago
@Dayoman10 Retarded. Kill yourself.
plzenjoymybigolpenis 2 months ago
I hardly can stand this video - the moron Milton... ha,ha,ha!
cosmopolite66 4 months ago
@cosmopolite66 Retarded.
plzenjoymybigolpenis 2 months ago
@plzenjoymybigolpenis moronic; cut off ur softbigolpenis
cosmopolite66 2 months ago
@cosmopolite66 Terrible comeback. Kill yourself.
plzenjoymybigolpenis 2 months ago
100% right.
IllxllI 4 months ago
Socialized medicine is better than what we have now. However Milton Friedman is also right.
AsciiSillyQuestion 5 months ago
Wow!...he is talking in the 1970s! Unreal...whatta concept. Our current system is unsustainable. list is STILL the same...govt failure. Welfare, Housing, Education, Healthcare. ALL well meaning/good intensions. but manipulated bloated,skewed and corrupted. Why?...because it is not THEIR money. It is "other peoples" money. wihout "self-interest" at stake...there is little to no interest in effective and prudent controls. Entitlements must GO!
jdmars011 5 months ago
USA needs to TAX the RICH and provide Health care to citizens.
mba2ceo 5 months ago
11 people from the Obama campaign disliked this message
jm04206 5 months ago
The rich are parasites in humanity ...
mba2ceo 6 months ago
@mba2ceo If there is a big gold rush, but not a lot of gold. You can still make money selling shovels.
pureperil 5 months ago
Liberal: I care about poor people with other people's money. HOOrAY!
Thatmakessense356 6 months ago
Vile scum: poor ppl should just die. This guy is a complete idiot.
mba2ceo 6 months ago
@mba2ceo The psychological term for your post is: projection.
FletchforFreedom 6 months ago in playlist Milton Friedman
@mba2ceo Lol you're a dunce. The point of what he wants to do is lower the cost of health care for individuals, not to "let poor people die". Plus this guy grew up poor himself and worked at minimum wage, he's not some rich trust fund child.
raptors11111 5 months ago
Well, that's interesting. I also from Sweden and am also rather familiar with the laws of this country. For you to equate any aspect of USA as being more socialist than Sweden is quite frankly a load of bollocks. And taxes? are you kidding me? PAH go and live there if you think it's so wonderful, mate! you can watch all the FOX news till your hearts content....JÄVLA FITTJÄVEL!!!
TheFernBrook 7 months ago
@DinnerConversation FIrstly, your country still is. If it wasn't, then Obama would have no problems raising the taxes necessary for the recovery package. AND furthermore, you would have a proper state-funded healthcare system which covers all instead of the watered-down rubbish that you've got now.
As for the terrorist comment, I was really referring to the side effects of unfettered capitalism. The side effects of unregulated markets will likely lead to runaway global warming = mass dest.
TheFernBrook 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did you not read my fucking comments? Obviously not.
TaimaDjinn 7 months ago
Oh and what a fantastic unregulated healthcare system you have!!!
what a dangerous and deluded fool. This man has caused more damage to the USA and indeed the world than any terrorist group could do...
Good riddance.
TheFernBrook 7 months ago
@TheFernBrook This man is actually a genius, unlike you.
With what you guys have now, doctors are able to charge and pay themselves big fat cheques, which they do not deserve.
IllxllI 4 months ago
It's not that Milton Friedman's ideas can't work, radical as they are, it's just that the "free market" is a myth. Because, in a free market, everyone has the right to get what they want and when they want, and that's the most undesirable thing--not to government--but to INDUSTRY. Every industry that's still around to this very day makes it their business to control the markets USING government to do so, allowing them to maintain their unjust monopolies forever.
TaimaDjinn 7 months ago
@TaimaDjinn Government is the ur-monopoly.
worldofdraculas 6 months ago
Comment removed
TaimaDjinn 7 months ago
Idk why the fuck you'd even need a license to practice medicine. I figured a degree stating you've completed 4 years of pre-med and 4 years of medical school with the school's reputation on the line would be good enough.
xtremejohnny69 7 months ago
sweet but is that a fake clap at the end? maybe not
jwinter228 7 months ago
nice information...! thanks for upload this video...!
