you would not lose money, nor save money because socialized medicine is free. but you do pay for it in tax. so if you really think about it we wouldnt really benefit from socialized medicine, when it comes from money, And profit is what gives us most of our medicines. So i like our current syetem in that sense. anyway i support obamas healthcare plan. because the healthcare insurance system is corrupt. not the healthcare system.
Why can't they get it through their heads we cannot afford this..they are taxing us to death!! Taxing us left and right..No money left over from our paychecks for anything anymore.
I still think that 'health care' is our own business! It's just like 'the right to own a car'..... yeah sure, it would be great if everyone could afford a new mercedes every year, but that ain't gonna happen. some of us can only afford a used chev.(Like me) but that's ok with me. I barely can afford health ins. (that's why I go with the used chev.) I still use the same roads as everyone else.
Life has no guarantees. I refuse to pay for someone elses!
Because Canadians live in a nanny state where the governments sends social workers to wipe your ass after you crap and spoon feed you pre-chewed food and blows your nose for you and masturbates you when you're feeling horny!
Sarcasm gets a bad rep as the lowest form of wit. I think, if done properly, it can be very funny.
But addressing the point, I have nothing against socialized medicine, but you don't have it in Canada. You have single payer medicine, because the doctors are private. If the doctors were government employees, like in England or the American VA system, that would be socialized medicine. What republicans don't like about it is that it's more government control. They like private, not public.
so whats the difference between (canada's) publicly funded health care system and what Obama is proposing? (except for doctors being gov. employees... b/c i don't see how that is relevant.)
Hahaha!!! Obama isn't proposing anything CLOSE to socialized medicine, or EVEN single payer! He is basically going to make people get insurance, and subsidize those who can't, and create a national exchange so people buying on the independent market can be in a group plan, and MAYBE, if we are lucky, there will be a public, government run insurance option in the national exchange. It's complicated, but it's not socialized medicine. That's complete and total rhetoric, lies, and propaganda.
ok, thanks. well first its not propaganda... i think its just me misunderstanding the political health care issues happening in in the US.
this is from a .gc site (Canadian gov.).
just b/c i am still not 100% clear on what is being proposed in the us, what is the difference between this description and the US proposition. (except for the possibility that there will not be a gov. run option...[which is practically what CAN. has])
No, I'm not saying you're spreading propaganda. I realize you don't get what's going on. The vast majority of the republican party and conservatives don't get it either. The Canadian system has single payer health care. You pay higher taxes, and get free health care, within the bounds of reason. The US system is private, where you pay a lot to insurance companies and they hopefully pay for your care. The US proposal just wants to make more people insured in the private insurance companies.
"an interlocking set of ten provincial and three territorial health insurance plans. Known to Canadians as "medicare", the system provides access to universal, comprehensive coverage for medically necessary hospital and physician services....for medically necessary health care services provided on the basis of need, rather than the ability to pay."
The current US system is basically this: There are corporations that insure people. You pay a certain amount of money a month, and they will cover a certain % of doctor costs (you pay the rest), but only after you've spent a certain amount of money a year on medical care. The monthly payment is called a premium, the % you pay (usually around 15%) is called a co-pay, and the money you have to spend before they cover anything is called a deductible. It kinda sucks.
However, if you were sick with a condition before buying the policy, or you made a mistake on your application or left anything out, and you get seriously sick, the insurance company may drop you from their plan, and they won't pay anything. What the Obama proposal is going to do is make it so that the above mentioned cannot happen, and make more people get insurance, and subsidize people who cannot afford it. The goal is to have everyone insured on a system that will go from awful to bearable.
The current system is awful for anyone buying in the individual market. If you get your insurance from your employer, there are laws so thy cannot drop you if you get sick. In the individual market (buying it on your own rather than getting it as a job benefit), the prices are a lot higher, and they can drop you if you get really sick if you have a preexisting condition or mistakes on your application so you'll have to pay for all your medical care out of pocket.
Universal healthcare involves government regulation. Government regulation distorts the true market value and this usually if not always discourages competition and makes the prices go up. In addition, quality is likely to suffer. Fuck, the government can't even run the post office, yet people want it to control their healthcare??? It's tempting upon surface examination but in the long run it's not a good idea at all. The solution would be to allow a free market to reduce the costs.
The change would make it bearable because it would still cost a lot of people a lot of money, but at least the less well off get subsidies and the insurance companies cannot drop you. And there is so much resistance because people want to see Obama fail. That's the main reason for the vast majority of it. Sure, it will cost a lot, but it will all be paid for without adding to the deficit. People just want to see Obama fail.
i wasn't claiming you were saying i am "spreading propaganda", but rather i was trying to make clear that my opinion is not based on propaganda... just a lack of information.
You're funny. You know, we already have socialized medicine? Granted, it can send you to bankrupcy and the quality might not be that good, but we still have it.
1. When a public option is established it competes with the private market like an alligator against a rabbit. Eventually, the private market will be pushed out.
2. I don't hate the idea of paying for dying people's treatment. I hate the idea of being coerced to pay for other people's health-care when I have worked hard for my own.
2. I guess you feel the same way about farmers or potentially even gun dealers? I doubt you agree with capitalism or the reality behind that economic system?
3. I share the same morals as every living being; I'm self-interested. I'm ambitious and driven by my own individualism.
I doubt it, most people don't prefer money over human life. If you don't think your tax dollars should be spent healing the sick, what DO you want them spent on?
And make no mistake, they're going to be spent. Even if the government renders no service to the population, they'll still tax you. It'll just go into their own pockets instead of hospitals.
I would expect that. Human being's tend to lean toward 'being alive' than any other component of life (Source: The Onion).
I never said anyone chooses human life over money or vice-versa. It's not proper to say health-care = life. Health-care can = cough syrup, mild-seasonal allergy pills, etc. Health-care can also = life threatening open-heart bypass surgeries, I understand that. However, that does not make "health-care" (in this context) a necessity for life.
True, though I would say in the unlikely event that someone never falls ill or suffers from any ailment and never "needs" health-care and they live well into their 80's, then I would say not so much. That is always a probability to that argument.
Actually, I'm starting to agree. Health insurance companies give such shitty service in America there's no WAY they could compete with a public plan. Unlike in most other countries that have a public option and private insurers...
@uberjim83; sorry my "1." point wasn't posted I guess, but "2." and "3." went through.
Yes, other countries still have private insurance, but the cost increases.
It's not that I don't WANT my tax dollars spent healing the sick; (personally I would rather not use I or my and tax dollars in a sentence). It seems as though this is a question of ethics? From my point of view gov. run health-care is actually unethical. Free health-care market is ethical, to me. It allows for infinite
Does it? The cost in other nations isn't anywhere near what it is here.
"Free market" healthcare treats life as a commodity. In what way would paying for healthcare with your taxes be unethical? Also, keep in mind you're not paying for your own health-care plus everyone else's: everyone would be paying for everyone's healthcare. Kinda like what you already do with insurance companies, except they wouldn't be allowed to cut off your coverage if they decided your life wasn't worth it anymore.
uberjim, you're ignoring whether or not universal healthcare would keep the cost of healthcare down while maintaining the quality. Typically when it comes to government subsidizing this doesn't happen. Costs go up and often quality suffers. The most practical solution would be to see what has made the costs of healthcare go up and get those out of the way. This isn't solely because of a bunch of greedy, evil insurance companies.
The world is literally filled with evidence to the contrary. And it's perfectly clear to everyone what is making the costs go up: price-gauging. See, you can charge whatever you want when (a) people need your product to survive and (b) you can refuse to perform the service you're paid for.
Life is an inalienable right, not a commodity to be bought and sold.
No, uber, you have clearly not done any research. When healthcare was cheap and affordable, it was a free market. As soon as the government came in and started regulating things, distorting the true market values, prices went up. Need more evidence of this? In many of the countries with universal healthcare, the healthcare there is increasing proportionately more than the U.S. This includes France.
Healthcare definitely needs reform, but socialized medicine is not the answer.
No, you're wrong. When health care was cheap and affordable, equipment was cheap and affordable! That's one of the biggest things driving up costs: Expensive medical equipment and operations. Your free market dogma is complete crap when discussing health care. When there were "free markets" with no government intervention, people were getting dropped and cheated left and right. And where is your evidence that those countries have costs increasing faster than ours, cause I've read otherwise.
I thought people getting fucked over is what was happening now....
