Stopping in on a random thread. Normally, I'd avoid these topics but since I've been doing alot of reading and studying on Libertarian views on rights, I'll entertain your comments towards Paul.

First off, I'd like to preface by saying that every politician is going to frame a scenario to perfectly fit the purposely exaggerated and possibly unrealistic scenario that they're about to present. Right or wrong... it's a method everyone uses.

So, Paul makes the point that by saying someone has a right to free healthcare, you're implying that that person has the right to enslave the doctor to work for him. Now, what does this mean? To understand this you need to understand rights. There are 2 types of rights. Positive and negative rights. A negative right ("God given right") restrains other people/groups by limiting their action against the "right holder." Positive rights provide the right holder with claim against another person or the govt for some good, service, or treatment. Positive rights make catchy soundbites and have been the center of US Presidential runs for entirely too long.

Moving on, now that we know how to differentiate the types of rights, we can start to understand why Paul refers to "a right to health care" as slavery. Since health care is not a negative right, it cannot be acquired without the right holder taking claim against someone else's capital (time, money, resources, etc). So, when you say that health care should be a right, what you're saying is: you as a right holder have a right to another person's time, money, resources, etc by the government "enslaving" the doctor to force him to work for you.

So, Bernie is essentially saying that the Government has the right to force the health care industry to work for what the Government thinks is fair. So, picture this in real life... you get sick and want to go to your doctor. You go in there with 10 dollars and say "I need to see a doctor... I have 10 dollars." Your doctor says that isn't enough money. Now, if Bernie gets elected and manages to make healthcare a "right", then the doctor will be forced to work for what the Government deems as fair. If the government says 10 dollars is enough, the doctor is now FORCED to lose money. It completely undermines the entire concept of supply and demand.

The Government should not be able to give you free healthcare, free college, subsidies, etc because the Government was never intended to give out ANY good. In order for the government to give something to someone, they MUST first take it from someone else.

This is the entire problem with socialized medicine. We ALL want people to be able to get health care and if there was a perfect system where everyone could get it without disregarding supply and demand, I'm sure the whole world would be doing it. The problem is that this is simply not possible.

One of the biggest issues with Obama care is that currently many of the insurance companies that are insuring those on Obama care are going bankrupt. Why? Because who does Obamacare help the most? Old, sick people. Who does Obama hurt the most? Young, healthy Americans. Well, on paper you could say that we should just make young Americans sign up under the same company as old Americans and it should balance out! Guess what? Young Americans aren't signing up because A. Obamacare is expensive as shit because of the massive amount of old, sick people and the new pre-existing condition policy B. Young people are broke as a fucking joke. They're drowning in debt and they can't see past next weekend's finances let alone worrying about planning for a catastrophe.

Also, I do not agree with the Government giving money to Walmart and McDonalds. I think that is all horseshit just like you do. We need to get back to what ACTUALLY "Made America Great" which was low taxes and low regulation. The Government literally sucks at dealing with anything. Let the private industry do what they do best... make money.

I think Bernie is a great speaker and really knows how to attract the young American vote. Also, he seems to be very passionate about his quirky left-winged policies. I respect him for both of those things, but history and economics are completely against him.

Bernie maliciously uses the word "free" in order to attract attention from young, ignorant kids. Bernie's policies will not be free and they will cost the American people greatly. Wall street "speculation" is not what it seems. Whose money is being spent on Wall Street? Is it all just a giant trade of Billionaire money? NO! It's American people's retirement funds, bonds, 401ks etc. So, now, we've gotten to the point where we realize that we can no longer tax the middle class worker's paychecks because they're already too poor, so we just slowly creep into their retirement funds.

Last thing, college prices have sky rocketed because we've been on this whole trip about everyone "deserves" a chance to go to college. So, our Government has foolishly gotten into the business of student loans in order to "spread opportunity". College realizes that these students are getting 5k a year from the government. So, if tuition was 5k before and people were paying it out of pocket, why can't they pay 8k now that they have 5k in government assistance? Pair that with ridiculous amounts of money given to kids who doesn't have more than $20 to their name and you've got yourself 50k/year colleges that are enslaving our young Americans. I'd also like to point out that college has become such a "necessity" in American's eyes because blue collar jobs have all left. They left because America has some of the highest regulations/tax rates for companies as is. We just love to fuck ourselves from both ends.

I could go on for days about this, but I'll see if you even care before I take another breath Always interested in yours/others thoughts.

@OP - I'll probably just vote for Gary Johnson.

This post was edited by PureOwnage2 on Mar 3 2016 07:32pm

I'm Canadian so I'm wondering how/what Americans think of that system? I've grown up with it and I haven't seen a problem with it. It's included in our taxes and doctors here are paid very well also.
E/ we all pay a small tax and register to get a health card which allows you access to reasonably priced medical work/prescriptions etc. The only downside is that you have to wait if your illness isn't serious/life threatening.

