Thank you for this wonderful presentation. I have shared it on my facebook wall for educational purposes. It's a shame that this video only has 1,649 views. To think that the government can do things better than the free market is absolute nonsense. It's easy for the central government to hire stupid people and waste money because they don't go out of business when they make bad decisions, instead they get bonuses like in the case of Franklin Raines scandal with Fannie Mae.
To paraphrase: "I agree with the libertarians, except we should have more more social services. Oh, and the FDA and similar entities are good." In other words, you agree with the Dems or GOP, with the possible exception of government spending. Not sure if you cream over Ayn Rand, or if you just don't know what "libertarian" means.
Since you started the video with a quote with Thomas Jefferson, let me point out that he was clear on "where you draw the line" with government - "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men".
If you don't think you have a right to compel a health care provider to provide you with health care, or compel your neighbor to submit certain medical procedures, or compel him *not* to avail himself of other medical procedures, then you will believe in a free market in health care.
Clearly, you're having problems with YOURSELF(ves). I'm sure that's hard. Sorry.
I, on the other hand, am God (hold the applause), and every thing I ever have to do has to always be PERFECT, everyday. Why?
B/c I consider myself responsible for the whole fucking world, the way it is, the way it will be. This world I have created (as a human being, like a story) through the simple act of being here, accidentally, w/ a (relative, fraudulent) unique point of reference.
And if the rest of you thought the way I do (which you would never), your world would be so much more...like watching raccoons doing handstands on motorbikes.
quickly: Markets (arenas for facilitated exchange) function based on agreements (laws), maintained by moral/educational systems, banking/finance systems and criminal/justice systems among others.
As such, they are not and can never be completely "free". What disappoints me about free market ideology is the willful blindness to all this infrastructure, paid for collectively, that enables the market to function. This kind of inherent collectivity is not only denied but campaigned against!!!
Also R&D costs in America are driven up because they pay for commercial ads to advertise the medicine they produce. This could be said to make them more money in the end, but it does drive up their costs and get factered in when tax time comes you can be sure.
Free market should be involved in R&D and should never be cut out. I think all most people want is the government to provide for those who can not provide for themselves. No one should have to factor economic hardship into their health.
Much of the private investment in R&D in America is not always equal to other countries because much of it is for Viagra type medecine. Also it has been shown that American pharmaceutical companies often look into treatments rather than cures.
I admit though that those would not make up the difference and agree that free market does help this and I do believe in the free market.
There is nothing to say that the free market can not be involved in research though when government runs healthcare.
I guess the reason many of us think that health care fits with police and fire because they all respond to 911. I know its only paramedics that respond and that is for everyone and that healthcare comes after, but I still see it as related.
I can't help but think the way I do because I am Canadian and I am happy with our system.
First, many people who get seriously ill don't have medical coverage until they are poor and thus eligible for Medicaid. (Illness is the leading cause of poverty in the US.)
Second, pharmaceutical companies spend more money on marketing than on R&D.
Third, most brand name drugs are a lot cheaper in Europe than in the US.
Fourth, if a private insurance company will refuse to pay your health care costs if it is profitable and "legal" to do so. Why not pay a lawyer 999$ to refute a 1000$ claim?
Medical research is expensive and will do the healthcare industry out of a job because the goal is everyone is too well to need it any more.
Medical insurance sees no profit in taking on someone already ill, and will drop people who are no longer able to pay them (through unemployment) and will do it's best to weasel out of spending precious money on you if it can.
Capitalism (unrestrained) tends towards monopoly, whereby there is no reason not to price-gouge.
...after 10 years or so that product is socialized so you better have something new to sell by that point, and you should, because that is how the free market works! Except you are replacing private competition with Government competition, plus, there will be private competition still. Of course this is just YouTube brainstorming here.
... relatively good quality of life then I'm all for it. Advancement will be slower but people in Europe have been shown to be much happier with a much more slowly advancing yet much more affordable system. How about this: Socialize health care and then allow businesses to personally invest in private health-care R & D. You can patent private R & D findings and then use a window of opportunity to sell a unique product that will help people with the money, and net you a juicy profit. Then...
There's no real answer here. You can sacrifice innovation due to free market incentive (I agree with you: capitalism = much faster innovation) for a more evenly distributed health care at our current level of knowledge or you can allow the free market to continue which will allow businesses to gyp you for exorbitant profits in the process of giving you a much better level of health-care. I like the fairness option, if the premium level of our current health-care abilities can give us a...
I must strongly disagree. The free market isn't solely the logical domain of health care. Once people find profit in something, they have a vested interest in maximizing the long term revenue from their investments. This directly contradicts what health care, in my opinion, should be, a cure & permanent benefit to overall well being. Medical research corporations have no incentive to cure chronically ill patients. The free market is why health care is full of treatments but very few cures.
That said, I don't think government should replace all corporate research. I do think it's a valuable tool for bridging the gap between the heavy corporate focus on long term indefinite profit based treatments that floods the market. Scientific nonprofit government medical research focused on curing the root causes of illness instead of masking & treating its symptoms is vital to our nation. Who're more productive citizens, the chronically ill being treated with overpriced drugs or the healthy?
Your r&d point isn't really a fair description of the situation.
In a free market biomedical companies develops products that are only economically viable. Therefore 1) most r&d is NOT focused on cures. 2) most drugs are for men. 3) developing countries have no access to drugs, due to patents. and so on.
Short version: In a free market more r&d on viagra less cure for cancer.
The problem with this position is that it assumes a free market in health care is possible (and in fact, assumes it is in place) this is not the case. When the commodity being sold is your life and your livelihood, you are no longer a consumer but a hostage. You cannot abstain, because what good is your money if you are not alive to spend it? Who has time to shop for the best service when during a heart attack? The frugal haggler gasps "let me die" we wait until he pass out and take him anyway.
A Deadly condition but insurance won't pay for treatment. Anecdotal but your problem is how do you wrap your re-heated Freidman "free market" schlock around such moral questions? Why is care rationed in a "free" market? Even with private insurance I waited a month for an MRI. I hear ever so loudly that health care is so great in the U.S. That's like saying the existence of Harvard proves the education system is the best. U.S. government subsidizes medicine so much more than you want to admit.
danni if you were homeless, and couldnt get a job and there were no social welfare programs... would you just find a corner to slowly die in? Im guessing no. Im guessing you would do whatever it takes to survive. When the only option is crime... thats what you do. Look at somalia... no government, no social programs... im guessing you wouldnt want to live there. Or maybe you should move there.. wont ever have to pay taxes or for anyone else. A free market utopia.
I remember when my country briefly embraced something akin to free market capitalism, my employers were asking me if I know anyone who wants a job, skilled or not! Oh, those were the days.
