This is a very good debate where there is a great sense of respect for each participant even if they vehemently disagree on many things. But, to me, I think this could be used as a great model for future debates where issues clash but civility always triumphs.
@dodgertodd, some prices are arbitrary. In the case of a monopoly, whatever price the monopoly sets for their product/service on a relatively arbitrary basis (excluding operating costs). Also read the Wealth of Nations and see Adam Smith's viewpoint of businessmen, it's not flattering. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Ouch. Pretty obvious Lee knows more about economic laws than Mr. Turk. Turkboy needs to crack a 100-level econ book. Costs and prices are not arbitrary, in any system.
Incidentally, the employee I mentioned quit anyways later(why when you have such a good thing going for you I don't know) and because of the contract had to pay back the raise and the money for the car.
You're not going to win anyone over bashing unions, but you may make headway reforming them into a respectable institution if you point out the hypocrisy of things like "closed shops"
@sicktoaster You will win over the people that matter, the people with brains. You don't have to win over the fools, the miracle of aggregation takes care of that.
Extremes whether pro-union, pro-management, pro-investment, whether liberal, conservative or progressive, statist or libertarian, left or right are for fools.
@sicktoaster But the thing with unions are that that's the only way they could even get any influence as their true market purpose is a club for people in the same company, nothing more than that. They rely wholly and solely on this abuse of power, without it they are nothing - and they know it, that's why they do it.
If enough people get together and decide it's in their best interests to make more money and they will leave otherwise then that can have an effect upon employers decisions and that's just competition.
There's no need to force people to be part of a union for it to work any more than businessmen have to force each other when it serves their best interests to cooperate.
I heard of just 1 employee once who was so skilled in computers he was able to...
walk into his employer's office and demand a new car and a generous raise or he'd quit and the employer gave in.
In any sort of employer-employee relationship both parties are buying/selling from each other. Negotiations should be free and sometimes rough. That's good competition. But forcing people to side with you in negotiations as is done in closed shop or in state-enforced cartels is wrong.
How does France manage to pay for their system? Oh.. they don't spend Trillions on their military & endless, pointless wars. That is why they are #1 in the world in cost & quality of care.. & unlike most youtube commentators.. that stat isn't coming from me, it is from the World Health Organization, which is more credible than any random guy on the internet. U.S.A. #1 spender on healthcare in the world. # 37 in quality of care.
Lee, the debate is against your odds, and here is why: you're asked to prove why the government take-over on healthcare will not work. The fact is that it's impossible to prove something negatively. Eg. proving something you didn't do (proving your innocence), or proving something that is not there. In this case, proving something that will not work.
Want to know why healthcare is expensive? Because there isn't enough Medical Schools in the U.S. to graduate Medical Doctors. Thus, we should give incentives for people to build more medical schools instead of adding useless government programs.
@xXKayn3Xx Well after i saw a video of him saying we have 500 years of oil left that really told me something and his stance on business is so false but so is the TYT money is a joke and people who think its the only way to solve any thing are waste of time and dont really understand how reality works
@fatouche99 What? I don't think there is really any service that does not gain profit. This is an extreme example (and somewhat out of context) but i think that based on the idea that it's immoral to profit from people's basic need: then primary sector of economy would not exist thus no economy would exist therefore we'll all be back to growing veg and raising pigs on our own farm for our own family - realistic?? Profits do not merely feed "selfish/greedy" people.
@sdejanip I agree with what you said, but Credit Unions are non-profit and the average President of a credit union makes about $2,000,000 a year. And, they're privately owned by their members. That might work for health care too. I don't know. Our police and fire departments don't make profit but they work pretty well for the public good. France has a private non-profit system and their healthcare is cheaper, their outcomes are better and their doctor are in the upper class of society.
@sdejanip I don't think Obama's bill is going to improve healthcare, but the issue is serious. Cost doubled is 8 years. This problem needs a totally out of the box solution. If you took healthcare off Wall Street, the people in it, ei: the doctors, nurses etc., would still make the same amount of money. But cost considerations would change and that might be enough, not to insure everybody, but to bring the costs back down in the system we have. I could be wrong, but it's worth a try.
@thegoodgeneral I'm not talking about salaries and people making a living from the system. France has a private non-profit system and their doctors are in the top 5% wage earners - and they make house calls. I'm talking about how our insurance is currently being run. Insurance costs doubled from 2001 to 2008. That is unsustainable. Also, the insurance sector of healthcare is the most profitable part of our healthcare system and the least useful. They make no drugs and provide no care.
It's like the post office. The Post Office is government owned but not tax run. None of my taxes pay for the Post Office. I pay for the Post Office when I buy a stamp from them. The difference is that no one profits at the top. Only the employees profit. The problem comes in with government when the quality is too low. If I can pay $40 for mediocre care, but $50 for excellent care, I will likely spend $50. Same thing if Government ran soup kitchens, I could go get bland soup that will barely...
What? A public option doesn't work because employers will throw people at the cheapest option? So when the cheapest private insurance company gets all the clients from employee deals it's fine (btw this isn't happening), but when a public company kills it's private competitors it's evil? By the way, we have the projects, we have public housing, it's not really killing the housing business (I can actually name a private institution that ruined that one however).
@Visfen "Strike Breakers" were the first to attack. Somewhat obvious by definition of their name. The Baldwin Felts detective company was a group of thugs hired by the coal company. Do you think the miners struck for no reason? They were being treated unfairly, being payed in credits that could only be used in a company store. Not money. So they refused to work. Instead of hiring scabs, the company escalated things to a violent level. The government sided with the company too. Understand
@Visfen They went off their property too. Sending their hired thugs to go after the local sheriff in the middle of town in Matewwan. Why do you think private companies are so angelic? People can form whatever fucking group they want, including unions.
@Friedstuffsable I would never deny anyone to form a union, my point is that they would have no teeth if they couldn't break the law.
I don't see a problem in going after people that break the law. So when union thugs attack strike breakers and they actually get charged with a crime I think that is a good thing.
@Friedstuffsable I do, because they never act in accordance with general decency and the law. Their actual purpose is nothing but an easier way to negotiate wages than going over it with every single employee individually. Beyond that they produce nothing of value, but they have this idea that they "raise wages" which only has any truth to it if they break the law - as they regularly do by attacking managers and strike breakers. So yeah, fuck unions.
@Visfen It was the Union members at the National Trades’ Union Convention make the first formal, public proposal recommending that states establish minimum ages for factory work. That was in the 1830's, The workers asked the state. & the kindhearted business owners opposed not having their under 15 workforce.. Because they could pay them less, & they knew kids were less likely to strike. So nice of them. Damn commies wrecked it all by forcing humane laws into existence.
@Friedstuffsable Child labor was a fact of life back then, if the children didn't work the family starved. Being against child labor without understanding this is simply childish. It's not like all parents in history just hated their children, it took a rising productivity as a result of free markets to come to a place where it was even possible for children not to work
The problem is with fools like you, who see this and don't understand it. That's another reason I hate unions
@Friedstuffsable Also, the minimum wage is nothing but a barrier of entry to stop low s killed workers from competing with high skilled workers. It's a terrible law that creates unemployment among the most unfortunate in the population. Why the hell would I be for that? I do have a brain.
Fact is that unions are completely irrelevant when it comes to human progress. The only impact they have had are against it. And that's a fact you can quote me on.
@Visfen Yes. $8/hr is too much. If they could pay $2.25/hr they could hire more people! Who could then work for a pointless wage that cant pay for anything. As the minimum wage already borders on.
@Friedstuffsable What's the point in trying to educate about something when you're this ignorant.
This is basic economic science, things you can find out on wikipedia, the minimum wage displaces unskilled labor, that's all it does. It doesn't raise anyones wage, the idea that it does is pathetically ridiculous and borders on having absolutely no understanding of economics whatsoever. Wages are set by productivity, not by laws.
@Friedstuffsable As I said, you don't even understand what the law does. As shallow as your comprehension of wage laws are is as far as this can go.
If you have a little interest in understanding the actual consequences, try reading at least the wiki article on the subject. I demand at least as much from people who chose to speak on a subject, otherwise I think you can just as well shut up and listen.
@Friedstuffsable No I'm not, I'm shouting about how dumb your are. Understanding what the minimum wage actually does, in how it displaces workers, is a pretty basic thing for people to comprehend in terms of economics. It's sort of a threshold in my eyes of whether or not you have the basic understanding to even be worthwhile to engage in a further serious discussion.
Same goes for child labor laws.
Your argument on the manner are quite frankly somewhat childish.
@Visfen You're a speculator. All you do is say the bad things that minimum wage laws do, without bothering to explain how, or why. I brought up events that actually took place here.. In reality. Such as the Trade unions asking the state to not allow anyone under 15 to work in a textile mill & other factories. You want 14 year old to work in coal mines & steel mills? You're the dumbass.
