I believe somebody ran the numbers once and discovered that only a small percentage of welfare recipients were drug addicts. Also, the cost to set up and run the program that would drug test all people on welfare would cost more than the money you would save by kicking the few drug users there were out of the program.
But that would never fit the conservative narrative that all poor people are lazy drug addicted scumbags.

500 innocent Americans killed is total bullshit anyway. I want to see names, not just some strawman argument. 11 million people are arrested every year, and many of these 'American citizens' are mental cases, gang members, hardcore criminals, drug addicts etc.

The video states that 'the DOJ estimates that 500 innocent Americans are killed every year'. I would love to see where the DOJ determines their 'innocence'. I want to see the document on that one.

And if one example (Trayvon martin) doesn't invalidate their argument, how can a handful of other examples (as seen in the video) validate it?

If 'a black man is murdered every 28 hours', then ask yourself why so many black men are resisting arrest or engaging in conduct that leads to them getting killed.

You can listen to a police scanner in any major city and the majority of calls will involve police calls for assistance regarding a black man or men engaged in violent criminal behavior. Go ahead and listen, you might learn something. And these calls are generally coming from other black people who want to be protected from the criminals who live amongst them.

The video also states that police officers always get off scott free after killing people. Give me some names. The DOJ went after Darren Wilson with everything they had and eventually had to admit that he acted properly and within the law.

'This ain't a war zone!' the man cries. Did he search everyone in that crowd? How does he know they are unarmed?

The video also concerns an Australian police action. What does that have to do with American police, which is the subject of the video?

Furthermore, the police acting improperly on the video...what is the story behind each officer? Was he/she reprimanded, suspended, fired? There is no followup, it is just assumed that they all got away with improper behavior.

The whole system is racist, says the sign. Tell it to Eric Holder, the black attorney general! lol give me a fucking break

Where is the attention given to black on black crime? You don't hear about it. 2500 people shot in Chicago last year, look it up.

Charles Shaw, you are a fraud.

This is somewhat humorous, although probably less so for the poor guy stuck behind that wall:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=816_1424011880

Hope he was alright, being stuck in that position too long isn't good for one's health.

From http://altapress.ru/story/152132

From Russia.

February 14 Barnaul rescuers, gouging a hole in the wall of the hallway, got out of the ventilation shaft a man who was there for unknown reasons.

Rescuers and medical staff were called by residents, who heard the heart-rending cries for help from their kitchen ventilation. Emergency workers arrived at the scene who gouged a hole in the wall in the hallway and got out a man . According to one eyewitness , during rescue operations man shouted "I go-oo-oo." (? "Я иду-у-у")

After the man was extracted from the ventilation shaft, he was examined by the first aid officers who had arrived.

The accident happened in one of the houses in the area of Barnaul "Malachowski ring."

P.S. Actually, it was a drug addict who was going through a ventilation shaft and climb to rob residents of the house, but fell into the trap and thus no mercy.

P.P.S. he refused hospitalization and ran for a new dose.

@bcglorf
this assumes there will be no consequences for breaking the rules or no structure in place to enforce those rules.this implies that if their WAS no enforcement,everybody would spend the entire day robbing,raping and causing mayhem.

so you are right,the base argument is indeed intellectually dishonest,but is also not an argument FOR a militarized police force.the real arguments is the laws themselves.

start with more humane and common sense laws and the need for a massive police force becomes irrelevant.

in an anarchal system it is the people who are the representatives who create legislation.
lets take the iraq war of 2003,where the american people were overwhelmingly against going into iraq..yet we still invaded.representative democracy? not a shot.
or in 2008 when the american people,in a massive majority,rejected the bailout and wished to see the perpetrators held accountable.well? what happened? i think you know.

anarchism is a varied and dynamic political view.its not just one simple flavor.do you see trance and i agreeing on much?my politics over-laps with trance but it does with @newtboy and @ChaosEngine as well.

the basic gist is individual liberty trumps everything and that the structures put in place should be temporary and be directed from the bottom up,not the top down.we realize that we live in a society populated by people and it should be the people who direct where that society should be going.we have no need or use for "leaders" or "rulers" and when the "representatives" have obviously jumped the shark to whore to their donors,it is time to question/criticize the system and not just replace the crack whore with a meth whore.

anarchy is simply a political philosophy,thats it.

so we would see:
zero wars of aggression
no more criminalized drug addicts or poor people
no more corporate welfare
and most likely the people would vote out the federal reserve and print its own currency.

anarchists prefer direct democracy but will accept representative if they are actually being represented.(though begrudgingly).

you should read up on some anarchy.you may find some very food ideas and while not a perfect political philosophy,the one thing it does offer that i find most appealing:if it aint working...vote it out.

