@gopconservative78 communist? LMFAO!!!! Get your head out of your fucking ass. Just because the man is liberal doesn't mean he's a communist. If you think Sanders is a communist then I can't imagine how you feel about Theodore Roosevelt.
@pjmgame that Vermont Communist is not Liberal. He always supported gulags and murders of 45 million people. He keeps a picture of Stalin (its required in Vermont) in his office to show he is committed to Communism.
@pjmgame Last I checked, he is an admitted socialist, hence why he is independent from Vermont. So in a way you are right, he isn't a communist, but I wouldn't go so far too call him a mainstream liberal, he's pretty far out there. Honestly, I have no fucking idea what gopconservative is talking about with supporting gulags and stalin. I tend to agree more with Rand on the issue at hand but Sanders is an honest man and actually gives a shit about people, i respect that even if we dont agree.
@pjmgame Yes and no. I think their political underpinnings are about 90% the same. On the surface Rand is a little more aware of what he is saying to whom. Sometimes Rand can seem a little more on the social conservative side sometimes but I am not sure whether that extends into his view on what the role of govt should be. Like Ron Paul is personally against a great number of things (drugs, ssm) but he finds regulating those things to be outside of the scope, it makes him palatable to the left
@magiclion How is he a liar? He is making a point that if someone has a right to your goods/services you are a slave to them. A right meaning that you cannot say no to them.
So? It's already federal law that a hospital cannot turn down an emergency patient for ANY REASON. Is that slavery? I don't think that it is. If you don't want to serve people, then don't open a hospital. You can't have it both ways. You can't start a hospital that's supposed to help people and then pick and choose whom to help.
Having a defense lawyer is a right. Does that mean public defenders are slaves? Rand Paul isn't too bright.
@Edgehead10075 Sure, even in your example, if the hospital is private and the government forces under threat of violence/fines/imprisonment that you must surrender your goods/services, that's still a violation of your personal liberty. If you didn't have that law do you really think we would turn away and let them die? In regards to public defenders, that's covered under the 6th amendment. If you want HC as a right, use proper channels and pass an amendment if you can.
It's covered by the sixth amendment, but, according to Rand Paul's logic, it's slavery. The public defender is being forced to provide services.
Honestly, we don't need an amendment because we don't have to make healthcare an explicit right but rather a de facto right by simply providing health insurance for everyone.
I'm sure that the emergency healthcare law was passed because some hospitals, although not all, WERE turning down people who couldn't pay.
@Edgehead10075 If you break it down the way you did there, that's a little more agreeable, explicit rights and defacto but it needs to be specified what rights we're talking about. When I hear rights, I think unalienable, undeniable, rights, that are a condition of my humanity.
I still have an issue with the government providing health insurance for everyone. It's still taking money from, in many cases, people who are unwilling, to pay the care of their neighbors.
I used to wrestle with that same question regarding the government taking money from people and redistributing it, but I came to the conclusion that it's something civilized societies do to ensure the common good. If we didn't do that, then some people would die because they couldn't pay for healthcare.
@Edgehead10075 Yea, I wrestle with it too. I think that's why I can really understand where Sanders is coming from even if I don't agree with him. I think I come down against it though on the basis that I still hold out hope that people can do the right and humane thing without govt. forcing them. It sounds a little cold to be honest, but even if some people died for lack of care, isn't it worth it for the preservation of liberty? After all, there are far worse things in this world than death.
@Edgehead10075 No government healthcare like medicare was barley created in 1965 there wasn't people dieing left and right from not having care easy to check the facts If are government made are own money we wouldnt have to take and distribute wealth from others we can just print it,inflation is still a tax but at least there is no debt “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”-TJ
@Edgehead10075 A public option forces me (a healthy, hard working, wealthy person) to pay for people, who in many cases smoke, don't take care of themselves, and don't work. I know there are exceptions to that but we all know the type i'm talking about. Single Payer does that but then also limits my choices. If I am not happy with my care in single payer, I can't fire them, they get my money either way. They would also need comparative effectiveness guidelines to get costs down (UGH)!
I agree with you about single-payer. I think that the government should at least have to compete with private businesses. I've asked that same question to people who support single-payer, but none of them give a satisfying answer. I mean, if a person is satisfied with his private, for profit insurance, why should he be forced to go on a government program?
@coocooclue "...A public option forces me (a healthy, hard working, wealthy person) to pay for people, who in many cases smoke, don't take care of themselves, and don't work. ..." The same factors affect private insurance premiums.
@Edgehead10075 Also, I'll debate you on the points but the ad hominem attacks on Paul say more about you than him. You don't see me calling Sanders a pinko commie bastard, I think he's a brilliant man who cares deeply about people. Rand cares about people too and he's a doctor. I'd say he is plenty bright even if you don't agree with him.
Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul might be on different political spectrums, one is a democratic socialist, the other one is a conservative libertarian, but you can't deny the facts that they are both honest, consistent and brave men, standing up to the establishment. They know what's going on and they want to genuinely help the US recover and move into a better direction. They both want to help the country, but with different approaches, but at least they aren't backdoor manipulators.
@davd1986 The video is about RAND Paul, his feckless dandy of a son who takes Medicare money, cause you know....Doctors should be able to make alot of money.
@TheBoxingCannabyte Where is it working? When I look at the gdp to debt ratios of every nation I can think of that has it, they are far worse than it is here. We may not live as long here but we also take liberties with our twinkies, red meat, and smokes. I don't think it is evil but I don't think you can force people against their will to pay for others' healthcare. I should be able to choose what coverage if any that I want, like I choose a Baconator for lunch.
I love Bernie because he's such a Vermonter. I don't really agree too much with his policies but he is genuine and actually cares about the people, rather than himself. I feel like that's more important. If we had a congress with people like him, from all political beliefs, we'd be in a better place.
@rgaud8, I totally agree. I actually think that if Bernie were president and Barrack were Vice President (taking the Presidency in 2016 with people like Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken in there, to having Rand and Ron Paul in there as well!) I think that would create an honest atmosphere, and none of those guys want superpacs or money in politics. No, not even Obama, he's not the evil fuck everyone makes him out to be. I also believe that we shouldn't agree with our preisdent on everything.
@rgaud8, my argument for that is more ideological than anything but I think there are some self-evident things here. He is privy to information on national security far more than we are. There are decisions that he/she would have to make that are may seem weird, wrong, or stupid, but there are several cases where even presidents I despise like Ronald Reagan (to Barrack who I support) that have performed masterful political rope-a-dopes.
@TheDevenrocks, It's kinda scary-as a former Ron Paul supporter-that I now realize how fucking stupid and blind I was. I have friends who literally believe-and I am NOT KIDDING (there is a groupp of over 3000 of these guys online, a PAul Schnieder and his little cult) that believe lizard-men (which of course if you have even an elementary level understanding of evolutionary biology is laughable) are running our country and only RP can save us! I SHIT YOU NOT, my friend. Sorry for the caps.
@TheBoxingCannabyte Haha. Just going around the internet you will find crazy insane people who support that nut job. Just shows you how bad our congress is if they let ron paul join them.
@TheBoxingCannabyte Sure some people have very warped and wrong views of whats going on in this world like lizard people. But at the heart of it all our politicians spend money illegally and are influenced by corporate lobbyist and do not have our concerns at heart. The only reason they support RP is because he is against the establishment. There are neoconservatives running the country that is real and that is no conspiracy theory. GW Bush is a great example of the noble lie and neocons
@ctlex3 BTW what is a difference between conspiracy theorist supporting RP and religious gun nuts supporting someone like GW Bush since he is against gays. Or how racist people only support the other candidate because Obama is black. But the 3000 lizard nuts don't influence me. The thousands of active duty servicemen who support RP do.
@TheBoxingCannabyte So if you are not a Ron Paul supporter do you think that the crimes of the federal reserve should be overlooked? Do you think we should be fighting endless pointless wars with the blood of our young soldiers? And what politician wants to make real cuts can you name any others? Do any other candidates are interested in upholding the constitution? By all means support who you want but you offered no real reasons against Ron Paul. Now lets talk about cults..
Bernie Sanders is nothing but a 2 bit communist pleading for Americans to embrace Communism...Gulags....slaughter Germans.....hey his hero Stalin did, Bernie wants to as well
@gopconservative78 Why do you say that he supports gulags? I haven't heard anything like that about him. I don't really agree with you about loving sanders = supporting gulags though. Just cause you support a person doesn't mean you support everything that person has ever done/said. I'm sure most of his supporters here are wondering what you're talking about with the gulags, I sure am and I don't even support Sanders.
@gopconservative78 You good sir are an idiot and a troll. You don't even belong in this fucking century, go back to the 20th century where you belong, and take your cold war rhetoric with you. This isn't 1950 buddy its 2012. Times have changed and people have gotten smarter and have realized that those in power don't have their best interest in hand. Judging by your name however, I can say that these comments are completely to be expected from you and nothing is surprising.
Free shit at the expense of others is how we built this country. Anybody with half a brain knows that!!! Ron Paul 2012!!! Bernie Sanders is a moron!! Even though I'm glad he exposed the federal reserves trillions of unaccounted bailout money to foreigners.