What happens in USA if you get into some crazy accident and surgery/medical costs exceed an amount for you to cover? Just take the debt and live with it?

This post was edited by xrmd on Mar 3 2016 07:46pm

you got surgery option A that makes it so u can live with the injury but maybe not regain full or even partial functionality, or just cut it off

and u got much more expensive option B surgery that can help you regain full or partial movement and heal the injury over time


if u cant afford option B, then u gotta go with option A

fked up, yea i understand people should be able to pay for their own expenses, but holy shit alot of these bills are retardedly expensive



like at dentist with the tooth, can get procedure that helps and allows u to keep the tooth, but its some expensive procedure. or can be a shit load cheaper just to have the tooth extracted. if u dont got the money, well ur gonna loose a tooth. this is a much less serious issue than other areas of the body. but still can be an issue

This post was edited by noob_whacker on Mar 3 2016 07:59pm

The bad thing is Hillary is most likely going to win no matter what lol

what


why would u even say that?

and why do u think it?

Bernie obviously. Only pragmatic choice out of the remaining.
I'm assuming the trump votes are trolls

It's not enslaving a doctor if a doctor can choose to work for the government or for a private practice. In the UK we have the NHS which gives free healthcare to all, and funnily enough we're happy to pay a little more tax so poor people don't die in the street. But there are also private healthcare firms like Bupa with lower waiting times and more specialists, if you can afford it. As a doctor you have a choice to work for whichever institution you choose, therefore eliminating any possibility of 'slavery'. Besides, you misunderstand basic economics if you think $10 is enough to pay a doctor - a profession in which their supply never matches demand. To even be a doctor you must be extremely intelligent, dedicated and have a spotless academic record. If the public sector doesn't pay doctors enough, they'll go to the private healthcare sector, which exists even in socialist European countries.

Libertarian policies have never been proven to work because there is no example of a first world country that is purely capitalist. First of all, every economy on earth has elements of both capitalist and socialist policies. There is no fully capitalist or fully socialist society. A national military funded by the government? That's a socialist policy. Low regulations on pharma so they can rip off consumers using their monopoly power? That's a capitalist policy. Now I know what you're thinking as a libertarian, "it's the opposite, we have too many regulations in pharma which cause the high prices!". It's not. There's a reason pharmaceutical companies give millions of $ in campaign contributions - they get congress to pass legislation that benefits them, and that legislation is a removal of regulation, not an increase.

In the last 150 years since we have moved from the Libertarian utopia of a free for all, governments in the developed world have regulated sectors and provided public goods so that the standard of living measured by real income per capita has increased drastically. The government was absolutely made with the intention to give out goods, even hundreds of years ago the governments kept order and safety of citizens with the police and courts systems. The government was made with the intention to be the provider of public goods - goods that are more efficiently provided by the government than the private sector eg. building roads, cleaning the streets and parks, etc. It doesn't have to be a physical good or something measurable in currency to be defined as a good. If you are full libertarian mode and think absolutely everything should be done by the private sector "BECAUSE COMPETITION!!" then you are crazy, and most importantly you don't have history or data to support you.

Lots of great points! First though, I'd like to mention that I'm not the type to argue over some Utopian Libertarian society. I don't have all the answers to all of the problems, but I do know that America has departed from their liberty over their last 30 years and we need to move back in that direction. I'm not going to argue about how we fix very small and particular details about the Government. I think that is the GOTCHA people like to use against Libertarians. If we could cut the taxes and budget in half, I would be ecstatic. There could still be cops, roads, firemen, etc. Maybe we just don't occupy the entire world with our military? Boom -- taxes in half. That would be a step towards liberty for the American people. No, I don't know if we could entirely eliminate taxes. I'm saying that no Government needs a 1 trillion + dollar budget. However, that does not change that taxation is theft. If it isn't theft, then why isn't it voluntary? Taking something from someone without their consent is theft.

Second, I'm not arguing that the free market is perfect! It certainly has it's flaws. But, I simply believe that government intervention to fix these failures only leads to giant fails. Take for example, the emissions you emit from your car. Slowly but surely you're affecting the lives of others while you get the luxury of driving your car? Certainly, the free market sucks at that. But, does that mean I think the government should subsidize massive clean energy movements etc while gas is so cheap? Absolutely not! This is a current example, by the way... and most of the 12 clean car manufacturers that were subsidized are now bankrupt. The government cannot force people to care about emissions. The downfalls of electric cars are huge and gas is so cheap. So, how will subsidizing clean energy cars help the emissions problem? It won't. Nobody will buy them.

Anyhow, I'll try to hit each one, but there was a lot so forgive me if I miss something.

I agree that you're not enslaving a doctor if he has the right to reject you as a patient for whatever reason he may choose. Here in America, Medicaid is refusing to pay private doctors the entire bill because they say that it's too high. Well, how is the Doctor supposed to know what Medicaid will approve of? You cannot expect the doctor to continue to accept these patients if he cannot guarantee that your insurance will cover the cost. Medicaid shouldn't dictate to a Doctor what the cost of his services are. If they do, THAT is enslavement regardless if we think the doctors "make enough."

