I spent a large portion of my life believing the fallacy that government makes things fair and just. It took years for me to undo this type of thinking and it's so difficult to explain it to your still-liberal friends. I'm a libertarian now and will be voting for Ron Paul. He says that Health Care is a service and that nobody has a right to someone else's services. He's right: it's immoral to force people to purchase a product. Financially alone, Universal Health care is a failure.
When a private business fails to make a profit, they go under. Sometimes, they might get lucky and get bailed out here and there (which is wrong). When a government business fails to support itself, the government uses your tax dollars to fund it. It's like one big continuous bail out!
Of course, government systems tend to be free of charge, but that doesn't change the fact they cost taxes and are more expensive as a whole. -.-
The first two would imply that we should never do anything for fear that in the future, someone else might think it was a bad idea. The third "bad idea" is just one more scare tactic used in the fight against the recent health care legislation. I'm simply sick of this CRAP! Remember, the only person who never makes a mistake is the person WHO DOES NOTHING.
Wrong, the person who TELLS everyone else what to do, legislates it, and makes everyone else pay for it, is the reason these "solutions" are doomed to failure.
The Free Market, so despised by the Left, people like you, enables market solutions, without government interference. When the Feds, with Big Businesses help, demand changes, and they don't work, it's YOU IDIOTS who blame Capitalism, when Capitalism had NOTHING to do with the results you've created.
At least a private company will be driven out of business when their products fail or the business plan is faulty. The government never gives up" running after windmills"( a la Don Quixote) at tax payer expense doing damage all along the way.
The only issue I have is the premise that politicians have good intentions. Alturism and calling for sacrifice is evil and the only justification they ever give for their actions.
I agree with Libertarians on a lot of issues. But I support Universal Health coverage. Obama fucked that up, so you can be thankful that he wont be elected again.
@averagejoe040 It's already a total disaster. More people file bankruptcy over health costs than anything else. What do you propose we do to lower insurance costs?
@mparker18311 "What do you propose we do to lower insurance costs?" Insurance costs can't be lowered by government mandates. In fact it's no secret in economics that there is a cost associated with compliance to government regulations. They can only raise costs. The only way to decrease costs in insurance is to decrease payouts, which is to say rationally discriminate against high risk people, and provide plans with less coverage.
@IVoteNone Having LESS or NO people on insurance would also cause the market to force prices down, making medical goods and services affordable "out of pocket"; in other words...the old fashioned way.
@RodCornholio I think you're correct that an insurance system is not the best business structure to deal with general healthcare because it is something that people can demand in ever greater quantities when not totally necessary. A fee for service system is probably the most rational payment scheme when it comes to healthcare, with the exception of perhaps expensive treatments for life-threatening illnesses where demand is only influenced by necessity. Insurance could work for that.
@IVoteNone Yeah, the way I see it is whenever an XYZ company sees a customer with DEEP pockets (be it an insured person or, especially, a government with unlimited funds) they...quite naturally...charge whatever they can get away with. During one of his shows, John Stossel made the same suggestion as I did.
As much as I support freedom, I think it may be a good idea to ban insurance other than for the extremely destitute or something.
@RodCornholio If you investigate the history, the HMO system is a creation of government regulations. Prior to that fee for service was the dominant business model for healthcare. HMOs don't need to be banned. If the regulations are rolled back the market will take care of them.
@mparker18311 First of all you must realize that Obamacare is in no way improves anybody's health care. It truly doesn't.
There were things that could have been done to lower health care costs - 1. Allow insurers to sell nationwide. Currently they are not allowed to do so. This would give customers many more choices. Competition brings prices down. - 2. Tort Reform - Limit Malpractice awards so the insurance is not such a huge expense for doctors.
@averagejoe040 Tort reform would allow Congress or some subcommittee there of to set the value of life and injury..... How the fuck is that different from Pallin's fear of death panels, where she fears a panel will set the value of life and injury?
@averagejoe040 - Sorry, selling policies nationawide doesn't lower costs. Different states have different covergae requirements, so I could be paying less in another state and getting less coverage in return. If we have tort reform, what mechanism to you propose that will keep doctors accountable for their errors and just what is suitable compensation for the victims of such errors?
If curtailing costs were truly a concern, the public option or single-payer are the ones that would address it.
@wildpeachatl737 Sorry, the Public Option or Single payer will never improve care or decrease costs. Any option that is government run is guaranteed to be a disaster in every way.
Free Market options that increase competiton will give consumers more choices and better prices. It's what the free market does! Tort reform does not let bad doctors run free. The penalties need to be sufficient to get rid of bad doctors but not so much that it punishes all doctors and all patients.
@mparker18311 "But I support Universal Health coverage." It may sound appealing but there is always a high level of risk involved in ceding any responsibilities to government. When the government starts a program, and it doesn't work, it continues. Ordinarily the market weeds out business failures but the government can not go insolvent (in theory) and can operate even when it is wasteful and irrational to do so. Bad businesses end themselves. Bad policies can always get funding through taxes.
Not trying to illegitimize the good work done on the part of ReasonTV... a lot of good points made here. I was just being my usual nihilistic self. I can only hope I'm wrong.
i would be able to enjoy this if it didn't make me so depressed; but i'm more depressed by the fact that this kind of stupidity isn't going to stop. the fact that the majority of people do not even know anything about the facts presented in these reasonTV videos is a testament to that. no one is listening. this video gets a measly 40 thousand views, but any video of that idiot sarah palin gets no less than 4 million---there is no hope for humanity.
Another consequence of mandating compact fluorescent bulbs: No light bulbs are manufactured in the USA now; all those jobs have gone overseas. The last plant in America closed in Winchester, VA, in September 2010.
You forgot to mention that not only is ethanol wreaking havoc on engines, shortening their life span, you also get far less fuel millage. I get an extra 4.5 miles per gallon in my car using NON ethanol gas. So this actually causes us to USE MORE OIL, MORE dependency on foreign oil.
If you do a series, don't forget to add CFL lightbulbs and what damage billions of mercury filled lightbulbs are doing to do when all that mercury seeps into the ground and eventually, our water supply.
@adelyn123 One lightbulb may not do much but you add up every lightbulb everywhere ( and they don't last long. They can't handle vibration, I stopped buying them because they R too expensive to blow so easily) as people toss them and eventually, you'll end up with millions in just one landfill, all that mercury from the millions of landfills across the globe and wham...contaminated water supply. Might take 20 years but it's coming.
