Added: 1 year ago
From: MoxNewsDotCom
Views: 38,534
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (488)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • you have some great stuff here

  • I can fully agree with Michael Moore. Denying people from healthcare is inhuman. Healthcare is a basic human right and should be accessible to anyone.

    I'm in favor of how the UK organized their healthcare: You pay your taxes , everyone gets free healthcare, and private corporations are open to those who want unneeded treatment like breast implants or a slightly increased level of care, although the NHS does a wonderful job as it is.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • free healthcare is so crappy. That's why my grandmother had to come over here from europe since the free healthcare over there although it was free, the quality was shitty.

  • wait... Mike against Obamacare? Against Obama? Against a Liberal Idea? HOLY SHIT! SOMETHING MUST BE FUCKED UP WITH THIS BILL!

  • Is it just me or does Mike here look more and more like a cancer guy?

  • Liberals are more in support of a Canadian or Netherland style health care. Health care should be like a public water fountain of sorts. No one that needs medical care should EVER be turned down after spending their life paying taxes to their countries government. No wars, no fascism, just Liberty and Justice for all.

  • I am under the powerful impression that a majority of non-Liberals do not know what the Liberal party stands for. We have been here since and were the reason for this country claiming its independence from the British. Liberals are for Liberation, that is where our name comes from. We do not support anything that glues corporations to government any further than the fascist-infiltrated conservative party has done after Reagan started the nanny state. NObamacare for me. - Liberal American.

  • Moore is such a boob, but you already knew that, didn't you?

  • in the coachella vally california the new heath care law have been ignored indeo social sevice cuts off people medical for no reason.thay spread people private business arout in spanish the olso spread lies michael you need to go down there for your next documentery

  • Michael Moore has made $50 million dollars talking about how capitalism sucks. Irony?

  • @jasondeyoe

    Just because he's been successful in the system doesn't mean he should be a selfish prick and sit on-top of a mansion sipping wine now does it.... Plus he's not against capitalism he's against the GREED he's seeing withing the system... I like weight lifting but it doesn't mean I like steroids... GET IT... Mike likes capitalism but he doesn't like the lack of rules and regulations that protect people.... This is a good man and a man of good conscience

  • @funkyflights WAIT... if you are successful, if I am successful, if anyone gets success, why should you dictate what they can do? Sip wine, sit on your house, sit in your house, how should you dictate what a successful person does?

    Mike is an opertunist. Jumps on a bandwagon and rides it out until he cant get pennys out of it anymore. Its why he is a millionare in the first place. He preaches raise taxes on the rich but he wouldnt pay more. His net worth, just about 50 million. Greed? I dunno

  • @Deadcrows1981

    Dude no one is dictating your success or my success .. It's called regulations and laws which any civilized society needs... In that case why can't you or myself break the law and rob a bank ? WHY do they regulate us from doing that ? Human beings by nature need regulation or why have laws ? The rich are getting away with NOT being regulated and look what happened in our country! Enough is NEVER enough and greed corrupts absolutely...

  • @Deadcrows1981

    As far as Michael Moore he has been successful within our system but it doesn't mean he has to agree with our system and everything that's happening... He can easily leave this country and live his life out comfortably... BUT he doesn't ... He see's the wrong doing within our system and he's trying to help his country... WHY is that wrong ? And don't tell me he wont' pay more in taxes because he will HAPPILY and wants more taxes to help with health care...

  • Miichael Moore is a good person :)

  • interesting since michael moore is so very very LIBERAL!

  • First time I ever heard a bleeding heart liberal against Obama care.

  • why this fat fuck is the biggest capitalism ever. He has made millions on his bull shit movies. Hopefully he will have a massive heart attack. and soon. He has moore money then you. This piece of shit can suck my cock. Mike, why don't you give her some of your money? You cheap fat fucker.

  • @fjerins You're just jealous that you didn't step up and tell what is going on instead of him. you're a jerk wad ass your self dumbo....

  • This lover of communism and socialism and one who comforts the enemies of our beloved country is not worth my time to listen to or even give him credence in any shape or form. He is a disgusting charater and the epitomy of unAmericanism. We should put him on a ship and sail him off to Russia, Venezuela or wherever his communist statements will be accepted. He is such a slob and most hateful person.

  • @jmichel9113 Obviously, this very wealthy person who tries to dress like a poor person, is essentially paid to push this message for the new "For Profit" System---since INDEED, whoever collects the money centrally does profit. It's JUST A SHIFT in WHO makes the profit, lmao! He should be ashamed. Why can't he come out and SAY he is FOR one person (who collects the citizen money) to profit, but not others. The governments (city, states, fed) ALL PROFIT and have profit sheets. Get real.

  • @jmichel9113 Worse---- he could not NOT know that! He must know city, state, fed governments ALL HAVE balance sheets and that the idea of "deficit" is not exactly accurate. All have INCOMING money (from land, land taxes, rents, collections of various other taxes, sales, fines, court settlements, etc, etc, etc.) Whatever is not spent is listed as PROFIT. Whoever collects for "healthcare" will profit. Governments will get the PROFITS previously made by others.

  • Even if she was included in the care, it's still rationed. Got millions of illegals to consider, you know.

  • It takes a lot to make Michael Moore happy.

  • BULLSHIT. THESE TWO IDIOTS ARE BRAIN DEAD. WHY DO THE CANADIANS COME ACROSS THE BORDER TO GET TREATED WHEN THEIR GOVERNMENT MANDATED PROGRAM SAYS "SORRY YOU'RE GOING TO DIE."

