You cannot argue what should be done with money that is not yours. The fact that you take this money through taxes and provide it to individuals for being in a difficult situation means you have weakened market in exchange for nothing. There is no incentive for someone on welfare to work to get off of welfare, no? The harder an individual works to better themselves and further their career means less welfare benefits which many people choose to not go through, it's too comfortable.
No demand for social security in the 1930s? Stop right there Mr. Friedman! Before social security and medicare, what was the average life expectancy? What was the percentage of elderly living in poverty before SS and after? People didn't "demand it" because they didn't have anyone in government to fight for it until FDR! Statistics and figures don't ALWAYS give an accurate picture. Remember that Milton Friedman gives his "information" as fact even when it is his opinion.
@ycees89 While your argument might facetiously seem logical, the premise behind it is expensive healthcare. What profits can be made on single sales can equally be achieved by volume. Take stents, a few years back you needed to be a millionaire to afford it, even with normal health insurance. Now, hardly half a decade later, the procedure is regularly performed across the country at prices that even the low rate comprehensive policies cover.
@solusdiver I lived there as well, and in other European countries as well. While I envy their holidays which I think are excessive, I certainly do admire their stand that as advanced civilized nations, there is a responsibility that society and government feel about providing basic amenities for their subjects, healthcare being one. Ascribing a beneficial standpoint to capitalism works in business, not in the social sphere. Behavioral economics 101.
When we tax businesses, we basically use resources that could've gone to future generations. Businesses creates capital, and this capital is reinvested in order to generate new ways of satisfying future demands. Whenever we take resources from the businesses generating our wealth, and use it to give luxury treatments to people there's really no financial coverage for, we are basically unabling capitalism and prosperity. Stay within the confines of what is affordable to us! That's real wealth.
@katakisLives The wealth of the people would not be taken from them by force through taxation. No one spends someone elses money as carefully as they would spend their own; thus when the government allows people to keep the fruits of their labor the money would be spent more carefully; Rather than shoddy government funded (through our taxes) programs that fail and bloat (if it fails we just give it more money.) Don't you know someone who would help the poor if they weren't taxed?
@FoolishDeamon That's the same old "as long as I'm alright everyone else can go to hell" mentality I see over and other again on this guys videos! the tax system should be progressive (in other words those who have the least means to pay have the least of the tax burden!) all the time people though no fault of their own fall on hard times and need help from the state! sometimes its just a matter of being born on the wrong side of town!
@FoolishDeamon Simple! lets say you are made redundant you apply for unemployment benefits and you get them! therefore the bills still get paid and the rent doesn't go into arrears! private individuals and organisations are best placed to tackle specific issues! the government is better placed to deal with ongoing need! without such continuity in services all you are doing is putting a sticking plaster onto a gaping wound.
@katakisLives I do not see how the state would be any better equipped to deal with social issues (such as unemployment) than the people at large would be had the taxes not been taken from them. You merely explained how an individual benefits from receiving wealth and how that in turn effects the economy; Could you please detail how a government entity is any more efficient with money than the individuals it takes it from?
@FoolishDeamon mainly the scale of the operation! you need to know that there is someone you can reliably go for this kind of help! in all the situations where no such system exists the people don't suddenly turn around and fill the void "you can always count on the kindness of strangers?" that's simply not true! they look after number one and that's that! no welfare= abject poverty higher taxes for the rich welfare for the poorest
@katakisLives Kindness of strangers? Who do you think the legislators were that passed the laws for welfare? Do you not suppose that these people count as strangers no different than the people who work at soup kitchens or shelter homes? You tell me how much government has wasted of the money that it must steal by gun point. A truly free society would *not* steal from the people; The whole people, including those who have devoted their lives to helping our fellow humans.
@FoolishDeamon Soup kitchens? shelter homes? the idea of welfare is that it prevents people from falling that far!! you're not far from rock bottom when you need emergency services like these! no system is completely perfect but there's no better way to protect people from the worst economic hardship than welfare! most these charitable services just stop you from dieing not help you rise up! this isn't the old west, frontier times extreme poverty always leads to civil unrest
@katakisLives And why are soup kitchens and shelter homes so poor? Do you not understand how devastating the taxes that government programs impose effect our ability to provide for our fellow man? The way to rise up is to find a way to provide a good or service in exchange for currency, not to gun-in-your-face-steal from the people at large. Social Security is a ponzi scheme that you aren't given a choice about joining. What other sort of programs do you feel are essential?
@FoolishDeamon The damage has already been done if you have fallen so far that you have resorted to relying on soup kitchens and shelter homes! any ordinary family in a tough ecomony could wind up unemployed and without benefits lose their home! why should people have to lose everything before help kicks in (essentual prgrammes = welfare 4 unemployed 4 for parents with children and those too sick to work, also help with energy bills rent)
@katakisLives Any ordinary family that lives in a tough economy *that taxes it's individuals in the name of saving the poor* Governments FAIL on a large scale to efficiently and properly provide services and help to those in need as compared to the a free and open market where the people KEEP their earned income and spend it on goods and services worth the value. Good businesses stay open and expand allow new job opportunities for millions and better services/wealth for all.
@FoolishDeamon The welfare state helps people in all walks of life not just people right at the bottom! a functioning welfare state should be coupled with a progressive tax system (meaning that those in lower income brackets pay less tax than those who get higher pay! sometimes there is one massive employer and when they go belly up there's nothing! (like the coal mines in the eighties and the car factories in Detroit) it can take decades to replace such volume employers
@katakisLives No one should have to lose everything before finding a way up; No one should have to lose a single penny from a forceful government either. I personally know a handful of people who are on welfare. These people depend on welfare to provide them a means to pay for every day things (food, shelter, clothing etc...) They require this welfare because there are *no jobs* available for them in this poor town. I could not start my own business due to taxes and government.
@FoolishDeamon Jobs aren't just going to magically appear out of thin air if you were to abolish SS! there seems to be such a black and white logic going on here that SS is in effect the root of all evil! some areas still haven't recovered from the decline of the industrial sector even now! its better to pay for welfare rather than have no SS and pay the much higher price when things really go wrong! turing an ecomony round takes years! what happens to the poor in the mean time?
@katakisLives Jobs don't magically appears out of thin air *ever*. The money to hire an extra employee, start a new business, or develop the economy in some way isn't there when we tax like we currently do. It sounds like you are looking towards a different form of taxation than we currently have; I'm looking for a change as well although I hold personal responsibility, the right to ones property, and the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness above all.
@FoolishDeamon Personal responsibility is meaningless when you have no control over your change in circumstances! without any form of welfare its pretty much the law of the jungle! survival of the fittest (in the case of most capitalism the most ruthless) a limited access paradise where the already rich and powerful reign supreme and the disenfranchised and poor may as well find the nearest bridge and jump off it
@katakisLives A free market allows for the greatest amount of control over ones own circumstance; To not have your money taken away when you are successful in developing your own wealth and the economy at large and given to those (the great majority in our current system) who are able to make better of themselves and the market but learn to live dependant and comfortable receiving benefits for avoiding furthering their own development and the growth of wealth in the economy at large.
@FoolishDeamon You're hardly going to develop very far if you wind up homeless because you lost your job and did not get another one in time before the debts racked up! your landlord isn't going to suddenly stop charging you just because you're suddenly unemployed! welfare is the best way to prevent what ought to be a temporary setback being a total disaster where you lose everything! the free market tends to favour those who can shout the loudest
@katakisLives This current system where people can't find jobs is because we have been running social programs, restrictions, and regulations on the free market for decades. What happens to the millions who depend on welfare if it were to end? They would get a job. May not be a great job but this job not only provides them money for now but the opportunity to develop their skills so that they may earn MORE money. Without the social programs businesses could hire more people etc...
@FoolishDeamon You forgot about the education system. We have a "structural deficit" in education due to the monopoly on schooling. Friedman didin't simply want to "cut" the programs, he wanted to replace ALL of it with a gradual minimum income. Over time, that program will then be turned over to private charities. But a "shock treatment" he never advocated.
@NoProbaloAmigo There are a whole host of control mechanisms the government imposes on us the people; I believe the solution to this public school system is to no longer fund teachers or faculty members through taxes. Make the schools compete with each other for the favor of the parents of children. Make every school provide better services for a competing price compared with it's rival schools. Allow people to make a choice as to determine which schools work best for the people they work for
@FoolishDeamon Yeah, Friedman pushed vouchers as a stop gap to "get from here to there." The main issue happened after 1965, when the teacher's unions became binding. All declines can be traced back to that decision.
@FoolishDeamon I've lost count of all the times I've seen people on TV saying they'd be willing to take any job if it were available! people with degrees willing to go into the most menial jobs if only they were there! but companies are cutting back! shedding whole sectors of the work force just to stay in the black! private insurance is worthless if the company providing it has gone out of business
@katakisLives Of course, as anyone knows, that really isn't true. People with degrees almost invariably turn their noses up at most menial labor, particularly when a governmnetal charity system prevents them from needing to do so. Add that to minimum wage laws that have never fought poverty and have done nothing but eliminate jobs. And private insurers rarely go out of business (and are insured themselves) - don't confuse employer with insurer.
@FletchforFreedom A degree hasn't got the cache that it once had! so many people are going into higher education these days that the gloss has largely been rubbed well and truly off! the minimum wage can only be described as a good thing! nobody should be paid exploitation wages! and if a job is not worthy of a living wage then it should not exist at all! why should someone have to hold down multiple jobs just to make ends meet
@katakisLives NO ONE is ever paid "exploitation wages" in the United States. If a person agrees to take a job at a certain wage, fine. If they don't like it, they can QUIT. Minimum wage does nothing more than eliminate positions that might otherwise be avaiable. However, idiots look at minimum wage compared to the socialist welfare system we have and say "the minimum wage needs to be at least X." Bullshit. It should be whatever the market allows. The other option is that the job doesn't exist.
@katakisLives The degree has lost much of its cache because "free" education shifts it to people who neither need nor appreciate it. The minimum wage has been an absolue disaster serving ONLY to reduce employment (all that it has EVER accomplished). Repeating the term "exploitation wages" over and over doesn't make it any less ridiculous either. By your reasoing, no teen should get work experience because if he lacks the skills to support himself, the job shouldn't exist. Brilliant!
@katakisLives You are exactly right about people willing to work; The jobs are just not there in our current condition and bigger government spending is responsible for this. It turns out that the more money government spends the less the tax payers (everyone who is hitting hard times) have to spend for themselves; i.e. Company/Business owners must shed whole sectors of the work force just to stay afloat.
