It is really sad how much of a religion this is for some people. Case in point, the conversation I am posting here.
I won't tell his name or anything else personal because he's a good friend of mine, and because these were IM's, not comments on YouTube.
I will color code it with his posts being red and mine being blue.
Let's go:
Him: "I'm not sure you're a libertarian. Libertarians tend to be kinda selfish in that they value their own personal freedoms than the rights of people, including the poor and suffering. Libertarians are against any sort of health care reform. But maybe you are. I dunno, I'm just saying I'm not sure you are one. Send an offline IM if I'm not on when you're on :-)"
Me: "Wow. First time I've gotten on offline message in ages. lol"
Him: "Hehe"
Me: "Well speaking of health care reform, Shane's done quite a few videos on it...as have others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdPsgAH4gAo ("Medical Prices WIll Go To The Moon Thanks To This Bill" by OtherJacobSpinney)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4msVk_sdtdQ ("Capitalist vs Socialist: Healthcare Bill" by JacobSpinney)
Now for Shane's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpeoZsCobrM ("Re: Healthcare, Let's Help Each Other" by shanedk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7z4iHCNHMI ("How to Fix Health Care Without Spending a Dime (Part 1 of 2)" by shanedk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGdH1pRGlVI ("How to Fix Health Care Without Spending a Dime (Part 2 of 2)" by shanedk)
LordTHawkeye: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvEC71m7j4g ("why socialized healthcare is immoral" by lordthawkeye)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d8il3C50Ds ("HealthCare: The moral argument" by lordthawkeye)"
Him: "Wow
Do you agree with LordTHawkeye?"
Me: "On what?"
Him: "On socialized health care"
Me: "Yes."
Him: "Nevermind, I guess you really are a libertarian"
Me: ":P
We're not for the current system, however.
Watch Shane's videos. He goes in depth into what the problems are, and how to fix them, as the video titles suggest.
Completely sourced."
Him: "I'm just gonna disagree with you on this
I've heard the arguments against socialized health care. And they all amount to 'I don't want to pay for other people's health care because I'M fine'
And from what I've seen in other articles and such, libertarians are as selfish as republicans on this issue.
in general"
Me: "I've never heard that argument before.
I've heard many others though in the videos presents.
Well, I can't speak for your experiences, as there are asshole libertarians e.g. HowTheWorldWorks."
Him: " ...For the record
I was rejected for health care because I have a non-debilitating pre-existing condition,
[Conditions edited out. I don't think anyone here needs to know that.] That's the exact phrase for why I was rejected.
[Same as above bracketed phrase]"
Him: "So don't expect me to look kindly on those who think something that can get ME health care and has been proven to work in every other first world country is 'immoral'
That includes you"
Me: "Fair enough.
Anyways, if you're wondering why I haven't done much more than post videos it's because I need to save my energy for the mountain of homework I have.
I don't have it in me for arguments/debates (at least not until this summer, anways)."
Him: "That's okay"
Me: "I WILL go as far to say that Shane and them are good at explaining:
1. Free Market alternatives for the current system, instead of just shrugging people off as lazy ( the latter of which seems to be what your experience is...more or less).
2. Why they believe socialized medicine is immoral.
Before you ask, no, we don't have a free market in health care in the USA and haven't for at least the mid 1960s.
We're a half corporatist half socialist clusterfuck in healthcare.
Cheers."
Him: "Free Market health care will only make things WORSE"
Me: "Not according to the evidence provided by Shane and others."
Him: "Pure capitalist anything doesn't work
The problem with the current system is that it's too free: Health insurance companies are NOT competing with each other (which, by the way, a free market would encourage monopolies). Health Care shouldn't even be a market period
People shouldn't live or die based on the size of their bank account
Making the market purely free would only ENCOURAGE that mindset
Health care is a right, not a luxury. We should be evolved enough to KNOW THIS by now.
Hell, BRITAIN knows this
They take CARE of their poor there. Their homeless don't spend their days living in alleyways, sleeping with no shelter. There's specific government institutions put in place FOR the poor, to provide shelter and food.
So, forgive me for being close-minded, but I will not accept anything less than 'Health care is a right everyone should have, not a luxury that only properly qualified people can obtain'
And believe me, if health care was a free market, you would be one of the first people to find yourselves stuck in a hole with no way to get out.
Because if I was rejected for [edited out], imagine how insurance companies would treat someone with [not disclosing that]
So yeah. We need this health care reform. And to call it 'immoral' just because it's more government shows blind obedience to a party platform that should be situational to begin with. I can't help but think you formed that opinion just because shane and all those other libertarians have that opinion."
Wow...And people wonder why it's called the "Cult of the Omnipotent State".
That last part really hurt coming from a close friend.
I suppose the shit-load of citations, sources, studies, validation of other parts of economic theory (even mainstream) of the Austrian School, etc have nothing to do with my opinion, right?
And who's to say I never have disagreements with you guys?
