Thom Hartmann Explodes at Libertarian over Life-Saving Healthcare

[thomhartmann]

Austin Petersen, FreedomWorks.com, joins Thom Hartmann. What part of "right to life..." don't libertarians understand? Only in America would someone have to threaten to kill the President in order to get life-saving healthcare. Isn't it time we made healthcare a basic human right - so sick Americans don't have to take such drastic measures?

The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT TV & FSTV "live" 9pm and 11pm check www.thomhartmann.com/tv for local listings

[Marr]

1. Perfect example of a Libertarian.

All mouth, and can't listen for two seconds.

[drynberg]

16. YES, CORRECT SIR

[samsingh]

2. agreed

[antigop]

3. Thanks, thom, for airing this...and pointing out that health care should be a right. nt

Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Had to pause at about the 8:26 mark ...

Young smart guy trumpeting the capitalism that killed his mother. Young boy indicated that the pharmacist gave his mother diluted chemo drugs. Young smart guy, the pharmacist exercised the same capitalistic move that every dive bar owner exercises; 4/5 alcohol, 1/5 water saves the bar owner the cost of 0ne bottle for every 5 he sells.

Had to stop again at the 8:56 mark ...

Young smart guy says "you don't have to have a job to pay for some procedures." Yeah ... outside of in a socialized system (read: free clinic), which procedures can one afford without a job?

These "libertarian" guys are, imo, emotionally arrested at the ego stage of development. Unfortunately, when reality wakes them up ... it is the rest of society that has to pay for their lesson.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. That was the part that got me. The system he claims works best killed his mother.

The pharmacist who provided the diluted medication did so for his own profit. In a Libertarian utopia, they should have chosen a better a pharmacist.

It is sort of a moot point, either way. Eventually Libertarians have to give up on their childish fantasies. Taken to the logical place, somewhere, somehow, the government needs to be involved.

Do we need a pharmacy board to decide if a person should have the ability to dispense medications? Not in the libertarian world. It is the individual who should ensure the pharmacy is practicing good medicine.

Do we need an FDA to approve drugs? No. Again, in their utopia, we let the free market decide if the drug is efficacious.

Do we need any kind of inspections to insure the pharmacy isn't just getting bottled water? No. Here again, the free market should decide which manufacturer can be trusted.

Do we need a doctor or nurse who is licensed by the government to prescribe or administer the drug? No. You should have make sure your doctor went to college and he is qualified.

In their ideal, by the time you do all the research needed to determine if your doctor is qualified to treat you, your nurse is qualified, done a background check on the pharmacist, visited the factory to make sure they are producing what sterile and real product, checking the delivery systems that move the product from factory to hospital or pharmacy, go around to everyone who has had the drug to make sure it hasn't killed more people than helped because there is no government reporting agency for adverse effects....you are dead.

I could spend paragraphs on trying to unravel how many places one must rely on something other than the free market to get a drug from inception to patient, but according to libertarians we don't need any of that?

Even so, because of the profit motive, his mother is dead. Praise free market capitalism! And since no agency should exist in their world to investigate the matter, she becomes a review on Angie's List of that particular doctor/nurse/drug manufacturer, etc for everyone else to check when their turn comes around for a health care need.

No matter how you slice it, the libertarian ideal falls apart under scrutiny because at some point, any sane person wants some kind of government involvement in health care.

[NoMoreWarNow]

14. I was thinking that too-- wasn't the pharmacist trying to make a better profit?

-- profit which drives all, in Libtard dream world, and no one ever takes advantage of the system, right?

Anyway, Peterson, is such a perfect example of libtard douchebaggery.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. These young smart guys ...

only want govenment to provide the legal framework, e.g., Courts; so that they can sue such profiteering pharmacists ... That'll make everything alright.

Oh yeah, but they also rile against frivolous lawsuits, too. Go figure!

[lumpy]

19. The young smart ass must be a Randite. I got mine, get your own.

digusting young punk

[jjewell]

5. Did that young idiot...

really think he was effectively making his point with his use of the "fast talk filibuster"?

Greedy and selfish little motor mouth...

BTW, Thom, the 5 minute RT commercials at the end of your clips is really becoming annoying.

[ErikJ]

6. If you cannot afford a doctor....

[AtheistCrusader]

8. This could have been much more productive without the yelling.

Petersen engaged in a lot more deflection, but both engaged in just shouting. The ending was pretty good. Both at least partially made their case, and viewers can clearly choose from the two philosophies.

And that makes sense when you look at how few libertarians there are in society.

[miamipilot]

9. Let's Just Briefly Follow This Libertarian's Logic...

If he doesn't want to pay taxes for some bodies else's health care then at the same time he should also not want to pay his liability insurance on the car he drives. Same thing isn't it!? Supposedly this would be all in the interest of him advancing his freedom(s) and not having any "government imposed" fiscal imposition on his personal budget. So let's see how long that lasts for him. Probably until such time as he is hit in the side of his car crippling him for life by somebody who is driving with no car insurance. The government currently mandates that you maintain a liability premium (tax if you will) on your automobile for the good of the "collective" so we all can recover financially if somebody rams our car and cripples us for life. It is then we have some sort of restitution rather than it ending up as some sort of free for all. I don't think he sees how much of a total hypocrite he really is.

[NoMoreWarNow]

15. yes, it's really such an infantile and nonsensical philosophy

[AAO]

10. What a supreme asshole! Disgusting!!!

[ErikJ]

20. !!!!!!!

[supercats]

11. This Guy Stone-Walled Thom

He knew that if he let Thom actually speak, where they could have a normal conversation, Thom could, would and should have cleaned this guys clock with truth, logic and humanity.

[Scuba]

12. Thom, why do you bother? This piker isn't even willing to engage in honest debate and ...

... he - and his ideas - are unworthy of your time.

That said, nice takedown.

[Junkdrawer]

13. All boils down to how we perceive The Individual vs. Society....

and in Extreme Capitalistic America, we have always been taught that Society exists exclusively for the Individual. What we always fail to acknowledge is that, without Society, the most intelligent, physically fit Individual is just an ignorant, frightened savage.

[Overseas]

17. Thom shouldn't invite this guest back on. He doesn't dialog. He just shouts his crazy ideas.

Thom tries to invite different right wingers and libertarians on to engage in dialog but this guy is not a good one of those.

The moment Thom speaks he just shouts over Thom without engaging those ideas.

So many of them do that. They've developed the "keep talking til the time runs out" technique. "Don't engage, bombast. Repeat your platitudes and do not answer questions."

Thom will just have to look harder to find one of them who will answer the honest question-- "Yes, my mother should have died if we couldn't afford the treatment she needed."

And why did that pharmacist dilute the chemo meds? That wonderful profit motive he was so hot about defending. Why isn't he sticking up for the pharmacist who was just doing his best to maximize his profits?

[ErikJ]

21. THom should hire an interviewer to "debate" with

Have the interviewer ask questions thaqt reperesent the RW view and then Thom calmly answers them. Too many RW guests come ready to filibuster his every word.

[Overseas]

23. Maybe. But this way does show how very few of them are ready to engage in real debate.

And how they dodge some very important questions about their beliefs.

I get tired of the right wing rumbles just because they often seem like pompous brats who rattle off arguments that have very little relationship with today's realities. But the right wing think tanks that sponsor a lot of those kids are relentless-- they keep cranking out those little talking heads and making them think they have something important to say.

We need someone like Thom to point out, again and again, that the emperor has no clothes. The emperors may have billions of dollars and 17 think tanks, but the ideas they sponsor are only designed to increase their private wealth. They do not help us handle the most urgent crises of our times.

Maybe variation on what you suggested would be good--

Replace a guest or two with Questions from the Right that have been sent in.

Somehow timing the segments-- Thom gets the same amount of time to reply as they had to speak, and their mike is off. Truly equal time.

Or maybe he needs to get new guests to agree, when on the air, to the terms he probably lets them know before they come on-- we do not talk over one another, we answer each others' questions, etc.

[immoderate]

26. This guy is as good as any of them.

They really don't have an argument. They deflect and change the subject -- they equivocate and get rhetorical. And it doesn't matter if they yell.

Thom allowed him to reveal himself. From his first line about "robbing you with a gun," it was all over.

--imm

[truth2power]

18. Thom should have shut down that conversation about 2 minutes in....

That guy was not conversing. He was performing. And badly at that.

What a maroon!

[02potato]

22. one of my favorite posts...

Jets of the Health Insurance Industry


http://www.democraticunderground.com/101736746

[Overseas]

24. It is a good one. CEO care above patient care.

[JoePhilly]

27. Is it wrong for me to hope that guy gets a terrible illness?

I don't hope he does. But if he does. I don't know that I would feel bad.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Yes ...

it's minappropriate that anyone wish that ahnyone get any horrible disease. (BTW ... I know the question was rhetorical)

But that said, if he were to contract a horror disease, the lesson would be lost on him since one of the problems with arrested ego develop is the inability to project, realistically, into the future. If you were to ask these young smart guys, what if they (or their beloved family member) were to contract a life threatening disease ... their response would be, "I won't! But if I do, I'll come up with the money to deal with it." Period. IOWs, some magic fairy will appear and handle my crisis.