Health Care: Sanders vs Paul
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 05. 2011
- Senator Sanders and Senator Paul debate whether health care is a human right and the implications of that right.
When commenting on this video, please comply with these posting guidelines:
- We do not allow graphic, obscene, explicit or racial comments or submissions nor do we allow comments that are abusive, hateful or intended to defame anyone or any organization.
- We do not allow solicitations or advertisements. This includes promotions or endorsements of any kind.
- We do not allow comments that suggest or encourage illegal activity.
- You participate at your own risk, taking personal responsibility for your comments, your username and any information provided.
- Because this is an official Senate CZcams page, comments related to political campaigns are prohibited and will be deleted.
Posts that do not comply with the guidelines will be removed and users may be blocked from this page.
Ladies and gentlemen, we just witnessed Rand Paul call all government workers slaves.
Vedavyas Munugoor Current gov. workers are there by choice. What Rand Paul is talking about is healthcare workers being forced to work for the gov against their will. That is the definition of enslavement.
Vedavyas Munugoor The argument is about rights and compensation for services. If you put one person's "rights" above another and then do not give that person adequate compensation for their services then yes, it is akin to slavery. Doctors should have the right to just compensation for their services along with the right to treat whomever they want. The reason why many doctors refuse to see patients on government aid is that they will be reimbursed fractions of what the cost of care is and will have to wait 30-120 days for that reimbursement. The result is that many patients on Medicaid or government subsidized plans (ie Obamacare) have a hard time finding a doctor to treat them. The next logical step then if you are a regulator/politician is to call healthcare a "right" and force doctors to see these patients. This is a violation of personal liberty. The government is promising that someone else will provide a service.
Additionally government workers (especially on the lower level) are not known to be well-paid for their work. Doctors would want to unionize and that would not be good for anyone so politicians would not allow it. the end result is physicians who have a tough time making a living. So fewer people want to be physicians leading to a doctor shortage. The ones who do work will be overworked. I don't know about you but I would prefer my physician to be well rested and worry free when he/she treats me. But hey, if that is the kind of system you support, you have every "right" to support it.
Vedavyas Munugoor not to mention all doctors in countries where health care is right.
SameBasicRiff lol. shut up man. you don't have to be a part of this society if you don't want to be. you can literally go into the wild and live with a fucking tribe. if you want the benefits that a collective populace, society, and government provides, you pay into it, work for it, and you get a share. you self-entitled shit.
neogenzim1995 right.... nice shitty argument.
im on my way to becoming a PEO, a professional engineer.
its a self regulated society outside of government that has a duty to society.
peace is achieved without government, not with it.
Thank you Mr Paul for so eloquently showing the stupidity of the conservative mindset regarding healthcare
You have no right to healthcare, and you have no right to have me pay for it.
@@vincesmith2499 You’re already paying for it bro. US pays more per capita for healthcare that’s shit.
@@exodia_right_leg get rid of insurance companies and shrink the govt so they don't control the market for big pharma, go free market, watch how much better quality and affordability your healthcare gets when you pay directly to your physician. free market it's the only thing that has kept me alive with chronic Lyme disease. in Canada our so called "free" healthcare is collapsing, your crony capitalist system where insurance companies set the price of child birth at 50g is also collapsing, get rid of them and doctorswho charge too much will be in price competition with ones who charge much less and quality and incentives go up at the same time.
Don't worry, Vince will never get back to you. They can never explain that. Also are lawyers slaves since they have to be appointed?
@@vincesmith2499 you're already paying for the subsidies the medical companies get, Now it just goes to the CEOs bank account
Rand Paul took that from 0 to 100 really quickly.
Bernie took it from 0 to 100 by advocating for using violence against innocent people to provide others with free healthcare
@@kkonabill95
Thats such a killer response hahahaha #brilliant
@Edgehead10075
How self narcissistic u are into ur core of not having a human side for others but urself.
U either dumb or delusional kid!
@Edgehead10075
U ever heard of the word "compassion" before?!
I live in a free natural environment and u don't bec of u lack som brain cells of that head of yours. U are such a shame of humanity!
it seems like that because zero has been rising slowly for a long time. people have gotten used to the idea of free healthcare but not the idea of slavery so they seem different but logically they are the same. If paul had made the argument back in 1776 people would not have felt that it was 100.
What he says: "I'd like to thank Senator Paul for his.. provocative, interesting discussion"
What he means: "Thanks for whatever the hell that was"
Edgehead10075 stop bitching about in comment sections just because you are mad that your kindergarten class was suspended due to quarantine
@Edgehead10075 you claim you don't like Sanders. You've made 404 COMMENTS ON HIS CZcams VIDEOS.
Either you're lying to yourself or you need a new hobby
@Edgehead10075 click on your profile photo and it shows... it shows top 3 comments and the total number of comments
@Edgehead10075 i don't need to explain simple technology.
I'd like to thank Sen. Paul for that irrelevant anecdotal evidence which in no way addressed the breathtakingly huge national issue of people living without healthcare.
You have a right to the services of a fireman. Are they slaves?
+Ali Ashraf You have a right to services based on a contractual agreement (labor in exchange for compensation paid by taxes). Firefighters are on standby and work day and night if there is a fire in the area that they have been contracted to serve.
You're literally comparing apples to oranges. You have a positive right to emergency services, but you do not have a right to a private service without a contract.
Bernie is suggesting that you should have a positive right to a private healthcare provider without a prior agreement. Paul is saying that Sanders is suggesting that if you are in the business of providing healthcare, you MUST provide that to anyone as a RIGHT, much like free speech, freedom of travel, and freedom of assembly are RIGHTS.
You do not have a right to someone elses labor unless you have a prior mutual agreement. Otherwise it is (BY DEFINITION) slavery.
Why is it so hard for Sanders supporters to understand that?
+iSirAmGreen That is the thing, there will be not "private service without a contract" there will be a public service.
Bernie is not suggesting that we should have a "positive right to a PRIVATE healthcare provider without a prior agreement". Where did you take this from? He is saying that the government should provide public healthcare, with professionals paid for their service. What you and Paul are saying is just crazy.
Ali Ashraf is totally right here. There are public service to show you exemples that they are not slavery.
Let's try schools! All kids living in the United States have the right to a public education. And the Constitution requires that all kids be given equal educational opportunity no matter what their race, ethnic background, religion, or sex, or whether they are rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen. Even if you are in this country illegally, you have the right to go to public school, but we don';t see slaves teachers in the US. Do we? There are private schools that are not OBLIGATED or MUST provide their service to anyone as a RIGHT without payment or contract, and there are PUBLIC schools.
How can't you see this?
What Paul is doing is known as "non sequiturs".
Paul's Logic:
- The duty of the police is to work in the protection of life and property through the enforcement of laws and ordinances.
- If healthcare is a right protected by law and If the citizen needs healthcare
- Then the citizen could ask the police to enforce the law to guarantee his/her rights
- Paul is a doctor
- Then the police will obligate Paul to provide healthcare to the against his will and without any payment, something that would resemble slavery.
Correct logic:
The doctor would work for a public hospital
You don't have a right to the service of firemen.
+Tunechi iFunny Yes, you do! The police and firefighters who are employed by a municipality, state, or federal government agency, are civil servants. Those who work for a non-governmental agency such as university or railroad police, or airport firefighters, may be employees of a private firm or may be government employees provided to the private firm under a government contract.
+Fábio Sciubba Not true. Warren v District of Columbia clearly shows that the police have no duty to protect anyone. I would assume this could be extended to firefighter personnel.
Rand has a point. Who in the world trusts the government to run anything effective? He wasn't saying healthcare = slavery. He was saying that someone forcing you to give them your labor and stuff is slavery.
+J.T. Smith Agreed. Right to Food is a better analogy. Paul needs to stay away from the slavery idea , it just confuses the real discussion over bigger or smaller government.
Everyone in this comment section is delusional. They know darn well what Paul meant but they want to discredit him by making him out to be a lunatic, in order to support their own desire. None ofthem seem to understand what a RIGHT is. A RIGHT is something you have WITHOUT government. If government didn't exist would you have healthcare? The government cannot afford RIGHTS to people, nor can they take them away. Paul made everyone look stupid because they don't know what a right is. If something is a right you would have it no matter what. If that were true, someone would be obligated to provide you with healthcare no matter what. They are FORCED to provide it. FORCE is immoral and can constitute slavery should the provider not wish to comply. SERVICES can never be RIGHTS. Fire fighters, medicine, police services are all economic exchanges that you PAY for. You do not have the right to be protected by somebody else. You have the right to protect yourself. Yes, those are all protections
+luxor135 Hey J.T., Andrew, and Luxor... just want to say that I agree with you all on this. It's quite alarming how many people have jumped on the bernie band wagon so quickly without analyzing his philosophical views. Rand Paul very clearly and calmly explains the principles of liberty, and I agree that using other analogies (food, clothing, shelter, electricity etc.) are a great way to get the principle across. Especially the food argument. I think people will begin to see the connection between food and healthcare and how saying it's a 'right' to food means you have the 'right' to go onto someone's property and steal their food if you're hungry. People unfortunately get confused between a 'right' and a person's 'responsibility' towards society... an example would be that we have a 'responsibility' to help homeless people, but YOU don't have the 'RIGHT' to take something from ME in order to give it to the homeless person.
