Although I agree with you for the most part, although your insanely childish. It's not just you, but almost all ppl who disagree with each others political views.
Have you ever taken a look at a list of countries with the highest standard of living and GDP? One glance will disprove all claims about gvt subsidized healthcare.
Go to Google & find the link to top 10 Countries with highest std of living ( note they all are social democracies (socialist) with nationalized healthcare (paid for thru taxation) . The US did NOT make the list
Then, find the link for GDP. US took 9th, but still under the same social democracies with the highest std of living
You didn't say it in those exact words, but you seem to believe that it's the responsibility of the government to make sure that everyone has health care. Why do you feel this way if you don't believe that everyone has a right to health care?
@mrplow8 There is a huge difference to rights and responsibilities. The government (as it stands today) has a responsibility to provide some sort of Health Insurance Option for the people, in the same way that the government has a responsibility to provide fire departments, libraries and public schools; the government has a responsibility to provide these things because they increase the standard of living for society as a whole.
I don't believe that the government has the responsibility to provide any of those things. I also don't see how having those things government funded increase the standard of living of society as a whole. Those things would all exist without government. If anything, you might be able to say they increase the standard of living of individuals who otherwise couldn't afford them, but even that's arguable.
@mrplow8 The reason why I prefaced what I said with "as the government stands today" is because the state does espouse that it has a responsibility to provide these things. The government (U.S. specifically) provides these services to increase the standard of living and to provide for the general welfare of the society, and if the state is espousing that belief and taking on that responsibility, I think it should also go full force and include healthcare as well.
@mrplow8 If we did not have a state I would not be advocating for this, but because we (unfortunately) have a state that takes on this level of responsibility, I would argue that something like this is a necessary (in a statist society, in an Anarchist society I would not argue for this).
And forcing insurance to take on people with preexisting conditions will no doubt increase premiums, because it will decrease the input into the risk pool and increase the output from it. This invariably stops insurance from being insurance and turns it into a forced wealth redistribution scheme where people just need to pay a small annual penalty for not having insurance (rather than actually having insurance) and then when something comes up where they need insurance, they can't be denied.
@JacobSpinney The problem with businesses not covering preexisting conditions is that the Health Insurance Provider has a business incentive to find any loophole possible to link current and future conditions, to those older preexisting conditions. It is cheaper to find a way to write off the current conditions as somehow "preexisting", and then not cover them, then to actually pay for whatever the current conditions may be.
@bfl3tcher Sure. It's also cheaper for Mcdonalds to just sell you the big mac box than to sell you the actual big mac. If they do that, then not only do they open themselves up to being sued for fraud, they also give you every incentive to go to the competing insurance provider who won't screw you over with fine print.
I recognize that this problem is going on right now, but that is directly due to the distorted incentives brought about through current government intervention.
@JacobSpinney They do open themselves up to a lawsuit, but most people do not have the financial backing to go up against a (potentially) multi-billion dollar corporation and their legal teams. In litigation, its going to come down to whoever has the deeper pockets.
@JacobSpinney This is not an issue with the Public Option itself. What I'm advocating for is essentially a non-profit Health Insurance Company (by non-profit, I don't mean free, I mean focused on providing coverage as cheaply as possible, while still remaining sustainable). The state is only being used as a means to an end in the current system that we have now.
@bfl3tcher But in doing so, you are advocating for more government distortion as that is inevitably what will take place. The government easily grows larger and larger and it's near impossible to try to reduce it. Rather than compromising your principles, what you should do is advocate for charities to take a larger role in healthcare. NOT for the government to get involved.
@JacobSpinney If there was a charity that would get involved, I would most definitely be more in favor of that than state involvement. However, the profit motive seems to be too enticing for anyone to get involved in setting up a charity to provide the type of healthcare I am advocating.
Because it seems private charities are unwilling to form, I am forced to turn to the state to advocate for this program. If you can point me towards a health insurance charity, I would happily support that.
@bfl3tcher I would encourage you to look at the mutual aid societies that existed before the government began getting involved in healthcare. Those very much could be classified as charities covering healthcare. The best way to bring them back again? Ending government involvement in healthcare, not getting it involved even more.
@JacobSpinney That would be ideal, but I'm talking about health insurance charities for the society we have now; while it would be great to not have a state, it is not something thats going to happen in the foreseeable future, and not exactly practical for right now. Do you have any other examples?
@bfl3tcher So we agree that the ideal is a voluntary system. The question is is it easier to repeal current healthcare distortions and go back to that voluntary system right now or would it be easier to add even more government intervention to go back to that ideal? I would argue that history is very clear on this. Governments always grow with VERY rare exceptions.
@JacobSpinney Well, quite frankly it depends; as you said previously, it is easier to grow governments than it is to shrink them. It may be easier to get the public option pushed forward than to repeal the healthcare laws (though I am definitely not opposed to that).
And we both agree that a voluntary system is ideal for everything.
Premiums will not sky rocket just because Obama says they won't. It's a simple matter of incentives. When you have insurance cover things other than doomsday scenarios, then it doesn't work. You run into a third-party-payer conflict where the copayer cares less about how much things cost. This allows prices to increase which in turn increases premiums.
@JacobSpinney I feel I should clarify a few things before going into a full response. First, the point of this video was to assault the fallacious claims made by Mr.CrazyDudeful, and it should not be taken as an endorsement of the Obama Healthcare Bill (which I was also extremely upset by).
@JacobSpinney Secondly, the reason I support a Public Option (note that this does not mean Universal Healthcare, but essentially a non-profit business set up by the state, with no cost to those who do not enroll in it), is because it would introduce more competition into the marketplace (I am also in favor of removing the laws that inhibit competition in the marketplace, but thats another discussion).
@bfl3tcher I disagree. It's one thing to compete on a fair level. But a public option is surely not that. The public option is able to receive funds from taxes whereas private businesses cannot. Because of this government favoritism and subsidization, it is not competition. It is simply overcrowding. Who wouldn't change to a cheaper/free public plan over one a private one? The downside is it's not cheaper/free. The difference is just being paid for through taxes.
@JacobSpinney If a Public Option (as I described previously), is implemented, it would not at all draw from tax dollars, but only those who enroll in the system. There is the possibility that it could draw from taxes in the future if it starts crumbling, but thats more of an issue with the state as a whole rather than a Public Option specifically.
The people who wouldn't want a Public Option are those who want a potentially better service provided by competing Health Insurance Companies.
@bfl3tcher This is the problem with government solutions. The government distorts the incentive structures within the free market to the point that you have a public outcry. And what does the government do to alleviate this problem? Do they take away the distorted incentives they caused in the first place? Of course not. They just propose MORE government distortion, because you lose votes by admitting you messed up.
The public option is not a sustainable business strategy. Venture capitalists never stop laughing when they look at a business that a government proposes. Governments are horrible entrepreneurs and they are horrible business strategists. Once the public option does fail and go bankrupt (which would be 5-10 years after its creation), do you really think the government will just let it go bankrupt? Of course. You lose votes by admitting a mistake. They'll just subsidize it instead.
This government subsidization will allow a public option to monopolize and take over all private providers. This in essence socializes healthcare and brings with it the inevitable problems you have with monopolies; a far reduced incentive to offer the best service at the cheapest price (since there's no more competition). This is why welfare is so wasteful and prone to abuse; it is inherent within the structure of a monopoly to be so.
@JacobSpinney The only way the public option would take over private providers, is if those private providers could not compete with a better service and with better coverage. And at that point, if the private industry cannot compete with the public option, then presumably that means the public option offers the best coverage and service, which I don't see as a bad thing.
@bfl3tcher This is assuming the public option will be able to compete. It won't. It will fail, since it's focus is on charity rather than profitability. It will inevitably have more output than input. And once it runs out of assets to fund this ponzi scheme, the government will save the day and start subsidizing them.
@JacobSpinney Its focus would not be on charity or profitability, but sustainability. If it has more output than input, simply raise the cost to enroll and stay enrolled in the program; its a very simply solution to stop bankruptcy.
But they don't have the profit incentive to become better. Profit is what drives innovation and efficiency. Profitable companies will continually find ways to cut costs lower and lower so that they can maintain the profit margin while charging less and less, thus enticing more customers. If an insurance company decides to not take profits, but simply charge just enough to keep their head above water, then they not only lose that incentive, they also keep themselves right at the edge of a cliff.
@JacobSpinney If private industry is driven to become more competitive and if they drive to become more appealing than the Public Option (and they will because they obviously want those consumers to choose their service), than it will lower cost and raise the quality of service for everyone involved. If the public option later has to become dissolved because it cannot compete with the private sector, I see that as more of a success than a failure.
@bfl3tcher Sure . . . if the government lets it dissolve. But it won't. The government never ends its own programs. If they fail, they just nationalize them. If they fail again, they just give them more funding.
@JacobSpinney Include an irreversible clause to automatically dissolve the Public Option in 5-10 years if it is either in the red, or if it no longer becomes relevant.
@bfl3tcher Again. This is ignoring all of what history has shown us. The ideal bill is never passed. It is always a watered down bill and that automatic dissolve clause would be erased long before it gets passed. And even if it does get passed, there's no telling if they'll actually follow that rule. Just look at how many constitutional rules they violate every single day.
@JacobSpinney Just writing it off as too idealistic does not mean we could not push for it and does not mean it could be done. People write off Anarchism (in general) as too idealistic to ever be accomplished, but that does not mean it could or should not be done.
So although they might be able to charge cheaper in the beginning, competing companies seeking profits will inevitably be able to out compete them through their profit motive of incentivizing efficiency and innovation. Thus, when the public option starts going into the red, they can't simply raise their rates to solve it, because that would only encourage even more customers to leave them.
@bfl3tcher And if the public option truly is independent from the government, as you espouse, why do you need the government to be involved at all? Why not just create a public option all on your own?
@JacobSpinney I do not have the expertise, the capital nor the time to go into such a venture. As I said in another comment, advocating government intervention is more of an act of desperation than something I truly desire.
@bfl3tcher So although you are against the act of forced taxation, you are for forced taxation if it's for the purpose of gathering the capital necessary to start a charitable healthcare organization?
@JacobSpinney I have said this about 5 times now; I am for a voluntary enrollment into the program. Linking hypothetical scenarios where the program could potentially take tax payer money (hypothetical scenarios that have devolved into me saying "it wont" and you saying "state programs always do"), does not suddenly make that my position. Let me be entirely clear; I am against taxation in all of its forms, if the public option taxes from tax dollars, I am against it.
@bfl3tcher That was not the argument I made here. The argument I made is that you are indeed arguing that the government put forward the capital necessary to start up this public option. Where does it get that capital from? Forced taxation. We're not talking about the public option possibly being nationalized and then funded with forced taxation in the future. We're talking about the capital you advocate the government put forward RIGHT NOW to start it up. Where does that capital come from?
@JacobSpinney..lol, where does the capital for ANY project undertaken by the government come from? (War in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, and, and, and.)
Let's just not pay any tax at all. We'll just forget what Eisenhour did for us when he created the nat'l interstate system (called national bec it's subs'd by taxation). Lets just let them go, including our bridges, sewer systems, and infrastructure.
Oh no, it's not problem. After all, our captains of industry will be happy to subsidize them
It's like the post office. Fed Ex cannot compete with the post office, because the post office is subsidized by the government. So although it may seem that they charge less. They actually charge MORE than the amount Fed Ex does, it's just that that increased cost is hidden in taxes. It's not competition, because people don't have the option to not pay the taxes that go toward the post office. So if people want Fed Ex, they have to pay double.
@JacobSpinney Before answering this, I feel I should mention that I am against forced taxation for government services (in many ways, I would probably qualify as an Anti-Statist or an Anarchist).
As I said before with Health Insurance, if Fed Ex provides a better services to fit what I want, then I can easily choose them as my business of choice to handle my packages. I think the main problem were getting into here, is the forced taxation and government mandate.
@bfl3tcher If you are against forced taxation, then why are you advocating it? Get rid of forced taxation first, then have your public option that is funded voluntarily. Otherwise, you're just pouring gas on the fire.
@JacobSpinney I am not advocating it. As I said before, the system I am advocating for is a voluntary one, which is free to enroll in. Please don't put words in my mouth, I have not spoke in favor of forced taxation.
@bfl3tcher But the plan you advocate will inevitably lead to more forced taxation. It's like there's an infection that keeps killing all the plants in your garden. You can't just decide to continue planting more plants. They'll just keep getting infected. You need to kill off the infection first before you can replant. By advocating for a public option that WILL inevitably be funded through forced taxation, you are advocating for more power to be given to an institution you disapprove of.
@JacobSpinney Now to get on with addressing a few of your points.
Premiums will obviously go up, because of the additional cost associated with covering more injuries. The main dispute is how much they will go up, and going with the CBO, I would assume that they aren't going to skyrocket out of control (and until the bill is fully put into practice, it is primarily an assumption).
@bfl3tcher The CBO does not take incentives into account. The more you distort the customers incentives to not care about the prices of the goods they are getting (because insurance is covering it), the more those prices will go up and thus the more premiums will go up.
Avaiae ... you really should stop talking about yourself in such a derogatory manner. Seems your vocabulary, as well as your mentality, both...are stuck at grade 5. In this world, we all have to prove our claims. If you cannot do so, then don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
IF your father's premiums went up, there is a reason & that reason is that someone (or several someones) within the group incurred costly claims, therefore, the insurer raised the group's premiums.
avaiae ... i agree, you are quite the ignorant bitch, but you really shouldn't use such derogatory terms to describe your inadequacies :-)
Please do understand, I have no clue what your dad's "healthcare premium" is & I could care a less. But, If he's so upset about his "premium", then logically, he might consider that nationalising the health insurance industry, (that is running it on an all tax basis much the same as primary education), would solve his pocketbook's problem.
You fail faggot, My dad's businesses went up 35% so his employees did skyrocket. His personal health insurance did skyrocket and his coverage went down!!!! I have proof! I don't believe the bull shit Obama puts out, because I'm not retarded! I'm 14 and I fucking know this. Fuck democrats are dumb!!!!
@avaiae I'm glad you are so incredibly insightful. Things like "You fail faggot", "I have proof" (without saying it), "Fuck democrats are dumb!!!!", totally give credibility to everything else you say.
@avaiae Its true using harsh language does not discredit what your saying (if so, most of my videos would be invalid), but it does not help you in any way. All this does is make it seem like you are stupid, immature, and unable to argue articulately. And there are very few things that can make me legitimately "mad", and using bad words is not one of them.
@7mjf I would like to see the line in the healthcare bill, that directly levees this tax. If you are saying taxes in general are going up, thats a different subject entirely.
