Free to Choose Network: Video: Milton Friedman on National Healthcare, 1978: Why We Should Have Individual Healthcare

ObamaCare

Milton Friedman on National Healthcare – YouTube.

I’m not a fan of single payer government-run health insurance for similar reasons as Milton Friedman. In the sense that government at whatever level would be the sole provider of health insurance in this country. Or healthcare in general like in Sweden but I hate the idea of having to pay for someone else’s health insurance. Because they do not have health insurance and the means to pay for their healthcare out-of-pocket just as much. I do not want government telling me what health insurance plan or what hospital I have to go to or what doctors I can see. Just as much as I do want government telling me what healthcare I can have or what I and other people male or female. Can do with their bodies so in other words I’m pro-choice when it comes to abortion as long as I do not have to pay. For someone else’s abortion but I’m also pro-choice when it comes to healthcare and health insurance broadly. But again I do not want government telling me that I have to pay for someone else’s health insurance. Because they decided not to have health insurance or didn’t sign up for Medicaid, they didn’t do their part to cover their healthcare.

So what we need in America is a balance that protects our individual freedom but doesn’t allow for us. To escape our individual responsibilities and that includes healthcare one of if not our largest sector of our economy. Twice the size of the rest of the developed world and one of the reasons why it’s so big is because we have so many people. That essentially get their healthcare for free, not completely they get hit by it later in higher taxes but those taxes then get spread. Around but they go to the emergency room without health insurance and how they’ll get the healthcare that they need. And not have to cover it on the spot with their health insurance card or out-of-pocket. So what we need to do and already have with the 2010 Affordable Care Act is tell these people they have to get health insurance. And I would even add health savings accounts as an option as long as they are covering their own healthcare costs. And for people who can’t afford that we now have a tax credit to pay for the working poor Medicaid. Just as long as they are covering their healthcare bills.

Whatever your position is on the individual healthcare mandate is and I’m in favor of it for reasons. I just laid out in this blog but that’s exactly what it is about. It’s not about telling Americans they have to give up their current health insurance to take the government plan. It’s telling them that they have to pick a plan and they make that choice as long as they are paying. For their own health insurance, they still make the decision at the end of the day how to pay for their own health insurance. But they have to pay for it and that’s why I’m in favor of it.

LibertarianismDotOrg: Video: Aaron Ross Powell: “What Libertarians Mean By The Free Market”: Why There’s No Such Thing as a Free Market

Fantasy Land

What Libertarians Mean By 'The Free Market' – YouTube.

Every time I hear someone talk about the free-market and how much they believe in it whether its Aaron Ross Powell or Mitt Romney or anyone else. I think they must believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Ferry as well because if I were to take them seriously. I have to assume they believe in a fantasy because there’s no such thing as a free-market in any developed country. And a reason why a developed country is a developed country because they have things like rule of law and they. Regulate not run their economies so people do not buy cars that have faulty breaks to use as an example. Or eat a meal in a restaurant that s poisoned to not protect people from themselves. But people who would hurt them either intentionally or unintentionally. It’s not the job of government to run the economy in a developed country, that what central governments do in. Developing countries and we see the results everyday but one of the jobs of government in a developed country. Is to set the rules that are understandable and designed to protect consumers, workers and. Employers from bad actors or people who hurt them just by being irresponsible.

What developed countries have and take the United States to use as an example. And one thing that separates developed countries from developing countries is what’s called private-enterprise which. In a private-market where the people run the economy as far as managing the production and producing goods and services. Including even for government that we all use and then sell them for what they are worth. Meaning what people are willing to pay for them based on how much they want and what they are willing and can afford to spend. But this is not a free-market because the business’s that produce these goods and services have to operate under a certain set of rules. Rules that the company created for them self but also rules that the localities, states and countries that they operate in. Also created to again protect the workers, consumers, and business’s from bad actors as well as irresponsible actors.

The private-market and private-capitalism are not free. Because they are subjected to taxes and regulations by governments as well as the consumers who purchase these products. But they along with the consumers control the market and operate it but they do not run it. And what we pay for things are based on what we are willing and can afford to pay for them that will also allow for. Companies to be profitable but this is not the free-market.

Truthout: Salvatore Babones: “Why Inequality Is a Problem and Growth a Red Herring”: How People Are Paid Based on The Skills and Production

Fact or Fiction

Why Inequality Is a Problem and Growth a Red Herring.

I really dislike the term income inequality because it assumes that with some people making a lot more money then others. And with income rising with part of the population and falling in others that is somehow unfair. That it’s unfair for a CEO of a company to make five million dollars a year let’s say when that company is doing very well and where the employees are paid very well. With benefits and everything when employees in the fast-food industry are making let’s say eight bucks. An hour or a delivery person for the Post Office is making forty thousand dollars a year and if they live in a big wealthy area. They would be struggling but if let’s say Social-Democrats were in charge in America and wrote our constitution. That these things wouldn’t happen because the Federal Government would collect most of the nations resources. And then give them back after keeping a big chunk of it to spend on our behalf for us. And then give the money back to us based on what they believe we need to survive and live well.