Wrong. Government regulation discourages competition suppresses true market value while driving prices up and/or quality down. The idea of a free market is to have competition. The more competition the lower the prices and better the quality. If the medical equipment costs that much, how's it going to help by having Uncle Sam cap the prices? Who's going to want to make equipment they can't get properly paid for?
Hahaha!!! Pure free market dogma! Yes, in 95% of circumstances, that is true. However, the health care market is different. Health care economics do not work the same way as regular economics do. Health care companies do not compete to provide the best care or the best service, because if they did, they'd go bankrupt. They compete to get the most young, healthy people to cover the costs if anyone gets sick and, if possible, drop the sick person to make more money. Get why regulation is needed?
If healthcare companies aren't competing, why do you suppose that is? Why aren't car insurance doing the same thing then? Obviously something is discouraging competition, and that has a lot to do with the government's regulation. If they forced costs to be under the true market value, it would only diminish quality and people -- insurance companies and doctors alike -- would quit as they aren't getting paid enough to make a viable living.
NO! Stop with the libertarian dogma for half a second and take health care as a separate issue! Insurance company competition is not competition in the traditional sense. It's not the lowest rate, or the best policies. Real competition between insurance companies is over the healthiest individuals. If insurance companies offered great service at a great price to everyone and didn't turn down care, THEY'D BE BANKRUPT! You are comparing apples to oranges. Learn about health care economics!
No, healthcare is still subject to the same price dynamics of other markets. It's very telling that you dodged my car insurance comparison....
Healthcare costs a lot, right? So wouldn't it be in the insurance companies' best interest to provide it at an affordable price so that more people could buy from them? Why are they making it expensive, then pissing people off by refusing coverage? Same shit, fool. You haven't provided any valid argument other than the "they're evil" rhetoric.
So if there was a public option to compete with (i.e. more competition) then the prices would go down. That is, of course, only if your logic is consistent.
The price of equipment isn't going up. The only thing going up is the overhead costs given to the insurance companies, who contribute nothing to the process.
A man walks into an emergency room and then collapes. He has a subdural hematoma so severe that his skull had to be opened up to relieve the intercranial pressure. But he didn't have health insurance, and couldn't pay his medical bills.
So, if he's incapable of paying the bills, who covers it? WE DO!
In the long run a public healthcare plan would cost LESS than the current private healthcare program.
Just don't tell HTWW that. He still doesn't realize it's not socialized.
How the hell is the public option going to compete? What's going to happen is all the people who get turned down by the private companies are going to use the public option. Say a guy needs brain surgery right away. He gets the public option and is instantly covered. The program will go bankrupt by this alone. The government CANNOT undercut costs. It's not financially feasible. There's no way the government will be able to cover all these costs without going into debt.
Yes, and that's going to overload the system and cause it to go bankrupt. Say I decide I'm not gonna pay health insurance because I don't need it right now. A week later I break my arm or something. Oh, look at this, I can just go to the government and get immediate coverage. People WILL do this and the system will collapse. Even more so, this will not in any form drive down the costs of healthcare. In fact, it will drive it up since the government will be subsidizing.
Yes, I've done research. Unlike you, I researched facts instead of pundit's opinions. Our free market healthcare is more expensive than the universal healthcare of ANY OTHER NATION.
So where do you get your "facts" if they're not from experts? That makes no sense.
Healthcare costs are rising faster in many nations with universal care compared to the U.S.'s. I've also heard many people who live in these countries complain about the quality of the care they receive.
Pundits are not experts in any field. They are nothing but glorified talk-show hosts.
And yeah, you're gonna hear sick people complain about their quality of care no matter how good it is (see watch?v=GVU1qvMqk3g for Glenn Beck's opinion on American heathcare when he's sick). They're miserable because they're sick, and going to the doctor sucks. You know what sucks even more? Dying because you can't afford to go to the doctor.
...given that it wouldn't be paid for by tax payers, the public option is no more "socialized medicine" than energy co-ops. Guess how alot of farmers get their electricty, and have gotten their electricty for the latter part of the 20th century and the first 9 years of the 21st.
The Constitution Party has more than a chance, we are going to win! Thanks to the actions of Republicans and Democrats we are exploding with new members. We have the steam now and were are not stopping until our candidates get elected.
Our Party is truly a Party of the Constitution, all 39 planks of our platform are backed up by a corresponding passage in the Constitution or from the writings of America's Founding Fathers.
The Constitution Party has no religious litmus test.
Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for our countries problems. To continue to elect people from either of those parties is just telling them that you are satisfied with the representation you are getting.
Ditch the Republican and Democrat parties. "Health care" debate is just a distraction, they know they can't pay for any of it.
They have sent your jobs over seas and bankrupted you and your children. They don't deserve your vote.
The Constitution Party isn't a true Constitution Party... ditch all the "We are a Christian Nation" bull crap and maybe you'll have a chance. While we may be a nation of Christians by and large, we are not a Christian nation, do you see the distinction? I hope so, because our founders did! Now, they did not believe in the separation of Church and State as "You cannot believe in God nor can you express your beliefs in God and hold office." They believed in keeping the church and state separate.
Patriot: Well, I must say though. From a what I have been hearing from older people, there hasn't been this amount of libertarians, constitutionalists, and true conservatives in...well, ever in their lifetimes. It's cool. Just maybe, just maybe this generation of people can finally break the stranglehold of the two party system and get some real change done. But it's also depressing to see the likes of HTWW, with his big audience and all, just repeat corporate news talking points.
The Constitution was created as a contract for preserving our Liberty. The government's role was to be very limited by Constitutional design... and we will force it to be what it has not been now for nearly 100 years. And God help whoever gets in our way.
1: You would have to be completely ignorant of history to want things to be the way they were 100 years ago.
2: The Constitution was a legal document attempting to create a free yet united country. It was the second attempt to do so, and was never intended to be the last. We should have taken Thomas Jefferson's advice and rewritten it every 30 years, but we were too damn lazy.
You threaten to take my liberty... I'll protect it will lethal force.... its not a threat, its a promise that we will defend ourselves from being enslaved.
Anyone who supports any form of socialism is threatening slavery. You support democracy, hence, you threaten my liberty. You are a threat because instead of only wanting to live your beliefs... you want to impose your beliefs on everyone else. Liberty is non-negotiable... Patrick Henry said it best... and the only thing I would change is "Keep your hands off my liberty because its being defended with lethal force!"
That is not only a bunch of lies, but they aren't even lies that make any kind of sense. Democratic states are the only ones in which the people HAVE liberty. I didn't support any kind of socialism, but even if I did, confusing it with slavery is just plain idiocy.
You must have some definition of Liberty that neither our forefathers understood nor I know to be true. Democracy kept slavery alive. Democracy enslaves us now. Democracy enforces government sanctioned and enforced discrimination. Democracy as a form of government is as evil as any of the worst Fascist, Totalitarian and Authoritarian governments in existence. Only a Republic that blocks the majority from taking away the rights of the minority provides true liberty.
You claimed that we didn't have a democracy. How could it have kept slavery alive? And since when is self-rule "slavery?" Oh no, we might be slaves to our own choices!
If you gave a shit about the rights of the minority, you wouldn't be so against healthcare for everyone. If you gave a shit about free speech, you wouldn't threaten to murder everyone who disagreed with you, either.
No, the whole government would lose money, thus increasing our current deficit. Why would we let the government create medicare on a much larger scale, when it's already a failed program anyways? Trust me, government run insurance is a very very bad idea.
Balls to that. If the government loses and the people gain, I say that's a good thing.
And they're not just "creating" medicaire on a larger scale. They're revamping and repairing medicaire as it is. Why are you against fixing something that we both think is broken?
Besides, if the public option sucks, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It'll encourage more people to buy high quality insurance of their own (kinda like how most people aren't on welfare even though it's available).
No, it will increase the deficit. That's bad for everybody. Also, the public option will drive other insurance companies out of business, because nobody is stupid enough to pay for the public option on taxes, AND for the private option out of their own pocket.
The public option is not funded through government subsidy. It is not funded by taxes but by premiums. It competes on a level playing field with private insurance. (insert insult here).
j0hn, I'll spare the insults since this time you at least TRIED to come up with an argument.
So it's funded through premiums. And how is this better than private insurance? It's not going to drive the costs down since the government is guaranteeing coverage. That's great news to the doctors and drug companies. Now they can charge what they want and the government will pay it. Better yet, how do you propose it will be able to cover people when they never say no? There's not enough money!
They control costs the same way that private insurance companies do, negotiate with medical service providers on prices and treatments into long term contracts. Let providers bid on complete treatments.
