SNOWFLAKES Ocasio-Cortez Supporter CONFRONTS Ben Shapiro On Healthcare gets SCHOOLED live on campus

SNOWFLAKES Ocasio-Cortez Supporter CONFRONTS Ben Shapiro On Healthcare gets SCHOOLED live on campus



hi you're hard man to reach – I'm glad I made it today my name's Felix I have a question for you about health care all right with you on this issue we spend more on per capita than any other country in the world and have some of the worst results according to the World Health Organization we were 37th in 2000 49th and 2009 and 50th and 2010 we also lead immortality' amenable to health care with over 45,000 people that will die every year because of it the top 17 countries and I have the list right here that have the best health care in the world uses some form of universal health care whether that be single-payer or too tired system or a government mandated program I am curious to know why you continue to deny that universal health care is an effective system and before you answer the question I personally would advocate for a too-tight system not single-payer okay so the answer is that it depends on what you are going for really it does so there's a couple reasons well let me put it this way here's the framework that I use that I'm thinking about health care the and sorry before that just organize my thoughts here before that the first thing to mention is that all of the countries that are doing really well on health care also we're doing well on health care before the implementation of a nationalized health care system it's not the national health care system that changed Sweden into a healthy country or Norway into a healthy country these were healthy countries before that happened that's just the way it is the United States is mainly unhealthy because we eat a bunch of shit here right okay that's it that really is the reason our diet is really different than it is in for example Japan or in Norway where people tend to exercise more and are healthier as an overall metric so comparing populations is not like it depends on where you are comparing if you compare Norwegians in the United States to people who live in Norway my guess is you probably wouldn't see an enormous difference in the level of healthcare obtained number two the United States healthcare system is a disaster area it's actually the worst of all possible worlds it is not a free-market system and it's not a totally regulated system it's somewhere in between which means it's heavily regulated and heavily subsidized which leads to increased costs that's why it's so expensive when we say that we're spending an enormous amount per capita we should define who the we is the we is not the government the we is the government plus private expenditures on health care now it's my decision whether I want to spend a lot of money on end-of-life care it's my decision whether I want to spend the of money on immediate care so it's not quite a one-to-one ratio the way that people are making it out to be and that's why in the United States for example when it comes to five-year cancer survival rates we actually ranked number one in the world that's because you actually have availability of health care if you can pay for it the question is how do you bring the cost down so now to my model of how I think about health care the Dan McLaughlin in national view puts it this way he says you can have three things in health care you can have affordability universality and quality those are the three things that you're looking for in healthcare every system can guarantee no better than two so most of the systems that you're talking about if they are universal they are not affordable in the sense that the government does rack up enormous surcharges on that basis now that may not be as much as we're spending here it's as I say we have the worst of all available systems we're not free market and we're not nationalized but Canada's health care system is extraordinarily expensive Britain's health care is extraordinarily expensive Norway's Healthcare is extraordinarily expensive which is why the tax rates on people in the middle class and lower classes is still exorbitantly high like the United States actually has a far more progressive system of Taxation than Switzerland or Sweden or Norway right all of those countries have income taxes at 60% for folks making about 60 grand a year it's really really high there's a cost to it now the question is what are you looking for so what I am looking for is affordability and quality and not universality universal health care is good if you're looking for universality if you're looking for universality and affordability you don't spend a lot of money in your ration health care you see some single-payer systems that are like this if you're looking for universality and quality then you don't care that much about affordability you just spend an awful lot of money on it and if you're looking for quality and affordability then you have a free market system because that's what free markets generate they can generate near universality but not complete universality this is true firm food products for example it's not true that everyone has equal access to food but food is extraordinarily cheap in the United States and very high-quality at least what you can get so the question is how do you wish to define the balance between rights and duties in a civilized society my answer is I want you know I want affordability and quality and I want social fabric picking up the rest particularly a local level and hopefully before you get to the governmental level the problem I have with the universal health care system is that it tends to drive down supply of doctors and nurses unless you spend exorbitant amounts of cash or you have to import people from other countries that work is what's happened in Britain where they're importing a lot of their healthcare system from India for example or you have to spend enormous sums of money so is there are there other nationalized health care systems that are better than ours yeah there are Australia is better than ours Switzerland is better than ours and I agree with you if you were gonna do this you want a two tiered system which is more like Switzerland but in my view the best of all available systems would be a wild deregulation of the healthcare system itself leading to lowered costs higher quality and then what's left over it can be filled in with with relatively minimal investment Thanks me too good afternoon Ben my question is on Marbury B Madison and yeah sure do with this be your primary argument against roe v wade that it was passed and it isn't in the Constitution and do you think as a follow-up to this do you think it would be a better stands for social conservatives to take a libertarian approach to say that you're against abortion for the moral reasons but that you would support it if it was passed through the states No so so the here's the so when it comes to Marbury vs. Madison in the place of judicial review I don't like judicial review as a basic element of the system I think it's quite controversial whether Marbury vs. Madison was correctly decided in the first place because I don't think that the founders meant to create a super legislature of people who are the wisest invest among less to decide what the Constitution means you know then it's still kind of hotly contested and conservative legal circles whether judicial reviews of thing when it comes to abortion the chief argument I have against roe v wade on the constitutional level is that nowhere in the Constitution doesn't say there's a right to abortion because there is no right to abortion in the in the actual Constitution of the United States in fact there's not anything even remotely approaching a right to abortion in the Constitution of the United States however when it comes to my moral and my moral stance on this I'm not libertarian on abortion in the same way that it would not be libertarian on slavery so in 1856 there was a very widespread debate in the United States between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas Stephen Douglas basically took the decentralized position on slavery that states should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to preserve slavery or not why is it my business it's not my state it's not my life the same argument could easily be made about abortion why is it my business it's not my body it's not my life it's not my child so you know if the state decides to be liberal about abortion well that's their business if you believe that human life is being violated on a fundamental level by abortion itself you cannot stand idly by and then kick it to States for a libertarian cause I'm fine with libertarianism on causes that do not involve a violation of the most basic right the right to live that is not something where I'm willing to devolve that to the lowest level the same way I'm not willing to suggest that any state that does not prosecute murder would would be allowed to do that under the Constitution the Constitution of the United States does not allow a state to simply say that murder isn't is no longer a thing or slavery is is fine I'm not going to pretend that this is an issue on which libertarianism has anything to say in fact you can be a pro-life libertarian simply by saying that there is a fundamental right to life it ought to be protected for those who are unborn I like the shirt the first time I see a Sara pres is overrated sure it will be a very great day so a lot of people especially here feel like you're just a fantastic debater destroyer of liberals and their arguments and that's not that something I've actually seen a lot in practice I've seen you a debate college students so I've seen you out debate college students but you know there are college students if you were debating nineteen-year-old you I have no question that nineteen-year-old you who get absolutely destroyed and I see you have kind of fireside chit chats with you know Sam Harris Jordan Pederson oh and you're not really debating them and substantially either they have differences of opinions but I think you more focus on where you agree than where you disagree so my question is a if this is correct and there are some exceptions like the political debate last year why do you think this is are liberals afraid to debate you are you afraid to debate them are there a lot of examples of really great head-to-head debates that I'm just missing sure yeah I mean if you go back there that I did a series of debates in in Seattle with a group of folks when the local head of the n-double a-c-p the writer for the Seattle stranger on race we did debate with some government on experts on gun rights I mean I'm I've literally spent my entire life having my political life having conversations with folks on the left in fact those are the conversations that I enjoy the most as far as why they're all these tapes of me destroying liberals at college campuses it's because college students apparently have more courage than a lot of professional political pundits who don't actually want to get on a stage I've invited an inordinate number of folks on the left onto the Sunday special specifically because I actually prefer as opposed to the debate format the discussion format because it allows you to get a little bit deeper write debate formats themselves are built for how do you destroy the other side how do you how do you undermine a point and that's fun I don't think it's necessarily the most productive conversation and as you see like when somebody gets up and they asked about nationalized health care I'm happy to have a conversation back and forth in a substantive way about health care looking at the different priorities and how they reflect and in fact if you actually go back and you watch all the speeches that I've men on college campuses I would say that there are many more exchanges of me talking with somebody on the left in respectful manner then there are tapes of me quote-unquote destroying at anybody you know those are the ones that you'll like to watch because they're more fun but that doesn't mean that's what's actually happening on a daily basis yeah that's fine the sign theater follow up I do agree with you on the point that a lot of liberal pundits are afraid to debate you so my follow-up question was going to be under what circumstances would you although I'm not a famous liberal pundit ever be open to having a substantial long-form civil conversation with me I mean I'm more than happy to have one if we can both carve out the time and I'm not losing money and doing it right I mean this is this is the reality is that I only have so much time in my life and I've spent a lot of it talking with people that means what my law school and college experience was about talking with folks on the Left I have friends on the Left who I speak with on a regular basis you know I don't want to name names for fear of ruining their careers but but those conversations largely do happen behind closed doors but people have a fear of getting out in front of a camera specifically because we do live in an environment where the Rock'em Sock'em robot stuff tends to have more attention than the substantive discussion stuff hi I'm nuance bro I have a question about your position on the Iraq war cuz you have in the past you know made written articles about it and I think even today you still say that you're in support of the Iraq war so my question is well in the article that you wrote in 2005 you wrote that it's important to spread democracy and that Empire is a duty not a choice and you said it would be good put democracy into Iraq but when you did your Islamic radical video and you picked all these different populations saying how radicalized they are is it necessarily a good idea to democratize these areas and have them vote kind of like they did in the Gaza Strip and then elected Hamas you know you're right I mean I think that I bought a lot more realist on this issue no I totally like I still think that the Iraq war didn't have to go how the Iraq war wounds and I think they're pulling out precipitously from Iraq was a huge foreign policy blunder on the part of the Obama administration that if you actually wanted to form a more stable and lasting state there you had to you really did have to stay there for a longer period of time I also am an agreement would be general hawkish foreign policy view that you can't run from the world and then expect the world to stay at your border and it's not the way that this works with that said I'm a lot less sanguine I think that I was in 2005 about the possibilities of implanting democracy in places like Iraq when there was a lot of hope about that you know I still think that there's a possibility but it's not something that's going to take root overnight I think there were a lot of us who were too optimistic about the possibility of that in 2005

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *