There is plenty of FAT to cut off our psychotic military budget. Enough to pay for healthcare - especially if we take away the unnecessary added expense of insurance company suits living large. They shouldn't be feeding off the misfortune of fellow Americans anyway.
Healthcare is a right in a civilized society. If we instituted a single-payer system with all physicians included & ran it like Medicare, we'd be much better off - it would be simpler & have more choices. Eliminating the Insurance Cartel profits would reduce costs & eliminating their death panels would reduce preventable deaths. It could EASILY be paid for by reducing our psychotically high military budget. Do we really NEED to spend more on military than the rest of the world? Think about it.
@tripfunkmonster Did the millions of Russians that starved to death under Lenin and Stalin have 'the right' to not starve to death? Probably; but because they believed in that right, they starved to death.
@tripfunkmonster I don't think so. The Russians were told that everything was to be 'socially owned' where everyone would have a 'right' to everything, which is impossible. In reality, the farms and factories went to a bureaucracy that had no way of determining what the exchange ratio or prices should be, and as a result millions of russians starved in the '20s and '30s. So by buying into the myth of promised 'rights' they were denied the rights they thought they were submitting to.
@guyjohn59: I'm talking about the U.S. having single payer healthcare. We could easily afford it if we cut our military spending. Why do you bring up a failed military dictatorship that was run by one of history's most bloodthirsty psychopaths? What does that have to do with healthcare? If Stalin was a human being instead of a monster he wouldn't have spent so much on military & starved tens of millions of his people. I don't understand why you commented on it. What do you think I'm discussing?
@tripfunkmonster I guess it was a more general comment, than specific to you. But what you consider single payer and what will get implemented under the banner of single payer is worlds apart, and that is the point of bringing up russia. Everyone was promised a job, food, health care, education, goods, you name it. Everybody wants these things and everybody promises them. That's not unique. But who is implementing them...
@guyjohn59: Oh, you were making a connection of healthcare to Socialism? (Under Stalin, Russia was a dictatorship-not socialist) In 1977 a Gallup pole showed that 77% of Americans thought healthcare was guaranteed by the Constitution. You can think that means people don't know the constitution, but I think it says a lot about what's happened to us in the Fascist Era. People used to think a democracy was meant to take care of us. Now, people only want money - even if it buys nothing but crap.
@guyjohn59: In the 1930s & 40's, people knew that socialism was a system in which a middle class could thrive. It meant that a small group of "elitists" couldn't control a large group of working people. Several leaders (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) used language to manipulate people into thinking they would give them one thing - but in actuality they would get something very different. Here in the U.S., we decided to paint socialism as the work of Satan. That's why people have an irrational hatred of it
@tripfunkmonster I'll just echo my previous comment. You are never going to be asked to swallow a pill of 'socialism', so the word is meaningless. What happens is bills get passed, which people who call themselves socialists, conservatives, liberals, etc. all are for, and then when they turn out horrible and bankrupt, and cause infinitely more problems, the so-called advocates just go on to advocating something else.
@tripfunkmonster That's right because when China moved away from socialist policies in thr 70's the middle class almost disappeared. Oh that's right China's market policies created one.
@MzBUZZKILINGTON I was replying to your statement... In the 1930s & 40's, people knew that socialism was a system in which a middle class could thrive. And thanks for agreeing with me.
@MzBUZZKILINGTON: China never instituted socialist policies - they were always a Statist Dictatorship under Mao. Now they are a Capitalist Statist Dictatorship. Now it's their turn to start a middle class to feed off as Wall St. gets rid of the American middle class who got too greedy. Imagine - wanting democracy AND Capitalism.
Fuck the republicans! Obama could have been a great president if they hadn't filibustered every fucking everything. They have become to corrupt and self-centered
@TheHomelessCripple: Most democrats are bad also. They are just the moderate wing of the demipublican party. The republicans are the greedy, selfish, militaristic extremists of THE PARTY.
The only way we can attempt to control insurance is to choose which insurance we buy. A single payer system not only limits the amount of control an individual has over their health care, but it becomes a necessity with punishment if not purchased. Who's doing the controlling? The people, or the government? At least you can choose who you buy insurance from.
If healthcare is supposed to be a human right, then how is it that more important things to human life, such as food, housing, and clothing, are not greater priorities? Why not make everything into a "right", and totally remove the incentive to be productive?
Obama has been quoted in the past as supporting a single (government) payer system. Health care is NOT a "right".
Natural rights do not impose an obligation on others except the negative obligation to refrain from violating your rights. Positive rights (also called human rights, phoney rights, wishes and more) require that the natural rights of others be violated in order to provide YOU with (fill in the blank) healthcare, education, a trip to Disney World or whatever.
organized crime syndakits are at the head of most unions. unions served a purpose a while ago but these days it's just a way for lazy people to keep their jobs and work less while making more.
The profit motive is good, but does that mean that it's good in all times and in all situations?
I like the way Bill Maher said it. Just as the profit motive drives our economy, the sex drive perpetuates the species, and that's good. But there are still some people you're not supposed to fuck.
I've had private health insurance, and now I'm got medicare, and the Aetna beurocracy was WAY more aggressive about getting into my health care decisions.
Yeah, living in a world where everyone has a place to live, clothes to wear, and food to eat sounds terrible.
I'd much prefer a world where people only look out for number one and will protect their "right" to screw their neighbour out of a nickel 'cause profitability is next to godliness.
Well lets just have the state take control of the agriculture industry, the food distribution industry, the health care industry, the clothing industry, the housing industry, and while we're at it (people need cars!) the automotive industry.
We'll have the state set prices, salaries, and where people in those industries will work.
The result? Quality will go down, while costs will go up. Innovation will go down while bureaucracy increases. But that's the cost of socialism.
Hey guess what? All of those industries already get lots of PUBLIC money but claim that because they're PRIVATE corporations the people shouldn't have a say in what they do. Just shut up and buy our crap while we bathe in gov't subsidies and corporate welfare, but don't ask for accountability or transparency -- that would be evil old "socialism."
All state welfare is wrong be it corporate or at the individual level. Because it rests on the redistribution of wealth, which is only completed by the taking of wealth by force.
Democracy is the rule of majority. However, it requires individual virtue. That is to say, it requires people to have respect for the minorities rights and property. Unfortunately, we have many people who want to (and do) legislate theft for their own benefit.
Redistribution of wealth recognizes that rich people and poor people aren't created by God -- a few people are rich because lots of people are poor.
If you are well-off and are benefitting so greatly from your society it's only appropriate for you to put back in. And if you are poor and get a helping hand to get a higher education or start a business it's not just for funsies -- it's so you can contribute and ALL of society benefits.
Redistribution of wealth relies on violence. It is the premise that someone in government knows "how best to organize society" and is willing to use the power of the state to take away someone's property and give it to another.
Would you go up to a "rich" person's house and demand half their income at the point of a gun, because they have more money than you? I doubt it. However, this is exactly what you advocate the state doing. Theft does not become moral when committed by the state.
Again, in a DEMOCRACY the government only governs with the consent of the PEOPLE. In a just society the people recognize that the wealthy cannot just take, they need to put back in.
In REALITY the severe imbalance of wealth (with a few people owning most while most people have little or nothing) is maintained through ACTUAL violence which you so abhor in the hypothetical. Union organizers, those campaigning for workers' rights or Aboriginal rights are threatened, beaten, murdered.
You have a Marxist view of economics. It is not a zero sum game, for the rich to gain wealth they are not taking it from any one else. That is to say, everyone wins from mutual transactions.
As for the major source of violence in society. If someone came to your home and demanded half of your income or they will shoot you, would you consider that violence?
How many people pay taxes?
As for "consent" in a democracy, how much consent is asked by modern politicians once elected?
@boxant Again with this hypothetical person with a gun demanding your money. All the while ignoring my examples of ACTUAL violence perpetrated by the rich and powerful in the interest of keeping their wealth and power.
Sorry, but wealth comes from somewhere. Do I have to do the math for you to see that if the CEO cuts the workers' wages in half he gets to use that money to award himself a big fat million dollar bonus check at the end of the year.
If a CEO cuts his workers wages simply for personal profit, it will damage his business and strengthen his competition. The CEO and the worker are in a mutual relationship, it is a choice.
Yes there is a lot of violence in society and it is unfortunate. However, I would like to see violence decrease and I do not see how increasing state power will do so.
@boxant It might sink his business in a year or two but he still gets to skip away with his millions. They are only in a mutual relationship if they CEO chooses to act responsibly, and current corporate practice pretty much dictates that immediate profits are more desirable and important than long-term sustainability.
People and their officials should be as worried about corporate crime as they are about "some dude with a gun."
We can not legislate people to behave ethically, there will always be theft. However, to compare corporate power with state power is a grossly inaccurate. State power is unavoidable and violent. Corporations can not tax, conscript or print money.
@boxant I've never read Marx. I think I have a holistic view of economics that takes things into account like environmental damage, the health of the community, quality of life for all. Y'know, those trivial little things that "conventional economics" likes to ignore.
If a paper mill makes $ while it pollutes a river do we not take the cost to the community into account? It's the PEOPLE who will have to pay for being unhealthy, less fish, sick children. Their LOSS is a GAIN for the company.
If a company pollutes someone's property or damages people's health, then there is legal recourse and there is negative public opinion. Both of which result in weakening the business and making it vulnerable to it's competition. It is not in the companies interest.
It is only when companies can get state protection that they are free to pollute.
I am a big advocate of the rights of individuals, I do not see big government as a defender of those rights, more like the opposite.