I recently became an Anarcho-Capitalist and I experience disagreements with you all on the stuff pertaining to the Anarcho Capitalist vs. Minarchist debate all the time.
Hell, me and Lord T Hawkeye debated that in one of the threads here.
And I've even posted a crap-load of disagreements on it from others like Dale Everett and others.
So, no, this is NOT group-think on my part.
He'd probably shit himself if he heard that I'm now an Anarcho Capitalist. He still thinks I'm a Minarchist. :P
Now you're probably wondering why I posted this.
No, no, I don't expect anyone to take the time to debunk any of it (at least not if you don't want to)
Part of it, to be honest, was to remind us all just how much this statist dogma, especially in the form of Socialized Medicine for the leftists, has taken over people to the point where they'll not only refuse to look at the evidence WHILE trying to make others out as dogmatists, but also act the way seen on Shane's videos to very good friends.
Ask the questions that Stefan Molyneux asks next time.
The big one is the one I also stated in my vid: What happens to all the people dependant on state welfare when the money finally runs out?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on March 24, 2010, 11:27:49 PM
Ask the questions that Stefan Molyneux asks next time.
The big one is the one I also stated in my vid: What happens to all the people dependant on state welfare when the money finally runs out?
What questions does Stefan Molyneux ask?
Is the one you asked one of them?
If so, that's assuming he can even be convinced that it does run out of money...
Especially since he's convinced that Socialized Medicine works elsewhere.
Hell, knowing his person, he'll probably go right back to emotional arguments saying, "So either we shouldn't get health care because it might bankrupt us?" or something stupid like that, more likely just blow it off entirely.
If Medicare is any indicator, not only will it bankrupt us, it won't give us more or better care.
The sad thing is, I linked him to your video where in you DO ask that question and he thinks you a villain because you (like me) are convinced that Socialized Medicine is immoral.
This guy, like the right-winger is pretty prone to ad hominem and poisoning the well arguments.
In short, he probably wouldn't dare watch anything from you, thinking your opinion worthless or evil or what ever else is going through his mind...
Oy...
OK, I'm currently checking out videos by Stefan M. on this.
His observation of, "When you say 'I oppose this legslation' they hear you saying, 'I want poor and sick people dying slowly and painfully...'" and his point of "Monopolies increase prices, I want to abolish the government monopoly on healthcare" and to word it as, "I'm against high health care costs." Were very very insightful. I just subbed to him for that alone.
His point about government monopolies reminds me of my friend's point about "The free market always leads to monopolies."
Nevermind the fact that this is a load of shit, but even if that were true, how is this a reason (as Jacob Spinney has pointed out) to give control over to the ultimate super monopoly: the state?
I mean, what?
Are the people in the government perfect holy angels?
I mean, come on.
The big question, if challenged, simply point to the national debt and say "Do you think that number can just go up forever?" Even those with their heads completely buried in the sand can't ignore the debt. We all know about it. Heck, they have the damn thing on a big sign, how obvious can you get?
Then go on to ask "Do you believe whatever plan is in place should be financially stable?" After all, if it isn't, then that only means it's someday going to let everyone down even if it might be good in the short term. I doubt our descendants will thank us for that.
OK, Thanks.
That is assuming he doesn't just blow it off saying something stupid like, "Oh? Then why doesn't England or the rest of the civilized world have that problem?"
If he does that, do I try to find some figures on the dept on England's other countries' systems?
And if he just blows that off, then do I just assume he's completely hopeless?
England is civilized now?
Has he seen what they eat on that island?! Lungfish broiled in it's own colon would be an improvement!
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 25, 2010, 02:22:10 AM
OK, Thanks.
That is assuming he doesn't just blow it off saying something stupid like, "Oh? Then why doesn't England or the rest of the civilized world have that problem?"
If he does that, do I try to find some figures on the dept on England's other countries' systems?
And if he just blows that off, then do I just assume he's completely hopeless?
Or he'll probably just say that the deficits mean that taxes aren't high enough, so we need to vastly increase them or something like that.
Why are you replying to yourself? That's kind of unnerving...
Well you can start by asking why private healthcare is too expensive for anyone but the rich to afford in England.
The reason? They have a doctor's union that has complete monopolistic control over doctor certification just like the AMA in the US.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on March 25, 2010, 08:36:23 PM
Why are you replying to yourself? That's kind of unnerving...
Well you can start by asking why private healthcare is too expensive for anyone but the rich to afford in England.
The reason? They have a doctor's union that has complete monopolistic control over doctor certification just like the AMA in the US.
Sorry for freaking you out. I put that latest comment after a quote of another one of my posts to show that I was adding to it. I didn't want to make any of the posts too long, or edit them and not have you or others see them.
Thanks for the feedback. :)
You know I think that the entirity of his argument can be summed up by the phrase "just not getting it"
Quote from: The Late Andrew Ryan on March 27, 2010, 08:45:53 PM
You know I think that the entirity of his argument can be summed up by the phrase "just not getting it"
That and "think as I think or else."
At least he didn't have any qualms defending socialism.
