I have an aunt who lived in Germany for about five years, since her husband was in the military and stationed in Germany at the time. By her account, healthcare in Germany is much worse than it is here in the US; for example, every single patient was given the same priority by their clinics, regardless of whether they had a serious illness or injury, or just a case of the sniffles.
And yet, people insist that America needs to follow the rest of the western world off the proverbial cliff...
If private healthcare is so good why does the WHO rank France as #1 and America at #37? I don't mean this to be snotty or rhetorical, but it is a serious question. I am curious. Would you claim that WHO rankings are false?
@shanedk there are ~502 comments on this one page of at least 7 ... I'm not *that* curious especially since most of the comments are probably useless banter. I will just stick to my current belief. But thanks anyway.
@FaganRoberts Roads that are falling apart and aren't adequate for the amount of traffic, and schools with lackluster performance despite a 10-point increase in the IQ of children over the last 30 years.
@shanedk I can't agree with you more. You put out some fantastic videos. Most atheists have a government is god complex to replace their loss of spiritual faith but it is certainly refreshing to come across an honest and critical free thinking and Enlightened poster. Keep up the good works. I've been a subscriber for some time now. I wish there were more people like you on YT.
@shanedk lowest tax rates in 60 years.....hmmm could there be a relationship between low taxes and suffering infrastructure?Because living in a society and having responsibilities to that society are wrong.Because the invisible hand cures all.Lowest tax rates and still no jobs.EPA terrible Idea ,why did we clean up the water supply?I mean you're taking money from the bottled water profits.If you lose your job and your healthcare runs out,you should die ..It's Darwins way.
"hmmm could there be a relationship between low taxes and suffering infrastructure?" Government spending on roads and schools is higher than it's ever been! You're just making shit up.
@shanedk "lowest tax rates in 60 years" [citation needed] usatoday"dot"com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm googled "tax rates last 60 years"first answer...schools usgovernmentspending"dot"com/downchart_gs.php?chart=20-xfer_20-fed_20-state_20-local&year=1902_2015&units=p On roads I would agree but for dif reasons.The stimulus money roads increased the available money ,but there where limited contractors .Great way to get good bids.notice"dot" replacing . in dot com
You talk about "Corporate greed" and what not in the government -- doesn't it then make sense that we should try to transform government so as to dramatically cut that down? As won't that in and of itself cause a great deal of problems, universal medicine or not?
@mike4ty4 That IS the cause of our problems. The way to transform government to cut that down is to take away from government the power to do it in the first place.
By the way, if you want a better explanation of how externalities work an why they need to be corrected, I recommend you watch watch?v=S0lH4GEFy1o and watch?v=j4M-90nlReY
@shchpendrop Again, nobody is arguing that externalities don't need correction. What Shane is arguing is that there is a better way aside from taxation and subsidies.
watch?v=xta4c731F-Y&feature=channel_video_title
For Shane explaining his position, his solution, and a real-life example of said solution in action.
In economics, health care is a "merit good" because it creates positive externalities when consumed. Society benefits when an individual receives health care because it limits the transmission of the disease to others, and it allows them to work and produce more because they're not sick. That is why health care is under-produced in a free market.
It is not immoral to place a tax on pollution and use that money to provide health care.
@shchpendrop Yes, but it's been shown to a very well-established fact that the free market can make and distribute food for everyone--even the poor--MUCH better than collectivism can.
@shanedk Come on. If you subsidize a good or service, production of that good or service goes up. THAT is a well-established fact. Denial of that fact is an appeal to your ideology which is not grounded in reality.
@shanedk Well obviously you can't subsidize a good or service without taxing another. But if you apply the tax to an industry which generates negative externalites (e.g. pollution) and then use it to subsidize industries which generate positive externalities (e.g. health care) then society is better off because there is more health care and less pollution.
@shchpendrop "But if you apply the tax to an industry which generates negative externalites (e.g. pollution) and then use it to subsidize industries which generate positive externalities (e.g. health care)"
Then you're STILL moving the funds around in a way that destroys, not creates, wealth. Taxation is NOT a solution to negative externalities. In each and every case, it's made them worse, not better.
@shchpendrop Oh, and it's also a well-established fact that health care was MUCH cheaper and MUCH more widely available before government started meddling.
@shanedk Can governments be destructive? Of course they can. But that doesn't mean they necessarily are. The policies of the U.S. government regarding health care have been irresponsible, but that does not constitute a criticism of subsidizing health care. Most of the destruction at the hand of the government is due to absurd legal restrictions placed on doctors and medicines rather than government funding.
@shanedk Wrong. If you use government force to transfer resources from an area for which they are being used for destructive purposes to an area for which they are used for beneficial purposes, then that creates wealth.
For example, you still haven't explained why it is destructive to wealth to tax pollution and use the money to subsidize health care. The reason being that it is not destructive to do that; lower pollution + more health care = wealth generated.
@shchpendrop "from an area for which they are being used for destructive purposes to an area for which they are used for beneficial purposes"
Who defines "destructive" and "beneficial"? GovCo, that's who, and they're going to define "beneficial" as anything they and their buddies do and "destructive" as anything YOU do. That's exactly what they did in the housing crisis; why should this be any different?
Externalities are costs imposed on third parties who are not members of a transaction. The externality is beneficial if the third party deems it beneficial and destructive if he deems it destructive. Externalities are well defined and not subject to opinion.
Obviously any system of govt should be set up such that the govt benefits the people and not the politicians. Even if the current govt abuses its power, that does not constitute a criticism of govt power in general.
@shanedk Look, market failure occurs because consumers and producers only consider their personal benefits and costs and ignore the external benefits and costs imposed on third parties. Therefore, wealth is generated when this misallocation of resources is corrected.
This is the consensus among economists by the way. Since you do not have any qualifications in the field of economics, you are out of your depth by making economic judgements, and you should listen to mainstream economists instead.
@shchpendrop Taxes are NOT the only way to correct 'externalities'. The more effective way, and one that doesn't destroy wealth like subsidies and taxes, is to fully respect property rights so that anyone whose property is damaged can bring the offender to civil court for relief. This way, any damages are directly rectified rather than relying on the government to guess at the problem and force their answer on everyone else.
@Virgil0211 Hmmm... so when you go to the doctor, you should be able to sue your employer for the benefit (positive externality) that you provide to your employer by not being sick... that could actually work.
@shchpendrop And you've just proven two things. 1, that you don't have the first idea of how externalities work. 2, you either cannot or refuse to understand the proposition being presented to you... multiple times.
Let me put it this way. A company polluting the water on your land or otherwise damaging your land would be treated the same way that a neighbor dumping garbage on your lawn would be. The neighbor would be held liable for damages, and the victim could be compensated in civil court.
@shchpendrop This would allow the compensation to fit the damages to the victim/s. With government controls, some bureaucrat is making an attempt to guess at what the 'value' of a company's actions would be, and attempting to enforce controls that may or may not work. Without competition among regulatory agencies or schemes, there's very little way to tell what works and what doesn't.
@shchpendrop By the way, a better example of a positive externality would be education. Theoretically, the school simply provides the education for the price of tuition. Another company/firm somewhere gets to utilize the new human capital in a manner that generates more profits for itself than it would have been able to obtain otherwise, without paying the school for the ability to do so. (cont.)
Also, given that businessmen aren't retarded, they would likely notice that "hey, this guy who graduated college provides far more value than this other one that didn't!"
And therefore be incentivized to provide co-ops, work-studies and scholarships, etc, which does happen, if idiots like shchpendrop would turn their heads.
There'd probably be much more of stuff like that if government wasn't distorting the education market and/or taxing the be-jezus out of us.
@shchpendrop However, this is not a perfect example, and the value of the education is partially reflected in the tuition costs (assuming there were no price controls/subsidies that would push up the cost.).
Sheesh. I was inducted into the national honor society for economics before I'd even been accepted into college of business administration here, and I'm wasting my time with this ignoramus? I must be more bull-headed than I thought.
@shchpendrop Next time you want to joke, try making one that makes sense. Eventually, with enough practice, you might be able to make one that's legitimately funny, that evokes a tiny fraction of a smile and maybe a light chuckle rather than irritation.
The problem is that companies have laws that limit their liability (BP, anyone?) and are generally protected by the government. Someone brings them to court, they can claim that they were following regulations. This system needs to go.
@Virgil0211 If you got irritated, then you take this way too seriously - I don't actually have particularly strong opinions on this issue. Economics isn't a real science anyway.
@shchpendrop I get irritated by bad jokes, I guess.
It's about as real as any other behavioral science, such as psychology (my minor, btw. Heh. A couple of my psych professors were heartbroken when I didn't select it as my major.). But then again, if you don't accept economics as a 'real science', then why were you trying to debate it?
@shchpendrop Even if Shane were contesting that (which he isn't), it would just be an invalid argument from authority. It doesn't matter what the person's qualifications are. Their arguments stand and fall on their own merits.
And you're leaving several things out of the equation, like the tragedy of the commons and how this primarily occurs on public land (i.e., government owned, as the gov doesn't have the same incentive to protect its own property that a private owner would).
@shanedk Keep in mind that there are other countries which subsidize their health care in which health care is MUCH cheaper. That's because when you subsidize a good or service, the price goes down. That is also a well established fact.
@vspqbd How did you guess? :P I'm yet to see an actual argument in opposition by the way. Few respected economists deny the existence of externalities.
The problem with putting necessities that require high capital investment, like education, and healthcare, on the free market is that there will always be large portions of society that can't put up the capital for such an investment. So while the competition of the free market may lower costs for the rich, the poor and middle class miss out on those necessities.
I think it is uncivilized to force large portions of the populations of developed nations to miss out on such necessities.
Then how do you explain the mutual aid societies Shane mentioned (and backed up with sources in the vid description), where a single day's wage would pay for a year's worth of health-care?
Or that schools were only costing $40 per year when they were private? /watch?v=6_R4ZOzr-f4
@vspqbd Well, I haven't heard of mutual aid societies before. They appear to combine the good characteristic of competition as well as make it possible for those without the resources to put up the capital for education and healthcare...will look into it
How's THIS for Government croynism, the drug Makena was sold for $10 per injection is now being sold for $1500 per dose thanks to the FDA approving it and giving KV Pharmaceuticals exclusive monopoly rights to it.
@interstate317 That is actually an example of corporatism, or of our government getting bought out by private corporations who use our government for their profit.
1. No. Corporations, by definition, are the latter. It's when a company, individual, etc, makes a deal with the government, granting them corporate personhood, along with that, giving them special perks that wouldn't and couldn't exist in a free market: e.g. Immunity, unlimited debt shield, tax breaks, etc.
2. Whichever gov't first doled out the corporate charter I would imagine.
@loveofphysics Understand what a corporation is, now? In a truly free market, property rights are protected, and people are held directly liable for the damage they cause. A corporation, by definition, is counter to this goal.
under those same circumstances, the owner of the corporation could only lose up to $40,000,000, the amount of his investment. His $274,000,000 of personal wealth would remain untouched. This reduces his incentive to be careful with actions that could damage the property of others, and allows him to take greater gambles without actually risking as much as a smaller sole proprieter would. Anything that says corp. or has LL (such as LLP or LLC) in it is a limited liability entity.
This means that, should the court find that your company was responsible and should be held liable, you could lose not only your $40,000,000 investment, but your $274,000,000 in personal assets as well. This would encourage companies to be more careful, and encourage them to take greater care to make sure they don't cause harm to the property of others in the process of doing their business.
Now, let's say that the board of directors you've hired, one of which is yourself, decides to cut a few corners at a few of your refineries in order to save money. Now, lo and behold, something goes wrong at those factories. The evidence would seem to indicate that the lax safety practices you've implemented led to the accidents. Now, had this been a company without limited liability, those injured by your actions could go after not only your investment in the company, but you as well
By definition, a corporation is an entity that enjoys limited liability for its owners. This means that, for whatever actions and debts the company is liable, the owners are only held liable up to the amount of their investment in the company. For example, let's say you're the owner of SleazeCo Inc., a moderately sized oil company. Your majority shareholdings in the company amount to about $40,000,000. Your personal wealth is about $274,000,000, excluding the stock holdings. (cont.)
@vspqbd imma take a page from Sony's book and sue you for about 20 copyright violations, file subpoenas for anyone you've ever come into contact with, and file the charges in Germany, forcing you to make.huge plane trips for any and all court dates.
@shanedk You think that's evil? Just wait until I file each charge in a separate jurisdiction, all of which are in wisconsin. Then, I'll bribe the judge to order that the amount of the judgement be measured in gold, but must be paid in dollars. Each payment will be weighted to the price of gold at the time it was received down to the second.
@vspqbd For example, new technologies developed during a war and forced modernization during postwar reconstruction can increase individual and national productivity, and can even lead to a net increase in overall productivity. Regardless, while wanton destruction of real value may not be a net loss, it is always a misfortune.
@vspqbd It is a misnomer to call the "Broken Window" theories of economics fallacies, because they are true in reality. Private industry uses "Broken Window" economics as well, they just call it "Defense Spending".
The main question that must be asked when applying "Broken Window" economics is if the demand comes at too high a societal or human price, but it really does work, how did we get out of the Depression? Answer, breaking a whole lot windows in Europe.
BTW, take it from one who has lived under "government healthcare" for the whole of his life (63 years). IT WORKS. It is also not a monopoly. In my country, you are free to take out private health insurance if you so wish.
@io2bonk2 Do you still pay the health care tax if you take private insurance? Yes? Then IT'S A MONOPOLY.
I also like how you people always say "my country" instead of specifying which one, because every time you do, we look it up and find hideous things like long waiting lists that people die on.
@shanedk If you were really interested in my nationality, you need only have checked my profile (UK, to save you the trouble).
Monopoly or not, the NHS (and, no, it's not perfect) is something we voted for and has, in principle, virtually 100% approval rating. Taxation with the CONSENT of those being taxed is NOT theft - just part of the democratic process.
@io2bonk2 if it has %100 approval.rating and total consent, as you claim, then why is the force of government necessary? If it were so great, you could privatize it with no change in the system or participation.
@Virgil0211 I didn't say it was so great. It has many imperfections. However, the NHS has been around since 1948 and - I know that this is difficult to comprehend from a U.S. perspective - British people don't trust or want privatised medicine. The NHS legislation was introduced by a socialist government and the NHS is the one piece of socialism that Brits really bought into. It would be political suicide for any present day government to even suggest privatising it.
@io2bonk2 All I said was, and I know you statists can't understand this, is that if the NHS were so effective, it wouldn't need tax support. People would support it voluntarily.
Argumentum ad populum. Should've expected your argument to hinge on a fallacy.
@Virgil0211 I wasn't aware I was making an argument. I took your question at face value and tried to give you an answer as to how and why things happened the way that they did.
No tax support needed? Good luck with financing the war in Afghanistan with the proceeds from cub scouts' cookie sales!
@io2bonk2 It wasn't a question. It was a challenge to your statement, which you have yet to actually address.
Non sequitur and appeal to ridicule. My point is that if your system was so great, you could instead have a voluntary system where a voluntary payment replaced the tax, and people choose whether or not they want to buy into the system. If your statement is true, and all in the UK desire this system, then nothing would change. Understand yet?
@Virgil0211 Forgive my facetiousness - always a weakness of mine.
The short answer to your proposal is that it would not work. Are you aware of the saga of the user VenomfangX who e-begged with the proviso that he would donate a part of the proceeds to a children's hospital and then failed to meet this undertaking? He may well have been sincere at the outset but succumbed to human frailty when required to come up with the ante. Your minimalist approach might be practicable if you are living
Irrelevant? And has nothing to do with the point. Your argument was originally a contention that a.) socialized healthcare works and b.) taxation with consent isn't theft. I've simply pointed out that if your premises a and b were true, there would be no need for taxation to support your system. If you can't convince people to take your system over the one they've chosen, you have no right to force it upon them.
@Virgil0211 off the land in a wilderness with your nearest neighbour miles away. But, in a densely populated urban environment, you have to think in terms of community. What if a significant number number of your neighbours fail, for whatever reason, to make their voluntary payments towards the local public school? Does that mean that your child's (and everybody else's children's) education has to suffer ? Or ditto as to voluntary payments for the local police department?
@io2bonk2 Actually, that's the only situation in which your social policies would work- in small groups with limited interaction with outside groups where those who desired not to partake could easily leave the group or pull up their roots and move.
If you had a free market in education rather than a monopoly, then you could easily send your child to the cheaper and more effective school your neighbors are sending their children to.
@Virgil0211 In order to ensure good education for our children and security for the nation and communities, we have to hold each other accountable for picking up the tab. Guaranteed funding is required and the surest guarantee is compulsory taxation (subject to the democratic process). My basic philosophy is: 1 Decide on what sort of society you want and 2. having decided, be prepared to pay the price.
@io2bonk2 Exactly. That's why the free market, being the only system that ensures responsibility and encourages innovation and quality, is the only way to go here. Thank you for agreeing with us.
Oh. I'm sorry. Looks like you had a bout of cognitive dissonance there. May want to have that checked out. That'll take around, what? 16 weeks? If you want, you can come and see my doctor over here. He'll have you in within a day or two.
@Virgil0211 Nothing wrong with the free market in principle, I never said there was. No,the only thing I think we can agree on is to differ. I'll have you know my cognition is far from being dissonant. Anyway, hope your future turns out well. Watch out for the Kent Hovind effect of not paying taxes.
@io2bonk2 Fine. What about the actual discussion we were having? Or are you just dodging?
I still pay my taxes, thank you. Don't have much of a choice thanks to status hacks such as yourself, so thanks for reiterating the threat of violence inherent in statist philosophy, which boils down to "Do what I say or I'll hurt you".
@Virgil0211 Sorry, Virgil, I thought we were done. I really don't want to get dragged into a fight with you or anyone. The Kent Hovind remark was meant to be funny. I was forgetting that this is Youtube and that humour has to be signalled with a big, fat 'LOL' I don't actually care if you never pay taxes again and I do not have a violent bone in my body. I appreciate your invitation for U.S. eye care which, I am sure, is of the very highest standard but, coincidentally, I have an
@io2bonk2 You come in here, make a bunch of baseless claims, and expect to just bow out when you're challenged on them? Makes your hovind joke a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?
You advocate forcing people into a system against their will, threatening them with imprisonment at best, death at worst. Whatever you say, at least have the balls to back up your statements, and don't lie about your personality. Violence by proxy is still violence.
@Virgil0211 Baseless claims? I wasn't aware that I made any claims at all. I offered a potted history of health care in the UK. What on earth has the NHS got to do with the USA? Why should it bother you? When did I threaten anyone with imprisonment or death? Why should I wish to lie to a complete stranger on YOUtube? I never advocated forcing anyone to anything We voted for the NHS. It's called DEMOCRACY.
@shanedk No, Shane, I guess not. What I do get is that it' after one in the morning here and I'm an old man who's in need of his bed. So goodnight to you and thank you for your hospitality in allowing me to comment on your video.
@io2bonk2 I'd recommend you get an education on the subject before you continue this discussion, unless you wish to be eviscerated. Go to Mises.org, reason.org, message FletchForFreedom, watch Stephan Molyneaux's videos, etc. You'll learn a great deal.
@Virgil0211 Hi Virgil - Sorry I took so long to come back to you but I do have a life (though, not much of a one) outside Youtube.
Glad you enjoyed the sci fi and comedy - care to tell me about it?
To tie up some loose ends: NHS works -albeit imperfectly - and has overwhelming popular support in the UK I'm not making a political point, I'm not saying it would work in the US, I'm just giving you the facts. Think I'm wrong? Do some research.
@Virgil0211 that it is necessary. I recognise that you are not most people.
I'm not sure I understand your point about "imprisonment/death" We have not had the death penalty in Britain since 1964 when we voted it out for the barbarity that it is.
@io2bonk2 Except for the people who are sentenced to death due to long waiting lists for health care, during which time their conditions become untreatable.
@io2bonk2 by that metric, the free market works better. That's all we're saying. And it doesn't require the violence of taxation. I'd be just as ticked if my tax dollars went to the ministry of silly walks, which 3/4 of it may as well be.
The point is that those who resist having their money taken from them are imprisoned. Further resistance is met with more violence. Resist this injustice long enough, and you will die, whether by a guard preventing your escape or by execution matters not.
@Virgil0211appointment on friday at my optician to be fitted with a new pair of vari-focals. The whole deal is costing me the equivalent of $300 (right, it's not free). BTW, this is the first time I've encountered the word 'statist' although, from the context, I can guess at the rough meaning.My one sticking point in our discussion is that socialised medicine works FOR BRITAIN. I do not presume to tell the USA what it should do about the issue.
@io2bonk2 So all the stuff you said about when and where the free market works, claiming that it only works in small groups, had only to do with whether or not socialized medicine works for Britain?
You might want to get your head checked. You apparently can't hold down a conversation.
And by the way, over here, you can easily get lasik surgery for about that much. You sure you don't want to try American eye care at some point?
@io2bonk2 if you are in such need of an economic education that you'd subscribe to elmoisevil, I suggest messaging a user named fletchforfreedom. He's so thoroughly beaten Elmo before that lilelm tries to deny the event ever happened or that he met fletch, rather than his usual tactic of quote-mining to turn his losses into victories.
@io2bonk2 Considering that a LOT has been written in the comments of my channel--by me and others--of the exact sort of problems I just mentioned with the UK health care system, the point is moot.
Plus you just committed a Best Game In Town Fallacy.
@io2bonk2 I guess you need some decent eye care. Feel like making a trip to the US to take advantage of our lovely eye care? Relatively free market compared to other industries, so its high quality AND cheap. If only medicine were so.
A lot of verbage and opinion with no real information. Sounds like it is financed by the Health Insurance Association. The human is such a miss fit ape it the only animal on the planet that usually refuses to get up off of its rear end unless you give it ever more MONEY. Out GREED so overwhelms what intelligence we have anything with a dollar sign on it is apt to be all smoke, mirrors and crooks.
@wallacewithoutgromit I think you missed the point of the video lol. Shane seems to be outlining why socialized medicine isn't an efficient system for delivering healthcare to the masses and offering a different system that has worked before. Wait. Wait. Wait. Sorry, I was making sense for a little while. SHANE STOP BEING SO GREEDY AND HEARTLESS! WHY CAN'T WE JUST HELP PEOPLE THROUGH COERCION? I HEAR IT'S NOT THAT BAD!
This goes to all the followers of this shane guy: Lets say that you are born into a poor family, you had to start working at an early age to help the family economy (so you drop out of school)then you grow up and get a minimal wage job. You cant afford to get insurance. Then you get diagnosed with philadelphia chromosomal cancer. This is curable with gleevec. but without insurance you cant afford it. Would you in that situation want only private healthcare? Many of you are shamefully egocentric!
@strek0655 If we'd had the same system we had before government started meddling, all he'd have to to is walk to the nearest free clinic or charity hospital.
Whereas, with UHC he'd be put on lengthy waiting lists and may end up dying, since in the UK (for example) the wait time is so long many cancer patient's conditions become incurable.
@shanedk 1: Do you really believe that the Free clinic could afford a gleevec treatment?
2: Do you believe that the ques would be less than in the UK if all of the US healthcare system was privatized and many MILLIONS more would be reliant on free clinics?