It doesn't do anything good, why would I try to find things that aren't there? It's a way to limit competition for skilled workers and directly affects the poorest people in society.
I told you why that was irrelevant and what a union actually does. They don't increase the standard of living, wages or conditions, they simply are an efficient arbitrator. That's the economic value of a union.
@Visfen Unions asked the state. & the state forced the business owners to "Give" their workers a higher standard of living. A non union mine where I used to live payed its new hires 15.80hr.. with no benefits. They also have a higher rate of accidents because the workers are afraid to complain about safety violations. The Union mine pays $24hr with full benefits, & a better safety record. The facts. Vs your theory. You must own a mining company. Your attitude would make sense then.
@Friedstuffsable But don't you understand that such a law is only possible to the extent that we are productive. It wasn't even thought of before the industrialization that we could do away with child labor, that was just life.
What the law did, was that it removed the last child labor there was, and made the poor families that did have to have their children work even poorer. How is that a good thing?
Hire wages, benefit and working conditions are a result of productivity.
@Visfen Right. We need 12 year old children to not concern themselves with school. They need to get in the chemical plants & bust ass to put some food on the table for their 7 year old sister. No fuck that. She is lazy too. She needs to work at the fireworks factory putting together bottle rockets.
@Friedstuffsable If society is not productive enough, if the family is not productive enough, to pay for these children to have shelter and food when they don't do anything that produce any productive return - well then you see what you see when banning child labor in third world nations have been tried: Starvation and child prostitution. Do you like child prostitution or starvation better than child labor? That's the trade-off.
@Friedstuffsable You think we should make comparisons between union and non union? Okay, Unions peaked during the highest fall of wages in US history, the great depression. When wages were climbing the fastest unionization was around 4% of the work force. In the western world, the US is the least unionized and they pay the highest wages.
Unions are nothing but an arbitrator. That's fact.
You don't know anything about economics, that's why you hold the position you do.
@Friedstuffsable Yeah, what do I know, I only live in one of the most unionized countries in the world, I only have a double major, I've only referenced my explanations with theory of the firm, organization theory, political economic, economic science and basic economic theories. We should listen to the high school explanation that crying loudly will materialize a higher standard of living.
Do you like cartels? That's what a union is. Great for them, fuck everyone else.
@Visfen Do you like cartels? That is what a company who doesn't allow their workers to form certain groups are. Great for the company, fuck everyone else.
And companies could chose to hire who they want as they please, anything else is quite absurd. They are trading with each other, if they don't want to, but are forced to, we're no longer doing trade we're doing something else.
And cartels are only a problem if you have enforcement mechanism against people leaving the cartel to get market share. Same with unions. Unless you can use force you can not keep a cartel together.
I agree you shouldn't be forced into a union, but what could be wrong with workers just getting together, talking about their common interests, and using their own powers of supply & demand to negotiate?
Using government to ban unions(like they used to) is anti-free market.
@sicktoaster Nothing, but that's not what unions ever do. That's kinda of a cartoonish view of what a union is. Unions extort, bribe, attack, physically assault people and destroy property. That's their actual history.
This idea about workers just peacefully organizing has not basis in fact and human history. Most of the time they made sure nobody tried to leave the union, those that did sometimes found themselves without their lives or family members.
@Friedstuffsable You want to look at what Child Labor laws actually do? Look at what happened when the US congress passed a bill that made it illegal to important goods manufactured by minors. These children were displaced, they starved and died or the moved into child prostitution.
You have to understand what the law actually does. Not just how it sounds good because you don't want children to work. Of course nobody wants that, but life can be like that if you're poor.
Great points, but we still need "universal care". We need a guarantee for people who are poor-sick-unlucky. If insurance kicks off people over 65 we need care for them. We need a system that forces people to pay for their insurance.
I support forcing people to invest 10% of their income in a retirement account of their choosing rather than "social security" but the idea that you must invest to keep yourself out of poverty and jail-for the sake of the rest of us is legit.
On a more general note- those who complain of America's oppressive system and how the rich live off the backs of the poor: how much fact can back up that rhetoric? Even in this deep recession, America has one of, if not the highest standard of living for its citizens and one of the largest middle classes in the world. We have our problems, but the way people talk you'd think it was a feudal system. Most Americans live better than they would in any other country.
@rockon6191 Actually, we are much lower in standard of living than in Scandinavian countries (the top ones) and many other western European countries. They also have a much lower poor-rich gap, since the rich are taxed and pay to make sure that everyone has food, water, and shelter. In the US, we let the poor fend for themselves.
@abviolin2 The rich-poor gap is much larger because we have so many super rich; it's not because their poor are better off. And which countries are you referring to? Depending on which, there are a variety of extraneous factors unrelated to social spending that contribute to their success, such as much smaller population, autonomous economies, and no military spending.
I am a conservative, and I generally despise TYT for their condescending, mocking tone. This was an excellent debate for them, and I would say he won.
so now Americans are terrorized away from taxing high income earners, less their economy be harmed?
man. When some portions of the population lives in daily luxury, and others below the poverty line, with no social safety nets in place, it's a human responsibility to ask some questions.
Whom, are you guys holding accountable for this state of affairs?
You are born into wage slavery, and dream to break free through market entrepreneurship. That's not how your constitution goes.
@kokocipher the goal of society is to help the weak and help everybody do be productive. I am sorry but don't you understand that not every body is born with wealth or good health, or even the mental capability of achieving things in the world.
@ray4ix No, the goal of society is to make progress. We should encourage people to have the aspiration to achieve instead of allowing them to give up. We should only help those that are willing to help themselves. Giving them free stuff is not helping.
@kokocipher I requte my comment " I am sorry but don't you understand that not every body is born with wealth or good health, or even the mental capability of achieving things in the world." And yes there is aspiration for every body to achieve their goals. But what you saying is if somebody is not successfully albeit trying hard and they get sick and cant pay for their medical care therefore they must die or suffer. Fuck that! If that's your view point that you are indeed a Marxist!
You know when Cenk speaks like he does in this video, clear and reasoned in his thought process, then I can listen to get the point of view he is promoting. When he is on his normal far left, righty bashing, talking points like normal then I can't stomahce him. Cenk you got the brain power to speak rationally and I'd listen more if you debated ideas, like in this video, in a more calm and rational manner.
I don't agree with him, but presenting rational thought process like here suits him well.
@DanielDamascusKimery You have no facts that state that the 'Obamacare' is unconstitutional. Just flat out calling something unconstitutional does not make it so. If you think Medicare should be cut while allowing corporations not to pay taxes, you must be insane. It's a known fact that the wealthiest 5% of Americans have 3 trillion dollars stored away.
@CHAOSoriginal facts? what Island have you been on, Obama care is already on it's way to the supreme court for being unconstitutional. Now even the liberal judges are admitting it is unconstitutional dude. Also Obma's people are admitting that it won't be fiscally sustainable. Damn bro.
@weseyedwalk Thank you. You just proved me right. The decision is still heading to the Supreme Court. Until a verdict deciding that the health bill violates the Constitution THEN you may declare Obamacare as being unconstitutional.
@CHAOSoriginal Uh newsflash, Florida supreme court declared it unconstitutional, meaning, they are done with it, so did many other states. Now these states already declared they will not adhere to Obamacare regardless of the Federal gov. So yeah, case closed for some states. I'm betting the Federal supreme court will find it unconstitutional also.
Cenk is debating only part of it, why dissect when the government is not going to, they are gonna ram the whole thing down our throats, if the government was going to actually do what Cenk is talking about, then I would be in favor of it to, but Your'e telling me that it is tax neutral, meaning nobody gets the care unless they put into it? I don't believe that for one second.
Eisenhower had the tax rate for corporations at 90% back in the 50's which resulted in the middle class soaring! The corporations and the wealthy invested in their own companies.
This is one of the most civil, well-conducted arguments I have heard. There was not any side-stepping the issue or anything. If politicians debated like this, it would actually be enjoyable to hear them.
Wrong. Increasing the top 1%'s taxes does nothing to hurt economic growth or jobs. Why, because the tax does NOTHING to effect DEMAND. Businesses ONLY hire people, pay employees more, invest in research etc. if it allows them to tap into untapped demand. Likewise, corp. tax breaks do nothing to help the economy because, again, companies only invest when actual demand goes up. As long as the gov taxes less than what will prevent comp from fully taking advantage of demand, taxes are a good thing.
@eyeammi (CONT) Gov spending on the other hand does, albeit artificially, boost demand. However this still entices businesses to hire more & invest nonetheless. This increased injection of capital into labor then turns into REAL demand though the spending of the employees acting as consumers. The beauty of this is that that money ends up going exactly where it should via increased private consumption in business who're competitive & earning demand thus resulting in a stronger healthier economy.