@adelyn123 Actually, they'll produce less mercury overall, because regular lightbulbs use more energy, most of that energy comes from burning coal which puts mercury into the environment. LEDs are the future anyway.
How do you want to avoid this? Do you want to prohibit private military firms?
Democracy is gang rape? Are you stupid? Where in democratic the world is raping allowed? Stupid!
"So Hitler (and others) weren't elected via majority tyranny, I mean democracy?" There was no problem in the election of Hitler, the problem was, that he ended democracy, the system you hate so much. Oh, you and Hitler both hate democracy? Are you a facist?
How do you want to avoid this? Do you want to prohibit private military firms?
Democracy is gang rape? Are you stupid? Where in democratic the world is raping allowed? Stupid!
There was no problem in the election of Hitler, the problem was, that he ended democracy, the system you hate so much. Oh, you and Hitler both hate democracy? Are you a facist?
A certain amount of majoritarianism is just a fact of realityIf something like 90% of everybody want to enslave the rest, then the members of the 10% minority aren't going to be able to defend themselves under any form of political OR peaceful economy, except possibly a benevolent dictatorship. On the flip side, that also goes for things like municipal services and defense - if nearly everyone wants that, then they will probably impose some sort of sanction against free riders.
What I don't get is why you would want to turn that majoritarianism into a moral absolute and an end unto itself. Why would you want to decrease that margin to 50% for everything, and make it that much easier for people to violently impose their preferences on others?
Are you fucking daft? You not heard of all the military nonsense going on in the middle east because of democracies like the US and various European countries?
"A dictatorship is worse" Best game in town fallacy.
"If I would found my own private military firm?"
Depends on what you do with it, love. If you use it to initiate force on innocent people, then I won't patronize it. If you do good work, I'd probably buy your services.
You have no choice between government or no government in a world, where you are not living alone in.
You have just the choice between democracy and dictatorship. Every time you push back democracy, you support private powers, which are waiting to fill that lack of power with their own.
But what if i start a revolution with my private military firm, how do you want to avoid this? How? Do you want to regulate companies?
No, the USA is a CORPORATIST system and has been for years now.
Because according to you, a country with all ten planks of the communist manifesto enacted to varying degrees along with all the planks of the old communist party is "capitalist".
"You have nothing refuted."
Just because you refuse to look at my refutations doesn't mean I didn't post them.
"If you send all police officers home, crime will rise."
I'm against STATE police, not police, period, you idiot.
The USA is no corporatist, the unions in your country are a joke. Money is ruling your country since Reagan and it's neoliberal agenda in the 80's.
I prefer to live in west- or northern Europe.
The Police is the state. All the other security forces are private security companies. They can not be the police, because just the security force of the state can be a police force.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make this an ongoing series with the same voice actor and the same partly black and white format. Never seen any company hit things on the nail as well as you guys at Reason.tv did with this one. I want to see one of these vides with this format at least once a month!
Osborne Reef was based on a principle that is actually quite common (google "artificial reef"). The project was suggested by a non-profit group, BARINC, founded by the now Professor Emeritus of Ocean Engineering at FAU. The county and Army Corps of Engineers approved it, since it had been successful elsewhere. The metal bands holding the tires together only corroded in recent years, and most agree the effect of toxins are negligible.
If anything, Osborne Reef is a case for MORE government intervention, since the non-profit group was approved, despite their choice of metal that would corrode in salt water. Had the government been more involved in the project, then it probably wouldn't have happened.
ReasonTV exaggerated the severity of the Osborne Reef problem, and it also overstated the government's involvement in the project.
@fogglesworth That's an assumption. Who's to say that the government wouldn't have used corrosive metal clips? The government typically doesn't "do" anything, it's all contracted out.
Osborne Reef was based on a principle that is actually quite common (google "artificial reef"). The project was suggested by a non-profit group, BARINC, founded by the now Professor Emeritus of Ocean Engineering at FAU. The county and Army Corps of Engineers approved it, since it had been successful elsewhere. The metal bands holding the tires together only corroded in recent years, and most agree the effect of toxins are negligible.
Reason is usually pretty good about their research, so it pains me to write the data about ethanol is false. The Cornel Pinentel study was fabricated with intentionally bad and outdated farm data. Deforestation is happening in Brazil, not the US. Water requirements are a false arguement because it takes significantly more water to refine gasoline than ethanol. Pesticides are a problem in all industrial agriculture, not just ethanol.
@PabloKoh6 Unless ethanol is used in the production of ethanol, then it is a net-sum loss. Logically MORE corn is grown to subsidize ethanol, therefore more land is used, more water needed, more equipment to harvest the corn, more trucks used to ship it to the factory, more gas used, ad-infinitum. Whats's worse, that ethanol is a commodity means the price of corn is skyrocketing across the board, which affects the price of beef.
@treysparker Just because they are from SA, does not necessarily mean that they were acting on behalf of he Sadui royals. I am not saying that I trust the Saudis, but you can't invade a nation everytime someone originally from that nation attacks you.
Typical lib BS! The Ethanol piece is totally false. It doesn't even take much self-research to prove it. C'mon Reason.TV, it's not that difficult, but then it really ins't about the truth then is it, just your distorted progressive agenda.
@kenjosmes Unfortunately it isn't. Fertilizers we use today are oil based, corn uses a lot of fertilizer, harvest is mechanized (uses oil as fuel) and the processing uses oil for it's energy. Not to mention we are using a food crop for fuel production.
The above reasons are why I've always been against current ethanol production (future sources look very promising).
It wasn't all 100% true what they said about it, but they did get the basics correct.
@CollinMaessen 8:1 liquid fuel energy out/liquid fuel energy in, 2:1 total energy out/total energy in. Our fertilizers/pesticides are natural gas based, not oil based.
This is just libertarian propaganda. For every government "screw up" i could give you 10 caused by private enterprise. Even the ones caused by government often have a private industry connection. Like for example the corn industry lobby(and pay off) the government(reps) to make decisions that will favour their industry. The problem isnt the government, the problem is corporate influence over the government.
@tubester4567 Agreed, corporate influence is one of the biggest failings of the political process in the U.S.
The government has a role to play as a regulator/watch dog that mistakes aren't made. Although care should be taken that we just keep it to the points that are necessary (to clarify further, I'm a liberal, not libertarian).
Environmental lobbying started the ball rolling in alternative fuels. You think a relatively small lobby (corn producers) essentially bought their way into ethanol? Give me a break. Can you blame them, though, when suddenly their subsidized crop is worth ten times what the government was paying them NOT to grow? The problem was almost ENTIRELY created by government.