Somalia is a very bad example to give for many reasons.
I suppose the crux of the argument is 'are we our brother's keeper?'.
1. I don't accept the premise that i would ever be unable to find work. I have a mind, I can use it to produce values, provided I am free to do so.
2. No matter how desperate the situation, I regard my integrity as paramount. I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine. I won't live without integrity, I won't live as a parasite.
3. Look at Somalia, no human rights: it's your morality brought to perfection.
So you were financially supporting yourself the second you popped out of the womb? or did you maybe act as a parasite on your parents for many years?
I would love to drop you off in a street with only the clothes on your back and see you survive with no handouts or social welfare programs. You would die. Plain and simple.
'So you were financially supporting yourself the second you popped out of the womb?'
Did I say anything that implied that? Sure, during childhood I was dependent on my parents; that didn't make me a parasite since they had chosen to bring me into the world and had chosen the responsibility of raising me to maturity... I never chose to bring welfare dependants into he world, I never chose that responsibility. Ergo they are parasites.
'I would love to drop you off in a street with only the clothes on your back and see you survive with no handouts or social welfare programs. You would die. Plain and simple.'
I came to japan with the clothes on my back and a small amount of money to rent a flat when i got here. Having done that I found a job and I support myself.
danni, did you speak japanese? did you have any job skills when you moved there? if so where did you get these job skills from? publically funded schooling maybe?
now yes your parents were financially prepared for a child, would you agree that we should kill all children that dont have parents able to financially support them? And if you arent down for baby murder, then do you pay their parents to raise them? do you pay an orphanage? do you pay for schooling?
You are a fool who can't accept when he has lost an argument. No, I spoke next to no japanese when i came here, I found a job teaching English which I learnt in a private school.
I'm not the one espousing murdering anyone, I simply refuse to pay for other people when they have nothing to do with me. You are the one saying that needs trump property rights and therefore it's ok for you to steal from someone - as though the rightful owner has no needs. I'm done arguing with you, wastrel.
so you were fortunate enough for private schooling, thats great. What if you were abandoned by a poor family at birth, should you have died as a child? Maybe you can use your mind to fuse your sperm cells with a proper egg, denying anything besides a rich egg... most dont have memory as a sperm or that ability. If you try to tell me your better than someone else because you shot from a better dick... then you have a narcissist disorder and should seek therapy.
I wouldn't die. I've been at rock bottom before. I read about this girl recently 15 years old, both parents were drug addicts and left her homeless. Now she's a student at harvard. No welfare programs, just an attitude of reponsibility and the refusal to give up. Im sick of these politicians telling us how helpless we all are. It's bullshit. Wealth isn't a static quantity, it has to be created. Creation is a result of rationality and purpose. If you pay people to be poor they'll be poor
Great. You know what that's called? An anecdote. And it's worthless for generalizing to the overall population. Most 15 year old from normal families don't get into Harvard. This girl clearly has super genes(If she exists at all). Realize that the US has a larger fraction of poor people than most countries with decent welfare programs.
It's true that wealth has to be created, but it's just plain false that you have to let people starve to death in the street to motivate them.
You don't understand that it's the social welfare programs that make it hard to live in the first place by robbing the wealth of the people through usury. All of these programs are put on the national credit card. They will never be paid for, only the interest will be paid. That is the way it's designed to work. The people also lose the majority of their wealth over time due to the dilution of the money supply this debt causes.
You want to help the poor, learn about austrian economics.
You blew me away with this video. didnt think you could make 9 minute video of being completely wrong.
Answer me this... when was the last time the health insurance industry developed a new drug? thats right NEVER because health insurance companies dont do R&D, pharmeceutical companies do drug research... and pharm companies are supporting the public option. So public option = lower costs and more R&D.
Health insurance companies dont do drug research. Public option is about health insurance.
How can people like this do that continual double-think about the free market and social programs.
Why is it so hard to understand it is free or it is not free?
If you can see the benefit of the free market at all then don't you want that in your "social programs"? You must know that there are free market charities and that these charities can take the place of government crap bureaucracy filled charities that waste tons of money.
I think you said (and certainly other advocates of a free market solution have) that we don't really have "free markets" here in America - economics is dominated by multinationals and giant US corporations who have, effectively, no competition.
There is no competitive free market to turn health care over to. To get the result you would wish from free markets, you would have to change America's corporate society. Do you think that is as practical as simply letting the government handle it?
I didn't know that such a disproportionate amount of the world's medical R&D was conducted by U.S. industry. That is really food for thought! Thank you for the information, MisterBusta. :-)
It doesn't take us out-spending the rest of the world combined to have such things.
By the way, kind of unrelated, but you do know we would have won WW2 with or without nuclear weapons, right? I only point that out because it almost sounds like you think we ever did anything meaningful with the discovery other than making power plants.
1. 'It doesn't take us out-spending the rest of the world combined to have such things.' yes we do.
2. Look at North Korea and Japan. Without the bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki the soviets would have got troops onto mainland japan and the whole country would have gone down the same road as north korea. Yes, I do know exactly what was achieved with Nuclear weapons, and I love them for it. It's just a shame the soviets managed to steal the technology as well.
"when the government largely removes health care from the free market"- in what way? If you think this is a stupid question, just know I recall a very famous and misleading talking point coming from the right on this issue.
good video, even though I disagree with you almost 100%.
I think you stated early on that you believe there should be a help system for those that are extremely poor. I think that's the only thing we agree on hehe.
As for your statement about how we all benefit from the innovations of the free market. I could say that we all benefit from socialized programs that are run by the government.
right, so welfare is a ransom paid in advance to theives for the priviledge of them being marginally less likely to steal from me? I'm glad we got that cleared up.
Way to display zero understanding of human psychology, as well as inability to grasp basic moral truths like "sustaining life>property rights"
A "thief" who takes your stuff to feed himself or his family is doing the right thing if that's his only option - and it very well might be - capitalistic societies want a few % unemployment, and in modern societies poor people may be cut off from hunting or whatever to sustain themselves, leaving crime as the only option in the absence of welfare.
Property rights are essential for sustaining human life, so when you go around saying that it's ok to violate property rights in order to sustain life, you are contradicting yourself, but go on, explain to me why 'sustaining life > property rights' is a 'basic moral truth, without reverting to mysticism.
not to point out the obvious, but if it is your property rights or me (or my family) starving, your property rights are getting shit canned every time.
so need is the standard of morality? your needs trump my rights? so presumably someone else's needs trump your rights? so the political conclusion of your morality is that rights don't exist, as they'll always be superseded by the needs of others.