3: Do you think its fair that someone born into poverty should receive less healthcare than the one born into a kennedy family?
@shanedk 1: you dont really answer the questions as im asking you about the future in queston 1 and 2. As for question 1 you dont take in consideration that the techniques used today are MUCH more expensive than the ones used just 20 years ago. (PCR, FISH, monoclonal AB, MRI etc etc.)
As for question 3 i would like for you to explain how come the healthcare is free and equal for all in Norway where the government is HIGHLY involved (its socialized medicine).
@strek0655 1. That's a cop-out and you know it! If we get rid of these government intrusions into health care that make the price unnaturally high they'll fall right back down to equilibrium.
And since WHEN does technology make things MORE expensive? In a free market, technology makes things CHEAPER.
3. As I already pointed out, IT ISN'T. If you get cancer, PRAY that it doesn't become incurable by the time you get off the waiting list!
@shanedk 1: do you KNOW this or are you just assuming? What do you KNOW of the prices behind the treatments these days, do you know how complicated it is to make monoclonal AB? Do you know how complex a NMR machine is. Technology only makes old technology cheaper, the new techs are ALWAYS costly! (and you forget about private monopoly!) And again, what do you KNOW about waiting lists in Norway? Have you heard of priority factor? A suddenly sick child races past the ones with less severe diseases
@strek0655 1. Do you know how complicated it is to make an iPhone? Yet, they get cheaper all the time! Technology makes NEW AND OLD technology cheaper. ANY economics textbook will explain this. I'm begging you, ONCE AGAIN, go learn the basics!
"the new techs are ALWAYS costly!"
ONLY in the "early adopter" phase. The problem is, in the health care industry government essentially regulates EVERY new technology into a permanent "early adopter" phase.
@shanedk "The problem is, in the health care industry government essentially regulates EVERY new technology into a permanent "early adopter" phase."
Could you explain how this works? I have always suspected it is something like this but I lack the 'technical' know-how. I think good explanation of this will silence a lot of people who think healthcare is better in the hands of a politician or a bureaucrat than in the hands of a doctor or a business man
@shanedk I mean how government regulates HC-tech into a permanent early adopter phase and thus prevents those prices to drop in time like they would in the free market
@asalade MRI is a perfect example here. When they came out, they (like plasma TVs and other big technologies) were very expensive. The government cried foul, and put a price cap on them so that they wouldn't be exclusive to the rich. But now, the money wasn't coming in to drive the product forward. So whereas rich guys could by plasma TVs and ultimately lower prices for everyone, they couldn't do that with MRIs, and now EVERYONE pays out the wazoo for them.
I have one thing to say! Go to Norway and see how well socialized medicine works! We have NO homeless people and those who need help, well they GET HELP regardless of which family they are born into! I am proud of that!
@strek0655 A report on increasing homelessness in Norway: w w wDOTshare-internationalDOTorg/archives/homelessness/hl-asbNorwayDOThtm
This report shows the number of homeless in Norway in 2008 as being 1.27 per 1000: w w wDOTregjeringenDOTno/upload/KRD/Vedlegg/BOBY/bostedslose/homeless_in_norway_nibr_report_2009_17.pdf
@shanedk OMG, i am talking to a deaf man, i have worked in the social service in Norway and that story is built on what is the typical case! They CHOOSE to be homeless or they just live with friends(look at the god damn definition in the report you gave!)! Have you been to Norway? Have you worked in the norwegian health care system? Have you taken an education in the laws regarding the social care? But still you talk like you know squat! Well let me tell you! You don't know SQUAT!
@strek0655 Funny, that's EXACTLY what preceded the Babylon 5 quote I made: The government guarantees a home for everyone who wants one, therefore, if they are homeless, they must not want a home, therefore, they're not homeless.
You're a pathetic dogmatist, nothing more. You have THOUSANDS of homeless in your country, and you turn a blind eye to them for no reason other than your own stupid jingoism.
@shanedk Speaking of pathetic, did you answer me on whether or not you have been in Norway, or have you answered me on why you used a article from the FUCKING USA? So w
I have an aunt who lived in Germany for about five years, since her husband was in the military and stationed in Germany at the time. By her account, healthcare in Germany is much worse than it is here in the US; for example, every single patient was given the same priority by their clinics, regardless of whether they had a serious illness or injury, or just a case of the sniffles.
And yet, people insist that America needs to follow the rest of the western world off the proverbial cliff...
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
If private healthcare is so good why does the WHO rank France as #1 and America at #37? I don't mean this to be snotty or rhetorical, but it is a serious question. I am curious. Would you claim that WHO rankings are false?
whatnameisavailablee 6 months ago
@whatnameisavailablee Covered MANY times in the comments. Read through them.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk there are ~502 comments on this one page of at least 7 ... I'm not *that* curious especially since most of the comments are probably useless banter. I will just stick to my current belief. But thanks anyway.
whatnameisavailablee 6 months ago
@whatnameisavailablee Not my fault if you don't want to learn...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
He can't just do a Ctrl + F search?
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd Of course he could. He just doesn't want to.
shanedk 6 months ago
taxes = theft
We are stealing for roads,schools,etc.etc
yourfullofsheite 8 months ago
@yourfullofsheite Yeah, great roads, schools, etc..
FaganRoberts 7 months ago
@FaganRoberts Roads that are falling apart and aren't adequate for the amount of traffic, and schools with lackluster performance despite a 10-point increase in the IQ of children over the last 30 years.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk I can't agree with you more. You put out some fantastic videos. Most atheists have a government is god complex to replace their loss of spiritual faith but it is certainly refreshing to come across an honest and critical free thinking and Enlightened poster. Keep up the good works. I've been a subscriber for some time now. I wish there were more people like you on YT.
FaganRoberts 7 months ago
@FaganRoberts Thanks!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk lowest tax rates in 60 years.....hmmm could there be a relationship between low taxes and suffering infrastructure?Because living in a society and having responsibilities to that society are wrong.Because the invisible hand cures all.Lowest tax rates and still no jobs.EPA terrible Idea ,why did we clean up the water supply?I mean you're taking money from the bottled water profits.If you lose your job and your healthcare runs out,you should die ..It's Darwins way.
yourfullofsheite 7 months ago
@yourfullofsheite "lowest tax rates in 60 years" [citation needed]
"hmmm could there be a relationship between low taxes and suffering infrastructure?" Government spending on roads and schools is higher than it's ever been! You're just making shit up.
shanedk 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk "lowest tax rates in 60 years" [citation needed] usatoday"dot"com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm googled "tax rates last 60 years"first answer...schools usgovernmentspending"dot"com/downchart_gs.php?chart=20-xfer_20-fed_20-state_20-local&year=1902_2015&units=p On roads I would agree but for dif reasons.The stimulus money roads increased the available money ,but there where limited contractors .Great way to get good bids.notice"dot" replacing . in dot com
yourfullofsheite 7 months ago
You talk about "Corporate greed" and what not in the government -- doesn't it then make sense that we should try to transform government so as to dramatically cut that down? As won't that in and of itself cause a great deal of problems, universal medicine or not?
mike4ty4 8 months ago
@mike4ty4 That IS the cause of our problems. The way to transform government to cut that down is to take away from government the power to do it in the first place.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk So then it's impossible to have a government with that power and _not_ to have corporate greed filling it up, right?
mike4ty4 8 months ago
@mike4ty4 Pretty much, yes. What other way is there to avoid it?
shanedk 8 months ago
By the way, if you want a better explanation of how externalities work an why they need to be corrected, I recommend you watch watch?v=S0lH4GEFy1o and watch?v=j4M-90nlReY
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop Again, nobody is arguing that externalities don't need correction. What Shane is arguing is that there is a better way aside from taxation and subsidies.
watch?v=xta4c731F-Y&feature=channel_video_title
For Shane explaining his position, his solution, and a real-life example of said solution in action.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
In economics, health care is a "merit good" because it creates positive externalities when consumed. Society benefits when an individual receives health care because it limits the transmission of the disease to others, and it allows them to work and produce more because they're not sick. That is why health care is under-produced in a free market.
