Current Events > damn. Ben Shapiro absolutely slaughtered Cenk Uygur in their debate

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Deadpool posted...

Transcendentia posted...

we did not let the open market do it. what happened was

Exactly what I told you. Insurance companies and hospitals, without government involvement, created a huge price hike in hospital costs, which in turn lead insurance companies to have to work around it.

That's what happened with the open market. Government got involved after the mess had been made.

Open market straight up started the problem. To expect the open market to fix it is laughable at best.

except there's been tremendous government involvement in all of that mess, bro. it wasn't an open market that created that. it was government that created that. what do you think Obamacare was? exactly that.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Zembaphobia posted...

Maybe you want to actually address what I said instead of dumping links about how other healthcare systems are having issues. Because at the end of the day, their system has them paying less and living longer. I don't know enough about their systems to identify the problem but they're still better than ours which has always had problems. Instead of trying a system that has yielded better results, you'd rather stick with a system that has always been shit and will continue to be shit as it treats healthcare like a commodity.

Are you stoned? The US has the best healthcare in the world.

careful bro, he's a med student who gave a tedx talk!

Transcendentia posted...

what do you think Obamacare was?

When do you think hospitals hiking prices STARTED?
---

Zembaphobia posted...

Explain how the fuck you are paying more when the trillion dollar insurance industry is no longer profiting off of you. Please use your fucking brain and actually do research rather than basing things off your gut. I'm a medical student who has done a ted talk on single payer and am copresident of Rush's Studnets for a National Health Program. I've done extensive research on the matter, and you would neither pay more into single payer or have to "ration" care for medically necessary procedures. People who want elective procedures would absolutely have to wait longer and people with medically necessary procedures would be given priority, because the system would favor those who need healthcare over those who can afford it. Under private healthcare, the wait time is infinite for poor people. We don't ever talk about that, right? Also might wanna take another look at Canada and other nations because their healthcare systems absolutely destroy ours. We pay more for healthcare and have worse life expectancy.

this reads like a navy seal copy pasta
---

The Deadpool posted...

Transcendentia posted...

what do you think Obamacare was?

When do you think hospitals hiking prices STARTED?

probably right around the time when the government partnered up with the giant pharmaceuticals and giant health insurance companies.

if you really think the open market did this, how do you explain how the open market has revolutionized every other sector? IE computers, smart phones, electric cars, space exploration, human genomics, etc. all of these industries had tremendous (and arguably necessary) aid from the government in their infancy. but it was the open market that prioritized the highest quality and highest value services and products on a global scale.

that's what i'm saying we need to do again - have the government invest in the type of automation that can make healthcare go from being the most expensive need to the most inexpensive products and services thanks to ubiquitous hardware and software. there's no reason why a machine can't perform brain surgeries with better results and higher safety margins than a human.

Transcendentia posted...

probably right around the time when the government partnered up with the giant pharmaceuticals and giant health insurance companies.

http://m.content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/1/45.full

Transcendentia posted...

if you really think the open market did this, how do you explain how the open market has revolutionized every other sector?

Oh my God, you really think that?

I mean, one would think private fire fighters or the current private prison problem would be dead give away.

Hell, the total failure of laissez fairer economics In the 19th century giving rise to the infamous robber barons alone should be enough to make people question the open market.

Good stuff can come out of he open market, but not everything. Health care in itself is a problem for the open market.

Capitalism is based on supply and demand. But demand for healthcare is essentially infinite. It breaks the equation and creates too many opportunities for abuse. Which we've seen over the past century.
---

Healthcare has been extremely regulated for decades, and the left pretends that it's been a free market and therefore calls for single payer. If you're actually a socialist, at least you're being consistent. But if you think the free market is the best way to deliver sneakers and food, you have to explain why it's supposedly glitched in healtcare.

If anybody is interested in seeing how the government screwed up healthcare long befroe Obamacare, the below link is a good resource. This focuses on how government limits the supply of physicians. It also hits on patents protecting drugs for WAY too long. Perhaps drug companies feel justified in asking for such long patents because the gov't makes it so expensive to bring a drug to market. If a new drug hurts some people, the FDA looks bad. But if a life saving drug is delayed years or forever, many more people die in a less visible manner.

https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

"Since the early 1900s, medical special interests have been lobbying politicians to reduce competition. By the 1980s, the U.S. was restricting the supply of physicians, hospitals, insurance and pharmaceuticals, while subsidizing demand."