@rqbuchanan What is well researched about the last scenario? Absolutely nothing.
I can hypothesize until the cows come home, and it doesn't mean my predictions are fact. Those poor, poor insurance companies! Whatever will become of them?
@spankywzl You would have to be a fool not to understand that if you could buy insurance and could not be turned down even if you were already sick, that many would not buy insurance until they ARE SICK. The result is that you would pay your first premimum and then ask for a large payout. Insurance companies would just simply stop selling health insurance. Even if there were a fine for not buying insurance, that fine would have to be more than the insurance for people to comply. That's a Fact!
[...] Liberal theory should therefore distinguish freedom, which is desirable, from nondependence, which is impossible. Liberty, rightly conceived, does not require a lack of dependence on government; on the contrary, affirmative government provides the preconditions for liberty." - Holmes and Sunstein, "The Cost of Rights", p 205.
"Individual freedom, however defined, cannot mean freedom from all forms of dependency. No human being can single-handedly create all the preconditions for his own action. A free citizen is especially dependent. [...]
@Dysentery7885 marxist? really? Its friggen Reason TV....they are libertarians...which, if aligned to any extreme, would be closest to anarchism. Obama I understand being linked to being a marxist, but calling this channel marxist is like calling Ron Paul a communist. It's just plain wrong.
@frionelhero libertarians are communists. I've said to myself on many occasions that ron paul is a communist. libertarians are moral relativists/communists. libertarians are statists not anarchists (like me).
@FatherTime89 I know what they mean. Libertarians are for non violence and non aggression against evil people and that everyone should have equal rights and not have their rights infringed. Communism is about everyone being equal and equality and making the same amount of money regardless of the individuals quality or morals. In libertarian statist society it would be illegal to kill evil people the same as a communist society (our society) therefor theyre communists.
@Dysentery7885 Libertarianism has nothing to do with communism. They also believe in the use of force. Yes they believe in equality but only in the most fundamental ways. Libertarians believe you have the right to be as big of a jerk as you want to be as long as you aren't using violent cohersion. IE they believe a person who is running a private business can decide not to sell their goods to jews. I believe you are confusing liberalism with libertarianism. Not the same.
Libertartians are for everybody having equal opportunities.
Communists are for everybody having equal outcomes.
Nowhere ever does it say that Libertarians believe everybody should make the same money reguardless of individual quality. They say that everyone is free to negotiate what pay they get. Just because two different positions agree on something doesn't make them the same. Nice try but total FAIL
And socialists are for everybody having equal opportunities by making fair outcomes.
Libertarians believe that everybody shall look after himself, but i don't want that society. I want that people care about each other. The best way to guarantee peace and freedom for all.
@B190489 -Should you force people to take care of each other through government which I would argue doesn't do as good a job as the free market? Without government programs, more people would give to charity as well, which I argue would do a better job. I use to be a socialist, so I certainly understand the opposite viewpoint, but once I started studying economics, I threw away those leftist economic principles.
@mickeysears Right and like I said what makes communism evil is the same thing that makes libertarianism evil aka equal rights and equal opportunities. Evil people should have no rights and no opportunities besides execution or slavery.
@mickeysears No actually I am a hard anarchist. The only way me and my ilk (there is no one) would be able to decide is if we owned the state. I believe evil people will be killed off over time in a state of hard anarchy aka nature.
@Dysentery7885 But there is no state of hard anarchy, whatever that means, so by your definition, evil people will thrive and prosper. I believe in the rule of law and a limited constitutional republic with equal rights and rights to private property.
@mickeysears There is no state of hard anarchy thats the problem is that there is not freedom there is a state. Evil is thriving and prospering. Everything about our world is totally evil. Evil has conquered everything. There is no such thing as freedom with an involuntary state from which one cannot escape which is your rule of law and constitutional republic and all governments. What you believe in is pure evil. Government is inherent pure evil.. the very concept.
Same old story, use violence to solve a problem and you will ALWAYS get the opposite of the intended result. All who learn this lesson shall evolve and all who don't shall be left behind.
@The98taco3 I wasn't even responding to anyone with that statement so exactly how could it possibly be a strawman? Way to show you don't even know what the term means. Amateurs...
By presenting a false dichotomy you created a straw man argument with your reply. There are in fact times when violence is the answer. Someone has a gun to your head, would you rather die, or have the chance to act in violence to save yourself? You made it clear in your comment that there was only two options for violence. Nonviolence being correct, violence being incorrect. There is a third option rendering your comment baseless....
@The98taco3 Like I said, I was referring to the initiation of violence. Nitpicking does not make you look smart. It makes you look like you don't know what the subject of discussion is.
From 2002-2008 i hired on average 7 new employees per year.2009-?,i have no intention of hiring anyone and just keep my money in my pocket-Hahahahahahahaha!
Regarding the death spiral: isn't mandatory insurance a part if the healthcare bill, meaning customers couldn't drop their coverage as a result of increased premiums? I mean, this is still extremely bad, since premiums would be massively higher, but it wouldn't result in most/all providers dropping their child health insurance offerings, would it? If coverage is mandatory, someone's got to offer it, even if it is at much higher rates. What am I missing here?
@CognitiveImbias I'm not sure if I'm hitting on everything you asked, but it is true that many companies already have stopped issuing policies to children.
Of course the left will say it's a reason for a bigger push towards single-payer, but whatever.
@jrsub3 Interesting. But they might have gotten out early to avoid the imminent PR nightmare when the "evil insurance companies" start charging enormous rates for child health insurance (think of the children!), which could result in a push for price controls (which then would kick off this death spiral).
I definitely agree that the left will use this as justification for single-payer. We've still got time to stop it though--the libertarian movement has never been stronger than it is today.
The insurance death spiral should be an obvious inevitability to anyone who knows what the word "insurance" means. There is no excuse for this sort of idiocy.
@Libertarianist From what I gather from the left, insurance is the only way you can receive care and everyone must have it (but we won't remove pre-existing regulations that drive up costs and drive people out of the market, that's silly).
Odd, cause I learned insurance was nothing more than a method of risk-mitigation.
@jrsub3 The left is retarded because they think insurance is supposed to help people afford health care. No, insurance, in all forms, is a just a way to spread out major risks. Low deductible insurance is pointless and nonsensical.
What made all the old, poisonous tires a problem? What makes all the greenhouse gases? What makes children's health insurance a problem? Unregulated economic activity.
True, in each of these cases, it may be shown that government exacerbated the problem, and I'm not saying that I'm for government. But, the reason why these things are problems in the first place are because of a capitalist system, and they'll continue as long as they're profitable. Tragedy of the Commons, good sirs.