@boxant Ask the family members of the people killed in the Bhopal disaster if "legal recourse" and "negative public opinion" mean anything when poor people take on a powerful multinational corporation. Huge companies can COERCE or BUY state protection when we decide that money is more important than people.
it's a right in every other western country, why is that? why are all these other western countries ranked higher in health care? because like it or not it works better!
It should be a right. Make the world a better place to be in. I'd think that if you cared about your fellow citizens you'd want it to be a right and not subject to ability to pay.
Health care is state sovereignty issue, at least for now. States should not be forced into a health care system that was created by political elitists & insurance corp. at the federal level. The federal gov. has too much power.
If the mouth breathers in a state want their care from a corporation that is their folly. Let them learn form their mistakes, if they can.
Single payer care in progressive states would force the population to participate in local politics, strengthening their state.
PLEASE EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS HR676 PUT a BIG SIGN in your home window or your car window, and spread the word to you neighbors. PLEASE WE NEED to make an impact, if we truly are the majority on this issue.
Here is my argument for those opposed to single payer.
How many people are uninsured in;
Canada, England, France, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, China, Hong Kong, India, Isreal (which we pay for with American dollars, by the way) Singapore, Thailand, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Health care is a human right. And higher education should be free for those who want it. A healthy and educated population would be in the best interests of our country. You would have to be an imbecile or a Republican (same thing, really) to think otherwise.
Doctor's should be slaves providing free labor then, if it were truly a right. A right can't infringe upon another's right to their own labor and property, sorry. Only an imbecile would think otherwise... Should there be charity to provide for those that can't afford it? Sure! We already have state-coerced charity via Medicare/Medicaid, but that is immoral. The govt. should be promoting charities, and those concerned citizens should be donating heartily.
The pending single payer legislation keeps doctors offices privately owned, i think you should read why so many doctors are advocating single payer, read PNHP website
Why not let people take care of their own medical coverage the way they buy their own food, their own insurance, and seek their own jobs. All of these are necessary, essential even, yet government doesn't, nor should, have a role in providing them.
lol...its senselss to argue over something like this....they're just going to do what THEY want to do anyway, none of your voices count, at all. Americans dont matter to the American "Government"....we are all just numbers....so whatever, I just had to comment on the arguments here lol....things will never get better, at all, they control us and there's nothing we can do about it ^_^
$2.5 trillion or $8,100 per head on health care projected for 2010, which represents 17.6% of our annual GDP. That is half as much as the 11% of GDP spent in France and Germany and almost double the 9% in Britain and the OECD (representing dozens of countries globally) as a whole.
Fundamental problem lies in the for-profit health care as a commodity model which 30% go to insurance co's profits & admin. cost. Eliminate this model would save BIG MONEY for a more comprehensive coverage!
Now is when all the big entrenched powers are going to make a strong attack on Single Payer. They are protecting their wallets and do not care about real people. Damn them!!
I am fully aware of the governmental structure of the United States of America. And, it is a democracy. Not sure what you think that accomplished.
In the end there will be universal health care. This is because most Amercans believe that everyone should have access to health care. The only question is are we going to make a system that makes sense or one that costs way too much. It is not if there will be universal health care but when. It will become a right - as in all democracies
Comparing those countries to the U.S. is like comparing Switzerland to the European Union, it just isn't balanced enough to make a legitiment case.
You can't compare an Empire that costs 1trillion dollars a year + welfare we already have + benefits
The way our system is, our welfare system does more harm than good and it's been proven. It makes people dependent on the government so much that most never end up working later on in life, but feed off the system. That is why it is where it is.
Typical rightist hype. Who says whether it is a right or priveledge? In a democracy the people do. Every individual has the right to voice their opinion. My opinion is it is a right. However, whether it is a right or priveledge is not provable since it is an assumption. However, if most Americans,as they do, believe it is a right then the government has the obligation to make sure everyone has health care access. Then again, the powerful never give the people what they want in the US
First of all, don't "label" me as a rightist, leftist, etc. this isn't a left right issue.
2nd, It is up to the Individual to want to take care of themselves ( or just get sick ) , if they chose not to and want someone else to do it for them, that makes it a privilege for them.
3rd. " In a democracy "
That is where you, the conventional thinking and the left & right are dead wrong and have been for many many years.
This is the "Republic Of The United States Of America"
So you like the idea of a select few deciding for the rest? Sorry, I don't. I don't need someone who "gets it free" to tell me that I should have to pay.
It is not the point of being big against small it is a just a different scale. The point is that nobody should have the worry about their financial situation in case they get an illness, it is the right to get proper medical care, that is why we are living in a civil world. That people go bankrupt on other things is complete different matter. And leeches you will find in any kind of system, but I refuse to use exceptions as a common rule.
" No one should have to worry about their financial situation in case they get an illness"
You're absolutely right. But then, how do you justify me working 40+ hours a week to put food on the table, barely making it to pay my bills then having to pay for someone else's medical problems when I take care of myself?
See, it's not as simple as black and white.
In order for the govt. to fund, you have to take from someone else and that's where my problem is.
"In order for the govt. to fund, you have to take from someone else"
Try putting it differently: In order for all to participate equally, all must contribute together, equally.
If you assume that all persons are inherently divided, and capitalist at the core, then your conserns are justified: we should all ONLy focus on our own profit maximization. But don't assume that, and you might find radically different conclusions--conclusions those in power hope to keep locked away.
You got it, Its time the parastitic insurance companys went the way of the dinosaur. With the massive population like the states compared to Canada or GB France and the list goes on its all paid for from our takes and shared copayes between employers employees and Province
Sorry to tell you but you are already doing that with medicaide and medicare. The question you should be asking is: why should they get their health care expenditures paid 100% BY YOU, and you not getting yours paid at all?
If we take the taxes out for this like a sales tax instead of an employment tax then EVERYONE that buys ANYTHING will be paying and then you shouldn't have to pay insurance, medicare and medicaid out of your paycheck. See how that works?
1 in 11 households in America have a storage unit. We buy piles and piles of shit. We buy new cars and finance them (insanity).
We buy big houses we cannot afford and certainly do not need.
Americans go bankrupt because they are bad with money, due to the fact that there is no financial education in this country. Only collective ignorance passed down from generation to generation.
You're absolutely wrong here. The debtor economy did not begin because somehow Americans don't understand how to budget. Americans are, via credit and loan SYSTEMS, encouraged to borrow and spend beyond their means. This is especially true since the early 80s and after the financialization of the economy, where the power of wealth in this country began to be driven purely by finance and credit.
So you are suggesting that Americans have no choice but to go grossly into debt and buy new cars, big TVs and tons of other crap? Could you explain why the average American has thousands of dollars in credit card debt? I am surprised you are trying to argue this. People have all the choice in the world. Just because they're encouraged to go into debt means nothing.
And no Americans do not budget as a general rule. They just spend about what they think they can afford and are generally wrong.
If people handled their finances more wisely (not use credit cards and buy other things which will cost interest) they would be able to pay for their own insurance and thus avoid the "health care expenditure" bankruptcy.
I'll say it again. 87% of americans make more money then I do and I take care of my own health insurance. Why cant others?
Good for you, just because YOU can do it, that naturally means that EVERYONE else is doing something wrong, NOT that they are being charged MORE than you for premiums or their coverage is LESS than yours. Way to go there buddy, I bet the air is great up there on that pedestal you have put YOURSELF on.
I think you put too much weight "choice" to the exclusion of structural necessity. For instance, I chose to go to college, but in order to do so I had to be tremendously in debt, for the next 30 years. Same with my house. I chose to buy a car so that I could get to work, which again put me more in debt, etc. Now as far as credit card debt goes, that is an entire industry built on creating consumer debt, buy now pay later...more...
The credit industry, one of the biggest bonanzas of capitalism, would be bankrupt without mass consumer debt to which it depends. Finance and big banks then take this debt over for both security and profit based speculation. They too make their billions, etc. This is all to say that it is too simplistic to boil this down to individuals. That is to miss the boat, by ignoring the entire structure within which individuals operate, that depends on consumer debt.
" For Decades Reliance on the market and efforts to patent together a public and private mix has failed to guarantee quality healthcare to all Americans "
Ms. Flowers, You said it right there - EFFORTS TO PATENT TOGETHER A PUBLIC & PRIVATE MIX
Since NIXON, we've had the government involved with the medical industry. That is why you have the problems today. High cost and harder competition between Insurance companies.
Look at any government run monopoly, see how much they spend on it and see the "effectiveness" of that company.
Whether It's public housing to medicare, it's all 1 big bloated mess. Housing is worse and remains to get worse, and medicare? Just ask the people.
You want a real solution, BAN the politicians from receiving lobbyist money from them and you will see how quick the problem gets fixed, prices come down, etc.
Look at Welfare for example, for everyone 1 person you truly help who needs it, you have 1000 others that scam it, drive benzs and collect welfare checks.
There is no question in my mind, this system would get so abused, it would put such a hole in the system we have never seen.
The reality is, we don't have people dying in the streets from lack of healthcare.
Yea, you have people who can't afford, you're right but it is nowhere near a major problem the way people make it.
If you live in the cities ( like I live in NYC ) You will see how many people screw the system. Im talking about people who sign up for welfare and drive BMWs.
Point being, it will further destroy the system, people will go for headaches instead of real problems just because they can and so forth.
Since it's so wonderful, why don't we have government run supermarkets, or how about retail stores. Hell, if its so great, why not Restauraunts???