@David12King I mostly agree w/ you except for the "never" part. You're definitely right that a more effective boost to the economy is achieved though tax relief for the lower income brackets. However, when the gov collects taxes & spends money, it has the benefit of reducing large economic swings. Even so, in prosperous times (high demand) it is a good idea for the gov to curb spending & simply take on a regulatory role to prevent financial fraud & theft which tends to destabilizes the economy.
@eyeammi taxes are a good thing when they are balanced fair and the government is responsible, when has this been the case? too much wasteful spending by the gov warrants higher tax?, Gaza gets a billion, too much free health care for illegals (billions $) too many welfare recepients and not enough significant taxpayers, so the answer is ?? to tax the producers more? That's nothing more than a band aid, we need to stop the bleeding.
@CHAOSoriginal Not only, but that is one of many contributing causes, the biggest cause it the federal reserve, second the housing market and the fact that the banks were pressured into giving our unqualified loans in abundance (thanks Clinton), and also of course politics.
It is Unconstitutional to force people to buy a private product. The people who want socialized healthcare are bums that don't work for a living. Health Insurance like Car Insurance should be handled on a State level just as The 10 Amendment Commands. Fuck The Young Turks the Government already takes enough of my money and now this? Give me a fucking break. Get a clue Cenk this is why we kicked the Democrats out last November.
@CHAOSoriginal Really in which Amendment of The Constitution does it Guarantee The Right to Socialized Healthcare? Yes Medicare is Unconstitutional. Look Dude you can't be a Communist and a Constitutionalist. That's like saying that you're Pro Choice but against Abortion. Stop writing and start reading you ignorant welfare anchor baby.
@DanielDamascusKimery Look, let's not get emotional. My statement is valid as far as saying that Medicare is not unconstitutional. Another thing is that Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.
@CHAOSoriginal Yeah no shit Sherlock. Marx defines socialism as the transitional phase between capitalism and communism. Medicare is not unconstitutional? Do you even know what unconstitutional means? Since you don't know I'll explain it for you... Unconstitutional means that it either violates a Constitutional Right or is not listed as a Right in The Constitution. Tell me which Amendment guarantees Medical Care? Go move to Cuba if you want socialism you stupid botton feeding spick.
@CHAOSoriginal No. I didn't notice that you were ignoring me. I thought that you just realized that you didn't have an answer to my question about The Constitutionality of Obamacare; and then you wrote me back without an answer and removed all doubt. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make a fool out of you. Humiliating Marxist is a guilty pleasure of mine.
I hate the presumptive tone of this channel to start with. It's the usual conservative arrogance lecturing people on how it is in the "real world". Yet whenever we test their bullshit theories, either in life, or peer review, disaster. I also love how lee uses argument from authority on a regular basis. "I have a degree from an elite university". Therefore this jackass thinks he can just assert things as fact.
@Newenlightenmentnow Sometimes facts are facts. Your buch simply takes the administration's words as gospel. The Current plan won't even cover everyone anyway. According to several studies - including the Kaiser Family Foundation (a LEFT WING SUPPORTER OF THE PLAN) there will be 23 million people not covered by Obamacare. To be fair, some of this 23 million are in the same group that are in the phony 50 million without insurance now, but there STILL would be @ 5 million uninsured.
@Newenlightenmentnow Whenever we test their bullshit theories? Elaborate on a bullshit theory that is a disaster. Then give a libtard alternative that has worked. You have a degree from an elite university? Is it from a university that's destroying our education in this country? One that indoctrinates dopes like you into total libtards who then go out to convince others about libtard thinking? If you can't see the problems with this health care law, then your elitist teachers have succeeded.
@Jeetman63 I will. Supply side economics is a bullshit theory. Here's the theory, if you lower taxes, the federal government takes in more money, and more jobs are created. Let's test this theory against reality. Reagan cut taxes on the rich. Instantly we had one of the largest deficits in history. Bush did the same, same result. Now let's test part two in the next post.
@Jeetman63 Cutting taxes creates jobs because businesses invest more. Ok, well Reagan cut taxes and created 10 million jobs. Bush cut taxes and only created 1 million (adjusted for population growth, thats a net loss). So in order for a theory to be useful, it must have predictive qualities. Is this predictive? Is this consistant? No. Carter, who you all hate, created 10 million jobs in 4 year because he kept the taxes high (to control the debt). Clinton created 23 million doing the same.
@Jeetman63 Eisenhower had taxes on the rich as high as 91% and he presided over one of the greatest periods of American prosperity. It seems a stable budget is the key, not cutting taxes. Now my counter. Keynsian economics. It works bitch. FDR used public investment to lower, LOWER unemployment from 25% to 15%. Now I hear you're crying, but WWII got us out of the depression. Yes, because the government spent even more for the war.
@Jeetman63 So you see, government spending creates jobs. It doesn't matter if it's digging ditches, building airplanes, or installing high speed rail. Cutting taxes doesn't do shit. How do we know? Because your theory doesn't produce consistant results. I would be happy to debate in a forum where I can have more than 500 characters.
O have no kids for a reason. I can't afford them. Someone else less responsible than me has kids even though they are flat broke and expect ME to pay for their education, health care... etc..
WHAT??? I chose as a responsible human being NOT TO HAVE KIDS. So I have to pay for everyone else's responsibility? Who's helping me?
I'm not paying for anyone's fucking healthcare. It's not a right. Emergencies.. OK But a health care PROGRAM??? FUCK ME.
@2eelShmeal Thats a common argument against healthcare/welfare. Fiorstly, I'm sorry to inform you, you don't get to choose what your tax money is spent on. The government does. So you personally are not paying for anyone else. You're paying the government and they decide what it goes on. If ya don't like it, then, well, its a downside of democracy.
And I don't have kids for the same reason as you, and yes alot of people do have children and then rely on the state to keep them alive, but...
@2eelShmeal ...you can't then just shut the door and say 'fuck all of ya'. It ain't the childrens fault that their parents are lazy, they deserve to be bought up to be healthy and well educated like the rest of us. They need support from welfare to have this. But its a strawman fallacy to make out that half of the unemplyed are just lazy. I'm not denying that some are, but the overwhelming majority of the unemplyed are either between jobs or unskilled and their aren't any jobs for them to work..
@2eelShmeal Ok, you've just ignored everything I said. I already said I agreed with you on certain points. Both you and I have no kids because we can't afford them, other people don't, and its not always because their being stupid. There are religious and culteral reason why certain people don't use protection and get pregnant, which i dont agree with, but they're still there. And if ya don't like the way the governments spends your money, don't vote for them in the next election.
HowtheWorldWorks is so clearly biased. He would rather see the majority of the population go with healthcare, for the sake of his political ideology. The only way the US could afford any of this is to cut military spending.
Ok, anyhting the government runs, even if it is by choice, limites incentrives and destroys competition. Why would an employer pay for your healthcare when the government will supply it for you? Why would people choose private insurance when the government will supply it for you? It drives private insurance and quality healthcare out of business giving the people ONE option. When public option takes over you have no more option. It is a monopoly. Plus government quality will always be less
Ok, anyhting the government runs, even if it is by choice, limites incentrives and destroys competition. Why would an employer pay for your healthcare when the government will supply it for you? Why would people choose private insurance when the government will supply it for you? It is like a government run donut shop selling crappy donuts for ten cents. Whether it is profitable or not is irrelevant, it is still competing and driving private donut companies out of business which run more eff
How about the goverment fix our crappy public schools before you even talk about making health care public. If you cant make a school work how the hell are you going to manage a hospital?
it wont work because the government runs for the benefit of the few and the expense of the many. they will bankrupt and crash hospitals and health care. the government is trying to make money by lowering price but not lowering cost.
This old debate is so lame. Nobody can compete with the government. That's the point too. In the end, all private programs will opt for the public option if it's cheaper. Then, everyone is in the "public" option. Then, the US has government run health care.
@jwhyte67 government funded? since when did the government make its own money? government doesn't have anything. You can not compete with the government, then the government will control prices and quality, who gets what when on a basis decided by a politician.
@AroundSun And thats worse than a decision by a coporation based on profit? The ideo is just to establish a competing insurance company managed by the government, if it sucks then it sucks and people would stop using it but why not give it a try?
@jwhyte67 It has tried and failed, over and over. Once again, Why would an employer pay for your healthcare when the government will supply it for you? You cant compete with government insurance it will eventually destroy private sector insurance. If it is popular and works, then it does not have to be forced or ran by the federal government. People will choose it voluntarily.