+J.T. Smith Healthcare providers are still being paid to do their job, business as usual. The Difference is where the money comes from, people will be paying into a levy through taxation instead of paying outrageous amounts on their health insurance premiums which is part of a fixed (not free) market.
Jamo Blair The outrageous amounts are a result of the government artificially creating a massive, inelastic demand in the market. It really doesn't make sense to use more government to fix government. Use less government to fix government.
The look on your unpaid intern's face behind you when you cry that you're worried about being enslaved..... PRICELESS
+Shaun Hensley OOOH BERN!!! Literally the best comment on the internet ever. xD
+Shaun Hensley Nah, she's too bored to care. Old men talking about philosophy put her on Yikyak or something faster than she can frown (she's obviously looking down at some type of smart device).
+Shaun Hensley Is that who she was? I wouldn't be fucking amazed. To think somebody like Rand Paul can be worried about being a "Slave" shows that his position is almost nothing better by scare mongering.
+Jesse Watson I was about to send you screenshots but then I noticed you nestled in the comments. That's not boredom, I read disagreement, disbelief, and distaste all over her face. Look at them side glances.
+JinxedOut Who do you think you are? What right have you? You young libertarians drive me crazy. Or are you a Hillary supporter?
that was single handedly the worst argument against medicare for all i've heard in my entire life and it came from a United States Senator. pitiful lmao
And a physician.
And funnily enough, in the modern philosophical zeitgeist, that is one of the most highly regarded arguments against medicare.
@@SandfordSmythe Maybe. He's not a member of a recognized physician association. He had to make up his own!
@@JoshJustifies Ah, a fellow WSB fan
Lol that look of confusion from the woman behind Paul. She is all of us.
Rand Paul, slave of Leftism
This comment section is atrocious. Bernie Sanders didn't counter Paul's argument, and most people on here are just spewing ad hominem attacks and State propaganda.
***** Please define the term "right" in the context being used.
Dev518 Actually I think he did counter very simply by pointing out how silly his comments were without being condescending. The only difference in the two point of views is how the services are paid for. The doctor isn't doing anything different than he or she always does. Saying he would be enslaved as a physician is just ludicrous.
Gary Maravich If anyone's comments are "silly" they are Sanders'. If two people are on a desert island and both have a right to health care, then one person has the "right" to conscript the other. If doctors quit en masse, yet there is a "right" to health care, then the government has the "right" to knock down the doors of those doctors and make them provide a service. Of course, in the current situation the tax-payers are the slaves as they are forced to pay for another person's services. If there are three people and one is a doctor who is more than willing to work for pay under a system that imposes a "right" to health care, at least one other person must be forced to work in order to compensate the doctor. One way or another, you are advocating for slavery on a fundamental level.
Dev518 I would rather be a slave with legal recourse to defend myself, or even leave my profession, than a slave to death who has no legal recourse to do anything because I have no guaranteed rights. With no rights you have no person, people are free to use you as they see fit, but I'm just responding to a retarded red herring, aren't I? The doctors in countries with healthcare provided don't work for 16 hours everyday for 365 days, they have guaranteed leave and can quit their jobs at any point. They also don't give a fuck if the "government" knocks on their door at 2 in the morning because they don't answer directly to the government, they answer directly to their employer who is partially funded by the government. If any hospital thinks their employee isn't doing their job out of spite regarding the job, or partaking in negligent care, they can fire them, just as they can do now, regardless of who's paying whatever amount of money. Ooh massa don't be whippin me again.
Card Board I'm sorry but it's been established clearly in most civilized countries that people do have a right to basic services. You can't be denied the purchase of food if you have the credit to purchase it, and there are apparatuses in place to give people that credit if they can't obtain it through offering their own labor or services.
Epic. Rand Paul just went to Canada for surgery.
@Edgehead10075 He's a blatant hypocrite
Edgehead10075 okay? Can’t we take advantage of that same system?
@@connorrose6305 He went to a private practitioner that specialized in whatever back problem Rand Paul had. He didn't take advantage of a "free" system, he simply sought out the best person he believed could treat his condition.
@@macggnore oh so canada had the best surgeon
@@greghill118 yes, a private practitioner in Canada...
Let me know, Senator Paul, if you feel like a slave as a paid government employee with every right to resign if you so desire
Edgehead10075 what a moron. No point in saying anything further to you.
paid government employees aren't the slaves, it's the taxpayers who are forced to pay them who are.
@Edgehead10075 are public school teachers slaves? Can public school teachers refuse a kindergartener? How about post-office workers? Can they refuse to send a letter? The connection between slavery and public work is a really irresponsible one, imo. I don't believe that doctors have any obligation under single-payer to treat any specific number of patients-but even if they did, it still would not approach slavery considering that they have to right to choose their job.
It's illegal to discriminate based on race, sex, etc., and all patients would be equal from a financial standpoint under a single-payer system. So, the only remaining consideration is the number of patients. However, quotas or requirements in your job don't make it slavery. If they did, a private practice that required doctors to work a certain number of hours a week or treat a certain number of patients would be slavery too.
Sorry but the truth is that no matter what you think of a single-payer system, the argument that it is anything comparable to slavery is just flat-out ridiculous.
@Edgehead10075 The government still can’t force people to be doctors under a single-payer system. All the government is doing is paying for and standardizing healthcare. It’s not conscripting doctors, lmao.
Slavery is legally owning someone else as your property and making them work for you. If you’re a doctor under a single-payer system, you can quit your job, and you are not property of another person. Are firefighters slaves, because they can’t refuse to put out a fire at someone’s house (esp. based on race, etc)? No, that’s just part of the job, and if you don’t like it, don’t be a firefighter.
Now, you could have a separate debate about whether or not the government should be able to put a stop to private health insurance-whether that market has a right to exist on its own. However, that would not be a debate about slavery, it’s a debate about regulation.
@Edgehead10075 well, if the government cannot force people to become public defendants, then i guess people don’t have rights to a public defender! (of course not) You should have a right to health care (ability to pay for a doctor), which is different than having the right to conscript a doctor.
People would not be forced to become or remain doctors, as you’ve implied. The government is mandating a certain type of payment for medical care. You might hate that. Fine. But “slavery” is not even close. If it were slavery, most doctors would not support single payer (they do: www.todayshospitalist.com/physicians-support-single-player/). Also, slavery is to be owned by another person, that's its definition. You can be owned by another person and not have to work: that's still being a slave.
With regards to taxation being theft…the entire point of a government that stays out of people’s lives is to avoid tyranny of the state. We have the state and distribution of wealth within the state to avoid the tyranny of corporate forces. It’s to balance out the potential for tyranny and systematic manipulation from wealthy people through elected officials.
It’s also completely unsupported to think that a system solely constituted by your series of allegedly moral axioms would itself be moral. Poor people would have no ability to fund their schools, infrastructure, etc, and rich people would be able to intentionally manipulate the entire society to their favor. Laissez-faire capitalism would be catastrophic if implemented in an industrialized, complex society (which is why it has always failed), a fact that Adam Smith himself acknowledged.
People call Rand and idiot while having no accurate concept of what a right is, or even being able to extend their logic, to 'ad absurdum'.
A legal right is something which is to be upheld, and in positivist law must be enforced. This is why Rand says you must extract the labor from another person. For healthcare to be a right, then if an MD refuses you must necessarily exert force or compulsion upon them to service your right. So Rand is absolutely correct.
Lastly, a right, in the proper sense, is a moral consideration in human conduct, and are actually negative, for they cannot be anything but if they are to be considered universal. People have a right /from/ the positive action of others, they do not have a right to act positively upon others.
Kunschner My Philosophy professor [who has his PhD] and teaches ‘Introduction to Ethics’, ‘Intro to Philosophy’, ‘Critical Thinking-Logical Reasoning’ and the ‘Philosophy of Religion’ watched this video says these are Ayn Rand ideas. Paul also exhibits the Ethical Relativism of Utilitarianism. Ayn Rand did say that giving/helping someone with something is “an act of violence.” So when Libertarians say we’re against “violence” they really mean against acts of “giving/helping.” They’re not fooling anybody. BTW they can not name one country (just one) that operates its economy under Libertarian orthodoxy? Not one. If one has not had formal academic instruction in Ethics (in college) - one can fall into all this Ayn Rand, Rand Paul, John Birch, Libertarian nonsense - that has no real world example of successful operation - anywhere (anywhere) in the world. The Libertarian-Ayn Rand disciples can produce not a single real world (real world) example of their vision of society operating anywhere. So they are engaged in a tired-out discussion - about nothing - having more to do with the results of the Wall-Street collapse than in some new-old grand vision of/for broad based prosperity.
