Health Care Insurance is NOT A RIGHT - Part 2 of 2

[TheAndron55]

no one owes you shit

[puckerupamerica]

The US has a govt because it was accepted by the people, not because they were forced into it. voluntary =/= force; govt mandate =force

[FreeTheNation]

@Scootertuner1000

THIS IS INCORRECT AND WILL BE REMOVED. I ask that if you make a statement that you carefully make certain it is true. The Top income tax rate in 1917 was 67% and in 1918 it was 77%. During the ENTIRETY of the great depression, FDR raised and/or maintained EXCESSIVELY high personal tax rates...79% and then 90%. In 1942, FDR wrote executive order 9250 making it illegal to retain more than 25K per year, with a 100% tax rate over 25K.

FDR was a marxist.

[Scootertuner1000]

@FreeTheNation The highest tax rates stayed in effect for decades through consecutive republican and democratic administrations.

[FreeTheNation]

@Scootertuner1000

Absolutely. I am no fan of big government Republicans OR Democrats. I'm not sure why most liberals automatically assume that I support the Republicans. They are only slightly better than the Democrats....but not enough to warrant my uniform support.

[Pdrum2]

we need more discussions liie this on the media.

[ForTehNguyen]

lol your socialized medicine is voluntary?  Theres these things called taxes, thats hardly voluntary.

[FreeTheNation]

Social Security - BANKRUPT!!

Medicare - BANKRUPT!!

Medicaid - BANKRUPT!!

FDIC - BANKRUPT!!

Fannie Mae - BANKRUPT!!

Freddie Mac - BANKRUPT!!

Amtrak - BANKRUPT!!

Post Office - BANKRUPT!!!!!

[lleuwelynn]

Also nice how the topic starter talks about being brainwashed.... while his irrational fear for socialism is exactly the product of that kind of malpractice. you see, at the 1930's so many americans were struggling many actually thought communism would be a saviour. Which was off course really against the will of the ruling upper class. Hence the 1940's implemented communist and socialist scare.(Mccarthyism).

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

The Depression would have never happened if it weren't for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the 16th Amendment that was passed in the same year. While the income tax was promised to only be 1%, FDR raised the top limit to as high as 95% on corporations and 91% on Individuals. This caused a depression to become the GREAT depression

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

Also, FDR made it a federal CRIME for a US Citizen to own Gold. The people were quite desperate. That's why we need government to stay completely out of our lives and restrict it to the confines of the 17 Enumerated powers. FDR was a criminal and should have been prosecuted for his bastardization of the Constitution.

[Moragauth]

BTW does the guy next to Salerno say "we don't need a Fed"? Couldn't make it out.

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

Let's take this lack of logic a step further. People need food to be FREE...right?

Why don't we create a bill to get everyone better food?

Better shelter...better clothing....a safer Car....you need a car to be free, right??

I'm sorry, but your understanding of these matters is rudementary. Which of the major works on the Constitution and Economics have you read?

[Moragauth]

He doesn't seem to understand that food etc. are goods, ergo scarce, ergo must be produced and rationed (economically) by the market. They satiate a variety of wants, and no person's wants are necessarily identical to another's. 'food' in the abstract does not exist. A person's perference for eating XYZ at t1, on the other hand, does. The idea of uniform rights to such things, besides being contradictory, lack any objective basis because goods are subjectively valued things.

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn -

The US has EXTREME elements of Socialism and some elements of communism. There are so many aspects of Federal Law that are unconstitutional, Illegal and Immoral that Americans are brainwashed into accepting them. Many of the Supreme Court Cases rely on a FALSE finding of a few judges about the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. The man that wrote the Constitution, James Madison, emphatically stated that there is "NO SUCH CLAUSE" That it only was a few words to describe the LIMITED POWER

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn Can't possibly understand why that would be, unless companies are forced to pay for their employees medical costs, and unless they are forced to employ people regardless of health. Please point me to data.

[lleuwelynn]

All this crying about something all the rest of the civilised world considers a basic human right.. The bill has passed, get used to it.

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn Get used to it? You mean, give in? Not only will we never do that, we have never done so for any other form of injustice implemented by the left (in the name of justice of course). The victory of an injustice does not make it just. That is not to say that we will ever win. It seems that the producers never beat the thieves in the end.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 oh and you thought you health care system was so just before?