Again, this doesn't reduce the costs of healthcare. The service providers aren't going to take on a bunch of sick people. It's still health insurance. The difference is now it has a giant, incompetent collective heading it, the same collective that can't even manage the damn post office.
Yes, but you know what's going to happen. The government can set those premiums as low as they want, and when they're not making money, oh well they can just print some. Everybody will eventually go to the public option because it's cheapest or because it's all they can afford, and wham, single payer system.
If medicare was a 'failed' program, we would not still have it, NOR would conservatives continue to defend medicare or try and increase it's umbrella (Which BUSH did actually).
Medicare is awesome. Ask any old person and they have ZERO complaints. Extending these coverages to the rest of America is not a big deal and can easily be funded. You act like we have this 'strict' amount of money we have to stick to, but in a world based on credit (not gold) that's just excuses.
Yeah, but he followed it up with some pretty strong ones. He also forgot to mention that the majority of doctors (you know, those guys who know what they're talking about) are happy with Medicare and support the current healthcare overhaul.
Yeah, the polls from Investor's Business Daily (IBD) who also ran a poll before the presidential election saying McCain had 74% support from young Americans across the country.
Apparently at some point that was true. Polls aren't always 100% correct, but give us all a general idea. Get over it, public healthcare will never pass.... we the people do not want it.
Roughly half of us do want it. Most people who are informed about the actual facts regarding the plan (those who have read the bill for example) want it, whereas people who don't know what it is (people who think it's a takeover, or socialist, or death panels etc) are against it. It's all a matter of which group you mean when you say "we the people."
"Roughly half of us do want it." It might be closer to half if you count the illegals like Obama did until this particular speech. Don't you find it funny that his numbers went from "47 million do not have insurance" to "30 million do not have insurance." How do you suppose his number dropped that many million in a week? That's right, he didn't count the illegals this time. It's kinda funny that you say you have read the WHOLE bill. Did you have a lawyer with you the whole time?
No, Obama said 30 million citizens, plus about 7-9 million legal immigrants (not included in what he said), and the rest are illegal immigrants. So no, illegal immigrants don't make up 17 million, more like 7-9 million of the uninsured. However, when they (or anyone without insurance) go the emergency room, people with private insurance and/or taxpayers in general have to pay for their emergency room care (depending on which way you run the numbers). So it's best for all to have insurance.
Really? Because it was a democrat in congress that said he didn't read the bill. He said, "There isn't enough time to sit down and read 1000 pages and 2 lawyers to tell me what it means."
Don't care what party he was in. Anyone who can't be bothered to do his job does not deserve to keep it. I had assumed that it was YOU who asked if I had a lawyer with me, and I further assumed that you were a Republican.
At any rate, judging from what the right says about the bill, it's clear that none of them have read it with or without a lawyer. It is constantly misquoted.
Actually, the "right" clearly do know what they are talking about when it comes down to the bill. You can call it the "right" all you want, however it is both parties who agree there are way too many flaws with this bill. If they truely wanted to pass the healthcare bill, they would have already. Majority democrats... what else do they need to get it done? That's right, they haven't passed it because BOTH parties disagree with it. Why not take the time to get a well thought out bill ready?
Republican4u2envy, first of all there are only 59 democratic senators, so that is not a filibuster proof majority. Second, there have been many issues in which a majority agreed but not a filibuster proof one. In this case reconciliation was, and could be used. For instance, when medicare funding was lowered for lower income families it passed with reconciliation. Democrats are trying not to use reconciliation, since it is a dirty process. That is why a bill "Has not been passed by now".
uberjim83... "The majority of congressmen are evidence against that claim." Funny you should say that! Majority are democrats. You don't think they could have passed it already if they wanted it? Of course they could have! There's no reason in the world why they wouldn't have.
However, I'm not talking about congress wanting public healthcare or not. I'm saying WE THE PEOPLE don't want it. You are a fool if you think members of congress would ever use this public option.
Look up John Boehner. He said yesterday that they will in no way have enough votes to pass this through. They use a public option now... yeah for the extremely poor and the elderly. Btw, both of which are about bankrupt. AND they are planning on taking billions and billions away from the medicare program. You think elderly people want that? Nope. BTW, it's not an "option" if you have to qualify for it. Get over it. We all know it will not pass.
It doesn't take a genious to see it will not pass. The moderate democrats are not on board with the extreme left. They have enough of a brain to see that we cannot afford this AND it will bankrupt shortly. Are you finished wasting my time yet?
If you think debate is a waste of time, then don't. Besides, the bill (in it's current incarnation) is written by and for the moderate Democrats and Republicans; the far left are pissed because it still leaves several million uninsured. The Republicans don't oppose it because of it's contents; how could they? They don't know it's contents! They oppose it because they believe that looking steadfast in front of the voters is more important than 40,000 American lives.
uberjim... you should change your name to uberannoying. You do NOT debate, you state the same things over and over and over again. Any bill that has a public option is NOT going to pass. Don't bother telling me it will, just watch and see for yourself. I'm not sure where you get any of your numbers, but I'd love for you to share those facts with me. Nobody is denied healthcare in the U.S.. So you cannot argue that people will have their lives saved by having a public option.
That's right. NOBODY. It's a law and has been. Need a doctor you march your ass into the hospital and see one. Before you argue something, know reality first.
No, it's not. You are a fucking idiot. If you are referring to the emergency rooms, do you really think that's a solution for anyone with a long-lasting condition like cancer?
OMFG you are a complete idiot! I said NOBODY in America is denied healthcare. You walk into a hospitl and they CANNOT refuse you. It's law and has been. "No, it's not." No what's not? You make absolutely no sense. Are you 5? My 8 year old nephew could out argue you. Get a life and a job. Stop expecting handouts.
You cannot just say "no it's not" to my WHOLE comment. For all I know you are saying "not it's not raining outside." Anyway, are you seriously this stupid? It's a federal law and has been that if somebody walks into a hospital, regardless of their income or insurance status, NOBODY can be denied. Sounds like you need to read up on your healthcare. Please, call ANY hospital in America right now. They will tell you this is true. Stop being a moron and use facts, not bullshit.
I didn't. If you read more than the first 3 words of my comment, you'd know that already. If you remembered what you were talking about, you would have known what I was negating.
The law you're repeating only applies to emergency room service, not long-term treatment. I already said that, please don't make me repeat myself anymore.
So you now admit there IS a law. Anyway, that's what I have been saying. If someone goes into the hospital in need of treatment they CANNOT be denied. You said that and then said that it was not a law. Which is it uberannoying? That's right, I was right. I never said people were not allowed to be denied INSURANCE. Keep up. There is less than 15% of Americans that do not have insurance. Out of that 15%, many CAN afford insurance but chose not to buy it.
No, you moron. I said that there was a law that prevented emergency rooms to turn people away, not a law that said that nobody could ever be denied healthcare. The rest of the hospital has no such limitations, and they can and will turn you down if you can't pay. You can't just stay in the emergency room forever.
You weren't right, hell, you weren't even wrong. You were LYING.
I said NOBODY can be denied healtchare. They walk their ass into the hospital and see a doctor. They are put on a sliding scale if their income is low. You said "No it's not." Remember that comment uberannoying? Who said people can stay in the ER forever? Funny that the only person you are arguing with is YOURSELF! I've stuck to my argument, you go back and forth because you have NO FACTS. Get a life and quite bothering people. You cannot debate if you are an idiot.
Anyway, I never said people could be denied emergency care. I said they can be denied healthcare, which is true of anyone with a health problem that can't be handled in a short period of time in an emergency room. You keep acknowledging that fact, but then repeating your original statement as though you hadn't just acknowledged it as false.
When you say people can be denied healthcare, that is untrue. We both agree people can be seen in the ER. You should be saying people are denied insurance instead. Did you know that this plan would take BILLIONS away from systems already in place like medicare? How do you justify taking away from the elderly? All these government plans are failing horribly. Why wouldn't you rather have them expand on our current system? Why would you want the government in your business MORE?
No, I read the bills and know that they weren't proposing anything of the sort (though there was a Republican amendment that suggested such a thing, I strongly doubt it'll make its way in there).
Reread the last two questions on your post, you've contradicted yourself.
I don't know anyone at my age group (18-21) that has any kind of insurance except for cars, I myself don't have any insurance at all. Most people that have insurance are kids + families that get a decent income, but unfortunately, the US is filled with poor people, and that section is growing. Obama's health care plan is anti-american, if you wish to know why, just let me know, I'll tell you why and HOW it will fail.
