Suck it!, conserva-dicks.


..see what i did there.

So to reduce Pauls standpoint to its essence: if it isn't explicit in the constitution, then it's evil. Human decency and common sense can go love off.

Gotta wonder about what goes on in some peoples minds to come up with that twisted value system.

I'm trippin out how the shape of that microphone is exactly matching the shape of the edge of his tie.. O.O

Hardly a slap down. Not that I agree with Rand Paul, but he certainly wasn't slapped down.

He needs to learn how to make less bombastic arguments. It gives his opponents an excuse to focus on the wrong aspects of his argument, specifically the sensationalist and extreme aspects, rather than focusing on the real substance of what he was trying to communicate.

>> ^braindonut:

Hardly a slap down. Not that I agree with Rand Paul, but he certainly wasn't slapped down.
He needs to learn how to make less bombastic arguments. It gives his opponents an excuse to focus on the wrong aspects of his argument, specifically the sensationalist and extreme aspects, rather than focusing on the real substance of what he was trying to communicate.


What exactly was "the real substance" that he was trying to communicate then? All I saw and heard was him setting a straw-man argument that equated universal health care with slavery, and Sanders rightly pulling the rug out from underneath that argument.

The argument that I heard being made (that I don't necessarily agree with) is that making services a "right" means that somewhere, somehow, someone is paying for it, who may not necessarily want to have to bear that responsibility. If he had made that argument, it might have been a discussion worth having. Instead he went to crazy town and missed his chance.

There is nothing libertarian about Rand or Ron Paul. They are capitalist fundamentalists.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Care to explain?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

There is nothing libertarian about Rand or Ron Paul. They are capitalist fundamentalists.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Care to explain?
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is nothing libertarian about Rand or Ron Paul. They are capitalist fundamentalists.



No he doesn't...Fuck Off!

Well that was a colossally stupid argument.

Even if you accept the rest of it, that doctors would be treated as conscripts, referring to conscription as slavery is right up there with comparisons to the Nazis: You sound like a total moron even if you're right.

Traditional libertarianism is about liberty, not partisan economics. The recent American free market reboot of libertarianism uses "liberty" as an ideological shield from criticism. Free markets have nothing to do with free people.

Also, I think Paul's comments are ironic, considering that it was free markets that allowed slavery in this country in the first place, and government regulation that brought about an end to the practice. Wasn't it Ron Paul that said Lincoln should have bought back the slaves instead of fighting the civil war? Yikes.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Care to explain?
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is nothing libertarian about Rand or Ron Paul. They are capitalist fundamentalists.

lol. I'm happy to explain myself to anyone, anytime. My belief system depends on my ability to articulate it.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Care to explain?
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is nothing libertarian about Rand or Ron Paul. They are capitalist fundamentalists.


No he doesn't...Fuck Off!

"(...)you have a right to water, you have a right to food" .... huuuuhh... YEAH you do, you fucking stupid dip shit.

and I love how his argument against healthcare includes him being dragged away by police. What a disingenuous, moronic, intellectually dishonest thing to say. This guy is absolutely terrible.

Hey, Rand... no one want you to be their doctor. You suck.

Edit: The only, and absolutely only condition in which a State should not provide free or almost free health care for its citizens, is if 100% of them are able to cover their own medical bills without having to worry if they will go bankrupt or have enough left to pay the rent and food, etc. I don't think the US, or any other country on this planet, has reached that point yet, so...

Well played. When someone says something that asinine and heartless, all you really need to do is repeat it for effect, in case the audience wasn't listening the first time. I wonder how often Ron Paul has to stop himself from saying things like that.

So... dinner and drinks on you?
>> ^EMPIRE:

"(...)you have a right to water, you have a right to food" .... huuuuhh... YEAH you do, you fucking stupid dip shit.

Also, I'm feeling a little under the weather today. Can you guys go ahead and send $100 my way so I can pick up some medicine at the store?

>> ^imstellar28:

Also, I'm feeling a little under the weather today. Can you guys go ahead and send $100 my way so I can pick up some medicine at the store?


Yes, as long as what we're really talking about is me paying my taxes, and that gets used to pay for your (and my) medical bills.