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn If no one is being stolen from, it is just. Thats ACTUAL steal, the FORCEFUL taking of product from one man and handing it to another. If some people are unable to pay for medicine, it is because they have not earned the money. A man who is kept alive through the stealing of money from others is a leach, a parasite, a vermin. There is nothing morally wrong with his death of he chose it. If a pubic health system is implemented, more die, the system is well known to be inefficient.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 If they had not earned the money OR the people providing the medicare are just asking too much, exploiting the sick person's situation, knowing that the patient is in such a situation not in the position to go for long debates. Or if the insurance companies can rise their prices or just forfait the claim in times most needed. I dont care what the vid says, health care for your own citizens IS a right, thinking otherwise is just monstrous and egocentrical.

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn All trade is exploitation, exploitation is not bad. It is because people get sick that doctors exist. In a free market, a sick person like he you have described, can shop around for the best price. In socialism, he can only have what the government allocates to him. Prices reflect the productive cost of an item - you trade effort for money, then trade money for the effort of the doctors. If an Insurance Co doesn't pay the claim, they are subject to the force of the law.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 wrong, a sick person doesnt have the time and means to go lobbying around, checking price markets. Especially if he doesnt have family or friends to rely upon in that time. In socialism, you can still go to any doctor you want, and look for the specific care you want, and know for sure you will be covered. and not really, they ins. Co. can rise their prices in the time you arent capable of earning money. So you cant pay them anymore and thus not have your health covered.

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

NOR do all people who have a house on fire have time to lobby round for insurance.

They PURCHASE IT BEFORE THE DAMN FIRE.

See how high your car insurance premiums go if you get into a bunch of accidents.

That's the way it works.

[lleuwelynn]

@FreeTheNation and you exactly made my point. thank you very much. Only difference is disease strikes whenever it wants. And its absolutely monstrous to be wanting to make a profit out of that. Its also completely illogical to be asking more and more from a person who is not capable of earning money due to disease. it takes to be a human to understand that, and a greedy monster to denie that.

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

Isn't it interesting that people like this think that THEY are the GODS that are put here on earth to controll all of us "GREEDY" "MONSTROUS" people? I have news for you. You AREN'T in controll of anyone but yourself.....and you are about to see, in the upcoming years, exactly how many people feel that way and exactly how far they will go to assert their INDEPENDENCE from you. No.....Your mindset has been the foundation for ALL of the worlds past monsters.

[Scootertuner1000]

@lleuwelynn Lleuwelynn, I take it you are Welsh, by your name. You do not live in a socialist country. Socialist countries were DDR, USSR etc. Western Europe is, for the most part, Social Democratic, they are, including Wales, capitalist countries where the wealth created by capitalism is used for the good of everyone, not the few.

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

What you seek to do is to use the FORCE of government VIOLENCE as a means to THREATEN a group of individuals to be held RESPONSIBLE for another group of individuals. Whatever you want to call it.....it is THAT form of exploitation that the Founders sought to prevent and protect us from. CERTAINLY, if your ideas are so grand, you would not need to use the VIOLENCE of the government to FORCE people to participate. Great Ideas will work under voluntary means.

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

And I also am amused at how these people try to convince us all what THEY think is so good for us. How about this: Since your idea is so great, you and AS MANY PEOPLE as you can convince, can start your own healthcare system. The rest of us can do (and mark my words, we will - no matter what it takes) whatever we damn well please. Since YOUR idea is so grand, EVERYONE will want to be part of it. Us dumb fools can suffer the consequences...How about that?

[Scootertuner1000]

@FreeTheNation That already happened. It's how nation states form and why the USA has a government at all.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 exploitation upon an ill person is what i do call bad. Its like kicking on a guy that is already downed. I do think you really dont know how socialism actually works. It does not exactly have to be all state-run. In many countries there are socialist political parties, who made up lots of foundational laws to protect the middle-class and 4th world of the countries. you can kinda compare it with a labourer being in a union. besides, its not because a gvt implements one system,

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

Our system already is OVERFLOWING with safety nets.

[lleuwelynn]

@FreeTheNation Name one plz?

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 , it becomes a socialist gvt. Its like in most european countries, where there is some base of socialist influenced laws, but you still have the wide umbrella of other political parties to colour up the political landscape. socialised health care is a system that works. Simple and easy. In the long run, you will benefit more from it. After all, a healthy unemployed person is more likely to work better or find a job then one who isnt healthy, right? again, health care is a right.