@AroundSun There was absolutely no provision that the public option was mandatory. Also as far as I know we have never had a public option before, all Im saying is give a try and if it sucks people wont use it and if it turns out great and some insurance co's go out of business then fuck them, the idea of profiting off the sick is horrible anyway.
@jwhyte67 You are missing the key components. A public option eventually turns into the only option. If the government wanted to sell cheap cars for $10 each they would suffer a net loss. They would have to use taxpayer money to keep the company running. Every car company would be out of business since they have limited capital. The gov't car company turns into your only option. Problem is, sooner or late you run out of someone else's money. Healthcare is a service, yes their are profits
@AroundSun "If the government wanted to sell cheap cars for $10 each they would suffer a net loss." Name one country that has happened in. Cars are not doctors. Doctors are being sold to patients and the doctors would not stand for corrupt shit like that.
@tstruss912 The private sector is always more efficient because it has to be, by design. They always have a limited amount of capital, no matter how high those limits are, it is still a limit. The private sector can not coerce you to give it money. Government take's a net loss and keep pumping tax dollars into something that is failing. That is what they do. No accountability, no responsibility. Doctors will have no choice BUT to stand for shit like that if government takes over healthcare
@AroundSun "The private sector can not coerce you to give it money. " <--- Is this a joke? What about the IRS collecting money for the FED? What about all the bailouts that were given under the threat of martial law? Big companies get big because of lobbying, government handouts, threats, and propaganda. But that's not coercion? Name a single country where it works as you fear it will work here.
@tstruss912 This is why I try not to argue with retards, because they babble when they are proven wrong. The IRS isn't the private sector bright one. Bailouts are a result of big government, and government intervention. Government handouts? Do I really need to tell you that government handouts are given out by the government, and not the private sector? You still have not given one example of where the private sector can force you to give it money without government intervention.
@AroundSun I gave you two examples of how the government is the corporations bitch. But let's go through the whole process since you're a bit slow.Corporations sit at round-tables (read business week) and decide who to give their money to. The media ($100 billion conglomerates) decide who will get air time (remember Ron Paul and Huckabee complaining?). Then, if the politicians are still not malleable enough, lobbyists swoop in for the kill.3.5 mil from the banks and O'bummer bails them out.
@AroundSun Are you understanding now, slow one? BTW, the elections are controlled (the actual voting) is controlled by a corporation too.The memory cards were made hackable, but who cares?It's only the gov (who we can vote out) that we need to worry about, not corporations who run the whole process and control: our banks(the FED), the media (GE, Disney, News Corp), our voting machines (numerous companies), etc."Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business." John Dewey
@AroundSun I won't give you one example of how corporations coerce people; I will give you whole time periods in American history.Let's see how your "innocent" corporations that "neeber heeurt noboordy" acted BEFORE gov intervention, slow one. Read this, slow one: ditext.com/taft/violence1.html#h
@tstruss912 Wahh Wahh, go get meds for your paranoid schizophrenia. You retarded conspiracy nuts and liberals and fucking idiots. You probably dropped out of high school, don't know shit about politics of economics. Have you ever had a job tinfoil hat guy? Have you every worked for someone else? Have you ever worked for yourself? Fucking moron. You collectivists should be lined up and shot.
@AroundSun Yes, I'm soooo paranoid with my facts and simple logic, and I'm sooo inexperienced when it comes to working (working at my 6th job...yet another fortune 500 company). Do you have any real arguments or just emotion? Are you late for the girl-scout meeting? I should be lined up and shot lol. I would blow your brains before you even pulled your gun, bitch. What a joke. Now make some arguments or shut your dumb-ass up!
@tstruss912 the government hasn't done anything right, and they are still failing. Then they wanted you to trust them again, and they failed again, and again. When government plan X fails, people like you think we need MORE government plan X. It is sad that people believe in social organization, messiahs, and the visions of the anointed. The road to hell was paved with good intentions, and even Hitler had a "vision". Stop voting for leaders and messiahs and start looking for servants.
warren buffet supports it and hes filthy rich
FloridaSeverWeather 1 day ago
This is a very good debate where there is a great sense of respect for each participant even if they vehemently disagree on many things. But, to me, I think this could be used as a great model for future debates where issues clash but civility always triumphs.
coyotefever105 1 week ago
@dodgertodd, some prices are arbitrary. In the case of a monopoly, whatever price the monopoly sets for their product/service on a relatively arbitrary basis (excluding operating costs). Also read the Wealth of Nations and see Adam Smith's viewpoint of businessmen, it's not flattering. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
basegitar1 2 weeks ago
Ouch. Pretty obvious Lee knows more about economic laws than Mr. Turk. Turkboy needs to crack a 100-level econ book. Costs and prices are not arbitrary, in any system.
dodgertodd 3 weeks ago
@Visfen
...
Incidentally, the employee I mentioned quit anyways later(why when you have such a good thing going for you I don't know) and because of the contract had to pay back the raise and the money for the car.
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
You're not going to win anyone over bashing unions, but you may make headway reforming them into a respectable institution if you point out the hypocrisy of things like "closed shops"
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
@sicktoaster You will win over the people that matter, the people with brains. You don't have to win over the fools, the miracle of aggregation takes care of that.
Visfen 3 weeks ago
@Visfen
Extremes whether pro-union, pro-management, pro-investment, whether liberal, conservative or progressive, statist or libertarian, left or right are for fools.
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
@sicktoaster But the thing with unions are that that's the only way they could even get any influence as their true market purpose is a club for people in the same company, nothing more than that. They rely wholly and solely on this abuse of power, without it they are nothing - and they know it, that's why they do it.
Visfen 3 weeks ago
@Visfen
If enough people get together and decide it's in their best interests to make more money and they will leave otherwise then that can have an effect upon employers decisions and that's just competition.
There's no need to force people to be part of a union for it to work any more than businessmen have to force each other when it serves their best interests to cooperate.
I heard of just 1 employee once who was so skilled in computers he was able to...
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
@Visfen
...
walk into his employer's office and demand a new car and a generous raise or he'd quit and the employer gave in.
In any sort of employer-employee relationship both parties are buying/selling from each other. Negotiations should be free and sometimes rough. That's good competition. But forcing people to side with you in negotiations as is done in closed shop or in state-enforced cartels is wrong.
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
How does France manage to pay for their system? Oh.. they don't spend Trillions on their military & endless, pointless wars. That is why they are #1 in the world in cost & quality of care.. & unlike most youtube commentators.. that stat isn't coming from me, it is from the World Health Organization, which is more credible than any random guy on the internet. U.S.A. #1 spender on healthcare in the world. # 37 in quality of care.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
This was a fantastic exchange. I am gradually becoming a fan of Lee Doren but I thought Cenk did a great job of constructing the opposing viewpoint.
wyman856 1 month ago
Lee, the debate is against your odds, and here is why: you're asked to prove why the government take-over on healthcare will not work. The fact is that it's impossible to prove something negatively. Eg. proving something you didn't do (proving your innocence), or proving something that is not there. In this case, proving something that will not work.
kokocipher 1 month ago
Want to know why healthcare is expensive? Because there isn't enough Medical Schools in the U.S. to graduate Medical Doctors. Thus, we should give incentives for people to build more medical schools instead of adding useless government programs.
kokocipher 1 month ago
So Lee Dorn is a tool and a dipshit lol
GentlemanOfTheAbyss 1 month ago
@GentlemanOfTheAbyss
Are you going to explain why Lee is a tool and a dipshit or are you just another Young Turk dick rider who doesn't know what they're on about
xXKayn3Xx 1 month ago
@xXKayn3Xx Well after i saw a video of him saying we have 500 years of oil left that really told me something and his stance on business is so false but so is the TYT money is a joke and people who think its the only way to solve any thing are waste of time and dont really understand how reality works
GentlemanOfTheAbyss 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch my video: Stop private health Insurance companies
Slavenomore2012 2 months ago
Everything is so simple for conservatives. No nuances at all. Just black and white and right and wrong.
fatouche99 3 months ago
Profit in medicine is immoral.
fatouche99 3 months ago
@fatouche99 What? I don't think there is really any service that does not gain profit. This is an extreme example (and somewhat out of context) but i think that based on the idea that it's immoral to profit from people's basic need: then primary sector of economy would not exist thus no economy would exist therefore we'll all be back to growing veg and raising pigs on our own farm for our own family - realistic?? Profits do not merely feed "selfish/greedy" people.
sdejanip 3 months ago
@sdejanip I agree with what you said, but Credit Unions are non-profit and the average President of a credit union makes about $2,000,000 a year. And, they're privately owned by their members. That might work for health care too. I don't know. Our police and fire departments don't make profit but they work pretty well for the public good. France has a private non-profit system and their healthcare is cheaper, their outcomes are better and their doctor are in the upper class of society.
fatouche99 3 months ago
@sdejanip I don't think Obama's bill is going to improve healthcare, but the issue is serious. Cost doubled is 8 years. This problem needs a totally out of the box solution. If you took healthcare off Wall Street, the people in it, ei: the doctors, nurses etc., would still make the same amount of money. But cost considerations would change and that might be enough, not to insure everybody, but to bring the costs back down in the system we have. I could be wrong, but it's worth a try.
fatouche99 3 months ago
@fatouche99 Yeah, fuck doctors/pharmacists/nurses, making money off of it....
thegoodgeneral 2 months ago
@thegoodgeneral I'm not talking about salaries and people making a living from the system. France has a private non-profit system and their doctors are in the top 5% wage earners - and they make house calls. I'm talking about how our insurance is currently being run. Insurance costs doubled from 2001 to 2008. That is unsustainable. Also, the insurance sector of healthcare is the most profitable part of our healthcare system and the least useful. They make no drugs and provide no care.
fatouche99 2 months ago
Wow that turk guy is a moron.