Olaf Brescia For the non-sequitur about Ayn Rand you'll need a citation. The fact that there are no purely free economies is not argument against a free economy.
"'So when Libertarians say we’re against “violence” they really mean against acts of “giving/helping.”" This is patently absurd, and rests upon your first unsubstantiated claim.
The Heritage Foundation has an index of economic freedom, and it's easy to see why it's a good thing, but that's another argument entirely. So to suffice; libertarians just want more of a good thing.
Monopolizing ethics to college classrooms is a dangerous idea. To monopolize education entirely to state bureaucrats is also an egregious offense to free thought. And a tool for any despot who wishes to subvert order for their own gain.
Ayn Rand, Rand Paul, (Never heard if John Birch) but Rand Paul isn't libertarian, Ayn Rand is on the end of the libertarian spectrum, which a lot of libertarians don't consider libertarian.
If you actually had a professor in philosophy you would understand that just because something does not presently exist does not mean it cannot exist. That is a philosophical inconsistency. And some basic-ass logic.
P.S. '08 collapse happened in the most over-regulated markets in the economy, cause by government controlled/regulated monetary supply, artificial interest rates etc.
So, sorry, but no.
Kunschner Rand Paul: “Do you have a right to water? Do you have a right to food?” [What] you’re basically saying is that you believe in slavery”
The issue with the Ayn Rand / Rand Paul / John Birch / Libertarian orthodoxy is at least two fold:
1) It must contend with Natural Law Ethics (which is how the Declaration of Independence is derived). Libertarian/Rand orthodoxy must attempt to persuade people that there are NOT things that no human being can live without. That human beings don’t need things like air, food, and water to survive and live a good life. To admit that there are things universal to all human beings for which they cannot live without, concedes to Natural Law Ethics, and THEN Libertarian/Rand dogma starts to unravel and be steamrolled by Natural Law Ethics. Do all (all) people need air, food and water to live? Yes. Therefore the basic premise of Libertarian/Ayn Rand orthodoxy is - false.
2) Libertarian/Ayn Rand orthodoxy can not cite any example where its view(s) translated into the real world will produce broad base prosperity. Because most view Libertarian/Rand orthodoxy as (over time) producing a Democratic Republic of Congo “Lord of the Flies” outcome, Libertarian/Rand supporters are forced into the Formal Fallacy of ‘Appeal to Ignorance.’ Though no system is perfect, progressives cite place like Scandinavia, and Germany as - on balance - having excellent outcomes, broad based prosperity in a real world example - where socioeconomic outcomes can be measured. Libertarian/Rand supporters must provide an example of a country with board based prosperity and explain why it is consistent with Libertarian/Rand orthodoxy - to make a convincing argument.
Libertarian/Rand orthodoxy cannot defeat or out-reason Natural Law Ethics. Ayn Rand / Rand Paul / John Birch / Libertarian orthodoxy is a hopeless morass of fallacy, and selfishness - with no place in civil society other than an academic example of the array of flawed thinking throughout history.
Because of Natural Law Ethics, the basic premise by which Ayn Rand / Rand Paul / John Birch / Libertarian orthodoxy attempts to operate from is - false.
Olaf Brescia Ayn Rand / Rand Paul / John Birch are not widely regarded as libertarian within libertarian circles, or historically. So stop using the word. Your more likely thinking neo-con.
The deceleration of independence was in line with libertarianism. But it was written by Thomas Jefferson and has no legal precedence.
1) Your premises on natural law are false. Natural law is concerned with interpersonal ethics, nothing else. Life, liberty and property "These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two."
2) Obviously your just repeating rhetoric and haven't had much conversation outside your echo-chamber.
As you've made broad arguments I'll make broad reply.
You mentioned there are no examples of which to base libertarianism off of (while that is a fallacy in itself) then say we commit the argumentum ad ignorantiam. So..
Post independence America had a remarkable set of conditions which led the country to be a world leader a relatively short amount of time.
Ironically the countries you mentioned had their "Wirtschaftswunder" post war due to unprecedented deregulation and dissolved govt agencies. So your ideal countries are prosperous because of periods wherein the economies were freer.
China and India are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty by opening up trade barriers, dissolving govt monopolies, deregulation markets, privatizing industries. This is the greatest net reduction of poverty in the history of man, and it's because these two countries are leaning towards capitalism.
South America has a long history of political swings, many examples to be found there. Chile the most prominent one. They're experiencing record growth after a long trend of govt reduction.
And these are all off the top of my head.
So instead, why don't you just comeback after reading some economic text books, some Sowell, Hazlitt, Friedman, Hayek, Rothbard, Bastiat, and not hearsay or secondary opinions from your prof.
Kunschner “People call Rand and idiot while having no accurate concept of what a right is, or even being able to extend their logic, to 'ad absurdum'.”
Incorrect. A Right can be derived by asking the question “What is something no human being can live (live) without. This is how Natural Rights are understood and how International Human Rights law is also derived.
“A legal right is something which is to be upheld, and in positivist law must be enforced. This is why Rand says you must extract the labor from another person. ”
Incorrect. Natural Law Ethics does not allow enslavement or other ‘evil’ to provide access to Natural Goods. Access does not equal “must extract labor.” If you eat chicken the poultry inspector is not your salve.
“For healthcare to be a right, then if an MD refuses you must necessarily exert force or compulsion upon them to service your right.”
Incorrect. If you eat chicken the poultry inspector is not your salve.
“So Rand is absolutely correct. Lastly, a right, in the proper sense, is a moral consideration in human conduct, and are actually negative, for they cannot be anything but if they are to be considered universal. People have a right /from/ the positive action of others, they do not have a right to act positively upon others.”
Incorrect: No one operates in a vacuum. A judge and/or jury may not rule positively upon you? Logical conclusion is you have no court system and so you arrive at the State of Nature (read: Lord of the Flies).
Therefore the basic premise of Libertarian/Ayn Rand orthodoxy is - false.
Paul was pointing out the absurdity of the concept of the "right to healthcare" -- and how it implies that healthcare providers should be forced to provide healthcare to society. Asking the woman whether or not she felt like she was a slave is not a rebuttal to this argument.
Tyler Hurson from Brett Larch 1 week ago: "You have a right to enslave us" [is the ] Slippery slope logical fallacy.
"We have always done it." [is the] Appeal to tradition [fallacy]
Fallacy:
1) A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
2) Faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
Tyler Hurson A ‘Rights’ are derived from Natural Law Ethics, which are derived from ‘the Good,’ which are derived as something: ”no human being can live without.” Paul is completely lost. That’s like saying because you eat chicken a poultry inspector is your slave. Why does he think they don’t deny food, water, and medical care to people in prison?
Tyler Hurson Sanders was simply pointing out, correctly, that Paul's arguments have no bearing on the reality of the way things actually work under universal healthcare. They are hyperbolic fear-mongering nonsense, nothing more.
Tyler Hurson Honestly this nonsensical (Healthcare = Slavery) reasoning, is really too much.
It is just a poorly reasoned, contradictory, non cogent excuse for selfishness.
If you walk into a grocery store not a single supplier of those products for sale - is anyone’s slave, (except perhaps the poor migrant workers picking the food). They are simply offering ‘self-evident’ Good[s] for sale. Self-evident “Goods” because food is a “Good” - so if you don’t eat food - you will die - so it is “self-evident” you need (non-poisonous) food.
By reasoning that Right to Healthcare = slavery, (the right to access to ‘the Good’ equates to slavery) then Libertarians must be very strong advocates for better (agricultural) migrant worker conditions and higher pay.
That last time I checked we subsidize food producers to help them, and to promote price “access” for everyone.
Remember access to healthcare is just a critical for life - as access to food. Only that healthcare has to do with timeframes. Food timeframe(s)/interval(s) are typically a more consistent and immediate need than healthcare. But otherwise there is no difference to a life for a human being.
Olaf Brescia What you socialist idiots mean by "right" is actually entitlement. ANd Rand Paul is exactly right on this one. I find it laughable that Sanders uploaded it as if he is correct on this one.
Listening to Paul made my ears bleed.
+Aggrias Oaks
Now that's just plain rude.
Truth hurts
@Edgehead10075 HEHE own the libs amirite! epic style! libs owned!