@fogglesworth I think you are mistaking what "the commons" is in reference to. Tragedy of the commons is an argument for *private* ownership (read: capitalism).
No one can predict the future, even if an industry is "regulated" it can still produce unexpected harm. The difference is that when mandated by the state, it shifts the responsibility away from individuals.
this should be a weekly series
icopaseticMHF 3 months ago
I spent a large portion of my life believing the fallacy that government makes things fair and just. It took years for me to undo this type of thinking and it's so difficult to explain it to your still-liberal friends. I'm a libertarian now and will be voting for Ron Paul. He says that Health Care is a service and that nobody has a right to someone else's services. He's right: it's immoral to force people to purchase a product. Financially alone, Universal Health care is a failure.
Deadwind002 9 months ago 4
When a private business fails to make a profit, they go under. Sometimes, they might get lucky and get bailed out here and there (which is wrong). When a government business fails to support itself, the government uses your tax dollars to fund it. It's like one big continuous bail out!
Of course, government systems tend to be free of charge, but that doesn't change the fact they cost taxes and are more expensive as a whole. -.-
NoNameC68 9 months ago
What about the new MERCURY filled lightbulbs???
bpentium 10 months ago
great
nottinmatterz2day 11 months ago
love reasontv!
PrimaDonna814 1 year ago
Awesome job! Thanks :)
SattvaNisha 1 year ago
24 people like tires in oceans.
sugarkang 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Sounds like a GREAT idea! With the BEST of intentions! What could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong..."
joekiddone 1 year ago
Great piece. Thanks for putting it together
1edgewater 1 year ago
The first two would imply that we should never do anything for fear that in the future, someone else might think it was a bad idea. The third "bad idea" is just one more scare tactic used in the fight against the recent health care legislation. I'm simply sick of this CRAP! Remember, the only person who never makes a mistake is the person WHO DOES NOTHING.
mainecor 1 year ago
@mainecor
Wrong, the person who TELLS everyone else what to do, legislates it, and makes everyone else pay for it, is the reason these "solutions" are doomed to failure.
The Free Market, so despised by the Left, people like you, enables market solutions, without government interference. When the Feds, with Big Businesses help, demand changes, and they don't work, it's YOU IDIOTS who blame Capitalism, when Capitalism had NOTHING to do with the results you've created.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
Could we all be adults here and not mark points we disagree with as spam?
Nonoyawns 1 year ago 3
Who would vote to dislike this? Bureaucrats would be my guess.
Neuwo 1 year ago
Dump oil made tires into ocean = Idiotic idea.
Use Hemp instead of Corn = problem solved.
Get rid of of insurance companies, doctors run their own business = Medical care does not sky rocket.
Use scientific knowledge to solve problems, not personal opinions.
mathers3000 1 year ago
@mathers3000 "Use Hemp instead of Corn = problem solved."
Or, simply get govt out of the way. Lots of problems solved.
CurtHowland 1 year ago 2
This is a nice change from the non issues you guys have been strawmaning lately.
Vlaxitov 1 year ago
Hilarious. Hope to see more of these.
Bosco20061217 1 year ago
At least a private company will be driven out of business when their products fail or the business plan is faulty. The government never gives up" running after windmills"( a la Don Quixote) at tax payer expense doing damage all along the way.
daisie13orso 1 year ago
The only issue I have is the premise that politicians have good intentions. Alturism and calling for sacrifice is evil and the only justification they ever give for their actions.
laforgetm 1 year ago
I agree with Libertarians on a lot of issues. But I support Universal Health coverage. Obama fucked that up, so you can be thankful that he wont be elected again.
mparker18311 1 year ago
@mparker18311 Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with Universal Health Coverage? Best of intentions? Total disaster? No doubt.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
@averagejoe040 It's already a total disaster. More people file bankruptcy over health costs than anything else. What do you propose we do to lower insurance costs?
mparker18311 1 year ago
@mparker18311 "What do you propose we do to lower insurance costs?" Insurance costs can't be lowered by government mandates. In fact it's no secret in economics that there is a cost associated with compliance to government regulations. They can only raise costs. The only way to decrease costs in insurance is to decrease payouts, which is to say rationally discriminate against high risk people, and provide plans with less coverage.
IVoteNone 1 year ago 3
@IVoteNone Having LESS or NO people on insurance would also cause the market to force prices down, making medical goods and services affordable "out of pocket"; in other words...the old fashioned way.
RodCornholio 1 year ago
@RodCornholio I think you're correct that an insurance system is not the best business structure to deal with general healthcare because it is something that people can demand in ever greater quantities when not totally necessary. A fee for service system is probably the most rational payment scheme when it comes to healthcare, with the exception of perhaps expensive treatments for life-threatening illnesses where demand is only influenced by necessity. Insurance could work for that.
IVoteNone 1 year ago
@IVoteNone Yeah, the way I see it is whenever an XYZ company sees a customer with DEEP pockets (be it an insured person or, especially, a government with unlimited funds) they...quite naturally...charge whatever they can get away with. During one of his shows, John Stossel made the same suggestion as I did.
As much as I support freedom, I think it may be a good idea to ban insurance other than for the extremely destitute or something.
RodCornholio 1 year ago
@RodCornholio If you investigate the history, the HMO system is a creation of government regulations. Prior to that fee for service was the dominant business model for healthcare. HMOs don't need to be banned. If the regulations are rolled back the market will take care of them.
IVoteNone 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@mparker18311 "What do you propose we do to lower insurance costs?"
A century of govt involvement in health care has had its inevitable result, continually increasing costs.
Every mandate must be paid for, every regulation, every license requirement.
Housecalls? No longer cost effective as the costs to doctors has risen. Nurses providing basic treatment? No, that's illegal.
Every problem govt has caused in medicine will only get worse as govt does more.
CurtHowland 1 year ago 2
@mparker18311 First of all you must realize that Obamacare is in no way improves anybody's health care. It truly doesn't.
There were things that could have been done to lower health care costs - 1. Allow insurers to sell nationwide. Currently they are not allowed to do so. This would give customers many more choices. Competition brings prices down. - 2. Tort Reform - Limit Malpractice awards so the insurance is not such a huge expense for doctors.
Obama wants power, not lower costs.
averagejoe040 1 year ago 2
@averagejoe040 Tort reform would allow Congress or some subcommittee there of to set the value of life and injury..... How the fuck is that different from Pallin's fear of death panels, where she fears a panel will set the value of life and injury?
sokoboo 1 year ago
@averagejoe040 - Sorry, selling policies nationawide doesn't lower costs. Different states have different covergae requirements, so I could be paying less in another state and getting less coverage in return. If we have tort reform, what mechanism to you propose that will keep doctors accountable for their errors and just what is suitable compensation for the victims of such errors?
If curtailing costs were truly a concern, the public option or single-payer are the ones that would address it.
wildpeachatl737 1 year ago
@wildpeachatl737 Sorry, the Public Option or Single payer will never improve care or decrease costs. Any option that is government run is guaranteed to be a disaster in every way.
Free Market options that increase competiton will give consumers more choices and better prices. It's what the free market does! Tort reform does not let bad doctors run free. The penalties need to be sufficient to get rid of bad doctors but not so much that it punishes all doctors and all patients.
Obama care sucks
averagejoe040 1 year ago
@mparker18311 "But I support Universal Health coverage." It may sound appealing but there is always a high level of risk involved in ceding any responsibilities to government. When the government starts a program, and it doesn't work, it continues. Ordinarily the market weeds out business failures but the government can not go insolvent (in theory) and can operate even when it is wasteful and irrational to do so. Bad businesses end themselves. Bad policies can always get funding through taxes.
IVoteNone 1 year ago 21
"Sounds like a GREAT idea!"
"With the BEST of intentions!"
"What could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong..."
joekiddone 1 year ago 2
Not trying to illegitimize the good work done on the part of ReasonTV... a lot of good points made here. I was just being my usual nihilistic self. I can only hope I'm wrong.
Lovertits9 1 year ago
i would be able to enjoy this if it didn't make me so depressed; but i'm more depressed by the fact that this kind of stupidity isn't going to stop. the fact that the majority of people do not even know anything about the facts presented in these reasonTV videos is a testament to that. no one is listening. this video gets a measly 40 thousand views, but any video of that idiot sarah palin gets no less than 4 million---there is no hope for humanity.
Lovertits9 1 year ago
Keep up the good work of pointing out the obvious with humor!!
ladylordess 1 year ago
Another consequence of mandating compact fluorescent bulbs: No light bulbs are manufactured in the USA now; all those jobs have gone overseas. The last plant in America closed in Winchester, VA, in September 2010.
MazeppaPZ 1 year ago
You forgot to mention that not only is ethanol wreaking havoc on engines, shortening their life span, you also get far less fuel millage. I get an extra 4.5 miles per gallon in my car using NON ethanol gas. So this actually causes us to USE MORE OIL, MORE dependency on foreign oil.
If you do a series, don't forget to add CFL lightbulbs and what damage billions of mercury filled lightbulbs are doing to do when all that mercury seeps into the ground and eventually, our water supply.
adelyn123 1 year ago
@adelyn123 One lightbulb may not do much but you add up every lightbulb everywhere ( and they don't last long. They can't handle vibration, I stopped buying them because they R too expensive to blow so easily) as people toss them and eventually, you'll end up with millions in just one landfill, all that mercury from the millions of landfills across the globe and wham...contaminated water supply. Might take 20 years but it's coming.
adelyn123 1 year ago 9
@adelyn123 Actually, they'll produce less mercury overall, because regular lightbulbs use more energy, most of that energy comes from burning coal which puts mercury into the environment. LEDs are the future anyway.
Vegemighty 1 year ago
Remember the nation wide 55 MPH speed limit? Thanks for nothing, Fed.
the82spartans 1 year ago
Or when creating a huge carbon tax in the US, then manufacturers move to China where factories put no effort into filtering smoke stacks!
palmisano 1 year ago 3
I want to found a private military company and use the private military to introduce socialism. That is why i would support libertarianism.
B190489 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@B190489 "use the private military to introduce socialism."
Doesn't work that way.
If coercion is wrong, "Libertarianism", then it's wrong for everyone including your private military.
You should listen to Roderick Long's "Answers to objections to anarchy:
mises. org/media/1250
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@B190489
So...you support violent revolution?
That explains alot.
vspqbd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vspqbd
How do you want to avoid this? Do you want to prohibit private military firms?
Democracy is gang rape? Are you stupid? Where in democratic the world is raping allowed? Stupid!
"So Hitler (and others) weren't elected via majority tyranny, I mean democracy?" There was no problem in the election of Hitler, the problem was, that he ended democracy, the system you hate so much. Oh, you and Hitler both hate democracy? Are you a facist?
B190489 1 year ago
@vspqbd
How do you want to avoid this? Do you want to prohibit private military firms?
Democracy is gang rape? Are you stupid? Where in democratic the world is raping allowed? Stupid!
There was no problem in the election of Hitler, the problem was, that he ended democracy, the system you hate so much. Oh, you and Hitler both hate democracy? Are you a facist?
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
A certain amount of majoritarianism is just a fact of realityIf something like 90% of everybody want to enslave the rest, then the members of the 10% minority aren't going to be able to defend themselves under any form of political OR peaceful economy, except possibly a benevolent dictatorship. On the flip side, that also goes for things like municipal services and defense - if nearly everyone wants that, then they will probably impose some sort of sanction against free riders.
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
-
What I don't get is why you would want to turn that majoritarianism into a moral absolute and an end unto itself. Why would you want to decrease that margin to 50% for everything, and make it that much easier for people to violently impose their preferences on others?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@B190489
You speak English?
Gang rape IS the democratic principle at work.
Majority rules!
"Where in the democratic world is raping allowed?" Irrelavent.
No, I'm an anarcho capitalist.
But you're a state cultist. :3
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd
How often a democracy is violent??? Most democratic societies are peaceful and have rules which protects the human rights. A dictatorship is worse.
It's my question to you? What do you want to do, if i would found my own private military firm???
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
"How often a democracy is violent???"
Are you fucking daft? You not heard of all the military nonsense going on in the middle east because of democracies like the US and various European countries?
"A dictatorship is worse" Best game in town fallacy.
"If I would found my own private military firm?"
Depends on what you do with it, love. If you use it to initiate force on innocent people, then I won't patronize it. If you do good work, I'd probably buy your services.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd
Who says that the US is a democracy?
You have no choice between government or no government in a world, where you are not living alone in.
You have just the choice between democracy and dictatorship. Every time you push back democracy, you support private powers, which are waiting to fill that lack of power with their own.
But what if i start a revolution with my private military firm, how do you want to avoid this? How? Do you want to regulate companies?
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
"Who says that the US is a democracy?"
You've never watched American news I take it. Damn near everyone.
"You haev just the choice between democracy and dictatorship."
Long since refuted, both by the videos I linked you to and others.
You fail.
"But what if I start a revolution with my private military firm, how do you want to avoid this? How? Do you want to regulate companies?"
Answered here: freedomainradio(DOT)com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook(DOT)pdf
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd
The US is a fucking capitalist shithole, where the rich say everybody what they have to do and what not.
You have nothing refuted. If you send all police officers at home, crime will rise.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
No, the USA is a CORPORATIST system and has been for years now.
Because according to you, a country with all ten planks of the communist manifesto enacted to varying degrees along with all the planks of the old communist party is "capitalist".
"You have nothing refuted."
Just because you refuse to look at my refutations doesn't mean I didn't post them.
"If you send all police officers home, crime will rise."
I'm against STATE police, not police, period, you idiot.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd
The USA is no corporatist, the unions in your country are a joke. Money is ruling your country since Reagan and it's neoliberal agenda in the 80's.
I prefer to live in west- or northern Europe.
The Police is the state. All the other security forces are private security companies. They can not be the police, because just the security force of the state can be a police force.
B190489 1 year ago
@vspqbd
I don't care about the video. Where are YOUR arguments???
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
The arguments are in the fucking videos you fucking asshole.
vspqbd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vspqbd
"The arguments are in the fucking videos you fucking asshole."
And now? Do you really think that you will win that debate, because you say watch the video!????
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
"Do you want to prohibit private military firms?"
Reread my posts. I never said anything about prohibiting that.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@B190489
Yes, but he still used democracy, what's wrong?
Butthurt because he misused your infallible god in a way you don't like? :P
vspqbd 1 year ago
but guys, we don't even need government at all!!!
mikeshanklin 1 year ago
Its too bad Liberals don’t understand facts all they see is ideology.
teton99 1 year ago 2
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make this an ongoing series with the same voice actor and the same partly black and white format. Never seen any company hit things on the nail as well as you guys at Reason.tv did with this one. I want to see one of these vides with this format at least once a month!
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
Didn't the new regulation mandate that all children are covered by medical insurance by law? Was I mistaken about this?
totoroben 1 year ago
Do one about banning DDT. Worst unintended consequences ever.
kyleb2112 1 year ago
@kyleb2112 Hahahaha! Don't let the bedbugs bite!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
LMAO! Great vid; thanks! Keep posting!
timeoftroubles 1 year ago
the last one is based on logical fallacy. I'm sorry, but they should have thought of something more reasonable
Fig1024 1 year ago
Videos like these will make you guys famous, keep it up.
rtvest 1 year ago
Where is the unintended consequences of the "war on drugs"?????????????
smm95008 1 year ago
love you Reason!
El3ctricPenguin 1 year ago
MORE! WE NEED MORE VIDEOS JUST LIKE THIS!
AscottW 1 year ago
I can't think of a single serious problem facing our nation that is not caused in large part by governmental stupidity and incompetence.
The Tea Party ought to start an effort to limit congressional sessions to the first two weeks of April. Then they can just go away.
Why that time period? Because it starts with April Fools Day, of course!
bloggenfels 1 year ago
"I'm afraid of foreigners!" Great! Reason should make videos discrediting the anti-globalists.
ilieklolcatz 1 year ago
Great video! More like this please !
mrHasaf 1 year ago
Simply inspired. Genius.
jum1801 1 year ago
Reason, use more historical examples.
Fredericks3214 1 year ago
There is an unlimited supply of unintended consequences delivered by the US Congress
alvincay100 1 year ago
Treysparker yourre a effin idiot libtard. go way...
Despiser25 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Osborne Reef was based on a principle that is actually quite common (google "artificial reef"). The project was suggested by a non-profit group, BARINC, founded by the now Professor Emeritus of Ocean Engineering at FAU. The county and Army Corps of Engineers approved it, since it had been successful elsewhere. The metal bands holding the tires together only corroded in recent years, and most agree the effect of toxins are negligible.
fogglesworth 1 year ago
Comment removed
fogglesworth 1 year ago
Ethanol should definately not be government subsidized.
PabloKoh6 1 year ago
If anything, Osborne Reef is a case for MORE government intervention, since the non-profit group was approved, despite their choice of metal that would corrode in salt water. Had the government been more involved in the project, then it probably wouldn't have happened.
ReasonTV exaggerated the severity of the Osborne Reef problem, and it also overstated the government's involvement in the project.
fogglesworth 1 year ago
@fogglesworth That's an assumption. Who's to say that the government wouldn't have used corrosive metal clips? The government typically doesn't "do" anything, it's all contracted out.
Ovedya2006 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Osborne Reef was based on a principle that is actually quite common (google "artificial reef"). The project was suggested by a non-profit group, BARINC, founded by the now Professor Emeritus of Ocean Engineering at FAU. The county and Army Corps of Engineers approved it, since it had been successful elsewhere. The metal bands holding the tires together only corroded in recent years, and most agree the effect of toxins are negligible.
fogglesworth 1 year ago
Reason is usually pretty good about their research, so it pains me to write the data about ethanol is false. The Cornel Pinentel study was fabricated with intentionally bad and outdated farm data. Deforestation is happening in Brazil, not the US. Water requirements are a false arguement because it takes significantly more water to refine gasoline than ethanol. Pesticides are a problem in all industrial agriculture, not just ethanol.
PabloKoh6 1 year ago
@PabloKoh6 Unless ethanol is used in the production of ethanol, then it is a net-sum loss. Logically MORE corn is grown to subsidize ethanol, therefore more land is used, more water needed, more equipment to harvest the corn, more trucks used to ship it to the factory, more gas used, ad-infinitum. Whats's worse, that ethanol is a commodity means the price of corn is skyrocketing across the board, which affects the price of beef.
Ovedya2006 1 year ago
Comment removed
fogglesworth 1 year ago
Comment removed
fogglesworth 1 year ago
Im afraid of foreigners!!! LOL!
This should be a series! There are so many examples that have been omitted from this video lol.
Saudi Arabians attack us on 9/11 so what do we do? Invade Iraq! What could possibly go wronggg? LOL
treysparker 1 year ago 8
@treysparker Actually, Bin Laden had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia long before 9/11, just sayin...
jeffn21 1 year ago 2
@jeffn21
That has nothing to do with the point. Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, what i said had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.
treysparker 1 year ago
@treysparker Just because they are from SA, does not necessarily mean that they were acting on behalf of he Sadui royals. I am not saying that I trust the Saudis, but you can't invade a nation everytime someone originally from that nation attacks you.
jeffn21 1 year ago
so close...
onvogmasaj 1 year ago
. . . "which might be funny if it wasn't just sad." Yeah, that about sums it up.