Sorry to point out the obvious, but if i don't have property rights, then I'm not going to produce.
Under your morality, one can only ever hope to avoid death by looting from people of achievement, what will you do if they withdraw their consent?
"so need is the standard of morality? your needs trump my rights?"
Of course. When death is knocking, mere property rights aren't a good reason to quietly die without upsetting you.
Have you ever been so hungry you stole food? If not, then I really don't want to hear about how high and mighty you are. You're a pampered dough boy that can't even fathom what we're talking about.
People are willing to kill, let alone steal, to stay alive. I'd wonder what was wrong with you if you denied it
I have faced starvation and destitution and many other awful things but never expected people to make slaves of themselves and sacrifice for me, because I would lose my self-esteem and self-respect. I ended my troubles by standing on my own mind, not by standing on the necks of others.
I would offer to wash dishes at restaurants, clean cars, or collecting used bottles for recycling and earning the money felt real good! Now I have my own home, garage, car and mod cons and my self-esteem!
The worst thing the state can do to society is give people money for nothing, what kind of example does it set for his kids!? Makes my blood boil.
As the state continues to shovel our cash to these spongers they just keep reproducing and the net result will be a nation of ignorant, lazy muppets with no work ethic and lower than average IQ. In 2009 it pays to be stupid.
It has very much indeed to do with self esteem! I don't get the feeling your really thinking through the things you say, and the consequences thereof.
How can a man have self-esteem, when he doesn't earn his money, when he can only survive by destroying, hurting and having others money taken by force, and thus becoming dependent on this perverse charity called 'Socialism'.
Without self-esteem he becomes emptier by the day, he has no dreams or aspirations he becomes a savage!
You just don't understand, it's not about a good name.
Your invalidating your own mind; to own ones self is to be responsible for yourself, when you give that up you become only property, when you can only function by stamping on others you have lost humanity, yes you can survive, BUT I WANT TO LIVE!
And will because of rationality, self esteem, and standing on my own mind. I do not need oppression, I do not have to become a Zombie who cries "poor little me!, feed me or else!".
"when you can only function by stamping on others you have lost humanity"
You have even less humanity when you're dead.
I'm not presenting a worldview, I'm describing reality. This is human nature. Death is best avoided, esoteric societal models only hold together when the participants aren't suffering overtly (perceived or otherwise).
All societal constructs, anarchy is just a stones throw away.
Many genocidal maniacs and war criminals thought that too, hmmm.... how did that one pan out??
As for your second point, I assure you, you are not avoiding death, your only spreading it around, it will find you in the end, and I didn't have to get that from a book, that is reality!
How many have to suffer and die for you 1,2, 10000? Is this going to bring happiness? Can we only live by devouring ourselves? What is a human being?
suppose you were sat on a roadside and desperately hungry, the only possessions you have are the clothes you wear and a sharp knife, a man walks past with a loaf of bread. You ask him for some, but he says "no, I need it for my own family" and turns his back. And there's no witnesses, What would you do?
Just as a point of interest, there is actually an altruist species that survives successfully, a type of ant, that is completely dependent on the queen, but they have no genitals and no real mind of their own. Yea, some life!
Brothers keeper, brothers prisoner.
Try and be more positive about yourself m8, have some ambition. you are not some sub-entity and property of a State or magic man in the sky, pursue your own happiness and give to those you love. Don't choose evil, PLEASE!
I have nothing left to say to you, you have declared yourself to be evil. you don't care for rights, ergo you don't care for life. the premise of your actions, of your entire theory, is that all a person can hope for is to evade death by parasitism. The premise of mine is that a man is capable of achieving life by productive activity. The best thing that could happen to you, if you refuse to accept a rational morality, is to die since ur philosophy makes self-esteem and happiness impossible.
(To Mark1m) People on state benefits still rob / murder. My friend owns his own house in a residential street. Next door neighbours dont work. They have 2 kids, the state pays their rent, food, free education, healthcare etc etc. These people are loud, obnoxious and thick as pig shit. Yesterday they went on HOLIDAY while my friend cant afford shit because he pays over £1500 a month 2 the state. The socialist system which u so readily advocate punishes innovation and encourages idleness.
Thanks m8. Actually I'd like 2 expand on that. I live 2 doors down from another shit 4 brains family on benefits, living on a private estate on state benefits. I nearly fell over on my day off when the stupid kin troll of a bird appeared on Jeremy Kyle (British version of Jerry Springer) I shit u not this freaking moron appears on daytime TV 2 do a paternity test. U couldn't make it up. I hear they plan to have another kid courtesy of my tax money. I wanna punch a socialist in the freaking face!
I know a family that lives next to me who live on social and because the father who seems to have nothing more than a slight limp, they get their rent paid for, allowances for just about everything and a bloody new Golf TDi that gets replaced every 18 months or so, well I suppose he has to get to the shops that are about 200 yards away (talk about taking the piss)! I work all day and can only afford a second hand car on hire purchase.
As he would say "well it's about working the system m8".
(to anyfekinnamewilldo) I dont know your british system in and out. But realize you can give those people money... or you can give money to the orphanages that would otherwise raise their kids and throw them out on the street. In which case they would most likely turn to illegal activity and require more police officers to regulate. Is the cost greater? it might be. But rich people rob and murder too. Everyone will rob and murder to survive... but only a select few rob and murder for fun.
How are children insured in US system..if for example a kid has cancer and his parents are alcoholic bums with no insurance, does the State finance their treatment?
I am not in the mood for for typing a whole lot but better video this time more insightfool to your possition but I have to ask what is your sullition to the healthcare problem? What is your sullition to the american healthcare problem? That is something I wonder strongly.
It's a good question, and not easily answered. I do not pretend to have the answer, but I can say I favor a solution which keeps the market largely unfettered (so incentive/investment/etc can continue). Socialized care is not evil, and the world won't explode in fire and brimstone if we switched to a single-payer system--but we need to be aware of the advantages we enjoy currently due to the free market system.
Thx for your reply but here it is only your defence of the current system no alternatives to tackle the problems that exist in USA. I am not in the mood of debating so I wont do that but I will say I hope you agree that the primary job is to help people in need so they can live happy and productive lives in society and the economy the big question is the people who can't get care in USA able to? When in the worst cases they have the sell there buisnees& homes for the sake of simple treatment?
In my country I live under a socialized health-care system, I'm trying to get a fair comparison of the two systems (Free market vs Socialized). How much does it cost a US citizen per month or quarterly, and what are you covered for? (ie. offspring, dental etc..)
my insurance is through work, is decent as far as they go. Covers roughly 80% of most things, I pay $300 US per month, just for me. (33 y/o, excellent health) If I had dependents or a spouse, it would be multiple times that.
My employer pays half of the insurance bill (IE, actual cost $600/month). It used to be common for companies to pay 100%, but those days are fond memories for most workers
Thanks very much for your reply, that's given me a good starting point.
I get very differing replies to this question some are $160 per month. Like to know why employers stopped paying 100%, maybe because of taxation, I have to research.
I think though what Americans pay isn't too unreasonable.
they reason they stopped paying 100% is because unions either have been disappearing, or even within unions, they are compromising as necessary to keep the businesses from going bankrupt.
Ignoring government workers, some 35% of workers have some insurance plan via their work. It used to be 65% just 30 years ago. Its just too dang expensive, because the prices have more than tripled since then
Interesting that you mention you would like to see some social programs in order to help the very misfortunate in our society. Stefan Molyneux makes a point in his podcasts at freedomainradio . com that private charities are quite capable of dealing with those poorest of the poor. Walmart was the first on site at Katrina to help victims, and I certainly think that if the wealthy weren't taxed for 40-50% of their income that they would help out more often than they do now
Wow... you're going to leave it up to Walmart to tax people and pray they perform disaster relief? The job of private enterprise is to deliver cheap and reliable services. Not to leech cash off consumers to establish crisis funds.
If you want reliable disaster relief, you should logically be prepared to pay tax for it, like you do for army and police, which you are, you just don't want it to be called tax, it should be called expensive cornflakes(Which also hits poor people harder btw).
The US in it's current state gives billions of dollars of charity each year, both foreign aid and national. That's on top of the increasing taxes and regulations that are piling up. People are very generous, especially when people are in real need, like that Tsunami 4 years ago. With the government off people's backs, people would give even more, especially in events like Katrina. The money the government gives for disaster relief is all our money originally anyway, don't forget that
that's what insurance is for. if you want to protect yourself beforehand you can, but you don't have the right to force me to pay for your new house retroactively.
let's say you had government "providing" relief. Who would really be providing it, the people, or the government? Anything the government gives has been taken from the people. So yes, you should thank private corporations and citizens for disaster relief either way.
@MisterBusta We don't have a free-market system for health-care. It is one of the most regulated areas of the economy that exists. For a great article on this subject look up Kel Kelly's "The Myth of Free-Market Healthcare."
Well, it is great that you addressed my response, (although calling it "stupid" wasn't exactly nice of you)
But you just side stepped. It is great that you think the poor people should be given free health care, but where do you draw the line? At what point do you say "pay up or die"?
It is refreshing that a libertarian admits that safety nets are necessary and just. You stand out for that alone. I guess that makes you less stupid than most libertarians XD
I didn't mean to call you stupid. There are equally & extraordinarily intelligent people on both sides of the issue. I should have said "unreasonable point".
Your point about where the line should be drawn is a good one, and not easily answered. My basic answer would be drawing the line in a manner which does not control the market or set prices. Let the market set the prices, like it does for everything else. Thanks for your comment, sorry if I sounded mean-spirited.
I don't want to seem hyperbolic, I agree that there is a fine line between spending millions on a persons medical condition when they are contributed nothing, can only be justifed so much. Eventually the cost-effective ratio needs to be examined. But we're talking very generically here. BASIC health care SHOULD be universal. I think it is perfectly fair to leave extremely expensive treatments to those willing to pay, but cover the basic
many countries do this. If you have the money and want special care, you can pay for it and get it. It becomes a tiered system (I know UK does it, and I believe canada does it also).
Let the rich have their pampering and above the basics care. But at least offer to the less-well-off a minimal life without putting them into debt for the rest of their lives.
In most other countries, filing for bankruptcy because of medical bills is considered an outrage. Its the norm here. That isn't right
Thank you for this wonderful presentation. I have shared it on my facebook wall for educational purposes. It's a shame that this video only has 1,649 views. To think that the government can do things better than the free market is absolute nonsense. It's easy for the central government to hire stupid people and waste money because they don't go out of business when they make bad decisions, instead they get bonuses like in the case of Franklin Raines scandal with Fannie Mae.
jamesanton1231 2 days ago
To paraphrase: "I agree with the libertarians, except we should have more more social services. Oh, and the FDA and similar entities are good." In other words, you agree with the Dems or GOP, with the possible exception of government spending. Not sure if you cream over Ayn Rand, or if you just don't know what "libertarian" means.
ideologger 2 months ago
Since you started the video with a quote with Thomas Jefferson, let me point out that he was clear on "where you draw the line" with government - "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men".
If you don't think you have a right to compel a health care provider to provide you with health care, or compel your neighbor to submit certain medical procedures, or compel him *not* to avail himself of other medical procedures, then you will believe in a free market in health care.
buybuydandavis 4 months ago
This made me way dumber.
Where's that, "Tiger Eating Monkey" video?
spunkets 4 months ago
@spunkets I think you know how to find it Angerboy
plopnod 4 months ago
@plopnod
Clearly, you're having problems with YOURSELF(ves). I'm sure that's hard. Sorry.
I, on the other hand, am God (hold the applause), and every thing I ever have to do has to always be PERFECT, everyday. Why?
B/c I consider myself responsible for the whole fucking world, the way it is, the way it will be. This world I have created (as a human being, like a story) through the simple act of being here, accidentally, w/ a (relative, fraudulent) unique point of reference.
spunkets 4 months ago
@spunkets more obnoxious and pretentious really
plopnod 4 months ago
@plopnod
That's funny, so am I.
We've got something in common. Lets work from there.
spunkets 4 months ago
@plopnod
Plus, all this misery/love stuff is amusing.
And if the rest of you thought the way I do (which you would never), your world would be so much more...like watching raccoons doing handstands on motorbikes.
spunkets 4 months ago
Republicans: Don't get sick.
If you do get sick get better.
If you can't get better. Die quickly.
leegeorgeson 7 months ago 2
quickly: Markets (arenas for facilitated exchange) function based on agreements (laws), maintained by moral/educational systems, banking/finance systems and criminal/justice systems among others.
As such, they are not and can never be completely "free". What disappoints me about free market ideology is the willful blindness to all this infrastructure, paid for collectively, that enables the market to function. This kind of inherent collectivity is not only denied but campaigned against!!!
dingai 10 months ago
Also R&D costs in America are driven up because they pay for commercial ads to advertise the medicine they produce. This could be said to make them more money in the end, but it does drive up their costs and get factered in when tax time comes you can be sure.
Free market should be involved in R&D and should never be cut out. I think all most people want is the government to provide for those who can not provide for themselves. No one should have to factor economic hardship into their health.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
Much of the private investment in R&D in America is not always equal to other countries because much of it is for Viagra type medecine. Also it has been shown that American pharmaceutical companies often look into treatments rather than cures.
I admit though that those would not make up the difference and agree that free market does help this and I do believe in the free market.
There is nothing to say that the free market can not be involved in research though when government runs healthcare.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
I guess the reason many of us think that health care fits with police and fire because they all respond to 911. I know its only paramedics that respond and that is for everyone and that healthcare comes after, but I still see it as related.
I can't help but think the way I do because I am Canadian and I am happy with our system.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
First, many people who get seriously ill don't have medical coverage until they are poor and thus eligible for Medicaid. (Illness is the leading cause of poverty in the US.)
Second, pharmaceutical companies spend more money on marketing than on R&D.
Third, most brand name drugs are a lot cheaper in Europe than in the US.
Fourth, if a private insurance company will refuse to pay your health care costs if it is profitable and "legal" to do so. Why not pay a lawyer 999$ to refute a 1000$ claim?
skralbow 1 year ago
Medical research is expensive and will do the healthcare industry out of a job because the goal is everyone is too well to need it any more.
Medical insurance sees no profit in taking on someone already ill, and will drop people who are no longer able to pay them (through unemployment) and will do it's best to weasel out of spending precious money on you if it can.
Capitalism (unrestrained) tends towards monopoly, whereby there is no reason not to price-gouge.
Now do you see the problem?
Psychotol 1 year ago
...after 10 years or so that product is socialized so you better have something new to sell by that point, and you should, because that is how the free market works! Except you are replacing private competition with Government competition, plus, there will be private competition still. Of course this is just YouTube brainstorming here.
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
... relatively good quality of life then I'm all for it. Advancement will be slower but people in Europe have been shown to be much happier with a much more slowly advancing yet much more affordable system. How about this: Socialize health care and then allow businesses to personally invest in private health-care R & D. You can patent private R & D findings and then use a window of opportunity to sell a unique product that will help people with the money, and net you a juicy profit. Then...
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
There's no real answer here. You can sacrifice innovation due to free market incentive (I agree with you: capitalism = much faster innovation) for a more evenly distributed health care at our current level of knowledge or you can allow the free market to continue which will allow businesses to gyp you for exorbitant profits in the process of giving you a much better level of health-care. I like the fairness option, if the premium level of our current health-care abilities can give us a...
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
I must strongly disagree. The free market isn't solely the logical domain of health care. Once people find profit in something, they have a vested interest in maximizing the long term revenue from their investments. This directly contradicts what health care, in my opinion, should be, a cure & permanent benefit to overall well being. Medical research corporations have no incentive to cure chronically ill patients. The free market is why health care is full of treatments but very few cures.
eyeammi 1 year ago
That said, I don't think government should replace all corporate research. I do think it's a valuable tool for bridging the gap between the heavy corporate focus on long term indefinite profit based treatments that floods the market. Scientific nonprofit government medical research focused on curing the root causes of illness instead of masking & treating its symptoms is vital to our nation. Who're more productive citizens, the chronically ill being treated with overpriced drugs or the healthy?
eyeammi 1 year ago
Your r&d point isn't really a fair description of the situation.
In a free market biomedical companies develops products that are only economically viable. Therefore 1) most r&d is NOT focused on cures. 2) most drugs are for men. 3) developing countries have no access to drugs, due to patents. and so on.
Short version: In a free market more r&d on viagra less cure for cancer.
laserbuddha 1 year ago
The problem with this position is that it assumes a free market in health care is possible (and in fact, assumes it is in place) this is not the case. When the commodity being sold is your life and your livelihood, you are no longer a consumer but a hostage. You cannot abstain, because what good is your money if you are not alive to spend it? Who has time to shop for the best service when during a heart attack? The frugal haggler gasps "let me die" we wait until he pass out and take him anyway.
angelwhite 2 years ago
That was very coherent and well argued. But will any and all government healthcare pull the plug on research? Is treading carefully not feasible?
Love from a Demfag.
EdgeNicx 2 years ago
More taxes will not cripple the whole industry, this smells like a red herring, without cutting down on any thing significant.
You can have as today also a private health care - but the basics should be for everyone.
It has nearly nothing to do with personal freedom as you represent it.
You call them lazy or losers, I call them unlucky. That's the difference.
Why don't you show the statistics of someone born poor and how many GENERATIONS are needed to not be impoverished?
Forkroute 2 years ago
Oh! And please tell me where is this "free market" of which you speak.
hamnose 2 years ago
A Deadly condition but insurance won't pay for treatment. Anecdotal but your problem is how do you wrap your re-heated Freidman "free market" schlock around such moral questions? Why is care rationed in a "free" market? Even with private insurance I waited a month for an MRI. I hear ever so loudly that health care is so great in the U.S. That's like saying the existence of Harvard proves the education system is the best. U.S. government subsidizes medicine so much more than you want to admit.
hamnose 2 years ago
It's inconsistent.
hamnose 2 years ago
danni if you were homeless, and couldnt get a job and there were no social welfare programs... would you just find a corner to slowly die in? Im guessing no. Im guessing you would do whatever it takes to survive. When the only option is crime... thats what you do. Look at somalia... no government, no social programs... im guessing you wouldnt want to live there. Or maybe you should move there.. wont ever have to pay taxes or for anyone else. A free market utopia.
mark1m 2 years ago
I remember when my country briefly embraced something akin to free market capitalism, my employers were asking me if I know anyone who wants a job, skilled or not! Oh, those were the days.
Somalia is a very bad example to give for many reasons.
I suppose the crux of the argument is 'are we our brother's keeper?'.
coltrane1966 2 years ago
1. I don't accept the premise that i would ever be unable to find work. I have a mind, I can use it to produce values, provided I am free to do so.
2. No matter how desperate the situation, I regard my integrity as paramount. I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine. I won't live without integrity, I won't live as a parasite.
3. Look at Somalia, no human rights: it's your morality brought to perfection.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
So you were financially supporting yourself the second you popped out of the womb? or did you maybe act as a parasite on your parents for many years?
I would love to drop you off in a street with only the clothes on your back and see you survive with no handouts or social welfare programs. You would die. Plain and simple.
mark1m 2 years ago
'So you were financially supporting yourself the second you popped out of the womb?'
Did I say anything that implied that? Sure, during childhood I was dependent on my parents; that didn't make me a parasite since they had chosen to bring me into the world and had chosen the responsibility of raising me to maturity... I never chose to bring welfare dependants into he world, I never chose that responsibility. Ergo they are parasites.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
'I would love to drop you off in a street with only the clothes on your back and see you survive with no handouts or social welfare programs. You would die. Plain and simple.'
I came to japan with the clothes on my back and a small amount of money to rent a flat when i got here. Having done that I found a job and I support myself.
You are wrong.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
danni, did you speak japanese? did you have any job skills when you moved there? if so where did you get these job skills from? publically funded schooling maybe?
now yes your parents were financially prepared for a child, would you agree that we should kill all children that dont have parents able to financially support them? And if you arent down for baby murder, then do you pay their parents to raise them? do you pay an orphanage? do you pay for schooling?
mark1m 2 years ago
<ark1m:
You are a fool who can't accept when he has lost an argument. No, I spoke next to no japanese when i came here, I found a job teaching English which I learnt in a private school.
I'm not the one espousing murdering anyone, I simply refuse to pay for other people when they have nothing to do with me. You are the one saying that needs trump property rights and therefore it's ok for you to steal from someone - as though the rightful owner has no needs. I'm done arguing with you, wastrel.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
so you were fortunate enough for private schooling, thats great. What if you were abandoned by a poor family at birth, should you have died as a child? Maybe you can use your mind to fuse your sperm cells with a proper egg, denying anything besides a rich egg... most dont have memory as a sperm or that ability. If you try to tell me your better than someone else because you shot from a better dick... then you have a narcissist disorder and should seek therapy.
mark1m 2 years ago
I wouldn't die. I've been at rock bottom before. I read about this girl recently 15 years old, both parents were drug addicts and left her homeless. Now she's a student at harvard. No welfare programs, just an attitude of reponsibility and the refusal to give up. Im sick of these politicians telling us how helpless we all are. It's bullshit. Wealth isn't a static quantity, it has to be created. Creation is a result of rationality and purpose. If you pay people to be poor they'll be poor
Sam26100 2 years ago 2
Great. You know what that's called? An anecdote. And it's worthless for generalizing to the overall population. Most 15 year old from normal families don't get into Harvard. This girl clearly has super genes(If she exists at all). Realize that the US has a larger fraction of poor people than most countries with decent welfare programs.
It's true that wealth has to be created, but it's just plain false that you have to let people starve to death in the street to motivate them.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
You don't understand that it's the social welfare programs that make it hard to live in the first place by robbing the wealth of the people through usury. All of these programs are put on the national credit card. They will never be paid for, only the interest will be paid. That is the way it's designed to work. The people also lose the majority of their wealth over time due to the dilution of the money supply this debt causes.
You want to help the poor, learn about austrian economics.
justwatchmyfavorites 2 years ago 2
You blew me away with this video. didnt think you could make 9 minute video of being completely wrong.
Answer me this... when was the last time the health insurance industry developed a new drug? thats right NEVER because health insurance companies dont do R&D, pharmeceutical companies do drug research... and pharm companies are supporting the public option. So public option = lower costs and more R&D.
Health insurance companies dont do drug research. Public option is about health insurance.
mark1m 2 years ago
Great points, Mark. Why the fuck you are getting a bunch of thumbs down is on it is beyond me and might tell us something about the opposition. :)
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
How can people like this do that continual double-think about the free market and social programs.
Why is it so hard to understand it is free or it is not free?
If you can see the benefit of the free market at all then don't you want that in your "social programs"? You must know that there are free market charities and that these charities can take the place of government crap bureaucracy filled charities that waste tons of money.
plemke1 2 years ago 2
I think you said (and certainly other advocates of a free market solution have) that we don't really have "free markets" here in America - economics is dominated by multinationals and giant US corporations who have, effectively, no competition.
There is no competitive free market to turn health care over to. To get the result you would wish from free markets, you would have to change America's corporate society. Do you think that is as practical as simply letting the government handle it?
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
I didn't know that such a disproportionate amount of the world's medical R&D was conducted by U.S. industry. That is really food for thought! Thank you for the information, MisterBusta. :-)
legendre007 2 years ago 2
It's even a greater % of the world's R&D for military applications. There's some more food to chew on.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
you mean spending on the research for equipment that helps keep our soldiers alive and kills our enemies? good.
Just think what the world would be like if the US had never worked out how to make the atom bomb... it doesn't bear thinking about.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
It doesn't take us out-spending the rest of the world combined to have such things.
By the way, kind of unrelated, but you do know we would have won WW2 with or without nuclear weapons, right? I only point that out because it almost sounds like you think we ever did anything meaningful with the discovery other than making power plants.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
Ancientatheist,
1. 'It doesn't take us out-spending the rest of the world combined to have such things.' yes we do.
2. Look at North Korea and Japan. Without the bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki the soviets would have got troops onto mainland japan and the whole country would have gone down the same road as north korea. Yes, I do know exactly what was achieved with Nuclear weapons, and I love them for it. It's just a shame the soviets managed to steal the technology as well.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Dogma... it's a killer.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
"when the government largely removes health care from the free market"- in what way? If you think this is a stupid question, just know I recall a very famous and misleading talking point coming from the right on this issue.
lookit87 2 years ago
good video, even though I disagree with you almost 100%.
I think you stated early on that you believe there should be a help system for those that are extremely poor. I think that's the only thing we agree on hehe.
As for your statement about how we all benefit from the innovations of the free market. I could say that we all benefit from socialized programs that are run by the government.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
'I could say that we all benefit from socialized programs that are run by the government.'
really?
Welfare programs in the UK take money off me and give it to jobless moochers, how do i benefit from that?
dannidandannikins 2 years ago 2
you benefit because those poor people arent robbing and murdering you to get that money.
You put poor people on the streets, they turn to crime... crime increases you need to hire more police, which costs you more taxes
mark1m 2 years ago
right, so welfare is a ransom paid in advance to theives for the priviledge of them being marginally less likely to steal from me? I'm glad we got that cleared up.
Fuck you.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago 2
Way to display zero understanding of human psychology, as well as inability to grasp basic moral truths like "sustaining life>property rights"
A "thief" who takes your stuff to feed himself or his family is doing the right thing if that's his only option - and it very well might be - capitalistic societies want a few % unemployment, and in modern societies poor people may be cut off from hunting or whatever to sustain themselves, leaving crime as the only option in the absence of welfare.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
Property rights are essential for sustaining human life, so when you go around saying that it's ok to violate property rights in order to sustain life, you are contradicting yourself, but go on, explain to me why 'sustaining life > property rights' is a 'basic moral truth, without reverting to mysticism.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
not to point out the obvious, but if it is your property rights or me (or my family) starving, your property rights are getting shit canned every time.
Nothing complicated or difficult about it
unclexbob 2 years ago
so need is the standard of morality? your needs trump my rights? so presumably someone else's needs trump your rights? so the political conclusion of your morality is that rights don't exist, as they'll always be superseded by the needs of others.