@FoolishDeamon Most of the companies I've seen go to the wall did so because of the banking crisis! they were unable to get credit and loans from the banking system! the "good old free market" that allowed the banks to pursue reckless investments and sub prime assets the real cause of the recession the free market is what encouraged this rampant rabid greed
@katakisLives It wasn't that the "good old free market" allowed the banks to "pursur reckless investments. It's that the United States Congress passed laws that REQUIRED them to do so. Just more governmental meddling based on trying to socially engineer a utopian society. "Rampant rabid greed" is NOT a modern-day-society invention. The desire for wealth is what has driven man to accomplish almost everything that benefits your lifestyle today. Go back to the Dark Ages, moron.
@katakisLives Don't you remember all of the debates to tax the "rich" business owners who provide these jobs in order to provide more social programs?
@katakisLives You really aren't countering my points so much as grabbing one thing I say then diverging into this worst case situation that is happening *under our current system* and not an actual free market. I assumed earlier, and I feel stronger now, that we both simply share the dislike for our current system. The only place we diverge is what we change it into.
@katakisLives You really aren't countering my points so much as grabbing one thing I say then diverging into this worst case situation that is happening *under our current system* and not an actual free market. I assumed earlier, and I feel stronger now, that we both simply share the dislike for our current system. The only place we diverge is what we change it into.
@katakisLives I understand helping those in need; I support such a cause. It is through the love and caring of others that we can find new love and care within ourselves. To paint this dystopia and tear it apart as if it were my argument does not make sense to me since you and I can both obviously agree we don't want a limited island of paradise for very few and obscene poverty for the masses. Care for others must come from a personal choice to do so; not a law that forces those to give.
@FoolishDeamon Its all or nothing either its payed for with taxes or it doesn't work! no private charitable organisation however well meaning would ever have the reach or resources to help all of those who wind up unemployed for example! taxes for the greater good are always going to be necessary the whole structure of society depends upon them! and welfare is just another part of that! especially right now a lot of the time the jobs simply do not exist! no one can afford to hire!
@katakisLives If you want to see Milton Friedman explain the welfare system better than I can you should check out the video on this channel "Power of the Market - Welfare"
@katakisLives It's called charity/giving/love. How can a government love? It can't. People, out of the goodness of their hearts, or through a church/synagogue/mosque/other charity, help other people. If I and most people had real problems, we have family members and friends who would help us. How many people don't have kids/parents/cousins/neighbors/churchmembers to help them, not very many. So that's who would help the trillions who have no one else to help them but benevolent gov
@strasburgpoker More and more people are living alone these days (the statistics bear this out) a lot of the old community systems have gone away over the years! if you find yourself out of work the best way to get you by until something comes along is welfare! this is the west dammit! we can't treat the issue of the poor in the same way we react to a famine in Africa! charity is the last resort for the desperate not a viable option for maintaining a basic level living standard
@katakisLives If welfare was temporary and was to be repaid, than I would have very little if not no problem with it. It's a way of life for millions. The old community systems have gone away because of welfare and the govt handouts. Why help someone who is poor and hungry if they are getting free education, food, healthcare, daycare, rent, electric bill, cell phone, cab rides(I own one, and yes they do), etc. Charity is the last resort for a welfare state, yes you are right.
@katakisLives It's actually quite simple. Where does government get the trillions that they "give" to the "poor" through all the social programs? What if you returned, say, 90% of that money to people. That's that many more trillions the people would have to do the same thing, except, if you haven't figured this out, people spend their money much, much, much more wisely and efficiently than any government ever could or will, which is why socialism has never worked and never will.
@strasburgpoker Return the money to the "people" who exactly are these so called people? without welfare the money stays right where it is (with the people who already have it) that doesn't help the poor one little bit! 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
@katakisLives These people would be the 100 million or so who pay federal taxes.(what did you think the answer was? what else would I mean?)
It does help the poor. What would happen with that money? Jobs? Pay? Charity? Remember now, these aren't just the evil billionaires we are talking about. If 50% pay federal tax, that is over 100 million people. And no, 50% of 2 trillion is not better than 2 trillion not being taken away. 95% + can get off their lazy asses and get a job. Quit enabling them
@strasburgpoker There isn't always a job to go to straight away! I once heard this statistic that for every one job about thirteen people are chasing it! what happens to the other twelve who didn't get it! you cannot live on idealism that's not going to pay the bills or buy food all the while you are out of work! the people who are getting this money back are tax payers in work and by definition not the ones in need that welfare targets!
@katakisLives The problem with the statistic - even were it true - is that jobs are eliminated and created constantly in a vibrant economy. Those "other twelve" get the next twelve jobs (actually about half do and then a DIFFERENT twelve go for the ones after that. The problem with the program is that it creates dependency, undermines the economy and makes the likelihood of people being in need FAR higher. Private insurance is far more effective.
@FletchforFreedom It is true! last time I checked the BBC did not spread lies! sometimes especially in a recession far too few jobs are being created in relation to the ones being lost from companies going out of business! what about those towns were everyone works in the same factory and that goes bankrupt and there's nothing! the economy is never in a permanent state of growth its always in a permanent state of boom and bust always has been always will be no western nation should be without SS
@katakisLives So network television never tells lies? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! To be fair, what they are doing is spreading ignorance. The boom and bust cycle is created by governmnet intervention in the economy. It does not exist absent such interventions (typically be central banks). There is no logical reason why the economy cannot continue to grow absent such intervention (though jobs will continue to be created/destroyed - with created always ultimately outpacing destroyed.
@FletchforFreedom Pretty much every major crash in the 20th and early 21st centuries have been caused by the rich in places like wall street and the city of London gaming the system to breaking point! all the crazy investments into shares that were sold for way higher than they've ever really been worth! then when they realise they've built a house of cards panic ensues, its almost always big business creating a bubble of fictitious wealth and prosperity (happens in the housing sector lots)
@katakisLives You don't even know what "gaming the system to the breaking point" means, and you're the one who wrote it. There's been 'irrational exuberance' in every single market fluctuation and cycle since the dawn of man. All you're bitching about is human nature, not the capitalist system... you just WANT it to be about the capitalist system. Typical left-wing crap. You've said absolutely nothing new or even remotely insightful.
@katakisLives Literally every mahor crash for the last 800 years has had NOTHIMNG WHATSOEVER to do with the rich or Wall Street". Each and every one has been caused by GOVERNMENTAL manipulation of the money supply - in the last two centuries primarily by central banks. Read "This Time is Different" or "The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle" or "Meltdown" are any number of other works. This idiocy that it was caused by the rich and investments is pure unmitigated ignorance.
@katakisLives The "house of cards" began with the Fed flooding the liquidity markets with cheap cash making riskier investments seem viable. It was made worse by Fannie and Freddie maintaining an artificial market that could not otherwise be maintained. This is how bubbles have ALWAYS been created (the governmnet artificially increases liquidity to unsustainable levels) and then the uneducated blame it on "big business" because they can't be bothered to pay attention.
@katakisLives The US did much better for its people, including the elderly, before Sociali Security and such systems are bankrupting countries around the world because governmnets are horrible at preserving the koney of citizens. Such programs are always a raw deal for recipients in the end. And the privaet sector is more than capable of providing charity, unemployment insurance, pensions, etc. The state has a miserable track record.
@FletchforFreedom The private sector has got a terrible track record of handling such schemes! you hear all the time people paying into private insurance pots for decades only to discover that all the money has mysteriously disappeared when they need it the most! usually its been mismanaged or lost in some extreme cases! you can pay for decades but if that company is corrupt or goes insolvent then all the money you've invested dissapears!
@katakisLives I am not responsible for your delusions. What you "hear all the time: from the voices in your head bears no resemblance to actual reality. The failure of insurance companies is EXTREMELY rare and, when it does happen, reinsurance companies still cover the outstanding policies for the insureds. You haven't the slightest damn clue what you are talking about ... again.
@katakisLives There is always a job. What you mean is that there isn't always a job someone wants. Check the papers, check craigslist, there are plenty of jobs. Take away the safety nets, and see how many of the unemployed suddenly become employed. I am 34 and have had, literally, over 25 jobs in my life(due to moving a lot). I have never been out of work for more than a few days, while others can't find a job for years. There are jobs, you take it till something better comes along. No work=lazy
@strasburgpoker There is not always a job! no matter how industrious you are there is bound to be periods where you simply cannot find any form of employment! moving around can be really expensive and if you are really poor then you can be stuck in a certain area because the rents elsewhere are just too high! welfare didn't just pop into existence for no reason! the cost to society of having no SS would be far greater when the homeless ranks swell and crime shoots up
@katakisLives You're right... NO ONE is guaranteed or owed a job, no matter how educated they are or how hard they work. A friend of mine has a PhD in Geography. She works as an administrative assistant. It is HER fault she chose the education she did, which has no application whatever in modern society. It is, has been and will always be that the best adapted are the best rewarded. Welfare for those who *cannot* do for themselves is fine. Otherwise, it is a scourge upon society.
@katakisLives By your statement, then, one would conclude that since the invention of the welfare system, crime and homelessness have gone down? NOTHING could be further from the truth. Quite the opposite, actually. You're revealing yourself as nothing more than a lefty mouthpiece... and a quite uninformed one at that. But... please keep watching the Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell videos. Eventually, maybe something will sink into your mush of a brain.
@katakisLives I guess we'll end it here, because (at least in Toledo, Canton, and Pensacola, where I have lived) there is ALWAYS, AS IN 365 DAYS A YEAR, a job. I mean always. Again, it's not a 25$ hr sit on your ass kind of job, but there is a job. Deliver papers, pizza, telemarketing, drive a cab, courier, other restaurant work, all but 1 i have done. BTW, you can start out making 35,000 a year being a truck driver, THEY ARE ALWAYS HIRING. There are jobs, you are a lazy shit if you don't have 1
@katakisLives Actually, welfare DID pop into existence for no viable reason. It wasset up as a handout to entice a certain block of voters to support certaion politicians. The poor were BETTER OFF before such schemes thanks to private charity - mostly in the form of mutual aid societies. Welfare actually INCREASED need. If you include those supposedly lifetd above the poverty line by those programs, poverty INCREASED as a result.
@katakisLives And Social Security had even LESS of a justification, particularly since there was no problem of the indigent elderly when it was passed. Moreover, a) it gives a lousy return, b) involuntarily takes money particularly from those most in need - effectively transfering huge amounts of wealth from poor black men to wealthy white women, c) and permitted the governmnet to setal it (while making promises they can't fulfill) so they could waste more. The "selling homeless" is pure BS.