TonikHealthInsurance 8 months ago
Follow the money !!!
mba2ceo 9 months ago
He was only wrong about one thing.... We increased Government regulation and red tape.
bkl139 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In response to some posts below about how much taxes Canadians pay, I have always heard we pay about 50% of our income in taxes here too when you add them all up. We just don't get as much as the other countries get for their 50% because they spend our money being the police force for the world. I say let them handle their own defense, so we can take care of our own.
kclaytor2 10 months ago
In response to some posts below about how much taxes Canadians pay, I have always heard we pay about 50% of our income in taxes here too when you add them all up. We just don't get as much as the other countries get for their 50% because they spend our money being the police force for the world. I say let them handle their own defense, so we can take care of our own.
kclaytor2 10 months ago
If you live in Pittsburgh or Western PA in general, this is exactly what is happening with UPMC. This conglomerate has taken over every hospital within 100 miles leaving two to slowly go bankrupt.
sellsjeeps 10 months ago
Ignorance is so fucking bliss. Canada gave a baby no chance to live so they moved him (baby Joseph-google it losers!!) to America where he got the treatment he needed and then was returned to his shit country.
8MCDonalds8 10 months ago
Why do people think government's health programs will be any different then going to the post office, HUD programs that are a disaster, the V.A., and everything else? Also, nobody's ever explained to me how health care is a right. Please do. Charities like the Catholic church, several Jewish organizations, Red Cross, and many other use to take care of the poor for no cost to the tax payer. It's a lie, like everything progressives say, that people died on the streets without government medicine.
Zachw2007 11 months ago
Much to my surprise I agree somewhat with Friedman.
The problem is: Governments have been more than happy to follow the economic liberalization policies Friedman proposed (with a little help from friendly business-people), but have been loathe to adopt the policy of liberalization of economic activity proposed here.
The big current issue in this regard is copyrights and patents, arguably they are even more egregious.
But he is demonstrably wrong in deriding socialized healthcare.
DarkwingScooter 11 months ago
Obamas charisma, his charm, his cute kids, his wife, and all his rhetoric does not change economics. 2+2 can not equal 5 no matter what smile you put on it and no matter how many demonstrations you show on how 2+2=5.
AroundSun 1 year ago
You want to Cure American Health Care. Put the HMOs out of buisness and get Single Payer. Problem solved.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 single payer won't change the fact that every year, 50000 of the nations brightest apply for med school and every year only 15000 of them get places. we then wonder why healthcare costs go through the roof. there just aren't enough doctors and that is a shortage created by the AMA stanglehold. it's time to end the AMA monopoly!
58robbo 1 year ago
@58robbo Actually in Canada things are much better for medical students because the average US Medical Student graduates 150K in the hole. The average Canadian Medical student graduates with roughly half that.
You should know that the AMA was actually one of the strongest forces that opposed Single Payer when Trueman was trying to get it in 1945 and 49. I know that the AMA also played a role in Medicare Part D that wastes billions every year.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 it really annoys me when people point to canada as a model for healthcare, when so many of their citizens come here for treatment! in fairness, vice versa! having said that, the US healthcare system is broken too. single payer is not the answer imo. getting rid of the AMA monopoly is a start. ending frivolous lawsuits step 2. if it still doesn't work, i'll be at the front of the single payer parade.
58robbo 1 year ago
@58robbo 1. People don't realize that the Canadians that come to the US for care are payed by the Canadian System when they need urgent care. THe only Canadian's that pay our of pocket for care only do so for elective care, things that aren't covered in Canada.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 that is simply not true. i accept that healthcare in the US is broken, but it's broken in canada too. you have to examine how the prognosis changes for people on waiting lists, some of whom see their chances of survival severly dimished by those waiting lists. sent you an article or two
58robbo 1 year ago
@58robbo 2. Medical lawsuits are only 2% of total costs in the US. In Canada there were only 1100 medical lawsuits in in 2004 vs hundreds of thousands in the USA. In Canada the patient is still covered if the doc screws up, because of this the patient is less likely to sue in the first place. So Single Payer would also solve this issue.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 medical lawsuits are 2% of costs but malpractice insurance doctors carry is much higher. in some cases doctors are pay upwards of $200000 per year. it is costly because there are loads of extortionate lawsuits where people sue in the hope of an out of court payoff. the difference is that in canada if you sue someone and lose, you will be liable for their legal fees. not here! as a result, people in canada only sue for serious malpractice where the victim has suffered loss.
58robbo 1 year ago
@58robbo There may be some scam artists that are hoping to get a out of court settlement but you cannot deny our for profit insurance system is a failure. This is why for profit insurance for primary care is illegal in every other OECD nation. SIngle Payer makes the most sense because little would have to change for it. The other 2 models are Nationalized Care like the UK and The Bizmark Model that Germany and Japan use.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 some scam artists? the country is littered with them. it's not just a medical issue, it's everything. intuitively single payer definitely makes the most sense until you've worked in govt and then you realise just how doomed it is. what i do find amusing is how people don't seem to understand that when anything is free it becomes subject to serious abuse and over utilisation. to a point now in countries like greece where you have to bribe your way ahead on waiting listrs
58robbo 1 year ago
@58robbo It is not doomed it has worked very well and it still does. Canada's system has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any nation in the G8. It was only untill recently that certian provences like British Columbia and Onterio were running a debt and those ones were the ones that. If it is broke then a provence is broke not the Single Payer System. Untill recently all the provences were running a surplus.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@58robbo These storys about waiting lists are less than 50% true there are no people in Canada that are waiting 2 years for urgent care. If peopel need urgent care they get it and if they can't they usually come to the US for care and it is covered by there Medicare system. Also this claim about cancer survival rates is not a valid argument because this does not count the people in the US that never get treatment in the first place, in Canada everyone gets treatment.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 so what is your tax rate and your vat tax? Because there is no such thing as a free lunch as Milton Friedman once said.
