After reporting on a story about two men that got themselves intentionally arrested in order to have access to life-saving health care, Thom Hartmann sheds his generally cool demeanor and goes off on smug libertarian, Austin Peterson. Hey, Austin, if you don’t want to pay your fair share to live in a civilized society, then “go Galt” already, jerk!
From YouTube: Austin Petersen, FreedomWorks.com, joins Thom Hartmann. What part of “right to life” don’t libertarians understand? Only in America would someone have to threaten to kill the President in order to get life-saving healthcare. Isn’t it time we made healthcare a basic human right so sick Americans don’t have to take such drastic measures?
AATTP
Americans Against The Tea Party is a group committed to exposing the Tea Party’s lies, violence, racism, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, and corporatist fascist efforts to subvert our democratic process – and we are organizing to defeat Tea Party/GOP candidates on ballots everywhere.
Thom’s guest said this his parents never took anything from the state, and perhaps they didn’t in regards to his mother’s illness, but they most certainly were subsidized in having children. They received tax breaks and tax credits per child (and that’s not even assuming that this guy went to public school). Someone had to pay more so that his parents got those subsidies (as a single person who has no children, I certainly don’t get tax breaks). These libertarians forget that everyone benefits at one time or another from the state.
There’s also the fact that in many cases, people are priced out of the system, medically speaking. It’s too expensive to visit the doctors and health insurance is becoming out of people’s reach (especially now when you have more and more companies manipulating the system to avoid offering that benefit).
As for his specious attempt to use Thom’s argument about a right to life and compare it to abortion, technically then, the fetus doesn’t have a right because since it’s not yet born, it’s not yet a citizen. Libertarians are the ones beating the Constitutional drum. I would think that would be important to them. But then, they don’t care what happens once the kid is outside the whom.
Libertarians care only about themselves… they are the Herb Spencers to the Liberals’ Charles Darwin. (Herb Spencer was an asshole)
dan, your claim was that the government gets back $1.73 for every dollar it spends on food stamps. Are you doubling down on that claim?
The editorial that you linked to states otherwise.
dan, you obviously missed this sentence in that article: “But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges.”
Now, explain, if you can how adding 17 million people to Medicaid won’t cost taxpayers more money? How will adding 22 million people to government run exchanges cost taxpayers less money?
Oh, and you have yet to explain why the economy isn’t booming if handing out food stamps improves the economy since we have a record number of people on food stamps. And yes, that includes children, because they are people too!
muahahahahahmuahahahah u dont know what a government run exchange is….mauahahhahahahahahha this is getting to be fun now sport..u just keep embarrassing yourself
“In fact, Moody’s Analytics studied the effects of various fiscal policies. Food stamps were the most effective with a multiplier of 1.73, meaning that for every one dollar government spends on food stamps, another $1.73 is created in the economy.”<——so is moody not a credible source now either ? im sorry that the TRUTH has a liberal bias sport……but there is NOTHING u can say and no matter how much u WISH it wasnt true, it is a FACT that for every one dollar in food stamps it generates a 1.73 ……PERIOD…..
http://www.thedaonline.com/opinion/welfare-should-not-be-focus-of-cuts-1.2973397<—and if u dont like that source then go DIRECTLY to a moodys website….OWNED…u should be embarrassed of yourself sport…i would be if i was you…this is fun..anything else u need me to debunk?
dan, who is a major owner of Moodys, do you know?
so tell me again how people have to take off work and give up a days pay and wait in a waiting room for black friday deals? as of NOW the average ER wait is 2 hours…and u spend about 5 hours total time in the ER from the time u enter untill the time u leave..tell me again how thats like black friday? that is a false equivilency and makes u look desperate to support your position….the bottom lione is that you have hypothetical scenerios and theoretical situations that u THINK will happen..i have EMPIRCLE data collected over DECADES from reputable and credible sources that PROVE through statisics that when people who were uninsured become insured all of the sudden they DONT frequent the ER any more often then they ALREADY were before they got said insurance…..people will go to the hospital and the doctors for emergencies and when they are sick..JUST LIKE THEY ARE NOW regaurdless if they have insurance…..so unless your telling me obamacare is going to spread the full and cause medical emergencies ( which you conspirocy theoriest redneck conservatives probally will soon) then your point is moot…..and its a mere opinion..what makes your opinion,that isnt supported by FACTS superior then ACCUAL RESEARCH that exist in reality?
FIN, which group of people visit the doctor more, people with insurance or people without insurance?
Why is it that people without insurance visit the doctor less often? Is it because they are healthier than ones with insurance?
What I said was that there will be an increase in demand for doctor visits because more people will have insurance.
WHERE did I say that ER visits would increase?
If you don’t understand that there will be more of a demand for doctor visits when everyone gets subsidized health care, and that the result will be higher prices and longer waits since there is no corresponding increase in the amount of doctors, then you do not understand basic economics.
that is a false equivilency and bogus question..u asked who goes to the hospital more,people with insurance or people with out insurance? that is a bogus question,here is why…only approx 5 million people dont have insurance and our population is in excess of,i think 300 MILLION..right? so u have to do it by percentage and statisics and NOT person for person..and when put in the proper context its about the SAME..people go to the doctors about the same…so ur point is moot and your theory it debunked., what else ya got?this is fun……
DAN, your numbers are incorrect. But let’s go ahead and go with those numbers, just for the sake of argument.
You claim that 5 million people (does that include children?) out of 300 million people do not have health insurance.
Quick, what is that percentage?
Well let’s see, 30 million would be 10% and 3 million would be 1%. So 5 million is less than 2%, right?
So we have to force everybody to pay thousands more in taxes because 2% of the population won’t buy insurance?
Really???
Pretty immoral, isn’t it?
how many times do i have to beat this into your head..you libertarians and conservatives REFUSE to accept the FACT that u will NOT be paying thousands more in taxes.PERIOD..if u have insurance u will NOT PAY THE PENALTY TAX….period..ill repeat…if u have insurance then you will NOT be taxed…should i say this again? the penalty tax is just that,a PENALTY..if u refuse to get insurance the government will make u pay a tax…and they make u pay that tax bcos u are REFUSING to get insurance which LITERALLY means u are FORCING me to pay for YOUR healthcare when u show up to the ER and receive uncompensated care.forcing me to pay for your healthcare is pretty immoral isnt it? and my numbers arent off i made a mistake and i conflated the TRUTH with your BOGUS references u cited…..your bogus reference is just arbitrarily assuming that the 5 million people who dont have insurance right now magically will refuse to get insurance after obamacare kicks in….5 million people right now have no insurance,understand so far? and your bogus reference just assumes they will refuse to get insurance,why? (because it fits their narrative) they are making stuff up like most conservatives propaganda websites…..the ACTUAL number will be about .005% of the population will refuse to buy insurance..anything else u need me to debunk sport?
Dan, where do you get your misinformation? What about the medical equipment tax? Who is going to end up paying that, whether you have insurance or not? Do you think that the only tax in ObamaCare is the not having insurance tax?
http://jeffduncan.house.gov/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes
You are not very good at math, are you dan?
First you say that a very small amount of people will be paying more, to cover an even smaller amount of people without insurance!
So tell me, why is it that those people that go to get medical treatment pay for what they use themselves? Why cant they have their income garnished if they refuse to pay for the services they receive?
And how is it moral to expect others to pay for the services that others received?
Immoral? What’s really immoral is spitting on the lower class, telling them to go F themselves because you want to save a few extra bucks a week. Immoral is sentencing an impoverished family to death because you read 1984 too many times and it changed your life. Immoral is living in the richest country in the world, with one of the lowest tax rates, and then throwing a fit when they suggest you buy insurance. Yes, it is a suggestion. There is an alternative penalty for not buying it. That penalty is not equal to breaking the law.
If you seriously think allowing people to die because they can’t afford to visit a doctor is worth reducing your wait by an hour, please move to Israel. Their version of genocide is much faster and I think you’d be happier there.
Dan, no one is allowing people to die. By law, hospitals must treat all patients whether they have insurance or not.
No, if one does not buy insurance, a fine (aka tax on “the poor”) is levied. Tell me, if there people cannot afford to pay a doctor should they fall ill, how are they going to afford insurance?
Here is a thought regarding people that get healthcare and do not pay their bills: How about we garnish their income (like we already do for deadbeat parents) to pay for their medical bills?
It is people like you that are “spitting on the lower class” by keeping them dependent on the government and not encouraging them to better themselves. You pat them on the head, give them money and benefits (paid for by others) , and put their children further in debt.
And if YOU think that the healthcare system is better in England or Canada, you are welcome to move there as well!
too bad i didnt write that scooter…
All Americans should have access to the same health care our government has and for the same price! How hard can that be?
Todd, why should all Americans have access to the same healthcare?
Should we all have the same access to the same housing? How about the same transportation modes? What about food, should we all have the same access to steak and caviar?
Why should elected officials get free healthcare for the rest of their life is a much better question! Our taxes can pay for their health care but not our own?
You are right, Todd. They should have the same type of insurance, with the same premiums as we do.
This is advocating the worst kind of “survival of the fittest” – I am certain that each of us know someone who just isn’t intelligent enough to complete a college degree…therefore someone who will not be able to make over minimum wage is not able to get health care then. A single adult making minimum wage is making too much to qualify for medicaid (in fact most states won’t cover an adult on Medicaid unless they are extremely low income and disabled), but making too little to afford health care coverage (because most minimum wage jobs don’t offer it and those that do, usually the employee cannot afford their portion of the premium as well as rent and food), so screw ‘em right? What has become of this country that that would be the mindset?
Kellie, I make minimum wage and buy my own health insurance. What the heck are you talking about? It is called prioritizing your expenses. It may be a little expensive to buy health insurance, but it is MORE expensive to gamble without it.
bull! and if it is true then you live with your mother or your husband supports you…..here in philadelphia min wage is about 8$ an hour..thats 320 a week if u work full time BEFORE taxes…minus 30% for all state,local,and fed ..minus at least 5% for your supposed healthcare that u pay for and that leaves u with prob LESS then 200 a week…800$ a month..the average cost of an apartment here in philadepia is 950$….so tell me again how your doing it all on your own?
Dan, I know how much I get paid. I make minimum wage. I own a house. I just live within my means. I drive an old truck, I don’t take expensive vacations, nor go out for expensive dinners.
By the way, if one makes minimum wage you pay very little, if any income taxes! I don’t know where you get this bogus 30% figure!
My house payment is much less than $950 a month!
min wage is about 8$ an hour and even WITHOUT taxes,which u DO tax..u may get a federal income tax RETURN but u pay ALL state local and sales taxes regarudless of your income….secondly even if u paid NO taxs what so ever u still only make 1280 a month BEFORE u pay for you own healthinsurance….. if your house payment is less then 950 then u live in some backwoods town no where near any major city…..therefore your scenerio is A-typical..the average american doesnt live out in the boondocks where u do…..they are born in or near a city usually not very wealthy and are more then likely finanacially incapable of moving down to the bayou where u live….the average rent here in philadelphia is about 900$ a month.RENT..the average morgage is 1500$..and its twice as much in NY….and thats LOWER middleclass mediocre nieghborhood..the badlands is a little cheaper…as in 500$ for a studio and 400 to rent a room. and morgage is 800$…but that is the dire wastelands and ghettos which is again a-typical…..anyway this is to just prove your expeirnce is utterly pointless in comapring to the average american….
FIN, For your information, I live in a first ring suburb of the Twin Cities, hardly a “backwoods town”. According to the 2010 census, this suburb has over 30,000 people.
We, also, all know individuals who choose to have drug habits, rather than to pay for their own basic needs, and then go to the government for handouts to cover those needs. So now its my obligation to pay for their food, medical, rent, so on and so forth, because they choose to drug themselves up rather than pay for what they need?
What happened to the mindset that through personal sacrifice and hard work that you could do better for yourself and your family? Bleeding heart liberals like you think everyone else is obligated to cover for yours, or others, shortfalls.
first of alll save your BS hypothetical drug adict stories..u just want to justify being a cold hearted scum with no ethics or morals..but you prob. claim to be a “christian” ..riiiight….secondly…who cares if someone is adicted to drugs….if they need medical treatment to save their life they should be refused in your sick and twisted world view? so if u happen to mess your life up you deserve to die? edgar allen poe,drug addict,freud,drug addict, i could go on for DAYS naming influencial and prominent people who were once addicted to drugs…..but that is pointless right now…..because for me healthcare is a MORAL issue …for people like you its a FINANCIAL issue and a for-profit issue…thats why we will never see eye to eye…..your disgusting and i am not….you think someones salary or net worth should dictate weather they live or die..u think somones “choice” to get addicted to drugs should bar them from recieving medical treatment….you encompass everything that is wrong with the current system….
Dan, if healthcare is a moral issue for you, feel free to donate your own money to those who would rather spend their money on drugs, big TVs, smartphones or vacations instead of paying for their own health insurance.
It is about personal responsibility Dan! I don’t earn a lot of money, but I pay for my health insurance instead of not buying it and going on the dole. The government does NOT owe me healthcare!
OK, so Edgar Allen Poe had drug issues, Did he have universal healthcare to take care of him? Did Freud?
Health insurance is a responsibility, NOT a right!
yes they BOTH had the equivilent to universal healthcare. OWNED!!!!…..”feel free to donate to those ………”<—i do donate my time and money..and i have no problem paying taxes to help the needies among us,like REAL christians are supposed to do…….OWNED on that one also…..u just keep embarrassing yourself….and NOBODY is condoning fraud u simpton..if they can afford smartphones vacations,big screen tv's..ect..then they are NOT poor and are scamming the system..so again your point is moot….u people want to gut the wellfare system and hurt EVERYBODY for the fraud of a FEW….and only 1.8% of the population gets "free rent" as u put it..and only 2% of the population get food stamps…so tell me again how rampant it is?…."health insurance is a responsibility not a right"<–that is why people like u are disgusting and your views are unamerican and immoral….u put PROFITS above peoples LIVES and that is filthy….and that very mentality is why obamacare will ALWAYS win the dicussion and WILL be the law of the land from here on out….healthcare is a MORAL issues to argue otherwise is inexcuseable and indefensible and just plain dispicable irrehensible,filthy,disgusting..ect.ect.ect…
FIN, 2% of the population gets food stamps??? Where do you get such misinformation?
The fact is that 1 out of 6 in the US are on food stamps! That comes to about 15%!
Here is the proof: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/report-15-americans-food-stamps-980690
I’ll go along with your healthcare is a moral issue if you go along with paying for healthcare is a personal responsibility issue!
Explain, if you can, why it is immoral and un-American to expect people to pay for their own responsibilities?
EVERYBODY has to pay for obamacare,therefore EVERYBODY is taking personal responsbility when they pay for it and the people who refuse to pay for it are the ones who are NOT taking personal responsibility..and really your not getting taxed for obamacare…its a penalty tax..which means if u refuse to “take personal responsibility” and get healthcare insurance then u will be taxed..but if u have insurnce then u will NOT be taxed..so really your personal responsility argument supports MY position and DEFNEDS obamacare….thanks.the only people who dont have to pay are the people who are already on welfare because they meet the criteria for poverty but thats not any more people then there is now…..
DAN, now you know it is not true that everybody has to pay, certainly you must admit that.
Government forcing someone to buy something is NOT personal responsibility, as the Supreme Court has ruled, it is a TAX!
And illegal aliens won’t have to pay either, will they? So it is really more than just “those in poverty” that are getting free healthcare, right?
By the way, you DO know that unions are starting to realize that ObamaCare is a bad deal for them, don’t you?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-31/labor-unions-finally-read-obamacare-fine-print-realize-costs-set-spike-turn-sour-oba
Zero Hedge has about as much credibility as Info Wars or God Like Productions. Maybe less.
Ooooh!!! Look, dan has to get the cavalry to help him from digging his hole deeper.
aattp, care to comment on the link quoting the CBO and yahoo! ?
Are they not credible either?
You really don’t want to jump in the hole with dan, do you?
I guess two shovels do dig quicker than one though!
as for you food stamp stats..they are BOGUS……first they count children as “people on foodstamps” and although we had a sudden spike in food stamps that not the typical scenerio …EVERY SINGLE TIME we have a recession a spike in food stamps followers bcos all of the sudden more people qualify…but the average person stays on food stamps for nine months..that is a FACT and t is also a fact that food stamps help our economy bcos every single dollar our government gives to people in the form of food stamps gets spent and put back into our economy and taxed…so our government MAKES money on foodstamps…accually some say we make as much as 1.73 for every 1.00 spent on food stamps
Dan, now THAT is funny!!!! Wow, they are counting children as people???? When did children cease from being people? When, exactly do children become people in your mind?
And as far as food stamp increasing during a recession goes, we have been out of a recession for 3 YEARS!!! Nice try though!
Or are you admitting that the Obama stimulus was a failure?
So food stamps help the economy??? AND there is a 73% multiplier on food stamps? If that were the case, the economy would be booming right now, and that is clearly NOT the case!
I suggest you stop digging, get rid of that shovel DAN!
He’s not saying children aren’t people–he’s saying that the number you’re using makes it sound like multitudes of able-bodied adults are mooching off the system and that’s simply not the case. The majority of people receiving TANF, SNAP and Medicaid are either children, disabled people, the elderly or THE WORKING POOR.
As far as us being “out of the recession” for 3 years, there’s something interesting called “inertia.” Look it up.
Ummm, no, attp, children are people and they are getting food stamp benefits. They count as people on food stamps. Has the way of counting people on food stamps changed recently?
As far as your “inertia” claim goes, we have been out of the recession for over 3 years. This has been the WORST economic recovery EVER!
The stimulus failed, “those shovel ready jobs weren’t really shovel ready”, were they?
When, if ever does Obama start to take responsibility for his actions and policies? Or will he be known as “The Irresponsible President”?
Inertia? Seriously???? Is that the best you can come up with?
Yes. Too bad we didn’t have another World War so that we could spend a boatload of money and get ourselves out faster. “The Irresponsible President” will surely go to Bush Jr. Wait, no, he’ll get “Lying Murdering Scumbag.” And, is “The Irresponsible President” the best YOU can do?
I’m only jumping in because you are so incredibly obtuse.
The only reason it “failed” was because it wasn’t enough. If he’d not acquiesced to Republican demands our recovery would have been much faster. If he’s guilty of anything, it’s being too wet behind the ears politically to understand how terrifically stupid and hell bent on making him look like a failure at all costs they were.
And, name calling, really, Nestor? If you’re that sensitive maybe you shouldn’t be arguing with people on the internet.
attp, Obama is doing a fine job all by himself at making himself look like a failure, the list is long!
We could start with Gitmo, is that closed yet? What just happened with his Gitmo Council? As long as we are talking about Councils, what just happened to his Jobs Council? The stimulus failed! At least you admit that. We have had 2 credit downgrades (first time in our history) because we are borrowing too much money…. and you think we should have borrowed more???
Didn’t Obama say that increasing the debt by $4 trillion was “unpatriotic and irresponsible”? There’s another failure!!!
Obama said he would not raise ANY taxes on people that made less than $250,000 a year, that didn’t happen either, did it?
Obama said he would end the Patriot Act, but he fought to keep it in the Supreme Court, didn’t he?
And the fact remains that this is the worst economic recovery ever. Median income fell more during his recovery than it did during the recession.
We have a record number of people on food stamps, but the stock market is reaching 5 year highs, right? So that means that under Obama, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer!
Need I go on?
Your grasp of basic civics is devastatingly underdeveloped.
Gitmo – President Obama needed Congress’ support to close Gitmo and he didn’t get it. Republican-led bills cut off funding to move detainees to foreign countries, and bringing them to the United States was impossible since Congress blocked Obama’s attempt in 2009 to try those accused of war crimes in a civilian court.
