NonAntiAnarchist:I sincerely hope anyone in a convo with kylio27 realizes he/she is probably one of the most obvious trolls I've ever seen. Did you watch the video? Lol, it's hilarious - could actually be used to make a good case for private charity, honestly.
I assume everyone is well aware.
(note: the below is not a reply to NonAntiAnarchist)
Regardless of kylio27's intentions she's asking exactly the kinds of basic questions that a lot of other people that know nothing about free markets might ask. It behooves us all to simply write a rebuttal explaining why she is wrong and providing the free market solution. Someone could easily find the thread on Google two years from now and your response might be their entrance into the rabbit hole. I know when I am researching things I often run across the very thread on these forums that got me to research it in the first place.
Use the report feature and let the moderators clear out the users.
This could be the greatest troll in LVMI history.
Look at the places in the world with universal healthcare, they're consistently considered to have the best healthcare.
The American health care system ranks #1 in:
customer satisfaction, lowest wait time to see a doctor, lowest wait time for a referral, lowest wait time for surgery, least deaths from infectious diseases, least deaths during surgery, treatment innovation (medicines, new technology, etc), most MRI's per million (almost 5 times as high as Canada's), highest life expectancy (if you ignore deaths related to murders, suicides and car accidents), best cancer care, etc etc.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is
essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular
object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Yep. It's like somebody gave Michael Moore the URL to the Mises forums.
NonAntiAnarchist:Did you watch the video? Lol, it's hilarious - could actually be used to make a good case for private charity, honestly.
Bingo. I really hope she spreads it everywhere.
"See?! Look what happens when you don't have the government forcibly taking money from people! Old ladies can't afford their meds!"
--"Yeah...and people voluntarily help her out. Aren't things so much better without violence and coercion?"
Seriously..."we've been taping our experiment for only 2 hours [I have no idea why he says "only"...it's not like the experiment takes a long time to set up], and in every scene so far, someone has stepped up to help out our actress."
Every scene. And people still think old ladies will be dying in the streets if you don't forcibly take money from everyone and route it through Washington bureaucracy (where at least 40% of it disappears).
Judging by what I saw in the YouTube comments, some people think that the video is indeed an excuse to say "whooo! Government controlled health care for all! Look at Cuba! They have the best health care ever! If you don't believe me, watch Sicko!"
You could show them a video of people literally dying in the streets from government controlled food production and distribution, and they'd say the same thing. It's not about results. They don't really care about helping anyone they care about their own ideology. And getting free stuff.
Exactly. Some people will just love an ideology just because it claims to be humane, and when you tell them it isn't humane and show them why, they'll keep believing it is. Kind of reminds me of religion.
Yeah basically. I wrote about this here and the links contained therein. The more familiar I get with these people the more I get what Hayek was saying.
Maybe she was a libertarian but being sarcastic?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
It's called natural rights.
It's called natural rights.
Yes, everyone has a right to life, as a natural right.
However, these rights do not impose requirements on other people to provide you with life. That is to say they are negative rights only, meaning they only delineate what would be evil to deprive you of.
Thus, you may have a right to life, but it's not anyone else's fault if you die of something others didn't cause. Including any medical need.
There's already something that gives universal access to healthcare--it's called a dollar.
grant.w.underwood:if a million $$ pill is .09% better than a $1.00 pill should we provide the million dollar pill because its better? who makes those decisions? if you a million dollar procedure only has a .0000000001% of working do you do it? if you have 1 million AIDS infected people and only enough meds for 100 of them then who gets the meds?
If you were to as the average pro universal healthcare person these questions, they wouldn't know how to answer them. I've been looking for a really good, succinct question to ask these people that will illustrate the calculation problem. I will use these. Thanks.
"If men are not angels,
then who shall run the state?"