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn It is proven that the total output of any socialist system, including health care, is lesser than that of a capitalist one. Your rhetoric is not new, it has been repeated ad infinitum, and will never die. Nevertheless, to the extent that your kind win, society degenerates and those you claimed to be saving suffer worse. Hongkong - China, Taiwan - China, GDR-west germany, Nth-sth korea, Cuba - america. European socialism only works so long as european capitalists pay the bills.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 So called European socialism is not socialism at all. Socialism is the ownership of the means of production and the means of distribution of goods and services by the state. European industry is for the most part owned by shareholders or privately held. What Europe has is Social Democracy which is a system where capitalism is the basis for the economy, but is used to increase the living standards for all, not just those at the top of the heap.

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

This statement is a PRIME example of the MASS STUPIDITY that exists. "I don't care what the video says....AKA "I don't care what the SUPREME LAW of the UNITED STATES SAYS" Health care is a right....because I want it to be a right.

It isn't a right and it will fail in the Supreme Court.

I am surrounded by IDIOTS

[lleuwelynn]

@FreeTheNation you maybe enjoy playing the role of the leeching vampire tyrant who cracks the whip and earn money on someone else's hard work while steering a company. If you like playing that part, then have fun with it. I however still have something called a "conscience". Everywhere else in the civilised world it is a right. time for the US to pull itself out of the dark ages i say.

[Scootertuner1000]

@FreeTheNation lleuwelynn is saying it is a human right, no more no less. You read the rest into his statemment.

[FreeTheNation]

@Scootertuner1000 -

Healthcare is NOT a human right. It is precisely THESE LIES that have gotten human civilization into trouble over the course of history. You can NOT provide a right to one person by STEALING property and liberty from ANOTHER person.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 If you are long-term ill, most private ins. Co's will think of you as a high risk patient. Thus a person who will cost them more in coverage, so they rise their prices for you. Untill you are not able to pay them anymore and they can drop the claim legally. Lucky enough, now the bill has passed, they cant do that anymore.

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn So you wish for the costs of his upkeep to be taken by force from others. SAY IT. You leftists never say it. Say: "It is acceptable that people should be stolen from, in order to give to those who need/want it". Is he who can't live without stealing from others a parasite? Your kind breed parasites, your kind ARE parasites, since the (typically large number of) politicians who maintain this system of organised theft (aka 'redistributive justice') claim a salary to do so.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 more then 50% of your people have voted yes. So no, its not taken by force but by choice. It would be different if i would ask you to share everything you have (dont worry i dont want your dirty sofa), then you can call me a parasite all you want. But making people do a contribution so at least all your fellow citizens get access to something so basic and fundamental like health care is not creating parasites, it is filling up the dark holes.

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn You didn't address a single thing I said. You simply skirted around it. Thats called being a weasel. Rather than taking my points and rebutting them, you declared something else entirely to be the point, rebutted that, and made out that you rebutted my original point. Thats being a weasel. If 51% vote to kill the other 49%, thats still force. If 51% vote to steal from 49%, thats still force. And a parasite can't suck from a black hole, only the blood of another man.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 ugh I didnt go around your points you only wanted me to say things that arent true. You want to put words into my mouth. Sorry I wont allow that. And in the end you will increase your country's productivity. Now ppl will have one reason less to stay at home not being employed or activly looking for jobs or start up new initiatives. And i seriously doubt there will ever be a vote in where gets decided to go kill each other.

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn You will not increase the countries productivity, you will reduce that of the health system (proven, NHS). Yes sick-helping, if you will, will be produced. Your point about staying at home is bizarre! ppl have more incentive to work if they aren't getting things free (taken from others), thats logic.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 The NHS is not what we are going to have here. We will have a system like the Swiss and the Germans. Insurance companies with sensible rules set for them.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 plz try to put things into the right perspective for once. comparing civil war with the votes on the health care bill= slightly different material dont you think? You lost the vote so...get over it. At least you cant say anymore that "the people" didnt want the bill.

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn Why would I get over something that is wrong? And you are incorrectly saying 'the people', ACtually: 'the majority' wanted the bill. And it is not moral that people can vote to steal from you, that is, 51% might say that the other 49% should provide them with X because they need it. Thats the point of a constitution, a bill of rights etc. Pure democracy is evil, that is, anyone can tell you what to do if they have a majority. Only democracy + rights is moral.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 you are right... i should have said "the majority of the people". thank you. they didnt vote for stealing, they voted for something that is necessary.