The credit downgrade occurred, again, because Republicans in Congress held our economy hostage and would not compromise on the debt ceiling last year. It was a maneuver specifically designed to make malleable idiots believe and parrot what you’re saying right now.
You are aware that the President isn’t a totalitarian dictator (regardless of what your whack job sources may say) and there are two other branches of government that must cooperate if anything is to get done, right? I feel like I’m teaching third-grade.
Obama didn’t raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K a year. If you bring up The Affordable Care Act, I will just laugh at you, so don’t.
The Patriot Act? I think you mean NDAA, but I seriously don’t have time to teach someone so clearly inflicted with dichotomous thinking patterns the nuances which would be akin to trying to teach a chimpanzee calculus. In a nutshell, his hands were tied which was why he added the Signing Statement.
The rest of what you said has already been thoroughly refuted, but you are too mired in your own repetitious nonsense to understand, apparently.
Yes, please, go on. This is still, least at this point, mildly amusing.
aattp, wow, so you don’t hold Obama responsible for anything!
Regarding Gitmo, did he or did he not only campaign, but sign an executive order to close Gitmo by the end of his first year in office? He didn’t follow through… failure! Obama didn’t have ANY qualifiers when he made that promise, did he?
Are you blaming a lack of leadership by the president for not getting GITMO closed because he refuses to compromise with republicans?
With regards to the credit downgrade, Why is it that Obama is not to blame? Didn’t Obama vote against raising the debt ceiling and say increasing the debt was “unpatriotic and irresponsible”? What, do we have new (double) standards now that a democrat is in office? In addition, are you implying that the US credit rating would go UP if we just borrowed more money without a plan to pay for it?
How does that work in real life? Do businesses (or peoples) credit rating go up when they go deeper into debt?
Yeah, go to your bank on Monday and ask the banker if your credit rating would go up if you increased your debt to income ratio.
Let me know how long he laughs at you about THAT one!
You know, MAYBE another reason that the debt rating went down (first time in US history) is because for the first time, we have not budget passed in now over 4 years! The republican controlled House have passed budgets. The democrat controlled Senate has refused to do so! Oh, and how did the Senate vote on Obama’s budget turn out?
Now tell me, do successful businesses have budgets? What usually happens to businesses that don’t have budgets? Any guesses?
So after you ask the banker about the increasing your debt consequences on credit rating. Ask him/her about if they would loan millions of dollars to a business that refuses to have any budget plan.
And no, I mean The Patriot Act that, when running for office, Obama said was wrong, but then fought so hard to keep at the Supreme Court.
“Obama didn’t raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K a year. If you bring up The Affordable Care Act, I will just laugh at you, so don’t. ”
Really, what about the tanning bed tax? What about the cigarette tax? Didn’t Obama raise those? Do people that make under $250,000 smoke and use tanning beds? So their taxes went up, right?
Since when is raising taxes (on cigarettes) not increasing taxes on the people that use them? Remember, Obama promised that he would not raise ANY TAXES, NOT ONE DIME, on anyone making less that $250,000 a year.
Those that smoke ARE people, aren’t they?
It is really very simple. Did Obama raise taxes on cigarettes or did he not? Do people that make less than $250,000 smoke cigarettes?
You are really struggling here in defending Obama and his lies.
you really have no grasp on reality nor do you understand politics..when a president says “raises or lower taxes” that LITERALLY MEANS FEDERAL INCOME TAX AND/OR CORPORATE TAX and has NOTHING TO DO WITH SALES TAXES…this is such a common WELL KNOWN FACT that obama ,nor ANY POLITICIAN IN THE RECENT HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES has to clarify……when obama talks about raising taxes its within the context of INCOME TAX and corporate tax….let me repeat this…..when a PRESIDENT or a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE talks about lowering or raising taxes he SPECIFICALLY and ONLY means INCOME tax and CORPORATE taxes..do u understand this? and only a simple minded buffoon like yourself needs clarification on this …the fact that u are conflating to EXCLUSIVE and separate issues says a lot more about your political awareness,or lack thereof,then anything else..u should really be embarrassed..u should be ashamed and embarrassed …for real im not even kidding anymore this is getting pathetic……..when your hero reagan said he is going to lower taxes,what was he talking about? INCOME TAXES AND CORPORATE TAXES!! he was NOT talking about sales taxes….and if u want to say obama raised taxes then u would have to admit that reagan raised taxes more times then any president in united states HISTORY…..so tell me sport…did reagan raise taxes on the middle class? a simple question for you…DID REGAN RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE POOR? as for the credit downgrade…again u should be ashamed of your total lack of understanding and knowledge..we are NOT borrowing more to spend more!! we had to borrow more to pay for the things we ALREADY CONSUMED..do u understand this? we were NOT borrowing more money to further fund the government…we were NOT borrowing more money and going more into debt to fund the government for longer..we had to borrow to pay our outstanding bills that were ALREADY incurred..do u understand this? and bush reagan and EVERY PRESIDENT in united states HISTORY has raised the debt limit with NO PROBLEMS and NO opposition EVER! do u understand thus far ? u dont put our national security in jeopardy to make a point and object on principle,that is filthy and is a common tactic used by people like u and other conservatives..its despicable…conservatives have NEVER ever opposed to the debt limit under a republican president..so you claim about obama being a hypocrite is MOOT bcos conservatives hypocrisy far outreaches obamas….our credit down grade happened for ONE reason and that reason was CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST who hijacked the republican party and held us hostage and opposed obamas on PRINCIPLE,and ONLY principle….they have never done it when a repub was president but all of the sudden its a huge issue? riiiight..and if they wanted a budget they should of found another way to get dems to pass one..u dont hold america hostage and put our national security at risk..that is absurd and indefensible….and your bogus claim about the ” they havent passed a budget in 4 years”<—u understand that conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep extended bushes budget and dems have passed MULTIPLE budgets resolutions every single time they were supposed to..what your referring to is the long term budget..and the fact that u didnt make the distinction ,again,PROVES beyond any reasonable doubt that your just parroting talking points that u really really dont understand…and the reason they havent passed LONG TERM budget is bcos,with a conservative extremist majority in congress,it would be utterly USELESS,pointless and a total waste fo time..unless youre saying that the extremest would pass such a budget? or should the dems do things like conservs and do POLITICAL STUNTS and introduce bills for the "principle factor" like the republicans do for show?
dan, wow, talk about having no grasp on reality! Look, why don’t you google Obama’s speech. He said he would not raise ANY taxes on anyone making under $250,000. He did NOT say only income taxes. If he meant only income taxes he would have said income taxes and not ANY taxes.
Don’t you get tired of misrepresenting the truth in order to protect Obama?
Here you go dan, watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
What are the last five words?
Now, care to admit you are wrong?
this isnt even funny anymore..at first i was having fun…but now i actually feel sorry for you…..obama did NOT raise taxes on the middleclass.PERIOD….and since u cant grasp the simple concept of taxation within context it says more of your intelligence,or lack thereof,then anything else…..obama did NOT raise taxes on anyone making less then 250k..PERIOD(actually its 400k,450 married)he raised taxes on THINGS! not on PEOPLE..do u understand the difference? do u understand the difference between taxes coming out of your check involuntarily and taxes u pay on goods that u WILLFULLY choose to buy? can u grasp this very simple difference ? EVERY SINGLE president in united states HISTORY,including yoru hero raegan talks about taxes within the context of FEDERAL INCOME TAX and CORPORATE tax..do u understand this?your bogus criteria of taxation would make reagan the highest tax raiser in american history….so will u agree that reagan raised taxes on the middleclass? answer the question,did reagan raise taxes on the middleclass? and dont tell me about net taxes..i want to know if he ever raised taxes ont he middleclass,like he said he WOULDNT…..if we used your EXACT logic and your EXACT criteria that would mean reagan raised taxes on the middle class more times any any president in united states history….so is that true?…. i just cant even believe that people like u are allowed to vote..your are the epitome of low information voter…your probably one of the simpletons who thinks obama raised social security tax on jan.1.2013..muahahahahaha……i just cant even believe u dont understand what presidents,not just obama,EVERY PRESIDENT ..means when they say “taxes”..with your logic,if new york raised state income tax on its residents then that would mean OBAMA raised taxes on them right?….you are either a troll and trying to use talking points to stir up people,or your willfully ignorant,or your intellectually dishonest..there is no way your serious..there is no way u dont understand what the presidents of the united states are talking about when they say “taxes”….EVERYBODY ( except you obliviously)understands what the president is talking about when he says taxes that its not even on his mind to make sure he differentiates between federal taxation and sales tax on goods for people who WILLFULLY CHOOSE to buy those goods…he really doesnt even think people like u exist who dont understand the difference…….simple questions..did bush raise taxes on the middleclass,..he implemented the bush tax cuts…but did he raise taxes on the middleclass? did reagan raise taxes on the middleclass more time then any president in united state history?
Is that the best you can do dan?
Cigarette taxes and tanning bed taxes were raised. Middle class people smoke and use tanning beds. Voluntary or not, those taxes went up.
Again, Obama said ANY TAXES! He did not say income taxes, watch the video!
“Voluntary taxes are included in ANY TAXES, whether you want to admit it or not.
You are really getting deserate here dan, trying to defend the indefensible.
Well there you go aattp.
Thanks for admitting that you lost the debate. LIberals often resort to name calling when they cannot argue the facts.
If you want to stop being misinformed, I suggest you find real news sources.
Touché, Nestor. Now, let me go ahead approve your comment so everyone can see just how badly you beat me–because that’s definitely my motivation.
Go right ahead aattp, then they will see your debating skills, including the name calling.
dan, the job council FAILED! Where are the jobs? Why didn’t Obama meet with his Jobs Council if it was so important, for at least 6 months?
So when Obama blamed Bush for the increased debt, and called him irresponsible and “unpatriotic”, Was that an accurate statement?
If it was, then it must be true now! You must be watching MSNBC or CBS way too much. Or maybe Air America, oh wait, they went bankrupt because no one listened to them!
JOBS council failed? how so? how exactly did they fail? and tell me WITHOUT using google…if u are reduced to google to figure out why they “failed” then that PROVES beyond any doubt whatsoever that ur just regurgitating conservative talking points and bogus narritives that u really really dont understand…WITHOUT google tell me how the jobs council failed? are we NOT adding over 120k jobs per month/ simple question….are we adding OVER 120k jobs per month? very simple simple question,yes or no, are we ADDING jobs or LOOSING jobs? have we been adding over 120k jobs per MONTH every month for the past 35 months STRAIGHT? yes or no? has there been even ONE month in the past 34 months that we havent ADDED well over 100k jobs? yes or no?…..was unemployment at,like u said, 10% before and is it at 7.8% now? yes or no? does that mean unemployment went up or down? these are simple question u should know the answer to WITHOUT google…..although this recovery hasnt been fast,thanks to unprecented conservative extremist, the jobs council is in no way whatsoever a failure..PERIOD…..and again WITHOUT google give me even one example of a recomondation from the job council that obama didnt follow or try to follow?…if u are reduced to google to cite an exampel then that PROVES you just parrotting talking points…….and WITHOUT google tell me exactly how the jobs council has been a failure if we have been ADDING jobs the ENTIRE time the council was active.? how are they a failure EXACTLY and without google….and btw…this level of obstructionism and vitriol has never been seen in the history of america…and i can substantiate that,repubs have fillibusters and blocked more times and things then ANY time in united states history..they hold the record..are uu disputing that?….those FACTS prove beyond a doubt that conservatives are destroying any chance of us having a speedy recovery and putting the entire country in jeopordy ,just to meet a political end..which is to make obama “look” bad at any and all cost,including at the expense of the middlelclass….that is filthy and inexcusable….
The jobs council failed, dan , because we have less people working now than when Obama took office! We still have a high unemployment rate after 3 years into a recovery! We wouldn’t need to be giving people 2 years of unemployment checks if the jobs council was successful, dan!
Where are the jobs dan? 120,000 a month doesn’t keep up with population growth. In fact, we are half way into a recession now, with the GDP shrinking during the last quarter.
As far as “obstruction” goes, we did see a whole lot of obstruction in the 2nd Bush term. Was it or was it not the democrats that obstructed the reining in of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the Bush administration? The democrats played the race card on that. In fact, it was Barney Frank that insisted that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound and he “wanted to roll the dice a little longer” with regards to the risky loans that Fannie and Freddie were buying up.
If only you knew what you are talking about dan!
muahahah….u couldnt refute a SINGLE thing i said nor did u answer a single question i raised…..and how many times do i have to repeat this…u said there are more people unemployed now then when obama took office….are u still clinging to that fatuous notion? would u like to get embarrassed again on that claim? when obama took office unemployment was 8.3%..TODAY IS IT 7.8%..do u understand?if it makes obama look good u marginalize it,if it makes him look bad u POUNCE on it….its pathetic…..and your bogus claim about “not keeping up with population growth” only further demonstrates your total ignorance….it does NOT matter how fast the population grows. what matters are three things……how many people left the work force, ie: retired, became disabled, how many people are now entering the workforce, and how many jobs are being created……the fact that u cant grasp this simple concept or put job numbers within context speaks very ill of you sir. are u literally embarrassed that i have to explain all this stuff to you? basically what ur saying is since people are having babies that somehow cancels out all the new jobs being created? what were u thinking when u said the job growth isnt keeping up with population growth? are u saying there isnt enough jobs being created because there are more newborn babies then they are jobs being creating? muahahamauahamauahaha…so let me get this str8…120k jobs is insignificant bcos the number of new born babies offsets that and cancels it out? muahahaamauahahahahahahha…..let me explain again….u take the amount of people who left the work force,aka-retire or became disabled, and then u factor in how many people are entering the workforce, then after u get those stats u then compare them to the 120k jobs per month on average we are adding….but keep in mind it has never gone UNDER 120k in over 30 months and has been as high as almost 200k some months….120k is a lowball number…..nonetheless u just got schooled sport…would u like help with anything else? this is getting easier every time u reply….now im back to having fun….and are u still trying to say obstructionism was the same during bushes admin from dems as today ? muahaha…..do u understand that more bills have been blocked and more filibusters have been implemented then ANY OTHER TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY? do u get this? the FACT that repubs hold the all time record for filibusters and blocked bills pretty much DEBUNKS your claim about the obstructionism being equal……man ..u should be paying me for tutoring you..
Really dan? So it doesn’t matter how many people ran out of unemployment or gave up looking for work? No one is talking about children being born with regards to “the workforce”, dan! There are laws against child labor.
The FACT is that the unemployment rate now is higher than when Obama took office.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.8%. It is now 7.9%, which number is higher, dan?
Under Obama, unemployment reached 10% in October 2009. this after Obama promised that the unemployment rate would NOT go over 8% if the stimulus passed. Even using Obama’s own measurements the stimulus failed!
You are not going to claim that the BLS is “right wing”, are you?
Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
And again, if the stimulus was such a success, why does the FED have to pump $85 million every month into the economy?
The only one being “schooled” here is you.
man u people are so disgusting and willfully ignorant about the FACTS that its pathetic..u have second hand HEARSAY from partisan hack sources..the “shovel ready jobs” u are referring to in the infrastructure program..and GUESS WHAT? i PERSONALLY benefited from that along with 90% of the construction tradesmen here in Philadelphia..my ENTIRE family has benefited from the infrastructure stimulus and it has been a wild success here in philadelphia..i have personal REAL WORLD EXAMPLES that exist in REALITY while ur reduced to hypotheticals and hearsay that u parrot from bogus sources,prob fox news or the drudge…the shovel ready job stimulus HAS BEEN A WILD SUCCESS! This isnt an opinion this is a FACT..i was out of work along with the rest of my co workers and philadelphia had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country..NOW WE DONT…u cant walk around the block without running into a road getting rebuilt or a bridge getting repaired…im sorry this doesnt fit your narrative sport,facts rarely do tho.. I PERSONALLY GOT A JOB from the stimulous and THOUSANDS of small businesses,like the one i work for, has benefited tremendously…so tell me again how it wasnt a success? and concerning the worst economic recovery ever….THIS WAS THE WORST ECONOMIC DISASTER IN UNITED STATES HISTORY…including the great depression,but luckily,thanks to LIBERAL POLICES AND SOCIAL SAFETY NETS, the PEOPLE didnt suffer as bad as they did during the depression…but the collapse was JUST AS BAD or WORSE then the GD…so i would expect the worst economic disaster in united states history to take some time to rebound,especially when u factor in CONSERVATIVE obstructionist who literally block EVERY and ANY bill that obamas tries to get passed to help create jobs..they block his veterans jobs bills then condemn him for the high unemployment rate of veterans,..the hypocrisy is appalling and people like YOU endorse this behavior…its filthy…and if we have been out of the recession for 3 years then that DEBUNKS your bull claim anyway..bcos that would mean the recession only last about 1.5 years…and obama only had control for 6 months…so he was a WILD success if he turned the worst economic disaster and recession since the great depression around in 6 months and effectively stopped the recession? by your OWN admission he has been a wild success..he took a recession that he INHERITED and turned it around within 6 months……right? thats what your sayin isnt it? that the recession ended 3 years ago? so that means obama has been a sucess.PERIOD.
Seriously dan? The cost per job in the stimuls was $331,000! The Obama administration said that unemployment would NOT go over 8% if the stimulus was passed quickly! Dan, did unemployment go over 8%? The administration said that unemployment would be under 6% by now! Dan, is unemployment over 6%? This has been the worst recovery EVER! The fact is that since Obama took office, the median income has gone down 9%! Since the “Obama recovery” started, the median wage has gone DOWN 6%!
Tell me, if the stimulus was such a success, why is it that the feds are now pumping $85 billion EVERY MONTH into the economy? The feds wouldn’t have to do that if the stimulus worked, dan.
I told you dan, you should quit digging that hole.
first off the stimulus was jam packed with massive tax cuts as per the conservative demands……this has been the slowest recovery ever in history…and u know what else ? the is the first time in united state HISTORY that another party literally vowed to do anything and everything in their power to obstruct a sitting president in order to make him a one term president..that is indefensible and inexcusable…conservatives have blocked every single thing obama has EVER tried to do….they literally blocked the veterans jobs bill..i mean are u serious? they obstructed anything they came in contact with then condemned obama for not getting it passed? the hypocrisy is disturbing..and the infrastructure stimulus has been a HUGE success here in philadelphia,that is a FACT..im sorry this doesnt fit your narrative sport…how are u going try and marginalize the FACT that it put THOUSANDS of people back to work here in philadelphia? this has been the worst recovery because of CONSERVATIVE OBSTRUCTIONISM….there has never been this vicious and dogmatic attack on a sitting president in united states history…it is unprecedented..are u going to deny that too? u think the obstructionism has nothing to do with the slow recovery? riiiiiiiiiight…..and i would expect a slower recovery compared to MINOR recession …OBVIOUSLY it is going to take longer to dig out of the worst economic disaster in american history save the great depression then it took to dig out of a couple blips in previous years..get real….people like YOU VOWED to destroy obama and make him a one term president. and u think that obstructionism has nothing to do with he slow recovery? u are either just flat out lying or willfully ignorant.
Really dan???? You can’t be serious! What about all the attacks from the liberals in the House and Senate When Bush was duly elected president? Harry Reid called him A failure, he also declared that the Iraq War was lost even before the surge.
Don’t start with the false claims that this is the first time congress tried to make a president a one termer.
Secondly, this was NOT the worst economic disaster in US history, Jimmy Carters recession was much worse. Under Carter, we had a higher misery index with double digit interest rates and gas lines. People literally had to push their cars to gas stations to get gas in many parts of the country. There was also gas rationing under Carter.
So you can stop with the false talking point of “the worst recession since the Great Depression”,
Go ahead, look up the Carter Recession and you will see that all of my claims for that time are true.