Edgehead10075 same as I said to BillyBumpyBear. Duh
KKona Bill dork
I live in northern ireland and have free healthcare i have never known a doctor to get taken from their home by the police and forced to treat a patient
this is why they need to teach ppl how tax system works.... free.. come on
@@bigshoots1181 yes I understand what you are saying by my use of the word free but hey wouldn't you rather have a better tax system that included your own healthcare I hope you are never in a position where yoiu can't afford your healthcare because you voted against it
@@hotirish123 in a free market healthcare system where it's a exchange between doctor and the patient the prices would be affordable and quality and incentives will get better because there is competition between doctors and for a very poor person this is where local communities and churches would donate to pay for those Healthcare situations but for example in Canada our Healthcare system is collapsing because it's too expensive and the supply and demand isn't there the demand for better quality health Care is there but the supply from the government isn't so we have to go to a free market, and the mistreatment of healthcare workers from the government also doesn't help. America is not a free market Healthcare system, the insurance companies are setting the prices for doctors, that's why it cost 50 Grand to have a childbirth in America because the insurance companies are setting the price at that basically forcing people to have to buy insurance where if there was no insurance companies no doctor would be able to charge 50 grand for a childbirth because other doctors would do it for cheaper and if they overcharge then no one will go to them so they will be forced to move to an affordable price or else they wouldn't be able to live because they wouldn't make any money. Big Pharma would also be upset because now there's competition from private labs coming up with and offering better treatments than the pills they are selling
@@bigshoots1181 The Canadian healthcare system is a mixed system and is failing because the Liberals and Conservatives keep gutting it for their lobbyists. Free market healthcare will never work because you can’t have a truly free market otherwise someone will have a monopoly or regulations must come in.
@@processlayer1212 canada system is not mixed, our tax dollars go towards the government to solely provide a monopolized system. Monopolies only happen due to corporations weaponizing government against their smaller competitors, that's why stem cell labs are in third world countries. Chronic lyme and the price of government healthcare is going to collapse the system for good, it's also a population issue, it's going to be unsustainable and already is, especially since there are also better treatments through private doctors or black market ones. Mental health is a good example of ppl using mushrooms taking away pharma money from their drugs which the government deals for them.
"Health care is a right, R-I-G-H-T." He's sassy and my favorite candidate for president. I bet you he #feelsthebern
I am not an American,but Mr. Bernie you got my vote!
Thank god you can't vote
@@QuickMadeUpName Sad that you can
@@DrCureAging DAMMMMMN
@@QuickMadeUpName I'm in Canada and will be legally voting for Bernie. Enjoy!
I'm sure your from some socialist comminust hell hole misery loves company right.
The look on the lady's face is my reaction to his speech.
Rand, you get paid like $150,000 per year, and no one is going to drag you out to the doctor's office in this country. You're not a slave.
+David Schultz That was such an absurd fucking comment. Can't believe no one laughed at the idiocy. And he goes on to say "do you have a right to plumbing?" What in the fuck? Good health is essential, working pipes, not as much. Fucking hell
Omair Sheikh True, Libertardians have nothing but catchlines, except when it comes to social issues.
Dr. Paul was saying this. If you have a right to Healthcare and no Doctors are availiable then you would have the right to get a doctor. So if you have the right to a doctor and you live in a small town with a single Doctor and he refused to assist you (He just finished a 18 hour shift) then by law that doctor has just violated your right to healthcare and would be arrested.
Assume you're in NYC with an enourmous Hospital overflowing with Doctors. Who pays them? Do we rob the productive members of Society to pay for Junkies and losers? Do we just keep borrowing until the currency flatlines and the country breaks down?
Let me give you an example. In Australia (Basically the same in Canada) we have this insane healthcare that means you just walk in and get treated. You will wait an average of an hour and a half to see a doctor about a broken leg because every man and his dog is in there for a sniffle or a cold. People die because of it. Doctors are flooded and Cancer goes undetected until it's too late even if you do get treatment. In the USA you can get immediate treatment from a Hospital for an inbuilt pacemaker and live or over here you can sit around for months just hoping to wake up tomorrow and maybe save a few grand.
But my final point. Would you take all your Grandkids and their kids and their kids and give them to a pawnbroker as Collateral so you could go study Theory of Self at College? That's what National Debt is. You're just putting your kids up as collateral so you can be lazy.
It's a metaphor you don't understand. "Libertardians have nothing but catchlines" your statement is a logical fallacy and is bigoted tribalism.
***** It wasn't a logical fallacy because it wasn't an attempt at logic. And it wasn't tribalism because I acknowledged their understanding of social issues. You're just trying to sound smart by using words you don't know about.
the Woman's reaction behind Paul is Priceless.. she is like WTF are you talking about? haha
rand's point is of course correct.
It was never answered. It is not more complicated than, you do not have rights to services provided by other people. This is unconditionally true.
I would rather have the people who believe in rights concede that point, and restate their mission.
I am sure it revolves arond having a pot where everyone pays in and that finances the services, so there is no coercion of the doctors. And the idea is that everyone does that because they are afraid that if they get sick they want to recieve free treatment and not be broke.
of course in the next step we find this is already done in most western states and it is a disaster and full of corruption.
We also find that those payments into the pot, they are often mandatory, which reintroduces coercion into the game.
Last but not least, a small point about attitude. Don't speak of rights, like "I have a RIGHT to xyz". It is another way of saying "I deserve" and shows that the person feels entitled.
comme le vent from Brett Larch 1 week ago: "You have a right to enslave us" [is the ] Slippery slope logical fallacy.
"We have always done it." [is the] Appeal to tradition [fallacy]
Fallacy:
1) A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
2) Faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
interesting.
I'm looking for an argument here but I have a hard time finding any.
Don't make me consult my oracle ok! Just tell me.
comme le vent Currently the elderly people have a right to medicare. Medicare is a really impressive system in that it spends only 2% of their income on overhead and the rest on actual health care. Most insurance companies are like 20-30 at least. Seems like it would save a lot of money to just have everyone go on medicare. If you have an unalienable right to life shouldn't that include the health care you need to stay living? Obviously it's not some random doctor's job to provide it but if as a nation we want to ensure that care for everyone we can do that.
Olaf Brescia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
comme le vent Rand's point is, of course, INCORRECT.
"You do not have rights to services provided by other people". Say what? So, by this argument, firemen and police officers are "slaves." We do not have a "right" to the services provided by firemen and police officers.
Ah...but we as a society...as a civilization...have formed civic entities to provide police and fire protection. As well as schools and garbage collection, and many other things that a civilization depends on, but that you don't want in the hands of the private market. (Oh, want to argue that one? Like where homes that don't pay for fire protection just burn down....maybe next to yours?).
So the CORRECT way of looking at the health care problem is that the basic part of it should be covered and treated the way we have police and fire protection. And please don't waste our time by arguing that is what ERs do....because that is NOT what they do, nor should they be (handling basic health care).
I also like how you utterly fail in your assessment of other Western states with national/single payer health care. They pay less than we do (FACT), they cover far more citizens (FACT)....all of which underlines the disaster that is the private American health care system.
I was today years old when I learned that every doctor outside of the US is enslaved
You write comments like you were born today too. Not the brightest crayon in the box are you?
If they're not slaves, then there's no right to healthcare. Universal healthcare does not = right to healthcare. If a doctor can refuse to treat you, you have no right to healthcare.
Stupid argument really. Maybe it's best to say, health care is a right so long as there's doctors who want work. You ask any doctor in Europe, they'll tell you they aren't slaves. They can quit their jobs whenever they want.
It's called a society Paul. One created by humans for humans. It's not a fantasy idea, humans have created all of it and humans are tribal and most want to help others. Comparing single payer healthcare to slavery is Orwellian misuse of the English language ie. freedom=slavery. Every other developed country has single payer healthcare. We can change jobs without worrying about going bankrupt due to getting sick. That's freedom, the opposite is more like slavery being trapped in a job that's not healthy or good for your physical or mental health to keep private health insurance. I certainly feel much freer. Does he consider the police and fire departments slaves too for having to respond to calls for emergencies? Armies slaves for having to fight wars politicians decide they want to fight?
Do you believe that the government has the responsibility to enforce the law, prevent crimes, and facilitate restitution for the victims of crimes? If so, you want to enslave police, judges, state's and federal attorneys. Do people have a right not to be raped or murdered? Freedom involves some kind of corporeal autonomy, I would assume. So how is that ensured? It is necessarily, through exactly the same concept of coercion that Paul talks about.
If you don't believe that you have a right to protection from criminals, and/or the government has no corresponding responsibility, that's fine. People should then have to purchase security or mete out their own justice. But that's not a world that's free of coercion. In fact it's a might-makes-right hellscape which involves infinitely more coercion then one in which there is a court system and just maybe poor people don't die without access to healthcare.
Let me ask you this, is it right to put someone in jail for not paying for somebody else's healthcare?
Kevin Wayne wrong
you are a crazy authoritarian man
no because even if we didn't use the services money would still be stolen
I live in Canada.
I have never had to _force_ myself into a doctors office, because I've never been _denied._
Sen. Paul, speaking as a man who will be a physician one day, if it kills me, I would like to inform you, if you weren't already aware, that you are, with all due respect, completely full of $#!+ on this issue. 1) How dare you conflate slavery with universal healthcare? I don't know if you're aware, but doctors in western countries that provide healthcare as a right (almost all of them) tend to get paid, and by the way, the government can't buy and sell their wives, husbands, and children! 2) You swore an oath to help people. You devoted at least a decade of your life to that end. If you considered making a lot of money anything but a fringe benefit, and incidental motivation in your career choice, than I just don't know what to say.