Sorry to point out the obvious, but if i don't have property rights, then I'm not going to produce.
Under your morality, one can only ever hope to avoid death by looting from people of achievement, what will you do if they withdraw their consent?
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
"so need is the standard of morality? your needs trump my rights?"
Of course. When death is knocking, mere property rights aren't a good reason to quietly die without upsetting you.
Have you ever been so hungry you stole food? If not, then I really don't want to hear about how high and mighty you are. You're a pampered dough boy that can't even fathom what we're talking about.
People are willing to kill, let alone steal, to stay alive. I'd wonder what was wrong with you if you denied it
unclexbob 2 years ago
I have faced starvation and destitution and many other awful things but never expected people to make slaves of themselves and sacrifice for me, because I would lose my self-esteem and self-respect. I ended my troubles by standing on my own mind, not by standing on the necks of others.
I would offer to wash dishes at restaurants, clean cars, or collecting used bottles for recycling and earning the money felt real good! Now I have my own home, garage, car and mod cons and my self-esteem!
coltrane1966 2 years ago
Good on u m8.
The worst thing the state can do to society is give people money for nothing, what kind of example does it set for his kids!? Makes my blood boil.
As the state continues to shovel our cash to these spongers they just keep reproducing and the net result will be a nation of ignorant, lazy muppets with no work ethic and lower than average IQ. In 2009 it pays to be stupid.
anyfekinnamewilldo 2 years ago
I don't see what this has to do with self esteem. when you're starving, you eat. Simple as that.
I'm glad you found alternatives. Not pretend you didn't find those alternatives. Can you fathom this?
Do I even need to stat the obvious?
unclexbob 2 years ago
badly worded, what I meant to say was, if you ran out of options would you quietly die like a good little soldier?
unclexbob 2 years ago
It has very much indeed to do with self esteem! I don't get the feeling your really thinking through the things you say, and the consequences thereof.
How can a man have self-esteem, when he doesn't earn his money, when he can only survive by destroying, hurting and having others money taken by force, and thus becoming dependent on this perverse charity called 'Socialism'.
Without self-esteem he becomes emptier by the day, he has no dreams or aspirations he becomes a savage!
what a life!
coltrane1966 2 years ago
So you would rather die than have your good name ruined? And you think that is admirable?
Ego worship isn't attractive, and dieing for no good reason is even less attractive.
unclexbob 2 years ago
You just don't understand, it's not about a good name.
Your invalidating your own mind; to own ones self is to be responsible for yourself, when you give that up you become only property, when you can only function by stamping on others you have lost humanity, yes you can survive, BUT I WANT TO LIVE!
And will because of rationality, self esteem, and standing on my own mind. I do not need oppression, I do not have to become a Zombie who cries "poor little me!, feed me or else!".
better dead!
coltrane1966 2 years ago
"when you can only function by stamping on others you have lost humanity"
You have even less humanity when you're dead.
I'm not presenting a worldview, I'm describing reality. This is human nature. Death is best avoided, esoteric societal models only hold together when the participants aren't suffering overtly (perceived or otherwise).
All societal constructs, anarchy is just a stones throw away.
unclexbob 2 years ago
"You have even less humanity when you're dead."
Many genocidal maniacs and war criminals thought that too, hmmm.... how did that one pan out??
As for your second point, I assure you, you are not avoiding death, your only spreading it around, it will find you in the end, and I didn't have to get that from a book, that is reality!
How many have to suffer and die for you 1,2, 10000? Is this going to bring happiness? Can we only live by devouring ourselves? What is a human being?
coltrane1966 2 years ago
"Many genocidal maniacs and war criminals thought that too, hmmm.... how did that one pan out??"
Huh? they had more humanity when they were dead?
The rest: I'll have to say....Huh? I was saying anarchy is bad, and we should avoid where we can. I don't follow how your response lines up with it.
unclexbob 2 years ago
Can you clarify the points your making?
Perhaps we are debating with cross-purposes, or misunderstanding because of different interpretations of the same word.
coltrane1966 2 years ago
"Perhaps we are debating with cross-purposes"
another 'duh' moment.
Lets just let it die. Whatever issues you have with my position, I assume we're not going to find a middle ground.
Some conflicts aren't worth pursuing.
unclexbob 2 years ago
Well, look on the bright side, we did agree on something in end.
All the best then, bye!
coltrane1966 2 years ago
suppose you were sat on a roadside and desperately hungry, the only possessions you have are the clothes you wear and a sharp knife, a man walks past with a loaf of bread. You ask him for some, but he says "no, I need it for my own family" and turns his back. And there's no witnesses, What would you do?
coltrane1966 2 years ago
Just as a point of interest, there is actually an altruist species that survives successfully, a type of ant, that is completely dependent on the queen, but they have no genitals and no real mind of their own. Yea, some life!
Brothers keeper, brothers prisoner.
Try and be more positive about yourself m8, have some ambition. you are not some sub-entity and property of a State or magic man in the sky, pursue your own happiness and give to those you love. Don't choose evil, PLEASE!
coltrane1966 2 years ago
I have nothing left to say to you, you have declared yourself to be evil. you don't care for rights, ergo you don't care for life. the premise of your actions, of your entire theory, is that all a person can hope for is to evade death by parasitism. The premise of mine is that a man is capable of achieving life by productive activity. The best thing that could happen to you, if you refuse to accept a rational morality, is to die since ur philosophy makes self-esteem and happiness impossible.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
(To Mark1m) People on state benefits still rob / murder. My friend owns his own house in a residential street. Next door neighbours dont work. They have 2 kids, the state pays their rent, food, free education, healthcare etc etc. These people are loud, obnoxious and thick as pig shit. Yesterday they went on HOLIDAY while my friend cant afford shit because he pays over £1500 a month 2 the state. The socialist system which u so readily advocate punishes innovation and encourages idleness.
anyfekinnamewilldo 2 years ago
Good Comment anyfekinnamewilldo! Spot on!
coltrane1966 2 years ago
Thanks m8. Actually I'd like 2 expand on that. I live 2 doors down from another shit 4 brains family on benefits, living on a private estate on state benefits. I nearly fell over on my day off when the stupid kin troll of a bird appeared on Jeremy Kyle (British version of Jerry Springer) I shit u not this freaking moron appears on daytime TV 2 do a paternity test. U couldn't make it up. I hear they plan to have another kid courtesy of my tax money. I wanna punch a socialist in the freaking face!
anyfekinnamewilldo 2 years ago
I know a family that lives next to me who live on social and because the father who seems to have nothing more than a slight limp, they get their rent paid for, allowances for just about everything and a bloody new Golf TDi that gets replaced every 18 months or so, well I suppose he has to get to the shops that are about 200 yards away (talk about taking the piss)! I work all day and can only afford a second hand car on hire purchase.