  • Michael Moore makes me puke.....he's crying the blues about people that are not responsible enough to take care of themselves. I put away enought money each year to take care of myself and my family. All these people had the same opportunities that I had so why do I owe them. If Moore is so serious, why not spend your money to pay for medical bills? What else does he do? Does he volunteer for anything? Has he given anyone a leg up?

  • @MeteorMega -"Not responsible enough2take care of themselves."?So that Woman should have thought ahead that yr in particular that shes surely going 2get Leukemia & known the cost (50,000.$ - 300,000.$) & had it saved up.'Crying the blues'?He's laying down a known fact-Stuffs been said a million x.Then from ur "If Moore is so serious," (to the end) watch the video & also research? He did give $.He does give a ton of $.Did u see 'sicko'?He does volunteer.What does he do?Since he was a teen-look.

  • WELL....... EVERYONE NEEDS TO MOVE TO AUSTRALIA!

  • no ones vote counts.,these sick turds made obama the president,just like bush.the freaking elite determines the president.he is right though.this evil goverment wants to reduce population and will try to do it at any means.its time for people to wake up.they have brain washed us long enough.

  • Micheal predicted the demise of city of Detriot years ago by the auto industry making junk for the American public to drive and sucking the life out it's workers and people eating out of garbage cans and killing chickens as they were living off the land in the great depression. This bill will be same kind of hurt on the general public. You voted for him, you keep him. I still have my flag flying at my home after 9-11-01, do you? Signed A Patriot

  • ...this pig, Moore, who can't pass a McDonalds or a donut shop is typical of why National Health Care is going to bankrupt the country (even worse than it already is). In the end, our "health care" will rival Zimbabwe's, except outs will have more flies and staff infection.

    Thanks, Utopians.

  • @baldrad1 We spend more on health care per capita than any other country in the world. If we had a universal system it would help our country, not bankrupt it. However, the Iraq War is predicted to cost us 4 trillion dollars in the long run. By the way, learn to spell. It's "staph", not "staff". Unless you mean that our health care employees will all become infected.

  • @demdanglibruls ....now you're gonna quibble w/me on whether the staff is infected or not. I say they ARE, darn it!!! Check any staff in any hospital, and they're all scared of staph (darn, that was a good save).

    BTW, your last sentence is not properly constructed. You CANNOT begin a sentence with "unless"...... unless it's a noun.....your English teachers would rap your knuckles for that, LOL.

  • Regarding the comment below about 8% of GDP, yes you can justify it. Right now health care is 18% of GDP we'd save 10%. The question is how to get that 10% back to the people before they find somewhere else to spend it.

  • If you got money to KILL people you got some to help people

  • I do have a job, i bring in a little over $1000 a month working full time, that's after taxes. If it weren't for the fact that i am young enough to still live at home i would be destitute. The average welfare recipient receives a little more than $1300 a month from the government. I make less working full time than people who sit on their ass doing nothing, that's one way i know entitlements don't work.

  • Comment removed

  • Can an American answer this question?

    Why doesn't the US government pay for everyone's health care who does not have insurance?

    What's the problem?

    I'm Australian and my wife underwent a bilateral lung transplant 2 years ago.

    We have a combined income of less than $50,000.

    The government payed for pre-transplant care, surgery and post transplant care.

    The entire cost - which would have been several million.

    An its Australia - a far less wealthy country than America.

    WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

  • @Hammersley1967 A lot of us ask ourselves the same question. Somehow the people are too busy trying to find work,working and the greed of the ruling class,corporations,politicians­,etc all seem to fit together to keep American life cheap..It is really ignorant and sad. Pity the American citizens.They die like poor Africans in the drought.Have pity for them.

  • @Hammersley1967 The problems are these:

    1. The tax burden will be passed on to those who are least likely to profit from this.

    2. We can't afford it.

    3. Government insurance is a breach of their Constitutional obligations.

    4. There is already a thriving and organized free market industry doing an excellent job of taking care of insurance, and all evidence shows that when the government takes over for a working industry they make it much worse. It's been proven dozens of times.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "1. The tax burden will be passed on to those who are least likely to profit from this"

    Do you mean high income earners?

    "2. We can't afford it"

    You (THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) can't afford it? If the US can't afford it, the how in hell does every other western nation on the planet afford it?

    "4. There is already a thriving and organized free market industry doing an excellent job of taking care of insurance"

    With 35% of adults in the US being under or uninsured??????

  • @Hammersley1967 Yes, that's exactly who i mean, the very people who don't need this at all would be paying for it for everyone.

    Of course we can't. I don't know if you've been paying much attention to the n ews but the US almost defaulted on our debt in the past couple weeks.

    By choice for over 60% of those people. And why does it matter if their insured? It is illegal for a hospital to deny you health care based on your ability to pay.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "people who don't need this at all would be paying for it for everyone"

    Ah!

    Then this is merely philosophical (ethical) opinion that we are quibbling about here. Hence, no "right" or "wrong" - just opinion...

    You, and obviously the majority of the US public, believe in the ethics of aggressive individualism. Protecting one's own wealth (legally) with scant regard to greater society.

    The rest of the western world adheres to the ethics of community and social responsibility.