statman29neb 11 months ago
@statman29neb I am not talking about a free lunch I am talking about a working health care system. Something that every OECD nation has except the USA.
Friedman would be laughed off the stage if he said this in Canada today. The Free Market for primary care has never worked.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Well I did the math for you babe.. a person making 45k pays about 39.4% in taxes AND a 5% vat tax, an 8% province tax, that's 52.4% that goes to the government... You say it is working?? Yeah right, less liberty to spend the money on what you want, and more to the federal government to spend it on what they want.
You can have your socialized medicine.
statman29neb 11 months ago
@statman29neb Are you talking about the Single Payer System in Canada? Because their system is working and ours has failed.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 MsZ I don't call having a 52% tax rate on someone making 45k a year WORKING.... There has to be a way to pay for it all and it is by over taxing like they are done in Canada. The population of Canada is 33.9 million people. The USA has 307 million people. That is nearly 10 times the amount of people. Our government hasn't ran any entitlement efficiently they are ALL broke medicaid, medicare, social security. I don't want them in charge of my health care.
statman29neb 11 months ago
@statman29neb So you would rather pay $1400 in insurance premiums and be 70% covered than pay an extra $300 in taxes and be fully covered? That makes no sense.
And no Medicare is not going broke it is being looted by drug companys thanks to Medicare Part D and Social Security will pay 100% untill 2037 and the easy way to make it solvent forever is to make people over 100K pay the same % that I pay.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Where the hell are you getting that I would have to pay only 300.00 more in taxes? Because my tax rates are not 52% not even close to 52% I would have a lot less expendable income if this were implemented that would not be going into the economy rather it'd be going to the federal government. News flash Ms Z I know how to spend my money better than the federal government and I don't need them to help me with my health care. Liberalism ::spreading misery equally to everyone.
statman29neb 11 months ago
@statman29neb What don't you understand about the fact that HMOs in this country offer inferrior coverage for much less money? Our model of health care has been an abject failure.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
So get some UHC
davijeph 1 year ago
John stossel on 'insurance'
youtube . com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI
Thetruthishere11 1 year ago
Comment removed
Thetruthishere11 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The man was an absolute idiot.
davijeph 1 year ago
@davijeph Just because you don't understand someone doesn't make them an idiot.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva Jf you cannot take a joke you should not have joined
davijeph 1 year ago
@davijeph I didn't see a lol or a j/k anywhere in the post you made. Then again this is the internet so all forms of nonverbal communication are gone. I propose we have an E-Beer and settle this dispute.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@thebestsumoeva Being about as old as Friedman I'm not really into youtube speak but it was meant as a counter point to the previous comment from varran172. These things are really taken far to seriously. Friedman was a clever mathematician and statistician but his theories like those of Marks and Engels forget that Nations are not run by economists but by people and their can never be one overwhelming truth in any economic theory. It's all about the art of balance and compromise not perfection
davijeph 1 year ago
@davijeph
and we have no balance right now.
no pricing available and no options for some poor.
Thetruthishere11 1 year ago
This guy was an absolute genius.
varran172 1 year ago 9
I'm sorry Milton, but I do think it's a reactionary comment. I'm going to go ahead and read that book of his. I guess you cannot have an open field with licensing, but it seems to me like the free market is becoming an end in and of itself rather than a means to make our society better.
I don't think reactionary opinions hold any water. Noone wants a completely socialized state, so let's find a new, better way. Not pretend that we can fall back on utopian ideas because they sound elegant+simple
Yony42 1 year ago
@Yony42 You want to mix capitalism (voluntary) with socialism (force)? I would only remind you that any compromise between food and poison results in poison.
fzqlcs 1 year ago 3
@Yony42 The great failures you see today are the result of government operations in the market. Please do name a large failure you have scene and I'll be glad to analyze it.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
What does licensing mean to the consumer? Essentially, it is a certificate of competency. That should not be controlled in a monopolistic way, to be sure. But we still want to insure competency. Well . . . isn't that the whole point of a diploma from an independently accredited school of medicine? THAT should be all the certification one needs. Let the consumer decide which diplomas are worthy.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 its ironic because the "security" that people have when looking at a doctors license actually makes them less secure against incompetence because it not only creates a false sense of security but it diminishes the would be roll of private certification industries.
slickbtk 1 year ago
This guy is awesome.
cozyfoxstudio 1 year ago
Agree with break AMA; disagree with no licensure, but this can still be regulated by the states to assure patient safety.