Maybe you will learn something if you take those blinders off.
nestor you should really be ashamed of yourself…..u OBVIOUSLY dont know the difference between economic disaster and personal suffering..i have ALREADY addressed this yet u fail to comprehend a single thing u read……carters recession wasnt HALF as bad as the last one,economically..do u understand this? do u understand the difference between personal suffering and economically? the reason we didnt have such devastating PERSONAL suffering is because of the LIBERAL agenda and social saftey nets…if we didnt extend unemployment,bailout banks,ect.ect..then the personal suffering would have been TWICE as bad and would of been worse then the great depression..this isnt an opinion its a FACT…..and economically the last recession was FAR worse then carters and 20 times worse then reagans…do u understand this difference between personal suffering and economically? the last recession lost MORE jobs, ( the actual number of jobs,so save your percentage comparisons)…the stock market took a WORSE hit,banks took a WORSE hit and people lost MORE of their personal wealth ,ect,ect..every economic criteria that even EXIST was FAR worse this recession then carter or reagans…do u understand this simple concept?
Oh, dan, you want to talk about personal suffering? Why are there so many people on food stamps now? Doesn’t that have to do with the economy? Or is it “normal” to have 1 out of 6 people in poverty 3 years into a recovery?
No, dan, Obama has failed economically. Again, if the stimulus was a success, the Fed wouldn’t have to be pumping $85 million a month into the economy, would they?
As far as “personal suffering” goes, wasn’t that because of the economy?
But OK, let’s go with your “personal suffering was not as bad because of the liberal agenda” of having trillion dollar deficits in each of the last 4 years. Who is going to pay that money back, dan? It will be your children and grandchildren, Even Obama said that was immoral when he was running for president 4.5 years ago. Did he, or did he not say that it was “unpatriotic and irresponsible” to raise the deficit by $4 trillion in 4 years?
Double standard here dan?
Your ignorance is showing. Considering the all-out attempts by the Republican Party to obstruct the recovery of the US economy we are doing quite well. The Republican 1750 mindset is something history will set in stone. You really need to wake up and realize you are on the wrong side of history and common sense. Shame on all the GOP and Tea Party for assuming we are as ignorant and misguided as you bunch of traitors.
Obstruct the recovery???? Sorry, didn’t Obama get his stimulus passed? You know, the one that he promised would keep unemployment under 8%?
Sorry Tommympt, it is you that are showing the ignorance. The Obama stimulus FAILED, ObamaCare is failing, the democrats had full control of the House, Senate, AND the White House and haven’t been able to follow through with their promises!
When one resorts to name calling it is the equivalent of admitting you lost the debate.
Don’t you ever get tired of making excuses for Obama’s failed policies?
thats a false equivilency…..there has NEVER been this amount of partisanship and animosity in the history of the united state… this amount of vitriol is unprecedented.PERIOD….liberals were mad about bush bcos he lost the popular vote and he magically won the elction in a state where his family was in charge..do u remember hanging chads?..and that was a LEGITIMATE issue ,especially when the american people did NOT want bush..he won electorally and only by s small margin..and critizing a president is NOT the same thing as what the extremist are doing to obama now…..not even close….i want you to name me ONE leading liberal who litterally vowed to make bush a one term president……this congress has blocked and fillibustered more times then any congress in history…are u disputing this?….the simple FACT that republicans NOW have blocked and fillibusters more times then ANY time in american history PROVES this is unprecendented….would u like some FACTS and stats to back this up? im sorry the truth has a liberal bias…
dan, really??? Since when do we elect the president based on the popular vote? For good reasons, we have an Electoral College.
The FACTS are that George W Bush was ALWAYS ahead in the Florida vote count. In fact, if Algore would have won his own homes state, Florida would have been a non-issue. Why couldn’t Algore win his own home state dan?
Yes, I do remember the hanging chads issue. I remember democrats trying to “determine the will of the voter” purely by looking at a ballot without knowing who the voter was. I remember the Florida Supreme Court trying to change election law after the election was over. I remember the Supreme Court slapping down the Florida Supreme Court decision that made up new election law. Do you know what else I remember dan? I remember that after the election was over, the mainstream media did a total recount of all the votes in Florida and determined that George W. Bush had more votes that Algore!
As far as trying to make Bush a one term president goes, we have heard all the lies about Bush and his policies during his time in office. You must surely remember those, “The war is lost” (Harry Reid), the economy is bad and the 5.5% unemployment rate is terrible (Nancy Pelosi), among many others.
In fact, just last November, Harry Reid vowed not to work with Mitt Romney if he was elected President!
http://www.mediaite.com/online/harry-reid-pledges-not-to-work-with-mitt-romney-if-he-is-elected/
because children dont apply for wellfare or contribute to the system ( via taxes) so it is fatuous to claim them in your trying to get accurate stats concerning wellfare..and are u contesting the CBO when they cited the FACT that for every dollar in food stamps the government get approx 1.73 back? and why would those stats equal a booming economy? so with your logic,the only thing we need to do to get a booming economy is make sure government gets money? so if the government makes money that should automatically equal a booming economy? even tho we are paying for TWO wars that your hero bush and the rest of the conservative idealopgue hacks forgot to pay for?…and our economy is doing pretty good…retailers are setting RECORD profits and the stock market is hitting 5 year HIGHS and we are adding OVER 120k jobs per month STEADY now for over 35 months str8……..and now your claiming we are out of the recession? so which is it? are we out of the recession thus making obama a SUCCESS? or are we doing horrible and food stamps are up and unemployment is drastically high? your double standard and hypocricy is starting to get disturbing….when it fits your narritive to claim we are doing bad then our economy is horrible..but when that doesnt fit your narritive all of the sudden we arent in a recession anymore? i thought u were just telling me how bad unemployment was and how bad food stams was? and we have been out of the recession for 3 years? so the recession only last about 1.5 years? which LITTERALLY means obama was a WILD success..bcos by your OWN WORDS he effectively turned the recession around in LESS then one year? obama took office janurary.09…recession start late 07-08…so techniqally obama got us out of a recession within 6 months?
Oh dan! You are SO funny!
IF every $1 of food stamps puts $1.73 into the economy, wouldn’t giving more people food stamps help the economy even more? That hasn’t been working, has it? The fact remains that this is the worst economic recovery EVER! The unemployment rate is still higher than when Obama took office. Obama said that unemployment would be under 6% by now. It isn’t there, is it? The economy contracted last quarter, didn’t it? It is not good for economies to contract, is it?
But let’s go with your “stock market is reaching 5 year highs”, OK?
So we have more people on food stamps, thus the poor are getting poorer, and the stock market is near 5 year highs, thus the rich are getting richer.
So that is a good thing, right?
first of all obama took office in januray of 09..unemployment rate was 8.3% february first…..janurary 2013 7.8%…. ur bogus claims has been DEBUNKED AD NASEUM and your still clinging to it….the unemployment rate has NOT gone up since obama took office.PERIOD..no matter how you try and skew the numbers….obama was inaugurated JANUARY 20TH 2009…so LOGICALLY we would take february as the FIRST month he effectively took over….february unemployment rate was 8.3%…todays unemployment rate is 7.8….do u understand the difference between HIGH and LOWER? do you understand that 7.8% is LOWER then 8.3% ???????????/ can u understand this? and im asking u a simple simple question..i need you to answer this very simple question…is 8.3% HIGHER then 7.8%? or in your fantastical pipe dreaming world view is it lower??? simple simple question,ill ask again bcos u have a hard time following…when obama took office jan 20,2009 the unemployment rate was 8.3 for february…TODAY unemployment is 7.8%….simple question,is 8.35 lower then 7.8% or higher?….and lastly are u contesting the FACT that the government get back 1.73 for every 1$ they put out in food stamps? its a yes or no ..dont give me no bull ..just yes or no
dan, what are you smoking? The unemployment rate went up to 10% under Obama! Last time I checked, 10 was higher than 8.
Are you using fuzzy math????
I noticed you didn’t contest that the median wage has declined under Obama, even after his “recovery”.
And yes, I am contesting that the government gets back $1.73 for every $1 they hand out in food stamps. If that is the case, our debt problem would be solved easily, all the government would have to do is give out thousands of dollars to every American and the government would get $1.73 back for every dollar they gave out!
No dan, the end of the recession happened within 9 months, not “the peak”. And since the “Obama recovery” started, median income has fallen more than what it did during the recession. That is a fact. Look it up!
It was you that insisted that the unemployment rate did not go higher under Obama, and it obviously did.
So dan, tell me, if you can, what percentage of people able to work are working now, and what was the percentage when Obama took office.
So IF Bush caused the recession, who just caused the lower GDP for the last quarter? And if we have a lower GDP for the current quarter, we will technically be in another recession. Will that be Bush’s fault too?
This gentleman is a complete douchewaffle.
Well, Kellie, you prove to be a typical liberal. When you cannot argue facts you resort to name calling.
That usually means you lost the argument!
The year is 2013.
Well, tommympt, what does the year have to do with liberals calling people names when they cannot debate the facts?
Which successful country (by that I mean one that Americans would want to emulate) has a libertarian government?
When you have health insurance, it’s really easy to scorn people who don’t.
That doesn’t mean you should.
It’s not your money it is ours when paid in taxes to form a more perfect Union. We must get our priorities straight. The greatest majority of Americans want to be the greatest Nation on Earth. We are nowhere near that now and it is getting worse due to The GOP, Tea Party, Libertarians and other such traitors to building a great Society. The very basic right to life includes equal health care for all of its citizens. It is a right, not a privilege. BTW, one must be born to become a citizen, so don’t try the “Pro Life” abortion stuff with me.
Really tommympt? We are not the greatest nation on earth? Which other country gives billions in aid to poor, starving countries? Which other country had given more to help people in Africa to people with AIDS?
Why is it that so many people want to come here, risking their lives, every single day? You don’t see people risking their lives to go to North Korea, or Cuba or even Mexico! They come here for a reason tommy, why do you think that is, because this country is bad?
Everyone can and will get good health care. Why are you blind to the fact it happens in other countries? BTW many leave this country to live elsewhere everyday and they love it. Economic opportunity is not the only reason people choose to live where they do.
tommympt, “Everyone can and will get good health care. Why are you blind to the fact it happens in other countries? ”
How do you figure that happening when ObamaCare adds 50 million people to the healthcare rolls but does not add a single doctor to see them? You think the wait to see a doctor now is long, just wait until it is free and there are no additional doctors to see these patients! Why are YOU blind to simple economics? More demand for medical care without increased supply equals what?
tommympt, equal healthcare for all???? So if everybody gets poor healthcare that is OK with you? How is that working out in Cuba? If Cuba has such good health care, why is it that Castro gets his healthcare somewhere else?
In addition, if ObamaCare is so good, why id it that the politicians exempted themselves from it? Now remember, it was the Dems that voted for ObamaCare and their exemption. The GOP all voted against this expensive risky scheme that will bankrupt the country.
Bull s**t. I don’t care if you have to stand in line to see a doctor. I suggest you get in line just like the rest of us do now. Good doctors have lines now. Evidently, you have not been in a doctor’s office for years.
tommympt, I did have to go to the hospital a few years ago (and a doctor couple of times since then). So if people die while waiting to get in to see the doctor you’re OK with that…. Got it!!!
If it was a family member that had to wait, you would be OK with that too?
Libertarians are just anarchists with better PR.
I think there are a lot of misconceptions about healthcare on the “libertarian” side of this argument and a certain ignorance of history. Corporate, for-profit healthcare is a creation of the 20th century, particularly the so called ‘Progressive Era.’ Hospitals were established by charitable institutions and sponsored by local city or county governments in urban areas for most of the nation’s history. In rural areas, the doctor was essentially a public employee financed by a socialist support network. His house was provided by the community, he ate dinner in local homes, the community paid him a small stipend, and patients paid what they could when they could. Health care costs were kept low, ironically, by what would be called small-scale local socialism. In these days doctors made a successful living but health care costs were reasonable. Private practice doctors in urban areas tended to charge on the kind of sliding scale that is now reserved for “low cost medical clinics” that provide variable levels of care, not because they were necessarily charitable but because it was better business sense to help more patients for less money than to help a few for a lot.
During the years just prior to WWI, big corporate tycoons like Henry Ford and Henry Kaiser began to establish either health care insurance or actual hospitals and medical support networks for their employees. This was less capitalism than it was feudal paternalism. They began to pay their doctors more and the result was the slow capitalization of the medical industry, as doctors preferred to make more money working for corporate overlords rather than doing business the old way. Private practice doctors began to charge more and refuse service to those who could not pay. Public and charitable hospitals began to lose quality employees and had to raise their own costs to compete.
After WWII, flush with prosperity, the captains of industry spun their health care subsidiaries off into separate businesses that themselves sought to make a profit off the money of other corporations and those individuals who could afford to pay for individual coverage and the HMO, PPO, and modern concept of health insurance began to develop. Medical practice itself has been affected as medical students seeing dollar signs gravitate to the highest paid specialities: ‘urgent care’ and surgical specialties are popular basic general practitioners are rarer and rarer and “family medicine” once the core of health care is almost impossible to find.
The problem is that the health plan being decried as “socialism” by the right is actually center-right state-financed capitalism that does nothing but funnel money into the very system that created the problem. Libertarians who say this are exactly right, even if they are wrong to blame it on “socialized medicine” as the actual historical process has been one of privatization and de-socialization of medicine.
The problem is that, in attempting to achieve “compromise” with the Republicans, the Senate adopted a Republican health care scheme (“Obama-care”, better called “Baucus-care”, is actually the health plan advocated by Bob Dole when Bill Clinton was President. This is something both the right and the “left” would do a lot better to remember.)
My only good comment about the health care reform that has been passed under the current administration is that it might be better than nothing for the people who need medical care and cannot get it, but observations about the ultimate cost of such coerced public funding of private industry are on the nose. This system offers the same risks as the privatization of juvenile detention in Pennsylvania, which led to a defrauding of the state and an abuse of children by both corporations and the state on a massive scale. The ultimate consequences of the new system will likely be the defrauding of the state and abuse of patients by both the state and corporations as well.
What is needed is a real reform of the system. As much as I hate to admit it, both health-savings accounts and catastrophic care coverage are good ideas… the latter would at least be more true to the spirit of insurance. Which, by the way, is exactly the problem with the current system, with or without “Obama-care.” It is fundamentally financially unsustainable to actually make a profit selling “insurance” when every one of your customers will need to use that insurance on at least a semi-regular basis.
Where libertarians (big or small “l”) are most wrong, however, is to think that a real reform of the system can happen without some kind of state coercion. When the perceived economic interests of those reaping short term gains from the current system are challenged, will they be willing to voluntarily acquiesce? Will wealthy doctors be willing to accept much smaller paychecks without some sort of legal pressure?
Some kind of socialism would be necessary. Small-scale local socialism in the historical American tradition may no longer be possible and while state intervention is onerous, state socialism may be preferable to the health care collapse that simply pumping more money into the current system may not be able to prevent. The problem is that neither the “left” nor the right are willing to think practically about this issue. The center-right politicians are trying to placate corporate fears while preaching “liberal” ideals and the far right are trying to stave off any threat to The Way Things Are by preaching personal liberty. Neither side is willing to face reality.
I prefer a European or Canadian-style type of health care. Make it a Medicare-for-All system. In fact we had it during the healthcare debate, H.R. 676.
Darius, that just makes too much sense. It would provide 3x the healthcare for the same money. Alternatively, basic healthcare would cost 1/3 of the present cost. Our politicians (and I can’t excuse the Dems on this one) are bowing so much at the feet of the health insurance industry to care about the people. I hear people talk about how many Canadians hate their health care system, but they overwhelming vote to retain it every time it comes up. Those that don’t like it are the very wealthy, who then cross the border for the mercenary version.
I don’t think medicare for all is necessarily a bad idea. State capitalism requires a profit or it becomes state-sponsored capitalism, which is essentially corporate welfare. Which drains the public coffers far more disastrously than social welfare, because we are dealing with larger dollar amounts and we are actually acting against capitalist economic principles while refusing to embrace socialist political principles out of fear.
I simply think that socialism has the same basic problem as democracy. The larger the machine gets, the less socialist or democratic it becomes. This is why the HIGHLY democratic rule by Soviets (elected officials who then elected their own leaders, much like our state assemblies) of the Russian Revolution gave way to the highly centralist system of rule by party committees in the Lenin-era, autocratic dictatorship in the Stalin-era, and rule by party bureaucrats in the post-Stalin era.
Darius, who is going to pay for free healthcare for all? Furthermore, how will all those people that will be using the free healthcare system get their free healthcare? There will be 45 million more people demanding free healthcare and not a single new doctor added to see them! You think waiting to see a doctor when in the office is bad now, wait until those 45 million all want to see the doctor!
First, Darius didn’t say “free health care.” He said “Medicare-for-all.” Medicare is not “free.” Quite a lot of things, in fact, are NOT covered by Medicare or only partially covered. Medicare covers a percentage of costs. Most recipients supplement Medicare with private supplementary insurance that covers the Medicare deductibles, but they pay for this themselves.
Chris, if these people cannot afford insurance now, how will they be able to afford insurance and/or paying for what Medicare does not cover under the mandate/tax?
The question remains, who is going to pay for it?
u people refuse to even entertain something that doesnt fit your narritive..its disturbing…do u even consider reading any material that is FOR obamacare? OBVIOUSALLY,very painfully obviousally not….or u would KNOW that obamacare doesnt automatically create the need for extra doctors..there have been HUNDREDS of studies,before obamacare was even a concept, about this very issue u raise…secondly its not 45 million its more like 5 million…but that is debatable..either way its irrelevant..multiple studies PROVE the FACT that people who are uninsured only go to the hospital when they are sick or for an emergency..and the study PROVES that people who were once uninsured but then became insured do the SAME EXACT THING…when people all of the sudden get healht insurance who once didnt have it they dont rush to the hosoital arbitrarily..nobody is going to flood the doctors offices or ER’s…..people will ONLY go to the hosital for an emergency and/or if they are sick..which is EXACTLY what they were doing PRIOR to being uninsured…so the “demand” factor will be EXACTLY the same as it is RIGHT NOW….when people finnally get insurance they arent going to just show up willy nilly to the ER for no good reason…they arent going to takje a day off work and sit in a waiting room and pay co pays and waste a days pay for the fun of it….NOBODY is going to do this…..but some may start to take advantage of preventive care measures that obamacare offers..which would be a BLESSING for our country and would help reduce the cost of healthcare all togther..bcos it is a proven fact that preventive care cost LESS then the care that would be needed had one not took advantage of preventive care…this subject has been debated ad naseum and the fact that u never even heard about it exposes your total lack on intellect and knowledge regaurding obamacare. there are REAL WORLD stats to back up my claims while people like you are reduced to hypothetical scenerios that have no basis in reality and are just assertions and theories..but things that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence..there are REAL concerns with obamacare..there are REAL issues we could be discussing but people like you restrict the possibility of moving on to bigger issues that are grounded ion REALITY bcos u REFUSE to educate yourself or read material that doesnt fit your bogus narritive ….
Dan, so you think that adding at least 5 million people (but really 45 million of higher) getting “free healthcare” will not require more doctors to see them? Who will treat them, the receptionist?
If a restaurant gives free food away, will it be busy? Will they need to have more staff on? If any business gives away free stuff, will they be busier than normal and thus need more staff working?
For that answer, look to the Black Friday sales, Stores give away free stuff or stuff pretty cheap, and the stores are overly crowded and they have a lot of staff on due to increased demand.
