It is a bit strange that all of sillynanny's comments have over 10+ thumbs ups, while the ALL of Sisque's comments are hidden because of thumbs-downs. This is very uncharacteristic of a youtube comment page... What happened here?
I agree with everyone. I'm surprised Krugman seems so incompetent and whiny. I also second what someone mentioned earlier about looking up Milton Friedman on youtube and getting a taste of the logical mind of a REAL economist.
Krugman's obsession and personal attacks to Stossel clearly show the weakness of his argument. A novel price winner in economics trying to convince people of his position using a "moral argument"?
How the hell did Paul Krugman ever win a Nobel Prize? He didn't add anything of value to this entire debate. He just repeated the same tired Progressive mantras about health care.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Your opinions on gov't has no validity unless you give a verifiable fact, saying "income tax=fact" is nonsense. Citing U.S Labor report, is a verifiable fact.
''''income tax = fact'' is nonsense'' how is it nonsense? i dont have to show you the number because all i have to do is show to you that we have an income tax and it proves we havent had a free market. ya your citation proves im right, there was no free market because govt stole capital from private sector
''Debating you is like talking to a wall, I have no interest in doing so'' haha you spend like weeks trying to prove im wrong by asking where i get my source for simple facts like the income tax, federal reserve's existence, govt started the wars, national debt, etc..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When you have France, a single payer system run by gov't and U.S. private insurance, give me FRANCE anyday. If you are a true capitalist, you would want to take a single payer model and use it here. That would be efficient, cost less, save money, however the only reason you choose not to pick this model because of your CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN VIEW OF FEAR OF BIG GOVERMENT.
Ya but when she talked about Claude Castonguay and his report, and how he concluded the healthcare system was "in crisis"; she forgot to mention that although he was concerned about the financial stresses the system placed on the government, he did not advocate dismantling the publicly funded healthcare system.
In this case that's beside the point. Her point is that the very founder of that system is now pushing for allowing the private sector (in this case private insurance) to be legally allowed to be a player in the health system in Quebec. It means that that system can't provide the services it is supposed to be able to provide to Quebec's citizens.
I dont think its beside the point at all. She chose to use only bits of the information to lend creedence to her arguments. Hes against dismantling government financed insurance. Thats kind of a big deal. She also didnt say how after much review, the governement publicly dismissed most of the report. And as far as the private sector being a player, Castoguay wasnt talking about private insurance, but privately run medical facilities; to encourage competition between gov run facilities.
:"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Anatole France 1894)
In addition, has anyone here actually used the VA that Krugman sites as a pillar of wonderful socialized health care? The problems of wait times and denied care that the opponents discuss is exactly what you'll find there. I was born in a military hospital (another gov healthcare option) and my mother says her options and care were extremely limited compared to the birth of my brother in a private hospital 2 years later.
Stossel's point is actually valid. If the free market serves us well in other areas, how do we know it wouldn't serve us well in health care? To those who site our current troubles, the current economic crisis was not purely free market driven. The government was heavily involved in the housing market by pushing more home ownership by those who couldn't afford it. In fact, some of the original collapses were quasi government agencies (Freddie and Fannie) that were supposed to be regulated.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Becuase it hasn't! The U.S. is run by corporatism not gov't, just look at the latest supreme court ruling. If free-markets were the solution, then we would already have universal coverage for everyone right?
sisque.... corporatism is when you have the lobbyists using govt..... that is caused by the fact we have a big govt.... govt is the direct force in intervention... all of this goes in conflict w/ the free market... we didnt have capitalism.... we've had big govt and it ruined our healthcare.. free market is the solution... you can see proofs like cellphones, tvs, plastic surgery, lasik eye surgery, contact lenses, computers, etc.....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
John Stossel is "brilliant?" That's the Psych major going up against one of the top economic minds in the country, right? He's the guy who believes the "free market" will cure all ills, when it's the unchecked market that got us into this economic disaster. John Stossel is a glib, unqualified douchebag on the subject of health care, bud.
''unchecked market that got us into this economic disaster'' wrong fannie/freddie caused the credit and real estate bubble because they had govt priveleges that allowed them to attract capital. govt set interest rate to 1%, encouraged borrowing and lending discouraged saving. govt elimination of risk caused the crisis. in capitalism there is fear of consequences, when govt promise bailout and set interest rate the market suffers. u dont seem to have a clue. govt caused the crisis not capitalism
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Are you serious? De-regulation and free market caused this crisis which is the heart of capitalism. Capitalism thrives on Greed. De-regulation started by Carter and the unraveling by Reagan and Clinton accelerated the current crisis. Gov't regulation may have prevented lending money to people whom couldn't afford loans. Do you notice that banks such as Countrywide, Wachovia, etc are non-existent due to the fact of unregulated lending? They did so because of Greed and Capital not Gov't.
in capitalism there are profits & there are losses. when govt get involved & promise bailouts then you should worry about rich people who dont earn it. that is not capitalism. in capitalism govt is simply to put people in jail after fraud to destroy the incentive for fraud. govt should not control conducts. if they get such unconstitutional powers they attract the lobbyists. i proved govt caused crisis on my last comment u have not refuted it or even tried to refute it yet u make baseless claims
continue... in capitalism there would not be wholesale collapse of banks.... that happens when govt sets interest rate, promise bailouts w/ our tax payer money. the cause of crisis was govt. capitalism did not cause it. the bailing out was not capitalism either.... look the word up in the dictionary. in free market there would be no largescale failures and those that does fail will have their good assets bought up like lehman brothers. only job for govt in capitalism is to put criminals in jail
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am a Sales Manager, I deal with profits, losses, margins, key metrics and have a B.S. in Pre-law and Philosophy, private industry control markets not gov't. Wal-mart controls "conduct" of profits by making $400 million at the expense of 9.75 per/hr for each employee with only 45% of there employees get healthcare, the average American pay 7k per capita for healthcare where France pays 3-4k with better results, wages have decreased while productivity increases, your right we don't need gov't?
why do u think it's necessary to show me your badges? are u not capable of applying your knowledge here so u are reduced to that? i was saying govt should not control conduct. our bad healthcare was govt managed. hmo made all employers except smallest employers to cover their employees, but govt let buisness deduct it from tax code and have other individiuals pay so there is no incentive for them to look for good prices, govt inflation, govt eliminates competition etc continue...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Your libertarian/Conservative viewpoint distorts the facts. Healthcare in America is run by HMO's and PHARMA not single payer systems in Europe, our system in comparison to others clearly show ours model lacks efficency because of capitalism, in which profits are made by denying care. (World Health Org.) If you think denying care to its citizens for profit isn't a burden to an economy, you need to research the issue at hand? All you have proven is you are dumber than you sound.
distorts the facts? ive brought you the facts and once again you didnt refute them nor did you try to refute them. HMOs did not arise because of demand by the free market.... it was of govt mandage (hmo act of 1973). profits are **not** made by denying care in capitalism because no one would choose that company. in capitalism consumer rules & fraud = jail. i aready told you that big govt -> lobbyists -> elimination of competition and special interest gets priveleges.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What planet are you on? HMO's, make money by denying care and coverage, that is an universal fact, if you don't know that you don't know anything. (Denver Pt, 10-10-09)Cite me one international or domestic study that asserts a capitalistic model of free-market healthcare v.s. a single-payer system is better? WHO asserts, "France has the best overall healthcare." This is a "big gov't" model system that works efficiently. When an emergency happens a doctor arrives v.s. medic, which would you have?
1. ''what planet are you on? hmos make money by denying care and coverage if you dont know that you know anything" i said that **in capitalism** profits are not made by denying care..... we did not have free market capitalism........ hmos was of govt mandate....
2. ''(Denver Pt, 10-10-09)Cite me one international or domestic study that asserts a capitalistic model of free-market healthcare v.s. a single-payer system is better?'' ive gave you examples.... in some areas of h.c. there was capitalism, in lasik eye surgery, plastic surgery, contact lenses... costs go down and quality goes up
3. ''WHO asserts "France has the best overall h.c." This is a "big gov't" model system that works efficiently. When an emergency happens a doctor arrives v.s. medic which would you have'' i aready told you that both french and american systems fail. french problem = high cost (high tax) & they're uninnovative. american problem = since we have higher population & govt affects more people, it creates the incentive for lobbyists. capitalism = low cost, (no income tax), innovation, no lobbyists
capitalism = innovation, low cost,(h.c. would be cheaper to buy and no income tax, no inflation tax) no lobbyists.* read the 3 other replies that i posted today. i kept on repeating myself because you didnt even read the facts that i gave you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The only FACT you asserted "1973 HMO," which I previously noted by mention of Carter; the distinction between my FACTS and your opinion are as follows; World Health Org, Denver Post, and you asserting "read the facts..." (i.e. my opinion) Although I did read your responses, i'm reluctant to read it because it lacks any empherical or verifiable evidence. Noting an opinion about "capitalism=innovation" is meaningless, statement.
fact #1 - 1973 govt mandated hmo refuted your claim that hmo is capitalism.. facts #2 examples of competition like cheaper lasik, plastic surgery, contact lenses, tv, cellphones, proves that capitalism = low price and ****innovation*****. france is uninnovative, and ya ''you can go on all day'' about longer lifespan, lower infant mortality but those doesnt prove anything about better h.c. ppl of utah live longer but they have same h.c as n.y.
ill number these FACTS for you... fact #3 utah's longer lifespan than n.y. while having same h.c. shows that stuff like longer life span, lower infant mortality doesnt prove that a country has better h.c facts #4 govt paper money, govt mandated hmo, govt bureaucracies, govt granting privileges, proves there was no capitalism.