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn Double-speak. It is stealing. If you consider stealing necessary, so be it, but don't delude yourself that stealing is not stealing.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 If you consider doing something necessary for the greater good as stealing, then so it be. But dont delude yourself it isnt for the greater good.

[tothemax01]

@lleuwelynn Say it is stealing. Say it. You a trying to escape the reality of what you are advocating. You are trying to somehow bend reality with your phrasing. A claim of necessity doesn't modify the nature of the act. A claim of 'the greater good' (and of course, socialism has proven it isn't) doesn't modify the nature of the act . Say it is stealing. If you feel is necessary, and good, you thus don't have any ill feelings ABOUT stealing, so why so desparate to weasel around the word? Why?!

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 Say go say you are advocating stealing, you want to live in a civilized society i.e. the USA, but you don't want to pay for it. Go on say it, stealing go on say it. that's what you are doing when you live in a civilized society, but won't or don't want to pay for it. You are either stealing if you don't pay or advocating theft if you do, but say you shouldn't and only do so because you are forced to. Go on say it you are the thief. You are the parasite.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 So you felt the need to dump 7 replies in one go, rather than starting off with one and having a dialog, like I did with lleuwelynn? Pretty pathetic, but I'll bite. What do you mean by the statement 'pay to live in a civilized society'? In fact it is very very easy for me do do your version of 'not paying' - I don't work. You leftists are masters of logical and rhetorical inversion, but I am wise to you. In ONE reply, define what you think this payment encompasses.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 Yes I did feel the need Paying towards the civilzation you live in and use includes everything that makes a civilized society a civilized society. There are countries where people don't pay, Somalia comes to mind.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 The only thing a citizen should be paying for is the police, the courts, the government, and the military. These are the only things that can only be (and must be) public services (and ideally they should all only need to be small). There is nothing wrong with tax, but when that tax becomes a device by which certain citizens are stolen from to give free things to others, it becomes immoral.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 So why would you have to pay for the Police? Why not just hire private securtity guards that protect only you? After all, by paying taxes for the Police you are paying to protect other people. I don't want to pay to protect others I want to pay to protect my family. Making me pay to protect others is theft. Why pay for the courts, I don't agree with a lot of their laws, so why would I pay for them to impose unjust laws? Why pay for the military? and so on and so on

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 You don't have to buy in, you can go and live in a desert, or be a hermit somewhere, and many people do. The libertarian stance on 'private guards' is fantasy because of the nature of force - it doesn't abide by a set of rules, and the biggest force wins. Indeed, the current framework of nation-states originates directly from this fact. And you are not paying to protect others, you are paying to protect yourself from those who would hurt you.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 That's what I am saying, you don't have to buy in. Go live in the desert, or in Somalia, don't pay any taxes and don't use the civilization's benefits without paying for them. Why wouldn't private guards be option instead of Police, I am proteting only myself then? I don't want to pay to protect others by paying for Police. Give me weapons and my own fortifications around my land with my home and I can protect myself from criminals who would do me harm.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 Yes but your version of buy in it not really buy-in is it? When one buys-in on a Big Mac, one is not paying 60% for his big mac, and the other 40% for the next guys big mac. Every man pays for his big mac. The fact that there has to be a restaurant that you must be in to buy one, which you are technically paying a fraction of that big mac towards existing, doesn't mean you are paying for the burgers of the other customers..

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 My version of buy in is not what percentage you pay compared to what someone else pays. It is buy in to a civilized society, without that buy in, we have no civilization.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 What does that actually mean? Can I buy another 100 units 'civilization' if I want to?

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 And btw, and any Zimbabwe farmer will tell you this, you can have the biggest and meanest machine gun in the world, it makes no difference when there is no law - the criminals always win, for with their loot-money and numbers, an individual stands no chance. Only when an individual can buy into --law-- is he safe.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 Zimbabwe has a criminal government. They are confiscating farms to give them to other people who have no idea how to run them. Zimbabwe is not a good example because the farmers in Rhodesia are truly having their property stolen from them by the government.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 But don't you see, what is the government in this case? It is a big thief. And do you know what they say? 'We are redistributing an unfair concentration of wealth, for the good of the country as a whole'. And you don't really believe that it would be OK to take a whites farm off him and give it to a black, so long as the latter 'knows how to run it' do you? That is the only basis of law - people have rights, and no one, many and powerful, or few and weak, has the right to steal

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 It's not stealing it is what you pay for living in a civilized society. What is stealing is living in that civilized society and expecting not to pay any taxes or pay in any way.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 What is wrong is 7 year old boys dying of a tooth abcess because his parents ca not afford to take him to the dentist. It happened.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 I don't doubt it happened. Automatically, you nullify the relevance of the things that happened PRIOR to the situation - his parents not buying insurance for their family, his parents not telling him to brush his teeth, his parents giving him coke to drink at every meal, because you don't consider personal responsibility to be a valid concept. You demand a meaningless collective guilt over meaningful individual responsibility. It happens because of ppl bearing your mentality.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 How about his parents can not afford health insurance, his parents can not afford to buy coke for every meal, how about his parents doing their utmost to teach him right from wrong and bring him up healthy and happy. How about his father was laid off from his $80k job and after he had exhausted all funds could no longer afford insurance and the child fell ill during that time and died, because of a lack of insurance, not because of any defecit on his part or that of his parents.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 That's why we have charities. This situation is so low odds it is a ridiculous argument. He failed to have enough money to cover an insurance premium (how much is that?) (and btw I wish I got 80k), because he had so little money after losing his job (not saving enough), and he couldn't find a job before the old premium ran out, AND the child became so ill so quick that it died in this time? Since this situation is so rare, charities have always been sufficient.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 There aren't enough charities to cover the millions of uninsured we have, that is nonsense. I know for instance that for me alone it is $1100.00 a month for mediocre insurance, because I have a pre-existing condition that is not caused by lifestyle choices, but is hereditary. If I were unemployed I wouldn't be able to pay for it once my 2 year living cost savings were used up. He was unemployed for more than 2 years, do you have enough saved to cover your expenses for 2 years?

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 Yes but why wouldnt there be enough? A charity survives from people contributing money because they want to provide relief to those in desperate situations. This is the way it should be, and those receiving should feel indebted and grateful for kind act. It should not be the case that the money is taken by force, or that the recipient considers it owed to him because he is in need (I see this attitude all the time). I believe people would donate enough. And 2 years is enormous.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 It's not why would there be enough, it's not a theorhtical question.  there simply are not enough charities to deal with 40 million plus people with no health care insurance. Ciivlized societies provide for each other, if you want to be part of a civilized society then you should have to pay to be part of that civilized society, or go live outside of civilization and make your own way.

It is a fact that people do not dontate enough, we have 40 million + uninsured now.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 No being uninsured does not constitute desperate circumstances. It constitutes sub-optimal circumstances. Charity is not there for the haves-less (and if thats the goal, of course no one will donate enough - A its impossible, and B they rightfully wont see the moral virtue in it), it is there for desperate high-likelihood-of-death type situations only.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 It does not constitute desperate circumstances until you are deathly.

Charities can't even begin to cover all of those that are ill, at death's door and have no insurance. that is why 45,000 Americans die each year from not being able to get treatment because they have no insurance, can not afford to pay for it and there aren't enough charities to help them all. Figures come from a recent Harvard study

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 And what proportion of those died not because they couldn't get treatment, but because they couldn't get --enough-- treatment. There is only so much medicine around, and the highest the level of medicine the shorter the supply. For some people, the cost to keep them alive (now that it is possible) is thus epic. So the question is, if your neighbor could live if you gave him $10,000, would you do it? How about $100,000? Everything you own?

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 They were preventable deaths that wouldn't have happened in any other 1st world country. I am done talking with you. You are never going to convince me you are right and I am never going to convince you that you I am. This conversation is over.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 Things like this happen because people like you won't be part of the civilization they live in. For people like you it's all take take take, but don't ask me to pay for anything at all. It would not have happened if everyone had my kind of mentality.  There are times when despite all the best decisions in the world by parents and those effected, people still die because of a lack of adequate healthcare. You are part of a civilized society, act like it.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 People like us love civilization. But we understand civilization to mean 'people relate to each other without the use of force'. And how can there be all take and no give in a free-market? When you take and don't give in a free market, that's called theft, and you go to jail. In a socialist society, take and no give is called 'distributive justice'.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 If you love civilization then pay pay taxes of your own free will. Pay to be part of civilization of your own free will. Having a social net does not equal socialism. The rest of the 1st world has a free market and manages to combine it very nicely with also having a social net. Contrary to what some people believe they are not taxed out the wazoo. I pay roughly one third of my check in total deductions here as I did in Germany and as I did in England.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 Wow you are great at insulting people. I will say it, yes you should be forced to pay into the society you live in or be outcast. If you don't want to contribute to society go live somewhere else.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 He wishes the cost of insuring every one to be born by everyone. everyone puts money into a big pot to draw from, it's called a risk pool and it's how insurance works. I will say it listen well. It is acceptable that people in a civilized society pay to help each other. Or would you tell a 5 year old with Leukemia who father was just laid off, tough luck buddy you'll have to die, because I am opposed because I don't want to pay for you, that's you daddy's job.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 Socialized medicine is not insurance. In insurance, citizens are not compelled to be a member by force. it is socialization, and as anyone who knows anything about reality and the nature of things, be it from history or plain logic, this guarantees a reduced output of medicine. The NHS has over 1million employees, of which most are bureaucrats, who would otherwise be forced to be productive in a free market. And insurance is only coupled to employment by US state compulsion.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 So the fact that you are forced to by third party insurance for your car is socialism? I have lived in England and I know which system works better. I have also lived in Germany, I find theirs the best system. They have insurance companies, just as we do, they just have common sense rules that the companies have to follow. It works very well. The NHS is not the only way to get universal healthcare. Germany's method works very well and is more than 110 years old.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 No I believe it comes under 'rules of the road'. If you don't like it, you don't have to use the road, there is no compulsion involved. Private race-tracks, for instance, may also have insurance rules, i.e. 'no insurance, no using the track'.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 So you live in the country and there's no public transportation (i.e. buses etc) how do you get to work without using the roads? The people who live in rural areas are compelled to use the right by virtue of the fact that there are no alternatives.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 Well you wouldn't live in the country, of course. If you can't use a road (maybe you have no car etc), you move to within walking/biking distance to work (and some ppl do). But this is beside the point, people can afford the third-party insurance, or they can take a bus which shares the cost of the insurance etc. I would personally love to see widespread private roads, which would compete for traffic (by being better than each other etc).

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 What if you do live in the country, you have to buy insurance because there is no bus network to speak of. So you are compelled by force of law to buy insurance. If you can't afford to move you don't have the option of moving to a city or large town that has a public transport system or moving to closer to your place of work, shops etc. Therefore in that situation you are compelled to buy insurance in order to get to work and to buy food.

[tothemax01]

@Scootertuner1000 You are missing the point, you had to get to the country, you had to decide to rent/buy a place out there, so you are responsible. It is a super-low odds situation. And besides from what ive seen, places so remote that they have no food-stores also don't tend to have roads per se, but rather long bits of dust that people drive their cars on.

[Scootertuner1000]

@tothemax01 What if you were born in the country to a poor family, never had the means to get out of the country? It isn't always about choice. Those rather long pieces of dust are actually roads too and are subject to the same insurance laws. The only place that is not is private property,

[FreeTheNation]

@tothemax01

ABSOLUTELY.

We have all been brainwashed to think that this is NORMAL. IT IS NOT. We need to return this FEDZILLA, which has BANKRUPTED our great nation and destroyed our liberties, back into it's acceptable, Constitutional CAGE.

[lleuwelynn]

@FreeTheNation btw over where i live, socialised health care is 100% voluntary, and there is nobody of a sane mind that doesnt sign up for it.

Talking with you makes me laugh more and more man. You sound like. You sound like the little spoiled brat who went crying because his mommy told him to share his toys with his kid brother. "wahhhhh wahhhhhh its MINE mommy its MINEEE!!!"

[lleuwelynn]

@FreeTheNation by taking away liberties you mean:"putiing up a control post so we cant freely exploit others anymore on a completely inhuman and immoral way"?

I love how you just like to flowertalk over the fact that you just want to leech on ppl, do whatever you want with others and disrespect them in a ways possible and still think YOU are the victim of it all.

[Moragauth]

You are the one who wishes to leech. Positive rights are leeching rights.

[lleuwelynn]

@FreeTheNation You say that you are defending freedom. Now tell me, what is one of the conditions needed to be fully capable of doing something with your freedoms? That's right: being healthy. Not much use to have all freedoms when you are chained to a bed, while the private insurance CO's suck your wallet dry eh?

[Moragauth]

The right to exercise one's freedom unobstructed. Positive rights coerce individuals to provide for their recipient's supposed welfare. They are irrational self-contradictions and haven othing to do with freedom.