It's a fact. Look it up- even Obama agrees with that one and has said it himself in his speech. "The U.S. is filled with poor people." LOL!!! The average income is $50,000 a year. Are you serious with the last part of your comment?!?!? I know the public option will fail. That was my argument. It's not even an issue anymore, the bill is dead.
I didn't care to read up on what you and that other guy was conversating about, it was a bit of a "tl;dr" kinda thing. But simply stating, that 15% isn't accurate at all truthfully, and most 18-21 year olds cannot afford insurance. Also, yes his healthcare plan is anti-american, like I said, I'll explain why, and also how it would fail if it were to be passed :D
You shouldn't comment on anything unless you read the comments you reply to. The 15% is a fact. You cannot argue with facts. I don't need you to explain anything because it's apparent I know more than you on the issue.
I did read the comments of which I replied to, as you can see, I didn't read the conversation of which you and the other guy had, but I wasn't replying to that. I was merely replying to the one and only comment -- which is exactly what I did. You say this 15% is a fact, yet you show no proof or attempt to. You merely "act" like you know all, and try to insult anyone that questions your bluff. You're an ignorant fool.
You really are too stupid to find this on your own. Not only has the president himself said it, but you don't listen to ANYBODY. It's not a hidden fact. You don't even have to do the math yourself, it's on the site. God forbid you have to do a simple calculation yourself to figure out that 45 million is 15% of our population. I even looked up a liberal site for you. Now everybody can see what a fool you are.
@Republican4U2Envy I'm still waiting for where this 15% is comming from, not saying that it isn't true, just it's a random number without evidence so far. You see, you're assuming things already, and not just about the 15%, you assume that you know more about this than me (or at least was implied). But please, comment more, and dodge to provide some proof, because I'm getting quite a laugh out of you.
Only you would need proof of what EVERYONE in the world already knows. You sit here and type 55 comments making yourself look as stupid as you are, instead of just typing it in google yourself. Type in the website I gave you and shut your mouth. If you type in the search "number of americans uninsured" you can find thousands more sites.
First of all, I agree that Bush sucked, and I think anybody with a brain agrees with that too. Also, the only reason medicare isn't failed is because the government keeps putting more and more money into it. Obama even said himself that two of the highest outsources of money for the government are social security, medicare, and medicaid. Oh and I'll give you one reason why using gold instead of credit is a hundred times better, it doesn't collect interest.
This short 24 seconds of video was more informative then suffering through 9 minutes of The Young Turks and their stoner like "News" commentary.Those guys are absolutely clueless.Great video BTW.
uberjim: Sorry to disappoint you, but like the rest of the so called "conservative" sensationalists and comedians, he is a fraud, using the dumb down redneck population to fill his pockets. Just type in "Larry the cable guy before redneck". The fact speaks for itself.
Good point. Do you think howtheworldworks pretends to be more conservative than he really is, in order to appeal to the lowest (and therefore most populous) intellects on the web, to attract more views?
uberjim: Well, let's not throw the word conservative around, especially when talking about NEO-conservatives. HTWW simply repeats the talking points he hears on Fox News. And yes, he does do this to get more views. Apparently objective news just isn't that popular. Everyone wants to be on a "side". That being said, just look at his speech at the tea parties. The tea parties where supposed to be about protesting the Federal Reserve. He didn't mention one thing about the FED. Only talking points.
Joe Wilson told the truth! O is malignant narcisssist who cannot stop lying. Just check out how many lies he has told since his campaign!
abundantlyclear 9 months ago
i lol'd, good shit lee
joggylol 1 year ago
please stop these crap videos they are just a waste if you have nothing to post then dont.
rsolgtp 2 years ago
HAHAHA omg this is so true
nickthedick888 2 years ago
THAT WAS THE GREATEST VIDEO I HAVE EVER SEEN!!! good job
bulldogs3159 2 years ago
Who Watching?
SOCK ACCOUNTS ARE!
DaSOCIAList 2 years ago
Awesome!! Make more of these!!
drummer703 2 years ago
you would not lose money, nor save money because socialized medicine is free. but you do pay for it in tax. so if you really think about it we wouldnt really benefit from socialized medicine, when it comes from money, And profit is what gives us most of our medicines. So i like our current syetem in that sense. anyway i support obamas healthcare plan. because the healthcare insurance system is corrupt. not the healthcare system.
mronionsalad 2 years ago
Actually, the majority of research grants in America are government-issued.
uberjim83 2 years ago
o rly
mronionsalad 2 years ago
ya rly
uberjim83 2 years ago
Not bad at all. :)
khanserr 2 years ago
Why can't they get it through their heads we cannot afford this..they are taxing us to death!! Taxing us left and right..No money left over from our paychecks for anything anymore.
ddiiaa52 2 years ago
I still think that 'health care' is our own business! It's just like 'the right to own a car'..... yeah sure, it would be great if everyone could afford a new mercedes every year, but that ain't gonna happen. some of us can only afford a used chev.(Like me) but that's ok with me. I barely can afford health ins. (that's why I go with the used chev.) I still use the same roads as everyone else.
Life has no guarantees. I refuse to pay for someone elses!
TheRancherman61 2 years ago 2
You use roads? You communist.
uberjim83 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Flag this video for DMCA copyrighted music in background.
qqstar999 2 years ago
Ever heard of fair use my lad?
floydefisher 2 years ago
LOL- I just uploaded a parody song about the Joe Wilson thing this morning. This is funny!
TheNemiShow 2 years ago
lame.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OMFG thats awesome
eatcarbs 2 years ago
How much money do you spend by maintaining the statas quo?
kingsdun 2 years ago
testing
kommisar 2 years ago
That's the money the health insurance companies save by using technicalities to reject sick and dying people!
atlant80 2 years ago
That's the money you get from the health insurance industry when you reject reality.
ChrisTheTruckDriver 2 years ago
fucking dumb.
maybe i just don't understand something, so if someone is reading this i would be happy if they explained it to me.
i live in Canada, so we have national health care... and i think it is PHENOMENAL!
it sounds to me that simply the rich are worried about paying a little more since it will benefit the lower class pop. more then the higher class.
Canadas health care is awesome. so i hope someone can take the time and explain to me WHY? why is there so much opposition to this???
Phibins 2 years ago
Because Canadians live in a nanny state where the governments sends social workers to wipe your ass after you crap and spoon feed you pre-chewed food and blows your nose for you and masturbates you when you're feeling horny!
/sarcasm
atlant80 2 years ago
@atlanta - ok, "lowest form of wit".
but you didnt even address my question, so why bother replying to my comment.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE?
Phibins 2 years ago
Sarcasm gets a bad rep as the lowest form of wit. I think, if done properly, it can be very funny.
But addressing the point, I have nothing against socialized medicine, but you don't have it in Canada. You have single payer medicine, because the doctors are private. If the doctors were government employees, like in England or the American VA system, that would be socialized medicine. What republicans don't like about it is that it's more government control. They like private, not public.
atlant80 2 years ago
thanks.
so whats the difference between (canada's) publicly funded health care system and what Obama is proposing? (except for doctors being gov. employees... b/c i don't see how that is relevant.)
Phibins 2 years ago
Hahaha!!! Obama isn't proposing anything CLOSE to socialized medicine, or EVEN single payer! He is basically going to make people get insurance, and subsidize those who can't, and create a national exchange so people buying on the independent market can be in a group plan, and MAYBE, if we are lucky, there will be a public, government run insurance option in the national exchange. It's complicated, but it's not socialized medicine. That's complete and total rhetoric, lies, and propaganda.
atlant80 2 years ago
ok, thanks. well first its not propaganda... i think its just me misunderstanding the political health care issues happening in in the US.
this is from a .gc site (Canadian gov.).
just b/c i am still not 100% clear on what is being proposed in the us, what is the difference between this description and the US proposition. (except for the possibility that there will not be a gov. run option...[which is practically what CAN. has])
Phibins 2 years ago
No, I'm not saying you're spreading propaganda. I realize you don't get what's going on. The vast majority of the republican party and conservatives don't get it either. The Canadian system has single payer health care. You pay higher taxes, and get free health care, within the bounds of reason. The US system is private, where you pay a lot to insurance companies and they hopefully pay for your care. The US proposal just wants to make more people insured in the private insurance companies.
atlant80 2 years ago
"an interlocking set of ten provincial and three territorial health insurance plans. Known to Canadians as "medicare", the system provides access to universal, comprehensive coverage for medically necessary hospital and physician services....for medically necessary health care services provided on the basis of need, rather than the ability to pay."