fact #5 u.s has higher population and more money for public spending so our govt does affect more people and that leads to lobbyists.. europe countries have higher percentage of gdp for public spending but since they have lower gdp/lower population their govt spend less money and affects less people than u.s. so they probably dont get as much lobbyists. but since they spend a high % of gdp they suffer higher taxes(fact #6) and they dont innovate as much(fact # 7) you can simply look it up google
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy." (World Health Org.)
i was talking about PUBLIC health expenditure. u.s is not highest in % of gdp for PUBLIC which means GOVT spending.. the high cost is due to lobbying which i aready told you it is because of the lobbying which i aready explained is due to the fact our govt affects more people than euro countries....... are you saying that refutes any of my claims? how do they go in conflict w/ what ive said??? the only fact you brought up... and it proves my point. our system is worse but their systems suck too
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
France is uninnovative? Yet they have a longer life span, stronger emergency care, lower infant mortality, costs less per capita, I can go on all day. (WHO) The U.S. is the only industrialized country that does NOT provide healthcare to its citizens (WHO) and we are by in large a capitalistic model, to suggest as a fact that "gov't affects more people" in the U.S. is a leap of faith.
cont. you call your nonsense facts? they are nothing but claims from organizations, i back my claims up you didnt... and no u.s is not free market capitalism at all... since we're talkin h.c. here are examples of govt intervention: inflation due to govt paper money, govt mandated hmo, govt bureaucracies that interfere w/ doc/patient relationship, govt eliminate competition and help certain companies (they like to lobby because we have big govt). we have higher population so govt affects more ppl
u.s is not free market capitalism because it is an intransigent ideology. but you can see competition in some areas which is a characteristic of capitalism.* we have large amounts of govt control (govt interest rates, govt controling money supply, controling conducts, income tax, govt proping up prices (like housing) etc all these are facts. you can always pretend that america is capitalistic and pretend that the paper money in your pocket is controled by govt but FACT is we're not capitalist
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Every FACT you gave is your opinion, not a FACT. Go to school and learn MLA or APA citation. Once again, the distinction between a fact and opinion is this; I am asserting an opinion with evidence, empherical studies, through trial and error, whereas your opinion without evidence. To say "look it up google" displays clearly your lack of knowledge of citation.
cato institute, ayn rand institute, mises institute. opinion = belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. i was making an assessment of reality backed by facts. u think it's necessary for me to give you citation to prove to u that people in utah live longer? its necessary to prove to you that we have a central bank? i need to bring u a site that proves u.s have larger population? u should stop the petty nonsense, should stop pretending they're not facts
you are saying that people live longer in utah than n.y is an opinion. you are saying that it is an opinion that we have a central bank called the federal reserve. you are saying that it is an opinion that we have a massive money supply(inflation). you are saying that govt mandating hmo in 1973 is an opinion. you are saying that lasik, plastic surgery, contacts have gotten cheaper is an opinion. im not even strawmanning you this is how cheap your lies are. those were facts not opinions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
See the problem with Libertarians/Conservatives like yourself is really a question of values. When you cite Cato, Manhattan, Weekly Standard, etc, you don't learn anything. You just re-inforce your ideas and values you already belief in, you simply disregard your core values such as, fiscal responsibility, pro-life, or even traditional values. Your hidden and true value are about money, yourself, and your party, not America.
"i won arguement if im accused of lying" all arguements start because of one believes the other is liar. i proved that i was right & that u lied (read my other replies for proof). u yourself said ''your nose is growing" u didnt bring any proof. the facts prove that govt is the problem. im pro life & fiscal responsibility because i want limit govt you want big govt. capital is important. i do care about myself & my country. libertarians dont like republicans or democrats. we dont like palin
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I guess i'll agree to disagree with you, I think Ron Paul I assume would be your candidate, however the problem i have with your viewpoint is that the free-market principle that you champ ignores moral or ethical problems at the expense of social destructiion.
free market is the only system that is moral/ethical. if u commit fraud you go to jail. if you fail u go bankrupt NOT getting bailouts/tax payer money. it is a system where individuals have the responsibility & freedom. that society would have so much wealth & we wouldnt have inflation in medicine oil education. if u have a limited govt u wouldnt have an income tax, u wouldnt have a world empire & u wouldnt have lobbyists. consumer rules in capitalism not govt not corporations
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Capitalism runs and thrives off greed, profit, free-market, deregulation, and so forth. The freedom to do whatever you want is not in the best interest of the U.S. If you are selfish, should we have intervened in WWII? Do you think a women should have the freedom to pay for an abortion? The Freedom to give a loan to someone who can't afford it? The right of privatization to take another's property with Due Process? The freedom to sell a product and make them a moral equivalent to a human?
in capitalism ppl have to benefit consumer for profit. ppl would also be aware of consequences like bankruptcy or jail so they would act prudently. govt shouldnt control conduct but they should put criminals in jail. freedom is in the interest of u.s. in ww2 we were attacked by japanese, was in our interest to defend. abbortion = aggression. wouldnt be in our interest to give loan to ppl who cant afford. govt should protect contracts, put thieves in jail. humans r different from products.
continue.. you are not helping anyone (& you're not helping yourself) by being an emo. we should live & think soberly so we can solve this country's problems.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gov't must control conduct, especially when the private sectors motives are established by profit. I work in a corporation, morality or ethics are not discussed on conference calls. Profits are discussed and oftentimes encouraged through unethical means. Gov't must regulate these problems because gov't has a motive for morality not profit. Thats why you believe in "limited gov't," because accountability.
govt dont have incentives for morality.... now that is a big mistake to believe that govt is moral... when govt is big and powerful you get lobbyists, politicians would give them subsidies, privileges(fascism). majority controling govt (democratic socialism) fails too because that is mob rule. majority steal from minority -> no one to innovate or create jobs. in capitalism 1 you can work for other companies. 2 your company has to benefit consumer or it will fail. 3 no govt privileges/subsidies
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is nothing wrong with Socialism, it has not tampered innovation in France in terms of healthcare, the U.S. military, etc. I would agree that it is income redistribution, but democracy is not the same as capitalism. Capitalism is run exactly like a dictatorship, where you get the top1% owning more than the bottom 95%(economic polict Inst) whereas socialism is run by the people, the exact definition of "demo" "cratia"=people rule.
socialism has tampered innovation in france. france has higher percentage of gdp for public spending. u.s has better and more innovation for medicine and many other things.... innovation in military? for the large amount of money we're spending for military i believe we're probably getting very little innovation. we have rich people who doesnt earn their wealth, instead they use govt to steal, they are powerful because of big govt not because of capitalism. read next comment about democracy
continue.... democracy is a terrible idea. we should have a republic w/ democratic elections. the elected officials have to follow the constitution so all individuals would be protected. mob rule = putting jews in ovens, stealing from job creators. mob worshiping govt and giving govt power = govt backstabbing people... capitalism = consumer rule (we're all consumers). capitalism is not corporation rule and it is not govt rule. read my other comments
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Democracy did not cause the holocaust. You did not have an education at all to suggest that. It was a totalitarian dictatorship by Hilter and his views on eugenics and his Catholic upbringing that used the Jews as a scapegoat for the killing of Jesus. Go look up the German Concordance and how the Catholic church did not nothing to stop Hitler, in fact up until 1945 the Church celebrated Hitler's birthday. That's hardly democracy, go to school and read up before you debate with an adult, child.
tyranny of majority. when majority use govt to hurt the minority they give the govt power, then govt backstabs the people so mob rule leads to totalitarian govts. i didnt only say ''read the entire constitution" i also said federal govt should have no say in abortion (10th amendment) what have you accomplished by calling me names? all these ad hominem of yours attack does nothing. you should show some dignity & focus on the issues rather than focusing on whether if someone has a badge or not...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i did not call you names, I merely questioned your lack of education and knowledge which is apparent. Roe v. Wade was decided 5-4 due to "privacy" not the 10th ammendment which describes states rights. Go read the majoriy opinion of the case. An "ad hominem" attack is an attack on a person without relevance to an issue,(.i.e. your wrong because your black) Your lack of history and Supreme Court precedent is evident based on your insufficent responses.
10 amendment = powers to the states.... federal govt should have no say in abortion. you made ad hominem attacks against me you were talking about what major, did i graduate, did i read, did i work at a law firm. those are irrelevant to the issue. they dont refute any of the points ive made. if someone says 1+1=2. u'd be there to say "you're wrong because u didnt go to school"? so yes you did called me "child". i had sufficient responses u r just doing mental contortions to ignore them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Questioning one's educational background is a relevant issue regarding the Constitution and your lack of education. It is clear that you have no knowledge of neither; you have not been a paralegal, studied Constitutional Law, or even read a peer review. Excuse me, you are a child when you assert, "10th ammendment" in defense to abortion. To say that you had "sufficent responses" is a leap of faith? I'll ask again, "Did you graduate college? Read a Law review? If not, then yes you are a child.
asking whether if i graduate college, read a law review etc they are irrelevant and they dont refute any of my claims.... 10th amendment means fed govt should not have a say in abortion.... ya so you call me names instead of saying anything substantial.. i certainly gave you sufficient responses... now are you going to actually read my comments or does the truth traumatize you? you brag too much about your "experiences" yet you cant apply your knowledge here.. ad hominem = fallacy
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To argue the merits on the whether federal gov't should or should not interfere in abortion based on the 10th ammendment is irrelevant and I'll tell why. If the federal gov't should not determine abortion, then the only logical question is who should make the decision, the state or individual? You just mentions that the "federal gov't should not have a say in abortion." So therefore, it should be left to the indivudal, thereby giving them the choice and/or "privacy" to terminate a pregnancy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The key word in this arguement is "privacy," which is exactly what Roe. v. Wade decided on a 5-4 decision, not the states rights. I refuted your claim with your own words and with logic, I added no ad hominem attacks and therefore my arguement is not a fallacy but a fact that is consistent with the constitution and the precedent that follows it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Federal gov't did not decide whether or not one should have an abortion, it was the Supreme Court. You are confusing the Legislative Branch with ammending laws and the Judicial Branch that carries them out or interprets the law, they are not the same. This fear of gov't you have is absurd, every refutation is federal gov't and to suguest that does nonsense.
''to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.'' a3 sect2 there is the federal jurisdiction.. supreme court is part of fed govt..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am referring to the structural diferrences within the Constution. (i.e. Legslative branch and Executive)
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States." This means that the Supreme Court determines, "cases." If your referrinf U.S.C. as a Federal gov't as an instution, yes I'll agree with you, but I made the distinction initially between the two. You still didn't refute why abortion should be banned?
i know there is difference between legislative judicial executive. what does that have to do w/ this. federal govt should have no say in abortion if you follow the constitution. ''u still didnt refute why abortion should be banned?" u think it should be banned or not? i want this country to protect life and accept that life begins at conception. abortion is an aggression on another life, so it is an aggression on the freedom of another person.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am willing to discuss all day on whether a fetus is a human entity and whether or not when it should or should not be terminated, I highly doubt that you or I can come up with an absolute on that, but I think both you or I can know the limits of the relative? That is why the Supreme Court decided it should be a personal matter, not based on other opinions. Remember the state permits ending a life with "due process," in matters of Capital punishment, abortion, end of life matters, etc.
in following the law, the federal government should not force the states to allow abortion & it should not ban abortion in any of the states. states should decide on abortion. since my view is that life begins at conception. my view is that the states should start banning abortion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You just undermined your libertarian viewpoint. To suggest that states should intervene on freedom to abort a fetus is invading one's privacy. Your contradictions are evident, capitalism and free-markets have never taken into account morality, prostitution, legalization of drugs, etc. All of these ideas promote the demise of a society; Karl Marx notes "Capitalism's dirty secret... realm of harmony and mutual benefit but a system in which one class systematically extracts profit from another."
lol you seem to suffer from memory loss. i already explained to you that abortion is aggression on another* person so it's aggression on another person's freedom. capitalism is the only system that is moral. in capitalism corporations have to receive consumer votes in order to get profit. people should be free to make mistakes as long as it doesnt hurt other people (prostitution, drugs). in free market, unequal wealth is because of unequal effort. if you forget what ive said reread my comments.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No philosopher or capitalist has ever made the assertion that capitalism is moral,. (Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, etc) In fact, most of capitalist agree it is immoral, they think of it as more utilitarian than moral. Unequal wealth is not because of unequal effort, it is because the top 1% own 95% of the wealth and they want to keep it.
@sisque16 lol "no philisopher/capitalism made assertion that capitalism is moral" ayn rand would be one of the philosopher/capitalist that considers laissez-faire capitalism moral. capitalism = individual freedom. people can do anything they want as long as they dont hurt others. "top 1% own 95% of wealth" once again you ignore my comments. there is a difference between using the govt to cheat/steal and benefiting the consumers. what is your problem? memory loss or do you just want to ignore me?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow you named one philosopher...now thats funny! It is a known fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute that the top 1% own 95% of the wealth, wages have stagnated over 40 years, CEO pay has increased 500%, that is a result of the private enterprise that pay minimum wage for profit, not gov't. Look at minimum wages from state to state, the states w/o regulation have lower wages, whereas states with regulations have higher wages.
@sisque16 lol jesus said we should covet our neighbor's house/ox//donkey or other items? (we should steal?) jesus said we should commit idolatry? (we should worship govt?) i do blame govt for inflation, elimination of competition, govt sudsidizing companies, bailouts, tax credit etc. making employers pay minimum wage -> higher unemployment. granholm raised Michigan minimum wage.. michigan = highest unemployment. wyoming has lowest minimum wage, it also has lowest unemployment.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I agree with you, if you had regulations this would likely not occur, but you see Marx never bailed out a gov't, in fact Marx argued for worker wages, Jesus never suggested idolatry with gov't, in fact he actually said "render to Cesar," to argue Capitalism is Moral by naming one philosopher, is really an act of faith.
govt control = disaster. the income tax and the power to create money out of thin air enables fed govt to do all kinds of terrible things like starting wars, subsidizing/bailing out special interest, devaluing the dollar. by stealing capital from private sector the govt also destroy jobs and burden innovators. the fact that our govt had power to control conducts of buisnesses led to the lobbyists. all of these things go in conflict of capitalism.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You haven't study history. War occurs because of profit, greed, and selfishness, everything you champion. "Democracy is acceptable if and only if it is consistent with strategic and economic interest." (Failed States,251) The problem of gov't is not gov't, its lobbyists that spend millions buying our legislatures, like this Supreme Court ruling, in which a foreign company can funnel in money, where a company is equalavent to a person in regards to freedom of speech, that is absurd.
lol that is very myopic. the fact that we have lobbyists is because govt is big. govt is the one that starts the wars. we should limit govt to stop the lobbyists and stop the wars. fed reserve/income tax enables the govt to fight wars, and govt gives our money to special interest. in capitalism you wouldnt have federal reserve/income tax.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That is not true, one could argu that Nazi Germany, USSR, China, which do have a totalitarian govt, or communist govt's had a large gov't without lobbyist, futhermore corruption did not occur and they did occur they were minimal.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Are you talking about the private market? Socialist care about the fruits of their labor, capitalist deprive labor through wages, healthcare, and unions for need of PROFIT. You clearly have not read opposing points of view on labor, go read Marx's book "Das capital" or Adam Smith "wealth of nations" then you might be close to my educational level, (ie no personal attack.) I am not making an ad hominem attack; I am attacking your ignorance of a lack of education!!
''socialists care about fruit of their labor'' no socialists steal. capitalism = incentive for work. capitalism = lasik, plastic surgery, contact lenses in healthcare... you can still have unions in capitalism.. you just dont get benefits... big govt failed healthcare.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
wow thats great!! "Socialist steal" sure I'll agree to that, from the TOP 1% THAT OWN 95% OF THE WEALTH! That is not democracy, nor a republic, which you champion, thats a dictatorship, surely you have to agree with me on that?
there is a difference between stealing and getting money back from theives... i have no problem getting money from rich people who steal. but if rich people earned the money they deserve to keep it..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Every rich person has employees, they cut there pay for profit? The sad thing is you think that okay? You call that rich person, a great innovator? Thats absurd!
employees can start a business or look for different employer, you ignored that part lol. in capitalism being rich is the **effect** of innovation, satisfying the consumer, low prices etc*
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
BANKS aren't giving credit, thereby people cant start a buisiness. DID YOU NOTICE ONLY GOV'T IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT WANTS THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO GIVE IT? HELLO!
that is because we dont have capitalism lol.. and also **another reason** that it is hard to start a buisness is because of govt bureaucracies it takes like 3-4 weeks(if you're lucky) to start a business here while it takes like 2-3 days to start one in china (china is becoming more capitalistic)
if we have capitalism it would be in their interest to give credit for businesses because businesses wouldnt be burdened by govt and business would have better prospects
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You say my arguements have no substance? You blame gov't on everything? Did you know USA lost the war, yeah it was gov't!! My balls itch, govt! Your old, govt! Can you name one thing Gov't does well so you don't sound like an ideologue?
capitalism is about giving people incentives to be successful. govt's role should be putting people in jail for fraud that destroys the incentive for fraud. govt controling conduct leads to lobbyists.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Incentives, rewards and benefits, sure I agree, however my question is, are willing to give incentives to employers for denying coverage for health to acheive your bottom line? Thats the problem, capitalism have no regard for what you and i cherish, "life."
the solution to the healthcare problem is allow competition and allow people to keep their money.. you have insurance for big stuff like cancer/heart attacks. we shouldnt use insurance to buy everything because that leads to high prices, especially if someone else is paying. in capitalism we'd be helping each other because it would be in our own interest.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Insurance by definition is trading risk, in which a private company decides your life and mine, based on coverage. So if one were to choose insurance that later doesn't cover care, thats a problem. Competition may work if care was preventative but its not due to PHARMA and HMO's profititing from denying care.
''if one were to choose insurance that later doesnt cover care that is a problem'' govt should put fraud criminals in jail. and they would be more likely to care if you lower cost of medicine which you need competition to get low prices. insurance is suppose to measure risk that is why it is for big health problems. it wouldnt be in people's interest to deny care in a capitalist society.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gov't is attempting to intervene by preventing pre-existing condition, mandating costs curves, regulations of HMO's, denying care, and all you argue about is its the gov't fault because there is no competition. For example, if people got paid well and decent benefits, then we wouldn't have unions because the market would have solved the problem, however they've not solved the problem for over 60 years and you argue for competition?
you are saying the problem is people dont get paid well and the solution is govt controling conducts? well the fact that people dont get paid well is caused by govt controling conduct (inflation, taking away capital from private sector, etc). govt caused the problem, & govt cant be the solution. ''they (free market) have not solved the problem'' nonsense there was no free market. there is a difference between govt putting fraud criminals in jail after fraud & controling the conducts of people.
they deny care because h.c is costly due to govt inflation govt elimination of competition. hmo was of govt mandate... you are pretending that govt can solve the problem that they caused in the first place... the solution is to **undo** the cause of the problem (govt intervention) not adding more govt.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You seem to suggest deregulation of the industry will work? You cannot name one country that has a capitalistic model in terms of healthcare that has universal coverage and which is moral?
that is because no nation has ever come close to the ideal capitalist society... ive given you examples of competition and how that characteristic of capitalism reduced prices...... tv, phones, computers, food, plastic surgery, lasik, contact lenses, etc. govt ruined other parts of h.c. if you get rid of govt inflation that would help... govt inflation was the reason why oil cost so much... oil price remained same in gold.... so again, to claim that we've had a free market is nonsense.
govt intervention ruined healthcare w/ inflation govt hmo govt elimination of competition. govt ruined economy w/ inflation, income tax, govt interest rates, govt elimination of competition. this country is already bankrupt and you are talking about social security/medicare?? wars are caused by govt....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Like I mentioned, all you care about is yourself and no one else? Who do you think pays for the road w/o gov't, your school, your healthcare when you were sick as a child, gov't "by and for the people."
public school system is why many americans are uninformed. private road builders reduced a 45 min trip to 10 min w/ a double decker underground highway. private developers added lanes to highway.... govt failed ''US Post Office To Run $7 Billion Deficit In 2009''
lol there are people in berkeley that doesn't know what caused the great depression. many students there don't even know lincoln's party. people consider berkeley to be # 1 ranked public university.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What's your point? The fact that one goes to a public school and is educated, means that they at least know how to argue on facts of their degree not on faith. Whereas most people that have not graduated college based their opinions on faith rather than fact.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh please...as I mentioned you cannot name one, de-regulation project or free-market solution that has worked in reality in regards to, economics, healthcare, war, social security, or medicare?
lol ive given you many examples where there are less govt intervention.... tv, phones, computers, lasik, plastic surgery, contact lenses, food, cloths, etc. there are you economic and h.c examples... lol whenever you have peace time is whenever you dont have govt fighting wars. social security/medicare failed.. we're in huge debt... why do you continue to ignore these facts? if i type it any more it'll be marked as spam lol
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you have a degree? I'm sure you do not b/c otherwise you would be working, right? You clearly do not have intellectual capacity to argue an adult, child? No ad hominem attack, questioning your knowledge?
''Do you have a degree? I'm sure you do not b/c otherwise you would be working, right?'' and then you said ''no ad hominem attack'' haha ad hominem = argument against the person.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
MAN YOU ARE SO STUPID B/ YOU ARE WHITE!! ad hominem, do you have a degree? questioning one's lack of education? THERES A DIFFERENCE, GO TO SCHOOL AND FIND OUT THE DIFFERENCE!
do you want me to repeat myself again? person a makes claim x, person b makes an attack on person a, therefore a's claim is false... your ad hominem is a fallacy.... ''you are stupid because you are white'' that is ad hominem too... you nonsense doesnt refute my **specific** point..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A personal attack is referring to an attack that has nothing to do with the subject at hand? Your education does, b/c if you do not know the distinction between asking a question and calling someone racist for your views you are an igoranamus? (i.e. ingoring fact)
whether someone got a degree or not doesnt constitute as a refutation when it comes to rebuking that person's specific points..... ive given you specific facts, if you believe im lying tell me to bring you the source of info or try to get some information yourself to refute me.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lying is intentionally deceiving, I think you are misinformed and ignorant of the facts that I am asserting, which is I am refuting your opinion on the basis of your lack of education (i.e. ignorance) and facts such as, income tax from Dept of Labor, production v. compensation, etc. All you have done is blame Gov't w/o any facts. I've cited sources from Department of Labor, Economic policy inst, and so forth.+
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am asking whether you are even qualified to talk about politics? Why? Michael Savage talks about politics all the time on his radio show, however that doesn't qualify him as an intellectual for that subject, in fact, he recieved his PH.D at Cal for nutritional medicine. The same goes here, I have a bachelor degree in Criminal justice and philosophy and you do not, so therefore the likelyhood that you know more than me on many of these subjects is rare.
lol you are so proud of using these ad hominem attacks. you show me your badges because you are not capable of applying any knowledge here. you worship your idols because you think logic is done by consensus...
tea party was started by libertarians now it has a lot of neocons. ya you were citing facts, they dont back your claim that we've had a free market. that is why i called that claim baseless. 1% owning 95% is a fact how does it serve your argument? we've had rich people using govt. i need to show you a source that we have to pay income tax? our nation debt is at debt clock. ''Real unemployment tops 22%'' oil price chart is at a site called thedailygreen
''all you have done is blame govt w/o any facts'' now that is your biggest lie. income tax = fact. paper currency/no sound money = fact. massive money supply/inflation = fact. govt mandated hmo = fact. govt set interest rates = fact. govt started wars = fact. govt subsidies = fact. govt bailouts = fact. 14 digits of national debt = fact. ''US Post Office To Run $7 Billion Deficit In 2009'' = fact. you are the one making the baseless claims here and you say that i dont have facts?
continue.. so you should show some dignity and face those facts instead of ignoring them and making cheap lies like ''w/o any facts''. lol ive repeated myself about 10 times writing those. you should address each of those specific points (the ones in my last comment).
you pretend that you can win arguments without earning it. telling me whether you have a degree or not doesnt constitute as anything substantial. now learn to read my comments. youve ignored almost every single point ive made while i took the time to address all your nonsense.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't pretend to win anything, I am citing verifiable facts and giving an analysis of those facts. Do you know how to do a citation or reference if not I'll teach you?
''Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973'' ''2003 invasion of Iraq'' ''War in Afghanistan (2001present)'' ''US Post Office To Run $7 Billion Deficit In 2009'' ''The current Federal Reserve interest rate is between zero and .25%''
''Do you know how to do a citation or reference if not I'll teach you?'' ive shown you the sites. these are basic facts and you know it. you're clowning around and being vain.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Please refute my sources, all the sources i've cited are from Paul Krugman, Friedman, Chomsky, even Ron Paul is in there, when he talks of non-inteventionism. Krugman and Friedman both nobel lauriettes or prize winners, chomsky top 5 smartest intellectuals in the world, and yes even Dr.Paul.
im not misinformed on what we are talking about. i was telling you facts. opinion - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. ''labor notes the top 1% became 500% more wealthy'' ya refuted your claim that there was free market. ''production v compensation'' how is that a fact? actually all false info = lie. because it would be considered lying for you to make a claim you are not sure on.
how did i refute your claim when you said we had a free market? free market = capital in private sector... our system = income tax, paper money, govt setting interest rates, govt subsidies, govt bailouts, govt hmo, etc. this comment refutes your claim that there was a free market. and ive addressed it ad nauseam too lol
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Debating you is like talking to a wall, I have no interest in doing so. Citing a dept of labor statistic such as, Production v. Compensation is a fact, citing top 1% owns 95% is a fact according to reputatable sources.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You have no concept of history. Wars are fought for greed and controlling for strategic and economic interest. Iraq oil, afghanistan, oil, Gulf War, oil, Vietnam War-controlling communism for control over natural resources, cold war, the same. Social Security allows seniors to live a decent life, whle you want to privatize their 401k?
ya wars are fought by our govt for oil... it goes in conflict w/ capitalism because of using central bank to print money and it uses our income tax... it also prevent alternative fuel. if we have a free market, the market would allow competition. also the inflation by govt was the reason why oil cost so much. oil price was same in gold. ''social security'' it is stupid govt spending that got us in debt lol we pay for it through inflation thats why savers get hurt. govt also causes unemployment
This has been flagged as spam show
It is a bit strange that all of sillynanny's comments have over 10+ thumbs ups, while the ALL of Sisque's comments are hidden because of thumbs-downs. This is very uncharacteristic of a youtube comment page... What happened here?
mellamosean 5 months ago
I agree with everyone. I'm surprised Krugman seems so incompetent and whiny. I also second what someone mentioned earlier about looking up Milton Friedman on youtube and getting a taste of the logical mind of a REAL economist.
SoulPower00 7 months ago
Again Stossel says socialised medicine cost more, when the rest of his panel says the US spends more than Canada. Make up your minds, guys?
macroman52 10 months ago
Krugman's obsession and personal attacks to Stossel clearly show the weakness of his argument. A novel price winner in economics trying to convince people of his position using a "moral argument"?
alfamax4562 1 year ago
How the hell did Paul Krugman ever win a Nobel Prize? He didn't add anything of value to this entire debate. He just repeated the same tired Progressive mantras about health care.
syghur 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your opinions on gov't has no validity unless you give a verifiable fact, saying "income tax=fact" is nonsense. Citing U.S Labor report, is a verifiable fact.
suckadj57 2 years ago
''''income tax = fact'' is nonsense'' how is it nonsense? i dont have to show you the number because all i have to do is show to you that we have an income tax and it proves we havent had a free market. ya your citation proves im right, there was no free market because govt stole capital from private sector
sillynanny44 2 years ago 17
@sillynanny44 I love your comments and agree with you 100%
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
''Debating you is like talking to a wall, I have no interest in doing so'' haha you spend like weeks trying to prove im wrong by asking where i get my source for simple facts like the income tax, federal reserve's existence, govt started the wars, national debt, etc..
sillynanny44 2 years ago 13
some of my comments got marked as spam.. just click *show*
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When you have France, a single payer system run by gov't and U.S. private insurance, give me FRANCE anyday. If you are a true capitalist, you would want to take a single payer model and use it here. That would be efficient, cost less, save money, however the only reason you choose not to pick this model because of your CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN VIEW OF FEAR OF BIG GOVERMENT.
sisque16 2 years ago
Fuck Paul Krugman.
gunsandbullhorns 2 years ago 35
I bet the HMO' team is dishing out kickbacks to these backers of the same old bullshit. Get over it.
If Michael Jackson can give $300 million USD to charities, then our rich Country can stop using our taxes on senseless Wars!
Where did the long lines come from? They started forming since 1972 when HMO's were launched in this Democracy.
London sounds nice!