I doubt it was intentional either but that's not really the point. The things we unconsciously say can often be just as important as the things we consciously, intentionally say. When we're talking about whether or not specific groups of people are acceptable to a broader culture, so much of how people interpret such a discussion is through the lens of their own inculturation and unconscious assumptions.

Take a look at the black community's response to the Ferguson situation on social media. One of the memes that cropped up was a comparison of headlines between stories where a white person commits murder versus when a black person is a murder victim. In the former, the headlines express a sense of disbelief such as "Theatre shooting perpetrator was 'brilliant scientist', says graduate advisor". In the latter case, the headlines tend to imply the victim got what was coming to him or her, i.e. "Shooting victim had history of drug addiction, multiple arrests." Does that mean the news media hates black people and is hopelessly racist? No, of course not. I bet none of the editors who ran those headlines thought for a moment that they were imposing racial biases upon their stories. But, the biases are definitely there -- it's a shock that a white person would kill, but it's expected and probably just that a black person was killed -- and that shapes how other people perceive the affected groups without it even entering their conscious consideration.

In the case of this video, I doubt the comedians in question considered what I've brought up, but again the note on which it ends is definitely one of "if gay people just acted normal then they wouldn't have any problems in society." I find that problematic, whether it was intentional or not.

Jim Norton had a joke along those lines, that there was a drug addict he was sponsoring that was going to see him, and take his cum.

That is exactly what i got from it too. I DESPISE religion in almost EVERY WAY, But this is a very good message. I think it would fit much better if it was about alcoholism, drug addiction, or depression though.

On his last point, the resources spent incarcerating drug addicts could be used to cure drug addicts.

That Rep is one of our boys out here in Or-E-Gone. The bow tie is kind of his schtick, but he's a good guy overall.

Yeah because we really tried to fight that war on poverty didn't we. Also it's been conclusively proven that TREATMENT helps drug addicts and not prison. So we should spend some of the enormous amount of money that we spend on prisons on treatment instead. That's the smart and moral thing to do.

" I'm wrong most of the time "

Keep that in mind when you are blitzed and running your fingers/mouth off, maybe you should save the message in notepad and read upon it the day ... hours after you have slept it off. Maybe then you would not be labeled as a jack ass drunk drug addict who spews shit all over the sift because he is mad about his own life with no real outlet in his life to let the anger out. Or continue to drink, smoke the smoke, inhale whippets and make cooking videos showing your nature.

Should we feel for you ? you dig your own grave with your messages and somehow expect some semblance of sympathy or recognition for your personality abnormalities. You go out of your way to piss off an offend people and then later on try and describe why.

Grow the fuck up. You are an adult male... and I feel like you actually need to be told that, don't you have kids ? or kid ? how would they respond if they went and goggled daddy and his online moniker.

You did not get to defend yourself.. because you were a fucking dick bag and got banned, you do not have the right to defend yourself, you lost that right when you were a drunk cunt. You shouldn't go around now trying to stand up for yourself after you have trashed your personable name you align with.

You want attention, that is all I read about you, you spout shit either to get people riled up or to just break the monotony of few posts but you out of EVERYONE here have no base to make a standard of yourself, your standard is already set with how you are perceived. You might want to start from the ground up sober ( as hard as it is ) and only write down your sentiments when you are in that sober stage.

You vie for attention, you are an attention slut on this site, a lot of the messages you write have an air of " poor me " poor you ? poor the sift for putting up with your bullshit.

YOU need therapy, in the states it is expensive and not covered by "health care" but boy oh fucking mighty Christ do you ever out of everyone here need someone to talk to about your thoughts and problems, the sift is not an online therapy session to spew your views of distrust and hateful attitudes.

You are not special, no one is. We are all tadpoles in a pond waiting to be eaten by the fish. metamorphosize and grow the fuck up so you can't get eaten.

Until then... Good luck guy, thanks for the Tie .

Edited to add the reason I am logged in : fixing kick ass song embed =





I suggest you listen to this while I slap your face :

I think 'Mericans are jealous. We've got a hard-partying, hard-drug addicted mayor that still does his job well, and their president can't even get a website started properly.

@enoch, thanks for your comments. I thought it better to respond directly to your profile than on the video, about which we're no longer discussing directly. Sorry for the length of this reply, but for such a complex topic as this one, a thorough and plainly-stated response is needed.

You wrote: "the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"? NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?"

The free market works best for any and all goods and services, regardless of their aim or purpose. Healthcare is no different from any other good or service in this respect.