*news
*health
*money

Adding video to channels (Health, Money, News) - requested by NetRunner.

We aren't talking about taxes we are talking about human rights. If it is human right you have an obligation to me that extends beyond any form of government, yes?

So, do you want my PayPal address?
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^imstellar28:
Also, I'm feeling a little under the weather today. Can you guys go ahead and send $100 my way so I can pick up some medicine at the store?

Yes, as long as what we're really talking about is me paying my taxes, and that gets used to pay for your (and my) medical bills.

Yeah, Netrunner, if you like the idea of a publicly supported national health care system so much, then give me charity. hurr durr...

(your logic needs some work, imstellar)

>> ^imstellar28:

So... dinner and drinks on you?
>> ^EMPIRE:
"(...)you have a right to water, you have a right to food" .... huuuuhh... YEAH you do, you fucking stupid dip shit.


If a starving or thirsty person came up to you on the street begging for food and/or water would you deny it? I certainly wouldn't.

>> ^srd:

So to reduce Pauls standpoint to its essence: if it isn't explicit in the constitution, then it's evil. Human decency and common sense can go love off.

Hey, you want to provide goods and services to everyone for sake of "human decency and common sense", then fine. Amend the constitution, and have at it.

But unless you can obtain a 2/3 majority vote in Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states, you're bound by the constitution to find other _voluntary_ means of providing those goods and services.

How is the hypocrisy not immediately evident?

In the same speech he refers to mandatory health care as slavery and yet seems to have no qualms with either the Hippocratic oath as a principle and emergency room health care as a principle which implies the same thing.

The problem here is that he sees this issue in one light yet completely denies how wrong he is. Police? Fire Department? Sewage Treatment? Garbage? Teachers? The Military? State Workers across the board? NASA? etc..., etc..., etc...

>> ^braindonut:

The argument that I heard being made (that I don't necessarily agree with) is that making services a "right" means that somewhere, somehow, someone is paying for it, who may not necessarily want to have to bear that responsibility. If he had made that argument, it might have been a discussion worth having. Instead he went to crazy town and missed his chance.


I know you don't necessarily agree with the viewpoint, but I still don't see how it could have been a discussion worth having. How could you possibly sustain a modern society if people don't have to pay for things that they don't feel are their responsibility?

I hear elderly people in the U.S. sometimes complaining that they don't want to pay for education since they don't have any kids or grandkids in school anymore. Other people complain about their taxes subsidizing freeways since they don't own a car (apparently believing that food just magically arrives at the grocery store rather than being trucked in on a semi). Hell, I complain about how much we waste on "the war on terror"--a war which I was against from the start and wanted absolutely no responsibility for.

But can you imagine a world where people could just opt out of paying for things that they didn't feel they were responsible for? It would be sheer chaos--budgeting would be a nightmare because you'd never know how much money was coming in from year to year. Freeloaders would opt out of paying for anything. And doing your taxes would take the entire year as you had to decide how to mete out what you owe.

Basically, as far as I can tell his argument was not against universal health care, but against taxes. And the slavery quip was just downright silly--if you follow that logic then all lawyers are slaves because the sixth amendment guarantees the right of everyone who is accused of a crime to an attorney (can't take credit for making that observation... read it on Gawker).

Free economic exchange is absolutely essential to true liberty.

If you don't control the means to sustain yourself, how could you ever be free?

Imagine it's 1887 and a federal agent strolls up to your farmer right after it's been determined that pasteurization is "Better".

"What do you mean I can't sell raw cow's milk anymore? I have lots of customers and none of them have ever complained. I can't afford to pasteurization hundreds of gallons of milk."