HMOs are wicked. They are thriving on the afflicted for capitol gain and Congressmen and Capitol Hill each have a nice sidebar.
End it!
FTWyousuck 2 years ago
Man, I think Pipes was dynamite. Good arguments.
voskresene 2 years ago
@voskresene
Ya but when she talked about Claude Castonguay and his report, and how he concluded the healthcare system was "in crisis"; she forgot to mention that although he was concerned about the financial stresses the system placed on the government, he did not advocate dismantling the publicly funded healthcare system.
-LB
BrassiXXL 2 years ago
In this case that's beside the point. Her point is that the very founder of that system is now pushing for allowing the private sector (in this case private insurance) to be legally allowed to be a player in the health system in Quebec. It means that that system can't provide the services it is supposed to be able to provide to Quebec's citizens.
voskresene 2 years ago
I dont think its beside the point at all. She chose to use only bits of the information to lend creedence to her arguments. Hes against dismantling government financed insurance. Thats kind of a big deal. She also didnt say how after much review, the governement publicly dismissed most of the report. And as far as the private sector being a player, Castoguay wasnt talking about private insurance, but privately run medical facilities; to encourage competition between gov run facilities.
-LB
BrassiXXL 2 years ago
I love how krugmen's final response was just ad hominem towards stossel.
Back to the ivory tower with you, mongrel!
lyethian 2 years ago 13
:"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Anatole France 1894)
lkcaudill 2 years ago
anyone else think that sally pipes sounds like a pornstar name?
Weeth 2 years ago
lol definitly
Melpheos1er 2 years ago
Yeah.. i think she does granny porn
juggep80 2 years ago
In addition, has anyone here actually used the VA that Krugman sites as a pillar of wonderful socialized health care? The problems of wait times and denied care that the opponents discuss is exactly what you'll find there. I was born in a military hospital (another gov healthcare option) and my mother says her options and care were extremely limited compared to the birth of my brother in a private hospital 2 years later.
ShaunaDDye 2 years ago
Stossel's point is actually valid. If the free market serves us well in other areas, how do we know it wouldn't serve us well in health care? To those who site our current troubles, the current economic crisis was not purely free market driven. The government was heavily involved in the housing market by pushing more home ownership by those who couldn't afford it. In fact, some of the original collapses were quasi government agencies (Freddie and Fannie) that were supposed to be regulated.
ShaunaDDye 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Becuase it hasn't! The U.S. is run by corporatism not gov't, just look at the latest supreme court ruling. If free-markets were the solution, then we would already have universal coverage for everyone right?
sisque16 2 years ago
sisque.... corporatism is when you have the lobbyists using govt..... that is caused by the fact we have a big govt.... govt is the direct force in intervention... all of this goes in conflict w/ the free market... we didnt have capitalism.... we've had big govt and it ruined our healthcare.. free market is the solution... you can see proofs like cellphones, tvs, plastic surgery, lasik eye surgery, contact lenses, computers, etc.....
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
Comment removed
teachuh 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
John Stossel is "brilliant?" That's the Psych major going up against one of the top economic minds in the country, right? He's the guy who believes the "free market" will cure all ills, when it's the unchecked market that got us into this economic disaster. John Stossel is a glib, unqualified douchebag on the subject of health care, bud.
teachuh 2 years ago
''unchecked market that got us into this economic disaster'' wrong fannie/freddie caused the credit and real estate bubble because they had govt priveleges that allowed them to attract capital. govt set interest rate to 1%, encouraged borrowing and lending discouraged saving. govt elimination of risk caused the crisis. in capitalism there is fear of consequences, when govt promise bailout and set interest rate the market suffers. u dont seem to have a clue. govt caused the crisis not capitalism
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you serious? De-regulation and free market caused this crisis which is the heart of capitalism. Capitalism thrives on Greed. De-regulation started by Carter and the unraveling by Reagan and Clinton accelerated the current crisis. Gov't regulation may have prevented lending money to people whom couldn't afford loans. Do you notice that banks such as Countrywide, Wachovia, etc are non-existent due to the fact of unregulated lending? They did so because of Greed and Capital not Gov't.
sisque16 2 years ago
in capitalism there are profits & there are losses. when govt get involved & promise bailouts then you should worry about rich people who dont earn it. that is not capitalism. in capitalism govt is simply to put people in jail after fraud to destroy the incentive for fraud. govt should not control conducts. if they get such unconstitutional powers they attract the lobbyists. i proved govt caused crisis on my last comment u have not refuted it or even tried to refute it yet u make baseless claims
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
continue... in capitalism there would not be wholesale collapse of banks.... that happens when govt sets interest rate, promise bailouts w/ our tax payer money. the cause of crisis was govt. capitalism did not cause it. the bailing out was not capitalism either.... look the word up in the dictionary. in free market there would be no largescale failures and those that does fail will have their good assets bought up like lehman brothers. only job for govt in capitalism is to put criminals in jail
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am a Sales Manager, I deal with profits, losses, margins, key metrics and have a B.S. in Pre-law and Philosophy, private industry control markets not gov't. Wal-mart controls "conduct" of profits by making $400 million at the expense of 9.75 per/hr for each employee with only 45% of there employees get healthcare, the average American pay 7k per capita for healthcare where France pays 3-4k with better results, wages have decreased while productivity increases, your right we don't need gov't?
sisque16 2 years ago
why do u think it's necessary to show me your badges? are u not capable of applying your knowledge here so u are reduced to that? i was saying govt should not control conduct. our bad healthcare was govt managed. hmo made all employers except smallest employers to cover their employees, but govt let buisness deduct it from tax code and have other individiuals pay so there is no incentive for them to look for good prices, govt inflation, govt eliminates competition etc continue...
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
Comment removed
sillynanny44 2 years ago
and govt lets*
sillynanny44 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your libertarian/Conservative viewpoint distorts the facts. Healthcare in America is run by HMO's and PHARMA not single payer systems in Europe, our system in comparison to others clearly show ours model lacks efficency because of capitalism, in which profits are made by denying care. (World Health Org.) If you think denying care to its citizens for profit isn't a burden to an economy, you need to research the issue at hand? All you have proven is you are dumber than you sound.
sisque16 2 years ago
distorts the facts? ive brought you the facts and once again you didnt refute them nor did you try to refute them. HMOs did not arise because of demand by the free market.... it was of govt mandage (hmo act of 1973). profits are **not** made by denying care in capitalism because no one would choose that company. in capitalism consumer rules & fraud = jail. i aready told you that big govt -> lobbyists -> elimination of competition and special interest gets priveleges.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
mandate*
sillynanny44 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What planet are you on? HMO's, make money by denying care and coverage, that is an universal fact, if you don't know that you don't know anything. (Denver Pt, 10-10-09)Cite me one international or domestic study that asserts a capitalistic model of free-market healthcare v.s. a single-payer system is better? WHO asserts, "France has the best overall healthcare." This is a "big gov't" model system that works efficiently. When an emergency happens a doctor arrives v.s. medic, which would you have?
sisque16 2 years ago
1. ''what planet are you on? hmos make money by denying care and coverage if you dont know that you know anything" i said that **in capitalism** profits are not made by denying care..... we did not have free market capitalism........ hmos was of govt mandate....
sillynanny44 2 years ago 8
2. ''(Denver Pt, 10-10-09)Cite me one international or domestic study that asserts a capitalistic model of free-market healthcare v.s. a single-payer system is better?'' ive gave you examples.... in some areas of h.c. there was capitalism, in lasik eye surgery, plastic surgery, contact lenses... costs go down and quality goes up
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
3. ''WHO asserts "France has the best overall h.c." This is a "big gov't" model system that works efficiently. When an emergency happens a doctor arrives v.s. medic which would you have'' i aready told you that both french and american systems fail. french problem = high cost (high tax) & they're uninnovative. american problem = since we have higher population & govt affects more people, it creates the incentive for lobbyists. capitalism = low cost, (no income tax), innovation, no lobbyists
sillynanny44 2 years ago 8
capitalism = innovation, low cost,(h.c. would be cheaper to buy and no income tax, no inflation tax) no lobbyists.* read the 3 other replies that i posted today. i kept on repeating myself because you didnt even read the facts that i gave you.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The only FACT you asserted "1973 HMO," which I previously noted by mention of Carter; the distinction between my FACTS and your opinion are as follows; World Health Org, Denver Post, and you asserting "read the facts..." (i.e. my opinion) Although I did read your responses, i'm reluctant to read it because it lacks any empherical or verifiable evidence. Noting an opinion about "capitalism=innovation" is meaningless, statement.
sisque16 2 years ago
fact #1 - 1973 govt mandated hmo refuted your claim that hmo is capitalism.. facts #2 examples of competition like cheaper lasik, plastic surgery, contact lenses, tv, cellphones, proves that capitalism = low price and ****innovation*****. france is uninnovative, and ya ''you can go on all day'' about longer lifespan, lower infant mortality but those doesnt prove anything about better h.c. ppl of utah live longer but they have same h.c as n.y.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
ill number these FACTS for you... fact #3 utah's longer lifespan than n.y. while having same h.c. shows that stuff like longer life span, lower infant mortality doesnt prove that a country has better h.c facts #4 govt paper money, govt mandated hmo, govt bureaucracies, govt granting privileges, proves there was no capitalism.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
fact #5 u.s has higher population and more money for public spending so our govt does affect more people and that leads to lobbyists.. europe countries have higher percentage of gdp for public spending but since they have lower gdp/lower population their govt spend less money and affects less people than u.s. so they probably dont get as much lobbyists. but since they spend a high % of gdp they suffer higher taxes(fact #6) and they dont innovate as much(fact # 7) you can simply look it up google
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy." (World Health Org.)