It is not immoral to place a tax on pollution and use that money to provide health care.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop Complete economic ignorance. You could make the same claim about food.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Actually yes. Society benefits when starving people don't die because they can afford food.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop Yes, but it's been shown to a very well-established fact that the free market can make and distribute food for everyone--even the poor--MUCH better than collectivism can.
So why should health care be any different?
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Come on. If you subsidize a good or service, production of that good or service goes up. THAT is a well-established fact. Denial of that fact is an appeal to your ideology which is not grounded in reality.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop "If you subsidize a good or service, production of that good or service goes up. THAT is a well-established fact."
It's also a well-established fact that it does so at the expense of economic wealth. Broken Window Fallacy.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Well obviously you can't subsidize a good or service without taxing another. But if you apply the tax to an industry which generates negative externalites (e.g. pollution) and then use it to subsidize industries which generate positive externalities (e.g. health care) then society is better off because there is more health care and less pollution.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop "But if you apply the tax to an industry which generates negative externalites (e.g. pollution) and then use it to subsidize industries which generate positive externalities (e.g. health care)"
Then you're STILL moving the funds around in a way that destroys, not creates, wealth. Taxation is NOT a solution to negative externalities. In each and every case, it's made them worse, not better.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk How is providing more health care and reducing pollution destructive to wealth? That doesn't make any sense.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop Oh, and it's also a well-established fact that health care was MUCH cheaper and MUCH more widely available before government started meddling.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Can governments be destructive? Of course they can. But that doesn't mean they necessarily are. The policies of the U.S. government regarding health care have been irresponsible, but that does not constitute a criticism of subsidizing health care. Most of the destruction at the hand of the government is due to absurd legal restrictions placed on doctors and medicines rather than government funding.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop "But that doesn't mean they necessarily are."
Government NEVER creates wealth. It CANNOT. The tool of government is force, and force only destroys wealth.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Wrong. If you use government force to transfer resources from an area for which they are being used for destructive purposes to an area for which they are used for beneficial purposes, then that creates wealth.
For example, you still haven't explained why it is destructive to wealth to tax pollution and use the money to subsidize health care. The reason being that it is not destructive to do that; lower pollution + more health care = wealth generated.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop "from an area for which they are being used for destructive purposes to an area for which they are used for beneficial purposes"
Who defines "destructive" and "beneficial"? GovCo, that's who, and they're going to define "beneficial" as anything they and their buddies do and "destructive" as anything YOU do. That's exactly what they did in the housing crisis; why should this be any different?
shanedk 9 months ago
Externalities are costs imposed on third parties who are not members of a transaction. The externality is beneficial if the third party deems it beneficial and destructive if he deems it destructive. Externalities are well defined and not subject to opinion.
Obviously any system of govt should be set up such that the govt benefits the people and not the politicians. Even if the current govt abuses its power, that does not constitute a criticism of govt power in general.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop NO...ONE...IS...DENYING...EXTERNALITIES!!!
Geez, JUST like a creationist...
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Look, market failure occurs because consumers and producers only consider their personal benefits and costs and ignore the external benefits and costs imposed on third parties. Therefore, wealth is generated when this misallocation of resources is corrected.
This is the consensus among economists by the way. Since you do not have any qualifications in the field of economics, you are out of your depth by making economic judgements, and you should listen to mainstream economists instead.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop Taxes are NOT the only way to correct 'externalities'. The more effective way, and one that doesn't destroy wealth like subsidies and taxes, is to fully respect property rights so that anyone whose property is damaged can bring the offender to civil court for relief. This way, any damages are directly rectified rather than relying on the government to guess at the problem and force their answer on everyone else.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@Virgil0211 Hmmm... so when you go to the doctor, you should be able to sue your employer for the benefit (positive externality) that you provide to your employer by not being sick... that could actually work.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop And you've just proven two things. 1, that you don't have the first idea of how externalities work. 2, you either cannot or refuse to understand the proposition being presented to you... multiple times.
Let me put it this way. A company polluting the water on your land or otherwise damaging your land would be treated the same way that a neighbor dumping garbage on your lawn would be. The neighbor would be held liable for damages, and the victim could be compensated in civil court.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@shchpendrop This would allow the compensation to fit the damages to the victim/s. With government controls, some bureaucrat is making an attempt to guess at what the 'value' of a company's actions would be, and attempting to enforce controls that may or may not work. Without competition among regulatory agencies or schemes, there's very little way to tell what works and what doesn't.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@shchpendrop By the way, a better example of a positive externality would be education. Theoretically, the school simply provides the education for the price of tuition. Another company/firm somewhere gets to utilize the new human capital in a manner that generates more profits for itself than it would have been able to obtain otherwise, without paying the school for the ability to do so. (cont.)
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@Virgil0211
Also, given that businessmen aren't retarded, they would likely notice that "hey, this guy who graduated college provides far more value than this other one that didn't!"
And therefore be incentivized to provide co-ops, work-studies and scholarships, etc, which does happen, if idiots like shchpendrop would turn their heads.
There'd probably be much more of stuff like that if government wasn't distorting the education market and/or taxing the be-jezus out of us.
vspqbd 9 months ago
@shchpendrop However, this is not a perfect example, and the value of the education is partially reflected in the tuition costs (assuming there were no price controls/subsidies that would push up the cost.).
Sheesh. I was inducted into the national honor society for economics before I'd even been accepted into college of business administration here, and I'm wasting my time with this ignoramus? I must be more bull-headed than I thought.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@Virgil0211 It was joke, duh. Actually I have no problem with property rights, or allowing people to sue for damages.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop Next time you want to joke, try making one that makes sense. Eventually, with enough practice, you might be able to make one that's legitimately funny, that evokes a tiny fraction of a smile and maybe a light chuckle rather than irritation.
The problem is that companies have laws that limit their liability (BP, anyone?) and are generally protected by the government. Someone brings them to court, they can claim that they were following regulations. This system needs to go.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@Virgil0211 If you got irritated, then you take this way too seriously - I don't actually have particularly strong opinions on this issue. Economics isn't a real science anyway.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop I get irritated by bad jokes, I guess.
It's about as real as any other behavioral science, such as psychology (my minor, btw. Heh. A couple of my psych professors were heartbroken when I didn't select it as my major.). But then again, if you don't accept economics as a 'real science', then why were you trying to debate it?
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@Virgil0211 You got me by the way - I was using wikipedia.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@Virgil Heh I'm just trolling now. Whatever, I concede, you win. I have better things to do. Goodbye.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop Sore loser, eh?
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@shchpendrop It was pretty obvious, seeing as how you didn't seem to understand the terms you were using.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@Virgil0211
It also seems that shchpendrop doesn't seem to understand that government itself is a externality itself.
Special pleading on it's part for the win!
vspqbd 9 months ago
@shchpendrop Even if Shane were contesting that (which he isn't), it would just be an invalid argument from authority. It doesn't matter what the person's qualifications are. Their arguments stand and fall on their own merits.
And you're leaving several things out of the equation, like the tragedy of the commons and how this primarily occurs on public land (i.e., government owned, as the gov doesn't have the same incentive to protect its own property that a private owner would).
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@shchpendrop Don't pretend you know anything about economics when your arguments involve more or less copying and pasting from Wikipedia.
And by the way, this is from an econ major. Shane's knowledge of economics is leagues ahead of yours. You'd do well to listen to him.
Virgil0211 9 months ago
@shchpendrop Can you show ANY time where a pollution tax has actually lowered pollution?