Phibins 2 years ago
The current US system is basically this: There are corporations that insure people. You pay a certain amount of money a month, and they will cover a certain % of doctor costs (you pay the rest), but only after you've spent a certain amount of money a year on medical care. The monthly payment is called a premium, the % you pay (usually around 15%) is called a co-pay, and the money you have to spend before they cover anything is called a deductible. It kinda sucks.
atlant80 2 years ago
However, if you were sick with a condition before buying the policy, or you made a mistake on your application or left anything out, and you get seriously sick, the insurance company may drop you from their plan, and they won't pay anything. What the Obama proposal is going to do is make it so that the above mentioned cannot happen, and make more people get insurance, and subsidize people who cannot afford it. The goal is to have everyone insured on a system that will go from awful to bearable.
atlant80 2 years ago
tnx. so pretty much they want to make getting health insurance mandetory... and help people who cannot afford it. am i right?
1. why is the current H.I. "awful"?
2. why would this change make it only "bearable"?
3. why is there so much opposition to this? (or more specifically, what are the pro's and cons of this?)
PS.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me...
Phibins 2 years ago
The current system is awful for anyone buying in the individual market. If you get your insurance from your employer, there are laws so thy cannot drop you if you get sick. In the individual market (buying it on your own rather than getting it as a job benefit), the prices are a lot higher, and they can drop you if you get really sick if you have a preexisting condition or mistakes on your application so you'll have to pay for all your medical care out of pocket.
atlant80 2 years ago
Universal healthcare involves government regulation. Government regulation distorts the true market value and this usually if not always discourages competition and makes the prices go up. In addition, quality is likely to suffer. Fuck, the government can't even run the post office, yet people want it to control their healthcare??? It's tempting upon surface examination but in the long run it's not a good idea at all. The solution would be to allow a free market to reduce the costs.
kommisar 2 years ago
The change would make it bearable because it would still cost a lot of people a lot of money, but at least the less well off get subsidies and the insurance companies cannot drop you. And there is so much resistance because people want to see Obama fail. That's the main reason for the vast majority of it. Sure, it will cost a lot, but it will all be paid for without adding to the deficit. People just want to see Obama fail.
atlant80 2 years ago
PSS.
i wasn't claiming you were saying i am "spreading propaganda", but rather i was trying to make clear that my opinion is not based on propaganda... just a lack of information.
Phibins 2 years ago
lmfao!!
BATCH420 2 years ago
dumbass
Badcom911 2 years ago
dude, come on. the money doesn't talk in those ads.
DogmaGogMagogMa 2 years ago
Well that was a waste of 24 seconds.
paulo101 2 years ago
You're funny. You know, we already have socialized medicine? Granted, it can send you to bankrupcy and the quality might not be that good, but we still have it.
Derokos 2 years ago
Its a public option, why do you people care so much, why do you just hate the idea of paying for dying peoples treatments.
mexicoman101 2 years ago
@mexicoman101
1. When a public option is established it competes with the private market like an alligator against a rabbit. Eventually, the private market will be pushed out.
2. I don't hate the idea of paying for dying people's treatment. I hate the idea of being coerced to pay for other people's health-care when I have worked hard for my own.
stayinthecourse2014 2 years ago
1. What about all the people that watch false news?
I would much rather have the govornment run the healthcare system than a bunch of greedy bastards who cherish money over human life.
2. I guess some people dont share the same morals.
mexicoman101 2 years ago
2. I guess you feel the same way about farmers or potentially even gun dealers? I doubt you agree with capitalism or the reality behind that economic system?
3. I share the same morals as every living being; I'm self-interested. I'm ambitious and driven by my own individualism.
stayinthecourse2014 2 years ago
I doubt it, most people don't prefer money over human life. If you don't think your tax dollars should be spent healing the sick, what DO you want them spent on?
And make no mistake, they're going to be spent. Even if the government renders no service to the population, they'll still tax you. It'll just go into their own pockets instead of hospitals.
uberjim83 2 years ago
innovation with extreme competition that decreases the cost for consumers. This is ethical. Another viewpoint:
1. I pay for my health-care.
2. I pay for my peer's health-care.
Ethical?
stayinthecourse2014 2 years ago
I cherish human life over money.
mexicoman101 2 years ago
@mexicoman101
I would expect that. Human being's tend to lean toward 'being alive' than any other component of life (Source: The Onion).
I never said anyone chooses human life over money or vice-versa. It's not proper to say health-care = life. Health-care can = cough syrup, mild-seasonal allergy pills, etc. Health-care can also = life threatening open-heart bypass surgeries, I understand that. However, that does not make "health-care" (in this context) a necessity for life.
stayinthecourse2014 2 years ago
Healthcare is not a necessity to life. It is only a necessity to extending your life.
FrostbittenWolf 2 years ago
@FrostbittenWolf
True, though I would say in the unlikely event that someone never falls ill or suffers from any ailment and never "needs" health-care and they live well into their 80's, then I would say not so much. That is always a probability to that argument.
stayinthecourse2014 2 years ago
Actually, I'm starting to agree. Health insurance companies give such shitty service in America there's no WAY they could compete with a public plan. Unlike in most other countries that have a public option and private insurers...
uberjim83 2 years ago
@uberjim83; sorry my "1." point wasn't posted I guess, but "2." and "3." went through.
Yes, other countries still have private insurance, but the cost increases.
It's not that I don't WANT my tax dollars spent healing the sick; (personally I would rather not use I or my and tax dollars in a sentence). It seems as though this is a question of ethics? From my point of view gov. run health-care is actually unethical. Free health-care market is ethical, to me. It allows for infinite
stayinthecourse2014 2 years ago
Does it? The cost in other nations isn't anywhere near what it is here.
"Free market" healthcare treats life as a commodity. In what way would paying for healthcare with your taxes be unethical? Also, keep in mind you're not paying for your own health-care plus everyone else's: everyone would be paying for everyone's healthcare. Kinda like what you already do with insurance companies, except they wouldn't be allowed to cut off your coverage if they decided your life wasn't worth it anymore.
uberjim83 2 years ago
If you cannot understand how theft is unethical... then this conversation is over.
PatriotsRepublic 2 years ago
I never brought up theft. I think you're out of your mind.
uberjim83 2 years ago
uberjim, you're ignoring whether or not universal healthcare would keep the cost of healthcare down while maintaining the quality. Typically when it comes to government subsidizing this doesn't happen. Costs go up and often quality suffers. The most practical solution would be to see what has made the costs of healthcare go up and get those out of the way. This isn't solely because of a bunch of greedy, evil insurance companies.
kommisar 2 years ago
The world is literally filled with evidence to the contrary. And it's perfectly clear to everyone what is making the costs go up: price-gauging. See, you can charge whatever you want when (a) people need your product to survive and (b) you can refuse to perform the service you're paid for.
Life is an inalienable right, not a commodity to be bought and sold.
uberjim83 2 years ago
No, uber, you have clearly not done any research. When healthcare was cheap and affordable, it was a free market. As soon as the government came in and started regulating things, distorting the true market values, prices went up. Need more evidence of this? In many of the countries with universal healthcare, the healthcare there is increasing proportionately more than the U.S. This includes France.
Healthcare definitely needs reform, but socialized medicine is not the answer.
kommisar 2 years ago
No, you're wrong. When health care was cheap and affordable, equipment was cheap and affordable! That's one of the biggest things driving up costs: Expensive medical equipment and operations. Your free market dogma is complete crap when discussing health care. When there were "free markets" with no government intervention, people were getting dropped and cheated left and right. And where is your evidence that those countries have costs increasing faster than ours, cause I've read otherwise.
atlant80 2 years ago
I thought people getting fucked over is what was happening now....
Wrong. Government regulation discourages competition suppresses true market value while driving prices up and/or quality down. The idea of a free market is to have competition. The more competition the lower the prices and better the quality. If the medical equipment costs that much, how's it going to help by having Uncle Sam cap the prices? Who's going to want to make equipment they can't get properly paid for?
kommisar 2 years ago
Hahaha!!! Pure free market dogma! Yes, in 95% of circumstances, that is true. However, the health care market is different. Health care economics do not work the same way as regular economics do. Health care companies do not compete to provide the best care or the best service, because if they did, they'd go bankrupt. They compete to get the most young, healthy people to cover the costs if anyone gets sick and, if possible, drop the sick person to make more money. Get why regulation is needed?
atlant80 2 years ago
If healthcare companies aren't competing, why do you suppose that is? Why aren't car insurance doing the same thing then? Obviously something is discouraging competition, and that has a lot to do with the government's regulation. If they forced costs to be under the true market value, it would only diminish quality and people -- insurance companies and doctors alike -- would quit as they aren't getting paid enough to make a viable living.
kommisar 2 years ago
NO! Stop with the libertarian dogma for half a second and take health care as a separate issue! Insurance company competition is not competition in the traditional sense. It's not the lowest rate, or the best policies. Real competition between insurance companies is over the healthiest individuals. If insurance companies offered great service at a great price to everyone and didn't turn down care, THEY'D BE BANKRUPT! You are comparing apples to oranges. Learn about health care economics!
atlant80 2 years ago
No, healthcare is still subject to the same price dynamics of other markets. It's very telling that you dodged my car insurance comparison....