I'll tell you why... because you wouldn't trust the government to buy you a pair of pants, so then how could you possibly trust them to hand over your health to them?
Maybe on planet 'dumbass' where you must live people aren't dying in the streets from lack of care. There are indeed people dying every day from treatable ailments and the ER turns them away because they lack the funding for charity cases. I work in an ER as a financial counselor - people still come in for headaches with no ins. and don't care about their credit rating when the bill goes unpaid. I have news for you - here in the real world it's much more complicated than you sumise.
Yes Health Care is your Human Birth rights and your individual responsibility as well. Your health is your most important responsibility in your life on yourself alone. Don't blame the government, doctors, nurses, drug companies if you abuse your own body by self indulgent in alcohol, drug, food, laziness, smoking, and sex then get sick from your own doing, you deserve it.
Yourself alone must eat the dessert your making. And yes you have to pay for your own doing as well. Because it's your human right to take care of yourself on day to day base prevent from getting sick. It's Not other people's human right to pay for your consequence of your self indulgent.
Good point - health care is a right. We should start with the assumption that every American will have health insurance. THEN we need to ask how do we want to institute the system.
There is no way to cover every American right now given the cost of medicine. It is therefore necessary, given that every American has the right to health care, to reduce costs. No system will work if costs are too high.
Single payer reduces costs by collective bargaining, drug companies want those gov contracts, so you get the best brands at low prices, same with medical devices, this is why those companies are so against it, it forces competition, right now they can charge insurance anything they want
Both Republicans and Democracts talk about reducing costs. I believe that Republicans are taking these stands to be popular but would never follow through on setting fees and salaries.
You are right that competition would reduce or eliminate the need for setting prices and salaries.
Healthcare should NOT be based on profits. Profits need to be taken out of healthcare. Single Payer takes out the middle man and profits. Insurance Co lobbyists is giving huge "campaign contributions" to candidates to stop Single Payer.
Single Payer is not free. Money is paid into a trust. The trust pays the bills. This is basically what we have now, but no profits or middlemen are involved which will free up more money to improve healthcare. The current reported profits from Insurance Co. is more than enough to provide healthcare to everyone. Hopefully, by eliminating the profit motive and searching for cost reduction, federal govt grants for medical research will go to CURES and NOT to long-term profit TREATMENTS.
Food and shelter are completely different from healthcare. When you go to a store, you pay for food, and you receive food. You pay rent every month, and you receive shelter. BUT, you pay for healthcare every week, and you get DENIED healthcare constantly. Yet, the Insurance Co. report BILLIONS in profit every quarter. This is the problem. The Insurance Co. won't fix themselves when huge profits are being made.
wrong. I have never been denied health care. have a Health Saving Account and pay your own insurance.
And by the way, 87% of Americans make more money then me.
Know how to pay for it? I sold my TV and stopped paying for cable. Then stopped going to movies and rent for $1 instead. I don't eating out except on special occasions. I dont buy crap I dont need and I only buy what I can pay cash for.
And now I have no debt.
People can take care of themselves if they choose to. I recommend it.
So you want to take the middleman out of healthcare and take out the profit motive? But see how you did.
No middleman means treatment and payment between patient and doctor. No middleman right? But that's not what you're advocating. You just replace one middleman with another. The cost of a payout is about $1.35 to $1.50 for every dollar payed out. It's cheaper to pay a competitive profit margin than a 35% to 50% premimum through beauacracy. And that's only if everyone involved is honest.
Why do you think there would be no profit? You think the drug companies would make no profit? Especially since they now have just one exclusive buyer and they are the only patented seller? How about the medical machines and supplies? No profit there either? Who would make these things for free? Who spends money on research to come up with new inovations for free? The medical and drug industry is one of the most profitable businesses. You think that all goes away with government involvment?
Could someone explain why health care is a human right?
I dont grasp that idea. I understand the human rights to life, freedom of oppression, freedom of speech, freedom to carry weapons to defend themselves...etc.
But this idea of a right to health care, is so very different then that. None of our other rights are to receive a product or service. In a undeveloped society without doctors, every other of our human rights can exist. How can a human right depend on another human to exist?
You dodn't remember reading about that woman who was left vomiting on the floor, lives2live, on the floor of King Drew Medical Center, go and google it. In violation of Federal Law they left her there to die. They wiped the vomit away but kicked her out of the hospital. Read the story.
That is a terrible story. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I would consider that to have been a morally wrong thing to do to her, but I'm still not sure how that relates to human rights.
We certainly cannot legislate our morals into law.
If I see someone who is hungary looking for food in a dumpster, it is morally right for me to give them food, but I don't think I should be required by law to do so.
also, you use a seemingly extreme example. Lets say for the moment that it is a human right to medical care when you are in mortally ill. But what if you simply have a headache? It is a human right that a doctor has to see you for a headache?
You support the (metaphorically) holding a gun to a doctors head to treat someone with a headache?
Because I see that as a justifiable action for any human right, to protect the right with force, if necessary.
The extreme example as you put it was for illustration. If it's not a human right, then you would have been ok with letting her die, because she "depended" on others for that right. Just because some people may want to go to the doctor for the headache (which is a good idea - blood pressure or hypetension, migraines need to be diagnosed) is a shallow argument to deny healthcare to people who need it. Not to mention how a public system is practical as well, as it would drive down costs.
Because a simple check up can result in finding cancer before it is metastized. Because people don't run to the doctor when they get the sniffles; they go when their cold is so bad; they can't beat it without help. People die from the flu. Skin tags can turn cancerous, especially in the colon. Almost twice as many doctors support single payer as oppose it, so they disagree with you.
Basic checkups, care if you think your sore throat has gone on for a long time (could be cancer) are good examples of my point. Erectile dysfunction is a quality of life issue, and usually indicative of other health concerns. In addition, e.d. gets treated now at a cost of millions to tax payers (who subsidize the research and development). So your arguments don't add up to much. You are simply uncomfortable with social responsibility, even when it makes sense as it does here.
Despite my several comments stating that I am simply trying to understand a concept, you all continue to imply that I am opposed to social heal care. I think it is a nice idea, I am concerned about being able to fund it mostly.
But I do not have an opinion on whether we should implement it or not.
But my purpose for my comments had nothing to do with universal health care, I was asking for an explanation of why it was a human right.
Thanks for this segment highlighting a very important piece that's missing in the health care debate. We were also glad Dr. Flowers was invited to testify, but believe that single payer needs more access to the debate. We'll be keeping a close watch on this too!
I've never had a problem getting heatlhcare in the US. I've had it with every job I've ever had. If you're uncovered you didn't do a good enough job planning your future. Tough Shit. It's survival of the fittest not a welfare state.
Americans the shadow banking cartel will use your life blood to spend money to fight wars to expand their reach and will not give you healthcare unless u force them with general strikes, riots like the europeans.
Americans cannot afford the proposed healthcare reforms, and to attempt to do so, will bankrupt the country in the same way as developing countries are beholden to the economics of subsistence agriculture. Healthcare is not a right because that is to demand that healthcare providers get to hold the country to ransom, or the country gets to effectively hold a gun to the heads of healthcare providers. Competition and availability only exist on a free market.
Medical Bankrupcy is in essence a death sentence... If you can't afford healthcare you don't get any and are destined to die a slow and miserable debt...
Free markets are only concerned with turning a profit and sometimes, when profit shouldn't come first, there needs to be a mechanism to apply preasure to the market which wouldn't otherwise exist...
Healthcare is a right, if in fact you beleive that there is a right to life at all...
Free markets are fundamental to liberty. Healthcare has to be provided by someone, it doesn't grow on trees: Doctors must be trained at huge cost, drugs have to be developed and approved, an organ transplant is the down payment towards a lifetime's worth of post-op care. A b/millionaire's can spend huge sums for healthcare, but there is often no more chance of recovery, than if they spent nothing. Have more kids, and be happy. No one lives for ever.
Healthcare is a right? Since when? Survival of the fittest is a right, one that you are taking away from me with your socialism. If you didn't work hard enough in school and get a good job then you don't get healthcare. Tough shit.
You have a disgracefully poor understanding of what socialism actually is for starters...
But ignoring that fact, if you beleive that people have a right to life (which most of you drum beating free marketers do) than you have to accept that healthcare is part of that right...
You would argue (and you are) that a person should be sentenced to death or persistant injury bc they don't make enough money?
What about all those who are laid off who've lost their healthcare?
You have a right to work hard and do as best for your family as you can. If that means you didn't do well enough to afford good health care then let Darwin run it's course and get your unhealthy, lazy, ignorant DNA out of the pool.
You clearly have a very poor understanding of the theory of evolution as well...
The point of society as a whole is not to turn a profit... It's to ensure a better life for the population and provide for the survival of the species at large...
It is exactly your type of selfish, immature, uneducated thinking that not only crashed the American economy but also that leaves 45 million people uninsured waiting for medical help that will never come...
The right to life means that you are free to continue living unhindered by other people. It means people aren't allowed to attack your health, or to kill you. It does not mean that if you are going to die naturally someone must take care of you. If you sit on your butt and smoke 5 packs a day your whole life, you do not have the right to demand I pay for your heart transplant. We should help everyone to get insurance because it's awful when people go sick, but it's not a right.
What good is having wealth if there's billions of starving people ? Sure you can plan to take care of yourself, but what about the quality of life. Turning women, children away because they have no food ?
A stable money system is a basic foundation for civilization without it you might as well call it a day.
A stable money system is a prerequisite for investment over the long term in lines of production of value. But there must also be as much diversity in the lines of production as possible, so that there is money earning employment for people to buy food and for producers to be incentivised to produce food. There is no shortage of food and/or land to grow it on. But there is a lack of innovation.
Gold is a measurement on the "health" of the money supply.
Gold is money (it will never go to zero and should never go above $20 US (pegged). So when you see $1000 US/oz money it just means the paper isn't holding value, and the central bank is counterfeiting money. Just like the 60's and 70's again only this time the destruction of the money supply will take out the whole globe. No money, no civilization is as simple as that.
I love your gold summary.you forgot 1913, shadow banking cartel takes over US governemnt by instituting the Federal Reserve, which thru a series of boom and bust cycles will gain control of the entire industry of that country.
Martket and healthcare cannot exist Healthcare is based on need not on greed get it? Markets can only work if it is based on greed and not on need.. ugh another ingorant american free market extremist.
That was the communist manifesto, and they ended up with neither life, nor healthcare. The problem with need is that those who need things which call for more than casual effort, very rarely get their needs met. In other words: there is a market scarcity of 7th sons of 7th sons.
Lol look at Canada , Scandinavia and most of Europe and then look at USA you will see that systems in the other nations sucseed much better then the american one. Again markets never work if the condition is based on need and not on greed for an example the fire brigade never worked privatly for the same reasons. Get it?
But in Scandinavian countries and the primary EU member-states, the tax burden is very much higher than Americans would ever tolerate. Canada relies on its timber and mineral exports to run the healthcare system, you are thinking of, and has a population, of half the UK's. Sweden's population is barely larger than NYC.
There is aslo other nations with large populations with UHC like Russia , Japan , India in parts, Saudi Arabia, and virtulay all first world nations can do it and sucseed then US can as well.. your blind sided by idealogy here...
The US is different than Europe. We don't want to be like them. The US has always been about survival of the fittest. And thats why it's the best country in the world. We don't coddle people. Be smart and work hard or don't thrive.
Lol typical american nationalist who talks how great there nation is all the time without being critical. So you think USA is facist as you say survival of the fittest the weak shall die for the strong in this case because of cash in that case why don't you want to privatize the police or fire department? USA spends 15% of there GDp on health but still get less of it then any European nation. Learn from others don't despice it.
lol typical sweedish fag. You let the muslims take over your country and now it's going to shit. I promise you we won't make the same mistake. Our taxes aren't 50% like Europe's are. We don't pay to feed the lazy and ignorant. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps is our motto. Seems to be working pretty well since we're by far the richest country in the world 10x over.
Typical american conservative extremist. You think USA is the richest? With all the cash USA borrows from other nations gives a bunch of debts all the extreme class diffrences and your not the riches in GDP per capita there Norway for an example is higher. So if one is poor one is ingorant? Showing facist idealogy I see. I more worried about Christians fundamentalists like creationists taking over USA then Muslims to take over Sweden.
USA IS THE RICHEST BY FAR OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. And we're 4th in terms of GDP per population. Yes, if one is poor they are obviously too ignorant to make it in the world. At least creationists don't make their women subservient. And why worry about the USA? Go post on some swedish videos.
There are many smart poor people and also many ingorant rich people so your argument is flawed often if your born poor the you become poor and vice versa for rich. International politics matter for me and I have all right to get involved in USA politics if I wish. The real news is a channel for everyone they have set any limits like american only.
Bullshit. I was born poor and now have a very nice job, good income and full healthcare benefits. I went to public school, learned something and strive to be my best. That is the American dream. Under your proposed socialism I could have just been lazy and received the same benefits. You cannot legislate the poor into wealth. Go back to Sweden and deal with your own problems, we don't need your liberal bias here.
So basically because of your luck, you think everyone else should suffer, why don't you go up into the mountains, live in a cave, and don't bother anyone if that's your attitude. This is a society and we are all in this together.
Luck? Motherfucker I work hard, a lot harder than most people I know. Hard work and self determination is what this country is all about. We don't give sloths a free ride here like Europe, look at what a cesspool that's turned into. No wonder everyone wants to move here.
There is plenty of FAT to cut off our psychotic military budget. Enough to pay for healthcare - especially if we take away the unnecessary added expense of insurance company suits living large. They shouldn't be feeding off the misfortune of fellow Americans anyway.
tripfunkmonster 8 months ago
She talks about profit likes it's a bad thing. Its nice to know she is not being hypocritical because she doesn't make one single cent, EVER.
MzBUZZKILINGTON 8 months ago
So how is our country going to pay for all of this, we all ready now that even our current system is unsustainable.
MzBUZZKILINGTON 8 months ago
Healthcare is a right in a civilized society. If we instituted a single-payer system with all physicians included & ran it like Medicare, we'd be much better off - it would be simpler & have more choices. Eliminating the Insurance Cartel profits would reduce costs & eliminating their death panels would reduce preventable deaths. It could EASILY be paid for by reducing our psychotically high military budget. Do we really NEED to spend more on military than the rest of the world? Think about it.
tripfunkmonster 8 months ago
@tripfunkmonster Did the millions of Russians that starved to death under Lenin and Stalin have 'the right' to not starve to death? Probably; but because they believed in that right, they starved to death.
guyjohn59 8 months ago
@guyjohn59: What the hell are you talking about? Are you on the wrong site?
tripfunkmonster 8 months ago
@tripfunkmonster I don't think so. The Russians were told that everything was to be 'socially owned' where everyone would have a 'right' to everything, which is impossible. In reality, the farms and factories went to a bureaucracy that had no way of determining what the exchange ratio or prices should be, and as a result millions of russians starved in the '20s and '30s. So by buying into the myth of promised 'rights' they were denied the rights they thought they were submitting to.
guyjohn59 8 months ago
@guyjohn59: I'm talking about the U.S. having single payer healthcare. We could easily afford it if we cut our military spending. Why do you bring up a failed military dictatorship that was run by one of history's most bloodthirsty psychopaths? What does that have to do with healthcare? If Stalin was a human being instead of a monster he wouldn't have spent so much on military & starved tens of millions of his people. I don't understand why you commented on it. What do you think I'm discussing?
tripfunkmonster 8 months ago
@tripfunkmonster I guess it was a more general comment, than specific to you. But what you consider single payer and what will get implemented under the banner of single payer is worlds apart, and that is the point of bringing up russia. Everyone was promised a job, food, health care, education, goods, you name it. Everybody wants these things and everybody promises them. That's not unique. But who is implementing them...
guyjohn59 8 months ago
@guyjohn59: Oh, you were making a connection of healthcare to Socialism? (Under Stalin, Russia was a dictatorship-not socialist) In 1977 a Gallup pole showed that 77% of Americans thought healthcare was guaranteed by the Constitution. You can think that means people don't know the constitution, but I think it says a lot about what's happened to us in the Fascist Era. People used to think a democracy was meant to take care of us. Now, people only want money - even if it buys nothing but crap.
tripfunkmonster 8 months ago
@guyjohn59: In the 1930s & 40's, people knew that socialism was a system in which a middle class could thrive. It meant that a small group of "elitists" couldn't control a large group of working people. Several leaders (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) used language to manipulate people into thinking they would give them one thing - but in actuality they would get something very different. Here in the U.S., we decided to paint socialism as the work of Satan. That's why people have an irrational hatred of it
tripfunkmonster 8 months ago
@tripfunkmonster I'll just echo my previous comment. You are never going to be asked to swallow a pill of 'socialism', so the word is meaningless. What happens is bills get passed, which people who call themselves socialists, conservatives, liberals, etc. all are for, and then when they turn out horrible and bankrupt, and cause infinitely more problems, the so-called advocates just go on to advocating something else.
guyjohn59 8 months ago
@tripfunkmonster That's right because when China moved away from socialist policies in thr 70's the middle class almost disappeared. Oh that's right China's market policies created one.
MzBUZZKILINGTON 8 months ago
@MzBUZZKILINGTON:There was no middle class in China to disappear in the 1970s. What is the connection you're making to healthcare?
tripfunkmonster 8 months ago
@MzBUZZKILINGTON I was replying to your statement... In the 1930s & 40's, people knew that socialism was a system in which a middle class could thrive. And thanks for agreeing with me.
MzBUZZKILINGTON 8 months ago
@MzBUZZKILINGTON: China never instituted socialist policies - they were always a Statist Dictatorship under Mao. Now they are a Capitalist Statist Dictatorship. Now it's their turn to start a middle class to feed off as Wall St. gets rid of the American middle class who got too greedy. Imagine - wanting democracy AND Capitalism.
tripfunkmonster 8 months ago
A two tier system is the only way to go.
attemptingtobehumble 10 months ago
If healthcare is a right, doctors should not charge for their services.
98wongjf 1 year ago
Fuck the republicans! Obama could have been a great president if they hadn't filibustered every fucking everything. They have become to corrupt and self-centered
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple: Most democrats are bad also. They are just the moderate wing of the demipublican party. The republicans are the greedy, selfish, militaristic extremists of THE PARTY.
tripfunkmonster 8 months ago
The only way we can attempt to control insurance is to choose which insurance we buy. A single payer system not only limits the amount of control an individual has over their health care, but it becomes a necessity with punishment if not purchased. Who's doing the controlling? The people, or the government? At least you can choose who you buy insurance from.
Insurance is BS. NHC is BS.
NoNameC68 1 year ago
If healthcare is supposed to be a human right, then how is it that more important things to human life, such as food, housing, and clothing, are not greater priorities? Why not make everything into a "right", and totally remove the incentive to be productive?