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Keep in mind that there are other countries which subsidize their health care in which health care is MUCH cheaper. That's because when you subsidize a good or service, the price goes down. That is also a well established fact.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop False comparison fallacy.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk
How much do you want to bet that he also thinks education should be subsidized and/or paid for by the state/government for the same reason?
vspqbd 9 months ago
@vspqbd How did you guess? :P I'm yet to see an actual argument in opposition by the way. Few respected economists deny the existence of externalities.
shchpendrop 9 months ago
@shchpendrop "Few respected economists deny the existence of externalities."
No one's doing that. We're pointing out your fallacious reasoning.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shchpendrop
All of the arguments Shane has presented also apply to food and to education too.
vspqbd 9 months ago
The problem with putting necessities that require high capital investment, like education, and healthcare, on the free market is that there will always be large portions of society that can't put up the capital for such an investment. So while the competition of the free market may lower costs for the rich, the poor and middle class miss out on those necessities.
I think it is uncivilized to force large portions of the populations of developed nations to miss out on such necessities.
loveofphysics 10 months ago
@loveofphysics
Then how do you explain the mutual aid societies Shane mentioned (and backed up with sources in the vid description), where a single day's wage would pay for a year's worth of health-care?
Or that schools were only costing $40 per year when they were private? /watch?v=6_R4ZOzr-f4
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd Well, I haven't heard of mutual aid societies before. They appear to combine the good characteristic of competition as well as make it possible for those without the resources to put up the capital for education and healthcare...will look into it
loveofphysics 10 months ago
How's THIS for Government croynism, the drug Makena was sold for $10 per injection is now being sold for $1500 per dose thanks to the FDA approving it and giving KV Pharmaceuticals exclusive monopoly rights to it.
interstate317 10 months ago
@interstate317 That is actually an example of corporatism, or of our government getting bought out by private corporations who use our government for their profit.
loveofphysics 10 months ago
@loveofphysics
'private corporations'
You do know that corporations, by definition, are creations of the government, right?
Also, you make it sound like the government wasn't already bought and sold to begin with.
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd I guess I should expect hearing this bull shit libertarian talking point on a libertarian YouTube channel.
Some Questions:
Is allowing something to form the same as forming that thing?
Which government created multi-national corporations?
Are IPOs passed by an elected Senate sub-committee,or a selected board of directors?
And to your second paragraph, why does what is justify what should be?
loveofphysics 10 months ago
@loveofphysics
1. No. Corporations, by definition, are the latter. It's when a company, individual, etc, makes a deal with the government, granting them corporate personhood, along with that, giving them special perks that wouldn't and couldn't exist in a free market: e.g. Immunity, unlimited debt shield, tax breaks, etc.
2. Whichever gov't first doled out the corporate charter I would imagine.
3. Dunno, dun care.
4. Can't understand the question.
vspqbd 10 months ago
@loveofphysics
/watch?v=GXLMmhfMJrc
As the definition is also given here.
vspqbd 10 months ago
@loveofphysics
Also, how are any of those questions relevant to this conversation?
Well, here's an explanation from Virgil0211:
vspqbd 10 months ago
@loveofphysics Understand what a corporation is, now? In a truly free market, property rights are protected, and people are held directly liable for the damage they cause. A corporation, by definition, is counter to this goal.
vspqbd 10 months ago
under those same circumstances, the owner of the corporation could only lose up to $40,000,000, the amount of his investment. His $274,000,000 of personal wealth would remain untouched. This reduces his incentive to be careful with actions that could damage the property of others, and allows him to take greater gambles without actually risking as much as a smaller sole proprieter would. Anything that says corp. or has LL (such as LLP or LLC) in it is a limited liability entity.
vspqbd 10 months ago
This means that, should the court find that your company was responsible and should be held liable, you could lose not only your $40,000,000 investment, but your $274,000,000 in personal assets as well. This would encourage companies to be more careful, and encourage them to take greater care to make sure they don't cause harm to the property of others in the process of doing their business.
vspqbd 10 months ago
However, corporations are a special beast. The limited liability means that (cont.)
vspqbd 10 months ago
Now, let's say that the board of directors you've hired, one of which is yourself, decides to cut a few corners at a few of your refineries in order to save money. Now, lo and behold, something goes wrong at those factories. The evidence would seem to indicate that the lax safety practices you've implemented led to the accidents. Now, had this been a company without limited liability, those injured by your actions could go after not only your investment in the company, but you as well
vspqbd 10 months ago
By definition, a corporation is an entity that enjoys limited liability for its owners. This means that, for whatever actions and debts the company is liable, the owners are only held liable up to the amount of their investment in the company. For example, let's say you're the owner of SleazeCo Inc., a moderately sized oil company. Your majority shareholdings in the company amount to about $40,000,000. Your personal wealth is about $274,000,000, excluding the stock holdings. (cont.)
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd waitaminute... This seems oddly familiar.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211
Maybeh. =P
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd imma take a page from Sony's book and sue you for about 20 copyright violations, file subpoenas for anyone you've ever come into contact with, and file the charges in Germany, forcing you to make.huge plane trips for any and all court dates.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211
XP
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd I've got it! I'll file the suit in Wisconsin. Forced, regular trips to that chunk of Hell's armpit would break any man.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 You evil, evil man!
shanedk 10 months ago
@shanedk You think that's evil? Just wait until I file each charge in a separate jurisdiction, all of which are in wisconsin. Then, I'll bribe the judge to order that the amount of the judgement be measured in gold, but must be paid in dollars. Each payment will be weighted to the price of gold at the time it was received down to the second.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@loveofphysics No doubt about it. I wonder how many monopolies are involved in healthcare compared to the rest of the private sector.
interstate317 10 months ago
@interstate317 The more corporatist the market, the more monopolies, cartels, and oligopolies. Just look at the banking industry.
shanedk 10 months ago
@clownporn1
And all of the examples you mention are broken window fallacies.
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd - nope just facts motherfucker, you hate something you don't understand
clownporn1 10 months ago
@clownporn1
Oooh. Big talk. :P
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd For example, new technologies developed during a war and forced modernization during postwar reconstruction can increase individual and national productivity, and can even lead to a net increase in overall productivity. Regardless, while wanton destruction of real value may not be a net loss, it is always a misfortune.
clownporn1 10 months ago
@clownporn1
Like I said, Broken Window Fallacy--look it up.
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd - well dumbass, that was the dictionary definition BTW do you even know what a lolbertarian is?
clownporn1 10 months ago
@clownporn1
Irrelevant post is irrelevant.
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd It is a misnomer to call the "Broken Window" theories of economics fallacies, because they are true in reality. Private industry uses "Broken Window" economics as well, they just call it "Defense Spending".
The main question that must be asked when applying "Broken Window" economics is if the demand comes at too high a societal or human price, but it really does work, how did we get out of the Depression? Answer, breaking a whole lot windows in Europe.
loveofphysics 10 months ago
@loveofphysics
1st paragraph: Appeal to common practice fallacy. Just because it's commonly done, doesn't mean it doesn't make us all the poorer as a result.
2nd paragraph: Wrong. Answered in this video: /watch?v=Ff1picZAWc0
vspqbd 10 months ago
What's wrong with socialism?
BTW, take it from one who has lived under "government healthcare" for the whole of his life (63 years). IT WORKS. It is also not a monopoly. In my country, you are free to take out private health insurance if you so wish.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 Do you still pay the health care tax if you take private insurance? Yes? Then IT'S A MONOPOLY.
I also like how you people always say "my country" instead of specifying which one, because every time you do, we look it up and find hideous things like long waiting lists that people die on.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk If you were really interested in my nationality, you need only have checked my profile (UK, to save you the trouble).
Monopoly or not, the NHS (and, no, it's not perfect) is something we voted for and has, in principle, virtually 100% approval rating. Taxation with the CONSENT of those being taxed is NOT theft - just part of the democratic process.
Love most of your videos btw (but not this one).