I find Libertarianism to be a flawed ideology and here is why I do. Most of the ones I have met (I live in an area of the U.S. where they are quite prevalent) tend to heavily dislike government based on the predication of it expanding its powers outside the LETTER of the Constitution (in some ways I agree, with the passage of the PATRIOT Act and the relevant provisions of the NDAA regarding indefinite detention); however, these very same folks who do so use government services on a daily basis, whether it be driving on roads, going to a school and borrowing money, and/or using Social Security, ALL paid for by your fellow citizens! I laugh when any of you say that we MUST shrink government down to what it says in the Constitution because they cleverly leave out the parts where the Fathers had said it was ok to change the Constitution to passing times. A constitution, by design, has powers delegated to an authority, or set of authorities, and certain parts that can’t be changed but only through a voting process that allows for them to be amended. We have done this to ours 27 times. BTW didn’t one of the foremost Fathers say, and I will quote here, “On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.–It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal”? That, if you didn’t know, was Thomas Jefferson writing to James Madison about the Earth belonging to the living and not the dead, like he was going to be. Another one, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 15, “Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience.” In another part, he also says, “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.” So you see, there are many different, and from what I find, conflicting details as to what they wanted. They proclaim our rights being from God and that they are unalienable, yet they take other people’s lives in bondage. They wanted government to be limited, yet say it is ok for the future generations to determine what their society should be. And the very same guy that wrote the said document opposed the Bill of Rights on the predication that the rights were already in there. Now all of you probably will seethe at what you feel is a “revisionist” interpretation of these “sacred” words, but the fact of the matter is that we have a government predicated on the idea of We the People! WE give the government (a collective entity of representatives elected by the democratic process) power. I find that WE are to blame for the government supposedly being big and “tyrannical”. Don’t put the blame on the folks in Congress if you voted for them, because YOU are the problem. I have also learned that Americans preach all about individual rights and private property and that if anyone tramples on them, they are tyrannical and ought to be dealt with, yet in the very same argument, it is ok to do such things as make abortions illegal, gun control unconstitutional, many other social welfare programs unconstitutional, taxes being a fraud and “forced theft” and the like. Do you realize Americans, even with all the myriad number of taxes, pay a VERY low tax burden against most of the world? Stop defending an unequal system where money is more important than people because it is how the capitalist model works and anyone who is against that is a goddamn commie Socialist (not the same actually). I implore you to go find out about the Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland) and see how an egalitarian society that does what many over here call “socialist” and “un-American” has a better way of life than folks over here (look at the stats regarding health care, life expectancy, income EQUALity and so on). American ignorance will be the downfall of this country. Don’t say we’re exceptional unless you want to support policies that do that. Otherwise you’re wasting MY time and OTHER people’s time. Libertarians also feel it is ok that everything SHOULD and MUST be privatized, based on the predication that the government is wholly inefficient at doing the same thing, but again ignoring the fact that Medicare overhead, for instance, costs 2.7% while private insurance is around 13%, or SS overhead is about 1%, or the TANF program having 5% waste. Where is the inefficiency in that? And by the way, if you privatize everything, you enable the profit motive to take over, which means that those duties you entrust with the private sector will worry about their bottom line more than you. Don’t believe me? Look at the Fortune 500 companies. They receive billions in OUR money to subsidize their activities, while we are trying to make ourselves sustainable on this planet and having the natural stuff cost more than the artificial crap. They have been shown to cause environmental damage and do so for the cause of “improving the lot of the disadvantaged masses of the world”. Yea so paying them dimes and quarters on the hour will REALLY help them, right? I guess you forgot that 1.5-2 billion live on an average of around $1-2/day, and that the idea of helping them out is tantamount to “handouts”. In conclusion, Libertarianism is a flawed philosophy based on the notion of freedom and liberty, yet feels that taxes are a theft to society (taxes are the prices one pays to live in a civilized society, according to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.), single-payer universal health care is socialized medicine (it’s not; Medicare is a single-payer system for those over 65, where the public pays and it is privately delivered) and that charity is the best way to go (yes, just ask the folks who lived in the Depression if “charity” helped them out). Sorry, but I think most folks would want to keep what there is, because we like government more than you do.
First of all, the US IS exceptional, and here is the proof. Millions of immigrants risk their lives to come here both legally and illegally.
How many people risk their lives to immigrate to Mexico or Cuba?
You want to talk about Medicare overhead? OK, what about the fraud that occurs in Medicare vs. the fraud that occurs with medical insurance? Which has better control on the fraud? We see commercials almost every day on TV for “free scooters” if you are on medicare!
Yep, there ARE billions that live on $2 a day, but you also have to take into account the cost of living. For example, it costs much more to live in California than it does in Mississippi, however homes cost less, taxes are less, and many other costs are less.
It is funny that you complain about ” an unequal system where money is more important than people…” but then was “income equality”
So it is greedy to earn and keep your hard earned money but it is not greedy to want some of their money for yourself even though you did not earn it? Really???
OK, so you want to talk about business subsidies. You don’t like them right? Is that for all businesses or just ones that you don’t like? Should we get rid of the windmill and solar power subsidies? What about ethanol? Let’s get rid of those subsidies too, OK? What about all the farm subsidies?
Oh, and sure, charity is a good thing, but forcing someone to pay for others is NOT charity.
first of all only mexicans risk their lives to come here..and that says NOTHING about america and EVERYTHING about mexico….if they bordered canada or the UK for instance,they would be risking their lives to go their also..they are NOT risking their lives to get here they are risking their lives to get OUT of mexico and that is a fact. secondly where else does this happen? EVERYWHERE AROUND THE GLOBE..example…people are flooding out of albania into italy and italy isnt even that good but albania is a disaster..people are flooding out of alabania to almost EVERY industrialized nation on earth….so with your logic since albanians are risking their lives crossing the border to get into italy,is italy exceptional? and about your “forced” bull..NOBODY is being forced to do ANYTHING..nobody is being forced to pay taxes.period….first off ,although u dont have a choice where u are born u DO have a choice where to live and if u CHOOSE to live here then u are CHOOSING to pay taxes..secondly the government cant “choose” to not let u use the roads therefore you shouldnt have a “choice” whether to pay for them….
FIN, is only you knew what you were talking about? Did you know that people from Cuba risk their live in little boats to come live in the US? Why do so many people stay in the US after their visas have expired? Any idea?
Nobody is forced to pay taxes? Really FIN? What happens to you if you do not pay your taxes? Maybe you should ask Wesley Snipes or Willie Nelson what happens?
You better quit while you are ahead….. nevermind, WAY too late for that!!!
the cuba argument is IDENTICAL to the mexican argument..they were NOT risking their lives to get here they were risking their lives to get OUT of cuba…and if the uk was 90 miles from cuba and the united states was where UK was,guess where they would be going? THE UK!!!!! if u deny that then your hopeless….and what happens if u REFUSE to abdide by the law? u go to jail..like you SHOULD…but u are CHOOSING to live where you do,therefore u are CHOOSING to abide by the laws of said place,one of which is taxation,therefore u are CHOOSING to pay taxes..if u dont not wish to pay taxes then u are allowed to move out of the united states..nobody is forcing you to live in the united states and nobody is going to put u in jail for moving to ,say canada? or better yet a libertrain uptopia,somehwre like somalia,where the government is “SMALL” and there are NO taxes….why dont u move to somalia if u love small government,no regulation,no taxation,no coercion from the government,ect…somalia has EVERYTHING u are fighting for ,why are u choosing not to live in a place that is the epitome of libertarianism?
Seriously DAN? So why don’t these people that are risking their lives go anywhere else?
You gotta have a better explanation than THAT! Why would people in Cuba want to leave? They have free healthcare there, don’t they?
OK, so you go to jail if you do not pay your taxes. SO it really isn’t optional as you claim then, is it?
So you admit that you are wrong when you say that paying taxes is “optional”, right?
Man!!!! This is just to easy!
paying taxes is not optional but it is OPTIONAL where u live…u have a choice where to live…if u choose to live here then u are choosing to abside by the law,one of which is taxation..this is an easy concept…if u dont abdide by the law u go to jail..you are CHOOSING to not abide by the law if u dont pay taxes.just like if u murdered someone u would go to jail because its against the law …..nobody is forcing you to live here…but by doing so u are agreeing to the social contract…a part of that social contract is TAXATION..and if u dont not wish to pay taxes u are free to leave.nobody is forcing u to stay here..therefore u are CHOOSING to pay taxes…this is very easy shall i repeat myself?
So the bottom line is that paying taxes are not optional, right?
Wow. I didn’t know it was possible to cram so many straw men and misconceptions into a single paragraph. As a libertarian, I’m appalled at the level of ignorance of not just yourself, but most of the anti-tea-party and anti-libertarian ranters on this website. I’ll just pick a few items since it would take forever to point-by-point show where you are wrong on pretty much everything you posted.
re: Using government functions. Anti-libertarians act as if roads, fire, police, etc. couldn’t exist without government. Private systems could replace virtually all of these functions. Most libertarians understand that you can’t just “cut off” everything because the system has developed over the years where many facets of life are completely taken over by government and the private sector completely squeezed out so these facets would have to be transitioned to a private system over time.
re: Living constitution. No libertarian suggests that things should be locked in to the exact wording of the 18th century. We agree the Constitution was designed as a living document to change with the times. However, that process was lined out by the Framers (amendment process) and that’s all we ask you Progressives to honor. Quit ruling by fiat or using the power of the courts to twist the meaning of the Constitution, amendments, and passed laws beyond what they were intended. America was never intended to be a tyranny of the majority nor a place that property owners feared the government or voting blocs of the underclass. A great deal of the Federalist Papers dealt with how to protect property owners from mob rule and defend private liberty from the tyranny of government.
re: Equality vs. Slavery. Slavery existed long before the Framers. They punted on the issue simply because the USA would have come apart had they attempted to deal with it then. As it was, they put the process in place (3/5 compromise) to weaken the southern states over the long haul until the country was ready to deal with slavery.
re: Nordic countries. If you think they do it better, then move, you do not belong here. Our country is an experiment to do things differently than any other government in history by creating the most libertarian (i.e. Classical Liberalism) experience ever attempted where individual freedom (not collective) and individual property rights (not socialist or collective) trump everything. If you want to nibble around at the edges of the experiment, then do it via the political process and amendment process. If you don’t agree with the core founding principal and think Sweden is golden (or Cuba, or England, or France, or …), then you need to pack your stuff and get out of the country and quit trying to sabotage the experiment because YOU think you know better than the Framers and think collective is better than individual.
re: Medicare overhead. I’m shocked how bad Progressives are with numbers. Do you want to know why the overhead for Medicare is 2.7% while private is 13%? It’s because you are using raw dollars spent. The most expensive patient, dollar-wise, is one at the end of his/her life. Medicare has a disproportionately large amount of those patients. Medicare, therefore, spends a disproportionately large amount of money for fewer patients making it appear more efficient when using raw dollars spent. If you switch over to a more logical measuring model, i.e. per-capita, then you find that private insurance companies beat the living crap out of Medicare not only in efficiency per-person, but also in fraud. Progressives switch over to the raw dollars spent model to try to hide the fact that Medicare, while better than nothing, sucks ass compared to private insurance on virtually every level. Also, your numbers on TANF are subject to debate. I’ve seen numbers where in 2005 NY had an improper payment rate of 28% and MI of 40%. In 2006 and 2007, OH had an improper payment rate of 21%. One other point, private insurance companies usually run a profit margin around 4%. Medicare wastes an estimated 2.5 times that (10%) meaning Medicare’s waste dwarfs any profits made by the evil corporations.
re: corporations. Progressive policies are what makes corporations powerful. Regulations, tax breaks, intellectual property rights, you name it all give corporations a leg up to corporations vs. the competition. Coercive monopolies are not created by free-market capitalism, but rather the government. Government IS the major barrier to competition in the marketplace. Also, not all Fortune 500 companies are bad nor do even a large percentage of them receive subsidies from we the people. Tax breaks are not technically subsides (taking money from us to give to them). Bottom line is that you completely misrepresent what a libertarian free market would be like. Libertarians want a free market where everyone is treated equally and corporations have to survive competition from others without the Government to protect their market share. We also believe everyone (including corporations) must be held responsible for environmental damage they do (oil spills, etc.) or for harm they cause to others (dangerous product), but by that same token they should all be allowed to reap their rewards unhindered when they play by the rules.
re: taxes. Libertarians aren’t against taxes. We all agree taxes were meant to be used to run the government. The problem comes when taxes are taken to be used to buy votes of a voting bloc by giving them something (like EIC). The other problem is when you take taxes to give someone “insurance” that’s not really insurance but rather subsidized medicine which is the primary driver of the health problem to begin with (see re: health).
re: health. I think Chris nailed a lot of stuff above, though I don’t agree with everything. He left out, for instance, that one of the drivers of corporate provided health services was the Progressive attempts at wage control which left corporations scrambling to find other ways to compensate employees and thus “benefits” were born. Chris also missed that we arbitrarily limit our supply of health providers because of our ridiculous university accreditation system which prevents our education system from scaling with the population contributing to runaway education costs. Chris also missed that we arbitrarily limit our supply of health providers because of the board certification process for licensed medical providers. Both make it incredibly difficult to churn out new doctors to keep up with the population, and the ones that do have $100K’s of loans they have to pay back when they start their careers. Chris was correct about catastrophic and HSA’s. If insurance was really insurance and protected people from rare disaster (i.e. a very bad health ailment or surgery that would be financially ruinous), then we’d have a different landscape than we have today. Instead, a person gets either private insurance or a government plan and then pretty much don’t care what a doctor or hospital charges because they are only responsible for a small portion (copay or %). There is no competition or doctor/hospital shopping because the patient doesn’t pay the full bill and pretty much doesn’t care. Contrast that with laser eye surgery, for instance, that sees prices going DOWN every year because of competition of providers and technology improvements in the marketplace because insurance doesn’t pay for it preventing providers from padding their numbers. So Obamacare or any other single payer system will just make the problems even worse. A gradual move away from the current system into catastrophic only plans and HSA’s would eventually force the marketplace to begin to look like the laser eye surgery marketplace (assuming you fix the doctor shortage problem as well). Virtually all of this would be libertarian in principle because it’s actually the government interferences in the marketplace that has created the problem in the first place and prolongs it today.
There are several big inaccuracies in Kain’s statements but the biggest is calling “Obamacare” a “single-payer system.” A single payer system is funded entirely by taxpayer dollars and the government pays the medical bills. It is really just a matter of the government taking the place of the insurance companies. “Obamacare” is a government mandate. Coercive, yes, but designed to force everyone who can to pay their own share of costs to lower costs for everyone. This mandate puts money in private hands rather than public hands (it essentially coerces the public to buy the insurance company’s product regardless of its quality) and does not resolve the essential issue that the health insurance model as it exists now is unsustainable but it does not come even close to creating a single-payer system. One of the basic flaws of “Obamacare” is how little it actually changes the existing system, while forcing people to buy into it who were not before. It is similar to the auto insurance mandates in every state that have simply led to a proliferation of junk liability policies people spend money on just to obey the law. It is less a “single-payer” system than it is corporate welfare, the government forcing citizens to bail out the health insurance industry by purchasing a failed product.
Almost as (or more, depending on one’s point of view) egregious is the intellectual dishonesty which Kain is repeating in the claim that we have a “shortage of doctors.” We have enough doctors. Our shortfalls fall into three areas: general practitioners (residents move toward higher paid specialties as soon as their residency ends because that is where the money is.), family medicine (for the same reason), and non-profit hospitals. Traditionally the majority of hospitals were non-profit, either public or charitable, now the majority of hospitals in this country are for-profit. It is the proliferation of for-profit hospitals that has most reduced general access to health care. The current system of medical insurance evolved to pay for care at these for-profit hospitals which, in turn, created a for-profit medical insurance industry that cannot cover its own costs. If anything, the current system is a perfect example of a failed privatization scheme.
Chris,
You’re wrong on both counts. I may have been lazy in my wording, but I didn’t call Obamacare a single payer system. I was saying that the two solutions of people on the left: Obamacare or some other single payer system all make the problem worse by not fixing the competition problem. The “some other” wasn’t meant to imply Obamacare was single payer but rather to say “some other solution like for instance single payer systems”.
You’re also wrong on the doctor shortage part as well. Simply typing in “doctor shortage USA” in Google pulls up a list of articles both left wing and right wing echoing the doctor problem. I live in a metro area and finding GP’s are certainly difficult, but far easier than finding these greedy specialists you talk about. Worse yet, a lot of the specialists I run into are people who moved over here from India or something. I hardly see how that is the problem of the hospital system, for-profit, or privatization. Besides, your logic breaks down with just simple analysis. Most people who get sick simply need a GP, not a specialist. If most of the doctors decided they wanted to be specialists instead of GP’s because of greed and profit, they wouldn’t have enough work to keep them busy and would end up playing golf 3 days a week. Instead, almost every specialist here has a waiting list to get in to see them unless it’s life threatening. I can usually find a GP within 2-3 phone calls and get in same day. Point is, there’s not shortage of GP’s or FM’s because everyone is specializing for profit. There’s a shortage across the board. Even if what you are saying was true (which it’s not), in a free market system where there were more and more doctors available, eventually you’d have more doctors than patients in the “high profit” fields triggering either doctors moving to GP or FM due to lack of work, or simply price guts due to competition. Simple supply and demand.
Oooohhh! There we go, Kain, big evil “greed and profit”! In case you don’t know, doctors usually have HUGE school bills they have to pay for. Colleges don’t teach for free! Who is going to tell the doctors what type of medicine they have to practice? Who has the right to tell people what job they have to do?
Last time I checked, people in the US have choices of what kind of job they would like to do.
@Nestor
I said that sarcastically. I’m on your side. If it were not for better profits, why would any sane person decide to give up GP for a specialty that is significantly harder, the equipment often costs significantly more, and then you have the risks of lawsuits if things don’t go well. I’d rather see dozens of people a day with the sniffles as a GP if there were no rewards for the specialties.
Chris, you say “for profit” as if it is a bad thing! I presume you have a job, you work “for profit”, don’t you?
So is it bad for anybody but you to make a profit?
@Nestor
What kills me is these left-wing moonbats attack companies like insurance that have a 4-5% profit margin or hospitals that have a 6-8% profit margin (if they are lucky, 25% of hospitals lost money in 2010) as if for-profits are the reason the whole system is collapsing. It’s absurd. We pay more in sales taxes on items at Wal-mart than the for-profits skim for profits. Heck, the amount hospitals write off for treating patients for free or unpaid bills almost equals their profit margin every year. There’s no arguing that health costs are skyrocketing, but when you slice it all down, it’s not because of capitalism.
Kain, the solution to people not paying their hospital bills is NOT forcing everyone else to pay for it. The solution it to give them 6 months to start making payments and if they don’t start making payments, start garnishing their income (no matter from what source), say 10% of their income until it is paid off or they work out a payment plan. Earnings are garnished for child support by many states already, so the system is in place already.