AreThereNoMoreNames 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama has been quoted in the past as supporting a single (government) payer system. Health care is NOT a "right".
Natural rights do not impose an obligation on others except the negative obligation to refrain from violating your rights. Positive rights (also called human rights, phoney rights, wishes and more) require that the natural rights of others be violated in order to provide YOU with (fill in the blank) healthcare, education, a trip to Disney World or whatever.
jscottupton 1 year ago
Human rights are things that we are born with that society should not take away. Human rights are not given to us by society.
coaster61 1 year ago
@coaster61 cool story bro
SaviorOfLogic 1 year ago
If healthcare is a right, then why should a fine be levied against me if I choose to waive that right?
Guns1inger777 1 year ago 2
@Guns1inger777 yup lol
SuperFifthwheel 1 year ago
organized crime syndakits are at the head of most unions. unions served a purpose a while ago but these days it's just a way for lazy people to keep their jobs and work less while making more.
notfatamfluffy 2 years ago
We have the right to bear arms, why isn't the government responsible to provide me one?
klim8hokes 2 years ago 2
Join the Army. They'll give you one.
CheapLaborCapitalist 2 years ago 4
while we are at it, lets make it so everyone gets a house, a car, computer, cloths, food, job, boob jobs, 40 acres and a mule.
after all, people being motivated by profit is evil...
(sarcasm off)
boxant 2 years ago 2
The profit motive is good, but does that mean that it's good in all times and in all situations?
I like the way Bill Maher said it. Just as the profit motive drives our economy, the sex drive perpetuates the species, and that's good. But there are still some people you're not supposed to fuck.
I've had private health insurance, and now I'm got medicare, and the Aetna beurocracy was WAY more aggressive about getting into my health care decisions.
spiderbaby1958 2 years ago
Health Care is a public service not a commodity.
How would a private for-profit police force work out?
Bill Maher also said "Why should corporations profit from sick people?"
CheapLaborCapitalist 2 years ago
Yeah, living in a world where everyone has a place to live, clothes to wear, and food to eat sounds terrible.
I'd much prefer a world where people only look out for number one and will protect their "right" to screw their neighbour out of a nickel 'cause profitability is next to godliness.
(irony off)
zammmerjammer 2 years ago
Well lets just have the state take control of the agriculture industry, the food distribution industry, the health care industry, the clothing industry, the housing industry, and while we're at it (people need cars!) the automotive industry.
We'll have the state set prices, salaries, and where people in those industries will work.
The result? Quality will go down, while costs will go up. Innovation will go down while bureaucracy increases. But that's the cost of socialism.
boxant 2 years ago
Hey guess what? All of those industries already get lots of PUBLIC money but claim that because they're PRIVATE corporations the people shouldn't have a say in what they do. Just shut up and buy our crap while we bathe in gov't subsidies and corporate welfare, but don't ask for accountability or transparency -- that would be evil old "socialism."
In a democracy the gov't is YOU.
zammmerjammer 2 years ago
All state welfare is wrong be it corporate or at the individual level. Because it rests on the redistribution of wealth, which is only completed by the taking of wealth by force.
Democracy is the rule of majority. However, it requires individual virtue. That is to say, it requires people to have respect for the minorities rights and property. Unfortunately, we have many people who want to (and do) legislate theft for their own benefit.
boxant 2 years ago
Redistribution of wealth recognizes that rich people and poor people aren't created by God -- a few people are rich because lots of people are poor.
If you are well-off and are benefitting so greatly from your society it's only appropriate for you to put back in. And if you are poor and get a helping hand to get a higher education or start a business it's not just for funsies -- it's so you can contribute and ALL of society benefits.
zammmerjammer 2 years ago
Redistribution of wealth relies on violence. It is the premise that someone in government knows "how best to organize society" and is willing to use the power of the state to take away someone's property and give it to another.
Would you go up to a "rich" person's house and demand half their income at the point of a gun, because they have more money than you? I doubt it. However, this is exactly what you advocate the state doing. Theft does not become moral when committed by the state.
boxant 2 years ago
Again, in a DEMOCRACY the government only governs with the consent of the PEOPLE. In a just society the people recognize that the wealthy cannot just take, they need to put back in.
In REALITY the severe imbalance of wealth (with a few people owning most while most people have little or nothing) is maintained through ACTUAL violence which you so abhor in the hypothetical. Union organizers, those campaigning for workers' rights or Aboriginal rights are threatened, beaten, murdered.
zammmerjammer 2 years ago
You have a Marxist view of economics. It is not a zero sum game, for the rich to gain wealth they are not taking it from any one else. That is to say, everyone wins from mutual transactions.
As for the major source of violence in society. If someone came to your home and demanded half of your income or they will shoot you, would you consider that violence?
How many people pay taxes?
As for "consent" in a democracy, how much consent is asked by modern politicians once elected?
boxant 2 years ago
@boxant Again with this hypothetical person with a gun demanding your money. All the while ignoring my examples of ACTUAL violence perpetrated by the rich and powerful in the interest of keeping their wealth and power.
Sorry, but wealth comes from somewhere. Do I have to do the math for you to see that if the CEO cuts the workers' wages in half he gets to use that money to award himself a big fat million dollar bonus check at the end of the year.
zammmerjammer 2 years ago
If a CEO cuts his workers wages simply for personal profit, it will damage his business and strengthen his competition. The CEO and the worker are in a mutual relationship, it is a choice.
Yes there is a lot of violence in society and it is unfortunate. However, I would like to see violence decrease and I do not see how increasing state power will do so.
boxant 2 years ago
@boxant It might sink his business in a year or two but he still gets to skip away with his millions. They are only in a mutual relationship if they CEO chooses to act responsibly, and current corporate practice pretty much dictates that immediate profits are more desirable and important than long-term sustainability.
People and their officials should be as worried about corporate crime as they are about "some dude with a gun."
zammmerjammer 2 years ago
We can not legislate people to behave ethically, there will always be theft. However, to compare corporate power with state power is a grossly inaccurate. State power is unavoidable and violent. Corporations can not tax, conscript or print money.
boxant 2 years ago
@boxant I've never read Marx. I think I have a holistic view of economics that takes things into account like environmental damage, the health of the community, quality of life for all. Y'know, those trivial little things that "conventional economics" likes to ignore.
If a paper mill makes $ while it pollutes a river do we not take the cost to the community into account? It's the PEOPLE who will have to pay for being unhealthy, less fish, sick children. Their LOSS is a GAIN for the company.
zammmerjammer 2 years ago
If a company pollutes someone's property or damages people's health, then there is legal recourse and there is negative public opinion. Both of which result in weakening the business and making it vulnerable to it's competition. It is not in the companies interest.
It is only when companies can get state protection that they are free to pollute.
I am a big advocate of the rights of individuals, I do not see big government as a defender of those rights, more like the opposite.
boxant 2 years ago
@boxant Ask the family members of the people killed in the Bhopal disaster if "legal recourse" and "negative public opinion" mean anything when poor people take on a powerful multinational corporation. Huge companies can COERCE or BUY state protection when we decide that money is more important than people.
zammmerjammer 2 years ago
Examples of state corruption and violence is not a good choice for advocating state expansion.
boxant 2 years ago
it's a right in every other western country, why is that? why are all these other western countries ranked higher in health care? because like it or not it works better!
millberg8 2 years ago
yeah, every person... illegals, bums, welfare hogs...
modenasolone 2 years ago
It should be a right. Make the world a better place to be in. I'd think that if you cared about your fellow citizens you'd want it to be a right and not subject to ability to pay.
chrisarthur77 2 years ago
no. healthcare is not a right.
RoyalDemonforChrist 2 years ago
Just because something is not a "right" doesn't mean it would be a bad thing for us, as humans, to implement.
Altruism sets us apart from cattle. At least I hope that it does...
meinLiebsterFeind 2 years ago
the best intentions have been behind the greatest human atrocities. there is no utopia for man. its a bedtime story.
RoyalDemonforChrist 2 years ago 8
There is nothing altruistic about forcing others to pay your bill
asalade 2 years ago
Are you joking? Or did you interpret what I said backward on purpose?
meinLiebsterFeind 2 years ago
Then you better stop paying taxes. Your paying for all government workers healthcare.
jeangrey65 2 years ago
Health care is state sovereignty issue, at least for now. States should not be forced into a health care system that was created by political elitists & insurance corp. at the federal level. The federal gov. has too much power.
If the mouth breathers in a state want their care from a corporation that is their folly. Let them learn form their mistakes, if they can.
Single payer care in progressive states would force the population to participate in local politics, strengthening their state.
biped19 2 years ago
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25 does say that healthcare is a human right
norehct 2 years ago 2
PLEASE EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS HR676 PUT a BIG SIGN in your home window or your car window, and spread the word to you neighbors. PLEASE WE NEED to make an impact, if we truly are the majority on this issue.
Let's see it.
aicram62 2 years ago 2
And there is a true right IN our Constitution. You might have heard of it. Should there be state-issued firearms at no direct charge?
cdm1972 2 years ago
Here is my argument for those opposed to single payer.
How many people are uninsured in;
Canada, England, France, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, China, Hong Kong, India, Isreal (which we pay for with American dollars, by the way) Singapore, Thailand, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
mcanical 2 years ago 2
Norway, Poland, Portugal,[66] Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Finland, Germany, etc etc etc..
How many? None. They all have universal health care!
mcanical 2 years ago
yeah, obama believes in the u.s. traditions of corporations picking the pockets of it's citizens?
fuck it, i say!
enough is enough!!!