@jneil2007 Who are getting most of the free shits now? They blew most of all my net worth, weaken the consumer market and corner capital flows all inside Wall St. We can't get a loan for house for our families and we got mass layoff for them to beef up their Wall St stat and credit ratings. If we don't privately bomb Wall St to the hell for shaking them down, we won't have economic liberty in this country. Use Ron Paul 2012 then we can a real FED audit !!!
Even someone who doesn't care about Rand Paul can see this is completely taken out of contest. Not only is idiotic, but it's unflattering to Sen Sanders which I respect and just for that's I would not have used to do make a trolling video. Poster's major fail.
@benjam3nn Rand Paul is a libertarian probably asking questions or giving statements about his ideology. Eg. that socialised medicine will bring tyranny. Police breaking down your door. Loss of liberty, etc.
It reminds me of something Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. She was right 30 years ago and she is right today. Look at the socialist nations running out of other peoples money, currencies on the brink of collapse, and systemic unemployment near or above 15%.
@coocooclue Thatcher was a haggard old cunt who went to war on the Irish people and the working-class of her own country. Fuck her. She belongs in a cell at the Hague.
@GlamorousTurd Your ad-hominem attack on Thatcher does nothing to discredit the truth of her statement.Socialism fails when you run out of other people's money. It's as true when she says it as when anyone else does.
Its not that we all have the right to healthcare, we all have the right to PERSUE healthcare. Not to say the country is not full of problems that prevent that from happening. I have nothing against liberals, for themost part they have good intenctions but the idea of socialized healthcare ireally jsut treating the symptoms of an illness called corruption. Instead they should focus their energy on exposing these under the table deals that make our financial system what it is debt slavery.
@Buradori0 hahahah the illness called corruption by wanting single payer? You're insane. Learn about it and how it actually works, the models used in other countries.
@dglass81 By and large the nations with single payer are way in over their heads in debt, way worse than the USA in terms of GDP %. I would say that the nanny state is not sustainable. Rand is right, if you have a "right to a good/service" then it cannot be denied from you, that's the nature of rights. Those services must be provided by others, if they cannot deny your right to healthcare, they are your slave, they have no choice.
I seriously dispute the idea that socialized medicine works. In every nation that people point to as an example, their systems are unsustainable if not insoluble.Pointing to life expectancy makes no sense since we live a different lifestyle here, we take lots of liberties with our ding dongs. Whenever our govt tries to nationalize anything they distort the market, drive up prices, drive up debt and it is horribly mismanaged. Lastly, the entire idea goes against the entire idea of liberty/const.
Anyways, there's a list of the biggest debtor nations, notice that they are all the W. European nations that are on the brink on monetary collapse. Sweeden coming in at 282% of GDP in debt. W. Europe is like a giant bomb right now because of their spending. Just look up cnbc and "worlds biggest debtor nations."
Now, private insurance works fine when it is used in tandem with government. We could have a system where basic health care needs are provided by the government and more personalized treatments could be done through insurance policies. This, however, could also be done in reverse; you pay for basic health care and the government takes care of more expensive treatments like cancer, heart diseases etc., considering that the latter cost a fortune in most cases.
What the US needs is stability. Stability in terms of sound financial regulations, a decent public sector encompassing health care, education, environment and strong energy policies (energy efficiency, independency of foreign oil, green energy). More money needs to be spent on developing public transportation to alleviate congestion and pollution. Taxes don't have to be through the roof to do these things, it's all about priorities. Aid for the poor and credits for the hardworking people, too.
@ClaudiusJovianus We don't have more money to spend on these things. Sometimes when I look at the presidential field I see a bunch of guys up there decided where to go for dinner and Ron Paul is the only one saying "we can't afford this, let's eat at home."
@coocooclue It was just a general notion. Right now our representatives and senators have to cut spending where they can and make strategic, long term investments that benefit everyone in this nation just as Eisenhower invested in the interstate highway system for instance. It's important to note that government spending does not work the same way as private spending although a balanced budget would be highly desirable.
"French debt levels come in at about 83 percent of the gross domestic product of the country. Anything above 65 percent has traditionally been considered moving into the danger zone, but these days 83 percent looks pretty good compared to other countries. This is particularly true when you consider the efforts France has put in to helping other European Union countries weather the financial crisis."
Might not want to take things out of context so much...
@nafaidni Sure, Greece is worse but Greece got that way by promising the world the the citizens and not having enough people working and paying taxes, same thing in France, same thing here. Whether or not there are nations that are worse off doesn't change the fact that it is not sustainable or healthy for an economy. We simply cannot afford it.
The problem in Greece is that the government gave incredibly generous benefits to people (i.e. retirement at the age of 55) and didn't charge enough taxes. That's hardly material.
There is no concept of "sustainability" when looking at care. "Sustainability" is purely determined by the change in costs of care over time. If costs rise, the government just taxes more and nothing changes. People are still paying the same even if the venue differs. They just pay less in waste.
@nafaidni The debt problem in Europe as a whole is not because they don't tax enough. People like to keep at least a big chunk of what they worked hard for. It hardly feels fair to bust your butt for 10 hours and then have the government come and forcibly take half of it from you. They tax those folks more than enough, to the point that work almost has no value. If my government took 2/3rds of my money, I wouldn't work either, that's horsecrap.
This idea of the government "stealing your money" is the real horsecrap. The government just pays you back in services. Does that mean that people will have less incentive to work, theoretically? Yes. Does it usually matter? Not really.
It can be seen in the last 60 years that tax rates have had no correlation to growth rates. When taxes were at 94% during WWII, the economy grew finely. And it continued to do so for 30 years at an average tax rate of over 70% on the highest bracket
Taxes are currently the lowest level since the early 1930s, but where's the growth? GDP growth is stagnant, the real median income in America fell from 2000-2007, health care costs are rising, and corporations are getting ever richer (from 2000-2007, the top 1% saw their income rise by 87%).
Once again, taxes do not destroy wealth, nor do they entirely disincentivize work; people have limitless desires. Provided that they can earn more by working more, they will work more.
The US could easily afford France's system. The government just raises taxes by a percentage of GDP equal to medical costs and pays for the care of all citizens.
Having a single-payer system is convenient in more ways than being just equitible. The paperwork, conflicting rules, and lack of centralized data collection established by insurance companies heavily impairs the health care system and raises costs over time. Doctors have to take lessons just to learn insurance procedure.
@nafaidni How high do you want to tax then? I already can't even keep half of the money I earn, what's fair, should I keep a third of what I worked for? Where has single payer actually worked? Every w. european nation that has single payer is up to their eyeballs in debt and they still tax the bejeezus out of their people.
The 36 countries cited by the WHO to have better health care systems than the US all have single payer, except for maybe the UAE and a couple other capital oases.
Plus whatever debts those countries have can't be solely attributed to health care costs. For example, the UK's debt/GDP was a mere 35% by 2006. It jumped to 63% in the last five years because of the recession. Can you honestly attribute that to rising medical costs alone?
The US's medical cost is about 10%, so an across-the board tax of 10% would make health care completely covered, almost. One could just shift most of the tax rate to the highest bracket, seeing as their income is rising by double digit percentage points while the rest of America's real income isn't changing. It would stimulate the economy to have a more equitable real distribution of wealth.
@nafaidni Actually it is about 17% and you would add that on top of all the tax we already pay. I'm not just talking federal income tax, but state, local sales tax, property tax, ect, ect. I paid 53% of my income last year in taxes! You're telling me that I should pay my healthcare tax of say 17% (that is if everyone pays 17, if not I will pay more) so in the end, I will pay 70% of all my money to the government at some level... how is that fair?
Why does it matter if you pay 70% of your money to the government if you would already pay 70% of you money for the exact same services from different companies? Or perhaps more. This isn't a question of whether or not you get to "keep" your money because you'll lose it anyway; it's a question of what you buy with that money.
And more than half of USPS's deficit comes from a federal law that forces $5.5 billion to be prepaid for retirement. Until 2006, USPS was profitable.
@nafaidni Because for 70% of my money I could do a lot better than just buying health insurance, sending my mail, and having paved roads. Furthermore, if I didn't like the coverage or care I was getting from my private services, I could stop paying it and find someone better, can't do that with government.
In regards to USPS, go figure that a federal law is what is sinking them into oblivion, federal laws have that effect sometimes! If they were private, they would be gone by now.
Well, unfortunately, history has shown and society has decided that government can manage certain things better on the larger scale than the majority of citizens can when acting independently, such as roads. And this is just American society; most societies have come the conclusion that government health care, too, is much better than privatized health care. That's why none of them have gone back to privatized health care (though there are things they have reprivatized).
@nafaidni The USA was setup to prevent the majority you speak of from trampling the minority. As a society, we decided which things should be federal and which things should be state/local/citizen. If you want to make healthcare a right, you should use the proper channels and try to pass that as an amendment to Constitution, doing it on a common law basis violates the underpinnings of the Constitution. Those nations that have gone to socialized are welcome to try it, we however have our own way
@nafaidni Its unsustainable. If you create that kind of guaranteed demand the costs sky rocket. It becomes increasingly more expensive, and the system cant pay for itself. It puts a burdon of debt onto the American people, as the government just prints money to pay the debt, causing dollar devaluation and higher costs of living. The government doesn't have any money, it gets it from us, its debt is all of our debt.
The alternative to that "guaranteed demand" is guaranteed poverty, uninsurance, and bankruptcies related to health care costs (40% of foreclosures are related to them). Your argument is simply that NOT PROVIDING CARE is a good thing because it costs less.
That simply leads to the question of whether the government exists to protect life or protect meaningless figures of "wealth" that only five hundred people can possess.
And even that increase in health spending is balanced by the loss of the mass inefficiencies of the health care system. Doctors no longer have to listen to the tyranny of insurance on what they can prescribe, or take classes on insurance policy. Every report of sickness can be recorded in a national database to look for trends. You don't have to have your money leeched by company shareholders. You won't be denied coverage just because they deem it to be "unprofitable".
The fact is, the job of private business is to make money, not to protect other people's well being. We can tolerate that for certain industries, but certainly not for health care.
The US pays the most per GDP on health care and still receives the least of it among every developed nation on Earth. Does that seem efficient to you?
@nafaidni The US pays more because our government is run by a bunch of blood sucking leaches. The only way prices can stay that high is because of a distorted market that comes from unclesam paying for 40% of people already (Who cares what the bill is if the govt pays it), bananas tort/liability system, and the govt run education system that gives us doctors with 150k in student loans. Can you name me a program that federal govt runs well, in budget?
Theoretically, it will discourage them from hiring workers because they have less money to spend.
In practice, it tends to force them to invest in their companies rather than pocketing the money, possibly because long term smaller revenues are taxed less than massive short term revenues that come from, for example, massive layoffs. Though this is just my hypothesis.
@nafaidni I also want to point out that in the USA, when the government gets involved in an industry, the prices do not go down, they get very distorted and high; it might be different in other places but our government is large an inefficient. Example of govt involvement and price distortion include the housing market, higher education, and to a large degree our current medicine system. I can't believe that a government so large and corrupt could run my healthcare properly.
The postal service seems to not have been jacked up by government involvement. USPS charges much less than most postal services and is funded entirely by its own business, though it loses some of its profit to the Federal Government.
The housing market has gone DOWN in prices because of poor government regulations. Higher education is going up because of loss of government funding, primarily, but constantly high demand.
Medicine prices have little to nothing to do with government.
@nafaidni The USPS runs at a 20 billion dollar deficit and is likely going down to 6 days a week. That isn't working at all.
The housing market went up for many years because the government provided loans to people and thus increased demand and therefore price (Supply/Demand). Higher education is the same deal, the govt increased demand by paying or lending trillions of dollars, that drives the price up, again supply and demand.
@coocooclue The General Accounting Office (GAO) put out a report on the USPS. Since I cannot put a link in here, just google the term "Actions Needed to Stave off Financial Insolvency" and "USPS". You should find the report there. You almost couldn't pick a worse example of govt mismanagement unless you picked Arlington Cemetery. What I am getting at is the govt doesn't give a fuck about us, these are the same clowns who bury our soldier ontop each other in the wrong graves. dont let them foolu
"I chose to work my job, I do not feel like a slave."
Yeah bitch. The most hopelessly enslaved is the slave who thinks she's free. Her birth certificate (which symbolizes future work) is being traded on the world market like everyone elses. Wake the fuck up.
@nafaidni What I like about my private insurance is that if I don't like them, I can stop giving money to them, I can cancel--can't cancel your single payer, won't even have a choice about it. My mother refuses insurance on religious grounds, says it's a form of gambling, you shouldn't force her into a single payer system either, she should be able to do what she wants with her life.
Adding the world "humiliating" is probably why this video is rated so poorly compared to its copies. The word automatically implies antagonism and results in the same from the opposite side, whereas not saying anything will let them see the whole thing, and when they notice that their candidate loses, they just leave.
You little fuck. No one's pressuring you to do anything you imp son of bitch.
Some education. A base animal's sense of logic. "I must take your goods and if you don't let me your oppressing me to submit. :..( "
You can't deal with that level of ridiculous idiocy "rationally", the only response is to meet force with force. Thieves and rapists don't justly land in jail cells by rhetoric. Socialists never stop their ever expanding schemes by sweet talk.
Hmmm, so you don't "Threaten to kill those who do not submit" eh? What about in your statement, "My indoctrination would be a rock bashing in your haughty little thief mouth"? Is that the smell of conservative hypocritical bullshit in the air?
@nafaidni Your fucking stupid inference that my position of not letting you take my of other people's shit requires you "submit" to any damned thing is fucking retarded. Eat an ass.
I'm not initiating any "push" for you to submit to anything.
Arguing with your damned stupid premise is like arguing with a fucking burglar you just found holding your t.v. in your living room.
And you son of bitch, you have the gall to think you have the high ground and call ME threatening? Burn in hell.
If you ever get around to robbing somebody, it should be a socialist. Because they've already predecided that in order just to live as they choose, they must first rob you.
So take their shit. Kick in their teeth. Kill them. Then go on about your business.
They're animals. Cattle. Nothing but state worshipping trash to be herded by governments.
Sorry excuses for the human species. Can't even provide for themselves. Yet the idiot, these shit, have the ego to believe they should dictate to you.
@Premier112 I was with you in the first paragraph about socialists wanting to demand your money as a condition of their living. The rest of what you said is mehh, name calling and violence doesn't win us anything.
@coocooclue Violence works for them just fine. The only thing granting their satisfactions, is threat of force in response to noncompliance to thievery.
I would suggest people should be much more violent to them. Kill one of them, end his life, and the rest will scatter like a flock of crows.
There is no mistake about. A socialist by his nature, is an animalistic violent thief. Who deserves to be thrown into a ditch. He has already by his ideology declared his intention of initiating violence.
@Premier112 I understand that use of the government through laws is essentially violence in that it comes with the full weight and threat of that power, but if we totally disregard all laws and descend into mob-rule, we are no better. Freedom is a popular idea, it can stand on its own two feet and it doesn't need the threat of violence to prevail. People want to be free and when push comes to shove freedom will beat tyranny without firing a single shot. I won't address the violent claims again.
@coocooclue Name calling and violence have 'gotten' America to the position it is in today. You people can not even define let alone debate the merits of co operation, consideration and caring as state policy because you have been robbed of an objective, pluralistic education, and have become convinced that everyone wants to be like you.
You dehumanize anyone who doesn't agree with your indoctrination, threaten to kill those who do not submit, and advertise profound ignorance for all the world.
@SmileyGarrish Well, I would say there are lots of things that got us where we are today. Military interventionism, trampling civil liberties, and setting up a welfare/warfare state are major contributors. I think, contrary to your statement, that we are currently engaged in the debate of a state policy of consideration and caring. Seeing our government in action leads me to think they are incapable of such caring, too corrupt. These are the people who dumped our soldiers bodies in a creek.
@coocooclue It is worse than that: The process began with attacks upon Russia the moment a socialist government took power. Mensheviks were displaced by murderous Bolsheviks who knew that they would be targeted. The White Russian Army was organized and armed by Britain and America, but failed to re conquer Russia. Since those days (circa 1917) Britain and America have continually gone to war against any nation opposing their capitalistic domination of the rest of the world. Just like today. JAH
@SmileyGarrish That's pretty much my point. We were wrong to intervene in the Russian Revolution the same way we have been wrong to intervene in many other places. Our capitalistic system works fine for us but we can't spread that by force of arms. If we simply got back to our roots and stopped wasting all our money on war, we would be a lot better off. You're really nice to talk to by the way, thanks for being so civil even when we don't agree =)
"You dehumanize anyone who doesn't agree with your indoctrination."
My indoctrination would be a rock bashing in your haughty little thief mouth full of false rhetoric until you agree to stop stealing up you stinking bull's shit excust of "sharing and caring.
Socialists think men are sheep to be sheared for their own benefit.
@Premier112 methinks you require incarceration for obfuscation and potential inrectumification of your personification dudue? but I agree to stop all the stinkin bullshit -
from what I hear the damned socialists want everyone to have health care, water food and housing. I don't know but that doesn't sound so outrageous. Everyone should have rights, and the only way to do that is to end war: So another end of 'socialism' is the outlawing of war, which could save lives. What do you think? RU12
"It is a philosophy of heartlessness at its core, and ruthlessly promotes division between the haves and have-nots. The only welfare offered by the quintessential American libertarian is that in times of need, pray harder and good luck. Economically it is survival of the fittest, and ignores the fact that humanity is endowed with more than a lizard's brain. Love and compassion for humanity and our planet don't fit into the libertarian rubric from what I can tell"
@SleepingSun1985 The message of liberty is not one void of compassion. What we are saying is that compassion and charity should not be forced and it should not be implemented by a government that can't even run a cemetery correctly. Take Ron Paul as an example, he won't accept medicare/medicaid as a doctor, but in the past he has treated many patients, delivered their babies for FREE when they couldn't pay him. Compassion comes from people, not from the govt. Govt doesn't care about you.
@coocooclue I'm not questioning Dr.Ron Paul's morality or decency. Actually I believe he is the only decent candidate among Rep. party. However I have to disagree with him and his son on this issue. US need a single-payer universal healthcare which make sure everyone get access to high-quality healthcare and doctors get reasonable payment from TAX money. Dr. Paul's personal decency could NOT offset the evil of current system. Rely on charity and doctors' decency sounds dangerous to me.
@coocooclue Imagine if one day you were seriously sick and you need immediate treatment, which you cannot afford. The hospital would simply refuse to treat you, or they treat you and send you a million dollar bill later. Would you expect a doctor like Dr.Paul to treat you for free or a myterious "CHARITY" pay the bill for you? Even if you survive after treatment, you have to spend rest of your life to work to pay off the bill (sounds like a slave, isn't it?) Is this the "liberty" you want?
Constitution and liberty are just empty words.Libertarians like to yell these fashion words to make themselves feel morally superior. You so-called libertarians should bring your "liberty" BS to those poor patients who were abandoned on street, or those were denied cancer treatment by private insurance companies.
@Premier112 Your groundless assumptions about me are ridiculous. Universal healthcare is common in any real civilized counties, not just socialist ones you believed. I honestly wish that you do not represent the average intelligent level of Paul supporters, otherwise US would repeat 2004 or 2008.
@SleepingSun1985 Universal Health Care necessarily implies that Government has very real social and moral obligations to each and every citizen, as well as any other human being within their territory. The ruling elite in America, those same people who once signed and ratified documents concerning Universal Human Rights (as a propaganda exercise apparently), can not go there. The American Individual Materialism Ideology forbids sharing, caring and compassion. Some people do not qualify for help.
@SmileyGarrish Ideally it would be wonderful if everyone could get quality care but the government is not capable of administrating such a system. The government is incapable of compassion and caring. They care about as much for us as they did the bodies of our soldiers whose tombstones were found overturned in creek, bodies buried on top of each each other in Arlington. I should retain the right to say that I don't want what they are offering, I don't want to pay for it.
@SmileyGarrish Also, the idea of Universal Healthcare is not what is being debated here. It's a whole different can of worms. Rand is dealing with the idea of rights here. A right to healthcare is contradictory to the rest of our Constitution. There was an effort to include things like this in our Constitution back in the late 30's, 40's. We had the debate and decided not to go that way.
@coocooclue Americans adhere to bizarre and often extreme Constitutional positions. And do so clearly without consideration to logic or reason. Looking at US society at large certainly the punishment philosophy has failed. The war on drugs failed. The war on poverty failed. Old ideas can be and are often wrong. Humans enjoyed Cannabis throughout evolution as medicine, food, and fodder; only to see something so widely beneficial to the environment, humanity and the economy, OUTLAWED. By drinkers.
@SmileyGarrish We certainly agree on some things heh. If we had actually adhered to Constitution, personal liberty would be thriving and the police state would have never existed. Those extreme Constitutional positions preserve liberty and that's the problem I see in what you listed. You should have liberty over your body, private property, your life, and the fruits of your labor. Outlawing drugs violates that tenant, outlawing drugs is a new idea in the USA, the old ideas of freedom were better
"The right to life is the source of all rights- and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave."
i'm sure the nice doctor would have a ploblem if she would not get paid for her services.the fact that if you don't pay for your medical expences someone else has to.
I think many people are confused about rights in this country. Rights are meant to be inalienable and given to you by your creator (or by your humanity, take your pick). Our founders here stateside had the wisdom to see that if you make goods/services from other people a right, then you end up violating the rights of the people they are getting it from. You have no rights in regards to other people's stuff or their work. We may provide services here but you do not have a RIGHT to them.
@annoloki You don't have a right to education here either, sorry, not on a national level anyway. If you want to debate American politics, I strongly suggest reading our Constitution. You will find that we are not entitled to things goods and services provided by other people.
You might want to examine your conception of rights. Rights are limited by natural scarcity; when the world crashes into the sun, the right to education means nothing.
When a lower percentage of the population chooses to become teachers, there is natural scarcity.
Positive-rights theorists on the left ignore this, and declare it to be artificial scarcity, and treat teachers like they do not have the right to determine the subjective value of their labor
@JoeKopsick4Congress Rights are things that are granted by people, so a "right to free speech" just means people won't stop you talking, a "right to state funded education" just means that people have decided to allocation funds to provide everyone with access to the education... now you can argue what rights somebody should or shouldn't have, but that's subjective, the actual rights people are granted are written in law, but that doesn't stop people breaking the law & infringing on those rights
@annoloki Per our Constitution, rights are not granted, you are born with them, you are born free. More specifically a right to free speech means that the government will not stop or censor your speech, not people as you said. I agree with you completely when you say that the rights we have are written in law. That law is our Constitution! Nowhere in that Constitution does it grant you a right to education or healthcare.
This was not humiliation but a hearing and a debate within Senate rules and a bit of humor. Please title your posts without the Fox News Headlines!
rickbangkok 4 days ago
I probably disagree with Sanders on many issues, but he's right here. Rand Paul is a fucking retard.
Edgehead10075 4 days ago
@gopconservative78 communist? LMFAO!!!! Get your head out of your fucking ass. Just because the man is liberal doesn't mean he's a communist. If you think Sanders is a communist then I can't imagine how you feel about Theodore Roosevelt.
pjmgame 6 days ago
@pjmgame that Vermont Communist is not Liberal. He always supported gulags and murders of 45 million people. He keeps a picture of Stalin (its required in Vermont) in his office to show he is committed to Communism.
gopconservative78 6 days ago
@gopconservative78 What are you smoking? Fact check please!
rickbangkok 4 days ago
@gopconservative78 You really are that fucking stupid.
pjmgame 3 days ago
@pjmgame Last I checked, he is an admitted socialist, hence why he is independent from Vermont. So in a way you are right, he isn't a communist, but I wouldn't go so far too call him a mainstream liberal, he's pretty far out there. Honestly, I have no fucking idea what gopconservative is talking about with supporting gulags and stalin. I tend to agree more with Rand on the issue at hand but Sanders is an honest man and actually gives a shit about people, i respect that even if we dont agree.
coocooclue 5 days ago
@coocooclue I don't know about you but Rand isn't like his father. Agree?
pjmgame 3 days ago
@pjmgame Yes and no. I think their political underpinnings are about 90% the same. On the surface Rand is a little more aware of what he is saying to whom. Sometimes Rand can seem a little more on the social conservative side sometimes but I am not sure whether that extends into his view on what the role of govt should be. Like Ron Paul is personally against a great number of things (drugs, ssm) but he finds regulating those things to be outside of the scope, it makes him palatable to the left
coocooclue 3 days ago
@coocooclue Interesting
pjmgame 3 days ago
@david How can you say that Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders are honourable men. Bernie just showed us that Rand Paul is a flat out liar.
magiclion 1 week ago
@magiclion How is he a liar? He is making a point that if someone has a right to your goods/services you are a slave to them. A right meaning that you cannot say no to them.
coocooclue 1 week ago
So? It's already federal law that a hospital cannot turn down an emergency patient for ANY REASON. Is that slavery? I don't think that it is. If you don't want to serve people, then don't open a hospital. You can't have it both ways. You can't start a hospital that's supposed to help people and then pick and choose whom to help.
Having a defense lawyer is a right. Does that mean public defenders are slaves? Rand Paul isn't too bright.
Edgehead10075 4 days ago
@Edgehead10075 Sure, even in your example, if the hospital is private and the government forces under threat of violence/fines/imprisonment that you must surrender your goods/services, that's still a violation of your personal liberty. If you didn't have that law do you really think we would turn away and let them die? In regards to public defenders, that's covered under the 6th amendment. If you want HC as a right, use proper channels and pass an amendment if you can.
coocooclue 4 days ago
It's covered by the sixth amendment, but, according to Rand Paul's logic, it's slavery. The public defender is being forced to provide services.
Honestly, we don't need an amendment because we don't have to make healthcare an explicit right but rather a de facto right by simply providing health insurance for everyone.
I'm sure that the emergency healthcare law was passed because some hospitals, although not all, WERE turning down people who couldn't pay.
Edgehead10075 4 days ago
@Edgehead10075 If you break it down the way you did there, that's a little more agreeable, explicit rights and defacto but it needs to be specified what rights we're talking about. When I hear rights, I think unalienable, undeniable, rights, that are a condition of my humanity.
I still have an issue with the government providing health insurance for everyone. It's still taking money from, in many cases, people who are unwilling, to pay the care of their neighbors.
coocooclue 3 days ago
I used to wrestle with that same question regarding the government taking money from people and redistributing it, but I came to the conclusion that it's something civilized societies do to ensure the common good. If we didn't do that, then some people would die because they couldn't pay for healthcare.
Edgehead10075 3 days ago
@Edgehead10075 Yea, I wrestle with it too. I think that's why I can really understand where Sanders is coming from even if I don't agree with him. I think I come down against it though on the basis that I still hold out hope that people can do the right and humane thing without govt. forcing them. It sounds a little cold to be honest, but even if some people died for lack of care, isn't it worth it for the preservation of liberty? After all, there are far worse things in this world than death.
coocooclue 3 days ago
@Edgehead10075 No government healthcare like medicare was barley created in 1965 there wasn't people dieing left and right from not having care easy to check the facts If are government made are own money we wouldnt have to take and distribute wealth from others we can just print it,inflation is still a tax but at least there is no debt “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”-TJ
razz187 1 day ago
@Edgehead10075 A public option forces me (a healthy, hard working, wealthy person) to pay for people, who in many cases smoke, don't take care of themselves, and don't work. I know there are exceptions to that but we all know the type i'm talking about. Single Payer does that but then also limits my choices. If I am not happy with my care in single payer, I can't fire them, they get my money either way. They would also need comparative effectiveness guidelines to get costs down (UGH)!
coocooclue 3 days ago
I agree with you about single-payer. I think that the government should at least have to compete with private businesses. I've asked that same question to people who support single-payer, but none of them give a satisfying answer. I mean, if a person is satisfied with his private, for profit insurance, why should he be forced to go on a government program?
Edgehead10075 3 days ago
As far as a public option goes, people who can afford it themselves would still have to pay for it themselves. Only needy people would be subsidized.
Edgehead10075 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coocooclue "...A public option forces me (a healthy, hard working, wealthy person) to pay for people, who in many cases smoke, don't take care of themselves, and don't work. ..." The same factors affect private insurance premiums.
daniel213141 2 days ago
@Edgehead10075 Also, I'll debate you on the points but the ad hominem attacks on Paul say more about you than him. You don't see me calling Sanders a pinko commie bastard, I think he's a brilliant man who cares deeply about people. Rand cares about people too and he's a doctor. I'd say he is plenty bright even if you don't agree with him.
coocooclue 4 days ago
Sorry. Rand Paul just rubs me the wrong way, for some reason. To be honest, I think that his dad is much smarter than he is.
Edgehead10075 4 days ago
@magiclion Well, he said Ron Paul actually...and nothing in this video suggests that Rand Paul is a liar or that Senator Sanders believes that.
krissmith1986 5 days ago
Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul might be on different political spectrums, one is a democratic socialist, the other one is a conservative libertarian, but you can't deny the facts that they are both honest, consistent and brave men, standing up to the establishment. They know what's going on and they want to genuinely help the US recover and move into a better direction. They both want to help the country, but with different approaches, but at least they aren't backdoor manipulators.
davd1986 1 week ago 2
@davd1986 The video is about RAND Paul, his feckless dandy of a son who takes Medicare money, cause you know....Doctors should be able to make alot of money.
Konform2zoidberg 6 days ago
Bernie Sanders 2016!
Screw Ron Paul!
Socialized medicine is NOT evil and it WORKS. I am more than willing to debate this with anyone, calmly, rationally, and via private message.
TheBoxingCannabyte 1 week ago
@TheBoxingCannabyte Where is it working? When I look at the gdp to debt ratios of every nation I can think of that has it, they are far worse than it is here. We may not live as long here but we also take liberties with our twinkies, red meat, and smokes. I don't think it is evil but I don't think you can force people against their will to pay for others' healthcare. I should be able to choose what coverage if any that I want, like I choose a Baconator for lunch.
coocooclue 1 week ago
RON PAUL 2012
RAND PAUL 2020
EvilWhiteMale 1 week ago
No masta, I's not a slave, I love my job.
zxcv73 1 week ago
I love Bernie because he's such a Vermonter. I don't really agree too much with his policies but he is genuine and actually cares about the people, rather than himself. I feel like that's more important. If we had a congress with people like him, from all political beliefs, we'd be in a better place.
rgaud8 1 week ago
@rgaud8, I totally agree. I actually think that if Bernie were president and Barrack were Vice President (taking the Presidency in 2016 with people like Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken in there, to having Rand and Ron Paul in there as well!) I think that would create an honest atmosphere, and none of those guys want superpacs or money in politics. No, not even Obama, he's not the evil fuck everyone makes him out to be. I also believe that we shouldn't agree with our preisdent on everything.
TheBoxingCannabyte 1 week ago
@rgaud8, my argument for that is more ideological than anything but I think there are some self-evident things here. He is privy to information on national security far more than we are. There are decisions that he/she would have to make that are may seem weird, wrong, or stupid, but there are several cases where even presidents I despise like Ronald Reagan (to Barrack who I support) that have performed masterful political rope-a-dopes.
TheBoxingCannabyte 1 week ago
Comment removed
EvilWhiteMale 1 week ago
@EvilWhiteMale A typical ron paul fan who can't even do math. LMAO.
TheDevenrocks 1 week ago 3
@TheDevenrocks How do you figure?
EvilWhiteMale 1 week ago
@TheDevenrocks, It's kinda scary-as a former Ron Paul supporter-that I now realize how fucking stupid and blind I was. I have friends who literally believe-and I am NOT KIDDING (there is a groupp of over 3000 of these guys online, a PAul Schnieder and his little cult) that believe lizard-men (which of course if you have even an elementary level understanding of evolutionary biology is laughable) are running our country and only RP can save us! I SHIT YOU NOT, my friend. Sorry for the caps.
TheBoxingCannabyte 1 week ago
@TheBoxingCannabyte Haha. Just going around the internet you will find crazy insane people who support that nut job. Just shows you how bad our congress is if they let ron paul join them.
TheDevenrocks 1 week ago
@TheBoxingCannabyte Sure some people have very warped and wrong views of whats going on in this world like lizard people. But at the heart of it all our politicians spend money illegally and are influenced by corporate lobbyist and do not have our concerns at heart. The only reason they support RP is because he is against the establishment. There are neoconservatives running the country that is real and that is no conspiracy theory. GW Bush is a great example of the noble lie and neocons
ctlex3 1 week ago
@ctlex3 BTW what is a difference between conspiracy theorist supporting RP and religious gun nuts supporting someone like GW Bush since he is against gays. Or how racist people only support the other candidate because Obama is black. But the 3000 lizard nuts don't influence me. The thousands of active duty servicemen who support RP do.
ctlex3 1 week ago
@TheBoxingCannabyte So if you are not a Ron Paul supporter do you think that the crimes of the federal reserve should be overlooked? Do you think we should be fighting endless pointless wars with the blood of our young soldiers? And what politician wants to make real cuts can you name any others? Do any other candidates are interested in upholding the constitution? By all means support who you want but you offered no real reasons against Ron Paul. Now lets talk about cults..
ctlex3 1 week ago
@TheBoxingCannabyte Its no more illegitimate than any other theory.
aetas4500 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ISRAEL DID 9/11!
WANT PROOF?
911MISSINGLINKS / COM
HUGEQUESTIONS / COM
1776AmericaFirst 1 week ago
Bernie Sanders is nothing but a 2 bit communist pleading for Americans to embrace Communism...Gulags....slaughter Germans.....hey his hero Stalin did, Bernie wants to as well
gopconservative78 1 week ago
@gopconservative78 LMAO!!! Damn, your a fucking moron.
pjmgame 1 week ago 13
@pjmgame typical communist supporter....so explain to me why you support gulags? If you love Bernie Sanders your a supporter of Gulags
gopconservative78 1 week ago
@gopconservative78 Why do you say that he supports gulags? I haven't heard anything like that about him. I don't really agree with you about loving sanders = supporting gulags though. Just cause you support a person doesn't mean you support everything that person has ever done/said. I'm sure most of his supporters here are wondering what you're talking about with the gulags, I sure am and I don't even support Sanders.
coocooclue 1 week ago
@gopconservative78 You good sir are an idiot and a troll. You don't even belong in this fucking century, go back to the 20th century where you belong, and take your cold war rhetoric with you. This isn't 1950 buddy its 2012. Times have changed and people have gotten smarter and have realized that those in power don't have their best interest in hand. Judging by your name however, I can say that these comments are completely to be expected from you and nothing is surprising.
joekopor 6 days ago
Free shit at the expense of others is how we built this country. Anybody with half a brain knows that!!! Ron Paul 2012!!! Bernie Sanders is a moron!! Even though I'm glad he exposed the federal reserves trillions of unaccounted bailout money to foreigners.
jneil2007 2 weeks ago
@jneil2007 Who are getting most of the free shits now? They blew most of all my net worth, weaken the consumer market and corner capital flows all inside Wall St. We can't get a loan for house for our families and we got mass layoff for them to beef up their Wall St stat and credit ratings. If we don't privately bomb Wall St to the hell for shaking them down, we won't have economic liberty in this country. Use Ron Paul 2012 then we can a real FED audit !!!
beancube2010 2 weeks ago
Rand Paul is almost as dumb as his father.... and i stress almost
MegaLink117 2 weeks ago
@MegaLink117 and your a worthless communist supporter who's dream is to jerk off to Stalin
gopconservative78 1 week ago
Go Rand !!!
Skullivan420 2 weeks ago
He just performed his coveted BERNIE BURN move!
dglass81 2 weeks ago
Even someone who doesn't care about Rand Paul can see this is completely taken out of contest. Not only is idiotic, but it's unflattering to Sen Sanders which I respect and just for that's I would not have used to do make a trolling video. Poster's major fail.
freakqnc 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012!
Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012!
Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012!
Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012!
REPOST REPOST REPOST REPOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NWOsupportersRdbags 2 weeks ago
I watch this with the volume off and still understood it. The uploader is trolling by uploading a random clip. He wants views, that's all.
shelzoth 2 weeks ago
good thing you showed context with this video....
ForceCrystal 3 weeks ago
one may disagree with Bernie Sanders but he is a decent man
suckmebauer 3 weeks ago 20
i dont understand. what happened here?
benjam3nn 3 weeks ago
@benjam3nn Rand Paul is a libertarian probably asking questions or giving statements about his ideology. Eg. that socialised medicine will bring tyranny. Police breaking down your door. Loss of liberty, etc.
Silly.
dglass81 2 weeks ago
@dglass81 Please tell me that you don't believe that.
visini14 2 weeks ago
It reminds me of something Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. She was right 30 years ago and she is right today. Look at the socialist nations running out of other peoples money, currencies on the brink of collapse, and systemic unemployment near or above 15%.
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue Thatcher was a haggard old cunt who went to war on the Irish people and the working-class of her own country. Fuck her. She belongs in a cell at the Hague.
GlamorousTurd 2 weeks ago
@GlamorousTurd Your ad-hominem attack on Thatcher does nothing to discredit the truth of her statement.Socialism fails when you run out of other people's money. It's as true when she says it as when anyone else does.
coocooclue 2 weeks ago
@coocooclue are you the only one with a clue lol?
PaleoAthletics 2 weeks ago
@PaleoAthletics I've heard as much =D I'll play the fool to their Lear any day.
coocooclue 2 weeks ago
Its not that we all have the right to healthcare, we all have the right to PERSUE healthcare. Not to say the country is not full of problems that prevent that from happening. I have nothing against liberals, for themost part they have good intenctions but the idea of socialized healthcare ireally jsut treating the symptoms of an illness called corruption. Instead they should focus their energy on exposing these under the table deals that make our financial system what it is debt slavery.
Buradori0 3 weeks ago
@Buradori0 hahahah the illness called corruption by wanting single payer? You're insane. Learn about it and how it actually works, the models used in other countries.
dglass81 2 weeks ago
@dglass81 By and large the nations with single payer are way in over their heads in debt, way worse than the USA in terms of GDP %. I would say that the nanny state is not sustainable. Rand is right, if you have a "right to a good/service" then it cannot be denied from you, that's the nature of rights. Those services must be provided by others, if they cannot deny your right to healthcare, they are your slave, they have no choice.
coocooclue 2 weeks ago
@coocooclue So obvious even Gieco users get it.
PaleoAthletics 2 weeks ago
Well as usual Bernie Sanders makes a complete fool of himself again...
Not hardly suprising coming from a neo-commie libtard though...
russ1951 3 weeks ago
I seriously dispute the idea that socialized medicine works. In every nation that people point to as an example, their systems are unsustainable if not insoluble.Pointing to life expectancy makes no sense since we live a different lifestyle here, we take lots of liberties with our ding dongs. Whenever our govt tries to nationalize anything they distort the market, drive up prices, drive up debt and it is horribly mismanaged. Lastly, the entire idea goes against the entire idea of liberty/const.
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue
You are the fucking man. Awesome response
huntforsport 3 weeks ago
@huntforsport Thanks a bunch, it's good to know I am not alone! Bless ya =)
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheFunkadelicFan 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
415Dub 3 weeks ago
I love Sanders -this clip was too short :(
strangeyoungman 3 weeks ago
Anyways, there's a list of the biggest debtor nations, notice that they are all the W. European nations that are on the brink on monetary collapse. Sweeden coming in at 282% of GDP in debt. W. Europe is like a giant bomb right now because of their spending. Just look up cnbc and "worlds biggest debtor nations."
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
As a Canadian with a Universal health care system, I am laughing my ass off at Republicans.
MaoistRebelNews2 4 weeks ago
Now, private insurance works fine when it is used in tandem with government. We could have a system where basic health care needs are provided by the government and more personalized treatments could be done through insurance policies. This, however, could also be done in reverse; you pay for basic health care and the government takes care of more expensive treatments like cancer, heart diseases etc., considering that the latter cost a fortune in most cases.
ClaudiusJovianus 4 weeks ago
What the US needs is stability. Stability in terms of sound financial regulations, a decent public sector encompassing health care, education, environment and strong energy policies (energy efficiency, independency of foreign oil, green energy). More money needs to be spent on developing public transportation to alleviate congestion and pollution. Taxes don't have to be through the roof to do these things, it's all about priorities. Aid for the poor and credits for the hardworking people, too.
ClaudiusJovianus 4 weeks ago
@ClaudiusJovianus We don't have more money to spend on these things. Sometimes when I look at the presidential field I see a bunch of guys up there decided where to go for dinner and Ron Paul is the only one saying "we can't afford this, let's eat at home."
coocooclue 4 weeks ago
@coocooclue It was just a general notion. Right now our representatives and senators have to cut spending where they can and make strategic, long term investments that benefit everyone in this nation just as Eisenhower invested in the interstate highway system for instance. It's important to note that government spending does not work the same way as private spending although a balanced budget would be highly desirable.
ClaudiusJovianus 4 weeks ago
@coocooclue
"French debt levels come in at about 83 percent of the gross domestic product of the country. Anything above 65 percent has traditionally been considered moving into the danger zone, but these days 83 percent looks pretty good compared to other countries. This is particularly true when you consider the efforts France has put in to helping other European Union countries weather the financial crisis."
Might not want to take things out of context so much...
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni Sure, Greece is worse but Greece got that way by promising the world the the citizens and not having enough people working and paying taxes, same thing in France, same thing here. Whether or not there are nations that are worse off doesn't change the fact that it is not sustainable or healthy for an economy. We simply cannot afford it.
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue
The problem in Greece is that the government gave incredibly generous benefits to people (i.e. retirement at the age of 55) and didn't charge enough taxes. That's hardly material.
There is no concept of "sustainability" when looking at care. "Sustainability" is purely determined by the change in costs of care over time. If costs rise, the government just taxes more and nothing changes. People are still paying the same even if the venue differs. They just pay less in waste.
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni The debt problem in Europe as a whole is not because they don't tax enough. People like to keep at least a big chunk of what they worked hard for. It hardly feels fair to bust your butt for 10 hours and then have the government come and forcibly take half of it from you. They tax those folks more than enough, to the point that work almost has no value. If my government took 2/3rds of my money, I wouldn't work either, that's horsecrap.
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue
This idea of the government "stealing your money" is the real horsecrap. The government just pays you back in services. Does that mean that people will have less incentive to work, theoretically? Yes. Does it usually matter? Not really.
It can be seen in the last 60 years that tax rates have had no correlation to growth rates. When taxes were at 94% during WWII, the economy grew finely. And it continued to do so for 30 years at an average tax rate of over 70% on the highest bracket
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue
Taxes are currently the lowest level since the early 1930s, but where's the growth? GDP growth is stagnant, the real median income in America fell from 2000-2007, health care costs are rising, and corporations are getting ever richer (from 2000-2007, the top 1% saw their income rise by 87%).
Once again, taxes do not destroy wealth, nor do they entirely disincentivize work; people have limitless desires. Provided that they can earn more by working more, they will work more.
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue
The US could easily afford France's system. The government just raises taxes by a percentage of GDP equal to medical costs and pays for the care of all citizens.
Having a single-payer system is convenient in more ways than being just equitible. The paperwork, conflicting rules, and lack of centralized data collection established by insurance companies heavily impairs the health care system and raises costs over time. Doctors have to take lessons just to learn insurance procedure.
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni How high do you want to tax then? I already can't even keep half of the money I earn, what's fair, should I keep a third of what I worked for? Where has single payer actually worked? Every w. european nation that has single payer is up to their eyeballs in debt and they still tax the bejeezus out of their people.
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue
"Where has single payer actually worked?"
The 36 countries cited by the WHO to have better health care systems than the US all have single payer, except for maybe the UAE and a couple other capital oases.
Plus whatever debts those countries have can't be solely attributed to health care costs. For example, the UK's debt/GDP was a mere 35% by 2006. It jumped to 63% in the last five years because of the recession. Can you honestly attribute that to rising medical costs alone?
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue
The US's medical cost is about 10%, so an across-the board tax of 10% would make health care completely covered, almost. One could just shift most of the tax rate to the highest bracket, seeing as their income is rising by double digit percentage points while the rest of America's real income isn't changing. It would stimulate the economy to have a more equitable real distribution of wealth.
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni Actually it is about 17% and you would add that on top of all the tax we already pay. I'm not just talking federal income tax, but state, local sales tax, property tax, ect, ect. I paid 53% of my income last year in taxes! You're telling me that I should pay my healthcare tax of say 17% (that is if everyone pays 17, if not I will pay more) so in the end, I will pay 70% of all my money to the government at some level... how is that fair?
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue
Why does it matter if you pay 70% of your money to the government if you would already pay 70% of you money for the exact same services from different companies? Or perhaps more. This isn't a question of whether or not you get to "keep" your money because you'll lose it anyway; it's a question of what you buy with that money.
And more than half of USPS's deficit comes from a federal law that forces $5.5 billion to be prepaid for retirement. Until 2006, USPS was profitable.
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni Because for 70% of my money I could do a lot better than just buying health insurance, sending my mail, and having paved roads. Furthermore, if I didn't like the coverage or care I was getting from my private services, I could stop paying it and find someone better, can't do that with government.
In regards to USPS, go figure that a federal law is what is sinking them into oblivion, federal laws have that effect sometimes! If they were private, they would be gone by now.
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue
Well, unfortunately, history has shown and society has decided that government can manage certain things better on the larger scale than the majority of citizens can when acting independently, such as roads. And this is just American society; most societies have come the conclusion that government health care, too, is much better than privatized health care. That's why none of them have gone back to privatized health care (though there are things they have reprivatized).
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni The USA was setup to prevent the majority you speak of from trampling the minority. As a society, we decided which things should be federal and which things should be state/local/citizen. If you want to make healthcare a right, you should use the proper channels and try to pass that as an amendment to Constitution, doing it on a common law basis violates the underpinnings of the Constitution. Those nations that have gone to socialized are welcome to try it, we however have our own way
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni Its unsustainable. If you create that kind of guaranteed demand the costs sky rocket. It becomes increasingly more expensive, and the system cant pay for itself. It puts a burdon of debt onto the American people, as the government just prints money to pay the debt, causing dollar devaluation and higher costs of living. The government doesn't have any money, it gets it from us, its debt is all of our debt.
415Dub 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@415Dub
The alternative to that "guaranteed demand" is guaranteed poverty, uninsurance, and bankruptcies related to health care costs (40% of foreclosures are related to them). Your argument is simply that NOT PROVIDING CARE is a good thing because it costs less.
That simply leads to the question of whether the government exists to protect life or protect meaningless figures of "wealth" that only five hundred people can possess.
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@415Dub
And even that increase in health spending is balanced by the loss of the mass inefficiencies of the health care system. Doctors no longer have to listen to the tyranny of insurance on what they can prescribe, or take classes on insurance policy. Every report of sickness can be recorded in a national database to look for trends. You don't have to have your money leeched by company shareholders. You won't be denied coverage just because they deem it to be "unprofitable".
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@415Dub
The fact is, the job of private business is to make money, not to protect other people's well being. We can tolerate that for certain industries, but certainly not for health care.
The US pays the most per GDP on health care and still receives the least of it among every developed nation on Earth. Does that seem efficient to you?
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni The US pays more because our government is run by a bunch of blood sucking leaches. The only way prices can stay that high is because of a distorted market that comes from unclesam paying for 40% of people already (Who cares what the bill is if the govt pays it), bananas tort/liability system, and the govt run education system that gives us doctors with 150k in student loans. Can you name me a program that federal govt runs well, in budget?
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
How would making the rich pay more affect the middle class and poor?
Edgehead10075 3 weeks ago
@Edgehead10075
Theoretically, it will discourage them from hiring workers because they have less money to spend.
In practice, it tends to force them to invest in their companies rather than pocketing the money, possibly because long term smaller revenues are taxed less than massive short term revenues that come from, for example, massive layoffs. Though this is just my hypothesis.
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni I also want to point out that in the USA, when the government gets involved in an industry, the prices do not go down, they get very distorted and high; it might be different in other places but our government is large an inefficient. Example of govt involvement and price distortion include the housing market, higher education, and to a large degree our current medicine system. I can't believe that a government so large and corrupt could run my healthcare properly.
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue
The postal service seems to not have been jacked up by government involvement. USPS charges much less than most postal services and is funded entirely by its own business, though it loses some of its profit to the Federal Government.
The housing market has gone DOWN in prices because of poor government regulations. Higher education is going up because of loss of government funding, primarily, but constantly high demand.
Medicine prices have little to nothing to do with government.
nafaidni 3 weeks ago
@nafaidni The USPS runs at a 20 billion dollar deficit and is likely going down to 6 days a week. That isn't working at all.
The housing market went up for many years because the government provided loans to people and thus increased demand and therefore price (Supply/Demand). Higher education is the same deal, the govt increased demand by paying or lending trillions of dollars, that drives the price up, again supply and demand.
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue err 5 days a week.
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
@coocooclue The General Accounting Office (GAO) put out a report on the USPS. Since I cannot put a link in here, just google the term "Actions Needed to Stave off Financial Insolvency" and "USPS". You should find the report there. You almost couldn't pick a worse example of govt mismanagement unless you picked Arlington Cemetery. What I am getting at is the govt doesn't give a fuck about us, these are the same clowns who bury our soldier ontop each other in the wrong graves. dont let them foolu
coocooclue 3 weeks ago
Fuck Bernie Sanders. Hook nose bagel eating fuck face.
JackRoller008 4 weeks ago
"I chose to work my job, I do not feel like a slave."
Yeah bitch. The most hopelessly enslaved is the slave who thinks she's free. Her birth certificate (which symbolizes future work) is being traded on the world market like everyone elses. Wake the fuck up.
SaveTheWheat 1 month ago
Context?
jimberkt 1 month ago
Close-minded, indeed.
brouhahabob 1 month ago
-tion
lonelygnome1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nafaidni What I like about my private insurance is that if I don't like them, I can stop giving money to them, I can cancel--can't cancel your single payer, won't even have a choice about it. My mother refuses insurance on religious grounds, says it's a form of gambling, you shouldn't force her into a single payer system either, she should be able to do what she wants with her life.
coocooclue 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012
SuperJR4444 1 month ago
Go Bernie Sanders!!!! Libertarians are just as dangerous as the neo-conservatives.
anthonyn31 1 month ago
Adding the world "humiliating" is probably why this video is rated so poorly compared to its copies. The word automatically implies antagonism and results in the same from the opposite side, whereas not saying anything will let them see the whole thing, and when they notice that their candidate loses, they just leave.
nafaidni 1 month ago
"Threaten to kill those who do not submit"
You little fuck. No one's pressuring you to do anything you imp son of bitch.
Some education. A base animal's sense of logic. "I must take your goods and if you don't let me your oppressing me to submit. :..( "
You can't deal with that level of ridiculous idiocy "rationally", the only response is to meet force with force. Thieves and rapists don't justly land in jail cells by rhetoric. Socialists never stop their ever expanding schemes by sweet talk.
Premier112 1 month ago
@Premier112
Hmmm, so you don't "Threaten to kill those who do not submit" eh? What about in your statement, "My indoctrination would be a rock bashing in your haughty little thief mouth"? Is that the smell of conservative hypocritical bullshit in the air?
nafaidni 1 month ago
@nafaidni Your fucking stupid inference that my position of not letting you take my of other people's shit requires you "submit" to any damned thing is fucking retarded. Eat an ass.
I'm not initiating any "push" for you to submit to anything.
Arguing with your damned stupid premise is like arguing with a fucking burglar you just found holding your t.v. in your living room.
And you son of bitch, you have the gall to think you have the high ground and call ME threatening? Burn in hell.
Premier112 1 month ago
Arguing your damned premise is like arguing for a mugger with a gun to a resisting man's head demanding money.
Sorry "It say it's for the public good" never holds up in court.
It's immoral bs.
But little socialistfuck says: "Boo hoo asshole won't give me his watch. Let's act like we're goddamn intellectuals. HE'S Violent durka durr."
Well. Son of a bitch "intellectual" socialist avoids fact he is just like the guy already using threat of violence. Period.
You have the mind of pigs.
Premier112 1 month ago
If you ever get around to robbing somebody, it should be a socialist. Because they've already predecided that in order just to live as they choose, they must first rob you.
So take their shit. Kick in their teeth. Kill them. Then go on about your business.
They're animals. Cattle. Nothing but state worshipping trash to be herded by governments.
Sorry excuses for the human species. Can't even provide for themselves. Yet the idiot, these shit, have the ego to believe they should dictate to you.
Premier112 1 month ago
@Premier112 I was with you in the first paragraph about socialists wanting to demand your money as a condition of their living. The rest of what you said is mehh, name calling and violence doesn't win us anything.
coocooclue 1 month ago
@coocooclue Violence works for them just fine. The only thing granting their satisfactions, is threat of force in response to noncompliance to thievery.
I would suggest people should be much more violent to them. Kill one of them, end his life, and the rest will scatter like a flock of crows.
There is no mistake about. A socialist by his nature, is an animalistic violent thief. Who deserves to be thrown into a ditch. He has already by his ideology declared his intention of initiating violence.
Premier112 1 month ago
@Premier112 I understand that use of the government through laws is essentially violence in that it comes with the full weight and threat of that power, but if we totally disregard all laws and descend into mob-rule, we are no better. Freedom is a popular idea, it can stand on its own two feet and it doesn't need the threat of violence to prevail. People want to be free and when push comes to shove freedom will beat tyranny without firing a single shot. I won't address the violent claims again.
coocooclue 1 month ago
Comment removed
Premier112 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coocooclue Perhaps you shouldn't use such phrases, and not push when it comes to being shoved, then.
It's your prerogative not to address me. Stop then. I only respond to you.
I find it naive however, your claim freedom stands on it's own without necessity of responding to violence.
I also find your insults to me disgusting. I threaten no one but thieves. Justly.
I will tell you, more everyone else. Try to take my stuff unjustly, I am open to kill you at the first opportunity. Like a pig.
Premier112 1 month ago
@coocooclue Name calling and violence have 'gotten' America to the position it is in today. You people can not even define let alone debate the merits of co operation, consideration and caring as state policy because you have been robbed of an objective, pluralistic education, and have become convinced that everyone wants to be like you.
You dehumanize anyone who doesn't agree with your indoctrination, threaten to kill those who do not submit, and advertise profound ignorance for all the world.
SmileyGarrish 1 month ago
@SmileyGarrish Well, I would say there are lots of things that got us where we are today. Military interventionism, trampling civil liberties, and setting up a welfare/warfare state are major contributors. I think, contrary to your statement, that we are currently engaged in the debate of a state policy of consideration and caring. Seeing our government in action leads me to think they are incapable of such caring, too corrupt. These are the people who dumped our soldiers bodies in a creek.
coocooclue 1 month ago
@coocooclue It is worse than that: The process began with attacks upon Russia the moment a socialist government took power. Mensheviks were displaced by murderous Bolsheviks who knew that they would be targeted. The White Russian Army was organized and armed by Britain and America, but failed to re conquer Russia. Since those days (circa 1917) Britain and America have continually gone to war against any nation opposing their capitalistic domination of the rest of the world. Just like today. JAH
SmileyGarrish 1 month ago
@SmileyGarrish That's pretty much my point. We were wrong to intervene in the Russian Revolution the same way we have been wrong to intervene in many other places. Our capitalistic system works fine for us but we can't spread that by force of arms. If we simply got back to our roots and stopped wasting all our money on war, we would be a lot better off. You're really nice to talk to by the way, thanks for being so civil even when we don't agree =)
coocooclue 1 month ago
@SmileyGarrish
"You dehumanize anyone who doesn't agree with your indoctrination."
My indoctrination would be a rock bashing in your haughty little thief mouth full of false rhetoric until you agree to stop stealing up you stinking bull's shit excust of "sharing and caring.
Socialists think men are sheep to be sheared for their own benefit.
Premier112 1 month ago
@Premier112 methinks you require incarceration for obfuscation and potential inrectumification of your personification dudue? but I agree to stop all the stinkin bullshit -
from what I hear the damned socialists want everyone to have health care, water food and housing. I don't know but that doesn't sound so outrageous. Everyone should have rights, and the only way to do that is to end war: So another end of 'socialism' is the outlawing of war, which could save lives. What do you think? RU12
SmileyGarrish 1 month ago
Bernie Sanders is awesome....vote for Bernie Sanders
swadsw01 1 month ago
"It is a philosophy of heartlessness at its core, and ruthlessly promotes division between the haves and have-nots. The only welfare offered by the quintessential American libertarian is that in times of need, pray harder and good luck. Economically it is survival of the fittest, and ignores the fact that humanity is endowed with more than a lizard's brain. Love and compassion for humanity and our planet don't fit into the libertarian rubric from what I can tell"
SleepingSun1985 1 month ago
@SleepingSun1985 The message of liberty is not one void of compassion. What we are saying is that compassion and charity should not be forced and it should not be implemented by a government that can't even run a cemetery correctly. Take Ron Paul as an example, he won't accept medicare/medicaid as a doctor, but in the past he has treated many patients, delivered their babies for FREE when they couldn't pay him. Compassion comes from people, not from the govt. Govt doesn't care about you.
coocooclue 1 month ago
@coocooclue I'm not questioning Dr.Ron Paul's morality or decency. Actually I believe he is the only decent candidate among Rep. party. However I have to disagree with him and his son on this issue. US need a single-payer universal healthcare which make sure everyone get access to high-quality healthcare and doctors get reasonable payment from TAX money. Dr. Paul's personal decency could NOT offset the evil of current system. Rely on charity and doctors' decency sounds dangerous to me.
SleepingSun1985 1 month ago
@coocooclue Imagine if one day you were seriously sick and you need immediate treatment, which you cannot afford. The hospital would simply refuse to treat you, or they treat you and send you a million dollar bill later. Would you expect a doctor like Dr.Paul to treat you for free or a myterious "CHARITY" pay the bill for you? Even if you survive after treatment, you have to spend rest of your life to work to pay off the bill (sounds like a slave, isn't it?) Is this the "liberty" you want?
SleepingSun1985 1 month ago
Constitution and liberty are just empty words.Libertarians like to yell these fashion words to make themselves feel morally superior. You so-called libertarians should bring your "liberty" BS to those poor patients who were abandoned on street, or those were denied cancer treatment by private insurance companies.
SleepingSun1985 1 month ago
@SleepingSun1985 You wouldn't lift a finger for anybody you stomped mouthed socialist pile of sliced up trash. Run your little mouth some more shit.
Premier112 1 month ago
@Premier112 Your groundless assumptions about me are ridiculous. Universal healthcare is common in any real civilized counties, not just socialist ones you believed. I honestly wish that you do not represent the average intelligent level of Paul supporters, otherwise US would repeat 2004 or 2008.
SleepingSun1985 1 month ago
@SleepingSun1985 Universal Health Care necessarily implies that Government has very real social and moral obligations to each and every citizen, as well as any other human being within their territory. The ruling elite in America, those same people who once signed and ratified documents concerning Universal Human Rights (as a propaganda exercise apparently), can not go there. The American Individual Materialism Ideology forbids sharing, caring and compassion. Some people do not qualify for help.
SmileyGarrish 1 month ago
@SmileyGarrish Ideally it would be wonderful if everyone could get quality care but the government is not capable of administrating such a system. The government is incapable of compassion and caring. They care about as much for us as they did the bodies of our soldiers whose tombstones were found overturned in creek, bodies buried on top of each each other in Arlington. I should retain the right to say that I don't want what they are offering, I don't want to pay for it.
coocooclue 1 month ago
@SmileyGarrish Also, the idea of Universal Healthcare is not what is being debated here. It's a whole different can of worms. Rand is dealing with the idea of rights here. A right to healthcare is contradictory to the rest of our Constitution. There was an effort to include things like this in our Constitution back in the late 30's, 40's. We had the debate and decided not to go that way.
coocooclue 1 month ago
@coocooclue Americans adhere to bizarre and often extreme Constitutional positions. And do so clearly without consideration to logic or reason. Looking at US society at large certainly the punishment philosophy has failed. The war on drugs failed. The war on poverty failed. Old ideas can be and are often wrong. Humans enjoyed Cannabis throughout evolution as medicine, food, and fodder; only to see something so widely beneficial to the environment, humanity and the economy, OUTLAWED. By drinkers.
SmileyGarrish 1 month ago
@SmileyGarrish We certainly agree on some things heh. If we had actually adhered to Constitution, personal liberty would be thriving and the police state would have never existed. Those extreme Constitutional positions preserve liberty and that's the problem I see in what you listed. You should have liberty over your body, private property, your life, and the fruits of your labor. Outlawing drugs violates that tenant, outlawing drugs is a new idea in the USA, the old ideas of freedom were better
coocooclue 1 month ago
Comment removed
Premier112 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The right to life is the source of all rights- and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave."
~ Ayn Rand
This is what Rand Paul is getting at!
coocooclue 1 month ago
i'm sure the nice doctor would have a ploblem if she would not get paid for her services.the fact that if you don't pay for your medical expences someone else has to.
pedro4374 1 month ago
@pedro4374 YES ^ that
coocooclue 1 month ago
I think many people are confused about rights in this country. Rights are meant to be inalienable and given to you by your creator (or by your humanity, take your pick). Our founders here stateside had the wisdom to see that if you make goods/services from other people a right, then you end up violating the rights of the people they are getting it from. You have no rights in regards to other people's stuff or their work. We may provide services here but you do not have a RIGHT to them.
coocooclue 1 month ago
So this means teachers are slaves because people have a right to education?
annoloki 1 month ago
@annoloki You don't have a right to education here either, sorry, not on a national level anyway. If you want to debate American politics, I strongly suggest reading our Constitution. You will find that we are not entitled to things goods and services provided by other people.
coocooclue 1 month ago
@annoloki
You might want to examine your conception of rights. Rights are limited by natural scarcity; when the world crashes into the sun, the right to education means nothing.
When a lower percentage of the population chooses to become teachers, there is natural scarcity.
Positive-rights theorists on the left ignore this, and declare it to be artificial scarcity, and treat teachers like they do not have the right to determine the subjective value of their labor
JoeKopsick4Congress 1 month ago
@JoeKopsick4Congress Rights are things that are granted by people, so a "right to free speech" just means people won't stop you talking, a "right to state funded education" just means that people have decided to allocation funds to provide everyone with access to the education... now you can argue what rights somebody should or shouldn't have, but that's subjective, the actual rights people are granted are written in law, but that doesn't stop people breaking the law & infringing on those rights
annoloki 1 month ago
@annoloki Per our Constitution, rights are not granted, you are born with them, you are born free. More specifically a right to free speech means that the government will not stop or censor your speech, not people as you said. I agree with you completely when you say that the rights we have are written in law. That law is our Constitution! Nowhere in that Constitution does it grant you a right to education or healthcare.
coocooclue 1 month ago