HumbleWillis 3 months ago
It's like the post office. The Post Office is government owned but not tax run. None of my taxes pay for the Post Office. I pay for the Post Office when I buy a stamp from them. The difference is that no one profits at the top. Only the employees profit. The problem comes in with government when the quality is too low. If I can pay $40 for mediocre care, but $50 for excellent care, I will likely spend $50. Same thing if Government ran soup kitchens, I could go get bland soup that will barely...
MacabreManifesto 4 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...keep me alive for free, or enjoy a steak dinner for $20.
MacabreManifesto 4 months ago
What? A public option doesn't work because employers will throw people at the cheapest option? So when the cheapest private insurance company gets all the clients from employee deals it's fine (btw this isn't happening), but when a public company kills it's private competitors it's evil? By the way, we have the projects, we have public housing, it's not really killing the housing business (I can actually name a private institution that ruined that one however).
MacabreManifesto 4 months ago
Of course we don't have the money to cover this-it all went to Haliburton, KBR and war(s) 2 of 'em!
quetzalel 4 months ago
I hate this younge turk. he pops up on youtube everywhere and i always find him wrong on nearly everything.
sy2pie 4 months ago
@sy2pie Yet you probably couldnt refute a single point he makes.
jwhyte67 4 months ago
OMG Cenk is such an idiot!
McBagginz 4 months ago
Damn, i thumbed this up, then i saw what channel it is on.
RottenRroses 5 months ago
I don't think either of these guys even read the 2000 page bill.
Salvysahagun 5 months ago
@Salvysahagun Can anyone read 2000 pages of retardation and bullshit? Wait, how long is the Twilight series?
ThatHaloGuy117 5 months ago
@ThatHaloGuy117
I'm pretty sure the Obamacare is a higher reading level than twilight. At least I hope so.
Also the hole thing only took 2 weeks and people where acting like they read the whole bill after the first day.
SUPPORT READ THE BILLS ACT!!!
Salvysahagun 5 months ago
@Visfen HELLO, see the quotation marks around Free Market? that means SO CALLED Free Market. Get it. They just call it a FREE Market, it is NOT.
Majenius 5 months ago
@Majenius The failure of the free market has always been government.
Visfen 5 months ago
@Visfen Tell that to the striking miners who fought in the "Battle of Blair Mountain" It was all the governments fault that caused that I'm sure.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable Unions thugs. They attacked strike breakers.
Yes, government empowered the unions, they should have shot the fuckers down when they started occupying the mines and shooting down strike breakers.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen That isn't what caused the strike. They did have a shootout. That is why it was called a "Battle"
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable What is your point? My point is that unions only are effective to the extent that they are immoral and break common place laws.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen "Strike Breakers" were the first to attack. Somewhat obvious by definition of their name. The Baldwin Felts detective company was a group of thugs hired by the coal company. Do you think the miners struck for no reason? They were being treated unfairly, being payed in credits that could only be used in a company store. Not money. So they refused to work. Instead of hiring scabs, the company escalated things to a violent level. The government sided with the company too. Understand
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable Bullshit, strike breakers wanted to go to work and union thugs were occupying mines that weren't even theirs.
I think they struck because they are union thugs and if unions thugs can't fight people they are somewhat useless.
They can stop working if they think it is unfair. Just stop. They don't have to occupy and attack managers and strike breakers.
The company had a right to remove the thugs from their property. Fuck unions.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen They went off their property too. Sending their hired thugs to go after the local sheriff in the middle of town in Matewwan. Why do you think private companies are so angelic? People can form whatever fucking group they want, including unions.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable I would never deny anyone to form a union, my point is that they would have no teeth if they couldn't break the law.
I don't see a problem in going after people that break the law. So when union thugs attack strike breakers and they actually get charged with a crime I think that is a good thing.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen I thought you despised unions.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable I do, because they never act in accordance with general decency and the law. Their actual purpose is nothing but an easier way to negotiate wages than going over it with every single employee individually. Beyond that they produce nothing of value, but they have this idea that they "raise wages" which only has any truth to it if they break the law - as they regularly do by attacking managers and strike breakers. So yeah, fuck unions.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen It was the Union members at the National Trades’ Union Convention make the first formal, public proposal recommending that states establish minimum ages for factory work. That was in the 1830's, The workers asked the state. & the kindhearted business owners opposed not having their under 15 workforce.. Because they could pay them less, & they knew kids were less likely to strike. So nice of them. Damn commies wrecked it all by forcing humane laws into existence.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago 2
@Friedstuffsable Child labor was a fact of life back then, if the children didn't work the family starved. Being against child labor without understanding this is simply childish. It's not like all parents in history just hated their children, it took a rising productivity as a result of free markets to come to a place where it was even possible for children not to work
The problem is with fools like you, who see this and don't understand it. That's another reason I hate unions
Visfen 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable Also, the minimum wage is nothing but a barrier of entry to stop low s killed workers from competing with high skilled workers. It's a terrible law that creates unemployment among the most unfortunate in the population. Why the hell would I be for that? I do have a brain.
Fact is that unions are completely irrelevant when it comes to human progress. The only impact they have had are against it. And that's a fact you can quote me on.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Yes. $8/hr is too much. If they could pay $2.25/hr they could hire more people! Who could then work for a pointless wage that cant pay for anything. As the minimum wage already borders on.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable What's the point in trying to educate about something when you're this ignorant.
This is basic economic science, things you can find out on wikipedia, the minimum wage displaces unskilled labor, that's all it does. It doesn't raise anyones wage, the idea that it does is pathetically ridiculous and borders on having absolutely no understanding of economics whatsoever. Wages are set by productivity, not by laws.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen I agree, $8hr is destroying businesses.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable As I said, you don't even understand what the law does. As shallow as your comprehension of wage laws are is as far as this can go.
If you have a little interest in understanding the actual consequences, try reading at least the wiki article on the subject. I demand at least as much from people who chose to speak on a subject, otherwise I think you can just as well shut up and listen.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen I didn't even get into details. All you are doing is shouting about how fuckin' smart you think you are.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable No I'm not, I'm shouting about how dumb your are. Understanding what the minimum wage actually does, in how it displaces workers, is a pretty basic thing for people to comprehend in terms of economics. It's sort of a threshold in my eyes of whether or not you have the basic understanding to even be worthwhile to engage in a further serious discussion.
Same goes for child labor laws.
Your argument on the manner are quite frankly somewhat childish.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen You're a speculator. All you do is say the bad things that minimum wage laws do, without bothering to explain how, or why. I brought up events that actually took place here.. In reality. Such as the Trade unions asking the state to not allow anyone under 15 to work in a textile mill & other factories. You want 14 year old to work in coal mines & steel mills? You're the dumbass.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable I did say so, it's a barrier to entry.
It doesn't do anything good, why would I try to find things that aren't there? It's a way to limit competition for skilled workers and directly affects the poorest people in society.
I told you why that was irrelevant and what a union actually does. They don't increase the standard of living, wages or conditions, they simply are an efficient arbitrator. That's the economic value of a union.
Yes, rather than starve.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Unions asked the state. & the state forced the business owners to "Give" their workers a higher standard of living. A non union mine where I used to live payed its new hires 15.80hr.. with no benefits. They also have a higher rate of accidents because the workers are afraid to complain about safety violations. The Union mine pays $24hr with full benefits, & a better safety record. The facts. Vs your theory. You must own a mining company. Your attitude would make sense then.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable But don't you understand that such a law is only possible to the extent that we are productive. It wasn't even thought of before the industrialization that we could do away with child labor, that was just life.
What the law did, was that it removed the last child labor there was, and made the poor families that did have to have their children work even poorer. How is that a good thing?