Healthcare costs a lot, right? So wouldn't it be in the insurance companies' best interest to provide it at an affordable price so that more people could buy from them? Why are they making it expensive, then pissing people off by refusing coverage? Same shit, fool. You haven't provided any valid argument other than the "they're evil" rhetoric.
kommisar 2 years ago
So if there was a public option to compete with (i.e. more competition) then the prices would go down. That is, of course, only if your logic is consistent.
The price of equipment isn't going up. The only thing going up is the overhead costs given to the insurance companies, who contribute nothing to the process.
uberjim83 2 years ago
Fun quiz:
A man walks into an emergency room and then collapes. He has a subdural hematoma so severe that his skull had to be opened up to relieve the intercranial pressure. But he didn't have health insurance, and couldn't pay his medical bills.
So, if he's incapable of paying the bills, who covers it? WE DO!
In the long run a public healthcare plan would cost LESS than the current private healthcare program.
Just don't tell HTWW that. He still doesn't realize it's not socialized.
FrostbittenWolf 2 years ago 2
How the hell is the public option going to compete? What's going to happen is all the people who get turned down by the private companies are going to use the public option. Say a guy needs brain surgery right away. He gets the public option and is instantly covered. The program will go bankrupt by this alone. The government CANNOT undercut costs. It's not financially feasible. There's no way the government will be able to cover all these costs without going into debt.
kommisar 2 years ago
Oh no, the people who get turned down for private insurance will get public insurance? Why, that's... exactly the point.
I suppose you'd rather if he just died?
uberjim83 2 years ago
Yes, and that's going to overload the system and cause it to go bankrupt. Say I decide I'm not gonna pay health insurance because I don't need it right now. A week later I break my arm or something. Oh, look at this, I can just go to the government and get immediate coverage. People WILL do this and the system will collapse. Even more so, this will not in any form drive down the costs of healthcare. In fact, it will drive it up since the government will be subsidizing.
kommisar 2 years ago
Yes, I've done research. Unlike you, I researched facts instead of pundit's opinions. Our free market healthcare is more expensive than the universal healthcare of ANY OTHER NATION.
uberjim83 2 years ago
So where do you get your "facts" if they're not from experts? That makes no sense.
Healthcare costs are rising faster in many nations with universal care compared to the U.S.'s. I've also heard many people who live in these countries complain about the quality of the care they receive.
kommisar 2 years ago
Pundits are not experts in any field. They are nothing but glorified talk-show hosts.
And yeah, you're gonna hear sick people complain about their quality of care no matter how good it is (see watch?v=GVU1qvMqk3g for Glenn Beck's opinion on American heathcare when he's sick). They're miserable because they're sick, and going to the doctor sucks. You know what sucks even more? Dying because you can't afford to go to the doctor.
uberjim83 2 years ago
"pundit"
"2. a learned person"
-thefreedictionary [dot] com
This seems to have fit in the context in which you used this word.
So people are complaining about healthcare quality because they're sick? Oh, and to think that you were supposedly sympathetic towards sick people....
kommisar 2 years ago
...given that it wouldn't be paid for by tax payers, the public option is no more "socialized medicine" than energy co-ops. Guess how alot of farmers get their electricty, and have gotten their electricty for the latter part of the 20th century and the first 9 years of the 21st.
Mustex4 2 years ago
That's the senate seat Geico et-al has bought.
countess1900 2 years ago
Either those are some big bills or you probably don't have enough.
QshesshoumaruQ 2 years ago
classic
spark300c 2 years ago
you better not leave that money sitting out where the senate can see it
shananagans5 2 years ago
I think it's ironic that he used the same font that Thunderf00t uses in his WdPLaC series.
JETZcorp 2 years ago
The Constitution Party has more than a chance, we are going to win! Thanks to the actions of Republicans and Democrats we are exploding with new members. We have the steam now and were are not stopping until our candidates get elected.
Our Party is truly a Party of the Constitution, all 39 planks of our platform are backed up by a corresponding passage in the Constitution or from the writings of America's Founding Fathers.
The Constitution Party has no religious litmus test.
CommentaryUSA 2 years ago
Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for our countries problems. To continue to elect people from either of those parties is just telling them that you are satisfied with the representation you are getting.
Ditch the Republican and Democrat parties. "Health care" debate is just a distraction, they know they can't pay for any of it.
They have sent your jobs over seas and bankrupted you and your children. They don't deserve your vote.
Join The Constitution Party!
CommentaryUSA 2 years ago
The Constitution Party isn't a true Constitution Party... ditch all the "We are a Christian Nation" bull crap and maybe you'll have a chance. While we may be a nation of Christians by and large, we are not a Christian nation, do you see the distinction? I hope so, because our founders did! Now, they did not believe in the separation of Church and State as "You cannot believe in God nor can you express your beliefs in God and hold office." They believed in keeping the church and state separate.
PatriotsRepublic 2 years ago
Patriot: Well, I must say though. From a what I have been hearing from older people, there hasn't been this amount of libertarians, constitutionalists, and true conservatives in...well, ever in their lifetimes. It's cool. Just maybe, just maybe this generation of people can finally break the stranglehold of the two party system and get some real change done. But it's also depressing to see the likes of HTWW, with his big audience and all, just repeat corporate news talking points.
Orion1232 2 years ago
Remember, our only goal should be Consitutional Adherence... aside from that... who cares?
PatriotsRepublic 2 years ago
Why? Do you not think the Constitution was created for a goal higher than itself?
uberjim83 2 years ago
The Constitution was created as a contract for preserving our Liberty. The government's role was to be very limited by Constitutional design... and we will force it to be what it has not been now for nearly 100 years. And God help whoever gets in our way.
PatriotsRepublic 2 years ago
1: You would have to be completely ignorant of history to want things to be the way they were 100 years ago.
2: The Constitution was a legal document attempting to create a free yet united country. It was the second attempt to do so, and was never intended to be the last. We should have taken Thomas Jefferson's advice and rewritten it every 30 years, but we were too damn lazy.
3: What's up with the death threats?
uberjim83 2 years ago
You threaten to take my liberty... I'll protect it will lethal force.... its not a threat, its a promise that we will defend ourselves from being enslaved.
PatriotsRepublic 2 years ago
I haven't threatened anyone with anything. You are a liar, and a fool.
uberjim83 2 years ago
Anyone who supports any form of socialism is threatening slavery. You support democracy, hence, you threaten my liberty. You are a threat because instead of only wanting to live your beliefs... you want to impose your beliefs on everyone else. Liberty is non-negotiable... Patrick Henry said it best... and the only thing I would change is "Keep your hands off my liberty because its being defended with lethal force!"
PatriotsRepublic 2 years ago
That is not only a bunch of lies, but they aren't even lies that make any kind of sense. Democratic states are the only ones in which the people HAVE liberty. I didn't support any kind of socialism, but even if I did, confusing it with slavery is just plain idiocy.
uberjim83 2 years ago
You must have some definition of Liberty that neither our forefathers understood nor I know to be true. Democracy kept slavery alive. Democracy enslaves us now. Democracy enforces government sanctioned and enforced discrimination. Democracy as a form of government is as evil as any of the worst Fascist, Totalitarian and Authoritarian governments in existence. Only a Republic that blocks the majority from taking away the rights of the minority provides true liberty.
PatriotsRepublic 2 years ago
You claimed that we didn't have a democracy. How could it have kept slavery alive? And since when is self-rule "slavery?" Oh no, we might be slaves to our own choices!
If you gave a shit about the rights of the minority, you wouldn't be so against healthcare for everyone. If you gave a shit about free speech, you wouldn't threaten to murder everyone who disagreed with you, either.
uberjim83 2 years ago
LOL!
pur3o3end 2 years ago
I HATE those Gieco commercials!
NoCensorshipYT 2 years ago
You better not leave that money anywhere near the senate!!!
shananagans5 2 years ago 2
Lol!