"In 1951, employers started to become the dominant third-party insurance buyer during the Truman Administration after the Internal Revenue Service declared group premiums tax-deductible." NOTE: This is why insurance is tied to your employer. Totally unecessary invitation the the preexisting condition problem.
---

The Deadpool posted...

Transcendentia posted...

probably right around the time when the government partnered up with the giant pharmaceuticals and giant health insurance companies.

http://m.content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/1/45.full

Transcendentia posted...

if you really think the open market did this, how do you explain how the open market has revolutionized every other sector?

Oh my God, you really think that?

I mean, one would think private fire fighters or the current private prison problem would be dead give away.

Hell, the total failure of laissez fairer economics In the 19th century giving rise to the infamous robber barons alone should be enough to make people question the open market.

Good stuff can come out of he open market, but not everything. Health care in itself is a problem for the open market.

Capitalism is based on supply and demand. But demand for healthcare is essentially infinite. It breaks the equation and creates too many opportunities for abuse. Which we've seen over the past century.

If you agree that the demand for healthcare is essentially infinite, how do you justify the idea that all it takes to provide an infinitely demanded service...is higher taxation? Clearly that's not working out in the UK or Canada, and we'll live to see those bubbles collapse.

If it's infinitely demanded, why not make it as ubiquitous as smartphones? Why not make the technology that can provide on demand healthcare available by investing into it now? Socialized healthcare is effectively going to kill any innovation. America is, by far, leading the world in innovations in the medical and biological world. We need more of that, with an emphasis on rewarding the individuals and companies that provide the best technological breakthroughs.

You want the government to tax people more so that they can pay more doctors. I want the government to prioritize ushering in technological revolutions in healthcare so that we don't need to rely on tax cattle and doctors for healthcare. My strategy would be sustainable and it would win. And it'll have to happen eventually anyway.

Your strategy only works if taxes keep going up, if populations keep increasing, and if healthcare is treated as a sector that creates jobs. That's not sustainable because populations will decrease, tax revenue will dry up with time, and that kind of system will remove the incentive to treat the disease rather than the symptoms.

You know how pharmaceuticals are in the business of treating symptoms rather than diseases, as a means of retaining customers? Why on earth do you want to prop up an entire economy on that model of healthcare? Canada needs to hire 50% more doctors if they want to stay afloat as far as meeting demand. What happens if they succeed in making their population healthier though?

No matter which way I look at your model, it doesn't work. :/

Transcendentia posted...

Keith_Valentine posted...

Zembaphobia posted...

Maybe you want to actually address what I said instead of dumping links about how other healthcare systems are having issues. Because at the end of the day, their system has them paying less and living longer. I don't know enough about their systems to identify the problem but they're still better than ours which has always had problems. Instead of trying a system that has yielded better results, you'd rather stick with a system that has always been shit and will continue to be shit as it treats healthcare like a commodity.

Are you stoned? The US has the best healthcare in the world.

careful bro, he's a med student who gave a tedx talk!

point of bringing it up is I've somewhat of a better background to defend it over people who get their info from the news. You can mock me for it all you want, but you haven't matched me yet in what qualifies you to debate the efficacy of a private healthcare system. Also, just calling our healthcare system the best in the world without refuting my arguments against it or providing any evidence of your own makes you seem like the stoned one.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Healthcare has been extremely regulated for decades,

It doesn't mean the regulation caused the incredibly inflated hospital prices.

Insurance companies and hospitals did that on their own.

Transcendentia posted...

If you agree that the demand for healthcare is essentially infinite, how do you justify the idea that all it takes to provide an infinitely demanded service...is higher taxation?

That's an oversimplification. The need for the police is Infinite. The need for the fire department is infinite. "Higher taxation" pays for both. Why should health care be any different?
---

Cenk started off pretty well, considering it's Cenk.

His performance degraded as time went on but he had a much better showing than I was expecting.
---

The Deadpool posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Healthcare has been extremely regulated for decades,

It doesn't mean the regulation caused the incredibly inflated hospital prices.