Now think of the thousands of other similar scenarios where you're not allowed to make an income because someone else says you shouldn't.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Free markets have nothing to do with free people.

my kids are on Chips, you fuckers are all my SLAVES!!! keep going to work suckers, roo needs a new inhaler! bwwhahahahaahahahahahahah!

welfare moms uber alles

like the scenario where i'm a bajigagiallionaire oil company and i want to make money by cutting corners in ensuring the safety of my rigs... and the big asshole regulations say i can't because it might kill people and destroy an ecosystem???? THAT'S A THREAT TO MY FUCKING LIBERTY!

regulations can be a good thing when the regulating body doesn't work for multinationals.

we're all fucked. >> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Free economic exchange is absolutely essential to true liberty.
If you don't control the means to sustain yourself, how could you ever be free?
Imagine it's 1887 and a federal agent strolls up to your farmer right after it's been determined that pasteurization is "Better".
"What do you mean I can't sell raw cow's milk anymore? I have lots of customers and none of them have ever complained. I can't afford to pasteurization hundreds of gallons of milk."
Now think of the thousands of other similar scenarios where you're not allowed to make an income because someone else says you shouldn't.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Free markets have nothing to do with free people.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Free economic exchange is absolutely essential to true liberty.
If you don't control the means to sustain yourself, how could you ever be free?
Imagine it's 1887 and a federal agent strolls up to your farmer right after it's been determined that pasteurization is "Better".
"What do you mean I can't sell raw cow's milk anymore? I have lots of customers and none of them have ever complained. I can't afford to pasteurization hundreds of gallons of milk."
Now think of the thousands of other similar scenarios where you're not allowed to make an income because someone else says you shouldn't.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Free markets have nothing to do with free people.


Perhaps I'm alone on this, but I feel that there is some reasonable middle ground between "all regulation is wonderful" and "all regulation is horrible".

Same for taxes.

I can't believe this is even a debate. All other developed countries have universal healthcare. I don't think you can find any country with universal healthcare that has a system that makes the people worse off than the pre-Obama American system.

The system was god-awfully bad before. Now it is better. There is no need for debate.

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Don't need to amend the Constitution. How do you think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Meat Inspection Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pure Food and Drug Act, Clean Air Act, and other extremely valuable pieces of federal legislation are constitutional?

>> ^maestro156:

>> ^srd:
So to reduce Pauls standpoint to its essence: if it isn't explicit in the constitution, then it's evil. Human decency and common sense can go love off.
Hey, you want to provide goods and services to everyone for sake of "human decency and common sense", then fine. Amend the constitution, and have at it.
But unless you can obtain a 2/3 majority vote in Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states, you're bound by the constitution to find other _voluntary_ means of providing those goods and services.

What does starving or thirsty have to do with it? Are you suggesting only really sick people have a right to healthcare? I'm telling you right now I'm hungry and thirsty. If food and water are a right how are you not obligated to provide it to me? Adding the qualifiers "starving or thirsty" and "begging" are just ways in which your mind is dealing with the incongruity of your beliefs. If you want to be logical your statement should be:

"If a person came up to you asking for food/or water would you deny it?"

As an example, does the fact that someone has a lot of money or no money make a difference in whether it is okay to steal? If you can, please name any other "human right" in which a qualifier other than "human" applies.

>> ^EMPIRE:

>> ^imstellar28:
So... dinner and drinks on you?
>> ^EMPIRE:
"(...)you have a right to water, you have a right to food" .... huuuuhh... YEAH you do, you fucking stupid dip shit.

If a starving or thirsty person came up to you on the street begging for food and/or water would you deny it? I certainly wouldn't.

RedSky, do you draw any distinction between what a person should do, and what a person is legally obligated to do?
>> ^RedSky:

How is the hypocrisy not immediately evident?
In the same speech he refers to mandatory health care as slavery and yet seems to have no qualms with either the Hippocratic oath as a principle and emergency room health care as a principle which implies the same thing.

You'll note that the constitution only grants the power to make laws "necessary and proper" to execute the Powers already listed in the constitution.

Therefore, most of those programs you mentioned are simply unconstitutional, regardless of their value.

I know that it is unrealistic of me to expect that the constitution will be followed when it has been ignored for the last century, but I can continue to hope.

>> ^heropsycho:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Don't need to amend the Constitution. How do you think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Meat Inspection Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pure Food and Drug Act, Clean Air Act, and other extremely valuable pieces of federal legislation are constitutional?