I'm sorry to hear that you force everyone to pay for the health care of others. I, also, agree that people shouldn't die in the street. BUT, I respect each man's liberty and freedom of choice. If he doesn't want to help his fellow man, he shouldn't be forced in the form of taxes. That's theft and a redistribution of goods by the government. If you respect liberty, there isn't much argument.

In regards to your purely capitalist economy, I agree. There has never been a purely capitalist economy. Again, I think this is some sort of GOTCHA statement. I don't believe in the Libertarian Utopia. Just like Democratic socialists recognize there is no such thing as a socialist Utopia. I would just like to take steps towards liberty.

The Pharmaceutical companies is a giant cluster fuck with more variables than I care to attempt to discuss, but I'll throw out a couple of thoughts. They pay big money to remove certain regulations, but there is zero competition for most of them. Why can the US not buy medicine from Canada or India? The lack of competition has essentially made it a monopoly. So, if you have a monopoly, it only makes sense for you to attempt to remove regulations. Let's take another example: The ACA is going to start requiring food establishments to list the nutitional content on all things. Now, who is going to be blocked from getting into the market at restaurants? Coke? No, the dude that is trying to make some new drink! He doesn't have the capital to do all of those tests. He may not be able to afford to operate with this regulation.

To your last paragraph, I'm not sure you're talking about the US government here. I can't speak to anything except the US constitution. Nowhere in there was the Federal Government given the ability to take from one person and give to someone else. If it does, please let me know so I can reevaluate my life values

Also, I'm not sure about your history comment, because the wealthiest and most prosperous nation in history (Murica') became wealthy off the back of capitalism. Now, that doesn't mean there wasn't ever socialist policies before.

you've got a bunch of lower-middle class folks, voting for a man who has no idea what life is like to be lower-middle class, but even worse lacks the basic human empathy to even recognize the such, earning votes based purely on the common ground they share with the candidate: xenophobic narrow-mindedness.



tbh i love it.

This post was edited by Wretch on Mar 4 2016 08:06am

I agree on lower taxes if you can afford them, due to the deadweight loss that is associated with it. Cutting things like military spending, foreign aid and corporate welfare would free up billions to cut taxes, invest in healthcare, education or whatever the government desires. It's mainly a question of priorities, and if there wasn't such corruption and bad decision making in governments I think it would be totally possible to have quite low taxes AND afford universal healthcare / cheap (or free) university education. That is partly down to the corporately owned media, that let politicians off the hook on pretty much everything. The views of congress don't represent the views of the people, which is counter intuitive - people should elect those with views that represent them. If you look at polling on policy positions (but the names of the politicians left off), most Americans agree with Sanders' policy positions, and only 20% of people agree with the standard Republican views. Yet they get at least 40% of voters to vote for them. That represents a failing of the media.

As for regulation, some form of it is necessary in almost every sector. Most economists do agree that some sectors need to be more heavily regulated than others, like the financial sector, due to moral hazard. There are plenty of cases where regulation can do more harm than good, but the republican policy position of 'regulations are the problem, remove all these regulations' is very damaging and counterproductive imo. Thatcher deregulated the financial sector in 1986 known as the Big Bang - it made London the banking capital of the world but it fucked us in the 08' recession because it allowed the big banks to gamble the money of high street lenders. They were so hesitant to gamble their own money, but gambling other people's money was so easy, hence the malinvestments and moral hazard. Obviously the problems this caused didn't show for yearrrrsss, people only saw the increase in financial activity and viewed it as purely positive. The US followed suit shortly after, so basically Thatcher's deregulation of the UK banks led to Reagan being a little copycat, and that contributed a lot to the recession.

A lot of Americans don't know this, but your whole political spectrum is shifted to the right. People with views like Ted Cruz barely exist in Northern Europe, never mind get any political traction. Bernie Sanders would be just a standard left wing guy or centre left if you put him in British politics or Germany, France etc. Libertarian ideas and philosophies primarily come from European thinkers a few hundred years ago, but we don't have people of the libertarian mindset over here either. You wouldn't hear anybody make an argument over taxes being theft, for example. I do understand the point about voluntarily paying taxes to subsidise the poor's healthcare, but again it is a matter of priorities, would you rather pay a little more tax to help other people or to bomb Syria? It is a false dichotomy in the sense that you might prefer to do neither and pay a little less tax, which is a fair point. I would argue that it is better for the economy as a whole to subsidise the poor to some extent, though. In the old days before socialised healthcare the productivity (units produced per person per hour) was significantly lower amongst poor people, which goes to show that subsidising poor people can actually bring a net benefit as healthy workers produce more and take less days off sick, therefore earn more, spend more and contribute to a higher standard of living for everyone.