MsAllsfair 1 year ago
Typical lib BS! The Ethanol piece is totally false. It doesn't even take much self-research to prove it. C'mon Reason.TV, it's not that difficult, but then it really ins't about the truth then is it, just your distorted progressive agenda.
kenjosmes 1 year ago
@kenjosmes Unfortunately it isn't. Fertilizers we use today are oil based, corn uses a lot of fertilizer, harvest is mechanized (uses oil as fuel) and the processing uses oil for it's energy. Not to mention we are using a food crop for fuel production.
The above reasons are why I've always been against current ethanol production (future sources look very promising).
It wasn't all 100% true what they said about it, but they did get the basics correct.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen 8:1 liquid fuel energy out/liquid fuel energy in, 2:1 total energy out/total energy in. Our fertilizers/pesticides are natural gas based, not oil based.
PabloKoh6 1 year ago
@PabloKoh6 Pardon, you are correct. I should have said fossil fuels (was a bit fast in posting that comment).
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@kenjosmes Ah....It doesn't take much research to discover that Reason TV is NOT progressive.....lol.
Ovedya2006 1 year ago
This is just libertarian propaganda. For every government "screw up" i could give you 10 caused by private enterprise. Even the ones caused by government often have a private industry connection. Like for example the corn industry lobby(and pay off) the government(reps) to make decisions that will favour their industry. The problem isnt the government, the problem is corporate influence over the government.
tubester4567 1 year ago
@tubester4567 Agreed, corporate influence is one of the biggest failings of the political process in the U.S.
The government has a role to play as a regulator/watch dog that mistakes aren't made. Although care should be taken that we just keep it to the points that are necessary (to clarify further, I'm a liberal, not libertarian).
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@tubester4567
Environmental lobbying started the ball rolling in alternative fuels. You think a relatively small lobby (corn producers) essentially bought their way into ethanol? Give me a break. Can you blame them, though, when suddenly their subsidized crop is worth ten times what the government was paying them NOT to grow? The problem was almost ENTIRELY created by government.
Ovedya2006 1 year ago
Like a broken record, Government is never the solution to any problem: Government IS the problem.
If you want to EFF something up, leave it to Big Brother.
tutorturtle 1 year ago
This is why I love this channel - fun, well-researched videos that are just humorous enough to downplay how horrible these scenarios are.
rqbuchanan 1 year ago 6
@rqbuchanan What is well researched about the last scenario? Absolutely nothing.
I can hypothesize until the cows come home, and it doesn't mean my predictions are fact. Those poor, poor insurance companies! Whatever will become of them?
This is horse shit, plain and simple.
spankywzl 1 year ago
@spankywzl You would have to be a fool not to understand that if you could buy insurance and could not be turned down even if you were already sick, that many would not buy insurance until they ARE SICK. The result is that you would pay your first premimum and then ask for a large payout. Insurance companies would just simply stop selling health insurance. Even if there were a fine for not buying insurance, that fine would have to be more than the insurance for people to comply. That's a Fact!
mickeysears 1 year ago
@Libertarians
[...] Liberal theory should therefore distinguish freedom, which is desirable, from nondependence, which is impossible. Liberty, rightly conceived, does not require a lack of dependence on government; on the contrary, affirmative government provides the preconditions for liberty." - Holmes and Sunstein, "The Cost of Rights", p 205.
B190489 1 year ago
@Libertarians
"Individual freedom, however defined, cannot mean freedom from all forms of dependency. No human being can single-handedly create all the preconditions for his own action. A free citizen is especially dependent. [...]
B190489 1 year ago
I like how this marxist youtube channel is trying to correlate the effects government and human farming with 1950's white america.
Dysentery7885 1 year ago
@Dysentery7885 marxist? really? Its friggen Reason TV....they are libertarians...which, if aligned to any extreme, would be closest to anarchism. Obama I understand being linked to being a marxist, but calling this channel marxist is like calling Ron Paul a communist. It's just plain wrong.
frionelhero 1 year ago
@frionelhero libertarians are communists. I've said to myself on many occasions that ron paul is a communist. libertarians are moral relativists/communists. libertarians are statists not anarchists (like me).
Dysentery7885 1 year ago
@Dysentery7885 If you think libertarians are communists then you must not know what the words mean.
FatherTime89 1 year ago 2
@FatherTime89 I know what they mean. Libertarians are for non violence and non aggression against evil people and that everyone should have equal rights and not have their rights infringed. Communism is about everyone being equal and equality and making the same amount of money regardless of the individuals quality or morals. In libertarian statist society it would be illegal to kill evil people the same as a communist society (our society) therefor theyre communists.
Dysentery7885 1 year ago
@Dysentery7885 You can't say that because they have one thing in common they are exactly the same.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 That's what communism is. I'm not saying they're exactly the same but what makes communism evil is what libertarians are also.
Dysentery7885 1 year ago
@Dysentery7885 Libertarianism has nothing to do with communism. They also believe in the use of force. Yes they believe in equality but only in the most fundamental ways. Libertarians believe you have the right to be as big of a jerk as you want to be as long as you aren't using violent cohersion. IE they believe a person who is running a private business can decide not to sell their goods to jews. I believe you are confusing liberalism with libertarianism. Not the same.
tyrrollins 1 year ago
@tyrrollins No, I already explained it.
Dysentery7885 1 year ago
@Dysentery7885 Sorry dude.
Libertartians are for everybody having equal opportunities.
Communists are for everybody having equal outcomes.
Nowhere ever does it say that Libertarians believe everybody should make the same money reguardless of individual quality. They say that everyone is free to negotiate what pay they get. Just because two different positions agree on something doesn't make them the same. Nice try but total FAIL
mickeysears 1 year ago 2
@mickeysears
And socialists are for everybody having equal opportunities by making fair outcomes.
Libertarians believe that everybody shall look after himself, but i don't want that society. I want that people care about each other. The best way to guarantee peace and freedom for all.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 -Should you force people to take care of each other through government which I would argue doesn't do as good a job as the free market? Without government programs, more people would give to charity as well, which I argue would do a better job. I use to be a socialist, so I certainly understand the opposite viewpoint, but once I started studying economics, I threw away those leftist economic principles.
germany10 1 year ago 3
@mickeysears Right and like I said what makes communism evil is the same thing that makes libertarianism evil aka equal rights and equal opportunities. Evil people should have no rights and no opportunities besides execution or slavery.