Hire wages, benefit and working conditions are a result of productivity.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Right. We need 12 year old children to not concern themselves with school. They need to get in the chemical plants & bust ass to put some food on the table for their 7 year old sister. No fuck that. She is lazy too. She needs to work at the fireworks factory putting together bottle rockets.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable If society is not productive enough, if the family is not productive enough, to pay for these children to have shelter and food when they don't do anything that produce any productive return - well then you see what you see when banning child labor in third world nations have been tried: Starvation and child prostitution. Do you like child prostitution or starvation better than child labor? That's the trade-off.
She might, if society is not productive enough.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable You think we should make comparisons between union and non union? Okay, Unions peaked during the highest fall of wages in US history, the great depression. When wages were climbing the fastest unionization was around 4% of the work force. In the western world, the US is the least unionized and they pay the highest wages.
Unions are nothing but an arbitrator. That's fact.
You don't know anything about economics, that's why you hold the position you do.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen You're a fake economist who thinks in theory. Union jobs are better for the worker, than non union jobs. & that is a fucking fact.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@Friedstuffsable Yeah, what do I know, I only live in one of the most unionized countries in the world, I only have a double major, I've only referenced my explanations with theory of the firm, organization theory, political economic, economic science and basic economic theories. We should listen to the high school explanation that crying loudly will materialize a higher standard of living.
Do you like cartels? That's what a union is. Great for them, fuck everyone else.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Do you like cartels? That is what a company who doesn't allow their workers to form certain groups are. Great for the company, fuck everyone else.
Friedstuffsable 4 weeks ago
@Friedstuffsable No it's not.
And companies could chose to hire who they want as they please, anything else is quite absurd. They are trading with each other, if they don't want to, but are forced to, we're no longer doing trade we're doing something else.
And cartels are only a problem if you have enforcement mechanism against people leaving the cartel to get market share. Same with unions. Unless you can use force you can not keep a cartel together.
Visfen 4 weeks ago
@Visfen
A union is just a group of organized workers.
I agree you shouldn't be forced into a union, but what could be wrong with workers just getting together, talking about their common interests, and using their own powers of supply & demand to negotiate?
Using government to ban unions(like they used to) is anti-free market.
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
@sicktoaster Nothing, but that's not what unions ever do. That's kinda of a cartoonish view of what a union is. Unions extort, bribe, attack, physically assault people and destroy property. That's their actual history.
This idea about workers just peacefully organizing has not basis in fact and human history. Most of the time they made sure nobody tried to leave the union, those that did sometimes found themselves without their lives or family members.
Visfen 3 weeks ago
@Visfen
There are unions like that, but since the government allows "closed shop" deals most take advantage of it.
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
@Friedstuffsable You want to look at what Child Labor laws actually do? Look at what happened when the US congress passed a bill that made it illegal to important goods manufactured by minors. These children were displaced, they starved and died or the moved into child prostitution.
You have to understand what the law actually does. Not just how it sounds good because you don't want children to work. Of course nobody wants that, but life can be like that if you're poor.
Visfen 1 month ago
Great points, but we still need "universal care". We need a guarantee for people who are poor-sick-unlucky. If insurance kicks off people over 65 we need care for them. We need a system that forces people to pay for their insurance.
I support forcing people to invest 10% of their income in a retirement account of their choosing rather than "social security" but the idea that you must invest to keep yourself out of poverty and jail-for the sake of the rest of us is legit.
School vouchers
amabo187 6 months ago
On a more general note- those who complain of America's oppressive system and how the rich live off the backs of the poor: how much fact can back up that rhetoric? Even in this deep recession, America has one of, if not the highest standard of living for its citizens and one of the largest middle classes in the world. We have our problems, but the way people talk you'd think it was a feudal system. Most Americans live better than they would in any other country.
rockon6191 6 months ago
@rockon6191 Actually, we are much lower in standard of living than in Scandinavian countries (the top ones) and many other western European countries. They also have a much lower poor-rich gap, since the rich are taxed and pay to make sure that everyone has food, water, and shelter. In the US, we let the poor fend for themselves.
abviolin2 6 months ago 3
@abviolin2 The rich-poor gap is much larger because we have so many super rich; it's not because their poor are better off. And which countries are you referring to? Depending on which, there are a variety of extraneous factors unrelated to social spending that contribute to their success, such as much smaller population, autonomous economies, and no military spending.
rockon6191 6 months ago
I am a conservative, and I generally despise TYT for their condescending, mocking tone. This was an excellent debate for them, and I would say he won.
rockon6191 6 months ago
so now Americans are terrorized away from taxing high income earners, less their economy be harmed?
man. When some portions of the population lives in daily luxury, and others below the poverty line, with no social safety nets in place, it's a human responsibility to ask some questions.
Whom, are you guys holding accountable for this state of affairs?
You are born into wage slavery, and dream to break free through market entrepreneurship. That's not how your constitution goes.
Peace.
ntnima 6 months ago
fuck the young turks
pretorious700 6 months ago
Sorry Lee, but every body has the right to live, either rich or poor!
ray4ix 6 months ago
@ray4ix yes, you have the right to live. What does that have to do with the right to someone else's time to care for your wound?
kokocipher 1 month ago
@kokocipher the goal of society is to help the weak and help everybody do be productive. I am sorry but don't you understand that not every body is born with wealth or good health, or even the mental capability of achieving things in the world.
ray4ix 1 month ago
@ray4ix No, the goal of society is to make progress. We should encourage people to have the aspiration to achieve instead of allowing them to give up. We should only help those that are willing to help themselves. Giving them free stuff is not helping.
kokocipher 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kokocipher I requte my comment " I am sorry but don't you understand that not every body is born with wealth or good health, or even the mental capability of achieving things in the world." And yes there is aspiration for every body to achieve their goals. But what you saying is if somebody is not successfully albeit trying hard and they get sick and cant pay for their medical care therefore they must die or suffer. Fuck that! If that's your view point that you are indeed a Marxist!
ray4ix 1 month ago
You know when Cenk speaks like he does in this video, clear and reasoned in his thought process, then I can listen to get the point of view he is promoting. When he is on his normal far left, righty bashing, talking points like normal then I can't stomahce him. Cenk you got the brain power to speak rationally and I'd listen more if you debated ideas, like in this video, in a more calm and rational manner.
I don't agree with him, but presenting rational thought process like here suits him well.
navyboym 7 months ago 19
@navyboym "STOMAHCE." Yes, if only Cenk demonstrated his brain power for you.
CryInTheAttic 3 months ago
@CryInTheAttic I'm sorry for the typo there, thank you for bring some real substance to the table for us all.
navyboym 3 months ago
Comment removed
CryInTheAttic 3 months ago
Comment removed
CryInTheAttic 3 months ago
@navyboym
Yea I agree, but the same can be said about Lee, just so you know.
Madpolis7 2 months ago
@navyboym
He is far left? Oh boy, then George Bush was centrist.
D3adtrap 1 month ago
10-30% profit are you shitting me? insurance is one of the lowest profit margin in the market
soccer92489 7 months ago
@DanielDamascusKimery You have no facts that state that the 'Obamacare' is unconstitutional. Just flat out calling something unconstitutional does not make it so. If you think Medicare should be cut while allowing corporations not to pay taxes, you must be insane. It's a known fact that the wealthiest 5% of Americans have 3 trillion dollars stored away.
CHAOSoriginal 9 months ago
@CHAOSoriginal facts? what Island have you been on, Obama care is already on it's way to the supreme court for being unconstitutional. Now even the liberal judges are admitting it is unconstitutional dude. Also Obma's people are admitting that it won't be fiscally sustainable. Damn bro.
weseyedwalk 9 months ago
@weseyedwalk Thank you. You just proved me right. The decision is still heading to the Supreme Court. Until a verdict deciding that the health bill violates the Constitution THEN you may declare Obamacare as being unconstitutional.
CHAOSoriginal 9 months ago
@CHAOSoriginal Uh newsflash, Florida supreme court declared it unconstitutional, meaning, they are done with it, so did many other states. Now these states already declared they will not adhere to Obamacare regardless of the Federal gov. So yeah, case closed for some states. I'm betting the Federal supreme court will find it unconstitutional also.
weseyedwalk 9 months ago
@weseyedwalk
FYI, I didn't read your comment because it began with "Uh newsflash;"
It makes you sound like a closeminded ass. Hopefully you aren't.
SirColgrevance 9 months ago
@SirColgrevance LOL ok maybe my sarcasm sounded lame, I'll give you that.
weseyedwalk 9 months ago
@weseyedwalk *Success* B-)
SirColgrevance 8 months ago
Cenk is debating only part of it, why dissect when the government is not going to, they are gonna ram the whole thing down our throats, if the government was going to actually do what Cenk is talking about, then I would be in favor of it to, but Your'e telling me that it is tax neutral, meaning nobody gets the care unless they put into it? I don't believe that for one second.
weseyedwalk 9 months ago
Cenk was so right on this issue. Makes me proud to be a member of the TYT Army.