He is comparing it to slavery because doctors will be forced to take on patients they don't want to and also forced to take on more work. Yes, they will be paid, but will be forced to take on more work because the reality is that we don't have enough doctors to cover everyone. Since we don't have enough doctors than either we have to force more people to become doctors or we force the ones we have to work harder for less pay.
We see the same problem with public education, teachers have to take on more students but don't get paid anymore.
Do you understand what the word "right" means?? It means that if anyone seeks to deny you that right then you are justified in using force and violence against them!! That's why he was talking about slavery! There is no "right" to healthcare precisely because it involves the service of other individual human beings. If we start claiming that certain human services are rights then you are in principle legitimizing slavery in certain situations. It is simply a logical fallacy on Sanders' part to claim healthcare as a "right".
Cameron Lopez I disagree. I don't believe force and/or violence is ever justified. To paraphrase Gandhi, rights are worth dying for, but nothing is worth killing for. All being a "right" means, is that it is immoral to deny another person of it, and in the case of positive rights, immoral to not help them get it. If we accept that the government is in a position to not only lower healthcare costs, but also provide it to everyone, and there are people suffering and dying right now for want of healthcare, how can you say the people do not have a right to that healthcare?
***** So you don't have a right to defend yourself from bodily harm or death? That point aside, the idea that a right can in any way be defined in terms of the actions of more than one individual is simply a fallacy. I make the logical distinction that healthcare is a tremendous good in society and that people should ideally be able to get it when they need it. However, when you claim that healthcare is a "right", it's just a bloated attempt at trying to trump the opposing viewpoint and end the conversation. Sorry, but you're going to have to come up with a better argument if you want to force people to pay for other people's healthcare.
Cameron Lopez People have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Does that mean that we can get away with killing for those rights? Your logic is flawed.
Always interested to hear Paul's perspective on a myriad of issues, but the notion of equating healthcare to slavery is flawed. Ensuring that health care is a right won't force physicians to do their jobs because those that feel forced would likely not enter the field at all. Additionally, there will still be a significant amount of doctors that will willingly want to provide healthcare
And the key part about slavery is that you are forced to do it for free, universal healthcare still means doctors are paid. The ones who lose out are the insurance companies.
Also there are certain social obligations that you just have. The US used to have conscription, still has a jury duty, we still have to obey the law. There are duties that we have as citizens rather we like them or not.
Rand Paul needs immediate medical attention!
Hahaha the face of the woman sitting behind Rand Paul says it all!
I had that same thought.
That girl behind Paul has the exact same reactions I'm having to his retort.
In America, doctors can refuse to treat patients. Therefore, healthcare is not a right. The end.
Let’s make a law to make it so that doctors can’t refuse it
Access to care from someone should be a right. End
@@SandfordSmythe Nope. You have no right to other people's labor or money.
@@vincesmith2499 Unless you are God or have an affidavit from him, don't talk about "rights". We live in a democracy and the people decide rights.
@@SandfordSmythe Oh, so if the people decide gay marriage isn't a right, then it isn't? The Supreme Court would beg to differ.
"You're saying people have the right to food... water..." Yea, they do actually. I'm sure you would want food if you were out on the streets.
No, if you want your next meal, go earn it. Want a house? Go earn it. With your way of thinking no one will work because you are going to get your food, clothing, shelter and healthcare anyway. Farmers will be OK but you city folks .... If you want my help when the chips are down you need to prove to me that you are someone trying to make it, not just some bum looking for the next free meal.
@@elkabong8454 What if you are unable? What if there are no avalaible jobs? What if you don't have the capacity to earn money, maybe due to physical or psychological problems? I know this guy that lives about 45 minutes from where I live, he must be in his 50s I think, worked all his life. One day he lost a limb and had to retire, he lost his house too because he had to rent it as he was too poor to afford buying one. Now he lives inside this car and really only manages to survive off of charity. It's not the 1950s anymore, sometimes even if you try your hardest you do not succeed, you do not achieve your dreams. And this could be for countless reasons. When I think about rights to healthcare or anything similar I think of the unluckiest members of our society, those that can't do much to improve their quality of life. Not all of us have the same opportunities so please do not assume that if you want something you can just have it. It's not true, maybe it was 40 years ago but now it is simply not something everyone can do.
@@scorpion5574 You basically want to hire a thug (government) to accomplish what you want. That's just rubbish. If you see someone in need then get off your back side and provide, freely and willingly, your time, money, efforts, skills and abilities to help them. You can do this directly, you can donate to a 501c3 or you can start your own 501c3 to help such people if you think it's so important. That is called caring. That is called freedom. Hiring the government to put a gun to your fellow Americans head to force the fruits of their labor out of their hands and into that of a third party that has no accountability just leads us further away from America and freedom of choice. I give/help when and where I can. Be it at church, my community, my family. That is my choice and it is also yours and I encourage all Americans to take such action.
You are all going the wrong way. If you want to know what healthcare should look like in America, listen to someone that put their money where their mouth is instead of trying to force you via the government to do something a certain way. Dr. Keith Smith on free market healthcare - www.econtalk.org/keith-smith-on-free-market-health-care/
A beautiful execution of the slippery slope fallacy.
Vote for me and you get to pay for Kim Kardashian's medical bills. Isn't that fun?
+Bernie Sanders uh. no. that's not how healthcare works, moron.
***** People who can pay for it, pay for it. People who can't get it anyway because it's healthcare. Look up the absolute bare basics of how it works and you'd know that.
+Bernie Sanders; That's just silly. In principle, yes, you would be contributing to Kim Kardashian's health care. The thing is though, even if she chooses to avail herself of that care, that won't include butt implants and the like. It will include basic, essential health care. Of course, she won't avail herself of it though, because she doesn't want just basic, essential care. She wants the best care money can buy, so she'll buy that care with her own money. At the same time though, she will be paying for your medical bills. She and you, will also be contributing to the health care of those who might not be able to otherwise afford it and who might otherwise get sick and possibly die as a result. As we're over-simplifying, apparently you want those people to get sick and die.
+Mr. Swine Im not american (thank God) but even I know that income tax is unconstitutional. No doubt, you also believe that 911 was perpetrated by some Saudis in a cave somewhere. The fact is it was perpetrated and covered up by some guy sitting in an elementary school classroom. And yes I mean the same oaf who had the 2000 election stolen for him.
+Jones "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." - The Sixteenth amendment. A quick google search debunks your first statement, and the second one is a not even worth arguing.
Senator Paul has put forward a stupid ( derisory ) argument.
"I do it for the privileges"
Rand Paul is green, cheap knee jerk reactions. Bernie is a Man for the People.
ug mold that's your opinion and i respect man, but sanders is not the man for the people, if he is then why does not respect our right to bear arms, he's very anti 2nd amendment and he will not get my vote.
Afi James Prove that to be true. I did like Rand's Dad. So far Bernie, even if he is against the 2nd (which I am am not, and I don't think he is) is still miles above the others when it comes to caring about the People First and foremost.
Afi James You have no idea what you are talking about, you need to educate yourself on Sanders before you talk shit. Wanting to ban "assault rifles" does not = "against the second amendment" fucktard. I assure you, had there been assault rifles when the amendment was drafted...there would have been controls. Wake the fuck up, and stop talking out of your ass.
Why don't you al embrace Bernie Sanders - he would probably be the best and most sincere US president ever!!!
+Herbert Pronk And Stalin was the Bestest USSR leader EVER!!!!!! Bernie is a totalitarian.
sixsaxsoxsex
...the "bestest "...how old are you ?
Stalin killed 20-30 million people, most Russians, so explain why he was the best....quite a horrible thing to say, by the way.
+Herbert Pronk And maybe you could explain why this dried-up old Socialist would be better than Stalin. After all, they both want the same thing: Complete government control to do "What is best for the country."
sixsaxsoxsex
To begin with : I do not expect mr Sanders to kill 20-30 million Americans if he's the next president. What do you expect ?
sixsaxsoxsex
Who is your favorite... mr Trump?
The right to health care is not forcing doctors and hospital employees to work for you. These people choose to work there, and are paid for a fair amount of time (in this model, by the government). Health care for all seeks to change the eligibility for the service, not to change the nature of how the service is delivered.
Believe what you want, but this is why Bernie would be so good if he ended up debating with Trump. He is capable of picking up on something ridiculous someone says and making them look like an absolute fool. Trump gets flustered from that sort of thing
+RobinBonhomme
yep. he has tremendous experience doing it. i don't think it'd be very easy for trump or most people really to counter that if they were speaking to him directly. i'm not saying it's impossible but it is for trump
He completely lost to Paul. Bernie had no legitimate rebuttal.
no rebuttal? bwahahahahahaaaaaa. kids these days, lol
Haha and that's why we say President Trump!!