Boy don't you feel stupid?
sisque16 2 years ago
i was talking about PUBLIC health expenditure. u.s is not highest in % of gdp for PUBLIC which means GOVT spending.. the high cost is due to lobbying which i aready told you it is because of the lobbying which i aready explained is due to the fact our govt affects more people than euro countries....... are you saying that refutes any of my claims? how do they go in conflict w/ what ive said??? the only fact you brought up... and it proves my point. our system is worse but their systems suck too
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who are you citing? Where is your research from? Man I feel like a teacher who has a student who doesn't listen?
sisque16 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
France is uninnovative? Yet they have a longer life span, stronger emergency care, lower infant mortality, costs less per capita, I can go on all day. (WHO) The U.S. is the only industrialized country that does NOT provide healthcare to its citizens (WHO) and we are by in large a capitalistic model, to suggest as a fact that "gov't affects more people" in the U.S. is a leap of faith.
sisque16 2 years ago
cont. you call your nonsense facts? they are nothing but claims from organizations, i back my claims up you didnt... and no u.s is not free market capitalism at all... since we're talkin h.c. here are examples of govt intervention: inflation due to govt paper money, govt mandated hmo, govt bureaucracies that interfere w/ doc/patient relationship, govt eliminate competition and help certain companies (they like to lobby because we have big govt). we have higher population so govt affects more ppl
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
u.s is not free market capitalism because it is an intransigent ideology. but you can see competition in some areas which is a characteristic of capitalism.* we have large amounts of govt control (govt interest rates, govt controling money supply, controling conducts, income tax, govt proping up prices (like housing) etc all these are facts. you can always pretend that america is capitalistic and pretend that the paper money in your pocket is controled by govt but FACT is we're not capitalist
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Every FACT you gave is your opinion, not a FACT. Go to school and learn MLA or APA citation. Once again, the distinction between a fact and opinion is this; I am asserting an opinion with evidence, empherical studies, through trial and error, whereas your opinion without evidence. To say "look it up google" displays clearly your lack of knowledge of citation.
sisque16 2 years ago
cato institute, ayn rand institute, mises institute. opinion = belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. i was making an assessment of reality backed by facts. u think it's necessary for me to give you citation to prove to u that people in utah live longer? its necessary to prove to you that we have a central bank? i need to bring u a site that proves u.s have larger population? u should stop the petty nonsense, should stop pretending they're not facts
sillynanny44 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Excuse me you didn't provide a fact, nice spin and your nose is still growing.
sisque16 2 years ago
you are saying that people live longer in utah than n.y is an opinion. you are saying that it is an opinion that we have a central bank called the federal reserve. you are saying that it is an opinion that we have a massive money supply(inflation). you are saying that govt mandating hmo in 1973 is an opinion. you are saying that lasik, plastic surgery, contacts have gotten cheaper is an opinion. im not even strawmanning you this is how cheap your lies are. those were facts not opinions.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
See the problem with Libertarians/Conservatives like yourself is really a question of values. When you cite Cato, Manhattan, Weekly Standard, etc, you don't learn anything. You just re-inforce your ideas and values you already belief in, you simply disregard your core values such as, fiscal responsibility, pro-life, or even traditional values. Your hidden and true value are about money, yourself, and your party, not America.
sisque16 2 years ago
"i won arguement if im accused of lying" all arguements start because of one believes the other is liar. i proved that i was right & that u lied (read my other replies for proof). u yourself said ''your nose is growing" u didnt bring any proof. the facts prove that govt is the problem. im pro life & fiscal responsibility because i want limit govt you want big govt. capital is important. i do care about myself & my country. libertarians dont like republicans or democrats. we dont like palin
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I guess i'll agree to disagree with you, I think Ron Paul I assume would be your candidate, however the problem i have with your viewpoint is that the free-market principle that you champ ignores moral or ethical problems at the expense of social destructiion.
sisque16 2 years ago
free market is the only system that is moral/ethical. if u commit fraud you go to jail. if you fail u go bankrupt NOT getting bailouts/tax payer money. it is a system where individuals have the responsibility & freedom. that society would have so much wealth & we wouldnt have inflation in medicine oil education. if u have a limited govt u wouldnt have an income tax, u wouldnt have a world empire & u wouldnt have lobbyists. consumer rules in capitalism not govt not corporations
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Capitalism runs and thrives off greed, profit, free-market, deregulation, and so forth. The freedom to do whatever you want is not in the best interest of the U.S. If you are selfish, should we have intervened in WWII? Do you think a women should have the freedom to pay for an abortion? The Freedom to give a loan to someone who can't afford it? The right of privatization to take another's property with Due Process? The freedom to sell a product and make them a moral equivalent to a human?
sisque16 2 years ago
in capitalism ppl have to benefit consumer for profit. ppl would also be aware of consequences like bankruptcy or jail so they would act prudently. govt shouldnt control conduct but they should put criminals in jail. freedom is in the interest of u.s. in ww2 we were attacked by japanese, was in our interest to defend. abbortion = aggression. wouldnt be in our interest to give loan to ppl who cant afford. govt should protect contracts, put thieves in jail. humans r different from products.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 14
continue.. you are not helping anyone (& you're not helping yourself) by being an emo. we should live & think soberly so we can solve this country's problems.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gov't must control conduct, especially when the private sectors motives are established by profit. I work in a corporation, morality or ethics are not discussed on conference calls. Profits are discussed and oftentimes encouraged through unethical means. Gov't must regulate these problems because gov't has a motive for morality not profit. Thats why you believe in "limited gov't," because accountability.
sisque16 2 years ago
govt dont have incentives for morality.... now that is a big mistake to believe that govt is moral... when govt is big and powerful you get lobbyists, politicians would give them subsidies, privileges(fascism). majority controling govt (democratic socialism) fails too because that is mob rule. majority steal from minority -> no one to innovate or create jobs. in capitalism 1 you can work for other companies. 2 your company has to benefit consumer or it will fail. 3 no govt privileges/subsidies
sillynanny44 2 years ago 17
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is nothing wrong with Socialism, it has not tampered innovation in France in terms of healthcare, the U.S. military, etc. I would agree that it is income redistribution, but democracy is not the same as capitalism. Capitalism is run exactly like a dictatorship, where you get the top1% owning more than the bottom 95%(economic polict Inst) whereas socialism is run by the people, the exact definition of "demo" "cratia"=people rule.
sisque16 2 years ago
socialism has tampered innovation in france. france has higher percentage of gdp for public spending. u.s has better and more innovation for medicine and many other things.... innovation in military? for the large amount of money we're spending for military i believe we're probably getting very little innovation. we have rich people who doesnt earn their wealth, instead they use govt to steal, they are powerful because of big govt not because of capitalism. read next comment about democracy
sillynanny44 2 years ago 28
continue.... democracy is a terrible idea. we should have a republic w/ democratic elections. the elected officials have to follow the constitution so all individuals would be protected. mob rule = putting jews in ovens, stealing from job creators. mob worshiping govt and giving govt power = govt backstabbing people... capitalism = consumer rule (we're all consumers). capitalism is not corporation rule and it is not govt rule. read my other comments
sillynanny44 2 years ago 26
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Democracy did not cause the holocaust. You did not have an education at all to suggest that. It was a totalitarian dictatorship by Hilter and his views on eugenics and his Catholic upbringing that used the Jews as a scapegoat for the killing of Jesus. Go look up the German Concordance and how the Catholic church did not nothing to stop Hitler, in fact up until 1945 the Church celebrated Hitler's birthday. That's hardly democracy, go to school and read up before you debate with an adult, child.
sisque16 2 years ago
tyranny of majority. when majority use govt to hurt the minority they give the govt power, then govt backstabs the people so mob rule leads to totalitarian govts. i didnt only say ''read the entire constitution" i also said federal govt should have no say in abortion (10th amendment) what have you accomplished by calling me names? all these ad hominem of yours attack does nothing. you should show some dignity & focus on the issues rather than focusing on whether if someone has a badge or not...
sillynanny44 2 years ago 20
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i did not call you names, I merely questioned your lack of education and knowledge which is apparent. Roe v. Wade was decided 5-4 due to "privacy" not the 10th ammendment which describes states rights. Go read the majoriy opinion of the case. An "ad hominem" attack is an attack on a person without relevance to an issue,(.i.e. your wrong because your black) Your lack of history and Supreme Court precedent is evident based on your insufficent responses.
sisque16 2 years ago
10 amendment = powers to the states.... federal govt should have no say in abortion. you made ad hominem attacks against me you were talking about what major, did i graduate, did i read, did i work at a law firm. those are irrelevant to the issue. they dont refute any of the points ive made. if someone says 1+1=2. u'd be there to say "you're wrong because u didnt go to school"? so yes you did called me "child". i had sufficient responses u r just doing mental contortions to ignore them.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Questioning one's educational background is a relevant issue regarding the Constitution and your lack of education. It is clear that you have no knowledge of neither; you have not been a paralegal, studied Constitutional Law, or even read a peer review. Excuse me, you are a child when you assert, "10th ammendment" in defense to abortion. To say that you had "sufficent responses" is a leap of faith? I'll ask again, "Did you graduate college? Read a Law review? If not, then yes you are a child.
sisque16 2 years ago
asking whether if i graduate college, read a law review etc they are irrelevant and they dont refute any of my claims.... 10th amendment means fed govt should not have a say in abortion.... ya so you call me names instead of saying anything substantial.. i certainly gave you sufficient responses... now are you going to actually read my comments or does the truth traumatize you? you brag too much about your "experiences" yet you cant apply your knowledge here.. ad hominem = fallacy
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To argue the merits on the whether federal gov't should or should not interfere in abortion based on the 10th ammendment is irrelevant and I'll tell why. If the federal gov't should not determine abortion, then the only logical question is who should make the decision, the state or individual? You just mentions that the "federal gov't should not have a say in abortion." So therefore, it should be left to the indivudal, thereby giving them the choice and/or "privacy" to terminate a pregnancy.
sisque16 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The key word in this arguement is "privacy," which is exactly what Roe. v. Wade decided on a 5-4 decision, not the states rights. I refuted your claim with your own words and with logic, I added no ad hominem attacks and therefore my arguement is not a fallacy but a fact that is consistent with the constitution and the precedent that follows it.
sisque16 2 years ago
i already told you... federal govt should not have a say in abortion..
sillynanny44 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Federal gov't did not decide whether or not one should have an abortion, it was the Supreme Court. You are confusing the Legislative Branch with ammending laws and the Judicial Branch that carries them out or interprets the law, they are not the same. This fear of gov't you have is absurd, every refutation is federal gov't and to suguest that does nonsense.
sisque16 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Excuse me legislative branch ammending and creating law.
sisque16 2 years ago
''to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.'' a3 sect2 there is the federal jurisdiction.. supreme court is part of fed govt..