CHAOSoriginal 9 months ago
Comment removed
CHAOSoriginal 9 months ago
Eisenhower had the tax rate for corporations at 90% back in the 50's which resulted in the middle class soaring! The corporations and the wealthy invested in their own companies.
CHAOSoriginal 9 months ago
lololol. It is funny because this guy constantly repeats the same phrases as Cenk.
SUPPLEANDFIRM 10 months ago
This is one of the most civil, well-conducted arguments I have heard. There was not any side-stepping the issue or anything. If politicians debated like this, it would actually be enjoyable to hear them.
AlaterialCarnesir 10 months ago
Wrong. Increasing the top 1%'s taxes does nothing to hurt economic growth or jobs. Why, because the tax does NOTHING to effect DEMAND. Businesses ONLY hire people, pay employees more, invest in research etc. if it allows them to tap into untapped demand. Likewise, corp. tax breaks do nothing to help the economy because, again, companies only invest when actual demand goes up. As long as the gov taxes less than what will prevent comp from fully taking advantage of demand, taxes are a good thing.
eyeammi 10 months ago
@eyeammi (CONT) Gov spending on the other hand does, albeit artificially, boost demand. However this still entices businesses to hire more & invest nonetheless. This increased injection of capital into labor then turns into REAL demand though the spending of the employees acting as consumers. The beauty of this is that that money ends up going exactly where it should via increased private consumption in business who're competitive & earning demand thus resulting in a stronger healthier economy.
eyeammi 10 months ago
Comment removed
David12King 10 months ago
@David12King I mostly agree w/ you except for the "never" part. You're definitely right that a more effective boost to the economy is achieved though tax relief for the lower income brackets. However, when the gov collects taxes & spends money, it has the benefit of reducing large economic swings. Even so, in prosperous times (high demand) it is a good idea for the gov to curb spending & simply take on a regulatory role to prevent financial fraud & theft which tends to destabilizes the economy.
eyeammi 10 months ago
@eyeammi taxes are a good thing when they are balanced fair and the government is responsible, when has this been the case? too much wasteful spending by the gov warrants higher tax?, Gaza gets a billion, too much free health care for illegals (billions $) too many welfare recepients and not enough significant taxpayers, so the answer is ?? to tax the producers more? That's nothing more than a band aid, we need to stop the bleeding.
weseyedwalk 9 months ago
@weseyedwalk Do you really think that the budget problems are caused by illegal immigration and welfare?
CHAOSoriginal 9 months ago
@CHAOSoriginal Not only, but that is one of many contributing causes, the biggest cause it the federal reserve, second the housing market and the fact that the banks were pressured into giving our unqualified loans in abundance (thanks Clinton), and also of course politics.
weseyedwalk 9 months ago
You're a shill for the N.W.O. buddy.
2supperman 11 months ago
You got destroyed.
Gold21030 11 months ago
How many times did both sides "break things down"? lol
MelkorHimself 11 months ago
It is Unconstitutional to force people to buy a private product. The people who want socialized healthcare are bums that don't work for a living. Health Insurance like Car Insurance should be handled on a State level just as The 10 Amendment Commands. Fuck The Young Turks the Government already takes enough of my money and now this? Give me a fucking break. Get a clue Cenk this is why we kicked the Democrats out last November.
DanielDamascusKimery 11 months ago
@DanielDamascusKimery You couldn't be more wrong. It's not unconstitutional. In your case, Medicare would be considered unconstitutional.
CHAOSoriginal 9 months ago
@CHAOSoriginal Really in which Amendment of The Constitution does it Guarantee The Right to Socialized Healthcare? Yes Medicare is Unconstitutional. Look Dude you can't be a Communist and a Constitutionalist. That's like saying that you're Pro Choice but against Abortion. Stop writing and start reading you ignorant welfare anchor baby.
DanielDamascusKimery 9 months ago
@DanielDamascusKimery Look, let's not get emotional. My statement is valid as far as saying that Medicare is not unconstitutional. Another thing is that Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.
CHAOSoriginal 9 months ago
@CHAOSoriginal Yeah no shit Sherlock. Marx defines socialism as the transitional phase between capitalism and communism. Medicare is not unconstitutional? Do you even know what unconstitutional means? Since you don't know I'll explain it for you... Unconstitutional means that it either violates a Constitutional Right or is not listed as a Right in The Constitution. Tell me which Amendment guarantees Medical Care? Go move to Cuba if you want socialism you stupid botton feeding spick.
DanielDamascusKimery 9 months ago
@DanielDamascusKimery You've probaby noticed I'm ignoring you now. I have no time for your ignorance.
CHAOSoriginal 9 months ago
@CHAOSoriginal No. I didn't notice that you were ignoring me. I thought that you just realized that you didn't have an answer to my question about The Constitutionality of Obamacare; and then you wrote me back without an answer and removed all doubt. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make a fool out of you. Humiliating Marxist is a guilty pleasure of mine.
DanielDamascusKimery 9 months ago
I hate the presumptive tone of this channel to start with. It's the usual conservative arrogance lecturing people on how it is in the "real world". Yet whenever we test their bullshit theories, either in life, or peer review, disaster. I also love how lee uses argument from authority on a regular basis. "I have a degree from an elite university". Therefore this jackass thinks he can just assert things as fact.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Sometimes facts are facts. Your buch simply takes the administration's words as gospel. The Current plan won't even cover everyone anyway. According to several studies - including the Kaiser Family Foundation (a LEFT WING SUPPORTER OF THE PLAN) there will be 23 million people not covered by Obamacare. To be fair, some of this 23 million are in the same group that are in the phony 50 million without insurance now, but there STILL would be @ 5 million uninsured.
ToddAldrich 11 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Whenever we test their bullshit theories? Elaborate on a bullshit theory that is a disaster. Then give a libtard alternative that has worked. You have a degree from an elite university? Is it from a university that's destroying our education in this country? One that indoctrinates dopes like you into total libtards who then go out to convince others about libtard thinking? If you can't see the problems with this health care law, then your elitist teachers have succeeded.
Jeetman63 10 months ago
@Jeetman63 I will. Supply side economics is a bullshit theory. Here's the theory, if you lower taxes, the federal government takes in more money, and more jobs are created. Let's test this theory against reality. Reagan cut taxes on the rich. Instantly we had one of the largest deficits in history. Bush did the same, same result. Now let's test part two in the next post.
Newenlightenmentnow 10 months ago
@Jeetman63 Cutting taxes creates jobs because businesses invest more. Ok, well Reagan cut taxes and created 10 million jobs. Bush cut taxes and only created 1 million (adjusted for population growth, thats a net loss). So in order for a theory to be useful, it must have predictive qualities. Is this predictive? Is this consistant? No. Carter, who you all hate, created 10 million jobs in 4 year because he kept the taxes high (to control the debt). Clinton created 23 million doing the same.
Newenlightenmentnow 10 months ago
@Jeetman63 Eisenhower had taxes on the rich as high as 91% and he presided over one of the greatest periods of American prosperity. It seems a stable budget is the key, not cutting taxes. Now my counter. Keynsian economics. It works bitch. FDR used public investment to lower, LOWER unemployment from 25% to 15%. Now I hear you're crying, but WWII got us out of the depression. Yes, because the government spent even more for the war.
Newenlightenmentnow 10 months ago
@Jeetman63 So you see, government spending creates jobs. It doesn't matter if it's digging ditches, building airplanes, or installing high speed rail. Cutting taxes doesn't do shit. How do we know? Because your theory doesn't produce consistant results. I would be happy to debate in a forum where I can have more than 500 characters.
Newenlightenmentnow 10 months ago
TYT 4 life!!! Lee is a bitch and he knows it
hcosselman 1 year ago
Lee doesn't care about you, he just wants subscribers and money.
LightJehuety 1 year ago
'You can not have two options.'
What? Every other first world nation on the planet has both private medical and national health.
LondonIrishRover 1 year ago 21
@LondonIrishRover
O have no kids for a reason. I can't afford them. Someone else less responsible than me has kids even though they are flat broke and expect ME to pay for their education, health care... etc..
WHAT??? I chose as a responsible human being NOT TO HAVE KIDS. So I have to pay for everyone else's responsibility? Who's helping me?
I'm not paying for anyone's fucking healthcare. It's not a right. Emergencies.. OK But a health care PROGRAM??? FUCK ME.