“anti libertarians act as though these things couldnt exist without government—pertaining to roads,fire,police,etc…..the hypocrisy is almost comical with you libertarians,u accuse the last poster of using strawmans and within the VERY FIRST argument u present and the very first sentence of said argument consist of a strawman….NOBODY thinks those things cant exist without government and we KNOW they could exist in one of your fantasy pipe dreams of libertarianism if it were applied in reality….we KNOW those thing could exist..the PROBLEM is certain things shouldnt be about profits and NONE of those things could exist in your twisted worldview without the profit motive..which means the fire department would be a for profit entity..which means they would have to charge u if ur house caught on fire…and who would open a for profit fire department in a the ghetto where people just dont have the funds to PAY the fired department….certain things are moral issues and NOT profit issues,such as healthcare..i feel as though healthcare is a moral issue,u think its a profit issue and that is disgusting and IMMORAL…again ill cite some hypocrisy of libertarians….u say taxation if forced through coercion..u say coercion is bad bcos it is immoral…..well putting PROFITS above peoples LIVES is the utter epitome of immoral..yet your ok with that and against universal healthcare? some things like fire,police,ect should NEVER be ran in a for-profit manner…image in the police were a for profit entity ..they would be arresting EVERYBODY willfully bcos they could fine them thus make more money..the profit motive would DESTROY any concept of protection or police…and now on to your bs argument about the medicare overhead…your condemning liberals for skewing the number and basically not comparing apples to apples..again the hypocrisy is APPALLING! bcos then u try to compare a RETIREMENT plan ( medicare) to a private plan that consist of EVERYONE….u INTENTIONALLY did the same exact thing your condemning us for…your skewing the number to support your bogus theory…when trying to compare private to medicare u have to do ONLY retired people at the end of their lives…OF COURSE medicare ,which is comprised of THE ELDERLY is going to loose per capita with private insurers whose clientele is OVERWHELMING not elderly…..so your argument is disingenuous at best and an INTENTIONAL lie at worst….so those two things are DEBUNKED…shall i continue? the doctors acced. system? are u delusional? so u think the doctors who have our LIVES and our CHILDREN’S lives in their hands should not have a strict vetting process? that argument doesnt even deserve a rebuttal…and 100k in loans is NIL compared to their DESERVED salaries,so that point is moot also..your just trying to use a form of scare tactics by invoking big numbers..but when put in scale and context its NOTHING.the average doctor makes TWICE that amount within 5 years of his practice PER YEAR..and some doctors make 5 times that amount per year….so its basically the equivalent of paying 5 thousand for your education if u made 25k a year…as for your bullshit argument about people not caring what they pay for medical procedures..that is utterly ridiculous and naive..if i get into a car accident and break my neck im not going to shop around for the best price first….and price should NOT be a factor when dealing with saving peoples LIVES…get real..again this goes back to the moral argument..u think healthcare should be a profit issues whereas i think its a MORAL issue…..and what makes your opinion superior to mine? u think taxation is force and coercion and coercion is immoral..i dont,what makes your opinion superior to mine? and why is coercion bad bcos its immoral but you sick and twisted view of how healthcare should be provided is immoral but thats ok? either things that immoral are bad,or they are not..u cant have it both ways..u cant cherry pick the shit u like and declare it ok while condemning other things u dont like as immoral therefore bad….its hypocrisy at its best and just arbitrary…and the problem with you false equivalency of laser eye surgery is the FACT that eye surgery is a CHOICE..an elective surgery whereas 99% of medical procedure is NOT….thats like comparing breast implants to heart surgery..heart surgery is going to be expensive REGARDLESS of competition..PERIOD..and the average person will NEVER be able to afford heart surgery. so your catastrophe idea is useless…the poor would be stuck going WITHOUT any medical treatment whatso ever bcos they couldnt afford it .EVEN IF IT WAS CHEAP..whereas the rich would get whatever they wanted,like they are now..but the poor will be confined to only getting medical treatment in the RARE instance of catastrophic emergencies…the infection rates would soar and there would be near epidemic rates of influenza pneumonia ect..bcos people wouldnt be able to afford treatment and would just suffer and ride it out..thus prolonging their illness thus spreading it to even more people who also couldnt afford treatment..the domino effect would be CATASTROPHIC..so maybe ur right..catasophric insurance would work wonders in that case….is there anything else u would like me to debunk while im at it? and its NOT government inference that causes the problems..its FRAUD,GREED and CORRUPTION all of which would still exist in your pipe dream fantastical free market society..unless your trying to HUMAN NATURE would evaporate in a free market and that corruption greed and fraud would just disappear and would cease to exist? well actually that goes along pretty good with libertarianism…just plain false and make believe and naive…
When it comes to libertarians here is an appropriate quote:
“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
- Wolfgang von Goethe
“…rejecting government solves nothing. It’s like rejecting food: The real issue isn’t to reject food, it’s to eat healthful food, and to avoid poisonous food. Similarly, the real issue isn’t to reject government, it’s to support good government, and to oppose bad government.
And so, too, the issue isn’t whether government should be “small,” or “big,” but rather that it should be the best size to serve the public, who must bear its costs.
In other words: Libertarianism entirely avoids the real question, which is: What type of government is good? As an “ideology,” libertarianism doesn’t even make it to first base: it’s fake, from the get-go. That’s why libertarianism fails.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-libertarianism-fails
Fail.
Show me a libertarian that advocates for rejection or abolishment of the state, and I’ll show you an anarchist … not a libertarian. Once again, you’ve proven that the modern American liberal mindset is largely incapable of thinking for itself and must instead rely upon canned conversations, manufactured articles, and divisive talking points.
I’d present you with a true definition of libertarianism, but my guess is that you’ve spent much of your life and formal education being spoon-fed the information that you’ve acquired. Do yourself and the world a favor by researching the subject on your own. Then, feel free to report back to us on the libertarian positions relative to the size and functionality of the state.
Every Libertarian I have met at my University has been a spoiled rotten kid. Their parents pay for their education, they have never had a hard day in their lives,they have the newest IPADS, Iphones, etc. and have never held a full time job This kid is insane with his reasoning behind his mother’s death. I feel sorry for him and his future children. My parents are conservsative repubs and even they say the Libertarians are insane….
You should meet me, then. I used to go to the beach to dig out the bugs and eat them when I was a kid. And I thought of them as a delicacy.
But that doesn’t matter the least. Obama was also born into a life of privilege and never had a hard day in his life. Are you grilling him too?
A person’s experiences do not disqualify their opinions.
“Obama was also born into a life of privilege and never had a hard day in his life. ”
This is a very interesting statement. Now justify it. Describe President Obama’s life of wealth and privilege factually. I do not deny that he has had political success that will likely make him quite wealthy when he leaves politics. Nor will I deny that he is more affluent than I am now.
However he was born to a soon-divorced mother who supported him by working two jobs, sent him to live with her parents at one point because she could not afford to work two jobs and provide basic care on the level he deserved, and went to college on a scholarship he earned through hard work rather than being paid for by his parents.
I am hardly a fan of the President. I think he is a center-right pragmatist who has more in common with the Scoop Jackson school of neoconservatism than with my own far more left-wing ideals, but try to get the facts of his biography straight.
Daniel, your source on your claim about Obama? He was the product of a single parent family. Believe me, it’s rare for that to result in a “life of privilege”. Oh, BTW, that source doesn’t count if it’s FOX news!
That’s is a pretty broad generalization.
As usual, I am amazed by how brilliant Libertarians think they are while not comprehending basic logic.
Spot on! take conflation and distortion away from a libertarian and they are speechless!
Almost every pro-libertarian statement to this point has included a definitive argument as to why their particular position is justifiable, practical, and applicable. Every pro-liberal and pro-conservative statement has been in the vein of yours – baseless, indefensible, and purely rhetorical. Seems to me that the libertarians have the upper hand when it comes to knowledge of the issues. Of course, you could astonish us all by simply revealing the “basic logic” that you seem to grasp, which simultaneously eludes the feeble-minded libertarians.
So, spell it out for the world to read. How does a person’s perceived “right’ to health care trump another person’s natural right to freely associate?
I don’t understand why it is that people have such a hard time with the concept of paying into a system so that we can all benefit from it. Seriously. It isn’t brain surgery. We live in a civilized society based on the enlightenment philosophy of Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. We are a society that is based on the idea of the social contract, where we give up some of our natural sovereignty as human beings (and in a 21st century commerce- and credit-driven society, that includes MONEY) in order to have the benefits that come with living in said civilized society. We have also grown as a society in terms of what it means to be happy, healthy, and all those other really heart-warming buzz words that make people feel warm and fuzzy, so we don’t have an 18th century view of what that means. We have a 21st century view. I don’t mind paying into the system because one day, I will benefit from it in a significant way, as will man, woman, and child in the US. Unless, of course, you know someone who doesn’t age, doesn’t get sick, and won’t one day die.
Whoa Nelly, what are doing? Your bringing in philosophical ideas that libertarians don’t understand. libertarians regurgitate little more than nonsense and corporate propaganda. Locke, Rousseau and the Enlightenment, you really are taking the libertarians to task, they don’t know that libertarians were originally…Liberals.
You mean just like how you don’t understand that the while Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu are all from the “enlightenment” era, they all had vastly different ideas and you can’t lump them in as all modern liberals or libertarians???
For instance, Rousseau may agree with a modern liberal in a sense on private property rights, but his philosophy of government only works on homogenous societies where pretty much everyone has the same ethnicity, religion, etc. He was more city-state type of government than the modern liberal’s federal monstrosity that forces all to bow down to it for the “common good”. The city-state government was small enough for a homogenous people to collectively come to a government that benefited everyone because they were all, well, alike and thought alike and nobody was slighted by the government they all agreed on. I would also place Rousseau in with influences of the French Revolution (bad) vs. the American Revolutions (good).
Locke, on the other hand, was big on individual property rights and a great influence on modern day libertarians. Much of his work runs directly CONTRARY to modern day liberals. He would be an influence of the American Revolution and modern day libertarianism.
Montesquieu is mainly known for separation of powers believing that this would protect individual liberty from the tyranny of government. Some of the Founders borrowed from him for the 3 branches of government we have today. Montesquieu’s beliefs are somewhat naively utopian in that no government, separated or otherwise, in history has ever been prevented from going down the path to tyranny with even the British and American governments now being quazi-socialist soft tyrannies.
Bottom line, classical liberal does not equal social liberal, but rather it more closely resembles libertarian. You liberals should really stop name-dropping philosophers whom you know nothing about or you might get schooled by a libertarian. You’re welcome.
No one has anything against paying into a system so everyone can benefit from it. What we’re against is being forced to pay into a monopolistic system that has no incentive to provide the best service for the cheapest price. Most of your tax dollars are used to fund the bureaucracies required to collect your tax dollars in the first place. They don’t go to anyone’s health care. That’s not to mention grafting, corruption, etc.
Voluntary solidarity and charity are wonderful and noble things and everyone should do them. Taxation is theft and it’s never used they say they will use it.
You mean like what we had before the Affordable Healthcare Act, where insurance companies had no more incentive than to protect the bottom line, which included practices like denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, managed healthcare that failed to provide the maximum benefit available for the cost, and astronomical costs to patients, and that’s just for starters, and that’s if you had access to coverage at all. Yeah…paying into a system that not everyone had access to, and that includes some people who paid into the system.
Taxation isn’t theft. Taxation is the price of living in a civilized society and reaping the benefits of that society. Most of my tax dollars seem to go into a bloated defense budget, while a drop in the bucket goes into the “beaurocracies.” And what monopolistic system are you talking about? There is no monopoly in healthcare. There is a menagerie of private insurance carriers out there. I fail to see any monopoly there.
Jason, we see how well incentives are working at the federal government level now, don’t we? They have zero understanding of making programs financially sound, they just keep creating and spending money that we don’t have. As has been shown, the “Affordable Care Act” is not very affordable. Premiums have gone up since the law passed, but it was promised that premiums would go down.
Then avoid all local, city, state and national roadways, all libraries, all public schools from the youngest to the State colleges and universities, do not use fire or rescue services and remove all safety devices from cars, tools, etc. Remember, all those “socialist” evils are paid for with tax dollars, and have been for several thousands of years.
While I am not a millionaire or billionaire, should I ever become one, I will appreciate you fighting for my right to refuse to pay for the upkeep of the society I am allowed to participate in every day and thrive in.
This is a simple matter: Either one is selfish, or one is not. Libertarians are selfish. Period.
Yeah, tell that to all those libertarians who donate their money to charity, do voluntary work for the poor, etc. Tell that to the guy down there who shelters three homeless kids in his basement and pays for their needs. Tell that to economist Bob Murphy, who offered to donate over 70,000 dollars to a food bank if only the ultra-liberal Paul Krugman accepted to debate him (predictably, Paul Krugman refused).
Charley, you are confused, it is NOT selfish or greedy to want to keep your hard earned money, it IS greedy and selfish to want to take others hard earned money!
Libertarians are idiots. Austin and some if these commenters prove this.
freedom works is right wing front group funded by big business to promote so-called “libertarian” ideology. In practice libertarian ideology is thinly veiled corporate propaganda.
“Corporations with their political allies are waging an
unrelenting class war against working people. A vast social engineering
project is being implemented under the guise of fiscal responsibility. In
this latest incarnation of class warfare…”
Class Warfare
Noam Chomsky
Interviews with David Barsamian
This is the laziest cop-out argument ever. Instead of demonstrating how someone’s argument is flawed, you simply imply that they have ulterior reasons to say what they’re saying.
I’m unemployed, by the way, but I’d be happy to work for freedom works if they want to hire me.
By the way, if corporations love us so much, why isn’t the Libertarian Party the most well-funded party of all? Why do these big corporations seem to keep donating to Obama instead of, say, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson?
The answer is easy: big corporations can only exist with the help of government regulations. Without government to create regulations that eliminate competition those corporations would never grow to their size. Often times, those regulations are drafted by the very own corporations they are supposed to regulate.
I don’t have insurance, and yet I can go to a clinic for $70. I also went in for urgent care and got a bill for $1600…after talking to their financial department they covered the bill because I make under a certain amount. Anyone can do this and I do not understand these stories of people not finding care when being unable to afford insurance. While I agree we need better options as I certainly cannot get by on this forever, but forcing people to buy socialized healthcare
Are you willing to do this for cancer treatments that span years? What about other chronic ailments? Are you so certain the hospital would be willing to negotiate on this sort of ongoing expense? What if you simply don’t have enough to pay even the negotiated amount? You presume to know the solution, but are very narrow-minded in your understanding of the struggles others face.
The solution you presume to know is the solution of force. You would see others forced by the state, which is ultimately at the point of a gun, to provide a service, or fund it, against their will. You justify theft or even enslavement if it saves one life, this is the mindest of a tyrant.
As a former Libertarian/Randian Objectivist…..as one who worked years ago very very hard for John Koon for Senate here in Michigan…..all I got to say is libertarianism is a fine philosophy, but it does NOT work, nor will it ever in the real world. The free market can no more exist than rare elements that degrade within seconds of their creation. The reason is simple…..wealth creates privilege, and privilege creates an imbalance in the free market which then is no longer a free market. So yes, government is necessary….and if you don’t like paying for certain things, well that is just too bad because I don’t like paying for other things that you probably love. Put on your big boy underwear, stop whining and if you are SOOO upset about paying for something well then don’t do it. Pay the penalty, and as the jail cells fill with righteous people who are oppressed, the government will change the rules. Either that, or just kill yourself.
William,
You are already paying for others health care. We decided, as a nation, that it was inhumane to let people die on the doorsteps of the emergency room. We could not, in good conscience, stand by and watch people die. It’s not just inhumane. It’s immoral. And so when folks get care and cannot pay, the health industry provides that care and then passes the cost on to the rest of us.
That is how it has been for many many years.
So now YOU have a personal moral choice to make…a decision about what is and is not moral. Two choices, William. Let them die….or save them. And if you let them die you get to live with that….and then you can decide whether or not what you chose was the mindset of a tyrant…or simply that of a cold, apathetic narcissist. There is no middle ground.
Faith, the whole “let them die” argument is a false choice. The solution is not to have us pay the government to cover these costs. It is to bill these people that go to the emergency room. Give them 60 days to start making payments or work out a payment plan. If they don’t make the payment, garnish their income from all sources.
It is called personal responsibility! Isn’t personal responsibility a “personal moral choice”? If they made the conscious decision to not buy insurance and take the risk of not being covered if they go to the ER, they must be responsible for paying the bill themselves.
THERE is your “middle ground”!
Abe if these people cannot afford to pay to go see a doctor, how are they going to afford to pay for (although cheaper in the long run) insurance, even if it is mandated?
doubtless all of the “libertarians” posting on this also work for freedomwerks.com. freedomwerks.com is a corporate propaganda outlet.
There are some places in the U.S. that have the kind of care you describe, but many do not. There is a clinic in a neighboring city, but the care is somewhat substandard, and the wait can kill you. There are some people who can’t afford a $70 charge for a clinic visit. Others have chronic illnesses that would break the bank under the system you describe.
That’s right. You have no insurance. You get your hospital bills excused. That is because we taxpayers are already your safety net. It’s just not a fair safety net.
JohnnyO Guess who pays the balance of the bill you got? Taxpayers
man u might just to to simple minded to even respond to…but i cant let this go unchallenged…..first off not everybody has 70$ the exact moment they need treatment…PERIOD..end of discussion.i dont want to hear about any hypothetical situations or bullshit theories of how people should or could save money in case it happens….MOST people live pay checvk to check which LITTERALLY means they have NOTHING untill pay day and their bills cost equal or more then they make..which means they do NOT have 70$ …especially unexpectedly..like if u all of the sudden caught the flu..then u couldnt go to work,u miss a couple days pay ect.ect…some people do NOT have 70$..so your point is moot…secondly a 1600$ bill is PEANUTS…if u needed emergency surgery to save your life it wouldnt be 1600 and a provider would laugh in your face if u asked them to eat the cost…you would be on the hook for it and people are forced to go into bankruptcy over a live saving medical treatment for which they had NOP CHOICE but to do….that is inexcuseable….lastly your so nieve that its disturbing….do u know why they didnt make u pay? they didnt make u pay bcos u met the low income criteria…and GUESS WHO PAYS FOR THAT???….u gave a GREAT example of why we need obamacare……bcos you REFUSED to get adequet healthcare insurance and now you are FORCING us to pay for YOUR healthcare through our taxes…but thats ok? and obamacare isnt? the utter hypocricy of u people is disgusting…again its ok that YOU focred me to pay for YOUR healthcare..by ur own admission..YOUR own words PROVE my position and PROVES your hypocricy and total lack of knowledge on this subject….so its wrong to force people to buy their own insurance ,aka obamacare care which is a MANDATE and NOT soclialized medicine,but its not of for you to force everyone else to pay for your healthcare needs?
Thom Hartmann is most assuredly related to Piers Morgan.
Was Jesus Christ a libertarian? Of course it is unfair to ask whether the founder of Christianity would agree with a political movement developed over a thousand years after His death. But it is not unfair to inquire if Christ’s beliefs would be in agreement with this movement. The Libertarian movement is initially tied into John Locke’s writings which strongly influenced the ideas of the Founding Fathers, and focuses upon constitutionalism, protection of property, Natural Law and Natural Rights. It presumes a government of basics, doing only those necessary things which individuals cannot reasonably do themselves—like building an interstate highway system or fielding an army. (from a interesting article)
When Jesus taught the lesson that we are our brother’s keeper, he appealed to peoples’ sense of love, duty, and reason. He did not enlist the Roman army to force others into the desired role.
Not to mention, when Satan tempted him in the wilderness, he offered him all the earthly governments to control (which Jesus could have used to accomplish whatever ‘social justice’ he saw fit). Jesus promptly rejected the command and use of these instruments.
You don’t change peoples’ hearts by pointing guns at them.
If rights are from our creator then we don’t need the government to provide them. Read the declaration of independence and try to comprehed it before referring to it. Government is to “protect and maintain individual rights”. What is this clown talking about? I can’t even begin to understand his logic
So I guess all that charity work I do makes me a heartless selfish bastard. Odd. :/
Its sounds to me like the majority of you just don’t get it. Small-l libertarians (like myself) have no problem with society providing healthcare. We believe it is something that can be (and is) done through charitable organizations. We believe forcing someone to pay into the pot is evil but allowing people to exercise freedom of choice to pay into the pot is as it should be. We’re not heartless (generally speaking libertarians give more time and money to charity than most other political types) and we’re not in favor of no government (that would be anarchists). We simply understand that the more power you allow government to exercise the biggest the abuses will be.
The funny thing is that history has proven us correct yet few people will admit it. The economies of the west are stagnant or failing. Governments are hugely in debt. Most countries with nationalized healthcare are facing crushing debt in large part due to the healthcare. Yet, people blinding keep spouting the emotionalized drivel about “letting people die in the streets”. The sad truth is that you cannot blame the healthcare system in America for people suffering…you must blame yourself. If you stopped trying to let “someone else” in the government take care of the problem and got off your OPM ass and got involved then perhaps fewer people would suffer.