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am referring to the structural diferrences within the Constution. (i.e. Legslative branch and Executive)
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States." This means that the Supreme Court determines, "cases." If your referrinf U.S.C. as a Federal gov't as an instution, yes I'll agree with you, but I made the distinction initially between the two. You still didn't refute why abortion should be banned?
sisque16 2 years ago
i know there is difference between legislative judicial executive. what does that have to do w/ this. federal govt should have no say in abortion if you follow the constitution. ''u still didnt refute why abortion should be banned?" u think it should be banned or not? i want this country to protect life and accept that life begins at conception. abortion is an aggression on another life, so it is an aggression on the freedom of another person.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am willing to discuss all day on whether a fetus is a human entity and whether or not when it should or should not be terminated, I highly doubt that you or I can come up with an absolute on that, but I think both you or I can know the limits of the relative? That is why the Supreme Court decided it should be a personal matter, not based on other opinions. Remember the state permits ending a life with "due process," in matters of Capital punishment, abortion, end of life matters, etc.
sisque16 2 years ago
Comment removed
sillynanny44 2 years ago
Comment removed
sillynanny44 2 years ago
in following the law, the federal government should not force the states to allow abortion & it should not ban abortion in any of the states. states should decide on abortion. since my view is that life begins at conception. my view is that the states should start banning abortion.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 16
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You just undermined your libertarian viewpoint. To suggest that states should intervene on freedom to abort a fetus is invading one's privacy. Your contradictions are evident, capitalism and free-markets have never taken into account morality, prostitution, legalization of drugs, etc. All of these ideas promote the demise of a society; Karl Marx notes "Capitalism's dirty secret... realm of harmony and mutual benefit but a system in which one class systematically extracts profit from another."
sisque16 2 years ago
lol you seem to suffer from memory loss. i already explained to you that abortion is aggression on another* person so it's aggression on another person's freedom. capitalism is the only system that is moral. in capitalism corporations have to receive consumer votes in order to get profit. people should be free to make mistakes as long as it doesnt hurt other people (prostitution, drugs). in free market, unequal wealth is because of unequal effort. if you forget what ive said reread my comments.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No philosopher or capitalist has ever made the assertion that capitalism is moral,. (Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, etc) In fact, most of capitalist agree it is immoral, they think of it as more utilitarian than moral. Unequal wealth is not because of unequal effort, it is because the top 1% own 95% of the wealth and they want to keep it.
sisque16 2 years ago
@sisque16 lol "no philisopher/capitalism made assertion that capitalism is moral" ayn rand would be one of the philosopher/capitalist that considers laissez-faire capitalism moral. capitalism = individual freedom. people can do anything they want as long as they dont hurt others. "top 1% own 95% of wealth" once again you ignore my comments. there is a difference between using the govt to cheat/steal and benefiting the consumers. what is your problem? memory loss or do you just want to ignore me?
sillynanny44 2 years ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow you named one philosopher...now thats funny! It is a known fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute that the top 1% own 95% of the wealth, wages have stagnated over 40 years, CEO pay has increased 500%, that is a result of the private enterprise that pay minimum wage for profit, not gov't. Look at minimum wages from state to state, the states w/o regulation have lower wages, whereas states with regulations have higher wages.
sisque16 2 years ago
@sisque16 lol jesus said we should covet our neighbor's house/ox//donkey or other items? (we should steal?) jesus said we should commit idolatry? (we should worship govt?) i do blame govt for inflation, elimination of competition, govt sudsidizing companies, bailouts, tax credit etc. making employers pay minimum wage -> higher unemployment. granholm raised Michigan minimum wage.. michigan = highest unemployment. wyoming has lowest minimum wage, it also has lowest unemployment.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I agree with you, if you had regulations this would likely not occur, but you see Marx never bailed out a gov't, in fact Marx argued for worker wages, Jesus never suggested idolatry with gov't, in fact he actually said "render to Cesar," to argue Capitalism is Moral by naming one philosopher, is really an act of faith.
sisque16 2 years ago
govt control = disaster. the income tax and the power to create money out of thin air enables fed govt to do all kinds of terrible things like starting wars, subsidizing/bailing out special interest, devaluing the dollar. by stealing capital from private sector the govt also destroy jobs and burden innovators. the fact that our govt had power to control conducts of buisnesses led to the lobbyists. all of these things go in conflict of capitalism.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You haven't study history. War occurs because of profit, greed, and selfishness, everything you champion. "Democracy is acceptable if and only if it is consistent with strategic and economic interest." (Failed States,251) The problem of gov't is not gov't, its lobbyists that spend millions buying our legislatures, like this Supreme Court ruling, in which a foreign company can funnel in money, where a company is equalavent to a person in regards to freedom of speech, that is absurd.
sisque16 2 years ago
lol that is very myopic. the fact that we have lobbyists is because govt is big. govt is the one that starts the wars. we should limit govt to stop the lobbyists and stop the wars. fed reserve/income tax enables the govt to fight wars, and govt gives our money to special interest. in capitalism you wouldnt have federal reserve/income tax.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That is not true, one could argu that Nazi Germany, USSR, China, which do have a totalitarian govt, or communist govt's had a large gov't without lobbyist, futhermore corruption did not occur and they did occur they were minimal.
sisque16 2 years ago
a large govt system = corrupt because it takes our fruit of labor and makes decisions for us
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you talking about the private market? Socialist care about the fruits of their labor, capitalist deprive labor through wages, healthcare, and unions for need of PROFIT. You clearly have not read opposing points of view on labor, go read Marx's book "Das capital" or Adam Smith "wealth of nations" then you might be close to my educational level, (ie no personal attack.) I am not making an ad hominem attack; I am attacking your ignorance of a lack of education!!
sisque16 2 years ago
''socialists care about fruit of their labor'' no socialists steal. capitalism = incentive for work. capitalism = lasik, plastic surgery, contact lenses in healthcare... you can still have unions in capitalism.. you just dont get benefits... big govt failed healthcare.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
you just dont get benefits from govt*
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow thats great!! "Socialist steal" sure I'll agree to that, from the TOP 1% THAT OWN 95% OF THE WEALTH! That is not democracy, nor a republic, which you champion, thats a dictatorship, surely you have to agree with me on that?
sisque16 2 years ago
there is a difference between stealing and getting money back from theives... i have no problem getting money from rich people who steal. but if rich people earned the money they deserve to keep it..
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
i have no problem getting money back from rich people who stole*
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Every rich person has employees, they cut there pay for profit? The sad thing is you think that okay? You call that rich person, a great innovator? Thats absurd!
sisque16 2 years ago
employees can start a business or look for different employer, you ignored that part lol. in capitalism being rich is the **effect** of innovation, satisfying the consumer, low prices etc*
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BANKS aren't giving credit, thereby people cant start a buisiness. DID YOU NOTICE ONLY GOV'T IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT WANTS THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO GIVE IT? HELLO!
sisque16 2 years ago
that is because we dont have capitalism lol.. and also **another reason** that it is hard to start a buisness is because of govt bureaucracies it takes like 3-4 weeks(if you're lucky) to start a business here while it takes like 2-3 days to start one in china (china is becoming more capitalistic)
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
if we have capitalism it would be in their interest to give credit for businesses because businesses wouldnt be burdened by govt and business would have better prospects
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
also individuals would be saving way more if govt dont inflate.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You say my arguements have no substance? You blame gov't on everything? Did you know USA lost the war, yeah it was gov't!! My balls itch, govt! Your old, govt! Can you name one thing Gov't does well so you don't sound like an ideologue?
sisque16 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i agree the private sector does good things, make money, some innovation, Socialism does have limits, you are implying capitalism does't?
sisque16 2 years ago
capitalism is about giving people incentives to be successful. govt's role should be putting people in jail for fraud that destroys the incentive for fraud. govt controling conduct leads to lobbyists.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Incentives, rewards and benefits, sure I agree, however my question is, are willing to give incentives to employers for denying coverage for health to acheive your bottom line? Thats the problem, capitalism have no regard for what you and i cherish, "life."
sisque16 2 years ago
the solution to the healthcare problem is allow competition and allow people to keep their money.. you have insurance for big stuff like cancer/heart attacks. we shouldnt use insurance to buy everything because that leads to high prices, especially if someone else is paying. in capitalism we'd be helping each other because it would be in our own interest.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Insurance by definition is trading risk, in which a private company decides your life and mine, based on coverage. So if one were to choose insurance that later doesn't cover care, thats a problem. Competition may work if care was preventative but its not due to PHARMA and HMO's profititing from denying care.