I justlove the Lady in the back and her facial expression while she's listening to Rand, "WTF is he talking about?"
Health care is not a "noble thing", it is a question of morals and the general well being of society. If you have a person with highly contagious tuberculosis who has no insurance, then just let'em be?
Many great philosophers have said that you can judge a society by the way it treats it's weakest members, or even animals, this concept is lost on fanatics like Paul.
*****
Is a policeman or a fireman in servitude? Nobody is talking about enslaving doctors.
***** You were talking about enslaving the doctor (fireman etc) but now you are talking about enslaving the taxpayer, your argument is schizophrenic.
Would you rather pay the fireman directly when your house is on fire? Do you want to build the road you will use yourself so as to avoid the "forced extraction" of taxes?
Nobody is talking about enslaving doctors or making them government employees. Do you even understand what functioning healthcare programs in other civilized countries are based on?
Well no. Most philosopher's are fanatics themselves. And you are claiming to want a society where the minority doesn't matter because it's for the better good of most people. So if that's not it then wtf is your moral standing?
DCUnderdog3000
Most philosophers are fanatics? You got some evidence of that? You completely missed the point and if by minority you mean the 1% then yes correct, it doesn't matter.
I love how people don't even reference what Paul said. They totally eliminate the part where Paul says as a Christian, he should help people in need. That's where the world, and most ignorant Leftist Americans, go wrong. Forcing people to take care of others ALWAYS back fires. If people do not choose to help others, slavery and resentment occurs. No centralized government can ever help people efficiently. The reason why the US is so strong and innovative is because they believe in taking care of yourself and neighbor, so big government should not be needed. This allows higher standards if living though the private innovative sectors.
Rand used a logical fallacy 'appeal to extremes'.
Well, he is a Neo Nazi, so...
I find it funny for him to bring up slavery and "our" founding fathers, as if they had ANY PROBLEM AT ALL WITH SLAVERY??🤣🤣
not only that, you don't have to go that far back in history to see that digging up history would destroy his stance. it was literally the govt that imposes its will on the slave-owners to release the slaves. if anything, letting folks run their thing was what led to slavery, it's what led to the least amount of freedom. freedom absolutism is stupid. it naturally progresses into a paradox. we will always have encroachment of freedom. we just need to use common sense and sort of our priorities. freedom of slave-owners vs freedom of slaves. religious liberty vs freedom from religious commandments.
Right. Benjamin Franklin was the only one who opposed slavery, and he had slaves.
@@everettduncan7543 dude! I forgot why I wrote that! I had to rewatch the video for context and I was STILL blown away by the fucking idiocy of that slavery comparison 🤣
@@everettduncan7543 not true. Samuel Adams opposed slavery and did not own slaves. Others did not as well, they are just not as famous
@@GrammeStudio
"Letting folks run their thing was what led to slavery"
Historically incorrect, and unnuanced thing to say.
I love Paul's face when Sanders starts asking questions. Paul looks like he is going to burst out laughing along with everyone else. It's like he doesn't even believe the stuff that comes out of his own mouth and does it purely for show.
As a person living in an 'undeveloped' country, we DO have subsidized healthcare, and it's nothing like he says. You can either wait for the government to enlist you as a doctor and get subsidies, or be a private doctor with no subsidies. So no, slavery doesn't happen. It's like you guys have Stockholm syndrome.
Rand Paul is a nut.
Wow I really thought this might be a good debate. Right up until Rand said "slavery"...
Our politicians need some serious schooling about what consitutes a right. Human rights are liberties that are weaved into the very fabric of reality. They are inalienable. They come from our being human. Therefore, human rights are the same whether I'm living on a deserted island, or whether I'm a billionaire living in the United States of America. A service that someone renders unto you, such as healthcare or paid vacation, cannot be a human right because it is only something that can be provided in a communal situation. A right is something that is owed. Nobody owes me healthcare.
Conscript me? Wtf? This is Ron Paul's son?
if that conservative said that here in Europe, he would have gotten laughed at instantly, and immediately discharged.
Yeah, that shit wouldn't stick here in Europe. In my country (Finland) this hasn't even been a debate for a long time. Every politician agrees that health care is a right.
Free healthcare, what a loaded term. Rand would still be getting 100's of thousands of dollars a year for his physician services even with a Universal healthcare system. Rand's concern is losing huuuuge contributions from for profit health insurance and doctors lobbies in Washington. Bernie is just Bernie being Bernie, benevolent. A lonely song in the middle of the night.
Freakin Rand Paul taken apart piece-by-piece by Bernie Sanders. And done so with eloquent fashion... LOL..
i dont understand all this healthcare rubbish, i live in new zealand we have free health care for everyone. no insurance, we pay taxes so we have equal health care its simple and it works for everyone. no major flaws. england, canada and australia all have the same. a lot of profit can be made by exploiting the health system in america and i think this is why it isnt free. america may be a great country but i certainly dont want to live there, not until the common citizen can get free health care.
how is your healthcare "free" if you have to pay taxes for it? do you think your government funded doctors and hospitals don't make a profit? do you think the American healthcare system is the only exploited one in the world? do you really think there are absolutely "no major flaws" in other healthcare systems?
obviously these are rhetorical questions that I only hope will help you understand "all this healthcare rubbish"
"Free" as in the doctors work for "free" and people build hospitals out of the goodness of their hearts in their spare time? Oh wait, maybe the government shakes a magic fairy-tale money tree and pays for all of it by selling unicorns and leprechauns.
mgarrettroth Nobody ever said anything about doctors working for free. ALL THE HEALTHCARE WORKERS ARE STILL GETTING PAID and run their own private practices. Free just means that if you are a patient, it's free at the time of treatment, and as a doctor it means you're free to treat anybody that walks in the door (rather than having to turn people away because of their financial status).
It's just like social security, you pay an almost invisible amount on every paycheck (payroll tax) and then when you're retirement age you will have regular income coming in (you saved up for when you needed it). Healthcare is the same thing, the taxes are you are paying your payments on potentially needing care in the future. Some people pay a few grand and never need medical care...they lost a few thousand bucks throughout their life and didn't notice. Those who did need it ended up getting treated and they paid in less than the benefits they received. But when you average it out it was able to cover most people's medical needs at a much more reasonable price.
In the USA we don't have that "helping others" mindset so if one person didn't need the medical care but they helped pay into it, they'd often say "Why are these other sick people taking MY MONEY!" but if they needed the medical care to save their life, they wouldn't hesitate to use the system to get their free medical care.
Some people have more money than others, it's reality, we should accept that and realize that those who are very well off are going to pay a bit more into a pot that benefits everybody. If we could eliminate money altogether and have a classless society, that would be great but it's a ways off.
Why does every form of economics have to be a market of profit seeking, greedy, self-interested companies? Can't we make money and help people at the same time?
dgustafson1000 So again, how is it free for the patient if its funded by their tax dollars?
And no doctor HAS to turn a patient away because of financial shortcomings. They can CHOOSE to work for free, and most doctors claim they believe in the Hippocratic Oath.
Social Security tax is "invisible"? Please explain. Last time I checked the Social Security tax is 12.4%. If you're lucky enough (nowadays) to be employed rather than self-employed then you and your employer split that. But self-employed pay it whole. This is certainly not a "few thousand bucks throughout their life"! Wake up! Whether its SS or healthcare, if you are young and paying into the system you are getting screwed! And the more reliant society becomes on these systems the more costly they become and the less efficient they are.
FYI: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.
There is no more reasonable price than that which is paid voluntarily. If I don't want it, then the price I'm willing to pay is Zero. Its should be up to every individual to decide whether they want and or need it and therefore will pay for it. Just because I think you need to take a course in economics doesn't mean I have the right to force you to do it and then make you pay for it because its "to your benefit."
The USA is more charitable than any other nation on Earth. If you believe that government is necessary to protect us from ourselves then you are falling for their propaganda. I can decide for myself whether I should save or insure for retirement or healthcare. If I make the wrong decision I expect to live with that. I certainly don't need some idiot politician with corporate hands in their pocket to decide that for me.
There is nothing wrong with profit-seeking. And it can be done while also helping others.
theelwoodful Ah, the folie a deux of the American right in full display, always searching for a moral justification to be a selfish prick. You people are an embarrassment to this country.
"Forced to provide healthcare services" = slavery for the doctor who still gets paid ...
"Forced into loading debt or death" = slavery for the patient who looses what they got paid ...
Maybe, those 30 million people who are uninsured could pay into a system where they get insured?
Yes, by keeping those 30 million people in, the middle man (insurance) cannot profit as much...but that is the problem.
Healthcare should be a right, because the issue is too sensitive and fundamental to people's live to be a private luxury.
In america we understand that you cannot privatize everything. The world doesn't work that way. Some industries exploit people. Insurance is a scam.