This dud is so diluted. By his own reasoning the pharmacist was just doing what any good capitalist would do, making his product into more so he could make more money. His mother should have taken responsibility for her own healthcare and gotten a chemical analysis done, stop blaming the pharmacist. He has to make profit after all, he went to school to be a pharmacist. What a tool. Currently at a 10 dollar an hour job I would have to work an extra 30 hours to afford healthcare do to a preexisting condition, our health care system is broken and Capitalism is the cause. Human life an health should not be part of the profit incentive program that Capitalism subscribes to.
So Capitalism is the cause of YOUR illness?
So move to North Korea and you’ll be cured!
I agree that Austin is not helping his cause with the way he is holding the debate, but I ultimately agree with him. We are so quick to try to find a government solution to our problems, but we don’t see what created the problem in the first place. Our elected officials are at fault for driving healthcare costs sky-high. They are the ones who helped create the housing bubble, bailed out the banks and let our economy suffer. They are the ones that have spent so much over the last century that we are now 16 trillion in debt. And now they offer us a solution that fits their own agenda: let us take control over healthcare and put trillions more on our credit cards. They created the problem – they created the solution. And we are too near-sighted to have any idea what they are up to.
Thom Hoffman seemed to have ignored the part where Paul raised $50,000 for his friend Kent. Liberals always turn this into a false dichotomy: it’s either all-for-yourself, or it’s government assistance. No – there is a third option: private assistance. We don’t need the government – we can help each other.
Totally agree. We don’t need the government – and good thing, since we know that what it does is mathematically unsustainable. If we advocate that people look to it for security and sustenance, we become liable for their plight, since we know it cannot provide what it promises.
Private assistance is what is sustainable. And I do believe we are our brother’s keeper – just not under threats of violence.
first off obamacare is said to save us TRILLIONS of dollars in the long run..and billions within the next ten years…thats not an opinion that from the NON BIAS non partisan most credible reserach center that we can cite….the CBO…so if u want to debate the FACT that obamacare saves BILLIONS then u must refute THEIR findings with EVIDENCE that accually exist in reality,not your opinion or hypotheticals…….so obamacare wont do nothing but help our deficet problem..secondly the government is NOT taking over healthcare that is the biggest strawman and exposes your total lack of knowledge on the subject..u should be embarrassed….obamacare deals with INSURANCE..and PRIVATE insurance at that..it does NOTHING to the medical treatment and has NOTHING to do with medicine or hospitals..NOTHING….”we can help each other”<–lol..is this the charitble donations argument? get real..we cant leave peoples LIVES up to chance and just hope that some good smaritan will donate money and just pretend there will be enough to go around…what if there NOT enough to go around? and lets just say,hypothetically,there is NOT enough to go around and a loser who refused to get insurance gets sick and is about to die without expensive treatment….yes he was irresponsbile,he was a loser,he smoked,EVERYTHING….he was the epitome of irresponsbile and had no job NOTHING…..does he deserve to die? bcos in your fantasical pipe dream free market society he will DIE..and your fine with that..he derves DEATH because he didnt have a job….that is IMMORAL..the literal epitome of immoral…yet your argument against coercion is its immoral? the hypocricy of you people is appalling
Wrong, Dan, ObamaCare will COST us money, not save us money!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-obamacare-mandate-will-cost-6-million-taxpayers-7-billion-in-2016/article/2508483
so let me get this str8..a far right wing extremist newspaper is more credible then the cbo? riiiiiight……can i cite msnbc? can i cite rachel maddow as an expert? would u accept an msnbc report? if so then i have HUNDREDS of references that “PROVE” it doesnt cost us 6B and SAVES our government trillions….
DAN, that “far right wing newspaper is quoting union leaders. Are those union leaders far right wing too?
Stop digging DAN!
Here is another report from the CBO about the cost of ObamaCare:
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html
You are not going to claim that Yahoo! and the CBO are far right wing now too, are you?
awwwww how cute..u dont understand the article…..listen sport your way over your head here and u dont understand or comprehend the material you citing…do you understand what the “net worth” is? that article is citing the net worth of obamacare over the next ten years…man this is getting tiresome and im actually starting to get embarrassed for you…this is almost as bad as the ” oabamcare is going to cost taxpayers 7 billion dollars”..muahahhahaha..u ignoramus..u actually fell hook line and sinker for the trickery and BOGUS misleading headline…and you wont even admit that u DIDNT UNDERSTAND IT…you said “derp..are those people not taxpayers..derp”…..when someone says taxpayers that LITERALLY means and ONLY means its going to cost TAX DOLLARS……why did your article PURPOSEFULLY say taxpayers and not PEOPLE? they did it to MISLEAD and u fell hook line and sinker…muahahahahah….every single person in this country is technically a “taxpayer” how much does mcdonalds cheeseburgers cost “taxpayers”? …u should be ashamed of yourself for citing such bias partisan hackery and LIES….that article about 6 million “taxpayers” does NOT say its getting paid for with tax dollars…OWNED
you should be embarrassed of yourself..do u even read the bull that youre citing? u are willfully ignorant….. that article does NOT say it will cost us money u simpleton…it does NOT say it will cost taxpayers ANY MONEY..it SPECIFICALLY SAYS it will cost 6 million PEOPLE about 7 billion dollars…bcos it will cost THOSE 6 million people 7 billion to purchase insurance or pay the penalty tax…muahhahahamuauhahaha u idiot..i under,being that your a libertarian or a conservative,that comprehension skills are not your strong suit…but ill talk slow……YOUR article does NOT say it will cost taxpayers any more money..it SPECIFICALLY SAYS it will cost 6 million PEOPLE 7 billion dollars..and the only reason it will cost them is bcos they ,hypothetically,will REFUSE to buy insurance and if they refuse to buy insurance then they will get a tax penalty…..and that is FAIR..bcos if they refuse to get insurance then they are FORCING me to pay for their healthcare when they show up to the ER and receive uncompensated care…..u just got owned….would u like me to debunk anything else sweetheart?….and by the way ..our population consist of over 300 MILLION people….and obamacare is only going to cost .005% of the population more money… thats POINT ZERO ZERO five PERCENT….. it will cost ONLY 6 million people money out of 300 FREAKIN MILLION…
dan, really? so those 6 million people that it will cost more money to aren’t taxpayers?
No those people that choose not to buy health insurance does NOT cost you a dime. How exactly is it costing you any money?
Again, the solution is to garnish the income of those that do not pay their hospital bills. States already do that for child support from deadbeat parents. The system is already in place. It can be done for hospitals as well.
Ok, so you claim that this will only cost 6 million people (.005% of the population) more money. But in another post, you claim that only 5 million do not have health insurance, so that is even LESS than the .005% of the population that you want to pay their bill!
You just dug yourself deeper into that hole dan, and I am NOT your sweetheart!
your strawmans are getting pathetic now sport…but i understand comprehension isnt your strong suit…when i quoted 6 million it was pertaining to your BOGUS website article you cited…..5 million is the accurate number of the uninsured…concerning your strawman attempt at trying to imply i cant do math,i already explained i made a mistake when i conflated your BOGUS reference with the TRUTH..there are about 5 million people who are uninsured right now…your BOGUS article claims 6 million..out of the 5 million people who are uninsured the OVERWHELMING majority of them WILL get insurance..leaving about .005% of the population who will refuse to get insurance…are u following me sport? or is the truth just too hard to grasp? you BOGUS website claimed 6 million people are currently insured and your BOGUS website claims that ALL 6 million people are going to REFUSE to get insurance….how do they know this? did they ask all 6 million people? or are they trying to make stuff up to better fit their BOGUS narrative that has been debunked ad nasuem?
dan, here is proof that your 5 million people do not have health insurance is “bogus”.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/19/501947/over-46-million-americans-dont-have-health-insurance/?mobile=nc
Go ahead, call this source “far right wing” I dare you!
Stop the digging dan!’
Man, this is SOOOOO easy!!!
man this is getting painful…u really have no idea what youre talking about nor do u grasp the material youre reading….this is pathetic that people like u get to vote….listen sport this is just over your head..i shouldnt have to explain all this to you….u CLEARLY havent done ANY research on this subject and CLEARLY refuse to read ANYTHING that doesnt fit your narrative…again i shouldnt have to point this stuff out to you, i shouldnt have to explain this to you…..when we are discussing the uninsured within the context of obamacare its 5 MILLION people who will be affected by the penalty tax bcos they are uninsured but meet the requirements otherwise..but just would potentially,refuse…….i mean didnt u find it a little odd that one cite was claiming 46 million and another RIGHT WING website was only claiming 6 million? i mean wtf did u think there was such a HUGE difference for? especially when the right wing website would foam at the mouth if they could use the number 46 million instead of 6 million…this is getting pitiful man….u need serious help…
dan, if I gave you a quarter, would you buy a clue?
Let’s go back to your claim that the middle class “pay income taxes” but they just get a refund. Well if they get ALL of their money refunded, they really aren’t paying income taxes, are they? In fact, if they are getting a big refund, it simply means that they had too much withheld from their paycheck, right?
Now, tell me, how many people do not have health insurance? is it 5 million or is it 46 million?
And if you add those millions of people to the health insurance roles, will they be more likely to go to the doctor when they get sick? So will there be a greater demand for doctor visits or less? And no more doctors are being added to the system, are there?
Now google the law of supply and demand, and find out what happens when demand goes up and supply does not.
“lets go back to you claim….”—muauahahahahahha EVERYBODY here can CLEARLY see u cant defend your position so your trying to change the subject…ive already went over this with u sport…refer to the past post about it…but in short people pay taxes all YEAR LONG..the government gets to USE THOSE FUNDS and collect interest on those funds where applicable…..then those people get a refund and there have been MULTITUDES OF STUDIES that PROVE beyond any possible other conclusion that when these "poor" people get a refund they spend it IMMEDIATELY and IN FULL…the overwhelming MAJORITY who get a refund spend the refund IMMEDIATELY AND ENTIRELY..dont tell me your going to dispute this FACT also? these people SPEND THEIR ENTIRE REFUND CHECK IMMEDIATELY..which LITERALLY means they are putting it DIRECTLY back into the system and paying taxes on it…this helps stimulate the economy on top of getting some of the tax revenue back….and these same people start PAYING TAXES IMMEDIATELY again for the year out of their checks….they NEVER stop paying taxes .PERIOD..they get a refund at the end of the year,after paying all year long..and they spend that refund ENTIRELY and put it right back into the system…and they begin paying taxes out of their checks IMMEDIATELY again..i mean how dont u understand this very simple concept with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support it?
“will these people be more likely to go to the doctor when they get sick”<—–do u have a hard time with reading comprehension? ive went over this AD NAUSEUM…..there have been DOZENS of studies to PROVE that when people get insurance,who did not have it prior..do NOT visit the doctor anymore then they PREVIOUSLY did when they had NO insurance..let me repeat bcos i know u have a hard time reading…..when people all of the sudden acquire insurance they do NOT visit the doctors more frequently then they did PRIOR to having said insurance..do u understand so far? people go to the doctors when they get SICK or when there is an emergency REGARDLESS if they have insurance or not…..people dont arbitrarily go to the doctors bcos they want to have a fun day off of work and miss a days pay and wait in a 2 hour waiting room…..u are willfully ignorant and u have NOTHING besides your hypothetical situations and theoretical scenarios..with NOTHING TO BACK IT UP..u are reduced to OPINIONS and hypotheticals…your opinion mean NOTHING against EMPIRICAL evidence and EXTENSIVE RESEARCH AND STUDIES..do u get this? when people get sick and go to the hospital WITHOUT insurance it cost us taxpayers MASSIVELY because those people are receiving uncompensated care……do u understand this? it cost MORE for us to pay for these people who dont have insurance and receive uncompensated care then if we had obamacare…PERIOD..so to answer your question " will these people be more likely to go to the doctors"<—NO,NOT ANYMORE THEN THEY WERE BEFORE THEY WERE INSURED…they will go to the doctors about the SAME EXACT AMOUNT OF TIMES….
dan, the point is that when you have insurance, you are much more likely to go to the doctor to get antibiotics or other treatment to take care of minor illnesses. Why wouldn’t they if they “are covered”?
Yes, they WILL go to the doctor more often. I have known many people that did not go to the doctor for their illness because they did not have insurance.
It won’t cost us more to treat them if you sent them the bill and garnish their income if they do not pay it.
That is a pretty simple concept, why is it so hard for you to understand it? It is already done for many people that have to pay child support!
Can someone please explain to me why the USA, the strongest nation on the planet, is supposed to measure itself according to weaker nations and then imitate them? Why would proven success on a global scale need to take leads from nations that are not as successful or powerful? In the words of Mrs. Clinton, “What difference does it make” how other nations run their healthcare systems? Appealing to the consensus (all other developed nations) is a common logical fallacy.
Obviously you disagree with how “the USA, the strongest nation on the planet,” uses its social capital. I believe the point is that in various measures, other nations of similar social values (i.e.all other developed nations) treat their citizens with greater dignity and respect than USA does.
Does your view of the world really boil down to ‘Might Makes Right”?
You haven’t answered my question. The USA is the leader of the world. This is why we have such an illegal immigration issue. This is why the dollar, for now, is the monetary standard for the planet. This is why we host the UN. This is why we are the major funder of the UN. I could continue with more evidence, but with the demise of the USSR, the USA was left as the only World Power.
We didn’t become the world economic and military power that we are by taking a lead from some other country. That would make that other country the leader and not the USA.
So, based on that, please explain how it is that the USA is supposed to look to “every other developed nation” and follow their lead. It could be argued that the other nations are NOT the World Power in part because they of their social and economic policies that are different from the USA.
So, instead of turning the question to me and whether I consider that might makes right and thereby painting me as some sort of bully, please explain why the World Power that the USA is should take it’s lead from nations that are not the World Power.
By what standard do you declare the USA to be the strongest nation on the planet? Just curious since it appears you are also measuring the USA by other countries
That’s answering a question with a question which is logically fallacious. We are the World Power left after the fall of the USSR. The dollar (for now) is the standard currency. Immigrants are risking their lives to come to the USA. When a conflict breaks out abroad, other nations call on the USA to intervene economically and militarily. This is all a separate, red herring argument.
The USA is a success thus far, so please explain why we should take our leadership from some other country rather than from the will of the people and logical reasoning as to the best, proper route for the country.
When we appeal to “other developed nations” as some model, we need to defend our reason for looking to those nations as a model. The fact that other nations do it does not make the practice good or noble. It’s like the old adage when your mother would say, “If everyone jumped off of a bridge, does that mean you should do it also?
the only logical fallacy is comparing america as a whole to other countries as a whole,instead of issue by issue……healthcare verse healthcare,price of healthcare vrs price of healthcare,access to healthcare vs access to healthcare…and outcomes,health,and stats of those countries compared to ours…and the sheer FACT that the “weaker”nations beat us in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY is whats appalling,not that false equivalency your trying to make
*unconstitutional*
Did this Tom really just blame Ron Paul for the death of one of his campaign staff? Please take both of these rambling idiots off the air.
At 10:53 Thom says, “A right is something that it is the obligation of society to provide.” This is the fatal flaw of logic in liberal thinking. According to our founding documents, and centuries of political thought prior to that which lead up to them, human beings are endowed by their Creator with rights. That means that rights proceed from the inherent characteristic of being a human being. This means that rights cannot be given or denied by another human being or group of human beings. I have the right to political speech because I am a human, NOT because the government or society had granted that right to me. I have the right to privacy because I am a human being, not because other humans have granted me that right. I have the right to life because I am a human being. The right to personal property is because I am a human being.
RIGHTS proceed from our creation as human beings and NOT from society’s provision. NO ONE AND NO GROUP provides rights to us.
This is a basic truth. If something is “provided” to you, as Thom states, then it is not a right. IT IS A GOOD.
This is basic.
Go ahead my liberal friends. Instead of actually showing me how it is that rights do not proceed from our creator (whether it be the Christian God or Nature’s God) and instead of showing me how providing something does NOT make it a good instead of a right…. go ahead and insult me.
Nature doesn’t give two craps or a handshake about rights. Nature does what it does, when it does, with zero regard to who or what is the recipient or victim of whatever it does. Consequently, rights are human constructs that do not exist outside of human minds. Rights are things that we as human beings construct and arrogate to ourselves as things that inherently belong to us as human beings. Now, one of the rights we arrogate to ourselves is life. Our concept of what that means has changed since the 18th century, when Jefferson first penned the Declaration of Independence. If we as a society believe that we have the right to life that cannot be deprived without due process of law (and we all tend to agree on this point whether we are conservative, liberal, or whatever political label), then we have a responsibility to ensure that and make sure the mechanisms are in place to guarantee it for the most number of people, including the goods and services that are available for that purpose. If we say that we have the right to life, and don’t provide the mechanisms for protecting it, like health insurance, then saying that there is a right to life is an empty turn of phrase.
Your position that rights are a human construct doesn’t agree with our founding documents which say that we are endowed by our Creator with rights and that we receive them from Nature’s God. Your answer isn’t one at all. How is it that one man’s rights can be used to violate another’s and how we decide which man’s rights are more valuable.
The Declaration of Independence, which contains the quote to which you refer, is not a legal document in the way you are suggesting. The Taxing and Spending Clause in the Constitution does, however, state:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Seems pretty clear to us.
You haven’t answered the question either. I’m not asking about Congress’ power to tax. I’m addressing Thom’s belief about the nature of rights. The nature of rights is something that had been debated out over the centuries. Thom states that rights are something that society is “obligated to provide.” Simple logic says that if something is provided to you that it is a good and not a right.
The Declaration, by the way, is absolutely a legal document in that it outlined the reasons that the colonies were rejection the rule of The Crown. The Declaration was legal justification for the rebellion against England. It is a listing of the grievances against George. The declaration is what we would call an indictment in a criminal proceeding today.
It essentially says, “King George has violated our rights as human beings and therefore we are defending our rights.”
In order to be able to say that, we have to know what the nature of rights are, which is what I am addressing.
Thom says rights are obligations to provide things.
That is simply wrong because that makes a right into a good. According to the founding documents and the philosophical work of the centuries preceding our revolution, rights are inherent to being a human being. They proceed from God or Natures God.
Thom shows his lack of understanding of the underpinnings of our Republic when he says this.
Please show me in our founding documents where rights are “obligations to provide.”
Floating out one clause to support your position while denying the rest of the founding documents is like a church person using one scripture to support slavery.
We revolted because we believed our human rights were being denied by government. In order to revolt, the founders made a case for revolution. In doing that, they declared that case. After the revolution the Constitution and other documents that established our government were written. They were written within the context established by the Declaration. Those documents were set up in order to prevent the circumstances that led to the revolution which were listed in the Declaration.
It all works together. The nation wasn’t founded by the General Welfare Clause.
Dane, You’ve got that right!!!
the founding fathers also gave us the RIGHT to make amednments to the consitution…but that doesnt fit your narritive does it? so your going to refuse to accept the FACT that we can and SHOULD change the constitution as time goes on to fit our needs AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS ASSERTED WE SHOULD..it is a living document subject to change…nothing more nothing less…
The host of this show is just astoundingly uninformed. And his barely allowing his guest to speak is a tactic to ensure that he cannot explain himself thoroughly, so his viewers come away with an idea that he is right and the other side is wrong. It’s bad journalism, but makes for good television. He should be ashamed.
What video did you watch? The guest continued to spew talking points and change the subject while talking over every word Thom Hartman said.
I love the way Hartmann admits that he would absolutely force someone by violence to take care of another.
In fact, Libertarians are the opposite of only looking after themselves – they are the most generous of any group at an individual basis. You pass moral decree over all those you wish to forcibly go along with your childish belief, and then just have your money automatically extracted from yourself and put into the most inefficient organization in the world to dally out to their cronies. It’s the opposite of necessary, you are just a layman at understanding society.
Once again, you don’t do what you say. For example, Ron Paul who discussed the fact that you can’t have government forcibly give another health care. If you came to him at his medical practice, you would not have been turned away – and he never accepted any government handouts. But you wouldn’t know about anything vested in reality, only what was spoon fed to you on this clowns show (especially when they cut clips out of context, and then strait up lie about what his answer was… LOL.)
Do you drive on a road? Government handout. Do you go to a public school? Government handout. Ever use federal aid to pay for college (scholarships, grants, loans, whatever)? Government handout. Medicare? Handout. Social Security? Handout. Your police? Fire department? All government stuff you get because I paid for it.
We aren’t forcing you to give up money because we’re evil and are out against your freedom or anything. We need you to pay taxes because there’s shit we need and someone has to pay for it. You pay into society so that you can reap the benefits of this society. You pay taxes so you can send your kids to school, call the police if you need, and when you’re old can have some extra cash.
Taxes are investments into your society and if you aren’t willing to invest in the society, you shouldn’t be allowed to participate in it.
Well said!
this is insane (doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results ) look at the history of governments past,. who have done the exact same things that our gov. is doing ( health care,ndaa, patriot act, welfare, fixed wages,ignoring the constitution,declaring people to be insurgents that dont think the way they do, out of control spending using unconstitutional “law” to steal more money to pay for mortgaging of present and the future ) foreclosure is right around the corner and the weight of the system will collapse the economy , run off the business’s which will causes more unemployment and a broader base of unemployed (dependents) means more money needed to support this vicious cycle(the weight of excess gov and corruption has caused more nations to fall to third world status than any other issue in history including war,. and our children will have to pay for it all.Think of our children,. money isnt free just because the gov prints it.Money has a cost that has to be payed back by someone
ps. i do believe in helping others that at least try to help themselves and do to the best of my financial ability, but the percentage of what i give is utilized at 100% not wasted in this wasteful bureaucratic gov (dem. or rep. alike)
And somehow, sticking a gun in someone’s face to take & spend their money in a way YOU see fit is the OPPOSITE of selfish?
Somehow, we will accomplish the continuity of civilization thru the workings of barbarism. You idiots live in a contradiction that doesn’t work, and you will apparently enslave and kill anyone who gets in your way. This is some kind of common good? Your philosophy is merely violence with pretense, and civilized people must reject it.
First learn what the General Welfare means in the Constitution as it was written Not the diluted version politicians try to work around Second Your right to be free is my right to be free from you Health care is not a right it is business. You have a right to purchase insurance or pay the hospital Whats the difference between paying the insurance company, hospital or taxes. Simply The haves pay for the have nots and the have nots get a better standard of care while the haves are held to a different standard and asked to pay more just like every other government entitlement program You don’t have a right to ask anyone or force them to pay taxes to provide for others Its my right not to support the woman who has kid after kid She had them not me. Its my right not to pay for the healthcare of those who take part in destructive behavior smoking, drinking, drugs, unprotected sex etc. Why shoud I pay for those in society who play by there own rules and they expect others to take care of them However you bash this guy for beig responsible for himself. Get real folks be responsible for yourself and stop this society argument Its either societys fault or come on you have to pay your part of society Ask yourself if Government program like social security and Medicare are so GREAT why are we all forced to be a part of them Answer because responsible people would not be a part of them and invest or save or their retirement Liberals in order to win debates you win them with facts not emotion.
Before socialized health care that you morons set up, doctors gave 30% of their time away as charity and not many people ever had a problem. They could afford to do so before you strangled the system with your childishness.
Reduce government to the bare minimum so everyone can pay for everyone.* It would turn the US into what it was, and what it is supposed to be by law.* They think beyond their noses unlike you who could never understand cause and effect.
So how much of your income will you allow the IRS to take, how many taxes will you be willing to pay, how poor are you willing to let yourself become, before you consider your “fair share” paid for? 50%? 75%? More? When do YOU reach the point that you have given all that you can, that you look at your own hungry children, and say ENOUGH!?
The Constitution guarantees us the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Life: the ability to be free in your own body. Liberty: Freedom from control of your life by others. Pursuit of Happiness: The right to be able to chase your dream, to be free to do what you want to achieve your own happiness. If that should be giving everybody all that you have, living the life of a pauper so that their lives are better, that is your right. What it doesn’t mean is that you have the right to walk into your neighbors house and take the food off their table, or the money from their pockets, to give to another family that is also in need.
We can not solve social problems through State coercion and violence.
I’m confused, if the right to healthcare was an essential right that was clearly outlined in the Declaration, why didn’t the founders try to establish, or at the very least fight for a universal health care system? To be frank, Thom is kind of a moron, and I’m a little embarrassed to be human at the moment. It would seem that America finally realized that true freedom means true personal responsibility, and it’s slightly comical (but mostly depressing) to watch the outbreak of fear and outrage at the idea that we might have to be responsible for our own life and actions.
Judging by the content of the comments here, it’s clear that most of you don’t understand the core tenets of libertarianism, and quite possibly the core tenets of personal liberty in relation to our Constitutional republic. As much as you may dislike this single, honest truth, health care is not a right – and health insurance even less so. The reason is plainly simple: a ‘right’ that requires compulsory compliance by another individual is not a right, for it directly infringes upon the natural rights of said individual. Guaranteed health care would require that you force a health care provider into an involuntary association – a direct violation of their common law right to engage in voluntary associations. You can’t force a doctor to ensure the perpetuation of your life any more than you can force a contractor to ensure the perpetuation of your property. Yet, you have natural rights to both life and property.
Since my idealistic, progressive-leaning days, I’ve always had a great deal of respect for Thom Hartmann – namely his intellectual prowess and his compassionate tendencies. However, on matters of liberty/natural rights, personal responsibility, and civic duty, this “idiot libertarian” shut him down. Like all of you, I would love to see all treatable ills of humanity and society acted upon. That is primarily our nature. Unfortunately, mankind has neither the means, nor the will to alleviate all that we perceive as need. How can a less-efficient extension of mankind (i.e. government) be expected to do any better?
While I’m under no obligation to defend libertarianism, there is no arguing that a libertarian collective is more compassionate and more philanthropic than either liberal or conservative associations – both of whom are merely selective proponents of liberty. Perhaps the outright hatred for libertarianism stems from the belief that compassion and philanthropy should be self-selected, rather than state-mandated.
Every day people commit crimes to get money, cars, drugs, TVs, clothes, jewelry, etc. Should society provide all of those things too to make those crimes go away? It’s called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Look into it.
I agree with Austin on principle. I think he is making the wrong argument.
We have a right to life, but that “right to life” seems to have an expiration date. We all die sooner or later. Nature on it’s own accord abolishes our “right to life”. It is not a “right” which is under the power of humanity to grant. Neither is health, there are multitudes of conditions and situations under which the power of Doctors, Hospitals, and the pharmaceutical industry is inadequate. There is no right to health. It wasn’t declared in the Declaration of Independence, nor is it included in the Constitution.
Having said that, I think we could have a plan whereby we take care of the basic health care needs of our citizens. We have an absolutely ludicrous insurance system in this country. And now that we are “mandated” to pay into it, it will only get worse. We are mandated to give money to an industry which already has bought all the congressional representation they need as well as at least one President. Reform of the insurance industry is sorely needed. We should have national standards and personally portable insurance. I believe the majority of Americans, (who are basically healthy), would be far better served if they had “catastrophic insurance”. (Coverage for the things which really cannot be foreseen). In combination with that, we should have far greater access to, and easier use of “medical savings accounts”. And I would “tax” the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry in order to provide care for those who do not have insurance.
At 10:53 he says, “A right is something it is the obligation of society to provide.” THAT is completely UNTRUE. We are endowed by our Creator (not society) with our rights. Period. This liberal mumbo-jumbo defies logic and historical facts. You can NOT explain to me what a right is and how healthcare is a right without contradicting your own explanation… because it isn’t a right.
I find it funny how so many of you resort to name calling.
Can anyone explain to me why Healthcare and Education are so expensive in the first place? It is due to government intervention. Why would schools lower tuition when government subsidized loans and grants will pay for it? Same can be said for healthcare, forcing people to purchase health insurance will only drive the price up.
Just because Libertarians don’t agree with the way the federal gov funds its programs doesn’t mean we dont agree with the intentions or goals of that program. Healthcare should be a state issue and should be funded in a voluntary manner and if possible it should be left in the private sector. Sales tax would be considered voluntary, as would contributions from individuals. If most people have no problem paying their fair share, why would the federal gov need to take the money out of their pay checks?
– Isn’t it time we made healthcare a basic human right so sick Americans don’t have to take such drastic measures? –
No, such a time will never come because healthcare is NOT a “basic right”, it is a service provided by those who are willing – e.g. doctors, healers, nurses. What you’re talking about is offering medical care as an entitlement, paid through taxation. You should be more forthcoming about what you mean instead of obfuscating.
What Austin Peterson is trying to explain to the hysterical host is that there’s a difference between negative rights (those that impose a burden on each of us to respect others) versus positive rights, which burden OTHERS to cater to ourselves. Some posters here have claimed that libertarians are, in reality, selfish individuals who care for no one but themselves, but the truth is the exact opposite: There’s nothing more SELFISH than thinking that OTHERS owe YOU for those things you value, for instance: medical care.
Mr. Peterson argues that it is not moral or even economically sound to come to someone’s house, gun in hand, to demand that YOU pay for HIS wants or needs. Taking from others to pay for your things is called thievery; however, and for many of the posters here, when GOVERNMENT does it, it is called “welfare.”
When do we stop letting able bodied people from riding in the wagon? Income transfers account for 2/3 of the total budget and we’re printing the other 1/3. People that paid into SS are being screwed by people claiming disability for headaches and feeling sad. Our government doesn’t even know how many programs there are.
“In recent years, the biggest increases in disability claims have been for “musculoskeletal” problems and mental disorders (including mood disorders). But as a practical matter, it is impossible for a health professional to ascertain conclusively whether or not a patient is suffering from back pains or sad feelings.
According to the BEA, America’s myriad social-welfare programs (the federal bureaucracy apparently cannot determine exactly how many of these there are) currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually. ”
Nicholas Eberstadt: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578259940213918254.html
You all are crazy leeches! People like Austin are more than happy to pay their “fair share” of taxes, but how is it fair when 50% of the populace does not pay income taxes, and almost as much collects either welfare, foodstamps, medicare, cell phone vouchers? The PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, does not mean sitting around waiting for the government to take care of you
u are just willfully ignorant……the bottom 50% of the middleclass DOES pay income taxes..they just get a refund …and so do you i would suspect so you in that category also sport…and those people do pay taxes..what ur referring to is FEDERAL taxes..which they DO pay all year long,which the government can make interest on or use for other purposes during the year..and then when that person does their taxes they get a FEDERAL REFUND…so broadly saying “dont pay income tax” is just misleading and disengenious..even tho they do get a refund they pay into the system all year long thus helping pay their fair share…as well as its a statistical proven FACT that when those people in that category get their refund checks they spend it almost IMEDIATLY and in full which helpd drive our economy which helpds fund the government…so its really not that big of a deal that the bottom half gets a refund…as for food stamps ..only 2% of the population collect food stamps and only the eldery collect medicare which they have paid into their ENTIRE WORKING LIFE…..anything else u need debunked sport?
Seriously DAN???
If they get all the taxes back that they pay in, and many get more back than they pay in, they, in reality are NOT paying income taxes!
THAT is simple math, sir!
Oh, and I already debunked your claim that only 2% get food stamps! It has increased to 1 in 6 under Obama! That means 15%, NOT 2% get food stamps!
sorry sport u didnt debunk that claim….if u count children then yes 1 in 6 americans ….and the bottom line is its due to the recession not obama…every single time in united states history,when there was a recession there was an increase in food stamps.period….and i forgot,who created the recession? was it your hero bush?
Well there you go again DAN!
So are you claiming that children aren’t people?
And as far as who created the recession goes, the economy was doing OK until the democrats took over the House and the Senate.
Tell me, who was it that pushed to have unqualified people be given the “opportunity” to buy homes they could not afford?
I’ll give you a hint, he is from Massachusetts, His initials are B.F., and he insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were financially sound! He and his colleagues of the same party pushed the recession on us by inflating the housing bubble.
So if Obama is not responsible for the economy now, after 4 years, when, if ever will he be responsible for his policies and action?
Or will he be known as The Irresponsible President”?
You’re all idiots, seriously. Do you people not understand basic economics? Without theft (what you people call “taxation”), people would have much more money. With these people having more money, they could afford to got out and buy extra things, or “splurge”, if you would. This would allow for more businesses to get into the United States Economic picture, and ultimately, bring down prices because these businesses would have to compete, and when prices are low, everyone prospers. You statists don’t seem to understand basic rights, as Austin said multiple times. You’re trying to say that people have a right to something someone else produces, do you understand? Medical care is something doctors, nurses, etc. produce; you don’t have a right to that, no one does. This redistribution of the wealth that our government calls “social welfare”, “Medicare”, etc. needs to end, because it’s theft. Private charities are by far the most efficient way to help those in need. They have a MUCH better track record than the US government of making sure that the money/aid gets to where it really needs to go. The government is far too large, and it needs to be reduced; drastically.
thats a cute theory sport..to bad its just utterly false….and NOBODY is forcing medical providers to provide care for free..so your entire argument is bogus and a fallacy…EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR and every single provider will get getting paid for their services under obamacare…so your point is moot…..and taxation is NOT theft ..im so sick of this bull argument from u people…u dont choose where u are born but u DO choose where u live..u are not forced to live here..u are choosing to live here which literally means u are choosing to abide by the laws of the land, one of which is taxation……and u are using the roads,bridges,and buying things from stores that only exist because the infrastructure exist…if the government can choose to not let u buy ANYTHING or use ANY roads then it would be fair for u to choose not to pay taxes..otherwise YOURE the one who is STEALING by using the roads I PAID FOR…..why do u think its ok to STEAL the benefits of the infrastructure that I PAID FOR?
You all have Libertarianism completely wrong, well from my stand point. The point where we are coming from is you cannot trust government. It is an evil. It has nothing but what it steals from the people. If you do not pay your taxes the police with Guns will come and take you to jail. If you try to escape more than likely they will shoot you. That to me is not very civilized.
It seems to me that the “Statist” (republicans and democrats ) and anarco libertarians/ Voluntaryist have the same goal but have different philosophy’s on how to get there. We believe in nonviolence and a voluntary society without the treat of guns and violence. I mean to have a dictator and 400 or so members of congress to impose their well on the other 270 million people in the country from out point of view does not make sense. If you really want a ‘State” run health care system why not find a way to do it locally at a county or city level? Because and sure you will all agree – we do not have a say in what goes on in Washington. Unless you are a banker, head of a corporation, a member of Big Pharma or the Military industrial complex. We have the most corrupt government in the history of the world (my opinion). So to say I am going to give them more of my money is crazy. Plus I am also wondering since our country is ‘Bankrupt” how is it that we are going to pay for it? We already have to borrow money from China everyday. The economy could collapse at any time.
Responsibility. Here is another argument. We live in a knowledge based society. You can pretty much learn anything you want. With a click of the mouse you can learn how to live a healthier life. So why is it that someone can fill there body with all this garbage i.e. fast food, gmo food, sweets, prescription drugs, smoke, alcohol and none organic foods I now have to foot the bill? And I do understand that this not include everybody. But if the people of this country would actually learn about nutrition, supplements, eating organic and drinking distilled waters most of there health problems would vanish. But instead of promoting a “Natural” way of living you are asking for more drugs. For more ways of how “Not to ” live a healthy life style. Because the MD’s are not trained in Nutrition. Well very little anyway.
I have never met a Libertarian who was selfish. Who did not want to help people. And you know what I can say the same about you the “Statist’s” We must find a way peacefully to help each other. Not with Guns and violence. Not with the treats of imprisonment. And like I said if you truly believe in “Central Planning” at least try and do it at a local level. Where everyone’s voice can be heard.
Balderdash.
Positive rights are generally baloney. You have the right to seek to provide for yourself. You are not owed health care. You are not owed anything you have not specifically earned.
-Bartleby
Man, Thom is a moron and an asshole. More proof that big government advocates are idiots and don’t understand the free market. We’ve had this country reduced to a bare minimum government and were at our most prosperous and cared for, but morons like Thom don’t know history and they want to make up lies to further their point. pathetic.
I thought I would try to find some witty way to point out that being entitled to someone else’s labor is called “slavery”, and was supposedly abolished, but I’m tired of trying to wake people up who are convinced that taxes aren’t theft, that entitlement isn’t slavery, and that the infinite demand for “health care” in America won’t end up with rationing and euthanasia like everywhere else.
I have a question. How is it any less immoral to take money through the use of force to pay for a program such as this? Law is force. Force is aggression. The use of laws to take money from one to give to another is theft no matter how much you reason it. The largest expansion economically in this country existed PRIOR to income taxes, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, et al. If taxes were needed to support us as a society then again, how did we get to this point? Wouldn’t we have collapsed due to our own “greed” and
“selfishness?” Who would build the roads you ask? Well I would then ask, why are you not asking who would build houses, buildings, etc. The answer is obvious. Private markets do. I hypocrisy at its finest when individuals advocate for more taxation which implies force. I find hypocrisy at its finest when people cannot donate willingly to the causes they so choose yet demand that others pay for it through taxation. Where is the morality in that?
wow….you’re right…those times were GREAT..ya know when we had no regulations,no health codes no child labor laws and ,i almost forgot SLAVERY!!!!! and morality is SUBJECTIVE….so it is pointless to debate about….ur opinion os coercion is immoral…..well ,hypothetically say i DON’T think its immoral…what makes your opinion superior to mine? and also i dont subscribe to your criteria for what constitutes coercion….what makes you OPINION superior to mine?
So these men were “forced” to commit a crime in order to get free healthcare?
So we need to blame someone else for their crime? Maybe the issue is character, and the entitlement theory so many liberals have come to cherish.
so,what part of your life is YOUR responsibility do people no longer understand,why should tax payers have to pay higher taxes for some lardass with diebeties,or a smoker with lung cancer,or an alcoholic with a liver problem?Those medical issues are mostly self induced,obesity causes diebeties,smoking causes lung and throat cancer,drinking does cause cirrhosis,so why,if these people choose a poor lifestyle,should I or other taxpayers have to pay for you to get better?
Completely misrepresents what Libertarians believe about healthcare. Notice on the Ron Paul clip where they cut off what he believes we should do about people that can’t afford healthcare and then lie about what he said after the part they cut off? Libertarians believe that healthcare for the poor should be handled through charity, etc.
This is bizarre. This guy believes that the right to life means that the government must provide medical help. The right to life, liberty and property is about things that the government must not take from you not give to you.
I don’t really care that this guy seems smug. His mistake was getting into a shouting match with a man who obviously lacks a valid argument. He is reading the constitution correctly while the other guy is way out on a limb. His idea that any nation can provide healthcare sufficiently is proven wrong when you look at the failure of socialized medicine in other nations. The worst thing that can happen to healthcare is more bureaucracy. No bureaucracy has ever solved the problem that it was created to deal with. More government is not the solution, it is the problem.
While I probably will not be popular on this page I do identify myself as a libertarian. I believe that many of you have the wrong impression of libertarians. While I can not speak for everyone I do believe that helping people is a meal imperative for any society. The difference lies in how it is accomplished. It is not for the government to do but in the voluntary charity of the individual. Forcing a person to pay(taxes) is theft. Taxes take money by force no matter how noble the cause, that is the very definition of stealing
If you want to be socialists, fine; you should all go form a commune. Just leave the rest of us out of it.
Government is suppose to tax for the basics on a limited basis. We should help the poor, but not enable them to remain indigent, or turn them into a permanent bread-and-circuses voting bloc for the left. The government’s and the Left’s appetite for other people’s money, and the desire to control other people’s lives knows no bounds.