Insurance companies and hospitals did that on their own.

In a free market, they can't do that on their own. If providers are offering a good or service at an absurd profit margin, that serves as an amazing opportunity for new entrents to make a profit at a slightly lower profit margin. This continues until the price goes way down. If this mechanism isn't working, look for the regulation(s) that is preventing competition. For example, the FDA makes drugs artificially expensive and time consuming to produce. As a response to these hurdles, the government provides patent protection for drugs for a very long time.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

If providers are offering a good or service at an absurd profit margin, that serves as an amazing opportunity for new entrents to make a profit at a slightly lower profit margin. This continues until the price goes way down.

Healthcare isn't like choosing a brand of cereal at the grocery store. If you need your appendix taken out, your ability to compare prices and services is extremely limited. So is your ability to choose not to purchase an appendectomy.
---

The Deadpool posted...

That's an oversimplification. The need for the police is Infinite. The need for the fire department is infinite. "Higher taxation" pays for both. Why should health care be any different?

The police and the fire department are not infinite in demand. Healthcare is far more demanded than either of those. That's the first huge difference. The second huge difference is that you can scale a fire department and a police department much better than you can a healthcare system that requires human labor. One police or fire department serves far more people than one hospital can.

TomNook20 posted...

Cenk started off pretty well, considering it's Cenk.

His performance degraded as time went on but he had a much better showing than I was expecting.

tbqh yeah, he didn't do that bad.

Antifar posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

If providers are offering a good or service at an absurd profit margin, that serves as an amazing opportunity for new entrents to make a profit at a slightly lower profit margin. This continues until the price goes way down.

Healthcare isn't like choosing a brand of cereal at the grocery store. If you need your appendix taken out, your ability to compare prices and services is extremely limited. So is your ability to choose not to purchase an appendectomy.

Is every healthcare need as urgent as taking out an appendix?

Forlorn_Ass posted...

Ben Shapiro is on point as always.

---

tennisdude818 posted...

If providers are offering a good or service at an absurd profit margin, that serves as an amazing opportunity for new entrents to make a profit at a slightly lower profit margin.

But these are hospitals. People have an incentive to go the nearest over the cheapest.

This is the problem with health care: the usual methods of capitalism don't work. A lot of people only have access to one hospital. And when the situation is dire, they go to the nearest. And when the price is too high, they will go anyways.

Medical debt is the most common kind of debt in the country.

Supply and demand doesn't work when your service is an absolute necessity.
---

LMAO at Cenk's meltdown at the end. "This is AMERICA! U-S-A! U-S-A!" What a pathetic clown.

The Deadpool posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

If providers are offering a good or service at an absurd profit margin, that serves as an amazing opportunity for new entrents to make a profit at a slightly lower profit margin.

But these are hospitals. People have an incentive to go the nearest over the cheapest.

This is the problem with health care: the usual methods of capitalism don't work. A lot of people only have access to one hospital. And when the situation is dire, they go to the nearest. And when the price is too high, they will go anyways.

Medical debt is the most common kind of debt in the country.

Supply and demand doesn't work when your service is an absolute necessity.

People will get the medicine that was prescribed, because they need it. But no one would say that the high price of medicine was the product of capitalism. It wasn't the product of capitalism.

Antifar posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

If providers are offering a good or service at an absurd profit margin, that serves as an amazing opportunity for new entrents to make a profit at a slightly lower profit margin. This continues until the price goes way down.

Healthcare isn't like choosing a brand of cereal at the grocery store. If you need your appendix taken out, your ability to compare prices and services is extremely limited. So is your ability to choose not to purchase an appendectomy.

You can't negotiate when you're in terrible condition, so that would be what insurance is for. In a free market, insurance would likley only cover major and rare events, like house and car insurance. You can select an insurance plan before you end up bleeding on the side of the road just like you can choose fire insurance before your house burns down.

I think you decided that the free market doesn't work, so if you can't come up with a free market solution 3 seconds after you imagine a potential problem, that must mean no solution exists. A lot of leftists do this.
---

Transcendentia posted...

People will get the medicine that was prescribed, because they need it. But no one would say that the high price of medicine was the product of capitalism. It wasn't the product of capitalism.

Except that's exactly what it was!

Insurance companies found they could leverage hospitals for discounts because of the massive amount of people they had.

Hospitals found they could afford those "discounts" if they overcharged for items.

This wasn't government influence. This was just how capitalism works. Volume leads to discount. Infinite supply leads to the ability to price hike to your heart's content.

Capitalism is great for goods and services you don't need. Prices are curtailed by how popular the service or good is. But we things you NEED there's nothing to curtail the price.
---

The Deadpool posted...

Transcendentia posted...

People will get the medicine that was prescribed, because they need it. But no one would say that the high price of medicine was the product of capitalism. It wasn't the product of capitalism.

Except that's exactly what it was!

Insurance companies found they could leverage hospitals for discounts because of the massive amount of people they had.

Hospitals found they could afford those "discounts" if they overcharged for items.

This wasn't government influence. This was just how capitalism works. Volume leads to discount. Infinite supply leads to the ability to price hike to your heart's content.

Capitalism is great for goods and services you don't need. Prices are curtailed by how popular the service or good is. But we things you NEED there's nothing to curtail the price.

Volume does not necessarily lead to discount, and that isn't a matter of capitalism. In fact, in socialized healthcare the government pays for medicines and services in bulk in order to attempt to reduce costs.

Capitalism has been phenomenal for goods and services we need. Phones, computers, cars, food, airplanes, internet, dentists, eye doctors, clothes.

And you're ignoring the role of government in why health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are essentially monopolies. Capitalism doesn't work if there's a monopoly in place, broseph.

The Deadpool posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

If providers are offering a good or service at an absurd profit margin, that serves as an amazing opportunity for new entrents to make a profit at a slightly lower profit margin.

But these are hospitals. People have an incentive to go the nearest over the cheapest.

This is the problem with health care: the usual methods of capitalism don't work. A lot of people only have access to one hospital. And when the situation is dire, they go to the nearest. And when the price is too high, they will go anyways.

Medical debt is the most common kind of debt in the country.

Supply and demand doesn't work when your service is an absolute necessity.

My reply to Antifar is equally applicable to your post.
---

The Deadpool posted...

Transcendentia posted...
probably right around the time when the government partnered up with the giant pharmaceuticals and giant health insurance companies.


http://m.content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/1/45.full

I mean, I don't think that this proves what you want it to, although I haven't read everything you two are arguing

it literally is saying that costs got higher when insurers changed their policies with regard to hospitals, which they explain took off when medicare and medicaid were enacted and began using the same framework as blue cross, and then increased more when medicare and medicaid lowered their reimbursement rates causing privately insured patients to eat the costs

even the private insurance market here is largely ESI which is much larger than it would be without favorable tax treatment
---

I've watched about half and think Cenk did OK up until the point when he started insulting the audience. They seemed a bit more hostile to him than Ben, but his insults were stupid. Ben made some good points (e.g. the 50s being different due to coming out of World War II), but also some ridiculous ones (e.g. about a gun being held to his wife's head under UHC, making the tax rate 100% if growth was higher in the 50s, etc.).

luigi13579 posted...

I've watched about half and think Cenk did OK up until the point when he started insulting the audience. They seemed a bit more hostile to him than Ben, but his insults were stupid. Ben made some good points (e.g. the 50s being different due to coming out of World War II), but also some ridiculous ones (e.g. about a gun being held to his wife's head under UHC, making the tax rate 100% if growth was higher in the 50s, etc.).

Ben used exaggeration and hyperbole to make a point. It's a fair tactic when you're trying to get your opponent to admit that they drew an arbitrary line.

I think Cenk did okay too. I especially like what Cenk said at the end about how the cost of the Iraq war could've funded free education for twenty years, and resulted in more educated people starting businesses and making things in America. I do agree that the Iraq War was a tremendous and pathetic waste of lives and resources.

Transcendentia posted...

Volume does not necessarily lead to discount, and that isn't a matter of capitalism.

Then you don't understand capitalism.

If I control 0.01% of your market, then I control 0.01% of your profit. And my bargaining position is weak.

If I control 20% of your market, then I control 20% of your profit. And my bargaining position is strong.

If I control 80% of your market then you are my bitch.

That's just how capitalism works.

Transcendentia posted...

Capitalism has been phenomenal for goods and services we need.

All th shit you named are things we can live without.

People can't survive without healthcare. Plain and simple. This destroys the balance of power between the person selling and he person buying.

If someone knocks on your door and offers to sell you a bottle of water for five dollars you tell them to fuck off. Three hours into a five hour concert, if someone walks by and offers you a bottle of water for five dollars you take it.

And that's not even as serious a situation as healthcare. You don't have the choice to NOT get healthcare. You HAVE to have it. Or you die.

Capitalism is a balancing act between the seller (who wants all the money for no service) and the buyer (who wants all the service for no money). This balancing act doesn't work when one of those will DIE without the transaction taking place.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

nsurance would likley only cover major and rare events, like house and car insurance.

But we are not talking about insurance. We are talking about care.

When you are trapped in a burning house, the government will send people to walk into a burning building and drag you out. For free. If you're trapped in a car, the same people will come save you. For free.
---

Well I'm no longer interested in what you have to say. You're dishonest (or maybe just not as smart as you think you are) and you didn't even address the entire post.

Transcendentia posted...

Ben used exaggeration and hyperbole to make a point.

To be fair, his argument was ridiculous, and Cenk sort of touched on why: 0% tax rate is as absurd as 100% tax rate. Neither argument proves whether taxes should be higher or lower.

The argument wasn't even that taxes HAD to be higher, it was simply pointing out that when we DID have higher taxes, we managed to flourish just fine. So the idea that higher taxes will inherently lead to destruction is flawed. History has shown it to be untrue.
---

Transcendentia posted...

Well I'm no longer interested in what you have to say. You're dishonest (or maybe just not as smart as you think you are) and you didn't even address the entire post.

I mean, you didn't address ANY of the post. But if your response to a conversation is "I don't like it so I won't listen"... To each his own.
---

The Deadpool posted...

When you are trapped in a burning house, the government will send people to walk into a burning building and drag you out. For free. If you're trapped in a car, the same people will come save you. For free.

is that really true? I thought you got charged after the fact for emergency services like an ambulance

fire probably is covered in taxes though
---

Balrog0 posted...

The Deadpool posted...

When you are trapped in a burning house, the government will send people to walk into a burning building and drag you out. For free. If you're trapped in a car, the same people will come save you. For free.

is that really true? I thought you got charged after the fact for emergency services like an ambulance

fire probably is covered in taxes though

The trip to the hospital isn't free. Being dragged out of the building is.

Weird how that works...
---

The Deadpool posted...

The argument wasn't even that taxes HAD to be higher, it was simply pointing out that when we DID have higher taxes, we managed to flourish just fine.

Do you think that was a result of the high taxes, or was it a result of WWII annihilating our only competition in the entire world?

And is it really fair to say things were better with a 90% tax rate when deductibles were such that nobody actually paid even close to 90% of their income, and that the corporate tax rate was much lower back then than it is now?
---

The Deadpool posted...

The trip to the hospital isn't free. Being dragged out of the building is.

Weird how that works...

Neither is free, they are financed in different ways.

It is weird how that works. Are you saying we should provide health care through mostly local funding, with some state and federal grants for particular needs? That's how fire protection is covered.
---

The Deadpool posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

nsurance would likley only cover major and rare events, like house and car insurance.

But we are not talking about insurance. We are talking about care.

When you are trapped in a burning house, the government will send people to walk into a burning building and drag you out. For free. If you're trapped in a car, the same people will come save you. For free.

I'm talking about insurance to pay for care in extreme events. We're discussing costs, correct?
---

Romes187 posted...

Shapiro was on Rogan's podcast today. Interesting so far

I listened to him both during the debate and on that podcast and I have to say that I think he's a pretty level-headed dude. I'm happy I took the time to sit and listen to him for these 4 hours I have so far. I will go and look for more things like this from him
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

Romes187 posted...

Shapiro was on Rogan's podcast today. Interesting so far

I listened to him both during the debate and on that podcast and I have to say that I think he's a pretty level-headed dude. I'm happy I took the time to sit and listen to him for these 4 hours I have so far. I will go and look for more things like this from him

he definitely benefits from long form conversations. He has some nuanced views that take time to flesh out