The point he was arguing against was an argument based on theoretical principles and rights not law. His reply for that matter was an equally exaggerated notion of that principle, the idea that public provision of health care is equivalent to slavery when this is far from the truth. Publicly funded or subsidized health implies nothing of the sort, it would merely imply that some institutions would willingly enter into a contract to provide a service payed for by tax dollars for the provision of a service. Nobody would ever force you to work as a doctor or work in a medical institution a party to this.

He then went on to unironically discuss the emergency service provision. Yes that is law but by the same token as he is implying publicly paid for or subsidized health care is slavery, he should apply the same principles here. If he really believes this law is equivalent to slavery then pray tell me what he is doing waxing lyrically about some hypothetical and not fighting against the indenturement of his constituents?
>> ^imstellar28:

RedSky, do you draw any distinction between what a person should do, and what a person is legally obligated to do?
>> ^RedSky:
How is the hypocrisy not immediately evident?
In the same speech he refers to mandatory health care as slavery and yet seems to have no qualms with either the Hippocratic oath as a principle and emergency room health care as a principle which implies the same thing.

I agree with you. I was just trying to point out that making the "slavery comparison" was like evoking Hitler in an argument. And yes, I do think the discussion is worth having. It's the only way to move past it, rather than rehashing the same old things over and over.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^braindonut:
The argument that I heard being made (that I don't necessarily agree with) is that making services a "right" means that somewhere, somehow, someone is paying for it, who may not necessarily want to have to bear that responsibility. If he had made that argument, it might have been a discussion worth having. Instead he went to crazy town and missed his chance.

I know you don't necessarily agree with the viewpoint, but I still don't see how it could have been a discussion worth having. How could you possibly sustain a modern society if people don't have to pay for things that they don't feel are their responsibility?
I hear elderly people in the U.S. sometimes complaining that they don't want to pay for education since they don't have any kids or grandkids in school anymore. Other people complain about their taxes subsidizing freeways since they don't own a car (apparently believing that food just magically arrives at the grocery store rather than being trucked in on a semi). Hell, I complain about how much we waste on "the war on terror"--a war which I was against from the start and wanted absolutely no responsibility for.
But can you imagine a world where people could just opt out of paying for things that they didn't feel they were responsible for? It would be sheer chaos--budgeting would be a nightmare because you'd never know how much money was coming in from year to year. Freeloaders would opt out of paying for anything. And doing your taxes would take the entire year as you had to decide how to mete out what you owe.
Basically, as far as I can tell his argument was not against universal health care, but against taxes. And the slavery quip was just downright silly--if you follow that logic then all lawyers are slaves because the sixth amendment guarantees the right of everyone who is accused of a crime to an attorney (can't take credit for making that observation... read it on Gawker).

You mean like regulation of interstate commerce?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

The Preamble also states the intent of the document is to fashion a government which will "promote the general Welfare". It's pretty reasonable to interpret things like Medicare and Medicaid as measures that would do so.

Regulation of interstate commerce and the Elastic Clause are vague for a reason. The founding fathers knew that they could not write a Constitution that would cover every single thing the federal gov't should be allowed to do. Amendments and these vague passages were intended to provide some flexibility. Most of the founding fathers were not intending for a federal government to be paralyzed. They wanted a limited government, but they were also correcting the mistakes made in the Articles of Confederation, which limited federal power far too much.

So, in your opinion, those programs are unconstitutional because you're a strict constructionist kind of person. That's okay. This is why we have people with diverse opinions. In the end though, usually the right calls are made. You know, like every one of those programs I mentioned that haven't been deemed unconstitutional, some of which have been around for over 100 years.

>> ^maestro156:

You'll note that the constitution only grants the power to make laws "necessary and proper" to execute the Powers already listed in the constitution.
Therefore, most of those programs you mentioned are simply unconstitutional, regardless of their value.

The Elastic Clause is a joke. It renders the 10th Amendment meaningless if interpreted in that fashion.

The founders didn't intend for the federal government to do all these arguably good things that government does. The founders intended for the state and local governments to handle the minutiae of governing our everyday lives. The federal government's purpose was merely to mediate between the states and ensure "regular interstate commerce".

The founders designed a Federation.