Positive vs Negative rights, ladies and gentlemen.
I think sen. Paul has an interesting point of view, but I definitely don't agree with what he is saying.
+Bensaw11 Exactly what I was thinking. Philosophy of government is a great topic, but his views aren't compatible with the 21st century in my opinion.
+Bensaw11 That interesting point of view is called delusional paranoia and non sequiturs. It defies logic.
+Jonathan Stegeman How are "his views not compatible with 21st century"?
+MrSinister718 Yeah economic illiteracy and ideological willfulness is so much better. Looooooots of sarcasm in case you couldn't process that.
Brian Krueger I believe they aren't compatible with the 21st century due to the introduction of the middle class mixed with the rise of corporations. Letting businesses turn big helped start the industrial revolution, when no one really cared how much they were getting paid as long as they were getting paid. But in today's world, workers want a fair share of the profits while corporations move to other countries for cheap labor. This is a very debatable issue, but this is why I believe his views aren't compatible.
The lady sat behind Rand is looking increasingly concerned the more he speaks...
"slavery"? Really, Paul? dafuq
RAND PAUL has NO problems with the government taking(conscripting/stealing) taxes and using it for everything including for the military which is basically a militant strike force for the oil companies
The military budget compromises about 55% of US tax dollars
Edgehead10075 it does you putts who pluses up his own comments lol. You’re contradicting yourself sophist. I’ve heard this silly talking point from Rand his head in the Sand Paul before. By that logic all public servants are slaves. Cops, firemen, the military, the postal services, road builders, the military etc. are all slaves smh. Stop being such an ignorant asshole troll and get a life
Love how Rand couldn't help but smile at the end there.
The United States was founded on the ideals that people have a right to be treated fairly and that people have a right to happiness. Those were the ideals that made this country one of the greatest in the world. Conservatives talk the most about American ideals but I'm seeing that, here in the 21st century, it's those like Bernie who actually believe in those ideals. If the U.S. is going to continue to be a great nation based on the ideals of the founding forefathers, we need to put more people like Sanders in charge and support their policies.
***** Semantics. Obviously not everyone is going to be happy all the time. It's clear though that the founding fathers valued the general well-being or the happiness of the populace. "Everybody-for-himself" wasn't an ideal that they endorsed, nor were they in favor or a ruling aristocracy. It's relevant because conservatives will rant on and on ignorantly about the founding fathers and American ideals.
+William Ogden It's not semantics AT ALL, it's a very clear and real and a severe difference. You're right America was not founded on the idea of "everyone for himself", it was founded on the idea that the sacrifice of individual liberty in name of a "greater good" is the fundamentally flawed idea that has always lead to the downfall of society.
no.
+Alexandru The God he said Constitution. not Declaration of Independence. read.
+Nathan Becker sell said. You got his ass.
These two beautiful men could've been our candidates but we ended with Trump or Hillary. Like seriously what's wrong with everyone
m8, Donald is like Ron Paul (father of the Rand Paul) but younger. Thus, DONALD IS BEAST! CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP!
Max Weiss lol, Trump is NOTHING like Ron
@Edgehead10075 Rand brilliant?? HAHAHA! The dude just compared Doctors who get paid by the federal government to slaves. Rand is a total fucking moron!
Brought to you by the same people who responded to the idea of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 with, "Why don't we just give everybody $100,000 an hour?"
I am curious to know for those agreeing with Paul, why you and he are not also arguing about the "slavery" of attorneys from the sixth amendment?
Just when you think Rand Paul can't say any thing more stupid, he steps up to the plate. USA!! USA!! USA!!
I like that you were both very respectful of each other despite your clashing worldviews.
Yes, a good civil discussion. We need more vids like this.
@@thomascunningham5483 screw that idiot Paul, doesn’t belong in public office
Libertarians crumble under the weight of their stupidity pretty quick. You don't even have to engage.. Just watch the wreck and politely acknowledge they exist is all you need to win the debate.
I didnt know my doctor, here in Canada, was a slave to me.
I'm not sure why people are calling Rand Paul names. He very clearly explained the principles of liberty. If you believe healthcare is a 'RIGHT' because it is a necessity, then you must also believe that you have a right to FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER, etc... If you are hungry, do you have the 'RIGHT' to go onto someone's property and take their food or use their clothes or sleep in the house just because you feel you have the 'RIGHT' to do so? No you don't. But, you want the government to force individuals into providing these services for you.
I'm very afraid that this Bernie bandwagon is quickly gaining immense ground without any of the people that jumped on board questioning it's base principles. Very sad... and dangerous.
+QuickMadeUpName I think where a lot of you get tripped up is the difference between a 'right' and a 'responsibility'. Let me help explain with one quick example: We (individuals) have a 'RESPONSIBILITY' to help out homeless people, but YOU do not have the 'RIGHT' to take something from ME in order to give it to the homeless person. Hope that helps make the connection.
I never said that I think that I'm smarter than everyone. Nor did I imply it. Nor do I think it.
One does not need to be smarter than everyone in order to understand something that everyone doesn't.
Are you smarter than Hitler was? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that you are not capable of seeing that he was wrong.
+Floyd Turbo Floyd, do you believe in liberty? Yes or no.
Ok. Last question...
Can you please define your idea of liberty in your own words?
+QuickMadeUpName Floyd, can't define it?
Bern him Bernie! #feelthebern
This was my dream match. Turns out it already happened and that Rand Paul wasn't as worthy of an adversary as I originally thought he would be...
ron paul is the dream match libertarian vs socialist
Interesting that the same people who complain that health care is not a right also are not in favor of fair wages.
Kate White And who gets to decide what a fair wage is? You and Bernie?
I can't think of a period in time that I've been alive where we have two clear cut stances on two very different types of governing philosophies. I would absolutely love to see Sanders and Paul do a general debate. Maybe even in town hall format. To me it would be better than the damn Super Bowl. I think a lot of Americans would walk away having a much stronger understanding of how they feel about issues, right or left. Liberal or Conservative.
Went to an insane asylum the other day; could have sworn I saw Rand Paul there...
+jason12794 were you checking yourself in? It's also natural to see a Doctor at an asylum.
We should all have the healthcare that a U.S. Senator has, and paid for the same way too.
Just like I treat cops as my slave! Just like I treat Firefighter as a slave, I will treat my doctors as my slaves too if Healthcare is free. 🤣🤣🤣
Senator Sanders nails this one beautifully. To take the simple concept of single payer and pervert it into slavery is absurd. Vermont will be the first state to offer single payer and that's all that really matters.
2krisko Slavery is forced unpaid labor with physical abuse. Are the fire department and police treated like slavery? Think again.
Do you think it's bad that the government has a monopoly on fire department? See your flawed reasoning.
Hahahaha the girl's face. Rand you are so unbelievably delusional. This is the video all Rand Paul fans need to see. #FeelTheBern
In Obamacare, the law favors patients, over doctors. As a result, some doctors refuse to treat patients with Obamacare insurance.
I was going to vote for Rand before he dropped out, now I'm feeling the Bern! Thank you Bernie for staying true to your principles for your entire life. We may not agree on some issues but you are honest and nothing beats real honesty.
+Sovereign Rebellion I'm just a tad curious, what do you agree with Sen. Sanders on?
+ToastChickens His stance on the war on drugs and mass incarceration that is identical to Rand's, how he is going to decriminalize cannabis. His stance against the trans-pacific-partnership and NSA mass surveillance. His isolationist stance voting against going into Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also a lie that he voted for spending bills because he wanted more war; he only voted in favor of 4/10 NDAA spending bills between 2003-2011 to increase funding to the VA and hurricane Katrina victims. How Bernie wants to repeal Obamacare for a single payer healthcare system controlled by the states, and his stance against common core acts like "No Chid Left Behind". He also worked with Rand Paul on trying to pass legislative term limits and also to audit the federal reserve. Yes I know about his supposed disagreement over Ron Paul's bill, simply put he was trying to get it to pass. Granted Trump is most likely going to be the Republican nominee you bet I will try to get Sanders the nomination to keep Hillary out who would beat Trump, you bet I would vote for Sanders over Trump.
@@TheBohemianReport Looks like the main reason you're voting for Bernie is for socialized healthcare. If you oppose using force against the Iraqis and drug users, why make an exception when it comes to stealing money from innocent people to pay for someone else's healthcare?
@@thinkngskeptic quite the patriot you are when you rather have your money spent on people shooting muslims than on your fellow Americans getting proper healthcare when they can't pay it themselves
@@semh2000 You should study logic. I didn't imply that I like the Iraq war or the drug war.
Sanders...if healthcare is a right, then, I will send you my bill
Rick Baker It should be, and the bill would be payed out by the government.
Don't you think that is a better use of tax dollars than building more tanks and blackhawks to park in bases around the country or giving subsidies to multi-billion dollar corporations who manufacture out of the country?