American-Capitalism does not work like that, in this country workers are paid based on what they bring to the table. Meaning skills and what they do with their skills meaning how productive they are. The problem with America is not that we have too many rich people but that we have too many poor people and too many people. Who are technically in the middle-class but struggle just to pay their bills and have huge debts. And are an injury or sickness away or getting laid off from being in a huge financial hole and having to collect public-assistance for the first time in their lives. You want to have fewer lower middle-class Americans and fewer low-income Americans. Then we need a better skilled workforce and stop tolerating failing schools and students being stuck in. Failing schools just because of where they live. And we need to make quality affordable education. Available to everyone universal so all Americans have the opportunity to be successful in life.

Rising poverty, falling wages, rising personal-debt is not good for anyone especially the people who are experiencing those things. But taxing successful people more just because they are doing so well and you somehow see that as unfair. Is not what we should be doing but instead encouraging people to be successful in America and empowering more Americans. To be successful and be able to build their own wealth which benefits the entire economy. Better skilled workforce, more consumers and more consumers with money to spend who can afford to spend.

Basic Economics: Video: Milton Friedman: What’s Wrong With Welfare?: What The Purpose of Welfare Should Be

Other People’s Money

Milton Friedman – Whats wrong with welfare? – YouTube.

Welfare becomes a problem when it puts the responsibility on government to take care of the people. And takes that responsibility and power away from the people. And I’ll give you an example of that. Let’s say there’s someone on Welfare Insurance which is money for people who are not only unemployed. But do have the skills to get themselves a job that they need to live independently and in freedom. So they collect Welfare Insurance which comes with cash but also things like food-assistance, Medicaid, public-housing and other things. That people need to have their basic needs met. And Welfare becomes a problem when it tells people collecting Welfare that you no longer need. To try to take care of yourself because government financed by the people who do take care of themselves will take care of you. We’ll take that responsibility away from you and take care of you for you. When Welfare becomes a charity and is just in the business of meeting peoples’s basic needs for the people. Then Welfare becomes a problem because instead of helping people get the skills that they need to take care of themselves. Government will leave these people dependent on government instead.

The purpose of Welfare should be to serve as a social-insurance system that people collect from. When they need it but not something they collect from indefinitely because as they are collecting this financial-assistance. They are improving themselves and get the skills that they need in order to be able to take care of themselves. So as someone on Welfare is collecting cash-assistance, Medicaid, food-assistance and so forth. They are also involved in job-training, education, job-placement and if they have kids they are also. Getting assistance for childcare so someone is there to look after their kids as their kids parent or parents. Are improving themselves so they can get a good job and be able to afford to take care of their kids well. Have a good job, start making some real money and able to leave poverty all together. That’s what Welfare should be doing empowering people who can’t to be able to take care of themselves. Having more people living in freedom and fewer people living off of public-assistance bringing down our unemployment and. Poverty levels in this country and expanding the middle-class.

Government can do good with other people’s money as long as they spend that money well so it benefits everyone. And Welfare can be an example of that if that money is use to have fewer people on Welfare and more skilled workers. And more customers with money to spend, more tax-payers which would allow us to bring down taxes on everyone. And more skilled workers and more people with money to spend which is better for business’s and everyone involved.

Liberty Pen: Video: Milton Friedman: The Escape From Collectivism, 1978

Liberal Democracy

Milton Friedman – The Escape From Collectivism – YouTube.

I’ve been blogging a lot about individual-freedom that combines both economic and personal-freedom but that also goes with individual-responsibility. And what’s ironic about this is that I’ve been debating with right-wingers who are supposed to be Conservatives. Who are supposed to believe in these things and yet when I talk about things like taxing junk food and soft drinks to pay for. Uncompensated healthcare for irresponsible people who do not take care of themselves and pass their healthcare costs onto people with health-insurance. Because they do not have the health-insurance to cover their healthcare-costs and of course can’t pay for it out-of-pocket. I find these so-called Conservatives instead of arguing for individual-freedom and responsibility taking the. Collectivist view that we are all members of the same society and when someone messes up we should all have to pay for that. Which is why political-labels do not mean a hell of a lot when you do not know what it means to subscribe to Conservatism or Liberalism to use as examples.

But what I believe in is still the same thing that all individuals should have the individual-freedom both personal and economic. To live their own lives as long as they are infringing on other people’s freedom to live their own lives. But then have the individual-responsibility to live and deal with the consequences of their own decisions. So people who do not take care of themselves wouldn’t be allowed to pass those costs onto others. That the job of government is not to run our own lives and tell us how to lives and force others to pay for our own mistakes. But to provide and environment where we can all obtain the information and education that we need to be successful in. Life and what we do with our own lives is up to us. You had the information or it was in front of you and you still messed up or you made the best of it and are doing well. But at least we would all be in control of our own lives.

That would be my escape from Collectivism it would be a Liberal-Democracy where we all have the freedom to live our own lives. Again as long as we aren’t infringing on others to live their own lives with all the information and skills that they need to be successful in life. But then being held personally responsible for the decisions that they make in life for good and bad. Not being forced to share their wealth or be able to have others bail them out.

Eric Holmberg: Video: Milton Friedman Tries to Help a Future Wall Street Occupier Michael Moore, 1978

Occupy American-Capitalism

Let Freedom Reign

Milton Friedman Tries to Help a Future Wall Street Occupier – YouTube.

I’m not sure Michael Moore could give Milton Friedman a good debate at any point in his life. Let alone in his mid twenties like he was in 1978 but this debate between a classical-Libertarian like. Milton Friedman and an Occupy Wall Streeter let’s say in Michael Moore who also happens to be part. Of the one percent because he went to school got himself a good education, got himself a good job. Has been very successful now has his own production company and also happens to come from a blue-collar family from Flint, Michigan. Mike Moore is obviously not a Roosevelt or a Rockefeller or a Kennedy he’s a man whose earned every dime he’s made in life. Which is a big part of American-Capitalism and yet he seems to feel the need to bash an economic-system that’s made him so. Successful versus an economic-professor a classical-Libertarian whether you agree with him or not. At least you always knew where he was on the issues and he always made a good case for what he believed in.

It’s one thing to come from a blue-collar family where your father makes cars for a living or is a construction-worker. With a very good job with pay, benefits and so forth with a good future in that company if he stays on course. Or be that person yourself and perhaps follow your father’s footsteps and suddenly see that job and future disappear. For Mexico and China where they can pay workers slave wages and treat them like the dirt they walk on. And then say this is what you get from American-Capitalism companies going where they can pay their employees the least. Even though that same economic-system empowered you to be successful before you lost your job. But it’s another thing to bash a system that’s worked so well for you where you’ve taken advantage of every. Opportunity in front to you or at least most of them and now say even though this works for me and I now will. Have enough money where I’ll never have to worry about money again because I also have. This job that I’m very good at that will allow me to make a lot more money. And say even though it works for me we should end it and now allow others to benefit from it.

Just the fact that Milton Friedman would give these lectures and take questions from people. Who perhaps didn’t listen to a thing he said and based their questions on what they’ve read from him. Before is a good thing because it gave these students an opportunity to hear another viewpoint. Instead of being stuck in their own ideological world. Where there’s never anyone contradicting them which is what political-speech is about the opportunity to make your own case. Hear the other side and see where you stand afterwords.

Media Spin: Video: Milton Friedman: Redistribution of Wealth! From 1978

Classical Libertarian

Milton Friedman – Redistribution of Wealth! – YouTube.

Redistribution of wealth is something that we’ve had going back to the entire history of the United States. And is something that perhaps only Anarcho-Libertarians are against but the fact is it’s always been with us and it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. When right-wingers talk about redistribution of wealth they tend to talk in terms of taking from the successful to take care of. Poor or the unsuccessful in America through welfare-programs and so forth. That we punish the successful to take care of the unsuccessful as if that’s all that wealth-redistribution of wealth. Is about and Progressives actually tend to do the same thing but use different terms then punish the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful. And say things like why should the wealthy be allowed to have so much money why we have so many people who can’t feed their families and so forth. But the fact is the safety-net that we all pay into is only part of wealth-redistribution and. Wealth-redistribution really covers the whole economy in every developed country.

The fact is anytime an American is taxed and that money is then later spent to build a road or a bridge. Or pay for law-enforcement, the military, the justice-system and so forth. Government is redistributing wealth in America and the overwhelming majority of the country is in favor of that. Form of wealth-redistribution because we are all protected by police, the military, we all use roads. Hospitals at some point most likely will be in court for one reason or another. And all of these public-services that Americans use all have to be paid for, as Milton Friedman said there’s. No such thing as a free-lunch the money has to come from somewhere to pay for everything that government does for us. And unless you are an Anarchist or an Anarcho-Libertarian, you want government providing these services. And you know they have to be funded and chances are you are willing to pay your share for if even if that means taking money from you that you earned.

So if the young person in this video who I’m guessing was in his early twenties if that at this point. Was more experienced or more knowledgable about wealth-redistribution he would’ve laid out the whole history and existence of wealth-redistribution and made that as part of his argument. With Milton but Milton would’ve still disagreed with him because he knew exactly what wealth-redistribution was. And made some case that we should do something else instead but this young guy would’ve had a very good case to make.