God you people have no clue about logic and actual RIGHTS. You insist you can steal from others to provide for those that wont provide for themselves.
…out of touch-out of touch… …Tom is out-out-out of his head.
So its greedy for me to keep MY money but not greedy for you all to take MY money i worked for to give to others? Awesome. There are CHARITIES out there to help people if you want to help people then give to those charities. Its ridiculous to expect the govt to help you in every aspect of your life. Health care is NOT a right because someone ELSE is expected to provide that, THAT is slavery.
So anyone who doesn’t agree with you is an asshole/moron/class a jerk/idiot? Really classy. There must be zero merit to what Austin was saying because it doesn’t align with your preconceived notions. Bravo.
Waaaahhhhhh, waaaahhhh. What’s the matter people? You think that just because you’re fine with being fleeced by our government, that everyone else automatically should be as well? Or is that your sense of “patriotism” talking… You do realize that pretty much everything that Austin champions is exactly what our Forefathers intended, correct? Tell me, does it hurt your delicate sensibilities to think that someone just wants to be left alone, and what exactly is BAD about limited government?!?! Damn morons, “Libertarians are so selfish they don’t want to let you tell them how to spend their own money!” is the truth.
It may be hard to believe, but the United States experienced significant economic growth and prosperity between the 1780s to the 1910′s, all without significant government mandates, taxation, or even people’s reliance on the government. Since then we have destroyed the economy with the boom-bust cycle perpetuated by the Federal Reserve, which allows for your “evil, unregulated” banks to give out sub prime loans which end up being defaulted on. These loans would never have been made if interest rates weren’t so low. Nobody would die of starvation if the Food Stamps program were abolished. People would go to charity. And if we stopped Medicare and Medicaid, people would go to charity. And if we stopped bombing children in Libya, we would be able to drastically cut taxes. That means that EVERYBODY would not only have more money to buy their own food and insurance/healthcare(Not to mention more jobs due to less economic restrictions), but charities would receive so much more funding from donations due to more money that can be handed out by people looking out for their neighbors. THAT is generosity.
I have a right to own a home, and tax payers should pay for it, just like healthcare.
This guest is such a douchebag. He just wants to talk over Tom with his ridiculous talking point. You can’t have a dialog with such a foolish clown. I’m sure he would be happy giving up everything that tax dollars pay for. What a sad little fool he is. It would be great to see all the things he enjoys in his life that are paid for with tax dollars. Does he complain about safe and clean drinking water? Of course not. These clowns want to pick and choose what his tax dollars are used for, which is ridiculous. I’d be willing to bet that if we got to vote on whether we used our tax dollars to give everyone in the country free health care in exchange for chopping our military budget in half, we wouldn’t have the military we currently have. These guys are just arrogant and don’t understand what it means to live in a society. Maybe they should find an island to live on and move there.
Every Libertarian that agrees with Austen Petersen should spend a weekend volunteering at a shelter to see how a large number of Americans really live.
A lot of libertarians do. It’s called “helping others voluntarily”, and it’s what everyone should do, instead of forcing others to pay into a system that will maybe transfer some of what you paid to the needy if the bureaucrats responsible for it are in a good mood.
Interesting. The libertarian is talking about the nobility of the profit motive, yet his own mother was killed by someone motivated by profit and he can’t connect those dots.
Idiot cannot even see that the system he is pushing is the very system that killed his mother. The Laissez-faire capitalistic system that allowed a crooked pharmacist to dilute his mother’s medicine is the very system that killed her…and the entire time arguing for smaller and smaller government, just so this can happen again and again.
Why does it matter if you pay insurance if the medical system will not function. Capitalism has shown it does not have the consumer’s interest at heart, only the producers.
Austin Petersen should do society a favor and eat a bullet…there is no place for free loaders like him in America…he wants freedom and no government, he should move to Somalia. He has reaped the benefits of growing up in America but refuses to live up to his end of the social contract he entered into. Deportation should be the first thing he should be looking at.
So, is he really saying he would be willing to pay for the health care for millions of people? I don’t think he has that much money… I think I’ll send my friend to him, who health insurance companies refused to give her coverage and she just had a stroke. Only $150k!! Plus she has no way to work and no way to pay for the physical therapy she needs. And now the burden of the cost of her care just fell on the hospital… Which means the taxpayers ended up paying it off anyways!!! People have no clue how the system works and yet thy ramble their spew everywhere. People having access to BASIC PRIMARY CARE SAVES US ALL MONEY!!!
This guy has no clue. Everyone who has a job thinks they a covered. To one day you get laid off, and realize cobra coverage for a young person is still $350/month. Then you get a job that doesn’t provide coverage and you have a family and suddenly the cost of JUST the insurance is $1k/month, and you only bring home $3k. Now you have insurance, but you can’t even afford to go do the doctor. Oops – you got sick and now you hav a pre-existing condition and now the health insurance provider won’t cover you and you can’t get the care you need without going to the emergency room and hoping to get admitted. The ppaca will help with this massive ridiculous problem in the USA. The only developed nation where people simply DIE or resort to drastic measures just to get health care. Lame!!!
On the one hand you say you don’t think he has that much money. How much money do you think we as a nation has? Here’s a news flash for you, Einstein – there’s a limit to how much credit the United States can obtain, and we’re dangerously close to that limit.
You’re “friend” has ALWAYS had the ability to go to an ER room and get medical care. Insurance is not required. They are not legally allowed to kick people out! The fool that got arrested for health care (which I doubt – I’ve never seen this allegation proven) did it for a stunt only. There is not a single person in this country that today could not go get health care by simply walking into an ER – with or without insurance.
But thanks for showing what kind of haters you guys are. The entire world is waking up to you guys and judgment day is coming!
So, Sarah, who will be paying the $350 a month for the “young people” and much more for older people in order to have “free health care”?
The solution to people not paying their healthcare bill is to garnish their income until the debt is paid off, not to have someone else pay for their debts. In many states, wage garnishment occurs already, either for child support or for other court ordered payments.
That could be used for health debt as well.
“To one day you get laid off, and realize cobra coverage for a young person is still $350/month. Then you get a job that doesn’t provide coverage and you have a family and suddenly the cost of JUST the insurance is $1k/month, and you only bring home $3k.”
We can blame that on FDR. Allow me to explain. In the 1930s, wage controls were set in place to prevent companies from actually competing for workers. To get around this, employers created benefits. Prior to this, insurance was reasonably priced and those who could not afford it could work with their doctor or obtain assistance from private groups like the oddfellows. It’s important to note that this was not the case for automobile insurance. So long as insurance was footing the bill, employees didn’t question the multitudes of unnecessary tests or bogus fees. Health insurance was also stuck within the confines of one’s state and was prevented from true competition. Additionally, people expect health insurance to cover basic things like routine check ups. Meanwhile, auto insurance is highly competitive and doesn’t cover routine tune ups. And if you lose your job, you aren’t totally screwed on auto insurance.
To solve the lack of health care access in this country, we need to address its affordability. Interestingly, the ppAca does little to address the affordability by lowering costs; it merely replaces the source of the money.
Sorry to hear about your friend. Stroke is an incredibly debilitating condition that does indeed require various services. But as someone that works in primary care I can tell you to look forward to countless more men women and some children unfortunately who are on their way to getting MRI’s, life long anticoagulants, and rehabilitative therapy. The said part is that these individuals did have basic primary care and choose to live a reckless life despite the assistance to reduce those risk factors.
Let me ask you will Tax payer funded primary care stop them from making choices to destroy their own health? Is it worth driving up medical care costs, less reimbursements for debt ridden physicians, and the inundation of new regulations, policies, and laws so that you can pretend to feel like you made a difference?
Austin is prescribing a policy of increasing consumer choice by inhibiting the gov’t from pigeonholing us in an expensive and ineffective healthcare system. If people want medical care then they should have affordable care not “free” care.
According to your argument, there is a need for lower costs and not for passing on the high cost to taxpayers.
I won’t even attempted to dismantle your rant, I’ll merely point out one thing that discredits your response.
“$1k/month, and you only bring home $3k. Now you have insurance, but you can’t even afford to go do the doctor. ”
So you can afford 1k a month, but not $10 for Co-pay huh?
i have one of the best polcies in AMERICA….i have blue cross personal choice…and the cost was so high we had to make some sacrifices…but an er visit was NEVER 10$ copay u simplton….for a family of four to have a policy that included ten dollar copay for er it would cost more like 2grand a month…so your point is moot….his er co pay is prob OVER 100$
This is a man who has never known want in his life.
You know this how? I love how judgmental liberals are. Once again proving how all liberals are just H8TRS!
It really irks me how if you are for helping people, through taxes, in order to help society as a whole, you are automatically labeled a mooch, living off the government. All you are thinking about is yourself.
If you are a libertarian, and you think that taxes are horrible, and everyone should look out for themselves only, that is being patriotic.
Huh?
I take nothing from the government in way of welfare (though I did get student loans), but I realize that not everyone is as fortunate as I am. Paying taxes might not be the highlight of my life, but I understand that it is necessary for society to function through infrastructure, public education and police, etc. Sure, there are some people that cheat the system (there are people that cheat at everything), but if I am making sure that food and shelter is available for those that truly need it, I consider it money well spent.
And not to generalize, but that kid has no idea about the real world, I speculate. It is amazing how some time spent with those truly in need can give people perspective. It is easy to say “No insurance – that’s your problem.” It is quite different to look at the faces of those sick and turned away and say “you didn’t work hard enough to get insurance, so oh well.” I hope one day he is able to get some perspective.
I think you may be guilty of throwing on some type of preconceived idea of libertarians and trying to make Austin fit that model. You are implying that Austin has no empathy for the people you described as being destitute.
The difference will be the liberal way of handing out subsidized care which drives up the cost of medical care for everyone, or the conservative/libertarian means of driving down costs so that healthcare though not free will be affordable. That is the difference.
I’d be very careful before making Austin out to be a villain as one who has no perspective on the plight of the poor. I think there was a wise carpenter from the middle east who used to say remove the plank from your own eye so you can judge rightly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
i keep hearing u libertarians saying universal healthcare drives up cost……do u have any REAL prove that exist in reality? not just hypothetical scenarios or opinion or theories? bcos we have the HIGHEST healthcare cost on the PLANET and countries with “socialized” medicine have the LOWEST healthcare cost on the planet…….care to explain this? that sheer FACT debunks your bull argument about universal healthcare raising cost…and save your quality of care argument for another time…we can debate quality next if you would like…this topic is COST not quality…so lets stick to the subject at hand and dont INTENTIONALLY divert or distort…again ill ask the qestion….if universal healthcare drives up cost,as you say will happen,then why does EVERY SINGLE country with universal healthcare have LOWER healthcare cost then us? and dont tell me why we have high cost,bcos you saying the cost will be EVEN HIGHER then they are now…which means it will cost even MORE…..explain to me why the UK has LOWER healthcare cost then us despite having universal care?
Why, DAN? It is called rationing! As Obama said a few years ago, his mother probably wouldn’t have gotten her hip replacement if we had universal healthcare.
How can you be so immoral to deny a senior citizen a hip replacement that a doctor said was needed?
If I rob you and give the money to charity it doesn’t make me an altruist. I’m all for helping others. I’m not some sort of Ayn Rand Objectivist. But it isn’t a noble thing to vote for stealing money from your neighbor to give to someone else.
nobody agrees with your definition of stealiong….that is YOUR OPINION of the definition of stealing…and what makes you opinion superior to mine? morality and opinions are subjective….and i dont agree with your brand of either..what makes your version superior to mine?
It was my thought when he was talking about his family’s business: Congrats to them for having the foresight to plan for such eventualities. Here’s the the thing, you smug prick: not everyone has that luxury. They work for crap wages just make ends meet. I had a conversation with my former boss in the days leading up to the 08 election. He was exhorting us to vote “business-friendly” and used the estate tax as an example. He told me a story of another family-owned business nearby in the same field that had been destroyed (by estate taxes, I guess) when the patriarch died. He said he was lucky that hadn’t happened to him when his dad died. I was thinking, No, your dad was smart enough to plan for the future. Don’t blame the “death tax” for someone’s inability to plan for the eventuality of death.
One more thing: can we please stop calling these Randist douchebags libertarians? They are just selfish jerks who don’t understand how society works.
Taxation is theft first of all, if you choose not to pay the IRS comes to seize your assets and throw you in a cage. Second of all, I don’t like my tax dollars going to rich companies subsidies, bailouts, and WARS. But since I “had the chance to vote” and its “part of living in a civilized society” I am subject to the moral majority that this war is for a good cause or that the corn farmers need the subsidies to produce ethanol!
You act as though libertarians don’t care about the poor. It is a patently false accusation. The way it worked in America prior to government involvement in healthcare, a person would buy a plan for catastrophic accident or illness and pay out of pocket for routine things like physicals and exams. It was affordable because it was their own money and they could shop around and go to different providers and what not. When someone has a 3rd party paying the full cost, doctors can raise prices and the consumer won’t realize because their co pay is very low.
There are other reasons it costs so much as well directly as a result of government regulations, the FDA limiting new procedures and medicines despite people wanting to voluntarily accept the risk that a medication may not work. The AMA imposes restrictions on practicing and licensure which is a textbook definition of a rent-seeking entity.
FDR price and wage controlled in the 40s to try and control inflation as a result of the war debt. Companies still needed to keep and attract talented workers so they lobbied to have health insurance part of their benefit package that was not considered part of the wage thus circumventing the wage control that government implemented. Of course there are other things that raise the price like state mandates forcing providers to have mandatory coverage for certain ailments regardless of the customer’s needs or wants which increase prices on everyone, you can’t buy insurance in other states because of these restrictions and as a result there is no real competition within states to lower costs and keep prices down overall.
The US had arguably one of the best systems in the world. New breakthroughs would cost a lot , much more than the average citizen could afford, but over time the costs are brought down and becomes affordable for the vast majority of people. Our companies invested in R and D and it paid off as other countries buy our medical tech. Even the socialized countries benefit from our capitalist ventures in medicine as we created an environment to make better products and services. Even the very poor could afford it or charity could help with the cost, there would be a lot less uninsured people and those that were would be taken care of and had been taken care of.
Look at LASIK surgery, not typically covered by most insurance, yet the prices have steadily declined and doctors are offering it cheaper or with payment plans to gather more customers.
i didnt even read your comment because you started with a fallacy….taxation is not theft nor it is forced..you are CHOOSING to live in a country that has laws,one of which is taxation..u dont have a choice where u are born but u DO have a CHOICE where to live.thus u are CHOOSING to abide by the laws of the land,again one of which is taxation….so anything u said after “taxation is theft ” is invalid because your premis is invalid so anything derived from it is also a fallacy
NO. It is about us helping each other voluntarily and peacefully instead of through FORCE (violence) of government. Just because we don’t think something should be provided through stealing the product of everyones labor (the def. of slavery) does NOT mean we do not want to provide it to each other. We just need to teach and learn to do it voluntarily on a local level. You don’t have right to chain up a doctor and nurse to take care of you say you want to send the federal govt to take money from everyone’s paychecks to pay for it. Not to mention the host of other negative economic effects of a healthcare mandate.
Libertarians don’t believe in regulation of businesses yet because the pharmacist wasn’t regulated, his mother died. And yet he doesn’t get that.
What the pharmacist did was illegal. The restrictions put on the pharmacist did an excellent job at keeping his mother alive. Regulation was not the point of the story.
What kind of regulation would ensure that every single pharmacist never messes up (intentionally or not) any possible prescription? How do you think this would affect the the ability of 99.9 percent of the other honest pharmacists to do their job without affecting the cost of service dramatically? Regulation… I hear this word often, I do not think you know what it means.
That would depend on what type of insurance they had as well. Some plans work through networks and only doctors/pharmacies/etc within thier network would be available.
“Libertarians don’t believe in regulation of businesses”
False.
Libertarians oppose GOVERNMENT regulation of businesses. Voluntary regulation and accreditation are encouraged as a means for screening out bad products and services.
Pharmacists are regulated.
Re: Rene,
– Libertarians don’t believe in regulation of businesses yet because the pharmacist wasn’t regulated, his mother died. And yet he doesn’t get that. –
The pharmacists was regulated. NO pharmacist in the U.S. works without a license unless underground, and there’s no reason to believe the pharmacist from whom his mother obtained the chemo was not regulated.
Either you’re a teenager, or your mind never advanced out of that time.
” GOVERNMENT is the Administrative Arm of Societies agreements/Laws.” Government isn’t “Out-There” or “Over There”. Government is each one of us in the citizenry !!!
You think this is a democracy? When is the last time your vote mattered?
Yep, class a jerk – He has a rude awakening in his future – he thinks he’s all that. He thinks he’s justified because he’s louder than the other guy. He does change the subject because he’s out of touch and has no argument. He is a weasel and pathetic – stupidity incarnate. Why this clown even on TV is a mystery to me. My wife’s cat is a better human being than this punk.
I feel the same way about Thom Hartmann!
Walking, talking strawman machine. About what you’d expect from FreedumbWorks. I wish Thom had been more forceful in smacking down his BS about people waiting forever for treatment in countries with socialized medicine. I’ve heard from actual citizens of those countries that it actually works pretty well. They generally like their health care systems. (Hey, nothing’s perfect & people gonna bitch) They especially like the reduced stress from not worrying whether they’ll be covered in case of illness or injury.
I live in a country with socialized medicine and I can attest that is common for patients to die of heart-attacks in the waiting rooms of public hospitals.
I have RSD. I might take Austin up on his offer to pay for my healthcare.
What a selfish and smarmy moron. I never realized how close libertarianism is to anarchy. They want to reduce government to the bare minimum so they don’t have to pay for anyone but themselves. This would turn the US into a third world country. They can’t think of anything ahead of their noses. Screw them.
re: the 19th Century.
You have an unalienable natural right to die a natural death of whatever disease or accident happens your way. It would be more in line with Natural rights to arrest the doctor for saving your sorry ass against your will. See how that works, that natural right thing?
Your trying to make us believe that the guy that gets shot robbing a bank and then holds the Doctor at gunpoint til he removes the bullet is acting out of unselfishness and the Doctor is just being selfish with his hard earned talents.
People like you are confused with the meaning of words. Probably a liberal college grad or a HS dropout, they both make the same mistakes in logic and reason. You don’t get to redefine words so that they fit into the Constitution. The Constitution protects the Doctor, not the bank robber. It should also protect the child in the womb, but then what does that life matter?
Libertarianism is based on the premise that you have no right to violate someone else’s rights to life or liberty. By taxing Peter to give to Paul, you are violating Peter’s liberty (as he is no longer free to spend his money as he sees fit). You may disagree with the non-aggression principle, but you should at least be logically sound. That is, you must have a principle guiding the way in which any government ought to be structured.
“how close libertarianism is to anarchy.” Not necessarily. That is Anarco-Libertarianism. I am libertarian, yet I agree with the moderator in this specific case concerning access to health care.
You are not entitled to take from one and give to another. The monopoly and corruption is now legalized, imagine that. Instead of different entities competing to have good reputations, giving better and more affordable products, you now have more centralized power. What you support is the antithesis of the vision given by the founders. The right to life is not the “right” to have government “give” you healthcare.
Yes it is in 2013.
Toomympt, why do you feel you are entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor? Why can’t/won’t you earn enough for yourself?
If you feel you are entitled to free healthcare, what else do you feel you are entitled to, free food? free housing? free transportation? a free education?
Everyone has an equal right to life. Wing nuts like you do too.
Everyone, tommympy? Obama and most liberals apparently don’t think so.
Regardless, the right to life does not mean the right to take the fruits of someone else’s labor.
smug little a**hole.
Our Fore Fathers were Libertarians, but the first thing they did was institute a tax to fund the Revolution. I would say most Libertarians are mostly against wasteful taxes and unconditional bull crap. Something we should all be concerned about!