As he would say "well it's about working the system m8".
coltrane1966 2 years ago
(to anyfekinnamewilldo) I dont know your british system in and out. But realize you can give those people money... or you can give money to the orphanages that would otherwise raise their kids and throw them out on the street. In which case they would most likely turn to illegal activity and require more police officers to regulate. Is the cost greater? it might be. But rich people rob and murder too. Everyone will rob and murder to survive... but only a select few rob and murder for fun.
mark1m 2 years ago
Interesting vid..ty
How are children insured in US system..if for example a kid has cancer and his parents are alcoholic bums with no insurance, does the State finance their treatment?
anyfekinnamewilldo 2 years ago
Children are completely covered under our current system. The very poor are covered under our current system.
kungfujesus 2 years ago
OK Cheers
anyfekinnamewilldo 2 years ago
Good video, very well reasoned points!
yekahs 2 years ago 2
I am not in the mood for for typing a whole lot but better video this time more insightfool to your possition but I have to ask what is your sullition to the healthcare problem? What is your sullition to the american healthcare problem? That is something I wonder strongly.
All love anyway from me Jasmine
Eopyk 2 years ago
It's a good question, and not easily answered. I do not pretend to have the answer, but I can say I favor a solution which keeps the market largely unfettered (so incentive/investment/etc can continue). Socialized care is not evil, and the world won't explode in fire and brimstone if we switched to a single-payer system--but we need to be aware of the advantages we enjoy currently due to the free market system.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
Thx for your reply but here it is only your defence of the current system no alternatives to tackle the problems that exist in USA. I am not in the mood of debating so I wont do that but I will say I hope you agree that the primary job is to help people in need so they can live happy and productive lives in society and the economy the big question is the people who can't get care in USA able to? When in the worst cases they have the sell there buisnees& homes for the sake of simple treatment?
Eopyk 2 years ago
In my country I live under a socialized health-care system, I'm trying to get a fair comparison of the two systems (Free market vs Socialized). How much does it cost a US citizen per month or quarterly, and what are you covered for? (ie. offspring, dental etc..)
What insurance companies do you use?
Thanks.
coltrane1966 2 years ago
my insurance is through work, is decent as far as they go. Covers roughly 80% of most things, I pay $300 US per month, just for me. (33 y/o, excellent health) If I had dependents or a spouse, it would be multiple times that.
My employer pays half of the insurance bill (IE, actual cost $600/month). It used to be common for companies to pay 100%, but those days are fond memories for most workers
unclexbob 2 years ago
Thanks very much for your reply, that's given me a good starting point.
I get very differing replies to this question some are $160 per month. Like to know why employers stopped paying 100%, maybe because of taxation, I have to research.
I think though what Americans pay isn't too unreasonable.
coltrane1966 2 years ago
they reason they stopped paying 100% is because unions either have been disappearing, or even within unions, they are compromising as necessary to keep the businesses from going bankrupt.
Ignoring government workers, some 35% of workers have some insurance plan via their work. It used to be 65% just 30 years ago. Its just too dang expensive, because the prices have more than tripled since then
unclexbob 2 years ago
Interesting that you mention you would like to see some social programs in order to help the very misfortunate in our society. Stefan Molyneux makes a point in his podcasts at freedomainradio . com that private charities are quite capable of dealing with those poorest of the poor. Walmart was the first on site at Katrina to help victims, and I certainly think that if the wealthy weren't taxed for 40-50% of their income that they would help out more often than they do now
Sam26100 2 years ago
Wow... you're going to leave it up to Walmart to tax people and pray they perform disaster relief? The job of private enterprise is to deliver cheap and reliable services. Not to leech cash off consumers to establish crisis funds.
If you want reliable disaster relief, you should logically be prepared to pay tax for it, like you do for army and police, which you are, you just don't want it to be called tax, it should be called expensive cornflakes(Which also hits poor people harder btw).
Gnomefro 2 years ago
The US in it's current state gives billions of dollars of charity each year, both foreign aid and national. That's on top of the increasing taxes and regulations that are piling up. People are very generous, especially when people are in real need, like that Tsunami 4 years ago. With the government off people's backs, people would give even more, especially in events like Katrina. The money the government gives for disaster relief is all our money originally anyway, don't forget that
Sam26100 2 years ago
that's what insurance is for. if you want to protect yourself beforehand you can, but you don't have the right to force me to pay for your new house retroactively.
let's say you had government "providing" relief. Who would really be providing it, the people, or the government? Anything the government gives has been taken from the people. So yes, you should thank private corporations and citizens for disaster relief either way.
justwatchmyfavorites 2 years ago
@MisterBusta We don't have a free-market system for health-care. It is one of the most regulated areas of the economy that exists. For a great article on this subject look up Kel Kelly's "The Myth of Free-Market Healthcare."
hartforest 7 months ago
Excellent analysis!
dangolingo 2 years ago 2
Well, it is great that you addressed my response, (although calling it "stupid" wasn't exactly nice of you)
But you just side stepped. It is great that you think the poor people should be given free health care, but where do you draw the line? At what point do you say "pay up or die"?
It is refreshing that a libertarian admits that safety nets are necessary and just. You stand out for that alone. I guess that makes you less stupid than most libertarians XD
unclexbob 2 years ago
I didn't mean to call you stupid. There are equally & extraordinarily intelligent people on both sides of the issue. I should have said "unreasonable point".
Your point about where the line should be drawn is a good one, and not easily answered. My basic answer would be drawing the line in a manner which does not control the market or set prices. Let the market set the prices, like it does for everything else. Thanks for your comment, sorry if I sounded mean-spirited.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
"let the market set the price"
....on life? Really?
I don't want to seem hyperbolic, I agree that there is a fine line between spending millions on a persons medical condition when they are contributed nothing, can only be justifed so much. Eventually the cost-effective ratio needs to be examined. But we're talking very generically here. BASIC health care SHOULD be universal. I think it is perfectly fair to leave extremely expensive treatments to those willing to pay, but cover the basic
unclexbob 2 years ago
many countries do this. If you have the money and want special care, you can pay for it and get it. It becomes a tiered system (I know UK does it, and I believe canada does it also).
Let the rich have their pampering and above the basics care. But at least offer to the less-well-off a minimal life without putting them into debt for the rest of their lives.
In most other countries, filing for bankruptcy because of medical bills is considered an outrage. Its the norm here. That isn't right
unclexbob 2 years ago
You are hyperbolic and you sound grossly uninformed.
kungfujesus 2 years ago