***** I think a better use of tax payer dollars is to ask tax payers how they want their money spent.
I don't believe that the government should use force to take my money to pay for someone else's lifestyle
Rick Baker So are you pleased with the current system? If not, what would you change? Would you get rid of government completely? Would you scale it back so that it's irrelevant? Would you be in favor of privatizing everything that is a public service today? Do you think all taxes are bad?
How libertarian are you exactly?
***** Taxes in any system are necessary in order to maintain a civil government. But with how much overreach we have now, over taxation, intrusion into personal liberty...of course I am not happy with the way things are.
I would get rid of quite a few government agencies. I would be in favor of privatizing a lot of services, to the local governments. there is too much to go into on a com box on youtube
***** The government doesnt pay for anything, the taxpayers do. Always remember that.
This is my problem with libertarianism: people eventually run out of supplies, but not everyone has access to the supplies to get by. If a trained doctor has to be woken in the middle of the night to help someone, then I would expect you to do the job because you chose that profession. Maybe you should have the right to refuse, but if someone's dying and you can help them, I'd feel obliged to do what I can.
Who's going to pay for everything?
@@JoeCurreri-mj4mcnewsflash: you're already paying. Around the same per capita as the NHS ($5k).
Where do you think the money comes from to allow emergency treatment of people who would never get financial loans that high ?
or are you trapped in your little fantasy libertarian world ?
Oh yeah, and slap $8k in private payments on top.
The US spends about 20% on healthcare.
Germany spends 11.4% and still has lower waiting times. The other major nations spend around 10%.
lmao the girl behind Rand looks pissed I'm laughing so hard at her expression.
A Chinese official once asked a Chinese farmer what he would do to help the state. The official asked the farmer, "If you had two houses, would you donate one to the State?" The farmer said that he would. Delighted to hear that, the official asked the farmer, "If you had two cars, would you donate one the state?" Again, the farmer said yes. Amazed at what he was hearing, the official asked one last question, "If you had two horses, would you donate one to the state?" The farmer says that he wouldn't. Confused, the official asked why? The farmer said, "cause I have two horses."
+KracknCorn i like it. :)
+KracknCorn I don't get it. Someone help enlighten me?
mrky wters I reread it 6 times? Come on. Is it suppose to not make sense?
+Jimmy Schiff I'm not sure either, but I think it means that the majority of people are only willing to agree with the state to get them to go away... but when it comes down to the state having more real and serious effects on their livelyhood, that's when the truth about what most people think about the state comes out.
Take the doctor who says she "doesn't feel like a slave", the reality is she is getting paid through funds taken from a lot of people who don't agree with the idea of public healthcare. The doctor is just fine with being a proxy to economic slavery, but in reality if she was literally forced by the state to provide services to others for no compensation... she would be running to the defense of men and women who view the world on a deeper philosophical level like Rand Paul.
+Jimmy Schiff People are hypocrites. They say stuff like "When I'm rich I'll help the poor!" and then they become a rich turncoat.
You have a moral right to take care of people. Not a legal one. Rand Paul slays Bernie! #STANDWITHRAND
+Brady D Well said. Very well said!
as long as it doesn't cost rich people money....right? :D
what paul is saying is of course, logical, but we are not just logical beings, we feel.
MisterSir well said
Great to hear a real debate. Does anyone have the complete video? This is just a clip.
Anyone who looks at the girl behind Sen. Poul, she's is thinking "What!!!!"
you don’t have a right to force a doctor to allow you into their home for your physical, but you do have a right for your healthcare visits to be affordable for you.
No
Never get tired of watching this. Hilarious haha. Bernie schools him!
Where in Canada did the cops ever show up at a Dr office through the night and demand that they look at a patient
Love the face of the lady in the back while he produces this dizzying concept
No one has a right to a service. Assuming healthcare is a right hypothetically speaking let's say no one in the US wanted to become a doctor, a nurse or any sort of healthcare practitioner, who then would provide care for people. Let's say you were very knowledgeable and excelled in health care but wanted to pursue a career in art. But since healthcare is a right you were forced against your will by the government to provide healthcare. That is the point rand paul is trying to bring home.
And that point is idiotic. News Flash! Socialized medicine exists in every industrialized country in the world. Those countries DON'T have a shortage of doctors and DON'T force people to assume the profession.
Just like in the US - there's NO shortage of police officers (law enforcement being a public good and publicly financed) and NO police officers are ever forced into that occupation.
The point is asinine and immaterial.
roomie4rent
I am simply pointing out the principal Rand Paul was laying out. Obviously there is no shortage of doctors or healthcare practitioners. The notion that you're entitled to one to is selfish and egotistic. What people really mean when they say healthcare is a right is that they have a right to have their healthcare bills subsidized. Between 1960 and 2009, the portion of US healthcare expenses paid by the government increased from 24% to 48%, while consumers decreased from 48% to 12%. During that same period, US healthcare spending increased from 5.2% of the nation's economy to 17.8%, which is a little more than 3 times. (Source: www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/index.html?redirect=/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage). Every time government gets involved in any affair the outcome ends up pricey.
If Rand Paul's argument was widely broadcast in the free world, I can tell you everyone would be laughing their asses off. Just because something is labeled a right, it doesn't give you authority on the provider. It just means that you can get to the hospital and get equal treatment. And if there's ''not enough'' medical staff, the medical staff doesn't get punished!
Making it a right is saying that since everyone pays some sort of health tax, everyone is entitled to being taken care of. So, instead of paying insurance premiums, you'd pay taxes. It doesn't make THAT much of a difference in your wallet at the end of the day.
Karl Saleh And the rest of the free world is lagging behind the US is several ways. There is a reason why the US has the best university system, is leading the way in research and innovation of technology, also, we are more free than any other countries. The rest of the "free" world have a completely different mindset than us, the US likes freedom and liberty.
Basically with socialized healthcare you are forcing people to take on work that they don't want. It is similar to slavery. If we don't have enough doctors than they will have to work more, or we will have to ration out care like they do in other countries which lowers the quality. But in the end they will be forced to take on work they don't want.
roomie4rent Lol they actually do. where the holy fuck are you getting your information from you liar?
Get'em Bernie
Imagine a young little boy called Johnny. He is really nice and joyful, but he has a heart disease called cardiomyopathy. One day, he is playing with his friends at a park. They are having a lot of fun and are happy just like children deserves to. Then, suddenly Johnny has a seizure. Someone call the emergencies, after 20 minutes, an emergency car comes in, they take in Johnny and his mother. When they arrive at the hospital, the mother ask for his son to stay at the hospital because of his critical state, even if she doesn't have the money to pay it. The doctor say no because he doesn't want to be enslaved, a few days later, Johnny dies because of his inssuficient treatment. Johnny's family is profoundly affected by his death. His mother falls into depression and his fatheris showing signs of general anxiety disorder, they eventually divorce.
The United States of America could have saved Johnny, but they didn't. because they "did not want to enslave doctors"
Now, dare telling me that there should not be universal healthcare.
PS: This story is purely fictional, but it could be true, and I am sure that stories like this already happened a lot of time in America.
Ha, VT gave up on "free" taxpayer funded healthcare when every major employer said they would leave the state due to the proposed 11% payroll tax plus a n increase in corporate income tax.
Sen. Paul was correct. The equivalent is jury duty. Defendants have a right to a trial buy jury. That requires the gov't to conscript citizen via subpoena to serve jury duty. Jury duty pays at most $15/day. Failure to show up for jury duty means the police come to your door with guns to arrest you and put you in jail until a just decides you have been their long enough. There is no limit to how long a judge can keep someone in jail for contempt of court.
Being the only income source is not an excuse to get out of jury duty. No amount of financial hardship, even bankruptcy, foreclosure on ones home, is considered a valid excuse from jury duty.
The reason so many practices no longer accept medicare/medicaid patients is that the reimbursement rates are below the cost of providing the service. That is CONSCRIPTION.
Rand Paul absolutely nailed it. Paul2016
I guess that what Senator Paul Paul said was the libertarian view. One good thing about it is that they appear to not believe in slavery,..........yet.
The right to free healthcare is within the US declaration of independence. Since the declaration states everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the last of which means health, everyone is thereby entitled to the right of good health of person. Ergo, free healthcare is connected to the pursuit of happiness/good health or well being.
Correct. Health is a prerequisite for pursuing happiness and indeed for a strong economy in general. Without a healthy workforce, good luck with capitalism and with not paying far far more on the backend for disability and welfare rather than creating healthy workers in the first place. It’s like throwing meds at symptoms versus treating the underlying etiology. The American model is not only sick but inefficient.
@@rockonmadonna While my economics aren't capitalist, I will say and agree that on ethical grounds, an efficient laborforce with good healthcare is a necessity. Especially in maximizing the overall good of the people and the individual.
How can any of you even come up with a full point when it's mainly 3 house Sanders asking questions? What did Paul ask? How did they reply?