  • @Hammersley1967 You're confusing socialistic control with social responsibility. You think that for some reason it is your right to be taken care of by your government when in fact it is not. The only social responsibility that would exist in a perfect world is a responsibility to take care of oneself and ones family while providing aide to close friends with excesses. This 'the rich owe everything they have to the poor' mentality is the reason half of Europe is on its way to bankruptcy.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "You're confusing socialistic control with social responsibility."

    Semantics.

    And the rest of the civilised western world is "confusing socialistic control with social responsibility".

    The American Right Wing has the monopoly on what social responsibility...

    35% of all adult Americans are under or uninsured and it's THEY'RE fault.

    We differ on ethical philosophy. No right or wrong.

    Right Wing of the US = aggressive individualism

    Rest of the West = social responsibility

  • @Hammersley1967 No, it's not semantics. it is the exact opposite of semantics. Semantics means saying one thing with one meaning and implying another. This is saying one thing that means something completely opposite the other. You're wrong about "social responsibility" it is a persons own responsibility to take care of themselves and their families and depending on others is the opposite of responsibility. Good luck getting around that huge flaw in your logic.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "Semantics means saying one thing with one meaning and implying another. This is saying one thing that means something completely opposite the other"

    *facepalm*

    WRONG!!!

    Semantics is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for.

    In short it is the OPPOSITE "of saying one thing with one meaning and implying another".

    It is the study of MEANING not the OPPOSITE OF MEANING.

  • @Hammersley1967 You're right, i got my definitions confused between semantics and something else. Either way the difference between socialistic control and social responsibility is still too great to be bridged just by calling it "semantics."

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "You're wrong about "social responsibility" it is a persons own responsibility to take care of themselves and their families and depending on others is the opposite of responsibility."

    That is YOUR idea of "social responsibility".

    Tell me, what would you think a Catholic Priest's idea of social responsibility would be?

    What do you think the ideological difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is all about?

    DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

  • @Hammersley1967 No, that's not my "idea" about social responsibility, my idea about that is that it doesn't exist. My idea about responsibility is that it is up to you to provide for yourself and to help take care of those with whom you are charged. It isn't anyone elses responsibility.

    The difference between the republicans and democrats has nothing to do with the responsibility of individuals, it has everything to do with the lack of responsibility of the entire democratic party.

  • @Hammersley1967 .... in this country, Conservatives at all economic levels give more of their income to charity than Liberals. Is that socially responsible? I think so. What's wrong with Liberals?

    Liberals want to conceal this fact.

    Liberals ARE good at giving away OTHER peoples' money-----gotta give 'em that!!!

  • @baldrad1

    "Conservatives at all economic levels give more of their income to charity than Liberals"

    A reference to some evidence of this claim would be very much appreciated...

    That's certainly not the case in Australia...

  • @Hammersley1967 I work weekly for Habitat, never once saw a liberal show up and help out nor do we bet any money from them. They like to sit on their b u t t s and cry about taking care of everyone until all our money is gone.

  • @MeteorMega -Yeah this does not make a lick of sense.Obviously U R typing simply as a HATER.U have ur 1 team & u defend them right or wrong.please back ur statement up w/some facts.What town/state do u help out at? Is is it Habitat, Habitat4humanity, Habitat home?No Liberals "never once". oh brother.give us something substantial other than your HATE talk.My previous page was a neo con whining he wouldn't help such a group "b/c it's just a bunch of liberals at those things".

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "You think that for some reason it is your right to be taken care of by your government when in fact it is not. The only social responsibility that would exist in a perfect world is a responsibility to take care of oneself and ones family"

    And THAT is you're moral philosophical position.

    I earn $123,000 a year. I have no problem whatsoever paying a Medicare levy in addition to normal income tax so that less wealthy people get adequate health care. Ditto other Australians...

  • @Hammersley1967 You may not, and that is because you're a charitable person, and that is commendable, but being forced to be charitable takes away the purpose of charity, and that is an opinion. And as far as what you quoted being a philosophical opinion, it's not. It is a anthropological fact. In regards to paying for medical care, i make about 15k a year before taxes and i can barely afford insurance myself. Yet i help pay in to a system that gives it away free to lazy unemployed people.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "And as far as what you quoted being a philosophical opinion, it's not. It is a anthropological fact"

    What is an anthropological fact?

    Human being are remarkable in that they adapt themselves culturally, politically, socially, ideologically to their environment.

    Social, cultural, and political structures are changing all the time.

    What you are calling a "fact" is simply an idea (yours).

    And that idea is a minority opinion across the western world.

    So how is it a "fact"?

  • @Hammersley1967 What is an anthropological fact? Well lets try to be as simple as possibleso you can understand. Looking at human history we find social indicators of things that do and do not work for the human race, among the things that don't work is universal empathy. Humans are not meant to be held responsible for all other humans. It has never worked in the past. It is a fact because it is supported by reputable scientific studys.

    Stop saying my opinion is in the minority, you don't know.

  • @Hammersley1967 That isn't aggressive individualism, that is logical frugality. You have to take care of yourself first, then your family, and then IF you have excess you should im[part some to the poor, but that amount should be up to your own discression, and should only be given IF you have EXCESS. I don't have any excess yet i pay hundreds of dollars into a system that won't benefit me when i could be using that money for something more important than government waste.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "That isn't aggressive individualism, that is logical frugality"

    See, this is what I'm talking about.

    For YOU its "logical frugality".

    For me its "aggressive individualism".

    Different countries, different cultures, different ideologies...

    DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND QUALITATIVE TERMS OF REFERENCE

  • @Hammersley1967 For me and anyone looking at this throught the perspective of logic, which happens to be the commonality between all cultures. Logically this has nothing to do with being aggressive, it is base human instinct to worry about yourself and your own needs, it is also base human instinct to worry about your family. It is not base human instinct to care about people you have never heard of seen or met before.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "You have to take care of yourself first, then your family, and then IF you have excess you should im[part some to the poor"

    At last something we agree on!

  • @Hammersley1967 Yet we can't agree that the government forcing us to impart to the poor is an overreach of their bounds and that it is up to each individual to decide how much of that excess, if any, he would be willing to impart?

  • @Hammersley1967 Think of it like this, if one in every 300 people in America ended up needing about $1000000 in Medical care in under a year and we were on the type of socialized insurance you are talking about the bill would be over $1000000000000 which is close to 8% of the entire GDP of America. So for a government that already has a debt to GDP ratio of 100% you simply can't justify adding another trillion a year to the budget. Which is realistically the low end.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "This 'the rich owe everything they have to the poor' mentality is the reason half of Europe is on its way to bankruptcy."

    Australia has close to the most generous universal health care schemes in the world.

    We still have our AAA credit rating. Our budget is close to balanced. In fact, it will be in surplus by 2013.

    The US has a much higher GDP per capita than Australia and can't afford a UHS? Is 14 trillion dollars in debt?

    What's your excuse?

  • @Hammersley1967 Our excuse is frivoulus government spending. The very thing a UHS would be. Our debt would be eliminated in under 3 years if we privatized our social security program, cut our wastefull spending on useless social programs and changed outr tax system to a flat tax without deductions. I didn't have any part nor did i support this debt. My philosophy is this, if you can't pay for it in cash don't pay for it at all.

  • @Hammersley1967 Also, did you say that there is no right or wrong to an ethical debate? Wow. Anyway, this isn't about ethics, it's about logic. There is no logical rational you could use to convince me to pay for another persons insurance when if they decided to live frugally they could pay for it themselves. It's about being smart with your money. I think that people with preexisting conditions should get a form of coverage, i just don't think that the government should force insurance

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "There is no logical rational you could use to convince me to pay for another persons"

    Once again, THAT is your subjective philosophical position...

    You want to protect your wealth at all costs and believe that you have no ethical responsibility to the sick, mentally impaired, homeless, unemployed, disabled, etc.

    It is your view that it is THEIR fault and THEY should find their own way out of their predicament.

    But, in a global context, your position is in the minority...

  • @Hammersley1967 You keep saying that it is a philosophical opinion, i don't think you know what that means. This is an anthropological fact. My needs are more important to me than the needs of people i have never and likely will never meet. Just answer this, is it an adults own responsibility to take care of themselves if they are not impared in some way? Also, my position is not in a minority, however most of the other people with my opinion are living in Socialistic countries, with no voice.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "You keep saying that it is a philosophical opinion, i don't think you know what that means. This is an anthropological fact."

    No Matt, what is clear is that although you are intelligent and articulate enough, you have not been tertiary educated in the social sciences or humanities - namely philosophy, and specifically moral and political philosophy.

    As such, YOU do not know what a philosophical position is and what an anthropological fact...

    Hence, YOU don't know what

  • @Hammersley1967 Nice deflection, is that what you usually do under pressure? I'll be honest i don't have much formal education is the humanities, thank god. But i do know the difference between fact and opinion.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "Just answer this, is it an adults own responsibility to take care of themselves if they are not impared in some way?"

    OK, this is the "guts" of the issue...

    Do you see that the question you asked me is a QUALITATIVE and not QUANTITATIVE question?

    You are asking for a subjective OPINION... A VALUE JUDGMENT...

    It is a completely different type question to "How many fingers am I holding up?"

    Do you understand that?

  • @Hammersley1967 No, it is not different at all, seeing as how there is only one correct answer to both. Also, another nice deflection.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "Also, my position is not in a minority, however most of the other people with my opinion are living in Socialistic countries"

    I'm sorry Matt, that IS a qualitative statement and it is quite simply incorrect.

    The vast majority of people in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Norway, etc, etc do not subscribe to your "every-man-for-himself", aggressive individualistic doctrine.

    That's why we have UHC and good SS...

    You are in the minority.

  • @Hammersley1967 Vast majority of people in those countries huh? Then how did a Gallup poll about universal healthcare in Canada, Ireland, Sweden, and the United States show that over 60% of people in those countries are opposed to government funded insurance. Also, the people i was talking about live in countries like Indonesia, China, Russia, India and pretty much all of Africa.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "did you say that there is no right or wrong to an ethical debate?"

    Yes, just to be absolutely clear, that's exactly what I said.

    Moral and political philosophy is a purely qualitative discipline. It's sub-doctrines are based on qualitative, immaterial, non-empirical assumptions about the nature of humanity, what constitutes "the good life", the job of the state, what constitutes personal responsibility, etc.

    There is no material "truth" that determines "right" or "wrong".

  • @Hammersley1967 Ethical debates are subjicated on the determining of what is right and what is wrong in a area where the answer is less well defined than in other areas of thought. There is ALWAYS a right and there is ALWAYS a wrong in every debate. It is juvinile to think that a set of standards can be applied adequately to one person and not suit another person. There is a uniform ethical correct that the left fails to grasp because they are genetically deformed.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "Ethical debates are subjicated on the determining of what is right and what is wrong"

    Subjicate? You mean subjugate? Subjugate means "to bring somebody, especially a people or nation, under the control of another".

    I don't understand how it pertains to the context of that sentence.

    Do you mean "based" or "premised"?

    If you do, you are wrong. ARGUMENTS are based on premises of "truth", "right", and "wrong". ETHICAL DEBATE is the competition of those QUALITATIVE premises...

  • @Hammersley1967 No, that is not the word i meant. And yes another word would be based.

    Ethical debate is the process by which opposing sides of a controversial issue regarding ethics come to a conclusion about what is right and what is wrong. It's not some show and tell about feelings and opinions. There is a right and wrong to every side of every situation, ethics are areas where the line has getton fuzzy and ethical debate is what happens when we talk about both sides to find the line.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "There is a uniform ethical correct that the left fails to grasp because they are genetically deformed"

    Ummmmm...

    I think that statement speaks for itself...

    Have you ever questioned what "truth" is?

    Have you ever wondered why "truth" differs from person to person, society to society, culture to culture?

    Why the greatest moral and political thinkers of the last millennium differed?

    MATT is the gate keeper of the penultimate TRUTH of all moral and political reality!!!

  • @Hammersley1967 I am always right, thank you for acknowledging that, now lets continue. There is a genetic malformation that causes dopamine receptors in the brain to work on a subpar level, impairing judgement skills. The result is that the poor unfortunate souls with this malformation are 70% more likely to be liberal. True fatcs discovered by Harvard.

    The truth never differs, only our ability to contemplate and understand it.

  • companies to offer that insurance because if a free market industry were allowed to build up around this shortage in coverage there would be companies specifically offering coverage to people with preexisting conditions (at a much higher rate) but that's just how it is. When you buy insurance the company is taking a risk on you, preexisting conditions make you a high risk investment which means they need incentives to want to take you. That would work better than government healthcare.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    Look, as I said, you are entitled to your sociopolitical philosophical position.

    We both live in liberal democratic countries that preserve our right to opinion and free speech.

    There's no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to political philosophy.

    Every social and political model has its problematic anomalies.

    But I'll stick with the Australian left-of-center government and Medicare health system thanks.

    You can keep your US health system... You seem very happy with it...

  • @Hammersley1967 There is no right in political philosophy? You are completely wrong. If your political philosophy is to spend your way out of economic trouble you are wrong andd if it is your political philosophy that people don't have to take care of themselves you are wrong. Neither of those philosophies work, and that's been proven dozens of times. Those are FACTUAL statements.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "There is no right in political philosophy? You are completely wrong. If your political philosophy is to spend your way out of economic trouble you are wrong"

    You are talking about ECONOMICS not POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

    But I'll play along with the second half of the question...

    If "spending your way out of economic trouble" is WRONG then how did Australia "spend its way out of economic trouble" with a stimulus package (albeit a clumsily implemented) and avoid recession?

  • @Hammersley1967 Ignoring the first half of what you said because it should be obvious what your mistake was when you reread it.

    If you avoided the recession you didn't spend your way out of economic trouble. If you're not in economic trouble you can't spend your way out of it. Also, the amount of money is key, i'll give you that as a hole in my argument. The point is that there are things that can be done politically that are going to be wrong all the time.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "it is your political philosophy that people don't have to take care of themselves you are wrong. Neither of those philosophies work"

    Listen Matt, I enjoy a debate, but please don't verbal me...

    I never said that people "who are not impared in some way don't have to take care of themselves".

    If you are saying that the social policy of UHC "doesn't work" then clearly YOU are wrong.

    Australia has had UHC since 1975. And we've had social security since WW2.

    It works fine.

  • @Hammersley1967 I don't know a damn thing about Australia's universal Healthcare, but i know that in literally every other country that i have read a single thing about, their universal healthcare is a failing deadweight that is dragging their economy down. France, England, Canada, and Ireland are the countries i knw the most about, so tell me, how is Australia's different from those? If Social Security works fine then Australia must have stagnant popoluation growth.

  • @Hammersley1967 And just cause i know you're going to go there, don't ever use the word underprivledged while talking about people in America. There is no such thing. Everyone has just as much opportunity to be succesful as anyone else. If someone is poor it really is their own fault. My own family is proof of that.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "Everyone has just as much opportunity to be succesful as anyone else."

    Including blacks, the disabled, generationally unemployed etc, etc...

    And it's a level playing field for the owning class with families who have gone to Ivy League Universities for generations...

    Yes, EVERYBODY has the same opportunity...

    ??????????????????????????????­?

  • @Hammersley1967 Yes, everybody has the same opportunity to be succesful. Some of the richest Americans in history were born without a dime to their name. My grandpa made just over 10k his whole life and untill my dad became a bum he made over 130k a year. If you fail or succeed it is because you worked towards either of those ends. And yes, blacks, disabled and generatioinally unemployed people have the same amount of opportunity to succeed as anyone else. Do you live in America?

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "Yes, everybody has the same opportunity to be succesful."

    REALLY!!!

    Yes, James and Lachlan Murdoch had to fight their way to the top didn't they?

    And Tyrone Briggs who was brought up in the housing projects had exactly the same opportunity as the Murdoch boys didn't he?

    I honestly thought them Murdoch boys would end up working at McDonald's...

    Yep, it sure is an even playing field!

  • @Hammersley1967 I'm not saying everyone has the same CHANCE to be succesful, but they do have the exact same OPPORTUNITY. There is no exclusive club that only people born to rich families can join that gives away all the secrets of success. The point isn't for there to be an even playing feild, just that everyone starts at the same place, which they do. We're all born human and no amount of money will change that.

  • @Hammersley1967 ....how's that Utopian mindset workin' out for 'em in Europe the past couple weeks? Surely you pay attention to the financial crisis in Europe.

    In short, they're toast. Greece has a huge public sector that wants to "retire" at 50. They've got a couple of weeks cash left; then what.

    Utopianism is sure a great thing, isn't it? Following Greece is Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Italy, and so on. Where will "ethics of community and social responsibility" be w/no paychecks?

  • @baldrad1

    "how's that Utopian mindset workin' out for 'em in Europe the past couple weeks? Surely you pay attention to the financial crisis in Europe."

    I wouldn't pretend to have an in depth knowledge about the socioeconomic politics of Europe, but Australia's "Utopian" mindset (free education, health care, and state housing for the poor) is working out just fine...

    We have the strongest economy and amongst the highest living standards in the world...

    What's the excuse for the US economy?

  • @Hammersley1967 "We (Australia) have the strongest economy..." Sorry but that is totally false. Don't know where you get your facts... U.S. surprisingly still holds that title. There are a group of other countries ahead of you as well. You want to talk debt though... we're fucked!

  • @Hammersley1967 Something else for you to ponder: U. S. Liberals at every economic level give LESS money to charitable causes than Conservatives. This includes poor Conservatives. It is easily documented.

    What gives you the right, as a classic pompous Progressive, to live better than somebody who lives in a tent in a homeless camp?  You pontificate to us here on how "people of means" want to keep their money. So do you.

    Otherwise, give all you have, above subsistence, to others...

  • @Hammersley1967 And 35%, really? Where'd you get that number? The real number is about 40 million which is a little over 13%

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "The real number is about 40 million which is a little over 13%."

    Is it?

    "Overall, approximately 35 percent of adults in the United States are under or uninsured. Both under- and uninsured adults are more likely to forgo needed care than those who have adequate coverage. Rates of financial stress for the underinsured are similar to those for the uninsured."

    Ryan M. Nunley, MD, and the Washington Health Policy Fellows (2008), "Issues Facing America: Under-insured Patients".

  • @Hammersley1967 Under-insured? What does that even mean? I have insurance but by some subjective undefined illogical reasoning that doesn't count towards being 'insured enough.' Only about 40 million people are uninsured, and a little over 23 million of those people are by choice. There is no 'under insured.' People who think that there is a catergory of underinsurance don't understand insurance.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "Under-insured? What does that even mean?"

    I would have thought that was self explanatory.

    "Compared to adequately insured adults, the underinsured have limited access to care similar to the uninsured."

    * Ryan M. Nunley, MD, and the Washington Health Policy Fellows (2008), "Issues Facing America: Under-insured Patients".

  • @Hammersley1967 That is so subjective and self fufilling that you can hardly count it as an actual definition. What's the cutoff between under-insured and adequetaly insured? The way i see it is this, if you have health insurance, you're able to get in to see you doctor without an emegency, and you won't die in the waiting room of your hospital you have adequate insurance. Which means that every American with health insurance is adequately insured. There is no under-insured.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "There is no 'under insured.' "

    Well, perhaps you should present your case to Nunley and the rest of the college of physicians in the Washington Health Policy Fellows...

    Everyone in the US who has any insurance cover is completely has got COMPLETE health cover for any possible health anomaly.

    I'll take your word for it and dismiss all the evidence to the contrary that has been collated by health and social professionals!

  • @Hammersley1967 Nobody except the extremely rich have that kind of coverage. I know doctors who don't have that kind of coverage. The UHS that Obama wants isn't that kind of coverage. There is no under-insured. There are people who are less insured than others, and that's ok. I have the minimum health insurance coverage offered by my provider and i think i'm over insured, so what's that say about these liberal hippie doctors little theory?

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "Nobody except the extremely rich have that kind of coverage."

    Well, we've all got "that kind of coverage" in Australia.

    My wife has had a bilateral lung transplant. All the pre-op work up, surgery, and aftercare is paid for by the state.

    MILLIONS of dollars worth of medical care...

    What is "TRUE" is that you don't think that its fair.

    Your entitled to that opinion. Australians and the rest of the western world think differently.

    IT'S CALLED MORAL SUBJECTIVITY...

  • @Hammersley1967 You really need to stop assuming that most people in countries with socialistic insurance support socialistic insurance. Most first world governments support socialistic insuance, that's a fact, but governments rarely speak for their people. I'm glad you're happy with the state of your healthcare coverage, maybe Americans who want that kind of coverage should move to Australia and let those of us who are willing to earn what we get keep our money.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "There is no under-insured."

    if your not completely covered for every possible health contingiency, then it's under-insured...

    "Over-insured", "under-insured"... Once again, you want to be elastic with your semantics...

    That's your prerogative.

    The truth is that Australians are medically covered for any contingency and most (according to you) Americans aren't.

    We (the western world) don't think that is a moral outcome, you do... Ce la vie...

  • @Hammersley1967 Well if you think that that is the only way to be adequately insured then i think that you're 35% number should go up to about 95% because that is simply not realistic with private insurance. But that's you're opinion and i'm not going to tell you to change it, i will tell you it's wrong though.

  • @mynameismatt2010

    "There is no 'under insured' "

    Well, perhaps you should present that argument to Nunley and the rest of the college of physicians in the Washington Health Policy Fellows.