sisque16 2 years ago
''if one were to choose insurance that later doesnt cover care that is a problem'' govt should put fraud criminals in jail. and they would be more likely to care if you lower cost of medicine which you need competition to get low prices. insurance is suppose to measure risk that is why it is for big health problems. it wouldnt be in people's interest to deny care in a capitalist society.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gov't is attempting to intervene by preventing pre-existing condition, mandating costs curves, regulations of HMO's, denying care, and all you argue about is its the gov't fault because there is no competition. For example, if people got paid well and decent benefits, then we wouldn't have unions because the market would have solved the problem, however they've not solved the problem for over 60 years and you argue for competition?
sisque16 2 years ago
you are saying the problem is people dont get paid well and the solution is govt controling conducts? well the fact that people dont get paid well is caused by govt controling conduct (inflation, taking away capital from private sector, etc). govt caused the problem, & govt cant be the solution. ''they (free market) have not solved the problem'' nonsense there was no free market. there is a difference between govt putting fraud criminals in jail after fraud & controling the conducts of people.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
they deny care because h.c is costly due to govt inflation govt elimination of competition. hmo was of govt mandate... you are pretending that govt can solve the problem that they caused in the first place... the solution is to **undo** the cause of the problem (govt intervention) not adding more govt.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You seem to suggest deregulation of the industry will work? You cannot name one country that has a capitalistic model in terms of healthcare that has universal coverage and which is moral?
sisque16 2 years ago
that is because no nation has ever come close to the ideal capitalist society... ive given you examples of competition and how that characteristic of capitalism reduced prices...... tv, phones, computers, food, plastic surgery, lasik, contact lenses, etc. govt ruined other parts of h.c. if you get rid of govt inflation that would help... govt inflation was the reason why oil cost so much... oil price remained same in gold.... so again, to claim that we've had a free market is nonsense.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Deregulation doesn't work in anything that matter, healthcare, economics, military, social security, warfare, medicare, etc.
sisque16 2 years ago
govt intervention ruined healthcare w/ inflation govt hmo govt elimination of competition. govt ruined economy w/ inflation, income tax, govt interest rates, govt elimination of competition. this country is already bankrupt and you are talking about social security/medicare?? wars are caused by govt....
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Like I mentioned, all you care about is yourself and no one else? Who do you think pays for the road w/o gov't, your school, your healthcare when you were sick as a child, gov't "by and for the people."
sisque16 2 years ago
public school system is why many americans are uninformed. private road builders reduced a 45 min trip to 10 min w/ a double decker underground highway. private developers added lanes to highway.... govt failed ''US Post Office To Run $7 Billion Deficit In 2009''
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
lol there are people in berkeley that doesn't know what caused the great depression. many students there don't even know lincoln's party. people consider berkeley to be # 1 ranked public university.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What's your point? The fact that one goes to a public school and is educated, means that they at least know how to argue on facts of their degree not on faith. Whereas most people that have not graduated college based their opinions on faith rather than fact.
sisque16 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh please...as I mentioned you cannot name one, de-regulation project or free-market solution that has worked in reality in regards to, economics, healthcare, war, social security, or medicare?
sisque16 2 years ago
lol ive given you many examples where there are less govt intervention.... tv, phones, computers, lasik, plastic surgery, contact lenses, food, cloths, etc. there are you economic and h.c examples... lol whenever you have peace time is whenever you dont have govt fighting wars. social security/medicare failed.. we're in huge debt... why do you continue to ignore these facts? if i type it any more it'll be marked as spam lol
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you have a degree? I'm sure you do not b/c otherwise you would be working, right? You clearly do not have intellectual capacity to argue an adult, child? No ad hominem attack, questioning your knowledge?
sisque16 2 years ago
''Do you have a degree? I'm sure you do not b/c otherwise you would be working, right?'' and then you said ''no ad hominem attack'' haha ad hominem = argument against the person.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
MAN YOU ARE SO STUPID B/ YOU ARE WHITE!! ad hominem, do you have a degree? questioning one's lack of education? THERES A DIFFERENCE, GO TO SCHOOL AND FIND OUT THE DIFFERENCE!
sisque16 2 years ago
do you want me to repeat myself again? person a makes claim x, person b makes an attack on person a, therefore a's claim is false... your ad hominem is a fallacy.... ''you are stupid because you are white'' that is ad hominem too... you nonsense doesnt refute my **specific** point..
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A personal attack is referring to an attack that has nothing to do with the subject at hand? Your education does, b/c if you do not know the distinction between asking a question and calling someone racist for your views you are an igoranamus? (i.e. ingoring fact)
sisque16 2 years ago
whether someone got a degree or not doesnt constitute as a refutation when it comes to rebuking that person's specific points..... ive given you specific facts, if you believe im lying tell me to bring you the source of info or try to get some information yourself to refute me.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lying is intentionally deceiving, I think you are misinformed and ignorant of the facts that I am asserting, which is I am refuting your opinion on the basis of your lack of education (i.e. ignorance) and facts such as, income tax from Dept of Labor, production v. compensation, etc. All you have done is blame Gov't w/o any facts. I've cited sources from Department of Labor, Economic policy inst, and so forth.+
sisque16 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am asking whether you are even qualified to talk about politics? Why? Michael Savage talks about politics all the time on his radio show, however that doesn't qualify him as an intellectual for that subject, in fact, he recieved his PH.D at Cal for nutritional medicine. The same goes here, I have a bachelor degree in Criminal justice and philosophy and you do not, so therefore the likelyhood that you know more than me on many of these subjects is rare.
sisque16 2 years ago
lol you are so proud of using these ad hominem attacks. you show me your badges because you are not capable of applying any knowledge here. you worship your idols because you think logic is done by consensus...
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
obama is sending 30,000 more troops to afghanistan and he won the nobel peace prize
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you a part of the Tea Bagging movement?
suckadj57 2 years ago
tea party was started by libertarians now it has a lot of neocons. ya you were citing facts, they dont back your claim that we've had a free market. that is why i called that claim baseless. 1% owning 95% is a fact how does it serve your argument? we've had rich people using govt. i need to show you a source that we have to pay income tax? our nation debt is at debt clock. ''Real unemployment tops 22%'' oil price chart is at a site called thedailygreen
sillynanny44 2 years ago 16
''all you have done is blame govt w/o any facts'' now that is your biggest lie. income tax = fact. paper currency/no sound money = fact. massive money supply/inflation = fact. govt mandated hmo = fact. govt set interest rates = fact. govt started wars = fact. govt subsidies = fact. govt bailouts = fact. 14 digits of national debt = fact. ''US Post Office To Run $7 Billion Deficit In 2009'' = fact. you are the one making the baseless claims here and you say that i dont have facts?
sillynanny44 2 years ago 13
continue.. so you should show some dignity and face those facts instead of ignoring them and making cheap lies like ''w/o any facts''. lol ive repeated myself about 10 times writing those. you should address each of those specific points (the ones in my last comment).
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
you pretend that you can win arguments without earning it. telling me whether you have a degree or not doesnt constitute as anything substantial. now learn to read my comments. youve ignored almost every single point ive made while i took the time to address all your nonsense.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't pretend to win anything, I am citing verifiable facts and giving an analysis of those facts. Do you know how to do a citation or reference if not I'll teach you?
suckadj57 2 years ago
''Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973'' ''2003 invasion of Iraq'' ''War in Afghanistan (2001present)'' ''US Post Office To Run $7 Billion Deficit In 2009'' ''The current Federal Reserve interest rate is between zero and .25%''
sillynanny44 2 years ago 16
''Do you know how to do a citation or reference if not I'll teach you?'' ive shown you the sites. these are basic facts and you know it. you're clowning around and being vain.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cite me a source, then it becomes a fact, otherwise its your opinion, that the difference being educated and uneducated.
suckadj57 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Please refute my sources, all the sources i've cited are from Paul Krugman, Friedman, Chomsky, even Ron Paul is in there, when he talks of non-inteventionism. Krugman and Friedman both nobel lauriettes or prize winners, chomsky top 5 smartest intellectuals in the world, and yes even Dr.Paul.
sisque16 2 years ago
im not misinformed on what we are talking about. i was telling you facts. opinion - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. ''labor notes the top 1% became 500% more wealthy'' ya refuted your claim that there was free market. ''production v compensation'' how is that a fact? actually all false info = lie. because it would be considered lying for you to make a claim you are not sure on.
sillynanny44 2 years ago 12
how did i refute your claim when you said we had a free market? free market = capital in private sector... our system = income tax, paper money, govt setting interest rates, govt subsidies, govt bailouts, govt hmo, etc. this comment refutes your claim that there was a free market. and ive addressed it ad nauseam too lol
sillynanny44 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Debating you is like talking to a wall, I have no interest in doing so. Citing a dept of labor statistic such as, Production v. Compensation is a fact, citing top 1% owns 95% is a fact according to reputatable sources.
suckadj57 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
at least you didn't blame gov't!!
sisque16 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You have no concept of history. Wars are fought for greed and controlling for strategic and economic interest. Iraq oil, afghanistan, oil, Gulf War, oil, Vietnam War-controlling communism for control over natural resources, cold war, the same. Social Security allows seniors to live a decent life, whle you want to privatize their 401k?
sisque16 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ITS THE GOV'T AGAIN!!!
sisque16 2 years ago
ya wars are fought by our govt for oil... it goes in conflict w/ capitalism because of using central bank to print money and it uses our income tax... it also prevent alternative fuel. if we have a free market, the market would allow competition. also the inflation by govt was the reason why oil cost so much. oil price was same in gold. ''social security'' it is stupid govt spending that got us in debt lol we pay for it through inflation thats why savers get hurt. govt also causes unemployment
sillynanny44 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
GOV'T AGAIN, LOL LMAO!!!
sisque16 2 years ago