Intelligence Squared Debates: 'Is Health Care a Right?'

Source:Intelligence Squared Debates- Dr. Adam Gaffney acknowledging that health care is not a right in America.

"Sally Pipes and Dr. Adam Gaffney weigh in on whether health care is a right. An excerpt from the debate "Replace Private Insurance With Medicare for All." 

FOR THE MOTION:

Dr. Adam Gaffney - President, Physicians for a National Health Program

Joseph Sanberg - Co-Founder, Aspiration & Chair, CalEITC4Me

AGAINST THE MOTION:

Nick Gillespie - Editor-at-Large, Reason

Sally Pipes - CEO & President, Pacific Research Institute" 

From Intelligence Squared Debates

When you say that someone should be a right, you are also saying (perhaps unintentionally that it's not a right. There is no statue of law in the United States that says that Americans are entitled to health care in America, other than health care that we receive at the emergency room. And nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that Americans are entitled to "free health care" or health care in general. I guess we could debate whether or not health care should be a right in America. But the fact is that it isn't and is treated just like every other service that we receive in the private market.

Intelligence Squared Debates: 'Replace Private Insurance With Medicare For All'

Source:Intelligence Squared Debates- U.S. Senator and 2020 Democratic Socialist presidential candidate: Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist) Socialist Republic of Vermont)

“Medicare for All,” or a single-payer system, is being championed by many on the progressive left, with advocates arguing that it will cut costs by reducing overhead and promote overall health by giving all Americans access to preventive health care.Their opponents argue Medicare for All is a political non-starter that would force Americans off employer-based plans, reduce incentives for doctors and providers, increase bureaucracy and inefficiencies in the system, and lead to worse care overall, all the while inflating the already swelled federal deficit. Should private health insurance exist? Or is it time for Medicare for All? 

FOR THE MOTION:

Dr. Adam Gaffney - President, Physicians for a National Health Program

Joseph Sanberg - Co-Founder, Aspiration & Chair, CalEITC4Me

AGAINST THE MOTION:

Nick Gillespie - Editor-at-Large, Reason

Sally Pipes - CEO & President, Pacific Research Institute" 

From Intelligence Squared Debates 

Just to correct the moderator John Donvan: a government-run, Medicare For All health care system would replace the private health insurance system in America, but the Federal Government wouldn't pick up the costs of everyone's health care. Those costs would instead be picked up by the taxpayers. Instead of paying for our health care through our private insurance or out-pocket, we would pay for our government-run, socialized health care, probably through payroll taxes. So a government-run health care system, even if it's just government-run health insurance, would of course not be free for anyone. 

Not to go to far down the road here and to sound like I'm picking on John Donvan, but every time I hear someone argue that government services are free, it reminds me of the great quote by the Classical Liberal economic professor Milton Friedman who said there's no such thing as a free lunch. What he was talking about was government services (or if you prefer public services) and arguing that everything that government does come with a cost. 

Socialists (or Social Democrats, if you prefer) argue those costs that government will impose would be cheaper and better (at least in the long-term) than anything that you can get from the private sector. Fine, you can argue that, but you're being intellectually dishonest honest or you are simply just ignorant about how government is financed in this country. 

I could layout the case for why I'm against a government only run health care system in America (even if it's just government-run health insurance) but that's being done for me in this video by Nick Gillespie and Sally Pipes and I don't think I can improve on that. 

I will close with this point and suggestion: for people who who want a government-run health insurance system in America, they need to be intellectually honest with Americans and tell them how would they finance that government-run health insurance system. And tell people how much it will cost them and how it would be paid for. Because even people who want government-run health care pays taxes and understands how government is paid for. 

Thom Hartmann: 'The Hidden History of the Supreme Court & The Betrayal of America'

Source:Thom Hartmann talking about his book.

Source:FreeState MD

"Thom Hartmann reads from his new book, the Hidden History of the Supreme Court & the Betrayal of America, explaining how the Supreme Court has spilled beyond its Constitutional powers and how we the people should take that power back." 

From Thom Hartmann 

"Thom Hartmann on the Supreme Court and Political News of the Day

Talk show host Thom Hartmann talked about decisions from the Supreme Court and other news." 

Source:C-SPAN- left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann.

From C-SPAN

Left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, on his Vladimir Putin owned Russia Today TV talk show, talking about what he called: "Time For Congress To Regulate Supreme Court Clan", back in 2013. But the video that this photo is from, is not currently available online right now.

Source:Russia Today- left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann.

My response to what Thom Hartmann said on his radio talk show and in his book, is not intended to make him look dumb or for him too look like he just woke up one day and found himself living on another planet, let alone country, not knowing what the hell he's doing here, how he got here, and how the society works. But because of his little speech about the Supreme Court, I feel the need to state the obvious, at least a little bit here. 

America has never been a pure democracy. We've never been a majoritarian or social democracy. Just because Thom Hartman or some other left-wing commentator, can site some polls (probably left-wing polls) that says higher taxes and paid maternity leave, or whatever the issue, is popular in America, doesn't mean those things become law. They still have to get passed out of Congress, signed into law by the President, and then hold up to constitutional scrutiny to the Supreme Court. But Hartmann already knows this. 

Now for my constructive critique: the reason why we have a right-wing (not just Republican) majority on the Supreme Court, because the left-wing in America, especially Far-Left Democrats, didn't bother to vote in 2014 and 2016. If Democrats bothered to vote instead of staying home in 2014, Democrats hold the Senate. If left-wing Democrats bothered to vote in 2016, Hillary Clinton is now President and gets at least 2 appointments confirmed by the Senate, to the Supreme Court today. 

The old saying that we get the politicians and government that we vote for and that's only as good as the people, that can be applied to the Supreme Court as well. As important as the House of Representatives might be, they're only the lower House in Congress. The real power in Washington and in Congress, is at The White House and in the Senate. You want different Supreme Court decisions and justices, try voting whenever you can and you'll get more people in government that you like and agree with.

Kennedy Institute of Politics: Professor Brandon Terry- Interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky: The Future of Leftist Politics in America'

Source:Kennedy School of Politics- Professor Brandon Terry, interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky at Harvard

Source:The New Democrat

"A discussion with:

Noam Chomsky

Institute Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Political Theorist and Activist

Brandon Terry (moderator)

Assistant Professor of African and African American Studies and Social Studies, Harvard University."

From the Kennedy School of Politics

 As someone who is not a psychic or a leftist, I would say the future of The Left ( as it's called ) and I would argue Far-Left ( at least in an American sense ) will be about identity politics, the welfare state, big government in general, and I guess self-honesty. ( For lack of a better term ) Where you'll have millions of young Americans especially who are proud to be Leftists ( let's call them Socialists ) who no longer feel the need to hide who they are politically and even hide their own political labels.

This event was in late 2015 about 3 1/2 years ago but just go up three years later to November, 2018 and we now have a class of Democrats or at least prominent Democratic freshman in the House who are not just proud to be Leftists, but proud to be Socialists. Who just a few years ago would've felt the need to run in the Green Party to run for reelection and to have any shot at winning the nomination for the office they're seeking, who today can run as Democrats and not just run as Democrats, but run as Socialists and Democratic Socialists.

The Democratic Party today thanks to Bernie Sanders in 2015-16 now has a significant Socialist faction in it. Whether that's 20% or 30%, the Democratic Party today now has a significant, hard core Socialist base who believe that government can solve any problem that has ever been known to man, if it just has the money to do so. Which is very different from where the Democratic Party was just 10 years when they were basically just a Center-Left progressive party with a Far-Left fringe in it. 10 years later the Socialists in the party now look more mainstream with Democrats who just 10 years ago would be viewed as solid Progressive Democrats ( like Barack Obama ) , now are viewed as centrists or even Conservative Democrats. ( At least by the Socialists in the party )

What I just laid out looks very mainstream at least when you're talking about the left-wing ( to say the least ) about the Democratic Party today. People who believe in social democracy or democratic socialism, who want a large centralized national government and welfare state there to meet the economic needs of all the people.

If the left-wing of the Democratic Party was just Henry Wallace or George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and if that's all the left-wing of the Democratic Party represented today and represented people of all races and ethnicities, male and female and they weren't about racial or identity politics, but a pluralist political faction that was about social democracy or democratic socialism, they wouldn't look that radical today especially with young Americans, especially with the more militant faction of this movement that wants to make race, ethnicity, and gender issues about everything not just in politics and government, but in American life in general.

But the left-wing ( or Far-Left ) in and outside of the Democratic Party today are not all pluralists and don't care for liberal democracy. It's not just social democracy that they want, but believe that men aren't necessary, ( at least Caucasian men ) that women aren't just superior to men, but should be running everything, and generally view Caucasians especially men as ignorant and bigots, unless they come from the West Coast or Northeast and were educated there.

And that's the growing faction in the Democratic Party that you have to worry about if you're a mainstream Democrat who is part of the Democratic leadership, because as the Far-Left grows in the party, the less Far-Left they'll look and more mainstream that they'll look in the party. But they'll still look very radical outside of the party and mainstream Democrats will have to figure out how to get elected and reelected with this faction on their back that they'll need to win elections, but still be able to appeal to mainstream Democrats and Independents.

The Bitchy Pundit: ‘Bernie Sanders is Rich’

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders- Maybe Senator Sanders had himself in mind when he made this statement.

Source:The New Democrat

“I’m going to veer off course for a minute to say that I don’t believe that any society should allow billionaires to happen. Billionaires are toxic to a society because they can’t spend a big enough percentage of their money to actually help an economy. Millionaires on the other hand, are great for societies and I’m all for creating more of them. Millionaires are in that sweet spot of having enough money to spend on significant amounts of consumer goods and investing just the right amount to help seed businesses. But millionaires aren’t rich enough to play fast and loose with their investments, since it can all disappear overnight. They are not (for example) rich enough to create mortgage backed securities or naked credit default swaps. I believe that our tax code should be designed to stop anyone from becoming a billionaire, just like it was for nearly forty years. We need a top tax rate of 90% not only to prevent billionaires from happening, but also to force reinvestment in American companies. There’s no point in looting a company if you’re going to have to pay 90% of what you loot back to the government.”

From The Bitchy Pundit

"Jimmy Fallon's monologue from Wednesday, April 10, plus Hodor from Game of Thrones remixes pop hits, like Lady Gaga's "Shallow."

Source:The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon- Jimmy Fallon: not a fan of Senator Bernie Sanders hypocrisy on wealth. 

From The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon

Just to respond to The Bitchy Pundit: saying that she is OK with millionaires, but thinks billionaires should be outlawed, in other words being rich is OK, it’s superrich that’s the problem: that’s like calling someone a little fat, or saying they have a slight drinking problem: “Tom and Susan, only get drunk twice a week, three times during a holiday. Bob, is only 20 pounds overweight, but that doesn’t make him obese. Jane, is a little pregnant, but it’s not like she’s going to have the baby tomorrow.” I mean do the really have to wait for the extreme to happen before we call a problem a problem and say if we act now, it won’t become a major issue later on?

I mean, if you really think that wealth is a problem and people being independently wealthy is a problem, than why attack billionaires, but leave the millionaires alone? You don’t think people who are worth 20, 50, 100 million dollars aren’t investing their money oversees and doing what they can to avoid high taxation in America? If you do, you’re not that familiar with our tax code and our economic system and economy.

This is not about Bernie Sanders being rich in the sense that being rich and wealthy is a bad thing, simply because  I don’t believe wealth and being rich are bad things. Otherwise I would be a Socialist myself. This is about a Socialist from Vermont who before 2019 was the only self-described Socialist in Congress ( but not the only Socialist ) who is only famous in America because he’s spent his entire Congressional career ( House and Senate ) demonizing what he is which is rich and wealthy. We’re talking about a man who is a multi-millionaire who’ll never have to work again ( thanks to his personal wealth and taxpayer funded Congressional pension ) who attacks the wealthy in America simply because they’re wealthy and use their money and connections to avoid paying high taxes.

Bernie Sanders attacking someone for being wealthy, is like an alcoholic speaking out about the dangers of heroin and cocaine. And perhaps doing that while they’re drunk. Perhaps when they’re sober, they’re not as hypocritical. And if we ever see that person sober, maybe we’ll know for sure how hypocritical they are. A smoker who bashes people for eating junk food. Or the radical hippie vegan, who calls someone an animal killer because they eat cheeseburgers and calls people animal killers for eating meat while wearing a leather jacket. If there’s any one thing that American voters hate the most about politicians other than they are politicians to begin with and just hate their profession, it’s hypocrisy.

Socialists, like to say that America has socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else. Meaning that we subsidize wealth in this country and don’t do much as a society at least the government for people who are poor. They have a point there, but the problem that they have is that they might have had one of their icons in mind in Bernie Sanders, when they argue that.

If Bernie Sanders really was as Socialist and believed in socialism as much as he claims he does, he wouldn’t be a millionaire to begin with. He would just live off of his Congressional salary, while donating his wealth to his favorite charities like Uncle Sam. Because Socialists don’t believe in material wealth and believe that people should just have enough money to live a quality life and not have to be poor of course, but not be rich either, while Big Government takes care of the rest of what we need to live well. At our expense, of course.

When it comes to politicians, Bernie Sanders is about honest as they come. Which I know sounds like saying Joe is the best hockey player to ever come out of El Paso, Texas. Or Mary is the best ballet dancer to ever come out of Mobile, Alabama. But generally speaking I get the impression when Senator Sanders says something and proposes something, he actually believes what he’s saying. But when it comes to wealth in America and being rich, Bernie now sounds like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Jane Fonda, or any other so-called Hollywood Leftists who attacks people simply for being what they are, which is rich and financially successful in America thanks to American capitalism, while they attack our capitalist economic system. It’s more than a little much and more like enough to make people vomit when they hear that hypocrisy.

Chomsky's Philosophy: Professor Noam Chomsky- Free Speech on Campus

Source:Chomsky's Philosophy-  Professor Noam Chomsky: talking about free speech on campus.

Source:The New Democrat

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views that you don't like. Goebbeles was in favor of freedom of speech for views that he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views that you don't like."

Source:Quote Master: 

From Chomsky's Philosophy

Professor Noam Chomsky, will never get mistaken for a Ronald Reagan, William Buckley, or Barry Goldwater Conservative, except for perhaps in one area: when it came to free speech, Professor Noam Chomsky is to the right of Reagan on free speech and believe that free speech is for everyone. Not just Hippies who oppose war, but for right-wing Nationalists who hate minorities. These hard-core Leftists on the Far-Left ( whether you want to call them Socialists or Communists ) might view Chomsky as a Conservative, simply because he believes in free speech. But disagreeing with these Leftists on anything, is like saying no to Joe Stalin: you put your life or career in jeopardy when you do that. You're either with these hard corse Leftists on everything, or they see you as part of the opposition.

Something else that these Far-Leftists should think about: if they're successful in censoring speech that they don't like, the right-wing at some point could come in and start outlawing music and other entertainment that they don't like, or political demonstrations that they disagree with. Which is what they tried to do in the 1960s with Vietnam War protests and pro-civil rights demonstrations. It's that old Martin Luther King line about every action having a reaction to it: when you take action against someone on the other side especially an action that they despise like trying to cut off their free speech rights, they'll do the same thing against you when they're in power.

If you're going to live in a free society like a liberal democracy, there are certain actions and views from others that you have to put up with. You don't have to accept them or agree with them and you're more than welcome to oppose them and demonstrate against them. You just can't use your freedom to deny someone else's their freedom, simply because you disagree with their personal choices and views. If you don't accept the concept of a free society and oppose liberal democracy, try living in a communist or nationalistic state where the government is there literally to hold onto power and they do that by severely limiting what their people can do so they can hold onto power.

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Interviewing Nick Di Paolo: 'On Offensive Comedy and Political Correctness'

Source:The Rubin Report- Nick Di Paolo on offensive comedy and political correctness.

Source:The Daily Review

"Nick Di Paolo (stand up comedian) joins Dave to discuss his comedy career, his problem with political correctness and so many stand up comics today, why he believes comedians should be at the forefront of speech and free expression, and more."

From The Rubin Report

 I think the great comedian Mel Brooks had the best comment about political correctness that I've ever heard when he said in 2017 that: "political correctness is killing comedy." We've become at least with the left-wing such an uptight country now where comedy has almost disappeared ( unless you're making fun of right-wingers ) that everything is taken seriously.

 Comedy: "Professional entertainment consisting of jokes and satirical sketches, intended to make an audience laugh."

Comedy is simply just making fun of people and situations that deserve to be made fun because they've done or said something stupid or embarrassed themselves. When someone tells someone that they're as dumb as a brick. because they're constantly speaking nonsense or can't find their own hand in front of their face, they're literally not saying that person is a brick. They're saying they're dumb as a brick and act like they don't have a brain.

When people do redneck or ghetto jokes and I do that all the time, we're not saying that call Caucasians are rednecks or that everyone with a rural background is a redneck. We're saying that people from those communities who are rednecks are rednecks and speak a certain language and have a certain accent that perhaps only people from that community can understand. Who see Yankees and everyone with a metropolitan  accent as foreigners and perhaps even invaders. ( Sort of how Trump voters who view anyone with black hair and brown skin )

When people do ghetto jokes and I do that myself as someone who went to an urban melting pot high school in the early 90s, we're not saying that everyone from the African-American community are ghetto. We're simply making fun of ghetto people and mimic the way they talk and act. But not labeling all African-Americans as ghetto.

There's real-life and then there's comedy. When your'e watching sitcoms or any other type of comedy, that is not actually happing, since they're pretending and acting out. Real life is real, comedy is just an expression about the stupidity of life and what comedians are seeing from their own personal experiences and not meant to be taken seriously.

People who take comedy seriously are people who weren't around and perhaps had an off day when whoever who has the job of passing sense of humors around was passing those around. And are the biggest tight asses in the history of the world and have redefined that term. When someone makes fun of you, the first thing you do is to see if that person has a point and self-examine yourself. If the joke is spot on, you have nothing to complain about and if anything should laugh at yourself and use the humor as a learning experience. If the joke really is off target, then you laugh it off or fire back or enjoy the rest of your life. But unless the person is calling you a racial or ethnic slur, you really have nothing to complain about.