(And besides, tell me why there's no money in preventative care? Do nutritionists, physical trainers/therapists, psychologists, herbalists, homeopaths, and any other manner of non-allopathic doctors not get paid and make profit in the marketplace? Would not a longer life not lead to a longer-term 'consumer' anyway? And would preventative medicine obliterate the need for all manner of medical treatment, or would there not still remain a need to diagnose, treat, and cure diseases, even in the presence of a robust preventative medical market?)

I realize that my argument is not the "popular" one (and there are certainly many reasons for this, up to and including a lot of disinformation about what constitutes a "free market" health care system). But the way to approach such things is not heuristically, but rationally, as one would approach any other economic issue.

You write "see where i am going with this? It's not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time."

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The purpose of the healthcare system is to provide the most advanced medical service and care possible in the most efficient and affordable way possible. Only a free competitive market can do this with the necessary economic calculations in place to support its progress. No matter how you slice it, a socialized approach to healthcare invariably distorts the market (with its IP fees, undue regulations, and a lack of any accurate metrics on both the supply-side and on the demand-side which helps to determine availability, efficacy, and cost).

"you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care."

Sorry, but this is just absurd. What else can I say?

"but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?"

The free market model.

"if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism."

Redundant: "free market under the auspices of free market."

"disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine."

Only Krugman-style Keynesians would say that illness is more profitable than health (or war more profitable than peace, or that alien invasions and broken windows are good for the economy). They, like you, aren't taking into account the One Lesson in Economics: look at how it affects every group, not just one group; look at the long term effects, not just short term ones. You're just seeing that, in the short-run, health will be less profitable for medical practitioners (or some pharmaceuticals) that are currently working in the treatment of illness. But look at every group outside that small group and at the long run and you can see that health is more profitable than illness overall. The market that profits more from illness will have to adapt, in ways that only the market knows for sure.

Do you realize that the money you put into socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.) is money you deplete from prevention entrepreneurship?

(As an aside, I wonder, why do so many people assume that the socialized central planners have some kind of special knowledge or wisdom that entrepreneurs do not? And why is there the belief that unlike entrepreneurs, socialist central planners are not selfishly motivated but always act in the interest of the "common good?" Could this be part of the propagandized and indoctrinated fear that's implicit in living in a socialized environment? Why do serfs (and I'm sure that, at some level, people know that's what they are) love the socialist central planners more than they love themselves? Complex questions about self-esteem and captive minds.)

If fewer people get sick, the market will then demand more practitioners to move from treating illness into other areas like prevention, being a prevention doctor or whatever. You're actually making the argument for free market here, not against it. Socialized bureaucratically dictated medicine will not adapt to the changing needs as efficiently or rapidly as a free market can and would. If more people are getting sick, then we'll need more doctors to treat them. If fewer people are getting sick because preventive medicine takes off, then we'll have more of that type of service. If a socialized healthcare is mandated, then we will invariably have a glut of allopathic doctors, with little need for their services (and we then have the kinds of problems we see amongst doctors who are coerced -- by the threat of losing their license -- to take medicaid and then lie on their reports in order to recoup their costs, e.g., see the article linked here.)

Meanwhile, there has been and will remain huge profits to be made in prevention, as the vitamin, supplements, alternative medicine, naturopathy, exercise and many other industries attest to. What are you talking about, that there's no profit in preventing illness? (In a manner of speaking, that's actually my bread and butter!) If you have a way to prevent illness, you will have more than enough people buying from you, people who don't want to get sick. (And other services for the people who do.) Open a gym. Become a naturopath. Teach stress management, meditation, yoga, zumba, whatever! And there are always those who need treatment, who are sick, and the free market will then have an accurate measure of how to allocate the right resources and number of such practitioners. This is something that the central planners (under socialized services) simply cannot possibly do (except, of course, for the omniscient ones that socialists insist exist).

You wrote "cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis."

But they won't as long as you have centrally planned (socialized) medicine. The free market forces practitioners to respond to the market's demands. Socialized medicine does not. Entrepreneurs will (as they already have) exploit openings for profit in prevention (without the advantage of regulations which distort the markets) and take the business away from treatment doctors. If anything, doctors prevent preventative medicine from getting more widespread by using government regulations to limit what the preventive practitioners do. In fact, preventive medicine is so profitable that it has many in the medical profession lobbying to curtail it. They are losing much business to alternative/preventive practitioners. They lobby to, for example, prevent herb providers from stating the medical/preventive benefits of their herbs. They even prevent strawberry farmers to tout the health benefits of strawberries! It is the state that is slowing down preventive medicine, not the free market! In Puerto Rico, for example, once the Medical Association lost a bit to prohibit naturopathy, they effectively outlawed acupuncture by successfully getting a law passed that requires all acupuncturists to be medical doctors. Insanity.