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
lol
PivotB3stZ 2 years ago
lol so funny
Somespatanwarrior 2 years ago
The only people who would lose money with a public option would be the Health Insurance Corporations.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
You are definitely misinformed if you think that.
glramer2007 2 years ago
Yeah! The people in Washington who rely on the Health Insurance Companies for bribe money would lose some too!
uberjim83 2 years ago
No, the whole government would lose money, thus increasing our current deficit. Why would we let the government create medicare on a much larger scale, when it's already a failed program anyways? Trust me, government run insurance is a very very bad idea.
glramer2007 2 years ago
Balls to that. If the government loses and the people gain, I say that's a good thing.
And they're not just "creating" medicaire on a larger scale. They're revamping and repairing medicaire as it is. Why are you against fixing something that we both think is broken?
Besides, if the public option sucks, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It'll encourage more people to buy high quality insurance of their own (kinda like how most people aren't on welfare even though it's available).
uberjim83 2 years ago
No, it will increase the deficit. That's bad for everybody. Also, the public option will drive other insurance companies out of business, because nobody is stupid enough to pay for the public option on taxes, AND for the private option out of their own pocket.
glramer2007 2 years ago
The public option is not funded through government subsidy. It is not funded by taxes but by premiums. It competes on a level playing field with private insurance. (insert insult here).
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
j0hn, I'll spare the insults since this time you at least TRIED to come up with an argument.
So it's funded through premiums. And how is this better than private insurance? It's not going to drive the costs down since the government is guaranteeing coverage. That's great news to the doctors and drug companies. Now they can charge what they want and the government will pay it. Better yet, how do you propose it will be able to cover people when they never say no? There's not enough money!
kommisar 2 years ago
They control costs the same way that private insurance companies do, negotiate with medical service providers on prices and treatments into long term contracts. Let providers bid on complete treatments.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Again, this doesn't reduce the costs of healthcare. The service providers aren't going to take on a bunch of sick people. It's still health insurance. The difference is now it has a giant, incompetent collective heading it, the same collective that can't even manage the damn post office.
kommisar 2 years ago
Yes, but you know what's going to happen. The government can set those premiums as low as they want, and when they're not making money, oh well they can just print some. Everybody will eventually go to the public option because it's cheapest or because it's all they can afford, and wham, single payer system.
glramer2007 2 years ago
If medicare was a 'failed' program, we would not still have it, NOR would conservatives continue to defend medicare or try and increase it's umbrella (Which BUSH did actually).
Medicare is awesome. Ask any old person and they have ZERO complaints. Extending these coverages to the rest of America is not a big deal and can easily be funded. You act like we have this 'strict' amount of money we have to stick to, but in a world based on credit (not gold) that's just excuses.
electronicoffee 2 years ago
"If medicare was a 'failed' program, we would not still have it"
Oh that is such a weak argument. Well then "don't ask don't tell" must be working because we still have it.
avengemm9dog 2 years ago
Yeah, but he followed it up with some pretty strong ones. He also forgot to mention that the majority of doctors (you know, those guys who know what they're talking about) are happy with Medicare and support the current healthcare overhaul.
uberjim83 2 years ago
By the way also, 60% of doctors are against the health plan. Frankly it sucks cock/\.
flapjackmaka 2 years ago
Not only are they against it, but the polls show that a large percentage would quit.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
Yeah, the polls from Investor's Business Daily (IBD) who also ran a poll before the presidential election saying McCain had 74% support from young Americans across the country.
paulo101 2 years ago
Apparently at some point that was true. Polls aren't always 100% correct, but give us all a general idea. Get over it, public healthcare will never pass.... we the people do not want it.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
Roughly half of us do want it. Most people who are informed about the actual facts regarding the plan (those who have read the bill for example) want it, whereas people who don't know what it is (people who think it's a takeover, or socialist, or death panels etc) are against it. It's all a matter of which group you mean when you say "we the people."
uberjim83 2 years ago
"Roughly half of us do want it." It might be closer to half if you count the illegals like Obama did until this particular speech. Don't you find it funny that his numbers went from "47 million do not have insurance" to "30 million do not have insurance." How do you suppose his number dropped that many million in a week? That's right, he didn't count the illegals this time. It's kinda funny that you say you have read the WHOLE bill. Did you have a lawyer with you the whole time?
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
No, Obama said 30 million citizens, plus about 7-9 million legal immigrants (not included in what he said), and the rest are illegal immigrants. So no, illegal immigrants don't make up 17 million, more like 7-9 million of the uninsured. However, when they (or anyone without insurance) go the emergency room, people with private insurance and/or taxpayers in general have to pay for their emergency room care (depending on which way you run the numbers). So it's best for all to have insurance.
atlant80 2 years ago
No. Unlike Republicans, I can read documents without someone to distort it for me.
uberjim83 2 years ago
Really? Because it was a democrat in congress that said he didn't read the bill. He said, "There isn't enough time to sit down and read 1000 pages and 2 lawyers to tell me what it means."
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
Don't care what party he was in. Anyone who can't be bothered to do his job does not deserve to keep it. I had assumed that it was YOU who asked if I had a lawyer with me, and I further assumed that you were a Republican.
At any rate, judging from what the right says about the bill, it's clear that none of them have read it with or without a lawyer. It is constantly misquoted.
uberjim83 2 years ago
Actually, the "right" clearly do know what they are talking about when it comes down to the bill. You can call it the "right" all you want, however it is both parties who agree there are way too many flaws with this bill. If they truely wanted to pass the healthcare bill, they would have already. Majority democrats... what else do they need to get it done? That's right, they haven't passed it because BOTH parties disagree with it. Why not take the time to get a well thought out bill ready?
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
Republican4u2envy, first of all there are only 59 democratic senators, so that is not a filibuster proof majority. Second, there have been many issues in which a majority agreed but not a filibuster proof one. In this case reconciliation was, and could be used. For instance, when medicare funding was lowered for lower income families it passed with reconciliation. Democrats are trying not to use reconciliation, since it is a dirty process. That is why a bill "Has not been passed by now".
ZergInfestedChrist 2 years ago
Quit kidding yourself. If they wanted to pass a government run healthcare plan, it would be a done deal already.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
So, you're claiming that nobody wants the bill to pass? The majority of congressmen are evidence against that claim.
uberjim83 2 years ago
Well if that was the case then the bill would have already passed :p
Agospy 2 years ago
uberjim83... "The majority of congressmen are evidence against that claim." Funny you should say that! Majority are democrats. You don't think they could have passed it already if they wanted it? Of course they could have! There's no reason in the world why they wouldn't have.
However, I'm not talking about congress wanting public healthcare or not. I'm saying WE THE PEOPLE don't want it. You are a fool if you think members of congress would ever use this public option.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
1: It hasn't been put to a vote yet.
2: They need 60% to break a filibuster, not just a sinple majority.
3: Yes, we do. Or do you think the people you're arguing with don't count?
4: They already use a public option.
uberjim83 2 years ago
Look up John Boehner. He said yesterday that they will in no way have enough votes to pass this through. They use a public option now... yeah for the extremely poor and the elderly. Btw, both of which are about bankrupt. AND they are planning on taking billions and billions away from the medicare program. You think elderly people want that? Nope. BTW, it's not an "option" if you have to qualify for it. Get over it. We all know it will not pass.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
1: I know they couldn't pass it now. They have a majority, but they need 60% to overrule a filibuster.
2: Congressmen are already on a public plan. They use it on themselves, not on the extremely poor (though most of them are elderly).
3: I don't know the future, and neither do you.
uberjim83 2 years ago
It doesn't take a genious to see it will not pass. The moderate democrats are not on board with the extreme left. They have enough of a brain to see that we cannot afford this AND it will bankrupt shortly. Are you finished wasting my time yet?
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
If you think debate is a waste of time, then don't. Besides, the bill (in it's current incarnation) is written by and for the moderate Democrats and Republicans; the far left are pissed because it still leaves several million uninsured. The Republicans don't oppose it because of it's contents; how could they? They don't know it's contents! They oppose it because they believe that looking steadfast in front of the voters is more important than 40,000 American lives.
uberjim83 2 years ago
uberjim... you should change your name to uberannoying. You do NOT debate, you state the same things over and over and over again. Any bill that has a public option is NOT going to pass. Don't bother telling me it will, just watch and see for yourself. I'm not sure where you get any of your numbers, but I'd love for you to share those facts with me. Nobody is denied healthcare in the U.S.. So you cannot argue that people will have their lives saved by having a public option.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
Nobody is denied healthcare in the US?