Half our unemployed R just LAZY
2eelShmeal 5 months ago in playlist How the world works
@2eelShmeal Thats a common argument against healthcare/welfare. Fiorstly, I'm sorry to inform you, you don't get to choose what your tax money is spent on. The government does. So you personally are not paying for anyone else. You're paying the government and they decide what it goes on. If ya don't like it, then, well, its a downside of democracy.
And I don't have kids for the same reason as you, and yes alot of people do have children and then rely on the state to keep them alive, but...
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
@2eelShmeal ...you can't then just shut the door and say 'fuck all of ya'. It ain't the childrens fault that their parents are lazy, they deserve to be bought up to be healthy and well educated like the rest of us. They need support from welfare to have this. But its a strawman fallacy to make out that half of the unemplyed are just lazy. I'm not denying that some are, but the overwhelming majority of the unemplyed are either between jobs or unskilled and their aren't any jobs for them to work..
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
@2eelShmeal ...I'm assuming you are not advocating that they recieve no money for them to live and no help if they get ill? If so, thats a bit sick.
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
@LondonIrishRover What I'm saying is if you are fucking broke, THEN DONT HAVE KIDS AND COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW BROKE YOU ARE.
Not you, of course. But why should I pay for another's responsibility? I was responsible enough to not have kids. BECAUSE I CANT PROVIDE FOR THEM.
It is not YOUR responsibility to raise MY kids.
Why do people in poverty bring a child in the world KNOWING they CANNOT afford it?
BECAUSE THEY KNOW GOVERNMENT WILL GIVE THEM MORE $MONEY$
OUT OF MY FUCKING POCKET.
You see now?
2eelShmeal 5 months ago
@2eelShmeal Ok, you've just ignored everything I said. I already said I agreed with you on certain points. Both you and I have no kids because we can't afford them, other people don't, and its not always because their being stupid. There are religious and culteral reason why certain people don't use protection and get pregnant, which i dont agree with, but they're still there. And if ya don't like the way the governments spends your money, don't vote for them in the next election.
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
Turk should learn about property rights and liberty. He sadly has no sense of individualism or the devestating effects of big govt
swu880 1 year ago
turk really dont stand a chance
swu880 1 year ago
Lee is awesome, I do admire TYT for having Lee on, they seem like tremendously nice people even though their politics blow ;)
chukmaty 1 year ago
Am I alone in the world in thinking that both of these clowns idiots?
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 year ago
Got alot of states rights sheeps to protect the rich.
sclf 1 year ago
@sclf I'd rather have the states rights sheep to represent me than the collectivist sheep like you and your God Barry Soetoro.
DanielDamascusKimery 11 months ago
Maybe Lee should get a education b4 he calls in.
sclf 1 year ago
@sclf Bwahaha, agreed!
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
HowtheWorldWorks is so clearly biased. He would rather see the majority of the population go with healthcare, for the sake of his political ideology. The only way the US could afford any of this is to cut military spending.
87fg 1 year ago
Ok, anyhting the government runs, even if it is by choice, limites incentrives and destroys competition. Why would an employer pay for your healthcare when the government will supply it for you? Why would people choose private insurance when the government will supply it for you? It drives private insurance and quality healthcare out of business giving the people ONE option. When public option takes over you have no more option. It is a monopoly. Plus government quality will always be less
AroundSun 1 year ago
Ok, anyhting the government runs, even if it is by choice, limites incentrives and destroys competition. Why would an employer pay for your healthcare when the government will supply it for you? Why would people choose private insurance when the government will supply it for you? It is like a government run donut shop selling crappy donuts for ten cents. Whether it is profitable or not is irrelevant, it is still competing and driving private donut companies out of business which run more eff
AroundSun 1 year ago
How about the goverment fix our crappy public schools before you even talk about making health care public. If you cant make a school work how the hell are you going to manage a hospital?
FernandoTorrera 1 year ago
it wont work because the government runs for the benefit of the few and the expense of the many. they will bankrupt and crash hospitals and health care. the government is trying to make money by lowering price but not lowering cost.
Sakorith 1 year ago
This old debate is so lame. Nobody can compete with the government. That's the point too. In the end, all private programs will opt for the public option if it's cheaper. Then, everyone is in the "public" option. Then, the US has government run health care.
That's how the world works.
cooperbry 1 year ago
@cooperbry Its not government run just government funded,
jwhyte67 1 year ago
@jwhyte67 government funded? since when did the government make its own money? government doesn't have anything. You can not compete with the government, then the government will control prices and quality, who gets what when on a basis decided by a politician.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun And thats worse than a decision by a coporation based on profit? The ideo is just to establish a competing insurance company managed by the government, if it sucks then it sucks and people would stop using it but why not give it a try?
jwhyte67 1 year ago
@jwhyte67 It has tried and failed, over and over. Once again, Why would an employer pay for your healthcare when the government will supply it for you? You cant compete with government insurance it will eventually destroy private sector insurance. If it is popular and works, then it does not have to be forced or ran by the federal government. People will choose it voluntarily.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun There was absolutely no provision that the public option was mandatory. Also as far as I know we have never had a public option before, all Im saying is give a try and if it sucks people wont use it and if it turns out great and some insurance co's go out of business then fuck them, the idea of profiting off the sick is horrible anyway.
jwhyte67 1 year ago
@jwhyte67 You are missing the key components. A public option eventually turns into the only option. If the government wanted to sell cheap cars for $10 each they would suffer a net loss. They would have to use taxpayer money to keep the company running. Every car company would be out of business since they have limited capital. The gov't car company turns into your only option. Problem is, sooner or late you run out of someone else's money. Healthcare is a service, yes their are profits
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun "If the government wanted to sell cheap cars for $10 each they would suffer a net loss." Name one country that has happened in. Cars are not doctors. Doctors are being sold to patients and the doctors would not stand for corrupt shit like that.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 The private sector is always more efficient because it has to be, by design. They always have a limited amount of capital, no matter how high those limits are, it is still a limit. The private sector can not coerce you to give it money. Government take's a net loss and keep pumping tax dollars into something that is failing. That is what they do. No accountability, no responsibility. Doctors will have no choice BUT to stand for shit like that if government takes over healthcare
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun "The private sector can not coerce you to give it money. " <--- Is this a joke? What about the IRS collecting money for the FED? What about all the bailouts that were given under the threat of martial law? Big companies get big because of lobbying, government handouts, threats, and propaganda. But that's not coercion? Name a single country where it works as you fear it will work here.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 This is why I try not to argue with retards, because they babble when they are proven wrong. The IRS isn't the private sector bright one. Bailouts are a result of big government, and government intervention. Government handouts? Do I really need to tell you that government handouts are given out by the government, and not the private sector? You still have not given one example of where the private sector can force you to give it money without government intervention.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun I gave you two examples of how the government is the corporations bitch. But let's go through the whole process since you're a bit slow.Corporations sit at round-tables (read business week) and decide who to give their money to. The media ($100 billion conglomerates) decide who will get air time (remember Ron Paul and Huckabee complaining?). Then, if the politicians are still not malleable enough, lobbyists swoop in for the kill.3.5 mil from the banks and O'bummer bails them out.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@AroundSun Are you understanding now, slow one? BTW, the elections are controlled (the actual voting) is controlled by a corporation too.The memory cards were made hackable, but who cares?It's only the gov (who we can vote out) that we need to worry about, not corporations who run the whole process and control: our banks(the FED), the media (GE, Disney, News Corp), our voting machines (numerous companies), etc."Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business." John Dewey
tstruss912 1 year ago
@AroundSun I won't give you one example of how corporations coerce people; I will give you whole time periods in American history.Let's see how your "innocent" corporations that "neeber heeurt noboordy" acted BEFORE gov intervention, slow one. Read this, slow one: ditext.com/taft/violence1.html#h
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Wahh Wahh, go get meds for your paranoid schizophrenia. You retarded conspiracy nuts and liberals and fucking idiots. You probably dropped out of high school, don't know shit about politics of economics. Have you ever had a job tinfoil hat guy? Have you every worked for someone else? Have you ever worked for yourself? Fucking moron. You collectivists should be lined up and shot.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun Yes, I'm soooo paranoid with my facts and simple logic, and I'm sooo inexperienced when it comes to working (working at my 6th job...yet another fortune 500 company). Do you have any real arguments or just emotion? Are you late for the girl-scout meeting? I should be lined up and shot lol. I would blow your brains before you even pulled your gun, bitch. What a joke. Now make some arguments or shut your dumb-ass up!
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 the government hasn't done anything right, and they are still failing. Then they wanted you to trust them again, and they failed again, and again. When government plan X fails, people like you think we need MORE government plan X. It is sad that people believe in social organization, messiahs, and the visions of the anointed. The road to hell was paved with good intentions, and even Hitler had a "vision". Stop voting for leaders and messiahs and start looking for servants.
AroundSun 1 year ago