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 if it has %100 approval.rating and total consent, as you claim, then why is the force of government necessary? If it were so great, you could privatize it with no change in the system or participation.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 I didn't say it was so great. It has many imperfections. However, the NHS has been around since 1948 and - I know that this is difficult to comprehend from a U.S. perspective - British people don't trust or want privatised medicine. The NHS legislation was introduced by a socialist government and the NHS is the one piece of socialism that Brits really bought into. It would be political suicide for any present day government to even suggest privatising it.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 All I said was, and I know you statists can't understand this, is that if the NHS were so effective, it wouldn't need tax support. People would support it voluntarily.
Argumentum ad populum. Should've expected your argument to hinge on a fallacy.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 I wasn't aware I was making an argument. I took your question at face value and tried to give you an answer as to how and why things happened the way that they did.
No tax support needed? Good luck with financing the war in Afghanistan with the proceeds from cub scouts' cookie sales!
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 It wasn't a question. It was a challenge to your statement, which you have yet to actually address.
Non sequitur and appeal to ridicule. My point is that if your system was so great, you could instead have a voluntary system where a voluntary payment replaced the tax, and people choose whether or not they want to buy into the system. If your statement is true, and all in the UK desire this system, then nothing would change. Understand yet?
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 Forgive my facetiousness - always a weakness of mine.
The short answer to your proposal is that it would not work. Are you aware of the saga of the user VenomfangX who e-begged with the proviso that he would donate a part of the proceeds to a children's hospital and then failed to meet this undertaking? He may well have been sincere at the outset but succumbed to human frailty when required to come up with the ante. Your minimalist approach might be practicable if you are living
cont
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 'venomfangx reference'
Irrelevant? And has nothing to do with the point. Your argument was originally a contention that a.) socialized healthcare works and b.) taxation with consent isn't theft. I've simply pointed out that if your premises a and b were true, there would be no need for taxation to support your system. If you can't convince people to take your system over the one they've chosen, you have no right to force it upon them.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 off the land in a wilderness with your nearest neighbour miles away. But, in a densely populated urban environment, you have to think in terms of community. What if a significant number number of your neighbours fail, for whatever reason, to make their voluntary payments towards the local public school? Does that mean that your child's (and everybody else's children's) education has to suffer ? Or ditto as to voluntary payments for the local police department?
cont.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 Actually, that's the only situation in which your social policies would work- in small groups with limited interaction with outside groups where those who desired not to partake could easily leave the group or pull up their roots and move.
If you had a free market in education rather than a monopoly, then you could easily send your child to the cheaper and more effective school your neighbors are sending their children to.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 In order to ensure good education for our children and security for the nation and communities, we have to hold each other accountable for picking up the tab. Guaranteed funding is required and the surest guarantee is compulsory taxation (subject to the democratic process). My basic philosophy is: 1 Decide on what sort of society you want and 2. having decided, be prepared to pay the price.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 Exactly. That's why the free market, being the only system that ensures responsibility and encourages innovation and quality, is the only way to go here. Thank you for agreeing with us.
Oh. I'm sorry. Looks like you had a bout of cognitive dissonance there. May want to have that checked out. That'll take around, what? 16 weeks? If you want, you can come and see my doctor over here. He'll have you in within a day or two.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 Nothing wrong with the free market in principle, I never said there was. No,the only thing I think we can agree on is to differ. I'll have you know my cognition is far from being dissonant. Anyway, hope your future turns out well. Watch out for the Kent Hovind effect of not paying taxes.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 Fine. What about the actual discussion we were having? Or are you just dodging?
I still pay my taxes, thank you. Don't have much of a choice thanks to status hacks such as yourself, so thanks for reiterating the threat of violence inherent in statist philosophy, which boils down to "Do what I say or I'll hurt you".
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 Sorry, Virgil, I thought we were done. I really don't want to get dragged into a fight with you or anyone. The Kent Hovind remark was meant to be funny. I was forgetting that this is Youtube and that humour has to be signalled with a big, fat 'LOL' I don't actually care if you never pay taxes again and I do not have a violent bone in my body. I appreciate your invitation for U.S. eye care which, I am sure, is of the very highest standard but, coincidentally, I have an
cont.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 You come in here, make a bunch of baseless claims, and expect to just bow out when you're challenged on them? Makes your hovind joke a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?
You advocate forcing people into a system against their will, threatening them with imprisonment at best, death at worst. Whatever you say, at least have the balls to back up your statements, and don't lie about your personality. Violence by proxy is still violence.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 Baseless claims? I wasn't aware that I made any claims at all. I offered a potted history of health care in the UK. What on earth has the NHS got to do with the USA? Why should it bother you? When did I threaten anyone with imprisonment or death? Why should I wish to lie to a complete stranger on YOUtube? I never advocated forcing anyone to anything We voted for the NHS. It's called DEMOCRACY.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 You REALLY don't get the incongruity in what you just said, do you?
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk No, Shane, I guess not. What I do get is that it' after one in the morning here and I'm an old man who's in need of his bed. So goodnight to you and thank you for your hospitality in allowing me to comment on your video.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 I'd recommend you get an education on the subject before you continue this discussion, unless you wish to be eviscerated. Go to Mises.org, reason.org, message FletchForFreedom, watch Stephan Molyneaux's videos, etc. You'll learn a great deal.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 I'll say this for the Brits. Good Sci fi and absurd comedy. =P
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 Hi Virgil - Sorry I took so long to come back to you but I do have a life (though, not much of a one) outside Youtube.
Glad you enjoyed the sci fi and comedy - care to tell me about it?
To tie up some loose ends: NHS works -albeit imperfectly - and has overwhelming popular support in the UK I'm not making a political point, I'm not saying it would work in the US, I'm just giving you the facts. Think I'm wrong? Do some research.
Nobody LIKES taxation but MOST people accept
cont.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 that it is necessary. I recognise that you are not most people.
I'm not sure I understand your point about "imprisonment/death" We have not had the death penalty in Britain since 1964 when we voted it out for the barbarity that it is.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 Except for the people who are sentenced to death due to long waiting lists for health care, during which time their conditions become untreatable.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk lol- I guess I should have seen that coming!
I know you like being provocative, Shane, and I don't take it amiss.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 by that metric, the free market works better. That's all we're saying. And it doesn't require the violence of taxation. I'd be just as ticked if my tax dollars went to the ministry of silly walks, which 3/4 of it may as well be.
The point is that those who resist having their money taken from them are imprisoned. Further resistance is met with more violence. Resist this injustice long enough, and you will die, whether by a guard preventing your escape or by execution matters not.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 1.) Socialized health care works in UK
2.) NHS isn't a monopoly, as it has the universal consent of the governed.
3.) Even though it has the consent of the goverened, the force of taxation is required to sustain it.
And that's just within your first two comments.
You threaten people with imprisonment/death with your votes on a regular basis.
A lynch mob is a democracy is well. Should that be held sacred?
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211
"A lynch mob is a democracy [a]s well. Should that be held sacred?"
QFT and going in Fav quotes.
vspqbd 11 months ago
@Virgil0211appointment on friday at my optician to be fitted with a new pair of vari-focals. The whole deal is costing me the equivalent of $300 (right, it's not free). BTW, this is the first time I've encountered the word 'statist' although, from the context, I can guess at the rough meaning.My one sticking point in our discussion is that socialised medicine works FOR BRITAIN. I do not presume to tell the USA what it should do about the issue.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 So all the stuff you said about when and where the free market works, claiming that it only works in small groups, had only to do with whether or not socialized medicine works for Britain?
You might want to get your head checked. You apparently can't hold down a conversation.
And by the way, over here, you can easily get lasik surgery for about that much. You sure you don't want to try American eye care at some point?
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 if you are in such need of an economic education that you'd subscribe to elmoisevil, I suggest messaging a user named fletchforfreedom. He's so thoroughly beaten Elmo before that lilelm tries to deny the event ever happened or that he met fletch, rather than his usual tactic of quote-mining to turn his losses into victories.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 "British people don't trust or want privatised medicine."
Then why do so many of them purchase it?
shanedk 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 Considering that a LOT has been written in the comments of my channel--by me and others--of the exact sort of problems I just mentioned with the UK health care system, the point is moot.