" An enormous propaganda campaign by special propaganda groups"...manufactured the myth of a public demand for social welfare...Bollocks!....Friedman is only able to sell this objectivist horseshit to people who don't know their History....President Roosevelt introduced social welfare to alleviate the worst and fastest poverty crisis in American History.....people were literally fucking starving
@oneblueorange Lower taxes! thats all people like this guy care about! the free market at its most feral! totally amoral and no consideration given what so ever to the poor! FDR was one of the greatest presidents in history and what he did was momentus! crushing the power of the special interest groups and making America a fairer place! theres still a long way to go
@katakisLives If you are into National Socialists out of uniform, then yes FDR is fabulous. Friedman was not just a lower tax guy, he is arguing against government spending too.
centralized healthcare works, just take the NHS. For all its troubles, the cousins across the pond are better off with it, and want it despite the tory govt wanting to dismantle it. It's better to pay a higher tax rate for a guaranteed nationalized health plan rather than risk debt due to medical expenses. The Brits understand it, just as Churchill put it, Americans will do the right thing after exhausting all other options.
@katakisLives unfortunately the debate in this country has become so vile on one side of the spectrum that a kind of nobility has come to be associated with lack of knowledge or open disrespect to science and social behavior. Thankfully a few of us have the means to disgregard or get away from this. I wish this country of mine doesn't descend into anarchy or become a survivalist nation.
@hpmika I totally agree! a lot of people have a strange idea of what constitutes liberty! I really liked your Churchill quote at the end of the comment! the debate has basically been hijacked by the far right and this whole sector (healthcare social security) has become the whipping boy of all of society's ills
@katakisLives Thanks. One thing I admire about the working class right is the absolute lack of jealousy towards the rich, and the corporate tycoons. Given that, and the lack of informed debate it leads to surreal situations such as people claiming things like earned income tax credits, medicare benefits and hating the government for providing those programs. This of course, suits the corporates who would rather have them privatized.
@hpmika Ahen to that! some of these people are so hopelessly brainwashed by the propaganda of the far right they'd happily tie the rope road their own necks and pull the lever! its a perversely incredible achievement that people have been hoodwinked into fighting against good government programmes that directly benefit them
@katakisLives ::Goes to another youtube video and talks about how the government is lying to us and fighting wars for oil overseas. Comes back here and mindlessly defends their domestic policy:: Typical democrat for you. (Don't worry, I don't hold the Republicans in high esteem either.)
@hpmika You are a fucking moron. The U.S. health system is based on insurance being used for all funds. Thus, there is a pool of money contributed by the clients that constantly gets spread around and redistributed, which means it can't get much more socialized than that.
Britain, along with the rest of the majority of Europe, is facing a debt crisis and is rapidly going down the drain as they self destruct. You fuckers are getting raped in all holes, just like when the USSR fell. Hilarious.
@hpmika You are a fucking moron. The U.S. health system is based on insurance being used for all funds. Thus, there is a pool of money contributed by the clients that constantly gets spread around and redistributed, which means it can't get much more socialized than that.
Britain, along with the rest of the majority of Europe, is facing a debt crisis and is rapidly going down the drain as they self destruct. You fuckers are getting raped in all holes, just like when the USSR fell. Hilarious.
@itachi705 LOL at the epithets. The insurance monies are being used to fund a rich bureaucracy which does nothing but push paper. All I want is a system where the docs and the patients decide on treatment. Not the administrators. If as a civilized first world country we aren't able to guarantee basic healthcare to the citizens it's a shame.
Please educate yourself on history. Britain's debt has zilch to do with "socialism". It's unregulated decompartmentalized phony capitalism.
@hpmika Britain become the most powerful economic country in the world because they were the most free country. Shortly thereafter, America became the most powerful economic country because they had the most free country. Of all people, Americans and Brits should be defending capitalism. How did we forget our history in such a short time span? We watched everyone around us flounder in government while we bathed in riches, but still decided to jump in their cesspools. Brilliant.
@hpmika To call Britain 'capitalist' and 'unregulated' is insane. May as well call a duck an elephant. Politics in England is so left wing (even the PM of the 'conservative' party), it probably makes the jaws of the Chinese drop.
@hpmika Them liking it doesn't mean it's the best or even a good system. A lot of Americans would prefer to keep The Department of Education. Does that mean it's good? Just like in America, most Brits have no understanding of these issues, or how it's negatively effecting them. We'd both be better off with free market health care.. which America doesn't have either.
@TheGamerJoseph Would you rather prefer a system wherein you can go bankrupt with bills? America's education system got this way due to misplaced priorities. Kids grew up earlier idolizing NASA astronauts and computer engineers. Nowadays it's rock stars and reality stars. I remember home economics used to be a mandatory course, now with all the political and religious interference, there's hardly any practicality in high school ed and university's diluted with grade inflation.
@hpmika When the government pays for your health care, what do you do? You take the most expensive plan. You go for check ups more often. What do the hospitals do? They raise prices, because their customers have extra government money. Then the government says, "health costs are rising, we need to pump in more money." Then, hospitals raise prices even higher to match the extra government money.
Government involvement in markets = Higher prices, and less efficiency.
@TheGamerJoseph On the contrary, less checkups means later intervention in serious cases, which further increases expenses. What I'm coming to say is a mandatory single payer insurance has it's benefits in that costs can be regulated. Britain has BUPA which is private and a buy-in program if you aren't happy with the NHS. People who can afford it, or feel the need for it, take that as well.
@hpmika Less checkups means later intervention by whom? If the government isn't paying, what do you have to worry about? Free individuals need to be able to make their own decisions. If they want insurance, they should get it. If they don't, that is their risk.
Having private firms compete with government is not the free market. The government has the advantage of spending others people money, and no need to make a profit. The system does not work and will collapse on itself.
@TheGamerJoseph That's the same argument that can be used for genocide, theft, armed robbery, and basically a survivalist society.
I thought civilization was supposed to teach us interdependence and compassion. I hope you are healthy and stay healthy, but, I wonder if you would have the same viewpoint were you to have a life threatening issue.
@hpmika I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. Care to elaborate?
If there's one thing I would like you to leave this conversation with, it's this: Myself and other free-market advocates do not have a lack of compassion. It's that we don't find it compassionate to have the government steal money from some people and give it to others, at the barrel of a gun. True compassion is donating your own money. I wouldn't steal money from you, and the government shouldn't either.
@hpmika When someone else is footing the bill, nobody cares how high prices get. That's why college tuition in the US is out of control. The government is handing out loans, so colleges raise prices. The kids don't care how prices get, because they can get the loan. The government sees higher prices, so they pump more money into the system.
If kids couldn't get government money, college prices would collapse. Who could afford it without government loans? Same for health care
Of course you have to create demand for something that does not yet exist! how do people know if they want something if they've never experienced it before! its like saying "I've never needed the Internet before why the hell do I need it now?" I'm sure people were more than happy with horses before they were shown cars! how else does he suggest the poor are protected from poverty? its probably a far from perfect system but its damn sure better than nothing!
As I learn more and more of my current position as a citizen i see myself as one pawn in a chess game and the only way for me to win is if i am the last one standing or the others do my bidding. - the chess player
Isn't it a pyramid scheme? the contribution of many to support a few? what happened if the model change? it could happened. S.S. is not set in stone, is NOT the Constitution...can subject to override by local laws if CHOSEN TO..
Social Security is in trouble because our corrupt polititions raid the funds. What he says may be true but what does that have to do with people who placed their trust in the system and now are faced with a devistating reality that they just might be thrown to the curb by the government they believed in?
The reason wealthy people don't rely on welfare is because they know it's absolute crap- it's a nightmare, it can't be relied upon, but they still have to support this horrible scheme - $600 a month isn't enough to keep anyone afloat, it promotes poverty and increases losses.
Moderately wealthy people don't rely on welfare - they set money(or other assets) aside...
Or buy insurance.
So why then should they pay into a system that purports to insure them, when it is only serving other people... why should the working have to support the ever growing welfare class, that just drags everyone down closer to their level of poverty.
Milton .....The only thing we need to know about SOCIAL SECURITY....IS HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE BEEN MISAPPROPRIATED TO BE USED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO BAIL OUT AND GIVE TAX BREAK TO PEOPLE THAT DO NOT PAY SOCIAL SECURITY........It is amazing that you... a SO CALL INTELLECTUAL COME WITH SUCH BULLSHIT TO PROTECT WHOEVER IS PAYING YOU...
I think milton friedman makes sense most of the time, but he's wrong about national healthcare. The US has one of the least effective healthcare policies and it is also one of the least government controlled. It's not my opinion, it's just a fact.
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 You have no idea what you're talking about. The laws on the books covering the healthcare market place are staggering! The reason why healthcare costs so much and doesn't cover all the people it should is BECAUSE of government intervention not IN SPITE of it. You do not know your facts. Why doesn't the same problem exist with life, auto, or homeowner insurance? Because the government largely stays out of those market places and they work well because of it.
@mikebri527 You don't know shit. I'm getting cheap government healthcare right now. I don't care what other people say about government healthcare, it can be done.
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 What Wikipedia doesn't tell you is WHY. Why are we ranked 37th in overall performance? It is because of government intervention in the market place that drives quality DOWN and prices UP, the exact opposite of what a true free market economy does. And I trust info from the W.H.O. about as much as I trust the U.N. or you to have all the facts before presenting a childish argument. Just because you curse at me doesn't make your point any more effective.
@blastsummit Typical response from someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Obviously you have nothing of any meaning to comeback at me with so you resort to the only weapon you have, personal insults. When you have real facts and knowledge to challenge me with, I will welcome your comments.
@mikebri527 look into how administration costs by the insurance companies increases premiums, or how they have monopolized the market and collude to determine price. thats free market capitalism. it ALWAYS morphs into corporatism and monopolies. and you haven't provided any numbers done by credible organizations, yet you mock his using w.h.o. figures. way to go, genius.
@blastsummit First, I did not MOCK w.h.o. figures, I said I don't believe they're telling me the truth. That is not mockery. Second, the reason why premiums go up is because the wages of their employees have to keep up with inflation (another phenomena of government intervention). Third, your collusion theory has no proof. If they were in collusion and this IS A FACT, then why isn't the DOJ investigating them for consumer fraud?