If you think there is no profit in preventative care or exercise, think GNC and Richard Simmons, and Pilates, and bodywork, and my own practice of psychotherapy. Many of the successful corporations (I'm thinking of Google and Pixar and SalesForce and Oracle, etc.) see the profit and value in preventative care, which is why they have these "stay healthy" programs for their employees. There's more money in health than illness. No doubt.

Or how about the health food/nutrition business? Or organic farming, or whole foods! The free market could maybe call for fewer oncologists and for more Whole Foods or even better natural food stores. Of course, we don't know the specifics, but that's actually the point. Only the free market knows (and the omniscient socialist central planners) what needs to happen and how.

Imagination! We need to get people to use it more.

You wrote: "but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet."

You're actually making my point here. In a free market, pharmaceutical companies cannot monopolize what "drugs" people can or cannot take, sell or not sell, and cannot prevent natural alternatives from being promoted. Only with state intervention (by way of IP regulations, and so forth) can they do so.

Free market is not corporatism. Free market is not crony capitalism. (More disinformation that needs to be lifted.)

So you're not countering my free market position, you're countering the crony capitalist position. This is a straw man argument, even if in this case you might not have understood my position in the first place. You, like so many others, equate "capitalism" with cronyism or corporatism. Many cannot conceive of a free market that is free from regulation. So folks then argue against their own interests, either for or against "fascist" vs. "socialist" medicine. The free market is, in fact, outside these two positions.

You wrote: "IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis. the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering."

I won't go into medicare right now (It is a disaster, and so is the current non-free-market insurance industry. See the article linked in my comment above.)

You wrote "this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades."

I don't want to be a naysayer but, socialism is nothing new. It has been tried (and failed) many times before. The USSR had socialized medicine. So does Cuba (but then you may believe the Michael Moore fairytale about medicine in Cuba). It's probably better to go see in person how Cubans live and how they have no access to the places that Moore visited.

You wrote: "i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other."

Really, then why try to force me (or anyone) into your idea of "good" medicine? The free market is a communal effort. In fact, it is nothing else (and nothing else is as communal as the free market). Central planning, socialized, top-down decision-making, is not. Never has been. Never will be.

Voluntary interactions is "taking care of each other." Coercion is not. Socialism is coercion. It cannot "work" any other way. A free market is voluntary cooperation.

Economic calculation is necessary to avoid chaos, whatever the purpose of a service. This is economic law. Unless the purpose is to create chaos, you need real prices and efficiency that only the free market can provide.

I hope this helps to clarify (and not confuse) what I wrote on @eric3579's profile.

@Trancecoach
i am going to have to disagree with your "free market" argument.(i snooped on your commentary on @eric3579 page).

and here is why:

since we both agree that what we have now is NOT a free market health care system and it is rife with corruption.we can move on to the real meat of the argument.

in my opinion the basic flaw in your argument is the base question.
free market or socialized medicine?

this is the wrong question.
because the questions ignores the very essence which we should be addressing.
the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"?
NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?

so,
what IS the purpose of the health care system?

ah...
see where i am going with this?
not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time.

because they are incompatible.
you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care.

my family is in the medical field (as i know you are as well),and i have had this discussion with them many,many times.

when i have asked them "what is the best way to optimize a persons long term health"?
they have always answered,without exception "preventive care"."early diagnosis"."education on the benefits of diet and exercise".

and i suspect you would agree with their assessment.

but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?

if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism.
where is the profit in a healthy society?
answer:there is none.
disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine.

cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis.

it is ineffecient and morally despicable and the costs are counted in dead bodies.

but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet.

so if we used your "free market" model instead of the corporate welfare system we are using now.
the results would STILL be the same.
because BOTH systems are for-profit.

now,
let us examine medicare.
runs on a 3-5% overhead,while in contrast the health insurance industry runs between 25-35% and are..for-profit.

IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis.
the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering.

this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades.

i dont feel i have to list them because i respect your intellect.

i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other.
a corporation cares nothing for my health nor yours.they care about profit.

and preventive care is NOT profitable,yet death and disease are.

so.
socialism>free market

Lets watch the down and out drug addict potentially hurt himself for a dollar so we can call him an idiot. Nothing personal Mordhaus. I just think passing this off as entertaining is somewhat disgusting, but to each his own.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chingalera.