For the benefit of these illiterates, let's just create two gvts, a Democratic gvt and a republican gvt.
Let the Democrats tax & provide for themselves national healthcare, social security, subsidies for education, roads, & all of the necessities for which taxation is required.
Let republicans NOT be taxed &, have access to the roads they build for themselves as well as healthcare &, retirement funds they manage to save on their own not paying taxes.
For the benefit of these illiterates, let's just create two gvts, a Democratic gvt and a republican gvt.
Let the Democrats tax & provide for themselves national healthcare, social security, subsidies for education, roads, & all of the necessities for which taxation is required.
Let republicans NOT be taxed &, have access to the roads they build for themselves as well as healthcare &, retirement funds they manage to save on their own not paying taxes.
LMFAO!!!!DUDE, YOU ARE A FUCKIN RIOT! That was so fuckin funny, oh my god. The dude in that video is a STERLING example of a typical, mentally defficient, overweight, undereducated 'GOOD OLE BOY' republican. One of the first things I noticed about this video was how much faster you were able to form words and speak full sentences than him. Fucking slow in the head.It's like his brain blew a gasket & was running in safe mode or something .. good thing he didn't say a word with too many syllables.
@zackomac It has nothing to do with the words you use or how fast you use them. I have an IQ of over 140, and I like to talk slow. Besides he's wrong, why listen to him?
@zackomac How am I an idiot? Look at my post 3 down. I can prove you wrong, because I have PROOF! You don't. There for you're wrong, and you're the idiot. And even though he may not be able to speak as fast as us, doesn't make him wrong. If you look at the facts, he's actually right :P bfl3tcher just guesses as to what will happen, and ended up being wrong. Again I have proof. Look up the facts before voting for a bad president.
@avaiae "I have PROOF!", you mean you have said things without backing them up. I'm sorry, but I am not taking your story at face value. Provide evidence by citing what part of the healthcare bill increased your taxes, or provide more clear evidence to back up your "facts".
@bfl3tcher Hypocrites like you are so irritating, it makes my head want to explode. You can back your facts up no better than I can. My proof is my dad's healthcare for his business went up 35%, and his personal premiums went up 25%, now, you're probably thinking oh yea, he just lying yadda yadda but let's assume you believe it. How can I be wrong if I have proof? (take this hypothetically).
@avaiae I listed sources in the description bar, for where I got my information. I made a point of telling people where I get my facts. What I was asking from you, was to provide a link to provide evidence of the tax and premium increase your talking about. A simple news article, a line from the actual healthcare bill, or something of that nature would suffice. You provide nothing to back up what your saying. Come back with evidence or refutation of my links, or fuck right off.
@bfl3tcher I don't have the links on your fancy internet. I have them in the form of documents, which are currently at my dad's office. If I just have to, just for you, I might go scan them onto my computer.
@avaiae I'm saying for you to specifically tell me what part of the Obama Healthcare Plan raises taxes. If you cannot back up your claim, then we have nothing else to talk about. If there is not a provision in the healthcare bill to raise taxes, then taxes being raised come from elsewhere.
@bfl3tcher Since when does he have to tell you that he is going to do something? He can do whatever he wants and not tell you he is going to do it. If he says everyone will be free in 6 days, he doesn't have to also tell you that we will all die in 6 days.
@avaiae Thats complete and utter bullshit. We do not live in a tyrannical dictatorship where laws are suddenly changed on the turn of a dime; the President does not have the power to raise or lower taxes on a whim, and Congress itself does not have the power to change taxes instantly on a whim either (though they do have the power to raise or lower taxes).
@bfl3tcher I was just using an example, I know you can't suddenly change laws at the snap of a finger, I understand it is a long complex process. But for the tax changes, I didn't say they were instant, what I said was that Obama is raising taxes on my dad's business. They take affect 1-1-11, not tomorrow, or 30 minutes, but in the future.
@avaiae Well thats an entirely separate issue. My point was that the healthcare bill passed by Obama, did not directly increase taxes. The government could increase taxes, but thats an entirely separate discussion that has nothing to do with the healthcare bill.
@avaiae ... you can find the bill on Congress.org :-). So, please do go, read, copy and paste the part of the bill that says we are taxed for healthcare.
While you're at it, why don't you tell us why most Americans so readily accept the most socialistic program of all ..the "public school system" which is provided free to American children K-12 & provided byTAXATION. Yeap, funded 100% by American tax dollors.
It's clear to see that we need a degree of "socialism" .to be civilized.
@Samantha30090 Lol why would they say "If this bill is passed, you get to pay an extra 300 bucks?" Who the hell wants that? My dad's business had the premiums go up 33% or 300 grand. And what the hell was the whole 2nd part of the post. I never said that we shouldn't pay taxes to support the school system, I agree with funding the schools with tax dollars, so shut up you ignorant bitch, you can't just put words in my mouth. And finally I'm middle of the road so I agree a bit of socialism is ok.
@avaiae Man, you'd think somebody with an IQ of 140 would know how to spell "therefore". I'm with bfl3tcher, provide me some PROOFZ .. but not of the healthcare bill increasing your tax; I'd like to have some proof that you even made it through high school ...
@zackomac Why does it matter if I can spell or not? Besides just because I have a high IQ, I can't spell one word wrong? Besides I'm 14, I get straight A's, and I go to a private school, I think I can make it through highschool... and I got 4th in state at the state math competition, got 2nd at the regional spelling bee (I've just gotten lazy at spelling over the past 3 years), and I went to the state history competition, all while playing soccer, and basketball.
@avaiae No offense, but no one gives a shit about this; your background, grades, IQ, mean nothing if you aren't capable of critical thinking and making intelligent arguments.
@bfl3tcher Oh, I wasn't actually responding to you, sorry I should've clarified. That Zackomac dude asked for proof if I was smart and a productive member of society.
@avaiae For somebody so passionate about politics, perhaps you should pick up a history book and see exactly where this country will be going back to if another Republican gets elected into office next term. They're nothing but liars -- professional liars.
@zackomac I'm in the middle, not republican or democrat, but I strongly disapprove of the current president. Just because I'm in the middle doesn't mean I will always like the democrats and republicans or just one or the other. And what about Ronald Reagan? Second of all, you pick up a history book, and tell me when raising taxes on the American small businesses(Which is what Obama is doing) once worked.
@zackomac My dad's health care rates for his business went up 33%, and his personal rates went up 23, and the average increase is 22%. It's not on a website, but he has told me that his healthcare rates rose 300 grand so they went from like 900k to 1.3m where as the increase for the past ~10 years were 2 to 3 percent.
@avaiae ... if your dad's premiums "went up" 33%..." (as in past tense), then the rate increase was most likely due to the insuror's guidelines, and that doesn't usually occur unless you have high risk individuals within the employer's group.
Why should we believe what you say about your father's group insurance, increase or not? For all we know, this is just a fabrication. Please do provide us with a link to the scanned documents showing the rate increase as you've described. You can't.
@Samantha30090 I'm not making shit up, I know the fucking facts, and you don't. In fact you're such an "ignorant bitch" as you describe it, that you just say "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it." So you're the ignorant dumb ass. What is your proof that his rates didn't go up? Why would I just lie about this for no apparent reason? All I know is that his personal premiums went up 30 percent, and his business' went up 25 percent.
medicare is going broke. social security is going broke. the government runs both of these.obamacare its paid for by taxes, that is what is said at 2:40. who in the fuck pays those taxes? all of us! when businesses are forced to provide insurance, they will raise prices to offset this cost. It's their right to make money. so we will pay higher prices on top of higher taxes. Vladimir Lenin "socialized medicine is the archway to the socialist state" this is what obama wants.