@mikebri527 there wages are increasing far higher than inflation, then. and your answer is inadequate. but a free market guy like you shouldnt want doj to investigate them. you need to research more and not just the typical right-wing liars
@blastsummit Speaking of inadequate answers, you have proof that their wages have gone up (as you say) FAR HIGHER THAN INFLATION? Point me to the stats that back up your claim. Also, if they are frauding the public then why wouldn't I want them investigated? Fraud is NOT part of capitalism. If they're truly all working together to keep premiums artificially high then they should be investigated. That is a legitimate roll for government; to protect the rights of the individual from fraud.
@mikebri527 you said premiums are increasing due to wage increases. premiums are skyrocketing. but you swallow jizz for a living, so i'll let you get to work
@blastsummit I asked you before to prove your points by showing me facts about those wages. When you are prepared to prove your point I will welcome extending this debate. Until you do, I will not reply again to your childish and immature comments.
@blastsummit Fourth, we have not had "free market capitalism" in the US in almost 100 years. We have crony capitalism and corporatism promoted by big government and big business at the expense of the taxpayer. You have no idea what capitalism really is. You believe what the government tells you is the truth. As I said, you are very naive. You need to open your eyes and see that politicians only care about power, control, and money. They care not for you, me, or the care of our health.
@mikebri527 hahaha you believe capitalism was running smoothly during the robber baron era? you fucking retard. capitalism as you want it does not work. period. fools like you should be allowed to pay less taxes, but never ever get any help in times in trouble. including unemployment insurance. or workman's compensation if u get injured. nor rights if your company reduces your wages arbitrarily. nor work place safety. nor any health care if u lose ur job or get hurt and cant afford insurance.die
@blastsummit Again a typical response from you, hurl insults without any facts to back them up. Friedman has also exposed the myth about the robber barons. Look it up, perhaps you'll see a different side of the story, I believe a man that won a Nobel Peace Prize in Economics in 1976 has more credibility then you or any politician since then. If you choose not to believe him there's nothing I can do about that but perhaps you'll see another side of the story. Your insults are childish & immature.
@mikebri527 I'm not even going to argue with you anymore. Even if you're right about the entire wikipedia page being wrong, that still doesn't change the fact that I'm getting cheap government healthcare in Germany right now because they don't think American healthcare is good enough.
@mikebri527 Maybe I should have made my original point clearer: I meant that insurance is controlled largely by private companies in the US, whereas it is state run in other places. I am aware that there are government regulations that may be harmful.
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 All of these international bureaucratic agencies are after one three things; money, power, and control. The W.H.O. has an agenda just like any other bureaucratic entity. They will bend stats in the most effective way possible for them to benefit from being put in a position of power and control; the money follows from that. Otherwise, they have nothing to justify their existence and they're all out of work.
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 Also, Wikipedia has been discredited with false information in the past. They are NOT an absolute source for complete, credible, and true information. You are incredibly naive to think (1) that Wikipedia is all truth and (2) that governments are somehow morally and ethically better than the common man pursuing what's best for him. Politicians do not care about you. They care about what gets them money, power, and control and therefore re-election. You're very naive.
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 Also, Wikipedia has been discredited with false information in the past. They are NOT an absolute source for complete, credible, and true information. You are incredibly naive to think (1) that Wikipedia is all truth and (2) that governments are somehow morally and ethically better than the common man pursuing what's best for him. Politicians do not care about you. They care about what gets them money, power, and control and therefore re-election. You're very naive.
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 Also, Wikipedia has been discredited with false information in the past. They are NOT an absolute source for complete, credible, and true information. You are incredibly naive to think (1) that Wikipedia is all truth and (2) that governments are somehow morally and ethically better than the common man pursuing what's best for him. Politicians do not care about you. They care about what gets them money, power, and control and therefore re-election. You're very naive.
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 It is done! all over the world! centralised healthcare is working everyday putting the patient ahead of profits! I'd hate to be in a situation were I could run out of money in the middle of medical treatment and they turn around and say "too bad thats yer lot!"
@katakisLives Unlike you I have travelled the world. Centralized health care is a complete failure-Surprise! The care is bad, the service, if you can get it, takes forever. if you want decent care, you, wait for it....go to the black market and pay for it. Free health care..will be just like that free school you had.
@trublu97 I know a model that's worked just fine since it was founded by the Labour government in 1947 and that's the Nation health service (NHS) I will always support socialised medicine because I've seen the destitution that existed in the UK before social security! and all those horror stories of people having to patch themselves up because they cannot afford medicine! Its fine for those who can afford to choose to go private! what about those who can't? England has both!
I wont admit that it works but for argument sake just because a thing may work doesn't its right r that i am entitled to the labored of another person. Imagine there where no doctors. Would i still have a right to a service. Do i still have a right to healthcare.
It is immoral to use force to move goods and services out of the hands of one person and into the hands of another regardless of my desire to do good. I harm both.
@homersparents Society has never been and never shall be equal some people though no fault of their own need the help of the state and others with no talent wind up with the majority of the worlds wealth! how is that right? in a just society taxes are progressive not regressive (meaning they hit the high earners more!) no person with an ongoing condition should have to bankrupt themselves! welfare and free healthcare go someway to leveling the playing field you would benefit too
@katakisLives Being poor does not direct where your "help" must come from. You say they "NEED" help of a state. Why the state?Society and Government are not synonymous. Government uses force.
So some are poor through no fault of there own. but some are rich because they have no talent. That is the opposite of the truth. I am getting rich because i have talent PERIOD...
I don't want any benefit taken by force using govt like a robber uses a gun.
@homersparents Liberty is an empty concept if you are destitute! without collective resposibility there is no such thing as society its every man for himself! of course there are people who make money because they are talented (like Steve Jobs Bill Gates and James Dyson!) but there are plenty of people who lucked their way into big bucks or got it via exploitation or were born into an affluent background
@katakisLives It's not an empty concept if your destitute. Its the only concept for you. free to improve your self and free to work hard unto that end. Freedom to self improve. Freedom to ask but not demand.
Who are we to determine for anyone else what set of circumstances define your "luck" and what is skill or talent. I cant determine for you whether your circumstances are luck or not. only you can do so. that's like basketball player is he skilled or lucky. DNA is it luck..?
@homersparents Let the poor die and decrease the surplus population that's what you may as well be saying! its not always like some cheesy Hollywood movie where the protagonist hit rock bottom and then has some kind of Epiphany and rises back up! poverty breeds poverty! you born in a deprived background chances are your life chances were stunted the day you were born! some people have more opportunities presented to them its as simple as that!
@katakisLives I was lucky to be born sighted. Would you say i should give up an eye to a blind person.The sky is beautiful today. My "Luck" is no ones business. Your luck is not my property. It may or may not be LUCK. Define luck...
Scrooge did not become socialist at the end of the book. He became a good friend and neighbor. He didn't demand charity for Tim from gvt. You touched on Dickens so i too..have you read. it is free on Project-Gutenberg
@homersparents I know a christmas carol pretty well! the way I see it by the time charity gets involved the damage is usually irreversible! charity can have a positive influence but it can only go so far! its not resourced nearly well enough! once you're receiving charitable services it usually means you've lost your home perhaps living in temporary accommodation! its another example of a sticking plaster over a gaping wound! it solves nothing!
We are free to start a charity that functions the way we desire. We are not free to demand others to give to this charity. Unless we say in our hearts "why does that rich guy get so much when there are so many poor" deciding in our own mind that he doesn't deserve it and we are the best judges of what that man deserves. When you decide what others deserve you are a tyrant.
Charity is another word for love. Tax is another word for force.
You cannot argue what should be done with money that is not yours. The fact that you take this money through taxes and provide it to individuals for being in a difficult situation means you have weakened market in exchange for nothing. There is no incentive for someone on welfare to work to get off of welfare, no? The harder an individual works to better themselves and further their career means less welfare benefits which many people choose to not go through, it's too comfortable.
FoolishDeamon 3 days ago
I disagree but it becomes clear-he does not believe in giving money7 to a charity in place of your taxes
daveme7 3 days ago
I wonder how Mr. Friedman would feel today if he had to pay $14,000 per year for health insurance.
Hodenkat 6 days ago
No demand for social security in the 1930s? Stop right there Mr. Friedman! Before social security and medicare, what was the average life expectancy? What was the percentage of elderly living in poverty before SS and after? People didn't "demand it" because they didn't have anyone in government to fight for it until FDR! Statistics and figures don't ALWAYS give an accurate picture. Remember that Milton Friedman gives his "information" as fact even when it is his opinion.
Hodenkat 6 days ago
I see the Leftists have hijacked this thread.
zivjax 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ycees89 While your argument might facetiously seem logical, the premise behind it is expensive healthcare. What profits can be made on single sales can equally be achieved by volume. Take stents, a few years back you needed to be a millionaire to afford it, even with normal health insurance. Now, hardly half a decade later, the procedure is regularly performed across the country at prices that even the low rate comprehensive policies cover.
hpmika 1 week ago
Comment removed
hpmika 1 week ago
Comment removed
hpmika 1 week ago
Comment removed
hpmika 1 week ago
Comment removed
hpmika 1 week ago
Comment removed
hpmika 1 week ago
Comment removed
hpmika 1 week ago
Comment removed
hpmika 1 week ago
@solusdiver I lived there as well, and in other European countries as well. While I envy their holidays which I think are excessive, I certainly do admire their stand that as advanced civilized nations, there is a responsibility that society and government feel about providing basic amenities for their subjects, healthcare being one. Ascribing a beneficial standpoint to capitalism works in business, not in the social sphere. Behavioral economics 101.
hpmika 1 week ago 2
When we tax businesses, we basically use resources that could've gone to future generations. Businesses creates capital, and this capital is reinvested in order to generate new ways of satisfying future demands. Whenever we take resources from the businesses generating our wealth, and use it to give luxury treatments to people there's really no financial coverage for, we are basically unabling capitalism and prosperity. Stay within the confines of what is affordable to us! That's real wealth.
ohedd 1 week ago
social security = political joke, its entirely bullshit
mini1gerbel 1 week ago
@mini1gerbel What would you replace it with?
katakisLives 1 week ago 2
@katakisLives
nothing
mini1gerbel 1 week ago
@mini1gerbel So in this utopia of yours how would you deal with the poor and unemployed?
katakisLives 1 week ago 2
@katakisLives The wealth of the people would not be taken from them by force through taxation. No one spends someone elses money as carefully as they would spend their own; thus when the government allows people to keep the fruits of their labor the money would be spent more carefully; Rather than shoddy government funded (through our taxes) programs that fail and bloat (if it fails we just give it more money.) Don't you know someone who would help the poor if they weren't taxed?
FoolishDeamon 5 days ago
@FoolishDeamon That's the same old "as long as I'm alright everyone else can go to hell" mentality I see over and other again on this guys videos! the tax system should be progressive (in other words those who have the least means to pay have the least of the tax burden!) all the time people though no fault of their own fall on hard times and need help from the state! sometimes its just a matter of being born on the wrong side of town!
katakisLives 5 days ago
@katakisLives You tell me; how is the state able to provide help to those who fall on hard times better than private organizations/individuals?
FoolishDeamon 5 days ago
@FoolishDeamon Simple! lets say you are made redundant you apply for unemployment benefits and you get them! therefore the bills still get paid and the rent doesn't go into arrears! private individuals and organisations are best placed to tackle specific issues! the government is better placed to deal with ongoing need! without such continuity in services all you are doing is putting a sticking plaster onto a gaping wound.
katakisLives 5 days ago
@katakisLives I do not see how the state would be any better equipped to deal with social issues (such as unemployment) than the people at large would be had the taxes not been taken from them. You merely explained how an individual benefits from receiving wealth and how that in turn effects the economy; Could you please detail how a government entity is any more efficient with money than the individuals it takes it from?
FoolishDeamon 5 days ago
@FoolishDeamon mainly the scale of the operation! you need to know that there is someone you can reliably go for this kind of help! in all the situations where no such system exists the people don't suddenly turn around and fill the void "you can always count on the kindness of strangers?" that's simply not true! they look after number one and that's that! no welfare= abject poverty higher taxes for the rich welfare for the poorest
katakisLives 5 days ago
@katakisLives Kindness of strangers? Who do you think the legislators were that passed the laws for welfare? Do you not suppose that these people count as strangers no different than the people who work at soup kitchens or shelter homes? You tell me how much government has wasted of the money that it must steal by gun point. A truly free society would *not* steal from the people; The whole people, including those who have devoted their lives to helping our fellow humans.
FoolishDeamon 5 days ago
@FoolishDeamon Soup kitchens? shelter homes? the idea of welfare is that it prevents people from falling that far!! you're not far from rock bottom when you need emergency services like these! no system is completely perfect but there's no better way to protect people from the worst economic hardship than welfare! most these charitable services just stop you from dieing not help you rise up! this isn't the old west, frontier times extreme poverty always leads to civil unrest
katakisLives 5 days ago
@katakisLives And why are soup kitchens and shelter homes so poor? Do you not understand how devastating the taxes that government programs impose effect our ability to provide for our fellow man? The way to rise up is to find a way to provide a good or service in exchange for currency, not to gun-in-your-face-steal from the people at large. Social Security is a ponzi scheme that you aren't given a choice about joining. What other sort of programs do you feel are essential?
FoolishDeamon 5 days ago
@FoolishDeamon The damage has already been done if you have fallen so far that you have resorted to relying on soup kitchens and shelter homes! any ordinary family in a tough ecomony could wind up unemployed and without benefits lose their home! why should people have to lose everything before help kicks in (essentual prgrammes = welfare 4 unemployed 4 for parents with children and those too sick to work, also help with energy bills rent)
katakisLives 4 days ago
@katakisLives Any ordinary family that lives in a tough economy *that taxes it's individuals in the name of saving the poor* Governments FAIL on a large scale to efficiently and properly provide services and help to those in need as compared to the a free and open market where the people KEEP their earned income and spend it on goods and services worth the value. Good businesses stay open and expand allow new job opportunities for millions and better services/wealth for all.
FoolishDeamon 4 days ago
@FoolishDeamon The welfare state helps people in all walks of life not just people right at the bottom! a functioning welfare state should be coupled with a progressive tax system (meaning that those in lower income brackets pay less tax than those who get higher pay! sometimes there is one massive employer and when they go belly up there's nothing! (like the coal mines in the eighties and the car factories in Detroit) it can take decades to replace such volume employers
katakisLives 3 days ago
@katakisLives No one should have to lose everything before finding a way up; No one should have to lose a single penny from a forceful government either. I personally know a handful of people who are on welfare. These people depend on welfare to provide them a means to pay for every day things (food, shelter, clothing etc...) They require this welfare because there are *no jobs* available for them in this poor town. I could not start my own business due to taxes and government.
FoolishDeamon 4 days ago
@FoolishDeamon Jobs aren't just going to magically appear out of thin air if you were to abolish SS! there seems to be such a black and white logic going on here that SS is in effect the root of all evil! some areas still haven't recovered from the decline of the industrial sector even now! its better to pay for welfare rather than have no SS and pay the much higher price when things really go wrong! turing an ecomony round takes years! what happens to the poor in the mean time?
katakisLives 3 days ago
@katakisLives Jobs don't magically appears out of thin air *ever*. The money to hire an extra employee, start a new business, or develop the economy in some way isn't there when we tax like we currently do. It sounds like you are looking towards a different form of taxation than we currently have; I'm looking for a change as well although I hold personal responsibility, the right to ones property, and the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness above all.
FoolishDeamon 3 days ago
@FoolishDeamon Personal responsibility is meaningless when you have no control over your change in circumstances! without any form of welfare its pretty much the law of the jungle! survival of the fittest (in the case of most capitalism the most ruthless) a limited access paradise where the already rich and powerful reign supreme and the disenfranchised and poor may as well find the nearest bridge and jump off it
katakisLives 3 days ago
@katakisLives A free market allows for the greatest amount of control over ones own circumstance; To not have your money taken away when you are successful in developing your own wealth and the economy at large and given to those (the great majority in our current system) who are able to make better of themselves and the market but learn to live dependant and comfortable receiving benefits for avoiding furthering their own development and the growth of wealth in the economy at large.
FoolishDeamon 2 days ago
@FoolishDeamon You're hardly going to develop very far if you wind up homeless because you lost your job and did not get another one in time before the debts racked up! your landlord isn't going to suddenly stop charging you just because you're suddenly unemployed! welfare is the best way to prevent what ought to be a temporary setback being a total disaster where you lose everything! the free market tends to favour those who can shout the loudest
katakisLives 2 days ago
@katakisLives This current system where people can't find jobs is because we have been running social programs, restrictions, and regulations on the free market for decades. What happens to the millions who depend on welfare if it were to end? They would get a job. May not be a great job but this job not only provides them money for now but the opportunity to develop their skills so that they may earn MORE money. Without the social programs businesses could hire more people etc...
FoolishDeamon 1 day ago
@FoolishDeamon You forgot about the education system. We have a "structural deficit" in education due to the monopoly on schooling. Friedman didin't simply want to "cut" the programs, he wanted to replace ALL of it with a gradual minimum income. Over time, that program will then be turned over to private charities. But a "shock treatment" he never advocated.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 day ago
@NoProbaloAmigo There are a whole host of control mechanisms the government imposes on us the people; I believe the solution to this public school system is to no longer fund teachers or faculty members through taxes. Make the schools compete with each other for the favor of the parents of children. Make every school provide better services for a competing price compared with it's rival schools. Allow people to make a choice as to determine which schools work best for the people they work for
FoolishDeamon 21 hours ago
@FoolishDeamon Yeah, Friedman pushed vouchers as a stop gap to "get from here to there." The main issue happened after 1965, when the teacher's unions became binding. All declines can be traced back to that decision.
NoProbaloAmigo 14 hours ago
@FoolishDeamon I've lost count of all the times I've seen people on TV saying they'd be willing to take any job if it were available! people with degrees willing to go into the most menial jobs if only they were there! but companies are cutting back! shedding whole sectors of the work force just to stay in the black! private insurance is worthless if the company providing it has gone out of business
katakisLives 1 day ago
@katakisLives Of course, as anyone knows, that really isn't true. People with degrees almost invariably turn their noses up at most menial labor, particularly when a governmnetal charity system prevents them from needing to do so. Add that to minimum wage laws that have never fought poverty and have done nothing but eliminate jobs. And private insurers rarely go out of business (and are insured themselves) - don't confuse employer with insurer.
FletchforFreedom 1 day ago
@FletchforFreedom A degree hasn't got the cache that it once had! so many people are going into higher education these days that the gloss has largely been rubbed well and truly off! the minimum wage can only be described as a good thing! nobody should be paid exploitation wages! and if a job is not worthy of a living wage then it should not exist at all! why should someone have to hold down multiple jobs just to make ends meet
katakisLives 7 hours ago
@katakisLives NO ONE is ever paid "exploitation wages" in the United States. If a person agrees to take a job at a certain wage, fine. If they don't like it, they can QUIT. Minimum wage does nothing more than eliminate positions that might otherwise be avaiable. However, idiots look at minimum wage compared to the socialist welfare system we have and say "the minimum wage needs to be at least X." Bullshit. It should be whatever the market allows. The other option is that the job doesn't exist.
TomKaren94 6 hours ago
@katakisLives The degree has lost much of its cache because "free" education shifts it to people who neither need nor appreciate it. The minimum wage has been an absolue disaster serving ONLY to reduce employment (all that it has EVER accomplished). Repeating the term "exploitation wages" over and over doesn't make it any less ridiculous either. By your reasoing, no teen should get work experience because if he lacks the skills to support himself, the job shouldn't exist. Brilliant!
FletchforFreedom 4 hours ago
@katakisLives You are exactly right about people willing to work; The jobs are just not there in our current condition and bigger government spending is responsible for this. It turns out that the more money government spends the less the tax payers (everyone who is hitting hard times) have to spend for themselves; i.e. Company/Business owners must shed whole sectors of the work force just to stay afloat.
FoolishDeamon 1 day ago
@FoolishDeamon Most of the companies I've seen go to the wall did so because of the banking crisis! they were unable to get credit and loans from the banking system! the "good old free market" that allowed the banks to pursue reckless investments and sub prime assets the real cause of the recession the free market is what encouraged this rampant rabid greed
katakisLives 7 hours ago
@katakisLives It wasn't that the "good old free market" allowed the banks to "pursur reckless investments. It's that the United States Congress passed laws that REQUIRED them to do so. Just more governmental meddling based on trying to socially engineer a utopian society. "Rampant rabid greed" is NOT a modern-day-society invention. The desire for wealth is what has driven man to accomplish almost everything that benefits your lifestyle today. Go back to the Dark Ages, moron.
TomKaren94 6 hours ago
@katakisLives Don't you remember all of the debates to tax the "rich" business owners who provide these jobs in order to provide more social programs?
FoolishDeamon 1 day ago
@katakisLives You really aren't countering my points so much as grabbing one thing I say then diverging into this worst case situation that is happening *under our current system* and not an actual free market. I assumed earlier, and I feel stronger now, that we both simply share the dislike for our current system. The only place we diverge is what we change it into.