As Shane would probably say, "at least he has the balls to defend it."
There are many who will just deny that state provided health care is socialism at all.
*coughFightingAtheistcough*
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 28, 2010, 12:16:06 AM
That and "think as I think or else."
At least he didn't have any qualms defending socialism.
As Shane would probably say, "at least he has the balls to defend it."
There are many who will just deny that state provided health care is socialism at all.
*coughFightAtheistcough*
Lol. For most people socialism is just a boogyman. They pretty much advocate it but the word socialism makes them think of tyranny and the soviet union.... Thank god most people are too dumb to ever actually realize what socialism is, or that many people who are, are smart enough to see why centrally planned chaos might just be a bad thing.
Ugh...someone help me out here. I got a woo who insists striaght up and down that the AMA is absolutely NOT a monopoly.
I keep demanding he show me an organization outside of them who licenses doctors but they won't answer.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on March 31, 2010, 12:17:35 AM
Ugh...someone help me out here. I got a woo who insists striaght up and down that the AMA is absolutely NOT a monopoly.
Did you try asking him what their competition is?
And for him to be more specific than "The states"?
Also, did you try asking him what would convince him otherwise?
If so, what was his reaction/response?
Actually I did find a documentation that supports his argument of the AMA not being the only provider of doctors here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0).
I clicked that. Was not the least bit annoyed.
Okay, here's a new apologist argument...sorta...
QuoteI don't have all the facts, but I don't think you do either, so let me join you in your speculation. You say people will simply pay the fine and buy insurance when they're sick. However, Insurance, to the best of my knowledge, does not and will not cover things that happened before you got insured. I'm not taking about pre-existing conditions... I'm talking about past bills. You can't buy insurance today and put in a claim for the drugs you bought last week. Nor can you buy insurance today and pay for your ambulance and extended hospital stay a month ago due to an accident. Nor will buying insurance today cover the cost of seeing the doctor to find out you have a serious medical condition in the first place. So if you're right and the fine is minimal (I've searched and found no hard numbers, so I have no idea where you're getting that from... but let's play along), people will still have severe health care bills if they have accidents or in the process of diagnosing illnesses. One stroke, one heart attack, one serious fall... costs more than decades of health insurance premiums.
So even if the fines are less than health insurance, don't you think that many... most... maybe even all people would rather give their money and at least have the comfort of knowing they're insured in case of accidental injury or sudden illness rather than toss their money at the black hole that is government?
As for the especially poor part, it was my understanding that especially poor people are exempt from the fine, much like excessively poor people are exempt from income tax, etc etc.
And no... it's like someone demanding that reasonably well off people buy and store a supply of non-perishable foodstuffs and other essentials in case of emergency. Sure, it sounds unfair when everything is peachy, but no one will complain about it when the ice storms cut off power and transportation for a few weeks. Though I'm not necessarily saying that forcing people to buy health care is the right way to go about things.... whether it's morally justified or whether it's unconstitutional is not my concern. I'm just sure it could work and could end up benefiting everyone, assuming the bill isn't shot down or scrapped out of hand by the other half of the US government as soon as they have an ounce of power back, thereby wasting billions of dollars and years of work.
Short version: The claim that people are going to just eat the fine and not buy insurance until they get sick is false because insurance doesn't work retroactively so people will buy it just in cast of that.
Sounds hokey to me but anyone got something on this?
No, if they have to cover preexisting conditions, then they have to pay for procedures to cover illnesses or injuries that occurred before you were covered. They don't have to pay for any actual PROCEDURES done before then, but that's a different thing.
I thought as much. He seems to have a knack for being an apologist for immorality. He also tried to make excuses for Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize over Irena Sendler.
So bottom line, even if you were in a car accident while uninsured, under this bill, you could easily get insurance and cover it on the spot anyway?
Yes, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if hospitals developed a process where you got automatically signed up on the ambulance ride in. If they have to take all comers on demand, why not?
Quote from: MrBogosity on April 01, 2010, 09:29:39 PM
Yes, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if hospitals developed a process where you got automatically signed up on the ambulance ride in. If they have to take all comers on demand, why not?
And how much do you want to bet that the cost of health care is going to go past the moon because of it?
Jacob Spinney and Stefan Molyneux have gone into detail about this, as I'm sure you and Lord T Hawkeye are both aware.
And I'm sure the press and the state will both blame the free market, yet again, and everyone will likely be begging for 100% socialized medicine by the time this is through.
And, if our experiences with medicare and medicaid--with unfunded liabilities of over $86 trillion--are any indicator, I'm sure that number (even after adjusting for the impending inflation) will be tens, if not hundreds of times that by the time all is said and done.
As for his point that "Libertarians are selfish":
[yt]oIeiFheHTOI[/yt]
Morrakiu is made of awesome.
Yeah, I'm SO selfish, I actually have the balls to believe that I own myself, my time, the product of my labor, and my own body.
I'm such a evil horrible person. :P
(Completely off topic: 2^10 posts for me!! :D)