[Moragauth]

BTW you also need to be fed, breathe air etc. to be capable of exercising freedom. Hence you've the right to appropriate non-appropriated scarce resources (once your parents stop caring for you/you leave) to go about your ends. Freedom is not an end in itself. it is a precondition for civilisation and individuals to achieve the satiation of their wants in a non-conflicting manner (contributing also to optimal social utility.) You don't have the right to enslave others to provide it for you.

[Scootertuner1000]

@FreeTheNation Our great nation is not bankrupted, not by a long shot. Let's not forget who got us to where we are now though. Two wars, unpaid for (one of which was based on right wing lies) tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, also unpaid for. We went from a massive surplus to a record deficit with 8 years of right wing government. The right wing = Free The Nation, don't make me laugh. The right wing has done more harm in 8 years.

[lleuwelynn]

@tothemax01 strange also that those who actually live with a socialised health system never want to abandon it, and the americans make up fantasies about how "inefficient" it all is.

[Pdrum2]

@lleuwelynn No, it's a liberal fantasy to even think this nonsense is a solution.

[Scootertuner1000]

@Pdrum2 Really is it, why do we score so poorly on our health care stats? Why are all other 1 world countries healthier than us? Why do we score just behind Botswana for immunization rates? The list goes on and on.

[FreeTheNation]

@tothemax01 -

We live under DEMOCRATIC TYRANNY - Where one group of people uses a government to STEAL from another group of people. To call it anything other than that is the IMMENSELY LIE to oneself.

[ajmj120]

@lleuwelynn

Of course it was not just. The only reason why the system was and is able to exist in the first place is because of the Federal Government. During the early 70s, the Nixon Administration introduced Health Management, and it is their fault that health care costs are so horrible in the States. Prior to the HMOs being introduced, poor people were able to negotiate with their doctors payment plans, or simply not pay at all if they were unable. That's third-party payment for you.

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

EVERYONE - This is the most common form of deflecting the legal argument. What they are saying is that BECAUSE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH SOME PEOPLE, THE GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES AND CAN STEAL OUR MONEY AND REDISTRIBUTE IT TO WHOMEVER THEY SEE FIT.

[Scootertuner1000]

@FreeTheNation The government is the people. They are representatives of the people and do the peoples bidding.

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn This is the great lie/manipulation of the Socialist/communist Left in America. The Fact remains that government uses FORCE and VIOLENCE to take away our rights. They take our liberties away with laws and taxes. The SOLE purpose is to REDISTRIBUTE your hard earned money to someone else.

The Socialist above doesn't ever once concern herself with WHAT I WANT FOR MY LIFE. IF YOUR HEALTH CARE PLAN IS SO GOOD, MAKE IT 100% VOLUNTARY AND SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE SIGN UP.

[lleuwelynn]

@FreeTheNation last histrorical event where the gvt. in the US used force to remove rights? or violence? date plz. and the source where you got it from?

--to redisdistribute a small amount of your money to ppl who really need it for basic human needs.

--and it looks like the "what do I want with my life"question is also the only concern you got. "me me me me" is all i hear you whine and cry about.

[Scootertuner1000]

@lleuwelynn It's not really even re-distrubtion of wealth, don't get caught up in that argument with troll. It is the cost of living in a civilized society. If society were the way he wants it, i.e. everyone for himself, we would be living in Somalia.

[Scootertuner1000]

@FreeTheNation Why are you shouting again. She isn't a socialist, at least from what I have read. She believes in civilized society. Unlike you she doesn't believe in every man for himself, which of course leads to a complete breakdown of civilization.

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn -

It is NOT the purpose of Government to make ANYTHING "Just", Equal, or fair. It is the purpose of the Government to secure private property rights, to protect from DIRECT THEFT and VIOLENCE.......not to make anything "just" or equal. This is the foundational Principle of the Revolution that was fought for FREEDOM. Read the Declaration carefully....read the explanation of the founders. READ SOMETHING PLEASE

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

We are NOT the rest of the world. If we were, we would be slaves. They exist in freedom ONLY because of the United States. We have supported those nations both economically and with an amazing world peace dividend.

Their economies are on the Rocks. Socialism has failed throughout history without exception. Our system is not SUPPOSED to be a Socialist system.

they have turned it into one and we will suffer great consequences in the near future as a result.

