Cenk Uygur Vs Ben Shapiro Debate ! Medicare

For FREE help finding a Medicare plan,
Click here or call 1-800-729-9590.

Donations go towards my expenses and helping my folks out

Consider following my other channel as well

Follow me on twitter
@veeh_ro

Cenk Uygur Vs Ben Shapiro Debate ! Medicare

 

70 thoughts on “Cenk Uygur Vs Ben Shapiro Debate ! Medicare

    • Epic Debate Battles of History!!

      Terminator Predator Shark in a Yamaka
      vs
      Grease Sweating, Diaper Wearing, Man Baby in a Buffalo Onesie.

    • I predicted he would shout loud feel good platitudes to gain crowd support and lo and behold he did. He’s too easy.

    • sj conker
      This is leftist politics, along with conflating “heath care” with “medical services” in order to imply that if you don’t think everyone should have health care that you want to create a situation in which people don’t have access to medical services aka “dying in the street”. They pull the exact same bullshit with “illegal immigration” and “immigration”. Not supporting BLM makes you a racist, disagreeing with feminism makes you a misogynist, being skeptical of islam makes you an islamophobe (and somehow a racist too), and not wanting open borders makes you a xenophobe.

    • Aurex Too bad he was fighting a Death Knight with a Two Hand Weapon skill of 500 and wearing Heavy Plate Armor of Facts. lol I miss playing RPGs.

  1. You have the right to affordable health care, but you also have the responsibility to keep yourself as healthy as possible. Universal health care will not work in America due to the massive issues with obesity and unhealthy life styles. You need a culture of duty to have universal health care to function and not implode.

    • Irrelevant of their personal beliefs. The founders as a group didn’t want the country to be an ‘ethnostate’.

      Any white person living in the 1700s would be classified as a white nationalist today. They opposed race mixing, it was a fairly common stance and actually still is in most of the world. They believed in EVERY race staying within their race, that also includes various white ‘races(?)’ staying separate. Can you actually quote something that in their context?

      They also had plenty of discussion on whether people can own people. Yes a good chunk of them owned slaves, but they never had a consensus on it, and that’s why it’s not in the constitution.

      _”Sure they wanted to give states rights but only because the states literally had anti-miscegenation laws and was even more extreme than the founders.”_
      Nice theory, do you have anything to back this up? According to their actions the founders genuinely believed in freedom, for example after the boxer rebellion, there was discussion on limiting arms freedom despite it being in the constitution, but the founders kept it in it’s entirety.

      Ignoring that, you needed to be a land owning white male to vote for most states. That’s about 16% of the population. Some states (can’t remember which ones) there was only a land requirement so regardless of a lot of factors. This was never part of the founders documents, it’s all part of states laws, until the amendments to eliminate the race and later gender part was passed.

    • +Dangerous Amoeba You’re prevaricating. Their personal beliefs informed their legislation. Which is why during their time only white land owners could vote and that there were anti-miscegenation laws on the books. Blacks were legally property. You’re also missing the point. I cited these things to point out that using the founding fathers as some sort of crutch in an argument is fallacious because the same crutch can be used to bash you over the head figuratively. Arguments stand by their own merits. That’s why ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY is a fallacy.

    • And i’m explaining why their personal beliefs individually didn’t create the country. It was the sum of their minds. The Founding Father as a group is a fair place to stand on, to argue the origins or principals of the USA.

    • +Dangerous Amoeba Irrelevant. Their collective beliefs still resulted in a system in which had blacks as property, white land owners as the only voters, no welfare whatsoever to speak of, and an white ethnostate. So if you’re going to use them as part of your argument from authority then you have to bear the negative ramifications of what they did as well in the modern perspective.

      *OR*

      One can just have their own argument stand on it’s merits and not use an argument from authority fallacy.

    • Only land owners SHOULD vote. The welfare state IS a horrible, mendacious evil. They didn’t have “blacks” as property. They had slaves. There were plenty of free blacks that owned slaves as well. it didn’t become a completely racial issue until later. As the abolitionists gained ground and got the slave trade alrgely shut down and there were mostly local slaves around.

  2. I think that you and Ben Shapiro are talking about “rights” in two different ways: inalienable rights and legal rights. Some describe them as ‘positive’ rights and ‘negative’ rights. Negative rights are the ‘leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone’ types – the right to my life, the right to my property. These do no impose an obligation on anyone to DO anything, but to refrain from doing something. Leave me alone. Positive rights impose an obligation on someone, both to pay for something and to provide something: the right to healthcare, the right to education, the right to housing, etc.

    • I hope Vee would be in favor of what you just said about unalienable rights. Being from Eastern Europe though, I don’t blame him for this belief being foreign to him

    • Right to have property is tricky, because you can’t just say it’s the “leave me alone” type of right. What if somebody steals your property from you? Then the state is not just meant to “leave you alone”, but it is actively required to remedy the damage – in the form of paying the police that will investigate and find the thief.
      I actually don’t even know how the right to own property could be labeled as “leave me alone” right in any stretch… unless you thought that the state naturally wants to take your property away from you based on the nature of its existence. And that the only way to protect yourself from the state stealing your stuff is to be protected by some kind of right that shields you against this never ending desire of the state to confiscate everything everyone owns.
      That’s a rather cynical way of thinking. Or an ancap way of thinking about the state.

    • The ‘leave me alone’ part also applies to the public, and not just the state. I have a right to be left in peace from aggression (be that physical violence or theft and the like) from my neighbours. I am basing this on the non-aggression principle – don’t initiate force, which includes theft, against anyone. The state’s role is to ensure that that right to be free from aggression is maintained and enforced, and, of course, not to be the initiator itself. We see ‘creep’ all the time in legislation towards the state ‘taking your property away’. By definition one “owns” property when one can use it as one sees fit. For example, if you own property (be that real estate, or a chattel) you are free to sell it, give it away, destroy it, not use it, etc. I would argue that the creeping censorship we see proposed in Europe over internet speech is a form of restriction on the use of your own property – your computer. In Canada, for example, we have a countless pieces of legislation around what signs you can display outside your business and in what language they need to be written. I see this clearly as an infringement to my use and enjoyment of my property. Many may not see it that way, but any restriction on the use of your property by the state, I would argue, falls into this category of not “leaving me alone”:.

    • Kelly in the end, is a number of governments (ama “the western/civilised/whatever world), that decided that, for the mere fact of being alive, you have some rights. It’s bound to society, it has been established in a social enviroment, and it is part of the “contract” (in a hobbesanian way) between the people and the government. It’s a rule, decided by an amount of humans, regarding humans, that some humans take care of making work.

    • Education, housing and healthcare are not rights.

      Owning property to house yourself IS a right. Being able to pay to go school or to pay someone to teach you OR to learn something on your own IS a right, Being healthy and being alive and doing things to ensure those 2 continue is a right.

      Having a house or a place to sleep is not a right. Attending a university and having a professor share their knowledge with you is not a right. Going to a hospital and having numerous people attend to your needs or desires is not a right.

      No one has the right to someone else’s labor, knowledge or property. Ever.

  3. If someone is bleeding in the street in the US, they DO get taken care of at a hospital, with or without insurance. No hospital rejects true emergency care. It’s against the law (not to mention how BAD it would look.)

    • +supernova743 +Radix Malorum it should also be noted that emergency departments tend to lose money most of the time. The only situations where they actually remain profitable is when a lot of people who actually have health insurance use it. If you wind up with a lot of people getting injured, going to the ER, and not paying the hospital will go broke quickly (or require vast sums of money to stay afloat).

      The cost of healthcare is not inflated at all.

    • +Radiz Malorum of course, it’s about trade-offs. I’m not really saying it’s right to spend loads of money on public healthcare (in fact I specified that emergency departments lose money hand over fist if they deal with many uninsured patients or don’t get large subsidies). It depends on what you want out of your system–a public solution, a private solution, or a mixture of both? I’m really not sure myself, honestly.

      Healthcare in general is such a hot topic because it toes the line between a personal issue and a public issue. An uninsured person is sick, doesn’t visit the doctor, it turns out to be cancer, he dies. Personal problem, right? Well, another uninsured person gets sick, doesn’t visit the doctor, turns out it’s some new super-virus, he causes an outbreak and dies. Still a personal problem?

  4. BTW the reason America’s taxes are so high is corporate socialism/welfare. Its privatized profits and socialized expenses.

    • ZerglingRush honestly. I think this is true for non progressives too. Every single debate no matter who the people I see BOTH sides thinking they “owned” the other.

      Honesrly I think public debates are pretry darn pointless.

    • You’re right, both sides always claim they ‘owned’, but there are always a few people who modify their position. Probably not many. But I think it’s useful, because the people debating and people listening still get to test their ideas and hear the responses. In addition, maybe more importantly, even if you publicly claim victory in a comments section, your brain might have noticed that a certain argument didn’t actually refute anything. You might not be inclined to use that argument in a discussion with someone.

    • +kajsdf iksdjf I thought this debate wasn’t great. It really seemed to devolve into them both trying to say what sounded best and most realistic without having time to give any substantial explanations of their points.

      I got a bit more respect for Cenk, I think he’s not a complete shill, and I thought Ben did a lot worse than I was expecting, but I still think Ben won overall.

  5. Sorry Vee, but your firefighter/police analogies don’t really hold true.
    You have no right for them to arrive on time (obviously) and since those people are public servants unlike doctors, you can easily call it a service.

    • Event Horizon It’s a crime to go AWOL from the military.

      “Public servants” have a duty to uphold when they choose to have jobs where they are responsible for keeping people safe.

      It baffles me that so many of my countrymen think it’s acceptable for them to not do their jobs when my taxpayer money pays for their services.

      Although doctors are in a different sector, they also have a contract with the patient to save their life. They should not be able to back out after they acknowledge the risks and what they’re dealing with.

      Either do your job or get fired.

    • “Should I then accuse liberals of dog whistling for white nationalists?”
      I actually have no problem with this, i don’t think they are doing it to that extreme of a degree, but especially Sargon is doing something incredibly similar to this, it isn’t quite white nationalism, but it’s some kind of weird quasi form of it.

      ” but you seemed to throw libertarians under the bus to take a shot at white nationalists.”
      This isn’t what I was doing

      The last thing you said is kind of why I brought up the white nationalist part, it’s incredibly confusing to have (((Libertarians))) that cross this wide of a gamut, even to the point we have left-libertarians, which other types of libertarians would say aren’t libertarians. In America it’s a term that means way too many different things, even things outside of the scope of the actual academic work on the issue.

    • Fair enough and fair enough.
      To your third point, I think the problem is people that mislabel themselves as libertarian. A kind of “Bill Maher effect.” The same thing seemed to have happened with a few youtubers accidentally labelling themselves as alt-right a few months ago.

    • Yeah i actually had the alt-right thing in mind i just didn’t want to go on and on. The Alt-right thing is actually super insidious because the general population is completely baffled on what it’s supposed to mean.

    • +a zuullfx
      That doesn’t make you a neocon. He also made his stance on Afghanistan clear in the debate.
      +magus12345678
      True. It doesn’t help that anyone to the right Bernie Sanders is labelled as an alt-righter either.

  6. So how do you feel about a public option and a private option existing simultaneously, something akin to a two tiered system?

    • Saiite that’s a terrible idea? It is a logical necessity that the public option will be using their healthcare money to pay for bureaucrats salaries. Wasted money. I work in insurance. If you buy insurance from us, you are paying my salary. That’s money you would otherwise have. Government creates enormous bureaucracies which will then be taking your money away from the healthcare you want. Permanently inefficient.

    • Saiite I’m not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that I have much more experience than most people, sure. If you mean that because my paycheck is paid out of your healthcare benefits, that you already paid for, that I have a vested interest in keeping it that way you are wrong. I think insurance should be eliminated because it is a drain on people. The insurance companies only exist because they take in more of your money than they pay out. That’s how they pay salaries and operating costs and turn a profit. That’s a stupid tax on society.

    • People only shame or crack jokes about others in the gym if they’re doing something terribly wrong without noticing, not because of their body. If you’re a fat guy in the gym obviously trying to lose weight, but doing lateral raises and dumbell rows, people are going to laugh.

    • they could simply say “you are doing it wrong’. i have been approached by some people in the gym and given tips, and i vastly prefer that to being a laughing stock and risking injury due to my bad form.

  7. You misunderstood rights from the American perspective. I’m America, rights are things that cannot be restricted or regulated by the government. The whole point is that rights are not given by the government.

  8. If Cenk didn’t expect Ben’s opening, then he fell down on the job because Ben has made these exact points multiple times. There’s no reason he shouldn’t have had a response prepared for that.

    Also I thought the Thunder Dome joke was funny and I disagree with Cenk normally. I would have laughed.

    • Wide And Nerdy
      I liked it too, but I suppose it’s a little like instigating violence (a lefty argument) in a period where the audience’s political view is demonised.

  9. Ben is the master of straw-manning his opponents positions. He does this on every issue I listen to him on.

    With healthcare for example, does he genuinely believe that the position of the left is to put a gun to a doctors head and force them to treat somebody? What fucking world does he live in.

    Thats not what anyone is suggesting and not how universal healthcare works. Does he really think in countries with a form of universal healthcare, like I dno, every industrialized country on the planet, that doctors are actually forced with a gun to their head to treat somebody?

    Ben is really a huge liar on this issue, or he’s just too ignorant to know why he’s wrong. Healthcare isn’t a free market and never will be because the choice to purchase healthcare isn’t a neutral choice but extremely coerced since its really a matter of life or death or the choice to live a healthy life as opposed to a sickly life.

    Thats why you have to control the prices for healthcare, because providers just make up costs and know they can expect people to still pay and go bankrupt over it.

    Also, so much strawmanning and misunderstanding of healthcare in other countries. The U.S isn’t even ranked in the top 20 in terms of healthcare. Other countries that are better than us in healthcare, like Canada, Australia, Singapore, or EU countries don’t have perfect healthcare, but it is significantly better than what we have. Our quality isn’t even noticeably better but the costs are astronomically higher and the coverage is awful.

    Stick to debating SJW’s ben.

    • I figured out a long time back ago that Ben is wrong on health care.When confronted with the fact that insurance companies discriminate against people with preexisting conditions Bens solution to this problem is for charities and churches to raise the medical funds for people with preexisting conditions.This is an outright unrealistic view point that Ben has ever proposed

    • “insurance companies discriminate against people with preexisting conditions” – An insurance company pays you if you get sick, so naturally if are already sick it will cost more… It isn’t discrimination, it’s common sense.
      “This is an outright unrealistic view point that Ben has ever proposed” – You seem to be quite confident about this… It seems like on the one hand you find it absurd that people will help other people voluntarily, and on the other hand you find it absurd to suggest that these people shouldn’t be helped… If you believe that people must be helped and no one will help them then you would naturally try and help them, disproving your first point. If you would not help them in that case then you are being hypocritical in demanding that others be forced to help them.

    • And to all those who complain about the gun analogy, you can stop. The way a right is defined is by being justified in pulling a gun if it isn’t respected. If you deserve something because you payed for it, it isn’t a right, it is an entitlement.

    • “It isn’t discrimination, it’s common sense.”
      “It isn’t what it is, it’s a disingenuously positive soundbite.”
      It’s discrimination.

      “You seem to be quite confident about this… It seems like on the one
      hand you find it absurd that people will help other people voluntarily,
      and on the other hand you find it absurd to suggest that these people
      shouldn’t be helped… If you believe that people must be helped and no
      one will help them then you would naturally try and help them,
      disproving your first point. If you would not help them in that case
      then you are being hypocritical in demanding that others be forced to
      help them.”
      I think his point was that you generally need a well-funded and well-organized state apparatus in order to provide adequate care for these people. A private individual on an average income can do their best, but ultimately it’s completely impractical to leave them with the task of funding healthcare for everyone in the US with a pre-existing condition out of their own pocket.

  10. Vee, there’s a difference between positive and negative rights and that’s no just an American phenomenon. Everyone has the right to health the same way you have the right to drink beer at 18. However, you do not have a right to free healthcare the same way you don’t have the right to free beer.

    • It was the socialists that brought up the idea of healthcare as a right in order to justify the nationalization of hospitals. The original justification for welfare and universal healthcare was that the health of the nation was a matter of national security. When you have poor and sickly people, you don’t have a decent pool of men to recruit an army from, nor do you have an efficient and productive workforce to man the coal mines, foundries, factories and shipyards. These were all of great concern at a time when were had just been roughed up by a bunch of Dutch farmers and could see a European land war with the Prussians in the near future.

      I think the “rights” argument is stupid, if you are going to make an emotive argument for universal healthcare, I would argue that the US can’t claim to be a civilized nation while it is still letting it’s poor die on the street. US healthcare should not be judged by it’s best but by it’s worst…. which is little different to many African countries.

  11. This is the ugly truth of the unsustainability of single payer healthcare and other welfare programs. Vee, like many Europeans, does not realize that government programs eventually end up destroying the incentive to work and innovate. Europe is not a continent of innovation and has been declining culturally and economically for decades now. The welfare and government healthcare systems are primarily to blame for this situation. The governments of Western Europe are opening up the spigot of immigration because Europeans are not making babies. It is that simple. The average European has no clue of the dire situation their healthcare systems and other welfare programs are in. The governments know these programs are in the red and are spiraling into very high costs and rationing because Europeans are getting old and using up more and more of these programs while going on more vacations and retiring earlier and earlier. This is what these programs eventually do to a population. The open borders migration policies are backfiring on them because migrants are putting even more of a strain on these programs, using more than they are putting in. Europe is dying! Take away America’s umbrella of military protection from Europe, Europe will collapse even faster.

    • Complete nonsense. Everything from gene therapy to viagra was “innovated” in Europe, socialized healthcare has done nothing to harm our incentive to work.

Leave a Reply

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