    I'm sure that everyone in the US who has any insurance cover has got COMPLETE health cover for any possible health anomaly that might ensue.

    I'll take your word for it and dismiss the wealth of evidence to the contrary that has been collated by a plethora health and social professionals.

  • Right now there is a demand for insurers offering policies to people with preexisting conditions and a supply of people with preexisting conditions. The only thing stopping an industry to grow around this supply demnd curve is... surprise surprise... government regulation on insurance companies!!!!! If we had LESS government insurance control we'd have MORE people covered! But the left has a stranglehold on the jewels of the insurance industry and they like the feel of it way too much.

  • don't just not make a profit like that, they'll go bankrupt. And besides, since when has turning a profit been a crime? What i suggest instead of trying to radically change the current insurance companies policies would be to offer a huge subsidy to small or large private insurance companies that will take any preexisting condition. These companies will definitely have higher rates, but that's because the people using them are more expensive. Supply and demand people, not gov. control.

  • You don't get punished for your crimes by getting sick, that's not how it works tubby! God i hate Moore! He's such an idiot. Of course private insurance companies have the right to deny people health insurence based on a preexisting condition. Telling them otherwise is like telling a market investor to invest half of his money in a company that just came under investigation by the government for crimes you know the committed. They'd quit before doing it, and so will the insurance companies, they

  • @mynameismatt2010 So actually American citizens have no right or entitlement to life saving care that is guaranteed in every other developed nation. And are you saying that is a good thing ?

  • @justcallmeassinine American citizens have no birth given entitlements except for these: the right to call yourself an American citizen and the right to live here. Those are the only entitlements that the government can legally offer us. If you think differently it is because you don't understand the Constitution. What other countries do is not our concern, most other dveloped countries are also moderately socialist, should we be too? Seeing as how great that worked for the USSR and China.

  • @mynameismatt2010 That is sad.I am glad i was not born there.It sounds like India where 95 % of people work to just be able to have some food and a place to sleep.The rest own everything.I think China will be better off than the USA not so long from now. So,are you one of the fortunate ones who just owns a lot or are you a worker/professional of some sort ? Just asking because of your view about things.

  • @justcallmeassinine Do you know what entitlements are? I'm not saying they don't exist in America, just that the one's that do exist are illegal and are the cause of the social and education decline of the American people over the last 80 years. Nobody deserves a nice life just for being human, you have to work for it. You have to. And since you ask, i work for a living, i'm lucky enough to have a job, even if it's not a good one. My views aren't based on my personal experience, but on my

  • @mynameismatt2010 Sorry you did answer about working.You gave 2 replies and I only saw the first one. And yes from what i hear about the USA and many other places, you are lucky to have a job.

  • @justcallmeassinine I am blessed that i found work recently, but to contrast popular belief about the job market in America, States that have higher restrictions and regulation on small businesses have 2 to 3 times the unemployment rates of states with less regulation. Examples include my homestate of California with the area i live in at around 29% unemployment vs Utah with about 8% unemployment.

  • @mynameismatt2010 Well congratulations to you and I wish you well. I had the impression that you were just another conservative protecting their own wealth and not giving a thought to the whole society. I may not agree with you,but at you are not a hypocrite and know what not being rich and having to work is about.

  • @justcallmeassinine

    "I had the impression that you were just another conservative protecting their own wealth and not giving a thought to the whole society"

    As an outsider looking in, there appears to be a HUGE cultural and philosophical chasm in the US. Almost like two nations coexisting within the one landmass. One nation (yours) is in concert with all other western nations, and the other (mynameismatt's) steadfastly adheres to aggressive individualism with scant regard for greater society.

  • @Hammersley1967 I was born in Japan but live and work in the USA,so I feel directly as if i am living in a place where there are some things I cannot comprehend at all,such as the USA's non-existent healthcare system.It is completely privatized and run by insurance companies. So you must be employed to have healthcare,as opposed to Japan where it is run by the government,much cheaper,less waste,and much more efficient. Other than that,well Japan has had a lot of misfortune as you know.

  • @Hammersley1967 There is no ethical philosophy,.only confusion and ignorance .

    From what I see and hear,Americans are completely divided.But Obama was elected on a promise of "health care reform", pulling out of the war, etc. Out of all his promises,only a health care reform bill was passed. But it is over 1000 pages long and will take years for all phases of it to go into effect. It is a reforming of the current privately owned insurance care system and a disappointment to all who elected him.

  • @Hammersley1967 May I ask what is the cost to the Australian citizen upon a visit to a specialist ? Even in Japan,you present your card and are required to pay a fee,but its quite reasonable.In the US,no job,no healthcare-no visit to the clinic. The jobless/poor are given transport to an ER for emergency life threatening conditions until they are stabilized or die.That's all in the USA.

  • @justcallmeassinine

    It depends on the specialty.

    For example, I saw a private (very reputable) ophthalmologist last year. The consultation was $100 and I received $70 back from Medicare. The $30 gap was because I was employed at the time. If I visited the same specialist now, because I'm a PhD student on a low income, the specialist would have "bulk billed" me (i.e. only charging $70 directly to Medicare without me paying a cent).

    But seeing a specialist within the public system is free.

  • @Hammersley1967 That sounds more costly for employed than in Japan.We pay 30 % of the consult fee,but the fee is low and set by the government.But your public system is free,ours (the only one) is not.