Ha, You are still relatively calm when you are angry. I like it. Yay for Canada and overcoming this health care thing before I was born. When I get mad with the 45 minute wait I have at the walk in Clinic I think to my self "Well, at least I am not an american." That always makes me feel better. I honestly wish for your country to solve major problems like this soon. It would better everyone.
Oh god, listening to that guy it was like walking through the halls of my high school, I hate ignorant people who believe anything the Republicans tell them (not that other parties are much better).
BTW, it's not 4,500 that die each year, it's 45,000. So that's 1 death every 12 minutes. This comes from a study done by Harvard Medical School. Get your facts straight!!! ;)
Erm, the whole 'everyone has insurance' thing has worked quite well in, for instance, Germany, for more than a hundred years. It combines market freedom and government-guidance.
Probably still too 'socialist' for rightwing fucktards, tho'.
@EvilEuropean You could infer that from this particular video, but after watching some of his other videos I would disagree. His speech patterns connote some level of basic intelligence, and he is at least smart enough to turn on a video, render it and upload it to YouTube. And my little sister has autism and is mentally deficient, so trust me when I say that I can tell the difference between someone who has mental problems and someone who is just stupidly ignorant.
@bfl3tcher He could be on some medication then, some type of sedative? He reminds me a bit of my brother in law, who has SERIOUS mental health issues. I guess I just cant believe someone can be so willfully ignorant and not have some serious issues.
You, a little too angry? No statement is strong enough for dipshits like that. People who want other people to die for lack of basic health care should be deported to a country like Angola or Ivory Coast, where that kind of attitude is normal, and be left there to fend for themselves.
The French Healthcare System is the best in World.
Why ? Because it is given for the lazy (that's us french people ^^) so we can be even more lazier than ever. And that's understandable. I mean : we have the longest vacations, the less time for work, second best life expectancy in the world...
@nishbrown yeah just like you are not forced to pay for the fire department or like you are not forced to pay for the police. Yeah, first time, really first time.
Everyone needs Healthcare, it's not a choice anyone can make, but it's cheaper for the Tax Payer in the long run than buying into a Healthcare Plan allot cheaper.
The amount of money my mam pays in medication a month stacks up roughly to $150-200 Dollars, she can't choose to pay that or not, it's Life or Death.. I don't want my mum to die because of fuckers like Crazy Dude.
still a big fan of your videos brandon but i wonder if your always so angry or if you have to work yourself up. you are mostly right, but i get stressed out just watching you. if it's the former i worry about your health, that's all. keep up the good work.(-:
@fuctanyway It depends. I record my videos waaaay in advance. For example, this video was made about 3 weeks ago and my God Loves Abortion video was made about 8 or 9 weeks ago. Its not that I am always angry, its just that I chose to upload these videos right after another. Also I usually make videos when I am passionate (read: upset) at someone or something, so thats why there can sometimes be a bit more emotion in these videos.
Before this bill if someone got sick and did not pay their bill the fest of us had to cover it with increased health care and insurance cost. Now those people will be forced to buy insurance. I would think the right wing nut jobs would want people to take responsibility for their own health care. Oh that is right that was one of their ideas two years ago. Now it i bad. what a bunch of hypocrites.
Let's see. I have a job. I work hard at my job. I have health insurance. My premium just went down a bit. I don't cry like a retarded imbecile about having to contribute to a better society and most of all I have serious doubts that this fool has either a job or health care. And, no, you were the exact right amount of angry.
Okay, how can someone go from paycheck to paycheck (3:04) sitting on their butt and doing nothing and not working (3:21). Contradiction? Yeaaaah, I think so!
@sieg5 Most of my country believes this shit. The video he made summarized the thoughts of a lot of conservatives that I know, so attacking him attacks many more people who hold this retarded, fucked up ideology. This guy is used as a means to an end; its a shame that he was so retarded as I wouldn't have minded going after someone more intelligent who was making the same arguments.
@sieg5 Actually thats probably an exaggeration. What I should say is an extremely vocal, larger than most minority, that could cause an incredible amount of problems in the future.
The number of people who believe these things about the bill is in the majority, but people as stupid and crazy as him are a large minority.
*but your insanely childish.*
dsfawbush 10 months ago
Although I agree with you for the most part, although your insanely childish. It's not just you, but almost all ppl who disagree with each others political views.
dsfawbush 10 months ago
where in the constitution does it state we are entitled to healthcare?
nicolemanning16 1 year ago
@nicolemanning16 When did I ever say that it does?
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher so there is no right to healthcare insurance,glad we both agree on this,carry on
nicolemanning16 1 year ago
Have you ever taken a look at a list of countries with the highest standard of living and GDP? One glance will disprove all claims about gvt subsidized healthcare.
Go to Google & find the link to top 10 Countries with highest std of living ( note they all are social democracies (socialist) with nationalized healthcare (paid for thru taxation) . The US did NOT make the list
Then, find the link for GDP. US took 9th, but still under the same social democracies with the highest std of living
Samantha30090 1 year ago
Did you know that the baby Jesus is as imaginary as the idea that health care is a right?
mrplow8 1 year ago
@mrplow8 Where did I say that Healthcare was a right?
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher
You didn't say it in those exact words, but you seem to believe that it's the responsibility of the government to make sure that everyone has health care. Why do you feel this way if you don't believe that everyone has a right to health care?
mrplow8 1 year ago
@mrplow8 There is a huge difference to rights and responsibilities. The government (as it stands today) has a responsibility to provide some sort of Health Insurance Option for the people, in the same way that the government has a responsibility to provide fire departments, libraries and public schools; the government has a responsibility to provide these things because they increase the standard of living for society as a whole.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher
I don't believe that the government has the responsibility to provide any of those things. I also don't see how having those things government funded increase the standard of living of society as a whole. Those things would all exist without government. If anything, you might be able to say they increase the standard of living of individuals who otherwise couldn't afford them, but even that's arguable.
mrplow8 1 year ago
@mrplow8 The reason why I prefaced what I said with "as the government stands today" is because the state does espouse that it has a responsibility to provide these things. The government (U.S. specifically) provides these services to increase the standard of living and to provide for the general welfare of the society, and if the state is espousing that belief and taking on that responsibility, I think it should also go full force and include healthcare as well.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@mrplow8 If we did not have a state I would not be advocating for this, but because we (unfortunately) have a state that takes on this level of responsibility, I would argue that something like this is a necessary (in a statist society, in an Anarchist society I would not argue for this).
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
And forcing insurance to take on people with preexisting conditions will no doubt increase premiums, because it will decrease the input into the risk pool and increase the output from it. This invariably stops insurance from being insurance and turns it into a forced wealth redistribution scheme where people just need to pay a small annual penalty for not having insurance (rather than actually having insurance) and then when something comes up where they need insurance, they can't be denied.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 2
@JacobSpinney The problem with businesses not covering preexisting conditions is that the Health Insurance Provider has a business incentive to find any loophole possible to link current and future conditions, to those older preexisting conditions. It is cheaper to find a way to write off the current conditions as somehow "preexisting", and then not cover them, then to actually pay for whatever the current conditions may be.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher Sure. It's also cheaper for Mcdonalds to just sell you the big mac box than to sell you the actual big mac. If they do that, then not only do they open themselves up to being sued for fraud, they also give you every incentive to go to the competing insurance provider who won't screw you over with fine print.