FoolishDeamon 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@katakisLives You really aren't countering my points so much as grabbing one thing I say then diverging into this worst case situation that is happening *under our current system* and not an actual free market. I assumed earlier, and I feel stronger now, that we both simply share the dislike for our current system. The only place we diverge is what we change it into.
FoolishDeamon 1 day ago
@katakisLives I understand helping those in need; I support such a cause. It is through the love and caring of others that we can find new love and care within ourselves. To paint this dystopia and tear it apart as if it were my argument does not make sense to me since you and I can both obviously agree we don't want a limited island of paradise for very few and obscene poverty for the masses. Care for others must come from a personal choice to do so; not a law that forces those to give.
FoolishDeamon 2 days ago
@FoolishDeamon Its all or nothing either its payed for with taxes or it doesn't work! no private charitable organisation however well meaning would ever have the reach or resources to help all of those who wind up unemployed for example! taxes for the greater good are always going to be necessary the whole structure of society depends upon them! and welfare is just another part of that! especially right now a lot of the time the jobs simply do not exist! no one can afford to hire!
katakisLives 2 days ago
@katakisLives If you want to see Milton Friedman explain the welfare system better than I can you should check out the video on this channel "Power of the Market - Welfare"
watch?v=bJWZ27OT16M
FoolishDeamon 2 days ago
@katakisLives It's called charity/giving/love. How can a government love? It can't. People, out of the goodness of their hearts, or through a church/synagogue/mosque/other charity, help other people. If I and most people had real problems, we have family members and friends who would help us. How many people don't have kids/parents/cousins/neighbors/churchmembers to help them, not very many. So that's who would help the trillions who have no one else to help them but benevolent gov
strasburgpoker 4 days ago
@strasburgpoker More and more people are living alone these days (the statistics bear this out) a lot of the old community systems have gone away over the years! if you find yourself out of work the best way to get you by until something comes along is welfare! this is the west dammit! we can't treat the issue of the poor in the same way we react to a famine in Africa! charity is the last resort for the desperate not a viable option for maintaining a basic level living standard
katakisLives 4 days ago
@katakisLives If welfare was temporary and was to be repaid, than I would have very little if not no problem with it. It's a way of life for millions. The old community systems have gone away because of welfare and the govt handouts. Why help someone who is poor and hungry if they are getting free education, food, healthcare, daycare, rent, electric bill, cell phone, cab rides(I own one, and yes they do), etc. Charity is the last resort for a welfare state, yes you are right.
strasburgpoker 2 days ago
@katakisLives It's actually quite simple. Where does government get the trillions that they "give" to the "poor" through all the social programs? What if you returned, say, 90% of that money to people. That's that many more trillions the people would have to do the same thing, except, if you haven't figured this out, people spend their money much, much, much more wisely and efficiently than any government ever could or will, which is why socialism has never worked and never will.
strasburgpoker 4 days ago
@strasburgpoker Return the money to the "people" who exactly are these so called people? without welfare the money stays right where it is (with the people who already have it) that doesn't help the poor one little bit! 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
katakisLives 4 days ago
@katakisLives These people would be the 100 million or so who pay federal taxes.(what did you think the answer was? what else would I mean?)
It does help the poor. What would happen with that money? Jobs? Pay? Charity? Remember now, these aren't just the evil billionaires we are talking about. If 50% pay federal tax, that is over 100 million people. And no, 50% of 2 trillion is not better than 2 trillion not being taken away. 95% + can get off their lazy asses and get a job. Quit enabling them
strasburgpoker 2 days ago
@strasburgpoker There isn't always a job to go to straight away! I once heard this statistic that for every one job about thirteen people are chasing it! what happens to the other twelve who didn't get it! you cannot live on idealism that's not going to pay the bills or buy food all the while you are out of work! the people who are getting this money back are tax payers in work and by definition not the ones in need that welfare targets!
katakisLives 2 days ago
@katakisLives The problem with the statistic - even were it true - is that jobs are eliminated and created constantly in a vibrant economy. Those "other twelve" get the next twelve jobs (actually about half do and then a DIFFERENT twelve go for the ones after that. The problem with the program is that it creates dependency, undermines the economy and makes the likelihood of people being in need FAR higher. Private insurance is far more effective.
FletchforFreedom 1 day ago
@FletchforFreedom It is true! last time I checked the BBC did not spread lies! sometimes especially in a recession far too few jobs are being created in relation to the ones being lost from companies going out of business! what about those towns were everyone works in the same factory and that goes bankrupt and there's nothing! the economy is never in a permanent state of growth its always in a permanent state of boom and bust always has been always will be no western nation should be without SS
katakisLives 1 day ago
@katakisLives So network television never tells lies? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! To be fair, what they are doing is spreading ignorance. The boom and bust cycle is created by governmnet intervention in the economy. It does not exist absent such interventions (typically be central banks). There is no logical reason why the economy cannot continue to grow absent such intervention (though jobs will continue to be created/destroyed - with created always ultimately outpacing destroyed.
FletchforFreedom 1 day ago
@FletchforFreedom Pretty much every major crash in the 20th and early 21st centuries have been caused by the rich in places like wall street and the city of London gaming the system to breaking point! all the crazy investments into shares that were sold for way higher than they've ever really been worth! then when they realise they've built a house of cards panic ensues, its almost always big business creating a bubble of fictitious wealth and prosperity (happens in the housing sector lots)
katakisLives 7 hours ago
@katakisLives You don't even know what "gaming the system to the breaking point" means, and you're the one who wrote it. There's been 'irrational exuberance' in every single market fluctuation and cycle since the dawn of man. All you're bitching about is human nature, not the capitalist system... you just WANT it to be about the capitalist system. Typical left-wing crap. You've said absolutely nothing new or even remotely insightful.
TomKaren94 6 hours ago
@katakisLives Literally every mahor crash for the last 800 years has had NOTHIMNG WHATSOEVER to do with the rich or Wall Street". Each and every one has been caused by GOVERNMENTAL manipulation of the money supply - in the last two centuries primarily by central banks. Read "This Time is Different" or "The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle" or "Meltdown" are any number of other works. This idiocy that it was caused by the rich and investments is pure unmitigated ignorance.
FletchforFreedom 4 hours ago
@katakisLives The "house of cards" began with the Fed flooding the liquidity markets with cheap cash making riskier investments seem viable. It was made worse by Fannie and Freddie maintaining an artificial market that could not otherwise be maintained. This is how bubbles have ALWAYS been created (the governmnet artificially increases liquidity to unsustainable levels) and then the uneducated blame it on "big business" because they can't be bothered to pay attention.
FletchforFreedom 4 hours ago
@katakisLives The US did much better for its people, including the elderly, before Sociali Security and such systems are bankrupting countries around the world because governmnets are horrible at preserving the koney of citizens. Such programs are always a raw deal for recipients in the end. And the privaet sector is more than capable of providing charity, unemployment insurance, pensions, etc. The state has a miserable track record.
FletchforFreedom 1 day ago
@FletchforFreedom The private sector has got a terrible track record of handling such schemes! you hear all the time people paying into private insurance pots for decades only to discover that all the money has mysteriously disappeared when they need it the most! usually its been mismanaged or lost in some extreme cases! you can pay for decades but if that company is corrupt or goes insolvent then all the money you've invested dissapears!
katakisLives 7 hours ago
@katakisLives I am not responsible for your delusions. What you "hear all the time: from the voices in your head bears no resemblance to actual reality. The failure of insurance companies is EXTREMELY rare and, when it does happen, reinsurance companies still cover the outstanding policies for the insureds. You haven't the slightest damn clue what you are talking about ... again.
FletchforFreedom 4 hours ago
Comment removed
strasburgpoker 1 day ago
@katakisLives There is always a job. What you mean is that there isn't always a job someone wants. Check the papers, check craigslist, there are plenty of jobs. Take away the safety nets, and see how many of the unemployed suddenly become employed. I am 34 and have had, literally, over 25 jobs in my life(due to moving a lot). I have never been out of work for more than a few days, while others can't find a job for years. There are jobs, you take it till something better comes along. No work=lazy
strasburgpoker 1 day ago
@strasburgpoker There is not always a job! no matter how industrious you are there is bound to be periods where you simply cannot find any form of employment! moving around can be really expensive and if you are really poor then you can be stuck in a certain area because the rents elsewhere are just too high! welfare didn't just pop into existence for no reason! the cost to society of having no SS would be far greater when the homeless ranks swell and crime shoots up
katakisLives 7 hours ago
@katakisLives You're right... NO ONE is guaranteed or owed a job, no matter how educated they are or how hard they work. A friend of mine has a PhD in Geography. She works as an administrative assistant. It is HER fault she chose the education she did, which has no application whatever in modern society. It is, has been and will always be that the best adapted are the best rewarded. Welfare for those who *cannot* do for themselves is fine. Otherwise, it is a scourge upon society.
TomKaren94 6 hours ago
@katakisLives By your statement, then, one would conclude that since the invention of the welfare system, crime and homelessness have gone down? NOTHING could be further from the truth. Quite the opposite, actually. You're revealing yourself as nothing more than a lefty mouthpiece... and a quite uninformed one at that. But... please keep watching the Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell videos. Eventually, maybe something will sink into your mush of a brain.
TomKaren94 6 hours ago
@katakisLives I guess we'll end it here, because (at least in Toledo, Canton, and Pensacola, where I have lived) there is ALWAYS, AS IN 365 DAYS A YEAR, a job. I mean always. Again, it's not a 25$ hr sit on your ass kind of job, but there is a job. Deliver papers, pizza, telemarketing, drive a cab, courier, other restaurant work, all but 1 i have done. BTW, you can start out making 35,000 a year being a truck driver, THEY ARE ALWAYS HIRING. There are jobs, you are a lazy shit if you don't have 1
strasburgpoker 4 hours ago
@katakisLives Actually, welfare DID pop into existence for no viable reason. It wasset up as a handout to entice a certain block of voters to support certaion politicians. The poor were BETTER OFF before such schemes thanks to private charity - mostly in the form of mutual aid societies. Welfare actually INCREASED need. If you include those supposedly lifetd above the poverty line by those programs, poverty INCREASED as a result.
FletchforFreedom 4 hours ago
@katakisLives And Social Security had even LESS of a justification, particularly since there was no problem of the indigent elderly when it was passed. Moreover, a) it gives a lousy return, b) involuntarily takes money particularly from those most in need - effectively transfering huge amounts of wealth from poor black men to wealthy white women, c) and permitted the governmnet to setal it (while making promises they can't fulfill) so they could waste more. The "selling homeless" is pure BS.
FletchforFreedom 4 hours ago
" An enormous propaganda campaign by special propaganda groups"...manufactured the myth of a public demand for social welfare...Bollocks!....Friedman is only able to sell this objectivist horseshit to people who don't know their History....President Roosevelt introduced social welfare to alleviate the worst and fastest poverty crisis in American History.....people were literally fucking starving
oneblueorange 1 week ago
@oneblueorange Lower taxes! thats all people like this guy care about! the free market at its most feral! totally amoral and no consideration given what so ever to the poor! FDR was one of the greatest presidents in history and what he did was momentus! crushing the power of the special interest groups and making America a fairer place! theres still a long way to go
katakisLives 1 week ago
@katakisLives Agreed
oneblueorange 1 week ago
@katakisLives If you are into National Socialists out of uniform, then yes FDR is fabulous. Friedman was not just a lower tax guy, he is arguing against government spending too.
JohnTagliaferro 1 week ago
centralized healthcare works, just take the NHS. For all its troubles, the cousins across the pond are better off with it, and want it despite the tory govt wanting to dismantle it. It's better to pay a higher tax rate for a guaranteed nationalized health plan rather than risk debt due to medical expenses. The Brits understand it, just as Churchill put it, Americans will do the right thing after exhausting all other options.
hpmika 2 weeks ago 3
@hpmika Most people who oppose socialised medicine have been drinking the right wing Kool-Aid so long they can't see past the end of their own noses
katakisLives 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
hpmika 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@katakisLives unfortunately the debate in this country has become so vile on one side of the spectrum that a kind of nobility has come to be associated with lack of knowledge or open disrespect to science and social behavior. Thankfully a few of us have the means to disgregard or get away from this. I wish this country of mine doesn't descend into anarchy or become a survivalist nation.
hpmika 1 week ago 3
@hpmika I totally agree! a lot of people have a strange idea of what constitutes liberty! I really liked your Churchill quote at the end of the comment! the debate has basically been hijacked by the far right and this whole sector (healthcare social security) has become the whipping boy of all of society's ills
katakisLives 1 week ago
@katakisLives Thanks. One thing I admire about the working class right is the absolute lack of jealousy towards the rich, and the corporate tycoons. Given that, and the lack of informed debate it leads to surreal situations such as people claiming things like earned income tax credits, medicare benefits and hating the government for providing those programs. This of course, suits the corporates who would rather have them privatized.
hpmika 1 week ago
@hpmika Ahen to that! some of these people are so hopelessly brainwashed by the propaganda of the far right they'd happily tie the rope road their own necks and pull the lever! its a perversely incredible achievement that people have been hoodwinked into fighting against good government programmes that directly benefit them
katakisLives 1 week ago
@katakisLives ::Goes to another youtube video and talks about how the government is lying to us and fighting wars for oil overseas. Comes back here and mindlessly defends their domestic policy:: Typical democrat for you. (Don't worry, I don't hold the Republicans in high esteem either.)
TheGamerJoseph 6 days ago
@hpmika You are a fucking moron. The U.S. health system is based on insurance being used for all funds. Thus, there is a pool of money contributed by the clients that constantly gets spread around and redistributed, which means it can't get much more socialized than that.
Britain, along with the rest of the majority of Europe, is facing a debt crisis and is rapidly going down the drain as they self destruct. You fuckers are getting raped in all holes, just like when the USSR fell. Hilarious.
itachi705 6 days ago
@hpmika You are a fucking moron. The U.S. health system is based on insurance being used for all funds. Thus, there is a pool of money contributed by the clients that constantly gets spread around and redistributed, which means it can't get much more socialized than that.
Britain, along with the rest of the majority of Europe, is facing a debt crisis and is rapidly going down the drain as they self destruct. You fuckers are getting raped in all holes, just like when the USSR fell. Hilarious.
itachi705 6 days ago
@itachi705 LOL at the epithets. The insurance monies are being used to fund a rich bureaucracy which does nothing but push paper. All I want is a system where the docs and the patients decide on treatment. Not the administrators. If as a civilized first world country we aren't able to guarantee basic healthcare to the citizens it's a shame.
Please educate yourself on history. Britain's debt has zilch to do with "socialism". It's unregulated decompartmentalized phony capitalism.
hpmika 6 days ago
@hpmika Britain become the most powerful economic country in the world because they were the most free country. Shortly thereafter, America became the most powerful economic country because they had the most free country. Of all people, Americans and Brits should be defending capitalism. How did we forget our history in such a short time span? We watched everyone around us flounder in government while we bathed in riches, but still decided to jump in their cesspools. Brilliant.
TheGamerJoseph 6 days ago
@hpmika To call Britain 'capitalist' and 'unregulated' is insane. May as well call a duck an elephant. Politics in England is so left wing (even the PM of the 'conservative' party), it probably makes the jaws of the Chinese drop.
tothemax01 6 days ago
@hpmika Them liking it doesn't mean it's the best or even a good system. A lot of Americans would prefer to keep The Department of Education. Does that mean it's good? Just like in America, most Brits have no understanding of these issues, or how it's negatively effecting them. We'd both be better off with free market health care.. which America doesn't have either.
TheGamerJoseph 6 days ago
@TheGamerJoseph Would you rather prefer a system wherein you can go bankrupt with bills? America's education system got this way due to misplaced priorities. Kids grew up earlier idolizing NASA astronauts and computer engineers. Nowadays it's rock stars and reality stars. I remember home economics used to be a mandatory course, now with all the political and religious interference, there's hardly any practicality in high school ed and university's diluted with grade inflation.
hpmika 6 days ago
@hpmika When the government pays for your health care, what do you do? You take the most expensive plan. You go for check ups more often. What do the hospitals do? They raise prices, because their customers have extra government money. Then the government says, "health costs are rising, we need to pump in more money." Then, hospitals raise prices even higher to match the extra government money.
Government involvement in markets = Higher prices, and less efficiency.
TheGamerJoseph 6 days ago
@TheGamerJoseph On the contrary, less checkups means later intervention in serious cases, which further increases expenses. What I'm coming to say is a mandatory single payer insurance has it's benefits in that costs can be regulated. Britain has BUPA which is private and a buy-in program if you aren't happy with the NHS. People who can afford it, or feel the need for it, take that as well.
hpmika 6 days ago
@hpmika Less checkups means later intervention by whom? If the government isn't paying, what do you have to worry about? Free individuals need to be able to make their own decisions. If they want insurance, they should get it. If they don't, that is their risk.
Having private firms compete with government is not the free market. The government has the advantage of spending others people money, and no need to make a profit. The system does not work and will collapse on itself.
TheGamerJoseph 6 days ago
@TheGamerJoseph That's the same argument that can be used for genocide, theft, armed robbery, and basically a survivalist society.
I thought civilization was supposed to teach us interdependence and compassion. I hope you are healthy and stay healthy, but, I wonder if you would have the same viewpoint were you to have a life threatening issue.
hpmika 6 days ago
Comment removed
TheGamerJoseph 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hpmika I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. Care to elaborate?
If there's one thing I would like you to leave this conversation with, it's this: Myself and other free-market advocates do not have a lack of compassion. It's that we don't find it compassionate to have the government steal money from some people and give it to others, at the barrel of a gun. True compassion is donating your own money. I wouldn't steal money from you, and the government shouldn't either.
TheGamerJoseph 5 days ago
@hpmika When someone else is footing the bill, nobody cares how high prices get. That's why college tuition in the US is out of control. The government is handing out loans, so colleges raise prices. The kids don't care how prices get, because they can get the loan. The government sees higher prices, so they pump more money into the system.
If kids couldn't get government money, college prices would collapse. Who could afford it without government loans? Same for health care
TheGamerJoseph 6 days ago
Of course you have to create demand for something that does not yet exist! how do people know if they want something if they've never experienced it before! its like saying "I've never needed the Internet before why the hell do I need it now?" I'm sure people were more than happy with horses before they were shown cars! how else does he suggest the poor are protected from poverty? its probably a far from perfect system but its damn sure better than nothing!
katakisLives 2 weeks ago
we need a new friedman
leafs4life3danield 2 weeks ago
As I learn more and more of my current position as a citizen i see myself as one pawn in a chess game and the only way for me to win is if i am the last one standing or the others do my bidding. - the chess player
Dellvin99 2 weeks ago
Isn't it a pyramid scheme? the contribution of many to support a few? what happened if the model change? it could happened. S.S. is not set in stone, is NOT the Constitution...can subject to override by local laws if CHOSEN TO..
UnitedPebbles 2 weeks ago
Social Security is in trouble because our corrupt polititions raid the funds. What he says may be true but what does that have to do with people who placed their trust in the system and now are faced with a devistating reality that they just might be thrown to the curb by the government they believed in?
Oldchef51 3 weeks ago
I wish my liberal friends would spend time reading/listening to Milton Friedman.
salstress 3 weeks ago
This man had one of the most incredible minds in our history.
mcoop221 3 weeks ago
I'm tired of the weird LibertyPen music..
Norie92 3 weeks ago
@Norie92 I was just thinking that
TheHunter14792 3 weeks ago
*Addendum
The reason wealthy people don't rely on welfare is because they know it's absolute crap- it's a nightmare, it can't be relied upon, but they still have to support this horrible scheme - $600 a month isn't enough to keep anyone afloat, it promotes poverty and increases losses.
DackIsBack 4 weeks ago
Moderately wealthy people don't rely on welfare - they set money(or other assets) aside...
Or buy insurance.
So why then should they pay into a system that purports to insure them, when it is only serving other people... why should the working have to support the ever growing welfare class, that just drags everyone down closer to their level of poverty.
Self licking ice cream cone...
DackIsBack 4 weeks ago
Milton .....The only thing we need to know about SOCIAL SECURITY....IS HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE BEEN MISAPPROPRIATED TO BE USED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO BAIL OUT AND GIVE TAX BREAK TO PEOPLE THAT DO NOT PAY SOCIAL SECURITY........It is amazing that you... a SO CALL INTELLECTUAL COME WITH SUCH BULLSHIT TO PROTECT WHOEVER IS PAYING YOU...
Darealwhip 1 month ago 2
@Darealwhip Bullshit? What part of the video do you fail to understand?
fzqlcs 1 month ago 5
I think milton friedman makes sense most of the time, but he's wrong about national healthcare. The US has one of the least effective healthcare policies and it is also one of the least government controlled. It's not my opinion, it's just a fact.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 1 month ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 You have no idea what you're talking about. The laws on the books covering the healthcare market place are staggering! The reason why healthcare costs so much and doesn't cover all the people it should is BECAUSE of government intervention not IN SPITE of it. You do not know your facts. Why doesn't the same problem exist with life, auto, or homeowner insurance? Because the government largely stays out of those market places and they work well because of it.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
@mikebri527 You don't know shit. I'm getting cheap government healthcare right now. I don't care what other people say about government healthcare, it can be done.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
AllOtherNamesTaken2 3 weeks ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 What Wikipedia doesn't tell you is WHY. Why are we ranked 37th in overall performance? It is because of government intervention in the market place that drives quality DOWN and prices UP, the exact opposite of what a true free market economy does. And I trust info from the W.H.O. about as much as I trust the U.N. or you to have all the facts before presenting a childish argument. Just because you curse at me doesn't make your point any more effective.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
@mikebri527 no offense, but you are a complete moron.
blastsummit 3 weeks ago
@blastsummit Typical response from someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Obviously you have nothing of any meaning to comeback at me with so you resort to the only weapon you have, personal insults. When you have real facts and knowledge to challenge me with, I will welcome your comments.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
@mikebri527 look into how administration costs by the insurance companies increases premiums, or how they have monopolized the market and collude to determine price. thats free market capitalism. it ALWAYS morphs into corporatism and monopolies. and you haven't provided any numbers done by credible organizations, yet you mock his using w.h.o. figures. way to go, genius.
blastsummit 3 weeks ago
@blastsummit First, I did not MOCK w.h.o. figures, I said I don't believe they're telling me the truth. That is not mockery. Second, the reason why premiums go up is because the wages of their employees have to keep up with inflation (another phenomena of government intervention). Third, your collusion theory has no proof. If they were in collusion and this IS A FACT, then why isn't the DOJ investigating them for consumer fraud?
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
@mikebri527 there wages are increasing far higher than inflation, then. and your answer is inadequate. but a free market guy like you shouldnt want doj to investigate them. you need to research more and not just the typical right-wing liars
blastsummit 3 weeks ago
@blastsummit Speaking of inadequate answers, you have proof that their wages have gone up (as you say) FAR HIGHER THAN INFLATION? Point me to the stats that back up your claim. Also, if they are frauding the public then why wouldn't I want them investigated? Fraud is NOT part of capitalism. If they're truly all working together to keep premiums artificially high then they should be investigated. That is a legitimate roll for government; to protect the rights of the individual from fraud.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
@mikebri527 you said premiums are increasing due to wage increases. premiums are skyrocketing. but you swallow jizz for a living, so i'll let you get to work
blastsummit 3 weeks ago
@blastsummit You must be about 12 years old or less.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago 2
@mikebri527 you must be a neanderthal
blastsummit 3 weeks ago
@blastsummit I asked you before to prove your points by showing me facts about those wages. When you are prepared to prove your point I will welcome extending this debate. Until you do, I will not reply again to your childish and immature comments.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
@blastsummit Fourth, we have not had "free market capitalism" in the US in almost 100 years. We have crony capitalism and corporatism promoted by big government and big business at the expense of the taxpayer. You have no idea what capitalism really is. You believe what the government tells you is the truth. As I said, you are very naive. You need to open your eyes and see that politicians only care about power, control, and money. They care not for you, me, or the care of our health.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
@mikebri527 hahaha you believe capitalism was running smoothly during the robber baron era? you fucking retard. capitalism as you want it does not work. period. fools like you should be allowed to pay less taxes, but never ever get any help in times in trouble. including unemployment insurance. or workman's compensation if u get injured. nor rights if your company reduces your wages arbitrarily. nor work place safety. nor any health care if u lose ur job or get hurt and cant afford insurance.die
blastsummit 3 weeks ago
@blastsummit Again a typical response from you, hurl insults without any facts to back them up. Friedman has also exposed the myth about the robber barons. Look it up, perhaps you'll see a different side of the story, I believe a man that won a Nobel Peace Prize in Economics in 1976 has more credibility then you or any politician since then. If you choose not to believe him there's nothing I can do about that but perhaps you'll see another side of the story. Your insults are childish & immature.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
@mikebri527 he didnt debunk anything. he's a conservative shill. now, run along and make me money, bitch
blastsummit 3 weeks ago
@blastsummit If you choose not to listen, you will drown in your own ignorance.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago 13
@blastsummit We all die.
homersparents 1 week ago
@mikebri527 I'm not even going to argue with you anymore. Even if you're right about the entire wikipedia page being wrong, that still doesn't change the fact that I'm getting cheap government healthcare in Germany right now because they don't think American healthcare is good enough.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 3 weeks ago
@mikebri527 Maybe I should have made my original point clearer: I meant that insurance is controlled largely by private companies in the US, whereas it is state run in other places. I am aware that there are government regulations that may be harmful.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 3 weeks ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 All of these international bureaucratic agencies are after one three things; money, power, and control. The W.H.O. has an agenda just like any other bureaucratic entity. They will bend stats in the most effective way possible for them to benefit from being put in a position of power and control; the money follows from that. Otherwise, they have nothing to justify their existence and they're all out of work.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 Also, Wikipedia has been discredited with false information in the past. They are NOT an absolute source for complete, credible, and true information. You are incredibly naive to think (1) that Wikipedia is all truth and (2) that governments are somehow morally and ethically better than the common man pursuing what's best for him. Politicians do not care about you. They care about what gets them money, power, and control and therefore re-election. You're very naive.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 Also, Wikipedia has been discredited with false information in the past. They are NOT an absolute source for complete, credible, and true information. You are incredibly naive to think (1) that Wikipedia is all truth and (2) that governments are somehow morally and ethically better than the common man pursuing what's best for him. Politicians do not care about you. They care about what gets them money, power, and control and therefore re-election. You're very naive.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 Also, Wikipedia has been discredited with false information in the past. They are NOT an absolute source for complete, credible, and true information. You are incredibly naive to think (1) that Wikipedia is all truth and (2) that governments are somehow morally and ethically better than the common man pursuing what's best for him. Politicians do not care about you. They care about what gets them money, power, and control and therefore re-election. You're very naive.
mikebri527 3 weeks ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 It is done! all over the world! centralised healthcare is working everyday putting the patient ahead of profits! I'd hate to be in a situation were I could run out of money in the middle of medical treatment and they turn around and say "too bad thats yer lot!"
katakisLives 2 weeks ago
@katakisLives Unlike you I have travelled the world. Centralized health care is a complete failure-Surprise! The care is bad, the service, if you can get it, takes forever. if you want decent care, you, wait for it....go to the black market and pay for it. Free health care..will be just like that free school you had.
How did that work out for you?
trublu97 2 weeks ago
@trublu97 I know a model that's worked just fine since it was founded by the Labour government in 1947 and that's the Nation health service (NHS) I will always support socialised medicine because I've seen the destitution that existed in the UK before social security! and all those horror stories of people having to patch themselves up because they cannot afford medicine! Its fine for those who can afford to choose to go private! what about those who can't? England has both!
katakisLives 2 weeks ago
@katakisLives
I wont admit that it works but for argument sake just because a thing may work doesn't its right r that i am entitled to the labored of another person. Imagine there where no doctors. Would i still have a right to a service. Do i still have a right to healthcare.
It is immoral to use force to move goods and services out of the hands of one person and into the hands of another regardless of my desire to do good. I harm both.
homersparents 1 week ago
@homersparents Society has never been and never shall be equal some people though no fault of their own need the help of the state and others with no talent wind up with the majority of the worlds wealth! how is that right? in a just society taxes are progressive not regressive (meaning they hit the high earners more!) no person with an ongoing condition should have to bankrupt themselves! welfare and free healthcare go someway to leveling the playing field you would benefit too
katakisLives 1 week ago
@katakisLives Being poor does not direct where your "help" must come from. You say they "NEED" help of a state. Why the state?Society and Government are not synonymous. Government uses force.
So some are poor through no fault of there own. but some are rich because they have no talent. That is the opposite of the truth. I am getting rich because i have talent PERIOD...
I don't want any benefit taken by force using govt like a robber uses a gun.
I just want to be free. Liberty...
homersparents 1 week ago
@homersparents Liberty is an empty concept if you are destitute! without collective resposibility there is no such thing as society its every man for himself! of course there are people who make money because they are talented (like Steve Jobs Bill Gates and James Dyson!) but there are plenty of people who lucked their way into big bucks or got it via exploitation or were born into an affluent background
katakisLives 1 week ago
@katakisLives It's not an empty concept if your destitute. Its the only concept for you. free to improve your self and free to work hard unto that end. Freedom to self improve. Freedom to ask but not demand.
Who are we to determine for anyone else what set of circumstances define your "luck" and what is skill or talent. I cant determine for you whether your circumstances are luck or not. only you can do so. that's like basketball player is he skilled or lucky. DNA is it luck..?
homersparents 1 week ago
@homersparents Let the poor die and decrease the surplus population that's what you may as well be saying! its not always like some cheesy Hollywood movie where the protagonist hit rock bottom and then has some kind of Epiphany and rises back up! poverty breeds poverty! you born in a deprived background chances are your life chances were stunted the day you were born! some people have more opportunities presented to them its as simple as that!
katakisLives 1 week ago
@katakisLives I was lucky to be born sighted. Would you say i should give up an eye to a blind person.The sky is beautiful today. My "Luck" is no ones business. Your luck is not my property. It may or may not be LUCK. Define luck...
Scrooge did not become socialist at the end of the book. He became a good friend and neighbor. He didn't demand charity for Tim from gvt. You touched on Dickens so i too..have you read. it is free on Project-Gutenberg
homersparents 1 week ago
@homersparents I know a christmas carol pretty well! the way I see it by the time charity gets involved the damage is usually irreversible! charity can have a positive influence but it can only go so far! its not resourced nearly well enough! once you're receiving charitable services it usually means you've lost your home perhaps living in temporary accommodation! its another example of a sticking plaster over a gaping wound! it solves nothing!
katakisLives 1 week ago
@katakisLives
We are free to start a charity that functions the way we desire. We are not free to demand others to give to this charity. Unless we say in our hearts "why does that rich guy get so much when there are so many poor" deciding in our own mind that he doesn't deserve it and we are the best judges of what that man deserves. When you decide what others deserve you are a tyrant.
Charity is another word for love. Tax is another word for force.
homersparents 1 week ago