I'm sure we disagree on the value of the various programs instituted under the federal government, but if we had followed the proper procedures of constitutional amendment, we would have the most important of these in place, while keeping the size and scope of our government limited in a way that would have avoided our current indebtedness.

It clearly was intended to add some flexibility; otherwise, there's no point of it being in the document at all. There will always be debate about how far you can/should take it. That debate is healthy because it prevents abuse.

The value of interpreting it my way is undeniable though. The average American's life has been undeniably improved by the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act. It's also extremely difficult to argue against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being positive for the US overall. Most Americans would agree Social Security overall has been very positive, ditto Medicare and Medicaid, despite flaws in those programs. That's why I brought those up. Feel free to rail against them, but you're not gonna persuade anyone outside of the Ron Paul's of the world.

Can that interpretation be abused? Yes, won't deny that. But so far, it's been far more positive than negative.

If you think we are morally obligated to provide healthcare to people, fine, that's your opinion. Anyone can have whatever set of morals they please. If you think the government should pay for such things - hey, that's your vote to cast. But why is there the need to pretend this is a "human right" when everyone in this thread knows damn well it isn't. There is no logical or philosophical leg to stand on when making that argument. Rights are restrictions placed on social interactions between humans (no stealing, no slavery, no murder, etc.) not a guarantee for material goods or services.

If you think everyone in society should have a car, 3 meals a day, and a personal doctor feel free to start a cult or religion and get a bunch of followers who agree with you. If you are really motivated, start a business and save up enough money to feed all your neighbors and provide them with houses and healthcare -- but keep the "divine justification" for your opinions out of a philosophical argument because not only is it complete rubbish, it's intellectually dishonest.

Citing "human rights" as justification for your political opinions is as vacuous an argument as pulling out the bible and quoting scripture.

You sir, are an idiot. Congratulations.

OF COURSE it's a human right. We're talking about life and death. Not luxuries and confort.



if you're sick, and have no money or very little, in a country where health care would not be provided for free, and in some cases (like the US) most procedures are charged at unbelievable prices, YOU DIE.

Of course, you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, as you seem to think that health is somehow a luxury and you should pay for it.




>> ^imstellar28:

If you think we are morally obligated to provide healthcare to people, fine, that's your opinion. Anyone can have whatever set of morals they please. If you think the government should pay for such things - hey, that's your vote to cast. But why is there the need to pretend this is a "human right" when everyone in this thread knows damn well it isn't. There is no logical or philosophical leg to stand on when making that argument. Rights are restrictions placed on social interactions between humans (no stealing, no slavery, no murder, etc.) not a guarantee for material goods or services.
If you think everyone in society should have a car, 3 meals a day, and a personal doctor feel free to start a cult or religion and get a bunch of followers who agree with you. If you are really motivated, start a business and save up enough money to feed all your neighbors and provide them with houses and healthcare -- but keep the "divine justification" for your opinions out of a philosophical argument because not only is it complete rubbish, it's intellectually dishonest.
Citing "human rights" as justification for your political opinions is as vacuous an argument as pulling out the bible and quoting scripture.

Food and water my be a right, but there's a big difference between someone who is actually starving, or malnourished coming up to me and asking me for a meal, and YOU trying to get a free meal and you can perfectly pay for it yourself.

If you can't see the difference, I am SO very sorry for you.

>> ^imstellar28:

What does starving or thirsty have to do with it? Are you suggesting only really sick people have a right to healthcare? I'm telling you right now I'm hungry and thirsty. If food and water are a right how are you not obligated to provide it to me? Adding the qualifiers "starving or thirsty" and "begging" are just ways in which your mind is dealing with the incongruity of your beliefs. If you want to be logical your statement should be:
"If a person came up to you asking for food/or water would you deny it?"
As an example, does the fact that someone has a lot of money or no money make a difference in whether it is okay to steal? If you can, please name any other "human right" in which a qualifier other than "human" applies.
>> ^EMPIRE:
>> ^imstellar28:
So... dinner and drinks on you?
>> ^EMPIRE:
"(...)you have a right to water, you have a right to food" .... huuuuhh... YEAH you do, you fucking stupid dip shit.

If a starving or thirsty person came up to you on the street begging for food and/or water would you deny it? I certainly wouldn't.

So much for civil discussion...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Pass the peace pipe. >> ^ForgedReality:

I'm trippin out how the shape of that microphone is exactly matching the shape of the edge of his tie.. O.O

It was the free market that allowed slavery in America. It was government regulation that ended slavery in America. Labor regulations such as the minimum wage, overtime, the 5 day work week, the 8 hour work day, child labor standards, workplace safety standards (among many other regulations) give working people more liberty, but it comes at the expense of management liberty. A completely free market would give management complete liberty, but would come at the cost of worker liberty.

It all depends on which side of this conflict you empathize with - people or money. Which side are you on?



>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Free economic exchange is absolutely essential to true liberty.
If you don't control the means to sustain yourself, how could you ever be free?
Imagine it's 1887 and a federal agent strolls up to your farmer right after it's been determined that pasteurization is "Better".
"What do you mean I can't sell raw cow's milk anymore? I have lots of customers and none of them have ever complained. I can't afford to pasteurization hundreds of gallons of milk."
Now think of the thousands of other similar scenarios where you're not allowed to make an income because someone else says you shouldn't.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Free markets have nothing to do with free people.

I feel like I'm reading yahoo answers here.

Can you guys really not draw a distinction between personal morality, which is a choice like religion or sexuality -- and something like human rights which is a philosophical truth? A philosophical truth is something we discover via rational argument, not divine justification or statements like "of course it is, we're talking about life or death."

I want to believe that anyone can do anything they put their mind to, but I'm really starting to wonder whether there is simply an IQ minimum for being able to generate your own ideas about certain subjects.

[Wow, this sorta tumbled off topic but we'll see where it goes.]

      1.] Slavery bit

Declining profitability & the industrial revolution ended slavery.
Federal regulations were implemented later, mostly as political platforms.

If you're Britain, and the paid-workers of Brazil or Cuba can produce more sugarcane at lower prices compared to slave-workers.. which side of slavery would you support?

If you're an American plantation owner, how much money are you willing to waste rebuilding your business after every, rapidly increasing slave revolt?

If you're an American or European Labor Union supporter, are you going to buy sugar or textiles from companies that don't pay their workers?

[No, you might even start a petition to enact legislation.]

      2.] Regulation ≠ Improvement

You and @peggedbea seem to think I'm implying that oligarchs should be allowed off some magical leash called regulation.

What I should have articulated first, was the understanding that:
Regulation & incentive - sticks & carrots - work counter-intuitively, more often than not.

Think about it. Is it the people typing up the regulations or the management?
Is it the workers writing up the wage laws or the owners?

If you're a small business owner who you can't afford to pay your workers minimum wage, you're out of the game before you can even start.

Regulations are the Oligarchs best tool to maintain or expand their power.

Mostly because folks like you & Bea legitimize their authority thru your support of regulation as the best thing since sliced bread.

      Lastly

While I support truly free economic exchange, I also support single payer universal health care.

It's possible for them both to exist together at once.

The sooner more people are allowed into the market..
the sooner capitalist fundamentalist healthcare oligarchs will be overlooked because someone offers a better service.

[Again, are you gonna buy from the small, local owner whose minimum wage is slightly below your standards.

..Or the giant multinational conglomerate who uses Southeast Asian slave labor.]

These things tend to work themselves out.

Attempting to elicit obedience from the oligarch only causes problem for all of us you aren't powerful enough to game the system like they can.

Hence, why free economic exchange - yes even the darker side - is necessary for true liberty.



>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

http://videosift.com/video/Ber
nie-Sanders-slaps-down-Rand-Paul-Health-care-as-slavery?loadcomm=1#comment-1205705

^That is all theoretical bullshit that never plays out in real life. In real life, privatization and deregulation lead to unemployment, inflation, massive income inequity and civil rights abuse. Check out Chile or Argentina or Poland or Russia or Brazil or Iraq or America or New Orleans or......

Spit out that Kool Aide, brother! You are a cool dude, and I don't want to see you get diabetes!