I recognize that this problem is going on right now, but that is directly due to the distorted incentives brought about through current government intervention.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney They do open themselves up to a lawsuit, but most people do not have the financial backing to go up against a (potentially) multi-billion dollar corporation and their legal teams. In litigation, its going to come down to whoever has the deeper pockets.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher And why does it cost so much money to sue someone? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS A MONOPOLY OVER THE LEGAL SYSTEM! lol
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney This is not an issue with the Public Option itself. What I'm advocating for is essentially a non-profit Health Insurance Company (by non-profit, I don't mean free, I mean focused on providing coverage as cheaply as possible, while still remaining sustainable). The state is only being used as a means to an end in the current system that we have now.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher But in doing so, you are advocating for more government distortion as that is inevitably what will take place. The government easily grows larger and larger and it's near impossible to try to reduce it. Rather than compromising your principles, what you should do is advocate for charities to take a larger role in healthcare. NOT for the government to get involved.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney If there was a charity that would get involved, I would most definitely be more in favor of that than state involvement. However, the profit motive seems to be too enticing for anyone to get involved in setting up a charity to provide the type of healthcare I am advocating.
Because it seems private charities are unwilling to form, I am forced to turn to the state to advocate for this program. If you can point me towards a health insurance charity, I would happily support that.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher I would encourage you to look at the mutual aid societies that existed before the government began getting involved in healthcare. Those very much could be classified as charities covering healthcare. The best way to bring them back again? Ending government involvement in healthcare, not getting it involved even more.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney That would be ideal, but I'm talking about health insurance charities for the society we have now; while it would be great to not have a state, it is not something thats going to happen in the foreseeable future, and not exactly practical for right now. Do you have any other examples?
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher So we agree that the ideal is a voluntary system. The question is is it easier to repeal current healthcare distortions and go back to that voluntary system right now or would it be easier to add even more government intervention to go back to that ideal? I would argue that history is very clear on this. Governments always grow with VERY rare exceptions.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Well, quite frankly it depends; as you said previously, it is easier to grow governments than it is to shrink them. It may be easier to get the public option pushed forward than to repeal the healthcare laws (though I am definitely not opposed to that).
And we both agree that a voluntary system is ideal for everything.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
Premiums will not sky rocket just because Obama says they won't. It's a simple matter of incentives. When you have insurance cover things other than doomsday scenarios, then it doesn't work. You run into a third-party-payer conflict where the copayer cares less about how much things cost. This allows prices to increase which in turn increases premiums.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney I feel I should clarify a few things before going into a full response. First, the point of this video was to assault the fallacious claims made by Mr.CrazyDudeful, and it should not be taken as an endorsement of the Obama Healthcare Bill (which I was also extremely upset by).
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Secondly, the reason I support a Public Option (note that this does not mean Universal Healthcare, but essentially a non-profit business set up by the state, with no cost to those who do not enroll in it), is because it would introduce more competition into the marketplace (I am also in favor of removing the laws that inhibit competition in the marketplace, but thats another discussion).
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher I disagree. It's one thing to compete on a fair level. But a public option is surely not that. The public option is able to receive funds from taxes whereas private businesses cannot. Because of this government favoritism and subsidization, it is not competition. It is simply overcrowding. Who wouldn't change to a cheaper/free public plan over one a private one? The downside is it's not cheaper/free. The difference is just being paid for through taxes.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney If a Public Option (as I described previously), is implemented, it would not at all draw from tax dollars, but only those who enroll in the system. There is the possibility that it could draw from taxes in the future if it starts crumbling, but thats more of an issue with the state as a whole rather than a Public Option specifically.
The people who wouldn't want a Public Option are those who want a potentially better service provided by competing Health Insurance Companies.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher This is the problem with government solutions. The government distorts the incentive structures within the free market to the point that you have a public outcry. And what does the government do to alleviate this problem? Do they take away the distorted incentives they caused in the first place? Of course not. They just propose MORE government distortion, because you lose votes by admitting you messed up.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
The public option is not a sustainable business strategy. Venture capitalists never stop laughing when they look at a business that a government proposes. Governments are horrible entrepreneurs and they are horrible business strategists. Once the public option does fail and go bankrupt (which would be 5-10 years after its creation), do you really think the government will just let it go bankrupt? Of course. You lose votes by admitting a mistake. They'll just subsidize it instead.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
This government subsidization will allow a public option to monopolize and take over all private providers. This in essence socializes healthcare and brings with it the inevitable problems you have with monopolies; a far reduced incentive to offer the best service at the cheapest price (since there's no more competition). This is why welfare is so wasteful and prone to abuse; it is inherent within the structure of a monopoly to be so.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney The only way the public option would take over private providers, is if those private providers could not compete with a better service and with better coverage. And at that point, if the private industry cannot compete with the public option, then presumably that means the public option offers the best coverage and service, which I don't see as a bad thing.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher This is assuming the public option will be able to compete. It won't. It will fail, since it's focus is on charity rather than profitability. It will inevitably have more output than input. And once it runs out of assets to fund this ponzi scheme, the government will save the day and start subsidizing them.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Its focus would not be on charity or profitability, but sustainability. If it has more output than input, simply raise the cost to enroll and stay enrolled in the program; its a very simply solution to stop bankruptcy.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
But they don't have the profit incentive to become better. Profit is what drives innovation and efficiency. Profitable companies will continually find ways to cut costs lower and lower so that they can maintain the profit margin while charging less and less, thus enticing more customers. If an insurance company decides to not take profits, but simply charge just enough to keep their head above water, then they not only lose that incentive, they also keep themselves right at the edge of a cliff.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney If private industry is driven to become more competitive and if they drive to become more appealing than the Public Option (and they will because they obviously want those consumers to choose their service), than it will lower cost and raise the quality of service for everyone involved. If the public option later has to become dissolved because it cannot compete with the private sector, I see that as more of a success than a failure.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher Sure . . . if the government lets it dissolve. But it won't. The government never ends its own programs. If they fail, they just nationalize them. If they fail again, they just give them more funding.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Include an irreversible clause to automatically dissolve the Public Option in 5-10 years if it is either in the red, or if it no longer becomes relevant.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher Again. This is ignoring all of what history has shown us. The ideal bill is never passed. It is always a watered down bill and that automatic dissolve clause would be erased long before it gets passed. And even if it does get passed, there's no telling if they'll actually follow that rule. Just look at how many constitutional rules they violate every single day.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Just writing it off as too idealistic does not mean we could not push for it and does not mean it could be done. People write off Anarchism (in general) as too idealistic to ever be accomplished, but that does not mean it could or should not be done.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
So although they might be able to charge cheaper in the beginning, competing companies seeking profits will inevitably be able to out compete them through their profit motive of incentivizing efficiency and innovation. Thus, when the public option starts going into the red, they can't simply raise their rates to solve it, because that would only encourage even more customers to leave them.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher And if the public option truly is independent from the government, as you espouse, why do you need the government to be involved at all? Why not just create a public option all on your own?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney I do not have the expertise, the capital nor the time to go into such a venture. As I said in another comment, advocating government intervention is more of an act of desperation than something I truly desire.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher So although you are against the act of forced taxation, you are for forced taxation if it's for the purpose of gathering the capital necessary to start a charitable healthcare organization?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney I have said this about 5 times now; I am for a voluntary enrollment into the program. Linking hypothetical scenarios where the program could potentially take tax payer money (hypothetical scenarios that have devolved into me saying "it wont" and you saying "state programs always do"), does not suddenly make that my position. Let me be entirely clear; I am against taxation in all of its forms, if the public option taxes from tax dollars, I am against it.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher That was not the argument I made here. The argument I made is that you are indeed arguing that the government put forward the capital necessary to start up this public option. Where does it get that capital from? Forced taxation. We're not talking about the public option possibly being nationalized and then funded with forced taxation in the future. We're talking about the capital you advocate the government put forward RIGHT NOW to start it up. Where does that capital come from?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
"Forced taxation"
I love when you idiots use that term.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Fair enough point; I'll take some time to think about that.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney..lol, where does the capital for ANY project undertaken by the government come from? (War in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, and, and, and.)
Let's just not pay any tax at all. We'll just forget what Eisenhour did for us when he created the nat'l interstate system (called national bec it's subs'd by taxation). Lets just let them go, including our bridges, sewer systems, and infrastructure.
Oh no, it's not problem. After all, our captains of industry will be happy to subsidize them
Samantha30090 1 year ago
It's like the post office. Fed Ex cannot compete with the post office, because the post office is subsidized by the government. So although it may seem that they charge less. They actually charge MORE than the amount Fed Ex does, it's just that that increased cost is hidden in taxes. It's not competition, because people don't have the option to not pay the taxes that go toward the post office. So if people want Fed Ex, they have to pay double.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Before answering this, I feel I should mention that I am against forced taxation for government services (in many ways, I would probably qualify as an Anti-Statist or an Anarchist).
As I said before with Health Insurance, if Fed Ex provides a better services to fit what I want, then I can easily choose them as my business of choice to handle my packages. I think the main problem were getting into here, is the forced taxation and government mandate.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher If you are against forced taxation, then why are you advocating it? Get rid of forced taxation first, then have your public option that is funded voluntarily. Otherwise, you're just pouring gas on the fire.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney I am not advocating it. As I said before, the system I am advocating for is a voluntary one, which is free to enroll in. Please don't put words in my mouth, I have not spoke in favor of forced taxation.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher But the plan you advocate will inevitably lead to more forced taxation. It's like there's an infection that keeps killing all the plants in your garden. You can't just decide to continue planting more plants. They'll just keep getting infected. You need to kill off the infection first before you can replant. By advocating for a public option that WILL inevitably be funded through forced taxation, you are advocating for more power to be given to an institution you disapprove of.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Now to get on with addressing a few of your points.
Premiums will obviously go up, because of the additional cost associated with covering more injuries. The main dispute is how much they will go up, and going with the CBO, I would assume that they aren't going to skyrocket out of control (and until the bill is fully put into practice, it is primarily an assumption).
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher The CBO does not take incentives into account. The more you distort the customers incentives to not care about the prices of the goods they are getting (because insurance is covering it), the more those prices will go up and thus the more premiums will go up.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
Avaiae ... you really should stop talking about yourself in such a derogatory manner. Seems your vocabulary, as well as your mentality, both...are stuck at grade 5. In this world, we all have to prove our claims. If you cannot do so, then don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
IF your father's premiums went up, there is a reason & that reason is that someone (or several someones) within the group incurred costly claims, therefore, the insurer raised the group's premiums.
Samantha30090 1 year ago
It's okay to be angry with someone who says "people who live from paycheck to paycheck do not work hard enough to deserve affordable health care"
itinkuno 1 year ago
avaiae ... i agree, you are quite the ignorant bitch, but you really shouldn't use such derogatory terms to describe your inadequacies :-)
Please do understand, I have no clue what your dad's "healthcare premium" is & I could care a less. But, If he's so upset about his "premium", then logically, he might consider that nationalising the health insurance industry, (that is running it on an all tax basis much the same as primary education), would solve his pocketbook's problem.
Samantha30090 1 year ago
You fail faggot, My dad's businesses went up 35% so his employees did skyrocket. His personal health insurance did skyrocket and his coverage went down!!!! I have proof! I don't believe the bull shit Obama puts out, because I'm not retarded! I'm 14 and I fucking know this. Fuck democrats are dumb!!!!
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae I'm glad you are so incredibly insightful. Things like "You fail faggot", "I have proof" (without saying it), "Fuck democrats are dumb!!!!", totally give credibility to everything else you say.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher I don't care if I'm credible or not based on the language I choose to use. I am passionate about politics, and felt like making you mad.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae Its true using harsh language does not discredit what your saying (if so, most of my videos would be invalid), but it does not help you in any way. All this does is make it seem like you are stupid, immature, and unable to argue articulately. And there are very few things that can make me legitimately "mad", and using bad words is not one of them.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
I am getting hit 5% on everything I make over $250,000 this year because of the healthcare bill.
7mjf 1 year ago
@7mjf My dad got hit 35% on health care and he makes well over 250 a year. And his taxes went up 7 percent.
avaiae 1 year ago
@7mjf I would like to see the line in the healthcare bill, that directly levees this tax. If you are saying taxes in general are going up, thats a different subject entirely.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
We have so many stupid people in this country who are afraid and so willfully ignorant to the facts. I wonder if they ever heard of being objective.
DarkMagus1985 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For the benefit of these illiterates, let's just create two gvts, a Democratic gvt and a republican gvt.
Let the Democrats tax & provide for themselves national healthcare, social security, subsidies for education, roads, & all of the necessities for which taxation is required.
Let republicans NOT be taxed &, have access to the roads they build for themselves as well as healthcare &, retirement funds they manage to save on their own not paying taxes.
We'll see who comes out better.
Samantha30090 1 year ago
For the benefit of these illiterates, let's just create two gvts, a Democratic gvt and a republican gvt.
Let the Democrats tax & provide for themselves national healthcare, social security, subsidies for education, roads, & all of the necessities for which taxation is required.
Let republicans NOT be taxed &, have access to the roads they build for themselves as well as healthcare &, retirement funds they manage to save on their own not paying taxes.
We'll see who comes out better.
Samantha30090 1 year ago
LMFAO!!!!DUDE, YOU ARE A FUCKIN RIOT! That was so fuckin funny, oh my god. The dude in that video is a STERLING example of a typical, mentally defficient, overweight, undereducated 'GOOD OLE BOY' republican. One of the first things I noticed about this video was how much faster you were able to form words and speak full sentences than him. Fucking slow in the head.It's like his brain blew a gasket & was running in safe mode or something .. good thing he didn't say a word with too many syllables.
zackomac 1 year ago
@zackomac It has nothing to do with the words you use or how fast you use them. I have an IQ of over 140, and I like to talk slow. Besides he's wrong, why listen to him?
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae Well golly, with an IQ of over 140 you'd surely be able to comprehend that this guy is 100% correct. :-)
& to the original poster, please keep making these videos, it makes these idiots so mad lmao
zackomac 1 year ago
@zackomac How am I an idiot? Look at my post 3 down. I can prove you wrong, because I have PROOF! You don't. There for you're wrong, and you're the idiot. And even though he may not be able to speak as fast as us, doesn't make him wrong. If you look at the facts, he's actually right :P bfl3tcher just guesses as to what will happen, and ended up being wrong. Again I have proof. Look up the facts before voting for a bad president.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae "I have PROOF!", you mean you have said things without backing them up. I'm sorry, but I am not taking your story at face value. Provide evidence by citing what part of the healthcare bill increased your taxes, or provide more clear evidence to back up your "facts".
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher Hypocrites like you are so irritating, it makes my head want to explode. You can back your facts up no better than I can. My proof is my dad's healthcare for his business went up 35%, and his personal premiums went up 25%, now, you're probably thinking oh yea, he just lying yadda yadda but let's assume you believe it. How can I be wrong if I have proof? (take this hypothetically).
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae I listed sources in the description bar, for where I got my information. I made a point of telling people where I get my facts. What I was asking from you, was to provide a link to provide evidence of the tax and premium increase your talking about. A simple news article, a line from the actual healthcare bill, or something of that nature would suffice. You provide nothing to back up what your saying. Come back with evidence or refutation of my links, or fuck right off.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher I don't have the links on your fancy internet. I have them in the form of documents, which are currently at my dad's office. If I just have to, just for you, I might go scan them onto my computer.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae I'm saying for you to specifically tell me what part of the Obama Healthcare Plan raises taxes. If you cannot back up your claim, then we have nothing else to talk about. If there is not a provision in the healthcare bill to raise taxes, then taxes being raised come from elsewhere.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher Since when does he have to tell you that he is going to do something? He can do whatever he wants and not tell you he is going to do it. If he says everyone will be free in 6 days, he doesn't have to also tell you that we will all die in 6 days.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae Thats complete and utter bullshit. We do not live in a tyrannical dictatorship where laws are suddenly changed on the turn of a dime; the President does not have the power to raise or lower taxes on a whim, and Congress itself does not have the power to change taxes instantly on a whim either (though they do have the power to raise or lower taxes).
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher lol. DA LIEZ
zackomac 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher I was just using an example, I know you can't suddenly change laws at the snap of a finger, I understand it is a long complex process. But for the tax changes, I didn't say they were instant, what I said was that Obama is raising taxes on my dad's business. They take affect 1-1-11, not tomorrow, or 30 minutes, but in the future.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae Well thats an entirely separate issue. My point was that the healthcare bill passed by Obama, did not directly increase taxes. The government could increase taxes, but thats an entirely separate discussion that has nothing to do with the healthcare bill.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@avaiae ... you can find the bill on Congress.org :-). So, please do go, read, copy and paste the part of the bill that says we are taxed for healthcare.
While you're at it, why don't you tell us why most Americans so readily accept the most socialistic program of all ..the "public school system" which is provided free to American children K-12 & provided byTAXATION. Yeap, funded 100% by American tax dollors.
It's clear to see that we need a degree of "socialism" .to be civilized.
Samantha30090 1 year ago
@Samantha30090 Lol why would they say "If this bill is passed, you get to pay an extra 300 bucks?" Who the hell wants that? My dad's business had the premiums go up 33% or 300 grand. And what the hell was the whole 2nd part of the post. I never said that we shouldn't pay taxes to support the school system, I agree with funding the schools with tax dollars, so shut up you ignorant bitch, you can't just put words in my mouth. And finally I'm middle of the road so I agree a bit of socialism is ok.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae Man, you'd think somebody with an IQ of 140 would know how to spell "therefore". I'm with bfl3tcher, provide me some PROOFZ .. but not of the healthcare bill increasing your tax; I'd like to have some proof that you even made it through high school ...
zackomac 1 year ago
@zackomac Why does it matter if I can spell or not? Besides just because I have a high IQ, I can't spell one word wrong? Besides I'm 14, I get straight A's, and I go to a private school, I think I can make it through highschool... and I got 4th in state at the state math competition, got 2nd at the regional spelling bee (I've just gotten lazy at spelling over the past 3 years), and I went to the state history competition, all while playing soccer, and basketball.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae No offense, but no one gives a shit about this; your background, grades, IQ, mean nothing if you aren't capable of critical thinking and making intelligent arguments.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher Oh, I wasn't actually responding to you, sorry I should've clarified. That Zackomac dude asked for proof if I was smart and a productive member of society.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae Fair enough.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@avaiae For somebody so passionate about politics, perhaps you should pick up a history book and see exactly where this country will be going back to if another Republican gets elected into office next term. They're nothing but liars -- professional liars.
zackomac 1 year ago
@zackomac I'm in the middle, not republican or democrat, but I strongly disapprove of the current president. Just because I'm in the middle doesn't mean I will always like the democrats and republicans or just one or the other. And what about Ronald Reagan? Second of all, you pick up a history book, and tell me when raising taxes on the American small businesses(Which is what Obama is doing) once worked.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae Show me the facts.
zackomac 1 year ago
@zackomac My dad's health care rates for his business went up 33%, and his personal rates went up 23, and the average increase is 22%. It's not on a website, but he has told me that his healthcare rates rose 300 grand so they went from like 900k to 1.3m where as the increase for the past ~10 years were 2 to 3 percent.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae ... if your dad's premiums "went up" 33%..." (as in past tense), then the rate increase was most likely due to the insuror's guidelines, and that doesn't usually occur unless you have high risk individuals within the employer's group.
Why should we believe what you say about your father's group insurance, increase or not? For all we know, this is just a fabrication. Please do provide us with a link to the scanned documents showing the rate increase as you've described. You can't.
Samantha30090 1 year ago
@Samantha30090 I'm not making shit up, I know the fucking facts, and you don't. In fact you're such an "ignorant bitch" as you describe it, that you just say "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it." So you're the ignorant dumb ass. What is your proof that his rates didn't go up? Why would I just lie about this for no apparent reason? All I know is that his personal premiums went up 30 percent, and his business' went up 25 percent.
avaiae 1 year ago
@avaiae .... I agree, you are an ignorant bitch, but I keep telling you, don't talk about yourself in such derogatory manner!
You can say anything, at all, but until you prove what you're saying .... well, you're just another liar! Sorry :-)
la vida va al mejor educado !
Samantha30090 1 year ago
I cant argue with you over youtube. So ill let Rush do that for you. Give him a call.
c3po402 1 year ago
@c3po402 Thats nice...
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@c3po402 Rush Limbaugh? lmfao another stupid fat ignoramus, no better than the idiot in this video
zackomac 1 year ago
medicare is going broke. social security is going broke. the government runs both of these.obamacare its paid for by taxes, that is what is said at 2:40. who in the fuck pays those taxes? all of us! when businesses are forced to provide insurance, they will raise prices to offset this cost. It's their right to make money. so we will pay higher prices on top of higher taxes. Vladimir Lenin "socialized medicine is the archway to the socialist state" this is what obama wants.
jim8569 1 year ago
Ha, You are still relatively calm when you are angry. I like it. Yay for Canada and overcoming this health care thing before I was born. When I get mad with the 45 minute wait I have at the walk in Clinic I think to my self "Well, at least I am not an american." That always makes me feel better. I honestly wish for your country to solve major problems like this soon. It would better everyone.
dawncampbell666 1 year ago
Comment removed
ReligiousJezta 1 year ago
cool video keep up the good fight. Conservatives are nothing more than trolls on acid!
franks2732 1 year ago
Oh god, listening to that guy it was like walking through the halls of my high school, I hate ignorant people who believe anything the Republicans tell them (not that other parties are much better).