Dysentery7885 1 year ago
@Dysentery7885 And I guess YOU and your ilk will decide who those evil people are. Kind of like The Nazi's pointing to the Jews.
mickeysears 1 year ago
@mickeysears No actually I am a hard anarchist. The only way me and my ilk (there is no one) would be able to decide is if we owned the state. I believe evil people will be killed off over time in a state of hard anarchy aka nature.
Dysentery7885 1 year ago
@Dysentery7885 But there is no state of hard anarchy, whatever that means, so by your definition, evil people will thrive and prosper. I believe in the rule of law and a limited constitutional republic with equal rights and rights to private property.
mickeysears 1 year ago
@mickeysears There is no state of hard anarchy thats the problem is that there is not freedom there is a state. Evil is thriving and prospering. Everything about our world is totally evil. Evil has conquered everything. There is no such thing as freedom with an involuntary state from which one cannot escape which is your rule of law and constitutional republic and all governments. What you believe in is pure evil. Government is inherent pure evil.. the very concept.
Dysentery7885 1 year ago
@frionelhero Dude a short trip to MrTroll's page will tell you everything you need to know. Don't feed this troll.
032125 1 year ago
Same old story, use violence to solve a problem and you will ALWAYS get the opposite of the intended result. All who learn this lesson shall evolve and all who don't shall be left behind.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago 4
@lordthawkeye
have you read "healing our world in an age of aggression" ? that's pretty much the key lesson in that book.. awesome read.
DaveC86 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye Not exactly. Self defense makes your statement nothing but a straw man....
The98taco3 1 year ago
@The98taco3 I wasn't even responding to anyone with that statement so exactly how could it possibly be a strawman? Way to show you don't even know what the term means. Amateurs...
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye
By presenting a false dichotomy you created a straw man argument with your reply. There are in fact times when violence is the answer. Someone has a gun to your head, would you rather die, or have the chance to act in violence to save yourself? You made it clear in your comment that there was only two options for violence. Nonviolence being correct, violence being incorrect. There is a third option rendering your comment baseless....
The98taco3 1 year ago
@The98taco3 Like I said, I was referring to the initiation of violence. Nitpicking does not make you look smart. It makes you look like you don't know what the subject of discussion is.
Kids....
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
I think there was a time when Greece accidentally banned handheld video games with a new law. xD (They're allowed now.)
ChurchOfArceus 1 year ago
From 2002-2008 i hired on average 7 new employees per year.2009-?,i have no intention of hiring anyone and just keep my money in my pocket-Hahahahahahahaha!
CharlesBartowskiHere 1 year ago
Imagine a politician with devil horns, downs syndrome, and vampire fangs; that's what our government is, maliciously idiotic.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago 2
son of a bitch, this was funny. i want more.
catobear1704 1 year ago 2
Regarding the death spiral: isn't mandatory insurance a part if the healthcare bill, meaning customers couldn't drop their coverage as a result of increased premiums? I mean, this is still extremely bad, since premiums would be massively higher, but it wouldn't result in most/all providers dropping their child health insurance offerings, would it? If coverage is mandatory, someone's got to offer it, even if it is at much higher rates. What am I missing here?
CognitiveImbias 1 year ago
@CognitiveImbias I'm not sure if I'm hitting on everything you asked, but it is true that many companies already have stopped issuing policies to children.
Of course the left will say it's a reason for a bigger push towards single-payer, but whatever.
jrsub3 1 year ago
@jrsub3 Interesting. But they might have gotten out early to avoid the imminent PR nightmare when the "evil insurance companies" start charging enormous rates for child health insurance (think of the children!), which could result in a push for price controls (which then would kick off this death spiral).
I definitely agree that the left will use this as justification for single-payer. We've still got time to stop it though--the libertarian movement has never been stronger than it is today.
CognitiveImbias 1 year ago
What could possibly go wrong....?
...The government...
BoredomTown 1 year ago
The insurance death spiral should be an obvious inevitability to anyone who knows what the word "insurance" means. There is no excuse for this sort of idiocy.
Libertarianist 1 year ago
@Libertarianist From what I gather from the left, insurance is the only way you can receive care and everyone must have it (but we won't remove pre-existing regulations that drive up costs and drive people out of the market, that's silly).
Odd, cause I learned insurance was nothing more than a method of risk-mitigation.
jrsub3 1 year ago
@jrsub3 The left is retarded because they think insurance is supposed to help people afford health care. No, insurance, in all forms, is a just a way to spread out major risks. Low deductible insurance is pointless and nonsensical.
Libertarianist 1 year ago
I laughed so hard, then felt like crying.
MegF142857 1 year ago 2
@MegF142857 I cried so hard, i felt like...drying my tears.
Decentralism 1 year ago
What made all the old, poisonous tires a problem? What makes all the greenhouse gases? What makes children's health insurance a problem? Unregulated economic activity.
True, in each of these cases, it may be shown that government exacerbated the problem, and I'm not saying that I'm for government. But, the reason why these things are problems in the first place are because of a capitalist system, and they'll continue as long as they're profitable. Tragedy of the Commons, good sirs.
fogglesworth 1 year ago
@fogglesworth I think you are mistaking what "the commons" is in reference to. Tragedy of the commons is an argument for *private* ownership (read: capitalism).
No one can predict the future, even if an industry is "regulated" it can still produce unexpected harm. The difference is that when mandated by the state, it shifts the responsibility away from individuals.
boxant 1 year ago 2
Glad to see that you think all profit making companies should be out of healthcare and raping the public
robertmike57 1 year ago
So nice from ReasonTV: assuming good intentions, by your honorable men.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Reason could produce 50 of these a day and never run out of material.
furyofbongos 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
furyofbongos 1 year ago
Great work, Reason!
freesk8 1 year ago 2
excellent
corenothing 1 year ago
loving that since i first watched this clip the views have barely moved but the comments have already shot through the effing roof.
MegaDuke1 1 year ago
@MegaDuke1 a lot of videos get "stuck" at 301 views for some reason, it should update soon
ortzinator 1 year ago
@ortzinator I wasnt aware of that, thank you. ....seriously im not being sarcastic. fuck its hard to convey sincerity. seriously, thanks.
MegaDuke1 1 year ago
Government.
Government never changes.
Lleij 1 year ago
@Lleij Nice nod to Fallout.
heyniceaddress 1 year ago
good night, i will come back;)
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 and get killed from every angle again
dirksilver 1 year ago