Plus you just committed a Best Game In Town Fallacy.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Just calling it the way I see it.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
@io2bonk2 I guess you need some decent eye care. Feel like making a trip to the US to take advantage of our lovely eye care? Relatively free market compared to other industries, so its high quality AND cheap. If only medicine were so.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
LOL! that guy thinks government is some kind of charity !
19TEC85 1 year ago
@19TEC85 Sad fact: MANY people think that government is some kind of charity.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk If the government were a private charity, they'd all be in jail by now.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye If the government were anyone other than government, they'd all be in jail by now.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
who's going to lock them up?
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 A proper libertarian government that doesn't break its own laws.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
So, are you a minarchist?
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 For about the 500th time, YES!!!
Geez...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
this is the first time you replied to me on this question
rebelq1 1 year ago
Thumbs up and faved :)
ManOfDeath567 1 year ago
"It's OK to put money together and help each other... " LMAO
What a douche.
TheLegalImmigrant05 1 year ago
A lot of verbage and opinion with no real information. Sounds like it is financed by the Health Insurance Association. The human is such a miss fit ape it the only animal on the planet that usually refuses to get up off of its rear end unless you give it ever more MONEY. Out GREED so overwhelms what intelligence we have anything with a dollar sign on it is apt to be all smoke, mirrors and crooks.
wallacewithoutgromit 1 year ago
@wallacewithoutgromit I think you missed the point of the video lol. Shane seems to be outlining why socialized medicine isn't an efficient system for delivering healthcare to the masses and offering a different system that has worked before. Wait. Wait. Wait. Sorry, I was making sense for a little while. SHANE STOP BEING SO GREEDY AND HEARTLESS! WHY CAN'T WE JUST HELP PEOPLE THROUGH COERCION? I HEAR IT'S NOT THAT BAD!
kronosthefox 1 year ago
Great video
Jewavenger 1 year ago
i like this guys arguments. I just tried to watch SICKo and felt ill
dirtdogg123 1 year ago
Buddy, You are my fucking Hero.
DimebagAndrew 1 year ago
This goes to all the followers of this shane guy: Lets say that you are born into a poor family, you had to start working at an early age to help the family economy (so you drop out of school)then you grow up and get a minimal wage job. You cant afford to get insurance. Then you get diagnosed with philadelphia chromosomal cancer. This is curable with gleevec. but without insurance you cant afford it. Would you in that situation want only private healthcare? Many of you are shamefully egocentric!
strek0655 1 year ago
@strek0655 If we'd had the same system we had before government started meddling, all he'd have to to is walk to the nearest free clinic or charity hospital.
Whereas, with UHC he'd be put on lengthy waiting lists and may end up dying, since in the UK (for example) the wait time is so long many cancer patient's conditions become incurable.
YES, I'd want private health care
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk 1: Do you really believe that the Free clinic could afford a gleevec treatment?
2: Do you believe that the ques would be less than in the UK if all of the US healthcare system was privatized and many MILLIONS more would be reliant on free clinics?
3: Do you think its fair that someone born into poverty should receive less healthcare than the one born into a kennedy family?
strek0655 1 year ago
@strek0655 1. Prices across the board were MUCH lower before government intervention.
2. We didn't have ANY waiting lists before government meddling.
3. Before government intrusion into health care, THEY DIDN'T.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk 1: you dont really answer the questions as im asking you about the future in queston 1 and 2. As for question 1 you dont take in consideration that the techniques used today are MUCH more expensive than the ones used just 20 years ago. (PCR, FISH, monoclonal AB, MRI etc etc.)
As for question 3 i would like for you to explain how come the healthcare is free and equal for all in Norway where the government is HIGHLY involved (its socialized medicine).
strek0655 1 year ago
@strek0655 1. That's a cop-out and you know it! If we get rid of these government intrusions into health care that make the price unnaturally high they'll fall right back down to equilibrium.
And since WHEN does technology make things MORE expensive? In a free market, technology makes things CHEAPER.
3. As I already pointed out, IT ISN'T. If you get cancer, PRAY that it doesn't become incurable by the time you get off the waiting list!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk 1: do you KNOW this or are you just assuming? What do you KNOW of the prices behind the treatments these days, do you know how complicated it is to make monoclonal AB? Do you know how complex a NMR machine is. Technology only makes old technology cheaper, the new techs are ALWAYS costly! (and you forget about private monopoly!) And again, what do you KNOW about waiting lists in Norway? Have you heard of priority factor? A suddenly sick child races past the ones with less severe diseases
strek0655 1 year ago
@strek0655 1. Do you know how complicated it is to make an iPhone? Yet, they get cheaper all the time! Technology makes NEW AND OLD technology cheaper. ANY economics textbook will explain this. I'm begging you, ONCE AGAIN, go learn the basics!
"the new techs are ALWAYS costly!"
ONLY in the "early adopter" phase. The problem is, in the health care industry government essentially regulates EVERY new technology into a permanent "early adopter" phase.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk "The problem is, in the health care industry government essentially regulates EVERY new technology into a permanent "early adopter" phase."
Could you explain how this works? I have always suspected it is something like this but I lack the 'technical' know-how. I think good explanation of this will silence a lot of people who think healthcare is better in the hands of a politician or a bureaucrat than in the hands of a doctor or a business man
asalade 1 year ago
@asalade Do you mean, explain the early adopter effect, or explain how government prevents it from working in the health care market?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I mean how government regulates HC-tech into a permanent early adopter phase and thus prevents those prices to drop in time like they would in the free market
asalade 1 year ago
@asalade MRI is a perfect example here. When they came out, they (like plasma TVs and other big technologies) were very expensive. The government cried foul, and put a price cap on them so that they wouldn't be exclusive to the rich. But now, the money wasn't coming in to drive the product forward. So whereas rich guys could by plasma TVs and ultimately lower prices for everyone, they couldn't do that with MRIs, and now EVERYONE pays out the wazoo for them.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Ah yes of course, price cap. Thanks. And the other brilliant government option is of course paying for it with tax money, thus socialism
asalade 1 year ago
@asalade Yes, which also crowds out investment and ultimately having the same result.
shanedk 1 year ago
I have one thing to say! Go to Norway and see how well socialized medicine works! We have NO homeless people and those who need help, well they GET HELP regardless of which family they are born into! I am proud of that!
Med. Student
strek0655 1 year ago
@strek0655 Reminds me of an episode of Babylon 5.
"When did all of this happen?"
"When we re-wrote the dictionary."
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk That is some objective argumentation right there!
asinus ad lyram!
strek0655 1 year ago
@strek0655 A report on increasing homelessness in Norway: w w wDOTshare-internationalDOTorg/archives/homelessness/hl-asbNorwayDOThtm
This report shows the number of homeless in Norway in 2008 as being 1.27 per 1000: w w wDOTregjeringenDOTno/upload/KRD/Vedlegg/BOBY/bostedslose/homeless_in_norway_nibr_report_2009_17.pdf
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk OMG, i am talking to a deaf man, i have worked in the social service in Norway and that story is built on what is the typical case! They CHOOSE to be homeless or they just live with friends(look at the god damn definition in the report you gave!)! Have you been to Norway? Have you worked in the norwegian health care system? Have you taken an education in the laws regarding the social care? But still you talk like you know squat! Well let me tell you! You don't know SQUAT!
strek0655 1 year ago
@strek0655 Funny, that's EXACTLY what preceded the Babylon 5 quote I made: The government guarantees a home for everyone who wants one, therefore, if they are homeless, they must not want a home, therefore, they're not homeless.
You're a pathetic dogmatist, nothing more. You have THOUSANDS of homeless in your country, and you turn a blind eye to them for no reason other than your own stupid jingoism.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Speaking of pathetic, did you answer me on whether or not you have been in Norway, or have you answered me on why you used a article from the FUCKING USA? So w