[lleuwelynn]

@FreeTheNation "socialism has failed throughout history without exception" ok that says enough about how much you really know about the world....or dont know about it. I think you re read your books lol.And who do you call slaves? those who willingly contribute to make their country better?

we exist in freedom only because of the united states? in what dream world are you living?

[Scootertuner1000]

@lleuwelynn Socialism has failed, but what most of the rest of the first world has is not socialism it is social democracy which is when capitalism is used to promote the well being of everyone in that society, that is not socialism.

[Scootertuner1000]

@FreeTheNation Oh what utter garbage, please. Now I know you are completely delusional

[FreeTheNation]

@lleuwelynn

This bill is FAR from being passed. In my view, it will NEVER be enforced. If it is not shot down by the supreme court, it will be nullified by the states. It's merely a piece of paper.

[wolf101085]

We MUST totally IMPEACH obama, biden, pelosi!!!

New American Revolution, RESTORE our Freedoms!!!!

[Scootertuner1000]

@wolf101085 We must impeah Bush and his gang. For lying to America, for costing us thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of lives in Iraq. For taking us from a massive surplus to a massive deficit by giving the richest of the rich a free ride with unpaid for tax cuts.

[ceid315]

the the

[JOMO59]

Part III. The only reason a bank agreed to this is because they were only an originating lender not the ultimate lender of record. That practice too must end.

[FreeTheNation]

@JOMO59

WELL STATED!

End the FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the FED and we end these problems forever. Banks and homeowners can sink or swim, just like every other business out there.

[JOMO59]

Part II. In either case, the market is simply regurgitating the prior poor decision by the bank to lend and the buyer to acquire by "true-ing up" the value of the deal to real market terms i.e., a de facto economic price adjustment to the pricing of the original deal that the bank agreed to finance at the earlier crazy FMV) with pricing and financing under terms that reflect truer market values.

[JOMO59]

Bailouts only defer the necessary corrective market reaction which is to purge poor use of capital i.e. bad investments and are the equivalent of a doctor providing a drug that only covers up the pain (temporarily). Example: if foreclosures occur and overall home prices drop, then either a) those homes will ultimately be acquired by others or b) the loan terms may be adjusted to allow the present homeowner to remain in the home.

[ChaoticSouls]

Stuart Varney is right guys how could we risk the domino effect? If we lost banks we would have hit greater depression. I just don't get how we could be against tarp. We should have done it differently though. I think both Democrats and Republicans demanded too little from the large banks in return for its support.

[FreeTheNation]

I disagree. Yes, we would have had a severe collapse. However, that collapse would have made us face the REAL problem...which is the Socialistic/Communistic government that has evolved. We will face EVEN A GREATER DEPRESSION as a result of the tarp. Asset prices are artificially high due to artificially low interest rates, FHA, Fannie Mae, Feddie Mac, HUD, Bailouts, massive Budget deficits, etc.

We are only making things MUCH MUCH WORSE

[mattmatt115]

Conspiracy Theorist! Your a conspiracy theorist! This is not a depression! We dont even have a deficit, were banking money right now! Obama saved us soooo much money with the health care bill too

oh man, sorry i just puked out my FEMA worm im all better now!

YES the REAL problem is your government!

[longlivetherepublic1]

THe health bill will go bankrupt just like every other government project and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. THe states will not have the money to enforce the health care policies and will see more red. Unlike the federal government the state governments cant just print off fiat money to fund projects. THe Congressional Budget Office is full of crap in stating the bill will reduce the deficit. And they arecutting hardly any spending to fund this bill they are just raising taxes

[welkinator]

Thank you for having Stuart Varney (sp?) - His counterpoint arguments made this a most fascinating video.

[MMAGRO1]

Once people realize gold and silver is rising in value compared to the dollar, more and more people will accept gold/silver as currency. Once the dollar becomes worthless, everyone will demand gold and silver as currency and use the dollar as toilet paper. It is the free market at work.

[singlespeak]

He says we won't go on a gold standard for 10 years. Perhaps not officially, but I'm already on a gold standard and I'll take gold (or silver) as payment over fiat currency any day.

[phantomcharger]

A ill rational revolution?, the real money has always been GOLD and SILVER.

That fucking guy is a joke, I would have said, you want to stay with the PAPER standard???

Fucking asshole really pissed me off.

Governments dont like the gold standard because they cant tax us through the printing press anymore.