Nobody?
What the fuck is the matter with you?
uberjim83 2 years ago
That's right. NOBODY. It's a law and has been. Need a doctor you march your ass into the hospital and see one. Before you argue something, know reality first.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
No, it's not. You are a fucking idiot. If you are referring to the emergency rooms, do you really think that's a solution for anyone with a long-lasting condition like cancer?
uberjim83 2 years ago
OMFG you are a complete idiot! I said NOBODY in America is denied healthcare. You walk into a hospitl and they CANNOT refuse you. It's law and has been. "No, it's not." No what's not? You make absolutely no sense. Are you 5? My 8 year old nephew could out argue you. Get a life and a job. Stop expecting handouts.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
"It's law and it has been."
"No it's not."
"No what's not?"
Please, try to keep up.
And yes, millions of Americans are denied healthcare. If they weren't, we wouldn't even been having this conversation.
uberjim83 2 years ago
You cannot just say "no it's not" to my WHOLE comment. For all I know you are saying "not it's not raining outside." Anyway, are you seriously this stupid? It's a federal law and has been that if somebody walks into a hospital, regardless of their income or insurance status, NOBODY can be denied. Sounds like you need to read up on your healthcare. Please, call ANY hospital in America right now. They will tell you this is true. Stop being a moron and use facts, not bullshit.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
I didn't. If you read more than the first 3 words of my comment, you'd know that already. If you remembered what you were talking about, you would have known what I was negating.
The law you're repeating only applies to emergency room service, not long-term treatment. I already said that, please don't make me repeat myself anymore.
uberjim83 2 years ago
So you now admit there IS a law. Anyway, that's what I have been saying. If someone goes into the hospital in need of treatment they CANNOT be denied. You said that and then said that it was not a law. Which is it uberannoying? That's right, I was right. I never said people were not allowed to be denied INSURANCE. Keep up. There is less than 15% of Americans that do not have insurance. Out of that 15%, many CAN afford insurance but chose not to buy it.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
No, you moron. I said that there was a law that prevented emergency rooms to turn people away, not a law that said that nobody could ever be denied healthcare. The rest of the hospital has no such limitations, and they can and will turn you down if you can't pay. You can't just stay in the emergency room forever.
You weren't right, hell, you weren't even wrong. You were LYING.
uberjim83 2 years ago
I said NOBODY can be denied healtchare. They walk their ass into the hospital and see a doctor. They are put on a sliding scale if their income is low. You said "No it's not." Remember that comment uberannoying? Who said people can stay in the ER forever? Funny that the only person you are arguing with is YOURSELF! I've stuck to my argument, you go back and forth because you have NO FACTS. Get a life and quite bothering people. You cannot debate if you are an idiot.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
You have proven that you can.
Anyway, I never said people could be denied emergency care. I said they can be denied healthcare, which is true of anyone with a health problem that can't be handled in a short period of time in an emergency room. You keep acknowledging that fact, but then repeating your original statement as though you hadn't just acknowledged it as false.
uberjim83 2 years ago
When you say people can be denied healthcare, that is untrue. We both agree people can be seen in the ER. You should be saying people are denied insurance instead. Did you know that this plan would take BILLIONS away from systems already in place like medicare? How do you justify taking away from the elderly? All these government plans are failing horribly. Why wouldn't you rather have them expand on our current system? Why would you want the government in your business MORE?
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
No, I read the bills and know that they weren't proposing anything of the sort (though there was a Republican amendment that suggested such a thing, I strongly doubt it'll make its way in there).
Reread the last two questions on your post, you've contradicted yourself.
uberjim83 2 years ago
@Republican4U2Envy Where did you get this 15% statistical bullshit?
I don't know anyone at my age group (18-21) that has any kind of insurance except for cars, I myself don't have any insurance at all. Most people that have insurance are kids + families that get a decent income, but unfortunately, the US is filled with poor people, and that section is growing. Obama's health care plan is anti-american, if you wish to know why, just let me know, I'll tell you why and HOW it will fail.
Fishpks 2 years ago
It's a fact. Look it up- even Obama agrees with that one and has said it himself in his speech. "The U.S. is filled with poor people." LOL!!! The average income is $50,000 a year. Are you serious with the last part of your comment?!?!? I know the public option will fail. That was my argument. It's not even an issue anymore, the bill is dead.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
@Republican4U2Envy
I didn't care to read up on what you and that other guy was conversating about, it was a bit of a "tl;dr" kinda thing. But simply stating, that 15% isn't accurate at all truthfully, and most 18-21 year olds cannot afford insurance. Also, yes his healthcare plan is anti-american, like I said, I'll explain why, and also how it would fail if it were to be passed :D
Fishpks 2 years ago
You shouldn't comment on anything unless you read the comments you reply to. The 15% is a fact. You cannot argue with facts. I don't need you to explain anything because it's apparent I know more than you on the issue.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
@Republican4U2Envy
I love your ignorance.
I did read the comments of which I replied to, as you can see, I didn't read the conversation of which you and the other guy had, but I wasn't replying to that. I was merely replying to the one and only comment -- which is exactly what I did. You say this 15% is a fact, yet you show no proof or attempt to. You merely "act" like you know all, and try to insult anyone that questions your bluff. You're an ignorant fool.
Fishpks 2 years ago
cnn(DOT)com/2008/HEALTH/08/26/census.uninsured/
You really are too stupid to find this on your own. Not only has the president himself said it, but you don't listen to ANYBODY. It's not a hidden fact. You don't even have to do the math yourself, it's on the site. God forbid you have to do a simple calculation yourself to figure out that 45 million is 15% of our population. I even looked up a liberal site for you. Now everybody can see what a fool you are.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
@Republican4U2Envy I'm still waiting for where this 15% is comming from, not saying that it isn't true, just it's a random number without evidence so far. You see, you're assuming things already, and not just about the 15%, you assume that you know more about this than me (or at least was implied). But please, comment more, and dodge to provide some proof, because I'm getting quite a laugh out of you.
Fishpks 2 years ago
Only you would need proof of what EVERYONE in the world already knows. You sit here and type 55 comments making yourself look as stupid as you are, instead of just typing it in google yourself. Type in the website I gave you and shut your mouth. If you type in the search "number of americans uninsured" you can find thousands more sites.
Republican4U2Envy 2 years ago
Given the way they voted, it seems more likely that 74% of young people who subscribe to IBD are McCain supporters.
uberjim83 2 years ago
Actually, only 27% are against it. 63% support it, and an additional 10% only oppose it because they think there should be a single payer system.
uberjim83 2 years ago
First of all, I agree that Bush sucked, and I think anybody with a brain agrees with that too. Also, the only reason medicare isn't failed is because the government keeps putting more and more money into it. Obama even said himself that two of the highest outsources of money for the government are social security, medicare, and medicaid. Oh and I'll give you one reason why using gold instead of credit is a hundred times better, it doesn't collect interest.
glramer2007 2 years ago
hahahahahaha that was awesome!
snookumsthacat 2 years ago
This short 24 seconds of video was more informative then suffering through 9 minutes of The Young Turks and their stoner like "News" commentary.Those guys are absolutely clueless.Great video BTW.
vietnamveteranusa 2 years ago 2
that was incredibly stupid to be honest.
obsedianage 2 years ago
dumb. Sorry, lee, this one is dumb.
christo930 2 years ago
that really wasn't funny at all.
it's no wonder the number of conservative comedians is pretty much 0.
AssyrianRebel 2 years ago
Don't forget the blue collar comedy tour! I think Larry the Cable Guy is conservative.
uberjim83 2 years ago 2
uberjim: Sorry to disappoint you, but like the rest of the so called "conservative" sensationalists and comedians, he is a fraud, using the dumb down redneck population to fill his pockets. Just type in "Larry the cable guy before redneck". The fact speaks for itself.
Orion1232 2 years ago
Good point. Do you think howtheworldworks pretends to be more conservative than he really is, in order to appeal to the lowest (and therefore most populous) intellects on the web, to attract more views?
uberjim83 2 years ago
uberjim: Well, let's not throw the word conservative around, especially when talking about NEO-conservatives. HTWW simply repeats the talking points he hears on Fox News. And yes, he does do this to get more views. Apparently objective news just isn't that popular. Everyone wants to be on a "side". That being said, just look at his speech at the tea parties. The tea parties where supposed to be about protesting the Federal Reserve. He didn't mention one thing about the FED. Only talking points.
Orion1232 2 years ago