MojoJuana 2 years ago
Health care is a human right. And higher education should be free for those who want it. A healthy and educated population would be in the best interests of our country. You would have to be an imbecile or a Republican (same thing, really) to think otherwise.
bendkafka 2 years ago 3
I completely agree w/ you.
btownhotties 2 years ago
Doctor's should be slaves providing free labor then, if it were truly a right. A right can't infringe upon another's right to their own labor and property, sorry. Only an imbecile would think otherwise... Should there be charity to provide for those that can't afford it? Sure! We already have state-coerced charity via Medicare/Medicaid, but that is immoral. The govt. should be promoting charities, and those concerned citizens should be donating heartily.
cdm1972 2 years ago
The pending single payer legislation keeps doctors offices privately owned, i think you should read why so many doctors are advocating single payer, read PNHP website
norehct 2 years ago
Why not let people take care of their own medical coverage the way they buy their own food, their own insurance, and seek their own jobs. All of these are necessary, essential even, yet government doesn't, nor should, have a role in providing them.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
The thing is, IT WONT BE FREE! thats the message you liberals need to realize
kilosphere1337 2 years ago
It's as free as education.
aicram62 2 years ago
It's the taxes
kilosphere1337 2 years ago
No it's not free, read Physicians for a National Healthcare Plan website for an idea of what single payer would look like in the US
norehct 2 years ago
lol...its senselss to argue over something like this....they're just going to do what THEY want to do anyway, none of your voices count, at all. Americans dont matter to the American "Government"....we are all just numbers....so whatever, I just had to comment on the arguments here lol....things will never get better, at all, they control us and there's nothing we can do about it ^_^
jsvkia 2 years ago
$2.5 trillion or $8,100 per head on health care projected for 2010, which represents 17.6% of our annual GDP. That is half as much as the 11% of GDP spent in France and Germany and almost double the 9% in Britain and the OECD (representing dozens of countries globally) as a whole.
Fundamental problem lies in the for-profit health care as a commodity model which 30% go to insurance co's profits & admin. cost. Eliminate this model would save BIG MONEY for a more comprehensive coverage!
teleutube 2 years ago
Now is when all the big entrenched powers are going to make a strong attack on Single Payer. They are protecting their wallets and do not care about real people. Damn them!!
chinacat22 2 years ago
Yeah, I mean it's not like we have a police force
that is a SOCIAL program funded by tax dollars
that does a pretty good job, or firefighters, or
a postal service run by the state and local
governments that does a decent job! I mean
the last thing we would want in a capitalist
country is competition to drive down costs
of private insurers and make them provide
better service, cheaper!! Non-stop B.S....
bigge525 2 years ago
How about we pay attention to the facts for a
change? Like the fact that the nearly 50 million
(like me, who is a full-time college student and
part time worker that gets ZERO benefits)
people without health care end up costing the
country more when we have to go to the
emergency room to see a doctor or dentist!!
bigge525 2 years ago
I am fully aware of the governmental structure of the United States of America. And, it is a democracy. Not sure what you think that accomplished.
In the end there will be universal health care. This is because most Amercans believe that everyone should have access to health care. The only question is are we going to make a system that makes sense or one that costs way too much. It is not if there will be universal health care but when. It will become a right - as in all democracies
7jerryv7 2 years ago
Tell me MrMP81,
How many people go bankrupt on healthcare bills and how many go bankrupt in Europe, Japan, Taiwan
Sexybara 2 years ago
Comparing those countries to the U.S. is like comparing Switzerland to the European Union, it just isn't balanced enough to make a legitiment case.
You can't compare an Empire that costs 1trillion dollars a year + welfare we already have + benefits
The way our system is, our welfare system does more harm than good and it's been proven. It makes people dependent on the government so much that most never end up working later on in life, but feed off the system. That is why it is where it is.
MrMP81 2 years ago
Typical rightist hype. Who says whether it is a right or priveledge? In a democracy the people do. Every individual has the right to voice their opinion. My opinion is it is a right. However, whether it is a right or priveledge is not provable since it is an assumption. However, if most Americans,as they do, believe it is a right then the government has the obligation to make sure everyone has health care access. Then again, the powerful never give the people what they want in the US
7jerryv7 2 years ago
First of all, don't "label" me as a rightist, leftist, etc. this isn't a left right issue.
2nd, It is up to the Individual to want to take care of themselves ( or just get sick ) , if they chose not to and want someone else to do it for them, that makes it a privilege for them.
3rd. " In a democracy "
That is where you, the conventional thinking and the left & right are dead wrong and have been for many many years.
This is the "Republic Of The United States Of America"
Not the Democracy.
MrMP81 2 years ago
So you like the idea of a select few deciding for the rest? Sorry, I don't. I don't need someone who "gets it free" to tell me that I should have to pay.
spring1978ukma 2 years ago
It is not the point of being big against small it is a just a different scale. The point is that nobody should have the worry about their financial situation in case they get an illness, it is the right to get proper medical care, that is why we are living in a civil world. That people go bankrupt on other things is complete different matter. And leeches you will find in any kind of system, but I refuse to use exceptions as a common rule.
Sexybara 2 years ago
" No one should have to worry about their financial situation in case they get an illness"
You're absolutely right. But then, how do you justify me working 40+ hours a week to put food on the table, barely making it to pay my bills then having to pay for someone else's medical problems when I take care of myself?
See, it's not as simple as black and white.
In order for the govt. to fund, you have to take from someone else and that's where my problem is.
MrMP81 2 years ago
"In order for the govt. to fund, you have to take from someone else"
Try putting it differently: In order for all to participate equally, all must contribute together, equally.
If you assume that all persons are inherently divided, and capitalist at the core, then your conserns are justified: we should all ONLy focus on our own profit maximization. But don't assume that, and you might find radically different conclusions--conclusions those in power hope to keep locked away.
bachandl1 2 years ago 2
You got it, Its time the parastitic insurance companys went the way of the dinosaur. With the massive population like the states compared to Canada or GB France and the list goes on its all paid for from our takes and shared copayes between employers employees and Province
cycimian 2 years ago 2
Sorry to tell you but you are already doing that with medicaide and medicare. The question you should be asking is: why should they get their health care expenditures paid 100% BY YOU, and you not getting yours paid at all?
If we take the taxes out for this like a sales tax instead of an employment tax then EVERYONE that buys ANYTHING will be paying and then you shouldn't have to pay insurance, medicare and medicaid out of your paycheck. See how that works?
spring1978ukma 2 years ago
Dude,
1 in 11 households in America have a storage unit. We buy piles and piles of shit. We buy new cars and finance them (insanity).
We buy big houses we cannot afford and certainly do not need.
Americans go bankrupt because they are bad with money, due to the fact that there is no financial education in this country. Only collective ignorance passed down from generation to generation.
lives2live 2 years ago
You're absolutely wrong here. The debtor economy did not begin because somehow Americans don't understand how to budget. Americans are, via credit and loan SYSTEMS, encouraged to borrow and spend beyond their means. This is especially true since the early 80s and after the financialization of the economy, where the power of wealth in this country began to be driven purely by finance and credit.
bachandl1 2 years ago 3
So you are suggesting that Americans have no choice but to go grossly into debt and buy new cars, big TVs and tons of other crap? Could you explain why the average American has thousands of dollars in credit card debt? I am surprised you are trying to argue this. People have all the choice in the world. Just because they're encouraged to go into debt means nothing.
And no Americans do not budget as a general rule. They just spend about what they think they can afford and are generally wrong.
lives2live 2 years ago
Where do you get all this information about "Americans"???
The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the USA IS NOT credit card debt, it is HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES.
spring1978ukma 2 years ago 2
If people handled their finances more wisely (not use credit cards and buy other things which will cost interest) they would be able to pay for their own insurance and thus avoid the "health care expenditure" bankruptcy.
I'll say it again. 87% of americans make more money then I do and I take care of my own health insurance. Why cant others?
lives2live 2 years ago
Good for you, just because YOU can do it, that naturally means that EVERYONE else is doing something wrong, NOT that they are being charged MORE than you for premiums or their coverage is LESS than yours. Way to go there buddy, I bet the air is great up there on that pedestal you have put YOURSELF on.
spring1978ukma 2 years ago 2
I think you put too much weight "choice" to the exclusion of structural necessity. For instance, I chose to go to college, but in order to do so I had to be tremendously in debt, for the next 30 years. Same with my house. I chose to buy a car so that I could get to work, which again put me more in debt, etc. Now as far as credit card debt goes, that is an entire industry built on creating consumer debt, buy now pay later...more...
bachandl1 2 years ago 2
The credit industry, one of the biggest bonanzas of capitalism, would be bankrupt without mass consumer debt to which it depends. Finance and big banks then take this debt over for both security and profit based speculation. They too make their billions, etc. This is all to say that it is too simplistic to boil this down to individuals. That is to miss the boat, by ignoring the entire structure within which individuals operate, that depends on consumer debt.
bachandl1 2 years ago
2:16 ( Dr. Margaret Flowers )
" For Decades Reliance on the market and efforts to patent together a public and private mix has failed to guarantee quality healthcare to all Americans "
Ms. Flowers, You said it right there - EFFORTS TO PATENT TOGETHER A PUBLIC & PRIVATE MIX
Since NIXON, we've had the government involved with the medical industry. That is why you have the problems today. High cost and harder competition between Insurance companies.
The Govt. meddling made the prob.
MrMP81 2 years ago
Look at any government run monopoly, see how much they spend on it and see the "effectiveness" of that company.