DEATHMASK108 1 year ago
@DEATHMASK108 your comment is a distinction without a difference. state control, fed control, no difference.
ltmacduffee 1 year ago
This gets to the heart of ethics; is it morally right to steal money from someone even if what you do with it will help someone else out? Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. And when you convince yourself that what you're doing, though wrong, is good and just, you can convince yourself to commit any atrocity, no matter how heinous, all because you believe in the ultimate good of your end. This is why the Ends do not justify the Means.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago 2
The Obama Administration did NOT approve this video posting.
deathtrapdeath 2 years ago 60
Indeed ;'/
FaithlessLiberty 2 years ago
@deathtrapdeath neither did the EU
imstillalive0331 1 year ago
Neither the Democrats neither Republicans like this video. They are all the same. Both increase the size of government and push gov regulation of healthcare.
trip3174 1 year ago
@deathtrapdeath What president has?
killer3596 11 months ago
@deathtrapdeath - uri geller did...
inso99 7 months ago
So if poor people die because they can't afford a doctor, it's their own fault, because in a free society, they brought their poverty upon themselves..?
Andybaby 2 years ago
@Andybaby
Did you watch the video?
"Which of the other great reforms of government have achieved their objectives?
I take it you mean the Federal housing program has solved the problem of housing for the low income group?
I take it you mean that the Federal welfare program has solved the problems of welfare and indigence and dependence?" - etc
Do you honestly think that a Federal medical program will will solve any of the problems it's been promised to fix? I doubt it.
badheiple 2 years ago
In Australia I have the peace of mind that no matter how well I am doing financially, I will be able to get medical treatment, no questions asked.
Take away the dole / welfare, and we'd end up with people shooting each other in the street, like the USA.
And btw, if Friedman is right, then isn't the Government itself part of the 'free market', operated by individually focused people pursuing their own interests? Isn't it just the 'Greed is good' principle applied to a different type of monopoly?
Andybaby 2 years ago
In Australia, the waiting lists for medical treatment are a perrenial problem and such rationing of care invariably yields lethal results (and, as it happens, the banning of gun ownership resulted in a rise in gun deaths, but that's another issue) while people are NOT dying in the streets from lack of care in the US and we have the finest actual health care in the world.
And no govt is, by definition, not part of the free market nor is monopoly a condition that typically occurs in it.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
@FletchforFreedom yes, because in the US people don't die in the streets from lack of care, they die in their own homes because they can't afford it. Thank fuck I live in Britain; NHS isn't great, but it's done me and those around me the job. I'd never live in America, unless they got rid of private health care; err actually, even then I wouldn't live in america, you've got more problems then us. Why did half your country vote for Bush? Oh of course, it's america after all, how stupid of me.
James09854 2 years ago
Yes, how stupid of you. No, people are not dying in the US from lack of care ANYWHERE. The CDC puts that figure at less than 3,000 per year out of 300 million. Compare that to the number of people who die due to care rationing in Britain (not to mention the far higher survival rates for serious disease in the US) and I thank God I live in the US where the care quality (including access) is far superior.
Nice try, o factually challenged one.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You live in a different Australia than I do then. You may have "peace of mind" that you will get treatment, but it won't be up to the standard as is available in the US. They ration care here, but you seem to like that.
steve0281 2 years ago
@Andybaby actually, most of the gun violence in the usa is centered around people living on some form of welfare in the US. it also makes it more profitable for families on welfare to remain on welfare rather than get a low paying job. friedman has a lot of videos that deal with all these things if you look them up. including the idea of government being part of the free market. in a way he agreed with that
imstillalive0331 2 years ago
Or YOU can help them, instead of making the government steal other's people money to do the job that you can do it with your own money.. Atleast, thats what you would do if you cared so much about poor people... Dont you think?..
FaithlessLiberty 2 years ago 11
@Andybaby In a free society, there would be people willing and able to help the poor voluntarily because they can afford to. That is far better than forcably taking money from some in the name of benevolence. Two wrongs do not make a right.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
Well said my friend!
fitz207 2 years ago
milt speaks the truth here
finefilth 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
We as conservatives stand against the socialized government controlled vaccine program that currently exists in the United States.
We want to privatize this institution. Americans should have the freedom to take responsibility for themselves, stop looking for hand outs, and shop the free market for a best H1N1 vaccine.