  • Comment removed

  • @justcallmeassinine

    Its works out at 30% payment in the private system. Average consult at today's exchange rates would be 8000 yen. So yes, more costly I think. But, in the public system you can wait up to 3 months (for non-life threatening/emergency situations). If its an emergency situation (road accident, cancer, etc), then you are operated in a public hospital straight away. The commonality between our (and all CIVILISED western) nations is that we look after our underprivileged citizens.

  • @Hammersley1967 Nor do i Hammer.Have to go.Hope to talk again.  : )

  • @justcallmeassinine

    Stay well...

    No pun initially intended...

    But on second thought...

    STAY WELL...

    : - )

  • @justcallmeassinine broader knowledge of the law and humanity. I formulate my views based on logic and evidence, rather than the sissy complaints of people who think they're to good to do manual labor. As for China being better off than the United States, lol. China stopped being communist in the 90's and they're still recovering. I'd rather be poor in America than middle class in China, i'd have a better life being on the streets here than working class there.

  • @mynameismatt2010 I respect your knowledge of law and humanity.Clearly you are very well educated. But may i ask again: Do you work somewhere ? How do you finance your living expenses ? I can tell you that i am a working person,Its an easy question.

  • The number one cause of foreclosures is medical bills? No mr moore, the ONLY cause of a foreclosure is not having enough money. It is the lack of ability to prioritize how we spend our money that leads to medical bills causing foreclosures. What's more important? A good credit score or having a place to live? Nobody will deny you medical treatment because you can't afford it. You don't have to pay the bill if you can't. Learn your priorities, keep your homes, get your medical treatment!

  • Why don't the US introduce the same systems we have in Europe? EVERYONE has health care and everyone can get treatement without haveing to think about the costs for one second. You can cut off fingers and the hospital will sew them on and won't charge you a cent. Nobody wants to abandon that system, because it gives us so much security in our lives, that you don't have to worry about insurance. It can be as easy as this...

  • @AlexLeSmu Because that's socialist bullshit. America is a capitalistic nation, always has been.

  • @FistofAmerica I live in one of the richest countries in the world, my friend, and health care for everyone is not socialism - it's social justice. We're not a socialist country, actually people are quite conservative here, but we believe that everyone has the right to receive medical treatement regardless of personal wealth. Would you want one of your loved ones to die because your insurance would take care of the costs??

  • @AlexLeSmu How exactly is a 75% obesity/overweight rate "social justice"? And if healthcare is a right, when did everyone lose the antecedent responsibility to be friggin healthy? By far, the biggest reason american healthy is disproportionally expensive compared with elsewhere is because Americans are the least healthy species of idiot on the planet. Why should young students be forced to pay for others health costs instead of their own tuition and advancement???

  • @AlexLeSmu Anyone in Europe would laugh your ass right off the stage if you tried to convince them that in spite of a national 75% obesity rate, further socialization would somehow magically reduce costs. And unicorns would leap out of my butt.

  • @thereinliestherib Your health care system is expensive because private companies run them and they always look for their profits. Our health care is run by the government and they just have to look at their balance and not to run up too much of a minus. The moment you sign your work contract you get health insurance automatically. I don't see why people should have relinquish their health care.

  • @AlexLeSmu Not true. American health care is disproportionately more expensive because Americans are 75% obese/overweight, among numerous other rates for poor health. Poor health translates into skyrocketing pool risk, and thus cost to insure. That's why non-private govt insurers in America are actually in even deeper red ink than private market insurance. Americans can have free health care when they run a mile in six minutes to actually earn it.

  • Hey its ED!

    The guy who doesn't let his own guest talk if they Disagree!

  • Health care :depopulation or genocide. only healthy people wanted as slaves to NWO. See Homeland health, safety security,esp awaited Zombie apocolypse, or infek attack, and if that doesnt workeilimination-see FEMA preparations graves, coffins plastic bags.READ READ ALL PAGES GET INFORMED.PRAY!!MARANATHANA

  • What Liberals fail to understand about economics and innovation is that these things are fluid; not static. Moore assumes that modern medicine is as good as it will ever be; and therefore we should stop the ‘profit’ driven Capitalist system of advancing technology; and concentrate on administrating only current treatments (free of charge) to all those in need (who cares if it bankrupts the current Medical Industry and dis-insentivies future R&R). I'll thank him if/when I get Cancer in 20 years.

  • Live and let Die

  • @nottinmatterz2day You just caused me to Youtube the G&R version of that song...nice work!

  • @nottinmatterz2day you dont know how correct you are see above comments .

  • Conservative: “I really hate having my hard-earned money taken from me to pay taxes that go to the poor and unemployed. I could have used that money to buy a brand new car!” Liberal: “Typical greedy-Conservative! No Compassion! Sorry, you’re going to have to forego this year’s brand new car to do something good for once, like help the needy.” Unemployed Assembly Worker: “I wish people would just start buying new cars so I could get of these welfare checks and get my old job back!"

  • @mdstalla that's great rendition

  • @nottinmatterz2day That, my dear boy/girl; is why Liberalism does not reduce poverty for some; it guarantees it for all.

  • @mdstalla exactly. It is a very concise paragraph to prove that point and it may very well awaken some liberals at least those on the fence, spread it!

  • @nottinmatterz2day I like your attitude/style--and I will. BTW: You sound like just the type of prick that might actually save this country! Go ahead and cut/paste it and use it in your YT debates (if you want); I wrote to make a point, and if you want to press that point—you’ve got my blessings!