Whether It's public housing to medicare, it's all 1 big bloated mess. Housing is worse and remains to get worse, and medicare? Just ask the people.
You want a real solution, BAN the politicians from receiving lobbyist money from them and you will see how quick the problem gets fixed, prices come down, etc.
MrMP81 2 years ago
Finally, it is NOT A RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE.
Look at Welfare for example, for everyone 1 person you truly help who needs it, you have 1000 others that scam it, drive benzs and collect welfare checks.
There is no question in my mind, this system would get so abused, it would put such a hole in the system we have never seen.
MrMP81 2 years ago
so if a poor doesnt have any money just let him die he has no right to live its a privilege
having fire department to help you with fire required insurance in the past or they just dont come
developed countries have gone over this insanity with the police fire and medical services
and you are still there
barbaric
GermaineIlya 2 years ago
The reality is, we don't have people dying in the streets from lack of healthcare.
Yea, you have people who can't afford, you're right but it is nowhere near a major problem the way people make it.
If you live in the cities ( like I live in NYC ) You will see how many people screw the system. Im talking about people who sign up for welfare and drive BMWs.
Point being, it will further destroy the system, people will go for headaches instead of real problems just because they can and so forth.
MrMP81 2 years ago
What you are discussing are rare cases.
Since it's so wonderful, why don't we have government run supermarkets, or how about retail stores. Hell, if its so great, why not Restauraunts???
I'll tell you why... because you wouldn't trust the government to buy you a pair of pants, so then how could you possibly trust them to hand over your health to them?
MrMP81 2 years ago
Maybe on planet 'dumbass' where you must live people aren't dying in the streets from lack of care. There are indeed people dying every day from treatable ailments and the ER turns them away because they lack the funding for charity cases. I work in an ER as a financial counselor - people still come in for headaches with no ins. and don't care about their credit rating when the bill goes unpaid. I have news for you - here in the real world it's much more complicated than you sumise.
LotusWishes227 2 years ago 2
Yes Health Care is your Human Birth rights and your individual responsibility as well. Your health is your most important responsibility in your life on yourself alone. Don't blame the government, doctors, nurses, drug companies if you abuse your own body by self indulgent in alcohol, drug, food, laziness, smoking, and sex then get sick from your own doing, you deserve it.
overseachininadoll 2 years ago 2
Yourself alone must eat the dessert your making. And yes you have to pay for your own doing as well. Because it's your human right to take care of yourself on day to day base prevent from getting sick. It's Not other people's human right to pay for your consequence of your self indulgent.
overseachininadoll 2 years ago 3
Good point - health care is a right. We should start with the assumption that every American will have health insurance. THEN we need to ask how do we want to institute the system.
There is no way to cover every American right now given the cost of medicine. It is therefore necessary, given that every American has the right to health care, to reduce costs. No system will work if costs are too high.
7jerryv7 2 years ago
Single payer reduces costs by collective bargaining, drug companies want those gov contracts, so you get the best brands at low prices, same with medical devices, this is why those companies are so against it, it forces competition, right now they can charge insurance anything they want
norehct 2 years ago
Both Republicans and Democracts talk about reducing costs. I believe that Republicans are taking these stands to be popular but would never follow through on setting fees and salaries.
You are right that competition would reduce or eliminate the need for setting prices and salaries.
7jerryv7 2 years ago
Its time to attack the insurance companies with a campaign of Policy Cash Out. Don't pay them. Crash their monopoly on life!
minstral2 2 years ago
Healthcare should NOT be based on profits. Profits need to be taken out of healthcare. Single Payer takes out the middle man and profits. Insurance Co lobbyists is giving huge "campaign contributions" to candidates to stop Single Payer.
bbnemesis123 2 years ago
bbnem,
Should food be based on profit? We sure do need food. Should shelter be based on profits?
Perhaps the government should just give us everything that we need for "free"
once again, just playing devil's advocate. but just because we need something does not mean that it should be free.
lives2live 2 years ago
Single Payer is not free. Money is paid into a trust. The trust pays the bills. This is basically what we have now, but no profits or middlemen are involved which will free up more money to improve healthcare. The current reported profits from Insurance Co. is more than enough to provide healthcare to everyone. Hopefully, by eliminating the profit motive and searching for cost reduction, federal govt grants for medical research will go to CURES and NOT to long-term profit TREATMENTS.
bbnemesis123 2 years ago
lives2live
Food and shelter are completely different from healthcare. When you go to a store, you pay for food, and you receive food. You pay rent every month, and you receive shelter. BUT, you pay for healthcare every week, and you get DENIED healthcare constantly. Yet, the Insurance Co. report BILLIONS in profit every quarter. This is the problem. The Insurance Co. won't fix themselves when huge profits are being made.
bbnemesis123 2 years ago
wrong. I have never been denied health care. have a Health Saving Account and pay your own insurance.
And by the way, 87% of Americans make more money then me.
Know how to pay for it? I sold my TV and stopped paying for cable. Then stopped going to movies and rent for $1 instead. I don't eating out except on special occasions. I dont buy crap I dont need and I only buy what I can pay cash for.
And now I have no debt.
People can take care of themselves if they choose to. I recommend it.
lives2live 2 years ago
So you want to take the middleman out of healthcare and take out the profit motive? But see how you did.
No middleman means treatment and payment between patient and doctor. No middleman right? But that's not what you're advocating. You just replace one middleman with another. The cost of a payout is about $1.35 to $1.50 for every dollar payed out. It's cheaper to pay a competitive profit margin than a 35% to 50% premimum through beauacracy. And that's only if everyone involved is honest.
mickeysears 2 years ago 3
Why do you think there would be no profit? You think the drug companies would make no profit? Especially since they now have just one exclusive buyer and they are the only patented seller? How about the medical machines and supplies? No profit there either? Who would make these things for free? Who spends money on research to come up with new inovations for free? The medical and drug industry is one of the most profitable businesses. You think that all goes away with government involvment?
mickeysears 2 years ago
Could someone explain why health care is a human right?
I dont grasp that idea. I understand the human rights to life, freedom of oppression, freedom of speech, freedom to carry weapons to defend themselves...etc.
But this idea of a right to health care, is so very different then that. None of our other rights are to receive a product or service. In a undeveloped society without doctors, every other of our human rights can exist. How can a human right depend on another human to exist?
lives2live 2 years ago
You dodn't remember reading about that woman who was left vomiting on the floor, lives2live, on the floor of King Drew Medical Center, go and google it. In violation of Federal Law they left her there to die. They wiped the vomit away but kicked her out of the hospital. Read the story.
Zakdayak 2 years ago
That is a terrible story. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I would consider that to have been a morally wrong thing to do to her, but I'm still not sure how that relates to human rights.
We certainly cannot legislate our morals into law.
If I see someone who is hungary looking for food in a dumpster, it is morally right for me to give them food, but I don't think I should be required by law to do so.
lives2live 2 years ago
also, you use a seemingly extreme example. Lets say for the moment that it is a human right to medical care when you are in mortally ill. But what if you simply have a headache? It is a human right that a doctor has to see you for a headache?
You support the (metaphorically) holding a gun to a doctors head to treat someone with a headache?
Because I see that as a justifiable action for any human right, to protect the right with force, if necessary.
Just trying to understand the idea.
lives2live 2 years ago
The extreme example as you put it was for illustration. If it's not a human right, then you would have been ok with letting her die, because she "depended" on others for that right. Just because some people may want to go to the doctor for the headache (which is a good idea - blood pressure or hypetension, migraines need to be diagnosed) is a shallow argument to deny healthcare to people who need it. Not to mention how a public system is practical as well, as it would drive down costs.
Zakdayak 2 years ago
Like I said I can understand the emergency care type situation. Thats an easy concept.
But I have yet to hear any one articulate why doctor visits for things like basic checkups, sore throat, or erectile dysfunction are a human right.
It is already illegal to deny emergency car to people, essentially making it a right.
So that is not the argument.
I am simply looking for any articulation of why all health care is a human right.
lives2live 2 years ago
Because a simple check up can result in finding cancer before it is metastized. Because people don't run to the doctor when they get the sniffles; they go when their cold is so bad; they can't beat it without help. People die from the flu. Skin tags can turn cancerous, especially in the colon. Almost twice as many doctors support single payer as oppose it, so they disagree with you.
stanjz 2 years ago
Basic checkups, care if you think your sore throat has gone on for a long time (could be cancer) are good examples of my point. Erectile dysfunction is a quality of life issue, and usually indicative of other health concerns. In addition, e.d. gets treated now at a cost of millions to tax payers (who subsidize the research and development). So your arguments don't add up to much. You are simply uncomfortable with social responsibility, even when it makes sense as it does here.
Zakdayak 2 years ago
Despite my several comments stating that I am simply trying to understand a concept, you all continue to imply that I am opposed to social heal care. I think it is a nice idea, I am concerned about being able to fund it mostly.
But I do not have an opinion on whether we should implement it or not.
But my purpose for my comments had nothing to do with universal health care, I was asking for an explanation of why it was a human right.
lives2live 2 years ago
Thanks for this segment highlighting a very important piece that's missing in the health care debate. We were also glad Dr. Flowers was invited to testify, but believe that single payer needs more access to the debate. We'll be keeping a close watch on this too!
PublicCitizenInc 2 years ago
I've never had a problem getting heatlhcare in the US. I've had it with every job I've ever had. If you're uncovered you didn't do a good enough job planning your future. Tough Shit. It's survival of the fittest not a welfare state.
flatl1n3 2 years ago
Americans the shadow banking cartel will use your life blood to spend money to fight wars to expand their reach and will not give you healthcare unless u force them with general strikes, riots like the europeans.
jaba987 2 years ago 5
WELL SAID JABA WELL SAID.
melodymaker65 2 years ago
How do you finance a black hole of health care ?
You don't , all social programs are ponzi schemes. You are promised value but when you need it , its not there.
Fiat Social programs work like fiat money, they end suddenly in total chaos.
boots920 2 years ago
wheres Paul?
hugegiantfrogs 2 years ago
dead
FreakishDonQuixote 2 years ago
Healthcare is a right!
All love from me Jasmine
Eopyk 2 years ago 4
Back to Sweden with you! Your opinion is neither needed nor wanted here.
flatl1n3 2 years ago
Her opinion and everyone else's here is both needed and wanted here!
flawedbeauty82 2 years ago
Americans cannot afford the proposed healthcare reforms, and to attempt to do so, will bankrupt the country in the same way as developing countries are beholden to the economics of subsistence agriculture. Healthcare is not a right because that is to demand that healthcare providers get to hold the country to ransom, or the country gets to effectively hold a gun to the heads of healthcare providers. Competition and availability only exist on a free market.
charlessmyth 2 years ago
Medical Bankrupcy is in essence a death sentence... If you can't afford healthcare you don't get any and are destined to die a slow and miserable debt...
Free markets are only concerned with turning a profit and sometimes, when profit shouldn't come first, there needs to be a mechanism to apply preasure to the market which wouldn't otherwise exist...
Healthcare is a right, if in fact you beleive that there is a right to life at all...
JSparkleZ2 2 years ago
Free markets are fundamental to liberty. Healthcare has to be provided by someone, it doesn't grow on trees: Doctors must be trained at huge cost, drugs have to be developed and approved, an organ transplant is the down payment towards a lifetime's worth of post-op care. A b/millionaire's can spend huge sums for healthcare, but there is often no more chance of recovery, than if they spent nothing. Have more kids, and be happy. No one lives for ever.
charlessmyth 2 years ago
Healthcare is a right? Since when? Survival of the fittest is a right, one that you are taking away from me with your socialism. If you didn't work hard enough in school and get a good job then you don't get healthcare. Tough shit.
flatl1n3 2 years ago
You have a disgracefully poor understanding of what socialism actually is for starters...
But ignoring that fact, if you beleive that people have a right to life (which most of you drum beating free marketers do) than you have to accept that healthcare is part of that right...
You would argue (and you are) that a person should be sentenced to death or persistant injury bc they don't make enough money?
What about all those who are laid off who've lost their healthcare?
JSparkleZ2 2 years ago 2
You have a right to work hard and do as best for your family as you can. If that means you didn't do well enough to afford good health care then let Darwin run it's course and get your unhealthy, lazy, ignorant DNA out of the pool.
flatl1n3 2 years ago
You clearly have a very poor understanding of the theory of evolution as well...
The point of society as a whole is not to turn a profit... It's to ensure a better life for the population and provide for the survival of the species at large...
It is exactly your type of selfish, immature, uneducated thinking that not only crashed the American economy but also that leaves 45 million people uninsured waiting for medical help that will never come...
JSparkleZ2 2 years ago
The right to life means that you are free to continue living unhindered by other people. It means people aren't allowed to attack your health, or to kill you. It does not mean that if you are going to die naturally someone must take care of you. If you sit on your butt and smoke 5 packs a day your whole life, you do not have the right to demand I pay for your heart transplant. We should help everyone to get insurance because it's awful when people go sick, but it's not a right.
calandur 2 years ago
"Bankrupt the country"
The US dollar is about to worth zero, the government with the central bank is counterfeiting money.
1776 Gold $20/oz (Gold is money , capital doesn't go up or down in value).
1933 (US Government Steals the money/gold from the American people).
1971 - Nixon, a crook/traitor ends the gold backing of the US dollar because he was counterfeiting money to pay for the Vietnam war.
2009 Gold /$1000 oz yep the gov. is counterfeiting money again, you guys are toast.
boots920 2 years ago 3
So get out of paper and buy gold. It's your future.
charlessmyth 2 years ago
What good is having wealth if there's billions of starving people ? Sure you can plan to take care of yourself, but what about the quality of life. Turning women, children away because they have no food ?
A stable money system is a basic foundation for civilization without it you might as well call it a day.
boots920 2 years ago
A stable money system is a prerequisite for investment over the long term in lines of production of value. But there must also be as much diversity in the lines of production as possible, so that there is money earning employment for people to buy food and for producers to be incentivised to produce food. There is no shortage of food and/or land to grow it on. But there is a lack of innovation.
charlessmyth 2 years ago
Gold is a measurement on the "health" of the money supply.
Gold is money (it will never go to zero and should never go above $20 US (pegged). So when you see $1000 US/oz money it just means the paper isn't holding value, and the central bank is counterfeiting money. Just like the 60's and 70's again only this time the destruction of the money supply will take out the whole globe. No money, no civilization is as simple as that.
boots920 2 years ago
I love your gold summary.you forgot 1913, shadow banking cartel takes over US governemnt by instituting the Federal Reserve, which thru a series of boom and bust cycles will gain control of the entire industry of that country.
jaba987 2 years ago 4
Martket and healthcare cannot exist Healthcare is based on need not on greed get it? Markets can only work if it is based on greed and not on need.. ugh another ingorant american free market extremist.
Eopyk 2 years ago
That was the communist manifesto, and they ended up with neither life, nor healthcare. The problem with need is that those who need things which call for more than casual effort, very rarely get their needs met. In other words: there is a market scarcity of 7th sons of 7th sons.
charlessmyth 2 years ago
Lol look at Canada , Scandinavia and most of Europe and then look at USA you will see that systems in the other nations sucseed much better then the american one. Again markets never work if the condition is based on need and not on greed for an example the fire brigade never worked privatly for the same reasons. Get it?
Eopyk 2 years ago
But in Scandinavian countries and the primary EU member-states, the tax burden is very much higher than Americans would ever tolerate. Canada relies on its timber and mineral exports to run the healthcare system, you are thinking of, and has a population, of half the UK's. Sweden's population is barely larger than NYC.
charlessmyth 2 years ago
There is aslo other nations with large populations with UHC like Russia , Japan , India in parts, Saudi Arabia, and virtulay all first world nations can do it and sucseed then US can as well.. your blind sided by idealogy here...
Eopyk 2 years ago
The US is different than Europe. We don't want to be like them. The US has always been about survival of the fittest. And thats why it's the best country in the world. We don't coddle people. Be smart and work hard or don't thrive.
flatl1n3 2 years ago
Lol typical american nationalist who talks how great there nation is all the time without being critical. So you think USA is facist as you say survival of the fittest the weak shall die for the strong in this case because of cash in that case why don't you want to privatize the police or fire department? USA spends 15% of there GDp on health but still get less of it then any European nation. Learn from others don't despice it.
Eopyk 2 years ago 4
lol typical sweedish fag. You let the muslims take over your country and now it's going to shit. I promise you we won't make the same mistake. Our taxes aren't 50% like Europe's are. We don't pay to feed the lazy and ignorant. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps is our motto. Seems to be working pretty well since we're by far the richest country in the world 10x over.
flatl1n3 2 years ago
Typical american conservative extremist. You think USA is the richest? With all the cash USA borrows from other nations gives a bunch of debts all the extreme class diffrences and your not the riches in GDP per capita there Norway for an example is higher. So if one is poor one is ingorant? Showing facist idealogy I see. I more worried about Christians fundamentalists like creationists taking over USA then Muslims to take over Sweden.
Eopyk 2 years ago
USA IS THE RICHEST BY FAR OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. And we're 4th in terms of GDP per population. Yes, if one is poor they are obviously too ignorant to make it in the world. At least creationists don't make their women subservient. And why worry about the USA? Go post on some swedish videos.
flatl1n3 2 years ago
There are many smart poor people and also many ingorant rich people so your argument is flawed often if your born poor the you become poor and vice versa for rich. International politics matter for me and I have all right to get involved in USA politics if I wish. The real news is a channel for everyone they have set any limits like american only.
Eopyk 2 years ago 2
Bullshit. I was born poor and now have a very nice job, good income and full healthcare benefits. I went to public school, learned something and strive to be my best. That is the American dream. Under your proposed socialism I could have just been lazy and received the same benefits. You cannot legislate the poor into wealth. Go back to Sweden and deal with your own problems, we don't need your liberal bias here.
flatl1n3 2 years ago
So basically because of your luck, you think everyone else should suffer, why don't you go up into the mountains, live in a cave, and don't bother anyone if that's your attitude. This is a society and we are all in this together.
blackiron60 2 years ago 2
Luck? Motherfucker I work hard, a lot harder than most people I know. Hard work and self determination is what this country is all about. We don't give sloths a free ride here like Europe, look at what a cesspool that's turned into. No wonder everyone wants to move here.
flatl1n3 2 years ago
who says Europe's a cesspool. Sure some European countries are shit, but personally i think some are better than us right now.
ruderevival 2 years ago 2
Using you ilogical steatments I can say why don't you privatice the police or the fire department? Would you want that?
Eopyk 2 years ago
Richest country in the world huh?
That's why the USA needed to borrow $1 trillion dollars from a COMMUNIST country this year alone...
GO FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!... what a fuckin joke...
JSparkleZ2 2 years ago 3
JSparkleZ2 .... LOL OWNED
jaba987 2 years ago