NO to publicly funded vaccines.
ConservativeHealth 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The more I read about American Health Care, the more I am grateful for our wonderful "socialised" Health Care in Britian. Goodness, you managed to land men on the moon and return them safely to earth, invent computers, satnavs and so much else, yet you seem incapable to creating a decent universal health care system? (Just as a matter of fact, it would cost about 1/3 of what you pay now overall to do this).
Pinnertop 2 years ago
First of all, be definition, we do have socialized health care. Second of all, we only pay less then a few dollars at check up, much less then Britian or France or Cuba or Canada. Third, government already controls 50% of our health care. Forth. The solution you propose, is the lesser of two evils. People will still die, due to government controlling what the people get. What about pre 70/60s? Where we had free market health care? And no Government in it? Insurance cost 15 dollars a YEAR.
Betty5150 2 years ago 3
Can you tell me your sources for the claim that health insurance was $15 a month? It would be useful to me.
dmagoku 2 years ago
Peter Schiff's father sold health insurance back in the 60's, and it was 15 dollars a year I believe. I think I could find it on youtube. When I find it, I'll post the link.
Betty5150 2 years ago 3
Britain will be bankrupted soon, it is on its way!
ntn1987 2 years ago 3
THE HEALTH-CARE INDUSTRY IS UNDER REGULATED.
THE HEALTH-CARE INDUSTRY IS UNDER REGULATED.
THE HEALTH-CARE INDUSTRY IS UNDER REGULATED.
THE HEALTH-CARE INDUSTRY IS UNDER REGULATED.
THE HEALTH-CARE INDUSTRY IS UNDER REGULATED.
THE HEALTH-CARE INDUSTRY IS UNDER REGULATED.
That much is OBVIOUS.
dackjaniels555 2 years ago
Yeah, I got it. You are afraid of freedom. You need government to act as your conservative. Great system for those striving to live as dependent children. America is not a good match for those of your attitude.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Statist
fdny9682 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
STOP BUYING INTO THIS BULLSHIT YOU FUCKING IDIOTS.
ITS WHAT THE CEO'S OF ALL THE INSURANCE COMPANYS WANT YOU TO BELIVE.
MILTON FRIEDMAN IS A FUCKING MORON;
HE IS THE MOUTHPIECE OF THE CURRENT INHUMANE HEALTH INDUSTRY.
use your brain, don't be a libertarian if you earn less than six figures.
dackjaniels555 2 years ago
Not everyone looks to live as thief, taking the rightful property of another for use on themselves. Doubt that someone who can't express a thought without using the F word should call a Nobel Laureate economist a moron. YOU are the real McCoy. pathetic.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
NOW that Obamas healthcare bill is going through WITHOUT a Public **OPTION** ALL THE BILL DOES IS INSURE FIXED PROFITS for the INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
dackjaniels555 2 years ago
The problem, I think you will find... IF YOU DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH, Is that the "Health Care Industry" is UNDER REGULATED.
Right Now, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT, THIS DOESN'T WORK IN ANY FIRST WORLD COUNTRY.
ENJOY YOUR 3RD WORLD HEALTH CARE RETARDS.
dackjaniels555 2 years ago
He is correct. The control and licensure with its strict standards have pushed many potential doctors into other fields. I was one of them. I just could not put the time and long time to become a doctor yet everyone tells me I should have been one and this is why there is a 1 to 415 ratio in this crounty and costs are going up.
pandabead 2 years ago 4
No, it isn't. It's not doctors' fees that are increasing costs. If any of you kids actually paid the bills, or looked at them for that matter, you'd see that increases in the doctors' fees have barely kept up with the rate of inflation.
klingoncelt 2 years ago
Well I do agree with you. But I am not a kid. I have a master's degree and am 43 years of age with 2 children and a husband. I run a small business. Econ 101 state that of a shortage of any goods and service creates a shortage therefore increasing costs of that service.
pandabead 2 years ago 2
Well, it's a good thing that you did pursue higher education. I fear that many of our youth aren't getting the education they need in the lower grades to make college an option.
I still think MDs should be strictly regulated, theirs is too risky a business.
Have you looked into other medical fields, like technician, therapy, nursing home ownership, nursing, pharmacy, or working as a promoter for medical groups?
klingoncelt 2 years ago
Well then you will have higher costs.
pandabead 2 years ago
Just because I did not become a doctor does not mean I did not want a doctorate or master's But because I had a child at the age of 24 I decided medicine was not possible. My son does want to go to medical school and realizes the rigors of it. I believe a lot of great potential doctors leave before they get started. The standards are too high and it detours potentially excellent doctors. Not all great doctors have high grades or have his MCAT scores.
pandabead 2 years ago
I can relate on your choice between raising the kid and having a demanding career.
The ACT scores are just used for entry. People put too much pressure on kids over those and the SATs. The pressure hurts more than it helps.
I'm not willing to lower my standards, sorry, but that seems too risky.
I would like to see free college for the first year, and free for everyone pulling a 2.0 or higher after that. There are brilliant kids that can't afford college, and student loans are a scam.
klingoncelt 2 years ago
So how are we supposed to pay for that? Good lord another progressive who thinks everyone should get a free ride. You you really need to look at successful people. The number one empetus to their success was they have to work for it. There is no free ride.
pandabead 2 years ago
On the contrary, one has to work for the money. There are very brilliant poor people out there, and as you well know, tuition, books, and board are very expensive.
It would be like a scholarship program based on both need and academic achievement. Bad grades = no $.
And please don't attempt to say there are no free rides in college until you've scrutinized the athletic programs and how they're run.
I'd rather pay for more doctors than more thug/druggie pro athletes.
klingoncelt 2 years ago
I think its so risky that its the last thing that should be strictly regulated.
fdny9682 2 years ago
Procedures like LASIK and cosmetic surgery go down in price not because they are not covered by most insurance, but because they are elective procedures where a regulated market exists. Consumers have the time and incentive to look for the best practitioner (amongst licensed ones) at the best cost.
Most medicine does not fit this model. And part of the model is the ability to know that _any_ of your choices are safe.
jwlvs 2 years ago
Lasik an cosmetic surgery are coming down precisely because people care about the cost. However, when someone else pays, everyone becomes a big spender. That is what that idiot Obama is pimping.
fzqlcs 2 years ago 3
Friedman's problem is that he believes in the magic "invisible hand of the marketplace."
Markets work like evolution. In the long run, things get better, but in the short run, people get hurt.
How many patients would an unlicensed doctor have to harm before being abandoned by all customers? Then he could go elsewhere.
Govt programs that work: Social Security has kept old people from dying in abject poverty. Medicare. Public boards control utility prices. Rural electrification. Many more.
jwlvs 2 years ago
Oh, I get it. A government program that works is one that gives us goodies and passes the costs to the next generation. No mention of the $36 unfunded liability in your praise for government.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Social Security. Are you kidding? Social Security robs kids freaking children getting their first job. Kids making minimum wage and gives the money to old people. Old people who were robbed themselves and denied the freedom to spend that money as they pleased. You are sick. Medicare. Ditto. Price controls! Yeah. Sending people the wrong signals on purpose and causing chaos. Wonderful. Electrification. As if a private company couldn't do that (or anything else.) Give up your dream of being Stalin
DoctorMurky 2 years ago
Social Security would be fine had we not been borrowing from it for years. It was set up as a separate fund. In the '70s, it was so overstuffed that they wanted to raid it, so they commingled it with the general fund under the Nixon administration. The problem we have now is paying back the debt to the fund.
Ask anyone on Medicare how they feel about it.
And if you don't feel like looking up rural e'n, and how the "market" did w/o utility price controls, I don't have the space to teach you.
jwlvs 2 years ago 2
You don't need space. Give me a source. It won't change my mind about price controls because it won't change the immorality of it but I'd love to learn something new. As far as people's feelings about Medicare I could really give a damn. Truth and morality are NOT determined by a poll. Public education has turned each new generation into State loving drones. Anyone who gives me thumbs down is a useful idiot.
DoctorMurky 2 years ago 27
Do you know that in a public, single payer system, as in our NHS in the UK, we have to pay for healthcare that is selected by bureaucrats serving the apparently homogeneous patient of 'the nation' and because it is free at the point of service thus avoiding the evils of a free, responsible and responsive (to the consumer) market in healthcare we get the privilege of waiting in queues after paying in each year. Like if you DIDN'T pay in a private system! So what's the benefit? There isn't one!
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@DoctorMurky
You are the idiot, useful or not. I loathe the state. Worse is the soul-sucking corporatocracy. When choosing between an illusion of democracy or all-out fascism, I say smash the state, but not before the conglomeration of unchecked corporate giants beholden to none. All they care about is profit, not who they hurt.
This man is a liar when he said America was moving towards collectivism. Nothing could be further from reality.
FungusMossGnosis 11 months ago
@DoctorMurky the funny thing is, the primary beneficiaries of social security and medicare, the elderly, are those most staunchly in favor discontinuing such policies whereas those who will be economically devestated by them, namely, the youth, are the most in favor of them. "Screw us, please, screw us over! We want to be a third world country! We want to live behind the iron curtain!!"
Porojukaha 10 months ago
The government is nothing more than a coercive monopoly. In a free market the government will become obsolete.
Eldel15 2 years ago
Milton Friedman's idea for curing America's health care problem would be to torture us all to death, like he encouraged Pinochet to do in the 1970's.
technicschic 2 years ago
When did Milton Friedman tell Pinochet (or anyone) to torture people to death? I hope you are joking.
DoctorMurky 2 years ago
Pinochet and Friedman met serveral times, with Pinochet very eager to implement Friedman's economic policies once he took over through his coup. Pinochet/Friedman's economic policies led to serious economic depressions and serious effects on every-day workers like farmers, factory and shop workers, unions, etc. which in turn led to an uprising. In order to keep his reign, quell the uprising and "cure" what ailed Chile's economy like Friedman told him to, Pinochet tortured people. Many links.
technicschic 2 years ago
So you are admitting that Friedman never told Pinochet to torture people. Nothing you said even suggests that Friedman told Pinochet to torture people. God damn you liberals. God damn you. Kill yourself. Get the gun. Get the gun. SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT. I hate you crackbrained liberal airheads. Please beat yourself to death moron.
DoctorMurky 2 years ago 2
Perhaps, if you could read, you could see the links right there. Friedman's policies lead down the road to torture. I'm hardly "crackbrained" or an "airhead'. Perhaps you should go read Shock Doctrine. Oh, and I was being slightly facetious in my initial comment, but again, there is a link there. Perhaps, again, if you could read, you could have seen both the slight facetiousness of my comment and the links that I pointed out.
technicschic 2 years ago
What link? What would "Shock Doctrine" teach me about Milton Friedman? That he DIDN'T advocate torture. I have Milton Friedman's books. It's a lot easier to learn about someone by reading HIS books. And while we're on the subject, there's about a hundred economists (and non-economists) who are better than Friedman: Robert Prechter, Walter Block, Murray Rothbard, Robert Murphy, Thomas Woods. Sh!t. Even Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. But seriously. Stop being a lib or kill yourself.
DoctorMurky 2 years ago 2
The links that I showed in my comments above, which you obviously didn't read or didn't understand because you cannot seem to understand basic English. Neither shock doctrine nor I said he directly advocated torture, just that his policies led to it down the road. I even said I was being facetious with my initial comment. His policies, however, did DIRECTLY lead to economic crashes and meltdowns. The economists you mention might be better, but we're not commenting on a video about THEM.
technicschic 2 years ago
When are we going to stop beating this dead horse. There is no such thing as a free market. Show me one example how deregulation has helped anyone but a few wealthy.
dig812 2 years ago
Airline deregulation sure helped
The problem with this deregulation argument is that a lot of sectors of the economy that has been "deregulated" wasn't deregulated at all.
Like California energy
No regulations were actually removed but simply privatized. There is a difference between the two words.
11mc22 2 years ago
You make the mistake of thinking that all regulation is good and regulation is generic.
Americaisgreat123 2 years ago
Thats easy! Trucking deregulation is one. Under regulation it was a 'good old boys' system. You had to know someone to get a job driving truck. There were 10 drivers for every job. After it was deregulated it became a "what you know' not 'who you know' so there were 10 jobs for every driver and truck driving schools sprung up everywhere (more jobs/opportunities). Under regulation a truck ran empty 42% of the time vs 7% empty under deregulation (a benefit to the ...(cont)
TheKuffarKid 2 years ago
majority). The cost of freight also dropped (also a benefit to the majority). Efficiency under regulation = 58% deregulation = 93%
TheKuffarKid 2 years ago
My father was a V.P. of a large trucking Co. during deregulation. During that time equipment safety went out the window. everyone who thought they could drive became a trucker. Rates crashed, drivers were forced to haul loads at below cost just to get a run home. Everyone who could scrape together a couple of trucks of any type and anyone to drive them, became a trucking company owner. Then the mergers started. In the end a few people got richer.
dig812 2 years ago 2
LOL OMG your a whiner! Yes as I said rates went down that is a good thing for society. Regulation was grotesquely ineffecient. Deregualtion created more oppotunities for more people and was a contributor to overall prosperity of the country. You of course aren't interested in whats best for the country your only interested in personal self interest to have something to whine and cry about. In the end a few people got richer? The big companies are publicly traded there is no individual owner.
TheKuffarKid 2 years ago
The lack of safety regulations killed many a driver.
Your consumer discounts were paid for with blood money.
klingoncelt 2 years ago
What regulations would those be?
TheKuffarKid 2 years ago
1.) Your premise is false. "The steepest downward slope (in highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) occurred in the period 1934 -1949, an era when regulation of automobile safety features was nil and highway speed limits, where they existed at all, were high." - Murray, Charles "What it Means..." 2.) If everyone had a choice, they could have as much safety as they were willing to pay for. Our consumer discounts were paid for with OUR blood. That's the risk we took.
DoctorMurky 2 years ago
Anyone with a brain who's an expert can teach a subject if they know how to put it into simpler terms. You shouldn't need a 'degree' from some fancy college to be qualified to be a teacher. Or have to pass the silly bar exam to be a lawyer. Non-bar lawyers should just be required to notify clients or put on their ads "I did not pass or take the bar", and consumers make up their own minds.
I'm sick of the nanny state pretending it knows what's best. I know wut's best for me.
whoo689 2 years ago 5
You obviously have never experienced higher education. You don't know what you're talking about.
Let's make this easy.
Go get a haircut at a friend's house, or a relative's. It has to be someone that doesn't have a hairdresser or barber's license. Take pics.
In 6 weeks, go to a salon or barbershop. Take pics. Compare.
Then go to your nearest shopping center and look around. See how many stupid people cut their hair at home.
They can't be trusted to choose a safe doctor.
klingoncelt 2 years ago
Absolutely that is the fundamental difference between a certification and a Licence. If I'm not certified then it may be in my benefit to get a voluntary certification, however licenceing is a Forced certificate which says you will not practise unless you are etc etc. As Force is the primary ingredient of collectivism you cannot expect the average socailist to see anything wrong with this.
aussieconservative 2 years ago
I hope you don't ever want to drive a car. That requires testing and licensing.
You have to get a license to get married, too.
klingoncelt 2 years ago
The thing about licensing is that the STATE generally tells you what you have to do to get a license. I mean, how the hell would the state know the best way for a doctor to be prepared? If a doctor wants to get a license to make sure he's credible to his patients, great. But the state shouldn't have a monopoly on who can and can't be in certain professions just because they didn't pass some silly exam or whatever. Like this BS with "teaching degrees." I mean, how hard is it to teach, really
whoo689 2 years ago 2
I mean, what if someone wanted to make a libertarian style for lawyers, competition to the American Bar Association? And if you ask me, this whole limiting lawyers to one state to practice law in, rather than letting them practice law wherever they feel like in the US, is absurd.
Competition breeds results, generally. Monopolies almost ALWAYS breed failure and corruption. They hold people back.
whoo689 2 years ago 3
Smart guy
JoeyPencils 2 years ago 5
I believe in the 70s or 80s, a brilliant economist did a great study on how regulations intended to "protect consumers" oftentimes fail because the regulators and legislators simply don't know economics or understand people very well, like seatbelt laws. Sure, they help individuals stay safe in accidents, but as a whole, they have not reduced the number of deaths or the risky driving. Ralph Nader apparently isn't familiar with the term "moral hazard."
whoo689 2 years ago 5
There was a simpler time in healthcare where American consumers and doctors had much more freedom, and there was a lot more competition. Not surprisingly, prices weren't nearly as bad then as they are now. But then the AMA got involved and broke up the fraternal lodges' 'control' on healthcare as well as intentionally limiting the supply of doctors so they're artificially paid too much.
whoo689 2 years ago 3
Liberals were always terrified of debating Friedman. That Marxist shill Naomi Klein wouldn't debate him openly. And it's not that Friedman was without flaws but his ideas are well founded, timeless, and delivered with such clarity and conviction his opponents appear as tyrants for merely disagreeing.
thomaserossi 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No licensing physicians? ANYONE could practice???!!!
NO regulation???!!! The insurance companies and the healthcare industry could charge as much as they want and provde as little as they wish!
Pull this vid, it's a waste of bandwidth.
klingoncelt 2 years ago
durrrrr
donotswallow 2 years ago
hold your tongue, it is a waste of words
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
multiple market players + wide demand + free consumer choice = downward pressure on prices
read up on basic economics
TheLegalImmigrant05 2 years ago 7
You obviously missed the point entirely.
gdbalck 2 years ago 2
As opposed to today, as you liberals claim is always being done?? There are THOUSANDS of silly mandates from the state and federal gov'ts, and yet things still suck. The free market in healthcare has been distorted! THAT is why prices haven't fallen like they should in a normal market, while surgery that isn't normally covered by insurance and heavily regulated like cosmetic or LASIK have fallen dramatically in price over the years.
And come on with the fearmongering about licensing.
whoo689 2 years ago 3
As for licensing, any consumer can EASILY see their doctor's credentials on the wall at their practice. I mean, have you ever seen a trained doctor that DOESN'T do this? I'm sure some lawsuit-happy consumer or lawyer would sue them if they didn't. It's all about consumer choice. If you wanna go to licensed doctors only, be my guest. But if I want a lower price and quicker care, if he happens to be unlicensed but is considered highly by fellow consumers, I'll take it.
whoo689 2 years ago