Illusenfan35 1 year ago
LMAO!!! That should be a new show: Finish the line “Did you know that baby Jesus cries when…”
ReligiousJezta 1 year ago
BTW, it's not 4,500 that die each year, it's 45,000. So that's 1 death every 12 minutes. This comes from a study done by Harvard Medical School. Get your facts straight!!! ;)
Polskais1 1 year ago
@Polskais1 I know I misspoke in a fit of unhappiness and didn't catch it. The article I linked from the NYT with the Harvard study says 45,000.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
Erm, the whole 'everyone has insurance' thing has worked quite well in, for instance, Germany, for more than a hundred years. It combines market freedom and government-guidance.
Probably still too 'socialist' for rightwing fucktards, tho'.
The0d0r1c 1 year ago
He sounds kinda... slow doesnt he.
I mean not even compared to your fast talking, he just sounds reeeeaaaally mentally slow.
Good video.
benthediceman1 1 year ago
Brandon, I think your being to mean on the guy, he clearly has some sort of mental health issues, possibly retardation.
EvilEuropean 1 year ago
@EvilEuropean You could infer that from this particular video, but after watching some of his other videos I would disagree. His speech patterns connote some level of basic intelligence, and he is at least smart enough to turn on a video, render it and upload it to YouTube. And my little sister has autism and is mentally deficient, so trust me when I say that I can tell the difference between someone who has mental problems and someone who is just stupidly ignorant.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher He could be on some medication then, some type of sedative? He reminds me a bit of my brother in law, who has SERIOUS mental health issues. I guess I just cant believe someone can be so willfully ignorant and not have some serious issues.
EvilEuropean 1 year ago
Damn, CrapsWithBears take on that idiot sure wasn't far off the mark.
DooMDrat 1 year ago
"May Have" !?
DarkTheAtheist 1 year ago
You, a little too angry? No statement is strong enough for dipshits like that. People who want other people to die for lack of basic health care should be deported to a country like Angola or Ivory Coast, where that kind of attitude is normal, and be left there to fend for themselves.
youneac 1 year ago
The French Healthcare System is the best in World.
Why ? Because it is given for the lazy (that's us french people ^^) so we can be even more lazier than ever. And that's understandable. I mean : we have the longest vacations, the less time for work, second best life expectancy in the world...
...even you guys couldn't say no ;P
lapkine77 1 year ago
4:00 You sir, were just angry enough.
jussts 1 year ago
Not spending is not saving. The Medicare allocation is spent elsewhere in the bill. There is no saving.
First time in history that the government has forced people to buy something.
nishbrown 1 year ago
@nishbrown yeah just like you are not forced to pay for the fire department or like you are not forced to pay for the police. Yeah, first time, really first time.
NathanWubs 1 year ago
Everyone needs Healthcare, it's not a choice anyone can make, but it's cheaper for the Tax Payer in the long run than buying into a Healthcare Plan allot cheaper.
The amount of money my mam pays in medication a month stacks up roughly to $150-200 Dollars, she can't choose to pay that or not, it's Life or Death.. I don't want my mum to die because of fuckers like Crazy Dude.
2DRonaldo 1 year ago
still a big fan of your videos brandon but i wonder if your always so angry or if you have to work yourself up. you are mostly right, but i get stressed out just watching you. if it's the former i worry about your health, that's all. keep up the good work.(-:
fuctanyway 1 year ago
@fuctanyway It depends. I record my videos waaaay in advance. For example, this video was made about 3 weeks ago and my God Loves Abortion video was made about 8 or 9 weeks ago. Its not that I am always angry, its just that I chose to upload these videos right after another. Also I usually make videos when I am passionate (read: upset) at someone or something, so thats why there can sometimes be a bit more emotion in these videos.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
FNM
Rocks!
johncrab67 1 year ago
nah i'd say this is about the right amount of angry
liesandtricks 1 year ago
Great video and no you weren't too angry in this video.
kelliko70 1 year ago
Before this bill if someone got sick and did not pay their bill the fest of us had to cover it with increased health care and insurance cost. Now those people will be forced to buy insurance. I would think the right wing nut jobs would want people to take responsibility for their own health care. Oh that is right that was one of their ideas two years ago. Now it i bad. what a bunch of hypocrites.
torqueman6 1 year ago
Mrcrazybutthurt is one of those people that make me think free speech may be a bad thing at times.
Darkfirebrand 1 year ago
Yeah, because if you aren't working right now then you CLEARLY don't deserve to be treated when they suddenly have a stroke!
Talk about lacking compassion. His god comands love, but but hell will freeze over if he actualy gives it!
Nightmare060 1 year ago
So very well said Brandon, just great. And it was EXACTLY the right level of anger.
LithodidMan 1 year ago
rofl at pwnage
Darthvader1551 1 year ago
You're kinda cute when you're angry.
kokobaboko 1 year ago
Let's see. I have a job. I work hard at my job. I have health insurance. My premium just went down a bit. I don't cry like a retarded imbecile about having to contribute to a better society and most of all I have serious doubts that this fool has either a job or health care. And, no, you were the exact right amount of angry.
prodigyat9 1 year ago
@prodigyat9
And let's be honest; this fat fucking piece of shit is certainly going to require health care and in the not too distant future.
prodigyat9 1 year ago
...
Okay, how can someone go from paycheck to paycheck (3:04) sitting on their butt and doing nothing and not working (3:21). Contradiction? Yeaaaah, I think so!
What a dumbshit.
dynamiteruby 1 year ago 2
@dynamiteruby
Nice catch dr!
prodigyat9 1 year ago
@dynamiteruby Come on, it's totally possible in mrdudeful's crazy, fucked up world :)
tattooskin72 1 year ago
Is dat sum Mike Patton?
DackIsBack 1 year ago
@DackIsBack Dat is sum Mike Patton era Faith No Morez
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher Mike Patton is God Like ;d
Haha, I have almost everything he's ever recorded(studio albums anyway).
Mr. Bungle is so under rated, Azrienoch got +10 internetz for saying " 'Disco Volante' changed his life" or something along those lines ROFL!!
DackIsBack 1 year ago
why are you arguing with the fox news crowd?
sieg5 1 year ago
@sieg5 Most of my country believes this shit. The video he made summarized the thoughts of a lot of conservatives that I know, so attacking him attacks many more people who hold this retarded, fucked up ideology. This guy is used as a means to an end; its a shame that he was so retarded as I wouldn't have minded going after someone more intelligent who was making the same arguments.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
@bfl3tcher "Most of my country believes this shit." ... dud, I'm sorry ... I thought they were a retarded minority you could just ignore :/
sieg5 1 year ago
@sieg5 Actually thats probably an exaggeration. What I should say is an extremely vocal, larger than most minority, that could cause an incredible amount of problems in the future.
The number of people who believe these things about the bill is in the majority, but people as stupid and crazy as him are a large minority.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
No, I think you had the appropriate response. You were just angry enough.
tecnoblix 1 year ago
I loved this. You really made me happy with this one :D Would've been great if you had entered this in the Pwnage Olympics
Sn0wGl0b3 1 year ago
lololol America
RenegadeSniper7 1 year ago
The word is "lying", not "lieing".
noJungleKiss 1 year ago
@noJungleKiss Yeah, that was a big fuck up I should have noticed.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago